Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0_Megonigal Residence_PA2007-133CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT October 22, 2009 Meeting Agenda Item No. 4 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, icampbellanewportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY 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. A complete set of architectural plans is attached (Attachment PC -1). 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 attached draft resolution (Attachment PC -2). INTRODUCTION Background The Planning Commission first considered development of this property by the applicant on April 3, 2008 (Attachment PC -3). The application included a variance to exceed the height limit and modification permit for encroachment of the proposed residence into the required 5 -front yard setback. Staff was seeking guidance from the Commission as to General Plan policy compliance and the Commission provided the following direction to the applicant and staff: 1) Protection of public views has priority over protection of the coastal bluff; 2) Protection of public views from Begonia Park have priority over protection of public views from Begonia Avenue; 3) Reduce the scale and massing of the residence; 4) Shift portions of the residence above street grade to the west to reduce impacts upon public views from Begonia Park; and 5) Provide windows on street facing elevation to visually 'open" the residence to the neighborhood. Megonigal Residence October 22, 2009 Page 2 LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ON SITE Single Unit Residential — Single- Family Residential Vacant, undeveloped land Detached RS -D R-1) NORTH Two -Unit Residential (RT) Two Famillyy Residential Residential SOUTH Multiple -Unit Residential Multiple -Family Residental RM) Residential MFR EAST Parks and R -1 begonia Park RRecreation WEST RS -D R -1 Residential N Megonigal Residence October 22, 2009 Page 3 Subsequent to the hearing, the applicant revised the project to reduce the size of the proposed residence eliminating the need for a variance application, adding clearstory windows to the front elevation and eliminating the encroachment of the building within the front setback. The only remaining discretionary request is the modification permit to allow planter walls and a water feature to exceed the 3 -foot height limit in the front yard setback; the building no longer encroaches within the setback. The applicant installed story poles at the request of the Commission that showed the revised building and the maximum height allowable consistent with the Zoning Code. The poles are currently in a state of disrepair and do not accurately reflect the height of the proposed building. On August 21, 2008, the Planning Commission considered the revised project (Attachment PC -4). The Commission approved it by adopting Resolution No. 1767 (Attachment PC -5). This decision was appealed by Councilmember Gardner, who stated that the appeal was to ensure consistency with the General Plan. On September 23, 2008, the City Council briefly considered the project (Attachment PC- 6). Staff recommended a continuance of the hearing at the hearing due to late correspondence indicating potentially significant biological resources were on the property. The intent of the request for a continuance was to reevaluate the environmental review of the project. The City Council continued the appeal and directed that the project be remanded back to the Planning Commission after a more thorough environmental analysis before having the project brought back to the City Council with Planning Commission's recommendation for action. Project Description The proposed three -story, 3,566 square -foot residence conforms to all Zoning Code property development regulations, with the exception of the planter walls and a water feature that exceed the maximum height permissible (3 feet) for structures within the 5- foot, front yard setback. The proposed residence conforms to 24 -foot height limit and is single story at the Pacific Drive street level (two stories were previously proposed). 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). 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. In addition, an encroachment permit from the City's Public works Department for non- standard improvements within the public right -of -way is been sought for the proposed planter walls, water feature and enhanced paving for pedestrian and vehicular access. Lastly, grading of approximately 630 cubic yards of export, landscaping and utility connections necessary for construction of the proposed residence are included. Nlegonigal Residence October 22. 2009 Page 4 AERIAL PHOTO 4 DISCUSSION Environmental ,Review Keeton Kreitzer Consulting prepared a Notice of Preparation based upon an Initial Study and a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed project (Attachment PC -7). The analysis within the Initial Study supported the conclusion that the proposed project would not have significant impacts on: Agriculture, Air Quality, Cultural Resources. Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials,. HydrologylWater Quality, Mineral Resources, Noise. Population and Housing, Public Service and Facilities, Recreation, TransportationlTrafc, and Utilities. Mitigation measures are recommended to address several of these topics. The DEIR focused upon: Aesthetics, Biological Resources, and Land Use and Planning and mitigation measures have also been identified (Attachment PC -8). A Notice of Availability /Notice of Completion of the DEIR was provided in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and public comments were solicited between August 24, 2009, and October 8, 2009- Comment letters were Megonigal Residence October 22, 2009 Page 5 received (Attachment PC -9) and responses to those comments are currently being prepared and will be forwarded to the Commission at the earliest opportunity. Public Views The DEIR includes photographic simulations showing the proposed project in the view from Begonia Park. These simulations were the basis for a conclusion that the proposed project does not impact the view significantly and the overall character of the view does not significantly change even though the proposed project is clearly visible within the viewshed. Public views from Begonia Avenue or Pacific Drive would be blocked by the proposed project; however this is not considered a significant impact given that this view is not a protected view pursuant to General Plan Policy (NR 20.3 & CLUP 4.4.1 -6) that only protects views from specific roadways and vantage points. In other words, views from Begonia Park are protected and views from Begonia Avenue or Pacific Drive are not. Protecting the view from Begonia Park does not mean that the view must remain unaltered; however, several residents in the area feel that it should. The applicant has redesigned the project to eliminate the variance request and has limited the size of the third floor to reduce the impact of the project on the public views from the park consistent with General Plan and CLUP policies that require new development to minimize impacts to the protected public view. The Planning Commission previously included a condition requiring a view easement above the proposed building to restrict additions, permanent features or landscaping from encroaching within public views. Should the project be approved, staff suggests that the condition be applied and it is within the list of draft conditions for consideration (Attachment PC -2). The photographic simulations were prepared when vegetation within the park between the proposed building and important vantage points within the park (park benches) was more prominent. This vegetation was cut back by the City in March of 2009 at the request of residents to enhance the view. Today, more of the harbor entrance and homes beyond on the Balboa Peninsula are visible. Lower levels of the proposed residence that would have been screened from view by the vegetation will now be visible from the park until the vegetation grows back. Bluff Alteration/Landform Protection An analysis of relevant General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) 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 S Megonigal Residence October 22, 2009 Page 6 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. Project Altematives Alternatives within Environmental Impact Reports are to identify feasible project alternatives that meet most of the basic project objectives while lessening or avoiding any significant impacts of the project. In this case, no significant impacts were identified and the DEIR considers several alternatives (Alternative Site, No Development, No Project, Alternative Design, and Alternative Access) with the intent to provide additional analysis for informed decision - making. The "Alternative Site" scenario assumes a similarly designated vacant site for the development of a single family home. None presently exist and sites inland would not meet the applicant's basic project objectives, and therefore, this alternative was rejected from further consideration. A "No Development" alternative was identified and rejected from further consideration as it would require the acquisition of the site to preserve it as open space. This alternative was rejected because the City recently reaffirmed the single - family land use designation for the site with the 2006 General Plan update and the City Council or other entity has expressed interest in acquiring the site. Economic use of the site must be afforded to avoid a claim of taking. The "No Project" alternative differs from "No Development" alternative in that it assumes that the proposed project does not go forward, but development of the site consistent with the General Plan designation would occur in the future. In that case, potential impacts associated with that future project would be similar or possibly greater than the impacts of the proposed project. The "Alternative Design" scenario assumes the elimination of the 805 - square -foot upper level, which includes the entry foyer, office area and two -car garage. 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 Begonia Avenue or Pacific Drive (although parked cars and possibly a carport, if not waived with a variance application, would be in that particular view). The "Alternative 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 I Megonigal Residence October 22, 2009 Page 7 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 Pacific 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. Encroachment Permit As noted previously, the applicant is proposing several non - standard improvements within the right -of -way. These improvements include planters, a water feature and non- standard pavement for the driveway, sidewalk and drive approach. Public Works finds these improvements, with the exception of the non - standard pavement within the driveway (not including sidewalk or drive approach) inconsistent with Council Policy L -6 and recommends their elimination. A condition of approval eliminates the planter and water feature from the public right -of -way altogether and requires standard pavement/designs for the sidewalk and drive approach. The Commission previously supported this change and applied a condition of approval requiring the elimination of these features. Staff has included the same condition within the draft conditions contained within Attachment PC -2. The only non - standard pavement that will be permitted within the public right -of -way is within the driveway area itself. The City Council retains the discretion to approve the non - standard improvements as requested by the applicant pursuant to Council Policy L -6. Modification Permit The only features that are subject to the modification permit are the planter walls and a water feature proposed to exceed the 3 -foot height limit in the 5 -foot front yard setback. Approval of the modification permit would not create an impact to public views given the location of the features, their overall height and the height of the proposed residence. Section 20.93.030 (Required Findings) of the Zoning Code requires that the following three findings must be made in order to approve a modification permit: A. The granting of the application is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. When addressing this finding, the physical aspects of the property and /or improvements and their relationship to adjacent properties may be considered. In this case, the lot slopes from a curb elevation of 72.5 feet above mean sea level (MSL) down to an Megonigal Residence October 22, 2009 Page 8 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. As a result, any structure in the front yard will exceed the 3 -foot height limit as measured from natural grade; however, these structures will not be more than 3 feet above the average elevation of the curb. B. The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. When addressing this finding, Section 20.93.035.6 of the Zoning Code states that "the sum of qualities that distinguish the neighborhood from other areas within the City may be considered;" however, only "such characteristics as they relate to the direct impact of the proposed modification on the neighborhood's character and not development rights that would otherwise be enjoyed without the modification permit" may be considered. 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. These 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. The proposed planter and water feature would not be more than 3 feet above the average elevation of the curb. C. The granting of such an application will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. When addressing this finding, potential and adverse impacts on persons and property in the vicinity may be considered. These include, but are not limited to, modifications that would significantly interfere with the provision of adequate air and light on an adjacent property, adversely impact use of a public right -of -way, impede access by public safety personnel, result in excessive noise, vibration, dust, odors, glare, or electromagnetic interference, interfere with safe vehicular sight distances, or result in an invasion of privacy. With the recommended removal of the water feature and the redesign of the driveway, entry walkway, and planters redesigned to meet City Council Policy L -6, the proposed modification will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. As indicated previously, the proposed height of the planters would not impact public views given their height and location. G U Megonigal Residence October 22, 2009 Page 9 Alternative Recommendations If the Commission believes that the project impact on public views from Begonia Avenue or Pacific Drive are inconsistent with General Plan or CLUP policy, the Commission can recommend the City Council consider either the "Alternative Design" or "Alternative Access" alternatives identified within the DEIR. If the Commission believes that the project is inconsistent with landform alteration policies of the General Plan or CLUP, the Commission can recommend that the City Council reduce the building footprint to be consistent with applicable policies or deny the project if no level of alteration is deemed consistent with policy. Public Notice Notice of the availability of the Draft EIR was provided in accordance with CEQA. Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site including the applicant, and posted on the subject property at least 10 days prior to this hearing consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item was shown on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: (� I ) C--a� LI& �ajrL' ampbell, Prirfcipal Planner ATTACHMENTS Submitted by: 'T r� David Lepo, Planning Director PC 1 Project plans PC 2 Draft Resolution with Findings and Conditions PC 3 April 3, 2008 Planning Commission report and minutes PC 4 August 21, 2008 Planning Commission report and minutes PC 5 Resolution No. 1767 PC 6 September 23, 2008 City Council report and minutes PC 7 Draft Environmental Impact Report PC 8 Chapter 1.0 (Executive Summary) of DEIR PC 9 Comments on DEIR P:\PAs - 2007 \PA2007 - 133 \Planning Commission\PC 10- 22- 2009\2009 -10 -22 MD2007 -080 PC rpt final.docx q PC 1- Project plans `l Intentionally Blank J< V-A � I Lu\-n -" , Ml'y � -UT- clavid r. olsoll 4s' t rr„ ee�a :q hL nF- - r:, ORLY p4 ti L: T' f k1 t �` u•Y r* .x. r A� p @i k15 ?7r davi0 r. Olson building square footage omneao . .mom ...: —v sae square bodge a.c ncimry map OW118rICnnSetanl5 mnxa sheet index V residence mar euarm,,. zoos 4 front elevation megonigal residence view drive, mmna del mar �gm l+. aim megonigal residence wrnna del mar V'\ eupuq 11, 2pIB megonigal residence C del mar I au Wet ll. HUB 6 BlDil❑ j s f FIB I . 7 devid c. OISOn residence comma del mar V� section a E� Z -2: david r olson . ., ^� ©- Gr E� Z -2: david r olson V] '4 —n I. one.µ ' an!.a'l —d 031. A ss .I 'zN3ua03 x123.9aA 9NII335 Cnv a3ntlM AavCxl rv" A3 Y ]dJYd iG dUdd dxp3 a =1 ]v 3Jxv!q !11 3'J]I'tlIV l. l" 33 AV 'JNlll nyi ANI IYYIS 3X1]:19 5133Jil kA StlTMO> al tlitlWd Lx3w!NIN eyu3NYUy3e t-mx5 y33x19x3 a9 kOtintlnS xl.v _1 nLAtn 1. 311 S103 0 aa0336 3IDn .n1 -.1 •1111, 3E Yt •13 r wen be ene an 1 -d 1- o bap B9V BE>C 11A 0 i b 1 1lav ]o n,1 d drbx tY'x]e Nfih e1MS31 1 531 x: n / 3003 -03 -. �i]eerot']m;tnm mvr 61926 vi 'JUnal m.anV �vo3 2L BL1 1vGnra B ex •IM •tl3v1e A2AdAS NhJVtl MdO! �a 60vn 3fi 1tl11 IS ' S ' nt tlldf2 nw3031x NOa 'JNI 9NI,l3n?JAS wpb a baaam �n nnxas< 3'b 3tOx -nbx u 313tl]NO 'LIOi LOUT] SO 39 n ®t]xJNI 0l .1 a 3X11 0 i13X 101 IICIM INA 1'Itln Naae u STAKE ELEVATIONS �¢ 24' ABOVE EXISTING GRADE Nom: USE DIFFERENT COLOR RIBBON ON ENVELOPE STAKES —DATUM—POINT TTC 72.52• (lop of curb) STAKE ELEVATIONS O 60.0' O 67.5 O 82.33' DA IN- O 85.0• TV ] (Lop of waaL- © 86.5' O 88.0' NOTE: CONNECT ALL STAKES WITH STRINCLINE AND RIBBON INDICATED By —• —•- =; STRINCUNES ARE HORIZONTAL FROM THE LOWEST POLE UNLESS DENOTED WITH 'SLOPED' DATUM P01NT /� DAID11 E T TC 72.52' <rTV 3 2.5 (lop of curb) (top of wall) residence N Erim woona del mar 3T'- le' //— L IIII— � I l 0 , 1 /]' -6' a DATUM�POINT lop of curb) building staking plan e— -.a 111, 3006 15 C� 0 uoijoas JEW aouapisaj le6iuo6ow /�o megonigal residence padfic view d lve, corona section 6 IY'I 12 }5 \ residence tr V 14 PC 2 -Draft Resolution with Findings and Conditions 4?y Intentionally Blank 3d 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 Caroline 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 October 22, 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 3f Planning Commission Resolution No. Paae 2 of 7 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. 3z Planning Commission Resolution No. Paqe 3 of 7 • 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. 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. 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 B. 3�, Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 4 of 7 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 12009. BY: Robert Hawkins, Chairman M Charles Unsworth, Secretary AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 3� Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 5 of 7 Exhibit "A" Megonigal Residence Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2009041010) Consists of: Volume 1 - Draft Environmental Impact Report Volume 2 - Responses to Comments Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 11�S Planning Commission Resolution No. Paae 6 of 7 Exhibit "B" 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. 1� Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 7 of 7 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. 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. 3� Intentionally Blank PC 3 -April 3, 2008 Planning Commission report and minutes �y Intentionally Blank Spa CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 3, 2008 Meeting Agenda Item 5 SUBJECT: Magonigal Residence (PA2007 -133) 2333 Pacific Drive ■ Variance No. 2007 -001 4 Mod'if'cation No. 2007 -060 APPLICANT: David R. Olson. Architect PLANNER: Russell Bunim, Assistant Planner (949) 644 -3233, rbunim[acitv.neeroort•beach.ca us INTRODU ION The Planning Department has an application on file for a variance to exceed the height limit and modification permit for encroachment into the required front yard setback for a new, three story single - family dwelling proposed for a vacant property at 2333 Pacific Drive. This presents a number of issues not only relating to the variance and modifications, but the proposed projects consistency with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program. The Planning Department is seeking direction from the Planning Commission before bringing the project back for Planning Commission action on the application. Project Setting The project site is located on the bluff (southerly) side of Pacific Drive at the comer of Pacific Drive and Begonia Avenue. Most lots on the bluff side of Pacific Drive are through -lots extending down to Bayside Drive; however., the project site only extends approximately half the distance to Bayside Drive where it abuts two lots that cover the remainder of the slope down to Bayside Drive (See the Vicinity Map). The property is approximately 4,412 square feet in area with a pentagonal shape. The topography of the lot is sloping from 72.5 feet above mean sea level down to above mean sea level. (See Exhibit No. survey with elevations) Pacific Drive at an elevation of approximately the rear property tine at approximately 25 feet 2 for proposed project plans for a topography The property is located on a coastal bluff adjacent to a residence to the west, two homes adjacent to Sayside drive to the south, a park to the east, and the intersection of Pack Drive and Begonia Drive to the north where more residential property exists. across the street. The iot is currently undeveloped and vacant. Megonigaf Residence April 3, 2008 Page 2 Pro ect Description The proposed project includes the construction of a new, three -story, single- family dwelling with a total floor area of 3,717 square feet, which includes a 402 square -foot, two -car garage. A description of the roams and outdoor areas with square footages is provided in Table 1 below. TABLE The height of the proposed project ranges from 22 feet at the front (Pacific Drive- facing elevation) to 53 feet 3 inches at the rear (Bayside Drive-facing elevation). The proposed variance would permit the rear portions of the master bedroom and master bath an the third floor to exceed the 24 -foot height limit by approximately. - - _ to . The front elevation extends .- into the required 5- feotfront yard setback The proposed project would conform to all the required property development regulations of the Single- Family Residential (R -1) Zoning District, with the exception of height and required setbacks. yz Storage, _ 'I y , t = F•rJ'�STr - I. StairlElevator m Garage, i_= Ureat • q m 411 k. 19(chen. StaidElevator i iii � ;?'� _ u MasterBalhmorn, spa. Laundry, St- Nllt 17 ±y,1 Y.sy�p, - TP rf%I P ��lira• i 20- �ryi PF��IC a' CY��y The height of the proposed project ranges from 22 feet at the front (Pacific Drive- facing elevation) to 53 feet 3 inches at the rear (Bayside Drive-facing elevation). The proposed variance would permit the rear portions of the master bedroom and master bath an the third floor to exceed the 24 -foot height limit by approximately. - - _ to . The front elevation extends .- into the required 5- feotfront yard setback The proposed project would conform to all the required property development regulations of the Single- Family Residential (R -1) Zoning District, with the exception of height and required setbacks. yz ---- --- ----- IL zN Megonigal Residence April 3, 2008 Page 4 DISCUSSION The Variance Variances are sometimes necessary in order to preserve substantial property rights. Variances are €irnited to those situations where the speck physical characteristics of property make it difficult to develop under standard property development regulations. Such physical characteristics may include the property's size, shape, dimensions, the location of the existing structures, and geographic, topographic, or other physical conditions. The project site would appear to be a likely candidate for a variance: it is below the minimum tot size of 5,000 square feet; it has an unusual, pentagonal shape; and over half the property cansists of slopes of 50 percent or more. However, staff is concerned that the obvious physical constraints of the project site may be used to justify exceptions to the height limits even though If they are not unduly constraining the site, thus allowing development in excess of that which would be achieved under ordinary circumstances. A variance can only be granted to bring the disadvantaged property up to the level of use enjoyed by nearby properties in the same zoning district. To do otherwise would constitute a grant of special privileges that is inconsistent with limitations upon the other properties. Conditions must be imposed on a variance when necessary to maintain parity between a variance site and sufrounding properties to avoid granting an applicant a special privilege. The applicant states that the 24 -foot height limit creates a severe restriction when applied to a site with a 56 percent slope. However, the proposed project will use extensive grading of the site and a foundation system to create a relatively wide development pad up to 13 feet below the existing grade. This will allow the first and second floors and a significant portion of the third floor to be developed within the 24- foot height limit. This raises the question of whether the variance is truly necessary in order to preserve a substantial property right or to permit additional living area at an elevation that would provide increased view opportunities to the property. The classic example of a variance is where the steep rear portion of a residential tot makes the .site otherwise undevelopable; a variance might be approved to reduce the front yard setback to create sufficient room for a home on the lot. However, advances in building design and high property values have lead to situations in this community where the topographic characteristics of a property no longer present•a significant constraint to development. For these reasons, staff requests direction from the Planning Commission on how this, and future requests, for exceptions to property development regulations should be addressed. r� Tie Modification Permit Megonigal Residence April 3, 2008 Page 5 Granting of a modification permit to allow projection of the building into the required front yard setback may be warranted by topographic constraints of the site. The extent of the projection will be determined based on the building envelope resulting from the configuration of the building consistent with the Planning Commission's direction. Consistency with General Pia nILCP Policies Resolution No. 2067 -3 requires that alf new development comply with applicable polices of the General Plan. Furthermore, because the proposed project does not conform to the height limits of the Zoning Code, the provisions of Categorical Exclusion Order E- 77-5 do not apply; if a variance to height and modification permit are approved, the proposed project will require a coastal development permit and must conform to the policies and requirements of the Loral Coastal Program (LCP) Coastal Land Use Plan. Public Views Both the General Plan and the Coastal land Use Plan {CLUP} contain several policies requiring that new development project and, where. feasible, enhance public views: "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points.' (LU 1.6 and NR 20.1) v "Require new development to restore and enhance the visual quality in visually degraded areas, where feasible; and provide view easements or corridors designed to protect public views or to restore public views in developed areas, where appropriate." (NR 20.2) "Protect and enhance public view corridors from the following roadway segments (shown in Figure NR3), and other locations may be identified in the figure.' (NR 20.3) " 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" (NR 20.4) p #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 -1) °Design and site now development, including landscaping, so as to minimize impacts to public coastal views. ° (CLUP 4.4.1 -2) �S Megonigaf Residence April 3, 2008 Page 6 'Where appropriate, require new development to provide view easements or corridors designed to protect public coastal views or to restore public coastal views in developed areas." (CLUP 4.1.1 -3) Design and site now development, including landscaping, on the edges of public coastal view corridors, including those down public streets, to frame and accent public coastal views. " (CLUP 9.4.1 -7) Both Figure NR3 in the General Plan and the Coastal Views Map 4-3 in the CLUP identify Begonia Park as a public view point. Furthermore, the CLUP recognizes that many north -south tending streets provide view corridors to the ocean and bay. Begonia Avenue, which terminates at the project site; provides such a view corridor. The above polices in their totality require the proposed project to protect public views from Begonia Park and the Begonia Avenue view corridor. Furthermore, the proposed project will have to be evaluated in terms of its potential impact to the overall scenic and visual qualities of the area. Staff requests direction from the Planning Commission on how to best address these issues, given the development constraints of the project site. Neighborhood Compatibility Both the General Plan and the CLUP contain polices ►elating to the visual compatibility of new development with the surrounding area: "Require chat residential units be designed to sustain the high level of architectural design quality that characterizes Nevyport &ach's neighborhoods in consideration of the following principles: o Articulation and modulation of building masses and elevations to avoid the appearance of "box -like" buildings ❑ Compatibility with neighborhood development in density, scale, and street facing elevations ❑ Architectural treatment of all elevations visible from public places o Entries and windows on street facing elevations to visually 'open' the house to the neighborhood o Orientation to desirable sunlight and views" {LU 5.1.5} Require that new and renovated buildings be designed to avoid the use of styles, colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character and quality of their location such as abrupt changes in scale, building form, architectural sfyle, and the use of surface materials that raise focal temperatures, KO f t Megonigal Residence April 3, 2008 Page 7 result in glare and excessive illumination of adjoining properties and open spaces, or adversely modify wind patterns." (LU 5.6.2) °Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach." (NR 22, 1, CLUP 4.4.2- 2) ■ implement the regulation of the building envelope to preserve public views through the height, setback, floor area, lot coverage, and building bulk regulation of the Zoning Code in effect as of October 93, 2405 that limit the building profile and maximize public view opportunities." (CL UP 4.4.2 -3) The visual simulations provided by the applicant indicate that the proposed project would be highly visible from the surrounding area. Therefore, staff requests direction from the Planning Commission regarding the proposed projects consistency with the above policies, particularly those relating to compatibility with the building form, scale, and massing of the surrounding neighborhood. Staff would also like direction as to whether story pales and/or additional visual simulations should be required as part of this application. Land Form Protection Bath the General Plan and the CL UP contain polices relating to the projection of natural landforms: "Require that sites be planned and buildings designed in consideration of the property's topography, landforms, drainage patterns natural vegetation, and relationship to the Bay and coastline, maintaining the environmental character that distinguishes Newport Beach. ° (LU 5.6.4) "Preserve cliffs, canyons, bluffs, significant rock outcropping, and site buildings to minimize alteration of the site's natural topography and preserve the features as a visual resource." '(NR 23.9) Require all new bluff top development located on a bluff not subject to marine erosion to be set back from the bluff edge in accordance with the predominant fine of existing development in the subject area. This requirement shall apply to the principal structure and major accessory structures such as guesthouses and pools. The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure safety and stability of the development.