The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAerie_201-205,207 Carnation Ave, 101 Bayside Pl (PA2005-196)CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 3 April 5, 2007 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3210, jcampbell(c�city newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: AERIE (PA2005 -196) 201 -205 & 207 Carnation Avenue 101 Bayside Place APPLICANT: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. Richard Julian, President The Planning Commission considered this project on February 22, 2007. The project was continued to this meeting for the following reasons and the minutes of the meeting are attached as Exhibit #1: 1) Applicant to revise the project plans to reduce the bayward extent of the northwestern portion of the proposed building; and, 2) Provide responses to questions posed by Commissioner Eaton; and, 3) Address comments related to the proposed draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) expressed by Commissioner Toerge; and, 4) Allow for the conclusion of the public review period for the draft MND. RECOMMENDATION 1) Hold a public hearing; and, 2) Consider the changes to the draft MND; and, 3) Adopt the attached draft resolution recommending adoption of the MND and recommending approval of a revised project such that the proposed building does not extend below 52 feet above mean sea level (Exhibit #2). DISCUSSION Coastal Land Use Plan The project must be considered within the context of the Coastal Act and all of the policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan. At the last meeting, the emphasis was on the predominant line of existing development and the various methods to determine its location. However, AERIE (PA2005 -196) April 5, 2007, Page 2 consideration must be given to all applicable policies and this report includes analysis of the project in the context of all policies. The most significant considerations related to this project are the scenic and resource protection policies within Chapter 4.4 of the Coastal Land Use Plan. These policies implement Section 30251 of the Coastal Act, which states: "The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting. Implementing this section of the Coastal Act, the Coastal Land Use Plan states that: °Bluffs, cliffs, hillsides, canyons, and other significant natural landforms are an important part of the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone and are to be protected as a resource of public importance. Corona del Mar is one of the few areas in the coastal zone where there is extensive development of the bluff face; specifically, residential development on Avocado Avenue, Pacific Drive, Carnation Avenue, and Ocean Boulevard. The initial subdivision and development of these areas occurred prior to the adoption of policies and regulations intended to protect coastal bluffs and other landforms. Development in these areas is allowed to continue on the bluff face to be consistent with the existing development pattem and to protect coastal views from the bluff top. However, development on the bluff face is controlled to minimize further alteration." (emphasis added) Coastal bluffs are significant resources. In this area of Corona del Mar, development on the bluff face is allowed; however, development must be sited and designed to meet the goal of minimizing alteration of the bluff and preserving and, if feasible, enhancing public views and the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone. In furthering this objective, the following CLUP policies must be considered: 4.4.1 -1. Protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor and to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas. 4.4.1 -2. Design and site new development, including landscaping, so as to minimize impacts to public coastal views. 4.4.1 -3 Design and site new development to minimize alterations to significant natural landforms, including bluffs, cliffs and canyons. 4.4.3 -8. Prohibit development on bluff faces, except private development on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar determined to be consistent with the predominant line of existing development or public improvements providing public access, AERIE (PA2005 -196) April 5, 2007, Page 3 protecting coastal resources, or providing for public safety. Permit such improvements only when no feasible alternative exists and when designed and constructed to minimize alteration of the bluff face, to not contribute to further erosion of the bluff face, and to be visually compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible. 4.4.3 -9. Where principal structures exist on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar, require all new development to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development in order to protect public coastal views. Establish a predominant line of development for both principle structures and accessory improvements. The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure safety and stability of the development. 4.4.3 -12. Employ site design and construction techniques to minimize alteration of coastal bluffs to the maximum extent feasible, such as: A. Siting new development on the flattest area of the site, except when an alternative location is more protective of coastal resources. B. Utilizing existing driveways and building pads to the maximum extent feasible. C. Clustering building sites. D. Shared use of driveways. E. Designing buildings to conform to the natural contours of the site, and arranging driveways and patio areas to be compatible with the slopes and building design. F. Utilizing special foundations, such as stepped, split level, or cantilever designs. G. Detaching parts of the development, such as a garage from a dwelling unit H. Requiring any altered slopes to blend into the natural contours of the site. Predominant Line of Existing Development The logical starting point for project review is the identification of the predominant line of existing development as it establishes a line beyond which private development cannot extend. The applicant agrees with this statement (Exhibit #3) although the applicant does not agree with the location of the predominant line of existing development for this property proposed by staff in the February 22, 2007 staff report. In the prior report, staff provided the rationale for determining 52 feet above mean sea level as the predominant line of existing development for the Carnation Avenue bluff face. This elevation is consistent with the existing development pattern located on the bluff face. Staff also identified 34 feet above mean sea level for the Ocean Boulevard bluff face as the predominant line of existing development based upon the location of abutting residences. Please see Exhibit #4 showing staffs recommended predominant lines of existing development. Please see Exhibit #5 showing the proposed project extending down the bluff below these lines. AERIE (PA2005 -196) April 5, 2007, Page 4 Minimizing Alteration of the Bluff and Reducing Visual Impacts Once a predominant line of existing development has been determined that identifies the maximum extent of development, a maximum permissible building envelope within the area bounded by the predominant line of existing development can be defined. Development that may occur within this maximum permissible building envelope must be consistent with all CLUP policies requiring the development to be sited to minimize alteration of the bluff and preserve and, if feasible, enhance public views and the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone. This may result in a building that is less than the full extent of the building envelope defined by the predominant line of existing development. The applicant contends that the predominant line of existing development establishes a line up to which the building can extend without further consideration of minimizing alteration of the bluff or the preservation and, if feasible, enhancement of public views and the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone. The Commission needs to consider the project's consistency with each policy identified above. To help the Commission evaluate consistency, staff has prepared several visual simulations that show variants of the project, each representing a different level of alteration of the bluff face and impacts to visual resources. In the variant shown in Exhibit #6 with the project at staffs recommended predominant line of existing development, grading would be reduced by approximately 9,000 cubic yards. Visual building mass would be reduced and a portion of the bluff would be preserved by eliminating the lower level proposed on the Carnation bluff face. The Planning Commission may determine that a change such as this would make the project consistent with policies requiring minimizing alteration of the bluff and the protection or enhancement of the scenic and visual quality of the coast. The Planning Commission may also determine that further reduction of the project is necessary to minimize alteration of the bluff or avoid a negative visual impact consistent with Policy 4.4.1 -1. Staff has developed a visual simulation of the project with the entire building being sited at 52 feet above mean sea level (Exhibit #7). This potential alternative is further within the predominant line of existing development identified by staff. Grading with this variation would be reduced by approximately 12,000 cubic yards and would reduce the visual building mass by eliminating the 2 lower levels visible to the public from the west. Floor area would be reduced by approximately 26,000 sq. ft. The most conservative and restrictive application of policy would be to allow redevelopment of the property within the footprint of the existing buildings. The existing developed footprint is well within the predominant line of existing development and development within that area would limit grading and alteration of the bluff to the ground under the existing buildings. The entire bluff that extends below the existing buildings would remain unaltered. This scenario would minimize alteration of the bluff to the greatest extent. Policy 4.4.1 -1 could also be implemented to require enhancements to the bluff that could include removal or reconstruction of the existing stairs and the removal of non - native vegetation and replacement with plantings indigenous to California coastal bluffs. Public Views Public views are also protected by the following policy of the CLUP: AERIE (PA2005 -196) April 5, 2007, Page 5 Policy 4.4.9 -6 Protect public coastal views from the following roadway segments: • Ocean Boulevard. As noted in the February 22, 2007 staff report, a public view corridor from Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue exists between the existing building and the structures located at 2495 Ocean Boulevard. The siting of the proposed building would provide a greater separation between these properties than exists today. The applicant prepared a view exhibit showing the existing view angle measuring 25 degrees and with the project, the view will increase to 32 degrees. This exhibit is representative of the view from Carnation Avenue at its intersection with Ocean Boulevard to the southwest. The project architect has prepared a visual exhibit depicting the view from Ocean Boulevard to the west (see Sheet A -20). The exhibit suggests that there will be an improvement of the view due to the position of the proposed building. Staff believes that the project is consistent with this policy; however, further enhancement of the view can be required pursuant to Policy 4.4.1 -1 by modifying the location of the building walls to increase the view angle between the project and the abutting structures and to enhance views from various locations on Ocean Boulevard. Parking Several policies related to parking were not identified in the prior report. General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU 5.1.8 requires adequate enclosed parking considering the number of bedrooms. Most of the units have three bedrooms; however several units have other rooms that could be used as bedrooms and the unit sizes range from 4,000 to 6,300 square feet. The project provides 3 spaces for 7 units and 2 spaces for the 2 remaining units (25 spaces). Seven (7) guest parking spaces and 2 golf cart spaces are provided for a total of 34 covered, vehicle spaces. Staff believes the project is consistent with this policy. Policy 2.9.3 -1 of the CLUP requires new development to avoid the use of parking configurations or parking management programs that are difficult to maintain and enforce. The Circulation Element contains the identical policy and it also contains Policy CE7.1.1 that requires new development to provide adequate, convenient parking for residents, guests, business patrons and visitors. The Commission had concerns about the convenience of below grade parking accessed by vehicle elevators. If the elevators are in use and someone desires to access them from Carnation, they will be forced to wait within the public right -of -way for the elevator possibly inconveniencing the public. Additionally, residents and their guests and service providers might be more inclined to park on the street when it is more convenient to do so. This will take on- street parking away from visitors to the coastal zone, which would be negative impact to public access. The proposed parking configuration may be inconsistent with these policies for these reasons. Revised Plans On February 22, 2007, the Commission directed the applicant to reduce the bayward extent of the northwestern portion of the proposed building to be consistent with the bayward extent of the southeastern portion of the building. The applicant revised the plans accordingly by moving the deck and building wall closer to the approximate location of the bluff edge on Level 2 (lower floor of Unit #7) by approximately 6.5 and 6 feet respectively. Additionally, the deck and building wall on the level above (Level 3) were also modified, but were not moved closer to the estimated bluff edge (Exhibit #8). Overall the project changes reduced the overall floor area by AERIE (PA2005 -196) April 5, 2007, Page 6 527 square feet. If the Commission determines that the changes to the project bring the project into compliance with applicable CLUP policies, the Commission may recommend approval of the revised project. Commissioner Eaton's Comments Prior to the February 22, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Eaton sent an e- mail to staff containing 12 comments or questions regarding the staff report and project in general. Staff has prepared responses to the questions, and both the comments and responses are attached as Exhibit #9. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration Commissioner Toerge commented on the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (Exhibit #10). His comments lead staff to hire an independent environmental consultant to review and /or revise the document. Revisions to the draft MND are contained within Exhibit #11. Changes recommended by the consultant provide additional project information and clarification. Revised mitigation measures are identified and will provide equivalent or superior environmental protection. No new environmental impacts were identified and recirculation of the document is, therefore, not necessary in the consultant's opinion (Exhibit #12). A quantitative air quality assessment was completed after the February 22, 2007 meeting and incorporated into the MND. Construction- related air emissions will be below applicable thresholds of significance. Staff and the environmental consultant concluded that the analysis and proposed mitigation were insufficient to support a finding that there would not be a potential impact to marine resources. As a result of the subsequent review and analysis, expansion of the docks was eliminated from the project description by the applicant. Should the applicant choose to pursue permits for expanded docks in the future, a permit from the Harbor Resources Department would be required and it would be subject to environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act. No other comments on the adequacy of the prior draft environmental document, other than Commissioner Toerge's, were received prior to the closing of the comment period on March 15, 2007. SUMMARY Staff concludes that the project is inconsistent with the following CLUP Policies: 1) 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9 regarding predominant line of existing development. 2) 4.4.1 -1 regarding the protection and /or enhancement of public views and the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone. 3) 4.4.3 -1 and 4.4.3 -12 regarding the siting and design of new development to mimize alteration of the coastal bluff. Additionally, staff believes that the project may be inconsistent with CLUP Policy 2.9.3 -1 and Circulation Element Policy CE7.1.1 regarding the parking configuration. AERIE (PA2005 -196) April 5, 2007, Page 7 Staff recommends that the project should be redesigned such that the proposed building does not extend on the bluff face below 52 feet above mean sea level. This option provides a balance between preserving the scenic quality of a significant portion of the bluff through minimizing its alteration while siting the building within the predominant line of existing development. Although allowing portions of the project to be developed further down the bluff to 44, 34 or 29 feet above mean sea level might be within an alternate predominant line of existing development, staff does not believe that development at these levels minimizes alteration of thek bluff and preserves the scenic and visual quality of the landform as a visual resource consistent with policy. ALTERNATIVES 1) Provide direction on design changes deemed necessary by the Planning Commission to make required findings that the project is consistent with Coastal Land Use Plan policies 4.4.1 -1, 4.4.1 -2, 4.4.1 -3, 4.4.3 -8, 4.4.3 -9 and 4.4.3 -12. 2) Deny the project. Prepared b : Ja s Camp ell, S nior Pla er EXHIBITS Submitted by: David Lepo, P Director 1. Excerpt of minutes from February 22, 2007 Planning Commission hearing 2. Draft Resolution for project approval 3. Letter from Tim Paone on behalf of the applicant dated March 27, 2007 4. Staff recommended predominant line of existing development 5. Visual simulation of the proposed project 6. Visual simulation of the project within staffs recommended predominant line of existing development 7. Visual simulation of Staffs recommendation 8. Revised floor plans (separate roll of plans) 9. Commissioner Eaton's comments and staff responses 10. Comments on the MND from Commissioner Toerge 11. Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration (separate bound document) 12. Memorandum from Randy Nichols 13. Additional correspondence Exhibit No. 1 Excerpt of minutes from February 22, 2007 Planning Commission hearing N Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Co\allows ing, Motion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by oioner Hawkins to delete, in Condition 17, references to the Codes, so the first tences would stay in but the last two sentences could be removed. Commission eotter noted the Noise Ordinance will apply and reference to noise limnot ne sary. osioner Ha s suggested striking reference to Chapter 10.26. The new on would no read, 'The operator of the restaurant facility shall be resible for the co I of noise generated by the subject facility. The noise ed by the propos use shall comply with the provisions of the Newport Beunicipal Code." osioner Hillgren asked out maximum levels versus minimums. if the Code revised and allows for m noise, will the revised provisions apply? hrso n Cole answered, es, we allowing that. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, C McDaniel, T oerge and Hillgren Noes: None Abstain: None Motion was made by Commissioner Peotter d seconded by Commissioner Hawkins to delete Condition 18. Commissioner Peotter asked what property would be der the applicant's control hat would be adjacent to subject premises and what uld ABC not do that we would do relative to enforcement? Additionally, he not a change of the word license' to 'licensee'. Commissioner McDaniel noted the parking lot is what is refer to here and he recommends that this condition be left in as a lot of alcohol is nsumed in the parking lot that is adjacent to the facility. Mr. Lepo noted that ABC does care; however, there are Codes that enforce and those references to those Codes do not need to be included as condit s. Commissioner Hawkins noted that Commissioner McDaniel's concern rega "ng permit revocation regarding abuses, is a good one. I can't support the deletion his condition. Commissioner McDaniel noted that if complaints arise from the neighbors because problems spill out to the parking lot, this would help to enforce the Use Permit. The maker of the motion agreed and withdrew this suggestion. Vote on the original Motion. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None Abstain: None ITEM NO. 3 OBJECT: Advanced Real Estate Services PA2005 -196 201 & 207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place he application would allow the demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment building Continued to April file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2007 \02222007.htm Page 3 of 17 03/30/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 a single - family home and the construction of a 7- level, 9 -unit multiple -fami dential condominium complex with subterranean parking on a 1.4 acre si ited bayward of the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenu existing General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan and Zoning Designations of dl portion of the site (584 square feet) would be changed to be consistent wi larger portion of the site (from two- family residential to multi- family residentia application includes a tentative tract map for the creation of 9 "airspac dominium units for individual sale and. The Modification Permit applicatic jests the encroachment of subterranean portions of the building within the fro side yard setbacks. Lastly, the Coastal Residential Development Pern lication relates to replacing lost units occupied by low or moderate -incorr seholds. No units meeting this criteria are known to exist and therefore, r acement of affordable housing is required. Planner, Jim Campbell, gave an overview of the staff report, noting: • This is a bluff top property. • Noted the planning activities of the project. • A new 9 unit condominium complex will replace an existing 14 -L apartment building and single - family residence. • Parking to be provided will mainly be subterranean. The number of spac exceeds the current Code requirement. • Access to the parking will be through two freight elevators designed accommodate vehicles. • Units range in size from 3,400 square feet up to 6,200 square feet in 1 seven -level building. • Views of the project from various vantage points. • Staff is seeking guidance on application of Coastal Land Use Plan polici related to protecting, and where feasible, enhancing the scenic and visa qualities of the coastal zone; establishing the predominant line of existi development; establishment of this predominant line can be accomplish through a variety of means; staff is asking which method the Planni Commission wants to be used. • The architect has attempted to measure the predominant line (gave example). • Staff used a method proposed in conjunction with the draft Implementati Plan which talks about the median distances that these buildings exte from. Additionally, they did the string line method which is a traditioi method that the Coastal Commission has used for many years. • There is no set method of establishing this line and all of the methods tl staff has looked at do not work well due to the unique topography; the bl does not line up with the streets and the buildings actually wrap around 1 bluff so all the traditional methods are not helpful in establishing where t building should be. • The purpose of the discussion is to determine if this project is consistent w the Coastal Land Use Plan as policies note minimizing the alteration of 1 natural terrain, preserving and enhancing the scenic and visual qualities the coastal zone, prohibiting development on bluff faces except in tl particular geographic area; new development has to comply with tl predominant line of development. • Views from public spaces to the west looking back to the bluff, that is t scenic and visual quality. • The proposed building appears to come further down the bluff than polici seem to allow and we are looking for guidance as to what the predomirr line of development is. • Visual simulations representing various lines of existing development a included in the staff report to aid in the decision making process. file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2007 \02222007.htm 5, 2007 Page 4 of 17 03/30/2007 /;7- Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 5 of 17 The buildings on Carnation Avenue to the north come down the bluff furt than the existing development on subject sites. (He then discussed various exhibits in the staff report.) The Planning Commission needs to determine the predominant line development, and if the building conforms to it, then the application can approved; if the building does not conform to it, then the Commission nee to provide direction to the applicant to re- design it to the line as agreed up, rperson Cole asked what discretionary approval request requires mission to determine the predominant line of development? Campbell answered that the Subdivision Map requires it as does the finding >istency required for amendments to the Local Coastal Land Use Plan. irperson Cole noted the discussion of the 584 square -foot portion of the seems to be the basis for the actions required for approval. If they didn't I 584 -foot portion, would they need to come in front of us for the discretic roval? What is the past City practice regarding determination of lominant line of development. Campbell noted that the Subdivision Map finding needs to be made. There prior example in an application for a variance on Pacific Drive where we we ing at these some policies. On Ocean Boulevard, we haven't had tt ussion in the past as there were no variances or modifications It assitated a finding of consistency with these policies. We have not had tt I of analysis or review. ner Hawkins asked about the Circle residence where the the predominant line. Campbell noted that this was discussed in light of the string line method �d about other prior projects that were allowed to come down the bluffs by stal Commission. We looked at the main issue of how far out the bulk ie because it could block the neighbor's view. We did not discuss lominant line of development in the context of these policies. Bard Julian, applicant, noted this proposed project will become the gateway harbor and the City of Newport. He noted the following consultants for t act: Phil Dowdy and Ted Fetone of Hunsaker and Associates; Myron Sukut ut Construction Co.; Sid Nedwit, soils engineer; Tom Castle, structu neer; and Brion Jeannette, architect and designer. He added that he h parched many issues related to the site and has worked closely with t ihbors. He has worked with members of the City staff and is committed to tl act. He referenced an exhibit that includes letters of support from t munity. i Jeannette, architect, noted that the major issue is, what is the predomins of development? He stated that they have reviewed the Mitigated Negati aration and agree with the measures identified. He then proceeded with presentation of the project: • Discussed various views of the project site. • Materials to be used are limestone, photovoltaic panels for electricity green architecture. • The existing building consumes approximately 21% of the site and the building is about 25% of the site. • He referenced the categorical exclusion zone on the exhibit noting file: //F: \Users \PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2007 \02222007.htm 03/30/2007 13 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 6 of 17 treatment of the vegetation and bluff is handled by the City. • There are 9 units replacing 15 units and range from 3,300 square feet t( 6,300 square feet of livable area with 3 parking spaces for each. • The allowable project square footage is 90,759 and this proposal is for 74 314 square feet. • Parking - 7 units with parking at the same level directly accessible to eacl unit; 2 units have access to parking via their own private elevators; gues parking is 3 spaces at street level and 4 spaces at lower levels; additionally there are 2 golf cart spaces at lower levels. 7 of the 32 parking spaces are created through the use of auto lifts. These individual lifts are separate an( apart from the 2 auto elevators proposed. A total of 32 parking spaces wil be provided. • Reviewed garage configurations turnaround space and vehicular elevators. There will be an emergency back up system. • Grading will require 32,400 cubic yards of export that is scheduled after the summer months. He discussed the schedule, amount of loads per day drilling, and timing to construct shoring walls. • Possible haul routes are from East Coast Highway on Marguerite Ave. wes on Ocean Blvd to the site, north on Carnation Avenue, east on Seaview t( Marguerite, north to East Coast Highway; flagmen and delineators will direc traffic; primary staging of maximum 2 trucks on Ocean Blvd., secondan staging south of Cameo Highlands Drive on Coast Hwy. • Shuttle workers to and from site until parking on -site is available withir parking garage. • Public access is not required as there are accessibility problems; California Coastal Commission has not required access on adjacent parcels; an( public access is nearby at China Cove and Corona del Mar main beach. • Public views - public view point identified in the LCP is at the corner o Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Referencing the exhibit, he note( that comer view will be increased to a 32 degrees wide cone from a 25 degree cone and public seating will be provided. He agreed to an easemen being recorded on their property. • Monitoring of ground motion will be on -going to assure that it is kept at s safe level and will be incorporated in the Construction Management Plan. • Current landscaping can be trimmed and maintained. • He then discussed the building heights and need for a Modification. • Bluff face development - development is allowed on categorical exclusior zone parcels to the north; the CLUP allows development on bluff face or Ocean Blvd., Carnation Ave., Pacific Dr.; extensive development befor( Coastal Zone Act and new development is allowed to continue the 'pattern o existing development.' Predominant line of existing development is the mos common or representative distance from a specified group of structures to e specified point or line. (topo line or geographic feature) (CLUP 5.( Glossary). He then discussed his approach. • He then noted CLUP Policy 4.3.3 -12 and discussed his methods used t( meet this criteria. • Referencing the exhibits, he then explained the predominant line of existin( development and how it was reached at Pelican Point, Cameo Shores Shore Cliffs, Corona del Mar on Ocean Boulevard, Breakers Drive, Chins Cove, AERIE and Pacific Drive and the issue of fairness and equity a: mandated by Coastal Commission. • He gave a history of past Ocean Boulevard projects and examples fo determining the predominant line of existing development using string -lines structures and decks. • He discussed an aerial view of AERIE with cove and rock outcroppings an( buildings on either side and depiction of median distance from street curb t( furthest line of development towards the Bay. file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2007 \02222007.htm 03/30/2007 w Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 7 of 17 • Referencing another exhibit he discussed median distance from mean tide to closest line of development towards the Bay; analysis of propo: line of development with elevations of 34 feet on easterly side to 52 feet the westerly side; 29 feet to 44 feet and 25 feet to 25 feet respectively. • View simulation of superimposed model viewed from Channel Road pul beach. • Existing view from Channel Road public beach with categorical exclus zone and with the proposed structure on project site. • He then noted several letters of support and asked for ultimate approve the 9 -unit project. • At Commission inquiry, he noted he has not discussed this project with Coastal Commission. Planning Commission focused on the following: • The requirement of a Construction Management Plan with details on routes truck sizes, street cleaning, timing, fugitive dust, etc. • Impacts on air quality • Need for the Mitigated Negative Declaration to address issues of hau routes, size, access routes and air quality. • View corridor - staff proposes an easement to be recorded. • Ocean Boulevard is a public view street and the view corridor is dynamic. Asked for an expansion of this presentation further up Ocean Boulevard tc depict the view corridor impacts from Ocean Blvd at Fernleaf and Dahlia Streets. • Protection of neighboring properties during the drilling and coring process. • Pattern of development on Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Street. • Floor plan for the lower level. • The Implementation Program discussion of line of development in Corona del Mar. • Reviewed the definition of "predominate line of development' in the glossary of the CLUP, specifically the use of a specified group of structures tc determine the predominate line of development and the appropriateness o using homes on Bayside Place to set the predominate line of development. comment was opened. Razner, Ocean Boulevard, noted his support of this project for the following: • The project applicant has done an outreach in the neighborhood for it and has made several concessions on height and density to addr concerns. • Applicant could build up to 28 units. • Property rights of neighbors as well as the applicant are being addressed. • Tax base for the City. • Removal of telephone poles and run -off from the site will be contained treated. McAfree, Ocean Boulevard resident, and speaking as President of the :f Association, noted their support of the project. Impressed with the project sponsors and their plans and i communication with their neighbors. Project will be an upgrade to the neighborhood including visual appeal, property values, etc. Like the low- density of only 9 living units versus 48 living units at Cho file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2007 \02222007.htm 03/30/2007 15 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 8 of 17 Reef. • We are aware there will be noise, dust, parking issues and other inconveniences during construction but the long term benefits of the projec outweigh any temporary inconveniences. • They urge approval of this project. a Vallejo, Ocean Boulevard resident, noted she is not in support of this project the following: • Many people are concerned with the destruction of this coastal bluff and the extremely large scale of the proposed complex. • There are many issues, among them the loss of public enjoyment from this development. • This bluff and cove are viewed and enjoyed by people on the Peninsula wh look directly across from the wedge and various other locations. • This cove is a landmark. • People do not want to lose the view of the last remaining bluff that is visible from the harbor. • Newport Beach is special and this area is governed by the CLUP. She then read some of the provisions. • Is this project visually compatible with the surrounding area and how is this minimizing the impact on the bluff? • There is nothing on Ocean Boulevard that looks like this other than Channel Reef, but that was built in 1960. • Ocean Boulevard is basically single - family homes but this project creates a 'hotel' and is too much for that particular site. • There is no Environmental Impact Report and I don't understand that as they are taking 32,400 cubic yards of bluff away and cannot figure out what this will do to the integrity and support of the surrounding properties and the impact of the construction and excavation. • Before this is changed forever, you need to give this good thought. .ig Snyder, Balboa Peninsula Point resident, noted his support of the Felopment as it will be a great improvement over what is there currently. hleen McIntosh, Ocean Boulevard resident, noted the majority of the neighbor Dr the demolition of the existing structure and the re- development of the site. noted: • Concern over the intensity of development around lower Newport Bay led to the adoption of a series of ordinances in the early 1970's that established more restrictive height and bulk standards around the Bay. • The intent is to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. • As a result, new development within the shoreline height zone is limited to a height of 28 feet. • Development on the bluff face is generally prohibited with the exception o certain public improvements or private improvements determined to be consistent with the predominant line of development. . It is policy to regulate the development envelope to preserve public view through the height, setbacks, floor area, lot coverage and building bulk that limits the building profile and maximizes the public view. . In this case, the buildable site would grow from under 20,000 square feet to over 70,000 square feet. • It seems the lateral projection of the structure would greatly impact the publi view from the water across the Bay, and the view corridor established by the' City of Newport Beach at the Ocean Boulevard /Carnation Avenue junction. 1 /( file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2007 \02222007.htm 03/30/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 9 of 17 • To shift the bulk of the lateral development up to the allowable vertical heigh would keep the view corridor open but would eliminate the water view enjoyed by the residents on Carnation Avenue across from the proposed development. • It is our hope that the bulk and scale of the proposed development will be reduced both laterally and vertically and in square footage to be in line and scale with the surrounding residences. Keith Dawson, Corona del Mar resident, noted: • The current complex is an eyesore and is in a dilapidated state. • This development is 1st class and there is hardly any opposition to it given the compromises that have been made. • This is a focal point and he supports the project. • The developer has the property rights for this project. Kent Moore, Carnation Avenue resident, noted: . The applicant has taken the time to get to know the neighbors and explain his project. . All have had the opportunity to review the plans. . The applicant has addressed all concerns and has made several design changes. . Directly next door to this project, the City allowed major excavation and building to take place on the rocky bluff and area below next to the water. There was a .lot of equipment and disruption but ultimately it turned ou beautifully. . This is a superbly planned project that has been worked on for several years prior to this meeting and urged that the Planning Commission approve this project. ommissioner McDaniel noted that this issue is not being voted on tonight. This is an opportunity for public input and will be continued. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Eaton noted: • Project is extensive and there has been good outreach to the neighbors. • Referencing an email he sent to staff, noted not all his questions had been answered and would like those at the next hearing. • Predominant line of development - referencing Exhibit F -noted the heavy black line symbolizes where the estimated top of bluff is. The predominant line of development refers to the relationship of the bluff. This appears to angle off the corner of the street intersection and turns the corner. The most appropriate sense of how to look at this predominant line of development is that the buildings ought to turn the corner in a consistent relationship to the bluff. • The upper level roofs do follow that rough line but that changes as you gel further down. • What happens on the lower level of the westerly building as it extends at an angle further out than the fairly uniform progression of the terraces of the easterly building? • The two lower units of the easterly building have a view of a blank wall, which is the side wall of the westerly building. That part of the projec extends beyond the curve of the bluff line and is inappropriate to th 17 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2007\02222007.htm 03/30/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 10 of 17 predominant line of development. • The westerly building should taper at a more consistent rate as the easterly building so that the levels are pulled back a bit. That would affect the lounge on the first level and the lower level of Unit 700 on the second level. If that area was pulled back, the building as a whole would have a shape and the line fairly conforming to the bluff line, which would make a more sensible line of development. Otherwise, this sticks out a good 20 feet beyond the foundation line that is shown in the plan footprints of the buildings. • He concluded that with that adjustment, this building would fit a predominant line of development that would turn the corner in a manner similar to the way the bluff turns the comer. Dmmissioner Hillgren asked what the bottom vertical line of this project was? r. Campbell answered the lower extent of the easterly building is 29 feet and as w go around the corner it steps up to 44 feet. Commission inquiry, Mr. Jeannette noted that the elevation of the street at ayside Drive is at elevation 13 then it starts ascending from there to an elevation 18 or 19 feet. Dmmissioner Hillgren noted he has heard a commitment from the developer to otect the cove which is the most important part of this project. I look at the 28 -29 of line to the property to the west as an appropriate datum line. The question is )w to connect to the property to the east. :)mmissioner Hawkins noted the property lines to the east go down that far :cause they are in the exclusion zone where they are not regulated. r. Jeannette agreed, noting adherence to the Zoning Guidelines which require a ar yard setback. Dmmissioner Hillgren asked if they were regulated, how far down could they go? r. Jeannette noted the bottom portion could be used for a casitas with the main rilding on top of the bluff, they could go to that rear yard setback and then care to it with a retaining wall behind; it would be difficult and expensive, but it is )able. 3mmissioner Peotter, referencing the topo exhibit, noted the regulated areas and e non - regulated areas where someone could go down to the 20 foot elevation. leans more to the priority of maintaining the look and favors either the 29 or 3 of at the highest point as far as determining the setback line that will determine iat will be seen from the bayside and how that cove will be protected. iairperson Cole noted the western portion of the site seems easier to understand id makes sense due to the adjacency of the buildings. He asked how the Dastal Commission would determine a fair and equitable concept for blufl welopment. r. Jeannette noted the point at which you contact earth establishes that lowest ane. Referencing an exhibit, he noted one elevation of a home at 48.6 elevation; her elevation points were at 44, 50 and 52. He then discussed the public beach lationship and drawing the horizontal line at that point to establish some rmination of development. )mmissioner Hillgren asked if it was the footing or the house itself that is hitting e level at 44? / g file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2007\02222007.htm 03/30/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page I 1 of 17 Jeannette answered the elevation of the house was at 50. )mmissioner Toerge noted: • The charge of the Planning Commission is to ensure that the technica aspects of the project are in tact. • We are to comply with the existing Codes of the City for the benefit of the o residents who are not here and don't know about the project and can't be expected to come down and spend the kind of time that many of the residents here have and we have. • He noted he is a property rights supporter, but in a civilized society property rights are conditional. There are title reports, title restrictions, special land use restrictions, zoning, building heights, etc. and in this particular property' case there is a Coastal Land Use Plan that has to be adhered to. • This is not about the integrity or the character of the applicant or his representatives; it is about the technical components and how they can be applied to this project fairly and on balance with the property rights and with the community. • The predominant line of development doesn't contemplate what could be developed on adjacent bluff top properties, it deals with what is in plat today, so this whole discussion on what might happen to adjacent bluff to properties along Carnation is irrelevant to me. • Also irrelevant to me is what Coastal Commission might do. This Commission and this City has to get quickly up to speed on what the LCP says. It will require an amount of time and effort to do this. • He noted his concern of how this project in this area meets the predominant line of development on this bluff. • He does not support the idea of using bayfront properties as similar structures or similar group of homes, as the glossary of our CLUP suggests, by which to determine the predominant line of development as we are talking about a property that is on the bluff. These homes take access off a different street that is almost at sea level. This property is a bluff - oriented property that takes access from the bluff. • Referencing an exhibit, he noted the area that seems to encroach below the predominant line of development and the area on the easterly side seems to be relatively consistent with the predominant line of development. • Some transition is warranted in order to meet this finding of what he considers to be the predominant line of development. tairperson Cole noted that there is consistency in that the easterly side at 29 fee agreed upon but as it goes around the westerly side, he would like to see more iicating the line of where those homes come down to right now. immissioner Toerge answered that is how he reads the Code. Their .dominant line of development is higher than their proposal based upon how he ads the Code. We need to understand what our predecessors decided and iat authority our Coastal Land Use Plan has. A couple of years were invested in tablishing this Local Coastal Plan and we took great care in developing this. :veral Planning Commissioners, including himself, served on this Committee. e plan was reviewed and approved by both the Planning Commission and City iuncil. It is speculative to guess what the Coastal Commission will do. �mmissioner Hawkins noted: • Agrees that the Commission has an important job with this unique parcel and project. The cove is a natural resource, the bluff outcroppings, etc. and th /7 file: //F: \Users \PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2007\02222007.htm 03/30/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 12 of 17 project, in general, takes good care of that resource. • He noted the concern of the easterly edge at elevations 44/48 and staff and the applicant need to work on that level. • He agrees about tracking the bluff around, and the two units noted by Commissioner Eaton did seem to project out distinctly. He would like discussion on pulling those projections in. • We are trying to understand what the predominant line of development is. I is a flexible metric and the string -line was a tough approach and could be problematic. • The current structures on the site are poor; however, the site itself is fantastic. :hairperson Cole noted there seems to be some consensus on the 29 foot line avel on the east and the west at 44 feet. :ommissioner Hawkins noted there is some agreement on the 29 feet; however, e questions the 44 -foot measurement. Another metric has been offered and he could like to see if that could work. ;ommissioner McDaniel, noted: • He was a member of the Local Coastal Committee and they spent a lot o time addressing heights and string -lines and doesn't want to ignore those. • There are basic guidelines to go by and if you have to work around them, then we need to document them so we can understand it now and in the future. • He wants to save as much of the bluff as possible. • He noted his concern of what happens to the parking if part of the building is taken away as previously suggested, what does that do to the quality of life for the residents in that area, what does that do to the view corridor, and any other aspects. • He would much rather give a little extra off that edge so that the parking does not become problematic in the project; that it looks right, works right and all those other aspects that we pickup. • Recognizes that folks who look easterly look at a wall, but the panoramic view to the left may require that you may have to look at a wall to the right. • This is a good project. :ommissioner Peotter asked about comparing this to properties in the exclusion one, yet looking at the Land Use Plan, it follows the hotel and other homes that go own to the water level again. Why are we going outside of that coastal area to et the predominant line? :ommissioner Toerge answered by reading from the Glossary of the CLUP. "The lost common or representative distance from a specified group of structures to a pacified point or line." The example that was cited, "the predominant line o evelopment for a block of homes on a coastal bluff (a specified group o tructures) could be determined by calculating the median distance =presentative distance) these structures are from the bluff edge (a specified ne)." :ontinuing, he stated that since the predominant line of development has already een determined to come into play here, and since the Local Coastal Plan doe ave jurisdiction over the site, this definition is something that needs to be overlaid nto the project. It gives the example about the predominant line of development x a block of homes on a coastal bluff which is the specified group of structures. 'hat is the reason why the homes that are not on the bluff should not be utilized to 26 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2007 \02222007.htm 03/30/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 13 of 17 alculate the predominant line of development as they are not on the bluff and thall specifically the language that the Committee went through. That is the language at has been approved and the City has adopted. ommissioner Peotter asked if it make any difference whether it is in the Exclusion one or not as far as when it refers to the coastal bluff. Do you stop looking at it it is in the Exclusion Zone? ommissioner Toerge answered in his opinion the answer is "no ". This happens to a bluff top development that happens to be at the end of the street, and simply :cause adjacent bluff top properties are within the Categorical Exclusion Area )es not preclude them from the definition of predominate line of development. iscussion continued referencing exhibits showing Breakers Drive, Ocean oulevard and the Cove. r. Campbell noted the exclusionary area was established in 1977 and the Coastal ommission allowed projects that are consistent with the zoning at that time, ngle- family and duplexes, without need to go back and get a Coastal evelopment Permit. Under today's rules, you could build out to the setback at 1 et and bring that building down to whatever elevation it might be. Does the -edominant line of development affect these properties: the answer is "yes ". W ave two policies in the Coastal Land Use Plan 4.4.3 -8 and -9 that talk about Adings on the bluff face on Carnation Avenue, Pacific and Ocean Boulevard. le are referring to that particular bluff right there and they are allowed to build !thin the predominant line of development. That is what the policy says meaning at bluff does establish a predominant line. Would we use a predominant line to �gulate that now given the exclusion order: the answer is "no ". Staff believe ose homes on Carnation Avenue on that bluff do establish a predominant line of cisting development and you would use that in relation to whether this project -re is consistent with that. hairperson Cole clarified that regardless if it is in the Category Exclusion Zone. r. Campbell noted the predominant line of development would not affect those is, but those lots do establish the predominant line of development that affect is lot. ommissioner Toerge noted that properties are still subject to Coastal Commission view under appeal. They are in the Coastal Zone so even though they are ategorically Exempt, that doesn't mean that the Coastal Commission won' >ine. It means that the City can approve them, but approval can be appealed to e Coastal Commission. The Coastal Commission has just given the City the ;ht to approve or condition those particular developments but it doesn't exempt em from Coastal and doesn't exempt them from review. ommissioner Peotter asked that since part of this lot is in the Exclusion Zone, )es that mean the project could go down to 10 feet on the side for a portion of his t and now establish a new line of development that we could use? You have two ,ts of rules. r. Jeannette noted the differences of access on Breakers Drive, Carnation venue and resulting development. Commission inquiry, he noted that suggestions made about turning the corner is rmething that he will look at and he will determine what impacts could or would suit. Additionally, he will look at elevation down to 10 feet. He noted tha otecting the cove is most critical. Z� file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2007\02222007.htm 03/30/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 14 of 17 Motion was made by Commissioner Peotter to set the line at 29 feet as the hard line for staff to review with the caveat that the applicant look at reducing the north /west wing to see if they could round that off to match the bluff face better. hairperson Cole clarified that the 29 feet goes up to 44 feet going to the north/west. Mr. Jeannette answered that is correct. ommissioner Hawkins suggested straw votes. Chairperson Cole noted the motion was not seconded, took straw vote on using he 29 feet on the east side of the property going to 44 feet, which is in the stafl report with the suggestion by Commission to have the applicant consider matching he contour of the bluff specifically on levels one and two. Following discussion by the Commission, consensus was reached consistent with his discussion as to the predominant line of development. Straw vote, Commissioner Toerge, yes; all other Commissioners, no. Mr. Lepo noted the parking configuration as well as the impact the use of ca elevators might have on parking on the street. Are those concerns of the Commission, or are you okay with the configuration of the working garage? ommissioner McDaniel noted that after meeting with the applicant, these concerns have been addressed. Commissioner Toerge noted his concern on the Mitigated Negative Declaration sting that the comment period is still open. He has reviewed it and asked that he following be addressed at the next meeting: • When does the City determine when an EIR is necessary versus a Mitigated Negative Declaration? • Should the City's Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee review the MND? • Referencing the Mitigated Negative Declaration: • Aesthetics - describe how the 'Less Than Significant Impact' determination was made for Aesthetics 1.c, and under what circumstances would a determination of "significant impact" be made? He noted page 10 and specific issues. • Land Use and Planning - on Page 16 of the MND, explain how the "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation is incorporated ", ho was this determination made, and under what circumstances would it be significant? • Noise - on Page 17, describe how the "Less Than Significant Impact' determination was made when there is no representation of how the excavation operation will be conducted. This report does not reflect some of the description that was on the screen on how the grading will take place with the borings, etc. The MND was silent on that; why? • Aesthetics - on Page 22 The MND addresses this public view site at the point of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard, but it does no address the public view street that Ocean Boulevard is and the dynamic view. Until view Sims are done, I cannot agree with this report on this topic. • Air Quality - on Page 28, the MND talks about haul trucks, etc. and the deliveries, etc. With 32,000 yards of dirt potentially being moved by 2,500 to 3,000 trucks, this is a lot of activity. The residents in the area need to be protected while the property rights are being exercised. ZZ file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2007 \02222007.htm 03/30/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 15 of 17 We need to see maps of truck routes, staging, traffic patterns, flagmen operations, public right -of -way use, etc. Washing streets is not an acceptable mitigation measure, another means needs to be identified. Diesel- powered trucks and generator use, audible signaling, restriction of delivery construction equipment need to be addressed. • Adequacy of the public view - on Page 40, until those simulations are provided, the widening of this angle may improve the view angle from one spot, but I want to be sure that it improves or at least maintain the view angle from all along that view corridor along Ocean Boulevard. • Stringline - on page 41 the MND seems to be inaccurate and misleading as it says, "stringlines were drawn from the existing residential structure located to the south on Ocean Boulevard and the existing structure to the north on Carnation Avenue. The result is that all portions of the proposed building are landward of the stringline." That is not true as shown in the exhibit. There are three calculation that discuss the median distance from the curb and from the bluff but there are no reference points specifically as to where those are measured; that needs to be expanded for it to be accurate. • Noise - on Page 42, this project may go on for at least 2 years and, while that is temporary, it is not short termed. This document says it is short term and I do not agree with that. In "B" of that noise section, it is claimed there is no impact as there is no pile driving; however, there is going to be drilling and excavation. How can it conclude there will be no impact? The MND does not address any mechanism on how it' going to be graded, yet it concludes an insignificant impact. This is inaccurate. • I believe these are shortcomings of the MND and I hope that they are addressed at the next meeting. Commissioner Hawkins noted: • The environmental document is virtually silent on the construction impacts oll the project and that analysis needs to occur. There will be a final response document that can address these issues. The points that were just mad require something that corrects these errors or inadequacies, etc. • There is an easy fix to the construction impacts and that is the Construction Management Plan. He proposes this as a mitigation measure and this plan to be approved by Public Works as the appropriate body at the City, but that it come back to the Commission for hearing and approval as well. • He stated he supports the MND concerns and they need to be addressed. • He would also like to hear from EQAC. Chairperson Cole asked about the procedures for comments to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Can we get a response document similar to an EIR for the next meeting? Staff answered it can be done. Chairperson Cole then noted the issue of the view corridor and additional photometric view simulations. Commissioner Hawkins supports the proposal for more extensive views. However, the position of the applicant is that there is no access required and that may be the case, but the applicant proposes a public amenity of a bench at the view site. That s important but insufficient, and he would like to see a more significant mitigation measure. He supports an offer of dedication for the bottom of this property, but there is the access issue. Z� file: / /F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2007 \02222007.htm 03/30/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 16 of 17 Toerge noted: Performance Bond - The project includes a retaining wall that reqL substantial grading. If this is not completed there is a possibility that homes and public right -of -way above could be damaged. If, for any re& there is a cease or stop work order issued, the area needs to be made to the public. This would be similar to the one required of the Mariners Gateway project. McDaniel agreed. iissioner Hawkins suggested that this be a completion bond so there is facing the bay. Jeannette noted: The MND is lacking and he agrees with the comments. He agreed to re- analyze the architecture based on Commission comment; and allow time for staff to fix the MND and recirculated for public review anc comment, after which time we can seek final guidance from the Commission. Lepo agreed. Hawkins asked if they would consider turning the MND into an EIR. Jeannette said they would not consider it. on Cole thanked the applicant and commended them for the detail of project. was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissio to continue this item to April 5th to allow time for the MND issues to ed and revisions to the building design be completed. oerge None None 'T: Mile Gateway, LLC 11 CIVI R%J. Y 100 -600 West Coast Highway PA2006 -279 for Compre ive Sign Program CS2006 -012 for the previous) Continued to d: i Bel Mare Shoppin nter. In addition, the Planning Commission will b uncertain g the project's landscap and evaluating proposed refinements to elevations to determine their s ntial conformance with the approved None None City Council Follow -up - Mr. Lepo reported that the Council adopted th resolution initiating additional or new regulations for residential car 2l file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2007\02222007.htm 03/30/21007 Exhibit No. 2 Draft Resolution for project approval 25 City of Newport Beach Planning Department Memorandum To: Planning Commission From: James Campbell, Senior Planner Date: March 31, 2007 Re: AERIE project (PA2005 -196) Attached is a draft resolution consistent with staffs recommendation to modify the project to be above 52 feet MSL. OW CN•®— Mami..canoe. CC: James o� nor :o . vw�omy oerem� Campbell« ;;'s,.aW 7 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH NO. 2007021054) AND APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2005 -006, COASTAL LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2005 -002, CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2005 -009, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2005 -004 (TRACT 16882), MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2005 -087 AND COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 2005 -002 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 201-205,207 CARNATION AVENUE 101 BAYSIDE PLACE (PA 2005 -196). WHEREAS, applications were filed by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. with respect to property located at 201 -205, 207 Carnation Avenue, and 101 Bayside Place to construct a 9 -unit residential condominium development on a 1.4 acre site. The applications filed are: 1. General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -006 to change the land use designation of a 584 square foot portion of a parcel identified as 101 Bayside Place from RT (Two -Unit Residential) to RM (Multiple -Unit Residential, 20 dwelling units per acre). 2. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -002 to change the Coastal Land Use Plan designation of the same 584 square foot portion of a parcel identified as 101 Bayside Place from RH -D High Density Residential - 50.1 to 60 dwelling units per acre to RM -A (Medium Density Residential - 6.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre). 3. Zone Change No. 2005 -009 to change the zoning designation of the 584 square foot portion of a parcel identified as 101 Bayside Place from R -2 (Two - Family Residential) to MFR (Multifamily Residential, 2178 square feet per unit). 4. Tract Map No. 2005 -004 (TT16882) combines the 584 square foot portion of a parcel identified as 101 Bayside Place with parcels identified as 201 -205 Carnation Avenue and 207 Carnation Avenue, and subdivides the air space for 9 residential condominium units. 5. Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 permits a 5 -foot subterranean encroachment into the required 10 -foot front setback along Carnation Avenue, an above -grade and subterranean encroachment of 3' -1" into a required 10' -7° side yard setback between the project and 215 Carnation, and a 5' -7" above -grade and subterranean encroachment into a required 10' -7" side yard setback between the project and 215 Carnation. 6. Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -002 to review the potential loss of affordable housing within the Coastal Zone pursuant to Chapter 20.86 of the Municipal Code. WHEREAS, on February 22, 2007 and April 5, 2007, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 2 of 31 Newport Beach, California at which time the applications, project and a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing. WHEREAS, the project site has two separate land use designations assigned by the Land Use Element of the General Plan (584 square feet is designated RT (Two -Unit Residential) and the remaining portion of the site, 60,700 square feet, is designated RM (Multi -Unit Residential, 20 dwelling units per acre). The proposed amendment changing the land use designation of the 584 square foot portion of the site to match the remainder of the site will numerically allow 1 additional unit; however, density limitation as dictated by the Zoning Ordinance is more restrictive as it excludes submerged lands and slopes in excess of 50% from the calculation. The density of the proposed project is well below the resulting maximum density permitted by the General Plan (28 dwellings) and it is consistent with the maximum density allowed by the existing MFR zone (9 units). The residential condominium project is consistent with the proposed Multi - Family Residential land use designation and is consistent with the residential developments within the area. WHEREAS, Charter Section 423 requires that all proposed General Plan Amendments be reviewed to determine if the square footage (for non - residential projects), peak hour vehicle trip, or dwelling units thresholds would be exceeded as the means to determine whether a vote by the electorate would be required to approve the General Plan Amendment. Pursuant to Council Policy A -18, voter approval is not required as the proposed General Plan Amendment represents an increase of 1 dwelling unit and an increase of 1 A.M. and 1 P.M. peak hour trip. Additionally, no prior amendments have been approved within Statistical Area F3 and, therefore, the project and prior amendments do not cumulatively exceed Charter Section 423 thresholds as to require a vote of the electorate. WHEREAS, the proposed project subject to conditions of approval is consistent with General Plan Policy LU5.1.9 which that building elevations that face public streets need to be treated to achieve the highest level of urban design and neighborhood quality. Architectural treatment of building elevations and the modulation of mass is important to convey the character of separate living units or clusters of living units, avoiding the appearance of a singular building volume. Street elevations need to be provided with high - quality materials and finishes to convey quality. Roof profiles should be modulated to reduce the apparent scale of large structures and to provide visual interest and variety. Parking areas should be designed to be integral with the architecture of the development. Usable and functional private open space for each unit should be incorporated. Common open space that creates a pleasant living environment with opportunities for recreation should also be provided. The project design incorporates building articulation, roof modulation and a diverse architectural style. Although specific exterior finishes or building materials are not identified at this time, the applicant and architect are committed to providing the highest quality project commensurate with the expense of the project and appropriate to their target buyer. Parking areas are integrated within the overall design and City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 3of31 each unit has an outdoor deck or patio that may include a fire pit and spa. Common recreational amenities and storage areas for each unit are provided. WHEREAS, the proposed project subject to conditions of approval is consistent with General Plan Policy LU 5.1.8 that requires adequate enclosed parking considering the number of bedrooms. Seven of the units have three bedrooms and 2 of the units have four bedrooms; however, all of the units have other rooms that could be used as bedrooms and the unit sizes range from 4,000 to 6,300 square feet. The project provides 3 spaces for 7 units and 2 spaces for the 2 remaining units (25 spaces). Seven (7) guest parking spaces and 2 golf cart spaces are provided for a total of 34 covered, vehicle spaces. Provided parking is in excess of the minimum required pursuant to the Zoning Code (2.5 parking spaces per unit for total of 23 spaces). WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with General Plan Policy CE7.1.8 and Policy CE7.1.1 as well as Coastal Land Use Policy 2.9.3 -1 that requires new development to avoid the use of parking configurations or parking management programs that are difficult to maintain and enforce and that requires new development to provide adequate, convenient parking for residents, guests, business patrons and visitors for the following reasons: The below grade parking configuration accessed by elevators is sufficiently convenient in that two vehicle elevators are proposed, which will reduce vehicle wait times to avoid significant conflicts. Emergency power generators are required so that vehicle access is maintained if electrical power is lost. The vehicle maneuvering areas within the parking areas meets applicable standards required by the City Traffic Engineer. WHEREAS, the Land Use and Natural Resources Elements of the General Plan contain general policies regarding the protection of public views, visual resources, coastal bluffs and other natural resources and the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) reflects these same policies and includes additional policies that expand upon the topics addressed in the Land Use and Natural Resources Elements of the General Plan and are applicable only within the Coastal Zone such that a finding of consistency with the CLUP is an implicit finding of consistency with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Accordingly, based upon facts in support of findings that the project's consistent with the relevant CLUP policies as indicated below, the project is determined to be consistent with all resource protection policies within the Land Use and Natural Resources Elements. WHEREAS, The Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) designates the majority of the site RM -A (Medium Density Residential - 6.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre) and a 584 square foot portion of the site is designated RH -D High Density Residential - 50.1 to 60 dwelling units per acre. The proposed amendment of the land use designation for the 584 square foot portion of the site will result in a land use designation the same as the larger portion of the site and will numerically increase the maximum permissible project density by 1 unit, from 13 to 14, and below but the maximum permissible density pursuant to the RM -A Zoning for the site. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 4 of 31 WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with applicable policies within Chapter 2 (Land Use and Development) of the Coastal Land Use Plan based upon the following: 1. Policy 2.7 -1. Continue to maintain appropriate setbacks and density, floor area, and height limits for residential development to protect the character of established neighborhoods and to protect coastal access and coastal resources. The project conforms to the height limit of the MFR zone and no deviation is proposed. The project proposes 76,333 gross square feet, well below the maximum 90,759 allowed by the existing MFR zone standard. The proposed 9 -unit project is below the maximum permissible density established by the RM -A (Medium Density Residential - 6.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre). Setback encroachments are primarily subterranean and would not impact the character of the area. The only above - ground encroachments are on the north side of the building. The project provides between 5 and 7.5 feet of separation at the street level and approximately 28 to 30 feet of separation on the levels above. No public view exists in this area where the above - ground encroachments are requested. The setback proposed will provide adequate separation from the building to the north and the encroachments will not impact fragile resources as they are located on the opposite side of the building away from the bluff and bay. 2. Policy 2.7 -2. Continue the administration of provisions of State law relative to the demolition, conversion and construction of low and moderate - income dwelling units within the coastal zone. Government Code Section 65590 (Mello Act) regulates the demolition or conversion of low and moderate income units within the Coastal Zone. All units were vacated in December of 2001 and only a caretaker resides in the apartment. No low or moderate income residents currently reside within the project and, therefore, Government Code Section 65590 is not applicable. 3. Policy 2.8.1 -1. Review all applications for new development to determine potential threats from coastal and other hazards. Policy 2.8.1 -2. Design and site new development to avoid hazardous areas and minimize risks to life and property from coastal and other hazards. Policy 2.8.1 -3. Design land divisions, including lot line adjustments, to avoid hazardous areas and minimize risks to life and property from coastal and other hazards. A coastal hazards study has been prepared by GeoSoils Inc., dated October, 5, 2006. Given the location, topography and development proposed, potential hazards are seismic ground shaking, coastal bluff retreat due to erosional forces and tsunamis. Seismic issues are mitigated with the implementation of the Building Code and coastal bluff retreat is not expected to impact the project during the 75 year economic life of the building. Inundation by wave action or tsunami is considered very remote and the proposed improvements are well above wave action. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 5 of 31 4. Policy 2.8.1 -4. Require new development to assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and Cliffs. Policy 2.8.3 -1. Require all coastal development permit applications for new development on a beach or on a coastal bluff property subject to wave action to assess the potential for flooding or damage from waves, storm surge, or seiches, through a wave uprush and impact reports prepared by a licensed civil engineer with expertise in coastal processes. The conditions that shall be considered in a wave uprush study are: a seasonally eroded beach combined with long -term (75 years) erosion; high tide conditions, combined with long -term (75 year) projections for sea level rise; storm waves from a 100 -year event or a storm that compares to the 1982183 El Niho event. Policy 2.8.6 -10. Site and design new structures to avoid the need for shoreline and bluff protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years). Policy 2.8.7 -3. Require applications for new development where applicable [i.e., in areas of known or potential geologic or seismic hazards], to include a geologic/soils/geotechnical study that identifies any geologic hazards affecting the proposed project site, any necessary mitigation measures, and contains a statement that the project site is suitable for the proposed development and that the development will be safe from geologic hazard. Require such reports to be signed by a licensed Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer and subject to review and approval by the City. A Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Neblett & Associates, August 2005, the Coastal Hazard Study prepared by GeoSoils Inc., dated October 2006, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated March 27, 2005 collectively indicate that the project will not be subject to nor contribute to erosion, geologic instability, geologic hazard nor require shoreline protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years). 5. Policy 2.8.6 -9. Require property owners to record a waiver of future shoreline protection for new development during the economic life of the structure (75 years) as a condition of approval of a coastal development permit for new development on a beach, shoreline, or bluff that is subject to wave action, erosion, flooding, landslides, or other hazards associated with development on a beach or bluff. Shoreline protection may be permitted to protect existing structures that were legally constructed prior to the certification of the LCP, unless a waiver of future shoreline protection was required by a previous coastal development permit. A waiver of future shoreline protective devices is included as a condition of approval City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 6 of 31 6. Policy 2.9.3 -10 Require new development to minimize curb cuts to protect on- street parking spaces and close curb cuts to create new public parking wherever feasible. The project will reduce the width of existing curb cuts creating 3 additional street spaces. WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with Chapter 3 (Public Access) of the Coastal Land Use Plan based upon the following: Policy 3.1.1 -1. Protect and where feasible, expand and enhance public access to and along the shoreline and to beaches, coastal waters, tidelands, coastal parks, and trails. Policy 3.1.2 -1. Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance public access to and along coastal bluffs. Policy 3.1.2 -2. Site, design, and maintain public access improvements in a manner to avoid or minimize impacts to coastal bluffs. Policy 3.1.1 -11. Require new development to minimize impacts to public access to and along the shoreline. Policy 3.1.1 -9. Protect, expand, and enhance a system of public coastal access that achieves the following: • Maximizes public access to and along the shoreline; • includes pedestrian, hiking, bicycle, and equestrian trails; • Provides connections to beaches, parks, and recreational facilities; • Provides connections with trail systems of adjacent jurisdictions; • Provides access to coastal view corridors; • Facilitates alternative modes of transportation; • Minimizes alterations to natural landforms; • Protects environmentally sensitive habitat areas; • Does not violate private property rights. Policy 3.1.1 -24. Encourage the creation of new public vertical accessways where feasible, including Corona del Mar and other areas of limited public accessibility. Policy 3.1.1 -13. Require a direct dedication or an Offer to Dedicate (OTD) an easement for lateral public access for all new shorefront development causing or contributing to adverse public access impacts. Such dedication or easement shall extend from the limits of public ownership (e.g. mean high tide line) landward to a fixed point seaward of the primary extent of development (e.g. intersection of sand with toe or top of revetment, vertical face of seawall, dripline of deck, or toe of bluff). Policy 3.1.1 -14. Require a direct dedication or an Offer to Dedicate (OTD) an easement for vertical access in all new development projects causing or contributing to adverse public access impacts, unless adequate access is available nearby. Vertical accessways City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 7 of 31 shall be a sufficient size to accommodate two -way pedestrian passage and landscape buffer and should be sited along the border or side property line of the project site or away from existing or proposed development to the maximum feasible extent. Policy 3.1.1 -24. Encourage the creation of new public vertical accessways where feasible, including Corona del Mar and other areas of limited public accessibility. Policy 3.1.1 -26. Consistent with the policies above, provide maximum public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the shoreline with new development except where (1) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal resources or (2) adequate access exists nearby. Policy 3.1.1 -27. Implement public access policies in a manner that takes into account the need to regulate the time, place, and manner of public access depending on the facts and circumstances in each case including, but not limited to, the following. • Topographic and geologic site characteristics, • Capacity of the site to sustain use and at what level of intensity. • Fragility of natural resource areas; • Proximity to residential uses; • Public safety services, including lifeguards, fire, and police access; • Support facilities, including parking and restrooms; • Management and maintenance of the access; • The need to balance constitutional rights of individual property owners and the public's constitutional rights of access. The project site has no dedicated public access easements or physical access to the coastal bluff or bay. No abutting vertical or lateral public access presently exists that would connect to any access that might be considered within the development. The steep topography of the site makes vertical access a safety concern and access for the disabled could not be accommodated. Support facilities presently do not exist nor are they planned, and parking in the area is constrained. Lastly, access through the site would be in close proximity to residential uses. The lower portion of the bluff, submerged lands, and tidelands will remain in their existing condition. Public access to the tidelands from the water will not be affected as the development will be well above the tidelands. Access to the designated view point at the end of Carnation Avenue will also remain unaffected and the public view from that point and Ocean Boulevard will be enhanced with project approval with the installation of a bench and/or other public amenity at the corner to improve the experience. The project will create 3 new parking spaces along Carnation Avenue with the reduction in the width of the existing driveway approaches. These new public parking spaces will enhance access to the area. With the reduction in residential density and the fact that no access rights or proscriptive access rights exist, the project will not impact or impede public access. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 8 of 31 Public access to the bay is currently provided in the vicinity at China Cove, Lookout Point and at a street -end located in the 2300 block of Bayside Drive. These access points are located approximately 450 feet to the east, 1,125 feet to the east and approximately 480 feet to the northwest, respectively. Based upon the forgoing, requiring public access easements or outright dedication of land for public access is not necessary. WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with Policy 4.1.3 -1 of the Coastal Land Use Plan that states "Utilize the following mitigation measures to reduce the potential for adverse impacts to ESA natural habitats from sources including, but not limited to, those identified in Table 4.1.1." Only Subsections E, F, G, and N are applicable to the proposed project as the other subsections are clearly inapplicable as they relate to different physical and operational aspects of Newport Bay. E. Limit encroachments into wetlands to development that is consistent with Section 30233 of the Coastal Act and Policy 4.2.3 -1 of the Coastal Land Use Plan. No encroachment into wetlands is proposed with the project. F. Regulate landscaping or revegetation of blufftop areas to control erosion and invasive plant species and provide a transition area between developed areas and natural habitats. A condition of approval requires all non - native plantings on the bluff to be removed and revegetation of the bluff face is regulated to only allow native and non - invasive plantings indigenous to the California coastal bluff environment. G. Require irrigation practices on blufftops that minimize erosion of bluffs. An irrigation plan is required pursuant to conditions of approval for the project and temporary irrigation on the bluff face may only be to be used to establish vegetation. N. Prohibit invasive species and require removal in new development. A condition of approval requires all non - native plantings on the bluff to be removed and revegetation of the bluff face is regulated to allow only native and non - invasive plantings indigenous to the California coastal bluff environment. WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with the following policies of Chapter 4 (Coastal Resource Protection) based upon the following: Policy 4.3.1 -5. Require development on steep slopes or steep slopes with erosive soils to implement structural best management practices (BMPs) to prevent or minimize erosion consistent with any load allocation of the TMDLs adopted for Newport Bay. Policy 4.3.1 -6. Require grading /erosion control plans to include soil stabilization on graded or disturbed areas. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 9 of 31 Policy 4.3.1 -7. Require measures be taken during construction to limit land disturbance activities such as clearing and grading, limiting cut -and fill to reduce erosion and sediment loss, and avoiding steep slopes, unstable areas, and erosive soils. Require construction to minimize disturbance of natural vegetation, including significant trees, native vegetation, root structures, and other physical or biological features important for preventing erosion or sedimentation. Policy 4.3.2 -22. Require beachfront and waterfront development to incorporate BMPs designed to prevent or minimize polluted runoff to beach and coastal waters. Policy 4.3.2 -23. Require new development applications to include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The WQMP's purpose is to minimize to the maximum extent practicable dry weather runoff, runoff from small storms (less than 314" of rain falling over a 24 -hour period) and the concentration of pollutants in such runoff during construction and post - construction from the property. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, Stormwater Pollution Prevention plan and a Water Quality Management Plan are required and include best management practices to ensure that erosion is controlled to the maximum extent feasible. WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with Policy 4.4.3 -4. of the Coastal Land Use Plan that states "On bluffs subject to marine erosion, require new accessory structures such as decks, patios and walkways that do not require structural foundations to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development in the subject area, but not less than 10 feet from the bluff edge. Require accessory structures to be removed or relocated landward when threatened by erosion, instability or other hazards." No new accessory structures are proposed. The policy also requires that accessory structures be removed or relocated landward when threatened by erosion, instability or other hazards. A condition of approval is included such that the existing accessory structures (concrete pad, staircase and walkway) be removed if threatened by erosional processes in the future. WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with Policy 4.4.3 -11 of the Coastal Land Use Plan that states "Require applications for new development to include slope stability analyses and erosion rate estimates provided by a licensed Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer." A Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Neblett & Associates, August 2005, the Coastal Hazard Study prepared by GeoSoils Inc., dated October 2006, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated March 27, 2005 collectively indicate that the project will not be subject to nor contribute to erosion, geologic instability, geologic hazard nor require shoreline protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years). City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 10 of 31 WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with the following policies of Chapter 4 (Coastal Resource Protection) that regulate the protection of public views based upon the following: Policy 4.4.1 -1. Protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor and to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas. Policy 4.4.1 -2. Design and site new development, including landscaping, so as to minimize impacts to public coastal views. Policy 4.4.1 -4. Where appropriate, require new development to provide view easements or corridors designed to protect public coastal views or to restore public coastal views in developed areas. Policy 4.4.1 -6. Protect public coastal views from the following roadway segments... Ocean Boulevard. (Figure 4 -3 of the CLUP identifies the intersection of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard as a "view point. ") Policy 4.4.1 -7. Design and site new development, including landscaping, on the edges of public coastal view corridors, including those down public streets, to frame and accent public coastal views. Policy 4.4.2 -2. Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. Policy 4.4.2 -3. Implement the regulation of the building envelope to preserve public views through the height, setback, floor area, lot coverage, and building bulk regulation of the Zoning Code in effect as of October 13, 2005 that limit the building profile and maximize public view opportunities. A public view presently exists over the southeastern portion of the site from Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue to the south and southwest between the existing 14 -unit apartment building and improvements on the adjoining property to the southeast. The siting of the proposed building would provide a greater separation between these properties than exists today. Presently, the horizontal view window measures 25 degrees and with the project, the view window will increase to 32 degrees. Based upon the visual simulation prepared by the project architect, the public view from Ocean Boulevard to the west will also be improved due to the position of the proposed building. Although the proposed building is taller than the existing building, there is no public view over the buildings; therefore, the taller building proposed will not impact a public view. The project is consistent with the 28 -foot building height limit as demonstrated on Sheet A -16 and verified by staff, and with other building envelope restrictions with the exception of setback encroachments as proposed. The above -grade encroachment of the building on the northerly portion of the project site is one -story and does not impact a public view as one presently does not exist in that location. Other setback encroachments are below the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 11 of 31 grade of the street and would not impact a public view. No other public views exist from the street through the site due to the position of the current buildings. Therefore, the proposed project will not have an impact upon existing public views through the site to the south and west. The recordation of a public view easement to protect the public view over the site from Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue is required as a condition of approval. WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with the following policies of Chapter 4 (Coastal Resource Protection) as they related to the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone and to minimizing the alteration of the coastal bluff based upon the following: Policy 4.4.1 -1. Protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor and to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas. Policy 4.4.1 -3 Design and site new development to minimize alterations to significant natural landforms, including bluffs, cliffs and canyons. Policy 4.4.3 -8. Prohibit development on bluff faces, except private development on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar determined to be consistent with the predominant line of existing development or public improvements providing public access, protecting coastal resources, or providing for public safety. Permit such improvements only when no feasible alternative exists and when designed and constructed to minimize alteration of the bluff face, to not contribute to further erosion of the bluff face, and to be visually compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible. Policy 4.4.3 -9. Where principal structures exist on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar, require all new development to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development in order to protect public coastal views. Establish a predominant line of development for both principle structures and accessory improvements. The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure safety and stability of the development. Policy 4.4.3 -12. Employ site design and construction techniques to minimize alteration of coastal bluffs to the maximum extent feasible, such as: A. Siting new development on the flattest area of the site, except when an altemative location is more protective of coastal resources. B. Utilizing existing driveways and building pads to the maximum extent feasible. C. Clustering building sites. D. Shared use of driveways. E. Designing buildings to conform to the natural contours of the site, and arranging driveways and patio areas to be compatible with the slopes and building design. F. Utilizing special foundations, such as stepped, split level, or cantilever designs. G. Detaching parts of the development, such as a garage from a dwelling unit. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 12 of 31 H. Requiring any altered slopes to blend into the natural contours of the site. The predominant line of existing development for the Carnation Avenue bluff face portion of this property has been determined to be 52 feet above mean sea level (MSL) based upon the existing development pattern located on the bluff face. Additionally, the predominant line of existing development for the Ocean Boulevard bluff face bluff face portion of this property has been determined to be 34 feet above MSL based upon the location of abutting residences. The project such that it is not visible below 52 feet MSL minimizes alteration of the bluff face by reducing grading by approximately 12,000 cubic yards of export when compared to the application. Additionally, this restriction also protects the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone by reducing the visual building mass by eliminating the 2 lower levels visible to the public from the west. The potential development restricted in this manner would cover approximately 9% of the un -built bluff face and preserve the coastal bluff below the 52 foot MSL elevation. Development within this restriction utilizes the flattest portion of the lot and although it would occupy areas outside the existing building pads, it would be more protective of the coastal bluff by avoiding developing below 52 feet MSL to the predominant line of existing development of 34 feet MSL for the Ocean Boulevard bluff face. WHEREAS, the granting of the Modification Permit 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 for the following reasons: The site is irregular in shape, has steep topography and has submerged lands which make it difficult to design a project at the density proposed while providing required parking. Approximately 65% of the site is submerged or has slopes in excess of 50 %. The need to provide on -site parking requires that a significant portion of the building area be allocated for the parking garage, thereby reducing available area for residential units. The required side yard setback is also larger than the required front yard setback and the application of this standard represents a practical difficulty given the relatively small buildable area available on the entire site. WHEREAS, the granting of the Modification Permit will be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood for the following reasons: The requested encroachments within the front yard will be entirely subterranean and will not be visible. The encroachments within the side yard on levels below the street will also not be visible. The side yard setback encroachment on Level 4 (above the street) provides a 7' -6" setback for approximately 57.5% of the length of the building and 5' for approximately 42.5% of the length of the building. The larger setback is closer to the street. On Levels 5 and 6 above the encroachment on Level 4, the project provides a 28 to 30 -foot setback in excess of the minimum 10' -7" setback. This increased setback provides an enhanced separation of building masses of the project building and the single - family City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 13 of 31 home to the north. This increased setback provides private views over the building from upper levels of residences across Carnation Avenue and enhanced building articulation as suggested by General Plan policy. WHEREAS, the granting of the Modification Permit 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 for the following reasons: The setback encroachments are predominantly subterranean and the above - ground encroachments are off -set with increased setbacks above grade and they do not block public views. WHEREAS, Tract Map No. 2005 -004 (TT16882) can be approved based upon the following findings: The modified project is consistent with the current land use designation including the proposed amendment. The project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy LU5.1.9 regarding the character and quality of multi - family residential development. The project is consistent with Land Use Element and Natural Resources Element policies related to the protection of public views, visual resources, coastal bluffs and other natural resources based upon the project's consistency with the Coastal Land Use Plan. The site is not subject to a specific plan. Minimum lot sizes established by the Zoning Ordinance are also maintained as required by the City Subdivision Code. The tentative tract map, pursuant to the conditions of approval, is consistent with the Newport Beach Subdivision Code (Title 19) and applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map. The buildable area of the site is relatively small compared to the entire 1.4 acre site. The site is not likely to be subject to coastal erosional processes or hazards during the 75 year economic life of the project. No earthquake faults were found on -site and there is not likely to be and incidence of landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse on -site or near the site given on -site soils conditions. These factors indicate that the site is suitable for development. 3. The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements subject to conditions of approval will not cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat based upon the Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2007021054) and the adoption of mitigation measures as conditions of project approval. 4. The tract map would subdivide airspace for residential condominium purposes and is not expected to cause serious public health problems given the use of typical construction materials and practices. No evidence is known to exist that would indicate that the proposed subdivision will generate any serious public health problems. All mitigation measures as outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Building, Grading and Fire codes will be implemented to ensure the protection of public health. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 14 of 31 5. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, because a utility and sewer easement that affects the site is presently not in use and can be abandoned. The design of the proposed subdivision will not impact an existing storm drain easement and storm drain as proposed improvements will not encroach upon the existing easement. The storm drain easement will appear on the final map. Public utility easements for utility connections that serve the project site are present and will be modified, if necessary, to serve the proposed project. 6. The site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract 7. The property is not located within the boundaries of a specific plan; 8. The subdivision is subject to Title 24 of the California Building Code that requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The Newport Beach Building Department enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check and field inspection processes. The site has a western exposure and incorporates cured roof elements that will provide some shading of windows and passive solar cooling. Significant exterior wall segments are below grade which will benefit from passive cooling. 9. The subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of the regional housing needs although the proposed subdivision will have the effect of reducing the residential density on the site from 15 units to 9 units. The reduction is insignificant given the City's current housing supply. Although the reduction in units does not assist the City in reaching its production goals, no affordable housing units are being eliminated based upon the fact that the project was not occupied by low or moderate income households. The reduction in density is consistent with existing density limitations of the Municipal Code. 10. Wastewater discharge into the existing sewer system will be consistent with existing residential use of the property, which does not violate Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements. 11.The proposed subdivision is entirely within the coastal zone and the site is not presently developed with coastal - related uses, coastal- dependent uses or water - oriented recreational uses that would be displaced by a non - priority use. The project site is constrained by topography and public access exists nearby making on -site vertical and lateral access unnecessary. Public access to the area is enhanced as a result of increasing public parking opportunities on Carnation Avenue afforded by 3 on- street parking spaces to be added with closure of existing driveway curb cuts. The position of the proposed building enhances public views from Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue by increasing the view angle between the development on the project site and adjacent development. The modified project developed in accordance with the conditions of approval will minimize alteration of the coastal bluff and preserve the scenic and visual quality of the coast by preserving the bluff below the 52 -foot MSL City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 15 of 31 elevation. Lastly, the project will not impact sensitive marine resources with the implementation of the conditions of approval. WHEREAS, the project would demolish 15 dwelling units within the Coastal Zone within 2 buildings and pursuant to Chapter 20.86 of the Zoning Code, demolished units occupied by low or moderate income households must be replaced if such replacement is determined to be feasible. The 15 units are not occupied by low or moderate income households, and therefore, no replacement units are required. Households potentially meeting the low or moderate income limits were not evicted for the purpose of avoiding a replacement requirement within the previous 12 months. WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (SCH No. 2007021054) have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. The Draft MND was circulated for public comment between January 10, 2007 and March 15, 2007. During the February 22, 2007, public hearing comments on the adequacy of the environmental document were received by the Planning Commission. Those comments led to revisions to the draft MND. The revisions provide additional project information and clarification and no new environmental impacts were identified. Revised mitigation measures were identified that provide equivalent or superior environmental protection and, therefore, recirculation is not required. The contents of the revised environmental document have been considered in prior to rendering of the various decisions on this project. It has been determined that the revised MND adequately describes the potential impacts of the project. WHEREAS, on the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified 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; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find, on the basis of the whole record, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 16 of 31 reflects the Planning Commission's independent judgment and analysis. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH No. 2007021054 included therewith. The document and all material which constitute the record upon which this decision was based are on file with the Planning Department, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. Section 2. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -006 per Exhibit "K, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -002 per Exhibit "B ", Code Amendment No. 2005 -009 per Exhibit "C "; and approve Tentative Tract Map No. 2005 -004. (Tract 16882), Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -002 (PA 2005 -196) subject to conditions of approval attached as Exhibit „D„ PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 4th DAY OF APRIL 2007. Jeffery Cole, Chairman Robert Hawkins, Secretary AYES: NOES: ABSENT: City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 17 of 31 Exhibit "A" CHANGE TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 18 of 31 Exhibit "B" CHANGE TO THE COASTAL LAND USE MAP FROM City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 19 of 31 Exhibit "C" CHANGE TO THE ZONE DISTRICTING MAP City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 20 of 31 Exhibit "D" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Tentative Tract Map No. 2005 -004 (Tract 16882), Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 (Project- specific conditions are in italics) Planning Department The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use will be cause for revocation of this permit. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 2. 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. 3. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing agent. 4. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans stamped and dated March 28, 2007, except as modified by the conditions of approval. 5. Project approvals except the Tentative Tract Map shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the effective date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Reasonable extensions may be granted by the Planning Director in accordance with applicable regulations. The Tentative Tract Map shall expire within 36 months from the date of approval unless extensions are granted prior to expiration in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Map Act. 6. The applicant shall obtain a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit for the project. 7. The project shall be revised such that the principal building shall not be visible below 52 feet above mean sea level. 8. Prior to the issuance of a -grading or building permit, the applicant shall provide the City with a performance bond or its equivalent to ensure timely completion of all shoring and retaining wall improvements represented on plans and drawings submitted for permit approval, or for restoration of excavated and otherwise disturbed portions of the site in the event construction of improvements consistent with project approval is abandoned. The performance bond or its equivalent shall be in 100% of the cost of such improvements, shall be issued with the City as beneficiary by an insurance company City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 21 of 31 currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance in the State of California and shall have an assigned policyholders' Rating of A (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VII (or larger j in accordance with the latest edition of Bests Key Rating Guide unless otherwise approved by the City Risk Manager. The bond or equivalent shall be released upon completion of construction of the shoring and retaining wall improvements. 9. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for new construction, the applicant shall execute a waiver of all claims against the City for future liability or damage resulting from the approval to build the project. The form and content of the waiver shall be in a form acceptable to the office of the City Attorney and the waiver shall be recorded against the property in question. 10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Director. The site shall not be excessively illuminated as excessive illumination may be determined consistent with the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America or by the Planning Director in the event the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. 11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect shall be submitted for Planning Commission review and shall be subject to Planning Commission approval. The plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices. All planting areas shall be provided with a permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitable for the type and arrangement of the plant materials selected. The irrigation system shall be adjustable based upon either a signal from a satellite or an on -site moisture - sensor. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or similar permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. The proposed landscaping adjacent to the back of sidewalk shall be designed with provisions that will prevent irrigation and/or other runoff from spilling onto the sidewalk. 12. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall pay a park dedication in- lieu fee of $6,894.37 per unit. 13. Prior to the issuance of a building or -grading permit, a waiver of future shoreline protection during the economic life of the structure (75 years) shall be recorded against the property. The waiver shall be binding upon all future owners and assignees. The waiver shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attomey prior to recordation. 14. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 22 of 31 confirm control of light and glare. The Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 15. Prior to issuance of a certificate occupancy for the project, the applicant shall install a public bench within the public right -of -way as depicted on the site plan. The specific design and location of the bench shall be approved by the Public Works, Planning and General Serviced Departments prior to installation. 16. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall schedule an inspection by the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm that all landscaping materials and irrigation systems have been installed in accordance with the approved plans. 17. All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 18. 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. 19. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets within the limits authorized by this permit, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control. 20. Water leaving the project site due to over - irrigation of landscape shall be minimized. If an incident such as this is reported, a representative from the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division of the City Manager's Office shall visit the location, investigate, inform resident if possible, leave a note and in some cases shut -off the water. 21. Watering should be done during the early morning or evening hours to minimize evaporation (between 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m., the following morning). 22. All leaks shall be investigated by a representative from the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division of the City Manager's Office and the applicant or future owners shall complete all required repairs. 23. The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all administrative costs identified by the Planning Department within 30 days of receiving a final notification of costs or prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 23 of 31 24. All altered slopes that are outside of the building envelope shall be contoured in aso as to resemble the existing natural terrain. 25. 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 AERIE Project including, but not limited to, the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -006, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -002, Code Amendment No. 2005 -009, Tentative Tract Map No. 2005 -004 (Tract 16882), Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -002 collectively referred to as PA 2005 -196; and/or the City's related California Environmental Quality Act determinations, the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the AERIE 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. 26. The project shall incorporate and implement an emergency power backup system so the vehicle lifts will operate during a power outage. 27. Remote control operators for the vehicle elevators, in quantities equal to the number of parking spaces assigned to each dwelling unit, shall be provided to occupants of the respective units. The project shall incorporate an external indicating system to alert drivers which vehicle elevator will be available for immediate use. The vehicle elevator system shall be designed and maintained to return the elevator cars to the street level when not in use. The vehicle elevator system shall be maintained for efficient use throughout the life of the project. 28. Vehicle parking and maneuvering areas shall be restricted to the parking of operable vehicles and shall not be used for storage of any kind including the long -term storage of vehicles not in regular use. 29. Construction activities shall be confined to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and on Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 24 of 31 30. Idling of construction vehicles and equipment shall be limited to the extent feasible. Construction vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and maintained and shall be turned off when not in use for more than five (5) minutes. 31. Reclaimed water shall be used wherever available, assuming it is economically feasible. Fire Department 32. one gumey - accommodating elevator shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 30 of the California Building Code within the project that must access each level. 33. A Class 111 standpipe system shall be provided at the private dock in accordance with Newport Beach Fire Department guidelines. 34. A public fire hydrant shall be provided at the comer of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. The hydrant shall be installed and tested prior to occupancy of the project, unless required earlier by the Fire Department. 35. A fire alarm system with fire control room shall be provided within the project. Monitored Automatic fire sprinklers shall be required for the entire structure to meet NFA13, 199 Edition and in accordance with Newport Beach Fire Department requirements. Shut -off valves and a waterflow device shall be provided for each unit. A Class 1 standpipe shall be provided at every level at all stairs. Standpipe and sprinklers may be a combination system. 36. The project shall provide pressurized exit enclosures and vestibules in accordance with the Building Code. Enclosures shall be a minimum two -hour fire rated construction. 37. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position that is plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall be of made of non - combustible materials, shall contrast with their background, and shall be either internally or externally illuminated to be visible at night. Number shall be no less than six inches in height with a one -inch stroke. Public Works 38. All parking stall dimensions shall comply with City's Standard Drawings STD - 805 -L -A. 39. Driveway /drive aisle slopes shall comply with City Standard STD - 160 -L -C, which accommodate a 15 percent maximum slope and a maximum change in grade of 11 percent. The building plans shall show detailed profile of each of the proposed driveways. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 25 of 31 40. Project driveways must conform to the City's sight distance standard 110 -L. The design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 41. All work conducted within the public right -of -way shall be approved under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 42. Construction surety in a form acceptable to the City, guaranteeing the completion of the various required public improvements and repairs, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for City Council approval prior to the issuance of Public Works Department encroachment permit. 43. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 44. A water demand, a storm drain system capacity, and a sanitary sewer system capacity study shall be submitted to the Public Works Department along with the first building plan check submittal. The recommendations of these studies shall be incorporated as a part of the submitted plans. 45. Street, drainage and utility improvements within the public right -of -way shall be submitted on City standard improvement plan formats. All of the plan sheets shall be wet sealed, dated, and signed by the California registered professionals responsible for the designs shown on said plans. 46. All new landscaping within the public right -of -way shall be approved by the General Services Department and the Public Works Department. 