Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 - Echo Beach (formerly Seashore Village) - PA2014-005 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 3, 2014 Meeting Agenda Item 3 SUBJECT: Echo Beach (formerly Seashore Village) - (PA2014-005) 5515 River Avenue Substantial Conformance Review APPLICANT: LB9 Owners, LLC PLANNER: Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner (949) 644-3209, jmurillo@newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY On June 10, 2008, the City Council approved the Seashore Village (now known as Echo Beach) project, the development of 24 residential condominium units on a 1.49-acre site located at 5515 River Avenue. The site is currently developed with a 54-unit apartment complex that would be demolished to accommodate the proposed development. The 2008 project approvals included the following: • A tentative tract map to create a 24-unit condominium subdivision; • A modification permit to allow encroachments into the required front and side yard setback areas and a reduction in the required distance between detached buildings; • A use permit to allow the 6 duplex structures to exceed the City's base height limit; and • A coastal residential development permit (CRDP) to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65590 et seq. (Mello Act), which regulates the conversion and/or demolition of low and moderate income (affordable) dwelling units in the coastal zone. The applicant has purchased the property from the previous owner/developer and is proposing modifications to the project to: 1) reconfigure the site plan and landscape plan; 2) eliminate the duplex product type; and 3) change the floor plans and architecture to a contemporary design. The applicant requests the determination that the proposed modifications consist of minor changes and are within substantial conformance with the 2008 approval. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 1 Echo Beach Substantial Conformance Review April 3, 2014 Page 2 2) Adopt Resolution No. (Attachment No. PC1) finding the modified project to be in substantial conformance with the project design approved by Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007-001 (County Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 17194), Modification Permit No. MD2007-044, Use Permit No. UP2007-011, Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2007-001 and that the environmental analysis of the modified plans is included in the Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH2008021075) and the Addendum is consistent with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. BACKGROUND Project History On April 17, 2008, the Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and approved the project applications. Refer to the attached March 20, 2008 and April 17, 2008 Planning Commission staff reports for a detailed discussion and analysis of the project approvals (Attachment Nos. PC2 & PC3). The approval was subsequently appealed to the City Council on June 10, 2008, who unanimously voted to uphold the Planning Commission's decision and approve the project applications. The June 10, 2008, City Council staff report is included as Attachment No. PC4 and includes a detailed discussion related to the issues raised in the appeal. City Council Resolution No. 2008-53, which includes the final findings and conditions of approval, is included as Attachment No. PCS. On October 16, 2008, Coastal Development Permit No. 5-08-154 was approved by the California Coastal Commission, which also established the effective date of the City approvals. The project approvals will expire October 16, 2016, based on automatic extensions pursuant to State law. DISCUSSION The original project consisted of the construction of 12 detached, single-unit residential structures and 6 detached, two-unit (duplex) residential structures, for a total of 24 units. A copy of the approved project plans are included as Attachment No. PC6. The modified plans reconfigure the site plan, eliminate the duplex units, and change the architectural style of the development. The proposed modified plans are included as Attachment No. PC7. The following discussion compares the two plans and provides an analysis of the substantial conformance determination. 2 Echo Beach Substantial Conformance Review April 3, 2014 Page 3 VICINITY MAP . . ice Project Site y o• yr b GENERAL PLAN ZONING L4 5 +per' S' s" n^,5 LOCATION GENERAL PLANZONING CURRENT USE Multiple-Unit Residential Multi-Unit Residential ON-SITE (RM) (RM) 54-unit apartment building NORTH Single-Unit Residential Single-Unit Single-unit dwellings Detached (RS-D) Residential (R-1) Single-Unit Residential R-1 &Two-Unit SOUTH Detached &Two Unit Single-unit &two-unit dwellings Residential (RT Residential (R-2) EAST RT R-2 Two-unit dwellings WEST Parks and Recreation (PR) PR West Newport Park 3 Echo Beach Substantial Conformance Review April 3, 2014 Page 4 Site Plan Changes 2008 Approved Project— 12 Single-Unit Detached & 6 Duplexes The approved project was designed to appear as if each unit is situated on a 30-foot- wide lot with setbacks comparable to the surrounding R-1 and R-2 lots. The 12 single- unit structures would front Seashore Drive and West Newport Park. The 6 duplex structures would front River Avenue. Access to the project site would be provided via two driveways on River Avenue and one driveway from Neptune Avenue. The western driveway on River Avenue would exclusively serve one single-unit structure, and all other vehicular access would be provided through a driveway connecting Neptune Avenue to River Avenue. A total of 63 parking spaces were proposed: 24 residential spaces in garages and carports; and, 15 guest spaces. Approved Site Plan and Landscaping --- 6 DL P L1 l ITS %yi A, Tref_owns �VTy M,CLL i.�PAVIN4 TMICAL t N`ITAIPA 9 f 5 N O R F Modified Project— 24 Single-Unit Detached The most significant change to the plans is the elimination of the duplex units and revising the site plan as 24 single-unit detached condominium units. The applicant states that the revised plotting and elimination of attached units opens up the site spatially and significantly reduces Homeowner Association Fees. As viewed from the Seashore Drive frontage, the units will front the street as in the approved plan and similar to the development pattern of the adjacent R-1 and R-2 lots along the street. As 4 Echo Beach Substantial Conformance Review April 3, 2014 Page 5 viewed from River Avenue, the unit layout as been modified to eliminate the duplex structures and create clusters of individual single-unit detached structures. The units now front River Avenue with either the front or side elevations, consistent with the lots directly across River Avenue to the north. Access to the project site would continue to be provided via a driveway on River Avenue and one driveway from Neptune Avenue. Garages are accessed off the internal roadway and three auto courts. A total of 62 parking spaces are proposed: 48 residential spaces in garages and 14 guest spaces, exceeding the 60 space minimum requirement. Although the approved plan included one additional on-site guest parking space, the plan also included an additional western driveway on River Avenue to exclusively serve one single-unit structure that resulted in the reduction of on-street parking. The modified site plan eliminates the need for the additional driveway and results in the creation of additional on-street parking in exchange. In addition, the revised project plans provide enhanced resident parking in that all 24 resident parking spaces are now located with garages, as opposed to 12 garages and 12 carports as originally approved. The modified landscape plan is similar to the approved conceptual landscape plan; however the revisions increase landscape area from 28.2 percent to 37.1 percent and include enhanced pervious paving for the motor courts and guest parking area, the use of turf block, enhanced use of water efficient landscaping, and the introduction of a landscaped paseo walkway through the development, connecting River Avenue and Seashore Drive. An additional ADA accessible walkway would be provided along the western edge of the site providing a secondary access connection. Echo Beach Substantial Conformance Review April 3, 2014 Page 6 Modified Site Plan & Landscpaing RIVER AVE ILI Eve 4 NEPTUNEAVE. ` ` L L L SEASHORE DRIVE Architectural Design Changes Approved Project— Craftsman & Plantation The approved project consisted of three plan types, with the exterior of each structure to be finished in either a Craftsman or Plantation architectural style. Three floor plans were proposed: Plan A (3,248 sq. ft.), Plan B (2,797 sq. ft.), and Plan C (Unit A- 1,836 sq. ft.; Unit B- 1,770 sq. ft.). Each unit would be three-stories in height, with overall roof heights ranging from 31 feet to 31 feet-6 inches. Architectural details and enhancements included batt and board wood siding, louvered window shutters, decorative trim, and stone veneer. Entry doors to each unit were oriented to be accessed from the side yards. The 2nd floor facades were setback from the 1�` floor on the rear elevations and cantilevered over the 15t floor on the front elevations, providing articulation and modulation to the building mass. The 3m floor of each building is setback from the front and rear elevations, towards the interior portion of each building envelope, to reduce the visual mass of the structures as viewed from the streets. Units were designed with small front patio areas (approx. 300 square feet), and 2nd and 3rd level deck spaces ranging between 48 and 154 square feet. Two-car garages were provided for each of the 12 single-unit structures and a one-car garage and tandem carport space were provided for each of the 12 units within the duplex structures. Echo Beach Substantial Conformance Review April 3, 2014 Page 7 Approved Project- Plantation & Craftsman t7f"." 1 f aY i Modified Project— Modern Contemporary The modified project would also include variations of three plan types; however, the applicant is requesting to change the architectural style to a contemporary design. The three modified floor plans include: Plan 1 (2,075 & 2,055 sq. ft.), Plan 2 (2,653 sq. ft.), and Plan 3 (3,114 sq. ft.). Each unit would be three-stories in height with a roof deck, and overall roof heights ranging from 31 feet 10 inches to 32 feet 11 inches. Architectural details and enhancements would include wood and metal accent wall panels, wood siding and stucco, glass railings, and stone accents. The upper floors include modulation and indentations accommodating variable depth decks to allow stepping back of facades facing the streets. All front and side elevations facing a street, interior roadway, or adjacent properties include enhanced architectural treatments and modulation by incorporating projecting window and siding elements. Entry doors have been reoriented to face the street or accessed via the project paseos. Units would include ground level patios ranging in size from approximately 250-350 square feet that wrap into the side yard, and 2nd and 3rd level deck spaces ranging between 23 and 105 square feet. In addition, Plan 2 and Plan 3 include a small roof deck of approximately 150 square feet screened behind sloping roof elements. The floor plans include two-car garages with direct access into each unit. Echo Beach Substantial Conformance Review April 3, 2014 Page 8 Modified Project- Modern Contemporary I ��- - Ir J I Zoning Compliance It should be noted that subsequent to the approval of the project in 2008, the City has adopted a new Zoning Code in 2010 that has revised zoning designation and development standards of the project site. The project site was previously zoned MFR (Multi-Family Residential). The current Zoning Code designates the site RM (Multi-Unit Residential). The proposed 24-unit detached condominium development continues to be consistent with the permitted land uses identified in the previous MFR and current RM Zoning Districts. The project also remains below the maximum 54-unit development limit and the 1.75 floor area limit (FAL) applicable to the site. Table 1 below provides a comparison of the applicable development standards under the previous and current Zoning Codes. With the exception of the increased setback encroachments, reduction in the minimum distance between buildings, and building height increase, all of the previous MFR zoning regulations were met by the previous project design. The modified project plans also continue to comply with all other applicable previous MFR and the current RM zoning standards. 8 Table 1- Development Standard Comparison Development Standards Prior Zoning Code Current Zoning Code 2008 Approval Proposed Modifications Requirement Requirement Lot Size 5000 sq. ft. 5000 sq. ft. 1.49 acres 64,904 sq. ft. No Change Min. Lot Size Per Unit 1200 sq. ft. 1200 sq. ft. 2704 sq. ft. No Change Maximum Floor Area 1.75 (72,133 sq. ft.) 1.75 (72,133 sq. ft.) 1.23 (50,706 sq. ft.) 1.24 (50,916 sq. ft.) Limit Setbacks Front Setbacks Seashore Avenue 20' 5' 10' — 12' 10' River Avenue 20' 10' now considered a rear 10' - 15' 10' Side Setbacks West 25' 15' 10' - 12' 10' East 25' 15' 4'—T-6" 6'— 12' Maximum Height 28' Midpoint/Flat 28' Flat Roof/Parapet Plan A (SFR) 25'-6" Midpoint (31' Plan 1 28'11" Midpoint (31'10" Roof Ridge) Ridge) Plan B (SFR) 26'-8" Midpoint Plan 2 30'3" Midpoint (32'9" Ridge) 33' Ridge (3:12 pitch) (31'-4" Ridge) 33' Ridge Plan 3 30-9" Midpoint(32'11" Ridge) Plan C (Duplex) 28'-10" Midpoint 31'-6" Ridge) Minimum Distance 10' No Minimum 6' 6' Between Buildings Minimum Open Space 247,313 cu. ft. Common: 75 sf/unit 675,415 cu. ft. 559,768 cu. ft. (1,800 sf) Min. dimension of 15 feet Common: + 3,000 sf Private: 375-520 sf Private: 5% of the gross floor area for each unit (104-156 sf). Min dimension of 6 feet. Parkin Resident 2 per unit 48 spaces 48 spaces 48 spaces 48 spaces Guest 0.5 per unit 12 spaces 12 spaces 15 spaces 14 spaces Total 60 snares 60 snares 63 spaces 62 s aces Additional Information As Approved Proposed Drive Aisle Width 26' 26' Paving 35.4% 23,357 SF 27.3% 17,754 SF Landsca in 28.2% 18,390 SF 37.1% 24,176 SF Per Section 20.10.30(M), 200 square feet of floor area per required parking devoted to enclosed parking shall not be included in the calculation of gross floor area. 2 Eliminated 12 pairs of tandem parking spaces and 1 additional on-street parking space has been gained through the elimination of a driveway and curb cut onto River Avenue. 9 Substantial Conformance Review Pursuant to Condition No. 1 of City Council Resolution No. 2008-53, project design changes shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans. In addition, pursuant to Section 20.54.070 (Changes to an Approved Project), the Community Development Director may authorize minor changes to an approved site plan, architecture, or the nature of the approved use, without a public hearing, and waive the requirement for a new permit applications upon findings that the changes: 1. Are consistent with all applicable provisions of this Zoning Code; 2. Do not involve a feature of the project that was a basis for or subject of findings or exemptions in a negative declaration or Environmental Impact Report for the project; 3. Do not involve a feature of the project that was specifically addressed or was the subject of a condition(s) of approval for the project or that was a specific consideration by the applicable review authority in the project approval; and 4. Do not result in an expansion or change in operational characteristics of the use. Given the significant visual modifications proposed in this case, the Community Development Director is referring the determination as to whether the proposed changes are minor to the Planning Commission for review and final action. Staff believes the proposed changes are in substantial conformance with the original approval and that sufficient facts exist to support the above findings (Attachment No. PC1 Draft Resolution of Approval). As discussed in more detail in the Environmental Review section of this report, the changes in the project plans do not involve features that were the basis for findings or exemption in the adopted MND in that the density and intensity of the project has not changed. Although changes in the architectural design, product type, and site plan are proposed, these changes are considered minor and when taken into account, the conclusions of the environmental analysis do not change. The following analysis summarizes the modified project's conformity with the previously approved applications: Tentative Tract Map The approved project consists of a Tentative Tract Map to establish 24 condominium units. The requested changes to the site plan do not affect the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007-001 and the related facts in support of the findings. The site remains physically suitable for the type and density proposed. An easement through the 26-foot-wide internal roadway will be retained by the City to ensure public access rights for emergency and security ingress/egress, public utility purposes, and weekly trash pick-up. A 6-foot sidewalk easement currently exists along the Seashore Drive frontage 10 Echo Beach Substantial Conformance Review April 3, 2014 Page 11 and the applicant will be required to construct full-width sidewalks. An additional 4-foot- wide ADA accessible walkway connecting River Avenue and Seashore Drive, consistent with the 2008 conditions of approval (Condition No. 46), would also be provided. Public utility easements for utility connections that serve the project site are present and will be modified, as necessary, to serve the proposed project. Modification Permit The previous Zoning Code required a front setback of 20 feet adjacent to River Avenue, a front setback of 20 feet adjacent to Seashore Drive, and side setbacks of 25 feet along the east and west property lines. The previous Zoning Code also required a minimum building separation of 10 feet between structures. Modification Permit No. MD2007-044 authorized a reduction of the minimum building separation to 6 feet between structures and a reduced setbacks as follows: front setbacks of 10 feet on River Avenue and Seashore Drive, a side setback of 10 feet to the west property line and a side setback of 4 feet to the east property line. The current Zoning Code no longer requires a minimum building separation between units and now requires a front setback of 5 feet adjacent to Seashore Drive, a rear setback of 10 feet adjacent to River Avenue, and side setbacks of 15 feet. Despite the changes in Zoning Code setback and separation standards, the revised project plans continue to comply with the setbacks and building separations as approved under Modification Permit No. MD2007- 044. Use Permit The previous Zoning Code limited heights of flat roofs, deck rails, and midpoint of sloping roofs to a maximum of 28 feet and a ridge height for sloping roofs to a maximum of 33 feet. The approved project required a use permit to allow the midpoint of the 6 duplex units to exceed the maximum 28-foot midpoint height limit; however, midpoint limitations have been eliminated from the current Zoning Code and replaced with a minimum 3:12 pitch requirement for sloping roofs. The current Zoning Code limits heights of flat roofs and deck rails to 28 feet and sloping roofs with a minimum 3:12 pitch to 33 feet. The revised project plans comply with allowed building heights of the current Zoning Code; therefore, Use Permit No. UP 2007-011 is no longer applicable. Coastal Residential Development Permit Pursuant to Chapter 20.86 of the previous Zoning Code and Chapter 20.34 of the current Zoning Code, the demolition of three or more units within the coastal zone shall be reviewed to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65590 (commonly known as the 1982 Mello Act) and to replace, if feasible, the demolition of any units occupied by low- or moderate-income tenants. The Mello Act prohibits the City from approving the demolition or conversion of existing housing units occupied by low- or moderate-income households located within the Coastal Zone, unless provisions are made for their replacement. If feasible, all or any portion of the replacement units must 11 Echo Beach Substantial Conformance Review April 3, 2014 Page 12 be located on the site of the demolished structure or elsewhere in or within three miles of the Coastal Zone. In this case, Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2007- 001 authorized the demolition of the 54-unit apartment building conditioned upon the replacement of six dwelling units affordable to low- and/or moderate-income tenants within three years of demolition. The applicant will implement CR2007-001 and provide the replacement units. Environmental Review The environmental impacts of the approved project were analyzed under the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that was adopted for the project by the City Council on June 10, 2008 (State Clearing House No. SCH2O08021075). An Addendum to the Adopted MND has been prepared, in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, to evaluate the potential differences between the impacts of the proposed project changes and any changes to the existing conditions that have occurred since the MND was adopted. The Addendum was prepared by PlaceWorks and is included as Attachment No. PC8. State CEQA Guidelines allow for the use of a previously adopted MND for projects in cases where minor technical changes or additions to the previous adopted MND are necessary, but there are no new or substantially greater potentially significant impacts. The Addendum concludes that the impacts from the modified project would be similar to those analyzed under the Adopted MND and that no changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Adopted MND or result in additional mitigation measures. Copies of the Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration, Response to Comments, the Addendum, and supporting documents are available for review online at: www.newportbeachca.gov/cegadocuments. Summary Staff supports the applicant's request for a determination of substantial conformance and believes the revised site plan will remain compatible with the neighborhood. The proposed 24-unit detached condominium development continues to be consistent with the permitted land uses identified in the previous MFR and current RM Zoning Districts and below the maximum allowed density and development limit. The elimination of the duplex product type and changes to the site plan do not affect the approval of the 24 airspace condominiums authorized under Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007-001. The modified project design maintains the same minimum setbacks as previously approved under Modification Permit No. MD2007-044 and minimum building separation of six feet between units. Use Permit No. UP2007-011 is no longer applicable as the project now complies with the 33-foot height limit for sloping roofs with a minimum 3:12 pitch authorized under the current Zoning Code. The applicant remains committed to 12 Echo Beach Substantial Conformance Review April 3, 2014 Page 13 implementing Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2007-001 with the replacement of six dwelling units affordable to low- and/or moderate-income tenants within three years of demolition. Lastly, the modified plan demonstrates the ability to comply with all required conditions of approval, and said conditions will continue to be required through project implementation. Alternatives Should the Planning Commission conclude that the modified design is not in substantial conformance with previously approved plan, the Commission may deny the request (Attachment No. PC9- Resolution of Denial) or continue the item to a future date and direct the applicant to make specific revisions needed to comply. PUBLIC NOTICE Although this agenda item does not require a public hearing, notice was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property (excluding roads and waterways) and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this meeting consistent with the Municipal Code requirements for public hearings. The item also appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: Submitted by: Ja' a Murillo, Senior Planner Br n a Wisnesl6i,rlCP, Deputy Director ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Draft Resolution of Approval PC 2 March 20, 2008, Planning Commission Staff Report PC 3 April 17, 2008, Planning Commission Staff Report PC 4 June 10, 2008, City Council Staff Report PC 5 City Council Resolution No. 2008-53 (including findings & conditions of approval) PC 6 Approved Project Plans PC 7 Proposed Modified Plans PC 8 Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration PC 9 Draft Resolution of Denial FAUsers\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2014\PA2014-005\20140403 PC report.dou 13 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE 14 Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Resolution of Approval 15 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE 20 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FINDING MODIFIED PLANS TO BE IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE DESIGN APPROVED BY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. NT2007-001 (COUNTY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. TTM 17194), MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. MD2007-044, USE PERMIT NO. UP2007-011 AND COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. CR2007-001 FOR THE ECHO PROJECT LOCATED AT 5515 RIVER AVENUE BEACH (FORMERLY SEASHORE VILLAGE) (PA2014-005) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. On June 10, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2008-53 approving the Seashore Village project, a 24 residential condominium development located on a 1 .49-acre site at 5515 River Avenue, and legally described as Lot 105 of Tract No. 3812; and 2. The site is currently developed with a 54-unit apartment complex that would be demolished to accommodate the proposed development. Project approvals included the following: a. A tentative tract map to create a 24-unit condominium subdivision; b. A modification permit to allow encroachments into the required front and side yard setback areas and a reduction in the required distance between detached buildings; c. A use permit to allow the 6 duplex structures to exceed the City's base height limit; and d. A coastal residential development permit (CRDP) to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65590 et seq. (Mello Act), which regulates the conversion and/or demolition of low and moderate income (affordable) dwelling units in the coastal zone. 3. The applicant seeks to change the approved Seashore Village project to: 1) reconfigure the site plan and landscape plan; 2) eliminate the duplex product type; and 3) change the floor plans and architecture to a contemporary design. The applicant requests the determination that the proposed modifications consist of minor changes and are within substantial conformance with the 2008 approval; and 17 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 2 of 10 4. The subject property was previously located within the MFR (Multi-Family Residential) Zoning District. The current Zoning Code designates the site RM (Multi-Unit Residential). The General Plan Land Use Element category RM (Multiple-Unit Residential). 5. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is RM-D (Multiple Unit Residential). 6. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on April 3, 2014, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this hearing; and SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. No. 2008021075) (Adopted MND) was prepared for the project in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The document was made available for public review and comment during a 30-day review period beginning on February 20, 2008, and ending on March 20, 2008, and subsequently approved by the City Council on June 10, 2008. 2. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(b), 15164(b), if changes occur to a project or its circumstances, or if new information becomes available after the negative declaration was adopted, an addendum to a negative declaration may be prepared when the City is not required to prepare a subsequent negative declaration or environmental impact report to review the changes or new information. 3. Upon receipt of the application for a substantial conformance determination, the City of Newport Beach prepared an Addendum to the Adopted MND for the project, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. 4. After thoroughly considering the Adopted MND, and the public testimony and written submissions, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the Planning Commission finds the following facts, findings, and reasons to support adopting the Addendum: a. The modified project is consistent with and implements the General Plan. b. The Adopted MND reviews the existing conditions of the City and project vicinity; analyzes potential environmental impacts from implementation of the development; and identifies mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts from implementation of the development. C. The modified project does not increase development density or associated impacts beyond the levels considered in the Adopted MND. Tmplt: 11/23/09 12 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 3 of 10 d. Since the adoption of the MND in 2008, no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MND was adopted for the project. e. Since the adoption of the MND in 2008, no substantial changes to the environmental setting of the project site have occurred. f. Since the adoption of the MND in 2008, no new information of substantial importance has become available that was not known and that could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at that time of adoption. Thus, no new information indicates that: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Adopted MND; (B) Significant effects from the project will be substantially more severe than identified in the Adopted MND; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the City declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the Adopted MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the City declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternative. g. Since no substantial changes to the circumstances or environmental setting have occurred, and since no new information relating to significant effects, mitigation measures, or alternatives has become available, the project does not require additional environmental review, consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15162. h. Based on these findings, the Adopted MND and Addendum, the Planning Commission has determined that no subsequent MND or environmental impact report is required or appropriate under CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15164. The Addendum therefore satisfies CEQA's environmental review requirements for the project as proposed by the applicant. i. The Addendum, which the City prepared to evaluate whether the modified project would cause any new or potentially more severe significant adverse effects on the environment, specifically analyzed, in addition to several other potential impacts, potential impacts related to aesthetics and climate change. j. Based on the facts and analysis contained in the Addendum, the Planning Commission finds that the modified project will not have, when compared to the Adopted MND, any new or more severe adverse environmental impacts, Tmplt: 11/23/09 29 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 4 of 10 including, without limitation, no new or more severe significant adverse impacts related to aesthetics or climate change. k. The modified project will not result in any new or more severe significant impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, when viewed in connection with planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity. I. These factual findings are based on the Adopted MND, Addendum, and all documents referred in or attached to it, the submissions of the applicant, the records and files of the City's Community Development Department related to the project, and any other documents referred to or relied upon by the Planning Commission during its consideration of the project on April 3, 2014. M. The Planning Commission has considered the Adopted MND and the Addendum, and has concluded that the Addendum reflects the independent judgment of the City. n. 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. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. The applicant has proposed revisions to the approved plans for the project. Pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 1, the project design changes shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans. Pursuant to Section 20.54.070 (Changes to an Approved Project), the Community Development Director may authorize minor changes to an approved site plan, architecture, or the nature of the approved use, without a public hearing, and waive the requirement for a new permit application. In this case, the Community Development Director referred the determination as to whether the proposed changes are minor to the Planning Commission for review and final action. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and finds that the proposed 24-unit condominium development remains in substantial conformance with the approved plans of Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007-001 (County Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 17194), Modification Permit No. MD2007-044, Use Permit No. UP2007-011 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2007-001 for the following reasons: Finding: A. Are consistent with all applicable provisions of this Zoning Code. Facts in Support of Finding: Tmplt: 11/23/09 20 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 5 of 10 A-1. The project was originally approved under the previous Zoning Code and located within the MFR (Multi-Family Residential) Zoning District. The current Zoning Code designates the site RM (Multi-Unit Residential). The proposed 24-unit detached condominium development continues to be consistent with the permitted land uses identified in the previous MFR and current RM Zoning Districts and with the approved number of units pursuant to Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007-001. The project also remains below the maximum 54-unit development limit and the 1.75 floor area limit (FAL) applicable to the site. The approved project maintained a 1.23 FAL (50,706 square feet) and the revised project maintains a 1.24 FAL (50,916 square feet). A-2. The previous Zoning Code limited heights of flat roofs, deck rails, and midpoint of sloping roofs to a maximum of 28 feet and a ridge height for sloping roofs to a maximum of 33 feet. The approved project required a use permit to allow the midpoint of the 6 duplex units to exceed the maximum 28-foot midpoint height limit; however, midpoint limitations have been eliminated from the current Zoning Code and replaced with a minimum 3:12 pitch requirement for sloping roofs. The current Zoning Code limits heights of flat roofs and deck rails to 28 feet and sloping roofs with a minimum 3:12 pitch to a 33 feet. The revised project plans comply with allowed building heights of the current Zoning Code; therefore, Use Permit No. UP2007-011 is no longer applicable. A-3. The previous Zoning Code required a front setback of 20 feet adjacent to River Avenue, a front setback of 20 feet adjacent to Seashore Drive, and side setbacks of 25 feet adjacent to the east and west property lines. The previous Zoning Code also required a minimum building separation of 10 feet between structures. Modification Permit No. MD2007-044 authorized a reduction of the minimum building separation to 6 feet between structures and a reduced setbacks as follows: front setbacks of 10 feet on River Avenue and Seashore Drive, a side setback of 10 feet to the west property line and a side setback of 4 feet to the east property line. The current Zoning Code no longer requires a minimum building separation between units and now requires a front setback of 5 feet adjacent to Seashore Drive, a rear setback of 10 feet adjacent to River Avenue, and side setbacks of 15 feet. Despite the changes in Zoning Code setback and separation standards, the revised project plans continue to comply with the setbacks and building separations as approved under Modification Permit No. M D2007-044. A-4. Pursuant to Chapter 20.86 of the previous Zoning Code and Chapter 20.34 of the current Zoning Code, the demolition of three or more units within the coastal zone shall be reviewed to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65590 (commonly known as the 1982 Mellow Act) and to replace, if feasible, the demolition of any units occupied by low- or moderate-income tenants. In this case, Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2007-001 authorized the demolition of the 54-unit apartment building conditioned upon the replacement of six dwelling units affordable to low- and/or moderate-income tenants within three years of demolition. The applicant remains committed to implementing CR2007-001 and providing the replacement units. Tmplt: 11/23/09 21 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 6 of 10 A-5. With the exception of the increased setback encroachments, reduction in the minimum distance between buildings, and building height increase, all of the previous MFR zoning regulations were met by the previous project design. The proposed project plans also continue to comply with all other applicable previous MFR and the current RM zoning standards. Finding: B. Do not involve a feature of the project that was a basis for or subject of findings or exemptions in a negative declaration or Environmental Impact Report for the project. Facts in Support of Finding: B-1. The Adopted MND was prepared and analyzed all potential environmental impacts associated with the approved project. The changes in the project plans do not involve features that were the basis for findings or exemption in the adopted MND in that the density and intensity of the project has not changed. Although changes in the architectural design, product type, and site plan are proposed, these changes are considered minor and when taken into account, the conclusions of the environmental analysis in the Adopted MND do not change. B-2. An Addendum to the Adopted MND has been prepared to evaluate the net effect of the proposed project changes and any changes to the existing conditions that have occurred since the Adopted MND was adopted. The Addendum also reviews any new information of substantial importance that was not known and could have been known with exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Adopted MND was adopted. Furthermore, it examines whether, as a result of any changes or any new information, a subsequent environmental review may be required. The Addendum concludes that the impacts from the modified project would be similar to those analyzed under the Adopted MND and that no changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Adopted MND or result in additional mitigation measures. Finding: C. Do not involve a feature of the project that was specifically addressed or was the subject of a condition(s) of approval for the project or that was a specific consideration by the applicable review authority in the project approval. Facts in Support of Finding: C-1. The modified plan demonstrates the ability to comply with all required conditions of approval, and said conditions will continue to be required through project implementation. C-2. The approved project consisted of a Tentative Tract Map to establish 24 condominium units. The changes to the site plan do not affect the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007-001 and the related facts in support of the findings. The site remains Tmplt: 11/23/09 22 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 7 of 10 physically suitable for the type and density proposed. An easement through the 26- foot-wide internal roadway will be retained by the City to ensure public access rights for emergency and security ingress/egress, public utility purposes, and weekly trash pick-up. A 6-foot sidewalk easement currently exists along the Seashore Drive frontage and the applicant will be required to construct full-width sidewalks. An additional 4-foot-wide ADA accessible walkway connecting River Avenue and Seashore Drive, consistent with Condition No. 46, would also be provided. Public utility easements for utility connections that serve the project site are present and will be modified, as necessary, to serve the proposed project. C-3. Since the project was approved as airspace condominiums, Condition No. 6 was added to address potential expansion or modification requests from future individual property owners. The Condition specifically states that the floor plans and building envelopes for each unit are approved as precise plans and future area additions to the building envelopes shall be prohibited, the patio and deck areas shall not be permitted to be enclosed, and the landscape and open space areas through the site shall be preserved. Although the site plan has changed, the Condition remains relevant and necessary in order to preserve the density, massing, open space, and landscape characteristics of the constructed project from future modifications. C-4. Condition No. 46 required a minimum 4-foot-wide publicly accessible walkway connecting River Avenue to Seashore Drive. The revised project now includes two publically accessible walkways bisecting the project site and providing a connection between the two streets: 1) the project "paseos" with enhanced landscaping bisect the site near the center of the site; and 2) an ADA accessible 4-foot-wide path connects the street along the western parcel boundary adjacent to the park. C-5. Condition No. 7 required the two structures (north and south of the project driveway) that encroach into the side setback area immediately adjacent to the east property line to be modified to incorporate design features to minimum building height impacts on the adjacent properties. The modified plans implement the intent of this Condition by separating the bulk and mass of the previous duplex units on the north side of project roadway into two individual structures, creating more light and open space and increasing the compatibility with existing adjacent duplexes to the east. For the structure south of the project roadway, the side setback has been increased from 4 feet to 6 feet to provide additional light and open space to the adjacent structure. C-6. While the MFR and RM Zoning Districts permit the proposed single-unit residences, the development setback and building separation standards were intended to apply to larger, multiple-unit buildings, such as the 3-story, 54-unit apartment building that exists on-site today. The legislative intent of required setbacks is to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling unit. Given that a larger, single structure building would result in more visual and physical massing, a larger setback would be preferred for that development type. In this case, the proposed project has been designed to appear as if each unit is situated on a 30-foot-wide lot with setbacks comparable to the surrounding R-1 and R-2 lots. These reductions in the setbacks to accommodate the smaller detached, residential units results in a site plan that is more Tmplt: 11/23/09 23 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 8 of 10 compatible and consistent with the historic development pattern of the area rather than a single, larger apartment-complex. C-7. The approved project was designed to appear as if each unit is situated on a 30-foot- wide lot with setbacks comparable to the surrounding R-1 and R-2 lots. The approved 6-foot separation between buildings is consistent with the required 3-foot side setbacks of the surrounding 30-foot and 40-foot-wide lots in neighborhood, which results in a total distance of 6 feet between buildings. Although the modified project reconfigures the layout of units within the site, the overall concept remains similar with all units providing a minimum 6-foot separation. As viewed from the Seashore Drive frontage, the units will remain fronting the street as in the approved plan and similar to the development pattern of the adjacent R-1 and R-2 lots along the street. The street elevations of these units will be enhanced with front door identity now facing the street versus the side yard as in the approved plan. As viewed from River Avenue, the unit layout has been modified to eliminate the duplex structures and create clusters of individual single-unit detached structures. The units fronting River Avenue now either front the street with the front or side elevations, consistent with the lots directly across River Avenue to the north. Therefore, the modified plan is compatible and consistent with the development pattern of the immediate area. C-8. Consistent with Condition No. 16, the modified plan now includes trash container storage for individual units outside of their required garages and that would be screened from view. C-9. Access to the project site would continue to be provided via a driveway on River Avenue and one driveway from Neptune Avenue. A total of 62 parking spaces are proposed: 24 dedicated residential spaces in garages and 14 open guest spaces, exceeding the 60 space minimum required by both the previous and current Zoning Codes. Although the approved plan included one additional on-site guest parking space, the plan also included an additional western driveway on River Avenue to exclusively serve one single-unit structure that results in the reduction of on-street parking. The modified site plan eliminates the need for the additional driveway and results in the creation of additional on-street parking on the street in exchange. In addition, the revised project plans provide enhanced resident parking in that all 24 resident parking spaces are now located with garages, as opposed to 12 garages and 12 carports as originally approved. Overall, the modified plans enhance site access and continue to exceed Code-required parking standards. C-10. The modified project slightly reduces the total building footprint from coverage of 35.9 percent to 34.6 and reduces pavement area from 35.4 percent to 27.3 percent. Conversely, the modified project significantly increase landscape area from 28.2 percent to 37.1 percent and incorporates design features such as turf block, pervious paving, and water conserving plants. Finding: D. Do not result in an expansion or change in operational characteristics of the use. Tmplt: 11/23/09 24 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 9 of 10 Facts in Support of Finding: D-1. The approved project consisted of the subdivision of 24 airspace condominium units; therefore, the elimination of the duplex product type and changes to the site plan do not affect the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007-001. D-2. The modified project design maintains the same minimum setbacks as previously approved under Modification Permit No. MD2007-044 and minimum building separation of six feet between units. D-3. The proposed 24-unit detached condominium development continues to be consistent with the permitted land uses identified in the previous MFR and current RM Zoning Districts and with the approved number of units pursuant to Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007-001. The project also remains below the maximum 54-unit development limit and the 1.75 floor area limit (FAL) applicable to the site. The approved project maintained a 1.23 FAL (50,706 square feet) and the revised project maintains a 1.24 FAL (50,916 square feet), a negligible difference of 210 square feet. D-4. Although the modified plans include ridge elevations of up to 32 feet 11 inches, an increase of 1-foot 5-inches above the structure heights of the approved plans, the difference in height is nominal and remains below the maximum 33-foot height limit for sloping roofs with a minimum 3:12 pitch. The midpoints of the modified roof plans also exceed the midpoint heights of the approved plans, with a difference of up to 3 feet 11 inches; however, it should be noted the midpoints of the approved plans are artificially lower due to the ability to project the imaginary roof lines over a longer distance based on the architectural design of the structures. The actual midpoint heights (without the use of imaginary projections) of the structures in the approved plans would result in midpoint heights closer to those of the modified plans. Ultimately, the modified project plans comply with allowed building heights of the current Zoning Code; therefore, Use Permit No. UP2007-011 is no longer applicable. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby finds that the modified plans for the Echo Beach (formerly Seashore Village) project to be in substantial conformance with the project approved by Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007-001 (County Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 17194), Modification Permit No. MD2007-044, Use Permit No. UP2007-011 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2007-001 and that the environmental analysis of the modified plans is included in the Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH2O08021075) and the Addendum consistent with the requirements of CEQA and the CE QA Guidelines. 2. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance Tmplt: 11/23/09 2.5 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 10 of 10 with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2014. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Bradley Hillgren, Chairman BY: Kory Kramer, Secretary Tmplt: 11/23/09 20 Attachment No. PC 2 March 20, 2008 Planning Commission Staff Report 27 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE 22 SCANNED • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 20, 2008 Meeting Agenda Item No. 6 SUBJECT: Seashore Village Residential Development (PA2007-100) 5515 River Avenue • Mitigated Negative Declaration ■ Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-001 • Modification Permit No. 2007-044 • Use Permit No. 2007-011 • Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007-001 APPLICANT: Seashore Village, LLC PLANNER: Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner (949) 644-3209, jmurillo@city.newport-beach.ca.us ' PROTECT SUMMARY • The applicant proposes to develop and construct 12 detached, single-unit residential structures and 6 detached, two-unit (duplex) residential structures (24 units total) on a 1.49-acre site located at 5515 River Avenue. The site is currently developed with a 54- unit apartment complex that would be demolished to accommodate the proposed development. Entitlement of the project as proposed requires Planning Commission review and approval of the following applications: • A tentative tract map to create a 24-unit condominium subdivision. • A modification permit to allow encroachments into the required Multi-Family Residential (MFR) front and side yard setback areas and a reduction in the required distance between detached buildings. • A use permit to allow each of the 6 duplex structures to exceed the City's base height limit. • A coastal residential development permit (CRDP) to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65590 (Mello Act), which regulates the demolition of low and moderate income (affordable) dwelling units in the coastal zone. RECOMMENDATION Hold a public hearing and adopt the attached resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative . Declaration (Sch. No. 2008021075) and approving Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-001, Modification Permit No. 2007-044, Use Permit No. 2007-011 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007-001, subject to findings and conditions of approval. 29 A� Project Site t g. z�^ • a v ^tt�ti OS Pt PC:25 x MSW �1 4 ✓�ff " -'< R.t T ON=SITE Multi le-Unit Residential Multi-Family Residential 54-Unit Apartment Building NORTH Single-Unit Residential Single-Family Single-Family Residences Detached Residential Single-Unit Residential Single-Family Single-Family&Two-Family SOUTH Detached &Two-Unit Residential &Two- Residences • Residential Famil Residential it Resiami EAST Two-Un Two-Fl Residential Two-FamiN Residences WEST Parks and Recreation O en S ace West Ni ort Park so V) Seashore Village March 20, 2008 • Page 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site Description The 1.49-acre site is relatively flat and trapezoidal in shape. A three-story, 54,739 square-foot, 54-unit apartment building (Las Brisas Apartments) currently occupies the site. Carports exist on the first level of the apartment building and 4 carport canopies exist at the perimeter of the site. A swimming pool, private common area, and planters also exist on-site. The site is currently accessed via two driveways on River Avenue. Access from and to Seashore Drive is blocked by a wooden fence. Project Description The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing 54-unit apartment complex and construct 12 detached, single-unit residential structures and 6 detached, two-unit (duplex) residential structures, for a total of 24 units (Exhibit 2, Project Plans). The 12 single-unit structures would front onto Seashore Drive and onto West Newport Park. The 6 duplex structures front onto River Avenue. The proposed architecture consists of two styles, "Craftsman" and 'Plantation". Three floor plans are proposed: Plan A(3,248 sq. ft.), Plan B (2,797 sq. ft.), and Plan C (Unit A- 1,836 sq. ft.; Unit B- 1,770 sq. ft.). • Each unit would be three-stories in height, with overall roof heights ranging in height from 31 feet to 31 feet-6 inches. Access to the project site would be provided via two driveways on River Avenue and one driveway from Neptune Avenue. The western driveway on River Avenue would exclusively serve one single-unit structure, and all other vehicular access would be. provided through a driveway connecting Neptune Avenue to River Avenue.A total of 63 parking spaces are proposed: 24 dedicated residential spaces in garages and carports; and, 15 open guest spaces. ANALYSIS The General Plan Land Use Element The Land Use Element of the General Plan sets forth objectives, policies and limitations for development in the City and designates the general distribution and location of land uses and residential and commercial densities. The Land Use Element designates the project site as Multiple-Unit Residential (RM) with a maximum development limit of 51 dwelling units. The RM designation is intended to provide primarily for mufti-family residential development containing attached or detached dwelling units. The proposed • subdivision is consistent with this designation. The following Land Use Element policies and programs were considered relative to the proposed development: 32 1� Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 4 • LU 5.1.9 Character and Quality of Multi-Family Residential Require that multi-family dwellings be designed to convey a high quality architectural character in accordance with the following: Building Elevations • Treatment of the elevations of buildings facing public streets and pedestrian ways as the principal fagades with respect to architectural treatment to achieve the highest level of urban design and neighborhood quality. • Architectural treatment of building elevations and modulation of mass to convey the character of separate living units or clusters of living units, avoiding the appearance of a singular building volume. • Provide street- and path-facing elevations with high-quality doors, windows, moldings, metalwork, and finishes. Roof Design • Modulate roof profiles to reduce the apparent scale of large structures and to provide visual interest and variety. The proposed residential development has been designed to be compatible with the development patter and character of the surrounding neighborhood, which generally consists of two- and three-story, single-unit and two-unit dwellings. Each unit will feature either a "Craftsman" or 'Plantation" architectural style. Architectural details and enhancements (i.e. batt and board wood siding, louvered window shutters, decorative • trim, and stone veneer) will be provided on all building elevations. The 2nd floor facades are setback from the 1st floor on the rear elevations and cantilevered over the 1st floor on the front elevations, providing articulation and modulation to the building mass. The 3`d floor of each building is setback from the front and rear elevations, towards the interior portion of each building envelope, to reduce the visual mass of the structures as viewed from the streets. Parkins • Design covered and enclosed parking areas to be integral with the architecture of the residential units'architecture. Each unit has a direct access 2-car garage or a 1-car garage and tandem carport space, integrated into the design of each building. Open Space and Amenity • Incorporate usable and functional private open space for each unit. • Incorporate common open space that creates a pleasant living environment with opportunities for recreation. LU 6.2.9 Private Open Spaces and Recreational Facilities Require the open space and recreational facilities that are integrated into and owned by private residential development are permanently preserved as part of the development approval process and are prohibited from converting to residential or other types of land uses. • Seashore Village March 20, 2008 • Page 5 A majority of the units have been designed with small (approx. 300 sq. ft.) front patio areas, which are comparable in size to the outdoor living areas of the surrounding residential development within the neighborhood. Six units (Unit B of Plan C) do not provide front patio areas. All units are provided useable and functional 2nd level and 3`d level deck spaces (ranging between 48 — 154 sq. ft.). Although the project will provide more landscaping and lawn areas than currently exist on-site, no common recreational amenities are provided. It should be noted, however, that the West Newport Park, an active recreational park, is located immediately west of the project site and the beach is located approximately 120 feet south of the site; both the park and the beach will provide additional recreational opportunities. A proposed condition of project approval prohibits any floor area additions to the approved building envelopes, which will preserve open patio and deck areas proposed for each unit and the common landscaped and open space areas. LU 6.2.10 Gated Communities Discourage the creation of new private entry gates in existing residential neighborhoods that currently do not have a gate located at the entrance of the community. A condition of approval has also been included that will prohibit the use of private gates. Housing Element • The Housing Element of the General Plan sets forth goals and policies to.facilitate the attainment of the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocations and to foster the availability of affordable housing to all income levels to the greatest extent feasible. The following General Plan Housing Element policies and programs were considered relative to the proposed development: H 1.1 Support all reasonable efforts to preserve, maintain, and improve availability and quality of existing housing and residential neighborhoods, and ensure full utilization of existing City housing resources for as long into the future as physically and economically feasible. H 2.1 Encourage preservation of existing and provision of new housing affordable to very low, low-and moderate income households. The demolition of the older, non-conforming, 54-unit apartment complex and development of 24 condominiums, will result in a total reduction of 30 dwelling units. As discussed in the Population and Housing section of the Initial Study prepared for the project, there are approximately 43,851 housing units in the City, of which approximately 5,462 units are vacant. The rental vacancy rate is estimated at 7.7 percent with approximately 3,337 rental units vacant (American Community Survey 2006). Therefore, the reduction and change in housing type is not considered significant, as there are sufficient existing rental units available to absorb the displaced rental units. • Housing Program 1.1.3 implements Housing Policy H 1.1 and requires the replacement of housing demolished within the Coastal Zone when housing is, or has been, occupied Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 6 • by low-income or moderate-income households. As discussed in more detail in the Coastal Residential Development Permit section of this report, a total of 6 rental units have been identified to have been occupied by low-income and moderate-income households, which the applicant will be required to replace at an off-site location with restrictions to maintain their affordability for a minimum of 30 years. Local Coastal Pro-gram The Coastal Land Use Plan of (CLUP) the Local Coastal Program sets forth goals, objectives, and policies that govern the use of land and water in the coastal zone within the City and addresses land use and development, public access and recreation, and coastal resource protection in accordance with the California Coastal Act. The project site is designated for High Density Residential (RH-A 20.1 - 30 DU/AC). The proposed subdivision is consistent with this designation as the proposed project density is 16.1 d.uJacre. The following CLUP policies were considered relative to the proposed development: Location of New Development 2.2.1-1 Continue to allow redevelopment and infill development within and adjacent to the existing developed areas in the coastal zone subject to the density and intensity limits and resource • protection policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan. 2.2.1-2 Require new development be located in areas with adequate public services or in areas that are capable of having public services extended or expanded without significant adverse effects on coastal resources. The subject property is located within an existing developed area of the coastal zone and the proposed project density of 16.1 units per acre is below the maximum density limit of 30 units per acre established for the RH-A designation of the CLUP. Public services and infrastructure are currently available and serve the proposed development (8" sewer and water lines are located in both the Seashore Drive and River Avenue rights-of-way), and all applicable improvements required by Section 19.28 (Subdivision Improvements) of the Subdivision Code are required to be constructed by the applicant. Such improvements include sidewalk construction, street tree plantings, sewer and water connections, utility undergrounding, and a fire hydrant. Residential Development 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. As discussed in more detail within the Zoning Compliance section of this report, the proposed development has been designed to comply with all applicable Multi-Family • Residential (MFR) development regulations of the City's Zoning Code, including density, floor area, open space, and parking, to insure design compatibility with the surrounding Seashore Village March 20, 2008 • Page 7 neighborhood. Although deviations from the required setbacks and the base height limit are proposed, these deviations will not result in a site plan that is inconsistent with the character and development pattern of the surrounding residential neighborhood. The proposed project will not impact coastal resources nor the ability of the public to reach, use or view the shoreline of coastal waters or inland coastal recreation areas and trails. Parking 2.9.3-2. Continue to require all development shall provide adequate off-street parking to serve-the approved use in order to minimize impacts to public on-street and off-street parking available for coastal access. 2.9.3-5 Continue to require off-street parking in new development to have adequate dimensions, clearances, and access to insure their use. The parking requirement for multiple-family residential development is two spaces per unit, including one covered, plus 0.5 spaces per unit for guest parking for developments of four or more units. The proposed project includes 48 spaces for the residents and 12 spaces for guest parking. The 63 spaces (3 extra guest spaces) proposed exceed the minimum parking requirements of the Zoning Code. The project is conditioned to meet all City requirements regarding parking design standards, including minimum widths, • depths, grades, and aisle-tuming radii. Private/Gated Communities 3.1.5-1 Prohibit new development that incorporate gates, guardhouses, barriers or other structures designed to regulate or restrict access where they would inhibit public access to and along the shoreline and to beaches, coastal parks, trails, or coastal bluffs. 3.1.5-2 Prohibit new private streets, or the conversion of public streets to private streets, where such a conversion would inhibit public access to and along the shoreline and to beaches, coastal parks, trails, or coastal bluffs. The applicant has agreed to eliminate gated access that was originally proposed for the project. As a result, the proposed private driveway will provide unrestricted vehicular access through the project from River Avenue and Neptune Avenue. This design will not inhibit public access to the beach. Scenic and Visual Resources Policies 4.4.1-1 through 4.4.2-3 of the Coastal Land Use Plan pertain to the design of structures to protect public coastal views and preserve or enhance the visual qualities of the coastal zone. The project site is not located near the vicinity of a designated public view point or coastal view road requiring view protection and will not impact any public views. • Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 8 Zoning Compliance The subject property is located within the Multi-Family Residential (MFR) Zoning District. The proposed detached, single-unit and two-unit residential structures are a permitted use within this zoning designation. With the exception of the increased setback encroachments, reduction in the minimum distance between buildings, and building height increase, all of the following development regulations of the MFR zoning regulations have been met: Lot Size 5000 sq. ft. 1.49 acres 64,904 sq. ft. Min. Lot Size Per Unit 1200 sq. ft. 2704 sq. ft. Maximum Floor Area Limit 1 .75 (72,133 sq. ft.) 1.23 50,706 sq. ft. Setbacks Front Setbacks Seashore Avenue 20' 1t ' River Avenue 20' 1'0" Side Setbacks West 25' tMIN East 25' Maximum Height 28' Midpoint/Flat Roof 33' Ridge Plan A (SFR) 25'-6" Midpoint (31' Ridge) Plan B (SFR) 26'-8" Midpoint (31'-4" Ridge) Plan C Duplex a, `". t �: ; = Minimum Distance 10' Between.Buildin q s Minimum Open Space 247,313 cu. Ft. 675,415 cu. ft. Parkin Resident (2 per unit) 48 spaces 1 48 spaces Guest 0.5 per unit 12 spaces 15 spaces Total 1 60 spaces 63 spaces Per Section 20.10.30(M), 200 square feet of floor area per required parking devoted to enclosed parking shall not be included in the calculation of gross floor area. Modification Request The requested encroachments into the required 20-foot front yard setbacks and 25-foot side yard setbacks, and deviation from the minimum 10-foot building separation requirement, require a modification permit, which may be approved if the findings contained within Section 20.93.030 of the Municipal Code can be made as follows: Seashore Village • March 20, 2008 Page 9 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. While the MFR District permits the proposed single-unit and two-unit residences, the development setback and building separation standards were intended to apply to larger, multiple-unit buildings, such as the 3-story, 54-unit apartment building that exists on-site today. The legislative intent of required setbacks is to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling unit. Given that a larger, single structure building would result in more visual and physical massing, a larger setback would be preferred for that development type. The applicant has proposed 24 single-unit and two-unit residences designed to appear as if they were situated on individual 30-foot-wide lots and setbacks comparable to surrounding R-1 and R-2 lots. Staff believes that utilizing the R-1 and R-2 development standards as a guide for determining acceptable setbacks and building separation is appropriate in this case. Given that the MFR District permits proposed detached development, but doesn't provide corresponding development standards, strict application of the Code would result in a physical hardship that is inconsistent with the intent of the • Code. 2. The requested modification will be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood. The proposed project has been designed to appear as if each unit is situated on a 30- foot-wide lot with setbacks comparable to the surrounding R-1 and R-2 lots. Those reductions in the setbacks and building separation to accommodate the smaller detached, residential units arguably results in a site plan that is more compatible and consistent with the historic development pattern of the area rather than a single, larger apartment- complex. The following facts support compatibility of the proposed project with the existing neighborhood: • R-1, R-2, and MFR lots only require 3 to 4-foot side yard setbacks. The proposed 6- foot separation between buildings within the project is consistent with the required 3-foot side yard setbacks of many of the 30-foot wide lots in the surrounding neighborhood, which results in a total distance of 6 feet between buildings. • The proposed project is designed to appear as if each unit is situated on a 30-foot- wide lot, the setbacks provided to the east property line are consistent and compatible with the required 3-foot side yard setbacks of the surrounding 30-foot and 40-foot-wide lots in the neighborhood. The single-unit building fronting • Seashore Drive that is proposed to encroach 21 feet into the required side yard setback adjacent to the east property line will maintain a 4-foot setback. The duplex S7 y Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 10 • unit fronting River Avenue that encroaches 17.5 feet into the required side yard setback adjacent to east property line will maintain a 7.5-foot setback. • The 6 single-unit structures adjacent to West Newport Park are proposed to encroach 15 feet into the required side yard setback, maintaining a 10-foot setback to the property line. Due to the orientation of these units, this setback area is equivalent to their front yards and is consistent with the majority of the front yard setbacks in the immediate vicinity of this project that range between 0 and 10 feet (Exhibit 3, Districting Map). • The 6 units fronting Seashore Drive are proposed to encroach 10 feet into the required 20-foot setback, maintaining a 10-foot setback to the property line. The proposed 10-foot setback exceeds the required 0 to 5-foot front yard setbacks that are required on a majority of the properties fronting Seashore Avenue in the immediate vicinity of this project. • The 6 duplex structures and 1 single-unit structure adjacent to River Avenue are proposed to encroach between 5 and 10 feet into the required 20-foot setback, maintaining a minimum 10 to 15-foot setback to the property line. These proposed setbacks are consistent with, or exceed, the required 5 to 10-foot front yard setbacks that are required on a majority of the other existing properties fronting • River Avenue in the immediate vicinity of this project. 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 detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. As presented in discussion above for Finding No. 2, the project has been designed to include setbacks comparable to the setback requirements of the surrounding R-1 and R-2 lots. Similar setback and distancing requirements are common throughout the City and have not proven detrimental. Although staff believes the proposed setbacks of the project are compatible with the development pattern in the immediate vicinity of this project, it should be noted that buildings on neighboring Rr1 and R-2 lots are limited to a maximum height of 24 feet (24 feet midpoint/2-9 feet ridge). The proposed project however, is located within the MFR District, and benefits from an increased height limit of 28 feet (28 feet midpoint/33 feet ridge). Based on the rationale that the proposed detached, single-unit and two-unit structures have been designed to conform to the setback requirements of the surrounding R-1 and R-2 lots in the neighborhood and, therefore, warrant deviation from the MFR setback regulations, staff recommends the following condition of project approval: • Seashore Village • March 20, 2008 Page 11 Condition No. 7 The two structures that encroach into the side yard setback area immediately adjacent to the east property line shalt be modified in height to conform to the 24-foot base height limit. This modification will result in an approximate 2-foot reduction in ridge height and will ensure complete compatibility with the development standards of the neighboring R-2 units. With this condition, staff believes sufficient facts exist to support the required findings to approve the requested setback encroachments and reduced building separations. Use Permit for Increased Height The site is located in the 28/32-foot height limitation zone that permits buildings and structures to exceed the 28-foot height limit up to a maximum of 32-feet through the approval of a use permit. Ridges of pitched roofs are permitted to exceed the height limit by 5 additional feet. The proposed project exceeds the 28-foot base height limit. The proposed roof midpoints of the 6 duplex buildings are at 28 feet 10 inches, as measured from the finished pad elevation. The ridges of the buildings are comforming with a height of approximately 31 • feet 4 inches measured from the finished pad elevation. Section 20.65.055 of the Zoning Code requires the Planning Commission to make certain mandatory findings in order to approve a use permit to exceed the base height limit. These findings and the facts in support of these findings are discussed below: 1. The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular attention shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of all setback and open areas. The 6 duplex units that are proposed to exceed the 28-foot base height limit have been designed with low-pitched gable roof lines, resulting in a maximum midpoint elevation of 28 feet 10 inches (10 inches over the maximum limit) and a maximum ridge elevation of 31 feet 4 inches (1 foot 8 inches under the maximum ridge limit). As illustrated in Exhibit 4 (Height Limit Overlay), a-� conforming roof plan can easily be accomplished by designing a taller structure with longer roof spans, thereby lowering the midpoint below the 28-foot limit. This quirk in the City's method of measuring roof midpoints results in conforming roof midpoints but increases the overall height of the building to the maximum 33-foot ridge 'limit. Therefore, the 10-inch height increase to the midpoint allowance actually results in a 1-foot 8 inch overall height reduction of the proposed buildings, resulting in increased public visual open space and views than could • otherwise be afforded with a conforming roof plan. 39 �� Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 12 . The Planning Commission should also consider that a single, large multiple-unit building that conforms to the minimum setbacks and maximum height could be constructed, which would likely result in a more visually massive and bulky structure. Such a project could result in a 63 percent total maximum lot coverage (Lot Coverage is defined as the percentage of a site covered by roofs, soffits, or overhangs and by decks more than 30 inches in height). The proposed project, with 18 smaller detached single-unit and two- unit structures results in a substantially smaller 36 percent lot coverage. This reduction in lot coverage not only increases the public visual open space and view opportunities through the site, but also allows for increased landscaping of the site, which is proposed at 28 percent of the lot (the existing development of the site provides only 14.4 percent landscaping). 