° (CLUP 4.4.3 -5) "Prohibit development on bluff faces, except private development on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avernus and Pacific Drive in Cortina del Mar determined to be consistent with the predominant line of existing development or public improvements providing public access, protecting coastal resources, or providing for public safety. Permit such improvements onty when y� Megonigal Residence April 3, 2008 Page 8 no feasible alternative exists and when designed and constructed to minimize alteration of the bluff face, to not contribute to further erosion of the bluff face, and to be visually compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible. " (CLUP 4.4.3.8} 4 Where principal structures exist on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Paonco Drive in Corona del Mar, require all new development to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development in order to protect public coastal views_ Establish a predominant line of development for both principle structures and accessory improvements. The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensum safety and stability of the development." (CLUP 4.4.3 -9) °Employ sit$ design and construction techniques to minimize alteration of coastal bluffs to the maximum extant feasible, such as: A. Siting new development on the flattest area of the site, except when an alternative location is more protective of coastal resources. B. Designing buildings to conform to natural contours of the site, and arranging driveways and patio areas to be compatible with the slopes and building design. C. Utilizing special foundations, such as stepped, split level, or cantilever designs. D. Requiring any altered slope to blend into the natural contours of the site." (CLUP 4.4.3 -12) The property is located on a coastal bluff as designated by the CLUP. Per CLUP Policy 4A.3 -8, development is permitted on the bluff face; subject to the provisions of CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -12 to minimize alteration of coastal bluffs. Staff requests direction from the Planning Commission regarding the proposed projects consistency with the above policies. Staff also requests direction on the provisions of CLUP Policies 4.4.3 -9 and 4.4.3 -12 that suggest that alteration of the bluff face is acceptabfe in order to protect coastal resources (i.e., public views). Environmental Review The project qualifies for a Categoricai Exemption pursuant to Section 45332 (In -Fill Development Projects) of the implementing Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This exemption applies to in -fill development projects in urban areas that are consistent with the General Plan and applicable development standards. In addition, the proposed development must occur on a site of no more than five acres, have no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species, and must not 0 Megonigal Residence April 3, 2008 Page S result in any significant effects relating to traffic, air quality, water quality, or any other significant effect on the environment d u a to an unusual circumstance. IOW17111.C57 -' Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily PHot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site including the applicant, and posted on the subject property at least 10 days prior to this hearing consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item was shown on the agenda for this meeting; which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: Submitted by: Russell Bunim. Assistant Planner EXHIBITS 1. General Plan Map [Figure NR-3) 2. Coastal Land Use Plan Map (Map 4 -3) 3. Correspondence 4. Proposed project plans David Lepo, PIa ing l)irector FAUSER51P11fIS &Vd PA'S Ws - MOnPAM?'- J33WOS-0d -03 VA W07- Ofpapt y�. 11� Exhibit No. 1 General Plan Map (Figure NR3) So `� CrPt al' NWPM1 SEAC H GENWI PM COASM MEWS Mi up. P�pAC Ltiew hntl yy�IBI'.Vua'Rra c. � Faoae'fn ?'�b�p ' ' 1ir24to�rhn® =1,y CGiy Vie• 0C' f vv, I 9 3H.L 7-3NN voyo, GNV731 V,08'7V9 3j 10 S'NT (3NVISI rXE tOlakdVHI Exhibit No. 2 Coastal Lane! Use plan Map (Map 4-3) s� r fT ° X17 fly �; Coastal Viewas / �✓ it ��' rV Menp.4_3 �l r�ry�ap7 yy� `✓fi1' °f " `r / S1 Cyr f' M �_ N:32Ci5 i 0 LEGEND i� aaG ,w, 1 "�y r Z�-- • _ _ �_.-�� n � �. %`� "4� A �''y f PLfficv*w Pau+t 71 �� --,�� �"�`.., �—�. �`_ °"�„ - ,I/�'}�,1 �•. �I "'�.. t�aslal ilnnelNOUr.AarJr d' r.�Ci*„�.�.�„ ShGk3a" Wee IL'ki4'3lJOP ZOI� �^ ���.�� � � uti __J� {� ,�p -+. ,.� - "w,.c t��., .��'�. ��Iff � .�VV✓'"" r� 'ftq'gS�R'F�ark' �� +, r� + rv.. _a,�.. 1, J4 �.,. '''•,� Imo. A�Ec Bti9arA�ulPark a tuna Y pz J - '�d'��" -� a'� ��,��. Jf •.r L�i.�I =_I .1_I � ,Ir�;_ ��l�y'. .i' �'��4 �Y'R•,,� A'q�' -_° �}--a f''�. l'4'j✓'f(� •'�. rX k Cit+� of INera�pget O'vac9r;. CaliP� Ckpa�rr',pseaj ilLzillmmsEall.Prmg ; amm ` Coziulhand'ute tan ion Exhibit No. 3 Correspondence ss Page i of I Alford, Patrick From Vann, Ginger Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 3:30 PM To: Alford, Patrick 3ublect: FW: Begonia Park tYl Ginger Varin, Administrative Assistant Planning Department City of Newport Beach (949) 644 -3232 w (949) 644 -3229 f From: CheralI Weiss (ma 1ftoxheral118 @0oglobal.netl Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 3:27 PM To: Sunim, Russell; Varin, Ginger; Gardner, Nancy Subject: Begonia Park Planning Department & Ms. Gardner: As a resident of the area around Begonia Park, i am greatly disturbed by the proposed home construction at 2333 Pacific Drive. This park is now a meeting. place for people from the area to picnic, play bail, have parties, walk dogs, mingle with neighbors and more. The draw is not only the lovely park, but the magnificent view and sense of peace and calm that that amazing view provides. The park greatly enhances the quality of life in the area for residents and visitors alike. I believe that the City, in its own mission statement, strives to be "stewards of the quality of life cherished by those who live, work and visit here." Please maintain our quality of life by not allowing the proposed construction variance at 2333 Pacific Dr. Save the view,. and our neighborhood from unnecessary overbuilding. Thank You, Cheral] Weiss 949.723.6202 34: 03124120080 PATRICXA BELL JANET H. BELL 411 BEC70NIA AVENUE, CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 {714 }540 -6830 pattatlast@sbcgtobal.net CITY Of NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission 330 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 42663 RE: Proposed Plans at 2333 Pacific Drive — Corona del Mai Variance VA2007 -0 O1 and Modification MD2007-080 HEARING DATE: April 3, 2008 Commissioners: The City of Newport Beach is currently considering the above captioned Variance and Amendment which would negatively effect property at 411 Begonia Avenue that is owned by my Mother, Janet H. Sell and myself. It would also negatively impact the public views from our very popular neighborhood park. In effect, if this huge house is allowed to be built we will lose both. the bay and ocean. views from our own residence as well as the ability to enjoy bay and ocean views from the park across the street My Mother is currently 87 years old — she will be 88 in September —and has lived in her current home on Begonia. for over 47 years. Mother loves her home and she loves Corona del Mar. She especially enjoys the beautiful view from the patio and second floor and the gorgeous sunsets. In addition to just the loss of enjoyment we would incur, a consultation with a local Real Estates agent confirmed for us that having a view of the ocean replaced with the view of the largest house in the neighborhood would result in significant drop iu the value of our house. Mother's living expenses are paid from the equity in the house. I was surprised to learn from a representative of the Planning Department that it is not the City's duty or job to protect private property rights — and that none of us is entitled to an ocean view, no matter how long we have enjoyed it i found this very surprising and disappointing as I would think that protecting homeowners would be a City priority and directive. f also understand, however, that the General Plan precludes building houses that block public views as the Megonigal house would, and this does concern the City greatly. We know that the homeowner -has a right to build on his property at 2333 Pacific Drive and are not disputing that BUT the homeowner does not have an absolute right to obtain a variance 'in order to build a very large house, especially if.: It is riot in parity with the rest of the neighborhood; A variance is not necessary for the efficient use of his property. He may be entitled to a variance if one is necessary to build on a par with the rest of the homes in the neighborhood BUT HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO MORE; Even if he has an "unusual' piece of property (unusual in size or shape or topography) if building Can be accomplished without a variance and in accordance with the General Plan he is not entitled to a Variance. I looked over the plans far this residence and it is HUGE. The Planning Depa"ent confilmad that it would definitely be the largest house in the neighborhood. With only one or two unfortunate exceptions Pacific Avenue consists of original residences —like ours — and ciiffside houses that are built into the side of the hill, leaving very little showing at the street level. These houses were my friends houses so I know that they have almost all been re -built and none of these houses found it necessary to build up to a level that would destroy the views of their neighbors across the street. A house the size of the proposed Megonigal.pro*t would be completely out of place. From what I could tell from the plans the front of the house — what we would all be looking at — was particularly unattractive. Understandably, when there is a view available, a person building a house would want to construct it so that they could obtain the best view possible. This is not the case here. The Megonigals.lot has a completely unobstructed 180 decree view of the bar and the ocean no matter what size the house is? There is a4nWIY_no need to build up from street level as high as they are requesting in order to secure a nice view and it seems selfish and greedy for them to do so at the expense of their neighbors. I also understand that City Planners try to assist homeowners in designing a house on .a problem tat -- like a strangely shaped lot a one that has topographical problems — by granting variances that might help_ The Megonigal lot is eerWnly a strange lot but it is not unusual in that area Ala of the houses on that side of Pacific are built on similar cli8'side lots. It maybe necessary to build closer to the street as requested as there is not much flat area in front but it is not necessary to build UP so high, As 1 mentioned before, other houses in the neighborhood managed to construct interesting and beautiful houses on the side on the hill without building multiple stories up from street level. Begonia Park is a small neighborhood park that is beloved by all of us and it is heavily used for all ;rinds of activities. We have neighborhood parties, baseball games, badminton and other activities. Every day at lunchtime you see people sitting on the bench or sunbathing on a blanket gazing out at the ocean. At 5pra the dogs and dog owners came out and socialize. Frequently we have weddings in the park — with the backdrop always being the beauiifitl ocean/bay view. It would be a terrible shame to take the view away from this popular neighborhood park. The Megonigal house is larger than it needs to be. It is going to be bigger than any other house in the area and it will be out of parity with the whole neighborhood. It is not necessary for such a large house to be built in order to obtain a view. It is not necessary to obtain a Variance in order to build on the lot. i hope the Planning Commission will deny the requested Variance and Amendment and require a mare conservative project that does not unnecessarily decimate private and public views. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, PATRICIA BELL S8 Exhibit No. 4 Proposed project plans 0 i 0 0 171k, - I ■ memninjal resiaence design package 2;3333 Ipaciific view drive coiro na del mar ca. 9625, MAR 1 M kruN �.easil'.Si 9 � � \ d. , MV VAS. I.Wtli-.. `-- - - , -1 - CLvI I I alwo 1 �P. nedd�wce r x y ��x ©• { M ' \� ■� ( ` � � ■� - � ■_ a . � _. . / ! : - ;� ¥■ ! . £ �\ M reEddence IM , scare 11 1 FA L-�- Ilk I - L . 1111 1,T,7 R f7m-x 0 10 I I daidp�ca! n rte•,. a _ - -`- �' Li W it 1 d„s -- �n a , all I r M ° Fri J i F r. ail r 1 ter" I, Planning Commission Minutes 04/03/Mg Page 2 of 14 otion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner anlei to a pprove this item as corrected. ye Eaton, Pe otter, Cole, Hawkins, Toerge, McDaniel and Hillgren ces: None OBJECT: Fury Rok & Rai Sushi Lounge (PA2005 -087 ITEM ND, 3 221 Dolphin Striker Way PA2005 -087 Update on the re ocation of Use Permit No. 3162 and Use Permit No. 2x05 -Of 8. Received and filed Lieutenant Craig Fri ell, Detective Services Commander, noted they had met h the operators of ury and a security company on February 27, 2006 as irected by the Piannin ommission to sign a security plan and have 0 in place y February 27, 2008. T operators have complied with that and the plan was nstituted on February 29., 008. The name of the security company is Brand Paragon Protection and ft is nod by Michael Boone, who is well known in the rea for security for these s of establishments. Calls for service have ecreased since the security pIa was implemented; however, there have been two fights as well as other calls fo rvioe since the new securty plan want into affect. Two main things that have ken etfect are controlling the doors and watching for under -age drinkers who attempting to gain entrance They a holding the occupancy at 237, which is maximum for that location. Mr. Sums noted that each attorney believe it was not necessary that they be resent and that they had met the Police Do rtments requirements, at least in he interim. That is why they are not here tonig of ion was made by Commissioner Peotter a by Commissioner lk ren to receive and file. yes: Eaton, Peotter, Cale, Hawkins, McDaniel, rgo, and Hillgren oss, None f/N ITEM NO, 4 OBJECT: Seashore Village (PA2GD7 -100) PA2007 -100 5.515 River Ave Continuad to April Use Permit for building height exemption; Modification Permit for se acks and 17, 2008 bui [ding separation; Tentative Tract Map established for condominium rposes; Coastal Residential Development Pi an for compliance with CA Govemm • t Cod ection 65590 and Chapter 20.86 of the City's Municipal Cade; and M: ate egative Declaration (MND). r. Lepo suggested this ftem be heard on April 17, 2006 due to needed revisf0 o the Mitigated Negative Declaration. otion was made by Commissioner McDaniel and seconded by Commissioner -ill to continue this item to April 17, 2008. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Cale, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren ❑es: None ITEM NO.5 SUBJECT: Megonical Residence (PA2007 -133) PA2007 -133 2333 Pacific Drive 7a file: /[Y:\Ust: slPLNlSharedTianning Comnlssion`PC N inuteslmn04032008.htm 07/15/2008 .Planning Commission Minutes 04/0312008 e application consists of a variance to allow a new 53 -feat 3 -inch high a nily dwelling unit to exceed the 24 -foot height limit and a mediflcation per ow the dwelling unit to encroach 5 feet into the required 5-foot front lback. The property is located in the Single - Family Residential (R -1) Z r. Patrick Alford noted That staff is not asking the Commission to take action c e application tonight. This application is for a unique site and a unique set c ,cuirnstanms and staff is asking For guidance on how to apply the findings for rriance and the General Plan and Local Coastal Plan policies to this particula 3plication. He than gave an overview of the staff report referencing exhibits ii PowerPoint presentation: a Over 50% of the site is covered by slopes of 20% or more; Projections into height limits and encroachments into the front setback; o Variance findings; o Proposed project is based on substantial alteration of the site and elaborate foundation systam that wauId create a fairly wide graded. pad the site; o Questioned if a variance for height is needed for the enjoyment substantial property rights; or, is this a granting of a special privilege; o Protection of public view shsds and public view eomidars; o Obligation to design and site development to protect those public views; o Neighborhood compatibilities with respect to scale and massing of project and the use of interim guidelines; Landtonn protections on bluff face that minimize alteration to the bluffs this area has been altered by nastdeveloomant. Lepo noted one of the guidelines regarding designing and fitting the buildin The site rather than altering the site to fit a building had been discussed wit 3 applicant; however, the proposed project does not comply. it is a stee idform and there has to be some radical design as to how quickly you Ste wn the slope. Looking from Bade Say Drive, this is going to be a ver trusive structure buIitas is and a variance will require relief of about 20 feet o 3 back of the second story. The proposed project does not step steep' ough. heirperson Hawkins noted the importance of the design in connection with ndform issues as well as the mass, breaks, and compatibility in ommissioner Toerge asked if this was considered an ocean bluff 3ferenced another project recently reviewed by the Planning Commission 1 id not request a height variance because they excavated a bench into ope. He is more inclined to accept bench excavation as this bluff is not isible and exposed and is not on the water. Page 3 of 14 Continued to May 22, 2008 file : /IY:lUsers\PLMShatedlPlannins CommissionTC Minuteslmn04032008.htm 13711512008 Planning Commission .Minutes 04/03/2008 Alford answered certain areas have been identified where development i nitted on the bluff face such as Ocean Boulevard, Carnation, and Pacifi e. There are two types of coastal bluffs identified, those that are subject t i n e erosion and those that aren't, and this site falls into the latter category. Toerge noted the issue Is the. public view protection. ssioner McDaniel noted his concern of the view corridors from the S, aner Peotter asked about the property line in relation to the park. ommisstoner Toerge suggested the use of story poles, certified by , dspenderit civil engineer, to show the perimeter of the project as proposed a so show the height limitation as allowed. If the home was built within the heig striction It would not need a discretionary permit with any public input The or ason this is here tonight is that the applicant is requesting a variance for tl eight. He noted the issue of what could be done without a variance and with Iriance and what impacts are involved. I Commission inquiry, Mr. Alford noted policies in the General Plan and Coastal and Use Plan that speak to views and view corridors as well as visual sources identified as views to particular land fors such as the harbor, bluffs, ays and coast line as well as the overall visual quality of the area. The actual ew corridor identified is the Bench at Begonia Park as well as other numerous sta points. North and south streets offer view corridors and these need to be ntected as well as views from Bayside Drtve and surrounding streets. Lepo noted one of the ways to keep a corridor towards the water is to rr garage to the east to allow the view corridor toward the water between ape and the house. in miss ioner Toerge noted a homeowner developing his property should not igated to expand the view corridor, however, they should not have tha. spat rflage of exceeding the height restrictions to the detriment of the public view. view corridors were discussed. rson Hawkins asked about the project being within the m Zone. Alford answered it meets the criteria for the categorical exclusion, but it is stion of the applicant asking for a modification of the setbacks and the he airperson Hawkins noted staffs concerns with the proposed project isistency with land use regulations. He questioned If there Is a question as projects consistency with thess lend use regulations. The proper approa aid be to do an initial study to make that determination. If there is a potential ate significant environmental. impacts then an environmental impact rep y be required. Lepo answered the initial study would be done at staff level and we wor that this is not consistent with the land use regulations. We have come saying staff does not believe this proposed project is consistent and ask Page 4 of 14 - file- AShamdlPlanning CommissionW Minuteslmn040320081tra 07115/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 04/03/2008 direction as to what you find needs to he changed to make it consistent. J on that, staff will proceed with the categorical exemption. airperson Hawkins noted staff believes there Is a design consistent ulations therefore, that would void a need to do an initial study. Staff is a direction that would support this. alon proceeded on visual resources from the bay to the site and the of the immediate area. Megonica1, applicant, noted the following • The size of the lot, zoning, unusual shape, topography, and history of hi process; • The suggested location. of the house as depicted on the plans to mini mim impact on the bluff while preserving the harbor view from the park; • He has the ability to put two stories at street level without a heigh variance; most of the homes on Pacific Drive are two or three stories iE total; • The current design is 3,395 square feet with a 442 square foot garage; thi height of the home is 22 feet at the street, which is two feet below the limit. o We are not going further down the bluff than our neighbors; request vanance for the back tamers because the lot is a severe slope; whhc the variance we will be forced to cascade down the bluff and impact tl view and bluff coverage to a greater extent. rEmissioner McDaniel asked why there Is a need for a variance as this is nd new home thatcauld be designed without one. Megonical answered he is trying to preserve the view from the park and sa ng down the bluff. vid Olson, architect for the project, at Commission inquiry, noted: o The Building Code prohibits openings within three feet of a property fine 1 fire safety reasons and pulling the house closer to the property li prevented windows In the front of the structure; o Vacation of excess right -0f -way in order to have the windows was r discussed with staff. Commission inquiry, Mr. Lepo stated staff is asking for direction so that ti hitect could get to a building that would be able to be faun in conformity wi General Plan and the Coastal Land Use Plan. That design would be revisE *rding to Commission direction for compliance and the project will be broug :k at a subsequent meeti ng for Commission action. Olson noted he has received differing direction for this project. Staff decid come to you. for direction to be presented in the formal submittal to be voted d be in compliance with those guidelines. He noted the several scenarios Acting bluff development and mew from the park while providing adequ: fiic : /N:NUsers\PLMShased\Planning CommissionTC Minuteslmn04032008.him Page 5 of 14 1 ?.3 07/1512008 Planning Commission Minutes W03/200 8 ing space. He then referenced the exhibits and explained the reason for iriance. Lepo noted that in this case it is suggested to build down the bluff face roh as possible s4 you can protect or enhance view corridors. It n ggested to the architect to build further down the bluff to protect the view fn ove. We would work to get an easement through the bottom of Begonia P. provide access from below rather than up an Begonia Avenue. This nsistent with those policies that apply to Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Aver d Pacific Drive. However, the architect told staff they did not want to U cass from below. )mmissioner H€Ilgren asked If a two-story home could be built as opposed to ree -story home to get the 4,400 square feet at a wider footprint towards ti irk as opposed to being more vertical and to the west. r. Lepo answered referring to an exhibit and stated going horizontal instead atical would not help. derencing the exhibits, the Commission and applicant discussed the ar rotved with the height variance and the view impact from the park, and ssibil fty of shining the site of tha home with or without impacting the view - a park; use of story poi as showing the current and patentiai structure and it pacts. Lepo noted that with a variance, this project would have to be sent to tht istal Commission with an approval in concept. We had stressed tht 'are nce to build down the bluff with the rooffine below or at curb line to keel view. This is why we suggested the City could grant an .easement to acees; z Carnation across the lower end of the park, the applicants answer was no. If believes if the applicant builds down the bluff to protect the view, CoasLa Id find the project in compliance with the policies. comment was opened. Yeo, presented a picture and stressed the vista point at the end of Begot iue needs to be kept open for views to the bay and ocean. It is important :ct the upper view. ark Simon, presented pictures he had taken and noted that there will be about M to 40% Ions of public view from the park if this project is built. He asked fo e story poles. He added that this lot is very difficult to build on due to thi pography' and the enormity, of the foundation to be laid its above the playgrouni ea in the park. icia Bell, representing her mother, referenced her letter in the packet Bd. the houses on Pacific Drive, except for one, has been built down the A Is Ideal. She noted that with no windows on the front of the house, 0 It a box. This design needs to be changed. n Fleming, noted she does not favor a variance for this project She as the view from the city public park not be impeded. She agreed that ict should be built down the face of the slope. Balderston, stated that everyone comas to the park to enjoy the views. nted a 1977 photograph that depicts the pepper tree and view that file :llY:WserslPMSharedlP1anning CornmissionlPC Minutes1mn04032008.htm Page fi of 14 I > 0�711 5120 0 Planning Commission Minutes 04/03/2008 enjoyed for many years. This is an impractical lot to build. (en Jaggers, stated his agreement of the use of story poles to see what mpact is going to be on the views. Gome, noted his concern of the impact. to the views. n Kenney, stated this is a property rights issue. It is the view from the home.4 these people are trying to protect. tt Cameron, resident of Costa Mesa, noted he enjoys the view from his car. suggested looking at the Planning Commission meeting minutes from tM Us for the history an this location. Kelly presented a petition that was left at the park that has 950 signatures. r is a community issue. an Tingley stated that. he would like to seethe home built down the bluff as i ild save. tha public views. The story poles will show how intrusive the protec be if it is built as proposed . lie comment was dosed. lirperson Hawkins noted the issues that have been raised are neighborhoN ipatibility, impacts on visual resources, public views, design compatibility consistency with regulations regarding bluff development. discussion that followed gave guidance to staff to indude the followinc iticnal information and considerations for the next meeting: • How the height limits are viewed from the Begonia Avenue and BegoniE Park angles; • Table of adjacent homes relative to heights, sizes and variances alone Pacific; o Visual simulations to distinguish the extent of development in neighborhood; o Focus on views of what will happen to the view corridors from the uK levels as well as from the back. side facing Bayside; o Standard distance of the front property line and the curb for the rest of street and the extent of the encroachment in the right -of -way; o Story poles to see adherence to the height restriction or with a vane and what the impacts could be; o The majority of the Commission stated that the scale and massing of proposed residence were not consistent with the character of surrounding neighborhood; o The majority of the Commission stated they would allow for the bluff 1 encroachment in turn for reduced height on the street; Page 7 of 14 7s fi le1fY :%LlsmTLNISbaredWlaoning ComnvssionlPC NiinuteslmnG4.032008.htm 0711512008 Planning Commission Minutes 04/03/2008 e The Commission indicated thatthey preferred the protection of public vi from Begonia Park over protection of the tondform of the coastal bluff; The Commission expressed their concern with the bulk and mass of proposed project and the plan as proposed is not supported; and, The tot can not be built with a 4,200 square foot project due to topographical constraints and compliance with codes. n was made by Commissioner Cole and seconded by Comm �r to conti nue this item to May 22, 2008. e appllcant agreed to the continuance. as: t~aton, es. None 311 Fern leaf Avenue Appeal (PA2008 -009) MLIVIIHrrzrIrp.' Page 8 of 14 n app filed by Caro€ Pangburn of the Zoning Administrator's decision for th Modification is pproval Modification Permit No. 2008 -007 on property located in th luftftmliy idential [MFR} District at 311 Femlaaf Avenue. Modificatio ermit No. 200 007 would permit tale remodel and 1,235 square-foot addition n existing no arming 3-unit residential condominium structure. McDan'i ll stated that he had been given a letter to give to Ms. r. Alford gave an overy of the staff report. He noted the proposer odrfrcation Permit would perm the remodel and addition to the front unit of thr mconfonning triplex. The non onnity is the encroachment into the side yarr aback and short one guest par k4 space that is required for a muitifamil; pfex. Staff is concerned that the app -\hd provides the bulk of the floor are. ring to one unit, thereby lessening elihood fora remodel to the rea )rtion of the building where the actuaonfarmities exist. Dealing with thr 9ghborhood compatibility i ssue, partic a regulations dealing with abrup +angel in building form and scale, the ou evalapmeM pattem had singif ory portions of buildings in the front oing to two stones 'in the rear. sere are a number of homes in the blod in th rea Ihat are taller than twr ones occurring in the area. This projproviding distinct third level that i departure from the pattem of the.arethis does p nt an abrupt change building form and scale with the adjproperties an to the middle unit c e triplex,. which would have two leveve its single gg(( He noted then ould be adequate space to provide light and air. For the issi of consistent Ith the General Plan policies, staff recommends that the decisio 'of the 2oninl dmintstrator be reversed and the Modification Permit be denied. a noted one finding in. the staff report that dealt with the valid' !hE iptication. It was noted that the modificatlnn would clearly Involve mod' o or the foundation and the roof, which appear to be held in common for r mdominium plant. However, we were presented with CC&Rs from th iplicant, which seem to indicate he does have development rights to the areal iete he has partial ownership. This is apparently justification of his ability tr In the application without the consent of the other two property owners. ierefore, the finding included in the draft resolution being based on false am isleading information may not be valid. >l fileJfY '.kUserslPLNlSlaaredlPlanning CommissionlPC Minutes.