HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 - AERIE Project - Attachment DLI
C
11
ATTACHMENTS
Planning Commission record
1. Planning Commission Resolution
No. 1723
2. Staff Report dated May 17, 2007
3. Excerpt of minutes from May 17, 2007
hearing
4. Staff Report dated April 5, 2007
5. Excerpt of minutes from April 5, 2007
hearing
6. Staff Report dated February 22, 2007
7. Excerpt of minutes from February 22,
2007 hearing
D.f
Page left blank intentionally
LJ
RESOLUTION NO. 1723
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH NO.
2007021054) AND APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO.
2005 -006, COASTAL LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2005 -002,
CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2005 -009, NEWPORT TRACT NO. 2005 -004
(TRACT 16882), MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2005 -087 AND
COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 2005 -002 FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 201 -205, 207 CARNATION AVENUE 101
BAYSIDE PLACE (PA 2005496).
WHEREAS, applications were filed by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. with
respect to property located at 201 -205, 207 Carnation Avenue, and 101 Bayside Place
to construct a 9 -unit residential condominium development on a 1.4 acre site. The
applications filed are:
1. General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -006 to change the land use designation of a 584
square -foot portion of a parcel identified as 101 Bayside Place from RT (Two-Unit
Residential) to RM (Multiple -Unit Residential, 20 dwelling units per acre).
® 2. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -002 to change the Coastal Land Use
Plan designation of the same 584 square foot portion of a parcel identified as 101
Bayside Place from RH -D (High Density Residential - 50.1 to 60 dwelling units per
acre) to RM -A (Medium Density Residential - 6.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre).
3. Zone Change No. 2005 -009 to change the zoning designation of the 584 square -foot
portion of a parcel identified as 101 Bayside Place from R -2 (Two - Family Residential)
to MFR (Multifamily Residential, 2178 square feet per unit).
4. Newport Tract No. 2005 -004 (TT16882) combines the 584 square -foot portion of a
parcel identified as 101 Bayside Place with parcels identified as 201 -205 Carnation
Avenue and 207 Carnation Avenue, and subdivides the air space for 9 residential
condominium units.
5. Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 permits a 5 -foot subterranean encroachment into
the required 10 -foot front setback along Carnation Avenue, an above -grade and
subterranean encroachment of T -1" into a required 10' -7" side yard setback between
the project and 215 Carnation, and a 5' -7" above -grade and subterranean
encroachment into a required 10' -7" side yard setback between the project and 215
Carnation.
6. Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -.002 to review the potential loss of
affordable housing within the Coastal Zone pursuant to Chapter 20.86 of the
Municipal Code.
D -3
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1723
Page 2 of 34
WHEREAS, on February 22, 2007, April 5, 2007, and May 17, 2007, the
Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers,
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications;
project and a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was considered. Notice of time, place
and ,purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was
presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing.
WHEREAS, the project site has two separate land use designations assigned by
the Land Use Element of the General Plan (584 square -feet is designated RT (Two -Unit
Residential) and the remaining portion of the site, 60,700 square -feet, is designated RM
(Multi -Unit Residential, 20 dwelling units per acre).. The proposed amendment changing
the land use designation of the 584 square -foot portion of the site to match the
remainder of the site will numerically allow 1 additional unit; however, the density
limitation as dictated by the Zoning Ordinance is more restrictive as it excludes
submerged lands and slopes in excess of 50% from the calculation. The density of the
proposed project is well below the resulting maximum density permitted by the General
Plan (28 dwellings) and it is consistent with the maximum density allowed by the
existing MFR zone (9 units). The residential condominium project is consistent with the
proposed Multi- Family Residential land use designation and is consistent with the
residential developments within the area.
WHEREAS, Charter Section 423 requires that all proposed General Plan
Amendments be reviewed to determine if the square footage (for non - residential
projects), peak hour vehicle trip, or dwelling units thresholds would be exceeded as the
means to determine whether a vote by the electorate would be required to approve the
General Plan Amendment. Pursuant to Council Policy A -18, voter approval is not
required as the proposed General Plan Amendment represents an increase of 1
dwelling unit and an increase of 1 A.M. and 1 P.M. peak hour trip. Additionally, no prior
amendments have been approved within Statistical Area F3 and, therefore, the project
and prior amendments do not cumulatively exceed Charter Section 423 thresholds as to
require a vote of the electorate.
WHEREAS, the proposed project subject to conditions of approval is consistent
with General Plan Policy LU5.1.9 inasmuch as building elevations that face public
streets need to be treated to achieve the highest level of urban design and
neighborhood quality. Architectural treatment of building elevations and the modulation
of mass are important to convey the character of separate living units or clusters of
living units, avoiding the appearance of a singular building volume. Street elevations
need to be provided with high quality materials and finishes to convey quality. Roof
profiles should be modulated to reduce the apparent scale of large structures and to
provide visual interest and variety. Parking areas should be designed to be integral with
the architecture of the development. Usable and functional private open space for each
unit should be incorporated. Common open space that creates a pleasant living
environment with opportunities for recreation should also be provided. The project
D-
City of Newport Beach
® Planning Commission Resolution No. 1723
Page 3 of 34
design incorporates building articulation, roof modulation and a diverse architectural
style. Although specific exterior finishes or building materials are not identified at this
time, the applicant and architect are committed to providing the highest quality project
commensurate with the expense of the project and appropriate to their target buyer.
Parking areas are integrated within the overall design and each unit has an outdoor
deck or patio that may include a fire pit and spa. Common recreational amenities and
storage areas for each unit are provided.
WHEREAS, the proposed project subject to conditions of approval is consistent
with General Plan Policy LU 5.1.8 that requires adequate enclosed parking considering
the number of bedrooms. Seven of the units have three bedrooms and 2 of the units
have four bedrooms; however, all of the units have other rooms that could be used as
bedrooms and the unit sizes range from 4,000 to 6,300 square feet. The project
provides 3 spaces for each of 7 units and 2 spaces for each of the 2 remaining units (25
spaces). Seven (7) guest parking spaces and 2 golf cart spaces are provided for a total
of 34 covered, vehicle spaces. Provided parking is in excess of the minimum required
pursuant to the Zoning Code (2.5 parking spaces per unit for total of 23 spaces).
WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with General Plan Policy CE7.1.8
and Policy CE7.1.1 as well as Coastal Land Use Policy 2.9.3 -1 that requires new
development to avoid the use of parking configurations or parking management
® programs that are difficult to maintain and enforce and that require new development to
provide .adequate, convenient parking for residents, guests, business patrons and
visitors for the following reasons:
The below grade parking configuration accessed by elevators is sufficiently convenient
in that two vehicle elevators are proposed, which will reduce vehicle wait times to avoid
significant conflicts. Emergency power generators are required so that vehicle access is
maintained if electrical power is lost. The vehicle maneuvering areas within the parking
areas meet applicable standards required by the City Traffic Engineer.
WHEREAS, the Land Use and Natural Resources Elements of the General Plan
contain general policies regarding the protection of public views, visual resources,
coastal bluffs and other natural resources and the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP)
reflects these same policies and includes additional policies that expand upon the topics
addressed in the Land Use and Natural Resources Elements of the General Plan and
are applicable only within the Coastal Zone such that a finding of consistency with the
CLUP is an implicit finding of consistency with the Land Use Element of the General
Plan. Accordingly, based upon facts in support of findings that the project's consistency
with the relevant CLUP policies as indicated below, the project is determined to be
consistent with all resource protection policies within the Land Use and Natural
Resources Elements.
WHEREAS, the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) designates the majority of the
® site RM -A (Medium Density Residential - 6.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre) and a 584
D. 5
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1723
Page 4 of 34
square toot portion of the site is designated RH -D High Density Residential - 50.1 to 60
dwelling units per acre. The proposed amendment of the land use designation for the
584 square foot portion of the site will result in a land use designation the same as the
larger portion of the site and will numerically increase the maximum permissible project
density by 1 unit, from 13 to 14, but the maximum permissible density pursuant to the
RM -A Zoning for the site.
WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with applicable policies within Chapter 2
(Land Use and Development) of the Coastal Land Use Plan based upon the following:
1. Policy Z7 -1. Continue to maintain appropriate setbacks and density, floor area, and
height limits for residential development to protect the character of established
neighborhoods and to protect coastal access and coastal resources.
The project conforms to the height limit of the MFR zone and no deviation is proposed.
The project proposes 76,333 gross square feet, well below the maximum 90,759
allowed by the existing MFR zone standard. The proposed 9 -unit project is below the
maximum permissible density established by the RM -A (Medium Density Residential -
6.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre). Setback encroachments are primarily subterranean
and would not impact the character of the area. The only above - ground encroachments
are on the north side of the building. The project provides between 5 and 7.5 feet of
separation at the street level and approximately 28 to 30 feet of separation on the levels
above. No public view exists in this area where the above- ground encroachments are
requested. The setback proposed will provide adequate separation from the building to
the north and the encroachments will not impact fragile resources as they are located
on the opposite side of the building away from the bluff and bay.
2. Policy 2.7 -2. Continue the administration of provisions of State law relative to the
demolition, conversion and construction of low and moderate- income dwelling units
within the coastal zone.
Government Code Section 65590 (Mello Act) regulates the demolition or conversion of
low and moderate income units within the Coastal Zone. All units were vacated in
December of 2001 and only a caretaker resides in the apartment. No low or moderate
income residents currently reside within the project and, therefore, Government Code
Section 65590 is not applicable.
3. Policy 2.8.1 -1. Review all applications for new development to determine potential
threats from coastal and other hazards.
Policy Z.8.1 -2. Design and site new development to avoid hazardous areas and
minimize risks to life and property from coastal and other hazards.
I
A
City of Newport Beach
® Planning Commission Resolution No. 1723
Page 5 of 34
Policy 2.8.1 -3. Design land divisions, including lot line adjustments, to avoid
hazardous areas and minimize risks to life and property from coastal and other
hazards.
A coastal hazards study has been prepared by GeoSoils Inc., dated October, 5, 2006.
Given the location, topography and development proposed, potential hazards are
seismic ground shaking, coastal bluff retreat due to erosional forces and tsunamis.
Seismic issues are mitigated with the implementation of the Building Code and coastal
bluff retreat is not expected to impact the project during the 75 year economic life of the
building. Inundation by wave action or tsunami is considered very remote and the
proposed improvements are well above wave action.
4. Policy 2.8.1 -4. Require new development to assure stability and structural integrity,
and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or
destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of
protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and
Cliffs.
Policy 2.8.3 -1. Require all coastal development permit applications for new
development on a beach or on a coastal bluff property subject to wave action to
assess the potential for flooding or damage from waves, storm surge, or seiches,
® through a wave uprush and impact reports prepared by a licensed civil engineer with
expertise in coastal processes. The conditions that shall be considered in a wave
uprush study are: a seasonally eroded beach combined with long -term (75 years)
erosion, high tide. conditions, combined with long -tern (75 year) projections for sea
level rise; storm waves from a 100 -year event or a stone that compares to the
1882183 El Niho event.
Policy 2.8.6.10. Site and design new structures to avoid the need for shoreline and
bluff protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years).
Policy 2.8.7 -3. Require applications for new development, where applicable [i.e., in
areas of known or potential geologic or seismic hazards], to include a
geologic /soiWgeotechnical study that identifies any geologic hazards affecting the
proposed project site, any necessary mitigation measures, and contains a statement
that the project site is suitable for the proposed development and that the
development will be safe from geologic hazard. Require such reports to be signed by
a licensed Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer and subject to
review and approval by the City.
A Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Neblett & Associates, August 2005, the
Coastal Hazard Study prepared by GeoSoils Inc -, dated October 2006, a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated March 27, 2005
collectively indicate that the project will not be subject to nor contribute to erosion,
�J
0.7
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1723
Page 6 of 34
geologic instability, geologic hazard nor require shoreline protective devices during the
economic life of the structure (75 years).
5. Policy 2:5.6 -9. Require property owners to record a waiver of future shoreline
protection for new development during the economic life of the structure (75 years)
as a condition of approval of a coastal development, permit for new development on
a beach, shoreline, or bluff that is subject to wave action, erosion, flooding,
landslides, or other hazards associated with development on a beach or bluff.
Shoreline protection may be permitted to protect existing structures that were legally
constructed prior to the certification of the LCP, unless a waiver of future shoreline
protection was required by a previous coastal development permit.
A waiver of future shoreline protective devices is included as a condition of approval.
6. Policy 2.9.3 -10 Require new development to minimize curb cuts to protect on- street
parking spaces and close curb cuts to create new public parking wherever feasible. The
project will reduce the width of existing curb cuts creating 3 additional street spaces.
WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with Chapter 3 (Public Access) of the
Coastal Land Use Plan based upon the following:
Policy 3.1.1 -1. Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance public access to and
along the shoreline and to beaches, coastal waters, tidelands, coastal parks, and trails.
Policy 3.1,2 -1.. Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance public access to and
along coastal bluffs.
Policy 3.1.2 -2. Site, design, and maintain public access improvements in a manner to
avoid or minimize impacts to coastal bluffs.
Policy 3.1.1 -11. Require new development to minimize impacts to public access to and
along the shoreline.