47. The applicant shall submit detail plans for the on -site drainage system(s) to demonstrate that it will prevent the underground garage from being flooded during storm events. 48. The Developer shall file one (1) Final Tract Map (Map) 49. The roadway cross section shown on the Map with a 110 -foot right -of -way width should be labeled as "Ocean Boulevard ". 50, The Map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD88). Prior to Map recordation, the surveyor /engineer preparing the Map shall submit to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a digital - graphic file of said map in a manner described in the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual. The Map to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the City's CADD Standards. Scanned images will not be accepted. 51. Prior to recordation, the Map boundary shall be tied onto the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Sections 7 -9- 330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 26 of 31 set On Each Lot Corner unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. 52. The applicant's request to vacate the existing sewer /utilities easement shall be approved by the City Utilities Department prior to the issuance of a building permit or the recordation of the final tract map. The existing private ingress/egress easement with the same width, length, and alignment as the existing sewer /utilities easement shall be vacated or permission from the beneficiaries of the private easement shall be documented prior to the issuance of a building permit o the recordation of the final tract map. 53. A 5 -foot wide public sewer and utilities easement as measured from the centerline of the existing sewer main fronting the development site shall be recorded against the property. The applicant shall prepare and submit the legal description for said easement for City review and approval. 54. All easements of record shall be recorded as a part of the Final Map. 55. All improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the current edition of the City Design Criteria, Standard Special Provisions, and Standard Drawings. 56. The sidewalk portion of the proposed new driveway approach shall be constructed with 2% cross -fall per City Standards. 57. Temporary construction sheet piles shall be installed to protect all existing storm drain and sanitary sewer mains within and adjacent to the development site. 58. No structures or construction tie -backs shall be constructed within the limits of any easements or public right -of -way without the approval of an Encroachment Agreement and Permit. 59. Full -width concrete sidewalk and curb and gutter shall be constructed along the length of the Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard frontages. The new sidewalk shall join the existing sidewalk in front of 2501 Ocean Boulevard. 60. New concrete curbs shall be dowelled into sound concrete roadway pavement. 61. Trees shall not be installed at locations where mature tree roots could damage the existing City sewer main. 62. The plans suggested there will be a 40 -foot (40) drop from the top of proposed perimeter /retaining walls along the Carnation Avenue property line to the garden below. The proposed top of wall is shown on the Plans as 15" above the sidewalk finish surface. Adequate safety provisions for pedestrians and W/B Ocean Boulevard City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 27 of 31 vehicle traffic shall be shown on building plans along the length of said walls and shall be implemented throughout the life of the project. 63. Each dwelling unit shall be served by its individual water service and sewer lateral connection and cleanout. 64. All utility connections shall be placed underground in accordance with the Subdivision Code. 65. The garage space for Unit 8 on the basement level shall be relocated across the parking aisle from Guest Parking 4 as the removal of the garage wall from this side of Parking Level 2 will provide enhanced maneuvering area for vehicles. 66. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review and approval by the Traffic Engineer and any corrections /modifications shall be made to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. 67. All non - standard improvements within the public right -of -way would require an Encroachment Agreement and Encroachment Permit. 68. Curb cuts within the public right -of -way leading to the pedestrian walkways shall not be permitted. Standard curb, gutter and sidewalk shall be installed. 69. Gates shall not be designed to open out into the public right -of -way. 70. Raised planters shall not be permitted within the Public right -of -way. Planting adjacent to the curb shall accommodate a vehicle car door opening. Project landscape plans shall provide details of the planters and shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 71. The driveway approaches within the public right -of -way shall be shall be narrowed to the width of garage openings they serve. Six -inch curbs shall have a 3 foot flare. Drive approaches shall be modified to comply with ADA requirements. 72. Planters adjacent to the freight elevators shall be pulled back from the Carnation Avenue property line two feet to improve vehicle maneuvering. Planters in the front yard shall not encroach into the projection of the garage door edge. 73. No structural support column shall be located in the middle of the driveway leading to the parking area located on Level 4. 74. The loading area adjacent to the ADA accessible stall shall be 8 -foot wide. 75. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare a study of the existing drainage area and catch basin in Carnation Avenue to determine the appropriate size of catch basin. The developer shall enlarge the existing catch basin accordingly. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 28 of 31 76. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee shall be paid. 77. Prior to the issuance of agradingor building permit, the applicant shall prepare a construction phasing plan and construction delivery plan that includes routing of large vehicles. The plan shall include a haul route plan for review and approval of the Public Works Department. Said plan shall specify the routes to be traveled, times of travel, total number of trucks, number of trucks per hour, time of operation, and safety /congestion precautions (e.g., signage, flagmen). Large construction vehicles shall not be permitted to travel narrow streets and alleys as determined by the Public Works Department. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. The plans shall include a provision that maintains the public right -of -way open to vehicular and pedestrian traffic after working hours daily. 78. Where vehicles leave the construction site and enter adjacent public streets, any visible track -out extending for more than fifty (50) feet from the access point shall be swept within thirty (30) minutes of deposition. 79. Prior to commencement of demolition and grading, the applicant shall submit to the City calculations showing the proposed travel route for haul trucks, the distance traveled, and how many daily truck trips that can be accommodated to ensure that the daily cumulative miles traveled is below the assumed total vehicle miles traveled in the quantitative air quality assessment of the Mitigated negative declaration. Building Department 80. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City of Newport Beach. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City- adopted version of the California Building Code. The facility shall be designed to meet fire protection requirements and shall be subject to review and approval by the Newport Beach Building and Fire Departments. 81. The proposed project shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, any local amendments to the UBC, and State Disabled Access requirements, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 82. County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 83. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared and approved by the City of Newport Beach as the local permitting agency in accordance with the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The SWPPP shall include BMPs to eliminate andlor minimize stormwater pollution prior to, and during construction. The SWPPP shall require construction to occur in stages and stabilized prior to disturbing other areas and City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 29 of 31 require the use of temporary diversion dikes and basins to trap sediment from run -off and allow clarification prior to discharge. 84. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the applicant shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying the Best Management Practices (BMP's) that will be used on site to control predictable pollutant runoff. The plan shall identify the types of structural and non - structural measures to be used. The plan shall comply with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). Particular attention should be addressed to the appendix section "Best Management Practices for New Development." The WQMP shall clearly show the locations of structural BMP's, and assignment of long term maintenance responsibilities (which shall also be included in the Maintenance Agreement). The plan shall be prepared to the format of the DAMP title "Water Quality Management Plan Outline" and be subject to the approval of the City. 85. Prior to the issuance of the grading or building permit, the applicant shall obtain a NPDES permit. The applicant shall incorporate storm water pollutant control into erosion control plans using BMPs to the maximum extent possible. Evidence that proper clearances have been obtained through the State Water Resources Control Board shall be given to the Building Department prior to issuance of grading permits. 86. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the applicant shall submit evidence to the City Building Official that the applicant has obtained coverage under the NPDES statewide General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. 87. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) in a manner meeting approval of the City Building Official, to demonstrate compliance with local and state water quality regulations for grading and construction activities. The ESCP shall identify how all construction materials, wastes, grading or demolition debris, and stockpiles of soil, aggregates, soil amendments, etc. shall be properly covered, stored, and secured to prevent transport into local drainages or coastal waters by wind, rain, tracking, tidal erosion, or dispersion. The ESCP shall also describe how the applicant will ensure that all Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be maintained during construction of any future public right -of -ways. A copy of the current ESCP shall be kept at the project site and be available for City of Newport Beach review on request. The ESCP shall include and require the use of soil stabilization measures for all disturbed areas. 88. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the project applicant shall document to the City of Newport Beach Building Department that all facilities will be designed and constructed to comply with current seismic safety standards and the current City- adopted version of the Uniform Building Code. 89. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, a geotechnical report shall be submitted with construction drawings for plan check. The Building Department shall ensure that the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 30 of 31 project complies with the geotechnical recommendations included in the preliminary geologic investigation as well as additional requirements, if any, imposed by the Newport Beach Building Department. 90. Prior to issuance of the building permit, school impacts fees will be paid to the Building Department to assist in funding school facility expansion and educational services to area residents. Mitigation Measures from the Mitigated Negative Declaration 91. Mitigation Measure 111 -1 — 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. 92. Mitigation Measure I11-2 — 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. 93. Mitigation Measure I11-3 — 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. 94. Mitigation Measure I11-4 — 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. 95. Mitigation Measure 111 -5 — The construction contractor shall encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction workers. 96. Mitigation Measure I11-6 — 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, 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. 97. Mitigation Measure V -1 — During excavation and grading of the site, paleontological monitoring shall be conducted by an experienced monitor under the direction of the project paleontologist. if fossil remains are found by the monitor, earthmoving shall City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 31 of 31 be diverted temporarily around the fossils until the remains have been recovered and the monitor agrees to allow earthmoving to proceed. 98. Mitigation Measure IX- -1— The applicant shall dedicate a view easement as described and depicted on Exhibit J within the project overview prepared by the project architect however, the easement would only affect the project site. Structures and landscaping within the easement area shall not be permitted to block public views. The easement shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit for new construction and shall be reflected on the final tract map. 99. Mitigation Measure IX -2 — Accessory structures shall be relocated or removed if threatened by coastal erosion. Accessory structures shall not be expanded and routine maintenance of accessory structures is permitted. 100. Mitigation Measure IX-3 — Bluff landscaping shall consist of native, drought tolerant plant species. 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. 101. Mitigation Measure XV -1: 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 City Engineer. 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. Construction traffic routes shall be included and shall avoid narrow residential streets, unless there is no alternative, and shall not include any streets where some form of construction is underway within or adjacent to the street that would impact the efficacy of the proposed route. The approved construction staging, parking traffic control plan shall be implemented throughout each major construction phase. Letter from Tim Paone on behalf of the applicantnt datehit d Match 270, 2007 Z7 manatt manatt I phelps I Phillips March 28, 2007 James Campbell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Aerie (PA2005 -196) Dear Mr. Campbell: Tim Paone Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP Direct Dial: (714) 371 -2519 E -mail: tpaone @manatt.com I am writing on behalf of Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. ( "Advanced ") with respect to the Aerie project at 201 -205 & 207 Carnation and 101 Bayside. Since the February 22, 2007, Planning Commission hearing on the project, a number of design changes have been made in response to the direction of the Commission, all of which are reflected in revised submittals. This letter is written before distribution of the staff report for the April 5, 2007, hearing on the project, and may be supplemented once that report is released. This letter will focus on the February 22 staff report's analysis of two specific CLUP policies, as well as demonstrate why the application should be found to be in compliance with those policies. Those policies are: Policy 4.4.3 -8. Prohibit development on bluff faces, except private development on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar determined to be consistent with the predominant line of existing development or public improvements providing public access, protecting coastal resources, or providing for public safety. Permit such improvements only when no feasible alternative exists and when designed and constructed to minimize alteration of the bluff face, to not contribute to further erosion of the bluff face, and to be visually compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible. Policy 4.4.3 -9. Where principal structures exist on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar, require all new development to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development in order to protect public coastal views. Establish a predominant line of development for both principle structures and accessory improvements. The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure safety and stability of the development. 695 Town Center Drive, 14th Floor, Costa Mesa, California 92626 -1924 Telephone: 714.371.2500 Fax: 714.3712550 Albany I Los Angeles I New York I Orange County I Palo Alto I Sacramento I Washington, D.C. WA manatt manatt I phelps I phillips March 28, 2007 Page 2 The implications of both the February 22 staff report and the applicant's discussions with staff are that this application represents the Planning Commission's first opportunity to apply those policies. While the applicant recognizes that each application for a coastal project can present its own distinct issues, we also urge the Commission to note that the CLUP was in place roughly a year before the City's amended general plan was approved by the voters in November 2006. The general plan and the CLUP should not be confused. This simply is not the first time that the City has considered a project in the context of the CLUP policies. So while it is correct to say that the decision in this case could, as with any approval, serve as precedent for other cases, it would not be correct to assume that there is no existing precedent under the existing CLUP. To properly understand and apply these CLUP policies, it also is important to consider all of the guidance provided in the CLUP and not just the isolated language of the policies. Of great significance is the statement contained in Section 4.4.3 at Page 4 -76 of the CLUP: "Corona del Mar is one of the few areas in the coastal zone where there is extensive development of the bluff face, specifically, residential development on Avocado Avenue, Pack Avenue, Carnation Avenue, and Ocean Boulevard. The initial subdivision and development of these areas occurred prior to the adoption of policies and regulations intended to protect coastal bluffs and other landforms. Development in these areas is allowed to continue on the bluff face to be consistent with the existing development pattern and to protect coastal views from the bluff top. However, development on the bluff face is controlled to minimize further alteration. " (Emphasis added.) Thus, the CLUP expressly intended to allow continued development on the bluff face of this property provided that it is "consistent with the existing development pattern." That statement, however, is followed by another statement that, only if viewed in isolation, could lead to a contradictory conclusion about development on the bluff face: "...development on the bluff face [shall be] controlled to minimize further alteration." Although the pending application is before the City and not the Coastal Commission, the policies to be interpreted are CLUP policies, and those policies are based upon a Coastal Commission - certified LUP. Further, because a full LCP has not yet been adopted, when this application reaches the Coastal Commission, the Commission will treat the CLUP as guidance only. Therefore, there is much to be learned from the Coastal Commission's analysis of the CLUP policies which were not only certified by the Coastal Commission, but in some instances drafted by Commission staff as recommended modifications to the City's proposed LUP. That, of course, means that 30 manatt manatt I phelps I phillips March 28, 2007 Page 3 those policies did not necessarily originate with the City or its committees which worked on the City's proposed LUP and, therefore, random recollections of the intent of those committees, the Planning Commission, or the City Council are not instructive. Based upon a review of the Coastal Commission staff report dated September 28, 2005 (see the staff report at http7l/WWW.coastal.ca.gov/lb/Th8d-10-2005.pd , the statement set forth above from Page 4 -76 of the CLUP was, in fact, drafted by Coastal Commission staff as a proposed modification to the City's proposed LUP. Similarly, CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -9 was drafted by Coastal Commission staff. Therefore, Coastal Commission interpretation and application of these very policies in prior actions in Newport Beach is relevant to the Aerie application. Further, although the references below are to the Coastal Commission's actions, the preceding City decisions were less restrictive than the Coastal Commission's decision. As a result, the precedent discussed below is even more restrictive than the City Council's precedents for the same projects. It is a very basic principle of law that these policies should be read in a manner that gives meaning to each of them. It is not a matter of choosing one over the other, but of reconciling them so that all have meaning. So the question becomes, "How does the City both allow continued development on the bluff face AND control development to minimize further alteration"? The answer, of course, is not to choose one directive over the other, but rather to interpret and apply the policies in a manner which implements both directives. To gain insight into the analysis which must be undertaken to simultaneously give meaning to both directives, review should be made of earlier planning decisions involving the very same CLUP policies which are at issue with this application. In November 2006, the Coastal Commission approved an application for the demolition. of an existing house and the construction in its place of a new duplex at 3130 Breakers Drive in Corona del Mar. This construction differed significantly from the Aerie application because the construction was at the base of the bluff and went up the bluff, whereas Aerie starts on top of the bluff and comes down. The principles related to predominant line of development and bluff face alteration, however, are the same. What is important to note about the Breakers application is that even though there was a pre- existing house proposed for demolition, the Commission did not interpret the "predominant line of development" as being established by the pre- existing house. Rather, the Commission used the extent of adjacent development to establish the maximum distance which the new structure could ascend up the bluff. The new house was proposed to rise to a 70' elevation on the bluff face, while the tallest adjacent property was at 52'. The Commission, therefore, limited the new house to the 52' contour line. The issue of minimizing bluff alteration was, as it should be, treated as a separate consideration from the predominant line of development issue. It was not used 3/ manatt manatt I Phelps I phillips March 28, 2007 Page 4 to change the predominant line of development, but rather to assess whether the "amount of grading would be the minimal amount necessary to construct the project." The policies of the CLUP were in effect when this Coastal Development Permit was analyzed and approved. This action clarifies that the predominant line of development should first be determined on the basis of the extent of development of existing adjacent structures or adjacent series of structures, and then the development of the project within the resulting building envelope should be accomplished in a manner which has the least impact on the bluff face. With Aerie, the proposed plans are, on each elevation of the project, within the predominant line of development of the adjacent series of structures. In January of this year, the Coastal Commission considered an application for the demolition and reconstruction of a home at 3415 Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar. Again, while specifically referencing Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9, the Coastal Commission addressed the predominant line of existing development on the basis of the maximum extent of the adjacent series of structures. These are but two decisions under the current CLUP which demonstrate that establishing the predominant line of development is a separate exercise from minimizing alteration of the bluff face. These and other decisions also clarify that in determining the predominant line of development, the most important factor is the maximum extent of encroachment of other structures in the area, typically those within the same viewable area. When these principles are applied to the Aerie project, it becomes apparent that the extent of encroachment onto the bluff face is within the predominant line of development, with that line being drawn at a different contour line for each perspective of the building as it wraps around a "turn" in the bluff. It also is indisputably clear that the CLUP intends that structures in this area be permitted to descend down the bluff to the predominant line of development. Once that line has established a building envelope, there is a separate obligation to limit alteration of the bluff face while still allowing construction of the proposed project within that building envelope. The Aerie proposal meets these requirements. The Planning Commission not only can, but, to be consistent with all prior decisions under the CLUP, should find as follows: The project complies with Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9 of the CLUP which expressly permit construction on the bluff face at this location. The project will be constructed within the predominant line of development for the immediate area. That line is defined by the series of structures immediately upcoast from the project for the northerly elevation of the project at the 44' contour line, and by the series of structures immediately downcoast from the project for the westerly 32 manatt manatt I phelps I phillips March 28, 2007 Page 5 elevation of the project at the 29' contour line. The project minimizes alteration to the bluff face because, within the building envelope defined by the predominant line of development, the proposed alteration of the bluff face is the minimal amount necessary to construct the project. By taking this approach, which is consistent with prior actions of both the City and the Coastal Commission in interpreting the very CLUP policies which are at issue here, the Planning Commission will have given effect to not only these policies, but the statement from the LUP quoted earlier in this letter and repeated here, in part: "Corona del Mar is one of the few areas in the coastal zone where there is extensive development of the bluff face; specifically, residential development on Avocado Avenue, Pacific Avenue, Carnation Avenue, and Ocean Boulevard.... consistent with the ezistinp development pattem and to protect coasta from the bluff top. However, development on the bluff face is controlled to minimize further alteration." (Emphasis added.) With the changes to project design since the February 22 hearing, we believe the project fully complies with both the Planning Commission's direction and those policies of the City's General Plan and CLUP which were brought into question with the previous Staff Report. Specifically, we urge the Planning Commission to approve the project as modified and to find compliance with the policies of the CLUP. Sincerely, Tim Paone 70042339.1 33 Exhibit No. 4 Staff recommended predominant line of existing development 35 4L Aerie Project R) Predominant Line of Existing Development 37 7711-F-P � Based Upon Vertical Extent of Development Mteu carnation_predominant—line2nd—version.mxd MarchI2007 m . p c: VA � . §. y \.. \(� < .: _17& 4 «-« C d E a O d O L C MENEM N W O 0 C J G C O as L a N 3 a� 39 Exhibit No. 5 Visual simulation of the proposed project q1 I A� w1laftomp., 0 N 3 a) qq Exhibit No. 6 Visual simulation of the project within staffs recommended predominant line of existing development y5 I "v A I/ f A Z Exhibit No. 7 Visual simulation of Staffs recommendation vq 2/ 71 \ � \ƒ C O.� J ^ ca s. C � U. N E Oc V � 1i r+ ME � a N 3 d Sz Exhibit No. 8 Revised project plans (Separate roll of plans) 5'i� Exhibit No. 9 Commissioner Eaton's comments and staff responses 55 Commissioner Eaton's comments on the 2/22/07 staff report and staff responses 1) The footnote to the table on page 3 states that the "Common areas include .... all parking areas "; but there is column that separately details the garage areas for each unit. Do these two overlap, or is there 3,369 sq. ft. of garages, plus additional parking areas included in the 20,687 sq. ft. of common area? Each unit has an enclosed garage that is not included in the 20,687 square foot common area 2) The last sentence in the top paragraph on page 10 states that "If the project is found consistent with Coastal Land Use Policies, the project is also consistent with the Land Use and Natural Resource Elements (of the General Plan)." Is this literally true? Are there are no policies whatever in either the Land Use or Natural Resource Elements of the General Plan that go beyond the Coastal Land Use Policies, or that address themselves to topics not included in the Coastal Land Use Policies? (I thought that there were a few inconsistencies between them that needed resolving.) Staff reviewed all elements of the General Plan and compiled a listing of all applicable policies. The Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) policies are more specific and cover all of the topics contained within applicable General Plan policies. Therefore, if it is determined that the project is consistent with applicable CLUP policies, the project is consistent with the General Plan. 3) The 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph on page 18 states that "No view presently exists above the existing building other than sky views... ". Is this sentence intended to describe oublic views? (I would think that there may be private bay or ocean views above the existing building from some of structures on the lots a little uphill from this building.) The sentence refers to public views. There are private views over the existing building from the upper levels of residences across the street, but private views are not protected by policy. 4) The 2nd sentence of the 4th paragraph on page 9 states that "Although specific exterior finishes or building materials are not identified at this time... "; but the 4th sentence of the 1 st paragraph on page 22 states that "The new elevations with high quality materials and unique design will improve the streetscape aesthetic." How do you know that there will be "high quality materials" if the "building materials are not identified at this time "? This comment was based on the applicant and the architect's representation that they plan to use high quality materials. 5) The 3rd sentence of the 2nd paragraph on page 23 states that "Public improvements and not private development are subject to the policy directions (in the CLUP) to minimize alteration of the bluff face... ". Is this correct? I seem to remember a great deal of discussion when we were considering the adoption of the CLUP, of the effect of these policies on private development. The question relates to Policy 4.4.3 -8 which states: 4.4.3 -8. Prohibit development on bluff faces, except private development on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar determined to be consistent with the predominant line of existing development or public improvements providing public access, protecting coastal resources, or providing for public safety. Permit such improvements only when no feasible alternative exists and when designed and constructed to minimize alteration of the bluff face, to not contribute S7 Commissioner Eaton's comments on the 2/22/07 staff report and staff responses to further erosion of the bluff face, and to be visually compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible. The statement in the staff report is specific to the applicability of the second sentence of the policy to public improvements and not private development. Private development is subject to the Policies 4.4.3 -1 and 4.4.3 -12 that requires development to minimize alteration of the natural landforms. 6) In the further discussion on pages 23, 24 and 25, staff appears to be expressing some concern with the methodology utilized by the project architect in attempting to outline alternative interpretations of the CLUP language that refers to "predominant line of development'; goes on to state that staff had developed a method for determining this line in connection with the proposed CLU Implementation Plan; but then states (in the 3rd paragraph on page 25) that "..staff has not prepared an analysis (of this project) using the draft regulations and guidelines... ". Why not? If there are proposed draft regulations and guidelines, would not such an analysis here have been very useful to the Commission (and the City Council) in not only evaluating this project, but also in evaluating the validity and usefulness of the proposed regulations and guidelines? Within the proposed guidelines for bluff development, a methodology was identified using the median distance of development from a representative point or line. Staff measured the extent of development of 7 lots on Carnation Avenue including the project site and the abutting lot on Ocean Blvd. (2495 Ocean) from the front property line. We averaged the extent of the building on 2495 Ocean and the project site as they are not parallel to Carnation Avenue or Ocean Blvd. The median distance from the curb is 83.9 feet and the mean distance is 98.2 feet. Given the uniqueness of the area, the usefulness of the exercise is questionable. The draft guidelines were reviewed by the LCP Committee and no action has been taken since. 7) In the first full paragraph on page 26, the report discusses the possibility of using contour lines of 52 feet (above mean sea level) along the extension of Carnation, and 34 feet along the extension of Ocean Blvd. Exhibit 5 shows where these contours are on a plan view of the existing site, but there is no exhibit showing (in plan view) how the locations of these contours would overlay on the proposed project. Is that something that can be provided at the hearing Thursday evening, so that the Commission could evaluate the resulting difference? The architect prepared an exhibit showing these two contours, which was available at the 2/22/7 hearing. 8) The last sentence of the next to last paragraph on page 30 states that "Conditions of approval have been included to ensure compliance with Title 19." But no conditions of any kind have been provided thus far to the Commission, as far as I was able to determine. Did this intend to refer to conditions that will be furnished later in the process? That reference was in error and condition of approval will be provided at the appropriate time. 9) In light of the complexity of the project, it's very deep and horizontally confining excavation, and the rather unique method of access to the garages, I was a little surprised that these considerations did not seem to be addressed at all in the staff report. For instance, if access to 75% of the parking spaces can only be obtained by vehicular elevators, were any problems with this method of access evaluated? For example, drivers using small vehicular S8 Commissioner Eaton's comments on the 2/22/07 staff report and staff responses elevators are going to want to drive into them in a forward direction both going into and exiting the building. Were the turnaround areas for all of these parking spaces evaluated for their ability to allow the drivers to enter the spaces from the elevators, and to also exit the parking spaces and enter the elevators in a forward direction? What if there is a backup in the evening rush hour of residents (and guests) desiring to use the elevators at the same time, and where would such a queuing occur - in the street ROW? How will the elevators be secured? How will residents be able to access their vehicles to the street in the event of a power failure? The vehicle elevators are approximately 9.5 feet wide by 19 feet deep which exceeds our residential parking stall size. Vehicles can turn around in the garage levels so they will face forward when exiting the lifts. It is a little tight in the garage, and a few spaces will require several backing movements, but the Traffic Engineer finds that vehicles will be able to safely maneuver in the garage. If both elevators are in use and one wants access to the elevators, one will have to wait. Parking or waiting in the public right -of -way would occur in that instance. There will be a garage door to control access to the elevators but unlike a standard garage, the door won't open when the elevator car is not present. It will operate like an elevator and the applicant indicated to staff that the elevator car will return to the street level when not in use. The applicant plans on a back up power generator such that If the power is out, access will be provided. Please see the 4/5/07 staff report for further information. 10) As another example, with the nearest edge of this very deep excavation being only 5 feet from the street ROW, how and where will the dirt tracks be loaded? Will they have to be in the street? If so, how will the dirt be lifted up to them from the deeper levels of the proposed excavation? if there is a queuing of such trucks (and there will be a total of perhaps 3,000+ of them), will this also have to take place on the streets? Why did the environmental assessment and MND fail to discuss in any way whatsoever the traffic impacts of 3,000 round trip dirt truck trips on this area of CDM? (As best I can tell, that would probably mean 6,000 trucks passing through the intersection of PCH /Marguerite, for instance.) Shouldn't the MND have also discussed the air quality impacts of all these truck trips (as well as all the concrete truck trips) on the AQMD daily thresholds, as did the MNDs for the Dover & PCH and the Lennar projects? Will there need to be special mitigation measures or restrictions on such operations during the summer season? Given the size of the site and the fact that they plan to go down approximately 50 feet vertically, they will need to park the dirt haulers and cement trucks in a portion of the right -of way. Dirt will be brought to the street level by a conveyor or they will need a crane. The revised MND contains additional information on the number of trucks and the need for a constructiontparking management plan. The plan will be to conduct the dirt hauling outside of summer months and to maintain the sidewalk in front of the site for pedestrians during the evening hours. 