HomeMy WebLinkAboutAerie_201-207 & 207 Carnation Ave-101 Bayside Pl (PA2005-196)CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 3
February 22, 2007
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner
(949) 644 -3210, icamobell(a�city newoort- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: AERIE (PA2005 -196)
201 -205 & 207 Carnation Avenue
101 Bayside Place
APPLICANT: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc.
Richard Julian, President
ISSUE
Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the AERIE project to the City
Council?
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission, after holding a public hearing, continue
the hearing to a future date to be determined at the meeting and direct the applicant to
modify the project to be consistent with Coastal Land Use Plan policies.
DISCUSSION
The AERIE project consists of the demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment building and
single - family residence and the construction of a new 9 -unit residential condominium
building. The following discretionary approvals are requested or required in order to
implement the project as designed:
General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -006 would change the land use designation of a
584 square foot portion of 101 Bayside Place from RT (Two -Unit Residential) to RM
(Multiple -Unit Residential, 20 dwelling units per acre).
2. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -002 would change the Coastal Land Use
Plan designation of the same 584 square foot portion of 101 Bayside Place from RH -D
High Density Residential - 50.1 to 60 dwelling units per acre to RM -A (Medium Density
Residential - 6.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre).
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 2
3. Zone Change No. 2005 -009 would change the zoning designation of the 584 square
foot portion of 101 Bayside Place from R -2 (Two - Family Residential) to MFR
(Multifamily Residential, 2178 square feet per unit).
4. Tract Map No. 2005 -004 (TT16882) combines the 584 square foot portion of 101
Bayside Place with 201 -205 Carnation Avenue and 207 Carnation Avenue and
subdivides the air space for 9 residential condominium units.
5. Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 would permit a 5 -foot subterranean encroachment
within the 10 -foot front setback along Carnation Avenue, and a 3' -1" to 5' -7" above -
grade and subterranean encroachment into a 10' -7" side yard setback between the
project and 215 Carnation.
6. Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -002 is an application required by
Chapter 20.86 of the Municipal Code to review the potential loss of affordable housing
within the Coastal Zone. No low or moderate income households occupy the site and
no replacement housing is required.
The 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) will
be demolished to construct a new 9 -unit condominium complex. The existing apartment
building has a total of four levels, three levels visible above existing grade from the street,
with all four levels visible from Newport Bay. The existing single - family home north of the
apartment building is single -story.
The new building 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 to be
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 project area of 1.4 acres.
Each unit will have a private storage room located in the lowest basement level. Additional
amenities include a private spa, lounge, patio, locker room, exercise room, and a pool
located on Level 1. Residences are located on Levels 1 through 6. Two parking spaces per
unit and 7 guest parking spaces are provided on Levels 1 through 4. Parking on Level 4 is
accessed via a typical driveway and is approximately 3 feet below the grade of Carnation.
It accommodates two, 2 -car garages and 3 guest parking spaces. All other parking is
below Level 4 and is accessed from Carnation Avenue utilizing two freight elevators
designed to accommodate vehicles.
A staircase is currently located on the bluff face extending from the existing apartment
building to the existing floating docks. The upper portion of the stairs will be removed
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 3
where the new building is proposed and a new staircase will be constructed in the side
yard to connect Level 1 to the existing stairs. Construction of a ramp from the lowest
basement level connecting it to the existing stairs is also proposed. Lastly, the project will
also include improvements to the existing private boat dock increasing the berthing
capacity from 4 to 9 boats. A comprehensive set of architectural plans, conceptual grading
plans and a tract map is attached for reference.
The proposed condominium building will consist of the following areas:
Note: Common areas include the cross floor area not devoted to indivi
Project Setting
dual
residences and common recreational spaces and all parking areas
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 partially submerged, rocky
and includes a small, sandy cove at the base of the landform occasionally referred to as
Carnation Cove. The buildings are located at the top of the bluff and the westerly extent of
the foundations of the existing buildings are located on the most elevated portions of the
landform. A staircase presently exists on the bluff face that connects the apartment building
with an existing, irregularly - shaped, concrete pad (approximately 720 square feet) and a
private floating dock bayward of the rocks. Introduced, non - native vegetation covers the
upper portions of the bluff below the existing buildings and the lower portion of the bluff has
exposed rocks.
