Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
14 - Echo Beach Project Appeal
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Staff Report June 10, 2014 Agenda Item No. 14. TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director— (949) 644-3226, kbrandt@newportbeachca.gov PREPARED BY: Jaime Murillo, AICP, Senior Planner PHONE: (949) 644-3209 TITLE: Appeal of the Planning Commission's Finding of Substantial Conformance for the Echo Beach Project (Formerly Seashore Village) Located at 5515 River Avenue (PA2014-005) ABSTRACT: An appeal of the Planning Commission's April 3, 2014, decision finding that the modified plans for the Echo Beach (formerly Seashore Village) project are in substantial conformance with the project approved by Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007-001 (County Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 17194), Modification Permit No. MD2007-044, Use Permit No. UP2007-011 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2007-001. RECOMMENDATION: a) Conduct a de novo public hearing; and b) Adopt Resolution No. 2014-51 (Staff Report Attachment No. CC1), A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach Upholding the Decision of the Planning Commission and Finding the Modified Plans to be in Substantial Conformance with the Design Approved by Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007-001 (County Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 17194), Modification Permit No. MD2007-044, Use Permit No. UP2007-011, Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2007-001, and find that the environmental analysis of the modified plans is included in the Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH2O08021075) and the Addendum is consistent with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, for the Echo Beach Project located at 5515 River Avenue (Formerly Seashore Village). FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: There is no fiscal impact related to this item. 258 DISCUSSION: Project History On April 17, 2008, the Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and approved the Seashore Village (now called Echo Beach) project, a residential condominium development on a 1.49 -acre site located at 5515 River Avenue. The original project consisted of the construction of 12 detached, single -unit residential structures and 6 detached, two -unit (duplex) residential structures, for a total of 24 units. A copy of the approved project plans are included as Attachment No. CC2. The site is currently developed with a 54 - unit apartment complex that would be demolished to accommodate the proposed development. The 2008 project approvals included the following: • A tentative tract map to create a 24 -unit condominium subdivision; • A modification permit to allow encroachments into the required front and side yard setback areas and a reduction in the required distance between detached buildings; • A use permit to allow the 6 duplex structures to exceed the City's base height limit; and • A coastal residential development permit (CRDP) to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65590 et seq. (Mello Act), which regulates the conversion and/or demolition of low and moderate income (affordable) dwelling units in the coastal zone. The attached March 20, 2008 and April 17, 2008 Planning Commission staff reports include a detailed discussion and analysis of the original project approvals (Attachment Nos. CC3 & CC4). Lennie DeCaro appealed the Planning Commission's approval to the City Council, who on June 10, 2008, unanimously voted to uphold the Planning Commission's decision and approve the project applications. The June 10, 2008, City Council staff report is included as Attachment No. CC5 and includes a detailed discussion related to the issues raised in the 2008 appeal. City Council Resolution No. 2008-53, which includes the final findings and conditions of approval, is included as Attachment No. CC6. On October 16, 2008, Coastal Development Permit No. 5-08-154 was approved by the California Coastal Commission, which also established the effective date of the City approvals. The project approvals will expire October 16, 2016, based on automatic extensions pursuant to State law. Current Request- Proposed Modifications The applicant has purchased the property from the previous owner/developer and is proposing modifications to the project to: 1) reconfigure the site plan and landscape plan; 2) eliminate the duplex product type; and 3) change the floor plans and architecture to a contemporary design. The applicant requests a determination that the proposed modifications consist of minor changes and are within substantial conformance with the 2008 approval. The proposed modified plans are included as Attachment No. CC7. The attached April 3, 2014, Planning Commission staff report includes a detailed discussion comparing the approved plans and the modified plans, and an analysis of the substantial conformance determination (Attachment No. CC8). Planning Commission Hearing and Decision 259 On April 3, 2014, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and reviewed the applicant's request. Seven members of the public spoke in support of the project and two members spoke in opposition. Those in support favored the redevelopment of the apartment complex with detached condominium units, including the modified site plan and modern architectural design. The members in opposition, including the appellant, Lennie DeCaro, generally commented that the proposed changes were too significant and that the modified plans warrant new entitlement permits and new environmental review. After considering the testimony received and extensive discussion regarding the project, the Planning Commission determined that the proposed revisions were minor and that there were sufficient facts to support the required findings. The Commission voted unanimously finding the modified project to be in substantial conformance with the approved project and that the environmental analysis of the modified plans is included in the Adopted Mitigated Declaration and the Addendum is consistent with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The meeting minutes from the Planning Commission hearing have been included for reference as Attachment CC9. Appeal of Planning Commission Decision On February 17, 2014, Ms. Lennie DeCaro filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. The appellant, an adjacent property owner, cites similar objections raised at the April 3, 2014, Planning Commission meeting. The appellant's appeal application (Attachment CC 10) includes a 10 -page letter and the six-page letter previously submitted to the Planning Commission. The appellant requests that the City Council reverse the Planning Commission's action. Chapter 20.64 of the Municipal Code establishes the procedures for the appeal process. Pursuant to Section 20.64.030 (Filing and Processing of Appeals), a review of an appeal from a decision by the Planning Commission shall be de novo, meaning the review is starting over. The review authority for the appeal, in this case the City Council, is not bound by the decision that has been appealed or limited to the issues raised on appeal. For City Council's consideration, staff has coded the appellant's letters and provided written responses to each comment. The responses are included as Attachment No. CCI 1. Summary Staff recommends the Council uphold the Planning Commission's determination of substantial conformance and believes the revised site plan is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposed 24 -unit detached condominium development continues to be consistent with the permitted land uses identified in the Multiple Unit Residential Zoning Districts and below the maximum allowed density and development limit. The elimination of the duplex product type and changes to the site plan do not affect the approval of the 24 condominiums authorized under Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007-001. The modified project design maintains the same minimum setbacks as previously approved under Modification Permit No. MD2007-044 and minimum building separation of six feet between units. Use Permit No. UP2007-011 is no longer applicable as the project now complies with the 33 -foot height limit for sloping roofs with a minimum 3:12 pitch authorized under the current Zoning Code. The applicant is committed to implementing Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2007-001 and will provide the replacement of six dwelling units affordable to low- and/or moderate -income tenants. Lastly, the modified plan demonstrates the ability to comply with all required conditions of approval, 260 and said conditions will continue to be required through project implementation. Alternatives Should the City Council conclude that the modified design is not in substantial conformance with previously approved plan, the Council may deny the request and reverse the April 3, 2014, decision of the Planning Commission (Attachment No. CC12- Resolution of Denial), and require the applicant to file a new permit application in order to proceed with the modified project. In the alternative, the City Council could continue the item to a future date and direct the applicant to make specific revisions. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The environmental impacts of the approved project were analyzed under the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that was adopted for the project by the City Council on June 10, 2008 (State Clearing House No. SCH2O08021075). An Addendum to the Adopted MND has been prepared, in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3, to evaluate the potential differences between the impacts of the proposed project changes and any changes to the existing conditions that have occurred since the MND was adopted. The Addendum is included as Attachment No. CC 13. The CEQA Guidelines allow for the use of a previously adopted MND for projects in cases where minor technical changes or additions to the previous adopted MND are necessary, but there are no new or substantially greater potentially significant impacts. The Addendum concludes that the impacts from the modified project would be similar to those analyzed under the Adopted MND and that no changes or new significant information would change the conclusions of the Adopted MND or result in additional mitigation measures. Copies of the Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration, Response to Comments, the Addendum, and supporting documents are available for review online at: www.newportbeachca.gov/ceqadocuments. NOTICING: Notice of this review was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights-of-way and waterways) including the applicant and appellant, and posted on the subject property at least 10 days before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. ATTACHMENTS: Description CC 1 Resolution of Approval CC 2 2008 Approved Plans (Seashore Village) CC 3 March 20 2008 Planning Commission Staff Report CC 4 April 17 2008 Planning Commission Staff Report CC 5 June 10 2008 City Council Staff Report CC 6 City Council Resolution No 2008-53 Findings and Conditions 261 CC 7 Proposed Modified Plans (Echo Beach) CC 8 And 3 2014 Planning Commission Staff Report CC 9 April 3 2014 Planning Commission Minutes CC 10 Appellant's Comment (Coded) CC 11 Resoonse to Appeal Comments CC 12 Draft Resolution of Denial CC 13 Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 262 Attachment No. CC 1 Resolution of Approval 263 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND FINDING MODIFIED PLANS TO BE IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE DESIGN APPROVED BY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. NT2007-001 (COUNTY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. TTM 17194), MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. MD2007-044, USE PERMIT NO. UP2007-011 AND COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. CR2007-001 FOR THE ECHO PROJECT LOCATED AT 5515 RIVER AVENUE BEACH (FORMERLY SEASHORE VILLAGE) (PA2014-005) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: 61x0910101 SE&9rTA 1r:1Jd:4.rr0MWIT 11601 On June 10, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2008-53 approving the Seashore Village project, a 24 residential condominium development located on a 1.49 -acre site at 5515 River Avenue, and legally described as Lot 105 of Tract No. 3812: and 2. The site is currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex that would be demolished to accommodate the proposed development. Project approvals included the following: a. A tentative tract map to create a 24 -unit condominium subdivision; b. A modification permit to allow encroachments into the required front and side yard setback areas and a reduction in the required distance between detached buildings; c. A use permit to allow the 6 duplex structures to exceed the City's base height limit; and d. A coastal residential development permit (CRDP) to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65590 et seq. (Mello Act), which regulates the conversion and/or demolition of low and moderate income (affordable) dwelling units in the coastal zone. 3. The applicant seeks to change the approved Seashore Village project to: 1) reconfigure the site plan and landscape plan; 2) eliminate the duplex product type; and 3) change the floor plans and architecture to a contemporary design. The applicant requests the determination that the proposed modifications consist of minor changes and are within substantial conformance with the 2008 approval; and 264 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 2 of 10 4. The subject property was previously located within the MFR (Multi -Family Residential) Zoning District. The current Zoning Code designates the site RM (Multi -Unit Residential). The General Plan Land Use Element category RM (Multiple -Unit Residential). 5. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is RM -D (Multiple Unit Residential). 6. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on April 3, 2014, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this hearing; and 7. The Planning Commission unanimously voted to adopt Resolution No. 1941 finding that the modified plans are in substantial conformance with the project approved in 2008. 8. On April 17, 2014, Mrs. Lennie DeCaro, an adjacent property owner, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. 9. A public hearing was held by the City Council on June 10, 2014, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this hearing; and SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. No. 2008021075) (Adopted MND) was prepared for the project in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The document was made available for public review and comment during a 30 -day review period beginning on February 20, 2008, and ending on March 20, 2008, and subsequently approved by the City Council on June 10, 2008. 2. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(b), 15164(b), if changes occur to a project or its circumstances, or if new information becomes available after the negative declaration was adopted, an addendum to a negative declaration may be prepared when the City is not required to prepare a subsequent negative declaration or environmental impact report to review the changes or new information. 3. Upon receipt of the application for a substantial conformance determination, the City of Newport Beach prepared an Addendum to the Adopted MND for the project, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. 4. After thoroughly considering the Adopted MND, and the public testimony and written submissions, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the City Council finds the following facts, findings, and reasons to support adopting the Addendum: Tmplt: 11/23/09 265 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 3 of 10 a. The modified project is consistent with and implements the General Plan. b. The Adopted MND reviews the existing conditions of the City and project vicinity; analyzes potential environmental impacts from implementation of the development; and identifies mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts from implementation of the development. C. The modified project does not increase development density or associated impacts beyond the levels considered in the Adopted MND. d. Since the adoption of the MND in 2008, no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MND was adopted for the project. e. Since the adoption of the MND in 2008, no substantial changes to the environmental setting of the project site have occurred. f. Since the adoption of the MND in 2008, no new information of substantial importance has become available that was not known and that could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at that time of adoption. Thus, no new information indicates that: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Adopted MND; (B) Significant effects from the project will be substantially more severe than identified in the Adopted MND; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the City declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the Adopted MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the City declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternative. g. Since no substantial changes to the circumstances or environmental setting have occurred, and since no new information relating to significant effects, mitigation measures, or alternatives has become available, the project does not require additional environmental review, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. h. Based on these findings and the Adopted MND , the City Council has determined that no subsequent MND or environmental impact report is required or appropriate under CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and and thatthe Tmplt: 11/23/09 266 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 4 of 10 Addendum to the Adopted MND satisfies CEQA's environmental review requirements for the modified project because only minor technical changes or additions are necessary. i. The Addendum ws prepared by the City to evaluate whether the modified project would cause any new or potentially more severe significant adverse effects on the environment, specifically analyzed, in addition to several other potential impacts, potential impacts related to aesthetics and climate change. j. Based on the facts and analysis contained in the Addendum, the City Council finds that the modified project will not have, when compared to the Adopted MND, any new or more severe adverse environmental impacts, including, without limitation, no new or more severe significant adverse impacts related to aesthetics or climate change. k. The modified project will not result in any new or more severe significant impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, when viewed in connection with planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity. I. These factual findings are based on the Adopted MND, Addendum, and all documents referred in or attached to it, the submissions of the applicant, the records and files of the City's Community Development Department related to the project, and any other documents referred to or relied upon by the City Council during its consideration of the project on June 10, 2014. M. The City Council has considered the Adopted MND and the Addendum, and has concluded that the Addendum reflects the independent judgment of the City. n. The City Council finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. The applicant has proposed revisions to the approved plans for the project. Pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 1, the project design changes shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans. Pursuant to Section 20.54.070 (Changes to an Approved Project), the Community Development Director may authorize minor changes to an approved site plan, architecture, or the nature of the approved use, without a public hearing, and waive the requirement for a new permit application. In this case, the Community Development Director referred the determination as to whether the proposed changes are minor to the Planning Tmplt: 11/23/09 267 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 5 of 10 Commission for review and final action. On April 3, 2014, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to adopt Resolution No. 1941 finding that the modified plans are in substantial conformance with the project approved in 2008. Pursuant to the City's Zoning Code, the City Council held a public hearing to review an appeal of the Planning Commissions' decision and finds that the proposed 24 -unit condominium development remains in substantial conformance with the approved plans of Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007-001 (County Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 17194), Modification Permit No. MD2007- 044, Use Permit No. UP2007-011 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2007- 001 because the changes: Finding: A. Are consistent with all applicable provisions of this Zoning Code. Facts in Support of Finding: A-1. The project was originally approved under the previous Zoning Code and located within the MFR (Multi -Family Residential) Zoning District. The current Zoning Code designates the site RM (Multi -Unit Residential). The proposed 24 -unit detached condominium development continues to be consistent with the permitted land uses identified in the previous MFR and current RM Zoning Districts and with the approved number of units pursuant to Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007-001. The project also remains below the maximum 54 -unit development limit and the 1.75 floor area limit (FAL) applicable to the site. The approved project maintained a 1.23 FAL (50,706 square feet) and the revised project maintains a 1.24 FAL (50,916 square feet). A-2. The Zoning Code in effect at the time of the 2008 approval limited heights of flat roofs, deck rails, and midpoint of sloping roofs to a maximum of 28 feet and a ridge height for sloping roofs to a maximum of 33 feet. The approved project required a use permit to allow the midpoint of the 6 duplex units to exceed the maximum 28 -foot midpoint height limit; however, midpoint limitations have been eliminated from the current Zoning Code and replaced with a minimum 3:12 pitch requirement for sloping roofs. The current Zoning Code limits heights of flat roofs and deck rails to 28 feet and sloping roofs with a minimum 3:12 pitch to a 33 feet. The revised project plans comply with allowed building heights of the current Zoning Code; therefore, Use Permit No. UP2007-011 is no longer applicable. A-3. The previous Zoning Code required a front setback of 20 feet adjacent to River Avenue, a front setback of 20 feet adjacent to Seashore Drive, and side setbacks of 25 feet adjacent to the east and west property lines. The previous Zoning Code also required a minimum building separation of 10 feet between structures. Modification Permit No. MD2007-044 authorized a reduction of the minimum building separation to 6 feet between structures and reduced setbacks as follows: front setbacks of 10 feet on River Avenue and Seashore Drive, a side setback of 10 feet to the west property line and a side setback of 4 feet to the east property line. The current Zoning Code no longer requires a minimum building separation between units and now requires a front setback of 5 feet adjacent to Seashore Drive, a rear setback of 10 feet adjacent to Tmplt: 11/23/09 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 6 of 10 River Avenue, and side setbacks of 15 feet. Despite the changes in Zoning Code setback and separation standards, the revised project plans continue to comply with the setbacks and building separations as approved under Modification Permit No. M D2007-044. A-4. Pursuant to Chapter 20.86 of the previous Zoning Code and Chapter 20.34 of the current Zoning Code, the demolition of three or more units within the coastal zone shall be reviewed to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65590 (commonly known as the 1982 Mello Act) and to replace, if feasible, the units occupied by low- or moderate -income tenants. In this case, Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2007-001 authorized the demolition of the 54 -unit apartment building conditioned upon the replacement of six dwelling units affordable to low- and/or moderate -income tenants. The applicant remains committed to implementing CR2007-001 and providing the replacement units. A-5. With the exception of the increased setback encroachments, reduction in the minimum distance between buildings, and building height increase, all of the previous MFR zoning regulations were met by the previous project design. The proposed project plans also continue to comply with all other applicable previous MFR and the current RM zoning standards. Finding: B. Do not involve a feature of the project that was a basis for or subject of findings or exemptions in a negative declaration or Environmental Impact Report for the project. Facts in Support of Finding: B-1. The Adopted MND was prepared and analyzed all potential environmental impacts associated with the approved project. The changes in the project plans do not involve features that were the basis for findings or exemption in the adopted MND in that the density and intensity of the project has not changed. Although changes in the architectural design, product type, and site plan are proposed, these changes are considered minor and when taken into account, the conclusions of the environmental analysis in the Adopted MND do not change. B-2. An Addendum to the Adopted MND has been prepared to evaluate the net effect of the proposed project changes and any changes to the existing conditions that have occurred since the Adopted MND was adopted. The Addendum also reviews any new information of substantial importance that was not known and could have been known with exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Adopted MND was adopted. Furthermore, it examines whether, as a result of any changes or any new information, a subsequent environmental review may be required. The Addendum concludes that the impacts from the modified project would be similar to those analyzed under the Adopted MND and that no changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Adopted MND or result in additional mitigation measures. Tmplt: 11/23/09 269 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 7 of 10 Finding: C. Do not involve a feature of the project that was specifically addressed or was the subject of a condition(s) of approval for the project or that was a specific consideration by the applicable review authority in the project approval. Facts in Support of Finding: C-1. The modified plan demonstrates the ability to comply with all required conditions of approval, and said conditions will continue to be required through project implementation. C-2. The approved project consisted of a Tentative Tract Map to establish 24 condominium units. The changes to the site plan do not affect the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007-001 and the related facts in support of the findings. The site remains physically suitable for the type and density proposed. An easement through the 26 - foot -wide internal roadway will be retained by the City to ensure public access rights for emergency and security ingress/egress, public utility purposes, and weekly trash pick-up. A 6 -foot sidewalk easement currently exists along the Seashore Drive frontage and the applicant will be required to construct full -width sidewalks. An additional 4 -foot -wide ADA accessible walkway connecting River Avenue and Seashore Drive, consistent with Condition No. 46, would also be provided. Public utility easements for utility connections that serve the project site are present and will be modified, as necessary, to serve the proposed project. C-3. Since the project was approved as airspace condominiums, Condition No. 6 was added to address potential expansion or modification requests from future individual property owners. The Condition specifically states that the floor plans and building envelopes for each unit are approved as precise plans and future area additions to the building envelopes shall be prohibited, the patio and deck areas shall not be permitted to be enclosed, and the landscape and open space areas through the site shall be preserved. Although the site plan has changed, the Condition remains relevant and necessary in order to preserve the density, massing, open space, and landscape characteristics of the constructed project from future modifications. C-4. Condition No. 46 required a minimum 4 -foot -wide publicly accessible walkway connecting River Avenue to Seashore Drive. The revised project now includes two publically accessible walkways bisecting the project site and providing a connection between the two streets: 1) the project "paseos" with enhanced landscaping bisect the site near the center of the site; and 2) an ADA accessible 4 -foot -wide path connects the street along the western parcel boundary adjacent to the park. C-5. Condition No. 7 required the two structures (north and south of the project driveway) that encroach into the side setback area immediately adjacent to the east property line to be modified to incorporate design features to minimize building height impacts on Tmplt: 11/23/09 270 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 8 of 10 the adjacent properties. The modified plans implement the intent of this Condition by separating the bulk and mass of the previous duplex units on the north side of project roadway into two individual structures, creating more light and open space and increasing the compatibility with existing adjacent duplexes to the east. For the structure south of the project roadway, the side setback has been increased from 4 feet to 6 feet to provide additional light and open space to the adjacent structure. C-6. While the MFR and RM Zoning Districts permit the proposed single -unit residences, the development setback and building separation standards were intended to apply to larger, multiple -unit buildings, such as the 3 -story, 54 -unit apartment building that exists on-site today. The legislative intent of required setbacks is to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling unit. Given that a larger, single structure building would result in more visual and physical massing, a larger setback would be preferred for that development type. In this case, the proposed project has been designed to appear as if each unit is situated on a 30 -foot -wide lot with setbacks comparable to the surrounding R-1 and R-2 lots. These reductions in the setbacks to accommodate the smaller detached, residential units result in a site plan that is more compatible and consistent with the historic development pattern of the area than a single, larger apartment -complex. C-7. The approved project was designed to appear as if each unit is situated on a 30 -foot - wide lot with setbacks comparable to the surrounding R-1 and R-2 lots. The approved 6 -foot separation between buildings is consistent with the required 3 -foot side setbacks of the surrounding 30 -foot and 40 -foot -wide lots in the neighborhood, which results in a total distance of 6 feet between buildings. Although the modified project reconfigures the layout of units within the site, the overall concept remains similar with all units providing a minimum 6 -foot separation. As viewed from the Seashore Drive frontage, the units will remain fronting the street as in the approved plan and similar to the development pattern of the adjacent R-1 and R-2 lots along the street. The street elevations of these units will be enhanced with front door identity now facing the street versus the side yard as in the approved plan. As viewed from River Avenue, the unit layout has been modified to eliminate the duplex structures and create clusters of individual single -unit detached structures. The units fronting River Avenue now either front the street with the front or side elevations, consistent with the lots directly across River Avenue to the north. Therefore, the modified plan is compatible and consistent with the development pattern of the immediate area. C-8. Consistent with Condition No. 16, the modified plan now includes trash container storage for individual units outside of their required garages and that would be screened from view. C-9. Access to the project site would continue to be provided via a driveway on River Avenue and one driveway from Neptune Avenue. A total of 62 parking spaces are proposed: 48 dedicated residential spaces in garages and 14 open guest spaces, exceeding the 60 space minimum required by both the previous and current Zoning Codes. Although the approved plan included one additional on-site guest parking space, the plan also included an additional western driveway on River Avenue to exclusively serve one single -unit structure that resulted in the reduction of on -street Tmplt: 11/23/09 271 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 9 of 10 parking. The modified site plan eliminates the need for the additional driveway and results in the creation of additional on -street parking on the street in exchange. In addition, the revised project plans provide enhanced resident parking in that all 24 resident parking spaces are now located with garages, as opposed to 12 garages and 12 carports as originally approved. Overall, the modified plans enhance site access and continue to exceed Code -required parking standards. C-10. The modified project slightly reduces the total building footprint from coverage of 35.9 percent to 34.6 and reduces pavement area from 35.4 percent to 27.3 percent. Conversely, the modified project significantly increases landscape area from 28.2 percent to 37.1 percent and incorporates design features such as turf block, pervious paving, and water conserving plants. Finding: D. Do not result in an expansion or change in operational characteristics of the use. Facts in Support of Finding: D-1. The approved project consisted of the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007- 001 and the subdivision of 24 airspace condominium units. The elimination of the duplex product type and changes to the site plan do not change the fact that the project will operate as condominiums and therefore the change does not result in an expansion or operational change.. D-2. The modified project design maintains the same minimum setbacks as previously approved under Modification Permit No. MD2007-044 and minimum building separation of six feet between units. D-3. The proposed 24 -unit detached condominium development continues to be consistent with the permitted land uses identified in the previous MFR and current RM Zoning Districts and with the approved number of units pursuant to Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007-001. The project also remains below the maximum 54 -unit development limit and the 1.75 floor area limit (FAL) applicable to the site. The approved project maintained a 1.23 FAL (50,706 square feet) and the revised project maintains a 1.24 FAL (50,916 square feet), a negligible difference of 210 square feet. D-4. Although the modified plans include ridge elevations of up to 32 feet 11 inches, an increase of 1 -foot 5 -inches above the structure heights of the approved plans, the difference in height is nominal and remains below the maximum 33 -foot height limit for sloping roofs with a minimum 3:12 pitch. The midpoints of the modified roof plans also exceed the midpoint heights of the approved plans, with a difference of up to 3 feet 11 inches; however, it should be noted the midpoints of the approved plans are artificially lower due to the ability to project the imaginary roof lines over a longer distance based on the architectural design of the structures. The actual midpoint heights (without the use of imaginary projections) of the structures in the approved plans would result in midpoint heights closer to those of the modified plans. Ultimately, the modified project Tmplt: 11/23/09 272 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 10 of 10 plans comply with allowed building heights of the current Zoning Code; therefore, Use Permit No. UP2007-011 is no longer applicable. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby upholds the decision of the Planning Commission and finds that the modified plans for the Echo Beach (formerly Seashore Village) project are in substantial conformance with the project approved by Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007-001 (County Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 17194), Modification Permit No. MD2007-044, Use Permit No. UP2007-011 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2007-001 and that the environmental analysis of the modified plans is included in the Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH2O08021075) and the Addendum consistent with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution. 3. 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. 4. This resolution was approved, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, held on the 10th day of June, 2014, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ►_1121431 CITY CLERK Tmplt: 11/23/09 273 Attachment No. CC 2 2008 Approved Plans 274 LEGAL OWNER W.ve.�14. 4 YYItiH LEGAL DESCRIPI'[ON SEASHORE VILLAGE q4. w..YY.r NEWPORT BEACH, CA. .1nzmcom�A� >�,�. R��� soon - - OCCUTANCY fAUf)F.IW,U-� - - �' - cYxanuc'rm e: Y' -N a v� a W�y . - : emlomc use: NHA�GY�AORIu. d q to 13 Ud&LI�LOTAr:F -- _._ uvu� - 2@Ugqft t. PWA -2G. r 1122 260..n L. pp. B-zc.3HH• 12 UBBA-I GYa{e 6 APPROVED BY:�_ U hs:1c 'w 6 - - Tal . 27f71 -n 4-16rperl 6 U.e C USBA f Sb Slaad W— 16' unbb-163%99 Ilaadiclpd— 1 (-mage- 201gR PlanningColrxnissionCoundl U"V 6 1Ateble-1W q.f1 F� As Submitted As Mod T m1g`- n w Refer to: �,R_Approval Letter Gaff.e-- ges6lrg.nu..A` Y 3�nu6s6LyR S�* of Pgs App Date: 6 O /Og annxx' . 24 ABBREVIATIONS SYMBOLS DESIGN TEAM SHE'1'INDEX R . r". YvaID a maos 130 a�truevnom..nmID �t�ua, °` auuvu vmu. 'w °As�u tueaAiaammwae uu. nowvu� n la' ®.meYea�naaouIDYaY ""!>uw..:c__T e�v-t meoraA�ceuAYeY 4a1O iw uirae otin sae_ o 1p m.u4rYY.amnru3utrt.mm - _ A-1 sns nwe e4oAr u. wtr aan sm � NI uBe6CA![9nYnAN . aoo e�--a 'm.o:w.'mnmmnmuou�nmm u-. Aaew.reolo tut. YAs Wm ¢i u ira � u®4aiuWooMoe�+Rwnammmwea r�Ys wvoew I 18MlASItR 18A1.TILV �1 ID M] e1ABAaLODYMH9 u. err � la �� ry R� � uSiOHBrBtY11Ya'ar�ItrA'(rreUptvTWD ASS YUNAYS{VAIfIXlg (CMP19AAp � T __ ____ 93.1 -SAAN AYS1YAiNRlg(PL6MASIOIQ ID mM1Y rR '� WM80)MaYObAttTtl'.P'at'� M SIANBMOAP ( w�vaor. � �� �taierr :u YA1OYnOr •4 uvawt.uaoanaY..aovrru.4v.rrwr wrr4vtur•Y s. rc sar�.oY ASl IIANBY1YASr¢eg(CWVILIM9 -u aarwm ti< vas fie• wdmrw.aovttoaavta4urt o iTiw'rY A'J! rWYBnZYAte]NB(R.AMAItOn) a. aa.msrroa w r®oum va. .rm .... A.0 rfANeMCOV®nnBenwN ci a.cv eo: SaYmtuuT .®aomM 8 vt.wamn.tvavuoaw�mmrro.s.um .+- ...— ... M! MxBMmv®osvA3urc Sra - rtA n1or� u noir .sWYsveT .¢M ravoc>•v.u.omYAvtota.namvmYvw i� M MNCRAdIl1ATID - y oma Tu. BrVYm n.'NaAYv/La A1r r{µ COiVAf10119pOUY191M) N. 0.WatA V P't T. IOOW -► te-gYvrYlmriamrplrmlN�rerleeef tYaYnR..Vme¢t om I MJ MNCOLVAil0tO R3ABfAROXf wA rY1tOt a Or.11L �rALL I ���= .—.. .._ AILLL MBCOiVAl1IX6lALlIDtA9Y) - vrua - �aec rias � j .au.uts...wv °1�u'�ii6� � e&. sdaebcva. _ I . YLS 1,ABpgCyaYlAl1 (rNYA3HYAaH� 4l � w m�iYw.Y wp '-mow s1o4L¢PF.YNwOo•vIDwlde�a4 14Xfr WamY VM _ M-1 YUB ' v�Y ww rarvnaA .t.'. vW rpn n.nv.surrYueaeuumuatwq> tI �¢ __.__. WI WtgIBBIBAY 9ld0H1G�WAlOtWAlli1'IIAN r- ma.A FA YV. YqA � IWCa Ml \ALL ' b rppL wvaom vier. Yr.IDCO Hw aaaBeY-r4a a@r.a,en .`°.ua:.u. .a , s 'r® aa.rraeanuY+YewuaYmouwvr VIF^RViT'IrMAP gtdl4aW a^a_ J.' .�.uu.. w .s e�aaar B' aavamr.Tvrmr ._L,.— - �w � m ��ra. its. wear r® w.awrwmienoonavuew.m -' ^' ' � r v� ram. o�arID wo woeID. Yw � .w'rxntwum�awnauYBam • I I�r . A - nura vawm .� _-._4R.twv,4tr ... n.. ___� amem..w.r.waa �� ]/j■ � ��p�sy� '`uta ut ' mYt.tA�®a � wwtY4eusue.vfaaor � l I ,\:• + i Ip IC0001) uva . Yn � � �f rn oars ' m. ouoa Dour ® rumraaarraevr�Yt 1 _ :u vWvraID � �^® - . � aavo 'fig .'sa . � y 'f ��-• 1- � ■` as aoorYID ron mY r .vaT � �aY.maaa®..a mn ur.m�v u mur.�sr w Brio m m3m.mmimoura, Vi g1ap�YLLT�irdet �m 4! W ��da A .e�BYY.lrOl13Y 1 - •.I ' Ot tt.{ ,ml tYold. 7� .RrsltOs �. IDpe - i .IYti ;m mwY.IDYrY �, rR erety � wvuwrrm.Yrra.re�s.o u aeere w rm maraararaeu .� avury EA a+ Y YB� (E ar0•IrrprprYle�ir-Y asirQMY � C-1 275 SEASHORE VILLAGE PLAN B PLANTATION & CRAFTSMAN SEASHORE VILLAGE PLAN .A PLANTATION & CRAFTSMAN iLL SEASHORE VILLAGE PLAN C PLANTATION & CRAFTSMAN OPAGE OF tt t O a` -. m,. BMJ! C-2 11 276 µ 1g11 Sm X wnsm __ ,sir LW �9m -_ LS 9�N le I VE. TOR = TOP RO EP = EDGE PAVEMENT NO = RANRAL GROUND SEASHORE DR. WV = WATER VALVE BW = BACKWALK FT = FlNISN i TS = TOP STP ' \TFJW s 1< .551 277 ®ooh RI VER AVE. SEASHORE DR. ja so ........ .. . .... =777 ....... ........ . PAGE OF 278 R I ... SWEET SHADE Slenacarp a sinaala, Firewheel Tree 2 n1 BRISBANE BOX PI AAT LFf'.[NI} COMMON AREAS ;. MAILRE .Su1VRE � rt :IYMFAYISPUXVII IEA\'VM ii Rrl% IV I3}J' l'.P 1Il •4' 5'xn1 AMe I.UI'IM9iE114\L'U.HERT4A 11(IAl M.10' 'v.l i' gr10w Bol ti 11. E 1 } }* AIlf0.4BNERU5 EXCELSIIS ]x'MO% ]0' ]V' LA4}A,AAM IEVIUEN311 !4\I 1_':' I' 1. WATER GUNI (TRISTANIOPSIS LAURINA) �YF LWAY4 AmE m •lAta' } Wl - H STRAWBERRY -1 REE (ARBUTUS UNEDO) u4 RTr "x15Lv Sou 1 1 Y. FA oMA P'A1fifTlE+ fMl a A YEyYI/IYh '-0' WIAIII14lEP5.4AI :.1R•A' I°U . I x a Pn vnmin,5 seuArntlr I4AL •r I -,- -}'Na "o. x me MSMARM S• ELF'S[PAI41}1' •4Y. 1' n. I'"Isc R. uney ..'fl•SCAAPV,B MI It%TbR RiN ' s nit: 1 .: 1' NA •{.MA 5:•iRi\E Y:a.1. 31.1:5 'AI}'U 1x—. .x lAn..n.1 MANdPOS r}An'EnM.A$s ,UUBEJ MF— NARMATIONNO E fVF1N:?AtLS Ili.L n:E 511: e'f:'Ai:9 11 041-11 R E AF. ' 15- 11: %. 5 Y o 1-d wvvae 1+x91". MSII:VAunc WRu 1 1 IE.A a uRVRmE.6u4r Aa n.'::U tB ,MDMI,PI41 £P r1xESY5TP11"Ail. bt Ux 1 TE IA1 Llt M,. f.T.E IPh41 Ea :MnR uaM rtx.\Mn 1. All PPI ATE .Rn %PEA II xEiPMinA E'JP1A flR11:0.14 .R S1'SRM S P)IVP1E W.."90.11511E\!. hEE.::: M:-1. PY V. I., I TI\II• \EPASI2R'4\"PO' l[a F(v E v 4 ":If NEW ZEALAND CHRISTMAS TREE LANTANA LAVENDER RIVER A VE. SHRUBS & GROUND COVER LAWN INDIAN HAWTHORNE — REOUIRED STRE .T TREE: QUEEN PALM (SVAGRUS R J f. x T 1 1`� c 1 \ ROSEMARY MAUVE CLUSTERS T FERE SCREEN: BRISBANE BOX f LAWN i : z / ^ J W^�BIEAAIAx A^`wr.11a'I w %)Ew w LA)lu•1 Ya^'"..):u.. (i� / .. Fill, 1 ® Q U �z a L 1 � sF• � �I � s LAWN TREES: %` - /F F w• % \ s'r% LANDARCRITECTUS SWEETSHADE L\sox ur..PomrnERP SYCAMORE '�•a�0`-r'' GRAVEL, TYPICAL PAVING, TYPICAL �� n). rl uniToxonnE CHITALP.A t 1- — —��_ _ I. L Ic"11.A^.tl l TCI ] r X: 11191 N).)5p1 y %f I try Ir ` 1 1j r � , NEP TUNE w� li r--� 1 ... — nl6 ;. •/ ,' ` lic 1 ><iI _ is � • .1 f. ..r ti 11. E 1 } }* � PATIOTREES; WATER GUNI (TRISTANIOPSIS LAURINA) �YF By WINDMILL PALMI (TRACHYCARPUS FORTUNEI) —_ _ ❑W1Rmr FIREWHEEL TREE (STENOCARPUS SINU.ATUS) STRAWBERRY -1 REE (ARBUTUS UNEDO) INDIAN H.AWTHORNE(RHAPHIOLEPIS-MAJESTIC BEAUTY' SEASHORE DR. PRELIMINARY Or NACF OF LANDSCAPE PLAN - SITE PLAN YEyYI/IYh '-0' EXISTING PAGE OF gid` 0 u IY za�a ozy 4 • � � L G O O Q <W.ixj 7-6 LL, Y m 0 z W • 4: a� Sr Wa a o a �z d 0 IL I 3 t �i ' i' • My � t3�{ EXISTING PAGE OF gid` 0 u W za�a ozy _ O � a i•A � � L G O O Q <W.ixj 7-6 dFnv'z m 0 z W a� Wa a o a �z d 0 IL t �i 4 lay. lean, 1NK 8O R fC v/ Y FI.1 � YIA 9HY EASEMENTS I]aui'��wau Hula uvuRR AVE WATER SERVICE . ®. 061n[f l'YFP saII Iw Yrt 6lvaN W/d SA fYI. SEWER CONSTRUCTION NOTES ®o Hurt �.auu a'�u�a�w mr r< �ReoA � sa exa h/A+w mm miW . O1 RM rIB. OA df IR OIY V RAMI ZYI AP I®'L O AO111�MW9�.IAffil LEOEND mewnY m[mc anieeM m+. rmnR —Im -- omm esmn na rv�an rm muni —Am— vmeao ARow Van wmsn�ave mw vaam rs r� wwm smtc —Po— P%I.Id'S LLW R TY6 WVE mW'se TPoID 9pM lWW p1 P.'.G6 QN[ ' —9�- FNP.lC9M iG T96bW P.L 11W WfI IlE �C/�/RiRTHI bbI M AV6WL � ugly y� py E 1@ 6lOABD � PAS®n 9'Ba Pll 1 [I. tID0119PR � f�MH al w. w8 NI �R PA AMwM£A fl. � w®® P6H M✓, 1R11s EASEMENTS I]aui'��wau Hula uvuRR AVE WATER SERVICE . ®. 061n[f l'YFP saII Iw Yrt 6lvaN W/d SA fYI. SEWER CONSTRUCTION NOTES ®o Hurt �.auu a'�u�a�w mr r< �ReoA � sa exa h/A+w mm miW . O1 RM rIB. OA df IR OIY V RAMI ZYI AP I®'L O AO111�MW9�.IAffil JQ mewnY m[mc anieeM m+. rmnR W�Rq PAGE OF 282 SITE.. DATA mu: r -m U n . SPo tlBSIC QVdR +3 M (BN) 10�A l 4 } 1'c1c'11 a 0 iW^ s au+e is wa, wn: Q •:• � m°w"au Imw`°i. .. v�.w .�� �m roi 4r:�n-rw.v a�omw �W-. e« a n®m.ma�: w Uaa>~mwr J W+ '�yy W @ �J 4;Y( int j�TYf a NA ar �y � y aj' ��bp a w+cmc Sma samdx � uaau vKN swoe ex « xOorom M i �` mwwz mwcc rases oEu. � � � e/ L /' i mawxw swrvru m cQavr�mc +� ® " O Mb QF+n W.q y a Y • . I 1. �� 610GIm tl111W TE IBApf .VI IIOm LOT `-, est ea. IF .� �\ rraonVxwart ares cbxnamwr, mn aamw ®a wrmama Hl;6 awes m,uw�nmal rm Q �llIkUG6 WPS. AwLH6 \ ) � _ _ J _ _ � VI' IK 11 TlPA411Y rbl61C Rtes mw¢WWn. Cutow K �� •s R 1 ...`u a. lwimrc ranw�ma�wx va¢*iwsarc wrPvms ne " ...,_.�_ ,': c„y PAGE OF 282 I- I' - --- I f -, i - ma , ii 284 SEASgORE VILLAGE PLAN B pLANTA7C ION & CRAFTSMAN V '1 , C s v' WJ i �' III f� • 4 t }y. F i � 4rni \, _ � �.,�. r .. �r{4 'i t'�'�J �'�"S. c•' �; ,•' I Yof � a': `- -1: ,\' � I ` .�' TXy r`'•' �'�"�r'�J1 , f I .. ��s T�eiC�` �� �:,_ 6.1,� .�\• J y 1 '�'�1�'' � I \i ( i' ,iJ /�I:Wgll'• .YI �-c.�?+��r s-- > � ssY��� r I,!!' t. ' 1�� � �1i i � p `� ' .�. I1 '`f �' '�'J0' i � I "+ II Iiw "` � 'i I� �I �I �� I r I �\ ♦ Yf'���dr J V 1 Ail 0 ■rh: J J:.. :'� t � f •Iy t • 1 �:zar �' - ti ..ro.��.`,1'�� ' ,. ¢ ��, ' � V ISI I V � ♦l _- • - ;1iN .p . - I •- �itr PAC — OF 287 8&e'.Ak ELFVAIION WJVFWAC'VflM- New'-i'a 1 288 IPLAN CRAFTSAMN ._ u� �W • essaemx.erhr - - •- -ma-hu.am� - r/j � � N isi O p�.� . m �oti®reaar-sn..r®. Q e.nw.rnrww.m�s. .. A M ruw.rnew�®t.. 6 VI Fi 8&e'.Ak ELFVAIION WJVFWAC'VflM- New'-i'a 1 288 i 290 1 � {1W,�L'I�II �II� 1 II1` I.I���fi 41n . il,.nil __ wy.� G �, F LN1A GWOkY MAN 293 k HEIGHT LIMIT OVERLAY X ITNE pmwr KAX 19P,P- S4 !TL - i J41 FIT - RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION �, mi, , PROPOSED jtQKC-0NF0FkM1NQ—S-T-R—UCT-W-- 111v�-W RIGA FSIDE 1q.LVATI0N , PLAN C CRAFTSMAN FRONT ELEVATION IsTitEkrviFW),— - 1 FitONrELEVATION i,iitiii,vii;w,.;. 9 PAGE '?It 01' 11IN1110 297 �: �, �_; �.� ..., _ s ;._,�. i i .. i 1 _ . ti r SAI i4 f tJ STRAWBERRY TREE LEMON BOTTLEBRUSH INDIAN HAWTHORNS PLAT LEGCAT-Pnl A AS :.urtec :.urvvc NE 12FdLl AM4NSIIU�EY4 )1' IPIi.T 14' )vu.AnL in: CAL'!STUMCIIMNS ll.h. IPM N'n' pnflll'.4LLIif' SUIi31"Mn1T n'MM n' n' AGAMllm:llffKlRl VIAL P l' I,:, vide\!: AIALFACA:CA 1pAL 1' 1' M", lW11A4I11111MIMILA IOAI 1-L' ritt� P, 01: iH<i1CM.1w.1 )4AL up.l:v il::., illt4g4iW114U1M faAL qRn p"•<:ysr ANAnp4lFp'S'S: P'��tl NR' fyl I�S' YT I 3IAALII)IA11LnC!.Ao BL.INJm mnmswL4Auf MA1. r t.r SWORD FERN PRIVATE YARD PLANTING, TYPICAL-- PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN -PRIVATE YARDS Ua Yaw WH�Do Q W oog` o N 6' gz LWn IFn-1 .In,+ FaFd� w z PL -2 299 +� r All; A5141ALI R; - IOP WRY EL - 4101% IIOE f5 • ICICI, SURFACE VALL IP 111P 1-IAi11EP ht, .9L 11", I 1 SER LIMIH6fF n:^ "r, eb;' IP Gat PA9LJAL91 .14 :IAW:rAL •RCL11 fu .%/.%L IIR '/ALc btl = VALRI9ALR EE = E!•451I ELb CR TS - rOP STEP 0 it ,•. AVE. I. ;Y iR t2=� Yll pry �iv_rs a 'U"1011 ole. Demullllon Stn One Nolcs I 14LI1 i'00F AVE. [ lEdh t5r= 1f I iSr r'• r,a n ml u I YL515 !/r I rY>n H.t1 ' I fn)i +-.ili t- abr: L.M nlnm unuoa nlnnrlr'14 rAWmJaN 41M1J nINIM1 aI1rPNllflr.[vL 1..\p.ri..rl,ll.lMt[n,::.N111[Xl.eln,4 n9glnnrgnl.Y •[+}Maa.l a<.Inll". 1. (:r,avvrlM J:,,lirl:[[1[I[nrlrprr.tl:rl5a rrn::lllr[. •.l •.I:. Lnt^ `In.,a.n:Lrneamm�YJrr r4 [I vnrP.n Y..q nWX.+¢,1. ! t...unr.11q P..Pte ll:.yLJB:).runY'nJ. n'r AYIM1111 n[.4aL.ala a\aI11a.IR4 rM(I11 [lRaaP"I Y.n\rnNrrdt Iyn LIL r IiN.r lun. All, 011I Ll PMlyetN.q.r111 .1X11.1.4- •t 1 •rr iy� r, �I 5 lflrnrllil trtfl........tlralrtln r.Ay Pl,a \• •ri. r• i .t11J,M1rlr lraary Vlllurlra\,Ilrrl'rl,J. avin. �'Yp f ` •'•• 1}.p:Ir4 V,arlirl ` lry:N1rl 4^.rrl[,llnnJ.—. I—.. UHMULMON PLXN UP -1 "• �\' 1 Il. p'ap..Ian'el•ICaaI.YL.I:rlrJ alallr,r,1,I41.rnl.ar a:l 11 Lf ulu.rly lt/Ilrb F•,., _- - n: Fnna•.,...... 4an 1.1 r,. TOPOGRAPHIC MAP — J I6 SCAV NIlE b5 - LOT 104 TRACT NO. J813 It ___ 5515 RIVER AVE. NEVA]ORT BEACH CA. - PAGE /fit ' 1 / E / L• -� S4'JIII LOASf SA9\E191C J]IJ CLAY S! ,.[AV09f Op LN f,.l. VILaHUTY'gOar�.g M _ OLS OCIIOIIIARR X-766 11640]9 OANV CICY. l.]61 — -- 300 storm [hal" inlet Protection Q -is fYf?4[>.pRQIEQILo[I fofynn \I1 sLrEn :,omer.>li r` .,...� r...... �6'. - r fYv, r ,SI`aPTb'iA(A i .•.p OOI� n r�'r r'i .•r. 'LC—tTs Il -II vI{ru 4. / I 1�dy� 'iV'y/c¢fiY/ g'/'E�d ....... .. \ / .. / }n. P �4'h17Asn .. _,__ ,....... silt Fence _ MAI P Lr@ -- 60 % LA M jaldre'de a �1 • (e. nv:ee .I � {� 1 l 1f,9s ' aYn Jelell d � � d V% I c 100 aa�®� . a a�i fn sa NI 301 yJ u..._.. lye ••IiO L) \A it fPSIYI IAC) 1 p alf-%i it if e. ydi iP U•�MI G flJI IS e]n!S ��1'• 1luNf � Af••r " r.ednrlr➢u4uvtr41mAr1rAun4uev•Wtlrll ••Iflel^MAu•u"r 0.Cu4uL�sM1 . r4r11.nn vehraldnrlFu)ef(r,rr0+nr1Amn V.ienhu:nal `, VAS 1- J\ /l/(\j- U`` rrr uAurinrellaurRJ If:�—:wra �. '. IF< IY ( 1 .ID rflllom tlnrLwfc�vv )res ��- lL. la y ua4r uy n Jv Iv bl Lf10J {... r rnl 1 n.YMa ':' � FLAI Jv 9I9)ll I�Id: l 1 a r f SSIW AIIv .f rad w o t Jf'e. 6 Nd in ( N 1\ If V"P � (r<11 lT ]N)[ IR$ -:r ... 1.' • .... If.a k 1 6 1 b rry A ru uar P PGI ! f Jllil :jft 1r.v� vNaorin .r enuudmul. Inn4nr.m. d{Mry +nJ .e IAL ,xFV6-]4,xA1 wo _ 301 Attachment No. CC 3 March 20, 2008 Planning Commission Staff Report 302 0 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 20, 2008 Meeting Agenda Item No. 6 0 SCANNED SUBJECT: Seashore Village Residential Development (PA2007-100) 5515 River Avenue • Mitigated Negative Declaration ■ Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-001 • Modification Permit No. 2007-044 • Use Permit No. 2007-011 • Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007-001 APPLICANT: Seashore Village, LLC PLANNER: Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner (949) 644-3209, jmurillo@city.newport-beach.ca.us PROTECT SUMMARY • The applicant proposes to develop and construct 12 detached, single -unit residential structures and 6 detached, two -unit (duplex) residential structures (24 units total) on a 1.49 -acre site located at 5515 River Avenue. The site is currently developed with a 54 - unit apartment complex that would be demolished to accommodate the proposed development. Entitlement of the project as proposed requires Planning Commission review and approval of the following applications: • A tentative tract map to create a 24 -unit condominium subdivision. • A modification permit to allow encroachments into the required Multi -Family Residential (MFR) front and side yard setback areas and a reduction in the required distance between detached buildings. • A use permit to allow each of the 6 duplex structures to exceed the City's base height limit. • A coastal residential development permit (CRDP) to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65590 (Mello Act), which regulates the demolition of low and moderate income (affordable) dwelling units in the coastal zone. RECOMMENDATION Hold a public hearing . Declaration (Sch. No. Modification Permit P Development Permit and adopt the attached resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative 2008021075) and approving Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-001, lo. 2007-044, Use Permit No. 2007-011 and Coastal Residential No. 2007-001, subject to findings and conditions of approval. 3003 • 0 n U 11 m Seashore Village March 20,2008 • Page 3 Site Description The 1.49 -acre site is relatively flat and trapezoidal in shape. A three-story, 54,739 square -foot, 54 -unit apartment building (Las Brisas Apartments) currently occupies the site. Carports exist on the first level of the apartment building and 4 carport canopies exist at the perimeter of the site. A swimming pool, private common area, and planters also exist on-site. The site is currently accessed via two driveways on River Avenue. Access from and to Seashore Drive is blocked by a wooden fence. Project Description The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing 54 -unit apartment complex and construct 12 detached, single -unit residential structures and 6 detached, two -unit (duplex) residential structures, for a total of 24 units (Exhibit 2, Project Plans). The 12 single -unit structures would front onto Seashore Drive and onto West Newport Park. The 6 duplex structures front onto River Avenue. The proposed architecture consists of two styles, "Craftsman" and 'Plantation". Three floor plans are proposed: Plan A (3,248 sq. ft.), Plan B (2,797 sq. ft.), and Plan C (Unit A- 1,836 sq. ft.; Unit B- 1,770 sq. ft.). • Each unit would be three -stories in height, with overall roof heights ranging in height from 31 feet to 31 feet -6 inches. Access to the project site would be provided via two driveways on River Avenue and one driveway from Neptune Avenue. The western driveway on River Avenue would exclusively serve one single -unit structure, and all other vehicular access would be. provided through a driveway connecting Neptune Avenue to River Avenue. A total of 63 parking spaces are proposed: 24 dedicated residential spaces in garages and carports; and, 15 open guest spaces. ANALYSIS The General Plan Land Use Element The Land Use Element of the General Plan sets forth objectives, policies and limitations for development in the City and designates the general distribution and location of land uses and residential and commercial densities. The Land Use Element designates the project site as Multiple -Unit Residential (RM) with a maximum development limit of 51 dwelling units. The RM designation is intended to provide primarily for multi -family residential development containing attached or detached dwelling units. The proposed •subdivision is consistent with this designation. The following Land Use Element policies and programs were considered relative to the proposed development: 0 0 Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 4 LU 5.1.9 Character and Quality of Multi -Family Residential Require that multi -family dwellings be designed to convey a high quality architectural character in accordance with the following: Building Elevations • Treatment of the elevations of buildings facing public streets and pedestrian ways as the principal fagades with respect to architectural treatment to achieve the highest level of urban design and neighborhood quality. • Architectural treatment of building elevations and modulation of mass to convey the character of separate living units or clusters of living units, avoiding the appearance of a singular building volume. • Provide street- and path -facing elevations with high-quality doors, windows, moldings, metalwork, and finishes. Roof Design • Modulate roof profiles to reduce the apparent scale of large structures and to provide visual interest and variety. The proposed residential development has been designed to be compatible with the development pattern and character of the surrounding neighborhood, which generally consists of two- and three-story, single -unit and two -unit dwellings. Each unit will feature either a "Craftsman" or 'Plantation" architectural style. Architectural details and enhancements (i.e. batt and board wood siding, louvered window shutters, decorative trim, and stone veneer) will be provided on all building elevations. The 2"d floor facades are setback from the 15t floor on the rear elevations and cantilevered over the 1st floor on the front elevations, providing articulation and modulation to the building mass. The 3rd floor of each building is setback from the front and rear elevations, towards the interior portion of each building envelope, to reduce the visual mass of the structures as viewed from the streets. Parking • Design covered and enclosed parking areas to be integral with the architecture of the residential units' architecture. Each unit has a direct access 2 -car garage or a 1 -car garage and tandem carport space, integrated into the design of each building, Open Space and Amenity • Incorporate usable and functional private open space for each unit. • Incorporate common open space that creates a pleasant living environment with opportunities for recreation. LU 6.2.9 Private Open Spaces and Recreational Facilities Require the open space and recreational facilities that are integrated into and owned by private residential development are permanently preserved as part of the development approval process and are prohibited from converting to residential or other types of land uses. • n U • Seashore Village March 20, 2008 • Page 5 A majority of the units have been designed with small (approx. 300 sq. ft.) front patio areas, which are comparable in size to the outdoor living areas of the surrounding residential development within the neighborhood. Six units (Unit B of Plan C) do not provide front patio areas. All units are provided useable and functional 2nd level and 3`d level deck spaces (ranging between 48 — 154 sq. ft.). Although the project will provide more landscaping and lawn areas than currently exist on-site, no common recreational amenities are provided. It should be noted, however, that the West Newport Park, an active recreational park, is located immediately west of the project site and the beach is located approximately 120 feet south of the site; both the park and the beach will provide additional recreational opportunities. A proposed condition of project approval prohibits any floor area additions to the approved building envelopes, which will preserve open patio and deck areas proposed for each unit and the common landscaped and open space areas. LU 6.2.10 Gated Communities Discourage the creation of new private entry gates in existing residential neighborhoods that currently do not have a gate located at the entrance of the community. A condition of approval has also been included that will prohibit the use of private gates. Housing Element • The Housing Element of the General Plan sets forth goals and policies to. facilitate the attainment of the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocations and to foster the availability of affordable housing to all income levels to the greatest extent feasible. The following General Plan Housing Element policies and programs were considered relative to the proposed development: H 1.1 Support all reasonable efforts to preserve, maintain, and improve availability and quality of existing housing and residential neighborhoods, and ensure full utilization of existing City housing resources for as long into the future as physically and economically feasible. H 2.1 Encourage preservation of existing and provision of new housing affordable to very low, low- and moderate income households. The demolition of the older, non -conforming, 54 -unit apartment complex and development of 24 condominiums, will result in a total reduction of 30 dwelling units. As discussed in the Population and Housing section of the Initial Study prepared for the project, there are approximately 43,851 housing units in the City, of which approximately 5,462 units are vacant. The rental vacancy rate is estimated at 7.7 percent with approximately 3,337 rental units vacant (American Community Survey 2006). Therefore, the reduction and change in housing type is not considered significant, as there are sufficient existing rental units available to absorb the displaced rental units. • Housing Program 1.1.3 implements Housing Policy H 1.1 and requires the replacement of housing demolished within the Coastal Zone when housing is, or has been, occupied nA • a Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 6 • by low-income or moderate -income households. As discussed in more detail in the Coastal Residential Development Permit section of this report, a total of 6 rental units have been identified to have been occupied by low-income and moderate -income households, which the applicant will be required to replace at an off-site location with restrictions to maintain their affordability for a minimum of 30 years. Local Coastal Prooram The Coastal Land Use Plan of (CLUP) the Local Coastal Program sets forth goals, objectives, and policies that govern the use of land and water in the coastal zone within the City and addresses land use and development, public access and recreation, and coastal resource protection in accordance with the California Coastal Act. The project site is designated for High Density Residential (RH-A 20.1 - 30 DU/AC). The proposed subdivision is consistent with this designation as the proposed project density is 16.1 d.uJacre. The following CLUP policies were considered relative to the proposed development: Location of New Development 2.2.1-1 Continue to allow redevelopment and infill development within and adjacent to the existing developed areas in the coastal zone subject to the density and intensity limits and resource • protection policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan. 2.2.1-2 Require new development be located in areas with adequate public services or in areas that are capable of having public services extended or expanded without significant adverse effects on coastal resources. The subject property is located within an existing developed area of the coastal zone and the proposed project density of 16.1 units per acre is below the maximum density limit of 30 units per acre established for the RH-A designation of the CLUP. Public services and infrastructure are currently available and serve the proposed development (8" sewer and water lines are located in both the Seashore Drive and River Avenue rights-of-way), and all applicable improvements required by Section 19.28 (Subdivision Improvements) of the Subdivision Code are required to be constructed by the applicant. Such improvements include sidewalk construction, street tree plantings, sewer and water connections, utility undergrounding, and a fire hydrant. Residential Development 2.7-1. Continue to maintain appropriate setbacks and density, floor area, and height limits for residential development to protect the character of established neighborhoods and to protect coastal access and coastal resources. As discussed in more detail within the Zoning Compliance section of this report, the proposed development has been designed to comply with all applicable Multi -Family • Residential (MFR) development regulations of the City's Zoning Code, including density, floor area, open space, and parking, to insure design compatibility with the surrounding ON 0 0 Seashore Village March 20, 2008 • Page 7 neighborhood. Although deviations from the required setbacks and the base height limit are proposed, these deviations will not result in a site plan that is inconsistent with the character and development pattern of the surrounding residential neighborhood. The proposed project will not impact coastal resources nor the ability of the public to reach, use or view the shoreline of coastal waters or inland coastal recreation areas and trails. Parking 2.9.3-2. Continue to require all development shall provide adequate off-street parking to serve -the approved use in order to minimize impacts to public on -street and off-street parking available for coastal access. 2.9.3-5 Continue to require off-street parking in new development to have adequate dimensions, clearances, and access to insure their use. The parking requirement for multiple -family residential development is two spaces per unit, including one covered, plus 0.5 spaces per unit for guest parking for developments of four or more units. The proposed project includes 48 spaces for the residents and 12 spaces for guest parking. The 63 spaces (3 extra guest spaces) proposed exceed the minimum parking requirements of the Zoning Code. The project is conditioned to meet all City requirements regarding parking design standards, including minimum widths, is depths, grades, and aisle-tuming radii. Private /Gated Communities 3.1.5-1 Prohibit new development that incorporate gates, guardhouses, barriers or other structures designed to regulate or restrict access where they would inhibit public access to and along the shoreline and to beaches, coastal parks, trails, or coastal bluffs. 3.1.5-2 Prohibit new private streets, or the conversion of public streets to private streets, where such a conversion would inhibit public access to and along the shoreline and to beaches, coastal parks, trails, or coastal bluffs. The applicant has agreed to eliminate gated access that was originally proposed for the project. As a result, the proposed private driveway will provide unrestricted vehicular access through the project from River Avenue and Neptune Avenue. This design will not inhibit public access to the beach. Scenic and Visual Resources Policies 4.4.1-1 through 4.4.2-3 of the Coastal Land Use Plan pertain to the design of structures to protect public coastal views and preserve or enhance the visual qualities of the coastal zone. The project site is not located near the vicinity of a designated public view point or coastal view road requiring view protection and will not impact any public views. • Rd 0 Zoning Compliance • Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 8 The subject property is located within the Multi -Family Residential (MFR) Zoning District. The proposed detached, single -unit and two -unit residential structures are a permitted use within this zoning designation. With the exception of the increased setback encroachments, reduction in the minimum distance between buildings, and building height increase, all of the following development regulations of the MFR zoning regulations have been met: ' Per Section 20.10.30(M), 200 square feet of floor area per required parking devoted to enclosed parking shall not be included in the calculation of gross floor area. Modification Request The requested encroachments into the required 20 -foot front yard setbacks and 25 -foot side yard setbacks, and deviation from the minimum 10 -foot building separation requirement, require a modification permit, which may be approved if the findings contained within Section 20.93.030 of the Municipal Code can be made as follows: C� J 3J Lot Size 5000 sq. ft. 1.49 acres 64,904 sq. ft.) Min. Lot Size Per Unit 1200 sq. ft. 2704 sq. ft. Maximum Floor Area Limit 1.75 72,133 sq. ft. 1.23 50,706 sq. ft. Setbacks Front Setbacks Seashore Avenue 20' 10 12 River Avenue 20' 10'" 15) Side Setbacks West 25' 1p' 1 k East 25' RIO' 4 Oil 6 Maximum Height 28' Midpoint/Flat Roof 33' Ridge Plan A (SFR) 25'-6" Midpoint (31' Ridge) Plan B (SFR) 26'-8" Midpoint (31'-4" Ridge) Plan C (Duplex) MIN Minimum Distance 10' Betwee_n.Buildings Minimum Open Space 247,313 cu. Ft. 675,415 cu. ft. Parking Resident (2 per unit) 48 spaces 48 spaces Guest 0.5 per unit 12 spaces 15 spaces Total 60 spaces 63 spaces ' Per Section 20.10.30(M), 200 square feet of floor area per required parking devoted to enclosed parking shall not be included in the calculation of gross floor area. Modification Request The requested encroachments into the required 20 -foot front yard setbacks and 25 -foot side yard setbacks, and deviation from the minimum 10 -foot building separation requirement, require a modification permit, which may be approved if the findings contained within Section 20.93.030 of the Municipal Code can be made as follows: C� J 3J Seashore Village • March 20, 2008 Page 9 1. The granting of the application is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. While the MFR District permits the proposed single -unit and two -unit residences, the development setback and building separation standards were intended to apply to larger, multiple -unit buildings, such as the 3 -story, 54 -unit apartment building that exists on-site today. The legislative intent of required setbacks is to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling unit. Given that a larger, single structure building would result in more visual and physical massing, a larger setback would be preferred for that development type. The applicant has proposed 24 single -unit and two -unit residences designed to appear as if they were situated on individual 30 -foot -wide lots and setbacks comparable to surrounding R-1 and R-2 lots. Staff believes that utilizing the R-1 and R-2 development standards as a guide for determining acceptable setbacks and building separation is appropriate in this case. Given that the MFR District permits proposed detached development, but doesn't provide corresponding development standards, strict application of the Code would result in a physical hardship that is inconsistent with the intent of the • Code. 2. The requested modification will be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood. The proposed project has been designed to appear as if each unit is situated on a 30 - foot -wide lot with setbacks comparable to the surrounding R-1 and R-2 lots. Those reductions in the setbacks and building separation to accommodate the smaller detached, residential units arguably results in a site plan that is more compatible and consistent with the historic development pattern of the area rather than a single, larger apartment - complex. The following facts support compatibility of the proposed project with the existing neighborhood: • R-1, R-2, and MFR lots only require 3 to 4 -foot side yard setbacks. The proposed 6 - foot separation between buildings within the project is consistent with the required 3 -foot side yard setbacks of many of the 30 -foot wide lots in the surrounding neighborhood, which results in a total distance of 6 feet between buildings. • The proposed project is designed to appear as if each unit is situated on a 30 -foot - wide lot, the setbacks provided to the east property line are consistent and compatible with the required 3 -foot side yard setbacks of the surrounding 30 -foot and 40 -foot -wide lots in the neighborhood. The single -unit building fronting • Seashore Drive that is proposed to encroach 21 feet into the required side yard setback adjacent to the east property line will maintain a 4 -foot setback. The duplex 314 � i 0 Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 10 • unit fronting River Avenue that encroaches 17.5 feet into the required side yard setback adjacent to east property line will maintain a 7.5 -foot setback. The 6 single -unit structures adjacent to West Newport Park are proposed to encroach 15 feet into the required side yard setback, maintaining a 10 -foot setback to the property line. Due to the orientation of these units, this setback area is equivalent to their front yards and is consistent with the majority of the front yard setbacks in the immediate vicinity of this project that range between 0 and 10 feet (Exhibit 3, Districting Map). The 6 units fronting Seashore Drive are proposed to encroach 10 feet into the required 20 -foot setback, maintaining a 10 -foot setback to the property line. The proposed 10 -foot setback exceeds the required 0 to 5 -foot front yard setbacks that are required on a majority of the properties fronting Seashore Avenue in the immediate vicinity of this project. The 6 duplex structures and 1 single -unit structure adjacent to River Avenue are proposed to encroach between 5 and 10 feet into the required 20 -foot setback, maintaining a minimum 10 to 15 -foot setback to the property line. These proposed setbacks are consistent with, or exceed, the required 5 to 10 -foot front yard setbacks that are required on a majority of the other existing properties fronting • River Avenue in the immediate vicinity of this project. 