\=M320081tm 47/15/2008 PC 4- August 21, 2008 Planning Commission report and minutes 7j Intentionally Blank �g CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT August 21, 2008 Meeting Agenda Item No. 3 SUBJECT: Megonigall Residence (PA2007 -133) 2333 Pacific Drive ■ Modification No. 2007 -080 APPLICANT: David R. Olson, Architect PLANNER: Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager (949) 644 -3235, patford0citv.newoort- beach.ca.us PROJECT SUMMARY The application consists of a modification permit to allow planter walls and a water feature to exceed the 3 -foot height limit in the front yard setback in association with the construction of a new, three -story single - family dwelling. The Planning Department also requests a determination on whether the proposed project complies with City Council Resolution No. 2007 -3 and Ordinance No. 2007 -3, which require that all new development comply with applicable policies of the General Plan. RECOMMMEDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Find that the proposed project complies with applicable policies of the General Plan; and 3) Approve Modification Permit No. 2007 -080 with the findings in the attached resolution (Exhibit No. 1). 1!4 i W 7 Megonigal Residence August 21, 2008 Page 3 Background: At the April 3, 2008, meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed an application for a proposed single -unit dwelling on the subject property. The application included a variance to exceed the height limit and modification permit for encroachment into the required front yard setback. The Planning Department brought the application to the Planning Commission to receive guidance on the project's consistency with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program. After receiving testimony from staff, the applicant, and members of the public, the Planning Commission concluded that the project was inconsistent with policies relating to public view protection and neighborhood compatibility. The Planning Commission gave the following direction to staff and the applicant: • Protection of public views has priority over protection of the coastal bluff. • Protection of the Begonia Park view corridor has priority over protection of the Begonia Avenue view corridor. • Reduce the scale and massing of the residence. • Shift portions of the residence above street grade to the west to reduce impacts to the Begonia Park view corridor. • Provide windows on street facing elevation to visually "open" the residence to the neighborhood. In addition, the Planning Commission requested the following additional information: • Installation of story poles to represent the height of the most distant points of the proposed residence (see Exhibit No. 2). Visual simulation depicting the proposed project and maximum development envelope (see Exhibit No. 3). Heights, floor area ratios, and variance history of adjacent properties (see Exhibit No. 4). Megonigal Residence August 21, 2008 Page 4 Proiect Description The applicant submitted a revised application on July 24, 2008. The proposed three - story, 3,566 square -foot residence conforms to all Zoning Code property development regulations, with the exception of the planter walls and a water feature that exceed the 3 -foot front yard setback height limit. The proposed variance to exceed the height limit has been withdrawn. Key changes from the previous design of the residence are summarized below: • Conforms to 24 foot height limit (the previous design exceeded height limit by approximately 4 feet 6 inches to 10 feet 6 inches). • Single story at street level (two stories were previously proposed). • The finished floor of the ground level (Third Floor) is approximately 12 feet lower than the previous design. • Floor area reduced from 3,717 to 3,566 square feet (151 sq. ft. reduction). • Conforms to the 5-foot front yard setback (previous design encroached 2 to 5 feet). • Clearstory windows added to the front elevation. DISCUSSION Although the application is nominally for a modification permit, first consideration must be given to the proposed projects consistency with the policies of the General Plan. City Council Resolution No. 2007 -3 requires that all new development comply with applicable policies of the General Plan. In addition, 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. Implementation of Resolution No. 2007-3 and Ordinance No. 2007 -3 were delegated to staff. However, given the complexity of the issues, and the high level of public interest, staff requests a determination by the Planning Commission on whether the proposed project complies with Resolution No. 2007 -3 and Ordinance No. 2007 -3. Because the proposed project now conforms to the height limits of the Zoning Code, it meets all of the terms and conditions of Categorical Exclusion Order E -77 -5. Therefore, a coastal development permit'is not required. Megonigal Residence August 21, 2008 Page 5 General Plan Consistency Public Views Begonia Park and Begonia Avenue provide views of Newport Harbor, Peninsula Point, and the Pacific Ocean. The following General Plan policies require new development to protect and, where feasible, enhance public views: ■ "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." (LU 1.6 and NR 20.1) ■ °Require new development to restore and enhance the visual quality in visually degraded areas, where feasible, and provide view easements or corridors designed to protect public views or to restore public views in developed areas, where appropriate. "(NR 20.2) ■ °Protect and enhance public view corridors from the following roadway segments (shown in Figure NR3), and other locations may be Identified in the figure." (NR 20.3) ■ "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" (NR 20.4) The Planning Commission recognized that even a project that conforms to Zoning Code height limits would impact public views from the park and street. The Planning Commission concluded that protection of the Begonia Park view corridor should have priority over protection of the Begonia Avenue view corridor and the coastal bluff. The Planning Commission also offered guidance on possible design changes intended to minimize these impacts. The proposed project generally reflects the direction provided by the Planning Commission. Lowering the development further down the bluff, limiting street level development to a single story, and pulling back elements would lessen impacts to the Begonia Park view corridor. Any street level development would completely block the view from Begonia Avenue at the terminus of the street; however, some views would remain further up Begonia Avenue. Total protection of the public views may not be possible without denying the owner reasonable economic use of the property. "Protection" under the circumstances of this particular application may have to be interpreted as minimizing the extent of potential impacts. To this end, staff concludes that the proposed project minimizes impacts to the public views to the maximum extent feasible. Therefore, staff considers the proposed b IT Megonigal Residence August 21, 2008 Page 6 project to be in substantial conformance with the public view protection policies of the General Plan. Neighborhood Compatibility The General Plan contains the following policies relating to the visual compatibility of new development with the surrounding area: ■ "Require that residential units be designed to sustain the high level of architectural design quality that characterizes Newport Beach's neighborhoods in consideration of the following principles. • Articulation and modulation of building masses and elevations to avoid the appearance of "box- like" buildings • Compatibility with neighborhood development in density, scale, and street facing elevations • Architectural. treatment of all elevations visible from public places • Entries and windows on street facing elevations to visually "open" the house to the neighborhood • Orientation to desirable sunlight and views" (LU 5.1.5) "Require that new and renovated buildings be designed to avoid the use of styles, colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character and quality of their location such as abrupt changes in scale, building form, architectural style, and the use of surface materials that raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive illumination of adjoining properties and open spaces, or adversely modify wind pattems."(LU 5.6.2) ■ "Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach." (NR 22.1) The Planning Commission described the previous design of the residence as "box - like," "bulky," and "excessively tall" and concluded that it was not compatible with the scale and massing of the neighboring development. The Planning Commission suggested that lowering the residence by excavating further down the bluff face would make it less bulky and reduce the size and massing. The Planning Commission also encouraged the addition of windows on the north elevation to increase the project's openness to the street. The neighborhood is characterized by single -unit dwellings with one or two stories above street grade and development on the bluff face extending down two or three Megonigal Residence August 21, 2008 Page 7 stories below street grade. Lowering the development further down the bluff and limiting street level development to a single story,, as is now proposed, would make the project more visually compatible with the surrounding development. This is particularly true along Bayside Drive, where the visual simulations indicate that the previous design would have visually dominated the surrounding area. Furthermore, the addition of clearstory windows on the street elevation and the- proposed planters makes the proposed residence more consistent with other street - facing elevations in the neighborhood. Therefore, staff considers the proposed project to be in substantial conformance with the neighborhood compatibility policies of the General Plan. Landform Protection The subject property is located on a coastal bluff. The General Plan contains the following policies relating to the protection of bluffs and other natural landfonns: "Require that sites be planned and buildings designed in consideration of the property's topography, landforms, drainage patterns natural vegetation, and relationship to the Bay and coastline, maintaining the environmental character that distinguishes Newport Beach." (W 5.6.4) "Preserve cliffs, canyons, bluffs, significant rock outcropping, and site buildings to minimize alteration of the site's natural topography and preserve the features as a visual resource." (NR 23.1) In addition, Criterion No. 7 of Ordinance No. 2007 -3 (Residential Design Criteria) is used to determine a project's consistency with General Plan policies relating to site planning and resource protection: `Site planning should follow the basic principle of designing development to fit the features of the site rather that altering the site to fit the design of the development. Whenever possible, natural features such as cliffs, canyons, bluffs, significant rock outcroppings, natural vegetation, should avoided or the extent of -alteration minimized whenever possible. Adequate buffers should be provided to protect significant or rare biological resources." The Planning Commission concluded that protection of the Begonia Park view corridor should have priority over protection of the coastal bluff. Furthermore, the Planning Commission recommended lowering the development further down the bluff to lessen impacts to the Begonia Park view corridor and to reduce the scale and massing of the residence. Avoiding the degradation of public views and the scenic quality of the area was considered preferable to the protection of an already degraded landform. General Plan Policies LU 5.6.4 and NR 23.1 and Criterion No. 7 of Ordinance No. 2007- 3 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 !t Megonigal Residence August 21, 2008 Page 8 this area is severely degraded to the extent that it cannot be considered a significant visual resource. Further alteration would not significantly impact the City's environmental character, but would assist in minimizing impacts to public views. Therefore, staff considers the proposed project to be in substantial conformance with the landform protection policies of the General Plan, Modification Permit Approval or disapproval of a modification permit application is within the purview of the Zoning Administrator; however, this application is being referred to the Planning Commission so that the proposed project can be considered in its entirety. The subject property is located within the Single - Family Residential (R -1) District. The required front yard setback is 5 feet per Districting Map No. 16. Within the front yard setback, accessory structures are limited to a maximum height of 3 feet from natural grade pursuant to Section 20.060.030.A (Extensions into Yards — Accessory Buildings and Structures and Plantings) of the Zoning Code. The proposed planter walls and water feature exceed the 3 -foot height limit by up to 6 feet 7 inches, as measured from the natural grade. The height of these structures from finished grade would range from 1 foot 6 inches to 5 feet 5 inches. Right -of -Way Encroachment The proposed planter walls and water feature would also encroach up to 13 feet into the Begonia Avenue right -of -way. This will require an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department. The proposed encroachments are inconsistent with City Council Policy L-6 (Private Encroachments in Public Rights -of -Way), which limits such encroachments to 1 foot into the public right -of -way and to a maximum height of 3 feet, measured from the top of curb elevation or from sidewalk elevation. An encroachment permit application for such improvements would have to be referred to the City Council for action. The proposed stone driveway is also inconsistent with City Council Policy L -6. Paving will have to be limited to the minimum necessary for the driveway and a walkway to the entry to the residence. A standard sidewalk will also have to be constructed. All remaining areas will have to be landscaped. Water Feature The proposed water feature encroaches 4 feet 6 inches into the public right -of -way. The water feature includes an area for sculptures (shown as rectangular columns). No details on the sculptures were provided, as they have not been selected by the applicant. The Public Works Department believes that the water feature exposes the Megonigal Residence August 21, 2008 Page 9 City to unnecessary liabilities and would not support such an encroachment into a public right -of -way. Given this concern, staff recommends that the water feature be removed. Required Findings Section 20.93.030 (Required Findings) of the Zoning Code requires that the following three findings must be made in order to approve a modification permit: A. The granting of the application is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. B. The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. C. The granting of such an application will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. Practical Difficulties Finding A) The granting of the application is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. When addressing this finding, the physical aspects of the property and /or improvements and their relationship to adjacent properties may be considered. In this case, the lot 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. As a result, any structure in the front yard will exceed the 3 -foot height limit. Neighborhood Compatibility Finding B) The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. When addressing this finding, Section 20.93.035.8 of the Zoning Code states that "the sum of qualities that distinguish the neighborhood from other areas within the City may be considered ;" however, only "such characteristics as they relate to the direct impact of D� Megonigal Residence August 21, 2008 Page 10 the proposed modification. on the neighborhood's character and not development rights that would otherwise be enjoyed without the modification permit' may be considered. 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. These 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. Health and Safety Finding C) The granting of such an application will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be detrimental to the general welfare or Injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. When addressing this finding, potential and averse impacts on persons and property in the vicinity may be considered. These include, but are not limited to, modifications that would significantly interfere with the provision of adequate air and light on an adjacent property, adversely impact use of a public right -of -way, impede access by public safety personnel, result in excessive noise, vibration, dust, odors, glare, or electromagnetic interference, interfere with safe vehicular sight distances, or result in an invasion of privacy. With the recommended removal of the water feature and the driveway, entry walkway, and planters redesigned to meet City Council Policy L -6, the proposed modification will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. CONCLUSION Staff considers the project, as proposed, consistent with the Residential Design Criteria (Ordinance No. 2007 -3) and General Plan policies pertaining to public views protection, neighborhood compatibility, and landform alteration. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) as the proposed project is one, single- family residence in a residential zone that contains no environmentally significant resources on site. However, Section 15300.2 (Exceptions) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that a "categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable a Megonigal Residence August 21, 2008 Page 11 possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances." Should the Planning Commission find there is a reasonable possibility that the project's impact to public views, the neighborhood, or the coastal bluff would result in a significant effect on the environment, the Class 3 cannot be used. No action can be taken on the proposed project and either an negative declaration or an environmental impact report will have to be prepared. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site including the applicant, and posted on the subject property at least 10 days prior to this hearing consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item was shown on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Submitted by: EXHIBITS 4. Information on adjacent projects 5. Figure NR3 6. Letter from Applicant 7. Correspondence FIUSERSIPLN1ShamdIPA aWs - 20071PA2007- 1331P1ann1ng CommissfoW 2008.08 -2f MD2007.08O PC rpt FINAI.doc °Y✓ Exhibit No. 4 Information on Adjacent Projects INFORMATION ON ADJACENT PROJECTS DATE APPLICATION ADDRESS LOT SIZE (SF) BLDG SIZE (SF) FAR HEIGHT (FT) PROJECT NAME 08/2112008 MD2007 -080 2333 4412 3566 0.81 Under24 Megonigal Pacific 08/03/2004 VA2004 -002 2319 5220 4939 0.95 27.32 to D'Amato Pacific 28.24 06/2112001 VA2001 -002 2315 5391.61 5292 0.98 26 to 35.4 Glabman Pacific 09/1811986 VA1133 2301 5021.3 4524 0.90 27.5 (Avg) Westover Pacific 07/22/1999 VA1228 2215 3140 2550 0.81 42 (Max) Bettingen Pacific rn 7 Exhibit No. 5 General Plan Map (Figure NR3) C frY o} NEWPORT MACH GENERAL PLAN Figure NR3 COASTAL VIEWS Eegend V PublcvewPd t 0%pCocwdv.e Rood �.� Shoiafne HelBhf " LtmlfuHOn 7m�e CBy Bwnibry Q Cc Tv a as i mr. WA. O�4 MOgY�i® PI6MLTINMWC f06iPU1 m- -,.. AY �-E*� Exhibit No. 6 Letter from Applicant RUG -12 -2908 03:55P FROM: TO:6443229 P.2 August 11, 2008 Russell Bunim City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92858 -8g15 RE: Megonigal Residence 2333 Pacific Ave. Corona del Mar, CA Dear Russell: In response to our miscellaneous meetings and conversations as well as Planning Commission comments and community Input we are enclosing a revised design concept for the Megonigal Residence on Pacific Avenue. This nroposal_comoites with the allowable heichts on the subsea This revised concept incorporates the following: 1) Mass and bulk were reduced at street level by removing the entire top floor. This square footage was reduced and redistributed so that U cascades down the hillside on the left side of the site as requested. This results In a single story appearance at street level whlch provides considerably improved views from Begonia Park when compared to our previous submittal. There is also less Import to the view from Begonia Avenue, particularly from areas up the street where the topography rises. 2) Overall reduction in the size of the proposed home which was already below the allowable size. 3) A greeter emphasis was made to modify the appearance of the home to blend more with the development pattern In the neighborhood as requested. This Includes reduced bulk, added glazing, enhanced horizontal lines, and added planters to reduce scale and add interest, landscape, and a subtle water.soulpture feature. 4) A greater emphasle was made to breakup the messing for a cascading appearance from Sayside as requested. We believe that these changes strike a reasonable compromise between the Intent of the General Plan and the development rights of the owners and we look forward to a favorable review. As always, please fell free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, David R. Olson, AIA, NCARB Principal CC: Patrick Alford, NB PLanning Kim and Carolyne Megonigal i 4 7 0 ward him ca 929261&4= n &4 t t 040. 50..0 1 04B. 450.0094 094 w .Ohmmtieclxom Exhibit No. 7 Correspondence 0 From: Lepo, David Fw begonia park.txt sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 8:46 AM To: 'earl McDaniel'; 'eaton727 @earthlink.net'• 'Robert C. Hawkins'; bhiilgren @highrhodes.com; 'Scott Peotter'; 'Michael Lee Toerge'; 'cwunsworth@roadrunner.com' Cc: Alford, Patrick; Varin, Ginger subject: Fw: begonia park FYi regarding Megonigal residence. David Lepo, Director Planning Department City of Newport Beach (949) 644 -3228 w (949) 644 -3229 f - - - -- original Message---- - From: Kate Kearns [mailto:garykearns@mac.com) sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 3:44 PM To: Lepo, David subject: begonia park Mr Lepo: I am writing because of my concern with the development of the Megonical property on Pacific Drive at the end of Begonia Avenue. I attended the last planning meeting this was discussed because of my concern. unfortunately, i will be out of town on 21st and will not be able to attend. My husband and i are concerned with the major loss of public view from both the park and the Begonia Avenue corridor. The poles that were suggested at the last meeting have been placed and it is distressing to see how much of these views would be destroyed should the Megoinicals be allowed to build as planned. I have to sax, it was even worse than we had envisioned. i firmly believe that if allowed to build as planned, this building would be against the General Plan adopted by the City of Newport Beach. I understand that the Megonicals have a right to build on their property, but they must do so in accordance with the rules and regulations stipulated by the city including the General Plan. I encourage you and all members of the Planning Commission to come to Begonia Park and view firsthand what the building of the Megonical residence would ruin for the general population should they be allowed to continue as planned. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. sincerely, Gary and Kate Kearns 423 Begonia Avenue Corona del Mar Page 1 01�1 Planning Commission Minutes 08/21/2008 I Page 2 of 8 imbursement costs. Ms. elan gave an overview of the staff report. mmissi er Hillgren ascertained having the report by reference was sufficient, to which sta plied, yes. Public comment w opened. Public comment was co d. Motion was made by Comm ioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissioner McDaniel to recommend approv to the City Council to adopt the General Plan Amendment incorporating the LH into the Safety Element (PA2008 -131) with e following corrections: • Fifth Whereas clause, after Genera Ian, insert .... "to incorporate the Local Hazards Mitigation Plan "... • Add a seventh Whereas clause as follows: areas, the adoption and implementation of the Local Hazards Mitt 'on Plan (LHMP) will advance the health, safety and welfare of the Ct and its residents by Implementing programs to address disasters, atop educational programs for citizens, preserve natural syste and develop appropriate local partnerships to address disasters." Staff agreed to these recommendations. Commissioner Unsworth suggested adding in the section of Local Ha ds Mitigation Plan in the second line, ....is and, as updated from time to time, continue to be incorporated in the Safety Element. maker and second of the motion agreed. None None • w w and Hillgren IBJECT: Megonical Residence (PA2007 -133) ITEM NO.3 2333 Pack Drive PA2007 -133, request for a modification permit to allow planter walls and a water feature to Approved teed the 3 -foot height limit in the front yard setback in association with the nstruction of a new, three -story single - family dwelling. The property is located in a Single- Family Residential (R -1) Zoning District. is Planning Department also requests a determination on whether the proposed oject complies with City Council Resolution No. 2007 -3, which requires that all w development comply with applicable polices of the General Plan. anning Manager, Patrick Alford, gave an overview of the staff report noting the anges from the original application that included a variance, but which is no iger requested. He added that the origin of the parcel in a 1904 subdivision ap showed that this parcel was once part of the right -of -way of Pacific Drive. sere was a street vacation in 1926 that actually created this property. He noted file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \mnd08212008.htm 10/10/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/21/2008 the Public Works has concluded that the proposed water feature in the pu -of -way were unnecessary liabilities to the City and do not support oachment. Therefore, staff Is asking that this be deleted from the propo ?ct. Staff recommends approval of the modification and determination that mt is in substantial conformance with the policies of the General Plan. ssioner Unsworth asked if the applicant agreed to eliminate for the planters. Alford answered he was not aware of any response. following information was provided by staff as requested by the Commission: • Access from Bayside Drive - not viable due to the retaining wall on this property; the applicant would have to have a driveway access through Begonia Park. • Coastal view road designation for Begonia Avenue and Bayside Drive - neither have the designation of public view roads in the General Plan. • Discouraging materials that could raise local temperatures - copper roof and tinted windows are fairly common in residential construction and staff Is not aware of these presenting problems with glare or temperature impacts. • Residential Design Guidelines - require the project has to conform to the site rather than adjusting the site to accommodate a particular design. However, given the direction by the Commission, allow additional alteration to the landform in order to protect or minimize the view impacts. • Use of tun` block - a previous project referred to had to do with providing non - standard material in back of a sidewalk. An encroachment permit would be needed for non - standard materials. • Bench in the park referred to in a letter received today - staff is not aware of when or who moved this bench. • A citizen's email referring to countless modifications requests for this lot - an application was made in 1978 for a variance but there are no other applications on file. • If this project was disapproved from the standpoint of the view corridor and no development could occur that would not impede the view, what would be the responsibility to the landowner - if there was no use of the property, the City could be sued for fair market value of the highest and best use of thal property. • If designated as view corridor, staff recommendation for this site is that protection should be created to minimize the impacts to the view corridor, recognizing that some impacts may still occur. • Water feature and raised planter area - encroachment into the setback is why the applicant Is asking for a modification. One planter wall was designed to provide a guardrail from a second living area down below and was a requirement by the Building Department. • The setback is designated on a Districting Map for this block. Megonical, property owner, noted: Agrees with staffs presentation. The water feature was added to make the front of the house presentable. However, if it is determined this is not necessary, we will It out. Olson, architect for the project, noted: Page 3 of 8 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mnd082120081tm 10/10/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/21/2008 We have made changes as requested by both staff and the Planning Commission. A variance request has been removed from the original application. Planter area and water feature in the front were added for visual interest a there was concern about massing on the front. The driveway and planter layout will be addressed by. a landscape architect. The water feature had been added as a result of comments by ttv Commission, if it is removed, then we will address the aesthetics in different manner of landscaping. Because of the terraln in the back, the two stairways coming up from th lower levels are required to satisfy egress and access requirements for fin suppression and safety. ny Brine stated that the planter encroaching into the right -of -way and the plan ight are both covered by Council policy. Staff can not make a determination prove the planters as that would go against Council policy and it is for them rke a determination. Whatever does not comply with Council policy would he be removed from the plans. Comment was opened. in opposition to this project for similarly stated reasons: Simon, local resident - presented and explained pictures taken from the p i Fleming, local resident - noted a Commissioner should recuse himself t ig decisions on this project due to a conversation she overheard with on Gonie, local resident - presented and explained pictures taken from that depicts the view hindrance with the proposed built project and he Peters, local resident Balderston, local resident - presented and explained pictures taken four years ago. Bell, local resident. ies Bissill, local resident. Sherwin, local resident. Maerou, local resident. Vandersloot, local resident. Rogan, local resident. y Neff, local resident Park is used every day. This project does not protect or enhance the public view and is against General Plan. Construction on this site would present danger to the children playing in park below; and, the park would have to be closed during construc thereby presenting hardship to all the neighbors. 