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.
n
L�Wn
(sq: k)
1
Levels 5 & 6
4,833
369
1,393
6,595
2
Level
3,348
369
1,638
5,355
3
Level
4,459
361
962
5,782
4
Level
4,671
361
897
5,929
5
Level
5,094
361
794
6,249
6
Levels 4 & 5
4,091
368
824
5,283
7
Levels 2 & 3
5,211
369
863
6,443
8
Levels 2, 3 & 4
4,962
442
734
6,138
9
Levels 5 & 6
6,239
369
1,264
7,872
Total
42,908
3,369
9,369
55,646
Common
All levels
n/a
n/a
nla
20,687
Areas
Total
76,333
Note: Common areas include the cross floor area not devoted to indivi
Project Setting
dual
residences and common recreational spaces and all parking areas
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 partially submerged, rocky
and includes a small, sandy cove at the base of the landform occasionally referred to as
Carnation Cove. The buildings are located at the top of the bluff and the westerly extent of
the foundations of the existing buildings are located on the most elevated portions of the
landform. A staircase presently exists on the bluff face that connects the apartment building
with an existing, irregularly - shaped, concrete pad (approximately 720 square feet) and a
private floating dock bayward of the rocks. Introduced, non - native vegetation covers the
upper portions of the bluff below the existing buildings and the lower portion of the bluff has
exposed rocks.
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.
Tidelands:
Site area above 2:1 slope:
Site area below 2:1 slope:
Building coverage existing:
Building coverage proposed:
Project area:
Maximum building height:
Building height proposed:
Area Basement:
Area Level 1:
Area Level 2:
Area Level 3:
Area Level 4:
Area Level 5:
Area Level 6:
Total Area:
Maximum floor area:
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 4
Project Statistics
11,293 square feet
15,164 square feet
21,362
13,483 square feet
15,198 square feet
61,282 square feet (1.4 acres)
28 to the midpoint of sloping roof, 33 to the
peak
Varies depending upon level, none exceed 28
feet
14,604 square feet
12,984 square feet
13,388 square feet
12,158 square feet
9,744 square feet
7,989 square feet
5,557 square feet
76, 333 square feet
90,759 square feet (50,833 s. f. buildable area
X 1.75 + 200 s. f. per enclosed garage)
Required parking: 18 resident spaces and 5 guest spaces
Parking provided: 18 resident spaces and 7 guest spaces
Setbacks required
Front:
Side:
Rear:
Setbacks provided
10 feet
10 feet, 7 inches
10 feet
Front: 10 feet above grade, 5 feet below grade
Side: 10 feet, 7 inches on south and northwest,
between 5 and 7.5 feet at Carnation Ave. grade
and below grade on the north and between 28
to 30 feet on Levels 5 & 6 on the north.
Rear: Over 210 feet
r ' +�
z�
LL ��
Vn ��
�� a l
�L.
�y��
�.
4 `�
�\
�"�` ,'
ti I
I
NY
Z
t
} OW ,,
�
h
log
/ s
}e1y{ i
a U.
tt
v
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 7
Existing General Plan Land Use Designations
Existing Zoning Designations
AERIE (PA2005-196)
February 22, 2007, Page 8
Amendment Exhibit
oposed
Lot Line Adjustment
..... ............ .............................. ...............
584 sq. ft. area subject to land
Pr use & zoning amendments
2
3:
LU
Z
01
Legend
Z, MFR • NUti•Faffily Residential I? 1A.
R-2 • Two-Fm* Residential
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 9
ANALYSIS
General Plan
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
(60,700 square feet) is designated RM (Multi -Unit Residential, 20 dwelling units per
acre). The designation of the 584 square foot portion of the site will be changed to RM
(Multiple -Unit Residential) to match the remainder of the site. Although the additional
land area would otherwise numerically allow 1 additional unit, the 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 maximum density as calculated
by the Zoning Ordinance is 9 units and is not increased with the increased project area.
The density of the proposed project is well below the maximum density permitted by the
General Plan (28 dwellings) and it is consistent with the maximum density allowed by
the existing MFR zone.
The Land Use Element contains general goals and policies for residential development
encouraging compatible and diverse development. Property maintenance is stressed
and multi - family development must be designed to convey a high - quality architectural
character.
Policy LU5.1.9 indicates 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 reflects building articulation, roof modulation and a diverse architectural
style consistent with Land Use policies. 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 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. In conclusion, staff
believes that the project is consistent with Policy LU5.1.9.
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 10
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. The Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) contains more specific
policies regarding these topics and a discussion of the relevant CLUP policies follows. If
the project is found consistent with Coastal Land Use Policies, the project is also
consistent with the Land Use and Natural Resources Elements.
Coastal Land Use Plan
The Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) presently designates the 584 square foot portion of
the site RH -D High Density Residential - 50.1 to 60 dwelling units per acre and approval
of this application would change the designation to RM -A (Medium Density Residential -
6.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre) to match the remainder of the site. The additional
area, as previously indicated, numerically increases the maximum density by 1 unit from
13 to 14, but the density limitation as required by the Zoning Ordinance is more
restrictive as it excludes submerged lands and slopes in excess of 50% from the density
calculation and results in a maximum permissible density of 9 units. The proposed
project is below the maximum density of the RM -A designation and equal to the
maximum density permitted by the Zoning Code.
Land Use and Development - Chapter 2 of the CLUP regulates land use and
development. The site is designated for residential use and, as discussed above, the
CLUP designation would be changed to RM -A. The following additional policies within
Chapter 2 of the CLUP apply and several discussions of policies are grouped by issue.