3. The granting of such an application will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. As presented in discussion above for Finding No. 2, the project has been designed to include setbacks comparable to the setback requirements of the surrounding R-1 and R-2 lots. Similar setback and distancing requirements are common throughout the City and have not proven detrimental. Although staff believes the proposed setbacks of the project are compatible with the development pattern in the immediate vicinity of this project, it should be noted that buildings on neighboring Rr1 and R-2 lots are limited to a maximum height of 24 feet (24 feet midpoint/2-9 feet ridge). The proposed project however, is located within the MFR District, and benefits from an increased height limit of 28 feet (28 feet midpoint/33 feet ridge). Based on the rationale that the proposed detached, single -unit and two -unit structures have been designed to conform to the setback requirements of the surrounding R-1 and R-2 lots in the neighborhood and, therefore, warrant deviation from the MFR setback regulations, staff recommends the following condition of project approval: • 3J - Seashore Village March 20, 2008 • Page 11 Condition No. 7 The two structures that encroach into the side yard setback area immediately adjacent to the east property line shalt be modified in height to conform to the 24 -foot base height limit. This modification will result in an approximate 2 -foot reduction in ridge height and will ensure complete compatibility with the development standards of the neighboring R-2 units. With this condition, staff believes sufficient facts exist to support the required findings to approve the requested setback encroachments and reduced building separations. Use Permit for Increased Height The site is located in the 28/32 -foot height limitation zone that permits buildings and structures to exceed the 28 -foot height limit up to a maximum of 32 -feet through the approval of a use permit. Ridges of pitched roofs are permitted to exceed the height limit by 5 additional feet. The proposed project exceeds the 28 -foot base height limit. The proposed roof midpoints of the 6 duplex buildings are at 28 feet 10 inches, as measured from the finished pad elevation. The ridges of the buildings are comforming with a height of approximately 31 • feet 4 inches measured from the finished pad elevation. Section 20.65.055 of the Zoning Code requires the Planning Commission to make certain mandatory findings in order to approve a use permit to exceed the base height limit. These findings and the facts in support of these findings are discussed below: 1. The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular attention shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of all setback and open areas. The 6 duplex units that are proposed to exceed the 28 -foot base height limit have been designed with low-pitched gable roof lines, resulting in a maximum midpoint elevation of 28 feet 10 inches (10 inches over the maximum limit) and a maximum ridge elevation of 31 feet 4 inches (1 foot 8 inches under the maximum ridge limit). As illustrated in Exhibit 4 (Height Limit Overlay), a-� conforming roof plan can easily be accomplished by designing a taller structure with longer roof spans, thereby lowering the midpoint below the 28 -foot limit. This quirk in the City's method of measuring roof midpoints results in conforming roof midpoints but increases the overall height of the building to the maximum 33 -foot ridge 'limit. Therefore, the 10 -inch height increase to the midpoint allowance actually results in a 1 -foot 8 inch overall height reduction of the proposed buildings, resulting in increased public visual open space and views than could • otherwise be afforded with a conforming roof plan. 312'�i 0 0 Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 12 . The Planning Commission should also consider that a single, large multiple -unit building that conforms to the minimum setbacks and maximum height could be constructed, which would likely result in a more visually massive and bulky structure. Such a project could result in a 63 percent total maximum lot coverage (Lot Coverage is defined as the percentage of a site covered by roofs, soffits, or overhangs and by decks more than 30 inches in height). The proposed project, with 18 smaller detached single -unit and two - unit structures results in a substantially smaller 36 percent lot coverage. This reduction in lot coverage not only increases the public visual open space and view opportunities through the site, but also allows for increased landscaping of the site, which is proposed at 28 percent of the lot (the existing development of the site provides only 14.4 percent landscaping). 2. The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. The low-pitched gable roof lines result in building heights that are generally more compatible with the heights and architectural styles of the development in the surrounding neighborhood. As previously discussed, a conforming roof plan can be designed that results in increased overall building heights and visual massing as viewed from the street elevation. A conforming roof design also results in less desirable . architectural treatment of the side elevations, with more drastic roof lines that are less visually appealing. 3. The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions. The proposed street facing elevations will be scaled down by concentrating the highest portions of 'the building mass away from the street frontages. Through this design, the front and rear masses of the buildings are minimized and allow more light and ventilation to the immediate neighbors. Furthermore, with the exception of the existing R-2 properties to the east, the project site is separated from other uses by River Avenue, Seashore Drive, and the West Newport Park. This separation, in conjunction with the design of the buildings to limit the bulk and mass of the third floor to the center of the lots, eliminates any undesirable or abrupt scale relationships between the project and existing developments. Staffs recommended condition requiring the reduction in heights of structures adjacent to the existing R-2 properties to conform with a 24 -foot base height limit should result in a project that is compatible in scale to the adjacent R-2 properties and will help ease the transition of the project's increased heights to the existing neighborhood. • 31k Seashore Village March 20, 2008 • Page 13 4. The structure shall have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. As previously mentioned, the proposed floor area ratio for the project is 1.23 FAR, which is below the maximum of 1.75 FAR; therefore the project does not achieve any additional floor area due to the additional height. The additional allowance in height only affects roof lines and results in an architecturally superior product than would be achieved through a roof design that conforms to the height limit. General Use Permit Findings In addition to the required findings for the increased height request, the Zoning Code requires the Planning Commission to make certain findings for use permits. These 'findings and facts in support of findings are listed and discussed below. 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of this code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. As previously mentioned, the Multi -Family Residential (MFR) Zoning District is intended to provide for medium -to -high density residential development, including single-family, • two-family, and multi -family residential structures. The proposed detached single -unit and two -unit residential structures are permitted uses within this zoning designation. 2. That the proposed location of the use permit and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use,, and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city. As noted in the previous sections, the project is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed use permit request for increased height should not prove detrimental as the project includes a significant increase in public and visual open space and the small increase to the average height of the roofs actually allows for a more significant reduction in overall height of the buildings (1 -foot 8 -inches below the 33 -foot maximum ridge height limitation). 3. That the proposed use will comply with the provisions of this code, including any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. • The Municipal Code does not provide any specific conditions for this type of use; however, the project has been reviewed and conditioned to ensure that conflicts with surrounding land uses are minimized to the greatest extent possible or eliminated. 3V i 0 Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 14 • Subdivision — Tentative Tract Map The applicant is requesting the approval of a tentative tract map, for condominium purposes, to create 24 airspace condominium units. Pursuant to Section 19.12.070 of the City Subdivision Code (Title 19), the following standard findings must be made to approve the tentative tract map. If the Planning Commission determines that one or more of the findings listed in relation to either map cannot be made, the tentative parcel map or tract map must be denied. 1. That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code. As noted in the previous sections, the project is consistent with the General Plan. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed tentative maps and believes that they are consistent with the Newport Beach Subdivision Code (Title 19) and applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. Conditions of approval have been included to ensure compliance with Title 19. 2. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. • The existing site is entirely developed and does not support any environmental resources. The site is relatively flat and based on the geologic investigation performed for the site, no signs of unstable or expansive soils are evident, nor is the site subject to erosion. It should be noted that the geologic investigation did reveal that the underlying soil of the site has a significant liquefaction potential if subject to heavy vibration; however, mitigation measures have been incorporated, as recommended by the site-specific geotechnical investigation, that will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The site is'currently developed with multiple -family dwelling units at a density greater than that proposed. As previously discussed in the report, the proposed project is below the applicable maximum floor area limit and maximum residential density for the site. Due to these factors, the site is suitable for the type and density of development proposed. 3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision-making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. • 31`$0 • Seashore Village • March 20, 2008 Page 15 A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and concludes that no significant environmental impacts will result with proposed development of the site in accordance with the proposed subdivision map. 4. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The project consists of 24 residential units as permitted by the Zoning Code and the General Plan. No evidence is known to exist that would indicate that the planned subdivision pattern will generate any serious public health problems. All mitigation measures will be implemented as outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration to ensure the protection of the public health. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision-making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision. Although the access road through the project will remain private, a 24 -foot -wide easement through the site will be retained by the City to ensure access rights for public emergency and security ingress/egress, public utility purposes, and weekly trash pick- up. A 6 -foot sidewalk easement currently exists along the Seashore Drive frontage and the applicant will be required to construct full -width sidewalks. No other public easements for access through or use of the property have. been retained for -use by the public at large. Public utility easements for utility connections that serve the project site are present and will be modified, if necessary, to serve the proposed project. 6. That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Wifflamson Act), the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land. The site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract; therefore, this finding does not apply. • 3�7 C4 9 0 Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 16 • 7. That, in the case of a "land project' as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code: (a) there is an adopted specific plan for the area to be included within the land project, and (b) the decision-making body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area. The subject property is not located within the boundaries of a specific plan. 8. That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map Act. Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The Newport Beach Building Department enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check and field inspection processes. 9. That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. As previously noted in the Housing Element discussion, the demolition of the 54 -unit apartment complex and development of 24 condominiums will result in a total reduction of 30 dwelling units; however, given the rental vacancy rate of 7.7 percent in the City, sufficient existing rental units available to absorb the displaced rental units. Also, as discussed in more detail in the Coastal Residential Development Permit section of this report, 6 of the 54 existing apartment units proposed for demolition are occupied by persons of Power or moderate income. To compensate for this loss of affordable housing, the applicant will be required to replace the units at an off-site location within the City for a minimum period of 30 years. Public services are available to serve the proposed development of the site and the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project indicates that the project's potential environmental impacts are expected to be less than significant. 10. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Waste discharge into the existing sewer system will be consistent with residential use of the property which does not violate Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements. As of writing this report, the RWQCB has not provided any comments • related to the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration during the 30 -day review period. IW E C� • • 11. For subdivisions lying subdivision conforms applicable, with public Coastal Act. • Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 17 partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Although the proposed subdivision is located entirely within the coastal zone, the project site is not located adjacent to the shoreline of the Pacific Ocean and is not presently developed with coastal -related uses, coastaltdependent uses or water -oriented recreational uses. As noted previously, staff believes that the proposed project is consistent with the City's CLUP and the Coastal Act. Coastal Residential Development Permit Chapter 20.86 of the Zoning Code (Low and Moderate Income Housing within the Coastal Zone) requires the processing of a coastal residential development permit (CRDP) to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65590 (commonly known as the 1982 Mellow Act). The Mellow Act prohibits the City from approving the demolition or conversion of existing housing units occupied by low- or moderate -income households located within the Coastal Zone, unless provisions are made for their replacement. If feasible, all or any portion of the replacement units must be located on the site of the demolished structure or elsewhere in the Coastal Zone. If location on-site or within the Coastal Zone is not feasible, the units must be located within three miles of the Coastal Zone's inland boundary. Based on an income survey performed in June of 2007 by the Las Brisas property manager, Allen Properties, it was determined that a total of 6 units in the existing apartment complex are occupied by low- and moderate -income households. The income distribution is as follows: Two very -low -..income households; and Four moderate -income households Feasibility Analysis The Mello Act states that replacement affordable units must be provided if "feasible". The Mello Act defines feasibility as "capable of:being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technical factors". The City utilized a pro forma provided by the applicant to analyze the project and determine if it was financially feasible for the applicant to fulfill all, or any portion, of the replacement requirements of the Mello Act. For the purpose of the feasibility analysis, the pro forma estimates development costs and revenues for the project based on the following: 319 da 0 • Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 18 • 1. Site Acquisition Cost ($25,500,000) 2. Total Development Costs ($28,434,500) 3. Total Sales Revenue ($58,950,000) 4. Developer Profit (8.5 percent of Sales revenue= $5,015,500) The applicant has agreed to commit $1.35 million to subsidizes the rents and/or purchase price of off-site replacement housing. After committing $1.35 million towards replacement housing, the applicant's profit is expected to decrease to approximately 6.2 percent. Specific candidate properties for the replacement units have not yet been identified as of this writing. The City retained the real estate development consulting firm, The Natelson Dale Group, Inc (TNDG) for the purposes of evaluating the reasonableness of the applicant's financial projections. After reviewing the applicant's pro forma dated November 2007 and an appraisal letter prepared by CB Richard Ellis, Inc (CBRE) dated January 5, 2008, TNDG has concluded that the applicant could afford to subsidize replacement housing in the amount of at least $1.8 million to $2.0 million and still meet the project feasibility criteria established in the applicant's original pro forma (8.5 percent developer profit). The TNDG Memorandum is attached as Exhibit 5. The basis of this conclusion is that the CB`RE appraisal (prepared subsequent to the applicant's November 2007 pro forma) indicates a total revenue potential for the project of $60.9 million, or $1.95 million • more than sales revenue indicated on the applicant's pro forma. Based on the revised revenue expectation, the applicant's development costs and revenues for the project would be revised as follows: 1. Site Acquisition Cost ($25,500,000) 2. Total Development Costs ($28,434,500) 3. Total Sales Revenue ($60,900,000) 4. Developer Profit Before Replacement Housing Fee (11.4% or $6,965,500) 5. Replacement Housing Costs ($1,950,000 million) 6. Net Developer Profit (8.5 percent of Sales revenue = $5,015,500) On -Site Replacement Replacement of the 6 affordable units on-site is infbasible, given the land costs and proposed product types; however, based on the applicant's sales revenue projection, it appears that it would be feasible to retain one of the duplex units on-site as a moderate - income "for -sale" unit. The 3 -bedroom unit could be sold at a maximum price of $283,200 to a moderate income household, resulting in a loss (subsidy) of $1,250,800. Staff does not recommend this option. • mb M CJ E 0 Off -Site Replacement • Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 19 The most practical way to replace the units would be through the acquisition of an existing, off-site apartment project and/or condominium and subsidizing the rents and/or purchase price of the units to lower or moderate -income households. To determine whether the applicant's $1.35 million commitment was sufficient to subsidize 6 off-site replacement units, staff relied on the analysis contained within the Draft Technical Memorandum dated October 11, 2007 (Exhibit 6), prepared by Economic and Planning Systems (EPS), for the calculation of the City's affordable housing in -lieu fee. Based on the information contained within the memorandum, the net cost to subsidize 6 replacement units is estimated at $962,134. It should be noted that these calculations were intended to generally illustrate the subsidy amount that is required for the City to create new affordable units; however, actual subsidy costs could vary depending on the number of units that are created and whether they or new or converted units. Low Rental Moderate Income For -Sale $1 'For comparison purposes: the types of affordable unit proposed to be demolished (i.e. income level and bedroom count) were used to calculate subsidy costs. 2For subsidy calculations, the value of the affordable unit (as calculated through sale values or capitalized rental operating income streams) is compared to the costs to develop the unit, including "direct: vests (labor and materials), "indirect" costs (design, permits, financing, etc.) and land acquisition costs. Site Acquisition Costs The CBRE appraisal estimates the "as is" value of the Property as an apartment - complex to be $15.95 million and the potential land value (if entitled per the applicant's request) to be $25.5 million. Staff believes the site acquisition costs (entitled land value) included in the applicant's pro forma is overvalued as it does not include the cost to replace the 6 units in accordance with the Mello Act ; therefore, it does not represent entitled land value. Although the applicant has committed $1.35 million towards the replacement of the 6 units, staff believes this information is pertinent when considering the feasibility of this project. CRDP Summary Based on the above discussion, the applicant's commitment of $1.35 million is sufficient to subsidize the replacement of the 6 affordable housing units and still provide a developer profit that is acceptable to the applicant (ranging between 6.2 — 9.2 percent is depending on total sales revenue). The Mello Act does not specify whether the replacement units must be like -for -like in terms of affordability and bedroom count; 0 Seashore Village March 20, 2008 • Page 20 however, given the City s adequate supply of moderate income rental units in the City, staff recommends that any very -low and low income units proposed be maintained as rental units and any moderate income units proposed be sold as "for -sale" units. Staff has included a condition ensuring an appropriate mix of affordable units is provided that efficiently utilizes the applicant's $1.35 million commitment. Traffic Phasing Ordinance Based on trip generation rates calculated using the Institute of Traffic Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (7"' edition, 2003), occupancy of the proposed 24 single -unit and two -unit residences is anticipated to result in a net reduction of 178 average daily trips (ADT) in comparison to the number of trips estimated to be generated by the existing 54 -unit apartment complex (178 ADT — 363 ADT = -178 ADT). Per Section 15.40.030.C.1 of the Municipal Code (Traffic Phasing Ordinance), the project is exempt from having to prepare a traffic study as it generates fewer than 300 daily trips. Environmental Review A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared by The Planning Center for the proposed project in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The MND is attached as Exhibit No. 7. The MND • identifies five (5) issue areas with 6 mitigation measures. Those issues are: Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Noise. The MND was circulated for public review between February 20 and March 20, 2008. As of the date of staff report preparation, staff has only received two standard MND comment letters from the Gas Company and the Native American Heritage Commission (Exhibit 8). Staff will prepare responses to any subsequent comment letters, if received, and present them to the Planning Commission at the March 20th hearing. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of, the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. The environmental assessment process has also been noticed in a similar manner and all mandatoey notices per the California Environmental Quality Act have been given. Finally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hail and on the city website. In addition to the City's public noticing requirements, the applicant has been proactive in meeting with surrounding neighborhood and has provided a summary of their • community outreach efforts, which is attached as Exhibit 9 322 0 • Seashore Village • March 20, 2008 Page 21 SUMMARY Although the proposed project includes a number of deviations from the MFR District development standards, staff believes that findings necessary for project approval can be made. It is staffs conclusion that the 24 -unit condominium project, as conditioned, would not prove detrimental to the area and will result in a development that is more compatible and consistent with the historic development of the adjacent R-1 and R-2 properties in the immediate vicinity of1he site. ALTERNATIVES Should the Planning Commission conclude that the project as proposed would not be compatible with thesurrounding uses and/or that the project would not be appropriate for the MFR District, the project should be denied, or modified to address issues of design or density. If a redesigned project is advisable, staff recommends a continuance to allow the applicant time to revise their plans accordingly should this course of action be sought. Given the deviations from the MFR development standards necessary to accommodate the single -unit and two -unit product type proposed for the site, staff considered the • appropriateness of alternative zoning designations; however, for the following various reasons, the MFR designation proved to be most appropriate: 1. An R=1/R-2 ismost suitable for the proposed product type; however, the benefits of the MFR guest parking; open space and increased landscaping would be lost and potentially replaced with two additional units (Exhibit 10, Zone Change Study). 2. The Planned Residential Development (PRD) Overlay allows for project -specific development plan and flexibility with development standards; however, given the., large parking requirement that cannot be waived, this option was not considered feasible. 3. The Planned Community District is intended to provide for the classification and development of parcels of land as coordinated, comprehensive projects so as to take advantage of the superior environment which can54esult from large-scale community planning; however, the proposed project does not achieve these objectives and does not meet the minimum land area requirements of 10 acres. • 0 0 Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 22 The following table provides a comparison of the various zoning district alternatives: Prepared by: Submitted by: mime Murillo, Associate Planner David Lepo, Pla g Director EXHIBITS 2. 3. BistrietingWilp n��AeFRJ.�fiFSEr r = r e A_ WgiQhRI VFAI Q'' {a� 5 T -W6 `. Mem.. @A arum gP ,e AFAerandw, 1.. NeeFe- -61-1" ne:a;gatedMrageii;s.Deelaralien+�- ^P 10 7nne Change qtl ids FJUsersIPLMSharedlPA'sWAs - 2007MPA2007-1001Staff Reports and ResolutionslPA2007.100 PC Staff Report 3.20.08.doc 11 101 �24. _. Code Amendment Code Amendment Discretionary Modification General Plan Approvals Permit Amendment Use Permit Development Plan Use Permit Code Amendment Subdivision deviations from minimum lot size (5000 sq. ft. minimum Units 24 proposed Potentially 26 lots Unknown; Per Dev. Plan due to loss of guest significant parking requirement reduction anticipated due to increased parking re uirements Parking 2 per unit, plus .5 2 per unit, no guest 2 per unit, plus 2 Per Dev. Plan guest per unit parking guest per unit 60 spaces) 24 spaces) 96 spaces total Minimum 1200 sq. ft. per 1000 sq. ft. per unit 1200 sq. ft. per unit 10 acres Land Area unit Height 28' midpoint flat 24' midpoint/flat Up to --up to 33' ridge 29' ridge 32' midpoint/flat 32' midpoint/flat 37' ride 37' rid e Prepared by: Submitted by: mime Murillo, Associate Planner David Lepo, Pla g Director EXHIBITS 2. 3. BistrietingWilp n��AeFRJ.�fiFSEr r = r e A_ WgiQhRI VFAI Q'' {a� 5 T -W6 `. Mem.. @A arum gP ,e AFAerandw, 1.. NeeFe- -61-1" ne:a;gatedMrageii;s.Deelaralien+�- ^P 10 7nne Change qtl ids FJUsersIPLMSharedlPA'sWAs - 2007MPA2007-1001Staff Reports and ResolutionslPA2007.100 PC Staff Report 3.20.08.doc 11 101 �24. Attachment No. CC 4 April 17, 2008 Planning Commission Staff Report 325 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH •PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 17, 2008 Meeting Agenda Item No. 4 SUBJECT: Seashore Village Residential Development (PA2007-100) 5515 River Avenue ■ Mitigated Negative Declaration ■ Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-001 ■ Modification Permit No. 2007-044 ■ Use Permit No. 2007-011 ■ Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007-001 APPLICANT: Seashore Village, LLC PLANNER: Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner (949) 644-3209, jmurillo@city.newport-beach.ca.us RECOMMENDATION Hold a public hearing and adopt the attached resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Sch. No. 2008021075) and approving Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-001, •Modification Permit No. 2007-044, Use Permit No. 2007-011 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007-001, subject to findings and conditions of approval. DISCUSSION As stated in the March 20, 2008, Planning Commission staff report, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared by The Planning Center for the proposed project in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The MND is attached as Exhibit 7 to the March 20, 2008, staff report package. The MND was circulated for a 30 -day public review period from February 20, 2008, to March 20, 2008; however, the MND notice of availability was posted on the site February 20, 2008, and it was determined that the public comment period began the following day, February 21, 2008, with the public comment period concluding on March 21, 2008. As such, the item was continued to the April 3, 2008 Planning Commission hearing, where it was again continued to this meeting date to allow staff additional time to prepare responses to comments received on the MND. Comments were received from the Southern California Gas Company, Native American Heritage Commission, Lennie DeCaro, California Department of Transportation, and Department of Toxic Control Substances. Responses to these comments have been • prepared for consideration (Exhibit 2). Adoption of the MND by the Planning 0 r Seashore Village April 17, 2008 Page 2 Commission after public hearing is required prior to approval of the requested applications. Revised Resolution Based on comments received on the draft conditions of approval, staff has revised the resolution to include a number of corrections and clarifications. The following changes were made to the draft conditions of approval: Condition No. 8 The applicant shall replace 6 affordable units within 3 years of the date of issuance of a demolition permit effe-otive date- -of this appreval. The units may be provided off-site at an approved location, or locations, within the City. An amount not to exceed $1.35 million shall be provided by the applicant and the applicant shall use such funds to replace the 6 affordable units and to achieve a mix of income levels and bedroom counts, as determined appropriate by the Planning Director. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to provide said units. The agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and shall be executed and recorded prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the project. Condition No. 46 An ADA compliant public pedestrian pathway, from River Avenue to Seashore Drive, shall be provided throughout the development site. Condition No. 61 The internal roadway shall be a minimum of 26 feet wide, unless otherwise approved by the Traffic Engineer. The internal roadway shall align with Neptune Avenue. The internal roadway curb cut on River Avenue shall be 26 feet wide minimum and modified to comply with current ADA standards. Prepared by: Jrne Murillo, Associate Planner Submitted by: F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PNs\PAs - 2007\PA2007-100\Staff Reports and Resolutions\04_17_081PA2007-100 PC Staff Report 041708.doc U E 32M Attachment No. CC 5 June 10, 2008 City Council Staff Report 328 0 a • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 26 June 10, 2008 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner (949) 644-3209, imurillofa')city.newport-beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision approving a 24 -unit condominium subdivision Seashore V ilage Residential Development (PA2007-100) 5515 River Avenue • Mitigated Negative Declaration • Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-001 • Modification Permit No. 2007-044 • Use Permit No. 2007-011 • • Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007-001 APPLICANT: Seashore Village, LLC APPELLANT: Lennie DeCaro Should the City Council approve, modify, or disapprove a 24 -unit condominium subdivision on a 1.49 -acre site located at 5515 River Avenue? REC s DATION: Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a de novo hearing and adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 1) adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Sch. No. 2008021075) and approving Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-001, Modification Permit No. 2007-044, Use Permit No. 2007-011 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007-001, subject to findings and conditions of approval. • 329 Seashore Village June 10, 2008 Page 2 INTRODUCTION: Proiect Description The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing 54 -unit apartment complex and construct 12 detached, single -unit residential structures and 6 detached, two -unit (duplex) residential structures, for a total of 24 units (Attachment 2 - Project Plans). The 12 single -unit structures would front onto Seashore Drive and onto West Newport Park. The 6 duplex structures front onto River Avenue. A total of 63 parking spaces are proposed: 48 dedicated residential spaces in garages and carports; and 15 open guest spaces. Background On April 17, 2008, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the applicant's request, and after an extensive discussion on the project and considering the testimony received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to adopt the MND and approve the requested applications. On April 29, 2008, Mrs. Lennie DeCaro, an adjacent property owner, appealed the Planning Commission's approval • Please refer to the attached March 20, 2008, and April 17, 2008, Planning Commission • staff reports for a detailed discussion and analysis of the proposed project and requested approvals (Attachments 3 & 4). Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission generally concurred with staff's analysis of the proposed project as presented in the attached staff reports and found that the findings necessary for the project approval could be made. Commissioners commented that the mass and scale of the project were consistent with policies of the General Plan. They also recognized that, although the project is designed to appear as a traditional Single -Family and Two -Family Residential subdivision, maintaining the Multiple -Family Residential zoning classification provides 15 guest spaces that would not be required within the R-1 and R-2 zoning classifications. To reduce the massing and minimize impacts to the adjacent R-2 properties, the Commission required that the roofs be designed with a hip roof feature that slopes the roof planes away from side property line. The proposed project is located in the Coastal Zone and compliance with the Mello Act requires that units occupied by low and moderate -income households be replaced to the extent this would be economically feasible. Discussion took place as to whether or not the • recommended condition of approval requiring a $1.35 million commitment to replace six 330 • • U ! 0 Seashore Village June 10, 2008 Page 3 units currently occupied by low and moderate -income households was sufficient. Staff clarified that the $1.35 million proposed for this purpose is not intended to cover the entire cost of the replacement units, but rather is intended to cover the subsidy needed to provide the replacement units at a price/rents affordable to low and moderate -income households. The applicant may decide to purchase market rate units and sell them, in which case the subsidy is the difference in cost between the fair market value of each unit and the price a low or moderate -income household could afford to pay (i.e. $479K Market Rate Price - $303K Affordable Price = $176K Subsidy). Another option is for the applicant to purchase units and rent them at rates affordable to low and moderate -income households Rents would be maintained at affordable==rates pursuant to 30 -year covenants required by the City. The Commission agreed that the $1.35 million commitment was sufficient and modified the condition to require that a minimum of six units be provided, in the event that more replacement units can be accommodated with the commitment as follows: Condition No. 8 The applicant shall replace at least 6 affordable units within 3 years of the date of issuance of a demolition, permit. The units may be provided, off-site at an approved, location, or locations, within the City. An amount not to exceed $9.35 million shall be provided by the applicant and the applicant shall use such funds to replace at least 6 affordable` units and to achieve a mix of income levels and bedroom counts, as determined appropriate by the Planning Director. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to provide said units. The agreement shall be reviewed and ,approved by the City Attorney and shall be executed and recoided prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the project. The Minutes from the Planning Commission hearing have been attached for reference (Attachment'5). DtSCUSSiON: Appeal The appellant requests that the City Council reconsider and reverse both the Planning Commission's action to adopt the MND and the action to approve the project. Chapter 20.95 of the Municipal Code establishes the procedures for the appeal process. Pursuant to Section 20.95.0.60 C, a public hearing on an appeal is conducted `de novo," meaning that it is a new hearing and the decision being appealed has no force or effect as of the date the appeal was filed. The appellate body is not bound by the decision being appealed or limited to the issues raised on appeal. Analysis The appellant's appeal application (Attachment 6) specifically cites three main reasons for the appeal: 1) improper notice; 2) improper public hearing; and 3) improper approval. In addition to the brief information provided on the appeal application, the appellant's appeal states that two comment letters (total of 50 pages) and e-mails previously 331 Seashore Village June 10, 2008 Page 4 submitted by the appellant should be considered for the appeal, as well as other • residentttenant letters of objection (Attachment 7). The following discussion summarizes the appellant's reasons for the appeal and provides responses for the City Council's consideration. Improper J1lofice General Comment: Based on information presented in both the appellant's comment letters and information presented in her e-mails to staff, the appellant believes adequate noticing was not provided as to the availability of the MND for the mandatory 30 -day public review period. The following reasons are cited: • Appellant received a mailed notice of public hearing, but never received a mailed notice indicating the availability of the MND ("notice of availability"). • APPellant states that the MND was not available for review until 6 days after the start of the 30 -day public review period. • Appellant states that the site was not posted with the notice of availability and even if it had been, the 30 -day public review period would have concluded on March 21St, not March 20th as indicated on the notice. • • Notice of availability was not mailed to tenants of the apartment building or to the tenants in the neighborhood. Response: As stated in Response to Comment No. C-2 (Attachment 8 -Response to Comments) to the appellant's first comment letter, pursuant to Sections 15105(c) and 15073(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the MND was forwarded to the State Clearing house on February 19, 2008, for distribution to responsible and trustee agencies for the mandatory 30 -day review period. Pursuant to Sections 15072(b)(2) and 15105, the notice was posted onsite in the area where the project is to be located. Although not required if the site'has been posted, the notice of availability was also mailed to all property owners within a 300 -foot radius of the site, using the same list of property owners for which the notice of public hearing was later mailed. The posted notice and mailed notices indicated that the 30 -day review period would begin on February 20, 2008, and conclude on March 20, 2008; however, because the site was posted on February 20th', it was determined by the City Attorney's Office that the public comment period began on the following day, February 21St, with the public comment period ending on March 21St. Accordingly, the public hearing on the project was continued from the March 20th Planning Commission meeting to allow for the full public comment period and allow staff to prepare formal responses to comments received. • 332 Seashore Village June 10, 2008 Page 5 • It should be noted that in addition to the notice of availability that was mailed to the appellant, on March 26th, staff directly e-mailed the appellant to notify her that the MND was available for review online. The document was also available for review at City Hall, as indicated on the notices, since the commencement of the public review period. Therefore, staff concludes that adequate noticing was provided in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. Improper Public Heanng General Comment: The appellant's appeal. implies that the Planning Commission hearing was; improperly conducted and that there was an attempt to circumvent the public hearing process for the following reasons: The Planning Commission did not consider appellant's additional 17 -page comment letter (Comment Letter #2), e-mails, and objection letters submitted prior to taking action on the project. • E-mail and letters objecting to the project were not made available at the hearing. Response: The appellant's first comment letter (33 pages) was submitted the day of • the March 20, 2008, Planning Commission hearing date. The Planning Commission continued the item to allow staff to prepare responses to these comments. Responses were prepared for each of the comments and were included in the April 17, 2008, Planning Commission staff report. The appellant submitted a second comment letter (17 pages) on April 17, 2008, just prior to the start of the public hearing. This letter was forwarded to each Planning .Commissioner upon receipt via e-mail and hard copies of the letter were made available to the Planning Commissioners and to members of the general public at the public hearing. A letter of opposition from a tenant of the building, Susan Carvalho (included in Attachment 7), was also submitted the day of the Planning Commission hearing on April 17, 2008. A copy of the letter was scanned and e-mailed to each of the Planning Commissioners and hard copies were made available at the hearing for the Commission and the general public. Staff did not receive any other comment letters or e-mails regarding the project that were not already included in the formal response to comments on the MND. General Comment: The appellant's appeal also implies that there was an attempt to circumvent the public hearing process because she was interrupted during her 3 minute presentation and not allowed to rebut the applicant's testimony. is Response: The Planning Commission agenda states that speakers providing testimony to the Planning Commission must limit remarks to three minutes on all items. Bob 333 0 Seashore Village June 10, 2008 Page 6 DeCaro, appellant's husband, was provided a full 3 '/z minutes of public testimony. The • appellant was provided 4 % minutes of public testimony, of which 3 %z minutes were entirely uninterrupted _ Improper Approval The appellant believes the approval of the project was improper based on numerous reasons cited in both of the extensive letters submitted. A detailed response to the appellant's first letter was provided in a formal response to comments prepared for all comment letters received within the MND public comment period. The appellant's second comment letter was submitted on the day of the April 17, 2008, Planning Commission hearing; after expiration of the 30 -day public comment period. The following discussion is a summary of the new and/or reiterated objections to the project presented in the appellant's second comment letter, with the exception of the public noticing issues discussed above. General Comment: The appellant believes that the CRDP application was improperly approved for the following reasons: • Based on her review of a previous application to develop the same site (submitted by another developer in 2006), she discovered information indicating that a 2006 income survey was performed and that there were a total of 13~low • and moderate -income households within the building (not 6 households as confirmed in the 2007 income survey). • The income survey evaluation was compromised in that the income surveys were initiated, compiled, and returned to the City -by the applicant. • A possible reason for the difference in the numbers of low and moderate -income households between the previous application and the current application is that, prior to conducting the income survey, existing tenants were offered incentives to move and that the property management company changed the rental policy requiring minimum tenant income levels of $66,200 per individual with no co- signers. Response: The information the appellant discovered in reviewing the previous application submittal (withdrawn on February 2, 2007) was contained within a proposal for consultant services by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., to conduct a feasibility analysis of the previous applicant's financial pro forma. The proposal indicated that there were a total of 13 low and moderate -income households within the building; however, occupancy of the 13 units by low and moderate -income households was not subsequently confirmed. Based on the 2006 income survey, it was preliminarily assumed that 13 low and moderate -income households were in residence, based on returned surveys and information found on each tenant's rental application. Upon further • review, it was determined that the information on the rental application was unreliable 334 Seashore Village June 10, 2008 Page 7 • as much of the data was out -dated and there was no way to determine whether or not a household's income had increased or decreased during their respective occupancies. In -fact, the 2007 income survey information conflicted with rental application information indicating that tenants had incomes at levels above moderate -income. Therefore, in evaluating the 2007 income survey, staff made a determination that occupancy by only 6 low and moderate -income households could be confirmed and the replacement requirement was determined to be a minimum of 6 units. The Mello Act does not provide direction on how to determine the income level of the households; however, it has been the City's practice for the applicant to conduct the income survey utilizing a template provided by staff. The allegations that existing tenants were offered incentives to move and that the income qualifications were raised for prospective tenants are similar to statements contained within Susan Garvalho's April 17, 2008, letter of objections submitted=to the Planning Commission. In response to these allegations, the applicant has stated that tenants were not offered money or any other incentives to move. The applicant did confirm that when selecting prospective tenants, the property manger routinely performs credit investigations and requires a minimum income as standard practice to insure the tenant can afford the monthly rent, but denies this was an attempt°to preclude `tow and moderate -income households from renting units. The Mello Act does state that if any . tenants are evicted within one year prior to submitting an application, it is assumed the evictionwas performed to avoid the replacement requirements of the law; however, the two allegations in the comment letter, even if substantiated; would not constitute evictions. General. Comment: The appellant states that the MND failed to include a review of the financial pro forma= subsequently prepared by The Natelson Dale Group (TNDG) and that the pro forma should have been made available during the public comment period as it provides mitigation in the form of replacement of 6 affordable units. Response: The applicant has agreed to replace all 6 affordable units and has committed $1.35 million to subsidizing the replacement, in accordance with the requirements of the Mello Act. The replacement of the 6 units is not a mitigation measure, but a requirement of State law. TNDG was hired by the City to evaluate the reasonableness of the applicant's financial projections and the commitment of $1.35 million toward replacement housing. The TNDG analysis confirmed that the applicant could afford to replace the units and still meet the project's feasibility criteria established in the project's original pro forma. General Comment: The appellant states that sufficient documentation was not provided for the financial feasibility analysis and that staff is relying on the applicant's word. • 335 Seashore Village June 10, 2008 Page 8 Response: Typically, applicants requesting the approval of a CRDP to demolish • affordable housing in the Coastal Zone argue that it is financially infeasible to provide replacement housing, in which case staff must closely scrutinize and evaluate financial pro formas to determine feasibility; however in this case, the applicant agreed to replace all 6 units and willenterinto an agreement with the City to insure their replacement within 3 years from the date of demolition. Therefore, staff believes it unnecessary to require additional documentation for the applicant's financial pro forma as the applicant has agreed to comply with the Mello Act replacement requirements. General Comment: The appellant states the plans are illegible and accuracy of the 11"x18" plans could not be verified. Response: The appellant was given full-size plans for review at City Hall. General Comment: The appellant states that the noise analysis contained within the MND inadequately discussed and analyzed noise from heating, ventilating, and air conditioning units (HVAC). Response: Please see Attachment No 9 for a detailed response prepared by The Planning Center for each of,the appellant's specific noise comments. General Comment: The appellant states that the applicant does not have the right to • take access from 'Neptune Avenue and based on information contained within the applicant's preliminary title report, any rights that did exist were relinquished upon the City's acceptance of the original subdivision map. Response: The preliminary title report simply states that the property does not currently have access to Neptune Avenue, which is accurate; however, Neptune Avenue is a public street and the City has the authority to grant access, after which time the title information will change accordingly. General Comment: The appellant incorrectly refers to the private driveway through the project site as an alley, and cites a number of City requirements related to the construction of public and private streets, as well as concerns related to the transition/connection of Neptune Avenue to a private alley. She also cites concerns related to the elimination of the Neptune Avenue cul-de-sac. Response: For clarification, access through the site is provided via a private driveway, not an alley or street. The tentative tract map for the project incorrectly identities the access as a private road; however all other drawings within the plans correctly identify the access as a driveway. Prior to recordation, the final map will be revised to correctly identify the access as a driveway. City requirements related to the construction of public and private streets are not applicable to the proposed driveway. As stated in Response to Comment No. C-4 to the appellant's first comment letter, Neptune Avenue is not a • cul-de-sac because it does not provide adequate turning radius for vehicles and does 336 Seashore Village June 10, 2008 Page 9 • not comply with City cul-de-sac standards. The Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and does not believe the project will negatively impact the City's right- of-way and circulation system. Additionally, appropriate conditions of approval have been proposed, including further review by the City Traffic Engineer, to ensure that the final design of the driveway complies with all City requirements and Council Policy L-2 (Driveway Approaches). General Comment: The appellant states that the Coastal Act requires maximum access to the shoreline for the public and that new developments must provide public access unless adequate access, exists nearby. She contends that the proposed project is removing, access to the shoreline. Response: The project site -,is not located adjacent to the shoreline of the Pacific Ocean and does not currently provide any public access through the site. Adequate public access exists around the site via the surrounding rights-of-way (i.e. River Avenue, 54th Street, Seashore Drive). In addition, the proposed development has been conditioned to require a public pedestrian pathway through the site providing connection from River Avenue to Seashore Drive, thereby creating new access opportunities for the public. General :Comment:: The<appellantstates that -the View Corridor Analysis prepared for Response to Comment -,No. Ct& to the appellant's first comment.aetter was incorrectly • prepared because a conforming side yard setback should have been 37:5 feet, not 25 feet as illustrated in the exhibit. Response: The View Corridor Analysis of the appellant's private view-to:the,beach was prepared,to analyze how a=structure=that conformed to the required 25400t side yard setback (along the easternproperty boundary) and. 20400t front yard 'setback, (along Seashore .Drive) as 3required perthe: Zoning:. Code in the MFR Zoning District would obstruct the current view corridor for her property. The analysis concluded that the proposed project did not impact°the appellant's private view anymore than a conforming project would: In the appellant`s second comment letter, she argues that the View Corridor Analysis was incorrectly prepared because a conforming side yard.setback is 37.5 feet; however, the appellant incorrectly calculated the side yard setback. Per Section 20.10.030(G) of the Zoning Code, side yard setbacks in the MFR zone are based on a percentage of average lot width, provided that in no event shall a side yard wider than 25 feet be required. General Comment: The appellant reiterates discrepancies cited in her previous comment letter. Response: The response to comments prepared for the appellant's first comment letter have addressed and corrected the discrepancies. • General Comment: The appellant provides several statements disagreeing with the formal response to comments prepared for the appellant's first comment letter. 337 �� Seashore Village June 10, 2008 Page 10 • Response: No new information has been presented that would cause staff to revise any of the previous responses. Summary Although the proposed project includes a number of deviations from the MFR District development standards, staff believes that findings necessary for project approval were made appropriately by the Planning Cornmisson. It is staff's conclusion that the 24 -unit condominium project, as conditioned, would not prove detrimental to the area and will result in a development that is compatible and consistent with the historic development of the adjacent R-1 and R-2 properties in the immediate vicinity of the site. The objections presented in the appellant's appeal have been provided for the City Council's consideration and, in staffs opinion, have been adequately addressed. Environmental Review A MAID has been prepared by The Planning Center for the proposed project in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act. The1#i is at eked as Attachment 10. The MND identifies five (5) issue areas with 6 mitig len measures. Those issues are: Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hakards and °Hazardous Materials, and Noise. . The MND was circulated for public review between February 21 and March 21, 2008. Commentswere received from the Souther California Gas Company, Native American Heriteve Commission, Lennie DeCaro, California Department of Transportation, and Departtnent of Toxic Control: Substances. Unlike an Environmental Impact Report where formal response to comments must be prepared, comments received on a draft MND must only be considered by the approving body and kept on file; however, formal responses were prepared for each of the comment letters received during the public comment period (Attachment 8). Adoption of the MAID by the City Council after public hearing is required prior to approval of the requested applications. • 338 • • • Public Notice Seashore Village June 10, 2008 Page 11 Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. As previously discussed, all mandatory notices for the environmental assessment have been given per the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Prepared by: Submitted by: 7� Jak6e Murillo, Associate Planner Davi Lepo, Planni ?, Director Attachments: 1. DFaft resolution of approval 339 11110 Nam pol- 339 Attachment No. CC 6 City Council Resolution No.2008-53 Findings and Conditions of Approval 340 0 0 FILE COPY RESOLUTION NO. 2008- 53 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH NO. 2008-021075) & APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2007-001, MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2007-044, USE PERMIT NO. 2007-011 AND COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 2007- 001 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5515 RIVER AVENUE (PA 2007-100) WHEREAS, an application was filed by Seashore Village, LLC requesting approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-001, Modification Permit No. 2007-044, Use Permit No. 2007-011 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007-001, with respect to property located at 5515 River Avenue, and legally described as Lot 105 of Tract 3812, to develop 12 detached, single -unit residential structures and 6 detached, two -unit (duplex) residential structures (24 units total). The site is currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex that would be demolished to accommodate the proposed development. Project implementation requires the approval of the following applications: 1) Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-001 to create a 24 -unit condominium subdivision; 2) Modification Permit No. 2007-044 to allow encroachments into the required front and side yard setback areas and a reduction in the required distance between detached buildings; 3) Use Permit No. 2007-011 to allow each of the 6 duplex structures to exceed the City's base height limit; and 4) Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007-001 to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65590 (Mello Act), which regulates the demolition of low and moderate income (affordable) dwelling units in the Coastal Zone; and WHEREAS, at a noticed public hearing held on April 17, 2008, the Planning Commission considered the application, plans and evidence, both written and oral, and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Sch. No. 2008021075) and approved Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-001, Modification Permit No. 2007-044, Use Permit No. 2007-011 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007-001, subject to findings and conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, on April 29, 2008, Mrs. Lennie DeCaro, an adjacent property owner, appealed the Planning Commission's approval citing three main reasons for the appeal: 1) improper notice; 2) improper public hearing; and 3) improper approval; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on June 10, 2008, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Element of the General Plan sets forth objectives, policies and limitations for development in the City and designates the general 341 distribution and location of land uses and residential and commercial densities. The Land Use Element designates the project site as Multiple -Unit Residential (RM) with a maximum development limit of 51 dwelling units. The RM designation is intended to provide primarily for multi -family residential development and for development containing attached or detached dwelling units. The proposed subdivision is consistent with this designation; and WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is consistent with Land Use Policy 5.1.9 that requires multi -family dwellings be designed to convey a high quality architectural character. The project has been designed to be compatible with the development pattern and character of the surrounding neighborhood, which generally consists of two - and three-story, single -unit and two -unit dwellings. Each unit will feature either a "Craftsman" or "Plantation" architectural style. Architectural details and enhancements (i.e. batt and board wood siding, louvered window shutters, decorative trim, and stone veneer) will be provided on all building elevations. The 2nd floor facades are setback from the 1gt floor on the rear elevations and cantilevered over the 1st floor on the front elevations, providing articulation and modulation to the building mass. The 3`d floor of each building is setback from the front and rear elevations, towards the interior portion of each building envelope, to reduce the visual mass of the structures as viewed from the streets; and WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is consistent with Land Use Policy 6.2.9 that requires open space and recreational facilities to be integrated into and preserved in private residential development. A majority of the units have been designed with small (approx. 300 sq. ft.) front patio areas, which are comparable in size to the outdoor living areas of the surrounding residential development within the neighborhood. All units are provided useable and functional 2nd level and 3`d level deck spaces (ranging between 48 and 154 sq. ft.). West Newport Park, an active recreational park, is located immediately west of the project site and the beach is located approximately 120 feet south of the site; both the park and the beach will provide additional recreational opportunities. A condition of project approval has been included that prohibits any floor area additions to the approved building envelopes, which will preserve open patio and deck areas proposed for each unit and the common landscaped and open space areas; and WHEREAS, the Housing Element of the General Plan sets forth goals and policies to facilitate the attainment of the City's Regional Housing Needs Allucations and to foster the availability of affordable housing to all income levels to the greatest extent feasible.. The demolition of the older, non -conforming, 54 -unit apartment complex and development of 24 condominiums, will result in a total reduction of 30 dwelling units. As discussed in the Population and Housing section of the Initial Study prepared for the project, there are approximately 43,851 housing units in the City, of which approximately 5,462 units are vacant. The rental vacancy rate is estimated at 7.7 percent with approximately 3,337 rental units vacant (American Community Survey 2006). Therefore, the reduction and change in housing type is not considered significant, as there are sufficient existing rental units available to absorb the displaced 342 0 0 rental units. Additionally, Housing Program 1.1.3 requires the replacement of housing demolished within the Coastal Zone when housing is, or has been, occupied by low- income or moderate -income households. A total of 6 rental units have been identified to have been occupied by low-income and moderate -income households, which the applicant will be required to replace at an off-site location with restrictions to maintain their affordability for a minimum of 30 years; and WHEREAS, the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLOP) of the Local Coastal Program sets forth goals, objectives, and policies that govern the use of land and water in the coastal zone and addresses land use and development, public access and recreation, and coastal resources protection in accordance with the California Coastal Act. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the CLUP for the following reasons: 1. The subject property is located within an existing developed area of the coastal zone and the proposed project density of 16.1 units per acre is below the maximum density limit of 30 units per acre established for the RH-A designation of the CLUP. 2. Public services and infrastructure are currently available and serve the proposed development (8" sewer and water lines are located in both the Seashore Drive and River Avenue rights-of-way), and all applicable improvements required by Section 19.28 (Subdivision Improvements) of the Subdivision Code are required to be constructed by the applicant. 3. The proposed development has been designed to comply with all applicable Multi - Family Residential (MFR) development regulations of the City's Zoning Code, including density, floor area, open space, and parking, to insure design compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Although deviations from the required setbacks and the base height limit are proposed, these deviations will not result in a site plan that is inconsistent with the character and development pattern of the surrounding residential neighborhood. 4. The proposed project will not impact coastal resources nor the ability of the public to reach, use or view the shoreline of coastal waters or inland coastal recreation areas and trails. 5. The project includes 63 parking spaces, which exceeds the minimum parking requirements of the Zoning Code. 6. Gated vehicular access is prohibited, and as a result, the internal roadway will provide unrestricted vehicular access through the project from River Avenue and Neptune Avenue and will not inhibit public access to the beach. 7. The project site is not located near the vicinity of a designated public view point or coastal view road requiring view protection and will not impact any public views or degrade the visual qualities of the coastal zone. 343 WHEREAS, subject property is located within the Multi -Family Residential (MFR) Zoning District . The proposed detached, single -unit and two -unit residential structures are permitted uses within this zoning designation. With the exception of the increased setback encroachments, reduction in the minimum distance between buildings, and building height increase, all of the applicable development regulations of the MFR zoning regulations have been met; and WHEREAS, Section 20.93.030 (Modification Permits) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code requires findings and facts in support of such findings for approval of a modification permit for the encroachments into the required 20 -foot front yard setbacks and 25 -foot side yard setbacks, and deviation from the minimum 10 -foot building separation. Such findings and facts to support such findings are as follows: 1. Finding: The granting of the application is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. Facts in Support of Finding: a. While the MFR District permits the proposed single -unit and two -unit residences, the development setback and building separation standards were intended to apply to larger, multiple -unit buildings, such as the 3 -story, 54 -unit apartment building that exists on-site today. The legislative intent of required setbacks is to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling unit. Given that a larger, single structure building would result in more visual and physical massing, a larger setback would be preferred for that development type. b. The applicant has proposed 24 single -unit and two -unit residences designed to appear as if they were situated on individual 30 -foot -wide lots and setbacks comparable to surrounding R-1 and R-2 lots. Utilizing the R-1 and R-2 development standards as a guide for determining acceptable setbacks and building separation is appropriate in this case. c. Given that the MFR District permits the proposed detached development, but doesn't provide corresponding development standards, strict application of the Code would result in a physical hardship that is inconsistent with the intent of the Code. 2. Finding: The requested modification will be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood. Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed project has been designed to appear as if each unit is situated on a 30 -foot -wide lot with setbacks comparable to the surrounding R-1 and R-2 lots. Those reductions in the setbacks and building ME, I separation to accommodate the smaller detached, residential units arguably results in a site plan that is more compatible and consistent with the historic development pattern of the area rather than a single, larger apartment -complex. The following facts support compatibility of the proposed project with the existing neighborhood: R-1, R-2, and 30 to 40 -foot -wide MFR lots only require 3 to 4 -foot side yard setbacks. The proposed 6 -foot separation between buildings within the project is consistent with the required 3 -foot side yard setbacks of many of the 30 -foot wide lots in the surrounding neighborhood, which results in a total distance of 6 feet between buildings. b. The proposed project is designed to appear as if each unit is situated on a 30 - foot -wide lot, the setbacks provided to the east property line are consistent and compatible with the required 3 -foot side yard setbacks of the surrounding 30 - foot and 40 -foot -wide lots in the neighborhood. The single -unit building fronting Seashore Drive that is proposed to encroach 21 feet into the required side yard setback adjacent to the east property line will maintain a 4 -foot setback. The duplex unit fronting River Avenue that encroaches 17.5 feet into the required side yard setback adjacent to east property line will maintain a 7.5 -foot setback. c., The 6 single -unit structures adjacent to West Newport Park are proposed to encroach 15 feet into the required side yard setback, maintaining a 10 -foot setback to the property line. Due to the orientation of these units, this setback area is equivalent to their front yards and is consistent with the majority of the front yard setbacks in the immediate vicinity of this project that range between 0 and 10 feet. d. The 6 units fronting Seashore Drive are proposed to encroach 10 feet into the required 20 -foot setback, maintaining a 10 -foot setback to the property line. The proposed 10 -foot setback exceeds the required 0 to 5 -foot front yard setbacks that are required on a majority of the properties fronting Seashore Avenue in the immediate vicinity of this project. e. The 6 duplex structures and 1 single -unit structure adjacent to River Avenue are proposed to encroach between 5 and 10 feet into the required 20 -foot setback, maintaining a minimum 10 to 15 -foot setback to the property line. These proposed setbacks are consistent with, or exceed, the required 5 to 10 -foot front yard setbacks that are required on a majority of the other existing properties fronting River Avenue in the immediate vicinity of this project. 3. Finding: The granting of such an application will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. 345 • Facts in Support of Finding: a. The project has been designed to include setbacks comparable to the setback requirements of the surrounding R-1 and R-2 lots. Similar setback and distancing requirements are common throughout the City and have not proven detrimental. b. To minimize the impact of building heights on the neighboring R-2 properties, a condition of project approval has been included requiring the two structures that encroach into the side yard setback area immediately adjacent to the east property line to incorporate hip roof features. WHEREAS, the site is located in the 28/32 -foot height limitation zone that permits buildings and structures to exceed the 28 -foot height limit up to a maximum of 32 -feet through the approval of a use permit. Ridges of pitched roofs are permitted to exceed the height limit by 5 additional feet. The proposed project exceeds the 28 -foot base height limit. The proposed roof midpoints of the 6 duplex buildings are at 28 feet 10 inches, as measured from the finished pad elevation. The ridges of the buildings are comforming with a height of approximately 31 feet 4 inches measured from the finished pad elevation. Section 20.65.055 of the Zoning Code requires the Planning Commission to make certain mandatory findings in order to approve a use permit to exceed the base height limit. Such findings and facts to support such findings are as follows: Finding: The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular attention shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of all setback and open areas. Facts in Support of Finding: a. The 6 duplex units that are proposed to exceed the 28 -foot base height limit have been designed with low-pitched gable roof lines, resulting in a maximum midpoint elevation of 28 feet 10 inches (10 inches over the maximum limit) and a maximum ridge elevation of 31 feet 4 inches (1 foot 8 inches under the maximum ridge limit). b. A conforming roof plan can easily be accomplished by designing a taller structure with longer roof spans, thereby lowering the midpoint below the 28 - foot limit. This quirk in the City's method of measuring roof midpoints results in conforming roof midpoints but increases the overall height of the building to the maximum 33 -foot ridge limit. Therefore, the 10 -inch height increase to the midpoint allowance actually results in a 1 -foot 8 inch overall height reduction of the proposed buildings, resulting in increased public visual open space and views than could otherwise be afforded with a conforming roof plan. M. c. A single, large multiple -unit building that conforms to the minimum setbacks and maximum height could be constructed, which would likely result in a more visually massive and bulky structure. Such a project could result in a 63 percent total maximum lot coverage. The proposed project, with 18 smaller detached single -unit and two -unit structures results in a substantially smaller 36 percent lot coverage. This reduction in lot coverage not only increases the public visual open space and view opportunities through the site, but also allows for increased landscaping of the site, which is proposed at 28 percent of the lot (the existing development of the site provides only 14.4 percent landscaping). 2. Finding: The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Facts in Support of Finding: a. The low-pitched gable roof lines result in building heights that are generally more compatible with the heights and architectural styles of the development in the surrounding neighborhood. b. The design of a conforming roof plan results in increased overall building heights and visual massing as viewed from the street elevation and also results in less desirable architectural treatment of the side elevations, with more drastic roof lines that are less visually appealing. 3. Finding: The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions. Facts in Support of Finding: a. The proposed street facing elevations will be scaled down by concentrating the highest portions of the building mass away from the street frontages. Through this design, the front and rear masses of the buildings are minimized and allow more light and ventilation to the immediate neighbors. a b. With the exception of the existing R-2 properties to the east, the project site is separated from other uses by River Avenue, Seashore Drive, and the West Newport Park. This separation, in conjunction with the design of the buildings to limit the bulk and mass of the third floor to the center of the lots, eliminates any undesirable or abrupt scale relationships between the project and existing developments. 347 c. A condition of approval has been included to minimize the impact of building heights on the neighboring R-2 properties, requiring the roofs of the two structures that encroach into the side yard setback area, immediately adjacent to the east property line, to slope away from the R-2 properties with use of hip roof features. 4. Finding: The structure shall have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. Facts in Support of Finding: a. The proposed floor area ratio for the project is 1.23 FAR, which is below the maximum of 1.75 FAR; therefore the project does not achieve any additional floor area due to the additional height. b. The additional allowance in height only affects roof lines and results in an architecturally superior product than would be achieved through a roof design that conforms to the height limit. WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting the approval of a tentative tract map, for condominium purposes, to create 24 airspace condominium units Pursuant to Section 19.12.070 of the City Subdivision Code, certain findings and facts in support of such findings shall be made for approval of a tentative tract map. Such findings and facts to support such findings are as follows: 1. Finding: That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with the applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City Subdivision Code. Facts in Support of Finding: a. The project is consistent with the Multiple Unit Residential General Plan designation of the site. b. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed tentative map and believes it is consistent with the Newport Beach Subdivision Code (Title 19) and applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. c. Conditions of approval have been included to ensure compliance with Title 19. 2. Finding: That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. M. Facts in Support of Finding: a. The existing site is entirely developed and does not support any environmental resources. b. The site is relatively flat and based on the geologic investigation performed for the site, no signs of unstable or expansive soils are evident, nor is the site subject to erosion. c. The geologic investigation revealed that the underlying soil of the site has a significant liquefaction potential if subject to heavy vibration; however, mitigation measures have been incorporated, as recommended by the site -speck geotechnical investigation, that will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. d. The site is currently developed with multiple -family dwelling units at a density greater than that proposed. 3. Finding: That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision-making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. Facts in Support of Finding: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and concludes that no significant environmental impacts will result with proposed development of the site in accordance with the proposed subdivision map. 4. Finding: That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. Facts in Support of Finding: a. The project consists of 24 residential units as permitted by the Zoning Code and the General Plan. b. No evidence is known to exist that would indicate that the planned subdivision pattern will generate any serious public health problems. c. All mitigation measures will be implemented as outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration to ensure the protection of the public health. 349 5. Finding: That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision- making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision. Facts in Support of Finding: a. An easement through the site will be retained by the City to ensure access rights for public emergency and security ingress/egress, public utility purposes, and weekly trash pick-up. b. A 6 -foot sidewalk easement currently exists along the Seashore Drive frontage and the applicant is required to construct full -width sidewalks. c. No other public easements for access through or use of the property have been retained for use by the public at large. d. Public utility easements for utility connections that serve the project site are present and will be modified, if necessary, to serve the proposed project. 6. Finding: That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land. Facts in Support of Finding: The site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. 7. Finding: That, in the case of a "land project' as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code: (a) there is an adopted specific plan for the area to be included within the land project; and (b) the decision-making body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area. Facts in Support of Finding: The subject property is not located within the boundaries of a specific plan. 350 • • 8. Finding: That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map Act. Facts in Support of Finding: a. Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. b. The Newport Beach Building Department will enforce Title 24 compliance through the plan check and field inspection processes for the construction of any future proposed residences. 9. Finding: That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. Facts in Support of Finding: a. To compensate for the demolition of 6 units currently occupied by persons of lower or moderate income, the applicant will be required to replace the units at an off-site location within the City for a minimum period of 30 years. b. Public services are available to serve the proposed development of the site and the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project indicates that the project's potential environmental impacts are expected to be less than significant. 10. Finding: That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Facts in Support of Finding a. Waste discharge into the existing sewer system will be consistent with the existing residential use of the property and does not violate Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements. b. Sewer connections have been conditioned to be installed per City Standards, the applicable provisions of Chapter 14.24 (Sewer Connection, Permits), and the latest revision of the Uniform Plumbing Code. 351 11. Finding: For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public accessand recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act. Facts in Support of Finding: a. The project has been designed and conditioned for consistency with the City's Local Coastal program Land Use Plan. b. The project site is not located adjacent to the shoreline of the Pacific Ocean and is not presently developed with coastal -related uses, coastal -dependent uses or water -oriented recreational uses. WHEREAS, Chapter 20.86 of the Zoning Code (Low and Moderate Income Housing within the Coastal Zone) requires the processing of a coastal residential development permit (CRDP) to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65590 (commonly known as the 1982 Mellow Act). The Mellow Act prohibits the City from approving the demolition or conversion of existing housing units occupied by low - or moderate -income households located within the Coastal Zone, unless provisions are made for their replacement with new affordable units. If feasible, all or any portion of the replacement units must be located on the site of the demolished structure or elsewhere in the Coastal Zone. If location on-site or within the Coastal Zone is not feasible, the units must be located within three miles of the Coastal Zone's inland boundary; and WHEREAS, based on an income survey performed in June of 2007 by the Las Brisas property manager, Allen Properties, it was determined that a total of 6 units in the existing apartment complex are occupied by low- and moderate -income households. It has been determined to be feasible for the applicant to commit $1.35 million which the applicant will use to provide a minimum of 6 affordable housing units at an off-site location, or locations, for a minimum period of 30 years; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines; and, City Council Policy K-3. The Draft MND was circulated for public comment between February 21 and March 21, 2008. Comments were received from the Southern California Gas Company, Native American Heritage Commission, Lennie DeCaro, California Department of Transportation, and Department of Toxic Control Substances. The contents of the environmental document, including comments on the document, have been considered in the various decisions on this project; and WHEREAS, on the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified and incorporated in the Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting 352 0 0 Program are feasible and reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger; and NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find, on the basis of the whole record, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis. The City Council hereby adopts Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH No. 2008-021075, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit "A". The document and all material, which constitute the record upon which this decision was based, are on file with the Planning Department, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. Section 2. Based on the aforementioned findings, the City Council hereby approves Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-001, Modification Permit No. 2007-044, Use Permit No. 2007-011 & Coastal Residential Developm Permit No. 2007-001, all subject to the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit "B" attached 06reto and mo"ereof. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10`04Y CITY CLERK MAYOR 353 9 0 Exhibit "A" SEASHORE VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (SCH# 2008021075) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1. The construction contractor for the property During construction City's Project owner/developer shall implement additional dust Manager in control measures during demolition as follows: coordination with The project contractor shall apply nontoxic the Project chemical dust suppressants (e.g., polymer Construction emulsion) to buildings being demolished to Contractor reduce fugitive dust from active demolition activities. The project oontractor shall prohibit demolition activities when wind speed exceeds 25 miles per hour. The project contractor shall install a temporary construction fence and silt barrier around the construction site as shown in the Construction Staging and Water Quality Control Plan submitted to the City of Newport Beach for approval. The project contractor shall install construction tire wash areas at the entrance to the project site on River Avenue and Neptune Avenue. All construction clean-up shall be done in construction sediment basins. The construction tire wash area shall be installed in accordance with the Construction Staging and Water Quality Control Plan submitted to the City of Newport Beach for approval. • The contractor will sweep adjacent streets and roads a minimum of once per week. Material haul trucks leaving the project site will have their loads either covered or maintain a freeboard distance of two feet ., from the stacked load to the top of the trailer. Cultural Resources 2. Prior to approval of a grading plan, the property Preconstruction City's Project owner/developer shall submit a letter to the Manager in Planning Department, Planning Division, coordination with showing that a qualified archaeologist has been the Project hired to ensure that the following actions are Construction implemented: Contractor • The archaeologist must be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish procedures for temporarily halting or 354 0 0 Seashore Village Mitigation Monitorinq Proqram Mitigation Measure Phase of Implementation Responsible Monitoring Party Completion DaWnitials redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of artifacts if potentially significant artifacts are uncovered. If artifacts are uncovered and determined to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions in 000peration with the property owner/developer for exploration and/or salvage. • Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution. Any archaeological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified archaeologist. If any artifacts are discovered during grading operations when the archaeological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area. A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted to the City Engineer. Upon completion of the grading, the archaeologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted. 3. The property owner/developer shall submit a Preconstruction City's Project letter to the Public Works/Engineering Manager in Department, Development Division, and the coordination with Planning Department, Planning Division, the Project showing that a certified paleontologist has been Construction hired to ensure that the following actions are Contractor implemented: The paleontologist must be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish procedures to temporarily halt or redirect work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of fossils. If potentially significant materials are discovered, the paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner/developer for exploration and/or salvage. Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution. Any paleontological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified paleontologist. If any fossils are discovered during grading operations when the paleontological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area. 355 • Seashore Village Mitiqation Monitoring Program Mitigation Measure Phase of Implementation Responsible Monitoring Party Completion Date/Initials A final report detailing the findings and Manager in disposition of the specimens shall be coordination with submitted. Upon the completion of the the Project grading, the paleontologist shall notify the Construction City as to when the final report will be Contractor submitted. Geology and Soils 4. During construction, the construction manager During construction City's Project shall ensure that measures listed in the Manager in geotechnical investigation (EGA Consultants, coordination with 2007) or equivalent measures are implemented the Project to minimize the effects of liquefaction. The Construction measures shall include but are not limited to: Contractor Tie all pad footings with grade beams. All footings should be a minimum of 24 inches deep, below grade. Continuous footings should be reinforced with two No. 5 rebar (two at the top and two at the bottom). Concrete slabs cast against property compacted fill materials shall be a minimum of 6 inches thick (actual) and reinforced with No. 4 rebar at 12 inches on center in both directions. The reinforcement shall be supported on chairs to insure positioning of the reinforcement at mid -center in the slab. Dowel all footings to slabs with No. 4 bars at 24 inches on center. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 5. Prior to demolition activity, a certified and Prior to demolition City's Project licensed asbestos abatement contractor shall Manager in perform any removal of asbestos containing coordination with material (ACM). Also, an industrial hygienist the Project must be present to perform engineering control Construction and regulatory asbestos air monitoring during Contractor any abatement activity. Noise 6. Demolition of the existing asphalt with a During construction Citys Project jackhammer within eight feet of the existing Manager in residential structures to the southeast of the site coordination with shall be prohibited. The construction contractor the Project shall utilize alternative asphalt demolition Construction methods such as a concrete saws and other Contractor nonvibratory construction equipment to remove the pavement. 356 Exhibit "B" Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-001, Modification Permit No. 2007-044, Use Permit No. 2007-011 & Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007-001 (Project -specific conditions are in italics) Plannina Department 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the plans stamped with the date of this approval, except as modified by other conditions. 2. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 3. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Use Permit. 4. Project approvals shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the effective date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Reasonable extensions may be granted by the Planning Director in accordance with applicable regulations. 5. The applicant shall obtain a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit for the project. 6. With the exception of the height modifications required per Condition No. 7, the floor plans and building envelopes for each unit are approved as precise plans and future floor area additions to the building envelopes shall be prohibited. The proposed open patio and deck areas for each unit shall not be permitted to be enclosed and the landscape and open space areas proposed throughout the development site shall be preserved. 7. The two structures that encroach into the side yard setback area immediately adjacent to the east property line shall be modified to incorporate design features (hip features) to minimize building height impacts on the adjacent properties. 8. The applicant shall replace at least 6 affordable units within 3 years of the date of issuance of a demolition permit. The units may be provided off-site at an approved location, or locations, within the City. An amount not to exceed $1.35 million shall be provided by the applicant and the applicant shall use such funds to replace at least 6 affordable units and to achieve a mix of income levels and bedroom counts, as determined appropriate by the Planning Director. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to provide said units. The agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and shall be executed and recorded prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the project. 357 9. Any very -low and low-income units provided in accordance with Condition No. 8 shall be maintained as rental units for a minimum period of 30 years. Any moderate income units should be provided as `for -sale" units with a covenant maintaining the affordability for a minimum period of 30 years. 10. Gated vehicular access through the site shall be prohibited. 11. Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code. Exterior on-site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. "Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. Parking area lighting shall have zero cut-off fixtures and light standards shall not exceed 24 feet in height. 12.The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the Planning Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 13. Prior to the issuance of a building permits, the applicant shall prepare photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Department. 14. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified in conditions of approval Nos. 12 & 13. 15.AII proposed signs shall be in conformance with the provision of Chapter 20.67 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress. 16. Trash container storage for the individual units shall be screened from view of neighboring properties and public places, except when placed for pick-up by refuse collection agencies. Trash containers shall nut be located within the required parking areas. 17.AII landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 358 0 0 18. Prior to the issuance of a building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Department and the General Services Department. All planting areas shall be provided with a permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitable for the type and arrangement of the plant materials selected. The irrigation system shall be adjustable based upon either a signal from a satellite or an on-site moisture -sensor. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or similar permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. 19. Reclaimed water shall be used whenever available, assuming it is economically feasible. 20. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attomey's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the Seashore Village Residential Development Project including, but not limited to, the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-001, Modification Permit No. 2007-044, Use Permit No. 2007-011 & Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007-001; and/or the City's related California Environmental Quality Act determinations, the certification of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and/or the adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attomeys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. Building Department 21.The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all applicable City plan check and inspection fees. 22.The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City Building and Fire Departments. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City - adopted version of the California Building Code. 359 23. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General Permit for Construction Activities shall be prepared, submitted to the State Water Quality Control Board for approval and made part of the construction program. The project applicant will provide the City with a copy of the NOI and their application check as proof of filing with the State Water Quality Control Board. This plan will detail measures and practices that will be in effect during construction to minimize the project's impact on water quality. 24. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a NPDES permit. The applicant shall incorporate storm water pollutant control into erosion control plans using BMPs to the maximum extent possible. Evidence that proper clearances have been obtained through the State Water Resources Control Board shall be given to the Building Department prior to issuance of grading permits. 25. Prior to issuance of grading Rermits, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project, subject to the approval of the Building Department and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur. 26.A list of "good house -keeping" practices will be incorporated into the long-term post construction operation of the site to minimize the likelihood that pollutants will be used, stored or spilled on the site that could impair water quality. These may include frequent parking area vacuum truck sweeping, removal of wastes or spills, limited use of harmful fertilizers or pesticides, and the diversion of storm water away from potential sources of pollution (e.g., trash receptacles and parking structures). The Stage 2 WQMP shall list and describe all structural and non-structural BMPs. In addition, the WQMP must also identify the entity responsible for the long-term inspection, maintenance, and funding for all structural (and if applicable Treatment Control) BMPs. Fire Department 27. The internal roadway shall be marked as a fire lane, per the direction and approval of the Fire Department. Public Works Department 28. A Final Tract Map (Map) shall be filed with the Public Works Department. 29. The Map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD88). Prior to recordation of the Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the Map shall submit to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a digital -graphic file of said map in a manner described in Section 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. The Map 360 10 0 to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the City's CADD Standards. Scanned images will not be accepted. 30. Prior to recordation of the Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the Map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Section s 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set On Each Lot Corner unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. 31.All applicable City fees shall be paid prior to the processing of the Map 32. Construction surety in a form acceptable to the City, guaranteeing the completion of the various required public improvements, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to issuance of the Public Works Department approval of building plans. 33. Easements for weekly trash pick-up by City crews shall be dedicated as part of the Map. 34. Easements for public emergency and security ingress/egress, and public utility purposes on private streets shall be provided to the City. 35.All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 36. A new full -width sidewalk shall be constructed within the limits of the existing Utilities and Sidewalk easements along Seashore Drive fronting the project site. Existing City street trees shall be removed to accommodate the sidewalk construction. 37. New City -designated street trees shall be planted along the River Avenue frontage. All street trees shall be planted per City Standards and guidelines provided by the City General Services Department. 38. All existing drainage facilities in the public right-of-way shall be retrofitted to comply with the City's on-site non -stone runoff retention requirements. 39. On-site runoff shall be retained on-site. 40. Private storm drain piping shall not connect directly to the City's storm drain catch basin. 41. All on-site utilities shall be owned, operated, and maintained by the community/association. 361 0 0 42.Each unit shall be served by its individual water meter and sewer lateral and cleanout. Each water meter and sewer cleanout in the vehicular traveled -way shall be installed with a traffic -grade box and cover. 43. Individual water services per City Standards shall be provided in lieu of manifolds. 44. All on-site parking, vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems shall be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer. 45. The parking layout shall be in conformance with City Standard 805 -L-A and 805 -L -B. 46. An ADA compliant public pedestrian pathway, from River -Avenue to Seashore Drive, shall be provided through the development site. 47. The vehicular pathways shall be designed to support a fully loaded large trash truck. 48. Adequate turning radii and width shall be provided for large trash truck travel paths. 49.AII improvements (including, but not limited to, the landscaping in the parking lot area and ingress/egress points to the development site) shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement (City Standard 110-L). 50. All abandoned driveway approaches shall be removed per City Standard 165-L. 51.All new driveway approaches shall comply with Council Policy L-2 and constructed per City Standards. 52. Reconstruct any existing broken/damaged sidewalk, curb and gutter fronting the development per City Standards. 53. No permanent structures can be built within the limits of the Utilities and Sidewalk easement. 54. The construction work cannot impact the free flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic between Memorial Day and Labor Day. The staging and parking of all construction - related equipment and vehicles shall take place on-site, and NOT in the public right- of-way or City property. 55. All utility service connections serving this development shall be made underground. 56. In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development site by the private construction, additional reconstruction within the public right-of-way may be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. 362 0 0 57.The streets surrounding the project site is on the City's streetialley-cut Moratorium List. Any damage done to said roadways by the project will require substantial pavement repair work to be fully paid for by the Developer. 58.An encroachment permit is required for all work activities within the public right-of- way. 59.An encroachment agreement shall be applied for and approved by the Public Works Department for all non-standard private improvements within the public right-of-way. 60. The intersection of the internal roadways with River Avenue shall be designed to provide adequate sight distance per City of Newport Beach Standard Drawing STD - 110 -L. Slopes, landscaping, walls, signs and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight lines (sight cone) shall not exceed 24 -inches in height and the monument identification sign must be located outside the line of sight cone. The sight distance may be modified at non- critical locations, subject to approval by the Traffic Engineer. 61. The internal roadway shall be a minimum of 26 feet wide, unless otherwise approved by the Traffic Engineer. The internal roadway shall align with Neptune Avenue. The internal roadway curb cut on River Avenue shall be 26 feet wide minimum and modified to comply with current ADA standards. 62. Guest parking stalls shall be 8.5 feet by 17 feet minimum. Parking stalls adjacent to walls or other obstructions shall be 9 -foot -wide minimum. 63.0n -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation system shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 64. The California Vehicle Code shall be enforced on the private streets and drives, and that the delineation acceptable to the Police Department and Public Works Department be provided along the sidelines of the private streets and drives. 65. Prior to recordation of the Map, park dedication fees for 24 dwelling units shall be paid in accordance with Chapter 19.52 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. This fee shall be paid at the time the map is submitted to the Public Works Department for plan check. Mitigation Measures 66. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures and standard conditions contained within the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2008-021075) for the project. 363 • STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH } I, LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2008-53 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 10th day of June 2008, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: Ayes: Henn, Rosansky, Daigle, Webb, Curry, Gardner, Mayor Selich Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 11th day of June 2008. (Seal) r -�� , r2 !`rU4j77it�-- �� • + ""'�''��.k� Liz City Clerk Newport Beach, California 364 Attachment No. CC 7 Proposed Modified Plans 365 E] o CS Cover Sheet CS 1 Existing Map SP A Site Development Plan SP Al Site Plan Comparison SP B Approved Site Plan CS 2 Big Idea / Project Summary Zoning & Planning Comparison CS 3 Color & Materials Concept CS 4 River Avenue Street Scene CS 5 Elevation Comparison CS 6 Plan Comparison 1.OA Floor Plan - Plan 1A 1.013 Floor Plan - Plan 1B 1.0C Floor Plan - Plan 1C 1.1 Elevations & Section Plan 1 4- 1.1A Elevations - Plan 1 (ENHANCED)„_ .� r 77 20A Floor Plan - Plan 2A 2.013 Floor Plan -Plan 213 2.1 Elevations - Plan 2 *� 2.1A Elevations - Plan 2 (ENHANCED) 22 Section - Plan 2 3.OA Floor Plan - Plan 3A 3.013 Floor Plan - Plan 3B 3.1 Elevations - Plan 3 3.1A Elevations - Plan 3 (ENHANCED) 32 Section - Plan 3 1-1.0 Conceptual Landscape Plan L1.1 Paseo Enlargements JUCILLA ROUP ROUTECTURE 19]01 MWUv, ylv iE �Wm G YAl2 1R 90Bfl49� ! 9K801.%I] Iran, 9 NEWPORT EEACH, CALIFORNIA LEq OWNER, LLC 366 I LAS BRISAS APTS 54 UNITS EXISTING MAP ±016 LAS BRISAS APARTMENTS UcILU Nota, MON NEWPORT BEACH , CALIFORNIA xcxltEcm� vme a•I omueucw.cnoi*..w�vrrtrn�vs.mc 367 ty ri -r PIC J It : , I ': 13 , F1 APPROVED SITEPLAN ROPOSED SITEPLAN F-1 ,+ev+um5 nv,. 10 I IRI IR IAi R5 II R1 IS 8111 RI fj .'A .." S n S M O R I A R IV t' k t x Z a Is � � ;,1 � G.l >,} a�.ss'sC..7" "�_ �.. �i.+...J rt• I 1.M1 .J• -r', �/---::,v - • - 17 1. �.. 10 I IRI IR IAi R5 II R1 IS 8111 RI D Ntlyu It RvR r '� _`1 �\��- �� .8 �1 ���'�ll• r ^ �I'rly ����I��Jr � -....' ftniV N�S `e VF. LJ a , SITE PLAN COMPARISON i, �� i ili i I K,t� 011 NEWPORT BEACH, CALMFORNIA LBq OWNER, LLC F UCILLA ROUP RCHITECTURE 13033 SPRAT ml 369 k t x Z a Is _ l 1..1 1 I �� fl _J • N Sill—I `' (I .r+�•�-+ `. i• ya�a D Ntlyu It RvR r '� _`1 �\��- �� .8 �1 ���'�ll• r ^ �I'rly ����I��Jr � -....' ftniV N�S `e VF. LJ a , SITE PLAN COMPARISON i, �� i ili i I K,t� 011 NEWPORT BEACH, CALMFORNIA LBq OWNER, LLC F UCILLA ROUP RCHITECTURE 13033 SPRAT ml 369 6"Cy -'wr E!�`, R IV CK A V E. - i it y e d r r N Z? T U N E A V E. 5 E A I N R I V E SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SEASHORE VILLAGE NEWPORT BEACH . CALIFORNIA I u ILI Row RCHRECELRE w�ffa� a AacNrtCrnmC 370 a Zoning and Planning Comparison Development Blas in ReRWma Approver! Proposed EtleU et nme of Approval Seaaharevigage Echo eearh Lal Slav 5.000 sl 1.49 at (66904 s) 1.49 ac (64.904 st) No Lot Sure Por Unit I'lle sl 2,704 at 2,704 sl Max Floor Area Unall 1.75 (72,133 s) IM(5g7065q 124(50.916 d) SF<GerapedavildableAna- Sadflar s Front Setbacks SeasM1om Avenue 20' to -to 12 lo' River Avenue p' lo. to 15' 10' Side Satnacrs West 26 to -to 12 1o' East 1. 4'd6 6'to 12 Maximum Height 26 amount l 33' sent Plan SFR 25'6'Mdpdrrc/31'Nepe W., I' Modem, 31 Rose pan SFR aspen Moraddl aw Ratio W-Tarwpolm I W -W Rgpo Pli BFR 20 I(rM1dmM'3I' Rxpe 30'9'MgNIN133-i1'f4dpe Min I lstance, Between BMgs 10' 6 6' Min Open Spam 247,313 m It 675.415 cue 559768.9 ppneoemxcksevM'3aidecaslul us2re lavabdec4c toz3. Pending Resident (z tar unit) 485pams a6 spaces d8 spaces 12 single carports 24 2 wr garages' 12 single garages 12- 2 w garages Guest(05 unit) 12 spans 15 spaces 14 spaces Total (.11-surad parking) 60 spaces 63 spaces 62 spaces ' Additional Nbrmaaon Approved Proposed seasiwre villager Echo Beacb raw units 24 2i Duplex 1,ro at Duplex 1.836 sl SnWI lel Detached 2.075 sl Small Lot Detarlm0 2.797 d 2.653 sl Small Lot needled 3,248 at 3.114 d Dave Aide widN 26' 26 Building Footprint 35.9% (23.357 d) US% (22.457 s) Par ln9 35.4% (23.151 an 27.3% (17,7540) landscaping 28.2%(189905) 37.1%(24,176 s) unit - Front Door bo unary Fad, Ed. Yartls Faces SpaeM 8 Peppers Front Yard Paulo x118 units at 24 units Bldg Yard Use x110 units at 24 undid Pleas tag i. Per 200 d at Noor area par re0dretl park'mg eavotee io endosetl parking sM1all rot be ded in ire exc large irdutlea in too calwlation at gnu floor area. 2. piminzlea 12 pairs d taidem gauge l mrpor spaces 3 Added 1 on -strata parking spam on RNer Avenue as exi54rg driveway is being removed. 13UCILU GROUP ARCHITECTURE M. 3. 2014 Project Summary The Newport Village project was approved by the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council in lune 2008. The project was subsequently approved by the CCC with five special conditions October 2008. Subsequent permit extensions and State of California legislative extensions for the approved Tentative Tract Maps, make the approvals valid thru November 2016. The project description includes demolition of existing 54 -unit apartment complex. and new construction for a 24 unit condominium development. Approvals issued by the City of Newport Beach include MND — Mitigated Negative Declaration. TTM — Tentative Tract Map. MP - Modified Permit, UP - Use Permit, CRDP — Coastal Residential Development Permit, and an AIC — Approval In Concept for the architecture. The project was recently purchased by LB9 Owners LLC, and they intend to develop the project in substantial conformance with the original development approval. This project package is intended to highlight the similarities and differences between the original Seashore Village approval and the proposed' -Echo Beach" project This will allow the city to review and determine that "Echo Beach" is in substantial conformance with the original approvals. The Big Idea • Neighborhood Design provides for 24 detached residences that blend into the existing neighborhood fabric of footprints and rooftops, along with maximizing front and side yard patios for all units. The plotting opens up the site and significantly reduces Homeowner Association Fees related to the original proposal. • Building Desiring incorporates 3 Detached footprints for the 24 residences, with front door identity facing street edges and walkways, but without the use of attached Duplexes or Carports. • Architectural Design The Modem Style is characterized with contemporary use of stucco, stone, siding and metal accents and applications, along use of glass railings at patios and decks. In addition, specific lots will have enhanced materials applied to elevations that view onto public streets and spaces. • Walkwav Connectivity Sidewalks along River Avenue and Seashore Drive provide connectivity to from doors of 20 residences while an internal walkway off River Avenue provides connectivity to the remaining 4 residences. In addition, the welkZeay from Neptune Avenue thm to Seashore is maintained. • Auto COnnettivily Neptune Avenue remains connected from the East, along with the then connection to River Avenue to the North. Garages are accessed off Neptune Avenue and three (3) auto courts, which allows for the building character and open space to be the dominant edge facing streets. In addition this she plan eliminates one driveway cut along River Avenue which will provide for one (1) additional public parking space on River Avenue. nI ild ii i1 1 � I i j Yl NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Lag OWNER, LLC Rai ACIP acwr6cmu 371 C■ awss.zoia m COLOR & MATERIAL CONCEPTS NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA LBg OWNER, LLC Exterior Lights (Entry Style Future Wood Gate 3060 Gate with Open Slats 6x6 Metal Post / Cap at Garden Walls 6A' ce with 1x6x6 Wood Slat Inserts Plotted at Entry to Auto Vegetative Cc= and Along River Screen Wail Avcnue for Privacy Separation Vegetative Plotted Between Units Screen Wall Along Interior Walkway for Privacy Separation uO u t RCHITECfUaE ,wv ar 372 ee.�n.±ola 0 m u ELEVATION FROM RIVER AVE. M11310 22103! NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA LBq OWNER, LCC uacu ROGT ': RC[ffI mm w� 6� 373 C mwu,m�a m APPROVED DUPLEX LOT 24 LOT 23 ELEVATION COMPARISON NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA L89 OWNER, LLC nalu ftOIIP RCHITECfLRE 1� 374 iE dwac: f�T THIRD LEVEL SECOND LEVEL FIRST LEVEL m APPROVED 6 - DUPLEX UNITS (12 UNITS TOTAL) THIRD LEVEL 3 SECOND LEVEL ARCH. PLAN COMPARISON w sr1 LLa m� �i �ry 1 tar NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA LBg OWNER, LLC FIRST LEVEL PROPOSED 11- SFD UNITS IdWCILW RCN EC uon pt 375 I Mw u.2014 a 4 m I ROOF PLAN THIRD LEVEL 651 SF PLAN 1A 1,675 SF (UNIT 14, 18,19,21, 22 & 24) ti ;r7 .f_)d 1 i Wai �,, ped Gr1J Ltd NEWPORT REACH, CALIFORNIA L89 OWNER, LLC M SECOND LEVEL 698 SF FIRST LEVEL 326 SF GARAGE 400 SF ROUP & cflirl:cTun>: uw� to 376 ROOFPLAN ewss,mla a m w. I THIRD LEVEL 651 SF PLAN 1B 19675 SF (UNIT 15, 16, & 23) L i(\1 Lf2ir u(ld '�.1 N uAll+!4 Y� Y7iaD Yy Y NEWPORT BEACH, CALUORNIA LB9 OWNER, LLC eRx SECOND LEVEL 698 SF C FIRST LEVEL 326 SF GARAGE 400 SF ocaie R06P 0.CI0.TECNRE 1�mzmm 377 ROOFPLAN Mv:S. ]ON m THIRD LEVEL 646 SF PLAN 1C 11655 SF (UNIT 11 & 13) - i=1VCg®' IMAM NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA LBq OWNER, LLC SECOND LEVEL 686 SF C FIRST LEVEL 323 SF GARAGE 400 SF I MIT 13 UC L4 ROLT RCHREC naso tuC mrz MCMtERuxCmc L 378 CROSS SECTION ROOF PLAN wrs.laa m FRONT ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION YMAR EEE V A I LU N LEYISIDE ELEVATION PLAN I ELEVATIONS llr YdL QY 1L�11 CS1 Yll NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA LBq OWNER, LLC o ILI aoN RCHRECNRE 1�f cmc C 379 CROSS SECTION ROOF PLAN Mat3,iU1< a m FRONT ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION ay..a. . I . AAvll JUMMI OlUr, L+LIL V A I IViN PLAN I ENFIANCED ELEVATIONS (UNITS 13 & 14) ��7Y3QJ7 ��15lllril'f_1;r 1L NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA LBq OWNER, LLC ❑QLLA ROUP RClUiECT11RE ems 1M RM I ROOF LEVEL THIRD LEVEL SECOND LEVEL 705 SF 959 SF PLAN 2A 2,253 SF (UNIT 7,8&9) ME- ° NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA m LB9 OWNER, LLC 589 SF GARAGE 400 SF UCILLn RMT RCHITECTIJRE ixn 7a 381 381 7- ROOF LEVEL Mar:3.3016 m TIURD LEVEL 705 SF PLAN 2B 2,253 SF (UNIT 17 & 20) �fL ,,111i�1p1p1 1(ad �r _pnTU '(�J �I( NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA LBq OWNER, LLC SECOND LEVEL 959 SF FIRST LEVEL 589 SF GARAGE 400 SF OW CH11£CNAE zi; C 382 t n ROOF PLAN ,M. 2014 m ❑EW FRONT RIGHT SIDE ITMi7 PLAN 2 ELEVATIONS ;ri ,,r 1�'1 rte, i.n ng l -r �LEi2YY iu`iL5►'i E 1L NEWPORT BEACH, CALRFORN[A LBq OWNER, LLC ML" Row RcmrE� iwn st 383 ROOF PLAN iw.ss.sau o e m ol FRONT RIGHT SIDE PLAN 2 ENHANCED ELEVATIONS NEWPORT BEACH, CALOFORNIA LB9 OWNER. LLC a. Al A Dau C uquw Ro T RCWTECNRE .,I iu xcmc C 384 ROOFPLAN mvss,:oi< m 7 CROSS SECTION PLAN 2 SECTION NEWPORT REACH, CALIFORNIA LRy OWNER, LLC UQLu RSC IIIECNRE vurnuanaw uc�ma uxsmc 385 BTO 0 LOT 3 ONLY i is ao 0 POI ROOF LEVEL THIRD LEVEL SECOND LEVEL 850 SF 1112 SF PLAN 3A 2,703 SF (UNIT 1,2,3,4,5 & 6) Mu^3.2014 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA LBq OWNER, LLC FIRST LEVEL 741 SF GARAGE 411 SF u ILIw ROGT RCHRSCNRE 1r =C 386 amu 6 was s ROOF LEVEL THIRD LEVEL SECOND LEVEL 850 SF 1112 SF PLAN 3B 2J03 SF (UNIT 10 & 12) nm,u,xaia NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 1.89 OWNER, LLC GARAGE 411 SF uL7,,. razz m 1�=;m 387 ROOF PLAN ty.u. mla 0 m J FRONT ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION PLAN 3 ELEVATIONS ICS � Y3 � � � tS1 Yi Y1t NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA LBq OWNER, LLC LEFT SIDE ELEVATION UctuL mm m_ um3 v C I ROOF PLAN Mor 25. ]A�a m CROSS SECTION PLAN 3 SECTION NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA LB, OWNER, LLC koL u ROLT RCEI1£CLURE ibu y om<rzcx�cvccmc. C■ ROOF PLAN hLt3.3016 m FRONT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION cul I�L�J (•'ill PLAN 3 ENHANCED ELEVATIONS LEFT SIDE ELEVATION Molls B usa" C1LRE NEWPORT BEACH, CALEFORNIA uan iu LBq OWNER, LLC r ©:011&g1UGRlttR nRdrtcrnmc�C. 390 WEST NEWPORT PARK PAs,*rNav Al 01 t • _. 4. V .,� z .' �N. I ,I p G RIVER AVE. .46 SEASHORE DRIVE FLOWERING VINES PRIVACY SCREENS THEME WALLS TURF BLOCK PRECAST PAVERS I/ `-muse PERVIOUS PARKING WATER CONSERVING PLANTS ORNAMENTAL GRASSES E C H O B E A C H PLANNED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD RAIN GARDENS at PRIVATE YARDS NEWPORT BEACH. CA COLORED CONCRETE PERVIOUS PAVERS FEBRUARY 14, 2014 PROPOSED PLANT PALETTE BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE TREES and PALMS ACACIA STENOPHYLLA SHOESTRING ACACIA 24" B. ALOE BAINESII TREE ALOE 15 G. ARBUTUS x'MARINA' HYBRID STRAWBERRY 36" B. BAMBUSA OLDHAMII TIMBER BAMBOO 15 G. BRAHEA ARMATA MEXICAN BLUE PALM 36"B.. CERCIS'FOREST PANSY REDBUD 15 G. CHITALPA X TASHKENTENSIS CHITALPA 24" B. DRACENA DRACO DRAGON TREE 15 G. GEIJERA PARVIFLORA AUSTRALIAN WILLOW 24" B. HYMENOSPORUM FLAVUM SWEETSHADE 24'B. MAGNOLIA'LITTLE GEM' SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Y4" B. MAYTENUS'GREEN SHOWERS MAYTEN WB. METROSIDEROS EXCELSUS NZCHRISTMAS TREE 36"B. OLEA EUROPAEA'SWAN HILL' SWAN HILL OLIVE 36" B. PARKINSONIA'Desert Museum' HYBRID PALO VERDE 36"B. PINUS ELDARICA AFGHAN PINE 24" B. PINUS TORREYANA TORREY PINE 24'B. RHUS LANCEA AFRICAN SUMAC 24"B. SYAGRUS ROMANZOFFIANUM QUEEN PALM 12'-16' B.T.H. TIPUANU TIPU TIPU TREE 24"B. TRISTANIA LAURINA WATER GUM 24" B. TRISTANIA CONFERTA BRISBANE BOX 24" g SHRUBS: BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE PERIMETER and RESIDENTIAL COURTYARDS AGAVE ATTENUATA FOXTAIL AGAVE 15 G. AGAVE VILMORINIANA OCTOPUS AGAVE 15 G. ALOE MACULATA YELLOW SOAP ALOE 5G. BOUGAINVILLEA SP. BOUGAINVILLEA 5 G. CALLISTEMON TITTLE JOHN' DWARF BOTTLE BRUSH 5G. COPROSMA REPENS SHINY COPROSMA 5G. COTONEASTER'LOWFAST COTONEASTER 5G. DIETES BICOLOR BUTTERFLY IRIS 5 G. FESTUCA MAIREI ATLAS FESCUE 1 G. FESTUCA'MOLATE' CREEPING FESCUE SOD FURCRAEA MACDOUGALLII MAURITIUS HEMP 15 G. GREVILLEA'COASTAL GEM' GREVILLEA 5 G. KALANCHOE BEHARENSIS FELT PLANT 15 G. PHORMIUM'YELLOW WAVE VARIEGATED FLAX 5G. RHAPHIOLEPIS CLARA DWF. INDIA HAWTHORN 5 G. RHAPHIOLEPIS UMBELLATA DWF. YEDDA HAWTHORN 5 G. ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS DWARF ROSEMARY 1 G. SENECIO SERPENS BLUE CHALK STICKS 1 G. WESTRINGIA FRUITICOSA COAST ROSEMARY 5G. COASTAL TRANSITION at COMMON AREAS: ALOE ARBORESCENS TREE ALOE 5 G. ALOE STRIATA CORAL ALOE 5 G. ARCTOSTAPHYLOS'SUNSET MANZANITA 5G. ARTEMESIACALIFORNICA CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH 1G. CEANOTHUS SPECIES CALIFORNIA LILAC 5 G. ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM CALIFORNIA BUCKWHEAT 1 G. HETEROMELES HYBRID EVERGREEN DAYLILY 1 G. HUECHERA SPECIES CORAL BELLS 1G. KNIFOPHIA'LITTLE MAID' POKER PLANT 5 G. LOMANDRA'BREEZE' MAT RUSH 1 G. RIBES INTEGRIFOLIA LEMONADE BERRY 5 G. RHUS OVATA SUGAR BUSH 5 G. ROMNEYA COULTERII SUGAR BUSH 5G. SALVIA CLEVLANDII CLEVLAND SAGE 5G. WATER QUALITY BASINS and WATER GARDENS: ACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM YARROW 1 G. CAREX PANSA SAND DUNE SEDGE 1 G. CLARKIA AMOENA FAREWELL TO SPRING 1 G. DIANELLATASMANICA DIANELLA 5G. IRIS PACIFIC COAST HYBRID IRIS 1 G. JUNCUS PATENS CALIFORNIA RUSH 1 G. LOMANDRA'BREEZE' MAT RUSH 1 G. LYGEUM SPARTIUM ESPARTO GRASS 1G. LYMUS CONDENSATUS WILD RYE 1 G. MUHLENBERGIA'PINK FLAM' DEER GRASS 1 G. SESLERIAAUTUMNALIS AUTUMN MOOR GRASS 1 G. STACHYS BYZANTINA LAMBS EAR 1 G. Landscape Documentation Package Note: A landscape documentation package by the project applicant is required to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach pursuant to section 2.1 of the Water Efficient Ordinance Standards. LANDSCAPE AREA EXCEEDS 2,500 S.F. and IS SUBJECT to N.B.M.C. 14.17 "WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE" Preliminary Planting & Irrigation Concept Statement 1. Provide simple, bold and low maintenance landscape planting design which incorporates many non-invasive and water conserving plant types. 2. Provide a variety of plant material shapes, sizes and texture in an informal arrangement compatible with the architectural theme. 3. The landscape irrigation design will be designed to provide the most efficient and conserving means to distribute irrigation water with the latest technology for water conservation. 4. All landscape improvements will meet the requirements contained in the City of Newport Beach. 5. The Conceptual Landscape Plan has been prepared by a registered Landscape Architect. Water Qualitv Best Manaaement Practices (B.M.P. 1. Planting areas have been incorporated into the hardscape layout. Hardscape paving drains into the landscape areas wherever possible. 2. Surface drainage is directed into the landscape areas to retain significant amounts of water on-site. 3. Roof downspouts daylight or flow into landscape areas wherever possible. Use of low water consumptive plant material and proper irrigation techniques take 4. into consideration hydrozones, sun and shade exposures and soil types. CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN L1.0 0 8' 16' 24' 32' SCALE:1/16"=1'-0" rrwv vc'llull vrvuN Cannery Lofts 507 30th Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 675-9964 ♦W^ V tea/ i V Q a W ♦ V Z a O LL Z ♦O V J Q 391 L r Rya .�'Y s-�6- — aG� �q1Y 67 SUCCULENTS SMALL SHRUBS RIVER AVE. NEPTUNE AVE. SOUTH PASEO ENLARGEMENT GROUNGCOVER SEASHORE OR IVE NORTNPASEOENLARGEMENT i PATH LIGHTING BENCH BVE RAG( PRNACYBCRFFIF 1 EU.4 A.l 11, Ull V Gym ua P R 1C SOLELJ iay�a. s;y 392 Attachment No. CC 8 April 3, 2014 Planning Commission Staff Report CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 3, 2014 Meeting Agenda Item 3 SUBJECT: Echo Beach (formerly Seashore Village) - (PA2014-005) 5515 River Avenue • Substantial Conformance Review APPLICANT: LB9 Owners, LLC PLANNER: Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner (949) 644-3209, jmurillo@newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY On June 10, 2008, the City Council approved the Seashore Village (now known as Echo Beach) project, the development of 24 residential condominium units on a 1.49 -acre site located at 5515 River Avenue. The site is currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex that would be demolished to accommodate the proposed development. The 2008 project approvals included the following: • A tentative tract map to create a 24 -unit condominium subdivision; • A modification permit to allow encroachments into the required front and side yard setback areas and a reduction in the required distance between detached buildings; • A use permit to allow the 6 duplex structures to exceed the City's base height limit; and • A coastal residential development permit (CRDP) to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65590 et seq. (Mello Act), which regulates the conversion and/or demolition of low and moderate income (affordable) dwelling units in the coastal zone. The applicant has purchased the property from the previous owner/developer and is proposing modifications to the project to: 1) reconfigure the site plan and landscape plan; 2) eliminate the duplex product type; and 3) change the floor plans and architecture to a contemporary design. The applicant requests the determination that the proposed modifications consist of minor changes and are within substantial conformance with the 2008 approval. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 1 Echo Beach Substantial Conformance Review April 3, 2014 Page 2 2) Adopt Resolution No. (Attachment No. PC1) finding the modified project to be in substantial conformance with the project design approved by Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007-001 (County Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 17194), Modification Permit No. MD2007-044, Use Permit No. UP2007-011, Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2007-001 and that the environmental analysis of the modified plans is included in the Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH2008021075) and the Addendum is consistent with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. BACKGROUND Project History On April 17, 2008, the Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and approved the project applications. Refer to the attached March 20, 2008 and April 17, 2008 Planning Commission staff reports for a detailed discussion and analysis of the project approvals (Attachment Nos. PC2 & PC3). The approval was subsequently appealed to the City Council on June 10, 2008, who unanimously voted to uphold the Planning Commission's decision and approve the project applications. The June 10, 2008, City Council staff report is included as Attachment No. PC4 and includes a detailed discussion related to the issues raised in the appeal. City Council Resolution No. 2008-53, which includes the final findings and conditions of approval, is included as Attachment No. PCS. On October 16, 2008, Coastal Development Permit No. 5-08-154 was approved by the California Coastal Commission, which also established the effective date of the City approvals. The project approvals will expire October 16, 2016, based on automatic extensions pursuant to State law. DISCUSSION The original project consisted of the construction of 12 detached, single -unit residential structures and 6 detached, two -unit (duplex) residential structures, for a total of 24 units. A copy of the approved project plans are included as Attachment No. PC6. The modified plans reconfigure the site plan, eliminate the duplex units, and change the architectural style of the development. The proposed modified plans are included as Attachment No. PC7. The following discussion compares the two plans and provides an analysis of the substantial conformance determination. IN Echo Beach Substantial Conformance Review April 3, 2014 Page 3 VICINITY MAP Project Site �� ' • • • ..� w.. t �Illlik� GENERAL PLAN ZONING 3 � F a a g 4FF LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ON-SITE Multiple -Unit Residential Multi -Unit Residential RM RM 54 -unit apartment building NORTH Single -Unit Residential Single -Unit Detached (RS -D) Residential R-1 Single -unit dwellings SOUTH Single -Unit Residential R-1 & Two -Unit Detached & Two -Unit Residential (R-2) Single -unit & two -unit dwellings Residential RT EAST RT I R-2 Two -unit dwellings WEST I Parks and Recreation (PR) I PR West Newport Park 3 Echo Beach Substantial Conformance Review April 3, 2014 Page 4 Site Plan Changes 2008 Approved Project — 12 Single -Unit Detached & 6 Duplexes The approved project was designed to appear as if each unit is situated on a 30 -foot - wide lot with setbacks comparable to the surrounding R-1 and R-2 lots. The 12 single - unit structures would front Seashore Drive and West Newport Park. The 6 duplex structures would front River Avenue. Access to the project site would be provided via two driveways on River Avenue and one driveway from Neptune Avenue. The western driveway on River Avenue would exclusively serve one single -unit structure, and all other vehicular access would be provided through a driveway connecting Neptune Avenue to River Avenue. A total of 63 parking spaces were proposed: 24 residential spaces in garages and carports; and, 15 guest spaces. Modified Project — 24 Single -Unit Detached The most significant change to the plans is the elimination of the duplex units and revising the site plan as 24 single -unit detached condominium units. The applicant states that the revised plotting and elimination of attached units opens up the site spatially and significantly reduces Homeowner Association Fees. As viewed from the Seashore Drive frontage, the units will front the street as in the approved plan and similar to the development pattern of the adjacent R-1 and R-2 lots along the street. As W Echo Beach Substantial Conformance Review April 3, 2014 Page 5 viewed from River Avenue, the unit layout as been modified to eliminate the duplex structures and create clusters of individual single -unit detached structures. The units now front River Avenue with either the front or side elevations, consistent with the lots directly across River Avenue to the north. Access to the project site would continue to be provided via a driveway on River Avenue and one driveway from Neptune Avenue. Garages are accessed off the internal roadway and three auto courts. A total of 62 parking spaces are proposed: 48 residential spaces in garages and 14 guest spaces, exceeding the 60 space minimum requirement. Although the approved plan included one additional on-site guest parking space, the plan also included an additional western driveway on River Avenue to exclusively serve one single -unit structure that resulted in the reduction of on -street parking. The modified site plan eliminates the need for the additional driveway and results in the creation of additional on -street parking in exchange. In addition, the revised project plans provide enhanced resident parking in that all 24 resident parking spaces are now located with garages, as opposed to 12 garages and 12 carports as originally approved. The modified landscape plan is similar to the approved conceptual landscape plan; however the revisions increase landscape area from 28.2 percent to 37.1 percent and include enhanced pervious paving for the motor courts and guest parking area, the use of turf block, enhanced use of water efficient landscaping, and the introduction of a landscaped paseo walkway through the development, connecting River Avenue and Seashore Drive. An additional ADA accessible walkway would be provided along the western edge of the site providing a secondary access connection. .5 Echo Beach Substantial Conformance Review April 3, 2014 Page 6 Modified Site Plan & Landsmain SE ASHORE DRIVE Architectural Design Changes Approved Project — Craftsman & Plantation The approved project consisted of three plan types, with the exterior of each structure to be finished in either a Craftsman or Plantation architectural style. Three floor plans were proposed: Plan A (3,248 sq. ft.), Plan B (2,797 sq. ft.), and Plan C (Unit A- 1,836 sq. ft.; Unit B- 1,770 sq. ft.). Each unit would be three -stories in height, with overall roof heights ranging from 31 feet to 31 feet -6 inches. Architectural details and enhancements included batt and board wood siding, louvered window shutters, decorative trim, and stone veneer. Entry doors to each unit were oriented to be accessed from the side yards. The 2nd floor facades were setback from the 1st floor on the rear elevations and cantilevered over the 1st floor on the front elevations, providing articulation and modulation to the building mass. The 3'd floor of each building is setback from the front and rear elevations, towards the interior portion of each building envelope, to reduce the visual mass of the structures as viewed from the streets. Units were designed with small front patio areas (approx. 300 square feet), and 2nd and 3`d level deck spaces ranging between 48 and 154 square feet. Two -car garages were provided for each of the 12 single -unit structures and a one -car garage and tandem carport space were provided for each of the 12 units within the duplex structures. III Echo Beach Substantial Conformance Review April 3, 2014 Page 7 Modified Project— Modern Contemporary The modified project would also include variations of three plan types; however, the applicant is requesting to change the architectural style to a contemporary design. The three modified floor plans include: Plan 1 (2,075 & 2,055 sq. ft.), Plan 2 (2,653 sq. ft.), and Plan 3 (3,114 sq. ft.). Each unit would be three -stories in height with a roof deck, and overall roof heights ranging from 31 feet 10 inches to 32 feet 11 inches. Architectural details and enhancements would include wood and metal accent wall panels, wood siding and stucco, glass railings, and stone accents. The upper floors include modulation and indentations accommodating variable depth decks to allow stepping back of facades facing the streets. All front and side elevations facing a street, interior roadway, or adjacent properties include enhanced architectural treatments and modulation by incorporating projecting window and siding elements. Entry doors have been reoriented to face the street or accessed via the project paseos. Units would include ground level patios ranging in size from approximately 250-350 square feet that wrap into the side yard, and 2nd and 3`d level deck spaces ranging between 23 and 105 square feet. In addition, Plan 2 and Plan 3 include a small roof deck of approximately 150 square feet screened behind sloping roof elements. The floor plans include two -car garages with direct access into each unit. 7 Echo Beach Substantial Conformance Review April 3, 2014 Page 8 Modified Proiect- Modern Contem Zoninq Compliance It should be noted that subsequent to the approval of the project in 2008, the City has adopted a new Zoning Code in 2010 that has revised zoning designation and development standards of the project site. The project site was previously zoned MFR (Multi -Family Residential). The current Zoning Code designates the site RM (Multi -Unit Residential). The proposed 24 -unit detached condominium development continues to be consistent with the permitted land uses identified in the previous MFR and current RM Zoning Districts. The project also remains below the maximum 54 -unit development limit and the 1.75 floor area limit (FAL) applicable to the site. Table 1 below provides a comparison of the applicable development standards under the previous and current Zoning Codes. With the exception of the increased setback encroachments, reduction in the minimum distance between buildings, and building height increase, all of the previous MFR zoning regulations were met by the previous project design. The modified project plans also continue to comply with all other applicable previous MFR and the current RM zoning standards. 