Policy 3.1.1 -9. Protect, expand, and enhance a system of public coastal access that
achieves the following:
• Maximizes public access to and along the shoreline;
• Includes pedestrian, hiking, bicycle, and equestrian trails;
• Provides connections to beaches, parks, and recreational facilities;
• Provides connections with trail systems of adjacent jurisdictions;
• Provides access to coastal view corridors,
• Facilitates attemative modes of transportation;
• Minimizes alterations to natural landforms;
• Protects environmentally sensitive habitat areas;
• Does not violate private property rights. is
� i
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1723
Page 7 of 34
Policy 3.1.1 -24. Encourage the creation of new public vertical accessways where
feasible, including Corona del Mar and other areas of limited public accessibility.
Policy 3.1.1 -13. Require a direct dedication or an Offer to Dedicate (OTD) an easement
for lateral public access for all new shorefront development causing or contributing to
adverse public access impacts. Such dedication or easement shall extend from the
limits of public ownership (e.g. mean high tide line) landward to a fixed point seaward of
the primary extent of development (e.g. intersection of sand with toe or top of
revetment, vertical face of seawall, dripline of deck, or toe of bluff).
Policy 3.1.1 -14. Require a direct dedication or an Offer to Dedicate (OTD) an easement
for vertical access in all new development projects causing or contributing to adverse
public access impacts, unless adequate access is available nearby. Vertical
accessways shall be a sufficient size to accommodate two-way pedestrian passage and
landscape buffer and should be sited along the border or side property line of the
project site or away from existing or proposed development to the maximum feasible
extent.
Policy 3.1.1 -24. Encourage the creation of new public vertical accessways where
feasible, including Corona del Mar and other areas of limited public accessibility.
Policy 3.1.1 -26. Consistent with the policies above, provide maximum public access
from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the shoreline with new
development except where (1) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security
needs, or the protection of fragile coastal resources or (2) adequate access exists
nearby.
Policy 3.1.1 -27. implement public access policies in a manner that takes into account
the need to regulate the time, place, and manner of public access depending on the
facts and circumstances in each case including, but not limited to, the following.
• Topographic and geologic site characteristics;
• Capacity of the site to sustain use and at what level of intensity;
• Fragility of natural resource areas;
• Proximity to residential uses;
• Public safety services, including lifeguards, fire, and police access;
• Support facilities, including parking and restrooms;
• Management and maintenance of the access;
• The need to balance constitutional rights of individual property owners and the
public's constitutional rights of access.
The project site has no dedicated public access easements or physical access to the
coastal bluff or bay. No abutting vertical or lateral public access presently exists that
® would connect to any access that might be considered within the development. The
/J. 9
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1723
Page 8 of 34
steep topography of the site makes vertical access a safety concern and access for the
disabled could not be accommodated. Support facilities presently do not exist nor are
they planned, and parking in the area is constrained. Lastly, access through the site
would be in close proximity to residential uses.
The lower portion of the bluff, submerged lands and tidelands will remain in their
existing condition. Public access to the tidelands from the water will not be affected as
the development will be well above the tidelands. Access to the designated view point at
the end of Carnation Avenue will also remain unaffected and the public view from that
point and Ocean Boulevard will be enhanced with project approval with the installation
of a bench, and/or other public amenity at the comer to improve the experience. The
project will create 3 new parking spaces along Carnation Avenue with the reduction in
the width of the existing driveway approaches. These new public parking spaces will
enhance access to the area. With the reduction in residential density and the fact that
no access rights or proscriptive access rights exist, the project will not impact or impede
public access.
Public access to the bay is currently provided in the vicinity at China Cove, Lookout
Point and at a street -end located in the 2300 block of Bayside Drive. These access
points are located approximately 450 feet to the east, 1,125 feet to the east and
approximately 480 feet to the northwest, respectively. Based upon the forgoing,
requiring public access easements or outright dedication of land for public access is not
necessary.
WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with Policy 4.1.3 -1 of the Coastal
Land Use Plan that states "Utilize the following mitigation measures to reduce the
potential for adverse impacts to ESA natural habitats from sources including, but not
limited to, those identified in Table 4.1.1. Only Subsections E, F, G, and N are
applicable to the proposed project as the other subsections are clearly inapplicable as
they relate to different physical and operational aspects of Newport Bay.
E. Limit encroachments into wetlands to development that is consistent with Section
30233 of the Coastal Act and Policy 4.2.3 -1 of the Coastal Land Use Plan.
No encroachment into wetlands is proposed with the project.
F. Regulate landscaping or revegetation of blufftop areas to control erosion and invasive
plant species and provide a transition area between developed areas and natural
habitats.
A condition of approval requires all non- native plantings on the bluff to be removed and
revegetation of the bluff face is regulated to only allow native and non - invasive plantings
indigenous to the California coastal bluff environment.
G. Require irrigation practices on blufftops that minimize erosion of bluffs.
D. l cJ
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1723
Page 9 of 34
An irrigation plan is required pursuant to conditions of approval for the project and
temporary irrigation on the bluff face may only be to be used to establish vegetation.
H.. Prohibit invasive species and require removal in new development.
A condition of approval requires all non - native plantings on the bluff to be removed and
revegetation of the bluff face is regulated to allow only native and non - invasive plantings
indigenous to the California coastal bluff environment.
WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with the following policies of
Chapter 4 (Coastal Resource Protection) based upon the following:
Policy 4.3.1 -5. Require development on steep slopes or steep slopes- with erosive soils
to implement structural best management practices (BMPs) to prevent or minimize
erosion consistent with any load allocation of the TMDLs adopted for Newport Bay.
Policy 4.3.1 -6. Require grading /erosion control plans to include soil stabilization on
graded or disturbed areas.
® Policy 4.3.1 -7. Require measures be taken during construction to limit land disturbance
activities such as clearing and grading, limiting cut -and fill to reduce erosion and
sediment loss, and avoiding steep slopes, unstable areas, and erosive soils. Require
construction to minimize disturbance of natural vegetation, including significant trees,
native vegetation, root structures, and other physical or biological features important for
preventing erosion or sedimentation.
Policy 4.3.2 -22. Require beachfront and waterfront development to incorporate BMPs
designed to prevent or minimize polluted runoff to beach and coastal waters.
Policy 4.3.2 -23. Require new development applications to include a Water Quality
Management Plan (WQMP). The WQMP`s purpose is to minimize to the maximum
extent practicable dry weather runoff, runoff from small storms (Jess than 314" of rain
falling over a 24 -hour period) and the concentration of pollutants in such runoff during
construction and post - construction from the property.
An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, Stormwater Pollution Prevention plan and a
Water Quality Management Plan are required and include best management practices
to ensure that erosion is controlled to the maximum extent feasible.
WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with Policy 4.4.3 -4. of the Coastal
Land Use Plan that states "On bluffs subject to marine erosion, require new accessory
structures such as decks, patios and walkways that do not require structural foundations
to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development in the
® subject area, but not less than 10 feet from the bluff edge. Require accessory structures
p•ki
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1723
Page 10 of 34
to be removed or relocated landward when threatened by erosion, instability or other
hazards."
No new accessory structures are proposed. The policy also requires that accessory
structures be removed or relocated landward when threatened by erosion, instability or
other hazards. A condition of approval is included such that the existing accessory
structures (concrete pad, staircase and walkway) will be removed if threatened by
erosional processes in the future.
WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with Policy 4.4.3 -11 of the Coastal
Land Use Plan that states "Require applications for new development to include slope
stability analyses and erosion rate estimates provided by a licensed Certified
Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer."
A Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Neblett & Associates, August 2005, the
Coastal Hazard Study prepared by GeoSoils Inc., dated October 2006, a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated March 27, 2005
collectively indicate that the project will not be subject to nor contribute to erosion,
geologic instability, geologic hazard nor require shoreline protective devices during the
economic life of the structure (75 years).
WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with the following policies of
Chapter 4 (Coastal Resource Protection) that regulate the protection of public views
based upon the following:
Policy 4.4.1 -1. Protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of
the coastal zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor and to
coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas.
Policy 4.4.1 -2. Design and site new development, including landscaping, so as to
minimize impacts to public coastal views.
Policy 4.4.1 -4. Where appropriate, require new development to provide view
easements or corridors designed to protect public coastal views or to restore public
coastal views in developed areas.
Policy 4.4.1 -6. Protect public coastal views from the following roadway
segments... Ocean Boulevard. (Figure 4-3 of the CLUP identifies the intersection of
Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard as a "view point.')
Policy 4.4.1 -7. Design and site new development, including landscaping, on the edges
of public coastal view corridors, including those down public streets, to frame and
accent public coastal views.
A
City of Newport Beach
® Planning Commission Resolution No. 1723
Page 11 of 34
Policy 4.4.2 -2. Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures
consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach.
Policy 4.4.2 -3. Implement the regulation of the building envelope to preserve public
views through the height, setback, floor area, lot coverage, and building bulk regulation
of the Zoning Code in effect as of October 13, 2005 that limit the building profile and
maximize public view opportunities.
A public view presently exists over the southeastern portion of the site from Ocean
Boulevard and Carnation Avenue to the south and southwest between the existing 14-
unit apartment building and improvements on the adjoining property to the southeast.
The siting of the proposed building would provide a greater separation between these
properties than exists today. Presently, the horizontal view window measures 25
degrees and with the project, the view window will increase to 32 degrees. Based upon
the visual simulation prepared by the project architect, the public view from Ocean
Boulevard to the west will also be improved due to the position of the proposed building.
Subsequent to the preparation of the visual simulation, the applicant revised the project
to reduce the bayward extent of Unit 2 on Level 4 to improve the public view over the
project to the west. Although the proposed building is taller than the existing building,
there is no public view over the buildings; therefore, the taller building proposed will not
® impact a public view. The project is consistent with the 28 -foot building height limit as
demonstrated on Sheet A -16 and verified by staff, and with other building envelope
restrictions with the exception of setback encroachments as proposed. The above -
grade encroachment of the building on the northerly portion of the project site is one -
story and does not impact a public view as one presently does not exist in that location.
Other setback encroachments are below the grade of the street and would not impact a
public view. No other public views exist from the street through the site due to the
position of the current buildings. Therefore, the proposed project will not have an impact
upon existing public views through the site to the south and west. The recordation of a
public view easement to protect the public view over the site from Ocean Boulevard and
Carnation Avenue is required as a condition of approval.
WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with the following policies of
Chapter 4 (Coastal Resource Protection) as they related to the scenic and visual
qualities of the coastal zone and to minimizing the alteration of the coastal bluff based
upon the following:
Policy 4.4.1 -1. Protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of
the coastal zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor and to
coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas.
Policy 4.4.1 -2. Design and site new development, including landscaping, so as to
minimize impacts to public coastal views.
® Policy 4.4.1 -3 Design and site new development to minimize alterations to significant
p, � 3
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1723
Page 12 of 34
natural landforms, including bluffs, cliffs and canyons.
Policy 4.4.3 -8. Prohibit development on bluff faces, except private development on
coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in
Corona del Mar determined to be consistent with the predominant line of existing
development or public improvements providing public access, protecting coastal
resources, or providing for public safety. Permit such improvements only when no
feasible alternative exists and when designed and constructed to minimize alteration of
the bluff face, to not contribute to further erosion of the bluff face, and to be visually
compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible.
Policy 4.4.3 -9. Where principal structures exist on coastal bluff faces along Ocean
Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar, require all new
development to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing
development in order to protect public coastal views. Establish a predominant line of
development for both principle structures and accessory improvements. The setback
shall be increased where necessary to ensure safety and stability of the development.
Policy 4.4.3 -12. Employ site design and construction techniques to minimize alteration
of coastal bluffs to the maximum extent feasible, such as:
A. Siting new development on the flattest area of the site, except when an
alternative location is more protective of coastal resources.
B. Utilizing existing driveways and building pads to the maximum extent
feasible.
C. Clustering building sites.
D. Shared use of driveways.
E Designing buildings to conform to the natural contours of the site, and
arranging driveways and patio areas to be compatible with the slopes and
building design.
F. Utilizing special foundations, such as stepped, split level, or cantilever
designs.
G. Detaching parts of the development, such as a garage from a dwelling
unit.
H. Requiring any altered slopes to blend into the natural contours of the site.
Existing development of the site is located on the face of a coastal bluff based upon the
professional opinion of Sidney Neblett, a Certified Engineering Geologist. The coastal
bluff transitions from north - facing to west - facing approximately at a point that leads
down to the water that provides the western extent of a small pocket beach unofficially
known as Carnation Cove. North of the transition point of this coastal bluff, is a series of
residential structures developed between 42 and 58 feet above mean sea level. East of
the transition point along Ocean Boulevard is a series of past projects that were
developed much further down the bluff face with several at the waters edge. In looking
at an equai amount of bluff face development on either side of the transition point, 0
0./ y
City of Newport Beach
® Planning Commission Resolution No. 1723
Page 13 of 34
neither development pattern appears to dominate the other. Based on substantial
evidence in the record, the Planning Commission, acting in its advisory capacity to the
City Council, has determined that the predominant line of existing development is best
depicted by a line that reflects the transition from the west - facing portion of the bluff to
the north- facing portion and the corresponding transition in the extent of development
on each of those portions. The proposed project/bluff interface line approximates a
reasonable transition between the higher development pattern on Carnation Avenue
and the lower development pattern on Ocean Boulevard and corresponds with the
extent of development set forth in the applicant's project proposal. The applicant has
agreed to modify its proposal, if and as needed, to provide that the project will be sited
in accordance with the predominant line of existing development as ultimately
established by the City Council. Therefore, the modified proposal is consistent with
CLUP Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9. Additionally, the modified proposal minimizes
alteration of the coastal bluff and protects public views of the coastal bluff by not
allowing development to extend below the predominant line of existing development.