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 density is below the
maximum established by the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan as noted above
and by Zoning regulations as discussed below.
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 provided setback
proposed should provide an adequate separation from the building to the north and the
encroachments would not impact fragile resources as they are located on the opposite
side of the building away from the bluff and bay. Additional discussion of setbacks
follows in the discussion of the Modification Permit request.
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 11
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.
Policy 2.&1 -1. Review all applications for new development 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 and the
proposed improvements are well above wave action.
Policy 2.&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. The proposed building is located
above potential wave action and, as such, is sited to avoid the most hazardous portion
of the project site.
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
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 12
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 Nino 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.
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
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. 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 will be required as a condition of
approval.
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.
Public Access - Chapter 3 establishes policies regarding public access. The following
policies within Chapter 3 apply and a discussion of project consistency follows the
policies, and again, several discussions of policies are grouped by issue.:
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 13
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 shag 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, drip/ine 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 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.
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 14
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. The proposed project does not make any accommodations through
the site for access to the water nor is the applicant dedicating or offering to dedicate
public access. 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
disable could not be accommodated. Support facilities presently do not exist 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 (see discussion
below). The applicant plans to install a bench or other public amenity at the comer to
improve the experience. As noted above, 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 existing or proscriptive access
rights exist, the project will not impact or impede public access, but rather it will improve
it.
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
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 15
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 and the project can be found consistent with the CLUP policies above and
the Coastal Act. Staff believes that the project is consistent with the CLUP given the
variety of factors considered above.
Public views and the scenic & visual quality of the Coastal Zone - Chapter 4
establishes policy regarding the protection of coastal resources. The following policies
are applicable, and as with the two previous sections, several discussions of policies
are grouped by issue.
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.
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.
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.
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 16
The project requires the issuance of a grading permit and the stabilization of soils during
construction is a standard requirement. A final WQMP and SWPPP are another
mandatory requirement with the issuance of building and grading permits. These plans
are prepared by qualified professionals and include best management practices, both
structural and non - structural, to insure that erosion and stormwater discharge will not
impact Newport Bay.
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.
4.4.1 -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. ")
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.
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. (This date is the date when the Coastal
Commission approved the Coastal Land Use Plan.)
Policy 4.4.3 -4. 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.
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 17
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 required such that the existing accessory
structures (concrete pad, staircase and walkway be removed if threatened by erosional
processes in the future.
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 -11. Require applications for new development to include slope stability
analyses and erosion rate estimates provided by a licensed Certified Engineering
Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer.
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
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.
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 18
Public Views
A public view presently exists over the southeastern portion of the site from Ocean
Boulevard and Carnation Avenue to south and west. The Pacific Ocean, harbor
entrance, Newport Bay and the Balboa Peninsula are features in the view depending
upon the vantage point. Presently, the view measures 25 degrees between the existing
apartment building and the neighbor's garage and fence to the south when standing at
the designated view point closest to the project site. With the project, the view will
increase to 32 degrees due to the proposed building being located approximately 8 feet
further to the west than the existing building.
Levels 5 and 6 are taller than the existing building and are in the same position as two
upper levels of the existing split -level apartment building. No view presently exists
above the existing building other than sky views as shown in the following photographs
taken from Carnation Avenue looking south and Ocean Boulevard looking west. The
project architect has prepared a visual exhibit that shows that the view to the west will
not be impacted (see Sheet A -20).
The project is consistent with the 28 -foot building height limits as demonstrated on
Sheet A -16 and verified by staff and with other building envelope restrictions with the
exception of setback encroachments noted above and discussed below. The above -
grade encroachment of the building to the north is single -story and does not impact a
public view as one presently does not exist in that location. No other public view exists
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. Pursuant to Policy 4.4.1 -4, staff proposes a condition of approval
requiring the recordation of a public view easement to protect the public view over the
site from Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. The easement can specifically
identify the 3 dimensional space where structures and landscaping will be prohibited to
ensure view preservation.
I'm
0 T
r N
R
C
IL C)
IL C)
N
W_
R N
W a,
Q N
L
CD
LL
LL
3
a
c
0
w
a
R
V
0
M
0
H
Q1
O
M
3
a�
J°
\
�
..
2
<�
�
�� (
-
\\ .
}\"pC. �
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 21
View west with project
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 22
Scenic and visual quality — Predominant line of existing development
The visual quality of the area encompasses the natural and built environment. The
visual quality of the street is dominated by the built environment and the aesthetic of the
existing buildings. The existing buildings are dated and are not aesthetically pleasing
especially given the open carports. The new elevations with high quality materials and
unique design will improve the streetscape aesthetic. The visual quality of the site as
seen from the public vantage points from the west and northwest include both built and
natural character. What is visible includes a rocky intertidal area, coastal bluff, exposed
rocks, vegetation and the western elevations of the existing buildings. Sheet A -18 and
Sheet A -19 of the project plans have photographs of what the site looks like today and
what it will look like with implementation of the project. The vantage points are from the
northwest from a public beach located on Bayside Drive and the west from a public
beach and public dock located on Balboa Peninsula.