9 Table 1- Development Standard Comparison Development Standards Prior Zoning Code Current Zoning Code 2008 Approval Proposed Modifications Requirement Requirement Lot Size 5000 sq. ft. 5000 sq. ft. 1.49 acres 64,904 sq. ft. No Change Min. Lot Size Per Unit 1200 sq. ft. 1200 sq. ft. 2704s . ft. No Change Maximum Floor Area 1.75 (72,133 sq. ft.) 1.75 (72,133 sq. ft.) 1.23 (50,706 sq. ft.) 1.24 (50,916 sq. ft.) Limit Setbacks Front Setbacks Seashore Avenue 20' 5' 10'— 12' 10' River Avenue 20' 10' now considered a rear 10' - 15' 10' Side Setbacks West 25' 15' 10' - 12' 10' East 25' 15' 4'— 7'-6" 6'— 12' Maximum Height 28' Midpoint/Flat 28' Flat Roof/ Parapet Plan A (SFR) 25'-6" Midpoint (31' Plan 1 28'11" Midpoint (31'10" Roof Ridge) Ridge) Plan B (SFR) 26'-8" Midpoint Plan 2 30'3" Midpoint (32'9" Ridge) 33' Ridge (3:12 pitch) (31'-4" Ridge) 33' Ridge Plan 3 30-9" Midpoint (32'11" Ridge) Plan C (Duplex) 28'-10" Midpoint 31'-6" Ridge) Minimum Distance 10' No Minimum 6' 6' Between Buildings Minimum Open Space 247,313 cu. fl. Common: 75 sf/unit 675,415 cu. ft. 559,768 cu. ft. (1,800 sf) Min. dimension of 15 feet Common: + 3,000 sf Private: 375-520 sf Private: 5% of the gross floor area for each unit (104-156 sf). Min dimension of 6 feet. Parkin Resident 2 per unit 48 spaces 48 spaces 48 spaces 48 spaces Guest 0.5 per unit 12 spaces 12 spaces 15 spaces 14 s aces Total 60 spaces 60 spaces 63 spaces 62 s aces Additional Information As Approved Proposed Drive Aisle Width 26' 26' Paving 35.4% 23,357 SF 27.3% 17,754 SF Landscaping 28.2% 18,390 SF 37.1% 24,176 SF ' Per Section 20.10.30(M), 200 square feet of floor area per required parking devoted to enclosed parking shall not be included in the calculation of gross Floor area. 2 Eliminated 12 pairs of tandem parking spaces and 1 additional on -street parking space has been gained through the elimination of a driveway and curb cut onto River Avenue. J Substantial Conformance Review Pursuant to Condition No. 1 of City Council Resolution No. 2008-53, project design changes shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans. In addition, pursuant to Section 20.54.070 (Changes to an Approved Project), the Community Development Director may authorize minor changes to an approved site plan, architecture, or the nature of the approved use, without a public hearing, and waive the requirement for a new permit applications upon findings that the changes: 1. Are consistent with all applicable provisions of this Zoning Code; 2. Do not involve a feature of the project that was a basis for or subject of findings or exemptions in a negative declaration or Environmental Impact Report for the project; 3. Do not involve a feature of the project that was specifically addressed or was the subject of a condition(s) of approval for the project or that was a specific consideration by the applicable review authority in the project approval; and 4. Do not result in an expansion or change in operational characteristics of the use. Given the significant visual modifications proposed in this case, the Community Development Director is referring the determination as to whether the proposed changes are minor to the Planning Commission for review and final action. Staff believes the proposed changes are in substantial conformance with the original approval and that sufficient facts exist to support the above findings (Attachment No. PC1 Draft Resolution of Approval). As discussed in more detail in the Environmental Review section of this report, the changes in the project plans do not involve features that were the basis for findings or exemption in the adopted MND in that the density and intensity of the project has not changed. Although changes in the architectural design, product type, and site plan are proposed, these changes are considered minor and when taken into account, the conclusions of the environmental analysis do not change. The following analysis summarizes the modified project's conformity with the previously approved applications: Tentative Tract Map The approved project consists of a Tentative Tract Map to establish 24 condominium units. The requested changes to the site plan do not affect the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007-001 and the related facts in support of the findings. The site remains physically suitable for the type and density proposed. An easement through the 26 -foot -wide internal roadway will be retained by the City to ensure public access rights for emergency and security ingress/egress, public utility purposes, and weekly trash pick-up. A 6 -foot sidewalk easement currently exists along the Seashore Drive frontage 10 Echo Beach Substantial Conformance Review April 3, 2014 Page 11 and the applicant will be required to construct full -width sidewalks. An additional 4 -foot - wide ADA accessible walkway connecting River Avenue and Seashore Drive, consistent with the 2008 conditions of approval (Condition No. 46), would also be provided. Public utility easements for utility connections that serve the project site are present and will be modified, as necessary, to serve the proposed project. Modification Permit The previous Zoning Code required a front setback of 20 feet adjacent to River Avenue, a front setback of 20 feet adjacent to Seashore Drive, and side setbacks of 25 feet along the east and west property lines. The previous Zoning Code also required a minimum building separation of 10 feet between structures. Modification Permit No. MD2007-044 authorized a reduction of the minimum building separation to 6 feet between structures and a reduced setbacks as follows: front setbacks of 10 feet on River Avenue and Seashore Drive, a side setback of 10 feet to the west property line and a side setback of 4 feet to the east property line. The current Zoning Code no longer requires a minimum building separation between units and now requires a front setback of 5 feet adjacent to Seashore Drive, a rear setback of 10 feet adjacent to River Avenue, and side setbacks of 15 feet. Despite the changes in Zoning Code setback and separation standards, the revised project plans continue to comply with the setbacks and building separations as approved under Modification Permit No. MD2007- 044. Use Permit The previous Zoning Code limited heights of flat roofs, deck rails, and midpoint of sloping roofs to a maximum of 28 feet and a ridge height for sloping roofs to a maximum of 33 feet. The approved project required a use permit to allow the midpoint of the 6 duplex units to exceed the maximum 28 -foot midpoint height limit; however, midpoint limitations have been eliminated from the current Zoning Code and replaced with a minimum 3:12 pitch requirement for sloping roofs. The current Zoning Code limits heights of flat roofs and deck rails to 28 feet and sloping roofs with a minimum 3:12 pitch to 33 feet. The revised project plans comply with allowed building heights of the current Zoning Code; therefore, Use Permit No. UP 2007-011 is no longer applicable. Coastal Residential Development Permit Pursuant to Chapter 20.86 of the previous Zoning Code and Chapter 20.34 of the current Zoning Code, the demolition of three or more units within the coastal zone shall be reviewed to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65590 (commonly known as the 1982 Mello Act) and to replace, if feasible, the demolition of any units occupied by low- or moderate -income tenants. The Mello Act prohibits the City from approving the demolition or conversion of existing housing units occupied by low- or moderate -income households located within the Coastal Zone, unless provisions are made for their replacement. If feasible, all or any portion of the replacement units must 11 Echo Beach Substantial Conformance Review April 3, 2014 Page 12 be located on the site of the demolished structure or elsewhere in or within three miles of the Coastal Zone. In this case, Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2007- 001 authorized the demolition of the 54 -unit apartment building conditioned upon the replacement of six dwelling units affordable to low- and/or moderate -income tenants within three years of demolition. The applicant will implement CR2007-001 and provide the replacement units. Environmental Review The environmental impacts of the approved project were analyzed under the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that was adopted for the project by the City Council on June 10, 2008 (State Clearing House No. SCH2O08021075). An Addendum to the Adopted MND has been prepared, in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, to evaluate the potential differences between the impacts of the proposed project changes and any changes to the existing conditions that have occurred since the MND was adopted. The Addendum was prepared by PlaceWorks and is included as Attachment No. PC8. State CEQA Guidelines allow for the use of a previously adopted MND for projects in cases where minor technical changes or additions to the previous adopted MND are necessary, but there are no new or substantially greater potentially significant impacts. The Addendum concludes that the impacts from the modified project would be similar to those analyzed under the Adopted MND and that no changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Adopted MND or result in additional mitigation measures. Copies of the Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration, Response to Comments, the Addendum, and supporting documents are available for review online at: www.newportbeachca.ciov/ceciadocuments. Summary Staff supports the applicant's request for a determination of substantial conformance and believes the revised site plan will remain compatible with the neighborhood. The proposed 24 -unit detached condominium development continues to be consistent with the permitted land uses identified in the previous MFR and current RM Zoning Districts and below the maximum allowed density and development limit. The elimination of the duplex product type and changes to the site plan do not affect the approval of the 24 airspace condominiums authorized under Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007-001. The modified project design maintains the same minimum setbacks as previously approved under Modification Permit No. MD2007-044 and minimum building separation of six feet between units. Use Permit No. UP2007-011 is no longer applicable as the project now complies with the 33 -foot height limit for sloping roofs with a minimum 3:12 pitch authorized under the current Zoning Code. The applicant remains committed to 12 Echo Beach Substantial Conformance Review April 3, 2014 Page 13 implementing Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2007-001 with the replacement of six dwelling units affordable to low- and/or moderate -income tenants within three years of demolition. Lastly, the modified plan demonstrates the ability to comply with all required conditions of approval, and said conditions will continue to be required through project implementation. Alternatives Should the Planning Commission conclude that the modified design is not in substantial conformance with previously approved plan, the Commission may deny the request (Attachment No. PC9- Resolution of Denial) or continue the item to a future date and direct the applicant to make specific revisions needed to comply. PUBLIC NOTICE Although this agenda item does not require a public hearing, notice was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property (excluding roads and waterways) and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this meeting consistent with the Municipal Code requirements for public hearings. The item also appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: Submitted by: Ja' ei�enior Planner 'Br n a Wisnesl i, NCP, Deputy Director ATTACHMENTS FAUsers\PLN\Shared\PXs\PAs - 2014\PA2014-005\20140403 PC report.dou 13 fall 991 FAUsers\PLN\Shared\PXs\PAs - 2014\PA2014-005\20140403 PC report.dou 13 Attachment No. CC 9 April 3, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes 393 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4/3/14 encroachments may create a liability scenario for the City. He expressed concern with the number of park" spaces and whether there were differences between employees and faculty members in regard to adeto parking. He did not find a rear carpool element within the proposed conditions. In closing, he noted thq May 8, 2014, meeting where proposals to increase floor area ratios will be discussed and whether this result in the addition of more classrooms. Lou Stavale, Canyon Crest Estates, spoke about the half -mile stretch of highway with tiple usages (commercial, schools, and residential) in the adjacent area and stated concern regarding the ncreased traffic impacts and safety of students. He inquired as to mitigation measures for the construction Xazards. Commissioner Lawler inquired as to the access to the water supply. City Traffic ngineer Tony Brine responded it was not studied in detail; however, the existing site is being used b the City for storage of vehicles and equipment. There will be drainage improvements as part of the desi . Assistant City Attorney Leonie Mulvihill stated the use of the City's property rgfluires a lease which would be subject to several conditions. Commissioner Lawler inquired as to why a traffic study is not re fired for this project and Mr. Brine responded that the additional enrollment of 72 students did not trigge a requirement to conduct an additional traffic study. Staff noted that a significant amount of carpooling t es place at this school in regard to the transportation of students. Staff also noted City vehicles use theisting gate to access the storage area and that while a new building will be constructed to replace the o er structures, there should not be additional vehicles going into the yard. There will be a separate entrapand gate so outside vehicles cannot drive into the storage area. Vice Chair Tucker inquired as to the increment used ours versus minutes) when traffic is evaluated. Mr. Brine stated school use is different than other t es of developments. Staff focused on observational evidence based upon drop-off and pick-up times. ere was recognition of how the school operates in terms of carpooling. The proposed traffic mitigation of ditional parking and drop-off locations has been addressed in staff's review of the project. Commissioner Ameri acknowledged his f miliarity with the road as he uses the shopping center and visits the cemetery. It is one of the least trave d roads in the City. Commissioner Brown commented tyat this item is about circulation rather than parking and inquired as to the 36 parking spaces for faculty d employees. Associate Planner Ung commented that the parking is adequate for the proposed usa and that there is no plan to increase it. There is no ratio difference between faculty and staff parking spac s. Vice Chair Tucker state a application is for two different requests, an off-site parking arrangement and to increase the numberA students in the existing facility. The application does not include a request to increase to the floor ea ratio of the Harbor Day campus. Motion made byVice Chair Tucker and seconded by Commissioner Kramer and carried (7 - 0) to adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2013-024, with the revisions to the Conditions of Approval (N . 16, 18, and 31) as discussed by staff and the Commission. AYES: Ameri, Brown, Lawler, Myers, Kramer, Tucker, and Hillgren NOE None dAB ENTIONS: None A ENT: None ITEM NO.3 Echo Beach (formerly Seashore Village) (PA2014.005) Site Location: 5515 River Avenue A staff report was given by Senior Planner Jaime Murillo. He provided historical background of previous approvals, including approval by the California Coastal Commission, and the variety of permits related to the 3 of 9 394 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4/3/14 project. The current property owner and applicant are proposing to revise the site plan and architectural style. Pursuant to the Municipal Code, the Community Development Director has discretionary authority over certain aspects of the project; however, she elected to have this project come to the Planning Commission and the public for review and input. A PowerPoint presentation was displayed. The approved Seashore Village site plan was presented and Mr. Murillo contrasted this with a new proposed site plan. The change in the architectural style would include three (3) different variations. The intensity and density of the project and the tentative tract map would not change. Mr. Murillo also described various changes to the different permits. The environmental impacts of the project were previously analyzed and, under CEQA, minor changes are allowed as long as there were no additional adverse impacts. A CEQA addendum was prepared, it was acknowledged that the findings of the original CEQA document stand, and no new mitigation measures are required. He acknowledged the presence of the City's CEQA consultants who were available to answer questions. Vice Chair Tucker stated that the project has the same square footage and the mass and bulk of the project has not changed. Commissioner Ameri inquired as to the elimination of the previous triangular open space area. Mr. Murillo responded that the current proposed project has eliminated this open space in favor of an increase in overall open space dispersed throughout project. Commissioner Myers inquired as to the status of the replacements for the low and moderate income units. Mr. Murillo responded that any demolition requires analysis of the existing units within the proposed development. Statute requires the low and moderate income units must be replaced in the project if feasible, or within three miles of the coastal zone, pursuant to the approved conditions. The developer has within three years of demolition to provide the units by an agreement with the City. The applicant is in negotiation for that project now and is available to elaborate further. Chair Hillgren opened the Public Hearing. Rich Knowland, representing the developer of the project, made a report and displayed a PowerPoint Presentation. He acknowledged other members of the development team. He thanked City staff for their assistance in the project. Mr. Knowland stated that the developer supports staffs recommendation and the "substantial conformance" improves the proposed project. He believes it makes it a better living environment and the resident parking will now include two car garages and the tandem units with carports have been eliminated. The traffic will be more functional for the community. They also improved and increased the landscaped open space and reduced paved areas. They are also happy with the architecture and are receiving positive community feedback on the new architectural style. Vice Chair Tucker inquired as to whether this is a for -sale project. The developer's representative responded affirmatively. Mr. Knowland addressed the low and very low income housing units and is working with staff to propose projects. This will be accomplished as soon as possible. The developer will comply with all other conditions of approval. Marshall "Mike' Johnson, an adjacent resident to the proposed project, stated a presentation was made at their recent association meeting and that he is in support of the proposed project. He previously built houses in the area in 1988 and the design proposed is compatible with the current surrounding architectural styles. He expressed concerns with fire safety of the existing structure on the property. Jenna Bahl acknowledged that the new project will be more attractive and acknowledged her support for the proposed project. Jim Mosher acknowledged that this is a completely different project plan and was concerned about conformance with the Municipal Code. He did not find a "substantial compliance review" and noted that Section 20.54.070, allows the Community Development Director to make minor changes to a previously approved project. Mr. Mosher expressed concern that scrupulous review had been recently given to a 22 4 of 9 395 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4/3/14 condominium project and this proposed project had similar changes, potentially warranting the need for more review than the Director's discretion. He suggested that the proposed project go through the original review authority and a new permit process. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill did review the findings in consultation with the Planning Division. She affirmed the proposed project and that the Director's authority over minor changes is consistent with the Municipal Code. In closing, she noted although the Director was entitled to approve the minor changes, she did defer to bringing the project back for a public review before the Planning Commission. Chris Moreno commented that the proposed project falls in line with the standards for developing and beautifying West Newport and the Peninsula area. This represents a better change for this particular location. The money that the City and private investors are investing in this part of Newport Beach will revitalize the area. The community is looking forward to these changes. Lennie DeCaro, adjacent property owner, considers this a new project and cited the various changes to the site plan. The original Mitigated Negative Declaration had a resolution which articulated specific conditions for the project, such as architectural styles. She has owned her property for over thirty years and is concerned regarding the changes in setbacks, as they will be encroaching (shadow and air circulation) on her property. She had submitted a document that outlined her concerns. She further expressed concerns with the addendum prepared in compliance with CEQA requirements and suggested the new project changes are not minor changes. She alleged the project violates CEQA and is concerned that Neptune will now become a "through" street even through traffic impacts have not been studied. Chair Hillgren stated that parking for the revised project now includes two enclosed parking spaces per unit and more additional parking than originally proposed. Ms. DeCaro further opined that once the "through" street is opened, the current neighbors will not be able to park behind their houses. She purchased her home for the ocean view and setbacks. She does not like contemporary architecture and preferred the previously proposed architectural style. She hopes that the Planning Commission has consideration of the neighbors that have been in the neighborhood for many years. In closing, Ms. DeCaro cited a court case alleging that an addendum is not sufficient to approve the project. Chip Harris, resident who is adjacent to the proposed project site, stated his support for the project, especially the replacement of the existing apartment building with the proposed 24 high-end units. He purchased a property from this developer in the past and is in support of the project. Jeff Morris, resident who is adjacent to the proposed project site, spoke in support of removing the existing apartment building. He inquired as to the height of the proposed buildings and whether the new proposed materials will withstand the weathering and beach climate conditions. Richard Hamm utilizes this area of the beach and is in support of removing the existing apartment building. He opined that the suggested changes would make the project better and that there is a mechanism for minor approvals without having to restart the whole project. Marshall Lichterman lives in the apartment complex on the proposed project site and is in support of the project. He has lived in the apartment building for about ten years and has always been aware of the proposed development. He said he received a notice his lease would be terminated two days before the subject hearing. There are 54 families that will be looking for housing during the high rent period. He acknowledged that the statute is 60 days for notification of move. Two months ago he had his rent increased. He inquired if there was any consideration for those who are on fixed incomes who will now be displaced. He strongly objected to the approval of the project until consideration is given to the existing apartment residents. The previous owners offered $10,000 to assist displaced residents in the past and he requested some sort of consideration. Chair Hillgren stated that the City has no authority over the process between the property owner and tenants in regard to this specific project. 5of9 396 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4/3/14 Seeing there were no further individuals who chose to speak, Chair Hillgren closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Myers requested that staff address and respond to some of the points made by Ms. DeCaro regarding the illegality of the addendum. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill addressed the environmental analysis. She has reviewed the history of the project. The City previously approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project and there was resulting litigation. The outcome of the litigation was a dismissal of the action that was based upon a settlement agreement. The existing Mitigated Negative Declaration stands and the changes proposed indicated that an addendum was sufficient to satisfy CEQA in this case. The resolution before the Planning Commission satisfies the required findings. Vice Chair Tucker inquired as to the line of demarcation between having to complete an addendum versus a supplemental environmental analysis. He requested that each major contention regarding the CEQA process and issues in Ms. DeCaro's correspondence be discussed and addressed by staff. Senior Planner Jaime Murillo began by noting that the items in the letter from Ms. DeCaro were previously brought up in the original project approval and that the staff report addressed many of those issues. The internal driveway for the project will only be an internal driveway for the development. All original conditions for approval remain applicable and enforceable, including all mitigation measures for environmental impacts. JoAnn Hadfield, Principal at PlaceWorks (the City's CEQA consultant) addressed her history with the City and her experience in preparing CEQA documents including the 2008 Initial Study/Negative Declaration and the additional CEQA documents. She agreed that an addendum is a conservative approach and she strongly feels that the changes are minor, giving the Director the authority to make the minor changes. Ms. Hadfield explained Sections 21166 for the CEQA Statute and 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines and the conditions for a supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR). In this case, she noted that the proposed minor changes do not involve any new significant environmental impacts or result in substantial increase in the severity of the impacts, nor require revisions in the existing Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The consultant staff reviewed the changes to the environmental setting, noting she is also the consultant for the City's review of the Land Use Element, and concluded there was nothing found that would trigger a subsequent EIR or MND. Ms. Hadfield further cited Section 15164 that if there were only minor technical changes to the previous document, an addendum can be prepared. A comprehensive addendum was prepared, the complete CEQA checklist followed, and all reasoning was documented. The project meets the criteria of only having minor changes, and staff is not ignoring the fact that there are changes to the architecture of the project. She stated that it should be noted that architectural changes are not a CEQA issue. In regard to the visual impacts of the project, Ms. Hadfield stated that the four (4) checklist questions in CEQA had been analyzed in regard to the project. The City only considers public views, and in this case, the proposed project would not degrade the existing visual character, or substantially increase light and glare. Parking is not a CEQA issue; however, the project complies with City parking standards. The CEQA trigger in regard to traffic is related to whether the project would introduce a danger or hazards. In this case, there is nothing new to report. Ms. Hadfield cited projects that have been approved with addendums and the court precedent is that the proposed changes are minor, technical changes. In regard to noise impacts, noise was reviewed as part of the addendum and staff was looking for any changes from the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration. The change in the number of buildings is not a CEQA issue. Ms. Hatfield noted the Municipal Code addresses all issues regarding AC units. This is not a new significant impact. In regard to the proposed increase in the height and bulk of the buildings there are no major increases and Ms. Hadfield referenced the increase in proposed open space landscaping. Architectural design is only a concern for CEQA if it substantially degrades the character of the surrounding community. The setback and height issues are all addressed in the addendum and are in compliance with the Municipal Code. The 6 of 9 397 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4/3/14 number of buildings is not relevant. The fiscal impacts relative to rental prices are not a CEQA issue and this was addressed in the first Mitigated Negative Declaration. Ms. Hadfield acknowledged that there is not a change in mitigation measures and added that this is critical in the requirement for whether an addendum will suffice. Her firm will not prepare an addendum as a matter of policy if there are new mitigation measures required for a project. In regard to impacts on viewpoints from Sunset Ridge Park and Banning Ranch, Sunset Ridge Park is not in a straight line of sight, and there is only a 1 -foot -5 -inch maximum increase in height. This is not a new significant impact and there are no new proposed viewpoints that have been designated by the City. Secretary Kramer stated that this is not a new project; it is a minor modification to an existing project, and added that it is a superior project as compared to the original proposal. He has requested to have the material boards available when reviewing these types of projects. In regard to parking, Secretary Kramer requested that a condition be added that garages are to be used exclusively for vehicles and not for storage. Senior Planner Murillo noted that material boards were available and they were distributed to the Planning Commission for review. Regarding the proposed materials, Secretary Kramer requested that staff address the durability of the materials against the beach climate conditions. Greg Bucilla, project architect, described the project materials, which includes sandstone with variation of wood and metal paneling. There will be slight variations in stucco colors, the siding will be more rugged and exposed, and more compatible with the community feel. They will also be using a metal roof, aluminum and vinyl sliders, glass railings, and pipe railing with wire. Secretary Kramer inquired as to conditioning parking relative to Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions for the project. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill acknowledged that tonight's action is not an entitlement, it is a determination of review, and that it is not appropriate to add a condition of approval. She recommended against doing so, noting that Planning staff will take garage parking and storage into consideration, and it could be addressed through code enforcement proceedings. Chair Hillgren noted that the two -car garages were an improvement over the original proposed tandem garages and carports. Secretary Kramer noted that this is a matter of consistency and would like to hear Vice Chair Tucker's comments. Vice Chair Tucker commented that the project is reasonable and there is a provision in the General Plan that architecture should be reviewed for quality purposes. He suggested that the material boards should be a part of the plan check process. Mr. Tucker commented on the allegations made in the letter received from Ms. DeCaro and expressed incredulity over the legitimacy of the positions asserted in the letter. He strongly opposed any suggestion that the project required a completely new CEQA review and noted that the requested changes are only minor with no different impacts than the previously analyzed project. Commissioner Ameri expressed his pleasure with the professionalism of Ms. Hadfield and her ability to address each of the CEQA related issues on short notice. He is comfortable making the findings presented tonight as part of the staff reports and that any allegations made in the letter received were invalid. Motion made by Chair Hillgren and seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried (7 - 0) to adopt a resolution finding the modified project to be in substantial conformance with the project design approved by Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007-001 (County Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 17194), Modification Permit No. MD2007- 044, Use Permit No. UP2007-011, Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2007-001 and that the environmental analysis of the modified plans is included in the Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration 7 of 9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4/3/14 (SCH2008021075) and the Addendum is consistent with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. AYES: Ameri, Brown, Lawler, Myers, Kramer, Tucker, and Hillgren NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: None ITEM NO. 4 441 Old Newport Parking Modification (PA2013-228) Site Location: 441 Old Newport Boulevard T%his was continued to May 8, 2014. Chair HI en honored a request to make comment on this item, noting that the Public Hearing was not reopened a that this item had been continued to a future date. Lyle Overby ap ogized to the Commission for not being available when this item was discussed earlier in the evening and to ed forward to having the opportunity to discuss this item at the appropriate time. IJlllIII III:Iky,II tri[01[*]�WN] :aN=10i7069U]qMITI 001Mill rem II�P��R���Ki]Pih4111�IIIra 01:04�1�71:�x�C�I X7 7�lil:il Committee Updates: 1. Land Use Element Amendment A visory Committee 2. General Plan/Local Coastal ProgramYtnplementation Committee Deputy Community Development Director Brends, Wisneski stated the April 17, 2014, meeting would be canceled. She noted that the study session for the and Use Element Amendment and the continued public hearing from tonight's Item No. 4 will be held on May 8,X014. In regard to the Commission's request that a potential thIN meeting be scheduled to discuss the Land Use Element, considerable discussion took place between staff a the Commission as to appropriate dates. It was settled by consensus of the Commission that the May 8, 2014, tudy Session begin at 4:00 p.m. and then be followed by the Regular Meeting at 6:30 p.m. At the May 8, 201, meeting, it will be discussed whether future amendments to meeting times or additional meeting dates shouldNb scheduled. There was acknowledgement that many of the Commissioners were not available to meet on May 29, 014. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill noted that she will not be in attendance at a May 8, 2014, meeting; however, coverage from the City Attorney's Office will be provided. ITEM NO. 7 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT — None ITEM NO. 8 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES Commissioner Ameh requested an excused absence for May 8, 2014. Commissioner Brown requested an excused absence for June 5, 2014. IX. ADJOURNMENT 8 of 9 399 /_U. • i'litaiiaIII. rGW4@6F Appellant's Letter F='l — ' (✓ rJ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACI�� - �-'F—'F" -- APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE PLANOJGQ GO,NCMI.SI6d) ? ( FLe' ( 4 J) -V 514 201 —CYC ( ApplicationNq. roGo cmc Name of Appellant s ' or person filing: Lr --U lig\t C= �CCY�zc) Phon�G4°I�y3� 4fi32 Address: S gQlP QP P T V TSS NN)t5 L4 Date of Planning Commission decision: \ }p t �— , 20 114 Regarding application of: for p liCCation filed with Planning Commission) �CKI�eynA� —I PCt/yl,n7�iP3� 1.tN> � �rl-r�i � i5 tt J t'�(�•yyt,nh� GDU Reasons for Appeal F0— CCTOL-e� lkSl 061:1-0-T, ba nye CAU l�ADDl�eor,�- �QJn<� -iec" iV K cs,�� wtnc e LAST,` V tela 7v, ':5U?---15TP tune f t pelf CITY CLERK FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date Appeal filed and Administrative Fee received: cc: Appellant Planning (furnish one set of mailing labels for mailing) File Cern / nb Jt����`��7C/�Pi � agW PoR e � z 3 p CSG/FpR�` L 20H. APPEALS: Municipal Code Sec. 20.64.030 Appeal Fee: $4,289.00 pursuant to Resolution No. 2013-72 adopted on 10-22-13. (Deposit funds with Cashier in Account #2700-5000) N -A l &T -ND aC sP6'Fr'�ri=� � PDw1 f b '�Z �c20 ss� c ts� tfi APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 4-3-2014 Submitted by Lennie DeCaro I ask that all documents regarding the different projects Seashore Village & Echo Beach be lodged for the administrative record. Different Project entirely and City did not comply with CEQA Echo Beach is a new project that is being proposed on the same site where a similar project, (Seashore Village) was approved through an MND with a resolution that contained mitigations and 65 conditions in 2008. "Echo beach" is trying to get a determination of "substantial conformance" through an addendum to a previous MND for Seashore Village (a different project) in order to obtain the entitlements that were obtained by previous owners related to the Seashore Village project. In addition, the Coastal Commission Permit recently granted an extension based on the original Seashore Village project plans. I spoke to the Coastal Commission and the analyst stated they will require review to determine that when the applicant submits their new plans, that they will then determine if applicant (Echo Beach) will be required to submit a brand new application. The Coastal Permit has special conditions relating to the plans from the original project "Seashore Village" and to date, have not been notified of the Echo Beach Project. t Case law also supports the contention that an addendum can't be used for a mitigated negative declaration if it isn't the same project (Save our 2 Neighborhood v. Lishman). Deferral to original Review Authority (Planning Commission) is improper. Therefore the P.0 decision (4-3-2014) is invalid as to their acceptance of "substantial conformance by addendum" (20.54.070 MC) Development or a new use authorized through a permit granted in compliance with the zoning code shall be established only as approved by the review authority and in compliance with any conditions of approval, except where a change to the project is approved in compliance with this section. A. Application. An applicant shall request a proposed change in writing, and shall also furnish appropriate supporting information and "materials" explaining the reasons for the request. B. Minor changes approved by the Director without a public hearing. #1. The (Community Development) Director may authorize minor changes to approved site plan, architecture, or the nature of approved use without a public hearing where the Director first finds the changes: a) Are consistent w/ all applicable provisions of this zoning code 1 3 b) Do not involve a feature of the project that was a basis for or subject of findings or exemptions in a negative declaration or EIR for the project c) Do not involve a feature of the project that was specifically addressed or was the subject of a condition(s) of approval for the project or that was a specific consideration by the applicable review authority in the project approval; and d) Do not result in an expansion or change in operational characteristics of the use. #2 The Director may choose to refer any requested change to the original review authority for review and final action. C. Changes approved by Original Review Authority. A proposed change that does not comply with the criteria identified is subsection (B) of this section (Mino Changes approved by the Director without a Public Hearing) may only be approved by the original review authority for the project through a new permit application filed and processed in compliance with Chapter 20.50 (Permit Application Filing and Processing) and the applicable provisions of Chapter 20.5: (Permit Review Procedures). (Ord 201 & 1 (Exh.A)(part), 2010) This is an extremely important requirement of this section and illustrates the mistake that was made by referring the new Echo Beach project to the Planning Commission through the addendum process under "substantial conformance review" citing 20.54.070MC as the authority. The Director did not 3 authorize minor changes without a public hearing, but instead (not in addition to) cont'd referred the determination as to whether the proposed changes are "minor revisions" to the original review authority (Planning Commission) for review and final action. It is an improper step and misinterpretation of the code as written. The option of "referral" is given only afterthe Director has determined the "changes are minor and approved without a public hearing". As an example, this additional option of referral could be useful in situations where the Director may be asked to approve a "minor change" to a building material, such as changing out the fagade from limestone to stucco for instance. It would be a minor change with no significant impacts and as long as there wasn't a specific condition for limestone on their permit, it would make sense to give the Planning Commission the opportunity to give the final authority on the minor change. In fact, review of building materials is often done on projects before the Planning Commission. At the recent hearing, one planning commissioner asked to see what the materials would look like and asked for a sample board. After he began looking at the board, he was quickly cautioned by the asst. city attorney not to ask for or to review the materials that would be used on the new project's changed architecture, because that wasn't before the commission. 2 4 2e It should be noted that just prior to the attorney weighing in, I believe a planning consultant stated that their firm would not use an "addendum" for substantial conformance if there were any mitigations to the new project. The attorney's cautionary warning that they can't add a condition of approval resulted in the commission not really asking for anything further that might entail imposing conditions, hence the appearance of trying to protect the "substantial conformance" determination. As it stands, it would appear that this improper use of this process would allow an applicant with a completely different project to have virtually no substantial review for any needed changes by simply being able to get a ruling of "substantial conformance" no matter how different the project was. "Substantial Conformance" determination can provide an easy pass on the entitlement process and should be allowed when appropriate and on the same project, but it is certainly not appropriate in this case. The Echo Beach developers chose to throw out the Seashore Village plans when they purchased the 25 million dollar apartment site in September of 2013 and pursue a completely different modern architectural style. They also significantly changed the site, added 6 buildings, and removed the duplex units entirely, which also changed the operational characteristics of use by removing potential rental stock. Duplexes are often used for rentals and would impact the ability of more moderate -income earners in Newport to find reasonable rental accommodations. Removal of duplex units is inconsistent with the stated goals of General Plan LU2.3 (Range of Residential choices) The new project, "Echo Beach, also can't possibly comply with all of the conditions as they were specific to the Seashore Village project. The developers still have the right to develop the property, but they don't have the right to use these entitlements on their new project, as it is definitely a different project altogether. The importance of the developer obtaining "substantial conformance review" is also an essential step in keeping the Coastal Commission Permit, which was originally assigned from Seashore Village Project (Todd Schooler) to Dacor Estates who sold the property to the developer's of the Echo Beach project. However, as it stands, the Coastal Commission has not received the changed plans and based on a conversation I had with them, the changes I described would require either at a minimum, an amendment or (more likely) a new permit application altogether. The new owners/developers of Echo Beach, have chosen not to honor the mitigation of damages agreement from the 2008 settlement that had a clause for successor/assigns and was specific to the Seashore Village development. Although not recorded, if the new owners are claiming to have the approvals/entitlements specific to Seashore Village, then they would also be 3 4 cont'd 5 N 7 bound by this contract as successors as they are trying to derive benefit from the 7 prior project settlement. This settlement agreement was known to the City as well cont'd and was dismissed without prejudice. Again, as to the referral for P.C. determination, it cannot be construed as giving the Planning Commission the authority to determine if the change is minor. The deferral is used just to get their input on a minor detail and let them have the final word as to what they would like to approve. In other words, the deferral is an optional step that can be utilized, but only if the director approves a "minor change without a hearing" and the change meets the (a -d) appropriate criteria. If the Director refers the changes to the Original review authority for revil and final action but has not complied with subsection (B) regarding findings of minor changes without a public hearing, then the changes are not considered minor and may only be approved by the original review authority for the project through a NEW PERMIT APPLICATION FILED AND PROCESSED IN COMPLIANCE with Chapter 20.50. This misinterpretation of the municipal code for the application of substantial conformance review was actually noted by Mr. Mosher, a speaker at the hearing who questioned just what ",-- joing on by asking if this was "some hokie way" of putting something through, or words to that affect. Mr. Jim Mosher pointed out the fact that the City is not following code in trying to get this approved. He pointed out that what they were doing would need to be done through a new permit application and referenced a similar project that had the PC reviewing very carefully in specific detail the building materials, style etc. and that they (the P.C.) would have been concerned if the Lido Villas project had changed things like removing the duplex style and the materials were totally different. The assistant attorney (who also cautioned that they can't add a condition of approval) answered and stated that they consulted with the planning department and they were comfortable with this review, or words to that effect. A copy of the transcript will be made available at the appeal hearing. I think that 9 aside from the improper application of the code is the fact that a city attorney was involved with the planning department on this issue. Is this normal protocol to have an attorney need to be consulted with to see if what they were attempting to do was legal? Is it also common, to allow the planning consultants, (paid for by the developer), to give their opinions at length without rebuttal? Is it common for the planner to state that the road is classified as an "internal driveway" when it is to clear that the tentative tract map from the prior project calls it a private road on more than one document and the new project calls it Neptune Avenue? The following statement lends even more credence to the observation that there is a misapplication of the use of an addendum for substantial conformance 11 review (SCR page 10) "Given the significant visual modifications proposed in 4 this case. the Community Development Director is referring the determination as 11 to whether the proposed changes are minor to the Planning Commission for cont'd review and final action." Additionally, the first condition (#1) in Exhibit B of the 2008 resolution confirms that it is "project specific" to the plans submitted by Todd Schooler, the architect and subdivider. It states: "The development shall be in substantial conformance with the plans stamped with the date of this approval, except as modified by other conditions." Substantial Conformance can't be found. Project has conditions (Exhibit 12 B" of Resolution) and is a different project. Condition #1: 1 was told by Mr. Murillo that they don't have the stamped Seashore Village plans, yet the condition is that they must have these plans and development shall be in substantial conformance with the plans stamped with the date of this approval, except as modified by other conditions. o Conditions are related to specific side yard setbacks to adjacent neighbors (East side of property). o Seashore Village (SV) Height conditions were reduced for 2 buildings adjacent to them, yet Echo Beach (EB), using the term "enhanced elevations" are increasing height limits beyond the max. midpoint adjacent to the 2 residents. 13 o Specific architectural style, (Craftsman and Plantation) were required as a condition. EB changed all architecture and site design to Modern. o Cite different municipalities that would not allow this determination based on the conditions, o Echo beach project remo the buffer area between different zoning areas that provide., iur ADA path directly continuing from the ADA crosswalk o Entire site plan has been changed Incorrect "Project Summary" (p. 5 of 27 dated Mar 25, 2014) that disguised the fact that there are potential significant environmental impacts that exist with this new project. o Zoning comparison is faulty: • Seashore Village (S.V.) front setback on Seashore plans 14 was 10-13'/ Echo Beach is 10' (23% add'I reduction in setbacks). This would require a new modification permit. Any modifications would disallow the project to be considered for an addendum for "substantial conformance" (per consultant). • (S.V)River Ave front setback was 10-15'/Echo is 10'. This is up to a 33% add'I. reduction in the setbacks, requiring 15 a new modification permit. • East side setbacks were specific as listed in the 16 conditions, to be 4' adjacent to Seashore duplex and 7'6" but the plans show it as 12' —7'6 adjacent to Neptune 116 cont'd duplex. New modification permit would be required. Project omits the fact that the previous project only had 18 buildings, which included 6 duplexes. The duplexes have been removed and 6 additional buildings have been 17 added, bring total buildings to 24 buildings. Not consistent with requirements of CEQA o It is a different project so the MND can't be used. Any tirric were are conditions or modifications to a mitigated negative declaration, an adder,4--n for substantial conformance is inappropriate. A new EIR is required. 18 o It is inappropriate to use "substantial conformance" & addendum for a different project that was previously approved with MND o A new public view point since original MND. It has a direct line of sight, less than 700' and new height of buildings is more than 119 1'6" o Public access reduced: This negatively impacted public access as theapproved ADA walkway was removed and replaced in a remote area 20 that doesn't serve the public well (very end of entire street) o Pathways (internal) give the appearance that they are for private use which is prohibited by a condition of the Coastal Permit o Safety impacts of sub�Lai idard street width without engineering plans or study of circulation & ADA access when the existing sidewalk on Neptune Ave would abruptly terminate at the extension. o Permit required (13.06.01MC) no person shall construct, a roadway or driveway providing access to any public street, without first obtaining a permit from Public Works director; o 13.01 Street Construction Permits 13.01.010A., G. 13.01.20, 13.01.030 E. detailed description of the size and nature of the 21 development to be served by the proposed connection to City streets and projected traffic will be generated. This hasn't been addressed in any of the documents. 0 13.01.40 A.,C.E.. Particularly of note: "..or property adjacent to the roadways, will not be adversely affected. o Right to appeal. As there has been no permit, no one can appeal, in violation of 13.01.080, as there is conflicting information as to applicant referring to the street as a driveway, in contradiction to the plans. o Sidewalks are required if they go directly to a Park. Opening up Neptune Ave would provide a direct path to the Park and would 122 require full sidewalk. Neptune Ave. extension This extension was never adequately studied for "safety or circulation" impacts or consistency with general plan/municipal code/Coastal Permit requirement. It is also in violation of the general plan It is important to note that the previous MND did not study the safety aspects (for pedestrians/bicyclists) of opening up this street shown as Neptune Ave. Planning staff publicly referred to this as just a "driveway". However, this is in direct contradiction to the project plans submitted by "Echo Beach" which show the road to be "NEPTUNE AVENUE". The development standards show it is only 23 26' wide and misleadingly labeled on the comparison chart as "drive aisle width". or further mislead by ignoring what it really is, (a street) and strategically stating in the summary (auto connectivity) it is"a "thru connection" or the zoning code where they refer to it simply as "drive aisle". Plan summary also shows the Neptune Avenue extension, (listed as drive aisle) to be 26' wide (a substandard street) Right of way requirements are not met and a standard street requires a minimum of 32'. Their street extension would be without the continuation of the existing sidewalks. Safety impacts result from the extension of Neptune Ave and is a CEQA issue. The sidewalk stops abruptly at the terminus/extension of Neptune Ave. No crosswalk or safety considerations for public crossing through the project in the middle of the street extension. No study was ever done on the extension of Neptune Ave. There are no engineering plans associated with this crucial unstudied street extension. Further, the summary misleads by stating under the heading "Walkway connectivity', "the walkway from Neptune Avenue thru to Seashore is maintained." This statement fails to admit that the rest of Neptune heading north is terminated and is contradictory to requirements of the general plan and municipal code as well. Municipal Code 19.04.09 defines: "driveway" means a designated passageway providing "vehicular" access between a 24 street and a garage or carport, a designated parking area or other driveway or street. A driveway shall not be considered a street. (Note: Same meaning as in the Zoning Code.)" Because the definition singled out specifically "vehicular" instead of just stating access, it is assumed that a driveway is not to be used for pedestrian or bicycle access. This is a dilemma for the developer which may explain why the tentative tract map, zone change study plan and prelim grading plan for Seashore Village labeled the extension of Neptune Ave as a "private road" and the "Echo Beach" project plans specifically call this out as Neptune Ave. The important documents showing this a substandard street without the public accessibility with a continued sidewalk have never been adequately studied as required by CEQA. General Plan Violations and land use and planning incompatibilities This is not a complete list; other issues have been documented in prior 25 comments. (Add'I violations:3.1.5-2 private road, 5.61, 5.62., 6.2.3 policies in 7 Circulation element specifically important is CE5.1.3 requiring pedestrian improvements to include safe sidewalk, walkways and bike lanes in accordance with the Master Plan. & CE5.1.16 that provides for the safety of bicyclist and pedestrians through provision of adequate facilities including extra sidewalk width where feasible. LU1.1 Unique environment "Maintain and enhance the beneficial and unique character of the different neighborhoods..." Original "Seashore Village" (as compared to the Echo Beach plan) attempted to fit in with the existing neighborhood by having homes that were similar in layout with 30 foot lot sizes, mix of duplexes (6) and SFR (12), required conditions to modulate the differences in height through a gradual transition requiring the 2 duplexes adjacent to existing properties to be lowered. Echo Beach increased number of buildings from 18 to 24 (33% increase), removed all of the duplexes, decreased lot sizes to 20' and is increasing the heights of the buildings adjacent to the east existing properties. Seashore Village also tried to maintain the existing character through similar architectural style, conditioned through resolution to be either Plantation or Craftsman style, roof hip design and setbacks specific to the two buildings that would be built directly adjacent to existing duplexes on east side. These specific conditions were in an effort to help reduce the abrupt differences in mass, ht, and densities and would have less of an environmental impact on aesthetics, light and shadows. These conditions provided as part of the 2008 Resolution were part of the approval process that the City demanded in order to give more light and air to the 2 adjacent properties and all of the conditions were done in attempt to mitigate the impacts and to blend in with the character of the neighborhood. This is not the case for Echo Beach. Echo Beach is using "enhanced" (raised) elevations right next to the properties that conditions required lowered height elevations. Echo Beach also removed the pathway that would have provided a transition from the different property types through a landscaped area that would have been from 12'6" at the northerly portion down to 7'6" for the Neptune property and continuing down to the 4' side setback at Seashore adjacent property. Both existing adjacent properties are duplexes and yet the duplexes that were in Seashore Village plans have been omitted. The setbacks are very inconsistent with the neighborhood character because some of their proposed condos are situated in clusters facing each other, which don't exist in that type of configuration anywhere in the area. LU 1.6 Public Views Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include ocean views from public vantage points. Sunset ridge Park is a new public view point that if studied, might have a potential negative aesthetic impact as it is in direct line of sight and less than 700 feet away from new project. 25 cont'd 26 fPil LU 2.3 Range of Residential Choices 28 Echo Beach's new project removed the 6 duplex units, removing potential rental properties for more moderate -income residents. LU3, LU3.1, LU 3.2 Echo Beach is not consistent with maintaining the pattern of the residential neighborhood they are looking to develop in. Echo Beach is not complementary in type, form, scale or character and this drastic of a change will have considerable aesthetic visual impacts and the change in density and heights may have potential impacts of reduced air circulation, and reduced light (shadows) as well as increased evening lighting that may come from lighted pathways, light fixtures path lights, etc. This area of West Newport is not economically underperforming and a development that is so out of character cannot be considered without considerable negative impacts. LU5.1.2 Compatible Interfaces This requires that the height of development in higher density residential areas transition as it nears lower density residential areas to minimize conflicts at the interface. The roof design, setbacks, specific architecture and height reductions are not part of the new Echo Beach project. Two units that will be nearly 33 foot high will be right next to the 19 foot high duplex that has generous internal setbacks (20' front setback) as compared to the Echo Beach project. LU5.1.5 Character and quality of single-family dwellings Requires that residential units be designed to high-level architectural design quality with articulation and modulation of building masses and elevations to avoid the appearance of "box like" buildings. The new architecture is modern contemporary with straight lines and little to no articulation except for the extensions of the decks. Aesthetics and Visual Resources The new project completely changed the architectural design, entire layout, added 6 buildings, reversed floor plan so they no longer uniformly face Seashore or River, added height (or as they referred to it as "enhanced elevations') specifically next to the adjacent properties. The 2008 Resolution (p.2 actually reduced the height on these two units and conditioned them further with specific design features requiring Craftsman or Plantation style (2008 res p.2) (Condition 7 & 2008 MND page11 or p. 39. Echo beach plans include "Neptune Avenue" going through the project but has only 26 -foot wide easement. This would be a substandard street. Private streets (19.24.010A3MC) shall be designed and constructed to the same standards as public streets and subdivider shall provide for permanent maintenance of all private streets (52'ROW/32' curb to curb). Private streets may be approved at the 29 30 31 Kia 32 discretion of the tentative map decision-making body. The tentative map that has cont'd been approved, shows "private road" 5. Not consistent with Zoning, General Plan, Coastal Permit, or CLUP o Project Summary shows "off street parking" for Echo Beach as 62 spaces. This is incorrect as Echo Beach removed the carports and replaced them with only 2 -car garages per unit, giving a total of 48 "off street" parking spaces. This project is 12 spaces short for "off street" parking and inconsistent with zoning requirements. Further, all of the parking spaces on the road, "Neptune Ave" have been mandated by condition in the Coastal Commission Permit to be used by the public, basically without restriction, effectively making the parking spots "on street". Rear yard setbacks are missing and are incompatible with existing zoning. Rear setbacks are typically 10'. Buildings 23 & 24 that replaced 1 duplex are only 6 feet apart instead of the required 20' total as they are backyard to backyard, Unit 24 entry is facing Neptune (front) and Unit 23 entry is off of River (their front), therefore, the back of building is adjacent to the back of the other building and the setback would require a modification permit. Seashore Village never provided a safety, circulation impact study into the roadway Neptune ave that would be extended through their property. Coastal Commission hasn't received or been notified of the new project plans. New plans would likely require a new permit. Five special conditions have been imposed on the Coastal Permit: #2 imposes that all streets, roads, and parking areas shall be open for use by the general public 24 hours per day for parking, vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access, ...(except for street sweeping) ... No landscaping mimicking any type of entry control, etc. and... "restrictions on use by the general public associated with any streets or parking area shall be prohibited." The design of the pathways and parking spots appear to be mimicking the appearance of private use parking spots and entry paths. Entry path (p 26) shows gate to the entry path from Neptune to Seashore. #3. Must conform to the 2007 WQMP showing roof drainage..."Any proposed changes to the approved plan shall be reported to the Executive Director"... "No changes to the approved plan shall occur without a Commission amendment to this coastal development permit unless the Exec director determines no amendment is required". #4. Landscape plans. Again, any changes shall be reported and no changes to the approved plans without a commission amendment or director determines otherwise. #5 Future development. "This permit is only for the development described in Coastal Development Permit No. 5-08-54" 10 33 34 35 36 Request Planning Commission denial of Echo Beach's request for approval of "substantial conformance" and denial of adoption of the Addendum to the prior Seashore Village MND CEQA guidelines, Section 15164(b) states that an addendum to a previously adopted Negative Declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions arc necessary. Clearly this is not the case as this "project" basically threw out the entire Seashore Village development plans and started over. At the same time, the new development, (Echo Beach) would like to gain the advantage of using the results from the MND that was site specific to the "Seashore Village" development. One need look no further than City Council Resolution # 2008-53 to understand that the Echo Beach project can not simply piggy back on the 2008 approvals, as the Echo Beach project is incompatible with the many specific conditions relating to the previous design. The City Resolution 42008-53, (attachments provided) and the original documents for the Seashore Village MND (having 65 specific conditions) and the Coastal Development permit all have additional conditions that require specific conformance relating to the original Seashore Village plans. These conditions regarding site, architecture, setbacks, number and type of buildings, circulation etc., are specific to the details in the Seashore Village plans. "Echo Beach" has come up with an entirely different project but is trying to use the results or entitlements of another architect's work. The substantial changes to the plans will require major revisions of the previous MND due to involvement of new potentially significant environmental impacts or increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Noise: (interior db levels exceeding allowable level in general plan) which would require AC units, but this has not been studied in the previous MND and is not addressed in this addendum. Would A/C units solve the interior DB level problems but then create exterior DB levels that would impact other buildings? The location would have direct noise impacts from proximity to Pacific Coast Hwy when going up to the 3`d story and the new project is increasing the height even further than the prior MND. Of note, is that there is no discussion as to AC units, location to other properties etc.. Further, the new design has completely different site placement, design and number of windows and can't be compared at all as the prior site plan and building structures are completely different. 37 38 There is also non-conformance with general plan design guidelines and current zoning, 139 view impacts, traffic circulation and parking impacts are just of few of the impacts that were either not studied or have an increase in the negative impacts. Increased severity of previously identified impacts are the light and air circulation impacts from increasing the height and bulk of the buildings even further from the original plans. In addition, the proposed structures are no longer consistent with general plan setbacks and neighborhood's typical 30 wide lots that are the typical layout throughout the entire West Newport Area. Front yard setback on Neptune property next to the new development is 20'. New development appears to have 5- foot setback on property adjacent to existing property that faces Neptune. This development is so atypical m in layout, that it is hard to figure out if it is the side, front or back of the unit and how any 140 of the internal setbacks apply. cont'd Piper Rudnick The Echo Beach's Modern Contemporary design is radically different from Seashore Village plans as it has larger box /barrack type of structures, has increased the number of buildings from 18 to 24, eliminated the duplexes altogether, and completely changed the site plan to have small enclaves or groupings of 3 buildings that all share a driveway and face each other. This does not fit in with the well-established neighborhoods in West Newport and is drastically different than the Seashore Village plan that at least attempted to conform to the existing neighborhood. The approved setbacks approved on the Seashore Village plan had Neptune building immediately adjacent to existing building with a 12'6" setback and had a landscaping buffer adjacent to property line to have a more gradual transition to the new development. Next to the buffer was a public walkway for coastal access. Echo beach has replaced the Coastal access paths (changes not reported to the Coastal Commission) with two buildings that have the backs of both buildings abutting the adjacent neighbor. Instead of the protective conditions required of Seashore Village that actually lowered their building heights when adjacent to existing residents and maintained neighborhood side-by-side consistency, Echo Beach would be increasing negative impacts by increasing building height on their properties adjacent to existing homes. This would require a new modification. This height increase is referred to on Echo Beach plans as "enhanced". "Enhanced" is simply a marketing term that is used when you don't want to bring attention to the fact that it means "taller". This is an increased negative impact to surrounding properties and is inconsistent with current neighborhood layout. The Echo Beach site plan is completely inconsistent with the surrounding area. The height of the buildings will dwarf the structures adjacent to them. Neptune property height is 19' and Echo Beach is proposing the structures to be even taller than previous modification allowed which would be nearly double the height of the adjacent properties, dwarfing them, causing shadows, reduced air circulation and is inconsistent with fitting in with the neighborhood. The Echo Beach design intensifies the negative impacts that modifications to the Seashore Village design had tried to improve through a gradual increase in height, articulation and architectural relief that gave the buildings a more conforming style to surrounding neighbors. Seashore Village design had more light and air circulation next to their immediate neighbors and was more in line with the general plan which tries to limit negative impact to surrounding properties. Further Seashore Village also designed the site layout with typical lot dimensions, unlike the "every which way" design the Echo Beach project encompasses. 41 42 43 By having the development further reducing the side setbacks, increasingheight and extending Neptune Ave, no study has been given to the negative effect of the properties 44 that derive their income from rentals as the prolonged construction will negatively affect the entire neighborhood and property values. The use permit was specific to allow the 6 duplex units to exceed the City's base height limit for the Seashore Development. Echo Beach is removing the duplex units entirely 145 and instead replacing the 6 duplexes with 12 single family residences. This can't be considered the same project and a new EIR is required of Echo Beach. The development is not consistent with existing zoning. Their tot is zoned RM 51 dwelling units. It is not zoned RM -D which would allow for `detached" multi unit residential. The zoning rightfully kept this lot as an area that could provide for the community as a hotel or apartment building; not detached units. A dwelling "unit' is substantially different than a building. Their will likely be an increase in traffic based on the number of bedrooms nearly doubling the existing apartment building. Effects of parking and traffic haven't been studied. Project proponents refused to consider using the 2 existing openings to River Avenue to provide ingress/egress to their properties. Instead there is nothing that was ever stated as to why the site plan was the way it was other than for financial reasons. There was never a pro forma submitted, nor does it even matter if the reasons to not consider mitigating the damages to the neighboring properties would mean that investors might not make as much money as they would by packing in a few more buildings. This is an extremely important impact that has never been addressed and could have potential to considerably reduce neighborhood impacts for the surrounding existing homes. The effect of the MND referring to Neptune Avenue originally as an alley, then a fire lane to now being Neptune Avenue has been deferred in how the City will treat this and why other access streets weren't studied or considered. Do we know if Neptune Avenue is considered partially a private street, is it an alley, is there an irrevocable dedication to the City to allow this extension, regardless of the harm to the existing Neptune residents? City general plan imp 16.6 states: "City shall undertake studies of residential neighborhoods on a case by case basis to identify local circulation patterns and principal access points in order to assess the opportunities and needs to restrict, divert, or mitigate arterial traffic intrusion. Such studies should include an assessment of the traffic impacts on the entire neighborhood and participation of neighborhood residents to prepare a consensus plan of'neighborhood traffic control. City shall maintain standards that ensure safe and efficient access for emergency vehicles to residential areas." Currently Seashore properties need to park in back of their garages, but will they be able to continue to do this with the new development? Will the City require the road curb be painted red as a fire lane to help the flow, to the detriment of existing residents? Will there be parking in the extension on Neptune Avenue in the pavement areas that have clear spaces for parking? There has been no adequate study that addressed this in the previous MND and this could have substantial negative impacts. Are they calculating this road as their open space? Has the City considered the negative impacts to the surrounding community by extending Neptune Ave? In 1961,ordinance 760 gave the City an offer to dedicate and Neptune became an avenue that ended at the site property line. Neptune Avenue was never planned to go through, but to terminate where it is right now. It never went through their site as an access road, yet an access road did exist at one time from 3 IER 47 River to Seashore (as evidenced by the curb cuts). Implementation plan 23.5 addresses requirements for residential developers. Are any parks, dedication or improvements required of this new development? Coastal plans also discourage the "taking" of public facilities. In this case, the site plan appears that the public park is actually part of the new development. Arc adequate setbacks maintained so this isn't the case? This addendum situation appears to be used as a pretend "revision" to get the benefits/entitlements of an already approved project and a way around public participation regarding the new project. it is somewhat analogous to a new owner purchasing a lot and trying to use the prior building permit from an unbuilt approved project, and expecting that they could then hire a new architect, design a completely different building with a new site layout, completely different style, height, square footage etc., and expect that the building department or even a HOA would allow this as a `revised" plan. The building department wouldn't allow someone to submit architectural plans for a "Craftsman style" home on a lot, then have new owners bring the permit and expect to somehow have it apply to their new project where their new architect designed a "Modern Contemporary" home. This is akin to what is going on with the Echo Beach project and is in itself enough to determine it is a different project. However, it is even more obvious that it is not a revised project when the new plans have a different layout that negatively affects adjoining properties with increased height, is inconsistent with the entire surrounding community layout as well as the General plan's building designs. An architectural committee or bldg dept would look at the changed style, height, density, and architect and require they resubmit their plans as a new project. 