For that same reason, it also protects the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone
pursuant to CLUP Policies 4.4.1 -1, 4.4.1 -2 and 4.4.1 -3. Development within the
predominant line of existing development utilizes the flattest portion of the lot although it
would occupy areas outside the existing building pads. Lastly, the project is required to
blend any altered slopes outside of the building footprint to blend them into the natural
® contours of the site.
WHEREAS, the granting of the Modification Permit 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 for the following reasons:
The site is irregular in shape, has steep topography and has submerged lands which
make it difficult to design a project at the density proposed while providing required
parking. Approximately 65% of the site is submerged or has slopes in excess of 50 %.
The need to provide on -site parking requires that a significant portion of the building
area be allocated for the parking garage, thereby reducing available area for residential
units. The required side yard setback is also larger than the required front yard setback
and the application of this standard represents a practical difficulty given the relatively
small buildable area available on the entire site.
WHEREAS, the granting of the Modification Permit will be compatible with the
existing development in the neighborhood for the following reasons:
The requested encroachments within the front yard will be entirely subterranean and will
not be visible. The encroachments within the side yard on levels below the street will
also not be visible. The side yard setback encroachment on Level (above the street)
provides a T -6" setback for approximately 57.5% of the length of the building and 5' for
approximately 42.5% of the length of the building. The larger setback is closer to the
® street. On Levels 5 and 6 above the encroachment on Level 4, the project provides a 28
®, /5
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1723
Page 14 of 34
to 30 -foot setback in excess of the minimum 10' -7" setback. This increased setback
provides an enhanced separation of building masses of the project building and the
single - family home to the north. This increased setback provides private views over the
building from upper levels of residences across Carnation Avenue and enhanced
building articulation as suggested by General Plan policy.
WHEREAS, the granting of the Modification Permit 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 for the following reasons:
The setback encroachments are predominantly subterranean and the above - ground,
encroachments are off -set with increased setbacks above grade and they do not block
Public views.
WHEREAS, Newport Tract No. 2005 -004 (TTM16882) can be approved based
upon the following findings:
The modified project is consistent with the current land use designation including the
proposed amendment. The project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy
LU5.1.9 regarding the character and quality of multi - family residential development.
The project is consistent with Land Use Element and Natural Resources Element
policies related to the protection of public views, visual resources, coastal bluffs and
other natural resources based upon the project's consistency with the Coastal Land
Use Plan. The site is not subject to a specific plan. Minimum lot sizes established by
the Zoning Ordinance are also maintained as required by the City Subdivision Code.
The tentative tract map, pursuant to the conditions of approval, is consistent with the
Newport Beach Subdivision Code (Title 19) and applicable requirements of the
Subdivision Map.
The buildable area of the site is relatively small compared to the entire 1.4 acre site.
The site is not likely to be subject to coastal erosional processes or hazards during
the 75 year economic life of the project No earthquake faults were found on -.site and
there is not likely to be and incidence of landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse on -site or near the site given on -site soils conditions. These
factors indicate that the site is suitable for development.
The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements subject to conditions of
approval will not cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat based upon the Mitigated Negative
Declaration (SCH #2007021054) and the adoption of mitigation measures as
conditions of project approval.
4. The tract map would subdivide airspace for residential condominium purposes and is
not expected to cause serious public health problems given the use of typical
t).!
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1723
Page 15 of 34
construction materials and practices. No evidence is known to exist that would
indicate that the proposed subdivision will generate any serious public health
problems:. All mitigation measures as outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and the Building, Grading and Fire codes will be implemented to ensure the
protection of public health.
5. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at
large, because a utility and sewer easement that affects the site is presently not in
use and can be abandoned. The design of the proposed subdivision will not impact
an existing storm drain easement and storm drain as proposed improvements will not
encroach upon the existing easement. The storm drain easement will appear on the
final map. 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. The site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract.
7. The property is not located within the boundaries of a specific plan;
S. The-subdivision is subject to Title 24 of the California Building Code that requires new
construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on
® location and climate. The Newport Beach Building Department enforces Title 24
compliance through the plan check and field inspection processes. The site has a
western exposure and incorporates curved roof elements that will provide some
shading of windows and passive solar cooling. Significant exterior wall segments are
below grade which will benefit from passive cooling.
9. 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 needs although the proposed subdivision will have the effect of
reducing the residential density on the site from 15 units to 9 units. The reduction is
insignificant given the City s current housing supply. Although the reduction in units
does not assist the City in reaching its production goals, no affordable housing units
are being eliminated based upon the fact that the project was not occupied by low or
moderate income households. The reduction in density is consistent with existing
density limitations of the Municipal Code.
1O.Wastewater discharge into the existing sewer system will be consistent with existing
residential use of the property, which does not violate Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) requirements.
11.The proposed subdivision is entirely within the coastal zone and the site is not
presently developed with coastal- related uses, coastal- dependent uses or water
oriented recreational uses that would be displaced by a non- priority use. The project
site is constrained by topography and public access exists nearby making on -site
vertical and lateral access unnecessary. Public access to the area is enhanced as a
P./7
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1723
Page 16 of 34
result of increasing public parking opportunities on Carnation Avenue afforded by 3
on street parking spaces to be added with closure of existing driveway curb cuts.
The position of the proposed building enhances public views from Ocean Boulevard
and Carnation Avenue by increasing the view angle between the development on
the project site and adjacent development. The modified project developed in
accordance with the conditions of approval will minimize alteration of the coastal
bluff and preserve the scenic and visual quality of the coast by preserving the bluff
below the 52 -foot MSL elevation. Lastly, the project will not impact sensitive marine
resources with the implementation of the conditions of approval.
WHEREAS, the project would demolish 15 dwelling units within the Coastal Zone
within 2 buildings and pursuant to Chapter 20.86 of the Zoning Code, demolished units
occupied by low or moderate income households must be replaced if such replacement
is determined to be feasible. The 15 units are not occupied by low or moderate income
households, and therefore, no replacement units are required. Households potentially
meeting the low or moderate income limits were not evicted for the purpose of avoiding
a replacement requirement within the previous 12 months.
'WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (SCH No.
2007021054) have been prepared pursuant to the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. The Draft MND was initially
circulated for public comment between January 10, 2007 and March 15, 2007. During
the February 22, 2007, public hearing comments on the adequacy of the environmental
document were received by the Planning Commission. Those comments led to
revisions to the draft MND. The revisions provide additional project information and
clarification and no new environmental impacts were identified. The revised MND was
recirculated for public comment from April 16, 2007, through May 15, 2007. The
contents of the revised environmental document have been considered in prior to
rendering of the various decisions on this project. Because on May 17, 2007, the project
applicant agreed to modify its proposal to limit development to the predominant line of
existing development as that line may ultimately be established by the City Council, the
Planning Commission has determined that the MND must again be amended and
recirculated prior to action by the City Council.
WHEREAS, with the applicant's agreement to modify its proposal as described in
the preceding paragraph, the project, as modified and mitigated, will have a less than
significant effect on the environment.
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 are feasible and reduce potential environmental impacts to a less
a �!�
City of Newport Beach
® Planning Commission Resolution No. 1723
Page 17 of 34
than significant level. The mitigation measures are applied to the project and are
incorporated as conditions of approval.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held three public hearings on the
application, is acting in an advisory capacity to the City Council in this matter, and
believes that further hearings after circulation of the revised MND would not benefit the
Planning Commission's consideration of the application.
WHEREAS, the CEQA Guidelines require only that the final MND for the project
be circulated prior to final action by the City Council.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's
CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time
consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in
such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals,
it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any
such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and
damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger.
® NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach 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 Planning Commission's independent judgment and analysis.
The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Mitigated
Negative Declaration SCH No. 2007021054 included therewith, provided that:
Prior to City Council action on the application, the MND shall be revised to eliminate
specific conclusions as to the location of the predominant line of existing development
and reflect that the applicant has agreed to modify its proposal to restrict all
development to the predominant line of existing development as ultimately determined
by the City Council. Prior to City Council action on the application, the revised MND
shall have been circulated for public review for no less than thirty days.
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, but subject to revision and
recirculation of the MND as provided above, the Planning Commission hereby
recommends that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -006 per
Exhibit "A ", Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -002 per Exhibit "B ", Code
Amendment No. 2005 -009 per Exhibit "C "; and approve Newport Tract No. 2005 -004
P./9
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1723 •
Page 18 of 34
(Tentative Tract Map No. 16882), Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 and Coastal
Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -002 (PA 2005 -196) subject to conditions of
approval attached as Exhibit "D ".
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 17th DAY OF MAY 2007.
AYES: Cole, Eaton, Hawkins, Hillgren, McDaniel, Peotter
NOES:
IZATA
WA
Robert Hawkins, Secretary
D. 20
Ll
E
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1723
Page 22 of 34
Exhibit "D"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Newport Tract No. 2005 -004 (Tentative Tract Map No. 16882)
Modification Permit No. 2005 -087
(Project- specific conditions are in italics)
Planning Department
The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation
of any of those laws in connection with the use will be cause for revocation of this
permit. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and
standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval_
2. 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.
3. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any
future owners or assignees shall be noted of the conditions of this approval by
either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing agent.
4. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans
stamped and dated May 4, 2007, except as modified by the conditions of approval.
Unit 2 on Level 4 shall be in conformance with the revised floor plan submitted at the
May 17, 2007 Planning Commission hearing identified as Exhibit "Z ".
5. Project approvals except the Tentative Tract Map 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. The
Tentative Tract Map shall expire within 36 months from the date of approval unless
extensions are granted prior to expiration in accordance with the Subdivision
Ordinance and Subdivision Map Act.
6. 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.
7. The Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC &Rs) for the proposed
condominium association shall provide for the long tern maintenance of the project
and shall be reviewed and approved by the Newport Beach City Attorney prior to
their recordation. The CC &Rs shall include a provision that residents shall park
E
0"Z y
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1723
Page 23 of 34
only operable vehicles within the parking garage that are in active use (i.e, no long
term storage of vehicles),
Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit the applicant shall provide the
City with a performance bond or its equivalent to ensure timely completion of all
improvements represented on plans and drawings submitted for permit approval in
the event construction of improvements consistent with project approval is
abandoned. The performance bond or its equivalent shall be in 100% of the cost of
the building shell and shall be issued with the City as beneficiary by an insurance
company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of
insurance in the State of California and shall have an assigned policyholders' Rating
of A (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VIi (or larger) in accordance with
the latest edition of Bests Key Rating Guide unless otherwise approved by the City
Risk Manager. The bond or equivalent shall be released in 25% increments upon
completion of each quarter of construction of the building shell.
9. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for new construction, the
applicant shall execute a waiver of all claims against the City for future liability or
damage resulting from the approval to build the project. The form and content of
the waiver shall be in a form acceptable to the office of the City Attorney and the
waiver shall be recorded against the property in question.
® 10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare a photometric
study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Director.
The site shall not be excessively illuminated as excessive illumination may be
determined consistent with the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating
Engineering Society of North America or by the Planning Director in the event the
illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or
environmental resources.
E
11. Prior to the issuance of a building pe rmit. a landscape and irrigation plan prepared
by a licensed landscape architect shall be submitted for Planning Commission
review and shall be subject to Planning Director approval. The plans shall
incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices. All
planting areas, with the exception of bluff 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. The proposed landscaping adjacent to the back of sidewalk shall
be designed with provisions that will prevent irrigation and /or other runoff from
spilling onto the sidewalk.
D. 25
- City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1723
Page 24 of 34
12. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall pay a park dedication
in -lieu fee of $6,894.37 per unit.
13. Prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit, a waiver of future shoreline
protection during the economic life of the structure (75 years) shall be recorded
against the property. The waiver shall be binding upon all future owners and
assignees. The waiver shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to
recordation.
14. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the
applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the. Code Enforcement Division
to confirm control of light and glare. The Planning Director may order the dimming
of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively
illuminated.
15. Prior to issuance of a certificate occupancy for the project, the applicant shall
install a public bench within the public right -of -way as depicted on the site plan.
The speck design and location of the bench shall be approved by the Public
Works, Planning and General Serviced Departments prior to installation.
16. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall schedule an
inspection by the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm that all
landscaping materials and irrigation systems have been installed in accordance
with the approved plans.
17. All 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, watering, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free
of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including
adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance.
18. 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.
19. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and
adjacent public streets within the limits authorized by this permit, and shall be
sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code, Community Noise Control.