2. The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. The low-pitched gable roof lines result in building heights that are generally more compatible with the heights and architectural styles of the development in the surrounding neighborhood. As previously discussed, a conforming roof plan can be designed that results in increased overall building heights and visual massing as viewed from the street elevation. A conforming roof design also results in less desirable . architectural treatment of the side elevations, with more drastic roof lines that are less visually appealing. 3. The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions. The proposed street facing elevations will be scaled down by concentrating the highest portions of'the building mass away from the street frontages. Through this design, the front and rear masses of the buildings are minimized and allow more light and ventilation to the immediate neighbors. Furthermore, with the exception of the existing R-2 properties to the east, the project site is separated from other uses by River Avenue, Seashore Drive, and the West Newport Park. This separation, in conjunction with the design of the buildings to limit the bulk and mass of the third floor to the center of the lots, eliminates any undesirable or abrupt scale relationships between the project and existing developments. Staffs recommended condition requiring the reduction in heights of structures adjacent to the existing R-2 properties to conform with a 24-foot base height limit should result in a project that is compatible in scale to the adjacent R-2 properties and will help ease the transition of the project's increased heights to the existing neighborhood. • 40 �a Seashore Village March 20, 2008 • Page 13 4. The structure shall have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. As previously mentioned, the proposed floor area ratio for the project is 1.23 FAR, which is below the maximum of 1.75 FAR; therefore the project does not achieve any additional floor area due to the additional height. The additional allowance in height only affects roof lines and results in an architecturally superior product than would be achieved through a roof design that conforms to the height limit.-.- General imit..General Use Permit Findings In addition to the required findings for the increased height request, the Zoning Code requires the Planning Commission to make certain findings for use permits. These 'findings and facts in support of findings are listed and discussed below. 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of this code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. As previously mentioned, the Multi-Family Residential (MFR) Zoning District is intended to provide for medium-to-high density residential development, including single-family, • two-family, and multi-family residential structures. The proposed detached single-unit and two-unit residential structures are permitted uses within this zoning designation. 2. That the proposed location of the use permit and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use,, and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city. As noted in the previous sections, the project is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed use permit request for increased height should not prove detrimental as the project includes a significant increase in public and visual open space and the small increase to the average height of the roofs actually allows for a more significant reduction in overall height of the buildings (1-foot 8-inches below the 33-foot maximum ridge height limitation). 3. That the proposed use will comply with the provisions of this code, including any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. • The Municipal Code does not provide any specific conditions for this type of use; however, the project has been reviewed and conditioned to ensure that conflicts with surrounding land uses are minimized to the greatest extent possible or eliminated. 41 c�tj Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 14 • Subdivision—Tentative Tract Map The applicant is requesting the approval of a tentative tract map, for condominium purposes, to create 24 airspace condominium units. Pursuant to Section 19.12.070 of the City Subdivision Code (Title 19), the following standard findings must be made to approve the tentative tract map. If the Planning Commission determines that one or more of the findings listed in relation to either map cannot be made, the tentative parcel map or tract map must be denied. 1. 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 in the previous sections, the project is consistent with the General Plan. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed tentative maps and believes that they are 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 existing site is entirely developed and does not support any environmental resources. The site is relatively flat and based on the geologic investigation performed for the site, no signs of unstable or expansive soils are evident, nor is the site subject to erosion. It should be noted that the geologic investigation did reveal that the underlying soil of the site has a significant liquefaction potential if subject to heavy vibration; however, mitigation measures have been incorporated, as recommended by the site-specific geotechnical investigation, that will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The site is'currently developed with multiple-family dwelling units at a density greater than that proposed. As previously discussed in the report, the proposed project is below the applicable maximum floor area limit and maximum residential density for the site. Due to these factors, the site is suitable for the type and density of development proposed. 3. That the design of the subdivisiob or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision-making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. • 42 4 k4 Seashore Village • March 20, 2008 Page 15 A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and concludes that no significant environmental impacts will result with proposed development of the site in accordance with the proposed subdivision map. 4. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The project consists of 24 residential units as permitted by the Zoning Code and the General Plan. No evidence is known to exist that would indicate that the planned subdivision pattern will generate any serious public health problems. All mitigation measures will be implemented as outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration to ensure the protection of the 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. Although the access road through the project will remain private, a 24-foot-wide easement through the site will be retained by the City to ensure access rights for public emergency and security ingress/egress, public utility purposes, and weekly trash pick- up. A 6-foot sidewalk easement currently exists along the Seashore Drive frontage and the applicant will be required to construct full-width sidewalks. No other public easements for access through or use of the property have.been retained for-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 (Wifflamson 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. • -y-3 1 Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 16 • 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. 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. 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. As previously noted in the Housing Element discussion, the demolition of the 54-unit apartment complex and development of 24 condominiums will result in a total reduction of 30 dwelling units; however, given the rental vacancy rate of 7.7 percent in the City, sufficient existing rental units available to absorb the displaced rental units. Also, as discussed in more detail in the Coastal Residential Development Permit section of this report, 6 of the 54 existing apartment units proposed for demolition are occupied by persons of Power or moderate income. To compensate for this loss of affordable housing, the applicant will be required to replace the units at an off-site location within the City for a minimum period of 30 years. Public services are available to serve the proposed development of the site and the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project indicates that the project's potential environmental impacts are expected to be less than significant. �a 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 residential use of the property which does not violate Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements. As of writing this report, the RWQCB has not provided any comments • related to the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration during the 30-day review period. 44 1, 0 Seashore Village • March 20, 2008 Page 17 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. Although the proposed subdivision is located entirely within the coastal zone, the project site is not located adjacent to the shoreline of the Pacific Ocean and is not presently developed with coastal-related uses, coastalidependent uses or water-oriented recreational uses. As noted previously, staff believes that the proposed project is consistent with the City's CLUP and the Coastal Act. Coastal Residential Development Permit Chapter 20.86 of the Zoning Code (Low and Moderate Income Housing within the Coastal Zone) requires the processing of a coastal residential development permit (CRDP) to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65590 (commonly known as the 1982 Mellow Act). The Mellow Act prohibits the City from approving the demolition or conversion of existing housing units occupied by low- or moderate-income households located within the Coastal Zone, unless provisions are made for their replacement. if feasible, all or any portion of the replacement units must be located on • the site of the demolished structure or elsewhere in the Coastal Zone. If location on-site or within the Coastal Zone is not feasible, the units must be located within three miles of the Coastal Zone's inland boundary. Based on an income survey performed in June of 2007 by the Las Brisas property manager, Allen Properties, it was determined that a total of 6 units in the existing apartment complex are occupied by low- and moderate-income households. The income distribution is as follows: • Two very-low-income households; and • Four moderate-income households " Feasibility Analysis The Mello Act states that replacement affordable units must be provided if "feasible". The Mello Act defines feasibility as "capable of.being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technical factors". The City utilized a pro forma provided by the applicant to analyze the project and determine if it was financially feasible for the applicant to fulfill all, or any portion, of the replacement requirements of the Mello Act. For the purpose of the feasibility analysis, the pro forma estimates development costs • and revenues for the project based on the following: 45 da Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 18 • 1. Site Acquisition Cost ($25,500,000) 2. Total Development Costs ($28,434,500) 3. Total Sales Revenue ($58,950,000) 4. Developer Profit(8.5 percent of Sales revenue= $5,015,500) The applicant has agreed to commit $1.35 million to subsidizes the rents and/or purchase price of off-site replacement housing. After committing $1.35 million towards replacement housing, the applicant's profit is expected to decrease to approximately 6.2 percent. Specific candidate properties for the replacement units have not yet been identified as of this writing. The City retained the real estate development consulting firm, The Natelson Dale Group, Inc (TNDG) for the purposes of evaluating the reasonableness of the applicant's financial projections. After reviewing the applicant's pro forma dated November 2007 and an appraisal letter prepared by CB Richard Ellis, Inc (CBRE) dated January 5, 2008, TNDG has concluded that the applicant could afford to subsidize replacement housing in the amount of at least $1.8 million to $2.0 million and still meet the project feasibility criteria established in the applicant's original pro forma (8.5 percent developer profit). The TNDG Memorandum is attached as Exhibit 5. The basis of this conclusion is that the CB`RE appraisal (prepared subsequent to the applicant's November 2007 pro forma) indicates a total revenue potential for the project of $60.9 million, or $1.95 million • more than sales revenue indicated on the applicant's pro forma. Based on the revised revenue expectation, the applicant's development costs and revenues for the project would be revised as follows: 1. Site Acquisition Cost ($25,500,000) 2. Total Development Costs ($28,434,500) 3. Total Sales Revenue ($60,900,000) 4. Developer Profit Before Replacement Housing Fee (11.4% or $6,965,500) 5. Replacement Housing Costs ($1,950,000 million) 6. Net Developer Profit (8.5 percent of Sales revenue = $5,015,500) On-Site Replacement Replacement of the 6 affordable units on-site is inasible, given the land costs and proposed product types; however, based on the applicant's sales revenue projection, it appears that it would be feasible to retain one of the duplex units on-site as a moderate- income "for-sale" unit. The 3-bedroom unit could be sold at a maximum price of $283,200 to a moderate income household, resulting in a loss (subsidy) of $1,250,800. Staff does not recommend this option. • 40 °t� Seashore Village • March 20, 2008 Page 19 Off-Site Replacement The most practical way to replace the units would be through the acquisition of an existing, off-site apartment project and/or condominium and subsidizing the rents and/or purchase price of the units to lower or moderate-income households. To determine whether the applicant's $1.35 million commitment was sufficient to subsidize 6 off-site replacement units, staff relied on the analysis contained within the Draft Technical Memorandum dated October 11, 2007 (Exhibit 6), prepared by Economic and Planning Systems (EPS), for the calculation of the City's affordable housing in-lieu fee. Based on the information contained within the memorandum, the net cost to subsidize 6 replacement units is estimated at $962,134. It should be noted that these calculations were intended to generally illustrate the subsidy amount that is required for the City to create new affordable units; however, actual subsidy costs could vary depending on the number of units that are created and whether they or new or converted units. ,oa Very Low Rental 1-bedroom 2 $242,631 $485,262 Moderate Income For-Sale 1-bedroom 4 $119,218 $476,872 Total I 1 1 $962,134 'For comparison purposes,the types of affordable unit proposed to be demolished(i.e.income level and bedroom count)were used to calculate subsidy costs. 2For subsidy calculations, the value of the affordable unit(as calculated through sale values or capitalized rental operating income streams)is compared to the costs to develop the unit,including"direct:vests(labor and materials),"indirect"costs(design, permits, financing,etc.)and land acquisition costs. Site Acquisition Costs The CBRE appraisal estimates the "as is" value of the Property as an apartment - complex to be $15.95 million and the potential land value (if entitled per the applicant's request) to be $25.5 million. Staff believes the site acquisition costs (entitled land value) included in the applicant's pro forma is overvalued as it does not include the cost to replace the 6 units in accordance with the Mello Act ; therefore, it does not represent entitled land value. Although the applicant has committed $1.35 million towards the replacement of the 6 units, staff believes this information is pertinent when considering the feasibility of this project. CRDP Summary Based on the above discussion, the applicant's commitment of $1.35 million is sufficient to subsidize the replacement of the 6 affordable housing units and still provide a developer profit that is acceptable to the applicant (ranging between 6.2 — 9.2 percent depending on total sales revenue). The Mello Act does not specify whether the replacement units must be like-for-like in terms of affordability and bedroom count; 47 �� 0 Seashore Village March 20, 2008 • Page 20 however, given the City's adequate supply of moderate income rental units in the City, staff recommends that any very-low and low income units proposed be maintained as rental units and any moderate income units proposed be sold as "for-sale" units. Staff has included a condition ensuring an appropriate mix of affordable units is provided that efficiently utilizes the applicant's $1.35 million commitment. Traffic Phasing Ordinance Based on trip generation rates calculated using the Institute of Traffic Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (7"' edition, 2003), occupancy of the proposed 24 single-unit and two-unit residences is anticipated to result in a net reduction of 178 average daily trips (ADT) in comparison to the number of trips estimated to be generated by the existing 54-unit apartment complex (178 ADT — 363 ADT = -178 ADT). Per Section 15.40.030.C.1 of the Municipal Code (Traffic Phasing Ordinance), the project is exempt from having to prepare a traffic study as it generates fewer than 300 daily trips. Environmental Review A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared by The Planning Center for the proposed project in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The MND is attached as Exhibit No. 7. The MND • identifies five (5) issue areas with 6 mitigation measures. Those issues are: Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Noise. The MND was circulated for public review between February 20 and March 20, 2008. As of the date of staff report preparation, staff has only received two standard MND comment letters from the Gas Company and the Native American Heritage Commission (Exhibit 8). Staff will prepare responses to any subsequent comment letters, if received, and present them to the Planning Commission at the March 20"' hearing. PUBLIC(NOTICE Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of,the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. The environmental assessment process has also been noticed in a similar manner and all mandator notices per the California Environmental Quality Act have been given. Finally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. In addition to the City's public noticing requirements, the applicant has been proactive in meeting with surrounding neighborhood and has provided a summary of their • community outreach efforts, which is attached as Exhibit 9 Seashore Village • March 20, 2008 Page 21 SUMMARY Although the proposed project includes a number of deviations from the MFR District development standards, staff believes that findings necessary for project approval can be made. It is staffs conclusion that the 24-unit condominium project, as conditioned, would not prove detrimental to the area and will result in a development that is more compatible and consistent with the historic development of the adjacent R-1 and R-2 properties in the immediate vicinity of1he site. ALTERNATIVES Should the Planning Commission conclude that the project as proposed would not be compatible with thesurrounding uses and/or that the project would not be appropriate for the MFR District, the project should be denied, or modified to address issues of design or density. If a redesigned project is advisable, staff recommends a continuance to allow the applicant time to revise their plans accordingly should this course of action be sought. Given the deviations from the MFR development standards necessary to accommodate the single-unit and two-unit product type proposed for the site, staff considered the • appropriateness of alternative zoning designations; however, for the following various reasons, the MFR designation proved to be most appropriate: 1. An R=1/R-2 ismost suitable for the proposed product type; however, the benefits of the MFR guest parking; open space and increased landscaping would be lost and potentially replaced with two additional units (Exhibit 10, Zone Change Study). 2. The Planned Residential Development (PRD) Overlay allows for project-specific development plan and flexibility with development standards; however, given the., large parking requirement that cannot be waived, this option was not considered feasible. 3. The Planned Community District is intended to provide for the classification and development of parcels of land as coordinated, comprehensive projects so as to take advantage of the superior environment which can54esult from large-scale community planning; however, the proposed project does not achieve these objectives and does not meet the minimum land area requirements of 10 acres. • �9 R3 Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 22 The following table provides a comparison of the various zoning district alternatives: MEMO Discretionary Modification General Plan Code Amendment Code Amendment Approvals Permit Amendment Use Permit Development Plan Use Permit Code Amendment Subdivision deviations from minimum lot size (5000 sq.ft. minimum Units 24 proposed Potentially 26 lots Unknown; Per Dev. Plan due to loss of guest significant parking requirement reduction anticipated due to increased parking re uirements Parking 2 per unit, plus .5 2 per unit, no guest 2 per unit, plus 2 Per Dev. Plan guest per unit parking guest per unit 60 spa es24 spaces) 96 spaces total Minimum 1200 sq.ft.per 1000 sq. ft. per unit 1200 sq.ft. per unit 10 acres Land Area unit Height 28' midpointlflat 24' midpointlflat Up to Up to 33' ridge 29' ridge 32' midpoinUflat 32' midpointlflat 37' ride 37' rid e Prepared by: Submitted by: gime Murillo, Associate Planner David Lepo, Pla g Director EXHIBITS S 1�6.6—AraX3. DisfFietimg Map `Fr srec� 2. n�(99�R11 iG Se r.Y s 3 4. Height Wmit 9veraa3 5 TWnr_ nne..,..F@Ad.,.., 622 MAFaeraadere; lF1 Irieu Study � nn:+,�ated Mraga{i;:eLleeleielien+�.- .t.P.• r �� NAK]rZCemment6Wi:�S�E F 10 7nne Change Rti irl�l F:IUsersIPLMSharedlPA'slPAs-20071PA2007-100{Staff Reports and ResolutionslPA2007-100 PC Staff Report 3.20.08.doc �o �a Attachment No. PC 3 April 17, 2008 Planning Commission Staff Report 51 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE 52 r • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 17, 2008 Meeting Agenda Item No. 4 SUBJECT: Seashore Village Residential Development (PA2007-100) 5515 River Avenue ■ Mitigated Negative Declaration ■ Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-001 ■ Modification Permit No. 2007-044 ■ Use Permit No. 2007-011 ■ Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007-001 APPLICANT: Seashore Village, LLC PLANNER: Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner (949) 644-3209, jmurillo@city.newport-beach.ca.us RECOMMENDATION Hold a public hearing and adopt the attached resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Sch. No. 2008021075) and approving Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-001, • Modification Permit No. 2007-044, Use Permit No. 2007-011 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007-001, subject to findings and conditions of approval. DISCUSSION As stated in the March 20, 2008, Planning Commission staff report, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared by The Planning Center for the proposed project in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The MND is attached as Exhibit 7 to the March 20, 2008, staff report package. The MND was circulated for a 30-day public review period from February 20, 2008, to March 20, 2008; however, the MND notice of availability was posted on the site February 20, 2008, and it was determined that the public comment period began the following day, February 21, 2008, with the public comment period concluding on March 21, 2008. As such, the item was continued to the April 3, 2008 Planning Commission hearing, where it was again continued to this meeting date to allow staff additional time to prepare responses to comments received on the MND. Comments were received from the Southern California Gas Company, Native American Heritage Commission, Lennie DeCaro, California Department of Transportation, and Department of Toxic Control Substances. Responses to these comments have been • prepared for consideration (Exhibit 2). Adoption of the MND by the Planning �3 ��1 r Seashore Village April 17, 2008 Page 2 • Commission after public hearing is required prior to approval of the requested applications. Revised Resolution Based on comments received on the draft conditions of approval, staff has revised the resolution to include a number of corrections and clarifications. The following changes were made to the draft conditions of approval: Condition No. 8 The applicant shall replace 6 affordable units within 3 years of the date of issuance of a demolition permit effe-otive date- -of this aaval. The units may be provided off-site at an approved location, or locations, within the City. An amount not to exceed $1.35 million shall be provided by the applicant and the applicant shall use such funds to replace the 6 affordable units and to achieve a mix of income levels and bedroom counts, as determined appropriate by the Planning Director. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to provide said units. The agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and shall be executed and recorded prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the project. • Condition No. 46 An ADA compliant public pedestrian pathway, from River Avenue to Seashore Drive, shall be provided throughout the development site. Condition No. 61 The internal roadway shall be a minimum of 26 feet wide, unless otherwise approved by the Traffic Engineer. The internal roadway shall align with Neptune Avenue. The internal roadway curb cut on River Avenue shall be 26 feet wide minimum and modified to comply with current ADA standards. Prepared by: Submitted by: Jrne Murillo, Associate Planner David Lepo, Ing Director GYFJ 1 fkatei aei� ice h"—•e i E-.+� 8 F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PNs1PAs - 2007\PA2007-100\Staff Reports and Resolutions\04_17_081PA2007-100 PC Staff Report 041708.doc • 54 '�� Attachment No. PC 4 June 10, 2008 City Council Staff Report 55 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE 50 0 a • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 26 June 10, 2008 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner (949) 644-3209, imurillofa')city.newport-beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision approving a 24-unit condominium subdivision Seashore V ilage Residential Development(PA2007-100) 5515 River Avenue • Mitigated Negative Declaration • Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-001 • Modification Permit No. 2007-044 • Use Permit No. 2007-011 • • Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007-001 APPLICANT: Seashore Village, LLC APPELLANT: Lennie DeCaro Should the City Council approve, modify, or disapprove a 24-unit condominium subdivision on a 1.49-acre site located at 5515 River Avenue? REC s DATION: Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a de novo hearing and adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 1) adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Sch. No. 2008021075) and approving Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-001, Modification Permit No. 2007-044, Use Permit No. 2007-011 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007-001, subject to findings and conditions of approval. • Seashore Village June 10, 2008 Page 2 INTRODUCTION: • Proiect Description The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing 54-unit apartment complex and construct 12 detached, single-unit residential structures and 6 detached, two-unit (duplex) residential structures, for a total of 24 units (Attachment 2 - Project Plans). The 12 single-unit structures would front onto Seashore Drive and onto West Newport Park. The 6 duplex structures front onto River Avenue. A total of 63 parking spaces are proposed: 48 dedicated residential spaces in garages and carports; and 15 open guest spaces. Background On April 17, 2008, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the applicant's request, and after an extensive discussion on the project and considering the testimony received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to adopt the MND and approve the requested applications. On April 29, 2008, Mrs. Lennie DeCaro, an adjacent property owner, appealed the Planning Commission's approval Please refer to the attached March 20, 2008, and April 17, 2008, Planning Commission • staff reports for a detailed discussion and analysis of the proposed project and requested approvals (Attachments 3 & 4). Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission generally concurred with staffs analysis of the proposed project as presented in the attached staff reports and found that the findings necessary for the project approval could be made. Commissioners commented that the mass and scale of the project were consistent with policies of the General Plan. They also recognized that, although the project is designed to appear as a traditional Single-Family and Two-Family Residential subdivision, maintaining the Multiple-Family Residential zoning classification provides 15 guest spaces that would not be required within the R-1 and R-2 zoning classifications. To reduce the massing and minimize impacts to the adjacent R-2 properties, the Commission required that the roofs be designed with a hip roof feature that slopes the roof planes away from side property line. The proposed project is located in the Coastal Zone and compliance with the Mello Act requires that units occupied by low and moderate-income households be replaced to the extent this would be economically feasible. Discussion took place as to whether or not the • recommended condition of approval requiring a $1.35 million commitment to replace six 5g Seashore Village June 10, 2008 Page 3 • units currently occupied by low and moderate-income households was sufficient. Staff clarified that the $1.35 million proposed for this purpose is not intended to cover the entire cost of the replacement units, but rather is intended to cover the subsidy needed to provide the replacement units at a price/rents affordable to low and moderate-income households. The applicant may decide to purchase market rate units and sell them, in which case the subsidy is the difference in cost between the fair market value of each unit and the price a low or moderate-income household could afford to pay(i.e. $479K Market Rate Price - $303K Affordable Price = $176K Subsidy). Another option is for the applicant to purchase units and rent them at rates affordable to low and moderate-income households Rents would be maintained at affordable==rates pursuant to 30-year covenants required by the City. The Commission agreed that the $1.35 million commitment was sufficient and modified the condition to require that a minimum of six units be provided, in the event that more replacement units can be accommodated with the commitment as follows: Condition No. 8 The applicant shall replace at least 6 affordable units within 3 years of the date of issuance of a demolition,permit. The units may be provided,off--site at an approved, ocation, or locations, within the City. An amount not to exceed $9.35 million shall be provided by the applicant and the applicant shall use such funds to replace at least 6 affordable`units and to achieve a mix of income levels and bedroom counts, as determined appropriate by the Planning Director. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to provide said units. The agreement shall be reviewed and,approved by the City Attorney and shall be executed and • recoided prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the project The Minutes from the Planning Commission hearing have been attached for reference (Attachment's). DtWUSSiON: Appeal The appellant requests that the City Council reconsider and reverse both the Planning Commission's action to adopt the MND and the action to approve the project. Chapter ' 20.95 of the Municipal Code establishes the procedures for the appeal process. Pursuant to Section 20.95.0.60 C, a public hearing on an appeal is conducted `de novo," meaning that it is a new hearing and the decision being appealed has no force or effect as of the date the appeal was filed. The appellate body is not bound by the decision being appealed or limited to the issues raised on appeal. Analysis The appellant's appeal application (Attachment 6) specifically cites three main reasons for the appeal: 1) improper notice; 2) improper public hearing; and 3) improper approval. In addition to the brief information provided on the appeal application, the appellant's • appeal states that two comment letters (total of 50 pages) and e-mails previously SJ° 1 Seashore Village June 10, 2008 Page 4 submitted by the appellant should be considered for the appeal, as well as other • residentttenant letters of objection (Attachment 7). The following discussion summarizes the appellant's reasons for the appeal and provides responses for the City Council's consideration. Improper J1lotice General Comment: Based on information presented in both the appellant's comment letters and information presented in her e-mails to staff, the appellant believes adequate noticing was not provided as to the availability of the MND for the mandatory 30-day public review period.The following reasons are cited: • Appellant received a mailed notice of public hearing, but never received a mailed notice indicating the availability of the MND ("notice of availability"). • APPellant states that the MND was not available for review until 6 days after the start of the 30-day public review period. • Appellant states that the site was not posted with the notice of availability and even if it had been, the 30-day public review period would have concluded on March 21St, not March 20th as indicated on the notice. • • Notice of availability was not mailed to tenants of the apartment building or to the tenants in the neighborhood. Response: As stated in Response to Comment No. C-2 (Attachment 8 -Response to Comments) to the appellant's first comment letter, pursuant to Sections 15105(c) and 15073(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the MND was forwarded to the State Clearing house on February 19, 2008, for distribution to responsible and trustee agencies for the mandatory 30-day review period. Pursuant to Sections 15072(b)(2) and 15105, the notice was posted onsite in the area where the project is to be located. Although not required if the site' has been posted, the notice of availability was also mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the site, using the same list of property owners for which the notice of public hearing was later mailed. The posted notice and mailed notices indicated that the 30-day review period would begin on February 20, 2008, and conclude on March 20, 2008; however, because the site was posted on February 20h, it was determined by the City Attorney's Office that the public comment period began on the following day, February 21St, with the public comment period ending on March 21St. Accordingly, the public hearing on the project was continued from the March 20th Planning Commission meeting to allow for the full public comment period and allow staff to prepare formal responses to comments received. • �O • Seashore Village June 10, 2008 Page 5 • It should be noted that in addition to the notice of availability that was mailed to the appellant, on March 26th, staff directly e-mailed the appellant to notify her that the MND was available for review online. The document was also available for review at City Hall, as indicated on the notices, since the commencement of the public review period. Therefore, staff concludes that adequate noticing was provided in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. Improper Public Hearing General Comment: The appellant's appeal. implies that the Planning Commission hearing was; improperly conducted and that there was an attempt to circumvent the public hearing process for the following reasons: • The Planning Commission did not consider appellant's additional 17-page comment letter (Comment Letter #2), e-mails, and objection letters submitted prior to taking action on the project. • E-mail and letters objecting to the project were not made available at the hearing. Response: The appellant's first comment letter (33 pages) was submitted the day of • the March 20, 2008, Planning Commission hearing date. The Planning Commission continued the item to allow staff to prepare responses to these comments. Responses were prepared for each of the comments and were included in the April 17, 2008, Planning Commission staff report. The appellant submitted a second comment letter (17 pages) on April 17, 2008, just prior to the start of the public hearing. This letter was forwarded to each Planning.Commissioner upon receipt via e-mail and hard copies of the letter were made available to the Planning Commissioners and to members of the general public at the public hearing. A letter of opposition from a tenant of the building, Susan Carvalho (included in Attachment 7), was also submitted the day of the Planning Commission hearing on April 17, 2008. A copy of the letter was scanned and e-mailed to each of the Planning Commissioners and hard copies were made available at the hearing for the Commission and the general public. Staff did not receive any other comment letters or e-mails regarding the project that were not already included in the formal response to comments on the MND. General Comment: The appellant's appeal also implies that there was an attempt to circumvent the public hearing process because she was interrupted during her 3 minute presentation and not allowed to rebut the applicant's testimony. is Response: The Planning Commission agenda states that speakers providing testimony to the Planning Commission must limit remarks to three minutes on all items. Bob �2 Seashore Village June 10, 2008 Page 6 DeCaro, appellant's husband, was provided a full 3 '/z minutes of public testimony. The • appellant was provided 4 % minutes of public testimony, of which 3 %z minutes were entirely uninterrupted _ Improper Approval The appellant believes the approval of the project was improper based on numerous reasons cited in both of the extensive letters submitted. A detailed response to the appellant's first letter was provided in a formal response to comments prepared for all comment letters received within the MND public comment period. The appellant's second comment letter was submitted on the day of the April 17, 2008, Planning Commission hearing; after expiration of the 30-day public comment period. The following discussion is a summary of the new and/or reiterated objections to the project presented in the appellant's second comment letter, with the exception of the public noticing issues discussed above. General Comment: The appellant believes that the CRDP application was improperly approved for the following reasons: • Based on her review of a previous application to develop the same site (submitted by another developer in 2006), she discovered information indicating that a 2006 income survey was performed and that there were a total of 13~low • and moderate-income households within the building (not 6 households as confirmed in the 2007 income survey). • The income survey evaluation was compromised in that the income surveys were initiated, compiled, and returned to the City-by the applicant. • A possible reason for the difference in the numbers of low and moderate-income households between the previous application and the current application is that, prior to conducting the income survey, existing tenants were offered incentives to move and that the property management company changed the rental policy requiring minimum tenant income levels of $66,200 per individual with no co- signers. Response: The information the appellant discovered in reviewing the previous application submittal (withdrawn on February 2, 2007) was contained within a proposal for consultant services by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., to conduct a feasibility analysis of the previous applicant's financial pro forma. The proposal indicated that there were a total of 13 low and moderate-income households within the building; however, occupancy of the 13 units by low and moderate-income households was not subsequently confirmed. Based on the 2006 income survey, it was preliminarily assumed that 13 low and moderate-income households were in residence, based on returned surveys and information found on each tenant's rental application. Upon further • review, it was determined that the information on the rental application was unreliable �2 i Seashore Village June 10, 2008 Page 7 • as much of the data was out-dated and there was no way to determine whether or not a household's income had increased or decreased during their respective occupancies. In -fact, the 2007 income survey information conflicted with rental application information indicating that tenants had incomes at levels above moderate-income. Therefore, in evaluating the 2007 income survey, staff made a determination that occupancy by only 6 low and moderate-income households could be confirmed and the replacement requirement was determined to be a minimum of 6 units. The Mello Act does not provide direction on how to determine the income level of the households; however, it has been the City's practice for the applicant to conduct the income survey utilizing a template provided by staff. The allegations that existing tenants were offered incentives to move and that the income qualifications were raised for prospective tenants are similar to statements contained within Susan Garvalho's April 17, 2008, letter of objections submitted=to the Planning Commission. In response to these allegations, the applicant has stated that tenants were not offered money or any other incentives to move. The applicant did confirm that when selecting prospective tenants, the property manger routinely performs credit investigations and requires a minimum income as standard practice to insure the tenant can afford the monthly rent, but denies this was an attempt°to preclude`tow and moderate-income households from renting units. The Mello Act does state that if any . tenants are evicted within one year prior to submitting an application,it is assumed the evictionwas performed to avoid the replacement requirements of the law; however, the two allegations in the comment letter, even if substantiated; would not constitute evictions. General.Comment: The appellant states that the MND failed to include a review of the financial pro forma=subsequently prepared by The Natelson Dale Group (TNDG) and that the pro forma should have been made available during the public comment period as it provides mitigation in the form of replacement of 6 affordable units. Response: The applicant has agreed to replace all 6 affordable units and has committed $1.35 million to subsidizing the replacement, in accordance with the requirements of the Mello Act. The replacement of the 6 units is not a mitigation measure, but a requirement of State law. TNDG was hired by the City to evaluate the reasonableness of the applicant's financial projections and the commitment of $1.35 million toward replacement housing. The TNDG analysis confirmed that the applicant could afford to replace the units and still meet the project's feasibility criteria established in the project's original pro forma. General Comment: The appellant states that sufficient documentation was not provided for the financial feasibility analysis and that staff is relying on the applicant's word. • �3 Seashore Village June 10, 2008 Page 8 Response: Typically, applicants requesting the approval of a CRDP to demolish • affordable housing in the Coastal Zone argue that it is financially infeasible to provide replacement housing, in which case staff must closely scrutinize and evaluate financial pro formas to determine feasibility; however in this case, the applicant agreed to replace all 6 units and willenterinto an agreement with the City to insure their replacement within,3 years from the date of demolition. Therefore, staff believes it unnecessary to require additional documentation for the applicant's financial pro forma as the applicant has agreed to comply with the Mello Act replacement requirements. General Comment: The appellant states the plans are illegible and accuracy of the 1 Vx18" pians could not be verified. Response: The appellant was given full-size plans for review at City Hall. General Comment: The appellant states that the noise analysis contained within the MND inadequately discussed and analyzed noise from heating, ventilating, and air conditioning units (HVAC). Response: Please see Attachment No 9 for a detailed response prepared by The Planning Center for each of>the appellant's specific noise comments. General Comment: The appellant states that the applicant does not have the right to • take access from ,Neptune Avenue and based on information contained within the applicant's preliminary-title report, any rights that did exist were relinquished upon the City's acceptance of the original subdivision map. Response: The preliminary title report simply states that the property does not currently have access to Neptune Avenue, which is accurate; however, Neptune Avenue is a public street and the City has the authority to grant access, after which time the title information will change accordingly. General Comment: The appellant incorrectly refers to the private driveway through the project site as an alley, and cites a number of City requirements related to the construction of public and private streets, as well as concerns related to the transition/connection of Neptune Avenue to a private alley. She also cites concerns related to the elimination of the Neptune Avenue cul-de-sac. Response: For clarification, access through the site is provided via a private driveway, not an alley or street. The tentative tract map for the project incorrectly identities the access as a private road; however all other drawings within the plans correctly identify the access as a driveway. Prior to recordation, the final map will be revised to correctly identify the access as a driveway. City requirements related to the construction of public and private streets are not applicable to the proposed driveway. As stated in Response to Comment No. C-4 to the appellant's first comment letter, Neptune Avenue is not a • cul-de-sac because it does not provide adequate turning radius for vehicles and does Seashore Village June 10, 2008 Page 9 • not comply with City cul-de-sac standards. The Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and does not believe the project will negatively impact the City's right- of-way and circulation system. Additionally, appropriate conditions of approval have been proposed, including further review by the City Traffic Engineer, to ensure that the final design of the driveway complies with all City requirements and Council Policy L-2 (Driveway Approaches). General. Comment: The appellant states that the Coastal Act requires maximum access to the shoreline for the-public and that new developments must provide public access unless adequate access exists nearby. She contends that the proposed project is removing access to the shoreline. Response: The project site is not located=adjacent to the shoreline of the Pacific Ocean and does not currently provide any public access through the site. Adequate public access exists around the site via the surrounding rights-of-way (i.e. River Avenue, 54tH Street, Seashore Drive). In addition, the proposed development has been conditioned to require a public pedestrian pathway through the site providing connection from River Avenue to Seashore Drive, thereby creating new access opportunities for the public. General ;Comment->The-appellant states that the View Corridor Analysis prepared for Response to Comment-No. G-6 to the appellants first comment letter was incorrectly • prepared because a conforming side .yard setback should have been 37.5 feet, not 25 feet as illustrated in the exhibit. Response: The View Corridor Analysis of the appellant's private view-to the beach was prepared to analyze how a�,structure that conformed to the required 25-foot side yard setback (along the+eastern property boundary) and 20400t front yard setback (along Seashore Drive) as =required per-the: Zoning Code in the MFR Zoning District would obstruct the current view corridor for her property. The analysis concluded that the proposed prcjectdid not impact-the appellant's private view any more than a conforming project would. In the appellant's second comment letter, she argues that the View Corridor Analysis was incorrectly prepared.because a conforming side yard.setback is 37.5 feet; however, the appellant incorrectly calculated the side yard setback. Per Section 20.10.030(G) of the Zoning Code, side yard setbacks in the MFR zone are based on a percentage of average lot width, provided that in no event shall a side yard wider than 25 feet be required. General Comment: The appellant reiterates discrepancies cited in her previous comment letter. Response: The response to comments prepared for the appellant's first comment letter have addressed and corrected the discrepancies. • General Comment: The appellant provides several statements disagreeing with the formal response to comments prepared for the appellant's first comment letter. �5 1 Seashore Village June 10, 2008 Page 10 • Response: No new information has been presented that would cause staff to revise any of the previous responses. Summary Although the proposed project includes a number of deviations from the MFR District development standards, staff believes that findings necessary for project approval were made appropriately by the Planning Commission. It is staffs conclusion that the 24-unit condominium project, as conditioned, would not prove detrimental to the area and will result in a development that is compatible and consistent with the historic development of the adjacent R-1 and R-2 properties in the immediate vicinity of the site. The objections presented in the appellants appeal have been provided for the City Council's consideration and, in staffs opinion, have been adequately addressed. Environmental Review A MND has been prepared by The Planning Center for the proposed project in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act. The dk E 'is attached.as Attachment 10. The .MND identifies five (5) issue areas with 6 mitigations measures. Those issues are: Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and�Hazardous Matenais,and Noise. . The MND was circulated for public review between February 21 and March 21, 2008. Comments--werereceived :from the:Southern California Gas Company, Native American Heritage Commission, Lennie DeCaro, California Department of Transportation, and Department of Toxic Control Substances. Unlike an Environmental Impact Report where formai response to comments must be prepared; comments received on a draft MND must only be considered :by the approving body and kept on file; however, formal responses-were prepared for each of the comment letters received during the public comment period (Attachment 8). Adoption of the MND by the City Council after public hearing is required prior to approval of the requested applications. • Seashore Village June 10, 2008 • Page 11 Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. As previously discussed, all mandatory notices for the environmental assessment have been given per the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Prepared by: Submitted by: �� Jak6e Murillo, Associate Planner Davi Lepo, Planni Director Attachments: 1. DFaft resolution of approval 'A March 9n. 9(-)n8, Rlannipq Commission staff report • Ancil i7 S2 nen !` Ft 4--��.,--,-�29p — — ssiea-sta„fF-repc�� 6. Appeal Appliestien 7. AppeR le#e%, emaiis-and GaFvalhe letter Ga flim. nts Genter noise response 10.Mitigated Negafive Beelaration • INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE 02 Attachment No. PC 5 City Council Resolution No. 2008-53 Findings and Conditions of Approval 09 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE 70 FILE COPY RESOLUTION NO. 2008- 53 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH NO. 2008-021075) & APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2007-001, MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2007-044, USE PERMIT NO. 2007-011 AND COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 2007- 001 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5515 RIVER AVENUE (PA 2007-100) WHEREAS, an application was filed by Seashore Village, LLC requesting approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-001, Modification Permit No. 2007-044, Use Permit No. 2007-011 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007-001, with respect to property located at 5515 River Avenue, and legally described as Lot 105 of Tract 3812, to develop 12 detached, single-unit residential structures and 6 detached, two-unit (duplex) residential structures (24 units total). The site is currently developed with a 54-unit apartment complex that would be demolished to accommodate the proposed development. Project implementation requires the approval of the following applications: 1) Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-001 to create a 24-unit condominium subdivision; 2) Modification Permit No. 2007-044 to allow encroachments into the required front and side yard setback areas and a reduction in the required distance between detached buildings; 3) Use Permit No. 2007-011 to allow each of the 6 duplex structures to exceed the City's base height limit; and 4) Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007-001 to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65590 (Mello Act), which regulates the demolition of low and moderate income (affordable) dwelling units in the Coastal Zone; and WHEREAS, at a noticed public hearing held on April 17, 2008, the Planning Commission considered the application, plans and evidence, both written and oral, and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Sch. No. 2008021075) and approved Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-001, Modification Permit No. 2007-044, Use Permit No. 2007-011 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007-001, subject to findings and conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, on April 29, 2008, Mrs. Lennie DeCaro, an adjacent property owner, appealed the Planning Commission's approval citing three main reasons for the appeal: 1) improper notice; 2) improper public hearing; and 3) improper approval; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on June 10, 2008, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Element of the General Plan sets forth objectives, policies and limitations for development in the City and designates the general �1 distribution and location of land uses and residential and commercial densities. The Land Use Element designates the project site as Multiple-Unit Residential (RM) with a maximum development limit of 51 dwelling units. The RM designation is intended to provide primarily for multi-family residential development and for development containing attached or detached dwelling units. The proposed subdivision is consistent with this designation; and WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is consistent with Land Use Policy 5.1.9 that requires multi-family dwellings be designed to convey a high quality architectural character. The project has been designed to be compatible with the development pattern and character of the surrounding neighborhood, which generally consists of two- and three-story, single-unit and two-unit dwellings. Each unit will feature either a "Craftsman" or "Plantation" architectural style. Architectural details and enhancements (i.e. batt and board wood siding, louvered window shutters, decorative trim, and stone veneer) will be provided on all building elevations. The 2nd floor facades are setback from the 1gt floor on the rear elevations and cantilevered over the 1st floor on the front elevations, providing articulation and modulation to the building mass. The 3`d floor of each building is setback from the front and rear elevations, towards the interior portion of each building envelope, to reduce the visual mass of the structures as viewed from the streets; and WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is consistent with Land Use Policy 6.2.9 that requires open space and recreational facilities to be integrated into and preserved in private residential development. A majority of the units have been designed with small (approx. 300 sq. ft.) front patio areas, which are comparable in size to the outdoor living areas of the surrounding residential development within the neighborhood. All units are provided useable and functional 2nd level and 3`d level deck spaces (ranging between 48 and 154 sq. ft.). West Newport Park, an active recreational park, is located immediately west of the project site and the beach is located approximately 120 feet south of the site; both the park and the beach will provide additional recreational opportunities. A condition of project approval has been included that prohibits any floor area additions to the approved building envelopes, which will preserve open patio and deck areas proposed for each unit and the common landscaped and open space areas; and WHEREAS, the Housing Element of the General Plan sets forth goals and policies to facilitate the attainment of the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocations and to foster the availability of affordable housing to all income levels to the greatest extent feasible.. The demolition of the older, non-conforming, 54-unit apartment complex and development of 24 condominiums, will result in a total reduction of 30 dwelling units. As discussed in the Population and Housing section of the Initial Study prepared for the project, there are approximately 43,851 housing units in the City, of which approximately 5,462 units are vacant. The rental vacancy rate is estimated at 7.7 percent with approximately 3,337 rental units vacant (American Community Survey 2006). Therefore, the reduction and change in housing type is not considered significant, as there are sufficient existing rental units available to absorb the displaced i rental units. Additionally, Housing Program 1.1.3 requires the replacement of housing demolished within the Coastal Zone when housing is, or has been, occupied by low- income or moderate-income households. A total of 6 rental units have been identified to have been occupied by low-income and moderate-income households, which the applicant will be required to replace at an off-site location with restrictions to maintain their affordability for a minimum of 30 years; and WHEREAS, the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLOP) of the Local Coastal Program sets forth goals, objectives, and policies that govern the use of land and water in the coastal zone and addresses land use and development, public access and recreation, and coastal resources protection in accordance with the California Coastal Act. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the CLUP for the following reasons: 1. The subject property is located within an existing developed area of the coastal zone and the proposed project density of 16.1 units per acre is below the maximum density limit of 30 units per acre established for the RH-A designation of the CLUP. 2. Public services and infrastructure are currently available and serve the proposed development (8" sewer and water lines are located in both the Seashore Drive and River Avenue rights-of-way), and all applicable improvements required by Section 19.28 (Subdivision Improvements) of the Subdivision Code are required to be constructed by the applicant. 3. The proposed development has been designed to comply with all applicable Multi- Family Residential (MFR) development regulations of the City's Zoning Code, including density, floor area, open space, and parking, to insure design compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Although deviations from the required setbacks and the base height limit are proposed, these deviations will not result in a site plan that is inconsistent with the character and development pattern of the surrounding residential neighborhood. 4. The proposed project will not impact coastal resources nor the ability of the public to reach, use or view the shoreline of coastal waters or inland coastal recreation areas and trails. 5. The project includes 63 parking spaces, which exceeds the minimum parking requirements of the Zoning Code. 6. Gated vehicular access is prohibited, and as a result, the internal roadway will provide unrestricted vehicular access through the project from River Avenue and Neptune Avenue and will not inhibit public access to the beach. 7. The project site is not located near the vicinity of a designated public view point or coastal view road requiring view protection and will not impact any public views or degrade the visual qualities of the coastal zone. 73 WHEREAS, subject property is located within the Multi-Family Residential (MFR) Zoning District . The proposed detached, single-unit and two-unit residential structures are permitted uses within this zoning designation. With the exception of the increased setback encroachments, reduction in the minimum distance between buildings, and building height increase, all of the applicable development regulations of the MFR zoning regulations have been met; and WHEREAS, Section 20.93.030 (Modification Permits) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code requires findings and facts in support of such findings for approval of a modification permit for the encroachments into the required 20-foot front yard setbacks and 25-foot side yard setbacks, and deviation from the minimum 10-foot building separation. Such findings and facts to support such findings are as follows: 1. Finding: 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. Facts in Support of Finding: a. While the MFR District permits the proposed single-unit and two-unit residences, the development setback and building separation standards were intended to apply to larger, multiple-unit buildings, such as the 3-story, 54-unit apartment building that exists on-site today. The legislative intent of required setbacks is to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling unit. Given that a larger, single structure building would result in more visual and physical massing, a larger setback would be preferred for that development type. b. The applicant has proposed 24 single-unit and two-unit residences designed to appear as if they were situated on individual 30-foot-wide lots and setbacks comparable to surrounding R-1 and R-2 lots. Utilizing the R-1 and R-2 development standards as a guide for determining acceptable setbacks and building separation is appropriate in this case. c. Given that the MFR District permits the proposed detached development, but doesn't provide corresponding development standards, strict application of the Code would result in a physical hardship that is inconsistent with the intent of the Code. 2. Finding: The requested modification will be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood. Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed project has been designed to appear as if each unit is situated on a 30-foot-wide lot with setbacks comparable to the surrounding R-1 and R-2 lots. Those reductions in the setbacks and building 74 separation to accommodate the smaller detached, residential units arguably results in a site plan that is more compatible and consistent with the historic development pattern of the area rather than a single, larger apartment-complex. The following facts support compatibility of the proposed project with the existing neighborhood: a. R-1, R-2, and 30 to 40-foot-wide MFR lots only require 3 to 4-foot side yard setbacks. The proposed 6-foot separation between buildings within the project is consistent with the required 3-foot side yard setbacks of many of the 30-foot wide lots in the surrounding neighborhood, which results in a total distance of 6 feet between buildings. b. The proposed project is designed to appear as if each unit is situated on a 30- foot-wide lot, the setbacks provided to the east property line are consistent and compatible with the required 3-foot side yard setbacks of the surrounding 30- foot and 40-foot-wide lots in the neighborhood. The single-unit building fronting Seashore Drive that is proposed to encroach 21 feet into the required side yard setback adjacent to the east property line will maintain a 4-foot setback. The duplex unit fronting River Avenue that encroaches 17.5 feet into the required side yard setback adjacent to east property line will maintain a 7.5-foot setback. c., The 6 single-unit structures adjacent to West Newport Park are proposed to encroach 15 feet into the required side yard setback, maintaining a 10-foot setback to the property line. Due to the orientation of these units, this setback area is equivalent to their front yards and is consistent with the majority of the front yard setbacks in the immediate vicinity of this project that range between 0 and 10 feet. d. The 6 units fronting Seashore Drive are proposed to encroach 10 feet into the required 20-foot setback, maintaining a 10-foot setback to the property line. The proposed 10-foot setback exceeds the required 0 to 5-foot front yard setbacks that are required on a majority of the properties fronting Seashore Avenue in the immediate vicinity of this project. e. The 6 duplex structures and 1 single-unit structure adjacent to River Avenue are proposed to encroach between 5 and 10 feet into the required 20-foot setback, maintaining a minimum 10 to 15-foot setback to the property line. These proposed setbacks are consistent with, or exceed, the required 5 to 10-foot front yard setbacks that are required on a majority of the other existing properties fronting River Avenue in the immediate vicinity of this project. 3. Finding: The granting of such an application will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. 71 Facts in Support of Finding: a. The project has been designed to include setbacks comparable to the setback requirements of the surrounding R-1 and R-2 lots. Similar setback and distancing requirements are common throughout the City and have not proven detrimental. b. To minimize the impact of building heights on the neighboring R-2 properties, a condition of project approval has been included requiring the two structures that encroach into the side yard setback area immediately adjacent to the east property line to incorporate hip roof features. WHEREAS, the site is located in the 28/32-foot height limitation zone that permits buildings and structures to exceed the 28-foot height limit up to a maximum of 32-feet through the approval of a use permit. Ridges of pitched roofs are permitted to exceed the height limit by 5 additional feet. The proposed project exceeds the 28-foot base height limit. The proposed roof midpoints of the 6 duplex buildings are at 28 feet 10 inches, as measured from the finished pad elevation. The ridges of the buildings are comforming with a height of approximately 31 feet 4 inches measured from the finished pad elevation. Section 20.65.055 of the Zoning Code requires the Planning Commission to make certain mandatory findings in order to approve a use permit to exceed the base height limit. Such findings and facts to support such findings are as follows: 1. Finding: The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular attention shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of all setback and open areas. Facts in Support of Finding: a. The 6 duplex units that are proposed to exceed the 28-foot base height limit have been designed with low-pitched gable roof lines, resulting in a maximum midpoint elevation of 28 feet 10 inches (10 inches over the maximum limit) and a maximum ridge elevation of 31 feet 4 inches (1 foot 8 inches under the maximum ridge limit). b. A conforming roof plan can easily be accomplished by designing a taller structure with longer roof spans, thereby lowering the midpoint below the 28- foot limit. This quirk in the City's method of measuring roof midpoints results in conforming roof midpoints but increases the overall height of the building to the maximum 33-foot ridge limit. Therefore, the 10-inch height increase to the midpoint allowance actually results in a 1-foot 8 inch overall height reduction of the proposed buildings, resulting in increased public visual open space and views than could otherwise be afforded with a conforming roof plan. jC c. A single, large multiple-unit building that conforms to the minimum setbacks and maximum height could be constructed, which would likely result in a more visually massive and bulky structure. Such a project could result in a 63 percent total maximum lot coverage. The proposed project, with 18 smaller detached single-unit and two-unit structures results in a substantially smaller 36 percent lot coverage. This reduction in lot coverage not only increases the public visual open space and view opportunities through the site, but also allows for increased landscaping of the site, which is proposed at 28 percent of the lot (the existing development of the site provides only 14.4 percent landscaping). 2. Finding: The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Facts in Support of Finding: a. The low-pitched gable roof lines result in building heights that are generally more compatible with the heights and architectural styles of the development in the surrounding neighborhood. b. The design of a conforming roof plan results in increased overall building heights and visual massing as viewed from the street elevation and also results in less desirable architectural treatment of the side elevations, with more drastic roof lines that are less visually appealing. 3. Finding: The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions. Facts in Support of Finding: a. The proposed street facing elevations will be scaled down by concentrating the highest portions of the building mass away from the street frontages. Through this design, the front and rear masses of the buildings are minimized and allow more light and ventilation to the immediate neighbors. a b. With the exception of the existing R-2 properties to the east, the project site is separated from other uses by River Avenue, Seashore Drive, and the West Newport Park. This separation, in conjunction with the design of the buildings to limit the bulk and mass of the third floor to the center of the lots, eliminates any undesirable or abrupt scale relationships between the project and existing developments. 77 c. A condition of approval has been included to minimize the impact of building heights on the neighboring R-2 properties, requiring the roofs of the two structures that encroach into the side yard setback area, immediately adjacent to the east property line, to slope away from the R-2 properties with use of hip roof features. 4. Finding: The structure shall have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. Facts in Support of Finding: a. The proposed floor area ratio for the project is 1.23 FAR, which is below the maximum of 1.75 FAR; therefore the project does not achieve any additional floor area due to the additional height. b. The additional allowance in height only affects roof lines and results in an architecturally superior product than would be achieved through a roof design that conforms to the height limit. WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting the approval of a tentative tract map, for condominium purposes, to create 24 airspace condominium units Pursuant to Section 19.12.070 of the City Subdivision Code, certain findings and facts in support of such findings shall be made for approval of a tentative tract map. Such findings and facts to support such findings are as follows: 1. Finding: That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with General Plan and any applicable speck plan, and with the applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City Subdivision Code. Facts in Support of Finding: a. The project is consistent with the Multiple Unit Residential General Plan designation of the site. b. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed tentative map and believes it is consistent with the Newport Beach Subdivision Code (Title 19) and applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. c. Conditions of approval have been included to ensure compliance with Title 19. 2. Finding: That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. 72 Facts in Support of Finding: a. The existing site is entirely developed and does not support any environmental resources. b. The site is relatively flat and based on the geologic investigation performed for the site, no signs of unstable or expansive soils are evident, nor is the site subject to erosion. c. The geologic investigation revealed that the underlying soil of the site has a significant liquefaction potential if subject to heavy vibration; however, mitigation measures have been incorporated, as recommended by the site-speck geotechnical investigation, that will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. d. The site is currently developed with multiple-family dwelling units at a density greater than that proposed. 3. Finding: That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision-making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. Facts in Support of Finding: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and concludes that no significant environmental impacts will result with proposed development of the site in accordance with the proposed subdivision map. 4. Finding: That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. Facts in Support of Finding: a. The project consists of 24 residential units as permitted by the Zoning Code and the General Plan. b. No evidence is known to exist that would indicate that the planned subdivision pattern will generate any serious public health problems. c. All mitigation measures will be implemented as outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration to ensure the protection of the public health. 