5K race goes by there every year. This Is a beloved and cherished location and should be protected as a N corridor. If this project is built, there will be a lot of people hurt due to loss of view. The City should purchase this lot and keep it as a park. The view has been enjoyed for 104 years and it should be given to people by the City buying the property. Building on this site should adhere to the size and shape of the lot. This land is smaller than other properties and was purchased for a sm amount. The applicant is not entitled to put a house the same size file: //F:1Users\PLN\SharedTlanning Commission \PC Minuteslmnd08212008.htm Page 4 of 8 10/10/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/21/2008 i Page 5 of 8 scale as the neighboring lots as the neighbors built their homes before the adoption of the General Plan. • The wall will encroach into the public right -of -way comer and is unacceptable and will be unsafe. • Referencing a book, Newport Beach. Images cf America, noted pictures o coastal and historical importance taken from the lookout point at the corn of Begonia Avenue and Pacific Drive. This landmark view might not exist in future times. • The community wants this to remain a park and is considered the back yard for many surrounding homes. • The impact of this decision will be in force for years to come and is irrevocable. • Should have environmental documentation for this project. Pictures were presented depicting environmental sensitive habitat area. This projecl should be heard by the Coastal Commission due to the loss of views and environmental impacts. • Petition presented in favor of protecting this local view. n Megonical noted that everyone, including the City, had an opportunity to buy s property. They have a right to build on this property. Story poles were acted, as directed by the Commission, to depict the impact on the view. Asked it his rights as a property and homeowner be protected. iblic comment was closed. rmmissioner Toerge noted it is common practice to meet with the applicant prior a meeting. rmmissioner McDaniel noted he discusses issues with people in order to make informed vote on matters. These discussions with the applicant are importan d necessary. He then asked about the square footage that is allowed on this Alford answered there is no variance for size and the house is not bigger than iat would normally be allowed. Harp, at Commission inquiry, noted from a CEQA standpoint without edification there would be no need for CEQA analysis and they would be able t me in and pull permits. This project is in a categorical exclusion zone, so it is it required to go to the Coastal Commission. Lepo, at Commission inquiry, noted that the Commission can only approve the oject for what is up to the public right -of -way, which is a subject of encroachment id would have to be heard by the Council. scussion continued on encroachment agreements. emmissioner Unsworth, referring to Page 2 of the draft resolution, asked about ty Council Policy L -6 and if the referencing items should be eliminated as iything in the right -of -way is not within Commission purview. r. Alford stated non - standard improvements can be approved by Council. This ference requires meeting City standards or the applicant is subject to L -6. The . aff report identifies the types of permits that are problematic and should be odified. scussion continued on the need for modification of the planter within th file : //F:1UserslPLNlSharedlPlanning CommissionlPC Minu1eslmnd08212008.htm 10 /10 /2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/21/2008 Page 6 of 8 lback mmissioner Toerge then discussed the slope of the site and the modification of r grade for the garage and the planter(s). Harp, at Commission inquiry, noted the primary issue is for a determination of nformance with the General Plan and if you told the applicant that no project on s property could comply with the General Plan then you would be In a regulatory sing type of area. immissioner Toerge noted that making a determination of consistency with the aneral Plan means the whole Plan. Part of the Plan allows building a house on R -1 lot. The people to make a choice to buy this property is the City Council, It the Planning Commission. Our focus is on the planning. By requiring the plicant to come back with a plan that fits within the height restriction is an effort protect public views. The property owner has the right to build on this lot that is the categorical exclusion zone. 4arring to pictures presented by Mr. Gorrie, he suggested that a view easement top of the property second deck be required in the conditions so that where asible a view easement is given. >tion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commission Ilgren to approve a modification permit to allow planter walls, with no water ature, to exceed the 3 -foot height limit in the front yard setback in association th the construction of a new, three -storey single - family dwelling with the lowing additions to the draft resolution: . Require the dedication in perpetuity of a view easement over the "Outdoo Room" and all open space areas that shall restrict the maximum height of landscaping and accessory structures to that of the top of the guardrails of the "Outdoor Room" and restrict the building envelope to that approved and reflected in plans dated August 8, 2008. The form and legal description of the view easement shall be prepared by the applicant and reviewed an approved by the Planning Director. ) mmissioner Toerge suggested this view easement to protect the view above iat is being proposed so that nothing else can be built or stationed there that wld block the view. r. Alford clarified the area described is a patio area, does this include ndscaping and restriction on patio furniture height? r. Megonical stated if this is what It would take to get this project approved, he Duld agree to a view easement as what he is proposing is what he wants to rild. He recognized that this would include future owners from building up as well r restricting tall treesilandscaping. nairman Peotter asked staff how this condition would be crafted and enforced. r. Lepo answered the applicant would prepare that legal instrument subject to )proval by the Planning Department and the City Attorney's office with the proper ferences to the plan and within the building envelope. Use of the deck and itdoor patio furniture are not restricted. ommissioner Toerge noted the General Plan calls out where feasible and asonable to seek view easements for the benefit of the public. 63 file: //F:1Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\mnd08212008.htm 10/10/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 08/21/2008 irman Peotter clarified that this proposed new condition would require cation of a view easement in perpetuity, the form and legal description to ared by the applicant with review and approval by the Planning Departme City Attorney's office. Trees will not be allowed above the deck height. imissioner McDaniel noted his support of the motion stating this is an imps is difficult to vote on. In this case, we mitigated everything we could within t 3 and standards. It is my opinion that these people have earned the right i on their property. nmissioner Unsworth noted his support of the motion. He would hate to losE view if he lived in the community, but it is up to the City Council if they want the nmission to reduce the building envelope as provided by the Zoning Code It N for public views. When Ordinance 2007 -3 was passed, the Zoning Code tha ated the envelope was in existence. Statutory construction assumes that E siative body is aware of all the existing laws at the time it passes new laws. City Council intend to reduce building envelopes as defined in the Zonis le to enhance public views? Eissioner Eaton agreed this is a difficult issue. The City Council has to do more with this situation than the Commission can. mmissioner Hawkins noted this site is owned by a private party who has ht under the General Plan and Zoning Code to do what he can based ur immission determination. The suggestion for the view easement is important are protecting the view as much as possible. He supports the motion. Lepo clarified it is the intent for trees on that lot to be no higher than ation of the top of railing. That plane would be projected all the way to *rty lines all the way around. As far as fumiture on the deck, it is allowed. answered, yes. Commissioners all noted that they had visited the site. None None Peotter, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren BUSINESS City cil Follow -up. No report Planning CommE reports. Commissioner Eaton noted a meeting of t General Plan Implem on Committee. The topic was the fair share t updates for street and hig improvements. This item was continued the first week of September. Announcements on matters that Commission-WmQbers would like placed a future agenda for discussion, action, or report. Requests for excused absences. None. p.m. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minuteslmnd08212008113n Page 7 of 8 /10/2008 PC 5- Resolution fro. 1767 `Us Intentionally Blank m RESOLUTION NO. 1767 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FINDING A PROJECT IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2007 -3 AND ORDINANCE NO. 2007 -3 AND APPROVING 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 Mr. Kim Megonigal, property owner, 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 August 21, 2008, 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 The proposed project is in substantial conformance with the public view protection policies of the General 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 Begonia Park view corridor. 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 the Pacific Drive and Begonia Avenue. 3. The proposed project is in substantial conformance with the landform alteration policies of the General Plan. General Plan Policies LU 5.6.4 and NR 23.1 and Criterion No. 7 of Ordinance No. 2007 -3 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 significant visual resource. Further lD,> Planning Commission Resolution No. 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: 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. The proposed driveway, entry walkway, and planters are conditioned to be redesigned to meet City Council Policy L -6. /D4+ Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Paqe 3 of 5 WHEREAS, this project has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) as the proposed project is one, single - family residence in a residential zone that contains no environmentally significant resources on site. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Modification Permit No. 2007 -080 subject to the findings herein. Section 2. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 215t DAY OF August, 2008. BY: Barry EaA , Secre ry AYES: Eaton, Hawkins, Hillgren, McDaniel, Peotter, Toerge Unsworth NOES: None ABSENT: None Ikof Planning Commission Resolution No. -Page 4 of 5 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 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. 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. 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. /JU Planning Commission Resolution No. Paae 5 of 5 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 concrete sidewalk 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 water feature shall be removed 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 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. �J/ Intentionally Blank PC 6- September 23, 2008 City Council report and minutes 113 intentionally Blank CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. Iq September 23, 2008 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager (949) 644 -3235 pa I fold @city. newpo rt -bea ch. ca . u s SUBJECT; Appeal of the Planning C.ommission's approval of the Megvnigal Residence Modification No. 2007 -084 (PA2007 -133) 2333 Pacific Drive APPLICANT; David R. Olson, Architect APPELLANT: Council Member Nancy Gardner ISSUES Should the City Council approve, modify, or disapprove Modification Permit No. 24.07 -080 to allow planter walls to exceed the 3 -foot height limit in the front yard setback in association with the construction of a new, three -story single- family dwelling? Does the proposed project comply with City Council Resolution No. 2007 -3, which requires that all new development comply with applicable policies of the General Plan, and the Residential Design Criteria of Ordinance 2007 -3? RECOMMENDATION 1. Conduct a de navo public hearing, and, 2. Find that the proposed project complies with applicable policies of the General Plan and is in compliance with City Council Resolution No. 2007 -3 and Ordinance 2007 -3; and, 3. Uphold and affirm the decision of the Planning Commission by approving Modification Permit No. 2007 -080, subject to the findings and conditions of approval included within the attached draft resolution {Attachment A }. !',Sl- Megonigal Residence Appeal September 23, 2008 Page 2 INTRODUCTION Proiect Setting and Descrintion The proposed project is a three -story, 3,566- square -foof residence located at the intersection of Begonia Avenue and Pacific Drive. The proposed project conforms to all Zoning Code property development regulations, with the exception of the planter wails that exceed the 3- foot front yard setback height limit. DISCUSSION Plannimission Action The Planning Commission reviewed an earlier version of the project on April 3, 2008, for consistency with General Plan policies relating to public view protection and neighborhood compatibility. After receiving a report from staff and testimony from the applicant, and members of the public, the Planning Commission gave the following direction to staff and the applicant to bring the project into conformance with General Plan policies: G Protection of public views has priority over protection of the coastal bluff. • Protection of the Begonia Park view corridor has priority over protection of the Begonia Avenue view corridor. Reduce the scale and massing of the residence. • Shift portions of the residence above street grade to the west to reduce impacts to the Begonia Park view corridor. Provide windows on street - facing elevation to visually "open" the residence to the neighborhood. The project was revised in response to the Planning Commission's direction. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the revised proposed project on August 21, 2008. The Planning Commission focused on the project's consistency with General Plan policies relating to public view protection, neighborhood compatibility, and landform protection. The Planning Commission found that the proposed project was in substantial conformance with the policies of the General Plan. The Planning Commission also found the proposed project in conformance with Criterion No. 7 of Ordinance No. 2007 -3 (Residential Design Criteria), which is used to determine a project's consistency with General Plan policies relating to site planning and resource protection. Therefore, the Planning Commission found the proposed project in compliance with City Council Resolution No. 2007 -3 and Ordinance 2007 -3 and approved the Modification Permit. Fallowing staffs recommendation, the Planning Commission did not approve a proposed water feature that would have encroached into the public right -of -way and limited paving within the public right -of -way to the minimum necessary for the driveway and a walkway to Mego.nigal Residence Appeal September 23, 2008 Page 3 the entry to the residence. A standard public sidewalk was also required to be constructed and all remaining areas would have to be landscaped. The Planning Commission also required that the applicant dedicate a view easement that would restrict the heights of landscaping and accessory structures on the proposed terrace (identified as "Outdoor Room" in the project plans — see Attachment H) and in open areas. On August 28, 2008, Council Member Nancy Gardner filed an appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission. The stated reason for the appeal was to ensure consistency with the General Plan. Pursuant to Section 20.95.060.0, a public hearing on an appeal is conducted "de novo ", meaning that it is a new hearing and the decision being appealed has no force or effect as of the date the appeal was filed. The appellate body is not bound by the decision being appealed or limited to the issues raised on appeal. Analysis Public Views Begonia Park and Begonia Avenue provide views of Newport Harbor, Peninsula Point, and the Pacific Ocean. The following General Plan policies require new development to protect and, where feasible, enhance public views: • "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." (LU 1,6 and NR 20.1) ■ "Require new development to restore and enhance the visual quality in visually degraded areas, where feasible, and provide view easements or corridors designed to protect public views or to restore public views in developed areas, where appropriate." (NR 20..2) • "Protect and enhance public view corridors from the following roadway segments (shown in Figure NR3), and other locations may be identified in the figure. " (NR 20.3) • `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" (NR 20.4) Staff and the Planning Commission concluded that total protection of the public views may not be possible without denying the owner reasonable economic use of the property, The proposed project minimizes impacts to the public views to the maximum extent feasible and is, therefore, in substantial conformance with the public view protection policies of the General Plan. Megonigal Residence Appeal September 23, 2008 Page 4 Neighborhood Compatibility Staff and the Planning Commission concluded that by lowering the development down the bluff and limiting street level development to a single story, the proposed project is visually compatible with the .surrounding development. Furthermore, the addition of clerestory windows on the street elevation and the proposed planters makes the proposed residence more consistent with other street - facing elevations in the neighborhood. Therefore, the proposed project is in substantial conformance with the neighborhood compatibility policies of the General Plan. Landfarm Protection The coastal bluff in this area is severely degraded to the extent that it cannot be considered a significant visual resource. Further alteration would not significantly impact the City's environmental character, but would assist in minimizing impacts to public views. 'Therefore, the project is in substantial conformance with the landform protection policies of the .General Plan. Environmental Review This project has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) as the proposed project is one, single - family residence in a residential zone that contains no environmentally significant resources on site. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site including the applicant, and posted on the subject property at least 10 days prior to this hearing consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item was shown on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: Patrick. J. Iford Planning Manager Submitted by: David Lepo Planning Director iueogdde ay} woj} ja; ;a7 g •uoi ;n €osaj punoo Igi-D 4ei(] y :s ;uau L[Duav 5 abed Boot `£Z iaqufa}das leaddy aouapjsa,�-j je5jua6a" Attachment B Leiter from the Applicant September 15, 2008 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 Re, Megonigal Residence 2333 Pacific View Drive Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 PA2007 -133 Modification No. 2007 -080 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, The above referenced project will be appearing on your agenda for the September 28, 2008 council meeting and we would like to take this opportunity to introduce ourselves and give you a little history in regards to our project and present our arguments for the council to endorse the unanimous approval of the Planning Commission. The appeal to our commission approval stems from neighborhood concerns about view protection from Begonia Park as addressed in the recently adopted General Plan and how that issue relates to private property development rights as also addressed in the General Plan and related Zoning Code. We have been involved in at least eight meetings with staff along with numerous phone calls and email correspondence as well as a meeting with the Planning Commission for 'direction" on April 3, 2008. The result of these meetings was three complete design revisions and scope reductions to a desi n scheme that the Planning Department staff recommended for approval and the Planning Commission approved in a 7 -0 vote. We have done everything we can to reduce the impact at street level to the required two car garage, front entry, and vertical circulation to access the lower levels. The previous design was two stories on Pacific Avenue and included a request for a height variance on the back side and a front setback variance. Those requests for variances were originally based on staff recommendations that encroaching into the front setback and pulling everything to the right would have the least impact on the view from the park. The Planning Commission did not prefer that direction so a revised scheme was presented and approved at the August 21, 2008 meeting. The revised scheme removes all requests for variances and complies with the Zoning Code for the building height and setbacks. A modification has been requested for planters in the front which are needed for guardrail purposes and were added to enhance the street scene. in addition to the meetings with city personnel, the Megonigals took the effort of going door to door to personally present their proposal to. neighbors. In addition to those meetings, the Megonigals, at the request of the Planning Commission, also went to the 4 7 0 w a I d urine ca 'MA& W 1 949. 950 . 0093 1 949. 450 . 0094 45955valsonaunilCq.tOnl expense of placing story poles on the site even though the envelope was below the allowable. building height. Finally at the request of the Planning Commission, the Megonigals agreed to a deed restriction on the site that would prohibit any further ton stnaction beyond the envelope that the commission was approving. Key excerpts from the Staff report include: "Because the proposed project now conforms to the height limits of the Zoning Code, it meets all the terms and conditions of Categorical Exclusion Order E -77 -5. Therefore, a coastal devela mant permit is not re q uired. "Total protection of the public views may not be possible without denying the owner reasonable economic use of the property.---To this end, staff concludes that the proposed project minimizes impacts to the public views to the maximum extent feasible. Therefore staff considers the proposed p role ct to be' in substantial conformance with the. public view protection policies of the General Plan." In terms of bluff protection: "The Planning Commission concluded that protection of the Begonia Park view corridor should have priority over protection of the coastal bluff..... Avoiding the degradation of public views and the scenic quality of the area was considered preferable to the protection of an already degraded land form. " "Concluslon. Staff considers the prolect; as proposed, consistent with the Residential Desi n Criteria Ordinance No. 2407 -03 and General Plan policies pertaining to p ublic views protection, neighborhood com a . tibility, and landform alteration" The requested FAR is equivalent to one home on Pacific and lower than the others. In addition, the height is under 24' and the other homes on Pacific range form 27' to 42' (see Staff Report Exhibit No. 4) Key excerpts from the August 21, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes include: "Access from Bayside Drive — not viable due to the retaining wall on the property: the applicant would have to have a driveway access through Begonia Park" "Coastal view road designation for Begonia Avenue and Bayside Drive — neither have the desig nation of p ublic view roads in the General Plan° Mr. Harp, noted that "This project is in a categorical exclusion zone, so it is not required to go to the Coastal Commission" Mr. Harp, at Commission inquiry, noted "the primary issue is for a determination of conformance with the General Plan and if you told the applicant that no prolect on this I?roj)ertV could comply with the General Plan then you would be in a regulatory Lakin type of area" Commissioner Toerge (who was a member of the General Plan Update Committee) noted that making a determination of consistency with the General Plan, means the whole plan. Part of the. [General] Plan allows building a house on an R -1 lot. Commissioner McDaniel noted that "we mitigated everything we could within the rules and standards. It is my opinion that these people have earned the right to build on their ro e Commissioner Unsworth noted that "when Ordinance 2007 -3 was passed. the Zoninq Code that created the envelope was in existence. Commissioner Hawkins noted that this site is owned bV a private party who has the ri ht under the General Plan and Zoning Code to do what he can based on based on commission determination. We would like to note that there has been much discussion related to the history of the site, but the current situation is that the property is. zoned as an R -1 tot with development rights and we respectfully feel that those rights should be respected. The Megonigals have made considerable compromises in the last year and have finally reached a point where the Planning Commission has unanimously approved their project. We ask that the council endorse the previous approvals of the bodies that they selected to thoroughly review these types of situations: In Closing, we urge each of you to visit the site and see the story poles that have been erected as these are the most accurate representation. We are attaching current photos, that depict the outline of the proposed envelope as well as the allowable height at the. front setback. These outlines were taken directly from the onsite story poles. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly. Sincerely, Da id R. Olson Architects 4— . Sat"' ---" David R. Olson, AIA, NCARB Principal CC: Patrick Alford, N8 Planning Kim and Carolyne Megonigal Wayne Call, Call Jensen + Ferrell Jay W. Deverich, Deverich and Gillman, LLP I�z�} I �V MID Fr �7��r''. ��J:9. 1'- �i"iv' -Y }l *a•.._ �rti "i E - 1�J�`rl� r s kll , wm iy Kr+.' - r,._j,. n r:„ x .-p' — , -✓n9pv :5 LL R t J_yjjyyjjf y�w•u d I'� _. - L+ ESL `T dJyyF -tom s1- -'y,r- T 4!;X _ZA Y 'Al tgv AR Vd, , -7� u .jr-7. rr Attachment G Correspondence L 'Z-S- �� 018 �•e�(� r p G2�NlYLC�Y� . � .�r�r��,�`r�-- �L""44TJL��rL�fr� y/ L-�' V�Gii%I �'(S� �_ -if If'. "' �" "•.'� La�d•Le•�� ���'YY�kNgxt,E� C�I,.� fC- k- �'G�_!�/JwGa�[C%�C.G�C� L- e�LL.c/.�F`:.vLL�� r �-`5! ✓ " "'�L �(J 1at4��i L(' f7 �i_ 1 ��I `+�U� `-r1l" V �' ek d 2 L Cam` G'�c RECEIVED AlAi+ NING ❑E?A2TPAENT ' AUG 2S 2C "" -; City a Newport Beach City Council Minutes September 23, 2048 NEWPORT THEATRE ARTS CENTER LOBBY ADDITION, RETROFIT OF (E) 320' GUYED TOWER AT UTILITIES YARD, UTILITIES YARD RADIO BUILDING, AND UTILITIES YARD BUILDINGS REMODEL - COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE OF CONTRACT (C-374 2). I38/Ip0 POUSJ In espouse to Dick Nichols' questions, Council Member Webb noted that the project is detai d in the staff report. Motion Council M mbar Webb to a) accept the completed work; b) authorize the City Clerk to a [Notice of Completion; c) authorize the City Clerk to release the Labor and Materials, bo 35 days after the Notice of Cumpletion has been recorded in accordance with applicable porn s of the Civil Code; and 4) release the Faithful Performance Sand one (1) year after Counci Lacceptance. The motion carried b\Memb ing roll call vote: Ayes: Council Membouncil Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tem Daigle, Mayor Selich, Council ebb. Council Mmnber Curry, Council Member Gardner 16. COUNCIL REVIEW STATUS PROGRESS REPORT ON S[X OF THE CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES FOR 2l' a. (!DU -20081 Dick Nichols believed that Council pn' itiea should be discussed during the meeting_ Council Members Gardner and Henn agre that staff ehould pro vide an oral report about. the progress of the prioriiiee, and that the writ reports should contain more discussion and be more accurate. Without objection, the item was received and €iled. KIV. ORAL REPORTS FROM CITY. CDUSICIL ON COMMITTEXACTIVITIES Council Member Gardner reported that the CnastaVBey Water Qvia ity Committee will be discussing water quality and safety issues related to boats mooring off of Co a del Mar State $earn She added thatthe Committee requested that stall draft an ordinance to des \witbthisiague. aue. Council Member Webb rcparted that the Banning R anch Development Committee met with Caltrana. He requested that an item be placed on the next agenda ites the.Mayor to sign a formal letter requesting Caltrana to study the relinquishment of Cy to the City. Council Member Rosaaaky indicated that the Banning Ranch Apprauiaition Ad. Hoc Committee selected an appraiser and that the appraisal of the City's arleted. in two to three months. Mayor Selich announced that the General Plan implementation Committee will be mfgting on KV. PUBLIC HEARI GS Without objection, it was the consensus of Councii to discusa Item 18. IS. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF THE R1EGONIGAL RESIDENCE MODIFICATION NO. 20007 -480 (PA2007 -188) - 2838 PACIFIC DRIVE. Jloo -20081 Planning Director Lepo reported that his office raceived a letter today from Robert Hamilton, biologist, who believed a site survey may be needed because of a plant that, may bloom in the Volume 68 - Page 886 ldb City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes September 23, 2008 spring. He indicated that a negative declaration should be conducted so it can be completed by spring before any grading can occur. He recommended, with the concurrence of the applicant, that this matter be referred back to the Planning Commission. Assistant City Attorney Harp indicated that the previous action of the Planning Commission is moot because they now need to consider the negative declaration He reported that any determination that the Commission wakes will be Subject to appeal to Council or Council can refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for a recommendation to Council. Rlotion by Council Member Henn to refer the item w the Platuiing Commission to make a recommendation back to Council. Mayor Selich opened the public hearing. Hearing no testimony, he closed the public hearing. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Henn, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tem Daigle, Mayor Sub ch, Council Member Webb, Council Member Curry, Council Member Gardner REVIEW OF THE FY 2097 -2008 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION REPORT (CAPER) \TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT. 11Q0- Econa is Development Coordinator De Santis reviewed the staff report and noted that Table 2•A sum a`rrises the City's progreaa. Mayor Selich opened the public hearing. Hearing no testimony, he closed the public hearing. Motion by Mayor ro Tem Daigle to approve the Draft Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Repo The motion carried b%th4pw in g roll tali vote' Ayes: Council Member Henn. b9uncil Member Rosanaky, Mayor Pro Tem Daigle, Mayor Selich, Council Member Web Council Member Curry; Council Member Gardner Ys. PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DISTRIN, NO. 90 -E - AREA GENERALL-C BOUNDED BY BALBOA BOULEVARD AND OCEAN FRONT WEST, FROM WEST OF ZOTH STREET TO 14TH STREET, AND 19TH STREET% BETWEEN NEWPORT CHANNEL AND BALBOA RGUIZVARI) FOR UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES AND DESIGNATION AS AN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES DISTRIC. , 189I100-E4081 Mayor Selich discussed the procedures for the Ass I'm t District,.Assiatant City Engineer Sinaeori provided the.ataff report, and Assessment 8,;n Cox discussed the boundaries, the simplified assessment formula, and how the corrected ewport Elementary School's assessment reduced the residents' assessment amounts. Mayor Selich opened the public hearing. Carol Martin expressed appreciation for creating a more reasonable propose Pam Murray thanked Council and staff for the updated calculation. Pete Anderson indicated that he started this asseasment district process and expre his appreciation to staff for their hard work. Volurne 58 - Page 586 , 'i, Intentionally Blank /J, PC 7 -Draft Environmental Impact Report Separate bound volume available at: http://www.newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?paqe=l 345 Intentionally Blank �;r PC 8- Chapter 1.0 (Executive Summary) of DER 03, Intentionally Blank /3,� Megonigal Residence— PA 2007 -133 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 1.0 — Executive Summary CHAPTER 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1,1 Description of the Proposed Project 1.1.1 Project Location The City of Newport Beach is an urbanized coastal community located in western Orange County. Newport Beach is bordered by the Cities of Irvine on the north and northeast and by Costa Mesa on the north and northwest. Crystal Cove State Park, in unincorporated Orange County, is located southeast of the City's corporate boundaries. On the west, the incorporated limits of the City extend to the Santa Ana River; the City of Huntington Beach is located west of the Santa Ana River. The Pacific Ocean comprises the southern boundary of the City. The site is located at 2333 Pacific Avenue in the City of Newport Beach. The subject property currently consists of a single parcel encompassing 4,412 square feet (i.e., 0.1 acre). The site is current vacant but has been altered by some grading and vegetation clearance. The site supports a variety of native and non - native landscape species. 1.1.2 Project Description The project applicants, Kim and Caroline Megonigal, are proposing to construct 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 approvals are requested or required by the City in order to implement the project: Modification Permit (MD2007 -080) 1.1.3 Project Phasing The applicant is proposing to construct the entire project in a single construction phase over a period of approximately 20 months. 1.1.4 Project Objectives Implementation of the proposed project will achieve the following intended specific objectives, which have been identified by the project applicant: Construction of a custom, single - family residence consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designations adopted for the project that: Draft Environmental Impact Report Megonigal Residence PA 2007 -133 — Newport Beach, CA August 2009 Page 1 -1 Megonigal Residence — PA 2007 -133 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 1.0— Executive Summary (1) provides adequate floor area within a personalized floor plan to accommodate the applicant's living needs; (2) provides views of the harbor and Pacific Ocean to the south and west from each level; (3) provides outdoor living areas that are directly accessible from indoor spaces on each level; (4) provides access from Pacific Drive to an enclosed garage; and (5) minimizes impacts on public views from Begonia Park. 1.2 Alternatives 1.2.1 Summary of Alternatives CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and to evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Chapter 10 sets forth potential alternatives to the proposed project and evaluates them as required by CEQA. Several alternative development scenarios have been identified as a means of reducing potentially significant impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. These alternatives include: Alternative Site No Project/No Development Alternative Design (Remove Upper Level) Alternative Access (Bayside Drive) 1.2.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative Chapter 10 describes the criteria that were used to select those alternatives for detailed analysis and to screen others from further detailed consideration. CEQA also requires that the EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative among all of the alternatives considered. The No Development alternative identified and analyzed in Chapter 10.0 will eliminate all of the project - related effects (which are identified as less than significant). However, CEQA requires that if the 'ho project" alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives shall be identified. Based on the comparative analysis of alternatives provided in Chapter 10, the Alternative Design (Remove Upper Level) project alternative would be considered to be environmentally superior in that its implementation would result in a reduction of impacts to public views, which were determined to be less than significant. 1.3 Areas of Controversy The areas of controversy identified during the scoping process and at public hearings conducted prior to the preparation of the EIR, are addressed in the EIR and include: Public Views Sensitive Habitat/Species Consistency with General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Policies Draft Environmental Impact Report Megonigal Residence PA 2007 -133 — Newport Beach, CA August 2009 /-51 Page 1 -2 Megonigal Residence - PA 2007 -133 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 1.0- Executive Summary 1.4 Issues to be Resolved The environmental analysis presented in an initial study prepared for the proposed project and in Chapter 4.0 and Chapter 5.0 of the Draft EIR identify potentially significant project - related impacts; however, in those instances, specific mitigation measures have been included to reduce the potential significant adverse effects to a less than significant level. No significant unavoidable adverse impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. 1.5 Impact Summary Table Table 1 -1 summarizes the significant adverse impacts of the proposed project. The table also provides a summary of the potential impacts found to be less than significant, and which do not require mitigation. Each environmental resource area covered in the main text is summarized. Also, impacts found to be significant are listed along with the proposed mitigation measures. The residual impacts after application of mitigation measures are also indicated for each significant impact. 1.6 Summary of Standard Conditions The proposed project will incorporate, where necessary or required, standard conditions as imposed by the City and /or other responsible agencies. The standard conditions that will be implemented are presented below. Air Quality SC -1 Since the South Coast Air Basin is in non - attainment with respect to ozone and PM1e, and the construction emissions would add to the regional burden of these pollutants, a vigorous set of air pollution control measures is recommended during the construction phases. The measures include: 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. 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. • 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. • 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 Draft Environmental Impact Report Megonigal Residence PA 2007 -133 - Newport Beach, CA August 2009 Page 1 -3 Megonigal Residence — PA 2007 -133 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 1.0— Executive Summary retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways, if deemed necessary by the City. The construction contractor shall encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction workers. 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. Land Use SC 4.1 -1 All development proposed for the proposed single - family residence shall be reviewed for consistency with applicable provisions of the California Building Code, Noise Ordinance, Uniform Fire Code, and other applicable codes and ordinances prior to issuance of building permits. Biological Resources SC 4.2 -1 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. Aesthetics SC 4.3.1 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 -2 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. Draft Environmental Impact Report Megonigal Residence PA 2007 -133 — Newport Beach, CA August 2009 Z Page 1 -4 Megonical Residence — PA 2007 -133 Draft Environmental Impact Report Table 1 -1 Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Level of Significance After Mitigation 1.0 — Executive Draft Environmental Impact Report Megonigal Residence PA 2007 -133 — Newport Beach, CA August 2009 Page 1 -5 Level of Significance Potential Impact Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Aesthetics Although no significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation, the following measure will be implemented to ensure that views through the site are maintained. 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 The project has been redesigned to conform to the building and open space areas on the project site that shall restrict development standards prescribed in the R -1 zoning district and to avoid the maximum height of landscaping and accessory significant visual impacts. Project implementation will not result in structures to that of the top of the guardrails of the "Outdoor No Significant Impact significant impacts from an important vantage point identified in the Room." The view easement shall be a three - Natural Resources Element of the General Plan. As a result, no dimensional space projected vertically from a horizontal significant visual or aesthetic impacts are anticipated. 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. Agriculture No Prime Farmland, Farmland of State or Local Importance, or _ Unique Farmland occurs within or in the vicinity of the site. The site and adjacent areas are designated as "Urban and Built -up Land" and No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures "Other Land" on the Orange County Important Farmland Map. are required. No Significant Impact Furthermore, neither the site nor the adjacent areas are designated as prime, unique or important farmlands by the State Resources Agency or by the Newport Beach General Plan. Air Quality 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 No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures Less than Significant and landscape maintenance, and incidental emissions from use of a are required. variety of household cleaning and hair care products. Neither short- term i.e., construction) nor long -term (i.e., operational) emissions Draft Environmental Impact Report Megonigal Residence PA 2007 -133 — Newport Beach, CA August 2009 Page 1 -5 v� Megonical Residence — PA 2007 -133 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 1.0 — Executive Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Megoncal Residence PA 2007 -133 — Newport Beach, CA August 2009 Page 1 -11 Level of Significance Potential Impact Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Project implementation will not result in the displacement of any No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures existing residential dwelling units that would necessitate replacement are required. No Significant Impact elsewhere in the City; no significant impacts will occur. Public Services The project includes all necessary fire protection devices, including fire sprinklers. The project must comply with the current Building and Fire Codes adopted by the City. A code compliance analysis will be conducted by City staff to ensure that adequate water pressure and No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures related features required by the City are provided to ensure that the are required. No Significant Impact 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. Development of the subject site with one single - family would not require an expansion to local law enforcement resources and therefore would not result In any environmental impacts involving No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures No Significant Impact construction of new law enforcement facilities. No significant impacts are required. are anticipate Th osd. e proped project would not generate a significant number of new students in the District. New or expanded school facilities would not be required to provide classroom and support space for these low numbers of school age children. However, as indicated above, the No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures project applicant must pay the applicable school fee to the school are required. No Significant Impact 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 one new residence. _ No increased demand for other public services is anticipated and No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures there would be no need to construct any new public facilities. No are required. No Significant Impact significant impacts are anticipated. Recreation 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 No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures physical deterioration of those park areas. Development of the site are required. No Significant Impact 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. No significant impacts to recreational facilities are anticipated. Draft Environmental Impact Report Megoncal Residence PA 2007 -133 — Newport Beach, CA August 2009 Page 1 -11 Megonical Residence — PA 2007 -133 Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 — Executive Draft Environmental Impact Report Megonigal Residence PA 2007 -133 — Newport Beach, CA August 2009 Page 1 -6 Level of Significance Potential Impact Mitigation Measures After Mitigation 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. Although the project would increase the resident population on the project site, the proposed project includes only one single - family residence. The incremental increase in potential greenhouse gases No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures No Significant Impact associated with the proposed single- family residence would not be are required. significant in the context of the contribution of worldwide GHG impacts. Biological Resources Although project implementation will result in the loss of 261 square feet (0.006 acre) of degraded coastal bluff scrub, its elimination will not result in a significant impact because it is of low quality and it has been substantially compromised by fragmentation and influences from human No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are No Significant Impact activities. As a result, it is not recognized as an ESHA. Its value as a required. long -term habitat is not considered to be important and no significant impacts to important biological resources would occur as a result of project implementation. Cultural Resources No historic resources are identified either on the site or in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. The site is not identified by No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures the City as possessing potentially important historic resources. are required. No Significant Impact Therefore, project implementation will not result in potentially significant impacts to historic resources. Although no significant impacts to cultural resources are anticipated, an archaeological monitor will be present during No archaeological resources are known to be present in the project grading to ensure that if any cultural materials are encountered, area. Project implementation includes excavation of the property to appropriate measures will be implemented in accordance with accommodate the proposed single - family residence. It is unlikely that existing City policies as reflected below. the disturbance of the subsurface soils would result in significant MM -1 A qualified archaeological /paleontological monitor shall be Less than Significant impacts to cultural resources due to the site alteration associated with retained by the project applicant who will be present during the existing development in the area and the nature of the bedrock the grading and landform alteration phase. In the event materials that underlie the site (i.e., marine). that cultural resources and /or fossils are encountered during construction activities, ground- disturbing excavations in the vicinity of the discovery shall be Draft Environmental Impact Report Megonigal Residence PA 2007 -133 — Newport Beach, CA August 2009 Page 1 -6 Megonical Residence — PA 2007 -133 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 1.0 — Executive Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Megonigal Residence PA 2007 -133 — Newport Beach, CA August 2009 Page 1 -7 Level of Significance Potential Impact Mitigation Measures After Mitigation 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. 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 Refer to MM -1, above. Less than Significant Formation, the site should be considered to have a high paleontological sensitivity and fossils may be encountered during grading and excavation. Soils and Geology There are no known local or regional active earthquake faults on the site, and the site is not within an Alquist -Priolo Zone. The Newport- Inglewood Fault -Rose Canyon Fault is located less than two miles to the south of and off -shore from the site. Another active fault that could generate seismic activity that affects the subject property and No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures surrounding area is the Elsinore Fault. The Newport- Inglewood and are required. Less than Significant Elsinore Fault Zones could produce earthquakes of magnitude 6 — 7 on the Richter Scale, with local strong ground motion equivalent to at least VIII — IX on the modified Mercali Scale. Although episodes on those faults could cause ground shaking at the project site, it is highly unlikely that the site would experience surface rupture. Implementation of the proposed project will necessitate grading and excavation necessary to accommodate the proposed single - family MM -2 Prior to issuance of the grading or building permit, an residence that will temporarily expose on -site soils to potential erosion control plan shall be submitted to and approved by Less than Significant erosion. In that interim period, it is possible that some erosion may the City's Chief Building Official. occur, resulting in some sedimentation. The orientation of the bedrock on the site is dipping into the slope, MM -3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall which is the preferred orientation for maintaining slope integrity. submit a soils engineering report and final geotechnical However, surficially, the cliff portions of the subject property are report to the City's Building Department for approval. The unstable as evidenced by the talus deposits that are present at the project shall be designed to incorporate the Less than Significant base of the steep slopes. However, all slopes on the site were recommendations included in those reports. that address determined to be grossly stable. The maximum slope height is 47 site grading, site clearing, compaction, caissons, bearing feet and slope angle ranges from 10 degrees to 90 degrees. capacity and settlement, lateral pressures, footing design, Calculated factors of safety are in excess of 1.5 (static) and 1.1 seismic design, slabs on grade. retaining wall design, Draft Environmental Impact Report Megonigal Residence PA 2007 -133 — Newport Beach, CA August 2009 Page 1 -7 �e a" Megonical Residence — PA 2007 -133 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 1.0 — Executive Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Megonigal Residence PA 2007 -133 — Newport Beach, CA August 2009 Page 1 -8 Level of Significance Potential Impact Mitigation Measures After Mitigation (Pseudo- static) of factors of safety required by the City of Newport subdrain design, concrete, surface drainage, setback Beach. distance, excavations, cut -fill transitional zones, planters and sloe maintenance, and driveways. Hazards and 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 No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures No Significant Impact the generation of fugitive dust, no hazardous emissions will occur as are required. a result of project implementation. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur. With the exception of commonly used household hazardous materials (e.g., insecticides, herbicides, cleaning agents, etc.), the single - family residence proposed for the site will not utilize hazardous or acutely No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures No Significant Impact hazardous materials that would be emitted into the environment. are required. Therefore, no significant impacts to existing schools will occur as a result of the proposed project. A search of various databases concerning hazardous wastes and substances sites was conducted through Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) as part of the environmental analysis. This search, which is on file with the City of Newport Beach, determined No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures No Significant Impact that the subject property is not included on any lists of hazardous are required. materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, project implementation will not create a significant hazard either to the public or the environment. Hydrology and Water Quality This small -scale project would not result in a significant increase in water demand and all of the project's potable and non - potable water needs will be met through a connection to the City's domestic water No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures system. The proposed single - family residence represents an are required. No Significant Impact insignificant increase in the demand for domestic water, which has been anticipated by the City in its long -range plans. No water wells are proposed or required to meet the water demands of this project. 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 Compliance with applicable building, grading and water quality Bay, which has been identified as containing "environmentally codes and policies, which are performed during the plan check No Significant Impact sensitive areas" as defined by the 2003 Orange County Drainage stage, will ensure that surface flows can be accommodated and Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the Water Quality Control Plans water quality protected. for the Santa Ana Basin. The actual amount of stormwater runoff generated from the building footprint and paved areas (totaling Draft Environmental Impact Report Megonigal Residence PA 2007 -133 — Newport Beach, CA August 2009 Page 1 -8 mss, Tk Megonical Residence — PA 2007 -133 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 1.0— Executive Summary approximately 2,300 square feet) wou no significant impacts are anticipated. 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 Almougn some temporary impacts asscciarea win construction or me proposed residential structure may occur, no long -term outdoor storage, maintenance, fueling or work areas are proposed. Vehicle parking areas are to be fully enclosed. The project will be designed to comply with all requisite codes and policies prescribed by the City of Newport Beach to ensure that stonnwater impacts during or after construction are minimized or eliminated to the maximum extent family detached residential dwelling unit on a 4,412- square foot lot in Corona del Mar, is consistent with the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan and with the Coastal Land Use Plan. The proposed project is also compatible with the existing land uses in the area. As a result, no significant long -term land use impacts are No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. 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 accommodated and water quality protected. Although no significant land use impacts are anticipated and the project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies articulated in the Citys General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan, MM 4.3 -1 ((.a., dedication of a view easement) has been prescribed to ensure that future views from Begonia Park are preserved and protected. Resources No Significant Impact No Significant Impact Less than Significant Element) nor the State of California has identified the project site or No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures environs as a potential mineral resource of Statewide or regional are required. No Significant Impact significance. No mineral resources are known to exist and, therefore, The proposed residence is similar In nature as omer single -family residences in the immediate project vicinity. Although on -site noise levels associated with residential activities (where none currently exist) would increase, it is anticipated that any such increase in long- term noise associated with the residential use would be those occurring as a result of outdoor activities and would be typical of noise levels in similar residential neighborhoods. If future residents and their guests should engage in activities that result in temporary, No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Draft Environmental Impact Report Megonigal Residence PA 2007 -133 — Newport Beach, CA August 2009 Page 1 -9 No Significant Impact V Megonical Residence — PA 2007 -133 Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 — Executive Draft Environmental Impact Report Megonigal Residence PA 2007 -133 — Newport Beach, CA August 2009 Page 1 -10 Level of Significance Potential Impact Mitigation Measures After Mitigation loud noise levels that exceed the limits set forth in Chapter 10.26 of the City's Municipal Code, the City is empowered to take actions to abate that activity. This project would not result in exposure of neighboring residents or future residents on site to noise levels that exceed City standards. Therefore, no significant long -term noise impacts are anticipated. 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 Short-term (construction) noise level increases will occur from the use of operated as far as possible away from nearby residential construction equipment associated with grading and excavation, and units. building and construction activities. Earthmoving equipment includes MM -5 A construction schedule shall be developed that minimizes excavating machinery such as backhoes, bulldozers, and front the duration of potential project - related and cumulative loaders. Earthmoving and compacting equipment includes construction noise levels. Less than Significant compactors, scrapers, and graders. Potential noise impacts vary markedly because the noise strength of construction equipment ranges MM -6 The construction contractor shall notify the residents of the widely as a function of the equipment used and its activity level. The construction schedule for the proposed project, and shall exposure of persons to the periodic increase in noise levels will be short- keep them informed on any changes to the schedule. The term and will cease after construction is completed. 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. Population and Housing 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 No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures necessitate the implementation of new infrastructure such as major are required. No Significant Impact 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. Draft Environmental Impact Report Megonigal Residence PA 2007 -133 — Newport Beach, CA August 2009 Page 1 -10 Megonical Residence — PA 2007 -133 Draft Environmental Impact Reoort 1.0 — Executive Potential Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Trans ortationfTraffic 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), During the construction phase, there will be periods of time when a estimated number and types of vehicles that will occur heavy truck traffic would occur that could result in some congestion during that phase, the proposed arrival /departure on Pacific Drive and nearby local /residential street system. It is routes and operational safeguards (e.g. Flagmen, estimated that a total of 52 heavy trucks would be generated as a barricades, shuttle services, etc.) and hourly result of the grading that would be necessary to haul the estimated restrictions, if necessary, to avoid traffic conflicts 630 cubic yards of soil export from the site. However, once grading during peak traffic periods, displacement of on- street has been completed, the number of heavy trucks entering and parking and to ensure safety. leaving the project area would be limited to those transporting Less than Significant equipment and materials to the site. Other construction- related traffic If necessary, the construction staging, parking and impacts are associated with vehicles carrying workers to and from the traffic control plan shall provide for an off -site parking site and medium and heavy trucks carrying construction materials to lot for construction crews which will be shuttled to and the project site, which may result in some minor traffic delays; from the project site at the beginning and end of each however, potential traffic interference caused by construction vehicles day until such time that the project site can would create a temporary/short-term impact to vehicles using accommodate off - street construction vehicle parking. neighboring streets in the morning and afternoon hours. Until that time, construction crews shall be prohibited from parking in the adjacent residential neighborhood. • The plan shall identify all construction traffic routes, which shall avoid narrow residential streets unless there is no alternative, and the plan shall not include any streets where some form of construction is underway within or adjacent to the street that would impact the efficacy of the proposed route. • Dirt hauling shall not be scheduled during weekday peak hour traffic periods or during the summer season (Memorial Day holiday weekend through and including the Labor Day holiday weekend). Draft Environmental Impact Report Megonigal Residence PA 2007 -133 — Newport Beach, CA August 2009 Page 1 -12 �o Megonical Residence — PA 2007 -133 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 1.0 — Executive Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report Megonigal Residence PA 2007 -133 — Newport Beach, CA August 2009 Page 1 -13 Level of Significance Potential Impact Mitigation Measures After Mitigation • The approved construction staging, parking traffic control plan shall be implemented throughout each major construction phase. Long -term traffic impacts would not occur as a result of project implementation. The trip generation associated with one home is No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures less than 10 trips per day. The addition of 10 trips on the City's are required. No Significant Impact circulation system would not result in potentially significant impacts to either roadway segments or intersections. During the construction phases, temporary displacement of public on- street parking may be caused by construction crew members utilizing that parking, 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 No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures No Significant Impact project provides parking in accordance with the Zoning Code (two are required. 