20. Water leaving the project site due to over - irrigation of landscape shall be
minimized. If an incident such as this is reported, a representative from the Code
and Water Quality Enforcement Division of the City Manager's Office shall visit the
E
P. 2 (�
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1723
Page 25 of 34
location, investigate, inform resident if possible, leave a note and in some cases
shut -off the water.
21.
Watering should be done during the early morning or evening hours to minimize
evaporation (between 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m., the following morning).
22.
All leaks shall be investigated by a representative from the Code and Water Quality
Enforcement Division of the City Manager's Office and the applicant or future
owners shall complete all required repairs.
23_
The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all administrative costs
identified by the Planning Department within 30 days of receiving a final notification of
costs or prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
24.
All altered slopes that are outside of the building envelope shall be contoured to
resemble the existing natural terrain.
25.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify; defend and hold
harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers,
employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations,
damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties,
liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees,
disbursements and court of every kind and nature whatsoever which may
arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the
AERIE Project including, but not limited to, the approval of General Plan
Amendment No. 2005 -006, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -002,
Code Amendment No. 2005 -009, Tentative Tract Map No. 2005 -004 (Tract 16882),
Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 and Coastal Residential Development Permit
No. 2005 -002 collectively referred to as PA 2005 -196; and /or the City's related
California Environmental Quality Act determinations, the adoption of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the AERIE Project.
This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against
the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in
connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether
incurred by applicant, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding.
The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and
damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in
this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed
to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this
condition.
E
26. The project shall incorporate and implement an emergency power backup system so
the vehicle lifts will operate during a power outage. The location of the generator shall
be sound attenuated and screened from public view and subject to the review and
approval of the Planning Director.
P. z
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1723
Page 26 of 34 Is
27. Remote control operators for the vehicle elevators, in quantities equal to the number
of parking spaces assigned to each dwelling unit, shall be provided to occupants of
the respective units. The project shall incorporate an extemal indicating system to
alert drivers which vehicle elevator will be available for immediate use. The vehicle
elevator system shall be designed and maintained to return the elevator cars to the
street level when not in use. The vehicle elevator system shall be maintained for
efficient use throughout the life of the project.
28. Vehicle parking and maneuvering areas shall be restricted to the parking of operable
vehicles and shall not be used for storage of any kind including the long -terra storage
of vehicles not in regular use.
29. Construction activities shall be confined to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on
weekdays and on Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6 :00 p_m.
30. Idling of construction vehicles and equipment shall be limited to the maximum
extent feasible. Construction vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated
and maintained and shall be turned off immediately. Construction workers,
equipment operators or truck drivers shall not employ any fora of audible signaling
system during any phase of construction.
31. Reclaimed water shall be used wherever available, assuming it is economically
feasible.
Fire Department
32. One gurney- accommodating elevator shall be provided in accordance with Chapter
30 of the Califomia Building Code within the project that must access each level.
33. A Class 111 standpipe system shall be provided at the private dock in accordance with
Newport Beach Fire Department guidelines.
34. A public fire hydrant shall be provided at the comer of Carnation Avenue and Ocean
Boulevard. The hydrant shall be installed and tested prior to occupancy of the project,
unless required earlier by the Fire Department.
35. A fire alarm system with fire control room shall be provided within the project.
Monitored Automatic fire sprinklers shall be required for the entire structure to meet
NFA13, 199 Edition and in accordance with Newport Beach Fire Department
requirements. Shut -off valves and a waterftow device shall be provided for each unit.
A Class i standpipe shall be provided at every level at all stairs. Standpipe and
sprinklers may be a combination system.
36. The project shall provide pressurized exit enclosures and vestibules in accordance
with the Building Code. Enclosures shall be a minimum two -hour fire rated
construction.
E
City of Newport Beach
® Planning Commission Resolution No. 1723
Page 27 of 34
37. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings
in such a position that is plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting
the property. Said numbers shall be of made of non - combustible materials, shall
contrast with their background, and shall be either internally or externally
illuminated to be visible at night. Number shall be no less than six inches in height
with a one -inch stroke.
Public Works
38. All parking stall dimensions shall comply with City's Standard Drawings STD -805-
L-A.
39. Driveway /drive aisle slopes shall comply with City Standard STD- 160 -L -C, which
accommodate a 15 percent maximum slope and a maximum change in grade of 11
percent. The building plans shall show detailed profile of each of the proposed
driveways.
40. Project driveways must conform to the City's sight distance standard 110 -L. The
design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
41. All work conducted within the public right -of -way shall be approved under an
® encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department.
42. .Construction surety in a forrn acceptable to the City, guaranteeing the completion
of the various required public improvements and repairs, shall be submitted to the
Public Works Department for City Council approval prior to the issuance of Public
Works Department encroachment permit.
43. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public
Works Department.
44. A water demand, a storm drain system capacity, and a sanitary sewer system
capacity study shall be submitted to the Public Works Department along with the
first building plan check submittal. The recommendations of these studies shall be
incorporated as a part of the submitted plans.
45. Street, drainage and utility improvements within the public right -of -way shall be
submitted on City standard improvement plan formats. All of the plan sheets shall
be wet sealed, dated, and signed by the California registered professionals
responsible for the designs shown on said plans.
46. All new landscaping within the public right -of -way shall be approved by the General
Services Department and the Public Works Department.
47. The applicant shall submit detail plans for the on -site drainage system(s) to
demonstrate that it will prevent the underground garage from being flooded during
® storm events.
0, 2q
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1723
Page 28 of 34
48. The Developer shall file one (1) Final Tract Map (Map).
49. The roadway cross section shown on the Map with a 110 -foot right -of -way width
should be labeled as "Ocean Boulevard ".
50. The Map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD88). Prior to
Map recordation, 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 the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County
Subdivision Manual. The Map to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall
comply with the City's CADD Standards. Scanned images will not be accepted.
51. Prior to recordation, the Map boundary shall be tied onto the Horizontal Control
System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Sections 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 City Engineer.
Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of
construction project.
52. The applicant's request to vacate the existing sewer /utilities easement shall be
approved by the City Utilities Department prior to the issuance of a building permit
or the recordation of the final tract map. The existing private ingress/egress
easement with the same width, length, and alignment as the existing sewer /utilities
easement shall be vacated or permission from the beneficiaries of the private
easement shall be documented prior to the issuance of a building permit or the
recordation of the final tract map.
53. A 5 -foot wide public sewer and utilities easement as measured from the centerline
of the existing sewer main fronting the development site shall be recorded against
the property. The applicant shall prepare and submit the legal description for said
easement for City review and approval.
54. All easements of record shall be recorded as a part of the Final Map.
55. All improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the current
edition of the City Design Criteria, Standard Special Provisions, and Standard
Drawings.
56. The sidewalk portion of the proposed new driveway approach shall be constructed
with 2% cross -fall per City Standards.
57. Temporary construction sheet piles shall be installed to protect all existing storm
drain and sanitary sewer mains within and adjacent to the development site.
P. 30
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1723
Page 29 of 34
58. No structures or construction tie -backs shall be constructed within the limits of any
easements or public right -of -way without the approval of an Encroachment
Agreement and Permit.
59. Full -width concrete sidewalk and curb and gutter shall be constructed along the
length of the Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard frontages. The new sidewalk
shall join the existing sidewalk in front of 2501 Ocean Boulevard.
60. New concrete curbs shall be dowelled into sound concrete roadway pavement.
61. Trees shall not be installed at locations where mature tree roots'could damage the
existing City sewer main.
62. The plans suggested there will be a 40 -foot (40) drop from the top of proposed
perimeter /retaining walls along the Carnation Avenue property line to the garden
below. The proposed top of wall is shown on the Plans as, 15" above the sidewalk
finish surface. Adequate safety provisions for pedestrians and W/8 Ocean
Boulevard vehicle traffic shall be shown on building plans along the length of said
walls and shall be implemented throughout the life of the project.
63. Each dwelling unit shall be served by its individual water service and sewer lateral
® connection and cleanout.
64. All utility connections shall be placed underground in accordance with the
Subdivision Code.
65. The garage space for Unit 8 on the basement level shall be relocated across the
parking aisle from Guest Parking 4 as the removal of the garage wall from this side
of Parking Level 2 will provide enhanced maneuvering area for vehicles.
66. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall
be subject to further review and approval by the Traffic Engineer and any
corrections /modifications shall be made to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer.
67. All non - standard improvements within the public right -of -way would require an
Encroachment Agreement and Encroachment Permit,
68. Curb cuts within the public right -of -way leading to the pedestrian walkways shall
not be permitted. Standard curb, gutter and sidewalk shall be installed.
69. Gates shall not be designed to open out into the public right -of -way
70. Raised planters shall not be permitted within the Public right -of -way. Planting
adjacent to the curb shall accommodate a vehicle car door opening. Project
landscape plans shall provide details of the planters and shall be reviewed and
approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a building
® permit.
12. 31
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1723
Page 30 of 34
71. The driveway approaches within the public right-of-way shall be shall be narrowed
to the width of garage openings they serve. Six -inch curbs shall have a 3 foot flare.
Drive approaches shall be modified to comply with ADA requirements.
72. Planters adjacent to the freight elevators shall be pulled back from the:Camation
Avenue property line two feet to improve vehicle maneuvering. Planters in the front
yard shell not encroach into the projection of the garage door edge.
73. No structural support column shall be located in the middle of the driveway leading
to the parking area located on Level 4.
74. The loading area adjacent to the ADA accessible stall shall be 8 -foot wide.
75. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare a study of the
existing drainage area and catch basin in Carnation Avenue to determine the
appropriate size of catch basin. The developer shall enlarge the existing catch
basin accordingly.
76. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Public Works Department plan check
and inspection fee shall be paid.
77. Prior to the issuance of a gradinq or building permit, the applicant shall prepare a
construction phasing plan and construction delivery plan that includes routing of
large vehicles. The plan shall include a haul route plan for review and approval of
the Public Works Department. Said plan shall specify the routes to be traveled,
times of travel, total number of trucks, number of trucks per hour, time of operation,
and safety /congestion precautions (e.g., signage, flagmen). Large construction
vehicles shall not be permitted to travel narrow streets and alleys as determined by
the Public Works Department. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and
materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. The
plans shall include a provision that maintains the public right -of -way open to
vehicular and pedestrian traffic after working hours daily.
78: Where vehicles leave the construction site and enter adjacent public streets, any
visible track -out extending for more than fifty (50) feet from the access point shall
be swept within thirty (30) minutes of deposition.
79. Prior to commencement of demolition and grading the applicant shall submit to the
City calculations showing the proposed travel route for haul trucks, the distance
traveled, and how many daily truck trips that can be accommodated to ensure that
the daily cumulative miles traveled is below the assumed total vehicle miles
traveled in the quantitative air quality assessment of the Mitigated negative
declaration.
u
[). ,; Z
LJ
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1723
Page 31 of 34
Building Department
80. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City of Newport
Beach. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City- adopted
version of the California Building Code. The facility shall be designed to meet fire
protection requirements and shall be subject to review and approval by the
Newport Beach Building and Fire Departments.
81. The proposed project shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building
Code, any local amendments to the UBC, and State Disabled Access
requirements, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department.
82. County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any building
permits.
83. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) shall be prepared and approved by the City of Newport Beach as the
local permitting agency in accordance with the requirements of the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The SWPPP shall include BMPs to eliminate
and /or minimize stormwater pollution prior to, and during construction. The
SWPPP shall require construction to occur in stages and stabilized prior to
® disturbing other areas and require the use of temporary diversion dikes and basins to
trap sediment from run-off and allow clarification prior to discharge.
E
84. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the applicant shall prepare a Water
Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying the Best Management
Practices (BMP's) that will be used on site to control predictable pollutant runoff.
The plan shall identify the types of structural and non - structural measures to be
used. The plan shall comply with the Orange County Drainage Area Management
Plan (DAMP). Particular attention should be addressed to the appendix section
"Best Management Practices for New Development." The WQMP shall clearly
show the locations of structural BMP's, and assignment of long term maintenance
responsibilities (which shall also be included in the Maintenance Agreement). The
plan shall be prepared to the format of the DAMP title "Water Quality Management
Plan Outline" and be subject to the approval of the City.
85. Prior to the issuance of the grading or building 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.
86. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the applicant shall submit evidence to
the City Building Official that the applicant has obtained coverage under the
0.33
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1723
Page 32 of 34
NPDES statewide General' Construction Activity Stormwater Permit from the State
Water Resources Control Board.
87. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall submit an
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESOP) in a manner meeting approval of the
City Building Official, to demonstrate compliance with local and state water quality
regulations for grading and construction activities. The ESCP shall identify how all
construction materials, wastes, grading or demolition debris, and stockpiles of soil,
aggregates, soil amendments, etc. shall be properly covered, stored, and secured
to prevent transport into local drainages or coastal waters by wind, rain, tracking,
tidal erosion, or dispersion. The ESCP shall also describe how the applicant will
ensure that all Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be maintained during
construction of any future public right -of -ways. A copy of the current ESCP shall
be kept at the project site and be available for City of Newport Beach review on
request. The ESCP shall include and require the use of soil stabilization measures
for all disturbed areas.
88. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the project applicant shall document to the
City of Newport Beach Building Department that all facilities will be designed and
constructed to comply with current seismic safety standards and the current City-
adopted version of the Uniform Building Code.
89. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, a geotechnical report shall be submitted is
with construction drawings for plan check. The Building Department shall ensure
that the project complies with the geotechnical recommendations included in the
preliminary geologic investigation as well as additional requirements, if any,
imposed by the Newport Beach Building Department.
90. Prior to issuance of the building permit, school impacts fees will be paid to the
Building Department to assist in funding school facility expansion and educational
services to area residents.
Mitigation Measures from the Mitigated Negative Declaration
91- Mitigation Measure 111 - -1— During grading activities, any exposed soil areas shall be
watered at least four times per day. Stockpiles of crushed cement, debris, dirt or
other dusty materials shall be covered or watered twice daily. On windy days or
when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the proposed project site, additional
applications of water shall be applied to maintain a minimum 12 percent moisture
content as defined by SCAQMD Rule 403. Soil disturbance shall be terminated
whenever windy conditions exceed 25 miles per hour.
92. Mitigation Measure 111 -2 — Truck loads- carrying soil and debris material shall be
wetted or covered prior to leaving the site. Where vehicles leave the construction
site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets shall be swept daily.
A
p. -3q
C
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1723
Page 33 of 34
93. Mitigation Measure 111 -3 — All diesel - powered machinery exceeding 100
horsepower shall be equipped with soot traps, unless the Contractor demonstrates
to the satisfaction of the City Building Official that it is infeasible.
94. Mitigation Measure 111 -4 — The construction contractor shall time the construction
activities, including the transportation of construction equipment vehicles and
equipment to the site, and delivery of materials, so as not to interfere with peak
hour traffic. To minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site, a
flag person shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways, if
deemed necessary by the City.
95. Mitigation Measure 111 -5 — The construction contractor shall encourage ridesharing
and transit incentives for the construction workers.
96. Mitigation Measure 111 -6 — To the extent feasible, pre - coated /natural colored
building materials shall be used. Water -based or low VOC coatings shall be used
that comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113 limits. Spray equipment with high transfer
efficiency, or manual coatings application such as paint brush, hand roller, trowel,
etc. shall be used to reduce VOC emissions, where practical. Paint application
shall use lower volatility paint not exceeding 100 grams of ROG per liter.
97. Mitigation Measure V -1 — During excavation and grading of the site,
paleontological monitoring shall be conducted by an experienced monitor under
the direction of the project paleontologist. If fossil remains are found by the
monitor, earthmoving shall be diverted temporarily around the fossils until the
remains have been recovered and the monitor agrees to allow earthmoving to
proceed.
98. Mitigation Measure Vlll -1: The developer shall be responsible for
replacement/upsizing of the Carnation Avenue storm drain, to provide sufficient
capacity for the added runoff generated by this project, as well as existing runoff
from the rest of the tributary area to this drain. It shall satisfy the appropriate storm-
year design criteria established by the City Engineer. This storm drain
reconstruction shall include appropriate urban runoff filtration elements, to reduce
potential water pollution impacts into Newport Harbor. Reconstruction of this storm
drain shall occur outside of the rainy season.
99. Mitigation Measure IX -1— The property owner(s) shall execute and record a waiver
of future shoreline protection for the project prior to the issuance of a building
permit. Said waiver shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney.
100. Mitigation Measure IX -2 — The applicant shall dedicate a view easement as
depicted on Exhibit J within the AERIE project overview prepared by the project
architect; however, it would only affect the project site. Structures and landscaping
within the easement area shall not be permitted to block public views. The
0.35
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1723
Page 34 of 34
easement shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit for new
construction and shall be reflected on the final tract map.
101. Mitigation Measure IX -3 — Accessory structures shall be relocated or removed if
threatened by coastal erosion. Accessory structures shall not be expanded and
routine maintenance of accessory structures is permitted.
102. Mitigation Measure IX -4 — Bluff landscaping shall consist of native, drought tolerant
plant species determined to be consistent with the California coastal buff
environment. Invasive and non - native species shall be removed. Irrigation of bluff
faces to establish re- vegetated areas shall be temporary and used only to establish
the plants. Upon establishment of the plantings, the temporary irrigation system
shall be removed.
103. Mitigation Measure XV -1: Prior to commencement of each major phase of
construction, the Contractor shall submit a construction staging, parking and traffic
control plan for approval by the Public Works Department. This plan shall identify
the proposed construction staging area(s), construction crew parking area(s),
estimated number and types of vehicles that will occur during that phase, the
proposed arrivalldeparture routes and operational safeguards (e.g. flagmen,
barricades, shuttle services, etc.) and hourly restrictions, if necessary, to avoid
traffic conflicts during peak traffic periods, displacement of on- street parking and to
ensure safety. The construction staging, parking and traffic control plan shall
provide for an off -site parking lot of construction crews which will be shuttled to and
from the project site at the beginning of and end of each day until such time that
the project site can accommodate construction vehicle parking. Construction traffic
routes.shall be included and shall avoid narrow residential streets, unless there is
no alternative, and shall not include any streets where some form of construction is
underway within or adjacent to the street that would impact the efficacy of the
proposed route. Grading and dirt hauling shall not be scheduled during the
summer season (Memorial Day holiday weekend through and including the Labor
Day holiday weekend). The approved construction staging, parking traffic control
plan shall be implemented throughout each major construction phase.
E
P. 3
• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 3
May 17, 2007
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner
(949) 644 -3210, IcamobellCo )city.newoort- beach.ca:us
SUBJECT: AERIE (PA2005 -196)
201 -205 & 207 Carnation Avenue
101 Bayside Place
APPLICANT: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc.
Richard Julian, President
PROJECT SUMMARY
The AERIE project consists of the demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment building
® and single - family residence and the construction of a new 9 -unit residential
condominium building. The following discretionary approvals are requested or required
in order to implement the project as designed:
1. General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -006 would change the land use designation of a
584 square foot portion of 101 Bayside Place from RT (Two -Unit Residential) to RM
(Multiple -Unit Residential, 20 dwelling units per acre).
2. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -002 would change the Coastal Land
Use Plan designation of the same 584 square foot portion of 101 Bayside Place from
RH -D (High Density Residential - 50.1 to 60 dwelling units per acre) to RM -A
(Medium Density Residential - 6.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre).
3. Zone Change No. 2005 -009 would change the zoning designation of the 584 square
foot portion of 101 Bayside Place from R -2 (Two- Family Residential) to MFR
(Multifamily Residential, 2178 square feet per unit).
4. Tract Map No. 2005 -004 (TT16882) combines the 584 square foot portion of 101
Bayside Place with 201 -205 Carnation Avenue and 207 Carnation Avenue and
subdivides the air space for 9 residential condominium units.
5. Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 would permit a 5 -foot subterranean encroachment
within the 10 -foot front setback along Carnation Avenue, and a T -1" to 5' -7" above-
11
0. 37
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
May 17, 2007, Page 2
grade and subterranean encroachment into a 10' -7" side yard setback between the
project and 215 Carnation.
6. Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -002 is an application required by
Chapter 20.86 of the Municipal Code to review the potential loss of affordable
housing within the Coastal Zone. No low or moderate income households occupy
the site and no replacement housing is required.
Each discretionary approval request, analysis and their respective findings are
discussed in the February 22, 2007, staff report attached as Exhibit #1. Facts to support
the findings are contained in the attached draft resolutions recommending project
approval to the City Council
RECOMMENDATION
1) Consider the revised draft MIND; and,
2) Adopt one of the two attached draft resolutions recommending that the City Council
adopt the draft MIND and approve the project consistent with the predominant line of
existing development as determined by the Planning Commission and approve
General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -006, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No.
2005 -002, Code Amendment No. 2005 -009, Newport Tract Map No. 2005 -004 (Tract
16882), Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 and Coastal Residential Development
Permit No. 2005 -002 (Exhibit #2 and #3).
DISCUSSION
Project Revisions
In response to Planning Commission direction at the February 22, 2007 meeting, the
applicant modified the project by reducing the bayward extent of the northwestern
portion of the proposed building to be consistent with the bayward extent of the
southeastern portion of the building. The northwestern portion of the building extended
further away from the bluff edge than the southeastern portion of the building. The
applicant revised the plans by moving the deck and building wall closer to the
approximate location of the bluff edge on Level 2 (lower floor of Unit #7) by
approximately 6.5 and 6 feet respectively. Additionally, the deck and building wall on the
level above (Level 3) were also modified, but were not moved closer to the estimated
bluff edge. Overall the project changes reduced the overall floor area by 527 square
feet.
Since the Planning Commission meeting of April 5, 2007, the applicant has further
revised the project again. The lowest extent of the project as seen from the west will be
30.5 feet above mean sea level (previously 29 feet MSL). The finished floor of Level 1 is
now 18 inches higher on the bluff face. The lowest visible extent of the north elevation
will vary between 59 feet and 30.5 feet MSL. The revised plans (Exhibit #4) include the
changes directed by the Planning Commission at the February 22, 2007, meeting.
D. ?Y
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
May 17, 2007, Page 3
is Specific Coastal Land Use (CLOP) Policies vs, General CLUP Policies
Project approval requires the Planning Commission to find that the proposed
condominium building is consistent with applicable General Plan, CLUP policies, and
the Zoning Code. Because the project site is a coastal bluff, project review has focused
on CLUP policies relating to protection of coastal bluffs and views of the bluff as part of
the scenic and visual quality of the coastal zone. These policies are set forth below.
This report will outline the range of possible outcomes based upon the application of
these policies.
CLUP policies 4.4.1 -1, 4.4.1 -2 and 4.4.1 -3 are general policy statements that apply to
all development.
4.4.1 -1. Protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the
coastal zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor and
to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas.
4.4.1 -2. Design and site new development including landscaping, so as to minimize
impacts to public coastal views.
4.4.1 -3 Design and site new development to minimize alterations to significant natural
landforms, including bluffs, cliffs and canyons.
® CLUP policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9 apply to the project site and provide specific policy
direction.
4.4.3 -8. Prohibit development on bluff faces, except private development on coastal
bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in
Corona del Mar determined to be consistent with the predominant line of
existing development or public improvements providing public access,
protecting coastal resources, or providing for public safety. Permit such
improvements only when no feasible alternative exists and when designed
and constructed to minimize alteration of the bluff face, to not contribute to
further erosion of the bluff face, and to be visually compatible with the
surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible.
4.4.3 -9. Where principal structures exist on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard,
Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar, require all new
development to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing
development in order to protect public coastal views. Establish a predominant
line of development for both principle structures and accessory improvements.
The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure safety and stability
of the development.
At the April 5, 2007, staff report, staff indicated that development up to the predominant
line of existing development should not be allowed if the Planning Commission
determined that this effort alone did not sufficiently minimize alteration of the bluff. Staff
® reached this conclusion by attempting to balance Policy 4.4.1 -3 with the two more
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
May 17,2007, Page 4
specific policies (Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9) that allow development to be sited on the
Carnation Avenue bluff face consistent with the predominant line of existing
development. Staff has met with the applicant and also been advised by the City
Attorney that a specific policy takes precedence over a more general policy when there
appears to be a potential conflict in their application. This does not mean, however, that
the general policies are not applicable in the implementation of the more specific
policies. Accordingly, the location of the predominant line of existing development
pursuant to Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9 must first be identified as the means of
minimizing alteration of the bluff.
Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9 allow development to the predominant line of existing
development and Policies 4.4.1 -1 and 4.4.1 -2 require development be designed to
minimize impacts to public coastal views and to protect and, where feasible, enhance
the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, including public views. Determining
the predominant line of existing development in a manner that is also consistent with
Policies 4.4.1 -1 and 4.4.1 -2 will ensure that development up to the predominant line of
existing development will minimize alteration of the bluff and protect public coastal
views and the scenic and visual quality of the coastal zone. If the development up to
the predominant line of existing development is perceived to be inconsistent with the
intent of the more general policies, the method to identify the predominant line of
existing development may be flawed.
Predominant Line of Existing Development
The Planning Commission must determine the location of the predominant line of
existing development. As noted in prior staff reports and the revised MND, establishing
the predominant line of existing development is subjective. Although staff has identified
a predominant line of existing development in the revised MIND, the Commission may
determine that the predominant line of existing development should be set at a location
different than the one identified by staff in the revised MND based upon an alternative
interpretation of CLUP policies.
The most conservative application of the polices might suggest that no portion of the
project could extend further bayward or lower on the bluff face than the existing
development located on the project site. Staff does not believe this application of policy
is consistent with the definition of predominant line of existing development contained
within the CLUP as it would not take into account existing abutting development on the
bluff face that is developed further down the bluff face. Additionally, it would also
suggest that minimizing the alteration of the bluff might mean no alteration is allowed.