The predominant line of existing development is one tool in determining if a project
protects or possibly enhances the scenic and visual quality of the area. The Planning
Commission is responsible for determining the location of the predominant line of
existing development more fully described below. Alternative methodologies for
locating the predominant line of existing development are included in the discussion that
follows and include that used by the project architect. If the Planning Commission
determines that the project architect's methodology is most appropriate for the subject
site, the Commission should conclude that the project is consistent with the Local
Coastal Program policies set forth in this section and may approve the project as
proposed. Alternatively, a different methodology may be deemed appropriate and the
Planning Commission may require modification of the proposed project to so as to be
located on the landward side of the predominant line of existing development so
determined. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission use the photographic
simulations on Sheets A -18 and Sheet A -19 of the project plans representing the
proposed project when viewed from a vantage point to the west of the site to determine
the appropriate location of the predominant line of development.
Polices 4.4.3 -8 and Policies 4.4.3 -9 establish the concept of the predominant line of
existing development. The concept of predominant line of existing development is
central to the Planning Commission's determination as to the project's consistency with
policies of the CLUP. The CLUP defines the predominant line of existing 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)." The
"median" was used in the definition rather than the "average" as it takes out extreme
values while using the "average" can skew the predominant line of existing development
when distances vary significantly.
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 23
The concept of the "predominant line of development' was originally intended to set
limits on the extent of development on top of coastal bluffs. However, the definition was
intentionally broad so that this concept could be used in other situations, such as along
canyons or the shoreline. The example included in the CLUP suggests one of several
possible ways to locate the predominant line of development for any given site and a
more narrowly - defined methodology for locating the predominant line of development
will likely be included in the Implementation Plan for the CLUP when finalized and
submitted for Coastal Commission certification. The definition itself was crafted to allow
flexibility in locating the predominant line of development for a variety of site
configurations, topography, and patterns of existing development. Location of the
predominant line of development may evolve based on determinations of the Planning
Commission, including that for the subject development proposal which may set a
precedent for future determinations. This effort requires thoughtful, case -by -case
evaluation especially in instances such as the present proposal wherein the site's
topography does not lend itself to traditional techniques such as the "stringline" method
often employed by the Coastal Commission.
Policy 4.4.1 -3 is a general policy requiring new development to minimize alterations to
significant natural landforms, including bluffs, cliffs. This policy is should be viewed in
the context of Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9 that provide more specific direction allowing
new development to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing
development. Public improvements and not private development are subject to the
policy directions 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 in accordance with Policy 4.4.3.8. A setback from the
predominant line of existing development must be increased where necessary to ensure
safety and stability. An increased setback is not necessary based on the geologic report
and coastal hazards report.
The traditional stringline method was employed by the project architect to illustrate one
way to identify the predominant line of development. A stringline was drawn by the
project architect in plan view (looking down from above) from the existing residential
structure at 2495 Ocean Boulevard to the existing structure located at 101 Bayside
Place. Staff is of the opinion that this approach does not conform to the definition
provided in the CLUP as 101 Bayside Place is actually located bayward of the landform
on previously filled land. The landform is situated above the lots on Bayside Place and
the predominant line of existing development would be more appropriately located
utilizing the lots on Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. If the Carnation and
Ocean lots are utilized, the stringline method of extending a straight line in two
dimensions in the horizontal plan between a point on each of two abutting structures
may not be appropriate to the curving land form of the properties' landforms. Moreover,
this method does not recognize the extension of the proposed development, in a vertical
plane, down the face of the bluff and the consequent impact to the visual quality of this
natural landform.
AERIE (PA20O5 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 24
Stringlines
— — — — _ Stringline of principal structures between
101 Bayside PI. & 2495 Ocean Blvd.
— — — — - Stringline of principal structures between 215 & 2495 Ocean Blvd.
Given that the CLUP definition provides an example that uses the median distance to a
specified point or line, the project architect included a scenario based upon the
calculation of the median distance of structures from three representative lines: the
street curb, the approximate bluff edge and from mean low tide line (see the project
overview prepared by the architect). The median was incorporated into the CLUP
definition as averages can create undesirable results when distances between the
structures and each of the three representative lines vary significantly. The calculations
the architect represents as medians, however, are actually averages of distances
measured on several abutting properties without including the project site in the
calculation. Including the project site reduces the averages, but the building remains
within the average distances calculated.
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 25
In calculating distances from the curb and approximate bluff edge, two properties
bayward of the bluff landform are employed; Staff believes that their inclusion in the
calculation is not appropriate. The predominant line of existing development establishes
a setback on the bluff to balance property rights and protection of the visual quality of
the coastal zone. Using structures that are bayward of the landform could lead to the
establishment of a predominant line of existing development beyond existing
development on the bluff itself. Additionally, average distances and maximum distances
are used, which may distort the results in a manner not intended by the CLUP definition.
