Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit 3Exhibit #3 City Council Staff Report dated August 14, 2007 (with past Planning Commission Reports) 61 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 16 August 14, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3210, jcampbellOcitv.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: AERIE (PA2005 -196) 201 -205 & 207 Carnation Avenue 101 Bayside Place APPLICANT: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. Richard Julian, President BACKGROUND The proposed project was considered by the Planning Commission at three public hearings and on May 17, 2007, the Commission recommended approval of the project provided the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was revised and recirculated before final action by the City Council. The MND has been revised and recirculated and is attached for consideration. RECOMMENDATION 1) Consider the revised draft MND (Attachment A) and any new comments received. 2) Adopt the attached draft resolution adopting the draft MND and approving General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -006, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005-002, Newport Tract Map No. 2005 -004 (TTM16882), Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -002 (Attachment B); and, 3) Introduce the attached draft ordinance amending the Zoning Districting Map thereby approving Code Amendment No. 2005 -009 (Attachment C). APPLICATION SUMMARY The AERIE project consists of the demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment building and single- family residence and the construction of a new, 9 -unit residential condominium building. The project site is located bayward of the intersection of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar. The following discretionary approvals are requested or required in order to implement the project as designed: -_ 53 AERIE (PA2005 -116) August 14, 2007, Page 2 1. General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -006 would change the land use designation of a 584- square -foot portion of 101 Bayside Place from RT (Two -Unit Residential) to RM (Multiple -Unit Residential, 20 dwelling units per acre). 2. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -0002 would change the Coastal Land Use Plan designation of the same 584 - square -foot portion of 101 Bayside Place from RH -D (High Density Residential - 50.1 to 60 dwelling units per acre) to RM-A (Medium Density Residential - 6.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre). 3. Zone Change No. 2005 -009 would change the zoning designation of the 584 - square -foot portion of 101 Bayside Place from R -2 (Two - Family Residential) to MFR (Multifamily Residential, 2178 square feet per unit). 4. Tract Map No. 2005 -004 (TT16882) combines the 584- square -foot portion of 101 Bayside Place with 201 -205 Carnation Avenue and 207 Camation Avenue and subdivides the air space for 9 residential, condominium units. 5. Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 would permit a 5 -foot subterranean encroachment within the 10 -foot front setback along Carnation Avenue, and a X -1" to V -7" above - grade and subterranean encroachment into a 10'-7" side yard setback between the project and 215 Carnation. 6. Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -002 is an application required by Chapter 20.86 of the Municipal Code to review the potential loss of affordable housing within the Coastal Zone. No low or moderate income households occupy the site and no replacement housing is required. These discretionary requests, analysis and respective findings are discussed in the Planning Commission staff reports attached as Attachment D. Facts to support the findings are contained in the attached draft resolutions recommending project approval to the City Council. DISCUSSION The record of the Planning Commission is attached and includes the three staff reports, minutes and Planning Commission Resolution No. 1723 recommending project approval. A complete discussion of the various findings and the facts that support them are contained in the attached Planning Commission reports and the attached Planning Commission resolution. The Project The site currently is developed with a 14 -unit apartment building, a single - family residence, a concrete staircase to the bay, a concrete patio at the water and a three - finger dock system. The apartment building and single - family home will be demolished to construct a new 73,418 square foot, 9 -unit condominium complex. The new structure will have a total of seven levels, three of which will be visible above the existing grade 5q AERIE (PA20 05 -186) August 14, 20 D7, Page 3 adjacent to the intersection of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard and a total of 6 levels will be visible when viewed from the south and west from Newport Bay. The lowest level will be fully subterranean and will not be visible. The structure includes outdoor patios, decks and may include spas at each level- The project includes encroachments into the front and side setbacks. Most of the encroachments are subterranean. Approximately 31,524 cubic yards of earth will be excavated and re moved .from the site. The site current €y consists of two parcels and a small portion of a third parcel (584 square feet) with a total area of 1.4 acres including approximately 11,300 square feet of land below mean low fide. Each unit will have a private storage room located in the lowest basement level. Additional amenities include a private spa, lounge, patio, locker mom, exercise room, and a pool located on Level 1. Two parking spaces are provided for each unit, with a total of 5 guest and 2 golf cart parking spaces,provided on Levels 1 through 4. Level 4 is approximately 3 feet below the grade of Camation and it will house residential units, 2 two -car garages, and 3 guest spaces. All other parking is below street grade and is accessed from Carnation Avenue utilizing two automobile elevators. Pub fic Access The Coastal Act requires the provision of maximum public access to coastal resources such as Newport Say; however it is not required in all cases_ If the resource is so sensitive or if military needs dictate or if adequate public access exists nearby, access car( be waived. The Coastal Land Use Plan contains policies to be used to guide the AERIE (PA2005 -196) August 14, 2007, Page 4 analysis and the Planning Commission, Staff and the applicant were in agreement that requiring public access through or across the site is unwarranted given the steep topography, lack of lateral access to connect to, proximity of residential uses and the provision of public access nearby. Public trews An existing public view exists between the existing apartment building and the abutting house to the east from Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. The proposed design increases the distance between the buildings and opens the view slightly. The applicant has depicted a public bench and fountain at the comer on the plans to further enhance the experience. The view of the site from Begonia Park was also considered. A depiction of the project from the upper part of the park was included in the draft MND. Although the project will be in that view and a portion of the view of the water and harbor entrance will be affected, the finding is that it does not rise to the level of a significant environmental impact nor is it inconsistent with policy to protect public views. The view of the coastal bluff, a public coastal resource, is also considered a public view pursuant to the CLUP. The project will extend further down the bluff than existing development; however, there is no significant impact to the view provided the project does not extend beyond the predominant fine of existing development. Predominant Line of Existing Development Coastal bluff face development is prohibited in the City with the exception of properties on Carnation Avenue, Pacific Avenue and Ocean Boulevard where principal structures already exist on the bluff face (CLUP Policies 4.4.3 -8 & 4.4.3 -9). The project meets these criteria and development of the bluff face is permissible provided it is within the predominant line of existing development. One purpose of the predominant line of existing development is to protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor and to coastal bluffs. Staff and the applicant have disagreed as to the meaning and intent of the policies and the location of the predominant line of existing development. With the assistance of the City Attorney's office, the predominant line of existing development was determined to be a line the applicant is entitled to build to. Inherent in the determination of the location of the predominant line of existing development is the understanding that the predominant line of existing development protects the visual quality of the coast, public views and minimizes alteration of the bluff. The location of the predominant line of existing development was determined by the Planning Commission and is reflected in their recommendation, The Planning Commission identified the predominant tine of existing development as a sloping line drawn between the two adjacent developments (2494 Ocean Blvd. and 215 Carnation Ave.) that might best be described as the proposed project/bluff interface line. Planning Commission's recommended line, Staffs 5(.e AERIE (PA2005 -196) August 14, 2007, Page 5 line and the applicant's line are depicted in the draft MND and are on Sheets A -18 and A -19 of the plan set. A complete discussion of the issue is contained within the draft MND and Planning Commission staff reports. The Council can accept the Planning Commission's recommendation and approve the project or the Council can identify a different predominant line if the project does not meet the CLUP policy to protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor and to coastal bluffs. if a line is identified that does not accommodate the proposed project, a change in design would be necessary and a continuance of this Rem would be warranted. Parking Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 2.9.3 -1 and Circulation Element Policy CE7.1.1 require new development to avoid the use of parking configurations or parking management programs that are difficult to maintain and enforce; and require adequate, convenient parking for residents, guests, business patrons and visitors. The below -grade parking accessed by vehicle elevators is not the most convenient and could lead to vehicle queuing within the public right -of -way, Residents, guests and service providers might be more inclined to park on the street when it is more convenient to do so. Lastly, a portion of the guest parking spaces is located below grade. Given the density proposed by the applicant, there is no efficient way to provide the required number of parking spaces without using a vehicle elevator. The elevator access directly from the street could be internalized to avoid vehicle queuing on the street; another option is to require all guest parking to be located on Level 4 to avoid guest use of elevators. The first option would require a significant redesign where the latter option might not The Planning Commission discussed these options and dismissed them them. The Commission concluded that although the parking configuration is not perfect, it can be found consistent with policy. Construction Management Concerns related to construction and construction parking led staff to include a condition of approval requiring a detailed construction management plan for each major phase of construction. Implementation of this condition should ensure that the construction phase of the project minimizes conflicts. The condition reads as follow: Prior to commencement of each major phase of construction, the Contractor shall submit a construction staging parking and traffic control plan for approval by the Public Works Department. This plan shall identify the proposed construction staging area(s), construction crew parking area(s), estimated number and types of vehicles that will occur during that phase, the proposed arrivalldeparture routes and operational safeguards le.g flagmen, barricades, shuttle services, etc.) and hourly restrictions, if necessary, to avoid traffic conflicts during peak traffic periods, displacement of on- street parking and to ensure safety. The construction staging, parking and traffic control plan shall provide for an off -site parking lot of construction crews which will be shuttled to and from the project site at the beginning of and end of each day until such time that the project site can accommodate construction vehicle parking. Construction 51 AERIE (PA2005 -198) August 14, 2007, Page 8 traffic routes shall be included and shall avoid narrow residential streets, unless them is no alternative, and shaft not include any streets where some fora of construction is underway within or adjacent to the street that would impact the efficacy of the proposed route. Grading and dirt hauling shall not be scheduled during the summer season (Memorial Day holiday weekend through and including the Labor Day holiday weekend). The approved construction staging, parking traffic control plan shall be implemented throughout each major construction phase. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration The initial draft MND was first circulated in February and March of this year. The first draft needed substantial revisions and was recirculated for public comment in April and May of 2007. The second draft MND was reviewed by the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee and their comments, along with other comments received, were considered by the Commission. The second draft MND was deemed insufficient by the Commission as it included a specific conclusion as to the predominant line of existing development and a mitigation measure requiring the project to be redesigned to comply. The problem was that the applicant had not agreed to the mitigation measure and the definitive identification of the predominant line of existing development did not provide for the discretionary process to potentially identify a different predominant line even though it was acknowledged that discretion was involved. If a predominant line of existing development were identified beyond the one identified by Staff, the MND might be suspect. Rather than proceeding forward, it was decided that the draft MND would be revised once again to eliminate seemingly conflicting analysis in the record and to provide the public the opportunity to comment. The final draft MND attached to this report includes a narrative describing the prior drafts, conflicting analysis, as well as changes in the project volunteered by the applicant and directed by the Commission as a result of the public participation process. The draft MND includes a new mitigation measure indicating that the project must be revised to fall within the predominant line of existing development as established by the City Council. The applicant has agreed to this mitigation measure, and with this measure in place, the project will not have the potential to create a significant impact to the environment. The revised MND was recirculated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the comment period concludes on August 12, 2007. PUBLIC NOTICE A hearing notice indicating the subject, time, place and location of this hearing was provided in accordance with the Municipal Code. Notice was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and the site was posted a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing. Notice of the hearing is also provided with the agenda for the meeting, which was posted in accordance with applicable law and appears on the City's website. 5� AERIE (PA2005 -196) August 14, 2007, Page 7 SUMMARY The Planning Commission recommends project approval subject to findings and conditions of approval. The findings and conditions are attached to the draft resolution. Should the City Council believe that any of the findings are not supported by the facts identiflied, a change to the project may be necessary. The central issue for the project is the predominant line of existing development. If the Council establishes a different predominant line that does not accommodate the project as designed, the applicant will need additional time to redesign the project accordingly. This same statement would be true for any other project - related issues such as the parking configuration, public views, public access, the setback encroachment or other aspect of the project. Prepared by: 1W! Jame' s Campbell, nner ATTACHMENTS D. Planning Commission record 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1723 2 Staff Report dated May 17, 2007 3. Excerpt of minutes from May 17, 2007 hearing 4. Staff Report dated April 5, 2007 5. Excerpt of minutes from April 5, 2007 hearing 6. Staff Report dated February 22, 2007 7. Excerpt of minutes from February 22, 2007 hearing E. Correspondence 51 0 ATTACHMENTS D Planning Commission record 2. Staff Report dated May 17, 2007 3. Excerpt of minutes from May 17, 2007 hearing 4. Staff Report dated April 5, 2007 5. Excerpt of minutes from April 5, 2007 hearing 6. Staff Report dated February 22, 2007 7. Excerpt of minutes from February 22, 2007 hearing D.1 S Page left blank intentionally CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 3 May 17, 2007 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner ( 949) 644- 3210, icamobellacity .newaort- beach.ca.us SUBJECT:. AERIE (PA2005 -196) 201 -205 & 207 Carnation Avenue 101 Bayside Place APPLICANT: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. Richard Julian, President PROJECT SUMMARY The AERIE project consists of the demolition of an existing 14-unit apartment building and single - family residence and the construction of a new 9 -unit residential condominium building. The following discretionary approvals are requested or required in order to implement the project as designed: 1. General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -006 would change the land use designation of a 584 square foot portion of 101 Bayside Place from RT (Two-Unit Residential) to RM (Multiple -Unit Residential, 20 dwelling units per acre). 2. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -002 would change the Coastal Land Use Plan designation of the same 584 square foot portion of 101 Bayside Place from RH -D (High Density Residential - 50.1 to 60 dwelling units per acre) to RM -A (Medium Density Residential - 6.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre). 3. Zone Change No. 2005 -009 would change the zoning designation of the 584 square foot portion of 101 Bayside Place from R -2 (Two - Family Residential) to MFR (Multifamily Residential, 2178 square feet per unit). 4. Tract Map No. 2005 -004 (TT16882) combines the 584 square foot portion of 101 Bayside Place with 201 -205 Carnation Avenue and 207 Camation Avenue and subdivides the air space for 9 residential condominium units. 5. Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 would permit a 5 -foot subterranean encroachment within the 10 -foot front setback along Carnation Avenue, and a 3' -1° to 5-7 above- o. 37 AERIE (PA2005 -196) May 17, 2007, Page 2 grade and subterranean encroachment into a 10' -7' side yard setback between the project and 215 Carnation, 6. Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -002 is an application required by Chapter 20.86 of the Municipal Code to review the potential loss of affordable housing within the Coastal Zone. No low or moderate income households occupy the site and no replacement housing is required. Each discretionary approval request, analysis and their respective findings are discussed in the February 22, 2007, staff report attached as Exhibit #1. Facts to support the findings are contained in the attached draft resolutions recommending project approval to the City Council RECOMMENDATION 1) Consider the revised draft MND; and, 2) Adopt Dole, of the two attached draft resolutions recommending that the City Council adopt the draft MND and approve the project consistent with the predominant line of existing development as determined by the Planning Commission and approve General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -006, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No, 2005 -002, Code Amendment No. 2005-009, Newport Tract Map No. 2005 -004 (Tract 16882), Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -002 (Exhibit #2 and #3). DISCUSSION Project Revisions In response to Planning Commission direction at the February 22, 2007 meeting, the applicant modified the project by reducing the bayward extent of the northwestern portion of the proposed building to be consistent with the bayward extent of the southeastern portion of the building. The northwestern portion of the building extended further away from the bluff edge than the southeastern portion of the building. The applicant revised the plans by moving the deck and !wilding wall closer to the approximate location of the bluff edge on Level 2 (lower floor of Unit #7) by approximately 6.5 and 6 feet respectively. Additionally, the deck and building wail on the level above (Level 3) were also modified, but were not moved closer to the estimated bluff edge. Overall the project changes reduced the overall floor area by 527 square feet. Since the Planning Commission meeting of April 5, 2007, the applicant has further revised the project again. The lowest extent of the project as seen from the west will be 30.5 feet above mean sea level (previously 29 feet MSL). The finished floor of Level 1 is now 18 inches higher on the bluff face. The lowest visible extent of the north elevation will vary between 59 feet and 30.5 feet MSL. The revised plans (Exhibit #4) include the changes directed by the Planning Commission at the February 22, 2007, meeting. E c�3 AERIE (PA2005.196) A4ay 17, 2007, Page 3 Specific Coastal Land Use (CLUP) Policies vs. General CLUP Policies Project approval requires the Planning Commission to find that the proposed condominium building is consistent with applicable General Plan, CLUP policies, and the Zoning Code. Because the project site is a coastal bluff, project review has focused on CLUP policies relating to protection of coastal bluffs and views of the bluff as part of the scenic and visual quality of the coastal zone. These policies are set forth below. This report will outline the range of possible outcomes based upon the application of these policies. CLUP policies 4.4.1 -1, 4.4.1 -2 and 4.4.1 -3 are general policy statements that apply to all development 4.4.1 -1. protect and where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor and to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas. 4.4.1 -Z Design and site new development; including landscaping, so as to minimize impacts to public coastal views. 4.4.1 -3 Design and site new development to minimize alterations to significant natural larndforms, including bluffs, cliffs and canyons. CLUP policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9 apply to the project site and provide specific policy direction. 4.4.3 -8. Prohibit development on bluff faces, except private development on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar determined to be consistent with the predominant line of existing development or public improvements providing public access, protecting coastal resources, or providing for public safety. Permit such improvements only when no feasible alternative exists and when designed and constructed to minimize alteration of the bluff face, to not contribute to further erosion of the bluff face, and to be visually compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible. 4.4.3 -9. Where principal structures exist on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar, require all new development to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development in order to protect public coastal views. Establish a predominant line of development for both principle structures and accessory improvements. The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure safety and stability of the development. At the April 5, 2007, staff report, staff indicated that development up to the predominant line of existing development should not be allowed if the Planning Commission determined that this effort alone did not sufficiently minimize alteration of the bluff. Staff reached this conclusion by attempting to balance Policy 4.4.1 -3 with the two more P.3 6� AERIE (PA2006 -196) May 17, 2007, Page 4 specific policies (Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9) that allow development to be sited on the i Carnation Avenue bluff face consistent with the predominant line of existing development. Staff has met with the applicant and also been advised by the City Attorney that a specific policy takes precedence over a more general policy when there appears to be a potential conflict in their application. This does not mean, however, that the general policies are not applicable in the implementation of the more specific policies. Accordingly, the location of the predominant line of existing development pursuant to Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9 must first be identified as the means of minimizing alteration of the bluff. Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9 allow development to the predominant line of existing development and Policies 4.4.1 -1 and 4.4.1 -2 require development be designed to minimize impacts to public coastal views and to protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, including public views. Determining the predominant line of existing development in a manner that is also consistent with Policies 4.4.1 -1 and 4.4.1 -2 will ensure that development up to the predominant line of existing development will minimize alteration of the bluff and protect public coastal views and the scenic and visual quality of the coastal zone. If the development up to the predominant line of existing development is perceived to be inconsistent with the intent of the more general policies, the method to identify the predominant line of existing development may be flawed. Predominant Line of Existing Development The Planning Commission must determine the location of the predominant line of existing development. As noted in prior staff reports and the revised MND, establishing the predominant line of existing development is subjective_ Although staff has identified a predominant line of existing development in the revised MND, the Commission may determine that the predominant line of existing development should be set at a location different than the one identified by staff in the revised MND based upon an alternative interpretation of CLUP policies. The most conservative application of the polices might suggest that no portion of the project could extend further bayward or lower on the bluff face than the existing development located on the project site. Staff does not believe this application of policy is consistent with the definition of predominant line of existing development contained within the CLUP as it would not take into account existing abutting development on the bluff face that is developed further down the bluff face. Additionally, it would also suggest that minimizing the alteration of the bluff might mean no alteration is allowed. The first step to identify the predominant line of existing development consistent with CLUP policies is to locate a block of homes on the bluff face that are representative of the existing development pattern. The next step is to measure the distance between the structures within the block of homes selected and a representative point or line. The definition of predominant line of development within the CLUP contains an example suggesting that the predominant line of existing development may be the median distance of the block of homes. The median distance is then compared to the entire 11 9 -YO I'e5 AERIE (PA2005 -116) May 17, 2007, Page 5 10 block of homes to ensure that it is represents the existing development pattern. If it does not represent the development pattern, it would not be consistent with the general resource protection policies discussed above and a different method to identify the predominant line of existing development should be examined. In staffs opinion, the calculation of the median distance (used by staff to arrive at a predominant line of existing development in the draft MND) should be considered the starting point and should not be the sole basis for determining the predominant line of existing development In developing the predominant line of existing development as set forth in the revised MND, the definition of the predominant line of development was used. Staff identified a block of homes consisting of 7 principal structures constructed on the bluff face as shown in Exhibit #5. These structures were identified for the purpose of analysis as they are all located on Carnation Avenue /Ocean Boulevard bluff face and share similar topographical features. The elevation of each structure above mean sea level was measured based upon available topographic and elevation information. The median elevation was calculated. Fifty -two (52) feet above mean sea level was identified as the median value within the draft MND and that led staff to identify it as the vertical predominant line of existing development as it appears to be consistent with the existing development pattern. Since this analysis was prepared, the applicant has provided additional information on the vertical extent of development down the bluff face (Exhibit #6). The following table indicates the 7 lots within the block of homes evaluated with elevation information and median values identified. Based upon this more accurate elevation information, staff concludes that the predominant line of existing development could be 50.7 feet above MSL. The structures located on Bayside Place, Channel Reef condominium development and the Kerchoff Marine Laboratory were not included as they are not located on the bluff face but rather in front of the bluff. If Channel Reef is included in the calculation, with an approximate elevation of 14.15 feet, the median elevation is 49.4 feet above MSL. If the Kerchoff Marine Laboratory is included, the median elevation is 48.1 feet above MSL. Staff has also evaluated the predominant tine of existing development in the horizontal or plan view using the same block of homes identified above. The furthest extent of development from the curb was estimated from aerial photography and project plans. The median distance from the curb is approximately 96.7 feet When Channel Reef is included, the median distance from the curb is 103.3 feet. The project extends further 1P. W yo MND vertical elevation Lowest vertical elevation 1. 2495 Ocean Blvd. 30.5 24.10 2. 201 -205 Carnation Ave. 52 median value 42.3 3. 207 Camation Ave. 70 65 estimated 4. 215 Camation Ave. 57 57.8 5. 221 -223 Carnation Ave. 48 48.1 6. 227 -231 Carna#ron Ave. 59 58.2 7. 233 Carnation Ave. 50 50.7 median value Based upon this more accurate elevation information, staff concludes that the predominant line of existing development could be 50.7 feet above MSL. The structures located on Bayside Place, Channel Reef condominium development and the Kerchoff Marine Laboratory were not included as they are not located on the bluff face but rather in front of the bluff. If Channel Reef is included in the calculation, with an approximate elevation of 14.15 feet, the median elevation is 49.4 feet above MSL. If the Kerchoff Marine Laboratory is included, the median elevation is 48.1 feet above MSL. Staff has also evaluated the predominant tine of existing development in the horizontal or plan view using the same block of homes identified above. The furthest extent of development from the curb was estimated from aerial photography and project plans. The median distance from the curb is approximately 96.7 feet When Channel Reef is included, the median distance from the curb is 103.3 feet. The project extends further 1P. W yo AERIE (PA2005 -196) May 17, 2007, Page 6 away from the bluff than this distance. The applicants identification of the horizontal predominant line of existing development as measured from the curb and bluff edge have also been plotted by staff. These lines do not appear to be representative of the existing development pattern of structures on the bluff face. The inclusion of the Channel Reef condominium development and the Kerchoff Marine Laboratory in the calculations creates the difference between staffs analysis and the applicants. It does appear that the existing development pattern follows the approximate bluff edge with the exception of development of the two abutting single - family homes to the south and Channel Reef. The applicant has prepared several exhibits showing the bluff face with the project superimposed as viewed from the bay. The exhibits contain various lines and elevations above mean sea level. The applicant has not provided a calculation or identified a methodology to determine the predominant line of existing development that supports the revised project using elevations above mean sea level. Staff has prepared an aftemative method of calculating the median elevation of existing development as a means to locating a predominant line of existing development consistent with the vertical extent of development pf the proposed project. The applicant identified a block of homes within the AERIE Project Overview (previously transmitted to the Commission) for the purpose of identifying the predominant line of existing development. This block of structures extends roughly 250 feet northerly and 250 feet easterly from the intersection of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. The lowest extent of development on the Carnation Avenue portion of the block is approximately 42.3 feet (project site) and the lowest extent of development on the Ocean Boulevard portion of the block is approximately 14.15 feet (Channel Reef). The median elevation of these two values is also the average and it is 28.3 feet above MSL. If this method is used to identify the predominant line of existing development, the project may be consistent with CLUP Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9 if the entire structure is up -slope from this line. Additionally, the project may be viewed as further minimizing alteration of the bluff and protecting the view of and scenic quality of the coastal bluff as required by CLUP policies 4.4.1 -1, 4.4.1 -2 and 4.4.1 -3 as the entire building does not extend to the predominant line of existing development. The line of development exhibits prepared by the applicant (within Exhibit #3) show the revised project and its relationship to surrounding development From a purely subjective standpoint, the revised project line steps down in elevation from left to right on the drawings making a reasonable transition between abutting development on the bluff face. If this fine is representative of the existing development pattem on the bluff, the Commission may use it for the basis of project approval, Parking Configuration In the last staff report, staff suggested that the project may be inconsistent with CLUP Policy 2.9.3 -1 and Circulation Element Policy CE7.1.1 regarding the parking configuration. These policies require new development to avoid the use of parking configurations or parking management programs that are difficult to maintain and P. V-Z 0 AERIE (PA2005 -396) May 17, 2007, Page 7 10 enforce while providing adequate, convenient parking for residents, guests, business patrons and visitors. The below grade parking accessed by vehicle elevators is not the most convenient and may lead to vehicle queuing within the public right-of-way- Residents, guests and service providers might be more inclined to park on the street when it is more convenient to do so. One potential option is to relocate the vehicle elevators in such a way that they are not accessed directly from the street but from within Level 4. In that way, vehicles would pull off the street and wait for the elevators on -site rather than potentially blocking the street or sidewalk. The Commission will need to determine whether or not the proposed parking configuration is consistent with the subject policies. Eliminating the use of vehicle lifts altogether does not appeal feasible given the density of the proposed project, parking requirements and space needs if vehicle ramps are incorporated within the parking garage design. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration As noted previously, the draft MND has been revised and recirculated for public review (Exhibit #7). The comment period is between April 16'' and May 15, 2007. The draft MND was reviewed by the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee and their comments, along with any other comments received, will be forwarded to the Commission for consideration at or before the meeting depending upon when they are received. • The decision to recirculate the document was made due to the amount and nature of revisions previously recommended and the need to address a new public view issue. Revisions to address prior comments made by the Planning Commission have been incorporated. Additionally, the project's potential impact upon public views from Begonia Park were included (page 23 of the revised draft MND). The project will marginally reduce the view of the harbor entrance, Balboa Peninsula and a portion of the coastal bluff from this vantage point, the impact was determined not to be significant. 0 Although staff identified the predominant line of existing development at 52 feet above MSL, a different predominant line of existing development can be identified without necessitating recirculation of the draft MND. Staff has further revised the basis for the identification of the predominant line of existing development based upon more detailed elevation information such that the predominant line of existing development is 50.7 feet, rather than 52 feet, above MSL and the proposed mitigation measure would need to be revised accordingly. If the Planning Commission identifies an altemative predominant line of existing development that accommodates the proposed project, it will not identify a new environmental impact and the Mitigation Measure IX -5 is not necessary. If an alternative predominant line of existing development is set by the Planning Commission, Mitigation Measure IX-5 will need to be modified accordingly. P. q3 AERIE (PA2005 -196) May 17, 2007, Page 8 SUMMARY Identification of the predominant line of existing development is necessary to act on the project. The fine must be consistent with Policies 4.4.1 -1, 4.4.1 -2 and 4.4.1 -3 requiring new development to minimize alteration of the coastal bluff, to protect public views of the bluff and to protect the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone. If the Commission determines the predominant line of existing development to be 50.7 feet above MSL as identified in the draft MND, then the applicant should be directed to redesign the project consistent with this determination or the project can be recommended for approval with a condition requiring such a change (Exhibit #2). If the Commission determines the predominant line of existing development to be at or beyond the revised project, the revised project can be recommended for approval (Exhibit #3). If an alternative predominant line of existing development is identified, revisions to either resolution will be necessary to reflect and implement the Planning Commission's action. As noted previously, a discussion and analysis of each discretionary approval request including their respective findings are contained in the February 22, 2007, staff report attached as Exhibit #1. Facts to support the findings are contained in both of the attached draft resolutions recommending project approval to the City Council. Prepared by: Submitted by: James Campbell, Senior Planner David Lepo, Planning Director EXHIBITS i deyelapmeRt 5. Predominant line of existirg development exhibits prepared by staff • Additional • • • ' material submitted by the applicant i E 9 yy 4� 0 0 Exhibit #5 Predominant fine of existing development exhibits prepared by staff P.y5 1 4CF, 14 tli 1 \� \� \ � � � _ \ }� \ 4k, �TMF � } 'p- -5 0 .1� t AT ZIP 40 'h. E Exhibit #6 Additional elevation/grade material submitted by the applicant 11 t)• 5 3 li 1 n PLANNING £NCFNEERING SURVEYING GOVERNMENT RELATIOM1u IRVINE LOS ANC£L£S RIVERSIDE SAN DIFGO FOUNDING PARTNERS: RICHARD HUNSAKFR TOM R. WCAANNON JOHN A. MX14LFR DOUGLAS G. SNYDER PRINCIPALS: DAVID FRATTONE FRED GRAYLE€ BRADLEY HAY PAUL HUDDLE$TON KAMAL ft. KARA.M DOUGLAS L. STALLY KRIS WEBER JOSEPH E. N'IGHTMAN Throe Haghes Irving Califania 42618 .021 Oat 58J -1970 PH (949) SRI 0759 FX avww.hunsakex .vm HUNSAKER &ASSOCIATES I R V I N E. I N C. Maim Mr. James Campbell City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 RE: ELEVATION CERTIFICATION Dear Mr. Campbell, This is to certify that the elevations shown on attached Exhibits A -1 through H, inclusive, are the result of a survey performed by me, or under my direct supervision in April of 2007. Elevations are based on local United States Coast and Geodetic Survey Benchmarks in the Area and are derived from the North American Vertical Datum of 1988. Elevation established on Dirt or Sand are shown to the nearest 0.1', elevations on Concrete are to the nearest 0.01'. If you should have any questions regarding the attached information please do not hesitate to call me at (949) 458 -5493. Sincerely, Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc. i Bruce F. Hunsaker, PLS 5921 Manager, Field Survey Department My License Expires: December 31, 2008 J9. 57y 0 9 Is cfo\ ." ; ;. a -. ti F(., 3 �' ." ; ;. �i ti F(., 3 �' ." ; Y''L �i h i d 3 �' y � S k s..t9 I :�x �_ ^Y l � d A T : -. 'r 5u'� � i Ki i. Y l .. .r._ � it'Vi .. ti }\ ry ..�jT { M µ y i i� i : . ,, law! . . © \R rl o M'w Planning Commission Minutes 05/1712007 Advanced Real Estate Services (PA2005 -196) 201 & 207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place application would allow the demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartrr ing and a single -family home and the construction of a 7- level, 9- ple- family residential condominium complex with subterranean parts 1.4 acre site located bayward of the intersection of Ocean Boulev Carnation Avenue. The existing General Plan, Coastal Land Use F Zoning Designations of a small portion of the site (584 square fi Id be changed to be consistent with the larger portion of the site (f Family residential to mufti- family residential). The application include itive tract map for the creation of 9 "airspace" condominium units ridual sale and. The Modification Permit application requests oachment of subterranean portions of the building within the front yard setbacks. Lastly, the Coastal Residential Development Pe ication relates to replacing lost units occupied by low or modes me households. No units meeting this criteria are known to exist Dfore, no replacement of affordable housing is required. as Campbell, Senior Planner, gave an overview of the staff report an ip of the project description. He noted the project has been change re- designed to pull the project up and away from the ocean which i eficial to find the project consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan. iges to the Mitigated Negative Declaration have been made and tits iment has been re- circulated for public review. The issue left fc rmination is the predominant line of existing development. Thi olishes the line to which the project could be built as seaward of th< would be inconsistent with policy and represent a significar *onmental effect. He then noted the variety of methods to define th ominant line of development (PLOD) based upon definition contain n the Coastal Land Use Plan. imissioner Hawkins noted the definition of the predominant line alopment on page 5 -19 of the CLOP. We are dealing with I lominant line of "existing" development. Is that phraseology a defir i in the Local Coastal Plan? Campbell answered no, the definition is predominant line elopment, and the word "existing" comes from Policy 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4 He also noted that the definition in the CLUP contains an exam ;sting that the median distance of a block of homes from •esentative point or line might be the predominant line of exist Campbell went on to explain that staffs position on what t ominant line of existing development means has changed since t report was published. In the prior report, staff indicated that t ominant line of existing development is the maximum building envelo could be developed and the general policies to minimize alteration bluff or the protection of public views or the protection of the visa http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ra.us /PlnAgendas/mn05- 17- 07.htm Page 4 of 23 ITEM NO. 3 PA2005 -196 Recommended for approval by City Council n ►�J 0• W 08/07/2007 0�6 Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 5 of 23 quality of the coast could lead to further limiting development within t predominant line of existing development — staff does not support tf application of policy. Staff believes that the applicant would have the right build to the predominant line of existing development; however, tl identification of the predominant line of existing development must be doi consistent with the general resource protection policies. f believes that the median distance, once determined, is the sta it for analysis. In this application, staff used mean sea level as imon reference line for measurement. He went on to explain :ulation of the median distance for a block of homes on a bluff face level of subjectivity involved in the analysis. ommissioner Hawkins noted his concern with the methodoloa redominant lino of existing development its potential inconsistency with tl ntent of the more general policies. He asked how to resolve the questio W. Campbell answered that once a candidate predominant line of existit evelopment is identified, it must be compared to the existing developme attem to see if it is consistent. If a potential line is not representative of ti lock of homes being analyzed, the method by which the line was identifit s flawed. If that flawed line was used and if development was sited accordance with the line (assuming the line allowed more developme han the existing development pattern), the development would not I nsistent with the general policies to minimize alteration of the bluff and rotect the scenic and visual qualities of the coast. You will need to look II the various factors in identifying the predominant line of existit evelopment. After consultation with the City Attorney, staff believes th he applicant has the right to build to the predominant line of existit evelopment given the specific nature of Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9. r. Hawkins asked if there is a conflict between the two policies when redominant line of existing development is identified that is representatti f the existing development pattern and also conflicts with the more genet resource protection policies. sistant City Attorney Harp added the primary way to look at the predominant line of development is by first focusing on the definition of the predominant line of development, which says it is the most commor representative distance from a specified group of structures to a speciflee point or line. You are not bound by the examples given of median distance when you determine the predominant line of development. Look at the structures on either side in determining what the predominant line o development is. This is an independent analysis done in conjunction will he policies. Since there are various ways to determine the predominan line of development, you can take a liberal view towards it or you can take', conservative view towards what the predominant line of development is. You are looking overall for a reasonableness of what the predominant linf of development is because they have a right to develop up to tha predominant line of development. If you took the general policies an( pplied those and said that was the rule, then you would have to apply tht D. 6 5 httP: / /www. city.newport- beach. ca.usIPInAgendastmnO5- 17- 07.htm 08/07/2007 t�\ Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 conservative policy available and I don't think that is the intent policies. You are looking for reasonableness in setting minant line of development based on the other structures. k Julian, applicant, gave an overview of his project noting hitectural features, the building will not extend down to the water and 30 1/2 feet above the water line; view corridor has been pulled back corner of Ocean and Camation; large portion of the property is sin ,y height along Carnation to guarantee those views; majority of squ Cage is underground and out of sight; endorsed by Coast Keepers; hours of the bluff are matched with heights ranging from 29 feet to I on level one of the building. Levels two and three have been pul :k 15 feet on unit 7 to match that contour of the bluff_ He is committer project. Jeannette, architect on the project, noted: No variance on this project; Requesting two minor modifications to setbacks; Project conforms to the General Plan and the Coastal Land Use Plan; It is a lessening of density in the number of units on site from 15 to! Utilizing 26% of the site with 74% of the site left as open space; Project has a 1,700 square foot larger footprint than the existing building; Parking exceeds Code requirements and project area is at 76,000 square feet with most of it not visible; The project has been raised 18 inches with an elevation of 30.5; The MND has been re- circulated; Unit 7 was backed up from its promontory 15 feet, not 6 feet as mentioned in the staff report; This project will be LEED compliant, having to do with energy conservation, green architecture, net metering, water retention systems, materials used in project and landscape materials; Mr. Jeannette made a PowerPoint presentation identifying the site, Channel Reef Condominiums (2525 Ocean Blvd.) with parking structure, the McIntosh residence (2495 Ocean Blvd.) and the Sprague residence (101 Bayside Place) as well as what is on the project site presently. Public views from Carnation, Dahlia and by Channel Reef Condominiums are being preserved; Construction Management Plan - removing 31,000 cubic yards of dirt; parking plan will shuttle workers to site; timing of operation will not interfere with beach users; haul route reviewed and accepted in the MND. The haul route was reviewed and discussed. ampbell noted that the haul route suggested by the applicant was 5sarily endorsed by staff. Traffic Engineer does not want to use t as it is very narrow with the left turns and multiple stop signs. have concerns with that route. httP: / /www. city. DewPort- beackmus /PinAgendas/mn05- 17 -07.hbn Page 6 of 23 0 0 0.66 08/07/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 7 of 23 ommissioner Hawkins noted that the Public Works Department will have t he final authority on which haul route is used. Staff agreed and referred to ndition 104. Mr. Jeannette continued with his slide presentation and discussed where he building would be put along the coast line and how the setbacks are stablished. This was the same presentation as made at a previous eeting on February 22nd, 2007. He then noted that the Coasta ommission had given their input on the homes that had been built on the oastal bluff as depicted in the slides. He reviewed the site and noted the tegodcal exclusion portions. Exhibits depicting the Kerchoff Laboraton, and Channel Reef Condominium construction were discussed. He then discussed the project and how it fits in with the surrounding residences. Referencing an exhibit of a photograph of the bluff from the West, he note( Magenta line representing the limit line that might be established by Th( Coastal Commission based on the lowest line of development Anothe green line depicts the lowest portion of livable space from the Mclntosl residence. They used the 30.5 elevation for the west side facing slopes and climbing up to the 59 foot elevation moving towards and onto the ortherly slope. Referring to the exhibits, he discussed the various elationships of the project on both the northerly and westerly sides. H( ncluded by asking the Commission to define the predominant line o . evelopment as a single elevation. ommissioner Hawkins asked about and received information on the ategoncal Exclusion zone and what is it's import and how it works. ublic comment was opened McCaffrey, President of the Board of Directors at Channel Rs nmunity Association, representing the members noted their support project. He noted in their three -level building parking structure with dential units with two cars each plus service vehicles, there has ne, n a problem with a queue of cars waiting to get in. Additionally, th( three names listed on a petition that had been circulated with a Chani of address and those names and do not appear on their telephone in their residents' directory. i Edwards, read a letter from John Martin noting his land di construction plan concerns which was attached to the nation distributed to the public and Commissioners. Martin read her letter of opposition to the project. This letter ad to the packet of information distributed to the public Richard Hunsaker noted his acceptance of the project. He noted t ntractors who work in tight spaces can work around these types ssues. He suggested conditioning the project as such. D-4 7 http: / /www. city. newport- beach .mustP1nAgendas /mnO5- 17- 07.htm 08/07/2007 �� Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 iel Millikan noted his support of the project as it will vement as the current development is an eyesore. This v improvement with new landscaping and architectural plan. p Rosenblath read a letter from John and Kathleen McIntosh. The} ct to the project and sent previous letters to the City and the applicant. letter is part of the administrative record. Rasner noted his support of the project noting the number of pai s, units, view corridors, tax base, underground utilities, shut ers to the site and the outreach done by the applicant and the City. Moore appeared in support of the project. Varon appeared in support of the project noting the public e by the applicant. Dawson appeared in support of the project noting the cture of the proposed project and the development right t Beek noted the line of development should be where the bluff used which is about ten feet behind (horizontal) where the development )osed. If that is done it would be out to the 50 -52 foot level on the bl ling to the adjacent northerly four properties which would, therefor A all the criteria. This project relates to the four adjacent properties north and is miscellaneous to the property on the westerly side. m Beck noted her opposition to the project due to the size z n. She noted a petition she had submitted that was signed by over • in opposition. She requested that the project be staked to all • to see the enormity of the project. This project is visible from m, ;. She asked the Commission to be responsible to the residents a this