HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0_Megonigal Residence_PA2007-133CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
November 19, 2009 Meeting
Agenda Item No. 3
SUBJECT: Megonigal Residence (PA2007 -133)
2333 Pacific Drive
■ Modification No. 2007 -080
APPLICANT: David R. Olson, Architect for Kim and Caroline Megonigal
PLANNER: James Campbell, Principal Planner
(949) 644 -3210, jampbell annewportbeachca.gov
PROJECT SUMMARY
This project was continued from the October 22, 2009, meeting. The application consists
of a Modification Permit to allow planter walls and a water feature to exceed the 3 -foot
height limit in the 5 -foot front yard setback in association with the construction of a new,
three -story single - family dwelling.
RECOMMMEDATION
1) Conduct a public hearing; and
2) Adopt the attached draft Resolution recommending Certification of the Draft
Environmental Impact Report and approval of Modification Permit No. 2007 -080
to the City Council with the findings and conditions provided within the draft
resolution attached to the October 22, 2009, staff report.
DISCUSSION
The responses to comments on the DEIR have been completed and are attached
(Attachment PC -1). Comments questioned the visual simulations and their depiction of the
impact upon public views. The visual simulations presented in the DEIR showed the
proposed project before the City removed several trees and shrubs within Begonia Park at
the request of area residents. The removal of the vegetation expanded views of the
harbor, peninsula and ocean. It was also discovered that the depiction of the proposed
residence was not scaled properly, making it appear smaller than it would if constructed.
Exhibits 4.3 -1 and 4.3 -2 within Section 4.3 (Aesthetics) of the DEIR, , which were
prepared by a consultant under contract to the City, and Exhibits 4.3-4 and 4.3 -5 that
were prepared by the project architect, were found to be inaccurate. The City had the
contractor who prepared the City's simulations prepare a new simulation showing the
view impact of the proposed project from the Lower Begonia Park bench (Attachment
Megonigal Residence
November 19, 2009
Page 2
PC -2). The photograph was taken in October of 2009, well after the intervening
vegetation within Begonia Park was removed. The 3- dimensional depiction of the
proposed residence was created using the electronic copy of the architect's plans to
ensure accuracy. The scaling and position of the building representation were based
upon clearly identifiable features within the image of known height and location
including the story poles. The creator of the image, Softmirage Inc., believes the image
to be as accurate a representation of the building within the photograph that can be
created.
Upon the realization of the inaccuracy in the City's simulations, the architect also
reevaluated his visual simulations and discovered that they also depicted the proposed
building smaller than it would be. The architect has updated his simulations; however,
these images do not reflect the elimination of the intervening vegetation within Begonia
Park (Attachment PC -3).
The revised simulations include a revision of the front elevation to further reduce the
structure's impact upon public views from Begonia Park. The roof of the building in the
area of the internal staircase has been lowered by 3 feet, 6 inches. This creates a 3 foot, 6
inch by 7 -foot "notch" out of the upper left hand corner of the elevation. This change
proposed by the applicant preserves views of the peninsula and ocean beyond.
(Attachment PC-4).
The new information provided by these simulations and revised elevation reopens the
question of whether or not the project would have a significant impact upon public views.
This determination is subjective and guidelines for this determination are provided by
applicable land use policies and the questions, "Would the project have a substantial
adverse effect on a scenic vista ?" and, "Would the project substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings ?" These questions
come from the State guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act, which the City uses within its Initial Study checklist.
Policies of the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan do not protect public views from
Begonia Avenue or Pacific Drive as it is not listed in Policy NR20.3 or identified in Figure
NR3 of the Natural Resources Element of the General Plan. Public views within Begonia
Park are the only public views protected in this case as these views are identified by
Figure NR3 of the Natural Resources Element of the General Plan. The relevant
General Plan policies are:
"NR20.1 Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual
resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean,
and harbor from public vantage points, as shown in Figure NR3.
NR 20.4 Design and site new development, including landscaping, on the edges of
public view corridors, including those down public streets, to frame,
accent and minimize impacts to public views."
F
Megonigal Residence
November 19, 2009
Page 3
"Protection" is a relative term and given that Policy NR20.4 indicates that a project's
impact on public views must be minimized, protection cannot mean there can be no impact
whatsoever. It is important to note that the scenic vista is not limited to views of the harbor,
peninsula or ocean (that have been expanded with the elimination of the intervening
vegetation) and that the vista contains other elements such as the open space of the
Begonia Park and Carnation Avenue bluff, residential development on Carnation Avenue,
Pacific Drive and Begonia Avenue and the sky.
The new simulation shows views of the harbor, peninsula and ocean are increased in
comparison to the views shown within the DEIR visual simulations due to the removal of
the intervening vegetation. The proposed residence would be more prominent within the
view as well. The focal points within the view (harbor, peninsula and ocean) would be
diminished; however, the majority of these portions of the view would remain. Views of the
harbor, peninsula and ocean with project implementation would also be increased when
considered in comparison to the view depicted in the DEIR.
The question remains as to whether the project's impact upon the viewshed is significant.
The environmental consultant and staff believe that although the building will be more
prominent in the viewshed, approximately 65% of the focal points within the view (harbor,
peninsula and ocean) will remain, and therefore, the overall character and quality of the
viewshed is protected. If views of the focal points are reduced to a point where they were
not obvious, a significant impact might occur. Based upon this conclusion, the new
information provided with the revised simulations and analysis is not considered
"significant new information" as that term is defined by Section 15088.5 of the State
CEQA Guidelines, and therefore, the DEIR is not required to be recirculated.
Section 15088.5 identifies 4 examples where recirculation is required: (1) A new
significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation
measure proposed to be implemented; (2) A substantial increase in the severity of an
environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce
the impact to a level of insignificance; (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation
measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the
significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to
adopt it; and (4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and
conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. The
Guidelines also state that recirculation is not required where the new information added
to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an
adequate EIR.
The new information contained within the new simulation and analysis contained in this
response provides greater clarity on the changed environmental baseline conditions
upon which the analysis was originally based as well as greater accuracy of the degree
of impact the project would have on protected public views. Although the degree of the
potential visual impact is greater based on the new visual simulation, the conclusion
Megonigal Residence
November 19, 2009
Page 4
related to the significance of that impact has not changed based on the (subjective)
significance criteria identified previously and used in the visual analysis presented in the
Draft EIR. As indicated above, the potential project- related impact remains less than
significant. No new significant environmental impact has been identified. The inclusion
of the new information has not deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to
comment upon a substantial adverse environmental impact as such an impact has not
been revealed by the new information.
SUMMARY
The Planning Commission is not bound by the environmental consultant's or staffs
opinion as to the significance of the impact upon public views. Ultimately, the City
Council will make a determination and should they determine that the impact is
significant, recirculation of the DEIR with revised analysis would be necessary unless
they select and approve one of the project alternatives contained within the DEIR.
Prepared by: Submitted by:
VOCOWV
a es Campb ll, Princi al Planner
ATTACHMENTS
a • f/
-•• _ i,
PC 1 Response to Comments
PC 2 Visual simulation prepared by Softmirage
PC 3 Visual Simulations prepared by the project architect
PC 4 Revised front elevation
P: \PAs- 2007 \PA2007 - 133 \Planning Commission \11 -19 -09 \2009 -11 -19 MD2007 -080 PC rpt draft.dou
Y
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
MEGONIGAL RESIDENCE AND APPROVAL OF
MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2007 -080 FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2333 PACIFIC DRIVE (PA
2007 -133)
WHEREAS, an application was filed by David R. Olson on behalf of Kim and Carolyn
Megonigal, property owners, with respect to property located at 2333 Pacific Drive,
requesting a modification permit to exceed the 3 -foot height limitation in the front yard
setback to allow for planter walls and a water feature; and
WHEREAS, City Council Resolution No. 2007 -3 requires that all new development
comply with applicable policies of the General Plan and City Council Ordinance No. 2007 -3
sets forth design criteria to insure that all new single -unit and two -unit residential projects are
consistent with the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on November 19, 2009, in the City Hall Council
Chambers, at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place,
and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was given. The application, plans, staff report, and
evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the Planning
Commission at this meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
1. The proposed project is in substantial conformance with the public view
protection policies of the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan. The
proposed project minimizes impacts to the public views to the maximum extent
feasible by placing the development further down the bluff, limiting street level
development to a single story, and pulling back elements to avoid impacts to
the public views from Begonia Park.
2. The proposed project is in substantial conformance with the neighborhood
compatibility policies of the General Plan. Placing the development further
down the bluff and limiting street level development to a single story results in a
building that is consistent with the scale and massing of the neighborhood.
Providing clearstory windows on the front elevation and planters in the front
yard opens the project to Pacific Drive and Begonia Avenue.
3. The proposed project is in substantial conformance with the landform alteration
policies of the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan and Criterion No. 7 of
Ordinance No. 2007 -3. These applicable policies and Criterion No. 7 require
that consideration be given to landform protection in order to maintain the City's
environmental character and to preserve visual resources. The coastal bluff in
this area is severely degraded to the extent that it cannot be considered a
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 2 of 32
significant visual resource. Further alteration would not significantly impact the
City's environmental character, but would assist in minimizing impacts to public
views.
WHEREAS, Chapter 20.93 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code requires findings
and facts in support of such findings for approval of a modification permit, which are
presented as follows:
1. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.93, the granting of this application
is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property. The strict
application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent
with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code for the following reasons:
• The subject property slopes from a curb elevation of 72.5 feet above mean
sea level (MSL) down to an elevation of 64 feet MSL at the dwelling.
• The front portion of the lot needs to be filled in order to provide vehicular
access to the residence and landscaping at street grade in a manner that is
consistent with the development pattern of the neighboring properties.
• Any structure in the front yard will exceed the 3 -foot height limit, which
constitutes a practical difficulty.
2. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.93, the requested modification
will be compatible with existing development(s) in the neighborhood for the
following reasons:
• Most properties on Pacific Drive are developed with single - family dwellings
with front yard setback designs that include landscaping and accessory
structures at street grade.
• The proposed planters will be at comparable heights when measured from
the finished grade.
• The proposed planters, along with the driveway and entry walkway
redesigned to meet City Council Policy L -6, will provide a front yard that is
consistent with the character of the neighborhood.
3. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.93, the granting of this
Modification Permit will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and not be detrimental to
the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood
based on the following:
• The proposed water feature will be removed.
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paqe 3 of 32
■ The proposed driveway, entry walkway, and planters are conditioned to be
redesigned to meet City Council Policy L -6.
• Public views will not be impacted with approval of the modification permit
given the position of the proposed features necessitating the modification
permit and the proposed single family residence.
WHEREAS, a draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2009041010) has been
prepared pursuant to the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines,
and City Council Policy K -3. The DEIR was circulated for a 45 -day comment period beginning
on August 24, 2009, and concluding on October 8, 2009. The DEIR and comments and
responses to the comments were considered by the Planning Commission in its review of the
proposed project. The Planning Commission has also considered draft Findings and Facts in
support of Findings supporting the certification of the draft Environmental Impact Report and
a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
WHEREAS, on the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed
project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment with the incorporation of
mitigation measures. Additionally, there are no long -term environmental goals that would be
compromised by the project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the
project. The mitigation measures identified are feasible and reduce potential environmental
impacts to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures are applied to the project
and are incorporated as conditions of approval.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA
determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition,
project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project
applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such
applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and
bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to
a successful challenger.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach recommends certification
of the Megonigal Residence Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2009041010) attached
as Exhibit A based upon the draft findings attached as Exhibit B.
Section 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends
approval of Modification Permit No. 2007 -080 subject to the findings herein and conditions
attached as Exhibit C.
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paqe 4 of 32
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 2009.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
M
Robert Hawkins, Chairman
BY:
Charles Unsworth, Secretary
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Pace 5 of 32
Exhibit "A"
Megonigal Residence
Environmental Impact Report
(SCH #2009041010)
Consists of:
1. Volume 1 - Draft Environmental Impact Report Dated August 2009
2. Volume 2 - Responses to Comments Dated November 2009
3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program November 2009
4. Errata dated November 2009
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paqe 6 of 32
Exhibit °B"
MEGONIGAL RESIDENCE (PA 2007 -133)
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 20 09 041 01 0)
FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21081, and the State CEQA
Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code of Regs. Section 15091 requires that a public agency consider the environmental
impacts of a project before a project is approved and make specific findings. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091
provides:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which
identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency
makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief
explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final
EIR.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been
adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
(b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the
record.
(c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has
concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures
or alternatives. The finding in subdivision (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting
identified mitigation measures and project alternatives.
(d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program
for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a
condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These
measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.
(e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material
which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based.
(f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by
this section.
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paqe 7 of 32
Having received, reviewed and considered the Megonigal Residence Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH
No. 2009041010 (the "EIR ") for the proposed Megonigal Residence project (the "Project "), as well as all other
information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings set forth
below are adopted by the City of Newport Beach (the "City ") in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency:
A. Document Format
These Findings have been organized into the following sections:
(1) Section 1 provides an introduction to these Findings.
(2) Section 2 summarizes the environmental review and public participation process.
(3) Section 3 provides the background information and the Project Description.
(4) Section 4 provides the City's findings as to why an Environmental Impact Report is the
appropriate document for the Project.
(5) Section 5 sets forth findings regarding those environmental impacts which were determined
either (i) not to be relevant to the Project or (ii) clearly not manifested at levels deemed to
be significant. Section 5 addresses both Project - specific and cumulative impacts.
(6) Section 6 sets forth findings regarding potentially significant environmental impacts
identified in the EIR which, after evaluation in the EIR, the City has determined are either
not significant or can feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level through the
imposition of project design features, standard conditions, and /or mitigation measures.
Section 6 addresses both Project- specific and cumulative impacts. In order to ensure
compliance and implementation, all of these measures will be included in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project. Where potentially significant
impacts can be avoided or substantially lessened through adherence to project design
features and standard conditions, these findings specify how those potentially significant
impacts were so avoided or substantially lessened.
(7) Section 7 sets forth findings regarding alternatives to the Project.
B. Custodian and Location of Records
The documents and other materials which constitute the administrative record for the City's actions related to
the Project are located of the City of Newport Beach Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport
Beach, CA 92658. The City Planning Department is the custodian of the administrative record for the Project.
2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The environmental review process for the Megonigal Residence is summarized as follows:
In accordance with CEQA requirements, the City prepared and published a Notice of
Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The NOP was filed with the
State Clearinghouse on May 11, 2009. The State Clearinghouse assigned State Clearinghouse
Number (SCH No.) 2009041010 for the document.
The NOP was distributed to all responsible and trustee agencies and other interested parties on
May 8, 2009 for a 30 -day public review. The review period ended on June 9, 2009. The Notice
of Preparation was included in the Draft EIR as Appendix A. Comments received during the
NOP comment period are included in Appendix A of the DEIR.
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Pace 8 of 32
In accordance with CEQA requirements, a Notice of Completion (NOC) of the Draft EIR was
filed with the State Clearinghouse on August 24, 2009. The Draft EIR consisted of a single
volume, including technical appendices.
The Draft EIR was distributed to agencies, interested organizations, and individuals by the City
of Newport Beach. A forty -five (45) day public review period for the Draft EIR was established
pursuant to CEQA, which commenced on August 24, 2009 and ended on October 7, 2009.
Comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR were addressed in a
Response to Comments document dated November 9, 2009, as published by the City, during a
noticed public hearing of the Newport Beach Planning Commission.
The Final EIR (Responses to Public Comments) was distributed to responsible agencies,
agencies and individuals submitting comments on November _, 2009 in accordance with
Public Resources Code Section 21092.5.
The following components comprise the Final EIR on the Megonigal Residence Project
(PA2007 -133):
(a) Draft EIR, dated August 2009;
(b) Comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to those comments, included as
Appendix D to the Final EIR, dated October 2009;
(c) Errata to the Draft EIR included as Appendix E dated November 2009.
(d) All attachments, incorporations, and references to the documents delineated in items a.
through c. above, and submitted to the City as part of the EIR process.
The Newport Beach Planning Commission considered the Final EIR on the Megonigal
Residence Project at its duly noticed public hearing on November 19, 2009.
The Newport Beach City Council considered the Draft EIR and Final EIR on the Megonigal
Residence Project at its duly noticed public hearing on D _, 2009.
3. BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project Site is located at 2333 Pacific Drive in the City of Newport Beach. The Project consists of the
proposed development of the 0.1 -acre Project Site (4,412 square feet) with a 3,566 square -foot single - family
residence. The proposed residence will consist of three levels: 1,827 square feet on the first floor; 934 square
feet on the second floor; and 805 square feet on the uppermost level (includes a 428 - square foot, 2 -car garage).
Vehicular access is from Pacific Drive at the intersection of Begonia Avenue and Pacific Drive. In addition to the
indoor living area, 1,004 square feet of outdoor patio space on the three levels is provided. The applicant is
requesting approval of Modification Permit No. 2007 -080 to allow planter walls and a water feature to exceed
the three -foot height limit requirement in the front yard setback. In addition, because the proposed planter walls
and water feature would also encroach up to 13 feet into the Begonia Avenue right -of -way, an encroachment
permit from the City's Public works Department will also be required.
The following discretionary approval is requested or required by the City in order to implement the project:
Modification Permit (MD2007 -080)
4. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
After determining that an EIR should be prepared to evaluate the Project's potential impacts, the City distributed
a Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") for the EIR on May 8, 2009. The NOP provided for a 30 -day review period. The
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Pace 9 of 32
NOP was distributed to the State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Research, public agencies, utility and
service providers, interested persons who requested notice, and the Orange County Clerk /Recorder. The City
received five (5) written responses to the NOP (refer to EIR Appendix B). The initial NOP comments were used
to establish the scope of the issues addressed in the EIR, which are as follows:
• Land Use and Planning
• Aesthetics
• Biological Resources
5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH WERE DETERMINED NOT TO BE POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
This Section 4 describes, by issue, those potential effects of the Project which were determined not to be
potentially significant and which, therefore, are not discussed in the EIR. CEQA provides that an EIR shall focus
on all potentially significant effects on the environment created by a project, with an emphasis upon their
severity and probability of occurrence. The City has concluded that the Project would not result in significant
impacts with respect to the following:
Agriculture - No Prime Farmland, Farmland of State or Local Importance, or Unique Farmland occurs
within or in the vicinity of the Project Site. The Project Site and adjacent areas are designated as
"Urban and Built -up Land" and "Other Land" on the Orange County Important Farmland Map. Further,
neither the Project Site nor the adjacent areas are designated as prime, unique or important farmlands
by the State Resources Agency or by the Newport Beach General Plan. The Newport Beach General
Plan, Land Use Element designates the Project Site as "Single Unit Residential - Detached (RS -D)."
The project site is zoned R -1 (Single - Family Residential. Therefore, there is no conflict with zoning for
agricultural use, and the property and surrounding properties are not under a Williamson Act contract.
The Project Site is not being used for agricultural purposes and, as indicated previously, is not
designated as agricultural land. The Project Site and the area surrounding the Project Site are
developed with residential uses. Therefore, no agricultural uses on the Project Site or within the Project
Site's vicinity would be converted to non - agricultural use. No significant impacts to agricultural
resources are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
Air Quality — neither short-term (i.e., construction) nor long -term (i.e., operational) emissions associated
with the proposed project would exceed SCAQMD recommended significance thresholds. These
thresholds were developed to provide a method of assessing a project's individual impact significance,
and also to determine whether the project's impacts could be cumulatively considerable. The proposed
project would not, therefore, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant.
Long -term emission sources associated with the proposed single - family residence include vehicular
exhaust from daily traffic (i.e., based on about 10 vehicle trips per day), energy consumption, site and
landscape maintenance, and incidental emissions from use of a variety of household cleaning and hair
care products. Estimated long -term project - related emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD daily
thresholds for all categories of pollutants. The project's long -term emissions would not violate any air
quality standard established by the AQMD or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation.
Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well- being, public health, natural resources, and
the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation
of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra
snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and
residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the
incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health - related problems. The State
Legislature has directed the California Air Resources Board to consult with the Public Utilities
Commission in the development of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions reduction measures, including limits
on emissions of greenhouse gases applied to electricity and natural gas providers regulated by the
Public Utilities Commission. The Legislature has also directed the California Air Resources Board to
assure that such measures meet the statewide emissions limits for greenhouse gases (GHG) to be
established pursuant to Assembly Bill 32. Although the project would increase the resident population
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Pace 10 of 32
on the project site, the proposed project includes only one single - family residence. The incremental
increase in potential greenhouse gases associated with the proposed single - family residence would not
be significant in the context of the contribution of worldwide GHG impacts.
Cultural Resources — The project site is currently undeveloped. No historic resources are identified
either on the site or in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. The site is no identified by the City
as possessing potentially important historic resources. Therefore, project implementation will not result
in potentially significant impacts to historic resources are anticipated and no mitigation measures are
required. Based on the degree of disturbance that has already occurred on the site and in the vicinity of
the project site, project implementation will not result in potentially significant impacts to human remains;
no mitigation measures are required.
Geology and Soils — The subject property is located in the seismically active southern California
region; several active faults are responsible for generating moderate to strong earthquakes throughout
the region. Due to the proximity of the site to the Newport- Inglewood Fault zone, the subject property
has a moderate to high probability to be subjected to seismic and associated hazards. The maximum
credible earthquake on the NIFZ is estimated to be 7.6 with a probable magnitude of 6.6 on the Richter
Scale. Estimated peak ground acceleration for the subject site from an earthquake with a 10 percent
probability of exceedance in a 50 -year period is 0.39g. Similarly, the maximum credible earthquake on
the Elsinore - Whittier Fault is 8.0, with a probable (Richter) magnitude of 7.2. Other faults capable of
producing seismic activity that could affect the subject property include the San Jacinto and San
Andreas Faults and the Whittier Fault, which is a northern branch of the Elsinore Fault. In addition to
these faults, the San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust Fault is located less than 1.5 to 2.5 miles below the
area. This fault and the Newport Inglewood fault (concealed segment), located approximately 750 to
1,000 feet from the subject site, are considered potential causative faults in the area. Even though the
project site and surrounding areas could be subject to strong ground movements, incorporation of the
recommendations included in the preliminary geotechnical report and adherence to current building
standards of the City of Newport Beach would reduce the potential adverse effects of ground movement
hazards to a less than significant level. Based on the geologic exploration undertaken on the subject
property, the site is underlain by sedimentary rocks of the Monterey Formation. These rocks do not
have the potential for liquefaction. Furthermore, no groundwater is present to the depths and no loose
sands or coarse silt is present. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction is less than significant. Proper
design of the proposed residence will ensure that ground failure, including that associated with
liquefaction, will not pose a significant hazard to the development.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials — Construction activities would involve the use of materials
associated with the construction of a residential building, including oil, gas, tar, construction materials
and adhesives, cleaning solvents and paint. Transport of these materials to the site and use on the site
would only create a localized hazard in the event of an accident or spills. Hazardous materials use,
transport, storage and handling would be subject to federal, state and local regulations to reduce the
risk of accidents. Equipment maintenance and disposal of vehicular fluids is subject to existing
regulations, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Given the nature
of the project in terms of scope and size (i.e., single - family residence on a 4,400 square foot lot), it is
anticipated that normal storage, use and transport of hazardous materials will not result in undue risk to
construction workers on the site or to persons on surrounding areas. The use and disposal of any
hazardous materials on the site and in conjunction with the project will be in accordance with existing
regulations. With the exception of small quantities of pesticides, fertilizers, cleaning solvents, paints,
etc., that are typically used to maintain residential properties, on -going operation of the site for
residential use will not result in the storage or use of hazardous materials. There is no indication that
the subject site has been contaminated that would adversely affect site development. Although grading
and site preparation activities will expose subsurface soils and result in the generation of fugitive dust,
no hazardous emissions will occur as a result of project implementation. Therefore, no significant
impacts will occur.
Hydrology and Water Quality — No stream or river exists on site. Existing surface runoff generated on
the subject property occurs as sheet flow and drains in a southerly direction over the bluff where it
enters the City's storm drain system before discharging into Newport Bay, which has been identified as
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paqe 11 of 32
containing "environmentally sensitive areas' as defined by the 2003 Orange County Drainage Area
Management Plan (DAMP) and the Water Quality Control Plans for the Santa Ana Basin. The actual
amount of stormwater runoff generated from the building footprint and paved areas (totaling
approximately 2,300 square feet) would be insignificant. Compliance with applicable building, grading
and water quality codes and policies, which are performed during the plan check stage, will ensure that
surface flows can be accommodate and water quality protected. . Project implementation will result in
an increase in impervious surfaces on the site, which would generate additional surface runoff.
However, the post - development impervious surfaces would be limited to approximately 2,300 square
feet, which would not generate a significant amount of stormwater runoff. As previously indicated, the
project will be designed to incorporate on -site retention or similar features. As a result, the existing
storm drainage collection and conveyance facilities in the project area have adequate capacity to
accommodate the proposed project. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures
are required.
Newport Bay is listed as an "impaired" water body under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, with
respect to metals, pesticides and priority organics. Changes in surface runoff are anticipated as a result
of the development of the subject property with one residence that could result in potential impacts to
water quality. However, the project will be designed to comply with all relevant building, grading and
water quality codes and policies to ensure that there will not be an adverse effect on water quality,
either during construction or during the operational life of the project. Final plan check include the
preparation of an adequate drainage and erosion control plan that must be found to meet applicable
standards. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
The subject property is not located within the 100 -year flood plain as delineated on the Flood Insurance
Rate Map (FIRM) by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the City of Newport
Beach. No homes would be placed within the 100 -year flood plain and no significant impacts are would
occur.
Compliance with existing regulatory programs administered by the City of Newport Beach and the Santa
Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). While it is impossible to anticipate all potential
environmental issues that could arise on a daily basis during the course of the project, the site will be
designed to provide address sediment and erosion control for both temporary (i.e., construction) and
long -term (i.e., operational) activities occurring on the subject property. In addition, site design will also
address pollutants other than sediment, including those intended to control spills for hazardous
materials, solid waste management, hazardous waste management, etc. A on -site retention and /or
filtration or clarifiers would be required to meet water quality standards. The water quality features
incorporated into the project will be selected to address the main pollutants of concern for a residential
project, and for the impacted water body, i.e. Newport Bay. Newport Bay is listed as an "impaired"
water body under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, with respect to metals, pesticides and priority
organics. Implementation of the water quality features by the City prior to issuance of the grading permit
will ensure that this project does not violate any water quality standards during construction or over the
long -term operating life of the developed site. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no
additional mitigation measures are required.
Noise — Construction activities can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the
construction procedures, construction equipment used, and proximity to vibration - sensitive uses. The
effect of vibration on buildings near a construction site varies depending on the magnitude of vibration,
geology, and receptor building construction. The generation of vibration can range from no perceptible
effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate
levels, to minor cosmetic damage at the highest levels. Ground vibrations from construction activities
rarely reach levels that can damage structures, but can achieve the audible and perceptible ranges in
buildings close to a construction site. It is anticipated that vibration levels generated by construction
vehicles and during such activities as caisson drilling and excavation may exceed the Federal
Transportation Agency annoyance threshold (i.e., 78 VdB) for residential uses. Therefore, potential
short-term impacts from vibration - induced annoyance may occur at residences within 50 feet of the
most vibration intensive construction equipment. However, these temporary annoyances will be less
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Pace 12 of 32
than significant and would cease upon completion of the grading /excavation and foundation. No
significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
Development of this property with a single - family residential dwelling unit would not result in any
changes in land use that include significant new noise sources. Long -term noise associated with
outdoor recreation activities and vehicular traffic generated by one home would be minor and
compatible with adjacent and nearby residential uses. Long -term noise levels would not be expected to
increase as a result of the additional vehicular trips when compared to existing conditions. Therefore,
no significant long -term noise impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
The project site is not within an airport land use plan nor is the site within two miles of an airport or
private airstrip. Noise in the vicinity of the project site associated with aircraft operations occurring at
John Wane Airport are below 60 dBA CNEL and therefore, future residents will not be subjected to
excessive noise levels.
Population and Housing — The Project will result in an increase of one dwelling unit, consistent with
the land use designation (RS -D). The proposed project is consistent with the adopted land use
designation and zoning applicable to the subject property. Development of the site with one single -
family residence in accordance with the adopted long -range plans for the subject property would not
result in significant growth and, furthermore, would not result in the potential for unanticipated growth
because the project is located in an area that is virtually built out. As "in- fill" development, construction
of the proposed project would not necessitate the implementation of new infrastructure such as major
roadway improvements and /or the extension of infrastructure that could induce unanticipated growth
and development. All of the infrastructure, including sewer and water facilities, storm drains, roadways,
etc., exist in the immediate vicinity of the project site and have adequate capacity to serve the proposed
project. Therefore, no significant growth- inducing impacts will occur as a result of project
implementation.
In addition, the increase of one dwelling unit will not contribute significantly to the cumulative loss of
homes and /or displacement of occupants in the City. Together with the approved and planned
development identified in EIR Table 9 -1 (the "Cumulative Projects "), a substantial increase in residential
development is anticipated in the City, including 974 dwelling units alone on the Conexant and Koll
properties in the Airport area. Other smaller residential developments are also proposed in the City,
including the Aerie condominium project and other single - family and duplex dwelling units in the area.
Therefore, the Project's incremental effect on the reduction of housing in the City is not cumulatively
considerable and, as a result, when combined with the effects of the Cumulative Projects, is not
significant.
The existing residential development is not included in the City's inventory of affordable housing. No
low- and /or moderate - income households occupy the Project Site and, therefore, none would be
displaced as a result of Project implementation. Further, proposed single - family residence will not
adversely affect the jobs /housing balance because the Project will be consistent with the City's long -
range plans, which are the basis of the jobs /housing projections. Therefore, Project implementation will
not result in potentially significant cumulative impacts to population and housing.
Recreation - The project will result in the construction of only one single - family residence on the site on
the 4,400 square foot lot. Although residents of the proposed project would occasionally visit local and
regional parks and beaches, use of those public facilities by the future residents would not represent a
substantial change in the intensity of usage and the impact would not result in substantial physical
deterioration of those park areas. The proposed project does not include any recreational facilities.
Development of the site with one single - family residence will not require the construction of new or the
expansion of existing recreational facilities in the City of Newport Beach given the small increase in
population.
On a cumulative basis, although the generation of additional residents associated with the Cumulative
Projects could result in a demand for recreational amenities, the Project's incremental contribution to the
cumulative demands created by the Cumulative Projects is not cumulatively considerable because only
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paqe 13 of 32
one dwelling unit is proposed for the Project, consistent with the City's General Plan projections.
Therefore, the Project's incremental effect on recreational resources is not cumulatively considerable
and, as a result, when combined with the effects of the Cumulative Projects, is not significant.
Mineral Resources - Neither the Newport Beach General Plan (Recreation and Open Space Element)
nor the State of California has identified the already - developed Project Site or environs as a potential
mineral resource of Statewide or regional significance. No mineral resources are known to exist and,
therefore, Project implementation will not result in any significant impacts to regional or state -wide
important resources. Furthermore, the Newport Beach General Plan does not identify the project
environs as having potential value as a locally important mineral resource site. The proposed demolition
and construction will not result in the loss of any locally important mineral resource site and, therefore,
no significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required.
On a cumulative basis, the Project, the Project's incremental contribution to the impacts to mineral
resources created by the Cumulative Projects is not cumulatively considerable because the Project
does not result in the loss of any important mineral resources. Although the Project will require the use
of mineral resources (e.g., sand and gravel, wood, etc.), many are renewable and /or sustainable.
Additionally, with the exception of the Newport Banning Ranch, which has been a producing oil field for
several years, many of the sites on which development of the Cumulative Projects is proposed are
either already developed (e.g., Conexant /Koll, Newport Beach Country Club, etc.) or are located in
areas of the City that do not possess mineral resources. Therefore, there appears to be no significant
cumulative impact to mineral resources from the Cumulative Projects. Therefore, the Project's
incremental effect on mineral resources is not cumulatively considerable and, as a result, when
combined with the effects of the Cumulative Projects, is not significant.
Public Services: Fire Protection - Fire protection facilities and service to the Project Site are provided
by the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD). In addition to the City's resources, the NBFD also
maintains a formal automatic aid agreement with the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) and all
neighboring municipal fire departments to facilitate fire protection in the City should the need arise. The
Project will result in the addition of one single - family residence on a currently vacant lot that is
surrounded by existing residential development. As a result, there will not be a significant increase in
residential units or persons requiring emergency services. The Project must comply with the City's
current building and fire codes and is replacing a decades old structure which is not consistent with
today's building codes. The Project includes all necessary fire protection devices, as required by the
Newport Beach Fire Department and Uniform Fire Code. Adequate water supplies and infrastructure,
including fire hydrants, exist in the vicinity of the Project, and there is no requirement for other new
facilities or emergency services. A code compliance analysis will be conducted by City staff to ensure
that adequate water pressure and related features required by the City are provided to ensure that the
project complies with the CFC and related City codes. Adequate water supplies and infrastructure,
including fire hydrants, exist in the vicinity of the project, and there is no requirement for other new
facilities or emergency services.
On a cumulative basis, the less- than - significant potential impacts associated with the Project will not
alter the ability of the Newport Beach Fire Department to provide an adequate level of service to the
Project, even when considering the potential development of the Cumulative Projects, because the
Project Site is located in a residential neighborhood that is currently provided fire service. Development
of the Cumulative Projects will also be evaluated by the Newport Beach Fire Department to ensure that
adequate levels of service can be provided. These projects are within the long -range projections of the
City's General Plan and, therefore, would not adversely affect the City's ability to provide an adequate
level of protection. Therefore, the Project's incremental effect on the provision of fire services is not
cumulatively considerable and, as a result, when combined with the effects of the Cumulative Projects,
is not significant.
Public Services: Police Protection - The Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) is responsible for
providing police and law enforcement services within the corporate limits of the City. The Police
Department headquarters is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, at the intersection of Jamboree Road
and Santa Barbara, approximately two miles northeast of the Project Site. The NBPD currently has a
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Pape 14 of 32
ratio of 1.91 sworn officers for each 1,000 residents in the City. This ratio is adequate for the current
population. Police and law enforcement service in the City is provided by patrols with designated
"beats." Development of the site with one single - family residence will not require an expansion of local
law enforcement resources and, therefore, will not require the construction of new law enforcement
facilities. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
On a cumulative basis, the potential (less than significant) impacts associated with the Project would not
alter the ability of either the Newport Beach Police Department from providing an adequate level of
service to the Project Site, even when considering the Cumulative Projects, because the Project Site is
currently provided police service. The potential development of the Cumulative Projects would also be
evaluated by the Newport Beach Police Departments to ensure that adequate levels of service can be
provided. The Cumulative Projects are within the long -range projections identified in the City's General
Plan and, therefore, would not adversely affect the City's ability to provide an adequate level of
protection. Therefore, the Project's incremental effect on the provision of police services is not
cumulatively considerable and, as a result, when combined with the effects of the Cumulative Projects,
is not significant.
Public Services: Schools - The provision of educational facilities and services in the City of Newport
Beach is the responsibility of the Newport-Mesa Unified School District. Residential and non - residential
development is subject to the imposition of school fees. Payment of the State - mandated statutory
school fees is the manner by which potential impacts to the District's educational facilities are mitigated.
Government Code Section 65996 significantly limits the scope of evaluation of school facilities impacts
under CECA. Despite this limitation, the following information has been evaluated regarding the
Project's potential generation of school age children and is provided for informational purposes.
At the present time, therefore, this property has no impact on the Newport Mesa Unified School District
because it is undeveloped. It is estimated that, upon Project completion and occupancy, only one
student would be generated by the Project. New or expanded school facilities would not be required to
provide classroom and support space for the project's school age child. However, the Project is subject
to the payment of any required school fee to the school district pursuant to Section 65995 of the
California Government Code in order to offset the incremental cost impact of expanding school
resources to accommodate the increased student enrollment associated with new residential
development. With the payment of the mandatory school fees, no significant impacts would occur as a
result of Project implementation.
Similarly, with the payment of the mandatory school fees, no potentially significant cumulative impacts
would occur as a result of Project implementation.
Public Services: Other Public Facilities — Although development of the site with one single - family
residence will occur, the potential increased demand for other public services is anticipated minor and
there would be no need to construct any new public facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated and
no mitigation measures are required.
On a cumulative basis, the potential increase in residents generated by the Cumulative Projects could
result in an increased demand for other public facilities. However, because the Project would result in
the development of only one dwelling unit, the Project's incremental effect on other public facilities will
not be cumulatively considerable. These fees are used by the City to provide recreational facilities and
amenities that serve the residents of Newport Beach. Therefore, the Project will not have a significant
cumulative effect on other public facilities.
Traffic and Circulation — There are no CMP roadways in the project vicinity and, as noted above,
project - related traffic would have a negligible effect (i.e., 10 trips /day) on traffic conditions. The
proposed residential structure is under the 24 -foot height limit and would not encroach into any aviation -
related air space. The proposed project is located approximately 4.5 miles from John Wayne Airport
and is not located within an area that is affected by aircraft operations. This project would have no
effect on the volumes of air traffic occurring at John Wayne Airport or any other airports in the region.
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paqe 15 of 32
During the construction phases, a variety of construction vehicles, including large delivery trucks,
concrete pumpers, dump trucks, and a variety of passenger vehicles, will travel to and from the subject
property. On some occasions, there will be a number of medium and heavy trucks that could add to
local congestion levels and possibly affect through- traffic for short periods of time. Vehicular sight
distance of vehicles entering and exiting the site must be found consistent at the time of building permit
issuance with Standard Drawing 110 -L prescribed in the Public Works Design Manual to ensure safe
vehicular access. Compliance with this standard will ensure that the project driveway will be designed
safely. Traffic associated with the proposed single - family residence would include the same automobile
trip characteristics typically associated with similar residential development in the project area and
would be compatible with the existing mixture of vehicular traffic. No significant impacts are anticipated
and no mitigation measures are required.
The Newport Beach Fire Department will review the site plan and will conducted a code compliance
analysis with the City's Building Department to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided to
the residence. During construction, portions of Pacific Avenue fronting the project site will be disrupted
by construction activities including construction vehicles. However, the use of flagmen would be
required to facilitate circulation in the area. Pacific Avenue will remain open to vehicular and emergency
traffic. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
During the construction phases, temporary displacement of public on- street parking may occur caused
by construction crew members and possibly while large truck delivery and pick up of machinery and
construction materials. This will occur during construction and will cease when construction concludes.