79 5. Finding: 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. Facts in Support of Finding: a. An easement through the site will be retained by the City to ensure access rights for public emergency and security ingress/egress, public utility purposes, and weekly trash pick-up. b. A 6-foot sidewalk easement currently exists along the Seashore Drive frontage and the applicant is required to construct full-width sidewalks. c. No other public easements for access through or use of the property have been retained for use by the public at large. d. 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. Finding: 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. Facts in Support of Finding: The site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. 7. Finding: 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. Facts in Support of Finding: The subject property is not located within the boundaries of a specific plan. g0 8. Finding: 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. Facts in Support of Finding: a. Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. b. The Newport Beach Building Department will enforce Title 24 compliance through the plan check and field inspection processes for the construction of any future proposed residences. 9. Finding: 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. Facts in Support of Finding: a. To compensate for the demolition of 6 units currently occupied by persons of lower or moderate income, the applicant will be required to replace the units at an off-site location within the City for a minimum period of 30 years. b. Public services are available to serve the proposed development of the site and the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project indicates that the project's potential environmental impacts are expected to be less than significant. 10.Finding: 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. Facts in Support of Finding: a. Waste discharge into the existing sewer system will be consistent with the existing residential use of the property and does not violate Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements. b. Sewer connections have been conditioned to be installed per City Standards, the applicable provisions of Chapter 14.24 (Sewer Connection, Permits), and the latest revision of the Uniform Plumbing Code. g1 11.Finding: 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. Facts in Support of Finding: a. The project has been designed and conditioned for consistency with the City's Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. b. The project site is not located adjacent to the shoreline of the Pacific Ocean and is not presently developed with coastal-related uses, coastal-dependent uses or water-oriented recreational uses. WHEREAS, Chapter 20.86 of the Zoning Code (Low and Moderate Income Housing within the Coastal Zone) requires the processing of a coastal residential development permit (CRDP) to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65590 (commonly known as the 1982 Mellow Act). The Mellow Act prohibits the City from approving the demolition or conversion of existing housing units occupied by low- or moderate-income households located within the Coastal Zone, unless provisions are made for their replacement with new affordable units. If feasible, all or any portion of the replacement units must be located on the site of the demolished structure or elsewhere in the Coastal Zone. If location on-site or within the Coastal Zone is not feasible, the units must be located within three miles of the Coastal Zone's inland boundary; and WHEREAS, based on an income survey performed in June of 2007 by the Las Brisas property manager, Allen Properties, it was determined that a total of 6 units in the existing apartment complex are occupied by low- and moderate-income households. It has been determined to be feasible for the applicant to commit $1.35 million which the applicant will use to provide a minimum of 6 affordable housing units at an off-site location, or locations, for a minimum period of 30 years; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines; and, City Council Policy K-3. The Draft MND was circulated for public comment between February 21 and March 21, 2008. Comments were received from the Southern California Gas Company, Native American Heritage Commission, Lennie DeCaro, California Department of Transportation, and Department of Toxic Control Substances. The contents of the environmental document, including comments on the document, have been considered in the various decisions on this project; 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 in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified and incorporated in the Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting g2 Program are feasible and reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level; 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, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger; and NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis. The City Council hereby adopts Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH No. 2008-021075, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit "A". The document and all material, which constitute the record upon which this decision was based, are on file with the Planning Department, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. Section 2. Based on the aforementioned findings, the City Council hereby approves Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-001, Modification Permit No. 2007-044, Use Permit No. 2007-011 & Coastal Residential DevelopmeA Permit No. 2007-001, all subject to the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit "B" attached reto aJnd m ereof. f' PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 1 Y e 20.8 MAYOR ATT //TTf/ Il / - / CITY CLERK e NFWR°�y, 0 u g3 Exhibit "A" SEASHORE VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (SCH#2008021075) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Seashore Village gation nito ng Program Phase of Responsible Completion Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Party Date4nitfals AfrQual' 1. The construction contractor for the property During construction City's Project owner/developer shall implement additional dust Manager in control measures during demolition as follows: coordination with • The project contractor shall apply nontoxic the Project chemical dust suppressants(e.g., polymer Construction emulsion)to buildings being demolished to Contractor reduce fugitive dust from active demolition activities. • The project oontractor shall prohibit demolition activities when wind speed exceeds 25 miles per hour. The project contractor shall install a temporary construction fence and silt barrier around the construction site as shown in the Construction Staging and Water Quality Control Plan submitted to the City of Newport Beach for approval. The project contractor shall install construction tire wash areas at the entrance to the project site on River Avenue and Neptune Avenue.All construction clean-up shall be done in construction sediment basins.The construction tire wash area shall be installed in accordance with the Construction Staging and Water Quality Control Plan submitted to the City of Newport Beach for approval. The contractor will sweep adjacent streets and roads a minimum of once per week. Material haul trucks leaving the project site will have their loads either covered or maintain a freeboard distance of two feet from the stacked load to the top of the trailer. Cultural Resources 2. Prior to approval of a grading plan,the property Preconstruction City's Project owner/developer shall submit a letter to the Manager in Planning Department, Planning Division, coordination with showing that a qualified archaeologist has been the Project hired to ensure that the following actions are Construction implemented: Contractor • The archaeologist must be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish procedures for tempora lhalting or g'� Seashore Village Miti ation Monitoring Program Phase of Responsible Completion Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Party DaWnitials redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification,and evaluation of artifacts if potentially significant artifacts are uncovered.If artifacts are uncovered and determined to be significant,the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions in 000peration with the property owner/developer for exploration and/or salvage. • Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution. Any archaeological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified archaeologist. If any artifacts are discovered during grading operations when the archaeological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area. A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted to the City Engineer. Upon completion of the grading,the archaeologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted. 3. The property owner/developer shall submit a Preconstruction City's Project letter to the Public Works/Engineering Manager in Department,Development Division, and the coordination with Planning Department, Planning Division, the Project showing that a certified paleontologist has been Construction hired to ensure that the following actions are Contractor implemented: The paleontologist must be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish procedures to temporarily halt or redirect work to permit the sampling,identification, and evaluation of fossils. If potentially significant materials are discovered,the paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner/developer for exploration and/or salvage. Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution. Any paleontological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified paleontologist. If any fossils are discovered during grading operations when the paleontological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area. gJ� • 0 Seashore Village Miti atfon Monitonn Proram Phase of Responsible Completion Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Party Datelinitials A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted. Upon the completion of the grading,the paleontologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted. Geology and Solis 4. During construction,the construction manager During construction City's Project shall ensure that measures listed in the Manager in geotechnical investigation(EGA Consultants, coordination with 2007)or equivalent measures are implemented the Project to minimize the effects of liquefaction. The Construction measures shall include but are not limited to: Contractor Tie all pad footings with grade beams. All footings should be a minimum of 24 inches deep, below grade. Continuous footings should be reinforced with two No.5 rebar(two at the top and two at the bottom). Concrete slabs cast against property compacted fill materials shall be a minimum of 6 inches thick(actual)and reinforced with No.4 rebar at 12 inches on center in both directions.The reinforcement shall be supported on chairs to insure positioning of the reinforcement at mid-center in the slab. Dowel all footings to slabs with No.4 bars at 24 inches on center. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 5. Prior to demolition activity, a certified and Prior to demolition City's Project licensed asbestos abatement contractor shall Manager in perform any removal of asbestos containing coordination with material(ACM).Also,an industrial hygienist the Project must be present to perform engineering control Construction and regulatory asbestos air monitoring during Contractor any abatement activity. Noise 6. Demolition of the existing asphalt with a During construction City's Project jackhammer within eight feet of the existing Manager in residential structures to the southeast of the site coordination with shall be prohibited.The construction contractor the Project shall utilize alternative asphalt demolition Construction methods such as a concrete saws and other Contractor nonvibratory construction equipment to remove the pavement. g� Exhibit "B" Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-001, Modification Permit No. 2007-044, Use Permit No. 2007-011 & Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007-001 (Project-specific conditions are in italics) Plannina Department 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the plans stamped with the date of this approval, except as modified by other conditions. 2. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. I The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Use Permit. 4. Project approvals 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. 5. The applicant shall obtain a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit for the project. 6. With the exception of the height modifications required per Condition No. 7, the floor plans and building envelopes for each unit are approved as precise plans and future floor area additions to the building envelopes shall be prohibited. The proposed open patio and deck areas for each unit shall not be permitted to be enclosed and the landscape and open space areas proposed throughout the development site shall be preserved. 7. The two structures that encroach into the side yard setback area immediately adjacent to the east property line shall be modified to incorporate design features (hip features) to minimize building height impacts on the adjacent properties. 8. The applicant shall replace at least 6 affordable units within 3 years of the date of issuance of a demolition permit. The units may be provided off-site at an approved location, or locations, within the City. An amount not to exceed$1.35 million shall be provided by the applicant and the applicant shall use such funds to replace at least 6 affordable units and to achieve a mix of income levels and bedroom counts, as determined appropriate by the Planning Director. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to provide said units. The agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and shall be executed and recorded prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the project. 97 • 9. Any very-low and low-income units provided in accordance with Condition No. 8 shall be maintained as rental units for a minimum period of 30 years. Any moderate income units should be provided as `for-sale" units with a covenant maintaining the affordability for a minimum period of 30 years. 10.Gated vehicular access through the site shall be prohibited. 11.Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code. Exterior on-site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. "Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. Parking area lighting shall have zero cut-off fixtures and light standards shall not exceed 24 feet in height. 12.The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the Planning Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 13.Prior to the issuance of a building permits, the applicant shall prepare photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Department. 14.Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified in conditions of approval Nos. 12 & 13. 15.AII proposed signs shall be in conformance with the provision of Chapter 20.67 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress. 16. Trash container storage for the individual units shall be screened from view of neighboring properties and public places, except when placed for pick-up by refuse collection agencies. Trash containers shall nut be located within the required parking areas. 17.AII landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 22 18.Prior to the issuance of a building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Department and the General Services Department. All planting areas shall be provided with a permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitable for the type and arrangement of the plant materials selected. The irrigation system shall be adjustable based upon either a signal from a satellite or an on-site moisture-sensor. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or similar permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. 19.Reclaimed water shall be used whenever available, assuming it is economically feasible. 20. 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, attomey'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 Seashore Village Residential Development Project including, but not limited to, the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-001, Modification Permit No. 2007-044, Use Permit No. 2007-011 & Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007-001; and/or the City's related California Environmental Quality Act determinations, the certification of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and/or the adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. Building Department 21.The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all applicable City plan check and inspection fees. 22.The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City Building and Fire Departments. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City- adopted version of the California Building Code. 29 23.Prior to the issuance of gradina permits, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General Permit for Construction Activities shall be prepared, submitted to the State Water Quality Control Board for approval and made part of the construction program. The project applicant will provide the City with a copy of the NOI and their application check as proof of filing with the State Water Quality Control Board. This plan will detail measures and practices that will be in effect during construction to minimize the project's impact on water quality. 24.Prior to the issuance of the grading 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. 25.Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project, subject to the approval of the Building Department and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur. 26.A list of "good house-keeping" practices will be incorporated into the long-term post- construction operation of the site to minimize the likelihood that pollutants will be used, stored or spilled on the site that could impair water quality. These may include frequent parking area vacuum truck sweeping, removal of wastes or spills, limited use of harmful fertilizers or pesticides, and the diversion of storm water away from potential sources of pollution (e.g., trash receptacles and parking structures). The Stage 2 WQMP shall list and describe all structural and non-structural BMPs. In addition, the WQMP must also identify the entity responsible for the long-term inspection, maintenance, and funding for all structural (and if applicable Treatment Control) BMPs. Fire Department 27. The internal roadway shall be marked as a fire lane, per the direction and approval of the Fire Department. Public Works Department 28. A Final Tract Map (Map) shall be filed with the Public Works Department. 29.The Map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD88). Prior to recordation of the Map, 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 Section 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. The Map go to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the City's CADD Standards. Scanned images will not be accepted. 30.Prior to recordation of the Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the Map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Section s 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 Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. 31.All applicable City fees shall be paid prior to the processing of the Map. 32.Construction surety in a form acceptable to the City, guaranteeing the completion of the various required public improvements, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to issuance of the Public Works Department approval of building plans. 33.Easements for weekly trash pick-up by City crews shall be dedicated as part of the Map. 34.Easements for public emergency and security ingress/egress, and public utility purposes on private streets shall be provided to the City. 35.All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 36.A new full-width sidewalk shall be constructed within the limits of the existing Utilities and Sidewalk easements along Seashore Drive fronting the project site. Existing City street trees shall be removed to accommodate the sidewalk construction. 37.New City-designated street trees shall be planted along the River Avenue frontage. All street trees shall be planted per City Standards and guidelines provided by the City General Services Department. 38.All existing drainage facilities in the public right-of-way shall be retrofitted to comply with the City's on-site non-storm runoff retention requirements. 39.On-site runoff shall be retained on-site. 40.Private storm drain piping shall not connect directly to the City's storm drain catch basin. 41.All on-site utilities shall be owned, operated, and maintained by the community/association. 91 42.Each unit shall be served by its individual water meter and sewer lateral and cleanout. Each water meter and sewer cleanout in the vehicular traveled-way shall be installed with a traffic-grade box and cover. 43.Individual water services per City Standards shall be provided in lieu of manifolds. 44.All on-site parking, vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems shall be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer. 45.The parking layout shall be in conformance with City Standard 805-L-A and 805-L-B. 46.An ADA compliant public pedestrian pathway, from River Avenue to Seashore Drive, shall be provided through the development site. 47. The vehicular pathways shall be designed to support a fully loaded large trash truck. 48.Adequate turning radii and width shall be provided for large trash truck travel paths. 49.AI1 improvements (including, but not limited to, the landscaping in the parking lot area and ingress/egress points to the development site) shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement (City Standard 110-L). 50.All abandoned driveway approaches shall be removed per City Standard 165-L. 51.All new driveway approaches shall comply with Council Policy L-2 and constructed per City Standards. 52.Reconstruct any existing broken/damaged sidewalk, curb and gutter fronting the development per City Standards. 53.No permanent structures can be built within the limits of the Utilities and Sidewalk easement. 54. The construction work cannot impact the free flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic between Memorial Day and Labor Day. The staging and parking of all construction- related equipment and vehicles shall take place on-site, and NOT in the public right- of-way or City property. 55.A11 utility service connections serving this development shall be made underground. 56.In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development site by the private construction, additional reconstruction within the public right-of-way may be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. 92 57.The streets surrounding the project site is on the City's street/alley-cut Moratorium List. Any damage done to said roadways by the project will require substantial pavement repair work to be fully paid for by the Developer. 58.An encroachment permit is required for all work activities within the public right-of- way. 59.An encroachment agreement shall be applied for and approved by the Public Works Department for all non-standard private improvements within the public right-of-way. 60. The intersection of the intemal roadways with River Avenue shall be designed to provide adequate sight distance per City of Newport Beach Standard Drawing STD- 110-L. Slopes, landscaping, walls, signs and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight lines (sight cone) shall not exceed 24-inches in height and the monument identification sign must be located outside the line of sight cone. The sight distance may be modified at non- critical locations, subject to approval by the Traffic Engineer. 61. The internal roadway shall be a minimum of 26 feet wide, unless otherwise approved by the Traffic Engineer. The internal roadway shall align with Neptune Avenue. The intemal roadway curb cut on River Avenue shall be 26 feet wide minimum and modified to comply with current ADA standards. 62.Guest parking stalls shall be 8.5 feet by 17 feet minimum. Parking stalls adjacent to walls or other obstructions shall be 9-foot-wide minimum. 63.0n-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation system shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 64. The California Vehicle Code shall be enforced on the private streets and drives, and that the delineation acceptable to the Police Department and Public Works Department be provided along the sidelines of the private streets and drives. 65.Prior to recordation of the Map, park dedication fees for 24 dwelling units shall be paid in accordance with Chapter 19.52 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. This fee shall be paid at the time the map is submitted to the Public Works Department for plan check. Mitigation Measures 66. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures and standard conditions contained within the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2008-021075) for the project. 93 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH } I, LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2008-53 was duly and regularly introduced before and adapted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 10th day of June 2008, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote,to wit: Ayes: Henn, Rosansky, Daigle, Webb, Curry, Gardner, Mayor Selich Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 11th day of June 2008. r -�� ,r2!`rU4j77it�--��• + ""'�''��.k�Liz Op t+e?p� City Clerk p� Newport Beach, California U (Seal) dR H IA 9�- Attachment No. PC 6 Approved Project Plans (Seashore Village) 95 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE 90 LEGAL OWNER YYItiH LEGAL DESCRIPI[ON SEASHORE "ILL u�TM� q4. -s�vray,w.ror+ NEWPORT BEACH, CA. .1�� �A�>�,� soon - - OCCUTANCY fAUf)F. IW,U-� - - - cYxanuc'rm re: v-N p, W �y - - � emlomc use: NHA�GY�AORIu. d q to !S UAnI�LOTAGE -- -.- uvu - t. PWA-2Gnor 112 xaq.n L. pY.B-zc.3HH• u . ffi$ UBRA-IG*..p 6 APPROVED BY: :l 'v�_ Uhsc 6 - - Tal .27f71-n 4 -16rperl 6 Ue C USbdSBA f SlaaW— 16' IlnbY•163519A Ilaadiclpd— 1 ('mage- 201gR PlanningColrxnission Coundl U.Be 6 1AvebY-IW q.n F� As Submitted As Mod r m1ge-> n w roval Letter uA Y Refer to: Re ttoloo App -ges6lrg.nmc`„.`i' nan' �o,woS� anx ' *of Pgs App _� Date: 6/I O /09 Gaffe- 6sALy R prlY. N t ABBREVIATIONS SYMBOLS DESIGN TEAM SHE'1'INDEX R r". YvaID a my 130 a�3a.aeaunaer..nmID �aTM,°` auswu aw 'w °As�u.ueaAiaammwae la' ®.meYeaaaaa•naaouIDYaY ""! >uw..:c__T e�v-t meoraA�ceuAYeY 4a1O iw uirae otin sae_ o 1Q m.u4rYY.amnruuart.mm - _ A-, sns nwe e4oAr u. wrr aan oY Y uBe6CA![9nYr�AN . aoo e�--a 'm.o:w.'mnmmnmuou�nmm u-.2 Aaew.reolo fut. YAYp Wm RT u a.m � V®Y.TINID1HaVRwnOmtl.mwEa A.TF wYosM I TBMIAlItR 18AI.TIf.V '� ID M] e1ABAaLODYMH9 u. err� la �� ry R� � uSiOHrB.Y11Ya'aOMa.rA'(rreUptvTWD ASS YUNAYS{VAIfOflg(CMP19AAp � T _._ ____ A3.1 -MNA01YAiNRIB(PWN[AY14M) ID mM1Y rR '� 14YM80.Ba0rarTpeYtl'.P'a�'� M MNB AA AY ( w�vaor. � �� �.aierr :u sA1eY11Oa •4 uvaw..uaoanaY..aovrrWv.rrwr wu4v.ur•Y s. rc s�mYOY ASl IIANBY1YASr¢eg(CWVILIM9 -u as.m ti< vas fie• wdmrw.aov.3oaavra4urt o iTiw'rY A'J! rWYB1aZYAte]NB(R.AMAI.On) a. aa.mrroa w r®oum va. .rm .... A.0 rfANeMCOV®nnBenwN ci a.cv eo: SaYmmuT .®aomM 8 vr.wamn.rvavuoaw�mmrro.s.um .+- ...— ... M! MxBMmv®osvA3urc Saa - rtA n1or�u noir .sWYsveT .¢M ravoc>•v.u.omYAvr�oa.namvmYvw i� M MNCRAdIl1ATID - y oma Tu. BrVYm n.'NaAYv/La A1r r{µCOiVA3M1ABpOlAY191M) N. 0.WaaA V P't T. IOOW -► te-gYt♦.Ylmafamrp4mlN�rerleeef uYaYnR..Vme¢.om I MJ MN C OLVAil0tO R3ABfARq wA rltOf a wYUA � �rALL I���� MBCOiVAl1IX6lAL'ILNA9Y) - vrua _ .YLS 1,ABpgCyaYlAl1(rNYA3HYAaW 4l OwA• w �eA• wp '-mow s1o4L¢PF.ONwOo•vIDwlde�a4 � rq./eA WlaN.v'a M-1 YUB FA v�Y ww .arvnaA .�.'. yr= Mn vnsruaYryauoaumrdtw9> �Q��__.__. WI WtgIBBIBAY 9ld0H1G�WAlOtWAlli1'IIAN ma.A YV. YqA r� IWCa Ml \ALL ' v0 1'OP'L wvaom vier. YYo0C0 Hw amaYBeY-rnY� @a,a .`°iva:.'. .a ,s 'r® aa.rB.eanuY+YeemaYmouwvr VIF^RViT'IrMAP .�.uu.. w .s e�aaar B' aavamr.Tvrmr ._L,.— - �w � m��ra. is, wear r® w.awrwmienoonavuew.m -' ^' ' � .v� ram. o�a.ID wo woeID.Yw � .w'rxncemm�awnauream • I I�r . A - Mw. vawm .rc _-,_RR.Twgyrr... n.. ___� ameeaa4w.rrwaID y y � ��p�sy� 'Aura u. '��®a � wwtY4eusue.vfaaor � l I ,\1 'A 100001) uva . Yn li rn aewe ' 4art. avuoa oou. ® ramuaarraevr�Ya 1 _ As aoo.YID .oe; mY r .vaT � �aY.maaa®..a mo ur.m�v u mur.�sr w Brio m m3m.mmimo.raY, Vi g1�pO_YLLT�irder 44IDm 4! W��da A .e�BYY.lrOl13Y 1 - •.I ' Ot tt.f ,ml .OoIO. � .RYaie�s ;m mwY.IDYW �, ne eeuY � wvmwrem.Yr3a.w�r.o u armw w rm ma4vaaeu .� avury EA a+ Y YB� (E ar0•IrrprprYle�ir-Y asirQL3Y � R .QYav®.aarvu.as C-1 SEASHORE PLAN B PLANTATION & CRAFTSMAN SEASHORE VILLAGE _ - PLAN A 4( PLANTATION&CRAMMAN 0. -71 SEASHORE VILLAGE O�7 PAGE OF- a 1 ��i ... �. � � F{. �W+�1{f!Y ,.moi 11 �' 1 •y . . ,{ ■y �`(y(�',. �' Is3.aY�" rAu, Y„� y, .. �.;t �^5 1 .., '� -� a '• I nrJ1�W� — ' F 7' rJPZ iso, f f .;'�II', �'�fr 11b� +dtll/�.1F`• �, 1 tty'.. ,�,,,�� x+-„ �,�yl,.t �. ._--i-ii_ L .a � ly,.;� -+J.� Ilv` „4��r C'1�� II✓�I �.q 5.N �`'l� I � ��'� ���rJJJ F 1 n n 1 � of ''7rFlllryl d' , I�i,� %�•�L r�;.�'~ '� . S`ii v,({� h� linll uilnli ' r`��1r`r \11(11 r� kl�� ®� µL r916 —_ L39rN H � y�llBrreN ]/ ❑ .. WrrxN u /3AW # RIVER AVE. rA e.x4 pH ,•• J! No a aM H 4Y� eseON � ax sc � iew 3. Ps ars nro cl//N � M. s WJc me aW /.sw nza ee ye na W A .T9h mph can w an a-_ aA Ah \\azab s. ue n w rs 9 .9n A 1,le.ph AR dry urt AF. Ln r rs \je rd wurrw,._rdT cvn .yt � pN op rv' ° ' \emrs ®B _I�no�__.- yd6 h 9r 15 ee,h r,'N a i rsa, M1 a`O L3/rs F ' ye Axt hl /.rm aQM � e e.3a �ro- FWes NNR •�°#� ySB Lf3/f GI9 A93M1 6 FI V e� e0a A/C 4t a rs �� x1913 NEPTUNE AVE. ave rs h /-_ n low�1 t nx3 rs n mvn me ry nl I . me vm " \/mrs ,• emrs °,.auc n,a Arm vxv rs rl rt ANA va u au rs v¢ vex e.xm m9rc eu rw oxwc . ' an rs h a.le u ' A A»n aars NM- AIC n :m m LEGEND airs `sph an rr Aam aars Hors U1 av m-/ 9em.0 x!50- a ro nem ae.rs __ A/C>ASPHAIT +am/ wen rrw Wwm. °nen-- r»me �. TO = W CURB �x raz ne/ mvr nee n .tl- . a = FLOW LINE Ln FSFlNISH SURFACE TW= TOP WALL W = W PLANTER a ❑LaNlOL ❑.1 ft = WATER METER -1 _ .¢. SMH-SEWER MANHOLC nrz es avers ¢ Z3 say �anrs �nnrs °�°1 ,, TOR = TOP ROOF EP =EOCE PAVEMENT NO a WANRAL GROUND SEASHORE DR. WV= WATER VALVE BW=BACKWALK T TS=S-FlNISH f TOP STP - TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ` 16 SCgLE LOT I04 7RACT NO. 3893 \r NNE 05 . . .... . . ..... . .. ...... . . . .. ... ...... ........ ......... . .. ... .. ....... .. . :.:. . . + �< 5; {'vg .. (} .5515 RIVER:;AVE NEWPORT BEACFI CA .... .. . ... •••- F 4JJLJ' 4JY' SW IXA44r SI. "NG 3414 CMY sr NEMP0.Rr sum CA .. .. .. ... ..... IXS BA'QWA1rK W-)8$.N00YJ;UAlITM T1EV..®'9.2d} 99 _ v ®oo4 0 RI VER AVE. „ IL V. ' r aYMMev �afv uulK r�>v �—ii' ' r � ub rx ars e 6 NEPTUNE' I au a 1 :uI ao rs/ r IQW I$ rb arz rs nrz bx ' anrs `� as sm SEASHORE DR. a m'nhsLx&f 6pyrvkm exbmwas fx9vx'A �.4T,"�PPd% yea QS�IdvFfl �®y ' \: 15e�NSn ti�W14nM1 N.Ia . . ! ....... . ... . . ... .. .. . . AOrtRibioWaIN B'sffikTe9twP rv.ecg64mp.amo O . . .. . -894,916 m.ft '?=r'ms®OY 2 , PAGE::: OF F J { LL+x F i r .�' 'y'-�w1+ 'f �` •� rc. i i 1 �. •• ; A: O '1l fill '1:;, � _ �"\:"��„ � "���� �.5.�• h a � dw cd P, v{. r .'t 10tlt6l J £ > = = ou 4� P`iiii"Ol, SWEET SHADE BRISBANE BOX NEW ZEALAND LANTANA LAVENDER PRIVET INDIAN HAWTHORNE ROSEMARY MAUVE CLUSTERS Z 000 OO Q CHRISTMAS TREE Slenacarp a sinaala, Firewheel Tree RIVER A VE. x REOUIRED SIRE .7 TREE; --------- SHRUBS ----SHRUBS&GROUND COVER QUEENN PAL! ACRUS ROMAN7.O L ) LA WN BRISBANE BOX ^'I - ; :.K LAW\ / nNr:rm I Iwuxc� 'ru�zmc 1D suc IwiL a riuw !': Z I i J uRmxAN rum.mv. oEnsuAx B.vrAmx F � ® 'WQu - f / •V � I IS" ,1 I Y A, E) " 1(�R/vr,1]" Y�y IL 'f/;A LAWN TREES: 1 Y /� SWEETSHADE /,�- �\, LANDARCHITECTUNE f Ponm > omncn Pr �. /.. SYCAMORE PI AN'r LTOENR-COMMON'AREA ,(! GRAVEL,TYPICAL�y-PAVING,TYPICAL _ ,ltM lroNovrvL MATORk 5urvu r !.� ! �. CHITALP.A E I- —��_ 1. L uaLonm /_ / marez: rlrinmw+ :IYMFAYISPU]Vllll.i\'V.M ii Brl% I3}J' 1"4' 4 ��/f '1 TI L NEPTUNE A15f0.46NERU5 EXLEL1Ui ]x'MO% lo' lV P`1q,Ylgp YCaq�� ' .� V ]xrfCNm�lm YB•'vu ]YP. /� I _ . LA4IA,AAM\IEYWWS11 t4\I IY:' L\VgVp Alp(IRI `IA:t IWl _ . �/• Y' � Ijc 1 �� _ - ].. ,� A'iAOMgIM1MfifTIL\ IniL A.•1w • Lr rrl ...Y 3 XIIAI11141EP5.4AI'.,1•A'A' Iptl + w !� ' Pn vnml M,S seuArn51r I4AL ..r I-1' •T" 'L -t F T IT" MSMARM S W]SiESELP'S@RIGI}1' •4Y. • n. 'i" ,Op SpSMAB1AM'It%TiNbP s 1.: aAe•ii'l "'J' ,1:!51ERN i.a 1' , PATIO TREES: WATER GUNI(TRISTANIOPSIS LAURINA) �Y T Br i {fAA'IA 5:•iRi\rY':L'�K 31.1:5'AP.uiw,v si B...:... WINDMILL PALMI(TRACHYCARPUS FORTUNE.!) —_ _ MABalxne lrsn'E,LA.ii '11D.0 FIREWHEEL TREE(STENOCARPUS SINUATUS) MF— STRAWBERRY-1 REE(ARBUTUS UNEDO) �— y INDIAN H.AWTHORNE(RHAPHIOLEPIS-MAJESTIC BEAUTY' SEASHORE DR. 111111UGATIONNO E I " F1N 6( IiAIL ET. L i "N11-11 R E AF.1 1.1 5 'NTILRY I \'LT1 0 1- L KV VG1 Y9NRLTv ■ ]M IpDARL 1 S rt BDAM 1 l,ALL BL]FOIE rrU pYAN t.'EU arF� tS lEB CA"L . £P It - r 11E fV5Tr1" ALL1.p1 itx UI.kIE IA1 it Y•:MAf.T.L IPh41 La L Fl ,,All FANATE RPApLA ,II I.xE NNI,A EUXYA W RRIER,. .A PRELIMINARY PAGE iYSRAI 5).pl f m"'71 W." hE(.:::i P+,_l[J BY V.AI,ITI\fl• .PPASI2R'44'PO'lCPrf]=v4":If LANDSCAPE PLAN - SITE PLAN PL-t BfyY 1]IYh 1'-C 0 u oozy WF- _a rce 'a O 07W x z G O 0 r' ; W `n7w lt F 1 �'1 .� t ... i ♦♦ \/L" f '.Y/C `/1"� i ''� t �,='I ] • Y 1-�� 't JJ/1J/jt //uJ �Q p � � r. l`t s, ��. ♦ - r� ��� ..r.- JS. Nji.- � � ,. �Q' � -� ::" �'w'� < �u^ (ar7 ~ 1 �µ aIL (�z Y�' t r '.." � r " � i1� � �"F �''�.: �t1 ��� vi I {t �✓ �`. ♦ .t vl '� J vi z. Ttr;. «. IL Q7 Mfr 14, A 40 +� J, is T �,, C ' ''n y _ a , t� : t�j�i p'� �'� � e µ,�• ' i t 3 q + �� 'Z � �Q `i. A•P,•1'.it i z I 4' T� — ,t •r xy EXISTING PIIOPOM PAGE. b OF gid` LEGEND ' —fm— omm mwA wa A>bAn PID A1unu1 mu:rm MIC Win m i piPiFt Cflil —1m— vmerm mann P/.vn P.Y6@0 a sae ! llkL ------ aw vawf rs fwam smtc . ,L�:I.>. gpv�ryw]v[Vann ' w Pr%w®Pte®amain ^a I 1.F —Po— MT.Id¢1M R TY6 WVE N9df . mW'se TPoID 9pM lWW "I ..'.G6 QM[ y svavwff{ PI' MI' ML —9�- FNP.lC9M iG T96 bW .�Qjl .. . 'H mcRM`�E ff896 PARC r P.L pRiNfl IlE ' fes' H/ l4YN bbl M AV6W1 a + MK7�RfC v/ 7r� l%6 E 1@tf IOABD z < C f�tF1.1=YIA 9HY � 2»� PAS®P 9'BC Pll 1 [I. fa0119PR zFY � Iv6®wH al w w8 N1 �� Er ' • f PA II/MR1MG ��1� fl. P�IIP®®116H W. !RI is VV W 4 � Y i1 _ es .. \. � _ . '" — to y�F� •S°'� — u ¢ � �� v? $ .t . 651 =4 �'"�•^ '- :• ' t > E ! EASEMENT •�, i _ _ z i _ . IN. \ 1 J t AVE WATER SERVICE \\ u win . % � •:� 'yam{ �` � m=1.0 _ 1�` L" �w"�ia� ® mmPn Rau ssa wl mrv�an ma sa,m.L SEWER CONSTRUCTION NOTES Fro � ` ® o Hurt�.auu a'�utira wl mr� P ' be Rean�sa exa h/Puw mm miW e `° Ar• s- � � � a e '. CONSTRUCTION NOTES .• v I O1 P9YK IIfD.OA mf IR OIY V RAMI til AP IEfl ' =•1 RB.J J" R OO AOA�PA0i 1@fm..IPeml - "., , I..a, w Q mxmwrmlmc amara m+.� fffF4F4Fhv gSh I �m mm. 1 I r ^ ,'.� I r 1 Y� nrr e.trl, .. . .... .. 'g• � • '. O IawY�vxre rom r ��ew Lr sm .,. t >.)..,,."`. �.> „ Ir. rrclr C ,Y © BA91L I?PffiP AP em wnm( F fe•P ., . ®Tm�. �z°a QQ oma a�rrh lmwama eum +a. E o r Orsu^,_v wem smPo. « _ B pc Po�ACN IN 1 © RL 16T 6➢KIWI WM f4Fe®®Y8fRd1A'A BP WAFB9' PC�IP.IP.N Q� .. I 1 <BIW '.w 11 Y396R QJ 1•$x@'4. m n¢°®n'a R sam izs Guam a rr n m�wsan ,� MWIMESSiMP DEREo5r;1-11�1 PAGE F A�.z�.. � �F sm.w . K 4 Ep4a.M 4Ifi£Y SITE. . DATA U� { �� �_���'_�_..-�✓. � ...,,w .... a rvnairxr sumps •• YP®�� -„'.0 y _ d.' . ms IYifLAffA KifB W.RIIA%/G) , 0' -.r '..__4Y•v,. /e.' "”' 9 vs'� w _f-a 1T,. 1. y u®r .�..A." rye F 8" WA NA ! ��+ _ � o% gyp! �• � � v ' '_ � ./ `` �y\ y/ � >j' . �„•,. a uacQc sma samm�x wsaaa%oap t '%'(. :,�!';.';•�'^g" ��® � — — !� ® ! �.- � �" J crJp �.r 1. sena vm,av s urpm anal ric eeQ uam LOT 1 je+• :r! 0.51 ep. �-< rraonaxmr¢rt aret a.m amwr,sm[acumem :- `\ gyp. t 9IF.\ �. — ma wr laama xll is swwm xuw WTmm nsa .9 t.,.�` y ) �\ _ �� _ J _ _ � IK CIS 11 Tihd411Y cbl61C a mnixms WPS.I60LH6 R • "�Lii _ _ 9ARf A6a,.�' pllp,pWM..PA W.M 1Nx IN0.E / ! •�, r - C I • ! 'ti J —d`----'r° __._a--- I ..f Sed . -.J—_--9 SZASIHFE 1Wl VE—f —_ J'.. 9 mass army mmB•«x. .�e. '�� � u ��l5Sf € Y: w8g w �u a i p �mz a�s Vd9B pIDt999 W .. .. . .... . ..... 171'94 � '. 97789 i 46 , FIRE Mill a � f'•' v � - ,l' , �' i. �s .;j +} 14'7 i ' Y,./�.L'" L �q/y1L,t� :i� �{�,... Y.• •� ''� I .N`" - '"",�% '� � /F. .f� ,yl '�� «�Ct t���r% '� �-i.�=•u 1�t,��rr r. �� 's h , � . +. n, � i.. , . / � !�'F9P t4 wi\t� IIF'�7•.I 'a� ' �� I i '.mi'e . . �-, f�y� � $l. dril i ml I i i nJle '.,dln' ' 'ti f�'(rl,"- � (y,�7�i (� � Iy !�`W.`P � fl! '„(;,•• ¢��']�-{ty�1�'{��rw•• .7E• wtv"" f i `r1{! ,. � 5^fM114 .� ''a If!�.�: Iii u��r�ni i�I �r fi�lii_ii i!Ili i�:r I. ,1'� Wry � t1 � F`y f3�• `moi}' ��'• x, 21`' ��. �`���� .i c•�ff ` 'l,'1 ;y \�, n P♦r.;. - �5' .i�h{��� '�� �i�g �](/a'F-. , 4( g. iji I r .,.. >t I� , ` fig^`• a�' " '��•s �, 'IrA �'\ yy�/ Aiu, �,.7�.y,� hi " a1f�'H' '� ad�'� t srr a...xtr�; t�'k17" � -• \ / " � I/� aM45G. if�v t � � 7".I. -- ``�•�','3..'�^'=' b" r� f �Y - we � x I 1 way I I - i. ah t I' If - a _ I - i -r . I q&w PAGE �i6 w ;.TE"FLOORPLAR_.. � II�II�IIIII�II / '1 - sa .!x%k[�i.-ti. ' '`'qi•i i.. !+•-^- �! :_C1r ! . lam!a .�. ! 4-.. - - MIT l Ill �rll�ui u■ue �_ �_ , ° �IflVffilf1111 �i1�1 1t. V i i iii` § i I. SII SIYfJil119uO➢11�(�. i- � i Ii - . ° jail, �3 ��.-1•��i�. i,� Yc� .a��wK '.S[c' N�YInYW 1 _ ILI li�l� lIel��?I �1�i111 I�I�li�il� p p q 9'hlr� r ii■i� (�li loll M� s SII;� III��®���'�II�IIIllllirlllw� I it■IuI�I ���I�II :' ,125 oil , I• - I ,iz,f �iron �aryrii�..da� � • �!I I . 'h�m��� �-►�11� � i �" � iii , ` z � e14'fil k _ A....�...e... s '�r.�+r,i _ ,R• � _ ._�i � 811� " '"�''�i."rll I-Emmo n, � .;�-•�' F-x .,�" t ,F"'�i- "=E c �. � #�3#wsu' 7s-"r 3,.:--"-X :x--*.;�..,. � a .:. ,,. _ © etr tiu ♦ _'' �®d\•A f•fs lli l."" � YR Yvs®i. x«10�a�"�ub..rws�,-' ®ei{ ����i"—`.,� � 4� o V '1 u C s v' WJ I '1 III fi.�• 4 ,;/j I I I yt r s , ` y�e ,wf. I � !�,"{a� „, w �� 1(! ' ,�T E,`P'r.��J{��,�(�� f'-�,.� _1 f I Iw _� �s;i4 _r •,T'4��L��`I•l` �' �� _p .. I /' �i: � 'Y rte... I / e ri f"� .}P, • moi ! M'i{� p' 1 {I�I:�. + �1 .�_ ��` ', �� N�Q�'� ' r+1IL-. � f`��...r��� y� �I�I i � f.J� \ r i�lc�l}� �i��R��. • �,' s }F�`�y4 `.{ I I� .r' r.,_If,;.. �i{� • { IL ���'�~-�'r�0 � ® �` � n ��� `e�,�-Tt:ir,`(e;���{Jy;', i � ! {. 1�� t N, r♦/.. w Cy%r i M 0 ,�1 V. � S`�` �i �, I � ■I �' 1 .. � I�I �I IEIII� 4 ^-� ` .j 4 �.4 I �l� I ' ` � J � .tillfii't�ljr�v, lfSl, I 91 � '�-4 t. y ,.r.: a � ' . _ t ij:e �y.,,�Ril �w�� - r �i✓�I :� +�r�e�9 .'I ` ! I�yy�;—_ - • .. ii ria P J t/ ylr t YI _ _ ������� •SIS r5�'- � �'� 4, ,I loll 01 1 PLAN CRAFTSAMN u � � W nmm oaf _ p �1 4f ry i _a y> �y err J a . .. - RF,Ak ELEVATION WJVFWAC'VflM- w,ew•-rr h u EI# T SME-ELEVATION r Q IL ..._. 'fes FY$. ... .__-• i r n ........... rr azer � aE ELEVA �rz �m,•�. 613 ~ SAGE r� C9� 110 - el��, Y ����• I� _ _ �� -,�e� .m a. � ������f�'�'��_' � �nr�+£�if.�:�r lf4`q-. z � Q '7 � �T�i11111i11YYarIlr�uu�..>r Fm 1 1 � A fit:.. +.. � .. a ;: � •.. 1. I �, ' paw ILII _-- — —'—_ rr1 m �� 1s��" ��Ii 11 II 1101 11 I I II IIII III Inu Ill VIII ;illi �� ��� �� �I�I� r.� � r �� " °� �f�IJlli iU�'I�I�iLllllllll.� .IWIIIIJIUIjIIUlllll":Il�� r It�iMR u� � AI6 -Slrt IXLI e� : ":'�^�„'=;c.;a'^yC*�_ .sc•"„= ,§ .a`"y:..,>. ... .:'�:' `u�' "�,.- `.`b.-.^ .., '" �' ..I+ '€. ', ^. kU ^ir.-f'_.-.,., ' , SUM IDA � IV �1 C ai IL . - - - k I 6u I A� �� � ��� Tmat 17f7e�fl n mai NATR: ®g , Oil NOUN '� ilii i,� 1 Mill 1"4 IR 1 4111 -oil il �Iri��������, r. I'll pg yo pqyoqy AM : TE, .� .......... ,/.. ,y;.i{iii I ����/I _ y�,�� �-<�.1�` „• r v }sl / 1-jSY ��r-} �� I I,� �u� I.� Iii ,+ '•'� r ' ,�r' ..�- fir•, '. r•'`� �'!„ n1 � � W�,� �r'7 v ie�i�t.- a I �lY� II� r c I;se�Yr9 "`� .cs� .,�ya'?rar Qll;ry�� I rl,, _,• i' }�`A :, \)', � a i RK.�' \�t fil�r�t/ �� / �j �'/� '. . � r 1 � r• u I� ��.< ~�-c 5 ASS+'-� ��- � `�j`• �.�� ' G.. .. s G+lj 1�! � � f./ `L'af;• .�pti` _.II 1 (� �IG :• ;�,,I����:s�>��^—'�) � '�" r b ��dA`.r '�-r � ,.Fy�r �.^Fh�,i,"`� il�; � '/.�� - i �/ �! ' / - Y f�+ I {I���II'uII�III . �IIII� � � � ,a�! I�Illil �"h`«a't�� 1..•"✓_ t r.e (. � � ,i III I r Ai ,� � �. \� I t ._ ��o�,►,���, _ t P J. . I',( � � �' ,jV� il � I �P". I / � M _, � I'��y� `Ir 11 �� - _ I //I �,f, �1�� •\ •:-�+�..'�,►��1�' h lA��.s Yf 7!!c�lJ y� ; /, F l - YS,►,,!, � "'� _ _� ' .�=''"z'r .' :"./Ji �I .s`.:dv .�,'�'S�r.� ' 1 - � � •r= =:. / I jam . J ..'S..f-i+r.'+�`°;i� ._.I��..�o+�a-1L•:•'."'. R'� -. ,� r:., i� ice'" ( •)�. I'{.' S y� f M rx �' ;7 1�lf�i ,/ • �r�% '� <"7r•` 1' " 1, Ih1<[�'�41'�li�G`11t7t1 �I II`II{ti}I�U�Iltrl� IFIiIal A31� {Qv�'�iF r��iL'I 6 Ikd,rl:�.'Ni�1 N411 aS{II,L+IU'rfllNn111..6 q� • >• 1' -i� �. 11 r......� ,. . I ��� .. �� r�� �/ r _a_�.".. .w• I p» I ,�"�'� 'Yj f�I.M�^h,. .IIJ "IJ ���1, 'I 1 �'—�� "�,yIY� ►� � � AII��I I y,.{� ...J.`�� ��"_ ff �� 1� 1�r, '�Y!. I I liy. ^ y�M+,e��a,►rfy.: ` I.r< '�f t�ll t .� �,� I t I:. M,! I 4 llrrrl• 1� rV. � �_+.n /�;"as- .�� ". —AC.ly`/,- ."1 / S s [#!lf i'I(..�' � �w;�;. �l,./%i. �,y',�1�/ r.. �.'.`:ti r I✓y N; '-'�'� '� 41 r; w .•wry < {:y+ r.- T we P We !'!Is Sv At. 'F.,r n f>, ,.. 'I V�u li�l.a�. /�,�. �i'^: I\:r•.+',-'�.l I:'.'I Nhf 'h. _ �I'I:.i yVW.'.� 'J�`�p,,.. �s � . `. 'oi/ /i�;'`,.�„",as � '.���� `fA• .��,Ii.t '�' 1: :� ,�_tf. �'�#v:'i<. � �.rir:. I�' I .t<il ar' � �'I t k�lil ��K' :. iri,.,� � � •\ - -- - j - aw GWOkY ffa- Lao u o�Z wm i i I .a j.i r i LN1A a w i MIS1fit O O - mDI3xoM , i 1 ria CM3 VN Na _ _.._.... . .. .. -rP4 _ i j A P c~ LIveD�-1 .44 ... ... .....1.. ..... .. ......... ........ . .... ....,.. .. ..MIRDFLOO ... .... .... "' mo-. L tAi%A'� ..... &11• k�°g. ... :�. . . .:."RPLAI@' ....,. ... SECOND $ii° ''scr+awa c• <' . ._ T-.. R$ ' �sruaurvr.w? tS �2 - Il�eil�'(13� If�IilAii 11311m11111��111 � � w, a ( ��1� +111II e ..��� t »,lilt Ulla'I�i[elill®Ill�fl 1 II®IIIm1 �� ` � � .,,-, 17111`Illllllllllllllllllllltllllll � I � El __ � I��I v ��1,I�Ir�11111111i7I�'1111111I1�1 IN li�l�til®111:3 II®li. �I n �� , ✓ »sc rt �[ i�!11'}1 l � N ,,i 111 4 Ul p� � II I _( i- r�-' _x - I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 111111111111111111111 © �a-,� � �, �!�IL, I� 11�I��Iupliilluuuq Iununlunuml o sj �, =' ,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIiII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ° ���9i11111111111111 ;11111111;111111111 �.Illillltlll 111111111111111111 ,: I�:f/llltlll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIUIIIL. ..y. _ lilt o �Iilllumunllt[lullun — iii iii —'� li�llhl III I�;, , ® ii IUI®�I®II sum- Il��il I Iw IIS Il i if ° ;,b L1 IP► s Y 6 yr u� wl `r ..,. .:• _ Ft -m ISN "'�,�►' ,�:..; ili,l�?. i.�1�e11 �� . O, +c ( x r rhz•� ''-j,-- hr- 'fie , s w 7 1 ii_�IlevnG� Ills 9 „-- 1 -�'u h It i ils• '� � �� �� "� C"til' w � ➢�-" Yuunonueeuve.n.wus. n '� •7e �"�� I lfllllill!!11lI llill11�1111t1 v �� d51'����" I IlilAlllllllllJ IIIIIIKIII�iiiiJ Yti Ye" 'i' ! �_ �emnin II unnulnnoyl Fit IYr,�"Ill is - IIF»16 Y�1 r';. ICs''Yw i:,y��••� 1111• _� x, i _.. -..: _'__ q _ 0 •m.SY JMAE a r ... . 1 °�� iiMM Um ILIA nul 1��I, Nl��n IILI r^ a _ I mills (61�1u' lil�l� I�I�I� *Ia.IYiu+®u ■IIo I�r�, D Y. I i:ni Ell i -a r—I1PYF -9"11 ' WNW. Isr r 9°51ee�w y Ih Y vx i i A N . wY�1 v " .1 ►�l�ir� `. �. yr fi a . ......... 3� 'll 1 1111 1111!11 11111111 1 ROTS If A NUN - ' , "-PM M-0- t _71P, 't;,-'- P, HEIGHT LIMIT OVERLAY PLAN C -- cDNFOR � � CRAFTSMAN hfAX ROME EFIIECRT uessas m CkOpp4 --_LD 1167------ 1 J _. __ t' I t='rx• a r i a - - M t T i t f z - I RIGHTSIDEEL.EVATIONFRONT E:LF.VATIONMfItU-rv1Ew3 ; ,:: - u: E.](t ERIOp FLF.l 11'1(]ry K_F.1'rv(IT}:4-. dU c 0 PROPOSED NONCONFORMING STAUCT. MGX.414GE(( GRT _ I + -� •!�.: •' ,,,�+��., : ,. MAX C•iWOM 3 GOPI'CI've i VIK I �-t- � r m• I L ' � m' ��tr � I 1 , � r:l � ..f� r� ilk '� I' It. � �,. - ' 1 i , I I RIGH ISIDElq.LVATION .. . : FRONT ELEVATION mini rvim, 1• cmarz • f A-4.2 PAGE ?41 01' 21J° ............. lot �r11r1�1'rrr � 111� �rl'i'�1(.III�Er 111111'11111�� �rMIllli;l'�l,rr �1�1��� JIInL� � l 'u",f";_ lip J ........ T I�A jEy1�lT1E'2y'�y-j �'.• i` i '.SIC E o , r v �1 E .k i j _ ' s 'r I v�,t ai,_� ��'y- ~'1 I iT •rkry7N1�ty I , E; a W M1�I 7�j y K 11 Q DOFPA0. AIRIIAI)ISE I d' �.�. ,f,. COMMONTHYME W0 STRAWBERRY TREE — t� SWORD RN I WWW n wN NANDINA 1 10 I• GPd'Nk 2 � 6RU6E I � ,'. , r : LEMON EOTTLERRUSII MWOOM 2 a( suyv I I 3 1 11YL _ no ��jj .tltt INIfA NAV I --1 - - I INDIAN HAWTHORNS _ ! - _ I - ,,,4E4•. LAsoennnrecrune �_ I � -� I- u^e•n.YlFisK^�, -LumunAuclmLrnu I 1 n_ Lmnrl.u��nc ' L!rQ�(`i , i., I n s K.I:x liSi a LA4W.ABEArILCAf1Ol I - IJ 1 — - IY .l` TLLA IAX�)IInn1�,N1 IIVING � , I LN WA -- PIMW u .l RAST LEGINT-FRIVATKARFAS lMM1EC FfAmlt I `-'� jj ('J ARBIENSU::Eo4 )1' IP1s.1' 14' — — en..,u<rin: � 1 CAL'!STUMCLIMNS 21-h. INV Wis. w casnlnUM Im".1"Molr Lrwx W MI- 0 PA99 --- -- --- - - — — A4ewnlnn !„} ,T � a AxALEAr..v.cn fauL r s �,-.�-zr - "��"'I . 1 . _�fI+��L ! _ ,- : h!'n 1r�• � ';. lW1114Llr111MIin11A P,JIB. iWi1PM.11W., f4Al urtiv { '/L - I 1 • 1 R. � i.l i I, '—_, 11-.10 • A • Y.j '-1 s illt4g4i1/,I mU1M faAL gM1n _.L '/1"�<� � 'ITi 1 -/-- 1 yy e AxAnwaLrs.nP..•,lure. ,,.1 1f. „ `i -AN �'' ; ,,�. jls�. E AN A a wluLnns unr•is fnu n aA,.l _. p" E uL.lma,n PATIO ,TYPICAL• a mnmswL4.iu1 MAI. r ).r PRIVATE YARD PLANTING,TYPICAL PRELIMINARY ' LANDSCAPE PLAN„ PRIVATE YAIt]tIS " IPL-2 0" 41� AVE r 10 kLMI PAIII[KO 'JT w 96.", 5115 tall r QU lqIL "ll PAR mo RL011ji-IF AVE 111 Wr 11. V1111) All.� AUqJAL I 11.1 I'll,CURY F,1 FL ILM-11 W)f rS I 51J.WAGE .YALE rp IIIV 1-tAllirp n all., IVA 11",111 TER MUln"fl' "r, 1P fl;yf PAYzAlfilf I 101,t ole. -1ALr UO/ = YA,M WA(Y. FF z fl-491 FL069 Ts rop STEP DemuffilonSingingNoles: .....I I I.I ................t",4l........... ......... '.0 4 .......... n'' AYIn[1111 [.I..kuh U-114-11-41111 Iyn Ilh.lh 111-4- al DEMULMON FLXN .......... ........ p • 11• TOPOGRAPHIC MAP [W1�41RAU TRACT NO.f 16 SWE JUIE 05 _�O 5515 RIVER AVE. NEVOORT BEACH CA. w O )10 ST _ _ PAGE F 14'!111CQAStS�Jjf-763211ILAYN ,WRMlLI- ZUMC 11. VICHUTY/fouTum "s$110IIIARK X6 IIG%029 OAV Isilt Fence C•7 Storm[hal"inlet Protection C-ill 1f,9s 14 aYn Jelell d V) dd rYf?4Jr, P3 Tn�GJLoll loJyg;t ! I sLrEn :I olaF,r.N� 00 lm1 t♦a %:e.,•`-';:�.`r`r [.1„n a;'a o.`e vi i I i!s�' ® ® Q YF:CI'I0N A.A �] m rN� d � fn W G 94 Atee '( / `'�rl}/(K .,/� J �S'd(' O f'. � ❑ 1 IJ F.1\9]5 f]' Q )lee..: 9]r: � . >f -a, I ._ 11rty • we ",n.rwo n5,( n3nr (�l♦Il � ��� eR \\! l ]!§I%(H• � jt .s �d u I J fci(rf 4) ;;\ ;P9:f,G'I,Rrt� .G P- 6/ �+Y(/ At1� I l — ✓•— � I �S ' )J '[nlranoo/outlet Tire Wash TC-3 " �. �� " '>v '• rs� � +- _ <I r t r:r a ��� P. r„ Y 9 Fi'✓ \ J �It'wl'��.�t f+lcr(n:!'•,' n0�r I i r 1# 't- �,.� ��' Io.N rs loll ♦\I I SanUba9 Ofer arr m� V �J A)iO fP'lYl I.nV _» h.Lz-IydlVilE It`I Po4 SyCdCdS4' ?94''dLr s'/ carr c_ e.JTisis _ ❑veuu e 1.,. ConsfTuMon tilaUr ne N0lpt: •;t( i�l Il II 1l,rb efr n' d� I tf.a d !,➢ uvt,4lmA.l,run4uea.Wtl.Ifr e,IJemM`1u""" ��1 SEASHORE O f f� r.. t lnrl,W KEvv ICES ... ...... . / .✓� :: ... I lt[ la p ua4r up n Jv.'IP .. IFe Y ( N`I f le.Slllpi. ... ��_ 9)91 IM1 l a 5IId': o= l t d S f as { ... .. /...... ......... ...I..! , � ... ... . .. . If , M 1 , v4 pin / ...,. .-. a rW t He t 1 e, , a IJb iF 16'•5 f.{1Un 11 7 IAPo1 a, 4(F[ muvap r,ly.U,Jiep enr/j.11 er.[ _. A f M1<e 'v' la°eT�M —_777777777777 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE 124 Attachment No. PC 7 Proposed Modified Plans (Echo Beach) 125 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE 120 CS Cover Sheet CS 1 Existing Map SP A Site Development Plan SP Al Site Plan Comparison SP B Approved Site Plan CS 2 Big Idea / Project Summary Zoning & Planning Comparison CS 3 Color & Materials Concept CS 4 River Avenue Street Scene CS 5 Elevation Comparison CS 6 Plan Comparison 1.OA Floor Plan - Plan 1A 1.013 Floor Plan - Plan 1B 1.0C Floor Plan - Plan IC 1.1 Elevations & Sectioion Plan l 1.1A Elevations - Plan 1 (ENHANCED) 77, 20A Floor Plan - Plan 2A r ' 2.013 Floor Plan - Plan 213 2.1 Elevations - Plan 2 - 2.1A Elevations - Plan 2 (ENHANCED) 22 Section - Plan 2 3.OA Floor Plan - Plan 3A 3.013 Floor Plan - Plan 3B 3.1 Elevations - Plan 3 3.1A Elevations - Plan 3 (ENHANCED) ®� 32 Section - Plan 3 NEWPORT EEACH, CALIFORNIA LEq OWNER, LLC 1-1.0 Conceptual Landscape Plan L1.1 Paseo Enlargements JUCILLA ROUP ROUTECTURE 19]81 MWUv.ylv 1W Wm GYAl2 1R 99Bfl49� .1M 9K61.%I] ozo„e„rnucx«r.ac]zec�va,,xc 127 r Ll LAS BRISAS APTS 54 UNITS c EXISTING MAP LAS BRISAS APARTMENTS UcLU Nota,±016 XON NEWPORT BEACH , CALIFORNIA xcxdtEcm� vme ai omueucw.cnoi*.,warrtrn�vs.mc 128 IkLTM IMI %w s. `` � ..\ 'ti r' �.,�`� ��t ���� _ ��� �:."11� 1.�,�/J 1.�€. �� r����'lllll ��• isl�, 11111�� �� R':yr'�.i ^,'-• �� r �7�`I,—iCi�SiiiE■ � � E •. e� iiiil �V;, a �• ��, �ee:eee..��.e.�a6C�l:6C'CGSC' i • - �I�� �- ., ;I,a !�� .li � �� � � �� i[!i5 1 C61'� t 1 aa{{ .5iai��e�� fppf ee s _ EEgiS� �I r _ � •� � \ .. '_ �'.- �I SIV � .,...aL`�/, a2..0- wniiia////H///.O/iii///.d �II�i I '�5i5i'Ii- E7 ,. 1 rN • A Maintain if Mai Site Plan Notese . , , • ' Door identitytoward street or .aseo - `!` �,- ♦. /yV� i '� - �- 1 � I�� ��pim �1.�®fir; 1'C C Front v' ► / tar �' IFJ 1-/ • existing E These homes shifted orientation to match neighborhood .. , tTandem garages and carports F 2 car garages for all units rather than n�.e. �— * Remove drive cut and .d r. space r T * Greater Open Space at interior of projectI Coastal Access+ _e ' Access � g p J Open Space Area 3,004 sf Enhanced Elevations 1 i ' d _ 1-1 I OLA ( I) In! II1I I r •. .•�' E' tF .�Ss.' I/?.j 6 Dt P EX TS I N,I sSCAn�um -HaS rl..r1'YSf AI —YAVI\5•Tttlt:a ti {. N L k I.• G I' ffi R f_ .p 1 S A S M O R E APPROVED SITEPLAN 17 lt...+ai'- i. -.-c�l^+V"y�{y>f5t X53'- j� .i:H r° -� -t:�+;�✓a+.r.:-1+!f. _ W ,. �.. �°.�....� C A• I � ;1 r.M1 J.,� u....::,v �G2 >.j a�.ss'sC..7' i"Y Q a�IS EEO RIVER AVE. •�4� ' fiC'1 r •;,. 1T1 IT:I 1T i� i7: 15"� I 1'✓"`1 III,) MT) 'f�)ITe) �E v 13'. 11 f5 16 f7 $ 3 r f fa lk D * NEPTUNE AV I. Q �� 1 \��� \.�.. a • LT I,I � I � 1j r' n � I � ��� J�� 1 � _.Y•.�5 rHro ajS lAl�r, i F— i cn a I I' 6 5 < 3 •Z I I m , � ��. . __•` -tea— ray (/� PROPOSED SITEPLAN J 1 � SITE PLAN COMPARISON 100 IMP a MICRO rmtjclLLA Mar 25,2014 VROUP o Is 32 NEWPORT BEACH, CALMFO RNMA RCHITECTURE m LBq OWNER, LLC 13033 SP-Al u 130 L R IV CK A V E. d _ 1 r ' H6DL�U TS L r-umnc cewvEl...fYPECw PnvIK;,R7TSCAL C7QLIIPA N EPI, J X qa u - r � 5 E A S N O R ER I V o - r .E SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ¢ SEASHORE VILLAGE wrnmixu ILI NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA = Row o JJ RCHRECELRE mwll ffa 7 OMIJW UG0.0 na R M me L 131 Zoning and Planning Comparison Development side in Retaliated Approved Proposed EIIeUetnmuor Approval Seaahara Vlgage Echo aearh lnl Slae 5.000 sl 1.49 az 166.906 sp 1.69 ac 166.906 sp Project Summary No Lot Sure Per Unit 1,200 sl 2,704 at 2,704 sl Max Floor Area Umll 1.75(72,133 et) IM(50,706a0 124(Si J) The Newport Village project was approved by the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission and City sF<ceageviavileaae Are,. Council in lune 2008. The project was subsequently approved by the CCC with five special conditions Semgcxa October 2008. Subsequent permit extensions and State of California legislative extensions for the approved Front samacks Tentative Tract Maps,make the approvals valid thru November 2016. Seashota Avenue 20' Ir to 12 lo- River Avenue zo' 10.to 1S• 10The project description includes demolition of existing 54-unit apartment complex.and new construction for Side setwrxd west 26• to-t01Y 10' a 24 mit condominium development. East 25' to Maximum Height are ween I 3 surge Approvals issued by the City of Newport Beach include MND—Mitigated Negative Declaration. TCM— Plan A SFR 25'6'Mapelm/a1•wepe ta'nt'wapdm/31'-1C Rape Tentative Tract Map, MP-Modified Permit,UP-Use Permit,CRDP—Coastal Residential Development L Plan B SFR aspen M omiln 131W wage W-T Maparm/ar an Rage Permit,and an AIC—Approval In Concept for the architecture. Pli SFR z0'.1g'Mklrolrll/a1's Rbpe 3P9-MgpontIV.11-ledge Min I lsbnce,notation 6Mgs 10• s 6' The project was recently purchased by LB9 Owners LLC,and they intend to develop the project in substantial Min open Space 247,313mft 675.615 muit 559,768 cusp conformance with the original development approval. This project package is intended to highlight the paeormxan4eemdmsc281 similarities and differences between the original Seashore Village approval and the proposed'-Echo Beach" MuszwurmwMdxwc tpza. project This will allow the city to review and determine that"Echo Beach"is in substantial conformance Parking with the original approvals. L Resident(z per unit) 68 seams; 46 spares d8 spam; 12 single carports 24 2 ter garages T 12 single garages 12-2 w garages Guest(05 unit) 12 spaces 15 spaces 14 spaces Total (oX.suretprrking, cases. 63 spans 62 spaces' The Big Idea Additional lnrormalion Approved Proposed Neighborhood Design provides for 24 detached residences that blend into the existing neighborhood fabric of Seaetmre Village Echo Beach • p L raw units 24 24 footprints and rooftops,along with maximizing front and side yard patios for all units. The plotting opens up the Duplex 1.no at site and significantly reduces Homeowner Association Fees related to the original proposal. Duplex 1'm6'I Buildins Desiw incorporates 3 Detached foot rents for the 24 residences,with front door identity facing Si Wt nemched 2.075 s1 ' Ice p ty l small Lot oetedha d 2.797 M 2.653 ib street edges and walkways,but without the use of attached Duplexes or Carports. small Lot Detained 3.248 at a.nnM • le is characterized with Water r Drive cele warn 1. Architectural po spry tare of stucco,stone,siding and 2x. Architectural Design The Modem S metal accents and applications,along use of glass railings at patios and decks. In addition,specific lots will have - Building Footprint 351(23as7 v) US%(22.457 sp enhanced materials applied to elevations that view onto public streets and spaces. Paving 35.4%(23.157 so 27.3%(17,7510) Walkwav Connectivity Sidewalks along River Avenue and Seashore Drive provide connectivity to from doors of landscaping 28.2%(189900) 37.1%(24,176 sp 20 residences while an internal walkway off River Avenue provides connectivity to the remaining 4 residences. In unit-From Door Identity Farling side Yates Facing Sannor 8 Papers; addition,the walkZaay from Neptune Avenue thm to Seashore is maintained. Front Yard Patio at 18 units at 24 units • Auto Cunneetivily Neptune Avenue remains connected from the East,along with the thin connection to River Side Yard use y 10 units at 24 tuned Avenue to the North. Garages are accessed off Neptune Avenue and three(3)auto courts,which allows for the Pleasure, i. Per Senbn 2o.10.30(M),200 sl of foci area psi required park'mg devoted to endosetl parking sM1all rotbe building character and open space to be the dominant edge facing streets. In addition. this she plan included in tiro calwMflan or gross floor arei eliminates one driveway cut along River Avenue which will provide for one(1)additional public parking 2. Bimimted 12 pairs M tandem garage/own spaces space on River Avenue. 3 Added 1 on-Mram parking spam on River Avenue as existing driveway is being removed. BUCILLA GROUP ARCHITECTURE Mu 3.31114 Roi NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Rewr6emRE LB9 OWNER, LLC O3ala aYCIW CFeI.P nIIp1nECT@CMC C 132 CrWall Wood& Metal Accent Metal Fmme/Post with LT Panels Glass Ratlmg Glass Insert at W-0"oe ' Exterior Lights Entry Style Future 4. Smooth Slidin Glass Nano Doors or Glass Stucco Light to Beige Colors Doom Sliding System up l0 13'-. Wood Gate 3G60 Gate with Open 0 Wide Opening Slats Siding Natural Stain Finish with -- Articulated Horimntal "-+c:_ 6x6 Metal Post/Cap at g Comer bd —_.__-_ _ Windows Mullions Garden Walls 6-0"oc with lx6x6 !: - -- Wood Slat Inserts _ Plotted at Entry to Auto 's Stone Blended Grey/Beige . ' _ Metal Roof 18"Rib W/Closed \\ `,,. Vegetative Courts and Along River Stones Glascd Soffit .\\ \ \ �� '* Screen Wail Avcnue for Privacy Separation 3068 Door Wood Soffit - 16070 Metal Rall Plotted Between Units From Door Above Garage Door ne Vegetative Alon Interior Walkway Door with Glass Panels Screen Wall S y - for Privacy Separation COLOR & MATERIAL CONCEPTS NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA LBg OWNER, LLC ,wu at ❑ Q301i BYCT.Iw GROLPMCXRCCN0.[p'C C 133 ■ 11-2 �1 _ 41ILLi L'N Er-1 e■� Ia a I m I es i Tr ELEVATION I RIVER RMT F- �o t c aMis APPROVED DUPLEX c C - I n n c LOT 24 LOT 23 ELEVATION COMPARISON mw u,m,a �a ° 'ma NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA RCHITECfLRE LBq OWNER, LLC O0'1 as 7 0MIi 9YCM1NY0.OMA0.dII[CM1MLPC. C 23� ❑ [ TEMD LEVEL THIRD LEVEL I lo SECOND LEVEL SECOND LEVEL --- FIRST LEVEL FI ST LEVEL APPROVED PROPOSED 6-DUPLEX UNITS 11-SFD UNITS (12 UNITS TOTAL) ARCH. PLAN COMPARISON lm �� � WCILL, + NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Bc1iltEctu ❑ m LBg OWNER, LLC uun ac amaurnu caow rnc,mcavas.mc. [ 13O 7 � I m�'z 00 301 I,Vv nv R row _ m 3:12 iLf Ni ROOF PLAN THIRD LEVEL SECOND LEVEL FIRST LEVEL 651 SF 698 SF 326 SF GARAGE 400 SF PLAN 1A 1,675 SF (UNIT 14, 18,19,2))��11,,�y�,22&24) n , DBMS' 1 S 10 10®V'+1 ' aCH CTURE mm u.aala m" NEWPORT REACH, CALIFORNIA L89 OWNER, LLC awe to ®x:�eurnucxoverxcmerxnn¢mc -T I �1f-1 7 _ m um r 5.12 m a j I,J f oe ea.w on �� mp ROOF PLAN THIRD LEVEL SECOND LEVEL FIRST LEVEL 651 SF 698 SF 326 SF GARAGE 400 SF PLAN 1B 19675 SF (UNIT 15, 16,&23) B 9"M ocai.. ewss,mla nc�a'rx'rurse NEWPORT BEACH, CAL4F0 RNIA m L&9 OWNER, LLC O01d vx JmNuOLTRucxgAMCXIRRIINEMC Ise � C D12 � Muo.: wY� II�'II m Y i 1l 1 Il � ae i i ° 312 �I ROOF PLAN THIRD LEVEL SECOND LEVEL FIRST LEVEL 646 SF 686 SF 323 SF GARAGE 400 SF I I I 0 i PLAN 1C 11655 SF (UNIT 11 & 13) �1 V CYS®' IMAM A�:d� i�¢t3 CLL4 M1mr 3.]ON ROOT NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 0.CHREC L39 OWNER, LLC O:OIa eVO1lAG0.04P MCMtERVPCPC C 139 ] C aose ¢IGNr slue �> >0 MI IN IFF j I I I j I i i I I i a I — I J I j I MUFF j I CROSS SECTION FRONT ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION I Rlaf IEWT 3M11d MIDPOINT iA ;;i i i 11 l i I LE - I 9o� ! REAR ELEVATION LEFT SIDE ELEVATION PLAN I - ELEVATIONS ROOF PLAN UCILLA Mu^3.3W4 ROLL NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA RCHRECNRE l m LBq OWNER, LLC f m�i+evrnuexavei.xexrreenmcme �1 wee pem3"'v b No Ix Ir I M i I 0 CROSS SECTION FRONT ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION i RIGGe HusmT>r-To- 3.12 i m �i 362 i REAR ELEVATION LEFT SIDE ELEVATION PLAN 1 ENHANCED ELEVATIONS ROOF PLAN (UNITS 1133 & 14) UOLLMat3.3o1< ROUP A ° NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Rc9uiECNRE m LBq OWNER, LLC umx tN ❑ mx°i.e:;/rn/ucawmnacwrern.Rc,mc -T 1 � C 5:12 3.12 low >x - o low O .. 000 5:,1 cl e - �,a i ROOF LEVEL THIRD LEVEL SECOND LEVEL T LEVEL 705 SF 959 SF 589 SF GARAGE 400 SF PLAN 2A 2,253 SF (UNIT 7,8&9) 112- n RMT My 35.W 14 ul NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Ra�'fERU� LB9 OWNER, LLC 7a ®,oueurnuaaarenaan,srnmvwc C 21 C o oao �re aix Nx .va 3.12 312 l���F`Tl� v ROOF LEVEL TIURD LEVEL SECOND LEVEL FIRST LEVEL 705 SF 959 SF 589 SF GARAGE 400 SF PLAN 2B 2,253 SF (UNIT 17&20) a� myss.zms ��� NEWPORTCALIFORNIA L3 9OWNER, LLC Jqao:.eucw.creaurnuxmrn:aemc 143 71— mmol m f 11 T 5.12 FRONT RIGHT SIDE llo�e M.4 32'-P MIDMINT L=:=j ROOF PLAN w�=i 11 PEAR LEFT SIDE PLAN 2 ELEVATIONS M MIME NEWPORT BEACH, CALRFORNIA L89 OWNER, LLC 7 I i i i * o i r y '71i I FRONT RIGHT SIDE 3;12 j OtQ i mom Husmi 92w R OPOMT M I I j ROOF PLAN ! I I REAR LEFT SIDE PLAN 2 ENHANCED ELEVATIONS _ mom@ BEH lux.u�[ctv>iE o e NEWPORT BEACH. CALOFORNIA m LB9 OWNER. LLC iw» iu Oza:z wcw�/.cao�+.xcwrecnxc.mc i— 11 Qe MIMINT GEIX M2 i I CROSS SECTION ROOFPLAN PLAN 2 SECTION M0310 BRACE UQL� M.M.M14 ftON NEWPORT REACH, CALIFORNIA L89 OWNER, LLC 1 C x; BTO 0 LOT 3 _ ONLY 311 vw' ev uveae ao ® sm o POI I I iSm w i I I o �I IL. h oI I I LI �I'I Illi II II ROOF LEVEL THIRD LEVEL SECOND LEVEL FIRST LEVEL 850 SF 1112 SF 741 SF PLAN 3A GARAGE 29703 SF 41ISF (UNIT 1,2,3,4,5&6) n+yn.?au �u ROGT NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA RCuaBQSPIDRE m LBq OWNER, LLC 1°0" sup J CONH BtKM1U4ROlTNtCxIR.L�iME1NC �1 / ❑ E * mow STO Q LOT 9 � ONLY o v r 7 --xJKE m mww° I' 7 7 en I ii I� 1�� � IIS Ill l,li m �.r � I i � � VIII III�I - F i i _ 'SII"I li I'I I ROOF LEVEL THIRD LEVEL SECOND LEVEL •� 850 SF 1112 SF PLAN 3B , T 741 SF 2J03 SF Gia i1 SF (UNIT 10&12) q� nm,u,xaia NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Cll1TECfU� 1.89 OWNER, LLC om�+ecmueaauvuxxeevavacne 21 � I I WDKIRT I * ® ® I i I I o ' 13 3.12 � I _ i FRONT ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION I RmoE NAR RIGHT II I I I ® ® I I i I I I II II i i i J i ROOF PLAN REAR ELEVATION LEFT SIDE ELEVATION PLAN 3 ELEVATIONS MOIN BRASH- X15.2114 u AcnlRr: NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA LBq OWNER, LLC Oaoveurn/�anaw.v nxOmtci,memc �l� * IIS RmGE ma HEIGHT n-.-0 � w ' I i ws�a srrx 77? I InT X� i i L. L allm-4 CROSS SECTION I - ROOF PLAN PLAN 3 SECTION koL u nwu.wu rto�m NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA BCwT6vNRE LB, OWNER, LLC owu evrnucaomarzcxnc�vccmc. 2�� MmPotNT wv SIX 13 - ----------:atx -------- FRONT ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION 'L-e F=7 77 --------- -_ _ -- -_ I I 6 -� ,tt ROOF PLAN -------- ROOFPLAN REAR ELEVATION LEFT SIDE ELEVATION PLAN 3 ENHANCED ELEVATIONS hLtx5.x016 Molls B NEWPORT BEACH, CALEFORNIA twalL. LB9 OWNER, LLC PROPOSED P"PALETTE RIVER AVE. ` TIUS W PALMS NAGB.OMa° .,,era.. a.aaa ua °"VaV i'..fr r�♦Y - r.� ryA - - �R: .N.. ..1..1 .4. y . `1 xmm�.w.ew x�mm�uwonr a. ua 4 I "J - 1 aanaa.mumr aaniwlaww 1f. 131 '171 �0� %2) — nnaanwamnw nmwa Ii � AnIMM[P.ell Y.WtYa N4 SHRUBS:^ �; ate' . �, �•; ,. . . '� 1 _� � urnm.,.0 mwaua PERIMETERaMREWDENMLOMMAaa6 i rrw--��r� ronuu.n ua 1 t_. (24) WEST NEWPORT PARK \ C9NEPTUNE AVE. ��.n a W 1 gwuenun o.0 rNgxm�an fl �'/^n 4 abuwW°nrWua nuAPVYNf Il V ' � - . ��V EB 9 i .�, a. •u.�mnmu a°LL°anrOYF.o�.rw m Q COMMTR ITIWMCONMONARFA.4: Y a caa".fl.a .n v ' _ (7) - caTo.uuvxan u _ �5,) l4) .r ATERQUAMBASMUd WAMROArB1EN 0 r ^ _. �• j. cwwa'mna°' .vowe.mu is LL t — �`� onauxma u I:ml �r• o�n.nu .n Z • y is SEASHORE DRIVE ^� � n FVii.! nw�rsnunnu ra Landscape Documentation Package Note: Z Ab sow° mnmtian W"pbrunpq°a.ppa tftmutr.°mw a wbn6mEmge qy aNewy%I Beall Ps °nlbevGbn 4.l olme Wabr r [G / DO I (l� l/ / l05CMEABEAE ELS 2.500 B.F.aWlSSUBXcTm � / NH.MC.11.11'WATEft EFFIgFNFLWUSUPEOf101NAnLE` Preliminary Planting&Irrigation Concept Statement � - 1. PmvW em�q.,"aa.a mw m.m,ew...mMeuP.q.nmyae.gnwNeB T� - i. - �{ � / - Inmryor.le.menY MnLrv..Ne.Mwaler wnNnpp pent ype. . )4 /� z. PmWae.reaeyagaau.lea.un.w..lae..mro,m,um.n 2dwnnl l s. Tne bnasnpa lmpelwn en.gn»m eo°eaymamgwue m°masl nnlonm a,° FLOWERING VINES PRIVACY SCREENS THEME WALLS TURFBLOCK COBBLE PRECAST PAVERS PERVIOUS PARKING I S�:ti'Y 1�J( A �"�'� / 1. alleMsupo nP�ovemenmwAl meecuarepuuemenn mnml„camuw qy ul r�' 1 5. lM CaaepluallarM.upe%en Ms° en"pv bye 2¢IeR LeMuM Water Quality Best Management Practices(B.M.P.) t.;' - �... °. PlenUnO enaeluw Men iadpn.l.a lnm O.NNwpO hype.HwdM1 �i.. - paWpmaMNm Um bMewpawa.al.nwrpouide. 2. 8.R 0 h,ebArxletl Nm mebMswPoareaem reroM.aneunl enom aw.b�ph.n.. �. Roor°ow»pau°aNblilwl'ax mel.Msupa°rw wfiemnM 1Ha. WATER CONSERVING PLANTS ORNAMENTAL GRASSES RAIN GARDENS at PRIVATE YARDS COLOREOCONCRETE PERVIOUS PAVERS ECHO BEACH PLANNED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD NEWPORT BEACH, CA CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN L1.0 MJS Design Group �������IJ��� --// OWNER, /`� Lnnary Lo6v M l�� RIVER AVE. n c NEPTUNEAVE 17 �~ 20: r_ I a u � c c u 4 — — G 1 C < f NEPTUNE AVE. SEASHOREgRIVE 0 u SOUTH PASEO ENLARGEMENT NORTHPASEOENLARGEMENT wn�llQwe 0 SUCCULENTS SMALL SHRUBS GROUNDCOVER ORNAMENTALGRPSSES PORTALTREWS PATH LIGHTNG BENCH BIIOERACK PRNACYBCREFH COLORED CONCRETE ECHO BEACH PLANNED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD NEWPORT BEACH,CA PASEO ENLARGEMENTS 1.1.1 OWNER, �-\ u,rs a44n040 11117 FE64U/,0.T f�,i01P f P R 1C [� SSC0.LE:Vf�LJ iaya.s;y INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE 15 Attachment No. PC 8 Addendum to Adopted MND 155 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE 150 ADDENDUM TO THE: ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (FORMER SEASHORE VILLAGE) SCH NO. 2008021075 prepared fora CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Contact Mr. Jaime Murillo Senior Planner prepared by: PLACEWORKS Contact: Elizabeth Kim Associate MARCH12014 ADDENDUM TO THE: ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (FORMER SEASHORE VILLAGE) SCH NO. 2008021075 prepared for: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City of Newport Beach Contact: 100 Civic Center Drive Mr. Jaime Murillo Newport Beach, CA 92660 Senior Planner 949-644-3209 prepared by: PLACEWORKS 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Contact: Santa Ana, CA 92707 Elizabeth Kim Tel: 714.966.9220 •Fax: 714.966.9221 Associate E-mail: information@planningcenter.com Website: www.planningcenter.com CNB-16.OE MARCH �Q ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Table of Contents Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................1 1.1 BACKGROUND,PURPOSE,AND SCOPE..................................................................................................1 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES............................................................................................................1 1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION.................................................................................................2 2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .........................................................................................................5 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION .......................................................................................................................................5 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING.......................................................................................................................5 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION.............................................................................................................13 3.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................................13 3.2 MODIFIED PROJECT DESCRIPTION......................................................................................................21 3.3 EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN........................................................................................23 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST..................................................................................................43 4.1 BACKGROUND...................................................................................................................................................43 4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED...........................................................45 4.3 DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY).........................................45 4.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS................................................................................46 5. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.....................................................................................................49 5.1 AESTHETICS................._.._.._.._.._.._.._...........................................................................................................49 5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES.........................................................................................52 5.3 AIR QUALITY.....................................................................................................................................................55 5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES..........................................................................................................................60 5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES...............................................................................................................................63 5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS.-... ...........................................................................................................................66 5.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS...............................................................................................................70 5.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS..........................................................................................74 5.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY...................................................................................................78 5.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING......................................................................................................................82 5.11 MINERAL RESOURCES..................................................................................................................................85 5.12 NOISE....................................................................................................................................................................86 5.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING..................................................................................................................89 5.14 PUBLIC SERVICES............................................................................................................................................91 5.15 RECREATION....................................................................................................................................................93 5.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC....................................................................................................................94 5.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS........................................................................................................97 5.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE..................................................................................100 6. LIST OF PREPARERS................................................................................................................103 7. REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................105 Mnnb 2014 Page i 259 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Table of Contents List of Figures Figure Pale Figure1 Regional Location.................................................................................................................................7 Figure2 Local Vicinity.........................................................................................................................................9 Figure3 Aerial Photograph...............................................................................................................................11 Figure 4 Approved Project Site Plan...............................................................................................................15 Figure 5 Approved Project SF Building Elevations......................................................................................17 Figure 6 Approved Project Duplex Building Elevations.............................................................................19 Figure 7 Modified Project Site Plan.................................................................................................................25 Figure 8a Modified Project Building Elevations (1 of 2) ...............................................................................27 Figure 8a Modified Project Building Elevations (2 of 2)...............................................................................29 Figure 8b Modified Project Building Elevations (1 of 2)...............................................................................31 Figure 8b Modified Project Building Elevations (2 of 2)...............................................................................33 Figure 8c Modified Project Building Elevations (1 0£2)...............................................................................35 Figure 8c Modified Project Building Elevations (2 of 2)...............................................................................37 Figure9 Visual Simulation................................................................................................................................39 Figure 10 Conceptual Landscaping Plan...........................................................................................................41 List of Tables Table Page Table 3-1 Approved Project and Modified Project Comparison Development Summary......................22 Table 5-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants.................................................................56 Page ii PlaceForks 100 1 . Introduction 1.1 BACKGROUND, PURPOSE, AND SCOPE This document is an addendum to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (Adopted MND), State Clearinghouse Number (SCH) 2008021075, for the approved Seashore Village residential project (Approved Project,now known as Echo Beach residential project) and serves as the environmental review for the Echo Beach residential project (Modified Project), as required pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and the State CEQA Guidelines. Notice of Determination (NOD) for the Approved Project was posted with the County of Orange Clerk-Recorder on February 19,2008. Pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach (City) is the Lead Agency charged with the responsibility of deciding whether or not to approve the requested action. This Addendum addresses minor changes to the Approved Project. 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES Pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the Addendum focuses on the proposed change in project design and site layout and any change in circumstances or new information of substantial importance, which might cause a change in the conclusions of the Adopted MND. Pursuant to Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, when an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent FIR or negative declaration shall be prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines that one or more of the following conditions are met: • Substantial project changes are proposed that will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; • Substantial changes would occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that require major revisions to the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;or • New information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous FIR was certified or the negative declaration was adopted shows any of the following. A The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous FIR or negative declaration. Marcb 2014 Page 1 161 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1. Introduction B Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than identified in the previous EIR. C Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. D Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment,but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. Where none of the conditions specified in Section 15162 are present, the lead agency must determine whether to prepare a supplement to the EIR, an addendum, or no further CEQA documentation (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162[b]). An addendum is appropriate where some minor technical changes or additions to the previously adopted negative declaration are necessary, but there are no new or substantially greater potentially significant impacts. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the City has determined that an Addendum to the Adopted MND is the appropriate environmental clearance for the Modified Project. This Addendum reviews the changes proposed by the Modified Project and any changes to the existing conditions that have occurred since the Adopted MND was adopted. It also reviews any new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with exercise of reasonable diligence at the time that the Adopted MND was adopted. It further examines whether, as a result of any changes or any new information, a subsequent MND may be required. This examination includes an analysis of the provisions of Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines and their applicability to the Modified Project. This Addendum relies on use of the attached Environmental Analysis, which addresses environmental checklist issues section by section. The City of Newport Beach Environmental Checklist Form has been completed by the City and included in Section 4. The checklist includes findings as to the environmental effects of the Modified Project in comparison with the findings of the Adopted MND. 1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION This Addendum relies on the environmental analysis in the Adopted MND. The public review period for the Adopted MND was from February 20, 2008 to March 20,2008. The City of Newport Beach City adopted the Adopted MND on June 10,2008 and filed the NOD on June 11, 2008 with the County of Orange Clerk- Recorder and the State Clearinghouse, approving the following entitlements. • Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007-001 (County Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 17194). Request to approve a tentative tract map for condominium purposes, creating 24 air- space condominium units for individual sale. • Modification Permit No. MD2007-044. Request to reduce the minimum building separation distance requited by the MFR zoning designation from 10 feet to 6 feet and to reduce the Page 2 PlaceWorks 102 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1. Introduction minimum front setback distances along Seashore Drive and River Avenue required by the MFR zoning designation from 20 feet to 10 feet. A modification permit for a 10-foot and 4-foot side setback where the MFR zone requires 25 feet based on lot width. • Use Permit No. UP2007-011. Request to exceed the midpoint height limitation of 28 feet for the duplex structures by 1 foot and 6 inches, whereas the maximum permitted ridge height of 33 feet would not be exceeded. • Coastal Residential Development Permit (CRDP).Required to ensure compliance with California Government Code Section 65590 et. Seq. and Chapter 20.86 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code for projects located within the Coastal Zone. • Coastal Development Permit (CDP). Coastal Development Permits are obtained through the California Coastal Commission and are generally required for improvements, demolition, or construction of any structure located within the Coastal Zone boundary. This Addendum incorporates by reference the Adopted MND and the technical documents that relate to the Modified Project or provide additional information concerning the environmental setting of the Modified Project. The information disclosed in this Addendum is based on the Adopted MND for the approved Seashore Village residential project and the related technical appendices contained therein. The Adopted MND/IS and the related documents are available for review at the City of Newport Beach Planning Division office, 100 Civic Center Drive,Newport Beach, CA 92660. Marcb 2014 Page 9 Jos ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1. Introduction Thi j age int.-ntronaldy dft blank. Page 4 PlaceWorkr 104 2. Environmental Setting 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION The project site is located at 5515 River Avenue in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. The project site is generally bordered by River Avenue to the north, Seashore Drive to the south residential units,including vacation rentals,to the east,and a City-owned park to the west. Figure 1, Regional Location, and Figure 2, Local Vicinity, show the location of the project site in the regional and local context of Orange County and Newport Beach,respectively. 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 2.2.1 Existing Land Use The approximately 1.49-acre project site (APN No. 424-471-03) is relatively flat and has a trapezoidal shape. The project site is currently developed with a 54-unit apartment complex (Las Brisas Apartments) (see Figure 3,Aerial Photograph). The main building of the Las Brisas Apartment is an L-shaped,three-story building with carports on the first level. Other associated uses include a swimming pool, paved parking area, and planters. The project site is currently accessed via two driveways on River Avenue. Access from and to Seashore Drive and Neptune Avenue is blocked by a wooden fence. 2.2.2 Surrounding Land Use The project site is surrounded by residential uses,including vacation rental units to the north, south, and east, and a city park to the west. The West Newport Park is located immediately west of the project site and is equipped with a play area, water fountains, tennis courts, racquetball courts, a basketball half court, and restroom facilities. The Pacific Ocean is one block to the southwest, less than 200 feet from the project site, and the Pacific Coast Highway runs adjacent to the residential properties to the north, behind an alley and an approximately nine-foot tall block wall. Marcb 2014 Page 5 105 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Environmental Setting Tbis page int.-ntronally l�blank. Page 6 PlaceWorks 100 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 1 - Regional Location fuez� 2. Environmental Setting U •Artesia ^Buena Park gFullerton et • PlacentieAtwood (91)eLakewood Cerritos ,Domin 'La Palma - • L S JI1J3les 9 NZ , Hawaiian Gardens C unty rs� .Cypress *Villa Park OSignal Hill 'Los Alamitos - -, -.;St, •Orange Park Acres � eRossmoor _ rangezz C22) • •Cowan Heights ong Beach •Tustin Foothills v -— ;:Westminster *Lemon Heights Santa Ana 4ch aMidway City eTustin \ \4M \ Fon •n aIle ✓ n e \ OHO u �y 13 ine \ inti)gtc Beac is e e osta A�rle t 73 1 } La rna ills Missi Vie \ 'Emerald By "Laguna Beach Laguna Niguel • Cl ,South Laguna Dana Point I Pacific Oceant Capistran`a Desch 0 5 Source:PlaceWorks,2014;ESRI,2014 Scale(Miles) March 2014 PlaceWorks 207 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Environmental Setting Tbis page int.-ntronally l�blank. Page 8 PlaceWorks 102 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 2 - Local Vicinity 2. Environmental Setting I I I I j I j I j I I j I j Unincorporated Orange County I j `` •`••\'\• ` v' ^'a. '� i` Newport w'Ox,K •\ ?p Beach — — — — Project Boundary —••—•-- City Boundary o 500 Source:PlaceWorks,2014;ESRI,2014 Scale March 2014 PlaceWorks 10J ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Environmental Setting Tbis page int.-ntronally l�blank. Page 10 PlaceWorks 27L) ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 3 -Aerial Photograph 2. Environmental Setting ` o — i \i • ..�`a West --;; ' .� Newport Park Residential • Residential F•, 7 c. Residential , P � 1 — Project Boundary — —. City Boundary o 200 Scale(Feet) Google Earth Pro,2014 March 2014 PlacelF/arkr 272 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Environmental Setting Tbis page int.-ntronally l�blank. Page 12 PlaceWorks 272 3. Project Description 3.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND The Approved Project involved development of 12 single-family detached units and 6 duplex units, for a total of 24 units on a 1.49-acre site at 5515 River Avenue in Newport Beach.See Figure 4,Approved Project Site Plan. The Approved Project was to be completed in four phases: 1) asbestos abatement, 2) building demolition; 3) site grading; and 4) building construction. The Approved Project anticipated a balanced site with no import or export of soils. During the building construction phase, the Approved Project was to be completed in three subphases and two building styles—Craftsman and Plantation. Four floor plans ranged in size from 1,770 square feet to 3,248 square feet, including attached garages, patios, and decks. Figures 5 and 6, Approved Prject Building Elevations, illustrate building styles for the Approved Project. The 24 units totaled gross floor area of 50,7061 square feet and a floor area limit of 1.23. The maximum ridgeline height ranged from 31 feet to 31 feet 6 inches, and the maximum midpoint height ranged from 25 feet 6 inches to 28 feet 10 inches. The single- family units would front Seashore Drive,and duplex units would front River Avenue. Access and Parking Access to the project site was to be provided by two driveways on River Avenue and a driveway from Neptune Avenue. The western driveway on River Avenue exclusively served one single-family unit, and one internal driveway connecting River Avenue and Neptune Avenue provided access for all other units. The Approved Project included 63 parking spaces. The Approved Project anticipated approximately 18 months of project construction schedule as listed below: • Asbestos abatement(2 weeks to 1 month) Building demolition (approximately 30 days) • Site grading(approximately 30 days) • Building construction in three subphases (approximately 16 months) Per Section 20.10.30(Nt)of former Zoning Code,200 square feet of floor area per required parking devoted to enclosed parking shall not be included in the calculation of gross floor area. Marcb 2014 Page 13 1�3 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Project Description Thi j age int.-ntronaddy dft blank. Page 14 PlaceWorkr 1,74. ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 4 -Approved Project Site Plan 3. Project Description \ RIV EN AV E- Garage I Guest Parking _ 0 0 0 n ;17 . o�6Single-Family Unifs j e6 DC _______T11N EPT� E A V� q. uGuest Parking 16 R I V E Project Boundary Source:Todd Scheeler&Associates,Inc.2007 March 2014 P&ecepolks 27,5 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Project Description Thi j age int.-ntronaddy dft blank. Page 16 PlaceWorkr X70 0&I ki. •.. ••• ..�eir���fIIII����II����fliiilNi91d���._. — fl Ci17�1 IINSis - II�ILIImin i] ipuumuu� �IJII�II rIi�i II Ifin1111P` �--;� ° !l;lillll�llllllki 1(•II�I - `, Il r moi'-4 Jill L`Y.IS R9 I�I�I�. lYi� 0 e 13 �.aalml'�I. i�rt s - i I' iinw nnc �I �s�� I •�� I 11-1 'I'���L! �G 3�1H"rr l"Sai flc 5; 1 r rr •r • 11 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Project Description Tbis page intentionally left blank Page 18 PlaceWorks 172 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL -. . ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure . Approved Project DuplexBuilding Elevations 3. Project Description Midpoint 28'_1 0" Proposed Max Ridge Height 31'-4" Midpoint 2B'-10" Proposed Max Ridge Height 31'-4' ►_ I''i Craftsman Style •N.Il�l�ual, i� "p,1d iii -- .+�i Ao Plantation Midpoint 29'-6" reposed Max Ridge Height 31'-4' Midpoint 29'-6 Proposed Max Ridge Height 31'-4" F.. •. 6.- �1 I�. a I�" I • •� fll lllI1101llln�llln�� _ au nr,�II���I �IirriI lllliiltllI��1��;�Illl�. i•r.:: II °1�101111111II NN �i '"'�' �!� I � c �III®�Iillllllllliil�lI���I I��IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiI .� _ . ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Project Description Thi j age int.-ntronaddy dft blank. Page 20 PlaceWorkr leo ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Project Description 3.2 MODIFIED PROJECT DESCRIPTION The property owner/developer proposes to redevelop the project site in substantial conformance with the Approved Project. As with the Approved Project, the proposed project would involve asbestos abatement, demolition of the existing 54-unit apartment complex, grading, and construction of a 24-unit detached condominium development. However, the Modified Project would modify the approved site layout and change the architectural styles. Instead of 12 single-family units and 6 duplex units, the Modified Project would provide 24 detached units. The changes in development summary are described in Table 3-1,Approved Project and Modffred Project Comparison Development Summary. The revised site plan is shown in Figure 7,Modified Prject Site Plan, and building elevations are shown in Figure 8, Building Elevations, and Figure 9, Visual Simulation. The Modified Project would provide three building plans plus enhanced building elevations for structures along River Avenue. The new development plan would provide a total of 50,9162 square feet of building area, an increase of 210 square feet from the Approved Project (50,706 square feet), and change the architectural style from Craftsman and Plantation styles to Modern contemporary style. The new development would have a front setback of 10 feet for Seashore Avenue, River Avenue, and the west side. The east side setback would range from 6 feet to 12 feet. These setbacks are within the range of or exceed the respective values established for the Approved Project.The maximum midpoint height would range from 28 feet 11 inches to 30 feet 9 inches, exceeding the ridgeline height set for the Approved Project. The revised site layout would slightly reduce the total building footprint from 35.9 percent (Approved Project) to 34.6 percent (Modified Project)and pavement coverage from 35.4 percent (Approved Project) to 27.3 percent (Modified Project). The total landscaping area would increase from 28.2 percent (Approved Project) to 37.1 percent (Modified Project) and incorporate design features such as turf blocks, pervious parking,pervious pavers, and water-conserving plants. The proposed landscaping plan is shown in Figure 10, Conceptual Landscape Plan. Parking and Access As with the Approved Project, the project site would continue to be accessed from River Avenue and Neptune Avenue. However, the Modified Project would eliminate the west driveway on River Avenue, allowing one additional on-street parking space on River Avenue. This driveway originally provided an exclusive access to one single-family unit in the Approved Project. A total of 62 parking spaces would be provided onsite, including 2 garage spaces per unit and 14 off-street guest parking spaces. Coastal access compliant with the American Disabilities Act (ADA) would be provided from River Avenue to Seashore Drive. 2 Per Section 20.10.30(br)of former Zoning Code,200 square feet of floor area per required parking devoted to enclosed parking shall not be included in the calculation of gross floor area. Marcb 2014 Page 21 121 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Project Description Table 3-1 Approved Project and Modified Project Connigarison Development Summar Prior Zoning Code Current Zoning Code Development Standards (Required) (Required) AsApproved As Modified Lot Size 5,000 SF. 5,000 SF 1.49 acres(64,904 SF) No Change Min.Lot Size Per Unit 1,200 SF. 1,200 SF. 2704 SF No Change Max.FAL 1.75(72,133 SF) 1.75(72,133 SF.) 1.23(50,706 Si 1.24(50,916 SF)r Total Unit 24 24 Small lot detached 2,797 SF(x6) 2,075 SF(01) Small lot detached 3,248 SF(x6) 2,653 SF(x5) Small lot detached 3,114 SF(x8) Duplex 1,770 SF(x6) 0 Duplex 1,836 SF(x6) 0 Total Building Area 57,906 SFz 61,002 SFz Front Setback: Seashore Ave 20' 5' 10'to 12' 10' River Ave 20' 10'(rear) 10'to 15' 10' Side Setback: West 25' 15' 10'W 12' 10' East 25' 15' 4'to T-6" 6'to 12' Maximum Height 28'Midpoint/Flat 28'Flat Roof/Parapet Plan A(SFR):25'-6"Midpoint Plan 1:28'-11"Midpoint Roof (31'Ridge) (3110"Ridge) 33'Ridge(3:12 pitch) Plan B(SFR):26'-8"Midpoint Plan 2:30'-3"Midpoint 33'Ridge (31'4"Ridge) (32'9"Ridge) Plan C(Duplex):28'-10" Plan 3:30'-9"Midpoint Midpoint(31'-6"Ridge) (32'-11"Ridge) Min.Distance B/w Bldg 10' No Minimum 6' 6' Minimum 247,313 cu.I. Common: 675,415 cu.ft. 559,768 cu.ft. Open Space 75 SF/unit(1,800 SF) Min.dimension of 15 ft Private:5%of the GFA for each unit. Min dimension of 6 ft Parking Resident(2 per unit) 48 spaces 48 spaces 48 spaces 48 spaces Guest(0.5 per unit) 12 spaces 12 spaces 15 spaces 14 spaces Total Parking 60 spaces 60 spaces 63 spaces 62 spaces3 Additional Information As Approved Proposed Drive Aisle Width 26' 26' Paving 35.4%(23,357 SF) 27.3°%(17,754 SF) Landscaping 28.2%(18390 SF) 37.1%(24,176 SF) FAL=Floor Area Limes;GFA=Gross Floor Area;SF=square feet;ft=feet;SFR=Single-family residence;cu..J.=cubic feel Per Section 20.10.30(M),200 square feet of floor area per required parking devoted to enclosed parking shall not be Included in the calculation of gross Floor area. 2Includes enclosed parking area excluded per Section Per Section 20.10.30(M)former Zoning Cade. 3 Eliminated 12 pairs of tandem parking spaces,and 1 additional on-street parking space has been gained through the elimination of a driveway and curb cut onto River Avenue, Page 22 PlaceWlorks 122 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Project Description 3.3 EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN The General Plan designation for the project site is RM (Multiple Unit Residential), and the project site is zoned RM (Multiple-Unit Residential). The project site was formerly zoned Multiple-Family Residential (MFR) under the Approved Project prior to the zoning updates in 2010. The project site is located in the Coastal Zone and is designated as Multiple Unit Residential (RM-E) in the Coastal Land Use Plan. Marcb 2014 Page 23 :L Rs ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Project Description Thi j age int.-ntronaddy dft blank. Page 24 PlaceWorkr -124 • 1 1• 1 1 �' � -C•.r� �.� - - � .1 Y` .may.. � ti�Ys�• .l . ,y...r"rvs. � NIF G Jill IN I� i - . sllr� Iva 06 SIM !! nIN _ .. t Fill lie OFFgom is ., a _ -- - rv 1 .1 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Project Description Thi j age int.-ntronaddy dft blank. Page 26 PlaceWorkr leo ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 8a - Modified Project Building Elevations (1 of 2) 3. Project Description I I FT a�roe ioaxr awn " i i ❑0 i I I I I } i I i I i I i j i i i i IKE i CROSS SECTION FRONT ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION nose He�axr owo^ °+ ! Lim PO x�oxo�xr I i i I I � I I � I m I I REAR ELEVATION LEFT SIDE ELEVATION PLAN I ELEVATIONS 0 20 Source:BGA, 2014 Scale March 2014 PlaceWlonkr ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Project Description Thi j age int.-ntronaddy dft blank. Page 28 PlaceWorkr 288 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 8a - Modified Project Building Elevations (2 of 2) 3. Project Description I LU r I I I I rt CROs SHCrmm FROIff ELEVA.TIM AIIf;lTSmF ELEVAYMN � � 8 AFAR ELEVATION LEFT smE ELEVATION PLAN 1 IMANCn}EMVAUOM (UNML7&14) o 20 Source:BGA, 2014 Scale March 2014 Place[F/onkr �g9 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Project Description Thi j age int.-ntronaddy dft blank. Page 30 PlaceWorkr 1J L) ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 8b - Modified Project Building Elevations (1 of 2) 3. Project Description I i I I uweaur '4 I r ' I � I I i I 0 o I I ® I o I / o m ✓I FRONT RIGHT SIDE i I I ri ri I uoce xn¢xj uw � I I a "� uwro�xr I I I i i s I i i i I i I i e o I REAR LEFT SIDE PLAN 2 ELEVATIONS 0 20 Source:BGA, 2014 Scale March 2014 PlaceWlonkr "1 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Project Description Thi j age int.-ntronaddy dft blank. Page 32 PlaceWorkr 192 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 8b - Modified Project Building Elevations (2 of 2) 3. Project Description I REHMa oPo,x HE e 0 I P I I I I o I I I 0 o I, I o J 6 d i I FRONT RIGHT SIDE � i I 11 Lu I I rtmse xe�axh eae^ I 'I I a u�wo�xr I I I I I 9 I I I A I I 0 I ® I I I I REAR LEFT SIDE PLAN 2 ENHANCED ELEVATIONS 0 20 Source:BGA, 2014 Scale March 2014 PlaceWlonkr 1/3 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Project Description Thi j age int.-ntronaddy dft blank. Page 34 PlaceWorkr q4 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 8c - Modified Project Building Elevations (1 of 2) 3. Project Description g I moMxr I I ID I ® ® I I i O f �i � ID I I o i FRONT ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION wIoce unx.Ge[Gwr 11 ' I g' � m' ixoeortrr I I I I I REAR ELEVATION LEFT SIDE ELEVATION PLAN 3 ELEVATIONS 0 20 Source:BGA, 2014 Scale March 2014 PlaceWlonkr X95 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Project Description Thi j age int.-ntronaddy dft blank. Page 36 PlaceWorkr 1�0 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 8c - Modified Project Building Elevations (2 of 2) 3. Project Description ID MIDPoWT I i I o j FRONT ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION w�we MAY.Ge�Dwr�s�ar i I I �•, •� ^" M�owiuT �I, I I I I I I I � ® t I I I I m i i I REAR ELEVATION LEFT SIDE ELEVATION PLAN 3 ENHANCED ELEVATIONS 0 20 Source:BGA, 2014 Scale March 2014 PlaceWlonkr 197 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Project Description Thi j age int.-ntronaddy dft blank. Page 38 PlaceWorkr 29 o ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 9 - Visual Simulation 3. Project Description Z Newport Park ■I 4,� LILI West �I � �■.. ■� loll _liol Vii► '� a� �� All ��!■I ILLI �� .� �■�11�■ �® River Ave a !I I � • � � = = _ �.. _ — - � —� fYE � � �...y — y�� � it t � View of projectI .. �� ' 16 Source:BGA, 2014 \_I March 2014 PlaceForks s • ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Project Description Thi j age int.-ntronaddy dft blank. Page 40 PlaceWorkr 200 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 10 - Concpetual Landscape Plan 3. Project Description RIVER AVE. 1 I I�Y WEST NEWPORT PARK ` NEP[ONE AVE SEASHORE ORIVE NUN aaxtw+c� PRNIGYSpRFlS n[uEwuu nnPl� cpeazE PPEJ51 PavEas �Puwxc r r w YM16lWMEAKGPVNIS CPo4WENiN�S PAHGA®a5iPI1NAtE YN05 CIXpPEp CG+:9EIE PERvquSPA196 o ao Scale(Feet) MJS Design Group, 2014 March 2014 Place[Fonkr 201 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Project Description Thi j age int.-ntronaddy dft blank. Page 42 PlaceWorkr 202 4. Environmental Checklist 4.1 BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: Echo Beach Residential Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach,CA 92660 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jaime Murillo 949.644.3209 4. Project Location: 5515 River Avenue in the City of Newport Beach,Orange County, California. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Bucilla Group Architecture,Inc. 19782 MacArthur Suite 260 Irvine,CA 92612 6. General Plan Designation:RM (Multiple Unit Residential) 7. Zoning: RM(Multi-Unit Residential (former Multiple-FamHy Residential(MFR)) 8. Description of Project: See Chapter 3,Project Description. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is surrounded by residential uses,including vacation rental units to the north,south,and east,and a city park to the west The West Newport Park is located immediately west of the project site and is equipped with a play area,water fountains,tennis courts,racquetball courts,a basketball half court, and restroom facilities.The Pacific Ocean is one block to the southwest,less than 200 feet from the project site,and the Pacific Coast Highway runs adjacent to the residential properties to the north,behind an alley and an approximately nine-foot tall block wall. 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required (e.g.,permits,financing approval,or participation agreement): Marcb 2014 Page 43 203 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 4. Environmental Checklist • Regional Water Quality Control Board—Issue a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Perniit for construction activities. • South Coast Air Quality Management District—Permit to Construct • California Coastal Commission—Permit to construct within the Coastal Zone boundaries Page 44 PlaceWorrk1t 204 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 4. Environmental Checklist 4.2 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 and Forest Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hazards&Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use l Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population 1 Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance 4.3 DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY) On the basis of this initial evaluation: 1-1 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ 1 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. ❑ 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact 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. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ® 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,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 or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,nothing further is required. Signature Date Panted Name For Mamb 2014 Page 45 20.E ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 4. Environmental Checklist 4.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors, as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a"Less Than Significant Impact."The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier E1R or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D).In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following: E Earlier Analyses Used.Identify and state where they are available for review. F Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. G Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. Page 46 PlaceWorks 200 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 4. Environmental Checklist 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: A the significance criteria or threshold,if any, used to evaluate each question;and B the mitigation measure identified,if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. Marcb 2014 Page 47 20 j ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 4. Environmental Checklist Tbis page int.-ntronally l�blank. Page 48 PlaceWorks 202 5. Environmental Analysis This section provides evidence to substantiate the conclusions in the environmental checklist.The section will briefly summarize the conclusions of the Adopted MND and then discuss whether or not the proposed project is consistent with the findings contained in the Adopted MND. Mitigation measures referenced are from the Adopted MND. 5.1 AESTHETICS 5.1.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Adopted MND The Adopted MND determined that because the project site is not in the designated viewpoint of a coastal view road and the nearest public viewpoint is approximately 1,000 feet to the northwest, implementation of the Approved Project would not have a significant impact on scenic vistas. The Adopted MND evaluated reduction of the minimum building separation distance from 10 feet to 6 feet and reduced the minimum front setback distance along Seashore Drive and River Avenue from 20 feet to 10 feet. The project site is in the shoreline height limitation zone,which limits residential development to 28 feet midpoint and 33 feet ridgeline.The Adopted MND states that although the Approved Project would slightly exceed these height restrictions by approximately 1.5 feet, the single and duplex units were designed to be compatible with the massing and visual scale of the surrounding area. Typical buildings in the area are three stories, and the Craftsman and Plantation styles proposed for the Approved Project require low pitched-gable rooflines. The Adopted MND concluded that conformance to the height limitation would result in a more massive structure than proposed under the Approved Project. The project site is not identified as a public view point by the City of Newport Beach General Plan and is not adjacent to a coastal view road. The Adopted MND stated that the City's General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan focus on the protection of public views. General Plan Policies NR 20.1 to NR20.4 and Coastal Land Use Plan Policies 4.4.1-6 and 4.4.2-3 emphasize the protection of public views of scenic resources, not private views of local residents. The Adopted MND concluded that the Approved Project would not substantially obstruct or block the public view opportunities of the ocean. It was determ ned that although the midpoint height limitation would be exceeded, the new development would not conflict with the intent of the shoreline height limitation since the development would be compatible with the existing visual scale of the neighborhood. The Adopted MND also indicated that sources of light in the project area consist of lighting from the residential uses north, south, and east of the project site;the City-owned park to the west;and from street lights, and daytime glare sources include glass and other reflective building materials from the existing apartment complex. Marcb 2014 Page 49 209 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis The Approved Project would be typical of residential uses and would not generate greater levels of light and glare than the existing apartment complex. The Adopted MND concluded that no significant impacts from light and glare result from the Approved Project implementation. 5.1.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Change in New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring orincreased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIR/MND No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,but not limited to,trees,rock X outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or qualify of the site and its X surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or X nighttime views in the area? Comments: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The Modified Project would change the architectural style and site layout of the Approved Project. However, the project site is not a part of any scenic vista and is not an identified public view point in the Natural Resources Element of the City's General Plan (Figure NR3, Coastal Views). No public views would be adversely impacted by the proposed changes. Subsequent to the approval of the Approved Project in 2008, the City adopted a new Zoning Code in 2010, revising the zoning designation for the project site from MFR (Multi-Family Residential) to RM (Multi-Unit Residential). Under the modified zoning designation and applicable standards for the project site, the Modified Project would meet the front setback on Seashore Avenue, rear setback on River Avenue, and the building height limitation,but require reduction in side setbacks. Although the Modified Project would be slightly taller than the Approved Project, the Modified Project would comply with the current zoning code that eliminated previous midpoint limitation and replaced it with Page 50 PlaceWorks 210 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis a minimum 3:12 pitch to 33 feet for sloping roofs. Therefore, as stated in the Adopted MND, no significant visual impacts related to height would occur. Under the previous zoning,a 25-foot side setback was required, and the Approved Project provided setbacks ranging from 4 feet to 7 feet 6 inches on the east side and 10 feet to 12 feet on the west side. The Modified Project would provide setbacks ranging from 6 feet to 12 feet on the east side and 10 feet on the west side. The current zoning code under RM requires a 15-foot side setback. The previous zoning standard required a street front setback of 20 feet, and as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would not have met this front setback requirement. However, the current zoning code require a 5-foot front setback and 10-foot rear setback; therefore, both the Approved Project and Modified Project would be in compliance with the front and rear setback requirements. Moreover, the current zoning establishes no minimum distance between buildings, compared to 10 feet under the previous zoning. Both the Approved Project and the Modified Project maintain 6 feet between buildings; therefore, no new significant impacts related to setbacks are anticipated. As described,the overall scale and massing of the Modified Project would be similar to that of the Approved Project. With the exception of the increased setback encroachments, reduction in the minimum distance between buildings, and building height increase, all of the previous MFR zoning regulations were met by the previous project design. The modified project plans also continue to comply with all other applicable previous MFR and current RM zoning standards. Therefore, no new significant impacts in visual resources that were not previously evaluated under the Approved Project would occur. Furthermore, General Plan Policies NR 20.1 to NR20.4 and Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 4.4.1-6 emphasize the protection of public views, but not private views. The Modified Project does not change the project boundaries, and no scenic public views would be affected. The setbacks proposed for the Modified Project would maintain or increase the setbacks for the Approved Project; therefore, the Modified Project would not negatively impact the private views of the adjacent residences any more than under the Approved Project. Pursuant to North Coast Revers Alliance, et al. v. Marin Municipal Water District Board of Directors(Ist Dist.,Div. 4, (2013) 216 Ca1.App.4th 614), a lead agency has discretion, as a policy decision, to classifv the visual impact as significant or not in light of the setting. The Adopted MND stated that the Approved Project would not result in a significant visual impact. The Modified Project would change the architectural details, but the general visual setting of the area, including locations of the adjacent properties, has not changed, and the impacts from the Modified Project would be similar to those analyzed under the Adopted MND. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The Modified Project would not change the project site boundaries, and no existing conditions related to scenic resources were modified. There are no new impacts to scenic resources with the Modified Project compared to the Adopted MND. The project site is currently developed with an apartment complex and does not contain any visually unique resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources. Mareb 2014 Page 51 211 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis As with the Approved Project, implementation of the Modified Project would not result in a significant impact. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND.As stated in the Adopted MND, the project area is primarily residential, except for the city park to the west. Instead of two architectural styles under the Approved Project, the Modified Project would provide variations of a modern style but would provide enhanced elevations for buildings along River Avenue, as shown in Figures S and 9. Visual impacts are subjective,with no set threshold of significance. As long as the Modified Project would provide more landscaping area than the Approved Project and a variety of pavement options, as illustrated in Figure 10, Conceptual Landscape Plan, it is not anticipated the visual quality of the site or its surroundings would be adversely impacted. The three-story with roof deck, contemporary modern architecture style of the Modified Project would be compatible with the surrounding properties,where the existing neighborhood generally displays two- to three-story structures with no uniform building characteristics. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would complement rather than degrade the existing visual quality of the site and the surroundings. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact. The project site is developed with an apartment complex and associated uses. Minimal light sources exist on the project site. The change in architectural style and site layout would not substantially impact the light sources. The Modified Project would not generate greater levels of light and glare than currently exist onsite or compared to the Approved Project. The impacts would be less than significant No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 5.1.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Adopted MND and Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to aesthetics were outlined in the Adopted MMD, and none are required for the Modified Project. 5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES 5.2.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Adopted MND The Adopted MND concluded that implementation of the Approved Project would not result in the loss of land in agricultural production, and no farmland, agriculturally zoned, or Williamson Act land would be affected by implementation of the Approved Project. Additionally, the project site is not designated or zoned for forest or timber land or used for forestry. Instead, the project site is already developed with an apartment and zoned for multi-unit development. Therefore, the Adopted MND concluded that no impacts to Page 52 PlaceWlorks 212 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis agricultural or forestry resources would occur as a result of development of the Approved Project and no mitigation measures were required. 5.2.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Changein New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring or Increased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping X and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a Williamson Act contract? X c) Conflict with existing zoning for,or cause rezoning of,forest land(as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland(as defined by Public Resources X Code section 4526),or timberland zoned Timberland Production(as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of X Farmland,to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Comments: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. No environmental conditions related to any state designated farmlands would occur under the Modified Project compared to the Approved Project. There are no new impacts, as compared to those identified in the Adopted MND, related to farmland resources associated with the Modified Project. As with the Approved Project, implementation of the Modified Project would not result in a significant impact. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. Mamb 2014 Page 53 223 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The project site is zoned for multi-unit development and is already developed with a 54-unit apartment complex. There are no agricultural uses on or near the project site. As with the Adopted MND, there are no impacts related to zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, associated with the Modified Project. No new impact would occur under the Modified Project compared to the Approved Project. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(8))? No Impact. The project site is zoned for multi-unit development and currently developed with a 54-unit apartment complex. As with the Adopted MND, no rezoning is proposed under the Modified Project. No impact is anticipated and no changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The project site is zoned for multi-unit development and currently developed with a 54-unit apartment complex. As with the Adopted MND; no conversion of forest land would occur the Modified Project. Therefore, no impact is anticipated. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non- forest use? No Impact. The project site is zoned for multi-unit development and currently developed with a 54-unit apartment complex. As with the Adopted MND, no conversion of agricultural land or forest land would occur under the Modified Project. No impact is anticipated. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 5.2.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Adopted MND and Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to agricultural and forest resources were outlined in the Adopted MND, and none are required for the Modified Project. Page 54 PlaceWorks 214 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.3 AIR QUALITY 5.3.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Adopted MND The Adopted MND analyzed criteria air pollutant emissions using the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Urban Emissions model (URBEMIS2007). The Adopted MND identified that construction activities would not exceed the regional SCAQMD regional significance thresholds; however, localized emissions could exceed SCAQMD's localized significance thresholds (LSTs) for particulate matter (PMin and PM2s) in the absence of mitigation. Therefore, mitigation measures were incorporated to reduce construction-related air quality impacts to less than significant levels. Long-term air pollutant emissions were also evaluated in the Adopted MND and determined that because the Approved Project would result in a net reduction in average daily trips, and newer construction is typically more energy efficient than older construction, the Approved Project would result in a net decrease in operational emissions. The Adopted MND further found that the Approved Project would not conflict with SCAQMD's 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and would not significantly contribute to the non-attainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin(SoCAB). 5.3.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the proposed project: Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Changein New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring orincreased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? I X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air X 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 X quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X Mamb 2014 Page 55 215 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Comments: The environmental and regulatory settings for the Proposed Project have changed since adoption of the Adopted MND. The following discussion is provided to update conditions relative to development of the Proposed Project. The Clean Air Act (CAA) was passed in 1963 by the US Congress and has been amended several times. The 1990 Amendments represent the latest in a series of federal efforts to regulate the protection of air quality in the United States. Geographic areas are classified under the national and California CAA as either in attainment or nonattainment for each criteria pollutant based on whether the ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been achieved. Both the State of California and the federal government have established health- based AAQS for seven air pollutants: ozone (03), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PMro), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2 ), and lead (Pb).Table 5-1 shows the most recent AAQS adopted. The SoCAB is designated nonattainment for 03, PM2.5, and lead (Los Angeles County only) under the California and National AAQS and nonattainment for NO2 and PMro under the California AAQS.3, 4 SCAQMD prepares an AQMP that details measures taken to achieve the national and California AAQS. The most recent AQMP is the 2012 AQMP. Table 5-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants California Federal Primary Pollutant Averaging Time Standard Standard Major Pollutant Sources hour 0.09 ppm Ozone(Oa) Motor vehicles,paints,coatings,and solvents. 8 hours 0.070 ppm 0.075 ppm Carbon Monoxide 1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Internal combustion engines,primarily gasoline-powered (CO) 8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm motor vehicles. Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm Motor vehicles,petroleum-refining operations,industrial (NO2) 1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm sources,aircraft,ships,and railroads. Annual Arithmetic ., Sulfur Mean Fuel combustion,chemical plants,sulfur recovery plants,and Dioxide(S02) 1 hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm metal processing. 24 hours 0.04 ppm Respirable Annual Arithmetic 20 Ng/M3 Dust and fume-producing construction,industrial,and Particulate Matter Mean agricultural operations,combustion,atmospheric (PMro) 24 hours 50 Im3 150 /ma photochemical reactions,and natural activities(e.g.wind- Ng Ng raised dust and ocean sprays). Respirable Annual Arithmetic 12Ng Im3 12 Ng Im3 Dust and fume-producing construction,industrial,and Particulate Matter Mean agricultural operations,combustion,atmospheric 3 The California Air Resources Board(CARS)approved the SCAQMD's request to redesignate the SoCAB from serious nonattainment for PMro to attainment for PMro under the national AAQS on March 25,2010,because the SoCAB has not violated federal 24-hour PMt,standards during the period from 2004 to 2007.In June 2013,the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) approved the State of California's request to redesignate the South Coast PMro nonattainment area to attainment of the PMro National AAQS,effective on July 26,2011 4 CARB has proposed to redesignate the SoCAB as attainment for lead and NO2 under the California AAQS(CARB 20134). Page 56 PlaceWorks 210 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Table 5-1 Ambient Air Qua]ty Standards for Criteria Pollutants California Federal Primary Per lulant Averaging Time Standard Standard Major Pollutant Sources (PM'.") 24 hours 35 pg/m3 photochemical reactions,and natural activities(e.g.Wind- raised dust and ocean sprays). 30-Day Average 1.5 pg/M3 Calendar Present source:lead smelters,battery manufacturing& Lead(Ph) Quarterly 5 pg/M3 recycling facilities. Past source:combustion of leaded gasoline. Rolling 3-Month 0.15 lJglm3 Average Sulfates(SO4) 24 hours 25 pg/m3 Industrial processes. Visibility-reducing particles consist of suspended particulate matter,which is a complex mixture of tiny particles that Visibility ExCo=0,23/km consists of dry solid fragments,solid cores with liquid Reducing 8 hours visibility of 10>_ No Federal coatings,and small droplets of liquid.These particles vary Particles miles Standard greatly in shape,size,and chemical composition,and can be made up of many different materials such as metals, soot,soil,dust,and salt. Hydrogen sulfide(H2S)is a colorless gas with the odor of No Federal rotten eggs.It is formed during bacterial decomposition of Hydrogen Sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm Standard sulfur-containing organic substances.Also,it can be present in sewer gas and some natural gas,and can be emitted as the result of geothermal energy exploitation. Vinyl chloride(chloroethane),a chlorinated hydrocarbon,is a colorless gas with a mild,sweet odor.Most vinyl chloride Vinyl Chloride 24 hour 0.01 ppm No Federal is used to make polyvinyl chloride(PVC)plastic and vinyl Standard products.Vinyl chloride has been detected near landfills, sewage plants,and hazardous waste sites,due to microbial breakdown of chlorinated solvents. Source.CARIB 2013 Notes: ppm:parts per million:Ngfrni micrograms per cubic meter 'Standard has not been established for this pollutant(duration by this entity. 'On June 2,2010,a new 1-hour S02 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The Modified Project would not change the number of units compared to the Approved Project. Therefore, as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project is consistent with residential land use designation for the project site and implementation of the Modified Project would result in lower density residential land uses than currently existing onsite (i.e., 54 apartments v 24 condominium units). Additionally, the Modified Project is not a regionally significant project that would warrant a consistency review for criteria emissions. Like the Approved Project, the Modified Project is consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and would not exceed the SCAQMD emissions thresholds. Therefore, the Modified Project Mamb 2014 Page 57 �2� ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis would not conflict with SCAQMD's 2012 AQMP. Like the Adopted MND, the Modified Project would not have a significant impact. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The Modified Project would not change the number of units to be constructed and would still require demolition of the 54 apartment units. However, the Modified Project would result in a slightly larger building envelope (the total building square footages would increase from 57,906 square feet to 61,002 square feet) but a smaller building footprint (the total building foot print would decrease from 23,357 square feet to 22,457 square feet). In addition, the Modified project would result in less paving (total pavement would decrease from 23,157 square feet to 17,754 square feet).The slightly larger building would result in a nominal increase in emissions associated with architectural coatings. However, this increase would be nominal and would not result in emissions that exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds. The greatest source of air pollutant emissions generated by the proposed project would be during grading phase. The Modified Project would not generate higher maximum daily construction emissions compared to the Approved Project Therefore, like the Adopted MND, the short-term construction impact would be less than significant. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. The Modified Project would not change the ADTs and the structures would be more energy efficient with compliance with the 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards as well as the California Green Building Standards (CALGreen).As with the Approved Project,long-term operational emissions would be released for the Modified Project in comparison to existing conditions but as with the Adopted MND, the long-term operational impact would be less than significant. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The SoCAB is designated as nonattainment for 03, PM2.5, and lead under the California and National AAQS, and nonattainment for PMit) and NO2 (Los Angeles County only) under the California AAQS.6 Emissions that contribute to the exceedance of these pollutants would cumulatively contribute to the region's nonattamment. As with the Approved Project, implementation of the Modified Project would not exceed the SCAQMD's construction phase pollutant thresholds and during project operations,would result in a net reduction in air pollutant emissions associated with the project site. Therefore, as with the Adopted MND, the Modified Project is not considered by the SCAQMD to significantly contribute to the region's s Per Section 20.10.30 MT of former Zoning Code,200 square feet of floor area per required parking devoted to enclosed parking shall not be included in the calculation of gross floor area.However,when evaluating the total building area for construction,the excluded garage spaces were included.Without the enclosed parking,the Approved Project totaled 50,706 square feet and the Modified Project totaled 50,916 square feet a California Air Resources Baud(GARB)based on 2012 State Area Designations,current as of April 1,2013,and National Area Designations,current as of December 5,2013(EPA 2013). Page 58 PlaceWlorks 218 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis cumulative emissions. No significant impact would occur. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. As with the Approved Project, emissions generated from the Modified Project construction activities are anticipated to cause temporary increases in pollutant concentrations and expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations. However, emissions associated with the Modified Project would be similar to or less than that of the Approved Project because the Modified Project would have slightly smaller building foot print and smaller paving area. The greatest emissions sources would occur during grading activities for PMi(i and PM2.5 emissions. Mitigation measures identified in the Approved MND would be required for the Modified Project and would reduce Pmlo and PM2.5 emissions below SCAQMD's LSTs during construction. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 1, no significant air quality impact would occur from exposure of persons to substantial air pollutant concentrations. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. As stated in the Adopted MND,residential developments are not associated with foul odors that constitute a public nuisance.Therefore, as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would not result in any significant operation-related odor impacts. As with the Approved Project, project construction of the Modified Project would involve the use of heavy equipment creating exhaust pollutants from on-site earth movement and from equipment bringing asphalt and other building materials to the site. However,as stated in the Adopted MND,by the time such emissions reach any sensitive receptor sites away from the project site, they are typically diluted to well below any level of air quality concern. No significant odor impact is anticipated. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 5.3.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Adopted MND and Applicable to the Modified Project The following mitigation measure was included in the Adopted MND and is applicable to the Modified Project. 1. The construction contractor for the property owner/developer shall implement additional dust control measures during demolition as follows: ■ The project contractor shall apply nontoxic chemical dust suppressants (e.g., polymer emulsion) to buildings being demolished to reduce fugitive dust from active demolition activities. ■ The project contractor shall prohibit demolition activities when wind speed exceeds 25 miles per hour. Mareb 2014 Page 59 I29 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis ■ The project contractor shall install a temporary construction fence and sift barrier around the construction site as shown in the Construction Staging and Water Quality Control Plan submitted to the City of Newport Beach for approval. ■ The project contractor shall install construction tire wash areas at the entrance to the project site on River Avenue and Neptune Avenue. All construction clean-up shall be done in construction sediment basins. The construction tire wash area shall be installed in accordance with the Construction Staging and Water Quality Control Plan submitted to the City of Newport Beach for approval. ■ The contractor will sweep adjacent streets and roads a minimum of once per week. ■ Material haul trucks leaving the project site will have their loads either covered or maintain a freeboard distance of two feet from the stacked load to the top of the trailer. 5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5.4.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Adopted MND The Adopted MND states that the project site is currently occupied by an apartment complex and approximately 86 percent of the entire is impervious. No special status sensitive species or natural habitats exists onsite. The Adopted MND concluded that implementation of the Approved Project would not have an adverse effect on or interfere with any species, habitat, natural community, riparian area, wedand, or migration corridor identified by any local,regional, state or federal agency. 5.4.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Changein New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring or Increased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact 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 X or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? Page 60 PlaceWorks 220 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Changein New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring orincreased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact 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 X 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 X pool,coastal,etc.)through direct removal, filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native X resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,such as a X tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other X approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? Comments: 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,policies,or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. As stated in the Adopted MND, the project site is currently developed with a 54-unit apartment complex and does not contain any special status biological species. The existing site condition has not changed. Therefore, as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would not have an effect on or interfere with any species, habitat, natural community, riparian area, wetland, migratory fish or wildlife, or migratory wildlife corridor identified by any local, regional, state or federal agency. No significant impact is anticipated under the Modified Project. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. Mamb 2014 Page 61 221 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 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? No Impact. As stated in the Adopted MND, the project site is currently developed with a 54-um apartment complex and does not contain any sensitive natural habitats. The existing site condition has not changed and no significant impact related to natural communities is anticipated. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 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? No Impact. As stated in the Adopted MND, the project site is currently developed with a 54-um apartment complex and does not contain any protected wetlands. The existing site condition has not changed and no significant impact related to wetlands is anticipated. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. As stated in the Adopted MND, the project site is currently developed with a 54-uni apartment complex and is not being used for migratory wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites. The existing site condition has not changed and no significant impacts related to migratory wildlife corridors or wildlife nursery sites are anticipated. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. The project site is developed with a 54-unit apartment complex and only contains ornamental landscaping trees and plants. No local tree protecting policies exists for trees on private property. As with the Adopted MND, the Modified Project would not conflict with any local policies protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. No impact is anticipated and no changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. As stated in the Adopted MND, there are no adopted habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. No regulatory setting has changed and no impact is anticipated under the Modified Project. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. Page 62 PlaceWorks 222 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.4.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Adopted MND and Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to biological resources were outlined in the Adopted MND and no mitigation measures are required under the Modified Project. 5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES 5.5.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Adopted MND As outlined in the Adopted MND, the project site does not have any historic buildings of significance. Additionally; the Adopted MND concluded that development of the Approved Project would not have a significant impact on or interfere with any archaeological or paleontological resources. However, mitigation measures were provided to ensure that, in the unlikely event that any subsurface archaeological and/or paleontological resources are affected by ground-disturbance activities, implementation of such mitigation measures could reduce impacts to less than significant levels. 5.5.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Changein New Changesor Changed Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring orincreased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource X as defined in§15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological X resource pursuant to§15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique X geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X Mamb 2014 Page 63 223 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Comments: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in S 15064.5? No Impact. The Approved Project required demolition of the existing onsite development and the Modified Project would also require demolition of the onsite structures. No historical resources were identified under the Adopted MND and no impact would occur under the Modified Project. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? No Impact. The Approved Project involved grading and soil excavation during construction and the Modified Project would also require grading the soil excavation. The size and scale of the Modified Project is similar to the Approved Project. Although the project site has been previously disturbed, the Adopted MND determined that there is a potential for discovery of previously unidentified subsurface archaeological resources. Therefore, a mitigation measure was incorporated. Provided that mitigation measures from the Adopted MND are implemented, no new impact is anticipated under the Modified Project. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Impact. The Approved Project involved grading and soil excavation during construction and the Modified Project would also require grading the soil excavation. The size and scale of the Modified Project is similar to the Approved Project. Although the project site has been previously disturbed, the Adopted MND determined that there is a potential for discovery of previously unidentified subsurface paleontological resources. Therefore, a mitigation measure was incorporated. Provided that mitigation measures from the Adopted MND are implemented, no new impact is anticipated under the Modified Project. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact. The Approved Project involved grading and soil excavation during construction and the Modified Project would also require grading the soil excavation. The size and scale of the Modified Project is similar to the Approved Project. Therefore, the potential for discovery of previously unidentified human remains under the Modified Project would be similar to that of the Approved Project As with the Approved Project, the required compliance with the Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 would ensure that implementation of the Modified Project would not disturb any human remains. No new impact is anticipated and no changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. Page 64 PlaceWorks 224 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.5.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Adopted MND and Applicable to the Proposed Project The following mitigation measures were included in the Adopted MND and are applicable to the Modified Project. The mitigation measures were modified to reflect the administrative changes in organization. Additions are shown in underline and deletions are indicated in she format. 2. Prior to approval of a grading plan, the property owner/developer shall submit a letter to the Community Development Plmtrvtzg Department, Planning Division, showing that a qualified archaeologist has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented: ■ The archaeologist must be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling,identification, and evaluation of artifacts if potentially significant artifacts are uncovered. If artifacts are uncovered and determined to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner/developer for exploration and/or salvage. ■ Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution. ■ Any archaeological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified archaeologist. If any artifacts are discovered during grading operations when the archaeological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area. ■ A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted to the City Engineer.Upon completion of the grading,the archaeologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted. 3. The property owner/developer shall submit a letter to the Public Works/Engineering Department, Development Division, and the Communith Development Rafinin Department, Planning Division, showing that a certified paleontologist has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented: ■ The paleontologist must be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish procedures to temporarily halt or redirect work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of fossils. If potentially significant materials are discovered, the paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner/developer for exploration and/or salvage. ■ Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution. Mareb 2014 Page 65 22.5 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis ■ Any paleontological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified paleontologist. If any fossils are discovered during grading operations when the paleontological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area. ■ A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted. Upon the completion of the grading, the paleontologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted 5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 5.6.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Adopted MND The Adopted MND determined that the project site is not underlain by a known earthquake fault and the most likely source of strong seismic ground shaking within the project area would be a major earthquake along either the Newport-Inglewood or San Andreas Faults. The Adopted MND identified no significant impacts related to ground shaking, lateral spreading, subsidence, landslide, expansive soil, and collapse, provided that the Approved Project complies with the most updated version of the California Building Code (CBC) for Seismic Zone 4 and the standards of the Structural Engineers Association of California(SEACIC). Although liquefaction was identified as being a potential impact because the project site is underlain by fill and terrace deposits, which are characterized by clean beach sands and silty sands that are subject to liquefaction, a trligation measure was incorporated to the Adopted MND based on the findings of the site- specific geotechnical investigation. The Approved Project involved connecting to the local sewer system and no construction alternative waste water disposal systems were necessary. 5.6.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Changein New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring orincreased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map,issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial X evidence of a known fault?Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Page 66 PlaceWorks 220 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Changein New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring orincreased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact ill Strong seismic ground shaking? X ii) Seismic-related ground failure, X including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss X of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result X in on-or off-site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),creating substantial risks to life or X property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems X where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Comments: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No Impact.No changes to the project site would occur under the Modified Project and no development would be placed closer to the nearby active faults. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in significant impact related to rupture of a known earthquake fault. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. No changes to the project site would occur under the Modified Project and no structures would be exposed to greater ground shaking impacts compared to the Approved Project. As stated in Mamb 2014 Page 67 227 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis the Adopted MND, the Modified Project would also be required to comply with the seismic design parameters contained in the most current version of the California Building Code (CBC) for Seismic Zone 4, as well as the standards of the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC). No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. ill) Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. As with the Approved Project,the Modified Project would be subject to potential liquefaction impact due to loose,granular,and sandy soils. However,as stated in the Adopted MND,the Modified Project would be constructed in accordance with the criteria and seismic design parameters of the CBC, standards of the SEAOC,and recommended measures in the site-specific geotechnical investigation (EGA Consultants 2007).Therefore,potential liquefaction impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. iv) Landslides? No Impact.No changes to the project site would occur under the Modified Project.No impacts related to landslides were identified in the Adopted MND and no impacts would occur under the Modified Project. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND.The Adopted MND determined that due to the relatively flat tomography and developed nature of the project site,erosion impacts would be minimal during construction.As with the Approved Project,the Modified Project would be required to comply with the local, regional, and state codes and regulations for erosion control and grading, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting regulations. Implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) as prescribed under the NPDES requirements would ensure that substantial soils erosion impacts do not occur. Therefore, as with the Approved Project, soil erosion impacts from grading and construction activities would be less than significant. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,or collapse. Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The Modified Project would not involve changing onsite geologic conditions compared to the Approved Project. No sign of unstable soils were identified during the geotechnical investigation conducted Page 68 PlaceWorks 222 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis for the Approved Project. As with the Approved Project, development of the Modified Project would be required to comply with the measures outlined in the project site's preliminary geotechnical investigation(e.g., removal and replacement of near surface soils with engineered fill) and the criteria and seismic design parameters of the California Building Code (CBC) and the SEAOC. Therefore, no significant impact would occur and no changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 19-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? No Impact. The Modified Project would not involve changing onsite geologic conditions compared to the Approved Project. No expansive soils impact was identified and no impact would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would not require alternative waste water disposal system. No impact would occur and no changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 5.6.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Adopted MND and Applicable to the Proposed Project The following mitigation measure was included in the Adopted MND and is applicable to the Modified Project. 4. During construction, the construction manager shall ensure that measures listed in the geotechnical investigation (EGA Consultants, 2007) or equivalent measures are implemented to minimize the effects of liquefaction.The measures shall include but are not limited to: ■ Tie all pad footings with grade beams. ■ All footings should be a minimum of 24 inches deep,below grade. ■ Continuous footings should be reinforced with two No. 5 rebar (two at the top and two at the bottom). ■ Concrete slabs cast against properly compacted fill materials shall be a minimum of 6 inches thick (actual) and reinforced with No. 4 rebar at 12 inches on center in both directions. The reinforcement shall be supported on chairs to insure positioning of the reinforcement at mid-center in the slab. ■ Dowel all footings to slabs with No.4 bars at 24 inches on center. Marcb 2014 Page 69 2�9 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 5.7.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Adopted MND The Natural Resources Agency adopted Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for greenhouse gas emissions on December 30, 2009 and the Amendments became effective on March 18, 2010. The NOD for the Adopted MND was filed on February 19, 2008. Therefore, instead of a separate section, the Adopted MND included a discussion on global climate change impact in Section 3.3 Air.Quafio. This Addendum evaluates greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts of the project under this topical section, consistent with the 2010 updated to the CEQA Guidelines. The information provided in this section includes the most current scientific data on GHG and global climate change,but does not change the conclusions of the Adopted MND. Current information on GHG emissions and global climate change do not trigger the need for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental FIR pursuant to Public Resources Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. The current scientific information does not demonstrate that the Modified Project will result in new or more severe significant impacts than those determined in the Adopted MND.7 The Adopted MND stated that GHG emissions impacts would be less than significant because the Approved Project is not a regionally significant project and the Approved Project would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for criteria pollutants (CO, NO, PM1o, and PM2s), which were established to identify substantial new sources of air pollution. Furthermore, the Approved Project would generate less long-term GHG emissions than the existing apartment complex onsite. GHG emissions are likely not to be considered substantial enough to result in a significant cumulative impact relative to GHG emissions and climate change impacts. The Adopted MND concluded that Approved Project's cumulative contribution to GHG emissions was less than significant. 5.7.