project. Birgy noted his support of the project. i Michler noted his support of the project as it is aesthetically will be a vast improvement to what is there currently. ey Beck noted the Commission has to interpret the CLUP which is tt erve the existing bluff and bluff faces and this project does not do that. :ing at the proposed project, you can see how the project will comt i the bluff face and the Commission should not give approval to it a! project is clearly in conflict with the CLOP. The vertical line o ;lopment should also include the existing building which the architect': entation did not include. The project will extend further away from IN than the existing line of development as noted in the staff report. Hr d that these be considered and deny this project. httpJ /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /P]nAgen&s/mnO5- 17- 07.htm Page 8 of 23 E LJ 11 D. &k 08/07/2007 n A "4 Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Lisa Vallejo appeared in opposition referring to policies 4.4.1 -1, 4.4.1 .4.1 -3 and read her letter that became part of the administrative record. comment was closed. n Cole asked for clarification on specific Coastal Land Use vs. general policies. stant City Attorney Harp stated it is our opinion that you have spec' isions that deal with development of the bluff face on Carnation Aveni those take precedence over general conditions that are contained r policies. They have the right to develop to the predominant line aopment, wherever you establish that to be, in accordance wfth tl iition of policies that are in place. The other policies that are me aral in nature should also be considered; however, where there is t conflict between the two, the more specific overrides the general. ommissioner Eaton asked about Policy 4.4.3 -8 that prohibits developmen xcept private development or public improvements provided in the public ccess and permit such improvements only when no feasible alternative mists and when the design is constructed to minimize alteration of the tuff face. This provision refers to public improvements specifically no ecessarily to the private development, correct? He was answered, "yes ". MHe then asked if staff wants to refer to the 28 feet as the predominant line. r. Campbell answered there are two lines that could be looked at as this 'ii corner property with two bluff faces intersecting at the project site. Then ay be a rational to develop one limit or predominant line on Carnation side nd a separate one on the other side. You could do it either way. ioner Toerge noted his concerns as they relate to the Declaration (MND): Public view at the corner of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation - it my contention that it is not the responsibility of this particul developer to make that view wider or bigger, but I also feel it is r approvable to allow that view corridor to be made smaller. t thanked the applicant for the proposed modifications tonight tt respect that view; Air quality - proposed haul route is important to consider given magnitude of excavation and the amount of trucks circuk through the area for the next few years, the public needs to see and be given an opportunity to review; 01 He asked that the Construction Management Plan, Parking Plan haul route be brought back to the Planning Commission so the pi has the opportunity to see it. http: / /www. city. newport - beach. ca.ustPtnAgendas /mn05- 17- 07.htm Page 9 of 23 D.Co9 08/07/2007 CO Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 r. Campbell, referring to a map of Corona del Mar, depicted potential preferred haul routes. icussion continued on truck staging, pollution, noise, not allowing id trucks and requiring trucks to shut off their engines immediately w :y come to a stop, and parking for workers' vehicles. .r Toerge asked for a straw vote on a new condition that management plan and haul route be reviewed by the Plani prior to the issuance of a grading permit. oner Hawkins noted the construction parking plans should all by the. Public Works Department. nmissioner Hillgren asked about the process and what the be going through. on Jeannette noted the haul route mentioned by staff is acceptable to I immission; we will just do it. The construction management plan is bi be reviewed by Public Works and Traffic, which has been required. 7 ul route we mentioned earlier was granted to a project adjacent to t. a. He noted the initial phase of the project will involve the operation terpillars, dump trucks, watering trucks, and street sweepers as I cavation begins. Later the shoring process will commence and then I mdation will start. When the building is partially constructed, it t commodate the smaller tradesmen's trucks in the proposed parki :ility. This will probably be 12 to 16 months with excavation slated to to out 3 months. ter Toerge noted that this explanation is helpful and witted for a straw vote. He will be addressing further concerns on Referencing the MND, he noted his concern with the string ;ies on Ocean Boulevard as depicted on the exhibit. Campbell noted the language related to "stringlines" is in the prior c the MND. That language has been excised from the report as it was ar or accurate. Cole asked about any concerns noted by EQAC needing to by the Commission. Lepo said there were none. Commissioner Eaton's request, Mr. Campbell opined on a commt ar from the California Coastal Commission staff noting the commei -e conservative and reflect a lack of understanding of the complexity project and the bluff. It talks about the aesthetic impact related gyring the bluff to accommodate the project. The MND makes iclusion that it is not a significant effect on the environment and they to http: /lwww. city. newport- beach. ca.us /PtnAgendas /mn05- 17- 07.htrn Page 10 of 23 11 0 E R. 7G 0$/07/2007 ��D Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 11 of 23 different viewpoint on that issue. The letter indicated their view that the analysis in the MND related to Policy 4.4.3 -8 fails to show that all feasible alternatives to the project were explained. It is our belief that this provisior only applies to public improvements and not to the private development. There was another policy question as to whether 4.4.3 -8 and 9 apply w Coastal staff does not believe the project is on the coastal bluff at all. Staf believes it is on the coastal bluff and we have a letter from the geologis supporting this belief. ommissioner Hawkins noted this project is on a bluff face for which 4 and 9 would apply. Staff agreed. :r McDaniel noted this is one member of the staff, not the Coastal Commission. Staff agreed. ssioner Hawkins asked and received clarification about the lack of to the boat docks and improvements to storm -water run -off systen red in the letter from Coastal Commission staff. Mr. Campbell also discussed public access and the various factors consider pursuant to CLUP policy when reviewing a new project. T existing staircase from the apartment building to the water and then to i existing dock system is steep an in disrepair. Topography, safety and 1 proximity to residential uses were factors considered and given put access nearby, staff felt that public access across the site is not required. ated Negative Declaration (MND) items on page 51, the construct ing plan related to construction crew parking at an of{ -site location u time that the parking garage proposed can accommodate parking and the need to schedule grading to avoid summer months wi issed. These components will be added as conditions and added iged in the MND. r. Harp noted the MND will be re- circulated and a revised resolution w stributed recommending approval to the City Council of the project a lows for this re- circulation during the time period between now and wh goes to the City Council. The reason for the re- circulation doesn't requ ,w analysis. The issue stems from the basic premise that some of t nguage in the MND was not agreed to by the applicant at the time th ibmitted the project, e.g., the predominant line of development. We are 3reement with the applicant's counsel that it should be re- circulated. T >mments regarding the construction crew parking and scheduling -ading to avoid summer months could be included in the MND and i rculated. Discussion continued. r. Campbell referred to exhibits on pages 22 and 23 of the MND sho: e view areas of the Begonia Park. This discussion is contained in document concluding that no significant impact would result to public vi from the park. 0-7/ http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca.usIPInAgendas /nmO5- 17- 07.htm 08/07/2007 01 Planning Commission Minutes 05/1712007 imissioner Eaton made reference to the revised resolution presented meeting that includes a narrative that the applicant agrees to t lominant line of existing development as ultimately determined by t Council. nmissioner Hawkins noted his concern with the contents and format various versions of the MND. These documents should be internz rential and built upon each other. Each successive document shot lain the rationale for the solution to conflicts so that any decision maki y could disagree with that point and then go back to the earl ument. We are creating an environmental record and I do not belie record is a clear one_ Continuing, he noted Mitigation IX -5 refers to t fominant line of development and the project shall be revised such tt principal building shall not be visible below 52 feet above mean s rman Cole then asked for discussion on the predominant line !lopment. He noted his opinion that there are two lines: one on t erly portion (Ocean Boulevard side) and one on the northerly portion site (Carnation Avenue). There had been a consensus of t mission back in February on Ocean Boulevard westerly side as 29 h ,iding with the adjacent development. nmissioner Eaton noted he agrees with the now adjusted number 5 feet upon further surveys and this should now be the line for the we ng side of the bluff. He explained that this elevation is the elevation closest foundation and that the adjacent westerly development started tie transition up from the water's edge that is exhibited by the Chann of Condominiums. mmissioner Toerge noted the property is located on Carnation Ave., r can Boulevard. If it was located on Ocean Boulevard, it would have fight restriction based upon the top of the curb. The adjacent garage h. be built into the bluff as it also had to be below the top of the curb. TI is not comprised of two bluffs. He noted that the predominant line sting development should be based upon the homes along Carnabi enue and not the structures on Ocean Boulevard as those structur ferencing the Vallejo Residence, Channel Reef and Kerchoff laborato3 uld not be built today as they would not be consistent with Codes licy. Referring to an exhibit showing existing development on the blr. discussed the proposed development extent also pointing out that 0 )jest should not be given the ability to both go down the slope and abo curb height as it is on Carnation rather than Ocean Boulevard. I led a legal lot has to be given development rights. He supports st commendation that this predominant line of development as it exit )ng Carnation be applied to this property, which is on Carnation and r Ocean. He noted the red line on the photographic exhibit tt )resents 50.7 feet above me an sea level and it respects the continuati the predominant line of existing development as established oration Avenue. http: / /www.city.newport- beach_ca.us /PlnAgendas/mnO5- 17 -07.htm Page 12 of 23 • 0.72 08/07/2007 D4� Planning Commission Minutes 05/1712007 Page 13 of 23 . Commissioner Peotter indicated that the predominant line of the coas one is also reflected in the development along Bayside Place and t purple line on the photographic exhibit might be appropriate. He al indicated that within the Categorical exclusion zone, one could build to t minimum 10 -foot setback and further expand the predominant line existing development. He indicated his belief that the CLUP does r ffectively communicate its intent. ommissioner Toerge noted that the CLUP is a policy document not t peck regulations. The Categorical Exclusion zone does not exclude t ite from the coastal zone or its policies. The predominant line of existi evelopment is a setback line for structures located on the bluff face a hat the development on Bayside Place is not on the same tandform. Th are not in a similar topographic setting nor are they on the same street, n example, ode would not use the development on Breakers Drive etermine the vertical extent of development for the nearby lots on Oce Boulevard as they are not in the same topographic setting. Commissioner Hillgren noted that the 30.5 foot elevation of the adja(X esidence (Macintosh Residence) is an appropriate line for developme ut in looking at the development, including development further to t utheast, the predominant line is lower than that as it is built right to t er's edge. hairman Cole noted is belief that there are two bluff faces (north a est). The north facing slope should have a much higher predominant Ii f existing development and the west facing slope is lower than 30.5 feet. Mr. Harp added that the applicant and staff had discussed the possibility he predominant line below where their project is and the applicant h greed to deed restrict the property that they would not develop in that ar if the predominant line was set lower than the project issioner McDaniel referenced the photographic exhibit noting that to use the development on either side to ensure that the pro, sense. We do have a comer where the bluff turns with to 1pment to the east and higher development to the north and t should fit from either side. Campbell explained staffs method of calculations, median distances I the structures not included and those included in these calculations. noted the elevations of 59, 50.7, 42.3 on the north facing side. Hawkins commented on the method to identify i line of existing development using the median distance taff indicated that the median distance is an example contained within ti definition of predominant line of development. It is a method to identify line for analysis where it is then compared to the existing developme pattern first to see if it meets other resource protection policies and then it compared to the proposed project. 0.73 d http: / /www. city. newport - beach .mus /PlnAgendWmn05- 17- 07.htm 08/07/2007 q 1_ Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 ioner Hawkins asked why Bayside Place, Channel Reef and laboratory were excluded from the calculation of the me aff responded that Bayside Place was excluded as it was built in front bluff and was not on the bluff face. Today, staff was present brmation to suggest that 101 Bayside Place was constructed into the t the bluff, but staff believes Bayside Place not to be in the sar Dographic setting. Again, today staff was presented photograpd 'ormation of what the bluff looked like before Channel Reef w ,nstructed and staff now believes this development should be consider the identification of the predominant line of existing development. mmissioner Hawkins commented that the use of the median distance example is problematic in that is could evolve into a standard. 1 Tent policy is to protect the bluff by limiting development to be within :dominant line of existing development and the protections contair hin Policy 4.4.3 -12 are built-in to the identification of the predominant I existing development. The trend with this bluff a lot lower than 50.3 f ove MSL. mmissioner Eaton commented that the west facing bluff 30.5 feet MSL propriate as it continues the transitional elevation change from the low vations of the Macintosh residence to higher elevations to the north. F nt on to explain that he felt that this was a unique site that the come in a lower PLOED, based on Ocean Boulevard development to a high OED, based on Carnation Avenue development. The median elevatii 50.7 is one value (the median) in a range of values; and that, with tl or design modifications made by the applicant to pull in the Recreati+ om and Unit 7 footprint, and to cause a rising bluff face along Ill rtherly elevation by blocking off some of the lower level windows * re previously exposed, even up to an elevation of 59' at the northeg mer of the development (which is higher, even, than the stfi :ommended PLOED on Carnation Avenue of 50.7'), that the project h, =eeded, in his opinion, in establishing a transitional PLOED th tisfied the requirements of the City's CLOP between the 30.5 elevation + a east to the higher elevations on Carnation Avenue. Campbell noted that with the Channel Reef condominium ded in staffs calculation, the median now becomes 49.4 feet irman Cole asked if preserved bluff areas above a pater lominant line of existing development (50.7 feet above MSL — the on the photograph) could be balanced against developed areas be line and be consistent with policy. Staff answered that it could onable approach. nissioner Eaton agreed with this balancing approach and he it was a factor in his transitional predominant line of e http: / /www. city. newport- beach .ca.us /PinAgendas/mn05- 17- 07.htm Page 14 of 23 E 0 0.71/ 08/07/2007 �piJ Planning Commission Minutes 05117/2007 Page 15 of 23 development approach. • Commissioner Hillgren asked for clarification Commissioner indicated that the transition he was thinking of is smoother than a step from 30.5 to 50.7 MSL. Commissioner Hillgren indicated his or the green line (proposed project/bluff interface line) and also it at he was unsure of where the predominant line of existing deve Would be. McDaniel noted the predominant line of exis does not have to be a straight line. He asked staff Mr. Alford added that this project is the first major discretionary proje ming through with this issue and is a setting where the predominant Iii s not easily applied because we are dealing with a comer point and umber of development patterns that are in different topographic settinc r example, the development on Bayside Place, Channel Reef and amation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Applying the concept of t redominant line is somewhat difficult in this situation. We recognized tt orona del Mar in general and this area in particular was going to omewhat more difficult than the other areas of the City where i stablished the predominant line of development, around Upper Newp ay, Cameo Shores and in Shorecliff, etc. It was decided that the best w o handle that was on a project by project basis and to develop some sort uidelines on which you could view them and take those it onsideration. It was also stated that no matter what methodology w used to establish the predominant line of development, ultimately it is goi o be the decision makers looking at an exhibit and deciding where that Ii is appropriate. There is nothing that says it has to be a straight line here will be a certain level of subjectivity and judgment in applying articularly in this complex topographic setting. nissioner McDaniel noted that for the City to have the best pro ble, it is within our discretion to make the line curve or whatever to make those two separate areas meet and make a nice project Alford noted that sometimes you have to ignore the mathematics ,e a judgment call on how that line best fits all of the policies that er consideration. McDaniel thanked Mr. Alford. mmissioner Peotter asked how the Commission would reference the the exhibit as the one that was approved. Mr. Harp answered that you could approve it with the elevations that are he plans and say that is the predominant line of development. If you w< o pick something that is lower than that, you could set up the predomin. line of development that is lower and approve the project; if you wanted 0.75 http: / /www. cit3f. newport- beach .ca.us /PinAgendas/mn05- 17- 07.htm 08/07/2007 10 1 Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 could deed restrict the area in between as the applicant agreed to. ,nmissioner Hawkins noted the reason for the deed restriction is a line of development and so we would want to prohibit develo ween the approved line (project line) and the predominant I' sting development. Harp answered it would also help to support the policies in that you a ecting the coastal bluffs to the maximum amount feasible by having iominant line that is below that and the deed restriction would help ect that portion of the bluff below the project and above the line. tmissioner Hawkins noted his concern of approving this project with le bound predominant line of development as the City needs a specii and the applicant and general public need a speck tine so everyboc nfs where this thing is going. While I support bluff face protection, t see how the Local Coastal Plan as currently drafted and approvc fides such protection. Cole asked if there were any other questions or corn the predominant line of existing development. None Cole asked if there were any design concerns. imissioner Eaton noted that this project is unusual and will be unique. City does not dictate architecture and it is beyond our purview. iissioner Hawkins asked if the interim design policies effective April t were applicable and he was answered no as that ordinance onh d to single and two- family residential projects. irman Cole noted this project is under the density that this site could to and there is no variance, only a modification for an encroachm is subterranean. Campbell answered the General Plan and Coastal Land Use PI icies have a higher density range. This project is well within tho nsity ranges. The Zoning Code has more strict limit and allows iximum 9 units, which is what we have before us in this project. T )posed project is consistent with all regulatory documents in terms nsity. The project complies with all development standards with t mpion of the encroachments for the front yard setback which is whc 5terranean and the sideyard setback encroachments most of which E oterranean but there is a single story encroachment that is a small ar the building. Staff feels the findings for the Modification Permit can issioner Eaton noted is support for the proposed setbacks. httpJ /www. city. newport - beach .c&us /PlnAgendas/mnO5- 17- 07.htm Page 16 of 23 E 11 E 0. 7(IV 08/07/2007 lb 0 LI 0 Planning Commission Minutes 0511712007 the ssioner Eaton noted possible parking issues with the veh r concept and queuing. He noted that the traffic analysis preps applicant did not address the issue of vehicle access or potei 1. He stated he would be able to find this consistent with ;ion Element and CLUP policies. He noted that the Conditi( rots and Restrictions (CC and R's) have to say that the members 1 to park in their garages and they cannot be used for o Harp suggested adding a condition that the CC and R's be recorded as to require the homeowners and /or association to maintain )erty and lifts in operation as well as the other conditions < Campbell noted that conditions 26, 27 & 28 provide restrictions on of parking but do not include these restrictions in the CC &Rs. ,mmissioner Toerge noted General Plan Policy CE7.1.1 which require w development provide adequate and convenient parking for residents ests and visitors. Adequate parking is provided, but is it convenient? it only for residents, but guests and visitors. Each unit is required tc )ride 2 cars of parking for residents and 1/2 car per unit for guests; witt ie units, the project has to provide 4 1/2 cars for parking for guests an( i Code requires rounding up, so the project is required to provide 5 can guest parking that is convenient. On the ground level there are three est parking spaces and the other two are to be used through access tc elevator. Further, with such large storage units in the basement, user. 1 be inclined to back into the vehicle elevators so that the rear of the hicle will be oriented toward the storage side of the basement. A residen it pulls a car or truck into the vehicle elevator in a forward manner anc >ceeds to the storage area will then be required to off -load their vehicle the opposite side of the storage area, requiring that they maneuve imselves and their storage items between the vehicle elevator wall an( i side of the vehicle. Practically speaking, the design will compe cement storage users to back into the elevators at street level when ire is no queuing area or other accommodation for such backinc ineuver. Of course, while the user is off - loading, the vehicle elevator wil tied up and not available for use by other residents or guests. Also, it ery day use, given the time it will take for a resident to access the vehicle ivator, lower their vehicle to the proper level, exit the elevator an( ineuver in tight quarters to their garage and repeat the same in reversi exit the garage, I believe the parking arrangement is not "convenient" a: tuired by General Plan Policy CE 7.1.1. To the contrary, I find the parkins nfiguration to be "inconvenient" for residents, visitors and guests. m Jeannette noted is opinion that people will not be able to drive ; the lowest level as items to be taken to that level will be brought I small carts or a golf card. He then explained the mechanism ration of the lifts adding that the two other guest parking spaces at + http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca.us /PlaAgendas/Mn05- 17- 07.htm Page 17 of 23 D. 77 08/07/2007 l0 Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 might be for family members who are visiting those households be specifically granted access to those levels. ;ioner Toerge noted his belief that the five guest spaces ntly located without having to use the elevators. He then noted about the large subterranean storage areas and the use of as being inconvenient. Jeannette answered unless you are keyed for access, you will not to do this. He then explained the use of a cart or dolly sportation, elevator use and the use of storage by the residents. mmissioner Hawkins indicated that there will be an increase in the street with the reduction in the width of the drive approach. continued on the placement and use of the guest parking.