The project provides parking in accordance with the Zoning Code (two enclosed spaces). No public
parking is presently afforded along the curb in front of the project site as it is painted as a "red curb;"
therefore, construction of the proposed driveway approach will not displace any existing public parking.
Utilities - Wastewater generated by the Project will be disposed into the existing sewer system and will
not exceed wastewater treatment standards of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Water demand and wastewater generation will not increase significantly due to the increase in the
number of occupants who will reside on the Project Site when the home is constructed. The Project will
connect to existing water and wastewater facilities in the adjacent streets. No expansion of these
facilities is necessary due to existing capacity and the addition of only one single - family dwelling unit.
Future water demand based on the General Plan projections would not be increased significantly and
would be within the long -range projections anticipated in the General Plan. Similarly, the Project will not
result in a significant increase in solid waste production because only one dwelling unit will be
constructed on the project site. Existing landfills are expected to have adequate capacity to service the
Project. Solid waste production will be picked up by either the City or a commercial provider licensed by
the City. All federal, state, and local regulations related to solid waste will be adhered to through this
process.
On a cumulative basis, the incremental increase in the demand for utilities as a result of the proposed
project is within the long -range projections anticipated for the project site. When compared to other
Cumulative projects proposed and approved in the City, the addition of one dwelling unit on the site
would not represent a significant contribution to cumulative impacts. Therefore, the incremental effect of
the Project on utilities is not cumulatively considerable and, when associated with the effects of the
Cumulative Projects, is not significant.
6. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The following potentially significant environmental impacts were evaluated in the Initial Study and EIR. In each
instance, that evaluation demonstrated that as a result of either compliance with existing laws, codes and
statutes, the identification of feasible mitigation measures, and /or a combination of one or more of these factors,
the potentially significant impact had been avoided or reduced to a level of less than significance. Therefore, for
these effects and in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), the
City finds that "Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR." (Note: For the purposes of
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paqe 16 of 32
these Findings, Section 21081(a)(1)'s words "mitigate or avoid" are deemed to have the same meaning as
Section 15091(a)(1)'s words "avoid or substantially lessen" and will be used interchangeably.) Because
standard conditions, or regulations are considered "incorporated into the Project," where environmental effects
have been avoided or reduced to less than significance solely due to these measures, no significant impact will
be found and, therefore, no "mitigation" is required. Nonetheless, the City will, within these findings, include
findings explaining how such measures are proposed to be incorporated within the Project with the result that
the applicable environmental effect has been avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance. Where, on the
other hand, a significant impact is identified despite the inclusion of project design features and the applicability
of existing laws, codes, and statutes, that significant impact will be identified and, where feasible, mitigation shall
be proposed.
6.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING
(1) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
Finding: The City determines that the project will not conflict with the adopted General Plan, Coastal Land Use
Plan, or any policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Discussion: As demonstrated in EIR Table 4.1 -1 (City's General Plan), EIR Table 4.1 -2 (Newport Beach
Coastal Land Use Plan), and EIR Table 4.1 -3 (Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide), the Project is
consistent with the City's Land Use Element and Coastal Land Use Plan of the City's General Plan, the
Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, and with the long -range goals, policies and objectives adopted by the
City in the General Plan Update. The Project is also compatible with the existing land uses in the area. Tables
4.1 -1, 4.1 -2, and EIR Table 4.1 -3, are incorporated into these findings by reference. Further, implementation of
the standard condition identified for the Project (i.e., comply with the zoning district regulations, California
Building Code, and other regulatory requirements) will ensure that no significant impacts will occur. No
significant long -term unavoidable adverse land use impacts will occur as a result of Project implementation.
(2) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a conflict with the Newport Beach Planning and Zoning Code (Title
20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code)?
Finding: The City determines that the project will not conflict with the Planning and Zoning Code.
Discussion: Development of the Project Site as proposed complies with the zoning district regulations and
development standards prescribed for the R -1 zoning district. Therefore, no significant conflicts with the zoning
would occur and no mitigation measures are required.
(3) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
Finding: The City determines that the project will not conflict with the Natural Community Conservation Plan
adopted for the area..
Discussion: The Newport Beach General Plan identifies the City's open space and conservation areas.
However, because the area of the City in which the subject property is located is nearly completely developed,
natural open space and habitat are limited in the project environs. The subject property, which encompasses
approximately 0.1 acre (4,412 square feet) that is currently undeveloped, is located within the limits of the
Central /Coastal NCCP adopted by the County of Orange. The NCCP is intended to ensure the long -term
survival of the coastal California gnatcatcher and other special status coastal sage scrub (CSS) dependent plant
and wildlife species in accordance with state - sanctioned NCCP program guidelines. The biological surveys
conducted on the subject property revealed that although a small area encompassing 0.006 acre (approximately
261 square feet) of coastal bluff scrub exists on the site. However, the area is characterized as having a low
overall habitat value as a result of habitat fragmentation, influence of surrounding human activities, and because
it supports limited long -term habitat value. Furthermore, no federal- or state - listed or otherwise sensitive
species identified as having a potential to occur on the property were observed during the biological surveys
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paqe 17 of 32
conducted for the project. Based on the findings of the project biologist, the habitat does not qualify as an
ESHA under the Coastal Act, and therefore, cannot be afforded protection under the Newport Beach LCP /CLUP
or the City's General Plan. As a result, the loss of the low quality, fragmented habitat would not conflict with the
Central /Coastal NCCP.
(4) Potential Impact: Will the Project physically divide an established community?
Finding: The City determines that project implementation will not result in the division of an established
community.
Discussion: The project proposes the landform alteration that would accommodate one single - family residence
on the 4,412 square foot lot. The site is bounded by Pacific Drive and Begonia Avenue. As indicated
previously, the area surrounding the subject property is developed with single - family residential development on
three sides; Begonia Park abuts the site on the north and east. Although development of the site as proposed
would change the character of the site by introducing a single - family home on the vacant property, development
of the site as proposed would not adversely affect adjacent properties, which also support single - family homes.
In particular, no design component or feature of the project would physically divide or otherwise adversely affect
or significantly change an established community. No significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures
are required.
(5) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in substantial or extreme land use incompatibility?
Finding: The City determines that the proposed project is compatible with the existing development and would
not result in an extreme land use incompatibility.
Discussion: Development of the site, which is currently vacant, would not result in a significant land use
conflict. As previously indicated, the proposed single - family residence is consistent with the land use
designation and zoning adopted for the site. The introduction of a single - family residence would be consistent
and compatible with the existing residential development in the area, which is characterized by single - family and
two - family residences. Furthermore, with the exception of the request for a modification permit that would allow
a wall to extend above the three -foot height limit in the front yard setback, the proposed structure complies with
the development standards (e.g., setbacks, building height, lot coverage, etc.) prescribed for the R -1 zoning
district. Extension of the wall above the three -foot height limit would not result in substantial visual impacts. As
a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
(6) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in incompatible land uses in an aircraft accident potential area as
defined in an airport land use plan?
Finding: The City determines that project will not result in a conflict with the defined airport land use plan or
result in incompatible land use in an aircraft accident potential area.
Discussion: The project area is not located within two miles of any existing public airport. John Wayne Airport,
which is located approximately 4.5 miles northwest of the subject property, is the nearest aviation facility. No
portion of the project site is located within the accident potential area of such a plan. Further, the subject
property is not located within two miles of a public airport, public use airport, or private airstrip. Development of
the subject property as proposed would neither affect nor be affected by aircraft operations at such a facility that
would generate noise in excess of regulatory standards. Therefore, no significant land use impacts would occur
as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required.
(7) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative Land Use and Planning impact?
Finding: The City determines that the project will not result in a cumulative land use and planning impact.
Discussion: Although the Project Site is currently developed, it is identified for development in the City's
adopted long -range plans. The Project is consistent with the applicable goals, policies, and objectives of the
Newport Beach Land Use Element and other general plan elements, as well as the City's CLUP. No design
component or feature of the Project would physically divide or otherwise adversely affect or significantly change
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paqe 18 of 32
an established community. In addition, the Project Site is located within the limits of the Central /Coastal NCCP
adopted by the County of Orange. Although the biological surveys conducted on the Project Site revealed that
some native species exist on the bluff property, potential impacts to those species resulting from Project
implementation would not be significant due to the low habitat value caused by limited species diversity and
fragmentation, the influence of surrounding human activity, and because natural functions have been
compromised by the surrounding human influences. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts to land use
will occur as a result of Project implementation.
6.2 AESTHETICS
(1) Potential Impact: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Finding: The City determines that the Project will not substantially damage scenic resources. No important
view or aesthetic amenity would be destroyed or permanently affected by project implementation. Although no
mitigation measures are required, the following measure, which requires the dedication of a view easement, will
ensure that views through the site would be preserved. A mitigation measure was prescribed to minimize future
potential aesthetic impacts:
MM 4.3 -1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall dedicate in perpetuity a view
easement over the "Outdoor Room" identified on the approved plans and all open space areas
on the project site that shall restrict the maximum height of landscaping and accessory
structures to that of the top of the guardrails of the "Outdoor Room." The view easement shall
be a three - dimensional space projected vertically from a horizontal plane at the elevation of the
top of the guardrails of the "Outdoor Room" and horizontally to all property lines. The
restrictions of the view easement shall not apply to the building and structures depicted on the
approved project plans or to patio furniture. The form and legal description of the view
easement shall be prepared by the applicant and reviewed and approved by the Planning
Director.
Discussion: The visual simulations included in the Draft EIR (refer to Exhibits 4.3 -1 and 4.3 -2) illustrate the
existing and post - development scenarios with vegetation that existed on the slope below Begonia Avenue
(below the lower bench in Begonia Park) prior to its removal by the City in March 2009. As is evident in those
prior simulations, the vegetation that existed along the slope blocked a substantial portion of views of the harbor,
Balboa Peninsula and ocean from both the lower and upper benches when these simulations are compared to
the views that exist after the vegetation was removed. In order to address the change that has occurred since
the vegetation was removed; a new visual simulation was created from approximately the same lower bench
location depicted in Exhibit 4.3 -1. In addition, the new visual simulation depicting the proposed Megonigal
residence is based on the story poles that were erected on the site in August of 2008, in order to more
accurately illustrate the effect that the proposed project would have on the view, both before and after
construction.
The existing view from the lower bench location illustrated in the attached exhibit reveals an enhanced view of
the harbor, Balboa Peninsula since the vegetation that existed on the intervening slope was removed, compared
to that illustrated in Exhibit 4.3 -1 in the Draft EIR. This southwesterly view from Begonia Park (specifically the
Lower Bench) encompasses a variety of features including residential development and open space located
northwest of Carnation Avenue, residential development on eastern end of the Balboa Peninsula, waters of
Newport Harbor, the Pacific Ocean (including the horizon) and residential development along Pacific Drive and
Begonia Avenue. Similar to the views prior to the vegetation removal, landscaping "filters" the view of the
harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean especially on the right side of the image depiction. As a result, the view of
the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean is not completely free of obstructions. The most significant obstruction
affecting this view is the large tree located in front of the Megonigal property. Nonetheless, the portion of view
that is the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean that is now visible from this Begonia Park vantage point since
the removal of the vegetation is nearly three times that of the area previously reflected in Exhibit 4.3 -1. With the
removal of the vegetation, this portion of the view area now extends from the bluff on the south (i.e., left side of
the exhibit) to just beyond the large tree in front of the project site near the Begonia Avenue /Pacific Drive corner.
These are the important elements that comprise the view from this vantage point.
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Pace 19 of 32
In the new visual simulation described above, the proposed Megonigal residence is more prominent than
depicted in Exhibit 4.3 -1. The easterly portion of the structure (i.e., from the large tree in front of the project site
and extending to the easterly end of the property) is now visible from the lower bench. This portion of the
structure was previously blocked by the vegetation that existed on the slope before it was removed. In addition,
the increased visibility of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean noted above that was previously not visible
due to the vegetation that was removed, would largely be blocked instead by the proposed residence. Based on
the new visual simulation, it would appear that the implementation of the proposed project would result in the
loss of approximately 35 percent of the expanded view of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean, including the
horizon, which would also be blocked by the proposed residence.
The City has not adopted thresholds for determining the significance of visual impacts. Without an established
threshold, such a determination is based on the subjective "parameters' in the City's environmental checklist
(i.e., will the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or will the project substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings) and adopted General Plan view
preservation policies. As indicated above, the view from Begonia Park would be altered by the introduction of
the proposed residence into the overall viewshed. Although the proposed residence will be more prominent
within the overall view and a portion of the view of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean would be blocked
with the development of the site as proposed, a substantial portion of the view that includes the harbor, Balboa
Peninsula and ocean will remain unobstructed from the public vantage point in the park. Additionally, the overall
view includes elements of the built environment including residential development and the proposed residence
is consistent with elements of the surrounding built environment. Given that a majority of the harbor, Balboa
Peninsula and ocean view components will remain in the overall view after the home is constructed, the overall
quality of the view will not be impacted significantly even with a reduction of the view's focal points. However,
because the majority of the view's focal points (i.e., about 65 percent) would be preserved, the project is
considered to be consistent with the intent of the City's adopted policies, which seek to achieve view
preservation, even though the view will be altered by the construction of the home.
No further loss of views to the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean would occur as a result of the proposed
project. As previously indicated, the project was redesigned to eliminate one level of the proposed structure,
which is below the maximum height limit permitted. In addition, a view easement will be dedicated (in
perpetuity) above the building and all open space areas to ensure that no additional impacts to the views from
Begonia Park would occur. Additional landscaping may also be incorporated into the landscape plan in order to
"deemphasize" the appearance of the proposed structure within the Begonia Park viewshed. The proposed
project represents a balance between private property /development rights and complying with the City's policies
that are intended to protect the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone. Therefore, potential visual
impacts resulting from project implementation are considered to be less than significant.
As described in EIR Section 4.1 (Land Use /Relevant Planning), the Natural Resources Element of the General
Plan addresses aesthetic resources, with emphasis on coastal views. The City has identified several policies
that are intended to guide development and avoid potential significant visual impacts to important coastal
resources, including coastal bluffs, the harbor, and associated natural features. EIR Table 4.1 -1 summarizes
the relationship of the Project with the applicable policies adopted with the Natural Resources Element that
address aesthetics and visual resources. In addition, EIR Table 4.1 -2 in EIR Section 4.1 provides a summary of
the relationship of the Project with the relevant aesthetics policies in the Coastal Land Use Plan. As revealed in
the analysis presented in those tables, the Project is consistent with the relevant policies in the Natural
Resources Element and the CLUP.
(2) Potential Impact: Will the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Finding: The City determines that the Project will not substantially damage scenic resources. MM 4.3 -1 was
included to avoid future potential visual impacts.
Discussion: See discussion of Potential Impact No. 1, above.
(3) Potential Impact: Will the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the Project
Site and its surroundings?
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Pace 20 of 32
Finding: The City determines that the Project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the Project Site and its surroundings. MM 4.3 -1 was included to avoid future potential visual impacts.
Discussion: See discussion of Potential Impact No. 1, above.
(4) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and
alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant
impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant.
Discussion: The Project has been designed to minimize glare by incorporating building materials that are not
conducive to the creation of glare. As a result, no significant glare impacts from building finish materials
anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
(5) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative aesthetics impact?
Finding: The City determines that the Project will not result in a cumulative visual impacts. No mitigation
measures were identified for the Project.
Discussion: Of the Cumulative Projects identified in EIR Table 9 -1, only one project, the Aerie Project that was
approved by the City, would also potentially affect the aesthetic character of the Project area. The visual
simulations prepared for the Project revealed that Project - related impacts would be less than significant from the
Begonia Park Public View Point vantages as a result of the Project. Construction of the Megonigal residence at
the Pacific Avenue location would virtually eliminate the entire harbor and more distant ocean view, including the
Project Site, from this vantage. However, this location is not identified in the City's General Plan as a Public
View Point.
� :11 S X i 101 :9 1111111 0 * 19111; 161:
(1) Potential Impact: Will the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Finding: The City determines that the Project will not result in a substantial adverse effect on sensitive
biological resources, including sensitive or special status species.
Discussion: Based on the biological survey conducted by Chambers Group, the composition of the vegetation
supported on the subject property is dominated by disturbed non - vegetated areas, ornamental species and weedy
exotic species. Approximately five percent of the site (261 square feet) supports low quality coastal bluff scrub
habitat. As indicated in the Robert Hamilton "biological observation," this habitat is recognized by the California
Department of Fish and Game as a rare plant community. However, as documented in the biological survey
conducted on the subject property, overall habitat value of the coastal bluff scrub occurring on the site is low due to
habitat fragmentation, the influence of surrounding human activities, and because natural functions have been
compromised by the surrounding human influences. Furthermore, no federal- or state - listed or other sensitive
species were identified as having a potential to occur on the property. Therefore, the coastal bluff scrub habitat
occupying the site does not qualify as an ESHA under the Coastal Act and, therefore, cannot be afforded protection
under the Newport Beach LCP /CLUP or the Natural Resources Element of the City's General Plan as suggested in
the Hamilton "biological observation." No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are
required.
(2) Potential Impact: Will the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paqe 21 of 32
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (including protections provided pursuant to
Section 1600 at seq.) ?
Finding: The City determines that the Project will not result in a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community.
Discussion: A survey conducted on the subject property revealed that only three habitat types occupy portions
of the site, including disturbed (i.e., areas that are either devoid of vegetation such as dirt roads or those areas
that have a high percentage of non- native weedy species), disturbed /ornamental (i.e., areas dominated by
escaped or planted ornamental species with a high presence of non - native weedy species), and coastal bluff
scrub (i.e., areas that support approximately 15 total native shrubs). No riparian habitat was identified on the
site. No significant impacts to riparian habitat and /or species are anticipated as a result of project
implementation; no mitigation measures are required.
(3) Potential Impact: Will the Project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Finding: The City determines that the Project will not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. No mitigation measures were identified for the
Project.
Discussion: No riparian habitat exists on the subject property and no wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act occur on the site. Project implementation will not result in any potential adverse affects to
either wetlands or riparian species.
(4) Potential Impact: Will the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the
use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Finding: The City determines that the Project will not impact the movement of any native resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species, with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. The City also finds that
that the Project will not impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
Discussion: Although the project site is currently vacant, the surrounding areas are developed and no
migratory wildlife corridors occur on site or in the immediate vicinity of the project site that would be affected by
development of the subject property. As a result, the proposed project will not interfere with resident, migratory
or wildlife species. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
(5) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Finding: The City determines that the project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources .
Discussion: No native trees exist on the subject property that would be protected, either as a result of adopted
policies or other resources agency requirements. Although the subject property and environs are not identified
on Figures NR1 and NR2 in the Natural Resources Element, which identify important biological resources and
environmental study areas, respectively, in the City, several policies articulated in the Newport Beach General
Plan address biological resources, including NR 10.1 (resource protection, NR 10.4 (new development siting
and design), NR 10.5 (significant or rare biological resources, etc. The analysis included in Tables 4.1 -1 and
4.1 -2 document the project's consistency with the applicable General Plan and CLUP policies.
(6) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan.
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Pace 22 of 32
Finding: The City determines that the Project will not result in a substantial adverse effect on an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, NCCP, or other approved conservation plan.
Discussion: There are no local, regional or state habitat conservation plans that would regulate or guide
development of the project site. The subject property is located on a coastal bluff, which is not included in either
a Habitat Conservation Plan or a Natural Community Conservation Plan. Although coastal bluff scrub habitat
has been identified on the subject property, that habitat encompasses only 216 square feet, which is considered
to be of low value and it is not connected or associated with any larger area of similar habitat and would not
likely support any California coastal gnatcatchers due to its size and location.
(7) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative Biological Resources impact?
Finding: The City determines the implementation of the proposed project will not result in any significant
cumulative impacts to biological resources.
Discussion: Project implementation will not result in potential impacts to biological resources, as indicated in
Section 4.2. Although a small area of coastal bluff scrub habitat exists on the subject property (i.e., 261 square
feet), the habitat has been characterized as "low quality /low value" habitat and does not support any sensitive
species. Furthermore, no sensitive plant or animal species occur on the site that would be adversely affected by the
proposed project. Due to the low value of the coastal bluff scrub habitat, its degraded condition associated with
human activities and disturbance, and lack of species diversity, it does not meet the criteria established in the
Coastal Act and the City's General Plan for ESHAs. Therefore, the elimination of this habitat, when considered with
other projects listed in Table 9 -1, is not significant.
6.4 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
Potential Impact: Will the project cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and
alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant
traffic and circulation impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. The following mitigation
measure is proposed to minimize the level of impact associated with temporary construction traffic:
MM -7 Prior to commencement of each major phase of construction, the Contractor shall submit a construction
staging, parking and traffic control plan for approval by the Public Works Department, which shall
address issues pertaining to potential traffic conflicts during peak traffic periods, potential displacement
of on- street parking, and safety.
This plan shall identify the proposed construction staging area(s), construction crew parking
area(s), estimated number and types of vehicles that will occur during that phase, the proposed
arrival /departure routes and operational safeguards (e.g. flagmen, barricades, shuttle services,
etc.) and hourly restrictions, if necessary, to avoid traffic conflicts during peak traffic periods,
displacement of on- street parking and to ensure safety.
If necessary, the construction staging, parking and traffic control plan shall provide for an off -site
parking lot for construction crews which will be shuttled to and from the project site at the
beginning and end of each day until such time that the project site can accommodate off - street
construction vehicle parking. Until that time, construction crews shall be prohibited from parking
in the adjacent residential neighborhood.
The plan shall identify all construction traffic routes, which shall avoid narrow residential streets
unless there is no alternative, and the plan shall not include any streets where some form of
construction is underway within or adjacent to the street that would impact the efficacy of the
proposed route.
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paqe 23 of 32
Dirt hauling shall not be scheduled during weekday peak hour traffic periods or during the
summer season (Memorial Day holiday weekend through and including the Labor Day holiday
weekend).
The approved construction staging, parking traffic control plan shall be implemented throughout
each major construction phase.
Discussion: Short-term traffic impacts are those resulting from site preparation (i.e., grading and site
preparation) and construction activities. With the exception of heavy trucks traveling to and from the site in the
morning and afternoon to be used during site preparation and construction that occurs on -site, the number of
vehicle trips generated by the project will be small. During the construction phase, there will be periods of time
when heavy truck traffic would occur that could result in some congestion on Pacific Drive and nearby
local /residential street system. It is estimated that a total of 52 heavy trucks would be generated as a result of
the grading that would be necessary to haul the estimated 630 cubic yards of soil export from the site.
However, once grading has been completed, the number of heavy trucks entering and leaving the project area
would be limited to those transporting equipment and materials to the site. Other construction - related traffic
impacts are associated with vehicles carrying workers to and from the site and medium and heavy trucks
carrying construction materials to the project site, which may result in some minor traffic delays; however,
potential traffic interference caused by construction vehicles would create a temporary/short-term impact to
vehicles using neighboring streets in the morning and afternoon hours. Therefore, aside from potentially minor
impacts resulting from the increase in traffic that will occur as a result of construction - related traffic (e.g.,
construction materials, construction workers, etc.), no significant short-term impacts are anticipated to occur as
a result of project implementation. Nonetheless, the construction traffic impacts would be adequately addressed
through the implementation of a Construction Traffic Control Plan.
6.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potential Impact: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15604.5 or result in the destruction of a paleontological resource?
Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and
alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant
impacts to cultural and paleontological such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. The following
mitigation measure is proposed to mitigate the potential impacts associated with cultural and /or scientific
resources to a less than significant level.
MM -1 A qualified archaeological /paleontological monitor shall be retained by the project applicant who will be
present during the grading and landform alteration phase. In addition, a qualified Native American
representative will also be permitted to monitor grading activities and /or excavation of the site. In the
event that cultural resources and /or fossils are encountered during construction activities, ground -
disturbing excavations in the vicinity of the discovery shall be redirected or halted by the monitor until
the find has been salvaged. Any artifacts and /or fossils discovered during project construction shall be
prepared to a point of identification and stabilized for long -term storage. Any discovery, along with
supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, shall be accessioned into the collections of a
suitable repository. Curation costs to accession any collections shall be the responsibility of the project
applicant.
Discussion: The subject site is undeveloped; however, the area surrounding the site (with the exception of
Begonia Park) has been significantly altered by grading to accommodate the existing development located on
the bluff and elsewhere in the vicinity of the subject site. No known archaeological resources are known to be
present in the project area. Project implementation includes excavation of the property to accommodate the
proposed single - family residence. It is unlikely that the disturbance of the subsurface soils would result in
significant impacts to cultural resources due to the site alteration associated with the existing development in the
area and the nature of the bedrock materials that underlie the site (i.e., marine). Although no significant impacts
to cultural resources are anticipated, an archaeological monitor will be present during grading (to ensure that if
any cultural materials are encountered, appropriate measures will be implemented in accordance with existing
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Pace 24 of 32
City policies. Therefore, no significant impacts to archaeological resources are anticipated and no mitigation
measures are recommended.
Although the project site is currently vacant, the surrounding areas, including the bluff on which the existing
homes are located, have been altered to accommodate development that includes predominantly residential
uses. The site contains the Monterey Formation deposits, which are known to contain abundant fossilized
marine invertebrates and vertebrates. The presence of recorded fossils in the vicinity of the project areas exists.
Like other sites in the City that are underlain by the Monterey Formation, the site should be considered to have
a high paleontological sensitivity and fossils may be encountered during grading and excavation. A mitigation
measure in accordance with existing City policy has been included in the event that such resources are
encountered during grading /excavation activities.
6.6 SOILS AND GEOLOGY
(1) Potential Impact: Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and
alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant
soils and geology impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. The following mitigation
measure is proposed to mitigate the potential impacts associated with cultural and /or scientific resources to a
less than significant level.
MM -3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a soils engineering report and final
geotechnical report to the City's Building Department for approval. The project shall be designed to
incorporate the recommendations included in those reports that which address site grading, site
clearing, compaction, caissons, bearing capacity and settlement, lateral pressures, footing design,
seismic design, slabs on grade, retaining wall design, subdrain design, concrete, surface drainage,
setback distance, excavations, cut -fill transitional zones, planters and slope maintenance, and
driveways.
Discussion: A stability analysis was performed on the subject property by Borella Geology, Inc., as reflected in
the preliminary geotechnical report ( Borella Geology, March 20, 2007). Based on that analysis, it was
determined that the orientation of the bedrock on the site is dipping into the slope, which is the preferred
orientation for maintaining slope integrity. However, surticially, the cliff portions of the subject property are
unstable as evidenced by the talus deposits that are present at the base of the steep slopes. However, all
slopes on the site were determined to be grossly stable. The maximum slope height is 47 feet and slope angle
ranges from 10 degrees to 90 degrees. Calculated factors of safety are in excess of 1.5 (static) and 1.1
(Pseudo- static) of factors of safety required by the City of Newport Beach. The preliminary geotechnical report
indicated that temporary shoring or a "shotcrete" combination shoring /retaining wall must be placed on all
vertical cuts exceeding five (5) feet if a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) layback cannot be achieved. However,
temporary shoring is only anticipated in areas where retaining walls will be constructed to accommodate the
lower floor level of the proposed residence. In addition, incorporation of the recommendations presented in the
preliminary geotechnical evaluation and adherence to standard building code requirements will ensure that site
development will not be subject to landslides. With the incorporation of those recommendations, potential
landslide impacts will be less than significant.
(2) Potential Impact: Would the project result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and
alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant
soils and geology impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. The following mitigation
measure is proposed to mitigate the potential impacts associated with cultural and /or scientific resources to a
less than significant level.
MM -2 Prior to issuance of the grading or building permit, an erosion control plan shall be submitted to and
approved by the City's Chief Building Official.
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Pace 25 of 32
Discussion: Implementation of the proposed project will necessitate grading and excavation necessary to
accommodate the proposed single - family residence that will temporarily expose on -site soils to potential
erosion. In that interim period, it is possible that some erosion may occur, resulting in some sedimentation;
however, in order to ensure that erosion and sedimentation are minimized, the applicant will be required to
prepare and submit an adequate drainage and erosion control plan, which complies with current City standards
prescribed by the Building and Grading Ordinances. Implementation of the mandatory appropriate erosion
controls will avoid potential erosion impacts associated with site grading and development. Further, the
proposed site will be engineered to ensure that surface /subsurface drainage does not contribute to erosion or
adversely affect the stability of project improvements. Other efforts required to ensure that potential erosion is
minimized include slope protection devices, plastic sheeting, inspection for signs of surface erosion, and
corrective measures to maintain, repair or add structures required for effective erosion control. As a result,
potential impacts occurring from project implementation, including those anticipated during grading and after
development of the site, will be avoided or reduced to a less than significant level.
6.7 NOISE
Potential Impact: Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing with the project?
Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and
alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant
noise impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. The following mitigation measures are
proposed to mitigate the potential impacts associated with cultural and /or scientific resources to a less than
significant level.
MM -4 All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and
maintained muffling devices. All construction equipment shall be located or operated as far as possible
away from nearby residential units.
MM -5 A construction schedule shall be developed that minimizes the duration of potential project - related and
cumulative construction noise levels.
MM -6 The construction contractor shall notify the residents of the construction schedule for the proposed
project, and shall keep them informed on any changes to the schedule. The notification shall also
identify the name and phone number of a contact person in case of complaints. The contact person
shall take all reasonable steps to resolve the complaint.
Discussion: The number, type, distribution, and usage of construction equipment will differ from phase to
phase. The noise generated is both temporary in nature and limited in hours by the City's Noise Ordinance
(Section 10.28.040). Compliance with the existing noise control ordinance and hours of construction prescribed
in the ordinance will minimize the potential noise impacts associated with project implementation. Other
measures have been identified to ensure that construction noise is minimized. Typically, construction of single -
family residential dwelling units on an individual basis in the City of Newport Beach, including on bluffs in the
City, does not result in significant noise impacts because of their small size and the duration of construction is
not anticipated to occur over a long period of time (e.g., less than two years for custom home construction).
Furthermore, the highest noise levels occur from excavation and caisson drilling associated with bluff
development, which takes place during the initial stage of development and does not last more than 5 to 6
months). Therefore, because the project encompasses only one single - family residence, which would employ
typical construction techniques and be constructed in approximately 20 months like most single - family
residential construction in the City, potential construction noise impacts will be less than significant with the
incorporation of the prescribed mitigation measures.
7. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
CEQA requires that findings be made for each alternative considered in an EIR. The EIR considered a
reasonable range of alternatives to the Project to provide informed decision - making in accordance with Section
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Pace 26 of 32
15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The alternatives analyzed in the EIR included: (1) No Project/No
Development; (2) Reduced Intensity /3 Single - Family Residences; (3) Reduced Intensity /5 Multiple - Family
Residential Project; and (4) Existing Zoning /8 -Unit Multiple - Family Residential Project with Reduced Grading.
The City's findings, and facts in support of those findings, with respect to each of the alternatives considered are
provided below:
�: Nl �:ZiPJX�II
Description — The No Project Alternative evaluates the potential environmental effects resulting
from the continuation of the existing conditions on the site at the time the Notice of Preparation
(NOP) was published, "... as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the
foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with
available infrastructure and community services" Therefore, this alternative assumes that in the
short-term, the site would remain vacant. As a result, no adverse environmental effects would
occur until such time as development was proposed in accordance with the adopted land use
and zoning designations. The site would remain undeveloped and would not be affected by
grading and development. Specifically, without any landform alteration, the small area of
coastal bluff scrub habitat would not be removed as a result of development in the near future;
however, as indicated in Section 4.2, this habitat does not meet the criteria established for
ESHAs by both the Coastal Act and the City in the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan.
Furthermore, without development of the site in the short-term, views from both Begonia Park
and Pacific Drive /Begonia Avenue would not be affected by the introduction of structures that
would be added into the viewshed from those vantage points. Without development of the site,
no conflicts with the plans, programs and policies adopted by the City of Newport Beach would
occur.
o Attainment of Project Objectives — The "no project" alternative would not result in the
realization of any of the project objectives in the short-term. However, in the long -term, it would
be possible to achieve each of the objectives identified by the project applicant with the
construction of a single - family residence that is similar to the proposed project.
Avoidance of Project Impacts — Implementation of this alternative would defer project - related
effects, including less than significant visual impacts associated with the development of the site
(assuming that the residence complies with the maximum building height standard. In addition,
biological impacts would also be the same as the proposed project (i.e., loss of 261 square feet
of coastal bluff scrub habitat) as a result of site preparation. Similarly, if designed properly, this
alternative would also be consistent with the long -range plans and policies adopted by the City
of Newport Beach.
• ALTERNATIVE DESIGN (REMOVE UPPER LEVEL)
Description — This alternative includes development of the site as proposed with a single - family
residence with access from Pacific Drive; however, the third upper level above the average
elevation of Pacific Drive would be eliminated. This possible alternative would result in the
elimination of the garage and residential floor area (i.e., foyer and office area) comprising
approximately 805 square feet. As a result, the total floor area of the residence would be reduced
to 2,761 square feet. In addition, in order to accommodate on -site parking, the second floor roof
structure would be designed to support automobile parking.
Attainment of Project Objectives — Implementation of this project would achieve all project
objectives except for allowing a larger residence on the property, unless the project is
redesigned to relocate the living space (i.e., foyer and study) lost with the elimination of the third
floor within the floor plan. This alternative would provide views from all levels (although one
level that included a foyer and study would be eliminated). It would provide vehicular access
from Pacific Drive (to uncovered roof parking), it minimizes the visual effects of the residence on
views from Begonia Park, and outdoor living areas would be directly accessible from each level.
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paqe 27 of 32
Avoidance of Project Impacts — Although the proposed single - family residence would not
result in significant impacts based on the significance criteria established for the project, the
effects of the project could be reduced through the implementation of this alternative.
Specifically, the residence would not extend into the viewshed of Begonia Park.
• ALTERNATIVE ACCESS (BAYSIDE DRIVE)
Description — Vehicular access to the subject property in this design alternative would be provided
from Bayside Drive, below the bluff, rather than from Pacific Drive where direct vehicular access is
currently available. In addition, the third floor of the proposed residence (i.e., ground level floor at
Pacific Drive that includes the garage, study and foyer) would be relocated as the first floor in order
to remove that portion of the structure from the Begonia Park viewshed. As a result, the total floor
area would be the same as the proposed project (i.e., 3,138 square feet, not including the garage).
Attainment of Project Objectives — Implementation of this alternative would achieve most of
the project objectives except it would not allow for vehicular access from Pacific Drive as
desired by the project applicant. In addition, if this alternative is implemented, views from all of
the levels of the home would not be provided because the living spaces in the third floor (i.e.,
foyer and study) would be relocated with the garage element as a result of the Bayview Drive
access, unless the plan is redesigned to accommodate these living areas higher above the bluff
to create harbor and ocean views.
Avoidance of Project Impacts - Although the Alternative Access would improve views from
Begonia Park and from Begonia Drive and Pacific Drive, additional adverse effects would occur.
For example, it would be necessary to extend a private drive or roadway from Bayview Drive
through the southern limits of Begonia Park and up the lower elevation of the bluff to
accommodate vehicular access. The extension of the road through the park would alter the
park setting and would conflict with policies related to the preservation of the character of that
facility. Furthermore, the applicant must be granted an access easement through the park.
Finally, it is anticipated that in order to extend the roadway to the site from Bayview Drive,
additional landform alteration would also be required. As a result, nearly the entire bluff face
would be altered.
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paqe 28 of 32
Exhibit "C"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Standard conditions regular type
Project specific condition in italics
1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans
and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval (Except as
modified by applicable conditions of approval).
2. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless
specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval.
3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay any unpaid
administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning
Department.
4. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction
vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic
control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with
state and local requirements.
5. This approval was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not in and of
itself or in combination with other approvals in the vicinity or Citywide constitute a
precedent for future approvals or decisions.
6. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise - generating construction activities that
produce noise to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday
and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise - generating construction activities are not
allowed on Sundays or Holidays.
7. All improvements shall be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works
Department.
8. An encroachment permit is required for all work activities within the public right -of -way.
9. All improvements shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement. See City
Standard 110 -L.
10. In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development site by the
private construction, additional reconstruction within the public right -of -way could be
required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector.
11. All on -site drainage shall comply with the latest City Water Quality requirements.
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paqe 29 of 32
12. Water meter and the sewer cleanout will be located in the public right -of -way. If installed
at a location that will be subjected to vehicle traffic, each shall be installed with a traffic -
grade box and cover.
13. The existing street tree(s) shall be protected in place. Unauthorized tree removal(s) will
trigger substantial penalties for all parties involved.
14. Paving in the public right -of -way shall be limited to the minimum necessary for the
driveway and a walkway to the entry to the residence. A standard concrete sidewalk and
driveway approach be shall be constructed per applicable City Standards. All remaining
areas shall be landscaped. Non - standard encroachments within the public right -of -way
shall comply with City Council Policy L -6, prior to the issuance of an Encroachment
Agreement and Permit.
15. The proposed planters and water feature shall be removed from the public right -of -way.
16. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall dedicate in perpetuity a view
easement over the "Outdoor Room" identified on the approved plans and all open space
areas on the project site that shall restrict the maximum height of the principal structure,
landscaping and accessory structures to that of the top of the guardrails of the "Outdoor
Room." The view easement shall be a three - dimensional space projected vertically from
a horizontal plane at the elevation of the top of the guardrails of the "Outdoor Room" and
horizontally to all property lines. The restrictions of the view easement shall not apply to
the building and structures depicted on the approved project plans or to patio furniture.
The form and legal description of the view easement shall be prepared by the applicant
and reviewed and approved by the Planning Director (MM 4.3 -1).
17. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless
City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and
agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions,
causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses
(including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind
and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or
indirectly) to City's approval of the Megonigal Residence Project including, but not limited
to, the approval of Modification Permit No. 2007 -080 collectively referred to as PA 2007-
133; and /or the City's related California Environmental Quality Act determinations, the
adoption of a Environmental Impact Report and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the
Project. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded
against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in
connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred
by applicant, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant
shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City
incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant
shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the
indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition.
