No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout22 - AERIE Project - PA2005-196CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 22 July 22, 2008 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3210 icampbelll Cc�city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: AERIE (PA 2005 -196) 201 -205 & 207 Carnation Avenue & 101 Bayside Place • Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH# 2008051082) • General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -006 • Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -002 • Code Amendment No. 2005 -009 • Tract Map No. 2005 -004 (TT16882) • Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 • Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -002 APPLICANT: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. Richard Julian, President ISSUE Should the City Council Amend the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, Zoning Districting Map and approve a Tentative Tract Map, Modification Permit Coastal Residential Development Permit for the development of the AERIE project? 1) Hold a public hearing; 2) Consider the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment A), comments received and responses to comments prepared by the environmental consultant and City staff; 3) Adopt a resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH# 2008051082) and approving General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -006, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -002, Newport Tract Map No. 2005 -004 (TTM16882), Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -002 (Attachment B); 4) Introduce an ordinance amending the Zoning Districting Map thereby approving Code Amendment No. 2005 -009 (Attachment C). AERIE (PA2005 -196) July 22, 2008, Page 2 BACKGROUND On August 14, 2007, the AERIE project was considered by the City Council. The City Council determined that the project was inconsistent with policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan that require development to be within the predominant line of existing development. A revised project was referred to the Planning Commission for further review. On June 19, 2008, the Planning Commission considered a downsized project and recommended project approval. APPLICATION SUMMARY The AERIE project consists of the demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment building and single - family residence and the construction of an 8 -unit residential condominium building. The project site is located bayward of the intersection of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar. The following discretionary approvals are requested or required in order to implement the project as designed: 1. General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -006 would change the land use designation of a 584 - square -foot portion of 101 Bayside Place from RT (Two -Unit Residential) to RM (Multiple -Unit Residential, 20 dwelling units per acre). 2. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 =002 would change the Coastal Land Use Plan designation of the same 584 - square -foot portion of 101 Bayside Place from RH -D (High Density Residential - 50.1 to 60 dwelling units per acre) to RM -A (Medium Density Residential - 6.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre). 3. Zone Change No. 2005 -009 would change the zoning designation of the 584 - square -foot portion of 101 Bayside Place from R -2 (Two - Family Residential) to MFR (Multifamily Residential, 2178 square feet per unit). 4. Tract Map No. 2005 -004 (TT16882) would combine the 584-square -foot portion of 101 Bayside Place with 201 -205 Carnation Avenue and 207 Carnation Avenue and subdivides the proposed building for eight residential condominiums. 5. Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 would permit: a 5 -foot subterranean encroachment and 42- inch -high guardrails within the 10 -foot front setback along Carnation Avenue; balconies, exit stairs and building encroachments (above and below grade) within the required 10' -7" side yard setback between the project and 215 Carnation; three balconies and an at -grade walkway within the required 10' -7" side yard setback between the project and Bayside Place. 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. AERIE (PA2005 -196) July 22, 2008, Page 3 A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared for the project indicating that implementation of the project with several mitigation measures will not have a significant impact on the environment. The attached draft resolution and ordinance contain facts supporting the findings for adopting the MND and various applications. DISCUSSION During the City Council hearing in August of 2007, the City Council established the predominant line of existing development at 50.7 feet above mean sea level (MSL).. Since the project proposed 2 visible levels below this elevation, the project needed to be significantly altered to comply. The applicant has revised the project to eliminate one level entirely and the two lowest levels are now below grade and will not be visible below 50.7 feet MSL. In comparing the current project with the one presented to the City Council in August of 2007, one unit has been eliminated, the total gross floor area has been reduced, and grading export has been reduced. The Planning Commission found the revised project consistent with the predominant line of existing development identified by the City Council provided that the applicant redesigns a proposed access doorway that would lead to an existing beach access stairway. The Commission wanted the doorway screened from view to be consistent with the predominant line of existing development. The applicant has modified the doorway opening such that it will be screened by a concrete tunnel made to mimic existing rock formations. AERIE (PA2005 -196) July 22, 2008, Page 4 The Current Project The site currently is developed with a 14 -unit apartment building, a single - family residence, a concrete staircase to the bay, a concrete patio at the water and a three - finger dock system. The site currently consists of two parcels and a small portion of a third parcel (584 square feet) with a total area of 1.4 acres including approximately 11,300 square feet of land below mean low tide. The apartment building and single - family home will be demolished to construct a 62,823 square foot, 8 -unit condominium complex. The prior project was 73,418 square feet and 9 units. The structure will have a total of six levels, three of which will be visible above the existing grade adjacent to the intersection of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard and four levels will be visible when viewed from the Balboa Peninsula and Newport Bay. The lowest level will be fully subterranean and will not be visible and provides storage and mechanical spaces. The level above the lowest level provides common areas that include a pool and spa, fitness room, lounges, massage rooms, wine cellar, tasting room, restrooms and parking. The four levels above provide living spaces and parking. Approximately 25,240 cubic yards of earth will be excavated and removed from the site. The prior design would have removed 32,400 cubic yards. Parking is provided in excess of Zoning Code requirements. Parking for one unit, five guest parking spaces, and bike /motorcycle parking is provided in a parking area directly accessible from Carnation Avenue. Three additional guest parking spaces, parking for seven of the units, golf cart parking and a service vehicle parking space are provided in the subterranean levels accessible by two vehicle elevators. The applicant proposes to replace the existing docks with a specially designed dock system that would accommodate up to eight boats, one boat slip for each unit. The new dock system would have a concrete wave attenuator to enhance safety given that the location of the docks near the entrance to the harbor makes it subject to heightened wave action during certain swell conditions. Use of the proposed docks will be limited to project residents. The docks are subject to the review and approval of the Harbor Resources Manager and that review has not been concluded. That process will conclude at a later date and will be subject to the findings and mitigation measures within the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Keeton Kreitzer Consulting prepared a MND (SCH# 2008051082) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act for the project including the replacement dock system. The analysis concludes that the revised project including the new docks will not create a significant impact to the environment provided all mitigation measures are applied and implemented. Comment letters were received Native American Heritage Commission, John and Kathleen McIntosh, Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC), Sandra Genis, Joseph and Lisa Vallejo, Don Krotee, Ellen AERIE (PA2005 -196) July 22, 2008, Page 5 Counts, Southern California Association of Governments, Jinx L. Hansen, Selman Breitman, LLP and the Southern California Gas Company. Responses to comments were prepared, although responses are not required by the California Environmental Quality Act. The City Council must consider all the comments along with the MND as it considers the proposed project. Public Access The Coastal Act requires public access to be provided to coastal resources such as Newport Bay; however, it is not required in all cases. If the resource is so sensitive or if military needs dictate or if adequate public access exists nearby, access can be waived. The Coastal Land Use Plan contains policies to be used to guide the analysis and requiring public access through or across the site is not considered warranted given the steep topography, lack of lateral access to connect to, proximity of residential uses and the provision of public access nearby. Public Views An existing public view exists between the existing apartment building and the abutting house to the east from Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. The proposed design increases the distance between the buildings and opens the view slightly. The application includes a public bench and drinking fountain at the intersection corner on the plans to further enhance the experience. The view of the site from Begonia Park was also considered. A depiction of the project from the upper part of the park was included in the draft MND and project plans. Although the project will be in the view and a portion of the view of the water and harbor entrance will be affected, it is believed that this impact is less than significant and the project is consistent with public view protection policies. Should the City Council conclude otherwise, the project would need to be further modified to reduce the impact upon public views. The view of the coastal bluff, a public coastal resource, is also considered a public view pursuant to the CLUP. The project will extend further down the bluff than existing development; however, there is no significant impact to the view provided the project does not extend below the predominant line of existing development. Construction Management Concerns related to construction staging and parking led staff and the Planning Commission to include a condition of approval requiring a detailed construction management plan for each major phase of construction. Implementation of this condition should ensure that the construction phase of the project minimizes conflicts. The condition reads as follows: Prior to commencement of each major phase of construction, the Contractor shall submit a construction staging, parking and traffic control plan for approval by the Public Works Department. This plan shall identify the proposed construction staging area(s), construction AERIE (PA2005 -196) July 22, 2008, Page 6 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. Bagmen, barricades, shuttle services, etc.) and hourly restrictions, if necessary, to avoid traffic conflicts during peak traffic periods, displacement of on- street parking and to ensure safety. The construction staging, parking and traffic control plan shall provide for an off -site parking lot of construction crews which will be shuttled to and from the project site at the beginning of and end of each day until such time that the project site can accommodate construction vehicle parking. Construction traffic routes shall be included and shall avoid narrow residential streets, unless there is no alternative, and shall not include any streets where some form of construction is underway within or adjacent to the street that would impact the efficacy of the proposed route. Grading and dirt hauling shall not be scheduled during the summer season (Memorial Day holiday weekend through and including the Labor Day holiday weekend). The approved construction staging, parking traffic control plan shall be implemented throughout each major construction phase. PUBLIC NOTICE A hearing notice indicating the subject, time, place and location of this hearing was provided in accordance with the Municipal Code. Notice was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and the site was posted a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing. Notice of the hearing is also provided with the agenda for the meeting, which was posted in accordance with applicable law and appears on the City's website. SUMMARY The Planning Commission and staff recommend project approval subject to findings and conditions of approval. The project is consistent with the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan and applicable provisions of the Zoning Code. As noted previously, the attached draft resolution and ordinance contain facts supporting the findings for adopting the MND and various applications. Should the City Council believe that any of the findings are not supported, a change to the project may be necessary. Prepared by: w CG Janiies Campbell, Senior Planner Submitted by: David Lepo, Pla rg Director AERIE (PA2005 -196) July 22, 2008, Page 7 ATTACHMENTS A. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration including Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program, Comments and Responses to Comments B. Draft resolution C. Draft ordinance D. Prior City Council Record 1. Excerpt of minutes from August 14, 2007 2. Staff Report dated August 14, 2007 E. Planning Commission record 1. Planning Commission Resolution recommending approval 2. Staff Report dated June 19, 2008 hearing 3. Excerpt of minutes from June 19, 2008 hearing 4. Staff Report dated February 21, 2008 hearing 5. Excerpt of minutes from February 21, 2008 hearing 6. Staff Report dated May 17, 2007 3. Excerpt of minutes from May 17, 2007 hearing 4. Staff Report dated April 5, 2007 5. Excerpt of minutes from April 5, 2007 hearing 6. Staff Report dated February 22, 2007 7. Excerpt of minutes from February 22, 2007 hearing F. Correspondence G. Project Plans ATTACHMENT A Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Responses to Comments A.1 BLANK A.2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH t, 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 x" Newport Beach, CA 92668 -8916 G�,FO�r,r (949) 644.3200 Notice of intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration To: .. From: City of Newport Beach _ of Rlanning and Research Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P O. Box. 1768 EOffice :P.O. BOX 3044 Newport Beach, CA 92858.8915 Sacramento, CA 95812 -3044 (Orange County) County Clerk, County of Orange Public Services Division - P.O. Box 238 Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: Santa Ana, CA 92702 Public review perked. May 99, 2008 through June 97, 21008 T4 Name of Project: AERIE (PA2005 -196) Name of Project: Proponent: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc., 23792 Roctcfield Blvd. Suite 100, Lake Forest, CA 92630 Project Location: 201 -207 Camation Avenue & 101 Bayside Place, Newport Beach, County Orange Project Description: Demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment building and single- family residence to construct a 6- level, 8 -unit condominium complex, including grading and all appurtant facilities. 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 hot have a significant effect on the environment A copy of the Initial Shady containing the analysis supporting this finding.is 13 attached 19 on file at the Planning Department The Initial Study includes mitigation measures'that:would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document wig be considered by the dedslon- maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider this project on at 6:311 PM on June 19, 2008 in the Council Chambers in City Nall located at 3300: Newport Blvd_ Newport, Beach, Ca 92663. Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project are 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 dose of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project; why they aresigng'tcant,.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. y <{ Date May 16. 2008 '-Ames Campbell, , enior Plann r A45 A,I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: AERIE (PA2005 -196) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 33-00 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 9.2658-8915 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.Residentiai, 21.78 sq. ft. land per units) & Introduction: Prior environmental documents were prepared in 2007 and 2008. for the Aerie residential project. (PA 2005 -163) and were the subject of public review and hearing. These documents evaluated the redevelopment of the: subject property with a 9 -unit residential condominium development, which was subsequently revised to address, among other things, aesthetic impacts and respond to the Predominant Line of Existing Development (PLOED) established in 2007 for the proposed project. The prior applications did not include the replacement of the existing landing and dock facilities that are located in Carnation Cove.2 Because these facilities currently exist in 'a deteriorated condition and pose a potential safety hazard to future residents, new docks were designed and incorporated into the proposed project. As a result, the Aerie residential project that is the subject of this environmental analysis has beers expanded to include the replacement of the existing deteriorated landing. and dock facilities existing within Carnation Cove, in addition to the proposed 8 -unit .residential condominium development proposed by the applicant, Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. ' Pursuant do Section 20.60.045 of Me Newport Beach Municipal Coda, the maximum density is Calculated using the total lot area minus slopes in excess of 50% and submerged lands. 2 The beach area.and Cove Iodated on the project site and studied in the technical reports prepared for this MND are sometimes referred to within this MND as "Carnation Cove.' Afthough I9ca1 usage of the term "Carnation Cove' generally refers to a larger area of shoreline extending north of the project sae; for purposes of the analysis contained in this MND and - the - technical reports prepared in connection with this MNb, the evaluation.is.based upon site•specificanalysis of the cove located .on the project site. Therefore, references to "Carnation cave" within this MND include, and in some instances are limited to, the beach area and cove on the project site. 11,5 AERIE(PA2005 -186) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 2 of 87 The environmental analysis presented in this document; which contains an assessment of the proposed project, supersedes All prior environmental documents prepared for the project. This proposed Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ( smw) is intended to serve as a "stand alone", document that complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (EEQA). To that end, none of the prior environmental documents are incorporated by reference, even though the prior IS/MNDs, public comments and testimony remain part of the administrative record compiled for the proposed project. The ISfMND prescribes several mitigation measures to ensure that potentially significant impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. Prior to the circulation of the IStMND, the project applicant accepted. and agreed to implement all prescribed mitigation measures. The location and description of the proposed project is presented below. 9. Project Description: Project Location The subject property currently consists of two parcels and a small portion of a third parcel (584 square feet), encompassing a total area of 1.4 acres, which is currently occupied by an existing 14 -unit apartment building and single - family residence. The properties ate located at 201 — 207 Carnation Avenue (west side of Carnation Avenue at the intersection of Ocean Boulevard):and 101 Bayside Place in the City of Newport Beach. Project implementation includes the demolition :of the residential structures that currently occupy the site. The existing apartment structure has a total of four levels; including three split levels that are visible above existing grade from the street; all four levels are visible from.Newport Bay. Project Description The project applicant, Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc.; is proposing to develop the 1.4 -acre site with an 8 -unit condominium development. The total development area will encompass 62,231 square feet and includes living floor area,. storage areas, parking, and circulation and mechanical areas as reflected.in Table 1. A. AERIE (PA200b -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 3 of 87 Table 1 Development Area Breakdown Aerie (PA 2005 -163) Use Living Area JSquare Feet 32,695 .Storage Areas 6,384 Parking 13,Q28 Circulation and Mechanical 10,964 Total 62,231 SOURCE: Brion Jeannette.Architecture In accordance with the Newport Beach City Council's establishment of the predominant line of existing development (P'LOED), the project applicant. has redesigned the project to eliminate one level of the project and to preserve the bluff face below elevation 50.7 feet (NAVD 88)3 except where removal of the existing staircase above elevation 40.5 NAVD 88 is required to accommodate the emergency exit. As indicated above, the proposed project is composed of eight condominium units within .a single building that will have a total of six levels. Three levels of the proposed residential structure will be visible above the existing grade adjacent to the intersection of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. A total of four levels will be visible. when viewed from the southwest and northwest from Newport Bay. The lowest visible portion of the proposed building will be at elevation 52.83 feet NAVD $8 (which is :consistent with the City's PLOED standard). The bottom two levels are proposed to be located below grade (i.e., subterranean) and will not be visible. The proposed structure includes outdoor patios,. decks and may include spas at each level. The project will encroach into the front and side setbacks; however, the majority of the encroachments are subterranean. The project has also. been designed to include a new deck that will encroach into the. side yard. Approximately 25,240 cubic yards of earth will.be excavated and removed from the site. The eight units within the proposed condominium building will consist of the areas identified in Table 2. 6 North,Amenoan Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) isIthe protocol used by the City of Newport Beach in order to establish a fixed reference point for purposes of.measunng elevation. This protocol is more accuratethan average mean sea level (amsi), which . has been superseded as the WS recognized elevation protocol. 'i --/ AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 4 of 87 Table 2 Project Statistical Analysis Unit No. No. of Levels Living Area S . Ftr Garage (S g. Ft-) storage S : Ft Total S . Fti 1 i 3,778 411 1 471 4,660 2 1 3,204 429 ' 826 4,459 3 1 2,689 .361 441 3,491 4 1 3,031 41.7 709 4,157 5 2 4,990 462 1 277 6,729 6 2 4,130 440 889 5,459 7 1 3,756 399 750 4,905 8 1 4,005 528 1021 5,554 Lounge/Fitness 1 3,072 — -- 3,072 Totals 32,665 3,447 6,384 42,406 SOURCE: Brion Jeannette Architecture. As indicated in Table 2, each unit will have a private storage room located in the lowest sub - basement level. Additional common amenities include a fitness facility, lounge; patio, locker room, exercise room, and a pool located on the basement level that will be partially open to the sky allowing light and air to circulate to the ; pool -area. A minimum of two parking spaces is provided for each unit, with a total of eight (8) guest; one (1) service, and two (2) golf cart parking spaces provided on the sub - basement through Level 2. Level 2 is approximately four (4) feet below the grade of Carnation Avenue and it will. house residential units, one (1) two -car garage and five (5) guest spaces, as well as bicycle and motorcycle parking accommodations. All below street grade parking is accessed from Carnation Avenue utilizing two automobile elevators. The existing upper portion of the stairs that currently provide private access from the apartment building to the water and existing docks will be removed. The existing stairs; which are seaward of the proposed residential structure, will be connected to the building by a on -grade stair at the Basement Level.. In addition to the residential structure identified and described above, the project applicant is also proposing the replacement of the existing landing /dock facility associated with the subject property. The structural elements of the existing landing and floating docks (timber frame, concrete pontoons, and timber deck) are in very poor condition. The City has. required the landowner to take action to rebuild the docks due to their deteriorated and unsafe conditions. The existing docks are small and can moor four (4) small boats in the approximately 25 -foot class. Eight (8) replacement slips are proposed for the eight (8) new residential units proposed. The new dock layout is located between the existing piemead line and natural .rock outcroppings, property line to the north and south, and an existing eelgrass bed to the south. New docks will be composed of a concrete wave .attenuator as well as timber docks supported by rotationally molded plastic pontoons, which require less draft (bottom clearance) than concrete floats, allowing the dock system to be located as close to the A. � AERIE (PA2005 -796) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 5 of 87 rock outcropping as possible. Six (6) steel dock guidepiles support the existing docks and will be replaced with 19 new guide piles supporting the new dock system. Of these 19 piles, nine (9) will be large diameter piles (approximately two -foot diameter) to support the wave attenuator. Guidepiles may be either driven steel pipe or pre- stressed concrete piles set in pre - drilled augered holes. The existing 20 -foot long gangway will be replaced by a 60 -foot gangway. As "illustrated in the exhibit illustrated below, the pile - supported pier walkway between the existing gangway platform and the existing terrace will be repaired /replaced with a structure in -like -kind (timber- framing system, a 2x timber deck, and timber railings all around). The existing piers supporting the walkway will require repair in the form of concrete repairs. The gangway platform repair will include the four (4) steel piles, timber framing with metal connectors, and a 2x timber deck with railings all around. Dock Replacement Plan �. L-71: IN 1&E -wfio., yk (( .. Spp)Dy¢ (E) DNI6WAY_' •r , t� r 6 •, I N[LDt£ p WOOD i i awt 1 1 u\�1 'hTiailAlC/i MAN � n '1 rQtmauN N4PI.A{F ai GQI6WAY. PIATFM & (F) TIM PM M-M -NM K p {Nj PON}R CFNItRS /' WiH Dd1P1EtE JT11Tff5 / S J , N FLMFWa 00M DMDWMMFipi 1: . CBSh &Amd*S cm� ovw q 't f5 A9 r4, io AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 6 of 87 This revised MND includes the revisions to the architectural plans, conceptual grading plans, tract map, landscape plan, and dock layout in response to the August 14, 2007, decision of the Newport Beach City Council to establish the predominant line of existing development at elevation 50.7 feet NAVD 88. 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= 004JTT16882) Modification Permit (MD2005 -087) Coastal Residential Development Permit (CR2005 -002) 10. 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 single- family home and two of the dwelling units within existing apartment building are occupied. The site is a steeply sloping coastal bluff and cliff, the west - facing portion of which is subject to marine erosion. The following aerial photograph shows the project's current setting. Aerial Photograph A. it 4.1-2-- AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 7 of 87 The westerly portion of the site is partly submerged and rocky, and there is a small sandy cove at the base of the landform. The buildings presently on the project site are constructed on the top of the bluff and extend down the bluff face. The westerly extent.of the foundation is located on the face of the coastal bluff. 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 private floating dock bayward of the rocks: Vegetation and exposed rock formations cover portions of 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 northern side of Carnation Avenue is a developed coastal bluff which is not subject to marine erosion. The homes on Carnation Avenue overlook Bayside Place and the homes located on Bayside Place. The homes below the project site along Bayside Place were primarily constructed on previously filled submerged lands; however, the lower portion of the bluff was altered for the construction of Bayside, Place and several homes. along Bayside Place including 101 Bayside Place (the "Sprague Residence'), as set forth in the GeoSoils report.dated June 11, 2007. South and east of the site are single family and multi - family residential buildings and the Kerkchoff Marine Laboratory„ all developed on the coastal bluff face between Ocean Boulevard and Newport Bay. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required; Coastal Land Use Amendment — Califomia Coastal. Commission Coastal Development Permit — California Coastal Commission 11 3 A, /�/ AERIE(PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page a of 87 Vicinity Map .:stn r stwl - OpG.n Gn :acb c10 _ Prverva - El. loll - ^5(3 tri4S] 6. C e.z Tvm ^r — G •J 5 NS 1.11 T. Aft; AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 9 of 67 Location Map f1. / 7 A.�g 9.20 AERIE(PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 11 of 87 Proposed Zoning CI'T'Y OF IVE WIDORT BEACH F 0 ?d w Z A Pi °oyosed Lot Line Adjustment Area subject to Land use designation changes Legend ° MFR - Multi - Family Residential . R'.2 - Two-family Residential R.2/ AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATME DECLARATION Page 12 of 87 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 ❑ Agricultural Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology & Soils DETERMINATION ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Land Use & Planning ❑ Hydrology & Water Quality ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population &.Housing On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic; ❑ Utilities & Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance 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. t find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ 1 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. ❑ May 16 2008 Submitted by: James Campbell, Senior Planner Date Planning Department ,4.23 AERIE(PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 13 of 87 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Potentially Less Than less than No Significant significant Significant impact: Impact With Mitigation Impact Incorporated L AESTHETICS.. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ R1 ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and. historic buildings within ❑ O 0 ❑ 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 0 ❑ ® ❑ adversely affect day or nighttime views in the areal 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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 theiriocation or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, ❑ ❑ ❑ to non- agricultural use? Ill. AIR QUALITY. Would the project- a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air Q ❑ ❑ quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or 11 El' ® ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ❑ ❑ ❑ Q people? 6.2I AERIE.(PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 14 of 83 Significant Significant Impact With Mitigation Impact Incorporated IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would. the: project a) 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, ❑ H ❑ ❑ 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? d) Interferesubstantialiy: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 13 21 ❑ ❑ resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance ?' 0 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 historical resource as defined in §15064:5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in significance ofan ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? C), Directly or indirectly. destroy a unique paleontological resource ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interned outside of ❑ 0 ❑ 0 formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the.project: a) Expose people or structures to If= adverse >q.25 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 15 of 87 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ;Impact With Mitigation Impact Incorporated i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially ❑ ❑ issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ other substantial evidence of a:known fault? Refer to liquefaction or collapse? Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. d) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1 -15.of the: Uniform Building Code.(1994),.creating substantial risks to life ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ or property? e) Have soils incapable:of adequately supporting the use of septic . tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 sewers.ore 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 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ materials? 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 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ 0 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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 Cl ❑ ❑ 0 the project area? A 2 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? Vill. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards orwaste 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 pattem of the site or area, including through the.alteration of the'course of a stream or river, in.a mannerwhich 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 oft -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? i) 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? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? k) Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction? AERIE(PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 16 of 87 Potentially Less Than significant significant Impact With Mitigation ❑ Incorporated ❑ ❑ Less than No 1 Significant Impact Impact W ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ Q Q ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Q ❑ ❑ A . 27 AERIE (PA2006 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATNE DECLARATION Page 17 of 87 Potentially Less Than. Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact impact. With Mitigation Impact Incorporated. 1) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from ❑ ❑ ❑ H areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment:fueling, vehicle b) or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, ❑ H ❑ ❑ hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading ❑ ❑ ❑ H docks or other outdoor work areas? m} Result in the potential for discharge of stonnwaterto affect the: ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ a) beneficial uses of.the receiving waters? n) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity ❑ ❑ H ❑ or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? o) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or ❑ ❑ E1 ❑ surrounding areas? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: ❑ ❑ H ❑ a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Conflict with any applicable land 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, ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? C) Conflict with any applicabie habitat 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ H would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, ❑ ❑ ❑ H specific plan, or otherland 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 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground ❑ ❑ E1 El vibration or ground borne noise levels? C) A substantial. permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the ❑ ❑ H ❑ project vicinity above levels existing without the project? a .28 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? 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 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 government facilities, heed for new or physically altered government facilities, the constructiomof which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times:orother performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Other 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? AERIE (PA2005 -198) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 18 of 87 Potentially Less Than Lost than No Significant Significant Significant Impact impact With Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ R R � ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ [z ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ EZ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ,4. ,29 AERIE (PA2005 -198) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 19 of 87 ztentially Less Than gnificant Significant Impact with,mitigation Incorporated b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of.or expansion of recreational facilities which ❑ 13 might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Opportunities? XV. TRANSPORTATIONfTRAFFIC Would the project: Less than NO Significant Impact Impact a) 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 ❑ B ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ El agency for designated roads or highways? C) Result in a change in air traffic pattems, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results. in ❑ 13 substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses ❑ ❑ ❑ E1 (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result.in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ El ❑ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ Q alternative transportation (e.g.,.bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES S SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 0 ❑' ❑ 0 Regional Water Quality Control Board? III 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 13 13 Q 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 exoanded entitlements needed? a.20 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATivE DECLARATION Page 20 of 87 Significant Significant Significant Impact .Impact With:itltigation Impact Incorporated e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate 11 ❑ 11 Q 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q XViI. MANDATORY FINDINGS' OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential 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 ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 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 cum ulatively.considerable? ("Cumulafivelyconsiderable' 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 environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or ❑ ❑ 1Z ❑ XVII. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This section of the Initial Study evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and provides explanations 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.corisidered significant • Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project will have potentially significant adverse impacts which may exceed established thresholds; 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. Those mitigation measures are specified in the following sections. Each recommended mitigation measure has been agreed to by the applicant. A . 3/ AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 21 of 87 • 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. A.3Z AERIE(PA2005 -198) INITIAL., STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 22 of 87 AESTHETICS The proposed project is located in a developed urban area that includes single -family residential uses to the: north, east.and south, and multi- family uses to the immediate south and northeast. Many residential structures in the area are built into the coastal bluff and have ancillary boat docks similar to that proposed by the Aerie project. Development existing along, Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue extends down the bluff face. The north- facing portion of the property overlooks Baysioe Place and the homes on Bayside Drive. The west - facing, portion of the property overlooks a small cove off of Newport Bay, as well as several residential structures that are built into the bluff above the cove. The project site is currently developed with a multi- story, 14 -unit apartment building: and a single -story, single - family residence. Project implementation will result in the demolition.of the existing residential structures and the development of a new 8 -unit condominium structure that will have a total of six levels, including two levels and a portion of a third level that will be visible above the existing grade adjacent to the intersection of Carnation Avenue and Ocean. Boulevard A total of four levels of the structure will be visible when viewed from Newport Bay. The lowest two levels will be fully subterranean: and will not be visible: The potential effect of the project will be a change in the type and design of the structure as viewed from the street and from Newport Bay. The overall building height will be increased by approximately nine feet over the existing multiple- family structure and approximately 17 feet over a portion of the existing single- family structure as measured from the front street grade level. a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. The certified Coastal Land Use Plan ( "CLUP") and the Natural Resources Element of the City's General Plan (Figure NR3) designate the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue as a "public viewpoint." Additionally, Ocean Boulevard east of the project site is designated as a "coastal view road.' Views 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. Project implementation will result in the construction .of a residential structure that is approximately nine feet higher than the existing structures located on the same site. The proposed condominium building has been designed to conform to the existing 28 toot height limit imposed by the Newport Beach Zoning Code. The proposed structure, which is consistent with the existing structures, will not obstruct public views of the bay and coastline due to the location of the proposed structure. The existing view to the west measures 25 degrees while standing in the optimal position within the public right -of -way closest to the structure. The view will not only be maintained but it will also be expanded by 76 percent, from 25 degrees to 44 degrees (refer to the exhibit presented in Section IX.b). This increased viewing angle is the result of the design of the southwest wail of the proposed structure; which is located approximately 11 feet to the north of the existing building wall. The proposed design results: in an increase In 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 enhanced as a result of the increased distance between buildings. The proposed changes in the views from Ocean Boulevard are illustrated later in this section of the: Mitigated Negative. Declaration. The project site is also visible from Begonia Park, which is approximately 1,000 feet to the northeast. As shown: in the following exhibits depicting the view from the park toward the. project site, the proposed building envelope would. not obstruct public views of the Bay but would encroach insignificantly into the left edge of a public view of and over the end.of the Balboa Peninsula, Although the proposed building would be visible in this view from Begonia Park, it would not be a predominant feature and would not obstruct a significant amount of the water and horizon view because of the significant distance and intervening landscape and development when viewed from that location. Therefore, project implementation would not result in a significant impact on this scenic vista from the Begonia Park location. Although the existing boat dock will be replaced with new facilities to accommodate future 'residents of the proposed project; the improvements will be consistent with other similar facilities existing within Newport Harbor. As a result, the character of the cove.will hot change significantly and views of the waterside development will reflect virtually the same aesthetic character as the surrounding development within Newport Harbor. Therefore, no significant visual impacts will occur as a result of the replacement landing and dock facilities and no mitigation . measures are required. 47.33 A .311 W Un AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 23 of 87 Public View to the South from Carnation Avenue AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE. DECLARATION Page 24 of 87 Existing Public View to the West from Ocean Boulevard C.� v P.38 W AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 25 of 87 View of the project site to the northeast from the air /4.4/0 AERIE(PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 26 of 87 View of the project site to the northeast from Newport Bay Z� 2 AERIE(PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 27 of 87 Public View from Begonia Park W t A -22 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 29 of 87 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 west - facing portion of the site includes a coastal bluff with a rocky intertidal area at the base of the bluff. The intertidal area, encompasses a small cove that is characterized by a sandy beach surrounded by the bluff and rocks. The upper portion of the steeply sloping bluff is vegetated and the lower portion has exposed rocks. These amenities are visible from several public locations on the most easterly end of the Balboa Peninsula and from Newport Bay. The proposed residential structure is located above the exposed rocks of the bluff and intertidal areas, which will remain undisturbed. Although the existing landing and boat dock will be replaced and the boat dock expanded to accommodate eight vessels compared to the four that currently exist, these amenities will be similar in character to those that exist in the harbor area and will not adversely affect any scenic resources. The site is not visible from a designated scenic highway because 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, Furthermore; the proposed residential structure will not encroach below the predominant line of development as established by the Newport Beach City Council, which has been established at elevation 50.7 feet NAVD 88, or 8.4 feet above the lowest elevation of the existing development. In addition, the project includes an emergency exit at elevation 40.5 NAVD 88, which is located below the predominant line of existing development and will be recessed into the bluff, in order to ensure compatibility with the natural landform and, therefore, avoid both damaging the scenic resource represented by the bluff and degrading the existing visual character and quality of the site, the emergency exit incorporates design . features that blend the exit into the existing natural character of the bluff through the use of landscape and hardscape materials, including rocks. As a result, the emergency exit is consistent with the City's established policies regarding protection of the scenic and visual qualities of the bluff. No additional alteration of the coastal bluff below that elevation will occur. Although the proposed residential structure and replacement landing/dock facility would be visible from the west and south, no significant portion of the bluff visible from those vantages would occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project . would not result insignificant impacts to scenic resources that include trees, rock outcroppings, and/or historic structures. C) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less than Significant Impact. Existing buildings, including hardscape, presently cover approximately 22 percent of the entire site, consisting of the highest and flattest 'portions of the site and extending to elevation 42.3 feet NAVD 88. Coverage is approximately 27 percent of the area of the site above mean low tide line. The proposed building, including hardscape; will cover • approximately 26 percent of the entire . site and approximately 32 percent of the site above mean low tide line. The existing apartment building was constructed in 1949 and the adjacent home on the site was 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 character is below the quality of nearby homes, which have been remodeled and/or rebuilt and exhibit a variety of architectural themes that provide visual interest and variety, especially compared to the older and more mundane features of the existing buildings on site. The project will introduce a new style of architecture in the area that will be visible from surrounding properties. The structure is designed to conform to the steeply sloping fandform, with curved roofs and'walls, creating a unique theme. As shown in the following illustrations, the proposed building characteristics will provide a more pleasing architectural aesthetic than the existing buildings, when viewed from sidewalks, streets, and neighboring homes along Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. The visual character of the area as viewed from Newport Bay and Balboa Peninsula is presently affected not only by the existing development on the bluff face, but also the existing development on Sayside Place which obscures the lower portion 0f the northerly- facing Carnation Avenue segment of the bluff. Although the base elevation of the proposed project will be 10.53 feet higher than the base elevation of the existing buildings occupying the site, the view will change because the proposed building will cover 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 A. y7 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 30 of 87 extension of the proposed building down the bluff face will vary as shown in the exhibit below, which reflects the modified project proposal. Roughly 41.4 feet of the bluff above Bayside Place will remain undisturbed, although much of that area is now obscured from public view by those homes. The western portion of the proposed building will extend downward at elevation 52.83 feet NAVD 88, which is 10.53 feet above the base elevation of the existing apartment building. The project also includes an emergency exit at elevation 40.5 feet NAVD 88, which is located below the predominant line of existing development and will be recessed into the bluff. in order to ensure compatibility with the natural landform and, therefore, avoid both damaging the scenic resource represented by the bluff and degrading the existing visual character and quality of the site, the emergency exit incorporates design features, that blend the exit into the existing natural character of the bluff through the use of landscape and hardscape materials, including rocks. As a result, the emergency exit is consistent with the City's established policies . regarding protection of the scenic and visual qualities of the bluff. The City's Coastal Land Use Plan establishes criteria for the protection of public coastal views of the coastal bluffs along Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. CLOP Policy 4.4.3 -8 expressly allows "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." While such development is expressly permitted, however, the extent of that development is limited to the 'predominant line of existing development' (the "Predominant Line ") for the stated purpose of protecting public coastal views: This provision, found in CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -9, establishes a reasonable threshold for a finding that the impact to public coastal views of the bluff face along Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue is less than significant if development of the bluff face does not extend beyond the Predominant Line. The applicable portion of CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -9 reads as follows: "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 pubic coastal views. Establish a predominant line of developnment for both principle structures and accessory improvements...." The method by which the Predominant Line is to be established is not, however, set forth in the CLUP. Rather, as previously indicated, the Newport Beach City Council determined that the predominant line of development is elevation 50.7 feet NAVD 88; which is the threshold that is the basis for determining potentially significant impacts. The.location of the Predominant Line prescribed by the City Council for this project was influenced by several factors, including the following land and development characteristics; (1) a north - facing bluff face segment which is not subject to marine erosion, (2) a west- facing portion bluff segment which is subject to marine erosion; (3) a point at the apparent juncture of the north - facing and west- facing portions of the bluff which extends into4he sandy cove at the base of the project:site and is subject to marine erosion, and (4) existing development on these various bluff. face _segments, with development as low as elevation 10 feet NAVD 88. As previously indicated, the proposed landing and dock facilities will replace the existing structures that have deteriorated and are no longer safe to use. These facilities have been designed to be consistent and compatible with other facilities existing in Newport Harbor. Views from the Newport Channel and residential areas to the west will be similar to view of properties to the north and south that also have boat docks. No significant visual impacts will occur ras a result of these facilities. 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 Significant impact. Proposed exterior materials would consist of non - reflective materials, including a titanium roof and photo - voltaic array 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 .glace impacts from building finish materials, therefore, are expected. R, VV AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 31 of 87 ,0,5v 1 77- 4- 0 �Kv FLOOP - LNI F �� D , CITL,IF OF L AERIE (PA2005-196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIvE DECLARATION Page 32 of 87 /�� � � � \\ � � �X� \\ \� � � § \ �X�� R010i HT, MIT tq.52 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 33 of 87 a w i � r - -i � h,>Bl-"CS. ,iR\ t } i !Ci 1 6 fi : E1'i : l I 12.0 ,.- a t .._ i:psi •6:^4%t rlaOV cYC.a19{.l9;,, -,Ea3 by n.si... ....., :. ..T r EN rc r�°6T_.°� 044 w r? rzewrj:f o ! a w p,A AERIE (PA2005 -198) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 34 of 87 Lighting of interior rooms would be designed to provide illumination for interior activities and would not produce any significant light or glare effects outside of the structures that could adversely affect adjacent properties. Outdoor lighting from exterior patios and possibly along the walkway and lower level landing would be visible from the bay as minor point light sources, but would not occur as a glaring effect. Living areas in the homes to the north, west, and south are oriented toward the bay and ocean, away from the project site, and are separated a considerable distance from the project site. There are also substantial elevation differences between adjacent living spaces and the proposed outdoor living levels within the project site. Outdoor lighting within the project site would be designed to illuminate the affected activity area on site, and would not cast any illumination or incidental glare beyond the property limits. All of these circumstances minimize and possibly eliminate any opportunity for lighting on the subject property to have an adverse effect at neighboring homes. Indoor and outdoor lighting in the developed project would not result in adverse day or nighttime light or glare effects. Lighting associated with the landing and boat dock would be similar to that which currently exists in this area; therefore, no additional lighting and /or glare impacts associated with the waterside development would occur. Potential impacts will be less than significant 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 nonagricultural 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 designated as "Urban and Built -up Land" and "Other Land" on the Orange County Important Farmland Map. Further, neither the site nor the adjacent areas are designated as prime, unique or important farmlands by the State Resources Agency or by the Newport Beach General Plan. Therefore, no impact on significant farmlands would occur with the proposed project and no mitigation measures are required. 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 Residentiar 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. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. 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, as indicated previously, is not designated as agricultural land. The subject property and the area surrounding the site are developed with residential uses. Therefore, no agricultural uses on the site or within the site's vicinity would be converted to non - agricultural use. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. III. AIR QUALITY a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. Replacement of the existing single - family home and 14 multiple - family residential dwelling units with eight luxury condominiums and ancillary facilities (i.e., replacement dock and landing) would have no effect upon the key strategies of the regional Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which focus AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 35 of 87 on emissions reductions through controls on business, industry and paints, and through stricter federal and state regulatory controls to improve fuel efficiency, reduce transportation - related exhaust emissions, and reduce emissions from a variety of consumer products. The subject site is developed with one single - family home and 14 multiple dwelling units, of which only three units are currently occupied. Replacement of the 15 dwelling units that exist with eight condominiums represents an insignificant increase in potential mobile- and stationary source pollutant emissions when compared to the existing occupied units and an insignificant potential decrease if all of the existing dwelling units were occupied. Therefore, based on the existing occupied dwelling units, the proposed project would result in a small incremental increase in pollutant emissions projections related to land use planning and growth forecasts. As discussed in the responses to Ill.b through ill.e, no significant air quality impacts are anticipated as a result of this project; therefore, it would not Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. This conclusion is further supported by the goals articulated in the Natural Resources Element of the General Plan that is intended to reduce mobile source emissions as well as those from stationary sources. Consistent with those policies, project implementation will result in a reduction of vehicle trips associated with the reduction in the number of dwelling units both existing and forecast for the subject property. The project will also incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize pollution and reduce source emissions. Finally, the project sponsor will also be required to operate construction equipment and use building materials and paints that minimize air pollutant emissions and to control dust created during construction. b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no air pollution sources on site or in the immediate vicinity and the proposed project would not introduce any sources of air pollution or hazardous air emissions that could contribute to or worsen an existing air quality violation. Project implementation would result in temporary construction emissions that may affect local and regional air quality. Temporary construction activity emissions will occur during the construction stage of the proposed residential dwelling units and docks, including the on -site generation of dust and equipment exhaust, and off -site emissions from construction workers commuting to the site and trucks hauling excavated earth materials from the site and delivering building materials to the subject property. Heavy -duty trucks, earth movers, air compressors, and power generators would be used during the demolition and construction phases. Operation of these vehicles, equipment, 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 phases were calculated, using the latest computer model inputs for the URBEMIS program and are presented as an Attachment to this Mitigated Negative Declaration. Results of these calculations determined that the short term construction emission levels would be well below the South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD) significance thresholds for each type of pollutant, with or without best available control measures. Construction -phase emissions would not, therefore, violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Given the relatively limited size of the project, construction emissions for carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), sulfur oxides (SOx) and particulate matter (PMio) 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 oxides of nitrogen (NOx) levels. In addition, volatile organic compound (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. Long -term emissions were also calculated. The project -related emissions assume that all of the emissions represent new impacts. However, it must be noted that although the project - related emissions represent an increase in pollutant emissions associated with the existing residential that exists on the subject property because it is largely vacant, with only three units presently occupied; however, when compared to the potential for redevelopment of the site based on the maximum density permitted by the land use designation adopted by the City of Newport Beach for the site, the project - related emissions are less than the 28 units that could be constructed on the subject property. Emission sources associated with the proposed project include vehicular exhaust from daily traffic, energy consumption, site and landscape maintenance, and incidental emissions from use of a variety of household cleaning and hair care products. Estimated long -term project - related emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD daily p , 5(� AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 36 of 87 thresholds for all categories of pollutants. As indicated above, this analysis overstates the actual net impact of the project, since long-term air emissions could be generated by reoccupancy of the existing apartments. The projects long -term emissions would not violate any air quality standard established by the AQMD or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well- being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snow pack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health - related problems. The State Legislature has directed the California Air Resources Board to consult with the Public Utilities Commission in the development of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions reduction measures, including limits on emissions of greenhouse gases applied to electricity and natural gas providers regulated by the Public Utilities Commission. The Legislature has also directed the California Air Resources Board to assure that such measures meet the statewide emissions limits for greenhouse gases (GHG) to be established pursuant to Assembly Bill 32. Although the project would increase the resident population on the project site, the proposed project includes fewer dwelling units than currently exist on the site and the project is less intense than the density permitted by the General Plan. The incremental increase in potential greenhouse gases associated with the proposed project would not be significant in the context of the contribution of worldwide GHG Impacts. 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)? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed above, neither short-term (i.e., construction) or long -term (i.e., operational) emissions associated with the proposed project would exceed SCAQMD recommended significance thresholds. These thresholds were developed to provide a method of assessing a projects individual impact significance, and also to determine whether the projects impacts could be cumulatively considerable. The proposed project would not, therefore, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. Since the South Coast Air Basin is in non - attainment with respect to ozone and PMte, and the construction emissions would add to the regional burden of these pollutants, a vigorous set of air pollution control measures is recommended during the construction phases —(refer to MMs III -1 through 111-6, at the end of this section). d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. The area in which the subject property is located is dominated by single - family residential development; however, there are no senior housing facilities, hospitals, schools or other sensitive receptors located near the proposed project site. A blufftop passive park, Lookout Point, is located on Ocean Boulevard approximately 1,200 feet from the project site. Moreover, as discussed in the preceding assessment of potential air quality impacts, the proposed project would not generate substantial pollutant emissions, either during the temporary construction phases or over the long -term operating life of the proposed homes when occupied. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 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 significantly affect people residing or occupying areas beyond the immediate construction zones. Subsequent to the completion of construction activities, replacement of the existing apartments and single family home with eight 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 (e.g., barbeques), and possibly with outdoor maintenance activities. Trash containers would be equipped with lids and would be stored inside -P, 5 AERIE (PA2005 -1 g6) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 37 of 87 the dwelling units and garages. The proposed project will result in the development of an 8 -unit residential condominium building with accompanying boat dock facilities, which will not generate unusual or large quantities of solid waste materials, or utilize chemicals, food products, or other materials that emit strong odors that would adversely affect the ambient air quality in the project environs. Therefore, the project does not have the potential to create objectionable odors; and no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures highlight specific aspects of SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 that are considered effective construction control measures to minimize this project's construction phase air quality impacts: All applicable measures set forth in those rules shall be implemented by the Contractar(s). MM III -1 During grading activities, any exposed soil areas shall be watered at least four times per day. Stockpiles of crashed 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. MM III -2 Truck bads 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. MM III-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. MM 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. MM III The construction contractor shall encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction workers. MM 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. N. 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? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A Biological Constraints Analysis was prepared by P & D Consultants in June, 2005. In addition, a Marine Biological Field Survey conducted by Coastal Resources Management, Inc., was completed in April 2005 and updated March 2007. Prior to the site visit by P & D Consultants, a literature review was conducted to identify special status plant, wildlife, and vegetation communities known to occur within the vicinity of the project site. The literature review identified two endangered plant species: salt marsh bird's -beak (Cord)lanthus manfimus ssp. maritimus) and San Fernando Valley spineflower (Chonzanfhe parry! var. iemandt) as potentially occurring within the 4.5e AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 38 of 87 Newport Beach Quadrangle. Three threatened animal species: western snowy plover (Charaddus alexanddnus nivosus), California black rail (tateralus Jamaicensis cotumiculus), and California coastal gnatcatcher (Poiioptila californica califomica) and four endangered animal species: San Diego fairy shrimp (Brachinecia sandiegonensis), light - footed capper rail (Rallus longirostds levipes), California least tem (Sterna ari larum brown), and Belding's savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi) were identified in the literature review as potentially occurring in the Newport Beach Quadrangle, within which the site is located. Native plant species identified on the project site by P & D Consultants included four- winged saltbush (Ariplex canescens), California buckwheat (Edogonum fasciculatum), prickly pear (Opunda Gttoralis), sagebrush (Artemesia californica), California encelia (Encelia califomica), lemonade berry (Rhus integdfofla), and godenbush (lsocoma Sp.).` Other non - native plant skies were also identified on the site. The 2005 field survey conducted by P & D Consultants concluded that the site does not contain suitable habitat to support any of the threatened or endangered terrestrial plant or animal species listed in the literature review, including slat marsh bird's beak and San Fernando Valley spineflower. However, it is passible that nesting birds, which are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), could occupy trees that exist on the project site. As a result, disturbance associated with grading and construction may adversely impact nesting species if construction occurs during the nesting season (i.e., March 15 through July 31), necessitating a pre - construction survey. Because Newport Harbor and the Upper Newport Bay shorelines and waters are defined as wetland habitats under both the California Coastal Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, this water body is considered sensitive habitat and is afforded protection to conserve and protect the resource. The project occurs within the vicinity of estuarine and eelgrass habitats, which are considered habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) for various federally managed fish species. In addition, other sensitive species of plants, reptiles, birds, and mammals are known to inhabit eelgrass habitat These species, and their potential to occupy the project site and environs, are identified in Table 3. Table 3 Special Status Species Aerie PA 2005 -196 Scientific Name/ Potential to Common Name USFWSt /NMFS Status= CDFG Status Occur Plants NMFS — HAPC PhyNospadix torreyi FMP Species under the SuRgrass Magnuson-Stevens Fishery — law Potential Conservation and Management Act NMFS — HAPC Zoatera marina FMP Species under the High Potential; Observed orr Eelgrass Magnuson-Stevens Fishery — site Conservation and Mana ement Act Fishes Eucyclogobius newberryl FE — No Potential; Exllrpated from Tidewater goby Orange Coun Low Potential: May spawn on Leuresthes tenuis Big Corona Beach and the California Grunlon4 — — open coastal beaches of Newport Beach A Notice of Violation of the California Coastal Act (March 27, 2808) was issued to the property owner by the California Coastal Commission. The Notice indicated that native bluff vegetation, including lemonade berry (Rhus integr#&a). California buckwheat (Edogornrm fesciculatum), and bush sunflower (Calrfomis encefa) had been removed from the site. Although pruning and trimming necessary to maintain the lemonade berry (Rhus integriroria) on the site occurred, none of these species have been removed as indicated in the Existing Vegetation Map prepared by Robert Mitchell 8 Associates. Based on the Exisfing Vegetation Map. the lemonade berry is making a comeback and appear to be in good health. A. 51 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 39 of 87 Scientific Name! Potential to Common Name USFWSYNMFS Status' CDFG Statu53 Occur Two individuals observed associated with rocky reef habitat in front of cove in California State State vicinity of proposed dock Hypsypops rubicundus Protected under commercial Marine Fish structure. Most common California gariband and spot fish regulations (1995) within entrance channel north to Coast Guard facility on Bayside Drive compared to other alas Of the harbor Reptiles Chelonia mydas FE — Rare Visitor Green turtle Erebnachelys imbricate FE — Rare Visitor Hawksbill sea turtle Birds Pelecanus occidentarm FE CE Forages and rests to project Brown area Nesting habitat occurs in Upper Newport Bay and the Santa Ana River mouth; will Sterna anfillarum browni FE CE forage on juvenile baltfish in California least tern the nearshore waters, Newport Harbor and Upper Bay channels, usually within 5 miles of nastinq sites ru No nesting habitat present on Western snowyplo a Western snowy plover FT SSC site; no potential for Individuals to occur onsita Mammals Zslophus califamianus MMA Not abundant, but individuals California sea Ron are pmsenk in Newport Harbor Twarbps tnmcatus Bottlenose dolphin MMA — Rare visitor to Newport Harbor Eschnahbus robustus MMA — Rare visitor to Newport Harbor California gray whale 'FE — Federal Endangered; FT— Federal Threatened; MMA Protected under the Marine Mammal AcL ZHPC are subsets of Essential Fish Habitat (EEH), which are rare, particularly susceptible to human- irMuoed degradation, especially ecologically important. or located in an environmentally stressed area. Designated HAPC are not afforded any additional regulatory protection under the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; however, federally - permitted prolects with potential adverse impacts to HAPC will be more carefully scrutinized during the consultation process. 3CE — California Endangered; SSC — Species of Special Co ,cam 'Although the California halibut does not have a formal special species status, it is considered a sensitive spades by resource agendas because of its commercial value and a continued regbn -wide reduction of its nursery habitat in bays and wetland%. SOURCE: C rastai Resources Mana ement. Inc. (May 9, 2008) Impacts to Plants Refer to (c), below. Impacts to Invertebrates There are no federally or state - listed sensitive species of marine invertebrates located in the project area. However, sand dollar populations in the cove are considered to be unique intertidal populations. Low to moderate densities of sand dollars (Dendraster excentricus) were found on the sand flats within the Protected cove in numbers that varied between approximately 10 and 100 per square meter in 2005, and between 115 to 325 per square meter in 2007. The channel nassa snail (Nassarius fossatus) and the 1q. Cc0 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 40 of 87 purple olive snail (Olivella bipficata), typical of shallow sand bottom communities, were also found within the cove's sandy sediments and bottom habitat directly offshore of the cove. Disturbances to the sandy cover intertidal and shallow subtidal habitat, eelgrass, and sad dollar bed within the cove would be considered a significant adverse impact to on -site marine resources. Therefore, in order to avoid potential impacts to these species, the sand flats within the cove should be avoided by construction personnel and equipment. Residents should be made aware of the sensitivity of the cove to ensure its long -term protection. Impacts to Fishes The proposed project will not have any significant impacts on marine fishes, including Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) species. California garibaldi that are present in the rock habitats inshore of the proposed dock will be subjected to short -term effects of drilling into the bedrock that is required for pile emplacement related to increased noise and turbidity impacts; however, the project will not result in any mortality. Schooling fishes such as topsmelt will avoid the construction zone during construction and will return to the area following the completion of construction activities. Therefore, no significant impacts to fishes will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. Impacts to Marine Reptiles Sea turtles are not expected to occur within the local project area. Marine reptiles do not utilize the local marine waters as a permanent breeding or foraging habitat. Therefore, no impacts to sea turtles will occur and no mitigation measures are required. Marine Mammals The occurrence of gray whales and bottlenose dolphins in the area around the docks would be expected to be an extremely rare event Drilling and pile emplacement activity will not adversely affect California sea lions, which have adapted to harbor conditions, including vessels, ambient noise, and other disturbance. As a result, no significant impacts to marine mammals are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Impacts to Marine Birds Implementation of the proposed project will result in modifications to both terrestrial and marine environments. The upland construction would not result in any significant impacts to marine birds. The State and federally - listed California least tam is a spring and summer resident in southern California during the breeding and nesting season. This species does not breed or nest near the project site but will forage in Newport Bay and nearshore coastal waters during their March through September breeding season. The nearest least tern nesting sites are located approximately 2.5 miles west (upcoast) at the mouth of the Santa Ana River and 4.2 miles northeast in Upper Newport Bay near the Jamboree Road Bridge. The California brown pelican is found in Newport Bay year -around but does not breed locally. This species utilizes Newport Harbor waters for foraging on baitfish, and the shoreline as resting habitat The presence of temporary, stationary vessels and drilling required for pile emplacement will not adversely affect seabirds that forage in the open waters of Newport Harbor. These birds will forage in the presence of boating activity and will avoid activity that is potentially harmful. As a result, project implementation will not result in any potentially significant impacts to these sensitive bird species and no mitigation measures are required. 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? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction of the proposed building is located well above the marine environment. The bluff face vegetation is not a riparian resource and is not identified as a sensitive natural vegetation community in any plans, policies or regulations administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or California Department of Fish and Game. Storm drainage currently empties from the site into the Bay, and the proposed project will reduce stormwater runoff from 3.04 cubic tq,GI AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATrvE DECLARATION Page 41 of 87 feet per second to 2.92 cubic feet per second based upon the hydrological study prepared by Hunsaker and Associates. The conceptual water quality management plan includes best management practices and stormwater filtration devices that will improve the quality of runoff from the site, compared to existing conditions. In addition to the biological field survey and marine biological field survey, a marine biological impact assessment, focusing on eelgrass (Zosters marina) and sensitive species for the proposed dock replacement component of the proposed project was also conducted in January 2008 and updated In May 2008. In addition to eelgrass, the study determined that Carnation Cove supports an extremely diverse assemblage of plant and animal life due to its locality near the Harbor Entrance Channel, and the combination of rocky outcrops and fine sands -to -silt substrates. This region of the harbor shares many characteristics common to nearshore subtidal reef and sand bottom marine habitats and communities located off Corona del Mar. Carnation Cove is an important marine relic habitat that no longer exists in other areas of Newport Bay. Eelgrass habitat in the project area was mapped in 2005 and 2007. In 2005, a total of 15,155.4 square feet (0.233 acre) of eelgrass was mapped in the project vicinity. Of that total, 0231 acre (99 percent) was mapped south of the existing boat dock. One small patch occurred outside the project boundary, 42 feet north of the project area dock. The remaining eelgrass bed began 62 feet south of the dock, and extended past the project area boundaries to the docks located at the Channel Reef apartment complex. The epifaunal snail (Alta carinaha) was present in low -to- moderate densities on the eelgrass blades. The 2007 distribution of the eelgrass generally mimicked the 2005 distribution with some slight boundary differences. The total amount of eelgrass in 2007 was 10,062 square feet (0.231 acre), or about 95 square feet less than the total documented in 2005. A total of 9,888.12 square feet (0.227 acre) was mapped south of the project area dock with the remainder located north of the dock during the most recent survey. The decline in eelgrass cover noted in 2007, while small, was associated with bay -wide eelgrass habitat area reductions observed between the same period. Eelgrass turion density was not determined during the 2007 survey. However, based on a comparative analysis of turion density, eelgrass turion density in this region of Newport Harbor is relatively stable. Consequently, turion density estimates for July 2004 in Carnation Cove, which averaged 115 +132 shoots per square meter at depths between 0.0 and —14.9 feet mean lower low water (MLLW), and March 2005 are likely representative of conditions at the project site in March 2007. The eelgrass survey also addressed other marine life in the project area (i.e., Carnation Cove). Low to moderate densities of sand dollars were found on the sand flats within the protected cove in numbers that varied between approximately 10 and 100 per square meter in 2005, and between 115 and 325 per square meter in 2007. The channel nassa snail and purple olive snail, typical of shallow sand bottom communities, were also found within the cove's sandy sediments and immediately bottom habitat directly offshore of the cove. The marine biological community living on the low - intertidal rocky substrate surrounding the project site was characterized by a variety of life forms in the rock substrate, including scaly worm snail, mussels, green and brown algae and other invertebrates. The sand bottom marine life at depths seaward of the eelgrass beds (i.e., deeper than —10 feet MLLW) is colonized by sea pens, sheep crab, Kellet's whelk, and tube - dwelling polycheates. Nine species of fish were observed during the 2005 and 2007 surveys, including the Garibaldi, which is the State Fish and a protected species. No other rare, threatened, or endangered species of plants, invertebrates, or fish were observed during the survey. Caulerpa ( Caulerpa taxifolia) has a potential to cause ecosystem -level impacts on California's bays and nearshore systems due to its extreme ability to out - compete other algae and seagrasses This species grows as a dense smothering blanket, covering and killing all native aquatic vegetation in its path when introduced in a non - native habitat Fish, invertebrates, marine mammals, and sea birds that are dependent on native marine vegetation are displaced or die off from the areas where they once thrived. As required by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the California Department of Fish and Game, projects that have the potential to spread this species through dredging and bottom- disturbing activities must conduct pre - construction surveys to determine if Caulerpa is present. Standard agency- approved protocols are employed by NMFS/CDFG- certified field surveyors. During the eelgrass survey `4 � 2 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATivE DECLARATION Page 42 of 87 conducted for the proposed project, no Caulerps taxifolia was observed In the general vicinity of the project site during either 2205 or 2007. The total area of potential effect (APE) was 47,318 square feet (1.08 acres), of which 15,525 square feet (42.9 percent) in the main channel was covered and 11,193 square feet (0.26 acre), 100 percent was covered in Carnation Cove. Short-term Eelgrass Impacts No direct losses of eelgrass are anticipated as a result of the dock construction project. Nonetheless, post-construction surveys will be conducted to verify that no eelgrass losses have occurred. As indicated above, project implementation also includes the replacement of the existing four -slip dock facility with an eight -slip dock to accommodate future residents of the proposed dwelling units. Construction of the replacement dock would result in potential water quality and vessel - related impacts on selgrass habitat, which may include both direct and indirect long -term effects. During the pile removal and subsequent drilling required for the emplacement process, water turbidity will increase. Turbidity may also increase if vessel propellers impact the bay floor or prop wash stirs up bottom sediments. In order to prevent the spread of any turbidity plume out of the area, Best Management Practices (BMPs), which eliminate any disposal of trash and debris at the project site as well as the removal of construction debris, will be implemented during construction. Vessel - related impacts include those associated with barges and work vessels working over existing eelgrass beds by deploying anchors and anchor chain within eelgrass habitat, grounding over eelgrass habitat, and propeller scarring and prop wash of either the barge or support vessels for the barge. These vessels could create furrows and scars within the eelgrass vegetation and would result in adverse losses of eelgrass habitat that would require the implementation of an eelgrass mitigation program (refer to MM IV -3), which would minimize disturbances related to vessel operations and vessel anchor positioning. It is anticipated that barge operations will have only minimal shading effects on eelgrass since the position of the barge will shift each day, preventing continuous shading of any one part of the eelgrass bed. Lonq -term Eelgrass Impacts Project implementation will result in the placement of 19 piles into the bay floor. Although the piles will have a cumulative surface area of approximately 39.1 square feet, none will be directly embedded within the eelgrass habitat However, two piles on the wave - attenuating dock and two piles at the end of the wood dock are located within several feet of where eelgrass occurs. As a result, there is a slight potential for the placement of these piles to disturb eelgrass through burial or sediment disturbances around the perimeter of the piles as they are driven into the rock. Implementing turbidity and sediment control measures (e.g., silt curtains and sleeves around pilings) will mitigate potential eelgrass habitat losses due to pile emplacement activities. The proposed dock structures will encompass an area of approximately 3,450 square feet. A small portion of the existing eelgrass bed (approximately 30 square feet) will potentially be affected by shading effects from vessels docked within the slips and the wave-attenuating concrete dock structure. The area of eelgrass habitat that is actually affected by long -tern shading will be determined during post - construction monitoring surveys conducted pursuant to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Southern California Eelgrass Mitigabon Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended). The location and amount of eelgrass to be transplanted shall be determined following the results of the two annual monitoring efforts (refer to Mitigation Measures). Eelgrass Impacts Related to Sand Transport The project area lies within an area of active sand transport near the harbor entrance channel that is subjected to periodic sand movement through mechanisms related to wave exposure and tidal energy transport. Sediments are transported from the entrance channel to the Orange County Sheriff Harbor patrol Beach along Bayside Drive. Piles, revetment, jetties, and other structures have a potential to interrupt and/or disrupt sand transport that could result in either an increase in sand deposition or sand erosion. Biologically, changes in sediment patterns and changes in sediment grain size can alter biological communities, including the distribution and abundance of eelgrass. However, sand transport impacts are not anticipated as a result of the placement and configuration of piles in a single row that is in the parallel and not perpendicular to the direction of sand transport. Therefore, the placement of dock AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 43 of 67 piles will not result in the disruption or loss of eelgrass habitat, or other biological communities as a result of any alteration in local sand transport mechanisms. Impacts to Other Marine Svecies Refer to (a) above. 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. A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) are required as standard practice and they have been prepared and will ensure that runoff from the site is appropriately managed to avoid additional 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. 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 the discussion of potential impacts to sensitive species in the previous responses. 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 "ordinance? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project will result in the removal of introduced, non - native 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. As a result no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Potential impacts to marine biological resources are identified and described in the preceding responses. Potential impacts to avoid impacts to eelgrass and other marine resources were identified; appropriate mitigation measures have been prescribed. 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. The subject property is located on a bluff within the coastal zone; therefore, the site is not included in either a Habitat Conservation Plan or a Natural Community Conservation Plan. However, the project area occurs within the vicinity of estuarine and eelgrass habitats, which are considered habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) for various federally managed fish species (i.e., northern anchovy) within the Coastal Pelagics Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) and Pacific Groundfish FMP (i.e., rockfishes). HAPC are described in the regulations as subsets of essential fish habitat (EFH), which are rare, particularly susceptible to human - induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally stressed area. Although designated HAPC are not afforded any additional regulatory protection under the Magnuson - Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (1997), federally permitted projects with potential adverse impacts to HAPC will be more carefully scrutinized during the consultation process. Potential impacts to the eelgrass and species inhabiting that habitat are evaluated in the preceding analysis. Where potential impacts have been identified, mitigation measures are identified and prescribed below. P, �cl AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 44 of 87 Mitigation Measures Implementation of the mitigation measures identified below will reduce potential impacts to marine resources to a less than significant level. MM IV -1 An updated pre - construction eelgrass and invasive algae survey shall be completed within 30 days of the initiation of the proposed dock/gangway construction. The results of this survey will be used to update the results of the March 2007 eelgrass survey and to identify, if any, potential project - related eelgrass losses and the presence or absence of the invasive algae (Caulefpa taxifolia) in accordance with NMFS requirements. MM IV -2 A post - construction project eelgrass survey shall be completed within 30 days of the completion of project construction in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). The report will be presented to. the resources agencies and the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission within 30 days after completion of the survey. If any eelgrass has been impacted In excess of that determined in the pre- construction survey, any additional impacted eelgrass will be mitigated at a ratio of 1.2:1 (mitigation to impact). MM IV -3 Eelgrass shall be mitigated based on two annual monitoring surveys that document the changes in bed (i.e., area extent and density) in the vicinity of the footprint of the boat dock, moored vessel(s), and /or related structures during the active -growth period for eelgrass (typically March through October). Mitigation shall be implemented pursuant to the requirements of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). A statement from the applicant indicating their understanding of the potential mitigation obligation that may follow the initial two year monitoring is required. If losses are identified, a final eelgrass mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach and resources agencies for review and acceptance. MM 1V-4 The project marine biologist shall mark the positions of eelgrass beds in the vicinity of the dock and gangway construction area with buoys prior to the initiation of any construction activities. MM IV-5 The project marine biologist shall meet with the construction crew prior to initiation of construction to orient them to specific areas where eelgrass occurs. MM IV-6 Support vessels and barges shall maneuver and work over eelgrass beds only during tides of +2 feet mean lower low water (MLLW) or higher to prevent grounding within ealgrass beds, damage to eelgrass from propellers, and to limit water turbidity. MM IV -7 Anchors and anchor chains shall not impinge upon eelgrass habitat MM IV-8 Construction activities associated with the elevated walkway leading to the gangway, and construction personnel shall avoid impacts to rocky Intertidal habitat and to eelgrass beds and sand dollar habitat within the Carnation Cove. MM IV -9 Residents shall be informed of the sensitivity of the cove as a unique marine biological habitat to assist in ensuring the long -term protection of the cove's marine biological resources. A.�S AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 45 of 67 MM IV -10 If vegetation clearing is to take place between March 15 and July 31, a pre-construction nesting survey for migratory birds will be conducted as required by the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Pre-construction surveys are to be conducted no more than 30 days prior to ground disturbance. Some restrictions on construction activities may be required in the vicinity of the nests until the site is no longer active, as determined by a qualified biologist 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 containing 14 dwelling units. The existing building was constructed in 1949. in addition, a single family residence constructed in 1955 also exists on the subject properly. Neither structure is listed on a Federal, State or local historical resource inventory. Project implementation will result in the demolition of the existing residential structures on the site; however, no significant impacts to historic resources are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15604.5? No Impact. Because implementation of the proposed project requires the approval of an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport General Plan, it is subject to the provisions of SB 18, which requires consultation with Native American representatives. The City has complied with the requirements of SB 18 by submitting a request to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). In addition, the City also sent letters to the Native American representatives, informing each of the proposed project. However, no response was received by the City from any of the Native American representations requesting consultation within the 90-day statutory period. In addition, a cultural and paleontological resources records survey was completed by LSA Associates, Inc. in July of 2005. All recorded archaeological sites and cultural resource records on file were reviewed, including the California Points of Historical Interest, the California Historical Landmarks, the California Register of Historical Resources, the National Register of Historic Places, and the California State Historic Resources Inventory. LSA completed an archaeological survey of the site. No archaeological sites were identified during the survey, which concluded that it is highly unlikely that any archaeological resources would exist given the disturbed nature of the site and soil conditions. Although project implementation includes extensive excavation of the property to accommodate the proposed residential structure, including the subterranean parking facilities, it is unlikely that the disturbance of the subsurface soils would result In significant impacts to cultural resources due to the site alteration associated with the existing structures and the nature of the bedrock materials that underlie the site. It is unlikely that any archaeological sites have ever existed on the property or will be encountered during construction. Therefore, no significant impacts to archaeological resources are anticipated and no mitigation measures, including archeological monitoring, are recommended. C) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site and surrounding areas, including the bluff, have been altered to accommodate development that includes predominantly residential uses; the only potentially unique geologic feature on the site would be the rocky cove. Although project implementation includes the replacement of the existing 4 -slip dock located within the cove below the site, it will not result in physical changes or alterations that would either directly or indirectly destroy the characteristics of the cove. The project will not impact the cove as construction of the proposed condominiums will occur well above the feature and construction of the replacement dock will occur seaward of the cove. As a result, alteration of the rocks or the cove will not occur and no significant impacts are anticipated. AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 46 of 87 The cultural and paleontological resources records survey conducted in 2005 for the proposed project 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 gradinglexcavation activities (refer to MM 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. As indicated above, both the NAHC and Native American representatives have been contacted in accordance with the mandate prescribed in SB 18. Consultation has not been requested. Therefore, based on die degree of disturbance that has already occurred on the site and, further, no request for consultation by the Native American community, project implementation will not result in potentially significant impacts to human remains; no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measure is proposed to mitigate the potential impacts associated with cultural resources to a less than significant level. MM V -1 A qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the project applicant to develop a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) consistent with the guidance of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). In the event that fossils are encountered during construction activities, ground - disturbing excavations in the vicinity of the discovery shall be redirected or halted by the monitor until the find has been salvaged. Any fossils discovered during project construction shall be prepared to a point of identification and stabilized for long -term storage. Any discovery, along with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, shall be accessioned into the collections of a suitable repository. Curation costs to accession any collections shall be the responsibility of the project applicant. VI. GEOLOGYANDSOILS a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, Injury, or death involving: 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. The site is located in the Corona del Mar area of the City, which is near the intersection of the Southwestern Block and the Central Block of the Los Angeles Basin. The Southwestern Block is the westerly seaward portion of the Los Angeles Basin, which includes Palos Verdes Peninsula and Long Beach, and is bounded on the east by the Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone (NIFZ). The landward part of the NIFZ is a northwesterly- trending zone that extends from Beverly Hills on the north to Newport Bay on the south, where it continues offshore to the south; however, it eventually returns ashore again near La Jolla, where it is expressed by the Rose Canyon Fault. The NIFZ within the project environs is not included on the State- published Alquist -Priolo Special Studies zonation map. P.�7 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 47 of 87 The subject property is located within a seismically active area. Based on a site - specific fault investigation conducted by Neblett & Associates, Inc., the fault activity levels have not displaced terrace deposits for at least 80.000 to 120,000 years before present. According to CDMG Special Publications 42, "active" faults are defined as those faults that have displaced during the last 11,000 years (i.e., Holocene age). Therefore, the faults identified on the site are not considered 'active." Although a literature review conducted for the preliminary geologiclgeotechnical investigation indicated that a fault was mapped on the site, site mapping, aerial photo analysis, fault trenching, and age dating conducted for the proposed project concluded that no active faults are present on the subject property. 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. Although episodes on those faults could cause ground shaking at the project site, it Is highly unlikely that the site would experience surface 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 a less than significant level. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than Significant Impact. See response to We (i) above. As indicated above, the subject property is located in the seismically active southern California region; several active faults are responsible for generating moderate to strong earthquakes throughout the region. Table 3 identifies the active regional faults that are capable of generating seismic ground shaking in the region. The maximum magnitude for each of the faults is also presented in Table 4. Table 4 Regional Active Fault Parameters Aerie PA 2005 -196 Fault Name Approx. Distance km Source Type A1BIC Max. Magnitude Mw Slip Rate (mm/ r Fault e' Newport-Inglewood Offshore 2.8 B 6.9 1.50 SS New rt-In lewood LA Basin 4.2 B 6.9 1.00 SS Palos Verdes 22.3 B 7.1 3.00 SS Chino-Central Avenue 33.7 B 6.7 1.00 DS Elsinore - Whittier 34.8 B 6.8 2.50 SS Elsinore -Glen Ivy 36.1 B 5.8 5.00 SS Coronado Bank 37.0 B 7.4 3.00 SS San Jose 49.0 B 6.5 0.50 DS Elsinore - Temecula 49.3 B 6.8 5.00 SS Sierra Madre Central 59.6 B 7.0 3.00 DS Cucamonga 60.2 A 7.0 5.00 DS Raymond 62.9 B 6.5 0.50 DS Verdu o 64.5 B 6.7 0.50 DS Clamshell - Sawpit 65.4 B 6.5 1.00 DS Hollywood 66.5 B 6.5 1.00 DS Rose Canyon 66.9 B 6.9 1.50 SS Santa Monica 72.8 B 6.6 1.00 DS San Jacinto -San Bernardino 74.2 B 6.7 12.00 SS San Jacinto-San Jacinto Valley 75.4 B 5.9 12.00 SS Malibu Coast 77.4 B 6.7 0.30 DS Elsinore- Julian 83.8 A 7.1 5.00 SS San Andreas Southern 84.6 A 7.4 24.00 SS Sierra Madre San Fernando 84.8 B 6.7 2.00 DS '0' (X AERIE(PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 48 of 87 Fault Name Approx. Distance km ) Source Type (A!B IC) Max. Magnitude (Mw Slip Rate m r Fault San Andreas 1857 Rupture) 85.5 A 7.8 34.0 SS Anaca Dume 87.0 B 7.3 3.00 DS CI horn 88.0 B 6.5 3.00 SS San Gabriel 88.2 B 7.0 1.00 SS San Jacinto-Anza 90.4 A 7.2 12.00 SS North Frontal Fault Zone West 96.1 B 7.0 1.00 DS Santa Susena 98.9 B 6.6 5.00 DS 'SS — strike -slip; DS — dip -slip; BT — blind thrust. SOURCE: Neblett & Associates Inc. March 28 2003 As indicated above, the nearest Type A fault Is the Cucamonga Fault, which is located approximately 60.2 miles from the site. This fault is capable of generating a 7.0 magnitude earthquake. The nearest Type B fault is the offshore Newport- Inglewood fault (2.8 km from the subject property), which is capable of generating a maximum magnitude of 6.9. In addition, peak ground acceleration values were also calculated for the proposed project. Those values should be utilized for the design and construction of the residential structures. These values represent ground motions that, as a minimum, have a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years. The estimated mean peak ground acceleration at the site is 0.3458. As indicated above, the preliminary geologic/geotechnical investigation report identifies the appropriate CBC seismic coefficients for structural design. Implementation of the recommendations prescribed in the preliminary geologic/geotechnical investigation and compliance with CBC structure design parameters will ensure that potential impacts associated with ground shaking associated with a seismic event on one of the causative faults are reduced to an acceptable level (i.e., minimize loss of life and/or property). iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact. The site encompasses a bluff above Newport Bay. The site and the surrounding area have been developed with residential structures for several years. The slopes descending from the project site expose very resistant sandstone of the Monterey formation. Extensive through - going, low-angle discontinuities within the dense massive sandstone bedrock are absent. The lack of landslide features indicates that the area has been relatively stable in the recent geologic past (i.e., Holocene) and has not been subject to earthquake - induced large -scale landsliding. The majority of liquefaction hazards are associated with uncompacted, saturated or nearly saturated, non - cohesive sandy and silty soils. Based on field mapping and the subsurface exploration conducted for the proposed project, the artificial fill and terrace material presently existing at the subject site are very shallow, unsaturated, fine- tacoarse-grained, silty sand with abundant gravels, cobbles, and boulders. Based on the proposed project design, the site will be excavated to a proposed elevation of approximately elevation 30 feet NAVD 88 for subterranean level Construction, effectively removing the artificial fill and terrace materials. Although the proposed grading will expose bedrock throughout the entire site area, potential liquefaction within the bedrock material is not anticipated. Furthermore, subsurface water, which is an important factor in the liquefaction phenomenon, was not observed during the field investigation. Therefore, 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 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 eroslon is not considered a significant hazard. 14 . �-C AERIE (PA2005 -198) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 49 of 87 IV) Landslides? Less than Significant Impact. See response to VI.a(iii) above. b) Would the project result in sail erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The exposed bluff material on the site is composed of resistant sandstone and is not prone to erosion. In view of this site characteristic, bluff erosion is not considered to be significant Given the rocky nature of the bluff, as indicated previously, there is a relatively thin layer of topsoil. Removal of topsoil during excavation would represent an insignificant loss of topsoil. Therefore, potential impacts associated with bluff erosion would be less than significant. Nonetheless, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) was prepared by Hunsaker & Associates (June 3, 2005). Implementation of the best management practices (BMPs) included in the SWPPP during construction will ensure that potentially significant erosion and/or loss of topsoil will be avoided. Implementation of the SWPPP Is a standard requirement of the Newport Beach Building Department and all BMPs are mandatory during grading and construction. With additional impervious surfaces (an increase of 11 percent compared to existing conditions), this project would reduce the amount of open land area exposed to potential erosional forces of wind and water. Efforts required to ensure that potential erosion is minimized include slope protection devices, plastic sheeting, inspection for signs of surface erosion, and corrective measures to maintain, repair or add structures required for effective erosion and sediment movement from the site. As a result, potential Impacts occurring from project implementation, including those anticipated during grading and after development of the site, will be avoided or minimized. Because the proposed project includes the replacement of the existing dock and landing facilities, an engineering study (Coastal Engineering Assessment for the "Aerie" Dock Project) was prepared by Noble Consultants, Inc. (May 9, 2008) to evaluate the potential effects of high winds and sand transport associated with these facilities. The findings and recommendations of this study are summarized below. Wave Conditions a0d Potential Impacts Wind stations derived from measurements at long Beach Airport and San Clemente Island were analyzed to define typical and extreme wind conditions for the prediction of wind waves at the project site. Based on the data from the Long Beach Airport, approximately 25 percent of the time, the wind blows from the WNW -NNW sector at an average speed of approximately six knots. In addition, the one -hour average wind speed from this sector never exceeded 40 knots. Winds from the SSE-S sector have a relatively low probability of occurrence (i.e., less than 10 percent) and would typically blow at about six knots but would not exceed 27 knots. Wind data from San Clemente Island indicated that the WNW -NNW wind section would also blow at approximately the same speeds as shown for the Long Beach Airport. Winds from the SSES sector typically blow at about four knots; however, extreme winds from this sector could blow above 58 knots, significantly higher than this wind probability at Long Beach Airport Extreme wind speeds and fetches for the project site were calculated SSE -S sector (refer to Table 5) based on the data available at both Long Beach Airport and San Clemente Island. A. 7C,, AERIE(PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDYAND NEGAnvE DECLARATION Page 50 of 87 Table 5 Selected Wind Conditions for Wind Wave Predictions Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Condition Direction Seed Fetch Typical WNW-NNW 6 Knots 3 m /sec Newport Bay, 4,300 Feet 1.3 km SSE -S 6 Knots (3 m/sec Pacific Ocean 60 miles 110 km Extreme WNW -NNW 36 knots 19 m /sec Newport Bay, 4,300 Feet 1.3 km Period sec SSE -S 48 knots 24 m /sec Pacific Ocean, 60 miles 110 km SOURCE: Noble Consultants Inc. (May 9 2008 Based on the wind conditions identified in Table 5, wind wave conditions at the project site have been estimated and are summarized in Table 6. Based on that information, it can be concluded that wind - induced wave conditions at the project site would be typically mild. For about 65 percent of the time, there would be no wind waves. For the remainder of the time, significant wave heights would be 0.5 foot or less. On less frequent occasions, wind- induced significant wave heights would be higher than one foot and up to 2.5 feet, as indicated in Table 6. Table 6 Wind Wave Conditions at the Project Site Resulting from Typical and Extreme WNW -NNW and SSES Winds Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Typical and extreme swell conditions for offshore Newport Beach were also calculated and presented in the Noble study. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 7. Based on that information, it can be concluded that wave conditions at the project site would, in general, be mild for approximately 65 percent of the time with either no wind waves or waves of negligible relevance at the project site. For about 25 percent of the time, winds from the WNW -NNW would generate a short 0.13 -foot significant height, less than 1- second period wind wave; and for 10 percent of the time, the offshore SSES sea breeze would generate a 0.5 -foot significant height, 1.7 period wind wave. On less frequent occasions. WNW -NNW winds within Newport Bay could generate 1.3 foot significant height, 1.5- second period wind waves. Similarly less frequent local storms from the SSE -S could generate 2.5 -foot significant height, 9 — 10- second significant wind waves at the project site. The particular orientation of the Newport Beach jetties and the presence of the Santa Catalina and San Clemente Islands prevent the predominant swell conditions, which approach the Southern California Bight from the W -NW sector for approximately 86 percent of the time, from affecting the site. With a frequency of occurrence of less than two percent, typical SSE -SW, 12 to 16- second swell would reach the project n�7r Significant Wave Height Wave Frequency of Condition Direction Fee! Period sec Occurrence Typical WNW -NNW 0.13 X10 25% of the time SSE -S 0.5 1.7 10% of the time Extreme WNW -NNW 1.3 1.5 Less fre cent SSE -S 2.5 9 to 10 Less frequent' 'A detailed wave hindcast, beyond the scope of the study prepared for the project, would be required to determine the frequency of occurrence (or return period) of this event. SOURCE: Noble Consultants Ina (May 9, 2008 Typical and extreme swell conditions for offshore Newport Beach were also calculated and presented in the Noble study. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 7. Based on that information, it can be concluded that wave conditions at the project site would, in general, be mild for approximately 65 percent of the time with either no wind waves or waves of negligible relevance at the project site. For about 25 percent of the time, winds from the WNW -NNW would generate a short 0.13 -foot significant height, less than 1- second period wind wave; and for 10 percent of the time, the offshore SSES sea breeze would generate a 0.5 -foot significant height, 1.7 period wind wave. On less frequent occasions. WNW -NNW winds within Newport Bay could generate 1.3 foot significant height, 1.5- second period wind waves. Similarly less frequent local storms from the SSE -S could generate 2.5 -foot significant height, 9 — 10- second significant wind waves at the project site. The particular orientation of the Newport Beach jetties and the presence of the Santa Catalina and San Clemente Islands prevent the predominant swell conditions, which approach the Southern California Bight from the W -NW sector for approximately 86 percent of the time, from affecting the site. With a frequency of occurrence of less than two percent, typical SSE -SW, 12 to 16- second swell would reach the project n�7r AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATivE DECLARATION Page 51 of 87 site with a significant height of 0.5 foot. On less frequent occasions, extreme SSE -SSW swell generated by distant storms could reach the project site with significant heights of approximately 1.5 feet and periods in the 12 to 14- second range. Table 7 summarizes the wave conditions at the project site resulting from typical and extreme SSE -SSW swell conditions offshore. Based on the dock plan proposed for the project wave conditions from the WNW -NNW will approach moored vessels at the proposed facility approximately from the beam, whereas wave conditions from the SSE -SSW would be entering through the entrance channel and approach the moored vessels from the bow (head seas). Under typical WNW -NNW wave, and SSE -SSW wave and swell conditions, wave heights would be below the recommended one -foot limit, regardless of the recurrence intervals recommended for wave conditions in small craft harbors. Table 7 Wave Conditions at the Project Site Resulting from Typical and Extreme SSE -SSW Swell Conditions Offshore Aerie (PA 2005 -196) The project site is exposed to impinging waves from either wind - generated period waves in the bay or ocean swells that will propagate through the entrance channel. For about 65 percent of the time, there would be no wind waves. For the remainder of the time, significant wave heights would be 0.5 That or less. On less frequent occasions, wind - induced significant wave heights would be higher than one That and up to 2.5 feet. Extreme SSE-SSW swell generated by distant storms could reach the project site with significant heights of approximately 1.5 feet and periods in the 12 to 14- second range. Because of the orientation of the harbor entrance channel, the study concluded that the site will be more exposed to storm waves generated associated with passage of winter pre- frontal storm winds and southern hemisphere swell that typically occurs in the summary months. As a result, the design of the proposed dock should be based on the extreme wave conditions where the structures will be most susceptible to damage from wave - induced forces and motion. The Noble Consultants study concluded that from a wave climate perspective, the proposed docking facility is feasible in a wide range of conditions. However, extreme wind waves from the SSE -SSW are expected to exceed the recommended maximum wave heights and, therefore, damage to the moored vessels and /or docking facilities may occur. In these less frequent conditions, vessels should be moved and sheltered in a less exposed location. Sediment Processes and Flow Patterns In the coastal/harbor zone, sediment typically moves in accordance with the impinging wave direction. Thus, sediment movement in the Newport Harbor entrance area depends strongly on the two P, 72 Frequency of Condition Offshore Project Site Occurrence Hs = 5 Feet Hs = 0.5 Feet Typical T = 12 —16 Seconds T = 12 —16 Seconds Less than 2% From SSE -SSW Parallel to entrance channel H =15 Feet H= 1.5Feet Extreme T = 12 —14 Seconds T = 12 —14 Seconds Less Frequent' From SSE -SSW Parallel to entrance channel Hs = significant wave height, T = period. 'A detailed wave hindcast, beyond the scope of the study conducted for the project, would be required to determine the frequency of occurrence (or return period) of this event. SOURCE: Noble Consultants, Inc. (May 9, 2008 The project site is exposed to impinging waves from either wind - generated period waves in the bay or ocean swells that will propagate through the entrance channel. For about 65 percent of the time, there would be no wind waves. For the remainder of the time, significant wave heights would be 0.5 That or less. On less frequent occasions, wind - induced significant wave heights would be higher than one That and up to 2.5 feet. Extreme SSE-SSW swell generated by distant storms could reach the project site with significant heights of approximately 1.5 feet and periods in the 12 to 14- second range. Because of the orientation of the harbor entrance channel, the study concluded that the site will be more exposed to storm waves generated associated with passage of winter pre- frontal storm winds and southern hemisphere swell that typically occurs in the summary months. As a result, the design of the proposed dock should be based on the extreme wave conditions where the structures will be most susceptible to damage from wave - induced forces and motion. The Noble Consultants study concluded that from a wave climate perspective, the proposed docking facility is feasible in a wide range of conditions. However, extreme wind waves from the SSE -SSW are expected to exceed the recommended maximum wave heights and, therefore, damage to the moored vessels and /or docking facilities may occur. In these less frequent conditions, vessels should be moved and sheltered in a less exposed location. Sediment Processes and Flow Patterns In the coastal/harbor zone, sediment typically moves in accordance with the impinging wave direction. Thus, sediment movement in the Newport Harbor entrance area depends strongly on the two P, 72 AERIE (PA2006 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 52 of 87 distinguished wave patterns, winter north or northwest swells and southerly swells, that are typically observed in the region. The north and northwest swells occurring in the winter months have a deep water approach direction of between 2750 and 2850 toward Southern California. Sediment movement along the Newport Beach shoreline would, therefore, be toward the southeast (i.e., toward Newport Harbor). At The Wedge, the beach adjacent to the harbor entrance area, sands are partially pushed through the riprep jetty as well as moved around the jetty. The transported sands deposit in the harbor entrance adjacent to the jetty area during the winter months. Based on information provided by the City of Newport Beach (Chris Miller, Harbor Resource Division), an annual total of approximately 5,000 cubic yards of sands are transported by waves into cove beaches in the area, resulting in a need for dredging from some dock facilities in order to maintain an adequate depth for boat berthing. The vast majority of sand depositing in the cove areas is coastal littoral sediment transported through the entrance channel. Sediment discharged either from the Upper Newport Bay or storm drains in the adjacent area would be fine silt, which is not beach - quality material. The project site's waterfront area Is characterized by various rock outcrops that form a cove beach, which appears to be stable because little change has occurred over the years based on a review of aerial photographs between 2001 and 2006. The bottom gradient where the proposed replacement dock will be constructed is approximately 9:1 (horizontal to vertical). A patch of sand along the channel side of the site's rock outcrop that is parallel to the navigational channel was observed at the time the study was conducted by Noble Consultants, Inc. The patch of sand, which is located in the depth shallower than 5 feet at the MLLW line, appears to be stable. The attached exhibit illustrates the flow patterns that characterize the channel in the vicinity of the project during the flood /ebb tide cycle. The flood tide water flows somewhat parallel to the depth contours at the site and splits either into Carnation Cove or along the main navigational channel. These two flow fields would eventually converge and continue toward the upper bay. During the ebb tide, the reverse flow patterns were observed, except for an eddy zone located a100 feet oceanward from the existing pier. The occurrence of this eddy zone may be attributed to the abrupt deepening of water depth, which not only slows down the flow rate but also alters the flow direction. Based on the findings presented in the coastal engineering assessment prepared for the project, sediment deposited along the east side of the entrance channel at Newport Harbor is due to the uniqueness of sequential sediment transport patters that are typically observed in the harbor entrance area. Coastal alongshore drifted sands are transported either through the east jetty or via the entrance channel during the winter months and moved further into the bay by southerly swells primarily occurring in the following summer season. Sand - quality sediment movement within the project region is typically in the along-channel direction from the harbor entrance to the inner bay. A stable bayshore condition is observed at the project site. Regular sedimentation observed at China Reef located In the updraft area is primarily due to the groin -like outcrop feature that entraps the along -channel transported sediment. With a small percentage (approximately six percent) of the along - channel blockage area resulting from the proposed new dock facility, the potential impact to this unique sediment movement process in the entrance channel is insignificant, although localized sand deposit resulting from the presence of the proposed guide piles within the sand- moving path may occur. In addition, the project is located in the downdrift direction of the neighboring China Reef, the projects potential impact on sedimentation at the updrlft location such as China Reef is inconsequential. No significant impacts to sand transport resulting from project implement are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. P,73 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 63 of 87 Flood/Ebb Tide Flow Patterns Flood -Tide Flow Patterns Ebb -Tide Flow Patterns tq 7y AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 54 of 87 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 offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less than Significant Impact The project site and the surrounding area are not known to be located within an unstable geologic area and, therefore, are not expected 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 18 -1 -B of the California Building Code (2007)), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less than Significant Impact A preliminary geologiclgeotechnical report (March 28, 2003) and grading review report were prepared for the preliminary grading plan (Neblett, 2005). A representative soil sample was tested for expansion potential in accordance with Table 18 -1 -B, which concluded that existing site soils have a `very low" potential for expansion and, therefore, 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 altemative waste water disposal systems are proposed. Therefore, no significant impacts related to the implementation of an aftemative waste disposal system are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures The fallowing mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the project design to ensure that potentially significant wave impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. MM VIA During periods when boats would be exposed to excessive wave - induced motions, boats should be shattered at locations inside Newport Harbor to avoid damage. MM VI -2 The dock design shall be based on the extreme wave conditions identified in the coastal engineering study (Noble Consultants, Inc., 2008). One percent height of impinging random waves shall be used, which translates to a minimum design wave height of about 1.7 times the significant wave height (i.e., four to 4.5 feet). 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? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. 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 hazard in the event of an accident or spills. Hazardous A 75 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATIDN Page 55 of 87 materials use, transport, storage and handling would be subject to federal, state and local regulations to reduce the risk of accidents. Equipment maintenance and disposal of vehicular fluids is subject to existing regulations, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). 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. With the exception of small quantities of pesticides, fertilizers, cleaning solvents, paints, etc., that are typically used to maintain residential properties, on -going operation of the site for residential use will not result in the storage or use of hazardous materials. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the project site by P &D Consultants in May, 2005. The Phase 1 Assessment concluded that although, given the age of the existing structures on site, there is a possibility for 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. A Pre- Demolition Asbestos/Lead -Based Paint Survey was conducted by AEI Consultants in December 2007 to evaluate, categorize, and quantlfy suspect asbestos - containing materials (ACM) and lead -based paints (LBP) at the subject property prior to demolition. A total of 43 suspect asbestos bulk samples were collected during the site inspection. Based on the analytical results of that survey, the materials listed in Table 8 contain detectable amounts of asbestos and are considered to be ACM. These materials must be properly removed by a licensed and CaVOSHA registered asbestos abatement contractor prior to the demolition of the building in accordance with all applicable regulations. Table 8 ACM Summary Table Aerie PA 2005 -186 The ACM were observed to be in good condition and do not pose a health and safety concern to occupants of the subject properly in their current state. However, any repairs, renovations, removal or demolition activities that will impact the ACM or inaccessible ACM must be performed by a licensed /'- - 7 ca Material Location of Quantity Friable Percent Building Descri 'on Suspect Materials YIN Asbestos "x9" Throughout all 4 % -12% Chrytile in Various 9 Vinyl floors under carpet file Floor Tile and and flooring, 8,000 SF N 0 %-2 96 Associated Mastic excluding Chrysatile in 201 -207 Carnation Avenue bathrooms mastic Throughout <1% Window Putty storage window 200 LF N Chrysotile exteriors Roof Patch Throughout roof Not N 5% Penetration Mastic penetrations Quantified Chrysotile 'Quantities listed are approximate values SF — Square Feet LF — Linear Feet SOURCE: AEI Consultants December 13, 2001 The ACM were observed to be in good condition and do not pose a health and safety concern to occupants of the subject properly in their current state. However, any repairs, renovations, removal or demolition activities that will impact the ACM or inaccessible ACM must be performed by a licensed /'- - 7 ca AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 56 of 87 asbestos contractor. Implementation of the requisite industry standards for ACM removal will ensure that potential health hazards are reduced to an acceptable level. No significant impacts will occur. As indicated above, the survey also included the identification of lead -based paint Several buildin�q components were identified to contain LBP with a lead concentration equal to or greater than 1.0 mg/cm , which is the current regulatory threshold for the identification of LBP. Table 9 summarizes the lead -based paint identified in the buildings that occupy the subject property. Table 9 LBP Summary Aerie PA 2005 -196 Structure Location Member Paint Condition Substrate Paint Color Lead Concentration (mg/cm) Doors Exterior Jambs F —I Wood White and Beige 1.0 -2.2 Doors Interior Jambs I Wood White and Bei a 1,0 -6.1 Windows Exterior Trim Casing and Sill I — P Wood White 1.0-3.9 Walls Kitchens Tiles I Ceramic Bei a 7.3 -9.9 Porch 207 Exterior Tiles I Ceramic White 4.7 Wall 207 Bath Tiles I Ceramic Green 9.9 Column Courtyard N!A I —F I Metal White 5.1 -6.7 Wall 207 Exterior N/A I Concrete Gray 1.8 Porch 207 Exterior Frame F Wqqd Gray 2.0 Roof Exterior Ovefian F Wood White 3.4 1— Intact (i.e., surface does not appear to be deteriorated) F — Fair (i.e., 10% or less of total surface has deteriorated paint) P — Poor (i.e., greater than 10% of total surface has deteriorated paint) SOURCE: AEI Consultants December 13, 2007 The general overall condition of the subject interior and exterior paintedlfinished surfaces was observed to be intact The LBP survey concluded that no immediate response action is necessary with respect to the noted LBP that is intact However, a contractor performing paint removal work should follow the OSHA lead standard for the construction industry. The lead content of the paint should be considered when choosing a method to remove the paint, as proper waste disposal requirements and work protection measures must be taken. Similar to ACM removal, implementation of industry standard removal practices will ensure that any potential health hazard would be eliminated. No significant unavoidable adverse impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. 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? Less than Significant Impact. As indicated in Section Vll.a, the existing structures were found to contain ACM and LBP. However, the ACM were observed to be in good condition and do not pose a significant health and safety concern to occupants of the subject property in their current state. Similarly, the general overall condition of the subject interior and exterior painted/finished surfaces was observed to be intact; no immediate response action is necessary with respect to the noted LBP that is intact Project implementation will result in the demolition of the existing structures; however, the ACM and LBP will be handled in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the City of Newport Beach and other regulatory agencies. As a result, no significant hazard to either the public or environment would occur as a result of the proposed project. See responses to Vll.a. /� 7 7 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 57 of 87 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? Less than Significant 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 directly impacted by construction activities on the site. Although the proposed luxury condominiums would not include any activities or mechanical or chemical processes that would emit hazardous emissions, the existing structures were found to contain ACM and LBP; however, as prescribed in the mitigation measures, the existing ACM and LBP will be handled in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the SCAQMD and other Orange County Health Care Agency. Therefore, release of hazardous materials during demolition of the existing structures would be prevented through adherence to routine control measures monitored by the City Building Department and other regulatory agencies, as noted in the response to the discussion presented in Section Vll.a. d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Goverment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. A search of various databases concerning hazardous wastes and substances sites was conducted as part of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment; this search determined that the subject property is not included on any lists of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, project implementation will not create a significant hazard either to the public or the environment. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. 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 (JWA) and is not located within or subject to the airport land use plan for JWA or any other aviation facility. Operations at JWA will not pose a safety hazard for future residents due to the proximity of the project to the airport Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. 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. The subject property is not located within proximity to a private airstrip. Development of the site as proposed will not result in potential adverse impacts, including safety hazards, to people residing or working in the project area. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are necessary. g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than Significant Impact. The City of Newport Beach has prepared an Emergency Operations Plan that designates procedures to be followed in case of a major emergency. Pacific Coast Highway is designated as an evacuation route in the City. The project site is not designated for emergency use within the Emergency Operations Plan. The primary concern of the Public Safety Element and the City of Newport Beach is in terms of risks to persons and personal property. Although the site is subject to seismic shaking, development pursuant to building and fire code requirements will ensure that the potential impacts are minimized or reduced to an acceptable level. The site is not located within a flood hazard area or subject to such potential disasters. Development of the subject property as proposed will not adversely affect either the evacuation routes or the adopted emergency operations planning program(s) being implemented by the City of Newport Beach. Closure of Carnation Avenue or Ocean Boulevard during construction is not proposed, although vehicular circulation in the project environs may be hindered from time to time due to construction activities. Potential circulation impacts will be temporary 4 7� AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 58 of 87 in nature and will be addressed through the Construction Staging and Parking Management Plans that will be implemented (refer to Section XV.f. In addition, any construction vehicles within the public right of way are prohibited from completely blocking vehicular and emergency access by the Vehicle Code. As a result, potential short -term circulation impacts associated with construction would not be significant. 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? 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 The subject property Is located within an urbanized area of the City of Newport Beach. Although some natural vegetation and /or habitat exists on the site, neither the property nor the surrounding residential area is located within a designated high fire hazard area. There are no major urban or wildland fire hazards that pose a significant threat to the development. Therefore, the site is not subject to a potential risk of wildland fires. No significant impacts as a result of wildland fires will occur if the project is implemented and no mitigation measures are necessary. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures shall be implemented to ensure that potential impacts associated with the existence of LBP and ACM are reduced to a less than significant level. MM VII -1 Any repairs, renovations, removal or demolition activities that will Impact the ACM or inaccessible ACM shall be performed by a licensed asbestos contractor. Inaccessible suspect ACM shall be tested prior to demolition or renovation. Air emissions of asbestos fibers and leaded dust would be reduced to below a level of significance through compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulatory requirements. Proper safety procedures for the handling of suspect ACM shall always be followed In order to protect the occupants of the building and the asbestos workers. MM VII -2 The property owner shall maintain all LBP in good condition at all times. Any LBP in poor condition must be stabilized by removal of all loose and flaking paint chips under controlled conditions and application of a primer /encapsulant (seal -coat) over the remaining intact paint. MM VII-3 A contractor performing paint removal work shall follow the OSHA lead standard for the construction industry. The lead content of the paint should be considered when choosing a method to remove the pain, as proper waste disposal requirements and worker protection measure shall be taken. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less than Significant impact. Waste discharges associated with this project that could affect water quality would be limited to non -point source discharges, including potential storm water runoff of construction materials and wastes and storm water runoff from the developed site. This project would not generate any point sources of water pollution; all wastewater generated by the residential plumbing systems would discharge directly to the City's sanitary sewer system, which would not affect the present permit to operate the affected wastewater treatment plant. Further, the proposed project would result in the reduction in the number of dwelling units that would occupy the site when compared to the 15 units that currently exist Therefore, the raw sewage that would be generated by the proposed project would be less than the amount that would be generated by the homes that presently occupy the subject property. Potentially adverse water quality impacts during the construction phases would be avoided through compliance with existing regulatory programs administered by the City of Newport Beach and the Santa P.77 AERIE (PA2005 -198) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 59 of 87 Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). A variety of Best Management Practices (BMPS) have been Identified in a preliminary Stonmwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to ensure that there is no contact between storm water and construction site wastes and materials and to prevent any accidental spills, leaks or wastes from draining off -site and into Newport Bay or the nearby stone drain. system. The BMP program incorporated in the SWPPP is structured to maintain compliance with the Best Available Technology (BAT) and Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) standards and provide multiple safeguards against potential harm to the environment. While it is impossible to anticipate all potential environmental issues that could arise on a daily basis during the course of the project, the BMPs have been tailored to provide effective options to those are responsible for overseeing workplace safety and environmental compliance. BMPs included in the SWPPP address sediment and erosion control for both temporary (i.e., construction) and long -term (Le., operational) activities occurring on the subject property. In addition, BMPs have also been prescribed for pollutants other than sediment, including those intended to control spills for hazardous materials, solid waste management, hazardous waste management, contaminated soil management, etc. A final SWPPP will be subject to approval, prior to issuance of a grading permit by the City or issuance of a General Construction Permit by the RWQCB. The permits will include requirements for ongoing monitoring and reporting to ensure that all water pollution control measures are properly implemented. The project will not result in a substantial change in land use and the composition of stormwater runoff will be highly similar to the runoff under current conditions. A Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for the project and is hereby incorporated by reference into this IS/MND (see reference #4, in the list of documents prepared for this project, on the last page of this report). The WQMP is conceptual and identifies a number of structural and non - structural BMPs that will be incorporated within the final designs to comply with the applicable provisions of the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), the City of Newport Beach water quality regulations, and to address anticipated requirements by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), as part of a General Construction Permit (as discussed earlier). The BMPs have been selected to address the main pollutants of concern for this type of project, and for the impacted water body, i.e. Newport Bay. Newport Bay is listed as an "Impaired" water body under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, with respect to metals, pesticides and priority organics. All 'first flush' and low flow runoff from the developed site would be captured by an underground storm drainage system that will be pumped up to Camation Avenue and filtered by a storm filter and bacteria filter before being discharged into the existing municipal storm drain system. Notwithstanding the 11 percent increase of impervious surfaces on the project site, 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 just south of the site, at Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Implementation of the approved WQMP and SWPPP will ensure that this project does not violate any water quality standards during construction or over the long -term operating life of the developed site. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no additional mitigation measures are required. 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. This relatively small -scale project would not result in a significant increase in water demand and all of the project's potable and non - potable water needs will be met through a connection to the City's domestic water system. Compared to the existing development, which includes only three occupied units of the 15 dwelling units on the site, the proposed projects eight dwelling units represents an insignificant increase in the demand for domestic water. No water wells are proposed or required to meet the water demands of this project There are no water wells located on or near the site, and since this project would not affect any existing or require any new water wells, the project will not result in the lowering of the water table. P.2J AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITEAL STUDYANO NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 60 of 87 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. Existing surface runoff generated on the subject property occurs as sheet flow and drains in a northerly and westerly direction before discharging into Newport Bay, which has been Identified as containing "environmentally sensitive areas' as defined by the 2003 Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the Water Quality Control Plans for the Santa Ana Basin. A hydrological analysis prepared by Hunsaker & Associates, March 27, 2007 revealed that the site is composed of three drainage areas, all of which drain toward Newport Bay where it is discharged. The northerly portion of the site (Area A) drains in a northwesterly direction toward existing residential properties and Bayside Place below the project site before discharging into the bay. The majority of the existing surface flows emanating on the site (Area B) drains to the southwest and then Into Newport Bay. The smallest drainage area on the site comprises an area along the top of the bluff along Carnation Avenue (Area C); this area drains to an existing municipal catch basin located within Carnation Avenue. Due to the extensive site grading and excavation requirements and expanded building coverage (11 percent increase in impervious surfaces throughout the site), the existing drainage pattern on site will be modified. However, implementation of the proposed project will not significantly alter the existing off -site drainage patterns; the overall changes are not considered significant. The proposed storm drain system will capture more of the site runoff and reduce sheet flows that currently directly impact Newport Bay. The improved efficiency of the new storm drain system, together with the filtration and energy dissipater elements within the two outlet structures, will ensure that the redeveloped site does not result in erosion or siltation on- or off -site. It is anticipated that total runoff during a peak storm event will decrease when compared to existing runoff conditions. Table 10 summarizes the existing and post - development hydrologic conditions. Table 10 Storm Water Runoff Aerie PA 2005 -196 Drainage Area Existing Runoff Post - Develo merit Runoff Area acres Volume cfs Arm acres Volume cfs Area "Au 0.132 0.82 0.268 1.35 Area "B" 0.293 1.71 0.114 0.58 Area "C" 0.081 0.51 — Total 0.606 3.04 0.382 1.93 SOURCE: Hunsaker & Associates December 20, 2007 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 the preceding discussion in Vlll.c. As indicated in Table 5, project implementation will alter the existing drainage conditions on the site. The site will be divided into two drainage areas (versus three that currently exist) and the total post- development surface runoff volume will decrease from 3.04 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 1.93 cfs (approximately 30 percent). Furthermore, the proposed project will not result in the alteration of any drainage course. With the projected decrease in surface runoff, no significant impacts are anticipated. k ?/ AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 61 of 67 e) Would the project 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? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As noted previously, post- development surface runoff emanating on the site will be captured and filtered before it is discharged into the storm drain system in Carnation Avenue. Project implementation will reduce the storm water flow during a 100 -year stone by 1.11 cubic feet per second. Although the existing 24 -inch reinforced concrete pipe in Carnation Avenue is presently adequate to accommodate the surface runoff generated on the site, the 10 -foot wide catch basin is undersized and must be upsized to accommodate surface runoff within the drainage area. This project will be responsible for replacing /upsizing the catch basin, including filtration elements as described previously. This minor alteration of the storm drain that can easily be completed during project construction without impacting the drainage system provided it is accomplished outside of the rainy season. Mitigation Measure VIII -1 will ensure that this project provides the required upgrading of the Carnation Avenue catch basin including appropriate filtration elements. f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. As indicated previously, Newport Bay is listed as an "impaired° water body under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, with respect to metals, pesticides and priority organics. In addition to the changes in surface runoff anticipated as a result of the redevelopment of the subject property with the 8 -unit condominium structure, replacement of the landing/dock facilities will result in construction activities in the nearshore/bay area that could result in potential impacts to water quality. During the pile removal and emplacement process, water turbidity will increase when the concrete pylons are drilled into the sediments/bedrock. Turbidity may also increase if vessel propellers impact the bay floor or prop wash stirs up bottom sediments. Therefore, mitigation measures shall be Incorporated during the construction phase of the dock in order to prevent the spread of any turbidity plume out of the area, including the installation of a silt curtain around the dock and pile sleeves, elimination of trash disposal and debris, and the removal of construction debris on the bay floor. With the implementation of these measures, potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. 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. No homes would be placed within the 100 -year flood plain and no significant impacts are would occur. 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. 1) 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 faflure of a levee or dam? No Impact. As indicated above, the project site is not within a flood hazard area or within an area subject to flooding due to dam or levee failure. Therefore, project implementation will not result in a potentially significant impact; no mitigation measures are required. j) Would the project be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. The subject property is located at the coastal margin of the Pacific Ocean, at the southern end of Newport Beach, within the Newport Harbor area. While this area is protected by jetty emplacement at the harbor mouth, long water waves generated by offshore mechanisms such as tectonic displacement p AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 62 of 87 present a potential for tsunamis, which could pose a danger to life and/or property. Wave heights in Newport Bay associated with tsunamis originating from the Aleutians and the Gulf of Alaska were 0.9 feet and 1.8 feet, respectively. Tsunami - generated waves accompanied by high tidal stage may increase the cumulative wave height. A six -foot high tidal stage occurs frequently along the southern California coast. If a 100 -year high run -up wave is coupled with a six -foot high tidal stage, the potential for a 10 -foot high run -up over the mean lower low water (MLLW) is possible. The mean sea level is approximately three feet above the MLLW level, the tide[ datum. Therefore, elevations up to seven feet above mean sea level may be flooded. The proposed elevation of the site following grading is at elevation 52.8 feet NAVD 88, which is 50.07 feet above mean sea level. Based on the proposed pad elevation, the risk to the site in response to tsunami is considered remote; no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Se[che is defined as a standing wave oscillation effect generated in a closed or semi - closed body of water caused by wind, tidal current, and earthquake. Seiche potential is highest in large, deep, steep -sided reservoirs or water bodies. Newport Bay lacks significant potential for damaging seiche because it is very shallow. Considering the proposed finish pad elevation (i.e., elevation 50.7 feet NAVD 88), the potential for seiche effects to the project site is considered remote; no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. k) Would the project result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. See responses to Vlll.a and Vlll.f. 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 with Mitigation Incorporated. Stormwater discharge from the site will be that typically associated with residential and ancillary marine uses (i.e., boat dock). Although some temporary impacts associated with construction of the proposed residential structure and landing /dock facilities may occur (refer to Vlll.a through f.), no long -term outdoor storage, maintenance, fueling or work areas are proposed. Vehicle parking areas are to be fully enclosed or subterranean. As noted above, a full menu of BMPs has been prescribed in the draft WQMP and SWPPP and in mitigation measures following this section of the analysis to address water quality Issues. 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 construction control measure, rather than washing down the street surface, to avoid runoff of construction wastes, sediment and debris into the storm drain system or the tray. As previously indicated, mitigation measures have been identified to address turbidity and related water quality impacts associated with the construction of the landing /dock facilities. m) Would the project result In the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. See responses to Vlll.a and VIII. 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 As reflected in Table 10, the proposed storm drain system would achieve a 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. l b AERIE (PA2005 -196) INmAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 63 of 87 o) Would the project create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? Less than Significant Impact See responses to Vlll.a through Vlll.f. Mitigation Measures Implementation of the following measures will reduce potential drainage and water quality impacts to a less than significant level. MM VIII -1 The developer shall be responsible for replacement/upsizing of the 10 -foot wide catch basin located in Carnation Avenue storm drain, which is currently deficient. The new catch basin will be sized to provide sufficient capacity for the runoff generated by this project, as well as existing runoff from the rest of the tributary area to this facility. It shall satisfy the appropriate storm -year design criteria established by the City Engineer. This storm drain reconstruction shall include appropriate urban runoff filtration elements, to reduce potential water pollution impacts into Newport Harbor. Reconstruction of this storm drain shall occur outside of the rainy season. MM VIII -2 All debris and trash shall be disposed in suitable trash containers on land or on the work barge at the end of each construction day. MM VIII -3 Discharge of any hazardous materials into Newport Bay is prohibited. MM VIII -4 Silt curtains shall be deployed around work barges and around the pile sleeving or drilling operations where feasible to minimize the spread of turbid waters into adjacent eelgrass beds within and outside the project area. MM VIII -5 All construction debris shall be removed from the bay floor. 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 8 -unit condominium structure. The site is bounded by Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. As indicated previously, the area surrounding the subject property is entirely developed with single- and multiple - family residential development. Development of the site as proposed would not directly affect adjacent properties. In particular, project implementation would not divide or otherwise adversely affect or change and established community. No significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. 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? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The Newport Beach General Plan, the Coastal Land Use Plan and the Newport Beach Zoning Code contain land use plans, policies and regulations of concern with respect to avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Consistency of the proposed project with applicable provisions and /or policies of each the long -range plans adopted by the City of Newport Beach is presented below. 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 FIT (Two -Unit Residential) and the remaining portion, of the site is (60,700 square feet) designated RM (Multi -Unit P.S'(f AERIE (PA2005 -198) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 64 of 87 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 one additional unit, the density limitafion as required by the Zoning Ordinance is more restrictive because it excludes submerged lands and slopes in excess of 50 percent from the density calculation. The density of the proposed project (eight dwelling units) is beksw the maximum density permitted by both land use plans, which would permit up to 28 dwelling units.. Furthermore, it is consistent with the maximum density allowed by the existing MFR zone with the exclusion of submerged lands and slopes in excess of 50 percent. 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 is presented below. 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 to reflect the same land use designation across the subject property. The following additional policies within Chapter 2 apply to the proposed project. Policy 2.7 -1 requires the maintenance of appropriate setbacks, density, floor area, and height limits for residential development in order to protect the character of established neighborhoods and to protect coastal access and coastal resources. The project complies with existing building height and floor area limits established in the MRF zoning district. Although setback encroachments occur, they are subterranean and do not impact the character of the area because the above ground encroachment on the north side of the building provides between five and 7.5 feet of separation at the street level. Policy 2.7 -2 prescribes 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. With the exception of the existing caretakers residing on the property, the existing dwelling units have been vacant for several years .There are no low- or moderate - income households residing on this property. Therefore, Government Code Section 65590 is not applicable to this project 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, seismic ground shaking, coastal bluff retreat due to erosional forces, and tsunamis comprise the most significant potential hazards to development. As indicated in Section VI, potential seismic constraints are addressed through the implementation of measures recommended in the preliminary geologidgeotechnical report prepared for the proposed project and through building design that complies with the design parameters prescribed in the 2007 Callfomia Building Code and related City building code requirements. Coastal bluff retreat is not expected to impact the project during the 75 year economic life of the building. In addition, given the elevation of the proposed residential development above the MLLW, potential inundation caused by wave action or tsunami Is considered very remote and potentially less than significant Policies 2.8.1 -2 and 2.8.1 -3 require that the new development and land divisions be designed and sited to avoid hazardous areas and minimize risks to life and property from coastal and other hazards. As indicated above, the proposed residential building is located above potential wave action and related coastal processes. Furthermore, the proposed project has been designed to avoid the most hazardous portion of the project site. Replacement of the existing landing and dock facility has also been designed to address the seismic and geologic constraints that characterize the area. P ?S AERIE (PA2005 -1 96) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 65 of 87 Policy 2.8.1 -4 requires that new development 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. The proposed project will replace residential development similar to that currently existing on the site and would not contribute further to the instability of the area or further after the existing landform. As previously indicated, although excavation proposed to accommodate the lower levels of the structure will extend below elevation 50.7 feet NAVD 88, grading will occur behind the predominant line of development and not on the exposed bluff and, therefore, will be consistent with the established bluff development policy prescribed by the City Council because it would not alter the existing landform that characterizes the site. The location of the Predominant Line prescribed by the City Council for this project was influenced by several factors, including the following land and development characteristics: (t) a north - facing bluff face segment which is not subject to marine erosion, (2) a west- facing portion bluff segment which is subject to marine erosion, (3) a point at the apparent juncture of the north - facing and west- facing portions of the bluff which extends into the sandy cove at the base of the project site and is subject to marine erosion, and (4) existing development on these various bluff face segments, with development as low as elevation 10 feet NAVD 88. 