< Cole then asked for any changes or modifications to by the Planning Commission. McDaniel, noted that: Condition 8, regarding a performance bond on completion of and retaining walls should be require completion for the project. was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded > ioner Hillgren, to approve the project per staffs recommei i with Exhibit D as amended and including the following: iinant line of development - use the "blue" line on the elevation (23ft up to 42ft). finer Eaton noted this would require a deed restriction using the "green" line which transitions from 30.5' at corner of the project, to 59' at the northeast comer. was consensus to use the "green" line. The maker of the I and motion includes. line of development - the "green" line on the elevation exhibit was a consensus. was consensus on the following conditions: Condition 103 - amend to add schedule grading to avoid the busy summer season and a portion of a nearby parking lot to be leased for the use of the construction crew parking; http: / /www. city. newport- beach .ca.usIP1nAgendas /mnO5- 17 -07.ht ntt Page 18 of 23 0 C� E D. 78 08/07/2007 ,Da 11 Planning Commission Minutes 05/1712007 Condition 4 - reflect the date of the newly- revised submitted plan (Exhibit Z); Condition 30 - Re -word as, "idling of construction vehicles and equipment shall be limited to the extent feasible. Construction vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and maintained and shall be turned off immediately when not in use. The use of audible signals, horn honks, whistles, beeps, etc. during the hauling and construction process shall be prohibited subject to the maximum extent permitted by law." Condition 8 - Completion bond for the entire project. Jeannette brought up the issue of irrigation and stated that there r iy conditions that they cannot do. He asked that staff work with them. Campbell noted the use of the word permanent and indicated that + porary irrigation may be used on the bluff face to re- establish itings that would occur and staff will make those corrections to was consensus on the following conditions: Condition 11 - submit to the Planning Director, not Planning Commission; permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system where allowed by Code. Condition 26 - add, "The location of the generator be approved by the Planning Director and shall be sound attenuated." Add new condition or amend condition 27- CC and R's be recorded to require that the Homeowner's Association maintain the property and lifts in operative condition, landscaping and other improvements in compliance with the conditions. The City Attorney's office shall approve the CC and R's. Mr. Harp noted that the City would not be enforcing the CC and R's but tt ould give a private cause of action to a party to that contract. ommissioner Hawkins asked that the CC and R's require residents to p. eir vehicles in their garage. Mr. Harp confirmed that could be added if the residents agree. Mr. Jeannette agreed to this and to condition that garages not be used torage rooms. Commissioner McDaniel noted a lot of people have more than I Page 19 of 23 D. 79 http:/ /www, city. newport- beach. ca.us /PlaAgendaslmnO5- 17- 07.htm 08/07/2007 ` 0 6� Planning Commission Minutes 05117/2007 continued. Peotter amended his motion as follows: Add Condition 104 - CC and R's to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. The CC and R's shall include use of garage for cars and not storage, owners agree to park in their garage; maintain elevators in good working order; visitors' spaces shall not be used for continual parking. Add condition to prohibit the conversion of the common areas to exclusive -residential use by residents in the future. Jeannette referring to Condition 8 suggested a phasing situatic xmance bond to be reduced in 25 % increments commensurate wi :mental building completion. Campbell noted Condition 8 as currently worded would include tt )ration of the excavations if the project doesn't go to completion, v d restore it back to its condition as opposed to building and finishing tt =.ct Removing the improvements and filling the We back in would be h smaller bond and that is what we thought was appropriate if tt >ct should fail in the middle. Jeannette suggested doing 100% of the project with release in 25 aff and Commission agreed. n Paone, land use counsel for the applicant, noted the suggestion wot to bond for the entire construction of the shell and release that in 2E ,rements to completion of shell with a new bond for the interior work. Jeannette defined the shell as being the parking structure, t velope, roofs, windows, etc. so that the concrete and systems are ace. The finish work for the interior would be the cabinetry, bathroc tures, etc. was agreed that Condition 8 shall refer to 100% of the shell cost a lease in 25% increments. Commission inquiry, Mr. Jeannette, representing the applicant, agreed the conditions and amendments as discussed. He noted that o indition related to the 5 -foot easement for a sewer line which is five fi vay from the property and asked if that can be worked out with Put Lepo noted they can administratively find conformity with ioner Peotter noted the motion is the resolution that d tonight with the modification on the Mitigated Ne on to modify Mitigation Measure 15-1 to include those two grading to avoid summer season and the shuttling of oonstr and: http: /hvww.city.newport- beach. ca.us /P1nAgendas /mn05- 17- 07.htm Page 20 of 23 i 11 0 0, 50 08107/2007 `dtP Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Condition 4 - reflect the date of the newly revised submitted plan (Exhibit Z). Condition 8 - add, shall refer to 100% of the shell cost and release at 25% increment per the Building official. Condition 11 - submit to the Planning Director, not Planning Commission; permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system where allowed by Code. Condition 26 - add, "The location of the emergency generator be approved by the Planning Director and shall be sound attenuated." Condition 30 - Re -word as, "idling of construction vehicles and equipment shag be limited to the extent feasible. Construction vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and maintained and shall be turned off immediately when not in use. The use of audible signals, hom honks, whistles, beeps, etc. during the hauling and construction process shall be prohibited subject to the maximum extent permitted by law." Condition 103 - amend to add schedule grading to avoid the busy summerseason. Add Condition 104 - CC and R's to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. The CC and R's shall include use of garage for cars and not storage, owners agree to park in their garages; maintain elevators in good working order; residents shall not use visitors' spaces for continual parking. imissioner Toerge noted that the minor change to the project related to view corridor will eventually be a hugely significant change in the e. He thanked the applicant for this. He noted he has a different ion on this project related to the predominant line of development and the architecture is not compatible with the existing neighborhood. The ing situation, while novel, does not meet the Code as it is not Fenient. For these reasons, he stated he would not be in support of this , Hawkins, Toerge a. City Council Follow_uo Mr. Lepo noted that at the last meeting, the City Council took http: / /www. city. newport- beach .ca.us /PlnAgendas/mnO5- 17 -07.him Page 21 of 23 BUSINESS V- ?/ 08/07/2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH S PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 3 April 5, 2007 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3210, Ica_ mpbeiita�city .newoart- baach.ca.us SUBJECT: AERIE (PA2005 -196) 201 -205 & 207 Carnation Avenue 101 Bayside Place APPLICANT: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. Richard Julian, President The Planning Commission considered this project on February 22, 2007. The project was continued to this meeting for the following reasons and the minutes of the meeting are attached as Exhibit #1: 1) Applicant to revise the project plans to reduce the bayward extent of the northwestem portion of the proposed building; and, 2) Provide responses to questions posed by Commissioner Eaton; and, 3) Address comments related to the proposed draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) expressed by Commissioner Toerge; and, 4) Allow for the conclusion of the public review period for the draft MND. RECOMMENDATION 1) Hold a public hearing; and, 2) Consider the changes to the draft MND; and, 3) Adopt the attached draft resolution recommending adoption of the MND and recommending approval of a revised project such that the proposed building does not extend below 52 feet above mean sea level (Exhibit #2). DISCUSSION Coastal Land Use Plan The project must be considered within the context of the Coastal Act and all of the policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan. At the last meeting, the emphasis was on the predominant line of existing development and the various methods to determine its location. However, W-0 -0 \6% AERIE (PA2005 -196) April 5, 2007, Page 2 consideration must be given to all applicable policies and this report includes analysis of the project in the context of all policies. The most significant considerations related to this project are the scenic and resource protection policies within Chapter 4.4 of the Coastal Land Use Plan. These policies implement Section 30251 of the Coastal Act, which states: 'The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shalt be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the Califomia Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local govemment shall be subordinate to the character of its setting." Implementing this section of the Coastal Act, the Coastal Land Use Plan states that: Bluffs, cliffs, hillsides, canyons, and other significant natural landforms are an important part of the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone and are to be protected as a resource of public importance. Corona del Mar is one of the few areas in the coastal zone where there is extensive development of the bluff face; specifically, residential development on Avocado Avenue, Pack Drive, Carnation Avenue, and Ocean Boulevard. The initial subdivision and development of these areas occurred prior to the adoption of policies and regulations intended to protect coastal bluffs and other landforms. Development in these areas is allowed to continue on the bluff face to be consistent with the existing development pattern and to protect coastal views from the bluff top. Howeven development on the bluff face is controlled to minimize further alteration. ° (emphasis added) Coastal bluffs are significant resources. In this area of Corona del Attar, development on the bluff face is allowed; however, development must be sited and designed to meet the goal of minimizing alteration of the bluff and preserving and, if feasible, enhancing public views and the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone. In furthering this objective, the following CLUP policies must be considered: 4.4.1 -1. Protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor and to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas. 4.4.1 -2. Design and site new development, including landscaping, so as to minimize impacts to public coastal views. 4A.1-3 Design and site new development to minimize alterations to significant natural landforms, including bluffs, cliffs and canyons. 4.4.3 -8. Prohibit development on bluff faces, except private development on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar determined to be consistent with the predominant line of existing development or public improvements providing public access, VS3 �0 AERIE (PA2005 -196) April 5, 2007, Page 3 protecting coastal resources, or providing for public safety. Permit such improvements only when no feasible alternative exists and when designed and constructed to minimize alteration of the bluff face, to not contribute to further erosion of the bluff face, and to be visually compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible. 4.4.3 -9. Where principal structures exist on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Agar, require all new development to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development in order to protect public coastal views. Establish a predominant line of development for both principle structures and. accessory improvements. The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure .safety and stability of the development. 4.4.3 -12. Employ site design and construction techniques to minimize alteration of coastal bluffs to the maximum extent feasible, such as: A. Siting new development on the flattest area of the site, except when an alternative location is more protective of coastal resources. B. Utilizing existing driveways and building pads to the maximum extent feasible. C. Clustering building sites. D. Shared use of driveways. E. Designing buildings to conform to the natural contours of the site, and arranging driveways and patio areas to be compatible with the slopes and building design. F. Utilizing special foundations, such as stepped, split level, or cantilever designs. G. Detaching parts of the development, such as a garage from a dwelling unit. H. Requiring any altered slopes to blend into the natural contours of the site. Predominant Line of Existing Development The logical starting point for project review is the identification of the predominant line of existing development as it establishes a fine beyond which private development cannot extend. The applicant agrees with this statement (Exhibit 93) although the applicant does not agree with the location of the predominant line of existing development for this property proposed by staff in the February 22, 2007 staff report. In the prior report, staff provided the rationale for determining 52 feet above mean sea level as the predominant line of existing development for the Carnation Avenue bluff face. This elevation is consistent with the existing development pattern located on the bluff face. Staff also identified 34 feet above mean sea level for the Ocean Boulevard bluff face as the predominant line of existing development based upon the location of abutting residences. Please see Exhibit #4 showing staffs recommended predominant lines of existing development. Please see Exhibit #5 showing the proposed project extending down the bluff below these lines. D -Fit �1b AERIE (PA2005 -196) . April 5, 200 7, Page 4 Minimizing Alteration of the Bluff and Reducing Visual impacts Once a predominant line of existing development has been determined that identifies the maximum extent of development, a maximum permissible building envelope within the area bounded by the predominant line of existing development can be defined. Development that may occur within this maximum permissible building envelope must be consistent with all CLUP policies requiring the development to be sited to minimize alteration of the bluff and preserve and, if feasible, enhance public views and the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone. This may result in a building that is less than the full extent of the building envelope defined by the predominant line of existing development The applicant contends that the predominant line of existing development establishes a line up to which the building can extend without further consideration of minimizing alteration of the bluff or the preservation and, if feasible, enhancement of public views and the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone. The Commission needs to consider the projects consistency with each policy identified above. To help the Commission evaluate consistency, staff has prepared several visual simulations that show variants of the project, each representing a different level of alteration of the bluff face and impacts to visual resources. In the variant shown in Exhibit #6 with the project at staffs recommended predominant line of existing development, grading would be reduced by approximately 9,000 cubic yards. Visual building mass would be reduced and a portion of the bluff would be preserved by eliminating the lower level proposed on the Carnation bluff face. The Planning Commission may determine that a change such as this would make the project consistent with policies requiring minimizing alteration of the bluff and the protection or enhancement of the scenic and visual quality of the coast The Planning Commission may also determine that further reduction of the project is necessary to minimize alteration of the bluff or avoid a negative visual impact consistent with Policy 4.4.1 -1. Staff has developed a visual simulation of the project with the entire building being sited at 52 feet above mean sea level jExhibit #7). This potential alternative is further within the predominant line of existing development identified by staff. Grading with this variation would be reduced by approximately 12,000 cubic yards and would reduce the visual building mass by eliminating the 2 lower levels visible to the public from the west. Floor area would be reduced by approximately 26,000 sq. ft. The most conservative and restrictive application of policy would be to allow redevelopment of the property within the footprint of the existing buildings. The existing developed footprint is well within the predominant line of existing development and development within that area would limit grading and alteration of the bluff to the ground under the existing buildings. The entire bluff that extends below the existing buildings would remain unaltered. This scenario would minimize alteration of the bluff to the greatest extent. Policy 4.4.1 -1 could also be implemented to require enhancements to the bluff that could include removal or reconstruction of the existing stairs and the removal of non - native vegetation and replacement with plantings indigenous to California coastal bluffs. Public Views ! Public views are also protected by the following policy of the CLUP: D. ?-S )\l AERIE (PA2005 -196) April 5, 2007, Page 5 Policy 4.4.1 -6 Protect public coastal views from the following roadway segments. • Ocean Boulevard. n As noted in the February 22, 2007 staff report, a public view corridor from Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue exists between the existing gilding and the structures located at 2495 Ocean Boulevard. The siting of the proposed building would provide a greater separation between these properties than exists today. The applicant prepared a view exhibit showing the existing view angle measuring 25 degrees and with the project, the view will increase to 32 degrees. This exhibit is representative of the view from Carnation Avenue at its intersection with Ocean Boulevard to the southwest. The project architect has prepared a visual exhibit depicting the view from Ocean Boulevard to the west (see Sheet A -20). The exhibit suggests that there wilt be an improvement of the view due to the position of the proposed building. Staff believes that the project is consistent with this policy; however, further enhancement of the view can be required pursuant to Policy 4.4.1 -1 by modifying the location of the building walls to increase the view angle between the project and the abutting structures and to enhance Views from various locations on Ocean Boulevard. Parking Several policies related to parking were not identified in the prior report. General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU 5.1.8 requires adequate enclosed parking considering the number of bedrooms. Most of the units have three bedrooms; however several units have other rooms that could be used as bedrooms and the unit sizes range from 4,000 to 6,300 square feet. The project provides 3 spaces for 7 units and 2 spaces for the 2 remaining units (25 spaces). Seven (7) guest parking spaces and 2 golf cart spaces are provided for a total of 34 covered, vehicle spaces. Staff believes the project is consistent with this policy. Policy 2.9.3 -1 of. the CLUP requires new development to avoid the use of parking configurations or parking management programs that are difficult to maintain and enforce. The Circulation Element contains the identical policy and it also contains Policy CE7.1.1 that requires new development to provide adequate, convenient parking for residents, guests, business patrons and visitors. The Commission had concerns about the convenience of below grade parking accessed by vehicle elevators. N the elevators are in use and someone desires to access them from Carnation, they will be forced to wait within the public right- of-way for the elevator possibly inconveniencing the public. Additionally, residents and their guests and service providers might be more inclined to park on the street when it is more convenient to do so. This will take on- street parking away from visitors to the coastal zone, which would be negative impact to pubic access. The proposed parking configuration may be inconsistent with these policies for these reasons. Revised Plans On February 22, 2007, the Commission directed the applicant to reduce the bayward extent of the northwestern portion of the proposed building to be consistent with the bayward extent of the southeastern portion of the building. The applicant revised the plans accordingly by moving the deck and building wall closer to the approximate location of the bluff edge on Level 2 (lower floor of Unit #7) by approximately 6.5 and 6 feet respectively. Additionally, the deck and building wall on the level above (Level 3) were also modified, but were not moved closer to the estimated bluff edge (Exhibit #8). Overall the project changes reduced the overall floor area by O . )Q, AERIE (PA2005 -196) April 5, 2007, Page 6 527 square feet. If the Commission determines that the changes to the project bring the project into compliance with applicable CLUP policies, the Commission may recommend approval of the revised project. Commissioner Eaton's Comments Prior to the February 22, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Eaton sent an e- mail to staff containing 12 comments or questions regarding the staff report and project in general. Staff has prepared responses to the questions, and both the comments and responses are attached as Exhibit #9. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration Commissioner Toerge commented on the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (Exhibit #10). His comments lead staff to hire an independent environmental consultant to review and /or revise the document. Revisions to the draft MND are contained within Exhibit #11. Changes recommended by the consultant provide additional project information and clarification. Revised mitigation measures are identified and will provide equivalent or superior environmental protection. No new environmental impacts were Identified and recirculation of the document is, therefore, not necessary in the consultant's opinion (Exhibit #12). A quantitative air quality assessment was completed after the February 22, 2007 meeting and incorporated into the MND. Construction - related air emissions will be below applicable . thresholds of significance. Staff and the environmental consultant concluded that the analysis and proposed mitigation were insufficient to support a finding that there would not be a potential impact to marine resources. As a result of the subsequent review and analysis, expansion of the docks was eliminated from the project description by the applicant. Should the applicant choose to pursue permits for expanded docks in the future, a permit from the Harbor Resources Department would be required and it would be subject to environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act. No other comments on the adequacy of the prior draft environmental document, other than Commissioner Toerge's, were received prior to the closing of the comment period on March 15, 2007. SUMMARY Staff concludes that the project is inconsistent with the following CLUP Policies: 1) 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9 regarding predominant line of existing development. 2) 4.4.1 -1 regarding the protection and/or enhancement of public views and the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone. 3) 44.3 -1 and 4.4.3 -12 regarding the siting and design of new development to minimize alteration of the coastal bluff. Additionally, staff believes that the project may be inconsistent with CLUP Policy 2.9.3 -1 and Circulation Element Policy CE7.1.1 regarding the parking configuration. p.$7 1�� AERIE (PA2005 -196) April 5, 2007, Page 7 Staff recommends that the project should be redesigned such that the proposed building does not extend on the bluff face bellow 52 feet above mean sea level. This option provides a balance between preserving the scenic quality of a significant portion of the bluff through minimizing its alteration while skiing the building within the predominant line of existing development. Although allowing portions of the project to be developed further down the bluff to 44, 34 or 29 feet above mean sea level might be within an alternate predominant line of existing development, staff does not believe that development at these levels minimizes alteration of the bluff and preserves the scenic and visual quality of the landform as a visual resource consistent with policy. ALTERNATIVES 1) Provide direction on design changes deemed necessary by the Planning Commission to make required findings that the project is consistent with Coastal Land Use Plan policies 4.4.1 -1, 4.4.1 -2, 4.4.1 -3, 4.4.3 -8, 4.4.3 -9 and 4.4.3 -12. 2) Deny the project. Prepared by James ;, ......�.d.�. '" Campbell James Campbell, Senior Planner EXHIBITS David Lepo, Planning Director 0 11 0 n."'c? )�A Planning Commission Minutes 04/05/2007 Page 2 of 5 ncing in association with the existing restaurant use. Additionally, a iver of the parking requirements related to the introduction of live tertainment is also requested. The property is located at 105 Main Street d is within the Retail and Service Commercial designation of the Central [boa Specific Plan (SP -8) District. Lepo stated that staff requests this item be continued to April 19, 200 allow additional time to analyze and review the project. was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded loner McDaniel to continue this item to April 19, 2007. None wwf Toerge and BJECT: Advanced Real Estate Services (PA2005 -196) PA20 05 -19-19 5 20B 201 & 207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place Continued to >. application would allow the demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment May 17, 2007 [ding and a single - family home and the construction of a 7- level, 9 -uni Itiple- family residential condominium complex with subterranean parking a 1.4 acre site located bayward of the intersection of Ocean Boulevard i Carnation Avenue. The existing General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan i Zoning Designations of a small portion of the site (584 square feet uld be changed to be consistent with the larger portion of the site (fro )-family residential to multi - family residential). The application includes tative tract map for the creation of 9 "airspace" condominium units for ividual sale and. The Modification Permit application requests the �Iroachment of subterranean portions of the building within the front an e yard setbacks. Lastly, the Coastal Residential Development Perm alication relates to replacing lost units occupied by low or moderate ome households. No units meeting this criteria are known to exist and, �refore, no replacement of affordable housing is required. . Lepo noted that the applicant and the City are in agreement that this 'n should be continued to May 17, 2007 to allow re- circulation the revisec tgated Negative Declaration with the mandatory 30-day commen rind. Additionally, there are discussions related to the application of th Fised General Plan policies. He then suggested that the Chair ope blic Comment then close the hearing and continue this item to May 17th. Commission inquiry, Mr. Lepo added that a comment had been receive( it there was a new potential view impact, and staff wants to address this. iairperson Cole asked if there will be a revised staff report. He was swered yes, and it would depend on discussions with the applicant. weever, discussion of the current staff report, unless there is specific ection or information, need not be considered. WN �J E I* http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /P]nAgendas/mn04- 05- 07.htm 08/07/2007 `1r) E 11 Planning Commission Minutes 04/05/2007 ommissioner Eaton asked if the re- circulated Mitigated Neg� Declaration would also include resolving issues such as Mitigation Mea V -2 being missing, and the difference between consistency with the C and the MND. Will they be incorporated before it is re- circulated? lepo answered that the other changes will be incorporated to make i tight as possible. Again, relative to the recommendation and extent o' lurbance of the bluff face and the project that is the MND. The MND will the project last seen by the Planning Commission. That is the projec it we get different direction. In the event the MND is re- circulated anc nes back for Planning Commission review and you determine additiona urges, then that would require a further revision to the project that is scribed and the potential impacts as described in the MND; the MNE uld again have to be revised and re- circulated if changes are required tc project that minimize impacts. The staff report presumed revisior acted by the Planning Commission consistent with recommendations, bu it that direction is given, the MND will still evaluate the project a: continued on issue of consistency, re- circulation premise, etc. missioner McDaniel noted his concern that members of the audie wish to speak, can as well as have the ability to speak at the r ing. There are going to be changes to issues and you can spi wer, you may wish to wait until the next meeting when the changes been made. Harp noted that this item is going to be continued and the iative Declaration is being re- circulated. You are welcomed to evening; however, you may want to wait to see what those so that comments can be more focused. ommissioner Toerge asked if the consultant who helped with the MND a at the hearing? He was answered yes. He agrees that a project of ature is very complex and encouraged members of the audience to sp they wish. w vote was taken on this item being continued. All ayes. is comment was opened. Beck asked if the property will be re- posted? Staff answered yes. Gc comment was closed. was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded ioner McDaniel to continue this item to May 17, 2007. Page 3 of 5 yes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None http, / /www.city.newport- beach .ca.us /PtnAgendas/mnG4 -05- 07.htrn 08/07/2007 l��D CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 3 February 22, 2007 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3210, icambellOcity. newport- beach. ca. us SUBJECT: AERIE (PA2005 -196) 201 -205 & 207 Carnation Avenue 101 Bayside Place APPLICANT: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. Richard Julian, President ISSUE Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the AERIE project to the City Council? RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission, after holding a public hearing, continue the hearing to a future date to be determined at the meeting and direct the applicant to modify the project to be consistent with Coastal Land Use Plan policies. The AERIE project consists of the demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment building and single - family residence and the construction of a new 9 -unit residential condominium building. The following discretionary approvals are requested or required in order to implement the project as designed: 1. General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -006 would change the land use designation of a 584 square foot portion of 101 Bayside Place from RT (Two-Unit Residential) to RM (Multiple -Unit Residential, 20 dwelling units per acre). 2. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -002 would change the Coastal Land Use Plan designation of the same 584 square foot portion of 101 Bayside Place from RH -D High Density Residential - 50.1 to 60 dwelling units per acre to RM -A (Medium Density Residential - 6.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre). PJIz 0 11 \1l AERIE (PA2005 -196) February 22, 2007, Page 2 3. Zone Change No. 2005 -009 would change the zoning designation of the 584 square foot portion of 101 Bayside Place from R -2 (Two - Family Residential) to MFR (Multifamily Residential, 2178 square feet per unit). 4. Tract Map No. 2005 -004 (TT16882) combines the 584 square foot portion of 101 Bayside Place with 201 -205 Carnation Avenue and 207 Carnation Avenue and subdivides the air space for 9 residential condominium units. 5. Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 would permit a 5 -foot subterranean encroachment within the 10 -foot front setback along Carnation Avenue, and a 3' -1" to 5' -7" above - grade and subterranean encroachment into a 10' -7" side yard setback between the project acid 215 Carnation. 6. Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -002 is an application required by Chapter 20.86 of the Municipal Code to review the potential loss of affordable housing within the Coastal Zone. No low or moderate income households occupy the site and no replacement housing is required. The existing 14 -unit apartment building (approximately 13,688 square feet of gross floor area) and single -family residence (approximately 2,810 square feet of gross floor area) will be demolished to construct a new 9 -unit condominium complex. The existing apartment building has a total of four levels, three levels visible above existing grade from the street, with all four levels visible from Newport Bay. The existing single - family home north of the apartment building is single -story. The new building will have a total of seven levels, three of which will be visible above the existing grade adjacent to the intersection of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. A total of 6 levels will be visible when viewed from the south and west from Newport Bay. The lowest level will be fully subterranean and will not be visible. The structure includes outdoor patios, decks and may include spas at each level. The project includes encroachments into the front and side setbacks, much of which are which are to be subterranean. Approximately 32,400 cubic yards of earth will be excavated and removed from the site. The site currently consists of two parcels and a small portion of a third parcel (584 square feet) with a total project area of 1.4 acres. Each unit will have a private storage room looted in the lowest basement level. Additional amenities include a private spa, lounge, patio, locker room, exercise room, and a pool located on Level 1. Residences are located on Levels i through 6. Two parking spaces per unit and 7 guest parking spaces are provided on Levels 1 through 4. Parking on Level 4 is accessed via a typical driveway and is approximately 3 feet below the grade of Carnation, It accommodates two, 2-car garages and 3 guest parking spaces. All other parking is below Level 4 and is accessed from Carnation Avenue utilizing two freight elevators designed to accommodate vehicles. A staircase is currently located on the bluff face extending from the existing apartment building to the existing floating docks. The upper portion of the stairs will be removed D. I93 1�q AERIE (PA2005 -196) February 22, 2007, Page 3 where the new building is proposed and a new staircase will be constructed in the side yard to connect Level 1 to the existing stairs. Construction of a ramp from the lowest basement level connecting it to the existing stairs is also proposed. Lastly, the project will also include improvements to the existing private boat dock increasing the berthing capacity from 4 to 9 boats. A comprehensive set of architectural plans, conceptual grading plans and a tract map is attached for reference. The proposed condominium building will consist of the following areas: 2 Level 3,348 389 11638 5,366 3 Level 4,459 361 962 5,782 4 Level 4,671 361 897 5,929 5 Level 5,094 361 794 6,249 6 Levels 4 & 5 4,091 368 824 5,283 7 Levels 2 & 3 5,211 369 863 6,443 8 Levels 2, 3 & 4 4,962 442 734 6,138 9 Levels 5 & 6 6,239 369 1,264 7,872 Total 42,908 3,369 9,369 65,848 common All levels nra We We 20,687 Areas IJOmmon areas Include the gross floor area not devoted to individual residences and common recreational spaces and all parking areas Project Setting The site is currently developed with a 14 -unit apartment building (201 -205 Carnation) and a single -family residence (207 Carnation). The site is a steeply sloping coastal bluff and cliff and is subject to marine erosion. The westerly portion of the site is partially submerged, rocky and includes a small, sandy cove at the base of the landform occasionally referred to as Carnation Cove. The buildings are located at the top of the bluff and the westerly extent of the foundations of the existing buildings are located on the most elevated portions of the iandform. A staircase presently exists on the bluff face that connects the apartment building with an existing, irregularly- shaped, concrete pad (approximately 720 square feet) and a private floating dock bayward of the rocks. Introduced, non -native vegetation covers the upper portions of the bluff below the existing buildings and the lower portion of the bluff has exposed rocks. West of the project site is the main entrance to Newport Bay from the Pacific Ocean and the eastern end of Balboa Peninsula. North of the site are single -family and multi- family residences on Carnation Avenue and Bayside Place. The western side of Carnation Avenue is a developed coastal bluff with Bayside Place located directly below. Bayside Place provides access to single - family residences constructed on previously filled submerged lands. South and east of the site are multi- family residential buildings developed on the coastal bluff fake between Ocean Boulevard and Newport Bay. is �l°1 0 11 Tidelands: Site area above 2:1 slope: Site area below 2:1 slope: Building coverage existing: Building coverage proposed: Project area: Maximum building height: Building height proposed: Area Basement: Area Level 1: Area Level 2: Area Level 3: Area Level 4: Area Level 5: Area Level 6: Total Area: Maximum floor area: AERIE (PA2005 -196) February 22, 2007, Page 4 Project Statistics 11,293 square feet 15,164 square feet 21,362 13,483 square feet 15,198 square feet 61,282 square feet (1.4 acres) 28 to the midpoint of sloping roof, 33 to the peak Varies depending upon level, none exceed 28 feet 14,604 square feet 12,984 square feet 13,388 square feet 12,158 square feet 9,744 square feet 7,989 square feet 5,557 square feet 76, 333 square feet 90,759 square feet (50,833 s. f. buildable area X 1.75 + 200 s. f. per enclosed garage) Required parking: 18 resident spaces and 5 guest spaces Parking provided: 18 resident spaces and 7 guest spaces Setbacks required Front Side: Rear. Setbacks provided Front Side: Rear 10 feet 10 feet, 7 inches 10 feet 10 feet above grade, 5 feet below grade 10 feet, 7 inches on south and northwest, between 5 and 7.5 feet at Carnation Ave. grade and below grade on the north and between 28 to 30 feet on Levels 5 & 6 on the north. Over 210 feet P./75 }Ab AERIE (PA2005 -798) February 22, 2007, Page 7 Existing General Plan Land Use Designations Existing Zoning Designations N L s1 P I98 L-A Amendment Exhibit tcJ AERIE (PA2005-196) February 22, 2007, Page 8 Propo-yrd Lot Ljjie Arljv!�trne;r4t Legend 5S4 Sq R. area subject to land use 4 zi),eiing amendments i. 1611 A,rvR - MLdti•far&Y Rc-mdmtial F4•2 • Tw Famdy RcsidenFW iaA AERIE (PA2005 -196) February 22, 2007, Page 9 ANALYSIS General Alan Presently, the site has two separate land use designations assigned by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. First, a small portion of the site, approximately 584 square feet is designated RT (Two -Unit Residential) and the remaining portion of the site (60,700 square feet) is designated RM (Multi -Unit Residential, 20 dwelling units per acre). The designation of the 584 square foot portion of the site will be changed to RM (Multiple -Unit Residential) to match the remainder of the site. Although the additional land area would otherwise numerically allow 1 additional unit, the density limitation as dictated by the Zoning Ordinance is more restrictive as it excludes submerged lands and slopes in excess of 50% from the calculation. The maximum density as calculated by the Zoning Ordinance is 9 units and is not increased with the increased project area. The density of the proposed project is well below the maximum density permitted by the General Plan (28 dwellings) and it is consistent with the maximum density allowed by the existing MFR zone. The Land Use Element contains general goals and policies for residential development encouraging compatible and diverse development. Property maintenance is stressed and multi - family development must be designed to convey a high - quality architectural character. Policy LU5.1.9 indicates that building elevations that face public streets need to be treated to achieve the highest level of urban design and neighborhood quality. Architectural treatment of building elevations and the modulation of mass is important to convey the character of separate living units or clusters of living units, avoiding the appearance of a singular building volume. Street elevations need to be provided with high - quality materials and finishes to convey quality. Roof profiles should be modulated to reduce the apparent scale of large structures and to provide visual interest and variety. Parking areas should be designed to be integral with the architecture of the development. Usable and functional private open space for each unit should be incorporated. Common open space that creates a pleasant living environment with opportunities for recreation should also be provided. The project reflects building articulation, roof modulation and a diverse architectural style consistent with Land Use policies. Although specific exterior finishes or building materials are not identified at this time, the applicant and architect are committed to providing the highest quality project commensurate with the expense of the project and appropriate to their target buyer. Parking areas are integrated within the overall design and each unit has an outdoor deck or patio that may include a fire pit and spa. Common recreational amenities and storage areas for each unit are provided. in conclusion, staff believes that the project is consistent with Policy LU5.1.9. 0 2oa AERIE (PA2005 -196) to February 22, 2007, Page 10 11 The Land Use and Natural Resources Elements of the General Plan contain general policies regarding the protection of public views, visual resources, coastal bluffs and other natural resources. The Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) contains more specific policies regarding these topics and a discussion of the relevant CLUP policies follows. If the project is found consistent with Coastal Land Use Policies, the project is also consistent with the Land Use and Natural Resources Elements. Coastal Land Use Plan The Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) presently designates the 584 square foot portion of the site RN -D Nigh Density Residential - 50.1 to 60 dwelling units per acre and approval of this application would change the designation to RM -A (Medium Density Residential - 6.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre) to match the remainder of the site. The additional area, as previously indicated, numerically increases the maximum density by 1 unit from 13 to 14, but the density limitation as required by the Zoning Ordinance is more restrictive as it excludes submerged lands and slopes in excess of 50% from the density calculation and results in a maximum permissible density of 9 units. The proposed project is below the maximum density of the RM -A designation and equal to the maximum density permitted by the Zoning Code. Land Use and Development - Chapter 2 of the CLUP regulates land use and development. The site is designated for residential use and, as discussed above, the CLUP designation would be changed to RM-A. The following additional policies within Chapter 2 of the CLUP apply and several discussions of policies are grouped by issue. Policy 2.7 -1. Continue to maintain appropriate setbacks and density, floor area, and height limits for residential development to protect the character of established neighborhoods and to protect coastal access and coastal resources. The project conforms to the height limit of the MFR zone and no deviation is proposed. The project proposes 76,333 gross square feet, well below the maximum 90,759 allowed by the existing MFR zone standard. The proposed density is below the maximum established by the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan as noted above and by Zoning regulations as discussed below. Setback encroachments are primarily subterranean and would not impact the character of the area. The only above ground encroachments are on the north side of the building. The project provides between 5 and 7.5 feet of separation at the street level and approximately 28 to 30 feet of separation on the levels above. No public view exists in this area where the above ground encroachments are requested. The provided setback proposed should provide an adequate separation from the building to the north and the encroachments would not impact fragile resources as they are located on the opposite side of the building away from the bluff and bay. Additional discussion of setbacks follows in the discussion of the Modification Permit request. P Z'1 AERIE (PA2005 -196) February 22, 2007, Page 11 Policy 2.7 -2. Continue the administration of provisions of State law relative to the demolition, conversion and construction of low and moderate - income dwelling units within the coastal zone. Government Code Section 65590 (Mello Act) regulates the demolition or conversion of low and moderate income units within the Coastal Zone. All units were vacated in December of 2001 and only a caretaker resides in the apartment No low or moderate income residents currently reside within the project and, therefore, Government Code Section 65590 is not applicable. Policy 2.8.9 -1. Review all applications for new development to determine potential threats from coastal and other hazards. A coastal hazards study has been prepared by GeoSoils Inc., dated October, 5, 2006. Given the location, topography and development proposed, potential hazards are seismic ground shaking, coastal bluff retreat due to erosional forces and tsunamis. Seismic issues are mitigated with the implementation of the Building Code and coastal bluff retreat is not expected to impact the project during the 75 year economic fife of the building. Inundation by wave action or tsunami is considered very remote and the proposed improvements are well above wave action. Policy 2.8.1 -2. Design and site new development to avoid hazardous areas and minimize risks to life and property from coastal and other hazards. Policy 2.8.1 -3. Design land divisions, including lot tine adjustments, to avoid hazardous areas and minimize risks to life and property from coastal and other hazards. A coastal hazards study has been prepared by GeoSoiis Inc., dated October, 5, 2006. Given the location, topography and development proposed, potential hazards are seismic ground shaking, coastal bluff retreat due to erosional forces and tsunamis. Seismic issues are mitigated with the implementation of the Building Code and coastal bluff retreat is not expected to impact the project during the 75 year economic fife of the building. Inundation by wave action or tsunami is considered very remote and the proposed improvements are well above wave action. The proposed building is bated above potential wave action and, as such, is sited to avoid the most hazardous portion of the project site. Policy 2.8. 1-4. Require new development to assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially after natural tandforms along bluffs and cliffs. Policy 2.8.3 -1. Require all coastal development permit applications for new development on a beach or on a coastal bluff property subject to wave action to assess the potential for flooding or damage from waves, storm surge, or seiches, through a 0 �a AERIE (PA2005 -196) February 22, 2007, Page 12 wave uprush and impact reports prepared by a licensed civil engineer with expertise in coastal processes. The conditions that shall be considered in a wave uprush study are: a seasonally eroded beach combined with long -term (75 years) erosion; high tide conditions, combined with long -term (75 year) projections for sea level rise; storm waves from a 100 -year event or a storm that compares to the 1982183 Et Niho event. Policy 2.8.6 -10. Site and design new structures to avoid the need for shoreline and bluff protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years). Policy 2.8.7 -3. Require applications for new development, where applicable rr.e., in areas of known or potential geologic or seismic hazards], to include a geologiclsoils/geotechnical study that identifies any geologic hazards affecting the proposed project site, any necessary mitigation measures, and contains a statement that the project site is suitable for the proposed development and that the development will be safe from geologic hazard. Require such reports to be signed by a licensed Certifled Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer and subject to review and approval by the City. Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Neblett & Associates, August 2005, the Coastal Hazard Study prepared by GeoSoils Inc., dated October 2006, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated .tune 2005 collectively indicate that the project will not be subject to nor contribute to erosion, geologic instability, geologic hazard nor require shoreline protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years). Policy 2.8.6 -9. Require property owners to record a waiver of future shoreline protection for new development during the economic 1mfe of the structure (75 years) as a condition of approval of a coastal development permit for new development on a beach, shoreline, or bluff that is subject to wave action, erosion, flooding, landslides, or other hazards associated with development on a beach or bluff. Shoreline protection may be permitted to protect existing structures that were legally constructed prior to the certification of the LCP, unless a waiver of future shoreline protection was required by a previous coastal development permit. A waiver of future shoreline protective devices will be required as a condition of approval. Policy 2.9.3 -10 Require new development to minimize curb cuts to protect on- street parking spaces and close curb cuts to create new public parking wherever feasible. The project will reduce the width of existing curb cuts creating 3 additional street spaces. Public Access - Chapter 3 establishes policies regarding public access. The following policies within Chapter 3 apply and a discussion of project consistency follows the policies, and again, several discussions of policies are grouped by issue.: P. 2a3 �a� AERIE (PA2005 -196) February 22, 2007, Page 13 Policy 3.9.9 -1. Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance public access to and along the shoreline and to beaches, coastal waters, tidelands, coastal parks, and trails. Policy 3.1.2 -1. Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance public access to and along coastal bluffs. Policy 3.9.2 -2. Site, design, and maintain public access improvements in a manner to avoid or minimize impacts to coastal bluffs. Policy 3.1.1 -11. Require new development to minimize impacts to public access to and along the shoreline. Policy 3.9.1 -9. Protect, expand, and enhance a system of public coastal access that achieves the following. • Maximizes public access to and along the shoreline; • Includes pedestrian, hiking, bicycle, and equestrian trails; • Provides connections to beaches, parks, and recreational facifi ies; • Provides connections with trail systems of adjacent jurisdictions; • Provides access to coastal view corridors; • Facilitates alternative modes of transportation; • Minimizes alterations to natural landfomis; • Protects environmentally sensitive habitat areas; • Does not violate private property rights. Policy 3.1.1 -24. Encourage the creation of new public vertical accessways where feasible, including Corona del Mar and other areas of limited public accessibility. Policy 3.9.1 -13. Require a direct dedication or an Offer to Dedicate (OTD) an easement for lateral public access for all new shorefront development causing or contributing to adverse public access impacts. Such dedication or easement shall extend from the limits of public ownership (e.g. mean high tide line) landward to a fixed point seaward of the primary extent of development (e.g. intersection of sand with toe or top of revetment, vertical face of seawall, dripiine of deck, or toe of 61ufi). Policy 3.1.1 -14. Require a direct dedication or an Offer to Dedicate (OTD) an easement for vertical access in all new development projects causing or contributing to adverse public access impacts, unless adequate access is available nearby. Vertical accessways shall be a sufficient size to accommodate two -way pedestrian passage and landscape buffer and should be sited along the boater or side property line of the project site or away from existing or proposed development to the maximum feasible extent. Policy 3.1.1 -24. Encourage the creation of new public vertical accessways where feasible, including Corona del Mar and other areas of limited public accessibility. 0 �. 20 _ �a�l AERIE (PA2005 -196) February 22, 2007, Page 14 Policy 3.9.9 -26. Consistent with the policies above, provide maximum public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the shoreline with new development except where (1) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal resources or (2) adequate access exists nearby. Policy 3.1.9 -27. Implement public access policies in a manner that takes into account the need to regulate the time, place, and manner of public access depending on the facts and circumstances in each case including, but not limited to, the following. • Topographic and geologic site characteristics; • Capacity of the site to sustain use and at what level of intensity, • Fragility of natural resource areas; • Proximity to residential uses; • Public safety services, including lifeguards, fire, and police access; • Support facilities, including parking and restrooms; • Management and maintenance of the access; • The need to balance constitutional rights of individual property owners and the public's constitutional rights of access. The project site has no dedicated public access easements or physical access to the coastal bluff or bay. The proposed project does not make any accommodations through the site for access to the water nor is the applicant dedicating or offering to dedicate public access. No abutting vertical or lateral public access presently exists that would connect to any access that might be considered within the development The steep topography of the site makes vertical access a safety concern and access for the disable could not be accommodated. Support facilities presently do not exist and parking in the area is constrained. Lastly access through the site would be in close proximity to residential uses. The lower portion of the bluff, submerged lands and tidelands will remain in their existing condition. Public access to the tidelands from the water will not be affected as the development will be well above the tidelands. Access to the designated view point at the end of Carnation Avenue will also remain unaffected and the public view from that point and Ocean Boulevard will be enhanced with project approval (see discussion below). The applicant plans to install a bench or other public amenity at the comer to improve the experience. As noted above, the project will create 3 new parking spaces along Camation Avenue with the reduction in the width of the existing driveway approaches. These new public parking spaces will enhance access to the area. With the reduction in residential density and the fact that no existing or proscriptive access rights exist, the project will not impact or impede public access, but rather it will improve it. Public access to the bay is currently provided in the vicinity at China Cove, Lookout Point and at a street end located in the 2300 block of Bayside Drive. These access points are located approximately 450 feet to the east, 1,125 feet to the east and T�. 