Using the approximate bluff edge is difficult as there is no way to determine where the
bluff edge was with certainty due to past development altering or otherwise obscuring
the bluff edge. Lastly, the calculation of the distance from the mean low water line
includes several lots on Bayside Place that are bayward of the landform and staff does
not believe this is an this an effective method in this case as it does not account for the
predominant line of existing development established by the structures on Carnation
Avenue.
Staff developed a method for determining the predominant line of existing development
in conjunction with preparation of the implementation plan for the CLUP. The
methodology uses the median distances in the vertical and horizontal planes of a
representative block of structures uses the median distance in the vertical and
horizontal plane of a representative block of structures. The median distance would be
calculated for accessory structures and principal structures at the midpoint of each lot
measuring perpendicular to the front property line. Only those abutting and nearby
buildings on the bluff face itself within the same block would be used. In this case, staff
would include the lots on Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard and exclude lots
bayward of the landform. This technique was reviewed by the Local Coastal Program
Committee who guided the preparation of the CLUP. The Committee provided feedback
but took no action on the draft regulation and guidelines that staff had prepared.
Although staff has not prepared an analysis using the draft regulations and guidelines,
this discussion is included to demonstrate that a variety of methods may be employed in
identifying and locating the predominant line of development. Because the ultimate
purpose for identifying and locating the predominant line of existing development is the
protection and enhancement, where feasible, of public views and the scenic and visual
qualities of the coastal zone, the range of possible outcomes would result in significantly
different impacts to the visual character of the face of the bluff. As discussed previously
in this report, the visual character of the face of the bluff on the project site is most
evident when viewed from vantage points west of the site. These include locations on
Balboa Peninsula and on the water way leading into Newport Bay.
The predominant line of existing development can best be seen on Sheet A -18 and
Sheet A -19 of the project plans since this is what the public will see. The buildings on
Carnation Avenue to the north (left of the proposed project in the visual simulation) and
the project site establish a line of existing development. The abutting residence at 2495
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 26
Ocean Boulevard (white house to the right of the proposed project) also establishes a
line of development on the bluff face.
The abutting lot to the north of the project, 215 Carnation Avenue, is comes down the
bluff face to approximately 57 feet above mean sea level. The downward extent of the
other buildings to the north of the site on Carnation Avenue vary and are lower. The
existing single - family residence is higher at approximately 70 feet and the downward
extent of the existing apartment building also varies with its lowest extent being
approximately 52 feet. Fifty -two feet appears to be consistent with the variations in
downward extent of development. The elevation of the closest foundation of the
principal structure to the south, 2495 Ocean Boulevard, is 34 feet and the structure
extends even lower on the bluff face. Extending this elevation to the north across the
project site would suggest a lower predominant line of existing development for the
southern portion of the project site. Creating a transition between these two elevations
is the remaining challenge.
For discussion purposes, staff believes that the predominant line of existing
development as described by elevations should be approximately 52 feet above mean
sea level parallel to Carnation Avenue. This line would extend across the site to where
the bluff turns east to roughly follow Ocean Boulevard. The line would then step down to
elevation 34 feet to match the elevation of the closest the foundation of the principal
structure at 2495 Ocean Boulevard. Staff has prepared two exhibits to show what this
line would look like based upon the photographs on Sheets A -18 and A -19 of the project
plans (Exhibit 5 separate from the report).
One must also account for the predominant line of existing development in the plan view
looking down from directly above. Staff suggest that this line be identified based upon
the 52 -foot contour and the 34 -foot contour. Staff has prepared an exhibit showing this
approximate line in plan view (Exhibit 5 separate from the report).
In conclusion, the Commission must determine whether or not the project is within the
predominant line of existing development and if the project protects, and if feasible,
enhances the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone. If one concludes that the
methods used by the architect are reasonable methods for determining the predominant
line of existing development, one can conclude that the project is consistent with the
CLUP. Staff suggests to simply use the visual simulations to identify the line or lines that
protect or enhance the visual quality of the coastal zone. Once that line is established,
the project can be modified to conform.
Title 20 — Zoning Compliance
The zoning designation of the 584 square foot portion of the site is R -2 (Two - Family
Residential) and the remainder of the site is MFR (Multifamily Residential, 2178 square
feet per unit). As noted, the zoning of the 584 square foot portion of the site would be
changed to match the larger portion of the site. The donor parcel will be reduced from
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 27
15335.1 square feet to 14751.1 square feet, which well exceeds the 5,000 square foot
minimum parcel size of Section 20.10.030 of the Municipal Code. The new lot line will
not render any of the existing structures located at 101 Bayside Place nonconforming as
to setbacks and Bayside Place itself, a private roadway, will remain within the donor
parcel. The additional area in this case does not increase the maximum density as the
area is mostly excluded from the calculation as the slope of the area exceeds 50 %. The
maximum density calculation permitted before and after the minor adjustment is 9 units
and the project conforms.