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 study. The residential component of the proposed project is located above areas subject to wave and storm survey and the potential for seiches and /or tsunamis is considered remote. A study was completed for the dock replacement component of the proposed project. That study concluded that neither the construction nor the long -term use of the facility would expose future residents to adverse impacts associated with those phenomena. Policy 2.8.6 -10 requires the siting and design of new structures, including the replacement dock, 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. Several technical studies have been prepared to assess the potential project to ensure that development of the site is consistent with each of these policies. Specifically, these studies include: (t) Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Neblett & Associates, August 2005; (2) Coastal Hazard Study prepared by GeoSoils Inc., dated October 2006; (3) Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated June 2005 (revised January 17, 2008); and (4) Hydrology analysis prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated March 2007 (Revised December 20, 2007). Collectively, the findings of these studies and technical review documents indicate that the project will neither 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). In addition, the proposed replacement landing and dock facility will be similar in nature to those existing In the area and, therefore, will not adversely affect or be affected by the coastal process that characterize the area. As indicated previously, the proposed project will be designed to comply with current CBC structural design parameters and other measures prescribed in the geologirdgeotechnical report prepared for the project. 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 A mitigation measure has been prescribed to implement this policy (refer to MM X -t). Policy 2.9.3 -1 requires new development to avoid the use of parking configurations or parking management programs that are difficult to maintain and enforce. The project would utilize below grade parking accessed by two vehicle elevators. The two on-site vehicular elevators will serve the private garages of seven of the units and overflow guest parking spaces that are located In the subterranean garage. Parking for the eighth unit and the required guest parking spaces are located at street level. The East (i.e., right side) elevator is designated for entrance and West (i.e., left side) elevator is designated for exiting. Access control panels are located adjacent to the elevator (on driver's side) on each floor, residents of the units will have a remote control similar to a garage door controller that can activate the elevator through a touch of a button. The interior cab size of the elevator is approximately 70' x 20' with an 8' high ceiling. It takes the elevator approximately eight seconds to travel from floor to floor and approximately one minute round trip back to the street. To facilitate the driver's egress from the elevators, the cars entering the elevator from the parking level would be pointed in a "front forward" position, making • AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 56 of 87 egress from the building at street level a safer operation when compared to a 'backing out" procedure, which is the predominant operation from the majority of the garages fronting on Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. Furthermore, an emergency generator will be provided so that in the event of a power outage, the generator will automatically activate to operate the elevator, allowing residents to exit the building safely. This safety feature will also send the cabs to the recall position at street level. In addition, a fire service switch will be provided that allows fire department to access the elevators in case of emergency. Programming of the elevator and access control can be customized to operate efficiently and to provide a high level of security and ease of use for the residents. Lighting signals are located on top of the elevator opening on each floor that indicate the elevator position or if it is currently in use. The elevators will be programmed for "destination dispatch" so that the elevator is automatically recalled to the street level when it is not in use. Therefore, the driver can access the elevator immediately upon entering the site, thus minimizing the potential for creating a vehicle queue. Inside the elevator, another key pad is located on the driver's side of the wall; a lighting signal indicates the designation (i.e., floor) of the elevator. Once the elevator has reached its designated level, ample turnaround space is available for the car to maneuver into the private garages. The elevators will always be used by a car pulling into and out of it in a forward direction. The design and operation of the proposed elevators, which are intended to facilitate resident parking, will avoid potential conflicts with residential traffic In the neighborhood. As a result, the proposed on -site parking is consistent with this policy; no significant impacts are anticipated. Chapter 3 establishes policies regarding public access. The following policies within Chapter 3 apply to the proposed project. 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 condors; • 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. Policies 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; R .k7 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 67 of 87 Management and maintenance of the access; The need to balance constitutional rights of individual property owners and the public's constitutional rights of access. Although an existing stairway will continue to provide access for the occupants of the proposed dwelling units to the beach area, this access is not suitable to accommodate the public due to physical constraints. The site is constrained in terms of lateral and vertical access by the steeply sloping topography of the site (refer to the exhibit illustrated below), existing development, and submerged lands. Specifically, the steeply sloping coastal bluff presents safety and maintenance concerns for any potential public access structure. Therefore, the project site has neither dedicated public access easements nor physical public access to bay. However, public access to the beach areas exists in proximity to the site, including China Cove, Lookout Point and at a street end located in the 2300 block of Bayside Place. 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. With the availability of adequate public access in the immediate vicinity of the site, additional access through the subject property is not necessary, particularly given the physical constraints, safety, and maintenance concerns cited above. With the exception of the existing docks, which will be replaced by a large, more modem, dock facility that accommodates eight slips, the lower portion of the bluff, submerged lands, and tidelands will remain in their existing condition. The replacement landing and dock will be located in generally the same location as they presently exist; however, the dock would be expanded to accommodate more boats. Access to the designated (public) view point at the end of Carnation Avenue will remain unaffected; however, the public view from that point will be widened from 25 degrees to 44 degrees with project approval. The proposed design will afford three new parking spaces along Carnation Avenue with the elimination of the overly wide drive approach to the existing apartment building. These additional parking spaces created by the proposed project will be available to the public. As previously indicated, the applicant is also proposing to replace the existing landing and private docks and will also provide an emergency communication device and wet standpipe to the docks for enhanced fire protection. With the reduction in residential density, combined with the fact that no existing or prescriptive access rights exist, 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 down a steeply sloping coastal bluff, which could pose both safety and maintenance problems. Furthermore, maintenance of such an access point must be assured by either the future homeowners association or the City of Newport Beach. Another factor affecting the feasibility and /or appropriateness of extending public access through the site is the proximity of the access to existing and proposed residential uses. As previously indicated, adequate, convenient public access to the bay is currently available at several locations in the vicinity of the subject property, including 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. Given the proximity of these nearby public access locations, the provision of additional public access through the subject property is neither required nor appropriate based on the parameters prescribed in the CLUP policies noted above, including but not limited to the topographic constraints (i.e., steep slopes and narrow passage), proximity of residential uses and potential loss of privacy, managements and maintenance requirements associated with the access, public safety, and the balance of property rights. Based upon the availability and proximity of existing public access in the vicinity of the project site as well as potential adverse safety and privacy Issues, the provision of public access easements or outright dedication of land for public access is not necessary. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the 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. AERIE(PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 68 of 87 Lateral/Vertical Coastal Access Exhibit f/ 9� AEwE(PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDYAND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 69 of 87 Chapter 4 establishes policy regarding the protection of coastal resources. The following policies are applicable to the proposed project. 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 residential component of the project does not encroach within sensitive 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. Because the existing landing and docks are in a deteriorated state and pose a potential hazard to safety, the proposed project includes the replacement of the existing facilities as required by the City of Newport Beach. An eelgrass impact assessment was undertaken to evaluate the potential impacts associated with the construction of the dock facility. Based on that survey, it was determined that a small portion of the existing eelgrass bed (approximately 30 square feet) will potentially be affected by shading effects from vessels docked within the slips and the wave - attenuating concrete dock structure. The area of eelgrass habitat that is actually affected by long -term shading will be determined during post - construction monitoring surveys conducted pursuant to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended). The location and amount of eelgrass to be transplanted shall be determined following the results of the two annual monitoring efforts. Additional mitigation measures that address biological and water quality impacts have also been prescribed (refer to Sections IV and VIII). Policies 4.3.15, 4.3.1 -6, 4.3.1 -7, 4.3.2 -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 were also prepared by qualified professionals and include best management practices and structural methods to ensure that erosion and stormwater discharge will not impact Newport Bay.' These BMPs will address both short-term (i.e., construction) and long -term (i.e., operational) effects and incorporate a variety of features to address erosion and sedimentation as well as non - sediment BMPs to address the use of fertilizers /pesticides, vehicle /equipment parking, solid waste management, etc., which incrementally contribute to the water quality impacts associated with urban development Policies 4.4.1 -1 and 4.4.1 -2 require that development be designed to 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. Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9, however, expressly permit new development on the bluff face on Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive when principal structures presently exist on the bluff face provided the new development is "sited in accordance with' the Predominant Line. In those cases, Policies 4.4.1 -1 and 4.4.1 -2, 4 must be applied in a manner which does not negate Polices 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9. As noted previously, Policy 4.4.3 -9 establishes a threshold for the protection of coastal views to the Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue bluff faces by limiting development to the Predominant Line. Policy 4.4.3 -9, therefore, provides the standard by which Policies 4.4.1 -1 and 4.4.1 -2 can be implemented for this specific location. The proposed project has been redesigned to limit the proposed development to the Predominant Line as established by the City Council (i.e., elevation 50.7 feet NAVD 88), these policies are met by the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the applicable CLUP policies related to views and aesthetics. 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. Similarly, Policy 4.4.3 -12 promotes the use of site design and construction techniques to minimize alteration of coastal bluffs. As with Policies 4.4.1 -1 and 4.4.1 -2, Policy 4.4.1 -3 and 4.4.3 -12 must be interpreted in the context of the policies that expressly permit development on the bluff face to the Predominant Line at this location. As previously indicated, the applicant has redesigned the project to comply with the Predominant Line as determined by the City Council, which is elevation 50.7 feet NAVD 88. Excavation below the 50.7 NAVD 88 elevation is required to accommodate the lower levels of the proposed structure. However, the grading will occur behind the bluff face and will not be visible from any existing viewshed. In addition, the project includes an // AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 70 of 87 emergency exit at elevation 40.5 feet NAVD 88, which is located below the predominant line of existing development and will be recessed into the bluff. in order to ensure compatibility with the natural landform and, therefore, avoid both damaging the scenic resource represented by the bluff and degrading the existing visual character and quality of the site, the emergency exit incorporates design features that blend the exit into the existing natural character of the bluff through the use of landscape and hardscape materials, including rocks. As a result, the emergency exit is consistent with the City's established policies regarding protection of the scenic and visual qualities of the bluff. Finally, the proposed condominium structure is situated on the flattest portion of the lot and the building design conforms to the natural contours of the site; therefore, grading of the bluff is the minimal amount needed to build the project to the Predominant Line and the project is consistent with this policy. Policy 4.4.1-6 requires public views from Ocean Boulevard to be protected. A public view over the project site from Ocean Boulevard to the west presently exists over the southeastern portion of the site. As previously discussed (refer to Section I — Aesthetics), a 25 degree view currently exists between the existing apartment building on the site and the neighbor's garage and fence to the south. Project implementation will result in an expansionienhancement of that existing view, which would increase to 44 degrees as indicated in the illustration below. Policy 4.4.1 -4 promotes requiring, where appropriate, new development to provide view easements to protect public coastal views. Implementation of MM IX -2 requires a view easement (applicable only to the project site) to ensure that the enhancement of the view is achieved and preserved in the future. A Vci1 `A0- = X411a�T fi . 92 tt 2 J Vci1 `A0- = X411a�T fi . 92 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 71 of 87 Policies 4.4.2 -2 and 4.4.2-3 stipulate that the visual and 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. With only minor exception (e.g., excavation required to accommodate the subterranean levels, side yard setback)the project complies with all of the development standards prescribed by the existing zoning and is, therefore, consistent with building height limits and other building envelope restrictions. The below grade encroachments will not impact public views and the above grade encroachment is located within a side yard setback between the proposed project and the home abutting the site to the north (215 Carnation Ave.) where no public view currently exists. Policy 4.4.3 -4 notes that on bluffs subject to marine erosion, such as the west- facing portion of the bluff in this case, new accessory structures such as decks, patios and walkways must be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development. However, 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. MM IX -3 mandates that the existing accessory structures (concrete pad, staircase and walkway) be removed if such circumstances arise in the future. Policy 4.4.3 -13 requires that new development on coastal bluffs must incorporate drainage improvements, irrigation systems, and/or native or drought - tolerant vegetation into the design to minimize coastal bluff recession. The project implements this policy through hydroseeding the bluff with a drought - tolerant mix native to coastal California natives with temporary Irrigation to be used only to establish the vegetation. Implementation of MM IX-4 will ensure 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 intensity than under current conditions. Implementation of these measures 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: MM IX -1 The property owner(s) shall execute and record a waiver of future shoreline protection for the project prior to the issuance of a building permit. Said waiver shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney. MM IX -2 The applicant shall dedicate a view easement as depicted on the exhibit below; however, it will 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. MM IX -3 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. MM IX-4 Bluff landscaping shall consist of native, drought tolerant plant species determined to be consistent with the California coastal buff environment Invasive and non -native species shall be removed. Irrigation of bluff faces to establish re- vegetated areas shall be temporary and used only to establish the plants. Upon establishment of the plantings, the temporary irrigation system shall be removed. A. 9 3 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 72 of 87 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 project site is currently developed with a 14 -unit apartment structure and one single - family residential dwelling unit Neither the Newport Beach General Plan (Recreation and Open Space Element) nor the State of California has identified the project site or environs as a potential mineral resource of Statewide or regional significance. No mineral resources are known to exist and, therefore, project implementation will not result in any significant impacts. 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. As indicated above, the Newport Beach General Plan does not identify the project environs as having potential value as a locally important mineral resource site. Project implementation (i.e:, demolition of the existing residential structures and construction of a new 8 -unit condominium structure) as proposed will not result in the loss of any locally important mineral resource site and, therefore, no significant impacts will occur. 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 Impact. Noise sources in the study area include traffic on the local streets, aircraft operations at John Wayne Airport, activities on boats in the channel, and general residential activities in the area. Ambient average daytime (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) noise levels (Leq) in the vicinity of the project site range from 50.5 dB(A) to 59.9 dB(A); ambient average daytime noise levels in the residential area directly across the channel from the project site range from 48.5 dB(A) to 593 dB(A). The ranges of maximum noise levels (Lmax) range from 63.1 dB(A) to 80.9 dB(A) in the immediate vicinity of the subject property and from 63.6 dB(A) to 85.9 dB(A) directly across the channel. The average and maximum ambient noise levels in the project environs are summarized in Table 11. Table 11 Ambient Noise Levels Aerie PA2006 -196 Location Description Range of Average Daytime Noise Levels (Leq) 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 .m. Range of Maximum Daytime Noise Levels (Leq) 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 .m. Rear Patio 101 Bayside Place 50.5 — 57.4 dB(A) 63.1 — 80.9 dB(A) Pool Area 2495 Ocean Boulevard 52.9 — 59.9 dB(A) 68.3 — 79.0 dB(A) Rear Patio 2282 Channel Road 48.5 — 55.0 dB(A) 63.6 — 77.0 dB(A) Rear Patio 2222 Channel Road 50.7 — 59.3 dB(A) 63.4— 85.9 dB(A) SOURCE: Wieland Acoustics (May 1 2006 Based on the ambient noise levels identified above, noise levels in the nearby harbor area are considered to be compatible with residential uses in this area. Residents of the proposed luxury condominiums, therefore, would not be exposed to significant long -term noise sources. The proposed project replaces an existing residential use and, moreover, reduces the number of dwelling units on the site by nearly 50 percent. Although on -site noise levels associated with residential activities on the redeveloped site would fi. ?y AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 73 of 87 increase compared to current conditions because the only the single - family residential dwelling unit and three units within the apartment building are occupied, it is anticipated that any increase in long -term noise associated with the residential uses would be those occurring as a result of outdoor activities. Passive recreational activities in and around the proposed outdoor pool, on the private decks and along the walkway and beach area at the bottom of the property are not expected to result in significant noise levels. If future residents and their guests should engage in activities that result in temporary, loud noise levels that exceed the limits set forth in Chapter 10.26 of the City's Municipal Code, the City is empowered to take actions to abate that activity. This project would not result in exposure of neighboring residents or future residents on site to noise levels that exceed City standards. Therefore, no significant long -tens noise impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. Drilling of piles is proposed to secure building foundations. This is a less intensive method than pile driving and 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. In addition to the pile emplacement activities necessary to construct the proposed residential structure, including the subterranean levels, potential vibratory activities during the construction of the proposed landing and dock facilities may also occur as a result of extracting the existing piles and drilling into the channel bed to provide a socket for the concrete piles, which will then be grouted into place. Based on published information, typical drilling produces the peak particle vibration (PPV) of 0.089 inches/second at a distance of 25 feet. Table 12 provides a comparison of the estimated construction vibration levels to the maximum ambient vibration levels monitored at the nearby properties. Table 12 Comparison of Estimated Construction Vibration Levels to Ambient Levels Aerie PA2005 -186 Location Description Maximum Ambient Vibration Level Estimated Construction Vibration Level Rear Patio —101 Ba side Place 0.00128 in /sec 0.02 in /sec Pool Area — 2495 Ocean Blvd 0.00086 in /sec 0.01 in /sec Rear Patio — 2282 Channel Rd 0.00298 in/sec 0.002 in/sec Rear Patio -2222 Channel Rd 0.00121 in/sec 0.002 in /sec SOURCE: Wieland Acoustics (May 1 2008 General vibration damage criteria for various building categories have been developed by both the Federal Transit Administration and Caltrans. These criteria are summarized in Table 13. Table 13 Construction Vibration Damage Criteria Aerie PA2006 -196 Building Category PPV iniseo' Federal Transit Administration Reinforced concrete steel or Umber no plaster)0.05 Engineered concrete and mason no plaster) 0.3 Non en ineered Umber and mason buildings 0.2 Buildin s extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 f�.`TJ AERIE (PA200 5-196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 74 of 87 Building Ca o PPV tnisec' Caltrans Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins ancient monuments 0.08 Fragile buildings 0.1 Historic and some old buildings 0.25 Older residential structures 0.3 New residential structures 0.5 Modem industriallcommercial buildings 0.5 'Peak Particle Velocity SOURCE: Wieland Acoustics (May 1 2006 As indicated in Table 13, the anticipated vibration associated with the construction of the dock facilities would not exceed any of the damage criteria recognized by the Federal Transit Administration and California Department of Transportation. As a result significant vibration impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. C) Would the project result In a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact As discussed above in Xl.a, redevelopment of this property with eight luxury condominiums and the replacement dock and related facilities would not result in any changes in land use that include significant new noise sources. Long -term noise associated with outdoor recreation activities and vehicular traffic generated by the proposed project would be minor and compatible with adjacent and nearby residential uses. Although long -term noise levels would be expected to increase when compared to existing conditions, since the majority of the apartments have been vacant for an extended period of time, this potential increase would be less than the noise levels that would be generated by the existing apartment building at full occupancy and would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. 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. Short-term (construction) noise level increases will occur from the use of construction equipment associated with demolition of existing structures, grading and excavation, and building and construction activities. Such noise impacts vary markedly because the noise strength of construction equipment ranges widely as a function of the equipment used and its activity level. The exposure of persons to the periodic increase in noise levels will be short-tern (Le -, on the order to several months). Short-term construction noise impacts tend to occur in discrete phases dominated initially by earthmoving sources, then by foundation construction, and, finally, for finish construction. Heavy equipment noise can exceed 90 dB(A) and average about 85 dB(A) at 50 feet from the source when the equipment is operating at typical loads. Most heavy equipment operates with varying load cycles over any extended period of time. A variety of noise sources and noise levels would occur on and in the immediate vicinity of the project site, over the estimated 2.5 year construction program associated with the proposed residential development Noise levels would vary, depending upon the type and number of construction machinery and vehicles in use and their location within the project site. The types of machinery to be active will vary with the construction phases, which would include: Demolition of existing buildings and site improvements Demolition and replacement of the existing landing and boat dock Drill shoring caissons Lag and excavate AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 75 of 87 Shotcrete shoring walls Install foundations Build concrete structure Install plumbing, electrical, mechanical, finish exteriorinte6or, eto. Hardscape and landscape Noise levels associated with construction machinery typically range from 75 to 100 dB(A) at a distance of 50 feet from the source. No unusual construction methods are proposed that could generate extremely high noise levels; for example, no blasting of rock materials is anticipated and pile driving will not be required, based on the results of the geotechnical investigations. The maximum noise levels would occur while the machinery is In active use and would be noticeable intermittently throughout the construction work day. There are no regulatory standards governing noise levels of construction machinery and operations, so most jurisdictions, including the City of Newport Beach, restrict the days and hours of construction activities to weekdays and Saturdays, when people are generally most active and the nuisance4evel of construction noise is considered most tolerable. As noted in the previously, Chapter 10.28 of the Municipal Code prohibits any construction activities between 6:30 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m, on Saturdays, and at any time on Sundays or a federal holiday. The applicant is not requesting any exceptions to these standard restrictions; therefore, the temporary construction noise impacts would be less than significant. The homes adjacent to the subject property will be exposed to constriction noise levels during the construction phases, though such noise will be confined to daytime hours of lesser noise sensitivity. In later phases of finish construction, equipment such as generators, compressors, saws, air-, are seen to be somewhat less noisy and the physical barrier created by partially completed on-site facilities will further break the "line of sight" propagation. Building assembly and finish construction during the later phases of development would also create less noise, particularly as portions of completed structures inhibit direct tine - of-sight sound propagation. Noise associated with demolition and construction activities is exempt from restrictions, provided such work occurs during the days and hours specified in Chapter 10.28 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code establishes maximum noise levels for interior (45dBA) spaces and exterior residential spaces (50 dBA nighttime and 55 dBA 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. In addition to the demolition of the existing residential structures and redevelopment of the site with the 8- unit condominium project, the applicant is also proposing the replacement of the existing landing and boat dock with new facilities in order to accommodate the future residents of the proposed project. Replacement of the boat dock will encompass two phases, including a drilling phase, and a concrete pouring phase. The combined noise levels at 50 feet from during the drilling phase is estimated to be 88 dB(A) and 87 dB(A) during the drilling phase and concrete pouring phases, respectively. The estimated construction noise levels in the vicinity of the project site and across the channel are summarized in Table 14. Table 14 Estimated Construction Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors Aerie PA2005 -196 A. 97 DrIllinp Phase Concrete P ring Phase Average Maximum Average Maximum Location Description NoiseLevelr Noise Level' Nolsel-evelh Noise Levelz Rear Patio 101 Bayside Place 71 dB(A) @ 155' 83 dB(A) @ 90' 69 dB(A) @ 155' 82 dB(A) @ 90' Pool Area 2495 Ocean Blvd 68 dBA @ 230' 77 dBA @ 175' 66 dBA @ 230' 76 dBA @ 175' Rear Patio 2282 Channel Rd 56 dBA @ 880' 64 dBA @ 785' 54 dBA @ 880' 63 dBA @ 785' A. 97 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 76 of 87 The estimated increase in average noise level due to construction of the replacement landing and dock facilities during the drilling and concrete pouring phases are identified in Table 15. As indicated in that table, the estimated increase in noise level during the drilling phase is estimated to be between 9.1 dB(A) and 20.5 dB(A) at the properties adjacent to the site. The estimated increase at locations across the channel are estimated to range from 2.2 dB(A) to 8.5 dB(A), depending on the location. IF.17 -x1.1 Estimated Increase in Average Noise Levels during Dock Construction Aerie PA2006 -196 Drillin Phase Concrete Pouring Phase Location Average Maximum Average Maximum Description Nolsel-evel' Noise Leve12 Noisel-evell Noise Level Rear Patio 2222 Channel Rd 56 dBA @ 920' 65 dBA @ 675' 54 dBA @ 920' 64 dBA @ 675' 'Based on the average distance from all of the piles to each sensitive receptor. 2Based on the distance from the closest pile to each sensitive receptor. SOURCE: Wieland Acoustics (May 1 2008 The estimated increase in average noise level due to construction of the replacement landing and dock facilities during the drilling and concrete pouring phases are identified in Table 15. As indicated in that table, the estimated increase in noise level during the drilling phase is estimated to be between 9.1 dB(A) and 20.5 dB(A) at the properties adjacent to the site. The estimated increase at locations across the channel are estimated to range from 2.2 dB(A) to 8.5 dB(A), depending on the location. IF.17 -x1.1 Estimated Increase in Average Noise Levels during Dock Construction Aerie PA2006 -196 As indicated previously for the demolition of the existing residential structures and construction of the 8- unit condominium building, the project will result in the temporary exposure of persons to noise levels that exceed the ambient noise levels identified in the area; however, construction activities are permitted between the hours of 7:00 a.m, and 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. The Municipal Code does not identify any quantitative noise level standards for construction activities. Although no significant impacts will occur, the applicant shall implement the measures recommended later in this section. A 98� Estimated Range of Measured Estimated Average Estimated Average Increase Location Ambient Noise Construction Noise + Construction In Noise Level Due Description Level Noise Level To Construction Drilling Phase Rear Patio 101 6 side Place 50.5 - 57A dB(A) 71 dB(A) 71 dB(A) 13.6 - 20.5 dB(A) Pool Area 2495 Ocean Blvd 52.9 - 59.9 dB(A) 68 dB(A) 68 - 69 dB(A) 9.1 -15.1 dB(A) Rear Patio 2262 Channel Rd 48.5 - 55.9 dB(A) 56 dB(A) 57 - 59 dB(A) 4.0 - 8.5 dB(A) Rear Patio 2222 Channel Rd 50.7 - 59.3 dB(A) 56 dB(A) 57- 61.5dB(A) 2.2- 6.3dB(A) Concrete Pouring Phase Rear Paso 101 Ba ide Place 50.5 - 57.4 dB(A) 60 dB(A) 69 dB(A) 11.6 -18.5 dB(A) Pool Area 2495 Ocean Blvd 52.9 - 59.9 dB(A) 66 dB(A) 66 - 67 dB(A) 7.1 -13.1 dB(A) Rear Patio 2282 Channel Rd 48.5 - 55.0 dB(A) 54 dB(A) 55 - 58 dB(A) 3.0 - 6.5 dB(A) Rear Paso 2222 Channel Rd 501 - 593 dB(A) 54 dB(A) 56 - 60.5 dB(A) 12 - 5.3 dB(A) SOURCE: Wieland Acoustics WaY 1 2008 As indicated previously for the demolition of the existing residential structures and construction of the 8- unit condominium building, the project will result in the temporary exposure of persons to noise levels that exceed the ambient noise levels identified in the area; however, construction activities are permitted between the hours of 7:00 a.m, and 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. The Municipal Code does not identify any quantitative noise level standards for construction activities. Although no significant impacts will occur, the applicant shall implement the measures recommended later in this section. A 98� AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 77 of 87 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. John Wayne Airport is located approximately 5 miles north of the subject property. The project site is not within an airport land use plan nor is the site within two miles of an airport Noise in the vicinity of the project site associated with aircraft operations occurring at John Wane Airport is 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? No Impact. The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip or other aviation facility that generates noise in the vicinity of the subject property.. Mitigation Measures As indicated in the preceding analysis, no significant noise or vibration impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. Nonetheless, the following measures are recommended to ensure that potential construction noise impacts are minimized. MM XI -1 All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained muffling devices. MM XI -2 A construction schedule shall be developed that minimizes potential cumulative construction noise levels. MM XI -3 The construction contractor shall notify the residents of the construction schedule for the proposed project, including construction of the dock, and shall keep them informed on any changes to the schedule. The notification shall also identify the name and phone number of a contact person in case of complaints. The contact person shall take all reasonable steps to resolve the complaint. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING 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 eight therefore, project implementation would not result in a substantial increase in population based on the population per household recognized by the City of Newport Beach. Further, the project site could accommodate up to 28 dwelling units based on the existing zoning. Therefore. site development would result in a decrease in the number of dwelling units that currently exist on the site and that could be constructed. All proposed utility services can be provided through connections to existing main line facilities that exist on or near the project site. With the exception of the existing 10 -foot catch basin in Carnation Avenue that is inadequate to accommodate existing surface runoff, the proposed project would not require expansion of any other infrastructure facilities that could support additional growth. Vehicular access is available from Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Although project implementation would result in the alteration of the existing driveway /curb cut on Carnation Avenue to provide access to the proposed dwelling units, no significant circulation Improvements are necessary. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. A.99 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 78 of 87 b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Less than Significant Impact. The project will result in the demolition of the existing 14 -unit apartment building and the single - family residence that exist on the subject property. Project implementation, therefore, will result in a decrease in a total of seven dwelling units based on the existing site development and up to 20 units based on the maximum development permitted by the existing zoning. The loss of seven (existing) dwelling units is not considered a significant decrease of housing units within the City of Newport Beach. With the exception of one tenant currently residing in the single - family residence (207 Carnation) and occupants of the two apartment units, 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? Less than Significant Impact. As indicated above, the subject property currently supports a 14 -unit apartment and single- family residence, which are occupied by only one tenant and the caretaker for the property. Although these residents would be displaced by the proposed project, it is anticipated that adequately replacement housing exists elsewhere in the City to accommodate their relocation. No replacement housing would be required as a result of project implementation. See response to Xlf.b. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES 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? Less than Significant Impact. Fire protection facilities and service to the subject property are provided by the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD). In addition to the City's resources, the NBFD also maintains a formal automatic aid agreement with the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) and all neighboring municipal fire departments to facilitate fire protection in the City should the need arise. The project will result in a decrease of seven residential dwelling units. Although the new units will be larger than those currently existing on the site, 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. The project must comply with the current Building and Fire Codes adopted by the City. A preliminary code compliance analysis has been conducted by City staff. Based on that analysis, the proposed building complies, although a final compliance determination will be made prior to the issuance of a building permit The project has been designed with several features to facilitate and enhance the provision of adequate fire protection, including an emergency communication device, which will be provided to the existing concrete pad at the beach level and a new wet standpipe, which will be provided to the existing docks. In addition, an automatic and manual fire alarm system will be installed, a fire control room is provided at ground level, which will be monitored by a central station, and a Class 1 wet standpipe will be provided at every level at all stairs to facilitate fire protection. Adequate water supplies and infrastructure, including fire hydrants, exist in the vicinity of the project, and there is no requirement for other new facilities or emergency services. Police protection? Less than Significant Impact. The Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) is responsible for providing police and law enforcement services within the corporate limits of the City. The Police Department headquarters is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara, approximately two miles northeast of the subject property. The NBPD currently has a ratio of 1.91 sworn officers for each 1,000 residents in the City. This ratio is adequate for the current population. Police and law enforcement service fi. /00 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 79 of 87 in the City is provided by patrols with designated "beats." Project implementation will result in a reduction in the development intensity of site development, which would result in the demolition of an existing apartment building and single - family residence and their replacement with an 8 -unit condominium structure. Redevelopment of the subject site to replace 14 apartment units and one single - family residence with eight luxury condominium homes would not require an expansion to local law enforcement resources and therefore would not result in any environmental impacts invoking construction of new law enforcement facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Schools? Less than Significant Impact The provision of educational facilities and services in the City of Newport Beach is the responsibility of the Newport-Mesa Unified School District. Residential and non - residential development is subject to the imposition of school fees. Payment of the State - mandated statutory school fees is the manner by which potential impacts to the Districts educational facilities are mitigated. The existing dwelling units have been vacant for several years, except for caretakers living in the single - family home and one of the apartment units. At the present time, therefore, this property has little or no impact on the Newport Mesa Unified School District. When this project is completed, the development and occupancy of the eight condominiums might result in the generation of school age children. It Is estimated that fewer than 20 students, distributed between various grade levels, would be generated by the proposed project. New or expanded school facilities would not be required to provide classroom and support space for these low numbers of school age children. However, as indicated below, the project applicant must pay the applicable school fee to the school district, pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code, in order to offset the incremental cost impact of expanding school resources to accommodate the increased student enrollment associated with new residential development, including the proposed project. With the payment of the mandatory school fees, no significant impacts would occur as a result of project implementation. 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. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. 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? Less Than Significant Impact The project will result in a decrease of dwelling units and, as a result reduction in the number of residents that would be generated when compared to the 15 existing dwelling units and the 28 units that would be permitted by the Newport Beach General Plan. With a pool, private outdoor decks that may have spas and fire pits, as well as direct access to the beach area, most residents of the proposed project are expected to utilize their private recreation amenities rather than public parks within the City. Although residents of the proposed project would occasionally visit local and regional parks and beaches, use of those public facilities by the future residents would not represent a substantial change in the intensity of usage and the impact would not result in substantial physical deterioration of those park areas. 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. Although the project will increase the number of occupied units on the site, the increase in residents associated with the project is minimal and would not result in the requirement to construction new or expand existing recreatlonal amenities in the City. Further, the projects eight dwelling units represent a nearly 50 percent decrease when compared to the number of dwelling units that exist on the property. This reduction in density and resulting potential decrease in 1q, /d i AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 80 of 87 population, supports the conclusion that no new facilities would be required to accommodate future residents of the proposed project. Title 19 (Subdivisions) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code requires the developer to pay a fee for each unit created by the proposed condominium map. This fee will be used to augment recreational facilities in the City. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitgafion measures are required. XV. TRANSPORTATIONIfRAFFIC 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)? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. During the construction phases, there will be periods of time when a substantial volume of truck traffic would occur that could add to congestion levels on affected travel routes, particularly during the peak summer tourist season when there is more than normal traffic present Table 16 reflects the potential peak volumes of truck trips at different construction phases required by the proposed project. Table 16 Potential Construction - Related Project Trip Generation Aerie (PA 05 -163) TM of Trip Estimated Number of Trips Excavation - trucks to haul excess materials to a Approximately 1800 truck trips, with up to 100 truck remote site tripstday, over approximately four weeks during the grading phase. Construction of shoring and walls 75 concrete mixers and pumpers, for a 14 -day total time period- 500 concrete mixers and pumper trucks, with up to 15 per day, along with a number of flat bed trucks, Construction of Caissons and Concrete Work to deliver a drill rig, crane, and back hoe, plus several dump trucks. This phase would have duration of approximately six 8 months. SOURCE: Citv of Newport Beach Grading necessary to implement the proposed project will be scheduled to occur after the summer months to avoid truck traffic impacts during that already congested time period. Since that will be the heaviest period of this project's construction traffic, this control measure would avoid significant traffic congestion Impacts. It is anticipated that trucks would be staged along Pacific Coast Highway south of Cameo Highlands Drive and called to the site in 20 minutes intervals. Depending upon the selected route(s), there could be some adverse impacts, for example, a convoy of trucks taking a route along narrow residential streets with numerous stop -sign controlled intersections could slow local traffic, impede turning movements at private driveways, and could result in potentially intrusive noise and bursts of exhaust emissions as trucks slow, stop and then accelerate through successive intersections. Some normally acceptable routes could be temporarily impacted by utility construction within a section of the street, thus rendering that route a poor choice for the project's extensive truck traffic. Although the ultimate destination of the export materials cannot be determined until the time of grading, the construction traffic associated with grading and hauling export material from the site could adversely affect traffic and circulation within the residential neighborhood in the vicinity of the project resulting in congestion and delays. To ensure that this project's construction traffic does not result in adverse traffic congestion impacts, and to avoid impacts along local residential streets, especially narrower streets, MM XV -t will be imposed, to require development and implementation of a construction traffic control plan and to P. /0 2 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 81 of 87 designate the contents of that plan. Construction of the replacement dock will not generate additional traffic because both materials and equipment will be delivered to the site on a barge to the dock location. Trip generation factors developed for the Newport Beach Transportation Analysis Model indicate the proposed project would result in a net reduction in morning and late afternoon peak hour trips, as well as total daily trips, compared to the existing apartments and single- family home that occupy the subject property. The net changes in trip generation, which are summarized in Table 17, assume that all of the existing apartments and the single - family unit are occupied. As indicated in the table, project implementation represents a decrease of 38 trips per day, including three a.m. peak hour trips and two p.m. peak hour trips. The decrease would be even greater based on the 28 dwelling units that would be permitted by the existing land use designation. Table 17 Net Change in Traffic Generation Aerie (PA 05 -163) Land Use Dwelling Units Daily ADT AM Peak ADT PM Peak ADT Existing 15 102 8 10 Pro 8 64 5 8 Total -7 -38 -3 -2 SOURCE: City of Newport Beach Although the assessment of traffic impacts considered the decrease in total dwelling units, it likely does not reflect the potential increase in traffic generated by the proposed dwelling units adjusted for possible lifestyle factors associated with extremely affluent households, which could generate a small number of additional traffic attributable to domestic employees, pool and spa maintenance workers, etc. However, even with such additional traffic, project implementation would not result in an Increase in either peak hour traffic volumes or total daily traffic. Therefore, future traffic generated by the proposed project would not result in any significant traffic congestion impacts. No mitigation measures are required. 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? No Impact There are no CMP roadways in the project vicinity and, as noted above, project - related traffic would have a negligible effect on traffic conditions. No significant individual or cumulative traffic impacts would occur as a result of project implementation. 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? No Impact. The proposed residential structure is 33 feet high and would not encroach into any aviation - related air space. This project 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 and from the subject property. On some occasions, there will be a relatively large number of medium and heavy 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 fl. /O J AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 82 of 87 of the existing drive approach. Vehicular sight distance of vehicles entering and exiting the site must be found consistent at the time of building permit issuance with Standard Drawing 110 -L prescribed in the Public Works Design Manual to ensure safe vehicular access. Compliance with this standard will ensure that the project driveway will be designed safely. Traffic associated with the proposed homes would include the same kinds of automobiles and trucks associated with residential development in the project area and would be compatible with 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 City's Building Department, which concluded 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. However, the use of flagmen would be required to facilitate circulation in the area. Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard will remain open to vehicular and emergency traffic. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. f) Would the project result in inadequate parking capacW Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. During the construction phases, temporary displacement of public on -street parking may occur caused by construction crew members and possibly while large truck delivery and pick up of machinery and materials. The applicant is proposing the following construction staging and parking management strategies to minimize such impacts: Construction Staqinq Plan • Schedule hauling of export materials to avoid the busy summer season • Keep all staging related to demolition on site • During excavation, shoring, foundation and structural phases, trucks are to be staged on Pacific Coast Highway, south of Cameo Highlands Drive. Trucks would be brought to the project site one at a time via the approved haul route • An encroachment permit or temporary street closure permit will be requested to allow use of 10 feet of City right -of -way, from the property line to Ocean Boulevard, for staging of materials, temporary parking of trucks while materials are off - loaded, etc. This will achieve a total 20 feet of staging area along the Ocean Blvd. frontage, when including the 10 foot building setback area • 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 A portion of a nearby parking lot will be leased to provide space for construction crew parking. Crews will be shuttled to/from the work site at the beginning and end of each work day When the parking structure is completed and the car lifts are operational, constriction crew parking will be provided on site Implementation of the construction staging and construction parking plans is considered an adequate approach in concept to avoid significant temporary parking impacts during the construction phases. Mitigation Measure XV -1 will be imposed to ensure that the measures identified above are properly planned and implemented. The project will provide 22 resident parking spaces, 8 guest parking spaces, two golf cart spaces, bicycle and motorcycle parking, and one service parking space, for a total of 31 vehicle spaces. Additionally, two vehicular elevators will be used to accommodate residents' parking within the structure. The two on -site vehicular elevators will serve the private garages of seven of the units and overflow guest parking spaces that are located in the subterranean garage. Parking for the eighth unit and the required guest parking spaces are located at street level. The East (i.e., right side) elevator is designated for entrance and West (i.e., left side) elevator is designated for ex(iting. Access control panels are located adjacent to the x), ion/ AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 83 of 87 elevator (on driver's side) on each floor; residents of the units will have a remote control similar to a garage door controller that can activate the elevator through a touch of a button. Lighting signals are located on top of the elevator opening on each floor that indicate the elevator position or if it is currently in use. The elevators will be programmed for "destination dispatch" so that the elevator is automatically recalled to the street level when it is not in use. Therefore, the driver can access the elevator immediately upon entering the site, thus minimizing the potential for creating a vehicle queue. Inside the elevator, another key pad is located on the driver's side of the wall; a lighting signal indicates the designation (i.e., floor) of the elevator. Once the elevator has reached its designated level, ample turnaround space is available for the car to maneuver into the private garages. The elevators will always be used by a car pulling into and out of it in a forward direction. The interior cab size of the elevator is approximately 10' x 20' with an 8' high ceiling. It takes the elevator approximately eight seconds to travel from floor to floor and a maximum of approximately one minute round trip back to the street. Furthermore, an emergency generator will be provided so that in the event of a power outage, the generator will automatically activate to operate the elevator, allowing residents to exit the building safely. This safety feature will also send the cabs to the recall position at street level. In addition, a fire service switch will be provided that allows fire department to access the elevators in case of emergency. Programming of the elevator and access control can be customized to operate efficiently and to provide a high level of security and ease of use for the residents. 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 and vans. 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 16 spaces for residents and 3 spaces for guests for a total of 19 spaces for the proposed 8-unit project. The project exceeds the minimum parking standard. Finally, the length of the curb cut, which provides vehicular access to the site, has been substantially reduced, which results in the creation of three additional on- street public parking spaces. The addition of these on- street parking spaces is considered a beneficial impact in this popular beach destination area, particularly during the peak summerltoulist season. 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 a developed site containing 14 apartments and one single - family home. There are no transit facilities or service either on or along the frontage of this site (i.e., Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue). This project will not necessitate the realignment of any existing streets or the construction of new public transportation facilities in the vicinity. Project implementation would not create a significant demand for public transit. No significant Impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are proposed to minimize the level of impact associated with temporary construction traffic: MM 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 Public Works Department, which shall address issues pertaining to potential traffic conflicts during peak traffic periods, potential displacement of on -street parking, and safety. • This plan shall identify the proposed construction staging area(s), construction crew parking area(s), estimated number and types of vehicles that will occur during that phase, the proposed arrival/departure routes and operational safeguards (e.g. flagmen, barricades, shuttle services, etc.) and hourly AERIE(PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 84 of 87 restrictions, if necessary, to avoid traffic conflicts during peak traffic periods, displacement of on-street parking and to ensure safety. The construction staging, parking and traffic control plan shall provide for an off - site parking lot for construction crews which will be shuttled to and from the project site at the beginning and end of each day until such time that the project site can accommodate off -street construction vehicle parking. Until that time, construction crews shall be prohibited from parking in the adjacent residential neighborhood. The plan shall identify all construction traffic routes, which shall avoid narrow residential streets unless there is no alternative, and the plan shall not include any streets where some form of construction is undenrray within or adjacent to the street that would impact the efficacy of the proposed route. Dirt hauling shall not be scheduled during weekday peak hour traffic periods or during the summer season (Memorial Day holiday weekend through and including the Labor Day holiday weekend). The approved construction staging, parking traffic control plan shall be implemented throughout each major construction phase. 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 8 -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. 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 significantly over existing uses due to the increase in the number of occupants who will reside on the site when compared to the existing number of occupied dwelling units. The project will connect to 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? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. 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 decrease in runoff during storm periods. However, because the existing 10' catch basin. in Carnation Avenue does not have adequate capacity to accommodate existing storm flows, project - related storm flows will result in a potentially significant impact, necessitating the upsiang of the existing deficient catch basin. With the implementation of MM VIII -1, this potentially significant impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. R l0G AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 85 of 87 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 if 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 providers existing commitments? No Impact. See response to XVI.b above. 0 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 result in a significant increase in solid waste production due to the decrease in dwelling units. 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. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The environmental analysis, including the technical studies prepared for the project, indicates that the proposed 8-unit condominium and appurtenant improvements, including the replacement of the existing deteriorated landing and dock facilities, would not have the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts with implementation of standard City requirements and the recommended mitigation measures contained herein. Prior to the circulation of the ISIMND, the project applicant accepted and agreed to implement all prescribed mitigation measures. The location and description of the proposed project is presented below. Therefore, the following conclusions can be made regarding the mandatory findings of significance as set forth in Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines: a) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. There are no sensitive terrestrial plant or animal species on the project site. Replacement of the landing and dock facilities may result in potential indirect impacts to eelgrass and other marine species; however, mitigation measures have been prescribed to ensure that potential impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. As a result, 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 restrict the range of 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) Less than Significant Impact. Replacement of 14 older apartments and a single - family residence with eight luxury condominium residences would result in a negligible difference in long- term environmental effects associated with occupancy of these homes. Although project implementation will result in an incremental increase in quantitative impacts resulting from an increase in occupied dwelling units when compared to the existing residential development, which is only partially occupied, all of the effects related to energy consumption, traffic, water A 107 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 86 of 87 consumption, utility demand, solid waste disposal, use of public facilities, etc, would occur If the existing structures were to be reoccupied. With the exception of the proposed landing and dock facilities, this project would not generate new environmental impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. All of the potential impacts associated with project implementation, including those anticipated to occur with the replacement of the landing and dock, will be reduced to a less than significant level as a result of project design and through the implementation of mitigation measures. C) Less than Significant Impact. As indicated in the preceding analysis conducted for the proposed project, project implementation would not result in significant environmental impacts, which may have adverse effects on humans, either directly or indirectly. Other potentially significant environmental effects (e.g., biological resources, drainage and hydrology, eta) would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of the mitigation measures prescribed in the environmental analysis. 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 will consider the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project with the incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures as conditions of approval in the event that decision makers choose to approve the project. 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. General Plan, including all its elements, City of Newport Beach. 2. Final Program EIR — City of Newport Beach General Plan 3. Title 20, Zoning Cade of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. Chapters 10.26 and 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 incorporated by reference within 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, March 27, 2007 (Revised December 20, 2007). 4. Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan, Hunsaker & Associates, June 3, 2005 (Revised January 17, 2008). 5. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Hunsaker & Associates, June 3, 2005 (Revised March 17, 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. Aerie Project Overview, Brion Jeannette Architecture, May 8, 2006 (Revised February 15, 2007). 10. Coastal Hazard Study, GeoSoils Inc., October, 5, 2006. 11. Air Quality Analysis, Planning Research Network, March 7, 2007 12. Bluff and Shoreline Reconnaissance in the Vicinity of 201 -207 Carnation Avenue, Corona Del Mar, Orange County, California, GeoSoils, Inc., June 11, 2007 13. Eelgrass (Zostera Marina) impact Assessment for a Dock Renovation Project Located in Carnation Cove, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625; Coastal Resources Management, Inc., May 9, 2008 �q.>/Q� AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 87 of 87 14. Coastal Engineering Assessment for the "Aerie" Dock Project (Letter Report); Noble Consultants, Inc., May 9, 2008 15. Evaluation of Subsurface Profile for Acoustic/Vibration Study, Proposed Dock Replacement at Carnation Cove, 201 -207 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar, Newport Beach, California; Wieland Acoustics, Inc.; May 6, 2008 16. Environmental Noise Study for the Construction of the Proposed Camation Cove Dock Replacement Project in the City of Newport Beach; Wieland Acoustics, May 1, 2008 17. Preliminary Geologic/Geotechnical Investigation Report — Condominium Project 201 — 205 and 207 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar, California; Neblett & Associates, Inc.; March 28, 2003 18. Pre - Demolition Asbestos /Lead -Based Paint Survey, 201 -207 Carnation Avenue, Corona Del Mar, California; AEI Consultants; December 13, 2007. 19. Elevation Certification; Hunsaker & Associates; April 12, 2007. 20. 2007 CBC Seismic Design Parameters (Update Letter Report); Neblett & Associates; May 12, 2008. 21. Aerie Drainage, Tentative Tract 16882, Carnation Avenue; Hunsaker & Associates; May 12, 2008. 22. Existing Vegetation Map, Sheets L -1 & L -2; Robert Mitchell & Associates; April 25, 2008. 23. Aerie (PA2005 -163); Neblett & Associates; November 27, 2007. 24. Review of Architectural Plan; Neblett & Associates; November 27, 2007. 25. Review of Architectural Plan; Neblett & Associates; December 17, 2007. 26. Brion Jeannette Architecture, Aerie, 201 -207 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar, CA; Architectural Plan Sheets T -1 to G-4; Job No. 03-026, received March 25, 2008. fi . �� U Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Newport Beach, CA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Aerie (PA2005 -196) Page 1 Timing of .... No. -' ' iMiti ation Measure: -. -- - - !Verification Implementation :Res onsibllity Air Ouality 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 III -1 `Windy days or when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the Field Monitoring Throughout Grading Building Department/ proposed project site, additional applications of water shall be applied Contractor to maintain a minimum 12 percent moisture content as defined by SCAOMD Rule 403. Soil disturbance shall be terminated whenever windy conditions exceed 25 miles per hour. Truck loads carrying soil and debris material shall be wetted or Building Department/ III -2 covered prior to leaving the site. Where vehicles leave the Field Monitoring Throughout Grading and Contractor/ construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets shall be Construction Code Enforcement swept daily. All diesel- powered machinery exceeding 100 horsepower shall be Throughout Grading and Building Department/ III -3 equipped with soot traps, unless the Contractor demonstrates to the Inspection Construction Contractor satisfaction of the City Building Official that it is infeasible. The construction contractor shall time the construction activities, including the transportation of construction equipment vehicles and Building Department/ III-4 equipment to the site, and delivery of materials, so as not to interfere Field Monitoring Throughout Grading and Contractor/ with peak hour traffic. To minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes Construction public Works Department adjacent to the site, a flag person shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways, if deemed necessary by the City. III -5 The construction contractor shall encourage ridesharing and transit Field Monitoring Throughout Grading and Contractor incentives for the construction workers. Construction 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 SCAOMD Rule 1113 limits. Spray equipment with high Building Department/ III-6 transfer efficiency, or manual coatings application such as paint Inspecting Throughout Construction Contractor 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 ROGper liter. Biolo icat Resources An updated pre - construction eelgrass and invasive algae survey shall be completed within 30 days of the initiation of the proposed dock/gangway construction. The results of this survey will be used to Prior to Commencement of IV -1 update the results of the March 2007 eelgrass survey and to identify, Plan Check Construction Planning Department if any, potential project- related eelgrass losses and the presence or absence of the invasive algae (Caulerpa taxifolia) in accordance with NMFS requirements. IV -2 A post- construction project eelgrass survey shall be completed within plan Check Subsequent to Completion of planning Department 30 days of the completion of project construction in accordance with Construction Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Aerie (PA2005 -196) Page 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Aerie (PA2005.196) Page 2 Methodbf Timfhg of." No. - Mitigation Measure 'Verification Im IemeMation ili ResE222'b"lly the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as . amended, Revision 11). The report will be presented to the resources agencies and the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission within 30 days after completion of the survey. If any eelgrass has been impacted in excess of that determined in the pre - construction survey, any additional impacted eelgrass will be mitigated at a ratio of 1.2:1 (mitigation to impact). Eelgrass shall be mitigated based on two annual monitoring surveys that document the changes in bed (i.e., area extent and density) in the vicinity of the footprint of the boat dock, moored vessel(s), and/or related structures during the active - growth period for eelgrass (typically March through October). Mitigation shall be implemented IV -3 pursuant to the requirements of the Southern California Eelgrass plan Check Upon Completion of Eelgrass Planning Department Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). A Surveys statement from the applicant indicating their understanding of the potential mitigation obligation that may follow the initial two year monitoring is required. If losses are identified, a final eelgrass mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach and resources agencies for review and acceptance. The project marine biologist shall mark the positions of eelgrass beds Prior to Commencement of IV-4 in the vicinity of the dock and gangway construction area with buoys Field Monitoring Construction Planning Department prior to the initiation of an construction activities. The project marine biologist shall meet with the construction crew Prior to Commencement of IV -5 prior to initiation of construction to orient them to specific areas where Meeting Construction Planning Department eelgrass occurs. Support vessels and barges shall maneuver and work over eelgrass IV -6 beds only during tides of +2 feet mean lower low water (MILL" or Field Monitoring Throughout Construction Building Department/ higher to prevent grounding within eelgrass beds, damage to eelgrass Harbor Resources from propellers, and to limit water turbidity. IV -7 - Anchors and anchor chains shall not impinge upon eelgrass habitat. Field Monitoring Throughout Construction Building Department/ Project Biologist Construction activities associated with the elevated walkway leading Building Department/ IV-8 to the gangway, and construction personnel shall avoid impacts to Field Monitoring Throughout Construction Project Biologist/ rocky intertidal habitat and to eelgrass beds and sand dollar habitat Harbor Resources within the Carnation Cove. Residents shall be informed of the sensitivity of the cove as a unique IV -9 marine biological habitat to assist in ensuring the long -term protection Notification Upon Completion of Project Planning Department of the cove's marine biological resources. If vegetation clearing is to take place between March 15 and July 31, a pre- construction nesting survey for migratory birds will be conducted as required by the California Department of Fish and IV -10 Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Pre- construction surveys Survey Prior to Commencement of planning Department are to be conducted no more than 30 days prior to ground Construction disturbance. Some restrictions on construction activities may be required In the vicinity of the nests until the site is no longer active, as determined by a qualified biologist. Cultural Resources Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Aerie (PA2005.196) Page 2 Z Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Aerie (PA2005 -196) Page 3 N .. Method: of =^ Timing of 1. 'No. Mitl aflon Measure : Verification Im lamentation -Res onsibllit A qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the project applicant to develop a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) consistent with the guidance of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). In the event that fossils are encountered during construction activities, ground - disturbing excavations in the vicinity of V -1 the discovery shall be redirected or hatted by the monitor until the find Plan Check Prior to Commencement of Planning Department has been salvaged. Any fossils discovered during project Grading construction shall be prepared to a point of identification and stabilized for long -term storage. Any discovery, along with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, shall be accessioned into the collections of a suitable repository. Curation costs to accession any collections shall be the responsibility of the project applicant. Geolo ay and Soils During periods when boats would be exposed to excessive wave- During Excessive Wave - VI-1 induced motions, boats should be sheltered at locations inside Field Monitoring Induce Motions Harbor Resources Newport Harbor to avoid damage. The dock design shall be based on the extreme wave conditions identified in the coastal engineering study (Noble Consultants, Inc., Priorto Issuance of Building Building Department/ VI -2 2008). One percent height of impinging random waves shall be used, Plan Check Permit for the Construction of Harbor Resources which translates to a minimum design wave height of about 1.7 times Dock the significant wave height i.e., four to 4.5 feet). Hazards and Hazardous Materials Any repairs, renovations, removal or demolition activities that will impact the ACM or inaccessible ACM shall be performed by a licensed asbestos contractor. Inaccessible suspect ACM shall be tested prior to demolition or renovation. Air emissions of asbestos VII -1 fibers and leaded dust would be reduced to below a level of Inspection Throughout Demolition Building Department significance through compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulatory requirements. Proper safety procedures forthe handling of suspect ACM shall always be followed in order to protect the occu ants of the building and the asbestos workers. The property owner shall maintain all LBP in good condition at all times. Any LBP in poor condition must be stabilized by removal of all Throughout Demolition and VII-2 loose and flaking paint chips under controlled conditions and Inspection Construction Building Department application of a primeriencapsulant (seal -coat) over the remaining intact paint. A contractor performing paint removal work shall follow the OSHA lead standard for the construction industry. The lead content of the Throughout Demolition and Vil -3 paint should be considered when choosing a method to remove the Inspection Construction Building Department pain, as proper waste disposal requirements and worker protection measure shall be taken. Hydrology and Water Quality The developer shall be responsible for replacement/upsizing of the I Prior to Issuance of Certificate VIII-11 10 -foot wide catch basin located in Carnation Avenue storm drain, Plan Check of Occupancy Public Works Department which is currently deficient. The new catch basin will be sized to Z Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Aerie (PA2005 -196) Page 3 N Z' Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Aerie (PA2005.196) Page 4 Method.of Timing of '- No. Mitigation Measure - - -- Verification Implementation., 'Res onsibili provide sufficient capacity for the runoff generated by this project, as _ well as existing runoff from the rest of the tributary area to this facility. It shall satisfy the appropriate storm -year design criteria established by the City Engineer. This storm drain reconstruction shall include appropriate urban runoff filtration elements, to reduce potential water pollution impacts into Newport Harbor. Reconstruction of this storm drain shall occur outside of the rainy season. VIII -2 All debris and trash shall be disposed in suitable trash containers on Inspection Throughout Demolition and Building Department land or on the work bare at the end of each construction day. Construction Demolition and Building Department/ VIII -3 Discharge of any hazardous materials into Newport Bay is prohibited. ed. Inspection Construction Harbor Resources/ Code Enforcement Sift curtains shall be deployed around work barges and around the VIII -4 pile sleeving or drilling operations where feasible to minimize the Field Monitoring Throughout Construction Building DepartmenV spread of turbid waters into adjacent eelgrass beds within and outside Harbor Resources the project area. Land Use and Planning The property owner(s) shall execute and record a waiver of future Prior to Issuance of Building IX -1 shoreline protection for the project prior to the issuance of a building Waiver or Grading Permit for New Planning Department permit. Said waiver shall be subject to the review and approval of the Construction City Attorney. The applicant shall dedicate a view easement as depicted on the exhibit below; however, it will only affect the project site. Structures Prior to Issuance of Building IX -2 and landscaping within the easement area shall not be permitted to Easement Permit or Recordation of the Planning Department block public views. The easement shall be recorded prior to the Final Tract Map issuance of a building permit for new construction and shall be reflected on the final tract map. Accessory structures shall be relocated or removed if threatened by Planning Department/ IX -3 coastal erosion. Accessory structures shall not be expanded and Field Survey On -Going Building Department routine maintenance of accessory structures is permitted. Bluff landscaping shall consist of native, drought tolerant plant species determined to be consistent with the California coastal buff IX-4 environment. Invasive and non - native species shall be removed. Plan Check Prior to Issuance of Building Planning Department Irrigation of bluff faces to establish re- vegetated areas shall be or Grading Permit temporary and used only to establish the plants. Upon establishment of the plantings. the temporary irrigation system shall be removed. Noise XI-11 All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped All Inspection During Grading and Building Department property operating and maintained muffling devices. Construction XI -2 A construction schedule shall be developed that minimizes potential Plan Check Prior to Issuance of Demolition, Building or Building Department cumulative construction noise levels. Gradin Permit The construction contractor shall notify the residents of the Prior to Commencement of XI -3 construction schedule for the proposed project, including construction Notification Construction Building Department of the dock, and shall keep them informed on an changes to the Z' Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Aerie (PA2005.196) Page 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Aerie (PA2005.196) Page 5 - - Fill of iming of No<.- '.Miti aeon Measure I Veriflcatlon' Im lementation Responsibility schedule. The notification shall also identify the name and phone number of a contact person in case of complaints. The contact person shall take all reasonable steps to resolve the complaint. Traffic and Circulation Prior to commencement of each major phase of construction, the Contractor shall submit a construction staging, parking and traffic control plan for approval by the Public Works Department, which shall address issues pertaining to potential traffic conflicts during peak traffic periods, potential displacement of on-street parking, and safety. This plan shall identify the proposed construction staging area(s), construction crew parking area(s), estimated number and types of vehicles that will occur during that phase, the proposed arrival /departure routes and operational safeguards (e.g. flagmen, barricades, shuttle services, etc.) and hourly restrictions, if necessary, to avoid traffic conflicts during peak traffic periods, displacement of on- street parking and to ensure safety. The construction staging, parking and traffic control plan shall provide for an off -site parking lot for construction crews which will be shuttled to and from the project site at the beginning and Prior to Issuance of Grading Public Works Department/ XV -t end of each day until such time that the project site can Plan Check or Building Permit Planning Department accommodate off- street construction vehicle parking. Until that time, construction crews shall be prohibited from parking in the adjacent residential neighborhood. The plan shall identify all construction traffic routes, which shall avoid narrow residential streets unless there is no alternative, and the plan shall not include any streets where some forth of construction is underway within or adjacent to the street that would impact the efficacy of the proposed route. Dirt hauling shall not be scheduled during weekday peak hour traffic periods or during the summer season (Memorial Day holiday weekend through and including the Labor Day holiday weekend). The approved construction staging, parking traffic control plan shall be implemented throughout each major construction phase. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Aerie (PA2005.196) Page 5 06 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Aerie (PA 2005 -796) Newport Beach, CA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Aerie (PA2005.196) Page 1 Methodof Timing of No. Mitigation Measure Verification Implementation ' Res onsibiI All Quality During grading activities, any exposed soil areas shall be watered at . least four times per day. Stockpiles of crushed cement, debris, dirt or other dusty materials shall be covered or watered twice daily. On III -1 windy days or when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the Field Monitoring Throughout Grading Building Department/ proposed project site, additional applications of water shall be applied Contractor to maintain a minimum 12 percent moisture content as defined by SCAQMD Rule 403. Soil disturbance shall be terminated whenever windy conditions exceed 25 miles per hour. Truck loads carrying soil and debris material shall be wetted or Building Department/ 111-2 covered prior to leaving the site. Where vehicles leave the Field Monitoring Throughout Grading and Contractor/ construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets shall be Construction Code Enforcement swept daily. All diesel- powered machinery exceeding 100 horsepower shall be Throughout Grading and Building Department/ III -3 equipped with soot traps, unless the Contractor demonstrates to the Inspection Construction Contractor satisfaction of the City Building Official that it is infeasible. The construction contractor shall time the construction activities, including the transportation of construction equipment vehicles and Building Department/ III-4 equipment to the site, and delivery of materials, so as not to interfere Field Monitoring Throughout Grading and Contractor/ with peak hour traffic. To minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes Construction public Works Department adjacent to the site, a flag person shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways, if deemed necessary by the City. III -5 The construction contractor shall encourage ridesharing and transit Field Monitoring Throughout Grading and Contractor incentives for the construction workers. Construction 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 Building Department/ III -6 transfer efficiency, or manual coatings application such as paint Inspecting Throughout Construction Contractor 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. Biological Resources An updated pre- construction eelgrass and invasive algae survey shall be completed within 30 days of the initiation of the proposed dock/gangway construction. The results of this survey will be used to Prior to Commencement of IV -1 update the results of the March 2007 eelgrass survey and to identify, Plan Check Construction Planning Department if any, potential project- related eelgrass losses and the presence or absence of the invasive algae (Cauferpa taxifolfa) in accordance with NMFS requirements. IV -2 A post - construction project eelgrass survey shall be completed within plan Check Subsequent to Completion of planning Department 30 days of the completion of project construction in accordance with Construction Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Aerie (PA2005.196) Page 1 JJ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Aerie (PA2005.196) Page 2 Method of'' Timing of No..Miti ationMeasure Verification Implementation Res onsibility the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). The report will be presented to the resources agencies and the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission within 30 days after completion of the survey. If any eelgrass has been impacted in excess of that determined in the pre - construction survey, any additional impacted eelgrass will be mitigated at a ratio of 1.2:1 (mitigation to impact). Eelgrass shall be mitigated based on two annual monitoring surveys that document the changes in bed (i.e., area extent and density) in the vicinity of the footprint of the boat dock, moored vessel(s), and/or related structures during the active- growth period for eelgrass (typically March through October). Mitigation shall be implemented IV-3 pursuant to the requirements of the Southern California Eelgrass plan Check Upon Completion of Eelgrass planning Department Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). A Surveys statement from the applicant indicating their understanding of the potential mitigation obligation that may follow the initial two year monitoring is required. If losses are identified, a final eelgrass mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach and resources agencies for review and acceptance. The project marine biologist shall mark the positions of eelgrass beds Prior to Commencement of IV-4 in the vicinity of the dock and gangway construction area with buoys Field Monitoring Construction Planning Departinent prior to the initiation of an construction activities. The project marine biologist shall meet with the construction crew Prior to Commencement of IV -5 prior to initiation of construction to orient them to specific areas where Meeting Construction Planning Departinent eelgrass occurs. Support vessels and barges shall maneuver and work over eelgrass IV-6 beds only during tides of +2 feet mean lower low water (MLLW) or Field Monitoring Throughout Construction Building Department/ higher to prevent grounding within eelgrass beds, damage to eelgrass Harbor Resources from propellers, and to limit water turbidity. IV -7 Anchors and anchor chains shall not impinge upon eelgrass habitat. Field Monitoring Throughout Construction Building Department/ Project Biologist Construction activities associated with the elevated walkway leading Building Department/ IV -8 to the gangway, and construction personnel shall avoid impacts to Field Monitoring Throughout Construction Project Biologist/ rocky intertidal habitat and to eelgrass beds and sand dollar habitat Harbor Resources within the Carnation Cove. Residents shall be informed of the sensitivity of the cove as a unique IV -9 marine biological habitat to assist in ensuring the long -term protection Notification Upon Completion of Project Planning Department of the cove's marine biological resources. If vegetation clearing is to take place between March 15 and July 31, a pre- construction nesting survey for migratory birds will be conducted as required by the California Department of Fish and IV -10 Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Pre - construction surveys Survey Prior to Commencement of planning Department are to be conducted no more than 30 days prior to ground Construction disturbance. Some restrictions on construction activities may be required in the vicinity of the nests until the site is no longer active, as determined by a qualified biologist. Cultural Resources JJ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Aerie (PA2005.196) Page 2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program a Aerie (PA2005 -196) Page 3 -1 Method of Timing of ". No. Mitigation Measure =- Verification ::... tm lementalion —Responsibility -- A qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the project applicant to develop a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) consistent with the guidance of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). In the event that fossils are encountered during construction activities, ground - disturbing excavations in the vicinity of V -� the discovery shall be redirected or hafted by the monitor until the find Plan Check Prior to Commencement of Planning Department has been salvaged. Any fossils discovered during project Grading construction shall be prepared to a point of identification and stabilized for long -term storage. Any discovery, along with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, shall be accessioned into the collections of a suitable repository. Curation costs to accession any collections shall be the responsibility of the pmject applicant. Geolo 3y and Soils During periods when boats would be exposed to excessive wave - VI -1 induced motions, boats should moved from the proposed docks and Field Monitoring During Excessive Wave - Harbor Resources be sheltered at safe locations inside Newport Harbor to avoid Induce Motions damage. The dock design shall be based on the extreme wave conditions identified in the coastal engineering study (Noble Consultants, Inc., Prior to Issuance of Building Building Department/ VI -2 2008). One percent height of impinging random waves shall be used, Plan Check Permit for the Construction of Harbor Resources which translates to a minimum design wave height of about 1.7 times Dock the significant wave height i.e., four to 4.5 feet). Hazards and Hazardous Materials Any repairs, renovations, removal or demolition activities that will impact the ACM or inaccessible ACM shall be performed by a licensed asbestos contractor. Inaccessible suspect ACM shall be tested prior to demolition or renovation. Air emissions of asbestos VII -1 fibers and leaded dust would be reduced to below a level of Inspection Throughout Demolition Building Department significance through compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulatory requirements. Proper safety procedures for the handling of suspect ACM shall always be followed in order to protect the occupants of the building and the asbestos workers. The property owner shall maintain all LBP in good condition at all times. Any LBP in poor condition must be stabilized by removal of all Throughout Demolition and VII -2 loose and flaking paint chips under controlled conditions and Inspection Construction Building Department application of a primertencapsulant (seal -coat) over the remaining intact paint. A contractor performing paint removal work shall follow the OSHA lead standard for the construction industry. The lead content of the Throughout Demolition and VII -3 paint should be considered when choosing a method to remove the Inspection Construction Building Department pain, as proper waste disposal requirements and worker protection measure shall be taken. H drolo and Water Quality VIII -1 The developer shall be responsible for replacemenVupsizing of the Plan Check Prior to Issuance of Certificate Public Works Department 10 -foot wide catch basin located in Carnation Avenue storm drain, of Occupancy Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program a Aerie (PA2005 -196) Page 3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Aerie (PA2005.196) Page 4 ' `- -- - Method of Timing of -- - No. :Mill anon Measure Verification Im lemerdation - Res onsiliility which is currently deficient. The new catch basin will be sized to provide sufficient capacity for the runoff generated by this project, as well as existing runoff from the rest of the tributary area to this facility. It shall satisfy the appropriate stone -year design criteria established by the City Engineer. This stone drain reconstruction shall include appropriate urban runoff fftretion elements, to reduce potential water pollution impacts into Newport Harbor. Reconstruction of this stone drain shall occur outside of the rainy season. VIII -2 All debris and trash shall be disposed in suitable trash containers on Inspection Throughout Demolition and Building Department land or on the work barge at the end of each construction day. Construction Throughout Demolition and Building Department/ VIII -3 Discharge of any hazardous materials into Newport Bay is prohibited. Inspection Construction Harbor Resources/ Code Enforcement Sift curtains shall be deployed around work barges and around the VIII-4 pile sleeving or drilling operations where feasible to minimize the Field Monitoring Throughout Construction Building Department/ spread of turbid waters into adjacent eelgrass beds within and outside Harbor Resources the project area. Land Use and Planning The property owner(s) shall execute and record a waiver of future Prior to Issuance of Building IX -1 shoreline protection for the project prior to the issuance of a building Waiver or Grading Permit for New Planning Department permit. Said waiver shall be subject to the review and approval of the Construction Ci Ahome . The applicant shall dedicate a view easement as depicted on the exhibit below; however, it will only affect the project site. Structures Prior to Issuance of Building IX -2 and landscaping within the easement area shall not be permitted to Easement Permit or Recordation of the Planning Department block public views. The easement shall be recorded prior to the Final Tract Map issuance of a building permit for new construction and shall be reflected on the final tract map. Accessory structures shall be relocated or removed if threatened by Planning Department/ IX -3 coastal erosion. Accessory structures shall not be expanded and Field Survey On -Going Building Department routine maintenance of accessory structures is permitted. Bluff landscaping shall consist of native, drought tolerant plant species determined to be consistent with the California coastal buff IX-4 environment. Invasive and non - native species shall be removed. Plan Check Prior to Issuance of Building Planning Department Irrigation of bluff faces to establish re- vegetated areas shall be or Grading Permit temporary and used only to establish the plants. Upon establishment of the plantings. the temporary irrigation system shall be removed. Noise XI -1 All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped Inspection During Grading and Building Department with Properly operating and maintained muffling devices. Construction XI -2 A construction schedule shall be developed that minimizes potential Plan Check Prior to Issuance of Demolition , Building or Building Department cumulative construction noise levels. Grading Permit XI -3 The construction contractor shall notify the residents of the Notification Prior to Commencement of Building Departrnent construction schedule for the proposed project, including construction Construction Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Aerie (PA2005.196) Page 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Aerie (PA2005 -1 96) Page 5 Method of Tlming of ,No. Mid ation Measure Verification Implementationn Res ons! bility, of the dock, and shall keep them informed on any changes to the schedule. The notification shall also identify the name and phone number of a contact person in case of complaints. The contact person shall take all reasonable steps to resolve the complaint. Traffic and Circulation Prior to commencement of each major phase of construction, the Contractor shall submit a construction staging, parking and traffic control plan for approval by the Public Works Department, which shall address issues pertaining to potential traffic conflicts during peak traffic periods, potential displacement of on- street parking, and safety. This plan shall identify the proposed construction staging area(s), construction crew parking area(s), estimated number and types of vehicles that will occur during that phase, the proposed arrival/departure routes and operational safeguards (e.g. flagmen, barricades, shuttle services, etc.) and hourly restrictions, if necessary, to avoid traffic conflicts during peak traffic periods, displacement of on -street parking and to ensure safety. The construction staging, parking and traffic control plan shall provide for an off -site parking lot for construction crews which will be shuttled to and from the project site at the beginning and Prior to Issuance of Grading Public Works Department/ XV -1 end of each day until such time that the project site can Plan Check or Building Permit Planning Department accommodate off - street construction vehicle parking. Until that time, construction crews shall be prohibited from parking in the adjacent residential neighborhood. The plan shall identify all construction traffic routes, which shall avoid narrow residential streets unless there is no alternative, and the plan shall not include any streets where some form of construction is underway within or adjacent to the street that would impact the efficacy of the proposed route. Did hauling shall not be scheduled during weekday peak hour traffic periods or during the summer season (Memorial Day holiday weekend through and including the Labor Day holiday weekend). The approved construction staging, parking traffic control plan shall be implemented throughout each major construction phase. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Aerie (PA2005 -1 96) Page 5 RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS AERIE (PA 200 &196) MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NEWPORT BEACH, CA INTRODUCTION The 30-day public review period for the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the proposed Aerie residential project extended from May 19 through June 17, 2008. The City of Newport Beach received eight (8) comment letters on the MND during the formal public review and comment period; in addition, two comment letters were received after the close of the public comment period on June 18, 2008. Responses to the comments included in each of the letters received by the City have been prepared and are included with the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration. The comment letters were received from: 1. Native American Heritage Commission (June 3, 2008) 2. John and Kathleen McIntosh (June 8, 2008) 3. Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC) (June 16, 2008) 4. Sandra Genis, Planning Resources (June 17, 2008) 5. Joseph and Lisa Vallejo (June 17, 2008) 6. Don Krotee (June 18, 2008) 7. Ellen Counts (June 13, 2008) 8. Southern California Association of Governments (June 12, 2008) 9. Jinx L. Hansen (June 18, 2008) 10. Selman Breitman, LLP (June 17, 2008) 11. Southern California Gas Company (May 20, 2008) Responses to these comments, with the exception of Letter #10, have been prepared as a courtesy to facilitate a better understanding of the project and analysis presented in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. All of the letters, including the following responses, have been forwarded to decision makers for consideration pursuant to Section 15074(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Each comment in each letter for which a response has been prepared has been numbered for easy reference. Aerie (PA 2006.196) Responses to Public Comments July 2008 Page i /-j f J Native American Heritage Commission (May 1, 2008) Response to Comment No. 1 The letter from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) does not identify specific deficiencies in the analysis presented in the proposed MND. Rather, this letter identifies the responsibility of the NAHC to oversee the protection of cultural and scientific resources. The letter identifies recommendations for action for projects that have the potential to adversely affect cultural and scientific resources. As indicated on page 45 of the MND, the because the proposed project requires an amendment to the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, it is subject to the provisions of SB 18, which requires consultation with Native American representatives. The City has complied with the requirements of SB 18 by submitting a request to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). In addition, the City also sent letters to the Native American representatives, informing each of the proposed project. However, no response was received by the City from any of the Native American representations requesting consultation within the 90 -day statutory period. In addition, a cultural and paleontological resources records survey was completed by LSA Associates, Inc. in July of 2005. All recorded archaeological sites and cultural resource records on file were reviewed, including the California Points of Historical Interest, the California Historical Landmarks, the California Register of Historical Resources, the National Register of Historic Places, and the California State Historic Resources .Inventory. LSA completed an archaeological survey of the site. No archaeological sites were identified during the survey, which concluded that it is highly unlikely that any archaeological resources would exist given the disturbed nature of the site and soil conditions. As a result, no potential impacts to either cultural or historic resources will occur and no mitigation measures or actions identified in the NAHC letter are appropriate or necessary. Aerie (PA 2005196) Responses to Public Comments July 2008 Page 2 �) , 121 SX&U QE CAI W -08NIA Am�dg•hwreerreane+. C.e vnrnnr NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 915 CAPITOL MAIN., ROOM 6e4 SACRAMENTO, GA 95814 (916) 668.601 Fax (916),667-5M I' e4m� ds_nahctspa�cbennet W, WAMENT Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport, Beach, CA 92658 -8915 June 3, 2008 J1J% oG 200a '> UJOIr. F .-11. e. °. rl ll.li, :Sct �y:r , tc .�• > e . <L yie 10=- TURXTXO%1�1 Dear Mr. Camp[bell: The Native American Heritage Commission is the state agency designated to protect California's Native American Cultural Resources. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that any project that causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, that includes archaeological resources, is 9'signiificant effect' requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report(EtR) per the California Code of Regulations §15064.5(b)(c (CEQA guidelines). Section 15382 of the 2007 CEQA Guidelines defines a significant impact on the environment as 'a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of physical condtione within an area affected by the proposed project, including ... objects of historic or aesthetic significance! In order to comply with this provision, the lead agency is: required to assess.whether the project will have an adverse impact on these resources within the'area of potential effect (APE)', and if so, to mitigate that effect To adequately assess the project - related impact owhistoricai resources, the Commission recommends the following action: J Contact the appropriate California Historic Resources Information Center (CHRIS) for possible'recorded sites' in locations where the development will or might- occur.. Contact Information for the Information Center nearest you is available from the State Office of.Historic Preservation (916!653- 7278)1 ! ohp.pa[Ls:0.gp ,The record search wilt determine: • if a part or the entire APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. • If any'known cultural resources have already been recorded in or adjacent to the APE. • If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE. • If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present J If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing, the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. • The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation massurers should be submitted immediately to the planning department All information regarding site Iocations,.Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate cordidentfal addendum, and not be made available for pubic disclosure. The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional archaeological Information Center. d Contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for. * A Sacred Lands File (SLF) search of the project area and Information on tribal contacts in the project vidnity that may have additional cultural resource information. Please provide this office with the following citation format to assist with the Sacred Lands File search request: USES 7.5- minute euadrancte.citation with name. township. range, and sectlon: . • The NAHC advises the use of Native American Monitors to ensure proper identification and care given cultural resources that may be discovered. The NAHC recommends that contact be made with Native American Contacts on the attached listto get their input on potential project impact (APE). In some yes, the existence of a Native American cclhural.resources may be known only to a local tribe(s). J Lack of surface evidence of archeological resources does not preclude their subsurface existence. • Load agencies should include in their mitigation Ilan provisions for the Identification and evaluation of accldentalyt6scovered archeological resources, per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) §15084.5 (f). In areas ofidentified archaeoogical sensitivity, a cerfified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American, with knowledge in cultural resources should monitor all grand "ibing activities, • ' A cuturally- affiliated !dative American tribe may be:the only a6uroe of information about a Sacred SiteMative. American cultural resource. • Lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the disposition of recovered artifacts, in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans. d Lead agencies should include provisions for discovery of Native American human remains or unmarked cemeteries in *air mitigation plans. CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(d):requires the lead agency to work with the Native Americans identified by this Commission if the initial Study identifies the presence or likely presence of Native American human remains within the APE. CEQA Guidelines provide for agreements with Native American, identified by the NAHC, to assure the appropriate and dignified treatment of Native American human remains and any associated grave.liens. v Health and Safety Code §7050.5, Public Resources Code §5097.98 and Sec. §15064.5 (d) of the California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines) mandate procedures to be followed, including that construction or excavation be stopped in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery until the county coroner or medical examiner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. . Note that §7052 of the Health & Safety Code states that disturbance of Native. American cemeteries is afetony. Please feel free i o contact me at (916) 653.6259 if you have any questions. reiy. e Si n Program Analyst Attachment List of Native American Contacts Cc: State Clearinghouse Z7 Native Ames can Contacts Orange County June 3, 2008 Ti -At Society Cindi Aivitre 6515 E. Seaside Walk, #C Gabrielino Long Beach , CA 90803 calvitre@yahoo.com (714) 504 -2468 Cell .Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Aciacdemen Nation David Belardes, Chairperson 31742 Via Belardes Juaneno san Juan capistmo , CA 92675 DavidBelardesl@hotmaii.com (949) 493 -0959 (949) 493 -1601 Fax Tongva Ancestral Territorial Tribal Nation John Tommy Rosas, Tribal Admin. Gabrielino Tongva tattnlawi@gmail.com. 310 -570 -6567 Juaneno Band of Mission Indiana Aciachemen Nation Anthony Rivera, Chairman 31411 -A La Matanza Street Juaneno San Juan Caosfrano , CA 92675 -2674 arivera*juaneno.com 949- 488 -3484 949 -488 -3294 Fax TINS list Is current only as of the data of this document. Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation Joyce Perry , Tribal Manager & Cultural Resources 31742 Via Belardes Juaneno San Juan Capistrano , CA 92675 kaarnalamG cox.net (949) 493 -0959 (949) 293.8522 Cell (949) 493 -1801 Fax Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Alfred Cruz, Culural Resouroes Coordinator P.O. Box 25628 Juaneno Santa Ana , CA 92799 alfredgcruz Qsbcglobai.net 714 -998 -0721 slfredgcruz@?sboglobal.net Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Adolph "Bud" Sepulveda, Chairperson P.O. Box 25828 Juaneno Santa Ana I CA 92799 bssepul @yahoo.net 714- 838 -3270 71.4- 914 -1812 - CELL bsepul@yahoo.net Sonia Johnston, Tribal Vice Chairperson Juaneno Band of Mission Indians P.O. Box 25628 Juaneno Santa Ana , CA 92799 sonia. johnston @ sbog iobal.net (71.4) 323 -8312 Distribution of this Net door not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined In SactioP 70SMS of the Health and safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources: for the propose. SCH#2008051082; CEOA Notice of Completion; proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for AERIE (PA2005.195); Demoirdon and Construction of Apartment Complex; City of Newport Beach; Orange County, California. Native American Contacts Orange County June 3, 2008 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Anita Espinoza 1740 Concerto Drive Juaneno Anaheim , CA 92807 (714) 779 -8832 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Joe Ocampo, Chairperson 1108,E. 4th Street Juaneno Santa Ana , CA 92701 (714) 547 -9676 (714) 623 -0709 -Cell This list Is current only as of the date of thia documant. Distribution of this list does not relieve arty person of stau" responsiblily as donned in section 705.6 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Coda and Section 597.98 of the publtc Resources Code, This Hat le only applicable for canladtlng local Native Amet1cans with regard to cultural resources for the propose ICHp2008651082; CEQA Notice of Completion; proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for AERIE (PA2005 -196); Dalllolitlon and Corvstrucflon of Aparhnent Comple; ,, City of Newport beach; orange County, California .Tune 8, 2008 Planning Department 3300 Newport Bolevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 Attention: Chairman Robert Hawkins Planning Commissioners Re: Application for Aerie Condominiums WV..d PLMNINe pkp,9R77U eW if$ It has come to our attention that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach is once again reviewing the proposed Aerie Development on June 19"' Unfortunately we will be out of town at that time and unable to attend but would like to have our comments on record regarding this proposed project. From the beginning it seems that the majority of the City Planning Commissioners have embraced the proposed project despite the fact that it is violation of your own General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan and Policies of the City of Newport Beach. The City has spent years, a great deal of time and effort and a lot of money putting J together a General Plan with policies that state over and over that developers must i°design and site new development to minimize alteration to significant natural landforms, including bluffs, they must be visually compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible; must employ site design and construction techniques to minimize alteration of coastal bluffs to the maximum extent feasible and most importantly site new development on the flattest area of the site, except when an alternative location is more protective of coastal resources. The proposed Aerie development has failed in each of these categories and numerous others which you are certainly all aware of. This project and the proposed marina development included in this application will have a tremendous negative impact not only on the existing protected Coastal. Bluff but also on the harbor, its natural resources and the environment. It is our request that the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission deny this application as is or 2 at least not proceed any farther until a complete Environmental Impact Report is prepared for this project and the proposed marina. How this proposed project could have gotten this far so many times without and EIR is beyond comprehension. Recently another application was before the City for a single family residence on a Bluff abutting Begonia Park and it was suggested by one of the commissioners that an EIR would mostly like be in order— that fora single family residence and nothing for a 63,000+ square foot - 8 unit solid structure which would completely remove an entire Coastal Bluff. The inclusion of the proposed marina with this application also demands a EIR. The plans indicate a docking system approximately 7 times larger at 3,500 feet than the existing dock at 500 feet. Please do not fail to follow the Policies and Guidelines established by the City of Newport Beach for ALL Coastal Building, require a complete EK and do not make such a massive exceptions for one individual if you are not prepared to make the same exceptions for all applicants and in that case why have the General Plan and the CLI7P . Sincerely, John and Kathleen McIntosh cc: Newport Beach City Council California Coastal Commission 2. John and Kathleen McIntosh (June 8, 2008) Response to Comment No. 1 Section IX (Land Use) of the initial study includes an extensive assessment of the project's consistency with the applicable General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies. As indicated in that analysis, the applicant has redesigned the project to comply with the Predominant Line of Development as determined by the City Council, which is elevation 50.7 feet NAVD 88. Although minor excavation below the 50.7 NAVD 88 elevation is required to accommodate the lower levels of the proposed structure, the grading will occur behind the bluff face and will not be visible from any existing viewshed. The project respects the existing views from public vantages and results in the expansion of the existing view from Carnation Avenue/Ocean Boulevard and includes the recordation of a view easement to ensure that the view enhancement is achieved and is protected in the future. The project complies with all of the building development standards prescribed in the zoning code with the approval of the requested Modification Permit and is consistent with other policies related to site development as determined by the City. Response to Comment No. 2 Pursuant to Section 15070(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, an MND may be prepared when the initial study finds that: (1) revisions (i.e., mitigation measures) agreed to by the applicant that avoid or reduce potentially significant will be incorporated into the project design, and (2) there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that the revised (i.e., mitigated) project would result in significant impacts on the environment. The comprehensive analysis presented in the initial study supports the conclusion that potential impacts identified in the initial study can be avoided or reduced to a less than significant level with the incorporation of mitigation measures and, further, the applicant has agreed to implement each measure as prescribed by the State CEQA Guidelines. As a result, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the proposed project. The proposed MND, along with all comments received will be submitted to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for consideration prior to those decision - making bodies taking an action on the project. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments July 2008 Page 3 /9 /2� -0 3 To: James Campbell Planning Department City of Newport Beach 16 June 2008 From: Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC) Subject: Aerie MND (PA2005 -146) dated 16 May 2008 EQAC has reviewed the subject Aerie MND and is pleased to submit the following observations/comments in hopes that they will help in assuring that the project complies fully with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and other environmental regulations that govern the project. Comments are referenced to the relevant sections and pages in the subject document in the order in which they appear. Introduction/Program Description On page 3 the document notes that the project will encroach into the front and side setbacks and proceeds, on page 64, to minimize the impact by stating that some are underground and that the above ground encroachment is not significant because it provides 5 -75 ft. of separation at the street level. Neither of these explanations justifies granting of approval for setback deviations. Some view interference results from the above ground encroachment and both encroachments imply the potential for future encroachment associated with any maintenance or repair requirements. There is no need to allow encroachments like this when minor architectural design modifications can eliminate them. The garage and parking area numbers on pp. 3 -4 do not make sense. The total project parking area is listed at 13,028 sq. ft. in Table 1. Allowing a generous 200 sq. ft per parking slot, this would allow for approximately 65 parking spaces for the project. However, the text on page 4 anticipates only 2 spaces for most units (3 maximum) plus 13 guest spots plus 1 service spot and 2 golf carts (total 32 to 40 maximum). Are the stated space allocations correct? I. Aesthetics If code allows for subterranean construction, the applicant should be allowed to build. It appears all code requirements are being met and aesthetically the project appears to improve the visual quality of the area from what is currently there. That being said, the report does not discuss the light and glare issue and the effect on the surrounding residences and at a distance. The structure appears to be glass facade, which may or may not reflect light during the day. The structure may emit substantial light in the evening both from the interior structure and the exterior lighted decks on all levels and the dock areas. Please describe and discuss the mitigation for this issue. OPages 4 & 5: The MND shows the new dock is to house 6 boats within the Pierhead line & 2 larger boats outside of the Pierhead line. Is it permissible to dock boats outside the Pier headline? Will this require Coastal Commission approval? Page 28: Scenic Vistas from Begonia would be improved by trimming of trees and bushes in line of view from Park to building site. The trees appear to block views more than proposed outline of design. HI. Air Quality It is worth noting that the project, when compared to the prior proposal, will actually reduce the number of dwelling units and, therefore, reduce some source emissions upon completion. However, due to the fact that the project is much larger than the existing structures, there will likely be an increase in overall emissions due to increased energy consumption. V. Cultural Resources Item c), page 45 states that the condominium construction project will occur well above the cove and will result in no alteration of the rocks or the cove. No consideration is given for the heavy equipment that will be used at the rock/cove level to sink the pilings and build the pier and docks. What provisions are included to preclude rock/cove damage due to these operations? VI. Geology & Soils With such an extensive excavation activity, the potential exists for excavation debris to migrate into the beach/cove area and ultimately into Newport Bay. What mitigation is included to prevent this potential contamination? VII. Hazards & Hazardous Materials ®Please summarize the process of sampling, removal and disposal of asbestos containing materials and lead based paint? Please identify the governing regulations and appropriate regulatory agencies involved. What are the plans for disposing and complete removal of all ACM and LBP materials from the site since there is some potential for seepage or run off into Newport Harbor in the event of prolonged rain or just long -term exposure to moisture and leaching into the area. These materials would be harmful if they entered the harbor in any significant concentration and must be eliminated by through rapid removal from the site once demolition takes place. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Item a), page 59: As the impervious surfaces will increase 11 %, can any of these spaces �{ use pervious materials to help reduce runoff? Item e), page 61: The current catch basin will be upsized by the developer. Who will maintain the filters and cover the extra costs of this larger catch basin (see MMVIII -1)? 0 In line 11, "disposal" should be eliminated. (Typo ?) Item i), page 61: The project's building is far enough above the mean tide -mark. However the new docks are not. How will the docks be constructed to better withstand ocean storm conditions that affect this part of the bay? Since not all tenants will have a yacht (40 -60 ft.), these slips will likely be available for Slease. Plus these yachts will undoubtedly have guests. Where will these owners and yacht guests park? IX. Land Use & Planning Policy 2.7 -1, page 64: A diagram would be helpful to show the encroachments, and how they will or will not impact the character of the area. Policy 2.9.3 -1, page 61: A diagram would be helpful for the parking. Where are the parking spaces located and how are they allocated for residents and visitors? Policy 3.1.1 -27, page 65: Please present an analysis of the projected impacts of the new dock and how the CLUP would apply to it. The report potentially understates the potential impact to scenic vistas and land use, given that: 1) The 20 -foot gangway will be replaced by a 60 -foot gangway. 2) The impact (visual and land use) of Concrete Wave Attenuator is not discussed. The existing docks provide for a view of the natural bluff face (see page 26). Based on the Dock Replacement Plan on page 5, the Concrete Attenuator could potentially have a similar visual and physical impact as a seawall, altering the view of a natural system from the bay for passers -by in boats. These items should be analyzed and modeled in more detail. It seems that the proposed docks might encroach within the navigational channel thereby creating a potential safety issue. The document should include an expanded site plan related to the proposed docks that shows the opposite side of the entrance channel. apPolicies 4.1.3 -1, page 69: The landscape plan indicates the use of "drought tolerant mix native to coastal California" The priority is for the plants to represent the Coastal Sage Scrub native habitat that is found on coastal bluffs, and establish them in the appropriate ecologically sensitive manner. The fact that they are drought tolerant is a secondary item. If this were a tropical area, JDyou would require them to establish them in the appropriate manner for that plant community. This is a fine distinction, but the point is, that the habitat should be the primary driver for the types of plants, with water requirements secondary. What are the governing requirements that dictate the type plantings allowable on Coastal Bluffs? XV. Transportation/Traffic The streets in the project area are narrow and if all parking spaces are occupied, large vehicles will have difficulty negotiating around the area. This would be a minor problem after construction is completed but it could be a major problem during construction. The Z proponent should submit a traffic analysis by some appropriate expert indicating that the types of vehicles that will be coming to the site during construction will be able to negotiate all the streets in the area, even assuming that all public street parking is occupied at the time of the visit of that vehicle. The residents in Cameo Shores and Cameo Highlands should be given notice of the traffic plan as it states that trucks will be staged on Pacific Coast Highway south of Cameo ©Highlands. The document does not tell us what the traffic route for the trucks to the site will be for these 2300 cement trucks and dump trucks that will be traveling local streets for up to 7 -1/2 months (page 80, table 16 and page 82 (Construction Staging Plan, item 3) that states: "Via the approved haul route "). The project has now grown to include building boat docks, but the proponent now indicates that the number of dump trucks needed has gone from 2700 to 1800 and from six weeks to four weeks. The 75 concrete trucks will still be needed but only for two weeks instead of ®three weeks. The 500 trucks to do all the caissons and concrete work have now gone from 12 months to 6 months. (See EQAC report of 5/8/07 at page 3 and compare with current MND - Table 16 at page 80.) The public should know and the decision - makers should inquire of the project proponent how it was able to achieve such lower trucks and tines to build this project. The MND states on page 81 that: "Project related traffic would have a negligible affect on traffic conditions ". It should be made clear so that the decision - makers and the public dont believe this is referring to the construction period. This project doesn't need an EIR for traffic/transportation. It needs a Construction ©Management Plan that will be strictly enforced to make this project one that will be constructed in a manner to make it livable in the area for other residents. This means open streets and adequate parking for the guests of residents and vehicles of service providers to existing residents. One viable approach is to limit all construction activities of any type to the five -day workweek of Monday through Friday. This means the weekends will give some respite to 27 the nearby residents from the noise that this project will necessarily cause by the demolition and then building activity and the increased large truck traffic that is associated with such a major construction project. A Construction Management Plan should consider offering limited hours of work, as indicated above, as well as limitations on certain types of work that will involve large amounts of truck traffic in the area during the peak summer months or at least during the weekends in the beach summer months. The Construction Management Plan should also set forth specifics with regard to construction workers vehicles, and the parking of those construction workers vehicles, and assure the availability of an off -site parking lot and for ferrying the construction workers from that off -site parking lot to the scene (page 84 - construction staging). Off -site parking facilities for such construction workers has generally been considered to be "not feasible" because so many of the construction trade workers arrive at work in their pickup trucks which have, and carry, many of the items that they need to work on their particular specialty in construction. Therefore, having them park their trucks at some off -site area and ferry them to the site may not be practical. However, all details of how this would be enforced should be discussed in the MND so the decision - makers and the public can comment on them. It does appear from a review of the entire MND that traffic and parking issues in this congested area will not be made worse once the project is completed and occupied. The only .problem for traffic/parking is going to be a major one for whatever time it takes to construct the project. XVI. Utilities and Service Systems Item b, page 84: Electric power demand is not adequately analyzed. The proposed garage vehicle elevators probably will demand an abundance of electric power, especially in peak usage times (AM & PM for worker egress and ingress). Have the planners & developers of the project anticipated these demands? Does their proposed system incorporate a surge protection system? EQAC appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on this document. All,/ 3. Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC) (June 16, 2008) Response to Comment No. 1 The analysis provided a "reasonable' justification to address the minor encroachment into the front and side yard setbacks. This comment disagrees with the rationale presented in the environmental analysis and is acknowledged. The Newport Beach City Council established identified the predominant line of development, which restricted the developable area to 21 percent of lot, resulting in 79 percent open space. Response to Comment No. 2 The allocations for parking presented on pp. 3-4 of the environmental analysis are correct. The proposed project includes two parking spaces for each unit (as prescribed by the City's parking code), with a total of eight (8) guest parking spaces, one (1) space for service vehicles, and two (2) golf cart parking spaces. Parking is provided on the sub - basement through Level 2. Level 2 is approximately four (4) feet below the grade of Camation Avenue and it will house residential units, one (1) two -car garage and five (5) guest spaces, as well as bicycle and motorcycle parking accommodations. The enclosed parking garage square footage includes (2) vehicular elevators, handicap loading area, pedestrian exit paths, and enclosed vehicular circulation including backup space, turnaround, and hammerhead area as required by the City's Public Works design standard. Response to Comment No. 3 Lighting and glare issue were addressed in the MND under Section I, Aesthetic d) on page 30 and 34. Proposed exterior materials would consist of non - reflective materials, including a titanium roof and photo- voltaic array with a matte finish, stucco - covered walls, and stone accents with rough texture. Glazing is to be tinted and most windows will have overhangs that will cast shadows over the glazing. No significant glare impacts from building finish materials are expected. Lighting associated with the landing and boat dock would be similar to that which currently exists in this area; therefore, no additional lighting and /or glare impacts associated with the waterside development would occur. As a result, no mitigation measures are required. Response to Comment No. 4 It is permissible and it is currently standard City practice to allow boats to be berthed outside of the pierhead line. That existing practice allows boats to extend by an amount of the boat's beam (i.e., width) beyond the pierhead line. In some cases, this can be up to 20 to 25 feet. The proposed project reflects current City standards and criteria. This aspect of the project will not require Coastal Commission approval since navigation is a local issue. However, because the proposed project, including the dock facility, is located within the limits of the Coastal Zone, it is subject to Coastal Commission review and approval. Response to Comment No. 5 This comment, which indicates that scenic views from Begonia Park would be improved as a result of tree trimming, is acknowledged; no response is necessary. In addition, project implementation will also result in enhanced views from Carnation Avenue /Ocean Avenue, where the view angle will be expanded from 25 degrees to 44 degrees. Aerie (PA 20055-196) Responses to Public Comments July 2008 Page 4 A I S L/ Response to Comment No. 6 Project implementation includes the redevelopment of the existing property with eight single - family attached residential dwelling units, which will replace the 15 residential dwelling units that currently occupy the site. The analysis contained in the MND did not reflect the 'reduction" in pollutant emissions because the existing dwelling units are not fully occupied. However, as suggested in this comment, the proposed project would generate less stationary and mobile- source pollutant emissions than the 15 residential dwelling units that currently occupy the site, if fully occupied. Response to Comment No. 7 The heavy equipment used to replace the piles for the proposed replacement dock facilities will operate from the water and will not impact the existing rock outcroppings. The long pier will be repaired /replaced in -kind and does not require the use of heavy equipment in the cove. As a result, no damage to the rocks /cove is anticipated as a result of these construction activities. Response to Comment No. 8 As required by the City, the applicant shall submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. The ESCP must demonstrate compliance with local and state water quality regulations for grading and construction activities in order to be approved by the City Building Official. The ESCP shall identify how all construction materials, wastes, grading or demolition debris, and stockpiles of soils, aggregates, soil amendments, etc. shall be properly covered, stored, and secured to prevent transport into .local drainage systems or coastal waters by wind, rain, tracking, tidal erosion, or dispersion. The ESCP shall also include and require the use of soil stabilization measures for all disturbed areas. In addition, the applicant is required to submit a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Water Quality Management Plan, which identifies the Best Management Practices that will be used on site to control predictable pollution runoff, eliminate and /or minimize stormwater pollution prior to, and during construction. Response to Comment No. 9 The asbestos inspection was performed in accordance with protocols set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA), the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), the U.S. Department of Health, and California Department of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal /OSHA). The lead based paint survey was performed in general conformance with the 1995 Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Guidelines for evaluation and control of lead based paint hazards in housing (1997 revised chapter ;7 of the HUD guidelines) using a RMD LPA -1 X -Ray Fluorescence (XRF) spectrum analyzer. The survey was performed for the purpose of identifying any ACM and /or LBP present at subject properties that may be impacted by planned renovation /demolition activities. The ACM survey was conducted in accordance with EPA AHERA, NESHAP, and Cal /OSHA protocols. The ACM were observed to be in good condition and do not pose a health and safety concern to occupants of the subject property in their current state. Any repairs, renovations, removal or demolition activities that will impact the ACM or inaccessible ACM must be performed by a licensed asbestos contractor. In addition, the LBP survey was conducted in accordance with the 1995 HUD Guidelines for evaluation and control of lead based paint hazards in housing. Multiple interior and exterior building components were identified to contain lead based.paint with lead concentrations greater than or equal to 1.0 mg /cm2, which is the current regulatory threshold for the identification of LBP as assessed using the XRF instrument. A contractor performing paint removal work must follow the OSHA lead standard for the construction industry. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments July 2008 Page 5 Response to Comment No. 10 Demolition of structures that contain ACM and /or LBP are required to follow requirements prescribed by both federal and State agencies, including the U.S. EPA, CaVOSHA, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, and Orange County Health Care Agency. ACM and LBP removal prior to demolition will be required and will be properly disposed at a certified disposal location. BMPs and appropriate preventive measures are included in the WQMP and SWPPP, which prohibit direct discharges into the harbor. As indicated above, removal and disposal of ACM and LBP will comply with prescribed regulatory requirements to ensure that no significant release either into the air or water occurs. Response to Comment No. 11 The proposed project will not result in a substantial change in land use and the composition of storm water runoff will be virtually the same as the runoff that occurs at the present time with the existing residential development. Notwithstanding the 11 percent increase in impervious surfaces on the project site, the proposed drainage system is expected to reduce the pollutant load entering site runoff, compared to existing conditions where the sheet runoff occurs as sheet flow and enters the bay directly and unfiltered runoff, which enters a storm drain catch basin just south of the site at Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Implementation of the approved WQMP and SWPPP will ensure that runoff resulting from the proposed project does not violate any water quality standards either during construction or over the long- term operating life of the residential development. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no additional mitigation measures are required. Response to Comment No. 12 There are no filters or inserts proposed for the new catch basin. The water quality facilities for the project are proposed on private property near the driveway and will be privately maintained by the Homeowners Association. The on -site water quality treatment facility consists of an underground treatment train composed of a StormFilter (CASQA MP-40) unit and an Abtech Smart Sponge Plus insert to treat first flush runoff for pollutants of concern, including sediments, metals, bacteria, organic compounds, nutrients and oil, and grease. The cost of reconstructing, and upsizing, the catch basin would be borne by the applicant; however, that facility would be maintained by the City of Newport Beach, as it is currently, because it is located in the public right -of -way and it collects surface runoff from the public streets in the neighborhood. It should be noted, as indicated in the environmental analysis, that the storm runoff from the project will be intercepted by drainage facilities and does not drain onto the street or the curb opening of the catch basin. The reconstruction of the catch basin is intended to correct an existing deficiency to which the proposed project does not contribute. Response to Comment No. 13 As suggested in this comment, the word "disposal" in the last sentence (i.e., line 11) of Section Vlll.f., should be eliminated. The sentence should read, "Therefore, mitigation measures shall be incorporated during the construction phase of the dock in order to prevent the spread of any turbidity plume out of the area, including the installation of a silt curtain around the dock and pile sleeves, elimination of trash and debris, and the removal of construction debris on the bay floor. With the implementation of these measures, potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level." Response to Comment No. 14 Although the proposed dock facility may not survive a tsunami wave over 2 -feet, it will be designed to withstand significant wave height up to approximately two feet. Under extreme events, the City's Harbor Resources Department allows boaters in this area to temporarily moor their craft on open moorings in the Aerie (PA 2005198) Responses to Public Comments July 2008 Page 6 main channel. Information on this service, which has been offered by the City for many years, is available through the Harbor Resources Department. Based on information presented in the Geotechnical report prepared for the proposed project (Neblett and Associates, August 2005), five tsunamis have occurred in California in the past 35 years; however, only two of the five events resulted in increased wave heights (0.9 feet and 1.8 feet) in Newport Bay. Response to Comment No. 15 Since the slips provided in the proposed replacement dock can only be used by homeowners of the residences, use of the docks by guests of the individual homeowners would be no different than that required for normal residential operations (i.e., dinner parties, birthdays, or other private events). Site parking requirements for guests have been incorporated into the project design to comply with current City parking code requirements. Eight (8) guest parking spaces are provided on -site, in addition to on- street parking that is available on Ocean Avenue and Carnation Avenue to accommodate the public. Response to Comment No. 16 Please refer to Architectural Plans sheets T -1, A -1, A -2, and A4 to A -9 for identification of encroachments. Response to Comment No. 17 Please refer to Architectural Plans sheets A4 to A -7 for identification of automobile parking spaces. Response to Comment No. 18 The Dock Replacement Plan on page 5 of the proposed MND illustrates the location and size of each of the slips in the dock facility. As indicated in that exhibit, the eight proposed slips include three that are 40 feet in length, one 45 -feet long slip, two slips that are 50 feet long, and two 60 -feet long slips. As indicated in the project description, the replacement dock will be located in the same general location as the existing facility and are intended to accommodate boats owned by each of the eight owners of the proposed dwelling units. The proposed replacement dock is consistent with the City's Coastal Land Use Plan. Implementation of the dock facilities will not adversely affect public access because public access to the ocean is available at several locations to the north and south. Topographic and /or geologic conditions are conducive to construction of the replacement dock without significant impacts and no significant impacts to natural resources, in particular sensitive aquatic plant and animal species is anticipated as a result of project implementation; appropriate measures will be incorporated into the proposed project to ensure that potentially significant effect are avoided or reduced to a "less than significant level. Views to the coastal bluffs would be virtually the same as the views from the harbor to the bluffs that exist at the present time because the proposed facilities are proposed to be approximately 18 inches above the water surface. As indicated in the analysis on page 67 of the MND, the applicant is also proposing an emergency communication device and wet standpipe to the docks for enhanced fire protection. The slips will be available for use only by the owners of the proposed dwelling units and will be maintained by the individual property owners /homeowner association. Response to Comment No. 19 Please refer to the attached exhibit for location of docks in Newport Bay channel. Although it is possible that the two slips located along the outboard side of the dock may encroach into the navigable channel, such encroachment is permissible and is the City's standard practice to allow boats to be berthed outside the pierhead line. For berths either perpendicular or parallel to a channel, vessels can extend beyond the limits of the slip by as much as the beam of the boat (City of Newport Beach Waterfront Project Guidelines and Standards, Harbor Design Criteria, Commercial and Residential Facilities — 2008 Edition). Aerie (PA 2006796) Responses to Public Comments July 2008 Page 7 4,137 Response to Comment No. 20 The new gangway is proposed to be 44 feet, and not 60 feet as reflected in the project description on page 5 of the MND. Although the proposed gangway is more than twice as long as the existing feature, a gangway of this length will not be visually obtrusive because it has been designed as an open -web truss type of structure, which allows open space through the structure for visibility. Relative to views of the dock from the water, a distinction should be made between potential visual obstructions from the attenuator, docks and boats. The floating attenuator will look no different than a floating dock. This attenuator will have a freeboard (i.e., the distance from the top of the attenuator to the water line) of approximately 18 inches and will not shield or obstruct the view of natural topography of the site no more than any normal floating dock. The tidal extremes range from approximately -2.5 MLLW (mean lower low water) to a high of approximately +7.5 MLLW. The docks and boats will move vertically with the tidal levels. At high tides, the topography is shielded from view more than at low tides. Response to Comment No. 21 This comment, which clarifies the nature of "drought tolerant' species, is acknowledged. The proposed landscape concept plan will comply with the requirements prescribed by the City and will provide appropriate CSS and other appropriate native species. Response to Comment No. 22 Potential adverse traffic impacts occurring during the construction phases are anticipated to be less than significant for the proposed project. All construction activities will occur on -site; no long -term road closures are anticipated during construction; any short- duration, temporary road closures such as street utility connections, will be addressed in the construction staging, parking and traffic control plan, which must be approved by the Public Works Department. Issues related to street width and difficulties in navigating construction vehicles will also be addressed in the construction staging, parking and traffic control plan. Response to Comment No. 23 To date, a haul route has not been identified. However, as prescribed in MM XV -1, the construction staging, parking and traffic control plan will identify the haul route during each phase of construction. This plan is subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. Each plan must address issues such as narrow streets, congestion, parking and related issues. In addition to the issues that must be considered in preparing the construction staging, parking and traffic control plan, no dirt hauling operations will be permitted during the summer peak hour periods. Response to Comment No. 24 Since the initial submittal of the project in 2005, the project has undergone numerous changes, including the elimination of one level and reductions in square footage and building mass, which reduced the amount of grading and resulting earthwork quantities from 32,400 cubic yards to 25,240 cubic yards of earth material. As a result, the number of dump trucks and concrete trucks required will be less than previously anticipated. Response to Comment No. 25 As indicated in this comment, project- related (i.e., post- development) traffic resulting from the eight proposed single - family attached residential dwelling units will not be significant. Potential construction traffic impacts are addressed in Section XV.a., and will be potentially significant, necessitating the implementation of MM XV -1 (i.e., the submittal of a construction staging, parking and traffic plan to the Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments July 2008 Page 8 A IS? City). No mitigation measures are required for the long -term, project - related traffic, which also represents a decrease in future traffic levels (similar top the decrease described for air quality in Response to Comment No. 6) when compared to the traffic that would be generated by 15 residential dwelling units if fully occupied. Response to Comment No. 26 As indicated in MM XV -1, the construction staging, parking and traffic control plan must be submitted to the Public Works Department for approval prior to commencement of each major phase of construction. That plan must address issues pertaining to potential traffic conflicts during peak traffic periods, potential displacement of on- street parking, and safety. Response to Comment No. 27 All construction activities in Newport Beach are regulated by the Newport Beach Zoning Ordinance chapter 10.28.040 Construction Activity — Noise Regulations. In addition, noise generating construction activities are restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and on Saturday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Response to Comment No. 28 As indicated in Response to Comment No. 25 and MM XV -1, dirt hauling activities will be prohibited during the summer peak hour periods to reduce potential congestion on local streets. Although this comment suggests that remote (i.e., off -site) parking for construction workers' vehicles has been considered to be "not feasible" in the past, the construction staging, parking and traffic control plan will stipulate the locations of such parking areas, avoidance of congested locations, and related issues to ensure that construction - related traffic impacts are minimized. MM XV -1, and all other mitigation measures, will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which stipulates how, when, and who will be responsible for implementing each measures and the monitoring associated with the measure to ensure that it is properly implemented. Response to Comment No. 29 This comment acknowledges that although long -term project - related traffic impacts will not be significant, construction activities would result in potential congestion in the residential neighborhood. As indicated previously, however, the construction staging, parking and traffic control plan would address the neighborhood conditions and must be approved by the Public Works Department prior to initiation of construction. Response to Comment No. 30 The project will require an upgrade of electrical service and transformer, which will be coordinated with Southern California Edison Aerie (PA 2006 -196) Responses to Public Comments July 2008 Page 9 SANDRA GENIS, PLANNING RESOURCES Iq 1586 MYRTLEWOOD COSTA MESA, CA. 92626 PHONE/FAX (714) 754 -0814 June 17, 2008 James Campbell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92685 -8915 Subject: MND for Aerie Dear Mr. Campbell, Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Aerie project (PA2005 -196) located at 201 -207 Carnation Avenue in the City of Newport Beach. These comments are submitted on behalf of Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) and myself. It is noted that not all documents incorporated by reference into the MND were readily available at City Hall, though it is appreciated that some missing documents were provided electronically. The proposed project will entail the construction of an eight unit condominium development on a site currently occupied by an existing fourteen unit apartment building and single family residence. The existing boat docks will be replaced and expanded. Approximately 25,240 cubic yards of earth material will be removed from the site. Adoption of a Negative Declaration is inappropriate inasmuch as the clear potential for Osignificant adverse impacts on the environment exists. These include but are not limited to impacts on aesthetics, biological resources, land use, noise, and traffic. Aesthetics Views of the site will sustain significant adverse impacts due to implementation of the proposed project. The most significant impacts will be views of the northerly portion of the site and of the waterfront as seen from the public waterway constituted by Newport Bay and points beyond. Specifically, structures will extend significantly further down the bluff at the northerly portion of the property, altering the existing view of a structure nestled in vegetation (p. 26) to that of a very large, visually intrusive, if not arresting, structure extending down the bluff with only small areas of vegetation to soften the sense of mass (IS p. 31). As noted on page 29 of the IS, "the proposed building will cover more of the bluff face ". The existing view of a small dock adjacent to rock outcroppings and a natural cove will be replaced by a view of docks and large vessels extending across the bulk of the site. The public will lose one of the last vestiges of natural appearing waterfront in the area as it becomes blocked Page 1 of 5 by piers and boats. Not only would the number of vessels double, but larger vessels, up to sixty feet in length would be accommodated. Views from Begonia Park will also be affected. As noted on Page 22 of the Initial Study (IS), the proposed building envelope would encroach significantly into the left edge of a public view of and over the end of the Balboa Peninsula. This is dismissed because it is not a "predominant feature ". However, the photographs of Begonia Park utilized in the IS is taken from a point so far into the northerly portion of the park that the only predominant features are landscaping in the park itself. Clearly, as seen from a location closer to Pacific Drive, the project site would be more prominent and views would be significantly altered. The IS (p.34) maintains that outdoor lighting would not create glare, but identifies no specific measures that would eliminate this possibility. The IS (p. 34) also maintains that interior lighting would not produce any glare outside of the structures. To the contrary, the existing structure which includes small to moderately large windows on two levels, occupying less than half of the bayward face of the existing building will be replaced by what will essentially be a four story wall of glass. Thus the project could well result in a significant increase in light as seen from the Bay and points beyond. The IS contains no mitigation measures nor identifies any conditions of approval that would eliminate this impact. The IS indicates that window overhangs will reduce potential glare (p. 30). However, the greatest amount of glare from the project would be anticipated when the sun is low in the sky, l6J when overhangs would be least effective in reducing glare. Glare from the site, as seen from the Bay and points beyond would create a significant impact. The IS identifies no mitigation measures or conditions of approval to eliminate this potential impact. Biological Resources The proposed project has the potential to result in impacts on eelgrass habitat. Eelgrass was mapped in 2007. The eelgrass is located in the area south of the existing boat dock, in the more natural portion of the site. According to the 2008 CRM report (p.6), The estimated GPS mapping error is less than 1 meter, or 3.25 feet. The 2005 CRM report (p.8) recommended a minimum 15 to 20 foot buffer between the boat dock and eelgrass beds. However, the proposed project would result in placement of pilings within "a few feet" (IS p. 42) of the eelgrass, i.e. within the margin of mapping error. In addition, no buffer will be provided. On the contrary, the expanded docks will result in shadow on the eelgrass beds. Absent adequate buffers impacts on eelgrass beds could occur. Further, although mitigation measures address anchors and propellers from construction vessels, ® no mitigation measure addresses impacts on the eelgrass beds from vessels which will be docked on the site. Thus, it is likely that future impacts would occur from private vessels docked at or visiting the site. Page 2 of 5 As stated in the 2008 CRM report (p.9), sand dollar beds within Newport Bay are "unique and rare ". As mitigation for potential impacts, the IS suggests that construction activities "avoid" sand dollar beds (MM IV -8) but no actual restriction is imposed. Likewise, longterm protection is to be provided through education of residents (MM IV -9). Neither of these measures provide any assurance that sand dollar beds will actually be protected. Thus impacts on sand dollar beds are likely to occur. As noted in the IS (p. 38), "disturbance associated with grading and construction may adversely affect nesting species if construction occurs during the nesting season ". MM IV -10 requires a V preconstruction survey and unidentified restrictions which "may be required ". Absent L/ identification of specific restrictions, one cannot conclude that all impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Land Use As currently proposed, the project fails to adhere. to the Coastal Act and Newport Beach Local Coastal Program. This is significant and adverse. Section 30251 of the Coastal Act provides as follows: 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. The project will result in alteration of natural landforms and does nothing to restore or enhance C visually degraded areas. Rather, the project increases building massing and reduces open space on the site as seen from the Bay. The proposed structure would be massive and visually intrusive. Coastal Act Section 30252 requires new development to maintain and enhance public access. However, the proposed project will block off the shoreline with a greatly expanded dock area and larger vessels, thereby discouraging access to the existing, open cove to small boater or relatively strong swimmers. Coastal Act Sections 30230 and 30231 require preservation of marine resources. By its own admission, the proposed project will result in blockage of light to eelgrass. Sand dollar beds are i.