2cr.S AERIE (PA2005 -196) February 22, 2007, Page 15 approximately 480 feet to the northwest respectively. Based upon the forgoing, requiring public access easements or outright dedication of land for public access is not necessary and the project can be found consistent with the CLUP policies above and the Coastal Act. Staff believes that the project is consistent with the CLUP given the variety of factors considered above. Public views and the scenic & visual quality of the Coastal Zone - Chapter 4 establishes policy regarding the protection of coastal resources. The following policies are applicable, and as with the two previous sections, several discussions of policies are grouped by issue. Policy 4.9.3 -1 identifies 17 mitigation measures to reduce the potential for adverse impacts to natural habitats. Applicable measures require the control or limitation of encroachments into natural habitats and wetlands, regulate landscaping or revegetation of blufftop areas to control erosion and invasive plant species and provide a transition area between developed areas and natural habitats, require irrigation practices on blufftops to minimize erosion of bluffs and to prohibit invasive species and require their removal in new development. The project does not encroach within habitat areas or wetlands and the landscaping plan indicates the bluff to be hydroseeded with a drought - tolerant mix native to coastal California natives with temporary irrigation to be used only to establish the vegetation. Policy 4.3.9 -5. Require development on steep slopes or steep slopes with erosive soils to implement structural best management practices (BMPs) to prevent or minimize erosion consistent with any load allocation of the TMDLs adopted for Newport Bay. Policy 4.3.9 -6. Require grading/erosion control plans to include soil stabilization on graded or disturbed areas. Policy 4.3.1 -7. Require measures be taken during construction to limit land disturbance activities such as clearing and grading, limiting cut -and fill to reduce erosion and sediment loss, and avoiding steep slopes, unstable areas, and erosive soils. Require construction to minimize disturbance of natural vegetation, including significant trees, native vegetation, root structures, and other physical or biological features important for preventing erosion or sedimentation. Policy 4.3.2 -22. Require beacbf ont and waterfront development to incorporate BMPs designed to prevent or minimize polluted runoff to beach and coastal waters. Policy 4.3.2 -23. Require new development applications to include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The WQMP's purpose is to minimize to the maximum extent practicable dry weather runoff, runoff from small storms (less than 314" of rain falling over a 24 -hour period) and the concentration of pollutants in such runoff during construction and post - construction from the property. U A 202 0 1�1 AERIE (PA2005 -196) February 22, 2007, Page 16 The project requires the issuance of a grading permit and the stabilization of soils during construction is a standard requirement. A final WQMP and 5WPPP are another mandatory requirement with the issuance of building and grading permits. These plans are prepared by qualified professionals and include best management practices, both structural and non - structural, to insure that erosion and stormwater discharge will not impact Newport Bay. 4.4.1 -1. Protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor and to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas. 4.4.1 -2. Design and site new development, including landscaping, so as to minimize impacts to public coastal views. 4.4.1 -3. Design and site new development to minimize alterations to significant natural landforms, including bluffs, cuffs and canyons. 4.4.1 -4. Where appropriate, require new development to provide view easements or corridors designed to protect public coastal views or to restore public coastal views in developed areas. Policy 4.4.1 -6. Protect public coastal views from the following roadway segments... Ocean Boulevard. (Figure 4-3 of the CLUP identifies the intersection of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard as a "view point ") 4.4.1 -7. Design and site new development, including landscaping, on the edges of public coastal view corridors, including those down public streets, to frame and accent public coastal views. 4.4.2 -2. Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. Policy 4.4.2 -3. Implement the regulation of the building envelope to preserve public views through the height, setback, floor area, lot coverage, and building bulk regulation of the Zoning Code in effect as of October 13, 2045 that limit the building profile and maximize public view opportunities. (This date is the date when the Coastal Commission approved the Coastal Land Use Plan.) Policy 4.4.3 -4. On bluffs subject to marine erosion, require new accessory structures such as decks, patios and walkways that do not require structural foundations to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development in the subject area, but not less than 10 feet from the bluff edge. Require accessory structures to be removed or relocated landward when threatened by erosion, instability or other hazards. U. 207 �3a AERIE (PA2005 -196) February 22, 2007, Page 17 9 No new accessory structures are proposed. The policy also requires that accessory structures be removed or relocated landward when threatened by erosion, instability or other hazards. A condition of approval is required such that the existing accessory structures (concrete pad, staircase and walkway be removed if threatened by erosional processes in the future. Policy 4.4.3 -8. Prohibit development on bluff faces, except private development on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar determined to be consistent with the predominant line of existing development or public improvements providing public access, protecting coastal resources, or providing for public safety. Permit such improvements only when no feasible alternative exists and when designed and constructed to minimize alteration of the bluff face, to not contribute to further erosion of the bluff face, and to be visually compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible. Policy 4.4.3 -9. Where principal structures exist on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar, require all new development to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development in order to protect public coastal views. Establish a predominant line of development for both principle structures and accessory improvements. The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure safety and stability of the development. Policy 4.4.3 -19. Require applications for new development to include slope stability S analyses and erosion rate estimates provided by a licensed Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer. Policy 4.4.3 -12. Employ site design and construction techniques to minimize alteration of coastal bluffs to the maximum extent feasible, such as: A. Siting new development on the flattest area of the site, except when an alternative location is more protective of coastal resources. B. Utilizing existing driveways and building pads to the maximum extent feasible. C. Clustering building sites. D. Shared use of driveways. E Designing buildings to conform to the natural contours of the site, and arranging driveways and patio areas to be compatible with the slopes and building design. F. Utilizing special foundations, such as stepped, split level, or cantilever designs. G. Detaching parts of the development, such as a garage from a dwelling unit. H. Requiring any aftered slopes to blend into the natural contours of the site. (). 2-0t 133 0 AERIE (PA2005 -796) February 22, 2007, Page 18 Public Views A public view presently exists over the southeastern portion of the site from Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue to south and west, The Pacific Ocean, harbor entrance, Newport Bay and the Balboa Peninsula are features in the view depending upon the vantage point Presently, the view measures 25 degrees between the existing apartment building and the neighbor's garage and fence to the south when standing at the designated view point closest to the project site. With the project, the view will increase to 32 degrees due to the proposed building being located approximately 8 feet further to the west than the existing building. Levels 5 and 6 are taller than the existing building and are in the same position as two upper levels of the existing split -level apartment building. No view presently exists above the existing building other than sky views as shown in the following photographs taken from Camation Avenue looking south and Ocean Boulevard looking west The project architect has prepared a visual exhibit that shows that the view to the west will not be impacted (see Sheet A -20). The project is consistent with the 28 -foot building height limits as demonstrated on Sheet A -16 and verified by staff and with other building envelope restrictions with the exception of setback encroachments noted above and discussed below. The above - grade encroachment of the building to the north is single -story and does not impact a public view as one presently does not exist in that location. No other public view exists from the street through the site due to the position of the current buildings. Therefore, the proposed project will not have an impact upon existing public views through the site to the south and west Pursuant to Policy 4.4.14, staff proposes a condilion of approval requiring the recordation of a public view easement to protect the public view over the site from Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. The easement can specifically identify the 3 dimensional space where structures and landscaping will be prohibited to ensure view preservation. J�A \ »i � \` ENO \` � � �� � \\ ��� <\ » � \ ;� Z $ . � >y �� \ - /� � � 2 � z \ \/� ^\ � \ \\ [ \� \ � � � \y � ? \. AERIE (PA2005 -396) February 22, 2007, Page 21 View west with project 0 0 n l.J D. V2- AERIE (PA2005 -196) . February 22, 2007, Page 22 Scenic and visual quality — Predominant line of existing development L� The visual quality of the area encompasses the natural and built environment. The visual quality of the street is dominated by the built environment and the aesthetic of the existing buildings. The existing buildings are dated and are not aesthetically pleasing especially given the open carports. The new elevations with high quality materials and unique design will improve the streetscape aesthetic. The visual quality of the site as seen from the public vantage points from the west and northwest include both built and natural character. What is visible includes a rocky intertidal area, coastal bluff, exposed rocks, vegetation and the western elevations of the existing buildings. Sheet A -18 and Sheet A -19 of the project plans have photographs of what the site looks like today and what it will took like with implementation of the project. The vantage points are from the northwest from a public beach located on Bayside Drive and the west from a public beach and public dock located on Balboa Peninsula. The predominant line of existing development is one tool in determining if a project protects or possibly enhances the scenic and visual quality of the area. The Planning Commission is responsible for determining the location of the predominant line of existing development more fully described below. Alternative methodologies for locating the predominant line of existing development are included in the discussion that follows and include that used by the project architect. If the Planning Commission determines that the project architect's methodology is most appropriate for the subject site, the Commission should conclude that the project is consistent with the Local Coastal Program policies set forth in this section and may approve the project as proposed. Alternatively, a different methodology may be deemed appropriate and the Planning Commission may require modification of the proposed project to so as to be located on the landward side of the predominant line of existing development so determined. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission use the photographic simulations on Sheets A -18 and Sheet A -19 of the project plans representing the proposed project when viewed from a vantage point to the west of the site to determine the appropriate location of the predominant line of development. Polices 4.4.3 -8 and Policies 4.4.3 -9 establish the concept of the predominant line of existing development. The concept of predominant line of existing development is central to the Planning Commission's determination as to the project's consistency with policies of the CLUP. The CLOP defines the predominant line of existing development as °the most common or representative distance from a specified group of structures to a specified point or line (i.e. topographic line or geographic feature). For example, the predominant line of development for a block of homes on a coastal bluff (a specified group of structures) could be determined by calculating the median distance (a representative distance) these structures are from the bluff edge (a specified line)." The °median° was used in the definition rather than the "average° as it takes out extreme values while using the *average' can skew the predominant line of existing development when distances vary significantly. J. Z/3 of AERIE (PA2005 -196) February 22, 2007, Page 23 The concept of the "predominant line of development" was originally intended to set limits on the extent of development on top of coastal bluffs. However, the definition was intentionally broad so that this concept could be used in other situations, such as along canyons or the shoreline. The example included in the CLUP suggests one of several possible ways to locate the predominant line of development for any given site and a more narrowly - defined methodology for locating the predominant line of development will likely be included in the Implementation Plan for the CLUP when finalized and submitted for Coastal Commission certification. The definition itself was crafted to allow flexibility in locating the predominant line of development for a variety of site configurations, topography, and patterns of existing development. Location of the predominant line of development may evolve based on determinations of the Planning Commission, including that for the subject development proposal which may set a precedent for future determinations. This effort requires thoughtful, case -by -case evaluation especially in instances such as the present proposal wherein the site's topography does not lend itself to traditional techniques such as the 'stringline" method often employed by the Coastal Commission. Policy 4.4.1 -3 is a general policy requiring new development to minimize alterations to significant natural landforms, including bluffs, cliffs. This policy is should be viewed in the context of Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9 that provide more specific direction allowing new development to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development. Public improvements and not private development are subject to the policy directions to minimize alteration of the bluff face, to not contribute to further erosion of the bluff face, and to be visually compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible in accordance with Policy 4.4.3.8. A setback from the predominant line of existing development must be increased where necessary to ensure safety and stability. An increased setback is not necessary based on the geologic report and coastal hazards report. The traditional stringline method was employed by the project architect to illustrate one way to identify the predominant line of development. A stringline was drawn by the project architect in plan view (looking down from above) from the existing residential structure at 2495 Ocean Boulevard to the existing structure located at 101 Bayside Place. Staff is of the opinion that this approach does not conform to the definition provided in the CLUP as 101 Bayside Place is actually located bayward of the landform on previously filled land. The landform is situated above the lots on Bayside Place and the predominant line of existing development would be more appropriately located utilizing the lots on Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. If the Carnation and Ocean lots are utilized, the stringline method of extending a straight fine in two dimensions in the horizontal plan between a point on each of two abutting structures may not be appropriate to the curving land form of the properties' landforms. Moreover, this method does not recognize the extension of the proposed development, in a vertical plane, down the face of the bluff and the consequent impact to the visual quality of this natural landform. 0 D .2/y �3� FLA I AERIE {PA2005 -195} February 22, 2007, Page 24 Stringlines Stringline of principal structures between 101 Baystrie PI. & 2495 Ocean Blvd. "' -- — - Stringline of principal structures between 215 & 2495 Ocean Blvd. Given that the CLUP definition provides an example that uses the median distance to a specified. paint or line, the project architect included a scenario based upon the calculation of the median distance of structures from three representative lines: the street curb, the approximate bluff edge and from mean low tide line (see the project overview prepared by the architect). The median was incorporated into the CLOP definition as averages can creole undesirable results when distances between the structures and each of the three representative lines Vary significantly. The calculations the architect represents as medians, however, are actually averages of distances measured on several abutting properties without including the project site in the calculation. including the project site reduces the averages, but the building remains within the average distances calculated. P. 215 AERIE (PA2005 -196) February 22, 2007, Page 25 In calculating distances from the curb and approximate bluff edge, two properties bayward of the bluff landform are employed; Staff believes that their inclusion in the calculation is not appropriate. The predominant line of existing development establishes a setback on the bluff to balance property rights and protection of the visual quality of the coastal zone. Using structures that are bayward of the landform could lead to the establishment of a predominant line of existing development beyond existing development on the bluff itself. Additionally, average distances and maximum distances are used, which may distort the results in a manner not intended by the CLUP definition. Using the approximate bluff edge is difficult as there is no way to determine where the bluff edge was with certainty due to past development altering or otherwise obscuring the bluff edge. Lastly, the calculation of the distance from the mean low water line includes several lots on Bayside Place that are bayward of the landform and staff does not believe this is an this an effective method in this case as it does not account for the predominant line of existing development established by the structures on Carnation Avenue. Staff developed a method for determining the predominant line of existing development in conjunction with preparation of the implementation plan for the CLUP. The methodology uses the median distances in the vertical and horizontal planes of a representative block of structures uses the median distance in the vertical and horizontal plane of a representative block of structures. The median distance would be calculated for accessory structures and principal structures at the midpoint of each lot measuring perpendicular to the front property line. Only those abutting and nearby buildings on the bluff face itself within the same block would be used. in this case, staff would include the lots on Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard and exclude lots bayward of the landform. This technique was reviewed by the Local Coastal Program Committee who guided the preparation of the CLUP. The Committee provided feedback but took no action on the draft regulation and guidelines that staff had prepared. Although staff has not prepared an analysis using the draft regulations and guidelines, this discussion is included to demonstrate that a variety of methods may be employed in identifying and locating the predominant line of development. Because the ultimate purpose for identifying and locating the predominant line of existing development is the protection and enhancement, where feasible, of public views and the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, the range of possible outcomes would result in significantly different impacts to the visual character of the face of the bluff. As discussed previously in this report, the visual character of the face of the bluff on the project site is most evident when viewed from vantage points west of the site. These include locations on Balboa Peninsula and on the waterway leading into Newport Bay. The predominant line of existing development can best be seen on Sheet A -18 and Sheet A -19 of the project plans since this is what the public will see. The buildings on Carnation Avenue to the north (left of the proposed project in the visual simulation) and the project site establish aline of existing development. The abutting residence at 2495 n l`J 7.2 ab AERIE (PA2005 -196) February 22, 2007, Page 26 Ocean Boulevard (white house to the right of the proposed project) also establishes a line of development on the bluff face. The abutting lot to the north of the project, 215 Carnation Avenue, is comes down the bluff face to approximately 57 feet above mean sea level. The downward extent of the other buildings to the north of the site on Carnation Avenue vary and are lower. The existing single - family residence is higher at approximately 70 feet and the downward extent of the existing apartment building also varies with its lowest extent being approximately 52 feet. Fifty-two feet appears to be consistent with the variations in downward extent of development. The elevation of the closest foundation of the principal structure to the south, 2495 Ocean Boulevard, is 34 feet and the structure extends evbn lower on the bluff face. Extending this elevation to the north across the project site would suggest a lower predominant line of existing development for the southern portion of the project site. Creating a transition between these two elevations is the remaining challenge. For discussion purposes, staff believes that the predominant line of existing development as described by elevations should to approximately 52 feet above mean sea level parallel to Carnation Avenue. This line would extend across the site to where the bluff turns east to roughly follow Ocean Boulevard. The line would then step down to elevation 34 feet to match the elevation of the closest the foundation of the principal structure at 2495 Ocean Boulevard. Staff has prepared two exhibits to show what this line would look like based upon the photographs on Sheets A -18 and A -19 of the project plans (Exhibit 5 separate from the report). One must also account for the predominant line of existing development in the plan view looking down from directly above. Staff suggest that this line be identified based upon the 52 -foot contour and the 34 -foot contour. Staff has prepared an exhibit showing this approximate line in plan view (Exhibit 5 separate from the report). In conclusion, the Commission must determine whether or not the project is within the predominant line of existing development and if the project protects, and if feasible, enhances the sonic and visual qualities of the coastal zone. if one concludes that the methods used by the architect are reasonable methods for determining the predominant line of existing development, one can conclude that the project is consistent with the CLUP. Staff suggests to simply use the visual simulations to identify the line or lines that protect or enhance the visual quality of the coastal zone. Once that line is established, the project can be modified to conform. Title 20— Zoning Compliance The zoning designation of the 584 square foot portion of the site is R -2 (Two - Family Residential) and the remainder of the site is MFR (Multifamily Residential, 2178 square feet per unit). As noted, the zoning of the 584 square foot portion of the site would be changed to match the larger portion of the site. The donor parcel will be reduced from 0.2/7 `AI AERIE (PA2005 -196) February 22, 2007, Page 27 15335.1 square feet to 14751.1 square feet, which well exceeds the 5,000 square foot minimum parcel size of Section 20.10.030 of the Municipal Code. The new lot line will not render any of the existing structures located at 101 Bayside Place nonconforming as to setbacks and Bayside Place itself, a private roadway, will remain within the donor parcel. The additional area in this case does not increase the maximum density as the area is mostly excluded from the calculation as the slope of the area exceeds 50 %. The maximum density calculation permitted before and after the minor adjustment is 9 units and the project conforms. The project architect has designed the structure to conform to the 28 -foot building height limit as measured in accordance with Municipal Code. Sheet A -16 of the plans includes a table that demonstrates conformance and staff has confirmed the grade and height measurements. The 9 -unit building requires 2 parking spaces for each unit (total of 18) with at least one space per unit being covered. Additionally, 0.5 space is required for guest parking. Therefore, the project requires 18 spaces for residents and 5 spaces for guests. The project exceeds this standard by providing 3 spaces for 7 units and 2 spaces for the 2 remaining units (25 spaces). Seven 7 guest parking spaces and 2 golf cart spaces are provided for a total of 34 covered, vehicle spaces. Parking is located on Levels 1, 2, 3 and 4. Level 4 parking accommodates parking for units 2 & 6 and 3 guest parking spaces and is directly accessed from Carnation Avenue. Parking on Levels 1, 2, & 3 are below Level 4 and below the street level. These levels are accessed separately than the access to Level 4 directly from Carnation Avenue by two freight elevators. The traffic engineer has reviewed the layout and finds that it will meet minimum standards. The minimum clearance for the spaces under the lifted vehicle must be 7 feet pursuant to Section 20.66.040.3. The overall vertical clearance planned for spaces with lifts will vary between 10 feet and 13 feet depending on the level and location. The golf cart spaces and the `lifted` spaces do not technically comply with standards, but they are extra spaces and are not held to the same standard. The irregular shaped of the site necessitated a project specific determination of minimum setbacks as it was not readily discernable what the depth of the side yard setback would be, where it would be located and where the rear yard would be. The minimum required front setback along Carnation Avenue is 10 feet and is established by the Districting Map. By definition, the rear yard should be opposite the front, but the lot line directly opposite the front faces Bayside Place and could be treated as a side yard. The minimum rear yard