11) The MND notes that there were 11 separate studies produced for this project, and relied upon in the MND. But none of those have been furnished to the Commission. Would not at least the Conceptual Grading Review Report, Water Quality Plan, and Traffic Analysis have been useful to our consideration of the MND and the project? The reports will be made available as soon as possible and they are available to the public at the Planning Department. The water quality plan was revised and submitted on March 27, 2007. N� General Plan Policies applicable to the AERIE Project Goal LU 1 - A unique residential community with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods, which values its colorful past, high quality of life, and community bonds, and balances the needs of residents, businesses, and visitors through the recognition that Newport Beach is primarily a residential community. Policy LU 1.3 Natural Resources Protect the natural setting that contributes to the character and identify of Newport Beach and the sense of place it provides for its residents and visitors. Preserve open space resources, beaches, harbor, parks, bluffs, preserves, and estuaries as visual, recreational and habitat resources. (Imp 1.1) Policy LU 1.6 Public Views Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points. (Imp 1.1) Goal LU 3 - A development pattern that retains and complements the City's residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts, open spaces, and natural environment. Policy LU 3.7 Natural Resource or Hazardous Areas Require that new development is located and designed to protect areas with high natural resource value and protect residents and visitors from threats to life or property. (Imp 2.1, 6.1) Goal NR 20 - Preservation of significant visual resources. Policy NR 20.1 Enhancement of Significant Resources 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. (Imp 2.1) Policy NR 20.2 New Development Requirements Require new development to restore and enhance the visual quality in visually degraded areas, where feasible, and provide view easements or corridors designed to protect public views or to restore public views in developed areas, where appropriate. (Imp 20.3) Page 1 of 3 ii General Plan Policies applicable to the AERIE Project. Policy NR 20.3 Public Views Protect and enhance public view corridors from the following roadway segments (shown in Figure NR3), and other locations may be identified in the future: ■ Ocean Boulevard (Note that figure NR3 identifies the intersection of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard as a "view point." A view point is also shown on the Balboa Peninsula at the east jetty.) Goal NR 22 - Maintain the intensity of development around Newport Bay to be consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. Policy NR 22.1 Regulation of Structure Mass Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. (Imp 2.1) Goal NR 23 - Development respects natural landforms such as coastal bluffs. Policy NR 23.1 Maintenance of Natural Topography Preserve cliffs, canyons, bluffs, significant rock outcroppings, and site buildings to minimize alteration of the site's natural topography and preserve the features as a visual resource. (Imp 2.1) Policy NR 23.7 New Development Design and Siting Design and site new development to minimize the removal of native vegetation, preserve rock outcroppings, and protect coastal resources. (Imp 2.1) Goal S 3 - Protection of people and property from the adverse effects of coastal erosion. Policy S 3.9 Shoreline Protection for New Development Require property owners to record a waiver of future shoreline protection for new development during the economic life of the structure (75 years) as a condition of approval of a coastal development permit for new development on a beach or shoreline that is subject to wave action, erosion, flooding, landslides, or other hazards associated with development on a beach or bluff. Shoreline protection may be permitted to protect existing structures that were legally constructed prior to the Page 2 of 3 60/ General Plan Policies applicable to the AERIE Project certification of the LCP, unless a waiver of future shoreline protection was required by a previous coastal development permit. (Imp2.1 Policy S 3.10 Bluff Stabilization Site and design new structures to avoid the need for shoreline and bluff protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years), unless an environmentally acceptable design to stabilize the bluff and prevent bluff retreat is devised. (Imp 2.1) Policy S 3.11 New Development Impact on Coastal Erosion Require that applications for new development with the potential to be impacted or impact coastal erosion include slope stability analyses and erosion rate estimates provided by a licensed Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer. (Imp 7.1) Policy S 3.12 Minimization of Coastal Bluff Recession Require new development adjacent to the edge of coastal bluffs to incorporate drainage improvements, irrigation systems, and /or native or drought- tolerant vegetation into the design to minimize coastal bluff recession. (Imp 7.1) Page 3 of 3 CP 2 Exhibit No. 10 Comments on the MND from Commissioner Toerge 63 Questions of Staff Discuss how the city determines the need for an EIR vs. a MND. Did the City's Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee review the MND? If so, where is report? If not, why? The CC can request that EQAC review any environmental document, can the PC make such a request? If not, I suggest that the PC consider a recommendation to the CC that they have EQAC review the MND. MND Questions: 1. c) Aesthetics Describe how the "Less than Significant Impact" determination was made. Under what circumstances would a determination of "Significant Impact" be found? IX. b) Land Use & Planning: Explain how the "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" determination was made. XI. b) Noise Describe how the "Less than Significant Impact" determination was made when there is no representation of how the excavation operation will be conducted. Page 22: Aesthetics The staff report and MND suggest that public views will be protected, however, the exhibits presented in the staff report depict the view from the public view site at Carnation and Ocean, however, it does not present graphics to illustrate the status of public views along Ocean Blvd, a street designated as a public view street. The view protection must take into consideration the dynamic nature of the view from various points along Ocean Blvd rather than a single point of reference at Carnation and Ocean. Page 28: Air Quality The MND inadequately addresses the Noise, Air Quality and Water Quality impacts associated with the tremendous amount of excavation and removal to occur on site. With 2,500 to 3,000 truck loads of material to be excavated and removed, together with who knows how many cement trucks and other delivery vehicles, the MND needs much work to address potential mitigation measures such as: How will trucks access the neighborhood and project site? Where will trucks stage while waiting to be filled? Will trucks be allowed to use the public right of way for staging? What is the planned haul route out of CdM? Page 29, Mitigation Measure III -2: Washing down the street is not an acceptable method for controlling the mess created by the hauling operation as doing so will flush the dirt and debris through the storm drain directly into the bay. Another method must be implemented. Page 29, Mitigation Measure III -3: When we get to the conditions of approval, delete the last portion of the last sentence so that all diesel powered vehicles and gasoline powered equipment shall be turned off when not in use. Trucks should turn off their engines as soon as they arrive on -site. (5 minutes is way too long). 66 Disallow the use of audible signals (horn honks, whistles, beeps, etc.) during the hauling and construction process. CB Radios or other discreet communication devices should be used. Page 29, Mitigation Measure III -4: Delivery of construction equipment is restricted during peak hour traffic periods. They also should be restricted in the early morning (before 7:00 am) hours. Page 29, Mitigation Measure III -5: Fails to address the parking demand of construction workers in a residential area. Include a Construction Parking Management plan for workers, idle equipment and materials. Page 40, Policies 4.4.1 -1 and 4.4.1 -2: Inadequately addresses the public view along Ocean Blvd. Page 41, First naraeranh The first two sentences are misleading and inaccurate. The calculations noted in items 1, 2 and 3 need additional information or references for the reader to confirm the claims made in this paragraph. The proposed development is bayward of the string -line noted in this paragraph. Page 42, Noise a) Construction noise impacts are not permanent; however, the reference to short term construction noise is questioned in that this is not a short term construction project. b) Excessive ground home vibration and noise Without a description of the method to be used to excavate, I cannot conclude that this is a Less Than Significant Impact. Depending on the method proposed, Mitigation Measures may be necessary. Request of Applicant and Presenters: Describe in detail the method of operation and vehicular movements necessary for each resident to utilize the garage, including auto elevators, vehicular circulation to each parking stall, garage assignments and path of travel between each residence and their respective garage, garage lifts, interior queuing at the elevators and exterior queuing of vehicles arriving to the site and waiting for the vehicle elevators, how are power outages are dealt with. Thoughts: Predominant Line of Development: Pursuant to the applicant's project overview (pagel2) the PLD should be gauged against a specified group of structures such as a block of homes on a coastal bluff rendering properties along Bayside Place irrelevant to this guideline. Cite the Ocean Blvd Breakers Drive comparison, As in other projects that have significant excavation, shoring and grading, I recommend a condition of approval that requires the applicant to secure a performance bond ensuring that once the excavation commences, it will be completed in the event of financial trouble. 66 Exhibit No. 11 Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration (separate bound document) 67 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH > 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 cy� ®oAN,� (949) 6443200 Mitigated Negative Declaration To: Office of Planning and Research X P.O. BOX 3044 Sacramento, CA 95B12 -3044 County Clerk, County, of Orange Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658.8915 (Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk Public review period. February 13"' through March 15, 2007 Name of Project: ARIE (PA2005 -196) Name of Project Proponent: Advanced Real. Estate Services, Inc., 23792 Rockfield Blvd. Suite 100, Lake Forest, CA 92630 Project Location: 201 -207 Carnation Avenue & 101 Bayside Place, Newport Beach, Orange County Project Description: Demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment building and single - family residence to construct a 7- level, 9 -unit condominium complex, appurtant facilities, grading and maintenance improvements to an existing private dock. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K -3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the City of Newport Beach has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is I@ attached ❑ on file at the Planning Department. The Initial Study includes mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision - maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider this project on at 6:30PM on February 22, 2007 in the Council Chambers in City Nall located at 3300. Newport Blvd., Neweport Beach, Ca 92663. Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project are be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. If you have any questions or would like further information, please contact the undersigned at • (949) 644 -3200. Date 2/10/2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM • Project Title: AERIE (PA2005 -196) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: James Campbell, Planning Department (949) 644 -3210 4. Project Location: 201 — 207 Carnation Avenue (West side of Carnation Avenue at the intersection of Ocean Boulevard) & 101 Bayside Place 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. 23792 Rockfield Blvd., Suite 100 Lake Forest, CA 92630 6. General Plan Designation: RT (Two -Unit Residential) & RM (Multiple -Unit Residential) — 20 du/acre 7. Zoning: R -2 (Two Family Residential) & • MFR (2178) (Multiple Family Residential, 2178 sq. ft. land per unit') 8. Description of Project: Demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment building (approximately 13,688 square feet of gross floor area) and single - family residence (approximately 2,810 square feet of gross floor area) to construct a new 9 -unit condominium complex. The existing structure has a total of four levels, three split levels visible above existing grade from the street, with all four levels visible from Newport Bay. The new structure will have a total of seven levels, three of which will be visible above the existing grade adjacent to the intersection of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. A total of 6 levels will be visible when viewed from the south and west from Newport Bay. The lowest level will be fully subterranean and will not be visible. The structure includes outdoor patios, decks and may include spas at each level. The project includes encroachments into the front and side setbacks much of which are which are subterranean. Approximately 32,400 cubic yards of earth will be excavated and removed from the site. The site currently consists of two parcels and a small portion of a third parcel (584 square feet) with a total area of 1.4 acres. Pursuant to Section 20.60.045 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the maximum density is calculated using the . total lot area minus slopes in excess of 50% and submerged lands. Page 1 The proposed 9 -unit condominiums will consist of the following areas: Unit No:: Levels Living Area Garage Storage Total.' (sq. ft.) (sq. ft.) : (sq, IFL). (sq. ft) 1 2 4,833 369 1,393 6,595 2 1 3,348 369 1,638 5,355 3 1 4,459 361 962 5,782 4 1 4,671 361 897 5,929 5 1 5,094 361 .794 6,249 6 2 4,091 368 824 5,283 7 2 5,211 369 863 6,443 8 3 4,962 442 734 '6,138 9 2 6,239 369 1,264. 7,872 Totals 42,908 3,369 9,369 56,646 Each unit will have a private storage room located in the lowest basement level. Additional amenities include a private spa, lounge, patio, locker room, exercise room, and a pool located on Levels 1. Two parking spaces per unit including a total of 7. guest parking spaces is provided on levels 1 through 4. level 4. is approximately 3 feet below the grade of Carnation and it will house residential units and two, 2 car garages and 3 guest spaces. All other parking is below street grade and is accessed from Carnation Avenue utilizing two freight elevators. Those areas (including the subterranean garage and drive aisles) total 20,687 sq. ft. and when added to the floor area devoted for the residential units, a total gross floor area of 76,333 sq. ft. is proposed. The upper portion of the existing stairs that provides private access from the apartment building to the. water and existing docks. _Construction of a ramp from the lowest sub - basement level • connecting it to the existing stairs leading to the existing docks is also proposed. Las4&t this time, the project will atse ia�proposes no improvements to the existing private boat desk iacreasiagdocks. Any future permit application to modify the berthiRO existing boat docks will require its own environmental review consistent with CEQA. A comprehensive set of architectural plans, conceptual grading plans and a tract map is attached for reference. The following discretionary approvals are requested or required by the City in order to implement the project: General Plan Amendment (GP2005 -006) Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment (LC2005 -002) Zone Change (CA2005 -009) Tract Map (NT2005- 004/TT16882) Modification Permit (MD2005 -087) Coastal Residential Development Permit (CR2005 -002) 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is currently developed with a 14 -unit apartment building (201 -205 Carnation) and a single family residence (207 Carnation). The site is a steeply sloping coastal bluff and cliff and is subject to marine erosion. The westerly portion of the site is partly submerged, rocky and there is a small sandy cove at the base of the landform. The buildings are located at • the top of the bluff and the westerly extent of the foundation is located on the most elevated portions of the landform. A staircase presently exists on the bluff face that connects the Page 2 apartment building with an existing, irregularly shaped, concrete pad (approximately 720 square feet) private floating dock bayward of the rocks: Vegetation and exposed rock formations cover the landform below the existing building. West of the project site is the main entrance to Newport Bay from the Pacific:Ocean and the eastern end of Balboa Peninsula. North of the site are single family and multi - family residences on Carnation Avenue and Bayside Place. The western side. of Carnation Avenue is a developed coastal bluff with Bayside Place located directly below. Bayside Place provides access to single family residences constructed on previously filled submerged lands. South and east of the site are multi - family residential buildings developed on the coastal bluff face between Ocean Boulevard and Newport Bay. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Coastal Development Permit — Califomia Coastal Commission Vicinity Map Page 3 • U • • A • A 7 gmy* VC, T1, "T c W S- a6aach IF Santa -Midlimay.crty K Cl DC Ed �4.po, Ayi_ Ud B..k.4. mil. ,h in amer Aw A,! 55 r 2el '44 % Fountain Valie'y 1 Dy I.". 4. A c,zV, ®kWS wsun lkP ulan.. *Irvine F,A Huntington Beach vl., Munn v w Pa 73 T, & RqSa06 l4avkaq, Telaklas 1 A T Costa o t Mesa e.sa Ne4offBeach Pa .5r Say snwe 41. Ud. 1� e,I BdIb.. D 1 .1 M.rl v w Pa 73 T, & RqSa06 l4avkaq, Telaklas 1 +r�ndn+he�l3 Westminstef •.. cdoniaw�n�s'i _ —!7,W "� l 6 I Bab CiY 5 C x^ T AM LhuMry W s w Sella Ana BM1d �'. ''� Santa Ana ' OIAaEO eol rt.e �n { + m A a � ,a 9_ E ff Yer ad Etl n e Ave w � a3 k aid Dadu�s 1 � SaM Au GaMms— I pP q +i„} B dYp 1N •I Ae. wWa Aw Ewim Ava a5 h " wm rtmp a Fountain Valley a, aY Maunhiu2l a Talh � n Pf -n .�EIIb Ma � WSapn AT Su A Aw I yft7wa a- ary4` c' PBeach • as i San Of y ar+rc h q Worry p v3 ' cryrtal ^ore I 33 s Wn Bnmld9aY .. 3rmka TaPOr TF ' DaU.® ;0,06 tlaWaq, TdeA16s Page 5 u • Location Map 0 Page 6 Aerial Photograph • Page 7 0 0 Existing General Plan Land Use Designations Existing Zoning Designations • Page 9 0 • oC 0 z • • A. QT Proposed Zoning CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Proposed Lot Line Adjustment Area subject to land use designation changes � <� < Off, 4�71�i -1 Legend MFR - Waffw* ReWmtW It-2. Twofaffdy RaWentW Page,10 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this. project, • involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Public Services ❑ Agricultural Resources ❑ Land Use & Planning ❑ Recreation • Air Quality ❑ Hydrology & Water Quality ❑ Transportation/Traffic • Biological Resources ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Utilities & Service Systems • Cultural Resources ❑ Noise • Geology & Soils ❑ Population & Housing ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the • environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ❑ February 10, 2007 _ Submitted by: James Campbell, Senior Planner Date Planning Department Page 11 • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Potentially Fetentially Less than No Significant Less Than Significant Impact Impact Significant With Impact Uale .5 . Mitigation Incorporated I. AESTHETICS. ❑ ❑ Would the project: 0 a) Have a substantial adverse effect ❑ on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic ❑ resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? C) Substantially degrade the existing ❑ visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial ❑ light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique ❑ Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for ❑ agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? C) Involve other changes in the ❑ existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? . III. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct ❑ implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ❑ Q ❑ ❑ o 0 ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ Q Page 12 ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ Q Page 12 b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? C) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modificadons,.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? b)....Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally.protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Less Than Significant Impact Impact Significant With Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ a 0 0 J C 0 �1 n 0 CJ • Page 13 • • d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree . preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would . the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Kentially petewtially Less than No gnificant Less Than Significant Impact Impact Significant With Unless Impact Mitigation . ❑ Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ o a ❑ ❑ 8. ❑ Page: 14 ❑ ❑ ❑ R1. ❑ a ❑ a. Q ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ 8. ❑ Page: 14 i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) . Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? dj Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Potentially AeiewtiaNy Lessthan Significant Less Than Significant Impact Significant With Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 n n El ❑ L No Impact • 0 ❑ • ❑ e ❑ u C B • Page 15 0 ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ • ❑ e ❑ u C B • Page 15 • • • b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which. is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to.the public or the environment? e) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: >tentially Potential! Less than No gnificant Less Than significant Impact Impact Significant With 'iniess Impact Mitigation Incorporated U 0 n ❑ ❑ J 0 Page 16 ❑ ❑ B Page 16 a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a, course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a'100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Potentially Fetewtia4 Less than No Significant Less Than . Significant Impact Impact Significant Wth Unless Impact Mitigation . Incorporated ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ .. 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ D ❑ ❑ ❑ H Page 17 •. • • • r] • Page: 18 Potentially Patent ally Lass than No Significant Less Than Significant Impact Impact Significant With Unless Impact . Mitigation . Incorporated i) Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? D Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q mudflow? k) Result in significant alteration of ❑ ❑ Q ❑ receiving water quality during or following construction? 1) Result in a potential for discharge of ❑ ❑ ❑✓ ❑ stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or. equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? m) Result in the potential for discharge ❑ ❑ Q ❑ of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? n) Create the potential for significant ❑ ❑ Q ❑ changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? o) Create significant increases in ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? IX: LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Physically divide an established ❑ ❑ ❑ Q community? b) Conflict with any applicable land ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or.mitigating an environmental effect? Page: 18 Potentially Pateniial, Less than No Significant Less Than Significant Impact Impact SignificaMWth Impact Nnless Mitigation Incorporated c) Conflict with any applicable habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ B . ❑ ❑ 0 U 0 �J • B ❑ • 8 ❑ ❑ 0 0 ❑ Page 19 • conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a ❑ known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a ❑ locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or ❑ generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or ❑ generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ❑ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic ❑ increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an ❑ airport land use or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ❑ ❑ 0 U 0 �J • B ❑ • 8 ❑ ❑ 0 0 ❑ Page 19 • • • u f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working. in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered govemment facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION Potentially Potential! Less than No significant . Less Than Significant Impact Impact SignificantWth Unless Impact ❑ Mitigation . Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ . Q. ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Page 20 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Page 20 Page 21 • • V Potentially Aetential, Lessthan No Significant Less Than Significant Impact Impact Significant With Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Would the project increase the use ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include ❑ ❑ ❑ recreational facilities, or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Opportunities? XV. TRANSPORTATION(rRAFFIC Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is ❑ ❑ ❑ B 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)? b) Exceed either individually or ❑ ❑ ❑ cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? C) Result in a change in air traffic ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due ❑ ❑ ❑ to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency ❑ ❑ ® ❑ access? f) Result in inadequate parking ❑ ❑ ❑ capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, ❑ ❑ ❑ plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Page 21 • • V • • XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Less Than Significant Impact Would the project: Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment. ❑ requirements of the applicable ❑ v❑. Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction ❑ of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? C) Require or result in the construction ❑ of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies ❑ available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the ❑ wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient ❑ permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and ❑ local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? potentially Less than No Less Than Significant Impact Significant With klnless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ v❑. LN El O a ❑ ❑ B ❑ Q O a ❑ ❑ B XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF PGtontiall - ,&than No SIGNIFICANCE. Unless kppaot WigatieR RGGFPGF8t-d . a) Does the project have the potential ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ to degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that ❑ ❑ ❑ are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have ❑ ❑ ❑ H environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Page 23 • • J XVII.. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS • This section of the Initial Study evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and provides expanations of the responses to the Environmental Checklist. The environmental analysis in this section is patterned after the questions in the Environmental Checklist. Under each issue area, a general discussion of the existing conditions is provided according to the environmental analysis of the proposed Project's impacts. To each question, there are four possible responses: . . • No Impact. The proposed project will not have any measurable environmental impact on the environment. • Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will have the potential for impacting the environment, although this impact will be below thresholds that may be considered significant. • Less Than Significant Nnpael-With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project will have potentially significant adverse impacts which may exceed established threshold°, , ^' ; however, mitigation measures or changes to the proposed project's physical or operational characteristics will reduce these impacts to levels that are less than significant. "Meares the may ed Ge this] n^ ^'Those mitigation measures are .�ak„ W. a specified herein.: • Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project will have impacts that are considered significant and additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could.reduce these impacts to insignificant levels. When an impact is determined to be potentially significant in the preliminary analysis, the environmental issue will be subject to detailed analysis in an environmental impact report (EIR). The references and sources used for the analysis are also identified with each response. • I. AESTHETICS The proposed project is located in a developed urban area that includes single family residential uses to the north, east .and south, and the property fronts Newport Bay to the west. The overall vicinity is generally characterized by single family and multiple family residential buildings and Newport Bay. The project site is currently developed with a multi -story, 14 -unit apartment building and a two -level single family residence. The proposed project will result in a new 9 -unit condominium structure that will be constructed seven stories down the bluff (two levels above Carnation Avenue and five levels below the street). The result of the project will be a change in the type and design of the structure as viewed from the street level, and the overall building height will be increased by approximately 10 feet over the existing multiple- family structure and approximately 8 feet over a portion of the existing single family structure as measured from the front street grade level. The project will not result in blocking public views of the Bay or other significant public view features, and will not significantly block views from surrounding residential units. a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. The certified Coastal Land Use Plan and the General Plan indicates a public view at the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. Additionally, Ocean Boulevard east of the project site is a designated view street. View's from Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard presently exist between the existing apartment building and a fence and garage structure located on the abutting property to the south and east. Existing development of the site blocks the view to the north from . these public roads. The project will result in a structure that is approximately 10 to 20 feet higher than the existing structures located on the same site. The structure is designed to conform to the existing 28 foot height limit imposed by the Newport Beach Zoning Code. Although the proposed structure is higher than existing structures, the new structure will not likely impede public or private views of the bay and coastline due to the location of the proposed structure. The existing view to the south measures 25 degrees while • standing in the optimal position within the public right of way closest to the structure. The view will be maintained and increased to 32 degrees due to the position of the proposed building with the southwest Page 24 wall of the proposed new structure located approximately 8'/: feet to the north of the existing building wall, . thereby increasing the distance between the proposed structure and the existing single family residence to the south. Views to the west from Ocean Boulevard will also be unaffected due to the increased Jdistance between buildings. See the illustration of the proposed changes in the public vista at the intersection of Ocean Blvd /Carnation Avenue later in this section of the Initial Study. b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings with a state scenic highway? Less than Significant Impact. The site is a coastal bluff with a rocky intertidal area at the base of the bluff. The intertidal area has small cove with a sandy beach surrounded by rocks. The upper portion of the steeply sloping bluff is vegetated and the lower portion has exposed rocks. These resources are Visible from many public spaces on the most easterly and of the Balboa Peninsula and from Newport Bay. The location of the proposed building is above the exposed rocks of the bluff and intertidal areas. These areas will remain undisturbed. The site is not visible from a designated scenic highway as. no, scenic highway is located in the vicinity of the project site. No historic buildings are located within the project site and none will be affected by the project. C) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less than Significant Impact. Existing buildings presently cover the highest and flattest portions of the site and is approximately 22% of the entire site. Coverage is approximately 27% of the area of the site • Page 25 �'� Sr.Y � ;. '�rx '� ;, - ! :� ,. ��, t; ,. �� ; , b 1. `Y� f � T > ar< a, 'C F;Y. .� Y J �i �' .JQ y ^� 1 �. . N:.' �.� i .� . '- r'+ i N N m cc a • • • I above mean low water. The proposed building will cover approximately 24.8% of the site and the it will be approximately 30.4% of the site above mean low water. ^^`° °^ ^!!° ^ ^ ^`. ^^ ^ 6iR qua theme. The existing apartment building was constructed in 1949 and the adjacent home built in 1955. These structures are not aesthetically pleasing, especially.with open carports and parked vehicles dominating the ground level of the apartment building facing Carnation Avenue. Their architectural aesthetic than haracter is below the The visual character of the area as viewed from public spaces to the west (Newport Bay and Balboa Peninsula) will change with the proposed building covering more of the bluff face. The upper portion of the steeply sloping bluff is vegetated and the lower portion has exposed rocks. This quality will be reduced where the proposed building covers what is now open space. The proposed building will extend down the bluff face between 20 to 30 feet below the existing buildings The northern portion of the proposed structure will extend further down the landform to an approximate elevation of 41.25 feet above mean sea level, approximately 30 feet vertically below the existing single family home. Roughly 10 feet of. the cliff above the homes located on Bayside Place will remain undisturbed. The western portion of the proposed building will extend downward approximately 20 feet below the existing apartment building with • roughly 26 feet of the bluff above mean low tide remaining undisturbed. • Page 30 M m l0 a • • r � LJ e. in E. `. 4 (E �q. M d m a • • 1 Om O L • M d co a There is a line of 4, multi-level homes along Carnation Avenue north of the site that appear to sit atop the bluff when viewed from the west. In fact, these structures are 2 or more levels below the level of Carnation Avenue and excavation of the coastal bluff occurred in the past. The bluff /home interface of the • adjacent property to the north is approximately at 53 feet above mean sea level. The existing home and apartment building are at a higher elevation (roughly 70 feet). The development of the properties to the south and east of the project site extend much further down the bluff face. The closest building foundation to the south and east is between 30 to 25 feet. The northern elevation of the proposed structure immediately steps down to approximately 41.25 feet and the lower. extent of the structure remains at this elevation for approximately 100 feet when viewing the elevation from left to right. The structure steps down again to an elevation of approximately 25 feet near the proposed tunnel access to the existing stairs to the docks. On the western elevation, the structure will descend to approximately 22 feet at the pool area and the structure will be visible at or slightly above this elevation further to the east near the abutting property to the southeast. affected. d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less than SignifiGaRt 'FnpaGt. :Phe pFopesed mult level bu Id Rg will intmduGq addit eRal glasG suFfaGes Less than Significant Impact Proposed exterior materials would consist of non - reflective materials, • including a titanium roof with a matte finish stucco- covered walls and stone accents with rough, rather than polished textures Glazing is to be tinted and most windows will have overhangs that will cast shadows over the glazing No glare impacts from building finish materials therefore is expected.. • Page 35 MILBL'E:L'CM Npptl'll urtx'Ly!OL�SEZI L0.1S'al2'6Vr' 0' oW> pB�Wi^ �MHLfNSBNL '�l'11woP�U'�iaAM &�MCIIS vo "avw -Taa vNoaoo \ e `�—�.- �.,,�. u • Snv NOI1VN21H'J LOL - IOL eryxN4>+v e� LteuuoeZU :gam 'G>J - 13NNI%'Wdtld M31/ - NQllb'N>JV7 - NvMr _ter t 3 a we d • • I Z,'Wlad aY -1as —•Wtl mwzI IOOTISka%LM uvvY ww.1 �M9LfUJLUWa01�P JUeiFlN4all�l:s ,I ,I u U ,• � C A I L -� k 1 � n 0 ,�11 :��II o o ■� �_ a m: ,I ,I u U • • • �eoe['a�'cbdoe.ww'n as um..•we ea[ sz�[ mnsue'¢ eocu�w�' aMva�s •aaattm•ww.amwm�w�Wnnaua�aa YO WW TAO 4RWi100 —'-°• M NOLLVPIiIYO MVi'JO p Y NOLL �O L= - IOL �yaee4�+v_ eueuuoer eon WOWW M2LA IL AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and. Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? No Impact. No Prime Farmland, Farmland of State or Local Importance, or Unique Farmland occurs within or in the vicinity of the site. The site and adjacent areas are not designated as prime, unique or important farmlands by the State Resources Agency or by the Newport Beach General Plan. Therefore, no impact on significant farmlands would occur with the proposed project. b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? . No Impact. The Newport Beach General Plan, Land Use Element designates the site as "Single Family Attached" and the zone designation for the site is "Multiple Family Residential" and 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. C) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? No Impact. The site is not being used for agricultural purposes and is not designated as agricultural land. Therefore, no agricultural uses on the site or within the site's vicinity would be converted to non- agricultural use. III. AIR QUALITY a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? RetentiallyLess Than Significant The proposed project would lead to temporary construction emissions that may affect local and regions air quality. Temporary construction activity emissions will occur during the construction stage of the Page 39 • • • proposed development, including the on -site generation of dust and equipment exhaust, and off -site emissions from construction employees commuting to the site and trucks delivering building materials. Heavy -duty trucks, earth movers, air compressors, and power generators would be used during the demolition and construction phases. Operation of these vehicles and machines would temporarily increase air pollutant levels in the vicinity of the proposed project. In addition, emissions from delivery and haul trucks, construction crew vehicles, concrete mixers, and other off -site vehicle trips would add to local pollutant levels. Gaseous and particulate emissions associated with the demolition and construction violation. Given the relatively limited size of the project, construction emissions for CO, ROC, SgxSOx and PM -10 would generally be low from equipment use and truck trips.. However, the use of diesel fuel in most of the equipment and trucks would lead to increased NOx levels. In addition, VOC emissions from paints and coatings would create ROG emissions during construction. Dust emissions on site would be generated by demolition of the existing structures, excavation and initial construction activities. The prc;ect would result in a decrease of dwell "ng unitsi haweveF, the-Long-term emissions were also . calculated (see attachment to this Initial Study) assuming that all of the emissions represent new +gaits are IaFgeF and will likely aGG9FIFIFFiedate Fes deRtS that Fnay have slightly hkj4�ie* mpacts. Emission sources include vehicular exhaust from daily traffic demaR•'° (ma d sepx Gas, ''el Ye ^y 6eFAGeS, ^`^' The `•^"^ actual net impact of the project-eperatigeat, since long -term air emissions-, could be generated by re- occupancy of the prepesedmisting apartments. The project C) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? No ImpaALess Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed above, construction and vehicle emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds -with implementation. These thresholds were developed to provide a method of assessing a project's individual impact significance, and also to determine whether the . Thepe ape not "het project's impacts ould be cumulatively�•,.i..