� also potentially affected. The IS provides no assurances that marine resources will be preserved. On the contrary, the IS ignores the recommendation of the project's own biologist that a fifteen to twenty foot buffer be established around eelgrass beds. ® In accordance with Coastal Act Section 30253, new development is not to contribute to erosion or create circumstances that will alter landforms. The proposed project will not involve any Page 3 of 5 �( U shoreline protective device per se, but the expanded docks would result in a six percent "along channel blockage area ", which is concluded, absent analysis, to result in no significant impact (p.52). This could, however, contribute to a significant cumulative impact when combined with other past present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Noise Noise from construction equipment will likely result in impacts on nearby residents. The IS failed to examine impacts on residents along Carnation Avenue that are would bear the brunt of noise from concrete mixers (85 dBA at 50 feet), rock drills (98 dBA), generators (81 dBA at 50 S feet) and other construction equipment (74 to 98 dBA at 50 feet). The applicant proposes to utilize Carnation Avenue /Ocean Boulevard as a staging area (IS p.82), making it likely that construction equipment and construction trucks (fully loaded, 88dBA at fifty feet) will generate noise in this area. The 2005 geological investigations indicate that material on the site is not easily rippable and "requires special excavation equipment and procedures ". Use of a Caterpillar 245 and hoe -ram and rock chisels is suggested. Thus, excavation noise could be quite loud. As noted above rock l� drills can generate noise of 98 dBA at fifty feet. The adjacent residence on Carnation Avenue would be closer than fifty feet to the construction sits. These noise impacts on residents in this area will extend over several months. The IS claims that this is acceptable because the Municipal Code establishes no ceiling on construction noise. This .� is not logical. Would the IS also maintain that noise levels of 120 dBA resulting in physical pain and permanent hearing damage are also acceptable because the Municipal Code establishes no ceiling on construction noise? This is not reasonable. Mitigation measures to reduce noise are inadequate to assure that impacts on residents will not occur. The measures are to "minimize" (MM XI -2), though not eliminate, potential impacts. Traffic Impacts on traffic will clearly occur. The IS suggests that this will be minimized by a use of a yet- to -be- identified off -site parking area, use of yet -to -be identified haul routs and a yet- to -be- prepared traffic control plan (pp. 83 -84). Absent this information it is impossible to conclude © that no impacts will occur. The IS indicates that at times up to 100 truck trips and up to fifteen conrete mixers per day will visit the site. Carnation Avenue in this area is a narrow street with no outlet. It is not logical to conclude that residents on Carnation Avenue will sustain no impacts. On the contrary, it is likely that, at time, Carnation Avenue residents will be marooned in their homes. This is of particular concern should access by emergency vehicles be necessary. Page 4 of 5 Conclusion Based on the above, it cannot be assured that no significant adverse impacts will occur as a result 00 of the proposed project. On the contrary, it is likely that impacts can and will occur. Thus, the proposed MND should not be adopted. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please keep me informed as this project proceeds. Yours Truly, Sandra L. Genis Page 5 of 5 4. Sandra Genis (June 17, 2008) Response to Comment No. 1 Although potentially significant environmental impacts were identified, in each case, adequate mitigation measures have been prescribed, and agreed to by the project applicant, in the proposed MND. These mitigation measures, which are included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program that must be adopted by the City, avoid, reduce or eliminate the potentially significant impacts identified in the analysis. Response to Comment No. 2 The visual simulation presented in the proposed MND that illustrates views to the site from Begonia Park (refer to page 27) also identifies the location within the park from which the photograph was taken and the simulation constructed. That location was selected by City staff because it provides a representative view from the Park to the project site and harbor area. As indicated in this comment, the proposed structure will extend into the Begonia Park viewshed to a greater degree than the structures that exist on the subject property; however, that additional encroachment into the viewshed from that location does not materially adversely affect the coastal view from Begonia Park; no portion of the water as seen from the Begonia Park location (refer to the illustration on page 28 of the proposed MND) would be obscured by the proposed structure. However, the proposed structure has been redesigned to increase and enhance views from Carnation Avenue/Ocean Boulevard. The existing 25- degree view angle from that location would be expanded to 44 degrees (i.e., a 76 percent increase in view angle), which would have a positive visual impact. While it is true that the proposed structure will cover a greater percentage of the site and bluff, the project respects the Predominant Line of Existing Development established by the Newport Beach City Council. Response to Comment No. 3 The project site, including the location of the dock facility is not "natural appearing waterfront." The proposed dock facility is proposed to replace a small, albeit existing, dock facility in the cove, which as already altered the character of the cove. As indicated in the photographs on pages 27 through 27 of the proposed MND, most of the waterfront homes in the harbor are characterized by dock facilities, which has significantly altered the once natural appearing waterfront in the project environs. As a result, the character of the cove will not change significantly and views of the waterside development will reflect a similar aesthetic character as the surrounding development within Newport Harbor. Response to Comment No. 4 This comment misquotes the initial study by indicated that "the proposed building envelope would encroach significantly into the left edge of a public view ... ". It should be noted that the initial study concludes that the proposed building envelope would not obstruct public views of the bay because, as stated on page 22 of the proposed MND, "the proposed building envelope would encroach insignificantly into the left edge of a public view. . .". Refer to Response to Comment No. 2. Response to Comment No. 5 Lighting and glare issue were addressed in the MND under Section I, Aesthetic d) on page 30 and 34. Proposed exterior materials would consist of non - reflective materials, including a titanium roof and photo- voltaic array with a matte finish, stucco - covered walls, and stone accents with rough texture. Glazing is to be tinted and most windows will have overhangs that will cast shadows over the glazing. No significant glare impacts from building finish materials are expected. Lighting associated with the landing and boat dock would be similar to that which currently exists in this area; therefore, no additional lighting and /or glare impacts associated with the waterside development would occur. As a result, no mitigation measures required. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments July 2008 Page 10 A0 Response to Comment No. 6 Refer to Response to Comment No. 5. Response to Comment No. 7 As indicated in this comment, the 2005 Marine Biological Survey conducted by CRM identified a "recommended" 15- to 20 -foot buffer area between the boat dock and the existing eelgrass beds; however, that buffer is not a policy or requirement. The 2008 CRM report, which updated prior surveys prescribed several mitigation measures to address the potential impacts to eelgrass habitat associated with project implementation, including both short-term and long -term impacts. Those mitigation measures include a requirement for pre- and post - construction surveys and subsequent monitoring. As indicated in MM IV -2, f any eelgrass has been impacted in excess of that determined in the pre - construction survey, any additional impacted eelgrass will be mitigated at a ratio of 1.2:1 (mitigation to impact). These mitigation measures have been incorporated into the proposed project and will be implemented by the project applicant. Each measure has been included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program that must be adopted by they Newport Beach City Council if the project is approved. Response to Comment No, 8 Vessels that dock at the site will not employ the use of anchors or other features that extend to the sandy bottom and into the eelgrass beds. Potential impacts of shading that may occur from both the dock facility and the boats that would utilize the docks are discussed on page 42 of the proposed MND. The CRM study indicated that the area of eelgrass habitat that is actually affected by long -term shading will be determined during post - construction monitoring surveys conducted pursuant to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended). The location and amount of eelgrass to be transplanted shall be determined following the results of the two annual monitoring efforts (refer to Mitigation Measures). Response to Comment No. 9 MM IV -8 does not "suggest' that the construction activities avoid the sand dollar beds as indicated in this comment Rather, MM IV -8 states: "Construction activities associated with the elevated walkway leading to the gangway, and construction personnel shall (emphasis added) avoid impacts to rocky intertidal habitat and to eelgrass beds and sand dollar habitat within the Carnation Cove." As previously indicated, the City Council must adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the proposed project, which will ensure that each mitigation measure is implemented as prescribed in the proposed MIND and agreed to by the applicant as required by the State CEQA Guidelines. Response to Comment No. 10. Pre - construction surveys are prescribed by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and are typically imposed on development that may potentially affect nesting avian species. Although the MBTA stipulates restrictions, it is possible that the resources agencies (e.g., CDFG and/or USFWS) could also identify additional restrictions based on the findings in the pre- construction survey. Response to Comment No. 11 As reflected in the Aesthetics and Land Use analyses presented in Sections I and IX, respectively, of the proposed MND, the proposed project includes landscaping that proposes native species that complement Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments July 2008 Page i1 A /V� the bluff habitat. In addition, measures will also be incorporated into the project design to control or limit encroachments into natural habitats and wetlands, regulate landscaping or revegetation of blufftop areas to control erosion and invasive plant species, 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 residential component of the project does not encroach within sensitive habitat areas or wetlands and the landscaping plan indicates the bluff to be hydroseeded with a drought- tolerant mix native to coastal California with temporary irrigation to be used only to establish the vegetation. Response to Comment No. 12 As previously indicated, adequate, convenient public access to the bay is currently available at several locations in the vicinity of the subject property, including 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. Given the proximity of these nearby public access locations, the provision of additional public access through the subject property is neither required nor appropriate based on the parameters prescribed in the CLUP policies noted above, including but not limited to the topographic constraints (i.e., steep slopes and narrow passage), proximity of residential uses and potential loss of privacy, managements and maintenance requirements associated with the access, public safety, and the balance of property rights. Response to Comment No. 13 This comment suggests that the proposed MND does not provide assurance that marine resources will be preserved. However, the project applicant has agreed to implement each of the mitigation measures prescribed in eelgrass habitat survey prepared by CRIVI, including requirements for pre - construction surveys, monitoring, avoidance of sensitive areas, use of silt curtains during construction, etc. With the implementation of the mitigation measures, no potentially significant impacts would remain as reflected in the CRM report. Response to Comment No. 14 The proposed MND provides adequate support for the conclusion that no significant sand transport impacts could occur. As indicated on page 52, preceding that conclusions, the findings presented in the coastal engineering assessment prepared for the project revealed that sediment deposited along the east side of the entrance channel at Newport Harbor is due to the uniqueness of sequential sediment transport patters that are typically observed in the harbor entrance area. Coastal alongshore drifted sands are transported either through the east jetty or via the entrance channel during the winter months and moved further into the bay by southerly swells primarily occurring in the following summer season. Further, sand - quality sediment movement within the project region is typically in the along - channel direction from the harbor entrance to the inner bay. A stable bayshore condition is observed at the project site. Regular sedimentation observed at China Reef located in the updrift area is primarily due to the groin -like outcrop feature that entraps the along - channel transported sediment Therefore, the study concluded that " .. . the potential impact to this unique sediment movement process in the entrance channel is insignificant, although localized sand deposit resulting from the presence of the proposed guide piles within the sand - moving path may occur. In addition, the project is located in the downdrift direction of the neighboring China Reef, the projects potential impact on sedimentation at the updrift location such as China Reef is inconsequential. No significant impacts to sand transport resulting from project implement are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.' Response to Comment No. 15 The proposed MND provides a discussion of construction noise impacts on pages 74 and 75. As reflected in that discussion and analysis and suggested in this comment, adjacent and nearby residents would be Aerie (PA 2005196) Responses to Public Comments July 2008 Page 12 A lq7 subjected to high noise levels that would be intrusive; however, such construction noise is exempt from the City's Noise Control Ordinance. Nonetheless, measures have been identified to reduce the potential construction noise impacts, which include properly working mufflers, development of a construction schedule to minimize construction noise, and notification of residents. Response to Comment No. 16 Although this comment suggests that the geotechnical analysis concludes that the material on the site is not easily rippable and may require "special excavation equipment and procedures," it is important to note that the 2005 preliminary geotechnical report concluded on that, "(T)he majority of the bedrock at the site is considered rippable." Noise associated with the grading and site development as proposed will not employ equipment or measures that would result in noise impacts that would not be typical of similar development. For example, blasting, which could result in potentially higher noise levels than standard construction equipment, is not required to excavate the subject property. As indicated in on page 75 of the proposed MND), the maximum noise levels would occur while the machinery is in active use and would be noticeable intermittently throughout the construction workday. There are no regulatory standards governing noise levels of construction machinery and operations, so most jurisdictions, including the City of Newport Beach, restrict the days and hours of construction activities to weekdays and Saturdays, when people are generally more active and the nuisance - level of construction noise is considered more tolerable. The measures prescribed in the proposed MND are intended to reduce the construction noise levels and to ensure that nearby property owners are aware of the timing and duration of the construction activities. Response to Comment No. 17 Refer to Response to Comment No. 16 Response to Comment No. 18 As indicated in the analysis of noise impacts (refer to page 75 of the proposed MND), the homes adjacent to the subject property will be exposed to construction noise levels during the construction phases, though such noise will be confined to daytime hours of lesser noise sensitivity. However, noise associated with demolition and construction activities is exempt from restrictions, provided such work occurs during the days and hours specified in Chapter 10.28 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Nonetheless, as indicated in this comment, several measures have been prescribed to reduce the potential noise impacts associated with construction activities. Response to Comment No. 19 Project- related (i.e., post - development) traffic resulting from the eight proposed single - family attached residential dwelling units will not be significant. Potential construction traffic impacts are addressed in Section XV.a., and will be potentially significant, necessitating the implementation of MM XV -1 (i.e., the submittal of a construction staging, parking and traffic control plan to the City). As indicated in MM XV -1, the construction staging, parking and traffic control plan must be submitted to the Public Works Department for approval prior to commencement of each major phase of construction. That plan must address issues pertaining to potential traffic conflicts during peak traffic periods, potential displacement of on- street parking, and safety. The construction staging, parking and traffic control plan is a standard condition that is typically imposed on project that have the potential to generate large numbers of construction vehicle and heavy truck trips such as the proposed project. These plans are prepared prior to the issuance of the issuance of the grading permit to ensure that current conditions can be adequately addressed. No mitigation measures are required for the long -term, project- related traffic, which also represents a decrease in future traffic levels when compared to the traffic that would be generated by 15 residential dwelling units if fully occupied. Aerie (PA 2005196) Responses to Public Comments July 2008 Page 13 Response to Comment No. 20. As previously indicated in prior responses related to adequacy and in the analysis that supports the City's determination of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, all of the potentially adverse impacts identified for the proposed project can be avoided, reduced to a "less than significant level" or eliminated through the implementation of the mitigation measures prescribed in the environmental analysis. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared and must be adopted by the Newport Beach City Council. The MMRP identifies each mitigation measures, the timing of its implementation, the method of verification that it has been implemented, and the entity responsible for ensuring its implementation. Aerie (PA 2005196) Responses to Public Comments July 2008 Page 14 N /q7 June 17, 2008 Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Revised Aerie Project Members of the Planning Commission, Please accept this comment letter regarding the revised Aerie project proposed for 201- 207 Carnation Avenue, and 101 Bayside Place in Corona del Mar. We would also like to reference the many letters and presentations we have made to the Planning Commission since attending the first PC meeting on this project in February 2007. This would include our comments made at the February 22, 2007 meeting, our comments dated April 5, 2007 0i for the meeting that was postponed, and our letter and comments for the May 22 meeting dated May 17, 2007. Also our two letters to the City Council dated June 28 and August 3, 2007 sent to you on September 4, 2007. There is also our letter to Mr. Lepo dated September 28, 2007 regarding some of the points made by the Council. Lastly, our most recent letter requesting an EIR be done on the project, and why, dated February 12, 2008, along with our attorneys more in depth letter requesting a full and complete EIR dated February 21, 2008. We would like to mention that it makes it difficult to write comment letters when the comment period ends June 17, but the staff report is not available until sometime on June 16, thus leaving very little time to review the report and compose a letter. We and some others recently viewed the revised plans with the applicant, and after reviewing the MND and staff report, we again ask the Planning Commission to deny this project as it is still too massive at 63,800 square feet, and is still in violation of multiple GP and LCP policies. Denial of the project was recommendation (2) in the April 5, 2007 ® staff report. At the very least we request that a full and complete Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared, as the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is inadequate for a project with such extreme proposed excavation, grading and construction on an environmentally sensitive and legally protected coastal bluff. And with the addition to the project of the proposed marina, which includes the construction of a 155' wave attenuator, we have not seen substantial evidence in the record to support the conclusions that the marina will not have significant environmental impacts. D In short the revised project (63,800sq.ft.) is very similar to the original project (73,OOOsq.ft.) and goes beyond the policies in the LCP due to its size, density and massing, as well as in its destruction of the bluff. Cb l_% PA 0 4. The general plan policy states that new development should be within the size, scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood. This is not a reasonable structure and it is certainly not in scale with existing development. Among others, the project fails the following CLUP policies: 4.4.1 -2 Design and site new development to minimize alteration to public views. 4.4.1 -3 Site development to minimize alteration to significant landforms. 4.4.3 -12 Employ site design to minimize alteration of coastal bluffs to the maximum extent feasible. 4.4.3 -12 E. Design buildings to conform to the natural contour of the bluff. The project also fails Coastal Act policy 30251, regarding the preservation of the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone. The use of car elevators is inconvenient and is addressed in previous staff reports under policy 2.9.3 -1 of the CLUP, as well as in the Circulation Element Policy CE 71.1 since the proposed parking configuration is inconsistent with these policies. Also, the use of car elevators in a multi - family structure is unprecedented in the City of Newport Beach. The protruding decks and overhangs mentioned in the new staff report will potentially block the view from the Ocean Blvd. view corridor, as well as the view from the harbor if any bluff remains after the massive excavation. We live in a beach neighborhood that consists of predominantly single family homes. A 63,800sq.ft. six-story building is too much and should-never have been considered. We ask again that you deny this project. Joseph and Lisa Vallejo r !.�)/ S. Joseph and Lisa Vallejo (June 17, 2008) Response to Comment No. 1 This comment references prior letters from the commenters to the Newport Beach Planning Commission, City Council, and Planning Director. Each of the letters identified in this comment are included in the public record, which will, along with the current comments, considered by the decision - makers prior to taking an action on the proposed project. Response to Comment No. 2 Although the staff report for the proposed project was not available for review until Jun 16, the proposed MND and accompanying environmental analysis was made available to the public for a 30 -day period, which complies with the State CEQA Guidelines and current City of Newport Beach policy. This comment is acknowledged. No additional response is required. Response to Comment No. 3 Although potentially significant environmental impacts were identified, in each case, adequate mitigation measures have been prescribed, and agreed to by the project applicant, in the proposed MND. These mitigation measures, which are included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program that must be adopted by the City, avoid, reduce or eliminate the potentially significant impacts identified in the analysis. The impact analysis and mitigation measures also address the proposed replacement dock facility, including the wave attenuator. As indicated in the analysis, an engineering study (Coastal Engineering Assessment for the "Aerie" Dock Project) was prepared by Noble Consultants, Inc. (May 9, 2008) to evaluate the potential effects of high winds and sand transport associated with these facilities. Although that study concluded that the dock facility would be exposed to potentially high winds and /or wave action, mitigation measures have been identified and will be incorporated into the project design to ensure that the impacts are reduced a less than significant level. Therefore, based on the analysis and inclusion of adequate mitigation, the City determined that a "Mitigated Negative Declaration" is appropriate, consistent with Section 15070(b)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Response to Comment No. 4 This comment suggests that the proposed project is inconsistent with the size, density and massing, as well as its effect on the bluff with LCP policies. However, the analysis presented in the proposed MND provides an analysis of the project's conformance with the applicable existing land use and coastal policies adopted by the City. Response to Comment No. 5 The proposed project is consistent with the building height, massing and related development standards prescribed adopted zoning and is consistent with the land use designation and intensity of development permitted by the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. The Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council will determine whether the proposed structure is "reasonable" structure and "in scale" with the existing development. Response to Comment No. 6 As previously indicated, the analysis presented in the proposed MND includes an extensive analysis of the project's consistency with applicable General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUB) policies, including those identified in this comment. Specifically, the commenter is referred to pages 69 and 70 of the proposed MND, which provide a discussion of project consistency to CLUP policies 4.4.1 -2, 4.4.1 -3, and 4.4.3 -12. As indicated in that assessment: Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments July 2008 Page 15 fi 15Z "Policies 4.4.1 -1 and 4.4.1 -2, Policy 4.4.1 -3 and 4.4.3 -12 must be interpreted in the context of the policies that expressly permit development on the bluff face to the Predominant Line at this location. As previously indicated, the applicant has redesigned the project to comply with the Predominant Line as determined by the City Council, which is elevation 50.7 feet NAVD 88. Excavation below the 50.7 NAVD 88 elevation is required to accommodate the lower levels of the proposed structure. However, the grading will occur behind the bluff face and will not be visible from any existing viewshed. In addition, the project includes an emergency exit at elevation 40.5 feet NAVD 88, which is located below the predominant line of existing development and will be recessed into the bluff. In order to ensure compatibility with the natural landform and, therefore, avoid both damaging the scenic resource represented by the bluff and degrading the existing visual character and quality of the site, the emergency exit incorporates design features that blend the exit into the existing natural character of the bluff through the use of landscape and hardscape materials, including rocks. As a result, the emergency exit is consistent with the City's established policies regarding protection of the scenic and visual qualities of the bluff. Finally, the proposed condominium structure is situated on the flattest portion of the lot and the building design conforms to the natural contours of the site; therefore, grading of the bluff is the minimal amount needed to build the project to the Predominant Line and the project is consistent with this policy." As for the project's consistency with Coastal Act policy 30251, the proposed structure will extend into the Begonia Park viewshed to a greater degree than the structures that exist on the subject property, which does not materially adversely affect the coastal view from the Begonia Park location; no portion of the water as seen from the Begonia Park location (refer to the illustration on page 28 of the proposed MND) would be obscured by the proposed structure. However, the proposed structure has been redesigned to increase and enhance views from Carnation Avenue/Ocean Boulevard. The existing 25 degree view angle from that location would be expanded to 44 degrees (i.e., a 76 percent increase in view angle), which would have a positive visual impact. Response to Comment No. 7 The automobile elevators have been designed to avoid congestion and queuing along the street. As indicated in the analysis (refer to pages 82 and 83 of the proposed MND), the two on -site vehicle elevators will serve the private garages of seven of the units and overflow guest parking spaces that are located in the subterranean garage. Parking for the eighth unit and the required guest parking spaces are located at street level. The East (i.e., right side) elevator is designated for entrance and West (i.e., left side) elevator is designated for exiting. Access control panels are located adjacent to the elevator (on driver's side) on each floor; residents of the units will have a remote control similar to a garage door controller that can activate the elevator through a touch of a button. Lighting signals are located on top of the elevator opening on each floor that indicate the elevator position or if it is currently in use. The elevators will be programmed for "destination dispatch" so that the elevator is automatically recalled to the street level when it is not in use. Therefore, the driver can access the elevator immediately upon entering the site, thus minimizing the potential for creating a vehicle queue. Inside the elevator, another key pad is located on the driver's side of the wall; a lighting signal indicates the designation (i.e., floor) of the elevator. Once the elevator has reached its designated level, ample turnaround space is available for the car to maneuver into the private garages. The elevators will always be used by a car pulling into and out of it in a forward direction. Aerie (PA 2005-196) Responses to Public Comments July 2008 Page 16 A /5 Response to Comment No. 8 As indicated in Response to Comment No. 6, views from the Ocean Boulevard /Carnation Avenue vantage (refer to the illustration on page 70 of the proposed MND), visual access to the harbor and ocean would be expanded by approximately 75 percent (i.e., from a 25 degree angle of view to a 44 degree angle of view). Views from the Harbor to the project site would not be significantly impacted because the proposed project does not extend below the Predominant Line of Existing Development as established by the Newport Beach City Council. Response to Comment No. 9 The proposed project is located in an area of the City that permits a mix of single - family detached and attached residential dwelling units. Other multiple - family residential structures are also located on Carnation Avenue and in the project environs. At the present time, 14 multiple - family residential dwelling units and one single - family residence occupy the subject property. The subject property could accommodate up to 22 dwelling units based on the maximum density allowed by the General Plan for the site (i.e., 28 du /ac). The proposed project is consistent with land use designation and zoning adopted for the site. Aerie (PA 2005 - }95) Responses to Public Comments July 2008 Page 17 Campbell, James From: Varin, Ginger Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 7:20 AM To: Campbell, James; Lepo, David; Alford, Patrick; Barry Eaton; Bradley Hillgren; Earl McDaniel; Jeffrey Cole; Mike Toerge; Robert C. Hawkins; Scott Peotter Subject: FW: Aerie- please print for the PC and the Public ted, I am forwarding this to you for your consideration ..... yeah Celtics!!! Ginger Varin, A istrative Assistant Planning Department City of Newport Beach (949) 644 -3232 w (949) 644 -3229 f - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Harkless, LaVonne Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 7:19 AM To: 'dkrotee @krotee.com' Cc: Varin, Ginger Subject: Re: Aerie- please print for the PC and the Public I will forward to Ginger Varin. She is the contact person for planning c ission. To avoid delays please send all future correspondence to her when it pertains t e planning commission. Thanks. Sent from Blackberry - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: Don Krotee <dkrotee @krotee.com> To: Harkless, LaVonne Sent: Tue Jun 17 21:21:14 2008 Subject: Aerie- please print for the PC and the Public Planning Commission: The SPON Steering Committee has asked me to review and comment on the planning and the plans for the project. On this basis we received a set of the recent plans from the architect and the developer on which we base the following comments. For the SPON Steering Committee a unanimous vote was recorded in the June 6 meeting to write to the Planning Commission and Council to respectfully ask the project be denied and find that the Policies of the General Plan are not met. Toward this end we wish to state that the project is a greater mass with greater floor area than is welcome on this coastal hillside site. The new development of nearly four times the area of the original apartment is not a mass that can be made comfortable on this prominent hilltop in our City's sensitive view shed or for that matter in our States Coastal Area- no matter how it is wrapped architecturally. When the Council remarked that 'it was too much of a good thing' in an early meeting, the changes made recently don't embrace this most basic previous City Council criticism. The hill side or bluff protection policies of the LCP or the General Plan are not adhered to by such a dense building mass. Beyond that basic premise, the ethic of a project that require two car elevators to move the required parking within this massive hulk of a building shows a decadence of Marina del Rey not welcome in a largely single family Corona del Mar. This development has massive areas that seem to require support services on two floors below grade in a sensitive coastal hillside area. The mass of the structure and the motel like ring balconies cheapen the appearance of the project regardless of the amount of needless ornament strewn across the endless handrails. One if the most unappealing features is the outside stair /access in the side yard (themselves the subject of relief from the City's yard provisions as if more land is needed for this giant. These diagonal outside stairs give the project a Long Beach City fire escape appearance for the entire Harbor to view. The perception that anyone cares what folks from down below or visitors of our City will see in perpetuity is lost in an apparent grab for return on investment. These fire escape diagonal stairs are plainly in view in recent marketing drawings. The Planning Commission should merely read the policies of the LCP and our new General Plan that voters passed to secure the City's Visioning of our beach town and find that extravagance and excess is too much. Even shrouded in the old worn mantra of the protection of property rights the heap of every layer of this awful cake does not own up to the City's most crucial vision. Please deny. Don Krotee SPON Steering Committee Member 6. Don Krotee (June 18, 2008) Response to Comment No. 1 The comments presented in this email provide the decision - makers with the opinions of the SPON Steering Committee, which is requesting that the proposed project be denied because it is inconsistent with the policies of the General Plan and is not in keeping with the City's "vision" as articulated in the General Plan Update. These comments will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration prior to taking an action on the proposed project. Aerie (PA 2005996) Responses to Public Comments July 2006 Page 98 fi 53.7 June 13, 2008 Planning Department City of Newport Beach, CA Project: AERIE Concern: Negative impact: Air quality -1-�I RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT JUN 17 2088 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Has consideration has been given to pollution by heavy equipment diesel trucks carrying excavation or bringing concrete while lining up at 6:45AM to 7 AM waiting to start construction? This generates huge amounts of diesel fumes and soot. This was Oexperienced during the construction of the house next to AERIE and had a severe impact on the houses on Seaview Avenue where they lined up. I believe 7:30 AM is the city ordinance for start of construction until 6:00 PM. Can you place a requirement on the project that they cannot line up prior to start of construction hours and to keep moving to prevent idling their engines waiting in line? I know efficiency is important to them but breathing and soot accumulation is important to our neighborhood well being. This also is an overwhelming huge project for a long period. It is like parking the airport in front of the house. ® What are our remedies for infractions? I do not believe this would be a police matter but this is a very important item. I and my neighbors think this is a negative impact we want noted. Thank you, Ellen Counts 2520 Seaview Avenue Corona del Mar, CA 92625 949 - 675 -2240 F.I ?r 7. Ellen Counts (June 13, 2008) Response to Comment No. 1 The air quality analysis conducted for the proposed project evaluated construction emissions, including those generated by heavy trucks and equipment. Specifically, MM III -2 and MM III -3 address construction emissions to ensure that they are minimized. In addition, MM III-4 requires the contractor to schedule activities associated with the transportation of construction equipment vehicles and equipment to the site, and delivery of materials, so as not to interfere with peak hour traffic. Response to Comment No. 2 MM XV -1, which requires the preparation of a construction staging, parking and traffic control plan will consider the issue of queuing and idling to ensure that both are minimized to avoid nuisance and congestion in the residential neighborhood. A construction staging, parking and traffic control plan must be prepared for each phase of development and be approved by the Public Works Department. Response to Comment No. 3 Each of the mitigation measures prescribed in the proposed MND will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program, which identifies time timing of implementation of each measure, a method of verification (e.g., monitoring, etc.), and the entity responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measures are implemented properly and in a time fashion. In the event infractions of these measures occur, the appropriate City department would intervene to remedy the infraction. Aerie (PA 2005.196) Responses to Public Comments July 2008 Page 19 P 159 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS Main Office 818 West Seventh Street 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90817 -3435 t (213) 236-1800 f.(213)236-a R25 wvm.scag.cagov Officers President: Richard Dion, Lake Forest Fin Mce President Harry Baldwin, San Gabriel secondtlxe President. Vacant I"Wediats Past President Gary GAIL San Bernardino County Policy Committee Chain Administration Ronald O. Loveridge;Aiverside Community, Economic and Human Development Jon Edney, El Centro Energy and Environment DEWS Cook, Hunt!�tCn Re3Ch Transportation and Cornttwnications Mike Ten, South Pasadena • efiza • June 12; 2008 Mr. James Campbell Senior Planner City of Newport. Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 91658 -8915 RE: SCAG Clearinghouse No. 120080289 Aerie (PA2005 -196) Dear Mr. Campbell: Thank you for submitting the Aerie (PA2005 -196) for review and comment. As areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG reviews the consistency of local plans, projects and programs with regional plans. This activity is based on SCAG's responsibilities as a regional planning organization pursuant to state and federal laws and regulations. Guidance provided by these reviews is intended to assist local agencies and project sponsors to take actions that contribute to the attainment of regional goals and policies, We have reviewed the Aerie (PA2005 -196), and have determined that the proposed Project is not regionally significant per SCAG intergovernmental Review (IGR) Criteria and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 1.5206). Therefore, the proposed Project does not warrant comments at this time. Should there be a change in the scope of the proposed Project, we would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment at that time. A description of the proposed Project was published in SCAG 's May 1.31, 2008 Intergovernmental Review Clearinghouse Report for public review and comment. The project title and SCAG Clearinghouse number should be used in all correspondence with SCAG concerning this Project. Correspondence should be sent to the attention of the Clearinghouse Coordinator. if you have any questions, please contact me at (213) 236 -1857. Thank you. Sincerely, LAVERNE =0NES, P lannng Technlcaan Environmental Planning Division 1gf>,���t -TT7he Regional Council is comprised of 76 elected officials representing 187 cities, six counties, r7 I' , 01 i.JOC Vt+i U Transportation �, Ty porkation Commissions, and a Tribal ,Government representative within Southern California. nni os:9.ce 8. Southern California Association of Governments (June 12, 2008) Response to Comment No. 1 This comment, which indicates that SCAG has reviewed the proposed project and determined that it is not regionally significant, is acknowledged. No further response is necessary; however, as requested, the City of Newport Beach will notify SCAG if there is a change in the scope of the project. Aerie (PA 2005198) Responses to Public Comments July 2008 Page 20 0 ICI June 18, 2008 Commissioner Robert Hawkins Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: AERIE (PA 2005 -196) Commissioner Hawkins: As the AERIE project once again comes before the Planning Commission for consideration of approval, I hope that you and your fellow Commissioners will review all of the facts and seriously consider the implications of the approval of this project. After numerous considerations, and approvals, by the Planning Commission, the T applicant is once again changing the project which requires reconsideration of the Modification Permit request. This project should be made to conform to current Zoning and Building Codes and no further modification /code, zoning or General Plan amendments should be granted. This project violates the City of Newport Beach's own CLUP. By the destruction of the bluff, bluff face and /or bluff top it provides no positive benefit to the City, its residents, or visitor's to the City. The applicant and his architect have chosen to build a structure which is unsuitable for the site. It is only through an extremely unique situation (the inclusion of 28,413 sq.ft. of submerged land) that the size of the structure conforms to the City's "buildable area ". The building of the proposed structure requires removal of 25,240 cubic yards, or approximately 2,000 truck loads of soil from the site. In addition to the destruction of the bluff, bluff face and /or bluff top, this process will greatly stress both the physical street system which is not designed to accommodate the heavy equipment required, as ® well as traffic patterns. This does not begin to address the truck loads of concrete and equipment required for the foundational infrastructure (i.e., concrete for construction of basement, subterranean parking, retaining walls, pool, etc.) and the additional construction traffic required to complete this project. As Mr. Jeannette has designed numerous homes within the City of Newport Beach (most of which have required variances and /or modification permits), he should be very familiar with the zoning and building codes and should be required to design within the confines of these guidelines. I urge the Planning Commission to deny the approval of the MND and requested CPModification Permit. This Is an excellent opportunity to begin bringing new and proposed structures into conformance with the City's zoning and building codes, not perpetuate non - conforming structures. It is not the City's responsibility to make sure that an individual's "dream house" can be built with disregard for City guidelines. The applicant has every right to develop his property within the City's building codes and guidelines. Sincerely, Jinx L. Hansen 221 Goldenrod Avenue Corona del Mar, CA 92625 cc Commissioner Cole Commissioner Peotter Commissioner Eaton Commissioner McDaniel Commissioner Toerge Commissioner Hillgren W 9. Jinx L. Hansen (June 18, 2008) Response to Comment No. 1 The project complies with all of the building development standards prescribed in the zoning code with the approval of the requested Modification Permit and is consistent with other policies related to site development as determined by the City. Response to Comment No. 2 Section IX (Land Use) of the initial study includes an extensive assessment of the project's consistency with the applicable General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies. As indicated in that analysis, the applicant has redesigned the project to comply with the Predominant Line of Development as determined by the City Council, which is elevation 50.7 feet NAVD 88. Although minor excavation below the 50.7 NAVD 88 elevation is required to accommodate the lower levels of the proposed structure, the grading will occur behind the bluff face and will not be visible from any existing viewshed. The project respects the existing views from public vantages and results in the expansion of the existing view from Carnation Avenue /Ocean Boulevard and includes the recordation of a view easement to ensure that the view enhancement is achieved and is protected in the future. Response to Comment No. 3 As indicated in MM XV -1, dirt hauling activities will be prohibited during the summer peak hour periods to reduce potential congestion on local streets. Although this comment suggests that remote (i.e., off -site) parking for construction workers' vehicles has been considered to be "not feasible" in the past, the construction staging, parking and traffic control plan will stipulate the locations of such parking areas, avoidance of congested locations, and related issues to ensure that construction- related traffic impacts are minimized. MM XV -1, and all other mitigation measures, will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which stipulates how, when, and who will be responsible for implementing each measures and the monitoring associated with the measure to ensure that it is properly implemented. Response to Comment No. 4 Refer to Response to Comment No. 1 Response to Comment No. 5 This comment, which reflect the opinion of the commenter, is acknowledged. No additional response is necessary. Aerie (PA 2005-196) Responses to Public Comments July 2008 Page 21 A Icy SELMAN (,)BREITMAN LLP ATTORNEYS Jennifer Friend 714.647.2516 jfriend @selmanbreitma n.00m June 17, 2008 Via Messenger Via E -Mall Robert Hawkins Chairman Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 or 1D. 600 West Santa Ana Blvd., Suite 501 Santa Ana, CA 92701 -4551 Telephone 714.647.9700 Facsimile 714.647.9200 w .selmanbreitman.corn Re: AERIE PROJECT (2005 -196) June 19, 2008 Planning Commission Agenda Item No. 7 201 -205 & 207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Drive Comments Regarding Project Revisions, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Coastal Development Permit Honorable Chairman Hawkins and Planning Commission Members: Selman Breitman, LLP submits this letter of comment on behalf of Kathleen McIntosh, residing at 2495 Ocean Blvd., and Joe and Lisa Vallejo, residents of 2501 Ocean Blvd., in Corona del Mar. This letter also references and incorporates all written and oral comments previously made by Coast Law Group, LLP on our clients' behalf (copies of those letters are attached as Exhibit A). These letters and the documents referenced therein, establish that the proposed AERIE O Project (the "Project ") must be denied as it does not comply with the City of Newport Beach's Coastal Land Use Plan, The Coastal Act and has not been the subject of required environment review. The AERIE project will require: 1) the destruction of 25,240 cubic yards of protected coastal bluff, 2) will have a significant effect on the environment that will not be mitigated by the untested measures set forth in the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and, 3) due to its massive singular building volume, will substantially degrade the visual character of the community. As the Commission is aware, this project has been vigorously opposed at the Planning Commission and City Council level. Residents, council members and even planning commissioners, have stated that the AERIE Project as proposed, is inconsistent with the statutory requirements of the preservation of the coastal bluff and violates the CLUP. Even still, the Project continues to be kept alive and forced into a space it is not meant to inhabit. 52786.1 100.25035 L , r � J Los Angeles . San Francisco . Orange County /Inland Empire . San Diego Las Vegas T SELMAN `)BREITMAN LLP ATTORNEYS Robert Hawkins June 17, 2008 Page 2 THE "REVISED" AERIE PROJECT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE CLUP AND THE CITY COUNCIL'S REQUIRED MODIFICTIONS The Project requires the excavation and removal of 25,240 cubic yards of earth from the coastal bluff to allow for two subterranean levels to be built into it.' AERIE has been engineered to replace bluff area with wine storage, gym equipment, and other "amenities ", and to cut away the 0 coastal bluff to allow the complex to encroach approximately 20 feet below the 50.7 foot 3 predominant line of development. This is not in compliance with the City's own Coastal Land J Use Plan or the Coastal Act. The applicant should not be permitted to go below the 50.7 predominant line of development. Despite the City Council's direction, the applicant has failed to reduce the scale and mass of the Project in any significant manner. This failure results in the Project's eradication of protected coastal bluff, detrimental change in the eco system of Carnation Cove, and violation of CLUP Sections 2.9.3 -1, 4.4.3 -8, 4.4.3 -12, 4.4.3 -19, among others. In a similar development (although much smaller scale), the California Coastal commission issued a May 29, 2008 Staff Report regarding a Corona del Mar Project and addressed the standard of review for coastal bluff development: "The City of Newport Beach only has a certified Land Use Plan and has not �;`1 exercised the options provided 30600(b) or 30600.5 to issue its own permits. vTherefore, the Costal Commission is the permit issuing entity and the standard of review is Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. The certified Land Use Plan may be used for guidance." (Attached as Exhibit B) There, the Coastal Commission denied the applicants request to place a new pathway and deck down a bluff face and found such cutting into the bluff to violate Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. The AERIE Project does not comply with Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and must also be denied by the Planning Commission as, it will ultimately be denied by the California Coastal Commission. While specifically directed by the City Council to not encroach below the predominant line of development that has been set at 50.7 feet NAVD 88, the applicant has ignored this directive, and incorporated a new and additional alteration of the coastal bluff at elevation 40.5 NAVD 88? This new "emergency exit" alters the coastal bluff below the set 50.7 foot restriction, and will be cut into the bluff and allow for the complex's residents to enter and exit the beach area. This not only flies in the face of the Council's orders, but also clearly violates CLUP Section 4.4.3 -8 and its unanimously adopted amendment. 1 May 16, 2008, Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 3. 2 May 16, 2008, Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 29. i 52766.1 100.25035 r-1, . / ifs 1. SELMAN '-')BREITMAN «P ATTORNEYS Robert Hawkins June 17, 2008 Page 3 Also addressed by the City Council in February of 2008 in its rejection of the Project, was its concern for the invasion of the privacy of the surrounding neighbors that would be caused by the Project's encroaching decks and balconies. Some historical background exists with the non- disclosure of the proposed balconies and decks on prior plans submitted by the applicant. It appears that again, instead of deleting development as instructed, the applicant is adding additional structure. As set forth in the Commission Staff Report, Unit 8 now has a private roof top deck that sits above the previously proposed complex. As railings and additional safety features are required, the size, mass and obstruction of view will only continue to increase. The Commission's Staff Report admits that the new deck negatively impacts both the privacy and the views from the neighboring residences. 2. THE MAY 16, 2008 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FATALY FAILS TO ADDRESS THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT As stated throughout the course of this Project review, a MND is insufficient to analyze the environmental impacts of the AERIE Project. A structure of this scale that will have adverse impacts on traffic, noise, parking 3, the stability and eco system of the bluff, the aesthetic character and nature of the community, and geology of the land, requires a full environmental impact report. The necessity of an EIR pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code Section 21080), is further exasperated by the almost tripling of the existing dock space, creation of a marina with the placement of a concrete wave attenuator and utilities, and substantial disturbance to the sandy cover intertidal & shallow subtidal habitat, eelgrass, and sand dollar bed, within the existing cove. This Project will have a significant impact on the environment. The Commission has no credible argument to the contrary. In fact, the WIND itself finds that the "proposed project will have ®potentially significant adverse impacts which may exceed established thresholds." °. The CEQA Guidelines require that if any portion of a Project may have a significant impact, an EIR must be prepared. Here, the demolition of over 24,000 cubic yards of bluff and the creation of a boating marina, at a minimum, provides credible evidence that the Project may have a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, CEQA requires an EIR be prepared for this Project. Pub. Res. 3 At the February 21, 2008 Commission meeting, concern was expressed by staff that the applicant's proposed key pad system for the parking enterance to the complex may interfere with the minimum 20 foot width of the driveway. The revised plans do not show any key pad or gate structure, but instead a pedestrian walkway separated by an 18 foot drive aisle that appears to be non - conforming in width. " May 16, 2008, Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 20. 52786.1 100.25035 ^ /;,, Ir SELMAN (�)BREITMAN «P ATTORNEYS Robert Hawkins June 17, 2008 Page 4 Code Section 21080 ( c)(2); No Oil v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68,75; Quail UBotanical Gardens Foundation v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.41h 1597, 1602. Most of the mitigation referenced in the MND are post - approval mitigation measures to be adopted at a later date. Such measures can not be relied upon by the City as they are neither specific nor the subject of analysis. Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Ca1.App.4t' 1597, 1602. The MND is legally insufficient. 3. THE SIZE, SCALE, AND NATURE OF THE PROJECT ARE INCOMPATABLE WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD This Project is enormous. There is nothing like it anywhere in the surrounding area. The proposed complex is 62,822 square feet, 6 levels high, has four decks (including a new roof top deck), three balconies, a staircase and entrance built into the side of the bluff, an at grade walkway, an 8 boat marina with utilities, and a 155 foot concrete break water in the harbor in r n� front of Carnation Cove. Despite grave concerns about the aesthetic effect of the Project, little, if nothing, has been done to address the issue. The MND merely states that the "project will introduce a new style of architecture in the area that will be visible from surrounding properties" and "[create] a unique theme ".5 This Project is completely out of character for the surrounding and adjacent areas. The marina alone will dramatically change the appearance of the tranquil cove and the eradication of the bluff and subteranian development will completely alter the aesthetic quality and nature of the coastal bluff area. It is illogical that such efforts are being made to attempt to distort the CLUP and Coastal Act to allow for this incompatable structure to be built. 4. CONCLUSION An Environmental Impact Report must be prepared before this Project is considered. Despite the passing of time, the applicant has failed to design and submit a Project that complies with the City's CLUP, the Coastal Act, or CEQA. The MND is insufficient to address the environmental impacts of this Project. The Commission may not consider the marina presented to it as it is not 5 May 16, 2008, Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 29. 52786.1 100.25035 �� / (Pel SELMAN k4BREITMAN «P ATTORNEYS Robert Hawkins June 17, 2008 Page 5 within its purview. Accordingly, this Project should not be reviewed at this time, and it is respectfully requested that the Planning Commission not recommend approval of the Project. 1 I � JAF /jaf 52786.1 10015035 N . //_J EXHIBIT "A" February 21, 2008 169 Saxony Road Suite 204 Encinitas, CA 92024 tel 760 -942 -8505 fax 760- 942 -8515 www.wastlavgmup.com Robert Hawkins Wit Elecbonlc Mall and Hand Delivery Chairman ( jcampbe li@city.newport- beach.ca.us) Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: AERIE PROJECT (PA 2005 -186) 201 -205, & 207 Carnation Avenue, and 101 Bayside Place Comments Regarding Project Revisions, MND, CDP Honorable Chairman Hawkins and Planning Commission Members: Coast Law Group LLP (CLG) submits the following comments on behalf of Lisa and Joseph Vallejo, and Kathleen McIntosh. On.August 13, 2007 CLG submitted two extensive and detailed comment letters for the proposed AERIE Project, one focused on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and-the other addressing the proposed issuance of a Coastal Development Permit for the project. CLG also attended and made a presentation at the August 14, 2007 City Council hearing. Our recollection from that meeting, which is supported.by its minutes, is that the City Council prior to continuing the matter indicated its inclination to reject the project as then proposed. In doing so, the Council clearly articulate its desire that the project be scaled back in size, massing, and design such that it adequately protect the sensitive bluff /natural landform and better conform to the surrounding neighborhood. Unfortunately, it seems City staff and the applicant have not utilized the time since the City Council hearing to address or resolve the numerous concerns raised'by CLG, other members of the public, and the City Council itself. Hence, we are resubmitting copies of our prior comment letters (without attachments as they should already be in the project file) as virtually all of our prior concerns remain relevant and applicable to the revised project. The following represent additional concerns specific to the revised project and the City's process for achieving CEQA and Coastal Act compliance. Procedural concerns It is a cornerstone policy that environmental review documents produced to comply with CEQA be "organized and written in a manner that will be meaningful and useful to decision makers and the public." Pub. Resources Code, § 21003(b). In this instance, the City has failed. While the City calls its January 17, 2008 document a Mitigated Negative Declaration, it hardly qualifies as such. In an unhelpful effort (presumably) to avoid duplication of past efforts, City staff seems to be attempting to tier this "MND" off of an uncertified, never - adopted, 4" version of an MND for the previously rejected project. Nowhere in CEQA does there exist support for ,,, -7/ Revised AERIE Project (PA2505 -196) Newport Beach Planning commission February 21, 20M Page 2of5 this procedure, and it does not serve the policies of fostering public involvement and open disclosure of project impacts. The prior MND does not address the likely impacts from this project, notwithstanding the fact that the prior MND contained significant fatal flaws with respect to analysis, conclusions, and insufficient mitigation. We are left with no option but to continue demanding that a full Environmental Impact Report be produced. The CEQA process is intended to promote the policy of citizen input and participation in municipal decisionmaking. Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish and Game Commission (1997) 16 Cal. 4' 105,133; Pub. Resources Code §§ 21080:5 (d)(2); CEQA Guidelines, § 15088. Indeed, the courts have noted that "[e]nvironmental review derives its vitality from public participation." Ocean View Estates Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Montecito Water District (2004) 166 Cal.App. 4" 396, 400. Because the City has failed to prepare a stand -alone MND that cohesively addresses the project as currently proposed, the public is stymied from participating as contemplated by the statute. Further, because the City has not made readily publicly available numerous documents attached to the Planning Commission Staff Report (Draft Resolution for project approval, Excerpt of meeting minutes from August 14, 2007 City Council hearing, City Council Staff Report dated August 14, 2007 (with past Planning Commission Reports), Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration, Additional correspondence received, etc.), public involvement cannot be expected as contemplated by CEQA. We believe based on these procedural defects alone, the Planning Commission should reject the project at this time and direct staff to return with a comprehensive and detailed MND that studies the environmental impacts and proposes mitigation measures for this version of the Project. Further, given the widespread public response to earlier versions of the Project, prior to any future Planning Commission or City Council hearing on the subject, City staff should be directed to post all relevant documents on the City's website as links to its staff report or agendas. 2. The Bluffs Remain Threatened by the Revised Project At the August 14, 2007 City Council meeting (according to the City Council Minutes) Mayor Pro Tem Selich explicitly noted his belief "that the PLOED is the maximum limit of where to build and the other policies in the CLUP and General Plan take precedence over the PLOED." (Emphasis added) He further noted that the structure is not in scale with the neighborhood, that the project excessively alters the bluff, and requested that a revised project be "reasonable within the scale of existing development, and does not. result in an excessive alteration to the bluff .° (Emphasis added) Council member Curry concurred. According to the City Council minutes, the applicant's architect Mr. Jeannette stated "he understands that the bluff needs to be protected." Amazingly, the revised project continues to propose near - destruction of the bluffs at the project site. According to the most recent "MND; the project will now include 8 luxury condominium units on 6 levels with a gross floor area of 62,822 square feet. In order to achieve this floor area, the project would require excavation and removal of 25,240 cubic yards of the bluff the City is supposed to protect. We find it hard to understand how grading and excavating a bluff could constitute protection as contemplated by the City Council last August. Revised AERIE Project (PA 2505 -196) Newport Beach Planrtng Commission February 21, 2006 Page 3 of 5 The most recent MND attempts to address these issues in the section on Land Use and Planning. Substantively, that section merely recites that two Coastal Land Use Policies (CLUP) have been revised (4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9), a new one has been added (4.4.3 -19) and that the Predominant Line of Existing Development ( PLOED) has been established at 50.7 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). The CLUP revisions grew out of the August 14, 2007 City Council hearing and comments, and thus should be interpreted to directly apply to this Project. While Policy 4.4.3 -8 permits development on bluff faces at the Project site, this cannot be read to permit development into bluff faces. There is a distinct difference. The existing structure slated to be demolished is currently developed on the bluff. Minimal bluff grading and excavation would be required to construct a new development within the same footprint of the existing building. This contrasts drastically with the proposed Project's excavation and destruction of the bluff itself to provide for basement, amenities, storage and parking garage. Policy 4.43-8 does not permit the proposed Project.'. CLUP 4.4.3 -19 is directly applicable in that it clarifies that mere establishment of a PLOED should not be interpreted to determine the boundaries of development size and scope. As noted by Mayor Pro Tem Selich, above, the Project must conform with both PLOED and other CLUP requirements. Hence, as noted in CLG's August 13, 2007 CDP letter, the project will violate numerous provisions of the Coastal Act, the City's Local Coastal Program, and the CLUP. While we will not repeat those arguments here, suffice it to say the City Council clearly demanded compliance with the provisions, and the most recent MND does nothing to satisfy such concerns. While the MND seems to agree with our assertion that all CLUP requirements must be met, the document strangely concludes, with no analysis, that because the project will not cover the bluff face below the 51 -foot MSL, the "majority of the bluff face ... will be preserved as a resource thereby minimizing alteration of the entire bluff and preserving the scenic and visual quality of the site as required by the other resource protection policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan." This statement is absurd. CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -12 requires development site design and construction techniques to "minimize alteration of coastal bluffs to the maximum extent feasible ". There is no carve -out for upper versus lower bluffs. There is no qualification that development minimize alteration of the "entire " bluff. The lack of analysis in the MND reflects the inability of the Project to meet CLUP requirements. The project must be denied. As far as we are aware, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) has not commented on the Project since its May 14, 2007 correspondence. While that letter purported to provide only an overview of main issues identified based on limited information available at that time, we believe the concerns noted therein remain applicable today. Just as the City Council advised the Project be revised to comply with all CLUP policies, we expect the CCC will reject the Project for failing to meet CLUP requirements. Given the likelihood of ultimate Project failure, It is a complete waste of resources to move forward with City consideration of the Project as proposed. ' Policy 4.4.3.9 is inapplicable as public improvements are not proposed for the bluff face. Revised AERIE Project (PA 2005-196) Newport Beach Plarming commission February 21, 2006 Page 4 of 5 3. Aesthetics still have not been adequately addressed. The most recent MND purports to review aesthetic impacts of the Project, yet in reality only addresses view corridor impacts, consistency with the PLOED, and site coverage. Mere compliance with the PLOED does not render the project aesthetically neutral. The proposed design elements and massing must be assessed in light of the surrounding neighborhood. Even a lay review of the proposed plan supports the assertions of numerous members of the public; to wit, the Project Is too large, too invasive, and too incongruent with the surrounding neighborhood to belong on this site. The visual character of the entrance to Newport Bay will now be dominated by this one, giant mushroom -esque development. There is no attempt to blend into the existing mosaic of homes and structures. The applicant's attempts to develop such an architecturally unique and avant garde structure have simply gone too far. The MND completely fails to address this issue, but rather rests on the notion that the existing visual character and quality of the site can be reduced to calculations of lot coverage and PLOED compliance. The MND review is plainly inadequate. Regarding protections of scenic vistas, or view corridors, the MND concludes that the revised development plans will offer an increased view angle at the intersection of Ocean Blvd. and Carnation Ave. First, the analysis fails in the revised MND because it focuses on comparisons between this version of the project and that proposed last August. The environmental baseline is the existing condition, and the analysis is insufficient in comparing the existing to the proposed final Project. Second, the drawings do not support the conclusions contained in the text of the MND. The plans clearly show that the post - construction view corridor will be constrained by the proposed Unit 3 deck such that, at best, the new development will have the exact same 25 degree view corridor as exists today. There is no reason to believe that a massive deck protruding from the structure directly into the line of sight will not cause the same view impact as would the structure built out to that same extent. Finally, the MND's rationale for concluding that the taller building would not contribute to additional view impacts from Begonia Park is lacking and merely conclusory.a 3. Construction Management Program Mitigation measure XV -1 requires production of "construction staging, parking and traffic control plan" for each major phase of construction. Such plans are expected to identify staging areas, crew parking areas, construction vehicle type and use at the site, arrival and departure routes and hourly restrictions." This is an inappropriate mitigation measure. Courts have expressly found it inappropriate to defer disclosure of important details regarding mitigation of potentially significant impacts identified in an MND. 2 The Begonia Park analysis is entirely based on differences between the proposed and prior plans for the Project. As with most of the MND, the failure to assess the appropriate environmental baseline renders the document fatally deficient. P J7y ReWsed AERIE Project (PA 2005.196) Newport Beach Planning Commiselon February 21, 2000 Page 5 of 5 [W]e note the City cannot rely on post - approval mitigation measures adopted during the subsequent design review process. Such measures will nto validate a negative declaration. As one court stated, "There cannot be meaningful scrutiny of a mitigated negative declaration when the mitigation measures are not set forth at the time of project approval." [Citations omitted.] Further, we note the CEQA Guidelines require project plans to be revised to include mitigation measures "before the proposed negative declaration is released for public review... "([CEQA Guidelines,] § 1570(b)(1) Thus, any necessary mitigation measures must be specifically set forth at the time of publication of a mitigated negative declaration in advance of the City's adoption of it. [Citations omitted.] Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App. 4" 1597,1606 fn. 4. Put another way, the city cannot base its certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration on the presumed success of mitigation measures that have not been formulated at the time of project approval. See, Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App. 3d 296'. Past correspondence from CLG has identified numerous potentially and likely significant environmental impacts associated with exactly those elements to be covered by these plans. Yet, the City refuses to require disclosure of this information prior to Project approval, and thus, the MND is deficient. 4. Conclusion Given the foregoing, this Project is not ripe for consideration by the Planning - Commission. Significant additional information and analysis regarding the environmental impacts of the proposed revision must be derived and disclosed before the City can determine the adequacy of mitigation proposed. hence, the Project should be denied, a full Environmental Impact Report prepared, and better efforts should be made to encourage public involvement in future phases of Project considerations. Sincerely, COAST LAW GRO LLP c�O Marco A. Gonzalez �1 l75 EXHIBIT 1 4? r / V MLAAG'POUP August 13, 2007 Mayor and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: 169 Saxony Road Suite 204 Encinitas, CA 92024 tel 760 - 942 -8505 tax 760 -942 -8515 w .was6awgroup.c= Via Facsimile First Class, and Electronic Mall (949.644.3229; leampbell @city.newport- beach.oa.us) 201 -205, & 207 Carnation Avenue, and 101 Bayside Place Citizens' Comments on Coastal Development Permit Honorable Mayor and City Council: Coast Law Group LLP (CLG) submits this letter on behalf of Lisa and Joseph Vallejo, residents of 2501 Ocean Blvd., and Kathleen McIntosh, resident of 2495 Ocean Blvd., Corona Del Mar. On behalf of our clients, we urge you to deny the above - referenced project on the basis that it is inconsistent with Newport Beach's Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP). The AERIE Project (Project) is fatally flawed in that it does not comply with the CLUP's Policies protecting natural landforms because it extends down to 30.5 feet above mean sea level on a 70 foot bluff, and will require excavation of 32,000 cubic yards of bluff material.' A. The CLUP Must Be Liberally Interpreted in a Manner that is Most Protective of Significant Coastal Resources. The Coastal Act must be liberally construed in light of its resource protective nature. (Pub. Res. Code § 30009.) "The highest priority must be given to environmental Consideration in interpreting the statute." (Boise Chica Land Trust v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal. App. 4th 493, 506). While the Coastal Act is designed to allow reasonable private development along the coast, the right to new development is subordinate to protection of significant coastal resources. Specifically, new residential development in the Coastal Zone not considered a significant coastal resources. Local Coastal Programs (LCP), must be consistent with the Coastal Act. While an LCP can be more restrictive and more resource - protective than the Coastal Act, it cannot be less protective. (Yost v. Thomas (1984) 36 Cal. 3d 561, 572.) For example, Coastal Act section 30251 states: 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. ' The AERIE Project also violates the parking provisions of the CLUP. P.177 Citizen CLUP Comments RE: AERIE Project (PA 2005 -194) August 13, 2007 Page 2 of 10 In this case, Newport Beach's CLUP is consistent with the Coastal Act, protecting views of coastal bluffs and minimizing alterations of natural landforms. (CLUP Policy 4.4.1.E These bluff protection policies can be found throughout the CLUP. For example, Policy 4.4.1 -1 of the CLUP states that the purpose of the CLUP is to "Protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay and harbor and to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas." (CLUP Policy 4.4.1 -1, emphasis added.) Policy 4.4.3 specifically identifies the coastal platform occupied by the Corona Del Mar ranges and notes that ;The 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." (CLUP Policy 4.4.3.) Thus, the purpose of the CLUP is to protect not only views of the ocean, but views of the natural bluffs as an import coastal resource. In order to protect the bluffs from development, the CLUP mandates that developers, "Design and site new development to minimize aterations to significant natural landforms, including bluffs, cliffs and canyons." (CLUP Policy 4.4.1 -3.) Policy 4.4.3 -12 states that the City shall "Employ site design and construction techniques to minimize alteration of coastal bluffs to the maximum extent feasible..." Thus, the CLUP must be broadly interpreted to provide paramount protection for the bluffs, while specific policies must be interpreted in a manner that minimizes alterations of the bluff to the maximum extent feasible. Even policies which expressly permit bluff face development must be interpreted such that "development on the bluff face is controlled to minimize further alteration." (CLUP Policy 4.4.3 at p. 4 -76.) . AERIE claims the CLUP only amounts to "guidance" because Newport Beach must prepare an implementation plan to have authority to issue coastal development permits. (Manatt, Phelps and Phillips Corresp., March 28, 2007 at 2.); See also Pub. Res. Code §'30600) Indeed, the Coastal Commission has stated that the CLUP should be considered guidance and not binding on the Coastal Commission. (CCC App. 5 -06- 035, at 1.) However, identifying the CLUP as "guidance" simply means the development must comply with both the Coastal Act and the CLUP. Because implementation ordinances have not been prepared, the Coastal Commission retains original permit jurisdiction and will review the project "de novo" for consistency with the Coastal Act, instead of appeal jurisdiction which reviews the Project solely for consistency with the LCP. (Pub. Res. Code 30600.) While such procedural issues may affect the standard of review for the Coastal Commission, it will not affect how the City reviews the AERIE Project. The Project still must be found to be consistent with the CLUP. Further, the Coastal Commission will not 2 Many of the CLUP policies were written by Coastal Commission Staff in consultation with the City Staff. (Coastal Commission Staff Report NPB- MAJ -1 -04, at 8.) However, it was the Coastal Commission staff that wrote the CLUP Policies controlling development on bluff faces. (Id.; See also, CLUP, Appendix A, "Findings for Approval with Suggested Modifications" at 3.) 4 1 Citizen CLUP Comments RE: AERIE Project (PA 2005 -1%) August 13, 2007 Page 3 of 10 approve development that may interfere with a local government's preparation of a certified LCP. (Pub. Res. Code § 30604.) Thus, the Coastal Commission will not approve any project it believes is inconsistent with the CLUP. The City must realize any conflicts between the Coastal Act and the CLUP will be resolved in a manner that is most protective of significant coastal resources. (Pub. Res. Code § 30200.) Thus, to be consistent with Public Resources Code section 30251, and minimize alteration of natural landforms, the Coastal Commission will likely deny any project which exceeds the strictest Interpretation of the predominant line of existing development. And the converse is equally true, for the Project to be approved by the Coastal Commission; it must comply with both the policy to minimize alteration of the bluff and the PLOED, assuming that the PLOED even applies. As discussed below, because the AERIE Project will excavate, obscure and destroy a large portion of the natural bluff, it cannot be considered consistent with the CLUP. According to the building plans, the natural grade of the existing bluff corresponds to an elevation of 70 feet above mean sea level (MSL) .3 The proposed Project will build down 50 feet to 20 ft. MSL. (Neblett and Assoc., Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report, at 15.) This means that more than 50% of the natural bluff will be obscured by condominiums, the space for which will be created by excavation of more than 32,000 cubic yards of bluff material. Notwithstanding assertions to the contrary by the Applicant and its attorneys, the Project is plainly inconsistent with the intent of the CLUP to protect views of the natural landforms and minimize alteration of natural landforms. B. The Coastal Land Use Plan Does not Permit the AERIE Project to Extend onto the Bluff Face. According to one of the early Staff Reports for the Project, "The site is a steeply sloping coastal.bluff and cliff and is subject to marine erosion." (Staff Report, Feb. 22, 2007 at p. 3, emphasis added.) Despite this unequivocal statement that the bluff at the AERIE Project is "subject to marine erosion ", the MND and Staff Report all but ignore the policy implications of this fact. There is no mention nor analysis of Policy 4.4.3 -3, which controls development on bluffs subject to marine erosion. Such lack of analysis was of specific concern to the ' It is unclear whether the "natural grade" identified on the building plans is actually existing grade (which was excavated during the previous construction) or the true natural grade. The exact elevation of the natural grade at the top of the bluff is not specified on any of the conceptual drawings. (See MND A -10, A -11, A -12, A -13, A -14, A -15.) However, Applicant's Environmental Information Form identifies the bluff top at 70 feet above MSL. (P & D Consultants, "Environmental Information Form" August 2005, at 3.) Citizen CLUP Comments RE: AERIE Project (PA 2005 -196) August 13, 2007 Page 4 of 10 Coastal Commission. (Coastal Commission Comments, dated May 14, 2007 at 2J" New development on the bluff face is permitted only when the bluff is not subject to marine erosion. This is reflected in the CLUP. which states: Require all new bluff top development located on a, bluff subject to marine erosion to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development in the subject area, but not less than 25 feet from the bluff edge. This requirement shall apply to the principal structure and major accessory structures such as guesthouses and pools. The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure safety and stability of the development. (CLUP § 4.4.3 -3, emphasis added.) Thus, the first issue to be considered is whether the bluff is subject to marine erosion, not where the predominant line of existing development (PLOED) is located. If the bluff is subject to marine erosion, all new development must maintain a 25 foot setback from the bluff edge regardless of where the PLOED is located. The City s lack of analysis of Policy 4.4.3 -3 is incomprehensible in light of proposed mitigation measures directly recognize the impacts of marine erosion. For example, the Project must accept a waiver of future shoreline armoring during the economic life of the structure (75 years). (MND at 44 -45.) A coastal hazard study was required of the applicant. (MND at 44.) In fact, the MND analyzes the Project for compliance with Policy 4.4.3 -4 of the CLUP, which only applies to bluffs subject to marine erosion. According to the MND, the AERIE Project complies with the CLUP because "No new accessory structures are proposed." (MND at 47.) The analysis further recommends that existing accessory structures be removed if threatened by erosion, instability or other hazard. (Id.) If Policy 4.4.3 -4 applies to accessory structures for the Project, the City certainly cannot,claim that 4.4.3 -3 does not apply to the principal structures. In light of the clear evidence that the bluff is subject to marine erosion, the AERIE Project must comply with Policy 4.4.3-3.5 The Project, as proposed, does not ° Coastal Commission Staff specifically questioned why there was no analysis of CLUP Policy. 4.4.3 -3, yet no explanation has been forthcoming The Commission specifically noted in the CLUP, "[T]he Commission does not regulate development differently depending on whether or not the site has been previously graded." (CLUP, Appendix A, at 3.) Whether there is existing development on the bluff face is irrelevant to the Coastal Commission's analysis. 5 The City Attorney has stated that the more general policies such as 4.4.3 -3 are subordinate to the more specific policies such as Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9 which specifically identify bluff development on the bluff face of Carnation Avenue. (Planning Citizen CLUP Comments RE, AERIE Project (PA 2905 -196) August 13,2007 Pages of 10 comply with the 25 foot setback required under the CLUP for new development along bluffs subject to marine erosion, and, therefore, must be denied.' C. The AERIE Project Cannot Extend onto the Bluff Face. The MND puts forth the argument that general policies protecting the natural bluff faces in the CLUP, such as Policies 4.4.1 -1, 4.4.1 -2, 4.4.1 -3 and 4.4.3 -12 are subordinate to CLUP Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9. (MND at pp. 46 -47.) The MND states, "CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -8 expressly allows'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.'" (MND at p. 27.) Therefore, the MND reasoning concludes, the Project may extend down the natural bluff face in line to the predominant line of existing development (PLOED). (MND at 27 & 47.) However, City Staff misquotes the CLUP. Properly interpreting CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -8, even assuming the City can ignore the requirement for a 25 foot marine erosion setback on Carnation Avenue, the Project still may not extend onto the bluff face. CLUP § 4.4.3 -8 states, in its entirety: 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. (Emphasis added.) Commission Minutes, May 17, 2007) However, a policy which specifically identifies Carnation Avenue, and a policy which identifies bluffs which are subject to marine erosion are equally specific. Further, if possible, policies must be interpreted in harmony with each other. (Conway v. Cify of Imperial Beach (1997) 52 Cal. App. 4th 78, 84.) If it is impossible to resolve the conflict through harmonizing the policies, conflicts must be resolved in a manner that is most protective of significant coastal resources. (Pub. Res. Code % 30007.5, 30200.) Luxury condominiums are not significant coastal resources. The CLUP identifies the natural coastal bluffs as a significant coastal resource. ' New development must be brought into conformance with the regulations of the district in which such property is located. (Newport Beach Municipal Code § 20.62.080.) yr V Citizen CLUP Comments RE% AERIE Project (PA 2005 -196) August 13, 2007 Page 6 of 10 Thus, improvements on the bluff face of Carnation Avenue may be properly permitted when there are no feasible alternatives other than building on the bluff face and such development is consistent with the PLOED. There is no indication in the record that it is infeasible to locate new development entirely on top of the bluff. In fact, the existing structure is entirely on top of the bluff (assuming the bluff was not excavated to accommodate the structure originally). The existing structure does not extend down the bluff, and thus it is entirely feasible to approve new development within the previous footprint of the building. City staff has argued that the second sentence of Policy 4.4.3 -8, "Permit such improvements only when no feasible alternative exists..." only applies to public improvements. (Planning Commission Meeting minutes, May 17, 2007, at p. 8 of 20.) However, the second sentence's language, "Permit such improvements" indicates that the prohibition on bluff development was intended to apply to all improvements, not to only public improvements. Omission of the word "public" demonstrates improvements has a different meaning. (See, Cornette v. Dept of Transp.(2001) 26 Cal. 4th 63, 73.; People v. Gardeley (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 605, 621, indicating the court will not add nor omit words from a statute.) If the drafters of the CLUP intended to limit such requirement solely to public improvements, then it would have included specific language in Policy 4.4.3 -8, especially considering that the previous sentence distinguishes between public improvement and private development. Because it did not make such a distinction, "improvements" must mean all improvements, public and private. The AERIE Project may not extend down the bluff face unless there are no feasible alternatives. D. The Predominant Line of Existing Development Limits the House to the Existing Foot Print. City Staff correctly states that the specific Policies of 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9 permitting bluff face development must be interpreted and applied in a manner that is harmonious with more general policies requiring new development to minimize alterations of the natural bluffs. (Staff Report, May 17, 2007, at 3; See also, CLUP Policies 4.4.1 -1, 4.4.1 -3, 4.4.3, 4.4.3 -12, 4.4.3 -15.) For example, Policy 4.4.3 identifies Carnation as one of the places where continued development along bluff faces is permitted. "However, development on the bluff face is controlled to minimize further alteration." (Policy 4.4.3 at 4 -76, emphasis added.) The CLUP's stated intention to minimize "further". alteration, despite permitting continued bluff face development, strongly indicates that the drafters of the CLUP wished bluff face development to remain in its existing footprint and not further extend down the bluff. As noted in the April 5, 2007 Staff Report, limiting the proposed development to within the footprint of the existing development "would minimize alteration of the bluff to the greatest extent (Staff Report, April 5, 2007 at 4 of 10.) Thus, to be most consistent with the policies of the CLUP, the City Council should limit such footprint to the existing building. OZ. Citizen CLUP Comments RE: AERIE Project (PA 2005 -196) August 13, 2007 Page 7 of 10' . According to the Staff Report, the elevation of 201 -205 Carnation is 52 feet MSL. (Staff Report, May 17, 2007 at 4.) Staffs original PLOED calculation of 52 feet MSL essentially limited the development to the existing development's footprint. (Staff Report, April 5, 2007 at 6.) City Staff later revised the PLOED analysis to include a house at 2495 Ocean Blvd, which extends down to 30.5 feet. Thus, Staffs recommendation is that the City Council adopt a PLOED for the Project at 50.7 feet above MSL, which is the mean height of development along Carnation Avenue and the adjacent houses along Ocean Boulevard. The Planning Commission's approval of the Project permitted the visible portion of the development to extend down the bluff face to 30.5 feet MSL and 59 feet above MSL at.the North East Corner of the development. (Meeting Minutes, at p. 15 of 20, May 17, 2007.) However, this takes into account both Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard Development, which are separate streets, and operating under separate rules. In addition, as noted in the April 5, 2007 Staff Report, such PLOED does not minimize the alteration of the bluffs. Both the Applicant and the Planning Commission make a fundamental mistake by including buildings along Ocean Boulevard in their analysis of the PLOED. The AERIE Project is located entirely along Carnation Avenue, not Ocean Boulevard. Ocean Boulevard has a completely different set of requirements for bluff face development designed to protect the public view along Ocean Boulevard. The CLUP states, "Prohibit - projections associated with new development to exceed the top of curb on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard." (CLUP Policy 4.4.2 -4.) Thus, historically, bluff face development was more intensive along Ocean Boulevard, because such development was designed to maintain the view along Ocean Boulevard. Including development along different streets completely skews the PLOED analysis. For example, the Applicant's calculation included development such as the Channel Reef development, which is sitting on the beach below the bluff, and houses on Bayside Drive located in front of the Carnation Avenue bluff, to argue that the PLOED is actually 10 feet above MSL. (MND at 28; See also, MND figure A -19.) Thus, under the Applicant's interpretatlon of the CLUP, only the bottom ten feet of the bluff must be protected in order to comply the CLUP. Clearly such interpretation does not comply with the CLUP's stated goal of minimizing alteration of the natural bluffs, as there would be essentially no visible natural bluff left. (CLUP Policy 4.4.3.; See also, Pub. Res. Code § 30251.) The applicant cannot take advantage of the development patterns along both Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard, yet refuse to comply with the height limits along Ocean Boulevard. The development is entirely on Carnation Avenue, and therefore may only consider existing development along Carnation Avenue for . determining the PLOED. The PLOED as calculated solely using Carnation Avenue development, and as originally calculated by City Staff, is 52 feet above MSL. A /? Citizen CLUP Comments RE: AERIE Project (PA 2005 -196) August 13, 2007 Page 8 of 10 Further, the City Council will be setting a precedent on how to interpret the CLUP in this decision. If the City Council permits the PLOED to be determined by averaging the lowest extent of development within 250 feet, including those developments that are actually at the base of the bluff, then the CLUP is essentially meaningless. The public views of the natural bluff from Balboa Peninsula and the waterway leading to Newport Bay would be completely destroyed. Finally, The City must interpret the calculation of the PLOED in a manner that can be applied to all bluff face development in all situations. The PLOED cannot be re- interpreted on a case by case basis, otherwise it becomes the essence of arbitrary and capricious decision making. The most logical and enforceable way to interpret the PLOED is to limit the line to the mean sea level elevations of the development along the street where the development is located. Any other interpretation would result in a lack of enforceable standards for bluff face developments and prove an endless source of controversy and trouble to the City. E. The AERIE Project Must be Denied Because It Violates the Parking Policy In the CLUP. CLUP policy 2.9.3 -1 states that the City must: Site and design new development to avoid use of parking configurations or parking management programs that are difficult to maintain and. enforce. (See also General Plan CE 7.1.1) Despite this clear policy statement against unorthodox "parking configurations," the AERIE Project is designed to have 18 resident parking spaces and 7 guest parking spaces, the majority of which will be solely accessible by the use of two vehicle elevators. (MND Figure A -4.) Parking will occur on all lower levels, with the lowest parking stalls at 31.5 feet MSL in elevation. (MND figure A -13) Thus, the elevators must potentially lift a car 40 feet in elevation. There is no analysis of the time it takes for one of the elevators to fully travel from the street level to the lowest parking level, and then return to the street level for another car. There is no analysis of the success of similarly designed parking configurations. This concern was discussed in the April 5, 2007 Staff Report which noted that "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." (Staff Report, dated April 5, 2007 at 5.) The Staff Report continues, "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. They will take on- street parking away from visitors to the coastal zone, which would negatively impact public access. (Id.) The Staff Report concludes that the parking configuration may be inconsistent with 1q. / Lj Citizen CLUP Comments RE: AERIE Project (PA 2005 -196) August 13,2007 Page 9 of 10 CLUP Policy 2.9.3 -1. Despite this direct commentary on the parking problems associated with.the Project, the final MND talks glowingly of the scheme simply because the Project exceeds minimum requirements. (MND at 54.) Additionally, because the Project reduces the curb cuts the MND goes so far as to claim the Project will create a beneficial impact in this popular beach destination area. (MND at 54.) Interestingly, discussion of Policy 2.9.3 -1 was left out of the draft resolution for the Planning Commission and is not analyzed in the MND. The parking configuration further fails to take into account the realities of the life- styles of the very wealthy, for whom this project is clearly tailored. The City Council should anticipate each of the units will require service personnel requiring additional parking spaces. Seven guest parking spots for nine 5,000 to 7,000 square foot condominiums borders on absurd, and it is not credible that these spaces will serve both guests and workers expected to service the luxury condominiums. Parking will be greatly Impacted in an area that is already described as a "popular beach destination area." (MND at 54.) The parking should be designed in such a manner that it is convenient to use and will accommodate the actual number of cars residing at and visiting the complex. The currently proposed parking configuration is neither convenient nor adequate and will be impossible to enforce. Residents, guests, visitors and employees will be parking on the street to avoid such Inconvenient parking. The AERIE Project does not comply with CLUP Policy 2.9.3 -1, and therefore the Project must be denied. CONCLUSION A Project Cannot Be Approved Which Does not Comply with the CLUP. The applicant for the AERIE Project desires a number of exceptions to the CLUP in order to maximize the size, scale and bulk of the AERIE Project. The applicant cannot take advantage of certain parts of the CLUP Policy without accepting the disadvantages of such Policy as well. As noted above, the applicant wishes to take advantage of the PLOED along Ocean Avenue, which limits new construction to below curb height, but wants to take advantage of the 30 foot height limit on Carnation Boulevard. This defies logic and reasoning, is not sound public policy, and legally cannot be done. The Project is entirely on Carnation Avenue and must be limited to the PLOED of those buildings — 52 MSL. 11/ 1/1 /1/ 1// 1/1 411 A 1E-5 Citizen CLUP Comments RE: AERIE Project (PA 2005 -196) August 13, 2007 Page 10 of 10 The CLUP is extremely clear. Even if the PLOED does apply, it must be applied in a manner which minimized further alteration of the bluff face. (CLUP Policy 4.4.3) Excavating approximately 32,000 cubic feet of bluff cannot be considered "minimizing" the alteration. The Project is inconsistent with the language, intent and spirit of Newport Beach's Coastal Land Use Plan. The AERIE Project must be denied. Sincerely, COAST LAW GRO LLP Marco A. Gonzalez Todd T. Cardiff CC: Karl Schwing, Orange County Area Supervisor California Coastal Commission James Campbell, Senior Planner, City of Newport Beach Qcampbell@ city.newport- beach.ca. us) fi /K EXHIBIT 2 ,,, 1; > 0 August 13, 2007 Mayor and City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 169 Saxony Road Suite 204 Encinitas, CA 92024 tat 760 - 942 -8505 fax 760 - 942 -8515 w .wastlawgroup.com Via Facsimile, First Class, and Electronic Mall (949.644.3229; jcampbeli @city.newport- beach.ca.us) RE: AERIE PROJECT (PA 2005 -196) 201 -205, & 207 Carnation Avenue, and 101 Bayside Place Citizens' Comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration Honorable Mayor and City Council, Coast Law Group LLP (CLG) submits this letter on behalf of Lisa and Joseph Vallejo, and Kathleen McIntosh. This letter is intended to be read in conjunction with and supplements CLG's letter dated August 13, 2007 regarding the inconsistency of the AERIE Project with Newport Beach's Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP). Such comments on the CLUP are incorporated herein, and should be applied equally to the City Council's consideration of the mitigated negative declaration (MND). The AERIE Project is described as the construction of a 9 condominiums, each with seven levels, for a total of over 73,000 square feet of floor area, located at the 201- 207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place. (MIND at 1 & 5.) It is truly a massive project with two levels above Carnation and four levels located below the bluff -top extending to within 30.5 feet above mean sea -level (MSL). (MND at 2 & 4.) The bottom level will be located behind the bluff face, and will extend to within 20 feet above MSL. (Neblett and Associates, "Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report," at 2.)' The Project will require the excavation and transport off -site of 31,524 cubic yards of bluff material consisting of hard to very hard Monterey Formation Sand Stone (MND at 4; Conceptual Grading Plan at 14.) Construction is anticipated to take over 2.5 years. (MND at 50.) A MND is not appropriate under CEQA for a project of this size, scale and location. The mitigation measures imposed do not reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance. The initial study fails to identify and investigate a number of potentially significant impacts. Among other impacts, the AERIE Project may have a significant impact on noise, traffic, parking, geology, aesthetics and hazardous material handling. Because the proposed Project may have a significant impact on the environment, the City Council must require a full environmental impact report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)_ (Pub. Res. Code § 21080.) The City must deny the Project as currently proposed. ' Hereinafter the Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report will be reviewed as the "Conceptual Grading Plan." Citizens' CEQA/MNO Comments RE: AERIE Project (PA 2005496) August 13,2007 Page 2 of 13 A. The City Must Require the Applicant to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report Whenever Any Portion of the Project May Have a Significant Impact on the Environment. In order for the City of Newport Beach (City) to rely on a MND to analyze the Project, all potential impacts caused by the Project must be avoided or mitigated "to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur." (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(c)(2).) If any portion of the Project may have a significant impact, an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared. (CEQA Guidelines 15063(b)(1).) CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR "whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have significant environmental impact." ( No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal. 3d 68, 75.) "Substantial evidence... means enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions may also be reached." (CEQA Guidelines section 15384.) Substantial evidence includes facts, reasonable assumption predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(e)(1).) Substantial evidence to support a fair argument that there may be significant impact on the environment may be provided by the general public or by expert opinion. (Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 903, 928.) A MND will only be upheld when there is no credible evidence that the project may have a significant environmental impact. (Quail Botanical Gardens Found. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal. App. 4th 1597, 1602.) if there is a disagreement between experts as to whether an impact is significant, the lead agency shall treat the impact as significant and prepare an EIR. (CEQA Guidelines section 15064(g); Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal. App. 4th 1307, 1317.) In this case, experts have identified a number of potentially significant impacts. B. The City Cannot Exempt Construction Noise Impacts from the California Environmental Quality Act. The MND claims that there will be no significant impact from construction noise because the Newport Municipal Code Exempts Construction Noise from its noise ordinance. (MND at 49.) Normally, Noise which exceed 55 decibels during the day in a residential neighborhood is considered a nuisance under the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). (NBMC § 10.26.025.) However, construction noise is exempt from such noise standard. (NBMC § 10.26.035(d).) Instead, the Municipal Code regulates the time and days of the week construction activity is permitted. (NBMC § 10.28.040). Construction activity is permitted by the Municipal code from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, and on Saturdays between 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (NBMC § 10.28.040.) z The CEQA Guidelines may be found in the California Code of Regulations, Chapter 14, section 15000 et. seq. r� Citizens' CEQAIMND Comments RE: AERIE Project (PA 2005 -196) August13,2007 Page 3 of 13 While construction activities are exempted from the prohibitions of noise under the Municipal Code, such local exemption does not and cannot exempt construction noise from the compliance with CEQA. (Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal. App. 4th 98, 116.) The City cannot simply deem compliance with the construction noise exemption as a per se insignificant environmental effect. The City must determine whether there may be a significant impact caused by the Project despite complying with the requirements of time constraints. In fact, the City code itself seems to indicate that all construction activity may have a significant impact on the environment. Section 10.28.040 of the Municipal Codes states, . No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs; or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides In the vicinity, on any weekday except between the hours of seven a.m. and six -thirty p.m., nor on any Saturday except between the hours of eight a.m. and six p.m.. Such ordinance contemplates that construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition all produce loud noises that disturbs people of normal sensitivity. The MND explains that the ordinance restricts the construction activity to when people are most active and the noise from construction is most tolerable. (MND at 50.) However, the MND ignores the fact that the AERIE Project is not normal residential construction. The AERIE Project is the equivalent of constructing a small hotel in the middle of an established, and typically tranquil, residential neighborhood. . Exacerbating the noise impacts is the proposal to excavate a tremendous amount of hard rock material. The noise generation from such work simply cannot be considered on par with the level of construction noise contemplated from typical development in the area. In other words, the City must analyze the levels of noise expected from the 32,000 cubic yards of excavation, the construction of 73,000 square feet of residential space, and the thousands of truck trips — all over a 2.5 year period. This intensive schedule will result in impacts dwarfing those one would expect from the construction of a modest single - family dwelling in the neighborhood. As such, the City cannot merely turn a blind -eye and claim "no significance" based upon the noise ordinance exemption. C. There is Substantial Evidence that Noise from the Construction of the Project may have a Signficant Impact on the Environment. The MND states construction equipment commonly emits noise that registers at 75 -100 decibels at a distance of 50 feet and construction will take place of 2.5 years. /1. /%G Citizens' CEQA1MND Comments RE: AERIE Project (PA 2005 -106) August 13,2007 Page 4 of 13 (MND at 50.)3 Considering that construction is taking place in a residential zone, the MND fails to properly analyze the significant impact from noise. As discussed below, there will be a significant environmental impact caused by construction noise. First, it must be noted that 75-100 decibels is an extreme level of noise in a residential neighborhood. The maximum level of noise allowed by the Newport Beach for residential zones is 55 decibels during the daytime. (NBMC § 10.26.025.) Generally speaking, for every increase of 10 decibels, a person perceives a doubling of the sound intensity.' Thus, a noise that registers at 65 decibels sounds twice as loud as a noise which is 55 decibels. A noise which is at 75 decibels is twice as loud as a noise which registers at 65 decibels. Construction equipment which registers a 100 decibels at 50 feet, is exponentially louder than 55 decibels. In addition, sound has a cumulative effect. If two pieces of construction equipment each emit 80 decibels at 50 feet, then the cumulative effect of such noise is actually 83 decibels at 50 feet .5 Thus, the more equipment which is causing noise at one time, the louder the noise impact will be. And it is, not simply the noise from diesel engines which will be problematic. Demolition of the existing structure will include the snapping of wood and clanking of metal on concrete as the structure is removed. Excavation will include the clanking of excavator buckets and drills on bluff material. Further, as discussed by our geologist, the bluff is made up of "locally hard to very hard sand stone of the Monterey Formation. "6 (See also, Conceptual Grading Plan at 14.) The geologist notes that some of the rock must be excavated using hoe -ram or rock chisel equipment. Clearly, the excavations using hoe rams and rock chisel equipment will be extremely jolting and disturbing. Considering the fact that the construction will continue for 2.5 years, the impact of noisy machinery is a significant impact on the environment. Finally, the fact that the AERIE Project is located on a coastal bluff exacerbates its likely noise impacts. Sound travels farther over water! Machinery producing 100 3 See also, P & D Consultants, Environmental Information Form August 2005, at 8 -9 ( "Noise levels associated with construction equipment at a distance of 50 feet, include 80 decibels (dBA) for a backhoe, 85 dBA for a concrete mixer, 82 dBA for a concrete pump, and 74 dBA for an asphalt layer and roller.) Leland K. Irvine and Roy L. Richards, ACOUSTICS AND NOISE CONTROL HANDBOOK FOR ARCHITECTS AND BUILDERS, at 7 (Excerpts attached hereto as Exhibit 1). 5 ACOUSTICS AND NOISE CONTROL HANDBOOK FOR ARCHITECTS AND BUILDERS, at 7 (Exhibit 1). 6 Correspondence from Laguna Geosciences, Inc., August 10, 2007 (attached hereto as Exhibit 2). Matt Hunter, C.E., C.E.G.. (G.E. Lic # 2465; C.E.G Lic # 1713.) Howard Shaw, PhD and Cheryl Jackson Hall, PhD, "Why Sound /Noise Carries So Well Over Water," available at Po/ Citizens' CEQAIMND Comments RE: AERIE Project (PA 2005 -196) August 13,2007 Page 5 of 13 decibels of sound at 50 feet may be able to be heard in sailboats entering or exiting Newport Bay, and could potentially be heard all the way across the channel. The impact of noise will not be a localized phenomenon. There is a substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the construction will cause a significant impact from noise, and therefore an Environmental Impact Report must be prepared. D. The Project Schedule Contained In the MND is Unrealistic, and therefore the Noise Cannot be Considered Merely a Temporary Annoyance. The MND indicates that construction will occur over a period of 2.5 years. To meet this schedule, according to the applicant, the excavation will be completed in four to six weeks with 100 dump truck trips per day. However, it is highly unlikely such a feat could be accomplished. One hundred dump truck trips a day, equals one dump truck load every 4.8 minutes. (8 hours x 60 minutes = 480 minutes 100 trips = 100 trips.) Even assuming an 11.5 hour day, there would still have to be one dump truck loaded every 6.9 minutes.B This means that excavators, drilling rigs and other excavation equipment will be running constantly for one to two months, if it can be done in that short of time. (MND at 52.) However, this construction timeline strains credibility, especially considering that the rock and soil will have to somehow be transported up the bluff to Carnation Avenue. According to the elevations in the MND, Carnation Avenue is located at 70 feet above MSI. (MND at A -1 "Site Plan ") Considering that the bottom of the existing structure is located at 52 feet MSI, excavation will start at almost 20 feet below the level of the street. Thus, somehow, the applicant must transport the bluff material 20 feet from grade, up to street level, and then into a dump truck, which is at least another 10 feet above ground. Of course, the logistical difficulties in transporting excavated material up the bluff will only get worse as the excavation continues down the bluff. At the lowest level of the planned Project, excavation will occur at only 20 feet above MSI. (Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report, Aug. 5, 2005, at 15.) Thus, the rock and soil must be vertically elevated 50 feet up the bluff to street level, and then loaded into a 10 -12 cubic yard dump truck, which theoretically will be loaded in 4.8 - 6.9 minutes. Such construction schedule is highly unlikely, if not physically impossible, especially considering the hard to very hard rock in the bluff, and the fact that there is yet to be delineated a proposed haul route or a dedicated disposal site for excavated material. (MND at 52.). http:// www. mnresponsiblerec .orgtprevioussite /resources /sound.htm. (attached hereto as Exhibit 3). e (11.5 hours x 60 minutes = 690 minutes = 100 truck trips = 6.9 minutes) 4 192 Citizens' CEQAIIAND Comments RE: AERIE Project (PA 2005 -156) August 13, 2007 Page 6 of 13 A much more likely scenario is that excavation would take at least six months, if not more. This is how such schedule may be determined. According to the MND, the Project requires the excavation of 31,524 cubic yards of material. (MND at 4.) The applicant estimates that excavation will take between 2,300 to 2,700 truck trips. (MND at 52.) Thus, each dump truck must carry between 12 -14 yards of material. (31,524 + 2,300 = 13.7; 31,500 + 2,700 = 11.6). Assuming that the applicant could actually load four dump trucks an hour or 32 dump trucks a day, that is approximately 384 - 448 cubic yards that could be excavated per day. There is approximately 20 working days per month. Thus, the applicant,could excavate between 7,680 to 8,960 cubic yards of excavation per month. In a best case scenario, if excavation could continue each day for 8 hours, with filling four dump trucks per hour, excavation will take between 3.5 to 4.1 months. Of course, the above scenario assumes that there will be no haul days lost to everyday or unanticipated delays. Given the substantial effort that will be necessary to brace the bluff walls as excavation proceeds, coupled with the logistics of maneuvering drill rigs and other heavy equipment up and down the bluffs, it is more likely than not the significant noise impacts will continue well beyond the expected time frame. E. There is Insufficient Analysis of Construction Impacts on Traffic: The MND inappropriately asserts construction of the Project will not have a significant impact on traffic. The record lacks substantial evidence to make such determination and instead improperly defers the study and implementation of mitigation measures until after approval of the Project. First, there is insufficient analysis in the MND of existing traffic congestion surrounding the Project. And because the baseline level of service for the streets likely to be affected has not been determined, no assertion of impact significance can be made at this time. While the MND admits significant traffic congestion occurs during the summer months, it ignores congestion every resident knows exists during numerous other times of the year. (MND at 52.) Without such baseline data, it is impossible for the City to determine whether the considerable traffic impacts could ever be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The only evidence in the record is that there are small and narrow residential streets surrounding the Project. Given the admission of such a relevant constraint, t is the responsibility of the City, not the public, to prepare the proper traffic studies prior to review of the Project. (Sandstorm v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App.3d 296, 311.) The MND fails to provide substantial evidence that the Traffic can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Information Provided in the MND Suggests a Strong Likelihood that Construction Traffic Impacts Will Be Significant What information there is in the MND constitutes substantial evidence that construction traffic may indeed cause significant impacts to the neighborhood and community. The rough estimate of construction vehicle traffic states there may be up to ,4, 1q3 Citizens' CEQAIMND Comments RE: AERIE Project (PA 2005 -166) August 13, 2007 Page 7 of 13 100 dump trucks a day during excavation for the Project. In an 8 hour day, this breaks down to one truck every 4.8 minutes. If the applicant worked from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., one dump truck every 6.9 minutes will need ,to be arriving, loading and leaving the construction site. Between 2,300 t62,700 dump trucks will be required to haul excavated materials through narrow residential streets and intersections that are at least occasionally impacted under current conditions. (MND at 52.) However, this is not the full extent of the construction traffic. The MND does not describe how many dump trucks will be required to haul away the material generated from demolition of the 14 unit existing structure. In addition, there will be 575 concrete mixers and pump trucks, along with a number of flat bed trucks, back hoes, drill rigs, and cranes. (MND at 49.) This leads the MND to conclude that there could be some adverse impacts: [F]or example, a convoy of trucks taking a route along narrow residential streets with numerous stop -sign controlled intersections could slow local traffic, impede turning movements at private driveways, and could result in potentially intrusive noise and bursts of exhaust emissions as trucks slow, stop and the accelerate through successive intersections. (Id. at 49 -52.) This narrative description of potentially significant impacts triggers the obligation for further analysis and appropriate mitigation. CEQA requires a full environmental impact report whenever any aspect of the project may have a significant impact on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines 15063(b)(1).) Clearly, the information contained in the MND demonstrates Construction vehicles traveling to and from the Project site may have a significant impact on traffic, noise and air quality. 2. Insufficient Information Exists to Determine Whether Construction Traffic Impacts Can or Will be Mitigated. Nevertheless, the MND summarily concludes traffic impacts will be mitigated to a level less than significant (MND at 52 -53.) The sole mitigation measure contemplated to achieve this goal is the "development and implementation of a construction traffic control plan and to designate the contents of the plan." The City and applicant must be aware such post approval development and imposition of mitigation requirements would violate CEQA. Indeed, identification of impacts and consideration of feasible mitigation measures prior to project approval are the very cornerstones of CEQA law. (Sandstorm v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296, 306 -07.) CEQA case law further clarifies that the City cannot avoid preparing an EIR by relying on mitigation measures adopted during the design review process subsequent to project approval. (Quail Botanical Gardens Found. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal. App. 4th 1597, 1606 fn.4.) CEQA unambiguously requires identification and incorporation of mitigation measures or alternatives which reduce the impacts before the MND is released to the public, let Citizens, CEQAIMND Comments RE: AERIE Project (PA 2005 -196) August 13, 2007 Page 8of13 alone approved. (Pub. Res. Code 21080@)(2); CEQA Guidelines 15070.)9 Apparently in anticipation of objection, the MND claims "the ultimate destination of the export material cannot be determined until time of grading, and the conditions, advantages and disadvantages of potential haul routes cannot be determined until that time." This reasoning is downright ludicrous, and fails for many reasons. First, characterization of export sediment quantity and quality can at the very least be estimated, with potential disposal options identified and analyzed based on the range of limitations that would be created under various scenarios. Similarly, the number of streets available for ingress and egress to the Project site is limited. Only Ocean Boulevard or Seaview Avenue provide direct access to the Project, and both of these are small residential streets. As a first option for exiting the neighborhood, trucks could proceed down Fernleaf Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway. This is not likely due to a steep hill on Femleaf that would exacerbate traffic, noise and air quality impacts of heavily - loaded, slow- moving dump trucks and other construction vehicles. A more likely second option for construction traffic would be to proceed down either Seaview Avenue or Ocean Boulevard to Marguerite Avenue, which would require traffic to proceed through at least eight slow blocks of narrow residential streets with multiple stop signs. And while Marguerite Avenue would eventually lead trucks onto Pacific Coast - Highway, that intersection is signalized and already burdened by heavy traffic. Because the level of service for Marguerite Avenue is not specified in the MND, the daily addition of 100+ dump trucks and other construction vehicles to the street and intersection has not been assessed. There are a very finite number of routes for construction traffic, and without analysis at the MND stage of project approval, neither the City Council nor the Public can credibly discern whether the Project will have a significant impact on the environment. Oddly, the MND identifies where the staging area for the trucks will be — on Pacific Coast Highway, south of Cameo Highlands Drive. (MND at 54.) If there is sufficient information to identify the staging area for the trucks, it its unclear why the advantages and disadvantages of particular haul routes cannot similarly be determined. It appears the City and Applicant are deferring the description of potential haul routes to avoid the inevitable public outcry when people realize that thousands of large dump trucks will be driving down their small, poorly maintained local streets. The draft resolutions for Project approval further confound the matter. They state, "Construction traffic routes ... shall avoid narrow residential streets, unless there is no alternative." (Planning Commission Draft Resolution 1104, emphasis). The ' "(Ajny necessary mitigation measures must be specifically set forth at the time of publication of a mitigated negative declaration in advance of the City's adoption of it." Quail Botanical Gardens, supra, at 1606 fn. 4.) A � i Citizens' CEQAIMND Comments RE: AERIE Project (PA 2005 -196) August 13, 2007 Page 9 of 13 rationale for the condition is that routing construction traffic down narrow residential street would constitute a significant impact, and therefore must be avoided if at all possible. But, as noted, because there are limited options for ingress and egress, all of which implicate narrow residential streets, in this case construction traffic will necessarily cause a significant unmitigable impact. Therefore, the City must prepare ar EIR. Construction and Dump Truck Traffic will Destroy Already Heavily Damaged Streets. The aerial photograph in Figure A -17 of the MND provides a unique perspective on the condition of the road surfaces on Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. The immense number of cracks in the concrete are clearly visible, and every driver on Carnation or Ocean Boulevard is aware the streets are extremely rough and in considerable disrepair. As noted by our Civil Engineer, Kevin Wohimut, P.E., heavy truck traffic, especially fully loaded cement trucks (of which there will be at least 575) and dump trucks will wreak havoc on the surface of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue, and any other surface streets where truck traffic is routed.10 These residential streets are not built or designed to accommodate the massive vehicle weights of fully loaded cement trucks and dump trucks. The roads will age quickly, pot holes will develop and, further cracks will occur. The streets may even buckle in certain places. Of course, it is not just Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard that will fall into further disrepair. The entire haul route, except for roads that are specifically designed to handle heavy truck traffic (64,000 GVW R) will be damaged and quickly age. The MND fails to address this highly likely damage to local streets, and therefore violates CEQA. G. The MND Fails to Address, Study or Mitigate the Potential Impacts of Asbestos Removal From the Existing Building. The Initial Study checklist fails to identify any potential for hazardous material at the Project location. However, according to the Phase I Environmental Assessment Prepared by P & D Consultants (Phase I Report), the existing building may have asbestos, a classified hazardous material. The Phase I Report states: 5.1 Asbestos: In view of the age of the buildings, the presence of asbestos - containing 1° See correspondence from engineer Kevin Wohimut, August 10, 2007, attached as Exhibit 4). Citizens' CEQA/MND Comments RE, AERIE Project IPA 2005 -196) August13,2007 Page 10 of 13 building materials is possible. With the consent of Mr. Cerruti, no sampling for asbestos was performed. (Phase I Environmental Report, dated May 26, 2005, at 12.) Mr. Cerruti is the Director of Property Development for Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. (Phase I Report, cover page.) It is unclear what qualifications Mr. Cerruti possesses that would permit him to exempt a building that may have asbestos from otherwise required sampling. As a hazardous material, asbestos requires special handling and consideration of a myriad of procedures to protect the public, workers and the environment from harm. (8 Cal. Code Regs. 1529.)" Specially trained people must supervise the demolition. (8 CCR 1529(b) "competent person "; 8 CCR 1529(e)(6).) Special demolition techniques must be used to encapsulate the asbestos and prevent asbestos dust from contaminating and injuring workers, neighbors, and the environment. (See e.g., 8 CCR 1529(g).) Special medical exams must be given to workers after asbestos exposure. (8 CCR 1529(m).) The failure to test for asbestos could endanger the lives and health of workers, neighbors and others who may come in contact with asbestos laden material. The failure to conduct necessary studies renders it more likely the fair argument standard will be met and an EIR will be required. (Sandstorm v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296, 311.) It is not the public's duty to prepare the proper studies. (Id.) The initial study failed to identify the potential for hazardous material onsite despite the statements contained in the Phase I Report. Because the Phase I Report indicated the potential presence of asbestos, and the applicant failed to conduct the proper studies to confirm or deny the presence of asbestos, the MND cannot be certified. The evidence contained in the Phase I Report, In itself, constitutes substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the potential presence of asbestos may be a significant impact to the environment. The City cannot certify the MND without addressing the potential impact of asbestos. H. The MND Fails to Address, Study or Mitigate the Potential Impacts of Lead -Based Paints In the Existing Building. . Mr. Cerruti makes the same unqualified judgment to not test for lead -based paints despite the potential presence of lead based paints in the existing building. The Phase I Report states: 5.2 Lead -Based Paint In view of the age of the building, the presence of lead based paint is " See also CAL OSHA website, attached hereto as Exhibit 5, ( http:// www. dir .ca.gov /DOSH /ACRU /ACRUinfo.htm) discussing asbestos issues. l4 07 Citizens' CEQAIMND Comments RE: AERIE Project (PA 2006 -106) August 13, 2007 Page 11 of 13 possible. With the consent of Mr. Cerruti, no sampling for lead -based paint was performed. (Phase I Report, at 12.) Again, there is nothing in the record which demonstrates Mr. Cerruti has the proper qualifications to exempt the sampling for lead based paints from the Phase I Environmental Assessment. The failure to test for lead based paints when such contamination is possible constitutes a fair argument that there maybe lead based paints in the existing structure. As with asbestos, lead -based paints requihe special handling, even during demolition. (8 CCR 1532.1.(a)(1)). Lead can cause severe health problems with symptoms such as: fatigue, head - aches, chest pains, nausea, vomiting, abnormal blood loss, loss of memory, infertility and impotence, loss of libido, and birth - defects. (8 CCR 1532.1, Appendix C(III).) Also as with asbestos, the failure to sample for lead -based paint may potentially endangered the lives of workers, neighbors and the public. The initial study failed to properly identify the potential for hazardous material on site, and therefore is inadequate. The evidenc6 contained in the Phase I Report, in itself, constitutes substantial evidence to support a fair argument that lead -based paint may be a significant impact to the environment. Therefore, the MND cannot be certified. 1. The Project Will Have a Significant Impact on Aesthetics and Coastal Resources by Destroying the Natural Bluff. The MND comes to the conclusion that regardless of where the City Council establishes the Predominant Line of Existing Development (PLOED), there will not be a significant impact because it will comply with the CLUP. (MND at 47.) However, compliance with a plan or regulation does not automatically establish that there is not a significant impact. (Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal. App. 4th 98, 116.) Even if the City found that the Project complied with the PLOED, the City must still determine whether there is substantial evidence in the record that the Project may have a significant impact on aesthetics. Coastal bluffs are a prominent land form in Newport Beach. (CLUP Policy 4.4.3.) The natural bluffs are described in the CLUP as an "important part of the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone and to be protected as a resource of public importance." (CLUP Policy 4.4.3.) Even along Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard, where there is significant bluff face development, the remaining natural bluffs are a public resource, and "development on the bluff face is controlled to minimize further alteration." (CLUP Policy 4.4.3.) Design and construction techniques are to be employed to minimize the alteration of the natural bluff to the maximum extent feasible. (CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -12.) Citizens' CEQAIMND Comments RE, AERIE Project (PA 2005496) August 13, 2007 Page 12 of 13 ' Obviously, the Coastal Commission believes a project design extending the present development envelope another 20 to 30 feet down the bluff face will adversely affect public views and significant coastal resources. (Coastal Commission Comments, May 14, 2007) The Coastal Commission staff members are considered experts on coastal resources and coastal views, and the Coastal Commission letter itself constitutes substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant impact on coastal resources, especially aesthetics. Unless appropriate mitigation is proposed, the Project must be remanded and an Environmental Impact Report produced. CONCLUSION There is Substantial Evidence to Support a Fair Argument the AERIE Project May have a Significant Impact on the Environment. There is a very low threshold for requiring the preparation of an EIR. All that is required to overcome a MND is a fair argument based on substantial evidence that some aspect of the Project may have a significant Impact on the environment. Generally, the opinion of an expert automatically triggers the requirement to prepare an EIR. (CEQA Guidelines section 15064(g); Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal. App. 4th 1307, 1317.) In this case, despite the City's lack of willingness to provide access to technical documents related to the Project, CLG has nonetheless produced comments from two experts describing potential impacts that were not properly evaluated. A registered Civil Engineer described the potential impacts caused by shoring and bracing along the walls of the excavation and the impacts of loaded dump trucks and cement trucks on local residential streets. The Coastal Commission described the potential aesthetic impacts to significant coastal resources. The applicant's own experts, in the Phase I environmental report indicated that the existing building may have asbestos and lead - based paint. The evidence of the potential significant from noise comes from the City's own MND. The City Council's job in evaluating the MND is not to determine whether it likes the Project, whether the Project will be beneficial to the community in the long run, or whether the majority of the residents prefer the proposed project over the existing development. The job of the City Council is to evaluate the legal sufficiency of the MND pursuant to CEQA, taking into consideration the regulations and cases interpreting it. The City must deny the Project if it finds that there is substantial evidence anywhere in the record to support a fair argument that the Project may have a significant impact on the environment. Based on the foregoing, substantial evidence exists, and the MND does not comply with CEQA. Citizens' CEQA/MND Comments RE: AERIE Project (PA 2005 -188) August 13, 2007 Page 13 of 13 City must order the applicant to prepare a full EIR. Sincerely, COAST LAW GRO LLP Marco A. Gonzalez Todd T. Cardiff CC: Karl Schwing, Orange County Area Supervisor, Coastal Commission James Campbell, Senior Planner, City of Newport Beach ocampbell @city.n ewport- beach. ca.us) ATTACHMENTS: Leland K. Irvine and Roy L. Richards, ACOUSTICS AND NOISE CONTROL HANDBOOK FOR ARCHITECTS AND BUILDER (Excerpts) 2_ Correspondence from Laguna Geosciences, Inc., August 10, 2007 3. Howard Shaw, PhD and Cheryl Jackson Hall, PhD, "Why Sound /Noise Carries So Well Over Water," available at http:// www. mnrest)onsiblerec .ora/Drevioussite/ resources /sound.htm. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 3). 4. Correspondence from Kevin Wohlmut, August 10, 2007 5. CAL OSHA website, http:/ /www.dir .ca.aov /DOSH /ACRU /ACRUinfb.htm, 6. Letter from Joe and Lisa Vallejo, August 3, concerning noise. fl2 06 EXHIBIT "B" STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZgtIMER Govemor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION Filed: December 21, 2009 South Coast Area Office 49th Day: February 8, 2008 200 Ooeangate. Suite 1000 180th Day: June 18, 2008 Long Beach, CA 90002 -4302 tsszl 590-5071 Th 8a g aff; Femie Sy -LB Staff Report: May 29, 2008 Hearing Date: June 11 -13, 2008 Commission Action: STAFF REPORT: REGULAR CALENDAR APPLICATION NO.: 5 -07 -327 APPLICANT: Richard J. Livoni Second Family Limited Partnership AGENT: Brion Jeannette & Associates PROJECT LOCATION: 3335 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar (Orange County) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Remove existing unpermitted retaining walls and beach access stairway from bluff face, regrade lower bluff to natural contours, add to residence a new caisson - supported deck with enclosed bathroom and spa equipment room on upper bluff face, extend an existing bluff face deck, and construct new at grade pathway from new deck to beach. Grading will consist of 163 cubic yards of cut, 10 cubic yards of fill, and 153 cubic yards of export to a location outside of the Coastal Zone. Landscaping is al so proposed. SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The subject site is located between the first public road and the sea in Corona de I Mar (Newport Beach) and is immediately inland of Corona del Mar State Beach, which is a public beach. The application seeks removal of existing development and construction of new development on a coastal bluff face within a lot currently developed with a single family residence. The primary issues before the Commission are the appropriateness of approving the project given the importance of preserving scenic resources and minimizing landform alteration, preventing adverse impacts to public use of the beach and avoiding development in hazard prone locations. Commission staff believe part of the development can be approved because that development is consistent with other development approved by the Commission in the surrounding area. However, part of the proposed project, a private pathway down the bluff face to the beach, is not being proposed consistent with other such pathways that have been approved by the Commission in the vicinity of the site. Thus, Commission staff do not support the new pathway. Staff recommends that the Commission take one vote adopting a two -part resolution, which would APPROVE removal of the existing unpermitted bluff face stairway and walls, regrading the lower bluff to natural contours, landscaping, and construction of a new deck that would be in alignment with surrounding approved decks: and DENY the proposed new private pathway from the new deck, down the bluff face, to the beach. Staff is recommending APPROVAL of the proposed project subject to ELEVEN (11) SPECIAL CONDITIONS requiring: 1) an assumption of risk; 2) submittal of final project plans showing that P'l0 Z 5-07- 327- [Livoni] Regular Calendar Page 2 of 43 the new bluff deck will extend seaward a maximum 60 -foot linear distance m easured from the Ocean Boulevard property line. No new private pathway seaward of the line identified above is allowed. Except for the proposed removal of existing unpermitted development, grading the lower bluff face to natural contours, and landscaping, no development seaward of the line identified above shall take place; 3) no future shoreline protective devices; 4) future development; 5) evidence of conformance with geotechnical recommendations; 6) submittal of final drainage and run -off control plans; 7) submittal of final spa protection plans; 8) submittal of final landscape plans; 9) a deed restriction against the property, referencing all of the Special Conditions contained in this staff report; 10) condition compliance; and 11) inspection.. Staff recommends that the Commission DENY the construction of a new private beach access pathway down the bluff to the beach. The pattern of development along this segment of Ocean Boulevard consists of primary structures (i.e. houses) that are sited upon the up per bluff face, while the mid and lower bluff face remains largely undisturbed and vegetated. With some exceptions, the overall appearance of the bluff in this area is natural and undeveloped. The exceptions 1 nclude 1) lots that have pre - coastal, Commission - approved, or unpermitted stairways traversing the bluff face, and 2) lots that have unpermitted development at the toe of the bluff (including projects that are currently subject to a Commission cease and desist order or are under investigation by the Commission's Enforcement staff). In addition, the toe of the bluff is immediately inland of Corona del Mar State Beach, which is a public beach. The project site is consequently highly visible from the public beach. As currently submitted, part of the proposed project consists of the extension of an existing bluff deck and construction of a new bluff deck, which would encroach at most approximately 23 -feet seaward from the existing accessory development located on -site. No habitable area is proposed with the project. However, since the proposed deck would conform to the predominant line of development, it would not affect public views of the vegetated lower bluff face from the adjacent public beach or other public vantage points, suc h as Inspiration Point, which is a public park and viewing area located on the bluff overlooking Corona del Mar State Beach and the Pacific Ocean. As proposed, the new deck is located at approximately the 35 -foot contour to the south and the approximately 39 -foot contour to the north, which is landward of other accessory/deck improvements along this segment of Ocean Boulevard. In addition, approval of this project - without the proposed bluff face pathway- would be consistent with prior Commission action taken in this area. For instance, in recent proposals at the Tabak site (CDP No. 5 -02- 203- [fabak]), which is downcoast of the project site, living space additions were landward of the 48 -foot bluff elevation contour, and accessory improvements were limited to the 33 -foot elevation contour. In ad dition, the Palermo (CDP No. 5- 05- 3284Palermo]) and Halfacre project (CDP No. 5-03- 100- [Halfacre]), also adhered to the 33 -foot contour set by CDP No. 5 -02- 203- [Tabak] for accessory improvements. The proposed project also consists of removal of an existing unpermitted beach access stairway (previously determined to be an unpe rmitted stairway) and site walls located on the bluff and regrading of the bluff to match the existing slope and landscaping.' These aspects of the project ' On March 19, 2004, the Commission found, through its approval of Cease and Desist Order No. CCC -04- CD-01, that the beach access stairway currently existing on the subject property (among several other P 26 3 5- 07- 327- [Livoni] Regular Calendar Page 3 of 43 would be consistent with policies found within the Coastal Act and certified Land Use Plan since, visually, the character of the area would be maintained and compatible with the character of the surrounding area. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission APPROVE the extension of an existing bluff deck; construction of a new bluff deck; removal of an existing beach access stairway and site /retaining walls located on the bluff; regrading of the bluff to match the existing slope and landscaping. Though portions of the proposed project as discussed above would be consistent with the predominant line of development and consistent with the prior actions taken in this area, the proposed development does include as a component , the construction of a new private beach access pathway from the new deck down the bluff face to the beach, which is inconsistent with Sections 30251 of the Coastal Act and the City of Newport Beach Land Use P Ian (LUP) regarding development on coastal bluffs. This portion of the project also raises issues under Sections 30210, 30211 and 30240(b) of the Coastal Act. Approval of the new pathway would authorize development cascading down the bluff face and onto the beach and would authorize a significant — approximately 47 -feet— encroachment seaward beyond the predominant line of development. This proposal for a bluff face pathway is not comparable with a prior proposal for bluff face pathway that the Commission did approve. That other pathway is located at 3415 Ocean Boulevard, two lots downcoast of the subject site. That proposal, contained in application no. 5- 01- 112 - [Ensign], included an irrevocable offer to dedicate (OTD) an easement for public lateral access over the sandy beach seaward of the toe of the bluff. This proposal contains no such offer to dedicate an easement. There are other private stairways that descend from the homes on the upper bluff face to the sandy beach on nearby lots, however, those stairways appear to be pre - Coastal Act (e.g. those at 3329 (McNamee) & 3401 Ocean Blvd. (Butterf ield)) or are unpermitted (e.g. 3317 Ocean Blvd. (Palermo)). The only Commission - approved pathway that descends from a residence down the bluff face to the sandy beach along this segment of Ocean Boulevard is located at 3415 Ocean Boulevard -which also included the above - described OTD an easement. Commission staff notes that there has been an increase in of forts to add amenities to existing single - family residences on the bluff or beach along this segment of Ocean Boulevard over the last several years. Denial of this project would be consistent with prior actions by the Commission where the Commission has prohibited significant encroachments upon the mid and lower bluff face and sandy beach. The Commission has denied proposals that included development upon the lower bluff face and sandy beach both up -coast and down -coast of this site (e.g., CDP No. 5 -01- 199 - [Butterfield], CDP No. 5 -04- 339 - [Palermo] and CDP No. 5-04-282 - [McNamee]). At the December 2001 Commission Hearing, the Commission denied in part Coastal Development Permit No. 5 -01- 199 - [Butterfield] a request for the after - the -fact approval of a new "sand pit" cut -out at the toe of the bluff. The Commission found that the proposed sand p it cut- out would not minimize alteration of natural landforms, was not visually compatible with the character of surrounding developm ant and would adversely affect the scenic and visual qualities of the subject area. That applicant ultimately applied for a coastal permit -and has since items of development) was unpennrtted development. See pages 4 -5, and 16 -17 for a more detailed discussion of the Cease and Desist Order. �-Zoq 5-07- 327- [Livoni] Regular Calendar Page 4 of 43 removed- the stone blocks that comprised the sand pit cutout. The development proposed to be removed in the subject application includes structures that are larger and more visually prominent than those elements of the Butterfield project that the Commission denied and have since been removed. In addition, at the May 2005 Commission Hearing, the Commission denied Coastal Developm ant Permit application No. 5-04- 339 - [Palermo] which included, among other elements, construction of a new 623 square foot pool house, pool, spa and patio area, retaining walls, landscape planters, and an outdoor barbeque area on the sandy beach and lower bluff face. The significant impacts to scenic resources and nature I landforms resulted in denial of the project. Also, in a more recent Com mission action taken at the July 2005 hearing for the McNamee site (CDP No. 5 -04 -482- [McNamee]), the Commission denied a similar type of proposal. Coastal Development Permit Application No. 5- 04482 - [McNamee] requested the after - the -fact approval of existing storage lockers; built -in barbeque and cabinets; counter with sink and cabinets; shower at stair base; thatched shade palapa w ith four posts; two concrete tables and benches —all located on a sandy beach and, on the bluff face, a shed with refrigerator storage and toilet and floral garden improvements. Like the Palermo and Butterfield proposals, the significant impacts to scenic resources and natural landf orms of the McNamee project resulted in its denial. The significant visual impact arguments made in the Commission's denial of the Palermo, Butterfield and McNamee applications are equally applicable in the subject application as the type and impacts of the proposed development is similar. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission approve removal of the retaining walls and beach access stairway on the bluff face and deny the construction of a new beach access pathway down the bluff, as it would have adverse impacts on the naturally appearing landform and the cumulative adverse impact of such projects on visual resources would be significant. In addition, the private access to the beach would discourage public use of the beach seaward of the site and is inconsistent with the certified Land Use Plan. Section 30600(c) of the Coastal Act provides for the issuance of coastal development permits directly by the Commission in regions where the local government having jurisdiction does not have a certified Local Coastal Program. The City of Newport Beach only has a certified Land Use Plan and has not exercised the options provided in 30600( b) or 30600.5 to issue its own permits. Therefore, the Coastal Commission Is the permit issuing entity and the standard of review is Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. The certified Land Use P Ian may be used for guidance. STAFF NOTE — SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTION The original single - family residence on the subject property was constructed in 1957, prior to the enactment of the Coastal Act, and so did not require a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). On May 8, 1985, the Commission issued Administrative Coastal Developm ant Permit No. 5-85-218 - [Schloessman] for additions to and remodeling of the original single - family residence on the subject property, including construction of a new roof, limited seaward extensions of decks, and limited maintenance and painting of the private beach stairs. Although the property owners had a right under the Coastal Act, as noted in the 1985 CDP, to "maintenance and painting of the private beach stairs" in their original location, the demolition and reconstruction of the stairs in a different configuration and location on the bluff face (which was not authorized by that permit) resulted in significant new impacts to the bluff slope and constitutes new development. R2O� 5 -07- 327- [Livoni] Regular Calendar Page 5 of 43 The existing stairway from the residence to the beach was constructed without benefit of a coastal development permit and —as was established in the findings for Consent Agreement and Cease and Desist Order CCC -04 CD -01- [Battram] which are incorporated herein by reference- is unpermitted development. Mr. Battram was the property owner at that time. The property is now under new ownership. The Commission approved Consent Agreement and Cease and Desist Order CCC- 04 -CD -01 at its March 2004 hearing and found that development, including the unpermitted grading and landform alteration of a coastal bluff and beach, and the unpermitted construction of a stairway, chain -link fence, retaining walls, concrete patio, storage shed and storage cabinets. T hrough the Consent Order the property owner agreed to: 1) remove the unpermitted chain link fence, storage shed (with sink and toilet), storage cabinets and concrete patio located on the lower bluff face and sandy beach, 2) Perform grading to restore the btuff slope topography to its condition prior to the unpermitted development, 3) revegetate the bluff face with native chappara I plant species, and 4) apply for a coastal development permit application to retain the u npermitted stairway and retaining walls and grading (no assurances of approval were made). Furthermore, the Consent Order states that if the Commission denies a C DP application for the after - the -fact retention of unpermitted development on the subject property, the applicant shall remove the remaining unpermitted development. on the subject property. The applicant was advised that his permit application may be denied by the Commission based on its application of Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act, and through the signing of the Consent Order, the applicant acknowledged that the Commission may deny the application. Thus as allowed by Consent Agreement and Cease and Desist Orde r CCC -04- CD -01- [Battram], Mr. Battram submitted an application (Coastal Development Permit No. 5- 04- 214 - [Battram]) for after- the -fact approval for the existing stairway down the bluff face, retaining walls located on the bluff face and sandy beach and grading. In addition, the applicant als o proposed landscaping, painting of a portion of the stairway a color to help blend into the background, removing the ice plant at the bottom of the lot and the grant of a non - exclusive easement for public use and enjoyment of the sandy portion of the lot adjacent to the public beach. Staff recommended denial of the this application since the proposed developm ant was inconsistent with Sections 30251 and 30253 of the Coastal Act and the City of Newport Beach Land Use P Ian (LUP) regarding development on coastal bluffs. The project also raised Issues under Sections 30210 and 30240(b) of the Coastal Act. The project was scheduled for the October 2005 Com mission Hearing, but the applicant then withdrew his application. Since then Mr. Battram has sold the property. Mr. Livoni is now the new owner. The currently proposed project (Coastal Development Permit No. 5 -07- 327- [Livoni]) does not request after - the -fact approval for the existing unpermitted development found on site. Instead, the curren t applicant has submitted an entirely new project. LOCAL APPROVALS RECEIVED: Approval in Concept ( #0854 -2007) from the City of Newport Beach Planning Department dated August 16, 2007. SUBSTANTIVE FILE DOCUMENTS: City of Newport Beach Certified Land Use Plan; Coastal Development Permit No. 5 -07- 042 - [Butterfield]; Coastal Development Permit No. 5-04-214 - [Battram]; Consent Agreement and Cease and Desist Order CCC- 04- CD -01- [Battram]; Coastal Development Permit No. 5 -05- 328 - [Palermo]; Coastal Development Permit No. 5- 01- 112 {Ensign]; Geotechnical Investigation (Job No. 4325 -1) prepared by Kenneth G. Osborne & Associates dated June 21, 1985; Coastal hazard & Wave -Runup Study, 3335 Ocean Boulevard, Corona Del Mar, lqZo� 5 -07- 327- [Uvonl] Regular Calendar Page 6 of 43 California prepared by Geosoils Inc. dated September 2007; Letter to Brion Jeannette Associates from Commission staff dated October 19, 2007; and Geotechnicat Foundation Investigation for Proposed Deck and PoobSpa, 3335 Ocean Boulevard, Coron a Del Mar (Project No. 71758 - 00/Report No. 07- 61469) prepared by Geofirm dated December 18, 2007. EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Site Plans 3. Floor Plans 4. Elevation Plans 5. Foundation Plan 6. "Aerial Photo of the Project Site and Surrounding Pattern of Development 7. Consent Agreement and Cease and Desist Order CCC- 04- CD- 01- [Battrem] STAFF RECOMMENDATION: I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL IN PART AND DENIAL IN PART Staff recommends that the Commission adopt the following two -part resolution. The motion passes only by affirmative vote of a majority of the Commissioners present A. Motion "7 move that the Commission adopt the staff recommendation to approve In part and deny In part Coastal Development Permit No. 5-07 -327, by adopting the two part resolution set forth In the staff report." B. Resolution Part 1: Approval with Conditions of a Portion of the Development The Commission hereby APPROVES, as conditioned, a coastal development permit for the portion of the proposed development regarding the extension of an existing bluff deck; construction of a new bluff deck; removal of an existing beach access stairway and site walls located on the bluff; regrading of the bluff to match the.existing slope and landscaping, and adopts the f indings set forth below on grounds that the developm ant as amended and subject to conditions will be in conformity with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and will not prejudice the ability of the local government having jurisdiction over the area to prepare a Local Coastal Program conforming to the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, and will not have any significant adverse effects on the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act. Part 2: Denial of the Remainder of the Development A oo 5 -07- 327- [Livoni] Regular Calendar Page 7 of 43 The Commission hereby DENIES the portion of the proposed application for coastal development permit for construction of a new beach access pathway that descends the bluff face from the proposed deck to the beach, and adopts the f indings set forth below, on the grounds that the development would not conform with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and would prejudice the ability of the local government having jurisdiction over the area to preps re a Local Coastal P rogram conforming to the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Approval of this portion of the application would not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act because there are feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts of the development on the environment. II. STANDARD CONDITIONS 1. Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgment. The permit is not valid and development shall not commence until a copy of the permit, signed by the permittee or authorized agent, acknowledging receipt of the permit and acceptance of the terms and conditions, is returned to the Commission office. 2. Expiration. If development has not commenced, the permit will expire two years from the date on which the Commission voted on the application. Development shall be pursued in a diligent manner and completed in a reasonable per iod of time. Application for extension of the permit must be made prior to the expiration date. 3. Interpretation. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any condition will be resolved by the Executive Director or the Commission. 4. Assignment. The permit may be assigned to any qualified person, provided assignee files with the Commission an affidavit accepting all terms and conditions of the permit. 5. Terms and Conditions Run with the Land. These terms and conditions shall be perpetual, and it is the intention of the Commission and the permittee to bind all future owners and possessors of the subject property to the terms and conditions. III. SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. ASSUMPTION OF RISK, WAIVER OF LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFY By acceptance of this permit, the applicant acknowledges and agrees (i) that the site may be subject to hazards from bluff and slope instability, erosion, landslides and wave uprush; (ii) to assume the risks to the applicant and the property that is the subject of this permit of injury and damage from such hazards in connection with this permitted development; (iii) to unconditionally waive any claim of damage or liability against the Commission, its officers, agents, and employees for injury or damage from such hazards; and (iv) to indemnify and hold harmless the Commission, its officers, agents, and employees with respect to the Commission's approval of the project against any and all liability, claims, demands, damages, costs (including costs and fees incurred in defense of such claims), expenses, and amounts paid in settlement arising from any injury or damage due to such hazards. fi 207 5 -07- 327- [Livon] Regular Calendar Page 8 of 43 2. FINAL PROJECT PLANS A. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall submit, for the Executive Director's review and approval, two (2) full size sets of final project plans (i.e. site plan, floor plans, elevations, cross - sections, grading, foundation, etc.) revised to be consistent with the conditions of this permit. As proposed in the preliminary plans, these final project plans shall show that the new bluff deck will extend seaward a maximum 60 -foot linear distance measured from the Ocean Boulevard property line. No new private pathway seaward of the line identified above is allowed. Except for the proposed removal of existing unpermitted development, grading the lower bluff face to natural contours, and landscaping (consistent w ith Special Condition 8), no development seaward of the line identified above shall take place. B. The permittee shall undertake development in accordance with the approved final plans. Any proposed changes to the approved final plans shall be repo rted to the Executive Director. No changes to the approved final plans shall occur without a Commission amendment to this coastal development permit unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is legally required. 