18. All development proposed for the proposed single - family residence shall be reviewed for
consistency with applicable provisions of the California Building Code, Noise Ordinance,
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paqe 30 of 32
Uniform Fire Code, and other applicable codes and ordinances prior to issuance of building
permits (SC 4.1 -1).
19. Prior to commencement of each major phase of construction, the Contractor shall submit
a construction staging, parking and traffic control plan for approval by the Public Works
Department, which shall address issues pertaining to potential traffic conflicts during peak
traffic periods, potential displacement of on- street parking, and safety (MM -7).
a. This plan shall identify the proposed construction staging area(s), construction crew
parking area(s), estimated number and types of vehicles that will occur during that
phase, the proposed arrival /departure routes and operational safeguards (e.g.
flagmen, barricades, shuttle services, etc.) and hourly restrictions, if necessary, to
avoid traffic conflicts during peak traffic periods, displacement of on- street parking and
to ensure safety.
b. If necessary, the construction staging, parking and traffic control plan shall provide for
an off -site parking lot for construction crews which will be shuttled to and from the
project site at the beginning and end of each day until such time that the project site
can accommodate off - street construction vehicle parking. Until that time, construction
crews shall be prohibited from parking in the adjacent residential neighborhood.
c. The plan shall identify all construction traffic routes, which shall avoid narrow
residential streets unless there is no alternative, and the plan shall not include any
streets where some form of construction is underway within or adjacent to the street
that would impact the efficacy of the proposed route.
d. Dirt hauling shall not be scheduled during weekday peak hour traffic periods or during
the summer season (Memorial Day holiday weekend through and including the Labor
Day holiday weekend).
e. The approved construction staging, parking traffic control plan shall be implemented
throughout each major construction phase.
20. During grading activities, any exposed soil areas shall be watered at least four times per
day. Stockpiles of crushed cement, debris, dirt or other dusty materials shall be covered
or watered twice daily. On windy days or when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the
proposed project site, additional applications of water shall be applied to maintain a
minimum 12 percent moisture content as defined by SCAQMD Rule 403. Soil disturbance
shall be terminated whenever windy conditions exceed 25 miles per hour (SC -1).
21. Truck loads carrying soil and debris material shall be wetted or covered prior to leaving
the site. Where vehicles leave the construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the
streets shall be swept daily (SC -2).
22. All diesel - powered machinery exceeding 100 horsepower shall be equipped with soot
traps, unless the Contractor demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City Building Official
that it is infeasible (SC -3).
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paqe 31 of 32
23. The construction contractor shall time the construction activities, including the
transportation of construction equipment vehicles and equipment to the site, and delivery
of materials, so as not to interfere with peak hour traffic. To minimize obstruction of
through traffic lanes adjacent to the site, a flag person shall be retained to maintain safety
adjacent to existing roadways, if deemed necessary by the City (SC -4).
24. The construction contractor shall encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the
construction workers (SC -5).
25. To the extent feasible, pre- coated /natural colored building materials shall be used. Water -
based or low VOC coatings shall be used that comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113 limits.
Spray equipment with high transfer efficiency, or manual coatings application such as
paint brush, hand roller, trowel, etc. shall be used to reduce VOC emissions, where
practical. Paint application shall use lower volatility paint not exceeding 100 grams of
ROG per liter (SC -6).
26. All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped with properly
operating and maintained muffling devices. All construction equipment shall be located or
operated as far as possible away from nearby residential units (MM -4).
27. A construction schedule shall be developed that minimizes the duration of potential
project- related and cumulative construction noise levels (MM -5).
28. The construction contractor shall notify the residents of the construction schedule for the
proposed project, and shall keep them informed on any changes to the schedule. The
notification shall also identify the name and phone number of a contact person in case of
complaints. The contact person shall take all reasonable steps to resolve the complaint
(MM -6).
29. Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code. Exterior on-
site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are
permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. "Walpak"
type fixtures are not permitted (SC 4.3 -1).
30. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant
shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division
to confirm control of light and glare (SC 4.3 -2).
31. Bluff landscaping shall consist of native, drought tolerant plant species determined to be
consistent with the California coastal buff environment. Invasive and non - native species
shall be removed. Irrigation of bluff faces to establish re- vegetated areas shall be
temporary and used only to establish the plants. Upon establishment of the plantings, the
temporary irrigation system shall be removed (SC 4.2 -1).
32. Prior to issuance of the grading or building permit, an erosion control plan shall be
submitted to and approved by the City's Chief Building Official (MM -2).
33. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a soils engineering report
and final geotechnical report to the City's Building Department for approval. The project
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paqe 32 of 32
shall be designed to incorporate the recommendations included in those reports that
which address site grading, site clearing, compaction, caissons, bearing capacity and
settlement, lateral pressures, footing design, seismic design, slabs on grade, retaining
wall design, subdrain design, concrete, surface drainage, setback distance, excavations,
cut -fill transitional zones, planters and slope maintenance, and driveways (MM -3).
34. A qualified archaeological /paleontological monitor shall be retained by the project
applicant who will be present during the grading and landform alteration phase. In
addition, a qualified Native American representative will also be permitted to monitor
grading activities and /or excavation of the site. In the event that cultural resources and /or
fossils are encountered during construction activities, ground- disturbing excavations in the
vicinity of the discovery shall be redirected or halted by the monitor until the find has been
salvaged. Any artifacts and /or fossils discovered during project construction shall be
prepared to a point of identification and stabilized for long -term storage. Any discovery,
along with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, shall be accessioned
into the collections of a suitable repository. Curation costs to accession any collections
shall be the responsibility of the project applicant (MM -1).
PC 1 Response to Comments
S•
Page Intentionally Blank
M
Responses to Public Comments
Draft Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2009041010
MEGONIGAL RESIDENCE
PA 2007 -133
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Prepared by:
Keeton Kreitzer Consulting
97299 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 305
Tustin, CA 92780
JtRamnaY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
NOV 1 S 2009
November 2009
OF NEWPORT, BEACH
7
Page Intentionally Blank
U
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
MEGONIGAL RESIDENCE (PA 2007 -133)
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NEWPORT BEACH, CA
INTRODUCTION
The 45-day public review period for the Draft EIR prepared for the proposed Megonigal residential project
extended from August 24, 2009 through October 7, 2009. The City of Newport Beach received thirty -three
(33) comment letters on the Draft during the formal public review and comment period. In addition, one
(1) comment was received after the close of the public comment period. Responses to the comments
included in each of the letters received by the City, including the late comment from the State Water
Resources Control Board, have been prepared and are included with the Final EIR. The 33 comment
letters were received from:
1. Southern California Gas Company (August 28, 2009)
2. Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (September 22, 2009)
3. Ron Yeo (September 30, 2009)
4. Rebecca Stubblefield (October 1, 2009)
5. Patricia Bell (October 1, 2009)
6. Richard and Eileen Lloyd (October 1, 2009)
7. Dan Splatter (October 3, 2009)
8. Dan Splatter (October 3, 2009)
9. Dan Splatter (October 3, 2009)
10. Dan Splatter (October 3, 2009)
11. California Department of Transportation (October 5, 2009)
12. Clayton Gorrie (October 5, 2009)
13. Mark & Kristine Simon (October 5, 2009)
14. Mark & Kristine Simon (October 5, 2009)
15. Mark & Kristine Simon (October 5, 2009)
16. Mark & Kristine Simon (October 5, 2009)
17. Mark & Kristine Simon (October 5, 2009)
18. Mark & Kristine Simon (October 5, 2009)
19. Mark & Kristine Simon (October 5, 2009)
20. Mark & Kristine Simon (October 5, 2009)
21. Mark & Kristine Simon (October 5, 2009)
22. Dr. Robert and Gail Fabricant (October 5, 2009)
23. Kenneth Jaggers (October 5, 2009)
24. Glenn A. and Lucy Souers (October 6, 2009)
25. Marilyn L. Beck (October 6, 2009)
26. Erwin Fox (October 6, 2009)
27. Friends of Begonia Park (October 7, 2009)
28. Julie Sherwin (October 7, 2009)
29. Yvonne and Damien Jordan (October 7, 2009)
30. Gary and Kathleen Kearns (October 8, 2009)
31. James Bissill and Kelly Neff (October 8, 2009)
32. Barbara Dawkins (October 8, 2009)
33. State Water Resources Control Board (October 14, 2009)'
'This comment letter, dated October 14, 2009, was received by the City on October 19, 2009. The public comment period ended
on October 7. 2009.
MegoWgal Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Public Comments
November 2009
Page 1
9
Responses to these comments have been prepared according to Section 15088 of the State CEQA
Guidelines. The letters received during the public review period have been reproduced in the section that
follows. The letters have been reviewed and substantive comments have been identified. Responses
have been prepared and follow the letters from the agencies in this "Response to Public Comments"
Appendix to the Draft EIR. Each comment in each letter for which a response is required has been
numbered for easy reference.
Alegonigal Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Public Comments
November 2009
Page 2 /
it (ij
A :`Sel-Tlr) :CiI.ESIf;' -rgy utility"
August 28, 2009
City of Newport Beach.
3300 Newport Blvd.
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Attention: James Campbell
7919 S. Stale CoRNP. Blvd.
Anaheim. CA 92606-6114
is 'f.I�i [9':lit
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
g. w
Subject: Megonigal Single - Family Residential Project located at 2333 Pacific Dr in Newport Beach.
Thank you for providing the opportunity to respond to this E.I.R. Document. We are pleased to inform you
that Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the aforementioned project is
proposed. Gas service to the project can be provided from an existing gas main located in various
locations. The service will be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with
the California Public Utilities Commission when the contractual arrangements are made.
This letter is not a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project but is only provided as an
informational service. The availability of natural gas service is based upon conditions of gas supply and
regulatory agencies. As a public utility, Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the
California Public Utilities Commission. Our ability to serve can also be affected by actions of federal
regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action, which affect gas supply or the conditions under
which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with the revised conditions.
This letter is also provided without considering any conditions or non - utility laws and regulations (such as
environmental regulations), which could affect construction of a main and/or service line extension (i.e., if
hazardous wastes were encountered in the process of installing the line). The regulations can only be
determined around the time contractual arrangements are made and construction has begun.
Estimates of gas usage for residential and non - residential projects are developed on an individual basis and
are obtained from the Commercial- hlduslTial/Residential Market Services Staff by calling (800) 427 -2000
(CormnercialiIndustrial Customers) (800) 427 -2200 (Residential Customers). We have developed several
2 programs, which are available upon request to provide assistance in selecting the most energy efficient
appliances or systems for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy
conservation programs, please contact this office for assistance.
Sincerely,
Eric Casares
Technical Services Supervisor
Pacific Coast Region - Anaheim
rc .,
�W2.mo
/J
Southern California Gas Company (August 28, 2009)
Response to Comment No. 1
These comments, which indicate that the Gas Company will provide service in accordance with applicable
rules and regulatory procedures and identifies conditions and factors that affect the provision of natural
gas service to the proposed project, is acknowledged. No response is necessary.
Response to Comment No. 2
As suggested in this comment, if necessary, the applicant and /or the project architect will contact the
Southern California Gas Company to obtain additional information on programs developed by the Gas
Company regarding energy efficient appliances and /or related systems for the proposed Megonigal
residence. No further response is necessary.
Megonigal Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Public Comments
November 2009
Pap 3
/4�->
TO: City of Newport Beach, Planning Department September 22, 2009
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Attention: James Campbell, Principal Planner
FROM: Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC)
Subject: Megonigal Residence DEIR dated August 2009
EQAC is pleased to submit the following comments on the Subject DEIR. These
are presented in order of appearance in the DEIR with relevant section/page references to
facilitate your review.
Please connect the description of the project location to Pacific Drive, not Pacific
f Avenue, throughout the document.
4.1 Land Use and Planning
Page 4.1 -1, Existing Land Use, identifies "A large retaining wall ranging from
2 four feet to 15 feet in height.....along the southern property boundary...." Is there a code
governing the height of these walls and are they in compliance?
3
Page 4.1 -9, Policy No. LU 3.2 under Relationship to Policy, the DEIR states that
"The applicant is proposing to construct.... permitted by the Land Use Element of the
City's General Plan and the existing R -1 zoning ". Since the graphics in the DEIR (e.g.
Exhibits 3 -6, 3 -7, 3 -8) have illegible lettering, it is impossible to confirm this statement.
In addition, development in this neighborhood is governed by Newport Beach Municipal
Code 20.10.040, Special Development Regulations for Corona Del Mar, West Newport
and Balboa Peninsula. Please confirm that the Floor Area Limit, Building Area and all
set backs are in compliance with these Municipal Code Special Regulations by explicitly
stating them.
Exhibit 3 -8 (Rear Elevation) page 3 -14, shows a 2 story excavation below the
ground level at Pacific Drive. Since construction will be so far down the bluff side, is
4 there a requirement to comply with a local PLOED (Predominant Line of Existing
Development)?
Page 4.1 -16, CLUP 2.8.7.2 relates to site drainage and erosion control. The
Relationship to Policy answer is that "...the applicant must submit an adequate drainage
and erosion control plan..." Does this plan cover all phases of the project — demolition,
construction and operational? Particular emphasis must be given to the properties at the
bottom of the bluff on Bayside Drive (lots 2340 and 2360, Exhibit 3 -4, page 3 -6). These
are vulnerable during all phases of the project and there must be assurances of adequate
slide/erosion control up to and throughout the operational phase.
J
4
7
IE
/0
Section 4.1.4.1 (page 7 of Section 4.1) states that "no short term land use impacts (i.e.
those related to construction activities) are anticipated as a result of project
implementation." Section 3.2.1 (page 1 of Chapter 3) states the elevations on the site
range from approximately 25 feet above mean sea level ( "MSL ") at the base of the
coastal bluff along the westerly property boundary, to approximately 72 feet above MSL
in the northwestly corner of the site. Given that the site is on a coastal bluff with varying
elevations, obviously there are construction challenges, and as such, for support of the
DEIR's above "no impact" claim, an analysis should be provided as to the short term
impacts related to the construction activities (e.g. the challenges of construction on a
coastal bluff with varying elevations and possible impacts on use of property/streets west
of the westerly boundary).
Policy No. LU1.6 of the Newport Beach General Plan ( "NBGP ") requires the protection
and, where feasible, enhancement of scenic and visual resources. In the Table 4.1 -1
General Plan Policy Analysis on this policy (page 8 of Section 4.1) it is stated that the
project has been redesigned to minimize the visual impacts on Begonia Park (it is
designated Public View Point under the NBGP and CLUP); however, the redesign project
will block the view of the harbor and ocean from Pacific Drive . Given the stated goals
of Policy No. LU1.6, an analysis of possible mitigation factors should be addressed to
protect the view from Pacific Drive.
In addition, there is controversy in the community as to the location of the Public View
Point the General Plan intends to be protected. Some people believe it is Begonia Park,
as the DEIR has assumed. However, some people believe that the view intended to be
protected includes Pacific Drive and Begonia Avenue. In light of this controversy, the
view impacts from all of these locations should be analyzed in the DEIR so that the
decision makers can have complete information.
CLUP Policy No. 4.4.1 -1 also requires the protection and enhancement of scenic and
visual qualities of the coastal zone (similar to NBGP Policy No. LU1.6). Similarly, the
analysis of this CLUP Policy states that the project has been redesigned to mitigate the
impact on the view from Begonia Park (a Public View Point); however the project will
block views to the bay and ocean from Pacific Drive and Begonia Ave. Again, additional
analysis should be conducted for possible mitigation measures that could be taken to
comply with this CLUP Policy (i.e. in addition to the view easement above the currently
planned single family residence, as currently required by the City). This analysis should
also address possible mitigation measures to reduce the conflicts with related CLUP
Policies (e.g. 4.4.1 -2, 4.4.1 -5, 4.4.1 -7, 4.4.2 -2, 4.4.2 -3, and 4.4.3 -9).
Section 4.1.5 (page 27 of Section 4.1) states that the proposed project is consistent with
the CLUP of the Newport Beach General Plan, as a result, no significant long term land
use impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. However, the
summary paragraph following the analysis of the Newport Beach General Plan (on page
14 of Section 4.1) states that a mitigation measure has been identified to ensure that the
coastal views from Begonia Park are preserved. Also, in the summary paragraph
following the analysis of the CLUP (on page 23 of Section 4.1), it is stated that a
mitigation measure (i.e. dedication of a view easement) has been prescribed to ensure the
future view through the site from Begonia Park are protected. Please explain this
inconsistency or correct the text.
4.2 Biological Resources
The DEIR states (page 4.2 -3, paragraph 1) that the overall native cover on the project
site is small (i.e. less than 10 %). They conclude that no mitigation is required because
the biologist categorizes the vegetation as low quality. Please explain how the conclusion
of low quality was reached, and what this term means. Replacement of biological species
on the project site with native species would be beneficial and should be considered as a
condition of approval.
The DEiR also states (page 4.2 -6 and Appendix C) that the Cooper's Hawk, a
California Species of Concern (CSC), has been observed roosting and hunting at Begonia
i2 Park. The small preservation of native species noted above might help to preserve the
Cooper's Hawk habitat in this area.
4.3 Aesthetics
The applicant is requesting a Modification Permit to allow for walls in front of
13 planters on the eastern edge of the property at the Begonia Park interface. Please analyze
how these walls impact the view corridors and comply with the City's design guidelines;
e.g., massing.
14
is
5.3 Cultural Resources
The NOP responses from the Native American Heritage Commission and Doctor
Jan. D. Vandersloot which are contained in Appendix B expressed concern that the site
may have Native American cultural resources, and Dr. Vandersloot specifically requested
that a cultural resource analysis be performed. In addition, the Native American Heritage
Commission specifically requested the use of Native American Monitors if a professional
archeologist will be required for the project, and that further contact be made with the
"Native American Contacts" which were identified on a list provided to the City, for their
input on the project. No cultural resource analysis was made, but one should be done.
NBGP Policy No, NR18.3 states that a qualified representative from Native
American Organizations should be allowed to monitor grading and/or evacuation of
development sites; however, in the analysis of this policy and NBGP Policy No. HR2.1
(on pages 12 and 9 of Section 4.1, respectively), only a qualified archeologist will be on
site to monitor (i.e. no Native American Monitor as requested by the Native American
Heritage Commission and contrary to Policy No. NR18.3). Also, in regard to the analysis
of Policy No. NR18.3, there is no indication that the Native American Contacts listed by
the Native American Heritage Commission were contacted for comment on the NOR
CUT Policies 4.5.1 -1 through 4.5.1 -5 (pages 21 and 22 of Section 4.1) deal with
1 cultural resources in the same manner as the above referenced policy numbers of the
/Y
NBGP. As such, the cited actions of the project and the absence of a cultural resource
analysis likewise conflict with the Sections of the CLUP.
19.3 Cumulative Impacts
l 7 Page 9 -1: Please correct the project name from "Aerie" to "Megonigal Residence."
PS
9.3.1 Land Use and Planning
The DEIR states "... no design component or feature of the project would
physically divide or otherwise adversely affect or significantly change an established
community." This is conclusory. What evaluations / studies were made to come to this
conclusion? Were all possible affects looked into before reaching this conclusion? It
seems debatable that a project of this size, at this location, would not change the
neighborhood.
9.3.6 Traffic and Circulation
fcf What are the specifics of the Construction Management Plan? In other words,
how can we determine the construction phase effect on traffic before the CMP is drafted?
Please provide the details of the 20 -month estimated construction period.
10.0 Altematives
The Alternatives analysis indicates that with 10.3.2 Alternative Design (Remove
Upper Level), Biological Resources, 'the elimination of three species characteristic of that
2D habitat would not be significant because the habitat has been fragmented and affected by
human activities.' This refers to 261 square feet of Coastal Sage habitat, composed of 3
non - endangered species would be lost through the alternatives.
21
The loss of 261 square feet of habitat will reduce the presence of local plant
habitat. The fact that these habitats were not protected in prior building on the bluff (as
noted elsewhere in the document) is not relevant to this application. If one of the
alternatives is approved, a condition of approval to ensure that 261 square feet of Coastal
Sage Scrub remains on the site, with the majority (75 % +) being on the bluff location,
should be considered.
EQAC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Subject DEIR. We hope
that our inputs are useful in achieving the optimum project for the applicant and the City
of Newport Beach.
2. Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (September 22, 2009)
Response to Comment No. 1
The Final EIR will be revised to reflect "Pacific Drive' and not 'Pacific Avenue" as indicated in this
comment (refer to the Errata prepared for the Draft EIR).
Response to Comment No. 2
The retaining wall currently exists on the property below and is not part of the proposed project. However,
it complies with all applicable requirements prescribed by the City of Newport Beach.
Response to Comment No. 3
The Newport Beach General Plan designates the subject property RS -D (Single -Unit Residential
Detached). The RS -D designation allows one detached residential unit per lot and the project is consistent
with this designation as it proposes one residential unit. Although the applicant is requesting approval of a
Modification Permit to allow planter walls and a water feature to exceed the 3 -foot height limit in the 5 -foot
front yard setback, the proposed project is consistent with all of the required development standards
prescribed by the Zoning Code as determined by City Staff and specifically Section 20.10.040 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code as indicated in the table below.
Deve ment Standard
Municipal Code
R ulrement
P Pro ect:"
Front Yard Setback
5 Feet
5 Feet
Side Yard Setback
4 Feet
4 Feet
Rear Yard Setback
10 Feet
10 Feet
Buildable Area
2,853 square feet
2,853 square feet
Floor Area Limit
4,259 Square Feet
1.5 X Buildable Area
3,566 Square Feet
Response to Comment No. 4
An analysis of relevant General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan (CLOP) policies regarding landform
alteration is provided within Chapter 4.1, Land Use and Planning, of the DEIR. This site is unique in that it
is the easternmost transition from the Pacific Drive bluff to a gully or canyon landform that has been
developed as Begonia Park. The predominant line of existing development was determined to be the 36.5 -
foot contour based upon surrounding development that in some cases has altered the toe of the bluff and
bluff face or the top of the bluff with residential development stepping down the bluff face. Additionally, this
particular contour was identified based upon the minimum dimension of the building footprint that allows a
reasonable floor area on the property for its intended purpose, while simultaneously complying with the
maximum permissible height of twenty -four feet, limiting the extent of grading on the bluff face, and
producing a building profile that "steps down" the bluff face conforming to topography. This development
pattern is consistent with the predominant development pattern on the Pacific Drive bluff.
Response to Comment No. 5
As indicated in this comment, the erosion and drainage control plan will address all of the phases of
development, including demolition, construction and post - development. The City will review the erosion
and drainage control plan to ensure that it adequately addresses all aspects of site drainage, including
downstream effects.
Megonigal Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Public Comments
November 2009
Page 4 /`
Response to Comment No. 6
Potential short-term land use impacts are associated with construction activities that are inherently
temporary in nature. One single phase of construction is planned and it is not expected to exceed 20
months, which is not uncommon for hillside development. Please see the discussion of Air Quality,
Transportation/Traffic and Noise within the Initial Study attached as Appendix A, which suggests that
short-term impacts associated with these topics, with incorporation of the suggested mitigation measures,
would be less than significant. The suggested mitigation measures from the Initial Study have been
included within Table 1 -1 of Section 1.0, Executive Summary and will be incorporated within the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program and Conditions of Approval, should the project be approved.
Response to Comment No. 7
Although intersection of Pacific Drive and Begonia Avenue is not identified by the General Plan or Coastal
Land Use Plan as a Public View Point, the potential visual impact of the project is illustrated on Exhibit 4.3-
3 in the Draft EIR. As indicated in that exhibit, the view of the harbor and ocean would be completely
obscured by the proposed residence. Potential mitigation would occur in the form of an alternative to the
proposed project. Two such alternatives were identified in the Draft EIR: (1) removal of the upper level of
the structure (805 square feet), and (2) development of the property with an alternative access. Although
these alternatives would minimize or reduce potential visual impacts from the Pacific Drive/Begonia
Avenue vantage point, other adverse effects would be expected to occur. If the upper level were to be
removed, the two-car garage would be eliminated. Vehicular access would be provided from Pacific Drive
and vehicles would park on the roof of the house. This alternative achieves all the applicant's basic project
objectives although this alternative would necessitate the consideration of a variance application as the
Zoning Code requires at least one parking space for single - family homes to be covered. This alternative, if
implemented, would reduce impacts to public views from Begonia Park and provide views from Pacific
Drive or Begonia Avenue (although parked cars and possibly a carport, if not waived with a variance
application, would be in that particular view).
The " Attemative Access" scenario assumes project redesign to take access from Bayside Drive below. In
simple terms, it is the current design with the upper level garage being relocated or redesigned making it
the lowest level thereby creating a residence that is below the Pacific Drive street level. Views from
Begonia Park would be impacted to a lesser degree and views from Begonia Avenue or Pack Drive
would be preserved. A new driveway would be necessary through the lower area of Begonia Park from
Bayside Drive. Grading would also likely be more extensive. Public Works does not support an additional
driveway through the park to provide access to a residence from Bayside Drive as it is their position that
such an access would create hazards to vehicle travel on Bayside Drive. This alternative would not meet
several project objectives including having access from Pacific Drive and views to the harbor and ocean
from all levels.
Response to Comment No. 8
Each of these view locations have been analyzed in detail as requested in the comment. Exhibits 4.3-1
and 4.3-2 illustrate the visual impacts from the Lower Bench and Upper Bench, respectively. In the new
visual simulation described above, the proposed Megonigal residence is more prominent than depicted in
Exhibit 4.3-1. The easterly portion of the structure (i.e., from the large tree in front of the project site and
extending to the easterly end of the property) is now visible from the lower bench. This portion of the
structure was previously blocked by the vegetation that existed on the slope before it was removed. In
addition, the increased visibility of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean noted above that was
previously not visible due to the vegetation that was removed, would largely be blocked instead by the
proposed residence. Based on the new visual simulation, it would appear that the implementation of the
proposed project would result in the loss of approximately 35 percent of the expanded view of the harbor,
Balboa Peninsula and ocean, including the horizon, which would also be blocked by the proposed
residence
Megonigal Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Public Comments
November 2009
Page 5
As illustrated in Exhibit 4.3-3, the harbor /ocean view from the Pacific Drive/Begonia Avenue vantage point
would be completely obscured by the proposed residence. Although there is confusion on the location of
the Public View Point, as indicated in the Draft EIR, the City maintains that Begonia Park is recognized as
a Public View Point on Figure NR3 of the Natural Resources Element of the General Plan and not the
Pacific Drive /Begonia Avenue vantage point as suggested by many of the residents. As a result, the
determination of what constitutes a significant visual impact is based on the project - related impacts from
within Begonia Park.
Response to Comment No. 9
Refer to Responses to Comment Nos. 7 and 8.
Response to Comment No. 10
As concluded in the analysis of land use in the Draft EIR, no significant land use conflicts would occur
and, furthermore, the project is consistent with the applicable policies articulated in the General Plan and
Coastal Land Use Plan CLUP). Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. However, because
several policies in both the General Plan and CLUP address the issue of aesthetics, the reference to MM
4.3 -1 was includes in this section. This measure, which requires the dedication of a view easement over
the building, is intended to ensure that no further encroachment into the view corridor would be possible,
thereby allowing for the preservation of view from the Public View Point within Begonia Park. While it is
true that the Draft EIR concludes that project implementation would not result in any significant land use or
aesthetic impacts, the inclusion of this measure is important to ensure that potential future encroachment
into the view corridor would be eliminated.
Response to Comment No. 11
Native cover on the site comprises less than one percent of the site; the remaining vegetation includes
disturbed and disturbed /ornamental species, which are not native. The biological assessment prepared
by Chambers Group, Inc., concluded that the approximately 261 square feet of native vegetation (i.e.,
coastal bluff scrub) on the site is "low quality" based on the several factors. Specifically, the habitat value
of the vegetation has been significantly compromised by fragmentation and influences from human
activities, and that it provides very limited long -tem habitat value. The information is presented in on page
42 -9 in the Draft EIR.
Response to Comment No. 12
The Cooper's hawk is a California Species of Concern. A Cooper's hawk was observed by Robert
Hamilton on an initial site visit in September 2008. This species was not observed during the field visits
conducted by Chambers Group Inc. in October of 2008. This species occurs as a migrant and /or resident
over most of the United States from Southern Canada to Mexico. This species may be using nearby open
space provided by Begonia Park for roosting and hunting. The total area to be impacted by the proposed
project is small in size, providing limited suitable habitat for this raptor species independent of the
surrounding areas. The overall spatial loss of the project area will not have a significant impact on this
species (Chambers Group, Inc., October 2008).
Response to Comment No. 13
The proposed encroachments are proposed within the front yard setback would be located in the
foreground of the proposed residence between the building and the front property line. These proposed
encroachments below the overall height of the building as shown in the project plans, and therefore, they
will not further encroach within public views from Begonia Park than the proposed residence. The October
Megonipi Reskience (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Pubic Comments
nlovemter2009
Page 6
If
2009 visual simulation clearly shows the requested encroachments and demonstrates that the proposed
encroachments will not impact public views from Begonia Park.
Response to Comment No. 14
A cultural resource survey was not conducted on the subject property because there is no evidence to
suggest that cultural resources exist on -site; however, Mitigation Measure MM -1 has been revised, as
indicated in the underlined text, to allow the opportunity for a qualified Native American monitor to be
present during grading and excavation, as indicated below. The Final EIR will be revised reflect this
change.
MM -1 A qualified archaeological/paleontological monitor shall be retained by the project
applicant who will be present during the grading and landform alteration phase. In
grading activities and /or excavation of the site. In the event that cultural resources and /or
fossils are encountered during construction activities, ground - disturbing excavations in the
vicinity of the discovery shall be redirected or halted by the monitor until the find has been
salvaged. Any artifacts and /or fossils discovered during project construction shall be
prepared to a point of identification and stabilized for long -term storage. Any discovery,
along with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, shall be accessioned
into the collections of a suitable repository. Curation costs to accession any collections
shall be the responsibility of the project applicant.
Response to Comment No. 15
As indicated in the initial study (refer to Section V in the Draft EIR), the area surrounding the subject
property has been extensively developed. Although no cultural resources are known to exist either on site
or in the immediate area of the project, the City has included a measure to require monitoring during
grading to ensure that if any cultural resources are encountered during grading, they can be evaluated and
properly recovered. In addition, the City also provides for the opportunity to have a Native American
monitor also on -site during grading to ensure that evaluation and recovery of any important artifacts would
occur under the supervision of Native American representatives (refer to Response to Comment No. 14).
With the inclusion of this mitigation measure, which does allow for oversight1monitoring by a qualified
Native American representative or monitor, the project is consistent with the General Plan policy cited in
this comment. The Draft EIR was distributed to the State Clearinghouse, which sends copies of all
environmental documents to the State Historic Preservation Office and the Native American Heritage
Commission; however, no comments were received from either agency. In addition, the document was
available for public review at the City and at the Newport Beach Public Library.
Response to Comment No. 16
Refer to Response to Comment No. 14.
Response to Comment No. 17
The Final EIR will be revised to correct the first sentence in the last paragraph on page 9 -1 to delete
"Aerie" and replace it with "Megonigal Residence." Refer to the Errata.
Response to Comment No. 18
The conclusion presented in the Draft EIR that the proposed project would not physically divide or
significantly change and established community is based on several factors. Most typically, such features
include roadways, food control channels, or other large features that, when introduced into an area that is
developed would create a barrier between established uses within the area. In addition, large projects or
Megonigal Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Public Comments
November 2009
Page 7
20
land uses that conflict with the established uses of an area (e.g., industrial uses in a residential area,
reservoirs, land uses that generate high traffic volumes, etc.) may also serve the divide or disrupt an
established neighborhood or community. As articulated in the initial study prepared for the proposed
project, implementation does not include any such features that would physically divide or otherwise
adversely affect or significant change and established community. The proposed single - family residential
dwelling unit is consistent with the adopted long -range plans for the site, which is designated for the
proposed use. With the exception of the proposed Modification Permit that would allow a planter walls
and a water feature to exceed the 3 -foot height limit within the front setback area, the project does not
propose any major element that would deviate from the development standards and regulations adopted
for the development intended; the proposed project is in keeping with the intensity of development and
existing character in the project environs.
Response to Comment No. 19
The specific details of the construction management plan (CMP) are not known at this time; however,
mitigation measure (MM -7) requiring the preparation of the CMP includes sufficient objectives and criteria
that are feasible and will minimize construction- related traffic impacts. Within the overall 20 -month
construction duration, the first event will be the removal of vegetation and the installation of shoring.
Excavation and foundation construction will then proceed. These initial stages of construction will occur
within the first 6 -months of construction. Construction of the lower levels will precede the upper levels and
typically the exterior will be completed before interiors. The final stages are finish carpentry and the
application of architectural coatings (paint).
Response to Comment No. 20
Based on the biological resources assessment prepared for the proposed project, the loss of 261 square
feet of coastal bluff scrub habitat is considered to be less than significant. This conclusion is true not only
for the proposed project but also for the two alternatives evaluated in Chapter 10.0. As indicated in
Response to Comment No. 11, the "less than significant" determination is based on several factors,
including human activities that have diminished its value, its fragmentation and isolation that has taken
place with development of the area, and the poor quality of the species.
Response to Comment No. 21
This comment recommending that 261 square feet of coastal sage scrub remain on the site, with the
majority of that vegetation on the bluff, will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration prior to taking action on the project.
Megonigel Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Public Comments
November 2009
Page 8
4�/
Campbell, James
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
For the Commission ...
Lepo, David
Wednesday, September 30, 2009 9:23 AM
Campbell, James
Varin, Ginger
FW: Megonial Begonia project and public views
David Lepo,
Planning Director
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Office.- (949) 644.3228
Fax: (949) 644 -3229
d/eao&aity. ne woort- beach. ca. us
From: Ron Yeo [mai%o:ron @ronyeD.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:42 AM
To: Lepo, David
Cc: Gardner, Nancy; frlends0begoniapark @live.com
Subject: Megonial Begonia project and public views
W75-11 a1 :
PLANNING DEPARThUM
SEP 382009
MY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Please convey to the planning commission my thoughts on maintaining public views.
Attached is a sketch that I presented to the GPAC members on trails, open space and public vistas.
The asterisks are existing and future view points. This map formed the basis for GPAC's recommendation on
the subject that ultemently became part of he General Plan.
As you can see... the intent of the Begonia vista point was to be located at the end of Begonia.
Also included are future vista points at Dahlia above Kerkoff Lab and Carnation & Ocean
I fully recognize that the Megonial project is on private property, however the General Plan should be upheld.
DSCN7065
. ....... . . ......... .. .. ... . .... .. ... .. .. .......... ..... .....
. ..... .......
3. Ron Yeo (September 30, 2009)
Response to Comment No. 9
The Public View Point within the City's coastal zone were initially identified during the preparation of the
Coastal Land Use Plan in 2002 and 2003, a process that preceded the completion of the General Plan
Update process. According to the Coastal Land Use Plan, Begonia Park is acknowledged as the Public
View Point and not Pacific Drive /Begonia Avenue. The Begonia Park Public View Point was subsequently
identified in Figure NR3 (Coastal Views) in the Natural Resources Element of the General Plan. Pack
Drive and Begonia Avenue were not identified on Figure NR3 nor were they streets listed in Policy NR
20.3, which provided for the protection of public views from certain roadways.
Response to Comment No. 2
This comment will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration prior to
taking an action on the proposed project.
hregonigal Residence (PA 2007.133)
Responses to Public Comments
Navember2009
Page 9 2
Campbell, James
From:
Lepo, David
Sent:
Thursday, October 01, 2009 1:29 PM
To:
Campbell, James
Cc:
Varin, Ginger
Subject:
FW: comments regarding Megongal Project- Begonia Park, Corona del Mar
Please add to administrative record and include copies in PC packets for this agenda item.
David Lepo, RBCEWm By
Planning Director PLAMMODEPARTMENT
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard OCT Q
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Office: (948) 644 -3228
Fax. • (949) 844 -3229
de egcft newoort-beach ca as
From: Rebecca Stubblefield [mailto:stubbeck@edelphia.netj
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 11:55 AM
To: Lepo, David
Subject: comments regarding Megonigal Project - Begonia Park, Corona del Mar
1 am a homeowner on Begonia Avenue in Corona del Mar and visit Begonia Park often. It is a pleasant community park
which offers open space and a breathtaking ocean view. I understand the environmental report indicates Kim Megonigal's
home construction project will not obstruct the view, however this is severely inaccurate. The view is directly through the
canyon exactly where the home would be located. I completely disagree with the findings.
Please don't take away all community views in the area. The City Hall project was a complete disgrace as it will obstruct
not only homeowners views but the public driving south on Macarthur towards Coast Highway.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Stubblefield
61714 Begonia Avenue
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
Rebecca Stubblefield
Certified Residential Appraiser
License #AR035529
(949)500 -3491
stubbeck(Madelohia.net
4. Rebecca Stubblefield (October 1, 2009)
Response to Comment No. f
This comment suggests that the analysis and conclusion in the Draft EIR regarding potential visual
impacts is inaccurate. The visual analysis presented in the Draft EIR illustrates the extent of alteration
that would occur from Begonia Park. In the new visual simulation prepared for the proposed project, the
proposed Megonigal residence is more prominent than depicted in Exhibit 4.3 -1 in the Draft EIR. The
easterly portion of the structure (i.e., from the large tree in front of the project site and extending to the
easterly end of the property) is now visible from the lower bench. This portion of the structure was
previously blocked by the vegetation that existed on the slope before it was removed. In addition, the
increased visibility of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean noted above that was previously not visible
due to the vegetation that was removed, would largely be blocked instead by the proposed residence.
Based on the new visual simulation, it would appear that the implementation of the proposed project would
result in the loss of approximately 35 percent of the expanded view of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and
ocean, including the horizon, which would also be blocked by the proposed residence.
Although the proposed home would after the existing view of the harbor and ocean, the extent of alteration
would not be so great as to be considered significant.
Megonigal Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Public Comments
November 2009
Page 10
2
g�� x
C � o
U C7 a
0
�v 411 BEGONIA AVENVE
MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625
Ltatltxg�t sbc labal.net
, .�.a
i NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
U DATE OF HEARING: October 8, 2009
RE: Application for Variance VA2007 -01 and Modification Mll2007 -080
All City Council .Members:
All Planning Commissioners:
My Mother and I own a home across from Begonia Park in Corona del Mar and I spent my
childhood in that neighborhood. I am writing in opposition to the above - referenced Application and
Modification and against the construction of the Megonigal house at the comer of Pacific and Begonia
Avenues.