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: 7 For example,the trial court decision in American Canyon Community United for Responsible Gmzwb c City ofAmerican Canyon,Case No. 26-27462.The Superior Court held that the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006(AB 32)is not the type of new information contemplated by Section 21166 because"new legislation requiring creation of state regulations certainly does not pertain to this particular Project or its effects."See also for example,the Superior Court opinions in Natural Resources Defense Council v.Reclamation Board,Case No.06-CS-01228,where the court held that technical reports concerning global warming were not new information requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.Also,the Cvi!yns for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v.City of San Diego,Case No.37-2009-00085307-CII-NIC-CTL,where the court held that effect of GHG emissions on climate was known long before the City approved an FIR in 1994,quoted the United States Supreme Court."In the late 1970s,the Federal Government began devoting serious attention to the possibiliq that carbon dioxide emissions associated with human activity could provoke climate change."In this case,the court concluded that the petitioners provided no competent evidence of new information of a severe impact;and therefore,the City's reliance on an addendum was appropriate. Page 70 PlaceWorks 230 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Changein New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring orincreased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or indirectly,that may have a X significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan,policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse X gases? Comments: Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global climate change by adding large amounts of heat-trapping gases, known as GHG, to the atmosphere. The primary source of these GHG is fossil fuel use. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified foto major GHG— water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CHa), and ozone (03)—that are the likely cause of an increase in global average temperatures observed within the 20th and 21st centuries. Other GHG identified by the IPCC that contribute to global warming to a lesser extent include nitrous oxide (N20), sulfur hexafluoride (SFa),hydrofluorocarbons,perfluorocarbons,and chlorofluorocarbons (IPCC 2001).8•9 Regulatory Setting The regulatory settings for the Proposed Project have changed since the adoption of Adopted MND. The following discussion is provided to update conditions relative to development of the proposed project. Federal Laws The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on December 7, 2009, that GHG emissions threaten the public health and welfare of the American people and that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat. The EMS final findings respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that GHG emissions fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. The findings do not in and of themselves impose any emission reduction requirements, but allow the EPA to finalize the GHG standards proposed in 2009 for new light-duty vehicles as part of the joint rulemaking with the Department of Transportation (EPA 2009). B Water vapor(H20)is the strongest GHG and the most variable in its phases(vapor,cloud droplets,ice crystals).However,.water vapor is not considered a pollutant. 9 Black carbon is the most strongly light-absorbing component of PM emitted from burning fuels.Black carbon contributes to climate change both directly,by absorbing sunlight,and indirectly,by depositing on snow(making it melt faster)and by interacting with clouds and affecting cloud formation.Reducing black carbon emissions globally can have immediate economic,.climate,and public health benefits.California has been an international leader in reducing emissions of black carbon,with close to 95 percent control expected by 2020 due to existing programs that target reducing PM from diesel engines and burning activities(CARB 2013). Mareb 2014 Page 71 231 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis The EPAs endangerment fording covers emissions of six key GHGS—0O2, CH4,N20, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbon, and SFb—that have been the subject of scrutiny and intense analysis for decades by scientists in the United States and around the world (the first three are applicable to the Proposed Project). In response to the endangerment finding, the EPA issued the Mandatory Reporting of GHG Rule that requires substantial emitters of GHG emissions (large stationary sources,etc.) to report GHG emissions data. Facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons (MT) or more of CO2 per year are required to submit an annual report. State Laws Current State of California guidance and goals for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in Executive Order S-03-05,Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), and Senate Bffi 375 (SB 375). Executive Order S-03-05 Executive Order S-3-05, signed June 1, 2005. Executive Order S-03-05 set the following GHG reduction targets for the state: ■ 2000 levels by 2010 ■ 1990 levels by 2020 ■ 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 AssemhljrBiB32, TheGlohal Farming Solutions Act(2006) Current State of California guidance and goals for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act. AB 32 was passed by the California state legislature on August 31, 2006, to place the state on a course toward reducing its contribution of GHG emissions. AB 32 follows the 2020 tier of emissions reduction targets established in Executive Order S-3-05. The final Scoping Plan was adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), on December 11, 2008. Based on the GHG emissions inventory conducted for the Scoping Plan, GHG emissions in California by 2020 are anticipated to be approximately 596 MMTCO2e. In December 2007, CARB approved a 2020 emissions limit of 427 MMTCO2e (471 million tons) for the state. The 2020 target requires a total emissions reduction of 169 MMTCO2e, 28.5 percent from the projected emissions of the business-as-usual (BAU) scenario for the year 2020 (i.e.,28.5 percent of 596 MMTCO2e) (GARB 2008).10 Since release of the 2008 Scoping Plan, CARB has updated the statewide GHG emissions inventory to reflect GHG emissions in light of the economic downturn and of measures not previously considered in the 2008 Scoping Plan baseline inventory. The updated forecast predicts emissions to be 507 MMTCO2C by 2020.The new inventory identifies that an estimated 80 MMTCO2e of reductions are necessary to achieve the statewide 10 CARB defines BAU in its Scoping Plan as emissions levels that would occur if California continued to grow and add new GHG emissions but did not adopt any measures to reduce emissions.Projections for each emission generating sector were compiled and used to estimate emissions for 2020 based on 2002-2004 emissions intensities.Under CARB's definition of BAU,new growth is assumed to have the same carbon intensities as was typical from 2002 through 2004. Page 72 PlaceWorks 232 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis emissions reduction of AB 32 by 2020, 15.7 percent of the projected emissions compared to BAU in year 2020 (i.e., 15.7 percent of 507 MMTCOze) (CARB 2012). CARB is in the process of completing a five-,year update to the 2008 Scoping Plan, as required by AB 32. A discussion draft of the 2013 Scoping Plan was released on October 1, 2013. The 2013 Scoping Plan update defines CARB's climate change priorities for the next five years and lays the groundwork to reach post2020 goals in Executive Orders S-3-05 and B-16-2012. Senate B.0375, The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protecdon Act(2008) In 2008, Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, was adopted to connect the GHG emissions reductions targets established in the Scoping Plan for the transportation sector to local land use decisions that affect travel behavior. Its intent is to reduce GHG emissions from light-duty trucks and automobiles (excludes emissions associated with goods movement) by aligning regional long-range transportation plans, investments, and housing allocations to local land use planning to reduce VMT and vehicle trips. Specifically, SB 375 required CARB to establish GHG emissions reduction targets for each of the 17 regions in California managed by a metropolitan planning organization (MPO). Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the MPO for the southern California region, which includes the counties of Los Angeles, Orange,San Bernardino,Riverside,Ventura,and Imperial. SB 375 requires the MPOs to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) in their regional transportation plan. For the SCAG region, the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) was adopted in April 2012 (SCAG 2012). The SCS outlines a development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, would reduce GHG emissions from transportation (excluding goods movement). The SCS is meant to provide growth strategies that will achieve the regional GHG emissions reduction targets. However, the SCS does not require that local general plans, specific plans, or zoning be consistent with the SCS, but provides incentives for consistency for governments and developers. a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would generate GHG emissions from vehicle trips generated by the project, energy use (indirectly from purchased electricity use and directly through fuel consumed for building heating), water/wastewater generation, and waste disposal. The Modified Project would result in operation of 24 condominium units, which is the same as the Approved Project and less units than currently operating onsite. The Modified Project would result in a net decrease in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and would be constructed to achieve the 2013 Budding and Energy Efficiency Standards. Consequently, like the Approved Project, the Modified Project would generate less GHG emissions. As with the Adopted MND, the Modified Project would result in less than significant impact related to GHG emissions. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Adopted MND. March 2014 Page 73 233 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND.Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include CARB's Scoping Plan and SCAG's 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy(RTP/SCS). CARB's 2008 Scoping Plan is California's GHG reduction strategy to achieve the state's GHG emissions reduction target established by AB 32,which is 1990 levels by year 2020. Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS),California Appliance Energy Efficiency regulations, California Renewable Energy Portfolio standard, changes in the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards, and other early action measures would ensure the state is on target to achieve the GHG emissions reduction goals of AB 32.In addition,new buildings constructed are required to comply with the most recent Building and Energy Efficiency Standards and California Green Building Code (CALGreen). The Proposed Project's GHG emissions would be reduced from compliance with statewide measures that have been adopted since AB 32 was adopted. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Adopted MND. In addition to AB 32, the California legislature passed SB 375 to connect regional transportation planning to land use decisions made at a local level. SCAG's RTP/SCS does not require that local general plans, specific plans, or zoning be consistent with the SCS, but provides incentives for consistency for governments and developers. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would not change the exiting residential use of the project site and would not involve any General Plan land use changes.Therefore, as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would not interfere with SCAG's ability to implement the regional strategies outlined in the 2012 RTP/SCS and would not conflict with SCAG's or city's ability to achieve GHG reduction goals and strategies. Therefore, as with the Adopted MND, no significant impact would result from Modified Project implementation. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Adopted MND. 5.7.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Adopted MND and Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to GHG emissions were outlined in the Adopted MND, and none are required for the Modified Project. 5.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 5.8.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Adopted MND The Approved Project involved demolition of existing 54-unit apartment complex and development of single and duplex units totaling 24 units. The Adopted MND found no hazardous materials sources on or near the project site that would adversely impact the environment, except for the asbestos containing materials (ACM). However, it was concluded that when performed properly, removal of ACM would not result in any Page 74 PlaceWlorks 234 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis significant health and safety impact. The project site is not identified in the Department of Toxic Substances Control's (I)TSC) hazardous wastes and substances list,which includes the Federal Superfund Sites (National Priority List), State Response Sites, Voluntary Cleanup Sites, School Cleanup Sites, Permitted Sites, and Corrective Action Sites. Implementation of the proposed single and duplex residential units would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. 5.8.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Change in New Changes or Changein Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring or Increased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous X materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions X involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, X substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a X significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of public airport or public use airport,would the project result X in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the X project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation X plan? Mamb 2014 Page 75 2__35 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Changein New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring orincreased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland Fires,including where wildlands are adjacent X to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use or disposal of hazardous materials? No Impact. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project involves development of 24 residential units after demolishing the existing apartment complex. No changes in conditions concerning hazardous materials beyond the ACM issue already addressed in the Adopted MND would occur as a result of the Modified Project. As with the Approved Project, under the Modified Project, the existing structures on-site would be surveyed for lead-based paint (LBP) prior to demolition or renovation, in compliance with the applicable local, state, and federal regulations administered through the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health. Compliance with the existing regulations potential safety hazards pertaining to ACMs and LBPs would ensure that impacts are less than significant. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 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? No Impact. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project involves development of 24 residential units after demolishing the existing apartment complex. No changes in conditions concerning hazardous materials beyond the ACM issue already addressed in the Adopted MND would occur as a result of the Modified Project. No land use changes are proposed and the Modified Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. There are no schools within one-quarter mile of the project site and as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials. The nearest school, Carden Hall,a charter school,is located approximately 0.6 mile north of the project site.No impact is Page 76 PlaceWorks 230 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis anticipated and no changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. The Modified Project would not change the project site boundaries and the project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites. As with the Approved Project, no impact would occur as a result of the Modified Project implementation and no changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or 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 Modified Project would not change the project site boundaries and the project site is not within an airport land use plan. The nearest airport to the project site is John Wayne Airport, approximately five miles north of the project site. As with the Approved Project, no impact would occur as a result of the Modified Project implementation. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 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 Modified Project would not change the project site boundaries and there is no private airstrip in the project vicinity. As with the Approved Project, no impact would occur as a result of the Modified Project implementation. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would continue to be accessed via River Avenue and Neptune Avenue. The west driveway to be removed by the Modified Project served only one corner unit and the Modified Project provides access for all units from River Avenue and Neptune Avenue. This exclusive driveway to be removed was not used as emergency access and this change from the Approved Project would not result in adverse impacts to emergency access. As with the Approved Project, all driveways and internal streets would be reviewed and approved by the fire department. The construction duration and equipment used for the Modified Project would be similar to that of the Approved Project and adequate staging area would be provided so that the construction does not impair or interfere with any emergency response plan. As with the Approved Project, impacts would not be significant. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. Marcb 2014 Page 77 237 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 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? No Impact. No changes in site boundaries would occur and the project site is not immediately adjacent to any wildland areas. As with the Approved Project,no impact is anticipated and no changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 5.8.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Adopted MND and Applicable to the Proposed Project The following mitigation measure was included in the Adopted MND and is applicable to the Modified Project. 5. Prior to demolition activity, a certified and licensed asbestos abatement contractor shall perform any removal of asbestos containing material (ACM). Also, an industrial hygienist must be present to perform engineering control and regulatory asbestos air monitoring daring any abatement activity. 5.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 5.9.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Adopted MND As concluded in the Adopted MND, the Approved Project would pose no threat to the quality or flow of surface or groundwater. The Adopted MND stated that the project site encompasses approximately 1.49 acres and approximately 86 percent of the project site is impervious, covered by building and parking. The Approved Project would provide approximately 68 percent (44,121 square feet) of impervious surfaces and approximately 32 percent(20,987 square feet) of landscaping.Although the Approved Project would alter the existing drainage pattern of the site, with the decreased impervious surface areas, the rate or amount of surface runoff would be less than the existing condition. Moreover, the Approved Project would not require major improvements to water supply or distribution systems that could possibly affect local water supplies or groundwater recharge. The Approved Project is subject to the requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board NPDES MS4 permit, which requires the preparation of a SWPPP and the implementation of BMPs. The Adopted MND also stated that the project site is not located within a 100-year flood zone as indicated on the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) (No. 06059C0377H) covering the project area. No significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality were identified in the Adopted MND. 5.9.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: Page 78 PlaceWorks 238 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Changein New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring orincreased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? I X 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 X production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or X river,in a manner,which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off- site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or X river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner,which would result In flooding on-or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity or existing or X planned storm water drainage systems? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate X Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect X flood flows? I) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lass,injury or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the X failure of a levee or dam? j) Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? X Mamb 2014 Page 79 239 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Comments: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. As with the Approved Project, grading and construction activities of the Modified Project could cause deterioration of water quality if sediments or pollutants wash into the storm drain system. However, similar to the Approved Project,the project applicant of the Modified Project would be required to comply with existing water quality standards and waste discharge requirements during all grading and construction activities. The building foot print and paving area would slightly decrease under the Modified Project from the Approved Project. Therefore, the Modified Project would generate similar or slightly less pollutants compared to the Approved Project.As stated in the Adopted MND,adherence to the BMPs in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)would reduce,prevent, minimize, and/or treat pollutants and prevent degradation of downstream receiving waters. As with the Adopted MND, the Modified Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 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)? No Impact. The Modified Project would not change the number of units to be developed. Therefore, no additional water demand would be created by the Modified Project compared to the Approved Project. In addition, although the landscaping area would increase from 18,390 square feet to 24,176 square feet, the proposed landscaping would incorporate many non-invasive and water conserving plant types and use the most efficient and conserving means to distribute irrigation water with the latest technology for water conservation. The Modified Project would not require additional water from groundwater and no impact to groundwater supplies would occur. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. As with the Adopted MND, the Modified Project would also be required to prepare and implement SWPPP during construction to reduce erosion or siltation impacts to a less than significant level. The required compliance would ensure that impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. As with the Approved Project, all overflows would be drained through the underground system with the attached inline filters to catch storm water runoffs before they are conveyed to the drainage system. Moreover, the Modified Project would slightly decrease the building footprint and pavement, and increase the landscaping area as shown in Table 3-1, therefore, would result in increased pervious area compared to the Approved Project. The modified drainage system would be similar to the Approved Project and would not result in a substantial erosion or siltation impact As with the Adopted MND, no significant impact is Page 80 PlaceWorks 240 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis anticipated and no changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the 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 Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. As with the Approved Project, all overflows would be drained through the underground system with the attached inline filters to catch storm water runoffs before they are conveyed to the drainage system. Moreover, the Modified Project would slightly decrease the building footprint and pavement, and increase the landscaping area as shown in Table 3-1, therefore, would result in increased pervious area compared to the Approved Project. The Modified Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner to result in on or offsite flooding. As with the Adopted MND, no significant impact is anticipated and no changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. As with the Approved Project, all overflows would be drained through the underground system with the attached inline filters to catch storm water runoffs before they are conveyed to the drainage system. The Modified Project would not contribute more runoff water compared to the Approved Project and as with eh Adopted MND, impacts to existing or planned storm water drainage system would be less than significant. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No Impact. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would have beneficial impact to the area water quality with the underground drainage system,whereas the existing apartment complex drains directly to the storm water system.As with the Adopted MND, no significant water quality impact is anticipated. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 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? No Impact. The Modified Project would not change the project boundaries and the project site is not within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) (panel ID No. 06059C0377H). As with the Adopted MND, no impact is anticipated. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. Marcb 2014 Page 81 241 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. See response to Section 5.9.2(g), above. 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? No Impact. The City of Newport Beach is subject to flooding hazard from Prado Dam and the Big Canyon Reservoir. However, the Modified Project would not change the project boundaries, and as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would be required to comply with the emergency evacuation procedures of the City's Emergency Management Plan in the event of dam failure. As with the Adopted MND, impacts would not be significant. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. j) Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? No Impact. The Modified Project would not change the project boundaries and environmental conditions related to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would be same as described under the Approved Project. As with the Approved Project, impacts seiche, tsunami, and mudflow would be less than significant. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 5.9.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Adopted MND and Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to hydrology and water quality were identified in the Adopted MND for the Approved Project,and none are required for the Modified Project. 5.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING 5.10.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Adopted MND The Adopted MND concluded that redevelopment of a 54-unit apartment complex to 24 single and duplex residential units would not physically divide an established community and would not conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or regulations,including habitat or natural conservation plans. 5.10.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: Page 82 PlaceWorks 242 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Changein New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring orincreased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? I X 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, X local coastal program,or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community X conservation plan? Comments: a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. As with the Approved Project, no physical division of an established community would occur under the Modified Project. As with the Adopted MND, no impact is anticipated, and no changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 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, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would comply with the applicable zoning requirements with the exception of the increased setback encroachments,reduction in the minimum distance between buildings,and building height increase.The Adopted MND was previously approved under the MFR (Multi-Family Residential) Zoning District, and subsequent to the approval of the project in 2008, the City adopted a new Zoning Code in 2010, revising the subject site zoning to RM (MultiUnitResidential). However, under both the previous and current zoning designations, the proposed 24-unit detached condominiums are consistent with the permitted land uses. The Modified Project would not exceed the maximum 54-unit development limit and the 1.75 floor area limit (FAL) applicable to the project site. Tentative TrartMap The project consists of the subdivision of 24 airspace condominium units requiring the approval of a Tentative Tract Map. The changes to the site plan do not affect the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. Mamb 2014 Page 83 2'43 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 2007-001, and the facts in support of the findings required to approve the Tentative Tract Map have not changed.The site remains physically suitable for the type and density proposed. Modification Permit As shown in Table 3-1, the previous Zoning Code required a front setback of 20 feet adjacent to River Avenue, a front setback of 20 feet adjacent to Seashore Drive, and side setbacks of 25 feet adjacent to the east and west property lines. The previous Zoning Code also required a minimum budding separation of 10 feet between structures. The Adopted MND (pursuant to Modification Permit No.MD2007-044) authorized a reduction of the minimum building separation to 6 feet between structures and reduced setbacks as follows: front setbacks of 10 feet on River Avenue and Seashore Drive, a side setback of 10 feet to the west property line, and a side setback of 4 feet to the east property line. Under the current Zoning Code, a minimum building separation between units is no longer required, and it now requires a front setback of 5 feet adjacent to Seashore Drive, a rear setback of 10 feet adjacent to River Avenue, and side setbacks of 15 feet. As such, despite the changes in Zoning Code setback and separation standards, the Modified Project continues to comply with the setbacks and building separations as approved by the Adopted MND. Use Permit The previous Zoning Code limited heights of flat roofs, deck rails, and midpoint of sloping roofs to a maximum of 28 feet and a ridge height for sloping roofs to a maximum of 33 feet. Under the Adopted MND, the Approved Project was authorized to exceed the maximum 28-foot midpoint height limit for 6 duplex units. However, midpoint limitations have been eliminated from the current Zoning Code and replaced with a minimum 3:12 pitch requirement for sloping roofs. The current Zoning Code limits heights of flat roofs and deck rails to 28 feet and sloping roofs with a minimum 3:12 pitch to 33 feet. The Modified Project would meet the minimum 3:12 pitch to 33 feet ridge requirement for sloping roofs. Therefore, the Modified Project would be consistent with the current zoning code and no use permit would be necessary. Therefore, as with the Adopted MND,no land use impacts related to height standards are anticipated. Coastal Residential Development Permit Pursuant to Chapter 20.86 of the previous Zoning Code and Chapter 20.34 of the current Zoning Code, the demolition of three or more units within the coastal zone shall be reviewed to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65590 (commonly known as the 1982 Mello Act) and to replace, if feasible, the demolition of any units occupied by low- or moderate-income tenants. The Mello Act prohibits the City from approving the demolition or conversion of existing housing units occupied by low- or moderate-income households within the Coastal Zone unless provisions are made for their replacement. If feasible, all or any portion of the replacement units must be on the site of the demolished structure or elsewhere in or within three miles of the Coastal Zone. Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2007-001 authorized the demolition of the 54-unit apartment building conditioned upon the replacement of six dwelling units affordable to low- and/or moderate-income tenants within three years of demolition. The Modified Project would not change the number of units to be demolished or developed and would be required to comply with the conditions under the Adopted MND concerning providing replacement units. Therefore, no new or substantially more severe land use impacts would occur. Page 84 PlaeeWorks 244 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis As with the Adopted MND,the Modified Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy, or regulations, and less than significant land use impacts are anticipated. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. c) conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would not disturb or impact any habitat conservation or natural community conservation plan area. As with the Adopted MND, no impact is anticipated. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 5.10.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Adopted MND and Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to land use and planning were outlined in the Adopted MND and none were required for the Modified Project. 5.11 MINERAL RESOURCES 5.11.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Adopted MND The Adopted MND concluded that the project site does not contain any known mineral resources and would not impact any designated mineral recovery resource site. 5.11.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Changein New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring orincreased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to X the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site X delineated on a local general plan,Specific plan or other land use plan? Mamb 2014 Page 85 245 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Comments: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. The Modified Project would not change the project site boundaries, and as concluded by the Adopted MND, no impact to mineral resources would occur. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. The Modified Project would not change the project site boundaries or use. As concluded by the Adopted MND, the project site is not designated as a mineral recovery resource site and no impacts to mineral resources would occur. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 5.11.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Adopted MND and Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to mineral resources were outlined in the Adopted MND, and none are required for the Modified Project. 5.12 NOISE 5.12.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Adopted MND The Adopted MND concluded that long-term operation noise impacts would be negligible, as the Approved Project would replace the existing 54-unit apartment complex with the 24-unit condominium development. The Adopted MND concluded that the project would generate vibration and noise impacts during construction. Construction noise would occur over a limited period and would occur during the hours prescribed in the City's Municipal Code, noise impacts during construction would be less than significant. Groundborne vibration during demolition activities would have the potential to generate levels that could cause architectural damage to nearby structures. Mitigation measures were recommended to reduce vibration impacts during demolition activities to levels below significance. 5.12.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project result in: Page 86 PlaceWorks 240 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Changein New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring orincreased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or X noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or X groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity X above levels existing without the project? J) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity X above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of public airport or public use airport,would the project X 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 X excessive noise levels? Comments: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. Project generated noise during the operations phase of the project would be from project- generated traffic (mobile-source noise) and on-site operations (stationary-source noise). The Modified Project would develop the same type of uses and would not change the number of [nuts compared to the Approved Project. Compared to the Approved MND, there would be no additional vehicular trips with the Modified Project. Transportation and stationary noise sources with the Modified Project would be similar to what was analyzed in the Approved MND. In addition, there has been no change in the existing conditions as it related to new roads or the introduction of a major noise source in the vicinity of the project site that could affect the proposed uses. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. Mamb 2014 Page 87 247 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The proposed project would involve demolition of the existing apartment complex and construction and operation of 24 new residential units. Groundborne vibration is related to the type of equipment utilized and distance to the nearest receptors. The project site would not require pile driving, blasting, or other vibration intensive activity. As shown on Table 3-1, Approved Project and Modified Prelect Comparison Summay, the Modified Project would require similar grading, building construction and landscaping areas to implement the project as anticipated in the Approved MND. The Modified Project proposes the same type of use with similar structures as analyzed in the Approved N1ND. Demolition and construction activities with the Modified Project would take place in the same project site boundaries. As the demolition and grading areas and construction methods to develop 3-story residential structures would be similar to anticipated in the Approved MND, implementation of Mitigation Measure No. 6 as stated in the Adopted MND would reduce impacts during project construction to less than significant levels. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. As discussed in response a), the Modified Project would develop the same type of uses and would not change the number of units compared to the Approved Project. Transportation and stationary noise sources with the Modified Project would be similar to what was analyzed in the Approved MND. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The proposed project would involve demolition of the existing apartment complex and construction and operation of 24 new residential units. Temporary construction noise is related to the type of equipment utilized and distance to the nearest receptors. As shown on Table 3-1, Approved Prelect and Modified Project Comparison Summary, the Modified Project would require similar grading, building construction and landscaping areas to implement the project as anticipated in the Approved MND,as the Modified Project proposes the same type of use with similar structure sizes as analyzed in the Approved MND. Demolition and construction activities with the Modified Project would take place in the same project site boundaries. The demolition and grading areas and construction methods to develop 3-story residential structures would be similar to anticipated in the Approved MND and construction activities would be limited during the daytime hours prescribed in the Municipal Code. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. Page 88 PtaceWorks 242 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 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. As discussed in the Approved MND the project site is located outside of the 60 dBA CNEL and 65 dBA CNEL noise contours. There would be no impact and no changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 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. As discussed in the Approved MND, there are no private airstrips located within the vicinity of the project site. There would be no impact and no changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 5.12.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Adopted MND and Applicable to the Proposed Project 6. Demolition of the existing asphalt with a jackhammer within eight feet of the existing residential structures to the southeast of the site shall be prohibited. The construction contractor shall utilize alternative asphalt demolition methods such as a concrete saws and other nonvibratory construction equipment to remove the pavement. 5.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING 5.13.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Adopted MND The Adopted MND determined that Approved Project would result in a net reduction in population and housing impact due to a decrease of 30 units from the existing 54-unit multi-family unit in a residential neighborhood to 24 single and duplex units.Therefore,no net growth inducing impacts were identified. The Adopted MND also concluded that although the Approved Project would result in a net reduction in the number of rental units, it would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere because there are available existing rental units to absorb the displaced housing units. 5.13.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: Marcb 2014 Page 889 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Changein New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring orincreased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly(for example,by proposing new homes and businesses)or X indirectly(for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,necessitating the construction of X replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of X replacement housing elsewhere? Comments: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would develop 24 dwelling units and would not induce substantial population growth in the area. As with the Adopted MND, no impact is anticipated. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would develop 24 dwelling units after demolishing the existing 54-unit apartment complex. No changes related to replacement housing condition would result from the Modified Project, and as with the Adopted MND, impacts would not be significant. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would develop 24 dwelling units after demolishing the existing 54-unit apartment complex. No changes related to replacement housing condition would result from the Modified Project,and as with the Adopted MND,impacts would not be significant.No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. Page 90 PlaceWorks 250 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.13.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Adopted MND and Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to population and housing were outlined in the Adopted MND, and none were required for the Modified Project. 5.14 PUBLIC SERVICES 5.14.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Adopted MND The Adopted MND concluded that impacts on public services, including fine, police, schools, and other public facilities, as a result of the implementation of the Modified Project would be less than significant. 5.14.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered governmental 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: Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Changein New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring or Increased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact a) Fire protection? x b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Parks? x e) Other public facilities? x Comments: a) Fire protection? No Impact. The Modified Project would not increase the number of units to be development. The project site is currently developed with the higher density multifamily residential units and as with the Approved Project., the Modified Project would decrease the on-site density. Therefore, the Modified Project would not have a substantial adverse impact on the fie department's ability to serve the project site. Additionally, all development projects within the City of Newport Beach are required to comply with the most current adopted California Fire Code and other City standards and ordinances. During the building permitting process, the Newport Beach Fire Department would review and approve development plans associated with Mamb 2014 Page 91 2151 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis the proposed project to ensure that they provided adequate access, traffic circulation, water, and hydrant systems to support fire department needs.As with the Adopted MND, the Modified Project would result in a less than significant impact on fire protection services. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. b) Police protection? No Impact. The Modified Project would not change the number of units to be developed. The project site is currently developed with the higher density multifamily residential units, and as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would decrease the on-site density. No changes in impact to police protection would result from Modified Project implementation.As with the Adopted MND,impacts to police protection would be less than significant.No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. c) Schools? No Impact. The Modified Project would not change the number of units to be developed. The project site is currently developed with the higher density multifamily residential units, and as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would decrease the on-site density. No changes in impact to schools would result from Modified Project implementation. As with the Adopted MND, impacts to schools protection would be less than significant.No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. d) Parks? No Impact. The Modified Project would not change the number of units to be developed. The project site is currently developed with the higher density multifamily residential units, and as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would decrease the on-site density. No changes in impact to schools would result from Modified Project implementation. As with the Adopted MND, impacts to schools protection would be less than significant.No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. e) Other public facilities? No Impact. The Modified Project would not change the number of units to be developed. The project site is currently developed with the higher density multifamily residential units, and as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would decrease the on-site density. The project site and its surrounding area are developed with urban uses and with easily accessible existing public facilities. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would not result in substantial adverse impacts to any other public facilities.No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. Page 92 PlaceWorks 252 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.14.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Adopted MND and Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to public services were outlined in the Adopted MND, and none were required for the Modified Project. 5.15 RECREATION 5.15.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Adopted MND The Adopted MND concluded that no significant recreation impacts would occur as a result of the implementation of the Approved Project because the development would result in a reduction of units from 54 to 24 units. 5.15.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Change in New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring or Increased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that X substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which X might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: 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? No Impact. The Modified Project would not change the number of units to be developed. The project site is currently developed with the higher density multifamily residential units, and as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would decrease the on-site density. No changes in demands to existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreation facilities would occur. As with the Adopted MND, impacts to Mamb 2014 Page 93 253 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis recreational facilities protection would be less than significant. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The Modified Project would not change the number of units to be developed. The project site is currently developed with the higher density multifamily residential units, and as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would decrease the on-site density. No changes in demands to recreational facilities would occur, and as with the Adopted MND, impacts to recreational facilities protection would be less than significant. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 5.15.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Adopted MND and Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to recreation resources were outlined in the Adopted MND, and none were required for the Modified Project. 5.16 TRANS PORTATIONITRAFFIC 5.16.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Adopted MND The Adopted MND concluded that no significant transportation and traffic impacts would occur as a result of the implementation of the Approved Project because the development would result in a reduction of units from 54 to 24 units, therefore, a reduction of 178 average daily trips (ADT), from 363 ADTs to 185 ADT. 5.16.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: Page 94 Placell'/orks 254 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Changein New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring orincreased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact a) Conflict with an applicable plan,ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system,taking Into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and X relevant components of the circulation system,including but not limited to intersections,streets,highways and freeways,pedestrian and bicycle paths,and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,including,but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures,or other standards X established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase In traffic levels X or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible X uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X g) Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs regarding public transit,bicycle,or pedestrian facilities,or otherwise decrease X the performance or safety of such facilities? Comments: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The changes that would occur along River Avenue (i.e., elimination of one curb cut for one single-family unit) from the Approved Project is minor and would not create any new transportation and Mamb 2014 Page 95 251.55 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis traffic impacts that were not already considered and analyzed in the Adopted MND for the Approved Project. The number of units did not change under the Modified Project, and as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would decrease the on-site density. A project that generates fewer than 300 ADT is not subject under the City Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPD) and a project specific traffic study is not warranted. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would result in a net reduction in daily trips, and no substantial changes to existing circulation system would occur. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? No Impact. The same number of residential units would be developed under the Modified Project and the elimination of one driveway curb cut for one single-family residence would not create any new traffic impact that were not already considered in the Adopted MND. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would result in a net reduction in average daily trips and would not adversely impact the county's congestion management program. Therefore, the level of impact would be less than significant and no changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The Modified Project would not change the project site boundaries and John Wayne International Airport is the nearest airport to the project site. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would not exceed the maximum ridge height of 33 feet. Therefore, no impacts to air traffic levels or patterns would occur under the Modified Project. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. As with the Approved Project, access to the project site would continue to be provided from River Avenue and Neptune Avenue. Unlike the Approved Project that provided exclusive access to one single-family unit, the main driveway would provide access to all 24 units under the Modified Project, eliminating the need for an exclusive driveway. The slightly modified internal circulation improvements would require approval by the city's engineer for adequate design standards.As with the Approved Project,no sharp curves or dangerous intersection would be created by the Modified Project. Therefore, impacts resulting from hazards due to design features or incompatible uses would not occur. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND.As with the Approved Project,to address fire access needs of the.Modified Project,the internal Page 96 PlaceWlorks 250 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis drive aisle/private street would be designed in accordance with all applicable design standards for emergency access (e.g., minimum land width and turning radius) and the Modified Project would be required to incorporate all applicable design and safety requirements in the most current adopted fire and building codes of the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur under the Modified Project. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND.The Modified Project would provide 48 garage spaces and 14 guest parking spaces for a total of 62 parking spaces.In addition,one additional onstreet parking would be provided after elimination of the one driveway on River Avenue, The Approved Project would provide 48 garage spaces and 15 guest parking spaces for a total of 63 spaces. However, as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would exceed the City required 60 spaces, therefore, would not result in inadequate parking capacity. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. g) Conflict with adopted policies,plans, or programs regarding public transit,bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? No Impact. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would not conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation, and no impacts to alternative transportation (pedestrian, bicycle, or public transportation) would occur as a result of development of the Modified Project. Public transportation is readily available in and around the project area and as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would also provide required coastal access to Seashore Drive from the project site. Therefore, as with the Adopted MND, the Modified Project would not decrease the performance or safety of alternative transportation facilities and impact would not be significant. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 5.16.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Adopted MND and Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to transportation and traffic resources were outlined in the Adopted MND, and none were requited for the Modified Project. 5.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 5.17.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Adopted MND The Adopted MND concluded that no significant utilities and service systems impacts would occur as a result of the implementation of the Approved Project because the development would result in a reduction of units from 54 to 24 units, therefore, decreasing the loading demands for water, sewer, electricity, and gas services. Mareb 2014 Page 97 257 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.17.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Change in New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring orincreased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact a) Exceed waste water treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality X Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or waste water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of X which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements X and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider,which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected X demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the X project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations related to solid X waste? Comments: a) Exceed waste water treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact. No change in land use would occur under the Modified Project. The proposed 24 residential units proposed under the both Approved Project and Modified Project would not include uses that are subject to wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. As with the Page 98 PlaceWorks 258 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Approved Project, no significant impacts would occur. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or waste water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The same number of units would be developed under the Modified Project. Therefore, as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would result in a net reduction in water and sewer treatment demands. As with the Adopted MND, the Modified Project would have beneficial impact on water and sewer treatment and no significant impact would occur. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The Modified Project would have the site coverage of 61.9 percent (building footprint and paving) whereas the Approved Project has 71.3 percent. Additionally, as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would provide filtered underground drainage system to reduce the overall runoffs. The changes in drainage system would be minor and the Modified Project would continue to have beneficial impact on the area storm water drainage facilities as with the Approved Project. Therefore, as with the Approved Project, development of the Modified Project would not require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, and the level of impact would be less than significant.No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The Modified Project would not change the number of units to be developed. Therefore, as with the Approved Project, a net reduction in water demands compared to existing condition is anticipated under the Modified Project. As with the Adopted MND, impacts to water supply would be less than significant. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. e) Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact. The Modified Project would not change the number of units to be developed and no change in wastewater demand is anticipated. As with the Adopted MND,impacts to wastewater service provider would not be significant. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. Marcb 2014 Page 99 ��9 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? No Impact. The Modified Project would not change the number of units to be developed and no change in solid waste demand is anticipated. As with the Adopted MND,impacts to solid waste service provider would not be significant. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. g) Comply with federal,state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would comply with all local, state, and federal statutes and regulations related to solid waste. No substantial changes in the type or amount of solid wastes are anticipated under the Modified Project. As with the Adopted MND, impacts related to solid waste would not be significant. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 5.17.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Adopted MND and Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to utilities and service systems were outlined in the Adopted MND, and none were required for the Modified Project. 5.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 5.18.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Adopted MND According to the Adopted MND, based on the substantiation provided in the Adopted MND and with implementation of the mitigation measures identified therein, the City found that the Approved Project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment, either individually or cumulatively,directly or indirectly. 5.18.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: Page 100 PlaceWorks 200 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Changein New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring orincreased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact 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 X animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable?("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a X 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 X on human beings,either directly or indirectly? Comments: 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 community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No Impact. The Adopted MND stated that the Approved Project would not degrade the quality of biological resources or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The Modified Project would modify the site layout and design details of the Approved Project and no environmental conditions related to biological resources or cultural resources would be affected by the change. The level of significance (fess than significant) remains unchanged from that cited in the Adopted MND. Mamb 2014 Page 101 201 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) No Impact. As discussed in the respective issue areas of this addendum, as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would not have cumulatively considerable environmental impacts.Any potentially significant impact would be mitigated to a level of less than significant. As stated in the Adopted MND, the Modified Project would have no cumulatively considerable environmental impacts. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Impact. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would result in a net reduction in the number of units to be developed in an urbanized area where supporting infrastructure currently exists. All of the impacts generated by the Modified Project would be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation measures of the Approved Project incorporated. Cumulative impacts of the Modified Project would not be greater than those determined by the Adopted MND for the Approved Project and the level of significance (less than significant)remains unchanged from that cited in the Adopted MND. Page 102 PlaceWorks 202 6. List of Preparers PlaceWorks Elizabeth Kim,Associate Nicole Vermillion,Associate Principal Fernando Sotelo,Senior Planner,Noise&Air Quality Cary Nakama, Graphic Specialist City of Newport Beach Jaime Murillo,Senior Planner Marcb 2014 Page 103 203 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 6. List of Preparers Thi j age int.-ntronaldy le blank. Page 104 PlaceWorkr 204 7. References Abbott&I{indermann Land Use Law Blog. 2013,May 30 (posted). http://blog.aldandlaw.com/2013/05/articles/cega/eir-for-desalination-plant-upheld/ Bies and Hansen. 1988. Engineering Noire Control. Bolt, Beranek and Newman. 1971 December 31. Noire from Construction Equpment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances,prepared for the USEPA. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2008,October. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan,a Framework for Change. 2012,April. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2009—by Category as Defined by the Scoping Plan.http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/inventory.htm City of Newport Beach. City Council Policy G-1. Retention or Removal of City Trees. 2006, November 7 (approved). General Plan. http://w .newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?page=173 Environmental Monitoring Group (EMG). 2007,March 28. Report forAsbestos Containing Materials(ACM). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC). 2001. 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001. Mckenna et al. 2007,December 17. RE:Seashore Village, Orange County, California,Archaeological Records Check. Shaw Environmental,Inc. 2008,January 4. Phase I, Environmental Site Assessment. The Planning Center. 2008,February.Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study for Seashore Village. Toss Schooler&Associates,Inc. 2007,May 3. W/aterQuality Management Plan (VAMP). United States Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006,May.Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. . 2014.Newport Beach Municipal Code. http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/NewportBeach/ . 2009,July 14(City Council Approval).Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan. Marcb 2014 Page 105 26.E ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 7. References Tbic page intentionally left blank. PlaceWorkr 200 Attachment No. PC 9 Draft Resolution of Denial 207 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE 202 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FINDING MODIFIED PLANS TO NOT BE IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE DESIGN APPROVED BY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. NT2007-001 (COUNTY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. TTM 17194), MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. MD2007-044, USE PERMIT NO. UP2007-011 AND COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. CR2007-001 FOR THE ECHO BEACH PROJECT LOCATED AT 5515 RIVER AVENUE (FORMERLY SEASHORE VILLAGE) (PA2014-005) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. On June 10, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2008-53 approving the Seashore Village project, a 24 residential condominium development located on a 1 .49-acre site at 5515 River Avenue, and legally described as Lot 105 of Tract No. 3812; and 2. The site is currently developed with a 54-unit apartment complex that would be demolished to accommodate the proposed development. Project approvals included the following: a. A tentative tract map to create a 24-unit condominium subdivision; b. A modification permit to allow encroachments into the required front and side yard setback areas and a reduction in the required distance between detached buildings; c. A use permit to allow the 6 duplex structures to exceed the City's base height limit; and d. A coastal residential development permit (CRDP) to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65590 (Mello Act), which regulates the demolition of low and moderate income (affordable) dwelling units in the coastal zone. 3. The applicant is revising the project to: 1) reconfigure the site plan and landscape plan; 2) eliminate the duplex product type; and 3) change the floor plans and architecture to a contemporary design. The applicant requests the determination that the proposed modifications are within substantial conformance with the 2008 approval; and 4. The subject property was previously located within the MFR (Multi-Family Residential) Zoning District. The current Zoning Code designates the site RM (Multi-Unit Residential). The General Plan Land Use Element category RM (Multiple-Unit Residential). 209 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 2 of 3 5. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is RM-D (Multiple Unit Residential). 6. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on April 3, 2014, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this hearing; and SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQX) Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. The applicant has proposed revisions to the approved plans for the project. Pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 1, the project design changes shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans. Pursuant to Section 20.54.070 (Changes to an Approved Project), the Community Development Director may authorize minor changes to an approved site plan, architecture, or the nature of the approved use, without a public hearing, and waive the requirement for a new permit applications. In this case, the Community Development Director referred the determination as to whether the proposed changes are minor to the Planning Commission for review and final action. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and finds that the proposed 24-unit condominium development is not in substantial conformance with the approved plans of Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007-001 (County Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 17194), Modification Permit No. MD2007-044, Use Permit No. UP2007-011 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2007-001 for the following reasons: 1. ... 2. ... 3. ... SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies the applicant's request for a determination of substantial conformance of the modified plans with the project approved by Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007-001 (County Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 17194), Modification Permit No. MD2007-044, Use Permit No. UP2007-011 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2007-001. 2. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Tmplt: 11/23/09 27o Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 3 of 3 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2014. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Bradley Hillgren, Chairman BY: Kory Kramer, Secretary Tmplt: 11/23/09 272 Correspondence Item No . 3a Echo Beach (formerly Seashore Village) PA2014-005 April 3, 2014, Planning Commission Agenda Item Comments Comments by: Jim Mosher( I immosher(o.yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949- 548-6229). Item No. 3: Echo Beach (PA2014-005) General Comments: 1. Although I applaud the Community Development Director for referring this matter to the Planning Commission, I find the basic premise of the hearing a little hard to follow. a. The portion of the Zoning Code (NBMC Section 20.54.070) used to explain the reason for the hearing states that in the absence of some other explicitly stated mechanism for allowing changes, there are two pathways by which changes may be made to a previously approved project: i. Section 20.54.070.6 allows the Director to approve minor changes without a public hearing, or "refer any requested change to the original review authority for review and final action." ii. The mechanism for the latter is very clearly spelled out in Section 20.54.070.0 which states that the changes "may only be approved by the original review authority for the project through a new permit application." b. The present hearing seems to be an uncomfortable hybrid of the two pathways, in which the original review authority (the Planning Commission standing in for the City Council?) is being asked to verify the Director's findings that the matter didn't really need to be referred to it, rather than the findings required by Section 20.54.070.C, namely the findings that would be made in conjunction with a new permit application. c. As a result of the above, I have trouble finding any basis or authority in the Zoning Code for the Planning Commission to conduct the "substantial conformance" review that the agenda announcement seems to be asking it to perform. The term itself does not even seem to be defined. 2. To a non-planner's mind, a cursory review of the agenda packet suggests that very substantial changes are being proposed to both the previously approved architectural style and layout of the project. It is hard for me to see these as "minor" changes, although in that connection, it would have seemed helpful to include the minutes of the April 17, 2008, Planning Commission and (apparently very cursory) June 10, 2008, City Council meetings at which the original application was discussed, to understand exactly what issues were debated and changes to which might have affected the approvals granted. It might also have been helpful to include a copy of Tentative Tract Map No. April 3, 2014, PC Agenda Item 3 comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 3 NT2007-001 (which may or may not be in the agenda packet?), since it is asserted the changes are consistent with it. 3. Original Condition of Approval 4 on handwritten page 87 of the staff report says that the 2008 approval would expire in 24 months unless extended. The staff report (page 2) says "The project approvals will expire October 16, 2016, based on automatic extensions pursuant to State law." Were local extensions granted? Or are there automatic state extensions that override the need for local ones? 4. Does the Coastal Development Permit (which specifically describes certain features of the original project, including the architectural styles) need to be revisited in light of the changes to the proposed project? Regarding the Draft Resolution of Approval (Attachment PC 1): 1. Section 3: As indicated above, the "Findings" listed have been extracted from NBMC Section 20.54.070, and are actually internal criteria to be used by the Director in deciding if changes are "minor." They do not make grammatical sense as presented. This might be corrected by: a. Changing the last sentence of the preamble to say something like: "The Planning Commission held a public hearing and finds that the proposed 24-unit condominium development remains in substantial conformance with the approved plans of Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007-001 (County Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 17194), Modification Permit No. MD2007-044, Use Permit No. UP2007-011 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2007-001 #er the "lewing Feasens because the changes:" b. Or alternatively, inserting "The changes ..." in front of each finding as, for example: "A. The changes are Are consistent with all applicable provisions of this Zoning Code." c. Without one of these, it is not clear from the resolution what the Planning Commission is making findings about. 