The project architect has designed the structure to conform to the 28 -foot building
height limit as measured in accordance with Municipal Code. Sheet A -16 of the plans
includes a table that demonstrates conformance and staff has confirmed the grade and
height measurements.
The 9 -unit building requires 2 parking spaces for each unit (total of 18) with at least one
space per unit being covered. Additionally, 0.5 space is required for guest parking.
Therefore, the project requires 18 spaces for residents and 5 spaces for guests. The
project exceeds this standard by providing 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. Parking is located on Levels 1, 2, 3
and 4. Level 4 parking accommodates parking for units 2 & 6 and 3 guest parking
spaces and is directly accessed from Carnation Avenue. Parking on Levels 1, 2, & 3 are
below Level 4 and below the street level. These levels are accessed separately than the
access to Level 4 directly from Carnation Avenue by two freight elevators. The traffic
engineer has reviewed the layout and finds that it will meet minimum standards. The
minimum clearance for the spaces under the lifted vehicle must be 7 feet pursuant to
Section 20.66.040.3. The overall vertical clearance planned for spaces with lifts will vary
between 10 feet and 13 feet depending on the level and location. The golf cart spaces
and the "lifted" spaces do not technically comply with standards, but they are extra
spaces and are not held to the same standard.
The irregular shaped of the site necessitated a project specific determination of
minimum setbacks as it was not readily discernable what the depth of the side yard
setback would be, where it would be located and where the rear yard would be. The
minimum required front setback along Carnation Avenue is 10 feet and is established by
the Districting Map. By definition, the rear yard should be opposite the front, but the lot
line directly opposite the front faces Bayside Place and could be treated as a side yard.
The minimum rear yard setback is 10 feet pursuant to the Section 20.10.030 of the
Municipal Code. The rear setback was determined by staff to be measured from the
curved bayward lot line only. The minimum side yard is 8% of the lot width. The lot width
was determined to be 132.25 feet based upon a site specific method as the use of the
definition contained within the Zoning Code could not be used given the irregular shape
of the lot. Staff averaged the width of the lot as measured in three places selected by
' Parking calculations are rounded up pursuant to Section 20.66.030.E.1 of the Municipal Code
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 28
staff. Eight percent of 132.25 feet is 10' -7 ". The side yard were determined to extend to
the southwest to the bay between the project and 2495 Ocean Boulevard and along the
north and western property lines between the site at 215 Carnation Avenue and the lots
on Bayside Place. The following map depicts the lot determination made by staff with
the approval of the Planning Director.
Setbacks
The project adheres to these setbacks with the following exceptions that are shown on
the project drawings:
a) A 5 -foot by 43 -foot subterranean encroachment within the front yard setback for
basement areas. Additionally, the applicant proposes to construct a 55 -foot long
retaining wall at the property line south of the this encroachment that will extend into
the side yard between the project and the abutting property to the south (2495
Ocean Boulevard). The wall will be approximately a maximum of 40 feet high and
will allow light and air to reach the living areas on Levels 1 -3 on the south side of the
building (street side). Both of these features require the approval of the proposed
Modification Permit.
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 29
b) The proposed structure will encroach 3' -1" to 5' -7" into the 10' -7" side yard setback
between the project and abutting property to the north (215 Carnation Avenue). This
encroachment occurs on the basement level and on Levels 1-4. The encroachment
on Level 4 will be the only portion above grade. Additionally, a retaining wall and
staircase at the north property on Level 3 requires consideration of the Modification
Permit.
It must be noted that the distances to the property lines in all cases are measured from
the exterior surface of both above and below grade walls. This means that the final
plans for the foundation system must comply with the dimensions shown on the plans
and will not be permitted as additional encroachments within the minimum required
setbacks without a Modification Permit.
The Planning Commission may approve the request for a Modification Permit to allow
the encroachments subject to the following findings contained within Section 20.93.030
of the Municipal Code:
1. The granting of the application is necessary due to practical difficulties associated
with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical
hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code.
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 also occupies a significant portion of the building
reducing available area for residential units. The side yard setback is also larger than
the front yard setback and the application of this standard is also a practical difficulty
given the relatively small area to work with as compared to the entire site.
2. The requested modification will be compatible with the existing development in the
neighborhood.
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 mass between the project and the single -
family 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.
3. The granting of such an application will not adversely affect the health or safety of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 30
detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to properly or improvements in the
neighborhood.
Given the fact that the setback encroachments are predominantly subterranean and the
above - ground encroachments are off -set with increased setbacks above them and they
do not block a protected public view, the requested encroachments should not prove
detrimental or injurious to the community.
Title 19 — Subdivision Code — Tract Map
Pursuant to Section 19.12.070 of the City Subdivision Code, the following findings must be
made to approve the tentative tract map. If the Planning Commission determines that one
or more of the findings listed cannot be made, the tentative map must be denied.