At a previous hearing last year I spoke and raised several valid objections to this construction
project. Unfortunately, I will not be able to make the meeting on the 81' , so I am reiterating a couple of
these points in this letter. I am hopeful that it will be included with the Commissioner's packet and that it
will be read and given due consideration.
Although there are many, many reasons that this project should not go forward -- not the least of
which are the facts that Begonia Avenue should long ago have been declared a Public View Corridor and
the corner of Pacific and Begonia Avenues a Public View Point -- I would like to concentrate my
argument on two points:
1. PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT ORADVERSE POSSESSION
Press lae: "To assert a right or title to the enjoyment ofa thing, on the ground oj'having hitherto had the
uninterrupted and immemorial enjoyment of it"
Prescription: "The name given to a mode of acquiring title by immemorial or long - continued enjoyment"
(Blacks Law Dictionary)
At last year's hearing I argued these two points of law with regard to the property now owned 4
the Megonigals. Unfortunately my argument was dismissed as not being applicable out of hand by the -
Commissioners and the City Attorney — without any discussion or research. Hopefully more
consideration — at the very least some research -- will be given this time around.
Until Mr. Megonigal's recent installation of a fence and story poles, the comer of Begonia and
Pacific Avenues was a popular gathering point for neighbors. For a very long time, there was a bppelr
2
installed at this very spot (on the property) used continuously fund openly by the public with the complete
knowledge and approval of the City of Newport Beach. The bench was only removed because a neighbor
complained of the gatherings and noise, not because of any trespass or property claims. Since this
beautiful view is the only view of the ocean that can be enjoyed by the neighborhood between Bayside
and Coast Highway, the removal of the bench did not stop the public from gathering at that corner -- they
have always done so and they continued to do so openly until Mr. Megonigal fenced it in.
Additionally, for my entire childhood there was a stairway leading through the property from
Begonia down to Bayside — an easement for neighbors to the beach. The sidewalk was not only
sanctioned by the City, it was built by the City, and it was openly and constantly used by the Public. It
was only removed by the City because it was deemed too dangerous — not because of any private land
issues.
Stopping the Prescriptive Easement and Adverse Possession process is as simple as installing a
fence or a "No Trespass" signor even a sign just saying "Use by Permission Only." Yet this was never
done to my knowledge or the knowledge of any of the other long term residents I spoke to. Instead, use of
the property was actually encouraged when the City allowed a resident to install a bench.
Mr. Megonigal's recent installation of a fence and fake monitoring cameras cannot cancel 100
years of the property being openly and continuously enjoyed by the public. The "uninterrupted and
immemorial" enjoyment of this property meets the very definition of Prescriptive Easement and the City
must take a long, hard look at this argument in order to be fair and impartial. The public has tights in this
property at this point.
2. PROTECTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S ONLY VIEW
The Corona del Mar neighborhood that extends tiom Coast Highway to Bayside Drive has one
ptace_whcre they can come to view the ocean and the Bay that does not require a long walk (not feasible
for most of the elderly long -time residents) or a drive and a finite search for a parking place. That place is
Begonia Park.
The view from this park is treasured by all who live in the area and is utilized on a daily basis by
hundreds of neighbors. It is a dog park, a wedding venue, a picnic ground, home for yearly block and
hol iday patsies, a playground for neighborhood kids, a place to read, a place to sun, a place to chat and
meet up with neighbors — and much more — all while enjoying a spectacular view.
It cannot lie a coincidence that the City picked this spot for a park. Begonia Park was created for
the very purpose of aivine the neighborhood a public area in which to eniov the beautv of the ocean the
Bay, the boats etc_ And it has been enjoyed by the neighborhood literally forever without interruption.
Attempts to take away this view in the past have been denied and it .is a travesty to grant construction that
will alter the view now just because the political climate has changed_ Please do not allow this to happen
Thank you for you for reading and considering the arguments I make in this letter.
Sincere r ,
PATRICIA BELL
S. Patricia Bell (October 1, 2009)
Response to Comment No. 1
The issue of prescriptive rights is a legal question and not an environmental issue. The comments related
to the issue of prescriptive rights by the commenter are acknowledged. Nonetheless, the comments will
be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration prior to taking action on the
project.
Response to Comment No. 2
This comment discusses protecting Begonia Park and views from the park to the ocean. No
environmental issues are raised in the comment. Nonetheless, this comment will be forwarded to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration prior to taking action on the project.
Megonigal Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Pubic Comments
November 2009
Page 11
To: James Campbell
Principal Planner
Newport Beach Planning Dept.
3300 Newport Blvd
Newport Beach, Ca. 92658 -8915
Dear Mr.Campbell,
My husband and I purchased our home at 509 Begonia in 1988, due to the location and
views of the bay and ocean from our street
Like many people living on Begonia, Carnation, 2nd, ] 1, Pacific and surrounding areas,
our lifestyle includes daily use of Begonia Park and the views and airflow we have as a
result of our proximity to the bay and ocean, which also is why all the residents paid a
very high premium to purchase the properties in this area
At no time do any of us remember seeing anything that would indicate the property at the
end of Begonia, what is now called 2333 Pacific Drive, was not part of Begonia Park.
To allow the Megonigals to build a three story, 3,566 square foot home on this bluff
would obliterate the beautiful views and air flow that residents on Begonia, Carnation,
2"d, le, Pacific and surrounding areas have treasured , and would devalue our property
values according to every real estate professional the residents have consulted. Should
this building be allowed, residents and visitors would have to walk to the edge of the
Parks' slope to get any view, which would certainly be a liability for the City. The
proposed project has created much ill will in the community.
For one home to so negatively impact hundreds of residents is unconscionable for the
city of Newport Beach to allow.
We appreciate your considering the good of the community of Corona del Mar when
looking at this project
Sincerely,
Richard and Eileen Lloyd
509 Begonia
Corona del Mar
949 - 675 -9511
0000w
' PLANNING DEPARTMENT
OCT 06 2009
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
b
B. Richard and Eileen Lloyd (October 1, 2009)
Response to Comment No. 1
This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project. No environmental issues are raised in this
comment. Nonetheless, this comment will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration prior to taking action on the project.
Megonrgal Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Pubbo Comments
November 2009
Page 12
3�
2
3
: " y NNTP-
177WINZI IY
October 3. 2009
OCT 0 7 2009
James Campbell.
Newport Beach Planning Dept. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach. CA 92658 -8915
RE: Application for Variance VA2007 -001 and Modification MD2007 -080
Dear Mr. Campbell.
The recentiv completed EIR on the Megonigal property at 2333 Pacific contains false.
exaggerated and incorrect statements rotating to ingress and egress in 10.3.3.1. These statements
then lead to the faulty conclusion that the Bayside Drive access to a lower level garage for the
Mcgonigal home is undesirable:
The first flaw involves the claim that accessing the Megonigal home from Baysidc Drive is
_undesirable and possibly a hazard given limited vehicidar sight distances along ha }side Drive
that is relalively narrow• and towing " The curves in Bayside Drive might seem like hazards to
the Keeton Kreitzcr Consulting Company consultant. But to others it seems very normal because
it seems to have always been this way and we have adapted to it. Manv homes already exist on
this street with driveways off Bayside Drive, vet few accidents occur. The driveway access to
2340 and 2360 Bayside Drive, the two newer homes below the proposed Nlcgonigal residence.
have a Bayside Drive access. This driveway was approved and constructed in 2007 without
reported accidents accessing it.
The second flaw is "... it wwuld he necessary to construct a private drive or roadwa y boor
BgYview (flat:cide''1 Drive through the .southern limits ol'Begonia ]'ark..... A twenty foot wide
driveway already exists off Baysidc Drive to the newer houses at 2340 and 2360 Bayside Drive:
This entrance would surely be able to accommodate the few additional cars each day that would
enter the proposed Megonigal home's garage. A similar driveway exists almost directly across
Baysidc Drive, which is the only access to seven or eight homes on Bayside Place. which has R -2
zoning. This private driveway has only a fourteen foot wide gate t accommodate more than twice
as many homes.
The , third flaw page 10 -6 (10.3.3.1) (and on page 10 -7) incormctly states that ..... this
allernarive (Bayside Drive access) w otdd require the provision ofan access easement through the
southerly limits gl'Begonia Park... ",Actually.. an access easement to the proposed Megonigal
parcel was granted when Minnie Fisk applied for and received approval for a subdivision of the
three lots (2340 and 2360 Ba }side Drive and 2333 Pacific Drive) on October 21. 1954. Thcsc
documents, provided by the city's record finding staff. show the approval for "PARCEL NO. 3"
(2333 Pacific Drive) "An easement 10.00 feet in width for ingress and egress over the
Northeasterh 10.00 ket of Parcel No. I ° (2360 Baysidc Drive).
The easement over 2360 Bayside Drive shores up in the Grant Deed, the Construction Deed of
5 Trust and the two modifications to this Deed of Trust in the last paragraph of "Exhibit A." which
were recorded in 2003 and 2007. The easement also shows up on the bottom of the first page of
the All Inclusive Deed of Trust recorded 12/29/03. Copies of these four documents are included.
MA Fe // WPV �
430 Y: l3egonia
Corona Del Mar. CA 92625
FJ
f..; .� `.a /"a.�rq Cvta 9rlsi�
r
:�b;ll;lv_GIO�
No. 2 pgyg Oatobcr 26. 1954
;FEi. ^�:rIICyT O'er
Sfr11i:Y. Su3 -�liSI G1 J. 4`'650
UMM �iUINAlI;6 N0Ck. 635
T42 2CXM ONDINANCS .
G�
THE CITY of Ng MIT BRACH, CALnkRNIA
APPLICATION 90. =OF APPLICa !'dxa£o :.
MT3C ` 1 1o`' ADM= 1^23 if. Peso T,ica
iiLD Oc :: : :er 21. 1951: CITY Ssn Aersoriina. Cali'_°,
in accord.^ w rdth �etion 91 ��-.1^ soc"ian 25�+•3I of 3.. "050
disense No, 635 a Via" ^:: is hamby
GPwtYF9 - for the following: ¢- .:o::ZV ?s +_on
to xc<slivino a '�o_tion c:_' ?.sae: L` °_ °.c 'c::o
cc +�;;.rs: P 1q... conta7z cZ 0 egaaro root :hE
1.2 -3 ca. -:. rn dozo -lbci ea tho cttsd•.1 cocerl Lion by Jacc S <nt L.C. nI2 n
_...:.a o:. a,li,u•V_'y as, also aztacr'v
2:iArT Caroms c -,1 )law BIMA "wl.ion. 03 cys LOp SECYIO \_
:.coated at (street address) c-? D: YWV..J'r. and '?ar.__c "Y rior
.o a =da:=.c.., q_ a lo.'yion o... MEMO ariva also e. we a oxs' a ,oa c_ Mr MICE r..
in the Citye rofaNscaawport Beach, uubjea however to all of the conditions hereinafter out
out. Thj V Navin baz•aby grunted is subject to aU requirAeaata of all govexnoental
age-ac as o j soiction in such matters end subject to tho.follordng conditioner
^, 1^ n Av ltd' 1!141.1 tj 'or
uo_1 9, f ;f mah inCra:a or, cw�as by nut .a'. =lac to er +i w Fa:eel :^
;;t. ,.r.': :,t Ra r•.9 not P.+.?Jl,
G4:._..... G.:iler ?:oUt sA tai prop^.' l'�O
-
The Vawiatca ho_s97r granted sbala. beaoae a &so Ise upon, cs pljanea With the falio�•l,.a;
^vasa'ute- sncj/or evidence that the foaroga,{ng- coiditlona ire beiftg "or:9ll'bs :co®pV_ed
with, - -and until•sach:tima as the 9aid'gu4rsni6a and/ai evidence rsquimrente; are-cat,
this V'ar -iawe shall be of no force or affect whitscever:
This V:r:_ : :,a extends and applies to only such buildings and/or lams, or portions
thereof ao speeifieally described in that application for 4�^�; a No, and all
attacbmats. then. ig..9Ad:limited-by.the.provisiom w set forth in this Variants.
The undersigned lsreby certifies that he bas read and has full,kawledga of all. of t6
conditions set forth hsrsi.n.
)e }
pir,Bi�+a of Planning CCmmispioa .. __ ..., w��`
can be Prcetically Czv -.:! 0 'i'i.ed °rqi
"T' —.rA 011
'� :, c -1y ewe
am
�..'3t ion 9252.33 ...
0rante6 by the Gi'y .._,:ii z C¢a':ed �.vtho C Plaorins Comm- asionY
_w m the B W �- bt 19
C. X. 'r et, ay . City Clark B Copolin. Secretary
City w' Temper.: Beach, California ELwpmt Beach City Pleauiog Co>miseim
0, iota 10
State of California)
Ceuaty of Orange .... )
On this l•Fr? day of a�• .Cl�./ AoD.r lB before W. the undersigned. a
Notary pub iC ' and for ea14 County antl State personally appeared a '„�"[r-..,..c_.
Sworn to me, 'to be the nano, of the proyorty described on tiw
within Instrument and wboso Rasa Is wbsorlbad to the within instrument and ackncv
aeddsad to ne that he executed the name.
In witness wneroof I have bereuatu net sy 'hand, and affixed rqy official seal the day
and year In this certificate. first abgva wrfttvo., _
Notary Public inCoAd fbr said County
and Stater Coer.:at ap,na,y. is, lea
State of California) SS (Recorders -spa")
Ceuaty of Orange )
on this T'day of a ';L A.D., 1B � before ae, the
undersigned; a NotarY public I* and far. said County and State
personally appeared _ C, l�..�,. Y . known
to M. to be the .CS f;lpkx.,P€ Shft City of. Neer .rt $sack and - /r-,r✓
Sand
of the.,pl ag Commission oL tlw City ox Newport ewpt 3eccn, and
known to to be. the persons whose manes are subscribed to -ae
within. iastrtmeat and acknMledgad to me that they executed
the Same.
l _Tl✓,4
In iciale whereof, l have :ar In this isY my hand and affixed aY �:ssi�L�'O
official tte3 the day and year in -this oertlflcate first !
above written.'
Notary County
Public s as and $tat said
q,(Y Cgamn;ga LWm+Ruq. rd, tG-a F ./
ERROR
WDE;t ORDINANO'E NO. = 650
THE EONIM ORDIXWE of
M CITY OF NRNPORT. BUCH
This application must be aocom- HAM OF APFLDCANT_}i = e X. Fs_s?•
ponied by payment of $10.00. ( prop®rty o�mer op1yJ .
Only check or money:ordsr will GODRESS 1323 V. L.se items. Sap Bee- •�r.' <..+
be accepted if submitted by mail.
DATE Ootobar B. 195A FWM 86.7237
(Read Instructions Carefully)
To the C ty Planning Comiasion
Nevxrt Beach, California
an exception
APB cetion is hereby made for s:'"'<'^n from the strict apptiptioa of
Sactiol 925A-32 of Ordinance .4.Cvg to permit the followings
SECTION
And further located at Street Address 2335 and 7340 BsmOda DAm
THE F LIDNINO STAT "I and attached plans and/or evidence axe offered in wx=tan-
tiation of the following facts:
w(a) that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions apply-
ing to the land, building or we referred to in the application, which circumsterces
or conditions do not apply generally to land, tuildinge, and/or was in the saae
district;
:�,,., �•.! ,;,, 4 �,. warp n. ,�.�.: ' ..
that the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and
cant of substantial property rights of the petitioner: X-- -
e(a) that the Emoting of such application will not, under the cimumstgnrds of the
particular pee, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons
residing or working in,the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will
not, under tee circuestances of the nartiowlar case, be materially . detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in said neighborhood;
There are sheata attached to and psra of ::Ss application.
I HEREBY CERTIFY under penalty o _aw that tae foregoing s..:: _ants and all state -
menta, maps, drawings, plans �.d zpacificstions stteched :.:.: ^o are true and correct
to the best of my knowledge ate teiief, anc I further aok.x.:. 4e and consent to any
permit issued in reliance there= being declared by the C ...Lesion or the
City Council to be wall and vo-i.' in the event that anything oawained therain is
erroneous even thou,:, .:oh er.;,: aas without fault and mein in good faith by the
applicant.
Signature of applicant Property owner
.T,xSTROCTIOa'S; -s traanc?er as noted to be prole on the seer of this abeat.
Fill out this .,?lication completely and where indicated by asterisk (0). Teie
application ' "..... be accompanied by (1) a lot or plot plan in duplicate drawn to
scale or by i::r_oating all dimensions, which plan shows in detail the boundaries
of the pm=ses, exterior ;ells or all md.ating and proposed buildings thereon and
all b ildi.-.3s on adjacent lands which are within 20 feet of the property line, and
(2) pleas and specifications in duplicate as necessary to show in detail any pr*-
posad new buildings or alterations to existing building. Plans, spacificaticas and
drawings will not be returned. P.C. b
6
o?d ftroa2 ;Y b3lre Pio c:apad "itb a ;ion`
.mod: 3 Forty five 145) Plat Pacts iuea oY.aPP »telly one
outtrsi ta7.a aorthrraeterly b) 2a t fa facing yside Driva and cons4sting of aL
th -st nort49.20 r �P�Y to be divided, and P�..Cal a2
.. ._doeoritin to t ly Portion of the portion of Block D heroin
?:.roel 7, and Parcel ndad and srltic an area of 4230 sq„Are fact. Said
$2 slth eastzmt parcel 63 are fully desoribod and
doscriP24oa siped by Jack S. Raub, L.S. .2312 and attached herato.
To c`ca it coy oonocra-
It is propoacd to traasfo. 4-11. oY th PrOillty dancribed ha^eia and as
i9attaehat to and a Part of tbio re1ubdtvis4ca to a5 sou, m. ALEW NILLL'31
l. Tborofbm, tbo pem1t for tbie rocutdivi„ >fan =y bo issued W caid
nov omor SP tbds teanaur ie cmy2sted P: • to tha o=Pletioa of the
snbdiviaion appllod for hmvin.
Mianio S. Bis_':V,
11
1]
1&
13
14
19
16
17
is
191
201
i
21'
22�23
24
26
26
271
28 Y
29
30' p
31
3211 ;
Qd°.y„es 20 s. 1Sii%
i
f Job Va- 3323
21 i =he hartl,reater7y 49.2o 1'ce3 of that ;iostion of Lot
c7m;a7 on a .'.:V7 E`urneor reoo -,.e d in Book is .^_ ^t:; -1
4 7I w2 a_ :- aceilr�aeoaa recorca or CUr=Se CotzntY .. a -A
� Ca1lYbra.ay
"v 1lo ;-,�17` o :n.c=oetlon of tao
L 4. yJ
G .: Y1C _ °SVOy idYY3L'_ ^]. Yn5
j CC -- GC y1
as EhOlil 63 1 y a
3 I v .ao�.h G ..•
(fi per -3 F- cio: ":� � "on of . e i.:,l°tL- L3k ."� 3 .? of
29th';Vain4Ey az G ld z�en1 r Y4:e
r _c to a 2013 c.,,. -; :' Gor der Ytx; thence o_ t l 430 00t J
If I y
,
te~°3J ii a `
4'o.. - Ad u-cthreaecriy u of the
: :z oa 23.00 tae°ea :oat, 53° 29 Goo Las, iU"eTv'
_
Woct (41.92 Ye3t) 51.05 Peat, on ra:s:�-
6' sa S_a flo
2da 6o tl30 hcas: rd„ c: a tar ea+Sro conon *o to rv;:
*_stw a rod' o,
7.00 Paot; t:6 0 a._7•coe -?y
S- 3.57 °eet3 1.2o i &� ty �e L e
nav:ed u -y
:sri .?
_ aye_,.
, t ao ca es1 =+ aint d tue o
C =ty - d 8eacrlU::d 1 .E u
2<�O 172 or Deca-a of Gal C. �i GJ s y; t:1£^5" J1•t�78EL " "u5 *�^
! Qda
A:.: l.s 3_' a id 1r,
Y:..a scld roathrw ,. a.'. '•G ab
1L-.0 of t o a s; 's7 u • k- 1._1100 NO"'theasterly r -jor,, w::a SZ-0 Eout i-
y0 4erlq lrolo' -4 st$on 90.00 Pest y I
� tsars- o;4Ylaasl� ta:a.,.a cairt of
i
exooytlna, 'v'OL -* r= t"-c ?or410n snCluded, In °s_C1P10 U,» ;780 Par�-
'=1S 2leatrla Siraaa3 6ra;ra on caid. es� or co. -or.;, del 2zar.
Iaa s*utheaatvz°,F lino of 1W,0001. ;ta. 2 ,Oi °� to .a=
OC4 "Outboastor-.y of thJ caid .jOL �.
''v' :4-j' -, of t.a
9. th.:rastor7y line of Bc••- -- A-•a.L',
. y., �3 y rte,.. I
u3C.th or -
rntAaaater y io.00 PEOt c_ Pot ce2 a0-. + r
fxarei: .-e ciaecrthe,?e
:lea
jAM S
e3* 1
44
i
zo
C�ZTA MZ�.
� .... 3323
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
Edward A Faster and Helen L. Foster
2501 First Avenue
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
Order ND.: 6707610
Escrow No.:. CO- 15750 -EG
Reeorded In OfWae Raaarda. Qa"dy I Orange
Tela Daly, melt- order
lJAll!91R6lIIIEI91g�IIM&R9 26.00
2003001519649 08:00am 12129/03
116 30 O11 A36 R23 6
0.00 0.00 0.00 9.0910.09 a90 9.10 moo
SPACE ABOVE THIS UNE Is FOR RECORDER'S UR
ALL INCLUSIVE DEED OF TRUST; ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS;
AND REQUEST FOR NOTICE
(LONG, FORM)
This DEED OF TRUST, made November 16, 2003, between Marsh Development Comparry, Inc., a Calflomie
Corporation, herein caged ('MAKER' OR 'TRUSTOR'), whose address is 400 Westchester Place, Fullerton, CA
92636,
West Coast Escrow, a Ca9fomia Corporation, herein called TRUSTEE, and Edward A. Foster and Helen L. Foster,
Q husband and wife as community property, herein caged ('HOLDER' OR "BENEFICIARY *), WfTNESSETH; That
Trustor grants to Trustee in trust, with power of sake, that property in the City of Newport Beach (Corolla Del Mar
Area), County of Orange, State of California, described as. (oollectivety, the "Property. wy.
Q Land. The f0fiowin0 described teal property (colhdirely, the "Land*)-,
~ PARCEL 2: 5�r ERhI$lT
The Northwesterly 49.20 feet of that portion of Lot D of Corona Del Mar. as shown on a map thereof
recorded in Book 3 Pages 41 and 42 of Miscenaneous Maps, records of Orange County, California,
more particularly described as folllows:
Beginning at the point of intersection of the Southweshady line of Pacific Drive, ►amwedy Electric
Way, as shown on said map with the Southwesterly prolongation of the Norgrwasierly line of
Begonia Avenue, fomtedy 29 Avenue, as said Begonia Avenue is laid out and shown on said map
of Corona Del Mar; thence 40 degrees East along said Southwesterly prolongation of the
Northwesterly line of Begonia Avenue, 20.00 %K thence South 63 degrees 52 feet East, 103,50
feet; thence South 26 degrees 28 feet West (41.92 feet) 51.05 feet, as measured in the field, to the
beginning Of a tangent curve concave to the North and having a radius of 75.00 feet; thence
Southwesterly along said curve (153:57 feet) 148.26 feet as measured In the fieM, to the and of
said curve being a point on the Northeasterly One of the County toad as described in deed recorded
May 3, 1916, in tools 282, page 172 of Deeds of said Orange County; thence NorOnwastedy along
the Northeasterly nine of said County road to the point of intersection with the said So"ll"Nes"
prolongation of the Northwesterly line of Begonia Avenue; thence Northeasterly along the said
Southwesterly prolongation 90.00 feet, more-or-less, to the point of beginning.
Excepting therefrom that portion included In Pacific Drive, formerly Electric Way. as shown on said
map of Corona Del Mar.
The Sortheastedy line of said Parcel 1 being paragel to and 4920 feet Southeasterly of the said
Southwesterly prolongation of the Northwastarty tine of Begonia Avenue.
PARCEL 3:
An easement 10 00 feet in width for ingress and egress over the Nertheas" 10.00 feet of Parcel
No. 1 of Resubdivision No. 2 of the City of Newport Beach recorded December 14, 1954 in book
2696, page 420 of Official Records of said Orange County.
Together with additional lands, estates and development rights hereafter acquired by Trustor for use in connection with
the development, ownership or occupancy of such real property, and all additional lands and estates therein which may,
from time to time, by supplemental dead of tnrst or otherwise be expressly made subject to the lien of this Security
Instrument;
Ihtorovements. The btdtdtngis, structures, fixtures, addRions, accessions, enlargements, extensions,
modifications, repairs, replacements and improvements now or hereafter erected or located on the Land (the
"Improvements*),
Agreements and Development Rights. All agreements, contracts (including architectural and engineering
agreements pertaining to the Property), riertificstes, instruments, franchlees, hermits, licenses, approvals, development
rights, utility rights, consents, plans, spec ficstione and other documents, now or hereafter entered into, and all lights and
entitlements therein and thereto. respecting or pertaining to the devebpanent use, occupation, construction
management or operation of the Property (including any Improvements), and all rtgtht, tide and Interest of Trustor therein
and thereunder, including, without limitation, the right, upon the happening of any default hereunder, to receive and
collect any sums payable to Trustor thereunder:
In the event Trustor sells, conveys, or aliwabs title to property described herein, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, or
(ii) defaults in any obligation or covenant under this Dead of Trust, or (iii) defaults viler the Senior Dead of Trust or ()v)
defaults under the promissory note secured by this Deed of Trust low NOW), or (v) defaults under the Other AITD
Promissory Nile' (as defined in the Note), all sums Wren owing under the Note secured hereby shall become
immediately due and payable, at the option of the Holder(s) thereof.
In the event it becomes necessary to pay off exiytingfundedying first trust deed bosh prior to maturity of AITD, Beneficiary
agrees to subordinate to a new first loan, providing new loan does riot exceed the sum of $938,000.00 including all
parcels (1••, 2 and 3).
This Deed of Trust secures the payment of a portion of the purrshase price given for the property described herein and is
Second and subject to a First Deed of Trust of record.
Trustor also assigns to Beneficiary all rents, issues and profits of said property reserving the tight to coped and use the
same excerpt during continuance of default thereunder and during continuance of such default authorizing Beneficiary to
collect and enforce the same by any lawful means in person, or by receiver to be appointed by a court,
This is an all- inclusive deed Of mist subject and subordinate to deed(s) of bust encumbering said land and more
particularly identified in the Request for Notice set forth on Page 2 and hereinafter referred to as 'ncluded deeds of
trust', securing notes, hereinafter referred to as "included notes ".
Trustor requests that any notice of default and any notice of sale hereunder be mailed to Trustor at the address
hereinafter set forth. The execution by or on behalf of Trusty of this deed of trust Mall also constitute a signing by or on
behalf of Trustor of this
'Other Note: That certain Ail- Inclusive NOW Secured by AiFinclusive Deed Of Trust both dated Decernber 17, 2003 in tithe
principal amount of $060,000.00 executed by Marsh Development Company, Inc., a California corporation, as
Maker/Trustor in favor of Mid - Exchange, Inc., a California corporation, as Qualified Intermediary for Edward A. Feuer
and Helen L. Foster, husband and wife as community property, as Beneficiary.
—Parcel 1 as described in Exhibft'A' anscneo hereto and made a part hereof.
In accordance with Section 2924b, Civil Code, requeat is made that copy of any Notice of Default and a copy of any
Notice of Sale under the Deed of Tnlst recorded in the office of the Recorder of Orange County, on September 18,
2003, as Instrument No. 2003001142812, executed by Edward•A Foster and Helen L. Foster, Husband and Wife, as
Trustor, in which Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, inc.. ( "MER'S "), solely as nominee for Greenpoint
Mortgage Funding, Inc., a Corporation, it successors and/or assigns is named as Benefxaary and Marfn Conveyancing
Corp. as Trustee; and
Under the Deed of Trust recordeed in the Office of the Recorder of Orango County, on NlA as Instrument No. N /A,
executed by H/A as Trusior, In which NIA is named as Beneficiary and N /A as Trustee,
be mailed to Harry C. Marsh, Jr- Marsh Development Company, Inc. at 400 Westchester Place, Fullerton, CA 92835.
For the purpose of securing;
(1) Performance of each agreement of Tnstor Incorporated by reference or coMamed herein;
(2) Payment of to indebtedness evidenced by one promissory note of even data tareurltlh, any exrisharcre,. modification,
changes or renewals thereof In the Principal sum of 111.020Ab0.00 payable to Senesciery:
(3) The Payment of any money that may be advanced by the Beneficiary to Tntsfor, or his successors, vrith kderest thereon,
succa"or by additional naes (indicating they are so sacred) or by endorsement on IM w�rral note, executed by Trbsfm or his
suasssor.
A. TO PROTECT THE SECURITY HEREOF. TRUSTOR AGREES:
(1) To perform the obligations waxed by such included deeds of trait othor than the payments to be made by Beneficiary as
set forth In the note secured by the deed of trust. Aa between the parties hereto and their successors and assigns, no assumption or
guarantee agreement executed by Trustos for the ben0fir of fire holders of the included notes stall be deemed o allied this obligation
of Beneficiary.
(2) To keep said property in good eoridivon and repair not to remove, ranovere, Improve. a demolish as or any portion of
any building d destroyed to complete or restare Po "" and In good anti twrkmardike manner any building which may be constructed.
damaged or destroyed thm�ri and M pay when due at clalme fm labor perWnmd and materials lumished therefore: to cam with
all laws affecting said properly or requiring any atteranons or iniproverrards to male tlaraah, rhvt o h)OfmrrNt poyrnk y®ek
thereof: not to commit. suffer or pemvt any as upon said properly in violation of taw; to anitivete, Irrigate, tartk@e, turrhigak, pmra and
ex all other acts which from the character m use d sad properly may be reasonaby rnecgsemy, {nor specific enumerations herekh not
excluding the general.
(3) Beneficiary slab mhlmam fire Insurance on the Property with loss pay a to genetics y. The amohxt a>tieded fader any
fire or other insurance pdky may to spotted by Bmnofwiery upon my Indebtedneas warred hereby and h such odor as eneficary
may determine. a at Option of Beneficiary the entire amount so ceYeped or miry part thereof nney be released a True
e !fort m release sfnntl not sae or waive any default m notice of default herawrda, or invalidate any act tone pursuant to such
C4) To appear in and der and any action or prcoeedag purporting to afkd the security hereof or the rights or powers of
Beneficiary m Trustee: and to pay all costs and expenses, kxluding ceets d evidence of title and Odom y6 fees. m a reasonable harm
iDneeeany such action m proceeding in which Beneficlery m Trustee may appear, grid lh any suit brought by Benetdary to foreclose thlg
(5) TO Pay: at least Iair days before Qeknquday ek taxes and asshneamlema affecting said Property, kThx% hg auessmase on
aPPunenent water stork: when due. all encumbrances, Charges and liens, except those payments to be medic by Bmhefidary as
provided in the note segued hereby, . with ktereal, on said property or any pan thereof, which appear to be oafs or superior hereto, sit
costs, fees and expenses oftMs Trust,
Should Truster fail to make any payment or to do any act as herein provided, then Senefidary or Trustee, but without obligation so to
do and without notice to or demand upon Trwlor and without releasing Trusim from any obligation hereof, may: make or do the sane
in such manner and to such extent ha either may deem necessary to protect the searrAir thereof, Beneficiary a Trustee thetrg
asecriry hereof or the said property for sheen MaPOSes: appear k end defend any action of proceeding Piaporffiig to rhifect Me
lien which in the judgment r>�hts or powers of Beneficiary or Trustee: pay, Purchase. contest or comProrMSe any encumbrance, charge or
expenses, employ td eider appears to be Prim or superior hereto; and, o exercisitg any arch Wawa, Pay necessary
pay his reasonphh keg.
(g) To Pay Inxnedudey and without demand all swa So expended by Baratdary or Trustee. with interest from date of
expenditure at the amount allowed by law in eded ht the tale hereof. and to pay for ery alANkrrlerrl prwidad Im by raw, in edam at. the
date hereof regarding the obligation secured hereby any amoure demanded by Me BenVy MM not to env ded the maximum afloweQ by
law at the time when said statement Is demanded.
B. IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED:
STATE OF C
COUNTY OF
a Notary I
appeared
pQM2QatLkaQwA4e-m@, (or prod to me on the basis of
satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) Whose nar"s)
subSCQb6d to the within instrument and Acknowledged
loomme than0ishe/they executed the 0 In"M ei
authorized capacily(as) and ituil by . Wgna=s)
w the I
authorized
the person(s), or ErEtimly rupXon bet f
which the person(&), acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS rr:, end offi/7
Signature YJ"
Signature of Notary
STATE OF CALWNLA
COUNTY OF ' . / r-� btP-R-
On
me
pwgsRai�(or proved to me on am be= Of
satisfactory evktonce) to be the person(s) wtrDSe name(g)
ialrg. subscrjbadl to the witMn trument and adMOV1190ked
in'le
to me that heMM63 executed the same In r I
r
authorized capacity(iies) and that by =;Qj=ras)
on the Instrument the Person(s), or the entity upon behalf of
which the persori(s), acted executed the Instrument.
WITNESS m
,"and and o" seal.
Signatu
Signahme of Notary
) SS.
Signature of Trustor
ny, kitc.
lillarfyA. marsh, -Jr. PtoskNrilrw
Set
ANN COMIDICT
r
i el P"g*jM'3' 71
(This area for official notarial Mail)
Signature of Beneficiary
jSS_
e.' 'k ,
Edward A. Faster
Helen L. Faster
�v uhffi�c-lffarnl* 0
ORAWN COLN"
MY Gomm EW A" 3. 2"?
(This area for ofkw notarial seat)
((T IS RECOMMENDED THAT, PRIOR TO THE EXECUTION OF THIS ALL4NCLUSrVE DEED
OF TRUST, THE PARTIES CONSULT WITH THEIR ATTORNEYS WITH RESPECT TO SAME.)
13
:11:1
PARCEL 1:
That portion of Lot D of Corona pet Mar, as shorn on a map thereof recorded in gook 3 pages
41 and 42 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of Orange County, California, more partioWarty
described as follows:
Beginning at the point of intersection of the Southwesterly line of Pacific Drive, formerly Electric
Way, as shown on said map with the Southwestery prolongation of the Northwesterly line of
Begonia Avenue, formerly 290 Avenue, as said Begonia Avenue is laid out and Mown on said
map of Corona Del Mar, thence 40.00 degrees Fast along said Southwesterly prolongation of the
Northwesterly fine of Begonia Avenue, 20.00 feet; thence South 63 degrees 52.00 feet East,
103.50 feet, thence South 26 degrees 28 feet West (47:02 feet) 51.05 feat, as measured in the
field, to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the North and having a radius of 75.00 feet:
thence Southwesterly along said curve (153.57 feet) 148:28 feet as measured in the fiaid, to the
end of said curve being a point on the Northeasterly line of the County road as described in deed
recorded May 3, 1916. in took 282. page 172 of Deeds of said Orange County; thence
Northwesterly along the Northeasterly line of said County road to the point of Intersection with the
said Southwesterly prolongation of the Northwesterly Ine of Begonia Avenue: thence
Northeasterly along the said Southwesterly prolongation 00.00 fleet more-or-less, to the point of
beginning.
Excepting therefrom that portion included in Pacific Drive. formerly Electrk Way, as shown on
said map of Corona Del Mar.
Also excepting therefrom the Northwesterly 49.20 feet
The Southeasterly line of said exception being parallel to and 49.20 feet
Southwesterly prolongation of the Nortlrw�6arly line of Begonia Avenue. of the
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE
AND WHEN RECORDED NAIL TO:
Marsh De olopmant Company Inc.
400 We"Cheeaar Flats
Fullerton, CA 92835
Order No.:
Escrow No.: CO- 1670-EQ
a.P.w.: ) <s- - Ors /9
GRANT DEED
Reeerded In O"ICIM Re ora4 County of Orange
Tern Day, eIM.Retorder
IpIIN'lilaffl'M91pIpflipNp.p 30.00
20030011919648 08:00am 12129103
118 30 G02 3
42268122.0720,000.00 4.00 0.000.00 oGD
THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR(S) DECLARE(S)
DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX IS $ 845.35CITY TRANSFER TAX IS $ n/a
[XI computed on full value of properly conveyed, or
0 computed on full value few value of liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale.
Q unincorporated area [X[ City Of Newport Bomb AND
M FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
J 1 Edward A. Foster Helen L Foster, husband and Wife as community property
hereby GRANT(S) to
Marsh Development Company, Inc., a California corporation
the following described real property in the Cou
Ell
nty of Orange, State of California:
PARCEL 2 and 3
LEGAL DESCRIPTION ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF AS EXHIBIT "A"
Dated: November 12, 2003
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF
on cJy:4' ''✓�/ ,Q O[�i Eafore me
a Notary Public in and foor� laid Count and Smote.
persOnalk0woAo4a me (or proved to me on the basis
of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) vAme
name(S)Mdare subscribed to the within instrument and
acknwdadged to me thatbeNpWtlwy executed Rte
same in hialla fitheir auMOrUvd capecly(ws) and that
by hieAw &air signature(s) on the heitunwnt the
peraon(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the
pemon(s), acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my and of 'at ai.�
Signature ,� Dom( �»tl�a��7
Commission Expiration =7 =40
Edward A. Foster
Helen L. Faster
Comte iMtaMi
Camabdon 0 tAM3
NNwr rltlo - eallioa90
(This area for official notarial seaf)
MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO- M9rsh Dee9ionment Corrimnv. for.- 400 We9kohe9br pine Fullerton, CA axu
_._ _
EMIBIT `An
PARCEL 2:
The Northwesterly 49.20 feet of that portion of Lot D of Corona Del Mar, as shown on a map
thereof recorded in Hook 3 Pages 41 and 42 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of Orange County.