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 & Service Systems Water demand and wastewater generation will not increase significantly as a result of the development of one home on the site. The proposed project is consistent with the zoning and land use designations, which are the basis of future water demand demands No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures No Significant Impact and wastewater generation within the City. The project will connect are required. to existing water and wastewater facilities in Pacific Avenue or other nearby roadways. No expansion of these facilities is necessary as existing capacity is adequate. No significant impacts are anticipated. The project will result in additional impervious surface areas by the new building, walkways and other hardscape. The additional hardscape will result in a slight increase in runoff during storm periods. The site will be designed in accordance with the California No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures Building Code to ensure that stormwater runoff will be directed to are required. No Significant Impact existing facilities, which have capacity to collect and convey the runoff before its discharge into Newport Bay. Therefore, the slight increase in project - related storm flows will not result in a potentially significant im act. Although project implementation could result in the generation of some refuse during the construction phase, it would be small and No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures No Significant Impact would not adversely affect existing capacities at the County's sanitary 1 are required. landfills. Furthermore, the project will not result in a significant Draft Environmental Impact Report Megonigal Residence PA 2007 -133 — Newport Beach, CA August 2009 Page 1 -13 Megonigal Residence — PA 2007 -133 Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 — Executive Draft Environmental Impact Report Megonigal Residence PA 2007 -133 — Newport Beach, CA August 2009 Page 1 -14 Level of Significance Potential Impact Mitigation Measures After Mitigation increase in solid waste production due to the increase on one single - family residence. Existing landfills are expected to have adequate capacity to service the site and use. No significant impacts are anticipated. Draft Environmental Impact Report Megonigal Residence PA 2007 -133 — Newport Beach, CA August 2009 Page 1 -14 PC 9- Comments on DER Intentionally Blank SZ 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-two (32) comment letters on the Draft during the formal public review and comment period. Responses to the comments included in each of the letters received by the City have been prepared and are included with the Final EIR. The 32 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) T Dan Spletter (October 3, 2009) 8. Dan Spletter (October 3, 2009) 9. Dan Spletter (October 3, 2009) 10. Dan Spletter (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) 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" Megonigal Residence (PA 2007 -133) Responses to Public Comments October 2009 Page 1 /53 Appendix to the Draft EIR. Each comment in each letter for which a response is required has been numbered for easy reference. Megonigal Residence (PA 2007 -133) Responses to Public Comments October 2009 Page 2 Southern California Gas Company D A ' Sempra Energy utility" August 28, 2009 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Attention: James Campbell 1919 S. State College BlVd. Anaheim, CA 92806 -6114 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT SEP 01 2009 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 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 cotmnitment 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- Industrial/Residential Market Services Staff by calling (800) 427 -2000 (Commercial/Industrial Customers) (800) 427 -2200 (Residential Customers). We have developed several 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 EC., 6M.du U 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 correct the description of the project location to Pacific Drive, not Pacific Avenue, throughout the document. 4.1 Land Use and Planning Page 4.1 -1, Existing Land Use, identifies "A large retaining wall ranging from 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? 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 -I 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 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 . � �v 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 I 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 tern 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. LUI.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. LUI.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. LUI.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 2 /S-� 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 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 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. 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 NOP. CLUP Policies 4.5.1 -1 through 4.5.1 -5 (pages 21 and 22 of Section 4.1) deal with cultural resources in the same manner as the above referenced policy numbers of the /S8 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. 9.3 Cumulative Impacts Page 9 -1: Please correct the project name from "Aerie" to "Megonigal Residence." 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 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 Alternatives The Alternatives analysis indicates that with 10.3.2 Alternative Design (Remove Upper Level), Biological Resources, 'the elimination of three species characteristic of that 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. 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. 19 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 p eaola?clty newport- beach. ca. us From: Ron Yeo [mailto:ron @ronyeo.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:42 AM To: Lepo, David Cc: Gardner, Nancy; friendsofbegoniapark @live.com Subject: Megonial Begonia project and public views RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT SEP 802009 CITY 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. 1 (4�u Campbell, James From: Lepo, David Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 1:29 PM To: Campbell, James Cc: Varin, Ginger Subject: FIN: comments regarding Megonigal Project- Begonia Park, Corona del Mar Please add to administrative record and include copies in PC packets for this agenda item. David Lepo, RECEIVED BY Planning Director PLANNING DEPARTMENT City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard OCT 012009 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dice: (949) 644 -3228 Fax (949) 644 -3229 diepo@citz ne wport- beach. ca. us My OF NEWPORT BEACH From: Rebecca Stubblefield [mailto:stubbeck @adelphia.net] Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 11:56 AM To: Lepo, David Subject: comments regarding Megonigal Project- Begonia Park, Corona del Mar David I 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 617'/ Begonia Avenue Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Rebecca Stubblefield Certified Residential Appraiser License #AR035529 (949)500 -3491 stubbeckoadelph ia. net l 6� CIQ o U 0 N 4 PATRICIA BELL x 411 BEGONIA AVENUE ObRONA DEL (714)540 -683 O MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 0 pattatlastesbcglobal.net October 1, 2009 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF HEARING: October 8, 2009 RE: Application for Variance VA2007 -01 and Modification MD2007 -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 corner 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 8a' , 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 OR ADVERSE POSSESSION: Prose be: "To assert a right or title to the enjoyment of a thing, on the ground of 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 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 corner of Begonia and Pacific Avenues was a popular gathering point for neighbors. For a very long time, there was a bpjich installed at this very spot (on the property) used continuously and 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" sign or 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" enioyment 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 rights in this property at this point. 2. PROTECTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S ONLY VIEW The Corona del Mar neighborhood that extends from Coast Highway to Bayside Drive has one place where 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 futile 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 holiday parties, 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 be a coincidence that the City picked this spot for a park. Begonia Park was created for the very purpose of giving the neighborhood apublic area in which to enjoy the beauty 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. Since�r\e PATRICIA BELL / s To: James Campbell Principal PIanner 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, 2 ❑d, 151, 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, 2nd, IS` 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 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 06 2009 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 4 October 3, 2009 James Campbell Newport Beach Planning Dept. City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 7 2009 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RE: Application for Variance VA2007 -001 and Modification NID2007 -080 Dear Mr. Campbell, Attached is the presentation our attorney, the Howett Isaza 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. r er 430/ Begonia Corona del Mar, CA IAL £3ow rtr 1--,AZA L * AW GROVP JILP PIA E 443,1X AND Nlavor Ed selicKaild ''teoiliefs Of the city Council Citv of New;pon 116ch, Y1 100 Ncwpon Boulwaid 1 C.A 9260 Re ; De3r,Nvlayov Seh6 and City Counalk Pasadena office HtAlly 5Bvmr. I'A 91,03 &62C, 564 P470 -C 6z4 Pqdy ,� Orange, county Ohre !cite C9 . }6:a AD"! ="T969 aw, This firm reprcserts the Friends of Begama Park CTri ends '!), a group'Ofsevea-i'ti hundred the Ptieml,;'afforts to-limserve the historic and cheHsfied publie.views from Begonia Lookout Point, Begonia Piirk, sand Begonia Avenue ITI Cotota del Mar. These spectacular Oeiv-- of tha P'w' irk Ch=mk, il, beacties - Big 4t.(vona. the, tar W- and the BalboaTexiinsula to the South, aiii die, Harbor eutramme wid Newport Harbor to the Nvesl. are unpanallicled on the Southem Califirmia Coast, and provide Newport Beach, And the Ilegovia Park neighborhood, 4kith its wmqa�,, chamclel. Thus;e important public %iew,,; will bee viruially desiroved by the proposed corlstruciico ofa single j, mlyr residew� at the South edger of Begonia Park,. at the inte-rsectiollof BLgonjj A-��e.nue and Pacific Avenue., gencralty.Televied to as.2313 Pacific Avenue., or the Megoniggal . resideatee, which was approved by the Planning Commission on August'21, 2(M. The- Planning,. Commission ap-provzI was appealed at Friends' request by Corona M 'Mar's i;vv uuilpepsoR, Nancy Qardricr, can ,August 23,, 1 08. Tl e appeal ba-, b j,Mw Id -0. . P s , dul- lk hearing-before die, fall Sepmml�er 2-'), 7-008. We tw to it) assert our to the approval ofany, structure at. 23-33 Pacific Avenuc"Imch wouid itlerfery titre Park, Arid I'dicilds belicve 'lie Council must -not pertilit these to bf-t by a private landowner, but must;.misure that these are prestawd for the For the reasons _set f(,,r.th below, Mend's respectf4lly ask the Council to act. as a respOnsible. steward of these imolacelble public assets and deny, approval of the Megolliggal project as proposed, or .In dicalternattye, Condition. its approval On [ress(Watioll of the Public view and otherprotections pr.ovidedin the City's Citnoral Plan and Local Coastal PIxi, as well a-, California's Coastal Act. and Environniental Quality Act, 1. Legal ProteetWis irf Views frowBegonia Park A. Historic Overview fiogot)ia Park Nvas established by the City Beach in 1904. The Liar* contains three distinct pubbc views from the upper pqrtion. of the park (at the top pt the hhdD v�;hich Have Yher•efore:'tuken un lusYoeicdl significance. "fha.firs't is the view ftxiata Ylae pork ieseif: The second is from.Begonia Avemie,,wbich borders the Western e4ge of the park. '11. , w third is the Bogy'Oliia Park Lookout Point, at the SoWhOrn edge offfie bluff', JI). fact, until fecenfly the City had phued a N-nelt at Lookout Point., abbe a%set of -qaifn� that 16.d dowh the bluff :mace to the lovvar portion of the park, so that all could enjoy the irwcedible -view of the ocean, the beaches. and the harbor below. The parcel whicl, now Const ilutts the IN'le-gonigal. property was created In 1964 by the Qily`habandonmeui of a public road einew v,'hich was to lie, the exrensioi.iof Pacific Avenue doi%I] tbw' bluff to CttImu• witf-,—B y, ide ay� Ij Y Aven, e� Presurnahly the Cit devided io the Pat-the A�;,enlwe extension in oMerlo j)rusjarve the liam . and it,,, bluff-topviews'. The first owners of the parcel creaied by the City's abandonment of. Ilic easement, the Griswotds,, tried to develop the.property in the late 1970s. ('71ris"VOWS, Propose') to couswuut a house on the site on the, basi$ that it. would impactlbt public view. At the time we understand that there was some. discussion bet.Akeen the Cite' and the GA"wolds that the City woutdacquim the parcel throtigh its power of eminent dorna. . in in Order to,fireserve, the public views fiom the .park but budget comtraints at 16 time le�ftjhese off-orts unmsi-Aved. Asuresult-411ougl! tile parcel remaims privately Owned. (now Owned by tha applicantsdie M.egoaigals'), the publio views from Beuonia Park ha* i.- reinain.ed uneitountboyej frir more than 100 -y -ears. A pit3la-e spea]ks a thousand words, We erke(warage each Council member to vh�it Begonia Park and eniov its vicwNints- For the benefit .of ihosa who have not yet had. the. opportunity to do so, attached as E,-diibit"l-.please find a photograph which depicts s the Regortkf views that wilt be impacted (as indicated ky the story.-- poles ereue4p.n the property Alstmorith), WC acknowh6 .dge that the phowgraphon which the height Of the Mcgoaigal.,nory pules is plotted was falken wveral )tars ago (the.burich in the foreground has since been of- i)oint i: Ip iThi:i'rflIC 01", T-q)bR, vil:ws- k"ill 90 ..X}$; -if 'h'mui�d b" th". CIIV�� iliz ho use is caw. tructed as proposed. 16c, u .............. B. Tbeftop.oskl Construction Violates the Citly's General Plan The General 1)hau provides the NUO.Wing unambiguous ptotectialls ell pGiillzt t -iew as.wi hjswric':Qesthelic or open space public asset . (all fctttlrer cleat otrs to tlru Ctty Geneval-plan will be to the Natural resources Element, and are designated "NR 17 Maintevlaucc and "ptlOsion of diftlkaleA Opobs $jIstee resourves, NP, 17. I Eiden. Space, pruwctiou Protect, * cobserve, and maiaWrl designated open space- areas that definc the O VS w6aa. form, wrvoas habitat forniaity species, and provi& revrea(lonal (Tlxlrtunitles. NR. 17,2 Other Uses of Public. Sites Designated fur Open Space Consider conversion of public site,,i designated for open space. to other uses onky when a co;jversion will meet asignificant need, and there- arc, no alternative sates thit couli.1'easibiv incet that need. {Era bask adctc& alski see NR 17-3) NR 24) PreseryatIOT., of 'Ogoifiea [it visual resources, NR 26.1 Enballeemen, of Signiffearrt Resources NR 20;2 NR V.0- Protect arIL47 %,,,here feasible, C"hanoesignifi`ant scenic and visual, resoum- that include opera space, mountains, catryons, ridges, ocean, and harbor ft45m public vtgitage points, as shoe 41 Figure NPU. Protert.and enthance; pulJlic -View corridors .franc tile rollovNing roadiwlv sogm Dts (Oho-wn. In Figure md other locations [Avbichl nul'• be . identifiedih the f4turo.." Atiproval. of the NlegOnigal pr(ject as proposei violalc5 the Oencrai Plan pubtak, View 'weservatio,e polki'O's., 4el C. The Proposed Construction Violates the Coastal Land Vise Plan (CLUP), 'nic CLUI� specifically Sections 4. 1. and 4.4, consistent-With the Coastal Act (Section NY251' ),alsocontalns i imbig vousprotecdousofpublic vievi which mirro the GenealPlaw 'tttf P 4.4.1 Coastal Views N6wport Beach is located in a tinique physical setting fhalproi ides a variety .(yi- spectacwu coasimi vieyvs, inchidine, those of the open vvAters of the ()cean tt,ttd N, and em-.stal bluffs. The Ohl has beell semptive to the need to protect and provide access to thtge-scenic Wid visaalxesmwees and has de vi-Loped a system of pu lic parks, Pitts tnuls, and. vievvingy ` wided f )m a number of streets atid highwayi�, aiid,duc- arca-�, constalview's.axe -aliopyc rt to the sgid Strect.pattert, in Wwem Vokport, 84tboa.1eniw;ula, galhoa Island. Aire ('o;roiw CkA Mar, raw.1), wgth-south tending streets Provide vier pofti.dorg to the meati and bm . CL UP *4,1-1 CUJIP 4.4,1-2 CLUP 4.4.1-4 4.4,1-7 coastal lmas. Desigit anti site new d",gjqjjment, iqcl:q�dingIgnd&Sgj ig �sgwq tq� voiniMiZe irfing—tts M public gioast4l Avws Cl.,UP 4.4.1 -9 W--,grt tga&#& BLO—vide gu-bliq km—LIN, Mtreatigg mArem, and viewing �raa ' gvt to a Iveoa tal view corrjd � Approval ofihi: - f4egonigal ripjoet as pmTetse4 viofatts the QXJP Public view preservation policies. D. Farther Existing Protections It &ICL, (lie aegoniA Park Lookout Point is already forrmilly desit I gamed by the- (,J.ty Lis a pnNic View pviu.t. coasud View Map 4-1, prepared in accordance with the Oeneral Plan mid rlwcf,UFI,s Pf cifically designates Begonim Park and Begonia Park. Lookout Pointas a.Publi-, , View Poini . A copy ol'Map.4-3 tiorii the City's websiw, -a.I 4 /)0 la,additi.On, the City's Zoning Code also -offers specific profectimis of public View during the.,plaimlog pjxaee,", -Section provides that in establishing, g—mdp, for any residential project the "shall make the follow-irl.g. findings': " That the proposed, grade and relaWd development will not result In the loss public TITe Planning Commission did notmake this fueling hi approving the oil, Auto ws t 2 L In can anction With this also now, - A)miall Y request Oak the ocean and 11rubor views from Begonia Avenue be spedfically designate as a.public view corridor: clon.5jitekit With the General Plan and the CUPI- It is It I that this request. Is typically olade to the Plavoiling, Conamission, but as 111M L51,tles are N-ing Considered by the full J,rierids Make this reqvest atfllis tinie_ E. Coastaillevvlopment Permit lheplailn;tuy COIT1111ission, in accepting the S(A.4JZeport mc.ommendation to approve .the Mcgortig.4.1 applicatif.mi on August 21, apparently relied On safi`-s belief that the Caicgorical Exclusion Order L,'--77 -5 (the "Car-X") appfie,,>, And therefore*. no Coastal Development Permit is reel sir d for this pnjeci. Fflwras, disagree, We befievc that the (-'a(X expired Oil adoption or tbe CLUT in DPCFmtvr of. 2005. 1-hereibre, the applicant should be requiTed to ohwhi.a C6astal DevtJopl - neot Permit froni'the Codst-il Commission prior td cornintung With this prof pct. R Ltgal'proteetions of t.he Ac"Olistal. Bluff Landfurm A The Proposed Construction. *iodates the tity.s (kneml Plan 1"he General No also provides the following protections ofthe Cciastaf bluffflaruiriorms and biological diversity on the bluffs as a sianificant.publiO asset- [See sNO11cally NR. 211 (landibrnii and NR 10 (biological) policies, pAirtions qf,vluch irre quated Nu'low-1 "N' I Z ?3.t Mah-tenance.of Nattjr4l Topography 1'�,serve canyons, bloffis, signiticant rockoutctoppings�, apilsite building to mioimi�e alteration of the site's natural tolvgraphy.and, preserve the ilc x ores as a visual re-source, NR,23,11 NN ow D cNelopmea , t Design,and Mdng lye'-Si6ri and Sitc, nem, mittimize the removal �of nativc 0MCT0j)!)i9.2'2. irlil prot-v omsfaj /.7x NR 10.3 NR 10 A Analysis of Enviroomentol Study Areas Now Development Siting and Design of tNNlegonigAt proiect as proposed violates thm.Getteral Plan landforill and biological dive.rsity preservation policies, as is set forth in the reports of Friends" riends* biologist, Robb Ramil(orl, mid Nfir. Jan Vai4erslom, discussed below, H. The Proposed Constructiou Violates the Coastal Land Use Plan. -rite, CL UP also provides the - folioxving proiectibris of the coastal bluff landion-tis and biological di-versity on the blulTs,as a significant public asset [,Sev gelIcTally CLUP 4.1 and as r c i Gcall- ?.. %.1 -1 a,,-O 4 . 1.1_1, � 4 and wp c i fl'uL 44.3 cx cc rpted b to 46, , an d 43 -CL t 4.4.3 +t2 CLUP 4.4.3-1:5 Approval of the 1hlegooigal project asL propowd, violates these CL UP landforinand biolog jcal.divvrsh preservation policies, as is vet fWth in the re? en� of Fricnd-,' biolo6'st_ Robb Hamilton, and Mr. Jan Vandcvslom discussed balow. C. 1360 View and Landform Protections3NIust be Considered Iturevievving tlielviegonigal, project in April of this year, and in. approving it on Aagost 21, the Planning Commission tried to strike a. balance between puNic view pyoteetion anti coastal bluff &aivcdon, finding that the lattiarcould be subjugated to the former if necessary under the circurnstances, Friends do not dim gwee that public view, Protection i . s a pl6lic re+:mlrl'o which mn�'� be presen_-d here! but 11(110 that it oou;icert,5i r, ihzq the Gencral. Plait and the CIA111, or the Coastal Aci. and (..FQA fur that watter, misider (me losOntportant.than the other. Both. in our view, must be evalkiated, and Protec-too, separately, 6 M Au uEnvironmont-Al Itupavet Report Ls Required `The Slafl RcpoAprovided to the PtarmingComcnission inco.11wicion:%vidi the August 21, 1-098 beariu4c at which it issued its approval, contends that the 'Niegonigal project is €ttttgorically exempt under CFQ.A in that it -contains no en.viroranernalK rignific-11111 resources 01i site" licywover, it notes that this wc�mpdwt does noi, applyfor any construction. -�whcre there- i% a reasonable possibility that the 4clivity wM h " . a I Vc-'a Siginificalit emct oil the environment ". Therefore, either to negat No declaration or an Ell v irotinic n ral I mpact. Rolion will have ,to be prepared. .Friextds assert Piat the site shottld- be designated as an eftVirotOCTILU) SWd), area, and (hat 'either a negative declannitin or. an EI.R should be prepared belore the Project is PenTlided to Prooced further. Friondt. disagree widiflw assertion that the site conwiiis Signikaxit TOS&I'l-OCIZ. On the CORttary, amplo cvi&nce exits to suggest thltt the site e&jtains Friends,' Robb Hatnittgn has indicatcft in.his letter of this date to the City Council that he ha§ foLind die ex.istence plaint SpeciPs em the site, hicludin- coastal bluff shrubt which require further study. Nit. Ian Vander-sloot, ni his Scptembcsr I S; 2008 letter to the City Council in connection with diis bearing, has pravi . ded mvidenci of situilArflaidings. At anihIllnum, flic evidence beforo, tire. City Council'suo-'O4tS vil"'It there is a'-Tc'wq(n1?b!v pos�sibiFLV" that flif'. L:A)nsfi-uclioll wHl act envilonmental resource", on the silt';' 787. Alternative; to the Proposed Construction As can be sect front the points raised above, the OV Council's approval of this projmt -ommis", 'xi It s will ensum, all appeal to the Coastal C ion, and possibiv, :-subsequent litigation. V e d contend that the project 4houl1. be denied. it violates, Cite ChYls Cieneril Plan alid:t1w, coastal Land .l Plan. 17-tilther, it puparafibh of art EIR. Frieiids point out thai otficr aftcruatives may exis( however. A. Axquire the Property The simplest solution to this conuadrum Is for the (amity to acquirc.dit Wgonig4l property and dedicate it as a girt (irl' Las gonia Park, thus assuring its use by- all residents, and the fIlablic, in perpetuity. The City can do this Ou its powgr of eminent domin or by.enterimg into discussions with the.prtiperly o�xrier to, donate or trade (be property, Such an investment .era :the preservation of this important -public rcgcain.e is warranted. here. In cOmid"ring flli lbe ci"y 4 v.'-l'Mz1iO lire, Porch 6al ch-'rOnution ill voile I'm this public asset witial Would occur as at resuje ofdt; destructiop of the pnblic vicvvs &orn Bepnia Park, the Lookout Point, and Begonia AN cnwc, According to Mr, Dan Spietter, a local colvittiorciat real esaatQ brolIer, h5rig-tinte resident and otie of Friend,,;' Board nil-mbers, approving thoMegonigal prqji!cc It$ propoaxi, with the resulting loss ofpLlblic vjetiN,,s, could result in a potential diminution in value of the Beginiii Park on the older of $1 million -to 7 Z million doflam Mr. 5pi6tter will offer testimutty onAbis,subject at dt& Council heading tomorr . ow! & Require Entry-at Basle of.Rluff 13w City. als investigate alternatives 4, A) could deny the prRject and it esti te alle ativ s withilic Property mvner Concerning a redes�m to accommodate access at die base of the 13egonia �aflc'blul`f Thj,q could elimimite the need for the prate portion of the prof mjy at Blegoniq and Pacific which would block. public views fi�orn the Park-, the. 1,00kout.Point. and Begonia Avenue. A land owner is ojil.v OntftleA to "reasoftdble economic vse-, of his Proparty, not maxitnumecononuc use". The Cit�v could coos der granting an edsement. to the jnup.ert)i owrief through me lower portion of Begonia Park, Nvilich does not have the same public vieu, issues, off of Bkysidc Drive, for access to a garage at die :IowcrpoitioTxofthk',property. his our understanding that two Iomes,af: the base (:) fill .,;!qpO already have easements.th . rough the J6)8'er portion ofthe Park for such uccess, VVetherefore ask that the Council dirixt the Planning, Department to investigate this alt xtxtive: tt. dmake ree()ij ii-nendal ions en its f<-asibilltv% We thank you for your consideration-of our objections, and IoA 6yi,A--ard to d Seussin, rhom w Jth vou, mAle Septell'Awl. 23, 2008 Council Meetiu ont act" as hnvt an,,% queswrist'irvornmems. M Rob:A Clauson, City Attkmw (Yia F,' -Mlkil oulyl NA r, Da vi d Lepi>,. Mum iqggg U)IMOU)f (via: E Mail Only) Nfir, R-wick Managtr (Aa E Auj1 arty) Frlum,As 0 Begonhi Yank 3 /?Y 0 O O 1 F. ,yam A. pY ay. R i5 e k lv t { 3 a � wS i #ik4 g ' E iaS.es. 9 f' ' �e � \ \� IM\ \� , / / \\ dy � \ \� IM\ October 3, 2009 James Campbell Newport Beach Planning Dept. City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 7 2009 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RE: Application for Variance VA2007 -001 and Modification MD2007 -080 Dear Mr. Campbell, I have been a resident at 430 %: 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 surely 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 construction on 2333 Pacific Ave., that lessens the value of any of our public assets, including the view from Begonia Park. Reg --- an Spletter 430 %Begonia Corona del Mar, CA October 3, 2009 James Campbell Newport Beach Planning Dept. 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 KV0401►�til:l`I PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0.7 2009 MY OF NEWPORT BEACH RE: Application for Variance VA2007 -001 'and Modification MD2007 -080 Dear Mr. Campbell, The recently completed EIR on the Megonigal 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, 4.3 -4 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 40% to 50 °/q 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, objective, and impartial analysis would have to reach the conclusion that the view blockage is very significant. Regards, le tter 430'/2 Begonia Corona del Mar, CA 949 - 675 -2500 i� � J r \ } �, Li •• � IlTf Y4:: �, rII L � / I �. @ � r' n ` ��.. f y r i:. t .� � Y �.,x::. _� :.i. �. !.�: t r ', F.h� ,kr �'M:i n .,� s w Nt j�Fj� fFt fi' I ...,`��y Cc. z _ s r , 5 3 � e f z Sk ' Y:i �d n Y- �.. $ yy 'f i � t E xF a i r Fri, F r�S�i F � M A a October 3. 2009 James Campbell Newport Beach Planning Dept. 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 072009 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RE: Application for Variance VA2007 -001 and Modification MD2007 -080 Dear Mr. Campbell, The recently completed EIR on the Megonigal property at 2333 Pacific contains false, exaggerated and incorrect statements relating 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 Megonigal home is undesirable: The first flaw involves the claim that accessing the Megonigal home from Bayside Drive is undesirable and possibly a hazard given limited vehicular sight distances along bayside Drive that is relatively narrow, and curving. " The curves in Bayside Drive might seem like hazards to the Keeton Kreitzer 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. Many homes already exist on this street with driveways off Bayside Drive, yet few accidents occur. The driveway access to 2340 and 2360 Bayside Drive, the two newer homes below the proposed Megonigal residence, have a Bayside Drive access. This driveway was approved and constructed in 2007 without reported accidents accessing it. The second flaw is "... it would be necessary to construct a private drive or roadway from Bayview (Bayside ?) Drive through the southern limits of Begonia Park— " A twenty foot wide driveway already exists off Bayside 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 Bayside 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_ on page 10 -6 (10.3.11) (and on page 10 -7) incorrectly states that "... this alternative (Bayside Drive access) would require the provision ofan access easement through the southerly limits of 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 Bayside Drive and 2333 Pacific Drive) on October 21, 1954. These 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 Northeasterly 10,00 feet of Parcel No. l" (2360 Bayside Drive). 1 .. The easement over 2360 Bayside Drive shows up in the Chant Deed, the Construction Deed of 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 12129/03. Copies of these four documents are included. Re ds s an Spletter 430 '/� Begonia Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 fa ell ,t..:•. :. .�. �,; : -,.k - .`;• ,.r,.uy Con >r�.P�IS :oel :P.'s,SU7�iVYGYO.i N0. 2 DATE Ootober 26. 1554• M SL_.DOISI ON MMM Su3MV13Y0II 0110. �65D UNDER ORDINANCE NO. 635 THE ZONING ORDINANCE of THE CTPY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA APPLICATIDN NO. NA- OF APPLICANT Mnnio DATED C�-0``'' "= e. jP5 "• ADDRESS. 