48 49 Additionally, an addendum in this case violates CEQA as I have identified potential environmental impacts caused by the so-called "revised" project and a new EIR for the 50 Echo Beach project is absolutely required. The City Council Resolution #2008-53 adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved the tentative tract map, modification permit, use permit and coastal residential permit. Attached to the Resolution and made a part thereof was Exhibit B containing many specific conditions. The City Council resolution acts in part as a development agreement, (Chp 15.45NBMC) where it can include conditions, phasing of construction, max. ht, size of proposed bldgs, etc.. These conditions are specifically spelled out and apply only to Seashore Village project (arch/Todd Schooler). The Resolution is the City's agreement to make sure that the building entitlements come with oversight and specific requirements and mitigations in order memorialize the extent of the negative impact the development can inflict on their resident's. The Seashore Village already had litigation and a settlement that the City is well aware of and the new owners have not upheld the settlement. Resolution/agreement and the Seashore Village approved MND cannot be applied in any manner whatsoever to the Echo Beach project. If these conditions and resolution can't apply to the Echo Beach project, as the design requirements are different, 4 51 it would then invalidate the MND and Resolution as neither can be separated from the conditions. It would be a serious error to consider a finding of "substantial conformance" when it is obvious that using entitlements specific to the Seashore Village Plan can certainly not be considered a minor change, nor a necessity, but it would also be a fiduciary mistake on the part of our Planning Commission to consider using this "addendum" process. The "addendum" avoids the 30 -day recirculation and comment period and its use in this case is clearly incompatible with CEQA guidelines. This project is pursuing major technical changes, modifications, and/or additions to this project that are so substantial that it bears little aesthetic relation to the original Seashore Village plan. 52 Additional evidence of a major change (necessitating an EIR) is that the original resolution allowed for the development of 12 detached single unit residences and 6 53 detached (duplex) residential structures for a total of 18 structures. The Echo Beach development is asking for 24 detached structures and the removal of the duplex units. City Resolution is specific to the Seashore Village development as the Resolution states: "... Whereas, the proposed subdivision..." and further requires (pg 2 of 24) that: "...Each unit will feature either a "Craftsman" or "Plantation" architectural style. Architectural details and enhancements (i. e. batt and board wood siding, louvered window shutters, decorative trim, and stone veneer) will be provided on all building elevations. The 2"d floor facades are setback from the 1St floor of? the rear elevations and cantilevered over the I"floor on the_front elevations, providing articulation and modulation to the building mass. The 3' floor of each building is setback fi^om the front and rear elevations, towards the interior portion of each building envelope, to reduce the visual mass of the structures as view from the streets: and... " The resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration & approving tentative tract map no 2007-001, modification permit no 2007-044, use permit no 2007-011 and coastal residential development permit no. 2007-001 was site specific to the Seashore Village plans. The Use permit is invalid as it was specific to allowing each of the 6 duplex structures to exceed the City's base height limit. There are no duplexes in the Echo Beach plans and they are seeking to remove them while at the same time trying to get a determination that their plans are within substantial conformance with the 2008 approvals. The modification permits allowing encroachment into the required front and side yard setback areas are specific to the Seashore Village plans. 54 55 Current zoning for site is RM 5l dwelling units. It is important to note that the proposed Echo Beach plan is not consistent with the existing updated zoning, as it would have had 56 to be zoned RM -D, allowing for detached structures. Instead, the existing zoning supports the existing use as an apartment building. New information that wasn't known at the time was there would be two public view point areas within 700 feet (Sunset Ridge Park in construction & Banning Ranch proposed 57 public view area) of the site and may impact public views. Resolution was also adopted prior to the Sunset Ridge Park being built and the location of approximately 700 feet from subject "Project "was not considered in the Coastal Commission Permit that was submitted in 2008, nor was it considered in the Mitigated negative declaration. This park has a protected public viewpoint that may be a significant finding that may have an adverse impact that wasn't studied in the original NMD. According to the Sunset Ridge Park final EIR (Sec 4.2 aesthetics) it states: "The Natural Resources Element of the General Plan, Figure NR3, identifies that the Project site includes a designated public view point. As depicted on Exhibit 4.2-1, the site also contains a 197,720 -square -foot (sj) scenic easement imposed by the California Department of 'Transportation (Caltrans) as a term of the sale o f the property to the City.... '. An appellate court case finding that the use of an addendum was improper is found in Save Our Neighborhood v. Lishman (2006) 140 Cal. App.4"' 1288, 45 Cal Rptr.3d 306 the court held that "the two projects are unrelated, except that they both include hotels and are located on the same land" [140Cal.App4th at 1297]. The addendum submitted on the same property, 7 years later with different applicants both contained a hotel of slightly different size 102/106, but both had gas station with convenience stores, carwash and entrance roads. The court noted "similar mixes of uses", but that different developers were involved and there was no evidence the "latter project utilized any of the drawings or other materials connected with the earlier project as a basis for the new configuration of uses." Similar to this situation with the Echo beach addendum, the court case described a comparative side by side assessment of the features of the two projects was also done by the City with CEQA conclusions and the analysis was characterized as "self serving". I ask you to deny claim of "substantial conformance" and deny adoption of the "addendum". Len DeCaro comment letter 4-3-2014 57 cont'd 58 Attachment No. CC 11 Response to Appeal Comments M 401 April 17, 2014 Appeal Letter 1 The appellant contends that the revisions constitute a new project and that the California Coastal Commission may require the submittal of a new Coastal Development permit application. As noted in the staff report, City Zoning Code Section 20.54.070 (Changes to an Approved Project), authorizes the Community Development Director to approve minor changes to a previously approved site plan, architecture, or the nature of the approved use, without a public hearing, and without a new permit application upon making certain findings., As in this case, the Director may choose to refer any requested change to the original review authority. (NBMC Section 20.54.070(B)(2). The Director's decision afforded surrounding property owners and interested parties to review and comment on the revised project at a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission found that the required findings to approve the project changes were established and that the proposed revisions were minor and in substantial conformance with the approved project. Therefore, pursuant to the City's Zoning Code, no new application was required to be submitted. With regards to the California Coastal Commission review, Section 30600(c) of the Coastal Act provides for the issuance of coastal development permits directly by the Commission in regions where the local government having jurisdiction does not have a certified Local Coastal Program for the relevant area. The City does not have a certified LCP. Therefore, the Coastal Commission is the permit issuing entity the applicant is required to submit final plans to the California Coastal Commission for their review and approval. The City's determination is a separate review and must be completed before the applicant can request review by the California Coastal Commission. 2 Summary of Approved Project A detailed description of the approved entitlements and environmental review conducted for the previously Approved Project is provided in Section 1, Introduction of the "Addendum to the Echo Beach Residential Project Mitigated Negative Declaration," or the Addendum. As discussed, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was adopted in February 2008 approving Tentative Tract Map NT2007-001, Modification Permit No. MD 2007-044, Use Permit No. UP2007-011, Coastal Residential Development Permit, and Coastal Development Permit. These entitlements allowed for the development of 24 residential units on a 1.49 acre site to be completed in four phases. The project proposed two architectural styles — Craftsman and Plantation with total gross floor area of 50,706 square feet, a maximum ridgeline height ranging from 31 feet to 31 feet 6 inches, and a maximum midpoint height ranging from 25 feet 6 inches to 28 feet 10 inches. A detailed description of the approved project is provided in Section 3.1, Project Background, of the Echo Beach Addendum. 401 The Echo Beach project (Modified Project) involves only minor changes to the Approved Project. Table 3-1, Approved Project and Modified Project Comparison Development Summary, shows a detailed comparison of the Approved Project and Modified Project. As described in detail in Section 3.2 of the Echo Beach Addendum, the Modified Project is the same as the Approved project such that it allows for the development of 24 residential units on a 1.49 acre area to be completed in four phases. The Modified Project would reduce the total building footprint from 35.9 percent to 34.6 percent and pavement coverage from 35.4 percent to 27.3 percent. The total landscaping area would increase from 28.2 percent to 37.1 percent while incorporating enhanced design features such as turf blocks, pervious parking and pavers, and water -conserving plants. Further, the project was determined to be in substantial conformance with the approved project pursuant to the City's Zoning Code as indicated in Response 1, above. Minor changes to the site layout and elevations include changing the residential product type and the architectural style - from Craftsman and Plantation to Modern. The Modified Project would also result in a minor increase of 210 square feet of gross floor area, a 5 inch to 1 foot 5 inch maximum ridgeline height, and a 1 foot 11 inch to 3 feet 7 inch maximum midpoint height. Finally, while the Modified Project would result in a reduction of 1 parking space, all of the parking required by the Zoning Code will be provided. A total of 62 parking spaces are proposed: 48 dedicated residential spaces in garages and 14 open guest spaces, exceeding the 60 space minimum required by both the previous and current Zoning Codes The Echo Beach Residential Project is Not Considered a "New" Project under CEQA Case law, including the findings in Save our Neighborhood v. Lishman (2006) 140 Cal. App. 4th 1228, does not "support the contention that an addendum can't be used for an MND if it isn't the same project." The court in Neighborhood v. Lishman found that the lead agency must first make a threshold determination of whether the later project is a new project or a modified project. It found that an addendum cannot be prepared for a new project that is unrelated to the prior approved project and that Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, 15163, and 15164 apply when the project being analyzed is a change to, or further approval for, a project for which an EIR or negative declaration was previously certified or adopted (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(f)(7)). The question of the standard of review or deference that the courts give to the lead agencies decision to make the threshold determination of whether a later project is a new or modified project has varied in many decisions. In most cases, courts provide greater deference to the lead agency in making that determination [see Moss v. County of Humboldt (2008) 162 Cal.AppAth 1041, 1051 and Latinos Unidos de Napa v. City of Napa (2013) 221 Cal.AppAth 192]. PRC Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 mandates that once an EIR is certified or an MND is adopted, no further EIR is required unless specific conditions are met. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 states that when an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: 402 (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (8) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. The Echo Beach project is not a new project; it is a modified project of the previously Approved Project. The changes to the Approved Project, as indicated above and summarized in Table 3-1 of the Addendum, are minor because they would allow the same type of land use (residential), the same number of units (24 total), and the same overall development area (1.49 acres). The impact area would be slightly reduced due to the reduction in total building footprint and pavement coverage and increase in landscaping area. The minor aesthetic changes that would occur, including site layout, architectural style, setbacks and building heights, would not result in a new environmental effect. These issues were fully addressed throughout the Addendum and specifically with regard to aesthetics impacts in Section 5.1, Aesthetics. No changes or new significant information change the conclusions of the Approved MND. 3 Appellant recites Code Section 20.54.070 and states that the Director's deferral of the project changes to the Planning Commission was improper and that their April 3, 2014, action is invalid because the Director should have first made a determination that the project changes were minor and then referred the determination to the original review authority. 403 .M As discussed in Response 1, the Director has the authority to approve minor changes provided certain findings are met per Section 20.54.070.6.1 or may choose to refer the changes to the original review authority per Section 20.54.070.6.2; however, there is no requirement that the Planning Director first make a determination then refer the action to the original review authority. In this case the original review authority for the project was the Planning Commission, who approved the project on April 17, 2008. This same appellant appealed the 2008 Planning Commission to the City Council who later reviewed and approved the project on June 10, 2008. However, the original review authority remains as the Planning Commission. Pursuant to Section 20.54.070.C, only changes that do not comply with the findings required in Section 20.54.070.6.1 require a new permit. In this case, the Planning Commission found that the required findings to approve the project changes could be satisfied and that the proposed revisions were minor and in substantial conformance with the approved project. 4 The appellant incorrectly states that the Assistant City Attorney cautioned a planning commissioner that he could not ask for or review the materials of the revised architecture. The Planning Commission did review the colors and materials board of the revised architecture and did have the authority to approve the changes in architecture. At this time, Commissioner Kramer did request staff at the hearing if it was possible to add a condition of approval requiring that the project's CC&R's include language requiring residents to park vehicles in their garages and that they should not be used for storage. In response to this inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated that the decision before the Commission was not a new entitlement permit, but rather a determination of whether or not the project changes were minor and in substantial conformance with the approved project and that a discussion of conditions was premature to this determination. 5 The appellant states that the changes are significant and not in substantial conformance with approved project. The appellant also states that the removal of the duplex units is an operational change that removes potential rental stock and impacts the ability of moderate -income earners to find reasonable rental accommodations, which would be inconsistent with General Plan Goal LU2.3 (Range of Residential Choice). The Planning Commission has reviewed the requested changes and found them to be minor and in substantial conformance. The conditions of approval for the project continue to be applicable to the project. With regard to the loss of duplex units, it is important to note that under the Approved Project all units, including the attached units, were to be subdivided into individual for - sale condominiums. Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in the loss of rental units or change in operational characteristics. The property is designated and zoned for Multiple Unit Residential (RM), which is intended to provide for areas appropriate for multi -unit residential developments containing attached or detached dwelling units. The revised site plan that includes detached units only remains consistent with the RM land use and zoning designation. 6 The appellant states that the revisions constitute a new project and implies that City should not make a determination of substantial conformance if the Coastal .M 405 Commission requires an amendment to the original Coastal Development Permit or requires a new permit. However, the Coastal Commission is a separate permitting jurisdiction and revisions to a project are subject to their separate and independent review procedures. The Coastal Commission's decision to require an amendment or a new Coastal Development Permit is not considered when the City makes a determination of substantial conformance and approves minor changes to the plan approved under City permits. 7 The appellant states that the applicant is not honoring a 2008 settlement agreement.lt is true that the appellant challenged the City Council's 2008 approval by filing a CEQA petition in the Orange County Superior Court, and that the appellant dismissed the petition with prejudice prior to any judicial determination on the issues raised by the petition. Presumably, the dismissal was a result of the 2008 settlement agreement referenced by the appellant. However, the City was not a part of this 2008 settlement agreement between the prior developers of the project and the appellant. Any disagreement related to the terms of the settlement agreement are a civil matter between the two parties and has no weight on the decision of the Planning Commission or City Council to authorize minor changes to the approved project and make a determination of substantial conformance. 8 The appellant contends that the changes to the 2008 project are not minor and that a new permit application must be filed. See Response 3. 9 The appellant questions whether it's appropriate for the Assistant City Attorney to be consulted by the Planning Division staff regarding the appropriate processing procedures for the requested changes. The Assistant City Attorney is assigned to provide the Planning Division with legal support and reviews all staff recommendations and draft resolutions. The appellant also questions whether it is appropriate for the City's planning consultants, who are paid for by the applicants, to provide their opinions at length without a rebuttal. In this case, the City hired PlaceWorks, environmental consultants that prepared the 2008 MND, to review the project revisions and prepare an addendum to the MND analyzing the project revisions and compliance with CEQA . During the public hearing on April 3, 2014, the Planning Commission requested that staff address each of the appellants major contentions raised in her written correspondence letter and verbal comments. Both City staff and the City's consultant from PlaceWorks provided a the response requested. Although the cost associated with retaining PlaceWorks to provide environmental planning work is paid for by the applicant, PlaceWorks functions as an extension of City staff and scope includes providing the City with environmental planning assistance. 10 The appellant questions whether it is appropriate for City staff to refer to the internal private driveway as a "driveway" when the original tentative tract map refers to the driveway as a "private road" and the revised site plan labels the driveway as "Neptune Ave". This is a similar comment that was raised in the appellant's prior comment letter regarding the original approval in 2008. On Page 8 of the June 10, 2008, City Council staff report, staff clarified that the tentative tract map incorrectly identifies the access road as a private road. The revised site plan also incorrectly labels the driveway as Neptune Avenue. Prior to the issuance of building permits and recordation of the final map, the plans and map will be revised to correctly identify the access as a driveway. 11 The appellant implies that the Director's reasoning to refer the determination review to the Planning Commission because of the significant visual modifications proposed 405 E/. is reason to find that an addendum to the MND is not appropriate. However, the addendum that was prepared thoroughly reviewed the visual changes of the project and found that the revisions were minor and did not involve any new significant visual impacts or result in substantial increase in the severity of impacts. Pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, were only minor technical changes to a previous document are needed, an addendum can be prepared. In this case a comprehensive addendum was prepared, a complete analysis of each of the environmental checklist items were addressed, and all reasoning was documented. 12 The appellant incorrectly states that Senior Planner Murillo indicated to her that the City does not have a copy of the approved plans stamped with the date of the June 10, 2008 City Council approval. The City does have a copy of these approved plans and a copy of the plans were included in the April 3, 2014, staff report packet as Attachment No. PC6 and was also available online on the City's website for review. 13 The conditions of approval applicable to the project as established under City Council Resolution No. 2008-53 do not include specific conditions related to the minimum side yard setbacks adjacent to the neighbors to the east. The Resolution approved Modification Permit No. MD 2007-044 that allowed a reduction in the side setback from 25 feet to as close as 4 feet along the eastern side of the property and requires that any changes to the project to be in substantial conformance with approved plans. In this case, the revised site plan changes maintain or increase the same minimum setbacks as previously approved under MD 2007-044. Condition No.7 required the two structures (north and south of the project driveway) that encroach into the side setback area immediately adjacent to the east property line to be modified to incorporate design features to minimize building height impacts on the adjacent properties. The modified plans implement the intent of this Condition by separating the bulk and mass of the previous duplex units on the north side of project roadway into two individual structures, creating more light and open space and increasing the compatibility with existing adjacent duplexes to the east. For the structure south of the project roadway, the side setback has been increased from 4 feet to 6 feet to provide additional light and open space to the adjacent structure. The conditions of approval did not include a specific condition requiring the architectural style to be Craftsman or Plantation. Condition No. 46 requires an ADA complaint public pedestrian pathway, from River Avenue to Seashore Drive, be provided through the development site. The revised project now includes two publically accessible walkways bisecting the project site and providing a connection between the two streets: 1) the project "paseos" with enhanced landscaping bisect the site near the center of the site; and 2) a continuous ADA accessible 4 -foot -wide path connects the streets along the western parcel boundary adjacent to the park that eliminates the need to cross the project driveway. 14 The appellant states that the revised site plan is not in substantial conformance with the approved plan that reduced front setbacks adjacent to Seashore Drive from 20 feet to between 10 feet and 13 feet. The revised plans reduce the setback to 10 feet for all structures. The Planning Commission found this change to be in substantial conformance with the setback reduction approved under MD2007-044. It should also be noted that the current Zoning Code now requires a five-foot front setback adjacent to River Avenue, which is less than the 10 feet provided with the revised plan. 15 The appellant states that the revised site plan is not in substantial conformance with the approved plan that reduced front setbacks adjacent to River Avenue from from 20 E/. 407 feet to between 10 feet and 15 feet. The revised plans reduce the setback to 10 feet for all structures. The Planning Commission found this change to be in substantial conformance with the setback reduction approved under MD2007-044. It should also be noted that the project frontage along River Avenue is no longer considered a front setback, but rather a rear setback under the current Zoning Code and subject to a minimum 10 -foot rear setback, which the revised site plan also complies with. 16 See Response 13. 17 Appellant states that the project omits the fact that the approved project included 18 buildings and the revised site plan includes 24 buildings. The April 3, 2014, Planning Commission staff report clearly describes the project site plan changes including the fact that the design now include 24 detached units. 18 See Responses 1 and 2. This comment is incorrect when it states that any time there are conditions or modifications to a MND, an addendum is inappropriate and a new EIR is required. The test for whether an Addendum or EIR is required is whether any of the conditions are met in PRC § 21166 or CEQA Guidelines § 15162. These conditions do not consider whether the previously adopted MND had conditions of approval nor do they prohibit any modifications to an MND. Rather, they determine what type of environmental documentation is required when there are modifications to a project. The addendum incorporates the conditions of approval and mitigation from the previously approved MND and changes the MND by the addendum to reflect the changes to the project. 19 The nearest public view point to the project site is located to the west approximately 1,000 feet (Figure NR3, Coastal Views, City of Newport Beach General Plan, 2006). The Newport Beach General Plan was adopted in 2006 and the original MND was adopted in 2008. Therefore, the there are no new public view points near the project site that were unknown at the time of the preparation of the MND. Photographs were taken from the public view points near the project site and provided in Attachment A. As shown, an increase of 1 foot 5 inch maximum ridgeline height would not result in a noticeable change in view from any of the City's designated public view points. The overall scale and massing of the Modified Project would be similar to that of the Approved Project and would not impact scenic views (see Section 5.1 of the Addendum). No new significant impacts would occur. 20 The revised project now includes two publically accessible walkways bisecting the project site and improving public access connections between the two streets: 1) the project "paseos" with enhanced landscaping bisect the site near the center of the site; and 2) a continuous ADA accessible 4 -foot -wide path connects the streets along the western parcel boundary adjacent to the park that eliminates the need to cross the project driveway. The pathways are not gated and landscaping does not include any elements that mimic entry control elements. 21 See Response 10. The MND and Addendum thoroughly analyzed potential environmental impacts associated with traffic and circulation. The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and does not believe the project will negatively impact the City's right-of-way and circulation system. Additionally, the final design is subject to appropriate conditions of approval, including further analysis by the Traffic Engineer, to ensure that the final design of the driveway and connections comply with all City requirements and Council Policy L-2(Driveway Approaches). 22 Internal sidewalks are not required. Full width sidewalks are provided along River Avenue and Seashore Drive connecting to the adjacent City park. As a condition of approval, a new full -width sidewalk is required to be constructed along Seashore Drive. 407 23 See Response 10 and 21. As previously addressed, the tentative tract map incorrectly identifies the access road as a private road. The revised site plan also incorrectly labels the driveway as Neptune Avenue. Prior to the issuance of building permits and recordation of the final map, the plans and map will be revised to correctly identify the access as a driveway. The MND and Addendum thoroughly analyzed potential environmental impacts associated with traffic and circulation. The internal access road is not expected to result in a safety hazard for pedestrians because there are no sharp curves, vehicles accessing their homes would be traveling a slow speeds, and there is enhanced pedestrian access through and along the south and west boundaries of the site allowing a safe path of travel. In addition, the City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and does not believe the project will negatively impact the City's right-of-way and circulations stem. 24 See Response 10 and 21. The MND analyzed potential traffic and circulation hazards associated the project. As previously mentioned, Neptune Avenue is not proposed to be continued through the project site as a private or public street, but rather a project driveway will provide vehicular access to the site between Neptune Avenue and River Avenue. The revised project provides enhanced pedestrian connectivity compared to the originally approved plan with two publically accessible walkways bisecting the project site and providing a connection between the Seashore Drive and River Avenue: 1) the project "paseos" with enhanced landscaping bisect the site near the center of the site; and 2) a continuous ADA accessible 4 -foot -wide path connects the streets along the western parcel boundary adjacent to the park that eliminates the need to cross the project driveway. 25 The appellant implies that the project revisions violate the General Plan and result in land use compatibilities. The appellant cites a number of General Plan policies but does not include any specific comments as to how the revisions violate said policies. Policies LU 5.6.1 (Compatible Development) and LU5.6.2 (Form and Environment) require that buildings be designed to ensure compatibility within neighborhoods and avoid designs that would result in abrupt changes in scale, style and form. The Planning Commission found the proposed revisions to be in substantial conformance with the originally approved plans that have been previously found consistent with the General Plan and compatible with the neighborhood. Policy CE 5.1.3 requires new developments to include safe and attractive sidewalks, walkways, and bikeways in accordance with the Master Plan. Policy CE 5.1.16 provides for safety of bicyclists and pedestrians through provision of adequate facilities, including maintenance of extra sidewalk width where feasible. The Master Plan does not identify any bikeway through or across the project site; however, as previously mentioned, full width sidewalks will be maintained along the two project street frontages and two pedestrian paths are being provided through the project site connecting Seashore Drive and River Avenue, in compliance with the two policies cited. 26 The approved project was designed to appear as if each unit is situated on a 30 -foot - wide lot with setbacks comparable to the surrounding R-1 and R-2 lots. The approved 6 -foot separation between buildings is consistent with the required 3 -foot side setbacks of the surrounding 30 -foot and 40 -foot -wide lots in the neighborhood, which results in a total distance of 6 feet between buildings. Although the modified project reconfigures the layout of units within the site, the overall concept remains similar with all units providing a minimum 6 -foot separation. As viewed from the Seashore Drive frontage, the units will remain fronting the street as in the approved plan and similar to the development pattern of the adjacent R-1 and R-2 lots along the street. The EI: ,M street elevations of these units will be enhanced with front door identity now facing the street versus the side yard as in the approved plan. As viewed from River Avenue, the unit layout has been modified to eliminate the duplex structures and create clusters of individual single -unit detached structures. The units fronting River Avenue now either front the street with the front or side elevations, consistent with the lots directly across River Avenue to the north. As viewed from River Avenue, the unit layout has been modified to eliminate the duplex structures and create clusters of individual single -unit detached structures. Therefore, the modified plan is compatible and consistent with the development pattern of the immediate area. Condition No. 7 required the two structures (north and south of the project driveway) that encroach into the side setback area immediately adjacent to the east property line to be modified to incorporate design features to minimum building height impacts on the adjacent properties. The modified plans implement the intent of this Condition by separating the bulk and mass of the previous duplex units on the north side of project roadway into two individual structures, creating more light and open space and increasing the compatibility with existing adjacent duplexes to the east. For the structure south of the project roadway, the side setback has been increased from 4 feet to 6 feet to provide additional light and open space to the adjacent structure. There were no conditions of approval that required the architectural style to be either Craftsman or Plantation. 27 The project's impact on public views were adequately addressed in Section 5.1 Aesthetics of the Addendum and no new significant impacts were identified. Photographs were taken of the project site from areas designated as public view points on Figure NR3, Coastal Views, City of Newport Beach General Plan (2006) and included in Attachment A of this document. The location of the five (5) photographs are provided in Figure 1, Photograph Location Map. Because the actual view points as described in the comment letter (i.e., from the Sunset Ridge Park, and the new Newport Banning view point) have not yet been constructed, photos were taken at proximate locations and from the highest elevation to capture the clearest visibility to the project site. As shown in from View Points 1, 2, and 3 (Figures 2a and 2b), views of the project site are barely visible with rooflines showing the predominate character in the mid - ground with background ocean views. Heights of the buildings along the coast line vary. The slight increase in building height — 5 inch to 1 foot 5 inch maximum ridgeline height — would not be noticeable from these public view points. The public view point shown in View Point 4 (Figure 2c) looking south has the greatest visibility of the project site. Although the roofline would be visible from this location the Modified Project would not result in a substantially change or block a scenic view. The project site is not visible from View Point 5 (Figure 2d) or looking north/northeast from View Point 4 (Figure 2c). These views show river and bluff views and are not of the ocean. No new significant impacts would result from the Modified Project. 28 See Response 5. 29 The appellant states that the project revisions are not complementary in type, form, scale and character and that the changes in density and height may have potential environmental impacts. However, the density of the project is not changing; the project remains as a 24 -unit condominium development. Detached units are ,M 410 permissible within the Multiple Unit Residential (RM) General Plan land use designation and zoning district. The revised design increases structure height approximately 1 foot 5 inches from the previous design; however, the proposed heights of the structures are complaint with the permitted 33-foot sloped roof height limit for the RM district. As previously mentioned, more light and open space has been provided to the residential structures to the east by increasing the setbacks and/or removing the bulk of the proposed structures. The change in architectural style and site layout would not substantially impact light sources and would not generate greater levels of light and glare than what currently exists onsite or compared to the approved project design. 30 Although the revised architectural style is more contemporary than the previous design, the revisions continue to provide high-level architectural design quality. Architectural details and enhancements would include wood and metal accent wall panels, wood siding and stucco, glass railings, and stone accents. The upper floors include modulation and indentations accommodating variable depth decks to allow stepping back of facades facing the streets. All front and side elevations facing a street, interior roadway, or adjacent properties include enhanced architectural treatments and modulation by incorporating projecting window and siding elements. Entry doors have been reoriented to face the street or accessed via the project aseos. 31 See Response 26. 32 See Response 10 and 21. 33 A total of 62 parking spaces are proposed: 48 dedicated residential spaces in garages and 14 open guest spaces, exceeding the 60 space minimum required by both the previous and current Zoning Codes. Although the approved plan included one additional on-site guest parking space, the plan also included an additional western driveway on River Avenue to exclusively serve one single-unit structure that resulted in the reduction of on-street parking. The modified site plan eliminates the need for the additional driveway and results in the creation of additional on-street parking on the street in exchange. In addition, the revised project plans provide enhanced resident parking such that all 48 resident parking spaces are now located in garages, as opposed to 12 garages and 12 carports as originally approved. Overall, the modified plans enhance site access and continue to exceed Code- required parking standards. The internal driveway is not a public or private street. 34 The approved subdivision maintains the development site as one lot but creates 24 airspace condominium units within the one lot. Setbacks are measured from the property lines. The previous Zoning Code required a front setback of 20 feet adjacent to River Avenue, a front setback of 20 feet adjacent to Seashore Drive, and side setbacks of 25 feet adjacent to the east and west property lines. The previous Zoning Code also required a minimum building separation of 10 feet between structures. Modification Permit No. MD2007-044 authorized a reduction of the minimum building separation to 6 feet between structures and reduced setbacks as follows: front setbacks of 10 feet on River Avenue and Seashore Drive, a side setback of 10 feet to the west property line and a side setback of 4 feet to the east property line. The current Zoning Code no longer requires a minimum building separation between units and now requires a front setback of 5 feet adjacent to Seashore Drive, a rear setback of 10 feet adjacent to River Avenue, and side setbacks of 15 feet. Despite the changes in Zoning Code setback and separation standards, the revised project plans continue to comply with the setbacks and building separations as approved under Modification Permit No. MD2007-044. 410 35 See Response 6, 23, and 24. 36 The conditions of approval of the Coastal Development Permit remain applicable to the project. Access to the on-site guest parking spaces remains open and unrestricted. The pathways are not gated and landscaping does not include any elements that mimic entry control elements. With regards to the California Coastal Commission review, the applicant is required to submit final plans to the California Coastal Commission for their review and approval. The City's determination is a separate review and permit from the Coastal Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission, which does not affect the findings needed to be made by the City. April 3, 2014 Planning Commission Comment Letter 37 The appellant states that the project revisions constitute a new project. However, as previously mentioned, all conditions of approval and mitigation measures of the approved project will continue to apply to the project revisions. The addendum that was prepared thoroughly reviewed the changes of the project and found that the revisions were minor and did not involve any new significant impacts or result in substantial increase in the severity of impacts previously identified. Pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, where only minor technical changes to a previous document are needed, an addendum can be prepared. In this case a comprehensive addendum was prepared, a complete analysis of each of the environmental checklist items were addressed, and all reasoning was documented. As mentioned in the staff report, Section 20.54.070 (Changes to an Approved Project), authorizes minor changes to a previously approved site plan, architecture, or the nature of the approved use, without a public hearing, and waive the requirement for a new permit applications upon making certain findings. Although not required, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and received public testimony. The Commission found that the required findings to approve the project changes could be satisfied and that the proposed revisions were minor and in substantial conformance with the approved project. 38 Air Conditioning noise was addressed in the June 10, 2008, City Council staff report. The State of California's noise insulation standards are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2, California Building Code. These noise standards are applied for new construction in California for the purpose of interior noise compatibility from exterior noise sources. New residential buildings must be constructed to meet the acceptable interior noise limit of 45 dBA CNEL. All residential proposed residential buildings would be constructed with heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. Based on the Society of Automotive Engineers 1971 publication, standard exterior -to -interior noise attenuation provided by standard building construction in warm -weather climates is 24 dBA with windows closed. New HVAC systems would be required to be chosen and installed to meet the existing building requirements accordance with Title 24 of the California Building Code. Noise from HVAC units would not significantly elevate noise levels at second and third story windows. Noise is logarithmically additive, meaning that noise from two sources generating equivalent noise levels will only increase noise levels by 3 dBA. Consequently, to achieve interior noise levels of 45 dBA CNEL with standard building construction, exterior noise levels would have to exceed 69 dBA CNEL. To achieve these noise levels, the HVAC would have to be designed to have noise levels of 64 dBA or less at the second and third story windows. However, air conditioning units typically achieve noise levels significantly lower than this. In the City of Newport 411 41`2 Beach, HVAC systems are required to comply with Chapter 10.26.025 of the Municipal Code which limits noise from air conditioning units to no more than 50 dBA L25. Compliance with this existing regulation ensures that new structures would achieve interior noise levels that are compatible for residential uses. Furthermore, new single-family residential uses would replace the existing multifamily residential uses onsite, and therefore new uses would be no more or less compatible with the existing noise environment. The comment has erroneously stated that the previous MND/IS did not address the AC units. The Approved MND/IS page 81 states that equipment sound rating of new heating ventilation and air condition (HVAC) equipment installed within the City of Newport Beach are reviewed during plan check and tested in the field after installation. In accordance with Municipal code Chapter 10.26.045, new permits for HVAC equipment in or adjacent to residential areas shall be issued only where the sound rating of the proposed equipment does not exceed 55 dBA and is installed with a timing device that will deactivate the equipment during the hours of 10 PM to 7 AM. Since the Modified Project would have the same number of units and similar building square footage, no increase in the number of AC units to generate greater noise is anticipated. It was determined that noise impacts from AC would not create significant noise impacts under the Approved Project and the Modified Project would also not create greater exterior noise impacts to other buildings compared to the Approved Project. As discussed in the Approved MND/IS, typical human hearing can detect changes of approximately 3 dBA or greater under normal conditions. Under the Approved Project, the minimum distance between buildings was reduced to 6 feet from the prior zoning standard of 10 feet. The Modified Project would also have 6 feet minimum distance between buildings and there is no minimum under the current zoning code. Similar to the Approved Project, the Modified Project also allows three stories in height. Noise impacts at the 3rd story with proximity to Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) would be substantially the same. Under the Approved Project, duplex units were located closer to River Avenue and PCH with the 28 foot 10 inch midpoint height and the 31 foot 6 inch ridgeline height. Under the Modified Project, floor plans 1 and 2 would be located along River Avenue. Plan 1 has 28 foot 11 inch midpoint height and 31 foot 10 inch ridgeline height, and the difference range would be 1 inch for the midpoint and 4 inches for the ridgeline heights. Plan 2 has 30 foot 3 inch midpoint and 32 foot 9 inch ridge heights, when compared with the Approved Project, the difference in would be 1 foot and 5 inches midpoint and 1 foot and 3 inches ridgeline heights. These changes would not make noticeable difference in noise levels. In addition, the Modified Project meets the current zoning requirements for building heights. Even with the different site placement, design, and number of windows, the Modified Project would be required to meet the City of Newport Beach interior and exterior noise standards as discussed in the Approved MND/IS and Addendum and there would be no new significant impacts. 39 See Responses 24, 25, 27, and 33. 40 See Response 26. 41`2 41 See Response 26 and 36. 42 See Response 26. 43 See Response 26, 29, and 30. 44 The project revisions are not expected to extend the anticipated construction schedule for the project beyond what was analyzed in the MND. In addition, discussion of project -related economic damage is not required by CEQA nor considered an environmental impact under CEQA. 45 The approved project required a use permit to allow the midpoint of the 6 duplex units to exceed the maximum 28 -foot midpoint height limit; however, midpoint limitations have been eliminated from the current Zoning Code and replaced with a minimum 3:12 pitch requirement for sloping roofs. The current Zoning Code limits heights of flat roofs and deck rails to 28 feet and sloping roofs with a minimum 3:12 pitch to 33 feet. The revised project plans comply with allowed building heights of the current Zoning Code; therefore, Use Permit No. UP 2007-011 is no longer applicable. 46 The project site was previously zoned MFR (Multi -Family Residential). The current Zoning Code designates the site RM (Multi -Unit Residential). The RM Zoning District is intended to provide for areas appropriate for multi -unit residential developments containing attached or detached dwelling units. Therefore, the proposed 24 -unit detached condominium development continues to be consistent with the permitted land uses identified in the previous MFR and current RM Zoning Districts. The project also remains below the maximum 54 -unit development limit and the 1.75 floor area limit (FAL) applicable to the site. The adopted MND concluded that significant transportation and traffic impacts would not occur as a result of the implementation of the approved project because the development would result in a reduction of units from 54 to 24 units. A reduction of 178 average daily trips (ADT) would occur from 363 ADT to 185 ADT. Although parking is no longer analyzed under CEQA as an environmental impact, the adopted MND concluded that approved project provided a surplus of parking beyond the minimum zoning requirements and that the project would not result in inadequate parking. As revised, a total of 62 parking spaces are proposed: 48 dedicated residential spaces in garages and 14 open guest spaces, exceeding the 60 space minimum required by both the previous and current Zoning Codes. 47 See Responses 10, 21, 23, and 24 related to circulation concerns resulting from the access connection from Neptune Avenue to River Avenue. In addition, the appellant states the connection would preclude the existing residences east of the project, between Seashore Drive and Neptune Avenue, from behind their garages in the right- of-way; however, said parking is not legal parking. 48 Public improvements required by the project are included in the adopted conditions of approval for the project. Although the proposed project is located adjacent to the City park, there is no direct connection from the development to the park. The park remains fully accessible to the public from all existing access points. The proposed revisions do not change the minimum setbacks provided to the western property line 413 414 adjacent to the park. In addition, the revised site plan now includes a public pedestrian path providing a physical separation from the residential patios to the park itself. 49 See Responses 1 and 3. 50 See Responses 1 and 2. The comment does not identify any new significant environmental impacts. The modified project's layout, architectural style, and building height was fully analyzed in the Addendum and specifically with respect to aesthetics (see Section 5.1 of the Addendum) and consistency with the City's land use plans, policies and regulations (see 5.10, Land Use and Planning of the Addendum). Based on the analysis, no new significant environmental impacts were identified. 51 The revised plan demonstrates the ability to comply with all required conditions of approval, and said conditions will continue to be required through project implementation. The City was not a part of the referenced settlement agreement between the prior developers of the project and the appellant. Any disagreement related to the terms of the settlement agreement are a civil matter between the two parties and has no weight on the decision of the Planning Commission or City Council to authorize minor changes to the approved project and make a determination of substantial conformance. 52 See Responses 1 and 3. 53 The approved project consisted of a Tentative Tract Map to establish 24 condominium units. The changes to the site plan do not affect the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007-001 and the related facts in support of the findings. The site remains physically suitable for the type and density proposed. 54 The conditions of approval do not include specific conditions requiring the architectural style to be Craftsman or Plantation. Section 20.54.070 (Changes to an Approved Project), grants the Community Development Director, or the Planning Commission upon referral by the Director, the authority to approve minor changes to a previously approved site plan, architecture, or the nature of the approved use, without a public hearing, and waive the requirement for a new permit applications upon making certain findings. Although not required, the Planning Commission reviewed the revisions at a public hearing and received public testimony. At the conclusion of the hearing the Planning Commission found that the required findings to approve the project changes could be satisfied and that the proposed revisions were minor and in substantial conformance with the approved project. 55 See Responses 1 and 3. The approved project consists of a Tentative Tract Map to establish 24 condominium units. The requested changes to the site plan do not affect the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007-001 and the related facts in support of the findings. The site remains physically suitable for the type and density proposed. The revised project plans continue to comply with the setbacks and building separations as approved under Modification Permit No. MD2007-044. Lastly, the revised project plans comply with allowed building heights of the current Zoning Code; therefore, Use Permit No. UP 2007-011 is no longer alicable. 56 The project site was previously zoned MFR (Multi -Family Residential). The current Zoning Code designates the site RM (Multi -Unit Residential). The RM Zoning District is intended to provide for areas appropriate for multi -unit residential developments 414 415 containing attached or detached dwelling units. Therefore, the proposed 24 -unit detached condominium development continues to be consistent with the permitted land uses identified in the previous MFR and current RM Zoning Districts. 57 See Response 27. 58 See Response 2. 415 18th St Production PI Q C -3 a. • r.. ... ... `f"� �p N m • C U CO N 0- -- a • `N Unincorporated,15th St Orange County } .. �e�Aorsh r City of Newport _BeAk,, cfa �` 'Q �,_ t { � 'v '•.: �k `'ora �`v �' Hospital Rd o9aSr `'`•,� `c � o •pi,'•. -r _,'" `^''� r LTJ as ry r .y .� Sea A�ytG . - �' ...l--�.�� f.� ,�,, � • �. shavo �Pq _ - �•a8aiisei"fiark Ln ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 2a - View Points Numbers 1 and 2 Q a Source: Place Works, 2014 PlareWorkr 417 ASO ok i+� •..,.� a i tiC �"A, .. +l a „�Al '�'`�• w e -�+• " ` + as LAS �' - _.�• 71, ' f i . / t - z. Ar wj w4 i < `r. s g, ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 2c - View Point Number 4 07 U l Source: Place Works, 2014 PlareWorkr 419 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH View Point Number 5 PlareWorkc 420 Attachment No. CC 12 Resolution of Denial 421 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND FINDING MODIFIED PLANS TO NOT BE IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE DESIGN APPROVED BY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. NT2007-001 (COUNTY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. TTM 17194), MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. MD2007-044, USE PERMIT NO. UP2007-011 AND COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. CR2007-001 FOR THE ECHO BEACH PROJECT LOCATED AT 5515 RIVER AVENUE (FORMERLY SEASHORE VILLAGE) (PA2014-005) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: 61x0910101 SE&9rTA 1r:1Jd:4.rr0MWIT 11601 On June 10, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2008-53 approving the Seashore Village project, a 24 residential condominium development located on a 1.49 -acre site at 5515 River Avenue, and legally described as Lot 105 of Tract No. 3812: and 2. The site is currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex that would be demolished to accommodate the proposed development. Project approvals included the following: a. A tentative tract map to create a 24 -unit condominium subdivision; b. A modification permit to allow encroachments into the required front and side yard setback areas and a reduction in the required distance between detached buildings; c. A use permit to allow the 6 duplex structures to exceed the City's base height limit; and d. A coastal residential development permit (CRDP) to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65590 (Mello Act), which regulates the demolition of low and moderate income (affordable) dwelling units in the coastal zone. 3. The applicant is revising the project to: 1) reconfigure the site plan and landscape plan; 2) eliminate the duplex product type; and 3) change the floor plans and architecture to a contemporary design. The applicant requests the determination that the proposed modifications are within substantial conformance with the 2008 approval; and 4. The subject property was previously located within the MFR (Multi -Family Residential) Zoning District. The current Zoning Code designates the site RM (Multi -Unit Residential). The General Plan Land Use Element category RM (Multiple -Unit Residential). 422 City Council Resolution No. Paqe 2 of 3 5. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is RM -D (Multiple Unit Residential). 6. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on April 3, 2014, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this hearing; and 7. The Planning Commission unanimously voted to adopt Resolution No. 1941 finding that the modified plans are in substantial conformance with the project approved. 8. On April 17, 2014, Mrs. Lennie DeCaro, an adjacent property owner, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. 9. A public hearing was held by the City Council on June 10, 2014, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this hearing; and SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. The applicant has proposed revisions to the approved plans for the project. Pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 1, the project design changes shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans. Pursuant to Section 20.54.070 (Changes to an Approved Project), the Community Development Director may authorize minor changes to an approved site plan, architecture, or the nature of the approved use, without a public hearing, and waive the requirement for a new permit application. In this case, the Community Development Director referred the determination as to whether the proposed changes are minor to the Planning Commission for review and final action. The City Council held a public hearing to review an appeal of the Planning Commissions' decision and finds that the proposed 24 -unit condominium development is not in substantial conformance with the approved plans of Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007-001 (County Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 17194), Modification Permit No. MD2007-044, Use Permit No. UP2007-011 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2007-001 for the following reasons: 1. ... 2. ... 3. ... Tmplt: 11/23/09 423 City Council Resolution No. Paqe 3 of 3 SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby reverses the decision of the Planning Commission and denies the applicant's request for a determination of substantial conformance of the modified plans with the project approved by Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007-001 (County Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 17194), Modification Permit No. MD2007-044, Use Permit No. UP2007-011 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2007-001. 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution. 3. 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. 4. This resolution was approved, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, held on the 10th day of June, 2014, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS 1�L2 kelt ATTEST: CITY CLERK Tmplt: 11/23/09 424 Attachment No. CC 13 Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 425 ADDENDUM TO THE: ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (FORMER SEASHORE VILLAGE) SCH NO. 2008021075 prepared fora CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Contact Mr. Jaime Murillo Senior Planner prepared by: PLACEWORKS Contact: Elizabeth Kim Associate MARCH 2014 426 City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-644-3209 TO THE: ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (FORMER SEASHORE VILLAGE) SCH NO. 2008021075 prepared for: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Contact: Mr. Jaime Murillo Senior Planner prepared by: PLACEWORKS 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Contact: Santa Ana, CA 92707 Elizabeth Kim Tel: 714.966.9220 • Fax: 714.966.9221 Associate E-mail: information@planningcenter.com Website: www.planningcenter.com CNB-16.OE MARCH 2014 427 Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. 1.1 BACKGROUND, PURPOSE, AND SCOPE..................................................................................................1 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES............................................................................................................1 1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION.................................................................................................2 2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING.........................................................................................................5 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION ................. 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING. 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION....... 13 3.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................................13 3.2 MODIFIED PROJECT DESCRIPTION......................................................................................................21 3.3 EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN........................................................................................23 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST..................................................................................................43 4.1 BACKGROUND...................................................................................................................................................43 4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED...........................................................45 4.3 DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY).........................................45 4.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS................................................................................46 5. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.....................................................................................................49 5.1 AESTHETICS................._.._.._.._.._.._.._...........................................................................................................49 5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES.........................................................................................52 5.3 AIR QUALITY.....................................................................................................................................................55 5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES..........................................................................................................................60 5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES...............................................................................................................................63 5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS.- ... ........................................................................................................................... 66 5.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS...............................................................................................................70 5.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS..........................................................................................74 5.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY...................................................................................................78 5.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING......................................................................................................................82 5.11 MINERAL RESOURCES.................................................................................................................................. 85 5.12 NOISE....................................................................................................................................................................86 5.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING.................................................................................................................. 89 5.14 PUBLIC SERVICES............................................................................................................................................91 5.15 RECREATION.................................................................................................................................................... 93 5.16 TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC ....................................................................................................................94 5.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS........................................................................................................97 5.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE..................................................................................100 6. LIST OF PREPARERS................................................................................................................103 7. REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................105 Em Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8a Figure 8a Figure 8b Figure 8b Figure 8c Figure 8c Figure 9 Figure 10 Table 3-1 Table 5-1 List of Figures Regional Location Local Vicinity....... Aerial Photograph 11 ApprovedProject Site Plan...............................................................................................................15 Approved Project SF Building Elevations......................................................................................17 Approved Project Duplex Building Elevations.............................................................................19 ModifiedProject Site Plan .................................................................................................................25 Modified Project Building Elevations (1 of 2)...............................................................................27 Modified Project Building Elevations (2 of 2)...............................................................................29 Modified Project Building Elevations (1 of 2)...............................................................................31 Modified Project Building Elevations (2 of 2)...............................................................................33 Modified Project Building Elevations (1 of 2)............................................................................... 35 Modified Project Building Elevations (2 of 2)............................................................................... 37 VisualSimulation................................................................................................................................39 Conceptual Landscaping Plan... List of Tables .......................................................................... 41 Approved Project and Modified Project Comparison Development Summary......................22 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants.................................................................56 429 1. Introduction 1.1 BACKGROUND, PURPOSE, AND SCOPE This document is an addendum to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (Adopted MND), State Clearinghouse Number (SCH) 2008021075, for the approved Seashore Village residential project (Approved Project, now known as Echo Beach residential project) and serves as the environmental review for the Echo Beach residential project (Modified Project), as required pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and the State CEQA Guidelines. Notice of Determination (NOD) for the Approved Project was posted with the County of Orange Clerk -Recorder on February 19, 2008. Pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach (City) is the Lead Agency charged with the responsibility of deciding whether or not to approve the requested action. This Addendum addresses minor changes to the Approved Project. 