2. Section 3.A-4: "... units within the coastal zone shall be reviewed to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65590 (commonly known as the 1982 Mellow Mello Act) 3. Section 3.B: I would think the City Council's approval, after 2008, of the Newport Banning Ranch project across the way from this, including a pedestrian bridge connecting that property to West Newport Park might change the environmental setting. don't find this mentioned in the Addendum. 4. Section 3.0-3: Existing Condition of Approval 6 (on handwritten page 87), cited here, would seem to contradict, rather than support the finding being sought, and the underlying premise of the hearing that the Director did not really need to refer the matter back to the original review authority. Namely, adherence to the building envelopes April 3, 2014, PC Agenda Item 3 comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 3 presented in 2008 seems to have been an important condition of approval, meaning that the Director could not write off deviations from them as "minor" changes. Simply saying "the Condition remains relevant" does not seem to me to cut the ice. 5. Section 3.0-5: "Condition No. 7 required the two structures (north and south of the project driveway) that encroach into the side setback area immediately adjacent to the east property line to be modified to incorporate design features to FRgRiMIFFN minimize building height impacts on the adjacent properties." 6. Section 3.0-6: "These reductions in the setbacks to accommodate the smaller detached, residential units reaults result in a site plan that is more compatible and consistent with the historic development pattern of the area rather than a single, larger apartment-complex." 7. Section 3.0-7: "The approved 6-foot separation between buildings is consistent with the required 3-foot side setbacks of the surrounding 30-foot and 40-foot-wide lots in the neighborhood, ..." 8. Section 3.0-9: "A total of 62 parking spaces are proposed: 24 dedicated residential spaces in garages and 14 open guest spaces, exceeding the 60 space minimum required by both the previous and current Zoning Codes." [24 and 14 don't add to 62. Something must be missing.] 9. Section 3.0-10: "Conversely, the modified project significantly inn rean increases landscape area ..." 10. Section 4.1: "The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby finds that the modified plans for the Echo Beach (formerly Seashore Village) project to be are in substantial conformance with the project approved by Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007- 001 (County Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 17194), Modification Permit No. MD2007- 044, Use Permit No. UP2007-011 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2007-001 and that the environmental analysis of the modified plans is included in the Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH2O08021075) and the Addendum consistent with the requirements of CEQA and the GE QA CEQA Guidelines." Correspondence Item No . 3b BURNS,MARLENE Echo Beach (formerly Seashore Village) PA2014—OUb From: DeCaro Realty<decarorealty@cox.net> Sent. Thursday,April 03,2014 2:50 PM To: Burns,Marlene Subject: Public hearing comment 4-3-2014 Echo Beach project Attachments: Comment Letter objecting to 5515 River project 2008 relodge objections.doc;Th4a-10-2008 (2) Coastal Comm permit w conditions.pdf;3.0_Attachment_5 2008resolution w mitigation and conditions.pdf; Objection to acceptance of the Addendum to the prior MND (final).doc;conditions to Seashore MND.pdf Please see attached comment letter and attachments and consider them as part of the administrative record. Please distribute to the Planning Commissioners for tonight's hearing. Best regards, Len DeCaro Ilgw" This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. i Attachment No. PC 5 City Council Resolution No. 2008-53 Findings and Conditions of Approval 09 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE 70 FILE COPY RESOLUTION NO. 2008- 53 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH NO. 2008-021075) & APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2007-001, MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2007-044, USE PERMIT NO. 2007-011 AND COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 2007- 001 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5515 RIVER AVENUE (PA 2007-100) WHEREAS, an application was filed by Seashore Village, LLC requesting approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-001, Modification Permit No. 2007-044, Use Permit No. 2007-011 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007-001, with respect to property located at 5515 River Avenue, and legally described as Lot 105 of Tract 3812, to develop 12 detached, single-unit residential structures and 6 detached, two-unit (duplex) residential structures (24 units total). The site is currently developed with a 54-unit apartment complex that would be demolished to accommodate the proposed development. Project implementation requires the approval of the following applications: 1) Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-001 to create a 24-unit condominium subdivision; 2) Modification Permit No. 2007-044 to allow encroachments into the required front and side yard setback areas and a reduction in the required distance between detached buildings; 3) Use Permit No. 2007-011 to allow each of the 6 duplex structures to exceed the City's base height limit; and 4) Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007-001 to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65590 (Mello Act), which regulates the demolition of low and moderate income (affordable) dwelling units in the Coastal Zone; and WHEREAS, at a noticed public hearing held on April 17, 2008, the Planning Commission considered the application, plans and evidence, both written and oral, and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Sch. No. 2008021075) and approved Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-001, Modification Permit No. 2007-044, Use Permit No. 2007-011 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007-001, subject to findings and conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, on April 29, 2008, Mrs. Lennie DeCaro, an adjacent property owner, appealed the Planning Commission's approval citing three main reasons for the appeal: 1) improper notice; 2) improper public hearing; and 3) improper approval; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on June 10, 2008, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Element of the General Plan sets forth objectives, policies and limitations for development in the City and designates the general �1 distribution and location of land uses and residential and commercial densities. The Land Use Element designates the project site as Multiple-Unit Residential (RM) with a maximum development limit of 51 dwelling units. The RM designation is intended to provide primarily for multi-family residential development and for development containing attached or detached dwelling units. The proposed subdivision is consistent with this designation; and WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is consistent with Land Use Policy 5.1.9 that requires multi-family dwellings be designed to convey a high quality architectural character. The project has been designed to be compatible with the development pattern and character of the surrounding neighborhood, which generally consists of two- and three-story, single-unit and two-unit dwellings. Each unit will feature either a "Craftsman" or "Plantation" architectural style. Architectural details and enhancements (i.e. batt and board wood siding, louvered window shutters, decorative trim, and stone veneer) will be provided on all building elevations. The 2nd floor facades are setback from the 1gt floor on the rear elevations and cantilevered over the 1st floor on the front elevations, providing articulation and modulation to the building mass. The 3`d floor of each building is setback from the front and rear elevations, towards the interior portion of each building envelope, to reduce the visual mass of the structures as viewed from the streets; and WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is consistent with Land Use Policy 6.2.9 that requires open space and recreational facilities to be integrated into and preserved in private residential development. A majority of the units have been designed with small (approx. 300 sq. ft.) front patio areas, which are comparable in size to the outdoor living areas of the surrounding residential development within the neighborhood. All units are provided useable and functional 2nd level and 3`d level deck spaces (ranging between 48 and 154 sq. ft.). West Newport Park, an active recreational park, is located immediately west of the project site and the beach is located approximately 120 feet south of the site; both the park and the beach will provide additional recreational opportunities. A condition of project approval has been included that prohibits any floor area additions to the approved building envelopes, which will preserve open patio and deck areas proposed for each unit and the common landscaped and open space areas; and WHEREAS, the Housing Element of the General Plan sets forth goals and policies to facilitate the attainment of the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocations and to foster the availability of affordable housing to all income levels to the greatest extent feasible.. The demolition of the older, non-conforming, 54-unit apartment complex and development of 24 condominiums, will result in a total reduction of 30 dwelling units. As discussed in the Population and Housing section of the Initial Study prepared for the project, there are approximately 43,851 housing units in the City, of which approximately 5,462 units are vacant. The rental vacancy rate is estimated at 7.7 percent with approximately 3,337 rental units vacant (American Community Survey 2006). Therefore, the reduction and change in housing type is not considered significant, as there are sufficient existing rental units available to absorb the displaced i rental units. Additionally, Housing Program 1.1.3 requires the replacement of housing demolished within the Coastal Zone when housing is, or has been, occupied by low- income or moderate-income households. A total of 6 rental units have been identified to have been occupied by low-income and moderate-income households, which the applicant will be required to replace at an off-site location with restrictions to maintain their affordability for a minimum of 30 years; and WHEREAS, the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLOP) of the Local Coastal Program sets forth goals, objectives, and policies that govern the use of land and water in the coastal zone and addresses land use and development, public access and recreation, and coastal resources protection in accordance with the California Coastal Act. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the CLUP for the following reasons: 1. The subject property is located within an existing developed area of the coastal zone and the proposed project density of 16.1 units per acre is below the maximum density limit of 30 units per acre established for the RH-A designation of the CLUP. 2. Public services and infrastructure are currently available and serve the proposed development (8" sewer and water lines are located in both the Seashore Drive and River Avenue rights-of-way), and all applicable improvements required by Section 19.28 (Subdivision Improvements) of the Subdivision Code are required to be constructed by the applicant. 3. The proposed development has been designed to comply with all applicable Multi- Family Residential (MFR) development regulations of the City's Zoning Code, including density, floor area, open space, and parking, to insure design compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Although deviations from the required setbacks and the base height limit are proposed, these deviations will not result in a site plan that is inconsistent with the character and development pattern of the surrounding residential neighborhood. 4. The proposed project will not impact coastal resources nor the ability of the public to reach, use or view the shoreline of coastal waters or inland coastal recreation areas and trails. 5. The project includes 63 parking spaces, which exceeds the minimum parking requirements of the Zoning Code. 6. Gated vehicular access is prohibited, and as a result, the internal roadway will provide unrestricted vehicular access through the project from River Avenue and Neptune Avenue and will not inhibit public access to the beach. 7. The project site is not located near the vicinity of a designated public view point or coastal view road requiring view protection and will not impact any public views or degrade the visual qualities of the coastal zone. 73 WHEREAS, subject property is located within the Multi-Family Residential (MFR) Zoning District . The proposed detached, single-unit and two-unit residential structures are permitted uses within this zoning designation. With the exception of the increased setback encroachments, reduction in the minimum distance between buildings, and building height increase, all of the applicable development regulations of the MFR zoning regulations have been met; and WHEREAS, Section 20.93.030 (Modification Permits) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code requires findings and facts in support of such findings for approval of a modification permit for the encroachments into the required 20-foot front yard setbacks and 25-foot side yard setbacks, and deviation from the minimum 10-foot building separation. Such findings and facts to support such findings are as follows: 1. Finding: 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. Facts in Support of Finding: a. While the MFR District permits the proposed single-unit and two-unit residences, the development setback and building separation standards were intended to apply to larger, multiple-unit buildings, such as the 3-story, 54-unit apartment building that exists on-site today. The legislative intent of required setbacks is to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling unit. Given that a larger, single structure building would result in more visual and physical massing, a larger setback would be preferred for that development type. b. The applicant has proposed 24 single-unit and two-unit residences designed to appear as if they were situated on individual 30-foot-wide lots and setbacks comparable to surrounding R-1 and R-2 lots. Utilizing the R-1 and R-2 development standards as a guide for determining acceptable setbacks and building separation is appropriate in this case. c. Given that the MFR District permits the proposed detached development, but doesn't provide corresponding development standards, strict application of the Code would result in a physical hardship that is inconsistent with the intent of the Code. 2. Finding: The requested modification will be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood. Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed project has been designed to appear as if each unit is situated on a 30-foot-wide lot with setbacks comparable to the surrounding R-1 and R-2 lots. Those reductions in the setbacks and building 74 separation to accommodate the smaller detached, residential units arguably results in a site plan that is more compatible and consistent with the historic development pattern of the area rather than a single, larger apartment-complex. The following facts support compatibility of the proposed project with the existing neighborhood: a. R-1, R-2, and 30 to 40-foot-wide MFR lots only require 3 to 4-foot side yard setbacks. The proposed 6-foot separation between buildings within the project is consistent with the required 3-foot side yard setbacks of many of the 30-foot wide lots in the surrounding neighborhood, which results in a total distance of 6 feet between buildings. b. The proposed project is designed to appear as if each unit is situated on a 30- foot-wide lot, the setbacks provided to the east property line are consistent and compatible with the required 3-foot side yard setbacks of the surrounding 30- foot and 40-foot-wide lots in the neighborhood. The single-unit building fronting Seashore Drive that is proposed to encroach 21 feet into the required side yard setback adjacent to the east property line will maintain a 4-foot setback. The duplex unit fronting River Avenue that encroaches 17.5 feet into the required side yard setback adjacent to east property line will maintain a 7.5-foot setback. c., The 6 single-unit structures adjacent to West Newport Park are proposed to encroach 15 feet into the required side yard setback, maintaining a 10-foot setback to the property line. Due to the orientation of these units, this setback area is equivalent to their front yards and is consistent with the majority of the front yard setbacks in the immediate vicinity of this project that range between 0 and 10 feet. d. The 6 units fronting Seashore Drive are proposed to encroach 10 feet into the required 20-foot setback, maintaining a 10-foot setback to the property line. The proposed 10-foot setback exceeds the required 0 to 5-foot front yard setbacks that are required on a majority of the properties fronting Seashore Avenue in the immediate vicinity of this project. e. The 6 duplex structures and 1 single-unit structure adjacent to River Avenue are proposed to encroach between 5 and 10 feet into the required 20-foot setback, maintaining a minimum 10 to 15-foot setback to the property line. These proposed setbacks are consistent with, or exceed, the required 5 to 10-foot front yard setbacks that are required on a majority of the other existing properties fronting River Avenue in the immediate vicinity of this project. 3. Finding: The granting of such an application will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. 71 Facts in Support of Finding: a. The project has been designed to include setbacks comparable to the setback requirements of the surrounding R-1 and R-2 lots. Similar setback and distancing requirements are common throughout the City and have not proven detrimental. b. To minimize the impact of building heights on the neighboring R-2 properties, a condition of project approval has been included requiring the two structures that encroach into the side yard setback area immediately adjacent to the east property line to incorporate hip roof features. WHEREAS, the site is located in the 28/32-foot height limitation zone that permits buildings and structures to exceed the 28-foot height limit up to a maximum of 32-feet through the approval of a use permit. Ridges of pitched roofs are permitted to exceed the height limit by 5 additional feet. The proposed project exceeds the 28-foot base height limit. The proposed roof midpoints of the 6 duplex buildings are at 28 feet 10 inches, as measured from the finished pad elevation. The ridges of the buildings are comforming with a height of approximately 31 feet 4 inches measured from the finished pad elevation. Section 20.65.055 of the Zoning Code requires the Planning Commission to make certain mandatory findings in order to approve a use permit to exceed the base height limit. Such findings and facts to support such findings are as follows: 1. Finding: The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular attention shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of all setback and open areas. Facts in Support of Finding: a. The 6 duplex units that are proposed to exceed the 28-foot base height limit have been designed with low-pitched gable roof lines, resulting in a maximum midpoint elevation of 28 feet 10 inches (10 inches over the maximum limit) and a maximum ridge elevation of 31 feet 4 inches (1 foot 8 inches under the maximum ridge limit). b. A conforming roof plan can easily be accomplished by designing a taller structure with longer roof spans, thereby lowering the midpoint below the 28- foot limit. This quirk in the City's method of measuring roof midpoints results in conforming roof midpoints but increases the overall height of the building to the maximum 33-foot ridge limit. Therefore, the 10-inch height increase to the midpoint allowance actually results in a 1-foot 8 inch overall height reduction of the proposed buildings, resulting in increased public visual open space and views than could otherwise be afforded with a conforming roof plan. jC c. A single, large multiple-unit building that conforms to the minimum setbacks and maximum height could be constructed, which would likely result in a more visually massive and bulky structure. Such a project could result in a 63 percent total maximum lot coverage. The proposed project, with 18 smaller detached single-unit and two-unit structures results in a substantially smaller 36 percent lot coverage. This reduction in lot coverage not only increases the public visual open space and view opportunities through the site, but also allows for increased landscaping of the site, which is proposed at 28 percent of the lot (the existing development of the site provides only 14.4 percent landscaping). 2. Finding: The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Facts in Support of Finding: a. The low-pitched gable roof lines result in building heights that are generally more compatible with the heights and architectural styles of the development in the surrounding neighborhood. b. The design of a conforming roof plan results in increased overall building heights and visual massing as viewed from the street elevation and also results in less desirable architectural treatment of the side elevations, with more drastic roof lines that are less visually appealing. 3. Finding: The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions. Facts in Support of Finding: a. The proposed street facing elevations will be scaled down by concentrating the highest portions of the building mass away from the street frontages. Through this design, the front and rear masses of the buildings are minimized and allow more light and ventilation to the immediate neighbors. a b. With the exception of the existing R-2 properties to the east, the project site is separated from other uses by River Avenue, Seashore Drive, and the West Newport Park. This separation, in conjunction with the design of the buildings to limit the bulk and mass of the third floor to the center of the lots, eliminates any undesirable or abrupt scale relationships between the project and existing developments. 77 c. A condition of approval has been included to minimize the impact of building heights on the neighboring R-2 properties, requiring the roofs of the two structures that encroach into the side yard setback area, immediately adjacent to the east property line, to slope away from the R-2 properties with use of hip roof features. 4. Finding: The structure shall have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. Facts in Support of Finding: a. The proposed floor area ratio for the project is 1.23 FAR, which is below the maximum of 1.75 FAR; therefore the project does not achieve any additional floor area due to the additional height. b. The additional allowance in height only affects roof lines and results in an architecturally superior product than would be achieved through a roof design that conforms to the height limit. WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting the approval of a tentative tract map, for condominium purposes, to create 24 airspace condominium units Pursuant to Section 19.12.070 of the City Subdivision Code, certain findings and facts in support of such findings shall be made for approval of a tentative tract map. Such findings and facts to support such findings are as follows: 1. Finding: That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with the applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City Subdivision Code. Facts in Support of Finding: a. The project is consistent with the Multiple Unit Residential General Plan designation of the site. b. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed tentative map and believes it is consistent with the Newport Beach Subdivision Code (Title 19) and applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. c. Conditions of approval have been included to ensure compliance with Title 19. 2. Finding: That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. 72 Facts in Support of Finding: a. The existing site is entirely developed and does not support any environmental resources. b. The site is relatively flat and based on the geologic investigation performed for the site, no signs of unstable or expansive soils are evident, nor is the site subject to erosion. c. The geologic investigation revealed that the underlying soil of the site has a significant liquefaction potential if subject to heavy vibration; however, mitigation measures have been incorporated, as recommended by the site-speck geotechnical investigation, that will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. d. The site is currently developed with multiple-family dwelling units at a density greater than that proposed. 3. Finding: That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision-making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. Facts in Support of Finding: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and concludes that no significant environmental impacts will result with proposed development of the site in accordance with the proposed subdivision map. 4. Finding: That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. Facts in Support of Finding: a. The project consists of 24 residential units as permitted by the Zoning Code and the General Plan. b. No evidence is known to exist that would indicate that the planned subdivision pattern will generate any serious public health problems. c. All mitigation measures will be implemented as outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration to ensure the protection of the public health. 79 5. Finding: 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. Facts in Support of Finding: a. An easement through the site will be retained by the City to ensure access rights for public emergency and security ingress/egress, public utility purposes, and weekly trash pick-up. b. A 6-foot sidewalk easement currently exists along the Seashore Drive frontage and the applicant is required to construct full-width sidewalks. c. No other public easements for access through or use of the property have been retained for use by the public at large. d. 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. Finding: 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. Facts in Support of Finding: The site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. 7. Finding: 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. Facts in Support of Finding: The subject property is not located within the boundaries of a specific plan. g0 8. Finding: 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. Facts in Support of Finding: a. Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. b. The Newport Beach Building Department will enforce Title 24 compliance through the plan check and field inspection processes for the construction of any future proposed residences. 9. Finding: 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. Facts in Support of Finding: a. To compensate for the demolition of 6 units currently occupied by persons of lower or moderate income, the applicant will be required to replace the units at an off-site location within the City for a minimum period of 30 years. b. Public services are available to serve the proposed development of the site and the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project indicates that the project's potential environmental impacts are expected to be less than significant. 10.Finding: 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. Facts in Support of Finding: a. Waste discharge into the existing sewer system will be consistent with the existing residential use of the property and does not violate Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements. b. Sewer connections have been conditioned to be installed per City Standards, the applicable provisions of Chapter 14.24 (Sewer Connection, Permits), and the latest revision of the Uniform Plumbing Code. g1 11.Finding: 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 accessand recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act. Facts in Support of Finding: a. The project has been designed and conditioned for consistency with the City's Local Coastal program Land Use Plan. b. The project site is not located adjacent to the shoreline of the Pacific Ocean and is not presently developed with coastal-related uses, coastal-dependent uses or water-oriented recreational uses. WHEREAS, Chapter 20.86 of the Zoning Code (Low and Moderate Income Housing within the Coastal Zone) requires the processing of a coastal residential development permit (CRDP) to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65590 (commonly known as the 1982 Mellow Act). The Mellow Act prohibits the City from approving the demolition or conversion of existing housing units occupied by low- or moderate-income households located within the Coastal Zone, unless provisions are made for their replacement with new affordable units. If feasible, all or any portion of the replacement units must be located on the site of the demolished structure or elsewhere in the Coastal Zone. If location on-site or within the Coastal Zone is not feasible, the units must be located within three miles of the Coastal Zone's inland boundary; and WHEREAS, based on an income survey performed in June of 2007 by the Las Brisas property manager, Allen Properties, it was determined that a total of 6 units in the existing apartment complex are occupied by low- and moderate-income households. It has been determined to be feasible for the applicant to commit $1.35 million which the applicant will use to provide a minimum of 6 affordable housing units at an off-site location, or locations, for a minimum period of 30 years; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines; and, City Council Policy K-3. The Draft MND was circulated for public comment between February 21 and March 21, 2008. Comments were received from the Southern California Gas Company, Native American Heritage Commission, Lennie DeCaro, California Department of Transportation, and Department of Toxic Control Substances. The contents of the environmental document, including comments on the document, have been considered in the various decisions on this project; 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 in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified and incorporated in the Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting 22 Program are feasible and reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level; 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, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger; and NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis. The City Council hereby adopts Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH No. 2008-021075, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit "A". The document and all material, which constitute the record upon which this decision was based, are on file with the Planning Department, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. Section 2. Based on the aforementioned findings, the City Council hereby approves Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-001, Modification Permit No. 2007-044, Use Permit No. 2007-011 & Coastal Residential DevelopmeA Permit No. 2007-001, all subject to the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit "B" attached reto aJnd m ereof. f' PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 1 Y e 20.8 MAYOR ATT //TTf/ Il / - / CITY CLERK e NFWR°�y, 0 u g3 Exhibit "A" SEASHORE VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (SCH#2008021075) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Seashore Village ation ni ng Program Phase of Responsible Completion Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Party Date/Initials Air Quality 1. The construction contractor for the property During construction City's Project owner/developer shall implement additional dust Manager in control measures during demolition as follows: coordination with The project contractor shall apply nontoxic the Project chemical dust suppressants(e.g., polymer Construction emulsion)to buildings being demolished to Contractor reduce fugitive dust from active demolition activities. The project contractor shall prohibit demolition activities when wind speed exceeds 25 miles per hour. The project contractor shall install a temporary construction fence and silt barrier around the construction site as shown in the Construction Staging and Water Quality Control Plan submitted to the City of Newport Beach for approval. The project contractor shall install construction tire wash areas at the entrance to the project site on River Avenue and Neptune Avenue.All construction clean-up shall be done in construction sediment basins.The construction tire wash area shall be installed in accordance with the Construction Staging and Water Quality Control Plan submitted to the City of Newport Beach for approval. • The contractor will sweep adjacent streets and roads a minimum of once per week. Material haul trucks leaving the project site will have their loads either covered or maintain a freeboard distance of two feet ., from the stacked load to the top of the trailer. Cultural Resources 2. Prior to approval of a grading plan,the property Preconstruction City's Project owner/developer shall submit a letter to the Manager in Planning Department, Planning Division, coordination with showing that a qualified archaeologist has been the Project hired to ensure that the following actions are Construction implemented: Contractor • The archaeologist must be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish procedures for tempora lhalting or g'� Seashore Village Miti ation Monitoring Program Phase of Responsible Completion Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Party DaWnitials redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification,and evaluation of artifacts if potentially significant artifacts are uncovered.If artifacts are uncovered and determined to be significant,the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions in 000peration with the property owner/developer for exploration and/or salvage. • Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution. Any archaeological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified archaeologist. If any artifacts are discovered during grading operations when the archaeological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area. A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted to the City Engineer. Upon completion of the grading,the archaeologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted. 3. The property owner/developer shall submit a Preconstruction City's Project letter to the Public Works/Engineering Manager in Department,Development Division, and the coordination with Planning Department, Planning Division, the Project showing that a certified paleontologist has been Construction hired to ensure that the following actions are Contractor implemented: The paleontologist must be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish procedures to temporarily halt or redirect work to permit the sampling,identification, and evaluation of fossils. If potentially significant materials are discovered,the paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner/developer for exploration and/or salvage. Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution. Any paleontological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified paleontologist. If any fossils are discovered during grading operations when the paleontological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area. gJ� • 0 Seashore Village Miti atfon Monitonn Proram Phase of Responsible Completion Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Party Datelinitials A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted. Upon the completion of the grading,the paleontologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted. Geology and Solis 4. During construction,the construction manager During construction City's Project shall ensure that measures listed in the Manager in geotechnical investigation(EGA Consultants, coordination with 2007)or equivalent measures are implemented the Project to minimize the effects of liquefaction. The Construction measures shall include but are not limited to: Contractor Tie all pad footings with grade beams. All footings should be a minimum of 24 inches deep, below grade. Continuous footings should be reinforced with two No.5 rebar(two at the top and two at the bottom). Concrete slabs cast against property compacted fill materials shall be a minimum of 6 inches thick(actual)and reinforced with No.4 rebar at 12 inches on center in both directions.The reinforcement shall be supported on chairs to insure positioning of the reinforcement at mid-center in the slab. Dowel all footings to slabs with No.4 bars at 24 inches on center. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 5. Prior to demolition activity, a certified and Prior to demolition City's Project licensed asbestos abatement contractor shall Manager in perform any removal of asbestos containing coordination with material(ACM).Also,an industrial hygienist the Project must be present to perform engineering control Construction and regulatory asbestos air monitoring during Contractor any abatement activity. Noise 6. Demolition of the existing asphalt with a During construction City's Project jackhammer within eight feet of the existing Manager in residential structures to the southeast of the site coordination with shall be prohibited.The construction contractor the Project shall utilize alternative asphalt demolition Construction methods such as a concrete saws and other Contractor nonvibratory construction equipment to remove the pavement. g� Exhibit "B" Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-001, Modification Permit No. 2007-044, Use Permit No. 2007-011 & Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007-001 (Project-specific conditions are in italics) Plannina Department 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the plans stamped with the date of this approval, except as modified by other conditions. 2. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. I The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Use Permit. 4. Project approvals 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. 5. The applicant shall obtain a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit for the project. 6. With the exception of the height modifications required per Condition No. 7, the floor plans and building envelopes for each unit are approved as precise plans and future floor area additions to the building envelopes shall be prohibited. The proposed open patio and deck areas for each unit shall not be permitted to be enclosed and the landscape and open space areas proposed throughout the development site shall be preserved. 7. The two structures that encroach into the side yard setback area immediately adjacent to the east property line shall be modified to incorporate design features (hip features) to minimize building height impacts on the adjacent properties. 8. The applicant shall replace at least 6 affordable units within 3 years of the date of issuance of a demolition permit. The units may be provided off-site at an approved location, or locations, within the City. An amount not to exceed$1.35 million shall be provided by the applicant and the applicant shall use such funds to replace at least 6 affordable units and to achieve a mix of income levels and bedroom counts, as determined appropriate by the Planning Director. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to provide said units. The agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and shall be executed and recorded prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the project. 97 • 9. Any very-low and low-income units provided in accordance with Condition No. 8 shall be maintained as rental units for a minimum period of 30 years. Any moderate income units should be provided as `for-sale" units with a covenant maintaining the affordability for a minimum period of 30 years. 10.Gated vehicular access through the site shall be prohibited. 11.Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code. Exterior on-site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. "Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. Parking area lighting shall have zero cut-off fixtures and light standards shall not exceed 24 feet in height. 12.The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the Planning Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 13.Prior to the issuance of a building permits, the applicant shall prepare photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Department. 14.Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified in conditions of approval Nos. 12 & 13. 15.AII proposed signs shall be in conformance with the provision of Chapter 20.67 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress. 16. Trash container storage for the individual units shall be screened from view of neighboring properties and public places, except when placed for pick-up by refuse collection agencies. Trash containers shall nut be located within the required parking areas. 17.AII landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 22 18.Prior to the issuance of a building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Department and the General Services Department. All planting areas shall be provided with a permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitable for the type and arrangement of the plant materials selected. The irrigation system shall be adjustable based upon either a signal from a satellite or an on-site moisture-sensor. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or similar permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. 19.Reclaimed water shall be used whenever available, assuming it is economically feasible. 20. 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, attomey'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 Seashore Village Residential Development Project including, but not limited to, the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-001, Modification Permit No. 2007-044, Use Permit No. 2007-011 & Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007-001; and/or the City's related California Environmental Quality Act determinations, the certification of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and/or the adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. Building Department 21.The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all applicable City plan check and inspection fees. 22.The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City Building and Fire Departments. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City- adopted version of the California Building Code. 29 0 23.Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General Permit for Construction Activities shall be prepared, submitted to the State Water Quality Control Board for approval and made part of the construction program. The project applicant will provide the City with a copy of the NOI and their application check as proof of filing with the State Water Quality Control Board. This plan will detail measures and practices that will be in effect during construction to minimize the project's impact on water quality. 24.Prior to the issuance of the grading 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. 25.Prior to issuance of grading Rermits, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project, subject to the approval of the Building Department and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur. 26.A list of "good house-keeping" practices will be incorporated into the long-term post construction operation of the site to minimize the likelihood that pollutants will be used, stored or spilled on the site that could impair water quality. These may include frequent parking area vacuum truck sweeping, removal of wastes or spills, limited use of harmful fertilizers or pesticides, and the diversion of storm water away from potential sources of pollution (e.g., trash receptacles and parking structures). The Stage 2 WQMP shall list and describe all structural and non-structural BMPs. In addition, the WQMP must also identify the entity responsible for the long-term inspection, maintenance, and funding for all structural (and if applicable Treatment Control) BMPs. Fire Department 27. The internal roadway shall be marked as a fire lane, per the direction and approval of the Fire Department. Public Works Department 28. A Final Tract Map (Map) shall be filed with the Public Works Department. 29.The Map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD88). Prior to recordation of the Map, 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 Section 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. The Map go to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the City's CADD Standards. Scanned images will not be accepted. 30.Prior to recordation of the Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the Map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Section s 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 Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. 31.All applicable City fees shall be paid prior to the processing of the Map. 32.Construction surety in a form acceptable to the City, guaranteeing the completion of the various required public improvements, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to issuance of the Public Works Department approval of building plans. 33.Easements for weekly trash pick-up by City crews shall be dedicated as part of the Map. 34.Easements for public emergency and security ingress/egress, and public utility purposes on private streets shall be provided to the City. 35.All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 36.A new full-width sidewalk shall be constructed within the limits of the existing Utilities and Sidewalk easements along Seashore Drive fronting the project site. Existing City street trees shall be removed to accommodate the sidewalk construction. 37.New City-designated street trees shall be planted along the River Avenue frontage. All street trees shall be planted per City Standards and guidelines provided by the City General Services Department. 38.All existing drainage facilities in the public right-of-way shall be retrofitted to comply with the City's on-site non-storm runoff retention requirements. 39.On-site runoff shall be retained on-site. 40.Private storm drain piping shall not connect directly to the City's storm drain catch basin. 41.All on-site utilities shall be owned, operated, and maintained by the community/association. 91 42.Each unit shall be served by its individual water meter and sewer lateral and cleanout. Each water meter and sewer cleanout in the vehicular traveled-way shall be installed with a traffic-grade box and cover. 43.Individual water services per City Standards shall be provided in lieu of manifolds. 44.All on-site parking, vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems shall be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer. 45.The parking layout shall be in conformance with City Standard 805-L-A and 805-L-B. 46.An ADA compliant public pedestrian pathway, from River-Avenue to Seashore Drive, shall be provided through the development site. 47.The vehicular pathways shall be designed to support a fully loaded large trash truck. 48.Adequate turning radii and width shall be provided for large trash truck travel paths. 49.AII improvements (including, but not limited to, the landscaping in the parking lot area and ingress/egress points to the development site) shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement (City Standard 110-L). 50.All abandoned driveway approaches shall be removed per City Standard 165-L. 51.All new driveway approaches shall comply with Council Policy L-2 and constructed per City Standards. 52.Reconstruct any existing broken/damaged sidewalk, curb and gutter fronting the development per City Standards. 53.No permanent structures can be built within the limits of the Utilities and Sidewalk easement. 54. The construction work cannot impact the free flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic between Memorial Day and Labor Day. The staging and parking of all construction- related equipment and vehicles shall take place on-site, and NOT in the public right- of-way or City property. 55.All utility service connections serving this development shall be made underground. 56.In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development site by the private construction, additional reconstruction within the public right-of-way may be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. 92 57.The streets surrounding the project site is on the City's streetialley-cut Moratorium List. Any damage done to said roadways by the project will require substantial pavement repair work to be fully paid for by the Developer. 58.An encroachment permit is required for all work activities within the public right-of- way. 59.An encroachment agreement shall be applied for and approved by the Public Works Department for all non-standard private improvements within the public right-of-way. 60. The intersection of the internal roadways with River Avenue shall be designed to provide adequate sight distance per City of Newport Beach Standard Drawing STD- 110-L. Slopes, landscaping, walls, signs and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight lines (sight cone) shall not exceed 24-inches in height and the monument identification sign must be located outside the line of sight cone. The sight distance may be modified at non- critical locations, subject to approval by the Traffic Engineer. 61. The internal roadway shall be a minimum of 26 feet wide, unless otherwise approved by the Traffic Engineer. The internal roadway shall align with Neptune Avenue. The internal roadway curb cut on River Avenue shall be 26 feet wide minimum and modified to comply with current ADA standards. 62.Guest parking stalls shall be 8.5 feet by 17 feet minimum. Parking stalls adjacent to walls or other obstructions shall be 9-foot-wide minimum. 63.0n-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation system shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 64. The California Vehicle Code shall be enforced on the private streets and drives, and that the delineation acceptable to the Police Department and Public Works Department be provided along the sidelines of the private streets and drives. 65.Prior to recordation of the Map, park dedication fees for 24 dwelling units shall be paid in accordance with Chapter 19.52 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. This fee shall be paid at the time the map is submitted to the Public Works Department for plan check. Mitigation Measures 66.The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures and standard conditions contained within the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2008-021075) for the project. 93 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH } I, LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2008-53 was duly and regularly introduced before and adapted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 10th day of June 2008, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote,to wit: Ayes: Henn, Rosansky, Daigle, Webb, Curry, Gardner, Mayor Selich Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 11th day of June 2008. r -�� ,r2!`rU4j77it�--��• + ""'�''��.k�Liz Op t+e?p� City Clerk p� Newport Beach, California U (Seal) dR H IA 9�- Comment Letter Lennie DeCaro Owner: 5406 & 5408 Neptune Newport Beach, CA 92663 March 13, 2008 Via email (BNicholsncity.newnort-beach.ca.usl (949) 644-3309 Original mailed to: City of Newport Beach Attn: Brandon Nichols 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca 92663 RE: 5515 River Ave. Mitigated Negative Declaration(Seashore Village, LLC) Dear Mr. Nichols,planning department, &planning commissioners, Lennie DeCaro, (DeCaro), in opposition to this project provides the following comments on the mitigated negative declaration (MND) for the 5515 River project, (Seashore Village, LLC). The opposition considers this project to have numerous significant adverse environmental impacts on the applicant, surrounding area, and city of Newport Beach. The project will adversely impact residents public access to the beach, negatively effecting environmental justice with displacement of low income tenants,project will increase traffic on Neptune Ave. through the expansion and density of project, it will negatively impact privacy, sunlight, increase noise, reduce on-street parking, and is contrary to the goals of Newport Beach general plan. Project will heavily impact nearby residents during the construction phase of the project in terms of air quality, noise, traffic, and negative fiscal impacts will fall on the residents, as it will be nearly impossible to rent property to anyone that would have to put up with at least two years of construction. There is no mention of any mitigation to property owners for loss of rents, there is no mention as to a performance bond to the city to ensure that work would be completed within their"goal' timeframe. Currently, "large"builders are facing having bonds called, inability to pay subcontractors and are having projects stopped in midstream. This is a likely scenario with this ill thought out project and the residents will ultimately pay the price. This project would also lead to a diminution of property values, negatively impact homeowners whose patios and frontage are on Neptune Avenue, as project seeks to turn this street into an alley. The aesthetics of the area will be negatively affected, specifically injured are the immediate surrounding neighbors. There is also an invalid assumption of"less traffic" based on formula using"housing type" instead of"room count'. This incorrect assumption allowed exclusion of traffic study based on less than 300 trips per day. Project is inconsistent with stated goals of the cities, inconsistent with character of neighborhood, study has not been presented to prove that added residents would not negatively impact services including police, school, and library. There is an incomplete water plan that was submitted, invalid income survey done by sellers own management company, (recently hired within the past year), this study lacks impartiality and is doubtfully certified, but unable to review as it was not included in 1 this MND. There is further potential project bias from involvement with applicant architect on General Plan/LCP implementation committee,which was intended to primarily include public input. This committee, addressed some of the very issues challenged in this MND, and was to involve the public, utilizing architects only as a subcommittee. Instead, this committee changed and became contrary to the original stated intended purpose and city council resolution and included numerous architects (or related fields); absent are detailed minutes and public input. Further, this project is contrary to Coastal Commission goals of public access to the beach. There is inadequate study of the alternatives to this project, which were suggested by DeCaro in the spirit of compromise. These suggestions by DeCaro would solve the majority of the negative impacts. Noticing was also inadequate as documents were not released online until February 28,2008 and further, none of the 10 exhibits that are listed in the Planning Commission Agenda were attached or available online as of 3-16-08. 30 Days from 2-20-08 would also have deadline incorrect for review period, this would conclude on 3-21-08. DeCaro asserts an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared, circulated and ultimately certified, instead of the proposed MND, because there is substantial adequate evidence to support a fair argument that the project may, and in fact will have significant adverse environmental impacts to traffic, land use, noise, aesthetics, air quality, and safety amongst the other aforementioned issues. CEQA requires only one issue to support a fair argument to demand an EIR; this project contains numerous factual arguments that support a demand for an EIR. Further, the failure of the applicant to indemnify the city for CEQA challenges to this project, will leave the city in the position of having to absorb costs for legal challenges to the MND that may result in substantial damages awarded to a successful challenge to the MND. The city should uphold it's fiduciary responsibilities to the citizens and city and not grant the discretionary approvals for said project to the applicant and demand an EIR for any subsequent project revisions. This would be the most appropriate action that would responsibly act in a manner that is protective of the residents and city from cost of potential litigation in a challenge to the MND. DeCaro further asserts the MND does not adequately analyze the impacts and fails to clearly describe the numerous impacts the project will create. AN EIR IS REQUIRED 1 request this project complete an Environmental Impact Report as the mitigated negative declaration has not addressed the numerous issues that were raised to staff prior to release of the MND, nor do they adequately address the issues that have been raised in the following objections to the MND. There is no doubt that a fair argument can be made that numerous potential significant effects remain that have not been addressed nor disclosed in the mitigated negative declaration. The CEQA guidelines equate fair argument and substantial evidence as one in the same. Substantial evidence consists of facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts and expert opinion supported by facts. The MND's analysis of impacts is legally inadequate, as it fails to clearly describe the projects impacts, and offers no mitigation for the unstated impacts. 2 CEQA requires preparation of an EIR whenever a project may have a significant adverse impact on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code 21151.) "If there is substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact, evidence to the contrary does not dispense with the need for an EIR when it can still be "fairly argued"that the project may have a significant impact." (Friends of`B" Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106Cal.App.3d988, 1001.) Therefore,the appropriateness of an MND is only when, due to the nature of the project or the mitigation measures that have been accepted by the project proponent before the CEQA review process begins, there is not a fair argument that there may be adverse impacts. "Mitigated negative declaration" means a negative declaration prepared for a project when the initial study has identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment."Per Public Resources Code section 21064.5 Additionally, "the significance of an activity may vary with the setting."(CEQA Guidelines Section 15064 (b).)As an example, the threshold for finding negative impacts to be "cumulatively significant" can be found, because the nature of this area and the Neptune Avenue cul-de-sac have been a consistently quiet area and street for decades. The intense amount of traffic, noise, and air pollution generated on Neptune avenue as a result of this project attempting to turn Neptune into an alley, and potentially forcing over one hundred cars, (just from the development), coupled with additional beach traffic that would use this to loop through neighborhood in search of parking, make this an extremely significant finding. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford(1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 718-721.) Further the projects impact on traffic analysis depends upon the existing setting. (City of Orange v. Valenti (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 240, 249.) The Projects significant impacts must be adequately addressed, as well as address the identified mitigation measures that can reduce impacts and describes and compares the impacts of the potentially feasible alternatives. If the only reason the alternative is not studied is due to a prospective developer's profit potential, then clearly outside interests are being protected over long time residents quality of life. (3.1)AESTHETIC IMPACTS WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT "Any substantial, negative effect of a project on view and other features of beauty could constitute a "significant"environmental impact under CEQA." (Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation,Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994)29 Cal.App.4th 1597,1604.)According to the California Court of Appeal, lay opinions that articulate the basis of the opinion can constitute substantial evidence of a negative aesthetic impact. (Ocean View Estates Homeowners Assoc., Inc. v. Montecito Water District (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 396,402.) Expert testimony on the matter is not required because the overall aesthetic impact of a project is a subjective matter for 3 which personal observations are sufficient evidence of the impact. (Id.; Oro Fine Gold Mining Corp. V. County of El Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App3d872, 882.) One of the effected properties, 5408 Neptune Avenue, has a direct view of the ocean from the living room& balcony. This view has a straight line of sight directly to the public access opening for the beach. View corridor map (exhibit 2 p. 75 from MND) illustrates the view corridor to my property was substantiated; yet no mitigations or discussions addressed this issue. The current apartment building legal height is of no consequence as the building is setback from 5408 Neptune by at least 60'. This large unencumbered parking lot offers the uninterrupted view and is evidenced in applicant picture 11 a, where the large setbacks are obvious. Our property was purchased nearly 30 years ago based in part on the understanding of the benefits of living next to the building with the current zoning and setbacks and we paid a premium for this additional space next to our home. I have objected to applicant(s) and city regarding the numerous negative impacts, yet the MND doesn't address my ocean view, nor does MND address any mitigation. Our view is a direct line of sight to the (prox 50') open space on the sand. However, with rooftop decking,the view would be even greater. It is inarguable that there is a significant value placed on ocean views,amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars in difference between view and non-view properties. If the discretionary approvals for modifications are approved, I would lose the ocean view in its entirety, suffer an extreme loss in marketability and enjoyment of property, lose the privacy from new unit proximity and incur safety, traffic, runoff drainage, and noise issues through the prospect of turning our cul-de-sac into an alley. Plans for extension of"the sunset view park"will also have public views impacted that were not addressed in the MND. The modification permit (Chapter 20.93 establishes findings required for approval of a modification permit. To approve the modification the following three findings must be made: 1. "The granting of the application is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that strict application of the zoning code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the zoning code." Clearly this doesn't exist, there is no practical difficulty that revising plans couldn't accommodate. The only physical hardship would be that the project would transfer hardships to adjoining properties as the result of granting of this modification permit. The project has no practical difficulty; modification need is created solely by applicant's choice of design, rather than any innate characteristic of the lot. Adequate space exists for a scaled down version. This is new construction and there are a number of design alternatives that could provide full utilization of the lot while maintaining the required setbacks. The height modification can also be realized by a different design as well. Units are not marginal in size; in fact they are quite large, easy to scale down. 2. "The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood" 4 This finding cannot be made. Existing neighborhood consists of two story buildings with majority 24' or less. Proposed project exceeds this considerably. Reducing side yard widths will create the appearance of a huge mass project that will tower over the existing residences. The "existing"neighborhood included the current apartment building for nearly forty years and was to provide for a mix of uses that were planned to include an apartment building, duplexes and single-family areas. This modification allows for buildings that are too tall, too close to existing residences and too dense. NOT compatible. 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 detrimental to the general welfare or improvements in the neighborhood." This finding cannot be made either. This development is directly adjacent to neighbors and directly negatively will impact them. This development is in direct view of the public. This development will obscure views to the beach and its massing will overwhelm the area and take away the open area that is felt with the existing setbacks of 60' and more for the current apartment. Other properties will also be affected by the height of the proposed buildings and the expansion of the building envelope. MND incorrectly states surrounding area residential units are of similar height(three stories). This is incorrect. The surrounding properties are one and two stories. 5408 Neptune, directly bordering proposed project is less than 20' ht and typical of many homes. There are NO three-story units as the surrounding area is zoned for max. 24'.Current listings for this area, available online, all consist of one and two story units, and aerial photos supporting that the current apartment building at prox 27'is the only building zoned for 28'and erected in the vicinity and surrounding area units do not exceed 24', (except possibly from a couple of homes where the architect was jailed for falsifying the heights and Newport allowed building heights to remain). The aesthetics of this height differential will become obvious and very negative if the height differential is accentuated due to the granting of the side yard setback and height modifications. This side yard modification puts project too close in proximity to the older units, intensifying the differences in height and style. Planning commission should not allow the discretionary approval for the setback modifications, most egregious would be to allow encroachment into the minimum 25' setback. The building proximity from 25' to 3' will accentuate this differential and will be obvious that it is not in keeping with the existing neighborhood. We purchased the property in the 1970's due to the large setback from the apartment building, the quiet, privacy, and view this entailed. The apartment building is currently approximately 60' to 100' feet from our house and the modification is seeking to reduce the minimum setback requirement of 25' by 88%, (a change from required minimum of 25' to an inappropriate 3'). Properties are purchased knowing the existing zoning and setbacks, so any modification that would be improved would be a significant impact to the rest of the neighboring community that has abided by the restrictions. The MND omitted mentioning this Modification permit (25' setback reduced to 3') information altogether(p 39) under the environmental analysis and therefore, neither mitigation nor their impacts were addressed. It should have read, "a modification permit is also requested for a 3-foot side yard setback where the MFR zone requires approximately 25 feet side yard 5 setback based on lot width, (under discretionary approvals pg. 25). This is clearly a significant impact and will negatively affect all surrounding properties, losing the feel and look of open space that the reduced footprint the apartment had on the property. The omission of this modification permit on page 39 is a significant impact that the lack of analysis of which, is legally inadequate. Applicant appears to want the best of both types of zoning. They would like to not only have the building height currently 28' for MFR, but don't want the setback restrictions that comes with this zoning. More troubling is that they appear to be trying to have it both ways. They are looking to go even further on both height and setback through the modification requests. These are discretionary approvals; the city should follow the vision that these restrictions sought to protect and disallow the modification permits. If these height restriction modifications are approved it will create a domino effect of other residences requesting the same. The MND incorrectly asserts that the proposed project would allow for more public visual open space. There is no question that the density of the project removes visual open space. The existing apartment unit has a private pool area and an L-shaped building that is deeply set back from River (north) as well as Neptune and Seashore (cast). The setbacks are a minimum of 60' (possibly 100'). Page 47 in the MND accurately depicts the enormous open space between the buildings. This picture also illustrates that one can see the ocean between the buildings. In the 1980's there was no fence blocking the view at all. In fact the street was open from River direct through to Seashore. Again,this can be proven by the applicant's very own documents. Please reference page 373 of Appendix D; this is an example of a historical map that proves the area adjacent to 5408 Neptune was open as a road that was originally used to access River Road to Seashore. It also proves that Neptune has always been a cul-de-sac. Again, in the spirit of compromise, I have suggested a win-win for the community that deserves serious consideration if this project wants to proceed. The opportunity for the city to create a more pedestrian friendly development with sidewalks, on street parking, public access, visually more open space, more aesthetically appealing than buildings sandwiched together, and a better fit for the neighborhood is an opportunity for everyone to have their concerns addressed, while removing many objections should be seriously considered. The total square footage for the existing apartment building is only 48,744 square feet (per title search, or 48,753p.57 MND). This proposed project will actually increase to 57,906. This equates to proposed project being roughly 19% larger than the existing apartment building footprint. This does not take into consideration that current apartment is approximately 27' and proposed units will be taller by an average of approx. 20%. There is no way MND can claim that this project is less dense, will generate less traffic or will be in any way beneficial to our community if accepted as proposed. MND states project as gross floor area of 57,906 with a floor area ratio of.78. Again, these calculations are incorrect. Entire lot area is approx 63,597 square feet (orig. bldg. Permit p.408 appendix D in MND document), which equates to .91 FAR. Again, the MND is factually incorrect in its assertion that it would give more open area, when the facts are contrary to this. 6 The MND combines both building and parking of existing apartment and is misleading. The floor area is what should be referenced when discussing the visual open space. This project will significantly reduce the visual open space area. The current open parking space areas, not only allow a feeling of open space, they actually have ample parking for tenants and their guests without the need for the tenants to use the street. This frees the street up to visitors wishing to use the recreational amenities and park at the west side of this property that taxpayer dollars were spent to maintain for the public enjoyment. If this development is allowed to go forth as presented, it will be "giving" this developer the park and courts that belong to the city. The massing will give the impression that this is a private facility and the lack of parking this development will create will be the final straw. 3.3 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT The MND incorrectly asserts that implementation of the project would result in lower density residential land uses than currently exist on site and emissions from construction and operation of the project would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds. MND states emissions would be a net reduction due to a net reduction in residential units. The MND fails to analyze the footprint is approximately 19% larger than existing unit and the square footage of building goes from 48,744 sq ft to a development encompassing 57,906 square feet. Nor has the MND factored in that the existing apartment building has had a vacancy factor during this past year of at least 30%, even if you were to base it on Newport Beach average vacancy, one could safely assume that at any given time rental units are conservatively at 10% vacancy rate. Compound this with the fact that the majority of units (40) only have one tenant, and remaining 14 units are for two adults. Therefore, the number of people residing at current apartment building (10%vacancy) would be approximately 49 as a maximum number. 