The first step to identify the predominant line of existing development consistent with
CLUP policies is to locate a block of homes on the bluff face that are representative of
the existing development pattern. The next step is to measure the distance between the
structures within the block of homes selected and a representative point or line. The
definition of predominant line of development within the CLUP contains an example
suggesting that the predominant line of existing development may be the median
distance of the block of homes. The median distance is then compared to the entire
C
p.yo
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
May 17, 2007, Page 5
® block of homes to ensure that it is represents the existing development pattern. If it does
not represent the development pattern, it would not be consistent with the general
resource protection policies discussed above and a different method to identify the
predominant line of existing development should be examined. In staffs opinion, the
calculation of the median distance (used by staff to arrive at a predominant line of
existing development in the draft MND) should be considered the starting point and
should not be the sole basis for determining the predominant line of existing
development.
r 1
In developing the predominant line of existing development as set forth in the revised
MND, the definition of the predominant line of development was used. Staff identified a
block of homes consisting of 7 principal structures constructed on the bluff face as
shown in Exhibit #5. These structures were identified for the purpose of analysis as they
are all located on Carnation Avenue /Ocean Boulevard bluff face and share similar
topographical features. The elevation of each structure above mean sea level was
measured based upon available topographic and elevation information. The median
elevation was calculated. Fifty -two (52) feet above mean sea level was identified as the
median value within the draft MND and that led staff to identify it as the vertical
predominant line of existing development as it appears to be consistent with the existing
development pattern. Since this analysis was prepared, the applicant has provided
additional information on the vertical extent of development down the bluff face (Exhibit
#6). The following table indicates the 7 lots within the block of homes evaluated with
elevation information and median values identified.
Based upon this more accurate elevation information, staff concludes that the
predominant line of existing development could be 50.7 feet above MSL. The structures
located on Bayside Place, Channel Reef condominium development and the Kerchoff
Marine Laboratory were not included as they are not located on the bluff face but rather
in front of the bluff. If Channel Reef is included in the calculation, with an approximate
elevation of 14.15 feet, the median elevation is 49.4 feet above MSL. If the Kerchoff
Marine Laboratory is included, the median elevation is 48.1 feet above MSL.
Staff has also evaluated the predominant line of existing development in the horizontal
or plan view using the same block of homes identified above. The furthest extent of
development from the curb was estimated from aerial photography and project plans.
The median distance from the curb is approximately 96.7 feet. When Channel Reef is
included, the median distance from the curb is 103.3 feet. The project extends further
P. 41
MND vertical elevation
Lowest vertical elevation
1.
2495 Ocean Blvd.
30.5
24.10
2.
201 -205 Carnation Ave.
52 median value
42.3
3.
207 Carnation Ave.
70
65 estimated
4.
215 Carnation Ave.
57
57.8
5.
221 -223 Carnation Ave.
48
48.1
6.
227 -231 Carnation Ave.
59
58.2
7.
1 233 Carnation Ave.
1 50
50.7 median value
Based upon this more accurate elevation information, staff concludes that the
predominant line of existing development could be 50.7 feet above MSL. The structures
located on Bayside Place, Channel Reef condominium development and the Kerchoff
Marine Laboratory were not included as they are not located on the bluff face but rather
in front of the bluff. If Channel Reef is included in the calculation, with an approximate
elevation of 14.15 feet, the median elevation is 49.4 feet above MSL. If the Kerchoff
Marine Laboratory is included, the median elevation is 48.1 feet above MSL.
Staff has also evaluated the predominant line of existing development in the horizontal
or plan view using the same block of homes identified above. The furthest extent of
development from the curb was estimated from aerial photography and project plans.
The median distance from the curb is approximately 96.7 feet. When Channel Reef is
included, the median distance from the curb is 103.3 feet. The project extends further
P. 41
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
May 17, 2007, Page 6
away from the bluff than this distance. The applicant's identification of the horizontal
predominant line of existing development as measured from the curb and bluff edge
have also been plotted by staff. These lines do not appear to be representative of the
existing development pattern of structures on the bluff face. The inclusion of the
Channel Reef condominium development and the Kerchoff Marine Laboratory in the
calculations creates the difference between staffs analysis and the applicant's. It does
appear that the existing development pattern follows the approximate bluff edge with the
exception of development of the two abutting single - family homes to the south and
Channel Reef.
The applicant has prepared several exhibits showing the bluff face with the project
superimposed as viewed from the bay. The exhibits contain various lines and elevations
above mean sea level. The applicant has not provided a calculation or identified a
methodology to determine the predominant line of existing development that supports
the revised project using elevations above mean sea level. Staff has prepared an
alternative method of calculating the median elevation of existing development as a
means to locating a predominant line of existing development consistent with the
vertical extent of development pf the proposed project.
The applicant identified a block of homes within the AERIE Project Overview (previously
transmitted to the Commission) for the purpose of identifying the predominant line of
existing development.. This block of structures extends roughly 250 feet northerly and
250 feet easterly from the intersection of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. The
lowest extent of development on the Carnation Avenue portion of the block is
approximately 42.3 feet (project site) and the lowest extent of development on the
Ocean Boulevard portion of the block is approximately 14.15 feet (Channel Reef). The
median elevation of these two values is also the average and it is 28.3 feet above MSL.
If this method is used to identify the predominant line of existing development, the
project may be consistent with CLUP Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9 if the entire structure
is up -slope from this line. Additionally, the project may be viewed as further minimizing
alteration of the bluff and protecting the view of and scenic quality of the coastal bluff as
required by CLUP policies 4.4.1 -1, 4.4.1 -2 and 4.4.1 -3 as the entire building does not
extend to the predominant line of existing development.
The line of development exhibits prepared by the applicant (within Exhibit #3) show the
revised project and its relationship to surrounding development. From a purely
subjective standpoint, the revised project line steps down in elevation from left to right
on the drawings making a reasonable transition between abutting development on the
bluff face. If this line is representative of the existing development pattern on the bluff,
the Commission may use it for the basis of project approval.
Parking Configuration
In the last staff report, staff suggested that the project may be inconsistent with CLUP
Policy 2.9.3 -1 and Circulation Element Policy CE7.1.1 regarding the parking
configuration. These policies require new development to avoid the use of parking
configurations or parking management programs that are difficult to maintain and
P. yz
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
May 17, 2007, Page 7
® enforce while providing adequate, convenient parking for residents, guests, business
patrons and visitors. The below grade parking accessed by vehicle elevators is not the
most convenient and may lead to vehicle queuing within the public right -of -way.
Residents, guests and service providers might be more inclined to park on the street
when it is more convenient to do so.
One potential option is to relocate the vehicle elevators in such a way that they are not
accessed directly from the street but from within Level 4. In that way, vehicles would pull
off the street and wait for the elevators on -site rather than potentially blocking the street
or sidewalk. The Commission will need to determine whether or not the proposed
parking configuration is consistent with the subject policies. Eliminating the use of
vehicle lifts altogether does not appeal feasible given the density of the proposed
project, parking requirements and space needs if vehicle ramps are incorporated within
the parking garage design.
Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
As noted previously, the draft MND has been revised and recirculated for public review
(Exhibit #7). The comment period is between April 16th and May 15; 2007. The draft
MND was reviewed by the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee and their
comments, along with any other comments received, will be forwarded to the
Commission for consideration at or before the meeting depending upon when they are
received.
® The decision to recirculate the document was made due to the amount and nature of
revisions previously recommended and the need to address a new public view issue.
Revisions to address prior comments made by the Planning Commission have been
incorporated. Additionally, the project's potential impact upon public views from Begonia
Park were included (page 23 of the revised draft MND). The project will marginally
reduce the view of the harbor entrance, Balboa Peninsula and a portion of the coastal
bluff from this vantage point, the impact was determined not to be significant.
E
Although staff identified the predominant line of existing development at 52 feet above
MSL, a different predominant line of existing development can be identified without
necessitating recirculation of the draft MIND. Staff has further revised the basis for the
identification of the predominant line of existing development based upon more detailed
elevation information such that the predominant line of existing development is 50.7
feet, rather than 52 feet, above MSL and the proposed mitigation measure would need
to be revised accordingly. If the Planning Commission identifies an alternative
predominant line of existing development that accommodates the proposed project, it
will not identify a new environmental impact and the Mitigation Measure IX -5 is not
necessary. If an alternative predominant line of existing development is set by the
Planning Commission, Mitigation Measure IX -5 will need to be modified accordingly.
P. y3
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
May 17, 2007, Page 8
SUMMARY
Identification of the predominant line of existing development is necessary to act on the
project. The line must be consistent with Policies 4.4.1 -1, 4.4.1 -2 and 4.4.1 -3 requiring
new development to minimize alteration of the coastal bluff, to protect public views of
the bluff and to protect the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone.
If the Commission determines the predominant line of existing development to be 50.7
feet above MSL as identified in the draft MND, then the applicant should be directed to
redesign the project consistent with this determination or the project can be
recommended for approval with a condition requiring such a change (Exhibit #2). If the
Commission determines the predominant line of existing development to be at or
beyond the revised project, the revised project can be recommended for approval
(Exhibit #3). If an alternative predominant line of existing development is identified,
revisions to either resolution will be necessary to reflect and implement the Planning
Commission's action.
As noted previously, a discussion and analysis of each discretionary approval request
including their respective findings are contained in the February 22, 2007, staff report
attached as Exhibit #1. Facts to support the findings are contained in both of the
attached draft resolutions recommending project approval to the City Council.
Prepared by: Submitted by:
James Campbell, Senior Planner
EXHIBITS
David Lepo; Planning Director
.
' r''^µ - ^I "f'^ 1 ^diI ;O P•^;est— appPoyal(yredominant line QL-ex Airg
-developmemt at 69.; feet IVIGI=)
'3- I-DF24 nL�{'.. FQAQmmeR;IiR9 ..4 appmval (p edQ At 1'n of fine
deyelapmeRt at 28.8 feet M61t)
5. Predominant line of existing development exhibits prepared by staff
6. Additional elevation /grade material submitted by the applicant
J
11
p. yy
11
E
u
Exhibit #5
Predominant line of existing development
exhibits prepared by staff
D.y5
Median elevation of the seven structures is 50.7 feet MSL.
O
r
J
j.1f 9
lt
i01
/p. 5 0
C
11
146-3" From Bluff Edge (Decks)
112'-11 "From Bluff Edge (Building)
Approximate Bluff Edge
Predominant Line of Development
P ANt �
t: �` . From AERIE Project Overview
` a 7 (From Approximate Bluff Edge) N
U. 5J/
r
J
r t z
n�
Y
t'
Uri r n
LM ? S
qv
ry y�yN
�i
sop r
Y` lt
F w
U
u
Exhibit #6
Additional elevation /grade material
submitted by the applicant
C
().53
PLANNING
ENGINEERING
SURFMNG
GOVERNMENT Rl LAI'IONS
IRVINE
LOS ANGELES
R1'.;[wYUE
SAN DIEGO
FOUNDING PARTNERS:
RICHARD HUNWER.
TOM R. MCCANNON
JOHN A. .NI[;HLER
DOUGLAS G. SNYDER
PRINCIPALS:
DAVID PRATTONf
FRED GRAYLEE
BP.ADLEY 1'IAY
PAOL HUDDLES fON
KAMAL H. KARA.M
1>000LAS L. S9ALEY
KRIS SVEM
JOSEPH E. WIGHTMAN
Th,eeHa%bc,
Inmc. CM4 ... ia
92519.2021
i94q) 593 -1010 PH
0993 583.0759 FX
vriew.f:unsal;ir mm
HUNSAKER
&ASSOCIATES
I R V I N E. I N C.
April 12, 2007
Mr. James Campbell
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
RE: ELEVATION CERTIFICATION
Dear Mr. Campbell,
This is to certify that the elevations shown on attached Exhibits A -1
through H, inclusive, are the result of a survey performed by me, or under
my direct supervision in April of 2007. Elevations are based on local
United States Coast and Geodetic Survey Benchmarks in the Area and
are derived from the North American Vertical Datum of 1988.
Elevation established on Dirt or Sand are shown to the nearest 0.1',
elevations on Concrete are to the nearest 0.01 .
If you should have any questions regarding the attached information
please do not hesitate to call me at (949) 458 -5493.
Sincerely,
Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc.
Bruce F. Hunsaker, PLS 5921
Manager, Field Survey Department
My License Expires: December 31, 2008
a 5y
E
11
\� 2/.Si
._ ... .. +..
t
ANN 4
&ter+ i✓ �� x,u �k2. A
2'Ht .1 �� e
&ter+ i✓ �� x,u �k2. A
2'Ht .1 �� e
s 1:P
+ ro
1
...
46.9 Bottom 'of
Retaining Wall
;
}t k
a -ter /�i
lit
' rk�4 /l A ft; Wt&
t.
( "-W
/•. t _ °`�,�sF�=�Y'Ri (t^ ✓^;� �tE�l�''�ty � -: }Y lj °�;ii
s
s-
1 f
rt, E
1 ^`
j
ul
It
A4
�^-
Existirfgl Bluildi",-
1W 1 2.1
"14 �11 Ile' III
F.
WT
Ti:
55.W Corner
,
15xisti'ng Walkway :�
pY.