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES Pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the Addendum focuses on the proposed change in project design and site layout and any change in circumstances or new information of substantial importance, which might cause a change in the conclusions of the Adopted MND. Pursuant to Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, when an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent FIR or negative declaration shall be prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines that one or more of the following conditions are met: • Substantial project changes are proposed that will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; • Substantial changes would occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that require major revisions to the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or • New information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous FIR was certified or the negative declaration was adopted shows any of the following. A The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous FIR or negative declaration. 430 B Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than identified in the previous EIR. C Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. D Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. Where none of the conditions specified in Section 15162 are present, the lead agency must determine whether to prepare a supplement to the EIR, an addendum, or no further CEQA documentation (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162[b]). An addendum is appropriate where some minor technical changes or additions to the previously adopted negative declaration are necessary, but there are no new or substantially greater potentially significant impacts. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the City has determined that an Addendum to the Adopted MND is the appropriate environmental clearance for the Modified Project. This Addendum reviews the changes proposed by the Modified Project and any changes to the existing conditions that have occurred since the Adopted MND was adopted. It also reviews any new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with exercise of reasonable diligence at the time that the Adopted MND was adopted. It further examines whether, as a result of any changes or any new information, a subsequent MND may be required. This examination includes an analysis of the provisions of Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines and their applicability to the Modified Project. This Addendum relies on use of the attached Environmental Analysis, which addresses environmental checklist issues section by section. The City of Newport Beach Environmental Checklist Form has been completed by the City and included in Section 4. The checklist includes findings as to the environmental effects of the Modified Project in comparison with the findings of the Adopted MND. 1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION This Addendum relies on the environmental analysis in the Adopted MND. The public review period for the Adopted MND was from February 20, 2008 to March 20, 2008. The City of Newport Beach City adopted the Adopted MND on June 10, 2008 and filed the NOD on June 11, 2008 with the County of Orange Clerk - Recorder and the State Clearinghouse, approving the following entitlements. Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007-001 (County Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 17194). Request to approve a tentative tract map for condominium purposes, creating 24 air- space condominium units for individual sale. Modification Permit No. MD2007-044. Request to reduce the minimum building separation distance requited by the MFR zoning designation from 10 feet to 6 feet and to reduce the 431 minimum front setback distances along Seashore Drive and River Avenue required by the MFR zoning designation from 20 feet to 10 feet. A modification permit for a 10 -foot and 4 -foot side setback where the MFR zone requires 25 feet based on lot width. Use Permit No. UP2007-011. Request to exceed the midpoint height limitation of 28 feet for the duplex structures by 1 foot and 6 inches, whereas the maximum permitted ridge height of 33 feet would not be exceeded. • Coastal Residential Development Permit (CRDP). Required to ensure compliance with California Government Code Section 65590 et. Seq. and Chapter 20.86 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code for projects located within the Coastal Zone. • Coastal Development Permit (CDP). Coastal Development Permits are obtained through the California Coastal Commission and are generally required for improvements, demolition, or construction of any structure located within the Coastal Zone boundary. This Addendum incorporates by reference the Adopted MND and the technical documents that relate to the Modified Project or provide additional information concerning the environmental setting of the Modified Project. The information disclosed in this Addendum is based on the Adopted MND for the approved Seashore Village residential project and the related technical appendices contained therein. The Adopted MND/IS and the related documents are available for review at the City of Newport Beach Planning Division office, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660. 432 433 2. Environmental Settin 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION The project site is located at 5515 River Avenue in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. The project site is generally bordered by River Avenue to the north, Seashore Drive to the south residential units, including vacation rentals, to the east, and a City -owned park to the west. Figure 1, Regional Location, and Figure 2, Local Vicinity, show the location of the project site in the regional and local context of Orange County and Newport Beach, respectively. 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 2.2.1 Existing Land Use The approximately 1.49 -acre project site (APN No. 424-471-03) is relatively flat and has a trapezoidal shape. The project site is currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex (Las Brisas Apartments) (see Figure 3, Aerial Photograph). The main building of the Las Brisas Apartment is an L-shaped, three-story building with carports on the first level. Other associated uses include a swimming pool, paved parking area, and planters. The project site is currently accessed via two driveways on River Avenue. Access from and to Seashore Drive and Neptune Avenue is blocked by a wooden fence. 2.2.2 Surrounding Land Use The project site is surrounded by residential uses, including vacation rental units to the north, south, and east, and a city park to the west. The West Newport Park is located immediately west of the project site and is equipped with a play area, water fountains, tennis courts, racquetball courts, a basketball half court, and restroom facilities. The Pacific Ocean is one block to the southwest, less than 200 feet from the project site, and the Pacific Coast Highway runs adjacent to the residential properties to the north, behind an alley and an approximately nine -foot tall block wall. 434 This page int.-ntronally le ft blank. 435 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 1 - Regional Location 2. Environmental Setting Ufuez� *Artesia ^Buena Park gFullerton et PlacentieAtwood(91)*Lakewood a Cerritos,Domin 'La Palma * r®., L S JI1J3les 9 Hawaiian Gardens _ C'Anaheim - C unty 153C5 -cypress *Signal Hill *Villa Park 'Los Alamitos- -, 'tS ® *Orange Park Acres �l *Rossmoor _ __ 6 0 range - 1 zz C2YJ ----Garden rove G *Cowan Heights �J. -Lona Beach * Pacific Ocean 'South Laguna Dana Point I C Capistran`a beach 0 5 Source: PlaceWorks, 2014; ESRI, 2014 Scale (Miles) March 2014 PlaceWorks 436 This page int.-ntronally le ft blank. 437 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 2 - Local Vicinity 2. Environmental Setting — — — — Project Boundary —••—•-- City Boundary o 500 Source: PlaceWorks, 2014; ESRI, 2014 Scale March 2014 PlaceWorks I This page int.-ntronally le ft blank. 439 West Newport Park Residential 6 — — Project Boundary ----. City Boundary Source: Google Earth Pro, 2014 2014 Residential ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 3 - Aerial Photograph 2. Environmental Setting Residential 0 200 Scale (Feet) PlaceWorks 440 This page int.-ntronally le ft blank. 441 3. Proiect Description 3.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND The Approved Project involved development of 12 single-family detached units and 6 duplex units, for a total of 24 units on a 1.49 -acre site at 5515 River Avenue in Newport Beach. See Figure 4, Approved Project Site Plan. The Approved Project was to be completed in four phases: 1) asbestos abatement, 2) building demolition; 3) site grading; and 4) building construction. The Approved Project anticipated a balanced site with no import or export of soils. During the building construction phase, the Approved Project was to be completed in three subphases and two building styles—Craftsman and Plantation. Four floor plans ranged in size from 1,770 square feet to 3,248 square feet, including attached garages, patios, and decks. Figures 5 and 6, Approved Prject Building Elevations, illustrate building styles for the Approved Project. The 24 units totaled gross floor area of 50,7061 square feet and a floor area limit of 1.23. The maximum ridgeline height ranged from 31 feet to 31 feet 6 inches, and the maximum midpoint height ranged from 25 feet 6 inches to 28 feet 10 inches. The single- family units would front Seashore Drive, and duplex units would front River Avenue. Access and Parking Access to the project site was to be provided by two driveways on River Avenue and a driveway from Neptune Avenue. The western driveway on River Avenue exclusively served one single-family unit, and one internal driveway connecting River Avenue and Neptune Avenue provided access for all other units. The Approved Project included 63 parking spaces. The Approved Project anticipated approximately 18 months of project construction schedule as listed below: • Asbestos abatement (2 weeks to 1 month) Building demolition (approximately 30 days) • Site grading (approximately 30 days) • Building construction in three subphases (approximately 16 months) 1 Per Section 20.10.30(b£) of former Zoning Code, 200 square feet of floor area per required parking devoted to enclosed parking shall not be included in the calculation of gross floor area. 442 This page int.-ntronally le ft blank. 443 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 4 -Approved Project Site Plan 3. Project Description < <v 5 E p 5 H O R[ D R V ( , TOM Project Boundary Source: Todd Scheeler & Associates, Inc. 2007 70 Scale March 2014 PlaceForks 444 This page int.-ntronally le ft blank. 445 Tbis page intentionally le ft blank 447 a 2B'-10" Craftsman Style Proposed Max Ridge Height 31'-4' Midpoint 29'-6" Proposed Max Ridge Height 31'-4' 3L Craftsman Style Source: Todd Schooler & Associates, Inc. 2007 2014 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 6 - Approved Project Duplex Building Elevations 3. Project Description Plantation Style Plantation Style 0 20 Scale PlaceWorks 448 This page int.-ntronally le ft blank. ..• 3.2 MODIFIED PROJECT DESCRIPTION The property owner/developer proposes to redevelop the project site in substantial conformance with the Approved Project. As with the Approved Project, the proposed project would involve asbestos abatement, demolition of the existing 54 -unit apartment complex, grading, and construction of a 24 -unit detached condominium development. However, the Modified Project would modify the approved site layout and change the architectural styles. Instead of 12 single-family units and 6 duplex units, the Modified Project would provide 24 detached units. The changes in development summary are described in Table 3-1, Approved Project and Modffred Project Comparison Development Summary. The revised site plan is shown in Figure 7, Modified Prject Site Plan, and building elevations are shown in Figure 8, Building Elevations, and Figure 9, Visual Simulation. The Modified Project would provide three building plans plus enhanced building elevations for structures along River Avenue. The new development plan would provide a total of 50,9162 square feet of building area, an increase of 210 square feet from the Approved Project (50,706 square feet), and change the architectural style from Craftsman and Plantation styles to Modern contemporary style. The new development would have a front setback of 10 feet for Seashore Avenue, River Avenue, and the west side. The east side setback would range from 6 feet to 12 feet. These setbacks are within the range of or exceed the respective values established for the Approved Project. The maximum midpoint height would range from 28 feet 11 inches to 30 feet 9 inches, exceeding the ridgeline height set for the Approved Project. The revised site layout would slightly reduce the total building footprint from 35.9 percent (Approved Project) to 34.6 percent (Modified Project)and pavement coverage from 35.4 percent (Approved Project) to 27.3 percent (Modified Project). The total landscaping area would increase from 28.2 percent (Approved Project) to 37.1 percent (Modified Project) and incorporate design features such as turf blocks, pervious parking, pervious pavers, and water -conserving plants. The proposed landscaping plan is shown in Figure 10, Conceptual Landscape Plan. Parking and Access As with the Approved Project, the project site would continue to be accessed from River Avenue and Neptune Avenue. However, the Modified Project would eliminate the west driveway on River Avenue, allowing one additional on -street parking space on River Avenue. This driveway originally provided an exclusive access to one single-family unit in the Approved Project. A total of 62 parking spaces would be provided onsite, including 2 garage spaces per unit and 14 off-street guest parking spaces. Coastal access compliant with the American Disabilities Act (ADA) would be provided from River Avenue to Seashore Drive. 2 Per Section 20.10.30(b£) of former Zoning Code, 200 square feet of floor area per required parking devoted to enclosed parking shall not be included in the calculation of gross floor area. 450 Table 3-1 and Modified Lot Size 5,000 SF. 5,000 SF 1.49 acres (64,904 SF) No Change Min. Lot Size Per Unit 1,200 SF. 1,200 SF. 2704 SF No Change Max. FAL 1.75 (72,133 SF) 1.75 (72,133 Si 1.23 (50,706 Si 1.24 (50, 916 SF) r Total Unit As Approved Proposed 24 24 Small lot detached Paving 35.4%(23,357 SF) 2,797 SF (x6) 2,075 SF (01) Small lot detached 37.1% (24,176 SF) FAL = Floor Area Limit; GFA =Gross Floor Area; SF -square feet; ft =feet; SFR =Single-family residence; cu.. ft. -cubic feel 'Per Section 20.10.30(M), 200 square feet of floor area per required parking devoted to enclosed parking shall not be Included in the calculation of gross Floor area. 2 includes enclosed parking area excluded per Section Per Section 20.10.30(M) former Zoning Code. 3 Eliminated 12 pairs of tandem parking spaces, and 1 additional on -street parking space has been gained through the elimination of a driveway and curb cut onto River Avenue, 3,248 SF(x6) 2,653 SF (x5) Small lot detached 3,114 SF (x8) Duplex 1,770 SF (x6) 0 Duplex 1,836 SF (x6) 0 Total Building Area 57,906 SFz 61,002 SFz Front Setback: Seashore Ave 20' 5' 10' to 12' 10' River Ave 20' 10' (rear) 10' to 15' 10' Side Setback: West 25' 15' 1010 12' 10' East 25' 15' 4'to T-6" 6' to 12' Maximum Height 28' Midpoint/Flat 28' Flat Roof/ Parapet Plan A (Si 25'-6" Midpoint Plan 1: 28'-11" Midpoint Roof (31' Ridge) (3110" Ridge) 33' Ridge (3:12 pitch) Plan B (SFR): 26'-8" Midpoint Plan 2: 30'-3" Midpoint 33' Ridge (31'4" Ridge) (321" Ridge) Plan C (Duplex): 28'-10" Plan 3: 30'-9" Midpoint Midpoint (31'-6" Ridge) (32'-11 ° Ridge) Min. Distance B/w Bldg 10' No Minimum 6' 6' Minimum 247,313 cu. I. Common: 675,415 cu. ft. 559,768 cu. ft. Open Space 75 SF/unit (1,800 SF) Min. dimension of 15 ft Private: 5% of the GFA for each unit. Min dimension of 6 ft Resident (2 per unit) 48 spaces 48 spaces 48 spaces 48 spaces Guest (0.5 per unit) 12 spaces 12 spaces 15 spaces 14 spaces Total Parking 60 spaces 60 spaces 63 spaces 62 spaces3 Additional Information As Approved Proposed Drive Aisle Width 26' 26' Paving 35.4%(23,357 SF) 27.3°%(17,754 SF) Landscaping 28.2% (18390 SF) 37.1% (24,176 SF) FAL = Floor Area Limit; GFA =Gross Floor Area; SF -square feet; ft =feet; SFR =Single-family residence; cu.. ft. -cubic feel 'Per Section 20.10.30(M), 200 square feet of floor area per required parking devoted to enclosed parking shall not be Included in the calculation of gross Floor area. 2 includes enclosed parking area excluded per Section Per Section 20.10.30(M) former Zoning Code. 3 Eliminated 12 pairs of tandem parking spaces, and 1 additional on -street parking space has been gained through the elimination of a driveway and curb cut onto River Avenue, 451 3.3 EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN The General Plan designation for the project site is RM (Multiple Unit Residential), and the project site is zoned RM (Multiple -Unit Residential). The project site was formerly zoned Multiple -Family Residential (MFR) under the Approved Project prior to the zoning updates in 2010. The project site is located in the Coastal Zone and is designated as Multiple Unit Residential (RM -E) in the Coastal Land Use Plan. 452 This page int.-ntronally le ft blank. 453 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 7 - Modified Project Site Plan 3. Project Description o so Source: BGA, 2014 Scale March 2014 PkueU'iokv 454 This page int.-ntronally le ft blank. 455 CROSS SECTION Source: BGA, 2014 2014 FRONT ELEVATION ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 8a - Modified Project Building Elevations (1 of 2) 3. Project Description RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION �Ili 7I:\Ci DI A►7\Y UN I aDIa0611111mofNX10.rY[IJC- PLAN I ELEVATIONS 0 20 Scale (Feet) PlaceWorkr 456 This page int.-ntronally le ft blank. 457 Source: BGA, 2014 March 2014 FRO14T ELIKVA.TI r ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 8a - Modified Project Building Elevations (2 of 2) 3. Project Description RICHT E E HVATION �;I x.1;✓! a A'Jk-1-ti VA), ■ ]I 4 *.'7 I i 1 D a ■ A7.74 4;41;- PLAN 1 ICED ELEVAUONS QTmm"&i4) o 20 Scale (Feet) This page int.-ntronally le ft blank. 459 FRONT ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 8b - Modified Project Building Elevations (1 of 2) 3. Project Description RIGHT SIDE REAR LEFT SIDE PLAN 2 ELEVATIONS Source: BGA, 2014 2014 0 20 Scale (Feet) PlaceWorkr This page int.-ntronally le ft blank. 461 FRONT ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 8b - Modified Project Building Elevations (2 of 2) 3. Project Description RIGHT SIDE REAR Source: BGA, 2014 2014 PLAN 2 ENHANCED ELEVATIONS r. r i emu 0 20 Scale (Feet) PlaceWorkr 462 This page int.-ntronally le ft blank. 463 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 8c - Modified Project Building Elevations (1 of 2) 3. Project Description FRONT ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION PLAN 3 ELEVATIONS Source: BGA, 2014 2014 LEFT SIDE ELEVATION 0 20 Scale (Feet) PlaceWorkr This page int.-ntronally le ft blank. 465 ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 8c - Modified Project Building Elevations (2 of 2) 3. Project Description FRONT ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION PLAN 3 ENHANCED ELEVATIONS Source: BGA, 2014 2014 LEFT SIDE ELEVATION 0 20 Scale (Feet) PlaceWorkr This page int.-ntronally le ft blank. 467 River Ave v -r.'.1, ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 9 - Visual Simulation 3. Project Description West Newport Park View of project site looking south from River Avenue. 0 16 Source: BGA, 2014 Scale March 2014 PlaceFonkr This page int.-ntronally le ft blank. ,M ECHO BEACH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MND ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 10 - Concpetual Landscape Plan 3. Project Description R IVERAVE. WEST NEWPORT PARK .— CS Source: MJS Design Group, 2014 SEASHORE ORIVE m aREus PUEn �Pr G caoxEocavcaere P[mna5Pe1916 0 80 Scale (Feet) 2014 Place Forks 470 This page int.-ntronally le ft blank. 471 4. Environmental Checklist 4.1 BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: Echo Beach Residential Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jaime Murillo 949.644.3209 4. Project Location: 5515 River Avenue in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Bucilla Group Architecture, Inc. 19782 MacArthur Suite 260 Irvine, CA 92612 6. General Plan Designation: RM (Multiple Unit Residential) 7. Zoning: RM (Multi -Unit Residential (former Multiple-FamHy Residential (MFR)) 8. Description of Project: See Chapter 3, Project Description. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is surrounded by residential uses, including vacation rental units to the north, south, and east, and a city park to the west The West Newport Park is located immediately west of the project site and is equipped with a play area, water fountains, tennis courts, racquetball courts, a basketball half court, and restroom facilities. The Pacific Ocean is one block to the southwest, less than 200 feet from the project site, and the Pacific Coast Highway runs adjacent to the residential properties to the north, behind an alley and an approximately nine -foot tall block wall. 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): 472 • Regional Water Quality Control Board —Issue a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Perniit for construction activities. • South Coast Air Quality Management District— Permit to Construct • California Coastal Commission — Permit to construct within the Coastal Zone boundaries 473 4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agricultural and Forest Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology / Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology / Water Quality ❑ Land Use l Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population 1 Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation / Traffic ❑ Utilities / Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance 4.3 DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY) On the basis of this initial evaluation: 1-1 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ® 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Panted Name For 474 4.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors, as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier E1R or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: E Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. G Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 475 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: A the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and B the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. 476 This page int.-ntronally le ft blank. 477 5. Environmental Analysis This section provides evidence to substantiate the conclusions in the environmental checklist. The section will briefly summarize the conclusions of the Adopted MND and then discuss whether or not the proposed project is consistent with the findings contained in the Adopted MND. Mitigation measures referenced are from the Adopted MND. 5.1 AESTHETICS 5.1.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Adopted MND The Adopted MND determined that because the project site is not in the designated viewpoint of a coastal view road and the nearest public viewpoint is approximately 1,000 feet to the northwest, implementation of the Approved Project would not have a significant impact on scenic vistas. The Adopted MND evaluated reduction of the minimum building separation distance from 10 feet to 6 feet and reduced the minimum front setback distance along Seashore Drive and River Avenue from 20 feet to 10 feet. The project site is in the shoreline height limitation zone, which limits residential development to 28 feet midpoint and 33 feet ridgeline. The Adopted MND states that although the Approved Project would slightly exceed these height restrictions by approximately 1.5 feet, the single and duplex units were designed to be compatible with the massing and visual scale of the surrounding area. Typical buildings in the area are three stories, and the Craftsman and Plantation styles proposed for the Approved Project require low pitched -gable rooflines. The Adopted MND concluded that conformance to the height limitation would result in a more massive structure than proposed under the Approved Project. The project site is not identified as a public view point by the City of Newport Beach General Plan and is not adjacent to a coastal view road. The Adopted MND stated that the City's General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan focus on the protection of public views. General Plan Policies NR 20.1 to NR20.4 and Coastal Land Use Plan Policies 4.4.1-6 and 4.4.2-3 emphasize the protection of public views of scenic resources, not private views of local residents. The Adopted MND concluded that the Approved Project would not substantially obstruct or block the public view opportunities of the ocean. It was determ ned that although the midpoint height limitation would be exceeded, the new development would not conflict with the intent of the shoreline height limitation since the development would be compatible with the existing visual scale of the neighborhood. The Adopted MND also indicated that sources of light in the project area consist of lighting from the residential uses north, south, and east of the project site; the City -owned park to the west; and from street lights, and daytime glare sources include glass and other reflective building materials from the existing apartment complex. EM The Approved Project would be typical of residential uses and would not generate greater levels of light and glare than the existing apartment complex. The Adopted MND concluded that no significant impacts from light and glare result from the Approved Project implementation. 5.1.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: Comments: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The Modified Project would change the architectural style and site layout of the Approved Project. However, the project site is not a part of any scenic vista and is not an identified public view point in the Natural Resources Element of the City's General Plan (Figure NR3, Coastal Views). No public views would be adversely impacted by the proposed changes. Subsequent to the approval of the Approved Project in 2008, the City adopted a new Zoning Code in 2010, revising the zoning designation for the project site from MFR (Multi -Family Residential) to RM (Multi -Unit Residential). Under the modified zoning designation and applicable standards for the project site, the Modified Project would meet the front setback on Seashore Avenue, rear setback on River Avenue, and the building height limitation, but require reduction in side setbacks. Although the Modified Project would be slightly taller than the Approved Project, the Modified Project would comply with the current zoning code that eliminated previous midpoint limitation and replaced it with 479 Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Change in New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring orincreased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIR/MND No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a X state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or qualify of the site and its X surroundings? d) create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or X nighttime views in the area? Comments: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The Modified Project would change the architectural style and site layout of the Approved Project. However, the project site is not a part of any scenic vista and is not an identified public view point in the Natural Resources Element of the City's General Plan (Figure NR3, Coastal Views). No public views would be adversely impacted by the proposed changes. Subsequent to the approval of the Approved Project in 2008, the City adopted a new Zoning Code in 2010, revising the zoning designation for the project site from MFR (Multi -Family Residential) to RM (Multi -Unit Residential). Under the modified zoning designation and applicable standards for the project site, the Modified Project would meet the front setback on Seashore Avenue, rear setback on River Avenue, and the building height limitation, but require reduction in side setbacks. Although the Modified Project would be slightly taller than the Approved Project, the Modified Project would comply with the current zoning code that eliminated previous midpoint limitation and replaced it with 479 a minimum 3:12 pitch to 33 feet for sloping roofs. Therefore, as stated in the Adopted MND, no significant visual impacts related to height would occur. Under the previous zoning, a 25 -foot side setback was required, and the Approved Project provided setbacks ranging from 4 feet to 7 feet 6 inches on the east side and 10 feet to 12 feet on the west side. The Modified Project would provide setbacks ranging from 6 feet to 12 feet on the east side and 10 feet on the west side. The current zoning code under RM requires a 15 -foot side setback. The previous zoning standard required a street front setback of 20 feet, and as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would not have met this front setback requirement. However, the current zoning code require a 5 -foot front setback and 10 -foot rear setback; therefore, both the Approved Project and Modified Project would be in compliance with the front and rear setback requirements. Moreover, the current zoning establishes no minimum distance between buildings, compared to 10 feet under the previous zoning. Both the Approved Project and the Modified Project maintain 6 feet between buildings; therefore, no new significant impacts related to setbacks are anticipated. As described, the overall scale and massing of the Modified Project would be similar to that of the Approved Project. With the exception of the increased setback encroachments, reduction in the minimum distance between buildings, and building height increase, all of the previous MFR zoning regulations were met by the previous project design. The modified project plans also continue to comply with all other applicable previous MFR and current RM zoning standards. Therefore, no new significant impacts in visual resources that were not previously evaluated under the Approved Project would occur. Furthermore, General Plan Policies NR 20.1 to NR20.4 and Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 4.4.1-6 emphasize the protection of public views, but not private views. The Modified Project does not change the project boundaries, and no scenic public views would be affected. The setbacks proposed for the Modified Project would maintain or increase the setbacks for the Approved Project; therefore, the Modified Project would not negatively impact the private views of the adjacent residences any more than under the Approved Project. Pursuant to North Coast Revers Alliance, et al. v. Marin Municipal Water District Board of Directors (Ist Dist., Div. 4, (2013) 216 Ca1.App.4th 614), a lead agency has discretion, as a policy decision, to classifv the visual impact as significant or not in light of the setting. The Adopted MND stated that the Approved Project would not result in a significant visual impact. The Modified Project would change the architectural details, but the general visual setting of the area, including locations of the adjacent properties, has not changed, and the impacts from the Modified Project would be similar to those analyzed under the Adopted MND. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The Modified Project would not change the project site boundaries, and no existing conditions related to scenic resources were modified. There are no new impacts to scenic resources with the Modified Project compared to the Adopted MND. The project site is currently developed with an apartment complex and does not contain any visually unique resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources. E:/ As with the Approved Project, implementation of the Modified Project would not result in a significant impact. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. As stated in the Adopted MND, the project area is primarily residential, except for the city park to the west. Instead of two architectural styles under the Approved Project, the Modified Project would provide variations of a modern style but would provide enhanced elevations for buildings along River Avenue, as shown in Figures S and 9. Visual impacts are subjective, with no set threshold of significance. As long as the Modified Project would provide more landscaping area than the Approved Project and a variety of pavement options, as illustrated in Figure 10, Conceptual Landscape Plan, it is not anticipated the visual quality of the site or its surroundings would be adversely impacted. The three-story with roof deck, contemporary modern architecture style of the Modified Project would be compatible with the surrounding properties, where the existing neighborhood generally displays two- to three-story structures with no uniform building characteristics. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would complement rather than degrade the existing visual quality of the site and the surroundings. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact. The project site is developed with an apartment complex and associated uses. Minimal light sources exist on the project site. The change in architectural style and site layout would not substantially impact the light sources. The Modified Project would not generate greater levels of light and glare than currently exist onsite or compared to the Approved Project. The impacts would be less than significant No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 5.1.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Adopted MND and Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to aesthetics were outlined in the Adopted MMD, and none are required for the Modified Project. 5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES 5.2.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Adopted MND The Adopted MND concluded that implementation of the Approved Project would not result in the loss of land in agricultural production, and no farmland, agriculturally zoned, or Williamson Act land would be affected by implementation of the Approved Project. Additionally, the project site is not designated or zoned for forest or timber land or used for forestry. Instead, the project site is already developed with an apartment and zoned for multi -unit development. Therefore, the Adopted MND concluded that no impacts to En agricultural or forestry resources would occur as a result of development of the Approved Project and no mitigation measures were required. 5.2.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: Comments: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. No environmental conditions related to any state designated farmlands would occur under the Modified Project compared to the Approved Project. There are no new impacts, as compared to those identified in the Adopted MND, related to farmland resources associated with the Modified Project. As with the Approved Project, implementation of the Modified Project would not result in a significant impact. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. EM Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Changein New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring or Increased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping X and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources X Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? X e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of X Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? Comments: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. No environmental conditions related to any state designated farmlands would occur under the Modified Project compared to the Approved Project. There are no new impacts, as compared to those identified in the Adopted MND, related to farmland resources associated with the Modified Project. As with the Approved Project, implementation of the Modified Project would not result in a significant impact. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. EM b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The project site is zoned for multi -unit development and is already developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex. There are no agricultural uses on or near the project site. As with the Adopted MND, there are no impacts related to zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, associated with the Modified Project. No new impact would occur under the Modified Project compared to the Approved Project. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(8))? No Impact. The project site is zoned for multi -unit development and currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex. As with the Adopted MND, no rezoning is proposed under the Modified Project. No impact is anticipated and no changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? No Impact. The project site is zoned for multi -unit development and currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex. As with the Adopted MND; no conversion of forest land would occur the Modified Project. Therefore, no impact is anticipated. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? No Impact. The project site is zoned for multi -unit development and currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex. As with the Adopted MND, no conversion of agricultural land or forest land would occur under the Modified Project. No impact is anticipated. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 5.2.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Adopted MND and Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to agricultural and forest resources were outlined in the Adopted MND, and none are required for the Modified Project. EM 5.3 AIR QUALITY 5.3.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Adopted MND The Adopted MND analyzed criteria air pollutant emissions using the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Urban Emissions model (URBEMIS2007). The Adopted MND identified that construction activities would not exceed the regional SCAQMD regional significance thresholds; however, localized emissions could exceed SCAQMD's localized significance thresholds (LSTs) for particulate matter (PMin and PM2s) in the absence of mitigation. Therefore, mitigation measures were incorporated to reduce construction -related air quality impacts to less than significant levels. Long-term air pollutant emissions were also evaluated in the Adopted MND and determined that because the Approved Project would result in a net reduction in average daily trips, and newer construction is typically more energy efficient than older construction, the Approved Project would result in a net decrease in operational emissions. The Adopted MND further found that the Approved Project would not conflict with SCAQMD's 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and would not significantly contribute to the non -attainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB). 5.3.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the proposed project: .0a Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Changein New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring orincreased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? I X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air X quality violation? C) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air X quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X .0a Comments: The environmental and regulatory settings for the Proposed Project have changed since adoption of the Adopted MND. The following discussion is provided to update conditions relative to development of the Proposed Project. The Clean Air Act (CAA) was passed in 1963 by the US Congress and has been amended several times. The 1990 Amendments represent the latest in a series of federal efforts to regulate the protection of air quality in the United States. Geographic areas are classified under the national and California CAA as either in attainment or nonattainment for each criteria pollutant based on whether the ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been achieved. Both the State of California and the federal government have established health - based AAQS for seven air pollutants: ozone (03), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PMro), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2 ), and lead (Pb). Table 5-1 shows the most recent AAQS adopted. The SoCAB is designated nonattainment for 03, PM2.5, and lead (Los Angeles County only) under the California and National AAQS and nonattainment for NO2 and PMro under the California AAQS.3, 4 SCAQMD prepares an AQMP that details measures taken to achieve the national and California AAQS. The most recent AQMP is the 2012 AQMP. Table 5-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants 3 The California Air Resources Board (CARS) approved the SCAQMD's request to redesignate the SoCAB from serious nonattainment for PMro to attainment for PMro under the national AAQS on March 25, 2010, because the SoCAB has not violated federal 24-hour PMt, standards during the period from 2004 to 2007. In June 2013, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved the State of California's request to redesignate the South Coast PMro nonattainment area to attainment of the PMro National AAQS, effective onJuly 26, 2011 4 CARB has proposed to redesignate the SoCAB as attainment for lead and NO2 under the California AAQS (CARB 20134). EM California Federal Primary Pollutant Averaging Time Standard Standard Major Pollutant Sources hour 0.09 ppm Ozone (Oa) Motor vehicles, paints, coatings, and solvents. 8 hours 0.070 ppm 0.075 ppm Carbon Monoxide 1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Internal combustion engines, primarily gasoline -powered (CO) 8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm motor vehicles. Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm Motor vehicles, petroleum -refining operations, industrial 1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm (NO2) sources, aircraft, ships, and railroads. Annual Arithmetic ., Sulfur Mean Fuel combustion, chemical plants, sulfur recovery plants, and 1 hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm Dioxide (S02) metal processing. 24 hours 0.04 ppm Respirable Annual Arithmetic 20 Ng/M3 Dust and fume -producing construction, industrial, and Particulate Matter Mean agricultural operations, combustion, atmospheric 24 hours 50 pg/M3 Ng 150 /ma Ng (PMro) photochemical reactions, and natural activities (e.g. wind - raised dust and ocean sprays). Respirable Annual Arithmetic 12Im3 Ng 12 pg/M3 Ng Dust and fume -producing construction, industral, and Particulate Matter Mean agricultural operations, combustion, atmospheric 3 The California Air Resources Board (CARS) approved the SCAQMD's request to redesignate the SoCAB from serious nonattainment for PMro to attainment for PMro under the national AAQS on March 25, 2010, because the SoCAB has not violated federal 24-hour PMt, standards during the period from 2004 to 2007. In June 2013, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved the State of California's request to redesignate the South Coast PMro nonattainment area to attainment of the PMro National AAQS, effective onJuly 26, 2011 4 CARB has proposed to redesignate the SoCAB as attainment for lead and NO2 under the California AAQS (CARB 20134). EM Table 5-1 Ambient Air Qua] ty Standards for Criteria Pollutants Source. CARB 2013 Notes: ppm: parts per million: pgfrni micrograms per cubic meter ' Standard has not been established for this pollutant(duration by this entity. ' On June 2, 2010, a new 1 -hour S02 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The Modified Project would not change the number of units compared to the Approved Project. Therefore, as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project is consistent with residential land use designation for the project site and implementation of the Modified Project would result in lower density residential land uses than currently existing onsite (i.e., 54 apartments v 24 condominium units). Additionally, the Modified Project is not a regionally significant project that would warrant a consistency review for criteria emissions. Like the Approved Project, the Modified Project is consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and would not exceed the SCAQMD emissions thresholds. Therefore, the Modified Project E:. California Federal Primary Per Inland Averaging Time Standard Standard Major Pollutant Sources (PM'.") 24 hours 35 Nglm3 photochemical reactions, and natural activities (e.g. wind - raised dust and ocean sprays). 30 -Day Average 1.5 pg/M3 Calendar 5 pg/M3 Present source: lead smelters, battery manufacturing & Lead (Ph) Quarterly recycling facilities. Past source: combustion of leaded gasoline. Rolling 3 -Month 0.15 pg/M3 Average Sulfates (SO4) 24 hours 25 pg/ml Industrial processes. Visibility -reducing particles consist of suspended particulate matter, which is a complex mixture of tiny particles that Visibility ExCo =0,23/km No Federal consists of dry solid fragments, solid cores with liquid Reducing 8 hours visibility of 10>_ Standard coatings, and small droplets of liquid. These particles vary Particles miles greatly in shape, size, and chemical composition, and can be made up of many different materials such as metals, soot, soil, dust, and salt. Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a colorless gas with the odor of No Federal rotten eggs. It is formed during bacterial decomposition of Hydrogen Sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm Standard sulfur -containing organic substances. Also, it can be present in sewer gas and some natural gas, and can be emitted as the result of geothermal energy exploitation. Vinyl chloride (chloroethane), a chlorinated hydrocarbon, is a colorless gas with a mild, sweet odor. Most vinyl chloride Vinyl Chloride 24 hour 0.01 ppm No Federal is used to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic and vinyl Standard products. Vinyl chloride has been detected near landfills, sewage plants, and hazardous waste sites, due to microbial breakdown of chlorinated solvents. Source. CARB 2013 Notes: ppm: parts per million: pgfrni micrograms per cubic meter ' Standard has not been established for this pollutant(duration by this entity. ' On June 2, 2010, a new 1 -hour S02 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The Modified Project would not change the number of units compared to the Approved Project. Therefore, as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project is consistent with residential land use designation for the project site and implementation of the Modified Project would result in lower density residential land uses than currently existing onsite (i.e., 54 apartments v 24 condominium units). Additionally, the Modified Project is not a regionally significant project that would warrant a consistency review for criteria emissions. Like the Approved Project, the Modified Project is consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and would not exceed the SCAQMD emissions thresholds. Therefore, the Modified Project E:. would not conflict with SCAQMD's 2012 AQMP. Like the Adopted MND, the Modified Project would not have a significant impact. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The Modified Project would not change the number of units to be constructed and would still require demolition of the 54 apartment units. However, the Modified Project would result in a slightly larger building envelope (the total building square footages would increase from 57,906 square feet to 61,002 square feet) but a smaller building footprint (the total building foot print would decrease from 23,357 square feet to 22,457 square feet). In addition, the Modified project would result in less paving (total pavement would decrease from 23,157 square feet to 17,754 square feet). The slightly larger building would result in a nominal increase in emissions associated with architectural coatings. However, this increase would be nominal and would not result in emissions that exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds. The greatest source of air pollutant emissions generated by the proposed project would be during grading phase. The Modified Project would not generate higher maximum daily construction emissions compared to the Approved Project Therefore, like the Adopted MND, the short-term construction impact would be less than significant. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. The Modified Project would not change the ADTs and the structures would be more energy efficient with compliance with the 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards as well as the California Green Building Standards (CALGreen). As with the Approved Project, long-term operational emissions would be released for the Modified Project in comparison to existing conditions but as with the Adopted MND, the long-term operational impact would be less than significant. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The SoCAB is designated as nonattainment for 03, PM2.5, and lead under the California and National AAQS, and nonattainment for PMit) and NO2 (Los Angeles County only) under the California AAQS.6 Emissions that contribute to the exceedance of these pollutants would cumulatively contribute to the region's nonattainment. As with the Approved Project, implementation of the Modified Project would not exceed the SCAQMD's construction phase pollutant thresholds and during project operations, would result in a net reduction in air pollutant emissions associated with the project site. Therefore, as with the Adopted MND, the Modified Project is not considered by the SCAQMD to significantly contribute to the region's s Per Section 20.10.30 MT of former Zoning Code, 200 square feet of floor area per required parking devoted to enclosed parking shall not be included in the calculation of gross floor area. However, when evaluating the total building area for construction, the excluded garage spaces were included. Without the enclosed parking, the Approved Project totaled 50,706 square feet and the Modified Project totaled 50,916 square feet a California Air Resources Board (GARB) based on 2012 State Area Designations, current as of April 1, 2013, and National Area Designations, current as of December 5, 2013 (EPA 2013). EM cumulative emissions. No significant impact would occur. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. As with the Approved Project, emissions generated from the Modified Project construction activities are anticipated to cause temporary increases in pollutant concentrations and expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations. However, emissions associated with the Modified Project would be similar to or less than that of the Approved Project because the Modified Project would have slightly smaller building foot print and smaller paving area. The greatest emissions sources would occur during grading activities for PMi(i and PM2.5 emissions. Mitigation measures identified in the Approved MND would be required for the Modified Project and would reduce PMlo and PM2.5 emissions below SCAQMD's LSTs during construction. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 1, no significant air quality impact would occur from exposure of persons to substantial air pollutant concentrations. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. As stated in the Adopted MND, residential developments are not associated with foul odors that constitute a public nuisance. Therefore, as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would not result in any significant operation -related odor impacts. As with the Approved Project, project construction of the Modified Project would involve the use of heavy equipment creating exhaust pollutants from on-site earth movement and from equipment bringing asphalt and other building materials to the site. However, as stated in the Adopted MND, by the time such emissions reach any sensitive receptor sites away from the project site, they are typically diluted to well below any level of air quality concern. No significant odor impact is anticipated. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 5.3.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Adopted MND and Applicable to the Modified Project The following mitigation measure was included in the Adopted MND and is applicable to the Modified Project. 1. The construction contractor for the property owner/developer shall implement additional dust control measures during demolition as follows: ■ The project contractor shall apply nontoxic chemical dust suppressants (e.g., polymer emulsion) to buildings being demolished to reduce fugitive dust from active demolition activities. ■ The project contractor shall prohibit demolition activities when wind speed exceeds 25 miles per hour. EM ■ The project contractor shall install a temporary construction fence and sift barrier around the construction site as shown in the Construction Staging and Water Quality Control Plan submitted to the City of Newport Beach for approval. ■ The project contractor shall install construction tire wash areas at the entrance to the project site on River Avenue and Neptune Avenue. All construction clean-up shall be done in construction sediment basins. The construction tire wash area shall be installed in accordance with the Construction Staging and Water Quality Control Plan submitted to the City of Newport Beach for approval. ■ The contractor will sweep adjacent streets and roads a minimum of once per week. ■ Material haul trucks leaving the project site will have their loads either covered or maintain a freeboard distance of two feet from the stacked load to the top of the trailer. 5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5.4.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Adopted MND The Adopted MND states that the project site is currently occupied by an apartment complex and approximately 86 percent of the entire is impervious. No special status sensitive species or natural habitats exists onsite. The Adopted MND concluded that implementation of the Approved Project would not have an adverse effect on or interfere with any species, habitat, natural community, riparian area, wedand, or migration corridor identified by any local, regional, state or federal agency. 5.4.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: ,;• Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Changein New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring or Increased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local X or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ,;• Comments: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. As stated in the Adopted MND, the project site is currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex and does not contain any special status biological species. The existing site condition has not changed. Therefore, as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would not have an effect on or interfere with any species, habitat, natural community, riparian area, wetland, migratory fish or wildlife, or migratory wildlife corridor identified by any local, regional, state or federal agency. No significant impact is anticipated under the Modified Project. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. .M Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Changein New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring orincreased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the X California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal X pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or X impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a X tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other X approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Comments: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. As stated in the Adopted MND, the project site is currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex and does not contain any special status biological species. The existing site condition has not changed. Therefore, as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would not have an effect on or interfere with any species, habitat, natural community, riparian area, wetland, migratory fish or wildlife, or migratory wildlife corridor identified by any local, regional, state or federal agency. No significant impact is anticipated under the Modified Project. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. .M b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. As stated in the Adopted MND, the project site is currently developed with a 54-uni apartment complex and does not contain any sensitive natural habitats. The existing site condition has not changed and no significant impact related to natural communities is anticipated. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. As stated in the Adopted MND, the project site is currently developed with a 54 -um apartment complex and does not contain any protected wetlands. The existing site condition has not changed and no significant impact related to wetlands is anticipated. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. As stated in the Adopted MND, the project site is currently developed with a 54-uni apartment complex and is not being used for migratory wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites. The existing site condition has not changed and no significant impacts related to migratory wildlife corridors or wildlife nursery sites are anticipated. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. The project site is developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex and only contains ornamental landscaping trees and plants. No local tree protecting policies exists for trees on private property. As with the Adopted MND, the Modified Project would not conflict with any local policies protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. No impact is anticipated and no changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. As stated in the Adopted MND, there are no adopted habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. No regulatory setting has changed and no impact is anticipated under the Modified Project. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 491 5.4.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Adopted MND and Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to biological resources were outlined in the Adopted MND and no mitigation measures are required under the Modified Project. 5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES 5.5.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Adopted MND As outlined in the Adopted MND, the project site does not have any historic buildings of significance. Additionally; the Adopted MND concluded that development of the Approved Project would not have a significant impact on or interfere with any archaeological or paleontological resources. However, mitigation measures were provided to ensure that, in the unlikely event that any subsurface archaeological and/or paleontological resources are affected by ground -disturbance activities, implementation of such mitigation measures could reduce impacts to less than significant levels. 5.5.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: 492 Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Changein New Changes or Changein Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring orincreased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource X as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological X resource pursuant to § 15064.5? C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique X geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X 492 Comments: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in S 15064.5? No Impact. The Approved Project required demolition of the existing onsite development and the Modified Project would also require demolition of the onsite structures. No historical resources were identified under the Adopted MND and no impact would occur under the Modified Project. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? No Impact. The Approved Project involved grading and soil excavation during construction and the Modified Project would also require grading the soil excavation. The size and scale of the Modified Project is similar to the Approved Project. Although the project site has been previously disturbed, the Adopted MND determined that there is a potential for discovery of previously unidentified subsurface archaeological resources. Therefore, a mitigation measure was incorporated. Provided that mitigation measures from the Adopted MND are implemented, no new impact is anticipated under the Modified Project. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Impact. The Approved Project involved grading and soil excavation during construction and the Modified Project would also require grading the soil excavation. The size and scale of the Modified Project is similar to the Approved Project. Although the project site has been previously disturbed, the Adopted MND determined that there is a potential for discovery of previously unidentified subsurface paleontological resources. Therefore, a mitigation measure was incorporated. Provided that mitigation measures from the Adopted MND are implemented, no new impact is anticipated under the Modified Project. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact. The Approved Project involved grading and soil excavation during construction and the Modified Project would also require grading the soil excavation. The size and scale of the Modified Project is similar to the Approved Project. Therefore, the potential for discovery of previously unidentified human remains under the Modified Project would be similar to that of the Approved Project As with the Approved Project, the required compliance with the Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 would ensure that implementation of the Modified Project would not disturb any human remains. No new impact is anticipated and no changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 493 5.5.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Adopted MND and Applicable to the Proposed Project The following mitigation measures were included in the Adopted MND and are applicable to the Modified Project. The mitigation measures were modified to reflect the administrative changes in organization. Additions are shown in underline and deletions are indicated in she format. 2. Prior to approval of a grading plan, the property owner/developer shall submit a letter to the Community Development Plmtrvtzg Department, Planning Division, showing that a qualified archaeologist has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented: ■ The archaeologist must be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of artifacts if potentially significant artifacts are uncovered. If artifacts are uncovered and determined to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner/developer for exploration and/or salvage. ■ Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution. ■ Any archaeological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified archaeologist. If any artifacts are discovered during grading operations when the archaeological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area. ■ A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted to the City Engineer. Upon completion of the grading, the archaeologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted. 3. The property owner/developer shall submit a letter to the Public Works/Engineering Department, Development Division, and the Communith Development Plamining Department, Planning Division, showing that a certified paleontologist has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented: ■ The paleontologist must be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish procedures to temporarily halt or redirect work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of fossils. If potentially significant materials are discovered, the paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner/developer for exploration and/or salvage. ■ Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution. ■ Any paleontological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified paleontologist. If any fossils are discovered during grading operations when the paleontological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area. ■ A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted. Upon the completion of the grading, the paleontologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted 5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 5.6.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Adopted MND The Adopted MND determined that the project site is not underlain by a known earthquake fault and the most likely source of strong seismic ground shaking within the project area would be a major earthquake along either the Newport -Inglewood or San Andreas Faults. The Adopted MND identified no significant impacts related to ground shaking, lateral spreading, subsidence, landslide, expansive soil, and collapse, provided that the Approved Project complies with the most updated version of the California Building Code (CBC) for Seismic Zone 4 and the standards of the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEACIC). Although liquefaction was identified as being a potential impact because the project site is underlain by fill and terrace deposits, which are characterized by clean beach sands and silty sands that are subject to liquefaction, a trligation measure was incorporated to the Adopted MND based on the findings of the site- specific geotechnical investigation. The Approved Project involved connecting to the local sewer system and no construction alternative waste water disposal systems were necessary. 5.6.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: 495 Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Changein New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring orincreased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial X evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 495 Comments: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No Impact. No changes to the project site would occur under the Modified Project and no development would be placed closer to the nearby active faults. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in significant impact related to rupture of a known earthquake fault. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. No changes to the project site would occur under the Modified Project and no structures would be exposed to greater ground shaking impacts compared to the Approved Project. As stated in .M Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Changein New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring orincreased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact ill Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv) Landslides? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result X in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or X property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems X where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Comments: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No Impact. No changes to the project site would occur under the Modified Project and no development would be placed closer to the nearby active faults. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in significant impact related to rupture of a known earthquake fault. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. No changes to the project site would occur under the Modified Project and no structures would be exposed to greater ground shaking impacts compared to the Approved Project. As stated in .M the Adopted MND, the Modified Project would also be required to comply with the seismic design parameters contained in the most current version of the California Building Code (CBC) for Seismic Zone 4, as well as the standards of the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC). No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. ill) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would be subject to potential liquefaction impact due to loose, granular, and sandy soils. However, as stated in the Adopted MND, the Modified Project would be constructed in accordance with the criteria and seismic design parameters of the CBC, standards of the SEAOC, and recommended measures in the site-specific geotechnical investigation (EGA Consultants 2007). Therefore, potential liquefaction impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. iv) Landslides? No Impact. No changes to the project site would occur under the Modified Project. No impacts related to landslides were identified in the Adopted MND and no impacts would occur under the Modified Project. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The Adopted MND determined that due to the relatively flat tomography and developed nature of the project site, erosion impacts would be minimal during construction. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would be required to comply with the local, regional, and state codes and regulations for erosion control and grading, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting regulations. Implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) as prescribed under the NPDES requirements would ensure that substantial soils erosion impacts do not occur. Therefore, as with the Approved Project, soil erosion impacts from grading and construction activities would be less than significant. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The Modified Project would not involve changing onsite geologic conditions compared to the Approved Project. No sign of unstable soils were identified during the geotechnical investigation conducted 497 for the Approved Project. As with the Approved Project, development of the Modified Project would be required to comply with the measures outlined in the project site's preliminary geotechnical investigation (e.g., removal and replacement of near surface soils with engineered fill) and the criteria and seismic design parameters of the California Building Code (CBC) and the SEACC. Therefore, no significant impact would occur and no changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 19-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? No Impact. The Modified Project would not involve changing onsite geologic conditions compared to the Approved Project. No expansive soils impact was identified and no impact would occur from implementation of the Modified Project. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would not require alternative waste water disposal system. No impact would occur and no changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 5.6.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Adopted MND and Applicable to the Proposed Project The following mitigation measure was included in the Adopted MND and is applicable to the Modified Project. 4. During construction, the construction manager shall ensure that measures listed in the geotechnical investigation (EGA Consultants, 2007) or equivalent measures are implemented to minimize the effects of liquefaction. The measures shall include but are not limited to: ■ Tie all pad footings with grade beams. ■ All footings should be a minimum of 24 inches deep, below grade. ■ Continuous footings should be reinforced with two No. 5 rebar (two at the top and two at the bottom). ■ Concrete slabs cast against properly compacted fill materials shall be a minimum of 6 inches thick (actual) and reinforced with No. 4 rebar at 12 inches on center in both directions. The reinforcement shall be supported on chairs to insure positioning of the reinforcement at tnid-center in the slab. ■ Dowel all footings to slabs with No. 4 bars at 24 inches on center. .•; 5.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 5.7.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Adopted MND The Natural Resources Agency adopted Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for greenhouse gas emissions on December 30, 2009 and the Amendments became effective on March 18, 2010. The NOD for the Adopted MND was filed on February 19, 2008. Therefore, instead of a separate section, the Adopted MND included a discussion on global climate change impact in Section 3.3 Air.Quafio. This Addendum evaluates greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts of the project under this topical section, consistent with the 2010 updated to the CEQA Guidelines. The information provided in this section includes the most current scientific data on GHG and global climate change, but does not change the conclusions of the Adopted MND. Current information on GHG emissions and global climate change do not trigger the need for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental FIR pursuant to Public Resources Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. The current scientific information does not demonstrate that the Modified Project will result in new or more severe significant impacts than those determined in the Adopted MND.7 The Adopted MND stated that GHG emissions impacts would be less than significant because the Approved Project is not a regionally significant project and the Approved Project would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for criteria pollutants (CO, NO, PM1o, and PM2s), which were established to identify substantial new sources of air pollution. Furthermore, the Approved Project would generate less long-term GHG emissions than the existing apartment complex onsite. GHG emissions are likely not to be considered substantial enough to result in a significant cumulative impact relative to GHG emissions and climate change impacts. The Adopted MND concluded that Approved Project's cumulative contribution to GHG emissions was less than significant. 5.7.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: 7 For example, the trial court decision in American Canyon Community Unated for Responsible Gmzwb c City ofAmerican Canyon, Case No. 26-27462. The Superior Court held that the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) is not the type of new information contemplated by Section 21166 because "new legislation requiring creation of state regulations certainly does not pertain to this particular Project or its effects." See also for example, the Superior Court opinions in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Reclamation Boatel, Case No. 06 -CS -01228, where the court held that technical reports concerning global warming were not new information requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. Also, the Cvi!yns for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development a City of San Diego, Case No. 37 -2009 -00085307 -CII -NIC -CTL, where the court held that effect of GHG emissions on climate was known long before the City approved an FIR in 1994, quoted the United States Supreme Court: "In the late 1970s, the Federal Government began devoting serious attention to the possibiliq that carbon dioxide emissions associated with human activity could provoke climate change." In this case, the court concluded that the petitioners provided no competent evidence of new information of a severe impact; and therefore, the City's reliance on an addendum was appropriate. ,M Comments: Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global climate change by adding large amounts of heat -trapping gases, known as GHG, to the atmosphere. The primary source of these GHG is fossil fuel use. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified four major GHG— water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CHa), and ozone (03)—that are the likely cause of an increase in global average temperatures observed within the 20th and 21st centuries. Other GHG identified by the IPCC that contribute to global warming to a lesser extent include nitrous oxide (N20), sulfur hexafluoride (SFa), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and chlorofluorocarbons (IPCC 2001).8•9 Regulatory Setting The regulatory settings for the Proposed Project have changed since the adoption of Adopted MND. The following discussion is provided to update conditions relative to development of the proposed project. Federal Laws The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on December 7, 2009, that GHG emissions threaten the public health and welfare of the American people and that GHG emissions from on -road vehicles contribute to that threat. The EPAs final findings respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that GHG emissions fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. The findings do not in and of themselves impose any emission reduction requirements, but allow the EPA to finalize the GHG standards proposed in 2009 for new light-duty vehicles as part of the joint rulemaking with the Department of Transportation (EPA 2009). B Water vapor (H2O) is the strongest GHG and the most variable in its phases (vapor, cloud droplets, ice crystals). However,. water vapor is not considered a pollutant. 9 Black carbon is the most strongly light -absorbing component of PM emitted from burning fuels. Black carbon contributes to climate change both directly, by absorbing sunlight, and indirectly, by depositing on snow (making it melt faster) and by interacting with clouds and affecting cloud formation. Reducing black carbon emissions globally can have immediate economic,. climate, and public health benefits. California has been an international leader in reducing emissions of black carbon, with close to 95 percent control expected by 2020 due to existing programs that target reducing PM from diesel engines and burning activities (CARB 2013). 500 Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Changein New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring orincreased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a X significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse X gases? Comments: Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global climate change by adding large amounts of heat -trapping gases, known as GHG, to the atmosphere. The primary source of these GHG is fossil fuel use. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified four major GHG— water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CHa), and ozone (03)—that are the likely cause of an increase in global average temperatures observed within the 20th and 21st centuries. Other GHG identified by the IPCC that contribute to global warming to a lesser extent include nitrous oxide (N20), sulfur hexafluoride (SFa), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and chlorofluorocarbons (IPCC 2001).8•9 Regulatory Setting The regulatory settings for the Proposed Project have changed since the adoption of Adopted MND. The following discussion is provided to update conditions relative to development of the proposed project. Federal Laws The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on December 7, 2009, that GHG emissions threaten the public health and welfare of the American people and that GHG emissions from on -road vehicles contribute to that threat. The EPAs final findings respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that GHG emissions fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. The findings do not in and of themselves impose any emission reduction requirements, but allow the EPA to finalize the GHG standards proposed in 2009 for new light-duty vehicles as part of the joint rulemaking with the Department of Transportation (EPA 2009). B Water vapor (H2O) is the strongest GHG and the most variable in its phases (vapor, cloud droplets, ice crystals). However,. water vapor is not considered a pollutant. 9 Black carbon is the most strongly light -absorbing component of PM emitted from burning fuels. Black carbon contributes to climate change both directly, by absorbing sunlight, and indirectly, by depositing on snow (making it melt faster) and by interacting with clouds and affecting cloud formation. Reducing black carbon emissions globally can have immediate economic,. climate, and public health benefits. California has been an international leader in reducing emissions of black carbon, with close to 95 percent control expected by 2020 due to existing programs that target reducing PM from diesel engines and burning activities (CARB 2013). 500 The EPAs endangerment finding covers emissions of six key GHGs—0O2, CH4, N20, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbon, and SFb—that have been the subject of scrutiny and intense analysis for decades by scientists in the United States and around the world (the first three are applicable to the Proposed Project). In response to the endangerment finding, the EPA issued the Mandatory Reporting of GHG Rule that requires substantial emitters of GHG emissions (large stationary sources, etc.) to report GHG emissions data. Facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons (MT) or more of CO2 per year are required to submit an annual report. State Laws Current State of California guidance and goals for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in Executive Order S-03-05, Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), and Senate Bffi 375 (SB 375). Executive Order S-03-05 Executive Order S-3-05, signed June 1, 2005. Executive Order S-03-05 set the following GHG reduction targets for the state: ■ 2000 levels by 2010 ■ 1990 levels by 2020 ■ 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 AssemhlvBi1132, TheGlohal Farming Solutions Act (2006) Current State of California guidance and goals for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act. AB 32 was passed by the California state legislature on August 31, 2006, to place the state on a course toward reducing its contribution of GHG emissions. AB 32 follows the 2020 tier of emissions reduction targets established in Executive Order S-3-05. The final Scoping Plan was adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), on December 11, 2008. Based on the GHG emissions inventory conducted for the Scoping Plan, GHG emissions in California by 2020 are anticipated to be approximately 596 MMTCO2e. In December 2007, CARB approved a 2020 emissions limit of 427 MMTCO2e (471 million tons) for the state. The 2020 target requires a total emissions reduction of 169 MMTCO2e, 28.5 percent from the projected emissions of the business -as -usual (BAU) scenario for the year 2020 (i.e., 28.5 percent of 596 MMTCO2e) (GARB 2008).10 Since release of the 2008 Scoping Plan, CARB has updated the statewide GHG emissions inventory to reflect GHG emissions in light of the economic downturn and of measures not previously considered in the 2008 Scoping Plan baseline inventory. The updated forecast predicts emissions to be 507 MMTCO2e by 2020. The new inventory identifies that an estimated 80 MMTCO2e of reductions are necessary to achieve the statewide 10 CARB defines BAU in its Scoping Plan as emissions levels that would occur if California continued to grow and add new GHG emissions but did not adopt any measures to reduce emissions. Projections for each emission -generating sector were compiled and used to estimate emissions for 2020 based on 2002-2004 emissions intensities. Under CARB's definition of BAU, new growth is assumed to have the same carbon intensities as was typical from 2002 through 2004. 501 emissions reduction of AB 32 by 2020, 15.7 percent of the projected emissions compared to BAU in year 2020 (i.e., 15.7 percent of 507 MMTCOze) (CARB 2012). CARB is in the process of completing a five -,year update to the 2008 Scoping Plan, as required by AB 32. A discussion draft of the 2013 Scoping Plan was released on October 1, 2013. The 2013 Scoping Plan update defines CARB's climate change priorities for the next five years and lays the groundwork to reach post2020 goals in Executive Orders 5-3-05 and B-16-2012. Senate B.0375, The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protecdon Act (2008) In 2008, Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, was adopted to connect the GHG emissions reductions targets established in the Scoping Plan for the transportation sector to local land use decisions that affect travel behavior. Its intent is to reduce GHG emissions from light-duty trucks and automobiles (excludes emissions associated with goods movement) by aligning regional long-range transportation plans, investments, and housing allocations to local land use planning to reduce VMT and vehicle trips. Specifically, SB 375 required CARB to establish GHG emissions reduction targets for each of the 17 regions in California managed by a metropolitan planning organization (MPO). Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the MPO for the southern California region, which includes the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. SB 375 requires the MPOs to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) in their regional transportation plan. For the SCAG region, the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) was adopted in April 2012 (SCAG 2012). The SCS outlines a development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, would reduce GHG emissions from transportation (excluding goods movement). The SCS is meant to provide growth strategies that will achieve the regional GHG emissions reduction targets. However, the SCS does not require that local general plans, specific plans, or zoning be consistent with the SCS, but provides incentives for consistency for governments and developers. a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would generate GHG emissions from vehicle trips generated by the project, energy use (indirectly from purchased electricity use and directly through fuel consumed for building heating), water/wastewater generation, and waste disposal. The Modified Project would result in operation of 24 condominium units, which is the same as the Approved Project and less units than currently operating onsite. The Modified Project would result in a net decrease in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and would be constructed to achieve the 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. Consequently, like the Approved Project, the Modified Project would generate less GHG emissions. As with the Adopted MND, the Modified Project would result in less than significant impact related to GHG emissions. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Adopted MND. 502 b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include CARB's Scoping Plan and SCAG's 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). CARB's 2008 Scoping Plan is California's GHG reduction strategy to achieve the state's GHG emissions reduction target established by AB 32, which is 1990 levels by year 2020. Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), California Appliance Energy Efficiency regulations, California Renewable Energy Portfolio standard, changes in the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards, and other early action measures would ensure the state is on target to achieve the GHG emissions reduction goals of AB 32. In addition, new buildings constructed are required to comply with the most recent Building and Energy Efficiency Standards and California Green Building Code (CALGreen). The Proposed Project's GHG emissions would be reduced from compliance with statewide measures that have been adopted since AB 32 was adopted. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Adopted MND. In addition to AB 32, the California legislature passed SB 375 to connect regional transportation planning to land use decisions made at a local level. SCAG's RTP/SCS does not require that local general plans, specific plans, or zoning be consistent with the SCS, but provides incentives for consistency for governments and developers. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would not change the exiting residential use of the project site and would not involve any General Plan land use changes. Therefore, as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would not interfere with SCAG's ability to implement the regional strategies outlined in the 2012 RTP/SCS and would not conflict with SCAG's or city's ability to achieve GHG reduction goals and strategies. Therefore, as with the Adopted MND, no significant impact would result from Modified Project implementation. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Adopted MND. 5.7.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Adopted MND and Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to GHG emissions were outlined in the Adopted MND, and none are required for the Modified Project. 5.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 5.8.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Adopted MND The Approved Project involved demolition of existing 54 -unit apartment complex and development of single and duplex units totaling 24 units. The Adopted MND found no hazardous materials sources on or near the project site that would adversely impact the environment, except for the asbestos containing materials (ACM). However, it was concluded that when performed properly, removal of ACM would not result in any 503 significant health and safety impact. The project site is not identified in the Department of Toxic Substances Control's (I)TSC) hazardous wastes and substances list, which includes the Federal Superfund Sites (National Priority List), State Response Sites, Voluntary Cleanup Sites, School Cleanup Sites, Permitted Sites, and Corrective Action Sites. Implementation of the proposed single and duplex residential units would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. 5.8.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: 504 Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Change in New Changes or Changein Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring orincreased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous X materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions X involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter X mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a X significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of public airport or public use airport, would the project result X in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the X project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation X plan? 504 Comments: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? No Impact. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project involves development of 24 residential units after demolishing the existing apartment complex. No changes in conditions concerning hazardous materials beyond the ACM issue already addressed in the Adopted MND would occur as a result of the Modified Project. As with the Approved Project, under the Modified Project, the existing structures on-site would be surveyed for lead-based paint (LBP) prior to demolition or renovation, in compliance with the applicable local, state, and federal regulations administered through the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health. Compliance with the existing regulations potential safety hazards pertaining to ACMs and LBPs would ensure that impacts are less than significant. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No Impact. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project involves development of 24 residential units after demolishing the existing apartment complex. No changes in conditions concerning hazardous materials beyond the ACM issue already addressed in the Adopted MND would occur as a result of the Modified Project. No land use changes are proposed and the Modified Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. There are no schools within one-quarter mile of the project site and as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials. The nearest school, Carden Hall, a charter school, is located approximately 0.6 mile north of the project site. No impact is 505 Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Changein New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring orincreased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland Fires, including where wildlands are adjacent X to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? No Impact. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project involves development of 24 residential units after demolishing the existing apartment complex. No changes in conditions concerning hazardous materials beyond the ACM issue already addressed in the Adopted MND would occur as a result of the Modified Project. As with the Approved Project, under the Modified Project, the existing structures on-site would be surveyed for lead-based paint (LBP) prior to demolition or renovation, in compliance with the applicable local, state, and federal regulations administered through the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health. Compliance with the existing regulations potential safety hazards pertaining to ACMs and LBPs would ensure that impacts are less than significant. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No Impact. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project involves development of 24 residential units after demolishing the existing apartment complex. No changes in conditions concerning hazardous materials beyond the ACM issue already addressed in the Adopted MND would occur as a result of the Modified Project. No land use changes are proposed and the Modified Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. There are no schools within one-quarter mile of the project site and as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials. The nearest school, Carden Hall, a charter school, is located approximately 0.6 mile north of the project site. No impact is 505 anticipated and no changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. The Modified Project would not change the project site boundaries and the project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites. As with the Approved Project, no impact would occur as a result of the Modified Project implementation and no changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The Modified Project would not change the project site boundaries and the project site is not within an airport land use plan. The nearest airport to the project site is John Wayne Airport, approximately five miles north of the project site. As with the Approved Project, no impact would occur as a result of the Modified Project implementation. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The Modified Project would not change the project site boundaries and there is no private airstrip in the project vicinity. As with the Approved Project, no impact would occur as a result of the Modified Project implementation. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would continue to be accessed via River Avenue and Neptune Avenue. The west driveway to be removed by the Modified Project served only one corner unit and the Modified Project provides access for all units from River Avenue and Neptune Avenue. This exclusive driveway to be removed was not used as emergency access and this change from the Approved Project would not result in adverse impacts to emergency access. As with the Approved Project, all driveways and internal streets would be reviewed and approved by the fire department. The construction duration and equipment used for the Modified Project would be similar to that of the Approved Project and adequate staging area would be provided so that the construction does not impair or interfere with any emergency response plan. As with the Approved Project, impacts would not be significant. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 506 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. No changes in site boundaries would occur and the project site is not immediately adjacent to any wildland areas. As with the Approved Project, no impact is anticipated and no changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 5.8.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Adopted MND and Applicable to the Proposed Project The following mitigation measure was included in the Adopted MND and is applicable to the Modified Project. 5. Prior to demolition activity, a certified and licensed asbestos abatement contractor shall perform any removal of asbestos containing material (ACM). Also, an industrial hygienist must be present to perform engineering control and regulatory asbestos air monitoring daring any abatement activity. 5.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 5.9.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Adopted MND As concluded in the Adopted MND, the Approved Project would pose no threat to the quality or flow of surface or groundwater. The Adopted MND stated that the project site encompasses approximately 1.49 acres and approximately 86 percent of the project site is impervious, covered by building and parking. The Approved Project would provide approximately 68 percent (44,121 square feet) of impervious surfaces and approximately 32 percent (20,987 square feet) of landscaping. Although the Approved Project would alter the existing drainage pattern of the site, with the decreased impervious surface areas, the rate or amount of surface runoff would be less than the existing condition. Moreover, the Approved Project would not require major improvements to water supply or distribution systems that could possibly affect local water supplies or groundwater recharge. The Approved Project is subject to the requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board NPDES MS4 permit, which requires the preparation of a SWPPP and the implementation of BMPs. The Adopted MND also stated that the project site is not located within a 100 -year flood zone as indicated on the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) (No. 06059C0377H) covering the project area. No significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality were identified in the Adopted MND. 5.9.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: 507 Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Changein New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring orincreased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? I X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the X production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in X substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or X amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result In flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or X planned storm water drainage systems? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate X Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect X flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the X failure of a levee or dam? j) Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X Comments: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. As with the Approved Project, grading and construction activities of the Modified Project could cause deterioration of water quality if sediments or pollutants wash into the storm drain system. However, similar to the Approved Project, the project applicant of the Modified Project would be required to comply with existing water quality standards and waste discharge requirements during all grading and construction activities. The building foot print and paving area would slightly decrease under the Modified Project from the Approved Project. Therefore, the Modified Project would generate similar or slightly less pollutants compared to the Approved Project. As stated in the Adopted MND, adherence to the BMPs in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would reduce, prevent, minimize, and/or treat pollutants and prevent degradation of downstream receiving waters. As with the Adopted MND, the Modified Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No Impact. The Modified Project would not change the number of units to be developed. Therefore, no additional water demand would be created by the Modified Project compared to the Approved Project. In addition, although the landscaping area would increase from 18,390 square feet to 24,176 square feet, the proposed landscaping would incorporate many non-invasive and water conserving plant types and use the most efficient and conserving means to distribute irrigation water with the latest technology for water conservation. The Modified Project would not require additional water from groundwater and no impact to groundwater supplies would occur. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. As with the Adopted MND, the Modified Project would also be required to prepare and implement SWPPP during construction to reduce erosion or siltation impacts to a less than significant level. The required compliance would ensure that impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. As with the Approved Project, all overflows would be drained through the underground system with the attached inline filters to catch storm water runoffs before they are conveyed to the drainage system. Moreover, the Modified Project would slightly decrease the building footprint and pavement, and increase the landscaping area as shown in Table 3-1, therefore, would result in increased pervious area compared to the Approved Project. The modified drainage system would be similar to the Approved Project and would not result in a substantial erosion or siltation impact As with the Adopted MND, no significant impact is 509 anticipated and no changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. As with the Approved Project, all overflows would be drained through the underground system with the attached inline filters to catch storm water runoffs before they are conveyed to the drainage system. Moreover, the Modified Project would slightly decrease the building footprint and pavement, and increase the landscaping area as shown in Table 3-1, therefore, would result in increased pervious area compared to the Approved Project. The Modified Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner to result in on or offsite flooding. As with the Adopted MND, no significant impact is anticipated and no changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. As with the Approved Project, all overflows would be drained through the underground system with the attached inline filters to catch storm water runoffs before they are conveyed to the drainage system. The Modified Project would not contribute more runoff water compared to the Approved Project and as with eh Adopted MND, impacts to existing or planned storm water drainage system would be less than significant. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No Impact. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would have beneficial impact to the area water quality with the underground drainage system, whereas the existing apartment complex drains directly to the storm water system. As with the Adopted MND, no significant water quality impact is anticipated. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. The Modified Project would not change the project boundaries and the project site is not within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped by the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) (panel ID No. 06059C0377H). As with the Adopted MND, no impact is anticipated. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 510 h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. See response to Section 5.9.2(g), above. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. The City of Newport Beach is subject to flooding hazard from Prado Dam and the Big Canyon Reservoir. However, the Modified Project would not change the project boundaries, and as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would be required to comply with the emergency evacuation procedures of the City's Emergency Management Plan in the event of dam failure. As with the Adopted MND, impacts would not be significant. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. j) Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. The Modified Project would not change the project boundaries and environmental conditions related to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would be same as described under the Approved Project. As with the Approved Project, impacts seiche, tsunami, and mudflow would be less than significant. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 5.9.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Adopted MND and Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to hydrology and water quality were identified in the Adopted MND for the Approved Project, and none are required for the Modified Project. 5.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING 5.10.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Adopted MND The Adopted MND concluded that redevelopment of a 54 -unit apartment complex to 24 single and duplex residential units would not physically divide an established community and would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulations, including habitat or natural conservation plans. 5.10.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: 511 Comments: a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. As with the Approved Project, no physical division of an established community would occur under the Modified Project. As with the Adopted MND, no impact is anticipated, and no changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would comply with the applicable zoning requirements with the exception of the increased setback encroachments, reduction in the minimum distance between buildings, and building height increase. The Adopted MND was previously approved under the MFR (Multi -Family Residential) Zoning District, and subsequent to the approval of the project in 2008, the City adopted a new Zoning Code in 2010, revising the subject site zoning to RM (MultiUnitResidential). However, under both the previous and current zoning designations, the proposed 24 -unit detached condominiums are consistent with the permitted land uses. The Modified Project would not exceed the maximum 54 -unit development limit and the 1.75 floor area limit (FAL) applicable to the project site. Tentative TrartMap The project consists of the subdivision of 24 airspace condominium units requiring the approval of a Tentative Tract Map. The changes to the site plan do not affect the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 512 Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Changein New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring orincreased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? I X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (Including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, X local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community X conservation plan? Comments: a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. As with the Approved Project, no physical division of an established community would occur under the Modified Project. As with the Adopted MND, no impact is anticipated, and no changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would comply with the applicable zoning requirements with the exception of the increased setback encroachments, reduction in the minimum distance between buildings, and building height increase. The Adopted MND was previously approved under the MFR (Multi -Family Residential) Zoning District, and subsequent to the approval of the project in 2008, the City adopted a new Zoning Code in 2010, revising the subject site zoning to RM (MultiUnitResidential). However, under both the previous and current zoning designations, the proposed 24 -unit detached condominiums are consistent with the permitted land uses. The Modified Project would not exceed the maximum 54 -unit development limit and the 1.75 floor area limit (FAL) applicable to the project site. Tentative TrartMap The project consists of the subdivision of 24 airspace condominium units requiring the approval of a Tentative Tract Map. The changes to the site plan do not affect the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 512 2007-001, and the facts in support of the findings required to approve the Tentative Tract Map have not changed. The site remains physically suitable for the type and density proposed. Modification Permit As shown in Table 3-1, the previous Zoning Code required a front setback of 20 feet adjacent to River Avenue, a front setback of 20 feet adjacent to Seashore Drive, and side setbacks of 25 feet adjacent to the east and west property lines. The previous Zoning Code also required a minimum budding separation of 10 feet between structures. The Adopted MND (pursuant to Modification Permit No. MD2007-044) authorized a reduction of the minimum building separation to 6 feet between structures and reduced setbacks as follows: front setbacks of 10 feet on River Avenue and Seashore Drive, a side setback of 10 feet to the west property line, and a side setback of 4 feet to the east property line. Under the current Zoning Code, a minimum building separation between units is no longer required, and it now requires a front setback of 5 feet adjacent to Seashore Drive, a rear setback of 10 feet adjacent to River Avenue, and side setbacks of 15 feet. As such, despite the changes in Zoning Code setback and separation standards, the Modified Project continues to comply with the setbacks and building separations as approved by the Adopted MND. Use Permit The previous Zoning Code limited heights of flat roofs, deck rails, and midpoint of sloping roofs to a maximum of 28 feet and a ridge height for sloping roofs to a maximum of 33 feet. Under the Adopted MND, the Approved Project was authorized to exceed the maximum 28 -foot midpoint height limit for 6 duplex units. However, midpoint limitations have been eliminated from the current Zoning Code and replaced with a minimum 3:12 pitch requirement for sloping roofs. The current Zoning Code limits heights of flat roofs and deck rails to 28 feet and sloping roofs with a minimum 3:12 pitch to 33 feet. The Modified Project would meet the minimum 3:12 pitch to 33 feet ridge requirement for sloping roofs. Therefore, the Modified Project would be consistent with the current zoning code and no use permit would be necessary. Therefore, as with the Adopted MND, no land use impacts related to height standards are anticipated. Coastal Residential Development Permit Pursuant to Chapter 20.86 of the previous Zoning Code and Chapter 20.34 of the current Zoning Code, the demolition of three or more units within the coastal zone shall be reviewed to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65590 (commonly known as the 1982 Mello Act) and to replace, if feasible, the demolition of any units occupied by low- or moderate -income tenants. The Mello Act prohibits the City from approving the demolition or conversion of existing housing units occupied by low- or moderate -income households within the Coastal Zone unless provisions are made for their replacement. If feasible, all or any portion of the replacement units must be on the site of the demolished structure or elsewhere in or within three miles of the Coastal Zone. Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2007-001 authorized the demolition of the 54 -unit apartment building conditioned upon the replacement of six dwelling units affordable to low- and/or moderate -income tenants within three years of demolition. The Modified Project would not change the number of units to be demolished or developed and would be required to comply with the conditions under the Adopted MND concerning providing replacement units. Therefore, no new or substantially more severe land use impacts would occur. 513 As with the Adopted MND, the Modified Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulations, and less than significant land use impacts are anticipated. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. c) conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would not disturb or impact any habitat conservation or natural community conservation plan area. As with the Adopted MND, no impact is anticipated. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 5.10.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Adopted MND and Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to land use and planning were outlined in the Adopted MND and none were required for the Modified Project. 5.11 MINERAL RESOURCES 5.11.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Adopted MND The Adopted MND concluded that the project site does not contain any known mineral resources and would not impact any designated mineral recovery resource site. 5.11.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: 514 Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Changein New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring orincreased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to X the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific X plan or other land use plan? 514 Comments: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. The Modified Project would not change the project site boundaries, and as concluded by the Adopted MND, no impact to mineral resources would occur. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. The Modified Project would not change the project site boundaries or use. As concluded by the Adopted MND, the project site is not designated as a mineral recovery resource site and no impacts to mineral resources would occur. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 5.11.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Adopted MND and Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to mineral resources were outlined in the Adopted MND, and none are required for the Modified Project. 5.12 NOISE 5.12.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Adopted MND The Adopted MND concluded that long-term operation noise impacts would be negligible, as the Approved Project would replace the existing 54 -unit apartment complex with the 24 -unit condominium development. The Adopted MND concluded that the project would generate vibration and noise impacts during construction. Construction noise would occur over a limited period and would occur during the hours prescribed in the City's Municipal Code, noise impacts during construction would be less than significant. Groundborne vibration during demolition activities would have the potential to generate levels that could cause architectural damage to nearby structures. Mitigation measures were recommended to reduce vibration impacts during demolition activities to levels below significance. 5.12.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project result in: 515 Comments: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. Project generated noise during the operations phase of the project would be from project - generated traffic (mobile -source noise) and on-site operations (stationary -source noise). The Modified Project would develop the same type of uses and would not change the number of units compared to the Approved Project. Compared to the Approved MND, there would be no additional vehicular trips with the Modified Project. Transportation and stationary noise sources with the Modified Project would be similar to what was analyzed in the Approved MND. In addition, there has been no change in the existing conditions as it related to new roads or the introduction of a major noise source in the vicinity of the project site that could affect the proposed uses. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 516 Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Changein New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring orincreased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or X noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or X groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity X above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity X above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of public airport or public use airport, would the project X expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to X excessive noise levels? Comments: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. Project generated noise during the operations phase of the project would be from project - generated traffic (mobile -source noise) and on-site operations (stationary -source noise). The Modified Project would develop the same type of uses and would not change the number of units compared to the Approved Project. Compared to the Approved MND, there would be no additional vehicular trips with the Modified Project. Transportation and stationary noise sources with the Modified Project would be similar to what was analyzed in the Approved MND. In addition, there has been no change in the existing conditions as it related to new roads or the introduction of a major noise source in the vicinity of the project site that could affect the proposed uses. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 516 b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The proposed project would involve demolition of the existing apartment complex and construction and operation of 24 new residential units. Groundborne vibration is related to the type of equipment utilized and distance to the nearest receptors. The project site would not require pile driving, blasting, or other vibration intensive activity. As shown on Table 3-1, Approved Project and Modified Prelect Comparison Summay, the Modified Project would require similar grading, building construction and landscaping areas to implement the project as anticipated in the Approved MND. The Modified Project proposes the same type of use with similar structures as analyzed in the Approved N1ND. Demolition and construction activities with the Modified Project would take place in the same project site boundaries. As the demolition and grading areas and construction methods to develop 3 -story residential structures would be similar to anticipated in the Approved MND, implementation of Mitigation Measure No. 6 as stated in the Adopted MND would reduce impacts during project construction to less than significant levels. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. As discussed in response a), the Modified Project would develop the same type of uses and would not change the number of units compared to the Approved Project. Transportation and stationary noise sources with the Modified Project would be similar to what was analyzed in the Approved MND. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The proposed project would involve demolition of the existing apartment complex and construction and operation of 24 new residential units. Temporary construction noise is related to the type of equipment utilized and distance to the nearest receptors. As shown on Table 3-1, Approved Prelect and Modified Project Comparison Summary, the Modified Project would require similar grading, building construction and landscaping areas to implement the project as anticipated in the Approved MND, as the Modified Project proposes the same type of use with similar structure sizes as analyzed in the Approved MND. Demolition and construction activities with the Modified Project would take place in the same project site boundaries. The demolition and grading areas and construction methods to develop 3 -story residential structures would be similar to anticipated in the Approved MND and construction activities would be limited during the daytime hours prescribed in the Municipal Code. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 517 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. As discussed in the Approved MND the project site is located outside of the 60 dBA CNEL and 65 dBA CNEL noise contours. There would be no impact and no changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. As discussed in the Approved MND, there are no private airstrips located within the vicinity of the project site. There would be no impact and no changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 5.12.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Adopted MND and Applicable to the Proposed Project 6. Demolition of the existing asphalt with a jackhammer within eight feet of the existing residential structures to the southeast of the site shall be prohibited. The construction contractor shall utilize alternative asphalt demolition methods such as a concrete saws and other nonvibratory construction equipment to remove the pavement. 5.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING 5.13.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Adopted MND The Adopted MND determined that Approved Project would result in a net reduction in population and housing impact due to a decrease of 30 units from the existing 54 -unit multi -family unit in a residential neighborhood to 24 single and duplex units. Therefore, no net growth inducing impacts were identified. The Adopted MND also concluded that although the Approved Project would result in a net reduction in the number of rental units, it would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere because there are available existing rental units to absorb the displaced housing units. 5.13.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: 518 Comments: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would develop 24 dwelling units and would not induce substantial population growth in the area. As with the Adopted MND, no impact is anticipated. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would develop 24 dwelling units after demolishing the existing 54 -unit apartment complex. No changes related to replacement housing condition would result from the Modified Project, and as with the Adopted MND, impacts would not be significant. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would develop 24 dwelling units after demolishing the existing 54 -unit apartment complex. No changes related to replacement housing condition would result from the Modified Project, and as with the Adopted MND, impacts would not be significant. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 519 Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Changein New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring orincreased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or X indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of X replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of X replacement housing elsewhere? Comments: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would develop 24 dwelling units and would not induce substantial population growth in the area. As with the Adopted MND, no impact is anticipated. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would develop 24 dwelling units after demolishing the existing 54 -unit apartment complex. No changes related to replacement housing condition would result from the Modified Project, and as with the Adopted MND, impacts would not be significant. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would develop 24 dwelling units after demolishing the existing 54 -unit apartment complex. No changes related to replacement housing condition would result from the Modified Project, and as with the Adopted MND, impacts would not be significant. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 519 5.13.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Adopted MND and Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to population and housing were outlined in the Adopted MND, and none were required for the Modified Project. 5.14 PUBLIC SERVICES 5.14.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Adopted MND The Adopted MND concluded that impacts on public services, including fixe, police, schools, and other public facilities, as a result of the implementation of the Modified Project would be less than significant. 5.14.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Comments: a) Fire protection? No Impact. The Modified Project would not increase the number of units to be development. The project site is currently developed with the higher density multifamily residential units and as with the Approved Project., the Modified Project would decrease the on-site density. Therefore, the Modified Project would not have a substantial adverse impact on the fire department's ability to serve the project site. Additionally, all development projects within the City of Newport Beach are required to comply with the most current adopted California Fire Code and other City standards and ordinances. During the building permitting process, the Newport Beach Fire Department would review and approve development plans associated with 520 Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Changein New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring or Increased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact a) Fire protection? x b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Parks? x e) Other public facilities? x Comments: a) Fire protection? No Impact. The Modified Project would not increase the number of units to be development. The project site is currently developed with the higher density multifamily residential units and as with the Approved Project., the Modified Project would decrease the on-site density. Therefore, the Modified Project would not have a substantial adverse impact on the fire department's ability to serve the project site. Additionally, all development projects within the City of Newport Beach are required to comply with the most current adopted California Fire Code and other City standards and ordinances. During the building permitting process, the Newport Beach Fire Department would review and approve development plans associated with 520 the proposed project to ensure that they provided adequate access, traffic circulation, water, and hydrant systems to support fire department needs. As with the Adopted MND, the Modified Project would result in a less than significant impact on fire protection services. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. b) Police protection? No Impact. The Modified Project would not change the number of units to be developed. The project site is currently developed with the higher density multifamily residential units, and as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would decrease the on-site density. No changes in impact to police protection would result from Modified Project implementation. As with the Adopted MND, impacts to police protection would be less than significant. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. c) Schools? No Impact. The Modified Project would not change the number of units to be developed. The project site is currently developed with the higher density multifamily residential units, and as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would decrease the on-site density. No changes in impact to schools would result from Modified Project implementation. As with the Adopted MND, impacts to schools protection would be less than significant. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. d) Parks? No Impact. The Modified Project would not change the number of units to be developed. The project site is currently developed with the higher density multifamily residential units, and as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would decrease the on-site density. No changes in impact to schools would result from Modified Project implementation. As with the Adopted MND, impacts to schools protection would be less than significant. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. e) Other public facilities? No Impact. The Modified Project would not change the number of units to be developed. The project site is currently developed with the higher density multifamily residential units, and as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would decrease the on-site density. The project site and its surrounding area are developed with urban uses and with easily accessible existing public facilities. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would not result in substantial adverse impacts to any other public facilities. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 521 5.14.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Adopted MND and Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to public services were outlined in the Adopted MND, and none were required for the Modified Project. 5.15 RECREATION 5.15.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Adopted MND The Adopted MND concluded that no significant recreation impacts would occur as a result of the implementation of the Approved Project because the development would result in a reduction of units from 54 to 24 units. 5.15.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: Comments: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. The Modified Project would not change the number of units to be developed. The project site is currently developed with the higher density multifamily residential units, and as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would decrease the on-site density. No changes in demands to existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreation facilities would occur. As with the Adopted MND, impacts to 522 Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Change in New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring or Increased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that X substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which X might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. The Modified Project would not change the number of units to be developed. The project site is currently developed with the higher density multifamily residential units, and as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would decrease the on-site density. No changes in demands to existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreation facilities would occur. As with the Adopted MND, impacts to 522 recreational facilities protection would be less than significant. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The Modified Project would not change the number of units to be developed. The project site is currently developed with the higher density multifamily residential units, and as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would decrease the on-site density. No changes in demands to recreational facilities would occur, and as with the Adopted MND, impacts to recreational facilities protection would be less than significant. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 5.15.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Adopted MND and Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to recreation resources were outlined in the Adopted MND, and none were required for the Modified Project. 5.16 TRANS PORTATIONITRAFFIC 5.16.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Adopted MND The Adopted MND concluded that no significant transportation and traffic impacts would occur as a result of the implementation of the Approved Project because the development would result in a reduction of units from 54 to 24 units, therefore, a reduction of 178 average daily trips (ADT), from 363 ADTs to 185 ADT. 5.16.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: 523 Comments: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The changes that would occur along River Avenue (i.e., elimination of one curb cut for one single-family unit) from the Approved Project is minor and would not create any new transportation and 524 Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Changein New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring orincreased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking Into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and X relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards X established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase In traffic levels or a change in location that results in X substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible X uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease X the performance or safety of such facilities? Comments: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The changes that would occur along River Avenue (i.e., elimination of one curb cut for one single-family unit) from the Approved Project is minor and would not create any new transportation and 524 traffic impacts that were not already considered and analyzed in the Adopted MND for the Approved Project. The number of units did not change under the Modified Project, and as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would decrease the on-site density. A project that generates fewer than 300 ADT is not subject under the City Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) and a project specific traffic study is not warranted. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would result in a net reduction in daily trips, and no substantial changes to existing circulation system would occur. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? No Impact. The same number of residential units would be developed under the Modified Project and the elimination of one driveway curb cut for one single-family residence would not create any new traffic impact that were not already considered in the Adopted MND. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would result in a net reduction in average daily trips and would not adversely impact the county's congestion management program. Therefore, the level of impact would be less than significant and no changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The Modified Project would not change the project site boundaries and John Wayne International Airport is the nearest airport to the project site. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would not exceed the maximum ridge height of 33 feet. Therefore, no impacts to air traffic levels or patterns would occur under the Modified Project. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. As with the Approved Project, access to the project site would continue to be provided from River Avenue and Neptune Avenue. Unlike the Approved Project that provided exclusive access to one single-family unit, the main driveway would provide access to all 24 units under the Modified Project, eliminating the need for an exclusive driveway. The slightly modified internal circulation improvements would require approval by the city's engineer for adequate design standards. As with the Approved Project, no sharp curves or dangerous intersection would be created by the Modified Project. Therefore, impacts resulting from hazards due to design features or incompatible uses would not occur. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. As with the Approved Project, to address fire access needs of the .Modified Project, the internal 525 drive aisle/private street would be designed in accordance with all applicable design standards for emergency access (e.g., minimum land width and turning radius) and the Modified Project would be required to incorporate all applicable design and safety requirements in the most current adopted fire and building codes of the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur under the Modified Project. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The Modified Project would provide 48 garage spaces and 14 guest parking spaces for a total of 62 parking spaces. In addition, one additional onstreet parking would be provided after elimination of the one driveway on River Avenue, The Approved Project would provide 48 garage spaces and 15 guest parking spaces for a total of 63 spaces. However, as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would exceed the City required 60 spaces, therefore, would not result in inadequate parking capacity. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? No Impact. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would not conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation, and no impacts to alternative transportation (pedestrian, bicycle, or public transportation) would occur as a result of development of the Modified Project. Public transportation is readily available in and around the project area and as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would also provide required coastal access to Seashore Drive from the project site. Therefore, as with the Adopted MND, the Modified Project would not decrease the performance or safety of alternative transportation facilities and impact would not be significant. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 5.16.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Adopted MND and Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to transportation and traffic resources were outlined in the Adopted MND, and none were requited for the Modified Project. 5.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 5.17.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Adopted MND The Adopted MND concluded that no significant utilities and service systems impacts would occur as a result of the implementation of the Approved Project because the development would result in a reduction of units from 54 to 24 units, therefore, decreasing the loading demands for water, sewer, electricity, and gas services. 526 5.17.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: Comments: a) Exceed waste water treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact. No change in land use would occur under the Modified Project. The proposed 24 residential units proposed under the both Approved Project and Modified Project would not include uses that are subject to wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. As with the 527 Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Change in New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring orincreased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact a) Exceed waste water treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality X Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or waste water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of X which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded X entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected X demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the X project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid X waste? Comments: a) Exceed waste water treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact. No change in land use would occur under the Modified Project. The proposed 24 residential units proposed under the both Approved Project and Modified Project would not include uses that are subject to wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. As with the 527 Approved Project, no significant impacts would occur. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or waste water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The same number of units would be developed under the Modified Project. Therefore, as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would result in a net reduction in water and sewer treatment demands. As with the Adopted MND, the Modified Project would have beneficial impact on water and sewer treatment and no significant impact would occur. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The Modified Project would have the site coverage of 61.9 percent (building footprint and paving) whereas the Approved Project has 71.3 percent. Additionally, as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would provide filtered underground drainage system to reduce the overall runoffs. The changes in drainage system would be minor and the Modified Project would continue to have beneficial impact on the area storm water drainage facilities as with the Approved Project. Therefore, as with the Approved Project, development of the Modified Project would not require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, and the level of impact would be less than significant. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR/MND. The Modified Project would not change the number of units to be developed. Therefore, as with the Approved Project, a net reduction in water demands compared to existing condition is anticipated under the Modified Project. As with the Adopted MND, impacts to water supply would be less than significant. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. e) Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact. The Modified Project would not change the number of units to be developed and no change in wastewater demand is anticipated. As with the Adopted MND, impacts to wastewater service provider would not be significant. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 528 f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? No Impact. The Modified Project would not change the number of units to be developed and no change in solid waste demand is anticipated. As with the Adopted MND, impacts to solid waste service provider would not be significant. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would comply with all local, state, and federal statutes and regulations related to solid waste. No substantial changes in the type or amount of solid wastes are anticipated under the Modified Project. As with the Adopted MND, impacts related to solid waste would not be significant. No changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Approved MND. 5.17.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Adopted MND and Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to utilities and service systems were outlined in the Adopted MND, and none were required for the Modified Project. 