3. NO FUTURE SHORELINE PROTECTIVE DEVICE A. By acceptance of this Permit, the applicant agrees, on b ehalf of himself and all other successors and assigns, that no shoreline protectiv a device(s) shall ever be constructed to protect the development approved pursuant to Coastal Development Permit No. 5 -07 -327 including, but not lim ited to, the extended deck, new deck, and any future improvements, in the event that the development is threatened with damage or destruction from waves, erosion, bluff and slope instability, landslides, storm conditions or other natural hazards in the future. By acceptance of this permit, the applicant hereby waives, on behalf of himself and all successors and assigns, any rights to construct such devices that may exist under Public Resources Code Section 30235. B. By acceptance of this Permit, the applicant further agrees, on behalf of himself and all successors and assigns, that the landowner shall remove the development authorized by this permit, including the extended deck, and new deck, if any government agency has ordered that the structure is not to be occupied due to any of the hazards identified above. In the event that portions of the development fall to the beach before they are removed, the landowner shall remove all recoverable debris associated with the development from the beach and ocean and lawfully dispose of the material in an approved disposal site. Such removal shall require a coastal development permit. 4. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT This permit is only for the development described in Coastal Development Permit No. 5 -07 -327. Pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 13250(b)(6), the exemptions otherwise provided in Public Resources Code Section 30610(a) shall not apply to the development governed by Coastal Development Permit No. 5 -07 -327. Accordingly, any future f . Zoe 5 -07- 327- [Livoni] Regular Calendar Page 9 of 43 improvements to the development authorized by this permit, including but not limited to improvements to the extended deck, and new deck and any future improvements, and repair and maintenance identified as requiring a permit in Public Resources Section 30610(d) and Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 13252(a) -(b), shall require an amendment to Permit No. 5-07 -327 from the Commission or shall require an additional coastal development permit from the Commission or from the applicable certified local government. 5. CONFORMANCE WITH GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS A. All final design and construction plans, including foundations, grading and drainage plans, shall be consistent with the setback requirements identified in Special Condition 2 of this permit and all recommendations contained in the geologic engineering i nvestigations: Geotechnica! Foundation Investigation for Proposed Deck and Pool/Spe, 3335 Ocean Boulevard, Coron a Del Mar (Project No. 71758- 00/Report No. 07- 61469) prepared by Geofirm dated December 18, 2007. If conformance with the geotechnical recommendations requires use of any foundation elements (e.g. caissons) seaward of maximum 60 -foot linear distance measured from the Ocean Boulevard property line for the new bluff deck or any stabilization, soil compaction or other grading (other than the proposed and described grading in the project description), an amendment to this permit of a new permit shall be required in order to implement such recommendations. All final design and construction plans, including foundations, grading and drainage plans, shall be consistent with all recommendations contained in the above repor I. B. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall submit, for the Executive Director's review and approval, evidence that an appropriately licensed professional has reviewed and approved all final design and construction pl ans and certified that each of those final plans is consistent with all the recommendations specified in the above - referenced geologic engineering report. C. The permittee shall undertake development in accordance with the approved final plans. Any proposed changes to the approved final plans shall be reported to the Executive Director. No changes to the approved final plans shall occur without a Commission amendment unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is legally required. 6. FINAL DRAINAGE AND RUN -OFF CONTROL PLAN A. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall submit, for review and approval of the Executive Director, two (2) full size sets of drainage and run -off control plans that substantially conform with the preliminary plans submitted by the applicant and conform with the requirements identified herein. The drainage and runoff control plan shall show that all roof drainage, including roof gutters and collection drains, and sub-d rain systems for all landscape and hardscape improvements for the decks and all areas landward of the decks, shall be collected on site for discharge to Ocean Boulevard. In addition, sewage from the new proposed bathroom located on the new proposed deck will be directed to an existing sewer lateral that leads under the bluff into an existing City sewer line at the bottom of the bluff. The connection It). Z67 5 -07- 327- [Livonl] Regular Calendar Page 10 of 43 point to that existing sewer lateral shall conform with the requirements identified in Special Condition No. 2. B. The permittee shall undertake development in accordance with the approved final plan. Any proposed changes to the approved final plan shall be reported to the Executive Director. No changes to the app roved final plan shall occur without a Commission amendment to this coastal development permit unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is legally required. C. The applicant shall maintain the functionality of the approved drainage and run -off control plan to assure that water is collected and discharged to the street without percolating into the ground. FINAL SPA PROTECTION PLAN A. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall submit, for review and approval of the Executive Director, two (2) full size sets of spa protection plans prepared by an appropriately licensed professional that incorporates mitigation of the potential for geologic instability caused by leakage from the proposed spa. The spa protection plan shall incorporate and identify on the plans the follow measures, at a minimum: 1) installation of a spa leak detection system such as, but not limited to, leak detection system /moisture sensor with alarm and /or a separate water meter for the spa which is separate from the water meter for the house to allow for the monitoring of water usage for the spa, and 2) use of materials and spa design features, such as but not limited to double linings, plastic linings or specially treated cement, to be used to waterproof the undersides of the spa to prevent leakage, along with information regarding the past and /or anticipated success of these materials in preventing leakage; and where feasible 3) installation of a sub drain or other equivalent drainage system under the spa that conveys any water leakage to an appropriate drainage outlet. The applicant shall comply with the final spa plan approved by the Executive Director. B. The permittee shall undertake development in accordance with the approved final plans. Any proposed changes to the approved final plans shall be reported to the Executive Director. No changes to the app roved final plans shall occur without a Commission amendment unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is legally required. B. FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN A. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall submit, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director, two (2) full size sets of landscaping plans prepared by an appropriately licensed professional which demonstrates the following: (1) The plans shall demonstrate that: (a) Goals and Performance Standards. Section A of the Plan shall present the following goals of the landscaping activities. � Zto 5- 07- 327- [Livoni] Regular Calendar Page 11 of 43 1) Landscaping of all graded areas and areas impacted by the removal of major vegetation so that disturbed areas have a similar plant density, total cover and species composition as that typical of undisturbed chaparral vegetation in the surrounding area within 5 years from the initiation of landscaping activities; 2) Eradication of non - native vegetation within the areas subject to landscaping and those areas that are identif led as being subject to disturbance as a result of the restoration and landscaping activities. No invasive plants are permitted for landscaping; . 3) Minimization of the amount of artificial inputs such as watering or fertilizers that shall be used to support the landscaping of the impacted areas. The Plan will not be successful until the landscaped areas m eat the performance standards for at least three years without maintenance or remedial activities other than nonnative species rem oval; 4). Section A of the Plan shall also include specific ecological performance standards that relate logically to the landscaping goals. Where there is sufficient information to provide a strong scientific rationale, the performance standards shall be absolute (e.g., specif ied average height within a specified time for a plant species); and 5) Where absolute performance standards cannot reasonably be formulated, clear relative performance standards will be specified. Relative standards are those that require a comparison of the restoration site with reference sites. The performance standards for the plant density, total cover and species composition shall be relative. In the case of relative performance standards, the rationale f or the selection of reference sites, the comparison procedure, and the basis f or judging differences to be significant will be specified. Reference sites shall be located on adjacent vegetated areas vegetated undisturbed by development or vegetation removal, within 2000 feet of the subject property with similar slope, aspect and soi I moisture. If the comparison between the landscaping area and the reference sites requires a statistical test, the test will be described, including the desired magnitude of difference to be detected, the desired statistical power of the test, and the alpha level at which the test will be conducted. The design of the sampling program shall relate logically to the performance standards and chosen methods of comparison. The sampling program shall be described in sufficient detail OM 5 -07- 327- [Livonij Regular Calendar Page 12 of 43 to enable an independent scientist to dupli sate it. Frequency of monitoring and sampling shall be specified for each parameter to be monitored. Sample sizes shall be specified and their rationale explained. U sing the desired statistical power and an estimate of the appropriate sampling variability, the necessary sample size will be estimated for various alpha levels, including 0.05 and 0.10. (b) Landscaping Methodology. Section B of the Plan shall describe the methods to be used to landscape the impacted areas. Section B shall be prepared in accordance with the following directions: 1) The plan shall be designed to m inimize the size of the area and the intensity of the impacts from disturbances than those areas subject to landscaping activities, the areas of the site and surrounding areas currently vegetated shall not be disturbed by activities related to the PI an; 2) Specify that the landscaping of the site shall be performed using hand tools wherever possible, unless it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Executive Director that heavy equipment will not contribute significantly to impacts to resources protected by the Coastal Act, including, but not limited to geological instability, minimization of landform alteration, erosion and Im pacts to native vegetation; and 3) Describe the methods for landscaping of the site. All plantings shall be the same species, or sub - species, if relevant, as those documented as being located in the reference sites. The planting density shall be at least 10°% greater than that documented in the reference sites, in order to account for plant mortality. All plantings shall be performed using local native drought resistant plants that were propagated from plants as close as possible to the subject property, in order to preserve the gen etic integrity of the flora in and adjacent to the landscaped area. Invasive plants are not permitted for the landscaped of the site. (c) Monitoring and Maintenance. Section C of the Plan shall describe the monitoring and maintenance methodology and shall include the following provisions: 1) The applicant shall submit, on an annual basis for a period of five years (no later than December 31st each year) a written report, for the review and approval of the Executive Director, prepared by a qualified restoration professional, evaluating compliance with the performance standards. The annual reports shall include further recommendations and requirements for additional landscaping activities in order for A 2! 2 5- 07- 327- [Livoni) Regular Calendar Page 13 of 43 the project to meet the goals and performance standards specified in the Plan. These reports shall also include photographs taken from pre - designated locations (annotated to a copy of the site plans) indicating the progress of landscaping at the site; and 2) At the end of the five -year period, a final detailed report shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Executive Director. If this report indicates that the landscaping project has in part, or in whole, been unsuccessful, based on the approved performance standards, the applicant shall be required to submit a revised or supplemental plan to compensate for those portions of the original program that were not successful. The Executive Director will determine if the revised or supplemental restoration plan must be processed as a CDP or amendment to CDP 5 -07 -327. (d) Appendix A shall include a description of the education, training and experience of the qualified restoration professional who shall prepare the Plan. A qualified restoration professional for this project shall be an ecologist, arborist, biologist or botanist who has experience successfully completing restoration or landscaping of coastal bluff habitats. (e) Interim erosion control plans shall be included in the P Ian. Interim erosion control measures shall be prepared by a qualified restoration professional and shall include the following: 1) The following temporary erosion control measures shall be used: hay bales, wattles, silt fences. Erosion on the site shall be controlled to avoid adverse impacts on adjacent properties and resources. 2) Interim erosion control measures shall include, at a minimum, the following components: a) A narrative describing all temporary runoff and erosion control measures to be used and any permanent erosion control m easures to be installed for permanent erosion control; b) A detailed site plan showing the location of all temporary erosion control measures; and c) A schedule for installation and removal of temporary erosion control measures, in coordination with the long -term landscape and monitoring plan. B. The permittee shall undertake development in accordance with the approved plan. Any proposed changes to the approved final plan shall be reported to the 921 5 -07- 327- [Livonij Regular Calendar Page 14 of 43 Executive Director. No changes to the app roved final plans shall occur without a Commission amendment to this coastal development permit unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is legally required. 9. DEED RESTRICTION PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall submit to the Executive Director for review and approval documentation demonstrating that the landowner has executed and recorded against the parcel(s) governed by this permit a deed restriction, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive D irector: (1) indicating that, pursuant to this permit, the California Coastal Commission has authorized development on the subject property, subject to terms and conditions that restrict the use and enjoyment of that property; and (2) imposing the special conditi ons of this permit as covenants, conditions and restrictions on the use and enjoyment of the Property. The deed restriction shall include a legal description of the entire parcel or parcels governed by this permit. The deed restriction shall also indicate that, in the event of an extinguishment or termination of the deed restriction for any reason, the terms and conditions of this permit shall continue to restrict the use and enjoyment of the subject property so long as either this permit or the development it authorizes, or any part, modification, or amendment thereof, remains in existence on or with respect to the subject property. 10. CONDITION COMPLIANCE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, or within such additional time as the Executive Director may grant in writing for good cause, the applicant shall complete the following actions, in compliance with the plans approved by this permit. (1) Remove the unpermitted stairway, retaining walls and all other unpermitted development from the bluff face. (2) Perform grading to restore the b luff slope. topography to its condition prior to the unpermitted development. (3) Landscape the bluff face as described in Special Condition No. 8 (4) Submit to the Executive Director a report documenting the landscaping of the bluff face. The report shall include photographs that clearly show all portions of the bluff face on the subject property. 11. INSPECTION The permitee shall allow the Executive Director of the Commission, and/or his/her designees to inspect the subject property to assess compliance with the requirements of the permit, subject to twenty -four hours advance notice. 2y 5 -07- 327- [Livoni] Regular Calendar Page 15 of 43 IV. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS2: The Commission hereby finds and declares as follows: A. PROJECT LOCATION, DESCRIPTION, LOCAL GOVERNMENT APPROVAL AND PRIOR COMMISSION ACTION 1. Proiect Location The proposed project is located at 3335 Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar, City of Newport Beach, County of Orange (Exhibits #1 and 6). The lot size is 8,053 square feet, and the City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan (LUP) designates the site as low density residential and the proposed project adheres to this designation. The subj act property, immediately inland of Corona del Mar State Beach, contains a single - family residence on the upper bluff face portion of the bluff face lot, and the bluff face descends down to the sandy beach. The rectangular shaped bluff face property fronts approximately 70 -feet on the Ocean Boulevard right -of -way and extends southwesterly approximately 120 to 124 -feet to the rear property boundary located along Corona del Mar State Beach. The lot consists of the middle and lower portions of a generally natural sea bluff and a portion of the beach. The overall height of the bluff slope is approximately 80 -feet, while maximum relief across the property is approximately 64 -feet. The slope ratio is variable, between 1:1 and 2:1. To the north of the site, at the top of the bluff, is Ocean Boulevard. To the west (up- coast) is existing residential devel opment_ To the east (down - coast) are existing si ngle- family homes, and further beyond is a natural vegetated bluff, a bluff park known as Inspiration Point and a public access way from Inspiration Point to the public beach (Corona de I Mar State Beach). To the south of the bluff, at the toe of the slope, is a privately owned (by the applicant) sandy beach immediately fronting a normally 200 -foot wide sandy public beach. The pattern of development along Ocean Boulevard primarily consists of structural development sited at the upper portion of the bluff face with minimal disturbance of the mid and lower bluff face and the sandy beach. 2. Prolact oescription The application consists of an extension (390 square feet) of an existing bluff face deck and construction of a new deck (800 square feet) with an enclosed bathroom and spa equipment room on the bluff face in association with an existing single - family residence (Exhibits #2-6) In addition, existing unpermitted site walls and beach access stairway located on the bluff -face will be removed. The portion of the bluff face below the proposed deck will be regraded to match the existing slope and a new at grade pathway from the proposed deck, down the bluff face, to the beach is proposed (Exhibits #2 -6). Grading will consist of 163 cubic yards of cut, 10 cubic yards of fill, and 153 cubic yards of export to a location outside of the Coastal Zone. Landscaping is also proposed. A caisson foundation system is proposed to support the expanded and new decks. The proposed project would also remove the remaining unpermitted development (i.e. stairway, retaining walls, etc.) on site as discussed below. 2 These findings also hereby Incorporate by reference the Introductory sections of the May 28, 2008 staff report CStaff Report: Regular Calendar") in which these findings appear, which sections are entitled "Summary of Staff Recommendation" and 'Staff Note." 17.215 5 -07- 327- [Livoni] Regular Calendar Page 16 of 43 3. Prior Commission Action at the Subject Site Administrative Coastal Development Permit No. 5- 85- 218�3chloessm n The original single - family residence on the subj act property was constructed in 1957, prior to the enactment of the Coastal Act, and so did not require a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). On May 8, 1985, the Commission issued Administrative Coastal Development Permit No. 5-85 -218 for additions to and remodeling of the original single - family residence on the subject property, including construction of a new roof, limited seaward extensions of decks, and limited maintenance and painting of the private beach stairs. Aerial photographs of the subject property indicate that a stairway existed on the down coast (eastern) portion of the subject property in 1972 and 1978. However, additional aerial photographs of the subject property indicate that the stairway present in 1972 a nd 1978 was in fact demolished and removed from the subject property, and a new stairway was constructed in a different location as of 1987. The 1985 Administrative Coastal Development Permit contained no provisions for demolition and construction of a new stairway in a different location on the property. The new stairway was constructed without benefit of a coastal development permit and —as was established in the findings for Consent Agreement and Cease and Desist Order CCC - 04-CD- 01- [Battram] which are incorporated herein by reference- is unpermitted new development. None of the other development on the subject property, including unpermitted development (stairway down the bluff face, retaining walls located on the upper and lower bluff face and sandy beach, concrete patio, chain I ink fence, storage shed (with sink and toilet) and storage cabinets located on the lower bluff face and sandy beach), was listed as part of the proposed project description in the application subm itted for Administrative Coastal Development Permit No. 5 -85- 218, shown on the proposed or approved plans, or autho rized by the Commission pursuant to its issuance of that permit. Commission staff has obtained a copy of a site plan from the City of Newport Beach in reference to CDP No. 5-85 -218. Those plans show and state that a portion of the stairway located on the upper bluff was to be new and a section was to attach to the existing stairway located on the lower bluff. In addition, the existing lower bluff portion of the stairway was to receive maintenance repairs and new paint. CDP No. 5 -85 -218 is referenced on the site plan; however, no stamp or sign off from Commission staff is included on the plans, and the plans on r ecord with the City are inconsistent with the plans submitted as part of the application for CDP No. 5 -85 -218 CDP No. 5-85 -218 only authorized construction of a new roof, limited seaward extensions of decks, and limited maintenance and painting of the private beach stairs. The Commission never permitted construction of a new stairway. Consent Agreement and Cease and Desist Orde r CCC- 04- CD- 01- [Battram] The Commission approved Consent Agreement and Cease and Desist Order CCC- 04 -CD -01 at its March 2004 hearing and found that development, including the unpermitted grading and landform alteration of a coastal bluff and beach, and the unpermitted construction of a stairway, chain -link fence, retaining walls, concrete patio, storage shed and storage cabinets (Exhibi t #8). Through the Consent Ord er the property owner agreed to: 1) remove the unpermitted chain link fence, storage shed (with sink and toilet), storage cabinets and concrete patio located on the 5-07- 327- [Livon] Regular Calendar Page 17 of 43 lower bluff face and sandy beach, 2) Perform grading to restore the bluff slope topography to its condition prior to the unpermitted development, 3) revegetate the bluff face with native chapparal plant species, and 4) apply for a coastal development permit application to retain the unpermitted stairway and retaining walls and grading (no assurances of approval were made). Furthermore, the Consent Order states that if the Commission denies a CD application for the after - the -fact retention of unpermitted development on the subject property, the applicant shall remove the remaining unpermitted development on the subject property. The applicant was advised that his permit application may be denied by the Commission based on its application of Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act, and through the signing of the Consent Order, the applicant acknowledged that the Commission may deny the application. Coastal Development Permit Application No. 5 -04 -214-- faattram As allowed by Consent Agreement and Cease and Desist Order CCC- 04- CD- 01- [Battram], Mr. Battram submitted an application (Coastal Development Permit No. 5- 04- 214- [Battram]) for after - the -fact approval for the stairway down the bluff face, retaining walls located on the bluff face and sandy beach and grading. In addition, the applicant also proposed landscaping, pai nting of a portion of the stairway a color to help blend into the background, removing the ice plant at the bottom of the lot and the gra nt of a non- exclusive easem ant for public use and enjoyment of the sandy portion of the lot adjacent to the public beach. Staff recommended denial of this application since the proposed development was inconsistent wlth Sections 30251 and 30253 of the Coastal Act and the City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan (LUP) regarding development on coastal bluffs. The project also raised issues under Sections 30210 and 30240(b) of the Coastal Act. The project was scheduled for the October 2005 Commission Hearing, but the applicant then withdraw his application. Since then M r. Battram has sold the property. Mr. Livoni is now the new owner. The proposed project that is the subject of this coastal development permit application (Coastal Development Permit No. 5- 07- 327{Livoni]) does not request after - the -fact approval for the existing unpermitted development found on site. Instead, the current applicant has submitted an entirely new project. Many of the improvements (i.e. fence, shed,.etc.) required by the Consent Agreement to be removed have already been removed. The only unpermitted development that remains on the subject property and has not been removed are the stairway and associated development (i.e. retaining walls, etc.) of a path to the beach. The proposed project includes the removal of the remaining unpermitted development. 4. Prior Commission Action in Subject Area See Appendix "A" B. APPROVAL FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS 1. Scenic Resource§ Section 30251 of the Coastal Act states, in relevant part: 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 c oastal 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 an hance visual quality in visually degraded areas... p.21-7 5 -07- 327- [Livoni] Regular Calendar Page 18 of 43 Section 30251 of the Coastal Act states that scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be protected. The proposed project is located upon a coastal bluff face and sandy beach immediately inland of Corona del Mar State Beach. Because of its location the project site is highly visible from public vantage points such as the beach (Corona del Mar State Beach) and from elevated vantage points such as Inspiration Point. The pattern of development along this segment of Ocean Boulevard is such that prim ary structures (i.e. houses) are sited at the upper bluff face, while the mid and lower bluff face and sandy beach remains largely undisturbed and natural (Exhibit #6). Although several lots have pr e- coastal, Com mission- approved, or unpermitted stairways traversing the bluff face and unpermitted development at the toe of the bluff (either the subject of a cease and desist order issued by the Commission or currently under investigation by the Commission's Enforcement staff), the overall appearance of the bluff in this area is natural and undeveloped, and this is especially true if one does not consider the unpermitted development. Development at this site, if approved, must be sited and designed to be visually compatible with the undisturbed character of the surrounding area. It is also necessary to ensure that new development be sited and designed to pro tect views to and along the beach area, minimize the alteration of existing landforms, and limit the seaward encroachment of development. The applicant is seeking development consisting of removal of existing unpermitted retaining walls and beach access stairway from the bluff face, regrading of the lower bluff to natural contours, adding a n ew caisson - supported deck with enclosed bathroom and spa equipment room on upper bluff face, extension of an existing bluff face deck, and construction of a new at grade pathway from new deck to beach (this new pathway is being denied due to its adverse im pacts and is more thoroughly discussed in the denial section of this staff report). The extension of an existing bluff deck and construction of a new bluff deck would encroach at most approximately 23 -feet seaward from the existing accessory development located on -site. No habitable area is proposed w ith the project. These decks would conform to the predominant line of development in the area and would thus not affect public views of the vegetated mid and lower bluff face from the adjacent public beach or other public vantage points, such as Inspiration Point. In addition, approval of the project (without the proposed bluff face pathway) would be consistent with prior action taken in this area (i.e. CDP No. 5 -02- 203- [Tabak], CDP No. 5 -05- 328 - [Palermo] and CDP No. 5-03- 100- [Halfacre]). Additionally, the proposed project will also regrade the existing bluff to match the existing slope and also landscape the bluf If to make it appear natural. Thus, that component of the project would assist in making it additionally more consistent with the character of the surrounding area where the mid and lower bluff face and sandy beach remains largely undisturbed and natural. a. Scenic View. Landform Alteration and Community Character (1) Scenic Views The proposed extension of an existing bluff deck and construction of a new bluff deck, will be located along the m id bluff and the removal of an existing beach access stairway (previously determined to be an unpermitted stairway) and site walls (Le. garden /retaining walls) located on the bluff and regrading of the bluff to match the existing slope and landscaping will take place along the lower bluff face and the sandy beach. The bluff face and sandy beach are natural landforms visible from public vantage points such as the beach (Corona del Mar State Beach) and Inspiration Point and any alteration of this landform would adversely affect the scenic views of the coastline when viewed from these sites. These new decks would conform to the pattern of development found in the area. In addition, approval of this project would be consistent with prior action taken in this area (i.e. 5-07- 327- [Livoni] Regular Calendar Page 19 of 43 CDP No. 5- 02- 203- [Tabak], CDP No. 5-05-328-[Palermo] and CDP No. 5-03-100 - [Halfacre]. These developments only allowed accessory improvements limited to a predominant line of development established at approximately the 33 -foot elevation contour. The new decks would conform to this line as well. Additionally, the regrading and landscaping of the lower bluff to match the existing slope will result in the bluff appearing nature[ and undeveloped, sim ilar to the surrounding development. However, the proposed project also includes construction of a new private beach access pathway that would descend from the proposed new deck, down the bluff face, to the beach. This would be inconsistent with the pattern of development in this area and is being denied as part of the proposed project and will be discussed later in the staff report in the denial f indings. Thus, in order to make sure that this proposed new private pathway is not part of the approved portions of the project, the Commission imposes SPECIAL CONDITION NO. 2, which requires 'submittal of final project plans showing that the new bluff deck will extend seaward a maximum 60 -foot linear distance measured from the Ocean Boulevard property line. No new private pathway seaward of the line identified above is allowed. Except for the proposed removal of existing unpermitted development, grading the lower bluff face to natural contours, and landscaping, no development seaward of the line identified above shall take place. Limiting the development to a maximum of 60 -foot linear distance measured from the Ocean Boulevard property line, will result in development landward of the 33 -foot contour line. Thus, as conditioned, the proposed developm ant would be consistent with the pattern of development in the area and the recent Commission approvals along this section of Ocean Boulevard. (2) Landform Alteration As discussed earlier, the proposed project includes regrading of the existing bluff to match the existing slope and also landscaping the bluff to bring it back to its natural appearance. Doing so would make the lower bluff face consistent with the character of the surrounding area where the mid and lower bluff face and sandy beach remains largely undisturbed and natural. (3) Cumulative Impacts As conditioned, approval of the proposed project would not set a precedent for the construction of new development along the beach and the mid and lower bluff face that would significantly after the natural land form and cause adverse visual impacts and encroach seaward. Therefore, the Commission can approve the proposed project. CONCLUSION As conditioned, the proposed project is sited and designed to protect scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas. The Commission imposes SPECIAL CONDITION NO. 2, which requires submittal of final project plans showing that the new bluff deck will extend seaward a maximum 60 -foot linear distance measured from the Ocean Boulevard property line. No new private pathway seaward of the line identified above is allowed. Except for the proposed removal of existing unpermitted development, grading the lower bluff face to natural contours, and landscaping, no development seaward of the line identified above shall take place. Approval of f 'z 17 5 -07- 327- [Livoni] Regular Calendar Page 20 of 43 the proposed project, as conditioned, would preserve existi ng scenic resources and would be consistent with preserving the existing community character where structures are sited at the upper bluff face, while the lower bluff face remains largely undisturbed and vegetated. Furthermore, the development (without the private bluff face pathway to the beach) would be consistent with the pattern of development recently approved by the Commission (i.e. CDP No. 5- 02- 203- [Tabak], CDP No. 5-05- 328 - [Palermo] and CDP No. 5- 03- 100- [Halfacre). Therefore, as conditioned, the Commission finds that the proposed project is consistent with Section 30251 of the Coastal Act. 2. Public Recreation Section 30210 of the Coastal Act states: In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of A rticle X of the California Constitution, maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and recreational opportunities s hall be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse. Section 30211 Development not to Interfere with access Development shall not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first I ine of terrestrial vegetation. Section 30240 (b) of the Coastal Act states: Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas. Public access is available on the sandy public beach (Corona del M at State Beach) that is located directly seaward of the toe of the bluff. Development at this site must be sited and designed to be com patible with Sections 30210, 30211 an d 30240(b) of the Coastal Act. Section 30210 of the Coastal Act states that maximum access and recreational oppo rtunrdes shall be provided for the public. Section 30211 states that developm ant shall not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea. Section 30240(b) of the Coastal Act states that development in areas adjacent to parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts that would significantly degrade those areas. It is necessary to ensure that new development be sited and designed to prevent seaw and encroachment of development that would Impact public access to recreational coastal resources. As proposed, the project consists of a new private beach pathway leading from the new bluff deck, down the bluff to the beach below. This new private pathway would adversely impact public access since the pathway would only serve the owners and occupants of the lot, the pathway would establish a presence that w ould effectively privatize the beach, and would degrade the adjacent publicly owned beach. These points will be discussed further in the denial secti on of this staff report. However, as conditioned to limit the new bluff deck to extend a maximum 60 -foot linear distance measured from the Ocean Boulevard property line and that no development seaward of that line is allowed Including a new private pathway seaward of this line, except for the proposed removal of existing unpermitted development, grading the lower bluff face to natural contours, and landscaping; the developm ant A . 2,2 6) 5 -07- 327- [Livonl) Regular Calendar Page 21 of 43 will by kept far off the beach and at the same elevation on the bluff face as other nearby development approved by the Commission. Thus, the development would not adversely impact public use of the beach. CONCLUSION As conditioned, the proposed project is sited and designed to protect public recreation area s. Therefore, as conditioned, the Commission finds that the proposed project is consistent with Section 30210, 30211 and 30240 (b) of the Coastal Act. 3. Hazards Section 30253 of the Coastal Act states, in pertinent part New development shall: (1) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard. (2) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area orin any way require the construction of protective devic as that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cli ffs. Development on a bluff is inherently risky due to the potential for bluff erosion and collapse. Bluff development poses potential adverse impacts to the geologic stability of bluffs and the stability of residential structures. In general, bluff instability is caused by environmental factors and impacts caused by humans. Environmental factors include seismicity, wave attack, drying and wetting of soils, wind erosion, salt spray erosion, rodent burrowing, percolation of rain water, poorly structured bedding, and soils conducive to erosion. Factors attributed to hum ans that may be relevant to this site include irrigation, over - watering, building too close to the bluf f edge, improper site drainage, use of impermeable surfaces that increase run -off, use of water - dependent vegetation, and breaks in water or sewage lines. a. Site Specific Bluff Information To address she- specific geotechnical issues with the proposed development the applicant has submitted the following investigation: Geotechnical Foundation Investigation for Proposed Deck and Pool/Spa, 3335 Ocean Boulevard, Coron a Del Mar (Project No. 71758- 00/Report No. 07- 61469) prepared by Geofirm dated December 18, 2007. The investigations state that the she is underlain local] y at the surface and at depth by bedrock strata of the Monterey Formation which is overlain by marine terrace deposits along the. upper bluff and by a slopewash which mantels the middle and lower bluff. Furthermore, the investigation also states: "The bedrock materials backing the bluff are anticipated to remain grossly stable following construction of the caisson foundation system. The slopewash mantling the lower bluff face, below elevation 45 +/- feet, is considered potentially unstable, and may not be relied upon for foundation support. " With construction of a caisson foundation system for the proposed new deck with an enclosed bathroom and spa equipment room, the investigation concludes that these proposed improvements are considered feasible and safe from a geotechnical viewpoint provided 1a 2,Z/ 5 -07- 327- [Livoni] Regular Calendar Page 22 of 43 the recommendations of the report are followed. However, the applicants geologist has also concluded that the area below the location of the caisson foundation system and where the proposed pathway would have been located were it approved will still be subject to surficial slope instability. The Commission finds that in order to be consistent with Section 30253 of the Coastal Act, development must be sited such that it will be located in an area with a minimum factor of safety against sliding of greater than 1.5 throughout its useful economic life, assumed to be 75 years; however, this is not the case here. Currently, the site is not considered to be stable given that standard, but construction of the caisson foundation system is anticipated to make the portion of the development located above the caissons, where the proposed new bluff deck will be located, grossly stable and consistent with these standards. The caisson foundation system would not be for the proposed beach access pathway along the bluff. As stated in the geotechnical investigation, the lower bluff face where the proposed private pathway would have been located is considered to be "potentially unstable ". As stated previously, the proposed caisson foundation system is anticipated to make the area where the proposed new bluff deck will be located, grossly stable, but will not have an affect on the lower bluff face where the proposed private pathway will be located. However, since the Commission is denying the proposed private pathway (see denial findings), the Com mission is imposing SPECIAL CONDITION N 0.2 , which requires submittal of final project plans showing that the new bluff deck will extend seaward a maximum 60 -foot linear distance measured from the Ocean Boulevard property line. No new private pathway seaward of the line identified above is allowed. Except for the proposed removal of existing unpermitted development, grading the lower bluff face to natural contours, and landscaping, no development seaward of the line identified above shall take place. The Commission's staff geologist has reviewed the project and agrees with the investigations' conclusions. The slope will be subject to surficial instabilities, but the geotechnical report makes recommendations that should assure saf ety of the development located landward of the proposed caissons. The project can be built, but only with the support of a significant engineering effort. b. Coastal Hazards To analyze the suitability of the site for the proposed development relative to potential wave hazards, Commission staff requested the preparation of a wave run -up, flooding, and erosion hazard analysis, prepared by an appropriately licensed professional (e.g. coastal engineer). The purpose of this analysis is to determine the potential for future storm damage and any possible mitigation measures, which could be incorporated into the project design. The applicants have since submitted a Coastal hazard & Wave -Runup Study, 3335 Ocean Boulevard, Corona Del Mar, California prepared by Geosoils Inc. dated September 2007. Ultimately, this study concludes: "In conclusion, coastal hazards will not significantly impact this property over the life of the proposed improvements. The proposed development will neither create nor contribute signific antly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or adjacent area. T here are n o recommendations � z�z 5 -07- 327- [Livoni] Regular Calendar Page 23 of 43 necessary for wave or wave runup protection. No shore protection is proposed or should be necessary in the next 75 years. The improvements minimize risks from flooding. ° Although the applicant's report indicates that the site is safe for development at this time, beach areas are dynamic environments, which may be subject to unforeseen changes. Such changes may affect beach processes. For example, the study states that there is no general overall shoreline retreat in the area due to the sheltering effect of the Newport Harbor jetty and rocky headlands. As long as this jetty and rocky headlands are present the study concludes that the beach shou Id be fairly stable. However, if something were to happen that would cause damage to the jetty and rocky headlands, then shoreline retreat may occur. Therefore, the proposed development is located in an area where coastal hazards exist and can adversely impact the development. C. Conclusions and Special Conditions Section 30253 of the Coastal Act states that new development shall minimize the impacts of the proposed development on bluff.erosion and instability, and prevent the necessity for bluff protective structures. William Kockelman, U.S. Geological Survey, wrote an article entitled "Some Techniques for Reducing Landslide Hazards" that discusses several ways to minimize landslide hazards such as bluff erosion and instability, including: A. Require a permit prior to scraping, excavating, filling, or cutting any lands. B. Prohibit, minimize, or carefully regulate the excavating, cutting and f illing activities in landslide areas. C. Provide for the proper design, construction, and per iodic inspection and maintenance of weeps, drains, and drainage ways, Including culverts, ditches, gutters, and diversions. D. Regulate the disruption of vegetation and drainage patterns. E. Provide for proper engineering design, placement, and drainage of fills, including periodic inspection and maintenance. Kockelman also discusses the option of disclosure of hazards to potential buyers by the recordation of hazards in public documents. The recordation of hazards via the assumption of risk is one means the Commission utilizes to inform existing and future buyers of property of the potential threat from soil erosion and slope failure (landslide) hazards. Several of these recommendations are routinely required by local government, including requiring permits for grading, minimizing grading, and requirements for proper engineering design. The Commission has imposed many of these same recommendations, including requiring the consulting geologist to review foundation and drainage plans in order to confirm that the project conforms to the policies of the Coastal Act. The findings in this staff report regarding the general causes of bluff erosion and the specific findings from the geotechnical investigation confirm that the coastal bluff at this location is eroding and that measures to minimize bluff erosion are necessary. The following Special Conditions will � 7 � y2'� 507- 327- [Livoni) Regular Calendar Page 24 of 43 mitigate the impacts of the proposed development on bluff erosion and instability, and will prohibit future bluff protective structures, as required by Section 30253 of the Coastal Act. (1) Assumption of Ris Coastal bluffs in southern California are recently emergent landforms in a tectonically active environment. Any development on an eroding coastal bluff involves some risk to development. Although adherence to the geotechnical consultant's recommendations will minimize the risk of damage from erosion, the risk is not entirely eliminated. The findings in section "a" above, including site - specific geologic information, support the contention that developm ant on coastal bluffs involves risks and that structural engineering can minimize some of the risk but cannot eliminate it entirely. Therefore, although, as conditioned, the project will sufficiently reduce the risks to make it approvable, the applicant must be aware of the remaining risks and must assume responsibility for the project should he decide to proceed. Accordingly, ar assumption of risk condition has been attached via SPECIAL CONDITION NO. 1. By this means, and by the recordation of this condition against the title to the property pursuant to SPECIAL CONDITION NO.9 (discussed more later), the applicant and future buyers are notified that the proposed development is located in an area that is potentially subject to bluff erosion that can damage the applicant's property. In addition, the condition insures that the Commission does not incur damages as a result of its approval of the Coastal Development Permit. (2) Final Proiect Plans The proposed project consists of the removal of existing unpermitted retaining walls and beach access stairway from the bluff face, regrading of the lower bluff below the proposed deck to natural contours, addition to the residence consist ng of a new caisson- supported deck with enclosed bathroom and spa equipment room on the upper bluff face, and extending an existing bluff face deck. In addition, the project includes constructing a new at grade pathway from the new deck to beach. Staff is recommending that the Com mission approve the removal of unpermitted development, the extension of an existing bluff deck; construction of a new bluff deck; and regrading of the bluff to match the existing slope and landscaping. However, staff is recommending denial (to be discussed later in the staff report) of the construction of a new beach access pathway along the bluff, as it would have adverse impacts on the naturally appearing landform and the cumulative adverse impact of such projects on visual resources would be significant. Plans will need to be revised accordingly. To accomplish this, the Commission imposes SPECIAL CONDITION NO. 2, which requires submittal of final revised project plans showing that the new bluff deck will extend seaward a maximum 60 -foot linear distance measured from the Ocean Boulevard property line, No new private pathway seaward of the line identified above is allowed. Except for the proposed removal of existing unpermitted development, grading the lower bluff face below the proposed deck to natural contours, and landscaping, no development seaward of the line identified above shall take place. Limiting the proposed development to this line serves to prevent the placement of development R-2V 5 -07- 327- [Livoni[ Regular Calendar Page 25 of 43 upon the lower bluff face and beach, which are areas that are m ore prone to coastal hazards. (3) Shoreline Protective Devices Although the applicant's report indicates that the site is safe for development at this time, beach areas are. dynamic environments, which may be subject to unforeseen changes. Such changes may affect beach processes, including sand regimes. The mechanisms of sand replenishment are complex and may change over time, especially as beach process altering structures, such as jetties, are modified, either through damage or deliberate design. Therefore, the presence of a wide sandy beach and a revetm ant at this time does not preclude wave uprush damage and flooding from occurring at the subject site in the future. The width of the beach may change, perhaps in combination with a strong storm event like those, which occurred in 1983, 1994 and 1998, resulting in f uture wave and flood damage to the proposed development. No shoreline protection device is proposed. How ever, because the proposed project includes new development, it can only be found consistent with Section 30253 of the Coastal Act if a shoreline /bluff protective device is not expected to be needed in the future. The applicant's geotechnical consultant has indicated that the site would be stable if development is undertakep consistent with their recommendations and that no shoreline protection devices will be needed. If not for the information provided by the applicants that the site is safe for development, the Commission could not conclude that the proposed development will not in any way "require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs." However, as stated previously, the record of coastal development permit applications and Com mission actions has also shown that geologic conditions change over tim a and that predictions based upon the geologic sciences are inexact. Even though there is evidence that geologic conditions change, the Commission must rely upon, and hold the applicants to, their information, which states that the site is safe for development without the need for protective devices. If the Commission were forced, in the future, to approve a shoreline protection device to protect the structures being approved now, it would mean that the project approved now is not consistent with Section 30253's prohibition on new development requiring shoreline protective devices. Therefore, the Commission imposes SPECIAL CONDITION NO.3 which states that no shoreline protective devices s hall be permitted to protect the proposed development and that the applicants waive, on behalf of themselves and all successors and assigns on behalf of themselves and all successors and assigns, any rights to construct such devic as that may exist under Public Resources Code Section 30235. (4) Future Developm ant The development is located within an existing developed area and, a s conditioned, is compatible with the character and scale of the surrounding area. However, without controls on future development, the applicant could construct future improvements to the single - family house, including, but not limited to, improvements to the extended deck permitted through this permit, that could have 2�5 5-07- 327- [Livoni] Regular Calendar Page 26 of 43 negative impacts on coastal resources, and could do so without first acquiring a coastal development permit, due to exemption for improvements to existing single - family residences in Coastal Act Section 30610 (a). Unpermftted improvements. could lead to negative geologi c impacts such as slope i nstability. In order to prevent the current authorization from allowing such future negative effects, it is necessary to ensure that any future development -- including the development of amenities that would otherwise normally be exempt — will require a permit. To assure that future development is consistent with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act, the Commission imposes SPECIAL CONDITION NO. 4, a future improvements special condition. As conditioned the development conforms with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act relating to geologic hazards. (5) Conformance with Geologic Recommendations The geotechnical consultant has found that development is feasible provided the recommendations contained in the geotechnical i nvestigaflon prepared by the consultant are implemented in regards to the design and construction of the project. The geotechnical recommendations address things such as f oundations and run -off on site. In order to assure that risks of development are minimized, as per Section 30253, the Com mission imposes SPECIAL CONDITION NO. S, which requires the applicants to submit final revised plans that have been revised to conform to the geotechnical recommendations and have been reviewed and certified by an appropriately licensed professional that such plans do conform to the geotechnical recommendations. If conformance with the geotechnical recommendations requires use of any foundation elements (e.g. caissons) seaward of maximum 60 -foot linear distance measured from the Ocean Boulevard property line for the new bluff deck or any stabilization, soil compaction or other grading (other than the proposed and described grading in the project description), an amendment to this permit of a new permit shall be required in order to implement such recommendations. (6) Drainage and Run -Off Control and Landscaping The applicants previously submitted a drainage and r un-off control plan and it shows that drainage on site will be directed up the bluff to the street (Ocean Boulevard) with piping. Therefore, adverse impacts caused by possible infiltration of the bluff are avoided. In addition, sewage from the new proposed bathroom located on the new proposed deck will be directed to an existing sewer lateral that leads under the bluff into an existing City sewer line at the bottom of the bluff. However, revisions to project plans will need to be made to conform to all the conditions imposed through this action. Thus, updated drainage and run-off control plans have been subm itted. Therefore, the Commission is imposing SPECIAL CONDITION NO. 6, which requires that the applicants shall prepare prior to issuance of this permit a final drainage and run- off control plan that substantially conform with the preliminary plan and demonstrate compliance with the requirements identified in the condition. The proposed project consists of a new spa on the bluff face. If water from the proposed spa is not properly controlled there is a potential for bluff failure due to the Infiltration of water into the bluff. For this reason, the potential for infiltration R.l'?(� 5 -07- 327- [Livoni] Regular Calendar Page 27 of 43 into the bluff should be minimized. This can be achieved by various methods, including having the spa double lined and installing a spa leak detection system to prevent the infiltration of water into the bluff due to any possible pool or spa problems. The applicants have provided a plan and a nar native stating that they propose a double lined shell and a matte drain system. However, these are preliminary plans which will need to be finalized. Therefore, the Commission imposes SPECIAL CONDITION NO. 7, which requires the applicants to submit final plans for the spa that conform with leak detection and control requirements. Because of the fragile nature of coastal bluffs and their susceptibility to erosion, the Commission requires a special condition regarding the types of vegetation to be planted. The applicant has submitted preliminary landscape plans. However, project plans will need to be revised to eliminate development that is not being approved by the Commission, as well as to conform to the requirements of the conditions. Thus, revised final landscape plans will need to be submitted. Any proposed vegetated landscaped areas located on site should only consist of native drought tolerant plants, which are non - invasive. Native plant species are required (as opposed to non - native, non - invasive species) in this case because the site is a coastal bluff and must be planted with species appropriate to that habitat type. The use of non - native vegetation that is invasive can have an adverse impact on the existence of native vegetation. Invasive plants are gener ally those identified by the California Invasive Plant Council (http: //www.cal- ipc.org/) and California Native Plant Society (www.CNPS.org). No plant species listed as problematic and/or invasive by the California Native Plant Society, the California Invasive Plant Council, or as may be identified from time to time by the State of California shall be employed or allowed to naturalize or persist on the site. No plant species listed as a 'noxious weed' by the State of California or the U.S. Federal Government shall be utilized within the property. In addition, any plants in the landscaping plan should be drought tolerant to minimize the use of water. The term "drought tolerant" is equivalent to the terms 'low water use' and 'ultra low water use' as defined and used by "A Guide to Estimating Irrigation Water Needs of Landscape Plantings in California" prepared by University of California Cooperative Extension 'and the California Department of Water Resources dated August 2000 available at http:// www.owue.water.ca.gov/landscape /pubs /pubs.cfm. Existing landscaping that does not comply with the requirements identified above must be removed. Due to the potential impacts to the bluff from infiltration of water into the bluff, the Commission imposes SPECIAL CONDITION NO. 8, which requires that the applicant shall prepare prior to issuance of this permit a final revised landscape plan, which shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Executive Director. To minimize the potential for the introduction of non - native invasive species and to minimize the potential for future bluff failure, a final landscaping plan shall be prepared b y a licensed landscape architect and shall i ncorporate the following criteria: t) minimization of the amount of artificial inputs such as watering or fertilizers that shall be used to support the landscaping of the impacted area; and 2) submittal of temporary erosion control measures, among other requirements identified in the condition. (7) Deed Restriction �Z7 5 -07- 327- [Livoni] Regular Calendar Page 28 of 43 To ensure that any prospective future owners of the property are made aware of the applicability of the conditions of this permit, the Commission imposes SPECIAL CONDITION NO.9 requiring that the property owners record a deed restriction against the property, referencing all of the above special conditions of this permit and imposing them as covenants, conditions and restrictions on the use and enjoyment of the Property. Thus, as conditioned, any prospective future owners will receive actual notice of the restrictions and /or obligations im posed on the use and enjoyment of the land including the risks of the development and/or hazards to which the site is subject, and the Commission's immunity from liability. (8) Condition Compliance and Inspection To ensure that special conditions are complied with, the Commission imposes SPECIAL CONDITION NO. 10 requiring condition com pliance within 30 days of issuance of the coastal development permit. To additionally ensure that the special conditi ons are complied with, the Commission imposes SPECIAL CONDITION NO. 11 allowing Inspection by Commission staff subject to twenty -four notice. CONCLUSION The Commission has required ELEVEN (11) SPECIAL CONDITIONS, which are intended to bring the proposed development into conformance with Section 30253 of the Coastal Act. These special conditions include: 1) assumption of risk; 2) submittal of final project plans showing that the new bluff deck will extend seaward a maximum 60 -foot linear distance measured from the Ocean Boulevard property line. No new private pathway seaward of the line identified above is allowed. Except for the proposed removal of existing unpermitted development, grading the lower bluff face to natural contours, and landscaping, no development seaward of the line identified above shall take place; 3) no future shoreline protective device; 4) additional approvals for any future development; 5) evidence of conformance with geotechnical recommendations; 6) submittal of final drainage and run -off control plans; 7) submittal of final spa protection plans ; 8) submittal of final landscaping plan; 9) a deed restriction against the property, referencing all of the special conditions contained in this staff report; 10) condition compliance; and 11) inspection.. Only as conditioned to comply with the provisions of these special conditions does the Commission find that the proposed development conforms with Section 30253 of the Coastal Act. 4. Local Coastal Program (LCP) Section 30604(a) of the Coastal Act provides that the Commission shall issue a coastal development permit only if the project will not prejudice the ability of the local government having jurisdiction to prepare a Local Coastal Program that conforms with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. The City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan (LUP) was certified on May 19, 1982. At the October 2005 Coastal Commission Hearing, the certified LUP was updated. Since the City only has an LUP, the policies of the LUP are used only as guidance. The Newport Beach LUP includes the following policies that relate to developm ant at the subject site: Scenic and Visual Resources, Policy 4.4.1 -1 states, A 7,ze 5-07- 327- [Livcnl] Regular Calendar Page 29 of 43 Protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and vis ual qualities of the coas tat zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and her borand to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas. Scenic and Visual Resources, Policy 4.4.1 -3 states, Design and site new development to minimize alterations to significant natural landforms, including bluffs, cliffs and canyons. Natural Landform Protection, Policy 4.4.3 -8 states, Prohibit development on bluff faces, except private development on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation A enue 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 pr oviding 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. Natural Landform Protection, Policy 4.4.3 -9 states, Where principal structures axis t on coastal bluff faces along Ocean B oulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Coast 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 principal structures and accessory improvements. The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure safety and stabil ity of the development. Natural Landform Protection, Policy 4.4.3 -12 H. states, Employ site design and construction techniques to minimize alteration of coastal bluffs to the maximum extent feasible, such as, H. requiring any altered slopes to blend into the natural contours of the site Natural Landform Protection, Policy 4.41-15 states, Design and site new development to minimize the removal of native vegetation, preserve rock outcroppings, and protect coastal resources. Natural Landform Protection, Policy 4.4.3 -17 states, Identify and remove all unauthoriz ad structures, including protective devices, fences, and stairways, which encroach into coastal bluffs. Public Access and Recreation, Policy 3.1.2 -1 states, Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance public access to and along coastal bluffs. A Z "29 5 -07- 327- (Livoni) Regular Calendar Page 30 of 43 The proposed development, as conditioned, is consistent with Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and with the certified Land Use Plan for the area. Approval of the project, as conditioned, will not prejudice the ability of the local government to prepare a Local Coastal P rogram that is in conformity with the provisions of Chapter 3. 51 California Environmental Quality Act (CE Section 13096 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations requires Com mission approval of Coastal Development Permits to be supported by a finding showing the permit, as conditioned by any conditions of approval, to be consistent with any applicable requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section 21080.5(d)(2)(A) of CEQA prohibits a proposed development from being approved if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse effect, which the activity may have on the environment. The City of Newport Beach is the lead agency for CEQA purposes. The City determined that project was categorically exempt from CEQA. The proposed project is located in an urban area. All infrastructure necessary to serve the site exists in the area. As conditioned, the proposed project has been found consistent with the hazard and scenic resource protection policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Mitigation measures include Special Conditions requiring conf ormance with geotechnical recommendations and spa leak detection. As conditioned, there are no feasible alternatives or additional f easible mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen any remaining significant adverse effect that the activity may have on the environment. Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed project, as conditioned to mitigate the identified impacts, is the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative and can be found consistent with the requirements of the Coastal Act to conform to CEQA. C. DENIAL FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS Public Recreation Section 30210 of the Coastal Act states: In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of A rticle X of the California Constitution, maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and recreational opportunities s hall be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public tights, tights of private property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse. Section 30211 Development not to interfere with access 5 -07- 327- [Livoni] Regular Calendar Page 31 of 43 Development shall not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first I ine of terrestrial vegetation. Section 30240 (b) of the Coastal Act states: Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas. The proposed bluff face stairway is located upon a privately owned lot developed with a single family residence that is located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea. The subject lot is mostly bluff face, however, there is sandy beach area within the boundaries of the subject lot at the toe of the bluff. The sandy area is about 13 -feet deep (between the toe of the bluff and the seaward property line) and extends the entire width of the lot (64- feet). This privately owned sandy beach area is adjacent to and contiguous with the sandy beaches that are part of Corona del Mar State Beach, a public recreation area. Public access from Ocean Boulevard, through the subj act lot, to the sandy beach does not currently exist. Any stairs or pathway on the lot would only serve the owners /occupants of the lot and their visitors. However, there is public access available to Corona del Mar State Beach via the main entrance to the State Beach, located north of the subject site, and Inspiration Point, to the south. Thus, the subject beaches are very popular, heavily used recreation areas. As stated in Section 30210 of the Coastal Act and the California Constitution, the public has a right to maximum access and recreational use of shoreline areas, such as Corona de I Mar State Beach. Development that interferes with such access would be inconsistent with Section 30210. There is no physical demarcation which defines the boundary between the privately owned sandy beach on the subject lot and the public sandy beach located seaward of it. Due to the large population of beach users, demand for sandy beach areas is high. S Inca there is no demarcation, the privately owned sandy beach is likely used by the public in the same fashion it uses the publicly owned beach area. Thus, there may be a right of access acquired through use of the privately owned sandy beach area on the lot; although there has bee n no judicial determination regarding the presence of such rights. Interference with public access rights acquired through use would be inconsistent with Section 30211 of the Coastal Act. Since sandy beach areas are in high demand, it is critical to ensure that private development adjacent to the sandy beach areas does not establish a presence that would effectively privatize public beach areas. There is a tendency for individuals visiting public spaces to take visual cues from adjacent private development and to stay away from those areas because the development conveys the idea that such areas are or may be privately owned. In effect, the presence of the development establishes a privacy zone that tends to thwart members of the public from using the sandy beach adjacent to that development, even if that sandy beach is public. There is a high potential for development on the subject site to have this effect due to the small distance between the private pathway that is proposed on the bluff face and the publicly owned beach. That tendency may be exacerbated here where the boundary between private and public areas is not well defined. This forces the public to move more seaward, away from the toe of the bluff, to enjoy the beach and thus has an adverse impact on public use of the beach. Overcrowding and overuse of beach areas would result. In addition, a particular concern is during the winter when A 2� 5 -07- 327- (Livoni] Regular Calendar Page 32 of 43 the width of the beach narrows. The narrowing of the beach would force the public to use the more inland portions of the beach that are adjacent to the toe of the bluff. The perception of privatization created in this area would dissuade the public from using the beach adjacent to the toe of the bluff, which would crowd the public into an even narrower band of sandy beach, resulting in adverse im pacts upon public use of the beach. Section 30240(b) of the Coastal Act states that development in areas adjacent to parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts that would significantly degrade those areas. The presence of the proposed private beach access pathway would degrade the publicly owned beach area adjacent to it. Thus, the proposed private beach access pathway is inconsistent with Section 30240(b) of the Coastal Act and must be denied. 2. Scenic Resources Section 30251 of the Coastal Act states, in relevant part: 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 c oastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of sunoun ding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and en hence visual quality in visually degraded areas... Section 30251 of the Coastal Act states that scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be protected. The proposed private beach acces s pathway is located upon a coastal bluff face and sandy beach immediately inland of Corona del Mar State Beach. Because of its location the project site is highly visible from public vantage points such as the beach (Corona Del M ar State Beach) and from elevated vantage points such as Inspiration Point. The pattern of development along this segment of Ocean Boulevard is such that prim ary structures (i.e. houses) are sited at the upper bluff face, while the mid and lower bluff face and sandy beach remains largely undisturbed and natural (Exhibit f6). Although several lots have stairways traversing the bluff face, and some have unperm itted development at the toe of the bluff (either the subject of a cease and desist order issued by the Commission or currently under investigation by the Commission's Enforcement staff), the overall appearance of the bluff in this area is natural and undeveloped, and this is especially true if one does not consider the unpermitted development. a. Scenic Views, Landform Alteration and Cumulative Impacts (1) Scenic Views The proposed beach access pathway is located along the mid and lower bluff face and the sandy beach. The bluff face and sandy beach are natural landforms visible from public vantage points such as the beach (Corona del Mar State Beach) and Inspiration Point and any alteration of this landform would adversely affect the scenic views of the coastline when viewed from these sites. This proposed development on the mid and lower bluff face and sandy beach results in considerable adverse im pacts to views from the sandy beach. The views from Inspiration Point of the natural vegetated bluff and the beach at the project site will be marred by the proposed bluff face pathway. In addition, the new pathway causes a significant encroachment seaward of other approved development on the lot and exceeds the predominant line of development in the community. The � 2 J� 5-07- 327 - [Limon) Regular Calendar Page 33 of 43 pattern of development along this segment of Ocean Boulevard is such that primary structures (i.e. houses) a,re sited at the upper bluff face, while the mid and lower bluff face and sandy beach remains largely undisturbed and natural. Although several lots have stairways traversing the bluff face, and some have unpermitted development at the toe of the bluff (either the subject of a cease and desist order issued by the Commission or currently under investigation by the Commission's Enforcement staff), the overall appearance of the bluff in this area is natural and undeveloped. The edge of the proposed new bluff deck that is being proposed and can be approved with this application would encroach approximately 23 -feet seaward from the existing accessory development located on -site; however, that encroachment moves the line of development seaward to the predominant line of development in the area. However, the proposed beach access pathway would extend even further seaward, approximately 47 -feet beyond this predominant line. The seaward most end of the proposed pathway would be at the 13 -foot contour. Thus, the pathway encroaches past the predominant line of development and will adversely impact scenic views. (2) Landform Alteration As discussed earlier in these findings regarding approval -in -part of the development, the proposed project includes regrading of the existing bluff to match the existing slope and also landscaping the bluff to bring it back to its natural appearance. Doing so would make the undeveloped portion of the lower bluff face consistent with the character of the surrounding area where the mid and lower bluff face and sandy beach remains largely undisturbed and natural. However, the applicant's proposal to construct a new beach access pathway down the bluff face would result in significant landform alteration of the mid and lower bluff and sandy beach and thus would adversely affect public views of the bluff from the adjacent public vantage points such as the beach (Cor one del Mar State Beach) and from elevated vantages such as Inspi ration Point, and is inconsistent with the pattern of development in the subject area. The newly regraded bluff that would be consistent with the character of the surrounding area would be adversely impacted and result in an altered bluff, which would perpetuate the existing condition of the site that presently contains unperm itted bluff face modifications. (3) Cumulative Impacts The proposed project is located along a coastal bluff and sandy beach immediately inland of Corona del Mar State Beach, a public beach. The site is highly visible from public vantage points such as the sandy public beach and from elevated vantages such as Inspiration Point. T he overall appearance of the bluff in this area is natural and undeveloped. The appli cant is seeking approval of a beach access pathway located along the mid and lower bluff face and the sandy beach. Approval of the proposed private beach access pathway would set a precedent for the construction of new development along the beach and the mid and lower bluff face that would significantly alter the natural land form and cause adverse visual impacts and encroach seaward. Therefore, the Commission cannot approve the proposed private beach access pathway. CONCLUSION 5 -07- 327- [Livoni] Regular Calendar Page 34 of 43 The Commission finds that the proposed private beach access pathway results in the alteration of natural landforms, does not preserve scenic views, and is not visually compatible with the character of the surrounding area. Consequently, the proposed private beach access pathway increases adverse impacts upon visual quality in the subject area. Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed private beach access pathway is inconsistent with Section 30251 of the Coastal Act. 3. Alternatives Denial of the proposed private beach access pathw ay will neither eliminate all economically beneficial or productive use of the applicant's property, nor unreasonably limit the owner's reasonable investment - backed expectations of the subject property. The applicant already possess a substantial residential development of significant economic value on the property. In addition, the "no project alternative," at least with respect to the new private pathway, presents fewer environmental impacts. The applicant is seeking development consisting of a new private beach access pathway down the bluff face, which would be significant new development encroaching seaward. As stated previously in the approval findings of this staff report, the proposed project also will regrade the existing bluff to match the existing slope and also landscape the bluf f to make it appear natural consistent with the character of the surrounding area where the mid and lower bluff face and sandy beach remains largely undisturbed and natural. However, proposing a new private beach access pathway down the bluff face would result in significant landform alteration of the mid and lower bluff and sandy beach and thus would adversely affect public views of the bluff from the adjacent public vantage points such as the beach (Corona d el Mar State Beach) and from elevated vantages such as Inspiration Poi nt, and is inconsistent with the pattern of development in the subject area. Thus, regrading the bluff to match the existing slope and also landscape the bluff to make it appear natural, without the addition of a new private pathway along the bluff would result in developm ant that is consistent with the character of the surrounding area. 4. Local Coastal Proraram (LCP) Section 30604(a) of the Coastal Act provides that the Commission shall issue a coastal development permit only if the project will not prejudice the ability of the local government having jurisdiction to prepare a Local Coastal Program that conforms with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. The City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan (LUP) was certified on May 19, 1882. At the October 2005 Coastal Commission Hearing, the certified LUP was updated. Since the City only has an LUP, the policies of the LUP are used only as guidance. The Newport Beach LUP includes the following policies that relate to development at the subject site: Scenic and Visual Resources, Policy 4.4.1 -1 states, f 23y 5 -07- 327- [Livoni] Regular Calendar Page 35 of 43 Protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and vis ual qualities of the ooas tal zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and har bor and to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas. Scenic and Visual Resources, Policy 4.4.1 -3 states, Design and site new development to minimize alterations to significant natural landforms, including bluffs, cliffs and canyons. Natural Landform Protection, Policy 4.4.3 -8 states, Prohibit development on bluff faces, except priv ate development on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Av enue 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 minimi ze 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. Natural Landform Protection, Policy 4.4.3 -9 states, Where principal structures exist on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Coast 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 principal structures and accessory improvements. The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure safety and stability of the development. Natural Landform Protection, Policy 4.4.3 -12 H. states, Employ site design and construction techniques to minimize alteration of coastal bluffs to the maximum extent feasible, such as: requiring any altered slopes to blend into the natural contours of the site Natural Landform Protection, Policy 4.4.3 -15 states, Design and site new development to minimize the removal of native vegetation, preserve rock outcroppings, and protect coastal resources. Natural Landform Protection, Policy 4.4.3 -17 states, Identffy and remove all unauthoriz ad structures, including protective devices, fences, and stairways, which encroach into coastal bluffs. Public Access and Recreation, Policy 3.1.2 -1 states, a 2 �5 5 -07- 327- [Livoni) Regular Calendar Page 36 of 43 Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance public access to and along coastal bluffs. The construction of the proposed private pathw ay on the bluff -face is inconsistent with the policies in the City's certified LUP. The proposed private beach access pathway is not sited and designed to protect and, w here feasible, enhance the scenic and visual quali ties of the coastal zone. Denial of the proposed private pathway down the bluff face (and approval of the removal of the existing unpermitted development, regrading of the bluff face to natural contours and re- landscaping) would restore scenic resources to conditions existing prior to the unpermitted development and would be consistent with preserving the existing community character where development occurs at the upper bluff face. In addition, the proposed pathway would encroach substantially seaward of the predominant line of development, more specifically approximately 46 -feet seaward of the predominant line of development. Allowing the proposed pathway would lead to seaward encroachment that would affect public use of the beach by discouraging the public from using the public beach area intended f or public use. This would compel the public to move more seaward and thus have an impact on public use of the beach. Thus, the proposed project would adversely impact recreation on the public beach. The proposed development is inconsistent with the policies in the City's certified LUP, as well as the policies in Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, as indicated above, and would therefore prejudice the City's ability to prepare a Local Coastal Program for Newport Beach that is consistent with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act as required by Section 30604(a). Therefore, the proposed private beach access pathway down the bluff face must be denied. 5. California Environmental Quallty Act MEW Section 13086 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations requires Commission approval of Coastal Development Permits to be supported by a finding showing the permit, as conditioned by any conditions of approval, to be consistent with any applicable requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section 21080.5(d)(2)(A) of CEQA prohibits a proposed development from being approved if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse effect, which the activity may have on the environment. As described above, the proposed private beach access pathway down the bluff face would have adverse environmental impacts. There are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures available, such as regrading of the bluff to match the existing slope and landscaping the bluff to make it appear natural without the addition of a beach access pathway along the bluff. Therefore, the proposed project is not consistent with CEQA or the policies of the Coastal Act because there are feasible alternatives, which would lessen significant adverse impacts, which the activity would have on the environment. Therefore, the private beach access pathway down the bluff face must be denied. D. UNPERMETTED DEVELOPMENT � 23�P 5 -07- 327- [Livonij Regular Calendar Page 37 of 43 Development has occurred on site without benefit of the required coastal development permit, including existing unpermitted grading, retaining walls and beach access stairway from bluff face. Although construction has taken place prior to submission of this permit application, consideration of the application by the Commission has been based solely upon the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. Approval of this permit does not constitute a waiver of any legal action with regard to any alleged violations nor does 4 constitute an adm ission as to the legality of any development undertaken on the subject site without a coastal permit. fi.2�7 5 -07- 327- [Livoni] Regular Calendar Page 38 of 43 Appendix "A" 3431 Ocean Boulevard (Located 4 lots down -coast from the subject site)7CDP No 5-01 - 191-[Tabakl At the January 2002 Commission Hearing, the Commission denied Coastal Development Permit Application No. 5 -01- 191- [Tabsk) for the demolition of an existing three (3) story single - family residence and construction of a new single - family residence. The proposed structure would have covered virtually the entire upper and lower bluff face areas. The primary issues of the proposed project were the appropriateness of approving the project given landform alteration, the importance of preserving scenic resources, the seaward encroachment of the development, the community character, and impacts to public access. In denying the proposed development, the Commission found that the project, as submitted, was primarily inconsistent with the Sections 30240, 30251 and 3 0253 of the Coastal Act and the City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan (LUP) regarding coastal bluff sites. 3431 Ocean Boulevard (Located 4 lots down -coast from the subject site): CDP No 5 -02- 203- rTabakl At the January 2003 Commission Hearing, the Commission approved Coastal Development Permit Application No. 5 -02- 203- [fabak] for the demolition of an existing three (3) story single - family residence and construction of a new single -family residence and also demolition and replacement of existing wooden staircase to the toe of the bluff (due to the presence of the landing for the public accessway from Inspiration Point, there is no sandy beach at the toe of the bluff at this location). The proposed project had been reduced compared with a prior proposal (CDP No. 5 -01 -191). The Commission found that the proposed development was consistent with the pattern of development in the immediate vicinity and the project would not have a cumulative adverse impact on visual coastal resources. Under this proposal, Ii ving_space additions were located landward of the 48 -foot bluff elevation contour, and accessory improvements were limited to the 33- foot elevation contour. However, no other additions were allowed below the 3341313t elevation contour upon the lower bluff face. 3431 Ocean Boulevard (Located 4 lots down -coast from the subiect site): CDP No 5-02 - 203- A1- [Tabakl At the March 2005 Commission Hearing, the Commission approved an Immaterial Amendment to Coastal Development Permit Application No. 5 -02- 203- A1- [Tabak] that proposed redesign of the previously approved project including revision of an approximate 22 -foot long portion of the previously approved stairway located at the base of the bluff and also the grading w ould now consist of 3,400 cubic yards of cut and export to an area outside of the coastal zone. No habitable area would extend past the approved line of development for enclosed area (48 -foot contour) and the pool would not extend past the approved line of development for accessory structures (33 -foot contour). �.2 4. 5- 07- 327- [Uvoni) Regular Calendar Page 39 of 43 At the January 2005 Commission Hearing, the Commission approved Coastal Development Permit Application No. 5 -03- 100- [Halfacre) for the conversion and addition to an existing basement to living area, construction of a new basement4evel deck, construction of a new sundeck on the bluff face that does not extend any further than the 33 -foot contour line, a new stairway connection to an approved pathway leading down to the toe of the bluff located on the downcoast adjacent property (i.e. Tabak), removal and replacement of existing side yard and rear yard fences, and after - the -fact approval of two 2otl floor decks on the seaward side of the existing single- family residence. The prim ary issues before the Commission were the appropriateness of approving the project given the importance of preserving scenic resources, minimizing landform alteration and avoiding development in hazard prone locations. The Commission found that the proposed development, as conditioned, was consistent with the pattern of development in the immediate vicinity and the project would not have a cumulative adverse im pact on visual coastal resources and would be consistent with the hazard policies of the Coastal Act. The proposed new habitable space adhered to the 48 -foot bluff elevation contour limit established for CDP No. 5 -02- 203 - [TabakJ. As conditioned, the proposed project also adhered to the 33 -foot contour set by CDP No. 5 -02- 203 - [TabakJ for accessory improvements. No other accessory improvements were allowed below the 33 -foot elevation contour upon th a lower bluff face or on the sandy beach. 3415 Ocean Boulevard (Located 2 lots down -coast from subject slte)i CDP No 5-01-112 - Ensi n At the February 2002 Commission Hearing, the Commission approved Coastal Development Permit No. 5 -02- 112 - [Ensign] for the after- the -fact authorization of a new switchback bluff face pathway with keystone -type earth retention blocks, landscaping and in- ground irrigation. The applicant also proposed a public access easement over the privately owned portion of the sandy beach located seaward of the toe of the bluff. The . primary issues before the Commission were the appropriateness of approving the project given landform alteration, the importance of preserving scenic resources, community character and impacts to public access. As submitted, the proposed project raised issues with Sections 30240, 30251 and 30253 of the Coastal Act and the City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan (LUP) regarding development on coastal bluffs. The Commission found that the proposed stairway that may have followed a pre - Coastal Act pathway, as conditioned, does not present an adver se visual impact because it follows the natural topography of the bluff, was effectively screened with vegetation and was consistent with the character of the surrounding area. 6. 3415 Ocean Boulevard (L ocated. 2 lots down -coast from the sublect site): CDP NO 5-05 - 095- fCirclel At the October 2005 Commission Hearing, the Commission approved Coastal Development Permit Application No. 5 -05- 095 - [Circle) for the demolition of an existing approximately 2,100 square foot, two (2) story single family residence with an attached garage and construction of a new 4,488 square foot two (2) story single - family residence with a basement and an attached 388 square foot four (4) car garage. Associated construction consisted of: a 141 square foot basement deck, a 392 square foot 1" floor A. S 5 -07- 327- [Livoni] Regular Calendar Page 40 of 43 deck and a 383 square foot 2"' floor deck. The foundation for the residence consisted of a caisson and deepened conventional f cotings system. The primary concern before the Commission on this matter were to assure that the project conformed to the predominant line of development such that scenic resources were preserved, landform alteration was minimized and development in hazard prone locations was avoided. The Commission found that the proposed development, as conditioned, conformed to the predominant line of development and would not affect public views and would be consistent with the hazard policies of the Coastal Act. The project's proposed livable area aligned appr oximately with the 56 -foot elevation contour line, while the basement level deck did not extend seaward from approximately 46 -foot contour to the east and the approximately 50 -foot contour to the west, thus the project was landward of the Tabak and Halfacre projects. 3415 Ocean Boulevard (L ocated 2 lots down -coast from the subiect site): CDP NO. 5-05 - 095- A1- fCirclel At the January 2007 Commission Hearing, the Commission approved Coastal Development Permit Application No. 5 -05- 095 -A1- [Circle] for development that consisted of enlarging the previously approved 141 square foot basement level deck (cantilevered portion) located along the b luff face associated with a single - family residence. The enlarged deck would extend seaward a maximum 60 -foot linear distance measured from the Ocean Boulevard property line. In addition, a section of the existing bluff face stairway above the approximately 33 -foot contour line would be replaced with a new stair in a different configuration. No work below the 33 -foot contour would take place and the foundation system for the proposed deck would consist of retaining walls and a caisson system. Minor grading was proposed. The Com mission found that the proposed project, as conditioned, was sited and designed to protect scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas. Approval of the proposed project, as conditioned, would preserve existing scenic resources and would be consistent with preserving the existing com munity character where structures are sited at the upper b luff face, while the mid and lower bluff face remains largely undisturbed and vegetated. The alteration of the already developed upper bluff face would not result in a significant adverse visual effect when viewed from public vantage points such as the beach and w ould be visually compatible with the character of the surrounding area. Furthermore, the development would be consistent with the predominant pattern of development and is consistent with the recently approved Commission projects in the area ( Tabak and Halfacre). 8. 3401 Ocean Boulevard ( Located 1 lot down -coast from the subiect site): CDP NO. 5-01 - 1994Butterfieldl At the December 2001 Commission Hearing, the Com mission approved in part and denied in part Coastal Development Permit Application No. 5- 01- 199{Butterfield] for the after- the -fact approval of a new "sand pit" cut -out at the toe of the bluff, consisting of three (3) 32" high, 15' long retaining walls enclosed by a rope attached to four wooden posts in the sand, and replacement of a decorative gate and lattice panels on the axis ting pre - Coastal Act bluff face stairway. The Commission denied the toe of slope cutout and approved the portion of the lattice work and gate located on a previously approved landing area. The Com mission found that the gate replacem ant and lattice enclosures on the previously permitted landing areas to be consistent w Rh the scenic and visual resources policies of the Coastal Act, as they will not obstruct views to or along the shoreline and are in keeping with the pattern of development in the area and therefore is consistent with � ��IG 5 -07- 327- [LivoN) Regular Calendar Page 41 of 43 Section 30251 of the Coastal Act. However, the Commission found that the proposed sand pit cut -out would not minimize alteration natural landforms, was not visually compatible with the character of surrounding development and would affect the scenic and visual qualities of the subject area. As such, the portion of the proposed project involving the establishment of a sand pit cut -out area was inconsistent with Section 30251 of the Coastal Act. 9. 3401 Ocean Boulevard (L ocated 1 lot down -coast from the subject site): CDP No. 5-07 - 0424Butterfieldl Development at the subject site was last considered by the Commission in December 2001 under Coastal Development Permit Application No. 5 -01- 199- [Butterfield] as described above. The proposal at that tim a requested after - the -fact approval of the decorative gate, lattice panels, expanded landing and the "sand pit" area described above. The Commission approved the decorative gate and some of the lattice panels, but conditioned the approval on subm ission of plans showing removal of the side landing and its lattice paneling and removal of the sand pit. The applicants filed a lawsuit challenging the Commission's action. Subsequently, the parties entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. Coastal Development Permit Application No. 5- 07- 042 - [Butterfield] was submitted as a condition of the settlement agreement. At the February 2008 Commission Hearing, the Commission approved Coastal Development Permit Application No. 5- 07- 042 - [Butterfield] for development that was substantially the same as the previous proposal (Coastal Development Permit Application No. 5- 01- 1994Butterfield]), except that the recent application requests removal of the "sand pit" described above. The proposal relative to the decor ate gate, various lattice panels, and expanded landing remained unchanged from the prior application (Coastal Development Permit Application No. 5 -01- 199 - [Butterfield]). 10. 3335 Ocean Boulevard (The subiect site): CDP No. 5 -04- 214- rBattramI In October 2005, the Commission opened a public hearing o n Coastal Development Permit Application No. 5 -04- 214- [Battram]; however, the applicant withdrew the application before the Commission took their action. The application was for the after -the- fact approval for a stairway down the bluff face, retaining walls located on the bluff face and sandy beach and grading. The applicant also proposed the f ollowing: adding landscaping along the stairway; painting the upper portion of the stairway a color that helps blend into the background; removing the existing iceplant at the bottom of the lot; and the granting of a non - exclusive easement for public use and enjoyment of the sandy portion of the lot adjacent to the public beach. Staff recom mended denial of the proposal. Since the October 2005 hearing, the Battram's sold the property to a new owner who has stated to staff that they intend to take over and process an after - the -fact permit application. 11. 3329 Ocean Boulevard (L ocated 1 lot up -coast from the subject site): CDP No 5-04-482 - [McNamee] At the July 2005 Com mission Hearing, the Com mission denied Coastal Developm ant Permit Application No. 5- 04482 - [McNamee] for the after - the -fact approval of existing storage lockers; built -in barbeque and cabinets; counter w ith sink and cabinets; shower at stair base; thatched shade palapa w ith four posts; two concrete tables and benches —all F 2��� 5 -07- 327- [Livoni] Regular Calendar Page 42 of 43 located on a sandy beach and, on the bluff face, a shed with refrigerator storage and toilet and floral garden improvements. The primary issues before the Commission was whether the development preserves scenic resources, minimizes landform alteration and avoids development in hazard prone locations. The applicant was seeking after - the -fact approval of development on the sandy beach and lower bluff facelbluff toe. Along this segment of Ocean Boulevard, there is no history of Commission approval of development on the sandy beach (associated with a single - family residence). The toe of the bluff and sandy beach area are immediately inland of Corona del Mar State Beach, which is a public beach. Thus, the development is highly visible from the public beach and othe r public vantage points, such as Inspiration Point. In addition, the proposed project is not needed for full use and enjoyment of the property as they have a substantial improvement in the form of a single- family dwelling on site. In denying the proposed development, the Commission found that the project, as submitted, was primarily inconsistent with the Sections 30240, 30251 and 30253 of the Coastal Act and the City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan (LUP) regarding coastal bluff sites. 12. 3317 Ocean Boulevard (Located 2 lots up-coast from the subject site): CDP No. 5-01-08D- [Palermo] At the January 2002 Commission Hearing, the Commission denied Coastal Development Permit application No. 5 -01- 080- (Palermo) for the construction of a 864 square foot pool house, pool, spa and exercise room on the beach and the lower portion of the bluff face. In addition, two (2) retaining walls were proposed. One was to be a 6 -foot high wall located along the western perimeter of the swimming pool at the beach level and one was to be a 12 -foot high wall at the rear of the pool house on the lower bluff face. These walls varied from approximately 6 to 12 feet in height. The prim ary issues raised by the proposed project were the appropriateness of approving the project given landform alteration, the importance of preserving scenic resources, the seaward encroachment of the development, the community character, and Impacts to public access. In denying the proposed development, the Commission found that the project, as submitted, was primarily inconsistent with the Sections 30240, 30251 and 30253 of the Coastal Act and the City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan (LUP) regarding coastal bluff sites. 13. 3317 Ocean Boulevard (Located 2 lots up-coast from the subiect site): CDP No. 5-04-339 - Palermo . At the June 2005 Commission Hearing, the Commission denied Coastal Development Permit Application No. 5 -04- 339 - (Palermo) for the removal of an existing beach bathroom and construction of a new 623 square foot pool house, pool, s pa and patio area on the beach and lower bluff face. In addition, there would have been construction of new retaining walls, landscape planters, an outdoor barbequ a area and modification of the existing stairway. Footings, retaining walls, slab on grade and a caisson foundation system were proposed to support the proposed project. The proposed project was similar to a previously denied project for the project site (CDP No. 5-01 -080). The primary issues raised by proposed project were the appropriateness of approving the project given the importance of preserving scenic resources, minimizing landform alteration and avoiding development in hazard prone locations. In denying the proposed development, the Commission found that the project, as submitted, was primarily inconsistent with the Sections 30240, 30251 and 30253 of the Coastal Act and the City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan (LUP) regarding coastal bluff sites. 5 -07- 327- [Livoni] Regular Calendar Page 43 of 43 13. 3317 Ocean Boulevard (Located 2 lots uD -coast from the subiect site): CDP No. 5-05-328 - Palermo On May 10, 2006, the Calif omia Coastal Commission granted to Salvatore Palermo Coastal Development Permit 5 -05 -328, subject to the standard and special condni ons, for development consisting of: Construction of a new two -story, 746 square foot pool house plus pool on the bluff face. The pool house consisted of an exterior stair linking the two floors, the upper level consisted of a recreation room and exercise room, and the lower level consisted of a sun deck and a pool. Grading consisted of 888 cubic yards of cut and export to a location outside of the coastal zone. Deepened footings or a caisson foundation system were proposed to support the proposed project. A connection to an existing unpermitted stairway to the beach and modification'of an existing unpermitted beach bathroom were not approved._ Furthermore, the Commission prohibited any work seaward of the approximately 33 -foot contour and also any work to the existing unpermitted stairway. including any connection from the proposed pool house or pool/deck to the existing unpermitted stairway, which also includes any work to the unpermitted beach bathroom with the proposed project. As conditioned, the development would be consistent with the predominant pattern of development and consistent with the recently approved Commission projects in the area (Tabak and Halfacre). A 2�1 vicin y map vreparea tor: 333!) Ucean Blvd, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 $ �+• P° Qom° Bey,�A?s�O,. �" cm �a i 4 Corona ye .,4ef Mar - m y0 01 e P �� Pam Newport Beach v 0 P, B�eakA�s O �JO�`m t s t,j 3335 Ocean Blvd Cwma del Mar. CA 92625 O Pam t y O 0 COASTAL COMMISSION .z EXHIBIT # i a a 00 rn CP PAGE OF In O Yde •^ .• a.. ..•..�.��...._.........�....ww. enmw ne wvn�p�a.m.ymn maorvw.wW.nwwrv.nwusw,.wmn�nwp ® opYdgM 2009 by (wsgrepNC Dale Tsdhnoroay. Inc M ria'aa resenstl.92tlaC NRVTEp M dgata resmyetl TMs date mtludes iMOr fm taken v M pen ,Wun Rom Cer=W eafhmides0 WT t almy TM Daesn m R,ghl al Csnede. �v o mrm � b O N U Gen co N `�1 -.ef el Tlely CW.CwaVTial TQ�. 1�upe 6M/ 6- �e'�^•. u.hMq.w fAL f!1.14M' +°e. b0 .1. ltl it ��u.ile °m!. 99<:CK M B3 iWWrtq�.9Y WITLNIO iY�. rYXq°.gw W f'6. 1'e.. VM ,-0 IGY.NpRR.\MI N .<..N. •9(11 y1{fL4.lNl 'TION ��� b' -P M GIOYew wpM(IPO pf N OtlC. Y6 M wYtlW ATM e. PAGE I OF Z r SQUARE FOOTA61! GALG5. ca 9.+.weN..Y91�. w..waew JD w.ra wwc ml°..s9 •s.e.°o- �.•iee�e x. A.1rR. �= " °= % °`µ• �°° ° COASTAL COMMISSION N `�1 -.ef el Tlely CW.CwaVTial TQ�. 1�upe 6M/ 6- �e'�^•. u.hMq.w °P rwcn Y9Mi�1 rO10W i1bY Y °A.I NbI. ,S9M°IM°wi ^Ye LYG°<Gi +°e. b0 .1. ltl it • N PAGE I OF Z r N `�1 r+ S 1 1 �1 Y -To Se 1 1 riP ^Y' 1 �, �titl + +1hrtni i FA x +Y�1 51 K 11 c i /) 17! =� COASTAL COMMISSION EXHIBIT# 'Z- PAGE OF�7- m'J � ` I I ' � I 1 1 I J I I 1 1 I _ rte; r -rT ti I 77I�>t�, FFT g6 ----------- 1 I 1 I 1 J � I ; )I� 1 I , I irte`. 1 vvww- I I I 1 ' I I I I I I I I I COASTAL COMMISSION PAGE I OF_ Z I I 1 � ti ' 1 1 1 ....- .--- - - ----f O I�t ( j1 t /71I l / / ✓.:Rim':. n:.::aa[::'fi sm fl � I I171 i 1 r I 1 /�� '�i�iwa �:. `•...:: :'... - =_ IT it j1 !! It� I��e � ! ! 1 I I Il+ l COASTAL COMMISSION IEXISTlN& CWK EXTENSION PLAll,4 t. H ...... -;OASTAL COMM OF CJ V� �q IWG! 1 r / �yyy RYA r 1 /r rc 1 I I � b'flH✓.�TW.`' \ r \1r I ' I - � r 1It1 �1 r• J + I I r f } r I I - r o'+ r 1 r r e ' r `�&"E _._.. _ nww. wnwo. rao�s�ee.mea scn•..au I COASTAL COMMISSION EXHIBIT # Z4 1 PAGE Z OF Z 1I50UTH &.ffVAT?0N _ CJ V� (a� I 1 1 I 1 I ' I I i 11 i t � 1 ' � 1 I 1 1 I i I l I I I I I I s t I r I I 1 I I � I � 4 I 1 I I i I 1 I l COASTAL COMMISSION I ' pCHlBli # s 1 U i PAGE OF l I r ------------------------- - - - - -i ova I I a� fit' J ) F-----] vn wu ft� �� Baarem Consent Ordcr No. RECEIVED South Coast Region OCT 19 2007 Pursuant to it q authority under PRC § 30810, the California Coastal Conunissicn heeeby Authorizes and orders Kenneth Battrant, all his employees, agents, and contractors, turd aiy persons acting in concert with any of the foregoing (hereinafter, "Respondents ") to cease and desist from: (1' engaging in any further development on his property unless authorized puru s:mt to the Coastal! ct and (Z) continuing to maintain any development on his property that vinlatm the Coastal Aft, except as authorized herein. Accordingly, through the eu_ecution of thi: Consent OrderI the Respondents agree to comply with the terms of the abovo- stated order sod with the following terms and conditions. 1.0 i.1 Withial 60 days of issuance of the Consent Order, Respondents shall mmove all unp tied development from The flat/sandy beach portion of the subject properly, includtmg concrete patio, storage shed and storage cabinets. 1.2 Withinl60 days of issuance of the Consent Order, Respondents shall submit a completo CDP application for retention of the unpermitted arairway and retainiqg WaUs an the subject property. If the Commission denies a CDP application for after- the -Let retenti of unpermitted development on the subject property, respondents shit'! removrthe remaining impennitted develalnn.enr on the subject property according to sections 1.3 and 1.4 of the Consent Order. if the Commission denies a CDP application for aft r- the -fact retention of unpormitted development on the subject property and the Respo Lidlents decide to challenge such a denial without first implementing Sections 1.3 and 1. the Consent Order, the Commission shall have the full right to see's penalties for Rondents' failure to remove unpormirted development under Chapter 9 of the Coastal Act. 1.3 If a C P application to retain the stairway, retaining walls, grading and any other unparrnitted development on the bluff slope is denied, or if staff does nor obtain a compIQ'te CDP application within nine mouths of the date of issuanco of this Oder (whiaver is shorter), Respondents shall then subunit within 60 days for the ir view and approval of the Executive Director of the Commission a Stairway Removal and L ?lull Slope 4Revegeration and Monitoring Plan for the bluff face portion of the : uL•.feot property, and comply with all other terms of this Order regaMing removal of -the stairway. The Ravegetation and Monitoring Plan (hereinafter, "Plan ") shall be prepuied by a. �1t}alifred restoration professional and shall include the following: a) 0661s and Performance Standards. Section A of the Plan shall present The following COASTAL COMMISS s of the ievegetation activities. 1. `Revegetation of all graded areas and areas impacted by the removal of major KHIBIT # 1 vegetation so that disturbed areas have a similar plant density, total coo ?r ru;d PAGE Op A Beareal COMM order No. I. }revegetation of all graded areas and areas impacted by the removal of major vegetation so that distutlsed areas have a similar plant density, mral cover and ¢pecies composition as that typical of undisturbed chaparral vegetation in the purrounding area within 5 years from the initiation of revegetation autivities. 2. eradication of nou -native vegetation within to areas subject to revegetation x.d Arose areas that are identified as being subject to disturbance as a result of the restoration and revegetation activities. Wo invasive pleats are permitted far 3. �h4inimization of the amormt of artificial inputs such as watering or fext;Ezcxrs hat shaU be used to support the revegetation of the impacted oreis. The _ h;_ -I X11 not be successful until the revegetated areas meet the performance s#ai&dL'R For at Feast three years without maintenance or remedial activities other than species removal. 4, 'Section A of the Plan shall also include specific ecological performanca Standards that relate logically to the ravegetaticn goals. Where there is snfiticdent ormation to provide a strong scientific rationale, the performance standards hall be absolute (e.g., specified average height within a specified lime for a laat species). S. t4Vhen absolute performance standards cannot reasonably be formLilaml, oleos relative performance standards wiU be specified. Relative standards are ts_os -. that require a comparison of tine restoration site with reference sites. TIU performance standards for the plant density, total cover and species composition shall be relative. In tht case of relative performance standards, the rationale for the selection of reference sites, the comparison procedure, and itic bbsis for kludging differences to be significant will be specified. Reference sites shall be `located on adjacent vegetated areas vegetated undisturbed by development or (vegetation removal, within 2000 feet of the subject property with similar slopes, laspeot and soil moisture. if the comparison between the revegetation area and the reference sites requires a statistical test, the test will be described, including the desired magnitvM of difference to be detected, the desired statistical power of the test, and the alpha level at which the test will be conducted. '(fie desira of the sampling prognun shall relate logically to the performance standards and chosen methods Of comparison. The sampling program shall be: described in suPticient detail to enable an independent scientist to duplicate it. Frequency of mcuitonng and COASTAL COMMISSIO ampling shall be specified for each parameter to be monitored. daiMA sizes hall be specified and their rationale explained. Using rite desired statistical power and an estimate of the appropriate sampling variability, the neces::aay EXHIBIT # sample size will be estimated for various alpha levels, including 0.05 and 0.10. A 2 511 :8gtnam Consent Order Na COASTAL _.XHIBIT #., ,a PAGE--3--OF b) Rev Igetation Methodology. Section E of the Plan shall describe the methods to be use to revegetate the impacted areas. Section B shall be prepared is accordance with the following directions: 1. e plan shall be designed to minimize the size of the area and the intet±sity of lice impacts from disturbances caused by the revegetation of the impacted areas. Yther than those areas subject to revegetation activities, the areas of the cite and surrounding areas currently vegetated shall not be disturbed by activities rcla.ird to the Plan. 2. �pecify that the revegetation of the site shall be performed using t:atul sock: Wherever possible, unless it has been demonstrated to the. s:uisfactimi of is Executive Director that heavy equipment will not contribute significantly to impacts to resources protected by the Coastal Act, inc1utluzg, but not liteited to geological instability, minimization of landform alteration, erosion and impwets �o native vegetation. 3. Pescribe the methods for revegetation of the site. All plantings shall ire tLe game species, or subspecies, if relevant, as those documented as being lorated In the reference sites. The planting density shall be at lew 10% greater than that focumented in the reference sites, in order to account for plant moix ttity. A.il Plantings shall be performed using local native drought resistant pld•_+itE Thu t were Propagated from plants as close as possible to the subject property, in order W }serve the genetic integrity of the tlara. in and adjacent to the revegetation neea. invasive plants are not permitted for the revegetation of the site. C) Mo toring and Maintenance. Section C of the Plan shall describe the mo:dtoring and maintenance methodology and shall include the. fallowing provisions: Respondents shall submit, an an annual basis for a period of five-years (no T than December 31 at each year) a written report, for the review and approval the Executive Director, prepared by a qualified restoration professional, lusting compliance with the performance standards. The aimu., l reports shtill rude further recommendations and requiretnents for additional .revegetation .vities in order for the project to meet the goals and perfomtance standards cified in the Plan. 'These reports shall also include photographs takeia from -designated locations (annotated to a copy of the site plans) indic-.%fir.g dic gress of revegetation at the site, 2. JAt the end of tho five -year period, a final. detailed urporf shall be snha,itted '.ar !the review and approval of the Executive Director. If this report indicates that �!�' a revegetation project has in part, or in whole, been unsuccessful, based an'the. raved performance standards, the applicant shall be required to submit a Irovised or supplemental plan to compensate for those portions of the rniginal Ipmgram that were not successful. The Executive Director will detcnuine if the 03MMM Conacat prdw Mo. 7-01 .sed or supplemental restoration plan must be processed as a CLIP or z�aodification of Consent Agreement and Cease and Desist Order CCC- 04-CD- 01. d) App' dix A shall include a description of the education, training and experience of the ualified restoration professional who shall prepare the Plan. A, qualiIed resroration professional for this project shall be an ecologist, arboriai, biologist or bo[ st who has experience successfully completing restoration or revegetation of cow ttaal bluff habitats. e) Intel�m erosion control plans shall be included in the Plan. Interim erosion cotitml measures shall be prepared by a qualified restoration professional and shall include the following: I I. The following temporary erosion control measures shall be used- hay bales, }vattles, silt fences. Erosion on the site shall be controlled -to avoid adversa impacts on adjacent properties and resources. 2. interim erosion control measures shall include, at a minimum, the following c.components: [a. A narrative describing all temporary runoff and erosion control measutxs to be used and any permanent erosion control measures to be iastailed ft �permanent erosion control. b. A detailed site plan showing the location of all terapoi-aty erosion cant.ci measures. je. A schedule for installation and removal of temporary erosion control measures, in coordination with the long -term revegetation and monitoring i plan. 1A Within 30 days of the approval by the Executive Director of the documents submitted tinder section 1.3, or within such additional time as the gxecutivo Director may grant for good cause, Respondents shall complete the following actions, in compliance with the plans approved under Section 1.3. If a CI;IP application to retain the stairway is denied, or a complete CDP application is not submitted within nine months of the date of issuance of this Consent Order (whichever is shorter): 1. R ove the unpermitted stairway, retaining walls mid all other anpemiiited detelopment from the bluff face. COASTAL COMMI;.SIA ko= grading to restore the bluff slope topography to its condition prior to 'dze un emurted development. __,(HIBIT # PA( OF a 10 • 'liattrem Comot Order No. COASTAL --- eMIBIT 3. Revkaate the bluff face as described in Section 1.3. 4. Sub 't to the Executive Director a report documenting the revegetation of the bluff face The report shall include photographs that clearly show all portions of the bit'+i face on the subject property. 1.5 Within 50 days of the submittal of the report documenting the revegetation of the bluff face, C mmission staff will conduct a site visit to confirm compliance with the tears and con 'tions of the Consent Order. 1.6 In accordance with the schedule set forth in the plan, approved by the -Executi-ve Director pursuant to Section 1.3 above, submit to the Executive Director r_tonitcriag reports. � For the duration of the monitoring period, all persons subject to the Order shall allow d e Executive Director of the Commission, and/or his/her designees to iaspeci the subject property to assess compliance with the Consent Order, subject to twenty -four hours a4tvance nice. 2.0 Mr. Kenneth 4artram, all his. employees, agents, and contractors, and any persons acting in concert with qtly of the foregong. 3.0 IDSNTir"II ATION__ QLTHB- ROPERTY The property t4at is the subject of this cease and desist order is described as follows: 3335 lean Boulevard, Corona del 11dar, CA, APN 052- 120 »20 4.0 D= nON ALLEGED COAST ,4CT VIO . 1TON Unpermitted lyfading and landforat alteration and unpertnitted construction of a stairway, chaiu- link fence, rel*ing walls, concrete patio, storage shed and storage cabinets. 5.0 The Comnn*se n has jurisdiction over resolution of this alleged Coastal Act violation pursuant to Public Reso *ccs Code Section 30810, and the Respondents have elected to not challenge The Commission's jurisdiction over this matter in the interest of settling and resolving it. Therefore, fl the purposes of issuance and enforceability of this Consent Order, the Commission; jurisdiction to act as set forth in this Consent Order, and Respondents agree to not contest tl* Commission's jurisdiction to issue or enforce this Consent Order. 11 i � Z �3 :Ija"M ,consent Order No. . 1 In light of the waived their r ;Consent Ordet ;Intent to issue !derided not tc evidence at a F contesting the enforcement o: Commission's or proceeding. The effective permanently u 8.0 I;INDI This order is i as set forth in Desist Order t 9.0 SETTI 9.1 In lig have mouit Coast shall: Ryan Coast 9.2 Strict COASTAL COMMI9I4b- in any � HIBIT #. i'cl PAGE S ^OF_°,_ intent of the parties to resolve these matters in settlement, Respondents have ght to contest the legal and factual basis and the terms and issiumce of tLois including the allegations of Coastal Act violations contained in the Notice of Cease and Desist Order dated December 10, 2003. Specifically, Respondents file a statement of defense and to waive their right to present defenses or tblie hearing to contest the issuance of the Consent Order. Respondents are tact ;ommission's jurisdiction and basis for the purposes of adoption, issuance and this Consent Order. Respondents' waiver herein is limited to a hearing; on.the uioption, issuance and enforcement of this Consent Order and no other heal: +_c4 of this order is March 19, 2004. This order shall retuain ire affect and until rescinded by the Commission. d on the basis of the findings adopted by the Commission on March 19, 2004, attached document entitled "Findings for Consents A =ent M ase aan i, of the intent of the parties to resolve these matters in settlement, Respondents reed to pay a monetary settlement in the amount of $4,000. The settlement shall be deposited in the Violation Remediadon Account of the Cslif)nda Conservancy Fund (see Public Resources Code Section 30823), RespondentB emir the Battlement payment amount by April 30, 2004 to the attention of S'nrala .' the Commission, payable to the California Coastal Commission/Coastal anoy Violation Remediation Account. ompliance with this Consent Order by all parties subject thereto is required, to comply with say terra or condition of this Consent Ordw, including; airy contained in this Consent Order, unless the Executive Director ,rants an in, will constitute a violation- of this Consent Order and shall result in ants being liable for stipulated penalties in the amount of $500 per day par a. Respondents shall pay stipulated penalties within 15 days of receipt ai demand by the Conunission for such penalties. If Respondents violate this Order, nothing in this agreement shall be construed as prohibiting, ahering, or Jay limiting The ability of the Commission to seek any other remedies av ulable, g the imposition of civil penalties and other remedies pursuant to Public 12 �. 2 5? aamam Consent Order , Jo. Code Sections 30821.6, 30622 and 30920 as a result of the, lack of ;o with the Consent Order and for the underlying Coastal Act violatiuns as herein. 10.0 prior to the a iration of the deadlines established by this Consent Order, Respondents may request from t1 a Executive Director an extension of the deadlines. Such a request shall be made in writing and directed to the Executive Director in the Satz Francisco office of tha Commission. a Executive Director shall grant an extension of deadlines upon a showing of good cause, if to Executive Director determines that Respondents have diligently worked tt, comply with d &ir obligations under this Consort Order, but cannot meet deadlines due to unforeseen cirejunstancea beyond their control. 1.1.0 Respondents agree to provide access to the subject property at all reasonable times to Commission at and any agency having jurisdiction over the work being performed under this Consent Order in this Consent Order is intended to limit in any way the right of entry or inspection at any agency may otherwise have by operation of any law. The Commission staff may ent and move freely about the portions of tho subject property an which the violations are located, and on adjacent areas of the property to view tho areas where devolopment i being performed pursuant to the requirements of the Consent Order -for purposes inolu g but not limited tolns-pecting records, operating Iogs, and contracts relating to the site and verseeing, inspecting and reviewing the progress of respondents in carrying out the terms of a Consent Order. 12.0 The State of - alifomia shall not be liable for injuries or damages to persons er. propexiy resulting fro acts or omissions by respondents in carrying out activities pursuant to this Consent Ord nor shall the State of California be held as a party to any contract entered into l y respondent or their agents in carrying out activities pursuant to this Consent Order. Respondents acknowledge and agree (a) to assume the risks to the property that is the subject of this Consent rder and damage from such hazards in connection with carrying out activities pursuant to this Consent Order, and (b) to unconditionally waive any claim of damage or liability againot the Commission, its officers, agents and employees for injury or damage from such hazards. 13.0 Persons agai nst wham the Commission issues a Cease and Desist andlor Restoration Order usuant to Section 30803(b) of the Coastal Act to seek a stay of this order. klowever, to the agreement of the parties as set forth in this Consent Order, PAGE_ 'i OF I3 P.151 Patown Consent Order Nu. Respondents a *ee to waive whatever right they may have to challenge the issuance and enforceability of this Consent Order in a court of law. 14.0 The Commissi and respondents agree that this Consent Order settles all monetary claims for relief for those violations of the Coastal Act alleged in the NOT occurring prior to the date c,.. tills Consent Ot ler, (specifically including but not limited ra claims for civil penalties, rules, or .damages and . the Coastal Act, including Sections 30805, 30820, and 30822), with dit exception that, f Respondents fail to comply with any term or condition of this Consent Ordoe, the Commissio i may seek monetary or other claims for both the underlying violations of the Coastal Act anc for the violation of this Consent Order. However, this Consent Order does not limit the Comquission from taking enforcement action due to Coastal Act violations at the subject propero other than those that are the subject of this order. IWei This Consent der shall run with the land binding all successors in interest, future re pondents of the property interest and facility, heirs and assigns. Respondents shall provide notice tc all successors, hei# and assigns of any remaining obligations under this Consent Order. 16.0 Except as pro `ded in Section 10.01 this Consent Order may be amended or modified Only in accordance the standards and procedures set forth in Section 13188(b) of the Commission's dministrative regulations. 17.0 GOVI A D This Consent tiler shall be interpreted, construed, governed and enforced under and pursuant to the laws of State of California. 18.0 18.1 Except as expressly provided herein, nothing in this Consent Order shall limit or restrict the ex ise of the Commission's enforcement authority pursuant to Chapter 9 of the Coasts Act including the authority to require and enforce compliance with this Consent Order. 18.2 Corresgoadingly, Respondents have entered into this Consent Order and waived their right tq contest the factual and legal basis for issuance of this Couseat Order, and d:c eoforc etrt thereof according to its terms. Respondents have agreed not to contest tho COASTAL COMJ% on's jurisdiction to issue and enforce this Consent Order. .JXHIBIT # PAGE OF 611 14 t 1q,2( Barham Comm order ;0. CCC-04 -MOI 19.0 DM ORA 7is}y This Constx t Oida eonstitutea 4Ym entire agre==1 baweeo th pwdvs and may twt bl, auks** au! Ypiamcnted, or roofted exs:apt as prodded in this CAm& Bm Ordee. 20.0 nZl:l&mm "ad deb re resanistivas attest that they havo ww the Ite,FSS of this Cansertt Orm and tttsCisiattatd their rottsestt is nw aasd atlpuiato to its is atrce by the Cootrnis k.b. I� i IT IS SO 9TJIPULATM AND AGREED: On behalf oflltsut msdants: COASTAL EXHIBIT _ PAGE—R,OF. Catifarnis Coastal is Data , fi .'Z6P. 10. Selman Breitman (June 17, 2008) Response to Comment No. 1 This comment reflects the opinion of the commenter is acknowledged. This comment will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration prior to taking an action on the proposed project. Response to Comment No. 2 This comment does not accurately reflect the record. The project has been redesigned to be consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan policies regarding the predominant line of existing development as established by the City Council on August 14, 2008. Response to Comment No. 3 This comment includes several opinions of the commenter and is acknowledged. The project has been redesigned to be consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan policies regarding the predominant line of existing development as established by the City Council on August 14, 2008. The applicant proposes two subterranean levels below the 50.7 foot predominant line of existing development, and these levels will not be visible to the public from the Balboa Peninsula and Newport Bay. The commenter incorrectly indicates that the City Council directed the applicant to eliminate any development below 50.7 foot predominant line of.existing development. The comment notes that project approval will violate several CLUP policies, but the comment fails to indicate the basis for their opinion. Response to Comment No. 4 This comment suggests that since the California Coastal Commission (CCC) denied a similar and smaller scale project, the City must also deny the proposed project as ultimately CCC will ultimately deny the subject project. The commenter incorrectly states that the CCC denied the similar project when in fact the project was continued. The CCC staff report referenced in the comment indicates a recommendation for project approval with the exception of a stairway path to the beach below. The California Coastal Commission has not taken official action at this time. Although the CCC is a responsible agency under CEQA and will take action on the proposed project if it is approved by the City of Newport Beach, the actions of that agency on various projects reflect the independent judgment of the CCC and does not affect the City's jurisdiction or ability to interpret and apply its own policies to proposed development. Response to Comment No. 5 See response to Comment No. 3 above. The exit from the basement level to the existing beach access stair is below the 50.7 predominant line of existing development. At the direction of the Planning Commission, the applicant has redesigned this access doorway such that it will be screened from public view. Response to Comment No. 6 This comment incorrectly indicates that the City Council rejected the project in February 2008 and was concerned about an invasion of privacy of surrounding neighbors by encroaching balconies and decks. The Planning Commission considered the project in February 2008 and recommended project approval. Several balconies on the north side of the building were required to be eliminated because they extended into the required setbacks and the notice for the Modification Permit did not include these proposed encroachments. The Planning Commission approved similar encroachments within the required side yards on July 19, 2008, after proper notice of the Modification Permit was given. The comment also incorrectly states that the Planning Commission Staff report dated June 19, 2008 concludes that the Aerie (PA 2005496) Responses to Public Comments July 2008 Page 22 encroaching decks and balconies within required side yards will negatively impact privacy. and views from neighboring residences. The staff report indicates that privacy is an issue to consider with the adjacent neighbor at 215 Carnation Avenue and that the majority of the views from nearby residents would not be adversely affected. The Planning Commission considered the proposed encroachments and concluded that project - related impacts to privacy and private views did not give cause to recommend against the proposed Modification Permit allowing the proposed encroachments. Response to Comment No. 7 This comment reflects the opinion of the commenter and does not contain supporting information. The comment acknowledged and will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration prior to taking an action on the proposed project. Response to Comment No. 8 The Draft MND provides credible evidence that the proposed project will not result in a significant impact on the environment. The comment indicates that Page 20 of the MND concludes that because the "... proposed project will have potentially significant impacts which may exceed established thresholds of significance" that an must be prepared. However, the quote within the comment is an incomplete reflection of what is on Page 20 of the MND and its use misstates the overall conclusion of the analysis. On Page 20 of the MND, the following statement explains the meaning of "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" within the environmental checklist: "The proposed project will have potentially significant adverse impacts which may exceed established thresholds; 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." In several places within the environmental checklist, "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" is the response. In each case where "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" is the response, the MND provides an analysis of the topic and it includes mitigation measures that the applicant has agreed to implement that would reduce project impact levels to less than significant The commenter fails to acknowledge that mitigation measures are included within the MND, resulting in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration as provided by CEQA. In conclusion, California Environmental Quality Act does not require the preparation of an EIR if the City Council agrees adequacy of the analysis and the feasibility of the mitigation measures proposed. Response to Comment No. 9 This comment expresses the opinion of the commenter, which suggests that the project is too large and will be out of character with the community and, therefore, is incompatible. The comment is acknowledged and no additional response is necessary. These comments will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration prior to taking an action on the proposed project. Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Responses to Public Comments July 2008 Page 23 R 2(p� * I( Southem Califomia Gas Company A Sempra Energy utiiity- May 20, 2008 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Attention: James Campbell 1919 S. State College Blvd. Anaheim. CA 92806.6114 RECENED BY pLANNING DEPARTMENT MAY 2n!' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Subject: Mitigated Negative Declaration for AERIE (PA2005 -106) This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above named project is proposed. Gas facilities within the service area of the project could be altered or abandoned as necessary without any significant impact on the environment. Information regarding construction particulars and any costs associated with initiating service may be obtained by contacting the Planning Associate for your area, Dave Baldwin at (714)634 -3267. Sincerely, IF =1 Jose Padilla Technical Supervisor Pacific Coast Region- Anaheim RAS mitnegde.doc fi�7(p q 11. Southern California Gas Company (May 20, 2008) Response to Comment The Gas Company indicates that alterations to natural gas facilities to serve the proposed project can be accomplished without any significant impact to the environment. These comments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration prior to taking an action on the proposed project. Aerie (PA 2005-196) Responses to Public Comments July 2008 P896 24 fi Z� 5 ATTACHMENT B Draft resolution L.al BLANK e.a RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH NO. 2008051082) AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2005 -006, COASTAL LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2005 -002, NEWPORT TRACT 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 AND 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. Newport Tract 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. 6.3 Resolution No. Page 2 of 37 WHEREAS, on February 22, 2007, April 5, 2007, May 17, 2007, February 21, 2008, and June 19, 2008, the Planning Commission held noticed public hearings in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, project and a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were 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. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and approval of the applications to the City Council; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (SCH No. 2008051082) have been prepared pursuant to the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. The Draft MND was circulated for public comment between May 19, 2008 and June 17, 2008. During the public comment period, comments were received from the Native American Heritage Commission, John and Kathleen McIntosh, Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee, Sandra Genis, Joseph and Lisa Vallejo, Don Krotee, Ellen Counts, Southern California Association of Governments, Jinx L. Hansen, Selman Breitman, LLP, and the Southern California Gas Company; and WHEREAS, at its July 22, 2008 hearing, the City Council considered the MND, comments on the MND and responses to comments prepared by the Environmental Consultant and City Staff. The City Council considered additional public comments from interested parties and took input from the applicant, staff and environmental consultant, and 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; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attomeys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger; and WHEREAS, on July 22, 2008, the City Council held a noticed public hearing to consider the applications and the recommendation of the Planning Commission; and 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 2A Resolution No. Page 3of37 (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, 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 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 Mufti - Family Residential land use designation and is consistent with the residential developments within the area; and 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 one A.M. and one 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; and WHEREAS, the proposed project, subject to conditions of approval, is consistent with General Plan Policy LU5.1.9 inasmuch as 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 are to convey the character of separate living units or clusters of living units, avoiding the appearance of a singular building volume. Street elevations are to be provided with high quality materials and finishes to convey quality. Roof profiles are modulated to reduce the apparent scale of large structures and to provide visual interest and variety. Parking areas are designed to be integral with the architecture of the development. Usable and functional private open space for each unit are incorporated as each unit has an outdoor deck or patio that may include a fire pit and spa. Common open space that creates a pleasant living environment with opportunities for recreation is also included. Private storage areas for each unit are also provided. The project design incorporates building articulation, roof modulation and a diverse architectural style. Although speck 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; and 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. One unit has 2 bedrooms, five units have 3 bedrooms, one unit has 4 bedrooms and one unit has 5 bedrooms. Five of the units have other rooms that could be modified and used as bedrooms and the unit sizes range from 2,689 to 4,990 square feet. The project provides two spaces for each of 2 units without vehicle d -5 Resolution No. Page 4 of 37 lifts, and three spaces for each of 6 units with vehicle lifts. Seven guest parking spaces, one service vehicle space and 2 golf cart spaces are provided for a total of 32 covered, vehicle spaces. An area for motorcycle or bicycle parking is also included. Provided parking is in excess of the minimum required pursuant to the Zoning Code (2.5 parking spaces per unit for total of 20 spaces); and 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 require new development to avoid the use of parking configurations or parking management programs that are difficult to maintain and enforce and that new development is required to provide adequate, convenient parking for residents. All parking is enclosed on site with access to lower parking levels taken from two vehicle elevators. Five of the seven guest parking spaces and parking for one unit are located at street level where access to the vehicle elevators is not necessary. No gates are planned that could possibly inhibit access to the street -level parking. Only seven of the eight units and two guest parking spaces will required the use of the vehicle elevators. The below -grade parking configuration accessed by elevators is sufficiently convenient in that two vehicle elevators to access the garage are proposed, which will reduce vehicle wait times to avoid significant conflicts entering or exiting the elevators. Emergency power generators are required so that vehicle access is maintained if electrical power is lost. The vehicle maneuvering areas within the parking areas meet or will be modified prior to the issuance of a building permit consistent with applicable standards required by the City Traffic Engineer; and WHEREAS, 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 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 consistency 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; and 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, but not the maximum permissible density pursuant to the MFR Zoning for the site; and Resolution No. Page 5 of 37 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; and The project conforms to the height limit of the MFR zone and no deviation is proposed. The project proposes 62,231 gross square -feet, below the maximum 75,868 allowed by the existing MFR zone standard. The proposed 8 -unit project is below the maximum permissible density established by the RM -A (Medium Density Residential - 6.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre) CLUP designation. Setback encroachments are primarily subterranean and would not impact the character of the area. The above - ground encroachments are minor in nature. The project provides between 5 to 10 feet of setback area to the north abutting 215 Carnation Avenue where no public view presently exists due to current site conditions. The setback proposed will provide adequate separation from the building to the north and the encroachments will not impact fragile resources as the encroachments 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; and 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 and the applicant's family reside in the apartment. No low or moderate income residents currently reside within the project and, therefore, Government Code Section 65590 is not applicable; and 3. Policy 2.8.1 -1. Review all applications for new development to determine potential threats from coastal and other hazards; and 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; and 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; and 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 6.1 Resolution No. Page 6 of 37 building. Inundation by wave action or tsunami is considered very remote and the proposed residential improvements are well above wave action; and 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 and 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 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); and 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; and 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); and 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, and y • Resolution No. Page 7 of 37 A waiver of future shoreline protective devices is included as a condition of approval; and 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; and 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; and Policy 3.1.2 -1. Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance public access to and along coastal bluffs; and Policy 3.1.2 -2. Site, design, and maintain public access improvements in a manner to avoid or minimize impacts to coastal bluffs; and Policy 3.1.1 -11. Require new development to minimize impacts to public access to and along the shoreline; and 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; and 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 IN Resolution No. Page 8 of 37 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 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 and 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, and 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; and 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; and The lower portion of the bluff face (below 50.7 feet MSL), submerged lands and tidelands will remain in their existing condition, with the exception of the construction of a new dock system to replace the existing one. Public access to the tidelands from the water will not be affected as the development will be well above the tidelands. Access to b. . \10 Resolution No. Page 9 of 37 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 comer 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 prescriptive access rights exist, the project will not impact or impede public access. 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; and 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. The residential portion of the project will not encroach into wetlands or open coastal waters. The expanded boating facility (replacement docks) is a permitted encroachment within open coastal waters pursuant to Section 30233 of the Coastal Act and Policy 4.2.3 -1 as construction must be conducted in accordance with all mitigation measures contained within the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and 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; and Resolution No. Page 10 of 37 N. Prohibit invasive species and require removal in new development, • and 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; and 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. 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 by conditions of approval and they must include best management practices to ensure that erosion is controlled to the maximum extent feasible; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with Policy 4.4.34. 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' as follows: (5.0- Resolution No. Page 11 of 37 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) will be removed if threatened by erosional processes in the future; and 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" as follows: 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); and 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 44.1 -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 CLOP identifies the intersection of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard as a "viewpoint.') 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 &\3 Resolution No. Page 12 of 37 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 buildings than exists today. Presently, the horizontal view window measures 25 degrees and with the project, the view window will increase to 44 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 by the project plans and verified by staff, and with other building envelope restrictions with the exception of setback encroachments as proposed. Since the visible portion of the building will not extend below 50.7 feet MSL and is consistent with the predominant line of existing development as identified by the City Council on August 14, 2007, impacts to public views of the site from the south, west and from Begonia Park are not significantly impacted so as to be inconsistent with CLUP policy. The above -grade encroachments of the building into the side yard setback adjacent to 215 Carnation Avenue will not impact a public view as public view from Carnation Avenue or Ocean Boulevard to Newport Bay or Pacific Ocean presently does not exist in that location. Other setback encroachments are below the grade of the street and would not impact a public view. Project encroachments into the required side yard setback abutting Bayside Place do impact public views from Begonia Park or other vantage points from the northwest as the balconies and walkway do not project beyond the silhouette of the remainder of the building that conforms to setback regulations. 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; and 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 -2. Design and site new development, including landscaping, so as to minimize impacts to public coastal views. lb .\q Resolution No. Page 13 of 37 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 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. The City Council has interpreted Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9 to mean that development on bluff faces is prohibited, 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. Additionally, public improvements on coastal bluff faces that are allowable are those that provide public access, protect coastal resources, or provide for public safety when no feasible alternative exists and when they are designed and constructed to minimize alteration or further erosion of the bluff face and are visually compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible. In all cases where the predominant line of existing development is used to s Resolution No. Page 14 of 37 establish a development limit, it shall not be the only criteria used for this purpose. All coastal land use policies shall be considered in determining the appropriate extent of new development and size of new structures. The City Council made these clarifications by adopting Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2007 -003, which has not yet been considered by the California Coastal Commission. Existing development of the site is located on the face of a coastal bluff. Identification of the project site as a coastal bluff is based upon the professional opinion of Sidney Neblett, a Certified Engineering Geologist. The coastal bluff transitions from north - facing to west - facing roughly northwest of the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue in the center of the project. This transition point extends down to the northwest to the western extent of a small pocket beach unofficially known as Carnation Cove. North of the transition point of this coastal bluff, is a series of residential structures developed between 42 and 58 feet above mean sea level. East of the transition point along Ocean Boulevard is a series of projects that were developed much farther down the bluff face with several at the waters edge. The City Council reviewed this existing development pattern at a noticed public hearing on August 14, 2007, and determined that the predominant line of existing development is 50.7 feet MSL. The visible portion of the project does not extend below this elevation except where it connects with an existing access staircase leading to the Bay. The project minimizes alteration of the coastal bluff and protects public views of the coastal bluff by not altering the bluff face below the predominant line of existing development and preserving the majority of the visible bluff. The project is required to blend any altered slopes outside of the building footprint to the natural contours, native rocks or soils of the site. For these reasons, the project protects the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, minimizes alteration of the bluff and is consistent with CLUP Policies 4.4.1 -1, 4.4.1 -2, 4.4.1 -3, 4.4.3 -8, 4.4.3- 9, 4.4.3 -12 and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2007 -003; and WHEREAS, the granting of the Modification Permit allowing above -grade and below grade encroachments into the front and side yard setbacks is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and 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; and WHEREAS, the granting of the Modification Permit allowing above -grade and below grade encroachments into the front and side yard setbacks will be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood and the granting of the permit 6' \�V Resolution No. Page 15 of 37 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 requested encroachments within the front yard, with the exception of the 42 -inch high protective guardrail, will be entirely subterranean and will not be visible. The proposed guardrail will have an open design allowing visibility through while providing adequate protection to pedestrians on the public sidewalk by preventing them from falling over the proposed retaining wall located within the required front yard. Building encroachments within the required front and side yard setbacks on levels below the street will not be visible. Side yard setback encroachments (Balconies, stairways, stair landing and building areas) that are above -grade that are proposed between the project and 215 Carnation Avenue will leave between a 5' to 7'-6" setback on the street level and 10 feet of setback area on levels above. The provided setbacks exceed typical 4- foot setbacks along Carnation Avenue. The decks are of limited size and consequently of limited use and, therefore, the privacy of the abutting resident should not be negatively effected. This area between the proposed building and the property line will provide sufficient separation between the project and the abutting residence to the north and the setbacks provided will provide for private views between the buildings from upper levels of residences across Carnation Avenue. The varying distances also provide building articulation as suggested by General Plan policy. The encroachments of balconies, including protective guard railings, within the side setback abutting Bayside Place should not impact these residents given the change in topography, the separation provided by Bayside Place, a private roadway, and the fact that these residences are oriented toward Newport Bay and not theproject. The encroachments within the side setback abutting Bayside Place also do not encroach within a public view from Begonia Park or other vantage points from the west any more than the proposed building does which is compliant with the setback. The encroaching balconies and guard railings will encroach into private views of residents to the north on Carnation Avenue, but the majority of the view to the west and southwest will remain unchanged; and WHEREAS, Newport Tract No. 2005 -004 (TTM16882) is approved based upon the following findings: 1. 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; b.0 Resolution No. Page 16 of 37 2. 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 an 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# 2008051082) 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; 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 curved 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 8 units. The reduction is Resolution No. Page 17 of 37 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 50.7 feet MSL. Lastly, the project will not impact sensitive marine resources with the implementation of the conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, the project includes the demolition of 15 dwelling units within the Coastal Zone within 2 buildings and pursuant to Chapter 20.86 of the Zoning Code, units proposed for demolition and 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. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The recitals above are hereby declared to be true, accurate, and correct. Section 2. The City Council hereby finds that the Administrative Record which was considered by the City Council in adopting this Resolution consists, without limitation, of all documents, correspondence, testimony, photographs, and other information presented or provided to the Planning Director, Planning Commission, City Council and City including, without limitation, testimony received at City Council and Planning Commission meetings, staff reports, agendas, notices, meeting minutes, police reports, &0 Resolution No. Page 18 of 37 correspondence, and all other information provided to the City and retained in the files of the City, its staff and attorneys, and such is hereby incorporated by reference into the Administrative Record and is available upon request ( "Administrative Record "). Section 3. The City Council finds that notice of this hearing was provided in conformance with California law and the Municipal Code of the City of Newport Beach. Section 4 The City Council 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 MND reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis. 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 within the MND 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. The City Council hereby adopts Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH No. 2008051082 included therewith and its Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The document and all materials which constitute the record upon which this decision was based are hereby incorporated herein by reference and are on file with the Planning Department, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. Section 5. Based on the aforementioned findings, the City Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -006 per Exhibit "A", Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -002 per Exhibit "B ", Newport Tract No. 2005 -004 (TfM 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 "C ". Section 6. The Planning Director is hereby directed to submit Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -002 to the California Coastal Commission for review and approval. The change of the Coastal Land Use Plan designation of the project site shall only become effective upon the approval of Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -002 by the California Coastal Commission. Section 7. Pursuant to Section 13518 of the California Code of Regulations this Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -002 shall take effect automatically upon Coastal Commission action unless the Coastal Commission proposes modifications. In the event that the Coastal Commission proposes revisions, this Land Use Plan amendment shall not take effect until the City Council adopts the Commission modifications and all the requirements of Section 13544 of the California Code of Regulations are met. 2 •tiO Resolution No. Page 19 of 37 This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. Passed and adopted by the City Council of Newport Beach at a regular meeting held on the day of 2008 by the following vote to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS ATTEST: CITY CLERK b -L,1 Resolution No. Page 20 of 37 Exhibit "A" a.ti� Resolution No. Page 21 of 37 Exhibit "B" ba- Resolution No. Page 22 of 37 Exhibit "C" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Newport Tract No. 2005 -004 (Tentative Tract Map No. 16882) Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 (Project - specific conditions are in italics) Planning Department 1. 