That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are
consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with
applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code.
As noted above, the project is consistent with the current land use designation including
the proposed amendment. Additionally, as noted previously, the project is consistent
with Land Use Element Policy LU5.1.9 regarding the character and quality of multi-
family residential development. A finding that the project is consistent Land Use and
Natural Resources Element policies related to the protection of public views, visual
resources, coastal bluffs and other natural resources is contingent upon a finding that
the project is consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan. This determination has yet to
be made and when it is made, this finding of consistency with resource protection
policies of the General Plan can also be supported. The site is not subject to a specific
plan. Minimum lot sizes established by the Zoning Ordinance are also maintained as
required by the Subdivision Code. The Public Works Department has reviewed the
proposed tentative map and believes that it is consistent with the Newport Beach
Subdivision Code (Title 19) and applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act.
Conditions of approval have been included to ensure compliance with Title 19.
2. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development.
The usable area of the site is relatively small compare d
site is not likely to be subject to coastal erosional proc
year economic life of the project.
and there is not likely to be and
liquefaction, or collapse on -site
factors would suggest that the s
coupled with the size of the un
question whether or not the site
proposed. Smaller unit sizes, a reduction in
Additionally, no earth
incidence of landslide
to the entire 1.4 acre site. The
esses or hazards during the 75
quake faults were found on -site
, lateral spreading, subsidence,
it near the site given on -site soils conditions. These
to is suitable for development. However, the density
is and the need to provide on -site parking call into
is suitable given the amount of alteration of the site
amenities such as the basement level or
common amenities or even a reduction in density, with its parking needs, would reduce
the amount of excavation necessary to implement the project. Additionally, the project
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 31
must be found consistent with CLUP policy regarding the predominant line of existing
development to protect, and if feasible enhance the visual quality of the coastal zone. If
it is determined that the project is beyond the predominant line of existing development
or that the project does not protect or enhance, if feasible, the scenic and visual
qualities of the coastal zone, the site is not suitable for the proposal.
3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish
or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision -
making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental
impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to
Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific economic,
social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and it concludes that no significant
environmental impacts will result with proposed development of the site in accordance
with the proposed plans and tentative tract map; therefore, staff believes this finding can
be made.
4. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause
serious public health problems.
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.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property
within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision - making body may
approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be
provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to ones
previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of
record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction
and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at
large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a
subdivision.
A utility and sewer easement affects the site and is located roughly in the middle of the
site running perpendicular to Carnation Avenue. No utility or sewer lines run through
the easement and the easement should be abandoned. A storm drain easement and
storm drain are located in the side yard between the proposed building and the abutting
property to the south (2495 Ocean Boulevard). The proposed improvements will not
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 32
affect the easement or storm drain. The Public Works Department is requiring the
replacement of the storm drain given that the proposed retaining wall will be located
very near the storm drain itself and the age of the line. No other public easements for
access through or use of the property have been retained for the use by the public at
large. 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. That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map
Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land
Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a
subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the
subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial
agricultural use of the land.
The site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract; therefore, this finding does not
apply.
7. That, in the case of a "land project" as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California
Business and Professions Code: (a) there is an adopted specific plan for the area to
be included within the land project; and (b) the decision - making body finds that the
proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area.
The subject property is not located within the boundaries of a specific plan; therefore,
this finding does not apply.
8. That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been
satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map
Act.
Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code 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 curved roof elements that will provide shading and a measure of passive
solar cooling.
9. That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act
and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of
the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region
against the public service needs of the Citys residents and available fiscal and
environmental resources.
The proposed subdivision will have the effect of reducing the density from 15 units to 9
units. A reduction of this small scale given the City's current housing supply is
considered insignificant. This reduction does not assist the City in reaching its
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 33
production goals as it is not increasing housing supply; however, the reduction in
density is consistent with existing density limitations of the Municipal Code.
10.That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer
system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Waste 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. For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the subdivision
conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public
access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act.
As discussed above, the project conforms to the Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan
multi - family designation of the site taking into account the proposed amendment and it
complies with density standards. The project site is constrained by topography and
public access exists nearby making on -site vertical and lateral access unnecessary.
Public access is not impacted by the project and due to the position of the proposed
building, public views from Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue will be improved. A
determination as to whether or not the project is consistent with visual resource
protection policies (predominant line of existing development and protection and
enhancement, if feasible, of the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone) needs to
be made. Depending upon the determination, this finding may or may not be possible.
Environmental Review
A draft mitigated negative declaration was prepared by the City for this project in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. A notice of intent to adopt the
MND was posted and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site on
February 13, 2007 indicating that a 30 -day comment period on the MND will conclude
on March 15, 2007.