24 residences with 12 four bedrooms and 12 three bedroom equates to 84 residents, or 71% more impact on the environment. I used bedroom numbers based on their presentation, as MND drawings are illegible for detail. These additional residents from this project will not only be using more resources, but will add to the traffic volume, and this added volume would result in an increase in air pollutants, which is not acknowledged in the MND. Neptune Avenue is a cul-de-sac and is narrow (30") compared to River(60'); it is unable to handle traffic turning around in this narrow road. This project is suggesting Neptune as the alley to the new development; however, this street was not designed to accommodate this and would result in backups of the additional traffic. Further, the original ingress/egress (on River) for the existing site was removed in order to densify this project by putting in condos where cars had previously accessed the site. In 1981, the public accessed Seashore through this area adjacent to 5408 Neptune, (Appendix D map.373) this route was blocked to through traffic with the addition of a fence, likely to avoid a prescriptive action by the public, since public had used this access for years. The MND has not studied the negative impact of trying to turn the established Neptune Avenue into an alley, and how this would impact traffic. The MND should study the alternative 1 7 suggested which is to utilize the current parking lot/setback to accommodate the developments ingress/egress by requiring it be a road. This would put the problem that applicants are creating, back to a more equitable solution. The project as presented puts the entire negative impacts onto the neighbors. MND states 42% of project would be paved, but doesn't analyze type of pavement nor mitigations. Will alley that accesses resident driveway be comprised of asphalt? These air quality impacts are not adequately analyzed. Asphalt batch plants emit PM, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, methane and hazardous air pollutants. These impacts must be properly studied in the MND and then adequate mitigation must be included. MND states there will be short- term generation of air pollutants during construction, primarily including exhaust from construction, dust from demo, and motor vehicle trips. The MND claims exemption because SCAQMD has yet to establish regional emissions. Analysis is inadequate; modeling was for a site at 82 feet from construction. This site is closer than 82 feet to a number of adjoining residents and these figures are not adequately studied, nor mitigations offered. In using URBEMIS2007 modeling, inputted assumptions for this modeling are not included. MND incorrectly asserts that the model run is included in Appendix B. Appendix B is listed as "archaeological record search". Short-term impacts also negated to mention the release of asbestos and lead paint. Property has confirmed asbestos and due to age of construction, lead is assumed as well. MND states: CO2 emissions are likely not to be considered substantial enough to result in a significant cumulative impact relative to GHG emissions and climate change impacts. This was not studied adequately, and they are using assumptions instead of studies. Long term impacts are based on faulty short term impacts and incorrect assumptions of reduced vehicle trips as MND use ITE 2003, which has substantial variability. Further, because MND is using the assumption there are no short-term impacts, therefore there are no long-term impacts are incorrect. There are short-term impacts; therefore long-term impacts need analysis as well. MND presumes operational emissions would be reduced because the number of units are reduced. They fail to analyze based on the total square footage of buildings as compared to the apartment, or room count. There is an obvious connection to an increase in residents and traffic, based on size of home and rooms. This project would result in an increase not a decrease in traffic. Construction LSTs are not based on any grading plan, so the amount of disturbed soil is an unknown. Further, and once again, MND inadequately studied construction LSTs and provided the assumptions for the modeling in Appendix A. In reviewing the modeling, it appears that in order to comply, construction was extended to 18 months and removed trenching for utilities as well as mass grading. "Phasing" of the project was used as a tool to gain compliance, however, cumulatively; surrounding residents are exposed to the same amount of pollutants, only over a longer period of time. Modeling also assumed construction would take place in the winter with 60-degree weather. Additionally, to lower emissions, model removed the 8 trenching for utilities. This would be inaccurate, as each unit will need under-grounding of utilities, trenching for foundations etc.. Additionally phasing is a poor idea, a likely scenario is that project ends up sitting for much longer and the MND has no mitigations to guarantee this won't happen. There are 2 areas where emissions would exceed the LSTs, PM10 and PM2. Mitigation measure state they will bring down pollutants to an acceptable level, however, Rule 403 measures need to be called out specifically in the mitigation, and the table is based on incorrect assumptions. Included below is excerpt from the Newport Beach draft EIR (5-22-2006) from the Environmental Quality Affairs report, that addresses this URBEMIS modeling, (same model used in this MND) and the associated problems. "recommends that `projects generating or attracting vehicular trips, especially heavy-duty diesel vehicles,perform a mobile source health risk assessment" in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA) Guidelines published on the CEQA website. The final EIR should include a mobile source health risk assessment and provide the results of the analysis. Appendix B contains Air Quality Data based on computer analysis from a modeling program titled "URBEMIS 2002 for Windows 8.7.0. " Although Pb and PM2.5 have been previously noted as potential health hazards, they are not included in the modeling. The final EIR should identify how the proposed Project would deal with these hazards, and identify other possible analysis tools that could be utilized. In this same Appendix B, the URBEMIS modeling results are potentially confusing and contradictor. Compare the results from Appendix B, sheet#1 (marked page: ], 3/8/2006, 2:36 pm) and sheet #5 (also marked page: 1, 3/212006, 2:37 pm). The titles on these pages are identical regarding on-road motor vehicle emissions summarized in pounds/day for summer. The final EIR should explain the difference,for example, in ROG from 2937.54 lbs/day to 359.52 lbs/day, and state how the City can assure that the correct numbers are used in subsequent analyses. Also, ROG is not defined. Is this related to the volatile organic compounds (VOC's) defined on page 4.2-2 of the DEIR? If so, the final EIR should fully explain. If not, the analysis of VOC's should be included in the final EIR?" underscoring added. 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - INADEQUATE STUDY ANALYSIS MND relies on only a site survey, yet doesn't provide field data sheets,nor even a written report, signed and certified by Senior Biologist, nor is Phil Brylski listed on pg. 101 as a preparer with The Planning Center. Data regarding biological resources on the project site should have been obtained through a literature review that would include data on biological resources in the 9 project vicinity, and applicable reference materials, with the objective of assessing and documenting existing conditions of the onsite biological resources that may not be immediately obvious with merely a site review. Sensitive biological resources present, or potentially present, onsite should have first been identified and documented through a literature review using the following resources: California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG2007), California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB 2007), and the California Native Plant Society (Tibor 2001 and CNPSEI 2007). A biological assessment survey to document existing conditions and to determine potential impacts to sensitive biological resources based on current site plans should have included notes of biological resources, such as plant and wildlife species, on field data sheets that would also notate date, time and conditions notes were taken under. These data sheets are not included. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) administers the state Endangered Species Act. The State of California considers an"endangered" species one whose prospects of survival and reproduction are in immediate jeopardy, a"threatened" species is one present in such small numbers throughout its range that it is likely to become an endangered species in the near future in the absence of special protection or management, and a"rare" species is one present in such small numbers throughout its range that it may become endangered if its present environment worsens. "Rare" species applies to California native plants. State threatened and endangered species are fully protected against take, as defined above. Species of Special Concern is an informal designation used by CDFG for some declining wildlife species that are not state candidates. This designation does not provide legal protection, but signifies that these species are recognized as sensitive by CDFG and no determination of impacts can adequately be assessed by on hearsay. Because the community is near to wetlands and dunes, further confirmation from the CDFG is required. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS)has developed an inventory of California's sensitive plant species (Tibor 2001). This inventory summarizes information on the distribution, rarity, and endangerment of California's vascular plants. The inventory is divided into four lists based on the rarity of the species. In addition, the CNPS provides an inventory of plant communities that are considered sensitive by the state and federal resource agencies, academic institutions, and various conservation groups. Determination of the level of sensitivity is based on the number and size of remaining occurrences as well as recognized threats. Sensitive habitats are natural communities that support concentrations of sensitive plant or wildlife species, are of relatively limited distribution, or are of particular value to wildlife (CNDDB 2007). Sources used for the classification of sensitive resources that should have been notated and reviewed are as follows: Plants - California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG 2007), California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB 2007), and California Native Plant Society (Tibor 2001 and CNPSEI 2007);Habitats - CNDDB (2007), Holland(1986) Wildlife - CDFG(2007), CNDDB (2007). Sensitive plant communities occur near the vicinity of the project site. 4.0 of Newport Beach Coastal Resource Protection, 4.1.1 There are terrestrial, (non-marine)natural communities that are known to occur within the coastal zone in the city of Newport Beach and its sphere of influence. MND offered inadequate analysis. 10 There also appear to be large trees, species and potential nesting of birds not addressed. MND states trees are classified as "small", however photographs suggest otherwise. No photos are included in the MND classifying landscaping. Historical research photos (2004) illustrate three large palms. Page 41 of Appendix D you can also see the tops of the trees including one of the palms. MND appears to have purposefully omitted pictures that show the apartment in a positive light. This is quite contrary to pictures that I have. Further, page 46 shows different trees behind the parking. This entire area behind the wall is landscaped. The project may violate the city of Newport's tree ordinance as it fails to identify if the existing trees are covered by this G-1-G-3 policy. Newport Beach defines landmark trees based on size, age, and type. Historical photos of subject site show three extremely large palm trees that could qualify based on size, age or species. However, the MND has no documentation presented, except to state two small ornamental pine trees exist on property. This is ambiguous and clearly inaccurate based on photo from 2004, and there is no study to confirm if this would be a negative impact to the community to remove trees that have been in the community since 1972. Mitigation for removal of the trees are uncertain. The MND does not provide any mitigation for the loss of the mature palm trees. The MND must analyze how trees would be replaced. MITIGATIONS ARE IMPROPERLY DEFERRED. The courts have held it is a violation of CEQA to approve a project based on a negative declaration without first resolving how adverse impacts will be mitigated. (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988)202 Cal.App.3d296.) The courts found that the development and implementation of mitigation measures after project approval was a violation of CEQA. (Id. At 306-308; see also Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4`s 1359, 1396.) Courts have prohibited the deferral of mitigation because "There cannot be meaningful scrutiny of a mitigated negative declaration when the mitigation measures are not set forth at the time of the project approval." (Oro Fino Gold mining Corp. v. County of EI Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872,884.) There are a number of mitigation measures for potentially significant effects that are mitigated only by statements that future plans would provide mitigation, without specifying the mitigation measures or requiring that the plans be submitted prior to project approval. This issue is throughout the MND. Plans need to be completed and submitted as part of the CEQA review process, and prior to the approval of any environmental review document. (Pub. Resources Code Section 21080(c)(2).) MND states that it will provide more landscape than existing and this will make it more pleasing than the existing building because landscaping is doubled, but without a detailed plan, the mere coverage of area doesn't make it more attractive. The project could be removing many large shrubs or tall trees only to be replacing them with small planters, but that use more area. The impact would be substantial and negative to have the mature landscaping removed. The numerous trees surrounding the property, (neighborhood trees) could be considered "special trees"giving character to the community. Per city code, Special Trees shall be retained, unless there are overriding problems. Prior to consideration for any removal of a Special Tree(s), 11 the General Services Director, or designee, shall prepare a report identifying and implementing specific treatment to retain the tree(s). If specific treatment is unsuccessful or impractical in retaining a tree(s) then a full staff report shall be made to the Commission before any further action considering removal is taken. Prior to any removal of Special Tree(s), the City must comply with the noticing provisions of the Removal of City Trees section set forth in this Policy, unless a Special Tree is considered hazardous that necessitates an emergency removal. Any such removal must be recommended by the General Services Director and the Risk Manager and approved by the City Manager. Special Trees may be considered for removal under the provisions of this Section provided a special report by the General Services Director is provided to the Commission detailing the necessity of removal and any specific previous treatment of the tree. After receipt of the application, a Tree Inspection Report shall be prepared by the City's Urban Forester (Attachment 2) to determine if the tree(s)meets the criteria outlined in the above All Other City Trees section for consideration for removal. Simultaneously, the Urban Forester shall provide a notice of the proposed tree removal to the adjacent property owner(if not the applicant), the private property owners immediately adjacent to the applicant's property, and the appropriate community association if applicable, (not applicable to the emergency removal of hazardous trees under Item C nor to trees that meet the criteria of Item E in the preceding All Other City Trees section). The Urban Forester shall determine whether in his/her judgment additional specific treatment can be initiated to retain the tree provided the costs are reasonable. If a tree(s) is to be removed, the tree(s) will be posted at least 30 days prior to the removal with a sign notifying the public that they have the right of appeal. The sign shall also note a staff contact. Once a recommendation is made by the Urban Forester and the Parks and Trees Maintenance Superintendent to the General Services Director and the General Services Director or designee concurs, then the applicant, the adjoining owners, private property owners on either side of the street within 500' in each direction of the tree location and a legally established community association, if applicable, shall be notified of the decision to remove or retain the tree within 30 days of the proposed removal. A legally established community association is responsible for notification of all association members pursuant to their established procedure. The General Services Director, or a designee, shall prepare a staff report for a regularly scheduled PB&R Commission meeting of all trees recommended for removal, except for those trees categorized in Paragraph C. (dead, diseased, or dying trees) or Paragraph E (claims and safety issues) in the preceding section on All Other City Trees. Only an applicant, an adjoining property owner, or a legally established community association, the City Manager, a PB&R Commissioner, or a Councilmember may appeal the decision of the General Services Director not to remove a tree to the Commission. The Commission, in considering any appeal, shall determine whether the removal meets the criteria outlined in this Policy, as well as any unique factors which may be pertinent to the removal or retention of tree(s). The decision of the Commission will be considered final unless called up by at least one Councilmember or the City Manager. 12 The General Services Department will delay any tree removal(s) for at least 14 calendar days following the date of the Commission decision in order to allow time The General Services Department will delay any tree removal(s) for at least 14 calendar days following the date of the Commission decision in order to allow time for a Councilmember or the City Manager to call the item. 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES -INSUFFICIENT STUDY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS MND misrepresents the importance of findings from Archaeological data. MND states records search was conducted and no archaeological evidence on or near the site was found. The MND neglected to state that the prior studies that were done did not include this area; therefore there were no sites that could be found if they were never studied. Of the areas studied, including within one-quarter mile, records check found a minimum of 11 archaeological sites within one mile of project. MND states sites are not"expected"to extend into project area. However, study further states that area and surrounding properties were developed without the benefit of an archaeological investigation and therefore, no data is available to ascertain the general level of sensitivity for similar resources to be present. The McKenna study concludes, the Newport Coastal area is generally considered sensitive for prehistoric archaeological resources, and should be considered moderately sensitive for both historic and prehistoric archaeological resources. MND admits only a limited archaeological records search was conducted by McKenna et al. However, the findings are significant. It continues to state area is moderately sensitive for historic archaeological resources regarding the historic railroad alignment. MND has not been surveyed for cultural resources and potential for subsurface evidence remains. Mitigations must include defined archaeological monitoring program. Archival research has indicated it is sensitive for the presence of prehistoric period archaeological resources within the project area. Surface survey is an inadequate method for defining and evaluating these resources, and even that wasn't performed. Mitigations for this potential impact would be to implement a program of subsurface testing, utilizing traditional or remote sensing methods, designed and implemented by a Registered Professional Archaeologist. Testing would determine the nature and extent of archaeological deposits. If deposits were located, they would be evaluated according to the eligibility criteria of the California Register of Historical Resources. If eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, measures to mitigate the effects of the project on archaeological resources would be designed and implemented. Avoidance is the preferred method of mitigation. If, however, avoidance is not feasible, alternative methods may be developed. If alternative mitigation includes data collection excavations, these must be conducted according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4. Per notice from the Native American Heritage Commission dated March 5, 2008 and received Mar 10,2008(available at city 3-17-08),they recommended that a records search of recorded sites be done (CHRIS) and that the record search would determine: if a survey is required to 13 determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present. Study consultant performed search but did not state whether a survey would be required. The NAHC also recommends that project applicant contact the Native American Heritage commission for a Sacred Lands file search of the project. MND study shows no evidence of contact or results of this recommendation. I contacted the Native American Heritage Commission and confirmed that the project site is in close proximity to previously discovered prehistoric burial sites and is believed to hold numerous Native American cultural resources. They suggest early consultation with Native American tribes in the area as the best way to avoid unanticipated discoveries once a project is underway. They also state that lack of surface evidence of archeological resources does not preclude the existence of archeological resources. Lead agencies should consider avoidance, as defined in Section 15370 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)when significant cultural resources could be affected by a project. (3-19-08 Dave Singleton) The existing paved area currently in the setback of 60', if used as the driveway, as it presently is used, could help to mitigate the impacts by avoiding the excavation for foundation footings that will be required in order to support the three story condos. 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS -INSUFFICIENT STUDY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS MND states EGA consultants prepared an investigation included in Appendix B. This mislabeling of where to find the documents is confusing. Appendix B addresses archaeological Records Search. Geotechnical Investigation is found in Appendix C. This document also has been marked with purple highlighter. It is unclear if this is to emphasize or to delete. As stated in McQueen v. Board of Directors of the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District(202 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1143; 249 Cal.Rptr. 439), "An accurate project description is necessary for an intelligent evaluation of potential environmental effects of a proposed activity". A vague or ambiguous project description will render all further analyses and determinations ineffectual. It is critical that the project description be as clear and complete as possible so that the issuing agency and other responsible agencies may make informed decisions regarding a proposed project. While an MND provides a general description of the project, key elements are either missing or yet to be decided. For example, there is no indication as to how much grading will occur. This is a key factor in addressing other impacts including, but not limited to, traffic on haul routes,noise, vibration, and air pollutant emissions. Vibration will occur to the land immediately adjacent to the property during construction. Mitigation measures that could be used include: using augers and providing buffer zones between residences and the use of vibratory equipment. Mitigation could also include alternative ways of compaction within these buffer zones that does not create excessive vibration. 14 EGA completed a preliminary investigation. They requested grading and foundation plan be reviewed and approved prior to construction. There is no mention of the appendix C in their contract or study and may not be site specific. There is also an issue for inadequate drainage runoff could impact surrounding properties as water table is found at 6'-8"below grade. There is no grading/specific drainage plan to determine depth and disturbance of soil. Soil records also show water table at F below surface on records check for area soils. 3.7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Study found 17 of 44 samples testing positive for asbestos. No lead based paint was tested for. 1972 was during time when lead was commonly found in paint. Study stated that prior to demolition, it may require a lead based paint survey to be performed. Again, MND is deferring possible mitigations, because they have not done a conclusive study. New development could "uncover previously undiscovered soil contamination as well as result in the release of potential contaminants that may be present in building materials (e.g. mold, lead, etc.). This could result in a significant impact. Lead was not tested for, and the mitigation is therefore deferred, mold and other toxics were not addressed. Mitigations should include detailed means of enforcement and the agencies/departments of enforcement of the City's proposed policies should define the timelines and response times for enforcement of each regulation and policy. Most importantly, all impacts—whether potential or definite—should be analyzed in light of the response, clean up, and remediation times attendant to the regulations/policies and enforcement cited by the City as the factors that render all impacts less than significant. 3.8 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY IMPACTS WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT The plan as submitted appears as an incomplete boilerplate report. Plan describes that by filtering directly into the ground, this avoids the need for regular maintenance, however acknowledges that drains would require general property maintenance. The long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control BMPs are not defined adequately as they state that there will be no common maintenance control, that instead, individual investors will be caring for their individual areas. It doesn't identify the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPS, and does not describe the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPS. 15 Section VI is entirely missing, as well as language either omitted or accentuated by use of colored marker. Page 10 is blank, Page 11 checks box for common area landscape management as both"included" and "N/A". States "N/A"regarding a spill contingency plan based on "Small SFD development" (sic). Plan is inadequate as it states common area litter control is N/A as "common areas minimal and maintained by individual home owners". There is guest parking, alley way and paved walkways that are private and shared by the development. They identify no one being in charge to clean or maintain these areas, nor do they state who will be responsible for street sweeping of parking lots or maintenance of broken irrigation systems that would be used for the trees they have depicted in artist rendering of proposed development. These trees will require pesticides, fertilization and watering, far greater than zeroscape plantings. The application is inadequate in that it does not state who will provide common area catch basin inspection. It has marked both included and"N/A" under Uniform fire code implementation. Plan should also consider sand filtration prior to release of treated water into storm drain if individual percolation would be inadequate during heavy rains, considering the high water table in Newport Beach. Plan does not address actions for the construction phase that should include how demolition debris is disposed of or stored, covered, transported and does not include grading and drainage plans to prevent flooding of other properties. Design objectives that need to be addressed would include: All surface runoff and subsurface drainage being directed to the nearest acceptable drainage facility, via sump pumps if necessary, as determined by the Building Official. Drains cannot discharge onto neighboring properties, all roof drains shall be required to connect into a tight-line drainage pipe or concrete swales that drain to the nearest acceptable drainage facility. Water runoff needs to address landscape plans that would utilize only native, drought-tolerant landscape materials. Plans appear to show drain trench in front of 5408 Neptune Avenue, instead of on their property, transferring maintenance responsibilities to the city. Drainage appears to be designed to go directly into the ground but not called out in sufficient detail as to location, size, etc. Pollutant concerns should be addressed due to the water table at approx. 5' below surface, possibly at 1', and soil is class D, subject to saturation, poor drainage, etc. New project will exacerbate water use and runoff, thereby increasing pollution. Current apartment parking doesn't have access to wash cars at the premises. Existing landscaping is well established and appears to consist primarily of zero-scape plantings. Project would increase water usage and subsequent pollution due to increased watering of planted areas and fertilizing, numerous residents washing their cars in their driveways, and numerous residents hosing off prior to entering the condos. Much of this water would be on impervious surfaces, increasing pollution in the runoff. There is no plan for a common maintenance district to control landscape areas, so possibilities of broken sprinkler heads are much more likely to go unattended to. It is also much more likely that each individual unit will supply hoses to shower off prior to coming into their new homes, causing a continual runoff of water. The MND claim that the new project will result in less surface runoff are incorrect as there will be an increase in water usage. Increases will be 16 primarily in the impervious areas due to hosing off and washing of cars. There is also a real potential of flooding neighbors if grading is toward surrounding residences. This is in an area that has flooded significantly. If runoff is put back into the ground, relying on a filtering system, this could over saturate the grounds and potentially impact surrounding properties as well. There is also no discussion of the Clean Water Act that would limit the amount of runoff or limit the percentage of increase a project generates on the amount of runoff. 3.9 LAND USE /PHYSICALLY DIVIDE AN ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY The introduction of such a dense massing of homes may create a distinct community whereby rehab facilities could proliferate. The potential is already rumored and there is nothing that the city could do because as individually owned condos, each residential unit could house 6 people and be within the law. My research uncovered that one of the primary rehab house owners is listed as a tenant in the existing building. The directories search in the MND would have shown this but they only show directories up to 2002. It is a reasonable conclusion one could draw, that someone who owns several rehab homes in Newport Beach, yet decides to become a tenant, may possibly be part of this investor group. There is evidence to suggest that this exact type of thing is happening in other cities at this moment. There are areas currently in California that have been redeveloped and taken over by rehab facilities. This potential outcome may be in the future for West Newport. Densification of this site and the lack of parking spaces to accommodate the additional owners will physically divide the community. Residents and visitors will no longer be able to find parking on the street to use the park. Further, the dense development will give the appearance that the park is part of"their own private community". The MND fails to address that the number of cars are directly related to the number of bedrooms. There is only one area in the MND that describes the fact that the current site has only eight (8) studios, (32)thirty-two one- bedrooms, and only fourteen (14) two bedroom units. Nowhere in the entire MND do they address the amount of parking spaces that the apartment currently has. It appears this is not addressed because it would accentuate the difference between the abundance of parking currently, compared to what it will become if this area is allowed to become over developed. The issue that needs to be addressed is that the current parking accommodates current residents with parking to spare. Proposed parking with increased residents will not provide adequate parking. It may be technically within guidelines, but this is a public resource and every reasonable attempt to provide adequate parking must be demanded. I believe current site has more parking spaces than proposed site and current site has fewer residents. MND doesn't state apartment number of existing spaces and analysis doesn't cover this aspect. MND states project will only have 63 total spaces. New development has minimum of 83 bedrooms compared to existing total of 68 bedrooms. 17 MND incorrectly describes the floor area Ratio for said project as .78 FAR. It is miscalculated, the proposed project is 57,906 square feet with the lot size 63,597, and the actual FAR is .91. Lot size is also incorrectly stated in parts of the MND as 1.49 (prop. description 3.0), it is actually 1.46 and MND consultant/McKenna documents stated this correctly in their study (Exhibit B). However, where the description should be absolutely correct, the MND is inaccurate. MND also incorrectly stated on the same page, under the property description of existing apartment building square footage, wherein it inflated the square footage to 64,885. The actual square footage of existing building, confirmed by original building permit and county recorder is 48,744 with a floor area ratio of.76. MND also appears to be trying to have apartment building appear it the worst light possible. MND, again under property description (3.2 of 466 page environmental assessment report) states: estimated % of property covered by buildings and/or pavement at 97%. There is no reason to combine the two except to imply that the existing structure is massive and envelopes nearly the entire property. At the beach parking equates to a better standard of living. This was one of the reasons that the apartment building was such a good neighbor. MND appears to continually ignore major negative impacts, or spins descriptions to imply something other than the real facts suggest. The building mass of existing apartment is considerably less. (.76FAR to proposed .91 FAR ). Another interesting MND omission that was just revealed (available 3-17-08) is on page 75 of 128, entitled "Exhibit 2 project plans". Apparently someone did take notice of my complaints for the past two years on this project and illustrated that 5408 Neptune does in fact have an ocean view and they were aware of it. However, this map that shows the view corridor is not addressed, no mitigation, no discussion, period. The PR team for the past two years has ignored any attempt to compromise or address neighbors concerns. There was never any attempt to mitigate the many issues when there has been two years during this process where applicant could have changed the siting and reduced the density. The MND should consider the option of purchasing the site for the city to extend the existing park for the residents of West Newport. At least one council member has stated that increasing park space was a goal, as well as sidewalks. Certainly, allowing anything close to the densification this project is asking for is contrary to the city's best interests. Photos already show how tall the apartment looks in contrast to the other homes, but because of the generous setbacks of over 60', it is much less obvious and obtrusive. There isn't the stark contrast that the new development will have. However, if one puts this massive grouping of condos together,the height differential will be obvious. 5408 Neptune, which is on a double lot, is less than 20' in height and will be dwarfed by a bldg nearly double its height. The Seashore building also appears to be approximately the same height as 5408 and will also suffer the same disproportionate look. This project will result in a complete lack of privacy, shadows will be cast over the patios and aesthetics will be compromised in this neighborhood. Newport should not be supporting 3 story homes in West Newport; these larger homes with more bedrooms will just create more of the traffic that makes the quality of life at the beach decline. 18 Documents on the Agenda and part of the MND were not released until March 17, 2008. Documents/plans for project are illegible as far as detail determining dimensions on floor plans. However it appears one model could easily convert to add an additional bedroom. There are no conditions to limit the number of bedrooms. The number of rooms does in fact have a definite impact on quality of life and densification of this area and needs analysis. I have been told the apartment building was at one time 30-40% vacant, even assuming a 10% vacancy rate; you have very few occupants that live there based on the preponderance of one-bedroom units. Apartment area is extremely quiet and they have always had ample parking to accommodate all the tenants and their guests within the confines of their site. This has allowed the public and neighbors to enjoy the park and the public beach. The MND omits references to the number of existing parking spaces, therefore inadequate analysis is derived. MND is stating there will be less impacts based on a formula for daily trips, that (ITE) admits is extremely variable. A study should compare the likely number of residents driving, based on number of bedrooms. The study also needs to address the demographics of this area of Newport Beach. Primarily this area will draw more teenagers or adults, based on the popularity of this area in that age group. A direct correlation exists between number of bedrooms, number of tenants and number of cars. It has also been rumored that there is already a rehab unit(s) in the apartment. If this were true, it appears contrary to the recorded message that states in order to qualify for a one- bedroom apt.,you must make $66,200 per year and no co-signers are accepted. If it is not true, then one must wonder why a rehab owner is listed as a tenant. It is also likely that in order for investors to recoup their investment that this area will become primarily weekly summer rentals. There are potential severe impacts that will further divide this community if this area becomes a primarily a rehab area. The MND offers no mitigations to protect the community. The same potential exists for this proposed development. Further,there appears to be a need for CC&R's and a homeowner association to manage and control this area; MND suggests none. Further, MND basically states there will be no one in charge of maintaining common areas, that the individual will be responsible for their own area. This will clearly create significant impacts that have not been addressed adequately. 19 The following is an article that appeared in the Boston Banner on 12/13/2007. httu://www.baystatebanner.com/issues/2007/12/13/news/locaI I2130711.htm `Sober houses' under legal review by city By Kenneth I Cooper The Roxbury development that has become Safe Haven Sober Houses started quietly enough a decade ago when a one-man real estate company based in Hull bought an undeveloped parcel on the eastern foot of Fort Hill. That was about the last quiet moment. The ongoing saga has seen the project shift from single-family townhouses.for sale to multiple-occupancy bedrooms for weekly rent sober houses. Some neighbors and their elected representatives have criticized the development—in both its forms—as too dense. The original plan was to erect 22 modular townhouses on a little more than an acre and a ha f The courts have been kept busy with lawsuits, appeals and a criminal prosecution that the city is now pursuing against Safe Haven's operators on charges of converting garages and basements into bedrooms without building permits. The permits the developers did have were issued in 2003 on a unanimous order from the State Building Code Appeals Board after the Boston Redevelopment Authority sat on the application for more than four years. More than 100 tenants recovering from substance abuse live in II or 12 townhouses on Washington, Juniper and Guild streets, Safe Haven states in a recent court filing. "The development went up as a condo development, not a sober house, "said City Councilor Chuck Turner when asked to distill his concerns about Safe Haven. "Another concern is the quality of services." Turner, state Sen. Dianne Wilkerson and state Rep. Gloria Fox, in separate interviews, recited a litany of concerns:fatal overdoses on site, residents'purchases at a liquor store a block away, serious sex offenders among the tenants and, as Wilkerson puts it, "such a high concentration"of recovering substance abusers. Unlike residential treatment programs, sober houses by definition provide only housing —not services to help tenants move beyond their addiction. The staff is supposed to collect rents, assure safety and enforce rules, but is not charged with monitoring individual behavior. Support and peer pressure from other former addicts is supposed to keep residents on track. Because they do not provide treatment, sober houses are not licensed or regulated by any level ofgovernment. They enjoy the protection of state and federal anti-discrimination laws, which define recovering substance abusers as disabled. 20 Some sober houses in other states, reacting to bad publicity or proposed regulation, have banded together to impose quality standards on themselves. California has two such groups: the Sober Living Network, based in Santa Monica, and the statewide California Association of Addiction Recovery Resources (CAARR) in Sacramento. The Banner asked the directors of both organizations, and Douglas Polcin, a national expert on sober houses, about the concerns cited about Safe Haven. Though they disagreed on some points, all three characterized most of those concerns as worrisome and inconsistent with a well-managed sober house. Overdoses Sgt. Bruce Smith, a community services officer with the Boston Police Department's Area B station, said at least three fatal overdoses have occurred at Safe Haven. Told at least three fatal overdoses have occurred at Safe Haven, which opened last year, Polcin groaned and muttered: "No, no. " Ken Schonlau, director of the Sober Living Network. said, "it happens, " but could recall only one fatal overdose on the premises of its 320 member houses. (Underscore added). The same potential exists for this proposed development. Further, there appears to be a need for CC&R's and a homeowner association to manage and control this area; MND suggests none. Further, MND basically states there will be no one in charge of maintaining common areas, that the individual will be responsible for their own area. This will clearly create significant impacts that have not been addressed adequately. 1.2.1 EXISTING LAND USE /DESCRIPTION INADEQUATE. Defines current access via two driveways on River,but states access to and from"Seashore Street and Neptune Avenue is blocked by a wooden fence", implying "access"to Neptune Avenue. Fact: There has never been any access from subject site to or through Neptune Avenue. The significance is that this project proposal is attempting to turn Neptune Avenue from a cul-de-sac into an alley, using Neptune as the primary access to all of its units. Meanwhile, applicant is requesting to use one of the two existing driveways on River as their own private driveway for the sole benefit of only one of their proposed condos. This proposal to use one of the two existing River Avenue driveways for the benefit of just one of the proposed single-family condo units is unfair to existing homeowners. Applicant is attempting to effectively "take" from the cities existing residents that have purchased property on Neptune, requiring us to give our street over to the developers to further accommodate their economic gains at our economic loss. There is no valid reason they cannot use the existing driveway with current ingress/egress. This is purely to maximize their profits at the existing taxpayers expense. There are no physical constraints that would make this infeasible. It is not the role of the city to provide for the most profitable investment opportunity for investors. The role of the city is to protect and enforce existing code and to maintain the community vision and standards through fair application of code. 21 While the apartment building originally had open access to Seashore Drive from an opening to the street from the apartment parking area,Neptune Avenue never was accessible. The apartment owner put up a fence years ago to discourage the public from walking through the complex to access the beach and to stop public from using this access road and parking in their guest parking spots. Neptune however, has never been open for through-traffic or pedestrian access to the apartment bldg.. Neptune has always had a permanent blockade erected by the city, as well as postings of"no parking" signs. Neptune has always had terminus at 5406 Neptune Ave. Seashore on the other hand was used at one time to access the beach and verified through maps found in the MND, mentioned previously. Mitigations that should have been studied and presented are absent. An obvious mitigation would be to reduce the project density, while maintaining a portion of the open space of the current footprint. Utilizing the current driveway on River Avenue and continuing this directly through to Seashore Avenue effectively eliminates the majority of objections that residents have and the city should have. The city encourages use of sidewalks and public parking. Coastal commission encourages public access. Neptune residents do not want their cul-de-sac turned into an alley. I have numerous issues with loss of ocean view, privacy, safety, traffic, noise, etc. If this area adjacent to my home had a standard 30'road put in, this would solve nearly all of the issues. I offered this as a compromise, as I would still be giving up privacy and safety with the added adjacent traffic, but discussed this with the applicant and was told they can't afford financially to give up any properties. Absent a compromise, I informed them this would likely result in litigation, and this didn't concern the applicant. Based on this, I would request information as to if the applicant has or will sign a letter that would indemnify the city from potential CEQA lawsuit. This mitigation I have suggested is a compromise that would not only solve many issues, it would actually benefit the look of the development as a defined community. Placing this huge block of taller condos crammed next to older duplexes does not fit in with the character of the community. However, an appropriate approach is found in the adjacent Lido Sands community. This community serves as an excellent example of a well-done community of single-family homes,that are decidedly different and defined it its own small grouping, but in keeping with the community aesthetics. Setting apart of the new development would be in keeping with the transitional changes one expects when transitioning to different types or styles of housing. An inclusion of a new street would appeal aesthetically as it would give the distance needed to accommodate the break in design styles. Our community and the development would be better served with this approach. The proposed project could have the opportunity to benefit the surrounding neighborhood and the developer at the same time, if applicant would agree to compromise. The project needs to be scaled down and to include the suggested road improvement. This road requirement would utilize the area that is currently within the required minimum setback. The apartment is currently set back at least 60'. The required setback to accommodate 30' road with sidewalks could be provided,with the majority of the road being within the required 25'setback. However, applicants are asking for a modification to this setback from the current minimum of 25' to reduce it to 3', (min. 88% reduction of setback). 22 SAFETY: Public dedication of right of way should be required due to the impact on the area. River Avenue is 60' geometric and clearly able to handle larger volume of traffic as it is wider and does not intersect with pass through traffic. Neptune is a 30' geometric that has always had terminus at 5408 Neptune. It is reasonable to assume a serious negative impact would result during any emergency requiring immediate evacuation, as there is the potential of 100 or more cars from this new development that would be attempting to access out from the narrower Neptune Avenue. Neptune Ave. currently has sidewalk and on street parking, further narrowing this road. Inability to adequately turn vehicles around will prove to be a safety trap during an emergency. Current driveway access on River Avenue that would extend access as a new street to Seashore is the appropriate, safe alternative that should have been studied. Homes effected on Neptune currently face toward the ocean, trash pickup is on River Avenue. Project proposal would have trash trucks traversing through Neptune Avenue, as it would become the alley for both sides of their development. There appears to be no area in the MND that shows where units would store all of the trashcans. So many trash receptacles to accommodate so many large condos could create a health and safety issue with harboring of rodents and insects. There are no mitigations for assuring property owners will clean this section of the road. Neptune is a city street. The city is responsible for street sweeping. The city cannot legally sweep the private driveways within this development and therefore, the cleanliness of their"alley portion" is contingent upon them cleaning this themselves. They present the city with allowing trash trucks to enter upon a private driveway to pick up trash. There are challenges to the turning an established street effectively into an alley, with inconsistent geometries. It appears that by calling it a "driveway" is simply a way to avoid the requirements of a street. However, the intent for a driveway is to serve one home, not the manner that they are intending to use this definition. Fairness dictates that this "driveway (x 24) not be allowed. If the suggested road from River straight to Seashore is put back in, they can call the area behind the units the alley that it is and grant an easement for trash pick up only. It is neither the city nor the resident's responsibility to ensure profitability for developers, nor would it even be logical for this developer to claim that it would not be profitable if he were required to remove the units to make way for the road improvements. Since the property hasn't even been sold, and this is for discretionary approval, they have nothing at stake. This is contrary however to the existing Newport residents that this project will negatively impact. As a property owner for 30 years, I hope the planning commission takes the concerns of the resident impacts into consideration over the potential developer concerns for investor profitability. Positive impacts from inclusion of new road, would be enhanced safety utilizing access for emergency vehicles using road instead of alley, fire hydrant accessibility, pedestrian safety with sidewalks allowing for appropriate drainage, defined public walkway and roadway, direct public access to beach that occurs at 55` Street at Seashore, aesthetically more suitable to neighborhood Issues regarding applicant attempt to turn Neptune Avenue into an alley include: diminution of property value, traffic, noise, safety, air quality, inconsistent with vision for the city, and modification permit, etc. It is an inappropriate demand on existing homeowners to benefit a developer that hasn't 23 even purchased the property to date. Orange County fire authority has not addressed the adequacy of ingress/egress into a private driveway that has overhanging structure, etc. If they intend to use the existing fire hydrant, this too would be inadequate based on location. 1.2.2 SURROUNDING LAND USE: DESCRIPTION INADEQUATE Applicant states: "site is surrounded by residential uses, such as "vacation rental units" to the north, south, and east and a city park to the west". This would give one the impression this area is primarily a"weekly rental area". Instead, this is primarily owner occupied or yearly rental units in the area. Current apartment bldg is the major source of rentals for this area, allowing for affordable housing to the residents of Newport Beach. The "city park to the west" is directly adjacent to the existing site. If this overly dense project proceeds as presented, it will effectively be a taking of city park space, as the appearance and marketing of property will be to the sole benefit of these new condos. Currently,many residents and visitors have access to the park because of the apartment building's adequate parking for its own residents, which allows for plenty of off street parking on River Avenue. Because the apartment building primarily serves just one tenant per unit, they have always had adequate "on site"parking. The parking lot is never full and adds to the city's open space through its current footprint. If applicant is allowed to have this overly-dense project with inconvenient tandem parking to accommodate numerous additional bedrooms, (which correlates to additional residents), then it is reasonable that these additional residents will be using River Avenue to park in front of their units. This will effectively discourage visitor use of the city park because this will create inadequate parking to service this need. Further, the public parking lot on Seashore, which is intended for public parking to access the park and beach will be further burdened by the additional need for parking that the additional residents would require. Again, with each additional bedroom that increases the number of residences, it also increases the likelihood of numerous guests as well. Applicant has presented that they intend to market units for 3.3 million. With this price tag, (completely unrealistic), the likelihood that investors will need to turn to weekly rentals or sober living homes is a much more likely scenario. This will further burden the city of Newport Beach with the demand it will place on parking, as well as the other police and enforcement needs that will be required. After a marketing/lobbying group canvassed residents concerns, it appeared the presentations of this plan had been specifically tailored to give "opinion"that the PR team felt would favor existing residents concerns. I was told this will increase property values and will get rid of"those tenants" in favor of homeowners. This is not based on fact. I had also been told it would be used primarily for wealthy seniors using these homes as second homes, when in fact; marketing statistics do not bear this out, as seniors are not looking for three story buildings with narrow hallways. I won't comment further on the numerous falsehoods I was told, because they are not in writing. But I will state that any presentation based on what it can do for the community, needs to be critically evaluated. 24 CEQA demands public involvement, yet this "public outreach" by PR lobbying firms, serves to discourage the intent of CEQA, through attempts to "inform"residents that most likely won't feel it necessary to read the full documentation presented to the city on the project. If I felt this was a positive for our community and for the nearby residents, I would be in favor, but as presented, I am adamantly opposed. I believe this is a potential nightmare in the making. This project is too dense and comes at the expense of nearby homeowners and tenants, who the city should be looking to protect. 3.11 NOISE IMPACTS WILL HAVE SUBSTANTIAL IMPACTS MND claim impact would be less than significant because the project-generated noise during the operations phase of the project would be from project generated traffic (mobile-source noise) and on-site operations. They state that project would result in net reduction of trips; therefore, level is reduced to insignificance because it would result in a decrease in traffic noise. This is incorrect. First, the daily trips are based on highly variable study, secondly, these are not cars, and these are eighteen-wheelers, trucks, large equipment and power tools. One eighteen wheeler, (per FHWA) is the equivalent to the noise generated from 19 cars. Noise impacts will be increased due to homeowners use of gardening equipment, such as lawn mowers, leaf blowers, additional cars directly adjacent to the front of our building from the access using Neptune as the projects alley. 5408 Neptune will not only be affected by one side of street with access to their garages, but both sides of the street will access garages through Neptune "Alley". Trash trucks will spill their exhaust and the additional noise from 24 additional stops. Currently trash is picked up on only the west side of property. Current apartment bldg uses no regular gardener, no lawnmowers or leaf blowers. MND doesn't address restrictions or mitigations for project's resulting increase of additional noise felt by residents due to project proximity to existing buildings and increase of additional noise sources, including additional cars, people, television, radios, etc. Project wishes to have a permit to have 3 feet side yard setbacks. Currently, the existing building primarily has the apartment over garage space and so there is typically no living area on ground floor. This adds to the peacefulness of the neighborhood. Current site has small balconies. Typically very small, and they aren't large enough for entertaining. Project will have ground floor patios that will encourage much larger gatherings and more noise. The quality of life for the surrounding neighbors will be impacted. To visualize the impact, stretch out your arms from side to side; this will be the difference between buildings. The MND doesn't address that this is not the vision for Newport Beach when given an opportunity to have a more aesthetic development put in instead. Construction noise would exceed db levels, vibration etc. The excessive noise and vibration will exceed standards, but an exemption is claimed based on city standards. However, nearby homeowners will be unable to rent their units for a minimum of two years due to the construction noise, dirt, vibration, etc. and the MND has not address the financial mitigations to accommodate existing residents. 25 Analysis and mitigations are inadequate. Noise levels are measured at 50 feet; vibrations have not addressed ways to mitigate the vibrations through different methods of construction, etc.Note that the range of 70db to 90 db at distances of 50 feet are for one piece of construction equipment. This area is directly adjacent to residential properties within 50 feet and the receivers would be at least 70 to 90 DBA, which is in violation of the exterior NAC criteria for residential properties. MND lists sound levels on PCH from 1971,Society of Automotive Engineers for use in studies of aircraft flyover noise, uses PCH hwy pavement, traffic levels, roads, and receivers all pertaining to PCH. It appears this was from another study or the information is unclear as to its relevance. It appears study was done for the noise for the new units, such as planning for noise attenuation for new construction, not analysis based on harm to existing residents. CEQA demands that the documentation be put forth in a language and manner that is understood. What is apparent is that this noise study offers no mitigations, nor is it adequately studied. 3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS One of the most troubling aspects is that the MND claims to not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. This MND states it will need to replace housing for 6 units based on a survey, yet it states this as a less than significant impact. The MND had a pro-forma to include what the developer could afford for"in-lieu"fees. This is inappropriate. The in lieu fees are not enough to replace the units and are based on limited data that study admits could not verify all information. Further, the pro-forma is not included, nor were the rent surveys. A firm was hired to study the adequacy of the pro-forma with out being able to verify the information. The escrow papers would have been the first most obvious set of documents. This should be required to understand exactly how much"profit" and who is claiming this now. The MND looks at this project in terms of profit potential, instead of what is fair and equitable to the community. It is obvious to the neighborhood that the majority of the tenants would have been considered lower to moderate income. Yet, since the project was attempted in 2006, it was removed. Laws prohibit evicting tenants within 24 months of application, and it gives the appearance and it is my opinion that there was an intentional removal of low-income tenants in an effort to avoid the costs associated with low-income housing compliance laws. Since this application resurfaced a year after the identical project was withdrawn, the property owner hired a new property management company, (who did the rent survey that the low income housing replacement is predicated upon). The apartment owner is also now requiring property management to enforce a"specific' income requirement of$66,200 and not allow a co-signer. It is my belief that there were some "tenants"that were making in the six figures while the survey was being done. One listed tenant owns several rehab homes in Newport Beach. 26 Newport is a special town that deserves protection. The coast and its resources are too important to squander,just to benefit the financial gain of a group of investors. I believe that some of this original team are still involved in this limited partnership. This original team made no effort to mitigate or compromise. The team solution was that they could get it through. Had I not had my background and not understood the process, I too would have resigned myself to the inevitable. As a property owner that has handled rentals for years, it would be extremely difficult to find tenants that could qualify without a co-signer but had to additionally verify income requirement of$66,200,yet this is what the apartment building has enacted within the past year. I have complained to the city to verify this, stating I felt this was an obvious attempt to circumvent the law to get rid of the lower income tenants. Inclusionary housing is expensive for developers and it would benefit them if this weren't an issue. I believe prior to the developer application, majority of low-income tenants have "moved out". There has appeared to be a purposeful eviction of low income housing tenants, but without the original rent studies,this is speculation. I do not accept however, any study wherein it is conducted by the property manager who works for the owner who is purportedly in escrow trying to close the deal. Keyser Marston study requested in PRA was never made available to me. The project is presented in a light that gives it a misleading depiction through use of "artist renderings"that are not to scale. MND (p15) architectural renderings won't be able to look like the pictures. Most buildings benefit substantially from landscaping, and these renderings look nice because of the 45-degree angle, mature abundance of landscaping, wide planted walkways, beautiful towering trees with canopies the width and height of the condos. Then there is the reality. The MND shows the front and rear of the actual individual view (p27); this is in stark contrast, and more in line with what this dense development would actually look like. There appears to be little difference between the two styles, but couple that with exact same style home side by side with such density and this doesn't appear to be the type of vision Newport had in mind. Is Newport's vision to put as many homes jammed next to each other and towering over the existing residences on a lot that should have been maintained as an apartment building as one of the few areas in Newport to actually accommodate tenants? This development will not have the large canopied trees as depicted in the "renderings", because there is no room to accommodate them. The reality will be 6 feet shared walkway between homes with no apparent walls between them for privacy. The design and density doesn't make sense. Newport wanted to have articulated interesting sides to the buildings, but these units are primarily flat on the entire length of buildings because they are put too closely together, with too many units for the lot. They don't fit in with the city vision for new development; they don't fit in with the neighborhood. This area has been undergoing some nice changes with well-done remodels,but this opportunity to let this development go in will do a disservice to the entire area and the people that have invested in rebuilding new homes. 27 The proposed development is too dense for the property. Feasible alternatives exist which include siting the homes using setbacks that were originally intended in this zone, and reducing the size of the development. These are viable alternatives that haven't been studied because the investors want to make more money. If it isn't feasible, then the investor should use their contingency as an escape clause. These applicant/investors don't yet own the property; they don't have the vested interests in protecting the neighborhood that the residences do. The investors won't be living in these units. Applicant has already submitted a pro-forma to determine how many millions he would be satisfied with making. The applicant only has the advantage if the residents don't feel they have a voice. Having a planning commissioner attend a private hearing and speaking in a manner that appeared positive was probably not encouraging to some that showed up. The priority for the planning commission who must review these objections is to protect our coastal resources over the construction of residential development. 3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES &3.14 RECREATION There exists a moderate impact to libraries and schools and a potential major impact on police services. Without knowing how property will be used, absent CC&R's restricting their use, and lack of a homeowner association it is deferring any potential mitigation as it isn't considering the consequences that land use changes may encompass. MND failed to study new ways development might be used and provided for no mitigations. West Newport Park effectively would be taken over by this development, most will assume it is private, city should have entertained idea of purchasing this as city has stated West Newport is in need of park expansion. There is metered parking directly in front of the single-family units. It appears there is no block wall. Absent a continuous block wall, it will be too convenient for residents to park directly on the street in front of their house, when this property is intended for visitors to the beach/park. 3.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC IMPACTS WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT Incorrectly states project qualifies for an exemption under the City Traffic Phasing Ordinance. However the definition under exemption (C.) states: "The following projects are exemptfrom the provisions of this chapter: ]. Any project that generates no more than three hundred(300) average daily trips. This exception shall not apply to individual proiects on the same parcel or parcels of property, such as changes in land use or increases in floor area, that in any twenty four (24) month period cumulativelypenerate more than three hundred(300) average daily trips "15.40.030 Standards for Approval--Findings—Exemptions) Further, Trip generation was calculated using the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (7"' edition 2003). An article by traffic consultants Nelson/Nygaard opined on the variability of ITE and stated: "Even where there Is a strong correlation between the amount of development and trip generation rates, there is still considerable variation in the rates observed in different surveys. For the land use type "Single 28 Family Detached Housing",for example, ITE reported rates ranged from a low of 4.31 daily trips per dwelling unit, to a high of 21.85 daily trips. The Trip Generation manual reports that, "This land use included data from a wide variety of units with different sizes,price ranges, locations and ages. Consequently, there was a wide variation in trips generated within this category." APPENDIX/ISSUES FOR CLARIFICATION OR CORRECTION (466 P doc) I previously described errors regarding (p8 & 13)property description. Existing bldg, acreage etc. Hydrogeology states soil is Class D, states (p125) depth to water table is less than one foot. This differs with other areas in the MND, (p15) states that geotech investigation found ground water at depth of six to eight feet below. Soil listed as hydric(p15) with slow infiltration rates. This is a concern for the proposal to have water return to the ground instead of filtered and sent into storm drain. Additional environmentally appropriate mitigations need to be studied further. (p341) City directories don't include residents from the past six years. (page 373, (1981)page372I( 972 revised from 1965) These historical topographic maps show that the existing site had the road connect from River to Seashore. This is the same road that should be put back. The public had used this paved access for years before property owner fenced it off. PUBLIC ACCESS MND is not consistent with the Coastal act. The following are pertinent as to the negative impacts this project will have as it relates to public access. As stated earlier, public had at one time directly access the beach from River to 55`h Street opening. This is the same opening that 5408 enjoys its view corridor from. The public has been deprived of access based on property owner fencing in entire property. However, the pedestrian public would still access occasionally. One could still see a small area of ocean between the houses on the sand as evidenced in MND picture showing how wide the parking area is. It encompasses the views of three buildings as seen on page 43 (figure I I site photographs) in the MND. The opened area between the houses on Seashore beachfront& 55`h is intended for public access. The proposed project has not provided for any permanent access to the public. Project also effectively removes the access to the public to utilize the park. The park will appear to belong to the new development and the more convenient access to the beach will be cut off and force people to all go to the 54`h street opening. Again, this appears to be an attempt to have this area be private. This area already is afforded privacy by the lack of the pedestrian sidewalks. People will not walk through an area that clearly are private home side yards that are only 3' wide. The city has one opportunity to afford the public access to the beach that was intended from the 50's. The city should not miss this opportunity to ensure that our beach access serves all, not only the rich. The following coastal act sections are particularly 29 relevant to this property and public access. This road should be dedicated, returned as a roadway, include sidewalks for access to the public, fire hydrant and large enough area to turn large vehicles around in the event of a fire or emergency. Mitigation should have studied this possibility. The city of Newport Beach has determined that Coastal Act policies are relevant to Newport Beach. Section 30210 of the Coastal Act states: In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 ofArticle X of the California Constitution, maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and 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 resource areas from overuse. This project does not provide maximum access. Section 30212 of the Coastal Act states, in relevant part: (a)Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast shall be provided in new development projects except where: (2) adequate access exists nearby... This project would remove existing access and provide for access only to the condo owner, not the public. The opening to the beach for this area is 55`s st., providing a near direct access (line of sight)to the beach. Section 30213 of the Coastal Act states: Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible,provided. Developments providing-public recreational opportunities are preferred. This project actually removes recreational facilities effectively because the existing park and tennis courts will appear as private and parking will be severely impacted with this development. 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. This project severely effects this provision in the overly dense design that will make it appear that park is part of the open space for this development. The City's recently updated certified Land Use Plan (LUP) also contains the following policies that would apply to the proposed development: Public Access and Recreation/Shoreline and Bluff Top Access, Policy 3.1.1-1 states, Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance public access to and along the shoreline and to beaches, coastal waters, tidelands, coastal parks, and trails. Access road next to property would accomplish this stated policy. 30 Policy further states under"shoreline access", that the city will re uire all new development causing or contributing to adverse public access impacts, to provide easements or dedications in areas where public access is inadequate. All beach access openings serve specific homes. 55`h street created the vertical access that was created specifically to serve this area. The public should not be deprived of access to 55`h Street opening. One of the main tenets of the Coastal Act is preservation of coastal access. City of Newport Beach stated goals include under the Local Coastal Program and Coastal Land Use Plan: (I objected to staff that the applicant is on this committee, during processing of his application and should have been removed due to conflict of interest.) 3.1.1-2 Protect public street ends providing access to the beach Project removes protection 3.1.1-7. protect public right of access. Where substantial evidence of prescriptive rights exists, actively pursue public acquisition or require access easements as a condition of development. Project area could pursue prescriptive rights based on history of access through area adjacent to 5408 Neptune 3.1.1-8 ...prescriptive rights...parcel must be designed or conditions imposed to avoid interference with prescriptive rights.... 3.1.1-9..protect expand coastal access... 3.1.1-12 Protect public access through setback and other property development regulations of the zoning code that control building placement. This would directly stop the modification permit. If the committee for which the applicant is on, has sought to change the above policies in a manner that would be favorable to this particular development, then the policy revisions should be looked at again, as the intentions of protecting our coast should not change. 