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 June 19, 2008, 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 final 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, grading or demolition permit for the project. 7. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC &Rs) for the proposed condominium association shall provide for the long term maintenance of the project and shall be reviewed and approved by the Newport Beach City Attorney prior to their recordation. The CC &Rs shall include a provision that residents shall park only operable vehicles within the parking garage that are in active use (i.e. no long term storage of vehicles). 8. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building perrn it. the applicant shall provide the City with a performance bond or its equivalent to ensure timely completion of all � �a Resolution No. Page 23 of 37 improvements represented on plans and drawings submitted for permit approval 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 the building shell and shall be issued with the City as beneficiary by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance in the State of Califomia and shall have an assigned policyholders' Rating of A (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VII (or lafged 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 in 25% increments upon completion of each quarter of construction of the building shell. 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 review and approval by the Planning Director. The plans shall incorporate native drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices. All planting areas, with the exception of bluff 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. Boat slips may be developed, maintained and operated in tidelands adjacent to the residential condominium development provided all necessary permits are first obtained. The maximum number of boat slips shall be no greater than the total number of residential units developed. Use of the boat slips shall be limited to residents and their guests and the slips shall not be leased, subleased or allowed to come into the control of non - residents of the condominium development as Resolution No. Page 24 of 37 13. Prior to the issuance of a buildino or aradina hermit 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 Attorney 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 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 fur 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 Services 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, watering, 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). Resolution No. Page 25 of 37 22. All irrigation system 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. 24. All altered slopes that are outside of the building envelope shall be contoured 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./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. The location of the generator shall be sound attenuated and screened from public view and subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director. 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 maintained for efficient use throughout the life of the project. t),41 Resolution No. Page 26 of 37 28. Vehicle parking and maneuvering areas shall be restricted to the operation, maneuvering and 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. 30. No idling of construction vehicles or equipment shall be allowed. Construction vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and maintained and shall be turned off immediately. Construction workers, equipment operators or truck drivers shall not employ any form of audible signaling system during any phase of construction. 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, 2003 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 I 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. 1 1 Resolution No. Page 27 of 37 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. 40. Project driveways must conform to the City's sight distance standard 110 -L. Project driveways shall maintain a minimum 20 -foot width of 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 detailed 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 ". b a -1 Resolution No. Page 28 of 37 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 set On Each Lot Comer 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 sewedutilities 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 sewedutilities easement shall be vacated or permission from the beneficiaries of the private easement shall be documented prior to the issuance of a building permit or 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. �O Resolution No. Page 29 of 37 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 16 -foot 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 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 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. 66. All non - standard improvements within the public right -of -way would require an Encroachment Agreement and Encroachment Permit. 67. 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. 68. Gates shall not be designed to open out into the public right -of -way. 69. 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. 70. 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. 71. 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. 72. No structural support column shall be located in the middle of the driveway leading to the parking area located on the Second Level. 73. The loading area adjacent to the ADA accessible stall shall be 8 -foot wide. b.2;\ Resolution No. Page 30 of 37 74. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare a study of the existing drainage area and catch basin in Camation Avenue to determine the appropriate size of catch basin. The developer shall enlarge the existing catch basin accordingly. 75. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee shall be paid. 76. Prior to the issuance of a grading or 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. 77. 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. 78. 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 79. 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. 80. 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. 81. County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. Resolution No. Page 31 of 37 82. 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 and /or 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 require the use of temporary diversion dikes and basins to trap sediment from run -off and allow clarification prior to discharge. 83. 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. 84. 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. 85. 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. 86. 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. �.3� Resolution No. Page 32 of 37 87. 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. 88. 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 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. 89. Prior to issuance of the building germit, 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 90. Mitigation Measure III -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. 91. Mitigation Measure III -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. 92. Mitigation Measure III -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. 93. 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. 94. Mitigation Measure III -5: The construction contractor shall encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction workers. 95. 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, Resolution No. Page 33 of 37 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. 96. Mitigation Measure IV -1: An updated pre- construction eelgrass and invasive algae survey shall be completed within 30 days of the initiation of the proposed dock/gangway construction. The results of this survey will be used to update the results of the March 2007 eelgrass survey and to identify, if any, potential project - related eelgrass losses and the presence or absence of the invasive algae (Caulerpa taxifolia) in accordance with NMFS requirements. 97. Mitigation Measure IV -2: A post - construction project eelgrass survey shall be completed within 30 days of the completion of project construction in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). The report will be presented to the resources agencies and the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission within 30 days after completion of the survey. If any eelgrass has been impacted in excess of that determined in the pre- construction survey, any additional impacted eelgrass will be mitigated at a ratio of 1.2:1 (mitigation to impact). 98. Mitigation Measure IV -3: Eelgrass shall be mitigated based on two annual monitoring surveys that document the changes in bed (i.e., area extent and density) in the vicinity of the footprint of the boat dock, moored vessel(s), and/or related structures during the active - growth period for eelgrass (typically March through October). Mitigation shall be implemented pursuant to the requirements of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). A statement from the applicant indicating their understanding of the potential mitigation obligation that may follow the initial two year monitoring is required. If losses are identified, a final eelgrass mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach and resources agencies for review and acceptance. 99. Mitigation Measure IV-4: The project marine biologist shall mark the positions of eelgrass beds in the vicinity of the dock and gangway construction area with buoys prior to the initiation of any construction activities. 100. Mitigation Measure IV -5: The project marine biologist shall meet with the construction crew prior to initiation of construction to orient them to specific areas where eelgrass occurs. 101. Mitigation Measure IV -6: Support vessels and barges shall maneuver and work over eelgrass beds only during tides of +2 feet mean lower low water (MLLW) or higher to prevent grounding within eelgrass beds, damage to eelgrass from propellers, and to limit water turbidity. 102. Mitigation Measure IV -7: Anchors and anchor chains shall not impinge upon eelgrass habitat. Qj.rfi Resolution No. Page 34 of 37 103. Mitigation Measure IV -8: Construction activities associated with the elevated walkway leading to the gangway, and construction personnel shall avoid impacts to rocky intertidal habitat and to eelgrass beds and sand dollar habitat within the Carnation Cove. 104. Mitigation Measure IV -9: Residents shall be informed of the sensitivity of the cove as a unique marine biological habitat to assist in ensuring the long -term protection of the cove's marine biological resources. 105. Mitigation Measure IV -10: If vegetation clearing is to take place between March 15 and July 31, a pre- construction nesting survey for migratory birds will be conducted as required by the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Pre - construction surveys are to be conducted no more than 30 days prior to ground disturbance. Some restrictions on construction activities may be required in the vicinity of the nests until the site is no longer active, as determined by a qualified biologist. 106. Mitigation Measure V -1: A qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the project applicant to develop a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) consistent with the guidance of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). In the event that fossils are encountered during construction activities, ground - disturbing excavations in the vicinity of the discovery shall be redirected or halted by the monitor until the find has been salvaged. Any fossils discovered during project construction shall be prepared to a point of identification and stabilized for long -term storage. Any discovery, along with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, shall be accessioned into the collections of a suitable repository. Curation costs to accession any collections shall be the responsibility of the project applicant. 107. Mitigation Measure VIA: During periods when boats would be exposed to excessive wave - induced motions, boats should moved from the proposed docks and be sheltered at safe locations inside Newport Harbor to avoid damage. 108. Mitigation Measure VI -2: The dock design shall be based on the extreme wave conditions identified in the coastal engineering study (Noble Consultants, Inc., 2008). One percent height of impinging random waves shall be used, which translates to a minimum design wave height of about 1.7 times the significant wave height (i.e., four to 4.5 feet). 109. Mitigation Measure VII -1: Any repairs, renovations, removal or demolition activities that will impact the Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) or inaccessible ACM shall be performed by a licensed asbestos contractor. Inaccessible suspect ACM shall be tested prior to demolition or renovation. Air emissions of asbestos fibers and leaded dust would be reduced to below a level of significance through compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulatory requirements. Proper safety procedures for the handling of suspect ACM shall always be followed in order to protect the occupants of the building and the asbestos workers. a -'�'Q Resolution No. Page 35 of 37 110. Mitigation Measure VII -2: The property owner shall maintain all Lead Based Paint (LBP) in good condition at all times. Any LBP in poor condition must be stabilized by removal of all loose and flaking paint chips under controlled conditions and application of a primer /encapsulant (seal -coat) over the remaining intact paint. 111. Mitigation Measure VII -3: A contractor performing paint removal work shall follow the OSHA lead standard for the construction industry. The lead content of the paint should be considered when choosing a method to remove the pain, as proper waste disposal requirements and worker protection measure shall be taken. 112. Mitigation Measure VIII -1: The developer shall be responsible for replacement/upsizing of the 10 -foot wide catch basin located in Carnation Avenue storm drain, which is currently deficient. The new catch basin will be sized to provide sufficient capacity for the runoff generated by this project, as well as existing runoff from the rest of the tributary area to this facility. It shall satisfy the appropriate storm -year design criteria established by the City Engineer. This storm drain reconstruction shall include appropriate urban runoff filtration elements, to reduce potential water pollution impacts into Newport Harbor. Reconstruction of this storm drain shall occur outside of the rainy season. 113. Mitigation Measure VIII -2: All debris and trash shall be disposed in suitable trash containers on land or on the work barge at the end of each construction day. 114. Mitigation Measure VIII -3: Discharge of any hazardous materials into Newport Bay is prohibited. 115. Mitigation Measure VIII -4: Silt curtains shall be deployed around work barges and around the pile sleeving or drilling operations where feasible to minimize the spread of turbid waters into adjacent eelgrass beds within and outside the project area. 116. Mitigation Measure IX -1: The property owner(s) shall execute and record a waiver of future shoreline protection for the project prior to the issuance of a building permit. Said waiver shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney. 117. Mitigation Measure IX -2: The applicant shall dedicate a view easement as depicted on the exhibit below; however, it will 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. 101 mflUNE OF EXISIINOBWgNG � PNE us PRO mn OEVElOP1ENf� PREYIWS PPOPOSSp � X \ POPOSSDI 3R CK PNOPOSS WTI FFAY i CmM1aYO. / I vawam eanrt Resolution No. Page 36 of 37 Z� Om 118. Mitigation Measure IX -3: 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. 119. Mitigation Measure IX-4: Bluff landscaping shall consist of native, drought tolerant plant species determined to be consistent with the California coastal buff environment. Invasive and non - native species shall be removed. Irrigation of bluff faces to establish re- vegetated areas shall be temporary and used only to establish the plants. Upon establishment of the plantings, the temporary irrigation system shall be removed. 120. Mitigation Measure XI -1: All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained muffling devices. 121. Mitigation Measure XI -2: A construction schedule shall be developed that minimizes potential cumulative construction noise levels. 122. Mitigation Measure XI -3: The construction contractor shall notify the residents of the construction schedule for the proposed project, including construction of the dock, and shall keep them informed on any changes to the schedule. The notification shall also identify the name and phone number of a contact person in case of complaints. The contact person shall take all reasonable steps to resolve the complaint. �$� I a� Y �u wlmi I � Ili PKf� 6, - wwc vlFwwlKr. 56 FFOlEG1 TC a+wlce Nw rum CrRHAT10N AVE. IC UM swxruK roK wauc usF 'Ia NF Z� Om 118. Mitigation Measure IX -3: 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. 119. Mitigation Measure IX-4: Bluff landscaping shall consist of native, drought tolerant plant species determined to be consistent with the California coastal buff environment. Invasive and non - native species shall be removed. Irrigation of bluff faces to establish re- vegetated areas shall be temporary and used only to establish the plants. Upon establishment of the plantings, the temporary irrigation system shall be removed. 120. Mitigation Measure XI -1: All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained muffling devices. 121. Mitigation Measure XI -2: A construction schedule shall be developed that minimizes potential cumulative construction noise levels. 122. Mitigation Measure XI -3: The construction contractor shall notify the residents of the construction schedule for the proposed project, including construction of the dock, and shall keep them informed on any changes to the schedule. The notification shall also identify the name and phone number of a contact person in case of complaints. The contact person shall take all reasonable steps to resolve the complaint. Resolution No. Page 37 of 37 123. 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 Public Works Department, which shall address issues pertaining to potential traffic conflicts during peak traffic periods, potential displacement of on- street parking, and safety. • This plan shall identify the proposed construction staging area(s), construction crew parking area(s), estimated number and types of vehicles that will occur during that phase, the proposed arrival /departure routes and operational safeguards (e.g. flagmen, barricades, shuttle services, etc.) and hourly restrictions, if necessary, to avoid traffic conflicts during peak traffic periods, displacement of on- street parking and to ensure safety. • The construction staging, parking and traffic control plan shall provide for an off - site parking lot for construction crews which will be shuttled to and from the project site at the beginning and end of each day until such time that the project site can accommodate off - street construction vehicle parking. Until that time, construction crews shall be prohibited from parking in the adjacent residential neighborhood. • The plan shall identify all construction traffic routes, which shall avoid narrow residential streets unless there is no alternative, and the plan shall not include any streets where some form of construction is underway within or adjacent to the street that would impact the efficacy of the proposed route. • Dirt hauling shall not be scheduled during weekday peak hour traffic periods or during the summer season (Memorial Day holiday weekend through and including the Labor Day holiday weekend). The approved construction staging, parking traffic control plan shall be implemented throughout each major construction phase. b 5l� BLANK 6A,° ATTACHMENT C Draft ordinance C.1 _ ► L -a ORDINANCE NO. 2008- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2005 -009 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 201 -205, 207 CARNATION AVENUE 101 BAYSIDE PLACE (PA 2005 -196) WHEREAS, an application was filed by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. with respect to property located at 201 -205, 207 Carnation Avenue, and 101 Bayside Place to construct an 8 -unit residential condominium development on a 1.4 acre site. The applications filed are: General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -006, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -002, Zone Change No. 2005 -009, Newport Tract No. 2005 -004 (TTM16882), Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -002; and WHEREAS, on February 22, 2007, April 5, 2007, May 17, 2007, February 21, 2008, and June 19, 2008, the Planning Commission held noticed public hearings in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, 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. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission acted to recommended adoption of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and approval of the applications to the City Council; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20.94 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on July 22, 2008, to consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the MND and all comments related to it, and based on the administrative record, the City Council made findings to adopt the MND pursuant to applicable laws prior to approving the project, including Code Amendment No. 2005 -009. The findings to adopt the MND are contained within City Council Resolution No. are incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, Code Amendment No. 2005 -009 is necessary to provide a zoning designation for a portion of the property in question that is consistent with the land use designation of the General Plan as modified by General Plan Amendment No. 2005- 006. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: A revision to Zoning Map depicted in Exhibit "A' is hereby approved; however, the change shall not become effective until Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -002 is approved by the California Coastal Commission. C, .2 Ordinance No. Page 2 of 3 SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on , and adopted on the day Of 2008, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS I1'6- ATTEST: CITY CLERK (!'A Ordinance No. _ Page 3 of 3 Exhibit "A" AERIE Condominiums (PA 2005 -196) 201 -205, 207 Carnation Ave. & 101 Bayside PI Code Amendment No. 2005 -009 i ATTACHMENT D Prior City Council Record Excerpt of minutes from August 14, 2007 Staff Report dated August 14, 2007 9.1 BLANK M. City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes August 14, 2007 Professional and Technical account 0510.8080. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Henn, Council Member Curry, Mayor Pro Tem Selich, Mayor Rosansky, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Gardner Absent: Council Member Webb XIV. PUBLIC HEARING 16. AERIE (PA2005 -198) - 201 -205 & 207 CARNATION AVENUE AND 101 BAYSIDE PLACE - THE 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. [100 -80071 Senior Planner Campbell utilized a PowerPoint presentation to display photos of the 1.4 acre site. He explained that the existing 12 unit apartment complex and single family dwelling will be demolished to make way for a nine unit condominium complex. He discussed the applications for the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP), Zoning Amendments, tract map, and modification permit. He stated that the Planning Commission dealt with the issues of public access and public views which are protected by policies, such as the Predominant Line of Existing Development ( PLOED). He explained that the PLOED is more specific and restrictive than General Plan policies and the methodology used to determined PLOED was calculated by taking a representative block of homes and determining the median of the distance to a reference point. In response to Mayor Rosansky's question, Senior Planner Campbell stated that a resident has the right to build to the PLOED which does not automatically override the CLUP. In response to Council concerns, Senior Planner Campbell stated that the six policies in the CLUP that are related to this project can be reviewed in the Planning Commissions April 6th staff report. In response to Council Member Gardner's question, Assistant City Manager Wood stated that the expectation of the CLUP was to conform to the General Plan in regard to land uses more so than in the protection of coastal resources. In response to Council Member Daigle's questions, Senior Planner Campbell stated that Ocean Boulevard has a height limitation and Carnation does not. He also stated that the Planning Commission considered the area to have two separate bluffs. In response to Council Member Henn's question, Senior Planner Campbell stated that, even if Channel Reef was included, it will only move the PLOED down one foot. City Attorney Clauson stated that it is their interpretation that the applicant has a right to develop to the PLOED but they do not have the right to establish where the PLOED is, only the City has that right. She noted that other policies can be considered and modified to lessen the impact on the bluff. Senior Planner Campbell reported that the project includes two parking lifts that will take the care down to three subterranean parking levels, construction management for the moving of 32,000 yards of soil, and traffic flow for concrete trucks and dirt haulers. He stated that there is a mitigation standard as part of the conditions of approval that requires a detailed construction management plan to minimize construction disruption. He discussed the environmental document and the comment letters that the City has received. Volume 58 - Page 247 Li City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes August 14, 2007 In response to Council Member Curry's questions, City Attorney Clauson stated that she has not had the opportunity to fully review the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)for this project Senior Planner Campbell stated that the declaration has been available for review forabout 32 days and two drafts were given to the Planning Commission.The document was revised again to include that theapplicantagreed to not buildbeyond the PLOED. In response to Council Member Henna questions, Senior Planner Campbell stated that the Planning Commission found a reasonable line between the two bluffs and the applicant left the bluff more intact to lessen the impact. In response to Council Member Daigle's questions, Senior Planner Campbell displayed the plane and topography of the units. He stated that there are two ways to get down to the beach and each level is pulled further away from the water. He noted that the project includes elevators and other amenities. In response to Mayor Rosansky's questions, Senior Planner Campbell stated that, as a part of the conditions of approval, the project will include a signaling mechanism to know which elevator to pull in front of. Further the two elevator lifts will rest at street level when not in use. The street level parking lot will hold three guest spaces, and residents will have to let guests inside. He agreed that it is not the most efficient and convenient parking arrangement. City Attorney Clauson clarified that elevator access for vehicles in Newport Beach have currently only been for single family residences. Senior Planner Campbell utilized slides to describe each floor and stated that the new building will be ten feet higher than the existing building but is still consistent with the height limits. City Attorney Clauson reported that the City can't take action on the issue tonight because there is no determination on whether if there is an approvable MND at this time. She explained why her office did not have an opportunity to respond or look at the comments that were raised before the public hearing. In response to Mayor Rosansky's concerns, Senior Planner Campbell stated that staffs PLOED recommendation is 50.7 feet in order to protect public views. He assured Council that the project is consistent with minimizing the impact to public coastal views if it is built within the PLOED. City Attorney Clauson stated that Council win first need to determine the PLOED and then look at other policies to minimize the impact. She stated that it is up to Council to determine if they want to give guidance at this time, but she's not in the position to advise Council on the MND. In response to Council questions, Senior Planner Campbell stated that staff is asking for guidance from Council to help decidethe PLOED for this project Mayor Pro Tem Selich believed that the PLOED should be used as a factor along with other factors, and should not dominate the approval. City Attorney Clauson stated that an ideal situation is that the PLOED is determined prior to designing projects. She added that Council is free to determine the PLOED. In response to Council Member Curry s question, Senior Planner Campbell stated that the applicant made adjustments to protect and preserve the bluff. He reported that there is no Volume 58 - Page 248 4' City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes August 14, 2007 set calculation to determine the PLOED and the Planning Commission did look at the Macintosh house on Ocean Boulevard to help determine the PLOED. Rick Julian, applicant, stated that he has been working on the project for over four and a half years, changed the project to not go down as far on the bluff, created a 50% increase in view on the corner of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue, kept a large portion of the project at single height to maintain residential views, and windows were limited on the south side for the neighbor's privacy. He reported that the actual building footprint is only 1,400 sq. feet larger than the existing building, the project can accommodate a2 cars, two golf carts and three extra public spaces on Carnation, and the building is state -the -art for environmental purposes. He believed that benefits include public views, increased City tax rolls, and reduced traffic by going from 12 to nine units. He extended an invitation to residents to come to him with concerns. He stated that, on May 17, six Planning Commissioners voted and found that the AERIE Project was in full conformance with the CLUP and recommended that Council approve the project He added that he has continued to listen to the residents and has proposed to move the project back even more to please the neighbors. Brion Jeannette, project architect, utilized a PowerPoint presentation. He discussed his solution and showed the aerial view of theproposed building outline, public view from Carnation and Ocean Boulevard, categorical exclusion zone, setbacks, shore cliffs, and photos of the bluffs since 1908. He stated that each unit will be approximately 5,000 square feet and, of the 82 parking spaces, only 18 are serviced by the elevators which have an automated parking system with lights and signals. He reported that the Planning Commission approved the original plan but the applicant moved the building back nine feet, which is substantially leas than what the current code allows. In response to Mayor Pro Tem 8elich's questions, Mr. Jeannette stated that the AERIE project can be taken to the Coastal Commission for their review, but they would not want access to the beach from this site because it is dangerous. Council Member Gardner believed that the project is not living up to the CLUP and General Plan. She suggested that Council not approve this project because Ocean Boulevard should not be included when determining the PLOED. Motion by Council Member Cum to continue the item. Marco Gonzalez, attorney from Coast Law Group, displayed a PowerPoint presentation to show CEQA fundamentals that need to be considered. He talked about the Coastal Act Fundamentals that included rules from statute and case law. He believed that the MND violates CEQA and that the Coastal Commission will not approve this development. Tim Paone, counsel for the applicant, stated that they will provide communication on the issues assuming there is a continuance. Bud Rasner stated that he lives within 10D feet of the project and supports it. He commended the Planning Commission on their due diligence. He behaved that approving the application is necessary and will not adversely affect public welfare. Rose Billings believed that the AERIE project is a bit much. Jeff Beck believed that the Planning Commission overlooked the horizontal and vertical lines of development and that the project is in violation of PLOED. Mr. Mahadi stated that the bluff has to be protected. He feels that things can go wrong Volume 58 - Page 249 p.5 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes August 14, 2007 during the excavation and hopes that Council limits the amount of building on the bluff Bill Vamn stated that he supports the AERIE project because he doesnt want to see another buddwg that would take away every square inch of dirt and air. He stated that he appreciated that the project will open up views. Kent Moore expressed support for the project and took issue with some of the tactics that neighbors are taking. He believed that this project will end up being one of the most magnificent and admired projects in the City. Richard Casper expressed concern with the welfare of the community and believed that more attention should be spent on the infrastructure of Newport Beach and not on building projects. John Martin stated that, while reading through the MND, he came up with 31 items he felt were potentially significant impacts and expressed support for the direction Council is taking. He believed that the destruction of the natural elope is being overlooked and recommended that Council require an environmental impact report. He expressed concern for cave -ins while grading. He believed that the parking plan is not convenient, the streets will be impacted, and more examination and information is needed before approving the project. Doug Snyder expressed support for the project and believed it meets all of the zoning codes. Brian Boyle commended the project and believed that it adds to the community. Francois Badeau commended Mr. Julian for meeting with the residents to ask for their input and believed that the area will be much nicer than it is now. Dick Huneaker expressed support for the project and didn't believe that the construction will be burdensome. John Cummings expressed support forthe project and believed that it is well thought out. Rob Piatti stated that the PLOED can cause a greater bluff We and believed the project is out of scale for the area. He added that the two to four years of construction will impact the neighborhood which already has traffic problems. Further, parking is already a concern and the project will only add to the problem. Marilyn Beck expressed opposition to the project because it is massive for the neighborhood. Dolores Otting stated that, if the Planning Commission meetings were on the web or televised, the project would not continuously be postponed. She noted that EQAC did not have the opportunity to comment on the last MND. She explained EQACs role in the PLOED and stated that the minutes and the report of the Planning Commission meeting differ. She emphasized that the PLOED needs to be established. Ann Donahue Lampton believed that Mr. Julian has addressed the issues in the neighborhood, but her concern is the height of the project because it will obstruct the views of residents on Ocean Boulevard. Dr. Jan Vandereloot expressed opposition to the project because it is inconsistent with the Coastal Act, CLUP and General Plan. He believed that the Coastal Commission will not approve the project because the applicant wants to go up in height and down on the bluff. Volume 58 - Page 280 O> i City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes August 14, 2007 He encouraged Council to define the PLOED to be 52 feet above sea level. He hoped that Council will pay attention to the coastal bluff; public views, and public access. Dick Nichols stated that the project will enhance the views and that homes are being built on the bluff in other areas. He emphasized that Mr. Julian ham compromised and worked with the neighbors. David Kovac expressed the opinion that the PLOED should have been determined prior to the design of the project. Mayor Pro Tem Selich stated that the Implementation Committee on the LCP will be recommending that the PLOED be determined on all properties and believed that direction should be given to Mr. Julian prior to sending the project back to the Planning Commission. He believed that the PLOED is the maximum limit of where to build and the other policies in the CLUP and General Plan take precedence over the PLOED. Further, the structure is not in scale with the neighborhood and the project excessively alters the bluff. He indicated that he will accept the City Attorney's and staffs interpretation regarding the PLOED at this time. He stated that he wants any new structure to stay within the footprint of the existing height limits. He asked that the applicant come back with a structure that is reasonable within the scale of the existing development, and does not result in an excessive alteration to the bluff. Council Member Curry agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Selich, but believed that the project should be continued to allow the applicant time to change some of the design elements and bring them back to Council. He believed that the Macintosh residence is the logical reference point to establish the PLOED for this project; however, he feels that Council owes the applicant a definitive position on the PLOED. Council Member Henn stated that,if there is a lower height at the top of the project to allow for more viewings, the project should be allowed to use more of the bluff. However, this project wants to go higher in height and lower on the bluff. He recommended setting the PLOED at a higher limit, Council Member Daigle stated that there are adopted policies on visual quality and scale, and feels that Council should uphold the policies. She agreed that the project should be taken back to the Planning Commission because it's too far down the UWE Mayor Rosansky stated that he would like to send the project back to the Planning Commission, keep the staff recommended PLOED, and exclude Ocean Boulevard from the calculations. Armnaled_motiou by Council Member Curry to include Mayor Rosansl4y's suggestion of accepting the staff recommended PLOED, excluding the Ocean Boulevard property. Mr. Peons stated that, if the PLOED were 62 feet the existing structure couldn't be rebuilt. He reminded Council that the projectis a multi- family site not just a single family dwelling. Council Member Henn believed that it is punitive if the project's PLOED is 50 feet and that Mr. Julian is giving up his height allotment. Council Member Gardner stated that she agrees that there should not be a decision tonight. She invited the applicant to come back with changes. Mayor Pro Tem Selich stated that Council should give the Planning Commissions PLOED Volume 58 - Page 251 D. I City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes August 14, 2007 of 50.7 feet for the applicant to build around. Council Member Curry withdrew his motion. Mr. Jeannette reported that the street climbs to the north and indicated that he would liketo meet with staff and bring the issue beck to Council. He stated that he understands that the bluff needs to be protected. M.etion by C ncil_MemberpslgLe to send this issue back to the Planning Commission with the direction to utilize the staff recommended PLOED of 50.7 feet. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Mayor Pro Tem Selich, Mayor Rosansky, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Gardner Noes: Council Member Henn, Council Member Curry Absent: Council Member Webb XV. Phi l3LIC COMMENTS In response to Dolores Otting a questions, Mayor Rosansky stated that the City Attorney hires outside counsel and trial dates are set by a judge. City Attorney Clausen explained that she is required by the Brown Act to show that they are discussing issues regarding litigation. Dolores Otting reported that she fell on Spyglass Hill Road and wished that the area were cleaned properly. XVI. Q I. 1rPQRTM -CI_TV.COUNCIL ON COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES- None XVII. Pj,ANDTI STATUS REPORT 17. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR AUGUST 9, 2007. 1100 -20071 Planning Commission Director Lepo reported on the fo)owing items: Pacific View Memorial Park (PA20W -282); Knight Appeal (PA2007 -157) - 312 Hazel Drive; Arco Gas Station Convenience Store (PA2007.059) - 2100 Bristol Street, Screening of Mechanical Equipment(Code Amendment No. 2007 -004)(PA2007 -058) XVIII. CONTINUED BUSINEB 18. APPROVAL OF TEN YEAR AGREEMENT WITH CR&R INC. TO PROVIDE FULLY AUTOMATED RESIDENTIAL REFUSE COLLECTION SERVICES IN NEWPORT COAST. (100 -2007] General Services Director Harmon stated that the agreement with CR&R has been completed and they will begin servicing Newport Coast an October 1, 2007. He pointed out the changes to the agreement and informed Council that they received the most recent agreement tonight. He reported that the payment to the contractor will be based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) which holds a cap of 3% per year. In response to Council Member Henns questions, City Attorney Clauson stated that the contract will be amended to include that, on an annual basis, the increase is to be applied to that year. She confirmed that the example in the agreement is wrong and will lead to wrong conclusions. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Selich's questions, General Services Director Harmon Volume 58 - Page 252 W# CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 16 August 14, 2007 TO; Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3210, jampbell&ity.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: AERIE (PA2005 -196) 201 -205 & 207 Carnation Avenue 101 Bayside Place APPLICANT: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. Richard Julian, President BACKGROUND The proposed project was considered by the Planning Commission at three public hearings and on May 17, 2007, the Commission recommended approval of the project Provided the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was revised and recirculated before final action by the City Council. The MND has been revised and recirculated and is attached for consideration. RECOMMENDATION 1) Consider the revised draft MND (Attachment. A) and any new comments received 2) Adopt the attached draft resolution adopting the draft MND and approving General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -006, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -002, Newport Tract Map No. 2005 -004 (TTM16882), Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -002 (Attachment B); and, 3) Introduce the attached draft ordinance amending the Zoning Districting Map thereby approving Code Amendment No. 2005 -009 (Attachment C)_ APPLICATION SUMMARY The AERIE project consists of the demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment building and single - family residence and the construction of a new, 9 -unit residential condominium building. The project site is located bayward of the intersection of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar. The following discretionary approvals are requested or required in order to implement the project as designed: 1% AERIE (PA2005 -196) August 14, 2007, Page 2 1. General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -006 would change the land use designation of a 584- square - foot portion of 101 Bayside Place from RT (Two -Unit Residential) to RM (Multiple -Unit Residential, 20 dwelling units per acre). 2. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -002 would change the Coastal Land Use Plan designation of the same 584-square-foot portion of 101 Bayside Place from RH -D (High Density Residential - 50.1 to 60 dwelling units per acre) to RM-A (Medium Density Residential - 6.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre). 3. Zone Change No. 2005 -009 would change the zoning designation of the 584 - square -foot portion of 101 Bayside Place from R -2 (Two - Family Residential) to MFR (Multifamily Residential, 2178 square feet per unit). 4. Tract Map No. 2005 -004 (TT16882) combines the 584-square-foot portion of 101 Bayside Place with 201 -205 Carnation Avenue and 207 Carnation Avenue and subdivides the air space for 9 residential, condominium units. 5. Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 would permit a 5 -foot subterranean encroachment within the 10400t front setback along Carnation Avenue, and a 3' -1" to 6-7" above - grade and subterranean encroachment into a 10' -7" side yard setback between the project and 215 Carnation. 6. Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -002 is an application required by Chapter 20.86 of the Municipal Code to review the potential loss of affordable housing within the Coastal Zone. No low or moderate income households occupy the site and no replacement housing is required. These discretionary requests, analysis and respective findings are discussed in the Planning Commission staff reports attached as Attachment D. Facts to support the findings are contained in the attached draft resolutions recommending project approval to the City Council. DISCUSSION The record of the Planning Commission is attached and includes the three staff reports, minutes and Planning Commission Resolution No. 1723 recommending project approval. A complete discussion of the various findings and the facts that support them are contained in the attached Planning Commission reports and the attached Planning Commission resolution. The Project The site currently is developed with a 14 -unit apartment building, a single - family residence, a concrete staircase to the bay, a concrete patio at the water and a three - finger dock system. The apartment building and single - family home will be demolished to construct a new 73,418 square foot, 9-unit condominium. complex. The new structure will have a total of seven levels, three of which will be visible above the existing grade D -10 AERIE(PA2005 -196) August 14, 2007, Page adjacent to the intersection of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard and a total of 6 levels will be visible when viewed from the south and west from Newport Bay. The lowest level will be fully subterranean and will not be visible. The structure includes outdoor patios, decks and may include spas at each level. The project includes encroachments into the front and side setbacks. Most of the encroachments are subterranean. Approximately 31,524 cubic yards of earth will be excavated and removed from the site. The site currently consists of two parcels and a small portion of a third parcel (584 square feet) with a total area of 1.4 acres including approximately 11,300 square feet of land below mean low tide. Each unit will have a private storage room located in the lowest basement level. Additional amenities include a private spa, lounge, patio, locker room, exercise room, and a pool located on Level 1. Two parking, spaces are provided for each unit, with a total of 5 guest and 2 golf cart parking spaces provided on Levels 1 through 4. Level 4 is approximately 3 feet below the grade of Carnation and it will house residential units, 2 two -car garages, and 3 guest spaces. All other parking is below street grade and is accessed from Carnation Avenue utilizing two automobile elevators. Public Access The Coastal Act requires the provision of maximum public access to coastal resources such as 'Newport Bay; however it is not required in all . cases. If the resource is so sensitive or if military needs dictate or if adequate public access exists nearby, access can be waived'. The Coastal Land Use Plan contains policies to be used to guide the 0.1\ AERIE (PA2005 -198) August 14, 2007, Page 4 analysis and the Planning Commission, Staff and the applicant were in agreement that requiring public access through or across the site is unwarranted given the steep topography, lack of lateral access to connect to, proximity of residential uses and the provision of public access nearby. Public trews An existing public view exists between the existing apartment building and the abutting house to the east from Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. The proposed design increases the distance between the buildings and opens the view slightly. The applicant has depicted a public bench and fountain at the comer on the plans to further enhance the experience. The view of the site from Begonia Park was also considered. A depiction of the project from the upper part of the park was included in the draft MND. Although the project will be in that view and a portion of the view of the water and harbor entrance will be affected, the finding is that it does not rise to the level of a significant environmental impact nor is it inconsistent with policy to protect public views. The view of the coastal bluff, a public coastal resource, is also considered a public view . pursuant to the CIUP. The project will extend further down the bluff than existing development; however, there is no significant impact to the view provided the project does not extend beyond the predominant line of existing development. Predominant Line of Existing Development Coastal bluff -face development is prohibited in the City with the exception of properties on Carnation Avenue, Pacific Avenue and Ocean Boulevard where principal structures already exist on the bluff face (CLUP Policies 4.4.3 -8 & 4.4.3 -9). The project meets these criteria and development of the bluff face is permissible provided it is within the predominant line of existing development. One purpose of the predominant line of existing development is to protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, including public views to.and along the ocean, bay, and harbor and to coastal bluffs. Staff and the applicant have disagreed as to the meaning and intent of the policies and the location of the predominant line of existing development. With the assistance of the City Attorney's office, the predominant line of existing development was determined to be a line the applicant is entitled to build to. Inherent in the determination of the location of the predominant line of existing development is the understanding that the predominant line of existing development protects the visual quality of the coast, public views and minimizes alteration of the bluff. The location of the predominant line of existing development was determined by the Planning Commission and is reflected in their recommendation. The Planning Commission identified the predominant line of existing development as a sloping line drawn between the two adjacent developments (2494 Ocean Blvd. and 215 Carnation Ave.) that might best be described as the proposed projectibluff interface line. Planning Commission's recommended line, Staffs D - a AERIE (PA2005 -196) August 14, 2007, Page 5 line and the applicant's, line are depicted in the draft MND and are on Sheets A -18 and A-19 of the plan set. A complete discussion of the issue is contained within the draft MND and Planning Commission staff reports. The Council can accept the Planning Commission's recommendation and approve the project or the Council can identify a different predominant line if the project does not meet the CLUP policy to protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor and to coastal bluffs. If a line is identified that does not accommodate the proposed project, a change in design would be necessary and a continuance of this item would be warranted. Parking Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 2.9.3 -1 and Circulation Element Policy CE7.1.1 require new development to avoid the use of parking configurations or parking management programs that are difficult to maintain and enforce; and require adequate, convenient parking for residents, guests, business patrons and visitors. The below -grade parking accessed by vehicle elevators is not the most convenient and could lead to vehicle queuing within the public right -of -way. Residents, guests and service providers might be more inclined to park on the street when it is more convenient to do so. Lastly, a portion of the guest parking spaces is located below grade. Given the density proposed.by the applicant, there is no efficient way to provide the required number of parking spaces without using a vehicle elevator. The elevator access directly from the street could be Internalized to avoid vehicle queuing on the street; another option is to require all guest parking to be located on Level 4 to avoid guest use of elevators. The first option would require a significant redesign where the latter option might not. The Planning Commission discussed these options and dismissed them them. The Commission concluded that although the parking configuration is not perfect, it can be found consistent with policy. Construction Management Concerns related to construction and construction parking led staff to include a condition of approval requiring a detailed construction management plan for each major phase of construction: Implementation of this condition should ensure that the construction phase of the project minimizes conflicts. The condition reads as follows: Prior to commencement of each major phase of construction, the Contractor shall submit a construction staging, parking and traffic control plan for approval by the Public Works Department. This plan shall identify the proposed construction staging area(s), construction crew parking area(s), estimated number and types of vehicles that will occur during that phase, the proposed arriveUdeparture routes and operational safeguards (e.g. flagman, barricades, shuttle services, etc.) and hourly restrictions, if necessary, to avoid traffic conflicts during peak traffic periods, displacement of on- street parking and to ensure safety. The construction staging, Parking and traffic control plan shall provide for an off -site parking lot of construction crews which will be shuttled to and from the project site at the beginning of and end of each day until such time that the project site can accommodate construction vehicle.parking. Construction p. i'� AERIE (PA2005-196) August 14, 2007, Page 6 traffic routes shall be included and shall avoid narrow residential streets, unless there is no alternative, and shall not include any streets where some form of construction is underway within or adjacent to the street that would Impact the efficacy of the proposed route. Grading and dirt hauling shall not be scheduled during the summer season (Memorial Day holiday weekend through and including the Labor Day holiday weekend). The approved construction staging, parking traffic control plan shall be implemented throughout each major construction phase. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration The initial draft MND was first circulated in February and March of this year. The first draft needed substantial revisions and was recirculated for public comment in April and May of 2007. The second draft MND was reviewed by the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee and their comments, along with other comments received, were considered by the Commission. The second draft MND was deemed insufficient by the Commission as it included a speck conclusion as to the predominant line of existing development and a mitigation measure requiring the project to be redesigned to comply. The problem was that the applicant had not agreed to the mitigation measure and the definitive identification of the predominant line of existing development did not provide for the discretionary process to potentially identify a different predominant line even though it was acknowledged that discretion was involved. If a predominant line of existing development were identified beyond the one identified by Staff, the MND might be suspect. Rather than proceeding forward, it was decided that the draft MND would be revised once again to eliminate seemingly conflicting analysis in the record and to provide the public the opportunity to comment. The final draft MND attached to this report includes a narrative describing the prior drafts, conflicting analysis, as well as changes in the project volunteered by the applicant and directed by the Commission as a result of the public participation process. The draft MND includes a new mitigation measure indicating that the project must be revised to fall within the predominant line of existing development as established by the City Council. The applicant has agreed to this mitigation measure, and with this measure in place, the project will not have the potential to create a significant impact to the environment The revised MND was recirculated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the comment period concludes on August 12, 2007. PUBLIC NOTICE A hearing notice indicating the subject, time, place and location of this hearing was provided in accordance with the Municipal Code. Notice was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and the site was posted a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing. Notice of the hearing is also provided with the agenda for the meeting, which was posted in accordance with applicable law and appears on the City's website. AERIE (PA2005 -996) August 14, 2007, Page 7 SUMMARY The Planning Commission recommends project approval subject to findings and conditions of approval. The findings and conditions are attached to the draft resolution. Should the City Council believe that any of the findings are not supported by the facts identified, a change to the project may be necessary. The central issue for the project is the predominant line of existing development. If the Council establishes a different predominant line that does not accommodate the project as designed, the applicant will need additional time to redesign the project accordingly, This same statement would be true for any other project - related issues such as the parking configuration, public views, public access, the setback encroachment or other aspect of the project Prepared by: TW Cq�41e ��q_ James Campbell, Seniar Pi nner ATTACHMENTS Submitted by: f r, David Plyping Director Raps 0 doled M., lorew .. E. Correspondence ATTACHMENTS E bf- $f 1y107 RZY%I ` Correspondence P. 16 Intentionally Blank D, 17 STATE OF CALIFORNIA— BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOU&NG AGENCY RECEIVED BY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGEk- Govemor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PLANNING DEPARTMENT District 12 3337 Michelson Drive, Suite 380 AUG 07 2007 Irvine, CA 92612 -8894 Tel: (949) 724 -2241 Flex your power! Fax: (949) 724-2592 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Be energy efficient! August 3, 2007 James Campbell City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658 Subject: AERIE (PA2005 -196) Dear Mr. Campbell, File: IGR/CEQA SCH #: 2007021054 Log #: 1833B PCH Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration for the AERIE (PA2005 -196) project. The proposed project is for demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment building and single - family residence to construct a 7- level, 9 -unit condominium complex, grading, and maintenance improvements to an existing private dock. The project site is located on 201 -207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place in the City of Newport Beach. The nearest State route to the project site is Pacific Coast Highway (PCH). Caltrans District 12 is a commenting agency on this project and has no comment at this time. However, in the event of any activity in Caltrans' right -of -way, an encroachment permit will be required. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments that could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Marlon Regisford at (949) 724 -2241. Sincerely Ryan amberlain, Branch Chief Local Development/Intergovernmental Review C: Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research o "Caltrons improves mobility across California" July 30, 2007 Mr. Steven Rosansky, Mayor City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: -6 lA4 11, ! 3 I am now a resident of Newport Beach, California for 3- years. I love our community and coastal environment we all have to share and enjoy. I am originally from Tacoma, Washington and now make Newport Beach, California my permanent residency. As a Newport Beach, California resident and citizen I would like to express to you my full support for the proposed AERIE real estate improvements for the project located.at 201 and 205 Carnation. I have met with Rick Julian at the project site and reviewed the model and designs for the proposed contemporary and innovative project. I spend many days taking family and friends along the Balboa Peninsula on bikes to The Wedge at the mouth of the harbor. The views of the ocean, harbor, and Corona Del Mar are impressive and I always take pride in showing off our beautiful city. I believe in the tradition of Newport Beach, California development this proposed property improvement exemplifies the care and planning this city wants and that is mandated by the California Coastal Commission goals for the Coastal Act of 1976. I am sure The City of Newport Beach, California can appreciate the well planned consideration, research, and energy devoted by the AERIE developer to this project since your recent efforts also to improve the area spent $3,945,000 to complete the Corona Del Mar State Beach Improvements. We all want to see our beautiful city continue to make progress forward in development and beautification while preserving our coastline. Approving this project will be another step, by The City of Newport Beach, to move in the right direction. Please call me at 949.422.6908 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Mark Bakke 307 360' Street Newport Beach, California 92663 CC: James Campbell, Senior Planner David Lepo, Planning Director Rick Julian, Developer /Applicant Date copes seat To: ayor Member �J U 0. t� July 30, 2007 City Council Members City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 I've been watching the progress on the Aerie project on Carnation. I know the apartments that have been an eyesore there, and I love the planned new design. The whole concept, and the way it has been developed in consultation with the community, seems ideal for Newport Beach. I've listened to the objections, and they seem minor. It's always possible to find something to object to with any proposal, but this seems to me like a project that should be approved I urge you to do so. �tJ�/�`� ales I' Turner 309 Vista Suerte Newport Beach, CA 92660 2 Cc: planning Department Da4a Coons Sent To: Member 0 Zd July 30, 2007 Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 To Members of the City Council, �1_ D 11..," ft.-- -2 AM 9: 3a I am sending this letter in the hope that you do not pass the Aerie project at the August 14 City Council Meeting. My wife and I live in Corona del Mar, and often walk Ocean Boulevard and Balboa Island. This project is much too big for that location, and will look more like a large hotel. It will result in there being no more natural bluff left, as the entire hillside will be engulfed with building. There must be better options for such a prime location then a project of this size. As this is something all residents enjoy, shouldn't the City Council be responsible for its preservation? And isn't that why we voted for you? Please help us keep what enhances Newport Beach! Isn't that why people pay so much to live here? Sincerely,n Date CO es Sent T6: David Cord p a 11Y C012 c/ 3Yor 2 Canyon Lane uncit Member Corona del Mar, CA 92625 N anager AM /0_ zr ?TM7 TO: Newport Beach City Council FROM: Gloria Hickman RF-* AERIE Proposed Condo Development on Carnation Ave. In my letter to the Planning Commission in April, I expressed my dismay regarding the proposed project on Carnation and Ocean Blvd. I have been a voting, tax-paying resident of Corona del Mar since 1974, and am someone who enjoys boating and the views from the water. i would not want to see that development standing out from all the Test, and I can't imagine why the City Council would even consider it, if you've ever seen this area from a boat. Furthermore, our Wuffi are a fragile resource of beauty we should not put at risk. Please reject this proposed giant as not fitting in with our community. Something smaller should bring sufficient income to the owners and please the many current residents of No" Beach. say Vr 4n Lane Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Date Conies I Member 13,-2-7 July 30, 2007 City Council Members City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 P1ANN ' BWEW Am 02 2001 CM 0� N%pCRI BEACH I've been watching the progress on the Aerie project on Carnation. I know the apartments that have been an eyesore there, and I love the planned new design. The, whole concept, and the way it has been developed in consultation with the community, seems ideal for Newport Beach. I've listened to the objections, and they seem minor. It's always possible to find something to object to with any proposal, but this seems to me like a project that should be approved. I urge you to do so. Charles K Turner 309 Vista Suerte Newport Beach, CA 92660 (` c�` Vi -IV\J Cl.Z3 RUDY MARIMAN & CO. - - i ; -• 341 BAYSIDE DRIVE • SUITE 3 • NEWPORT BEACH • CAU :)h 14'926(iT 949.673.1221 949.673.1415 FAX July 18, 2007 Mr. Steven Rosansky, Mayor City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport-Beach, CA 92663 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: I would like to express my support of the AERIE project located at 201 and 205 Carnation. I have met with the owners, seen the model, and viewed the Property. I am wholeheartedly in support of the project. The AERIE is a World Class community, replacing a 60 year old dilapidated apartment complex. The project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning and increases the City's property tax Roll. The property is currently assessed at approximately $1,100,000. AERIE is estimated to be assessed at approximately $90,000,000. These are just a few of the multiple benefits that the AERIE development will bring to our community. Rudy A. Mariman President Cc: David Lepo, Planning Director Rick Julian, Applicant Date 10—n u z_ . DAO e5 008Rt yar ��u;tcil fsie���2r X( rrart322r ❑ 1 LAWRENCE A. BROWN, D.P.M. H ) Foot and Ankle Specialist Surgery, Diseases & Injuries of the Foot & Ankle . 'dui .ti =I _ 6,11 [V,*$ort Superior Medical Plaza 1501 Superior Ave., Suite 304 Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 642 -2329 July 20, 2007 Mr. Steven Rosansky, Mayor City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: I would like to express my support of the Aerie project located at 201 and 205 Carnation. I have met with the owners, seen the model, and viewed the property. I am wholeheartedly in support of the project. I have been a practicing physician and resident of Newport Beach; since 1984. The present structure is an eyesore, whether viewing` it from land or sea. The proposed development would be beautiful, not only now, but for many years to come. Please approve this project quickly and allow the construction to begin without further delay. The sooner it is finished, the sooner we can all enjoy it. Sincerely, Dr. Lawrence A. Brown Date a Copies Sent To: '; mayor uncil member Manager I� 0, 25 KENT S. MOORE 210 CARNATION AVENUE CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIT-92$2$ .,.� t TELEPHONE: (949) 073-7092 FACSIMILE: (949) 073 -7099 C �" DW�d�'� -• Ci7ry July 10, 2007 RE: Proposed Aerie Project - CDM Dear Mayor and Council Members: I would like to bring a few facts to your attention regarding the proposed Aerie Development in Corona del Mar. For 37 years I have lived continuously at the corner of Ocean Blvd. and Carnation Ave. and during this time have observed every new construction project undertaken in our neighborhood. All of the following data I am presenting to you can be easily corroborated through city records. I have read the petition and other communications presented by those who oppose this project. It is interesting to note that some signers are not property owners while at least 3 others don't reside at the addresses shown.. (Public testimony.) Many asked that their names be removed after they personally met with Mr. Julian and looked at the model. The organizers of this petition are two homeowners who live directly adjacent to the proposed project and they are spreading disinformation throughout the area. You will be interested in learning something about their backgrounds. The owners of 2495 Ocean Blvd. received City and. Coastal approval and built a huge home on and below the bluff face next door to the proposed Aerie project. In their communications they point to the potential destruction of the bluff, the eradication of certain flora and fauna and the loss of public views, yet they engaged in these very activities when constructing their home. They even attempted to modify the design of their garage at the top of the bluff deconstruction but inspectors stopped them. Additionally, after their home was built, they were cited on numerous occasions for blocking the public right of way with trees and other shrubbery which, eventually, they were forced to remove. A story of their attempted public view blockages even appeared on the front page of the Daily Pilot. Yet, now, these neighbors have the audacity to spread lies about the applicant. As I stated to the Planning Commission,' This is a good example of the pot calling the kettle black and hypocrisy and "nimbyism" at its best." Meanwhile, the owners of 2501 Ocean Blvd. received City and Coastal approval to remodel their home and roofline which cut off both private and public views. They said to the neighbors, "Work with us on this." They, too, were later cited by the City and were forced to remove trees which they decided to plant in the public right of way after the completion of their approved project. They, too, are guilty of using a double standard wetr opposing the Aerie Project. As I also stated to the Planning Commission, "people who Ce ^'?s Sent To: live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." , The vast majority of the neighbors are solidly behind the proposed Aerie Developme r'mcil uomber and I hope that you will approve what will be a beautiful addition to our neighborhood,%` ''a °( f`l RICHARD & REGINA HUNSAKER 117 Coral Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92662 -1144 July 17, 2007 Mr. Steven Rosansky, Mayor CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: I would like to express my support of the AERIE project located at 201 and 205 Carnation. I have met with the owners, seen the model, and viewed the property. I am wholeheartedly in support of the project I live on Balboa Island and I approve of the elevations of the building which I will view when I walk the small Island, which I do a couple of times a week. The project will reduce the number of dwelling units from the 15 that exist today, to 9 units that is proposed by Aerie. Traffic is always an issue, but this reduction in units will help mitigate the traffic on our busy streets. The project utilizes only 24.5% of the site, preserving 75% as open space twice the amount of open space required by code. I appreciate your support of this development of the AERIE project Very truly yours Richard Hunsaker RH:tI xc: David Lepp, Planning Director (A*hkaerie.doc) Date 1 1 Q 19 Cop' Sent To: Mayor Manager Member ,,. �Manager � Kd rney El El LEI o-2-7 AERIE (PA 2005 -196) comments attached Campbell, James Page I of I From: Marko Popovich [marko @uci.edul Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 10:31 AM To: Campbell, James; Lepo, David; jeff.cole @cushwake.com; rhawkins @earthlink.net; scott @peotter.com; eaton727 @earthlink.net; emcdaniel @fullertoncb.com; bhillgren @cox.net; strataland@earthlink.net Subject: AERIE (PA 2005 -198) comments attached Attachments: AERIE.pdf Dear Planning Commission, Attached is a letter from SPON regarding Agenda Item No. 3. AERIE (PA 2005 -196), 201 -205 & 207 Carnation Avenue, 101 Bayside Place. Thanks for your consideration, Marko Popovich SPON co- presiding officer 0. ZS nQ mQ nnn17 SPON P.O. Box 102 Balboa Island, California 92662 May 16, 2007 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Subject: Agenda Item No. 3 AERIE (PA 2005 -196), 201 -205 & 207 Carnation Avenue, 101 Bayside Place Dear Chairperson Jeffrey Cole and Planning Commissioners, SPON appreciates the opportunity to comment on the AERIE project. The bluffs in Corona del Mar represent one of its most beautiful assets. The AERIE site currently possesses a wonderful example of bluff face, and the site is a prominent landmark near the entrance into Newport Harbor. SPON is concerned that overdevelopment of the AERIE site would destroy a unique feature that makes Corona del Mar a special place. We have reviewed the current and past staff reports, and believe from the extensive discussion on the Predominant Line of Development (PLOD), there is significant latitude in determining where it is located on the site. Beyond the AERIE site itself, establishment of the PLOD on this site will set a precedent that may allow neighboring properties to further develop the remaining bluff. Given the importance of this site as a landmark entrance to Newport Harbor, SPON recommends that the Planning Commission concur with the April 5, 2007 staff recommendation establishing a PLOD of 52 MSL. A 52 MSL PLOD would allow for further development on the site while retaining a significant portion of the existing bluff. In our opinion, at 52 MSL, the project is much more attractive as evidenced by the photosimulations below: View 1 I view 7 0.29 Planning Commission AERIE Page 2 of 2 We hope that you will agree with our assessment and recommend the City Council approve the PLOD at 52 MSL. Sincerely, A .P YJ�11 Marko Popovich SPON Presiding Officer cc: David Lepo, Director of Planning James Campbell, Senior Planner b . 3v May 17, 2007 Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Condominium Development at 201 -207 Carnation Ave., CDM Dear Commissioners, My husbaild Joe and I live adjacent to the proposed project at 2501 Ocean Boulevard. I spoke against the project at the February 22 "d meeting, and we are still opposed for multiple reasons. From the beginning we have been amazed that the feasibility and suitability of this project, for this site in Old Corona del Mar, hasn't been questioned and examined more thoroughly. There has been a lot of misinformation and inconsistencies supplied by the applicant, as well as complete disregard for the staff recommendations and the provisions in the CLUP. I am surprised that his architect, Mr. Jeanette, would not be familiar with these. Especially important are those policies which address protecting coastal bluffs and public views. These can be found in Chapter 4.4, Scenic and Visual Resources, which I read at the February 22nd Meeting. There are many other important provisions I have listed here, (policies 4.4.1 -1, 4.4.1 -2, 4.4.1 -3), but I will refer to policy 4.4.3 -12 which states "Employ site design and construction techniques to minimize alteration of coastal bluffs to the maximum extent feasible." Also of great importance is the implication of Policy 4.4.3 -8, which allows, in some cases, "bluff development when no feasible alternative exists as long as it is designed and constructed to minimize alteration of the bluff face ". In this case there are plenty of feasible alternatives to minimize this project, however, the applicant chooses to maximize by flagrant overdevelopment, completely destroying the bluff and building something so massive that it is completely out of scale and character with the surrounding area Also, by having his attorney's pick apart the language of these policies, it does a disservice to both the Planning Commission and the City Council, who voted unanimously to approve it. We are all very much aware of the obvious intent of these provisions. If they weren't meant to protect this particular very prominent coastal bluff, then what bluffs are they meant to protect? As this is a precedent setting situation, maybe the CLUP needs to be reworded before any decisions are made. Furthermore, why are we allowing the applicant to continue to push the envelope when it comes to the predominant line of development. To even consider the Kerchoff Marine Laboratory which was built on the beach in China Cove in1926, and the Channel Reef 0.3( Apartments which were built in 1962, is absurd. As there were no definitive land use policies at that time, we're lucky more Channel Reefs weren't built, as then Corona del Mar would look like Miami Beach. Also, these structures are 250 feet northerly on Ocean Blvd., whereas the project site is on Carnation Ave., so it would seem that the predominant line should be calculated using only the other buildings on Carnation. Another area of the CLUP protects the Ocean Blvd. Public View Corridor. In Policy 4.4.1 -6 it states "Protect Public Coastal Views from the Following Roadway Segments ". It appears from the plans that the view corridor will be diminished due to the multiple decks and overhangs. This is where the request for story- poles, which have been ignored by the applicant, would determine the extent of the loss of public view from different sidewalk locations along Ocean Blvd. I am submitting a photo of the Ocean Blvd. View Corridor as Exhibit 1. Another area of obvious concern is the highly inconvenient parking configuration. With a total of 34 subterranean parking places, accessed only by the use of car elevators, many potential problems are created, including blocking of the public right -of -way if the elevators are in use and there is queuing into the street. This could cause a potentially dangerous situation on what is already a blind corner, as cars in the public right -of -way may attempt to go around those queuing in the street. This is especially true on weekends and during the summer, when the streets are very congested with beachgoers looking for on- street parking. There are provisions addressing this in Policy 2.9.3 -1 of the CLUP, as well as in the Circulation Element Policy CE 71.1, which are both part of the General Plan to protect our neighborhoods from this kind of negative impact. We would also like to express our concern regarding the stability of the bluff, and potential damage to surrounding properties when such a massive amount of material is removed, and we would like to put the City on notice that "they" will be liable for any damage to our home. I am submitting an aerial photo of the multiple cracks in the streets on Ocean Blvd. and Carnation (Exhibit 2), and a photo of a collapsed bluff (Exhibit 3). It appears that by following the Staffs most conservative application to policy, by allowing redevelopment of the property within the footprint of the existing buildings, many potential problems, code violations and the need for a modification permit would be eliminated. In section "A" of the above mentioned CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -12 it states "siting new development on the flattest area of the site, except when an alternative location is more protective of coastal resources ". We have lived on Ocean Blvd. for seventeen years, and in that time have watched the North end of Ocean become a neighborhood. A commendable redevelopment a few years ago was done by our neighbors the Rasners, who took out two older duplexes, and had the opportunity to develop six condominiums, but instead put in three lovely single family homes, which has greatly enhanced our neighborhood. D. 3 2 In summery, I have talked with many more people in our immediate area since the February 22 Id meeting, and most of them were not aware of this project. Upon learning of it they are opposed. As I mentioned at that meeting, if this goes through as planned many people will realize what's been done "after the fact ", and say "how did this happen?" We respectfully ask the Commission to deny this project. Sincerely, Joe and Lisa Vallejo Exhibits will be available at the May 17 Planning Meeting. 0.33 Page I of I Campbell, James From: EIIenTrujillo [emailln@roadrunner.com] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:52 AM To: Lepo, David; Campbell, James Subject: Aerie Project Dear Planning Commission members, I am a resident of Corona del Mar. I had the priviledge of living at 205 Carnation for 26 years. I have seen the plans for the Aerie project several times. I have spoken to the architect and developer on many occassions and have found them to be very interested in planning a project that fits the neigborhood.l know the Brian Jeannette and Rick Julian have worked with all the neighbors to develop a building that does not block views as much as allowable. 1 think they have accomplished their goal. 1 am very much in favor of the project. t know that one of the concerns is parking. Having lived there for 26 years I can attest to the fact that parking was never an issue. The current building has 12 units and 8 parking slots. At various times there were 16 -24 people living at the building,all with cars. Parking was NEVER an issue. Nobody EVER leaves or returns home at the same time. It is ridiculous to think that people living in the Aerie project would all be leaving or returning at the same timeM I saw a copy of the petition that was being circulated and notice the various address' of the signers. I found it interesting that at least 50 of the signitures were from people that don't live in the immediate area and are not affected by the project. They don't live any where near 201 -207 Carnation. Traffic issues and view issues do not affect them in any way. I do live near the project. Thank you for your time and consideration regarding this project. Please vote in favor of the Aerie project Sincerely, Ellen Trujillo 2624 Ocean Blvd Corona del Mar oR/nRnnn7 0, 3L/ Campbell, James From: Laura Curran [lauracurran @mac.comj Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 12:33 PM To: scoff @taxfighter.com; bhillgren@cox.net; rhawkins @earthlink.net; eaton727 @earthlink.net; strataland @earthlink.net, jeff.cole @cushwake.com Cc: Varin, Ginger; Campbell, James Subject: Comment on AERIE Proposal and Line of Development for PC Meeting tonight Dear Planning Commission members: I am writing to express my support for the Planning Staff's recommendation regarding the proposed line of development for the AERIE project. April 5, 2007 Report 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 the bluff and preserves the scenic and visual quality of the landform as a visual resource consistent with policy. A line of development at 52 feet and preservation of the bluff face would balance development and public interests in the natural and scenic bluffs, specifically: View from Begonia Park and the Bay Sufficient scale to establish coastal bluff habitat proposed in the Negative MND During the LCP planning meetings and related Council meetings in 2005, there was significant discussion about Newport Beach's intent to balance development and coastal bluff habitat preservation in the future, with significant interest in preserving natural bluff faces going forward. Coastal bluffs are an irreplaceable resource which are enjoyed by all; this project is an important opportunity for Newport Beach to demonstrate that it values coastal bluffs for their scenic beauty and natural habitat. A line of development at 52 feet would enable the developer to continue with the project, while maintaining the bluffs as a scenic and natural resource. While this is an attractive project in many ways, the line of development at 30 feet proposed in the project by the applicant would run counter to the LCP policy and its intent. Relevant LCP Provisions: 4.4.1 -3: Design site development to minimize alteration to significant natural land forms, including bluffs, cliffs, and canyons 4.4.3 -9: Where principal structures exist along Ocean Blvd and Carnation Avenue, require all new development to be sited in accordance with existing predominant line of development in order to protect coastal views.nd construction techniques to minimize alteration of coastal bluffs to maximum amount feasible. 4.4.3 -12: Employ site design and construction techniques to minimize alteration of coastal bluffs to the maximum extent feasible Please note: I am writing as a private citizen, and not in my capacity as an appointee t' the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC). - Sincerely, 0.35 Laura Curran 437 Dahlia Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92625 I lauracurran @mac.com 714 351 7379 n_ 34P Page 1 of 1 Campbell, James From: PVCDM @aol.com Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 9:35 PM To: Lepo, David; Campbell, James Cc: lindabv@adelphia.net Subject: Petition being circulated about the new condo units on Carnation Dear Planning Commission members, The other day I signed a petition opposing the condo complex being planned overlooking the bluff on Carnation Ave. in Corona del Mar. After talking about the project with several of my neighbors, I find that I did not have all the correct information when I was asked to sign the petition. Therefore, I regret that I signed it, and would like to have my name removed from the above mentioned petition. Thank you. Pat Vranicar 214 Heliotrope Ave. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 See what's free at AOL.com. h_37 08/08/2007 Jeffrey & Marilyn Beck 303 Carnation Avenue Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 949 - 723 -1773 mdb@becktrustee.com May 15, 2007 VIA US MAIL AND EMAIL Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 2501 Ocean Blvd Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Re: 201 -207 Carnation Avenue Condominium Development Dear Commissioners: I am the owner of a residence at 303 Carnation Avenue, one block above this proposed development. In talking with members of the planning department I was told that `most neighbors' approve this project. I was quite surprised by that comment because most of my neighbors are opposed to it. Therefore, I decided to take a poll of the neighborhood and found that `most' people are not even aware of the design or implications of it, least of all in support of it. I only began a week ago to talk to neighbors and hereby submit to you the signatures of 82 individuals who live in the immediate area and are opposed to the design, size and ramifications of this project. I also reviewed the petition submitted by Mr. Julian and found that only 41 of the signatures are residents of the immediate surrounding neighborhood and a number of his signatures are from residents who live outside the city of Newport Beach entirely. Additionally, his petition describes the project as "9 Single- Family Attached Homes." This certainly is NOT what has been proposed to the planning commission. Residents of the immediate area, as they become aware of what is being proposed (including some who originally signed Mr. Julian's petition), are deeply concerned about this project in its current form and the implications of the design, which is totally out of character with the neighborhood of Corona Del Mar, and the destruction of one of the last remaining coastal bluffs, all of which fall under the protection of Section 30251 of the Coastal Act]. Residents are additionally concerned about the serious parking issues caused by 34 underground spaces accessible only by car elevator. "The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be ... visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas ... New development... shall be subordinate to the character of its setting. (Emphasis added) 0. 33-*, I respectfully submit these petitions to you and will continue to send in petitions for submission as I obtain them. Many of us intend to continue canvassing residents of Corona Del Mar and Newport Beach in the hope that all residents become fully aware of a major project proposed on a `Promontory' point (to use Mr. Julian's description in his publicity of the project) of Newport Beach. Very truly yours, � ° ! l of cc: Members of the Newport Beach City Counsel D.39 PETITION REGARDING 201 -207 CARNATION AVENUE DEVELOPMENT PLAN I am in opposition of the proposed 9 -unit condominium development for 201 -207 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar, and request the City of Newport Beach deny this project as the developer's plan requires alteration and destruction of a coastal bluff along Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Also, it appears the significant mass of the building will extend into current public vistas, impacting public coastal views of the ocean and harbor, as well as scenic views from the harbor, as much of the natural landform will be replaced with building. In addition, the design and density of the building is a very abrupt change from the character of the neighborhood. SIGNATURE NAME ADDRESS DATE G ,o. yO R:� •�i�l. s��.�o�rl_ :l�l►.E.�t ' `39: �' +r; 1`. b7k+JL*�yi _,i.�li`111 r rn ri raw _ `' �, lJt G ,o. yO PETITION REGARDING 201 -207 CARNATION AVENUE DEVELOPMENT PLAN I am in opposition of the proposed 9 -unit condominium development for 201 -207 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar, and request the City of Newport Beach deny this project as the developer's plan requires alteration and destruction of a coastal bluff along Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Also, it appears the significant mass of the building will extend into current public vistas, impacting public coastal views of the ocean and harbor, as well as scenic views from the harbor, as much of the natural landform will be replaced with building. In addition, the design and density of the building is a very abrupt change from the character of the neighborhood. L) -Y/ PETITION REGARDING 201 -207 CARNATION AVENUE DEVELOPMENT PLAN I am in opposition of the proposed 9 -unit condominium development for 201 -207 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar, and request the City of Newport Beach deny this project as the developer's plan requires alteration and destruction of a coastal bluff along Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Also, it appears the significant mass of the building will extend into current public vistas, impacting public coastal views of the ocean and harbor, as well as scenic views from the harbor, as much of the natural landform will be replaced with building. In addition, the design and density of the building is a very abrupt change from the character of the neighborhood. 1),yZ PETITION REGARDING 201 -207 CARNATION AVENUE DEVELOPMENT PLAN I am in opposition of the proposed 9 -unit condominium development for 201 -207 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar, and request the City of Newport Beach deny this project as the developer's plan requires alteration and destruction of a coastal bluff along Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Also, it appears the significant mass of the building will extend into current public vistas, impacting public coastal views of the ocean and harbor, as well as scenic views from the harbor, as much of the natural landform will be replaced with building. In addition, the design and density of the building is a very abrupt change from the character of the neighborhood. SIGNATURE NAME ADDRESS DATE no /). y3 r . �'RAW/ l / �!1 ,/ /e7♦ d ♦'fFII��f���NL,1a _.i t: �� ,� r 1 _ � �� •ate � no /). y3 PETITION REGARDING 201 -207 CARNATION AVENUE DEVELOPMENT PLAN I am in opposition of the proposed 9 -unit condominium development for 201 -207 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar, and request the City of Newport Beach deny this project as the developer's plan requires alteration and destruction of a coastal bluff along Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Also, it appears the significant mass of the building will extend into current public vistas, impacting pub 'c coastal views of the ocean and harbor, as well as scenic views from the harbor, as much of the nayftr l landform will be replaced with building. In addition, the design and density of the building i a v ab hange from the character of the neighborhood. I [JRE NAME ADDRESS DATE iI /7 13-4y 13-4y R PETITION REGARDING 201 -207 CARNATION AVENUE DEVELOPMENT PLAN I am in opposition of the proposed 9 -unit condominium development for 201 -207 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar, and request the City of Newport Beach deny this project as the developer's plan requires alteration and destruction of a coastal bluff along Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Also, it appears the significant mass of the building will extend into current public vistas, impacting public coastal views of the ocean and harbor, as well as scenic views from the harbor, as much of the natural landform will be replaced with building. In addition, the design and density of the building is a very abrupt change from the character of the neighborhood. SIGNATURE NAME ADDRESS DATE 5 -K 6 U y �9r.�itCc��,� i`lidxc -2 -2 S 0.q5 tlar- 14-07 05:26pm From - California Coastal +5625905064 T -736 P.001/003 F -461 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - 7HERESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZC- WEGGER. QnyeArN ~ALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION JM Coast Area Office 200 oceshoate, suits loon Long Beach. CA 90802 -002 (5021590.5071 May 14, 2007 James Campbell City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: COMMENTS ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AERIE (PA2005 -996), $CHI# 2007021054 Site: 2d1 -207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place, Newport Beach, Orange County Dear Mr. Campbell: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the AERIE project. According to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the proposed project Is the demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment building and a single family residence and construction of a 7- level, 9 -unit 76,333 square foot condominium complex, appurtenant facilitles, 32,400 cubic yards of grading and expansion of an existing private dock system from 4 slips to 9 slips. The subject site is comprised of 3 lots that contain a total of approximately 1.4 acres. According to the MND, the site is a steeply sloping coastal bluff that is subject to marine erosion and includes a sandy and rocky cove. The project will also require changes to existing land use designations. The following comments address, in a preliminary manner, the issue of the proposed project's consistency with the Chapter 3 policies of the California Coastal Act of 1976 and the City's Coastal Land Use Plan. This letter is an overview of the main issues we've Identified at this time based on the information we've been presented and is not an exhaustive analysis. The comments contained herein are preliminary and those of Coastal Commission staff only and should not be construed as representing the opinion of the Coastal Commission itself. Coastal Commission Authorizations Required. The MND accurately states that a Coastal development permit is required from the Coastal Commission. However, the project also requires changes to land uses Identified in the certified Coastal Land Use Plan. Therefore, the project would also necessitate a Local Coastal Program amendment for the project. The City should refrain from authorization of any development permits that rely upon the changed land use designation until the City has sought and obtained authorization for a land use plan amendment from the Commission. Aesthetic Impacts. The MND states that the "...proposed building will extend down the bluff face between 20 to 30 feet below the existing buildings" resulting in a significant expansion of building coverage of the bluff face. MND concludes that the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on scenic resources and visual quality in the area. We don't concur with this conclusion. Section 30261 of the Coastal Act requires the protection of scenic qualities of coastal areas, through, among other means, minimizing the alteration of natural land forms. The proposed project results in significant alteration to the bluff and does not minimlze the alteration of natural land forms. 0- Lf 6V May-14 -07 05:26pm From - California Coastal +5825805084 T -738 P- 002/003 F -461 AERIE Project — CCC Comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 2 of 3 We also do not concur with the MND's analysis of the project's consistency with the City's Coastal Land Use Plan policies. While there are a number of statements in the policy analysis with which we disagree, as well as omissions of certain policies that are applicable, among the most notable is the absence of analysis of the projects consistency with Coastal land Use Plan Policy 4.4.3 -3 and 4.4.3 -4 (pertaining to bluff top setbacks), the projects' purported consistency with Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9 that pertain to development proposed on bluff faces, and the purported 'inapplicability' of Policy 4.4.3 -12 regarding minimizing alteration of coastal bluffs. These are discussed in greater detail below. Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 4.4.3 -3 requires that principal structures and major accessory development on bluffs subject to marine erosion observe a minimum 25 foot setback from the bluff edge. Policy 4.4.3 -4 requires accessory development to be setback at least 10 feet from the bluff edge. The proposed project is clearly inconsistent with both of these policies in that the proposed development encroaches beyond the bluff edge and onto the bluff face. Rather than considering the requirements of Policies 4.4.3 -3 and 4.4.3 -4, the MND jumps to applying the allowances for development on bluff faces provided in Coastal Land Use Plan Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9. The MND provides no demonstration that these policies are applicable to the proposed project. For Instance, existing principal structures on the site would need to be located on the bluff face in order to utilize the allowance for bluff face development. If these policies are applicable, the project must conform to all of the requirements of those policies. For example, Policy 4.4.3 -8 requires that improvements on bluff faces occur only when no feasible alternative exists and where alteration of the bluff face is minimized. No alternatives were considered or analyzed in the MND and the removal of 20-30 additional feet of bluff face doesn't minimize the alteration of the bluff face. Policy 4.4.3 -9 allows for development on the bluff face "...in order to protect coastal views... ". This provision was enacted largely to protect public views from the bluff top walkways and roads (e.g. Ocean Boulevard) in Corona del Mar toward the water by prohibiting projections above curb height along Ocean Boulevard and allowing some limited development on the bluff face. The proposed project includes development that is at least 25 feet above curb height along Ocean Boulevard. Thus, the proposed project is attempting to utilize the allowances for bluff face development without adhering to the view protection features for which those allowances were created. The MND states that Policy 4.4.3 -12 regarding minimizing alteration of coastal bluffs is rendered 'inapplicable' by the provisions of Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9. Commission staff disagrees with this conclusion - there is no provision in any of these policies that overrides the requirements of Policy 4.4.3 -12. The proposed project does not minimize the alteration of coastal bluffs to the maximum extent feasible as required by Policy 4.4.3 -12. Finally, the MND provides an analysis regarding the 'string line' and 'predominant line of development', however, no graphics were provided showing how this analysis was carried out. Therefore, Commission staff are unable to provide comments on whether we agree or object to the conclusions made In the MND regarding conformance with the limits of allowable development: Public Access. The Coastal Act as well as policies in the Coastal Land Use Plan require that public access be maximized. The MND states that the proposed project makes no O,Yy r play -14 -07 05:27nm From-Californla Coastal +5625005084 T-736 P- 003/003 F-481 AERIE Project — CCC Comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 3 of 3 accommodation for public access to the small bay that is seaward of the proposed . development. Even though this small bay appears to be inaccessible to the public via land from either upcoast or downcoest access points, and the proposed project would obstruct access from Carnation Avenue /Ocean Boulevard to this beach, the MND concludes that such access is 'unwarranted' due to the steepness of the topography and the proximity of nearby access. On the other hand, according to the MND, there Is an existing walkway on the property that descends to this beach that will be retained by the proposed project. This walkway could feasibly be used to overcome the access limitations imposed by steep topography. There Is no other access nearby to this beach. Thus, Commission staff do not Concur with the access conclusions made in the MND. Further analysis of the Issue is warranted. Habitat Impaeft/Water Quality. The MND states that a biological resources analysis has been prepared for the site, however, a copy of that study was not Included in the MND, thus, we cannot provide comments on the adequacy of that study. However, the proposed project includes expansion of a boat dock system as well as discharge of runoff into areas known to be occupied by eelgrass. Aerial photographs of the site show that rocky intertidal habitat may also exist. The proposed project must avoid Impacts to sensitive eelgrass and rocky intertidal habitat. These are some of our initial concerns; we hope these issues will be addressed in the City's review of the project. Please note, the comments provided herein are preliminary in nature. Additional and more specific comments may be appropriate as the project develops into final form and when it Is submitted to the Commission for formal review. We request notification of any future activity associated with this project or related projects. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter. Sincerely, Karl Schwing •°V�'� Supervisor, Regulation & Planning Orange County Area cc: State Clearinghouse ®_LlO To: James Campbell, Senior Planner, City of Newport Beach From: Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) Subject: AERIE (PA 2005 -196) Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Review Date: 8 May 2007 EQAC is pleased to submit the following comments on the proposed project in hopes of improving the project for the residents of Corona Del Mar and the City of Newport Beach. 8.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT (pages 1 -2) The proposed project includes 9 condominium units on 7 levels, but the table on page 2 does not show which units occupy these 7 levels. It would be helpful to show which units occupy which levels under the "level" column on the figure and which are on top and bottom. It appears that provisions are made for 2 garage spaces in the vicinity of each of the 9 units with 180 -185 sq. ft. allocated for each parking space. The report states that Level 4 (approximately at ground level) will provide for 4 residential parking spaces plus 3 guest spaces. Where are the additional 4 proposed guest parking spaces located? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS (pages 9 -10) With such an extensive excavation activity, the potential exists for excavation debris to migrate into the beach/cove area and ultimately into Newport Bay. Is a mitigation measure needed to prevent this potential contamination? I. AESTHETICS (pages 16 -26) a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The document states there would be less than a significant impact on this scenic vista and we concur b) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? No. The project will be revised so that it is to be within the predominant line of existing development, which will result in the reduction of the project's impact on the visual D -yq quality of the coastal bluff. Mitigation measure I -1 will ensure that the project will not have a significant impact to visual resources. Please clarify the definition of "predominant line of existing development ". Should there be two for the proposed project, one on each of two bluff faces? c) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No. This residential development replaces an existing apartment building and should be no more obtrusive than the existing structure with reference to night visuals and glare. The document states that `outdoor lighting within the project site would be to illuminate the affected activity area on site, and would not cast any illumination or incidental glare beyond the property limits.' II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES (page 27) The site has never been farmland. Therefore there is no loss of farmland and consequently no impact. III. AIR QUALITY (pages 27 -29) Only one category [c] has been deemed other than "no impact" or "less than significant ". With mitigation measures outlined on page 29, it appears that the contractor is required to take such measures as to reduce fugitive emissions caused during construction from soils, building materials, and construction vehicles, therefore qualifying for the designation of "less than significant with mitigation incorporated ". VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS (pages 31 -32) iv) This section addresses the issue by reference back to the response to VI.a.iii and this seems like an inadequate response. The site is on a very steep hill and a landslide either during construction or as a result of the site being undermined by water during heavy rains or a break in a water pipe is not adequately addressed. Landslide is the prima facie first issue that comes to mind when viewing the site. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING (pages 37 -46) b) The discussion on page 38 states that the General Plan and Zoning allows up to 28 dwelling units on the site. This seems counterintuitive since the zoning excludes submerged lands and slopes greater than 50% and the General Plan does not. Clarify the allowable zoning density by applying the allowable density ratios to the project area that excludes submerged lands and slopes greater than 50 %. Page 38, 4t° paragraph - Provide greater discussion on the criteria to allow encroachments into setbacks. Is maintenance of area character a reason to allow development to encroach into setbacks or does the encroachment require a Variance with findings? L). 5� Page 39,2'd paragraph - The allowance of subterran ean parking garages accessed with elevators would seem to be a far less convenient parking management plan than most every home in Newport Beach and therefore, inconsistent with the spirit of Policy 2.9.3- 1. How can this inconsistency be resolved? Page 40, 0 paragraph - Replace the word "in" with "is" as in "public access is not necessary... " Page 41 - Please clarify whether Mitigation Measure IX -5 would allow subterranean development below 52 MSL. If so, how will the applicant assure that the bluff face will not be disturbed below 52 feet MSL during construction? Policy 4.4.3 -13: Page 45, 3`d paragraph - Change sentence 2 regarding habitat restoration to read: Project would implement this habitat restoration project through engagement of a certified restoration ecologist with experience in Orange County coastal sage scrub (CSS) bluff restoration. A suitable monitoring program will be put in place, with regular monitoring and suitable maintenance in effect, for a suitable period of time, generally 3 years. Background: Hydroseeding is not necessarily the most effective way to achieve habitat restoration for coastal bluffs, as it may not provide for the incorporation of signature CSS species into the selected CSS plant pallet, whicp can include grasses, bushes, and succulents. CSS plants are widely available in 1- gallon sizes for use in habitat restoration. Use of a combination of seeds and starter plants selected by a restoration ecologist with experience on coastal bluff developments will create a higher likelihood of success in the CSS plant restoration. There are multiple restoration ecologists locally who can provide AERIE with the necessary expertise. XI. NOISE (pages 4647) EQAC is concerned that the construction noise levels may be objectionable to the nearest neighbors. Please supply supporting noise analyses. Please provide a monitoring plan to prove compliance with the noise levels asserted on page 47, paragraph d. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC (pages 49 -52) The MND does not indicate what the maximum size vehicle can be handled by the elevators. With the increased ownership of large SUV and Hummer type vehicles, the documentation should indicate if the elevators were large enough to handle the likely sized vehicles condominium occupants would own. The designers are very creative in the elevator issue. However, these issues should be discussed: (1) How will the people exit 0.5 in an emergency (earthquake) with their vehicles if the power is out? (2) This is probably not a traffic/transportation issue but are there stairs for people to exit from their units to the street? (3) What would prevent someone from going into another person's garage and entering their until from the garage? This again isn't a traffic /transportation issue but one involving security. The streets in the project area are narrow and if all parking spaces are occupied, large vehicles will have difficulty negotiating around the area. This could be a minor problem after construction is completed but could be a major problem during construction. The proponent should submit a traffic analysis by some appropriate expert indicating that the types of vehicles that will be coming to the site during construction will be able to negotiate all the streets in the area even assuming that all public street parking is occupied at the time of the visit of that vehicle. The proponent and the City have evidently agreed on a number of methods to ease the traffic and parking problems associated with construction. Mitigation measure XV -1 appears to be fully set forth on page 52, and if fully enforced, should resolve most traffic issues during construction and occupancy. This is a significant sized project that will require 2700 truck trips to haul away the debris from the demolition of the existing apartments and one residence and a lot of dirt and rock to prepare the site for the construction phase (six weeks). There will be 75 concrete trucks for construction of shoring and walls (3 work weeks). There will be 500 concrete trucks and other related construction equipment for "approximately 12 months ". Has the proponent offered or has the City staff discussed, limiting the number of daily trips allowed to draw out, over a longer term, this early phase to cut down the traffic problems that could develop with the more intense truck traffic and congestion on these narrow streets? This project doesn't need an EIR for traffic /transportation. It needs a Construction Management Plan that will be strictly enforced to make this project one that will be constructed in a manner to make it livable in the area for other residents. This means open streets and adequate parking for the guest of residents and vehicles of service providers to existing residents. One viable approach is to limit all construction activities of any type to the five -day workweek of Monday through Friday. This means the weekends will give some respite to the nearby residents from the noise that this project will necessarily cause by the demolition and then building activity and the increased large truck traffic that is associated with such major construction projects. A Construction Management Plan should consider offering limited hours of work as indicated above as well as limitations of certain types of work that would involve large amounts of truck traffic in the area during the peak summer months or at least during the weekends in the beach summer months. The construction management plan could also n. 5 2 set forth specifics with regards to construction workers vehicles and the parking of those construction workers vehicles and make sure that the agreements for an off -site parking lot and for ferrying the construction workers from that off -site parking lot to the scene. EQAC is concerned with such off -site parking facilities for construction workers as this has generally been considered to be "not feasible" because so many of the construction trade workers arrive at work in their pickup trucks which have and carry many of the items that they need to work on their particular specialty in construction. Therefore having them park their trucks at some off -site area and ferry them to the site may not be practical. However, all details should be discussed in the MND so the decision- makers and the public can comment on them. It does appear from discussions of various mitigation measures and agreements that have been worked out between City representatives and the proponent are geared to trying to ease the traffic and congestion problems that necessarily occur when substantial construction projects take place in residential areas. At the very back of the NEGATIVE DECLARATION is a document dealing with air quality analysis. The last page of this 9 page document has a number of suggestions to deal with construction personnel and construction traffic and construction vehicles and many of these would be the type of mitigation measures that should be required by the City in order to lessen the impact during the construction phase to the lowest significant level possible considering the size of this project being built in a residential area. Please consider reducing the idling period of construction equipment from five minutes to 30 seconds. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS (pages 52 -53) The proponent is encouraged to use pervious surfaces to the extent possible and minimize eventual landscape water runoff by appropriate use of catch basins and "smart" watering systems. Electrical energy consumption is not mentioned, but the addition of a heavy lift freight elevator system and a passenger elevator system would seem to put abnormal demands on the local electrical delivery facilities. Are additional, increased capacity support facilities needed? L9, 5.3 Page 1 of I Campbell, James From: carole [carole @geronsinteam.com] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 3:17 PM To: Campbell, James Subject: 201 Carnation, Corona del Mar Dear Jim, I attended one of the previous meetings on this project and wanted to voice my opinion. Long before 1 owned in Corona del Mar, I would come and walk up and down Ocean Blvd. taking in the breathtaking views. The corner of Ocean and Carnation is a particular popular area as many of us congregated and still do to watch the amazing sunsets over the entire harbor. I felt blessed when I found a home to purchase there on Ocean many years ago. I literally still walk down to that specific area and join others overlooking the harbor even though I can view it from my own home. I, under no conditions want that taken away from myself or others. Ocean is a public scenic corridor that needs to be kept that way. Corona del Mar itself has a wonderful reputation for being this village of lovely homes and cottages that almost has an eastern feel to it. I feel this project takes away that specific area of the harbor view that we all love. I am also deeply concerned about the construction all the way down the bluff. I am also extremely concerned about the construction process in general. I live a few houses away and can not even begin. to imagine the dirt, congestion,etc. The streets of Corona del Mar are extremely narrow. I do not know how all the vehicles that would be mandated to tear down, grade, and construct that project will be able to navigate the narrow streets of Corona del Mar. I know numerous homes have been torn down but none near the magnitude of this project. In addition I would think they would cause a substantial amount of congestion and parking problems for its residents. One of the most narrow turn radius is at Carnation and Seaview. Last, and most minor of all of the above it the architectural design of the building, in my mind, is awful. It appears to be a giant mushroom and is certainly not in keeping with the surrounding area, although I do know there are no ordinances for architectural design. I hope you as a commission will thoroughly scrutinize every aspect of this project. Once something is approved there is no going back when one realized something was overlooked. Corona del Mar is a fabulous community and I am hoping you will make good decisions to keep it that way. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Carole Geronsin Direct Line 714.283.6649 2528 Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar, Ca. b.5q 08/08/2007 Page 1 of 1 Campbell, James From: Vallejo Gallery [vallejogallery@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 1:01 PM To: Campbell, James Subject: Fw: 201 -207 Carnation -- Forwarded Message- - From: Vallejo Gallery Sent Apr 18, 2007 3:55 PM To: gvadn @city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: 201 -207 Carnation Attn: Planning Commissioners RE: Proposed development at 201 -207 Carnation Ave. My wife and I were first invited to one of Mr. Julian's champagne and hor d'oeurve gatherings about two years ago, where we were able to view his plans for this development. We expressed our concern at the time regarding the massive size and uncharacteristic architecture, but did not quite realize from our brief look at the architectural renderings, the full ramifications of something of this size. As my wife pointed out at the first Planning Meeting on February 22, this project includes the destruction of a coastal bluff that would impact public views from many areas of the city, as well as the harbor. Upon first viewing the plans, I had mentioned to Mr. Julian that it was difficult to get a sense of heights, distances, and projections and that it would be beneficial to stake the property, which at the time, he replied was a good idea. Several months later we spoke again at which time he agreed to stake the property. My next conversation with him was on the day of the April 5 Planning Meeting, and when I inquired about the staking, he said it was too expensive, and didn't wish to do ft. I think it would be in the best interest of everyone concerned, including the City, local residents, and the public who view this area from the beaches, parks, public view corridors, and the harbor, if the City required the property to be accurately staked and flagged. Especially as ft appears that the building Hairs outward from the foundation, as well the as balconies and overhangs. I would also like to recommend that photos of Mr. Julian's model become exhibits available at the Planning Commission for everyone to view, especially as the current photos of the building from the harbor appear very different from the look of the building in the model, lacking the curving mushroom - shaped balconies and overhangs. It should also be noted whether or not the model is of accurate scale. As public awareness and concern grows regarding this project, it would seem that the true size, elevations and projections of what is proposed would be a crucial element in helping to decide if this project is right for the residents of Newport Beach and Corona del Mar. And most importantly, is it respectful of the character of our area, and the unique natural beauty remaining in our City? Thank You, Joseph and Lisa Vallejo 2501 Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 d _55 08/08/2007 Pagel of 2 Varin, Ginger From: KSMC949 @aol -com it: Thursday, April 12, 2007 12:36 PM To: Varin, Ginger; Lepo, David; beaton @city. newport-beach. ca. us; rhawkins @city.newport- beach.ca.us; speotter @city.newport- beach.ca.us; emcdaniel @city.newport- beach.ca.us; mtoerge @city.newport- beach.ca.us; bhillgren @city.newport- beach.ca.us; Henn, Michael; mhenn @city.newport- beach.ca.us; srosansky@city.newport- beach.ca.us; Webb, Don; ngardner @city.newport- beaech.ca.us; kcurry@city.newport- beach.ca.us; eselich @city.newport- beach.ca.us; Idaigle @city.newport- beach.ca.us; Selich, Edward; Gardner, Nancy; jcole @city.newport- beach.ca.us; vallejogallery@earthlink.net-, dobehave @earthiink.net Subject: Copy of letter to Rick Julian ;7113 John and l want you to understand that our feelings about your proposed project have never been personal. We have always been in favor of redevelopment of the property and are looking forward to the change and in fact have had several conversations with you about your plans and our feeling regarding them. While we are absolutely not in favor of your project as currently planned due to the overall mass of the structure and the loss of so much of the Bluff and the fact that it is visually completely out of character with the surrounding homes - we are no the deciding force for this project. The City will decide how much is allowable based on City of Newport Beach Building Codes and the California Land Use Plan and what is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and what is not. We do, however, have the right to express our opinions and have never been anything but honest with you. We still look forward to redevelopment of the property but will be living next door to what is ultimately built on the property and feel that we have the right to express our opinions, especially when you have asked us, as well as all the other neighbors in the area. My husband and I have always been under the assumption that you are an honorable man and that no matter what the end result of all your efforts are and not matter how many people are in favor or not in favor of your project - in the end something good will be built on the property - perhaps a compromise of all of your ideas, perhaps your current idea or perhaps something gether different but the point is we all have a right to free speech, our own opinions and the right to private property. After our telephone conversaWn yesterday morning I felt that I should let you know exactly how we feel about your surveyors coming onto our property again without our permission. Since this was not the first time your surveyors have been on our property in the recent past, without permission, 1 am extremely upset and disappointed in you, your lack of boundaries and tactics. All of our plans are on file with the City of Newport Beach, including surveys done before and after the completion of our home. You had no need to sneak onto our property again, if asked we would never deny entry to your surveyors. For you to try to pass the buck by telling me that the City requested it, that the timing was crucial, that you needed to measure the points of our house, that you had just made the arrangements and they were able to offer same day service is a little far fetched in my opinion - you must have called them at 4:00a.m. to have them on our property before 8:00a.m. Telling me that you had no knowledge that they would not ask permission does not wash - they clearly knew what you wanted, what to do and how to get on our property without contacting us. They work for you and ultimately you are responsible for whatever your people do How difficult could it have been for you, as one of the owner /developers of this project to ask permission first? I am guessing that you have the attitude that it is better to ask for forgiveness later that ask permission up front. But I am learning the hard way that perhaps you are not the up front person that you make yourself out to be. We are aware of the numerous cocktail parties you have thrown recently to let people from all over Newport view the model of the proposed project and to get them on board with your plan and to write letters of approval to the City - great thinking —this seems to have worked in your favor based on the number of letters you have submitted. I attended one of the parties more than a year ago, it was lovely, however, I heard many people say that night that telling you what they really thought after your generosity in hosting such a party was difficult - I am happy to say that I gave you my honest opinion,when asked that night and it has not changed since - even though it was clearly not what you wanted to hear. We have heard you try to sell the idea that the project will be a great benefit for all of Newport Beach/Corona del Mar. It will, in fact, only benefit those able to afford the purchase price of one of the units. Unfortunately, for more than a year I have also heard about the incentives you have offered to various people in the neighborhood to vote your way. Also not up front - or perhaps the ultimate up front. Rick, we have never been anything but optimistic and excited about a redevelopment of the property but also want to be realistic and explore all the negative possibilities of what could happen on the project and ultimately to our property. We want to k--•v who is going to be financially responsible for our homes if and when they are damaged if something goes wrong on the I Lt. The City will require a Completion Bond to be provided by you and your company but what about the surrounding ho'Meowners? What guarantees do we get regarding monetary damage to our homes? What type of insurance are you offering us or what type of bond - based on the value of our homes on today's market. What will be done to provide us with financial protection for damages caused by the destruction of the Bluff and construction of your proposed project? Why can't we get these questions answered and guaranteed up front? We haven't even addressed the issue of at least 3,000 trucks 0• 5 04/12/2007 Varin, Ginger From: Lepo. David Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 4:04 PM To: Varin, Ginger rage i of i +% P C Subject: FW. Newport Beach Planning Commission Agenda for April 5, 2007 Advanced Real Estate Services (PA2005 -196) 201 & 207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place David Lepo, Director Planning Department City of Newport Beach (949) 644 -3228 w (949) 644 -3229 f From: Jeffrey H. Beck [mailto:jbeck @becktrustee.com] Sent Wednesday, April 04, 2007 1:15 PM To: Campbell, James Cc: Marilyn Beck; Jeffrey H. Beck; jeff.cole @cushwake.com; ceton727 @earthlink.net; rhawkins @earthiink.net; bhillgren @cox.net; scwtt@taxfighter.com; strataland @earthlink.net; Lepo, David Subject: Newport Beach Planning Commission Agenda for April 5, 2007 Advanced Real Estate Services (PA2005 -196) 201 & 207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place Dear Mr. Campbell: My wife, Marilyn and I want to thank you for your generosity with your time yesterday to discuss the 201 -207 Carnation project with us. This is probably one of the first opportunities the City has in respect of a sizable residenual development on the front bluffs along the ocean to demonstrate that it meant what it said in adopting the new General Plan. We truly believe that this project does not conform to the City's General Plan standards. That is true first and foremost in respect of Land Use Policy LU 1.6 regarding preservation of public views of the harbor and ocean from public vantage points but also including other policies in LU 1, such as LU 1. 1, LU 1.3 and LU 1.4. This is also true concerning the impact on the bluffs themselves in respect of Natural Resource policies such as NR 23.1 regarding preserving the bluffs, NR 23.7 regarding minimizing removal of native vegetation, rock outcroppings and coastal resources and in particular respecting NR 23.4 regarding predominant lines of development along the bluffs. Lastly, the project design seems wholly inconsistent with the character of the location of the project and represent abrupt changes in building form and style as proscribed by LU 5.6.1, LU 5.6.2 and LU 5:6.4 (especially on the impact on the bluff). We believe that this is so for reasons beyond those that apparently form the basis of your current recommendation to the Planning Commission. Your recommendation addresses principally the impact of the construction of the project downward into the bluff below street level. We recognize that the intrusion into the lower portions of the bluff that you have pointed out go beyond existing development lines and intrude far too much into the bluff and existing rock and vegetation. We agree with those conclusions. But the project also threatens a very important existing visual resource of the public from a number of vistas including Begonia Park by going so far beyond the outermost line, much less the predominant line of rearward projection along the bluff at Carnation Avenue. As I indicated to you yesterday, the existing building that is to be demolished is already at the outermost limit of the line of buildings along the bluff of Carnation Avenue in this location. See the attachment "Aerial view of Begonia Park to 200 -300 Block Carnation Ave" which shows the existing rearward development line of the buildings along Carnation Avenue (except the 215 Carnation which was built after this aerial on Google). The Manned structure, rather than being within any "Predominant" line or setback will forge a new extension beyond any existinp, struc e. In fact, the predominant or average line of setback is closer to the street (Carnation) than the existin structures at 201-207, 04/04/2007 D-5 I Page 2 of 2 Carnation. So, it seems highly inappropriate to allow the lu anned structure to go even further. Further, this is not merely a technicality with no impact on public policies and rights. If this is permitted as planned, tiv- - tructure will severely negatively impact the public's current vistas of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and the ocean. "IT, ient you, I am attaching "Aerial view of Begonia Park to 200 -300 block of Carnation Avenue' which shows the relative position of Begonia Park to Carnation near Ocean Blvd. where the project is located and "Aerial angle view from Begonia Park to 200 -300 Carnation Ave" which shows the orientation of the current vistas toward the ocean available to the public now from the entire upper part of Begonia Park adjacent to Begonia Avenue, available to the public now from Begonia Avenue itself and available to the public now at the intersection of Pacific Drive at Begonia. This portion of the park is heavily used many days of the week and especially weekends for picnics, sunbathing, and family gatherings. The view here is truly part of the attraction. To show this view and the impact of this planned development, I have attached several photos of the actual views. One is "View from Begonia Park bench" from the bench at the western edge of the park and "View from the western end of Begonia Park ". This view is typical of most of the upper area of the park and along Begonia Avenue and shows that the existing buildings at 201 -207 Carnation already extend furthest into the view of the harbor, peninsula and ocean of any existing building along the bluff at Carnation Avenue there. The next photo is "View from Begonia Avenue just before Pacific" which again shows the beautiful views and the existing position of the 201 -207 buildings as the furthest into that view. The last photo is "View from intersection of Begonia and Pacific" and also shows that the existing building again already extends the furthest into the view from Begonia/Pacific. If you look closely at the bluff area just below the existing building at 201 -207 Carnation in this last photo, you can see what appears to be mock ups in wooden 2X4s of the further extent to which the planned structure will encroach on the public views from Begonia Park, Begonia Avenue and the intersection of Pacific and Begonia Avenue. I believe from the plans we saw yesterday that the actual structure would extend on the top two floors to the vertical line formed by the left set of 2X4s and on the floors below to the vertical line formed by the right set of 2X4s. This would be a very significant negative impact on the view at these public locations. F�'these photos and aerials, it is plain that the planned structure encroaches well beyond the predominant line of existing construction along the rear of Carnation Avenue and in so doing seriously encroaches on precious public views of the harbor, peninsula and ocean from various public vistas. We urge the Planning Commission to require that this development conform to the predominant lines of existing development as the law requires and as the public interest warrants. Thank you for your valuable time. As I am not sure we will make it to the meeting tomorrow night, I am taking the liberty of copying the Commission (except Mr. McDaniel whose email was not available on the City web site) and your Director to share our views on this important matter. Jeff and Marilyn Beck Jeffrey H. Beck 303 Carnation Avenue Corona del Mar, CA 92625 949 - 723 -1773 0. 5K 04/04/2007 y.9:. �- - _. _ rt� � - *-� isr�;s=�a 8• w. All 51; "m VIIIaIV.UM G... w �jrK 3W, �y fii '"Tt-�i p� Er Yi, -:,�'• v� e�' r.t5 ',�.h * Ni c+k 3 QfognoW— M.:.•,f ar`• t twi,. x �6} ♦ r 7 k? 6w+1, i _* • ens r %« d'T"' Y ul, PJ .i. v� n .i a'. j, M ° ^� »R"rvar ° -'. ¢ �. if R• } -. c at "�"3a4 r r ry g47h: ii1 hr^,(yl' r.+"C v `pal fi 'ti r .'�F'txe��*' •r�F.• I?*`.`s �' ti s+ie .,,. i,. t fi • + re$�yL'1c r u! tM 8,� A x; . r� .+ ;. s"d$ ^E nr•.."is� o- X'8 ell fie••{ J� . V86. `ii } >, Y �. `� �"' `� F - •aM�a y ^rYK' ;c , �.t'�,,� r r ry ,A { • rp� ^r '`y�+7ie 4 +t^tr u" "; cr a c„ .x& %aS ,,, re� c u ." .may. �"k a r y x k n. xc m r.� .. - u SP .w a +4° y m�+y r a*�gYa� { 's k3i • rr`'+° y9.rd R,� 9, E7y� ;kF 2711 tr _. tPYfid+ F k t rfi t f a.y i t h i rF i eu•«�r y� '1A�,�o-ytweP w �,, r ,i yea p>' M 7 ':wi 2'r M *•�k{ 5 ��tl1 . rai $+,, '� - `•!Al��++'d"e ey"�1Pra�s k$t�wirY i�'{(L i s yR? •+'}2 iy Ptdjy� rr� r,C,9d � vrytl r'F 3 n '�'' Yy,�+$ v"j +id"`'" e w. r ter " *y yf.•h +`rr `�"r$y: I y .� Fl ° �"Vu4 �t+l -�T� 1, hry4. &.hlx� pi >•r M .. t�q .'� n � . ,t iV in"�,yx{ b•4 #9.,. �. l_ .. Afq Jq..,A ..,� .. d Rnor "r'd'"k..*RAi�w mt S x$'t P`p• k y $ � fJ � eY` , Y a a'^ Pny� �" °'•• ty A., a 4 }, ".i.G 5 r ,`�" r v f"$�� 'y,'°wd. �'.,.§�, , TaC� �"'#' �•gv" ..r tll,. �'� ,� R P •('S° r3 'y ° d t s v �„e- 8.: a,r$Aiy; )ep &"yit••,'.G �r g3 #dq mr+M +w < r ati::t °i`F- <•. ...rr +. trtl aq•"a,.t r'FS,r { All � �; � tlap .. �?, a •. _ aa4r i Twr r# a al b� tl F tl� "" �Ti�ja s tl C OrY Ir 2 y gt jf ,o" , { =a /. ' tin .yiy tl y !b 5 w7. M ;5f.pa rHti r r.�D1J� r F� bj d1�rn r � Ib *i I." CPA.; Aw P �1 `fig At A u'L 'ty'lq' 'KIT, TW4 si TW4 �W !RNT 5. 44 �W !RNT 5. To: City of Newport Beach Planning Commission FROM: Gloria Hickman RE: AERIE Proposed Condo Development on Ocean Blvd. I have been a resident of Corona del Mar since 1974, and have been saddened by the news of the proposed project on Carnation and Ocean Blvd. If built as proposed it would be startlingly out of scale and clearly out of the mix of other buildings along the bluff. As someone who enjoys boating and the views from the water I would not want to see that development standing out from all the rest. Furthermore, the bluffs are a fragile resource we shouldn't Out at risk. If the bluffs are excavated and mostly destroyed along that corner, it might jeopardize adjoining properties. It certainly does not seem prudent to tamper with them by building so far down the embankment. Please reject this proposed giant as not fitting In with our community. Something smaller should bring sufficient income for the owners and make lovers of the area much happier. Please say NO* 414orl=Hic kman 4 Canyon Lane Corona del Mar, CA 92625 �C�S ARE AUVI\NCt D ESTATE INVITATION To all tnv friends whW —arc coming to the Planning Commission meeting to support the AERIE project DA'1 F: Thursday, April 5, 2007 TINII 5:45 PAI. hi ACA.: ltcgaua Cafc 3421 Vitt Lido N(:xvpnrr B(:ach, California (949) 675 -1878 W1 1 lusted appedzers and cocktails prior to planning C;ornmissiott 1lt;ctinf; is a wonderful lilacs that is a short walk to the Planning Cornayssion Meeting',. 1 hops yttu with all be ahlc to be thew. T appreciate the effort you are putting; intt) this. If ' vok, with to send a lettct of support, in the event that you hat -en'r almad'\ sceit line, please send it to my office by April 3", to be delivered to ncv. Plannir,;; Commission by late Wednesday, the 4th. Oticc ,a ;iin I ahprcciate all your help, Rick Julian ARCS 23 /v'2 Ro e'ield Blvd. S.iio.. 100 tukv Run.il, CA 9263q Phone 19.49? V5..Mo fax (94Y) 595 5901 www,Udv� nrt:ud W Umo.COA� rage 1 oz 1 Varin, Ginger From: Richard Lewis [cdmdogmom @roadrunner.comj `t' uj `01 Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 9:29 AM *"JAJ`-% To: Lepo, David; Varin, Ginger `w Subject: Proposed condo development Regarding the proposed condo development at 201 -207 Carnation Ave. in Corona Del Mar, I object to the project on the following grounds: (1.) It is out of scale for the neighborhood (2.) It does not meet code requirements. Thank you. Sincerely, Richard Lewis 2889 Way Lane CDM, CA 92625 (949) 675 -0993 b. &7 04/04/2007 Page 1 of 2 Campbell, James From: Bill Varon (bill @billvaron.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 3:22 PM To: Campbell, James; Lepo, David Cc: Richard Julian Subject: Proposed Aerie project in CdM on Carnation Av. To: David Lepo James Campbell Members of Newport Beach Planning Commission From: Bill Varon 212 Carnation Ave. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 (949) 673 -0037 Dear Mr. Lepo and Mr. Campbell, I have been a resident of Corona del Mar for 12 years and a home owner at 212 Carnation Ave. for seven of those years. I am totally in favor of the "Aerie" project proposed by Rick and Karen Julian down at the "foot' of Carnation. Why am I in favor of yet another construction project in my neighborhood? Because this is the first of many that I feel I am a part of, and it is the ONLY one that will enhance, rather than ruin, the landscape and will preserve what precious little view is left on my street. This project is different for many reasons. First, the Julians reached out and collaborated with all the neighbors that could conceivably be affected by the project, including the household that I suspect is currently in opposition and that was behind the recent propaganda mailed throughout Newport Beach ( "Help Preserve The Coastal Bluff At Carnation Cove "). The Julians were not only kind enough to solicit input from their new neighbors, but they were sincere enough to willingly implement our advice. This includes putting into action, at great expense I'm sure, the requests from the folks that I suspect sent the recent propaganda! When does that ever happen, especially in the last few years on Carnation Avenue? Second, one only needs to glance at the ugly trend that began on the 100 -300 blocks of Carnation several years ago to appreciate what Aerie is all about and to say, "thank goodness for Rick and Karen Julian." While other neighbors may have opted to exploit an oversight in building codes and show blatant disregard for their neighbors, the Julians are not taking up every square inch of dirt and every square inch of air to build a "large ugly box." Rather, they have put considerable thought, research, and money into an innovative, attractive, and (importantly) "tapered" design. Those big box style houses may be really nice on the inside, but I'm looking forward to viewing a more interesting and artistic structure from my bedroom, living room and front patio. Finally, I hate to call somebody else's child ugly, but I believe the bluff face is long overdue for some good old fashioned Newport Beach plastic surgery. From the plans I've seen, Aerie will be an enhancement, not a detriment. My understanding and expectation is the natural rock formation will remain in place, contrary to the mailer that showed up in my mailbox last week. But the rest of the bluff face needs improvement as it is not the nicest portion of the cove in my opinion, and it's certainly not 08/08/2007 Page 2 of 2 the first thing I'm drawn to when sailing through the harbor and channel. Please vote in favor of the Aerie project, and let's hope that future homeowners building new homes in Corona del Mar will follow The Julians' great example of neighborliness and community mindedness. They have gone about the project the right way by involving their neighbors and following the rules of common decency. Rick and Karen are decent human beings and, God forbid their project isn't approved, one can only imagine what might happen with 101 Carnation Ave. in the hands of any other homeowner /developer. Sincerely, Bill Varon 08/08/2007 FROM : BOB FAX NO. : 9496798878 Apr. . .0022007 02:45PM P1 ` 7 -�,) -P-�7 Y ' � ,.mod '] �•� -�-�'° 7� �' ±- � iU i"��r "Jib` p,7D 1 arc 1 ul 1 Varin, Ginger �i•V•al From: Vallejo Gallery [vallejogallery@earthlink.net] U �C Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 5:22 PM To: Varin, Ginger Subject: for the Planning Commissioners attention please Ginger This is the type of campaigning that has been going on for several months. We thought that we would bring this to your attention. Sincerely. Joe & Lisa Vallejo D71 04/04/2007 Page 1 of 1 Campbell, James From: Captbergey @aol.com Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 8:59 PM To: Campbell, James; Lepo, David Cc: rcerruti @advancedonline.com Subject: Ares project Carnation & Ocean CDM James Campbell & David Lepo Sirs, I am a close neighbor to this project living at 214 Carnation and have watch Rick Julian for the past few years trying to put his project together and satisfy all concerned. After being educated by him and other neighbors in the area I feel his project will enhance the neighborhood and city. I support him and his project and feel he should be able to proceed without anymore delay. Sorry I will be unable to attend the planning commission meeting on April 5th. Sincerely, G. Scott & Leslie Bergey 214 Camation Ave (949) 675 -7571 See what's free at AOL.com. o%Z 08/08/2007 March 22, 2007 PLANNING 0 PARTM €NI' David and Betty Cord MAR 30 2001 2 Canyon lane Corona del Mar, CA 92625 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 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 for 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 fi-om that area, as you can look down at the bluff, cove and harbor. Anytime we have relatives visiting from out of town, that's one of the best 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 for your consideration, Sincerely, David and Betty Cord p= 73 0 V" 'Y 11'U Y1._? IVIR 6.i: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 12 3337 Michelson Drive, Suite 380 Irvine, CA 92612 -8894 Tel' (949) 7242267 Fmc (949) 724 -2592 March 13, 2007 Mr. James Campbell City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 Subject: AERIE (PA2005 -196) Dear Mr. Campbell, RECEIVED By PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAR 19 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH File: IGR/CEQA SCH#: 2007021054 Log #: 1833 PCH FURY —r pmverl Be energy o f lend Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for AERIE (PA2005 -196) project. The proposed project is for demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment building and single - family residence to construct a 7- level, 9 -unit condominium complex, grading, and maintenance improvements to an existing private dock The project site is located on 201 -207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place in the City of Newport Beach. The nearest State route to the project site is Pacific Coast highway (PCH). Caltrans District 12 is a commenting agency on this project and we have no comments at this time. However, in the event of any activity in Caltrans' right -of -way, an encroachment permit will be required. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments, which could potentially, impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Maryam Molavi at (949) 724 -2267. Sincere_ Ryan Chamberlain, Branch Chief Local Development/Intergovernmental Review C:. Terry . Roberts, Office of Planning and Research D, yy "Cu)rrans tmprmres m billry a cross Cahjarlva" 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 D. 75 Jeffrey H. Hopkins 2725 Bungalow Place Corona Del Mar, CA 92673 2/15107 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 C Projece). RECEIVED BY 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 45 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 ro 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 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. Thlutk you for your time. H. n. 7(P 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 wl Rick Julian several times regarding the subject development as there was a time yvhen I was a potentially interested purchaser of a unit. I must tell you that I absolutely love the planl 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 ft'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. Res ully, Ronald P. Beard RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 16 2001 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH o.-77 Fab 15 07 09:17a Bud 19496735M P.1 Nxww S. MOORE SYO CAB�TATION A,vENVB ConoPA DEL MAB. CALIFORMA 99646 Aj I tl 1 TELa (9493 679 -7694 FAX: 4949) 676 -7699 kenteoOrOUVO no •d .se February 14, 2007 Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Aerie project, 201, 205 & 207 Camation 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 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. JulWs 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 omuline his project plans for ahem. I have spoken with many of my neighbors who favor the clareut plan which is now before you for approval. I hope that, upon carefia review, the Commission will also come to realize that the adoption of the Aerie Condominiums plan will be awin -win situatim fDr this neighborhood and will enhance life for boor residents and visitors in this very unique corner of Newport Beach. Sincerely, n, 7 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, RECENED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 16 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH We live 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 snnnort 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 n.71 rARES,ADVANCE DRE;;_ESTATESE February 12, 2007 Robert C. Hawkins Secretary Newport Beach Planning Commission P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Mr. Hawkins: "—TA + J RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 12 Ua CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH via electronic and US mail rhawkins@a 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' 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 �ulian@advancedonline.com. Sincerely, ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. Rick Julian 0, �O ARES 23792 RockBeld Blvd. Suite 100 Lake Forest, CA 92630 Phone (949) 5955900 Fax (949) 595 -5901 v .odvancedonline.com 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 1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 714.850.1965 Voice 714.850.1592 Fax w comdweperorg 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. pg I � C RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 16 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH rD 0, Pj n ET 0 `.J n Q' _ O A> U. O o c o n m w Z n p w..:Cv, ". cG O.ry N.".3 Off^, O rt oan �N'�n°o� O co �T e rD n CL .n rD w uN , a Y:wD) Dam C b �p w M.. Q. rD o. sa s Ralph W. and Karen R. Spargo 26 Sandy Cove Newport Coast, CA 92657 February f 6, 2007 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Honorable Commissioners: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 16 2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH As 30 year residents of the City of Newport Bead (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 Camation 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. /r. Ralph W. Spargo j Karen R. Spargo ATTACHMENT E Planning Commission record Planning Commission Resolution recommending approval Staff Report dated June 19, 2008 hearing Excerpt of minutes_from June 19, 2008 hearing Staff Report dated February 21, 2008 hearing Excerpt of minutes from February 21, 2008 hearing Staff Report dated May 17, 2007 Excerpt of minutes from May 17, 2007 hearing Staff Report dated April 5, 2007 Excerpt of minutes from April 5, 2007 hearing Staff Report dated February 22, 2007 Excerpt of minutes from February 22, 2007 hearing F, .1 BLANK �.a RESOLUTION NO. 1761 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RESCINDING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS 1723 AND 1751 AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH NO. 2008051082) AND APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2005 -006, COASTAL LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2005 -002, CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2005 -009, NEWPORT TRACT MAP NO. 2005- 004 (TTM 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, an application was 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 8 -unit residential condominium development on a 1.4 acre site. The application includes: 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. Newport Tentative Tract Map No. 2005 -004 (TTM16882) to combine 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 to subdivide the air space for 8 residential condominium units. 5. Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 to permit a 5 -foot subterranean building encroachment and 42 -inch high protective guardrails within the required 10 -foot front setback along Carnation Avenue; subterranean and above grade building encroachments of T -1" and 5' -7" into a required 10' -7" side yard setback between the project and 215 Carnation including four deck/balcony features with protective guard rails that exceed the maximum 6 -foot height above natural grade; and three balconies and one at grade landing each with protective guard rails that exceed the maximum height of 6 feet from natural grade within the required 10' -7" side yard abutting Bayside Place. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1761 Page 2 of 37 6. Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -002 to allow demolition of the existing dwelling units within the Coastal Zone pursuant to Chapter 20.86 of the Municipal Code. WHEREAS, on February 22, 2007, April 5, 2007, May 17, 2007, February 21, 2008, and June 19, 2008, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, project and a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were 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, 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 density of the proposed project is below the resulting maximum density permitted by the General Plan (28 dwellings) and 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 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 inasmuch as 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 are to convey the character of separate living units or clusters of living units, avoiding the appearance of a singular building volume. Street elevations are to be provided with high quality materials and finishes to convey quality. Roof profiles are V, 9 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1761 Page 3 of 37 modulated to reduce the apparent scale of large structures and to provide visual interest and variety. Parking areas are designed to be integral with the architecture of the development. Usable and functional private open space for each unit are incorporated as each unit has an outdoor deck or patio that may include a fire pit and spa. Common open space that creates a pleasant living environment with opportunities for recreation is also included. Private storage areas for each unit are also 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. 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. One unit has 2 bedrooms, five units have 3 bedrooms, one unit has 4 bedrooms and one unit has 5 bedrooms. Five of the units have other rooms that could be modified and used as bedrooms and the unit sizes range from 2,689 to 4,990 square feet. The project provides two spaces for each of 2 units without vehicle lifts, and three spaces for each of 6 units with vehicle lifts. Seven guest parking spaces, one service vehicle space and 2 golf cart spaces are provided for a total of 32 covered, vehicle spaces. An area for motorcycle or bicycle parking is also included. Provided parking is in excess of the minimum required pursuant to the Zoning Code (2.5 parking spaces per unit for total of 20 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 require new development to avoid the use of parking configurations or parking management programs that are difficult to maintain and enforce and that new development is required to provide adequate, convenient parking for residents. All parking is enclosed on site with access to lower parking levels taken from two vehicle elevators. Five of the seven guest parking spaces and parking for one unit is located at street level where access to the vehicle elevators is not necessary. No gates are planned that could possibly inhibit to the street -level parking. Only seven of the eight units and two guest parking spaces will required the use of the vehicle elevators. The below -grade parking configuration accessed by elevators is sufficiently convenient in that two vehicle elevators to access the garage are proposed, which will reduce vehicle wait times to avoid significant conflicts entering or exiting the elevators. Emergency power generators are required so that vehicle access is maintained if electrical power is lost. The vehicle maneuvering areas within the parking areas meet or will be modified prior to the issuance of a building permit consistent with 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 �_:.5 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1761 Page 4 of 37 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 consistency 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, but not the maximum permissible density pursuant to the RM -A Zoning for the site. 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 62,231 gross square -feet, below the maximum 75,868 allowed by the existing MFR zone standard. The proposed 8 -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 above - ground encroachments are minor in nature. The project provides between 5 to 10 feet of setback area to the north abutting 215 Carnation Avenue where no public view presently exists due to current site conditions. The setback proposed will provide adequate separation from the building to the north and the encroachments will not impact fragile resources as the encroachments 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 and the applicant's family reside in the IM, City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1761 Page 5 of 37 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 residential improvements are well above wave action. 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 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 E .h City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1761 Page 6 of 37 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 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; 99 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1761 Page 7 of 37 • Includes pedestrian, hiking, bicycle, and equestrian trails; • Provides connections to beaches, parks, and recreational facilities; • Provides connections with trail systems of adjacentjurisdictions; • Provides access to coastal view corridors; • Facilitates altemative 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). Poffcy 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. Poffcy 3.1.1 -24. Encourage the creation of new public vertical accessways whene . feasible, including Corona del Mar and other areas of limited public accessibility. Poffcy 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 when: (1) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal resources or (2) adequate access exists nearby. Poffcy 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; Eq City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1761 Page 8 of 37 • 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 face (below 50.7 feet MSL), submerged lands and tidelands will remain in their existing condition, with the exception of the construction of a new dock system to replace the existing one. 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 comer 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. 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 -9 of the Coastal Land Use Plan. The residential portion of the project will not encroach into wetlands or open coastal waters. The expanded boating facility (replacement docks) is a permitted encroachment 'E.`0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1761 Page 9 of 37 within open coastal waters pursuant to Section 30233 of the Coastal Act and Policy 4.2.3 -1 as construction must be conducted in accordance with all mitigation measures contained within the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 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. 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 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1761 Page 10 of 37 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 by conditions of approval and they must 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) will 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). 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. V,-.Qa City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1761 Page 11 of 37 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 buildings than exists today. Presently, the horizontal view window measures 25 degrees and with the project, the view window will increase to 44 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 by the project plans and verified by staff, and with other building envelope restrictions with the exception of setback encroachments as proposed. Since the visible portion of the building will not extend below 50.7 feet MSL and is consistent with the predominant line of existing development as identified by the City Council on August 14, 2007, impacts to public views of the site from the south, west and from Begonia Park are not significantly impacted so as to be inconsistent with CLUP policy. The above -grade encroachments of the building into the side yard setback adjacent to 215 Carnation Avenue will not impact a public view as public view from Carnation Avenue or Ocean Boulevard to Newport Bay or Pacific Ocean presently does not exist in that location. Other setback encroachments are below the grade of the street and would not impact a public view. Project encroachments into the required side yard setback abutting Bayside Place do impact public views from Begonia Park or other vantage points from the northwest as the balconies and walkway do not project beyond the silhouette of the remainder of the Ii. .0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1761 Page 12 of 37 building that conforms to setback regulations. 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 -2. Design and site new development, including landscaping, so as to minimize impacts to public coastal views. 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, Camation Avenue and Pack 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, Camation 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. V, -0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1761 Page 13 of 37 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. The City Council has interpreted Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9 to mean that development on bluff faces is prohibited, 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. Additionally, public improvements on coastal bluff faces that are allowable are those that provide public access, protect coastal resources, or provide for public safety when no feasible alternative exists and when they are designed and constructed to minimize alteration or further erosion of the bluff face and are visually compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible. In all cases where the predominant line of existing development is used to establish a development limit, it shall not be the only criteria used for this purpose. All coastal land use policies shall be considered in determining the appropriate extent of new development and size of new structures. The City Council made these clarifications by adopting Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2007 -003, which has not yet been considered by the California Coastal Commission. Existing development of the site is located on the face of a coastal bluff. Identification of the project site as a coastal bluff is based upon the professional opinion of Sidney Neblett, a Certified Engineering Geologist. The coastal bluff transitions from north - facing to west - facing roughly northwest of the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue in the center of the project. This transition point extends down to the northwest to the western extent of a small pocket beach unofficially known as Carnation Cove. North of the transition point of this coastal bluff, is a series of residential structures developed between 42 and 58 feet above mean sea level. East of the transition point along Ocean Boulevard is a series of projects that were developed much farther down the bluff face with several at the waters edge. The City Council reviewed this existing development pattern at a noticed public hearing on August 14, 2007, and determined that the predominant line of existing development is 50.7 feet MSL. The visible portion of the project does not extend below this elevation except where it connects with an existing access staircase leading to the Bay. The project minimizes alteration of the coastal bluff and protects public views of the coastal bluff by not altering the bluff face below the predominant line of existing development and preserving the majority of the visible bluff. The project is required to blend any altered slopes outside of the building footprint to the natural contours, native rocks or soils of the site. For these reasons, the project protects the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, minimizes alteration of the bluff and is consistent with CLUP Policies 4.4.1 -1, 4.4.1 -2, 4.4.1 -3, 4.4.3 -8, 4.4.3- 9, 4.4.3 -12 and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2007 -003. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1761 Page 14 of 37 WHEREAS, the granting of the Modification Permit allowing above grade and below grade encroachments into the front and side yard setbacks 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 allowing above grade and below grade encroachments into the front and side yard setbacks will be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood and the granting of the 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 requested encroachments within the front yard, with the exception of the 42 -inch high protective guardrail, will be entirely subterranean and will not be visible. The proposed guardrail will have an open design allowing visibility through while providing adequate protection to pedestrians on the public sidewalk from falling over the proposed retaining wall located within the required front yard. Building encroachments within the required front and side yard setback on levels below the street will not be visible. Side yard setback encroachments (Balconies, stairways, stair landing and building areas) that are above -grade that are proposed between the project and 215 Carnation Avenue will leave between a 5' to 7'-6" setback on the street level and 10 feet of setback area on levels above. The provided setbacks exceed typical 4 -foot setbacks along Carnation Avenue. The decks are of limited size and consequently of limited use and, therefore, the privacy of the abutting resident should not be negatively effected. This area between the proposed building and the property line will provide sufficient separation between the project and the abutting residence to the north and the setbacks provided will provide for private views between the buildings from upper levels of residences across Carnation Avenue. The varying distances also provides some building articulation as suggested by General Plan policy. The encroachments of balconies, including protective guard railings, within the side setback abutting Bayside Place should not impact these residents given the change in topography, the separation provided by Bayside Place, a private roadway, and the fact that these residences are oriented toward Newport Bay and not project. The encroachments within the side setback abutting Bayside Place also do not encroach within a public view from Begonia Park or •,kq City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1761 Page 15 of 37 other vantage points from the west any more than the proposed building does which is compliant with the setback. The encroaching balconies and guard railings will encroach into private views of residents to the north on Carnation Avenue, but the majority of the view to the west and southwest will remain unchanged. WHEREAS, Newport Tract No. 2005 -004 (TTM16882) can be approved based upon the following findings: 1. 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. 2. 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 an 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# 2008051082) 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. 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 ',•.kI City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1761 Page 16 of 37 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 speck 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 curved 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 8 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 50.7 feet MSL. Lastly, the project will not impact sensitive marine resources with the implementation of the conditions of approval. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1761 Page 17 of 37 WHEREAS, the project includes the demolition of 15 dwelling units within the Coastal Zone within 2 buildings and pursuant to Chapter 20.86 of the Zoning Code, units proposed for demolition and 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. 2008051082) have been prepared pursuant to the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. Several previous drafts of the MND were circulated for public comment. Ultimately, the City Council determined that the predominant line of existing development was 50.7 feet MSL and required the applicant to revise the project. Based upon the revised project, which also includes replacement docks, a final draft MND was prepared and circulated for public review between May 19, 2008, and June 17, 2008. 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. 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 reflects the Planning Commission's independent judgment and analysis. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH No. 2008051082 and the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The document and all material which constitute the record upon City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1761 Page 18 of 37 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 "A ", Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -002 per Exhibit "B ", Code Amendment No. 2005 -009 per Exhibit "C; and approve Newport Tentative Tract Map No. 2005 -004 (TTM 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 ". Section 3. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 1723 and 1751 are hereby rescinded. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 19'h DAY JUNE, 2008. go ON AYES: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel & Hillgren NOES: Toerge Robert Hawkins, Chairman Bradley Hillgren, Secretary O �a City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1761 Page 19 of 37 Exhibit "A" City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1761 Page 20 of 37 Exhibit "B" City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1761 Page 21 of 37 Exhibit "C" d✓. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1761 Page 22 of 37 Exhibit "D" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Newport Tract No. 2005 -004 (Tentative Tract Map No. 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 June 19, 2008, 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 final 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, grading or demolition permit for the project. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC &Rs) for the proposed condominium association shall provide for the long term maintenance of the project and shall be reviewed and approved by the Newport Beach City Attorney prior to their recordation. The CC &Rs shall include a provision that residents shall park only operable vehicles within the parking garage that are in active use (i.e. no long term storage of vehicles). E as City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1761 Page 23 of 37 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 improvements represented on plans and drawings submitted for permit approval 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 the building shell and shall be issued with the City as beneficiary by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance in the State of Califomia and shall have an assigned policyholders' Rating of A (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VII (or larger) 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 in 25% increments upon completion of each quarter of construction of the building shell. 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 review and approval by the Planning Director. The plans shall incorporate native drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices. All planting areas, with the exception of bluff 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. Boat slips may be developed, maintained and operated in tidelands adjacent to the residential condominium development provided all necessary permits are first obtained. The maximum number of boat slips shall be no greater than the total number of residential units developed. Use of the boat slips shall be limited to L.as City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1761 Page 24 of 37 residents and their guests and the slips shall not be leased, subleased or allowed to come into the control of non - residents of the condominium development. 13. Prior to the issuance of a building or pradingpermit, 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 Attorney 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 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 Services 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, watering, 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 'r".a4 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1761 Page 25 of 37 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 irrigation system 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. 24. All altered slopes that are outside of the building envelope shall be contoured 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. The location of the generator shall be sound attenuated and screened from public view and subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director. <,, ?-I City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1761 Page 26 of 37 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 extemal indicating system to alert drivers which vehicle elevator will be available for immediate 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 operation, maneuvering and 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. 30. No idling of construction vehicles or equipment shall be allowed. Construction vehicles and equipment shall be property operated and maintained and shall be turned off immediately. Construction workers, equipment operators or truck drivers shall not employ any form of audible signaling system during any phase of construction. 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 Califomia 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 Camation 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, 2003 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 M City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1761 Page 27 of 37 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. 40. Project driveways must conform to the City's sight distance standard 110 -L. Project driveways shall maintain a minimum 20 -foot width of 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 detailed plans for the on -site drainage system(s) to demonstrate that it will prevent the underground garage from being flooded during storm events. � 2q City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1761 Page 28 of 37 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 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 sewedutilities 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 sewedutilities easement shall be vacated or permission from the beneficiaries of the private easement shall be documented prior to the issuance of a building permit or 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. L3° City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1761 Page 29 of 37 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 Camation 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 16400t drop from the top of proposed perimetedretaining 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 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 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. 66. All non - standard improvements within the public right -of -way would require an Encroachment Agreement and Encroachment Permit. 67. 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. 68. Gates shall not be designed to open out into the public right -of -way. 69. 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. 70. 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. � 3� City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1761 Page 30 of 37 71. 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. 72. No structural support column shall be located in the middle of the driveway leading to the parking area located on the Second Level. 73. The loading area adjacent to the ADA accessible stall shall be 8 -foot wide 74. 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. 75. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee shall be paid. 76. Prior to the issuance of a grading or 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. 77. 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. 78. 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 79. 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 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1761 Page 31 of 37 protection requirements and shall be subject to review and approval by the Newport Beach Building and Fire Departments. 80. 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. 81. County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 82. 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 and /or 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 require the use of temporary diversion dikes and basins to trap sediment from run-off and allow clarification prior to discharge. 83. 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. 84. 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. 85. 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. 86. 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 �,, 5 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1761 Page 32 of 37 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. 87. Prior to issuance of the aradina 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. 88. 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 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. 89. 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 90. Mitigation Measure III -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. 91. Mitigation Measure III -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. 92. Mitigation Measure III -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. 93. Mitigation Measure III-4: The construction contractor shall time the construction activities, including the transportation of construction equipment vehicles and City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1761 Page 33 of 37 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. 94. Mitigation Measure III -5: The construction contractor shall encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction workers. 95. 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. 96. Mitigation Measure IV -1: An updated pre- construction eelgrass and invasive algae survey shall be completed within 30 days of the initiation of the proposed dock/gangway construction. The results of this survey will be used to update the results of the March 2007 eelgrass survey and to identify, if any, potential project - related eelgrass losses and the presence or absence of the invasive algae (Caulerpa taxifolia) in accordance with NMFS requirements. 97. Mitigation Measure IV -2: A post- construction project eelgrass survey shall be completed within 30 days of the completion of project construction in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). The report will be presented to the resources agencies and the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission within 30 days after completion of the survey. If any eelgrass has been impacted in excess of that determined in the pre - construction survey, any additional impacted eelgrass will be mitigated at a ratio of 1.2:1 (mitigation to impact). 98. Mitigation Measure IV -3: Eelgrass shall be mitigated based on two annual monitoring surveys that document the changes in bed (i.e., area extent and density) in the vicinity of the footprint of the boat dock, moored vessel(s), and /or related structures during the active - growth period for eelgrass (typically March through October). Mitigation shall be implemented pursuant to the requirements of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). A statement from the applicant indicating their understanding of the potential mitigation obligation that may follow the initial two year monitoring is required. If losses are identified, a final eelgrass mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach and resources agencies for review and acceptance. 99. Mitigation Measure IV -4: The project marine biologist shall mark the positions of eelgrass beds in the vicinity of the dock and gangway construction area with buoys prior to the initiation of any construction activities. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1761 Page 34 of 37 100. Mitigation Measure IV -5: The project marine biologist shall meet with the construction crew prior to initiation of construction to orient them to specific areas where eelgrass occurs. 101. Mitigation Measure IV -6: Support vessels and barges shall maneuver and work over eelgrass beds only during tides of +2 feet mean lower low water (MLLW) or higher to prevent grounding within eelgrass beds, damage to eelgrass from propellers, and to limit water turbidity. 102. Mitigation Measure IV -7: Anchors and anchor chains shall not impinge upon eelgrass habitat. 103. Mitigation Measure IV -8: Construction activities associated with the elevated walkway leading to the gangway, and construction personnel shall avoid impacts to rocky intertidal habitat and to eelgrass beds and sand dollar habitat within the Carnation Cove. 104. Mitigation Measure IV -9: Residents shall be informed of the sensitivity of the cove as a unique marine biological habitat to assist in ensuring the long -term protection of the cove's marine biological resources. 105. Mitigation Measure IV -10: If vegetation clearing is to take place between March 15 and July 31, a pre- construction nesting survey for migratory birds will be conducted as required by the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Pre - construction surveys are to be conducted no more than 30 days prior to ground disturbance. Some restrictions on construction activities may be required in the vicinity of the nests until the site is no longer active, as determined by a qualified biologist. 106. Mitigation Measure V -1: A qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the project applicant to develop a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) consistent with the guidance of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). In the event that fossils are encountered during construction activities, ground- disturbing excavations in the vicinity of the discovery shall be redirected or halted by the monitor until the find has been salvaged. Any fossils discovered during project construction shall be prepared to a point of identification and stabilized for long -term storage. Any discovery, along with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, shall be accessioned into the collections of a suitable repository. Curation costs to accession any collections shall be the responsibility of the project applicant. 107. Mitigation Measure VI -1: During periods when boats would be exposed to excessive wave - induced motions, boats should moved from the proposed docks and be sheltered at safe locations inside Newport Harbor to avoid damage. ?Y City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1761 Page 35 of 37 108. Mitigation Measure VI -2: The dock design shall be based on the extreme wave conditions identified in the coastal engineering study (Noble Consultants, Inc., 2008). One percent height of impinging random waves shall be used, which translates to a minimum design wave height of about 1.7 times the significant wave height (i.e., four to 4.5 feet). 109. Mitigation Measure VII -1: Any repairs, renovations, removal or demolition activities that will impact the Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) or inaccessible ACM shall be performed by a licensed asbestos contractor. Inaccessible suspect ACM shall be tested prior to demolition or renovation. Air emissions of asbestos fibers and leaded dust would be reduced to below a level of significance through compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulatory requirements. Proper safety procedures for the handling of suspect ACM shall always be followed in order to protect the occupants of the building and the asbestos workers. 110. Mitigation Measure VII -2: The property owner shall maintain all Lead Based Paint (LBP) in good condition at all times. Any LBP in poor condition must be stabilized by removal of all loose and flaking paint chips under controlled conditions and application of a primer /encapsulant (seal -coat) over the remaining intact paint. 111. Mitigation Measure VII -3: A contractor perforating paint removal work shall follow the OSHA lead standard for the construction industry. The lead content of the paint should be considered when choosing a method to remove the pain, as proper waste disposal requirements and worker protection measure shall be taken. 112. Mitigation Measure VIII -1: The developer shall be responsible for replacement/upsizing of the 10 -foot wide catch basin located in Carnation Avenue storm drain, which is currently deficient. The new catch basin will be sized to provide sufficient capacity for the runoff generated by this project, as well as existing runoff from the rest of the tributary area to this facility. It shall satisfy the appropriate storm -year design criteria established by the City Engineer. This storm drain reconstruction shall include appropriate urban runoff filtration elements, to reduce potential water pollution impacts into Newport Harbor. Reconstruction of this storm drain shall occur outside of the rainy season. 113. Mitigation Measure VIII -2: All debris and trash shall be disposed in suitable trash containers on land or on the work barge at the end of each construction day. 114. Mitigation Measure VIII -3: Discharge of any hazardous materials into Newport Bay is prohibited. 115. Mitigation Measure VIII -4: Silt curtains shall be deployed around work barges and around the pile sleeving or drilling operations where feasible to minimize the spread of turbid waters into adjacent eelgrass beds within and outside the project area. .51 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1761 Page 36 of 37 116. Mitigation Measure IX -1: The property owner(s) shall execute and record a waiver of future shoreline protection for the project prior to the issuance of a building permit. Said waiver shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney. 117. Mitigation Measure IX -2: The applicant shall dedicate a view easement as depicted on the exhibit below; however, it will 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. CUiLWE OF EIUSONG RUUNNG -- — PREVgUSPROPOSEDO LO 7M PROPOSED DECK 5 MOFCGiS PROPOSED UNR 3CECK \ PROPOSED UNT3 R i 1 � S I i , 20120] �I 012c' ; ( A3vAro ' � / Puix�+a wornxoxo FauRruxFaRwxK:uE CARNATION AVE. / CCf.1NlW0. / 118. Mitigation Measure IX -3: 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. 119. Mitigation Measure IX-4: Bluff landscaping shall consist of native, drought tolerant plant species determined to be consistent with the California coastal buff environment. Invasive and non - native species shall be removed. Irrigation of bluff faces to establish re- vegetated areas shall be temporary and used only to establish the plants. Upon establishment of the plantings, the temporary irrigation system shall be removed. 120. Mitigation Measure XI -1: All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained muffling devices. t, '�� City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1761 Page 37 of 37 121. Mitigation Measure XI -2: A construction schedule shall be developed that minimizes potential cumulative construction noise levels. 122. Mitigation Measure XI -3: The construction contractor shall notify the residents of the construction schedule for the proposed project, including construction of the dock, and shall keep them informed on any changes to the schedule. The notification shall also identify the name and phone number of a contact person in case of complaints. The contact person shall take all reasonable steps to resolve the complaint. 123. 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 Public Works Department, which shall address issues pertaining to potential traffic conflicts during peak traffic periods, potential displacement of on- street parking, and safety. • This plan shall identify the proposed construction staging area(s), construction crew parking area(s), estimated number and types of vehicles that will occur during that phase, the proposed arrival /departure routes and operational safeguards (e.g. flagmen, barricades, shuttle services, etc.) and hourly restrictions, if necessary, to avoid traffic conflicts during peak traffic periods, displacement of on- street parking and to ensure safety. • The construction staging, parking and traffic control plan shall provide for an off - site parking lot for construction crews which will be shuttled to and from the project site at the beginning and end of each day until such time that the project site can accommodate off - street construction vehicle parking. Until that time, construction crews shall be prohibited from parking in the adjacent residential neighborhood. The plan shall identify all construction traffic routes, which shall avoid narrow residential streets unless there is no alternative, and the plan shall not include any streets where some form of construction is underway within or adjacent to the street that would impact the efficacy of the proposed route. • Dirt hauling shall not be scheduled during weekday peak hour traffic periods or during the summer season (Memorial Day holiday weekend through and including the Labor Day holiday weekend). The approved construction staging, parking traffic control plan shall be implemented throughout each major construction phase. 124. The door and passageway leading between the basement level and the stairway to the beach and docks depicted on Sheet A -5 of the plans shall be designed or re- oriented such that it is not readily visible from Newport Bay. t, '� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 19, 2008 Agenda Item 7 SUBJECT: AERIE (PA 2005 -196) 201 -205 & 207 Carnation Avenue & 101 Bayside Place • General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -006 • Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -002 • Code Amendment No. 2005 -009 • Tract Map No. 2005 -004 (TT16882) • Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 • Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -002 APPLICANT: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. Richard Julian, President CONTACT: James Campbell, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3210 icampbelllO -city .newport- beach.ca.us INTRODUCTION On February 21, 2008, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1751 recommending City Council adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of an 8 -unit, condominium building located at the corner of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. The applicant subsequently decided to include reconstruction of the existing boat docks in the Mitigated Negative Declaration rather than preparing a separate document later. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been revised accordingly. Additionally, the applicant has refined the plans for the proposed condominium structure and several additional encroachments within setbacks are requested that require the reconsideration of the Modification Permit request. RECOMMENDATION 1) Hold a public hearing; and, 2) Consider the revised draft MND; and, 3) Adopt the attached draft resolution recommending City Council adoption of the MND and approval of the project (Exhibit #1). Sao AERIE (PA 2005 -186) June 18, 2008 Page 2 of 5 DISCUSSION The revised project (attached) conforms to the predominant line of existing development as established by the City Council on August 14, 2007 and is consistent with the plans s previously considered by the Planning Commission at the February 21, 2008 meeting. The applicant has made several interior and exterior project refinements and has addressed several minor corrections requested by the City's Traffic Engineer related to enhancing vehicle access and maneuvering since the project was last considered by the Commission. Addressing the Traffic Engineer's requirement led to the conversion of 1 guest parking space located at the street level to motorcycle or bicycle parking. The project continues to provide parking in excess of the minimum requirement. Other significant changes are: 1) Modification Permit The Commission may recall that several balconies that faced Bayside Place were required to be modified so as to not encroach within the required side yard setback as they exceeded the 6 -foot height limitation from natural grade. These proposed encroachments were discovered after the public notice was given and the Commission could not consider them and the applicant choose against a delay to allow for proper notice. The Commission took action on the project and eliminated the encroachments. The applicant requests that the features be considered at this time. Several decks and a stair landing were located within the required side yard abutting 215 Carnation that were not highlighted as requiring a Modification Permit and the applicant has made several changes to the plan in this area. For these two reasons, as well as the need to increase the height of protective guardrails within the required front yard setback along Carnation Avenue, the Modification Permit request needs to be reconsidered. a) Guardrails are necessary to protect pedestrians from falling from the public sidewalk along Carnation Avenue over the proposed retaining wall located at the back of the sidewalk. The Zoning Code. limits the height of structures within the required front yard to 36 inches and the recent change to the Building Code now requires 42 -inch high guardrails. Strict application of the Zoning Code would eliminate the guardrail and, therefore, necessitate the elimination of the below grade retaining walls within the required front yard, which provide light and ventilation to the lower levels. Guardrails such as these are uncommon within required front yards as excavation and retaining walls leaving a potential fall hazard are not typical practices. The project could be redesigned to place the retaining wall and guardrail outside the setback but the increased height is solely due to a change in the Building Code. The proposed railing will be open in design allowing visibility through it thereby maintaining a more open character. ,0,;� 0 AERIE (PA 2005 -196) June 19, 2008 Page 3 of 5 b) The plans recommended for approval on February 21, 2008, included four decks, a stair landing and stairs that would encroach within the 10' -7" side yard setback between the project and 215 Carnation Avenue. The stairs and landing are part of the mandatory exiting of the various portions of the building they connect to for safety reasons. Unroofed decks or platforms including necessary guardrails are allowed in required side yards provided they are less than 6 feet above natural grade. The revised plan has two expanded decks, a new deck in a new location and two deck areas eliminated. On the third level (Unit 7), one deck is proposed in an identical location when compared to the prior plan. It is wider but no closer to the property line than the prior plan (7' -6 "). The stair landing for this unit is in the same position as previously proposed and 'is also slightly larger while maintaining a 5 feet to the property line consistent with the prior plan. A larger deck that connected to the decks on the Bayside Place elevation has been eliminated On the fourth level (Unit 8), a new 6'x 9' deck is proposed with the other two decks remaining largely the same when compared to the prior plan. A small extension that previously was connected to the access stairway has been eliminated from the required side yard. Each of the decks and landings range between 7 to 12 feet in width and are between 4 and 6 feet in depth and, therefore, are of limited use. Two are no closer than 5 feet to the property line and the remaining are no closer than 7'- 6" to the property line. The upper level decks would be approximately 15 feet above natural grade and when the protective railings are included, total height is approximately 20 feet above natural grade. Privacy might be an issue to the abutting neighbor, but on balance, the revised plan has less deck area in the required'side yard setback than the prior plan and the deck area eliminated from the plan was in closer proximity to the decks in the rear yard of the of the abutting residence. In summary, the revised deck configuration impacts the privacy and views of the abutting neighbor less than the prior plan. C) Three balconies and one at -grade walkway encroach into the 10' -7" side yard between the project and Bayside Place. Again, unroofed decks or platforms including necessary guardrails are allowed in side yards provided they are less than 6 feet above natural grade. The walkway is on the first level, two balconies are on the second level and one balcony is on the third level and each are roughly no closer than 7 feet to the property line abutting Bayside Place. These features do not encroach within a public view from Begonia Parts or other vantage points to the west. They will encroach within private views from residences on Carnation to the north. The majority of the view to the west and southwest from these residents will not be impacted. The abutting residences along Bayside Place should not be impacted due to the change in grade (the encroachments are well above the homes on Bayside �.ua AERIE (PA 2005 -196) June 19, 2008 Page 4 of 5 Place), separation (the encroachments are separated from the homes on Bayside Place by the private roadway), and the fact that the houses on Bayside Place are oriented away from the project with views toward Newport Bay. Staff believes that the required findings for approval of the revised Modification Permit can be made and they are found in the attached draft resolution recommending project approval. 2) Replacement docks The applicant has included a specially designed dock system that would accommodate up to 8 boats; one boat slip for each unit. The old dock system accommodated 3 boats and was in a state of disrepair such that the applicant was ordered to remove it as it was a safety hazard. The new dock system would have a concrete wave attenuator to enhance safety given that the location of this site near the entrance to the harbor makes it subject to heightened wave action during certain swell conditions. Expanded boating facilities are a permitted use of tidelands and are allowed pursuant to the Section 30233 of the Coastal Act and the City's Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) provided the impact of the proposed facility can be mitigated. Leasing of the proposed new docks to individuals not residing in the project.would require that the docks be classified as a marine requiring on -site parking beyond that provided in the proposed project. Staff recommends applying a condition to prohibit the leasing of the slips to non - residents. Chris Miller, Manager of Harbor Resources, is in agreement with this limitation and intends to attach a similar prohibition to permits or leases for the proposed docks. The docks are not within the purview of the Planning Commission, but rather that of the Harbor Resources Division and Harbor Commission. The Planning Commission's consideration of the docks is limited to the potential environmental effects that are evaluated in the revised Mitigated Negative Declaration. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Keeton Kreitzer Consulting revised the MND to reflect the expanded project that includes the dock system. The analysis provided for the residential portion of the project was updated and improved and mitigation measures have changed from the prior document. An analysis of the potential impacts of the expanded boating facility is also presented. Mitigation measures related to dock construction have been included given that there is an eel grass bed located in close proximity to the proposed docks. No effect to sand transport is anticipated based upon engineering analysis prepared by Nobel Consultants, Inc. In summary, the analysis suggests that the revised project including the new docks will not create a significant impact to the environment provided all mitigation measures are t.u3 AERIE (PA 2005 -196) June 19, 2008 Page 5 of 5 applied and implemented. The comment period for the MND expires on June 17, 2008. Two comment letters has been received to date. The first letter was from the State of California Native American Heritage Commission indicating that consultation with Native American groups is necessary. Consultation was requested earlier pursuant to SB18 and no response was received. A second letter was received from the adjacent property owner, John and Kathleen McIntosh. They express the opinion that the project is not consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan. Additionally, they express their belief that the project, including the proposed dock system, will create a significant impact to coastal and marine resources and that an Environmental Impact Report is necessary. The comments are not accompanied with substantial evidence to support a fair argument that an environmental impact would result with project implementation. Staff will provide any additional comments received at the hearing. Bluff Vegetation In late January or early.February of this year, the vegetation on the bluff was trimmed and /or removed. In response to this issue, the applicant has had an extensive survey prepared by Robert Mitchell, a licensed landscape architect, which is included in the project plans. Based upon this survey, most of what was altered was non - native plantings and native species that were trimmed appear to be recovering well. Pursuant to CLUP policy, removal of non - native and invasive species is required. Replanting with drought tolerant, non - invasive and native species appropriate for the coastal bluff environment is required and conditions have been applied to require this. Prepared by: Jwc James Campbell, Sefnior Planner EXHIBITS Submitted by: David Lepo, Plannin irector Panning Commission Minutes 06/19/2008 Page 5 of 8 0 less the Commission would like a special meeting on July 10, 2008. Commissioner Toe oted he has an excused absence for July 17, 2008. Motion was made by Commissio oerge and seconded by Chairman Hawkin or a meeting on July 10, 2008. Staff n ere are more subjects that can be added to this agenda as well. Following a discussion, this motion was withdrawn. Motion was made by Commissioner Hillgren and seconded by Co lone Eaton to continue this item to July 17, 2008. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Abstain: Cole Absent: Peotter ITEM NO. 7 SUBJECT: AERIE Project (PA2005 -196) PA2005 -196 201 -205 & 207 Carnation Avenue & 101 Bayside Place Recommended dopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and project approval, which is an 8-unit approval condominium building located on the comer of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. Senior Planner James Campbell gave an overview of the staff report noting the addition of the docks to the project description and the need to revise the Mitigated Declaration to accommodate that project change. There are proposed changes to he project that require a modification request for height limitation and side D� roperty lines. Additionally, he noted changes to the proposed resolution. Responses to comments have been distributed tonight. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Harp noted that the law does not require written responses to those comments. However, if you have specific questions it would be appropriate for staff to answer. Chairman Hawkins asked for staffs opinion on the Selman & Breitman commerd letter. Staff answered that the requirements have been met and the Mitigation Negative Declaration offers measures that are feasible and enforceable. The size, cale and nature of the project being out of scale with the neighborhood is an unsupported opinion stated by the author of the letter and does not present any additional information. eeton Kreitzer, City environmental consultant, noted his support of the previous tatements regarding the letters received and responded to within the studies. Tony Brine, at Commission inquiry, noted that the vehicle driveway width minimum is to be 20 feet. Rick Julian, applicant, noted that the need for the re- design of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the plans. Brion Jeannette, project architect, made a PowerPoint presentation on the modification adjustments as noted by staff; the dock layout system and changes o he exterior to the building since the last City Council meeting on this project. Commissioner Eaton noted his concern of the lower level exit out of the sub R file : //Y: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes \tnnd06l92008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 06/19/2008 >ement portion of the structure into the walkway down the pier as it appears below the 50.7 -foot contour line. Jeannette showed exhibit depicting the floor plans showing the exiting to t < areas, explained elevations and use of rock materials around the entrance. indy Mason of the URS Corporation explained the dock layout, wave action, mooring cans, eel grass, boat lengths and use of the boat slips. comment opened. lifer Friend, of Selman and Breitman, LLP representing Kathleen Mclnt Joe and Lisa Vallejo, referenced her letter sent to staff this afternoon. For rd, she noted the community absence in the audience does not reflect t of resolve in opposition to this project. , She then inquired if a letter fi ire Genis had been received. Staff noted it had and was included in onse to comment. She went on to discuss their opposition letter. Vandersloot, representing SPON, noted their opposition to the project as it of scale, impacts to the coastal bluff and marine environment. He thi ibuted copies of pictures of the project when it had been cleared of nati, station and stated this should not be approved until that notice of violation h i corrected. Paone, land use counsel for the project, noted discrepancies in the Breitman letter, and affirmed that the Mitigated Negative De esses all the potential significant impacts. comment was closed. n Jeannette, at Commission inquiry, stated they have read and agree to all ngs and conditions, including the 20 -foot driveway amendment. mer Toerge made a suggested change to Condition 107, w the docks. The change should say moved to locations inside, add condition that the vehicular driveway be 20 feet wide. Jeannette accepted the suggested changes. Campbell noted a modification to Condition 4 to note additional rding orientation of door and driveway width. oner McDaniel noted that since the issue of building below grad is noted he is in favor of this project. )mmissioner Eaton noted it is okay to cut into the coastal bluff as long as ti astal face is not disturbed as provided by the CLUP in terms of aesthetics. It ssible to approve a project that has sub -grade levels as long as the coastal bli protected in front of them. Hawkins noted the exit is an aesthetic issue that will be sheltered. Mon was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Commissioner Cole recommend adoption of the MND and approval of the project to the City Counci h the following modifications: Page 6 of 8 'r".a0 file : //Y: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes \rnnd06192008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 06/19/2008 Page 7 of 8 • Condition 27 - delete the sentence regarding the vehicle elevator system to return the elevator cars to street level when not in use; • Condition 40 - add project driveway must conform to the City's sigh distance standards 110 -L and maintain a minimum width of 20 feet. • Condition 107 - remove the term, "sheltered" and replace with, "moved to safe locations..." • Condition 124 - Require that the exit door be screened from the view from the harbor, specifically the northwest side of the building to minimize the view. Commissioner Toerge noted his concern that the Harbor Resources Commission should have reviewed this project prior to deliberation. The Planning Commission has heard this item twice and he has been in opposition to it. The information in his packet does not change his concern about the project. yes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel and Hillgren Noes: Toerge bsent: None JECT: General Plan Annual Progress Report including Housi8ng Element Report(Pa2007 -195) Ms. M\nhe ve an overview of the staff report. Mr. Lere are no specific dates for the hearings by the Plannin Commty Council. Chairman Hawkins note inserting Fall 2008 for Planning Commission and City Council hearings in the thir ection on page 2. Motion by Commissioner Hillg and seconded by Commissioner Eaton t approve staff recommendation. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawk McDaniel, Toerge and Hiligren Noes: None Absent: None DDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a. City Council Follow -up Mr. Lepo reported that peal o 5515 River Avenue that was withdrawn, the Cved th project; the appeal of the Pavilion's Wine Tastinntil Jul Xreported 22, 2008. b. Planning Commission reports - Commissioner Tre meeting on the Green Task force next Wednesday c . Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like Staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - The Commission asked for the rules issue on minute to be brought back at the next meeting. ►M � ah file : //Y:1Users\PLN\SharedlPlanning CommissionlPC Minutes\mnd06l92008.htm 07/15/2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT February 21, 2008 Agenda Item 3 SUBJECT: AERIE (PA 2005 -196) 201 -205 & 207 Carnation Avenue & 101 Bayside Place ■ General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -006 ■ Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -002 ■ Code Amendment No. 2005 -009 ■ Tract Map No. 2005 -004 (TT16882) ■ Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 ■ Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005-002 APPLICANT: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. Richard Julian, President CONTACT: James Campbell, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3210 icampbeillacity .newport- beach.ca.us The Planning Commission considered the AERIE project at three public hearings and on May 17, 2007, recommended approval of the project to the City Council. On August 14, 2007, the City Council considered the project and identified a more restrictive predominant line of existing development (PLOED) than that recommended by the Planning Commission. The City Council returned the project back to the Planning Commission for review after revisions consistent with the more restrictive PLOED. The applicant has redesigned the project based upon the City Council's direction. Due to the changes to the project, staff revised the mitigated negative declaration (MND) and recirculated the document for public review. RECOMMENDATION 1) Hold a public hearing; and, 2) Consider the revised draft MND; and, 3) Adopt the attached draft resolution recommending City Council adoption of the MND and approval of the project (Exhibit #1). < A00 AERIE (PA 2005 -196) February 21, 2008 Page 2 of 4 View to the northeast from the air s 9 AERIE (PA 2005 -196) February 21, 2008 Page 3 of 4 DISCUSSION The City Council identified the predominant line of existing development as 50.7 feet above mean sea level (MSL) and given that portions of the project extended below this elevation, found that the was not project consistent with Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) policies. The City Council directed staff to prepare an amendment to CLUP policies to provide clarification of the relationship between the predominant line of existing development and other resource protection policies such as the policy to minimize alteration of a coastal bluff. That amendment was reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council subsequently adopted CLUP Amendment No. 2007- 003 in November of 2007. The amendment states that the predominant line of existing development is not the only factor in determining the extent of development on a coastal bluff. The City Council staff report and past Planning Commission staff reports are attached as Exhibit #2 and #3 and they contain additional project background information and analysis of the proposed General Plan Amendment, Code Amendment, tentative tract map, Modification Permit and Coastal Residential Development Permit. Revised Project The original project is described in the prior staff reports to the Planning Commission and City Council (attached). The following changes have been made to the project: 1. Reduction in the size of the building footprint consistent with the PLOED at 50.7 feet MSL rather than at 30.5 feet MSL as previously proposed. The exception of an access staircase that will lead down the bluff to the existing concrete landing and docks. Two subterranean levels that would house storage and a fitness /pool area will be below 50.7 feet MSL and will not be visible from Newport Bay. 2. Reduction from 9 dwelling units to 8 units. 3. Reduction of gross floor area from 76,333 to 62,823 square feet. 4. Elimination of one level of the proposed project from 7 levels to 6 levels. 5. Six of the seven on -site, guest parking spaces will be at street level rather than below street level minimizing the need for guests to access the subterranean parking area via the vehicle elevators. Additionally, the project how includes a service vehicle parking space at the lowest storagelmechanical level. 6. Reduction of soil export from 32,400 to 25,240 cubic yards. 7. Increase in horizontal distance between the proposed building and the existing building to the south, increasing the view angle from Carnation Avenue to the Bay from 38 to 44 degrees. <" 15O AERIE (PA 2005 -196) February 21, 2008 Page 4 of 4 8. Reduction in the setback of the upper levels from the adjacent property to the north (215 Carnation Avenue) from 30 feet to 10 feet. Proposed changes are consistent with the City Council's direction to minimize alteration of the bluff by preserving the bluff face below the predominant line of existing development (50.7 feet MSQ. Reducing the visible extent of development on the bluff face reduces the impact to public views from Newport Harbor from the south and west and from Begonia Pads. By providing 6 guest parking spaces on the street level should decrease the likelihood that guests will use street parking. The decrease in the building setback on the north places more building mass in the 10' -7" side yard setback; however, the majority of the building provides a 10 -foot setback and consequently, does not impact a public view to the Bay. In summary, staff believes that the changes are positive and all findings for project approval can be made. Draft` Mitigated Negative Dec/anaVon (MND) Staff revised the MND to reflect the revised project and the CLUP amendment regarding the predominant line of existing development (Exhibit #4). Staff focused on visual impacts, public views, land use and hazards. The mitigation measure related to modifying the project to be consistent with the predominant line of existing development as ultimately established by the City Council has been eliminated. In summary, the analysis suggests that the revised project will create no more impacts to the environment than the previous designs considering the reduction in the number of units, reduced building area and reduced grading. The comment period for the MND expires on February 21, 2008, and no comments have been received to date. Staff will provide any comment received at the hearing. Prepared by: Submitted by: 4esJ, Camp II, Senior Planner EXHIBITS Ravens) 5. Additional correspondence received. 6, R@Vw6Qd4G9Fpl8P6(9epaNA9p9g4%f4-ow)- fG 5k Exhibit #5 Additional correspondence received <Irl!P Page 1 of 3 Campbell, James From: ksmc949@aol.com Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 10:08 AM To: Campbell, James Cc: Clauson, Robin; Lepo, David; fiawkins @eity.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: Aerie Dear Mr. Campbell After reviewing the most recent Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed Aerie project in Corona del Mar it is difficult to understand how this application has ever been considered for development by the City of Newport Beach. Clearly the new MND is not sufficient for a project of this massive scale and we believe that a complete and concise Environmental Impact Report should be prepared for this project before it moves further in the approval process. Having observed several of the previous planning meetings it is clear the Mr. Jennette has tremendous influence with the City and it is our hope that his being on several advisory boards for the City, and being the architect/ business partner of Aerie will not be a factor in your decision regarding their application without further and more in depth review. It is my understanding that during the City Council meeting of August 2007 the developers were given 3 feet more for vertical development that an other property on Carnation Avenue - 50.7 feet versus the established 53.7 - which set a precedent for future development on Carnation Avenue. After reviewing a bit of the proposed plans I noticed that the excavation and two subterranean floors are going to be at an elevation of considerable less that 50.7 feet above mean sea level (msl) and actually closer to 20 feet above trial when excavation for footings for the structure, footings for the elevator and slab for the first floor are complete. The first subfloor is indicated at 30 feet above mall on the revised submitted plans. The subfloors are actual usable, workable spares designed to fit the entire footprint of the proposed building and intended to be used full time. Hiding two full stories behind and below artificial or man made rock and what little natural rock is left after gutting the bluff should not and cannot be considered of little or no significant impact to the bluff or the environment as suggested by the planning department. Excavating and starting construction below 30 feet above trial is completely against City Council Guidelines, coastal protection policies in the Coastal Land Use Plan, The General Plan and The California Coastal Commission guidelines. The stability of the existing homes on either side of the proposed development and those across the street during excavation and construction have not been discussed nor to my knowledge have they been taken into consideration in the rand - as stated by a staff member of the Planning Department during a meeting held in January. It would be impossible to remove the amount of rock and dirt being proposed without undermining numerous homes, utilities, the entire street at the junction of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard and who knows what else. We do not want an incident similar to the recent slippage of homes in La Jolla and Los Angeles. Shouldn't the City take more caution and care to insure the safety of its residents, their homes and neighborhoods. Clearly this is another one of the major problems of this proposed project that needs to be addressed in a complete Environmental Impact Report and not just suppositioned by the developer. The sheer mass of the proposed structure is completely inconsistent, out of scale and out of character with all of the existing homes built along Carnation Avenue and the surrounding streets which should be one of the primary considerations for this property as it is entirely on Carnation Avenue. If the property 02/15/2008 1Y Page 2 of 3 at 201 Carnation were subdivided into lots and the existing single family residence at 207 was not under consideration for rezoning to multi use would the City ever consider such massive development for the resulting 4 or 5 lots - which is what the property could possible support. Would a different developer or architect be given such latitude, be allowed to gut the entire bluff and throw caution to the wind - I think not The environmental impact during the demolition of these existing 80+ year old structures which contain asbestos and lead paint has been discussed and supposedly determined not to be a danger. There are full time residents, elderly people and children living in close proximity to this project -is it sufficient to say that "existence of these hazardous materials in not considered a significant public health risk "(tend). Shouldn't the Environmental Protection Agency have a say in a project of this magnitude when known cancer causing materials, foreign particles and other substances will be in the air for months and months during demolition of the the existing structures and excavation approximately 30,000 cubic yards of rock and dirt. These hazardous materials will then be trucked through our public streets and highways. Where will all of the waste be dumped and where will it be stored until it can be removed from our streets and staging areas. One of the biggest threats to the environment, however, is that which has aheady been done without a study the the City of Newport Beach or the California Coastal Commission and that is the filing of the bay and the previously small sand beach below the property in question. Without owning the property Mr. Julian evidently managed to apply for and obtain a permit form the City or the Harbor Department to use part of the dredge material removed from around the docks at a the Channel Reef condominiums two doors south of his intended development without any of the neighbors being notified. The vertical height of the beach was raised at least 4 feet and the width of the beach from the existing stairwell and deck area to the water was increased by 30 to 40 feet. This was a huge increase of property. I cannot help but wonder what was gained in term of extending lot size by adding this sand. Eel grass, which was non existent, was introduced to this part of the bay when the sand was pumped in and is now flourishing, the sand dollar population was buried and rock formations were either filled in or buried. For the first time in the 22 years that we have lived in our home a large portion of our dock now sits our of the water on an average low tide where in years past on the most extreme low tide of the year there was still at least 4 to 5 feet of water under that portion of the dock. Unforturmtely since no study was done prior to pumping new sand into this cove no one knows what the long term effect of this shifting sand will and who will be responsible for the damage it causes. Should water and sand, which are both unusable in wins of building even be considered in terms of square footage or acreage (1.4 mind page 4) for this building footprint. Taken out of the equation it would become clear that the buildible footprint is considerable smaller than currently suggested by the architect and that the applicant for this project has far exceeded the allowable square footage before all of the exclusions, exemptions and exceptions requested and would be denied a permit on that basis. Additionally, we feel that it is imperative that a complete and final plan for his proposed dock and boat slips be submitted along with his aerie plans for consideration by the Planning Commission and that it too should be included in the Environmental Impact Report as it is such a sensitive issue to the Bay. Plans for the dock and boat slips have been drawn, a complete scale model built and they have been presented to prospective tenants and neighbors for review in the past. Why these plans were submitted to the City is a major concern to all of us and we feel that they should not be considered two separate projects because of the magnitude of the work and time involved if this project should be allowed to go forward. We would also hope that no plan changes or modifications or revisions (which are apparently already in progress) to the currently submitted plans be considered or approved without public notification and review prior to permits being granted - this in the hope that nothing else of public concern slips through the cracks. 02/15/2008 YO Page 3 of 3 We thank you for you time and consideration and hope that our concerns and those of other neighbors will be heard and wan-ant a more in depth study of the impact of such an enormous project. We all look forward to the property being redeveloped as previously stated and hope that after an Environmental Impact Report has been completed we may resolve some of the outstanding issues on this extremely sensitive project. Sincerely John and Kathleen McIntosh cc: California Coastal Commission More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail! 02/15/2008 5� Note to File: Material(s) received after the Planning Commission packets were prepared. These material(s) were distributed to staff, Commissioners and made available to the public A%hFt1. {18% NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION - PROPOSED AERIE DEVELOPMENT 2123/08 4:07 PM We look forward to a reasonable and responsible redevelopment of the subject property that will not only fit into the surrounding neighborhood but one that will be designed to minimize alteration to significant natured land forms, the bluff, cliffs and canyons and one that will also protect the existing habitat which includes raccoons, possum, squirrels, rabbits and a variaety of resident birds per the City General Plan Policy, the Coastal Land Use Plan and California Coastal Commission Policy. Clearly the plans should not go any further in the process without a complete and concise ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT as it ignores so many of the requirements necessary for consideration and as all of us here tonight know clearly has a huge negative impact on the environment. I realize that some of you are undoubtedly bored with these proceedings this evening because your decision has already been made but I hope you will give consideration to all of the objections voiced here tonight and those presented to you in the past several weeks during the public review period. By designing such an enormous and complex plan the developer and architect knew that they would have to ask for major exemptions, exceptions, modifications, rezoning and variances to existing policies and that they would have to call in as many favors as possible for their plan to reach the Planning Commission and the City Council. They also knew from the beginning that they would undoubtedly be required to reduce the scale and scope of the project to conform to policy and after the August 2007 City Council meeting when their application was denied for numerous reasons they knew that they would have to reduce the size by major proportions to adhere to the parameters established by Council that evening and to those already existing in City Policy, the CLUP and so many other policies governing properties such as this. Although they did reduce the project by I unit it would seem that they have chosen to ignore most of the other requirements presented by Council. The existing property consists of 2 structures with a habitable space of approximately 1600 square feet, the new project would be in excess of 62,000 square feet with 2 complete stories buried below ground, covered with artificial rock and would be over 25 feet below the established predominant line of development of 50.7 feet above mean sea level. Hiding 2 complete stories of the building does not alter the fact that the revised plan still blatantly exceeds the existing vertical PI.OED nor does it make it any less of an impact on the environment by gutting the entire bluff. The proposed horizontal projection also extends beyond the existing horizontal line of development on Carnation Avenue by at least 20 feet. Carnation Avenue being the ONLY consideration as this is the location of the proposed project. The horizontal projection will have a considerable impact on the view now enjoyed from Begonia Park, most of the Harbor and will set a damaging precedent for future development of the Carnation Bluff. If presented by any other architect I am sure this project would have been met with rejection before it ever got this far. This is an example of a grossly over designed property and we feel that it would not be considered http: //wehmail.aoLa /34032taoi /enws /SuloemW Pape 1of2 1�1.5q A04 WJIIXIe®f 2123108 4:07 PM punitive to deny this application on the grounds that it does not conform to the policy of coastal bluff protection, the City General Plan Policy and many others. It would be an injustice to the people living in the area who have conformed to policy and or reduced the size of their new structures, remodels and current plans to avoid Planning Commission denials, if this application is passed again without further consideration, enforcement of policy and a complete Environttteatal Impact Report. In closing I would like to say that our hope is that Newport Beach will not become known for being a City that breaks policy and promises for the glorification and edification of a select few but rather a City that follows policy for all. Thank you for your time and consideration. Kathleen McIntosh k: //Nab"La =m /34032 /adlm slSulteaspxV F"t 2 of 2 � 5$ February 18, 2008 Mr. David Lepo Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Lepo, RE: Revised Aerie Project I am compelled to write this letter of support for the AERIE project as it has been revised. The recent timing of opposition in public letters is somewhat predictable but more than over the top with suspect motives. As you know, based on the prior appearances at City meetings for both the Planning Commission and Council meetings, there are many neighbors within sight of this project who fully support it. Our neighborhood has certainly changed. Two of the most outspoken adversaries, only one of whom is adjacent to the project property, continue to vehemently oppose the development. One neighborhood pundit described it as though, 'unless if it were to become a passive park and was possibly named after them, they would probably oppose W. My wife and I live across the street from AERIE and are looking forward to the new project. It frustrates us significantly that the new development cannot be built down the bluff as the opponent's existing homes are. it is with great interest that we see that now even the existing structure could not be rebuilt or replaced because of the City Council mandate declaring the Predominant Line of Development at 50.7' which is higher than the existing structure extends. Since the beginning, the proposed project was designed to and will occupy a significantly less percentage of its property dimensions than any other structures on Ocean Blvd. I am concerned about the gross negligence of property rights in the city by these two neighbors and one other whose primary residence is apparently in another state. As this process has unduly taken so long, to answer each objection, each year finds more onerous conditions placed. This appears evident to people who have a belief in property rights that it is clearly an unfair condition. One Commissioner accurately stated, in effect, that the longer a project is contemplated the more nit picky everyone gets. Another comment by a City representative was that everyone must get his or her'pound of flesh' Another example of what may just be the latest officious unjust decision, could be the new park fee of over $26K per unit which was just recently adopted may now affect AERIE. Mr. Julian may now owe over two hundred thousand more dollars. The over five -year delay has caused a tremendous expense, but Mr. Julian has hung in there because he wants to live here; any potential profit undoubtedly disappeared years ago. G ya I recall that in the 1950's the City of Newport Beach approved 46 units to be built on this very site. Mr. Julian came to this project going on six years ago and made direct contact with the neighbors. He decided, reasonably, not to build the contemplated 20+ units (there are 15 now) and pared it down to nine units and now eight smaller units that are well designed, beautiful and carefully engineered town homes well within the neighborhood MFR zone concept. Now even some wag ignoring reality suggests that they rezone the property. Julian should be recognized as the considerate developer he is. Instead he is inundated by these self interest driven neighbors, with demeaning accusations by emotionally borne words such as "destruction, excessive, massive, cancer, architect business partner, violates, over built' and is accused of doing It all for a 'financial motive'. The Julian's are certainly paying more than their dues to meet their dreams of residing in our great community of Corona del Mar. A property of this size and value is difficult enough to justify let alone expect to make a profit on. Other developers who have been solely profit driven would have pushed the envelope to its maximum. It might turn out that property lines could be revisited. It certainly appears to have become easy for people to try and Influence the `property rights' of others. Even to the utterances of 'stability of the bluff like other areas of California' while using 'cracks in the street' as evidence. I have been a resident and business owner in Corona del Mar since 1972 and endured the construction of 2495 Ocean (well into the bluff face) and the remodel of 2501 Ocean. The cracks in the street were there well before either of the present owners emerged. The existing condition did not seem to be a concern to either of them to get their desires met and in order to get what they wanted. Another recent part of 'throwing the kitchen sink' at the project involves eelgrass. There are most certainly public records showing the existence of marine eelgrass (Zostera) right in this location well before Mr. Julian arrived on the scene. I believe, in fact, that AERIE has spent considerable effort to not disturb the protected grass as is mandated by the State of California. The project has significant applications, which could be described as 'green'; catch water treatment and solar panels being the most visible illustrations. We implore the City of Newport Beach to recognize the Julian's as a family who is making every endeavor to provide a wonderful project for the community in which they Intend to live. In the opinions of some, what they have had to endure has come close to hardship and harassment. We ask you to provide for the rights of property rather than to succumb to the complaints about virtually everything, of a vociferous few. The city has the expertise and authority to see that this project is sensible and move it along with a minimum of additional encumbrances. Sincerely, Bud and Linda Rasner 2500 Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Page 1 of I Varin, Ginger Subject: FW: aerie project From: Robert C. Hawkins [maiW:rhawkins @earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 9:46 AM TO: elinhoff @sbcgktbal.net Cc: Varin, Ginger; 'Barry Eaton'; Lepo, David Subject. RE: aerie project Greetings, Thank you Ms. Linhoff for your comments on this important project. By this email, I am forwarding your comments to the Planning Department for inclusion in the administrative record on this project. Thanks again. RCH From: elinhoff @sbcglobal.net [maRtD:eBnhoff@sbcglobal.net] Sent; Tuesday, February 19, 2008 5:03 PM To: dtawkins@earthlink.net Subject: Fw: aerie project — Original Message — From: elinhoft( tsbcglobal.net To: rehawkinsftearthlink.net Sent: Tuesday, February 19. 2W8 7:42 AM Subject: aerie project Dear Chairman Hawkins: I strongly urge the Manning Commission to require a full EIR for this project. The environmental affects of this projects are huge and the precedent it sets is irreversible. The digging into the bluff to such an extent goes against the General Plan. The project is out of scale with the neighborhood. Please either deny this project (which would save the applicant time and money) or require a full EIR. Elaine Llnhoff 1760 Ecean Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92661 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.8/1289 - Release Date; 2!20/2008 10:26 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.8/1289 - Release Date: 2/2012008.1026 AM 02/20/2008 �, �P\ I Marilyn L Beck 303 Camation Avenue Corona Del Mar, CA 92825 February 18, 2008 Mr. David Lepo Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92883 Re: Revised Aerie Project Dear Mr. Lepo, FEB 19 2808 CRY OF NEWPORT BEACH I have read the MND of the revised Aerie Project which will come before the Planning Commission on Feb 21, 2008. 1 have also read the recommendations on the Staff Report for approval of the revised project t have a number of concerns and submit this letter as an appeal of the adequacy of the MND. Furthermore, I am requesting that the City prepare and submit a full and complete Environmental Impact Report (EIR) relating to the project The City has recently amended the Coastal Land Use Plan related to development on coastal bluff on Pacific Drive, Camation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. This project sits at the Junction of Camation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard on a prominent bluff which is viewed from Ocean Blvd, Camation Avenue, Bayside Drive and Begonia Park and is visible throughout the harbor and Inlet of Newport Beach, and can be seen from miles out to sea, The CLUP policy numbers 4.4.1-1,4A.1-2,4.4.1-3,4.4.3-8,4A.3-9, 4.4.3 -12 and 4.4.3.19 are all designed to protect this very important type of natural coastal bluff face. Therefore, it is very difficult to understand how the Planning Staff can issue an MND which shows no concern for the environmental consequences of this project and recommends approval of it Please see my comments in bold: 4.4.1-1. Protect acrd, where feasible, enhance the stank 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. How does the Aerie Project `enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone'? This is an excessively large structure of nearly 63.000 square feet replacing two existing sWictures which together are less than 14,000 square feet The design of this project is avant garde and completely out of character with the surrounding environment 4.4.1 -2. Design and site new development, including landscaping, so as to minimize impacts to public coastal views. This project pushes the envelope of acceptable development In scale and size. The revised plan is for 62,822 eq ft to be built on a 61,284 square foot lot The outline of the building covers the entire bluff, and pushes the boundaries to the property line on all sides. This cannot � 'minimize' the Impact to public coastal views. Additionally, 1 dispute the findings that the view corridor from Begonia Park will not be impacted. The developer should be required to provide a mock up of the building on the bluff in relation to the other Carnation Avenue properties and specifically address the view corridor from Begonia Park. please am attached photo. 4.4-1-3 Design and site new development to minimize afleratinna to slgniflaW natural lendlbrmA Including bluffs chit and canyons. This project as planned will IdWilflcantly alter the natural landfoms. The natural IandPonns will be destroyod In order to accommodate this project. Two levels will be submerged below the 80.71 Una and the construction plan provides for the removal of 25,240 cubic feet of bluff. How can the INND possibly state that this project will 'minknize alterations' to this bluff? 4.4.3-8. Prohibit private development on coastal bluff faces, except those along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Patio &ft to Corona del Mar. ftquire aN now development to be shbad within the predominant tine of existing development Establish a predomMarrt fine of existing development for both principal structures and accessory improvements. The Chy has determined the predominant Ina of existing vertical development to be 80.7' for this project. Nonetheless, the project proposes two levels to be subterranean below this level. Additionally. there is no consideration of the horizontal predominant line. The proposed development pushes this to the extreme outer limits, both horizontally and vertically. 1 attach a photo of the current horizontal lure of development along the Carnation Avenue bluff. 4.4.3 -9. Permit pubic improvements providing public access, protecting coastal resources, or providing for public safety on coastal bluff faces only when no feasible affiame" exists and when designed and constructed to minimize alteration of the bluff face, to not contribute to flirther erosion of the bluff face, and_to_tze vlsua8v comosiible with the sumo m no area to the m xkwm extent Peaalb /e. This project falls completely on this point. The design Is extreme, as Is the size and scale of this project. 4.4.3- f2.Employ site dastgn and construction techniques to minimhe aH&MODn of coastal bluffs to Hie maximum extent feasible, such as: A. Siting new development on the flattest area of the site, except %*an an alternative location is more protective of coastal resources. Proposed project falls this requirement. B. Wflizing existing driveways and building pads to the maximum extent feasible. A Proposed project fails this requirement , C. Clustering building sites. D. Shared use of odveways. Proposed project faits this requirement E. Designing buddbW to conform to the natural contours of the s#e, and arranging driveways and patio areas to be compatible wlfh the slopes and building design. F. UMIzing special foundations, such as stepped, spirt level, or eantAever designs. G �� G. Detaching parts of the deveopment, such as a garage from a dwelling unit. Proposed project falls this requirement H. Requbfng any altered slopes to blend into the natural contours of the alts. 4.4.319. In alf cases where the predominant line of existing development Is used to estsbfth a development limit, I shalt not be the only crrWb used for Ibis purpose. All coasts! land aaveroamers ana =0 of new structures This policy waa added because of the Aerie Project In order to keep the PLOED from being the only criteria used to determine a development line. All coastal land use policies MUST be considered to protect the bluff. The City has worked so diligently to provide a comprehensive general plan to protect the coastal areas and the quality of the. residential neighborhoods. The Aerie project pushes the envelope on each and every condition of the CLOP. If the Planning Department and City Council approve this development, it will make a mockery of everything the City has been trying to do with the implementation of the CLOP. Please 9-we this project careful consideration. The MND is inadequate as presented. If ever there was a project that warranted a full EIR, It Is this one. t again repeat my request that a full EIR be required and that the Planning Commission deny this revised plan. Thank you. Sincerely, M 6 nLBee � �a ., r� x c t. ! p BPS � •. � � � � ��'k i„,.r!' is vrIc.W tU bay . ., f ��t� ;p � a�f � s �� trd�l` 1 hl��x�.c .�t� �• ,rLLt d1 t..nry ,`"- 3e..� p �"�f§ K. S3..t .,. �'St. av �Y&�� ..`'!� . , Y r.r., +•:. 5> zle + a 'at �. � w^p �. t ¢• 21 4-3' � CMJ. �9 T t �. i ��' �r ��� �t� Yr. 1 �.t>,}�iy k r'.. Y ♦yr�'MA a,y 'td�tw�,7�,+}, il��t t i�l '� r F� I "✓ `sy♦� &.F�� ♦ 'y�Vk. 'iii K�] ; 'if33 fv.�Jf�.\ i F l t v- � t � 5z Zr, v I(t� \ ♦aT. 'a � t 1 �°� 4 4 . r o �S If �t, '*a 1.� t Pr ctSlte ir, c at -.. /' � 1 Y • -i tip .- ••4y:. Linda J. Martin P.O. Box 5220 Newport Beach, California 92662 February 16, 2008 Mr. David Lepo Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Lepo, RE: Revised Aerie Project RECWW BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 19 2008 CUY OF NEWPW BEACH (sv,t•.# -%tA. The California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq. (CF-QA) states: "Wkenever a project may have a significant and adverse physical effect on the environmen4 an environmental Impact report (EIR) must be prepared and c&WJkA" Therefore, since we believe that the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MdD) has not adequately considered the impact that this proposed project will have due to the massive excavation and structure development on an environmentally sensitive coastal bluff, we request that the City require a full and complete Environmental Impact Report (EM). The purpose of the resource protection policies contained within Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) are to implement Section 30251 of the Coastal Act, which states: "77ee 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 sham be subordinate to the character of its setting. " Also, CLUP contains policies that regulate potential development of coastal bluffs. How can these items be considered to have been addressed by this project? The public view of the natural bluff will be destroyed as there no longer will be any remaining "natural bluff' to view. As for "tninintke(ing) impacts to public coastal views. ", the public will not realize, until it is too late, what the impact will be without story poles. The developer has already removed all the natural vegetation without, as far as we know, City or G (,A California Coastal Commission approval. If this project is allowed.... there will be NO NATURAL VEGETATION ON TIIE BLUFF! Below is a list of the CLUP items that the applicant is disregarding: 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 mintmim 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 -12. Employ site design and construction techniques to minimize altemdon of coastal bluffs to the maximum extent feasible, such as: A. Siting new development on the flattest area of the site, except when an altemadve location Is more protective of coastal resources. B. Utilizing existing driveways and building pads to the maximum extent feasible. E. Designing buildings to conform to the natural contours of the situ, and arranging driveways and pado areas to be compatible with the slopes and building design. Without the requirement of a fifll, or at least a focused EIR, approval of this project will result in a development which will cause irreparable scenic degradation at the entrance to Newport Bay. I find it difficult to understand why story poles have not been required for this project as it would never have gotten so far in the process if the size of it was known. Once the public realizes the huge mass of the structures and the destruction of the existing natural bluff, the opposition to this project will increase dramatically. In this regard, the project cantilevers out an additional 20' past the existing residences on Carnation Avenue, and down an additional 3 feet so it will be visually incompatible with the character of surrounding areas. We have a home in the 200 block of Carnation Avenue and on Balboa Island and if this extreme project passes, I can honestly say that "living on Newport Bay" wilt not be as desirable as it has been. I am an interior designer and can visualize the disproportionate size and scale that has been created which resembles a wart on the very prominent nose at the entrance to the bay. This project is extremely out of proportion with the rest of the properties surrounding it in its volume and design which is only matched by the Channel Reef Complex. "New development... shall be subordinate to the character of Its setting. " An EIR is also necessary to protect the residents and the city regarding the construction viability and bluff stability due to the geotechnical implications of the massive cliffside excavation and its effect on the neighboring properties. The city will be exposed to expensive litigation if damage to the surrounding properties occurs as a result of grading this site (plans show a fault line exists on this bluff}. The mushroom style of the large home in Cameo Shores, is considered by some to be compatible with the location as it is virtually by itself encompassing 3 lots and the face of the cliff over the beach. However, the overblown size and scale of the proposed Aerie structure will dwarf all other "beach" scale homes in the area except Channel Reef Condos, which is a project that would never be approved today. The project will also be visible from Balboa Island, the Peninsula, and other areas of the City as well as from Newport Harbor. I believe that the City should do EVERTHING in its power to protect this precious coastal resource. Therefore, it would be in the best interests of the city to require story poles and x full and complete Environmental Impact Report on this project before it goes any further in the approval process. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Linda Martin (D 1 February 12,2M Mr. David 1.epo Planning Director City of Newpm Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newpod Beady CA 92563 RE: Revised Ae& Project IECENED BY KANNNG DEPARIMEM FEB 19 2008 MY OF NEWPORT BEACH �M� iaff. Please accept this caummut letter regarding the revised Aerie proicat proposed far 201- 207 Carnation Avemte, and 101 Bayaida Place in Cortese del Mar. Breed upon our review of doemneuis in the reeard, mesh; wkb community members, and langrtatading participation in the project review process, we respectift request that the sky regain preparation ofa MR and complete lisviroamentol impact Rgmt (M R), so the Miiti aW Negative Dukradois (bM) to isadoqureta far a project with such antserae proposed cx=vsdm grading, and construction as on environmentally sensitive and legally protected coastal bleft We believe Owe me a number of issm that have either been omitted or not been properly o%tuated in the MND, and as such, an EIR must be prepared. Since project iaceptioa, we have been petplaW as to how this project could come so far In tine Ci(y's apptoval process. Our concwm include: a) The massive size and over -built nouc of the project coupled with the Ink of any meaningful assmsment of visual eons*=q and compatibility with otter Properties in the neighborhood. (nom are policies in the Den vial Plan which specifically address this issue: that the sir, scale, and chamater of new development are in keeping with the surmunding neighborhood.) b) The excessive excavation involved, and the significant consttucilon impact (traffic, noise, pollution, hmerdous materials atc.) on adjoining properties and the mhto[ota small beach neighborhood. c) The paoposed desttnotion of an h epiacexble coastal bluli'wit otit an appropriate in-depth evaluation of the loss of this natural tesourcc to the City and its maidenw; in addition, the pwoodcat this pmjoet will set for further destmation of the Carnation Avenue bluff. le A10 d) Lack oicluity Ong whether the project is minimizing alteration of the bluff above 50.7 feet mean see level, or distutbiug the bluff below 50.7 +bet mean sea levd9 e) The Saihaa in provide a detailed meat of tlw full ramifications of this project on the envitvamett, including whether such impacts are oonsistent with coastal protection poMos in the CUP. General Plan and the Coastal Act. From our perspective, h appears the projact violates Una ofamendwiDd policies. Specifically, Coastal Act Policy 3025 t xgaires that the City "protect the went and visual qualities of coastal ones, minimize the alteration of natant leud€orms, and [require development] to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas ". Not only does this project utterly fall to meet this and other standards in the Act, but as we have all an through each project "revision , the propo si atxually pushes do envelope to the exteme of wooie quality destruction, now maxdmizatiem of natural WxWxm eltaratium, and visual inoompe ibility with any development in the antis City. Simply M the developer and archiNcts' interests In building a unique and financially luccativo projet"t do not entitle then to run roughshod over the City's ad State's planning regttletioms. Tone project is aol nmsomMe as proposed and slwuld be denied. In fkaftramm of our r®quest that a tbll HIR be prepared, we would like to cite a spacdfie example where dw MND hefts to scouretety depict oondidone at the project site. While Prior versions of the NM indicated that only non-native, introduced speaks of plants existed on the bluM just tart summer we doeumemteti the p waoce of at least three native species there. Simee that time, the applicaai has removed significant vegetatiort on site. themby manipulating the arvironmeral review process hnaplaopt9eteJy. Such nations should rant be condoned. As ewidenur immediately acjjacent to this property, we have slgnific net additional consents such as with the short and long tam stability of the bluffs seal mamuattling Own; given the projctx's extensive oxcavatioa. You will recall, we pmeviously submitted a photo of the multiple cracks evident in ow sheets, and meationed that this project will have the impact of building an ontite city biocit in our Corals del Met eeighbathood AT ONE TIM P We believe the commutity deserves, and the project requires, the is -depth wAysda provided by a full Parvimm nmW Impact Report, production of such a document is in the best interest of everyone, since we will ALL be efl'eoted by this project for generations to torte. As there is no time limit on the right answer for what's best fur our community, you should take all the time necessary to wrsure the project will omw no berm. Oam done, this Moodent setting Project will be with w forever. SiraxmIy. Joasph and Lisa Vallejo !r 15( `�1 JEFFREY BECK Febn=717, 2M Members, planning Commission City of Newport Beach, California Re: Aerie Project - :6 k111 k1i, FEB 19 2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Thank you for allowiag me to comment on the Aerie resubmitted project. I will be brie£ The initial submission of the Aerie project was rejected by the City Council because of the excessive magnin..la and mass of the building proposed which required that the project extend beyond the predominant dine of development down the bluff RIO% Carnation Avenue and above the height permissible along Ocean Boulevard. At that time, the developer was attempting to have it both ways: using the height restrictions as*if the project was one solely along Carnation Avenue and the incutsion down the bluff as if the project was solely on Ocean Boulevard. The scale of the building proposed could not be accommodated within the predominant lines of existing devdopment and /or within the height restrictions of Ocean Boulevard. While the developer has slightly scaled back the project, it remains an excessively massive building for this site So nov; instead of having the project extend below the line the City Council set for incursion down the bluff face and still build such a massive stntctote, the developer has now extended the building area well beyond the predominant line of existing development along Carnation Avenue as to the depth of bulling back toward the water and away from Carnation Avenue. This project, as now proposed, would not only extend much farther back from Carnation Avenue than any reasonably determined predominant line of existing development, but would actually extend much farther back toward the water and away from Carnation Avenue than any existing structure along Carnation Avenue. As such, it should be clear that the project cannot be approved within the requirements of the City of Newport Beach. To meet these requir mewti, the developer will need to do that which it has been unwilling to do. That is, to downsize die sttuctum to a more reasonable scale and one which can be accommodated within the requirements mandated by the land use restrictions intelligently chosen by the Cary. Very truly gouts. '« I 063 CARNATION AVENIM - CORONA OEL MAR. CA - .92625 PHONE: 949 - 7231773 - FAX: 561- 448 -4746 t-. <a February 19,2008 Robert Hawkins, Chairman City of Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Hawkins, RECUAD BY PiANNNG DEPARTMENT FEB 19 2000 C9Y OF NEWPORT BEACH �° -1,4 ft. This letter is in reference to the Aerie project currently under review by the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission. There are the obvious issues relating to size, parking, excavation and destruction of the bluff which are all precedent setting and out of character with the existing adjacent development and Corona del Mar in general. However, the calculation of `Buildable Area" is an issue which should be addressed After hearing the descriptions of the Aerie project, l became curious about haw a 62,288 sq.fL structtm could be constructed on pad area of 13,481 sq.ft. (representing a coverage ratio of over 460 %). I reviewed the building plans prepared by Brion Jeannette Architecture (revised 1/312008) and met with James Campbell, Senior Planner, for clarification of the City policy regarding building area calculations. Mr. Campbell indicated that the site area and building calculations contained within the Jeannette building plans are incorrect. Mr. Campbell explained that `Buildable Area" was not really buildable area, but as defined by City policy, is determined by deducting setback areas from the gross lot area. By this policy, submerged land and/or non - buildable slope areas are included in `Buildable Area '. The gross lot area of the Aerie site is 61,284 sq.ft. (1.3 acres). The City calculated 28,413 sq.fL to be submerged land. Page A -3 of the Jeannette Plans (Hunsaker Slope Analysis) indicates 15,146 sq.ft. of non - buildable slope. Submerged land and non - buildable slope total 43,599 sq.ft. representing 71.1 % of the site'. The Aerie site contains a unique combination of non - buildable slope and submerged land, clearly outside of the proportions that the City policy was intended to address. Submerged land and bluff slopes represent over 70% of the 1.3 acre Aerie site. The Aerie project represents an exploitation of a flawed City policy allowing the inclusion of submerged land and bluff slopes in "Buildable Area" resulting in a proposed development far beyond the capability of the site. This exploitation is emphasized by the proposed excavation of 25,240 cu.yds., representing the removal of the bluff and bluff face material equivalent to an 88' x 88' x 88' cube, or excavating the building pad to a depth of 50 feet below Carnation Avenue. Note inconsistency in bluff slope area computations. City computations indicate 11,936 sq.it. of non - buildable slope as compared to Page A -3 of the Jeannette Plans (Hunsaker Slope Analysis) indicating non - buildable slope of 15,146 sq.fL. �J February 19, 2008 Robert Hawkins, Chairman City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Page -2- The magnitude of the development in relation to the inadequate size of the site is further emphasized by the proposed parking garages. Seven of the eight condominium units require shared car elevators to access their garage spaces. The feasibility of the parking system, including size limitations, entry and exit time and street queuing are unlmown. The unique components of the Aerie site (including submerged land and bluff face), the proposed removal of 25,240 cu.yds. of bluff material, the proposed 62,822 sq.ft. structure size, and the proposed parking by elevator access are all precedent setting issues to Newport Beach and the Corona del Mar neighborhood. I respectfully request that the Planning. Commission deny approval of the project or require a complete environmental impact report to fully understand the ramifications of this project. Sincerely, William R Hansen 221 Goldenrod Avenue Corona del Mar, CA 92625 cc: David Lepo, Planning Director James Campbell, Senior Planner Newport Beach Planning Commissioners Newport Beach City Council '�# <\a Page I of 2 Varin, (linger From: Lepo, David Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 4:43 PM To: Campbell, James Cc: Varin, Ginger Subject: FW. Proposed Aerie Condominiums- MND comments For the record ... David Lepo, Director planning Department City of Newport Beach (949) 844 -3228 w (949) 844 -3229 f O "p -K fc . From: Doh Krotee [mallto:dkmtee@krotee.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 4:30 PM To: Lepo, David Cc: rhawidns@earthllnk.net; scotLpeotter@t wfthter.com; bhlllgren@highrhodes.com; jell oDle@cushwake.00m; eaton727 @earthllnk.net; sbataland@earthlink.net SuibjecC Proposed Aerie condominiums- MND comments Mr. Lepo: Having reviewed the latest changes to the proposal and the MND I continue to hold a strong opinion, as Planner, resident and Architect, that the proposal is simply more than the land can bear. Having been part of the GPAC and the development of the Gty's General Plan, I know of few residents (and several developers) who could support or even find any comfort with the staff findings In regard to the GP/LCP policies. The notion that this 6 story structure on this site, that will overlook the Newport Say and is viewed by many in the City, preserves natural land forms, one of the key parts of the CLOP is beyond land use planning reconciliation. In that the policies in the GP/ LCP are stated generally does not allow the staff tD gerrymander around these policies with findings to provide development of this unprecedented scale. The MND discusses aesthetics but, somehow avoids the study and the making of findings in specific regard to the comparison scale of the surrounding structures (in a community that the General Plan intends to protect) In regard to the proposed massive building. Although the noise and air quality of this residential community are impacted deeply by grading and the operation of hauling, it is the following picture that your department intends to represent that this fulfills the vision of the beach community wanted by so many in the development of the new General Plan. This Image is not in the vision. 02/20/2008 <N5 r S �ti' YS a LS W � E` Varin, Ginger From: Campbell, James Sent Tuesday, February 19. 2008 4:04 PM ��- To: Varin, Ginger ��++ Subject: RE: Proposed Aerie Condominiums This is one that I did not hand to you. It looks like it went to 6 of 7 commissioners - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Lepo, David Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:08 PM To: Campbell, James Cc: Varin, Ginger Subject: Fw: Proposed Aerie Condominiums For the administrative record . . . David Lepo, Director Planning Department City of Newport Beach (949) 644 -3228 w (949) 644 -3229 f - - - -- Original Message---- - From: David Kovach ( mailto :david @kovachcompanies.com) Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 11:45 AN To: Lepo, David Cc: rhawkins @earthlink.net; scott.peotter @taxfighter.com; bhillgren @highrhodes.com; jeff.cole @cushwake.com; eaton727 @earthlink.net; strataland @earthlink.net; ADK1 (E -mail) Subject: Proposed Aerie Condominiums Mr. Lepo, The continued movement of this proposal within the city remains a serious concern for the entire Newport Beach citizenry. Thank you for your consideration of my thoughts on the subject, as provided enclosed. If possible, I would appreciate any comment or response you can provide. As well, I am happy to discuss the project as you deem appropriate. Thank you. David Kovach 1 t '(NA Page 1 of 1 Varin, Ginger Subject: FVJ: aerie project From: Robert C. Hawkins [maboxhawkins@earthlink net] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2006 9:46 AM To: elinhoff@sboglobai.net Cc: Varin, Ginger, 'Barry Eaton': Lepo, David Subject: RE: aerie project Greetings, Thank you Ms. Unhoff for your comments on this important project. By this email, 1 am forwarding your comments to the Planning Department for inclusion in the administrative record on this project. Thanks again. RCH From: ellnhoff@sbogbbal.net [mailtwelinhofi @ sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 5.03 PM To: rhawkins@earthlink.net Subject: FW: aerie project ----- Original Message — From: elinh2ffftl;ig nbal net To: L011RydSifl;nW hlin at Sent Tuesday, February 19, 2008 7:42 AM Subject: aerie project Dear Chairman Hawkins: 1 strongly urge the Planning Commission to require a full EIR for this project. The environmental effects of this projects are huge and the precedent 9 sets is irreversible. The digging into the bluff to such an extent goes against the General Plan. The project is out of scale with the neighborhood. Please either deny this project (which would save the applicant time and money) or require a full EIR. Elaine Llnhoff 1760 Ecean Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92661 No virus found in this incaning message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.8(1289. Release Date: 2/20/2008 10:26 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.811289 - Release Date: 11202008 10:26 AM 02/2012008 Varin. Ginaer From: Campbell. James Sent: Thursday, February 21. 2008 8:20 AM To: Lepo, David; Varin, Ginger Subject: Fmr. Planning Commission Agenda Item 3 AERIE Project (PA 2005 -196) Attachments: resize before dscn7817.jpg; supercloseup enoelia lemonadebeny.jpg; opuntia resize fz8.jpg; resize bluff0013.jpg; resize bluH0018.jpg; resize 02 -01- 2008_„plant4bsses.jpg James Campbell, Senior Planner - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: JonV3 @aol.com <JonV3 @aol.com> To: rhawkins @earthlink.net <rhawkins @earthlink.net>; Campbell, James; Harkless, LaVonne Cc: JonV3 @aol.com < JonV3 @aol.com>; LauraCurran @mac.com <LauraCurran @mac.com>; dobehave @earthlink.net <dobehave @earthlink.net>; JWatt4 @aol.com <Jwatt4 @aol.com>; JSkinnerMD @aol.com <JSkinnerMD @aol.com>; abeek @flash.net <abeek @flash.net>; slgenis@stanfordalumni..org <slgenis @stanfordalumni.org>; martlit @earthlink.net -anartlit@earthl ink. net>; BakerDJ @mindspring.com <BakerDJ @mindspring.com>; jenniferwinnart@hotmail.com <jenniferwinnart @ hotmail.com>; Dubbietub @aol.com <Dubbietub @aol.com>; ayeblack @sbcglobal.net <ayeblack @sbcglobal.net>; harveydonw @juno.com <harveydonw@juno.com>; elinhoff @sbcglobal.net <elinhoff @sbcglobal.net >; bobbylovell2000 @yahoo.com <bobbylovell2000 @yahoo.com>; dkrotee@krotee.com <dkrotee@krotee.com>; johnebuttolph @yahoo.com <johnebuttolph @yahoo.com>; andylingle @sbcglobal.net <andylingle @sbcglobal.net>; marko @uci.edu <marko@uci.edu>; PhilDrachman @hotmail.com <PhilDrachman @hotmail.com>; christinecarr @mac.com <christinecarr @mac.com>; john @martin - associates.net <john @martin- associates.net >; vallejogallery @earthlink.net <vallejogallery@earthlink.net >; mdb @becktrustee.com <mdb @becktrustee.com>; KSMC949 @aol.com <KSMC949 @aol.com>; queenmom @the - castle.net <queenmom @the - castle.net> Sent: Thu Feb 21 02:23 :43 2008 Subject: Planning Commission Agenda Item 3 AERIE Project (PA 2005 -196) February 21, 2008 Re: Planning Commission Agenda Item No, 3, AERIE Project (PA 2005 -196) Comments on the Mitigated Neg Dec Request further analysis and full EIR Dear Chair Hawkins and Newport Beach Planning Commissioners, This is a comment on the Mitigated Neg Dec on the AERIE Project and a request to do further analysis of the project, including further biologic and coastal bluff analysis, including protection of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) present on the coastal bluff of the property, public views, geologic instability due to construction, lack of consistency with horizontal PLOED, building size inconsistency with the neighborhood, unusual parking arrangements that are difficult to maintain and enforce, and to do a full EIR due to the many unresolved issues with this project. The Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan, (CLUP) Chapter 4 policies identify and protect coastal resources such as coastal bluffs. CLUP policy 4.1.1 identifies southern coastal bluff scrub as a rare natural community by the California Department of Fish and Game and therefore qualifies as ESHA. There is evidence that coastal bluff scrub vegetation exists on the property, which has been partially removed by recent unpermitted vegetation removal. Policy 4.1.1 -1 defines southern coastal bluff scrub as ESHA. Policy 4.1.1 -2 requires analysis that defines ESHA as containing any of the attributes of an ESHA. q�q Policy 4.1.1 -4 protects ESHA against significant reduction of habitat value. Policy 4.1.1 -5 precludes new development in ESHA and to minimize impacts to ESHA. Policy 4.1.1 -6 requires adjacent development to be compatible with the ESHA. Policy 4.3.1 -7, requires construction to minimize disturbance of natural vegetation, including native vegetation. The Newport Beach General Plan Natural Resources Element also states: "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" "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. " The Initial Study, Mitigated Neg Dec, and staff report all fail to recognize the impacts to the coastal resource protections of coastal bluffs in both the General Plan and CLUP. The Mitigated Neg Dec fails to identify the existence of ESHA on the property as evidenced by the coastal bluff scrub on the property, including prickly pear cactus (Gpuntia littoralis), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) , Coast sunflower (Encelia californica) and Lemonade Berry (Rhus integrifolia). See below photos taken in June to August 2007 confirming the presence of these species. However, much of this vegetation has been removed by February 2008, and the bluff scraped clear without permits from the City or Coastal Commission. Complaints have been lodged with these agencies. This vegetation ought to be acknowledged in the EIR, replaced and protected prior to approval of this project. The Mitigated Neg Dec is insufficient in its analysis of the coastal bluff onsite, the applicable protections under the Newport Beach General Plan Natural Resources Element, and the CLUP. Please do not approve this project until the environmental document has been revised to include an analysis of the coastal bluff and its protections under the General Plan and CLUP, and the violations caused by the unpermitted vegetation removal have been corrected. A full EIR would be the appropriate type of environmental document for this complex project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Jan D. Vandersloot, MD 2221 E 16 Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 548 -6326 Coastal Bluff with vegetation in June 2007 --a resize before :n7817.jpg (& Coastal Bluff Specie Lemonadeberry, and Encelia californica on bluf 2 3 v� ly E, hN tr.A k�� LHb 1 1 e "uhf mq th k 1 a ,F Ttiui, � rp � x ! 3. � SV 1 •r h if � d.—IMPOEMY yam.._ t yh NP lK y!4+ i cyl�f�i lt4�r +•fie �y� ! ',x� ey�i,'y�,."k��' -: 41 4 A IL PA ilk 40 wrt L ilss, t 0 \ » ©«� ��,A! } Varin, Ginger Subject: FW: Aerie Project! MND RLE COPY - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Robert C. Hawkins [mailto:rhawkins @earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:50 AM To: 'Brion Jeannette'; 'Susan /Barry Eaton'; jeff.cole @cushwake.com; bhillgren @highrhodes.com; strataland @earthlink.net; scott.peotter @taxfighter.com; emcdaniel @metropacificbank.com Cc: Varin, Ginger; Lepo, David; Campbell, James Subject: RE: Aerie Project/ MND Greetings, Thank you for your comments on this important project. By this email, I am forwarding your comments to the Planning Department for inclusion in the administrative record on this project. Thanks again. RCH - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Brion Jeannette [ mailto :BrionJ @customarchitecture.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 B:30 PM To: Robert C. Hawkins; Susan /Barry Eaton Subject: RE: Aerie Project / MND Bob, Mrs. Martins letter is simply self serving. She claims the view from Bagonia Park is compromised, as shown in the photo, but the photo is not taken from the park but possibly from her rear deck or patio substantially oceanward of the park and west of Bayside dr. Her depiction of the AERIE project is NOT accurate. Her comments on the PROD are also baseless and again self serving, and shows a lack of understanding the project. Brion 470 Old Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 T: 949.645.5854 F: 949.645.5983 email @customarchitecture.com BJA Job # - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Robert C. Hawkins [ mailto:rhawkins@earthlink.net] Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 9:32 PM To: Susan /Barry Eaton Subject: Fw: Aerie Project MND - - - -- Forwarded Message ----- >From: Marilyn cmdb @becktrustee.com> >Sent: Feb 17, 2008 9:28 PM >To: Jcmmpbell@city.newport-beach.ca.us, dlepo @city.newport- beach.ca.us, rhawkins @earthlink.net, rclauson @city.newport- beach.ca.us > Subject: Aerie Project MND >Please see my attached letter. > Marilyn L Beck >303 Carnation Avenue >Corona del Mar, CA 92625 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1291 - Release Date: 2/21/2008 11:05 AM February 18, 2008 Mr. David Lepo Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Lepo, RE: Revised Aerie Project FILE COPY I am compelled to write this letter of support for the AERIE project as it has been revised. The recent timing of opposition in public letters Is somewhat predictable but more than over the top with suspect motives. As you know, based on the prior appearances at City meetings for both the Planning Commission and Council meetings, there are many neighbors within sight of this project who fully support it. Our neighborhood has certainly changed. Two of the most outspoken adversaries, only one of whom is adjacent to the project property, continue to vehemently oppose the development. One neighborhood pundit described R as though, 'unless if it were to become a passive park and was possibly named after them, they would probably oppose If. My wife and I live across the street from AERIE and are looking forward to the new project. It frustrates us significantly that the new development cannot be built down the bluff as the opponent's existing homes are. It is with great interest that we see that now even the existing structure could not be rebuilt or replaced because of the City Council mandate declaring the Predominant Line of Development at 50.7' which is higher than the existing structure extends. Since the beginning, the proposed project was designed to and will occupy a significantly less percentage of Its property dimensions than any other structures on Ocean Blvd. I am concerned about the gross negligence of property rights in the city by these two neighbors and one other whose primary residence is apparently in another state. As this process has unduly taken so long, to answer each objection, each year finds more onerous conditions placed. This appears evident to people who have a belief in property rights that it is clearly an unfair condition. One Commissioner accurately stated, in effect, that the longer a project is contemplated the more nit picky everyone gets. Another comment by a City representative was that everyone must get his or her'pound of flesh' Another example of what may just be the latest officious unjust decision, could be the new park fee of over $26K per unit which was just recently adopted may now affect AERIE. Mr. Julian may now owe over two hundred thousand more dollars. The over five -year delay has caused a tremendous expense, but Mr. Julian has hung In there because he wants to live here; any potential profit undoubtedly disappeared years ago. �..Sl I recall that in the 1950's the City of Newport Beach approved 46 units to be built on this very site. Mr. Julian came to this project going on six years ago and made direct contact with the neighbors. He decided, reasonably, not to build the contemplated 20+ units (thwee are 15 now) and pared it down to nine units and now eight smaller units that are welt designed, beautiful and carefully engineered town homes well within the neighborhood MFR zone concept. Now even some wag ignoring reality suggests that they rezone the property. Julian should be recognized as the considerate developer he is. Instead he is inundated by these self interest driven neighbors, with demeaning accusations by emotionally home words such as "destruction, excessive, massive, cancer, architect business partner, violates, over built" and is accused of doing it all for a financial motive'. The Julian's are certainly paying more than their dues to meet their dreams of residing in our great community of Corona del Mar. A property of this size and value is dif W t enough to justify let alone expect to make a profit on. Other developers who have been solely profit driven would have pushed the envelope to its maximum. It might turn out that property lines could be revisited. It certainly appears to have become easy for people to try and influence the "property rights" of others. Even to the utterances of 'stability of the bluff like other areas of California' while using 'cracks in the street' as evidence. I have been a resident and business owner in Corona del Mar since 1972 and endured the construction of 2495 Ocean (well into the bluff face) and the remodel of 2501 Ocean. The cracks in the street were there well before either of the present owners emerged. The existing condition did not seem to be a concern to either of them to get their desires met and in order to get what they wanted. Another recent part of 'throwing the kitchen sink' at the project involves eelgrass. There are most certainly public records showing the existence of marine eelgrass (Zostera) right in this location well before Mr. Julian arrived on the scene. 1 believe, in fact, that AERIE has spent considerable effort to not disturb the protected grass as is mandated by the State of California. The project has significant applications, which could be described as 'green'; catch water treatment and solar panels being the most visible illustrations. We implore the City of Newport Beach to recognize the Julian's as a family who is making every endeavor to provide a wonderful project for the community in which they intend to live. In the opinions of some, what they have had to endure has come dose to hardship and harassment. We ask you to provide for the rights of property rather than to succumb to the complaints about virtually everything, of a vociferous few. The city has the expertise and authority to see that this project is sensible and move it along with a minimum of additional encumbrances. Sincerely, Bud and Linda Rasner 2500 Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Marilyn L Beck 303 Carnation Avenue Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 February 18, 2008 Mr. David Lepo Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Revised Aede Project Dow Mr. Lepo, RECEKO BY PONE LNG DEPAR ANT FEB 19 2888 Cliff OF NEWPORT BEACH I have read the MN of the revised Aerie Project which will come before the Planning Commission on Feb 21, 2008. 1 have also read the recommendations on the Staff Report for approval of the revised project 1 have a number of concerns and submit this letter as an appeal of the adequacy of the MND. Furthermore, I am requesting that the City prepare and submit a full and complete Environmental Impact Report (EIR) relating to the project. The City has recently amended the Coastal Land Use Plan related to development on coastal bluff on Pacific Drive, Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. This project sits at the junction of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard on a prominent bluff which is viewed from Ocean Blvd, Carnation Avenue, Bayside Drive and Begonia Park and is visible throughout the harbor and inlet of Newport Beach, and can be seen from miles out to sea. The CLUP policy numbers 4.4.1 -1, 4.4.1-2,4.4.1-3,4.4.3-8,4A.3-9, 4.4.3 -12 and 4.4.3.19 are all designed to protect this very important type of natural coastal bluff face. Therefore, it is very difficult to understand how the Planning Staff can issue an MND which shows no concern for the environmental consequences of this project and recommends approval of it Please see my comments In bold: A4.1 -1. Protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, induding public vews to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor and to coastal blulfs and other scenic coastal areas. How does the Aerie Project enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone'? This Is an excessively large structure of nearly 68,DDD square feet replacing two existing structures which together are less than 14,000 square feet The design of this project Is avant garde and completely out of character with the surrounding environmerd. 4.4.1 -2. Design and site new devekWrnant, inducft landscaping, so as to minimae impacts to publlc coastal views. This project pushes the envelope of acceptable development in scale and side. The revised plan Is for 6$822 sq R to be'butR on a 61,284 square That lot The outline of the building covers the entire bluff; and pushes the boundaries to the property line on all sides. This cannot 'minimize' the Impact to public coastal views. Additionally, I dispute the findings that the view corridor from Begonia Park will not be Impacted The developer should be required to provide a mock up of the twgding on the bluff in relation to the other Carnation Avenue properties and specifically address the view corridor from Begonia Park. Plesse see attached photo. 4.4.1-3 Design and aft new development to minimize alterallo ms to slgnNkant natural tsrdfwms, Including bluffs, cft and canyons. This project as planned will slafffica rrW alter the natural landfomrs• The natural londfones will be destroyed in order to accommodate this project. Two levels will be submerged below the 60.7' line and the construction plan provides for the removal of 4240 cubic feet of bluff. Now can the MND possibly state that this project will 'minimize afteradons' to this bluff? 4.4.3-13. Prbhib# private development on coastal bluff faces, except those along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and PscWc Drive in Corona del Mar. Require all new development to be sited within the predominant tine of existing development Establish a predominant tune of existing development for both p*Wpal sWdwea and accessmy improvements. The City has determined the predominant line of existing vertical development to be 60.7' for this project. Nonetheless, the project proposes two levels to he subterranean below this level. Additionally, there to no consideration of the horizontal predominant line. The proposed development pushes this to the extreme outer limits, both horizontally and vertically. I attach a photo of the current horizontal line of development along the Carnation Avenue bluff. 4.4.3.9. Permit public improvements providing public access, protecting coastal rasourm or providing for public safety on coaster bhjff feces only when no feasible alternative exists and when desigoned and constnxtad to minhnize alfarahm of the bluff face, to not contribute to further erasion of the bluff face, and to be v1suvl8v eomaa8b/e with the snnnuntUrm area to Via maddmdutr extent feasible. This project We completely on this point. The design Is extreme, as is the size and scale of this project 4.4.3•f2.Employ site design and construction techniques to mliftiae alwation of coastal bruits to the maximum extent feasible, such as: A. S>7 I new development on the tlellest area of the alts, except when an alternative Iodation is more protective of coastal resources Proposed project falls this requlrameirt R Uffibing existing driveways and building pads to the maximum extent feasible. Proposed project falls this requirement CI Clustering bull" sties R Shared use of driveways. Proposed project falls this requirement E Designing buddirigs to oDnfomn to the natural contours of the site, and arranging driveways and patio areas to be compatible with the slopes and bu7dirg design. F. Utilizing special foundations, such as stepped, spu level, or cantilever designs. G. Detaching parts of the development, such as a garage from a dwaffing unit. Proposed project falls this requirement 14. `Requiring any altered slopes to brood Into the natural contours of the s#a 4.4. 319. In aff cases where the predominant Nnie of existing development is used to establish a development limit, it shag not be the only oriteda used for We purpose. All coastal land use aotfcles shag be considered in defermirdw the annrondafa erctorrt of now development and &Am of new stnicfiuras. This policy was added because of the Aerie project In order to keep the PLOED from being the only criteria used to determine a development line. All coastal land use policies MUST be considered to protect the bluff. The City has worked so diligently to provide a comprehensive general plan to protect the ooasW areas and the quality of the residential neighborhoods. The Aeflo project pushes the envelope on each and every condition of the CLUP. If the Planning Department and City Council approve this development, it will make a mockery of everything the City has been trying to do with the implementation of the CLUP. Please give this project careful consideration. The MID is inadequate as presented. If ever there was a project that warranted a full EIP, it Is this one. I again repeat my request that a full SIR be required and that the Planning Commission deny this revised plan. Thankyou. AERIE (PA 2005 -196) February 21, 2008 Page 2 of 4 View to the northeast from the air 9 9� Linda J. Martin P.O. Box 5220 Newport Beach, California 92662 February 16, 2008 Mr. David Lepo Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Lepo, RE: Revised Aerie Project FEB 18 300 CRY OF NEWPORT BEACH tV+1#1.e.e. The California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq. (CEQA) states: "Whenever a project may have a significant and adverse physical effect on the environment, an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared and certified" Therefore, since we believe that the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has not adequately considered the impact that this proposed project will have due to the massive excavation and structure development on an environmentally sensitive coastal bluff, we request that the City require a foil and complete Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The purpose of the resource protection policies contained within Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) are to implement Section 30251 of the Coastal Act, which states: "The scenic and visual gaallties 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 to 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. " Also, CLUP contains policies that regulate potential development of coastal bluffs. How can these items be considered to have been addressed by this project? The public view of the natural bluff will be destroyed as there no longer will be any remaining "natural bluff" to view. As for "minimize(inp) impacts to public coastal views. ", the public will not realize, until it is too late, what the impact will be without story poles. The developer has already removed all the natural vegetation without, as far as we know, City or r,- . -A 5 California Coastal Commission approval. If this project is allowed.... there will be NO NATURAL VEGETATION ON THE BLUFF! Below is a list of the CLUP items that the applicant is disregarding: 4.4.1 -1. Protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal Lone, including pnblie 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 aftmdOns to significant natural landforms, Including bluffs, diffs and canyons. 4.4.3 -12. Employ site design and construction techniques to minimize oftwadon of coastal bluffs to the maximum extent feasible, such as: A. Siting new development on the flattest area of the sfte, except when an alternative location Is more protective of coastal resources. B. U(Nifng existing driveways and building pads to the maximum extent feasible. E. Designing buildings to conform to the natural contours of the site, and arranging driveways and patio areas to be compatible with ire slopes and building design. Without the requirement of a frill, or at least a focused EIR, approval of this project will result in a development which will cause irreparable scenic degradation at the entrance to Newport Bay. I find it difficult to understand why story poles have not been required for this project as it would never have gotten so far in the process if the size of it was known. Once the public realizes the huge mass of the structures and the destruction of the existing natural bW the opposition to this project will increase dramatically. In this regard, the project cantilevers out an additional 20' past the existing residences on Carnation Avenue, and down an additional 3 feet so it will be visually incompatible with the character of surrounding areas. We have a home in the 200 block of Carnation Avenue and on Balboa Island and if this extreme project passes, I can honestly say that "living on Newport Bay" will not be as desirable as it has been I am an interior designer and can visualize the disproportionate size and scale that has been created which resembles a wart on the very prominent rose at the entrance to the bay. This project is extremely out of proportion with the rest of the properties surrounding it in its volume and design which is only matched by the Channel Reef Complex. "New development... shall be subordinate to the character of its setting. 'ca An EIR is also necessary to protect the residents and the city regarding the construction viability and bluff stability due to the geotechnical implications of the massive cliffside excavation and its effect on the neighboring properties. The city will be exposed to expensive litigation if damage to the surrounding properties occurs as a result of grading this site (pl=s show a fault line exists on this blrtfJ). The mushroom style of the large home in Cameo Shores, is considered by some to be compatible with the location as it is virtually by itself encompassing 3 lots and the face of the cliff over the beach. However, the overblown size and scale of the proposed Aerie structure will dwarf all other "beach" scale homes in the area except Channel Reef Condos, which is a project that would never be approved today. The project will also be visible from Balboa Island, the Peninsula, and other areas of the City as well as from Newport Harbor. I believe that the City should do EVERTHING in its power to protect this precious coastal resource. Therefore, it would be in the best interests of the city to require story poles and a full and complete Environmental Impact Report on this project before it goes any further in the approval process. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Linda Martin V, R5 February 12.2M Mr. David IA* PianningDirector City of Newport Beach 330QNewpoa Blvd. Newpwt Beach, CA 92553 Door Mr. U7*, RE Revised Aerie Project u FEB 19 2808 CffY OF NEWPORT BEACH h� imm e #. Pkasa accePt this ootnment lever regarding the revised Aerie project proposed A)v 201- 207 tin stion Avenue, and 101 Bayside Place in Comeau del Mer. Hared upon mr review of documents in the record, Aga with eonuam wy members. and SumpmadinS participation Is the prolate ravkw preens, we respeettaliy request Oat the City require preparation of a tau and wmphste Emiraumeatal Impact Report (Eel;}, as We lltj4pted Negative Declaration (&M) b inadegmtta for a VMJM with such extreme proposed eseavatloa, gndh*& and eonstruetiaa as an euvirannrentalty sensitive and lepW protected coastal bbA We baliew there we a tanmber of imm that have either bean omitted or Trot been pm lx* evoluatel In the MN%and as such, an EIR must be prepared. Same Pmt iacWtInn, we have been papkxed as to how this project could coma so hr in the City's approval process. Omr concerns inclu&— a) The massive $in and aver-fatilt naftm of the project coupled with the lack of any maamngM um m g of visit! oonsisicaq and compatibility with other Pwpatm in the neighborhood. (f Arne arc policies in the Generae Plan which specifically address this Issue: drat the Am scale, and chammur draw davolupmrat are in keeping with the avmtivading rxig>*QAwod,) b) The mmessive etwavadon imrolv4 rod the xigaitiwnt impact (traft noise, Pollution, lu ardow materials etc.) on pmp atics and ate rest of our small beach neighbm mood. c) The proposed destruction of an Irrepyumble coastal badl'widma at appropnm lndepth evaluation of the loss of ibis natural resource to the City and its reaieltmts; in addition, the prmedcnt this Project will set for fintlner destr oft of the Carnation Ave nm bW. A � d) Lack of clarity regarding whether the project is minimiaang altetation of the bluff ahnve 50.7 ftxt mean as level, or disturbing am bluff below 50.7 feat mean sea level? e) The frhue to provide a detailed assessment of the full ramifications of this pwjcet on the eavironment, including whether such impacts am consistent with coastal protection policies in the CI.I)P, General Plan and the Coastal Act. Prom our perapoctive, it appears the project vho "the eftemendanad policies. Specifically, Coastal Ace Policy 30231 requires that the City "protect the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas, minimize the ahcration of owural landfecnns, and Ctequire development] to be visually compatible with the character of s irrowtdiag areas ". Not only does this project utterly fail w meet this and otter standards in tiro Act, but as we have all seen through each project "reviaioe, the proposal actually pushes the envelope to the extiema of sccnle quality dtmftcdm near matthmiraLion of natural leadform ahtetatioa, and visual incempadbility with any development in the entire City. Simply put, the developer and architects' interests in building a unique and financially lucrative project do not entitle them to nm roughshod over the City's and State's planning regulations. The project Is not tenaom"t a purposed and should be deoiod. In furtherance of our request that a fill EM be pmpered, we would h'1w to cite a specific wounple where the MND fails to aecuately depict conditions at the project site, Whale prior versions of the 1v1ND indicated that only non- native, introduced spodes of plants existed on the bluff. just last summer we documented Ue presence of at least three now species there. Since that tine, the applicant has removed signifiew vegetation on site, &oby manipulating the envhcumeaW Nview proccas kVisopriesely. Such actions should"be condoned, As residents immediately adjacent to this property, we have significant additional coneams such as with the ghat and long teeth stability of the bluffs and surouudiati streets Oven the project's extensive excavation. You will recall, we previously submitted a photo of tine multiple cracks evident is our streets, and mentioned that this project will have the impact of building an ontue city Moult in our Corona del Mar aWgWmxhood AT ONE TIME! We believe the community deserves, and the p *ct mqums, the Ittrdep&wAysis provided by a full Environmental Impact Report. Production of such a document is in the beat interest ofeveryone, since we will ALL be aflbeted by this project ftrr generations to coot. As &me is no time limit on the right answer for what's beast far our community, you should take all the time nooeasmy to ansune the project will cam no harm. Once dons. ibis precedent setting project VAI be with us forever. Sinomely, Joseph and LM Vallejo v JEFFREY BECK February 17, 2068 Members, Planning Commission City of Newport Beach, California Re: Aerie Project FEB 19 2888 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Thank you for allowing me to comment on the Aerie resubmitted project I will be brief. The initial submission of the Aebe project was rejected by the City Council because of the excessive magnitude and mess of the building proposed which required that the project extend beyond the predominant' line of development down the bluff along Carnation Avenue and above the height permissible along Ocean Boulevard At that time, the developer was attempting to have it both ways: using the height restrictions as if the project was one solely along Carnation Avenue and the incursion down the bluff as if the project was solely on Ocean Boulevard The scale of the building proposed could not be accommodated within the predominant lines of existing development and /or within the height restrictions of Ocean Boulevard While the developer has slightly scaled back the project, it remains an excessively massive building for this sire So nor; instead of having the project extend below the line the City Council set for incursion down the bluff face and still build suds a massive sttrtctute, the developer has now extended the budding area well beyond the predominant line of existing development along Carnation Avenue as to the depth of building back toward the water and away from Carnation Avenue. This project, as sow proposed, would not orrly, extend much farther back fom Carnation Avenue tban am reasonably determined predominant line of existing development, but would actually extend much farther back toward the water and away from Catnammi Avenue than any existing structure along Carnation Avenue. As such, it should be clear that the project cannot be approved within the requirements of the City of Newport Beach. 1b meet these requirements, the developer will aced to do that which it has been unwilling to da That is, to dowaaime the structure to a more reasonable scale and one which can be accommodated within the requirements mandated by the land use restrictions intelligently chosen by the City Very truly yours, M.N. 295 CARNATION AVENCR - CORONA DEL MAR, CA •.92625 PRONE: 949. 729 -177) - FAX: 561. 946.4196 * te no 10 February 19, 2008 Robert Hawkins, Chairman City of Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Hawkins, y: ' MI1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH �� -to ft. This letter is in reference to the Aerie project currently under review by the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission. There are the obvious issues relating to size, parking, excavation and destruction of the bluff which are all precedent setting and out of character with the existing adjacent development and Corona del Mar in general. However, the calculation of `Buildable Area" is an issue which should be addressed. After hearing the descriptions of the Aerie project, I beeame curious about how a 62,288 sq ft. sttucttire could be constructed on pad area of 13,481 sq.ft. (representing a coverage ratio of over 460 %). 1 reviewed the building plans prepared by Brion Jeannette Architecture (revised 113/2008) and met with James Campbell, Senior Planner, for clarification of the City policy regarding building area calculations. Mr. Campbell indicated that the site area and building calculations contained within the Jeannette building plans are incorrect_ Mr. Campbell explained that "Buildable Area" was not really buildable area, but as defined by City policy, is determined by deducting setback areas from the gross lot area By, this policy, submerged land and/or non - buildable slope areas are included in `Buildable Area ". The gross lot area of the Aerie site is 61,284 sq.ft. (1.3 acres). The City calculated 28,413 sq.ft. to be submerged land. Page A -3 of the Jeannette Plans (Hunsaker Slope Analysis) indicates 15,146 sq.ft. of non - buildable slope. Submerged land and non - buildable slope total 43,599 sgAL representing 7 1. 1 % of the sites. The Aerie site contains a unique combination of non - buildable slope and submerged land; clearly outside of the proportions that the City policy was intended to address. Submerged land and bluff slopes represent over 70% of the 1.3 acre Aerie site. The Aerie project represents an exploitation of a flawed City policy allowing the inclusion of submerged land and bluff slopes in "Buildable Area" resulting in a proposed development far beyond the capability of the site. This exploitation is emphasized by the proposed excavation of 25,240 cuyds., representing the removal of the bluff and bluff face material equivalent to an 88' x 88' x 88' cube, or excavating the building pad to a depth of 50 feet below Carnation Avenue. ' Note inconsistency in bluff slope area computations. City computations indicate 11,936 sq.ft. of non - buildable slope as compared to Page A -3 of the Jeannette Plans (Hunsaker Slope Analysis) indicating non - buildable slope of 15,146 sq 8.. February l9, 2008 Robert Hawkins, Chairman City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Page -2- The magnitude of the development in relation to the inadequate size of the site is further emphasized by the proposed parking garages. Seven of the eight condominium units require shared car elevators to access their garage spaces. The feasibility of the parking system, including size limitations, entry and exit time and street queuing are unknown. The unique components of the Aerie site (including submerged land and bluff face), the proposed removal of 25,240 cu.yds. of bluff material, the proposed 62,822 sq.ft. structure size, and the proposed parking by elevator access are all precedent setting issues to Newport Beach and the Corona del Mar neighborhood. I respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny approval of the project or require a complete environmental impact report to fully understand the ramifications of this project. Sincerely, William R. Hansen 221 Goldenrod Avenue Corona del Mar, CA 92625 cc: David Lepo, Planning Director James Campbell, Senior Planner Newport Beach Planning Commissioners Newport Beach City Council Page 1 of 2 Varin, Ginger From: Lepo, David Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 4:43 PM To: Campbell, James Cc: Varin, Ginger Subject: Fw: Proposed Aerie Condominiums- MND comments For the record ... Dayfd LOO Director Planning Department City of Newport Beach (949) 644 -3228 w (949) 644 -3229 f {,a+.J -J%fg . From: Don Krotee [mailto:dkmtee@krotee.comj Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 4:30 PM To: Lepo, David Cc: rhawk1ns @earth11nk.net; soatpeotter@tmhdighter.com; bhiiigren@highrFrodescorn; jefr.cok@cushwake.com; eaton727@earthiink.net; stataland@earthhnknet Subject: Proposed Aerie Condominiums- MND comments Mr. Lepo: Having reviewed the latest changes to the proposal and the MND I continue to hold a strong opinion, as Planner, resident and Architect, that the proposal is simply more than the land can bear. Having been part of the GPAC and the development of the City's General Plan, I know of few residents (and several developers) who could support or even find any comfort with the staff findings in regard to the GP /LCP policies. The notion that this 6 story structure on this site, that will overlook the Newport Bay and is viewed by many In the City, preserves natural land forms, one of the key parts of the CLOP Is beyond land use planning reconciliation. In that the policies In the GP/ LCP are stated generally does not allow the staff to gerrymander around these policies with findings to provide development of this unprecedented scale. The MND discusses aesthetics but, somehow avoids the study and the making of findings in specific regard to the comparison scale of the surrounding structures (in a community that the General Plan Intends to protect) in regard to the proposed massive building. Although the noise and air quality of this residential community are impacted deeply by grading and the operation of hauling, it is the following picture that your department intends to represent that this fulfills the Vision of the beach community wanted by so many In the development of the new General Plan. This image is not in the vision. 02/2MG08 '�-. k01 m Varin, Ginger From: Campbell, James Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 4:04 PM t+5 To: Varin, Ginger Subject: RE: Proposed Aerie Condominiums This is one that I did not hand to you. It looks like it went to 6 of 7 commissioners - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Lepo, David Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:08 PM To: Campbell, James Cc: Varin, Ginger Subject: EV: Proposed Aerie Condominiums For the administrative record . . . David Lepo, Director Planning Department City of Newport Beach (949) 644 -3228 w (949) 644 -3229 f - - - -- Original Message---- - From: David Kovach [mailto:david @kovachcompanies.com) Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 11:45 AM To: Lepo, David Cc: rhawkins @earthlink.net; scott.peotter @taxfighter.com; bhillgrenehighrhodes.com; jeff.cole @cushwake.com; eaton727 @earthlink.net; strataland @earthlink.net; ADK1 (E -mail) Subject: Proposed Aerie Condominiums Mr. Lepo, The continued movement of this proposal within the city remains a serious concern for the entire Newport Beach citizenry. Thank you for your consideration of my thoughts on the subject, as provided enclosed. If possible, I would appreciate any comment or response you can provide. As well, I am happy to discuss the project as you deem appropriate. Thank you. David Kovach 1 G� Page t of 1 Varin, Ginger Subject; FW aerie project From: Robert C. Hawkins [mal[th:rhawkinsdlearthlink net] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 9:46 AM To: dinhoff@sbcglobal.net Cc Varin, Ginger; 'Barry Eaton': Lepo, David Subject: RE: aerie project Greetings, Thank you Ms. Linhoff for your comments on this important project By this email, I am forwarding your comments to the Planning Department for inclusion in the administrative record on this project. Thanks again. RGH From: dinhoff@sbcglobal.rtet [mailto:elinhoff@sbcgkrbal.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2006 5:03 PM To: rhawkins@earthlink.net Subject Fw: aerie project — Original Message — From: elMsbegla al.net To: rehawkhisftearthlink.net Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 7:42 AM Subject: aerie project Dear Chairman Hawkins: I strongly urge the Planning Commission to require a full El for this project The environmental effects of this projects are huge and the precedent it sets is irreversible. The digging into the bluff to such an extent goes against the General Plan. The project is out of scale with the neighborhood. Please either deny this project (which would save the applicant time and money) or require a full EIR. Elaine Linhoff 1780 Ecean Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92661 No virus found in this incoming message. Ci ecked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5516 / Vin►s Database: 26920 .811289. - Release Dates 2r20/2008 1026 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 26920.811289 - Release Date: 2/20/2008 10.26 AM 02/20/2008 �. \OIA Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 ECT: AERIE CONDOMINIUMS 201 & 207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place e application would allow the demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartmer ilding and a single - family home and the construction of a 6- level, 8 -un rltiple- family residential condominium complex with subterranea rking on a 1.4 acre site located bayward of the intersection of Ocea ulevard and Carnation Avenue. The existing General Plan, Coast nd Use Plan and Zoning Designations of a small portion of the site (58 uare feet) would be changed to be consistent with the larger portion c s site (from two- family residential to multi - family residential). Th plication includes a tentative tract map for the creation of eight (£ ndominium units for individual sale. The Modification Permit applicatio luests the encroachment of subterranean portions of the building withi ) front and side yard setbacks. Lastly, the Coastal Residenti; welopment Permit application relates to replacement of demolishe artments occupied by low or moderate income households. No unil seting this criteria are known to exist, and therefore, no replacement c ordable housing units is required. Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City wport Beach in connection with the application. The Mitigated Negat claration states that the subject development will not result in nificant impact on the environment. Campbell gave an overview of the staff report noting that the appl redesigned the project based on the City Council's decision identi predominant line of existing development at 50.7 feet mean sea L). He then noted the General Plan Amendment, Coastal Land r Amendment, Code Amendment, Tract Map, Modification and Cc idential Development Permit requests. The Mitigated Neg laration has been revised providing additional analysis related b 3ed project. ier Eaton asked about the sufficiency of the Mitigated Net and a requirement for a full Environmental Impact Report. Campbell answered that staff believes the Mitigated iration is sufficient and recommends action be taken to n tion to the City Council. Harp noted his agreement. ick Julian, applicant, gave an overview of the history of his applicatior Ah to the Planning Commission and City Council. At the direction of the ity Council, there is now a scaled -back version of the project for Planninc ommission review. He noted the building has been designed above the ).7 MSL and is at a higher level than the existing apartment building. sere is a reduction in the proposed living area of 25 %, the units have sen reduced from nine to eight but the parking remains the same. Gues arking has been designed at street level and a turning area has beer eated at the bottom level to improve efficiency. The view corridor ha: sen opened further from what exists today by eleven feet at the corner o Page 2 of 12 ITEM NO. 3 PA2005 -196 Recommended for approval MLO-01 Commission,PC Minutes\rrm02212008.httn 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 an and Carnation Boulevards resulting in a 44 degree range. TI nosed height has been lowered by four feet from the prior plan and below the height limit. The majority of this square footage has be, rporated underground and out of sight and over 38% of the buildii be below the existing grade of the property today. 46% of the buildii cture represents mechanical, storage, parking and circulation. AER ,rporates state of the art technology to preserve and improve tl ronment. Additional benefits from this project are three additional C at parking, LEED Certification design and reduction of traffic in t r. He noted the varied roof, deck and window designs in the project. r. Brion Jeannette, architect of the project, made a PowerPoin esentation noting the first level of the building is at 53.50 MSL; eigh sits; square footage reduced by 17.6 %; guest panting at street level west level is totally subterranean; basement area will have recreationa ;es for tenants only; this basement area will need a modification to creat< e exiting from the building to an attached existing stairway down to th( each; the first level has a maximum deck extension of ten to twelve feet e second floor is at 65.0; the third floor is at 76.0 and has no decl :tensions; the fourth floor is at 86.0; the proposed project has been pullet )wn and has less height; the exterior is stone finish with exterior plaster rblic views are enhanced; vehicular elevators are servicing seven units rck -up spaces provided in sub - basement floor; dock design layout is irrently going through the Harbor Resources Department although that is )t part of this review tonight. mmissioner Eaton asked what the color rendering on the dock lay resented and was told it was eel grass and the docks were situated not to shadow the eel grass. Lepo noted that the docks are not part of this project application. , mmission inquiry, he noted the only item that could be considered wou that part that touches the land. issioner Cole asked about the predominant line of development. Ir. Jeannette answered the first finished floor is at 53.5. The City Cot irected the predominant line of development at 50.7. He added that tt rill be an additional 2.9 feet to the bottom of the building and will dditional bluff face all the way around. issioner Toerge noted, and it was confirmed, that there is ition approximately 20 feet below the predominant line of axis pment behind the bluff face. Paone, Land Use Counsel for the project noted that under CEQA yoL with an Initial Study (IS); that IS may demonstrate that there is e ntial for significant environmental impacts; the decision is made tc are a Mitigated Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report. Mitigated Negative Declaration deals with the issues that have beer �d and when circulated addresses those issues, then that is sufficient. question becomes is there a fair argument of a potential significan :t remaining after all the discussion and disclosures contained in the Page 3 of 12 <,- 1010 file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\nm02212008.htrn 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 gated Negative Declaration. The CEQA guidelines equate fai ument and substantial evidence as one in the same. Either way then to be substantial evidence; argument, unsubstantiated speculation lion, all of those types of things are not substantial evidence. Someoni agreeing with the conclusions of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, th( iclusion of the analysis or if someone says something could happen is r or opinion and is an issue that is addressed. It is our view that then t substantial evidence to contradict these points. Substantial evidencr isists of facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts am iert opinion supported by facts. Harp noted a general concern that was raised in the presentati rding the slips are not part of the project plans that have be nitted. That impact on the eel grass has not been analyzed in tl lated Negative Declaration. He questioned whether the applicant ig for some modification or change to plans that were submitted. Jeannette answered they are not asking for the dock approval tonig even the review. He felt it was important that the Commissii lerstand the whole scope of the project, which is why you at least sl it we are presenting. It is going through the Harbor Resources and sting has been set up to review the environmental documents Man 2008. No change is requested on what is being presented tonight. Harp noted the issue raised is if there is a 'piecemeal' situation, is something for the Commission to determine. Paone added that the decision had been made to not include tl :s as part of the project. If they were ever to be included it was to be, when, down the road. However, in the interim, Harbor Resourcr artment notified the owners that there was a public health and safe with respect to the docks. As a result of that and followir assion and negotiation, it was deemed an emergency situation by ti and a dock plan was submitted for review. There is an exemption A 15.296C of the Guidelines which provide that work to correct rgency will be exempt from the requirements of CEQA. nissioner Toerge asked if it was the existing docks in their that were determined to be a hazard. Paone answered yes blic comment was opened. McCaffrey, president of the Board of Directors of the Channel mmunity Association noted their board has voted unanimously in this project. At Channel Reef with forty-eight living units all )ugh one gate to the garage proper there has never been ck Nichols of Corona del Mar noted his support of the project noting good looking project and is a multi - family residential project. He ac at several other homes in Corona del Mar have a basement that is bE Page 4 of 12 file : //Y: \Users\PLMShared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mn02212008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 and noted this was a precedent. h Dawson, noted the potential necessary excavation; the project has e economic sense; this project has taken enough time and he ask this be approved. Webb, noted she supports the application as the project will be to the community and is a property right and should be approved. Varon, noted his support of the application as the architect h londed to the direction of the City Council and supports the applicant. Beck, noting his letter sent to the Commission, asked about th( )osed structure and the horizontal predominant line of development. asked if it technically meets the requirements of predominant line e ical development if you are building a couple of floors below that eves (gh it is not visible. This is the first project to go through the refine( ( of looking at bluff development standards. en McIntosh, noted her concerns of alterations to significant nati forms, protection of existing habitat, need for a comp nmental Impact Report, and enormity of proposed complex plan. fission inquiry, she presented her written comments. int Moore noted his support of the project as this is a welcomed the community. i Vallejo noted her concerns of the Ocean Blvd curb cuts; this project endorsed by Coast Keepers; the docks are part of this project; s ig twenty feet lower than the 50.7 predominant line of developmei mitted a request for a full and complete Environmental Impact Rep( a Mitigated Negative Declaration is inadequate with many issue tted or not properly evaluated; and, all citizens need to be represent protected. She was unable to present her written comments that we jested by Chairman Hawkins. 3 Bedgey noted his support of the project as the applicant has done was requested of him by the City Council. arilyn Beck stated she is not in support of the project as the Coastal se Plan policies are not being adhered to and would be precedents( it was allowed and future deterioration of the bluff will happen when )mes on Carnation seek redevelopment. At Commission inquiry, -esented her written comments. Rasner noted his support of the project for similarly stated rea: added that the engineers who have certified this project are ?rts and have credentials. He noted the views, lowered height visible stories and this project meets the FAR style. Eldridge noted his support of the project adding that car e well and this project will be an improvement to the community Page 5 of 12 G .,off file : //Y:1Users\PLN\SharedlPlanning CommissionlPC Minutes\mn02212008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 :e Hansen noted she is not in favor of the project as she is concerne the integrity of the bluff and change of character of the neighborhood. co Gonzalez of Coast Law Group representing the Vallejos referen submitted letter noted the procedural issues with CEQA; Mitig ative Declaration for the larger project has not been appro struction impacts; Coastal Commission letter dated in May 2007 been answered; and you can't excavate the bluff and protect the the same time. Harp noted the Mitigated Negative Declaration has changed over has been re- circulated. A larger project was analyzed but now a smaller project. There is nothing wrong with approval of the )ated Negative Declaration. hn Martin noted his opposition to the project citing the lack of ivironmental Impact Report (EIR); the project is out of scale and an appropriate; we will see this project graded and we will ask how did this happen; we will all be sorry to see this if you let it go forward. Brly Johnson noted it could be more massive and this is a good will be good for the community. comment was closed. i Jeannette noted that there were no plant, flora or fauna idenl needed to be protected; this is a four -story building with ?ments; and the footprint of the building is almost identical to the is there today. missioner Hillgren asked about the demolition and excavation of face process. and whether the excavation below the PLOED wi rb the bluff face below that line. r. Jeannette answered the excavation along the bluff face will be inimum of three to five feet within the existing bluff mass and would r sturb the fluff face below the PLOED. He then explained the proce eluding shoring, testing of the integrity of surroundings. r. Cole asked about the massing and density, is there a request for Jeannette answered there is more open space provided, the units larger than the homes in the neighborhood, more parking is availal re is no request for a variance; however, there is a modification for xoachment into the side yard that is below grade so they are not visi n the street. There is nothing above height or buildable area or : of variances. missioner Eaton asked about the gate operation for guest parking; Page 6 of 12 Fi .00% file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes\n-n02212008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 Jeannette answered it is a keypad operation with a phone that led in a center island even if the gate is moved in closer and discuss widths /lengths. Referencing his packet submittal he noted 1 ;hed elevator companies information. He explained there will be t ators in operation for ingress /egress. imissioner Toerge asked if the Public Works staff had an opportun lyze the gate, location of the key pad stanchion and driveway as not noted on the plans. Jeannette answered he will have to make that happen. Hawkins asked staff if they had safety concerns with of the keypad? Brine answered yes, he has concern about the reduction of the v the placement of the keypad in the center of a twenty foot aisle. sd they have not seen a plan with this in place. imissioner Toerge, referencing the exhibit, asked about the security garage area allowing guests and tenants to use the parking a out an access barrier. Jeannette answered that had not been brought up in the past but Id be willing to look at that opportunity. finer Toerge noted the improvements made to the garage area and guest parking have improved the parking program for thi: ommissioner McDaniel asked about the procedure for a gate )mmunity. He noted his concern of anyone being able to use the there is no gate. Lepo answered that there ought to be some sort of signal device. Id be posted as residents only. Brine added that in a typical gate guarded community when we revie s we look for sufficient length for storage of vehicles and look for - around. In a situation such as this a visitor not having the corn sss code and unable to contact the homeowner would be forced c out onto Carnation. That does not meet our normal requirements 1 �-auarded access. Peotter asked about the park dedication fee. Lepo answered the appraisal was adjusted in July 2007; however :edent has been set that there is credit for existing units and because project reduces the number of units, a park fee will not be required. Campbell noted a condition to be added to address the unc ;s on the first, second and third floors along Bayside Place that Page 7 of 12 file: //Y: \Users\PLMShared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes\mn02212008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 the required setback. They are not part of the modification permit ication as they were discovered late and not noticed. We are jesting this condition to eliminate them from this project. The added lition would be, "The project shall be revised to eliminate roachments in the required 90 foot 7 inch side yard setback tong Bayside Place." Referencing the exhibit, he pointed out the was suggested and agreed to replace the existing language of Condition 2 with this new language. Jeannette noted he would like the opportunity to work this out and to spt a condition to meet Code is something they have to work with. He d the encroachments are minimal and is not pleased to have to )mmissioner Hillgren asked about Condition 13. Mr. Lepo answered this a Coastal Commission requirement and refers to the understanding of s property owner that if they build on bluff face that is being eroded they e not able to go to Coastal Commission for a permit for abutments or ur concrete, etc. sioner Peotter inquired about the type of photometric study under Condition 10. Campbell answered that the study will have analysis on the amount of : on the ground and that it not dissipate off the project site. nissioner Peotter inquired about curbs referenced in Condition 11. is the Planning Commission reviewing this? Lepo answered this is standard language and where it does not apply II not be enforced. Campbell answered the review came about at the past discussion by Commission. nmissioner Toerge noted the Planning Commission review of these ns means there is an opportunity for the public review and input. He led that the Construction, Traffic Management and Parking Plans need be reviewed by the Commission particularly since we are using a igated Negative Declaration and not an Environmental Impact Report. noted that Condition 20 talks about water leaving the project site due to �r- irrigation and asked if it would be appropriate to require satellite Lepo noted this condition is for when an errant sprinkler head goes off, gives the Code Enforcement personnel extra leverage to force sr Eaton noted his support of this project as it is less He opined there is a difference between a bluff face and a Page 8 of 12 t, \1k file: //Y: \Users \PLN\5hared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\nm02212008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 and in this case where there is rock bluff faces that can be protectec left undisturbed and meets the intent of the revised policies which the ncil adopted to address this situation. Guest parking is at the stree I and is an advantage and the matter of security needs to be worke( before the Council meeting. There are a lot of mitigation measure: -essing construction management and parking management issues. car elevators are unusual for the City but are workable. The project is g to be a landmark and is consistent with the General Plan and the stal Land Use Plan. Campbell noted the guest parking area on the first level shows ,ing spaces. There is a lack of a hammerhead on one of those spac :h will make it difficult to use. There is a condition to allow the Tra ineer to further review that parking area. If that is not resolved the ild be a loss of one parking space. There is a recommendation to sc k the storage areas on the lower level to enhance the maneuvering one garage downstairs. These minor details are typically handled plan check stage. Currently they are over - parked now. Brine noted there is a chance of losing one parking space on and level due to the maneuverability issue. We can work with itect on this issue. was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded ssioner Hillgren per staff recommendation with the modification on 12. He proposed to delete the requirement for Plannl ssioner review in Condition 11 and insert Planning Director and approval. A straw vote was taken and a majority approved. missioner Eaton, referring to Condition 102, the P mission would be the approving body and done at one time. taken, majority approved. ,ing a brief discussion, the change to Condition 102 would read to issuance of a Demolition Permit, the Contractor shall submit e uction staging, parking and traffic control plan for approval by the ing Commission....." Straw vote was taken and majority approved. rill be a public hearing and duly noticed. After a brief discussion i pproved that this may come back at various times if necessary with language that staff would make the determination. immissioner Toerge noted his earlier objections to this proposal were the sdominate line of development; the mass of the project and compatibility :h adjacent neighboring structures and parking arrangement as it ww t convenient. An EIR is not required although I don't agree with all the itements in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, That the view corridor. ve been expanded is a significant change and will be of a huge benefi the community. This project will go to the Council for the final approval. any concerns with regard to parking have been raised; however, they ve been addressed by the applicant. He recommended disapproval of Ic to installation unless the keypad, queuing and turn - around opportunities n be worked out favorably with the Traffic Engineer. However, these ,re not on the prior plan and creates problems. Putting a gate there Page 9 of 12 file: //Y:1UserslPLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mn02212008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 eats the effort of placing all the parking on the ground level. The guest king is not for beach parking. He added the parking in the storage area lout tying up one of the elevators is an improvement. The predominant of existing development was approved by the City Council at 50.7 feet )ve mean sea level. What is proposed is an excavation 20 feet below 50.7 foot PLOED, resulting in a forty-foot cut from the curb face at rnation. If we did not allow any development below that predominant of development the property would still be cutting twenty feet of the ff away and going subterranean and affording rights that other perties have had together with the opportunity to go thirty-three feet h above the curb. Referencing page eight of the draft resolution, he ed that where it says the lower portion of the bluff will remain in their sting condition is not accurate. Referencing page eleven, regarding the Iding not extending below 50.7 feet, it does extend below. This is not isistent with what the Council approved nor with other development on rnation as none of them encroach this far down twenty feet below the sting predominant line of development. On page thirteen there is a tement regarding project not extending below this elevation, and it does end below the line even though its not visible. These statements are se and misleading and should the Commission be inclined to approve project, the Commission should consider revising the language in these continued referencing Coastal Resource Protection Policy 4.4.1 -3 larding the predominant line of development is established not only to it the visible encroachment into the bluff but all throughout the CLUP we c about minimizing the alterations to the coastal bluff. To allow this velopment to go twenty feet below the PLOED does not minimize =ration to the bluff. This does not fall under components of approval of City Council. Regardless of what happens here, this issue will to back them. The added square footage will be massive and is not compatible h the neighborhood. He then opined on the development of Channel ref. Land Use component 5.1.9 .suggests we want to convey the aracter in these MFR zones of separate or clusters of living units and oid the appearance of a singular building volume. This project does not it as it is a massive singular building volume. Preserving the coastal iff, visual impact of the community and integrity of the Coastal Land Use in is not consistent with this project. He will not be supporting this hairman Hawkins noted the language on page 8 of 34 in the resolution, iggested the term bluff face throughout the items noted. missioner Toerge asked what happens if during the construction the is broken? He suggested that the Commission decide on the correct missioner Peotter amended his motion to include the term 'face' after on page 8 of 34; on page 11 of 34 and page 13 of 34 add, "...visible on of the.... ". The seconded of the motion agreed. imissioner Peotter noted this is a better project based on the policies rules governed by the City Council. Page 10 of 12 x.113 file: //Y: \Users \PLN\5hared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \mn02212008.htm 07/15/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 02/21/2008 Page 11 of 12 Commissioner Cole noted his support of the project and stated that the applicant has responded to the direction of the City Council resulting in a smaller project, enhanced views and better parking. It is consistent with he revised Coastal Land Use Policy and has community support. Certain language that has been adopted by the City in the General Plan Update and the CLUP is being used to restrict private property owners from developing reasonable development. Commissioner McDaniel noted his support of the project. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel and Hillgren Noes: Toerge Abstain: None SUBJECT: Fury Rok and Rol Sushi Lounge (PA2005 -087) ITEM NO.4 4221 Dolphin Striker Way (PA200"87) Revocation of Use Permit No. 3162 and Use Permit No. 2005 -018. Continued to 03/06/2008 The minutes of this portion of the meeting were taken by a Court Stenographer and presented for approval when received. Substitute Motion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Commissioner Cole that the City Attorney will determine whether or not a Hearing Officer is appropriate. If a Hearing Officer is appropriate he will be assigned and hear the case by March 6th. If the City Attorney decides the Planning Commission is the appropriate body then we will hear it March 6th. In the meantime, Fury will hire a new security company and have hem fully on board by Monday, February 25th and a new security plan submitted to the Police Department for approval by Wednesday February 7th and the security company will be in place by February 29th. yes: Eaton, Peotter, Cole and Hillgren Noes: Hawkins, McDaniel and Toerge bstain: None DITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS It was a d that due to the late hour this portion of the agenda was ancel led. Cancelled a. City Council Folio - b. Report from Planning Com . ion's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Report from the Planning Commissi representative to the General Plan /Local Coastal Program Implem tion Committee - Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like S o report on at a subsequent meeting - Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on future agenda for action and staff report - Project status - t -04 file: //Y: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\nm02212008.htm 07/15/2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 3 May 17, 2007 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3210, icamr)bell5city .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 PROJECT SUMMARY The AERIE project consists of the demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment building and single - family residence and the construction of a new 9 -unit residential condominium building. The following discretionary approvals are requested or required in order to implement the project as designed: 1. General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -006 would change the land use designation of a 584 square foot portion of 101 Bayside Place from RT (Two -Unit Residential) to RM (Multiple -Unit Residential, 20 dwelling units per acre). 2. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -002 would change the Coastal Land Use Plan designation of the same 584 square foot portion of 101 Bayside Place from RH -D (High Density Residential - 50.1 to 60 dwelling units per acre) to RM -A (Medium Density Residential - 6.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre). 3. Zone Change No. 2005 -009 would change the zoning designation of the 584 square foot portion of 101 Bayside Place from R -2 (Two - Family Residential) to MFR (Multifamily Residential, 2178 square feet per unit). 4. Tract Map No. 2005 -004 (TT16882) combines the 584 square foot portion of 101 Bayside Place with 201 -205 Carnation Avenue and 207 Carnation Avenue and subdivides the air space for 9 residential condominium units. 5. Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 would permit a 5 -foot subterranean encroachment within the 10 -foot front setback along Carnation Avenue, and a 3' -1" to 5' -7" above- AERIE (PA200 5-196) May 17, 2007, Page 2 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. Each discretionary approval request, analysis and their respective findings are discussed in the February 22, 2007, staff report attached as Exhibit #1. Facts to support the findings are contained in the attached draft resolutions recommending project approval to the City Council RECOMMENDATION 1) Consider the revised draft MND; and, 2) Adopt one of the two attached draft resolutions recommending that the City Council adopt the draft MND and approve the project consistent with the predominant line of existing development as determined by the Planning Commission and approve General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -006, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -002, Code Amendment No. 2005 -009, Newport Tract Map No. 2005 -004 (Tract 16882), Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -002 (Exhibit #2 and #3). Project Revisions In response to Planning Commission direction at the February 22, 2007 meeting, the applicant modified the project by reducing 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 northwestern portion of the building extended further away from the bluff edge than the southeastern portion of the building. The applicant revised the plans 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. Overall the project changes reduced the overall floor area by 527 square feet. Since the Planning Commission meeting of April 5, 2007, the applicant has further revised the project again. The lowest extent of the project as seen from the west will be 30.5 feet above mean sea level (previously 29 feet MSL). The finished floor of Level 1 is now 18 inches higher on the bluff face. The lowest visible extent of the north elevation will vary between 59 feet and 30.5 feet MSL. The revised plans (Exhibit #4) include the changes directed by the Planning Commission at the February 22, 2007, meeting. >r � & AERIE (PA2005 -196) May 17, 2007, Page 3 Specific Coastal Land Use (CLUP) Policies vs. General CLUP Policies Project approval requires the Planning Commission to find that the proposed condominium building is consistent with applicable General Plan, CLUP policies, and the Zoning Code. Because the project site is a coastal bluff, project review has focused on CLUP policies relating to protection of coastal bluffs and views of the bluff as part of the scenic and visual quality of the coastal zone. These policies are set forth below. This report will outline the range of possible outcomes based upon the application of these policies. CLUP policies 4.4.1 -1, 4.4.1 -2 and 4.4.1 -3 are general policy statements that apply to all development. 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. CLUP policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9 apply to the project site and provide specific policy direction. 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. 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. At the April 5, 2007, staff report, staff indicated that development up to the predominant line of existing development should not be allowed if the Planning Commission determined that this effort alone did not sufficiently minimize alteration of the bluff. Staff reached this conclusion by attempting to balance Policy 4.4.1 -3 with the two more "liq AERIE (PA2005 -196) May 17, 2007, Page 4 specific policies (Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9) that allow development to be sited on the Carnation Avenue bluff face consistent with the predominant line of existing development. Staff has met with the applicant and also been advised by the City Attorney that a specific policy takes precedence over a more general policy when there appears to be a potential conflict in their application. This does not mean, however, that the general policies are not applicable in the implementation of the more specific policies. Accordingly, the location of the predominant line of existing development pursuant to Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9 must first be identified as the means of minimizing alteration of the bluff. Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9 allow development to the predominant line of existing development and Policies 4.4.1 -1 and 4.4.1 -2 require development be designed to minimize irgpacts to public coastal views and to protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, including public views. Determining the predominant line of existing development in a manner that is also consistent with Policies 4.4.1 -1 and 4.4.1 -2 will ensure that development up to the predominant line of existing development will minimize alteration of the bluff and protect public coastal views and the scenic and visual quality of the coastal zone. If the development up to the predominant line of existing development is perceived to be inconsistent with the intent of the more general policies, the method to identify the predominant line of existing development may be flawed. Predominant Line of Existing Development The Planning Commission must determine the location of the predominant line of existing development. As noted in prior staff reports and the revised MND, establishing the predominant line of existing development is subjective. Although staff has identified a predominant line of existing development in the revised MND, the Commission may determine that the predominant line of existing development should be set at a location different than the one identified by staff in the revised MND based upon an alternative interpretation of CLUP policies. The most conservative application of the polices might suggest that no portion of the project could extend further bayward or lower on the bluff face than the existing development located on the project site. Staff does not believe this application of policy is consistent with the definition of predominant line of existing development contained within the CLUP as it would not take into account existing abutting development on the bluff face that is developed further down the bluff face. Additionally, it would also suggest that minimizing the alteration of the bluff might mean no alteration is allowed. The first step to identify the predominant line of existing development consistent with CLUP policies is to locate a block of homes on the bluff face that are representative of the existing development pattern. The next step is to measure the distance between the structures within the block of homes selected and a representative point or line. The definition of predominant line of development within the CLUP contains an example suggesting that the predominant line of existing development may be the median distance of the block of homes. The median distance is then compared to the entire �eti�8 AERIE (PA2005 -196) May 17, 2007, Page 5 block of homes to ensure that it is represents the existing development pattern. If it does not represent the development pattern, it would not be consistent with the general resource protection policies discussed above and a different method to identify the predominant line of existing development should be examined. In staffs opinion, the calculation of the median distance (used by staff to arrive at a predominant line of existing development in the draft MND) should be considered the starting point and should not be the sole basis for determining the predominant line of existing development. In developing the predominant line of existing development as set forth in the revised MND, the definition of the predominant line of development was used. Staff identified a block of homes consisting of 7 principal structures constructed on the bluff face as shown in Exhibit #5. These structures were identified for the purpose of analysis as they are all located on Carnation Avenue /Ocean Boulevard bluff face and share similar topographical features. The elevation of each structure above mean sea level was measured based upon available topographic and elevation information. The median elevation was calculated. Fifty -two (52) feet above mean sea level was identified as the median value within the draft MND and that led staff to identify it as the vertical predominant line of existing development as it appears to be consistent with the existing development pattern. Since this analysis was prepared, the applicant has provided additional information on the vertical extent of development down the bluff face (Exhibit #6). The following table indicates the 7 lots within the block of homes evaluated with elevation information and median values identified. Based upon this more accurate elevation information, staff concludes that the predominant line of existing development could be 50.7 feet above MSL. The structures located on Bayside Place, Channel Reef condominium development and the Kerchoff Marine Laboratory were not included as they are not located on the bluff face but rather in front of the bluff. If Channel Reef is included in the calculation, with an approximate elevation of 14.15 feet, the median elevation is 49.4 feet above MSL. If the Kerchoff Marine Laboratory is included, the median elevation is 48.1 feet above MSL. Staff has also evaluated the or plan view using the sam development from the curb The median distance from tl included, the median distan predominant line of existing development in the horizontal , block of homes identified above. The furthest extent of vas estimated from aerial photography and project plans. • curb is approximately 96.7 feet. When Channel Reef is • from the curb is 103.3 feet. The project extends further MND vertical elevation Lowest vertical elevation 1. 2495 Ocean Blvd. 30.5 24.10 2. 201 -205 Carnation Ave. 52 median value 42.3 3. 207 Carnation Ave. 70 65 estimated 4. 215 Carnation Ave. 57 57.8 5. 221 -223 Carnation Ave. 48 48.1 6. 227 -231 Carnation Ave. 59 58.2 7. 233 Carnation Ave. 50 50.7 median value Based upon this more accurate elevation information, staff concludes that the predominant line of existing development could be 50.7 feet above MSL. The structures located on Bayside Place, Channel Reef condominium development and the Kerchoff Marine Laboratory were not included as they are not located on the bluff face but rather in front of the bluff. If Channel Reef is included in the calculation, with an approximate elevation of 14.15 feet, the median elevation is 49.4 feet above MSL. If the Kerchoff Marine Laboratory is included, the median elevation is 48.1 feet above MSL. Staff has also evaluated the or plan view using the sam development from the curb The median distance from tl included, the median distan predominant line of existing development in the horizontal , block of homes identified above. The furthest extent of vas estimated from aerial photography and project plans. • curb is approximately 96.7 feet. When Channel Reef is • from the curb is 103.3 feet. The project extends further AERIE (PA2005 -196) May 17, 2007, Page 6 away from the bluff than this distance. The applicants identification of the horizontal predominant line of existing development as measured from the curb and bluff edge have also been plotted by staff. These lines do not appear to be representative of the existing development pattern of structures on the bluff face. The inclusion of the Channel Reef condominium development and the Kerchoff Marine Laboratory in the calculations creates the difference between staffs analysis and the applicants. It does appear that the existing development pattern follows the approximate bluff edge with the exception of development of the two abutting single - family homes to the south and Channel Reef. The applicant has prepared several exhibits showing the bluff face with the project superimposed as viewed from the bay. The exhibits contain various lines and elevations above mean sea level. The applicant has not provided a calculation or identified a methodology to determine the predominant line of existing development that supports the revised project using elevations above mean sea level. Staff has prepared an alternative method of calculating the median elevation of existing development as a means to locating a predominant line of existing development consistent with the vertical extent of development pf the proposed project. The applicant identified a block of homes within the AERIE Project Overview (previously transmitted to the Commission) for the purpose of identifying the predominant line of existing development. This block of structures extends roughly 250 feet northerly and 250 feet easterly from the intersection of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. The lowest extent of development on the Carnation Avenue portion of the block is approximately 42.3 feet (project site) and the lowest extent of development on the Ocean Boulevard portion of the block is approximately 14.15 feet (Channel Reef). The median elevation of these two values is also the average and it is 28.3 feet above MSL. If this method is used to identify the predominant line of existing development, the project may be consistent with CLUP Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9 if the entire structure is up -slope from this line. Additionally, the project may be viewed as further minimizing alteration of the bluff and protecting the view of and scenic quality of the coastal bluff as required by CLUP policies 4.4.1 -1, 4.4.1 -2 and 4.4.1 -3 as the entire building does not extend to the predominant line of existing development. The line of development exhibits prepared by the applicant (within Exhibit #3) show the revised project and its relationship to surrounding development. From a purely subjective standpoint, the revised project line steps down in elevation from left to right on the drawings making a reasonable transition between abutting development on the bluff face. If this line is representative of the existing development pattern on the bluff, the Commission may use it for the basis of project approval. Parking Configuration In the last staff report, staff suggested that the project may be inconsistent with CLUP Policy 2.9.3 -1 and Circulation Element Policy CE7.1.1 regarding the parking configuration. These policies require new development to avoid the use of parking configurations or parking management programs that are difficult to maintain and >tLO AERIE (PA2005 -196) May 17, 2007, Page 7 enforce while providing adequate, convenient parking for residents, guests, business patrons and visitors. The below grade parking accessed by vehicle elevators is not the most convenient and may lead to vehicle queuing within the public right -of -way. Residents, guests and service providers might be more inclined to park on the street when it is more convenient to do so. One potential option is to relocate the vehicle elevators in such a way that they are not accessed directly from the street but from within Level 4. In that way, vehicles would pull off the street and wait for the elevators on -site rather than potentially blocking the street or sidewalk. The Commission will need to determine whether or not the proposed parking configuration is consistent with the subject policies. Eliminating the use of vehicle lifts altogether does. not appeal feasible given the density of the proposed project, parking requirements and space needs if vehicle ramps are incorporated within the parking garage design. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration As noted previously, the draft MND has been revised and recirculated for public review (Exhibit #7). The comment period is between April le and May 15, 2007. The draft MND was reviewed by the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee and their comments, along with any other comments received, will be forwarded to the Commission for consideration at or before the meeting depending upon when they are received. The decision to recirculate the document was made due to the amount and nature of revisions previously recommended and the need to address a new public view issue. Revisions to address prior comments made by the Planning Commission have been incorporated. Additionally, the project's potential impact upon public views from Begonia Park were included (page 23 of the revised draft MND). The project will marginally reduce the view of the harbor entrance, Balboa Peninsula and a portion of the coastal bluff from this vantage point, the impact was determined not to be significant. Although staff identified the predominant line of existing development at 52 feet above MSL, a different predominant line of existing development can be identified without necessitating recirculation of the draft MND. Staff has further revised the basis for the identification of the predominant line of existing development based upon more detailed elevation information such that the predominant line of existing development is 50.7 feet, rather than 52 feet, above MSL and the proposed mitigation measure would need to be revised accordingly. If the Planning Commission identifies an alternative predominant line of existing development that accommodates the proposed project, it will not identify a new environmental impact and the Mitigation Measure IX -5 is not necessary. If an alternative predominant line of existing development is set by the Planning Commission, Mitigation Measure IX -5 will need to be modified accordingly. f. 19A AERIE (PA2005 -196) May 17, 2007, Page 6 SUMMARY Identification of the predominant line of existing development is necessary to act on the project. The line must be consistent with Policies 4.4.1 -1, 4.4.1 -2 and 4.4.1 -3 requiring new development to minimize alteration of the coastal bluff, to protect public views of the bluff and to protect the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone. If the Commission determines the predominant line of existing development to be 50.7 feet above MSL as identified in the draft MND, then the applicant should be directed to redesign the project consistent with this determination or the project can be recommended for approval with a condition requiring such a change (Exhibit #2). If the Commission determines the predominant line of existing development to be at or beyond the revised project, the revised project can be recommended for approval (Exhibit #3). If an alternative predominant line of existing development is identified, revisions to either resolution will be necessary to reflect and implement the Planning Commission's action. As noted previously, a discussion and analysis of each discretionary approval request including their respective findings are contained in the February 22, 2007, staff report attached as Exhibit #1. Facts to support the findings are contained in both of the attached draft resolutions recommending project approval to the City Council. Prepared by: James Campbell, Senior Planner EXHIBITS Submitted by: David Lepo, Planning Director de'oelepmeRt at 28.8 feet MGI:) 5. Predominant line of existing development exhibits prepared by staff 6. Additional elevation /grade material submitted by the applicant Exhibit #5 Predominant line of existing development exhibits prepared by staff �.�a3 C a 1 Y � ur � �Y�x .Q Median elevation of the seven structures is 50.7 feet MSL. � ug. « / E ������ m-a-, 146' -3" From Bluff Edge (Decks) �q SCPn$ jy r e��*� 'Sans• 112' -11 "From Bluff Edge (Building) Approximate Bluff Edge Predominant Line of Development From AERIE Project Overview (From Approximate Bluff Edge) RT , 1A 6 9 �Im3 Sti M 4iIN . o`9 Mt �Y w f� Al Exhibit #6 Additional elevation /grade material submitted by the applicant X31 . PLANNING ENGINEERING SURVEYING GOVERNMENT RELATIONS IRVINE LOS ANGELES RIVERSIDE SAN DIEGO FOUNDING PARTNERS: RICHARD HUNSAKER TOM R, MCGANNON JOHN A. MICHLER DOUGLAS G. SNYDER PRINCIPALS: DAVID FRATTONE FRED GRAYLEE BRADLEY HAY PAUL HUDDLESTON KAMAL H. KARAM DOUGLAS L. STALEY KRIS WEBER JOSEPH C WIGHTMAN Th,ae Hughes Irvine, Califamia 92618 -2021 19491383 -1010 PH 19491 S83 WS9 FX www.hunsakercum HUN SAKE R & ASSOCIATES R V I N E, 'I N C. April 12, 2007 Mr. James Campbell City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 RE: ELEVATION CERTIFICATION Dear Mr. Campbell, This is to certify that the elevations shown on attached Exhibits A -1 through H, inclusive, are the result of a survey performed by me, or under my direct supervision in April of 2007. Elevations are based on local United States Coast and Geodetic Survey Benchmarks in the Area and are derived from the North American Vertical Datum of 1988. Elevation established on Dirt or Sand are shown to the nearest 0.1', elevations on Concrete are to the nearest 0,01'. If you should have any questions regarding the attached information please do not hesitate to call me at (949) 468 -5493. Sincerely, Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc. -6�- k-, Bruce F. Hunsaker, PLS 5921 Manager, Field Survey Department My License Expires: December 31, 2008 �- j 9- 9$ a- 4.2 � / \� \ ^�� \� � .......... RIMR f4 �R t ' IV" ai 2 g�'"8 's` :ii iwr,tW w:SSi+ �nct�«�'.,;4 t^m 4- m,r2iN 4,1. $F"*a� ,i',.irYs t t r .g• uir' ..AMC `Frye 'r> v.k a f Op " �'�jl� f � isF R> a,Gt , . t g .� Al Cor. ry ' � 6 9 @Ground �%i6R£t5' i y�>. t t'n,. a. r ^"x F"xM1 ,fir zS0.2' CeaISSCil1 L% @iiC GBF�`so� MW ���� y% s _ 4 9 Carssott �a round 'wt+ � ;a �yy ry 1 � 1 1 S m ism 'sp � &t ti i r r r e r RIMR f4 �R t ' IV" ai 2 g�'"8 's` :ii iwr,tW w:SSi+ �nct�«�'.,;4 t^m 4- m,r2iN 4,1. $F"*a� ,i',.irYs t t r .g• uir' ..AMC `Frye 'r> v.k a f Op " �'�jl� f � isF R> a,Gt , . t g .� Al Cor. ry ' � 6 9 @Ground �%i6R£t5' i y�>. t t'n,. a. r ^"x F"xM1 ,fir zS0.2' CeaISSCil1 L% @iiC GBF�`so� MW ���� y% s _ 4 9 Carssott �a round 'wt+ � ;a �yy ry 1 � 1 1 S m ism �V WAS 1 zrm ME 4y Y 71 11 A�V� IL It, IF 0, A IM 4 54.6 Bldg. Coe. @ Ground 59.2 Bldg. Con Q, v 62.4 Bldg. Cot. Ground 56.4 Bidgcor. @ Ground W 7 11" 77 - RM qtr ;49 I 9 'A g �,�-Aetaininb Wall, A.- Va/ 4, 4 mo-N �11 llj I 9 'A g ,'.�.��' S4• q0 ",Wal�way,at ` ,, �r ,. , � s �, � f r�XIS'�IiF�S�?�l�ff�dln�{ ^/ � �a � "` (• tR ( .. �^` srl� C r, t ` .� l ♦ C'f ;`y r ' :/ rtrc pan t r k'1 M ( ,. ♦ t♦ ,itr r i KfM 1 x .y�W♦ � � ,� } ( `tit c/ 4 t - n i' p. r iY t♦ y H �< �; tv. pp i� r ' >k 53,72 Edggiof ' ;Ezlsttng W4Ikway x\ t «Ly ♦, �� .46.9 Bottom of J.a:eL� "4h1ac..,Retaining Wall IA p Lic@ ` �f $a4 ✓:i,t 6 Yr r� t <4N.4 Existing Buildif�,q 47- 5 5. 89 ou-', A 4 ,00 Existing walkwaT..V� bttOM-01. K Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 EJECT: Advanced Real Estate Services (PA2005 -196) 201 & 207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place application would allow the demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartme ding and a single - family home and the construction of a 7- level, 9 -ur Itiple- family residential condominium complex with subterranean parkir a 1.4 acre site located bayward of the intersection of Ocean Bouleva I Camation Avenue. The existing General Plan, Coastal Land Use PIS I Zoning Designations of a small portion of the site (584 square fee uld be changed to be consistent with the larger portion of the site (fro )- family residential to multi - family residential). The application includes tative tract map for the creation of 9 "airspace" condominium units i ividual sale and. The Modification Permit application requests tl rroachment of subterranean portions of the building within the front ai e yard setbacks. Lastly, the Coastal Residential Development Perr rlication relates to replacing lost units occupied by low or moderal ome households. No units meeting this criteria are known to exist ar irefore, no replacement of affordable housing is required. ss Campbell, Senior Planner, gave an overview of the staff report an ip of the project description. He noted the project has been change re- designed to pull the project up and away from the ocean which i ,facial to find the project consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan. iges to the Mitigated Negative Declaration have been made and th; iment has been re- circulated for public review. The issue left f( rmination is the predominant line of existing development. Th blishes the line to which the project could be built as seaward of th; would be inconsistent with policy and represent a significai ronmental effect. He then noted the variety of methods to define tt ominant line of development (PLOD) based upon definition containe n the Coastal Land Use Plan. missioner Hawkins noted the definition of the predominant line lopment on page 5 -19 of the CLOP. We are dealing with )minant line of "existing" development. Is that phraseology a defir in the Local Coastal Plan? Campbell answered. no, the definition is predominant line elopment, and the word "existing" comes from Policy 4.4.3 -8 and 4e He also noted that the definition in the CLUP contains an exam rating that the median distance of a block of homes from •esentative point or line might be the predominant line of exist Campbell went on to explain that staffs position on what the ominant line of existing development means has changed since the report was published. In the prior report, staff indicated that the ominant line of existing development is the maximum building envelope could be developed and the general policies to minimize alteration o bluff or the protection of public views or the protection of the visua Page 4 of 23 ITEM NO. 3 PA2005 -196 Recommended for approval by City Council ,g�. io I C Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 uality of the coast could lead to further limiting development within t predominant line of existing development — staff does not support tl application of policy. Staff believes that the applicant would have the right build to the predominant line of existing development; however, t identification of the predominant line of existing development must be do onsistent with the general resource protection policies. iff believes that the median distance, once determined, is the sta nt for analysis. In this application, staff used mean sea level as nmon reference line for measurement. He went on to explain culation of the median distance for a block of homes on a bluff-face level of subjectivity involved in the analysis. ommissioner Hawkins noted his concern with the methodole predominant line of existing development its potential inconsistency with t intent of the more general policies. He asked how to resolve the questic Mr. Campbell answered that once a candidate predominant line of existi development is identified, it must be compared to the existing developm( attem to see if it is consistent. If a potential line is not representative of t lock of homes being analyzed, the method by which the line was identifi is flawed. If that flawed line was used and if development was sited accordance with the line (assuming the line allowed more developm( han the existing development pattem), the development would not onsistent with the general policies to minimize alteration of the bluff and protect the scenic and visual qualities of the coast. You will need to look II the various factors in identifying the predominant line of existi evelopment. After consultation with the City Attorney, staff believes tt he applicant has the right to build to the predominant line of existi evelopment given the specific nature of Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9. Hawkins asked if there is a conflict between the two policies when sdominant line of existing development is identified that is representati, the existing development pattern and also conflicts with the more genes Source protection policies. >istant City Attorney Harp added the primary way to look at th( dominant line of development is by first focusing on the definition of th( dominant line of development, which says it is the most commor resentative distance from a specified group of structures to a specifies nt or line. You are not bound by the examples given of median distant( sn you determine the predominant line of development. Look at th( ictures on either side in determining what the predominant line o ,elopment is. This is an independent analysis done in conjunction wilt policies. Since there are various ways to determine the predominan of development, you can take a liberal view towards it or you can take servative view towards what the predominant line of development is. i are looking overall for a reasonableness of what the predominant lin( development is because they have a right to develop up to tha dominant line of development. If you took the general policies anc died those and said that was the rule, then you would have to apply th( Page 5 of 23 C .193 Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 6 of 23 conservative policy available and I don't think that is the intent policies. You are looking for reasonableness in setting I minant line of development based on the other structures. k Julian, applicant, gave an overview of his project noting the hitectural features, the building will not extend down to the water and will 30 112 feet above the water line; view corridor has been pulled back on corner of Ocean and Carnation; large portion of the property is single ry height along Carnation to guarantee those views; majority of square Cage is underground and out of sight; endorsed by Coast Keepers; the tours of the bluff are matched with heights ranging from 29 feet to 44 t on level one of the building. Levels two and three have been pulled ;k 15 feet on unit 7 to match that contour of the bluff. He is committed to project. in Jeannette, architect on the project, noted: No variance on this project; Requesting two minor modifications to setbacks; Project conforms to the General Plan and the Coastal Land Use Plan; It is a lessening of density in the number of units on site from 15 to 9; Utilizing 26% of the site with 74°% of the site left as open space; Project has a 1,700 square foot larger footprint than the existing building; Parking exceeds Code requirements and project area is at 76,000 square feet with most of it not visible; The project has been raised 18 inches with an elevation of 30.5; The MND has been re- circulated; Unit 7 was backed up from its promontory 15 feet, not 6 feet as mentioned in the staff report; This project will be LEED compliant, having to do with energy conservation, green architecture, net metering, water retention systems, materials used in project and landscape materials; Mr. Jeannette made a PowerPoint presentation identifying the site, Channel Reef Condominiums (2525 Ocean Blvd.) with parking structure, the McIntosh residence (2495 Ocean Blvd.) and the Sprague residence (101 Bayside Place) as well as what is on the project site presently. Public views from Carnation, Dahlia and by Channel Reef Condominiums are being preserved; Construction Management Plan - removing 31,000 cubic yards of dirt; parking plan will shuttle workers to site; timing of operation will not interfere with beach users; haul route reviewed and accepted in the MND. The haul route was reviewed and discussed. Campbell noted that the haul route suggested by the applicant was not :essarily endorsed by staff. Traffic Engineer does not want to use Iris eet as it is very narrow with the left turns and multiple stop signs. Stafl �s have concerns with that route. F , l yq Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 nmissioner Hawkins noted that the Public Works Department will have final authority on which haul route is used. Staff agreed and referred to dition 104. r. Jeannette continued with his slide presentation and discussed when e building would be put along the coast line and how the setbacks ar( ;tablished. This was the same presentation as made at a previou, eeting on February 22nd, 2007. He then noted that the Coasta :)mmission had given their input on the homes that had been built on th( (astal bluff as depicted in the slides. He reviewed the site and noted th( itegorical exclusion portions. Exhibits depicting the Kerchoff Laboraton id Channel Reef Condominium construction were discussed. He the( scussed the project and how it fits in with the surrounding residences. sferencing an exhibit of a photograph of the bluff from the West, he note( Magenta line representing the limit line that might be established by Th( :)astal Commission based on the lowest line of development. Anothe een line depicts the lowest portion of livable space from the Mclntosl sidence. They used the 30.5 elevation for the west side facing slope: id climbing up to the 59 foot elevation moving towards and onto th( )rtherly slope. Referring to the exhibits, he discussed the various lationships of the project on both the northerly and westerly sides. He included by asking the Commission to define the predominant line o welopment as a single elevation. ier Hawkins asked about and received information on Exclusion zone and what is it's import and how it works. comment was opened. McCaffrey, President of the Board of Directors at Channel Ri nmunity Association, representing the members noted their support project. He noted in their three -level building parking structure with dential units with two cars each plus service vehicles, there has ne, n a problem with a queue of cars waiting to get in. Additionally, th( three names listed on a petition that had been circulated with a Chani f address and those names and do not appear on their telephone in their residents' directory. nda Edwards, read a letter from John Martin noting his land developm id construction plan concerns which was attached to the packet Formation distributed to the public and Commissioners. Martin read her letter of opposition to the project.. This letter Dd to the packet of information distributed to the public Hunsaker noted his acceptance of the project. He noted 1 ors who work in tight spaces can work around these types He suggested conditioning the project as such. Page 7 of 23 V_ Os Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 8 of 23 lichael Millikan noted his support of the project as it will be nprovement as the current development is an eyesore. This will be reat improvement with new landscaping and architectural plan. p Rosenblath read a letter from John and Kathleen McIntosh. They ct to the project and sent previous letters to the City and the applicant. letter is part of the administrative record. Rasner noted his support of the project noting the number of par s, units, view corridors, tax base, underground utilities, shut ers to the site and the outreach done by the applicant and the City. Moore appeared in support of the project. Varon appeared in support of the project noting the public by the applicant. h Dawson appeared in support of the project noting the un iitecture of the proposed project and the development right of licant. i Beek noted the line of development should be where the bluff used which is about ten feet behind (horizontal) where the development >osed. If that is done it would be out to the 50 -52 foot level on the bl ling to the adjacent northerly four properties which would, thereto q all the criteria. This project relates to the four adjacent properties north and is miscellaneous to the property on the westerly side. m Beck noted her opposition to the project due to the size a n. She noted a petition she had submitted that was signed by over e in opposition. She requested that the project be staked to all e to see the enormity of the project. This project is visible from me She asked the Commission to be responsible to the residents e this project. Birgy noted his support of the project. i Michler noted his support of the project as it is aesthetically will be a vast improvement to what is there currently. sy Beck noted the Commission has to interpret the CLUP which is tc srve the existing bluff and bluff faces and this project does not do that, ing at the proposed project, you can see how the project will comr i the bluff face and the Commission should not give approval to it a! project is clearly in conflict with the CLUP. The vertical line o lopment should also include the existing building which the architect'. entation did not include. The project will extend further away,from thi than the existing line of development as noted in the staff report. Hi d that these be considered and deny this project. f•lulo Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Vallejo appeared in opposition referring to policies 4.4.1 -1, 4.4.1 1 -3 and read her letter that became part of the administrative record. blic comment was closed. hairman Cole asked for clarification on specific Coastal Land Use Acies vs. general policies. stant City Attorney Harp stated it is our opinion that you have speci sions that deal with development of the bluff face on Carnation Aven those take precedence over general conditions that are contained r policies. They have the right to develop to the predominant line lopment, wherever you establish that to be, in accordance with t ition of policies that are in place. The other policies that are me oral in nature should also be considered; however, where there is 3 conflict between the two, the more specific overrides the general. nmissioner Eaton asked about Policy 4.4.3 -8 that prohibits developmen Sept private development or public improvements provided in the public ass and permit such improvements only when no feasible alternativf Sts and when. the design is constructed to minimize alteration of the ff face. This provision refers to public improvements specifically no :essarity to the private development, correct? He was answered, "yes ". then asked if staff wants to refer to the 28 feet as the predominant line. r. Campbell answered there are two lines that could be looked at as this corner property with two bluff faces intersecting at the project site. The ay be a rational to develop one limit or predominant line on Carnation sip id a separate one on the other side. You could do it either way. missioner Toerge noted his concerns as they relate to the itive Declaration (MND): Public view at the corner of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation - it my contention that it is not the responsibility of this particu developer to make that view wider or bigger, but I also feel it is r approvable to allow that view corridor to be made smaller. I thanked the applicant for the proposed modifications tonight tl respect that view; Air quality - proposed haul route is important to consider giver magnitude of excavation and the amount of trucks circul-c through the area for the next few years, the public needs to see and be given an opportunity to review; He asked that the Construction Management Plan, Parking Plan haul route be brought back to the Planning Commission so the pi has the opportunity to see it. Page 9 of 23 40141 Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 r. Campbell, referring to a map of Corona del Mar, depicted potential preferred haul routes. scussion continued on truck staging, pollution, noise, not allowing id trucks and requiring trucks to shut off their engines immediately w :y come to a stop, and parking for workers' vehicles. er Toerge asked for a straw vote on a new condition that management plan and haul route be reviewed by the Plani prior to the issuance of a grading permit. oner Hawkins noted the construction parking plans should all by the Public Works Department. nmissioner Hillgren asked about the process and what the neig be going through. on Jeannette noted the haul route mentioned by staff is acceptable to tt mmission; we will just do it. The construction management plan is be be reviewed by Public Works and Traffic, which has been required. Tt ul route we mentioned earlier was granted to a project adjacent to th e. He noted the initial phase of the project will involve the operation terpillars, dump trucks, watering trucks, and street sweepers as tt cavation begins. Later the shoring process will commence and then tt mdation will start. When the building is partially constructed, it w commodate the smaller tradesmen's trucks in the proposed parkir Ality. This will probably be 12 to 16 months with excavation slated to talo out 3 months. nmissioner Toerge noted that this explanation is helpful and withc request for a straw vote. He will be addressing further concerns or ditions. Referencing the MND, he noted his concern with the string msistencies on ocean Boulevard as depicted on the exhibit. Campbell noted the language related to "stringlines" is in the prior d the MND. That language has been excised from the report as it was ,ar or accurate. airman Cole asked about any concerns noted by EQAC needing to dressed by the Commission. Lepo said there were none. Commissioner Eaton's request, Mr. Campbell opined on a comment ar from the California Coastal Commission staff noting the comment ,e conservative and reflect a lack of understanding of the complexity of project and the bluff. It talks about the aesthetic impact related to ring the bluff to accommodate the project. The MND makes elusion that it is not a significant effect on the environment and they take h"' /Ammu rite nPiunnrt_hoarh rn i,etPln A nonrloel.....l1G_7 7_M ht,n Page 10 of 23 Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 different viewpoint on that issue. The letter indicated their view that the analysis in the MND related to Policy 4.4.3 -8 fails to show that all feasibl( alternatives to the project were explained. It is our belief that this provisioi only applies to public improvements and not to the private development. There was another policy question as to whether 4.4.3 -8 and 9 apply a: Coastal staff does not believe the project is on the coastal bluff at all. Staff elieves it is on the coastal bluff and we have a letter from the geologis upportinq this belief. ommissioner Hawkins noted this project is on a bluff face for which and 9 would apply. Staff agreed. sr McDaniel noted this is one member of the staff, not the Coastal Commission. Staff agreed. mmissioner Hawkins asked and received clarification about the lack of Inge to the boat docks and improvements to storm -water run-off systen referred in the letter from Coastal Commission staff. Campbell also discussed public access and the various factors rider pursuant to CLUP policy when reviewing a new project. T Ling staircase from the apartment building to the water and then to t Ling dock system is steep an in disrepair. Topography, safety and t imity to residential uses were factors considered and given put !ss nearby, staff felt that public access across the site is not required. ated Negative Declaration (MND) items on page 51, the constructs ing plan related to construction crew parking at an off -site location u time that the parking garage proposed can accommodate parking i and the need to schedule grading to avoid summer months wE issed. These components will be added as conditions and added iged in the MND. Ir. Harp noted the MND will be re- circulated and a revised resolution w istributed recommending approval to the City Council of the project ai Ilows for this re- circulation during the time period between now and wh goes to the City Council. The reason for the re- circulation doesn't requi ew analysis. The issue stems from the basic premise that some of tl mguage in the. MND was not agreed to by the applicant at the time th ubmitted the project, e.g., the predominant line of development. We are greement with the applicants counsel that it should be re- circulated. TI omments regarding the construction crew parking and scheduling rading to avoid summer months could be included in the MND and i irculated. Discussion continued. Campbell referred to exhibits on pages 22 and 23 of the MND shoe view areas of the Begonia Park. This discussion is contained in ument concluding that no significant impact would result to public vi i the park. Page 11 of 23 \aA Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 imissioner Eaton made reference to the revised resolution presented meeting that includes a narrative that the applicant agrees to t ominant line of existing development as ultimately determined by t Council. imissioner Hawkins noted his concern with the contents and format various versions of the MND. These documents should be interne rential and built upon each other. Each successive document shoe ain the rationale for the solution to conflicts so that any decision maki y could disagree with that point and then go back to the earl iment. We are creating an environmental record. and I do not belie record is a clear one. Continuing, he noted Mitigation IX -5 refers to t lominant line of development and the project shall be revised such tl principal building shall not be visible below 52 feet above mean s rman Cole then asked for discussion on the predominant line lopment. He noted his opinion that there are two lines: one on t erly portion (Ocean Boulevard side) and one on the northerly portion site (Carnation Avenue). There had been a consensus of f mission back in February on Ocean Boulevard westerly side as 29 ft tiding with the adjacent development. nmissioner Eaton noted he agrees with the now adjusted number i feet upon further surveys and this should now be the line for the we ng side of the bluff. He explained that this elevation is the elevation closest foundation and that the adjacent westerly development started tle transition up from the water's edge that is exhibited by the Chann if Condominiums. immissioner Toerge noted the property is located on Carnation Ave., n :ean Boulevard. If it was located on Ocean Boulevard, it would have ight restriction based upon the top of the curb. The adjacent garage h: be built into the bluff as it also had to be below the top of the curb. TI D is not comprised of two bluffs. He noted that the predominant line isting development should be based upon the homes along Carnatic enue and not the structures on Ocean Boulevard as those structun ferencing the Vallejo Residence, Channel Reef and Kerchoff laborator uld not be built today as they would not be consistent with Codes licy. Referring to an exhibit showing existing development on the blu discussed the proposed development extent also pointing out that tF >ject should not be given the ability to both go down the slope and abo) curb height as it is on Carnation rather than Ocean Boulevard. F led a legal lot has to be given development rights. He supports st; :ommendation that this predominant line of development as it exis ing Carnation be applied to this property, which is on Carnation and n Ocean. He noted the red line on the photographic exhibit th )resents 50.7 feet above me an sea level and it respects the continuatic the predominant line of existing development as established c )nation Avenue. Page 12 of 23 I V" DSO r. .n..... ,.a, o.. r_t o l ,.., —101. A o 1 F nc 11 nv U. AOIA / 7An7 Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 nmissioner Peotter indicated that the predominant line of the coas e is also reflected in the development along Bayside Place and t )le line on the photographic exhibit might be appropriate. He al rated that within the Categorical exclusion zone, one could build to t imum 10 -foot setback and further expand the predominant line Ming development. He indicated his belief that the CLUP does r ctively communicate its intent. nmissioner Toerge noted that the CLUP is a policy document not t cific regulations. The Categorical Exclusion zone does not exclude t from the coastal zone or its policies. The predominant line of existi elopment is a setback line for structures located on the bluff face a the development on Bayside Place is not on the same landform. Th not in a similar topographic setting nor are they on the same street. example, orie would not use the development on Breakers Drive armine the vertical extent of development for the nearby lots on Ore ilevard as they are not in the same topographic setting. nmissioner Hillgren noted that the 30.5 foot elevation of the adjace dence (Macintosh Residence) is an appropriate line for developme in looking at the development, including development further to t theast, the predominant line is lower than that as it is built right to t ers edge. airman Cole noted is belief that there are two bluff faces (north a A). The north facing slope should have a much higher predominant Ii existing development and the west facing slope is lower than 30.5 feet. Harp added that the applicant and staff had discussed the possibility predominant line below where their project is and the applicant h eed to deed restrict the property that they would not develop in that ar ie predominant line was set lower than the project. iissioner McDaniel referenced the photographic exhibit noting that h to use the development on either side to ensure that the proje ; sense. We do have a comer where the bluff turns with low opment to the east and higher development to the north and tt t should fit from either side. Campbell explained staffs method of calculations, median distances the structures not included and those included in these calculations. noted the elevations of 59, 50.7, 42.3 on the north facing side. Hawkins commented on the method to identify line of existing development using the median distance staff indicated that the median distance is an example contained within tl efinition of predominant line of development. It is a method to identify ne for analysis where it is then compared to the existing developme attern first to see if it meets other resource protection policies and then it ompared to the proposed project. Page 13 of 23 '•0' Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 ioner Hawkins asked why Bayside Place, Channel Reef and laboratory were excluded from the calculation of the me aff responded that Bayside Place was excluded as it was built in front e bluff and was not on the bluff face. Today, staff was present formation to suggest that 101 Bayside Place was constructed into the t the bluff, but staff believes Bayside Place not to be in the sar pographic setting. Again, today staff was presented photograpl formation of what the bluff looked like before Channel Reef w instructed and staff now believes this development should be consider the identification of the predominant line of existing development. )mmissioner Hawkins commented that the use of the median distance example is problematic in that is could evolve into a standard. 1 rrent policy is to protect the bluff by limiting development to be within )dominant line of existing development and the protections contair :hin Policy 4.4.3 -12 are built -in to the identification of the predominant I existing development. The trend with this bluff a lot lower than 50.3 f ove MSL. ommissioner Eaton commented that the west facing bluff 30.5 feet MSL propriate as it continues the transitional elevation change from the low ovations of the Macintosh residence to higher elevations to the north. F :nt on to explain that he felt that this was a unique site that the comE m a lower PLOED, based on Ocean Boulevard development to a high OED, based on Carnation Avenue development. The median elevatii 50.7 is one value (the median) in a range of values; and that, with tl or design modifications made by the applicant to pull in the Recreatii om and Unit 7 footprint, and to cause a rising bluff face along ti rtherly elevation by blocking off some of the lower level windows th ire previously exposed, even up to an elevation of 59' at the northea ,ner of the development (which is higher, even, than the sti ;ommended PLOED on Carnation Avenue of 507), that the project he xeeded, in his opinion, in establishing a transitional PLOED th :isfied the requirements of the City's CLUP between the 30.5 elevation c east to the higher elevations on Carnation Avenue. Campbell noted that with the Channel Reef condominium ded in staffs calculation, the median now becomes 49.4 feet irman Cole asked if preserved bluff areas above a potei lominant line of existing development (50.7 feet above MSL — the on the photograph) could be balanced against developed areas bE line and be consistent with policy. Staff answered that it could onable approach. nissioner Eaton agreed with this balancing approach and he not it was a factor in his transitional predominant line of existi Page 14 of 23 e,09- httn: / /www.rity nrumnrt -hPnrh ra »c/PInAtrPnAna Imn05 -17-07 htm 0Q /A7Ml1M Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 approach. nmissioner Hillgren asked for clarification Commissioner cated that the transition he was thinking of is smoother than a v :) from 30.5 to 50.7 MSL. Commissioner Hillgren indicated his s the green line (proposed project/bluff interface line) and also ind t he was unsure of where the predominant line of existing develo ild be. McDaniel noted the predominant line of exis does not have to be a straight line' asked staff 9r. Alford added that this project is the first major discretionary proji oming through Wth this issue and is a setting where the predominant Ii not easily applied because we are dealing with a corner point and umber of development patterns that are in different topographic setting >r example, the development on Bayside Place, Channel Reef and :arnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Applying the concept of I redominant line is somewhat difficult in this situation. We recognized tt .orona del Mar in general and this area in particular was going to omewhat more difficult than the other areas of the City where 1 stablished the predominant line of development, around Upper Newp ay, Cameo Shores and in Shoreciiff, etc. It was decided that the best w > handle that was on a project by project basis and to develop some sort uidelines on which you could view them and take those it onsideration. It was also stated that no matter what methodology w sed to establish the predominant line of development, ultimately it is goi r be the decision makers looking at an exhibit and deciding where that Ii appropriate. There is nothing that says it has to be a straight line sere will be a certain level of subjectivity and judgment in applying articularly in this complex topographic setting. nissioner McDaniel noted that for the City to have the best prc 51e, it is within our discretion to make the line curve or whatever to make those two separate areas meet and make a nice project Afford noted that sometimes you have to ignore the mathematics :e a judgment call on how that line best fits all of the policies that ar consideration. McDaniel thanked Mr. Alford. mmissioner Peotter asked how the Commission would reference the the exhibit as the one that was approved. I. Harp answered that you could approve it with the elevations that are plans and say that is the predominant line of development. If you wa pick something that is lower than that, you could set up the predomina of development that is lower and approve the project; if you wanted Page 15 of 23 1�- • \173 Lai... a.._._ ....:... L......L ....._ Mt.. n - ._—J__i----- nr I. Al 1_.._. -- I-- I,......, Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 could deed restrict the area in between as the applicant agreed to. mmissioner Hawkins noted the reason for the deed restriction is a bu line of development and so we would want to prohibit developm ween the approved line (project line) and the predominant line sting development. Harp answered it would also help to support the policies in that you a ecting the coastal bluffs to the maximum amount feasible by having lominant line that is below that and the deed restriction would help ect that portion of the bluff below the project and above the line. lmissioner Hawkins noted his concern of approving this project with le bound predominant line of development as the City needs a specif and the applicant and general public need a specific line so everyboc fvs where this thing is going. While I support bluff face protection, t see how the Local Coastal Plan as currently drafted and approve ides such protection. Cole asked if there were any other questions or corn the predominant line of existing development. None Cole asked if there were any design concerns. lmissioner Eaton noted that this project is unusual and will be unique. City does not dictate architecture and it is beyond our purview. nmissioner Hawkins asked if the interim design policies effective April 1 7 were applicable and he was answered no as that ordinance onl) lied to single and two- family residential projects. irman Cole noted this project is under the density that this site could to and there is no variance, only a modification for an encroachm is subterranean. Campbell answered the General Plan and Coastal Land Use :ies have a higher density range. This project is well within nsity ranges. The Zoning Code h iximum 9 units, which is what we h )posed project is consistent with all nsity. The project complies with all ception of the encroachments for the bterranean and the sideyard setback bterranean but there is a single story the building. Staff feels the findings tho as more strict limit and allows ha before us in this project. T regulatory documents in terms development standards with t front yard setback which is whc encroachments most of which encroachment that is a small ar for the Modification Permit can issioner Eaton noted is support for the proposed setbacks. httn• / /un w r.ity nPwnnrt_hParh r.n nc/P1nAaPn / lac /mnlK_17_n7 htm Page 16 of 23 Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 nmissioner Eaton noted possible parking issues with the vehicle iator concept and queuing. He noted that the traffic analysis prepare( the applicant did not address the issue of vehicle access or potentia wing. He stated he would be able to find this consistent with the ;ulation Element and CLUP policies. He noted that the Conditions tenants and Restrictions (CC and R's) have to say that the members ar( uired to park in their garages and they cannot be used for othe r. Harp suggested adding a condition that the CC and R's be recorded A as to require the homeowners and /or association to maintain operty and lifts in operation as well as the other conditions r. Campbell noted that conditions 26, 27 & 28 provide restrictions on ;e of parking but do not include these restrictions in the CC&Rs. Commissioner Toerge noted General Plan Policy CE7.1.1 which require: new development provide adequate and convenient parking for residents guests and visitors. Adequate parking is provided, but is it convenient? Not only for residents, but guests and visitors. Each unit is required tc provide 2 cars of parking for residents and 1/2 car per unit for guests; witt nine units, the project has to provide 4 1/2 cars for parking for guests anc he Code requires rounding up, so the project is required to provide 5 car; f guest parking that is convenient. On the ground level there are three uest parking spaces and the other two are to be used through access tc he elevator. Further, with such large storage units in the basement, user; ill be inclined to back into the vehicle elevators so that the rear of the ehicle will be oriented toward the storage side of the basement. A residen that pulls a car or truck into the vehicle elevator in a forward manner anc proceeds to the storage area will then be required to off -load their vehicle on the opposite side of the storage area, requiring that they maneuver themselves and their storage items between the vehicle elevator wall anc e side of the vehicle. Practically speaking, the design will compe basement storage users to back into the elevators at street level where here is no queuing area or other accommodation for such backinc maneuver. Of course, while the user is off - loading, the vehicle elevator wil be tied up and not available for use by other residents or guests. Also, it very day use, given the time it will take for a resident to access the vehicle elevator, lower their vehicle to the proper level, exit the elevator anc maneuver in tight quarters to their garage and repeat the same in reverse to exit the garage, I believe the parking arrangement is not "convenient" a: required by General Plan Policy CE 7.1.1. To the contrary, I find the parking nfiguration to be "inconvenient" for residents, visitors and guests. m Jeannette noted is opinion that people will not be able to drive a the lowest level as items to be taken to that level will be brought tl small carts or a golf card. He then explained the mechanism ration of the lifts adding that the two other guest parking spaces at o Page 17 of 23 1�1a55 Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 might be for family members who are visiting those households be specifically granted access to those levels. ssioner Toerge noted his belief that the five guest spaces iently located without having to use the elevators. He then noted i about the large subterranean storage areas and the use of rs as being inconvenient. Jeannette answered unless you are keyed for access, you will not to do this. He then explained the use of a cart or dolly sportation, elevator use and the use of storage by the residep ts. mmissioner Hawkins indicated that there will be an increase in the street with the reduction in the width of the drive approach. continued on the placement and use of the guest parking.< Cole then asked for any changes or modifications to by the Planning Commission. ioner McDaniel, noted that: Condition 8, regarding a performance bond on completion of and retaining walls should be require completion for the project. was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded ;inner Hillgren, to approve the project per staffs recomme i with Exhibit D as amended and including the following: iinant line of development - use the "blue" line on the elevation (23ft up to 42ft). mer Eaton noted this would require a deed restriction using the "green" line which transitions from 305 at corner of the project, to 59' at the northeast comer. was consensus to use the "green" line. The maker of the and motion includes. line of development - the "green" line on the elevation exhibit. was a consensus. was consensus on the following conditions: Condition 103 - amend to add schedule grading to avoid the busy summer season and a portion of a nearby parking lot to be leased for the use of the construction crew parking; Page 18 of 23 lj�, \5kv Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Condition 4 - reflect the date of the newly - revised submitted plan (Exhibit Z); Condition 30 - Re -word as, "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 immediately when not in use. The use of audible signals, horn honks, whistles, beeps, etc. during the hauling and construction process shall be prohibited subject to the maximum extent permitted by law." Condition 8 - Completion bond for the entire project. Jeannette brought up the issue of irrigation and stated that there s iy conditions that they cannot do. He asked that staff work with them. Campbell noted the use of the word permanent and indicated that porary irrigation may be used on the bluff face to re- establish stings that would occur and staff will make those corrections to was consensus on the following conditions: Condition 11 - submit to the Planning Director, not Planning Commission; permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system where allowed by Code. Condition 26 - add, "The location of the generator be approved by the Planning Director and shall be sound attenuated." Add new condition or amend condition 27- CC and R's be recorded to require that the Homeowner's Association maintain the property and lifts in operative condition, landscaping and other improvements in compliance with the conditions. The City Attorney's office shall approve the CC and R's. r. Harp noted that the City would not be enforcing the CC and R's but thi ould give a private cause of action to a party to that contract. ommissioner Hawkins asked that the CC and R's require residents to pa eir vehicles in their garage. r. Harp confirmed that could be added if the residents agree. r. Jeannette agreed to this and to condition that garages not be used orage rooms. McDaniel noted a lot of people have more than Page 19 of 23 Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 continued. issioner Peotter amended his motion as follows: Add Condition 104 - CC and R's to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. The CC and R's shall include use of garage for cars and not storage, owners agree to park in their garage; maintain elevators in good working order; visitors' spaces shall not be used for continual parking. Add condition to prohibit the conversion of the common areas to exclusive -residential use by residents in the future. Jeannette referring to Condition 8 suggested a phasing situatic ormance bond to be reduced in 25% increments commensurate wi Dmental building completion. Campbell noted Condition 8 as currently worded would include tl oration of the excavations if the project doesn't go to completion, v d restore it back to its condition as opposed to building and finishing tl Dial. Removing the improvements and filling the hole back in would be h smaller bond and that is what we thought was appropriate if tl Dct should fail in the middle: Jeannette suggested doing 100% of the project with release in 25 aff and Commission agreed. m Paone, land use counsel for the applicant, noted the suggestion wou to bond for the entire construction of the shell and release that in 25 cements to completion of shell with a new bond for the interior work. r. Jeannette defined the shell as being the parking structure, tt ivelope, roofs, windows, etc. so that the concrete and systems are ace. The finish work for the interior would be the cabinetry, bathroo tures, etc. was agreed that Condition 8 shall refer to 100% of the shell cost ar lease in 25% increments. Commission inquiry, Mr. Jeannette, representing the applicant, agreed the conditions and amendments as discussed. He noted that or indition related to the 5 -foot easement for a sewer line which is five fe ✓ay from the property and asked if that can be worked out with Publ Lepo noted they can administratively find conformity with ition. issioner Peotter noted the motion is the resolution that ited tonight with the modification on the Mitigated Nei ation to modify Mitigation Measure 15 -1 to include those two ing grading to avoid summer season and the shuttling of constr 's, and: Page 20 of 23 Lsa._.I6_......._:ti.__....__. L___t__..- mt_ a ____ J__ c.... nv 1 n nn . _ nn i^-. nnn i Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Condition 4 - reflect the date of the newly revised submitted plan (Exhibit Z). Condition 8 - add, shall refer to 100% of the shell cost and release at 25% increment per the Building official. Condition 11 - submit to the Planning Director, not Planning Commission; permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system where allowed by Code. Condition 26 - add, "The location of the emergency generator be approved by the Planning Director and shall be sound attenuated." Condition 30 - Re -word as, "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 immediately when not in use. The use of audible signals, horn honks, whistles, beeps, etc. during the hauling and construction process shall be prohibited subject to the maximum extent permitted by law." Condition 103 - amend to add schedule grading to avoid the summer season. Add Condition 104 - CC and R's to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. The CC and R's shall include use of garage for cars and not storage, owners agree to park in their garages; maintain elevators in good working order; residents shall not use visitors' spaces for continual parking. imissioner Toerge noted that the minor change to the project related to view corridor will eventually be a hugely significant change in the e. He thanked the applicant for this. He noted he has a different ion on this project related to the predominant line of development and the architecture is not compatible with the existing neighborhood. The ing situation, while novel, does not meet the Code as it is not Fenient. For these reasons, he stated he would not be in support of this Toerge None , Hawkins, Cole, Hiligren Page 21 of 23 BUSINESS City Council Follow -up Mr. Lepo noted that at the last meeting, the City Council took N�� 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, icambbel ]O)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). 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, V 191' 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 pattern 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, � 1b1 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 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. 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) 'f 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 4.4.1 -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 wilt 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 CE7.11 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 minimize 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. E. lby` 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 the 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 by: Submitted by: James tt+W VN M+sbge+ Campbell mes Campbell, Senior Planner EXHIBITS David Lepo, Planning Director 4-- *%Fpt ef FniRW96 *W Febcllac 22, '^^' PI--°:-- "-F.-.:--:- ' 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 9. Commissioner Eaton's comments and staff responses 10. Comments on the MND from Commissioner Toerge 12. Memorandum from Randy Nichols 13. Additional correspondence Exhibit No. 3 Letter from Tim Paone on behalf of the applicant dated March 27, 2007 v,-- -Vol Blank � ,ua 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@manattoom 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 Canter Drive, 14th Floor, Costa Mesa, California 92626.1924 Telephone: 714.371.2500 Fax 714.371.2550 Albany I Los Angeles I New York I Orange County I Palo Alto I Sacramento I Washington, D.C. manatt manatt I phelps I phUlips 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 df 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, Pacific 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 developmentpattem 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 IID 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 httr): / /www. coastal .ca.aovAb /Th8d- 10- 2005,odf1, the statement set forth above from Page 4 -76 of the CLUP was, in fad, drafted by Coastal Commission staff as a proposed modification to the City's proposed LUP. Similarly, CLUP Pdlicy 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 Cpl manatt manatt I Phelps I phil8ps 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 far 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 dear 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 compiles 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 �.�ha 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 existing development pattern and to protect coast 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 711042339.1 Ice ITN' Blank Exhibit No. 4 Staff recommended predominant line of existing development _1e)S Blank ��`o > , jj� _ 3 � b . day '..� rte: y it P.0 [l 1 r: ( G jyt f v 9 V 11 d � , .:. 1 ,� G�QG\>0 .' � 1 1` AV V. •.�� {J Li Y Yy .l y3' P ,Yr � Et cy G It 6 1 50 11 eet r f ti Predominant Line of Existing Development View 1 m -11 t i 7 i !_. .. ow jmw WA it �.r llla pi � t `ear •• i Lik 4 ,S2izo.., .. 4 +yam --S 1 / Blank Exhibit No. 5 Visual simulation of the proposed project Blank Proposed Project I View 1 111" r I , 4C 1 4� !lifl r t �Mk rL.�+- r ISO y Exhibit No. 6 Visual simulation of the project within staffs recommended predominant line of existing development s Blank t, 0r$� Project Within Staff's Maximum Building Envelope View 1 I� s Blank Exhibit No. 7 Visual simulation of Staffs recommendation Blank `qb Staff Recommendation (Project Above 52 Feet MSL) ao View 1 J 34 feet 14 52 feet .EX{571N6 STRUCTURE ON .: . y PRO-S' 64TE L oleo —T, -!♦ 71 I �" :.QQ� 1 trim�:ra 0 IA. !f X .11 li IMM ,�f � � ?. ill' ���� �•� 1 � `� �,' � '1'!�� Nis' 111 fill '-. I M t-" - �. ao View 1 J 34 feet 4. o „ � 1�� f 'Y 11I'Fillsi -' v. 4 el r a ;-r r. TA 1 4iF w� Exhibit No. 9 Commissioner Eaton's comments and staff responses , '3 .1 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 public 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 1st 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 altemative exists and when designed and constructed to minimize alteration of the bluff face, to not contribute 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 212217 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 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 ire 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 415107 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 trucks 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 construction/parking 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. t-01 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.��$ 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 paint." 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 1 V-199 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 V" 9ZO Exhibit No. 10 Comments on the MND from Commissioner Toerge apt Blank ,p:ZO2- 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: I. 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) Lan d 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 ofCdM? 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). V_ Z03 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, Firstparagranh 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 (page 12) 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. _G Zoq Exhibit No. 12 Memorandum from Randy Nichols ao5 Blank 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 /MND 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 StudylMitigated Negative Declaration, as discussed below. One new impact has been identified, the need to replace the CWs 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 mitipirtlon measures have been clarified through additional information; however, these clarifications 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 (ii 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 �.aoS Exhibit No. 13 Additional correspondence t, -A Blank E . ago 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 fitst.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 Julian 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 Julians 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 Julian. After fully, investigating what was being done, I realized that the AERIE project is not only respectfiil 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 Mdbl= cc: Mayor Steven Rosansky Rick Julian Jeame Millikan f, .a)� Mar -27 -07 01:59P D. Card 949 - 759 -3423 March 22, 2007 David and Betty Card 2 Canyon Lane Corona del Mar, CA 92625 To the City ol'Newport Beach Planning Commissioners and City Council. RE: AFRJF: Proposed Condominium Development My wife and i have lived in Corona del Mar for 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 blurt cove and harbor. Anytime we have relatives visiting from out of town, that's one of the best places to got a beautiful photograph. 'fhc proposed development seems to be the exact opposite of what the street represents, with its' lovely homes and views, and were 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 for your consideration, David and Betty Cord ON BONN 10 AU0 LODZ a WK 1NrAWd9Q JNINNVId m t13N3a3t1 P.O1 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 0TY 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 will take. tole. 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'proj0et 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 . . HELP PRESERVE THE COASTAL BLUFF AT CARNATION COVE There is a massive condominlum complex proposed to be built on the bluff In COMM dol MOr. hadertobuld the Project the devebpei requires o General Plan Amendment, Zone ChOngeAmendment Coastal Land Use loan Amendment Modification Permit. and Coastal Residential Development Permit. The ]=level, 9 -unl complex will be apPrOximateN 75,000 square feet, replacing a structure that is approximately 20.000 square feet The site located al the corner of Ocean Boulevard and Canotion Avenue Is so constrained that the ontyway 9 units can be sgreezed on the property Is through the use of automobile elevotas, where You drive you carinto the elevator and it takes you arc the car down to a a -level parking stricture. If this project is approved the bluff face will be destroyed; and replaced with multi -level decks and overhangs protruding toJustalaove the water. Thlsis an area of puck; enjcymxm of from many pl0109S 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 far future geneiallors, we musf speak uip NOWI The project was iecentN presented to the planning commission where a majority of me commia&iama were in support of the Project though it was obvious that the community had not been informed. The public hearing was continued to April 5th and we need YOURSUPPORTI The Calfornla Land Use Ran (CWP) was xUffen Please dcnl be distracted by the jwtrmfymrmagrkidnelnslhrmbnssuchmiNs argument that the exJsling apartment and maw pravldons IMLIC1e-m1hlm&hV dltaatlan building Is an eyesore, and that this of the duff face ord keeping development xwdN development is the ontl solution. Weal compa6alevghihem munOrtgared. As thlsonea mow at some Pont this property will be consists predomkontty of strgle lamty tames weleosling thollNt praiect tlevebped,.nopetul N n a way trwt will benefit the owner. the neighborhood, 1.BLTERATONOFTHE BLUFF MINIMIZE and the corrmutiryas a whole. ALTERATION OF THE BLUFF ' 2. BE MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD 3. PRESERVE THE PUBLIC VIEW. CORRIDOR ALONG OCEAN BOULEVARD THs PrOIWI must be held to the'predotdnant The of davebpmenir standards as described in the Coastal Land Use Ran. What they planning commission has to address is not the truck routes or dolN construction clean -up, but rather 'whether a not to dtow.a beautiful public treasure such W this bluff to be etploied forecononVc Incentives. There Is no other location in the habor that has such an opportunity to change our cba5 he to such an extreme extent ShorildnT our civic leaders er on the side of conserving this welFtaTown and .enjoyed scenic and-nark? PLEASE ATTEND THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBUC HEARING ON THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 2007 AT THE HOUR OF 6:30 p.m. IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS (BUILDING A) AT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD, NEWPORT BEACH. 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 IT'S T00 LATE! 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. urs truly Davi.. K. amb Tax& Financial Group CIIAnLES K. TWOWX, PhD CA 1 kmar Xa tB1p FIRAMMLADVISOR February 16, 2007 Richard Julian Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. 23792 Roclsfield Blvd, #100 Lake Forest, CA 92630 Dear Rick: MVESINIERT ADVISOR% 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 oppordmity 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. 1 wish you luck, and would be happy to offer any support if that would be of value_ a (A Charles T) umer 2900 Quedada Newport Beach, CA 92660 4001 MocAnhw EWeVA4 3 Fluor . TkTvport amch. CA 92660 • (800) 373 -2177 TDII -Ace • (949) 223-8100 Main • (949) 223$101 fax Chuck.IwnmrDft[OlD.mm .(949)223- 8214Dhect . my47LI&=.mn Vftsw i Ambles & lnvewmant Advisory Sarvkw ed tlxmtgh Securtwr FlnwKW &rpkm, Im. Akm6erXAMWPC twwg ai< A ftktered Itmltment Advirar • Tar d Favamiat Groap. an gQ)Ikwe gJSeemlan. is iudependemty cperatad .. 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.mmdmper.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 900A 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. February 14, 2007 Lloyd `Bud' and Linda Rasner 2500 Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Mr. David Lepo Planning Director City ofNewport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: — Aerie Development Dear W. 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 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 corner and water will see a first class endeavor. Thank you in advance for your consideration in this Sincerely, Dr. . &Linda Rasner KENT S. MOORE 210 CARNATION AVENUE CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 TEL: (949) 679-7692 FAX: (949) 679-7699 hentA00re ®wor]Jnet.att.net 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 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. Julian's 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 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 careful 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, Implants William L. Mihram, D.D.S., M.S.D. 07 Ll7 GURDvr� r �/ /l�Ct� ( O7i `Zoe C .Q df c6f-046:( Ua� iW % ck TG[l as, .[GtS j 7�o rernavat/;eh f�e e�;�; iY r�.r/Pn44 c d �" ° �. 7�I`�e no.�'H -mod 0 d- �i C �cor n . ( A45" b Ot y\ a i 5-e� f p b c2 d ( / 91—f I_ � � a v � i 1 u6 "Ie c` pt t °1 J"O 0" �4 -e ) h� t/e r7, Sce��1 ®a�L i7� c�Ly. at° %asp o� e0cr f A Santa Ana- Tustin Medical Center 801 N. Tustin Avenue Suite 708 Santa Ana, California 92705 714 -558 -1137 FAX 714- 558 -1459 . I(--.aao ��aa► Feb 21 07 07:111; Jennings Pierce 949 646 5007 P.1 Karen 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 !:state 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 Beach and Corona del Mar, the apartment building at this location has been has been a run -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, mid the boat dock has always been in di*Miair 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 avid 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. Si , Karen A. Pierce �. �aa Page 1 of l Robb Cerruib From: Tim Newman [tinewman1954@hotmail.comj Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 2:25 PM To: dfepo@city.newport- beach.ca.us; joole@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 certainty is a positive development for the neighborhood and for the community. With an established local architect, an excellent design, and a top -notch !wilder, 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 G aa3 2/16/2007 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 Karen R. Spargo S. -R.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 planl 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 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, Ronald P. Beard � a�.s 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. :Ad4/1% 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 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 meful 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. r-, AR-11 Jeffrey H. Hopkins 2725 Bungalow Place Comma Del Mar, CA 92673 2115107 sent via a -mail . Ite: AERIE Proposed Development February 22, 2007 hearing Dear Members of the Planning Commission: I send this letter in strong support for the AERIE Development (Trojeco 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 fame the developer to go back to the drawing board which wilt at best, delay the Project for another 4-5 years or mom and, at worst, prevent its construction altogether. Either of these latter scenarios would do a great disservice to the citizens of Carona Del Mar generally, and the homeowners located near, the project specifically. . I have been tracking the history of the redevelopment 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 m- 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 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. Thpk you for your time. 0 ,,: February 16, 2007 RE: Fortner Corona Cove Apartmernts 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, formerty 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 projectl Sincerely, Paul Root 2600 BAYSIDE DRIVE I CORONA DEL MAR I CA 192625 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 V,a�30 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. ltespectfull , Dr. Lawrence Bro� f,92>1 Tax& Financial Group CHARLES FL TURNER, PhD CA Llunse Na OE40655 FINANCIALADvisoR February 16, 2007 Richard Julian Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. 23792 RockSeld Blvd, #100 Lake Forest, CA 92630 INVEMIENT 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. (Roi- - Charles Turner 2900 Quedada Newport Beach, CA 92660 4001 MacArthur Boulevard, 3 Floor • Newport Beach, CA 92660 • (800) 373 -2177 Toll -Free • (949) 223 -8100 Main • (949) 223 -8101 Fax chud6cturnertaZifarouo .com • (949) 223 -8214 Direct • www.[ferouri.com WE"von Securities & Investment Advisory Services off fired through Securion Financial Services, Inc., Umber NASDISIPC r+.Rrey(- & A Registered Investment Advisor • Tar & Financial Group, an affiliate ofSwurian, is independently operated - W'a 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 Oust class arena and I believe ibis project is a fabulous beginning. Please approve this project as many of the residents, including myself, have already done. Respectfully, Wendy Webb Y AERIE PETITION 7Ttis Petition is. 10 tcgmV to. dle.PhopmedredevrJopanenr afthefarmer Corona Cove Aparmaerus and single farnr7p dwelling 10carec%ar201, MS &X7Camadon Avenue, Corona del Mar, Ca}rifornia I have rcvxwtd the proposed development made by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced property that incorporates 9 single- family attached homes. I am suppoxtiflg;this development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach and California Coastal Commission, I ata supporting this; develogtmeox Property Addmsx / sy Od G D t- da -V y c, dP •'J�, . 7� I G - �, L etc: Print Name: _ L • / I M /l �'1 I �I f Ptiat- Name;.... . Sigma a lure: , , � G�..•e�► -„�-,! gp�;;r.: N Pnu . _. �' tgnatme PropettyAddress:_mot G�4'Y't.,.+>-+l /5y;f6 Date � 4 - _ Proverty Address: Print Name: (Lev �Tp04 (9'D �et� Rd= Name plint Nomm T S *4 ,6/ �/3` 2.rt''ti -�--" g;tuee; Signature: NopettgAddress: CLAP Date: PuVerty Address: Print Name: Print Name: Co Le Print Name sipaltwm- - Signature: Signavim- tR Date: Print Name: Signature: Date: Paint Name: signature: AERIE PETITION This Peadon je ja t%wzd to Abe proposed -redevdopajent of &c kawx Conine Cove Apartments and single Auj7&y dsva&V lbcao6dfit294 MS&207Ckmadon Avenue ., Corona del Mar, California. I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. for the above refetemed prop" that i0mrPOWM 9 sing6family attached homes. I am support:Lihis* ment conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach and Cali&raia.Co Sion. I am supporting this development Prop -t Doc Print N P N t 5wp" Addtew. Print Name Date: PrDperry Address: Print Name: Print Name: Signature: signature: 'riot Name Print N== Print Name: Print Name: ;ipatuw. s4matuft. I Signature: I Date: Data AERIE PETITION Plot Nawc PjintN*tw Data Pwp" Address; —Do=— PdmNatnm pikaName Print Name: Pant Name: %=tum. AERIE PETITION This Petition is in regard to theproposedlydeveloprnent of the former Corona Cove Apartments and single family dwelling located at 201, 205 & 207 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar, California. I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced property that incorporates 9 single - family attached homes. I am supporting this development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach and California Coastal Conunission. I am supporting this development 'tint N Print Ngnm e,aatem Prutr'.m ta�Zc "�r4ar� Zignatute: rop" Address: -� �. r Z �- Dam rint Name: T A ^L A G(W W D��� A t•{ Print Name: L V h igttature: Signatum fi Y% V� Property Address: Print Name: Signature: Property Address: Print Name: _ Signature: Property Address: Print Name: Signature: Date: Print Name: Signature: Date: Print Name: Signature: Date: Print Name: Signature: _ AERIE PETITION This Petition is in regard to theproposed redevelopment of the former Corona Cove Apartments and single family dwelling located at 201, 205 & 207 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mat, Califomia. I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced property that incorporates 9 single - family attached homes. I am supporting this development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach anc California Coastal Commission_ I am g this development. Property Address: 1�: (4C/rc �• .�" Print Name & I1 Y<IOh m M :•�,.. ,� Print Signature:.a �'• k Property Address: Date: lk Print Name: rint Name: Signature: Signature: Property Address: 1 o '1 DAN r2 Q 1" o f Date: rO �L ✓ %-AOT Print Signa n `r% _°l Y.. vin /? %Q Date: Print Name: 4ter\_ Property Address: D. Print Nam t Nam , Property Address: t Name: Print �L.... .. W. / / I / rI II / 1 1. i1 I // NI / III n / / / •11 .J/ I ! I 1 1 'J I' (/ 1 1 :�1� IiiU YYY' YI1 i if �1 ..1 iiYl liJ •1 111 YI 1 Jiw i 'YY' !J "i Y YLI r.0 «YK i fY 1 i 'i 11 i./ 1 rIY• fi 111 t i.- hff PwpenyAddmw. 2 SDI so 4wow AC D.,,-_z P 01* PAW `ms PJ:ntNama �''� °1= rki t&= Pdntxamc F4�✓���or� p=pedyAaa _,%-I't(6 Oce*tj A W3 Dar-2:--f r--o7 pmp yA Datp- pmaNma xa �i✓ p!d tN &ALW� �4Lo "- PrjaN,, m Pdrt Name: PmpevwAdbm Da- Prat Nsme _ pdw Nam= is a I ` a. - .. 77 M { i .. , : t.i r M KYFd4 4T ' � / • r i �r� l' .�r.i�F . _ �a'�army S 0 Pat *oft NO '' '- •wru�%IL+tl ar1TL•'p(1gr°'w' .�r....•.u.. 'Aiv Doti NNML —mow. ;Ntia�t',Riy�p� - �. Nintacc ,. r-7! AERIE PETITION 271i8 Petition ,WiOregard to the p"pomdmdeveopmento'e&efOnnctCorona Cove Apar&nenga and guWcfauo located Rt2010 205 & 207 Carnation Avenue, Corona dejAjar YdwOWjW $ Ca&&nwa. I have reviewed the Proposed development made by Advanced Real Estate Services incorporates 9 Vie- family attached homes. I Inc. for the above referenced property that I am Supporting this development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable California Coastal Commission. requirements by the City of Newport Beach an( am Supporting this development Property Addw9W.,Z,;5 W Print N! III::: Onle 7 71 Date: ----777771�404" - + e S *naiu PacRt ,-Nlune: -7777� 7' Property A&1zm:AOXO? j""' Print Name. Property Address: S*2uw4e; Na 51pattu —r—r— Property Address: Print sigm Property Address: Print Name: sigmtm: Signature: Date; AMELIMIE PETITION This Petition is in regard to the proposed redevrJopment of the former Comma Cove Apammeats and single family dwoffing located at 201,205 & 207 Carudon Avenue, Corona del Mat, C49fon2io, I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced Real Estate Services, In , c. fox the above referenced prop" that incorporates 9 single- family attached homes. I M supporting this development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements California Coastal Commission. am supporting this :development Property Addms: !ZL1 now r �10 2IRR Property Address: *25'11 P Wz' Print Name: Signature: by the City of Newport Beach anc V Print Name: Signature: vat=-,. Pxv" Address: Date: Print Name: Print Name: siguatum- AERIE PETITION This Pcddorr is h2 regard to 4beproposed radevelopment of the former Corona Cove located at 201,205 & 207Camarron Avenue, Corona del Mar, Caiifomia °t shrgle farmlp dtvelgag I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced .Real Estate Services, Inc far the above referenced property that incorporates 9 single - family attached homes. I am suPPortin$ this development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach Inc California Coastal Co**+r l inn, l am supporting PP rting this d�v±elapment PmpatyAddrsss: -Ix 5 Iii a0w lJ,w 1 PropertyAddrm: I W Print .. �:Pzint Name: PropertyAddresc Date: . r Print I'a L Property Ad"s: �'e Print Name: Signature: Property Address: Print Name: Signature: JS�il71rJ / ate: Print Name: 5igaature: Date: Print Name: Signature: i AERIE PETITION 72w Petition w otn regard to the proposd redevelopment of the former Corona Cove Apartments and sniagle fWnndy dwe&gg located at 201, .205 & 207 Catnadon Avenue, Corona del Mat, Cahlbraia. 1 have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc for the above referenced property that incorporates 9 single - family attached homes. I am supporting this development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach am Caltfomta Coastal Commission. a I am supporting this development ::..t Property Address: 221 Att&&A Ahly- ,Mir - ., a Pssat Natne: 6W*#jy r. Agoaftpiiat Nama;.. 5tgnatur S'>':rvu „.i PtopeayAddress: f W5— Property Address 117 G d aq Z Date: rL r pctwti.- PrratlVame: S' Date: 10 a Property Address: Z �(� �krr�k�e�a „✓ _Vane: Print Name J�ke<<t,�; kggi" Pri"tName Signature goatam Property Address: Date: Print Name: Print Name: Signal - sitta hall., IL CD 0 m m W Q E IL In S IL cy co U) L% pO iN V) A a IL AEMPETMON PilutN&m P=p" Addo R D&W I%ONBM-- i1 NM@lC pAaNxm wroum aluff6sm pgwNou= Dam- AERIE PETITION r r r r r rr _ r r .r r r r r: ,r rirr r rr r rn -. r rry r r : •rr ,r r ar .r r '! v u i' r �Ir e « .I -/ /I yr r,r r .re r r•r r „ l urr r n • • • • : �• • • r u • ur_r � � e r r • rr r r • �r r' • • rr :� r - u u r•• • r n nr �; • .• • u w r r• r• r• r. r N• • r •e r •• ;. r•: r r r r r. r r ru n. r ti r❑ • r• i :.: r r. e T am supporting this devekloumt cm*j t bet. /u - PraprttyAd "". 2600 13*fstoEYAr a* pptpC Not Naaaa :r ,44t Mqp Stamm - 1A PriatNama Data Punt Name P*A Names S*nstow. Daw PiiatNama: pz%tNoma FcopatyAdcixee: Dabs Fdncxame: PnentNama Stamm Date Pdnt Name Pont Namt Staamm Pr°pext9Mum Daxa PimtNames Peat Name I have wvkved t6 p Mxlud &yelOPMenl =a& by Advanced Real Flstm Scj� Inc for the above =&� propaty that 0000-14MOr aftacIm5d homes sl; am Cau %; MIA am Pmlnt bb I Au"4011t em -med upon the developer satisfying townsbk ftquk=mb by the City of Nllp Beach and !.J PxC"tt7AAdmm Date pdaxame: PdntNama FPDP�Addftm PAUNM= PtintNatna Pk*peitjAddft= Aar -0 a v V Z4 is 22*P4*kw r, dttamwpdendwPAvere $rodervArnwataitlie*MarICfiW=COW e raaalst20l, 2616ifc Meamwddn Amour Conme darAfwo CoMbam& I b"c Wdewcd dm popoud &Vdqmmft mega b, A&mmd Beat I{efe SmicM Iac Ior the abawe seSamud pmopt eq that �o 9 a+go -may *inched 1to7tbea '' Corstal Cumn. cwtiowd qm dxe at�g feneormbk u bite OW oaf Newpod Be uh and' I am s *k dot Doff PtiatNMW P *NBMC D= plies 4amm PAWN== L oQ _. nam: - FtintNe+mc Perot Nana FftpemyAddrom - - Dner PAU Nom PX6 Nwmc psktNanm FAWArmc AERIE PETITION 7WSPWIL10-ft Is ioxeAwd to thepmposedmderWoPmentof the former Corona Cove Apar4ven&aadsjjWefarnjjydWd&Vg located at 201,205 & 207 Carnation Avenue, Carona del Mar, California. I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced Rea Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced property that incorporates 9 single- family attached homes. I am supporting this development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach an( California Coastal Commission. I am supporting this de,!e10 pment A . . , v . - ..- - - " .. -- "-�' '�'! �r . `- rp-jo '.F Property Addtcss: Prop" Address. hintNaxae: 'Print Name:, Property Address: Dire: Print NMW. Print Name: %gnatute: Signature: CCi Pont Name: pemt Name: Signature. , Signature: Property Address: Print Names Signature: Print Name: Signature: Date: ;DgLte-. M Date-, AERIE PETITION This Pedd&V is is regard to theproposedredeveiopment oftbe former Corona Cove Apartments, and ShWle family dwelling located at201, 205 &207 Camadan Avenue, Corona del Mar, California. I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced property that incorporates 9 single- family attached homes. I am supporting this development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach anc California Coastal Commission. I am supporttng this dwropment Property Address:. i Oki Print Name10 Print N� SS*" Sigagtume; ,. .. Property Addnss: J„ a Print Name C N�' Signature: gignatute Property Addtss: Zoo hu +,� Ln 0 to Dare: t[ q5 M �w N Print Name: Signature: Property stis;lr tp " ®� Date: prtnt Natne x p j Ia» �• signs PropertyAddten: //50' .. Date.: Print Name. t Name: Signs s��• Property Address: D amu Print Name: Print Name: F21 : ;t• 'no 0 n*PeaFiam ktb tnga d to thepwpasadicderdVownt ofdle iamerCanms Coved and shWk fmmWdweAfqg ,IvcAted at.Zft AV& W7Camadm Awwue, Comas ddMay Caftfizm& I bave teviewed the peoposed davdlopzmt made by Advanced Rai Baste Secvicea, Inc. for the above ne&zmced property that iaootp tes 9 aia*424 ly attached homes. Paop"Ad&ac l(atb Bxswg s?rt. Daft 2't '07 pjimtP una M@eot� PdntNaena Pwp&WA&kac Dane P=Pa►Y Dais %Atxxow_ PAUNames PAOwy Ad&= Dattc P"Nab= PAfttNamu P&tN=m PmpmyA&hm Da6G PrbutNuna PAUNamc 'CR �1i1 Plot Name: PwpcdrAA6m Date hint Names Pa mName: r•. 4 \ iv 20Z2V &2V/ Anwu4 ddits,� !1 ..'11 _ ,1�:1 1" 1.fl• i� nt Y.1 ilv�ll' I.i 11 I I T ,'l(�.. I.I ill I.ii1 '.1 11 !.1 I1� 1.' � a 1 1. .'litr 1 1�1•.i ll. rlll: 11 �1.'1 11'.• 11 I nn P44xw ft "developmnmt PmpsgAd*xm;.6 Tom; SW Bt LdA Da. s. r PgapaW Data P�Nwne: PAved7 Daft PeiutNsmm PrintNamm to 9J PsqpftyAddmp- p1be Name: PrigtNaaac %opsa7 hd DaM PrintNaaoa himMum A "Adda m Data P"Nama pAintNAOM AERIE PETITION IfIC4 W.7 I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced pt'ol?erty that incorporates 9 single -fps * attached homes. I am supporting this development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable reVirements by the City of Newpon Beach and California Coastal Commission. Sipa sigRtuc -. Priest Name: 9� P&tNTatme: Date =- .1 ztrmn ft=to= Ptopety Addass: Print Name ftmaulm- Not Names Print Name: Siguaft= PrcpegAddr= Print Name Pont Mane: Signatute: Date LM, AERIE PETITION This Pedficahr in tgWwrd to dwpr0pomdtedcvdqP1"C"t of &e Ammer Corona Core Apmancuts and &wp*efAnzdy&vdkV located at 201,205 & 207 Camadho Avmucj, Comma del Mar, Cldnhws. I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced Red Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced property that incorporates 9 single-family attached homes. I am sa"o" this development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach and California Coakiltonmaisiian. I am supporting this development. 'Eopedy Addrur. X Aig�0-7 �int No= ��✓ Ptint N==- wputy Addms: r r Date: 9JZ&1C;7 =t Namc TC4---Uin CAeyrke- PrintNum: ignataw. ?&-A-� - Sigmuom PwpeaYAd 7*12 1ltAQ Date- D+ Sivatum *TMMb -f-7 Print Name: 16 Pont NWMC Sigoa Siguatuxe. PtopeMAddres-,.- (001 Date: Pont N.M. CWr'CShav-r N., Not= Sis"UM - — Swauuve- AERIE PETITION 27 Petition is in regmd to t6oPm,Posed redevefipment of &a former Comna CoveAparements and single fan2df dwelling located at Mi. 205 & ZDyCaomadcn Avenue, Camna del Mar, G'slifornis. I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced property that incorporates 9 single- family attached homes. I am supporting this development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach and California Coastal Commission. I am supporting this development 'roptrgAddress• MfAl^Ck L" -- <Ostu:k Z l01 'ant Name:lTP�i'� Yt�tiylNrrnUN'PsmrN e ignatme: Sivatare� 'ropert yAddress :199 05 4l100 p:( Date: Z 2o/oq 1 ►. Print Name: ropertyAddress: t1YS�IilbHtnna-� d'✓t�" ,A Dar_Zft, /9 tint Name bA►1"u� �� s�� rr y f V\ ... _ Pt nt Names r � Pant Name: Siguatvne: Ikt(l��'ii�s li�fll r � Print Name: Signature: Print Name: Signature: Date: 4"ZD7 AERIE PETITION 22do Peddon is in regard to.&epevposed redcmbPment of&e fanner Corona Cove Apartments and single fkadov dwelling located at2V1, 2ff & X7 CatnadonAvenue, Corona del Mar, Califomha. .& I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced. Real Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced property that incorporates 9 siu►gle- family attached homes. I on supporting this development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach and California Coastal Commission. w ropedy r� '; � �� r �.. .. ignatum / 1� R1L . �' r r ,�, tint iY►43 �'. +'+fii I Signattuc L) w AERIE, PETITION 7Ws PLaddon is in regwd-to thepiqpqsvdrc&v&0Pnwnt Of &vfonmr Comna Cove Apanwents Awds&g1vfkad1ydWeJ&g A 0wtcdAt2#1,2ff&X7CkwadbaAmvue, CmwnedriMar, Cg&&mjg. I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced Red Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced property that incorporates 9 single- family attached homes. IRMsupp conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable by opmen, the City of Newport Beach and California CGIOPICOMMiSSion, I am supporting this development lxopeMAddrm. LAA Date: 'riot Name VVCShtA ��Sf"4 Nut Naq PrintName; L • Ptkt Name: *name: Signstum topem Addmr. 1 Vo d �ourfdg F1 —Date. Propedy Address: . Date: riot N== Ay' Print Mum PjintNam& hint Name Sig"tum- ropertyAAdvess:_ Dow PropeayAddtm: Date: tint N Print Name Paint Name ptiat Name: SigCwtute• r AERIE PETITION This peddaw is in regwd to theprQpomdredevefapment Of the former Come Cove Apartments and single family dwell}ng located at 201, 205 & X7 Camadan Avenue, Comm del Mar, Cah*n2 a. I have tevk ed the proposed development made by Advanced Real. Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced property that incorporates 9 single - family attached homes. I am suppor ng this,development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach and California CoasW"Commission. I am supporting this development � s � riot Namc: ignatim: Print Name; signataw. tint Nsnu: ignatute: Print Name: Signature: Property Addr as: Print Nsma Signature: Print Name: Signature: Print Nano: Signature: Date; AERIE PETITION 11 Y. I. Y'.f f 1 ;111 J Y111 : IY Y 1 v 1 1 II r II alifa V �OU181ri1 Camm�ion wed � the developer sausfymg teumble requU mente by the CAy of Newport Belch sad Print N== Print Nam= PropaayAddtaw Date Pmpaey Add nAre Print. Name: Print Name �E D _M Print Name Priat Now= — S*ma==— Property Addrmx Print Name; — Print Name: PtintName: s4aatm . Daft AERIE PETITION MS Peddan 'am regmd to the proposed todevelopment of &efoomew Corona Cove Apartments and single family dwdling locatedarMt, 209& 207Carrzadon Avenue, Corona del Mar, California. I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced property that incorporates 9 single-family attached homes. I am supporting this development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach anc California Coastal Commission. I am supporting this development Print Nam: Nati SiVMatt=PRJ?2:!"- 4- Prop" Address;- sip aftwe: - "low 77 Date: Property Address: 'Date-:. P&t P&t Hatrz. Print Name: Signature: Signature: Property Address: Date: — Property Address. Print Name: hint Name: — Print Name Signature: Signature: Signature: Print Name: signature- Print Name: Signature: Date: AERIE PETMON nw Petition /sin regapd to the pwpased redevaiapwnent of the former Camera Cave Aparunents and sr»g% family dwelling located at 2101, 205& 207 Carnation Avenue, Cmmna del Mar, California. I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced property that incorporates 9 single -f mWy attached houses. I am suppordng this development ... n ' wl. e.�•. i^Y�.ia V kiat Name" igaame: tint Nam= *Data= 6' Print Name Print Name Signatme. Sigpatwe: Date: PropeM Addvm: Pant Nato= Print Name: _ Signature: Sigaatnce: Print Namc Signaauc: . Print Name: SignaWSe: . Date. Date AERIE PETITION I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced property that incospotates 4 siugk-family attached homes. I am suppordng th�is /development Pwpetty Address• �f �� Aare: \.J. -, Ptint Natn- Name: Date 2 `7`.'' Pwpetty Address: Print Nate -� Stg°ataM PtopettpAddteas: Print Name: Date: Pant Name: Pant Name• Sipataee: PtopettyAdduess: Date Peat Nam- Pant Name: AERIE PETITION This PCdd0fi is in IC999d to. thepro pawdx&F*bOPMCfit of die f0mer Core= Cove Apwzwents and angle fan2dy dweRag located at M 205 & 207 Carnation Avenue, Cooppa del Mar, Cafforj2& I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced property that incorporates 9 singe - family attached homes. an suppo -development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach and California . . . . . . . M I am supporting this devetopramt. hint None: —POA, ' -- ..� PtintNas Signabui- OL. Date: Print N=C Mw Print Name: . kZDaW -� 07 Ptilit Name: Signature: Prop" Address: 2501 SFAVWWv b2te-3 k IA YL Print Names M OTWP"S Print Name signatawtCLSfephens Property Address: 20 1 IRA 9A— Dates 3 PnutNam&-3WAW - M Y t Print Name: AERIE PETITION 77tis Petkion is in re gard;o the propmedredovdopment of the fmwer Conwa Cove Apartments and single family dwelling located at M, WS & 207 Ckmadau Avenue, Owwas del Mar, CxMnda. I have reviewed the proposed development wide by Advanced Red Fstate services, Inc, for the above referenced property that incorporates 9 single-family attached homes. in. I am supp Ort .. ". development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach and California CowV Commission. I am supporting this development. %V."Y '3 1 ITI 07 Address: - 3-z 0 $a C>C'e44-%' DAft: 'tint Name ROM BEAA10 Print N== *Uftm R, e�:Aw'c 4-2 s4"Unet. Date: — PropertyAddtess: Date: Print N== Print Name; Sivxataft: S*Mahml. Peop" Address. Print Name: print Name: SIPStow. Signature: Date: y r. { f AERIE PETITION Th�a Petit}arn is is ZOWWW ta..tbC zWpM*9Ftrdevvlopmwt of die farmer Comma Cove Aparunents and afiVe famfly dwelling located at 201p 2M& 207CamadonAvmu4 Chmna delMarj C$lifornia. I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced property that incorporates -9 single- family attached homes. I am suppottiog " development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach and California Caa�Commission. n O r r � r �. • e e :.r 'ropettyAddms: /g r' Y/A d as y mp. DatC ,i.? 'eats Nuae 'ropemy Addteas: hint Name roperty Addmss: tint Name: �6. Dat= Pont Name: Signature Date: Pont Nam= Signature: Prope4ty;Addea Date: .... '. Pont Name: Psapeny Address: Print Name: Signature: Property Addtess: Print Name Signature: Date: _ Print Name: Signature Date: P:aat Name: Signature: i" PETMON to dopmposedwd"dopment of &c Amer Ckwona .,, :,, i and s&Wc&mMrdweff&g CamadonAmoro Carom WMAG CWoxai& ... 9 &glo-fi=Uy I am u e n. ., dcvdopmmt con&tdwed upon .r a. a satisfyiagwasomble mo=ants by r r Bmch and I sm supptatting this dmebpmmt PmpatyAddxne:��Lf/���•�(.r� �;�7 P&tN ) + Pn Nxm $ig�tute � PsopattgAdd,m 91j 1;tb#Vh AVE Dnte: 'i i IV 'm l: i WN .. PaintNo= is N� F S*MAUM [Y. Planning Commission Minutes 04/05/2007 ;ing in association with the existing restaurant use. Additionally, a er of the parking requirements related to the introduction of WE rtainment is also requested. The property is located at 105 Main Stree is within the Retail and Service Commercial designation of the Centra oa Specific Plan (SP -8) District. r. Lepo stated that staff requests this item be continued to April 19, allow additional time to analyze and review the project. was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded ioner McDaniel to continue this item to April 19, 2007. None Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren * * R Advanced Real Estate Services (PA2005 -196) 201 & 207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place application would allow the demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartme ding and a single - family home and the construction of a 7- level, 9 -ur Itiple- family residential condominium complex with subterranean parkir a 1.4 acre site located bayward of the intersection of Ocean Bouleva I Carnation Avenue. The existing General Plan, Coastal Land Use Pia I Zoning Designations of a small portion of the site (584 square fee uld be changed to be consistent with the larger portion of the site (fro 4amily residential to multi - family residential). The application includes tative tract map for the creation of 9 "airspace" condominium units f ividual sale and. The Modification Permit application requests tl :roachment of subterranean portions of the building within the front ar yard setbacks. Lastly, the Coastal Residential Development Pem Acation relates to replacing lost units occupied by low or moderat Dme households. No units meeting this criteria are known to exist an refore, no replacement of affordable housing is required. Lepo noted that the applicant and the City are in agreement that thi: should be continued to May 17, 2007 to allow re- circulation the revisec lated Negative Declaration with the mandatory 30-day commen :)d. Additionally, there are discussions related to the application of the sed General Plan policies. He then suggested that the Chair opel lic Comment then close the hearing and continue this item to May 17th. Commission inquiry, Mr. Lepo added that a comment had been receive it there was a new potential view impact, and staff wants to address this. son Cole asked if there will be a revised staff report. He wa; i yes, and it would depend on discussions with the applicant. , discussion of the current staff report, unless there is specifir or information, need not be considered. Page 2 of 5 ITEM NO.3 PA2005 -196 Continued to May 17, 2007 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas /mn04- 05- 07.htm 08/07/2007 M Planning Commission Minutes 04/05/2007 imissioner Eaton asked if the re- circulated Mitigated Neg aration would also include resolving issues such as Mitigation Mea ? being missing, and the difference between consistency with the C the MND. Will they be incorporated before it is re- circulated? Lepo answered that the other changes will be incorporated to make i tight as possible. Again, relative to the recommendation and extent o lurbance of the bluff face and the project that is the MND. The MND will the project last seen by the Planning Commission. That is the projec it we get different direction. In the event the MND is re- circulated an( nes back for Planning Commission review and you determine additiona ingest then that would require a further revision to the project that i; scribed and the potential impacts as described in the MND; the MNC .ild again have to be revised and re- circulated if changes are required tc project that minimize impacts. The staff report presumed revisior acted by the Planning Commission consistent with recommendations, bu it that direction is given, the MND will still evaluate the project a: continued on issue of consistency, re- circulation premise, etc. missioner McDaniel noted his concern that members of the audienc( wish to speak, can as well as have the ability to speak at the nex ing. There are going to be changes to issues and you can speak giver, you may wish to wait until the next meeting when the changes wil been made. Harp noted that this item is going to be continued and the dative Declaration is being re- circulated. You are welcomed to evening; however, you may want to wait to see what those so that comments can be more focused. ommissioner Toerge asked if the consultant who helped with the MND wil at the hearing? He was answered yes. He agrees that a project of this iture is very complex and encouraged members of the audience to speal they wish. vote was taken on this item being continued. All ayes. blic comment was opened. Beck asked if the property will be re- posted? Staff answered yes. comment was closed. on was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded missioner McDaniel to continue this item to May 17, 2007. Hawkins, Cole, None httn• /A.a .a ar rite ncasmnrf_haarh no and Page 3 of 5 .'?` 901 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, jcamobellgDcity.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 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). I 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 � Pnk 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: 2 Level 3,348 369 1,638 5,365 3 Level 4,459 361 962 5,782 4 Level 4,671 361 897 5,929 5 Level 6,094 361 794 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 69239 369 1,264 7,872 Total 429908 39369 9,369 55,646 Common All levels n/a n/a We 20,687 Areas l;ommon areas InGUOe the gross floor area not aevotea to InolVlou residences and common recreational spaces and all parking areas Project Setting The site is currently developed with a 14 -unit apartment building (201 -205 Camation) 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 Required parking Parking provided Setbacks required 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) 18 resident spaces and 5 guest spaces 18 resident spaces and 7 guest spaces Front: 10 feet Side: 10 feet, 7 inches Rear: 10 feet Setbacks provided 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 m� F- O a 3 W Z n 9l Amendment Exhibit AERIE (PA2005 =196) February 22, 2007, Page 8 Proposed Lot Lirre Adjustment 584 sq. ft. area subject to land use & zoning amendments Legend MM x ra" kw MFR Wti- Family Residential R -2 - Tw Family Residential V%1 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. a`'oo 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 66690 (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 66690 is not applicable. Policy 2.8.1 -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 2.8.1 -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. 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 30 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 Niti o 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 Z&7-3. Require applications for new development, where applicable [i.e., in areas of known or potential geologic or seismic hazards], to include a geologidsoils/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 2.8.8 -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.: 1 �' 0$ 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 (0 TD) 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 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; • rragility 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 corner 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 f- .a83 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. � ag a 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 qua;ities 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 -t3. 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 altemative 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. M 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. t� - r kt � ✓'.. � 1 1Mk it #lii �a s�brr b5��`ai`f x/ 7 t Mv /i4'�.. .. S� � JT rrn4- '1Yi!. %'. :a�, 'tiM1S � •. �4 ^� '""`�55 SSR ,.. '1- .nk ��.. 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 teen 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 took 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. E.9g1 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. V, gML AERIE (PA2005 -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. �.aa3 AERIE (PA2005 -196) February 22, 2007, Page 25 In calculating distances from the curb and approximate bluff edge, two properties bayward of the bluff Iandform 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 Iandform 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 Iandform 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 Iandform. 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 'V-� -aAs 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 ' -a�(.° 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. "aLl l 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 14. 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 ,'i AERIE (PA2005 -196) February 22, 2007, Page 30 detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property 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 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. Additionally, 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 would suggest that the site is suitable for development. However, the density coupled with the size of the units and the need to provide on -site parking call into question whether or not the site is suitable given the amount of alteration of the site proposed. Smaller unit sizes, a reduction in 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 '. p 10 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 substantio I 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 •sue 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 City's 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 E.3o1 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 Campbell James Campbell, Senior Planner EXHIBITS Submitted by: David Lepo, Planning Director 2. AERIE project overview prepared by Brion Jeannette (separate bound document) 4. Correspondence 5. Predominant line of existing development exhibits prepared by staff x.303 s. Exhibit No. 2 AERIE project overview prepared by Brion Jeannette ,�- •ELI Ac, ✓- rriio^j awouttt AYG4t4ctAre "MAW-6 i AERIE PROJECT OVERVIEW 201 -207 Carnation Avenue Corona del Mar, California May 8, 2006 (Revised February 15, 2007) Submitted to City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Prepared for: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc 23792 Rockfield Blvd.. Suite 100 Lake Forest. CA 92630 David Lepo, Planning Director Jim Campbell, Senior Planner Prepared by: Brion Jeannette Architecture 470 Old Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 ?_. �s � Consultants: Civil Engineer: Hunsaker & Associates 3 Hughes Irvine, CA 92618 (949) 583 -1010 Consulting Engineers & Geologists: Neblett & Associates, Inc. 4911 Warner Ave., Suite 218 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 (714) 840 -8286 Environmental Consultants: P &D Consultants 999 Town & Country, 4" Floor Orange, CA 92868 (714) 835 -4447 Coastal Hazard Study: GeoSoils Inc. 5741 Palmer Way, Suite D Carslbad, CA 92010 (760) 438 -3155 Frow JWKw tt Aruuttctue! Fire Protection Consultants: Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc. One Pointe Drive, Suite 210 Brea, CA 92821 (714) 257 -3555 Landscape Architect: Robert Mitchell & Associates 22982 El Toro Rd. Lake Forest, CA 92630 (949) 581 -2112 Consulting Structural Engineers: Ficcadenti Waggoner 16969 Von Karm an, Suite 240 Irvine, CA 92714 (949) 474 -0502 4 Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... ..............................6 A. REQUEST ..................................................................................... ..............................6 B. DISCUSSION ................................................................................ ..............................6 II. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................... ..............................7 A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................ ..............................7 B. MFR ZONING OVERLAY .............................................................. ..............................8 C. PROJECT FEATURES ................................................................. ..............................9 D. VICINITY MAP ............................................................................. .............................1D E. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: ........................................................................... 11 III. COASTAL BLUFF ............................................................................ .............................12 A. COASTAL BLUFF PRESERVATION ........................................... .............................12 B. PREDOMINANT LINE OF DEVELOPMENT ................................ .............................13 C. BUILDING MASS: ..................................................................................................... 15 D. PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT ON OCEAN BLVD. & CARNATION AVE ..............15 1. Furthest Line of Development toward the Bay from Street Curb ........................... 16 2. The Furthest Line of Development from the Bluff Edge: ....................................... 17 3. Closest Line of Development as it Relates to Mean Low Tide: ............................. 18 E. CLASSICAL STRINGLINE INTERPRETATION ........................... .............................19 F. SUMMARY ................................................................................... .............................19 IV. BUILDING SITE COVERAGE .......................................................... .............................2D V. PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION ........................................... .............................2D A. PUBLIC VIEW ACCESS .............................................................. .............................21 B. VERTICAL AND LATERAL PUBLIC ACCESS ............................ .............................22 C. CREATION OF ADDITIONAL PUBLIC STREET PARKING ........ .............................24 VI. COASTAL RESOURCE PROTECTION ........................................... .............................24 A. ENDANGERED OR PROTECTED HABITAT SPECIES .............. .............................25 B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW ......................................... .............................26 C. PALEONTOLOGICAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES..... 26 D. WETLANDS ................................................................................. .............................27 VII. GENERAL GEOLOGIC SETTING ................................................... .............................28 A. GENERAL .................................................................................... .............................28 B. BEDROCK FORMATION ............................................................. .............................28 C. SEISMIC HAZARDS .................................................................... .............................28 I. Liquefaction: .......................................................................................................... 28 II. Earthquake Induced Landslides: ........................................................................... 28 III. Tsunami and Seiche :................................................................ .............................29 IV. Coastal Hazards: ................................................................................................... 29 V. Bluff Erosion: ......................................................................................................... 29 VI. Surface Rupture and Strong Ground Motion: ........................................................ 29 D. EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS ............................................. .............................3D E. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................... .............................31 VIII. MODIFICATION TO FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS ............................32 IX. SUMMATION .................................................................................... .............................32 Oq �.3 5 ATTACHMENTS EXHIBITS A. Tide Planes and Tidal Datum Relationship B. Slope Analysis prepared by Hunsaker & Associates C. - Setback Exhibit D. Aerial View with Proposed Development E. Furthest Line of Development towards the Bay from Street Curb F. Furthest Line of Development from Bluff Edge Setback G. Furthest Line of Development as it related to Mean Low Tide H. Stringline Setback I. Allowable Building Site Coverage J. Public View K. Coastal Views Map 4 -3 of the Coastal Land Use Plan L. Coastal Access and Recreation Map 3-1 of the Coastal Land Use Plan APPENDICES 1. Applications for Tentative Map, General Amendment, Zone Change, Lot Line Adjustment, Coastal Residential Development Permit, and Modification Permit 2. Notice of Intent for Mitigate Negative Declaration 3. Staffs Comments 4. Letter from Coastkeeper regarding water quality management plan rv,310 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Brion S. Jeannette, Architect SUBJECT: Aerie Staff Report 201 -207 Carnation Tentative Tract Map 16882, Lot Line Adjustment, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and a Modification APPLICANT: Brion Jeannette Architecture for Rick Julian, Advanced Real Estate I. INTRODUCTION A. REQUEST Applicant is requesting approval of TT16882 for a 9 (nine) unit condominium, included is a request for lot line adjustment and request to reconfigure the . area's General Plan and Zoning to include 584 S.F. into the MFR zone, a Modification to encroach into the Easterly front and Northerly side yards and 3 request to modify and add slips to an existing dock. B. DISCUSSION The review of the request focused on these primary issues: • The required findings to approve a tentative tract map • The required findings to approve a General Plan Amendment • The required findings to approve a lot line adjustment • The required findings to approve a zone change • The required findings to approve a modification permit • Conformance with the Coastal Land Use Plan relating to pattern of development on Ocean Blvd. and Carnation Ave., public access and recreation, and coastal resource protection. 0 � .3�j II. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Aerie project site is located northwest of the intersection of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard within the Corona del Mar area of the City of Newport Beach. The project site consists of approximately 1.4 acres (61,284 square feet) of gross area with a portion of the site being submerged lands in part of Newport Bay. The proposed project will consist of the demolition of two existing residential buildings; a single family residence located at 207 Carnation Avenue, built in 1955, and a 14 -unit apartment building located at 201 and 205 Carnation Avenue constructed in 1949. A small parcel (584 square feet) located at 101 Bayside Place has been acquired and incorporated into the project. Following the demolition of the existing buildings, grading and site preparation will be conducted to accommodate the construction of a multi- family building with nine individual custom designed single family attached homes with subterranean parking and storage, automobile elevators, swimming pool, mufti- purpose room, patio areas and modifications to an existing dock. Several entitlements are associated with the Aerie project. Tentative Tract Map 16882 for single family attached homes will merge the two existing parcels with one smaller parcel (recently acquired). With the recordation of the project's final tract map the project will be nine (9) single family attached homes in a mufti - family residential zone (MFR). A lot line adjustment will be concurrently processed with the tentative map to reconfigure the ownership lines for assessor parcel numbers 052- 013 -13 and 052 -013 -21 to incorporate an additional 584 squ are foot triangle- shaped area of land into the project site (assessor parcel number 052- 013 -12). To reconfigure the area's general plan land use designations and z oning into one consistent land use designation and zoning district for the project site, a general plan amendment and a zone change will be processed. The general f, '5 tool n plan amendment will change the small triangular portion of the project site which Is presently Two Family Residence (R -2) to Muni Family Residential (MFR) so that it will be consistent with the balance of the project area. With the general plan amendment and zone change, the general plan land use designations and z oning boundaries will be coterminous with the proposed project boundary and consistent with the project's proposed land use. A modification permit is requested to allow encroachment into the required front yard and side yard setback areas for the subterranean portions of the multi- family structure, as well as side yard above grade encroachments. The existing 14 apartments, constructed in 1949, and the single family dwelling, constructed in 1955, have been vacant since December 2001. The present development occupies 13,483 square feet or 22% of the site. The proposed development will occupy 15,198 square feet or 24.8% of the site and the proposed docks will have an additional nine sh ps and a gangway. B. MFR ZONING OVERLAY The Muni- Family Residential (MFR) Zone requires 2178 square feet of land per unit on this site. The MFR Zone does not allow the use of "submerged land or slopes greater than 2:1150% in calculating the total number of allowable living units. 'Submerged lands shall be defined as lands which Ile below the line of mean low tide (from California Code of Regulations, Section 13577. See Public Trust Land.) Reference: Implementation Plan Draft 2006: Definition 20.03 -28 (See Exhibit A: Tide Planes and Tidal Datum Relationship See Exhibit 8: Slope Analysis prepared by Hunsaker & Assoc.) The gross lot area is 61,284 sq. ft. (1.4 acres) x.313 The MFR zoning only permits 34,845 square feet of the total acreage to be used in calculating the number of dwelling units resulting in 15 allowable dwelling units. The new project is designed90 for 9 dwelling units. It is important to note that the adjacent bayward properties are R -1 and R -2 . When calculating the number of allowable units in R -2 zon', submerged lands and slopes exceeding 2:1 / 50 % are not excluded from the total lot area as they are in the MFR zone. C. PROJECT FEATURES SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATION: UNIT LIVABLE GARAGE STORAGE TOTAL UNIT 1 4,833 369 1,393 6,595 UNIT 2 3,344 369 1,638 5,351 UNIT 3 4,459 361 962 5,782 UNIT 4 4,671 361 897 5,929 UNIT 4,959 361 794 6,114 UNIT 6 3,959 368 824 51 151 UNIT7 5,211 369 863 6,443 UNITE 4,969 442 734 6,145 UNIT 9 6,362 369 1,264 7,995 SUB -TOTAL 42,767 3,369 9,369 55,505 Common Space/ Lounge! Exercise/ Spa/ Restrooms/ Parking 4,430 11,243 -1 243 (circulation) 4,936 18,809 TOTAL 47,197 12,812 14,305 74,314 *Note: Per City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.10.030(M) of the Residential Districts: Property Development Regulation states that for 'MFR District - The total gross floor area contained in all buildings and structures on a development site shall not exceed 1.75 (1.5 times in Corona del Marl times the buildable area of the site; provided that up to 200 square feet of floor area per required parking space devoted to enclosed parking shall not included in calculations of the total gross floor area." (Calc: 200SF x 9 units = 1,800 SF) r,-.31y 10 D. VICINITY MAP 201 — 207 Carnation Avenue Tentative Tract Map 16882, Lot Line Adjustment, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Modification Permit Subject Property: Multi - Family Residence (MFR) & R -2 request change to M FR zone To the north: (Carnation Ave.) Mufti- Family Residence (MFR) To the north: (Bayside Place) Two Family Residence (R -2) To the east: Two Family Residence (R -2) To the south: Single Family Residence (R -1) To the west: Newport Bay E •'3i� 11 E. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: The Subject property is currently zoned MFR and R -2 and has the following development regulations: Development Regulation Note: " Indicate modification request for front and side yard setback. See Exhibit C (Setback Exhibit) for lot width and depth calculations. " "` Parking lifts at designated private garages. i r,-- 3l(o Zoning Code Existing Proposed Development Mod. Requirement Development Request Lot Zone MFR & R -2 MFR Size . 5,000 SF Min. 60,700 SF 61,284 SF (MFR) 584 SF (R -2) Width ** 50' -0" ±133' -6" Avg. ±133' -6" Avg. Depth "" ±373' -0" Avg. ±373' -0" Avg. - Setback Front at District Map 10'-0" /Abv. grade Carnation Ave. " 10' -0" 8' -0" 5' -0" Subterranean Yes Side at 215 8% of avg. 7'-6 "1 Abv. grade Carnation Ave. ' width 10' -7" 5' -0" 5'-0" Subterranean Yes Side at Ba side Place 10' -0" 18' -0" 10' -7" Side at 2496 Ocean Blvd. 10' -7" 8' -5" Avg. 10' -7" Rear at Newport Bay 10' -0" 226' -0" 212' -2" 1.5 x BA 13,688 SF- Apts. Gross Floor Area (50,578.75) = 2,810 SF- SFR = 74,533 SF 75,868.13 SF 16,498 SF 14 Apt. Units Dwelling Units 15 Units 1 Single dwelling 9 Units 23 spaces — 11 covered 32 spaces in garage — Parking (9 covered) (20 tenants) (5 guests) (5 guests) (9 uncovered) 7 auto lifl (2 golf cart) Height Limit 28' -0" / 32' -0" 24' -0" 28'-0" / 32' -0" Note: " Indicate modification request for front and side yard setback. See Exhibit C (Setback Exhibit) for lot width and depth calculations. " "` Parking lifts at designated private garages. i r,-- 3l(o 12 III. COASTAL BLUFF A. COASTAL BLUFF PRESERVATION 1. The CLUP adopted by the City and the California Coastal Commission regulates that development of coastal property adhere to the predominate line of development, minimize alterations of the bluff face and be visually compatible with the surrounding area. 2. Reference excerpt from CLOP: 4.2.3 Coastal Bluffs (Preservation) This coastal bluff at the shoreline is protected by the jetty groins and the small cove at the waters edge. Coastal bluffs are considered significant scenic and environmental resources and are to be protected. Coastal staff and city staff have considered all consequences in protecting the coastal bluffs to the greatest extent possible. The CLOP discusses these issues extensively and came to the conclusion that 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 pattern and to protect coastal views from the bluff top. However, development on the "bluff face" is controlled to minimize further alteration. 3. This project has over twice the amount of open space than required`. City zoning in Corona del Mar generally allows 63% lot coverage, 37% open space, based on a typical lot of 30 feet by 118 feet with a standard setback of 20' front yard setback, 3' side yard setback, and a 5' rear yard setback. The project site is 61,284 square feet with proposed development of 24.8% of the site (15,188 square feet) being utilized for development of the residences and parking garages. Over 75.2% of the site is left as open space and bay usage. City zoning allows for a buildable area on this site of 75,868.13 square feet. The structural area E:50 13 of this project is 74,533 square feet including credit of 1800 square feet for parking garage. `Based on Section IV: Building Site Coverage on page 13. 4. Reference excerpt from CLUP continues: 4.2.3 -8 Coastal Bluffs (Preservation) Prohibit development on bluff faces, "except° private development on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue in Corona del Mar determined to be consistent with the predominant line of existing development or public improvements providing public aocess, protecting coastal resources, or providing for public safety. Permit such improvements only when no feasible alternative exists and when designed and constructed to minimize alternation 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. Note that 75.2% of the property is being maintained as open space. (See Exhibit D - Aerial view with proposed development.) B. PREDOMINANT LINE OF DEVELOPMENT The Predominant Line of Development was designed to create "consistency" of development between parcels of similar orientation. This will prevent arbitrary, capricious and subjective lines of development. Reference from CLUP 5.0 Glossary: Definitions of Predominant Line of Development: Predominant line of development is the most common or representative distance from a speed group of structures to a spaced point or line (e.g. 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). e--jlc6 14 Where principal structures exist on "coastal bluff faces" along Ocean Blvd. and Carnation Ave. 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. See pages 15 - 18 for analysis of three different approaches to defining the predominant line of development. The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure safety and stability of the development. Reference: Establishing development setbacks from coastal bluffs by Mark Johnson, California Coastal Staff Geologist dated January 16, 2003 Slone Stability. Once the bluff edge is located, the first aspect to consider in establishing development setbacks from the bluff edge is determine whether the existing coastal bluff meets minimum requirements for slope stability, If the answer to this question is ryes" then no setback is necessary for slope stability considerations. When the 1.5 factor of safety can not be met, the setback shall be reviewed and adjusted accordingly to "ensure safety and stability of development". Slope stability analyses were performed for a typical cross - section of the planned excavation required for the installation of the temporary shoring system (Soldier pile/ Lagging System with Tie -back Anchors) for the proposed development. The excavation slope was analyzed by calculating the factors of safety for a circular -type failure using the Modified Bishop's Method. Calculated factors of safety exceed 1.5 for permanent excavation and 1.25 for temporary excavation under static conditions. (Refer to Appendix O: Slope Stability Analyses in Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report for more information.) A top of bluff setback is not required. The predominant line of development establishes the required line of development. Reference: (Neblett & Associates, Inc. Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report for the Condominium Project dated August 5, 2005. Appendix D.) 15 C. BUILDING MASS: The building mass has been reduced by utilizing subterranean areas and is consistent with the city's height limit and building area limitations. The project is designed to minimize visible landform alteration by consolidating the project on the upper 24.8% of the site, while at the same time respecting the CLUP requirement of meeting the "Predominant Line of Development ". The project is designed with the new residences on the upper portion of the lot and partially on the slope face, similar to the existing development and surrounding parcels. The proposed parking garages, mechanical equipment and storage areas are all subterranean. Parking for the project exceeds zoning requirements. Two automobile elevators will be utilized to access the parking garages. Parking lifts will be installed in private garages to increase off - street parking. In addition, a 28' -0" wide setback view corridor at the Northerly side yard, adjacent to 215 Carnation Avenue, has been provided at the upper floors to reduce the building mass while allowing the neighbors on Carnation Avenue a view corridor to the Bay. D. PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT ON OCEAN BLVD. & CARNATION AVE. This project has been designed to maintain the Pattern of Development and does not encroach on the bluff beyond the adjacent neighbors and is in fact, behind the existing Pattern of Development. To date, there have been no formulas defining this concept. I have chosen 3 representative examples to define consistency with the surrounding neighbors. The following charts evaluate the Predominant Line of Development as a definitive measurement from the street to the furthest line of development using a median distance. This diagram and table depicts the distance from the curb at Ocean Boulevard or Carnation Avenue to the furthest line of development toward Newport Bay. ,�; 3aO 16 1. Furthest Line of Development toward the Bay from Street Curb Diagram A Table (A) (B) Address Building Distance from curb toward Bay 11 Pools /Decks distance from curb toward Bay * 101 Dahlia Avenue 332' -1" 352' -6" 'Ocean Ocean Blvd. 277' -7° 314' -3° * 2501 Ocean Blvd./ 2495 Ocean Blvd. 108' -5" 215' -7" lower deck 201 267 Cat'tla�l+�n;(PIQ) 111'4" (Avg.) 926' O ", (Avg:) * 215 Camation Ave. 109 -9" 120' -4" ' 221 Camation Ave. 88' -3" 95' -7" 101 Bayside Place 121' -10" To bulkhead 173' -5" 103 Bayside Place 114' -0" To bulkhead 138' -8" 105 Bayside Place 105' -10" To bulkhead 127' -3" 107 Bayside Place 102' -7" To bulkhead 114' -8" --t t c - rwlw+ tune or ueveropmenr iowam me Bay from Street Curb.) Results: The Median distance from access road to the furthest projection of building structure on Carnation Ave. and Ocean Blvd. towards Newport Bay is 183' -2" and 219' -8" for deck and pool structures. The proposed project is 111' -8" and 126' -10 ", substantially landward of the median distance. Note: *lots used to calculate the median distance. zJ�� 17 2. The Furthest Line of Development from the Bluff Edge: The City of Newport Beach and Coastal Commission adoption of the land use plan define the Predominant Line of Development. This diagram and table depicts a median distance of existing development relative to the bluff edge. Diagram B suns tlAIFF EDGE CJg1Y�lIDNAVE oECwaoa, ocE.w BEw. Llf A? rRCYA BLIYF EO,c' iOY:ARD BAY BLL�WEM- �EJ.N _LOW nDC R W F Ep(p6TAH0E fL_M_K BI L_ffFF.(X_'F tp_W_N_L; BAY B, Table (A) ( B ) Address Building Distance from Bluff Ede Pool/ Deck from Bluff Edge 101 Dahlia 254' -6" (Avg.) 352' -0" 2525 Ocean Blvd. 192' -1" (Avg.) 239' -8" (Avg.) 2501 Ocean Blvd./ 2495 Ocean Blvd. 81' -7" (Avg.) 99' -0" (Avg.) 201.207 Carnation (1310) 26'-3" (Avg.) 44'-0" (Avg.) 215 Carnation Ave. 24' -9" 21' -1" 221 Carnation Ave. 111-8" 1g' -2" (See LxnrDlt t- - t-urtnest Line of Development from Bluff Loge Setback) Results: The median distance from bluff edge to the furthest line of development towards Newport Bay is 112' -11" and 146' -3" for deck and pool structures. The proposed project is 26' -3" and 44' -0" for deck and pool structures, substantially landward than the median distance. � ,aa 18 3. Closest Line of Development as it Relates to Mean Low Tide: The Predominant Line of Development should also be analyzed as it relates to MLT (Mean Low Tide at elevation 0.74' NAVD88 Datum or 0.92' Tidal Datum). This diagram and table depicts the median distance of proximity from the water line at low tide to the closest structure. Diagram C Table (A) ( B ) Address l$liEEf aRm Edge of Deck to MLT � CAaw1pN AVE. � OECW PO^.L GLEMI BLh, 2501 Ocean Blvd./ 2495 Ocean Blvd. 37' -10" (Avg.) 21' -4" (Avg.) 201 — 207 Carnation PIQ SAY PLACE - 101 Bayside Place 61' -6" tlVLNMEM FV 17' -11" from bulkhead tir 105 Bayside Place 2 To Bulkhead 107 Bayside Place W1RIM11i 1MS�ANCE �. To Bulkhead ASRREU23Y000L161EM � �j POIX /OEq(pSiA4GE A3 yts� � RPAAiF5 TO A6AN LbN iIOF X87 � N �( wk OiST EAS "P M5 ES i0 MEAN lCW 1pE IA7 Table (A) ( B ) Address Edge of Bldg. to MLT Edge of Deck to MLT 2525 Ocean Blvd. 34' -9" (Avg.) Deck beyond MLT 2501 Ocean Blvd./ 2495 Ocean Blvd. 37' -10" (Avg.) 21' -4" (Avg.) 201 — 207 Carnation PIQ 127' -8" (Avg.) 107' -0" (Avg.) 101 Bayside Place 61' -6" To Bulkhead 103 Bayside Place 17' -11" from bulkhead To Bulkhead 105 Bayside Place 16'-4" from bulkhead To Bulkhead 107 Bayside Place 10' -7" from bulkhead To Bulkhead (See Exhibit G — Furthest line of Development as it relates to Mean Low Tide.) E �� 19 Results: The median distance from the mean low tide to the closest line of building development towards the bay on bay front properties is 29' -10 ". The proposed property is 127' -8 ", substantially landward from the median distance. E. CLASSICAL STRINGLINE INTERPRETATION 1. The Project was analyzed based upon the "old" concept of a coastal stringline. (i.e. Closest adjacent neighbors line of structural development.) 2. The project is landward of the 'classical stringline' by average of 36' -0" feet. (See Exhibit H — Stringline Setback.) F. SUMMARY This project Is landward of the predominant line of development based on four different criteria: • The furthest line of development toward the Bay from street curb. • The furthest line of development toward the Bay from the Bluff Edge. • The closest line of development as it related to Mean Low Tide. • Classical Stringline interpretation. IV. BUILDING SITE COVERAGE The building site coverage (building footprint less overhangs) is a calculation that determines the maximum site coverage (total site area minus setbacks) of this parcel relative to adjacent parcels. Estimate of building site coverage (building footprint less overhangs) Address Lot size Allowable BSC Allowable Actual BSC in In square feet BSC in percentage ercenta e 2495 Ocean Blvd. 16,517 SF 13,384 SF 81% 13% South 2501 Ocean Blvd, 5,502 SF 3,943 SF 72% 51% South 2500 Ocean Blvd. 3,976 SF 2,573 SF 65% 64% 2504 Ocean Blvd. 3,322 SF 2,058 SF 62% 59% 301 7 61;2f?4 SF 50,ST8J5 SF Or' L" Cemataon PIQ. 215 Carnation Ave 7,189 SF 5,033 SF 70% 55% North 221 Carnation Ave 5,012 SF 3,400 SF 68% 48% North 101 Bayside Place 14,814 SF 11,119 SF 75% 26% North The project utilizes only g 24.8% of the site, 75.2% is devoted to and will remain as a coastal resource, Newport Bay, rock outcroppings, and lands that are submerged. This project is less dense than developments surrounding this lot. (See Exhibit l: Allowable Building Site Coverage) V. PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION Taken from Newport Beach CLOP: 3.1 Shoreline and Bluff Top Access Coastal Act policies related to shoreline and bluff top access that are relevant to Newport Beach include the following., 30210. In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 ofArticle X of the Califomia Constitution, maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and �.3as 21 recreational opportunities shall be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of private property owners, and natural resources areas from overuse. 302 12. (a) Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast shall be provided In new development projects except where: (1) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, of the protections of fragile coastal resources, (2) adequate access exists nearby, or (3) agriculture would be adversely affected. Dedicated accessway shall not be required to be opened to public use until a public agency or private association agrees to accept responsibility for maintenance and liability of the accessway. 30214. (a) The public access policies of this article shall be implemented 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: (1) Topographic and geologic site characteristics. (2) The capacity of the site to sustain use and at what level of intensity. (3) The appropriateness of limited public access to the right to pass and repass depending on such factors as the fragility of the natural resources in the area and the proximity of the access area to adjacent residential uses. (4) The need to provide for management of access areas so as to protect the privacy of adjacent property owners and to protect the aesthetic values of the area by providing for the colledion of litter. A. PUBLIC VIEW ACCESS The new project will provide a public bench and water fountain at the corner of Carnation Avenue and Ocean B oulevard. The project design will enhance public views of the jetty and ocean as a result of increased setbacks and side yards. Public views will be increased 29% over what exists today. (See Exhibit J., Public View) (See Exhibit K Coastal Views Map 43 of the Coastal Land Use Plan) 22 B. VERTICAL AND LATERAL PUBLIC ACCESS Public access to a public beach does not currently exist across this private property. Public beach access exists to China Cove south of the site at Fernleaf Avenue, approximately 250' south of this site. Public beach access also exists further south of this site at Goldenrod Avenue and Jasmine Avenue to public beaches and recreational facilities at Corona del Mar State Beach. CLUP Chapter 3: Public Access and Recreation Provide offers to dedicate (OTD) for vertical public access on the south side of the site. Provide easement for this, provided the public agency accepts liability for public access. If access is requested, the city of Newport Beach or the California Coastal Conservancy will have to be responsible to accept liability for access safety prior to acceptance of OTD. Providing any type of public access from Carnation Ave. to the shoreline below this site carries a high level of risk and liability to the responsible agency. If vertical access were possible it would require extensive grading, caissons, foundations and be p rohibitively expensive. If vertical access were created there would still be no lateral access on either the northerly or southerly properties. Adjacent parcels have bulkheads with no provision for public access. The rock formation at the shoreline is dangero us and unsafe and should be protected. Public easements do not exist to the north or south of this parcel. Recent Coastal Commission approvals of projects on 103 Bayside Place (CCC Application No. 5 -03 -432) and 105 Bayside Place (CCC Application No. 5 -02- 083) did not require any lateral or vertical access because neither vertical nor lateral public access exist on the property or on adjacent parcels. 23 Excerpt from CCC Staff Report dated November 20, 2003 Application No.: 503- 421 (Approved} Project Location: 103 Bayside Place, Newport Beach (2 parcels to the North) • Proiect Description: The subject site is a harbor front, bulkhead lot. The site Is located within a private, gated communa'y between the sea and the first public road. No public access currently exists at the subject site. The nearest public access exists at Bayside Drive Beach approximately Y, mile northwest of the subject site and at Corona del Mar State Beach, approximately Y mile southwest of the subject site. The proposed development, remodel and addition to an existing single family residence, will have no impact on existing public access in the vicinity. Public Access., The proposed development will not affect the public's ability to gain access to, and/or to use the coast and nearby recreational facilities. Therefore, as proposed the development, as conditioned, conforms with Sections 30210 through 30214, Sections 30220 through 30224, and 30252 of the Coastal Act. Excerpt from CCC Staff Report dated August 22, 2002: Application No.: 502.083 (Approved) Project Location: 105 Bayside Place, Newport Beach (3 parcels to the North) • Public Access: The proposed development will not affect the public's ability to gain access to, and/or to use the coast and nearby recreational faclities. Therefore, as proposed the development conforms with Sections 30210 through 30214, Sections 30220 through 30224, and 30252 of the Coastal Act. Excerpt from CCC Addendum dated August 20, 2002: 1;�' 3as 24 Subject: Addendum to Item Tues 4c, Coastal Commission Permit Application #5 -02 -083 (Brigandi) for the Commission Meeting of September 10, 2002. • Neither vertical norlateral public access exists on the subject property. In addition, there is no established lateral public access in the vicinity. However, there are several opportunities for public access to the coast near the proposed development. Bayside Drive County Beach is accessible via the Orange County Sheriff/Harbor Patrol Bureau located approximately a half mile to the northwest of the proposed development (Exhibit #1). This area allows the launching of small boats by the public. Also, public access is available at China Cove Beach and Rocky Point Cove located a mile to the southeast. Finally, a street end access point located five lots north of the property offers an overlook to the Harbor (Exhibit #2). Since the proposed project involves the reconstruction of an existing single - family residence, neither the existing access situation nor the intensity of use of the site will be changed. The proposed development will not have an impact on existing coastal access or reaction in the area. (See Exhibit L: Coastal Access and Recreation Map 3-1 of the Coastal Land Use Plan) C. CREATION OF ADDITIONAL PUBLIC STREET PARKING Chapter 3 of the CLUP recommends: "Close curb cuts to create public parking wherever feasible." The new project presently has nine (g) carports and a standard two (2) car garage and that back directly onto Carnation Avenue creating a driveway curb cut of approximately 111' in length. This property currently allows for one on street parking space. The new project design will create four on street parking spaces available for public parking. This will enhance public parking and public view access. VI. COASTAL RESOURCE PROTECTION %' 25 A. ENDANGERED OR PROTECTED HABITAT SPECIES Reference from CLUP: 4.1.1 Description of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat The California Department of Fish and Game's (CDFG) "List of Califomia Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by the California Natural Diversity Database" (CNDDB) provides an inventory of California's natural communities and identifies those that are considered rare because of their highly limAed distribution. These rare communities mayor may not contain individual species that are rare, threatened, or endangered. A reconnaissance field visit of the project was conducted on May 5, 2005 to assess current site conditions, identify plant and wildlife species present or having the potential to occur at the project site. The result of the study shows that suitable habitat conditions do not exist on the project site to support any of the threatened or endangered terrestrial plant or animal species listed in the literature review. The marine plant species eelgrass is considered a sensitive resource in Southern California. This species is within the property boundary of the project site immediately offshore of the cove but impacts can be reduced or avoided with development of an Eelgrass Habitat M itigation and Management Plan. No threatened or endangered species of marine plants or animals were observed on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project will not have any impacts on threatened or endangered terrestrial plant or animal species. (Reference: August 2005, P &D Consultants Environmental Information Form. Appendix B "Biological Constraints Analysis for AERIE Project, Marine Biological Field Survey and Eelgrass Study, and Bathymetric Survey) t e�)-30 M B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW Reference from CEQA: Environmental Review Section The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the state to review the environmental impacts of projects that require state or local government approval. CEQA requires appropriate mitigation of projects that contain significant environmental impacts. An Environmental Information Form including the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment has been conducted for the project by P &D Consultants. Based on their review of the Potential Envi ronmental Effects, the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. An environmental records search was conducted to identify any listed sites with environmental concerns within the project vicinity. The site conditions do not po se a hazard to future residents nor is the project site included on the list of sites containing hazardous materials. The project will not result in a significant hazard to the public or environment, nor is the site within a flood hazard zone, therefore, no mitigation measures will be required. (Reference: August 2005, P &D Consultants, Environmental Information Form: Aerie Residential Project) C. PALEONTOLOGICAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES Reference from CLUP: 4.5 Paleontological Cultural Resources Cultural orpaleontological resources (Section 4.5. f) requires the submittal of an A/C resources monitoring plan. Review of records of any paleontological resources finds that there are NQ known resources. Following the requirement of Section 4.5.1, the monitoring plan is submitted as part of this application. 