Cakfomia, more particularly described as follows;
Beginning at the point of intersection of the Southwesterly tine of Pac tie Drive, formerly Electric
Way, as shown on said map with the Southwesterly prolongation of the Northwesterly fine of
Begonia Avenue, formerly 29 M Avenue, as said Begonia Avenue is laid out and shown on said
map of Corona Del Mar. thence 40 degrees East along said Southwesterly prolongation of am
Northwesterly line of Begonia Avenue, 20.00 feet; thence South 63 degrees 52 feet East, 103.50
feet; thence South 26 degrees 28 feet West (41.92 feet) 51.05 teet, as measured in the frail, to
the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the North and having a radius of 75.00 feet; thence
Southwesterly along said curve (153.57 feet) 148.28 feet, as measured in the field, to the end of
said curve being a pcird on the Northeasterly lime of the County road as described in deed
recorded May 3, 1916, in book 282, page 172 of Deeds of said Orange County; thane
Northwest" along the Northeasterly One of said County road to the point of intersection with the
said Southwesterly prolongation of the NordwaSMrty line of Begonia Avenue; thence
Northeasterly along the said Southwesterly prolongation go 00 feet, more- or4ess, to the point of
beginning.
Excepting therefrom that Portion inckAed in Pacific Drive, formerly 6lectrie Way. as shown on
said map of Corona Del Mar,
The Southeast" line of said Parcel 1 being parallel to and 49.20 feet SouOieas" of One said
Southwesterly prolongation of the Nortlyassterty fine of Begonia Avenue.
PARCELS:
An easement 10.00 feet M wkhh for ingress and egress over the Northeast" 10.00 feet of
Parcel No. 1 of Resubdivision No. 2 of the City of Newport Beach recorded December 14, 1964 to
book 2896, page 420 of Official Records of said Orange County.
Government Code ?7361.
I certify under penalty that the Notary Seal on the document to which this
sratement is attached, reads as follows:
Name of Notary: ` 4Ro(- fL�EE �t4s, YRT-
Date Commission Expires: r u/ fr��y,I cA Z07
County where bond isfded:
Commission Number: qq -� 1 +JO Z3
Vendor Number: ►VAIA -I
I certify under penalty of perjury and the laws of the State of California
that the illegible portion of this document to which this statement is
attached, reads as follows:
Place ofErecution: frvine California Date: 12" 4
Signature:
*Personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence) to be the persons) is/are subscribed to the within instrument
and acknowledged to me that helshe/they executed the same in
hfslherltheir authorized eapaciry(ies), and that by his/her /their signatures)
on the instrument the person(s) or the enrity upon behalf of which the
persons) acted, erecuted the instrument
rIGOR 77AAr drPWAV- AyW--#
RECORDATION REMESTED SY:
LA JOLLA SANK, FSB
390 WEST VALLEY PARKWAY
ESCONDI00, CA 92026
R.eartled In Metal RaWNs. Oraor COrrrry
Tare Cdy, CNSkkihamser
IiiillNdMl11111 15.00
200700012346102:29pm 0217
1097311174
0.00 0.00 4060.80 eP0e00aOD 0.10
Fos RECORDER'S use ONLr
MODIFICATION Of DEED OF TRUST
THIS MODIFICATION OF DEED OF TRUST dabd TvMuery 1. 2007, Is aide sad 430sgad between
MARSH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC.. A CALIFRRNIA CORPORATIDN. WhM Nkim" b 400
390 TCHESTER PL PARKWAY, TON. CA 9205 (-026 1w1) w L► JOLLA SANK. FSS. -11010 edbre b
DEED OF TRUST. Lender and Tmwtm have Or load into a Deed of Trust defied February 9, 2005 (the 'Deed Of
Trust') which has been recorded in ORANGE CaurtcY, Stw of California' se fotbws:
RECORDED FEBRUARY 14, 2016, IN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY. STATE DE
CALIFORNIA AS DOCUMENT 2006DS0114M'
REAL PROPERTY DESCMMON, The Deed Of Trust coves the Wowing described real Property located in
ORANGE county. State of tabfO is;
SEE EK9418IT 'A' ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
I The Red m
Property Of its s"014t Is commonly kOgWn M 2340 AND 2350 eAY61� DRIVE, CORONA DEL
Val MAR. CA 92626.
`-O MODIFICATION. Lmtder and Truster haraby madifV the Dead of Trust as tollofve-
THE NOTE TERMS ARE HERESY MODfEWV AS FOLLOWS: THE ORRNMAL LOAN COMMITMWT
O AMOUNT IS RHCREASED TO 64,601.000A0, AND THE MATURITY DATE 95 EXTENDED TO SWMMSM
1, 2007: ALL OTHER TRIMS TO REMAIN THE SAME.
CONTMtN8 VALRNTY. Except w expfeaalV naddlad above, the terms of the PTn doe Deed ei Teat alias
remain unchanged and in full farce and affect. C somt by Lender to this ModiRcstion does fiat waive Lender's
right to require sulct pertwrtm,, Of me Deed of Truro as changed above bar obligate Landw mote w other
lulure motEfications. Nothing in this Modification Constitute a smtefaction of the Promissory
credit sgreemmt secured by the Dead of Trust (the'NOte"). It is the lrrtentim of Lander to retain M Nnb1e dl
parties to tlw Deed of Trust and all perdea, oekm, and mdmus to the Nota, Including ectornmodadon
parties. unless a pertV n is erryreaslV released by Lander in writing. Any maker, to endorser. including
lwconaodation makers, shill not be released by viRw at tfes Medtticstion. If my parson who signed the
original Deed of Trust does tat sign aids MudrEcetfon. then ON persons epMng below aftn0wildgO tonsan s
McWficetion is given condfdonSFV, based on the repreasntsdun 10 Lends Ras the ran- signini) Par
m the changes end provisions of this MoWTretion Of otherwk0 will net be nlMeead by k.
This waiver SWIM
not only to any initial extension or modification. but 8190 Ili ell each subsequent wtionS.
TRUSTOR ACKNOWLEDGES HAVING READ ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THIS MODIFICATION OF DEED OF
TRUST AND TRUSTOR AGREES TO TR TERMS. THIS MODIFICATION OF DEED OF TRUST IS DATED
FEBRUARY 1. 2007.
TRUSTOR;
MARSH DEVE}.OPMENT w.
r �
HA;., C. : JR.. t of MARSH DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY J
Loan No: 10et02t328 MODIFWATION OF DEED OF TRUST
{Continued!
Page
LENDER:
LA JOLLA BANK. FSB
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLED MEMT
STATE
ISS
COUNTY OF ILEry1VG
? .._. 20:02.
r
N OPP80n0d MARRY C. MARSH, JR., parapnapy known to tee- for Proved to me an the bsafa of
sadafanO.y "Wean) to be the PtiMeontaF whore nernale) ' eubwibed to the wltliin inahunrent and
nowledped to me that �a;aMwghey axeatted lira smne in 1� euihorited
alpnah"M sa the mabumem ute lellwitytieeh.end that by
acted, exaeuted the elstmmeot. pw3mq , or the mr11tY UPon behalf of wtdeh the patsonfe}-
GREGORY V. VEIX F
ttm- *XLIM, at62a 16$
WfITES$ m1 find and aRlolal ,sal. V nmuv: cnsuwu
(Sad)
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWL.ED(WENT
STATE OF
I SS
COUNTY OF
before me.
Person", and acWtowp,d ad .. y.. - - -... __— .,.— ,_— _..._ —.. —•
the basis appeared _ _ b. the paraonQy known to ate (Or proved to me on
the 6n,en of d ackno igad m) to to ttw' Pwe,nfe) mortals. ndrro(a) ialma tuDecrfbed to the within
p io me shot huMmAhey execrated the seems In hisflmr/NNr authoruod
CapacitySes), and that by hiwbwtthWf yipnanPe(s) on the inabument ere person(,), w the entity Won behalf of
which the Pe uon(s) acted, exomnod the Ins a,,nt.
YVRNESS my heed and official ,asf.
(Snell
CALIFORNIA ALL4WRPO9EACKNOWLEDMENT____
State of California
County
On before Me.
personalty appeared CILAtl4t F. -. -
)4 personally known to Me
,D proved to me on the bash of SdPJUCtMY evidence
to be the pettson(s) whose naMO(s) jelarre subscribed
- - - - - - - - - - - to the within 1nournent and acknowledged to me 90
AM&MG helshwVW executed the same in his/her/lIleir
0 16"M authorized capadtV"), and #0 by histhentheir
Pkaw. n - .
Q:EE sowdura(s) on the instrument the Person($)- or the
MWO&A*
W" upon behalf of which ft parson(s) acted,
--w-led the instrument
FtS y and Fria s
OPTKWMNMAL
ThDVO k;bFM"n bebir W no Wq"k_WbY UK ff"Wpmv, Mkoft lep� M"Worr ftLdemonew
and COLO PRIVOW ftw I **m removal and MWWdNDMW Of UYIS fmm FU MWO"Mum-4
DDMFIPU*n of Attached Docurnard
T*e or Type of t)ocument Co.
Document Date:., AnpjjA4
__44 Number of Page%
Signeris) Other Than Named Above:
Capec"Itim) Claimed by 81W1101(9)
Signer's Name: e1hdatM ... E_ n4l,.'Ta-r_D�
:D individual
j:a corporate Officer — Tft(s):
[7 Partner — °! Umlled (7) Genefol
Q Attorney in Fact TW or lamb we
1_3 Trustee
(7-2 Guardian or Conservator
Signer 13 Pwresm":
o rya. wanner w.ewr �4aabb.• 9791 De 6W Mt. P.O By 8re2.Oer�
Signer's Name:
0 Individual
n Corporate Officer — TtWs):
r, partner —Ul Limited C General
ri Aftomeyin, Fact non d a:umb moor
U Tnistee
Uj Guardian of Conservator
Other_
SKJMf Is Representing,
h.0 M132 k MWY
... _..7- :.. , - - . _. . - __ ... - __ __ __ __ ._ - . I ....... 1 1 1- . - . ....... -
. ........ .. . . ....... .
19
EXHIBIT "A"
PARCEL 1:
THAT PORTION OF LOT D OF CORONA DEL MAR, . AS SHOWN ON A MAP THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 3,
PAGES 41 AND 42 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF PACIFIC DRIVE, FORMERLY
ELECTRIC WAY, AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE
NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF BEGONIA AVENUE, FORMERLY 29TH AVENUE, AS SAID BEGONIA AVENUE IS LAID
OUT AND SHOWN ON SAID MAP OF CORONA DEL MAR; THENCE 40°00' EAST ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY
PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHWESTERLY UWE OF BEGONIA AVENUE„ 20.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 6305TOD"
EAST, 103.50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 26028' WEST (41.92 FEET) 51:05 FEET, AS MEASURED IN THE FIELD, TO
THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 75.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE (153.57 FEET) 148.28 FEET; AS MEASURED IN THE FIELD, TO
THE END OF SAID CURVE BEING A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY UNE OF THE COUNTY ROAD AS
DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED MAY 3, 1916 IN BOOK 282, PAGE 172 OF DEEDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY;
THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID COUNTY ROAD TO THE POINT OF
INTERSECTION WITH THE SAID SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF
BEGONIA AVENUE; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SAID SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION 90.00 FEET,
MORE-OR-LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION INCLUDED IN PACIFIC DRIVE, FORMERLY ELECTRIC WAY, AS SHOWN
ON SAID MAP OF CORONA DEL MAR.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE NORTHWESTERLY 49.20 FEET; THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID
EXCEPTION BUNG PARALLEL TO AND 49.20 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION
OF THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF BEGONIA AVENUE.
PARCEL 2:
THE NORTHWESTERLY 49.20 FEET OF THAT PORTION OF LOT D OF CORONA DEL MAR, AS SHOWN ON A MAP
THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 3, PAGES 41 AND 42 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF PACIFIC DRIVE, FORMERLY
ELECTRIC WAY, AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE
NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF BEGONIA AVENUE, FORMERLY 29TH AVENUE, AS SAID BEGONIA AVENUE 15' LARD
OUT AND SHOWN ON SAID MAP OF CORONA DEL MAR; THENCE 400x' EAST ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY
PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHWESTERLY UNE OF BEGONIA AVENUE, 2D.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 63052'00'
EAST, 10150 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 26028' WEST (41.92 FEET) 51.05 FEET, AS MEASURED IN THE FIELD, TO
THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 75.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE (153.57 FEET) 148.28 FEET, AS MEASURED IN THE FIELD, TO
THE END OF SAID CURVE BEING A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY UNE OF THE COUNTY ROAD AS
DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED MAY 3, 1916 IN BOOK 282, PAGE 172 OF DEEDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY;
THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID COUNTY ROAD TO THE POINT OF
INTERSECTION WITH THE SAID SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHWESTERLY UNE OF
BEGONIA AVENUE; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SAID SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION 90.00 fEET,
MORE- OR-LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION INCLUDED IN PACIFIC DRIVE, FORMERLY ELECTRIC WAY, AS SHOWN
ON SAID MAP OF CORONA DEL MAR.
THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2 BEING PARALLEL TO AND 49.20 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE
SAID SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF BEGONIA AVENUE.
PARCEL 3:
AN EASEMENT 10.00 FEET IN WIDTH FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER THE NORTHEASTERLY 10.00 FEET OF
PARCEL NO. 1 OF RESUBDIVISION NO. 2 OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BRACH RECORDED DECEMBER 14; 1954 IN
BOOK 28%, PAGE 420 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY.
RECODRDDATd�RSTED By,
LA JOLLA BANK, FES
390 WEST VALLEY PARKWAY
ESCONDIDO, CA 9202:
Ram I lo emetal Aaem`, t7wrga county
Tall Daly, CiOrWhrAroo,
11=011"NIMM11 21.00
2GOT000434545 01: MM 07111107
t969 Mtr e
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500 000 0.00000
FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY
MOMFiCATM OF DEED OF TRUST
THIS MODIFICATION OF DEED OF TiWST dated July 1, 2007, is me" and exacWatl bmwinm
MARSH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., A CALWOIMRA CORPORATION, whose ■ minam in 400
WESTCHESTER PLACE, FULLERTON, CA 92111215 ('True at') Arlo LA JOLLA BAWL, FEE, whop addrass Is
390 WEST VALLEY PARKWAY, ESCONDIDO. CA SUMS(•La ulfr'}
DEED OF TRUST. Lander and Tnmtor have erwered into a Deed of Trust Gated February S, 2006 (tre "Dead of
Trued which has been recorded In ORANGE County, State of C.a1TMxa, as foWws:
RECORDED FEBRUARY 14, 2WIL IN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, STATE OF
1 CALWORWA AS DOCUMENT MINI ER 2006OM14MI9 AM A MODIFICATION OF DEW OF TRUST
h RECORDED FEBRUARY 26, 3007. IN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY. STATE OF
CALIFORNIA AS DOCUMENT IRMISER 3007000123491.
REAL, PROPERTY DESCRIPTION. The Oasd of Trust owere the know" descrined real =Party located In
ORANGE County, Slate of California:
�y SEE EXHISIT'A' ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
�) The Real Property or its address is nmmmy known a9 2340 AND 2960 BAYSIDE DRIVE, CORONA DEL MAR,.
CA 82625.
MODIFICATION Lander and frualor hereby modify de Dead of Tnml as follows:
`\ THE NOTE TERMS ARE HEREBY MOOWM AS FOLLOWS: THE ORIGINAL LOAN COMMITMENT IS
INCREASED TO 04A20.000.00. AND THE MATURITY DATE IS EXTENDED TO MARCH 1, 200L THE
FLOOR RATE IS 0.2509x. AND THE CEILING RATE M 1 &900 %. THE RATE IS CALCULATED AT PRIME
PLUS ZERO MARGIN: ALL OTHER TEAMS TO REMAIN THE SAME .
CONTINUING VALIDITY. Except as aWaeMy modified above, . ft tame of tie orlUynai Dead M Trust shall remael
unchanged and in full force and affect. C rMM by Lartlm to INS MaGflCetlOn Goes not wane Lenders right to
require strict perlcrmanse of Ora Deed of Trost an longed above net oWWM Lender to make any fuUu
modification. Nothing in Von Modification shall cmalpWe a aMlefawim of the promisaory note Of ader credit
agreement sscread by the Deed of Trust Re "Note'). it is the kibmilan d Lander to retain as table an Parties 10 the
Deed of Trot and an parties, makers and endumas to the Note. k+tltrdng aoonrurodallon Parties, unless a Pally e
expresxy released by Lends w WOO& Any mats or arudcrser, including esaormcGaliart maters, ahal not be
released by rime of this Modification. If any parson ware Signed me original Dead of TPRt does riot sign the
MoCtiaation. then as persona cunning below mbraMpge that this Modmmamt is 0~ zondillimadly, newel as the
mpresantedon to Lender eat the nor.aignkg Poem consents to the charges and provisions of this 1su6tloalim or
odorwise will not be TNeased by d. The warm applies not only to any kdtlal extension Or mgdi icalim, W else 10
an such subaequam actions.
TRUSTOR ACKNOWLEDGES HAVING READ ALL THE PROVISHRIE OF INS MODIFICATION OF DEED OF
TRUST AND TRUINTDR AGREES TO ITS TEAMS. THIS MODIFICATION OF DEED OF TRUST IS DATED JULY
1, 2007.
TRUSTOR:
MARSH DE OPMEN ANY, WC.
Y RS►1, DEVELOPMENT
MPA Mme.
MODIFICATION OF DEED OF TRUST Pit" 2
Loan No: 1(MI021326 (Continued)
LENDER:
LA JOLLA BANK. FSB
it :j l Tjj I l
STATE OF
COUNTY
WO F
On.,_ (5.
-- 20-q— before W, KAftaJa/
mw
HARRY C MARSH' JR, mageonally known to m (Or FftrM W TIG on m la of aatiMaotory
n,d
to be the tome
=Wfho 8�8�m 'Eby on
jheV �WmN;�thapmoWA.orthewj euoah��IttW �WW:� �Id=�
ftNW RAW
WITNESS my hand and afflcial •"
signaten, �--Yws, (said)
CERTIFICATE
STATE OF
Im
On 20 bows rrm.
pen,onally appeared POrMnatV known to m for Proved to " an
the Wig of satWA&M avid,,,,) to be the personas) V0,030 naniefs) Were mittacribod to the -Mun *WrL~y and
wVvwledgod to M Mal hefth&MW examled the carne M IIIII/bOtAWC 81,111VOTIZOd capacky(axs). and that by
hisMOrAhmr SoWure(S) on Me IrStfumOrd the POrPCfl(s), W rho antsy UPW babel at which Me person(s) acted,
executed the instn9nern.
WITNESS my hand and o"IdId *mL
signattim. (SCSI)
CALIFORNIA A-L44"JRPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
------------- -
State of California
County of - I as
On fore nr*�4--X/;4j-,24U "I',
m -air -�V� P-Whn
personally appeared ai
N..W.)dsv�q
eCOWP*dM • IMPIP
NOW PAk - clooft
AMONOGWAIV
"Verm"Lfteftesomt
l - - - - - r9
yq. M S AE
Tt"" are mbmawn ba"W
'elpersonally )mm to me
U proved to n* on the basis of satisfactory evidence
to be the person(s) whose narna(s) is/are subscribed
to the wWm instrument and acknowkKipd to me that
hel~hey executed the same in hi&fherithelr
authorized capaciMms). and that by hisftrAhm
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s). or the
entity upon behalf at which the person(p) acted,
executed the InstrurneriL
ens corm Pm~K rr"UmOmf ram" end raff"HOW"a"t
Description *I Attached Documerill
Title of Type of Davurnent:
Document Date:
Skjner(s) Other Than Named Above: . ......
Capacity(l") Claimed by SignMs)
it Individual
0 corporate Ofter - Trims):
r) Partner - C1 UrrWed Q General
2 Attorney in Fact
17 Trustee
C Guardian or Conservator
r o Other:
Sow Is Repremer":
saw.
7 (0 PeBarrs re" on VW VWvrWW
roam to arx4hur domplom
Number of Pages:
$Pgnees Nam.
0 Individual
1-1 Corporals Officer - Tille(a):
0 Partner - Li Limited [)General
0 Attorney in Few
0 Trustee
1 Guardian or Conservator
D Other.
$IglrBr La Representing: —
P.D. ft. Har•UYaM G4 03,u tb Na.+ ?
. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
EXHIBIT "A"
PARCEL 1:
THAT PORTION OF LOT D OF CORONA DEL MAR, AS SHOWN. ON A MAP THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 3,
PAGES 41 AND 42 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF PACIFIC DRIVE, FORMERLY
ELECTRIC WAY, AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE
NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF BEGONIA AVENUE, FORMERLY 29TH AVENUE, AS SAID BEGONIA AVENUE IS LAID
OUT AND SHOWN ON SAID MAP OF CORONA DEL MAR; THENCE 40°00' EAST ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY
PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF BEGONIA AVENUE, 20.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 63°52'00°
EASE, 103.SO FEET, SOUTH 26 °28' WEST (41.92 FEET) 51.05 FEET, AS MEASURED IN THE FIELD, TO
THE OF A TNGENT CURVE CONVE. TO THE THENCE SODUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE (153.57 FEET} 148,2 M N
88 FEET, AS MEASURED THE FIELD, TOE
THE END OF SAID CURVE BEING A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE COUNTY ROAD AS
DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED MAY 3, 1916 IN BOOK 282, PAGE 172 OF DEEDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY;
THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID COUNTY ROAD TO THE POINT OF
INTERSECTION WITH THE SAID SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF
BEGONIA AVENUE; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SAID SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION 90.00 FEET,
MORE -OR -LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION INCLUDED IN- PACIFIC DRIVE, FORMERLY ELECTRIC WAY, AS SHOWN
ON SAID MAP OF CORONA DEL MAR.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE NORTHWESTERLY 49.20 FEET; THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID
EXCEPTION BEING PARALLEL TO AND 49.20 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION
OF THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF BEGONIA AVENUE
PARCEL2:
THE NORTHWESTERLY 4920 FEET OF THAT PORTION OF LOT D OF CORONA DEL MAR, AS SHOWN ON A MAP
THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 3, PAGES 41 AND 42 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF PACIFIC DRIVE, FORMERLY
ELECTRIC WAY, AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE
NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF BEGONIA AVENUE, FORMERLY 29TH AVENUE, AS SAID BEGONIA AVENUE IS LAID
OUT AND SHOWN ON SAID MAP OF CORONA DEL MAR; THENCE 40°00' EAST ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY
PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF BEGONIA AVENUE, 20.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 63°52'00"
EAST, 103.50 FEET- THENCE SOUTH 26 °28' WEST (41.92 FEET) 5.1.05 FEET, AS MEASURED IN THE FIELD, TO
THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 75.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE (153.57 FEET) 148.28 FEET, AS MEASURED IN THE FIELD, TO
THE END OF SAID CURVE BEING A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE COUNTY ROAD. AS
DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED MAY 3, 1916 IN BOOK 282, PAGE 172 OF DEEDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY;
THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID COUNTY ROAD TO THE POINT OF
INTERSECTION WITH THE SAID SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF
BEGONIA AVENUE; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SAID SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION 90.00 FLEET,
MORE-OR-LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION INCLUDED IN PACIFIC DRIVE, FORMERLY ELECTRIC WAY, AS SHOWN
ON SAID MAP OF CORONA DEL MAR.
THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2 BEING PARALLEL TO AND 49.20 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE
SAID SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF BEGONIA AVENUE.
PARCEL 3:
AN EASEMENT 10.00 FEET IN WIDTH FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER THE NORTHEASTERLY 10.00 FEET OF
PARCEL NO. 1 OF RESUBDIVISION NO. 2 OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECORDED DECEMBER 14, 1954 IN
BOOK 2696, PAGE 420 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY.
7. Dan Splatter (October 3, 2009)
Response to Comment No. f
This comment is acknowledged. No response is required.
Response to Comment No. 2
The discussion and analysis presented in Section 10.3.3 (Alternative Access) identifies the potential
impacts associated with utilizing Bayside Drive as the vehicular access point for the proposed project. As
indicated in the discussion of Land Use and Planning, the Newport Beach Public Works Department has
evaluated the potential for additional access from Bayside Drive and has determined that it is undesirable
and possibly a hazard given the limited vehicular sight distances along Bayside Drive, which is both
narrow and curving. The commenter suggests that the existing driveway on Bayside Drive that provides
access to the two existing residence just below the project site should be utilized. To utilize this existing
driveway, the applicant would need an easement across the lots below. Absent an easement from his
neighbors below, a portion of Begonia Park would need to be altered to provide a driveway connecting the
lower portion of the project site to Bayside Drive. Additional paved areas and possibly a retaining wall
wound be necessary to accommodate access through the park itself and would affect the use and
enjoyment of the lower park. The Public Works Department does not support the creation of an additional
separate driveway through the park given that a larger area of the park would be devoted to the project,
but more importantly, an additional separate driveway would create one additional point of conflict along a
curving and narrow stretch of Bayside Drive that has poor sight distance.
Response to Comment No. 3
Refer to Response to Comment No. 2
Response to Comment No. 4
The easement noted by the commenter as "Parcel No. 3" of the subdivision of the two lots below the
subject property is a 10 -foot side access easement across 2360 Bayside Drive for the benefit of 2340
Bayside Drive. This easement does not impact nor is it located on the subject property. The 2005 title
report for the subject property does not indicate any private access easement to the Bayside Drive below.
Nonetheless, this comment will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration prior to taking action on the project.
Response to Comment No. 5
The documents provided by the commenter affect the two adjacent lots below and do not impact the
subject lot based upon the legal descriptions denoted within the documents. Nonetheless, this comment
will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration prior to taking action on
the project.
Megonigal Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Public Comments
November 2009
Page 13
3�
October 3, 2009
James Campbell
Newport Beach Planning Dept.
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
FY-X@-rJA-F1ff1JM
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
OCT 072009
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
RE: Application for Variance VA2007-001 and Modification MD2007-080
Dear Mr. Campbell,
Attached is the presentation our attorney, the Howett I saza Law Group, prepared for the City
Council hearing on September 23, 2008 Since our arguments were not heard during that hearing,
we would like to submit them to your department for consideration.
Re s
an Sp?letftter
430'/2 Begonia
Corona del Mar, CA
.. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . I ...... ....
HovnTT ISAZA LAw GROUP LLP
www HiLawGrcup:com
Pasadena office
56 E. Holly street, Suite 23o
Pasadena, CA.9t +o3
ph 626,564 9460 fa 636 564 9401
thowcu@HilswGmup.eom
September 22, 2008
VL4 E MAIL AND PERSONAL DELIVERY
Mayor Ed Selich and
Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Remy la orange County office
19742 MacArthur Bouleud, Ste. 35o
Irving CA 9X613
Ph949 631 3860 f: 949 309 3969
jiarza@HiLawGroup.com
Dear Mayor Selich and City Council.
This firm represents the Friends of Begonia Park ( "Friends'), a group of several
hundred concerned neighbors and citizens in the City of Newport Beach, in connection with
Friends' efforts to preserve the historic and cherished public views from Begonia Lookout
Point, Begonia Park, and Begonia Avenue in Corona del Mar. These spectacular views of the
Pacific Ocean, its beaches - Big Corona, the Wedge and the Balboa Peninsula to the South, and
the Harbor entrance and Newport Harbor to the West, are unparalleled on the Southern
California Coast, and provide Newport Beacb, and the Begonia Park neighborhood, with its
unique character.
Those important public views will be virtually destroyed by the proposed construction
of a single family residence at the South edge of Begonia Park, at the intersection of Begonia
Avenue and Pacific Avenue; generally referred to as 2333 Pacific Avenue, or the Megonigal
residence, which was approved by the Planning Commission on August 21, 2008. The
Planning Commission approval was appealed at Friends' request by Corona del Mar's
councilperson, Nancy Gardner, on August 28, 2008. The appeal has been scheduled for
hearing before the full Council this Tuesday, September 23, 2008.
We write to assert our client's objections to the approval of any structure at 2333
Pacific Avenue which would interfere with the public views from the Lookout Point, the Park,
and Begonia Avenue. Friends believe the Council must not permit these views to be
appropriated by a private landowner, but must ensure that these views are preserved for the
enjoyment of all, as required by applicable statutory law and local ordinance.
For the reasons set forth below, Friends respectfully ask the Council to act as a
responsible steward of these irreplaceable public assets and deny approval of the Megonigal
project as proposed, or, in the alternative, condition its approval on preservation of the public
view and other protections provided in the City's General Plan and local Coastal Plan, as well
as California's Coastal Act and Environmental Quality Act.
1. Legal Protections of Views from Begonia Park
A. Historic Overview
Begonia Park was established by the City of Newport Beach in 1904. The park
contains three distinct public views from the upper portion of the park (at the top of the bluff)
which have therefore taken on historical significance. The first is the view from the park itself.
The second is from Begonia Avenue, which borders the Western edge of the park. The third is
the Begonia Park Lookout Point, at the Southern edge of the bluff. In fact, until recently the
City had placed a bench at Lookout Point, above a set of stairs that led down the bluff face to
the lower portion of the park, so that all could enjoy the incredible view of the ocean, the
beaches, and the harbor below.
The parcel which now constitutes the Megonigal property was created in 1964 by the
city's abandonment of a public road easement which was to be the extension of Pacific Avenue
down the bluff to connect with Bayside Avenue. Presumably the City decided to abandon the
Pacific Avenue extension in order to preserve the park and its bluff -top views.
The first owners of the parcel created by the City's abandonment of the easement, the
Griswolds, tried to develop the property in the late 1470s. However, the City denied the
Griswolds' proposal to construct a house on the site on the basis that it would impact the public
view. At the time we understand that there was some discussion between the City and the
Griswolds that the City would acquire the parcel through its power of eminent domain in order
to preserve the public views from the park, but budget constraints at the time left these efforts
unresolved. As a result, though the parcel remains privately owned (now owned by the
applicants the Megonigals), the public views from Begonia Park have remained unencumbered
for more than 100 years.
A picture speaks a thousand words. We encourage each Council member to visit
Begonia Park and enjoy its viewpoints. For the benefit of those who have not yet had the
opportunity to do so, attached as Exhibit "1" please find a photograph which depicts the
Begonia views that will be impacted (as indicated by the story poles erected on the property
last month). We acknowledge that the photograph on which the height of the Megonigal story
poles is plotted was taken several years ago (the bench in the foreground has since been
changed by the City), but the point is to illustrate the public views which will no longer exist if
the house is constructed as proposed.
I
S9
B. The Proposed Construction Violates the City's General Plan
The General Plan provides the following unambiguous protections of public view as an
historic, aesthetic or open space public asset (all further citations to the City's General Plan
will be to the Natural Resources Element, and are designated "NEC).,
"NR 17 Maintenance and expansion of designated opens space resources.
NR 17.1 Open Space Protection
Protect, conserve, and maintain designated open space areas that define the
City's urban form, serve as habitat for many species, and provide
recreational opportunities.
NR 17.2 Other Uses of Public Sites Designated for Open Space
Consider conversion of public sites designated for open space to other uses
only when a conversion will meet a significant need, and there are no
alternative sites that could feasibly meet that need.
(Emphasis added; also see NR 17.1)
NR 20 Preservation of significant visual resources.
NR 20.1 Enhancement of Significant Resources
Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual
resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and
harbor from public vantage points, as shown in Figure NRI
NR 20.2 Requirc new development to restore and enhiance the visual quality in
visually devraded areas, where feasible. and n vide view easements
or corridors designed to pro fta public views or to restore public
yjews in developed alrea% where appimprinte.
NR 20.3 Protect and enhance public view corridors from the following roadway
segments (shown in Figure NR3), and other locations [which] may be
identified in the future."
Approval of the Megonigal project as proposed violates the General Plan public view
preservation policies.
60
C. The Proposed Construction Violates the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP)
The CLUP, specifically Sections 4.1 and 4.4, consistent with the Coastal Act (Section
30251), also contains unambiguous protections of public view which mirror the General Plan:
"CLUP 4A.1 Coastal Views
Newport Beach is located in a unique physical setting that provides a variety of
spectacular coastal views, including those of the open waters of the ocean and bay,
sandy beaches., rocky shores, wetlands, canyons, and coastal bluffs. The City has
historically been sensitive to the need to protect and provide access to these scenic and
visual resources and has developed a system of public parks, piers, trails, and viewing
areas. Coastal views are also provided from a number of streets and highways and, due
to the grid street pattern in Western Newport; Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, and
Corona del Mar, many north -south tending streets provide view corridors to the ocean
and bay.
CLUP 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.
CLUP 4.4.1 -2
Design and
site new development.
including landscapin& so as to
minimize
impacts to ggblie
coastal views.
CLUP 4.4.1 -4
Where apRmpriate,
require
new development to provide view
easements
or corridors desiUed
to protect public coastal views
or to restore
public coastal views
in developed areas.
CLUP 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
accept public coastal views.
CLUP 4.4.1 -9
Where feasible,
provide public
trails. recreation areas. and
Approval of the Megonigal project as proposed violates the CLUP public view
preservation policies.
D. Further Existing Protections
In fact, the Begonia Park Lookout Point is already formally designated by the City as a
public view point. Coastal View Map 4 -3, prepared in accordance with the General Plan and
the CLUP, specifically designates Begonia Park and Begonia Park Lookout Point as a Public
View Point. A copy of Map 4-3, from the City's website, is attached as Exhibit 2.
4/
In addition, the City's Zoning Code also offers specific protections of public view
during the planning process. Section 20.65.030(B)(3)(b) provides that in establishing grade for
any residential project the Planning Commission "shall make the following findings ": "That
the proposed grade and related development will not result in the loss of arty public views ".
The Planning Commission did not make this finding in approving the Megonigal project on
August 21.
In conjunction with this proceeding, Friends also now formally request that the ocean
and harbor views from Begonia Avenue be specifically designated as a public view corridor
consistent with the General Plan and the CLUP. It is our understanding that this request is
typically made to the Planning Commission, but as these issues are being considered by the full
Council, Friends make this request at this time.
E. Coastal Development Permit
The Planning Commission, in accepting the Staff Report recommendation to approve
the Megonigal application on August 21, apparently relied on staffs belief that the Categorical
Exclusion Order E -77 -5 (the `CatX ") applies, and therefore no Coastal Development Permit is
required for this project. Friends disagree. We believe that the CaCK expired on adoption of
the CLUP in December of 2005. Therefore, the applicant should be required to obtain a
Coastal Development Permit fronfthe Coastal Commission prior to continuing with this
project.
ll. Legal Protections of the Coastal Sluff Landform
A. The Proposed Construction Violates the City's General Plan
The General Plan also provides the following protections of the coastal bluff landforms
and biological diversity on the bluffs as a significant public asset. (See specifically NR 23
(landform) and NR 10 (biological) policies, portions of which are quoted below.]
"NR 23.1 Maintenance of Natural Topography
Preserve cliffs, canyons, bluffs, significant rock outcroppings, and site
building to minimize alteration of the site's natural topography and
preserve the features as a visual resource.
NR 23.7 New Development Design and Siting
Design and site new development to minimize the removal of native
vegetation, preserve rock outcroppings, and protect coastal resources.
NR 10.3 Analysis of Environmental Study Areas
NR 10.4 New Development Siting and Design
Require that the siting and design of new development including
landscaping and public access, protect sensitive or rare resources
against any significant disruption of babitat values:"
Approval of the Megonigal project as proposed violates these General Platt landfotm
and biological diversity preservation policies, as is set forth in the reports of Friends'
biologist, Robb Hamilton, and Mr. Jan Vandersloot, discussed below.
B. The Proposed Construction Violates the Coastal Land Use Plan
The CLUP also provides the following protections of the coastal bluff landforms and
biological diversity on the bluffs as a significant public asset. [See generally CLUP 4.1 and
specifically 4.1.1 -1 and 4.1.1 -2,4.4 and specifically 4.4.3 (excerpted below), 4.6, and 4.71
"CLUP 4.4.312
CLUP 4.43 -15 Design and site new development to minimize the removal of
native vegetation, preserve rock outcroppings, and protect
coastal resources."
Approval of the Megonigal project as proposed violates these CLUP landform and
biological diversity preservation policies, as is set forth in the reports of Friends' biologist,
Robb Hamilton, and Mr. Jan Vandersloot, discussed below.
C. Both View and Landform Protections Most he Considered
In reviewing the Megonigal project in April of this year, and in approving it on August
21, the Planning Commission tried to strike a balance between public view protection and
coastal bluff protection, finding that the latter could be subjugated to the former if
necessary under the circumstances. Friends do not disagree that public view protection is a
preeminent public resource which must be preserved here, but note that it is uncertain that
the General Plan and the CLUP, or the Coastal Act and CEQA for that matter, consider one
less important than the other. Both, in our view, must be evaluated, and protected,
separately.
49
III. An Environmental impact Report Is Required
The Staff Report provided to the Planning Commission in conjunction with the August
21, 2008 hearing at which it issued its approval contends that the Megonigal project is
categorically exempt under CEQA in that it "contains no environmentally significant resources
on site" However, it notes that this exemption does not apply for any construction "where
there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the
environment ". Therefore, either a negative declaration or an Environmental Impact Report
will have to be prepared.
Friends assert that the site should be designated as an environmental study area, and
that either a negative declaration or an EIR should be prepared before the project is permitted
to proceed finther.
Friends disagree with the assertion that the site contains no environmentally significant
resources. On the contrary, ample evidence exits to suggest that the site contains
environmentally significant resources. Friends' biologist Robb Hamilton has indicated in his
letter of this date to the City Council that he has found the existence of protected plant species
on the site, including coastal bluff shrub, which require further study. Mr. Jan Vandersloot, in
his September 15, 2008 letter to the City Council in connection with this hearing, has provided
evidence of similar findings. At a minimum, the evidence before the City Council suggests
that there is a "reasonable possibility" that the construction will significantly impact
environmental resources on the site.
IV. Alternatives to the Proposed Construction
As can be seen from the points raised above, the City Council's approval of this project
will ensure an appeal to the Coastal Commission, and possibly subsequent litigation. Friends
contend that the project should be denied. It violates the City's General Plan and the Coastal
Land Use Plan. Further, it requires the preparation of an EIR. Friends point out that other
alternatives may exist, however.