Tip
j
ul
It
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007
UBJECT: Advanced Real Estate Services (PA2005 -196)
201 & 207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place
-he application would allow the demolition of an existing '14 -unit apartmen
wilding and a single - family home and the construction of a 7- level, 9 -uni
nultiple- family residential condominium complex with subterranean parkinc
m a 1.4 acre site located bayward of the intersection of Ocean Boulevarc
and Carnation Avenue. The existing General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plat
rnd Zoning Designations of a small portion of the site (584 square feet
vould be changed to be consistent with the larger portion of the site (fron
wo- family residential to multi - family residential). The application includes t
entative tract map for the creation of 9 "airspace" condominium units fo
ndividual sale and. The Modification Permit application requests the
encroachment of subterranean portions of the building within the front an(
;ide yard setbacks. Lastly, the Coastal Residential Development Permi
application relates to replacing lost units occupied by low or moderate
ncome households. No units meeting this criteria are known to exist and
herefore, no replacement of affordable housing is required.
mes Campbell, Senior Planner, gave an overview of the staff report an
-cap of the project description. He noted the project has been change
d re- designed to pull the project up and away from the ocean which i
neficial to find the project consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan.
ranges to the Mitigated Negative Declaration have been made and the
current has been re- circulated for public review. The issue left fc
termination is the predominant line of existing development. Thi
tablishes the line to which the project could be built as seaward of the
e would be inconsistent with policy and represent a significai
vironmental effect. He then noted the variety of methods to define th
dominant line of development (PLOD) based upon definition containe
thin the Coastal Land Use Plan.
nissioner Hawkins noted the definition of the predominant line
opment on page 5 -19 of the CLUP. We are dealing with
>minant line of "existing" development. Is that phraseology a defir
in the Local Coastal Plan?
Or. Campbell answered no, the definition is predominant line
ievelopment, and the word "existing" comes from Policy 4.4.3 -8 and 4.�
f. He also noted that the definition in the CLUP contains an exam
ndicating that the median distance of a block of homes from
epresentative point or line might be the predominant line of exist
r. Campbell went on to explain that staffs position on what the
edominant line of existing development means has changed since the
for report was published. In the prior report, staff indicated that the
edominant line of existing development is the maximum building envelope
at could be developed and the general policies to minimize alteration o
e bluff or the protection of public views or the protection of the visua
Page 4 of 23
ITEM NO. 3
PA2005 -196
Recommended
for approval by
City Council
l J
E
D. (W
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas /nm05- 17- 07.htm 08/07/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007
quality of the coast could lead to further limiting development within tl
®predominant line of existing development — staff does not support th
application of policy. Staff believes that the applicant would have the right
build to the predominant line of existing development; however, &
identification of the predominant line of existing development must be dor
consistent with the general resource protection policies.
ff believes that the median distance, once determined, is the sta
it for analysis. In this application, staff used mean sea level as
imon reference line for measurement. He went on to explain
:ulation of the median distance for a block of homes on a bluff face
level of subjectivity involved in the analysis.
Commissioner Hawkins noted his concern with the methodolo
predominant line of existing development its potential inconsistency with t
intent of the more general policies. He asked how to resolve the questic
Mr. Campbell answered that once a candidate predominant line of existi
development is identified, it must be compared to the existing developme
pattern to see if it is consistent. If a potential line is not representative of t
block of homes being analyzed, the method by which the line was identifi
is flawed. If that flawed line was used and if development was sited
accordance with the line (assuming the line allowed more developme
than the existing development pattern), the development would not
consistent with the general policies to minimize alteration of the bluff and
®protect the scenic and visual qualities of the coast. You will need to look
all the various factors in identifying the predominant line of existi
evelopment. After consultation with the City Attorney, staff believes tl
he applicant has the right to build to the predominant line of existi
development given the specific nature of Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9.
r. Hawkins asked if there is a conflict between the two policies when
edominant line of existing development is identified that is representati,
the existing development pattern and also conflicts with the more gene]
source protection policies.
ssistant City Attorney Harp added the primary way to look at thf
predominant line of development is by first focusing on the definition of thf
predominant line of development, which says it is the most commor
representative distance from a specified group of structures to a specifies
point or line. You are not bound by the examples given of median distanc(
when you determine the predominant line of development. Look at thf
structures on either side in determining what the predominant line o
development is. This is an independent analysis done in conjunction witl
he policies. Since there are various ways to determine the predominan
line of development, you can take a liberal view towards it or you can take t
conservative view towards what the predominant line of development is.
®
You are looking overall for a reasonableness of what the predominant line
of development is because they have a right to develop up to tha
predominant line of development. If you took the general policies an(
applied those and said that was the rule, then you would have to apply the
http: / /Www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas /mnO5- 17- 07.htm
Page 5 of 23
D. 6 5
08/07/2007
Planning, Commission Minutes 05/17/2007
conservative policy available and I don't think that is the intent
policies. You are looking for reasonableness in setting I
ninant line of development based on the other structures.
* Julian, applicant, gave an overview of his project noting the
;hitectural features, the building will not extend down to the water and wil
30 1/2 feet above the water line, view corridor has been pulled back or
corner of Ocean and Carnation; large portion of the property is single
)ry height along Carnation to guarantee those views; majority of square
)tage is underground and out of sight; endorsed by Coast Keepers; the
ntours of the bluff are matched with heights ranging from 29 feet to 4�
�t on level one of the building. Levels two and three have been pullec
ck 15 feet on unit 7 to match that contour of the bluff. He is committed tc
s project..
Jeannette, architect on the project, noted:
No variance on this project,
Requesting two minor modifications to setbacks;
Project conforms to the General Plan and the Coastal Land Use
Plan;
It is a lessening of density in the number of units on site from 15 to 9;
Utilizing 26% of the site with 74% of the site left as open space;
Project has a 1,700 square foot larger footprint than the existing
building;
Parking exceeds Code requirements and project area is at 76,000
square feet with most of it not visible;
The project has been raised 18 inches with an elevation of 30.5;
The MND has been re- circulated;
Unit 7 was backed up from its promontory 15 feet, not 6 feet as
mentioned in the staff report;
This project will be LEED compliant, having to do with energy
conservation, green architecture, net metering, water retention
systems, materials used in project and landscape materials;
Mr. Jeannette made a PowerPoint presentation identifying the site,
Channel Reef Condominiums (2525 Ocean Blvd.) with parking
structure, the McIntosh residence (2495 Ocean Blvd.) and the
Sprague residence (101 Bayside Place) as well as what is on the
project site presently.
Public views from Carnation, Dahlia and by Channel Reef
Condominiums are being preserved;
Construction Management Plan - removing 31,000 cubic yards of
dirt; parking plan will shuttle workers to site; timing of operation will
not interfere with beach users; haul route reviewed and accepted in
the MND. The haul route was reviewed and discussed.
Campbell noted that the haul route suggested by the applicant was
�ssarily endorsed by staff. Traffic Engineer does not want to use
et as it is very narrow with the left turns and multiple stop signs.
s have concerns with that route.
http: / /www.city.newpor-t- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas /mn05- 17- 07.htm
Page 6 of 23
El
0.&6
08/07/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 7 of 23
Commissioner Hawkins noted that the Public Works Department will have
he final authority on which haul route is used. Staff agreed and referred to
condition 104.
Mr. Jeannette continued with his slide presentation and discussed where
he building would be put along the coast line and how the setbacks are
established. This was the same presentation as made at a previous
meeting on February 22nd, 2007. He then noted that the Coastal
Commission had given their input on the homes that had been built on the
coastal bluff as depicted in the slides. He reviewed the site and noted the
categorical exclusion portions. Exhibits depicting the Kerchoff Laboratory
and Channel Reef Condominium construction were discussed. He then
discussed the project and how it fits in with the surrounding residences.
Referencing an exhibit of a photograph of the bluff from the West, he noted
Magenta line representing the limit line that might be established by The
Coastal Commission based on the lowest line of development. Another
green line depicts the lowest portion of livable space from the McIntosh
residence. They used the 30.5 elevation for the west side facing slopes
and climbing up to the 59 foot elevation moving towards and onto the
northerly slope. Referring to the exhibits, he discussed the various
relationships of the project on both the northerly and westerly sides. He
concluded by asking the Commission to define the predominant line of
® evelopment as a single elevation.
Commissioner Hawkins asked about and received information on the
Categorical Exclusion zone and what is it's import and how it works.
comment was opened.
McCaffrey, President of the Board of Directors at Channel Re
nmunity Association, representing the members noted their support
project. He noted in their three -level building parking structure with
dential units with two cars each plus service vehicles, there has nee
n a problem with a queue of cars waiting to get in. Additionally, the
three names listed on a petition that had been circulated with a Cham
4 address and those names and do not appear on their telephone
in their residents' directory.
a Edwards, read a letter from John Martin noting his land developm
construction plan concerns which was attached to the packet
mation distributed to the public and Commissioners.
nda Martin read her letter of opposition to the project. This letter
tacked to the packet of information distributed to the public
® Richard Hunsaker noted his acceptance of the project. He noted t
contractors who work in tight spaces can work around these types
issues. He suggested conditioning the project as such.
n -(7
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PinAgendas /mnO5- 17- 07.htm 08/07/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007
;hael Millikan noted his support of the project as it will be ai
xovement as the current development is an eyesore. This will be a
!at improvement with new landscaping and architectural plan.
ilip Rosenblath read a letter from John and Kathleen McIntosh. The,
ect to the project and sent previous letters to the City and the applicant .
letter is part of the administrative record.
Rasner noted his support of the project noting the number of pai
units, view corridors, tax base, underground utilities, shu
ers to the site and the outreach done by the applicant and the City.
Moore appeared in support of the project.
Varon appeared in support of the project noting the public
e by the applicant.
Dawson appeared in support of the project noting the un
lecture of the proposed project and the development right of
cant.
i Beek noted the line of development should be where the bluff used t(
which is about ten feet behind (horizontal) where the development is
)osed. If that is done it would be out to the 50 -52 foot level on the bluf
ling to the adjacent northerly four properties which would, therefore
A all the criteria. This project relates to the four adjacent properties tc
north and is miscellaneous to the property on the westerly side.
in Beck noted her opposition to the project due to the size e
n. She noted a petition she had submitted that was signed by over
• in opposition. She requested that the project be staked to all
• to see the enormity of the project. This project is visible from m<
She asked the Commission to be responsible to the residents
this project.
Birgy noted his support of the project.
ohn Michler noted his support of the project as it is aesthetically
nd will be a vast improvement to what is there currently.
ffrey Beck noted the Commission has to interpret the CLUP which is tc
:serve the existing bluff and bluff faces and this project does not do that.
oking at the proposed project, you can see how the project will come
wn the bluff face and the Commission should not give approval to it a:
project is clearly in conflict with the CLUP: The vertical line o
velopment should also include the existing building which the architect':
�sentation did not include. The project will extend further away from the
iff than the existing line of development as noted in the staff report. He
ked that these be considered and deny this project.
http : / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /P]nAgendas /mnO5- 17- 07.htm
Page 8 of 23
r 1
U
E
E
08/07/2007
11
L
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007
sa Vallejo appeared in opposition referring to policies 4.4.1 -1, 4.4.1
4.1 -3 and read her letter that became part of the administrative record.
is comment was closed.
airman Cole asked for clarification on specific Coastal Land Use (CLU
icies vs. general policies.
ssistant City Attorney Harp stated it is our opinion that you have speci
ovisions that deal with development of the bluff face on Carnation Aven
id those take precedence over general conditions that are contained
her policies. They have the right to develop to the predominant line
welopment, wherever you establish that to be, in accordance with t
Anition of policies that are in place. The other policies that are me
?neral in nature should also be considered; however, where there is
rect conflict between the two, the more specific overrides the general.
nmissioner Eaton asked about Policy 4.4.3 -8 that prohibits developmen
ept private development or public improvements provided in the public
ess and permit such improvements only when no feasible alternative
>ts and when the design is constructed to minimize alteration of the
f face. This provision refers to public improvements specifically no
:essarily to the private development, correct? He was answered, "yes ".
then asked if staff wants to refer to the 28 feet as the predominant line.
c Campbell answered there are two lines that could be looked at as this
corner property with two bluff faces intersecting at the project site. The
ay be a rational to develop one limit or predominant line on Carnation si
id a separate one on the other side. You could do it either way.
issioner Toerge noted his concerns as they relate to the
ve Declaration (MND):
Public view at the corner of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation - it
my contention that it is not the responsibility of this particu
developer to make that view wider or bigger, but I also feel it is r
approvable to allow that view corridor to be made smaller. I
thanked the applicant for the proposed modifications tonight tt
respect that view;
Air quality - proposed haul route is important to consider given t
magnitude of excavation and the amount of trucks circulati
through the area for the next few years, the public needs to see tt
and be given an opportunity to review;
® He asked that the Construction Management Plan, Parking Plan ar
haul route be brought back to the Planning Commission so the publ
has the opportunity to see it.
http://www.city.new-port-beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas/mnO5-17-07.htm
Page 9 of 23
D. (07
08/07/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007
r. Campbell, referring to a map of Corona del Mar, depicted potential
preferred haul routes.