27 A research study was performed to determine if past use of the site or nearby sites could have adversely impacted the project. There was no evidence of hazardous material usage or of practices or conditions of environmental concerns on this site. A cultural resources records search was completed through South Central Coastal Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System. Results of the search indicate that no archaeological sites are recorded within the project area. Therefore, no survey had been conducted on the project area. The project will not result in a physical or aesthetic impact to historic Sesources since none exist near the site. However, in the event any cultural resources are identified during construction, a qualified archaeologist should be contacted to review the finding(s) and make appropriate mitigation recommendations. The Monterey Formation, which forms the bluff sediments, is known to contain abundant marine invertebrates and vertebrates (primarily fish). There are many recorded fossil localities in similar sediments in the immediate vicinity of the project area. Therefore, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to develop a Paleontological Resource I mpact Mitigation Program to offset any impacts. (Reference: August 2005, P &D Consultants, Environmental Information Form: Aerie Residential Project) D. WETLANDS P &D Consultants conducted a reconnaissance site assessment to evaluate biological associated with redevelopment of the project site. During the reconnaissance site visit no "wetlands" were noted. Redevelopment of the project site will not cause alteration or impacts of any kind to federal "wetland ". (Reference: Svitenko, Kimbe*2006, Aerie Residential Development Tentative Tract Map No. 96882, P &D Consultants, Letter to Planning Director; City of Newport Beach, January 39, 2006. ) t n,3a VII. GENERAL GEOLOGIC SETTING A. GENERAL From a geologic and geotechnical engineering standpoint, the site is considered suitable for the proposed development. It is our opinion that the Conceptual Grading Plans (Reference No. 6) are suitable for their intended purpose provided the recommendations presented herein are incorporated into the design and implemented during construction. B. BEDROCK FORMATION The bedrock on site is largely west striking, moderate to steeply northeast dipping with localized moderate southwest dip. The prevailing strike and dip orientation of the bedrock is into slope with respect to planned excavation cuts, and therefore favorable from a slope stability standpoint. C. SEISMIC HAZARDS Seismic Hazards have been reviewed relative to the development on this site. Liquefaction: According to the conceptual grading plan for the site, the site area will be cut to a proposed ultimate elevation of approximately 20 feet mean sea level (MSL) for subterranean level construction. This will effectively remove the artificial fill and terrace materials, and will expose bedrock throughout the excavation and liquefaction within the bedrock material is not a concern. Furthermore, subsurface water was not observed during the field investigation. II. Earthquake Induced Landslides: The slopes descending from the proposed development expose with resistant sandstone of the Monterey formation. Extensive through - going, low angle discontinuities within the dense massive sandstone bedrock are absent. Literature G °j,Y 29 reviews (CDMG, 1994), site mapping, aerial photo analysis, and subsurface exploration indicate that landslides do not exist on or adjacent to subject site. The lack of landslide features indicates that the area has been relatively stable in the recent geologic past (Holocene) and has not been subject to earthquake-induced large -scale land- sliding. The potential for earthquake induced, large - scale, land- sliding at the subject site is therefore considered low. III. Tsunami and Seiche: Based on the proposed pad elevations shown the Conceptual Grading Plans, and the above discussions, the risk to the site in response to tsunami is considered remote. IV. Coastal Hazards: Coastal hazards include shoreline erosion, wave runup and coastal flooding. The shoreline at the site is comprised of resistant sandstone and is protected by a jetty at the mouth of the Newport Harbor. As previously indicated, the lowermost exposed face of the planned development will daylight on the bluff at approximate Elevation 30t feet (MSL). (Refer to October 5, 2006, GeoSofls Inc, Coastal Hazard Study for New Development at 201 — 207 Camation, Corona del Mar, California) V. Bluff Erosion: The exposed bluff material is comprised of resistant sandstone and is not prone to erosion. In view of this and the base elevation of the planned condominium development, bluff erosion is not considered a factor in design over the Iffe of the structure. VI. Surface Rupture and Strong Ground Motion: Based on the site - specific fault investigation (see Appendix E), the fault activity levels have not displaced terrace deposits for 30 at least 80,000 to 120,000 years before present (ybp). According to CDMG Special Publication 42, 'active" faults are defined as those faults which have displaced during the last 11,0001 years (Holocene age). Therefore, the faults identified on site are not considered 'active". It is unlikely the subject site will experience fault related surface rupture. However, the subject site may experience ground motion as the result of regional seismic activity. Presented in Appendix C are the 2001 CBC (1997 UBC) Seismic Design Parameters for the subject site. D. EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS Bedrock rippability was reviewed in order to evaluate the rippability of cut areas comprised of hard sandstone Monterey Formation (Tm) bedrock. Rock hardness was assessed utilizing information obtained from three diamond core borings penetrating to depths of approximately 46 to 51 feet below grade, excavation of two fault trenches, site mapping, laboratory unconfined compression testing on several samples obtained from the subject site, and review of the shallow seismic refraction profile for the bordering 2495 Ocean Boulevard site (Westland Associates, 1982). Based on our experience, rock masses displaying seismic shear wave velocities of up to approximately 5,000 feet per second are considered economically nppable using conventional mechanical grading equipment. Rock masses displaying seismic shear wave velocities of approximately 5,500 to 7,000 feet per second are considered marginally nppable. Rock masses with seismic shear wave velocities greater than approximately 7,000 feet per second will likely require a Caterpillar 245 hoe -ram track excavator or equivalent equipped with a rock chisel. The shallow seismic profile velocifies for 2495 Ocean Avenue from 4,000 to 8,350 feet per second, and similar velocities can be anticipated for the subject property. t .3� 31 E. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Recommended design consideration for shoring design and engineering: Temporary shoring consisting of soldier pile/ lagging system is recommended to permit excavation and construction of the planned subterranean levels. In view of planned deep excavations, ti a -back anchors and/or internal bracing will be required to provide a stable shoring system. The tie -back anchors should be tested as discussed below. The design of shoring should consider lateral earth pressures as well as surcharge of effects of existing structures and anticipated traffic, including construction equipment, when loading is within a distance from the shoring equal to the depth of excavation. As proposed, the building is located at or close to the property limits, the feasibility of integrating the shoring system with the structural elements of the basements should be evaluated by the Project Structural Engineer. The solider piles should be adequately designed to resist both the design anchor loads and test load conditions. The structural design should include provisions to accommodate basement wall water - proofing, drain installation, etc. The shoring system should be designed by qualified and experience Shoring Engineer. (August 5, 2005. Neblett & Associates Inc. Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report. Condominium Project. Project No. 416000.03) S.3n�0 32 Vlll. MODIFICATION TO FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS The applicant is requesting approval of a modification to setbacks. Because of the irregular shape of the lot the average lot width creates a side yard setback that exceeds the front yard setback. The front yard setback as noted in the Districting Maps is 10' -0" while the side yard setback calculation is based upon 8% of average lot width and is 10' -7 ". It is uncommon that aside yard setback exceeds a front yard setback. All adjacent parcels have side yards ranging from 3'-0" to 4' -10" and are as noted in the attached Exhibit C — Setback Exhibit. Applicant is requesting encroachments to the Northerly side yard setback (adjacent to 215 Carnation Ave) that vary from 5' -0" to 7'-6" at ground level and below grade. The project setback of 5' exceeds all other properties in the area. The project meets the required front yard setback of 10' -0 ". The project architect is requesting a 5' encroachment for the subterranean parking at Carnation Avenue. This same 5' encroachment was granted to 215 Carnation Avenue f or subterranean parking (ref: Modification Permit #MD2001 -106). The approved modification was reviewed by the Planning Commission. The project design exceeds the required rear yard setback of 10' with a proposed setback of 212'. IX. SUMMATION The site has unusual topography as well as submerged lands and a very irregular shape. The new structure is on a coastal bluff top and on the face of the slope that has been identified in the city's and Coastal Commission's adopted Land Use Plan which allows for such development as long as it follows the existing Pattern of Development. The project meets this criteria and does not exceed the Predominant Line of Development. 0 �71 33 • The Aerie 9 unit custom attached home project is replacing a dilapidated 14 unit apartment building that does not meet current zoning energy and building codes. • There are no variance requests required for this new project • The project seeks approval of a tentative tract map and minor adjustments to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinances. • The project requires a modification to the front yard setback for a subterranean parking structure and side yard encroachments. The adjustments to the setbacks are minor and are consistent with adjacent properties that have been granted similar relief. The environmental factors have been evaluated • No threatened or endangered species of habitat exist on this site • No impact to sensitive terrestrial species occur • Eelgrass is present on the project site. Mitigation and management plans will be employed to avoid impacting it. Archaeological resources have been reviewed No historic resources exist on the site. Consequently the project will not result in a physical or aesthetic impact to historical features. Paleontological resources have been reviewed There are recorded fossil localities in similar sediments in the immediate vicinity of the project area. The project area is considered to have a high paleontological sensitivity therefore a qualified paleontologist will be retained to monitor and direct any possible Endings and handling. Refer to the Environmental Information Form prepared by P &D /EDAW Consultants for additional site information. EXHIBITS 34 f 10 35 r r rr ri r rr it /! .t' r1I! I tl The chart below displays tidal datums for benchmark TIDAL -INP located at Newport Bay Entrance and are based oil the following: Length of series 19 years Mane Period 1960 -1978 Tidal Epoch 1960 -1978 Control Tide Station 1st Reduction Theory #1 - Tidelands He between mean high and mean of tow neap tides. Theory #Z - Tidelands He between mean of all high and mean of all low tides. 1n£otmation was taken from National Ocean Service (NOS), Office of Ocean and Earth Science (OES), Tidal Datum sheet- Publication Date 07117189 TIDE PLANES AND TIDAL DATUM RELATIONSHIPS EXHIBIT A 2 M 3 jog V. 6 LEGEND: TOTAL SIM AREA - 61,284 S.F./I.4 ACRES EASnNG BUILDING PAD (11 3 S.F./D.3 ACRE) SLOPE AREA LESS 'I AN 50% 21.36Z S.F./0.5 ACRE) % SLOPE AREA GREATER THAN 507 (15.1<fi S.F./O.] ACRE) AREA UNDER MEAN LOW NOE aEVADON'(1I.293 S.F./0.3 ACRE) ♦ • MCW LOP NX (UDS LO ) o AIM - D.7 • NA DATPP < /// A PREPARED FOR: ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES 22974 El. TORO ROAD. LAKE FOREST. CA 92630 Z., PREPARED BY: HUNSAKER. & ASSOCIATES I A V I N f I N C ENQN A, C, 9.� • . �, .1) l.. • 1. 9nM .Mlll SLOPE ANALYSIS EXHIBIT CORONA DEL MAR EXHIBIT B F PRO ;�g� F-5"'W Sim 0 W W W()� 0 -0 ; �4 "Do OR auwm I 111 II Ad PoO WT p I I11 II I I11 II LLI ---------- II -T SETBACK EXHIBIT EXHIBIT c ij .�F W,,3,, a (T VIN ' It S } > r� r..-A %L�,i �i d; #�. `i� +�"� -'ii✓ -�jifl �,,,+#6,'xs �.�.G ts°,— � }. 3% 2 RN IN ISO' k- IN, x I!' \'w; i 1 1_ -gomix �\ i,^I S� �¢aTta.9�.'1� 1 NEWPORTBAVJ i N �L�t �,,VtA �yy 0 PREDOMINANT LINE OF DEVELOPMENT - MEDIAN DISTANCE FROM STREET CURB TO FURTHEST LINE OF DEVELOPMENT TOWARI Z OQ Q< Z J Wd'W F Q ° u1U Q Na. O 0 N i I I mm' i W 3 W wNr I r2w ' O =LLp I w Z' W FO i Z w i a= r ® W LL fi�S . .. . ...... fi F-76r-7 I SAYSIDE PL. I �j I I 1�ka pnopww lURUINO �I�NE l St A, I A mm F-7U-1 BAYSIVE PL. z 0� 00 N(r 0 N B AYSIDE PLACE CARNATION z PREDOMINANT LINE OF DEVELOPMENT it CARNATION AVE. z PREDOMINANT LINE OF DEVELOPMENT OCEAN BLVD. Al M� LO. ME 00,74'NA�. PREDOMINANT LINE OF DEVELOPMENT - LLl MEDIAN DISTANCE FROM MEAN LOW TIDE TO 0 I CLOSEST LINE OF DEVELOPMENT TOWARDS BAY 9, z 0 z w w W U 't <�z po 0 Ii zw F3 0 0 cr w LU L) z �< 0 U) w is '9 pW Z , 22 BAYSIDE PL. SAYSIDE PL. Z O D' t N2. BAYSIDE PLACE BUllpiuG 1 ,,,�` * CAHNAT y% - ' CARNATION 111 STRINGLINE A ' A J i ; tet /y I r� OCEAN BLVD` m 3: •ufxME GtR xx2' I c ssc s.n NUux�w.w« W N CARNATION AVE. > 2501 > reruce OCEAN BLVD 00 M ..,; Z Aw } (J w PREDOMINANT LINE OF DEVELOPMENT O II CLASSIC STRINGLINE SETBACK EXHIBIT H 1 T OUTLINE OF EXISTING BULIDING PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED . ...... ..... DECK gy 0 -F- PUBLIC VIEWPOINT: PROJECT TO PROVIDE NEW PARK BENCH AND DRINKING FOUNTAIN. FOR PUBLIC USE 0 m L4= z . .......... Wxw -F- PUBLIC VIEWPOINT: PROJECT TO PROVIDE NEW PARK BENCH AND DRINKING FOUNTAIN. FOR PUBLIC USE 0 m L4= CARNATION AVE. mp 0. z Wxw R, CARNATION AVE. mp 0. BM 13,M SF M% if IM SF IN MYMM PLACE 14 014 BF BSC:II,IIB SF �5 F YZ M BAYSIDE PLACE -J --- - -- -- F 7- r I Ilk 3'V �Z_ ZIP - - L� M z LD Qm z Lu W irUUUUUUO w a00 N ir _0 ou N QW z P fi CARNATION AVENUE F.Y&S w RYA,G BM,2MS -M co 0 LMMSF. w � ;—� - -I. ------ IIALL, F 7- r I Ilk 3'V �Z_ ZIP - - L� M z LD Qm z Lu W irUUUUUUO w a00 N ir _0 ou N QW z P fi � ' ^~ �� OUTL|NGOF - ---- G)(|GT(NGBUL|D|N8 PROPOSED ----- DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED ---� DECK � r loo— c r / pvuucwsWpnINT, PROJECT m PROVIDE NEW PARK BENCH ANoDRINKJNG FOUNTAIN FOR PUBLIC USE CARNATION AVE. 0 W � ;• j( e F q y h % 4 n T� ZI P-4,vfy+r Y 4 ?r {rf APPENDIX 1 Applications for Tentative Map, General Amendment, Zone Change, Lot Line Adjustment, Coastal Residential Development Permit, and Modification Permit AODIFICATION PERMIT APPLICATION PLAWING'DEPARTMENT C -101 COMOM on C""A;on . Q0-1 CWYvmon Project Address: t gx 'At-, ice Momm • MINIMUM C6"k Name(s) of Owner(s): Owner's mailing address: Phone Number Phone Numbek., Contact's Email As 0) (We) and say that (I am) (we are) the iiTi(sor)'olffthe �property �ties)in: �b6l�j 11 Si cw*, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the.infbrmation herewith submitted are In all respects true and correct to the best of (my) (our) knowledge and belief. Signabffe(s) Please Print a NO U NOTE Ma" may sign for SwmVU*dan mMVdzq9MftM ftmtcM a ,X laffied *th the appykaw FAUSERS%PLN%Shared%ForrnsINew Forms'Applicabons%Mc>dapplication.doc Dated 05-M-05 � '?.755 1115Tt1'Yr'tJ ate' i Project Description and Justification (describe briefly): +tqpQ3eL i,� - ajeLL3 nvtjjjj�% 1. L t /._ Y ( 1 I L 1. 1 ..41 � • " � i / ' :.. / � /.1 �' CO Work to be done:DMdt5h w. 'v. /. LLi �a �.1 ..-1 •n 1.1 /. Cl IvAinnimg, I--04 Posting /Mailing date: Zoning Administrator's Action: Date of Zoning Administrator's Action: Coastal Zone. E] Yes E] No General Plan Designation: Zoning District: Fee Paid: Receipt. #: Form of Payment;_ Cheek #. (f applicable): F:IUSERSIPLMSharefformMew Forms lAppltcationsVAodappllcation.doc Dated 05 -05-05 '�''-b5(q In order to review and evaluate your Modification Permit Application, please provide responses to the three required findings listed below. The intent of the code Is to establish objective reasons or facts in support of the Modification Permit Findings utilized by the Zoning Administrator in the decision making process. Therefore, effective November 23 �QQ4n;4 Modification Permit pplications received in the Planning Department shall include a writlet�"appficar' .. statefr9ekt address rt a three required findings listed below. Please note ApplttiatiknS submitted .A t e accompanyth tement may be deemed incomplete and may cam§ a delay in pp pr r+ 'y Required AdditloopgfM rmat a�� 4 -.'hk Please pr below. In additional A. B. Hovlll;jft; 7 C. How and why'*!#, persons residing h welfare or injurious A m y, C<rmwr — i Name CT Signature F:IUSERS%PLNSSharedlFomGSWew FormsVApplications \Modapplicatlon.doc s listed (attach fiM i or safety of to,the general For Office Use Only Dated 06 -05-05 � 35� Brion Jeannette Architecture August 16, 2005 Modification Ouestionnaires for Aerie (201 -207 Carnation) A. Why is the granting of this application necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and why the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code? Due to the existing site, irregular shape, topography, submerged lands and site slopes of 2:1,1 believe the required side yard setback is out of scale with others in this neighborhood. It seems inappropriate to require a side yard setback that is greater than a front yard setback. In addition, 65% of the lot consists of submerged land and slope area more than 50 %, which reduces the usable area for the site and provides only a limited flat pad area to work with. B. How will the requested modification be compatible with existing development(s) in the neighborhood? • Our proposed and the code required side yard setbacks are greater than most properties adjacent to this site. Our proposal to encroach 5' into the front yard setback is below grade — above grade is required at 10' with no encroachments. This 5' front yard encroachment is consistent with the approved residence north of this site. C. How and why will the granting of such an application not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood? Physical mass is reduced due to the 30'-0" wide setback elevated at second and third floor of the East side. This helps the ability for sunlight and fresh air to reach neighbor's patio. Also, the reduced mass will provide a view corridor to the bay and beach for neighbor's enjoyment. I have designed this project with an approximate 30' side yard setback above the first floor. This will reduce the mass of the structure and allow sunlight, views and breezes to surrounding residences. The granting of this request will "enhance" not adversely affect the health and safety of residents. The proposed 9 -unit project is less dense than the existing 14 unit apartment building and single family home. The resulting decreased automobile traffic will also reduce the air and noise pollution around the neighborhood, which will provide a healthier environment for everyone. 470 Old Newport Blvd. Newport Beach. CA. 92663 Phone: 949.645.5854 . Fax: 949.645.5983 email@customarchkeeture.com e.--�6 �5 4 "`° �O`• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Application: p e COMMUMV AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT , PLANNING DEPARTMENT Utz 3300 NEWPORT B ARD OULEVL.CTl1 ^i'`L11� NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 jt t__`__S (9491644-3200: FAX (949) 6443250 t1Y • Use Permit No. • Planning Director's Use Permit No. • G.PA. /Amendment No. ❑ .Variance No. ❑ PART I: Cover Page r{j� t�Alv>ec9t�Zt (yeyc lirt@ SxT 8. \ta.� Pra[ecr Common Name (if applicable): Aerie k!i FEES: APPLICANT (Print): Advanced Real Estate Services,Inc. CONTACT PERSON (if different): Brion Jeannette Architecture Mailing Addressw : 22974 El Toro Road Lake Forest, CA 92630 Mailing Address: 470 Old Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Contact: Robb Cerruti Contact: Amy Creager Pltone:(949)595 -5900 Fax(949)595 -5901 Phone: (949)645-5854 Fax(949) 645 -5983 Property Owner (if different from above); Corona Cove Partners (APN 052- 013 -13) The Caryll Mudd Sprague Trust (APN 052- 013 -12) and Robert R. Sprague Living Trust(APN 052- 013 -21) Mailing Address: 470 Old Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Phone7 (949)645-5854 Fax (949) 645 -5983 201 & 205 Carnation Avenue.,, Newport Beach, CA 92625 (APN 052 - 013 -13); PROJECT ADDRESS: 207 Ca- r.¢atiori Avenue Newport ..Beach; -CA• 92625 (APN 052 -13 -12) ; 101 Bayside Place, Newport Beach, CA 92625 (APN 052 - 013 -21) Project Description (If applying for a variance, also complete attached form for required findings.): A general plan amendment and zone change application to reconfigure the general plan land use designations and zoning boundarjes for APNs 052 - 013 -12, 052 - 013 -13 & 052- 013 -21 so that the general plan land use designations and zoning boundaries are consistent with the proposed Aerie.residential development project boundary,.to be established by its lot line QQ p� p �j r - PROPERTY AFFIDAVIT (l)JWe) I`ICUd Nd ' 1W 0/. , �Y'®�.r` , ®F (9 r Ao i( {° depo a sa property(ies) involved in-this appl' lion. (I) (We) further certify, under !! answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in s knowledge and belief. 1 Signatures) /that p am) (we are) the owner(s) of the >erjury, that the foregoing statements and true and correct to the best of (my) (our) NOTE: An agent may sign for the owner if written authorization from the record owner is filed with the application. PART II: Project Data Sheet Project Common Name: Application Number(s): Aerie Zoning Code Requirement ro ject Addrls/Location: 2D1, 205 &. 207 Assessors Parcel Number(s): arnation venue, Nq?wpb t Beac & a 101 Bayside Place, .;052- 013 -12, 052- 013 -13 & 052- 013 -21 portion of ewport 132 FT.'Avgc ,. Legal Description (Attach on separate sheet, if necessary): Bei ng a portion of BI ock D of Coron del Mar, as shown on a map recorded in Book 3, Pages 41 and 42 of Miscellaneo Maps, Records of Orange County, California. Existing Land Use: Vacant, multi-family Proposed Land Use: structure & single - family residence .- Multi - family residential Zoning District: MFR & R -2 Land Use Designation: SFA, TFR & MBR Existing Development Proposed Development Zoning Code Requirement Lot Area (st) 60;697 SF 61,282 SF 5,000 SF Lot Width (ft) 132 FT.'Avgc ,. 132.79. FT. Avg. 50 FT Lot Depth (R) 373 FT Avg. 373.83 FT Avg. Setback Yards Front(ft) 8 50 FT -A ove.ground FT - Subterraneai 10 FT Side (ft) 5 FT 5 FT /7 FT -_6 inche $ of avg. lot Bayside Place -Side 18 FT 10 FT - 7 inches 8 of Avg. tot idth Rear (ft) 2265. T 212 FT - 2 inches 10 FT, Gross Floor Area (0). ;864 sing Mail L 74,533 SF 76,250.82S8Emiax. -Buildable Area 1.5 X BA 50,833.88 SF Building Coverage (%). NIA balleable area governs Pull coverage ritinus setbacks �Building Height (ft). X-6 MAX. 28 FT/ 32 FT 28 FT /32 FT Landscaping (0%) N/A N/A Paving (46) N/A N/A Parking 9 covered 1 - resa /7cguests 23 arking spaces vere Number of Employees N/A N/A N/A Hours of Operation N/A N/A N/A Number of seats N/A N/A N/A Dwelling Units 14- apartment 1-single dwelling ___. 9 units 9.6 units Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations 0 0 z CITY OF NE JVPORT BEACH .J Proposed Lot Line Adjustment Legend MFR - Multi-Family Residential TFR - Two-Family Residential PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY.' on,rLopm --AWADVANCED '4k F: \0136 \Pionning \O.A_ Proi ec t\ Exhibits\ General Plan Land Use DeSLchation.0,,C) PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.l)dffactory.com TENTATIVE MAP APPLICATION CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 (714) 644 -3200 Application Rgs'd by: Fee: $, OR $ per lot (whichever is greater) &P09%k APPLICANT (Print) Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. PHONE (949).595 -5900 MAILING ADDRESS 22974 E1 Toro Road, Lake Forest, CA 92630 Corona Cove Partners (APN 052 - 013 -13) The Caryll Mudd Spraque Trust PROPERTY OWNER IAPN 052 - 013 -12) & Robert R. Sprague Living pHO(9� 49 ) 645 -5854 MAILING ADDRESS 470 Old Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 ADDRESS OF PROPERTY INVOLVED 201 Carnation Avenue, 205 Carnation Avenue, 207a.Carn4tion. Avenue and a portion of 101 Bayside Place, Newport Beach, CA 92625 ZONE MFR & R -2 PRESENT USE Uacant Apartment Building &Single Family Residence Legal description of Property Involved (if too long, attach separate sheet) Being a portion of Block D of Corona Del Mar, as shown on a map recorded in Book 3, Pages 41 and 42 or Miscellaneous Maps, Records of Orange County, California. List any exceptions requested from standard subdivision requirements No exceptions from standard subdivis9on reguirments are being requested at this time. Signature of Applicant or Agent " DO NOT COMPLI Date Filed Hearing Date Fee Pd. �— Date APPLICATION BELOW THIS LINE Receipt No. 1` b 3 0B/17/2005 10:40 I@ "'epgi . m 9496443229 iNB PLANNING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PIt RIVIIT APPLICATION (CROP) Planning Department Application Number 3300 Newport Boulevard Application Received by Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 Fee (949) 644 -3200 ( The purpose of the Coastal Residential Development Permit application is to ensure compliance with applicable requirements of California Government Code Section 65590 et. seq. and Chapter 20.86 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. These codes and policies require the preservation or replacement of existing affordable housing and they promote new affordable housing within the Coastal Zone. PART A Do Not Complete Without Owner's Affidavit On Page 3 TE Property OwnertpnT-T R. e],spy�s,n ti ipt Address of Pxe, sog c�vaTOn � Property InvolvedAhMkk 101 ��ftT Legal Description of Property Involved (if too long, attach separate sheet) 21 Number of Residential Shucnnes Cu mntly Onsite _Lbjj�K� 15LM h {t nit Number of Residential Structures to be DeraolishedlConvernd _ ML. Sam bEMol_\'D1%=> Number of Residential units Currently Onsite A- UWt / 1 V*w— %W&z( Saco Number of Residential Units to be Demolished/Conver e:d _ AU- 'fo W .M&US&Ip. Number of Residential Units in each Structure A / I Number of Residential Units in each Structure to be Demolished/Converted 1ldL W WW� ».p Description of the Proposed New r: .... . Number of ... If the structure is being demolished as a public nuisance as defined by the State Health and. Safety Code or City Ordinance, describe those factors causing the existing residential unit to constitute a nuisance. (Attach additional sheets if necessary) MIA "4 DO NOT COMPLETE APPLICATION BELOW THIS LAVE * ** Chapter 20.96 Not Applicable par[ B Not Required Determination by Chaptw 20.96 Applicable .Fort BRequhvd Y'~ it/20(35 18:48 9495443229 CNB PLANNING PAGE 03 Application Number Tenants: For the purpose of this application the City of Newport Beach considers all persons and families who occupy a residential rental whit for a period greater than 45 days to be tenants. Eviction: The City of Newport Beach recognizes legal or court actions and actions such as rent increases beyond the current market rate, avoidance of state mandated maintenance, harassment and other such actions which result in a tenant vacating his living unit against his/her will as an eviction. OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT* (I) (We) � LtyW14. &Mtg tta_t depose and say that (i am) (we are) the owners) of the property(ies) involved in this application (1) (We) father certify, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects hue and correct to the beat of (MY) (our) knowledge and belief. signature (s) � ' *NOTE: An agent may sign for the owner if written authorization from the record owner is filed with the applicant *** DO NOT COl►'I.PLETE BELOW THIS LM'*** Date F led Fee Pd. Receipt No Hearing Date: Posting Date Mail Date_ P.C. Action n„te Appeal C.C. Hearin!{ C.C. Action Dale YI„�zhmallfaioskr6p Pop 3 of3 ,qr,- 3c05 17/2005 10:40 9496443229 CNB PLANNING PAGE 02 Application Number If proposal is for non - residential use. why is a residential use no longer feasible on this site: (attach additional sheets ifnecessary). M16 ALL -eJAJTS VACA71D List of all current tenants (ice definition below) C Otr nn 1—"£ iv:"( C:�A— 3CIE TcnantName W16V Current Residence Number of Bedrooms Business Address Mailing Address Date of Tenancy Phone I ) Current Monthly Income Tenant Name WIN, Date of Tenancy Current Residence Phone ( ) Number of Bedrooms Current Monthly Income Business Address Phone( ) Mailing Address TerumtName wig' Date of Tenancy Current Residence Phone ( ) Number of Bedrooms Current Monthly Income Business Address phone C ) Mailing Address ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY FOR ALL TENANTS For those tenants involved in any eviction (see delmition below) or legal action within the previous twelve months, please provide the foilowing. TenantName Nity Address from which Evicted Monthly Income at Time of Eviction Residence Address Business Address Mailing Address Court Name Case Number Date Tenancy Began Number of Bedrooms Phone Pbone� Court Address Case Name Description of case or action taken to cause eviction Tenant Name _ 14 f& Data Tenancy Began Address from which Evicted Monthly Income at Time of Eviction _Number of Bedrooms Residence Address Phone (_ ) Business Address Phone ( ) Mailing Address Court Name Court Address Case Number Case Name Description of case or action taken to cause eviction ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY Page 2 of 3 HUNSAKER &ASSOCIATES Currently, the existing project site consists of two existing residential buildings; a PRINCIPALS: single family residence located at 207 Camation Avenue and the 14 -unit vacant DAVID FRATTONE apartment building located at 201 and 205 Camation Avenue. The existing structures FRED GRAYLEE will be demolished as part of the grading and site preparation for the proposed multi- BRADLEY HAY family building with nine condominium units and its corresponding subterranean PAUL HUDDLESTON parking, freight lift, swimming pool, multi- purpose room, wine cellars and patio areas. KAMAL H. KARAM Several entitlements are associated with Tentative Tract Map 16882. Along with DOUGLAS L. STACEY Tentative Tract Map 16882 for condominium purposes, a lot line adjustment will be KRIS WEBER concurrently processed to reconfigure the ownership lines for assessor parcel JOSEPH E. WIGHTMAN numbers 052 -013 -13 and 052 -013 -21 to incorporate an additional 539-square foot triangle- shaped area of land into the project site. The lot line adjustment was previously submitted to the City of Newport Beach in November of 2004 and has been put on hold per City Staffs direction so that it could be processed concurrently with the projects other applications. Furthermore, to reconfigure the area's general plan land use designations and zoning into one consistent land use designation and zoning district for the project site, a general plan amendment and a zone change will be processed_ The general plan amendment will change file portions of the project site which do not have an existing general plan land use designation of Muhl- Family TV. FI„Bhe� Residential from Single Family Attached and Two- Family Residential to Multi - Family Irvine, Calilumla Residential. The projects zone change will adjust the zoning boundary of the small 9261 11,2021 triangle portion to be added to the project site with the lot line adjustment by (949) 5834010 PH (949) 583 -0759 FX uww.lwnsaker.com 1 R V I N E, I N C. PLANNING August 12, 2005 ENGINEERING SURVEYING GOVERNMENT RELATIONS Ms. Patricia Temple IRVINE Planning Director LOS ANGELES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RIVERSIDE 3300 Newport Boulevard SAN DIEGO Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Subject: Aerie — Proposed Multi- family Residential Development Tentative Tract Map 16882, General Plan Amendment Zone Change and Lot Line Adjustment Dear Ms. Temple: FOUNDING PARTNERS. On behalf of Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc., Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc. is submitting Tentative Tract Map 16882 for the City of Newport Beach's review. RICHARD HUNSAKER Tentative Tract Map 16882, also know as the Aerie development, is IQCated generally TOM R. McGANNON northwest of the Intersection of Camation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard within the JOHN A. MICHLER Corona del Mar area of the City of Newport Beach. The project site consists of DOUGLAS G. SNYDER approximately 1.4 acres (61,284 square feet) of gross area with a portion of the site being part of Newport Bay and under sea level. Assessor parcel numbers 052 -013 - 12, 052 -013 -13 and a portion of 052 -013 -21 make up the project area. The proposed subdivision will consolidate the project site's two existing parcels and a small portion of a third parcel into a 1.4 acre lot for condominium purposes. Currently, the existing project site consists of two existing residential buildings; a PRINCIPALS: single family residence located at 207 Camation Avenue and the 14 -unit vacant DAVID FRATTONE apartment building located at 201 and 205 Camation Avenue. The existing structures FRED GRAYLEE will be demolished as part of the grading and site preparation for the proposed multi- BRADLEY HAY family building with nine condominium units and its corresponding subterranean PAUL HUDDLESTON parking, freight lift, swimming pool, multi- purpose room, wine cellars and patio areas. KAMAL H. KARAM Several entitlements are associated with Tentative Tract Map 16882. Along with DOUGLAS L. STACEY Tentative Tract Map 16882 for condominium purposes, a lot line adjustment will be KRIS WEBER concurrently processed to reconfigure the ownership lines for assessor parcel JOSEPH E. WIGHTMAN numbers 052 -013 -13 and 052 -013 -21 to incorporate an additional 539-square foot triangle- shaped area of land into the project site. The lot line adjustment was previously submitted to the City of Newport Beach in November of 2004 and has been put on hold per City Staffs direction so that it could be processed concurrently with the projects other applications. Furthermore, to reconfigure the area's general plan land use designations and zoning into one consistent land use designation and zoning district for the project site, a general plan amendment and a zone change will be processed_ The general plan amendment will change file portions of the project site which do not have an existing general plan land use designation of Muhl- Family TV. FI„Bhe� Residential from Single Family Attached and Two- Family Residential to Multi - Family Irvine, Calilumla Residential. The projects zone change will adjust the zoning boundary of the small 9261 11,2021 triangle portion to be added to the project site with the lot line adjustment by (949) 5834010 PH (949) 583 -0759 FX uww.lwnsaker.com Ms. Patricia Temple CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 14, 2005 Page 2 changing its zoning to Mufti - Family Residential from R -2 (Two-Family Residential) so that is consistent with the balance of the project area. With the general plan amendment and zone change, the general plan land use designations and zoning boundaries will be coterminous with the proposed tentative map boundary and consistent with the project's proposed land use. Thank you for your consideration of proposed Tentative Tract Map 16882- If you have any questions or need additional information regarding the proposed tentative map, please give me a call at (949) 768 -2541. Sincerely, HUNSSAKER & ASSOCIATES IRVINE, INC. ( ZTed O. Planning & Government Relations TF:hb xc: Robb Cerruti, Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. Rick Jullan, Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. Amy Creager, Brion Jeannette Architecture Kim Svitenko, P &D Consultants Phil Dowly, H&A W.O. 0751 -5 (ft1wo1075151-01 -tf. doc) APPENDIX 2 Notice of Intent for Mitigate Negative Declaration 140q CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 (949) 6443200 Mitigated Negative Declaration To: Office of Planning and Research X P.O. BOX 3044 Sacramento, CA 958123044 71 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 92658915 (Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: IPublic review period. February 13"0 through March 15, 2007 I 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 ® attached O 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 Hall 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. H you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the dose 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 ��0 APPENDIX 3 Staff's Comments December 22, 2006 City of Newport Beach David Lepo, Director Planning Department Dear David, I want to thank you and Jim Campbell for meeting with us last week to discuss the Aerie project. The following are our responses to the concerns you had relative to our project and the CLUP /General Plan. The "Aerie Project Overview" dated May 2006, will be referenced below and I will add my comments to the "Overview" for further clarification of your questions. The seven sections identified below were your primary areas of concern. The other sections appear to be resolved or not applicable. The Coastal Land Use Policies applicable to the Aerie Project are: Concern #1 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. • Review "Overview" (A) page 20, (C) page 23, (A) page 24 • The existing 57 year old apartment building is in disrepair, has many building and zoning code violations and does not enhance the public views. • The new project will add to the unique architectural character of the community. • The building steps back following the general slope of the site while protecting the coastal resources. Concern #2 4.4.1 -2 Design and site new development to minimize alterations to significant natural landforms, including bluffs, cliffs and canyons. • Review "Overview" (A,3) page 11 • This project protects 75% of the site including the rock out croppings and cove. • This development is landward of all existing buildings. t- 3ea- -Concern #3 4.4.1 -6 Protect public coastal views from the following roadway segments: Ocean Blvd. • Review "Overview" (A) page 20, Exhibit J, K • The guideline states to "protect" the public views. • This project actually increases public views. The existing sideyard setback creates a view cone of 25" as viewed from Ocean Blvd. • The proposed project increases the view cone to 320, and the setback increases by 7° or 5.25' as viewed from the street. • See attached Exhibit "N ", Public View Cone. Concern #4 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. • Review "Overview" (c) page 14, IV page 19, Exhibit • The unique architecture contributes to the character of the neighborhood. The levels terrace back as it ascends the slope, unlike adjacent projects. • The zoning code allows a 28132' building height across the full Carnation Avenue building elevation. The project height on the northerly 28' has been reduced to 17' from the street curb. • The reduction of height effectively reduces the mass of the building. Concern #5 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. • Review "Overview" (A,2) page 11, (A,4) & (B) page 12, (D,1,2,3) page 14- 18, Exhibit E,F,G,H • The predominant line of development establishes consistency of seaward development. This project meets that goal. • This project protects the lower portion of the bluff and all of the rock out croppings and cove at the bay. Any feasible alternatives will likely increase density and make the view smaller. • "No development" or less density is not a feasible alternative. Concern #6 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 • Review "Overview" (A,2) page 11, (A,4) (B) page 12, (D 1,2,3) page 14- 18, Exhibit E,F,G,H This project "protects public coastal views" by "increasing" the views from Ocean Blvd. and Carnation Ave. The accessory improvements (sunning patio adjacent to cove) presently exists and is smaller than all adjacent structures. The 'predominant line of existing development" has been defined by the California Coastal Commission through the approval of CDP M Palermo 5 -05 -328 Elieff 5 -04 -466 Tabak 5 -01 -191 Halfacre 5 -03 -100 Circle 5 -05 -095 See attached excerpt of Appendix A, CDP #5 -05 -328 Palermo Staff Report. Revised findings approved November 11, 2006. Concern #7 4.4.3 -16 Design land divisions, including lot line adjustments, to minimize impacts to coastal bluffs. Review "Overview" (A paragraph 4), page 6, Lot Line Adjustment Application Encl. The lot line adjustment is a minor transfer of (584 sq. ft.) area from R -2 to MF4. This adjustment does not increase impact to coastal bluff any. further than the existing building at this triangular portion of the site. See attached Exhibit °M" Lot Line Adjustment. In August 2005, Pat Temple told me the application was complete and was the most thorough she had seen. Please publish the MND as soon as possible in anticipation of the February Planning Commission Hearing. David, after you review this information please give me a call if you have any additional questions. Thank you and have a wonderful holiday Sincerely, Brion S. Jeannette Architect, AIA Attachments Copy: Rick Julian Robb Cerrutti Tim Paone ti� NEW �D PROPERTY �� dpi ►:. OLD BUILDABLE PROPERTY LINE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT -. AREA WITHIN ADJUSTMENT AREA CALCULATION WITHIN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (LLA) A = BUILDABLE AREA 339 SF B = SETBACK AREA 245 SF TOTAL LLA AREA 584 SF PECENTAGE OF LLA & LOT SIZE LLA 584 SF LOT SIZE 60,700 SF % 0.96% 5� QO J �i 1 & 101 BAYSIDE DRIVE \ \`\ v0 ♦� ��\'♦ S� APN 052 - 013-21 ti �____ -------- 0> `\ • / ______ 0.96% 2 \\ ♦ / i Ij PROJECT IN QUESTION ,��,♦ I 201 -207 CARNATION AVE. ■ j APN 052 - 013 -13 t TH �� •' SCALE: tt ♦ ♦ O 1"=60' • t '' C$ T ♦ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT � , P ��0 �P G� EXHIBIT M IBRION JEANNETTE ARCHITECTURE IPRO- WT:AERIE SCALE, 410 OLD NEWPORT BLVD. NB, CA 42665 44.6 445.5854 DRAWIN6:LLA EXHIBIT DAUB /22/2006 rt . r'�- Y� �{y "Mum 'j {[§ C Sy '''1 ��♦: E 5 -05- 328 - [Palermo] Regular Calendar Page 18 of 21 Appendix "A" At the January 2002 Commission Hearing, the Commission denied Coastal Development Permit Application No. 5- 01- 191- [Tabak] for the demolition of an existing three (3) story single - family residence and construction of a new single - family residence. The proposed structure would have covered virtually the entire upper and lower bluff face areas. The primary issues of the proposed project were the: appropriateness of approving the project given landform alteration, the importance of preserving scenic resources, the seaward encroachment of the development, the community character, and impacts to public access. In denying the proposed development, the Commission found that the project, as submitted. was primarily inconsistent with the Sections 30240, 30251 and 30253 of the Coastal Act and the City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan (LUP) regarding coastal bluff sites. 3431 Ocean Boulevard (Located 6 lots down- coast.from the subject site): CDP No. 5 -02- At the January 2003 Commission Hearing, the Commission approved Coastal Development Permit Application No. 5- 02- 203{Tabak] for the demolition of an existing three (3) story single - family residence and construction of a new single - family residence and also demolition and replacement of existing wooden staircase to the beach. The proposed project had been reduced compared with a prior proposal (CDP No. 5-01 -191). The Commission found that the proposed development was consistent with the pattern of r.7 were allowed below the 33 -fo6t elevation contour upon the lower bluff face. t c.l 3431 Ocean Boulevard (Located 6 lots down -coast from the subject site)' CDP No. .5-02- ✓1 203-Al dTabak) At the March 2005 Commission Hearing, the Commission approved an Immaterial Amendment to Coastal Development Permit Application No. 5-02- 203- A1- [Tabak] that proposed redesign of the previously approved project including revision of an approximate 22 -foot long portion of the previously approved stairway located at the base of the bluff and also the aradina would now consist of 3.400 cubic Yards of cut and export to an area t, 201 5 -05- 328- [Palermol Regular Calendar Page 19 of 21 M. r 3425 Ocean Boulevard (Located 5 lots down -coast from the subiect site)' CDP No 5-03- l ._•.,_ 100- IHalfacrel I E. At the January 2005 Commission Hearing, the Commission approved Coastal Development Permit Application No. 5 -03- 100- [Halfacrel for the conversion and addition to an existing basement to living area, construction of a new basement -level deck, construction of a new sundeck on the bluff face that does not extend any further than the `$3 -foot contour line, a new stairway connection to an approved stairway leading down to the toe of the bluff located on the downcoast adjacent property (i.e. Tabak), removal and "replacement of existing side yard and rear yard fences, and after - the -fact approval of two ':2nd floor decks on the seaward side of the existing single - family residence. The primary issues before the Commission were the appropriateness of approving the project given the importance of preserving scenic resources, minimizing landform alteration and avoiding development in hazard prone locations. The Commission found that the proposed development, as conditioned, was consistent with the pattern of development in At the February 2002 Commission Hearing, the Commission approved Coastal 1. Development Permit No. 5 -02- 112 - [Ensign] for the after- the -fact authorization of a new switchback bluff face.stairway with keystone -type earth retention blocks, landscaping and in- grqund irrigation. The primary issues before the Commission were the appropriateness of approving the project given landform alteration, the importance of preserving scenic resources, community character and impacts to public access. As submitted, the proposed project raised issues with Sections 30240, 30251 and 30253 of the Coastal Act and the City of Newport Beach hand Use Plan (LUP) regarding development on coastal bluffs. The Commission found that the proposed stairway that may have followed a pre - Coastal Act pathway,_as conditioned, does not present an adverse visual impact because it follows the natural topography of the bluff, was effectively screened with vegetation and was consistent with the character of the surrounding area. F 3415 Ocean Boulevard (Located 4 lots down -coast from the subiect site)' CDP NO 5-05 095- fCirclel At the October 2005 Commission Hearing, the Commission approved Coastal Development Permit Application No. 5 -05- 095- [Cirde] for the demolition of an existing . approximately 2,100 square foot, two (2).story single family residence with an attached garage and construction of a new 4,488 square foot two (2) story single - family residence with a basement and an attached 388 square foot four (4) car garage. Associated construction consisted of: a 141 square foot basement deck, a 392 square foot 10 floor deck and a 383 square foot 2 "d floor deck. The foundation for the residence consisted of a caisson and deepened conventional footings system. The primary concern before the ol00 5 -05- 328 - [Palermo] Regular Calendar Page 20 of 21 Commission on this matter were to assure that the project conformed to the predominant line of development such that scenic resources were preserved, landform alteration was minimized and development in hazard prone locations was avoided. The Commission found that the Droposed development, as conditioned, conformed to the predominant line of eve elooment and would not affect public views and would be consistent with the hazad if the Coastal Act The project's proposed livaDle area augnea approximately 56 -foot elevation contour line; while the basement level deck did not extend from approximately 46 -foot contour to the east and the approximately 50 -foot was G. 3401 Ocean Boulevard (Located 3 lots down -coast from the subject site): CDP NO. 5 -01- ' 199- [Butterfieldl At the December 2001 Commission Hearing, the Commission approved in part and denied in part Coastal Development Permit Application No. 5 -01- 199 - [Butterfield] for the after- the -fact approval of a new 'sand pit' cut -out at the toe of the bluff, consisting of three (3).32 high, 15' long retaining walls enclosed by a rope attached to four wooden posts in the sand, and replacement of a decorative gate and lattice panels on the existing pre- Coastal Act bluff face stairway. The Commission denied the toe of slope cut -out and ,approved the portion of the lattice work and =gate located on a. previously approved landing area. The Commission found'That the gate replacement and lattice enciosures on the previously permitted landing areas to.be consistent with the scenic and visual resources policies of the Coastal Act, as they will not obstruct views to or along the shoreline and are in keeping with the pattern of development in the area and therefore is consistent with Section 30251 of the Coastal Act. However, the Commission found that the proposed sand pit cut -out would not minimiza alteration natural landforms, was not Visually compatible with the characterof surrounding development and would affect the scenic and visual qualities of the subject area. As such, the portion of the proposed project involving the establishment of a sand pit cut -out area was inconsistent with Section 30251 of the Coastal Act. H. 3335 Ocean Boulevard (Located 2 lots down -coast from the subject sitel: CDP No. 5-04 - 214- rBattraml In October 2005, the Commission opened a public hearing on Coastal Development Permit Application No. 5-04- 214- [Battramj; however, the applicant withdrew the application before the Commission took their action. The application was for the after - the -fad approval for a stairway doom the bluff face, retaining walls located on the bluff face and sandy beach and grading. The applicant also proposed the following: adding landscaping along the stairway; painting the upper portion of the stairway a color that helps blend into the background; removing the existing iCeplant at the bottom of the lot; and the granting of a non - exclusive easement for public use and enjoyment of the sandy portion of the lot adjacent to the public beach. Staff recommended denial of the proposal. Since the October 2005 hearing, the Battram's sold the property to a new owner who has stated to staff that they intend to take over and process an after - the -fact permit application. �.3�q APPENDIX 4 Letter from Coastkeeper regarding water quality management plan 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.coastkeepecorg 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. Coasdweper 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 900A 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. rij$ Exhibit No. 4 Correspondence � 3�a 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 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 suppo 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,. & Linda Rasner -,�0 Feb 15 07 09:17a Bud 19496735M P.1 KErt"r IL MOORE 419 CABNA%%Gw "3 N08 OOBONA DEL bSAR, CA .XFQVlt" 94686 TBIs [949) 676 -7904 PAW: 1646) 676 -7699 keatsooreeworUnet.att.set Febtne)y 14, 2007 Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Aerie Project, 241, 205 & 207 Carnation Ave., CDM Dear Members of9w Planning Commission: I am writing in support of Mr. Rick Julian and his proposed project at the site of the old Comm Cove Apartments located at the tourer of Ocean Blvd. and Carnation Ave. in Corona del Mar. 1 have owned property across the street firm 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. JuliWs plans it is obvious that he is attempting to create a world class residential development at this bemo dnl and scenic location above the harbor entrance . He has also game out of his way to get to know the local property owners and outline his projecxplans for them. I have spoken with many of my neighbors who Savor the current plan which is now before you for approval. I hope that, upon careful 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 comer of Newport Beach sincerely, C� 6� 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 limb 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. strongly endorse the project, and I hope that you do as well. Resgeatful(y, Ronald P. Beard February 14, 2007 Grant Sadler 207 Carnation Avenue Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Mr. David Lepo planning Director City ofNewport 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 Mean's development since I five on the properly 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. qO Jeffrey K Hopkins 2725 Bungalow Place Corona Del Mar, CA 92673 2/15/07 Senn 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 C Project" ). My wife and I live in Corona Del Mar and I was born and raised in Corona Del Mar and in fad 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 gill 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 bwlong 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 redevelopment 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 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. Tbpt you for your time. IL E 101\ Exhibit No. 5 Predominant line of existing development exhibits prepared by staff /t %00 tk;- Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 4 of 18 Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None Abstain: I None ITEM NO.3 OBJECT: Advanced Real Estate Services PA2005 -196 201 & 207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place Continued to April The application would allow the demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment building 5, 2007 and a single - family home and the construction of a 7- level, 9 -unit multiple-family residential condominium complex with subterranean parking on a 1.4 acre site located bayward of the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. The existing General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan and Zoning Designations of a mall portion of the site (584 square feet) would be changed to be consistent with he larger portion -of the site (from two- family residential to multi - family residential). he application includes a tentative tract map for the creation of 9 "airspace' ndominium units for individual sale and. The Modification Permit application requests the encroachment of subterranean portions of the building within the front and side yard setbacks. Lastly, the Coastal Residential Development Permit application relates to replacing lost units occupied by low or moderate-income ouseholds. No units meeting this criteria are known to exist and therefore, no replacement 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 -1 apartment building and single - family residence. • Parking to be provided will mainly be subterranean. The number of spa 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 seven -level building. • Views of the project from various vantage points. • Staff is seeking guidance on application of Coastal Land Use Plan polio related to protecting, and where feasible, enhancing the scenic and vis qualities of the coastal zone; establishing the predominant line of exist development; establishment of this predominant line can be accomplisl through a variety of means; staff is asking which method the Plann 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 Implementa Plan which talks about the median distances that these buildings ext from. Additionally, they did the string line method which is a tradkii method that the Coastal Commission has used for many years. • There is no set method of establishing this line and all of the methods staff has looked at do not work well due to the unique topography; the I does not line up with the streets and the buildings actually wrap around bluff so all the traditional methods are not helpful in establishing where building should be. http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas /mn02- 22- 07.htm 08/07/2007 a Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 • The purpose of the discussion is to determine if this project is consistent witt the Coastal Land Use Plan as policies note minimizing the alteration of the natural terrain, preserving and enhancing the scenic and visual qualities o the coastal zone, prohibiting development on bluff faces except in thic. particular geographic area; new development has to comply with thi predominant line of development. • Views from public spaces to the west looking back to the bluff, that is the scenic and visual quality. • The proposed building appears to come further down the bluff than policies seem to allow and we are looking for guidance as to what the predominan line of development is. • Visual simulations representing various lines of existing development are included in the staff report to aid in the decision making process. • The buildings on Carnation Avenue to the north come down the bluff furthei than the existing development on subject sites. (He then discussed the various exhibits in the staff report.) • The Planning Commission needs to determine the predominant line of development, and if the building conforms to it, then the application can be approved; if the building does not conform to it, then the Commission need: to provide direction to the applicant to re- design it to the line as agreed upon. arson Cole asked what discretionary approval request requires ission to determine the predominant line of development? r. Campbell answered that the Subdivision Map requires it as does the finding insistency 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 discretio oval? 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 same policies. On Ocean Boulevard, we haven't had tt ussion in the past as there were no variances or modifications tt :ssitated 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 ked about other prior projects that were allowed to come down the bluffs bl iastal Commission. We looked at the main issue of how far out the buf me because it could block the neighbor's view. We did not discuss dominant line of development in the context of these policies. lard Julian, applicant, noted this proposed project will become the gateway to harbor and the City of Newport. He noted the following consultants for the act: Phil Dowdy and Ted Fetone of Hunsaker and Associates; Myron Sukut o it Construction Co.; Sid Nedwit, soils engineer; Tom Castle, structure neer, and Brion Jeannette, architect and designer. He added that he has httn' / /www rite newnnrt -hennh ra iie/PlnAnan Page 5 of 18 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 arched many issues related to the site and has worked closely with tl hbors. He has worked with members of the City staff and is committed to tl pct. He referenced an exhibit that includes letters of support from tl munity. n Jeannette, architect, noted that the major issue is, what is the predomine of development? He stated that they have reviewed the Mitigated Negati laration 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 anc green architecture. • The existing building consumes approximately 21% of the site and the nem building is about 25% of the side. • He referenced the categorical exclusion zone on the exhibit noting the 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 tc 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 east 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 anc 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 Camation Avenue, east on 5eaview tc Marguerite, north to East Coast Highway; flagmen and delineators will direc traffic; primary staging of maximum 2 trucks on Ocean Blvd., secondary staging south of Cameo Highlands Drive on Coast Hwy. • Shuttle workers to and from site until panting on -site is available within parking garage. • Public access is not required as there are accessibility problems; California Coastal Commission has not required access on adjacent parcels; anc 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 comer o Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Referencing the exhibit, he notes 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 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 exclusion Page 6 of 18 �IYA http: / /www.citv.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAp-endas/mn02- 22- 07.htm 08/07/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 zone parcels to the north; the CLUP allows development on bluff face c Ocean Blvd., Carnation Ave., Pacific Dr.; extensive development befo Coastal Zone Act and new development is allowed to continue the 'pattern existing development.' Predominant line of existing development is the mo common or representative distance from a specified group of structures to 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 meet this criteria. • Referencing the exhibits, he then explained the predominant line of existir development and how it was reached at Pelican Point, Cameo Shore Shori : Cliffs, Corona del Mar on Ocean Boulevard, Breakers Drive, Chir 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 fi determining the predominant line of existing development using string -line structures and decks. • He discussed an aerial view of AERIE with cove and rock outcroppings ar buildings on either side and depiction of median distance from street curb furthest line of development towards the Bay. • Referencing another exhibit he discussed median distance from mean to tide to closest line of development towards the Bay; analysis of propose line of development with elevations of 34 feet on easterly side to 52 feet c the westerly side; 29 feet to 44 feet and 25 feet to 25 feet respectively. • View simulation of superimposed model viewed from Channel Road publ beach. • Existing view from Channel Road public beach with categorical exclusic zone and with the proposed structure on project site. • He then noted several letters of support and asked for ultimate approval the 9 -unit project. • At Commission inquiry, he noted he has not discussed this project with th 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 Dahlil 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 Coron< del Mar. Page 7 of 18 • Reviewed the definition of "predominate line of development" in the glossa PP of the CLUP, specifically the use of a specified group of structures t 5�7 determine the predominate line of development and the appropriateness o }lttn- / /WWW rity 11P.W1 nrt_hanrh on nc/PlnArton` lac /mnM_77_r171,* Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 using homes on Bayside Place to set the predominate line of development. blic 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 inpL and has made several concessions on height and .density to addres 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 an 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 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 Cha Reef. • We are aware there will be noise, dust, parking issues and i inconveniences during construction but the long term benefits of the pr outweigh any temporary inconveniences. • They urge approval of this project. a Vallejo, Ocean. Boulevard resident, noted she is not in support of this the following: • Many people are concerned with the destruction of this coastal bluff and tF extremely large scale of the proposed complex. • There are many issues, among them the loss of public enjoyment from th development. • This bluff and cove are viewed and enjoyed by people on the Peninsula wt 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 visib from the harbor. • Newport Beach is special and this area is governed by the CLUP. She the read some of the provisions. • Is this project visually compatible with the surrounding area and how is th minimizing the impact on the bluff? • There is nothing on Ocean Boulevard that looks like this other than Chann Reef, but that was built in 1960. • Ocean Boulevard is basically single - family homes but this project creates 'hotel' and is too much for that particular site. • There is no Environmental Impact Report and I don't understand that as the are taking 32,400 cubic yards of bluff away and cannot figure out what th will do to the integrity and support of the surrounding properties and tl impact of the construction and excavation. Page 8 of 18 1304 http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas/mn02- 22- 07.htm 08/07/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 . Before this is changed forever, you need to give this good thought. Snyder, Balboa Peninsula Point resident, noted his support of oment as it will be a great improvement over what is there currently. leen McIntosh, Ocean Boulevard resident, noted the majority of the neighbor; r 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 the adoption of a series of ordinances in the early 1970's that establishe more restrictive height and bulk standards around the Bay. • The intent is to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consists with unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. • As a result, new development within the shoreline height zone is limited to height of 28 feet. • Development on the bluff face is generally prohibited with the exception certain public improvements or private improvements determined to t consistent with the predominant line of development. • It is policy to regulate the development envelope to preserve public viev through the height, setbacks, floor area, lot coverage and building bulk th limits the building profile and maximizes the public view. • In this case, the buildable site would grow from under 20,000 square feet over 70,000 square feet. • It seems the lateral projection of the structure would greatly impact the publ view from the water across the Bay, and the view corridor established by tl City of Newport Beach at the Ocean Boulevard/Carnation Avenue junction. • To shift the bulk of the lateral development up to the allowable vertical heig would keep the view corridor open but would eliminate the water viev enjoyed by the residents on Carnation Avenue across from the propos( development. • It is our hope that the bulk and scale of the proposed development will I reduced both laterally and vertically and in square footage to be in line al scale with the surrounding residences. 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 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. Moore, Carnation Avenue resident, noted: • The applicant has taken the time to get to know the neighbors and explail his project. • All have had the opportunity to review the plans. • The applicant has addressed all concerns and has made several desigr changes. • Directly next door to this project, the City allowed major excavation an( 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 Page 9 of 18 t X01 httn-//www -city npwnnrt -hearh ra.us(PlnAapnAas /mnQ2 -27 -n7 htm nQrmnnm Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 beautifully. This is a superbly planned project that has been worked on for several y prior to this meeting and urged that the Planning Commission approve project. mmissioner McDaniel noted that this issue is not being voted on tonight. This opportunity for public input and will be continued. comment was closed. 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 be( answered and would like those at the next hearing. • Predominarit line of development - referencing Exhibit F -noted the hea black line symbolizes where the estimated top of bluff is. The predomine line of development refers to the relationship of the bluff. This appears angle off the comer of the street intersection and turns the corner. The me appropriate sense of how to look at this predominant line of development that the buildings ought to turn the comer in a consistent relationship to tl bluff. • The upper level roofs do follow that rough line but that changes as you g further down. • What happens on the lower level of the westerly building as it extends at angle further out than the fairly uniform progression of the terraces'of t easterly building? • The two lower units of the easterly building have a view of a blank we which is the side wall of the westerly building. That part of the proje extends beyond the curve of the bluff line and is inappropriate to t predominant line of development. • The westerly building should taper at a more consistent rate as the easte building so that the levels are pulled back a bit. That would affect the loun on the first level and the lower level of Unit 700 on the second level. If tt area was pulled back, the building as a whole would have a shape and t line fairly conforming to the bluff line, which would make a more sensible Ii of development. Otherwise, this sticks out a good 20 feet beyond t foundation line that is shown in the plan footprints of the buildings. • He concluded that with that adjustment, this building would fit a predomine line of development that would turn the comer in a manner similar to the w the bluff turns the corner. Hillgren asked what the bottom vertical line of this project was? Campbell answered the lower extent of the easterly building is 29 feet and go around the comer it steps up to 44 feet. Commission inquiry, Mr. Jeannette noted that the elevation of the street yside Drive is at elevation 13 then it starts ascending from there to an elevat 18 or 19 feet. imissioner Hillgren noted he has heard a commitment from the developer act the cove which is the most important part of this project. I look at the 28 -; line to the property to the west as an appropriate datum line. The question Page 10 of 18 no http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas /nm02- 22- 07.htm 08/07/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 to connect to the property to the east. ioner Hawkins noted the property lines to the east go down that far they are in the exclusion zone where they are not regulated. Jeannette agreed, noting adherence to the Zoning Guidelines which require yard setback. Hillgren asked if they were regulated, how far down could they go? Jeannette noted the bottom portion could be used for a casitas with the ling on top of the bluff, they could go to that rear yard setback and then c it with a retaining wall behind; it would be difficult and expensive, but nmissioner Peotter, referencing the topo exhibit, noted the regulated areas an( 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, at the highest point as far as determining the setback line that will determine it will be seen from the bayside and how that cove will be protected. rperson Cole noted the western portion of the site seems easier to unders makes sense due to the adjacency of the buildings. He asked how dal Commission would determine a fair and equitable concept for r. Jeannette noted the point at which you contact earth establishes that ane. Referencing an exhibit, he noted one elevation of a home at 48.6 ele her elevation points were at 44, 50 and 52. He then discussed the public lationship and drawing the horizontal line at that point to establish rmination of development. nmissioner Hillgren asked if it was the footing or the house itself that is level at 44? Jeannette answered the elevation of the house was at 50. Toerge noted: • The charge of the Planning Commission is to ensure that the techni, aspects of the project are in tact. • We are to comply with the existing Codes of the City for the benefit of the residents who are not here and don't know about the project and can't expected to come down and spend the kind of time that many of t residents here have and we have. • He noted he is a property rights supporter, but in a civilized society prope rights are conditional. There are title reports, title restrictions, special la use restrictions, zoning, building heights, etc. and in this particular propert 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 I representatives; it is about the technical components and how they can applied to this project fairly and on balance with the property rights and w the community. • The predominant line of development doesn't contemplate what could Page I I of 18 httn: / /www.citv.newmirt-hearh ca nq/PlnAaenriaq /mn07 -72 -07 hhm AR/A7/)A 7 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 developed on adjacent bluff top properties, it deals with what is in pla today, so this whole discussion on what might happen to adjacent bluff t properties along Carnation is irrelevant to me. • Also irrelevant to me is what Coastal Commission might do. TI Commission and this City has to get quickly up to speed on what the LC 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 predominE line of development on this bluff. • He does not support the idea of using bayfront properties as simi structures or similar group of homes, as the glossary of our CLUP sugges by which to determine the predominant line of development as we are talki about a property that is on the bluff. These homes take access off a differ( street that is almost at sea level. This property is a bluff- oriented prope that takes access from the bluff. • Referencing an exhibit, he noted the area that seems to encroach below t predominant line of development and the area on the easterly side seems be relatively consistent with the predominant line of development. • Some transition is warranted in order to meet this finding of what considers to be the predominant line of development. iairperson Cole noted that there is consistency in that the easterly side at 29 agreed upon but as it goes around the westerly side, he would like to see r iicating the line of where those homes come down to right now. missioner Toerge answered that is how he reads the Code. Thai ominant line of development is higher than their proposal based upon how h( s the Code. We need to understand what our predecessors decided an( authority our Coastal Land Use Plan has. A couple of years were invested it Dlishing this Local Coastal Plan and we took great care in developing this. :ral Planning Commissioners, Including himself, served on this Committee. plan was reviewed and approved by both the Planning Commission and Cit! tcil. It is speculative to guess what the Coastal Commission will do. Hawkins noted: • Agrees that the Commission has an important job with this unique parcel a project. The cove is a natural resource, the bluff outcroppings, etc. and t project, in general, takes good care of that resource. • He noted the concern of the easterly edge at elevations 44/48 and staff a the applicant need to work on that level. • He agrees about tracking the bluff around, and the two units noted Commissioner Eaton did seem to project out distinctly. He would Ii discussion on pulling those projections in. • We are trying to understand what the predominant line of development is. is a flexible metric and the string -line was a tough approach and could problematic. • The current structures on the site are poor; however, the site itself fantastic. person Cole noted there seems to be some consensus on the 29 foot on the east and the west at 44 feet. nmissioner Hawkins noted there is some agreement on the 29 feet; howe) questions the 44 -foot measurement. Another metric has been offered and Page 12 of 18 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PinAgendas/mnO2- 22- 07.htm 08/07/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 like to see if that could work. missioner McDaniel, noted: • He was a member of the Local Coastal Committee and they spent a lot 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 the then we need to document them so we can understand it now and in tl 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 taken away as previously suggested, what does that do to the quality of I for the residents in that area, what does that do to the view corridor, and a other aspects. • He would much rather give a little extra off that edge so that the parkii does not become problematic in the project; that it looks right, works OE and all those other aspects that we pickup. • Recognizes that folks who look easterly look at a wall, but the panoran view to the left may require that you may have to look at a wall to the right. • This is a good project. nmissioner Peotter asked about comparing this to properties in the exclus e, yet looking at the Land Use Plan, it follows the hotel and other homes that rn to the water level again. Why are we going outside of that coastal area the predominant line? nissioner Toerge answered by reading from the Glossary of the CLUP. "TI common or representative distance from a specified group of structures to Fed point or line." The example that was cited, "the predominant line opment for a block of homes on a coastal bluff (a specified group ures) could be determined by calculating the median distance sentative distance) these structures are from the bluff edge (a specifie )nfinuing, he stated that since the predominant line of development has alreadi !en determined to come into play here, and since the Local Coastal Plan doe: ve jurisdiction over the site, this definition is something that needs to be overlaic to the project. It gives the example about the predominant line of developmen a block of homes on a coastal bluff which is the specified group of structures. iat is the reason why the homes that are not on the bluff should not be utilized tc Iculate the predominant line of development as they are not on the bluff and the 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 Exclusic 3ne or not as far as when it refers to the coastal bluff. Do you stop looking at it is in the Exclusion Zone? nmissioner Toerge answered in his opinion the answer is "no ". This happens a bluff top development that happens to be at the end of the street, and siml :ause adjacent bluff top properties are within the Categorical Exclusion Ar m not preclude them from the definition of predominate line of development. continued referencing exhibits showing Breakers Drive, Page 13 of 18 ` of Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 and the Cove. Campbell noted the exclusionary area was established in 1977 and the Coasta emission allowed projects that are consistent with the zoning at that time le- family and duplexes, without need to go back and get a Coasta elopment Permit. Under today's rules, you could build out to the setback at 1( and bring that building down to whatever elevation it might be. Does the iominant line of development affect these properties: the answer is "yes ". We s two policies in the Coastal Land Use Plan 4.4.3 -8 and -9 that talk abou sings on the bluff face on Carnation Avenue, Pacific and Ocean Boulevard. are referring to that particular bluff right there and they are allowed to built in the predominant line of development. That is what the policy says meaninc bluff does establish a predominant line. Would we use a predominant line tc (late that now given the exclusion order: the answer is "no ". Staff believe) ce homes on Carnation Avenue on that bluff do establish a predominant line o ting development and you would use. that in relation to whether this projec is consistent with that. airperson Cole clarified that regardless if it is in the Category Exclusion Zone. Campbell noted the predominant line of development would not affect but those lots do establish the predominant line of development that lot. mmissioner Toerge noted that properties are still subject to Coastal Commissi iiew under appeal. They are in the Coastal Zone so even though they itegorically Exempt, that doesn't mean that the Coastal Commission we ine. It means that the City can approve them, but approval can be appealed Coastal Commission. The Coastal Commission has just given the City 1 ht to approve or condition those particular developments but it doesn't exen )m from Coastal and doesn't exempt them from review. mmissioner Peotter asked that since part of this lot is in the Exclusion Zc 9s that mean the project could go down to 10 feet on the side for a portion of and now establish a new line of development that we could use? You have I s of rules. Jeannette noted the differences of access on Breakers Drive, we and resulting development. Commission inquiry, he noted that suggestions made about turning the corner mething that he will look at and he will determine what impacts could or wog ,ult. Additionally, he will look at elevation down to 10 feet. He noted th Aecting the cove is most critical. on was made by Commissioner Peotter to set the line at 29 feet as the for staff to review with the caveat that the applicant look at reducing dwest wing to see if they could round that off to match the bluff face better. Cole clarified that the 29 feet goes up to 44 feet going to Mr. Jeannette answered that is correct. issioner Hawkins suggested straw votes. Page 14 of 18 httn: / /www.citv.newDort- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /mn02- 22- 07.ht.m OR /07/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 iirperson Cole noted the motion was not seconded, took straw vote on i 29 feet on the east side of the property going to 44 feet, which is in the in with the suggestion by Commission to have the applicant consider mate contour of the bluff specifically on levels one and two. wing discussion by the Commission, consensus was reached consistent discussion as to the predominant line of development. Straw nissioner Toerge, yes; all other Commissioners, no. Lepo noted the parking configuration as well as the impact the use of Mors might have on parking on the street. Are those concerns of emission, or are you okay with the configuration of the working garage? oner McDaniel noted that after meeting with the applicant, have been addressed. nmissioner Toerge noted his concern on the Mitigated Negative Declan ing that the comment period is still open. He has reviewed it and asked 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 ", how 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 reflecl some of the description that was on the screen on how the grading wil'. take place with the borings, etc. The MND was silent on that; why? • Aesthetics - on Page 22 The MND addresses this public view site al the point of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard, but it does not 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. We need to see maps of truck routes, staging, traffic patterns, flagmer operations, public right -of -way use, etc. Washing streets is not ar 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 fron Page 15 of 18 .A03 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 one spot, but I want to be sure that it improves or at least maintah the view angle from all along that view corridor along Oces Boulevard. Stringline - on page 41 the MND seems to be inaccurate ar misleading as it says, "stringlines were drawn from the existir residential structure located to the south on Ocean Boulevard and tI existing structure to the north on Carnation Avenue. The result is th all portions of the proposed building are landward of the stringline That is not true as shown in the exhibit. There are three calculatior that discuss the median distance from the curb and from the bluff b there are no reference points specifically as to where those ai 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 an while that is temporary, it is not short termed. This document says it short term and I do not agree with that. In "B" of that noise section, is claimed there is no impact as there is no pile driving; however, the is going to be drilling and excavation. How can it conclude there w be no impact? The MND does not address any mechanism on how B going to be graded, yet it concludes an insignificant impact. This inaccurate. I believe these are shortcomings of the MND and I hope that they ai addressed at the next meeting. Hawkins noted: • The environmental document is virtually silent on the construction impacts the project and that analysis needs to occur. There will be a final respon: document that can address these issues. The points that were just mar require something that corrects these errors or inadequacies, etc. • There is an easy fix to the construction impacts and that is the Constructi( Management Plan. He proposes this as a mitigation measure and this ph to be approved by Public Works as the appropriate body at the City, but th 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. rperson Cole asked about the procedures for comments to the M itive Declaration. Can we get a response document similar to an EIR meeting? answered it can be done. Cole then noted the issue of the view corridor and view simulations. )mmissioner Hawkins supports the proposal for more extensive views. However position of the applicant is that there is no access required and that may be the se, but the applicant proposes a public amenity of a bench at the view site. The important but insufficient, and he would like to see a more significant mitigatior Dasure. He supports an offer of dedication for the bottom of this property, bu Dre is the access issue. Toerge noted: Page 16 of 18 �'aQA httn• //w situ nrwnnrt -hrach en ns1PtnAornr1ac /mn07 -77 -07 htm owow, nn7 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 17 of 18 Performance Bond - The project includes a retaining wall that require! substantial grading. If this is not completed there is a possibility that th( homes and public right -of -way above could be damaged. If, for any reason there is a cease or stop work order issued, the area needs to be made safi to the public. This would be similar to the one required of the Mariners Mili 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 In re- analyze the architecture based on Commission comment and allow time for staff to fix the MND and recirculated for public review an comment, after which time we can seek final guidance from the Commission. Lepo agreed. nmissioner Hawkins asked if they would consider turning the MND into an EIR. Jeannette said they would not consider it. rirperson Cole thanked the applicant and commended them for the detail of th posed 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 ad and revisions to the building design be completed. oes: I None bstain: None OBJECT: Mile Gateway, LLC ITEM NO.4 100 -600 West Coast Highway PA2006 -279 Request for Comprehensive Sign Program CS2006 -012 for the previousl Continued to date approved Bel Mare Shopping Center. In addition, the Planning Commission will b uncertain viewing the project's landscape plan and evaluating proposed refinements t xterior elevations to determine their substantial conformance with the approved None None Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and BUSINESS City Council Follow -up - Mr. Lepo reported that the Council adopted th 7 resolution initiating additional or new regulations for residential car a0 - ^•- -• - - -- ATTACHMENT F Correspondence e.t BLANK Fa Page 1 of 1 Campbell, James From: Harkless, LaVonne Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 8:18 AM To: Campbell, James Subject: FW: future of newport beach This should be included with your staff report on AerieH LaVonne M. Harkless I City ClerL City of Newport beach I jjoo Newport blvd. I Newport beach, CA 92663 (949) 644 -3005 8 (949) 644 -3039 I ® Iharkless @city.newport- beach.ca.us From: Patricia Irwin [ mailto :patricia2119 @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 8:14 AM To: Harkless, LaVonne Subject: future of newport beach I urge the city council to vote no on Aerie as seen in the Daily Pilot. We don't need any more congestion in corona del mar. 07/15/2008 Campbell, James From: Harkless, LaVonne Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 8:27 AM To: Campbell, James Subject: FW: AERIE Looks like someone has given my email address to provide input on this project. Up until the time when I get the staff report, I will forward these to you for inclusion with your report. After that I will print them out for distribution. LaVonne M. Harkless I City Clerk City of Newport Beach 1 3300 Newport Blvd. I Newport Beach, CA 92663 ( (949) 644 -30051 7 (949) 644 -3039 1 * lharkless @city.newport - beach.ca.us - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Jack Couffer ( mailto:jcouffer @roadrunner.com] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 8:18 AM To: Harkless, LaVonne Subject: AERIE Please consider my position... Newport Beach /CDM has changed enough in character without approving this obscene flaunting of our standards for reasonable development. AERIE as proposed is a monstrosity of bad taste. Please refuse approval. Jack Couffer, 2nd generation owner since 1952. 716 Marguerite, CDM 1 F.Lk 07/13/2008 21:08 FAX 949 644 7127 Mike or Jack Couffer 191 001 JACK COUFFER 718 MARGUERITE AVE. CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92828 949- 780 -9128 July 14, 2008 The City Clerk & Mayor Ed $e'lich Re: AERIE Please consider my position... Newport Beach /CDM has changed enough in character without approving this obscene flaunting of our standards for reasonable development. AERIE as proposed is a monstrosity of bad taste and poor planning. Please refuse approval. Jack Couffer, 2nd generation owner since 1952. . M + F.5 Page 1 of 1 Campbell, James From: Harkless, LaVonne Sent: Monday, Jury 14, 2008 9:59 AM To: Campbell, James Subject: FW: condominiums LaVonne m. Harkless I City Clerk City of Newport Ejeack 1 5500 Newport 51-4. I Newport geack, CA 92663 9 (949) 644 -30051 8 (949) 644 -3039 1 ® Iharkless @dty.newport- beach.ca.us From: wduboef @msn.com [ma!Ito:wduboef @msn.com] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 9:49 AM To: Harkless, LaVonne Subject: condominiums we are AGAINST the building of anything more in our city!!!! wanted to register our displeasure at the possibility of more construction. thank you. whitney and larry duboef 5 coventry nwport beach 92660 The I'm Talkaton. Can 30 -days of conversation change the world? Find out now. �'.(O 07/15/2008 Aerie Project Campbell, James From: Harkless, LaVonne Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 10:33 AM To: Campbell, James Subject: FW: Aerie Project LaVonne M. Harkless I City Clerk City of Newport beach 1 330o Newport E)Ivd. I Newport E)each, CA 92663 2 (949) 644 -30051 A (949) 644 -3039 12 Iharkless @city.newport- beach.ca.us From: victoria rodeno [mailto:rodeno @pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 10:32 AM To: Harkless, LaVonne Subject: Aerie Project Page 1 of 1 The Rodeno's and Drakes of 2631 Seaview Ave. are opposed to the construction of the 4 story condominium development project in Corona Del Mar. This project will obstruct the views of the ocean in the area and the would result in an eyesore for the area. We are sorry that we will not be available for the meeting on Thursday but we are putting a NO vote on the project. Raymond and Elizabeth Rodeno Walter Drake. �- .. 1 07/15/2008 Campbell, James From: Harkless, LaVonne Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 10:39 AM To: Campbell, James Subject: FW: I Support the AERIE Project in Corona del Mar LaVonne M. Harkless I City Clerk City of Newport Beach 1 3300 Newport Blvd. I Newport Beach, CA 92663 ( (949) 644 -30051 7 (949) 644 -3039 1 * lharkless @city.newport - beach.ca.us - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Mary McCarthy [mailto:MaryTutta @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2006 10:36 AM To: Harkless, LaVonne Subject: I Support the AERIE Project in Corona del Mar To the Newport Beach City Council: A resident and voter in Corona del Mar, I heartily support the AERIE Project in Corona del Mar. This development is not only responsible, with responsible and highly ethical, upstanding people behind it, it will vastly improve the beauty of the area. For years, this particular site has been an eyesore and a detriment to its natural surroundings as well as to the upscale, well -kept properties in the area. Mary McCarthy . 4545 Perham Road Corona del Mar, CA 92625 949 - 706 -9757 au Campbell, James From: Harkless, LaVonne Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 12:04 PM To: Campbell, James Subject: Fw: Aerie approval Sent from Blackberry - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: Wendy Webb twendywebb @advancedonline.com> To: Harkless, LaVonne Sent: Mon Jul 14 11:51:07 2008 Subject: Aerie approval My name is Wendy Webb and I am a resident and local realtor who is very interested in keeping the beauty and values of our Bay. I feel that the AERIE project is a perfect development for that special place. Please approve it. I have attended all of the Planning commission meetings as well as the City Council meetings. It is obvious that the majority of the neighbors support AERIE. I feel that the delays the applicant has experienced relating to trying to appease these few opposing is atrocious! It is not fair when a few residents can hold up a good project, particularly when they just do not seem to want anything near them. It is disturbing to me. I am appalled by the extent that these few have gone. After seeing the full page add this morning I had to write this email. At the last Planning Commission meeting the room was full of people showing their support. Other than the attorney of the opponents there was only one person speaking against! It is a serious violation of property rights. This project is designed to the parameters of the codes and law. It should be approved. The City Council gave specific direction, which was done - and more. The applicant has acted in good faith, followed Council's direction and will bring a project to the City that is beneficial for all parties. The applicant, or future applicants, could opt to keep the building as low income housing, or worse yet, a rehab. facility. Please approve AERIE! Wendy Webb 949- 723 -1470 phone 949- 723 -1401 fax 1 `i n Wendy @WendyWebb.com This communication is confidential and may contain information or material that is proprietary, legally privileged and /or otherwise protected by law (all such rights and protections being expressly reserved hereby). If you have received it in error or if you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by return message and permanently delete the message, including any attachments, and destroy any printed copies. Any unauthorized use, copying or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you. `o Campbell, James From: Harkless, LaVonne Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 3:05 PM To: Campbell, James Subject: FW: Aerie Project in Corona del Mar LaVonne M. Harkless I City Clerk City of Newport Beach 1 3300 Newport Blvd. I Newport Beach, CA 92663 ( (949) 644 -30051 7 (949) 644 -3039 1 * lharkless @city.newport - beach.ca.us - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Jane Hilgendorf [mailto:jhilgend @yahoo.coml Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 3:04 PM To: Harkless, LaVonne Subject: Aerie Project in Corona del Mar To the City Council: I am opposed to the Aerie Condominium Project in Corona del Mar. The project is far too massive for the Corona del Mar neighborhood. I have been a home owner in Corona del Mar for over 34 years, and I have, over these years, been concerned about the mansionization of Corona del Mar. Specific past examples include allowing folks to purchase three adjacent lots and build massive structures on them, such as was done in Cameo Shores and also on Ocean Blvd. Now, with the Aerie Project, this type of structure would further create problems for this community. To allow a six level structure which would encroach on the bluff would not be appropriate for this neighborhood, nor is it good for our environment. You may as well allow a hotel to be built on the property, considering the size and massiveness of the structure. These massive structures take years to build and create chaos and parking problems during construction, not to mention that this project most likely would entail removing huge amounts of bluff soil with big trucks doing the hauling and trying to maneuver through the narrow streets. This project has no place in this residential community. Please do.not approve this project. Jane Hilgendorf 245 Heliotrope Ave. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 (949) 673 -7315 �. 1k Page 1 of 1 Campbell, James From: Harkless, LaVonne Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 3:34 PM To: Campbell, James Subject: FW: AERIE LaVonne M. HarWess I City Clerk City 4 Newport each 1 3 3o Newport E)(vd. I Newport each, CA 92663 9 (949) 644 -30051 8 (949) 644.3039 12 Iharkless @city.newport- beach.ca.us From: Carole Pewthers [mailto:carole @pewthers.net] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 3:38 PM To: Harkless, LaVonne Subject: AERIE We are longtime residents of Newport Beach and find this project to be totally out of character and size for the area. We sincerely hope the council will deny this project. Carole and Don Pewthers 2501 Crestview Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 949 650 -2929 07/15/2008 ` 1 d Campbell, James From: Harkless, LaVonne Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 6:11 PM To: Campbell, James Subject: Fw: Aerie Project Sent from Blackberry - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: Lesliecdm @aol.com <Lesliecdm @aol.com> To: Harkless, LaVonne Cc: rjulian @advancedonlin.com <rjulian @advancedonlin.com> Sent: Mon Jul 14 17:58:54 2008 Subject: Aerie Project Dear City Council, I'm a resident of Carnation Ave ... about 1/2 block away from Rick and Karen Julian's Aerie Project. I am in total support of their new plans for this Project and have found them to be inclusive with all the neighbors and extremely candid with regards to their plans. They have my full backing and I look forward to them being as permanent neighbors. Sincerely, Leslie Bergey 214 Carnation Ave. Corona del Mar, Ca. 92625 Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com < http:// www. tourtracker .com ?NCID= aolmus00050000000112> ! 1 1� Campbell, James From: Harkless, LaVonne Sent: Monday, July 14, 20086:12 PM To: Campbell, James Subject: Fw. AERIE PROJECT Sent from Blackberry - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: Kathy Ashe <ezkashe @cox.net> To: Harkless, LaVonne Cc: 'Richard Julian' <rjulian @advancedonline.com> Sent: Mon Jul 14 17:53:20 2008 Subject: AERIE PROJECT Newport Beach City Council: We want to extend our support of the AERIE project proposed to be built in Corona del Mar. We presently live in the adjacent building of Channel Reef, have studied the AERIE plans, and feel that the AERIE developers have done a very comprehensive job of making sure that this Project will only enhance the area. Thank You, Mike and Kathy Ashe 2525 Ocean Boulevard #A1 Corona del Mar, CA 949 - 673 -1124 Campbell, James From: Harkless, LaVonne Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 6:12 PM To: Campbell, James Subject: Fw: AERIE Project on end of Ocean Blvd Sent from Blackberry - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: Ron Beard <RonBeard @seproperties.com> To: Harkless, LaVonne Sent: Mon Jul 14 17:42:52 2008 Subject: AERIE Project on end of Ocean Blvd To the honorable City Council: I am very much in favor of the subject project. I believe it's a quality project, and it's very well designed. Clearly, the developer has bent over backwards to appeal to the community and to try to provide the most ideal design while still having a viable project. I urge you to support the project and vote for its approval. Thank you, Ron Beard 3208 Ocean Blvd Corona Del Mar, CA This communication is confidential and may contain information or material that is proprietary, legally privileged and /or otherwise protected by law fall such rights and protections being expressly reserved hereby). If you have received it in error or if you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by return message and permanently delete the message, including any attachments, and destroy any printed copies. Any unauthorized use, copying or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you. V-15 Campbell, James From: Harkless, LaVonne Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 6:12 PM To: Campbell, James Subject: Fw: Aerie Support Sent from Blackberry - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: Captbergey @aol.com <Captbergey @aol.com> To: Harkless, LaVonne Cc: rjulian @advancedonlin.com <rjulian @advancedonlin.com> Sent: Mon Jul 14 18:11:24 2008 Subject: Aerie Support Sir, I am a neighbor of this project and have watched the Julians do everything they can to satisfy everyone concerned. It is time to let them show us what they have promised! A world class project that fits our city is just what we need here on Carnation Ave! Thank you, G. Scott Bergey 1214 Carnation Ave Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com < http:// www. tourtracker .com ?NCID= aolmus00050000000112> ! 1 F.l � Page 1 of 1 Campbell, James From: Bill Varon [billvaron @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 8:34 PM To: eselich @city.newport- beach.ca.us Cc: Harkless, LaVonne; Campbell, James; Lepo, David; Richard Julian Subject: support for AERIE Dear Mr. Mayor: I am writing to express my firm support for the AERIE project. I met Rick and Karen Julian when they first took steps 5 -6 years ago to purchase the site and I was immediately impressed with their openness about their desire to "fit in" to our unique and special neighborhood. We should all follow their example when designing and building a custom home project. As I learned more about Rick's plans, sat through City Council and Planning meetings, talked to detractors, and spoke with Rick's architect, I became more vocal with my support. I am especially grateful for all the improvements Rick has in store for this extremely special location, as well as Brion "Mr. Green" Jeannette's passion for building environmentally sound projects. You have heard all the arguments, so for the sake of brevity I won't list the many reasons why I believe you and the Council should support this project and finally give it a "YES" vote. And I wont bore you with the counter - arguments to those who are trying to convince the Council to oppose. However, I will stress to you something that I feel very deeply about: I have witnessed too many projects on my street (I own 212 Carnation) that have eliminated every bit of public view possible without introducing anything interesting to the neighborhood. AERIE brings us some excitement and it improves the Ocean/Carnation site for the entire community, so it's time for the Council to vote "YES." I will not be able to attend the City Council meeting next week, therefore I am sending you this letter today to voice my support. Feel free to call me if I can help the decision making process in any way. Thank you, Bill Varon (949) 290 -8383 07/15/2008 V-11 Campbell, James From: Harkless, LaVonne Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 9:28 PM To: Campbell, James Subject: Fw: support for AERIE Sent from Blackberry - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: Bill Varon <billvaron @gmail.com> To: eselich @city.newport - beach.ca.us < eselich @ city.newport - beach.ca.us> Cc: Harkless, LaVonne: Campbell, James: Lepo, David; Richard Julian <rjulian @advancedonline.com> Sent: Mon Jul 14 20:33:50 2008 Subject: support for AERIE Dear Mr. Mayor: I am writing to express my firm support for the AERIE project. I met Rick and Karen Julian when they first took steps 5 -6 years ago to purchase the site and I was immediately impressed with their openness about their desire to "fit in" to our unique and special neighborhood. We should all follow their example when designing and building a custom home project. As I learned more about Rick's plans, sat through City Council and Planning meetings, talked to detractors, and spoke with Rick's architect, I became more vocal with my support. I am especially grateful for all the improvements Rick has in store for this extremely special location, as well as Brion "Mr. Green" Jeannette's passion for building environmentally sound projects. You have heard all the arguments, so for the sake of brevity I won't list the many reasons why I believe you and the Council should support this project and finally give it a "YES" vote. And I won't bore you with the counter - arguments to those who are trying to convince the Council to oppose. However, I will stress to you something that I feel very deeply about: I have witnessed too many projects on my. street (I own 212 Carnation) that have eliminated every bit of public view possible without introducing anything interesting to the neighborhood. AERIE brings us some excitement and it improves the Ocean /Carnation site for the entire community, so it's time for the Council to vote "YES." I will not be able to attend the City Council meeting next week, therefore I am sending you this letter today to voice my support. Feel free to call me if I can help the decision making process in any way. Thank you, Bill Varon (949) 290 -8383 1 v.1$ Campbell, James From: Harkless, LaVonne Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 6:22 AM To: Campbell, James Subject: Fw: Ocean & Seaview Condos Sent from Blackberry - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: Gregg Kail <gtkail @msn.com> To: Harkless, LaVonne Sent: Mon Jul 14 23:46:25 2008 Subject: Ocean & Seaview Condos The project at Ocean & Seaview reflects Newport's long history of precedents for allowing large condominium structures as well as condo conversions of remodeled front -back homes. The Newport city government would need to take eminent domain of the existing apartment building to create a view point similar to Lookout and Inspiration Points Corona del Mar appears to be on course to becoming a marina and fishing cove. The city has been unable to collaborate with other government entities to control the kelp growth and the anchored boats in the Corona beaches. Attaching the summer swimline to the three buoys at Little Corona embedded with kelp was an unproductive use of staff resources. By next year, the kelp growth could spread to covering Big Corona. And the boats continue to line up in Big Corona for anchoring and fishing. The smell of bait fish is overwhelming at the swimline. On almost a daily basis, a tugboat with hoists for lobster traps cruises the four -buoy swimline about 7pm. Last Thursday night during the triathlon swimming groups, the tugboat was anchored at the first buoy with a fiber pipe emitting water to flush bait tanks. Newport's weak collaboration with state and coastal entities is also seen in the rebuilding of Big Corona two years ago. The state funds were used to construct a building for restaurant leasing and vehicle garaging Compared to the elaborate two -story structure, the restrooms are only several hundred square feet for thousands of beach visitors. The first floor of the Big Corona building is about equivalent to the square footage of the bathroom facility at the Dunes Resort Park that probably only has about 10% of the visitors. Let's hope that the Dunes private enterprise continues its fireworks long after the Corona del Mar public beach becomes a marina. Thank you for evaluating my comments. Page 1 of 1 Campbell, James From: Harkless, LaVonne Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 7:59 AM To: Campbell, James Subject: FW: Proposed Aeirie Project LaVonne M. Harkless I City Clerk City of Newport E)eack I 33oo Newport blvd. I Newport E)each, CA 92663 2 (949) 644-30061 g (949) 644 -3039 12 Iharkless @city.newport- beach.ca.us From: ]im Place [mailto :jimplace @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, ]uly 15, 2008 7:59 AM To: Harkless, LaVonne Cc: Pat Place Subject: Proposed Aeirie Project Attention City Council My wife and I have lived in Newport Beach for many years and strongly oppose this developement Vote No on the Aeire Project. Thanks. Jim and Pat Place 39 Anjou Newport Coast r.a� 07,15,2008 Page 1 of 2 Campbell, James From: Harkless, LaVonne Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 8:20 AM To: Campbell, James Subject: FW: Aerie Project LaVonne M. HarWess I City ClerL (amity of Newport beach 133oo Newport Blvd. I Newport E)each, CA 92663 Iff (949) 644 -3005 A (949) 644 -3039 12 Iharkiess@clty.newpoft-beach.ca.us From: Jeffrey M. Verdon [mailto:jeff @jmvlaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 8:19 AM To: Harkless, LaVonne Cc: Richard Julian Subject: Aerie Project I am writing this letter to express my support for the Aerie project coming up for approval next week. Rick Julian has spent considerable resources attempting to placate the needs and wants of the citizens of CDM and the project is a good and needed project for the area. I would hope that he would finally be give the approvals the project qualifies for and the community deserves. Thank you. Jeffrey M. Verdon, Esq. JEFFREY M. VERDON LAW GROUP, LLP Waterfleld Tower (formerly Tower 17) 18881 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1650 Irvine, CA 92612 949 263 1133 Ext. 1 949 203 2810 (fax) 949 310 4769 (mobile) Executive Assistant: Kelly Fitzgerald Ext. 0 jef iravlaw.com http: / /www j_mvlaw.com * *This is a transmission from the firm of JEFFREY M. VERDON, LAW GROUP, LLP, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and protected by the attomey- client or attorney work product privileges. If you are not the addressee, note that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please destroy it and notify us immediately.at our telephone number (949) 263 - 1133.* 07/15/2008 1, Page 2 of 2 CIRCULAR 230 TAX ADVICE DISCLOSURE: ANY ADVICE CONTAINED HEREIN WAS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN TO BE USED, AND IT CANNOT BE USED BY ANY TAXPAYER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING TAX PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED ON THE TAXPAYER. TO THE EXTENT THAT ANY ADVICE CONTAINED HEREIN WAS WRITTEN TO SUPPORT THE PROMOTION OR MARKETING OF ANY TRANSACTION(S) OR MATTER(S) ADDRESSED BY SUCH ADVICE, THE TAXPAYER SHOULD SEEK ADVICE BASED ON THE TAXPAYER'S PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES FROM AN INDEPENDENT TAX ADVISOR. 07,15,2008 c.titi Campbell, James From: Harkless, LaVonne Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 10:05 AM To: Campbell, James Subject: FW: Proposed Aerie Condominium Complex LaVonne M. Harkless I City Clerk City of Newport Beach 1 3300 Newport Blvd. I Newport Beach, CA 92663 ( (949) 644 -30051 7 (949) 644 -3039 1 * lharkless @city.newport - beach.ca.us - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Hans Bode [mailto:hrbode @uci.edu] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 10:05 AM To: Harkless, LaVonne Subject: Proposed Aerie Condominium Complex Dear Members of the City Council, I am totally opposed to the building of the Aerie Condominium Complex at Carnation Ave. and Ocean Blvd. in Corona del Mar One of the great things about Newport Beach have been the efforts supported by a majority of the citizens to build in such a way to preserve the beauty and ambience of the harbor, the Back Bay, Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island as well as other parts of our city. Periodically a developer wants to build some monstrosity that will greatly interfere with the charms of our city. The proposed Aerie Condomium Complex is another example. The picture shown on page A3 of the July 13th edition of the Daily Pilot shows how this complex would greatly detract from the ambience of that area along the harbor. It is huge and ugly and is elbowing out the surrounds. Newport Beach doesn't need to have a complex of eight condos of -5000 ft each dominating the local landscape. If they want condos like that, go build them in Newport Coast. I have lived in Newport Beach since 1970. Periodically a developer wants to build a monster and the citizens of our city have opposed them quite uniformly. Under no circumstances should that complex be allowed to be built. A very concerned citizen, Hans Bode 2040 Beryl Lane Newport Beach Ca. 92660 1 F.a Tuesday, July 15, 200810:08 AM Jack DeLuca 512.853.5543 p,01 15 July 2008 1821 Toyon Lane NB 949. 631 -1542 City Council We read that you will be considering approval of a massive condo complex along the Newport coast. We have no idea exactly where this will occur along the Newport coast but we request that you decry their permit. Our remora ing, other than the ones Mated in the Daily Pilot of the I e' July: • The effect of additional traffic on PCH, MacArthur, Jamboree and Irvine Blvd. • The increased pollution of this continued growth - albeit only 8 condos - they will have a mininmm of three cars each. • The apparent lack of discipluie «-ithin oau city ooauicil to control thi• gro«th. • With aun•estrieted growth comes not only problems with pollution, traffic, water but the continued degradation of what Newporters are so proud is our quality of life.. hty ,rife and I moved here in 1974 and picked Nettport Beach for its quality of life. In our opinion the qualities have degraded due to the wncontrollable grotxtln of both automobile and air traffic. The ever increasing black sooty grit covering our homes, cars and invade the lungs of young and old. The ever continued pressure to increase the size of the airport. What can anyone say about the Back Bay other than eye sore? We say enough is enough and we ask you to reject this continued pressure for grmNib. Frances and Jack DeLuca Cc: Daily Pilot �. a� JUL -15 -2008 13:22 HUNSRKER 8 ASSOCIATES P.01i01 RICHARD & REGINA HUNSAKER 117 Coral Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92662 -1144 Via fax: (949) 644 -3039 Via email: Iharkless ci us July 15, 2008 Mr. Edward Selich, Mayor City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: I would like to express my support of the AERIE project located at 201 and 205 Carnation. I have met with the owners, seen the model, and viewed the property. I am wholeheartedly in support of the project. I live on Balboa Island and I approve of the revised elevations of the building which I will view when I walk the small Island, which I do a couple m times a week. The project will reduce the number of dwelling units from the 15 that exist today to 8 units that is proposed by Aerie. Traffic is always a issue, but this reduction in units will help mitigate the traffic on our busy streets. The project utilizes only 21% of the site, preserving 79% as open space, twice the amount of open space required by code. I appreciate your support of this development of the AERIE project. Very truly yours I 4 a -� ' Richard unsaker 117 Coral Ave Balboa Island CA 92662 xc: David Lepo, Planning Director Rick Julian, Applicant TOTAL P.01 V.as Harkless, LaVonne From: Jeff Woodman [Jeff @unitedpacifictextiles.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 3:14 PM To: Harkless, LaVonne Subject: No on AERIE As a resident (600 Begonia Ave), and business owner (Corona Del Mar), we are opposed to the condominium complex project at carnation avenue & ocean boulevard in Corona Del Mar. Please make a note of this as another family against continued development in our fine city. Respectfully, Jeff Woodman 949- 723 -1155 07/15/2008 r. 940 Harkless, LaVonne From: David Lamb Idlamb @strathamhomes.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 3:04 PM To: Harkless, LaVonne Cc: Richard Julian Subject: Aerie Project in Corona del Mar Newport Beach City Council: I have been following the development of the Aerie project on the bluffs at Corona del Mar for several years. I think that the project has become a great opportunity for the City to clean up the bluffs overlooking our harbor entrance. The project has stunning architecture, and blends in well with the hillside. I am an active boater and go by the site several times a week most weeks. I know that Aerie will greatly improve the appearance of the harbor entrance. I hope the City has the foresight to approve this project. Thank you for your consideration. Dave Lamb 07/15/2008 Additional correspondence will be distributed on Friday, July 18, or Tuesday, July 22, depending on when the City Clerk's office receives it. ATTACHMENT G Project Plans 6A BLANK C'3. Nf1T Tf1 af%w I r-w- In z g u_ cli 0 .� 2 LAJ _ w J h +any. — ®� Z LA— !S O 11 _ - MOCIFICATION REOUE97S. a �� ?�• —_— "au �} w�°� uam acbiwlizmr¢ MR •.W lfWaNM VVYR Aerie Brw\n.Jeawv\.ette Architecture" a: .,,� "°]•"'° LEGAL OYQm'R SYMBOLS LEGEND CONSULTANTS DESISN DATA PIKE NOTft; �® u��aPnW FC nw.Mr � � �IALLtlQ. "FG•�^ tln IwVx V/� m14i w +�Mt•L.11c awWll].vll FFau � "� �yCL..K iw'°,w.`v°i ]ioMF. �C �.Mlw wn Ci x� IP6 MI9 n.0 TaVI]as I.•M"�`M wwµ GU/�e `°` IVO a M°9!.•M!/F..Mb9TMLO x.N YPV. nc.M�a °]b JM�"NI�].WMe.GwI9 /��II �i AOIYH��bO W W a°19..YR MYLL IdpT ]�/ } clf V.vRgte 9+}t.Wi.1 M.IluWYYi M"' 'y W I�-1swM . �S. rte:- `�•��«'Sw '' -�. °+':' L �fA}iMQ� GIY6AWL a"�"' °P^ .^."e w°�"� ^'i°+_ aww -s�i `�O1a0 �>na .Faoo s u �1°R•L]. Frx/]�1 °w,wa.. wwra }AWPM/A V+'I w°"°i!'l. yd./ •••••"'•• .e' W6 rtlQ MM•APIW.WOTfIG m .. LNI.FT nIY`OLrMF•IY.nF !Y4•K� •N.N.YULL .wWMPYPFn.wwry tt. >.n' LEGAL DESCRIPTION F.e.t.e — eumea°la� mmvs u•.IMO! Mal M -YL M M1'I rnu so-wn 10.0Jtl3 M. MIY / f �r.v9.ws L�Z� � M... uYY R.IM" tAV_v,a vvx a"WC.9. � +/ is. x"41~ !°FF°OFG9 foI K. I6Y iTP KtlI � Pa°I ' '+'L..IYM INM MT R�Ma P°A°/]l4 A,w.Tm +]S` V�W6 9�:FCOr1�l •4M P/i!" }MN1.P4.]tllcY. Vns N.I .wsM] uxYa• II"`yc`I`}Wy MN •WIS4n'"YYY.}'Ia9WI VFKW SQUARE POOTA6E CALCULATIONS SHEET INDEX VIVNITY MAP riorl�l� rsemr r.IYpLW li]q YT a4.9cbLnw M. Ian V V Ilrtr. M. 4.9 V Wyaiy. aaq .a MFW V u A•n.'MN bK.IaV •J ap/"a Maa1.•'p F! u }A • W°YM.LM -MY01. 11.1 •nR a V 1Mrt]- V. ]ic V � -]Rn9 vNga ... 4.]"/w. pp"t •J YWYM 9.I...T.1u]. vu WDYl. OM. V ..] NMCw ].wbe LN �NFM- ]Y.Pel.afl CdY1 YTa- M• )]I. V YYM^ Y aIY V. M YfI}cnN.]°]lar. VRai °•L.I. -A.IC FYI. vWIM. IIIM V!M IIYO V Yn.. M. ]i ]l •• v ]. M••]M p Yr.1911 M109.1M M FaM M1wF'w LN .MMCM aLnc.VML \` L,� II/u V Yrta- V.V 1lw fIq V. Fna.FN -W!Y ]Y V NAb FM FµM.M /M- CY91!!. WMO V. Mh11� lM V `Mf./MM IWMFOa. Fw. i MIPY -aM.a M.Pll '.MYi. T HMO IM V lM.. IPYIY� ]- MICM.IMYY W PIPIA �f /Mli° .7.�.F. Y.c. °.LM ala.e. °NwnW R�.W°W Fwx tl91 V 1011 uR FY1 -FMFN a1. ��. V M °MIY ]]e•'M l4l.wNI M.OFa R.W KfYFM' .4. pN V. M4 \b .. RNM.MM] Y•FMN! I.YTMfY9Y MIRM M lMll Ye.'eY a.0 Ym1W YeICV 1w .TYMYC Y]•w [MI.MI.v! al.n A<_ IM••. F..• \•Y V 9V�9 PC.p} �'P° •� -Itli `V W.a F/n .YY V n+l F'aT y��yV T�.�a.�< WN< a]M YaM xb.aNYM VI ]a M W ]s11. apF�4 � araww aa}. Fxvrw a9 ar. r9 o..o. FFx. °a1..aw / ..} °'aw .e•,. wn ur al. •c+}. �.. an.I... mr.,oP n4.l aee aaw� w � b.Y aT°°IA WYI V PFM YYL Aa�9111m 1"FF]aFY1 WO1ib P M.TK .IM.'1tV. M. ICVG.iO l.I • I..M! PM.GGT LOCATION T-I R.l In i \ %gCMY Y MAP `.: yY u'l fF�E _ fill. jl 5 r0 xm ua owdE .o. w..p�u.mr� _., A° �Y .. B. OEW�IS�EO� itl�:. � � EARTHWORK OUAMITES ni In � iu N Y ` -/� 1 c l��f�fw�u P- 29.253 LEGAL DESCRIPTION , " . I � � .v rx w va'nuvM rWi am:N n uenrw xy STATEMENT OF OWN_EHSIIP I / CARNATION AVEI�ff__- . STREET SECTIONS I i ims =p PROPERTY OWNER y "art YS: 9]EJO r2 (9.9J 5 5 -5900 pxry. F 2 S PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: m �� f HRES YT TENTATIVE TRACT z.J GROSS 9K. it 1 KFEti NO. 16882 <Oiacu. dxrnu ..arcs rom ton ,�"�, FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES v%- b I } ` aB .1 I I u L_ PROJECT ID: TRACT - - -, -OT ------ 5,TE = 61,283.515- DIM A = 15700' - - - LINE OF SETBACKI .4 P. NUMBERS: 052 -013 - 12,052 - 013 -13, SETBACK AREA = 50,570.15 5F DIM 5 = '20.00' D DEPTH OF YAR TO CALL, SIDE YARD SETBACK 0 AND A ORTION OF BUILDING AREA (X IS) : -75,666.13 SF DIM O = :20.00' 052 -013 -2 AVG. OF DIM A, 5, t C = 13233' - -- OJTLINE OF BLDG FOO'PRINT CITY: NEWPORT BEACH COUNiY:ORANGE COUNTY 6% OF AVG. DIM. = 10.59' 00' -1') ADDITIONAL 5E75ACK ° i AREA THAT REQUIRES MODIFICATION A -� ' r a cx,C" MAR LEGENO sl[ NEA - er.ms cr. /1.s AaEs FYI, MS RI6 PAD (IxW &F./Y] AOC) aCPE NEA IE4 MAN 50{ r.M2 &F./O.s AM SLOE Mu aawlFn MM sox (1!,145 5,./453 rvq ARU IIML'Eli YEW l SF ./0.J ./ / 0.J 3 F]EVAIIPI (II. Agl♦7 •rw w a O.Arr w aAYq Yaw.v. sr' ws uw ros,Y. o..n c� PREPARED FOR ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES 22W4 EL TORO RGA0 LASE MAW, CA 9)AN PREPARED BY HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES a v r v[ r v c wxn+c a omnc YsutnYc m. r.s. • rn. uw... rr.wo uw . rx nrY 1om.v SLOPE ANALYSIS EXHIBIT CORONA DEL MAR \``� r . e 1 d pk u. w n V 'No "45, SEE 'ROOF HEIGHT V5- NATURAL GRADE CHAR-' ($UB- SASEFSNT PEOOR PLAN ON SHEET A -I'1, ROOF PLAN, TO VERIFY A_L ROOT- - b MEET CITY CODES 26' -0'/ 33' -0" HEIGHT LIMIT n V op r� ems■ v ■o IISOVrN ELEVATION - - - rw .r•r -ems - sr.w•��.s p r ),y6 �rd� "xAilse !1'�4.AIIh. v. , JUxl nxtl§Inua lnxJ '"y f'HI PFD' I�por WINA - '11 . a'• _ -_ 'x+' Y !'7 I IaINIxgMMxnlx� EaII�� ,g�ffaF�"116661INGi!^��la.: �' `�� ,�'�. � � , •�,xx���,l rr��f � I enslilwm 5ks:s:.�;. cwt wu �� � � � 9pIwRaAlJlll s Y i_ ;ul. u MY t �I R iMrt1p1R a'_M.MYYV?L v. m c� +rplxrYn� -J --- — �I 1 ` � tlSl :IlR2 — OS4:A0 MRimt 1 cwYnl+w ___ _____ _ _ ___ __ _ _____ _____ _____ rec�rniwuaOrrw ws •nY _� TGYb . pY.lvGxpl O.' •.Nb w Kb � Nd.� Ip.r YR �wv cYM. paaT I st40 SA ♦cTiwe:3o reel 6Si b.T a�Yis - =abr '1� j •cawe�sb _________ ._ xwTr�L �ISMOTION A _ m.�cen w. ® o vcwo nc� _ le �xffi v .w -e 9 6sv.for ww[ I 9 . :na..._ a49wInAT L}pW � erou�+ 'O �XGTION BB -y i C--, m r.�. �o...mnaa.a.--------------- n amp L�� i n �� 4 x• LR 3 - _ a -X `c v a c c � m IseaTioN e I - - -O - - -- ® ®� 9 Ix - - - - -- - - - - - -- -:ate: I '. d OE - =_ - OT ON A- G C--, ---------------- rau i"Mill"m MME III . II "Mom ZC ___aclsaa.name4ava___�___ V < !iC 1 O fi _ 'X Im s -«.e - -.gym s eAcrn 4 N i cM.ra•bo K a to it SecTION � CMt uf'.1 -p. M A 1 s x — 71M E 7 � o rC_ __ _ ______ _ a aaeoe saeax ;x c '? c im SGGTION K A -It c a V- "bl JIVIEW FROM BAY5ZIE DRVE j a N m w N n a n N O N W 3 m m n y OUTLINE OF EXISTING BULIDINCG PREVIO -S- °ROPOSED DEVELOPMENT °RE'/ I---- °ROPOSED DECK -R0F05 -i GNIT 3 DECK AT —� ROPO. LNIT 3 g HLEV. 65 & (NAVG 88) '/ V, Qp ¢0 mph° 01 -20� i GAR Na- DN' W � LIM 2495 :AN BLVD. BELOW ! PUBL G VIENPOIN- AT / ELEV.69.O': GAR \.' -iDN AVE_ PRO -EGT TO PROV DE NEN PARK BENCH AND / DRINKING FOUNTAIN °OR PUBLIC USE 2501 OCEAN BLVD. W J 4r SLOT EXHIBIT xi.e m' . _ o• V`0-�- �U u s� n gg! �I I I f A -IM T INE pF - VIOUS DESIGN b v EXI5T'G ROOF HT —= t 83.0' LEVEL 5 1 - I_5TREET ELEV. -- = t 68.5' — __ L :F 2ND FLOOR UNIT 5 DECK OUTLINE OF 1� EXISTING BUI OCEAN 5L` V VIEW POINT 0 i00\ oe loo \ \ EXISTING ROOF HT. _=_ t 85.0' ET ELEV. = t 68.5' 2 D FLOOR = 65.0' IVlep TO rm-r mwm OARNA4'ION AVe. AND OMAN DLVD. - PROPOSeD VltW t 2ND FLOOR — / L UNIT 5 DECK // OUTLINE OF / EXISTIN6 5LD6. / / U/ / GARAVE ION J of cwf0 111!11% TO VMT MWM =CAN DLVD. - EXISTI146 VIOLA 1 I 2ND FLOOR - / UNIT 5 DECK OUTLINE OF I EXI5TIN6 BLDG. /_` CARNATION iE �i I on in F Z u� u0 A -71 m m m a g f L v iV o z o_r o ~� lu u FV rpio hY i 00 h c J CARNATION iE �i I on in F Z u� u0 A -71 IIVIEW TO WEST PROM SESONIA PARK i- n N M a x y�p 8' !Y 0 AREA #1 Rm,.EOmo.�..+m AREA #3 AREA#4 AREA #5 AREA 06 =u. �...�.a. e , � \r as � AREAR I` +^'__ SEE SHEET L.2 FOR AREAS 9 THROUGH 14 u..exrtouaw woveNUi ENTIRE SITE ...E� wn,E,x�.�, • w.n.�,o..xn....n ®x ® �w jJ uorve ertus Mnxrnwa. �wx.�m.me.�w AREA #6 w.. �. n` a �� .6nRn wew �,,;., �+.n„� sem Mas • •.,E�..n.e.,�.n. �n.o. - �w.mw�E AREA A7 wwrrxE �. re... ,wEees..n.EO�,....,n4.w..n..,na m mcue�mwuu MCmEw.p � nuxmEEgr�itiu'.Y rwv ti.o ort,m � pnur4.a ue.u5 i�...aE.r�reow nun x on °ox�Egpu nuowZeewn O•�.x�us.a.e.mes �' • Mu¢o �rv1enuw�rpgwwn �LrM w.n. �menW.Vpc�,u nw..waw+. u..exrtouaw woveNUi x_t}w.!ri M!xR wrucu xue rypnayuEi • u'yu n[aaBU inavrt.c.ua ® dcEUex® u.. rrncw a ' --K ear. wv,E jJ uorve ertus Mnxrnwa. AREA #6 PRUNINGBCLEARING n` wew �,,;., �+.n„� sem Mas • ,a„�y. „�E.:.r..�u. ��,a..,�u O �ew�...�,�>o..Rn - �w.mw�E m,.mw.wx w.,,w..,..�r,...0 wwrrxE �. re... ,wEees..n.EO�,....,n4.w..n..,na �I �.,we+a �i��n..n •��errow...w.w,v.' i�...aE.r�reow ROM I s �V �g EY ^93 = e� � =a a � 0) L -1 AREA #9 ENTIRE SITE ..rn� � ` ♦ ♦ I� � AREA ($10 ..m�...av maiae+oa • c ............. mu....�.up AREA 7A sz ag .-f- s— AREA #12 y AREA #12 •..waa �x...un ..iaw.o. .u.vu.+m. i.am.o......ao ..+.saner ro.w�wn •..w.,i... rA..o AREA 913 AREA#.14 a PRUNING & CLEARING • �,w� rmcmw.n.xm naom�ao.w. <w.w.� �••m •"••vim••"", V SEE SHEET L -1 FOR AREAS 1 THROUGH B AREA #9 ta'`J `Pi S � AREA #19 1 ,I ou AREA •♦ g♦u � ` ♦ ♦ I� � ♦ sz ag .-f- s— AREA #12 y AREA #14 PRUNING & CLEARING aiwmn� _ €p i s Ell p s v� g u rc r _ L�2 z PuW LEa D riau: wnnnr.a.sr.xrxn,mu.nw..x.auanm mrtu .auwwwovxux�mx.�o�o..,..wrcx.0 � ��o °� o�i munrt nasrrxuma.w�xxmwuw e� o O — Rd 5 �€� o HE i 1 lwme 4ro�xD xv rd lW�fllilta` iQ �•�•} t f/l ~eta.' �b G'> PLAMTLEGEHG rasa. O.WWTMw Tw LSive�n ES 1 z maim • _ ,W g� 9s9 �•�•�� anrmmsvwrw.i�i' o�ovwiuriYtudi wvza �( If U z PUWLEGEND nem. Nownraeuxrmxnu ivw w.ry uer�e O.Q._.._.._....7 . --.m caNrwi+n.wwu.xo wwa..,.umoe .naw a �� c aswxrraawxrwvcwu wv w.nzum �z •vv.a..nus. U I O .uvmm � �Q i1 z _ M-3 O A: \I PUNT LEGEND nzn: aunwrmuaxrwucasiaavuaaufam 00 �m �i ry 3 G �1 i yw P G� o z r Z 0 o LL Z m anuNa wau um wire anx Nsl®YLO YIYt wicx w. wwwr.auw. wwu wv waea u< � en wrur'uenwr ._ s a�nw \mwee ewn � ar 3ffiRkRAF+.. n.wr��V .�.. r `°.rve`^rv'�ms,awsxnara.id:" .��eFar ,..� 00 �m �i ry 3 G �1 i yw P G� o z r Z 0 o LL Z m �.� p POINT LEGEND mmwx. Tm T MCOLS Law wnTw u>E T S ' a..�...._....,m...._r_ • me Ll f Z s L -5 cc o,E� mn uq•wLwui IONYaf4w� VVp �ya9 V m Neo LL yOy < f � ®n art �r_®......vi....,. �.v.r. ...,.....,...- ....e.....�r .. MO f Z s L -5 . 4 N ~ dV 'jl� * O 0 8 U+ r ti V r i Pu �o tea: uuionrmeuwr�aa�wr..musnas \y/ ME --=7 W r.�arw�.Ywan.V v v.a J M u....o.........m.... ®....a. <69 �� 5 wiaxriauwrw�weuwv �nw� 6 6 {< p 'ye LVpC J 0 L-6 (N) CONC. WAVE ATTENUATOR (N) WOOD (N) POWEf WITH COMI um Cash & Associates e PLEASE REFER TO DOCK �5 DESIGN DRAWING FOR E COMPLETE DETAILS / i r II) C r i KEYNOTES: O PRCPESf➢ CITY 5.,1M.P0 T<RYWAIIR, PlAI�pIM Q PRvYPaED W. RWqu CURVE 7 r 0J REr'IACF EXIS R AS M n � f %i5P4E RNAIUNLIN45 � _ U! PRCPMFO DECK !'NIA1 OVER Fv511NG dMC i / ©PRCPoSEO CF[t IMISM OKR FvSNIG p IW'RDVEYFMIS [11 EMT Q WIX MW 10 BE RWMO {{ FP ` / f / ! — •./ O VRCOOSEE RCPIACCVFNI ObLN 5 �p f/[�� J ( ,$ :,y ❑p Rf➢xR EvShVE SlE 5 3 LEGEND: mme wR 1 � 1 r � � � \ �� • .Yl .r� ?. V'I X f �yf Q CE- PiA4 1 � ' $� !.\ i � l ® PRE•O5� CWC. EECN/y�� �� i �/ ,_1 `.. 1 - � C PRJPoSf➢ IXm DCC % ^yiV, i1NI5N ^{N l PROaExo PDPFa CENIER 0 `n. AV- \) e y��yq um mpwpM.GpM�`p1 I- l= Cash 8 Associates `� .CS4M.4 •.. -. RCA 20i -A) CM Corvno M� Y.,vr, ;A 92125 �� NIA L� pR0)-LI NVYBiN U] WEARfW R1A RESIDENTIAL DOCK LAYOUT } %CR XG UT RM MY El SSW oR.rrN; .u4pER SP —A JfIXCR - o. oA *F DFSCRIanc« av REVISIONS ;jFCI VAN^EER RNM e Lim-nip I VICINITY MAP o... 201. 205 R 207 CARMAT*M AVENUE AND A PORPON OE 101 RAYSIOE PLACE. CORONA OEL MAR CA 92625 EARTHWORK OUANTRES CU/ 25.240 FILL 0 ENMRT 25.210 BEET E43EX SNCEI 1 SNE PLAN /INDEX MAP WET 2 CONCEPTUAL CRAOINC PUN SNFET ! SECTIONS PROPERTY OVRAM ADVANCED GRDUP 99 -D 33792 L.e. Ftl 1. CA 12 Svlb I00 Lab Iona. CA 926!0 PHONE: ((499) 595 -5900 FAX: (D99) 595 -5901 PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: DEVELOPER: ♦ARE` '4k m ....� >o CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN TTM NO. 16882 .SF EET 2 r-----I ----------------------------- 1 1 I I 8 I VICINITY MAP o... 201. 205 R 207 CARMAT*M AVENUE AND A PORPON OE 101 RAYSIOE PLACE. CORONA OEL MAR CA 92625 EARTHWORK OUANTRES CU/ 25.240 FILL 0 ENMRT 25.210 BEET E43EX SNCEI 1 SNE PLAN /INDEX MAP WET 2 CONCEPTUAL CRAOINC PUN SNFET ! SECTIONS PROPERTY OVRAM ADVANCED GRDUP 99 -D 33792 L.e. Ftl 1. CA 12 Svlb I00 Lab Iona. CA 926!0 PHONE: ((499) 595 -5900 FAX: (D99) 595 -5901 PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: DEVELOPER: ♦ARE` '4k m ....� >o CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN TTM NO. 16882 • p I II iI IIII �A)) 1w —i.l�r , Oayr t alm - pup rs G. . - [vT Srznro iWVaSLw J r LEVEL 2 C FF =65.0 a� r T�__c215 CARNATION AVE ra. + ayo �'y w+leem w. I �'1 � r � rp°�• ``j j '� PeRKING , .� PAD EL92y ,r m -o.w� ,l � Sa�• I. r { i it mil LEVEL 2 /•ne "°�°" _ D I , v.' na a.a Fr =65.0 PROPERTY OWNER: ADVANCED GROUP 99 -D ^� 23792 R 01..0 BovbvaN, Svllr 100 PNONEf.r O. 395 26 00 rur: (4�9139e -3901 PREPARED FOR: PREPARED 8Y: _ . li+m 752. $ -J� 4 OEYFLOPER: nsru w-�' Ram -\ scw'rr Ate' �pyA1i(1�AYENLE _ - -- �• - m°u:..., wo m 1a .,.,, l4k i n CONCEPTUAL 8 GRADING PLAN TTM NO. 18882 at •..... ....'.:iii 1 1 9n • I� -,I -n I* `ter ,:. mnw . m00%. L ------------ �'T_'W1'Wt4y 9AL 'M i.l� � as 11� 6 2%-e - •rtes, PROPERTY OWNER ADVANCED GROUP 99 -D 21791 RM H91p Boul.verE, Sulh IM WP pVE DOMFO Le old N d 9J6J0 mnax PHONE: (9/9) 595-5900 r". (9/9) 595 -5901 PREPARED FOP: PREPARED BY: OEKLOPLR: 1 1 (A'RES W.I..,, d..ld N.ul.[ttf.6•vvC�.IPM1 ».4„9 rraxrea w"}: .ra. CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN TTM NO. 16882 sn..r s or s 2%-e - •rtes, PROPERTY OWNER ADVANCED GROUP 99 -D 21791 RM H91p Boul.verE, Sulh IM WP pVE DOMFO Le old N d 9J6J0 mnax PHONE: (9/9) 595-5900 r". (9/9) 595 -5901 PREPARED FOP: PREPARED BY: OEKLOPLR: 1 1 (A'RES W.I..,, d..ld N.ul.[ttf.6•vvC�.IPM1 ».4„9 rraxrea w"}: .ra. CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN TTM NO. 16882 sn..r s or s I BENCHMARK DESCRIPTION: 3K- 28A -BB r y� V h' i f t 4 e I ROM •e PREPARED FOR: ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICE c/o ENIERPPoSE 0E1f1fP T 42974 a TORO ROAD. W E FOREST. CA 928W PREPARED BY: ®HDNSAKER & ASSOCIATES 1 fl V I N E N C. 11/w IYp� Yti GNIp� (Np'F�1pp�Rp e�EWPORr NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING U Z' G��QaN� AERIE CONDOMINIUMS (PA2005 -196) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Advanced Real Estate Services for General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -006, Zone Change No. 2005 -009, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -002, Newport Tract Map No. 2005 -004 (TTM 16882), Modification Pen-nit No. 2005 -087 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -002 affecting 201 & 207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place in Corona del Mar. The application would allow the demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment building and a single - family home and the construction of a 6- level, 8 -unit multiple - family residential condominium complex with subterranean parking on a 1.4 acre site located bayward of the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. The existing General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan and Zoning Designations of a small portion of the site (584 square feet) would be changed to be consistent with the larger portion of the site (from two- family residential to multi - family residential). The application includes a tentative tract map for the creation of eight (8) condominium units for individual sale. The Modification Permit application requests the encroachment of subterranean portions of the building within the front and side yard setbacks and above grade encroachments of portions of the proposed building, including protective guardrails into the front and side yard setbacks. Lastly, the Coastal Residential Development Permit application relates to replacement of demolished apartments occupied by low or moderate income households. No units meeting this criteria are known to exist, and therefore, no replacement of affordable housing units is required. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application. The Mitigated Negative Declaration states that the subject development will not result in a significant impact on the environment. Copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration including the associated Initial Study are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92658 -8915, (949) 644 -3200. Please submit your comments to James Campbell at the address listed below. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on July 22, 2008 at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers (Building A) at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be hear thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing (described in this notice) or in written correspondence delivered to the City, at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach Easy Peel Labels CA 1 A See Instruction Sheet 1 !A �//��IAVERY ®5160® i Use Avery® TEMPLATE 51600 F1 AFeed Paper for Easy Peel Feature ® V� j 052- 013 -06 052 - 013 -07 052- 013 -08 Julie D Pitkanen Linda Martin Richard Battaglia 301 Carnation Ave 239 Carnation Ave 3366 Via Lido Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Beach, CA 92663 052- 013 -09 Mark Whitehead 308 Larkspur Ave Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 052- 013 -13 Corona Cove Partners 11726 San Vicente Blvd 625 Los Angeles, CA 90049 052- 013 -18 John M Mc Donald 107 N Bayside Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 052 - 013 -21 Robert R Sprague 924 Westwood Blvd 10 Los Angeles, CA 90024 052 - 013 -30 County Of Orange Assn 2525 Ocean Blvd Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 052- 013 -36 Gart M Sutton 8 Alessandria Newport Coast, 052- 031 -06 Bijan Zardouz PO Box 28017 Santa Ana, CA *B* CA 92657 052- 013 -11 Francois & Pamela Badeau 2857 Paradise Rd 2105 Las Vegas, NV 89109 052- 013 -16 California Institute Of Techr 1200 E California Blvd Pasadena, CA 91125 052- 013 -19 Michael J & Joan Ruffatto 4545 S Holly St Englewood, CO 80111 052- 013 -23 Richard N Frank 234 E Colorado Blvd 500 Pasadena, CA 91101 052- 013 -31 Joseph Vallejo 2501 Ocean Blvd Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 052- 021 -17 Jerome J Mack 2524 Seaview Ave Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 052- 031 -07 Bettie R Rivers 444 Somerset P1 92799 La Canada Fli, CA 91011 052- 031 -11 Jeremy E Sweeney PO Box 4086 Tustin, CA 92781 052- 031 -14 Michelle B Bohrer 219 Dahlia Ave Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Etiquettes faciles a peter 052- 031 -12 Vera Dupuie *M* 424 -1/2 Heliotrope Ave Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 052 - 031 -15 James E Stebbins 31681 Avenida Evita San Juan Capi, CA 92675 052- 013 -12 Norman Sprague 11726 San Vicente Blvd 625 Los Angeles, CA 90049 052- 013 -17 Alfrida King 1107 Fair Oaks Ave 815 South Pasadena, CA 91030 052- 013 -20 Mark Robinson *M* 6 Pinnacle Pt Newport Coast, CA 92657 052- 013 -26 R Collins 301 Carnation Ave Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 052- 013 -32 John R Mcintosh *M* 2495 Ocean Blvd Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 052 - 031 -05 Segal *B* 1135 Fallen Leaf Rd Arcadia, CA 91006 052- 031 -OB Tr Song 363 Summit Ave Redlands, CA 92373 052- 031 -13 Daryl H Chinn 115 Kreuzer Ln Napa, CA 94559 052- 031 -16 Carole L Geronsin 181 S Old Springs Rd Anaheim, CA 92808 Consultez la feuille www.averycom Easy Peel Labels Use Avery® TEMPLATE 51600 052- 031 -17 Janice Piper *M* 337 E 20Th St Costa Mesa, CA 92627 ®!R i • See Instruction Sheet 1 1U�lAVERY ®51600 i iFeed Paper for Easy Peel Featured � 1J� j 052- 031 -19 052- 031 -24 Timothy A Stephens *M* Charles Mabry 2501 Seaview Ave 2504 Ocean Blvd Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 052 - 031 -25 Rascor Development Inc 2504 Ocean Blvd Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 895- 250 -02 Peter A Chase 2524 Ocean Blvd A -2 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 895- 250 -05 Patricia A Beazley 2525 Ocean Blvd A -5 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 B95- 250 -08 Mildred Jennings 2525 Ocean Blvd B -2 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 895- 250 -11 Debra Hummert 7500 Hub Pkwy Cleveland, OH 44125 895- 250 -14 George Stewart 2525 Ocean Blvd C -2 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 895- 250 -17 Alan & Judy Marsh *B* 2525 Ocean Blvd C -5 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 895- 250 -20 George Stewart 2525 Ocean Blvd 2C Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 895- 250 -23 Richard P Sevigny 2525 Ocean Blvd D -5 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 052- 031 -26 Lloyd E Rasner 2500 Ocean Blvd Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 895- 250 -03 Patricia V Zorn 2525 Ocean Blvd A -3 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 895- 250 -06 Clifford B & J Hughes 2525 Ocean Blvd A6 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 895- 250 -09 Bruce & Kristine Chandler 2525 Ocean Blvd B -3 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 895- 250 -12 Edward H Willits 2525 Ocean Blvd B -6 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 895- 250 -01 Michael C Ashe 11907 Oakland Hills Dr Las Vegas, NV 89141 895- 250 -04 Mark Barker 3535 E Coast Hwy 224 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 895- 250 -07 Edmund R Fitterer 2525 Ocean Blvd B -1 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 895- 250 -10 Tassey 2525 Ocean Blvd B -4 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 895- 250 -13 Robert G Vaughn 2525 Ocean Blvd C -1 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 895- 250 -15 895- 250 -16 Patricia F Parsons Edward H Willits 2525 Ocean Blvd C -3 2525 Ocean Blvd C -4 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 895- 250 -18 James H Parkinson 2525 Ocean Blvd C -6 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 895- 250 -21 Garold Raff *B* 16095 Saint Croix Huntington Beach, 895- 250 -19 Robert G Vaughn 2525 Ocean Blvd D -1 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 895- 250 -22 Richardine J Connolly Cir - 15937 Alta Vista Dr A CA 92649 La Mirada, CA 90638 895- 250 -24 Bernard Horowitz 2525 Ocean Blvd D -6 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 895- 250 -25 Channel Reef Community Assn PO Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92616 6tiquettes fadles 6 peter • Consultez Id feuille www.averycom Easy Peel Labels !A if A See Instruction Sheet: q► NAVEW@51600 i Use Avery® TEMPLATE 51600 ® iFeed Paper for Easy Peel Feature j j 895- 250 -26 895- 250 -27 895- 250 -28 Michael Chulman Lezlie J Gunn Wayne Florian 2525 Ocean Blvd E -2 4045 S Buffalo Dr A101- 2525 Ocean Blvd E -4 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Las Vegas, NV 89147 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 895- 250 -29 Charles Verble 17 Landport Newport Beach, CA 92660 895- 250 -32 Gregg T Smith 2944 Carob St Newport Beach, CA 92660 895- 250 -35 Ronald C & Mary Michelson 2525 Ocean Blvd F -5 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 895- 250 -38 Robert W Crane PO Box 1017 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 895- 250 -41 Sales 1978 Homewood Dr Altadena, CA 91001 895- 250 -44 Edwin Barnes 3 Pursuit 4B Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 895- 250 -47 Thomas 0 Phillips *B* 2525 Ocean Blvd H -5 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 930 -25 -402 Edward M Sweeney PO Box 4086 Tustin, CA 92781 932 -66 -016 Jeffrey & Marilyn Beck 256 E Boca Raton Rd Boca Raton, FL 33432 Etiquettes faciles a peler 895- 250 -30 895- 250 -31 Julie M Lesueur Debra Hummert 21521 Bluejay St 7500 Hub Pkwy Tiabuco Canyon, CA 92679 Cleveland, OH 44125 895- 250 -33 895- 250 -34 Paul Riffel Fred E Siegel 1237 Longview Dr 2475 S Coast Hwy Fullerton, CA 92831 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 895- 250 -36 932 -66 -002 895- 250 -37 Terry Bellardi Dennis R Branch 117 N Bayside Dr 117 Ronald C & Mary Michelson 2525 Ocean Blvd F -6 2525 Ocean Blvd G -1 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 895- 250 -39 Riverside, CA 92506 895- 250 -40 Consultez la feuille www.overycom David White William Mccaffrey 2525 Ocean Blvd G -3 2525 Ocean Blvd G -4 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 895- 250 -42 895- 250 -43 Barbara J Pannier Ronald & Brenda Malone 2525 Ocean Blvd G -6 9953 E Balancing Rock Rd Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Scottsdale, AZ 85262 895 - 250 -45 B95- 250 -46 Brian B Bennett Robert Campbell 14401 Franklin Ave 100 B2 Woodland Ln Tustin, CA 92780 Arcadia, CA 91006 895- 250 -48 930 -25 -401 Barbara J Pannier Ellen E Counts *M* 2525 Ocean Blvd H -6 2520 Seaview Ave 1 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 932 -66 -001 932 -66 -002 Richard D Blatterman Terry Bellardi 115 N Bayside Dr 115 117 N Bayside Dr 117 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 is 932 -66 -017 932 -66 -018 Harley Broviak Waseem M & Amal Ibrahim 2615 Way Ln 6909 Royal Hunt Ridge Dr Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Riverside, CA 92506 A Consultez la feuille www.overycom Easy Peel Labels !A i ♦ See Instruction Sheet i !A �14VERY ®5160® Use Avery® TEMPLATE 51600 iFeed Paper for Easy Peel Feature i ® IJ j 932 -66 -019 932 -66 -032 932 -66 -033 Sylvia M Burnett *M* William D Varon G Bergey 309 Carnation Ave 4 212 Carnation Ave 214 Carnation Ave Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 932 -66 -038 . Colleen A Jeffreys 216 Carnation Ave Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 932 -66 -046 Rothweiler 909 Brigham Young Dr Claremont, CA 91711 932 -66 -060 Deer Creek Holdings Llc 9 E Greenway Plz 3050 Houston, TX 77046 932 -66 -063 Bradley L Baum 2508 Raeburn Dr Riverside, CA 92506 932 -87 -019 Shirley Roeder 300 Carnation Ave Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 932 -87 -022 Theresa A Petrole *B* 2504 Seaview Ave Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 932 -66 -039 932 -66 -045 Alan Fell Ronald Ressner 218 Carnation Ave 1104 Waterwheel P1 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Westlake Village, CA 91361 932 -66 -049 932 -66 -050 Kent S Moore *B* William L Mihram *M* 210 Carnation Ave A 208 Carnation Ave B Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 932 -66 -061 932 -66 -062 Robert San Miguel Ki Y Song 221 Carnation Ave 363 Summit Ave Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Redlands, CA 92373 932 -87 -017 932 -87 -018 Nancy M Allari Ram Willner 304 Carnation 302 Carnation Ave Newport Beach, CA 92625 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 932 -87 -020 932 -87 -021 Jerry Sebag Bob J Portale 2500 Seaview 2502 Seaview Ave Newport Beach, CA 92625 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 * ** 109 Printed * ** Ittiquettes faciles ) peler A. Consulter la feuille www.averycom ...!.e .. . • ..... �..- ....IWI r....IN C..... /.. �4........r..�w J.1 -��.. �1 -- w enn �,\ w•,�n \, Jam and Smudge Free Printing www.ave com �, Use Avery O TEMPLATE 51600 1- 800 -GO -AVERY k AVERY® 5160® State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Research P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812 -3044 California Dept. of Fish & Game South Coast Region 4949 Viewridge Avenue San Diego, CA 92123 Southern California Edison Mike Bohan 7333 Bolsa Avenue Westminster CA 92683 Native American Heritage Commission 915 Capitol Mall, Room 364 Sacramento, CA 95814 US Coast Guard 1911 Bayside Drive Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 City of Newport Beach Fire Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 City of Newport Beach Building Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 City of Newport Beach Police Department 870 Santa Barbara Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) P. O. Box 102 Balboa Island, CA 92662 Newport Beach Public Library Balboa Branch 100 East Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 08LS ®AHHIAV California Coastal Commission 200 Oceangate, 10th floor Long Beach, CA 90802 -4116 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California P. O. Box 54153 Los Angeles, CA 90054 Orange County Sanitation District 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, 92708 Professional Native American Cultural Resource Monitors 27475 Ynez Road, Suite 349 Temecula, CA 92591 Orange County Sheriff Harbor Patrol Division 1901 Bayside Drive Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 City of Newport Beach General Services Department 592 Superior Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Division 829 Harbor Island Drive Newport Beach, CA 92627 South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach Public Library Corona del Mar Branch 420 Marigold Ave Corona del Mar, CA 92625 AV3AV-O9-008'L w037keee•MMM State Dept. of Transportation District 12 3377 Michelson Drive, Suite 380 Irvine, CA 92612 -9984 Southern California Gas Company Attn: Kris Keas 1919 South State College Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92805 Newport Mesa Unified School District 2985 -A Bear Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Gabrielino Tongva Tribal Council Gabrielino Tongva Nation 501 Santa Monica Blvd., #500 Santa Monica, CA 90401 -2415 Orange County Clerk/Recorder P. O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 -0238 City of Newport Beach Utilities Department 949 West 1e Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 City of Newport Beach Public Works Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Southern California Association of Governments 818 West Seventh Street, 12s' Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 -3435 Orange County Coastkeeper 3151 Airway Ave. Suite F -110 Costa Mesa, Ca 92626 Newport Beach Public Library Central Library 1000 Avocado Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 ems wege6 ai zasl.ian apldej a6e439s g to a6ejjnogpue uoissaadwi Impression antibourrage at i sichage rapide www.avery.com rq��t� Utilisez le gabarit 51600 �" 1- 800 -GO -AVERY V A��® 5160® Linda Martin P.O. Box 5220 Newport Beach, Joseph & Lisa Vallejo 2501 Ocean Boulevard CA 92662 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Coastal Law Group Marco A. Gonzalez 169 Saxony Road, Suite 204 Encinitas. CA 92024 Channel Reef Community Assoc. Dr. Marjorie Baughan 2525 Ocean Blvd Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad Office 6010 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, CA 92009 Army Corps of Engineers 911 Wilshire Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90017 John Mackintosh 2495 Boulevard Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Advanced Real Estate Services Manatt Phelps & Phillips, LLP Richard Julian, President Tim Paone 23792 Rockfield Blvd. Suite 100 Park Tower m 695 Town Center Drive, 14 Floor Lake Forest, CA 92630 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Balboa Peninsula Point Association Corona Del Mar Residents Bruce Asper Association 1553 Miramar Dr PO Box 1500 Newport Beach 92661 Corona Del Mar 92625 National Marine Fisheries Service 501 W Ocean Blvd. Long Beach, CA 90802 -4213 Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board 3737 Main St:, Suite 500 Riverside, CA 92501 ®o9�s ®A213Ad tv�y AH3AV- 09-008 -1 ®09t531V1dw31�aAvasn WD]'/�IBAe9BMl1R fcmA o aj aFinnmc mm umi NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AERIE CONDOMINIUMS (PA2005 -196) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Advanced Real Estate Services for General Plan Amendment No. 2005-006, Zone Change No. 2005 -009, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -002, Newport Tract Map No. 2005 -004 (TTM 16882), Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -002 affecting 201 & 207 Camation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place in Corona del Mar. The application would allow the demolition of an existing 14- unit apartment building and a single - family home and the construction of a 6- level, 8 -unit multiple - family residential condominium complex with subterranean parking on a 1.4 acre site located bayward of the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Camation Avenue. The existing General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan and Zoning Designations of a small portion of the site (584 square feet) would be changed to be consistent with the larger portion of the site (from two- family residential to multi - family residential). The application includes a tentative tract map for the creation of eight (8) condominium units for individual sale. The Modification Permit application requests the encroachment of subterranean portions of the building within the front and side yard setbacks and above grade encroachments of portions of the proposed building, including protective guardrails into the front and side yard setbacks. Lastly, the Coastal Residential Development Permit application relates to replacement of demolished apartments occupied by low or moderate income households. No units meeting this criteria are known to exist, and therefore, no replacement of affordable housing units is required. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application. The Mitigated Negative Declaration states that the subject development will not result in a significant impact on the environment. Copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration including the associated Initial Study are available for pudic review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92658 -8915, (949) 644 -3200. Please submit your comments to James Campbell at the address listed below. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on July 22, 2008 at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers (Building A) at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be hear thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing (described in this notice) or in written correspondence delivered to the City, at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. c2!Q�/J??. �s,,p�_,9 LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AERIE CONDOMINIUMS (PA2005 -196) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Advanced Real Estate Services for General Plan Amendment No. 2005-006, Zone Change No. 2005 -009, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -002, Newport Tract Map No. 2005-004 (TTM 16882), Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -002 affecting 201 & 207 Camation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place in Corona del Mar. The application would allow the demolition of an existing 14- unit apartment building and a single - family home and the construction of a 6- level, 8-unit multiple - family residential condominium complex with subterranean parking on a 1.4 acre site located bayward of the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Camation Avenue. The existing General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan and Zoning Designations of a small portion of the site (584 square feet) would be changed to be consistent with the larger portion of the site (from two- family residential to multi - family residential). The application includes a tentative tract map for the creation of eight (8) condominium units for individual sale. The Modification Permit application requests the encroachment of subterranean portions of the building within the front and side yard setbacks and above grade encroachments of portions of the proposed building, including protective guardrails into the front and side yard setbacks. Lastly, the Coastal Residential Development Permit application relates to replacement of demolished apartments occupied by low or moderate income households. No units meeting this criteria are known to exist, and therefore, no replacement of affordable housing units is required. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application. The Mitigated Negative Declaration states that the subject development will not result in a significant impact on the environment. Copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration including the associated Initial Study are available for pudic review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92658 -8915, (949) 644 -3200. Please submit your comments to James Campbell at the address listed below. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said pudic hearing will be held on July 22, 2008 at the hour of 7:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers (Building A) at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be hear thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing (described in this notice) or in written correspondence delivered to the City, at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. of La onne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AERIE CONDOMINIUMS (PA2005 -196) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Advanced Real Estate Services for General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -006, Zone Change No. 2005 -009, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -002, Newport Tract Map No. 2005-004 (TTM 16882), Modification Permit No. 2005-087 and Coastal Residential Development Pemhlt No.. 2005-002 affecting 201 & 207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place in Corona del Mar. The application would allow the demolition of an existing 14- unit apartment building and a single - family home and the construction of a 6- level, 8 -unit muldple- family residential condominium complex with subterranean parking on a 1.4 acre site located bayward of the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. The existing General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan and Zoning Designations of a small portion of the site (584 square feet) would be changed to be consistent with the larger portion of the site (from two-family residential to mind- family residential). The application includes a tentative tract map for the creation of eight (8) condominium units for individual sale. The Modification Permit application requests the encroachment of subterranean portions of the building within the front and side yard setbacks and above grade encroachments of portions of the proposed building, including protective guardrails into the front and side yard setbacks. Lastly, the Coastal Residential Development Permit application relates to replacement of demolished apartments occupied by low or moderate income households. No units meeting this criteria are known to exist, and therefore, no replacement of affordable housing units is required. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach In connection with the application. The Mitigated Negative Declaration states that the subject development will not result in a significant impact on the environment. Copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration including the associated Initial Study are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92658 -8915, (949) 644-3200. Please submit your comments to James Campbell at the address listed below. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on July 22, 2008 at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers (Building A) at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be hear thereon. If you challenge this project In court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing (described in this notice) or in written correspondence delivered to the City, at or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644.3200. LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California. Number A -6214, September 29, 1%1, and A -24831 June 11, 1963. PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a parry to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT BEACH - COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following dates: July 12, 2008 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 14, 2008 at Costa Mesa, California. � 2m d� yn P �rJr✓YI Sighature r• NOTI(E OF PUBLIC HEAMNG AEBIE CONDOMINIUMS TA2005-196) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Advanced Real Estate Services for General Plan Amendment NO 2005 -006; Zone Change No. 2005 -OD9, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005002. New- port Tract Map No. 2005 -004 (TTM 16882). Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 and Coastal Residential Developmant Permit No. 2005 -002 affecting 2D3 Si 207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place in Corona del Mar. The application would allow the demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment building and a single - family home and the construction of a 6- level. 8 -unit multiple family residential condominium complex with subterranean parking on a 1.4 acre site located bayward of the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. The existing General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan and Zoning Designations of a small portion of the site (584 square feet) would be changed to be consistent with the larger portion of the site (from two-family residential to multi - family residential). The ap- plication includes a tentative tract map for the creation of eight (8) condominium units for individual sale. The Modification Permit applica- tion requests the encroachment of subterranean portions of the building within the front and side yard setbacks and above grade encroachments Of portions of the proposed building, including protective guardrails into the front and side yard setbacks. Lastly. the Coastal Residential Devel- opment Permit application relates to replacement of demolished apartments occupied by low of moderate income households. No units meeting this criteria are known to exist. and therefore. no replacement of affordable housing units is required. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application. The Mitigated Negative Declare: Lion states that the subject development will not result in a significant impact on the - environment. Copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration including the associated Initial Study are avail- able for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach. 3300 Newport Boulevard. Newport Beach. Califor- nia. 926588915. (9 49) 644 -3200. Please submit your comments to lames Campbell at the address listed below. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on July 22, 2008 at the hour of 7*00 D.m, in the City Council Chambers (Building A) at 3300 Newport Bou- levard Newport Beach. California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be hear thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing (described io this notice) or in written correspondence delivered to the City. at, or prior to, the Public hearing. For information call (949) 6443200. 6aVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk, City of Newport Beach. Published Newport Beach /Costa Mesa Daily Pilot Jul 12, 2008 Sa478