A. Acquire the Property
The simplest solution to this conundrum is for the City to acquire the Megonigal
property and dedicate it as a part of Begonia Park, thus assuring its use by all residents, and the
public, in perpetuity. The City can do this via its power of eminent domain or by entering into
discussions with the property owner to donate or trade the property. Such an investment in the
preservation of this important public resource is warranted here.
In considering this alterative, the City should evaluate the potential diminution in
value of this public asset which would occur as a result of the destruction of the public views
from Begonia Park, the Lookout Point, and Begonia Avenue. According to Mr. Dart Spletter, a
local commercial real estate broker, long -time resident and one of Friends' Board members,
approving the Megonigal project as proposed, with the resulting loss of public views, could
result in a potential diminution in value of the Begonia. Park on the order of $1 million to
7
6y
$3 million dollars. Mr. Spletter will offer testimony on this subject at the Council hearing
tomorrow.
B. Require Entry at Base of Bluff
The City also could deny the project and investigate alternatives with the property
owner concerning a redesign to accommodate access at the base of the Begonia Park bluff.
This could eliminate the need for the garage portion of the property at Begonia and Pacific
which would block public views from the Park, the Lookout Point, and Begonia Avenue.
A land owner is only entitled to "reasonable economic use" of his property, not
"maximum economic use ". The City could consider granting an easement to the property
owner through the lower portion of Begonia Park, which does not.have the same public view
issues or potential environmental issues, off of Bayside Drive, for access to a garage at the
lower portion of the property. It is our understanding that two homes at the base of the slope
already have easements through the lower portion of the Park for such access. We therefore
ask that the Council direct the Planning Department to investigate this alttative atd make
m
recomendations on its feasibility. 1
We thank you for your consideration of our objections, and took fo to dVscussing
them with you at the September 23, 2008 Council Mee ' e not h itate to ontact us
should you have any questions or comments.
cc: Ms. Robin Clauson. City Attorney (via E Mail only)
Mr. David Lela. Planning Director (via E Mail only)
Mr. Patrick Alford, Planning Manager (via E Mail only)
Friends of Begonia Park
EXHIBIT 6'1"
a + a
�' � Y�x. r 4 ]Yi 1 �..• mTd� i
C.J.` �.. ... � _ .....�. .. _.
1
`, 4
e _ �
ff4 •L..
EXHIBIT "2"
wed Pmodoid
aUOZ Ualmuln
;qfk§H WASJO48
fjopmas
Ajapu" OWZ Mmoo
Pl*a M4qA WM3 r\,
P.QdA'JMA2Rqrkd
ON3031
(VpCd%V
C-p deVq
SMOIA lelse0o
8. Dan Splatter (October 3, 2009)
Response to Comment No. 1
This comment references a letter from Howett Isaza Law Group (HILG) that was submitted to the Newport
Beach City Council in September 2008. The letter provides a summary of several General Plan and
Coastal Land Use Plan policies that are intended to guide development within the coastal zone, including
the subject property. The letter suggests that approval of the project is inconsistent with the policies and,
therefore, would violate City's General Plan. In addition, the letter also suggests that an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared and altematives, including acquisition of the subject property and
requiring entry at the base of the bluff, should also be evaluated in the EIR.
The City prepared an EIR that evaluated the relevant land use policies in Tables 4.1 -1 and 4.1 -2 in
Section 4.1 (Land Use and Planning), including those articulated in the General Plan and Coastal Land
Use Plan. Additionally, as required by the State CEQA Guidelines, the EIR evaluated a reasonable range
of alternatives, including the No Development and No Project Alternatives, as well as two alternative
designs. One of the design alternatives reflects the alternative identified in the attached letter that would
allow for vehicular access at the base of the bluff. These and other alternatives are evaluated in the Draft
EIR (refer to Chapter 10.0) as requested in the comment letter.
Therefore, the comments put forward in the HILG letter have been addressed in the appropriate sections
of the Draft EIR. The letter will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration prior to taking action on the project.
Megonigal Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Public Comments
November 2009
Page 14 `/
7 b
2
October 3, 2009
James Campbell
Newport Beach Planning Dept.
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
«: JY
IwFiKizIIN NO Y -.47T4 Y„IRN
OCT 0 7 2009
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
RE: Application for Variance VA2007- 001-and Modification MD2007 -080
Dear Mr. Campbell,
The recently completed EIR on the Megonigai property at 2333 Pacific contains information flaws
that lead to a false conclusion:
The first flaw is in the pictures noted as Exhibit 4.3 -2, 4.34 and 4.3 -5. In these pictures the height
of the proposed garage is superimposed on the park view, showing it to be the same height as the
lower patio rooftop of the home next door. A different perspective is realized when one visits the
site and looks at the story poles erected to show the top of the new construction. Even though
several poles are tilting, others clearly show the new home's height. It is clear that the roof of the
new home will be at the top of the adjacent and higher second rooftop, which makes for a much
larger and taller new garage. Instead of being an "insignificant" visual obstacle, the new garage will
have a very significant visual impact. The new garage roofline will very significantly block any bay
or ocean view above the proposed Megonigal construction.
The second flaw is that the Begonia Park view pictures were taken just prior to when the badly
overgrown park shrubs were cut down to ground level by the city. The (enclosed) increased view
picture was taken as the workers were completing clean -up on March 31, 2009. It shows a
dramatically different and enhanced view after the shrub trimming. The red line carefully traces the
story pole tops, then still erect, revealing a much larger garage than the modest one depicted in the
EIR. Clearly, the view loss is at least 401/o to 501/6, perhaps more.
It is my opinion, as well as that of many of my neighbors, that this view blockage can hardly be
objectively considered as "less than significant," which the EIR concludes. Indeed, any rational,
�j objective, and impartial analysis would have to reach the conclusion that the view blockage is very
significant.
Regards
Spletter
430' /2 Begonia
Corona del Mar, CA
949 - 6752500
rt
IJA'
+41ik
M
1v
iI
e
A9kVIQZ) 0 9 t 3o;PVTL%s,,E Rss z
O
w
c
.o
N
AT1r'7t I. R, nlsxw Ovmj ,,re- (314 oZ
9. Dan Splatter (October 3, 2009)
Response to Comment No. 1
The commenter notes an apparent discrepancy between what the proposed residence would look like as
depicted in the Exhibits 4.3 -2, 4.3-4 and 4.3 -5 of the DEIR and what the story poles suggested. After a
careful review of the visual simulations, it is clear that Exhibits 4.3-1, 4.3- 2.4.3 -4 and 4.3 -5 are inaccurate.
The graphic depictions of the proposed building within the photographs were not scaled correctly and the
residence appears smaller than it would be. Exhibits 4.3-1 and 4.3-2 were created by Softmirage, Inc.
under contract with the City. Exhibits 4.3-4 and 4.3-5 were created by the project architect.
The City contracted again with Softmirage to prepare a new simulation, which was prepared showing the
view impact of the proposed project from the Lower Begonia Park bench. The photograph was taken in
October of 2009 after the intervening vegetation within Begonia Park was removed. The 3- dimensional
depiction of the proposed residence was created using the electronic copy of the architect's plans to
ensure accuracy. The scaling and position of the building representation was based upon clearly
identifiable features within the image of known height and location including the story poles. The creator of
the image, Softmirage Inc., believes the image to be as accurate a representation of the building within the
photograph that can be created given the methodology of the simulation's creation.
Upon the realization of the inaccuracy in the City's simulations, the architect also went through his
depictions and discovered that they also depicted the proposed building smaller than it would be. The
architect has updated his imagery; however, these images do not reflect the elimination of the intervening
vegetation within Begonia Park.
Response to Comment No. 2
As indicated in this comment, the visual simulations included in the Draft EIR (refer to Exhibits 4.3 -1 and
4.3 -2) illustrate the existing and post -development scenarios with vegetation that existed on the slope
below Begonia Avenue (below the lower bench in Begonia Park) prior to its removal by the City in March
2009. As is evident in those prior simulations, the vegetation that existed along the slope blocked a
substantial portion of views of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean from both the lower and upper
benches when these simulations are compared to the views that exist after the vegetation was removed.
In order to address the change that has occurred since the vegetation was removed, a new visual
simulation was created from approximately the same lower bench location depicted in Exhibit 4.3 -1. In
addition, the new visual simulation depicting the proposed Megonigal residence is based on the story
poles that were erected on the site in August of 2008, in order to more accurately illustrate the effect that
the proposed project would have on the view, both before and after construction.
The existing view from the lower bench location illustrated in the attached exhibit reveals an enhanced
view of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula since the vegetation that existed on the intervening slope was
removed, compared to that illustrated in Exhibit 4.3 -1 in the Draft EIR. This southwesterly view from
Begonia Park (specifically the Lower Bench) encompasses a variety of features including residential
development and open space located northwest of Carnation Avenue, residential development on eastern
end of the Balboa Peninsula, waters of Newport Harbor, the Pacific Ocean (including the horizon) and
residential development along Pacific Drive and Begonia Avenue. Similar to the views prior to the
vegetation removal, landscaping "fitters" the view of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean especially on
the right side of the image depiction. As a result, the view of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean is
not completely free of obstructions. The most significant obstruction affecting this view is the large tree
located in front of the Megonigal property. Nonetheless, the portion of view that is the harbor, Balboa
Peninsula and ocean that is now visible from this Begonia Park vantage point since the removal of the
vegetation is nearly three times that of the area previously reflected in Exhibit 4.3 -1. With the removal of
the vegetation, this portion of the view area now extends from the bluff on the south (i.e., left side of the
Megonigal Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Public Comments
November 2008
Page 15
!D
exhibit) to just beyond the large tree in front of the project site near the Begonia Avenue/Pacific Drive
corner. These are the important elements that comprise the view from this vantage point
In the new visual simulation described above, the proposed Megonigal residence is more prominent than
depicted in Exhibit 4.3 -1. The easterly portion of the structure (i.e., from the large tree in front of the
project site and extending to the easterly end of the property) is now visible from the lower bench. This
portion of the structure was previously blocked by the vegetation that existed on the slope before it was
removed. In addition, the increased visibility of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean noted above that
was previously not visible due to the vegetation that was removed, would largely be blocked instead by the
proposed residence. Based on the new visual simulation, it would appear that the implementation of the
proposed project would result in the loss of approximately 35 percent of the expanded view of the harbor,
Balboa Peninsula and ocean, including the horizon, which would also be blocked by the proposed
residence.
The City has not adopted thresholds for determining the significance of visual impacts. Without an
established threshold, such a determination is based on the subjective "parameters" in the City's
environmental checklist (i.e., will the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or will the
project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings) and
adopted General Plan view preservation policies. As indicated above, the view from Begonia Parts would
be altered by the introduction of the proposed residence into the overall viewshed. Although the proposed
residence will be more prominent within the overall view and a portion of the view of the harbor, Balboa
Peninsula and ocean would be blocked with the development of the site as proposed, a substantial portion
of the view that includes the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean will remain unobstructed from the public
vantage point in the pant. Additionally, the overall view includes elements of the built environment
including residential development and the proposed residence is consistent with elements of the
surrounding built environment. Given that a majority of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean view
components will remain in the overall view after the home is constructed, the overall quality of the view will
not be impacted significantly even with a reduction of the views focal points. However, because the
majority of the view's focal points (i.e., about 65 percent) would be preserved, the project is considered to
be consistent with the intent of the City's adopted policies, which seek to achieve view preservafion, even.
though the view will be altered by the construction of the home.
No further loss of views to the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean would occur as a result of the
proposed project. As previously indicated, the project was redesigned to eliminate one level of the
proposed structure, which is below the maximum height limit permitted. In addition, a view easement will
be dedicated (in perpetuity) above the building and all open space areas to ensure that no additional
impacts to the views from Begonia Park would occur. Additional landscaping may also be incorporated
into the landscape plan in order to "deemphasize" the appearance of the proposed structure within the
Begonia Park viewshed. The proposed project represents a balance between private
property /development rights and complying with the City's policies that are intended to protect the scenic
and visual qualifies of the coastal zone. Therefore, potential visual impacts resulting from project
implementation are considered to be less than significant.
The new simulation and analysis is not considered "significant new information" as the term is defined
Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and therefore, the DER is not required to be recirculated.
Section 15088.5 identifies 2 examples where recirculation is required: (1) A new significant environmental
impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. (2) A
substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures
are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project alternative or
mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the
significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it. (4) The
draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public
review and comment were precluded. The Guidelines also state that recirculation is not required where
AC-Wnigal Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Public Comments
November 2009
Page 16
7�
the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in
an adequate EIR.
The new information contained within the new simulation and analysis contained in this response provides
greater clarity on the changed environmental baseline conditions that the analysis was originally based as
well as greater accuracy of the degree of impact the project would have on protected public views.
Although the degree of the potential visual impact is greater based on the new visual simulation, the
conclusion related to the significance of that impact has not changed. As indicated above, the potential
project - related impact remains less than significant. No new significant environmental impact has been
identified. The inclusion of the new information has not deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to
comment upon a substantial adverse environmental impact as such an impact has not been revealed by
the new information.
Even though this comment suggests that the potential visual impacts associated with the proposed project
are significant, this opinion does not mandate recirculation of the DEIR. Ultimately, the City Council retains
the authority to determine the significance of the project's impact upon public views in the light of the
comments and responses to those comments including the new information contained within them.
Should the City Council determine that the proposed project represents a significant impact upon the
environment, project approval would necessitate recirculation of the DEIR.
Response to Comment No. 3
Refer to Response to Comment No. 2
Megonigal Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Public Comments
November 2009
Page 17
�9
2
October 3. 2009
James Campbell
Newport Beach Planning Dept.
Cite of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd,
Newport Beach, CA 92663
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
OCT 672009
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
RE: Application for Variance VA2007 -001 and Modification MD2007 -080
Dear Mr. Campbell,
I'l have been a resident at 430 %a Begonia in Corona del Mar since 1975. Begonia Park is a few homes
towards the ocean from my residence. My concern is the impact the building of the Megonigal residence.
with the garage on Pacific Ave., and the resulting loss of view, will have on not only the aesthetic value
of the park, but also on its economic value.
We, the residents of Newport Beach and Corona del Mar, have entrusted you with the protection of our
valuable public assets. This trust is detailed in the city's General Plan, and is clearly spelled out. When an
asset loses a significant part of an amenity, then that loss must also be a loss in the financial value to the
community that owns that asset. Surely, one would not credibly argue that a school that lost part of its
square footage through fire or vandalism, or a beach that was soiled by an oil spill, would have the same
economic value in its new condition as it did prior to the damage it suffered. The same reasoning would
have to apply to Begonia Park. If the park view was lost, either in significant part or in total, it surer
would not have the same economic value as it did before it suffered the lost view. I've spoken to
appraisers that specialize in valuing public parks. They have told me that an appraisal absolutely could be
done that quantified the probable loss in financial value to the city for the loss of a view to a public park,
and they would be interesting in bidding to do it.
I urge you to decide against any construction application, including the Megonigal application for
3 construction on 2333 Pacific Ave., that lessens the value of any of our public assets, including the view
from Begonia Park.
Fanpletter
430 %: Begonia
Corona del Mar, CA
10. Dan Splatter (October 3, 2009)
Response to Comment No. f
This comment is acknowledged. No specific environmental issues are raised; no response is required.
Nonetheless, the comment will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration prior to taking action on the project.
Response to Comment No. 2
This comment discusses the potential economic loss to the City of Newport Beach related to the
devaluation of the Begonia Park property if the proposed project is implemented. This comment will be
forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration prior to taking action on the
project.
Response to Comment No. 3
This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project. No response is required. Nonetheless, the
comment will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration prior to taking
action on the project.
MegoNgal Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Public Comments
November 2009
Page 18 /x'
5.
STATE OF CAUEQRNL6 =DUSS(NE% TgN$PORTATIDN AND HD72Mf AGENCY pRNpLD CHM R4I.TKWdzQ
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
District 12 RECEIVED BY
3337 Michelson Drive, Suite 380
Irvine, CA 92612 -8894 PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TO: (949) 724-2267
Fm: (949) 724 -2592 Fl" yoar powW
OCT 09 2009 Be energy yffick"t!
October 5, 2009
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
James Campbell File: IGR/CEQA
City of Newport Beach SCH #: 2009041010
3300 Newport Blvd. Log #: 2292A
Newport Beach, CA 92685 -8915 SR -1
Subject: Megonigal Residential (PA2007 -133)
Dear nor. Campbell,
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report
for the Megonigal Residential (PA2007 -133) Project. The proposed project is composed of a single
family residential dwelling unit on the property which will have vehicular access to the ground floor
from Pacific Drive. The proposed residence will have three stories and total 3,566 total square feet. The
nearest State route to the project site is SR -1.
The California Department of Transportation (Department), District 12 is a commenting agency on this
project and we have no comment at this time. However, in the event of any activity within the
Department's right -of -way, an encroachment permit will be required.
Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments, which could
potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us; please
do not hesitate to call Damon Davis at (949) 440 -3487.
Since
istopher erre, Branch Chief
Local Development/Intergovernmental Review
C: Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research
"Calvans improws mobility acrou Calilosaia"
11. California Department of Transportation (October 5, 2009)
Response to Comment No. 1
This comment is acknowledged; no response is required. No permits from Caltrans are required in order
to implement the proposed project.
Response to Comment No. 2
As requested in this comment, should the project be revised in any way that would affect State
transportation facilities, the City will notify Caltrans of those changes.
Megonigal Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Public Comments
Abvember2009
Page 19
2
2
3
Mr. James Campbell, Principal Planner October 5, 2009
Newport Beach Planning Dept.
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Subject: Comments on DEIR for Megonigal Single - Family Residential Project
Located at 2333 Pacific Drive in City of Newport Beach
Modification Permit (MD2007 -080) evaluation of the effect the subject
home will have on the Begonia Park View,
Dear Mr. Campbell:
On page 4.3 -3 of the DEIR under the paragraph headed "Begonia Park Visual
Simulations it is stated, "Exhibit 4.3 -1 illustrates the view from the lower bench situated
on Begonia Park of the site. As can be seen from this vantage point, the harbor and ocean
to the west are clearly visible from this location. Although the proposed single- family
residential structure will extend above Pacific Drive, view of the harbor and ocean from
the lower bench would not be substantially altered even though a small portion of the
ocean view above the roof will be reduced; no portion of the harbor visible from this
location would be significantly affected by the proposed project." It is our contention
such an erroneous conclusion was drawn by using exhibits 4.3 -1 and 4.3 -2 in which the
view is obstructed by overgrown foliage. Once the foliage was removed on March 31,
2009, it is evident that the subject single - family home has a decided effect on the Begonia
Park View.
These misleading presentations of the view were brought up by me at the last
Planning Meeting discussing this project; I personally presented 3'X 4' photographs
showing the outline of the single -house with the overgrown foliage and one with the
foliage removed by Photo -shop. They showed how the single -house drastically affected
the view. I bring this up because, if this DEIR contends to have considered all the recent
information available, the subject exhibits should have been updated to show the views as
they have existed since March 31, 2009. Such an oversight of recent information casts
doubt on the whole report but that remains for others to comment on.
My purpose is to bring the visuals regarding the Begonia Park lower bench view
up to date. I am only dwelling on that view. That is where the City selected to place a
view bench: logical since the edge of the Park provides the maximum view. The same
argument about the view being drastically reduced can be made for all the other vantage
points in the Park, as well, if one wants to split hairs.
To more clearly show the differences between the Exhibits used and my up to
date pictures, I am showing them separately on pages 2 and 3:
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
OCT 07 2009
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
City Exhibit 4.3 -1 (top half) presented in the City of Newport Beach's DEIR regarding
Modification Permit (MD2007 -080) published in September 2009 purporting
to show the Begonia Park View from the lower bench using an old picture
of the view before the Park Dept. removed the overgrown foliage.
1
View from Begonia Park's lower bench taken by Clayton Gorrie March 31, 2009 the da%
the overgrown foliage was removed by the Newport Beach Park Dept..
6�
4
City Exhibit 4.3 -1 (lower halt) presented in the City of Newport Beach's DEIR regarding
Modification Permit (MD2007 -080) published in September 2009. This
shows the Begonia Park View from the lower bench with the proposed
single - family dwelling superimposed using an old picture of the view
before the Park Dept. removed the overgrown foliage.
a �Y
View from Begonia Park's lower bench taken by Clayton Gorrie March 31, 2009
showing the amount of view blocked by the proposed single - family home.
I would like to see this matter of how much view is obstructed by the subject single -
family home re- evaluated by the Planning Department using current views, as shown by my
pictures. At the same time, provide the actual figures used to determine what amount ( %) is
being blocked; i.e., what portion of the view is the base(100 %) and what % is the tipping point
for "significant" and -insignificant." Also, it should be disclosed publicly who determined the
tipping point and the legality of the criteria used. From my pictures it appears that the loss of
view from this single - family home was not given the evaluation it deserves; after all, it is the
most important public asset of the Park. Thank you for your consideration.
1
ayt Gome
426 Wegonia Ave., Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
949- 675 -8007 gorrieckg @aol.com
o
12. Clayton Gorrie (October 5, 2009)
Response to Comment No. 1
Refer to Response to Comment No. 2 in Letter No. 9. A new visual simulation was created from the
Lower Bench (i.e., from the same location as Exhibit 4.3 -1 in the Draft EIR). In the new visual simulation
described above, the proposed Megonigal residence is more prominent than depicted in Exhibit 4.3 -1.
The easterly portion of the structure (i.e., from the large tree in front of the project site and extending to
the easterly end of the property) is now visible from the lower bench. This portion of the structure was
previously blocked by the vegetation that existed on the slope before it was removed. In addition, the
increased visibility of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean noted above that was previously not visible
due to the vegetation that was removed, would largely be blocked instead by the proposed residence.
Based on the new visual simulation, it would appear that the implementation of the proposed project would
result in the loss of approximately 35 percent of the expanded view of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and
ocean, including the horizon, which would also be blocked by the proposed residence. Although the
proposed home is more prominent in the corrected visual simulation and more of the coastal features
would be affected, the potential impact remains less than significant because the majority of the view that
includes the harbor, ocean and the related elements would be preserved.
Response to Comment No. 2
As indicated in Response to Comment No. 1, a new visual simulation was created based on the change
that has taken place (i.e., elimination of the overgrown vegetation on the slope). This visual simulation
accurately portrays the proposed single - family residence from the Begonia Park view point. Although the
post - development view is different than illustrated in the Exhibit 4.3 -1, the potential impact remains less
than significant based on the preservation of the majority of the important coastal elements within that
view.
Response to Comment No. 3
Refer to Response to Comment No. 1. It is anticipated that similar views of and beyond the subject
property as depicted on the revised visual simulation would remain from other vantage points within
Begonia Park, including that from the Upper Bench (i.e., Exhibit 4.3 -2).
Response to Comment No. 4
It is difficult to precisely quantify the percentage of view that would be blocked by the proposed single -
family residence. However, based on a review of the °before° and "after° views illustrated in the new
visual simulation, it is estimated that approximately 35 percent of the coastal view would be blocked by the
Megonigal residence.
The City has not adopted thresholds for determining the significance of visual impacts. Without an
established threshold, such a determination is based on the subjective "parameters" in the City's
environmental checklist (i.e., will the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or will the
project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings) and
adopted General Plan view preservation policies. As indicated above, the view from Begonia Park would
be altered by the introduction of the proposed residence into the overall viewshed. Although the proposed
residence will be more prominent within the overall view and a portion of the view of the harbor, Balboa
Peninsula and ocean would be blocked with the development of the site as proposed, a substantial portion
of the view that includes the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean will remain unobstructed from the public
vantage point in the park. Additionally, the overall view includes elements of the built environment
including residential development and the proposed residence is consistent with elements of the
surrounding built environment. Given that a majority of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean view
components will remain in the overall view after the home is constructed, the overall quality of the view will
Megonigal Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Public Comments
November 2009
Page20 6�
not be impacted significantly even with a reduction of the view's focal points. However, because the
majority of the views focal points (i.e., about 65 percent) would be preserved, the project is considered to
be consistent with the intent of the City's adopted policies, which seek to achieve view preservation, even
though the view will be altered by the construction of the home.
Megonigal Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Public Comments
November2009
Page 21
Mark & Kristine Simon
2420 First Avenue, Corona del Mar, CA 92625
October 5, 2009
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
All Planning Commissioners & All City Council Members OCT 07 2009
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Newport Beach, CA 92663
RE: Megonigal Residence DEIR/ Begonia Public View Corridor
Dear Planning Commissioners and Council People,
We adamantly disagree with the Draft EIR Report indicating that the construction
of the above mentioned residence does not significantly impact the Public view
all the way down the Begonia Corridor from the Pacific Coast Highway to Pacific
Avenue in direct violation of the City's newly adopted General Plan.
Repeated requests to the City Manager, Council, and Planning Commission to
Z designate the Begonia Avenue View Corridor as a Public View Corridor have
been ignored.
Please deny any application for variance that would eliminate such a significant
3 Public View Corridor..
Thanks,
& xud* re $hawk
V(949) 872 - 8322
13. Mark & Kristine Simon (October 5, 2009)
Response to Comment No. f
The comment expresses the opinion that the proposed project would significantly impact the public view
from Begonia Avenue as one travels from Pacific Coast Highway. As indicated in Section 4.1 (Land Use
and Planning) and in Section 4.3 (Aesthetics) of the DEIR Begonia Avenue is not identified by Natural
Resources Element Policy NR20.3 or Figure NR3 as a roadway where public views are protected.
Corresponding policies within the Coastal Land Use Plan also do not designate Begonia Avenue as a
public view roadway or corridor. The loss of this view is not considered a violation of General Plan or
Coastal Land Use Policy.
Response to Comment No. 2
This comment is acknowledged; no response is necessary. The comment will be forwarded to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration prior to taking action on the project.
Response to Comment No. 3
This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project and will be forwarded to the Planning
Commission and City Council for consideration prior to taking action on the project.
Megontga! Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to PubNc Comments
November 2009
Page 22 � 9
Mark & Kristine Simon
2420 First Avenue, Corona del Mar, CA 92§&%w
BY
October 5, 2009
PLANMG DEPARTMENT
OCT 07 2009
All Planning Commissioners & All City Council Members
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Newport Beach, CA 92663
RE: Megonigal Residence DEIR/Olminution of value of Begonia Park
Dear Planning Commissioners and Council People,
We would like to point out that the Draft EIR Report examining the construction of
the above mentioned residence does not include the significant diminution of
value of the Public asset that is Begonia Park.
The City's has a value assigned to each Public Asset in its inventory. The City's
credit rating is affected by the value of these assets. According to the County
2 Assesor's Office the loss of a large portion of the Public ocean view at this City
asset would require the reassessment of the asset downward, and this may
adversely impact the City s credit profile.
The planning commission does not possess the authority to allow the diminution
of a public asset in such a fashion, and at the very least the City Parks
3 Department should have an Ombudsman at all hearings pertaining to this loss of
view in order to protect their interest.
Please deny any application for variance that would cause a diminution in the
value of Begonia Park.
Thanks,
ftwd & 1;�4ld*Av S&WN
V(949) 872 - 8322
v-
14. Mark & Kristine Simon (October 5, 2009)
Response to Comment No. f
Diminution of value is not an environmental issue. The Draft EIR evaluated the potential visual impacts
that may be expected from Begonia Park, a designated Public View Point, as a result of the proposed
project. The extent to which the incremental loss of view may have on the "value" of the public asset in
the context of a Public View Point was determined to be less than significant The effect on the economic
value of the park resulting from the proposed project is not within the scope of required analysis of CEQA.
Response to Comment No. 2
No environmental issue is raised in this comment; no response is required. This comment will be
forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration prior to taking action on the
project.
Response to Comment No. 3
This comment does not raise any environmental issues; no response is required. This question of
whether the project will diminish the value of Begonia Park as a public asset is within the purview of the
City Council. The project has not been reviewed nor is it required to be reviewed by the Parks and Park,
Beaches & Recreation Commission. This comment will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and
City Council.
Response to Comment No. 4
This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project and will be forwarded to the Planning
Commission and City Council for consideration prior to taking action on the project.
Megoniga! Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Public Comments
November 2009
Page 23 q/
Mark & Kristine Simon
2420 First Avenue, Corona del Mar, CA 92625
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
October 5, 2009
All Planning Commissioners & All City Council Members OCT 07 2009
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Newport Beach, CA 92663
RE: Megonigal Residence DEI
Dear Planning Commissioners and Council People,
We adamantly disagree with the Draft EIR Report indicating that the construction
of the above mentioned residence does not significantly impact the Public Safety
and feel this is more than a nuisance issue.
Currently two properties are under construction on Pacific Avenue and the City
2 has demonstrated that it con not properly police construction vehicles sop that
the road is passable for fire safety and police vehicles during daylight hours..
Public parking on Pacific Avenue is near non existent now and with a third home
under construction it will only be worse. There are a half a dozen residents over
75 years old residing on Pacific and it is a nuisance for them while they are
driving.
Also the subject property grading, shoring, reinforcing, and construction will take
9- place directly above a location where children and their families are recreating on
a daily basis necessitating the closure of a portion of Begonia Park, thereby
creating a further Public nuisance.
Please deny any application for to the subject property on the basis that it will
5 constitute a significant Public nuisance.
Thanks,
W4" & 3;*U44ge .Sio "
V(949) 872 - 8322
"1`
15. Mark & Kristine Simon (October 5, 2009)
Response to Comment No. 1
This comment represents the opinion of the commenter. As indicated in the Draft EIR, construction
associated with the proposed project is anticipated to take approximately 20 months. Potential
construction impacts (e.g., noise, dust, emergency access, etc.) are addressed in the initial study. These
temporary impacts can be adequately mitigated through the implementation of the measures prescribed in
the initial study.
Response to Comment No. 2
MM -7 (refer to the initial study in Appendix A) requires the preparation of a Construction Management
Plan that addresses construction staging, parking and traffic control. This plan must be submitted to the
City of Newport Beach prior to the initiation of each construction phase and approved by the Engineering
Department. Prior to approval of the plan by the City, it will also be reviewed by the Police and Fire
Departments to ensure that emergency access is maintained at all times.
Response to Comment No. 3
This comment represents the opinion of the commenter. The proposed project will not specifically impact
on- street parking. However, as indicated in Response to Comment 2, parking and staging of construction
vehicles and equipment will be addressed in the Construction Management Plan to ensure that impacts to
traffic flow /circulation and parking are minimized.
Response to Comment No. 4
This comment represents the opinion of the commenter. Appropriate safety measures are necessary for
all construction sites including safety fencing and proper materials handling. No closure of Begonia Park is
anticipated.
Response to Comment No. 5
This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project and will be forwarded to the Planning
Commission and City Council for consideration prior to taking action on the project.
Megoniga7 Rewdenoe (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Public Comments
November2009
Page 24 q3
Mark & Kristine Simon
2420 First Avenue, Corona del Mar, CA 92625
October 5, 2009
All Planning Commissioners & All City Council Members
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newond Bearh..rA.9?M3
RE: Megonigal Residence DEIR/Public Vow ,from Begonia Park-
Dear Planning Commissioners and Council People,
We adamantly disagree with the Draft EIR Report indicating that the construction
of the above mentioned residence does not significantly impact the Public view
from Begonia Park in direct violation of the City's newly adopted General Plan.
From the City's two view benches it is easy to determine that approximately 40%
of the Public View of the Bay and Ocean will be lost. The Ocean Views in the
2 photos in the DEIR were obstructed by vegetation which is no longer present. To
say this is not significant is both arbitrary and capricious and is not based on any
quantitative measure in the EIR, thereby ensuring selective enforcement of the
planning code in an unfair and illegal manner
As avid users of Begonia Park we would like to voice our opposition to the
granting of any variances for the owners that would allow construction of a
structure that would block such a large portion of the Public View from the flat
3 .
area of the Park that most residents.use..This :Park is too important a resource .
for the residents of the flower streets south of PCH and it is irreplaceable. Please
stick to the General Plan rules forbidding new structures from blocking important
Public Views.
4 I Please deny any application for variance that would eliminate such a significant
portion of the Public View from this precious common area for the people.
Thanks,
& XOMOVC SAWM
V(949) 872 - 8922
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
OCT 08 2009
CrrY OF NEWPORT BEACH
- -may - -.
16. Mark & Kristine Simon (October 5, 2009)
Response to Comment No. 1
This comment expresses the commenter's opinion as to the extent of potential visual impacts that would
occur as a result of the proposed project. No response is necessary.
Response to Comment No. 2
A new visual simulation was created from the Lower Bench (i.e., from the same location as Exhibit 4.3-1 in
the Draft EIR). In the new visual simulation described above, the proposed Megonigal residence is more
prominent than depicted in Exhibit 4.3 -1. The easterly portion of the structure (i.e., from the large tree in
front of the project site and extending to the easterly end of the property) is now visible from the lower
bench. This portion of the structure was previously blocked by the vegetation that existed on the slope
before it was removed. In addition, the increased visibility of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean
noted above that was previously not visible due to the vegetation that was removed, would largely be
blocked instead by the proposed residence. Based on the new visual simulation, it would appear that the
implementation of the proposed project would result in the loss of approximately 35 percent of the
expanded view of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean, including the horizon, which would also be
blocked by the proposed residence. Although the proposed home is more prominent in the corrected
visual simulation and more of the coastal features would be affected, the potential impact remains less
than significant because the majority of the view that includes the harbor, ocean and the related elements
would be preserved.
Response to Comment No. 3
No variance to building height is requested. The project includes a request for a Modification Permit to
allow structures within the front yard to exceed the maximum allowable height of 3 feet from natural grade.
These structures (planter, walls and a water feature) will be no higher than three feet from the curb, which
would be far below the overall height of the residence. As such, the requested Modification Permit would
have no impact upon public views. As indicated in the visual simulations, project implementation would
result in some impact to the existing views from the Begonia Park vantage points; however, these impacts
would be less than significant from the park, which is identified as a Public View Point in the City's Natural
Resources Element (refer to Figure NR3). Although the view of the harbor and ocean from the Pacific
Drive/Begonia Avenue vantage point would be obscured by the proposed residence, the views from the
Begonia Park Public View Point would be preserved with only minor impacts associated with the project.
As indicated in Response to Comment No. 2, an assessment of the new visual simulation revealed that
the proposed project would affect approximately 35 percent of the coastal view from the Begonia Park
lower bench vantage point, leaving approximately 65 percent of the important coastal features. Given that
a majority of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean view components will remain in the overall view after
the home is constructed, the overall quality of the view will not be impacted significantly even with a
reduction of the view's focal points. However, because the majority of the view's focal points (i.e., about
65 percent) would be preserved, the project is considered to be consistent with the intent of the City's
adopted policies, which seek to achieve view preservation, even though the view will be altered by the
construction of the home.
Response to Comment No. 4
This comment urging denial of the proposed project is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration prior to taking action on the project.
Megonigal Residence (PA 2007 -933)
Responses to Public Comments
November 2009
Page 25
S
Mark & Kristine Simon
2420 First Avenue, Corona del Mar, CA 92625
October 5, 2009
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
OCT 07 2009
All Planning Commissoonen, & All City Council Members CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
RE: Megonigai Residence DEIR/Archeological Significance
Dear Planning Commissioners and Council People,
We adamantly disagree with the Draft EIR Report indicating that the construction
of the above mentioned residence does not significantly impact sites of known
archeological significance.
2 IRecords in the Sherman Library and Gardens indicate that the bluffs in this area
of Corona del Mar are of archeological significance to both the Juaneno Band of
Mission Indians and the Acjachemen Nation Native American tribes.
3 I Please deny any application for variance that would significantly impact such a
known archeologically significant site.
Thanks,
WAV4 & i;*Wjzw S&WO
V(949) 872 - 8322
17. Mark & Kristine Simon (October 5, 2009)
Response to Comment No. 1
As indicated in the initial study (refer to Section V, the area surrounding the subject property has been
extensively developed. Although no cultural resources are known to exist either on site or in the
immediate area of the project, the City has included a measure to require monitoring during grading to
ensure that if any cultural resources are encountered during grading, they can be evaluated and properly
recovered. In addition, the City also provides for the opportunity to have a Native American monitor also
on -site during grading to ensure that evaluation and recovery of any important artifacts would occur under
the supervision of Native American representatives (refer to Response to Comment No. 14 in Comment
Letter No. 2).
Response to Comment No. 2
The commenters contention that "bluffs in this area of Corona del Mar are of archeological significance" is
a general statement that is not supported by specific facts. This comment implies that the project site of
known archeological significance without facts to support such a conclusion and in the absence of facts or
substantial evidence to support this hypothesis, it is speculation and not evidence of a significant impact.
This comment is acknowledged. Refer to Response to Comment No. 1.
Response to Comment No. 3
This comment again suggests that the project site of known archeological significance without facts to
support such a conclusion and in the absence of facts or substantial evidence to support this hypothesis, it
is speculation and not evidence of a significant impact. This comment urging denial of the proposed
project is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration prior to taking action on the project.
ftgonigal Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Public Comments
November 2009
Page 26 4
Mark & Kristine Simon
2420 First Avenue, Corona del Mar, CA 92626tEGEwm$Y
October 5, 2009
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
OCT 07 2009
All Planning Commissioners & All City Council Members
City of Newport Beach CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
RE: Megonigal Residence DEIR/Public,View °and Story Poles
Dear Planning Commissioners and Council People,
We adamantly disagree with the Draft EIR Report indicating that the construction
of the above mentioned residence does not significantly impact the Public view
from Begonia Park in direct violation of the City's newly adopted General Plan.
The story poles which were erected to visually display the displacement of the
subject structure are in such disrepair that it would be impossible for the
Z environmental engineer to adequately assess the percentage of Public view loss
from construction.
The Public is also no longer adequately able to identify the amount of Public view
loss which will result from the subject construction because of the state of
disrepair of the story poles on site.
Please deny any application for variance prior to the replacement of the story
poles and adequate time for a public comment period as permitted by statute.
Thanks,
V(949) 872 - 8322
18. Mark & Kristine Simon (October 6, 2009)
Response to Comment No. f
This comment, which disagrees with the conclusion in the Draft EIR that visual impacts will be less than
significant, is acknowledged. A new visual simulation was created from the Lower Bench (i.e., from the
same location as Exhibit 4.3 -1 in the Draft EIR) that accurately portrays the post - development view from
the lower bench in Begonia Park. Based on the revised visual simulation, the potential visual impact
would remain less than significant, as explained in Response to Comment No. 3.