The analysis indicates that mitigation measures related to air quality, biological
resources, cultural resources and land use /planning are necessary to reduce or avoid
potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels. The analysis shows that the
potential impact of the project will be either less than significant or no impact related to
all other issue areas.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice of the draft mitigated negative declaration and this public hearing was
provided in accordance with applicable law.
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 34
ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
The Commission must determine if the proposal is consistent with the Coastal Land Use
Plan as it relates to the predominant line of existing development and whether or not the
project protects and enhances, if feasible, the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal
zone. If the proposal is deemed consistent with the CLUP, the Commission can
recommend approval of the project. If the proposal does not meet these policies, the
project must be modified to a point that it can be found consistent with CLUP policy or it
should be denied.
Prepared by:
James
awa�wm�mem.°u =��mm
Campbell
James Campbell, Senior Planner
EXHIBITS
Submitted by:
1. Mitigated Negative Declaration (separate bound document)
2. AERIE project overview prepared by Brion Jeannette (separate bound document)
3. Project Plans (separate roll of plans)
4. Correspondence
5. Predominant line of existing development exhibits prepared by staff
Exhibit No. 1
Mitigated Negative Declaration (separate bound document)
b5
Exhibit No. 2
AERIE project overview prepared by Brion Jeannette (separate bound document)
3�
Exhibit No. 3
Project Plans (separate roll of plans)
3i
Exhibit No. 4
Correspondence
v .
rARES
ADVANCED4:::; °,.ESTATE :E PM
February 12, 2007
Robert C. Hawkins
Secretary
Newport Beach Planning Commission
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Dear Mr. Hawkins:
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPART"
FEB 12 Ua
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
via electronic and US mail
ihawkins .earthlink.net
I am very excited to announce that after nearly four years of planning and
coordinating with Staff to create AERIE, we are now scheduled for the
Planning Commission Meeting on Thursday, February 22, 2007. We are
devoted to making AERIE the landmark gateway at the entrance to Newport
Harbor. During the four years that we have worked on AERIE, we have spent
a considerable amount of time meeting with neighbors in our community in
order to define their wants and concerns. We feel we incorporated several
benefits for the community into our design, and would like to personally show
these to you. We now have a 1/8`s scale model of AERIE in our office on site
at 207 Carnation Avenue, and we would like to show it to you.
I would greatly appreciate a call or e-mail with times that would work into your
schedule. My office number is (949) 595 -5900, home (949) 768 -8247, and cell
(949) 933 -6006. My e-mail address is 4ulian@advancedonline.com.
Sincerely,
ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC.
Rick Julian
ARES 23792 Rock6eld Blvd. Suite 100 Lake forest, CA 92630 Phone 1949) 5955900 Fax 1949) 5955901 v .odvancedonline.com
0
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
www.coastkeeper.org RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: "AERIE" Tent. Tract 16882 in Newport Beach
Dear Mr. Lepo:
FEB 12 2007
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
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.
qI
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,
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FEB 16 2007
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
We five at the comer 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 support the project and have seen the plans on a continuing basis
since the project was conceived years ago. The recent model confirms 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 comer and water will see a first class endeavor.
Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Dr. 'L. & Linda Rasner
a�
Feb 15 07 09;17a Bud
3 mxr S. MOORE
419 CARNATION AVENUE 0080NA DEL MI A
AS. CALIFOUNT1*EGOS
90
TZra (94 678 -7 7 ¢
6 *E FAX: (949) 978 -
699 ealeoore®worlaaet.att.aet
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:
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FEB 16 2007
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
I am writing in support of Mr. Rick Julian and his proposed project at the site of the old
Corona Can Apartments located at the corner 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. 7ulian7s plans it is obvious that he is attempting to create a world class
residential development at this beautiful and scenic location above the harbor entrance.
He has also gone out of his way to get to know the local property owners and outline his
project pleas 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 careful review, the Commission will also come to realize tliat 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
comer of Newport Beach.
Sincerely,
0
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 it's a great addition to our neighborhood, and I think it's 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
Ronald P. Beard
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENr
FEB 16 2007
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
a�
February 14, 2007
Grant Sadler
207 Carnation Avenue
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
Mr. David Lepo
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 live 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.
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FEB 16 2007
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
45
Jeffrey H. Hopkins
2725 Bungalow Place
Carona Del Mar, CA 92673
2115/07
Sent via e-mail.
Re: AERIE Proposed Development
February 22, 2007 hearing
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
I send this letter in strong support for the AERIE Development ("Project).
RECEIVED IYY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FEB 16 2007
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
My wife and I live in Corona Del Mar 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 4-5 years or more and, at
worst, prevent its construction altogether. Either of these 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 re- developed 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 Projects 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 pleas 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.
Thp& you for your time.
H.
4
HO S MUM 10 W
LOOZ 91834
1N3NIli9F/d34 JNINNY]d
Al CrM303ZI
al
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:
RECEM By
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FEB 16 2007
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
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
Karen R. Spargo
4 �
4
Exhibit No. 5
Predominant line of existing development exhibits prepared by staff
41