1 "23 W- Peso _Line - a:.xi:SG HELD October 21, CITY Cat: Bernardina, Calif. PHONZ 84 ?2c" "^• , scetioL 9254,31 09 PZ:3. :'6eO . In accordance with Section 9103.13 -'.:y of Ordinance No. 635 a'� is hereby ORA\i&D - for the followings - cos- ac:.iv ^_s'lon. tO roRi'.', wide a ?;Or'zion 6 -' 131.O6.0 D a ^_ V _ ir�lG,rso PA 6'ym eonta3cing 4810 square Beet .1116 3�2 42— >J Z,7 dOZQr1b--,1 011 'th'a r•tta_.sd flescrirtion by Jae._ j. 2,7-b L.O. TB.1CT Corona dal IL-, BLOCIC P>rtion of oDs! LOP SECTION ^•sated at (street address) `-"-0 '^Las -,ass6 oorncr of Bajsido.Tr, and ^ac-1:'.i.c`D -trier to au--do 3'!:L' of a ra ?6ion P. a -c?'s' c Yive also a e nce'rtce,�ion Ol" 08'C.]Mon f :.,. in the City of Newport Beach, subject ' however to all of the conditions bereinafte'r set` out. The Variance hereby granted is subject to all requir6ments of e11 governmental agencias having juriadiet'On in such matters and subject to the following condition's: or c ;Tess col L_n &u C'Gner mint on Una ' ....,. The Varia=e hereby' "grahted sharUb eco:::e "effective *Pon , :compliance with the follomng gua'rante'es and /o'e 7a+7ldence that the fbregoiag conditions are boing "ojr'tizill be: complied �,7ith ;::and untilvsuc'h'time as the 9aid' guarantee's and /or evidence requirements:are-,ret, this Variance shall be of no force or effect whatsoever: This Variance extends and applies to only such buildings and/or lands, or portions thereof as specifically described in that application for 4 we No. 2 and all attachm sets. tsgreto, And,limited,_by..the.provisions as set forth in this Variance. The undersigned hereby certifies that he has read and has lull knowledge. of all. of the conditions,set forth herein. .. - _. ::. .'= ..... .. ... :.: ;. ,gym,;.... ..: Fggndinns of p��nnin Covmi'sgiotl: :"v`_;r'- _ siduiri6sd' 11ersi$ wculfl 1',nin•0us :cr:s ..uS =ra - - =s•c`i° . ., .... .. _ ' can be Practically _... from "77. ';'i6n 9252033 " Granted by the C _ty Granted by the Ci <:.•' ?lznringCo : ::.ssioa, Day o: /,l -i„! -�. on the 2tsc day o ...o ,_ 19 j•a 7 . _ ....... _ ..... __....___.., y I f ,_- •�` ; /,u � _ .ia C. Priest, City Clerk Ray Y./Copelin, Secretary City a- 0rt Beach, Califcraia Newport Beach.City Planning Commission C, 701,3 10 _ State of California) • SS County of Orange .... On this IV71- A -day of 19. V before me, the undersigned, a Notary "ll and for State personally appeared k' ZU­�­,L �e _Itz -, sworn to me, to be the owner of the property described on the within instrument and whose name is subscribed to the within Instrument and acknow- ledged to me that he executed the same. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year In this certificate.. first above written. Notary Public in Land for said County and State of California) SS (Recorders Space) County of Orange On tbis/>"'4 day of AIL-- ... A.D., 184 ^c before me, the mdorsi7gned, a Notary Public iW and for.said County and State personally appeared known Q�ty of Newport Beach and to me,ta be tho.Ci 9._ I A' �-.'�z .known, to me, to h the sncretlly of thcPlana Lng ComiPloo of-tbe City pf Newport aeach, and known to me to be.the-persons whose names.are su6scribed.to the within Instrument and acknowledged to ne,that they oxecuted. the Sala. In witness Whereof, X have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year In this certificate first aba" written.' Notary Public iW al �Irid County z", and Aq.lei4 2.8, RESOBD24ISION APPLICATION FOR TiR"Tng. 110. 2 UNDER ORDINANCE No. I= 650 THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT MACH This application must be accom- NAME OF APPLICANT Vin le Ele Fisk panied.by payment of 8.10.00. (property owner only) ' Only check or money order will ADDRESS 1, W. Base Line„ San Bo+ncr9 "rs be accepted if submitted by mail. DATE Oatabsr 3. 1951. PHONE 81.7237 (Read Instructions Carefully) To the City Planning Corccission Newport Beach, California an exception Application is hereby made for =RL"k:6twa^^i from the strict application of Section 9254,32 of Ordinance ,¢y7q to permit the following: SECTION And further located at Street Address 2336 and 234D Baysldgc Drd- THE FOLLOWING STaMMENTS and attached plans and /or evidence are offered in substan- tiation of the following factor ' *w(a) that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions apply- ing to the land, building or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings, and /or uses in the sage district: 1 1 �o:n. A ��fo S:r� -" ^• i1.%i1,) :ia8 W,L�N: _uc.� r� i*`.,7 r`.i {: 'PhL,,o 4 PgA'tpr n: :.i ru &W wJ111�a',-i =tkam . c(b) that the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the petitioner: P(c) that the granting of such application will not, under the ciroumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in. the neighborhood of the property of the applicant end will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in said neighborhood: %(D There are sheets attached to and :;_a a part of application. I HEREBY CERTIFY under penalty of lAw that the foregoing and ali state- ments, maps, drawings, plans and specifications attached `z_*:•m are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and I further aol^-c,:1.;.:3e and consent to any permit issued in reliance theraan being declared by the P'um'a::; Commission or the City Council to be nail and voit: in the event that anything contained therein is erroneous even thole:. ac'r• er.c_ '.was without fault and made in good faith by the applicant. Signature of applicant (Property owner 71ISTRDCTIO ..a tranafer as noted to be proposed on the rear of this ghost. rill out this :. .)lication completely and where indicated by asterisk (c). This application 5'..; be accompanied by (1) a lot or plot plan in duplicate drawn to scale or by ncicating all dimensions, which. plan shows in detail the boundaries of the promises, exterior walls or all existing and proposed im47dings thereon and all buildin: s on adjacent lands which are within 20 feet of the property line, and (2) plane and specifications in duplicate as necessary to show in detail any pro- posed new buildings or alterations to exiating building. Plans, specifications and drawings will not be returned. P.C. 6 said Parcal ql bing'pio shaped with a i'rontaga of appro2dmately one uald.-ci forty five (145) feet facing Eays.ide Drive and consisting of all but the northwesterly ,f-,20 factor property to be diridedl- and Parcel i7 consieting of the northwesterly portion of the portion of Block D beroin ,....,....flesari2•d to ba resubdivided' and with an area of 4230 square foot. Said Parcel P''I and Parcel #2 with castmant Pa-col /i3 are fully describe and aascriat�on'signo by Jack S. Raub, L.S. 2312 and attached hereto, To 141= it sra COnCD --I' IS io proposed to tansfor All of the property described herein and as Ltaehed to and a part of this resabdivision to ay son, hR. LLMRT W1I1XV14 FISH. Therefore, tho permit for this £ecabdivi. ion =y be issued to soli now owner if this timnsfer is completed p:.-iv- to tto pnplotion of the subdivioion applied for herein. Minnie E. Fia= 10 11 12 13 la 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2a 25 11 26 27 28 29I 30I 31+ 32 1 All October 200 19,14 IISob Xb.' 332.7 IP.. ,brbion o2 Jot 6D3 c. Omm s cel 1:cr� ae 0?,ota 0 11 u, t:�a_eof Il reoos ed An Baas.: 3,. Pages 41 ant; P2 of .Sisco112reewa3,a_� <, j o: _ srsn t martyj 0S't.t, ornic, mare narUGx?1a-r3'y .e .c:?Zood-� ny q%c Tioi:it Of i:• ^.$Qi';.eC290 OY tll, -Y of o uD2e_i i3 Drive, for url- `u'I etrio 1111.x' .7 6.Cwt A .Le ✓OULai'TGatdr,'d�:�_PO].O. ^." t'!Gl't O:' 'ahe 17o- trG65zar3,y 111:a cf . °: i fvan.CD fox7v TQy 2,0`01 y all oaid H'^onzL _3 1.2iC .L: l O 3JS. "4"�) Jf JV2J:A le_ Max'; tf3^ y'O of i50 vr'• zZ10Yk'.' uaid i9Jii uililc:0'i.G'a'ZJ pr01o. tlon bi the OZ h".ma'v8rly L 4 Bc; or4e Avank.9, 20.0C :Vetj %;LOAOO '>Jout:'i 730 }2t t?8� "GL.S'oa IOj. J7. Ii'uaj '`,Venc <C iOCti. 270 c:i' I.35 %'41.17. feet! 51.05 foctq z, ,-•:;2c;:_ ed iu .2ho .iciflo to twhe ):, ;k;tain„ cx a. t._, ;t Ctu're coda 'io I a radiaa of 75.0' til +.:05 Sn:t_r:es: rl, c � Ct'_..@ c ",—L"e U-3.57 =eez) feat., is i-.0,::a:n-ciax in z .— i_v-_` _ .•, oL: el":Z G! GPi4 OiEt'P9 4l ;:!'A on the A:v V."i `• Y_Y Gas =iy cOad a:; dc. sc:;; 'v;:;; T•cao_cs_ `<;;; 3t. 1i1�, in . ., a 172 a= DaC(1.5 OLD L:.Aa Oa >...'.:x .1..._ ::� 'iJ the 'eGG e..J. .. Ott 4::i /,� CGS':;% as e.. �_iMI-3 ! ?:J ?::4CR:�'T, 9Z•'_j i'�C9;;; L.. 6:ai3 ;Bet, „S_C °v`f"°_ Cj to 1•ia nY'i.i� G=am :��•r -'•�': iLVa ;;•L3 aD' +iGC i.::Cl'4a'>'G3 t 'L �v �iGil 'LACSL:ca..Clw In Drive, 1'G' {}�.{ia lii-{i (iTJCiCL :IL.ai'a.>i L•Yr �, y..- . +, 1'w._�:BSYJ__.� `Y %..:.� i'1L J1ip 1q .rL'er v'JSYSSe U0�11- 15n'c (:. ea-d to ..n. I Ule sou` 'reetnv!7 __.,_ „ tia: c; the 1 ;a...._,.,,.�......,., aV:;% ..- _.___..sCe,lg' =0ou3 .3et o:` ti.a I u 0�'DUBr 20p 19,4 'Job 1so. 3323 2 ! The northweateriy 49.20 fee'. of L:nAt portion of Lot °D° of Ccao-z. I 3II CIG-L .'cry aJ down on a cash thoreo? recorded in Book 3., ?ages 41 4 2,2 O_ :iiaoeliafteoua >';pr.:l, raooroa of GmnSe Coartyp Calif orr5a, 5 I,io'ra :articiziarly described as follows, 6 a+. tho tiDin ". O Snteroaetion of t:1e So4th1'ortersy __..c I 7 r% '-VFeif la Drive, formerly r 100t'ri3 Silty, as ShoPal on Cain r, SoatIm6Sterly prolon32L1O11 Of Lo I!:-,e 01" Regnlz S LFZ :a :e, fDre3rly 29th•Gaa.xe, as said cc3nr_a ,e c is =__ D^ c;~ 101 aa3 shown o<-, said air, of Cox-5na dr;l Bar; thanco <'Zesth 400 000 1 11 along �nld _1roio'cic;svioa of tha ?:orthweaterly 1.1-3 of 12' jzg=is cor :.t.;y 20.00 fort; thence ,oath S >° 32? 03° _,zst, 103.j0 13I 102t; ..hence Scut' 263 z1919D rest (41092 feat) 51.37 feet, as 14 �� c3 i3 ChB. f a oldp to the beg2 r.;., g o:' a tangeret , curve concave '�a 15� : +;iL'th IIr:d ha7ins 2 rBdiva of.75.00 foot; the:lc3 16 ce._d 'a,= —Ve 6?53 =57 'e'er';;) 14.8.20 fe6Yp as r-q?aecea :r, .. e field, to 17 1 100 end o= .=id ourva xAnt on the line Cz ,,. I. 1S 1� CJ: =°qty Road � j dascrlvod in. r ::oordo& May 3p 1916, it '�oa'a 233p 19 I4 +ai 0 S"l2 of DOGd3 Oi Gaie,, iJ?••::?2 .? iiova.3 y; thfP a:; Glop Z :I 20 jj the 19`30 ^tn3SEt5'a'1y 1 =:l3 O'_' x:.?i.d vO:;nt L^.:,rid tJ :to Of SntO. ❑6O" 21 II I tie_: FFith t::e said 5outhweeterly pvo'_onZatiDn o'?Vt._:. I �: !S 0. e S 1 ng ` �u 1 22 lino o, aagori� v6t,us; i�sne3 ogth.,._etcr_y r o..;, `.,i.a srid ni, °h- i 23 .jogta ly pjvjob Rutjcn 90.,0190 Poet, ta•3 Eh.^, poInt of I 24 b0gil411:10 I 25 uxdepting thareYrom the portion Included in Pacific Drive, far>~ j I 2e er]y Y'Jleotria 4iei,oiq Ob4ma On said .-asp Of Caren^ del 27 Tana Doutheaatcrly lino of Pa;:Oel V0. 2 bein 4 to mm. 49.20 28 wat of thi said :SDuv; :iv'G'yt�'1y ,3'.^.G1C:'fE�i =LiD:� Of the �. 29I S°o.°mmutorly !vie of 3e�pala Ave =LO4 y s 31 ,C�1 zrso:_ezr. 50.00 _eev in uvAth �Or ., :'• @L'.-^. :... }c3•.•g 07a- t13 32 III;io1't.. aBBarlg 20.00 _e:;e o. parcel No. ? hei'V3i._,_. .daeex ° =be e III . :: �.i7,r.�✓1Cy _�. V`C�'A'S''___ ! . JACI..v -I'U.u, r.. 5. 2312 j i <5z 3' 6 7F/ k NOTE , 35-17 os- 19 SW JACK S. R�.UE; 133 TWIMSTER STRAW CZS'.A MZSA. CALIF. ..::WANG 17. Old A.M .79.06' . <5z 3' 6 7F/ k NOTE , 35-17 os- 19 SW JACK S. R�.UE; 133 TWIMSTER STRAW CZS'.A MZSA. CALIF. ..::WANG 17. 6 7F/ k NOTE , 35-17 os- 19 SW JACK S. R�.UE; 133 TWIMSTER STRAW CZS'.A MZSA. CALIF. ..::WANG 17. RECORDING REQUESTED BY., COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Edward A. Foster and Helen L. Foster 2501 First Avenue Corona Del Mar, CA 92626 Order No.: 6707610 Escrow No.: CO- 15750 -EG Recorded In Official Records, County of Orange Tom Daly, Clerk- ReeOrder I IWIIWIIIIIIIIItlIIIIIIItiII IIOWIII l ltlll11111 28.00 2003001519649 08:00am 12/29103 '11830 D11 A38 R23 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ALL INCLUSIVE DEED OF TRUST; ASSIGNMEN7 OF RENTS; AND REQUEST FOR NOTICE (LONG FORM) This DEED OF TRUST, made November 18, 2803, between Marsh Development Company, Inc., a California Corporation, herein called CMAKER° OR °TRUSTOR °), whose address is 400 Westchester Place, Fullerton, CA t' l 92836, West Coast Escrow, a California Corporation, herein called TRUSTEE, and Edward A. Foster and Helen L. Foster, husband and wife as community property, herein called ('HOLDER" OR "BENEFICIARY "), WITNESSETH: That Trustor grants to Trustee in trust, with power of sale, that property in the City of Newport Beach (Corona Del Mar Area), County of Orange, State of California, described as: (collectively, the "Property "): Q Land. The folfowing described real property (collectively, the "Land"); N PARCEL 2: 5r,,y 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, form" 2e 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 feet; 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) 148.28 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 feet, more -or -less, to the point of beginning. Excepting therefrom that portion included In Pack Drive, formerly Electric Way, as shown on said map of Corona Del Mar. The Southeasterly line of said Parcel 1 being parallel to and 49.20 feet Southeasterly of the said Southwesterly prolongation of the Northwesterly line of Begonia Avenue. PARCEL3: 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 2896, page 420 of Official Records of said Orange County. 9 i 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 deed of trust or otherwise be expressly made subject to the lien of this Security Instrument; Improvements. The buildings, structures, fixtures, additions, 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), certificates, instruments, franchises, permits, ficenses, approvals, development rights, utility rights, consents, plans, specifications and other documents, now or hereafter entered into, and all rights and entitlements therein and thereto, respecting or pertaining to the development, use, occupation, construction management or operation of the Property (including any Improvements), and all right, title 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 alienates title to property described herein, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, or (ii) defaults in any obligation or covenant under this Deed of Trust, or (iii) defaults under the Senior Deed of Trust, or (iv) defaults under the promissory note secured by this Deed of Trust (the °Note°), or (v) defaults under the Other AITD Promissory Note` (as defined in the Note), all sums then 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 existing/underlying first trust deed ban prior to maturity of A1TD, Beneficiary agrees to subordinate to a new first loan, providing new loan does not 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 purchase 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 right to collect and use the same except during continuance of default hereunder 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 trust subject and subordinate to deed(s) of trust encumbering said land and more particularly identified in the Request for Notice set forth on Page 2 and hereinafter referred to as "included 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 Trustor of tNs deed of trust shall also constitute a signing by or on behalf of Trustor of this: *Other Note: That certain All - Inclusive Note Secured by All - inclusive Deed of Trust both dated December 17, 2003 in the principal amount of $860,000.00 executed by Marsh Development Company, Inc., a Cal'rfomia corporation, as MakenTrustor in favor of Mid -Exchange, Inc., a California corporation, as Qualified Intermediary for Edward A. foster and Helen L. Foster, husband and wife as community property, as Beneficiary. **Parcel 1 as described in Exhiblt "P: attached hereto and made a part hereof 1,5 , ayo no. r In accordance with Section 2924b, Civil Code, request is made that a copy of any Notice of Default and a copy of any Notice of Sale under the Deed of Trust 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 suooessors and/or assigns is named as Beneficiary and Martin Conveyancing Corp. as Trustee; and Under the Deed of Trust recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Orange County, on NIA, as Instrument No. NIA, executed by NIA, as Trustor, 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 at Trustor incorporated by reference or contained herein; (2) Payment of the indebtedness evidenced by one promissory note of even date herewith, any extensions, modification, changes or renewals thereof In the principal sum of $1,020,000.00 payable to Beneficiary; (3) The payment of any money that may be advanced by the Beneficiary to Trustor, or his successors, with Interest thereon, evidenced by additional notes (indicating they are so secured) at by endorsement on the original note, executed by Trustor or his successor. A. TO PROTECT THE SECURITY HEREOF, TRUSTOR AGREES: (1) To perform the obligations secured by such included deeds of trust other than the payments to be made by Beneficiary as set forth In the note secured by this deed of trust. As between the parties hereto and their successors and assigns, no assumption or guarantee agreement executed by Trustors for the benefit of the holders of the included notes shall be deemed to affect this obligation of Beneficiary. (2) To keep said property in good condition and repair not to remove, renovate, improve, after or demolish all or any portion of any building thereon; to complete or restore promptly and in good and workmanlike manner any building which may be constructed, damaged or destroyed thereon and to pay when due all claims for labor performed and materials furnished therefore; to comply with all laws affecting said property or requiring any alterations or improvements to be made thereon, not to commo or penult waste thereof; not to commit, suffer or permit any act upon said property in violation of law; to cultivate, Irrigate, fertilize, fumigate, prune and do all other acts which from the character or use of said property may be reasonably necessary, the specific enumerations herein not excluding the general. (3) Beneficiary shall maintain fire insurance on the Property with loss payable to Beneficiary. The amount collected under any fire or other insurance policy may be applied by Beneficiary upon any Indebtedness secured hereby and In such order as Beneficiary may determine, or st option of Beneficiary the entire amount so collected or any part thereof may be released to Trustor. Such application or release shall not cure or waive any default or notice of default hereunder or invalidate any act done pursuant to such notice. (4) To appear in and defend any action or proceeding purporting to affect the security hereof or the rights or powers of Beneficiary or Trustee; and to pay all casts and expenses, including costs of evidence of We and attorney's fees, in a reasonable sum in any such action or proceeding In which Beneficiary or Trustee may appear, and In any suit brought by Beneficiary to foreclose lhi3 Deed. (5) To pay: at least ten days before delinquency all taxes and assessments affecting said property, including assessments on appurtenant water stock; when due, all encumbrances, charges and liens, except those payments to be made by Beneficiary as provided in the note segued hereby, with interest. an said property or any part thereof, which appear to be prior or superior hereto; all costs, fees and expenses of this Trust. Should Trustor fail to make any payment or to do any ad as herein provided, then Beneficiary or Trustee, but without obligation so to do and without notice to or demand upon Trostor and without releasing Trustor from any obligation hereof, may: make or do the same in such manner and to such extent as either may deem necessary to protect the security hereof, Beneficiary or Trustee being authorized to enter upon said property for such purposes; appear in and defend any action or proceeding purporting to affect the security hereof or the rights or powers of Beneficiary or Trustee; pay, purchase, contest or compromise any encumbrance, charge or lien which in the judgment of either appears to be prior or superior hereto; and, in exercising any such powers, pay necessary expenses. employ counsel and pay his reasonable fees. (6) To pay immediately and without demand all sums so expended by Beneficiary or Trustee, with interest from date of expenditure at the amount allowed by law in effect at the date hereof, and to pay for any statement provided for by low in effect at the date hereof regarding the obligation secured hereby any amount demanded by the Beneficiary not to exceed the maximum allowed by law at the time when said statement is demanded. B. IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED: r' STATE OF CALMORNIA Signature of Truster COUNTY OF L— Ya !/LPJC J SS. On 0)°r : , 7 3i, 2�`J133 before Maret evebp to rtfpany, Inc. me �In 1J y��l a Notary Publi in and for said County and State, personally ` appeared rn e f1/lo rc h t Tr - Y. Ha . Marsh, r. President nd Sec personally knowu.ta -na (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) s re subsc ibed to the within instrument and nowledged o ma that�shefthey executed the me in�erftheir authorized capaciry(les).andthat by Is erAheir signatures) on the instrument the person(s), Or a entity upon behalf of which theperson(s), acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my /hd and offrciaal. /J Signature_ (f!/Yfitti Signature of Notary STATE OF CALIF RNIA COUNTY C r 11�2'I.tD�2. On ZZ Z�.� before me n n a Notary Pubic' y�nd for said County and�Sate, personally appea �( 1,) F�n.t Te-s PeffieRakLkR&m"&m&(or proved tome an the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) i arQ, ubscribed to the within instrumerr[ and adm ed to me that helshe4e executed the same in hts/he etr authorized capacity(ies) and that by his/he efr gnature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s), acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS m and and official seal. Signatur /r f y�e - L-r Signature of Notary ANN CONDICT s coNM.fF 1422 +a m N�+TPwuo•cdMoml. N w ORANOECOUNTY = Ob Comm EW- June R 1007 (This area for official notarial seal) Signature of Beneficiary SS. 2 ¢J Edward A. Foster "- %D D -PA )N. < 7 15CtlJ0� Helen L. Foster ANN CONDICT coNM. r JsW' 4 ;y � N P.21 Cdlf.rM. N CRANOE COUNTY Ny cmm, F4. Jun 3,2W7 ' (This area for official notarial seal) (IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT, PRIOR TO THE EXECUTION OF THIS ALL - INCLUSIVE DEED OF TRUST, THE PARTIES CONSULT WITH THEIR ATTORNEYS WITH RESPECT TO SAME.) , ee.,.,,.,r I '/'7 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 29M Avenue, as said Begonia Avenue is laid out and shown on Said map of Corona Del Mar, thence 40.00 degrees East along said Southwesterly prolongation of the Northwesterly line of Begonia Avenue, 20.00 feet; thence South 63 degrees 52.00 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) 148.28 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 feet, more -0r 4ess, 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. l �� RECQRDING REQUESTED BY: COMMONWEALTH LANDTITLE AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Marsh Development Company, Inc. 480 Westchester Place Fullerton, CA 92835 Order No.: Escrow No.: CO- 167WES A.P.N.: (jam -01! /9 Record" In Omclal Records, County of Orange Tom Daly, Clerk - Recorder 119111IIHINK1111111111fI11111111111111111 30.00 2003001519648 06:00am 12/29/03 118 30 G02 3 42268 422.67 20.00 0.00 4.00 O.OD 0.00 0.00 SPACE ABOVE THIS GRANT DEED THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR(S) DECLARE(S) DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAXIS $E45.35CITY TRANSFER TAXIS $ n/a [XI computed on full value of property conveyed, or [] computed on full value less value of liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale. [] unincorporated area [X] City of Newport Beach AND FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, ' Edward A. Foster Helen L. Foster, husband and wife as community property O hereby GRANT(S) to Marsh Development Company, Inc., a California corporation the following described real property in the County of Orange, State of California: a 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 al before me a Notary Public in and for said County and State, pers0}Q8y ppeared ( °o� /JlEJ09 personpUy.knova> -to me (or proved to moon the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(sWare subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me thatUWWWAhey executed the same in hisAwrdheir authorized capacity(es) and that by hielparttheir signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s), acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my nd and offs al al. Signature �� l�G Signature tary Commission Expiration Date: Edward A. Foster .0 r 1W*J ✓ Helen L. Foster Cerrintlobn 1 108023 "may Able - Coeorrio OKKW Caurlly 10INVOtewn. Eq*ft Met It. 2OD7 (This area for official notarial seal) MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO: Marsh Pgyploument Company, Inc., 400 Westchester Place . Fullerton. CA 92835 � ' MISIT "A" 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 21P 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 feet; 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 tt% 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 paint 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. The Southeasterly line of said Parcel i 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.OD feet of Parcel No. 1 of Resubdivision No. 2 of the City of Newport Beach recorded December 14, 1954 in book 2896, page 420 of Official Records of said Orange County. Z! t)o Government Code 27361.7 f certify under penalty that the Notary Seal on the document to which this statement is attached, reads as follows: Name of Notary: COOL Lff W Dmr Date Commission Expires IWO A Zao7 County where bond is fded: '(fiE Commission Number: /� /V501 k t1"3 Vendor Number: tV ' I certify under penalty ofperjury 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 of Execution. Irvine California Date: 12` 4-9 Signature: �� �✓ r' `Personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her /their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her /their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument T /COR 777Z V- AW41,W APWell RECORDATION REDUESTED BY: LA JOLLA BANK, FSB 390 WEST VALLEY PARKWAY ESCONDIDO, CA 92026 Recorded In Official Records, Orange County Tom Daly, Clerk - Recorder 11111111111911!IAllllPl11111511 15,00 2007000123461 02:28pm 02/26/07 10973 M174 0.00 a e0 ADD 0.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LS-Jpv FOR RECORDHt'S USE ONLY MODIFICATION OF DEED OF TRUST THIS MODIFICATION OF DEED OF THUd'T dread February 1, 2007, Is made and executed between MARSH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. INC„ A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, whose address is 400 WESTCHESTER PLACE, FULLERTON, CA 92836 I'Tnretor') and LA JOWL BANK. FSB, whose address Is 390 WEST VALLEY PARKWAY, ESCONDIDO, CA 92025 ('Lender'). DEED OF TRUST. Lender and Truster have entered into a Dead of Trust dated February 8, 2005 (the "Deed of Trust -) which has been resettled in ORANGE County. State of Califomia. as follows: RECORDED FEBRUARY 14, 2005. IN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS DOCUMENT 2005000114686. REAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION. The Deed of Trust covers the following described real property located in ORANGE County, State of California: .� SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF s The Real Property or its address is commonly known as 2340 AND 2360 BAYSIDE DRIVE, CORONA DEL V MAR, CA 92626. MODIFICATION. Lender and Truster hereby modify the Deed of Trust as follows: THE NOTE TERMS ARE HEREBY MODIFIED AS FOLLOWS: THE ORIGINAL LOAN COMMITMENT O AMOUNT IS INCREASED TO $4,507,000.00, AND THE MATURITY DATE IS EXTENDED TO SEPTEMBER (� 1. 2007; ALL OTHER TERMS TO REMAIN THE SAME. CONTINUING VALIDITY. Except as expressly modified above, the terms of the original Deed of Trust shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. Consent by Lender to this Modification does not waive Lender's right to require strict performance of the Deed of Trust as changed above nor obligate Lender to make any future modifications. Nothing in this Modification shall constitute a satisfaction of the promissory note or other credit agreement secured by the Deed of Trust (the 'Note"). It is the intention of Lender to retain as liable all panics to the Deed of Trust and all parties, makers and endorsers to the Note, including accommodation parties. unless a party is expressly released by Lender in writing. Any maker or endorser, Including accommodation makers, shall not be released by virtue of this Modification. If any person who signed the original Dead of Trust does not sign this Modification, then all persona signing below acknowledge that this Modification Is given conditionally, based on the representation to Lender that the ne"igning person consents to the changes and provisions of this Modification or otherwise will not be released by it. This waiver applies not only to any initial extension or modification, but also to all such subsequent actions. TRUSTOR ACKNOWLEDGES HAVING READ ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THIS MODIFICATION OF DEED OF TRUST AND TRUSTOR AGREES TO ITS TERMS. THIS MODIFICATION OF DEED OF TRUST IS DATED FEBRUARY 1. 2007. TRUSTOR: MARSH DEVE }OPMENT 77Y, INC. gy; ARrY of — HARRY —G. M RSH, JR., Pr slaont of MARSH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY'1 C. Z 0:. . MODIFICATION OF DEED OF TRUST r ` Loan No: 1041021326 IContinuedl LENDER; LA JOLLA BANK, FSB CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATEOF._ AelF4,0NlF'i • I SS COUNTY OF i1i4wIC 1 Page 2 On 46"7 ,JZ 2,;7- , 200Zbeforeme, GCE_IOKY I�r %��].� �P/fa /�r6C /(_ personalty appeared HARRY C. MARSH, JR., personally known to me for proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the personta' whose namals) subscribed to the Within instrument and ec nowledged to me that 61xheAhay executed the same in t authorized capechyGee)- and that by it signatrreis) on the instrument the person(s)r or the entity upon behalf of which the person(W acted, executed the instrument. GREGORY V. VEIR If CON- 'Nr62e166 W WITNESS my hand and official see]. m *A•tj wcwroDNw ennrst enur+rr N q��/ '/ J nr Lbm+, f'sDimNOV N. N09 Signature „/�X�(JJ /.F—. i (Seal) STATE OF COUNTY OF CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT )SS 1 On 20_ before me, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(e) whose name(s) is /are subscribed to the within Instrument and acknowledged to me that hefsheflhey executed the same in his/her /their authorized capecily(ies), and that by his /nor /their signature(sl on the instrument the person(sl, or the entity upon behalf of which the persons) acted, executed the instrument. WIT NESS my hand and official Soul. Signature (Seel) CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California ss. County of Sh64 b On hQ, LA 2R -Zen} before me, MiS 1., S- l�faJ �C Nn i (i+La, t t�'46 i C , DnM erd TdU Or plkor e.g. ublldl personally appeared G LA 194E Nnb(e)el alpnor(s) � yR Canuntr pn cwam L1% ►bterY ft6110 • t.rferrtitl P/)y Cor� t�ph.� � (personally known to me ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/shehhey executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(les), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. T E.S yItand n fficial s I. t Roca Naary Seal Above Sig an of tbmry Polk OPTIONAL The:rgh the Information below is not required by lam. R may prove valuable to persons retying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document ,l amD AY n Tdle or Type of Document MODrFrcA'trO.J n� D 1AgSA' MA6SH Detl. Co. Document Date: PcirbqAL8r&4_� �?00 Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: = Capaeity(ies) Claimed by Slgner(s) Signer's Name: JR1 n.. razz �, o r2 i� COLE ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer— Title(s): ❑ Partner —❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney in Fact Top of thumb here ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator -4-1- OO +er. Signer Is Representing: �A Zw-LA Q prT`l 2 Signer's Name: ❑ individual • Corporate Officer — Title(s):_ • Partner —❑ Limited ❑ Genera) • Attorney In Fad ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: RIGHT T"PII T 0 or sisucl+ r�K—: Za R3 :YN�o: °eyo"u: ^.eF'"¢t'•J:h"'w ::8!G :: ?]