`" rripiementatiSR at the considerable. The proposed • ^°'.et a project- would not, therefore, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of anv criteria nnllutant. Since the South Coast Air Basin is in d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. There are no senior housing facilities, hospitals, eFschools or other sensitive receptor sites located hear the proposed project site. A blufftop passive park, Lookout Point, is located on Ocean Boulevard approximately 1,200 feet from the project site. tdeweverMoreover, as aeted above, gwendiscussed in the Felat ve T'^^• Rat we of the preceding responses, this project, would not generate substantial pc!l..`.:a`° We ^^` I (E) `^ be generated ^ `h ^'pollutant emissions, during the. temporary construction phases aeror over the long -term eperatier.operating life of the completed homes Page 40 e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? - - -- °.- _ h._- - f mare than fi,.e ;n toe • No Impact A variety of odors would be associated with construction equipment exhaust emissions and application of paints and other architectural coatings The odors would be minor and temporary in nature and would not affect people located outside the immediate construction zones Replacement of the existing apartments and single family home with nine luxury residential condominiums would not result in any significant change in the kinds of odors that could be generated on site occasional, less than significant odors may occur in conjunction with trash pick up and outdoor food preparation (i.e. barbeaues) and possibly with outdoor maintenance activities Trash containers would be equipped with lids and would be stored inside the dwelling units and garages The proposed project will result in the th development of a 9-unit residential condominium building which will not involve e use of large quantities of solid waste materials chemicals food products or other odorous materials. Therefore, the proiect does not have the potential to create objectionable odors. Page 41 P ivuuucuu,i rvrcaaurc wv — nn uiwcruuwcr cu r ourm rciv cnuocuuru ruu rivracuuwcr wiau uc cuwvuc,.r . with soot trans unless the Contractor demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Citv Building Official that it is • infeasible. Mitigation Measure III-4 — 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. Mitigation Measure III -5 — The construction contractor shall encourage ridesharing and transit incentives. for the construction workers. Mitigation Measure III -6 — 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, 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. • IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a) Would 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? No Impact. A Biological Constraints Analysis was completed in June, 2005, and a Marine Biological Field Survey completed in April, 2005. Both studies concluded that there is no appropriate habitat existing on site for any threatened or endangered species. No candidate, sensitive or special status species were observed during the surveys. b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? FMM Ml- c) Would 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? Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed building would occur well above any federally protected wetlands as construction limited above 17 feet above mean.sea level. A water quality management plan and a storm water pollution protection plan are required as standard practice and they have been prepared and will ensure that runoff from the site is appropriately managed to avoid additional • Page 43 • • • pollution and erosion. The plans include best management practices to ensure that short-term construction and long -term use of the site will not impact Newport Bay. The- At this time, the project proposes no modifications to the existing private boat docks Any _future permit application to :,sreasemodifv the existinq boat docks will require its d) Would 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? No Impact. See responses above. The project site and surrounding areas are developed and no migratory wildlife corridors occur on site or in the vicinity of the project site, and therefore, the project will not interfere with resident, migratory or wildlife species. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. The project will result in the removal of introduced trees, shrubs and ground covers currently existing on the upper portion of the bluff where grading and construction activities are proposed. The existing vegetation is not protected by a preservation policy or ordinance. f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. There are no local, regional or state habitat conservation plans that would regulate or guide development of the project site. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined §15604.5? No Impact. The project site is currently developed with a multiple family structure constructed in 1949 and a single family residence constructed in 1955. These structures are not listed on a Federal, State or . . local historical resource inventory. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance. of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15614.5? No Impact. A cultural and paleontological resources records survey was completed by, LSA Associates, Inc. in July of 2005. The survey found that it is highly unlikely that any archaeological resources would exist given the disturbed nature of the site and soil conditions. Therefore, no archeological monitoring is recommended. Page, 44 C) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project site and surrounding • areas are developed and the only potentially unique geologic feature on the site would be the rocky cove. The project will not impact the cove as project construction will occur well above the feature. No alteration of the rocks or the cove is proposed. The cultural and paleontological resources records survey indicates that no known paleontological resources are known to exist on the project site; however, the site contains the Monterey Formation, which is known to contain abundant fossilized marine invertebrates and vertebrates. The presence of recorded fossils in the vicinity of the project areas exists. The survey concluded that 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 CLUP Policy 4.5.1 -1 has been included in the event that such resources are encountered during grading/excavation activities (refer to Mitigation Measures V- 1 below). d) Would the project disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact. The project site and surrounding areas are highly disturbed due to past urban development and there is no evidence of human remains or sites of Native American burials. Mitigation Measures; The following mitigation measure is proposed to mitigate the potential impacts associated with cultural resources to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure V -1 — During excavation and grading of the site, paleontological monitoring shall be conducted by an experienced monitor under the direction of the project paleontologist. If fossil remains are found by the monitor, earthmoving shall be diverted temporarily around the fossils until the remains have been recovered and the monitor agrees to allow earthmoving to proceed. • VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,. including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Less than Significant Impact. There are no known local or regional active earthquake faults on or in close proximity to the site, and the site is not within an Alquist -Priolo Zone. The Newport- Inglewood Fault is located approximately 1.7 miles to the west of and off -shore from the site, the Whittier- Elsinore Fault is located approximately 25 miles to the northeast, and the San Andreas Fault is located more than 50 miles to the northeast. Episodes on those faults could cause ground shaking at the project site, but it is highly unlikely that there would be ground fault rupture. Even though the project site and surrounding areas could be subject to strong ground movements, adherence to current building standards of the City of Newport Beach would reduce ground movement hazards to acceptable levels. it) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than Significant Impact. See response VI.a.i above. iii) Seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact. The site is a bluff above Newport Bay, and the site as well as surrounding area have been developed for a number of years. The project is not expected to be subject to seismic-related ground • failure, such as landslides or liquefaction given the rock nature of existing soils. A review report for the Page 45 conceptual grading plan was prepared by Neblett and Associates (August 5, 2005) and the report • concludes that with standard shoring, engineering and grading .techniques, the potential for seismic- related ground failure and liquefaction is considered low. The report also concludes that the exposed bluff material is sandstone and bluff erosion is not considered a significant hazard. IV) Landslides? Less than Significant Impact. See response to Vl.a.iii above. b) Would the project result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. A stormwater pollution prevention program was prepared by Hunsaker & Associates; June 3, 2005 and with the implementation of the best management practices contained therein during construction,, significant erosion or loss of topsoil will be avoided. Implementation of the stormwater pollution prevention program is a standard requirement of the Newport Beach Building Department and all best management practices are mandatory during grading and. construction. With. additional impervious surfaces (an increase of 11% compared to existing conditions) this proiect would rAdi inp the amni int of nnpn Innrl are. avnneorl to nn }onti pl orncinnol fnrnac nf ... inrl and ..,afar r:ivon tho C) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less than Significant Impact. The project site and surrounding area are not known to be located within an unstable geologic area and, therefore, not expect to be exposed to or create on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse hazards. A preliminary geologic /grading analysis • report was prepared for the proposed project by Neblett and Associates in August, 2005. This report concludes that on -site geologic conditions will not present a significant hazard to the project. A Coastal Hazard Study was prepared by GeoSoils Inc. dated October, 5, 2006, which concludes that the project will not be subject to coastal erosional processes or long term bluff retreat that will likely endanger the proposed project during the 75 year economic life of the structure. d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 187 -1B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less than Significant Impact. The grading review report prepared for the preliminary grading plan ( Neblett, 2005) concludes that expansive soils are not a significant issue given on -site soil conditions. A final geotechnical analysis will be completed as part of the final building permit review process, and strict adherence to the design recommendations are mandatory with building permit issuance. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The project will be connected to existing sewer lines. No septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems are proposed. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? No Impact. Construction activities would involve the use of hazardous materials associated with the construction of a residential building such as 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 hazards in the event of an accident or spills. Hazardous materials use, transport, storage and Page 46 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). In addition, trash enclosures are required to be maintained with covered bins and other measures to prevent spillage and/or seepage of materials into the ground. Given the nature of the project in terms of scope and size, 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. On -going operation of the site for residential use will not result in the storage or use of hazardous materials. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the project site by P &D Consultants in May, 2005. The Phase I Assessment concluded that although, given the age of the existing structures on site, there is a possibility that asbestos and /or lead -based paint to be present and there is no evidence of recognized environmental conditions that exceed the scope and limitations of ASTM Standard E1527 -00. Abatement of any asbestos or lead -based paint requires special handling and disposal routinely required and monitored by the Building Department during the demolition phase and this issue is not considered a significant risk. b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions Involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No Impact. See responses to Vll.a above. C) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous material, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The closest school to the project site is Harbor View School, located approximately 0.7 mile from the project site to the northeast. The school is physically separated from the project site by a • residential community and Pacific Coast Highway and will not be impacted by construction activities on the site. The proposed luxury condominiums would not include any activities or mechanical or chemical d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. The PFOP969CI PFGj seargii ui vdnuua UOLODUa � ...••• . •••-- -• - - -- wastes and substances sites was conducted as part of a IisfPhase I Environmental Site Assessment this search determined that the sub act property is not included on any lists of hazardous materials sitesites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. e) For a project within.an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The project site is located approximately 4.8 miles south of John Wayne Airport and is not located within or subject to an airport land use plan. Operations at John Wayne Airport will not pose a safety hazard for future residents due to the proximity of the project to the airport. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. There are no private airstrips within the vicinity of the project site. Page 47 g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted . • emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The project will not interfere with an emergency evacuation plan as the site is does not abut a roadway designated for emergency evacuation. Closure of Carnation Avenue or Ocean Boulevard during construction is not proposed although vehicle movement may be hindered from time to time due to construction activities. This issue will be temporary in nature and any construction vehicles within in the public right of way are prohibited from completely blocking vehicular and emergency access by the Vehicle Code. h) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? r � LJ No Impact. The project site and surrounding areas are not located within a "Potential Fire Hazard Area" as identified by the Newport General Plan Public Safety Element. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? measures are Properly implemented. Page 48 site would be captured by an underground storm drainage system that will be pumped up to Carnation Avenue and filtered by a storm filter and bacteria filter before being discharged into the existing municipal storm drain system The proposed drainage system is expected to reduce the pollutant level in site runoff, compared to existing conditions that consist of sheet flow runoff directly to the bay, and unfiltered runoff into a storm drain catch basin iust south of the site at Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Implementation of the approved WQMP and SWPPP will ensure that this proiect does not violate any water quality standards during construction or over the Iona -term operating life of the developed site. b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No Impact. The relatively small -scale project+swould not tikely-to result in a significant increase in water . demand and all of the proiect"s potable and non - potable water needs will be. asserarnedated by —met through a connection to the City's domestic water There are no water wells located on or near the site, and since this proiect wowa not an or require any new water wells, the project will not result in the lowering of the water table. c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? Less Than Significant Impact. No stream or river exists on site. T#e_ A majority of site runoff currently . diGGhBF9essheet flows in a northerly and westerly direction directly into Newport Bay, which has been identified as containing "environmentally sensitive areas" as defined by the 2003 Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan and the Water Quality Control Plans for the Santa Ana Basin. Toe o7 nM7 indicates the site w' get s currently has three stormwater run-off areas, all of which drain into Newport Bay. The northerly portion of the site (Area A) drains to existing residential properties to the northwest of the site toward Bayside Place below the project site and eventually to the bay. A majority of the run -off (Area B) is to the southwest directly into the bay. A small portion along the top of the bluff along Carnation Avenue (Area C) drains to an existing municipal catch basin located within Carnation Avenue. site grading and excavation, and the exist ng drall"age nd expanded building GGRstrwGtien and the ^" ' ^" Of existing drainage pattern on site will be modified. This owg nor affect off -site drainage patterns and the overall changes are not considered significant.. 601!eGted, will capture more of the site runoff and sen#etled is aR.erreduce sheet flows that " Psdirectly impact Newport Bay. The ,mnrnvcrl cffirianry of tho now stnrm drain system. together with the filtration and energy dissipaters -are ensure that the redeveloped site does not result in stermwateFwn-e us,u siltation on- or off site. Runoff during a 400- yeam�ak storm: event should actually decrease. Storm Water Run -off "i lasting Goniiiiion 3>a prised Q:oridffion Area (acres) t 1ow$ate (cfsi Area {aass9 t 8owrate (ofs) .? Page 49 • LJ • • Area "A" 0.132 0.82 Area 'V 0.293 1.71 0.366 2.24 Area "C" 0.081 0.51 0.108 0.68 Total 0.506 3.04 0.504 2.92 d) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase. the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off - site? Less than Significant Impact. See. Fes penses- abevethe orecedina response to item cl. e) Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would. exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide I substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No impact. See response above. g) Would the project place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or. Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. 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. h) Would the project place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would. impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. See response to Vlll.g above. i) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. The project site is not within a flood hazard area or within an area subject to flooding due • dam or levee failure. Page 50 j) Would the project be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. The project site is in close proximity to the Pacific Ocean and has frontage on Newport Bay -. • HoWeVeF,7 however, the thp hAttorn level will be apPFOXimately at the PQ foAt 91eVRti9R (Mgt=). The Coastal Hazards Study prepared by GeoSoiis, Inc. dated October, 5, 2006 concludes that the potential for inundation by seiche, tsunami and mudflows at this site is very remot k) Would the project result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction? Less than Significant Impact. See responses aboveto preceding items a -d . 1) Would the project result in potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? Less than Significant Impact. Stormwater discharge from the site will be that typically associated with residential uses. _No outdoor storage, maintenance, fueling or work areas are io:Aa .1 w � 'th tha tefna use s€ the gite:proposed. Vehicle parking areas are severed to be fully enclosed or subterranean. As noted above, a final WQMP and SWPPP are required as standard practice by the.City of Newport Beach to ensure that stormwater impacts during or after construction are minimized or eliminated to the maximum extent possible. For example the City's standard practice is to require Street sweeping as a in Would the project result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the . beneficial uses of the receiving waters? Less than Significant Impact. See 4:�ab . response to item V.Ill.a. • n) Would the project create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? Less than Significant Impact. The prejeet- wtil�esproposed sto m drain system wowd achieve a slight- decrease in .peak storm runoff. As a result this project would not result in adverse impacts due to changes in the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff. o) Would the project create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? Less than Significant Impact. See responses aboveto preceding items a -d. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING a) Would the project divide an established community? No Impact. The project proposes to replace an existing 14 -unit apartment building and single family residence with a 9 -unit condominium structure and is located in a neighborhood consisting of single family and multiple family buildings. Therefore, the project will not introduce a new use to an existing neighborhood and will not divide an established community. b) Would the project conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency and jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? • Page 51 Petentiallyl-ess Than Significant laagaWJolesswith Mitigation Incorporated. The Newport Beach General Plan, the.Coastal Land Use Plan and the Newport Beach Zoning Code meet this • land use plans, policies and regulations of concern with respect to avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. An assessment of the proiect's consistency with applicable provisions of each is provided in the following narrative. Presently, the site has two separate land use designations assigned by the Land.Use Element of the General Plan. First, a small portion of the site, approximately 584 square feet is designated RT (Two -Unit Residential) and the remaining portion, of the site is (60,700 square feet) designated RM (Multi -Unit Residential, 20 dwelling units per acre). The applicant proposes an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan and a matching amendment to the Coastal Land Use Plan land use designation so the entire site will have consistent designations. The designation of the 584 square foot portion of the site will be changed to RM (Multiple -Unit Residential). Although the additional land area would otherwise numerically allow 1 additional unit, the density limitation as required. by the Zoning Ordinance is more restrictive as it excludes submerged lands and slopes in excess of 500k from the density calculation. The density of the proposed project is well below the maximum density permitted by both land use plans (28 dwellings) and it is consistent with the maximum density allowed by the existing MFR zone with the exclusion of submerged lands and sloped in excess of 50 %. The Land Use and Natural Resources Elements of the General Plan contain policies regarding the protection of public views, visual resources, coastal bluffs and other natural resources. Additionally, the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) contains more specific policies regarding these issues. A discussion of the relevant and applicable CLUP policies follows. Chapter 2 of the CLUP regulates land use and development. The site is designated for residential use and as discussed above, a minor adjustment of the CLUP designation is necessary. The following additional policies within Chapter 2 apply: Policy 2.7 -1. calls for the maintenance of appropriate setbacks, density, floor area, and height limits for • residential development to protect the character of established neighborhoods and to protect coastal access and coastal resources. The project conforms to existing building height and floor area limits. Setback encroachments are, primarily subterranean and do not impact the character of the area as the above ground encroachment on the north side of the building provides between 5 and 7.5 feet of separation at the street level and approximately 28 to 30 feet of separation on levels above. Policy 27-2. calls for the continued administration of provisions of State law relative to the demolition, conversion and construction of low and moderate - income dwelling units within the coastal zone. Government Code Section 65590 (Mello Act) regulates the demolition or conversion of low and moderate income units within the Coastal Zone. Ale The existing dwelling units have been vacant for several year (except for caretakers retained by the property owner) and there are no low or moderate income ° de RtS WIN' FeSidS "thin the projeGt, and theizef ^'n households residing on this property. Government Code Section 65590 is not applicable to this oroiect. Policy 2.8.1 -1. requires that all applications for new development be reviewed to determine potential threats from coastal and other hazards. A coastal hazards study has been prepared by, GeoSoils Inc., dated October, 5, 2006. Given the location, topography and development proposed, potential hazards are seismic ground shaking, coastal bluff retreat due to erosional forces and tsunamis. Seismic issues are mitigated with the implementation of the Building Code and coastal bluff retreat is not expected to impact the project during the 75 year economic life of the building. Inundation by wave action or tsunami is considered very remote. Policy 2.8.1 -2 and. 2.8.1-3 requires that the design and siting of new development and land divisions to avoid hazardous areas and minimize risks to life and property from coastal and other hazards. The proposed building is located above potential wave action and as such, it is sited to avoid the most hazardous portion of the project site. • Policy 2.8.1 -4. requires new development to assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or Page 52 in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. Policy 2.8.3 -1. requires that all development applications for new development on a coastal bluff property subject to wave action assess the potential for flooding or damage from waves, storm surge, or seiches, through a wave uprush. Policy 2.8.6 -10 requires the siting and design of new structures to avoid the need for shoreline protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years) and Policy 2.8.7 -3. requires that new development be free of geologic hazards. Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Neblett & Associates, August 2005, the Coastal Hazard Study prepared by GeoSoils Inc., dated October 2006, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated June 2005, and a Hydrology analysis Hunsaker and Associates dated June 2005 collectively indicate that the project will not be subject to nor contribute to erosion, geologic instability, geologic hazard nor require shoreline protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years). Policy 2.8.6 -9. requires property owners to record a waiver of future. shoreline protection for new development during the economic life of the structure (75 years) as a condition of approval. Shoreline protection is only permitted to protect existing principal structures that were legally constructed prior to the certification of the LCP, unless a waiver of future shoreline protection was required by a previous coastal development permit. Chapter 3 establishes policies regarding public access. The following policies within Chapter 3 apply Policy 3.1.1 -1 requires the protection and where feasible, the expansion or enhancement of public access to and along the shoreline. Policy 3.1.2 -1 specifically indicates that access to and along coastal bluffs is desired while Policy 3.1.2 -2 indicates that public access must minimize impacts to coastal resources and coastal bluffs. Policy 3.1.1 -11 notes that a project must minimize impacts to public access. Policy 3.1.1 -9 identifies the following goals regarding public access: • Maximizes public access to and along the shoreline; • Includes pedestrian, hiking, bicycle, and equestrian trails; • • Provides connections to beaches, parks, and recreational facilities; • Provides connections with trail systems of adjacent jurisdictions; • Provides access to coastal view corridors; • Facilitates alternative modes of transportation; • Minimizes alterations to natural landforms; • Protects environmentally sensitive habitat areas; • Does not violate private property rights. Policy 3.1.1 -24 encourages the creation of new public vertical access ways where feasible, including Corona del Mar and other areas of limited public accessibility. Policy 3.1.1 -13 and 3.1.1 -14 would suggest that new development provide the direct dedication or an Offer to Dedicate (OTD) an easement for lateral and vertical public access when it causes or contributes to an adverse impact to public access. Policy 3.1.1 -26 indicates that maximum public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the shoreline is necessary with new development except where (1) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal resources or (2) adequate access exists nearby. Lastly, Policy 3.1.1 -27 states that the implementation of the public access policies must take into account the need to regulate the time, place, and manner of public access depending on the facts and circumstances in each case including, but not limited to, the following: • Topographic and geologic site characteristics; • Capacity of the site to sustain use and at what level of intensity; • Fragility of natural resource areas; • Proximity to residential uses; • Public safety services, including lifeguards, fire, and police access; • • Support facilities, including parking and restrooms; . Page 53 • Management and maintenance of the access; • • The need to balance constitutional rights of individual property owners and the public's constitutional rights of access. The project site has no dedicated public access easements nor physical access to the coastal bluff or bay at this time. The proposed project does not make any accommodations for public access. As noted above the site is constrained in terms of lateral and vertical access by the steep topography of the site, existing development and submerged lands. No abutting lateral or vertical public access presently exists that would connect to any access that might be considered of the.development. The lower portion of the bluff, submerged lands and tidelands will remain in their existing condition. Access to the designated view point at the end of Carnation Avenue will remain unaffected and the public view from that point will be enhanced with project approval. The proposed design will afford 3 new parking spaces .along Carnation Avenue with the elimination of the overly wide drive approach to the existing apartment building. These spaces will be available to the public. _The applicant plans only maintenance improvements to the existing concrete pad and private docks while providing an emergency communication device and wet standpipe to the docks for enhance fire protection. With the reduction in residential density and the fact that no existing or pressr+ptiveprescriotive access rights exists, the project will not impact or impede existing public access. Providing enhanced public access to the bluff or bay would necessitate a reduction in the overall scope of the project and the construction of a staircase on the bluff. Maintenance of such an access point would need to be guaranteed by either the future .. homeowners association or the City of Newport Beach. The proximity of the access to existing and proposed residential uses is also a factor. Public access to the bay is currently provided in the vicinity at China Cove, Lookout Point and at a street end located in the 2300 block of Bayside Drive. These access points are located approximately 450 feet to the east, 1,125 feet to the east and approximately 480 feet to the northwest respectively. Based upon the forgoing, requiring public access easements or outright dedication of land for public . access in not necessary and the project can be found consistent with the forgoing CLUP. policies and the Coastal Act. Given the steepness of the topography, and the proximity of nearby access:to the water, vertical and lateral access is unwarranted. Chapter 4 establishes policy regarding the protection of coastal resources. The following policies are applicable: Policy 4.1.3 -1 identifies 17 mitigation measures to reduce the potential for adverse impacts to natural habitats. Applicable measures require the control or limitation of encroachments into natural habitats and wetlands, regulate landscaping or revegetation of blufftop areas to control erosion and invasive plant species and provide a transition area between developed areas and natural habitats, require irrigation practices on blufftops to minimize erosion of bluffs and to prohibit invasive species and require their removal in new development. The project does not encroach within habitat areas or wetlands and the landscaping plan indicates the bluff to be hydroseeded with a drought- tolerant mix native to coastal California natives with temporary irrigation to be used only to establish the vegetation. Policies 4.3.1 -5, 4.3.1 -6, 4.3.1 -7, 4.12 -22, 4.3.2 -23, require development to limit land disturbance activities and implement structural best management practices to prevent or minimize erosion that would impact coastal resources. A Water quality Management Plan, a Stormwater pollution Prevention Plan and a hydrological analysis have been prepared by qualified professionals that include best management practices and structural methods to insure that erosion and stormwater discharge will not impact Newport Bay. Policies 4.4.1 -1 and 4.4.1 -2 necessitates that development be designed minimize impacts to public coastal views and to protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal . . zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor and to coastal bluffs and other • scenic coastal areas. Policy 4.4.1 -4 promotes requiring, where appropriate, new development to provide View easements to protect public coastal views. Policies 4.4.2 -2 and 4.4.2 -3 stipulate that the visual and Page 54 physical mass of development should be regulated through enforcement of building envelope regulations (i.e. building height, setbacks, lot coverage, etc.) in effect on October 13, 2005 in order to preserve public views. The project is consistent with building height limits and other building envelop restrictions with the exception of subterranean setback encroachments to the east and south. These encroachments do not impact public views as they are below grade. As noted previously, a designated view point is identified in the CLUP at the end of Carnation Avenue. The view is over the southeastern portion of the site. Presently there is a 25 degree view between the existing apartment building and the neighbors garage and fence to the south. With the project, the view will increase to 32 degrees. A mitigation measure requiring .a view . easement (applicable only to the project site) is necessary to ensure that the enhancement of the view is achieved and preserved in the future. Policy 4.4.1 -3 requires the design and siting of new development to minimize alterations to significant natural landforms, including bluffs, cliffs and canyons. Several other policies provide more specific direction. Policy 4.4.3-4 notes that bluffs subject to marine erosion, new accessory structures such. as decks, patios and walkways must be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development. No new accessory structures are proposed. The policy requires that accessory structures be removed or relocated landward when threatened by erosion, instability or other hazards. A mitigation measure.is recommended such that the existing accessory structures (concrete pad, staircase and, walkway be removed if this circumstance arises in the future. Policy 4.4.3 -7 requires all new development located on a bluff top to be setback from the bluff edge a sufficient distance to ensure stability and to ensure that the structure will be free from hazards during the economic life of the structure (75 years). The coastal hazards study notes that the project will be free from coastal hazards for 75 years. Policy 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9 permits new development on the bluff face on Ocean Boulevard,. Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive when principal structures presently exist on the bluff face provided it is landward of the _predominate line of existing development -_ The CLUP defines the predominate line of development as "the most common or representative distance from a specified group of structures to a specified point or line (i.e. topographic line or geographic feature). For example, the predominant line of • development for a block of homes on a coastal bluff (a specified group of structures) could be determined by calculating the median distance (a representative distance) these structures are from the bluff edge (a specified line)." Notwithstanding this provision in the CLUP, the establishment of the predominate line of development remains open to interpretation especially when the specific topography does not lend it self to traditional techniques such as the "stringline method." Stringlines were drawn from the existing residential structure located to the south on Ocean Boulevard l Fesu� '° = This traditions! approach and the existing structure to the north on Carnation Avenue. The R� determined that all portions of the proposed building arewould be an average of 36 feet landward of the stringline. In addition to the stringline method, three additional interpretive methods were employed consistent with the definition of predominate line of development, including: 1.. Calculating the median distance of structures from the street curb to the furthest line of development; 2. Calculating the median distance of structures from the approximate bluff edge to the furthest line of development; and 3. Calculating the median distance of structures from mean low tide to the closest line of development. In each of the foregoing methods, the proposed project remains landward of the establishedgcgqgMinant line of existin development (reference A&4eAERIE Project Overview, May 8, 2006, pages 14 — 19 andh therefore, the project is consistent with the CLUP Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9. Policy 4.4.3 -12. promotes the use of site design and construction techniques to minimize alteration of coastal bluff ; .k.,..11—a• oltnr� and thr nrnnnsed nr000ses to use the flattest ion of the wale Page 55 • Policy 4.4.3 -13 requires new development on coastal bluffs to incorporate drainage improvements, . . irrigation systems, and /or native or drought - tolerant vegetation into the design to minimize coastal bluff recession. The project' would implement this Policy through hvdroseeding the bluff with a drought- tolerant mix native to coastal California natives with temporary irrigation to be used only to establish the vegetation. A mitigation measure.is recommended such that the planting and irrigation be accomplished within this limitation. The proposed storm drainage system will more efficiently capture site runoff, reduce the amount of sheet flow across the bluff face and discharge to Newport Bay with less intensitv than under current conditions: this will help reduce the potential for coastal bluff recession due to effects of site runoff. C) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural. community conservation plan? No Impact. The project site is not subject to a habitat conservation plan area or natural community conservation plan area. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate the potential impacts associated with land use to a less than significant level: Mitigation Measure IX -1 — The ppotaGt an f9F the prejeGt prior to the 8suanGe of a build ng pei:mit. Said we Yap shall be 6611�;JeGt te the applicant shall dedicate a 32—view easement Avenue as described above and depicted on Exhibit J within the project overview prepared by the project architect:; however, it would only affect the proiect site. Structures and landscaping within the easement area shall not be permitted to block public views. The easement shall be recorded prior to the issuance.of a building permit for new construction and shall be reflected on the final tract map. Mitigation Measure IX-32 — Accessory structures shall be relocated or removed if threatened by coastal • erosion. Accessory structures shall not be expanded and routine maintenance of accessory structures is permitted. • Mitigation Measure IX -43 — Bluff landscaping shall consist of native, drought tolerant plant species. €vasivelnvasive 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. Page 56 i X. MINERAL RESOURCES a) . Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would • be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. The proposed project is not located in an area where there are known mineral resources, and development as proposed would not affect regionally significant mineral resources. b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact. The proposed project site is not identified in the Newport Beach General Plan as a significant mineral resource area. XI. NOISE a) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than Significant elaone Res Impact. Noise associated with emolibon and ether construction activities N d by # ese qp9FaliGAS geR Fall" raRq is exempt from 75 to nnn AAA ..t cn veal $. t6a nrn,Arlpd cnnh wnrk nr.mi s during the days and therE -i6 tea peraq- -hours soecifed in Chapter 10.28 of the Newport Beach Municipal Cod. ^hbi1s-AG =° Please refer to the response to 7:00 -aFn weekdeysitem d later in this section for more information concerning temporary demolition and eR Saturdays between the hours Af G 00 P.m- and 9:QQ a m .vith nn construction noise •^men • F a hows is propGsed-.eftects. Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code alse- establishes maximum noise levels for interior (45dBA) spaces and exterior residential spaces (50dBA nighttime and 55dBA daytime, unless ambient noise levels are higher). The site is not currently impacted by significant noise levels as it is located in a relatively quiet residential area distanced from major highways or other noise producing activities or uses. Lang teFPR inGreased Re Ge Noise levels in the nearby harbor area are net4Ikelyconsidered to Ghan"^ge g yen compatible with residential that standards. b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. The driving— Drillino of piles is r+et -- proposed to secure building foundations This is a less intensive method than pile driving and th9FGfGre excessive ground borne vibration or noise is not expected. Ground borne noise and vibration during the hours when construction activities are normally permitted will occur and it will be characteristic of typical grading and construction work associated with on -site conditions. Page 57 E U C) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? than significant. d) 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? Less than Significant Impact. active will vary with the construction phases, which would include: Construction Phasin 1. Demolition of existing buildings and site improvements 2. Drill shoring caissons 3. Lag and excavate 4. Shotcrete shoring walls 5. Install foundations 6. Build concrete structure 7. Install plumbing electrical mechanical, finish exterior /interior, etc. 8. Hardscape and landscape applicant is not reguesting any exceptions to these standard restrictions: therefore, the temporary construction noise impacts would be less than significant. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project site is not within an airport land use plan nor is the site within two miles of an airport. Noise from planes landing or taking off from John Wane Airport are below 60 dBA CNEL and therefore, future residents will not be subjected to excessive noise levels. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Page 58 No Impact. The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airport XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING 11 a) Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure? No Impact. The project will result in a decrease in the total number of dwelling units from 15 to 9, and therefore. the oroiect is not likely to result in a substantial increase in population. All proposed utility b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project will result in a decrease in a total of six dwelling units. The loss of six dwelling units is not considered a significant decrease of housing units within the City of Newport Beach. With the exception of a tenant in the single - family residence (207 Carnation) and a caretaker residing within the apartment building, the remaining units are vacant. No replacement housing is necessary. C) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing? No Impact. See response to Xll.b above. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES I• i a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? No Impact. The project will result in a decrease of fvesix residential units, although the new units will be larger than those currently existing on the site. Therefore, there will not be a significant increase in structures and persons requiring emergency services. The project includes all necessary fire protection devices including fire sprinklers. TT he project must be found compliant with the Building Code and Fire Code. _Preliminary code analysis has been preformed and the proposed building will comply, although a final determination will be made at the time of issuance of a building permit. A- An emergency communication device will be provided to the existing concrete pad fGr epReF99nGy-useat the beach level and a new wet standpipe will be provided to. the existing docks for enhanced fire protection. _Adequate.water supplies and infrastructure, including fire hydrants, are existing in the vicinity of the project, and there is no requirement for other new facilities or emergency services. .—Police protection? No Impact. SueRedevelopment of the subject site to the tease resident al densityre� lace 14 apartments and ne single family roci'ionrc with nine liiY,in/ ron(lnminium homes would not require an expansion to local law result in a deGFeas_ !R C� J Page, 59 0 r1 L_J • Schools? No Impact. The existing dwelling units have been vacant for several years, except for caretakers living in the single family home and one school- age children California Government Code, to help offset the incremental cost impact of expanding school resources to handle increasing student enrollment associated with new housing proiects. Other public facilities? No Impact. Due to the reduction in residential density, no increased demand for other public services is anticipated and there would be no need to construct any new public facilities. XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? NeLess Than Sianificant Impact. The project will result in a decrease of dwelling units and will not occupy a-an existing or planned park or recreational facility. With a pool private outdoor decks that may have spas and wiilfire pits. plus a private beach area. most residents are expected to eniov their private recreation amenities frequently. Those residents who occasionally visit local and regional parks and beaches would not FaireeGtly gene'^'^ additional ^^^ lat on or-dernaad-fe-rrepresent a substantial change in the intensity of usage of those parks and the impact would not result in substantial physical deterioration of those park ^•'^^•PA''^^-' E- ^''''^ ^.areas. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The project includes Private common amenities and private access to the bay that will help off -set the need for recreational facilities. _Due to the reduction in density and resulting decrease in population, it is anticipated that no net increased demand for up blic recreational facilities w4 'es t -would occur and thus no new facilities would need to be constructed. Title 19 (Subdivisions) of the Municipal Code requires the developer to pay a fee for each unit created by the proposed condominium map. This fee will be used by the G ty-to augment recreational facilities in the City. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC a) Would 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)? Page, 60, Excavation - trucks to haul excess materials to a 2,300 to 2,700 truck trios with up to 100 truck remote site trips /day, over approximately 4.- 6 working weeks Construction of shoring and walls 75 concrete mixers and pumpers for a 14 -day total time Deriod Construction of Caissons and Concrete Work 500 concrete mixers and pumper trucks with up to 8 15 per day, along with a number of flat bed trucks, to deliver a drill rig crane and back hoe plus several dumo trucks This Phase would have a duration of a roximatel 12 months. are occupied. ,Vca v It uvc . Dwelling Clady ' :'. .' ATA teak PM Peak . f Land Use ADY ' .::. ADT APT ._ .. .!knits: .:. Existing 15 394102 8 10 Proposed 9 5373 46 157 The traffic analysis considered the decrease in total dwelling units, and likely does not reflect the potential increase in traffic per units adjusted for ^ `' ^' hiP rfacrvic factors associated with extremely affluent households that even adjustiag f--could generate a minor amount of additional traffic iriWfor domestic employees, pool b) Would the project exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Page 61 • • No Impact. c) Would the project result in a change in air traffic. pattern, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Impact. T1 tFaffic patterns and will dTh proposed building envelope would be in scale with surrounding development and would . not encroach into any air traffic space. This proiect would have no effect on the volumes of air traffic occurring at John Wayne Airport or any other airports in the region. d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. 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 /from the subject Property. On some occasions, there will a a relatively substantial number of trucks that could add to local congestion levels and possibly affect through traffic for short periods of time. The project will be constructed on an existing site and the only off -site change will be the reduction in the width of the existing drive approach. Vehicular sight distance of vehicles entering and exiting the must be found consistent at the time of building permit issuance with Standard Drawing 110 -L of the Public Works Design Manual to ensure safe vehicular access. Compliance with this standard will ensure that the existing mixture of vehicular traffic. • e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less than Significant Impact. The Newport Beach Fire Department has conducted a preliminary code analysis with the Building Department and they found that emergency access will be adequate., During, construction, portions, of Carnation Avenue fronting the project site will be disrupted by construction. activities including construction vehicles._ The use of flagmen may be required and Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard will remain open to vehicular and emergency traffic. • f) Would the project result in inadequate parking capacity? Construction Staging Plan • Schedule grading to avoid the busy summer season • Keep all staging related to demolition on site • Once the parking structure is completed, it will be used for staging for the various trades to complete the remaining phases of construction Construction Parking Plan Page 62, 0 The project will provide 18 resident and 7 guest parking spaces for a total of 25 spaces. Additionally, vehicle lifts may be used to increase the off- street parking supply. Several spaces designed for golf cart sized vehicles are proposed. All of the spaces are within the three sub - basement levels of the structure with the lower levels accessed by freight elevators large enough and with sufficient capacity to accommodate vehicles. The Newport Beach Zoning Code requires attached single family residential projects to provide 1 covered and 1 uncovered space per dwelling unit. Additionally, 0.5 space per dwelling unit is required for guests. _The project would require a total of 18 spaces for residents and 5 spaces for guests for a total of 23 The for the proposed 9 -unit project. The project exceeds the minimum parking standard. g) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. The proposed residential project will be constructed on aT ti n gex�d ..eveloped site containing 14 apartments and a single family home There are no transit facilities on or along the frontage of this site. This project will not require the realignment of existing streets or the construction of new public transportation facilities in the vicinity 9F ^wand given the likely afFluence of future households. • would not affect demand for public transit. XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact. Wastewater generated by the proposed new 9 -unit residential structure would be disposed into the existing sewer system and would not exceed wastewater treatment standards of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Page 63 b) Would, the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater . • treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. Water demand and wastewater generation will not increase over existing uses due to the reduction in residential density. The project will connect to existing an existing 12 -inch water main in Carnation Avenue. Wastewater connections will be made either in a 10 -inch main in Carnation Avenue or an 8 -inch main in Bayside Place below the project site. No expansion of these facilities is necessary due to existing capacity and the reduction, in density. c) Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction: of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The project site is currently developed with a 14 -unit apartment building and single - family residence. The project will result in additional impervious service areas by the new building, walkways and other hardscape. The additional hardscape will result in a slight increase in runoff during storm periods; however, this runoff is minimal and can be accommodated within. existing curbs,.gutters and. stormdrains in the area. d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact. See response to XVI.b above. Future water demand based on the General Plan projections would not be increased significantly. Even though the proposed project will result in a decrease in dwelling units by a total of six, implementation of the project may result in a minor K any additional water . . demand associated with the increased size of the dwelling units, and the pool and spa areas. e) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which • serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact. See response to XVI.b above. f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? No Impact. The project will not likely result in a significant increase in solid waste production due to tFie decrease in dwelling units and existing landfills are expected to have adequate capacity to service the site and use. • g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. Solid waste production will be picked up by either the City of Newport Beach or a commercial provider licensed by the City of Newport Beach. _All federal, state and local regulations related to solid waste will be adhered to through this process. Page 64, MANDATORY FINDINGS.OF SIGNIFICANCE The environmental analysis, including the technical studies prepared for the project, indicates that the • proposed 9 -unit condominium and appurtenant improvements would not have the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts with implementation of standard City requirements and the recommended mitigation measures contained herein. Therefore, the following f+adiagsconclusions can be made regarding the mandatory findings of significance asset forth in Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines: . a) The proposed project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. There are no sensitive plant or animal species on the project site and the proposed project would not reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or strict the range a rare or endangered plant or animal. No historic structures or sites, archaeological resources or paleontological resources are present in the project area, which may be affected by the proposed project. The proposed project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. b) The proposed project would not have the potential to achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long -term environmental goals. The proposed project will result in a new multiple family building with associated improvements, parking and landscaping on a site currently developed with a 14 -unit apartment building and a single - family residence. Although the project could have potentially generate adverse impacts, mitigation measures would decrease these potential. impacts to a less than significant level.. The project would not significantly impact environmental resources. cl. Replacement of 14 older apartments and a single family residence with nine luxury • condominium residences would result in a neglioible difference in long -term environmental effects associated with occupancy of these homes All of the effects related to energv consumption, traffic water consumption utility demand solid waste disposal use of public facilities, etc. would occur if the existing structures were to be reoccupied This project would not generate new environmental impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. d) The proposed project would not have environmental impacts, which may have adverse effects on humans, either directly or indirectly, with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would avoid potentially significant adverse impacts and would reduce the identified impacts less than significant levels. The City of Newport Beach has determined that the proposed project would not have significant adverse impacts on the environment with the implementation of mitigation measures, and no additional environmental, analysis is warranted. The City weuldwill consider adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed - project with the incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures as conditions of approval. Page 65 n U L J • SOURCE LIST The following enumerated documents are available at the offices of the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660. 1. Final Program EIR - City of Newport Beach General Plan 2. General Plan, including all its elements, City of Newport Beach. 3. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan EIR, 1997. The following documents have been prepared specifically for this project, and are included by reference to this IS /MND. The documents are available at the office of the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department. 1. Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report, Neblett & Associates,. August 5, 2005. . 2. Phase I Environmental Assessment, P &D Consultants, May 26, 2005. 3. Hydrology Analysis for Tentative Tract 16882, Hunsaker & Associates, juRe 9,, 2095March 27 2007. 4. Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan, Hunsaker & Associates, June 3, 2005. 5. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Hunsaker & Associates, June 3, 2005- (revised March 27, 2007. 6. Biological Constraints Analysis, P &D Consultants, June 10, 2005. 7. Marine Biological Field Survey, Coastal Resources Management, April 12, 2005. 8. Cultural and Paleontological Resources Records Searches; LSA Associates, Inc.; July 12, 2005. 9. Traffic Analysis, P &D Consultants, August 16, 2005. 10. Aerie Project Overview, Brion Jeannette Architecture, May 8, 2006. 11. Coastal Hazard Study, GeoSoils Inc., October, 5, 2006. Attachments: Project Plans- Construction and Long -Term Emissions Calculations 0 • • • vv 'WN'w vmoOp a^v NOUVNW L=-Ior "-M-6 r MIW.-.V wu 11 "q' t' flat q1 Irl Z5 -IIIIN .Ji T*4 O gill le" pas all -.f I 111i '11 Op fill Ifill NN J 654 I 7il t ui $ )ill, pff I I k a k 9 1 N .:4 4. ®R 0 lu • rr �4 22 r g3 g IJ g 4� `L \ j. 0 lu • rr �4 22 r g3 g `L \ v" 0 lu • 0 0 11 9 S t s a V4 Q�LL mW a �Q 2 J a �a �1 w 0 1I ,1 u C� J n U 0 0 i • r� C� and NOlwm IIWNWO LOV I ��.,, we � _ I a°ilaaaLxa b 9 ,� .+� u s • • u E J a7 M+W Tiles YNOW" _� . •�� MY tmLLa rbey {OL - IOL fwawai Q zim! aroaaWwx �,au oeru ao�xa VO' II YYb WOV b'NONOO -- --° f?lO�l^J39 v [ 6 +i�'� • NOIl"J 31ffiY i 3 p I :a E� • • r L 0 • I I r� u r] 0 • • d7'avi� l30 VNON07 I _ _ -- iAV N04LVNtly7 [AC -IOC \ • - -. —• —`•. BIiLTV aN>a1N�+v a,� uauuoar uqy aooN d . � 2 y 2© } /4 b\ « HE'S 2 y 2© , � 0 � U HE'S «!� , � 0 � U • Ih • • Rill bb LL }e� 4ht"EW-AVE- 1 z <�kz �ONV�1 ;W=% C QmyO39$ /��1 tlao i3q' ka �i LLI i Hui R t- r xA i cy l 1 , 1 u � 1 u -, / r r xA i cy l 1 , 1 u � 1 u • CI • a =_Sae J Q Jul c7 C ii<WW°byuw'�O LL Z a3 �� awP�Iy .. gill e C a ff g0 ;fns �� a O e z �o� AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS AERIE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA ProjectNo.: P07 -X03 M X03_Aem-Caudommiuma Prepared for: Planning Research Network Attn: Randy Nichols 4000 Park Newport, #312 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Date: March 7, 2007 r� u is • • AIR QUALITY IMPACT Standards of Significance Air quality impacts are considered "significant' if they cause clean air standards to be violated where they are currently met, or if they "substantially" contribute to an existing violation of standards. Any substantial emissions of air contaminants for which there is no safe exposure, or nuisance emissions such as dust or odors, would also be considered a significant impact. Appendix G of the California CEQA Guidelines offers the following five tests of air quality impact significance. A project would have a potentially significant impact if it: a. Conflicts with or obstructs implementation of the applicable air quality plan. b. Violates any air quality standard or contributes substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. c. Results in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutants for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). d. Exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. • e. Creates objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Because of the chemical complexity of primary versus secondary pollutants, the South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD) has designated significant emissions levels as surrogates for evaluating impact significance independent of chemical transformation processes. Projects in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) with daily emissions that exceed any of the following emission thresholds are recommended by the SCAQMD to be considered significant: SCAQMD Emissions Significance Thresholds (pounds /day) Pollutant Construction Operations ROG 75 55 NOx 100 55 CO 550 550 PM -10 150 150 Sox 150 150 Lead 3 3 • Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November, 1993 Rev. P07 X03 Aerie Co.&.m,�u.a • Additional Indicators In its CEQA Handbook, the SCAQMD also states that additional indicators should be used as screening criteria to determine the need for further analysis with respect to air quality. The additional indicators are as follows: • Project could interfere with the attainment of the federal or state ambient air quality standards by either violating or contributing to an existing or projected air quality violation. • Project could result in population increases within the regional statistical area which would be in excess of that projected in the AQMP and in other than planned locations for the project's build -out year. • Project could generate vehicle trips that cause a CO hot spot. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook also identifies various secondary significance criteria related to toxic, hazardous or odorous air contaminants. Hazardous air contaminants are contained within the small diameter particulate matter ( "PM -2.5 ") fraction of diesel exhaust. Such exhaust will be generated by heavy construction equipment and by diesel - powered delivery or haul trucks. For PM -2.5 exhaust emissions, recently adopted policies require the gradual conversion of delivery fleets to diesel alternatives, or the use of "clean" diesel if emissions are demonstrated to be as low as those from alternative fuels. Because health risks from toxic air contaminants • (TACs) are cumulative over an assumed 70 -year lifespan, measurable off -site public health risk from TAC exposure would occur for only a brief portion early in project lifetime, and only in dilute quantity. Construction Activity Impacts Dust is normally the primary concern during construction of new buildings and infrastructure. Because such emissions are not amenable to collection and discharge through a controlled source, they are called "fugitive" emissions. Emission rates vary as a function of many parameters (soil silt, soil moisture, wind speed, area disturbed, number of vehicles, depth of disturbance or excavation, etc.). These parameters are not known with any reasonable certainty prior to project development and may change from day -to -day. Any assignment of specific parameters to an unknown future date is speculative and conjectural. Because of the inherent uncertainty in the predictive factors for estimating fugitive dust generation, regulatory agencies typically use one universal "default" factor based on the area disturbed, assuming that all other input parameters into emission rate prediction fall into mid- range average values. This assumption may or may not necessarily be applicable to site - specific conditions on the proposed substation project site. As noted previously, emissions estimation for project - specific fugitive dust sources is therefore characterized by a considerable degree of imprecision. P07_X03_Aerie_ .ft.miu. -d • In the generic dust emissions factor developed by EPA for grading activities, the PM -10 fraction of fugitive dust emissions are predicted to be around 55 pounds per day per acre disturbed in the absence of any dust control measures being applied (SCAQMD Handbook, Table 9 -2). Mandatory minimum control measures required by South Coast AQMD in Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) are generally assumed to reduce this rate by approximately 50 percent. Average daily PM -10 emissions during site grading and other disturbance are stated in the SCAQMD Handbook to be 26.4 pounds /acre. This estimate is based upon required dust control measures in effect in 1993 when the AQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook was prepared. Rule 403 was subsequently revised to require use of a greater array of fugitive dust control on construction projects. Use of enhanced dust control procedures such as continual soil wetting, use of supplemental binders, early paving, etc. has been shown to achieve a substantially higher PM -10 control efficiency (,�10 pounds/acre /day). The California Air Resources Board (ARB) URBEMIS2002 computer model predicts that the maximum daily disturbance "footprint' for the proposed project will be 0.6 acres. The calculated PM -10 emissions with the application of "standard" dust control, and with the application of enhanced dust control measures, are as follows ( pounds/day): Disturbance Area With Standard Dust Control With Best Available Control Measures 0.6 acres 15.8. pounds /day . 6.0 pounds/day Use of best available control measures (BACMs) is not required to achieve less- than- significant PM -10 dust emissions. However, because the airshed is non - attainment for PM -10, and because there are numerous dust - sensitive uses adjacent to the project site, use of best available control measures is recommended. Current research in particulate exposure health effects suggest that the most adverse effect derives from ultra -small diameter particulate matter comprised of chemically reactive pollutants such as sulfates, nitrates or organic material. A national clean air standard for particulate matter of 2.5 microns or smaller in diameter (called "PM -2.5 ") was adopted in 1997. Very little construction activity particulate matter is in the PM -2.5 range. Soil dust is also more chemically benign than typical urban atmospheric PM -2.5. The limited amount of PM -2.5 within the sub- threshold PM -10 burden further reinforces the finding of a less - than - significant particulate air quality impact. In addition to fine particles that remain suspended in the atmosphere semi - indefinitely, construction activities generate many larger particles with shorter atmospheric residence times. This dust is comprised mainly of large diameter inert silicates that are chemically non - reactive and are further readily filtered out by human breathing passages. These fugitive dust particles are therefore more of a potential soiling nuisance as they settle out on parked cars, outdoor furniture or landscape foliage rather than any adverse health hazard. With a high population density around the project site, dust nuisance potential must be minimized by good housekeeping and enhanced dust control procedures. eon xa; A.xJ c.e ...A. In addition to fugitive dust, equipment exhaust emissions will result from on- and off-site heavy equipment during demolition, excavation, erection of shoring and walls, and finish construction. Construction activity equipment/vehicle exhaust emissions were calculated by combining activity data from the project construction schedule with various types of equipment incorporated into the URBEMIS2002 computer model. The major construction functions will include demolition of 14 apartments and one single family home, excavation and disposal of 32,400 cubic yards of excess soil, placement of structural steel and 5,000 cubic yards of concrete, and finish construction. On -site equipment exhaust will affect the local community, while hauling activity emissions will be regional in nature. Peak trucking activities were assumed for each activity phase with 5 loads per day of demolition debris, 100 loads per day of excavated soil, and 50 loads per day of concrete and steel during maximum activities. Construction activities will be generally sequential such that there is minimal overlap between any function. The resulting exhaust emissions, compared to the SCAQMD CEAQ Handbook thresholds, are as follows (pounds/day): Activity ROG NOx CO sox PM -10 Demolition 4.2 33.5 32.4 0.0 53 Excavate & Haul 5.5 70.1 35.9 0.1 7.8 Caissons & Concrete 6.2 55.6 46.2 0.0 1.5 Finish Work 5.6 29.6 42.3 0.0 0.9 SCAQMD Threshold 75. 100. 550. 150. 150. Source: URBEMIS2002 Computer Model None of the emissions will exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. The mobile nature of the on -site construction equipment and off -site trucks will also prevent any micro -scale violation of standards. There may be localized instances when the characteristic diesel exhaust odor is noticeable from passing trucks or nearby heavy equipment. Truck exhaust impacts can be minimized by controlling construction routes to reduce interference with non - project traffic patterns and to preclude truck queuing or idling near sensitive receptor sites. State law requires that any truck waiting to load or unload must turn off its engine if the expected wait is more than five (5) minutes unless engine power is needed for the activity (such as cement mixer trucks). Construction equipment exhaust contains carcinogenic compounds within the diesel exhaust particulates. The toxicity of diesel exhaust is evaluated relative to a 24 -hour per day, 365 days per year, 70 -year lifetime exposure. Public exposure to heavy equipment operating will be an extremely small fraction of the above dosage assumption. Diesel equipment is also becoming progressively "cleaner" in response to air quality rules on new off -road equipment. Any public health risk associated with project- related heavy equipment operations exhaust is therefore not • • quantifiable, but small. 0 PO] XD]_Aerie f.01140m11114m9. QOC Construction activity air quality impacts occur mainly in close proximity to the surface disturbance area. There may, however, be some "spill- over" into the surrounding community. That spill -over may be physical as vehicles drop or carry out dirt or silt is washed into public streets. Passing non - project vehicles then pulverize the dirt to create off -site dust impacts. "Spillover" may also occur via congestion effects. Construction may entail roadway encroachment, detours, lane closures and competition between construction vehicles (trucks and contractor employee commuting) and ambient traffic for available roadway capacity. Emissions controls require good housekeeping procedures and a construction traffic management plan that will maintain such "spill- over" effects at a less - than - significant level. As part of the SCAQMD Environmental Justice initiative, the air district has developed air quality threshold levels to insure that no economically or socially disadvantaged community is exposed to any disproportionate share of additional air pollution. The SCAQMD has recommended that these local significance thresholds (LST) be applied to CEQA analyses for both construction and project operations anywhere in the air basin. Use of LST's is optional and voluntary for CEQA air quality impact analysis and a community such as Newport Beach is not socially or economically disadvantaged. Project- related emissions have therefore been compared to LST thresholds as an information item, but not as an applicable impact significance threshold. The URBEMIS model estimates that the daily construction "footprint" will be less than one acre. Construction activity LSTs close for a site with one acre of simultaneous disturbance acreage are • as follows (pounds /day) at the perimeter of the activity: • All emissions except PM -10 during the excavation phase will be below the suggested LST thresholds. However, PM -10 is not judged to be a good predictor of short-term health impacts as evidenced by EPA's decision to revoke the national PM -10 standard. Exhaust PM -2.5 emissions are below the LST threshold, and can be further reduced by recommended use of soot traps for construction equipment. Given the imprecision of the PM -10 emissions calculation there is no clear indication of any significant health impact during project construction based upon the LST methodology. PO] XO]_Aene_COndominim,uAa Fugitive Dust Exhaust CO NOx PM -10 PM -2.5 LST Threshold 333 158 4 3 Proposed Project 3246 30 -70 0 -6 1 -2 All emissions except PM -10 during the excavation phase will be below the suggested LST thresholds. However, PM -10 is not judged to be a good predictor of short-term health impacts as evidenced by EPA's decision to revoke the national PM -10 standard. Exhaust PM -2.5 emissions are below the LST threshold, and can be further reduced by recommended use of soot traps for construction equipment. Given the imprecision of the PM -10 emissions calculation there is no clear indication of any significant health impact during project construction based upon the LST methodology. PO] XO]_Aene_COndominim,uAa Operational Impacts A total of 9 residences will be created by the project. At 8 trips per unit, the project will generate 72 ADT. A typical residential trip length in Orange County is 7 miles (longer commuting, shorter shopping, school, etc.) Around 500 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) will be added to the basin -wide mobile source emissions burden of around 300,000,000 VMT per day. Secondary impact potential will derive from energy consumption in power plants or on -site heaters, stoves, water heaters, etc. General development also creates miscellaneous emissions from a variety of sources such as cleaning products, landscaping equipment, or fireplaces, and also contributes to off -site emissions at restaurants, gas stations, dry cleaners, or sand and gravel plants. Except for more readily quantifiable energy consumption (stationary sources), many of the small miscellaneous sources are typically not quantified on a single project basis. These small sources, however, are non - negligible when minute individual contributions are summed over millions of Southern California residences. They further attest to the conclusion that overall anticipated growth is a substantial impediment to the attainment of regional clean air standards. The California ARB land use and air pollution emissions URBEMIS2002 computer model was run for a year 2010 project build -out. The project- related vehicular emissions burden is shown in Table 1. Thresholds will not be exceeded for any of the pollutants analyzed. The proposed project is too small to have a measurable air quality impact, and further replaces uses that had almost identical trip- making characteristics as the proposed project such that there will be U negligible "new" emissions. • U Po) X03 Aerie Candomwiwm.da • Table 1 Project - Operations Air Pollution Emissions (pounds /day) n u Source ROG NOx CO PM -10 sox Operational (Vehicle) 0.6 0.6 6.4 0.7 0.0 Emission Estimates Area Source Emission 0.7 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 Estimates* SCAQMD Significance 5 55 550 Threshold 7No 7-7 Exceeds Threshold ( ?) No No % of Threshold 2 1 1 0 *Energy consumption, landscape maintenance, etc. Source: URBEMIS2002 Air Quality Model NLX03 -A�m- CAW .re 8 • IMPACT MITIGATION Air quality impacts during construction will not exceed significance threshold levels. Even though the construction activity PM -10 emissions are maintained below SCAQMD thresholds, any increase in air pollution in a non - attainment area should be considered as an adverse impact and reduced to the extent reasonable and feasible. Emissions from construction activities should therefore be minimized where possible. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires use of at least one dust control measure. An enhanced program incorporating multiple measures is recommended, including: • Using adequate water for dust control (preferably reclaimed water), including either paving, or applying water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. • Cover, or water twice daily, any on -site stockpiles of crushed cement, debris, dirt or other dusty material. • Operating street sweepers or roadway washing trucks on adjacent roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or dried mud carried off by trucks moving dirt or bringing construction materials within one hour of observable spillage or track out. • Covering trucks or wetting down loads of any dirt hauled to or from the project site. • Requiring on -site contractors to operate a congestion relief program including: r,. Rideshare incentives for construction personnel . Off -street parking for construction contractors d- Lane closures limited to non -peak traffic hours •- Receipt of construction materials scheduled for non -peak traffic periods where possible • Soil disturbance shall be terminated if winds exceed 25 mph. • Trucks and construction equipment shall be turned off if their idle period exceeds five (5) minutes. Construction vehicles shall be prohibited from idling directly in front of residences or other sensitive receptors. • Soot traps shall be required for all on -site diesel - powered equipment exceeding 100 HP unless the contractor demonstrates that their use is infeasible on this project. E PO'lx03_Aerie_Cvvdvmin+umadac E APPENDIX URgElMS2002 Computer Model Qutput 10 P07 XU3_Aa+c Co�iuimrtd°` Exhibit No. 12 Memorandum from Randy Nichols C? Memo To: James Campbell, Senior Planner, City of Newport Beach From: Randy A. Nichols, AICP CC: David Lepo Date: March 30, 2007 Re: Recirculation of AERIE Project Draft IS/MIND Not Warranted Section 15073.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines sets forth the requirements for recirculation of a Negative Declaration, prior to adoption by the Lead Agency. As stated therein, "A lead agency is required to recirculate a negative declaration when the document must be substantially revised after public notice of its availability has previously been given pursuant to Section 15072, but prior to its adoption." A "substantial revision' includes: 1. Anew, avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures o project revisions must be added to reduce the effect to insignificance, or 2. The proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significant and new measures or project revisions are required. Neither of these two circumstances has occurred as a result of the recent revisions to the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration, as discussed below. One new impact has been identified, the need to replace the City's catch basin along Carnation Drive, because the drainage plan has changed to direct all site runoff into that small basin, which does not have sufficient capacity for the additional volume of runoff. That is a minor, not significant impact, because the new catch basin can be constructed along with other site improvements, with no significant effects on local traffic or surrounding properties, and no adverse environmental effects that are unique to replacement of a catch basin. Temporary construction traffic, noise and air quality impacts and associated mitigation measures have been clarified through additional information; however, these darifications did not change the Initial Study conclusion that these effects would be less than significant. Minor revisions to the Project Description have been made to clarify that construction of expanded boat docks must be approved by separate discretionary permit, subsequent to action on this redevelopment/development project. Potential impacts to eel grass and the marine environment will be addressed through subsequent CEQA documentation. This is not a deferral of impact analysis and significance determination; rather, it is recognition of the project entitlement process that separates the docks expansion from the rest of the project. Other revisions made to the IS simply clarify and provide further explanation of less than significant impacts concerning aesthetics, light and glare, noise, water quality and traffic. It is also important to note (if this is the case) that no significant issues concerning the adequacy of the Draft IS /MND have been raised during the public review process. No evidence has been introduced to suggest that there would be new significant impacts not identified in the Draft IS/MND, or that impacts identified as less than significant would actually be significant. Recirculation of the Draft IS /MND is not warranted. • Page 2 7 Z Exhibit No. 13 Additional correspondence 75 MICHAEL AND JEANIE MILLIKAN 2222 Channel Road Newport Beach, CA 92661 -1513 March 22, 2007 David Lepo Planning Director 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 Dear Mr. Lepo: Please be sure to distribute a copy of this letter to all of the Planning Commissioners and City Council members so that they clearly understand that I support the AERIE project. I was the one quoted in the Daily Pilot as opposing the project since it affected my view from across the bay. At that time I received a call from someone who frantically requested that I gather people to fight a project that was destroying the entire hillside to the water. After mobilizing neighbors and attending the first Planning Commission Meeting, I realized that not only did this project respect the hillside, but it was in fact a perfect development for that hillside. I did not speak against the project there, and in fact felt badly that I even considered opposing the project. I also had the opportunity of meeting the Julians and hearing a bit of their side of the story. After that Planning Commission Meeting, I was invited by the Julians to view the property, see the exhibits first hand, as well as the scaled model of the property. I also met several neighbors of the project and learned that the Julian had spoken to all of them, and made significant changes to the plans to accommodate the desires and input of the neighbors. I don't think that I have ever found a builder who respected the wishes of the neighbors as much as the Julians. After fully investigating what was being done, I realized that the AERIE project is not only respectful of the hillside, but rather it conforms perfectly to the surroundings. It is exactly what should be built there. Design -wise and architecturally, I feel that the project represents a perfect respect for nature and the surroundings here in the harbor. I can't wait to see that project framed in my living room window. Please approve the AERIE project We need more projects like this along our shores. Sincerely, Michael Millikan cc: Mayor Steven Rosansky Rick Julian Jeanie Millikan �� " 75 Mar -27 -07 O1_59P 0. Cord March 22, 2007 David and Betty Cord 2 Canyon Lane Corona del Mar, CA 92625 949- 759 -3423 P.01 To the City of Newport Beach Planning Commissioners and City Council, RE: AERIE Proposed Condominium Development My wife and I have lived in Corona del Mar f'or many years, and have recently become familiar with the proposed condominium project at the north end of Ocean Blvd. and Carnation Ave. This is, by far, the worst possible re- development plan imaginable for this beautiful location, We regularly walk Ocean Blvd., and so enjoy the view from that area, as you can look down at the bluff, cove and harbor. Anytime we have relatives visiting from out or town, that's one of the beat places to get a beautiful photograph. The proposed development seems to be the exact opposite of what the street represents, with its' lovely homes and views, and we're surprised that this project would be allowed at all, especially since it is so much larger than the existing building. We urge the Planning Commission to look at the possibility of reducing the number of condominiums so that the building would not impact the natural environment and public views. 'Thank You fir your consideration, Sincerely, �� ,&7� David and Betty Cord HOd39OWN 10 JWO LOU 4z HVW 1N11YUWd3a 0NINWd M aAM3O3d March 23, 2007 Joseph and Lisa Vallejo 2501 Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAR 2'7 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RE: Condominium development at 201 -207 Carnation Ave., CDM Dear Members of the Planning Commission, We recently e- mailed you a brochure regarding the proposed development for the site at Ocean Blvd. and Carnation Ave., in Corona del Mar. We live at the corner of Ocean and Carnation, on the water side, with the proposed project directly next door, which makes us, by far, the most affected by this development. We have lived here since 1990, and have remodeled our 1949 home into something that is an asset to the neighborhood. Along with the points in the brochure regarding the California Land Use Plan provisions, we believe that this project will negatively impact our neighborhood, and we are unconditionally against it. We have seen the model and feel that it is just "too much" for this site. Further,- other then the Channel Reef which was built in 1962, before there was a definitive land use plan, there is nothing else on Ocean Blvd. as massive and dense as this project. This would never even be considered anywhere else along Ocean Blvd., as it is a major view corridor, and an asset to the city and the many people who come here to enjoy the natural beauty. Shouldn't the fact that this project is "so complex" that it.wi111ake:anot er.four to five years; or more to build, after four years of planning, be a red flag that maybe it's not suitable for this area? We hope that, upon more intense review, the Commission will realize that this project must be scaled down or denied, and if constructed as planned will do a great disservice to the citizens of Corona del Mar, and the community as a whole. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Joseph and Lisa Vallejo . 77 HELP PRESERVE THE COASTAL BLUFF AT CARNATION COVE there is ❑ massive condominium complex proposed to be built on the bluff In Corona del Mar. In order to build the project the developer requires a General Flan Amendment, Zone Change Amit ndrnent. Coastal Laid Use Plan Amendment. Modification Permit, and Coastal Residential Development Permit The 7 -level 9-uNt complex will be approximately 75,000 square feet, replacing a structure that is alopradmatelv20,000 square feet. The site located at the corner of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue is so constrainedthattheorfyway 9 units can be squeezed on the property Is through the use of automobile elevators, where you drive your car Into the elevator and 0 takes you and the car down to a 4 -level Parkingstructure. It this project is approved the bluff face will be destroyed, and replaced with multl -level decks and overhangs protruding ojust above the water. Thisis an area of public enjoyment from marry places In the city, and most notably, from the harbor. Once this bluff is gone, we cannot replace the natural beauty of the rock formation that presently exists. Before this is changed forever, for ourselves, and for future generations, we must speak up NOWI The project was recently Presented to the planning commission where a majority of the comrtmssioners were in l Wort of the Project though B was obvious that the commuNty nod not been informed. The Public hearing was continued to April 5th and we need YOURSIIPPORTI The California Land Use Plan (CLUP) was whiten Please don't be distracted by the just kmmt year a a guklekne in Mlixyhons such as lift argument that the existing apartment and mrsy proNslons hrc4de "minhn Ing c" mson building is an eyesore, and #0 this of the duff face and keeping development wsudY development is the only SaUticn. We all compallblewlm the sumundingarea '. As thsarea know at some property will be consists predonhmnfly of sbVe famlly, homes point In r0 wereasidngthattrispajed developed, hopefully a away that vd. benefit the owner, the hots. ortroad, 1.8E SCALED ODOWN THE MINIMIZE antlihe camyllUttlya6awFWle. ALTERATION OF THE BLUFF 8. BE MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD S. PRESERVE THE PUBLIC VIEW CORRIDOR ALONG OCEAN BOULEVARD Thlx project must be held to the "predomtrtant line of development" Standards as described in the Coaxial Ind Use Plan. What the planning commission has to address Is not the truck routes or dally construction clean -up, but rather whether or not to Wow a beautiful public treasure such as this bluff to be exploited for economic incentives. Tiara is no other location in the harbor that has such an opportunity to change our coastline to such an extreme extent. Shouldn't our civic leaders err on the side of conserving this we &known and enjoyed scenic landnarllt PLEASE ATTEND THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING ON THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 2007 AT THE HOUR OF 6:90 p.m. IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS (BUILDING A) AT 9900 NEWPORT BOULEVARD,NEWPORTSEACH. FOR INFORMATION CALL THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT (949) 644 -3200. LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD TO SAVE AN IRREPLACEABLE SCENIC RESOURCE OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE BEFORE ITS TOO LATEI /x DAVID K. LAMB 815 VIA LIDO SOUD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 949 -833 -1554 EXT. 228 February 22, 2007 Mr. David Lepo Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca 92663 Re: Aerie Development Project in Corona Del Mar Planning Commission Hearing February 22, 2007 Dear Mr. Lepo: I have known Rick Julian for twenty years and have seen many of his developments and rehabilitated residential projects. Mr. Julian does all of his developments in a first class manner. He has the talent and foresight to make a spectacular condominium project in this landmark location on the bluff above our harbor entrance. His plans are of the quality that we as Newport Harbor neighbors and boaters will enjoy well into the future. The dynamic plans demonstrate the amount of forethought that has gone into this project. Mr. Julian always uses the best consultant team and this project is no different with his selection of Mr. Jeannette as his architect. My wife and I have been to the old apartment community in the past and go by the location often as we go in and out of the harbor. What is there now is embarrassing to Newport Beach. The Aerie Development will be a beautiful addition to our Harbor entry and we whole heartedly support your approval of the development. Please approve the Aerie Development at the February 22, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. tLol��' 79 Tax& l+ina ncl2 {Group CIIARLES K. TURMR, PhD C.4 Lkense Nu OE40655 FIN,INCIAL ADVISOR February 16, 2007 Richard Julian Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. 23792 Roekfield Blvd., #100 Lake Forest, CA 92630 Dear Rick: INVISihIENI ADVWA*b SERVICES I saw a petition for development of the old Corona Cove apartments land. As a Back Bay resident, I took some inteaect in it, and have had the opportunity to review the location, overall plans, and renderings for the proposed project. 1 think we need to be smart about development in Newport Beach, and this seems to me the kind of project we want to encourage. I wish you luck, and would be happy to offer any support if that would be of value. Charles Turner 2900 Quedada Newport Beach, CA 92660 4001 MocArthur Boukvxrd, 3 floor • Newport Bach, CA 92660 • (800) 373 -2177 Toll -Frx • (949) 2234100 Main • (949) 223-5 101 Pax chtP&turnerk'Stfosnuo.cnm a(949 )223 -8214 Direct , www.tforoun.mn Wasuma SecwiNess& lmesrmesuddvlsary Services OtedikowkS ecaNaslJmaaialSe"kes, loc. UW'h Y45OWPC hmwjgyv r x4 el Registered brvastmemrt.4dWrar • Tar & rinandal Group an affiliate 4Sectala".. Is huko adaaty cperared February 9, 2007 Mr. David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 COASTKEEPER EDUCATION / ADVOCACY / RESTORATION / ENFORCEMENT 3151 Airway Ave., Suite F -110 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 714.850.1965 Voice 714.850.1592 Fax s .coastkeeper org RE: "AERIE" Tent. Tract 16882 in Newport Beach Dear Mr. Lepo: Orange County Coastkeeper is a non -profit corporation focused on water quality and healthy marine habitats. Our mission is to protect and preserve our marine habitats and watersheds through education, advocacy, restoration and enforcement. One of our programs is to constructively work with the development community to review and make recommendations on proposed water quality management plans of specific development projects. This effort is to ensure that new development projects embrace state -of -the -art technologies, design, and management to eliminate polluted runoff from discharging off the project property. Coastkeeper has reviewed the water quality management plan for the AERIE project (Tent. Tract map 16682) and have met with the applicants on several occasions. The project proposes to install media filters to remove trash, grease, oils, and metals. We have made a recommendation to add a technology to the water quality plan. Though we realize current regulations do not require it, we recommend technology, such as AbTech's "Smart Sponge", that will remove approximately 90% of the bacteria from the discharge. Coastkeeper believes this to be important since the project discharges directly into the harbor. The applicant has agreed with our recommendation to install this type of technology. Coastkeeper endorses the proposed water quality management plan for the AERIE project. When completed, the water quality management plan will be state -of -the -art and exceed regulatory standards. It is our opinion that the water quality of the runoff discharge into the harbor will be significantly improved over the current runoff condition from this property. Y/ February 14, 2007 Lloyd `Bud' and Linda Rasner 2500 Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Mr. David Lepo Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: —Aerie Development Dear Mr. Lepo, We live at the corner or Ocean and Carnation. Arguably our home is potentially the most affected of all residences by this development. Mr. Julian as owner of the project has been very forthright with and responsive to our concerns. His outreach to the neighborhood has been admirable and congenial. We unconditionally supimrt the project and have seen the plans on a continuing basis since the project was conceived years ago. The recent model confnms our approval decision. The existing building has been an eyesore for the 35 years that we have lived in Corona del Mar. Of course we expect some impact from construction but that would happen under any development. I am certain that this project will be considerate to the neighborhood and to the greatest extent possible mitigated to cause the least impact. We earnestly endorse the project and encourage you to support it as well. The view from the corner and water will we a first class endeavor. Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Dr. Lam& Linda Rasner �Z KENT S. MOORE 210 CARNATION AVENUE CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 192626 TEL: 1949) 678-7692 FAR: (949) 678.7699 kentmoore @wor1dnet.att.nct February 14, 2007 Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Aerie Project, 201, 205 & 207 Carnation Ave., CDM Dear Members of the Planning Commission: I am writing in support of Mr. Rick Julian and his proposed project at the site of the old Corona Cove Apartments located at the comer of Ocean Blvd. and Carnation Ave. in Corona del Mar. I have owned property across the street from this location since 1975 and have seen several building projects undertaken in our neighborhood over the years, some good and some bad. In reviewing Mr. Julian's plans it is obvious that he is attempting to create a world class residential development at this beautiful and scenic Iocation above the harbor entrance. He has also gone out of his way to get to know the local property owners and outline his project plans for them. I have spoken with many of my neighbors who favor the current plan which is now before you for approval. I hope that, upon carefid review, the Commission will also come to realize that the adoption of the Aerie Condominiums plan will be a win -win situation for this neighborhood and will enhance life for both residents and visitors in this very unique corner of Newport Beach. Sincerely, �3 Implants William L. Mihram, D.D.S., M.S.D. I -� Pi 07 ©A �� wl�ov. , t�.Gl� �vj' C a• %'o� v C'arb'ia /-IV ( MAI 0Q % Su I ;a A 16L s'- d,\e6u �o r Prin o vx><; ati -ems -lI'7 L�of 55,-e9(- ! C> ° �c -'r � c� n �j c o n C b 6 ./ 110L -! n 451/l1 S o h j R 'ems x Santa Ana - Tustin Medical Center 801 N. Tustin Avenue Suite 708 Santa Ana, California 92705 714 -558 -1137 FAX 714- 558 -1459 �y YS Feb 21 07 07:11p Jennings Pierce 949 646 5007 P.1 Koren A.V. Pierce 2772 Bayshore Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Cellular (949) 795 -4829 Fax (949) 646 -5007 lodvbond2 @hotmail.com February 21, 2007 To Whom it May Concern I have lived in Newport Beach and Corona del Mar for sixteen years and I am writing to express my support of the proposed redevelopment of the former Corona Cove Apartments and adjacent single family dwellings located on Carnation Avenue in Corona del Mar. Rick Julian, through his company Advanced Real Estate Services, is proposing to build a new residential development, to be known as Aerie, located on the bluffs of Newport Harbor. For as long as I have resided in Newport Bench and Corona del Mar, the apartment building at this location has been has been a ran -down, dilapidated eyesore. It sits at the end of the street with breathtaking views of Newport Beach, Newport Harbor and the ocean. However, despite this commanding location, the building, the community areas, and the boat dock has always been in disrepair and neglect. Over the years, it has deteriorated so significantly that renovation is no longer a viable option. I have reviewed the blueprints and artist renderings of the proposed new development and I am extremely impressed at the caliber of the new architectural design. It will simply be a jewel on the bluff as one views it from the ocean and Newport Harbor, as well as from ocean Blvd. and Carnation Avenue. By this letter, I wish to convey my complete support of the proposed Aerie development. I believe it will be a stunning world class residential development. Sin , Karen A. Pierce M Page 1 of 1 Robb Cerruti From: Tim Newman [tlnewman1954@hotmail.coml Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 2:25 PM To: dlepo @city.newport- beach.ca.us; jcole@city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: 201 -207 Carnation Ave, Corona del Mar Chairman Cole and Members of the Planning Commission, Please allow this message to serve as our endorsement and support for the project at 210 -207 Carnation Ave., Corona del Mar. As long -time local residents, to us this is certainly is a positive development for the neighborhood and for the community. With an established local architect, an excellent design, and a top -notch builder, this is a great opportunity for this site. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Tim and Christina Newman 949 -760 -0994 528 Canche Newport Beach, CA 92660 2/16/2007 97 Ralph W. and Karen R. Spargo 26 Sandy Cove Newport Coast, CA 92657 February 16, 2007 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Honorable Commissioners: As 30 year residents of the City of Newport Beach (6 of which were spent 4 blocks away from the proposed project) we would like to heartily endorse the approval of the AERIE development plans in the 200 block of Carnation Avenue. We have reviewed the plans that have been prepared by Advanced Real Estate Services and believe that the concept will be a unique response to a very challenging site and will provide a source of pride for the surrounding neighborhood and the community as a whole. Again, we sincerely hope that through your careful evaluation of the proposed project that you will approve the AERIE submittal. Ralph W. Spargo j Karen R. Spargo '-'Y? Ron and Marsha Beard 3208 Ocean Blvd Corona Del Mar, CA Feb 13, 2007 RE: former Corona Cove Apartments to be replaced w/ 9 single family attached homes To the City of Newport Beach Planning Commissioners and / or City Council, I have met w/ Rick Julian several times regarding the subject development as there was a time when I was a potentially interested purchaser of a unit I must tell you that I absolutely love the plan! Clearly, there has been so much time, effort, and thought put Into it. I think its a great addition to our neighborhood, and I think Its in character for the neighborhood. I believe that the team of architects and designers on this project as well as the developer has really placed a tremendous amount of architectural features and beauty into the project. I believe that the development will be very attractive from the street, and it will be even more beautiful from the water. We live in a world class area, and we are getting a world class development on this site. I strongly endorse the project, and I hope that you do as well. Respectfully J77 ®�. Ronald P. Beard �y February 16, 2007 RE: Proposed redevelopment of the former Corona Cove Apartments (201, 205, and 207 Carnation Ave, CDM) To the City of Newport Beach Planning Commissioners and/or City Council, I am writing this letter in support of the proposed AERIE redevelopment project at the aforementioned address. As an immediate neighbor and boat owner who regularly views this property from the street as well as the harbor, I can honestly say the redevelopment will be aesthetically pleasing from all angles. I have reviewed the plans with Rick Julian and Robb Cerruti, and after viewing a model of the structure I believe everyone in the neighborhood will benefit from this redevelopment. The existing structure is unattractive and doesn't blend with the other amazing homes in the neighborhood. The designer and architect behind this project have a clear understanding of how beautiful oceanfront Corona Del Mar should look. I am sure that the AERIE project will draw praise and support from almost all of its audience. As a neighbor and proud member of this community, I completely support and endorse this project. Thank you for your time. Best regards, AdA/t-%-lj-t7 Mitch McCoy 2600 Bayside Dr Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 February 14, 2007 Grant Sadler 207 Carnation Avenue Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Mr. David L.epo Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Former Corona Cove Apartments/planned 9 Single Family Attached Homes Tract 16882 —Aerie Development Dear Mr. Lepo, I am very familiar with Rick Julean's development since I Iive on the property now and have seen and reviewed the plans. The careful and thorough planning is very impressive. In addition, Rick has used first class architects and designers. The project will be fantastic and enhance the neighbor hood from the street, the homes themselves and also from the water. I enthusiastically endorse the project and encourage you to support it as well. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. M Jeffrey H. Hopkins 2725 Bungalow Place Corona Del Mar, CA 92673 2/15/07 Sent via e-mail. Re: AERIE Proposed Development February 22, 2007 hearing Dear Members of the Planning Commission: I send this letter is strong support for the AERIE Development ( "ProjecO My wife and I live in Corona Del Mat and I was born and raised in Corona Del Mar and in fact grew up going to the beach, just a few hundred feet from the Project. As it stands, if the Project is approved, due to the complexity of this project, is still several years out of being completed. Denying the Project, by contrast, will force the developer to go back to the drawing board which will, at best, delay the Project for another 45 years or more and, at worst, prevent its construction altogether Either of time latter scenarios would do a great disservice to the citizens of Corona Del Mar generally, and the homeowners located near the project specifically. . I have been tracking the history of the re- development of the Project for well over four years. This not about land use or zoning. This project is about a re-development of a blighted and dilapidated apartments and single family dwelling units that are being redeveloped into one of the most premier developments along the cost and harbor. In addition to the foregoing research, I attended a meeting in with the Project's developers and architects as well as with some of the local homeowners within the area. All involved were very open about the details of the Project and candidly answered all questions posed to them. After reviewing the plans for the Project and participating in the question and answer session, I fully support the Project and strongly urge the Planning Commission to approve it without delay. In closing, I had high expectations for the Project before I saw the detailed design drawings. The Project, as proposed, exceeds those expectations. The developer and City staff have done an outstanding job. I ask that you please approve the Project; it will be a welcome addition to our community. Thpnk you for your time. H. �Z February 16, 2007 RE: Former Corona Cove Apartmemts to be replaced with nine single family attached homes To the City of Newport Beach Planning Commissioners and /or City Council: I have has the opportunity to meet with Mr. Julian and review the subject site to be redeveloped, formerly known as the Corona Cove Apartments. 1 am thoroughly impressed with the floor plan design, architecture and overall beauty of this project. In my opinion, the approval of the redevelopment will enhance the aesthetic beauty from the street and the water, thus increasing the property values in the area. I am an avid boater and am extremely familiar with the lack of waterfront homes with dock space in Newport Harbor, to which Mr. Julian's project will also contribute. Corona del Mar is a beautiful place to live... the approval of this redevelopment will only make it better. I strongly endorse the approval for this incredible project! Sincerely, Paul Root 2600 BAYSIDE DRIVE I CORONA DEL MAR I CA 192625 / 7 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach, California February 19, 2007 Dear Planning Commissioners: We have been residents of Corona del Mar for more than 35 years and are in full support of building the planned 9- single family attached homes proposed for the property at 201, 205 & 207 Carnation Avenue in Corona del Mar. Respectfully Submitted, Wade & Jan Roberts 606 Dahlia Avenue Corona del Mar 9V Dr. Lawrence Brown 1501 Superior #304 Newport Beach, Ca 92663 February 17, 2007 To Whom It May Concern: I am a resident of Newport Beach and have been following the development of this exquisite hilltop. After reviewing the plans, Aerie seems to be the perfect plan. I know that the neighbors have all been taken into consideration and all seem to approve this project Pease approve this project as many of the residents, including myself, have already done. Respe 'Y Dr. Lawrence Bro 15 ax & Financial Group CHARLES K. TURNER, PhD CA License No. OE40655 FINANCIAL ADVISOR February 16, 2007 Richard Julian Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. 23792 Rockfield Blvd., #100 Lake Forest, CA 92630 Dear Rick: INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICES I saw a petition for development of the old Corona Cove apartments land. As a Back Bay resident, I took some interest in it, and have had the opportunity to review the location, overall plans, and renderings for the proposed project. I think we need to be smart about development in Newport Beach, and this seems to me the kind of project we want to encourage. I wish you luck, and would be happy to offer any support if that would be of value. (2 ()J' Charles Turner 2900 Quedada Newport Beach, CA 92660 4001 MacArthur Boulevard, 3'd Floor* Newport Beach, CA 92660 • (800) 373 -2177 Toll -Free . (949) 223 -8100 Main • (949) 223.8101 Fax chucUumer(Werow.com •.(949) 223 -8214 Direct • www.ffaraun.com WE SUM" Securities & Investment Advisory Services offered through Securian Financial Services, Inc., Member NASLIMPC WV'tQ N;H & A Registered Investment Advisor • Tax & Financial Group, an affiliate of Securian, is mdependendy operated Wendy Webb 115 Via Genoa Newport Beach, Ca 92663 February 17, 2007 To Whom It May Concern: I am a Realtor living in Newport Beach and have been concerned with how this exquisite hilltop will be developed. After reviewing the plans, Aerie seems to be the perfect plan for this opening to our harbor. I know that the neighbors have all been taken into consideration and all seem to approve this project. Newport Beach needs to move into the first class arena and I believe this project is a fabulous beginning. Please approve this project as many of the residents, including myself, have already done. Respectfully, Wendy Webb 77 9 O W Fa bo V'+ ro b fi U° oo sm a v a fi o •� � ro O ti �N �H 00 N 4'b ro m yo .y 0.V E P' cu 04 0 w y a 0 w 4 H aoj Y d cu VV °c4 ++ o o I U v N z w 0 v v ..o t~ 0 0 0 .y cu G 0 v 0 a 0 v C a•u o h Nv ;t. �pm V N o �U i A 0' �I � O rw � N 0 w � o I ; tF coo N I a ©I Q �Ir� H a I •I 0 g' N A z � a t. (O z CA a v z a v; z O a+ a � CA y Q Q a P. CO) v; N I a ©I Q �Ir� H a I •I 0 g' N A z � a t. (O z CA a v z a v; z O a+ a � CA y A I A y a 0 a a A ti a m a a 0 a" a r' u V b tu c0 fo ai y z �. b 0 Z h 'p v .4 LIN aj o � V %4 u z U N r.i O w y o Ott b H D � IT" ❑ -o g u � 0 4b o.. a v v ob o .3 N o ,. O c3 0 W a0 ors C y Eb g Ri '' y g�w V. ..,.0 c� 7J �?a ii��ll Vl yy A I A y a 0 a a A ti a m a a 0 a" a r' 1 fo ai y �. z Z v fo �. O H D ❑ u z z z 0 Vb O PG72 -8 b CO tip D. gV 0 14- 04 aJ cd A .1 ul 106 o. r,, w u y �a v Ll b ti u o Ong ro -G 4J � , a • ° a+ 0 o N o a •� a w V A v A A z z a v, w rn a cn z I I z o " a a 1 i W N"o • n+ ts� � u a a A � Y z •y a r 1; 1• /Q/ 9 O *14 H 2 m k & ƒ k � � % § � g §/ , % \/ M � §7 q ® �2 ( � 9 2 2� q )\ kq aQ $w \\ $@ 70 �2 \k $ § 2a ] � k \ ] � / \ ? \ � ƒ ƒ \ ƒ \ 5 \ \ / � A \ \ � \ . ) ) o\ \\ 0 I \m ƒ; \\ \ ( ( ƒ § 5 � t, p 0z \ \ 0 » \ $ � § § $ \ / � / / $ 2 \ \ \ \ or- P-1 g , \ o $ _ u � � \. �7 0 /\ ƒ0 ƒ �\ } �� 9�� d / 7 / 4 � � \ ) / « 0 � a \ } } § q \ k ƒ $ ¢ � � �: • . & � M b put �q a 4 � v y � o e v _ uo 0 y a� 103 FF1 t!1 [ e v _ uo 0 y a� 103 0 -;K / } � } } { } © } \ \ � } } IT /jv ,I E ..c 0 y+y Y o .l o b a� G. y -cs Z o u CJ C y o •0 o N o 0 p N U a� W0 v rob 0 4 G ~ z a = 0° 0 V N 3o o iW 4 74 H V O ' 0 a a v L -x Q 0 4 O b N °) 0 cu v 0 -o v y U o o. a g ao „C% � v u v 0 H .a ,I E ..c 0 y+y Y o .l b a� v w Z o u CJ C o •0 o N o 0 p N � v bo s.i = 0° 0 V o 0 3o o H 2 H V O ' 0 a a L -x Q 0 ,I E V. q y O w a I Ji H b O a" z I yM bD Cl) 15 0 6 b a� Z o u C o •0 o N o 0 p N � bo 0° 0 V o 0 3o o 2 H V H 0 a a V. q y O w a I Ji H b O a" z I yM bD Cl) 15 �ck �1 ,y a b WI O� z 0 CJ A 0 N D C z Y O N y o A. A IOU qjI` ta bA O z a y a 0 Fir M� O 5 b i0 v U � Pin ,A U � `" � o a H z oo vv b ~ k 41 � o M q N ay ro O r v O a7 ro � ,w0 ,O "d cUd ^p -o � r71 R Lf-1 ON Ra N v o ., u�! H .a WI O� z 0 CJ A 0 N z D C z Y O N y o A. A O qjI` z L� n L `email zc a r D C z O N y o A. N O —^ ta bA O z a y a -u Fir M� � 5 b i0 U � Pin ,A G 0 U f -8 b L� n L `email zc a r C z O O U vl ta bA O z a y a Vl Fir M� � 5 b i0 U � Pin U 0 -8 b � o L� n L `email zc a r aFn O tv v 0 a N Q z I ro cu aFn O tv v 0 a N Q P. P. 1 Q h v 0 P4 /6& I ro cu vl ta bA O z i�r Vl Fir M� � P. P. 1 Q h v 0 P4 /6& E 0 F W W a b w b � •ti v G�] U° b ca o fi tzU° app o v � w � S �U g O p N b N y �n 0 � ro QI L V •Q ti ,0 H cd l 0 a V as 44 0 0 O a H a v a qj od b od a+ y F 0 O, X "d v � U 0 r^ a. 21 a, b v � 0 ++ o v o " .s Cd Q) z 0 V 75 .d C v cd v 0 v .6 v O y 0 0 Ci O U v o.•0 y 0 y a 0 ,y,;. U co � 0 U R U p ct ct A /0 7 CIO w a 1 ° � a 'b v 0 V � w O O H 0 U 0-4 442 O � v 2 4 ►+ o b N v 5 � ,w0 ti . j cua T7 � a.� a� .N v o x° I v v z 0 V aCi a-� r Cd Q v G,. o ti 94 'C uu C Q O .O v o bn U � o ao � G b- na m A la i$ fl 1 N iiai{{ z i q I a H a Y Q v � z a gin' z z a I •a i s 1 s 1 S } n � y ..k I i A • 3 i i T f Ii A k 1 ibS90E9EIG 3IHaHW d QIAua WdZSiS LOOZ SI qaA is i T f Ii A k 1 ibS90E9EIG 3IHaHW d QIAua WdZSiS LOOZ SI qaA 4 zi 0 o �A b H Z 78 A -p u 0. dJ Q 1 N Q� W I l I Q AZ a u o i . i z z 1 //d O -0 .d O 91 9 1 f� At P 0 �m �A gt ^C m8 If H M L 'd m i I 0 WOW Wd60" 7 L00c -5L-Z 24 z C Nom, as 4-3 aCi .01 8 % 0 0 rn V ao Cd 04 R. .9 "o I - w. NI MEOW dZ O 91 i , z @1 ni O 04 P, z w in" b � �. a o a l y u ct O � m � G 4 O H � q °+3 W m pN '0 A al wQ ,�O -d O � a v .� y L+ O H .0 U «S 61 w 0 CJ .a v cr al ro O Cd 0 b /�0 94 b 0 0 C q o y o aq y 0 00 v 0 0 04 94 N 0 �. V , cn t° j 2 ro �v a a � yl 0 w I PA ti to .. U O F �� 0 t Al h 0 yr 1 Q O y z a bpi N too a v', //v yy z Cl a a � yl 0 w I PA ti to .. U O F �� 0 t Al h 0 yr 1 Q O y z a bpi N too a v', //v f z 0 d s z o a 4 0 a 4 115 T T 3 S T S a • f T t T _ � A S ` 1 l� •1 I p -z �S V 3� 3 i ,/ V { u w O � v b J V � V W � � w •� w ti^ � o L y ism 014 �a b a a I i. It, A a I i .., a .n a 117 A A z a a I i. It, A a I i .., a .n a 117 fo 0 W C4 'b v, v 0 v a7 N v° o �v v � o •� v �v 'b N yQlp wr" g� y p O 4 a. 0 a u O O w q W M .ti -o 0 b v b � °n, w u o +� O 1 0 F w 0 V q ,v 0 0 v 0 v 0 a v 0 0 V v O a•y 0 C� C3 U h QQ C 0 N c�— A z a r Qq l� h y N rq lu o P. a �n a c tll i. a N I A 1 a fA a a z a A A v a h s Jq i 5 z ol 3 N s //g A a�v i.I 7, o.' a. 4 N 0 A A z � z w a a n 0 U co o o z w O ,n G q� CJ v A W +� N y .G � V � O Q W id Z Q O 40 o H � � p t v JR., o a'° � V tu N w A a�v i.I 7, o.' a. 4 N 0 A A z � z w a a n LA V f} V 0 o. cl A A O LA V f} V o. cl O LA V f} V a •� � III H%%% %7 -JJJw --111 g JN izs 0 > C� ir o •� r 'O ci y z ,W I.. too b g �O O �N I 0 Z ot 1� Ya 4 Ji O U a A cn R S a o •8 im ao Q1 i0 y v d 4, a I z a a R L w 0 a A. J v z w Fn I z a I I2a "s Cd -8 Cd 0 F z t� 0 0 w 49, bl) Cd 611, 0 U � ;g Q U i . ei ao aC o ai 10, v gU4G, Ro Z R on Jol- 't-4 C) .10i o "s Cd -8 Cd 0 F z t� 0 0 w 49, bl) Cd 611, 0 U � ;g Q U i . ei ao aC o ai �� W W W a i v V� a�a O CS �v N ct N ti .�o A 0 .1 C. v ab w 0 a w q H 4 W ,j a � 8 x 0 y u b o. a.� • � i.l Rw O I V v O z w 0 U .o a� 0 O Cd >: a v 'O a a. 0 a 0 R i 'l o w U u N i L u Q Q Q z Q q O .. �o en 0 ¢I E a, i I. I' a � N � 1 Q z Q •d a C � z a. 0 G m s� a a N jet /Z 2, Q Q N jet /Z 2, � z a m vi Kit 41 w A v • •a 123 a o M D. s z Y UO 0 o g�g F+. 2 a u I i I i . /211 a� a� 2 a u I i I i . /211 9 O H W A4 a w y .Ri v� 00 �N N g O o N 4� ti .ry R CV Q a V 4.+ O Y w -a .n ++ y 0 OT uu � v b d ai a `" -S . w 4 +9 op, Li { O M� W r 0 z 0 .A u .v 0 0 a, b 0 G 0 u aGi � C O o O .b ^U 0 %Ili f v 0 a W z a U1 Y A W to z Y Q1 a En (5-41 y 0 �C y 0 U 0 d ro h O W pca f v 0 a W z a U1 Y A W to z Y Q1 a En A Q O Y O Y "n 125 aYq O Y O Y "n 125 aYq ro O R+ w ro fi fi o •� M � IOU, N a; q1 $ ro a 4 0 •A A 0 C. 0 0 w V Nei W r� v 4 =,X 'C3 b N m A a 0 a ;, 10 .19 {per dJ is 44111 0 L 0 F U N 0 z w 0 U .o A v 0 Cd .n 0 ro C O r O 0 V 0�,O N -o v° N �O v° �N Q A O -a 04 C N ,v Q yN A a l Q z av"s � z a sn 1 O A Y A z a a l s, VI z /Z( � a A z b � io ai w w a �+ W w P4 a N •.� W Q p 4 'h �y Igo e0 U 0 U F '•� � a A z io ai w w 4 A 1 a R a a in /27 v � V w E4 �o y o � U � 42 (3a P4 a v u c h :> -d -00) o So yOro u � w m .o to pq A ;A v z 0. a � lM} � z a U h N o y w a: A z a b an N v Q w H 0. 8 lM} z a H 0. N z a 4 A a �p P�.m' a ifi w d FL oj El w z I , 'JI3 o 40 a rn 0 18.1 a OV 44 Rv 00 M4.1 114 oQ VVV H' NO 44 0 FL oj El w z I Oj I i , 'JI3 o 40 a rn Oj I i , 'JI3 o ri o z a W .� o u W a —sl z vv w W� Cd fa o E: nz N o v ' 60_'' 0. b .O a N 1 r A .A A p z � z z w A � z � .n a "vii OI r p A z a v, z a _ 130 p A _ 130 H I s N 4 a aVl �(yypp \ �W `erg A I N U 0I �f A z 13V