3.1.1-14 REQUIRE an offer to dedicate (OTD) an easement for vertical access in all new development projects causing or contributing to adverse public access impacts...sufficient size to accommodate two way pedestrian passage...landscape buffer...sited along the border or side property line of the project site or away from the existing or development to the MAXIMUM FEASIBLE EXTENT. Placing vertical easement away from both existing and proposed project is easily accomplished with a road and sidewalk in side area. This is the fitting solution that complies with city and coastal acts and removes most of the objections, allowing Neptune to remain the cul-de-sac, and if buildings are sited properly, maintain my ocean view. 3.1.1-19 ...develop long-range plan forpublic trails and walkways 31 Policy 3.1.5-2 PROHIBITnew PRIVATE streets, or the CONVERSION OF PUBLIC STREETS TO PRIVATE STREETS, WHERE SUCHA CONVERSION WOULD INHIBIT PUBLIC ACCESS TO....SHORELINE This is exactly what the project is intending to do and is contrary to this policy. This would be converting a private road, (Neptune)to turn into a"private driveway". This project seeks to have "the individual driveways" going in the opposite direction to be called a "driveway"that hooks up into the established city street,Neptune Ave. They wish to have the "driveway" to be treated as a private road for emergency and city services. This does not qualify in any manner for conversion without being out of compliance with said policy. Conclusion Other neighbors and tenants have had this project presented in a manner to appeal to their "perceived" individual likes while consistently implying that nothing can be done to stop this project. Public outreach conducted by applicant at a non-city facility this month, where a planning commissioner appeared to favorably answer some questions redirected from applicant, could lead one to believe nothing can be done, even though this was probably not the intention. Troubling is that none of my tenants have had any notifications to date at all from applicant. The intention of applicant appears to utilize the public relations firm to market to the neighborhood to avoid upset residents writing in to object to projects. We all know this is how developers operate, it is just smart business and this isn't to fault them, but there is a point where the process is no longer fair and this is bordering on this precipice. The planning commission and council are there to protect the city from land use decisions that will affect the quality of life for its residents forever. This is the type of project that demands an EIR, if not an outright rejection as presented. Most PR firms will try to market the development in advance through "coffee chats" and informal friendly meetings, in order to tailor the project to their perceived specific interests. I was told, (based on my age I presume) that these units would be primarily second residences for retired people that would seldom be there. I was also told they would be marketing the units for 3.3 million, again to appeal to the thought of increased property values. Instead, I recognized the sales pitch. However I was most insulted when a "proponent" tried to state it would be getting rid of"those" tenants. I informed him"those" tenants had never been a problem, always quiet, and the fact that tenants are controlled by a manager, you don't have the problems associated with "rehab facilities" or weekly vacation rentals, which is by far, a much more likely scenario when investors try to recoup their money for a condo. It is my belief through my research that this investor group is primarily the same group from two years ago. I am troubled by the inclusion of the applicant to participate within committees that could affect the outcome of this project for which I believe he would benefit and would certainly be in violation of the Brown Act for conflict of interest concerning financial interests. I spoke to staff and expressed my objections, yet applicant is still on the committee. Committee was intended to have public input, and not to consist primarily of developer related members. I had a Public Records Act refused by planning department, after I was told I initially 32 could receive the Marston Keyser rent study, as I felt this would prove that tenants were being evicted or offered incentives to move if they were low income. I felt this study would validate this. I expressed my concerns, yet this MND has accepted a pro-forma without seeing the escrow papers, determining how many investors, in which to spread the profit/risk. I submitted numerous letters to planner addressing detailed concerns, yet none of my objections were included in the MND. None of my objections were taken into account in studying my suggestions as alternatives. I have asked for an extension of time to respond from Newport Beach, the lead agency. I have been told this will likely be continued,however, I am still required to submit objections to the MND to protect my interests during this comment period. In closing, this is the wrong project for Newport. It is too dense, too tall, and too close to other residences, it doesn't fit in, it is benefiting the developers to the detriment of the existing citizens,just to name a few concerns! I request this project be denied, or at the very least demand an EIR. Regards, Lennie DeCaro Owner of adjacent property 33 Draft Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-001, Modification Permit No. 2007-044, Use Permit No. 2007-011 & Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007-001 (Project-specific conditions are in italics) Planning Department 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the plans stamped with the date of this approval, except as modified by other conditions. 2. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 3. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Use Permit. 4. Project approvals 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. 5. The applicant shall obtain a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit for the project. 6. With the exception of the height modifications required per Condition No. 7, the floor plans and building envelopes for each unit are approved as precise plans and future floor area additions to the building envelopes shall be prohibited. The proposed open patio and deck areas for each unit shall not be permitted to be enclosed and the landscape and open space areas proposed throughout the development site shall be preserved. LOUJ�r? N-r r 7. The two structures that encroach into the side yard setback area immediately adjacent to the east property line shall be modified in height to conform to the 24-foot base height limit. .� ��. � 1� ctk-eA I\-!, �P� i I��e- "i-) �( d 8. The applicant shall replace 6 affordable units within 3 years of the date of issuance of a demolition permit. The units may be provided off-site at an approved location, or locations, within the City. An amount not to exceed$1.35 million shall be provided by the applicant and the applicant shall use such funds to replace the 6 affordable units and to achieve a mix of income levels and bedroom counts, as determined appropriate by the Planning Director. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to provide said units. The agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and shall be executed and recorded prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the project. — ' i i(.)G 9. Any very-low and low-income units provided in accordance with Condition No. 8 shall be maintained as rental units for a minimum period of 30 years. Any moderate income units should be provided as "for-sale" units with a covenant maintaining the affordability for a minimum period of 30 years. 10.Gated vehicular access through the site shall be prohibited. 11.Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code. Exterior on-site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. "Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. Parking area lighting shall have zero cut-off fixtures and light standards shall not exceed 24 feet in height. 12.The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the Planning Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 13.Prior to the issuance of a building permits, the applicant shall prepare photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Department. 14.Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified in conditions of approval Nos. 12 & 13. 15.All proposed signs shall be in conformance with the provision of Chapter 20.67 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress. 16. Trash container storage for the individual units shall be screened from view of neighboring properties and public places, except when placed for pick-up by refuse collection agencies. Trash containers shall not be located within the required parking areas. 17.AII landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 18.Prior to the issuance of a building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall y� incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Department and the General Services Department. All planting areas shall be provided with a permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitable for the type and arrangement of the plant materials selected. The irrigation system shall be adjustable based upon either a signal from a satellite or an on-site moisture-sensor. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or similar permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. 19.Reclaimed water shall be used whenever available, assuming it is economically feasible. 20.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 Seashore Village Residential Development Project including, but not limited to, the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-001, Modification Permit No. 2007-044, Use Permit No. 2007-011 & Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007-001; and/or the City's related California Environmental Quality Act determinations, the certification of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and/or the adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. _ Building Department 21.The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all applicable City plan check and inspection fees. 22.The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City Building and Fire Departments. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City- adopted version of the California Building Code. 23.Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General Permit for J.lpl Construction Activities shall be prepared, submitted to the State Water Quality Control Board for approval and made part of the construction program. The project applicant will provide the City with a copy of the NOI and their application check as proof of filing with the State Water Quality Control Board. This plan will detail measures and practices that will be in effect during construction to minimize the project's impact on water quality. 24.Prior to the issuance of the grading 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. 25.Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project, subject to the approval of the Building Department and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur. 26.A list of"good house-keeping' practices will be incorporated into the long-term post- construction operation of the site to minimize the likelihood that pollutants will be used, stored or spilled on the site that could impair water quality. These may include frequent parking area vacuum truck sweeping, removal of wastes or spills, limited use of harmful fertilizers or pesticides, and the diversion of storm water away from potential sources of pollution (e.g., trash receptacles and parking structures). The Stage 2 WQMP shall list and describe all structural and non-structural BMPs. In addition, the WQMP must also identify the entity responsible for the long-term inspection, maintenance, and funding for all structural (and if applicable Treatment Control) BMPs. Fire Department 27.The internal roadway shall be marked as a fire lane, per the direction and approval of the Fire Department. l }�15 {� �p 5 C DSD cc P�—i I 0 4A_r 1< l KS L:, Public Works Department"�N �E✓(ru>J L Pv31t'c STiT C�t -- W 28. A Final Tract Map (Map) shall be filed with the ublic Works Department. 29.The Map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD88). Prior to recordation of the Map, 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 Section 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. 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. �L� W . 30.Prior to recordation of the Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the Map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Section s 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 Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. 31.All applicable City fees shall be paid prior to the processing of the Map. 32.Construction surety in a form acceptable to the City, guaranteeing the completion of the various required public improvements, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to issuance of the Public Works Department approval of building plans. 33.Easements for weekly trash pick-up by City crews shall be dedicated as par(-of the Map. — 34.Easements for public emergency and security ingress/egress, and public utility J purposes on private streets shall be provided to the City. 35.All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 36.A new full-width sidewalk shall be constructed within the limits of the existing Utilities and Sidewalk easements along Seashore Drive fronting the project site. Existing City street trees shall be removed to accommodate the sidewalk construction. `j) tz 37.New City-designated street trees shall be planted along the River Avenue frontage. All street trees shall be planted per City Standards and guidelines provided by the City General Services Department. 38.A/I existing drainage facilities in the public right-of-way shall be retrofitted to comply with the City's on-site non-storm runoff retention requirements. 39.On-site runoff shall be retained on-site. 40.Private storm drain piping shall not connect directly to the City's storm drain catch basin. 41.All on-site utilities shall be owned, operated, and maintained by the community/association. 42.Each unit shall be served by its individual water meter and sewer lateral and cleanout. Each water meter and sewer cleanout in the vehicular traveled-way shall be installed with a traffic-grade box and cover. 43.Individual water services per City Standards shall be provided in lieu of manifolds. 44.All on-site parking, vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems shall be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer. NO F\N{ t'dtt . L, Y 45.The parking layout shall"be in conformance with City Standard 805-L-A and 805-L-B. 46.An ADA compliant public pedestrian pathway, from River Avenue to Seashore Drive, shall be provided through the development site. 47. The vehicular pathways shall be designed to support a fully loaded large trash truck. 48.Adequate turning radii and width shall be provided for large trash truck travel paths. 49.All improvements (including, but not limited to, the landscaping in the parking lot area and ingress/egress points to the development site) shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement (City Standard 110-L). 50.AII abandoned driveway approaches shall be removed per City Standard 165-L. 51.All new driveway approaches shall comply with Council Policy L-2 and constructed per City Standards. 52.Reconstruct any existing broken/damaged sidewalk, curb and gutter fronting the development per City Standards. 53.No permanent structures can be built within the limits of the Utilities and Sidewalk easement. 54. The construction work cannot impact the free flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic between Memorial Day and Labor Day. The staging and parking of all construction- related equipment and vehicles shall take place on-site, and NOT in the public right- of-way or City property. 55.All utility service connections serving this development shall be made underground. 56.In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development site by the private construction, additional reconstruction within the public right-of-way may be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. 57.The streets surrounding the project site is on the City's street/alley-cut Moratorium List. Any damage done to said roadways by the project will require substantial pavement repair work to be fully paid for by the Developer. 58.An encroachment permit is required for all work activities within the public right-of- way. 59.An encroachment agreement shall be applied for and approved by the Public Works Department for all non-standard private improvements within the public right-of-way. 60. The intersection of the internal roadways with River Avenue shall be designed to provide adequate sight distance per City of Newport Beach Standard Drawing STD- 110-L. Slopes, landscaping, walls, signs and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight lines (sight cone) shall not exceed 24-inches in height and the monument identification sign must be located outside the line of sight cone. The sight distance may be modified at non- critical locations, subject to approval by the Traffic Engineer. 61. The internal roadway shall be a minimum of 26 feet wide, unless otherwise approved by the Traffic Engineer. The internal roadway shall align with Neptune Avenue. The internal roadway curb cut on River Avenue shall be 26 feet wide minimum and modified to comply with current ADA standards. 62.Guest parking stalls shall be 8.5 feet by 17 feet minimum. Parking stalls adjacent to walls or other obstructions shall be 9-foot-wide minimum. _ 63.0n-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation system shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. Fc)27 t�-Q- C Prt j C VCU 64. The California Vehicle Code shall be enforced on the private streets and drives, and that the delineation acceptable to the Police Department Public Works DDe artment be provided along the sidelines of the private streets and drives. --�-_,_ �J&w,;- , /jc fel T�rt � �� Mil ion easures 65.The __apppl�li__caan�nt__ shall comply with all mitigation measures and standard conditions containin the approved Mitiga iontiont Monitoring and Reporting Program of the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2008-021075) for the project. Request Planning Commission denial of Echo Beach's request for approval of "substantial conformance" and denial of adoption of the Addendum to the prior Seashore Village MND CEQA guidelines, Section 15164(b) states that an addendum to a previously adopted Negative Declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary. Clearly this is not the case as this "project" basically threw out the entire Seashore Village development plans and started over. At the same time, the new development, (Echo Beach) would like to gain the advantage of using the results from the MND that was site specific to the "Seashore Village" development. One need look no further than City Council Resolution#2008-53 to understand that the Echo Beach project can not simply piggy back on the 2008 approvals, as the Echo Beach project is incompatible with the many specific conditions relating to the previous design. The City Resolution#2008-53, (attachments provided) and the original documents for the Seashore Village MND (having 65 specific conditions) and the Coastal Development permit all have additional conditions that require specific conformance relating to the original Seashore Village plans. These conditions regarding site, architecture, setbacks, number and type of buildings, circulation etc.,are specific to the details in the Seashore Village plans. "Echo Beach" has come up with an entirely different project but is trying to use the results or entitlements of another architect's work. The substantial changes to the plans will require major revisions of the previous MND due to involvement of new potentially significant environmental impacts or increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Noise: (interior db levels exceeding allowable level in general plan) which would require AC units, but this has not been studied in the previous MND and is not addressed in this addendum. Would A/C units solve the interior DB level problems but then create exterior DB levels that would impact other buildings? The location would have direct noise impacts from proximity to Pacific Coast Hwy when going up to the 3rd story and the new project is increasing the height even further than the prior MND. Of note, is that there is no discussion as to AC units, location to other properties etc.. Further,the new design has completely different site placement, design and number of windows and can't be compared at all as the prior site plan and building structures are completely different. There is also non-conformance with general plan design guidelines and current zoning, view impacts, traffic circulation and parking impacts are just of few of the impacts that were either not studied or have an increase in the negative impacts. Increased severity of previously identified impacts are the light and air circulation impacts from increasing the height and bulk of the buildings even further from the original plans. In addition, the proposed structures are no longer consistent with general plan setbacks and neighborhood's typical 30 wide lots that are the typical layout throughout the entire West Newport Area. Front yard setback on Neptune property next to the new development is 20'.New development appears to have 5- foot setback on property adjacent to existing property that faces Neptune. This development is so atypical 1 in layout, that it is hard to figure out if it is the side, front or back of the unit and how any of the internal setbacks apply. The Echo Beach's Modern Contemporary design is radically different from Seashore Village plans as it has larger box/barrack type of structures,has increased the number of buildings from 18 to 24, eliminated the duplexes altogether, and completely changed the site plan to have small enclaves or groupings of 3 buildings that all share a driveway and face each other. This does not fit in with the well-established neighborhoods in West Newport and is drastically different than the Seashore Village plan that at least attempted to conform to the existing neighborhood. The approved setbacks approved on the Seashore Village plan had Neptune building immediately adjacent to existing building with a 12'6" setback and had a landscaping buffer adjacent to property line to have a more gradual transition to the new development. Next to the buffer was a public walkway for coastal access. Echo beach has replaced the Coastal access paths (changes not reported to the Coastal Commission) with two buildings that have the backs of both buildings abutting the adjacent neighbor. Instead of the protective conditions required of Seashore Village that actually lowered their building heights when adjacent to existing residents and maintained neighborhood side-by-side consistency, Echo Beach would be increasing negative impacts by increasing building height on their properties adjacent to existing homes. This would require a new modification. This height increase is referred to on Echo Beach plans as "enhanced". "Enhanced" is simply a marketing term that is used when you don't want to bring attention to the fact that it means "taller". This is an increased negative impact to surrounding properties and is inconsistent with current neighborhood layout. The Echo Beach site plan is completely inconsistent with the surrounding area. The height of the buildings will dwarf the structures adjacent to them.Neptune property height is 19' and Echo Beach is proposing the structures to be even taller than previous modification allowed which would be nearly double the height of the adjacent properties, dwarfing them, causing shadows, reduced air circulation and is inconsistent with fitting in with the neighborhood. The Echo Beach design intensifies the negative impacts that modifications to the Seashore Village design had tried to improve through a gradual increase in height, articulation and architectural relief that gave the buildings a more conforming style to surrounding neighbors. Seashore Village design had more light and air circulation next to their immediate neighbors and was more in line with the general plan which tries to limit negative impact to surrounding properties. Further Seashore Village also designed the site layout with typical lot dimensions, unlike the "every which way" design the Echo Beach project encompasses. By having the development further reducing the side setbacks, increasing height and extending Neptune Ave,no study has been given to the negative effect of the properties that derive their income from rentals as the prolonged construction will negatively affect the entire neighborhood and property values. 2 The use permit was specific to allow the 6 duplex units to exceed the City's base height limit for the Seashore Development. Echo Beach is removing the duplex units entirely and instead replacing the 6 duplexes with 12 single family residences. This can't be considered the same project and a new EIR is required of Echo Beach. The development is not consistent with existing zoning. Their lot is zoned RM 51 dwelling units. It is not zoned RM-D which would allow for"detached" multi unit residential. The zoning rightfully kept this lot as an area that could provide for the community as a hotel or apartment building, not detached units. A dwelling "unit" is substantially different than a building. Their will likely be an increase in traffic based on the number of bedrooms nearly doubling the existing apartment building. Effects of parking and traffic haven't been studied. Project proponents refused to consider using the 2 existing openings to River Avenue to provide ingress/egress to their properties. Instead there is nothing that was ever stated as to why the site plan was the way it was other than for financial reasons. There was never a pro forma submitted,nor does it even matter if the reasons to not consider mitigating the damages to the neighboring properties would mean that investors might not make as much money as they would by packing in a few more buildings. This is an extremely important impact that has never been addressed and could have potential to considerably reduce neighborhood impacts for the surrounding existing homes. The effect of the MND referring to Neptune Avenue originally as an alley, then a fire lane to now being Neptune Avenue has been deferred in how the City will treat this and why other access streets weren't studied or considered. Do we know if Neptune Avenue is considered partially a private street, is it an alley, is there an irrevocable dedication to the City to allow this extension, regardless of the harm to the existing Neptune residents? City general plan imp 16.6 states: "City shall undertake studies of residential neighborhoods on a case by case basis to identify local circulation patterns and principal access points in order to assess the opportunities and needs to restrict, divert, or mitigate arterial traffic intrusion. Such studies should include an assessment of the traffic impacts on the entire neighborhood and participation of neighborhood residents to prepare a consensus plan of neighborhood traffic control. City shall maintain standards that ensure safe and efficient access for emergency vehicles to residential areas." Currently Seashore properties need to park in back of their garages, but will they be able to continue to do this with the new development? Will the City require the road curb be painted red as a fire lane to help the flow, to the detriment of existing residents? Will there be parking in the extension on Neptune Avenue in the pavement areas that have clear spaces for parking? There has been no adequate study that addressed this in the previous MND and this could have substantial negative impacts. Are they calculating this road as their open space?Has the City considered the negative impacts to the surrounding community by extending Neptune Ave? In 1961,ordinance 760 gave the City an offer to dedicate and Neptune became an avenue that ended at the site property line. Neptune Avenue was never planned to go through, but to terminate where it is right now. It never went through their site as an access road, yet an access road did exist at one time from 3 River to Seashore (as evidenced by the curb cuts). Implementation plan 23.5 addresses requirements for residential developers. Are any parks, dedication or improvements required of this new development? Coastal plans also discourage the "taking" of public facilities. In this case, the site plan appears that the public park is actually part of the new development. Are adequate setbacks maintained so this isn't the case? This addendum situation appears to be used as a pretend "revision" to get the benefits/entitlements of an already approved project and a way around public participation regarding the new project. It is somewhat analogous to a new owner purchasing a lot and trying to use the prior building permit from an unbuilt approved project, and expecting that they could then hire a new architect, design a completely different building with a new site layout, completely different style, height, square footage etc., and expect that the building department or even a HOA would allow this as a "revised" plan. The building department wouldn't allow someone to submit architectural plans for a "Craftsman style"home on a lot,then have new owners bring the permit and expect to somehow have it apply to their new project where their new architect designed a "Modern Contemporary" home. This is akin to what is going on with the Echo Beach project and is in itself enough to determine it is a different project. However, it is even more obvious that it is not a revised project when the new plans have a different layout that negatively affects adjoining properties with increased height, is inconsistent with the entire surrounding community layout as well as the General plan's building designs. An architectural committee or bldg dept would look at the changed style, height, density, and architect and require they resubmit their plans as a new project. Additionally, an addendum in this case violates CEQA as I have identified potential environmental impacts caused by the so-called "revised" project and a new EIR for the Echo Beach project is absolutely required. The City Council Resolution#2008-53 adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved the tentative tract map, modification permit, use permit and coastal residential permit. Attached to the Resolution and made a part thereof was Exhibit B containing many specific conditions. The City Council resolution acts in part as a development agreement, (Clip 15.45NBMC) where it can include conditions,phasing of construction, max. In, size of proposed bldgs, etc.. These conditions are specifically spelled out and apply only to Seashore Village project(arch/Todd Schooler). The Resolution is the City's agreement to make sure that the building entitlements come with oversight and specific requirements and mitigations in order memorialize the extent of the negative impact the development can inflict on their resident's. The Seashore Village already had litigation and a settlement that the City is well aware of and the new owners have not upheld the settlement. Resolution/agreement and the Seashore Village approved MND cannot be applied in any manner whatsoever to the Echo Beach project. If these conditions and resolution can't apply to the Echo Beach project, as the design requirements are different, 4 it would then invalidate the MND and Resolution as neither can be separated from the conditions. It would be a serious error to consider a finding of"substantial conformance"when it is obvious that using entitlements specific to the Seashore Village Plan can certainly not be considered a minor change, nor a necessity, but it would also be a fiduciary mistake on the part of our Planning Commission to consider using this "addendum"process. The "addendum" avoids the 30-day recirculation and comment period and its use in this case is clearly incompatible with CEQA guidelines. This project is pursuing major technical changes, modifications, and/or additions to this project that are so substantial that it bears little aesthetic relation to the original Seashore Village plan. Additional evidence of a major change (necessitating an EIR) is that the original resolution allowed for the development of 12 detached single unit residences and 6 detached (duplex) residential structures for a total of 18 structures. The Echo Beach development is asking for 24 detached structures and the removal of the duplex units. City Resolution is specific to the Seashore Village development as the Resolution states: "...Whereas, the proposed subdivision..." and further requires (pg 2 of 24) that: "...Each unit will feature either a "Craftsman" or `Plantation"architectural style. Architectural details and enhancements (i.e. batt and board wood siding, louvered window shutters, decorative trim, and stone veneer) will be provided on all building elevations. The 2nd floor facades are setback from the 1'"floor on the rear elevations and cantilevered over the]"floor on the front elevations,providing articulation and modulation to the building mass. The 3rd floor of each building is setback from the front and rear elevations, towards the interior portion of each buildingenvelope, to reduce the visual mass of the structures as view from the streets: and... " The resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration& approving tentative tract map no 2007-001, modification permit no 2007-044, use permit no 2007-011 and coastal residential development permit no. 2007-001 was site specific to the Seashore Village plans. The Use permit is invalid as it was specific to allowing each of the 6 duplex structures to exceed the City's base height limit. There are no duplexes in the Echo Beach plans and they are seeking to remove them while at the same time trying to get a determination that their plans are within substantial conformance with the 2008 approvals. The modification permits allowing encroachment into the required front and side yard setback areas are specific to the Seashore Village plans. Current zoning for site is RM 51 dwelling units. It is important to note that the proposed Echo Beach plan is not consistent with the existing updated zoning, as it would have had to be zoned RM-D, allowing for detached structures. Instead, the existing zoning supports the existing use as an apartment building. New information that wasn't known at the time was there would be two public view point areas within 700 feet (Sunset Ridge Park in construction&Banning Ranch proposed public view area) of the site and may impact public views. Resolution was also adopted 5 prior to the Sunset Ridge Park being built and the location of approximately 700 feet from subject "Project"was not considered in the Coastal Commission Permit that was submitted in 2008, nor was it considered in the Mitigated negative declaration. This park has a protected public viewpoint that may be a significant finding that may have an adverse impact that wasn't studied in the original NMD. According to the Sunset Ridge Park final EIR(Sec 4.2 aesthetics)it states: "The Natural Resources Element of the General Plan, Figure NR3, identifies that the Project site includes a designated public view point. As depicted on Exhibit 4.2-1, the site also contains a 197,720-square-foot (sf)scenic easement imposed by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as a term of the sale of the property to the City.... ' An appellate court case finding that the use of an addendum was improper is found in Save Our Neighborhood v. Lishman (2006) 140 Cal. App.4`h 1288,45 Cal Rptr.3d 306 the court held that"the two projects are unrelated, except that they both include hotels and are located on the same land" [140Ca1.App4th at 1297]. The addendum submitted on the same property, 7 years later with different applicants both contained a hotel of slightly different size 102/106, but both had gas station with convenience stores, carwash and entrance roads. The court noted "similar mixes of uses", but that different developers were involved and there was no evidence the "latter project utilized any of the drawings or other materials connected with the earlier project as a basis for the new configuration of uses." Similar to this situation with the Echo beach addendum, the court case described a comparative side by side assessment of the features of the two projects was also done by the City with CEQA conclusions and the analysis was characterized as "self serving". I ask you to deny claim of"substantial conformance" and deny adoption of the "addendum". Len DeCaro comment letter 4-3-2014 6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION Filed: June 11, 2008 South Coast Area Office 49th Day: July 30, 2008 200 Oceangate,Suite 1000 180th Day: December 8, 2008 Long Beach,CA 90802-4302 T h 4a Staff: Fernie Sy-LB (562)590-5071 Staff Report: September 25, 2008 Hearing Date: October 15-17, 2008 Commission Action: STAFF REPORT: CONSENT CALENDAR APPLICATION NO.: 5-08-154 APPLICANT: Seashore Village, LLC AGENTS: Todd Schooler&Associates; Attn Todd Schooler PROJECT LOCATION: 5515 River Avenue, City of Newport Beach (County of Orange) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Demolition of an existing 54-unit apartment complex and construction of a 24-unit condominium development. Two (2) parking spaces for each unit will be provided, as well as fifteen (15) guest parking spaces for a total of sixty-three (63) parking spaces. Hardscape and landscape work is also proposed. Grading will consist of 1,615 cubic yards of cut, which will balance on site. LOCAL APPROVALS RECEIVED: Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH No. 2008021075; Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-001; Modification Permit No. 2007-044; Use Permit No. 2007-011; Coastal Residential Development Permit (CRDP) No. 2007-001; and Approval-In-Concept dated June 11, 2008. SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The proposed development involves the demolition of an existing apartment building and construction of a new condominium development. The major issues before the Commission relate to parking and water quality. Staff is recommending APPROVAL of the proposed project subject to FIVE (5) SPECIAL CONDITIONS requiring: 1) construction-phase best management practices; 2) prohibition against public entry controls and restrictions on use by the general public associated with any streets or parking areas; 3) conformance with the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP); 4) the applicant to submit a Revised Landscape Plan; and 5) additional approvals for any future development. 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 Plan may be used for guidance. SUBSTANTIVE FILE DOCUMENTS: Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared by Todd Schooler&Associates, Inc. dated May 3, 2007; and Geotechnical Investigation (Project No. TS474.1) prepared by EGA Consultants, LLC dated June 13, 2007. CDP No. 5-08-154-[Seashore Village, LLC] Staff Report—Consent Calendar Page 2 of 9 LIST OF EXHIBITS 1. Location Map 2. Assessors Parcel Map 3. Site Plan 4. Floor Plans and Elevations STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission APPROVE the permit application with special conditions. MOTION: /move that the Commission approve the coastal development permit applications included on the consent calendar in accordance with the staff recommendations. Staff recommends a YES vote. Passage of this motion will result in approval of all the permits included on the consent calendar. The motion passes only by affirmative vote of a majority of the Commissioners present. RESOLUTION: I. APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS The Commission hereby APPROVES a coastal development permit for the proposed development and adopts the findings set forth below on grounds that the development as conditioned 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. Approval of the permit complies with the California Environmental Quality Act because either 1) feasible mitigation measures and/or alternatives have been incorporated to substantially lessen any significant adverse effects of the development on the environment, or 2) there are no further feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially lessen any 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 this permit is reported to the Commission. Development shall be pursued in a diligent manner and completed in a reasonable period of time. Application for extension of the permit must be made prior to the expiration date. CDP No. 5-08-154-[Seashore Village, LLC] Staff Report—Consent Calendar Page 3 of 9 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. CONSTRUCTION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES A. The permittee shall comply with the following construction-related requirements: (1) No construction materials, debris, or waste shall be placed or stored where it may be subject to wave, wind, rain, or tidal erosion and dispersion; (2) Any and all debris resulting from construction activities shall be removed from the project site within 24 hours of completion of the project; (3) Construction debris and sediment shall be removed from construction areas each day that construction occurs to prevent the accumulation of sediment and other debris which may be discharged into coastal waters; (4) Erosion control/sedimentation Best Management Practices (BMP's) shall be used to control dust and sedimentation impacts to coastal waters during construction. BMPs shall include, but are not limited to: placement of sand bags around drainage inlets to prevent runoff/sediment transport into coastal waters; and (5) All construction materials, excluding lumber, shall be covered and enclosed on all sides, and as far away from a storm drain inlet and receiving waters as possible. B. Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to prevent spillage and/or runoff of construction-related materials, sediment, or contaminants associated with construction activity shall be implemented prior to the on-set of such activity. Selected BMPs shall be maintained in a functional condition throughout the duration of the project. Such measures shall be used during construction: (1) The applicant shall ensure the proper handling, storage, and application of petroleum products and other construction materials. These shall include a designated fueling and vehicle maintenance area with appropriate berms and protection to prevent any spillage of gasoline or related petroleum products or contact with runoff. It shall be located as far away from the receiving waters and storm drain inlets as possible; CDP No. 5-08-154-[Seashore Village, LLC] Staff Report—Consent Calendar Page 4 of 9 (2) The applicant shall develop and implement spill prevention and control measures; (3) The applicant shall maintain and wash equipment and machinery in confined areas specifically designed to control runoff. Thinners or solvents shall not be discharged into sanitary or storm sewer systems. Washout from concrete trucks shall be disposed of at a location not subject to runoff and more than 50 feet away from a stormdrain, open ditch or surface water; and (4) The applicant shall provide adequate disposal facilities for solid waste, including excess concrete, produced during construction. 2. GATING/ENTRY CONTROLS As proposed, all streets, roads and parking areas shall be open for use by the general public 24 hours per day for parking, vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access, with the exception of standard limited (i.e. less than one day) parking restrictions for street sweeping/maintenance purposes. Long term or permanent physical obstruction of streets, roads and public parking areas shall be prohibited. All public entry controls (e.g. gates, gate/guard houses, guards, signage, structures and/or landscaping mimicking any type of entry control, etc.) and restrictions on use by the general public (e.g. preferential parking districts, resident-only parking periods/permits, etc.) associated with any streets or parking areas shall be prohibited. 3. CONFORMANCE WITH THE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (WQMP) The applicant shall conform to the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) dated May 3, 2007 showing roof drainage and runoff from all impervious areas directed to infiltration/gravel bed drainage systems or pervious areas. Any proposed changes to the approved plan shall be reported to the Executive Director. No changes to the approved plan shall occur without a Commission amendment to this coastal development permit unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is required. 4. REVISED LANDSCAPE PLAN A. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall submit, for the review and approval of the Executive Director, two (2) full sized sets of Revised Landscape Plans that demonstrate the following: (1) The plan shall demonstrate that: (a) All landscaping shall consist of native or non-native drought tolerant non-invasive plant species. No plant species listed as problematic and/or invasive by the California Native Plant Society (hftp://www.CNPS.oro/), the California Invasive Plant Council (formerly the California Exotic Pest Plant Council) (http://www.cal- i c.or /), 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. All plants shall be low water use plants as identified by CDP No. 5-08-154-[Seashore Village, LLC] Staff Report—Consent Calendar Page 5 of 9 California Department of Water Resources (See: http://www.owue.water.ca.goy/docs/wucols00.I)df). Any existing landscaping that doesn't meet the above requirements shall be removed; (b) All planting shall provide 90 percent coverage within 90 days and shall be repeated if necessary to provide such coverage; and (c) All plantings shall be maintained in good growing condition throughout the life of the project, and whenever necessary, shall be replaced with new plant materials to ensure continued compliance with the landscape plan; (2) The plan shall include, at a minimum, the following components: (a) A map showing the type, size, and location of all plant materials that will be on the developed site, the temporary irrigation system, topography of the developed site, and all other landscape features, and (b) a schedule for installation of plants. 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 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. 5. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT This permit is only for the development described in Coastal Development Permit No. 5-08-154. Pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 13253(b)(6), the exemptions otherwise provided in Public Resources Code Section 30610(b) shall not apply to the development governed by Coastal Development Permit No. 5-08-154. Accordingly, any future improvements to the development authorized by this permit, including 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. 5-08-154 from the Commission or shall require a new coastal development permit from the Commission or its successor in interest. CDP No. 5-08-154-[Seashore Village, LLC] Staff Report–Consent Calendar Page 6 of 9 IV. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS: The Commission hereby finds and declares: A. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The subject site is located at 5515 Riverside Avenue in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County (Exhibits#1-2). The lot size is 65,108 square feet and the City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan (LUP) designates use of the site for High Density Residential and the proposed project adheres to this designation. The project site is generally bordered by River Avenue to the north; Seashore Drive to the south; residential units, including vacation rentals, to the east; and a City-owned park to the west. Public access to the beach is one block to the southwest, less than 200-feet from the project site. The project involves demolition of an existing three-story, 54,739 square foot, 54-unit apartment complex and construction of a 24-unit condominium development (twelve (12) detached single- family buildings with 2-car attached garages and six(6)two-family detached duplexes with attached garages and carports totaling 2-car spaces per unit attached) (Exhibit#3). Thus, two (2) parking spaces for each unit will be provided (48 parking spaces), as well as fifteen (15) guest parking spaces for a total of sixty-three (63) parking spaces. The proposed project would be completed in three (3) phases with two (2) building styles: Plantation and Craftsman. Single-family units with Plantation and Craftsman architectural styles would front Seashore Drive alternately, and duplex units with Plantation and Craftsman architectural styles would front River Avenue alternately (Exhibit#4). Each unit will consist of three-stories. The development proposes three (3) plan types--Plan A during Phase 1; Plan B during Phase II and Plan C during Phase III—and four(4)floor plans ranging in size from 1,770 square feet to 3,248 square feet, including attached garages, patios, and decks. For Plan A, the maximum ridgeline height would be 31-feet above finished grade. For Plan B, the maximum ridgeline height would be 31-feet and 4-inches above finished grade. For Plan C, the maximum ridgeline height would be 31-feet and 4-inches above finished grade. The proposed project will blend in with the community character of the area that consists of detached single-unit and two-unit residential structures. Hardscape and landscape work is also proposed. Grading will consist of 1,615 cubic yards of cut, which will balance on site. Access to the site would be provided via two (2) driveways on River Avenue and one (1) driveway from Neptune Avenue. The western driveway on River Avenue would exclusively serve one (1) single unit structure. All other vehicular access would be provided through a driveway connecting Neptune Avenue to River Avenue. As proposed, all public entry controls and restrictions on use by the general public associated with any streets or parking areas shall be prohibited with the proposed project. SPECIAL CONDITION NO. 2 has been imposed to verify this. The applicant has a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project and is proposing water quality improvements as part of the proposed project, consisting of infiltration/gravel bed drainage systems and surface drainage directed to permeable areas. The applicant is also requesting the approval of a tentative tract map, for condominium purposes, to create 24 airspace condominium units. CDP No. 5-08-154-[Seashore Village, LLC] Staff Report—Consent Calendar Page 7 of 9 The applicant has stated that landscaping is proposed and plans have been submitted. The placement of any vegetation that is considered to be invasive which could supplant native vegetation should not be allowed. Invasive plants have the potential to overcome native plants and spread quickly. Invasive plants are generally those identified by the California Invasive Plant Council (http://www.cal-ipc.org/) and California Native Plant Society (www.CNPS.org) in their publications. Furthermore, any plants in the landscape plan should only be drought tolerant to minimize the use of water(and preferably native to coastal Orange County). 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.goy/landscape/cubs/l)ubs.cfm. Commission staff has reviewed the submitted Landscaping Plan and determined that non-drought tolerant plants have also been found: Hymenosporum Flavum, Losphostemon Confertus, Metrosideros Excelsus, Ligustrum Texanum, Rhaphiolepis "Ballerina" Rhaphiolepis "Springtime'; Scaevola "Mauve Clusters", Gazania 'Sunrise Yellow" Rhaphiolepis "Majestic Beauty", Agapanthus `Peter Pan" Nephrolepis Cordifolia, Photinia Fraseri, Pittosporum Tobira, Strelitzia Reginae, and Thymus Vulgaris. In addition, the drought tolerancy of the proposed grass could not be determined: `Marathon"Fescue Grass. Therefore, the Commission imposes SPECIAL CONDITION NO. 4, which requires the applicant to submit a Revised Landscaping Plan, which consists of native or non-native drought tolerant plants, which are non-invasive. B. LOCAL APPROVALS 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-001 Approval from the Planning Commission to create 24 airspace condominium units. 2. Modification Permit No. 2007-044 Approval from the Planning Commission to reduce the minimum building separation distance required by distance along Seashore drive required by the MFR zoning designation from 20 feet to 10 feet and to allow a 3-foot sideyard setback where the MFR zone requires approximately 24-feet sideyard setback based on lot width. 3. Use Permit No. 2007-011 Approval from the Planning Commission to exceed the midpoint height requirement of 28- feet for the duplex structures by 1-foot 6-inches, whereas the maximum permitted ridge height of 33-feet would not be exceeded. 4. Coastal Residential Development Permit (CRDP) No. 2007-001 Approval from the Planning Commission that ensures compliance with California Government Code Section 65590 et. Seq. and Chapter 20.86 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code for projects located in the Coastal Zone. C. DEVELOPMENT CDP No. 5-08-154-[Seashore Village, LLC] Staff Report-Consent Calendar Page 8 of 9 The development is located within an existing developed area and is compatible with the character and scale of the surrounding area. However, the proposed project raises concerns that future development of the project site potentially may result in a development which is not consistent with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. To assure that future development is consistent with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act, the Commission finds that a future improvements special condition be imposed. As conditioned the development conforms with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. D. 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, the development, as proposed and conditioned, conforms with Sections 30210 through 30214, Sections 30220 through 30224, and 30252 of the Coastal Act. E. WATER QUALITY The proposed development has a potential for a discharge of polluted runoff from the project site into coastal waters. The development, as proposed and as conditioned, incorporates design features to minimize the effect of construction and post-construction activities on the marine environment. These design features include, but are not limited to, the appropriate management of equipment and construction materials, reducing runoff through the use of permeable surfaces, the use of non-invasive drought tolerant vegetation to reduce and treat the runoff discharged from the site, and for the use of post-construction best management practices to minimize the project's adverse impact on coastal waters. Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed development, as conditioned, conforms with Sections 30230 and 30231 of the Coastal Act regarding the protection of water quality to promote the biological productivity of coastal waters and to protect human health. F. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM Section 30604 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 permit may only be issued if the Commission finds that the proposed development will not prejudice the ability of the local government to prepare a Local Coastal Program, which conforms with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. The Land Use Plan for the City of Newport Beach was effectively 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 proposed development is consistent with the Chapter Three policies of the Coastal Act. Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed development would not prejudice the ability of the City to prepare a certified coastal program consistent with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. G. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT CDP No. 5-08-154-[Seashore Village, LLC] Staff Report—Consent Calendar Page 9 of 9 As conditioned, there are no feasible alternatives or additional feasible mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen any 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. ORANGE CO. � OD sen 3J]}}6T 7e £ t Idv >a as C.. W a ff &hale7'lb~ SrSa Xy r,p. fid/ � fit'F. °j" e3+n ik. a4�a" .,,y V `!"� Q7 2Pk ov a § ¢ g/ aw f� '• . L .," 'W`, i laza P a}]tldN} r rAr � '/!J`h SYr�W ,', */ � �';• �riA..'�' �� � I � " N~ •'R aid Y x 5,x � �i is pp / 4 aE x''311>hS.Ou�w 1$ - tl3HIN ... N ] �n�H �'� 44J` d0' tl h /n,f \ 5 �M•"g�xi�tu b 3137A >ti ri........n.. _ NI3NVNr,i4�h. L G � 1' ✓.)' e r WIN.- I ig Ei ' r :. � >a a Wig ; is I' / a t ua s,-ev 44++v b\ .e �^iE ry rra, , .,< u u a313x ,w p s3o[n v I� 3 '$g e 1.§•' _ 15a 8a,3� x 1 E x i �, 1bi3e .. i G F l,+H,'4,11H � � 1 & k 9 � �`b e c F l a G' {��9a� phi 2,`xg to s b / k�r.5,4 x ,.usx Av aimrad ur x- 1. act I s'! "r °� k , s. . t d ".`vikM�n �,� I:' " avoa u u•'�t`e� Z 1 Nt>'b!> ti� nr�xaGWd r !,Y 'RXdNu ntl rr I f T1 " I'x . N: tl+ `9i rn i JiN f 4I 'Tf tt,■^ Si nr TIA1]ria':,w,rn�_ i "3NIIVN nY aT^IirN ee 3l [ of s �! f4hn' a r` ti TI ' � Ad �' 39ylvxuc 1 I a,ml is. et[I� ' r ji"F�£n''(lw 4J fi C;� ,W^O�[++•w� . yu F rural. + G. bv� _ 1 ti ., ° �I Fi j � ABindioxl) S' ' Av I L` �'IViaoa�ou S ,v �paCK �°'x `tri LT ,v -N I y tq 1 rad riot ex `� , �a���I�{� G�ES ' ray ... � n �.Yi ev la i$ I �'I I L. � .d... w�c�u�M�n 'ty •�A 1 gi 1-iroiwn ` ... f L—- 1� � —SCE —r-�tl3 u,x�,— . d� -o 2 • t ;,., kr � } @����¢4" A�."a ';" i x F w yr ,� __..... Sgcccr3'�. ✓r og, i tf'r R'iaaa 1 _ `mom 1,i,4'[y it F��]WYpp m ey fwr. `g ru 1 t k cR `ps `m C, y$a�.x4 W :4>uU fu.ny •8 FV rs (ss f! § Mf'... e" H1�1/(b 149 L;jRISE " `�^W� ts� tau rl,Sn p, n�3 H 3` ���4 ,,, �.).z .��� wl�m° aystxt May I x �uut,uS�. � r, aT v3.,�,—�.- �yy�iSNl tld 51�33M1 C Fd la '�" 53sy�,�J sb m rR,q w° y ylri' qVI tl. mn m {3uIXt1a RUN F, linSP"r vw3]] i; s rural vt QHY 5'19 ..1.sw 1 use m� 15 t d"bu I y ltl aye s Pi"3 Is�' 3:. xl P w ?nJAa: » 1 el 1 �sNg' rm. glac„ey p X]an13eY1S 'idil 3 •W �.Itl do's r 91 }y Iti kp, 'LM�F im tl�i� ' eF�y' dHe tayilsu Nl a00HH'M] r I x - tl 4B�` M°+ry f& _ W. x,xr'"�Hi � I 15 5-1 F W_xx,,rc_...lH 16 low fix I i 3 xJ°+3mO1N 0e J I vxl y. `a N"a � ✓san.'. M 7 i5 .................... _..... _ '9•` a i" +�`f �O'ds'i `�I'�'_1 JN°"„� rya�tne�1 r� __I_ Go. aJ!19'nl-I m! m 5 v w HHVIH3N / 15 S tlf.ws x t sax �,g,J y a a�srs3,ip i & a ° -a e 4x .a 7 i 3rvax ar'x k 1 COASTAL uxo3, flj 1J '} sx5 m r sg:` 7 �'arc4J�y x K«wi�.'R,'" y`n' bpi e COMMISSION y t xl xOr a ( EXHIBIT# 559 '• M '—. 8 78 'r' xlaiax2Ypa 8A18a- -->,.1 H PAGE QF .• n`aL �11M0Y "'S-'T"5 .T /dx.� 'A aq .__... .. .. I ..., ....1.... _..._ _. ._ ... .,_ r'A'I(3]-0v)p{9J(� OWL 1N9lUAADI Pd1 � Y 19�P 1I 1➢ 1� ft �f kT iIF2P 1�iP 1�:f`i� id T N1 's/ M9�SOfi O�E1'T ��i.4TOR4A 11m �pJIFxESNnu� pan yl �.pys:o. 7::�''. I�p110KBM�E�CWmY ,mNpP U f COASTAL COMMISSION EXHIBIT# PAGE —OPJ — SZ-TE 7 � ``7�,n ",Silo V 31 FOR AI r zi ® Q °t yEO'4� 9"fO a i 4> ". E ®t zsy T3/ 9' el II C 'g 0� O7 i 9 B e' sx ei k �IJlvre \L rrMrr 't 0 1 (D �Zl O t0 O� Ow O O a r Q' q nrrnar Al� .A 't Nrlw �- a....... wer LIE ; aI O m O NA 9900 NO .WJ a F 1 3 $ J v 9 © O V 1 .J i` E. /1 y �'wEygyEx �'' ' OO O � VAe. iii � O •• � ry0 EAN 4 /'� Q CN a 4 ® © d R 2E QQ 4 I O OO O OO 4 z p ©' O OO 4 � OO f s TRA rU, a .K n , so e sc,e "a AN Ll F/ronr aceav A-SB -91 164 EC[µfipNr TR4L1' MY !-l2 NO�f.n4iJld1'S ROCS J IIJFJEOII!MAI AM%l NAM P.K. l9x-(O {I{ctt NUMAEA3 LOoxa2a/ACf OB � IA90 OCfAN fAJMi rfllC) M.M 4-JE' ]MOWN IN OA[VS [CUNry Of OIANEE SUSAN W.CASE,INC. Ownership Map LAGUNA BEACH CA 92641 949-494.6105 SUSANCASE@PR001GY.Wr S i "T - P L#v-t--4 "' a m[ Ads li Ll v u--E a- V I .pdq Y I I 1 kf T .Y�I.6v]. 4 $ Ip 1 Q qu I l ' s 75 L COASTAL COMMISSION . EXHIBIT PAGE OF I Q Z h � d. I , TF- �r r C) m 1 c WAS.TAL WRIMISSIoN PAGE_..-J... -OF,..1 I� , • 1 i� p;3 I�Iti i '. U' .•arra ��� - ! 71 - 1S dill _ IGIiLf vcu:r. i,�s � IPS n i I .�I'P^' � I,I r--i._�Il��■1■ � ` 61169h°i�" 1 � ��1�1©�� Sm DI c 6 v c IT �� yo ., ,U .1cnn�, X11 . �O • i © o m O e Q tl m �E iI I Ilii J., ISI�ii �p; � �;.ad911F17. iitytil q ��I�Illi+� i�Ey �II �11,1� ( ju��i. _ � ileP�h��l� �'"�i �� I�Illll�it ���e•['`�: .0 un •\ - I �. F In X11®11 � ti ---h �,i �'�:��1{��I�`® ��ay'. Iwsrll ■ptrarsio ,��, .a � 61`Iil �Q►���11 a 111+ f ISI s Z 1 VJ I� Ism—�s�l Nele�elsi Q ' �u - - o-, , I 0 - -- _ SIAL COMMISSION i! EXHIBIT# PAGE 41 o . COASTAL COMMISSION 4 ! w o a�E . 0 qq N 2OV EXHIBIT# PAGE-, S- QFAL4 110 _. I I w m I wb 1� K ,b•n ii i } r. ( I u I � e e n © v �I �I d�la!� Illwl�l� AIR ZZ Flo WI ' a j it 41!g, AAAA iAw Aa:.� irrri a1� IMMAAIAAt, @ �����I y�tl Ilii AAAAAAAAwi IAP��t AAlI I��JiAAAr k��� wV a iT'ni glrc w dnma��' I `� i���!I Il$a 1I®Arl■I�'"?'�91i ��I I,F���! I■�ilrf��A�' �.� .�.�a �; � —■ m 17 ire * �''IAIAAA�I �.oii�. �* IIrNfAAii ;i ���r�.'�'�" ■ IA�' I�prii I SIA` A•� ���i�Nr A, �! LLAs =D I I - r I I { � I I-- COASTAL COMMISSION : EXHIBIT# PAGE-2---OF__J___,.. r • II / A911®I g - q \ il�l�l Mims] �, i� IFI _.._ . PSP ; i all xiu _ i W `�!s 'fuk^r Y'll Imo' ypxu.iIII{�1�IIS+I'1� IY�� if- if ' I �I! -Aggfl�i kt P�y� II IIIIY� ,uiiulp ��iu'f��,7��I � ifil ;;ISI �� ��i"�►��� _� ��'��'� �I�!rylu�► = , I t� �I Jit I i �" z >w OG • � � Q>Qi:a � u-U 1 IN I l Ij Y._..... ._....._.... ...... ='.:...____--_....�_....__. :• Vic _ jr �- I I �r COASTAL Clq �qI,SIOw EXHIBIT# _ PAGE- - 6 �� I :��� • '— � i _ I � it " a v © v ►/,e "Ng14 4 ISI Voll }I lrlpb,l n Ilu ISI • f;�j�Gl Ij�"uN V 8o:r �In, I �,sa �ryr r� • o ❑ a a SRI �� rP n m n m o z m �eerereer. '�! Ri I�u Egri Mall l 1e5 eeeee�e�: u R1�R i I�\ --.reg ���i���+ ( eE-�r•e h�i.�pli�r1� �����ei a f{ f�Fe'�'iltG���'I•�iw;ji RerRr� I ���� — •`rrr•� ��wwe�Rl rrr� I �1�1�6�� irir����, � m'�•.r. Echo Beach Substantial Conformance Review April 3, 2014 Page 11 and the applicant will be required to construct full-width sidewalks. An additional 4-foot- wide ADA accessible walkway connecting River Avenue and Seashore Drive, consistent with the 2008 conditions of approval (Condition No. 46), would also be provided. Public utility easements for utility connections that serve the project site are present and will be modified, as necessary, to serve the proposed project. Modification Permit The previous Zoning Code required a front setback of 20 feet adjacent to River Avenue, a front setback of 20 feet adjacent to Seashore Drive, and side setbacks of 25 feet along the east and west property lines. The previous Zoning Code also required a minimum building separation of 10 feet between structures. Modification Permit No. MD2007-044 authorized a reduction of the minimum building separation to 6 feet between structures and a reduced setbacks as follows: front setbacks of 10 feet on River Avenue and Seashore Drive, a side setback of 10 feet to the west property line and a side setback of 4 feet to the east property line. The current Zoning Code no longer requires a minimum building separation between units and now requires a front setback of 5 feet adjacent to Seashore Drive, a rear setback of 10 feet adjacent to River Avenue, and side setbacks of 15 feet. Despite the changes in Zoning Code setback and separation standards, the revised project plans continue to comply with the setbacks and building separations as approved under Modification Permit No. MD2007- 044. Use Permit The previous Zoning Code limited heights of flat roofs, deck rails, and midpoint of sloping roofs to a maximum of 28 feet and a ridge height for sloping roofs to a maximum of 33 feet. The approved project required a use permit to allow the midpoint of the 6 duplex units to exceed the maximum 28-foot midpoint height limit; however, midpoint limitations have been eliminated from the current Zoning Code and replaced with a minimum 3:12 pitch requirement for sloping roofs. The current Zoning Code limits heights of flat roofs and deck rails to 28 feet and sloping roofs with a minimum 3:12 pitch to 33 feet. The revised project plans comply with allowed building heights of the current Zoning Code; therefore, Use Permit No. UP 2007-011 is no longer applicable. Coastal Residential Development Permit Pursuant to Chapter 20.86 of the previous Zoning Code and Chapter 20.34 of the current Zoning Code, the demolition of three or more units within the coastal zone shall be reviewed to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65590 (commonly known as the 1982 Mello Act) and to replace, if feasible, the demolition of any units occupied by low- or moderate-income tenants. The Mello Act prohibits the City from approving the demolition or conversion of existing housing units occupied by low- or moderate-income households located within the Coastal Zone, unless provisions are made for their replacement. If feasible, all or any portion of the replacement units must 11 I Echo Beach Substantial Conformance Review April 3, 2014 Page 12 be located on the site of the demolished structure or elsewhere in or within three miles of the Coastal Zone. In this case, Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2007- 001 authorized the demolition of the 54-unit apartment building conditioned upon the replacement of six dwelling units affordable to low- and/or moderate-income tenants within three years of demolition. The applicant will implement CR2007-001 and provide the replacement units. Environmental Review The environmental impacts of the approved project were analyzed under the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that was adopted for the project by the City Council on June 10, 2008 (State Clearing House No. SCH2O08021075). An Addendum to the Adopted MND has been prepared, in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, to evaluate the potential differences between the impacts of the proposed project changes and any changes to the existing conditions that have occurred since the MND was adopted. The Addendum was prepared by PlaceWorks and is included as Attachment No. PC8. State CEQA Guidelines allow for the use of a previously adopted MND for projects in cases where minor technical changes or additions to the previous adopted MND are necessary, but there are no new or substantially greater potentially significant impacts. The Addendum concludes that the impacts from the modified project would be similar to those analyzed under the Adopted MND and that no changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Adopted MND or result in additional mitigation measures. Copies of the Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration, Response to Comments, the Addendum, and supporting documents are available for review online at: www.newportbeachca.gov/cegadocuments. Summary Staff supports the applicant's request for a determination of substantial conformance and believes the revised site plan will remain compatible with the neighborhood. The proposed 24-unit detached condominium development continues to be consistent with the permitted land uses identified in the previous MFR and current RM Zoning Districts and below the maximum allowed density and development limit. The elimination of the duplex product type and changes to the site plan do not affect the approval of the 24 airspace condominiums authorized under Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007-001. The modified project design maintains the same minimum setbacks as previously approved under Modification Permit No. MD2007-044 and minimum building separation of six feet between units. Use Permit No. UP2007-011 is no longer applicable as the project now complies with the 33-foot height limit for sloping roofs with a minimum 3:12 pitch authorized under the current Zoning Code. The applicant remains committed to 12 Echo Beach lillm - a a� Planning Commission • � . April 3, 2014 - Introduction Project History ■ Approved project formerly known as Seashore Village ■ Planning Commission —April 17, 2008 ■ City Council — June 10, 2oo8 ■ Coastal Commission — October 16, 2oo8 ■ Mitigated Negative Declaration ■ Tentative Tract Map, Modification Permit, Use Permit, & CRDP ■ Expiration date- October 16, 2016 Modified Plans - Request for Substantial Conformance Review Reconfigured site and landscape plans ■ Elimination of duplex product types ■ Revised architectural style Community Development Department- Planning Division SEW PART S v h C9CIFORN`P a a . M � s �.e T T. Vicinity Map PC Ak LAS BRISAS APTS 54 UNITS a Community Development Department- Planning Division 3 Site Photographs , -JI c— rr+•c .. f 1r ��3 0 0 Approved Site Plan C,4FOM1�VP R IV E R A V E. Y Y + 6 DI P .IA I "IS UA Tf lzsingle-unit 6 duplexes (12 units) j 5017o6 SF (1.23 FAL) rr A S H G R E o R IV [ 48 resident spaces/15 guest -ar-Ak, 4 ; < "Oil 28.2 % landscaping , <i1t ti s Community Development Department- Planning Division 5 Approved Plan = Architecture T 4 �Q•y a � is is s 1 IT � /,�Y • Y M 1. 110 ILI ew- , 3 Plan Types �• Craftsman or Plantation Modified Site Plan R i V L M A It 1R 12 n 2R 3 1R 1R 1 ai _ 1R 1R 1 3 1 Tus 1R 1 �r- s 2 i io -_ 2 Ir IF r�_♦♦�4yf+ ry`� w �a� - �� 8 5 q 11 I.X.111>,�'• iy - ��3. X12 � �•� J 24 single-units 50,916 SF (1.24 FAL) S f A 5 HQ. D R I �TV � r- R E IV/E 1 � . 48 resident spaces/14 guest � ^ 34.1% landscaping Community Development Department - Planning Division 7 Modified Plans = Architecture u u - ■ u �►Y MIN4010 a '>0. .. y;• {tet- �� 3 Plan Types Community • • Modern Tentative Tract Map 24- unit condominium subdivision ■ Easements ■ Public walkways ■ Infrastructure improvements Modified Plan Changes site plan configuration and product types ■ Remains for condominium purposes for 24 units Conditions remain applicable Community Development Department- Planning Division y Modification Permit Previous Setbacks Front (Seashore)- 20feet Front ( River) - 20 Sides 25 feet Current Setbacks Rear(Seashore)-10 feet Front ( River) — 5 Sides 15 feet Community Development Department- Planning Division 10 Modification Setback Encroachments Compatibility with neighborhood development pattern Front Setbacks- zo feet to to feet Side Setback- 25 to : � i r 1 J ff5 I6 f ' so feet to west PL e J • 4 feet to east PL o L' �•� WfSI NIN P041 PAFR _ ni „ Building Separation - Zo feet to 6 feet Intended to appear as 30'w o s Modified Plans- Complies with MD Community Development Department- Planning Division ii F Use Permit ■ Previous Height Limit • Flat roofs and midpoints of sloping roofs allowed up to 28' ■ Ridges of sloping roofs allowed up to 33' ■ Use Permit allowed 6 duplex structures to exceed midpoint limits Current Height Limit Flat roofs and sloping roofs up to 28' Sloping roofs w/ 3:12 pitch min allowed up to 33' • Modified Plans �v Complies w/ current ZC = I UP no longer needed = ---- - -- Community Development Department- PlannApMED DUPLEX 12 Coastal Residential Development Permit ■ Affordable Housing in Coastal Zone 6 units occupied by low- and mod - tenants Determined to be feasible to replace Replace within 3 years of demolition Applicant remains committed Community Development Department- Planning Division 13 CEQA Review Impacts of project analyzed under previously Adopted MND ■ Minor changes or additions allowed if no new or substantially greater impacts Addendum - evaluate potential differences in impacts Concludes impacts would be similar, conclusions of MND do not change, no new mitigations measures Community Development Department- Planning Division izr 1 t 1• *• 1 f 1 T r PON 11 I For more information contact: Jaime Murillo,AICP 949-644-3209 jmurilloQa newportbeachca.gov www.newportbeachca.gov wovrttmnAxrvAUTTR RIVER AVE - .. 14 1 20 r} 15 j 16 ir. g r� 23 y - mildow ia 21 SHMOS - 18 22 Q Ianna.nmenroWarvum F" 4 if .� �f�� 't 2t r.1 7`• 10 WEST NEWPU Ri PARK 9 NEPTUNE AVE. �e g - muWm>mw.rmiu�a Y U 7 W H g 4 3 + i .n�eree .uaa.ma z0 SEASHOREDRIVE lam' Lerq_tl1s2PDownpn,yam vwayPNoee; z 10'Oi i v � \ \ .c .irwaemconurm�reowwx h \ .' gMImINy PWtlnp.61ngtl11m Group Bybmmt ..� . � FLOWEAINGNNE$ PRIVACY SCREENS THEME WALLS NRF BLOCK COBBLE PRECAST PAVERS PERJIWBPARNNG x.�e�ae.en.i+weum. i � WSyr WNy Beq Menyynsn)Pxdm(H.M.PJ WATERCONSERNNGPLANTS ORNAMENTAL GRASSES RAINGAROENSMPRIVATEYARDS COLORED CONCRETE PENOUSPAVERS ,. `.,�"i �M..�"",••s�„°a''.'",:d'm:�°` ECHO BEACH PLANNED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD NEWPORT BEACH.CA CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN L1.D • OWNER, r[rxa.xe u.rn• IAS Gnkn Guvp FDD ecue:wr•�a �,.� IIIYL���� IV F R A V E � 1 � 1 r n n ry ! 6 DLJI?tEX UNtTS ; = �9tr / /ASWF.EISHADE f AYITALPA Y° M1 CHRyyA��IIA �VFL/TM�n� AL mss, •-- 4.lII I '*I I I Tf Is • ,• -. rt .fin} q A S N O q 1 F D R IV E LQ SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SEASHORE VILLAGE mv25.M3 1 NEWPORT REACH , CALIFORNIA Eaw 1 0.fI11TF.CTJRE m Oxn u4'luw,wnie walnvrn,uJ.w i I x. Y9 � Y9l � Y:Y Y7 Il1 'li YY �� LB,OWNER. LLC �0 wovrttmnAxrvAUTTR RIVER AVE - .. 14 1 20 r} 15 j 16 ir. g r� 23 y - mildow ia 21 SHMOS - 18 22 Q Ianna.nmenroWarvum F" 4 if .� �f�� 't 2t r.1 7`• 10 WEST NEWPU Ri PARK 9 NEPTUNE AVE. �e g - muWm>mw.rmiu�a Y U 7 W H g 4 3 + i .n�eree .uaa.ma z0 SEASHOREDRIVE lam' Lerq_tl1s2PDownpn,yam vwayPNoee; z 10'Oi i v � \ \ .c .irwaemconurm�reowwx h \ .' gMImINy PWtlnp.61ngtl11m Group Bybmmt ..� . � FLOWEAINGNNE$ PRIVACY SCREENS THEME WALLS NRF BLOCK COBBLE PRECAST PAVERS PERJIWBPARNNG x.�e�ae.en.i+weum. i � WSyr WNy Beq Menyynsn)Pxdm(H.M.PJ WATERCONSERNNGPLANTS ORNAMENTAL GRASSES RAINGAROENSMPRIVATEYARDS COLORED CONCRETE PENOUSPAVERS ,. `.,�"i �M..�"",••s�„°a''.'",:d'm:�°` ECHO BEACH PLANNED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD NEWPORT BEACH.CA CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN L1.D • OWNER, r[rxa.xe u.rn• IAS Gnkn Guvp FDD ecue:wr•�a �,.� IIIYL���� r., ✓` r AY(i. RIVFR AVE. JIM 1 l 1R _;:,1 1 n 2R zs ;yamst B ® l ) 1 \z ` g fa �w� t' AR B K F 1 as r= 1 t .r !• t, 3 „ 2 In d LL I B 2 1 EN sl EPTU NE AVE.A V FI Site Plan Notes A Maintainomall whacks B Detached units rather then Duplex units + �1•^' 7 — .I-- C Front Door identity toward sural or paseu ( �4 D private usable side-ynrds for all units ti; fvl I _ _ 2 t • • ! E These hones shifted orientation to nsalch +E existing neighborhood ports Per t f�B - �� _ ;i F 2 car gamges for all units rather than - --- • Tandan garnges and carports '' f_ - r ,r C Remove drive cut and add I abbe parki, • _ apace t • .•e�, i� H Greeter Open Space at interior of penial _ 5 F fI l I Coastal Access+ADA Access 15 N F R IV F J Open Spore Area 3,W4 sf 71 Enhanced Elevations t SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 119310 RI®037 "s�,F. NEWPORI BLACH. CALII.0KNIT 0.G111TF.CNRE LBy OW N[R, LLC M m m u m x�uw arwP uu'umrn.u:nx. RIVER AVE. �L i I "BEENE AVE. n n •lz 20 I 18 21 w Q Y U T Ater 6 � I � U 19 22 �,.p Q ME X O z r U 4 J Q Q SEASHORE ORIVE NEPTUNE AVE m N SOUTH PASEOENLARGEMNORTH PASEO ENLARGEMENT SUCCULENTS SMALL SHRUBS GROUNOCOVER ORNAMENTAL GRASSES PO TALTREO PATHIOM Elm WRACK PRNACYSCREEN COLORED CONCRETE ECHO BEACH PLANNED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOGD NEWPORT BEACH CA PASEO ENLARGEMENTS 1-1.1 LB9 OWNER, LLC MJB Onpn Omup WE EEEEYIEY IA.SEIA � ECILE:IR•TP ao�ner