setback is 10 feet pursuant to the Section 20.10.030 of the Municipal Code. The rear setback was determined by staff to be measured from the curved bayward lot line only. The minimum side yard is 8% of the lot width. The lot width was determined to be 132.25 feet based upon a site specific method as the use of the definition contained within the Zoning Code could not be used given the irregular shape of the lot. Staff averaged the width of the lot as measured in three places selected by ' Parking calculations are rounded up pursuant to Section 20.66.030.E.1 of the Municipal Code ►"1 U 12.21? ��a 0 E 0 AERIE (PA2005 -196) February 22, 2007, Page 28 staff. Eight percent of 132.25 feet is 10' -7 ". The side yard were determined to extend to the southwest to the bay between the project and 2495 Ocean Boulevard and along the north and western property lines between the site at 215 Carnation Avenue and the lots on Bayside Place. The following map depicts the lot determination made by staff with the approval of the Planning Director. Setbacks The project adheres to these setbacks with the following exceptions that are shown on the project drawings: a) A 5 -foot by 43 -foot subterranean encroachment within the front yard setback for basement areas. Additionally, the applicant proposes to construct a 55 -foot long retaining wall at the property line south of the this encroachment that will extend into the side yard between the project and the abutting property to the south (2495 Ocean Boulevard). The wall will be approximately a maximum of 40 feet high and will allow light and air to reach the living areas on Levels 1 -3 on the south side of the building (street side). Both of these features require the approval of the proposed Modification Permit. C).2! g AERIE (PA2005 -196) February 22, 2007, Page 29 b) The proposed structure will encroach 3' -1" to 5'-7" into the 10' -7" side yard setback between the project and abutting property to the north (215 Carnation Avenue). This encroachment occurs on the basement level and on Levels 1-4. The encroachment on Level 4 will be the only portion above grade. Additionally, a retaining wall and staircase at the north property on Level 3 requires consideration of the Modification Permit It must be noted that the distances to the property lines in all cases are measured from the exterior surface of both above and below grade walls. This means that the final plans for the foundation system must comply with the dimensions shown on the plans and will not be permitted as additional encroachments within the minimum required setbacks without a Modification Permit. The Planning Commission may approve the request for a Modification Permit to allow the encroachments subject to the following findings contained within Section 20.93.030 of the Municipal Code: 1. The granting of the application is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. The site is irregular in shape, has steep topography and has submerged lands which make it difficult to design a project at the density proposed while providing required parking. Approximately 65% of the site is submerged or has slopes in excess of 50%. The need to provide on -site parking also occupies a significant portion of the building reducing available area for residential units. The side yard setback is also larger than the front yard setback and the application of this standard is also a practical difficulty given the relatively small area to work with as compared to the entire site. 2. The requested modification will be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood. The requested encroachments within the front yard will be entirety subterranean and will not be visible. The encroachments within the side yard on levels below the street will also not be visible. The side yard setback encroachment on Level 4 (above the street) provides a 7' -6" setback for approximately 57.5% of the length of the building and 5' for approximately 42.5% of the length of the building. The larger setback is closer to the street. On Levels 5 and 6 above the encroachment on Level 4, the project provides a 28 to 30 -foot setback in excess of the minimum 10' -7" setback. This increased setback provides an enhanced separation of building mass between the project and the single - family home to the north. This increased setback provides private views over the building from upper levels of residences across Carnation Avenue and enhanced building articulation as suggested by General Plan policy. 3. The granting of such an application will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be 11 2zo �a AERIE (PA2005 -196) February 22, 2007, Page 30 detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. Given the fact that the setback encroachments are predominantly subterranean and the above - ground encroachments are off -set with increased setbacks above them and they do not block a protected public view, the requested encroachments should not prove detrimental or injurious to the community. Tittle 19 — Subdivision Code — Tract Map Pursuant to Section 19.12.070 of the City Subdivision Code, the following findings must be made to approve the tentative tract map. If the Planning Commission determines that one or more of the findings listed cannot be made, the tentative map must be denied. 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 above, the project is consistent with the current land use designation including the proposed amendment. Additionally, as noted previously, the project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy LU5.1.9 regarding the character and quality of multi- family residential development. A finding that the project is consistent Land Use and Natural Resources Element policies related to the protection of public views, visual resources, coastal bluffs and other natural resources is contingent upon a finding that the project is consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan. This determination has yet to be made and when it is made, this finding of consistency with resource protection policies of the General Plan can also be supported. The site is not subject to a specific plan. Minimum lot sizes established by the Zoning Ordinance are also maintained as required by the Subdivision Code. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed tentative map and believes that it is consistent with the Newport Beach Subdivision Code (Tide 19) and applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. Conditions of approval have been included to ensure compliance with Title 19. 2. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The usable area of the site is relatively small compared to the entire 1.4 acre site. The site is not likely to be subject to coastal erosional processes or hazards during the 75 year economic life of the project Additionally, no earthquake faults were found on -site and there is not likely to be and incidence of landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse on -site or near the site given on -site soils conditions. These factors would suggest that the site is suitable for development However, the density coupled with the size of the units and the need to provide on -site parking call into question whether or not the site is suitable given the amount of alteration of the site proposed. Smaller unit sizes, a reduction in amenities such as the basement level or common amenities or even a reduction in density, with its parking needs, would reduce the amount of excavation necessary to implement the project. Additionally, the project 1? . 2 Z 1 AERIE (PA2005 -196) February 22, 2007, Page 31 must be found consistent with CLUP policy regarding the predominant line of existing development to protect, and if feasible enhance the visual quality of the coastal zone. If it is determined that the project is beyond the predominant line of existing development or that the project does not protect or enhance, if feasible, the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, the site is not suitable for the proposal. 3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision - making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section•21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and it concludes that no significant environmental impacts will result with proposed development of the site in accordance with the proposed plans and tentative tract map; therefore, staff believes this finding can be made. 4. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The tract map would subdivide airspace for residential condominium purposes and is not expected to cause serious public health problems given the use of typical construction materials and practices. No evidence is known to exist that would indicate that the proposed subdivision will generate any serious public health problems. All mitigation measures as outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Building, Grading and Fire codes will be implemented to ensure the protection of public health. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the derision- making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision. A utility and sewer easement affects the site and is located roughly in the middle of the site running perpendicular to Carnation Avenue. No utility or sewer lines run through the easement and the easement should be abandoned. A storm drain easement and storm drain are located in the side yard between the proposed building and the abutting property to the south (2495 Ocean Boulevard). The proposed improvements will not D. 2-Z 'Z AERIE (PA2005 -196) February 22, 2007, Page 32 affect the easement or storm drain. The Public Works Department is requiring the replacement of the storm drain given that the proposed retaining wall will be located very near the storm drain itself and the age of the line. No other public easements for access through or use of the property have been retained for the use by the public at large. Public utility easements for utility connections that serve the project site are present and will be modified, if necessary, to serve the proposed project. 6. That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land. The site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract; therefore, this finding does not apply. 7. That, in the case of a "land project" as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code: (a) there is an adopted specific plan for the area to be included within the land project; and (b) the decision - making body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area. j! The subject property is not located within the boundaries of a specific plan; therefore, this finding does not apply. E S. That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map Act. Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The Newport Beach Building Department enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check and field inspection processes. The site has a western exposure and incorporates curved roof elements that will provide shading and a measure of passive solar cooling. 9. That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. The proposed subdivision will have the effect of reducing the density from 15 units to 9 units. A reduction of this small scale given the City's current housing supply is considered insignificant. This reduction does not assist the City in reaching its 0.223 \�l AERIE (PA2005 -196) February 22, 2007, Page 33 production goals as it is not increasing housing supply; however, the reduction in density is consistent with existing density limitations of the Municipal Code. 10.That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Waste discharge into the existing sewer system will be consistent with existing residential use of the property, which does not violate Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements. 11. For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act. As discussed above, the project conforms to the Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan multi- family designation of the site taking into account the proposed amendment and it complies with density standards. The project site is constrained by topography and public access exists nearby making on -site vertical and lateral access unnecessary. Public access is not impacted by the project and due to the position of the proposed building, public views from Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue will be improved. A determination as to whether or not the project is consistent with visual resource protection policies (predominant line of existing development and protection and enhancement, if feasible, of the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone) needs to be made. Depending upon the determination, this finding may or may not be possible. Environmental Review A draft mitigated negative declaration was prepared by the City for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. A notice of intent to adopt the MND was posted and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site on February 13, 2007 indicating that a 30 -day comment period on the MND will conclude on March 15, 2007. The analysis indicates that mitigation measures related to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources and land uselplanning are necessary to reduce or avoid potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels. The analysis shows that the potential impact of the project will be either less than significant or no impact related to all other issue areas. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice of the draft mitigated negative declaration and this public hearing was provided in accordance with applicable law. 9 0 0 0 AERIE (PA2005 -196) February 22, 2007, Page 34 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED The Commission must determine if the proposal is consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan as it relates to the predominant line of existing development and whether or not the project protects and enhances, if feasible, the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone. If the proposal is deemed consistent with the CLUP, the Commission can recommend approval of the project If the proposal does not meet these policies, the project must be modified to a point that it can be found consistent with CLUP policy or it should be denied. Prepared by: Jams Campbell James Campbell, Senior Planner Submitted by: David Lepo, Planning Director 2. AERIE project overview prepared by Brion Jeannette (separate bound document) 4. Correspondence 5. Predominant line of existing development exhibits prepared by staff 11.22 5 tk"i Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 None None Advanced Real Estate Services 201 & 207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place application would allow the demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment buildir a single - family home and the construction of a 7- level, 9 -unit multiple -fami dentiai condominium complex with subterranean parking on a 1.4 acre si tied bayward of the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenu existing General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan and Zoning Designations of kit portion of the site (584 square feet) would be changed to be consistent wi larger portion -of the site (from two- family residential to multi - family residentia application includes a tentative tract map for the creation of 9 °airspac dominium units for individual sale and. The Modification Permit applicatic jests the encroachment of subterranean portions of the building within the fro side yard setbacks. Lastly, the Coastal Residential Development Pem dication relates to replacing lost units occupied by low or moderate4ncon iseholds. No units meeting this criteria are known to exist and therefore, f lacement of affordable housing is required. Planner, Jim Campbell, gave an overview of the staff report, noting: • This is a bluff top property. • Noted the planning activities of the project. • A new 9 unit condominium complex will replace an existing 14 -t apartment building and single - family residence. • Parking to be provided will mainly be subterranean. The number of spa( exceeds the current Code requirement. • Access to the parking will be through two freight elevators designed accommodate vehicles. • Units range in size from 3,400 square feet up to 6,200 square feet in seven -level building. • Views of the project from various vantage points. • Staff is seeking guidance on application of Coastal Land Use Plan polic related to protecting, and where feasible, enhancing the scenic and vis qualities of the coastal zone; establishing the predominant line of exist development; establishment of this predominant line can be accomplisl through a variety of means; staff is asking which method the Plana Commission wants to be used. • The architect has attempted to measure the predominant line (gave example). • Staff used a method proposed in conjunction with the draft Implemental Plan which talks about the median distances that these buildings ext+ from. Additionally, they did the string line method which is a traditic method that the Coastal Commission has used for many years. • There is no set method of establishing this line and all of the methods 1 staff has looked at do not work well due to the unique topography; the k does not line up with the streets and the buildings actually wrap around bluff so all the traditional methods are not helpful in establishing where building should be. http:/ /www. city. newport- beacb. ca.usiPInAgendaslmn02- 22- 07.htm Page 4 of 18 ti •. nued to 5, 2007 11 E I* v. M 08/07/2007 `tiD Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 5 of 18 • The purpose of the discussion is to determine if this project is consistent % the Coastal Land Use Plan as policies note minimizing the alteration of t natural terrain, preserving and enhancing the scenic and visual qualities the coastal zone, prohibiting development on bluff faces except in tl particular geographic area; new development has to comply with tl predominant line of development. • Views from public spaces to the west looking back to the bluff, that is t scenic and visual quality. • The proposed building appears to come further down the bluff than polid seem to allow and we are looking for guidance as to what the predomim line of development is. • Visual simulations representing various lines of existing development t included in the staff report to aid in the decision making process. • The buildings on Carnation Avenue to the north come down the bluff furtt than the existing development on subject sites. (He then discussed t various exhibits in the staff report.) • The Planning Commission needs to determine the predominant line development, and if the building conforms to it, then the application can approved; if the building does not conform to it, then the Commission nee to provide direction to the applicant to re- design it to the line as agreed upc hairperson Cole asked what discretionary approval request requires t ommission to determine the predominant line of development? Mr. Campbell answered that the Subdivision Map requires it as does the finding consistency required for amendments to the Local Coastal Land Use Plan. Chairperson Cole noted the discussion of the 584 square -foot portion of the F site seems to be the basis for the actions required for approval. If they didn't hs that 584 -foot portion, would they need to come in front of us for the discretiom approval? What is the past City practice regarding determination of t dominant One of development. Campbell noted that the Subdivision Map finding needs to be made. There prior example in an application for a variance on Pacific Drive where we ws ing at these same policies. On Ocean Boulevard, we haven't had It ussion in the past as there were no variances or modifications it =ssitated a finding of consistency with these policies. We have not had It 1 of analysis or review. ner Hawkins asked about the Circle residence where the the predominant line. Campbell noted that this was discussed in light of the string One method ,d about other prior projects that were allowed to come down the bluffs by staff Commission. We looked at the main issue of how far out the bulk e because it could block the neighbor's view. We did not discuss lominant line of development in the context of these policies. ichard Julian, applicant, noted this proposed project will become the gateway he harbor and the City of Newport. He noted the following consultants for t roject: Phil Dowdy and Ted Fetone of Hunsaker and Associates; Myron Sukut ukut Construction Co.; Sid Nedwit, soils engineer; Tom Castle, structu ngineer, and Brion Jeannette, architect and designer. He added that he h 0.315 http: / /Www.city.newport- beach .ca.ustPInAgendWmnO2- 22-071tm 08/07/2007 1 Planning Commission Minutes 02122/2007 A many issues related to the site and has worked closely with ;. He has worked with members of the City staff and is committed to He referenced an exhibit that includes letters of support from n Jeannette, architect, noted that the major issue is, what is the predomins of development? He stated that they have reviewed the Mitigated Negati laration and agree with the measures identified. He then proceeded with a presentation of the project: . Discussed various views of the project site. . Materials to be used are limestone, photovoltaic panels for electricity an green architecture. . The existing building consumes approximately 21% of the site and the nev building is about 25% of the site. . He referenced the categorical exclusion zone on the exhibit noting the treatment of the vegetation and bluff is handled by the City. . . There are 9 units replacing 15 units and range from 3,300 square feet to 6,300 square feet of livable area with 3 parking spaces for each. • The allowable project square footage is 90,759 and this proposal is for 74, 314 square feet. . Parking - 7 units with parking at the same level directly accessible to each unit; 2 units have access to parking via their own private elevators; guess parking is 3 spaces at street level and 4 spaces at lower levels; additionally, there are 2 golf cart spaces at lower levels. 7 of the 32 parking spaces are created through the use of auto lifts. These individual lifts are separate anc apart from the 2 auto elevators proposed. A total of 32 parking spaces wil be provided. • Reviewed garage configurations turnaround space and vehicular elevators. There will be an emergency back up system. . Grading will require 32,400 cubic yards of export that is scheduled after the summer months. He discussed the schedule, amount of loads per day drilling, and timing to construct shoring wails. • Possible haul routes are from East Coast Highway on Marguerite Ave. was on Ocean Blvd to the site, north on Carnation Avenue, east on Seaview ti Marguerite, north to East Coast Highway; flagmen and delineators will direc traffic; primary staging of maximum 2 trucks on Ocean Blvd., secondar, staging south of Cameo Highlands Drive on Coast Hwy. • Shuttle workers to and from site until parking on -site is available withii parking garage. • Public access is not required as there are accessibility problems; Callfomi; Coastal Commission has not required access on adjacent parcels; an public access is nearby at China Cove and Corona del Mar main beach. • Public views - public view point identified in the LCP is at the comer c Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Referencing the exhibit, he note that corner view wilt be increased to a 32 degrees wide cone from a 2E degree cone and public seating will be provided. He agreed to an easemer being recorded on their property. • Monitoring of ground motion will be on -going to assure that it is kept at safe level and will be incorporated in the Construction Management Plan. • Current landscaping can be trimmed and maintained. • He then discussed the building heights and need for a Modification. • Bluff face development - development is allowed on categorical exciusic http: / /Www.city.newport- beach .mus /PlnAgendas /mn02- 22- 07.htm Page 6 of 18 11 11 1 0 Q. 3710 08/07/2007 t Planning Commission Minutes 02122/2007 Page 7 of 18 zone parcels to the north; the CLUP allows development on bluff face c Ocean Blvd., Carnation Ave., Pacific Dr.; extensive development befoi Coastal Zone Act and new development is allowed to continue the 'pattern existing development' Predominant line of existing development is the mo common or representative distance from a specified group of structures to specified point or line. (topo line or geographic feature) (CLUP 5 Glossary). He then discussed his approach. • He then noted CLUP Policy 4.3.3 -12 and discussed his methods used meet this criteria- . Referencing the exhibits, he then explained the predominant line of existir development and how it was reached at Pelican Point, Cameo Shore Shore Cliffs, Corona del Mar on Ocean Boulevard, Breakers Drive, Chir Cove, AERIE and Pacific Drive and the issue of fairness and equity i mandated by Coastal Commission. • He gave a history of past Ocean Boulevard projects and examples f determining the predominant line of existing development using string -line structures and decks. • He discussed an aerial view of AERIE with cove and rock outcroppings ar buildings on either side and depiction of median distance from street curb furthest line of development towards the Bay. • Referencing another exhibit he discussed median distance from mean k tide to closest line of development towards the Bay; analysis of propos line of development with elevations of 34 feet on easterly side to 52 feet the westerly side; 29 feet to 44 feet and 25 feet to 25 feet respectively. • View simulation of superimposed model viewed from Channel Road pub beach. • Existing view from Channel Road public beach with categorical exclusi zone and with the proposed structure on project site. • He then noted several letters of support and asked for ultimate approval the 9 -unit project. • At Commission inquiry, he noted he has not discussed this project with t Coastal Commission. r Planning Commission focused on the following: • The requirement of a Construction Management Plan with details on routes truck sizes, street cleaning, timing, fugitive dust, etc. • Impacts on air quality • Need for the Mitigated Negative Declaration to address issues of hau routes, size, access routes and air quality. • View corridor - staff proposes an easement to be recorded. • Ocean Boulevard is a public view street and the view corridor is dynamic. Asked for an expansion of this presentation further up Ocean Boulevard tc depict the view corridor impacts from Ocean Blvd at Fernieaf and Dahli. Streets. • Protection of neighboring properties during the drilling and coring process. • Pattern of development an Ocean Boulevard and Camation Street. • Floor plan for the lower level. • The Implementation Program discussion of line of development in Cororr del Mar. • Reviewed the definition of "predominate tine of development" in the glossar of the CLUP, specifically the use of a specified group of structures t determine the predominate line of development and the appropriateness c ,D, 317 http: / /wnwv.city.newport- beach .ca.usMInAgendas /nmO2- 22- 07.htm 08/07/2007 X53 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 using homes on Bayside Place to set the predominate line of development. comment was opened. Razner, Ocean Boulevard, noted his support of this project for the following: • The project applicant has done an outreach in the neighborhood for in and has made several concessions on height and density to adds concerns. • Applicant could build up to 28 units. • Property