5.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 5.18.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Adopted MND According to the Adopted MND, based on the substantiation provided in the Adopted MND and with implementation of the rnitigation measures identified therein, the City found that the Approved Project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment, either individually or cumulatively, directly or indirectly. 5.18.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: 529 Comments: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No Impact. The Adopted MND stated that the Approved Project would not degrade the quality of biological resources or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The Modified Project would modify the site layout and design details of the Approved Project and no environmental conditions related to biological resources or cultural resources would be affected by the change. The level of significance (fess than significant) remains unchanged from that cited in the Adopted MND. 530 Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Changein New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring orincreased Requiring Major MND Major MND Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIRIMND No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or X animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a X project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects,) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects X on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No Impact. The Adopted MND stated that the Approved Project would not degrade the quality of biological resources or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The Modified Project would modify the site layout and design details of the Approved Project and no environmental conditions related to biological resources or cultural resources would be affected by the change. The level of significance (fess than significant) remains unchanged from that cited in the Adopted MND. 530 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) No Impact. As discussed in the respective issue areas of this addendum, as with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would not have cumulatively considerable environmental impacts. Any potentially significant impact would be mitigated to a level of less than significant. As stated in the Adopted MND, the Modified Project would have no cumulatively considerable environmental impacts. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Impact. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would result in a net reduction in the number of units to be developed in an urbanized area where supporting infrastructure currently exists. All of the impacts generated by the Modified Project would be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation measures of the Approved Project incorporated. Cumulative impacts of the Modified Project would not be greater than those determined by the Adopted MND for the Approved Project and the level of significance (less than significant) remains unchanged from that cited in the Adopted MND. 531 6. List of Preparers PlaceWorks Elizabeth Kim, Associate Nicole Vermillion, Associate Principal Fernando Sotelo, Senior Planner, Noise & Air Quality Cary Nakama, Graphic Specialist City of Newport Beach Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner 532 This page int.-ntronally le ft blank. 533 7. References Abbott & I{indermann Land Use Law Blog. 2013, May 30 (posted). http: / /blog.aldandlaw.com/2013/05/articles /cega/eir-for-desalination-plant-upheld/ Bies and Hansen. 1988. Engineering Noire Control. Bolt, Beranek and Newman. 1971 December 31. Noire from Construction Equpment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, prepared for the USEPA. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2008, October. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan, a Framework for Change. 2012, April. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2009 — by Category as Defined by the Scoping Plan. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/inventory.htm City of Newport Beach. City Council Policy G-1. Retention or Removal of City Trees. 2006, November 7 (approved). General Plan. http://wwwnewportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?page=173 Environmental Monitoring Group (EMG). 2007, March 28. Report forAsbestos Containing Materials (ACM). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC). 2001. 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001. Mckenna et al. 2007, December 17. RE: Seashore Village, Orange County, California, Archaeological Records Check. Shaw Environmental, Inc. 2008, January 4. Phase I, Environmental Site Assessment. The Planning Center. 2008, February. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study for Seashore Village. Toss Schooler & Associates, Inc. 2007, May 3. W/aterQuality Management Plan (WQMP). United States Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006, May. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. .2014. Newport Beach Municipal Code. http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/NewportBeach/ . 2009, July 14 (City Council Approval). Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan. Marcb 2014 Page 105 534 Tbic page intentionally left blank. 535 Mcvy) 00- IH JUNE ie�tZ(M CITY OF NEWPORT BEACI- I UM APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE PLANhfwdbd�N11 5�C3i�l 3 -i5< 5i42ai Application No. Qro Cmc F IT %120 t —rn` i ` I r Name of Appellant _ or person filing: iN \I C �C(n�� Ia2 C7 Phon�Gj �� L13-3 18Z 7 Address: ti�%� �ll�Y Tv �4�t;. aeP� —f ��s t} C'_i%t- ci 2 -Go(. -j Date of Planning Commission decision: M 1<+ L , 20I'i'i Regarding application of: of C�el'�TltCrti� i5 ttmJl au '1 l5 C nojffuw Reasons for Appeal for filed with Planning Commission) ci�--�ey�duw ...-�• -r , �r� t(l c'l!' - !�. _ . :.n. ,t.�,� rSn :.. _ n . ... �s I' n n(1 C1r0. nc'e 4P li ,`iec'i'U n t"i9c c0y\V6-Cv�wvic-e ,I -,��' � I c� >�� (�PP�S �-mac_`-7`� �.'�' . �(.0las C►�+�Pf2/�yyf�i r7 rl .07 � , 5 U�S7w� � gat, csnr ✓wv�n,cE �f���-�'�i A-(�o;�t-t sn (�-� Signaturf Appellant e o CITY CLERK FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date Appeal filed and Administrative Fee received: cc: Appellant Planning (furnish one set of mailing labels for mailing) File 5 m Date e�EVV�Rr u P 20. APPEALS: Municipal Code Sec. 20.64.030 Appeal Fee: $4,289.00 pursuant to Resolution No. 2013-72 adopted on 10-22-13. (Deposit funds with Cashier in Account #2700-5000) ��-� - t�- APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 4-3-2014 Submitted by Lennie DeCaro I ask that all documents regarding the different projects Seashore Village & Echo Beach be lodged for the administrative record. Different Project entirely and City did not comply with CEQA Echo Beach is a new project that is being proposed on the same site where a similar project, (Seashore Village) was approved through an MND with a resolution that contained mitigations and 65 conditions in 2008. "Echo beach" is trying to get a determination of "substantial conformance" through an addendum to a previous MND for Seashore Village (a different project) in order to obtain the entitlements that were obtained by previous owners related to the Seashore Village project. In addition, the Coastal Commission Permit recently granted an extension based on the original Seashore Village project plans. I spoke to the Coastal Commission and the analyst stated they will require review to determine that when the applicant submits their new plans, that they will then determine if applicant (Echo Beach) will be required to submit a brand new application. The Coastal Permit has special conditions relating to the plans from the original project "Seashore Village" and to date, have not been notified of the Echo Beach Project. Case law also supports the contention that an addendum can't be used for a mitigated negative declaration if it isn't the same project (Save our Neighborhood v. Lishman). Deferral to original Review Authority (Planning Commission) is improper. Therefore the P.0 decision (4-3-2014) is invalid as to their acceptance of "substantial conformance by addendum" (20.54.070 MC) Development or a new use authorized through a permit granted in compliance with the zoning code shall be established only as approved by the review authority and in compliance with any conditions of approval, except where a change to the project is approved in compliance with this section. A. Application. An applicant shall request a proposed change in writing, and shall also furnish appropriate supporting information and "materials" explaining the reasons for the request. B. Minor changes approved by the Director without a public hearing. #1. The (Community Development) Director may authorize minor changes to approved site plan, architecture, or the nature of approved use without a public hearing where the Director first finds the changes: a) Are consistent w/ all applicable provisions of this zoning code 1 b) Do not involve a feature of the project that was a basis for or subject of findings or exemptions in a negative declaration or EIR for the project C) Do not involve a feature of the project that was specifically addressed or was the subject of a condition(s) of approval for the project or that was a specific consideration by the applicable review authority in the project approval; and d) Do not result in an expansion or change in operational characteristics of the use. #2 The Director may choose to refer any requested change to the original review authority for review and final action. C. Changes approved by Original Review Authority. A proposed change that does not comply with the criteria identified is subsection (B) of this section (Minor Changes approved by the Director without a Public Hearing) may only be approved by the original review authority for the project through a new permit application filed and processed in compliance with Chapter 20.50 (Permit Application Filing and Processing) and the applicable provisions of Chapter 20.52 (Permit Review Procedures). (Ord 2010-21 & 1 (Exh.A)(part), 2010) This is an extremely important requirement of this section and illustrates the mistake that was made by referring the new Echo Beach project to the Planning Commission through the addendum process under "substantial conformance review" citing 20.54.070MC as the authority. The Director did not authorize minor changes without a public hearing, but instead (not in addition to) referred the determination as to whether the proposed changes are "minor revisions" to the original review authority (Planning Commission) for review and final action. It is an improper step and misinterpretation of the code as written. The option of "referral" is given only afterthe Director has determined the "changes are minor and approved without a public hearing". As an example, this additional option of referral could be useful in situations where the Director may be asked to approve a "minor change" to a building material, such as changing out the fagade from limestone to stucco for instance. It would be a minor change with no significant impacts and as long as there wasn't a specific condition for limestone on their permit, it would make sense to give the Planning Commission the opportunity to give the final authority on the minor change. In fact, review of building materials is often done on projects before the Planning Commission. At the recent hearing, one planning commissioner asked to see what the materials would look like and asked for a sample board. After he began looking at the board, he was quickly cautioned by the asst. city attorney not to ask for or to review the materials that would be used on the new project's changed architecture, because that wasn't before the commission - 2 It should be noted that just prior to the attorney weighing in, I believe a planning consultant stated that their firm would not use an "addendum" for substantial conformance if there were any mitigations to the new project. The attorney's cautionary warning that they can't add a condition of approval resulted in the commission not really asking for anything further that might entail imposing conditions, hence the appearance of trying to protect the "substantial conformance" determination. As it stands, it would appear that this improper use of this process would allow an applicant with a completely different project to have virtually no substantial review for any needed changes by simply being able to get a ruling of "substantial conformance" no matter how different the project was. "Substantial Conformance" determination can provide an easy pass on the entitlement process and should be allowed when appropriate and on the same project, but it is certainly not appropriate in this case. The Echo Beach developers chose to throw out the Seashore Village plans when they purchased the 25 million dollar apartment site in September of 2013 and pursue a completely different modern architectural style. They also significantly changed the site, added 6 buildings, and removed the duplex units entirely, which also changed the operational characteristics of use by removing potential rental stock. Duplexes are often used for rentals and would impact the ability of more moderate -income earners in Newport to find reasonable rental accommodations. Removal of duplex units is inconsistent with the stated goals of General Plan LU2.3 (Range of Residential choices) The new project, "Echo Beach, also can't possibly comply with all of the conditions as they were specific to the Seashore Village project. The developers still have the right to develop the property, but they don't have the right to use these entitlements on their new project, as it is definitely a different project altogether. The importance of the developer obtaining "substantial conformance review" is also an essential step in keeping the Coastal Commission Permit, which was originally assigned from Seashore Village Project (Todd Schooler) to Dacor Estates who sold the property to the developer's of the Echo Beach project. However, as it stands, the Coastal Commission has not received the changed plans and based on a conversation I had with them, the changes I described would require either at a minimum, an amendment or (more likely) a new permit application altogether. The new owners/developers of Echo Beach, have chosen not to honor the mitigation of damages agreement from the 2008 settlement that had a clause for successor/assigns and was specific to the Seashore Village development. Although not recorded, if the new owners are claiming to have the approvals/entitlements specific to Seashore Village, then they would also be 3 bound by this contract as successors as they are trying to derive benefit from the prior project settlement. This settlement agreement was known to the City as well and was dismissed without prejudice. Again, as to the referral for P.C. determination, it cannot be construed as giving the Planning Commission the authority to determine if the change is minor. The deferral is used just to get their input on a minor detail and let them have the final word as to what they would like to approve. In other words, the deferral is an optional step that can be utilized, but only if the director approves a "minor change without a hearing" and the change meets the (a -d) appropriate criteria. If the Director refers the changes to the Original review authority for review and final action but has not complied with subsection (B) regarding findings of minor changes without a public hearing, then the changes are not considered minor and may only be approved by the original review authority for the project through a NEW PERMIT APPLICATION FILED AND PROCESSED IN COMPLIANCE with Chapter 20.50. This misinterpretation of the municipal code for the application of substantial conformance review was actually noted by Mr. Mosher, a speaker at the hearing who questioned just what was going on by asking if this was "some hokie way" of putting something through, or words to that affect. Mr. Jim Mosher pointed out the fact that the City is not following code in trying to get this approved. He pointed out that what they were doing would need to be done through a new permit application and referenced a similar project that had the PC reviewing very carefully in specific detail the building materials, style etc. and that they (the P.C.) would have been concerned if the Lido Villas project had changed things like removing the duplex style and the materials were totally different. The assistant attorney (who also cautioned that they can't add a condition of approval) answered and stated that they consulted with the planning department and they were comfortable with this review, or words to that effect. A copy of the transcript will be made available at the appeal hearing. I think that aside from the improper application of the code is the fact that a city attorney was involved with the planning department on this issue. Is this normal protocol to have an attorney need to be consulted with to see if what they were attempting to do was legal? Is it also common, to allow the planning consultants, (paid for by the developer), to give their opinions at length without rebuttal? Is it common for the planner to state that the road is classified as an "internal driveway" when it is clear that the tentative tract map from the prior project calls it a private road on more than one document and the new project calls it Neptune Avenue? The following statement lends even more credence to the observation that there is a misapplication of the use of an addendum for substantial conformance review (SCR page 10) "Given the significant visual modifications proposed in M this case, the Community Development Director is referring the determination as to whether the proposed changes are minor to the Planning Commission for review and final action." Additionally, the first condition (#1) in Exhibit B of the 2008 resolution confirms that it is "project specific" to the plans submitted by Todd Schooler, the architect and subdivider. It states: "The development shall be in substantial conformance with the plans stamped with the date of this approval, except as modified by other conditions." Substantial Conformance can't be found. Project has conditions (Exhibit B" of Resolution) and is a different project. Condition #1: 1 was told by Mr. Murillo that they don't have the stamped Seashore Village plans, yet the condition is that they must have these plans and development shall be in substantial conformance with the plans stamped with the date of this approval, except as modified by other conditions. o Conditions are related to specific side yard setbacks to adjacent neighbors (East side of property). o Seashore Village (SV) Height conditions were reduced for 2 buildings adjacent to them, yet Echo Beach (EB), using the term "enhanced elevations" are increasing height limits beyond the max. midpoint adjacent to the 2 residents. o Specific architectural style, (Craftsman and Plantation) were required as a condition. EB changed all architecture and site design to Modern. o Cite different municipalities that would not allow this determination based on the conditions, etc. o Echo beach project removed the buffer area between different zoning areas that provided for ADA path directly continuing from the ADA crosswalk o Entire site plan has been changed Incorrect "Project Summary" (p. 5 of 27 dated Mar 25, 2014) that disguised the fact that there are potential significant environmental impacts that exist with this new project. o Zoning comparison is faulty: Seashore Village (S.V.) front setback on Seashore plans was 10-13'/ Echo Beach is 10' (23% add'I reduction in setbacks). This would require a new modification permit. Any modifications would disallow the project to be considered for an addendum for "substantial conformance" (per consultant). (S.V)River Ave front setback was 10-15'/Echo is 10'. This is up to a 33% addT reduction in the setbacks, requiring a new modification permit. East side setbacks were specific as listed in the conditions, to be 4' adjacent to Seashore duplex and 7'6" 5 but the plans show it as 12' —7'6 adjacent to Neptune duplex. New modification permit would be required. Project omits the fact that the previous project only had 18 buildings, which included 6 duplexes. The duplexes have been removed and 6 additional buildings have been added, bring total buildings to 24 buildings. Not consistent with requirements of CEQA. o It is a different project so the MND can't be used. Any time there are conditions or modifications to a mitigated negative declaration, an addendum for substantial conformance is inappropriate. A new EIR is required. o It is inappropriate to use "substantial conformance" & addendum for a different project that was previously approved with MND o A new public view point since original MND. It has a direct line of sight, less than 700' and new height of buildings is more than 1'6" o Public access reduced: This negatively impacted public access as the approved ADA walkway was removed and replaced in a remote area that doesn't serve the public well (very end of entire street) o Pathways (internal) give the appearance that they are for private use which is prohibited by a condition of the Coastal Permit o Safety impacts of substandard street width without engineering plans or study of circulation & ADA access when the existing sidewalk on Neptune Ave would abruptly terminate at the extension. o Permit required (13.06.01 MC) no person shall construct, a roadway or driveway providing access to any public street, without first obtaining a permit from Public Works director; 0 13.01 Street Construction Permits 13.01.010A., G. 13.01.20, 13.01.030 E. detailed description of the size and nature of the development to be served by the proposed connection to City streets and projected traffic will be generated. This hasn't been addressed in any of the documents. 0 13.01.40 A.,C.E.. Particularly of note: "..or property adjacent to the roadways, will not be adversely affected. o Right to appeal. As there has been no permit, no one can appeal, in violation of 13.01.080, as there is conflicting information as to applicant referring to the street as a driveway, in contradiction to the plans. o Sidewalks are required if they go directly to a Park. Opening up Neptune Ave would provide a direct path to the Park and would require full sidewalk. F1 Neptune Ave. extension This extension was never adequately studied for "safety or circulation" impacts or consistency with general plan/municipal code/Coastal Permit requirement. It is also in violation of the general plan It is important to note that the previous MND did not study the safety aspects (for pedestrians/bicyclists) of opening up this street shown as Neptune Ave. Planning staff publicly referred to this as just a "driveway". However, this is in direct contradiction to the project plans submitted by "Echo Beach" which show the road to be "NEPTUNE AVENUE". The development standards show it is only 26' wide and misleadingly labeled on the comparison chart as "drive aisle width". or further mislead by ignoring what it really is, (a street) and strategically stating in the summary (auto connectivity) it is'a "thru connection" or the zoning code where they refer to it simply as "drive aisle". Plan summary also shows the Neptune Avenue extension, (listed as drive aisle) to be 26' wide (a substandard street) Right of way requirements are not met and a standard street requires a minimum of 32'. Their street extension would be without the continuation of the existing sidewalks. Safety impacts result from the extension of Neptune Ave and is a CEQA issue. The sidewalk stops abruptly at the terminus/extension of Neptune Ave. No crosswalk or safety considerations for public crossing through the project in the middle of the street extension. No study was ever done on the extension of Neptune Ave. There are no engineering plans associated with this crucial unstudied street extension. Further, the summary misleads by stating under the heading "Walkway connectivity", "the walkway from Neptune Avenue thru to Seashore is maintained." This statement fails to admit that the rest of Neptune heading north is terminated and is contradictory to requirements of the general plan and municipal code as well. Municipal Code 19.04.09 defines: "driveway" means a designated passageway providing "vehicular" access between a street and a garage or carport, a designated parking area or other driveway or street. A driveway shall not be considered a street. (Note: Same meaning as in the Zoning Code.)" Because the definition singled out specifically "vehicular" instead of just stating access, it is assumed that a driveway is not to be used for pedestrian or bicycle access. This is a dilemma for the developer which may explain why the tentative tract map, zone change study plan and prelim grading plan for Seashore Village labeled the extension of Neptune Ave as a "private road" and the "Echo Beach" project plans specifically call this out as Neptune Ave. The important documents showing this a substandard street without the public accessibility with a continued sidewalk have never been adequately studied as required by CEQA. General Plan Violations and land use and planning incompatibilities This is not a complete list; other issues have been documented in prior comments. (Add'I violations: 3.1.5-2 private road, 5.61, 5.62., 6.2.3 policies in 7 Circulation element specifically important is CE5.1.3 requiring pedestrian improvements to include safe sidewalk, walkways and bike lanes in accordance with the Master Plan. & CE5.1.16 that provides for the safety of bicyclist and pedestrians through provision of adequate facilities including extra sidewalk width where feasible. LU1.1 Unique environment "Maintain and enhance the beneficial and unique character of the different neighborhoods..." Original "Seashore Village" (as compared to the Echo Beach plan) attempted to fit in with the existing neighborhood by having homes that were similar in layout with 30 foot lot sizes, mix of duplexes (6) and SFR (12), required conditions to modulate the differences in height through a gradual transition requiring the 2 duplexes adjacent to existing properties to be lowered. Echo Beach increased number of buildings from 18 to 24 (33% increase), removed all of the duplexes, decreased lot sizes to 20' and is increasing the heights of the buildings adjacent to the east existing properties. Seashore Village also tried to maintain the existing character through similar architectural style, conditioned through resolution to be either Plantation or Craftsman style, roof hip design and setbacks specific to the two buildings that would be built directly adjacent to existing duplexes on east side. These specific conditions were in an effort to help reduce the abrupt differences in mass, ht, and densities and would have less of an environmental impact on aesthetics, light and shadows. These conditions provided as part of the 2008 Resolution were part of the approval process that the City demanded in order to give more light and air to the 2 adjacent properties and all of the conditions were done in attempt to mitigate the impacts and to blend in with the character of the neighborhood. This is not the case for Echo Beach. Echo Beach is using "enhanced" (raised) elevations right next to the properties that conditions required lowered height elevations. Echo Beach also removed the pathway that would have provided a transition from the different property types through a landscaped area that would have been from 12'6" at the northerly portion down to 7'6" for the Neptune property and continuing down to the 4' side setback at Seashore adjacent property. Both existing adjacent properties are duplexes and yet the duplexes that were in Seashore Village plans have been omitted. The setbacks are very inconsistent with the neighborhood character because some of their proposed condos are situated in clusters facing each other, which don't exist in that type of configuration anywhere in the area. LU 1.6 Public Views Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include ocean views from public vantage points. Sunset ridge Park is a new public view point that if studied, might have a potential negative aesthetic impact as it is in direct line of sight and less than 700 feet away from new project. N LU 2.3 Range of Residential Choices Echo Beach's new project removed the 6 duplex units, removing potential rental properties for more moderate -income residents. LU3, LU3.1, LU 3.2 Echo Beach is not consistent with maintaining the pattern of the residential neighborhood they are looking to develop in. Echo Beach is not complementary in type, form, scale or character and this drastic of a change will have considerable aesthetic visual impacts and the change in density and heights may have potential impacts of reduced air circulation, and reduced light (shadows) as well as increased evening lighting that may come from lighted pathways, light fixtures path lights, etc. This area of West Newport is not economically underperforming and a development that is so out of character cannot be considered without considerable negative impacts. LU5.1.2 Compatible Interfaces This requires that the height of development in higher density residential areas transition as it nears lower density residential areas to minimize conflicts at the interface. The roof design, setbacks, specific architecture and height reductions are not part of the new Echo Beach project. Two units that will be nearly 33 foot high will be right next to the 19 foot high duplex that has generous internal setbacks (20' front setback) as compared to the Echo Beach project. LU5.1.5 Character and quality of single-family dwellings Requires that residential units be designed to high-level architectural design quality with articulation and modulation of building masses and elevations to avoid the appearance of "box like" buildings. The new architecture is modern contemporary with straight lines and little to no articulation except for the extensions of the decks. Aesthetics and Visual Resources The new project completely changed the architectural design, entire layout, added 6 buildings, reversed floor plan so they no longer uniformly face Seashore or River, added height (or as they referred to it as "enhanced elevations") specifically next to the adjacent properties. The 2008 Resolution (p.2 actually reduced the height on these two units and conditioned them further with specific design features requiring Craftsman or Plantation style (2008 res p.2) (Condition 7 & 2008 MND page11 or p. 39. Echo beach plans include "Neptune Avenue" going through the project but has only 26 -foot wide easement. This would be a substandard street. Private streets (19.24.010A3MC) shall be designed and constructed to the same standards as public streets and subdivider shall provide for permanent maintenance of all private streets (52'ROW/32' curb to curb). Private streets may be approved at the 9 discretion of the tentative map decision-making body. The tentative map that has been approved, shows "private road" 5. Not consistent with Zoning, General Plan, Coastal Permit, or CLUP o Project Summary shows "off street parking" for Echo Beach as 62 spaces. This is incorrect as Echo Beach removed the carports and replaced them with only 2 -car garages per unit, giving a total of 48 'off street" parking spaces. This project is 12 spaces short for "off street" parking and inconsistent with zoning requirements. Further, all of the parking spaces on the road, "Neptune Ave have been mandated by condition in the Coastal Commission Permit to be used by the public, basically without restriction, effectively making the parking spots "on street". Rear yard setbacks are missing and are incompatible with existing zoning. Rear setbacks are typically 10'. Buildings 23 & 24 that replaced 1 duplex are only 6 feet apart instead of the required 20' total as they are backyard to backyard, Unit 24 entry is facing Neptune (front) and Unit 23 entry is off of River (their front), therefore, the back of building is adjacent to the back of the other building and the setback would require a modification permit. Seashore Village never provided a safety, circulation impact study into the roadway Neptune ave that would be extended through their property. Coastal Commission hasn't received or been notified of the new project plans. New plans would likely require a new permit. Five special conditions have been imposed on the Coastal Permit: #2 imposes that all streets, roads, and parking areas shall be open for use by the general public 24 hours per day for parking, vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access, ...(except for street sweeping) ... No landscaping mimicking any type of entry control, etc. and... "restrictions on use by the general public associated with any streets or parking area shall be prohibited." The design of the pathways and parking spots appear to be mimicking the appearance of private use parking spots and entry paths. Entry path (p 26) shows gate to the entry path from Neptune to Seashore. #3. Must conform to the 2007 WQMP showing roof drainage..."Any proposed changes to the approved plan shall be reported to the Executive Director"..."No changes to the approved plan shall occur without a Commission amendment to this coastal development permit unless the Exec director determines no amendment is required". #4. Landscape plans. Again, any changes shall be reported and no changes to the approved plans without a commission amendment or director determines otherwise. #5 Future development. "This permit is only for the development described in Coastal Development Permit No. 5-08-54" 10 Request Planning Commission denial of Echo Beach's request for approval of "substantial conformance" and denial of adoption of the Addendum to the prior Seashore Village MND CEQA guidelines, Section 15164(b) states that an addendum to a previously adopted Negative Declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary. Clearly this is not the case as this "project" basically threw out the entire Seashore Village development plans and started over. At the same time, the new development, (Echo Beach) would like to gain the advantage of using the results from the MND that was site specific to the "Seashore Village" development. One need look no further than City Council Resolution # 2008-53 to understand that the Echo Beach project can not simply piggy back on the 2008 approvals, as the Echo Beach project is incompatible with the many specific conditions relating to the previous design. The City Resolution #2008-53, (attachments provided) and the original documents for the Seashore Village MND (having 65 specific conditions) and the Coastal Development permit all have additional conditions that require specific conformance relating to the original Seashore Village plans. These conditions regarding site, architecture, setbacks, number and type of buildings, circulation etc., are specific to the details in the Seashore Village plans. "Echo Beach" has come up with an entirely different project but is trying to use the results or entitlements of another architect's work. The substantial changes to the plans will require major revisions of the previous MND due to involvement of new potentially significant environmental impacts or increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Noise: (interior db levels exceeding allowable level in general plan) which would require AC units, but this has not been studied in the previous MND and is not addressed in this addendum. Would A/C units solve the interior DB level problems but then create exterior DB levels that would impact other buildings? The location would have direct noise impacts from proximity to Pacific Coast Hwy when going up to the 3`d story and the new project is increasing the height even further than the prior MND. Of note, is that there is no discussion as to AC units, location to other properties etc.. Further, the new design has completely different site placement, design and number of windows and can't be compared at all as the prior site plan and building structures are completely different. There is also non-conformance with general plan design guidelines and current zoning, view impacts, traffic circulation and parking impacts are just of few of the impacts that were either not studied or have an increase in the negative impacts. Increased severity of previously identified impacts are the light and air circulation impacts from increasing the height and bulk of the buildings even further from the original plans. In addition, the proposed structures are no longer consistent with general plan setbacks and neighborhood's typical 30 wide lots that are the typical layout throughout the entire West Newport Area. Front yard setback on Neptune property next to the new development is 20'. New development appears to have 5- foot setback on property adjacent to existing property that faces Neptune. This development is so atypical in layout, that it is hard to figure out if it is the side, front or back of the unit and how any of the internal setbacks apply. The Echo Beach's Modern Contemporary design is radically different from Seashore Village plans as it has larger box /barrack type of structures, has increased the number of buildings from 18 to 24, eliminated the duplexes altogether, and completely changed the site plan to have small enclaves or groupings of 3 buildings that all share a driveway and face each other. This does not fit in with the well-established neighborhoods in West Newport and is drastically different than the Seashore Village plan that at least attempted to conform to the existing neighborhood. The approved setbacks approved on the Seashore Village plan had Neptune building immediately adjacent to existing building with a 12'6" setback and had a landscaping buffer adjacent to property line to have a more gradual transition to the new development. Next to the buffer was a public walkway for coastal access. Echo beach has replaced the Coastal access paths (changes not reported to the Coastal Commission) with two buildings that have the backs of both buildings abutting the adjacent neighbor. Instead of the protective conditions required of Seashore Village that actually lowered their building heights when adjacent to existing residents and maintained neighborhood side-by-side consistency, Echo Beach would be increasing negative impacts by increasing building height on their properties adjacent to existing homes. This would require a new modification. This height increase is referred to on Echo Beach plans as "enhanced". "Enhanced" is simply a marketing term that is used when you don't want to bring attention to the fact that it means "taller". This is an increased negative impact to surrounding properties and is inconsistent with current neighborhood layout. The Echo Beach site plan is completely inconsistent with the surrounding area. The height of the buildings will dwarf the structures adjacent to them. Neptune property height is 19' and Echo Beach is proposing the structures to be even taller than previous modification allowed which would be nearly double the height of the adjacent properties, dwarfing them, causing shadows, reduced air circulation and is inconsistent with fitting in with the neighborhood. The Echo Beach design intensifies the negative impacts that modifications to the Seashore Village design had tried to improve through a gradual increase in height, articulation and architectural relief that gave the buildings a more conforming style to surrounding neighbors. Seashore Village design had more light and air circulation next to their immediate neighbors and was more in line with the general plan which tries to limit negative impact to surrounding properties. Further Seashore Village also designed the site layout with typical lot dimensions, unlike the "every which way" design the Echo Beach project encompasses. By having the development further reducing the side setbacks, increasing height and extending Neptune Ave, no study has been given to the negative effect of the properties that derive their income from rentals as the prolonged construction will negatively affect the entire neighborhood and property values. 2 The use permit was specific to allow the 6 duplex units to exceed the City's base height limit for the Seashore Development. Echo Beach is removing the duplex units entirely and instead replacing the 6 duplexes with 12 single family residences. This can't be considered the same project and a new EIR is required of Echo Beach. The development is not consistent with existing zoning. Their lot is zoned RM 51 dwelling units. It is not zoned RM -D which would allow for "detached" multi unit residential. The zoning rightfully kept this lot as an area that could provide for the community as a hotel or apartment building, not detached units. A dwelling "unit" is substantially different than a building. Their will likely be an increase in traffic based on the number of bedrooms nearly doubling the existing apartment building. Effects of parking and traffic haven't been studied. Project proponents refused to consider using the 2 existing openings to River Avenue to provide ingress/egress to their properties. Instead there is nothing that was ever stated as to why the site plan was the way it was other than for financial reasons. There was never a pro forma submitted, nor does it even matter if the reasons to not consider mitigating the damages to the neighboring properties would mean that investors might not make as much money as they would by packing in a few more buildings. This is an extremely important impact that has never been addressed and could have potential to considerably reduce neighborhood impacts for the surrounding existing homes. The effect of the MND referring to Neptune Avenue originally as an alley, then a fire lane to now being Neptune Avenue has been deferred in how the City will treat this and why other access streets weren't studied or considered. Do we know if Neptune Avenue is considered partially a private street, is it an alley, is there an irrevocable dedication to the City to allow this extension, regardless of the harm to the existing Neptune residents? City general plan imp 16.6 states: "City shall undertake studies of residential neighborhoods on a case by case basis to identify local circulation patterns and principal access points in order to assess the opportunities and needs to restrict, divert, or mitigate arterial traffic intrusion. Such studies should include an assessment of the traffic impacts on the entire neighborhood and participation of neighborhood residents to prepare a consensus plan of neighborhood traffic control. City shall maintain standards that ensure safe and efficient access for emergency vehicles to residential areas." Currently Seashore properties need to park in back of their garages, but will they be able to continue to do this with the new development? Will the City require the road curb be painted red as a fire lane to help the flow, to the detriment of existing residents? Will there be parking in the extension on Neptune Avenue in the pavement areas that have clear spaces for parking? There has been no adequate study that addressed this in the previous MND and this could have substantial negative impacts. Are they calculating this road as their open space? Has the City considered the negative impacts to the surrounding community by extending Neptune Ave? In 1961,ordinance 760 gave the City an offer to dedicate and Neptune became an avenue that ended at the site property line. Neptune Avenue was never planned to go through, but to terminate where it is right now. It never went through their site as an access road, yet an access road did exist at one time from 3 River to Seashore (as evidenced by the curb cuts). Implementation plan 23.5 addresses requirements for residential developers. Are any parks, dedication or improvements required of this new development? Coastal plans also discourage the "taking" of public facilities. In this case, the site plan appears that the public park is actually part of the new development. Are adequate setbacks maintained so this isn't the case? This addendum situation appears to be used as a pretend "revision" to get the benefits/entitlements of an already approved project and a way around public participation regarding the new project. It is somewhat analogous to a new owner purchasing a lot and trying to use the prior building permit from an unbuilt approved project, and expecting that they could then hire a new architect, design a completely different building with a new site layout, completely different style, height, square footage etc., and expect that the building department or even a HOA would allow this as a "revised" plan. The building department wouldn't allow someone to submit architectural plans for a "Craftsman style" home on a lot, then have new owners bring the permit and expect to somehow have it apply to their new project where their new architect designed a "Modern Contemporary" home. This is akin to what is going on with the Echo Beach project and is in itself enough to determine it is a different project. However, it is even more obvious that it is not a revised project when the new plans have a different layout that negatively affects adjoining properties with increased height, is inconsistent with the entire surrounding community layout as well as the General plan's building designs. An architectural committee or bldg dept would look at the changed style height, density, and architect and require they resubmit their plans as a new project. Additionally, an addendum in this case violates CEQA as I have identified potential environmental impacts caused by the so-called "revised" project and a new EIR for the Echo Beach project is absolutely required. The City Council Resolution #2008-53 adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved the tentative tract map, modification permit, use permit and coastal residential permit. Attached to the Resolution and made a part thereof was Exhibit B containing many specific conditions. The City Council resolution acts in part as a development agreement, (Chp 15.45NBMC) where it can include conditions, phasing of construction, max. ht, size of proposed bldgs, etc.. These conditions are specifically spelled out and apply only to Seashore Village project (arch/Todd Schooler). The Resolution is the City's agreement to make sure that the building entitlements come with oversight and specific requirements and mitigations in order memorialize the extent of the negative impact the development can inflict on their resident's. The Seashore Village already had litigation and a settlement that the City is well aware of and the new owners have not upheld the settlement. Resolution/agreement and the Seashore Village approved MND cannot be applied in any manner whatsoever to the Echo Beach project. If these conditions and resolution can't apply to the Echo Beach project, as the design requirements are different, 4 it would then invalidate the MND and Resolution as neither can be separated from the conditions. It would be a serious error to consider a finding of "substantial conformance" when it is obvious that using entitlements specific to the Seashore Village Plan can certainly not be considered a minor change, nor a necessity, but it would also be a fiduciary mistake on the part of our Planning Commission to consider using this "addendum" process. The "addendum" avoids the 30 -day recirculation and comment period and its use in this case is clearly incompatible with CEQA guidelines. This project is pursuing major technical changes, modifications, and/or additions to this project that are so substantial that it bears little aesthetic relation to the original Seashore Village plan. Additional evidence of a major change (necessitating an EIR) is that the original resolution allowed for the development of 12 detached single unit residences and 6 detached (duplex) residential structures for a total of 18 structures. The Echo Beach development is asking for 24 detached structures and the removal of the duplex units. City Resolution is specific to the Seashore Village development as the Resolution states: "...Whereas, the proposed subdivision..." and further requires (pg 2 of 24) that: "...Each unit will feature either a "Craftsman" or "Plantation" architectural style. Architectural details and enhancements (i. e. batt and board wood siding, louvered window shutters, decorative trim, and stone veneer) will be provided on all building elevations. The 2nd floor facades are setback from the 1st floor on the rear elevations and cantilevered over the Is'floor on the front elevations, providing articulation and modulation to the building mass. The 3" floor of each building is setbackfr-om the front and rear elevations, towards the interior portion of each building envelope to reduce the visual mass of the structures as view from the streets and... " The resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration & approving tentative tract map no 2007-001, modification permit no 2007-044, use permit no 2007-011 and coastal residential development permit no. 2007-001 was site specific to the Seashore Village plans. The Use permit is invalid as it was specific to allowing each of the 6 duplex structures to exceed the City's base height limit. There are no duplexes in the Echo Beach plans and they are seeking to remove them while at the same time trying to get a determination that their plans are within substantial conformance with the 2008 approvals. The modification permits allowing encroachment into the required front and side yard setback areas are specific to the Seashore Village plans. Current zoning for site is RM 5l dwelling units. It is important to note that the proposed Echo Beach plan is not consistent with the existing updated zoning, as it would have had to be zoned RM -D, allowing for detached structures. Instead, the existing zoning supports the existing use as an apartment building. New information that wasn't known at the time was there would be two public view point areas within 700 feet (Sunset Ridge Park in construction & Banning Ranch proposed public view area) of the site and may impact public views. Resolution was also adopted prior to the Sunset Ridge Park being built and the location of approximately 700 feet from subject "Project "was not considered in the Coastal Commission Permit that was submitted in 2008, nor was it considered in the Mitigated negative declaration. This park has a protected public viewpoint that may be a significant finding that may have an adverse impact that wasn't studied in the original NMD. According to the Sunset Ridge Park final EIR (Sec 4.2 aesthetics) it states: "The Natural Resources Element of the General Plan, Figure NR3, identifies that the Project site includes a designated public view point. As depicted on Exhibit 4.2-1, the site also contains a 197,720 -square -foot (s) scenic easement imposed by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as a term of the sale of the property to the City.... " An appellate court case finding that the use of an addendum was improper is found in Save Our Neighborhood v. Lishman (2006) 140 Cal. App.4`h 1288, 45 Cal Rptr.3d 306 the court held that "the two projects are unrelated, except that they both include hotels and are located on the same land" [140Cal.App4th at 1297]. The addendum submitted on the same property, 7 years later with different applicants both contained a hotel of slightly different size 1021106; but both had gas station with convenience stores, carwash and entrance roads. The court noted "similar mixes of uses", but that different developers were involved and there was no evidence the "latter project utilized any of the drawings or other materials connected with the earlier project as a basis for the new configuration of uses." Similar to this situation with the Echo beach addendum, the court case described a comparative side by side assessment of the features of the two projects was also done by the City with CEQA conclusions and the analysis was characterized as "self serving". I ask you to deny claim of "substantial conformance" and decry adoption of the "addendum". Len DeCaro comment letter 4-3-2014 10 RECEIVED BY: MARIA TODAY'S DATE: 04/17/14 27005000 ZONING & SUBDIVISION FEES CHECK $4,289.00 REF NUM: 2160 me) mm"A WLIJ 0 wa1:�Hr;�ZR�i4YK:f/ZG PAYOR: DECARO, L/CITY CLER REGISTER DATE: 04/17/14 TIME: 1421 $4,289.00 ------------------- TOTAL DUE: $4,289.00 $4,289.00 $.00 R. DECARO L. DECARO 30987 STEEPLECHASE DR SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92678-1930 Pay to the Order of 10 12 20002La?1 0346057`�78!I "02560 2160 16-2411220 4588 0378017778 Date $ glad Dollars8 m... WNls iargoeank Y.a Celifomia w Ilsfa�9osam a ` For For 10 12 20002La?1 0346057`�78!I "02560 2160 16-2411220 4588 0378017778 Date $ glad Dollars8 m... NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, June 10, 2014, at 7:00 p.m., a public hearing will be conducted in the City Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach will consider the following application: Echo Beach Appeal - An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision finding that modified plans for the Echo Beach (formerly Seashore Village) project are in substantial conformance with the project approved by Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007-001 (County Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 17194), Modification Permit No. MD2007-044, Use Permit No. UP2007-011 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2007-001. The Planning Commission approved this request by a vote of 7-0 on April 3, 2014. On June 10, 2008, the City Council approved the development of 24 residential condominium units on a 1.49 -acre site located at 5515 River Avenue. The site is currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex that would be demolished to accommodate the proposed development. Project approvals included the following: • A tentative tract map to create a 24 -unit condominium subdivision; • A modification permit to allow encroachments into the required front and side yard setback areas and a reduction in the required distance between detached buildings; • A use permit to allow each of the 6 duplex structures to exceed the City's base height limit; and • A coastal residential development permit (CRDP) to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65590 (Mello Act), which regulates the demolition of low and moderate income (affordable) dwelling units in the coastal zone. The applicant is revising the project to: 1) reconfigure the site plan and landscape plan; 2) eliminate duplex product type; and 3) change the floor plans and architecture to a contemporary design. The applicant requests the determination that the proposed modifications are within substantial conformance with the 2008 approval. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that all significant environmental concerns for the proposed project have been addressed in a previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2008-021075) and that the City has prepared an addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed project is within the scope of the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration considering the addendum. It is the intent of the City to accept the addendum and supporting documents to the Mitigated Negative Declaration since no new environmental impacts and no impacts of greater severity would result from approval of the proposed project. Copies of the previously prepared Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Division or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.newportbeachca.clov/cegadocuments. All interested parties may appear and present testimony in regard to this application. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City, at, or prior to, the public hearing. The application may be continued to a specific future meeting date, and if such an action occurs additional public notice of the continuance will not be provided. Prior to the public hearing the agenda, staff report, and documents may be reviewed at the City Clerk's Office, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, 92660 or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.newportbeachca.gov. Individuals not able to attend the meeting may contact the Planning Division or access the City's website after the meeting to review the action on this application. For questions regarding this public hearing item please contact Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner, at (949) 644-3209, jmurillo@newportbeachca.gov. Project File No.: PA2014-005 Activity No.: SA2014-001 Zone: RM (Multi -Unit Residential) General Plan: RM (Multiple -Unit Residential) Location: 5515 River Avenue Applicant: LB9 Owners, LLC aEW Po�,T Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk C,4 40RT ` City of Newport Beach easy reei— LaoeIs �� t A O� i.Q9G i e mp a yUse Avery® Template 5160® #'i IV091.90 aaAtfUilAAalq!iAep ,:8/ is loq ' ' 1 424 503 11 424 503 12 424 503 13 Mueller Kathleen Sharp Jody Benson Tr The Schroeder Madeline Tr 320 W Las Tunas Dr 5301 River Ave 1548 Sunnyslope Ave San Gabriel, CA 91776 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Belmont, CA 94002 424 505 01 424 505 02 424 505 03 Trout Joan Tr Sam & Keto Harri Tr Heimstaedt Jeff 1735 Labrador Dr 5404 Seashore Dr 5503 Seashore Dr Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 424 506 01 424 506 02 424 506 03 Mitchell Jacquelyn Jean Graham Donald Trust Khorsandi Mojtaba & Angela 5316 Seashore Dr 5312 Seashore Dr#A 809 W Las Palmas Dr Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Fullerton, CA 92835 424 506 04 424 506 05 424 506 06 Kalinjian Bedros & Nairy Felling Richard Gordon Martell Theresa Tr 1141 Avonoak Ter Po Box 2876 5216 Seashore Dr Glendale, CA 91206 Newport Beach, CA 92659 Newport Beach, CA 92663 424 506 07 939 290 48 939 290 49 Larson Odell Tr Kudenoff & Kroener Family Kudenoff Julia Tr Of 1007 Grove Ln Po Box 2010 Po Box 2010 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Paso Robles, CA 93447 Paso Robles, CA 93447 LB9 Owners LLC West Newport Beach Assn. c/o Rich Knowland Rich Knowland Attn: Craig Batley 1300 Quail Street #100 38 Nighthawk Lane 2901 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92660 Irvine, CA 92604 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Lido Sands Community Assoc. Attn: Nicolai Glazer Owner/Applicant Contact: 5300 River AvenueNewport Beach, CA 92663 LB9 Owners LLC c/o Rich Knowland 1300 Quail Street #100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 LB9 Owners LLC c/o Rich Knowland 1300 Quail Street #100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 ttiqueg Pciespeler Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5160'9 Rich Knowland 38 Nighthawk Lane Irvine, CA 92604 Rich Knowland 38 Nighthawk Lane Irvine, CA 92604 label size 1" x 2 5l8" compatible with Avery �"5160181i k" PA2014-005 for SA2014-001 5515 River Avenue 100 Labels i riette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery'�,` iO/8160 Repliez a fa hachure afin de $ Sens de rev6ler le rebord Po a TM ' j ehargement p' p � www.averycom 1 -800 -GO -AVERY cagy reel— Laudsa Use Avery® Template 51600 09 i 1 t_ I �► �� BeXln pa t, �a�P�++oo 111%, ® F x lg/09l 9c,, luotlk/ ql!,,+ algited oo ;,gig e x,, L azis laga 424 49104 424 491 05 424 491 06 Bequer Benjamin Albin Second Family Ltd Hoffman Peter & Gloria 5405 Seashore Dr 1403 Garfield Ave 5401 Seashore Dr Newport Beach, CA 92663 South Pasadena, CA 91030 Newport Beach, CA 92663 424 492 01 424 492 02 424 492 03 Harris Robert Tr Brown Irene Tr Escalette Geoffrey 500 Newport Center Dr #700 5028 Avenida Del Sol 5307 Seashore Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 Laguna Woods, CA 92637 Newport Beach, CA 92663 424 492 04 424 492 05 424 492 06 Mc Carthy Kevin Tr Lazzarevich Daniel Tr Dolansky Mark Tr 25 Gleneagles Dr 5303 Seashore Dr 5301 Seashore Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 424 493 01 424 493 02 424 495 01 Beach Investments LLC Monroe Vernon Tr City ewport Beach 11612 Plantero Dr 5209 Seashore Dr 3300 Ne ort Blvd Santa Ana, CA 92705 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, 92663 424 495 02 424 501 01 424 50102 City Jew port Beach De Caro Robert Muscatello Frank 3300 Ne rt Blvd 30987 Steeplechase Dr 5403 River Ave Newport Beach, 2663 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Newport Beach, CA 92663 424 50103 424 50104 424 502 01 Carnecchia Scipio City Newport Beach Mc Namara Michael Tr 545 Sea Ln 3300 ort Blvd 3922 Valley Meadow Rd La Jolla, CA 92037 Newport Beach, 92663 Encino, CA 91436 424 502 02 424 502 03 424 502 04 Stanford Richard Jr Tr Golonka Florence Tr Andrews George II Tr Po Box 5573 5315 River Ave 10195 Overhill Dr Fullerton, CA 92838 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Santa Monica, CA 92705 424 502 05 424 502 06 424 502 07 Schneider Calvin III Sharp Jody Benson Tr The Lamm Living Trust 5305 River Ave 5301 River Ave 9 Quebrada Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Irvine, CA 92620 424 502 08 424 502 09 424 502 10 Bottini Mark Lund Claus Hoang Hung Xuan 13467 E Windrose 176 Marona Ave 5306 Neptune Ave Scottsdale, AZ 85259 Belvedere, CA 94920 Newport Beach, CA 92663 424 502 11 424 502 12 424 503 02 Keys Virginia Sherman Lavonne Tr Mladinich Philip Tr 5308 Neptune Ave 912 N Doner Dr Po Box 7754 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Montebello, CA 90640 Laguna Niguel, CA 92607 label size V x 2 5/8" compatl4lo tNith Avery e'5160/81: 0 vette do format 25 mm x 67 mrati mpatible avec Mork 3018160 ALRepliez EtiqueOiespeter ; Sens deA la hachure afin de www avewom Utilisez leabarit AVERY@ 5160® o 9 j hr�vAler le n?bord PC1 -tlP TM t cargement P 1-8orPrci �E —.Y . ee- S t► e�,c�,j 1 t Use Avery® Template 5160® 09 tBf' 1:��a�P�oa 'ituIlyp a 1, :.,; &' A l -. L8,'09 L90 tiaAd g11+n 21g11z oo ,.81 Z x «l @ IS 189 114 222 30 114 222 31 424 471 01 Schmitz Ann Tr Hansberger Matthew & Heather State Of California 5409 Lido Sands Dr 5516 River Ave Po Box 187000 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Sacramento, CA 95818 424 47102 424 47104 424 47105 City ewport Beach City Newport Beach City ewport Beach 3300 Ne ort Blvd 3300 ort Blvd 3300 Ne ort Blvd Newport Beach, 2663 Newport Beach, 92663 Newport Beach, 92663 424,4471 06 424 48105 424 48106 Cit Newport Beach Johnson Marshall Jr Tr Fiebiger Coleen 3300 ort Blvd 5803 Seashore Dr 41330 N Club Pointe Dr Newport Beach, 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Anthem, AZ 85086 424 482 01 424 482 02 424 482 03 Nordlund Marcia Tr Grace Residential Trust Linick Harold Tr 5710 Seashore Dr 5709 Seashore Dr 2250 Canyonback Rd Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Los Angeles, CA 90049 424 482 04 424 482 05 42448206 Kassel Daniel Robert Tr Jacoby William Tr Scaffide Salvatore 10 Seabluff 1905 Lanai Dr 620 Richfield Rd Newport Beach, CA 92660 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Placentia, CA 92870 424 483 01 424 483 02 424 483 03 Bragg Medford Tr Meyer William Tr Kroener Ernest Tr 2653 Slow Flight Dr 5011 Seashore Dr Po Box 2010 Port Orange, FL 32128 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Paso Robles, CA 93447 424 483 05 424 483 06 424 484 01 Three Properties LP Barouti Behzad Tr Herron Joseph Tr 8330 Catalina Ave 5601 Seashore Dr 22 Bayporte Whittier, CA 90602 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Irvine, CA 92614 424 484 02 424 484 03 42448404 Citrano Marian Tr Moody Robert Tr Menzies Steve Tr 637 E Las Palmas Dr 5507 Seashore Dr 1220 S Commerce St #120 Fullerton, CA 92835 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Las Vegas, NV 89102 424 484 05 424 484 06 424 485 01 Heimstaedt Jeffrey Ridgway Derry Lee Tr City Of port Beach 5503 Seashore Dr 3186 Leaf Dr 3300 Newp t Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 Merced, CA 95340 Newport Beach, C 663 424 49101 424 49102 424 49103 Wills Connable Tr Morris Jeffrey Tr Farmer Jeffrey Tr 5411 Seashore Dr 5409 Seashore Dr 5407 Seashore Dr Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 label size 1" x 2 518" compatible with Avery 1`15160t81 0 iuette cie�Iormat 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Aver �'1 5018160 ttique s a peler , Repliez h fa hachure afln de wvvw.a"ry com Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5160®cha gement eev�ler le rebord Pop-upT"' 1 -800 -GO -AVERY Cb' reel" 6.(7Uem • e OSl : ��r "'moo g, p a ® I Use Avery® Template 51600 ���I�09 j ,any ti g algij� oo ;,g/ 60 gn ® AVO M ® 1 1 1.4 130 67 114170 77 `�,� 114170 80 State Of CGEEfornia Cherokee Newport Beach City d? ewport Beach 2501 Pullman St Po Box 11164 3300 NP�W ort Blvd Santa Ana, CA 92705 Bakersfield, CA 93389 Newport Beach, 2663 114 22101 114 22102 114 22103 Gimpel Dennis Lambert Carol Janet Tr Hansberger Matthew & Heather 5600 River Ave 5520 River Ave 5516 River Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 114 22104 114 22105 114 221 06 Rogers Donald Tr Durio John Tr Beveridge Robert 11020 Muirfield Dr 215 Jo Anne PI 209 Jo Anne PI Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 114 22107 114 22108 114 222 01 Dolan Linda Kathleen Tr Raphael Lawrence Tr Parker Joseph Horton Tr 204 Montclair Rd 1510 Smiley Heights Dr Po Box 3147 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Redlands, CA 92373 Bowman, CA 95604 114 222 02 114 222 03 114 222 04 Parke Daniel Tr Gaughran Robert Tr Deladurantey Leslie 735 N Banna Ave 5400 River Ave 5316 River Ave Glendora, CA 91741 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 114 222 05 114 222 06 114 222 07 Lessley John Jamieson James Tr Forrester Keith 5312 River Ave 5308 River Ave 5304 River Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 114 222 08 114 222 09 114 222 10 Glazer Nicolai Brooks Rella May Tr 2010 Collier Family Trust 5300 River Ave 5220 River Ave 5216 River Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 114 222 21 114 222 22 114 222 23 Polhemus Edward II Harwick Family Trust Poe Charlotte Marie Tr 5219 Lido Sands Dr 5223 Lido Sands Dr 14 Monarch Bay Plz #393 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dana Point, CA 92629 114 222 24 114 222 25 114 222 26 Natland Christopher Ian Himeno Miyo Cress Anne Tr 5305 Lido Sands Dr 1142 Ridgeside Dr 1000 Uptown Park Blvd #93 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Monterey Park, CA 91754 Houston, TX 77056 114 222 27 114 222 28 114 222 29 Reinker Gregory Ross Melvyn Tr Bank Of America Na Tr 5319 Lido Sands Dr 5401 Lido Sands Dr 16934 Nightingale Ln Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Yorba Linda, CA 92886 label size 1" x 2 5i8" compatible with Avey 05160!81 --0 Wdes ette do format 25 mm x 67 mmarampatible avec Averj/nSQl8160Etique peler A Reptiez a la hachure afin de ; www.avery.com Utilisez le abarit AVERY® 5160® ! Sens rev6ler to rebord Po -u TM 1 -800 -GO -AVERY 1 9 j chargement p p CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING M0,Y '3o�') On , 2014, 1 posted 4 Site Notices of the Notice of Public Hearing regarding: Echo Beach Appeal (PA2014-005) Location(s) Posted: 5-515 k.eyefsf j e hye- S,5CS P,-1 e- Ave. 55(5 live 5c,15 R;ye Fs a ,� kve. Date of City Council Public Hearing: June 10, 2014 Signature Y� c Cy i D e t z 5-i uc ,e j\+ k� A e Print Name, Title )Jwos An des Mmes A 2014 orT 14 PIM : 2 7 r ^a+ Sold To: 0TVf City of Newport Beach (Parent) - C000072031 r 100 Civic Center Dr Newport Beach,CA 92660 Bill To: City of Newport Beach (Parent) - C000072031 100 Civic Center Dr Newport Beach,CA 92660 NOTICE IS HERERY GIVEN to Tuesday, Jun 10, 2074, at 7.00 p.n%, a bkke vANmrc ted intt GtyCe df ati S£s cceait I V4mWakada.Re(hyC undof Qyof racs�tsk.I Ether Berach Appeal - M 4WM of ttae Plannit C nta wgx's da,,ivott &9nT ttta€ ft &xh obm*seashm IA40I anis t t t. tt€ a yl ntat Tract Map tdv, TRIM -001 (xounly Tentavve 3rast Map ria. TIM 17194), .10o Lateen Fwrft No, M,02007: W, Use Pffmit Ro, -o3 t and Coal 6 RwWaval DevetpoestPumit r. MW-Wll WUrtang CriaAPfa�adt ��t�a��.�t�d3sta lonvad at 5515 rNer kwoe, RV $iia is ovmoay - �..Qh a apamnw t€ ez t € "dsatm� d r�tts€d€f�t �€� : etrtezcra� tAnrnitaa frxoftzlon panna iii a' Ilow otovdw kits im the teqoW hum and " }ltd SaEI&'a afm d[td 4 n�rthett�{adttt.€ez€ Ae ta�vcddte6:lss�r�tn dseCast ' ` eaastaf rf rd It'ItDavannC 655 gate& Grit: wbkt se0a s *the darnoand moduate €dam taf ) av=e&V mat to QRsWza4-- N 4040a h rhe lxWW to., `) MWNW ota so pba arae 4v4sanpp 2) elininate &VW etonna e; W4 33 detse fm glans W r to tea carr WL The ,eraatettthe trl�r�aae st�+tfalt �vitati2tapgtttaed; N077CE ISI HEREBY FURTHER OVEN that a9 spdkant wkenom0 omm fon Sae ptapawo I t'webu t Aldvaged ata dy a aSupted xtat e 7 5} € ft Gry has WeRmd an awes: to Me wzqwd "a0 a Dedamian. The pt Inca ks WsO& the scope of th-e paw oady a t tsttg ted ft ggal a I aratto€s cons r%iho addlendu 1t is th totem ft Cq is aacep€ t sdsara and suWf6rs dam to the Itupw Knape tlaraw" ske no nor irantnr>ertal watt} and rip nnitam o7 9reatat sewfity wn! ; kttt Eiger awwi of the pradtosed jualeM toples d the pnea sly Ittenated 40gated Negative graven, and sqwtfiq d is a,- avaffWetot puck teift Vgidts-WW at the P#a" Invision neat ftOty of Newt Seuh WebOut at a9insted pattes" ttitoappidymrrfss6d5 y€ r tray drrae m ytl fS tafs datd heath h-tww vdiatheCdg at,a€pratt%tt�pttcsra€3: tea rrF�reartirsitoas�ftrEure€r :e;ad raitraaxs dt� fca vrditrtpax3 totltn the , sit FgQn, s ni ray be a the 0ty mark`s Wrm1 Give centar ,�.,3��{;;t,pr�.i.e�R.r� Q�a7 at Ole Cay of B dit ver l€ea€k, e`tr. ;mP. , ffRbnua - mtt SWe to acted #tr canad vie Plaaraq Wnoan r atom tte Cqs webw at" tI an reuiexr€he�tornttna ' tm Wit" ft putkh" dem please cordae€ ttaa int, Sm Pl--, at () irat-3. . �e'e��ctgor: Project FileNo--PA2 i 5 Activity o.. W014—WI zone. Ps (W tl anw) General i?tan. l $Lia Pelt €deer# if Locatiom5515FmrA"nue Applicant: LB9 0wrets, LIC ,'51leiLsmwxCkloa , CnyefKftV= h hAW*,+faay3?.2434 2420263 - Daily Pilot OW Los An geles mmes GROUP 2019, OCT 14 111 : 27 = ni: CiF ,r i} 1 PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF ILLINOIS County of Cook I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the action for which the attached notice was published. I am a principal clerk of the Daily Pilot, which was adjudged a newspaper of general circulation on January 14, 1938 and February 6, 1958 and June 19, 1952, Cases A6214 and A24831 for the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, and State of California. Attached to this Affidavit is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following date(s): May 31, 2014 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Chicago, Illinois on this 1 day of C . 20) H . [signature] 435 N. Michigan Ave. Chicago, IL 60611 2420263 - Daily Pilot