Response to Comment No. 2
The story poles were erected prior to the Planning Commission's consideration of the proposed project in
August of 2008. The story poles were adequate for the Planning Commission's at that time in their
decision to approve the project. Today, the story poles are in a state of disrepair and they do not
accurately reflect the proposal. However, the new simulation discussed in previous comments took
advantage of numerous photographs of the story poles taken when they were in good repair as well as
one pole that has remained intact and remains plumb. That pole establishes the location and height of the
easternmost extent of the upper level of the proposal and was used to accurately locate the scaled
graphic depiction of the proposed residence to ensure accuracy of the new simulation.
Response to Comment No. 3
Refer to Response to Comment No. 2. A new visual simulation was created from the Lower Bench (i.e.,
from the same location as Exhibit 4.3 -1 in the Draft EIR). In the new visual simulation described above,
the proposed Megonigal residence is more prominent than depicted in Exhibit 4.3 -1. The easterly portion
of the structure (i.e., from the large tree in front of the project site and extending to the easterly end of the
property) is now visible from the lower bench. This portion of the structure was previously blocked by the
vegetation that existed on the slope before it was removed. In addition, the increased visibility of the
harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean noted above that was previously not visible due to the vegetation that
was removed, would largely be blocked instead by the proposed residence. Based on the new visual
simulation, it would appear that the implementation of the proposed project would result in the loss of
approximately 35 percent of the expanded view of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean, including the
horizon, which would also be blocked by the proposed residence. Although the proposed home is more
prominent in the corrected visual simulation and more of the coastal features would be affected, the
potential impact remains less than significant because the majority of the view that includes the harbor,
ocean and the related elements would be preserved.
An assessment of the new visual simulation revealed that the proposed project would affect approximately
35 percent of the coastal view from the Begonia Park lower bench vantage point, leaving approximately 65
percent of the important coastal features. Given that a majority of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and
ocean view components will remain in the overall view after the home is constructed, the overall quality of
the view will not be impacted significantly even with a reduction of the view's focal points. However,
because the majority of the view's focal points (i.e., about 65 percent) would be preserved, the project is
considered to be consistent with the intent of the City's adopted policies, which seek to achieve view
preservation, even though the view will be altered by the construction of the home.
Response to Comment No. 4
This comment urging denial of the proposed project is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration prior to taking action on the project.
Megonlgel Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Public Comments
November 2009
Page 27 ^
Mark & Kristine Simon
2420 First Avenue, Corona del Mar, CA 92625
October 5, 2009
All Planning Commissioners & All City Council Members
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd,
Newport Beach, CA 92663
RE: Megonigal Residence DEI ,.
Dear Planning Commissioners and Council People,
RECtRI VRD BY
P1 Al' MG DAPARTMENT
OCT 07 2009
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
We are asking that the City not approve a street set back of less the 20 feet
which would be in direct violation of the City's planning code.
All of the other Pacific Avenue residences have been required to maintain the
current codifed street set back and allowing otherwise would be ensuring
selective enforcement of the planning code in an unfair and illegal manner
Please deny any application for variance that would result in street set back of
less then 20 feet.
Thanks,
Uva & xswire S&ON
V(949) 872 - 8322
!01
19. Mark & Kristin Simon (October 5, 2009)
Response to Comment No. 1
The applicant is not requesting a variance or reduction of the required front yard setback. The proposed
project complies with the existing setback requirement, which is 5 feet, not 20 feet as suggested by the
commenter. The remaining comments express the commenter's opposition to the proposed project,
which will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration prior to taking
action on the project
Adegonigal Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Public Comments
November 2009
Page 28 /
Mark & Kristine Simon
2420 First Avenue, Corona del Mar, CA 92625REcEmi) By
October 5, 2009
All Planning Commissioners & All City Council Members
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
RE: Megonigal Residence DEIR/Lot and Pubk View Hlst+trry
Dear Planning Commissioners and Council People,
PLAWWG DEPARTMENT
OCT 07 2009
Cn y OF NEWPORT BEACE
f IWe adamantly disagree with the Draft EIR Report indicating that the construction
of the above mentioned residence does not significantly impact the Public view
from Begonia Park in direct violation of the City's newly adopted General Plan.
The City's own Public Records show that a previous owner was denied the right
2 to build a structure (Variance #1066) with NO garage on top because, according
to City staff, too much Public View would be lost from the Park. An appeal to the
City Council was also denied.
The current owner bought the subject property at a 75% discount to other lots on
3 Pacific Avenue, because it was public knowledge that the right to build here had
been denied more than once. (Please see attached City Council Minutes)
Please deny any application for variance that would eliminate such a significant
portion of the Public View from this precious common area for the people.
Thanks,
V(949) 872 - 8322
oZ .
COUNCILMEN
P
:ALL CALL{ June 26, 1978
Nei
Mel
Ay,
Not
Abe
Aye
Not
Abe
Mot
Not
Aye
Noe
Abe
Aye
Abs
Mot
ADs
Mot
Aye
Noe
Abe
Mot
Aye
Hoe
Abu
is
MINUTES
031
INOtx
Item 97 on the Proposition 13 reduction liar for
the General Services Department was considered,
Lon
x
and Countilmian McInnis made a motion to restore
twice -aweek trash collection end the Saturday
business collection ($367,983).
ion
x
Councilmen Hart made a substitute motion to
a
x
x
restore twice- a-week trash pick -up in the beach
a
It
x
x
x
areas - Heat Newport to the peninsula and Balboa
ent
x
Island, which motion failed.
a
It
x
It
A vote was raker on Councilman Mclnnls' motion,
s
x
x
It
which motion failed.
ant
x
ion
x
Mayor Ryckoff made a motion to approve the
appropriation of $161,102 to be held in reserve
to provide for self- insurad retention of $500,000,
insuring the City against public liability
UP to $51000,000.
Lea
x
Councilmen Restber amde a substitute motion to
-
e
x
x
x
appropriate an additional $20,000 for a liability
a
z
x
x
insurance package up to $10.000,000, which
ant
x
motion failed.
a
ant
x
x
x
x
x
x
A vote was takes on Mayor Ryckoff I main motion,
It
which motion carried.
ion
x
Item 39 an the Proposition 13 reduction list for
x
x
It
x
the Police Department School Crossing Guards
I
x
It
($12.000), was restored.
ant
x
Lon
e
x
Resolution No. 9381, extending the teams and
R -9381
x
x
x
x
x
conditions; of the Compensation Plan and Table of
e
Ent
x
Authorization of Permanent >tmployse Classes for
x
Fiscal year 1977 -78 es emended; we adopted.
Lon
6
x
Resolution No. 9382, adopting the Budget for the
R -9982
x
x
x
x
x
1978 -79 Fiscal year, vas adopted.
E
It
nt
It
6._ Mayor Ryciceff opsaO.khe continued public heating
Grievold
on the appeal of Mr. and Mrs. Doaeld G. Grisvold
Appeal
from tha .decision of the Planning Coundusion
(2924)
denying Variance No. 1066, a request to permit
construction of a single - family dwelling that
axaeede the height: limit in the 24/28 .Foot
Height ]imitation District, with eacroschmant
Into required front yard setback on property at
2333 Pacific Drive, on the southerly aide of
Pacific Drive, adjacent to begonia Park in
Corona del Mar, sound. R -1. '
A report was presented from the Community
Development Department.
' Volume 32 - Page 153
031
COU14CILMLIY ".,..,.
VAA
?LL CAL�L��(p����y .Tune 26. 1978 owner
-- - -- - - -- - - --
ny
Cordon Glass, architect representing Mr. and
Mrs. Crievold, addressed the Council and stated
they would like to have an opportunity to ra"mas
their plans since the Council decided act to
porch&" their property, and naked the Council
to deny the appeal without prejudice an they
can go back to the Planning Cammialion and start
over.
motion
x
The hearing vas closed after it was determined
Ayes
x
x
x
x
x
x
that w one else desired to be heard..
Absent
r
Notion
x
The appeal of Mr. and Mrs. Donald C. Griswold
Ayes
x
x
Y
x
x
a
From the decision of the planning Connigsian
Absent
x
denying Verience No. 1066 was denied without
prejudice.
Notion
x
Councilsan Heather made a motion to waiva the
Ayes
x
a
x
'second filing Ise for the Criswold's, which
Noes
x
x
x
motion failed..
'Absent
a
7. Mayor Ryckoff opened the public hearing In
Need
connection with the Spring, 1978 Need.Abstesant
Abeteseat
Program In comyliance.witb Resolution No. 9327.
'(150F)
'.
A report was presented from the Fire Depszt�t.
Susie Picker addressed the Council regarding the
•
weed problem on the peninsula.
Inspect" Haskell of the Fire Departoaot gave a
brief staff report.
Notion
x
The hearing was closed after it was detsrsiaed
.Ayes
x
x
a
a
x
x
that no one else desired to be heard.
Absent
x
Resolution No. 9383, confirming the report of
R -9383
the Fire Chief concerning the wet of the
abatesant of weeds and other nuisances and
requesting the Auditor - Controller of Orange
Motion
x
County to enter the amount of each aesessuant
Ayes
x
x
It
x
x
x
referred to in said report on the County tax
Absent
x
tolls, war adopted.
ORDINANCES FOR RECORD RRADIRO AND ADOPTIUMs
1. Ordinance No. 1770, being,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUGHT BEACH
Hotel
ADDING CHAPTER 10.45 ENTITLED "HOTEL ^
Loitering
LOITERING" TO TITLE 10 OF THE NBNPORT BEACH
0-1770
MUNICIPAL CODE,
(2983)
' was presented for second reading.
O°
x
Ordinance No. 1770 was adopted.
Ayes
x
x
x
a
x
x
Absent
x
Voluse_32 - Page 154.
-- - -- - - -- - - --
ny
COUNCILMEN MINUTES
gF` S yin iD
ROLL CALL 4N A June 12, 1978 INDEX
S. Mayor Ryckoff opened the public hearing regarding
the Preliminary Budget as prepared by the City
Budget
1978 -79
Manager for the fiscal year 1978 -79, pursuant to
(2934)
Section 1102 of the Newport Beach City Charter.
A report was presented from the City Manager
regarding the 1978 -79 Budget Check List.
A report from the Friends of OASIS was presented
regarding "the May 12, 1978 packet addenda.
A letter from N. H. Rousselot was presented
opposing say reduction in paramedic pereoonal,
Notion
x
The hearing was continued to Friday, June 16 at
Ayes
x
x
x
x
I
x
x
x
6:30 p.m.
6. Ryckoff opensd the continued public hearing
on the
on the appeal of Mr. and Ysa.. Donald G. Gtiawld
Appeal
Appeal
from the decision of the Planning Commission
(2924)
denying Variance No. 1066, a request to permit
canatruetion of a ain810- faddy dwelling that
exceeds the height limit in the 26128 Foot Height
Limitation District, with entroacbment into
required front yard setback on property at 2333
Pacific Drive, on the southerly aide of Pacific
Drive, adjacent to Begonia. Park in Corona del
Mar, "nod B -1.
A report was presented frrm the Coamrnity Develop-
ment Department.
I
Cordon Glass, architect representing Mr. and Mrs.
j
Griswold, stated that tbs appellants were willing
!
to continue the hearing.
notion
x
The hearing was continued to June 26.
Ayes
x
x
x
(
x
z
x
x
ORDINANCES TOR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION:
1. Ordinuxe No. 1766, being,
AN ORDINANCE OF ISE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Harbor
AMENDING SECTION 17.41.040 OF THE R WPOBT
Reg&
BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO FEES FOR
0 -1766
PERMITS FOR CON0WEACIAL ACTIVITIES ON THE
(386)
WATERS OF NEWPORT HARBOR,
vas presented for second reading,
Motion
ordinance No. 1766 vas wd„pred.
Ayes
Ix
x
x
x�x
x
x
2. Ordinance No. 1767, being.
Res Bldg
Records
AM
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
AMENDING SECTION 15.15.040 OF THE NEWPORT
0 -1767
(819)
Volume 32 Page 130
i
Motion l i x
Ayes x
Noe. x x x x x x
I
Aye$ Ix x x x ix x
I
Motion 1
Ayes Ix Is 1. 1.1.
41 JA�i I
oa . 1 �x
,.. %pp% L x
U i I yr
27, 1978
MINUTES
Mayor Pea Tom Barrett made a motion to approve
Ehe plena and epacificstiooe, subject to modlfita-
cima tbat may be made by 1111, Pub11c Works
Department; and to authorise the C1t7 Clerk to I
advertise for bids to be oT'ened at 10:00 a.m. en i
April 3, 1978.
Councilman Ryckoff made a aubotitute motion to
approve the plans amt specifications, subject to
modificationa that may be cede by the Public
Works Department, and to authorize the City
Clerk to advertise for bidu to be opened at
10:00 a.m. on May 2 with a 45 -day ward periods
to accommodate the JatviafGana initiative, which
motion failed to carry. I
A vote wag taken on Mayor 2to Tam Barrett e i
motion, which motion csrrL�.
CURRENT BUSINESS:
1. A report wag presented fro,'e Cho C, —.ity
BegonIA
Development Department regarding the Planning ',
Park
CemoLssioa reco®endation concatuing the ,cquial- 1
(1440)
ties of property located a; 2333 Pacific Drive,
Corona del Mar, on the southerly aides of Pacifia
Drive, adjacent to begonia Park, zoned R -11
after denying Variation NO. 1066 of Mr, and Mrs.
Donald G. Griswold to ww& a the permitted
.
hadght limit for a proposed single- family
dwelling to be constructed on the site.
Gordon Glass, architect for the Grinvulds,
addressed the Council regarding their request
for a variance in connection with proposed
development en the property.
Paul Rummel addressed the COmUtii OPPOeing the
proposed acquisition.
A decision regarding the possible acquisition of
the property was delayed pending review of the
1978 -79 Piocal.leer gadget, and the staff was
directed to came back with an estimated value Of
the property.
2, A report me presented from the Marine Department
Harbor
regarding en SPPllcatlen by the Harbor Island
Island
Association, to cOgstrOCt a raised protective
Bridge
railing OR the Harbor Island Budge.
John Porter. Ptasident, MW John- Mecmb. a
. Director of the Harbor Ts3and Community Aeaocla-
tfes, addressed the Covnc:.l and urged approval
of the application.
''Me application for the c.- natruction of a
e railing an the Rarbor 1rl••n11 Brid8e was approved.
1
Volume 37 - . °.age 41
I
__
20. Mark & Kristine Simon (October 5, 2009)
Response to Comment No. 1
This comment reflects the commenters disagreement with the conclusion presented in the Draft EIR
regarding the severity of the visual impacts. An assessment of the new visual simulation prepared for the
project revealed that the proposed Megonigal residence would affect approximately 35 percent of the
coastal view from the Begonia Park lower bench vantage point, leaving approximately 65 percent of the
important coastal features. Given that a majority of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean view
components will remain in the overall view after the home is constructed, the overall quality of the view will
not be impacted significantly even with a reduction of the views focal points. However, because the
majority of the view's focal points (i.e., about 65 percent) would be preserved, the project is considered to
be consistent with the intent of the City's adopted policies, which seek to achieve view preservation, even
though the view will be altered by the construction of the home. The comment will be forwarded to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration prior to taking an action on the project.
Response to Comment No. 2
In 1978, a prior owner was denied the right to build a residence on the lot. The project at that time was 2
stories from Pacific Drive and 4 floors in overall height. The proposal requested a Variance from the 24128
Foot Height Limitation District and it also requested a 2 -foot encroachment into the 5 -foot, front yard
setback. The impact of that proposal on public views was the reason cited for the denial of the project by
the Planning Commission. Ultimately, the City Council voted to deny the project without prejudice to allow
owner to continue working on the project with the Planning Commission, which that owner apparently
never completed given that no further hearings for the project site are recorded.
Response to Comment No. 3
This comment does not raise any environmental issues; no response is necessary. Nonetheless, the
comment will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration prior to taking
action on the project.
Response to Comment No. 4
This comment urging denial of the proposed project is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration prior to taking action on the project.
Megonipl Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Public Comments
November2009
Page 29 /jS
Mark & Kristine Simon
2420 First Avenue, Corona del Mar, CA 92625
October 5, 2009
UCEPnM BY
PLA*RNG DEPARTMENT
OCT 07 2009
All Planning Commissioners & All City Council Members
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Newport Beach, CA 92663 -
RE: Megonigal Residence DEIR/Geological Stability
Dear Planning Commissioners and Council People,
IWe adamantly disagree with the Draft EIR Report indicating that the construction
of the above mentioned residence does not significantly impact the geological
stability of the subject hillside
The City maintained a Public Staircase at the subject location for many years and
Z then had this staircase removed at the suggestion of their civil engineers
because the hillside was deemed unstable.
Please deny any construction that would present such a significant risk to the
geological stability of the subject hillside.
Thanks,
& Zzw4a a SGaaa
V(949) 872 - 8322
.__.__.._..._ .... _ 'F —ccr.
21. Mark & Kristine Simon (October 5, 2009)
Response to Comment No. 1
As discussed in the initial study prepared for the proposed project (refer to Section VI of the Initial Study),
a preliminary geotechnical study was conducted for the proposed project by Borella Geology, Inc. Based
on the stability conducted and include in that study, "... the orientation of the bedrock on the site is
dipping into the slope, which is the preferred orientation for maintaining slope integrity." Although
surficially, some of the cliff potions of the site are unstable, these surfiicial soils would be removed in
accordance with the recommendations of the consulting engineering geologist's recommendations and
that all slopes on the site were determined to be grossly stable. The factors of safety calculated for the
proposed project exceeded the minimum factors required. The plans and specifications must be prepared
in accordance with the consulting engineering geologist's recommendations and the California Building
Code and as such, there would be no impact to the stability of the hillside.
Response to Comment No. 2
A staircase across the project site where the public could access Carnation Avenue below from above is
clearly visible in historic photographs. Precisely when and why the staircase was removed is not known.
The preliminary geotechnical study concluded that all slopes on the site were determined to be grossly
stable.
Response to Comment No. 3
See previous responses. This comment urging denial of construction on the site because it presents a
significant risk represents the opinion of the commenter. Nonetheless, the comment will be forwarded to
the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration prior to taking an action on the project.
Megonigal Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Public Comments
November 2009
Page 30 i
Oq
2
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
OCT 08 2009
October 5, 2009
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
James Campbell
Principal Planner
Newport Beach Planning Dept
3300 Newport Blvd
Newport Beach CA 92658
RE: 2333 Pacific Drive
Corona del Mar
The above referenced property has caused several concerns for residents of the
neighborhood. We are personally concerned because we have two ongoing
construction projects on either side of us to begin our objections.
Also there is no parking (red zone) in front of proposed construction area on corner
of Pacific and Begonia and any autos not accommodated in the garage or driveway
would be on the street in front of our homes, not theirs. The house is very
contemporary in design and this neighborhood is all traditional homes. Building on
this site will block the view corridor from the street and the park and will look
crowded and not aesthetically pleasing as designed. The house appears to he too
large for the lot size proportionately as well. All of us walk dogs and children to the
park daily and would have it remain beautiful and unobstructed as we expected it to
be when we purchased homes in this area.
Sincerely,
C is �t. ......... _..�'
Dr. Robert and Gail Fabricant
Robert 1. Fabri cant
2315 Pacific Drive and 605 Begonia
Corona del Mar CA 92625
- — rr„ -
. __
I jv
22. Dr. Robert and Gail Fabricant (October 5, 2009)
Response to Comment No. f
No environmental issue is raised in this comment; no response is necessary. Nonetheless, the comment
will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration prior to taking action on
the project.
Response to Comment No. 2
Several issues are raised in this comment. Residents and visitors would be required to obey "No Parking"
areas in the neighborhood. Because Pacific Drive is a public street, which allows for on- street parking, it
could be used by future residents of the home, their guests, residents in the neighborhood, as well as the
general public.
A variety of architectural styles may be appropriate in the Corona del Mar neighborhood. While the
character of the proposed home may contrast with the other existing homes, it reflects a similar
development intensity and complies with the development standards prescribed in the R -1 zoning district
regulations with the exception of the modification requested to allow an exceedance to the height limit in
the front yard setback.
As reflected in the Draft EIR, views from Pacific Drive will be completely obscured by the proposed
residence; however, the Pacific Drive /Begonia Avenue location is not identified by the City as a Public
View Point and neither of these streets are roadways where public views are protected by the General
Plan or Coastal Land Use Plan. A new visual simulation was created from the Lower Bench (i.e., from the
same location as Exhibit 4.3 -1 in the Draft EIR). In the new visual simulation described above, the
proposed Megonigal residence is more prominent than depicted in Exhibit 4.3 -1. The easterly portion of
the structure (i.e., from the large tree in front of the project site and extending to the easterly end of the
property) is now visible from the lower bench. This portion of the structure was previously blocked by the
vegetation that existed on the slope before it was removed. In addition, the increased visibility of the
harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean noted above that was previously not visible due to the vegetation that
was removed, would largely be blocked instead by the proposed residence. Based on the new visual
simulation, it would appear that the implementation of the proposed project would result in the loss of
approximately 35 percent of the expanded view of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean, including the
horizon, which would also be blocked by the proposed residence. Although the proposed home is more
prominent in the corrected visual simulation and more of the coastal features would be affected, the
potential impact remains less than significant because the majority of the view that includes the harbor,
ocean and the related elements would be preserved.
An assessment of the new visual simulation revealed that the proposed project would affect approximately
35 percent of the coastal view from the Begonia Park lower bench vantage point, leaving approximately 65
percent of the important coastal features. Given that a majority of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and
ocean view components will remain in the overall view after the home is constructed, the overall quality of
the view will not be impacted significantly even with a reduction of the view's focal points. However,
because the majority of the views focal points (i.e., about 65 percent) would be preserved, the project is
considered to be consistent with the intent of the City's adopted policies, which seek to achieve view
preservation, even though the view will be altered by the construction of the home. Therefore, as
illustrated in the new visual simulation, while some loss of views of the harbor and ocean would result, it
was not determined to be significant because the integrity of the views from the Upper and Lower
Benches within the park was maintained.
The remainder of the issues reflects the opinion of the commenter, no response is necessary.
Nonetheless, these comments will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration prior to taking action on the project.
Megonigal Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Publrc Comments
November 2009
Page 31 //%
i /
Kenneth Daggers
516 Begonia Avenue
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
(949) 673 -8992 PECMrvED BY
October 5, 2009 PLANNING
Mr. James Campbell OCT 0 52009
Principal Planner
Newport Beach Planning Dept.
3300 Newport Boulevard CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Subject: Variance VA2007 -001, Modification MD2007 -080 & Megonigal DEIR
Mr. Campbell,
I strongly disagree with the with the assessment of the Newport Beach Planning Commission
that the above project will have "no significant impact' upon the public view from Begonia
Park or the Begonia Avenue street corridor.
1. This is due to the fact that your point of reference is not based on recent pictures. Were
you to examine the site, you would be unable to determine the impact of the structure on
the Public Views due to the fact that the poles no longer accurately represent the
proposed structure. Under the General Plan and Local Costal Program (CEOA) the city is
required to protect ocean views from public land and from ocean facing streets, and
must uphold this law passed in 2006. Prudence requires a reassessment of the impact of
this project upon Begonia Park.
2. 1 strongly object to granting this project a Variance from the 20 foot set back from the
street for a structure. This setback has been required of all other properties on Pack
Avenue. A deviation from the City's clearly established and vigorously enforced
requirement would destroy the look of the current houses on Pacific Avenue.
Furthermore, granting this variance would open the Planning Commission to charge of
selective enforcement of the planning /building code.
3. An evaluation of the impact on an Existing Public Asset has not been performed. It is
highly probable that approval of this project would significantly diminish the value of
Begonia Park. To my knowledge, highly structured processes are required when
projects diminish a public property and that in such cases, the beneficiary must
compensate the public entity for the negative impacts. This point should be addressed
by the City Attorney to determine whether the Planning Commission must consider
these factors.
Consider these points during your hearing,
Kenneth Jaggers
23. Kenneth Jaggers (October 5, 2009)
Response to Comment No. f
A new visual simulation was created from the Lower Bench (i.e., from the same location as Exhibit 4.3-1 in
the Draft EIR). In the new visual simulation described above, the proposed Megonigal residence is more
prominent than depicted in Exhibit 4.3 -1. The easterly portion of the structure (i.e., from the large tree in
front of the project site and extending to the easterly end of the property) is now visible from the lower
bench. This portion of the structure was previously blocked by the vegetation that existed on the slope
before it was removed. In addition, the increased visibility of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean
noted above that was previously not visible due to the vegetation that was removed, would largely be
blocked instead by the proposed residence. Based on the new visual simulation, it would appear that the
implementation of the proposed project would result in the loss of approximately 35 percent of the
expanded view of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean, including the horizon, which would also be
blocked by the proposed residence. Although the proposed home is more prominent in the corrected
visual simulation and more of the coastal features would be affected, the potential impact remains less
than significant because the majority of the view that includes the harbor, ocean and the related elements
would be preserved.
An assessment of the new visual simulation revealed that the proposed project would affect approximately
35 percent of the coastal view from the Begonia Park lower bench vantage point, leaving approximately 65
percent of the important coastal features. Given that a majority of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and
ocean view components will remain in the overall view after the home is constructed, the overall quality of
the view will not be impacted significantly even with a reduction of the view's focal points. However,
because the majority of the view's focal points (i.e., about 65 percent) would be preserved, the project is
considered to be consistent with the intent of the City's adopted policies, which seek to achieve view
preservation, even though the view will be altered by the construction of the home.
Response to Comment No. 2
The commenter incorrectly indicates that the project site and other properties along Pacific Drive have a
20 -foot front yard setback. The minimum required setback for the inland side of Pacific Drive is 20 feet
and the minimum setbacks for the bluff side are established by the districting map in the following detail:
Megonfgal Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Public Comments
November 2009
Page 32 fj>
L/ � j
The subject property requires a minimum 5 -foot setback, which dates back to the original districting maps
adopted in 1943. The proposed project neither requests nor requires a variance from the front yard
setback. The project was redesigned to eliminate the need for a variance to the height requirement
prescribed in the R -1 zoning district. The proposed project will require the granting of a Modification to the
three -foot height limit within the front setback for planters, walls and a water feature only and given their
height and location, they will not affect public views from Begonia Park.
Response to Comment No. 3
This comment does not raise and environmental issue; no response is required. Nonetheless, the
comment will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration prior to taking
action on the project.
Megonigal Residence (PA 2007 - 133)
Responses to Public Comments
November 2009
Page 33
f!
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
October 6, 2009
OCT 0 7 2009
James Campbell
Newport Beach Planning Dept.
3300 Newport Blvd. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Newport Beach. CA 92663
RE: Application for Variance VA 2007 -001 and Modification MD2007 -080
Dear Mr. Campbell:
I have two concerns. The first is that the EIR and City's opinion that an insignificant
amount of view will be lost is just not correct! We live two blocks from the park
but go to the park at least three times a day to walk our Bichon. We could walk
in a different direction but we enjoy the view from the park inasmuch as we don't
have a direct view from our home. We enjoy looking at the water, watching the boats
float by and just the overall view from the park. To lose this would be a terrible loss for
not only this neighborhood but for the City of Newport Beach.
Secondly, there is a beautiful Pepper tree that overlooks the proposed construction area.
This very distinctive tree has roots that surely penetrate deep into the Megonigal property
Z and I would add that a good amount of them will have to be severed during construction.
Hence, the threat that this unique tree will be lost is substantial as the park would
definitely miss the charm and character of this local landmark.
Your consideration for this neighborhood and all of the City of Newport Beach is
respectfully requested and appreciated.
Sincere , ;7
GLENN A. SOUERS
LUCY SOUERS
GAS/la
//S
24. Glenn A. and Lucy Souers (October 6, 2009)
Response to Comment No. 1
This comment expresses disagreement in the conclusion related to visual impacts presented in the Draft
EIR. However, no specific comment is presented. A new visual simulation was created from the Lower
Bench (i.e., from the same location as Exhibit 4.3 -1 in the Draft EIR). In the new visual simulation
described above, the proposed Megonigal residence is more prominent than depicted in Exhibit 4.3 -1.
The easterly portion of the structure (i.e., from the large tree in front of the project site and extending to
the easterly end of the property) is now visible from the lower bench. This portion of the structure was
previously blocked by the vegetation that existed on the slope before it was removed. In addition, the
increased visibility of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean noted above that was previously not visible
due to the vegetation that was removed, would largely be blocked instead by the proposed residence.
Based on the new visual simulation, it would appear that the implementation of the proposed project would
result in the loss of approximately 35 percent of the expanded view of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and
ocean, including the horizon, which would also be blocked by the proposed residence. Although the
proposed home is more prominent in the corrected visual simulation and more of the coastal features
would be affected, the potential impact remains less than significant because the majority of the view that
includes the harbor, ocean and the related elements would be preserved.
An assessment of the new visual simulation revealed that the proposed project would affect approximately
35 percent of the coastal view from the Begonia Park lower bench vantage point, leaving approximately 65
percent of the important coastal features. Given that a majority of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and
ocean view components will remain in the overall view after the home is constructed, the overall quality of
the view will not be impacted significantly even with a reduction of the views focal points. However,
because the majority of the view's focal points (i.e., about 65 percent) would be preserved, the project is
considered to be consistent with the intent of the City's adopted policies, which seek to achieve view
preservation, even though the view will be altered by the construction of the home. This comment is
acknowledged and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration prior
to taking action on the project
Response to Comment No. 2
The pepper tree is a distinctive public tree and the proposed residence is not located within its dripline and
as such, roots should not be affected. The City's certified arborist will be monitoring construction should
the project be approved to ensure that the tree is adequately protected.
Megonigal Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Public Comments
November 2009
Page 34 / /�
Marilyn L Beck
303 Carnation Avenue
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
October 6, 2009
James Campbell, Principal Planner
Newport Beach Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658
RE: DEIR Megonigal Property
Dear Mr. Campbell:
I am writing in reference to the DEIR in relation to the Megonigal property
at the edge of Begonia Park. I have read the DEIR and in particular the
Alternatives. My comments are specific to the loss of view corridor which will
take place if this project is allowed to be built as proposed.
You may recall that I pointed out the issue of the Begonia Park view
corridor in relation to the AERIE project as an early concern. Given that AERIE
has been approved and will cause of loss of view from Begonia Park, I feel it is
now imperative that the remaining view be preserved to the maximum extent
feasible. My understanding after reading the Alternatives is that there are
options which will preserve the public views. I strongly urge the Planning
Department, Planning Commission and City Council to do all that is possible to
preserve the public views and not allow variances and modification permits for
this project. I have no objection to the construction of a residence at this site, but
ask that you carefully consider an alternative which preserves the public views.
Begonia Park is an important public resource for the residents of Corona
Del Mar. It is used throughout the year by residents of the neighborhood. The
views are extraordinary and should be protected and preserved. This is what
2 makes our neighborhood so special. This is not just about property value, it is
about the ambiance and quality of our town. Please protect this valuable asset
for all.
Thank you.
Cc: Planning Commission
City Council
l��
25. Marilyn L. Beck (October 6, 2009)
Response to Comment No. 1
This comment expresses the opinion of the commenter and urges the preservation of the public views
including the serious consideration of one of the project alternatives discussed within the DEIR. Although
a modification to the height limit within the front yard setback is requested by the applicant,
implementation of the proposed project would not require a variance from any existing development
standard prescribed by the Municipal Code. This comment will be forwarded to the Planning Commission
and City Council for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed project.
Response to Comment No. 2
No environmental issue is raised in this comment. Nonetheless, the comment will be forwarded to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration prior to taking action on the proposed project.
Megonigal Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Public Comments
November 2009
Page 35 //
26. Erwin Fox (October 6, 2009)
Response to Comment No. 1
The commenter expresses his opposition to the project and the requested Modification Permit This
comment does not raise any environmental issues; no response is necessary. The comments will be
forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration prior to taking an action on the
project.
Megonigel Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Public Comments
November 2009
Page 36 !
l�
NOTICE OF AVAU— A.BJLITY OF A
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL 11vIPACT REPORT
The City of Newport Beach has completed the preparation of a Draft Environmental Jmpact Report (DEM) for the
Megonigal Single - Family Residential Project located at 2333 Pacific Drive in the City of Newport Beach. The -
DEIR has been prepared to evaluate potential environmental impacts associated with the following discretionary
approvals are requested or required by the City in order to implement the project:
Permit (MD2007 -080)
The project applicAtsk Kim and Caroline Megoniga are proposing to construction a single - family residence on
(1` the subject property. a app rcant proposes to construct a 3,566 square-foot, single- family residence (including
the garage floor area). The proposed residence will consist of three levels: 1,827 square feet on the first floor;
934 square feet on the second floor; and 805 square feet on the uppermost level (including a 428 -square foot, 2-
car garage). Total floor area, not including the garage, is 3,138 square feet- Vehicular access is from Pacific
Drive at the intersection of Begonia Avenue and Pacific Drive. In addition to the indoor living area, 1,004 square
feet of outdoor patio space Du the three levels isprovided. The front and rear elevations are illustrated in Exhibits
3 -7 and 3 -8. respectively. The applicant is requesting approval of lwddificahon Permit o. 117667_W0 to allow
planter wa s to ex ee j t e three -foot height omit requirement in the front yard setback. In addition, because the
proposed planter walls and water feature would also encroach into the Begonia Avenue right-of-way, an
encroachment permit from the City's Public works Department will also be required. The encroachment permit
also includes non - standard improvements within the uubic ri t -of -wa consisting of enh c ,Qayin for
edestrian d I c s om Pacific Drive stly, grading of approximate y 630 cubic yards of export,
landscaping, and utility connections necessary for construction of the proposed, residence are also included. ve
l
The City of Newport Beach determined that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the
environment on Land Use, Aesthetics, and Biological Resources. The City determined that an EIR would be
required to more fully evaluate potential adverse environmental impacts that may result from development of the
project. Ail other environmental effects were determined to be less than significant (with mitigation) or have no
impact and were addressed in the Initial Study prepared for the project. As a result, the DEIR has been prepared
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources
Code Section 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines for Implementation of -CEQA (California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.). This DEIR also complies with the City of Newport Beach's
procedures for implementation of CEQA.
The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this doopmentation. Copies of the
Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the
following locations:
Planning Department Central Library
3300 Newport Boulevard N V 1000 Avocado Avenue
Newport Beach, Califomig92658 -8915 W d Newport Beach, CA 92625
W
Balboa Branch OQ a c F Corona del Mar Branch
100 East Balboa Bouivak c°v O0 420 Marigold Avenue
Newport Beach, CA 2g64} o p Corona del Mar, CA 92625
V 1�
Mariners Branch
1300 Irvine Ave. ° w �j (� �%
Newport Beach, CA 9266 GJ / zk'
a
U
qmm # The DEIR is available at the City's website http : / /www.nnMortbeachr-a.poy /plamin¢. Comments on the
adequacy of the DEIR will be accepted by the City between August 24, 2009 and October 8, 2009. Comments on
the Draft EIR should be sent to the attention of James Campbell, Principal Planner, Newport Beach Planning
Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915. Notice of said hearing will be
separately provided in accordance with applicable law when the hearing dates are known.
tc
"lo: James Campbell
From: Friends of Begonia Park
CC: Newport Beach Planning Commission, City Council
Subject: DEIR for Megonigal Residence
Dear Mr. Campbell,
RECEIVED BY
pLANNiNG DEPARTMENT
I t1"
Alviralls
The City of Newport Beach has asked for comments on the adequacy of the DEIR for the
above project. We have reviewed the DEIR and determined that it is inadequate because
it fails to point out that the proposed project is not consistent with the General Plan and it
has a significant adverse affect on the community. The project conflicts with the
following elements of the General Plan: NR 17.1, NR 17.2, NR 17.3. NR 20.1, NR 20.3,
NR 23.1, NR 23.7, LU 1. 1, LU.3, LU 1.4, LU 1.6, LU 3.2, LU 4.1 and H 1. l in a
significant manner.
This particular property above all others satisfies and provides the preservation
L requirement elements of any property considered for development in Newport Beach.
Because of this it requires special consideration by the City Council:
1. It controls the harbor and ocean views from Begonia Park which is identified
as a Public View Point and should be preserved. This Park has always been a
view park, its unobstructed and unblocked harbor and ocean views are what
3 set this park apart and attracted the homeowners and visitors. In its current
design, the damage of the proposed project to the public views from Begonia
Park is significant and its adverse effect on the scenic vista will substantially,
adversely and irrevocably alter the overall character of the park and the
neighborhood.
2. It also controls the harbor and ocean views from the Begonia Avenue Corridor
and the view from Pacific Avenue. It has always served as the Lookout Point
4 of Begonia Park, and is so depicted in travel books on Newport Beach. The
proposed ,project will totally obliterate all public bay and ocean views from
Begonia Avenue Corridor and Pacific Drive.
3. It constitutes the last segment of undeveloped coastal bluff in the area which
5 the City regards as important visual and landfonn features in the city. Prior to
the initiation of this project, it was untouched, undeveloped, and growing
native vegetation, and should be preserved as open space.
4. This particular property which is located immediately adjacent to Begonia
Park as well as the lower park has always been used by the public for
recreational purposes as an integral part of the park. It was not fenced off and
cleared as it now appears. There were stairs built into the property which
were used by the public to access Begonia Park from the lower park and vice
versa. For many decades there was always a City Bench on the property
facing the view, as well as a City garbage can and various vegetation.
Everyone visited the property, walked on it to look at the view, sat on the
bench, went up and down the steps, in short, it was used as an integral part of
the park and believed to be a recreational destination.
5. 'Phis project is in direct conflict with the City's objective to preserve open
space. This report admits that there is a deficit of 9.1 acres of combined
7 park/beach acreage within this service area, so losing the use of this property
as a park is significant. The existing land use of this property is as open
space and as pail of the park. The aerial photograph in the report (exhibit 3-
3) clearly demonstrates that this property is an integral part of the park.
i
The report misses this and fails to recognize the importance of the property to the public.
By depriving them of the above elements, the proposed project has the potential to
irrevocably adversely affect 42,1.43 property tax paying Newport Beach homeowners as
well as those who work in and those who visit the City, as well as all future generations,
in order to benefit just one ,person. There is no other property that has such a compilation
of important characteristics affecting the General Plan and consequently, while each
individual conflict of this project with the General Plan is significant, combined together,
the individual effects substantially compound the adverse environmental impact.