rights of neighbors as well as the applicant are being addressed. • Tax base for the City. • Removal of telephone poles and run -off from the site will be contained ; treated. McAfree, Ocean Boulevard resident, and speaking as President of the :f Association, noted their support of the project. • Impressed with the project sponsors and their plans and c communication with their neighbors. • Project will be an upgrade to the neighborhood including visual appeal, property values, etc. • dike the low - density of only 9 living units versus 48 living units at Che Reef. • We are aware there will be noise, dust, parking issues and c inconveniences during construction but the long term benefits of the pr outweigh any temporary inconveniences. • They urge approval of this project. a Vallejo, Ocean Boulevard resident, noted she is not in support of this the following: • Many people are concerned with the destruction of this coastal bluff and It extremely large scale of the proposed complex. • There are many issues, among them the loss of public enjoyment from th development. • This bluff and cove are viewed and enjoyed by people on the Peninsula wt look directly across from the wedge and various other locations. • This cove is a landmark . People do not want to lose the view of the last remaining bluff that is visib from the harbor. • Newport Beach is special and this area is governed by the COUP. She thi read some of the provisions. • is this project visually compatible with the surrounding area and how is tF minimizing the impact on the bluff? • There is nothing on Ocean Boulevard that looks like this other than Chann Reef, but that was built in 1960. • Ocean Boulevard is basically single - family homes but this project creates 'hotel' and is too much for that particular site. • There is no Environmental Impact Report and I don't understand that as IN are taking 32,400 cubic yards of bluff away and cannot figure out what It will do to the integrity and support of the surrounding properties and 0 impact of the construction and excavation. http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PhiAgendas/mn02- 22- 07.hbn Page 8 of 18 0 0 E 0.31Y 08/07/2007 0 U 11 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 . Before this is changed forever, you need to give this good thought. Snyder, Balboa Peninsula Point resident, noted his support of Dment as it will be a great improvement over what is there currently. teen McIntosh, Ocean Boulevard resident, noted the majority of the neighbor, the demolition of the existing structure and the re- development of the site. noted: • Concern over the intensity of development around lower Newport Say led the adoption of a series of ordinances in the early 1970's that establishe more restrictive height and bulk standards around the Bay. • The intent is to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consiste with unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. • As a result, new development within the shoreline height zone is limited to height of 28 feet. • Development on the bluff face is generally prohibited with the exception certain public improvements or private improvements determined to t consistent with the predominant line of development. • it is policy to regulate the development envelope to preserve public viev through the height, setbacks, floor area, lot coverage and building bulk th limits the building profile and maximizes the public view. • In this case, the buildable site would grow from under 20,000 square feet over 70,000 square feet. • it seems the lateral projection of the structure would greatly impact the pub view from the water across the Bay, and the view corridor established by 0 City of Newport Beach at the Ocean Boulevard /Carnation Avenue junction. • To shift the bulk of the lateral development up to the allowable vertical heig would keep the view corridor open but would eliminate the water viffi enjoyed by the residents on Carnation Avenue across from the propose development. • It is our hope that the bulk and scale of the proposed development w111 1 reduced both laterally and vertically and in square footage to be in line ai scale with the surrounding residences. Dawson, Corona del Mar resident, noted: • The current complex is an eyesore and is in a dilapidated state. • This development is 1st class and there is hardly any opposition to it the compromises that have been made. • This is a focal point and he supports the project. • The developer has the property rights for this project. Moore, Carnation Avenue resident, noted: • The applicant has taken the time to get to know the neighbors and explair his project. • All have had the opportunity to review the plans. • The applicant has addressed all concerns and has made several design changes. • Directly next door to this project, the City allowed major excavation anc building to take place on the rocky bluff and area below next to the water. There was a lot of equipment and disruption but ultimately it turned ou http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /PinAgendastmnO2- 22- 07.htrn Page 9 of 18 0.319 09/07/2007 5 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 beautifully. This is a superbly planned project that has been worked on for several y prior to this meeting and urged that the Planning Commission approve project. mmissioner McDaniel noted that this issue is not being voted on tonight. This opportunity for public input and will be continued. comment was closed. Eaton noted: • Project is extensive and there has been good outreach to the neighbors. • Referencing an email he sent to staff, noted not all his questions had be answered and would like those at the next hearing. • Predominarit line of development - referencing Exhibit F -noted the hea black line symbolizes where the estimated top of bluff is. The predomine line of development refers to the relationship of the bluff. This appears angle off the comer of the street intersection and turns the comer. The mk appropriate sense of how to look at this predominant line of development that the buildings ought to turn the corner in a consistent relationship to t bluff. • The upper level roofs do follow that rough line but that changes as you 4 further down. • What happens on the lower level of the westerly building as it extends at angle further out than the fairly uniform progression of the terraces of t easterly building? • The two lower units of the easterly building have a view of a blank w which is the side wall of the westerly building. That part of the proji extends beyond the curve of the bluff line and is inappropriate to t predominant line of development. • The westerly building should taper at a more consistent rate as the easte building so that the levels are pulled back a bit. That would affect the loon on the first level and the lower level of Unit 700 on the second level. If 0 area was pulled back, the building as a whole would have a shape and 1 line fairly conforming to the bluff line, which would make a more sensible Ii of development. Otherwise, this sticks out a good 20 feet beyond 1 foundation line that is shown in the plan footprints of the buildings. • He concluded that with that adjustment, this building would fit a predomin line of development that would turn the comer In a manner similar to the u the bluff turns the corner. Hillgren asked what the bottom vertical line of this project was? Campbell answered the lower extent of the easterly building is 29 feet and go around the comer it steps up to 44 feet. Commission inquiry, Mr. Jeannette noted that the elevation of the street yside Drive is at elevation 13 then it starts ascending from there to an elevat 18 or 19 feet. missioner Hillgren noted he has heard a commitment from the developer ;ct the cove which is the most important part of this project. I took at the 28-: line to the property to the west as an appropriate datum line. The question http: / /www. city.newport- beach. ca.usIP1nAgendas /mnO2- 22- 07.htm Page 10 of 18 0 U 0 0.32© 08/07/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 L rto connect to the property to the east. missioner Hawkins noted the property lines to the east go down that ause they are in the exclusion zone where they are not regulated. Jeannette agreed, noting adherence to the Zoning Guidelines which require yard setback. Hillgren asked if they were regulated, how far down could they go? Jeannette noted the bottom portion could be used for a casitas with the mt ling on top of the bluff, they could go to that rear yard setback and then car it with a retaining wall behind; it would be difficult and expensive, but it nmissioner Peotter, referencing the topo exhibit, noted the regulated areas anc non - regulated areas where someone could go down to the 20 foot elevation, leans more to the priority of maintaining the look and favors either the 29 or 3d at the highest point as far as determining the setback line that will determine it will be seen from the bayside and how that cove will be protected. rperson Cole noted the western portion of the site seems easier to undersl makes sense due to the adjacency of the buildings. He asked how dal Commission would determine a fair and equitable concept for r. Jeannette noted the point at which you contact earth establishes that lane. Referencing an exhibit, he noted one elevation of a home at 48.6 ele her elevation points were at 44, 50 and 52. He then discussed the public elationship and drawing the horizontal fine at that point to establish ermination of development. nmissioner Hillgren asked if it was the tooting or the house itself that is level at 44? Jeannette answered the elevation of the house was at 50. . . • The charge of the Planning Commission is to ensure that the technic aspects of the project are in tact. • We are to comply with the existing Codes of the City for the benefit of the residents who are not here and don't know about the project and can't expected to come down and spend the kind of time that marry of 1 residents here have and we have. • He noted he is a property rights supporter, but in a civilized society prope rights are conditional. There are title reports, title restrictions, special la use restrictions, zoning, building heights, etc. and in this particular propert case there is a Coastal Land Use Plan that has to be adhered to. • This is not about the integrity or the character of the applicant or representatives; it is about the technical components and how they can applied to this project fairly and on balance with the property rights and u the community. • The predominant line of development doesn't contemplate what could http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca .us /PlnAgendas/mno2- 22- 07.htrn Page 11 of 18 0.37-1 08/07/2007 `�I Planning Commission Minutes 02122/2007 developed on adjacent bluff top properties, it deals with what is in plae today, so this whole discussion on what might happen to adjacent bluff ti properties along Carnation is irrelevant to me. • Also irrelevant to me is what Coastal Commission might do. TI- Commission and this City has to get quickly up to speed on what the LC says. It will require an amount of time and effort to do this. • He noted his concern of how this project in this area meets the predomina line of development on this bluff. • He does not support the idea of using bayfront properties as simil structures or similar group of homes, as the glossary of our CLUP sugges by which to determine the predominant line of development as we are talkie about a property that is on the bluff. These homes take access off a differs street that is almost at sea level. This property is a bluff- oriented prope that takes access from the bluff. • Referencing an exhibit, he noted the area that seems to encroach below t predominant line of development and the area on the easterly side seems be relatively consistent with the predominant line of development. • Some transition is warranted in order to meet this finding of what considers to be the predominant line of development wirperson Cole noted that there is consistency in that the easterly side at 29 agreed upon but as it goes around the westerly side, he would like to see r iicatina the line of where those homes come down to right now. missioner Toerge answered that is how he reads the Code. Thei 5mmant line of development is higher than their proposal based upon how he s the Code. We need to understand what our predecessors decided an( authority our Coastal Land Use Plan has. A couple of years were invested it dishing this Local Coastal Plan and we took great care in developing this. oral Planning Commissioners, including himself, served on this Committee. plan was reviewed and approved by both the Planning Commission and Cif. hcil. It is speculative to guess what the Coastal Commission will do. Hawkins noted: • Agrees that the Commission has an important job with this unique parcel a project. The cove is a natural resource, the bluff outcroppings, etc. and t project, in general, takes good care of that resource. • He noted the concern of the easterly edge at elevations 44148 and staff a the applicant need to work on that level. • He agrees about tracking the bluff around, and the two units noted Commissioner Eaton did seem to project out distinctly. He would Ii discussion on pulling those projections in. • We are trying to understand what the predominant line of development is. is a flexible metric and the string -line was a tough approach and could problematic. • The current structures on the site are poor; however, the site itself fantastic. 'person Cole noted there seems to be some consensus on the 29 foot on the east and the west at 44 feet. nmissioner Hawkins noted there is some agreement on the 29 feet; however questions the 44 -foot measurement. Another metric has been offered and he http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendaslmnO2- 22- 07.htm Page 12 of 18 r1 U E E a.32Z 09107n0o_? �� E Ll Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 like to see if that could work. McDaniel, noted: • He was a member of the Local Coastal Committee and they spent a lot time addressing heights and string -lines and doesn't want to ignore those. • There are basic guidelines to go by and if you have to work around the then we need to document them so we can understand it now and in tl future. • He wants to save as much of the bluff as possible. • He noted his concern of what happens to the parking if part of the building taken away as previously suggested, what does that do to the quality of I for the residents in that area, what does that do to the view corridor, and a other aspects. • He would much rather give a little extra off that edge so that the parkii does not become problematic in the project; that it looks right, works rig and all those other aspects that we pickup. • Recognizes that folks who look easterly look at a wall, but the panoran view to the left may require that you may have to look at a wall to the right. • This is a good project. nmissioner Peotter asked about comparing this to properties in the exclusi e, yet looking at the land Use Plan, it follows the hotel and other homes that in to the water level again. Why are we going outside of that coastal area the predominant line? nissioner Toerge answered by reading from the Glossary of the CLUP. "TI common or representative distance from a specified group of structures to had point or line." The example that was cited, "the predominant line opment for a block of homes on a coastal bluff (a specified group ures) could be determined by calculating the median distance sentative distance) these structures are from the bluff edge (a specific mtinuing, he stated that since the predominant line of development has airea en determined to come into play here, and since the Local Coastal Plan do ve jurisdiction over the site, this definition is something that needs to be overt to the project. It gives the example about the predominant line of deveioprra a block of homes on a coastal bluff which is the specified group of structure iat is the reason why the homes that are not on the bluff should not be utilized Iculate the predominant line of development as they are not on the bluff and tt specifically the language that the Committee went through. That is the langua at has been approved and the City has adopted. ommissioner Peotter asked if it make any difference whether it is in the Exclusic one or not as far as when it refers to the coastal bluff. Do you stop looking at it is in the Exclusion Zone? ommissioner Toerge answered in his opinion the answer is "no ". This happens be a bluff top development that happens to be at the end of the street, and siml because adjacent bluff top properties are within the Categorical Exclusion An does not preclude them from the definition of predominate line of development. continued referencing exhibits showing Breakers Drive, http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca.us /P]nAgendas/rnnO2- 22 -07.htm Page 13 of 18 tv. 323 08/07/2007 \C� Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 and the Cove. Campbell noted the exclusionary area was established in 1977 and the Coasta emission allowed projects that are consistent with the zoning at that time le- family and duplexes, without need to go back and get a Coasta elopment Permit. Under today's rules, you could build out to the setback at 1t and bring that building down to whatever elevation it might be. Does the tominant line of development affect these properties: the answer is "yes ". We e two policies in the Coastal Land Use Plan 4.4.3 -8 and -9 that talk abou dings on the bluff face on Carnation Avenue, Pacific and Ocean Boulevard, are referring to that particular bluff right there and they are allowed to built iin the predominant line of development. That is what the policy says meanint bluff does establish a predominant line. Would we use a predominant line tt date that now given the exclusion order: the answer is "no ". Staff believe: se homes on Carnation Avenue on that bluff do establish a predominant tine c Ming development and you would use that in relation to whether this projec a is consistent with that. Cole clarified that regardless if it is in the Category Exclusion Zone. Campbell noted the predominant line of development would not affect but those lots do establish the predominant line of development that lot. imissioner Toerge noted that properties are still subject to Coastal Commissi aw under appeal. They are in the Coastal Zone so even though they i agorically Exempt, that doesn't mean that the Coastal Commission we ie. It means that the City can approve them, but approval can be appealed Coastal Commission, The Coastal Commission has just given the City t t to approve or condition those particular developments but it doesn't exen n from Coastal and doesn't exempt them from review. mmissioner Peotter asked that since part of this lot is in the Exclusion Zo as that mean the project could go down to 10 feet on the side for a portion of and now establish a new line of development that we could use? You have s of rules. Jeannette noted the differences of access on Breakers Drive, tue and resulting development. Commission inquiry, he noted that suggestions made about turning the corner mething that he will look at and he will determine what impacts could or wog wit. Additionally, he will look at elevation down to 10 feet. He noted th Aecting the cove is most critical. on was made by Commissioner Peotter to set the line at 29 feet as the I for staff to review with the caveat that the applicant look at reducing r/west wing to see if they could round that off to match the bluff face better. Cole clarified that the 29 feet goes up to 44 feet going to Mr. Jeannette answered that is correct. Hawkins suggested straw votes. http: //www. city. newport- beach. ca .us /PinAgendas/mn02- 22- 07.htm Page 14 of 18 El 1. J a 32y 08/07/2007 �� r1 0 Planning Commission Minutes 02122/2007 hairperson Cole noted the motion was not seconded, took straw vote on c he 29 feet on the east side of the property going to 44 feet, which is in the report with the suggestion by Commission to have the applicant consider math he contour of the bluff specifically on levels one and two. ving discussion by the Commission, consensus was reached consistent discussion as to the predominant line of development. Straw + nissioner Toerge, yes; all other Commissioners, no. Lepo noted the parking configuration as well as the impact the use of ators might have on parking on the street. Are those concerns of emission, or are you okay with the configuration of the working garage? oner McDaniel noted that after meeting with the applicant, have been addressed. ssioner Toerge noted his concern on the Mitigated Negative Declan that the comment period is stilt open. He has reviewed it and asked raving be addressed at the next meeting: When does the City determine when an EIR is necessary versus a Mitigated Negative Declaration? Should the City's Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee review the MND? Referencing the Mitigated Negative Declaration: • Aesthetics - describe how the 'Less Than Significant Impact determination was made for Aesthetics 1.c, and under whal circumstances would a determination of "significant impact" be made? He noted page 10 and specific issues. • Land Use and Planning - on Page 16 of the MND, explain how the "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation is incorporated ", hoA was this determination made, and under what circumstances would ii be significant? • Noise - on Page 17, describe how the "Less Than Significant Impact' determination was made when there is no representation of how the excavation operation will be conducted. This report does not retecl some of the description that was on the screen on how the grading wil take place with the borings, etc. The MND was silent on that; why? • Aesthetics - on Page 22 The MND addresses this public view site al the point of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard, but it does no address the public view street that Ocean Boulevard is and the dynamic view. Until view sims are done, I cannot agree with thi; report on this topic. • Air Quality - on Page 28, the MND talks about haul trucks, etc. and the deliveries, etc. With 32,000 yards of dirt potentially being moved bi 2,500 to 3,000 trucks, this is a lot of activity. The residents in the arer need to be protected while the property rights are being exercised. We need to see maps of truck routes, staging, traffic patterns, fiagmer operations, public right -of -way use, etc. Washing streets is not ar acceptable mitigation measure, another means needs to be identified. Diesel- powered trucks and generator use, audible signaling, restriction of delivery construction equipment need to be addressed. • Adequacy of the public view - on Page 40, until those simulations are provided, the widening of this angle may improve the view angle fron http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca.usIPInAgendas /mn02- 22- 07.htm Page 15 of 18 0: 325 08/07/2007 ��1 Planning Commission Minutes 02122/2007 one spot, but I want to be sure that it improves or at least maintair the view angle from all along that view corridor along Ocez Boulevard. • Stringline - on page 41 the MND seems to be inaccurate ar misleading as it says, "stringlines were drawn from the existir residential structure located to the south on Ocean Boulevard and tt existing structure to the north on Camation Avenue. The result is th all portions of the proposed building are landward of the stringline. That is not true as shown in the exhibit. There are three calculatior that discuss the median distance from the curb and from the bluff b there are no reference points specifically as to where those ai measured; that needs to be expanded for it to be accurate. • Noise - on Page 42, this project may go on for at least 2 years an while that is temporary, it is not short termed. This document says it short term and I do not agree with that. In "B" of that noise section, is claimed there is no impact as there is no pile driving; however, the is going to be drilling and excavation. How can it conclude there vh be no impact? The MND does not address any mechanism on how ii going to be graded, yet it concludes an insignificant impact. This inaccurate. • I believe these are shortcomings of the MND and I hope that they a; addressed at the next meeting. Hawkins noted: • The environmental document is virtually silent on the construction impacts the project and that analysis needs to occur. There will be a final respon document that can address these issues. The points that were just me require something that corrects these errors or inadequacies, etc. • There is an easy fix to the construction impacts and that is the Constructi Management Plan. He proposes this as a mitigation measure and this pl to be approved by Public Works as the appropriate body at the City, but tt it come back to the Commission for hearing and approval as well. • He stated he supports the MND concerns and they need to be addressed. • He would also like to hear from EQAC. rperson Cole asked about the procedures for comments to the Mitigi ttive Declaration. Can we get a response document similar to an EIR for meeting? answered it can be done. Cole then noted the issue of the view corridor and view simulations. immissioner Hawkins supports the proposal for more extensive views. However 1 position of the applicant is that there is no access required and that may be the se, but the applicant proposes a public amenity of a bench at the view site. The important but insufficient, and he would like to see a more significant mitigatior aasure. He supports an offer of dedication for the bottom of this property, bu ;re is the access issue. Toerge noted: http: / /www.city.newport- beach, ca.us /PlnAgendas/mn02- 22- 07.htm Page 16 of 18 i 0 0.32(' 08/07/2007 0 Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 I . Performance Bond - The project includes a retaining wall that requ substantial grading. If this is not completed there is a possibility that homes and public right- of-way above could be damaged. If, for any real there is a cease or stop work order issued, the area needs to be made to the public. This would be similar to the one required of the Mariners I Gateway project. Commissioner McDaniel agreed. iissioner Hawkins suggested that this be a completion bond so there is facing the bay_ Jeannette noted: • The MND is lacking and he agrees with the comments. • He agreed to re- analyze the architecture based on Commission Comm and allow time for staff to fix the MND and recirculated for public review comment, after which time we can seek final guidance from the Commis Hawkins asked if they would consider turning the MND into an EIR. Jeannette said they would not consider it. Chairperson Cole thanked the applicant and commended them for the detail of proposed project. Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissio Peotter to continue this item to April 5th to allow time for the MND issues to addressed and revisions to the building design be completed. None None Mile Gateway, LLC 100 -600 West Coast Highway for Comprehensive Sign Program C52006 -012 for the previou d Bel Mare Shopping Center. In addition, the Planning Commission will g the project's landscape plan and evaluating proposed refinements elevations to determine their substantial conformance with the aooro% None None uv„City Council, Follow -up - Mr. Lepo reported that the Council adopted resolution initiating additional or new regulations for residential http://www.city.newt)ort-beach.ca.us/PhiApendas/rnnO2-22-07.htm Page 17 of 18 tinned to uncertain BUSINESS v. 327 08/07/2007 `��