•: ;:.J:• _ ::)i^ a.o > ^x:: - {:.Y<:?3f.;Jy '+s�J >.'i 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 40 000' EAST ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF BEGONIA AVENUE, 20.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 63 052'00° EAST, 103.50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 26 °28' 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 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 9D.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. 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 LAID OUT AND SHOWN ON SAID MAP OF CORONA DEL MAR; THENCE 40 0DO' EAST ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF BEGONIA AVENUE, 20.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 63 052'00" EAST, 103.50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 26 028' 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 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. 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 RESUBDMSION NO. 2 OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECORDED DECEMBER 14, 1954 IN BOOK 2896, PAGE 420 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY. �39 RECORDATION REQUESTED BY: LA JOLLA BANK, FSB 390 WEST VALLEY PARKWAY ESCONDIDO, CA 92025 Recorded In Official Records, Orange County Tom Daly, Clerk-Recorder QtlIIIIIIVI (IIIIPIIIHtlI &I;IflNtlll 21.00 2007000434545 01:55pm 07/11107 119 69 M17 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY / MODIFICATION OF DEED OF TRUST THIS MODIHCAT.ION OF DEED OF TRUST dated July 1, 2007, Is made and executed between MARSH DEVELUPMENT COMPANY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORAnOHr Whose address Is 400 WESTCHESTER PLACE, FULLERTON, CA 928:15 ('Truster') and LA JOLLA BANK, FEB, whose address Is 390 WEST VALLEY PARKWAY, ESCONDIDO, CA 92026 ('Lender`). GEED OF TRUST. Lender and Trustor have entered Into a Deed of Trust dated February 8, 2005 (the 'Deed of Trust') which has been recorded In ORANGE County, State of California, as follows: RECORDED FEBRUARY 14, 2005, IN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 2006000114586 AND A MODIFICATION OF DEED OF TRUST RECORDED FEBRUARY 2Tn 2007, IN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 2007000123461. REAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION. The Deed of Trust covers the following descrlbed real property located In ORANGE County, Slate of Cardomia: SEE EXHIBIT'A' ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF The Real Property or its address is commonly known as 2340 AND 2360 BAYSIDE DRIVE, CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625. MODIFICATION. Lender and'Frustor hereby modify the Deed of Trust as follows: `\ THE NOTE TERMS ARE HEREBY MODIFIED AS FOLLOWS: THE ORIGINAL LOAN COMMITMENT IS INCREASED TO $4,820,000.00, AND THE. MATURITY DATE IS EXTENDED TO MARCH 1, 2008. THE FLOOR RATE IS 8.250% AND THE CEILING RATE IS 18.001%. THE RATE IS CALCULATED AT PRIME PLUS ZERO MARGIN; ALL OTHER TERMS TO REMAIN THE SAME.. CONTINUING VALIDITY. Except as expressly modified above, the terms of the original Deed of Trust shall remaln - unchanged and in fug torte and effect. Consent by Lender to this Mocilficatlon does not valve Lenders right to require shirt pedorrnance of the Deed of Trust as changed above nor obligate Lender to make any future modifications. Nothing in this Modification shall constitute a satisfaction of the promissory note or other credit agreement secured by the Dead of Trust (the'Nate'). It fs the intomion of Lender to retain as liable all parties to the Deed of Trust and all parties, makers and endorsers to the Note, including accommodation parties, unless a party is expressly released by Lender in willing. Any maker or endorser, including acmmmodatam makers, shall not be released by virtue of this Medil'cation. If any person who signed the original Deed of Trust does not sign this Modification, then all persons signing below acknowledge that this Modification Is gNen ccndi ionatly, based on the representation to Lender that the non -sli ffang person consents to the changes and provisions of this Modification or otherwise will not be released by it. This walver applies not only to any Infilal extension or modification, but also to all such subsequent actkxhs. TRUSTOR ACKNOWLEDGES HAVING READ ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THIS MODIFICATION OF DEED OF TRUST AND TRUSTOR AGREES TO ITS TERMS. THIS MODIFICATION OF DEED OF TRUST IS DATED JULY 1, 2007. TRUSTOR: MARSH DEV OPMENT O PANY, INC. By: t H Y ARSH, R,', nidenl f MA DEVELOPMENT MPA Y INC. �°°y MODIFFCATION OF DEED OF TRUST Loan No: 1641021326 (Continued) Page 2 LENOER: LA JOLLA BANK, FSB CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF 09 /r k )SS COUNTY OF ONM ].P ) Ona 20� before me, ��L parse apl red HARRY C. MARSN, Jn„ personaly known tome (or pmvetl to on m is of satisfactory evid ca) to be the personA whose aW Subscribed to the within Instrument actOwwtedged to me thakeAhs9 executed me same in h aumorized cepecky()as�, emi that by �jignatunl(s'�on thehistrumem me person, or me onlay upon tsehelf of which fie pelson(ejacted, execu ed rho instrument. M'ftI RAF N onc°sZ,,,51def0 WITNESS my hand and official seat. ) a °'�"" Won„aom bganr Signature CERTIFICATE STATE OF COUNTY OF ) SS (Seat) On 20 belom me, personally appeared personalty known 10 me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(S) whose name(s). Islam subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that helahalthey executed the same in h)slherllmlr authorized capachy(iss), and that by hislher/their signatures) on the inshumonl the person(s), or the entity upon behalf Of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and offl fal sea). (Seel) ... ,: \i.:N.).._J.i:. 1 ..? - i....:. }._ ' :4' -,.. y.. .. : -•1 }a. ..:. 'J.:% .-._O.[. State of California as. County of On 1dlt'M before me, personally appeared 13: DII1 C�aafIMll0a11�ItN son am" CWA* MYCeutn, e"ft c9. rlam NMey Sml PbWb Though the inlormt6on andcourdor W6pemonally (mown to me ❑ proved to the on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) istare subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he /she/they executed the same in his/her /their authorized capacily(ies), and that by his/tter/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the Instrument. official seat. rpnmt,e a tmmy Pm valuabre to persons MMrig on the document of this form to anolrwr document Description of Attached Document MAO AO �l 1, ,r ,\ „ �d / Title or Type of Document: �/y jw]j J� �, �`,(�f [ Document Date \( III i 1 dra) 1 Number at Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(fes) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: • Individual • Corporate Officer —Title(s): • Partner — ❑.Umited ❑General ❑ Attorney in Fact reowaMnwwtmr, ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: Signer's Name: ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer — Titie(s): _ ❑ Partner— ❑ Limited ❑ General O Attorney in Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator O Other: Signer is Relenting: n:GH'r ;r:ULtet +HtHT nF:a�SpiH U «ni:Rq'32:'a%:pYiu$i:3 "••n"nr,'' ✓'S�` • "• ""'R "rw.15ri aw•JtGot:N+.- gtC4a' :,' FJYt, �i .>:rs'<.?3rF;C +••.'Yle %E('arr -. y„i::•:<�i "':i!$e; narcCt'nv •v+A 4,_0 y� T 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. COUN Y, 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' MAPI OF CORONA DEL MAR; THENCE 40900' .EAST ALONG' SAID, SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OFTHE NORTHWESTERLY. LINE OFBEGONIA AVENUE, 20.00 FEET:; THENCE SOUTH. 63 052'00" EAST', 103.50 FEET, THENCE -SOUTH 26 °28' 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 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 NORTHEASTERLYALON.G THE SAIp'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 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 AVENUEJORMERLY 29TH AVENUE, AS SAID BEGONIA AVENUE IS LAID OUT AND SHOWN ON SAID MAP OF CORONA DEL MAR,, THENCE 40 000' 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) $1.05 FEET, AS MEASURER IN THE FIELD, TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH AND HAVING A RADIUS OF .75.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE (.153.57- FEET) 146.2$ 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 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 SOUTHEAS'T'ERLY 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 2896, PAGE 420 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY. 1j STATE OF CALIFORNIA— HUSINESS.'I'RANSPORTATION AND HOUSING A , j'QV ARNOLD SCI 1 WARZEIFGGFR Gawmo DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 12 RECEIVED BY 3337 Michelson Drive, Suite 380 0 Irvine, CA 92612 -8894 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 'rel: (949) 724.2267 rlex }aur prover! Fax: (949) 724 -2592 OCT 09 2009 de energye cicnl! 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 1.ti. 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. SincyeI-�r,,) ristopher ene, Branch Chief Local Development/Intergovernmental Review C: Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research "Callrmrs improves mobdi4, across Cal/farnia" 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 �9 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. View from Begonia Park's lower bench taken by Clayton Gorrie March 31, 2009 the day the overgrown foliage was removed by the Newport Beach Park Dept.. 2 2-2, /� j City Exhibit 4.3 -1 (lower half) 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. 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. el Clayt Gorrie 426 egonia Ave., �CoronaDcl Mar, CA 92625 949 - 675 -8007 gorrieckg @aol.com 2. /� 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 Dear Planning 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 Pack Avenue and the City 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 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 constitute a significant Public nuisance. Thanks, 7�" 8r �aud4ae Su"cz V(949) 872 - 8322 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. NewnartBeach CA g26B. _e..— - ._.,—._, -. RE: Megonigal Residence DEIR/Public View 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 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 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. 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, W” 4§ '�Ujmve Sam" V(949) 872 - 8322 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 8 2009 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Z b Mark & Kristine Simon 2420 First Avenue, Corona del Mar, CA 92625RECEIVEDBY 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 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, 'p444 & i�U4 " S"U" V(949) 872 - 8322 Mark & Kristine Simon 2420 First Avenue, Corona del Mar, CA 92625 October 5, 2009 RECEIVED BY 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 Pack 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 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 Public View Corridor.. Thanks, Xe & i�Ud me sift " V(949) 872 - 8322 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 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 07 2009 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RE: Megonigal 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. Records 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. Please deny any application for variance that would significantly impact such a known archeologically significant site. Thanks, Xilt4 & Zud4ae Swt m V(949) 872 - 8322 Z/1 Mark & Kristine Simon 2420 First Avenue, Corona del Mar, CA 92625 October 5, 2009 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 07 2009 All Planning Commissioners & All City Council Members City of Newport Beach CITY OF 3300 Newport Blvd. NEWPORT BEACH. Newport Beach, CA 92663 r RE: Megonigal Residence DEIR /Geological Stability 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 geological stability of the subject hillside The City maintained a Public Staircase at the subject location for many years and 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, 7&444! & xV44V a SM" V(949) 872 - 8322 Z:�C) Mark & Kristine Simon 2420 First Avenue, Corona del Mar, CA 92625 October 5, 2009 All Planning Commissioners City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 & All City Council Members RE: Megonigal Residence DEIR /Street SetBack Dear Planning Commissioners and Council People, RECENRD By PLANNING VEPARTMENT OCT 07 2009 CYTY 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, 7�2anl¢ da scmm V(949) 872 - 8322 Z Z f r� Mark & Kristine Simon 2420 First Avenue, Corona del Mar, CA 9WE[VEDBY October 5, 2009 PLANNING 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 /Diminution 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 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 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, 7;¢ & znc¢trase 54u" V(949) 872 - 8322 Mark & Kristine Simon 2420 First Avenue, Corona del Mar, CA 92625RECEraD.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/Lotand Public View History, Dear Planning Commissioners and Council People, PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 07 2009 Crry OF NEWPORT BEACH 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 City's own Public Records show that a previous owner was denied the right 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 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, V444 &zs V(949) 872 - 8322 ,C 3 COUNCILMEN MINUTES I'LIL 1141101,119 :O LL y�N June 26, 1978 INDEX Item 97 on the Proposition 13 reduction list for the General Services Department wan considered, lotion x and Councilman McInnis made a motion to restore twice -a -week trash collection and the Saturday _ business collection ($347,983). lotion _ x Councilman Hart made a substitute motion to Lyes x restore twice -a- week "trash - pick -up -in .the.beach lees x x x x x areas - West Newport to the peninsula and Balboa " absent x Island, which motion failed. Lyes x x x A vote was taken on Councilman McInnis! motion, Ices x x x which motion failed. \bsent x , lotion x Mayor Ryckoff made a motion to approve the appropriation of $161,102 to be held in reserve to provide for self- ineured retention of $500,000, . insuring the City against public liability up to $5,000,000. lotion x Councilman Heather made a substitute motion to ' iyes x x x appropriate an additional $20,000 for a liability Voss x x x insurance package up to $10,000,000, which" Absent x motion failed. Ayes x x x x x x A vote was taken on Mayor Ryckoff's main motion, Absent x which motion-Catried. .lotion o x Item 39 on the Proposition 13 reduction list for °�[lon Im x x x x the Police Department School Crossing Gusrds ow x x ($12,000), was restored. Weent x Motion x Resolution No. 9381, extending the terms and R -9381 Ayes x x x x x conditions of the Compensation Plan and Table of Noes x Authorization of Permanent Employee Classes for Absent x Fiscal Year 1977 -78 as amended; was adopted. Hotion x Resolution No. 9382, adopting the Budget for the R -9382 Ayes x x x x x 1978 -79 Fiscal Year, was adopted. Noes x Absent x ' 6. Mayor Ayckoff opened: .-the continued public heaving Griswold on tbe.:appeal of Mt. and Mre'..DouaA G. Griswold Appeal from the .decision of the Planning .Commission. (2924) denying Variance No. 1066; a request to permit construction of a single - family dwelling that exceeds.the .height limit in the 24 /28.Poot Height Limitation District, with encroachment.. into tequired•front yard•netback on property at 2333 Pacific Drive, on the southerly side of Pacific Drive, adjacent to. Begonia Patk:in " Corona del.Mat; zoned.R -1. ' A report was presented from the Community • Development-Department.. Volume 32 - Page 153 ' COUNCILMEN JIL ?LL 9���F� sy�� .Tune 26, 1978 INDEX Gordon Glass, architect representing Hr. and Mrs, Griswold, addressed the Council and .stated they would like to have an opportunity to reassess their plane since the Council decided not to purchase their property, and asked the Council to deny the appeal without prejudice so they - can go back to the Planning Commission and start over. - Motion x The hearing was closed after it was determined Ayes x x x x x x that no one else desired to be heard.. Absent x , Motion x The appeal of Mr. and Mrs. Donald G. Griswold Ayes x x x x x x from the decision of the Planning Commission Absent x denying Variance No. 1066 was denied without prejudice. Motion x Councilman Heather made a motion to waive the Ayes x x x 'second filing fee for the Griswold's, which Noes x x x motion failed. Absent x 7. Mayor Ryckoff opened the public hearing in Weed connection with the Spring, 1978 Weed Abatement Abatement Program in compliance with Resolution No. 9327.(150F) A report was presented from the Fire Department. Susie Picker addressed the Council regarding the weed problem on the peninsula. Inspector Haskell of the Fire Department gave a - brief staff report. Motion x The hearing was closed after it was determined Ayes x x x x 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 cost of the abatement of weeds and other nuisances and - requesting the.Auditor- Controller of Orange Motion x County to enter the amount of each assessment Ayes x x x x x x referred to in said report on the County tax Absent x rolls, was =adopted: ORDINANCES FOR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION! 1. Ordinance No. 1110, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY. OF NEWPORT BEACH Hotel ADDING CHAPTER 10.45 ENTITLED "HOTEL - Loitering LOITERING" TO TITLE 10 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH 0 -1770 MUNICIPAL CODE, (2983) was presented for second reading. *on x Ordinance No. 1770 was adopted. Ayes x x x x x x Absent x - Volume,32 - Page 154. COUNCILMEN MINUTES S �i P,t S' NAY'(• '�i9l�S. �.vZ an) i Cal� 9N,n'iFp NN �N June 12, 1978 INDEX �� r 5. Mayor Hyckoff opened the public hearing regarding the Pteliminary Budget no prepared.by the City Budget 1978 -79 Manager for the Fiscal year 1978 -79, pursuonl to (2914) Section 1102 of the Newport Beach City Charter. A report woo 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. Roussclot was presented opposing any reduction in paramedic personnel. Motion x .I The hearing was continued to Ftiday. June 16 at _ Ayes x x x x x x x 6:30 p.m. 6._ Mayor Ryckoff opened the continued public hearing Griswold on the appeal of Mr, and Mrs. Donald G. Griswold Appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission (2 97.h denying Variance No. 1066, a request to permit construction of a single - family dwelling that exceeds the height limit in the 24128 Foot Height Limitation District, with encroachment into required front yard setbaek on property at 2333 Pacific Drive, on the southerly aide of Pacific Drive, adjacent to Begonia, Pork in Coteau del Mar, zoned R -1. A report woo presented frt,m she Community Develop- ment Deparjmient. i Gordan Class, archicvcc rrpresenting Mr. and Mrs. Griswold, stated that the appellants were willing I to continue the hearing. Motion x The hearing was continued to June 26. Ayes x x x x x Y. x ORDINANCES FOR SECOND READING 1,M) ADOPTION: 1. Ordinance No. 1766, being, ' A" ORDINANCE OF THE I:I.TY OF NEWPORT BEACH Harbor . AMENDING SECTION 17.41.040'0£ THE NEWPORT Regs BEACH MUNICIPAL CODs RELATING TO FEES FOR 0 -1766 PERMITS FOR COMIERCIAL ACTIVITIES ON THE (306) WATERS OF NEWPORT HARBOR, was presented for second rending, Motion xl Ordinance No. 1766 was adopted. Ayes x x x xlx x x 2. Ordinance No. 1767, being. Res Bldg Records l AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 0 -1767 II AMENDING SECTION 15, 35.040 OF THE NEWPORT (819) ! I Volume 32 ._ page 130 �� r GI I 1 Vr .vim.., _._... COUNCILMEN MINUTES v �ri'Qi fc 4n \9o\s Vyie \'�\�� }1 y� vol,ruwry 27. 3.978 rtULI LNLL - on Ix Mayor Pro Tom Barrett made a matlan to approve the plena and epecificaciane� subject to modifies - aiong'that may be madee by rho Public Works Department{ and to authorise the City Clerk to ! advertise for bide to be opened at 10:00 a.m. on April 3, 1978. I Notion x Councilman Ryckoff made a suhatitute motion to _.Ayes x approve the plans and 6peW.flcations, subject to Naee x x x x x' x modifications that my be ,mde by the Public ' Works Department, and to sathorizt the City Clerk to advertise for bids to be opened at 10:00 a.m. on May 2 with a 4'i -day award period, to accommodate the Jarvls /Gann initiative, which ma tion failed to carry. Ayes x i x x IIIIx e A vote was taken on Mayor ].ra Tem Barrette I Nose Y. motion, which nation carriad. CURRENT BUSINESS: j I 1. A-raporc was presented from she Cuurnuvicy ! Begm,ie Development Department regardinG the Planning I Park j Commission recommendation roucernlmg the acqufsi- j (1440) cion of property located a: 2333 Pecifia Drive, ' Corona del Mar, on the southerly aide of Pacific Drive, adjacent to Begonia Park; zoned R -1, 'after denying Variance No. 1066 of Mr. and Mrs. I) Donald G. Griswold to exceed the permitted' height limit for a proposed single- family dwelling to be constructed on the site. Gordon Class, architect for the Griawolda, addressed the Council regarding their requeeY for a variance In connection with proposed development on the property. Paul Hummel addressed the Council oppgeing the proposed acquisition. Motion x A decision regarding the possible acquisition of 'Ayes x x x x xlx x the property was delayed pending review of the 1978 -79 Plecal,Year Budget, and the staff was directed to come back with nn estimated value of the property. , 2. A report ums presented from the Marine Department Harbor regarding an application by the Harbor Island Island ' Association to construct a raised protective Bridge railing on the Harbor Island Bridge. .(2874) Sohn Porter, President, and John•Macnab, a .Director of the Harbor Ie;laad Community Associa, rice, addressed the Councs.l and urged approval i of the application. ion Ix The application for the cunntiuction uE a 3 i x x x Ix x raflin; on the Harbor Iel,nd Bridge was nppr.ved. iVolume 32.. - :?age 41. : 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 be 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, l� Dr. Robert and Gai Fabricant Robert I. Fabricant 2315 Pacific Drive and 605 Begonia Corona del Mar CA 92625 Z L— U _ Cen, eth Jaggeras 516 Begonia Avenue Corona del Mar, CA 92625 (949) 673 -8992 October 5, 2009 Mr. James Campbell Principal Planner Newport Beach Planning Dept. 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 5 Z009 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 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. 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 (CEQA) 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 Pacific 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 rz-q 1 October 6, 2009 James Campbell Newport Beach Planning Dept, 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 072009 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 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 by 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 and I would add that a good amount of them will have to be severed d}ring construction. Hence,4e 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. GLENN A. SOUERS LUCY SOUERS GAS /la Z3L> Marilyn L Beck 303 Carnation Avenue Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 October 6, 2009 James Campbell, Principal Planner Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevan9 Newport Beach, CA 92658 RE: DEIR Megonigal Property Dear Mr. Campbell: RECEIVED DY PLANNING DEPIRTMV4T OCT 0 6 2009 CITY OF NEWPORT BEAC H 1 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 makes our neighborhood so special. This is notjust about property value, it is about the ambiance and quality of our town. Please protect this valuable asset for all. Thank you. Sincerely, ad Beck Cc: Planning Commission City Council NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The City of Newport Beach has completed the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) 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: odifica ion Permit (MD2007 -080) 0 The project applic is Kim and Caroline Megoniga are proposing to construction asingle- family residence on the subject property. T e app scant 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 the three levels is provided. The front and rear elevations are illustrated in Exhibits 1 3 -7 and 3 -8, respectively. The applicant is requesting approval of odtficatton Peanut o. 7 -080 to allow planter wa s to ex ee t e three -foot height limit requirement in the front yard setback. In addition, because the proposed planter walls and water feature would also encroach into the Begonia .,Avenue riglit -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 public ri ht -of -wa consisting of enhanced avin for n edestnan d v lar acce s from Pacific Drive. Last y, grading of approximate y 630 cubic yards of export, n` V landscaping, and utility connections necessary for construction of the proposed.iesidence are also included. 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 FIR would be required to more fully evaluate potential adverse environmental impacts that may result from development of the project. All 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 dos• mentation. 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 U 1000 Avocado Avenue Newport Beach,'Califomi�92658 -8915 W Newport Beach, CA 92625 Balboa Branch a�1 a o°' H Corona del Mar Branch 100 East Balboa Bo u vai l ° 420 Marigold Avenue Newport Beach, C. 'k cc Corona del Mar, CA 92625 o U Mariners Branch C_) � y 1300 Irvine Ave. 9 ° W W Newport Beach, CA 9261 ice( -C� 7i� a � y CJ The DEIR is available at the City's website http: / /www.newportbeachca.gov /planning. Comment's on the adequacy of the DEIR will be accepted by the City between August 24, 2009 and October 8, 2009. Comments on the Draft FIR 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. °9 James Campbell, Principal Planner To: James Campbell From: Friends of Begonia Park CC: Newport Beach Planning Commission, City Council Subject: DEIR for Megonigal Residence Dear Mr. Campbell, PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 7 2009 MY OF NEWPORT BEACH 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 1.1 in a significant manner. This particular property above all others satisfies and provides the preservation 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 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 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 the City regards as important visual and landform 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. This 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 parkibeach 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 part of the park. The aerial photograph in the report (exhibit 3- 3) clearly demonstrates that this property is an integral part of the park. 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 42,143 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 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. 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 Project/No 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 '13. f Campbell, James From: Julie Sherwin Qulie @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 As a proud and fortunate resident of the Corona del Mar, I first want to thank you for your efforts to protect our 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 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 -a &d programs Corporate Business Interiors www.cbihq.com 19000 MacArthur Blvd, Ste 500 Irvine, California 92612 c 949.230.8086 0 949 225 -3900 F 949.225.3908 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 7 2009 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NOTICE: This e -mail (including any attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 225104521, 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 consider the environment before printing this email. ZSS- 0(+tor RECENED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 082009 An ?) ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH M-I0VM, : 93r,0 Ba�sf'dLbrf vle- ih Cdrowadel a� 6 - ��� was' yv� c+ brw kffiv a4fe�- ion -(c (� ►�`-) ahaJ (- ova a �po proW Pre cf ajj 2 3 3 b(iVLACICL. d�rec,+l b rde� 1� --� o�� ��,- t'esr -f s wVo� j�► -oar -� `QgoVlf(r�l— IS�d�qd �e jDV is ParLj') Vx s4y -6n8l Y- 5upp�y* Vel�icv�� h ce - D r�wta, n a� (sac+c 1Jr►ve_ . ( - Qardh Io. 3.2 3 cf f Pub(► VVorLs bepr-&vlf pvr&VP� to. S. 3.) -"&k ve, 6cces5 vvoiId [Y- -po4 i a I I � l�dz&rdaS (e uoj -�_ narrow avid curV111 be vi ,�, � ,� � � . � ►�eloco-h- K(r ptz?cf access s �r; �- IDeC v �-s 4rf w�v� -l� 1 I w� �n � uq I � de Pac�- -Phis S► II a()L J rdvide.s l rw hborhoDd wila LNvt I es�ca M�4� -fD wc.Q.k_.4e irdo S. aI L�j G c,/t- ba �e e.I(Nlc� JdsL .In C�CVl2� Vie- �?ig�eT�)ao�1s wt l covo fvi I gw-h,r . woj[J bp, V �,fpprecj & r2G V�vc all 4cari vt�. p!A Srpt2� -1)r Coro �a ( War, (,A 8262- �MJbUC-KFAA (� cw L. coven S -bole m. 0 of fes d� oL- Is i� ror of w a T env (� p(,.e_ �efe�e�rces " �a View brivL" s � Vqa- Lepo, David From: KateKearns @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; scott.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 vis as 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 Points! In those areas, residences were allowed, but were required to preserve the view, building below street level. It has been suggested that the Megonigars 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 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 082009 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 38 James Campbell Newport Beach Planning Commission, City Council Response to Megonigal DEIR Report Dear Mr. Campbell, PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCT 0 82069 CITY 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 3151, 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 Califonria State law. Anyone who has sat at the lower park bench since March 3151, 2009, would attest that the proposed project would significantly reduce the public ocean and harbor views from that part of the park (by around 50 %), 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 ,.J� conclusions. Surely, losing nearly 50% of the ocean view from the lower park, and demolishing 100% of the costal bluff would qualify trader 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 l�J RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Newport Beach Planning Department OCT 0 8 2009 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Attn: James Campbell, Principal Planner CITY 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 corner 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 corner 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 corner 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 the same setback; this would improve the public view from Begonia Park and Begonia Avenue. 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 EK plans for the house now contain only one story at street level. The 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. Barbara Dawkins