In contrast to this project, none of the other projects presented by the report (Chapter 9)
have had any such significant adverse environmental consequences on the public, and
9 furthermore, they are generally projects which benefit the public — hospital, restaurant,
senior center, recreation facilities etc., not just one individual, and replace or expand an
existing structure.
to
Consequently we urge the City Council to require an alternative to the proposed project
along the alternatives explored in Chapter 10. Alternative Site and No Project/No
Development are obviously in the best interest of the City and its residents present and
future. As background, the property was purchased by the current owners for around
$300,000, only a fraction of the cost of surrounding properties, reflecting the limitations
of this property for construction purposes. Clearly, the City should not be obligated to
accommodate the owner's unreasonable objectives for harbor and ocean views from each
of three levels, outdoor living areas directly accessible from indoor spaces on each of
three levels, access from Pacific Drive, and an enclosed garage. Additionally, the City
should not grant any modification requests and any variances as they will further hurt the
public.
Hopefully, the City will find a way to implement the Alternative Site option or the No
(' PrgjecbNo Development option. If there is absolutely no way to accomplish the first
two options, at a minimum, the City should require the Alternative Design option of
Removing the Upper Level, allowing no construction above the Pacific Drive street level.
Thank you for your consideration,
The Friends of Begonia Park
27. Friends of Begonia Park (October 7, 2009)
Response to Comment No. 1
This comment suggests that the proposed project conflicts with several policies of the Newport General
Plan; however, specific conflicts with those policies are not identified. Without additional information as to
the specific nature of the conflict, a response cannot be provided. No conflict with those listed policies has
been identified.
Response to Comment No. 2
This comment reflects the opinion of the Commenter. No response is necessary. The comment will be
forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration prior to taking action on the
proposed project.
Response to Comment No. 3
The subject property is the last undeveloped property on the bluff west of Pacific Drive overlooking the
harbor and ocean. Although this comment suggests that the views from Begonia Park are °unobstructed°
at the present time, it is important to note that while views of the harbor and ocean exist, development not
only on Pacific Drive but also Carnation Avenue have altered views from the park. Nevertheless, a wide
view widow does exist from vantage points within the park which is designated a Public View Point The
extent to which views from the Lower Bench and Upper Bench within the Park were affected is illustrated
in Exhibits 4.3 -1 and 4.3 -2. However, these visual simulations do not reflect current character of the
canyon below the park, which was cleared of the heavy vegetation, which obscured a portion of the harbor
and ocean view. A new visual simulation was created from the Lower Bench (i.e., from the same location
as Exhibit 4.3 -1 in the Draft EIR). In the new visual simulation described above, the proposed Megonigal
residence is more prominent than depicted in Exhibit 4.3 -1. The easterly portion of the structure (i.e., from
the large tree in front of the project site and extending to the easterly end of the property) is now visible
from the lower bench. This portion of the structure was previously blocked by the vegetation that existed
on the slope before it was removed. In addition, the increased visibility of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula
and ocean noted above that was previously not visible due to the vegetation that was removed, would
largely be blocked instead by the proposed residence. Based on the new visual simulation, it would
appear that the implementation of the proposed project would result in the loss of approximately 35
percent of the expanded view of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean, including the horizon, which
would also be blocked by the proposed residence. Although the proposed home is more prominent in the
corrected visual simulation and more of the coastal features would be affected, the potential impact
remains less than significant because the majority of the view that includes the harbor, ocean and the
related elements would be preserved.
An assessment of the new visual simulation revealed that the proposed project would affect approximately
35 percent of the coastal view from the Begonia Park lower bench vantage point, leaving approximately 65
percent of the important coastal features. Given that a majority of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and
ocean view components will remain in the overall view after the home is constructed, the overall quality of
the view will not be impacted significantly even with a reduction of the views focal points. However,
because the majority of the view's focal points (i.e., about 65 percent) would be preserved, the project is
considered to be consistent with the intent of the City's adopted policies, which seek to achieve view
preservation, even though the view will be altered by the construction of the home.
Response to Comment No. 4
Refer to Response to Comment No. 3. As indicated in this comment, the Draft EIR concluded that the
proposed single - family residence would completely obscure views of the harbor and ocean from the
Pacific Drive /Begonia Avenue vantage point; however, this location is not identified in the City's General
McWnigal Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Public Comments
November 2009
Pege 37
Plan (refer to Figure NR3) as a Public View Point. As revealed in the new visual simulation prepared for
the project that now reflects the elimination of the vegetation, the majority of the coastal view from the
lower bench within Begonia Park will be preserved. This conclusion is consistent with that presented in
the Draft EIR, which indicated that because the integrity of the harbor and ocean views from the two
locations within Begonia Park was maintained, the intent of the policies articulated in the General Plan
related to preservation of ocean and harbor views was achieved by the project, which was redesigned to
reduce the visual impacts.
Response to Comment No. 5
This property is the only privately held vacant and undeveloped bluff property in Carnation Avenue /Pacific
Drive area. Other lots in the immediate area within the viewshed of Begonia Park retain more natural
elements thereby preserving a natural quality of the view even with the proposed project. Although the
subject site is vacant, it has been altered in the past to provide a staircase to Carnation Avenue below.
Although the site does support some native habitat (261 square feet of coastal bluff scrub vegetation), it
does not meet the criteria established for ESHA because it is of low quality and it is fragmented from
similar habitats. Furthermore, it does not support any rare and /or endangered species and has been
affected by past human activities and fragmentation of the once more extensive habitat (i.e., prior to
development of the bluff along Pacific Drive and Bayside Drive).
Response to Comment No. 6
The project site was once part of the Pacific Drive right -of -way and was abandoned by the City in 1926.
The site has not been in public ownership since the adoption of Resolution No. 380 by the City. The site
did accommodate a staircase affording public access from Pacific Drive to Carnation Avenue below for
decades afterward. The City had placed a public bench and trash receptacle in front of the project site for
the public to sit and enjoy the view. The staircase, bench and trash receptacle were removed decades ago
for reasons undocumented. The site was recently fenced for security purposes by the applicant.
Response to Comment No. 7
The site is neither designated as open space nor identified to be incorporated into Begonia Park. The
Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site as RS -D (Single -Unit Residential — Detached);
the site is zoned R -1 (Single - Family Residential). As such, the site can be developed with one single -
family residential dwelling unit in accordance with the development standards established for the site.
Given the small size of the project site, statistically, its area would do little to meet the 9.1 -acre deficit
identified by the General Plan. Although a parkland deficiency of 9.1 acres is identified by the General
Plan, the Recreation Element also states that despite this deficiency in park area, existing active and
passive facilities should meet present and future need, provided these facilities are renovated and
upgraded to meet demand for sports fields and active recreation.
Response to Comment No. 8
This comment asserts that development of the property as proposed would have substantial
consequences on the long -range goals and objectives of the City. However, as indicated in Response to
Comment No. 4, the integrity of the view corridor that includes harbor, peninsula and ocean views would
be substantially maintained with the project's impact being considered less than significant given that the
overall quality of the view will be largely maintained and that the majority of the focal points within the view
will remain visible. The proposed project complies with all relevant development standards and has been
redesigned to minimize the potential impacts to coastal views, which is consistent with the goals,
objectives and policies articulated in the Newport Beach General Plan.
Megonigal Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Public Comments
November 2009
Page 38
11ek
Response to Comment No. 9
No specific environmental issue is raised in this comment. No response is necessary.
Response to Comment No. 10
The Planning Commission and City Council may consider not only the proposed project but also any of the
alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIR. It is important to note that the modification requested by the
applicant is to allow an exceedance of the three -foot height limit in the front yard setback area for minor
walls, planters and a water feature that will not contribute to impacts on public views. The remaining
comments do not raise environmental issues; however, they will be forwarded to the Planning
Commission and City Council prior to taking an action on the project.
Response to Comment No. 11
This comment reflects the opinion of the commenter and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission
and City Council prior to taking an action on the project.
Megonlgal Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Public Comments
November2009
Page 39
Campbell, James
From: Julie Sherwin jjulie@cbimail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 4:59 PM
To: Campbell, James; Alford, Patrick; Lepo, David; eaton727@earthlink.net;
rhawkins @earthlink.net; bhillgren@highrhodes.com; scott.peotter@taxfighter.com;
strataland @earthlink. net; cwunsworth @cox.net; Gardner, Nancy
Subject: Variance VA2007 -001, Modification MD2007 -080 and Megonigal DEIR
I As a proud and fortunate resident of the Corona del Mar, 1 first want to thank you for your efforts to protect our
f unique beach community from years of modernization and overbuilding. My concern is that the preservation of
our neighborhood may be in great jeopardy by a potential decision you will be making.
My feelings are that the Begonia Park View and the view from the street are priceless and should be as
2 minimally impacted as possible. I understand that they do have a right to build on their land. However, it isn't
right or fair that they be given a variance that impacts traffic directions or set back requirements.
It has come to my attention this week (it was never noted or mentioned to my knowledge until now) that the
Megonigal plans are requesting a modification to the set back and also requesting a change to two way traffic.
I think this is wrong. If it has to be built, it should be done within the building codes that are in place if it has
to be built or let them enter from Bayside.
Sincerely,
Julie Sherwin
440 Begonia Ave
Corona del Mar
Julie Sherwin, LEED AP
director -aM programs
Corporate Business Interiors
www.cbihci.com
19000 MacArthur Blvd, Ste 500
Irvine, California 92612
c 949.230.8086
0 949 22S -3900 r 949.225.3908
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
OCT 0 7 2099
MY OF NEWPORT BEACH
NOTICE: This e-mail (including any attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is proprietary and confidential
and may be legally or otherwise privileged.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, retention, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited,
If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender that you received this e-mail in error, and then delete this email.
® Please owtsider the environment before printing this email.
1
28. Julie Sherwin (October 7, 2009)
Response to Comment No. 1
No environmental issue is raised in this comment. No response is necessary.
Response to Comment No. 2
This comment reflects the opinion of the commenter. The comment will be forwarded to the Planning
Commission and City Council for consideration prior to taking an action on the project. No response is
necessary.
Response to Comment No. 3
As indicated in the description of the proposed project (refer to page 3 -12 of the Draft EIR), the
Modification Permit requested by the applicant would allow an exceedance of the three -foot height limit
required in the front yard setback and not a reduction in the actual setback requirement. The project does
not include a request "... a change to two way traffic" as indicated in this comment.
Megonigal Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Public Comments
November 2009
Page 40/
Wor)Mf. (mpbedl,
RBCBIM BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
OCT 092009
4pje,dsed Uwo
I '
w
MY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Ao)Jkwth�P fi�Lfa
r OAe: ?36?0 B&�S2y Coroa&)
as . C
&- b rouAk+ tv ON V A
l
p >
-R-) aba)4- vit qcrr,opja( pro' cf aT Z, �cf
c
(ivc- EZ-
4 0n jctehs w j Lie=c.H b�rdffS
K;a ParL, vic S-fy-b n8 IT scffv(f
4-k co i 6vid BeT
Oimivia�-Kt+lv, 3rd Y- 44,V(s_fff� pt�& aivid c, 11, �i nit
vek ICU (iw��U,-�o rema�n all Paaf�c- brivc-7(sek-
oL(Gi wA cf 4-6—
pUbkC WL7rkS ar4Woyj� 4e
"�Yi� 10. 3.3-J)
&t a 14VwA&k & acce55 vajid be— pof c��-+ 1)
1+()v I VL IJiv&d &IV.23(oo "sikbriA--�r mi ckLrr)
j& fo" 4-ke- %I viarrow @od curvf'►, "' I
T Of a S+r&f -to
we-
�7
(X
-w jz)�- •MiloytC11, 'Wcorrme— Ile ac&55
cf
Pat rk-. -rlv-
OA
-141is :Svvbll �a� ork- proyides -�I' "h bo-rha)d w4t C)
Lf),avj e Tvir MA -fz) WaA L-PlIe if do s ptc�
U I rj, U r be avp, I I C-4wtl b.A'j,
J41 U (eA- 7. IA.
.... ..... ..
I
c)c� vie pi f nM -N�- l f�va w,s z-
a 1le�ov�ia r v2 f - +r5t,� v�ue %C� rnoL*o, Ave.
We. world bp, v reua�,✓� -� re
comi 4cari vta ces �e dt -mss sob cf-
~0.4
5iMC(eJ at
YOne,k,ay. 'bavx e►,,tjd
230 �a�Isipl:Q� b�i��.
GA. g262s-
�MJDUC.KFAM i cwL.co►,,
fesioQocq
.9
Is 10 error (IF ma.b K�' mu (-4(.e.. rei P!4 ' ces
-� stGC- �rf v�-- (0.3.3. i did U
[0-3--2 3 (2G-� ov�S SIB Gtl �d Vio cl 5 r ✓xe. 3_z }.
29. Yvonne and Damien Jordan (October 7, 2009)
Response to Comment No. 1
This comment reflects the opinion of the commenter; no response is necessary. The comment will be
forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration prior to tatting action on the
proposed project.
Response to Comment No. 2
As requested in this comment, hearing notices will be sent to the commenter. No response is necessary.
Response to Comment No. 3
The Final EIR will correctly identify "Bayside Drive° and eliminate the reference to "Bayview Drive."
Megonigal Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Public Comments
November 2009
Page 41 'l
/� 1
2
3
Lepo, David
From: KateKeams @aol.com
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 11:02 AM
To: Campbell, James; Alford, Patrick; dlepo @newportbeach.gov; eaton727 @earthlink.net;
rhawkins @earthlink.net; bhillgren @highrhodes.com; soott.peotter@taxfighter.com;
strataland@earthlink.net; cwunsworth@cox.net Gardner, Nancy
Subject: Begonia Park- Variance VA2007 -001, Modification MD2007 -080, Megonigal DEIR
Dear Planning Staff, Planning Commission and Representative Gardener
We are writing to each of you regarding our concerns about the proposed residence on Pacific Drive next to Begonia Park
. In our previous correspondence we shared our recent move to Corona del Mar and that a major reason we choose this
area was the beauty of the vistas enjoyed from various areas of the community including Lookout Point, Inspiration Point
and Begonia Park Not too long ago, we discovered that a small lot at the end of Begonia Avenue was not part of the
park, but privately owned and the owner wished to develop this site. We join with many other members of our community
in voicing our resistance to the proposed development.
In 2006, the City passed the General Plan. This Plan addressed several issues including the City's desire to preserve
those aspects of the City that make it a special and desirable place to live and visit. One of those issues was preserving
public views. The General Plan states the City will "protect and, where feasible, enhance, scenic and visual resources"
(NR 20.1). Begonia Park is cited in the report as one of those public views. When poles were erected on the site
indicating where the home would be, it was obvious to many that the development did not meet this criteria. Instead of
protecting or enhancing the view, it obstructed a large portion of the harbor and ocean views. This past spring, the City,
after much urging from area residents, trimmed back much of the vegetation at that area of the Park. Now it is even more
obvious, how detrimental the proposed development would be to the spectacular public view.
As we stated in our previous correspondence, we understand that the owners have a right to develop the property they
own. However, they, along with all other residents, must do so within the confines of Newport Beach regulations. The
current design does not meet the stipulations of the General Plan; it obstucts a sizeable portion of the public view.
Imagine the outcry if a similar dwelling was proposed for Lookout or Inspiration Pointsi In those areas, residences were
allowed, but were required to preserve the view, building below street level. It has been suggested that the Megonigal's
do the same. We believe that is a good compromise. They would be allowed to develop the site and retain the view for
current and future generations of Newport Beach residents and visitors.
We moved to Newport Beach because of its natural beauty and thoughtfully planned neighborhoods. The City wished to
preserve this unique and attractive quality for years to come and put much time, work and resources into the development
of the General Plan. If the City does not adhere to the Plan, all that effort will have been a waste. We empathize with the
Megonigal's, but their proposed residence does not meet the stipulations in the General Plan. Allowing it to proceed, as
is, would be disregarding everything the General Plan tried to accomplish.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Gary and Kathleen Kearns
423 Begonia Avenue
RBCBWM BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
OCT 082009
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
30. Gary and Kathleen Kearns (October 8, 2009)
Response to Comment No. f
This comment does not raise any environmental issues. The comment will be forwarded to the Planning
Commission and City Council for consideration prior to taking an action on the proposed project. No
response is necessary.
Response to Comment No. 2
The Draft EIR includes an extensive analysis of the projects consistency with relevant policies of the
Newport Beach General plan as well as the Coastal Land Use Plan, based on the project as illustrated in
Exhibit 4.3 -1 and Exhibit 4.3 -2. Although a new visual simulation has been prepared that more accurately
portrays the Megonigal residence and its greater effect on the coastal view from Begonia Park, that effect
would remain less than significant because the project would maintain the majority of the view from the
Begonia Park vantage point
Response to Comment No. 3
Refer to Response to Comment No. 2. A new visual simulation was created from the Lower Bench (i.e.,
from the same location as Exhibit 4.3 -1 in the Draft EIR). In the new visual simulation, the proposed
Megonigal residence is more prominent than depicted in Exhibit 4.3-1. The easterly portion of the
structure (i.e., from the large tree in front of the project site and extending to the easterly end of the
property) is now visible from the lower bench. This portion of the structure was previously blocked by the
vegetation that existed on the slope before it was removed. In addition, the increased visibility of the
harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean noted above that was previously not visible due to the vegetation that
was removed, would largely be blocked instead by the proposed residence. Based on the new visual
simulation, it would appear that the implementation of the proposed project would result in the loss of
approximately 35 percent of the expanded view of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean, including the
horizon, which would also be blocked by the proposed residence. Although the proposed home is more
prominent in the corrected visual simulation and more of the coastal features would be affected, the
potential impact remains less than significant because the majority of the view that includes the harbor,
ocean and the related elements would be preserved.
Response to Comment No. 4
This comment reflects the opinion of the commenter and does not raise any environmental issues. The
comment will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration prior to taking
an action on the proposed project. No response is necessary.
Megonigal Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Public Comments
November 2009
Page 42 /
Z
If
James Campbell
Newport Beach Planning Commission, City Council
Response to Megonigal DEIR Report
Dear Mr. Campbell,
PLANNING DEPARTMHNT
OCT 082009
CrrY OF NEWPORT BEACH
The city of Newport Beach asked residents to respond to the findings presented in the
DEIR report on the proposed Megonigal residence. While the report claims that the
proposed plans make no "significant impact" upon local environmental resources, the
validity of this conclusion must be called into question.
To support the argument that the proposed project does "significantly impact" ocean and
harbor views from the park, the DEIR uses old photographs of the lower park that are
inconsistent with the current state of the park. Despite dating these photographs "August,
2009," the photographs displayed in the report were clearly taken before the foliage at the
lower park was cut back by the city, on March 31st, 2009. At best, this is a large oversight
by the planning department in preparing the report; at worst, it is simply fraudulent and
calls into question the validity of the entire report. City officials always have a civic duty
to be truthful when preparing these types of reports — and considering the number of
community residents that will be affected if Begonia Park loses the ocean views and
lookout point, they should be attentive to details, especially using up-to -date photographs
to assess potential view loss. City Council should strongly urge the Planning Department
to re- evaluate the environmental impact of the project using up-to -date photographs of
Begonia Park.
Since the foliage was removed in March, the impact of the proposed project upon these
views (particularly from the City bench at the lower park) is undeniable. While the
current storey poles are degraded and falling down, restoring them will demonstrate the
true extent of view loss from the lower park. The proposed project clearly conflicts with a
number of points listed in the general plan and city code, including General Plan
regulations NR 17. 1, NR 17.2, NR 17.3, NR 20. 1, NR 20.3, NR 23. 1, NR 23.7, as well as
Land Use Policies L.U.1.1, LU.3, LU 1.4, LU 1.6, LU 3.2, LU 4.1 and H 1.1. While
violating any one of these policies would be ground for concern, that this project conflicts
with so many regulations surely demonstrates a large -scale adverse environmental impact
that must be considered under California State law.
Anyone who has sat at the lower park bench since March 31 sf, 2009, would attest that the
proposed project would significantly reduce the public ocean and harbor views from that
part of the park (by around 501/6), that it would significantly reduce the local
environmental resources including totally demolishing the bluff (which the general plan
identifies as an important visual landform), and that it would significantly lower the value
of Begonia Park itself, one our great City's financial assets. And yet, the DEIR concludes
that none of these impacts are `significant.' We must ask then, how can this significance
be understood in legal terms? The City Council must clarify exactly what criteria are
necessary to determine `significant impacts' to avoid any future arbitrary and capricious
�3�
5
A
conclusions. Surely, losing nearly 50% of the ocean view from the lower park, and
demolishing 100% of the costal bluff would qualify under the law (including but not
limited to the California Environmental Quality Act) as substantial enough to be deemed
a significant impact.
Furthermore, the City must not grant any modifications or variances on this project, as
they would further harm the community by taking up parts of the park and the public
right -of -way. Currently, the public sidewalk directly in front of Mr. Megonigal's lot at
the comer of Begonia and Pacific is one of the most valuable pieces of land owned by the
City of Newport Beach. This sidewalk provides one of the most beautiful ocean and
harbor views in the area, and for years featured a public bench and trashcan, and was
enjoyed by the local community as a "Lookout Point" (Local maps, news articles, and
even history books refer to it as `Begonia Lookout Point"). Despite the owner's
deteriorating storey poles and chain -link fence, people still come to this corner to admire
the view. Mr. Megonigal does not own any part of the park, nor does he own the public
sidewalk/lookout point — The City of Newport Beach does. It is in the City's best interest
to preserve and enhance the ocean and harbor views from this financially and
aesthetically valuable location.
The City should not be required to cause further detriment to the community by yielding
to the owner's impractical demands (including harbor and ocean views from all three
levels, and outdoor living areas directly accessible from indoor spaces on all three
levels), especially given the awkward size and slope of the lot. The Alternative Site
option or the No Project/No Development option would be the best course of action given
this project's many conflicts with elements of the General Plan and Coastal Land Use
Plan. If this option is absolutely impossible, then at a minimum the city should adopt the
Alternative Design option of removing the Upper Level, and not allowing any
construction on Pacific Drive proper. This option would preserve the views from the
City -owned sidewalk lookout point, while mitigating the significant impacts on the ocean
and harbor views from the lower park and the Begonia street corridor.
We look forward to a resolution that will not harm the local community, and one that will
uphold state and city laws to help preserve our last remaining local ecological resources.
Thank you for your time.
James Bissill and Kelly Neff
31. James Bissill and Kelly Neff (October 8, 2009)
Response to Comment No. f
This comment reflects the opinion of the commenter and is acknowledged. No response is necessary.
Response to Comment No. 2
A new visual simulation was created from the Lower Bench (i.e., from the same location as Exhibit 4.3 -1 in
the Draft EIR). In the new visual simulation described above, the proposed Megonigal residence is more
prominent than depicted in Exhibit 4.3 -1. The easterly portion of the structure (i.e., from the large tree in
front of the project site and extending to the easterly end of the property) is now visible from the lower
bench. This portion of the structure was previously blocked by the vegetation that existed on the slope
before it was removed. In addition, the increased visibility of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean
noted above that was previously not visible due to the vegetation that was removed, would largely be
blocked instead by the proposed residence. Based on the new visual simulation, it would appear that the
implementation of the proposed project would result in the loss of approximately 35 percent of the
expanded view of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean, including the horizon, which would also be
blocked by the proposed residence. Although the proposed home is more prominent in the corrected
visual simulation and more of the coastal features would be affected, the potential impact remains less
than significant because the majority of the view that includes the harbor, ocean and the related elements
would be preserved.
An assessment of the new visual simulation revealed that the proposed project would affect approximately
35 percent of the coastal view from the Begonia Park lower bench vantage point, leaving approximately 65
percent of the important coastal features. Given that a majority of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and
ocean view components will remain in the overall view after the home is constructed, the overall quality of
the view will not be impacted significantly even with a reduction of the view's focal points. However,
because the majority of the view's focal points (i.e., about 65 percent) would be preserved, the project is
considered to be consistent with the intent of the City's adopted policies, which seek to achieve view
preservation, even though the view will be altered by the construction of the home.
Response to Comment No. 3
The Draft EIR includes an extensive analysis of the project's consistency with relevant policies of the
Newport Beach General plan as well as the Coastal Land Use Plan, based on the project as illustrated in
Exhibit 4.3 -1 and Exhibit 4.3 -2. Although a new visual simulation has been prepared that more accurately
portrays the Megonigal residence and its greater effect on the coastal view from Begonia Park, that effect
would remain less than significant because the project would maintain the majority of the view from the
Begonia Park vantage point and would also be consistent with the relevant policies that guide
development along the coast.
Response to Comment No. 4
Refer to Response to Comment No. 1. It is difficult to precisely quantify the percentage of view that would
be blocked by the proposed single - family residence. However, based on a review of the "before" and
"after" views illustrated in the new visual simulation, it is estimated that approximately 35 percent of the
coastal view would be blocked by the Megonigal residence.
The City has not adopted thresholds for determining the significance of visual impacts. Without an
established threshold, such a determination is based on the subjective "parameters" in the City's
environmental checklist (i.e., will the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or will the
project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings) and
adopted General Plan view preservation policies. As indicated above, the proposed project, as reflected
Megonigal Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Public Comments
November 2009
Page 43
in the revised visual simulation, would still be consistent with the policies articulated in the Newport Beach
General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan. Therefore, as illustrated in the new visual simulation, while
some loss of views of the harbor and ocean would result, it was not determined to be significant because
the integrity of the views from the Upper and Lower Benches within the park was maintained.
Response to Comment No. 5
Although the applicant is requesting approval of a Modification Permit to allow planter walls and a water
feature to exceed the 3 -foot height limit in the 5 -foot front yard setback, the proposed project is consistent
with all of the required development standards prescribed by the Zoning Code as determined by City Staff
and specifically Section 20.10.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
Response to Comment No. 6
The Draft EIR identifies and evaluates several alternatives as required by CEQA. The analysis included in
Chapter 10 of the Draft EIR concludes that although the Alternative Design (i.e., remove the upper level)
would be environmentally superior (i.e., it would minimize visual impacts from Begonia Park), it does not
achieve all of the project objectives and would also require a variance in order to eliminate the covered
parking (i.e., garage). The potential project - related impacts as well as those associated with the
alternatives will be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council, which will take final action
on the proposed project. The Alternative Site would require that the property acquire another coastal
(bluff) site, which could affect the feasibility of the project and was not analyzed further in the Draft EIR.
This comment, which recommends approval of the Alternative Design that eliminates the upper level or
the Alternative Site will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration prior
to taking an action on the proposed project.
Wgonigel Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Public Comments
November 2009
Page 44
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Newport Beach Planning Department OCT 08 2009
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Attn: James Campbell, Principal Planner CrrY OF NEWPORT BEACH
RE: Application for Variance VA2007 -001 and Modification MD2007 -080
I am writing to address the Megonigal Single Family Residential Project at
2333 Pacific Drive in Newport Beach. I live next door at 2329 Pacific Drive
and am concerned that the bay view from the comer of Pacific and Begonia,
considered a pubic view when my parents bought my property in 1950, will
disappear. In 1950 there was a public bench at the comer of Pacific Drive
and Begonia Avenue, and also a staircase from Begonia Avenue down to
Carnation. I have a photo of the staircase. One of the vision points in the
voter- approved general plan update is PRESERVING PUBLIC VIEWS OF
THE OCEAN, HARBOR AND BAY. The Megonigal lot has the only
public view left on Pacific Drive. This view is presently enjoyed by many
people. I see them standing at the comer of Pacific Drive and Begonia
looking out at the bay.
The houses on Pacific Drive have a 20 foot setback in their front yards, due
to an abandoned Electric Way. The Megonigal residence should. conform to
2 the same setback; this would improve the public view from Begonia Park
and Begonia Avenue.
3 I Begonia Park is a valuable city asset. The value of this park will be
decreased by the diminished public view due to the Megonigal residence.
The Planning Department should consider this.
New story poles should be placed on the property since, according to the
EIR, plans for the house now contain only one story at street level. The
4 residents can then assess the view from Begonia Avenue and Begonia Park.
These changes need to be made clear to the residents.
Please consider these factors.
T, aJ_JeUV0-
Barbara Dawkins
�3
32. Barbara Dawkins (October S, 2009)
Response to Comment No. 1
Pacific Drive and Begonia Avenue are not identified by Natural Resources Element Policy NR20.3 or
Figure NR3 as a roadway where public views are protected. Corresponding policies within the Coastal
Land Use Plan also do not designate Begonia Avenue as a public view roadway or corridor. The loss of
this view is not considered a violation of General Plan or Coastal Land Use Policy. The Public View Point
identified in the Natural Resources Element of the City's General Plan (refer to Figure NR -3). Two view
simulations were created from locations within Begonia Park. Exhibit 4.3 -1 illustrates the view from the
Lower Bench; the view from the Upper Bench within the park is illustrated in Exhibit 4.3 -2. As presented in
Exhibit 4.3 -3, the view of the harbor and ocean from the Pacific Drive/Begonia Avenue location would be
blocked by the construction of the proposed residence. In addition, a new visual simulation was created
from the Lower Bench (i.e., from the same location as Exhibit 4.3 -1 in the Draft EIR). In the new visual
simulation described above, the proposed Megonigal residence is more prominent than depicted in Exhibit
4.3 -1. The easterly portion of the structure (i.e., from the large tree in front of the project site and
extending to the easterly end of the property) is now visible from the lower bench. This portion of the
structure was previously blocked by the vegetation that existed on the slope before it was removed. In
addition, the increased visibility of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean noted above that was
previously not visible due to the vegetation that was removed, would largely be blocked instead by the
proposed residence. Based on the new visual simulation, it would appear that the implementation of the
proposed project would result in the loss of approximately 35 percent of the expanded view of the harbor,
Balboa Peninsula and ocean, including the horizon, which would also be blocked by the proposed
residence. Although the proposed home is more prominent in the corrected visual simulation and more of
the coastal features would be affected, the potential impact remains less than significant because the
majority of the view that includes the harbor, ocean and the related elements would be preserved.
An assessment of the new visual simulation revealed that the proposed project would affect approximately
35 percent of the coastal view from the Begonia Park lower bench vantage point, leaving approximately 65
percent of the important coastal features. Given that a majority of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and
ocean view components will remain in the overall view after the home is constructed, the overall quality of
the view will not be impacted significantly even with a reduction of the view's focal points. However,
because the majority of the views focal points (i.e., about 65 percent) would be preserved, the project is
considered to be consistent with the intent of the City's adopted policies, which seek to achieve view
preservation, even though the view will be altered by the construction of the home.
Response to Comment No. 2
The commenter incorrectly, states that the front yard setback is 20 feet due to the abandonment of Pacific
Drive (formerly called Electric Way). In 1943, a 5 -foot setback was established for the bluff side of Pacific
Drive by the Zoning Districting Maps. That map accounted for the abandonment of a portion of the street
done previously. A second abandonment was authorized by the City in 2000 and with that action, the
following setbacks were established, however the setback for the subject property remained unchanged.
Megoniga9 Residence (PA 2007 -933)
Responses to Public Comments
November 2009
Page 45 /
3�
The proposed project meets the current setback requirements prescribed in the R -1 zoning district.
Response to Comment No 3
This comment is noted and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration prior to taking an action on the proposed project.
Response to Comment No. 4
The story poles did reflect the proposed project. As indicated on page 3 -10 of the Draft EIR, the original
development application proposed a residence that exceeded the 24 -foot building height limit by 4.5 to
10.5 feet, necessitating the approval of a variance. However, the project was redesigned to eliminate the
top level, based on the determination by the Planning Commission that the project was inconsistent with
the policies relating to public view protection and neighborhood compatibility. Redesign of the project
resulted in the reduction of the structure's height by approximately 12 feet, which now complies with the
24/28 building height limitation. The story poles were erected on the subject property in August of 2008 to
show the redesigned house and the 24 -foot height limit.
Megonwl Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Public Comments
November 2009
Pegs 46 l
V
State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Water Quality
1001 1 Strew • Sactam ®m, Cali(mnie 95814 • (916) 341 -5455
Linda S. Adams Maihog Address: P.O. Box 100 • Sacramento, California • 95812 -0100 Arnold Schwamnegger
Secretary for Fax (916) 341 -5463 • http: / /www.watcrboards.ca.gov Governor
Environmental Protection RECEIVED BY
October 14, 2009
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
James Campbell
City of Newport Beach OCT 19 2009
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92685 -8915
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Notice of Preparation Megonigal Residence SCH# 20090510432333 Pacific Drive
Newport Beach, CA.
Dear James Campbell:
Staff at the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), have reviewed the Notice of
Preparation (NOP) for the proposed residential project. The following comments are in
relation to Section VIII Hydrology and Water Quality.
1) The slope the project is to be built on is fairly steep at 20 -25 %. The majority of the
site has Myford Sandy Loam soil, which is located on 9 to 30 percent slopes. The
erosion factor K for this soil is .43, which on a scale of .2 -.69 means that this is a
fairly erodible soil on a steep slope.
The grade of the steepest
slope related to the
project was calculated at
20 -25%
2) The project will probably disturb less than 1 acre of soil (site less than .1 acres),
therefore it dos not qualify for the State of California's General Construction
NPDES Stormwater Permit (unless required /requested by a local municipality).
The General Permit offers dischargers many tools to aide in meeting compliance
with stormwater and water quality regulations. The project is still required to meet
local stormwater regulations. Since this project is on a steep slope, on erodible
soils, and is also near a water body, it would be a good idea to install some
California Environmental Protection Agency
0 Recycled Paper
James Campbell
-2- October 14, 2009
stomwvater Best Management Practices (BMPs) during the construction phase of
the project. Some ideas are as follows:
Fig 1
-Try to construct outside the wet season (generally between September — April) if
possible, this will reduce the chance of sediment and pollutant laden water from
getting into local waterways, since rain will be less frequent.
The California Department of Transportation
(httr)://www.dot.ca-gov/ho/LandArch/ecJindox.htm) ca�ov /ho /LandArch /ec/indox.htm) has an extensive BMP
"toolbox" that could be of great use. Slopes that are steeper than 1:1 (H:V) will
not support vegetation (in general) and require a more sturdy stabilization
method. Here are some BMP examples that deal with steep slopes (from
CaiTrans):
- Rolled Erosion Control Products: Blankets, Netting, Jute, Mesh, Turf
Reinforcement Mat
-Fiber Rolls: Straw or flax materials bound in a tight tubular roll for use at the
toe or face of a slope. Best when used in conjunction with other erosion controls
- Polymer Stabilized Fiber Matrix or Bonded Fiber Matrix Wire Blanket
- Cellular Confinement: for very steep slopes, geotextile materials create cells of
soil containment, this is an engineered method. The use of this method should
be done by qualified professionals.
-Coir Confinement: Slope backflil material is trapped behind "coin' netting
(erosion control netting) which helps prevent soil movement and hydrostatic
pressures that develop between reinforcement layers.
Wire Mesh Confinement (see fig 1): A wire mesh confinement system
provides the additional sheer strength necessary to hold non- vegetated fill
material in place. Key features of a wire mesh confinement system include a
process of backfilling, stabilized bottom of the system, cover with some type of
erosion control netting (moveable joints preferred to minimize the trapping of wild.
life):
,y
t,e<, .M
�1
f0.itH iwit O,pl
cao
.tnpy
o.c w.tm snn nwaKxlo .00s
v.es wM xanwt wlleta -�..
KLM "
wa
ISti
Graphic and information provided
by CalTrans Erosion Tool Box:
ho•1lwww,dot.ca�vlh���Archi
g i c • trrc�index.htm
—tnm meant rtcu
California Environmental Protection Agency
RecycledP4Per
lye
James Campbell
-3- October 14, 2009
Another great resource is the California Stormwater Quality Association Handbook for
Construction Activities: hfti)://www.cabmr)handbooks.com/Construction.asp-. The
document contains a large variety of different BMPs, the best application method of the
different techniques, and installation instructions.
If you have any further questions, please contact me at (916) 341 -5531 or
IwarddrigCEDwaterboards.ca:oov
Sincerely,
fall C � yc '
Laurel Warddrip, Environmental Scientist
Division of Water Quality, Storm Water Section
Cakfbrma Environmental Protection Agency
z
33. State Water Resources Control Board (October 14, 2009)
Response to Comment No. 1
This comment, which describes the slope and soil characteristics of the bluff, is acknowledged. The issue
of potential erosion is identified and discussed in Sections Vlll.a through Vlll.f and also in Section Vlll.o of
the initial study (refer to Appendix A). As indicated in the initial study, potential erosion would be
addressed in the drainage and erosion control plan that is required by the City of Newport Beach.
Response to Comment No. 2
This comment offers several recommendations for measures that are intended to minimize potential
erosion impacts, including those recommended by the California Department of Transportation as
referenced in the comment letter. The City will ensure that appropriate erosion control measures be
integrated into the project design to address both construction- related and long -term erosion. The
measures identified in this comment letter will be considered by the City and, if determined appropriate or
necessary, will be incorporated into the drainage and erosion control plan for the proposed project.
Megonlgal Residence (PA 2007 -133)
Responses to Public Comments
November 2009
Page 47 /
I yv
PC 2 Visual simulation prepared
by Softmirage
/9's
Page Intentionally Blank
w
i
4
E-1
JA
a
m
a
rp
a
0
z
a
to
a
a
x
PC 3 Visual Simulations prepared
by the project architect
Iyq
Page Intentionally Blank
JSo
0
r1
�J
•
view 2
megonigal residence
2333 pacific view drive, corona del mar
Note: Simulations are similar to an artist's conception and
scaling is approximated. Refer to plans and elevations for more
accurate information. Simulations prepared by SoftMirage (the
city's consultant) shall take precedence.
view 4 - maximum allowable building envelope study
:`L fI"
2
Page Intentionally Blank
I SZ
•
•
view S
view 7
view 6 Note: Simulations are similar to an artist's conception and view 8
scaling Is approximated. Refer to plans and elevations for more
accurate information. Simulations prepared by SoftMirage (the
city's consultant) shall take precedence.
megonigal residence
2333 pacific view drive, corona del mar
3
Page Intentionally Blank
I Sy
PC 4 Revised front elevation
/SS
Page Intentionally Blank
1sb
0
0
•
megonigal residence
2333 pacific view drive, corona del mar
front elevation
October 28, 2009
i