;cussion continued on truck staging, pollution, noise, not allowing is
trucks and requiring trucks to shut off their engines immediately w
:y come to a stop, and parking for workers' vehicles.
immissioner Toerge asked for a straw vote on a new condition that
nstruction management plan and haul route be reviewed by the Plani
immission prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
oner Hawkins noted the construction parking plans should all
by the Public Works Department.
nmissioner Hillgren asked about the process and what the
be going through.
on Jeannette noted the haul route mentioned by staff is acceptable to 1
mmission; we will just do it. The construction management plan is b
be reviewed by Public Works and Traffic, which has been required. T
ul route we mentioned earlier was granted to a project adjacent to t
a. He noted the initial phase of the project will involve the operation
terpillars, dump trucks, watering trucks, and street sweepers as 1
cavation begins. Later the shoring process will commence and then 1
indation will start. When the building is partially constructed, it
commodate the smaller tradesmen's trucks in the proposed parki
:ility. This will probably be 12 to 16 months with excavation slated to to
out 3 months.
,ommissioner Toerge noted that this explanation is helpful and withc
its request for a straw vote. He will be addressing further concerns on
;onditions. Referencing the MND, he noted his concern with the string
nconsistencies on Ocean Boulevard as depicted on the exhibit.
Campbell noted the language related to "stringlines" is in the prior c
the MND. That language has been excised from the report as it was
gar or accurate.
irman Cole asked about any concerns noted by EQAC needing to
ressed by the Commission.
Lepo said there were none.
Commissioner Eaton's request, Mr. Campbell opined on a comm(
ar from the California Coastal Commission staff noting the comme]
-e conservative and reflect a lack of understanding of the complexity
project and the bluff. It talks about the aesthetic impact related
!ring the bluff to accommodate the project. The MND makes
clusion that it is not a significant effect on the environment and they to
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PinAgendas /mnO5- 17- 07.htm
Page 10 of 23
P. 70
08/07/2007
E
C
11
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 11 of 23
a different viewpoint on that issue. The letter indicated their view that th,i
isanalysis in the MND related to Policy 4.4.3 -8 fails to show that all feasibly
alternatives to the project were explained. It is our belief that this provisioi
only applies to public improvements and not to the private development.
There was another policy question as to whether 4.4.3 -8 and 9 apply a:
Coastal staff does not believe the project is on the coastal bluff at all. Stai
believes it is on the coastal bluff and we have a letter from the geologis
supporting this belief.
ommissioner Hawkins noted this project is on a bluff face for which 4.4.
and 9 would apply. Staff agreed.
ssioner McDaniel noted this is one member of the
ssion staff, not the Coastal Commission. Staff agreed.
mmissioner Hawkins asked and received clarification about the lack of
snge to the boat docks and improvements to storm -water run -off systen
referred in the letter from Coastal Commission staff.
Mr. Campbell also discussed public access and the various factors
consider pursuant to CLUP policy when reviewing a new project. T
existing staircase from the apartment building to the water and then to t
existing dock system is steep an in disrepair. Topography, safety and t
proximity to residential uses were factors considered and given put
® access nearby, staff felt that public access across the site is not required.
ated Negative Declaration (MND) items on page 51, the construct
ing plan related to construction crew parking at an off -site location u
time that the parking garage proposed can accommodate parking
and the need to schedule grading to avoid summer months w
issed. These components will be added as conditions and added
ged in the MND.
Ir. Harp noted the MND will be re- circulated and a revised resolution we
istributed recommending approval to the City Council of the project an
[lows for this re- circulation during the time period between now and whe
goes to the City Council. The reason for the re- circulation doesn't requir
ew analysis. The issue stems from the basic premise that some of th
inguage in the MND was not agreed to by the applicant at the time the
ibmitted the project, e.g., the predominant line of development. We are i
greement with the applicant's counsel that it should be re- circulated. Th
omments regarding the construction crew parking and scheduling c
rading to avoid summer months could be included in the MND and re
irculated. Discussion continued.
Mr. Campbell referred to exhibits on pages 22 and 23 of the MND sho%
®he view areas of the Begonia Park. This discussion is contained in
ocument concluding that no significant impact would result to public vi
rom the park.
0-7/
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /PlnAgendas /mn05- 17- 07.htm 08/07/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007
imissioner Eaton made reference to the revised resolution presented
meeting that includes a narrative that the applicant agrees to t
ominant line of existing development as ultimately determined by t
Council.
imissioner Hawkins noted his concern with the contents and format
various versions of the MND_ These documents should be interne
rential and built upon each other. Each successive document shot
ain the rationale for the solution to conflicts so that any decision maki
y could disagree with that point and then go back to the earl
iment. We are creating an environmental record and 'I do not belie
record is a clear one. Continuing, he noted Mitigation IX -5 refers to t
lominant line of development and the project shall be revised such tl
principal building shall not be visible below 52 feet above mean s
i Cole then asked for discussion on the predominant line
lent. He noted his opinion that there are two lines: one on t
portion (Ocean Boulevard side) and one on the northerly portion
(Carnation Avenue). There had been a consensus of t
;ion back in February on Ocean Boulevard westerly side as 29 fe
g with the adjacent development.
nmissioner Eaton noted he agrees with the now adjusted number
5 feet upon further surveys and this should now be the line for the we
ng side of the bluff: He explained that this elevation is the elevation
closest foundation and that the adjacent westerly development started
tle transition up from the water's edge that is exhibited by the Chann
:f Condominiums.
mmissioner Toerge noted the property is located on Carnation Ave., no
:ean Boulevard. If it was located on Ocean Boulevard, it would have
ight restriction based upon the top of the curb. The adjacent garage hac
be built into the bluff as it also had to be below the top of the curb. The
is not comprised of two bluffs. He noted that the predominant line o
isting development should be based upon the homes along Carnatior
enue and not the structures on Ocean Boulevard as those structure;
ferencing the Vallejo Residence, Channel Reef and Kerchoff laboratory;
uld, not be built today as they would not be consistent with Codes of
licy. Referring to an exhibit showing existing development on the bluff
discussed the proposed development extent also pointing out that thi;
)ject should not be given the ability to both go down the slope and above
curb height as it is on Carnation rather than Ocean Boulevard. HE
ted a legal lot has to be given development rights. He supports staf
:ommendation that this predominant line of development as it exist:
mg Carnation be applied to this property, which is on Carnation and no
Ocean. He noted the red line on the photographic exhibit tha
)resents 50.7 feet above me an sea level and it respects the continuatior
the predominant line of existing development as established or
irnation Avenue.
http://www.city.newport-beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas/Mn05-17-07.htm
Page 12 of 23
0.72
08/07/2007
E,
E
E
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 13 of 23
®Commissioner Peotter indicated that the predominant line of the coasta
one is also reflected in the development along Bayside Place and the
purple line on the photographic exhibit might be appropriate. He alsc
indicated that within the Categorical exclusion zone, one could build to the
minimum 10 -foot setback and further expand the predominant line o
existing development. He indicated his belief that the CLUP does no
effectively communicate its intent.
Commissioner Toerge noted that the CLUP is a policy document not the
specific regulations. The Categorical Exclusion zone does not exclude the
site from the coastal zone or its policies. The predominant line of existinc
development is a setback line for structures located on the bluff face an(
that the development on Bayside Place is not on the same landform. The)
are not in a similar topographic setting nor are they on the same street. A:
an example, one would not use the development on Breakers Drive tc
determine the vertical extent of development for the nearby lots on Ocear
Boulevard as they are not in the same topographic setting.
Commissioner Hillgren noted that the 30.5 foot elevation of the adjacen
residence (Macintosh Residence) is an appropriate line for development
but in looking at the development, including development further to the
southeast, the predominant line is lower than that as it is built right to the
water's edge.
Chairman Cole noted is belief that there are two bluff faces (north an(
west). The north facing slope should have a much higher predominant line
®of existing development and the west facing slope is lower than 30.5 feet.
Mr. Harp added that the applicant and staff had discussed the possibility o
he predominant line below where their project is and the applicant hw
agreed to deed restrict the property that they would not develop in that arez
if the predominant line was set lower than the project.
issioner McDaniel referenced the photographic exhibit noting that
to use the development on either side to ensure that the pro.
sense. We do have a corner where the bluff turns with lo,
pment to the east and higher development to the north and
t should fit from either side.
r. Campbell explained staffs method of calculations, median distances
id the structures not included and those included in these calculations.
noted the elevations of 59, 50.7, 42.3 on the north facing side.
Hawkins commented on the method to identify
line of existing development using the median distance
opment.
Staff indicated that the median distance is an example contained within tt
definition of predominant line of development. It is a method to identify
®line for analysis where it is then compared to the existing developme
pattern first to see if it meets other resource protection policies and then it
compared to the proposed project.
0 73
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas /mn05- 17- 07.htm 08/07/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007
oner Hawkins asked why Bayside Place, Channel Reef and
laboratory were excluded from the calculation of the me
aff responded that Bayside Place was excluded as it was built in front
bluff and was not on the bluff face. Today, staff was presentE
ormation to suggest that 101 Bayside Place was constructed into the tc
the bluff, but staff believes Bayside Place not to be in the san
)ographic setting. Again, today staff was presented photograph
ormation of what the bluff looked like before Channel Reef wE
nstructed and staff now believes this development should be considers
the identification of the predominant line of existing development.
mmissioner Hawkins commented that the use of the median distance
example is problematic in that is could evolve into a standard. l
rrent policy is to protect the bluff by limiting development to be within
;dominant line of existing development and the protections contair
hin Policy 4.4.3 -12 are built -in to the identification of the predominant I
existing development. The trend with this bluff a lot lower than 50.3 f
ove MSL.
mmissioner Eaton commented that the west facing bluff 30.5 feet MSL
propriate as it continues the transitional elevation change from the low
ovations of the Macintosh residence to higher elevations to the north. l
nt on to explain that he felt that this was a unique site that the come
m a lower PLOED, based on Ocean Boulevard development to a high
OED, based on Carnation Avenue development. The median elevati
50.7 is one value (the median) in a range of values; and that, with tl
or design modifications made by the applicant to pull in the Recreati
om and Unit 7 footprint, and to cause a rising bluff face along tl
rtherly elevation by blocking off some of the lower level windows *
re previously exposed, even up to an elevation of 59' at the norther
rner of the development (which is higher, even, than the st
;ommended PLOED on Carnation Avenue of 50.7'), that the project h;
- ceeded, in his opinion, in establishing a transitional PLOED th
iisfied the requirements of the City's CLUP between the 30.5 elevation
east to the higher elevations on Carnation Avenue.
Campbell noted that with the Channel Reef condominium
ded in staffs calculation, the median now becomes 49.4 feet
irman Cole asked if preserved bluff areas above a potei
lominant line of existing development (50.7 feet above MSL — the
on the photograph) could be balanced against developed areas bE
line and be consistent with policy. Staff answered that it could
onable approach.
nissioner Eaton agreed with this balancing approach and he
it was a factor in his transitional predominant line of E
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /PinAgendas /ninO5- 17- 07.htm
Page 14 of 23
1). 7q
08/07/2007
u
E
E
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 15 of 23
development approach.
® Commissioner Hillgren asked for clarification Commissioner Eato
indicated that the transition he was thinking of is smoother than a vertic;
step from 30.5 to 50.7 MSL. Commissioner Hillgren indicated his suppo
or the green line (proposed project/bluff interface line) and also indicate
that he was unsure of where the predominant line of existing developmer
ould be.
McDaniel noted the predominant line of existinc
does not have to be a straight line. He asked staff fo
Mr. Alford added that this project is the first major discretionary proje
coming through with this issue and is a setting where the predominant Iii
is not easily applied because we are dealing with a corner point and
number of development patterns that are in different topographic settinc
or example, the development on Bayside Place, Channel Reef and
Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Applying the concept of ti
predominant line is somewhat difficult in this situation. We recognized tt
Corona del Mar in general and this area in particular was going to
somewhat more difficult than the other areas of the City where
established the predominant line of development, around Upper Newpi
Bay, Cameo Shores and in Shorecliff, etc. It was decided that the best w
®
to handle that was on a project by project basis and to develop some sort
guidelines on which you could view them and take those it
consideration. It was also stated that no matter what methodology w
used to establish the predominant line of development, ultimately it is goi
to be the decision makers looking at an exhibit and deciding where that Ii
is appropriate. There is nothing that says it has to be a straight line
here will be a certain level of subjectivity and judgment in applying
particularly in this complex topographic setting.
nissioner McDaniel noted that for the City to have the best pro
ale, it is within our discretion to make the line curve or whatever
to make those two separate areas meet and make a nice project
Alford noted that sometimes you have to ignore the mathematics ar
:e a judgment call on how that line best fits all of the policies that a
ar consideration.
ner McDaniel thanked Mr. Alford.
mmissioner Peotter asked how the Commission would reference the
the exhibit as the one that was approved.
Mr. Harp answered that you could approve it with the elevations that are i
he plans and say that is the predominant line of development. If you war
o pick something that is lower than that, you could set up the predominar
line of development that is lower and approve the project; if you wanted tc
0.75
http: / /www.city.newport- beach .ca.uOlnAgendas /mnO5- 17- 07.htm 08/07/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007
could deed restrict the area in between as the applicant agreed to.
-nmissioner Hawkins noted the reason for the deed restriction is a build
line of development and so we would want to prohibit developmer
ween the approved line (project line) and the predominant line c
sting development.
r. Harp answered it would also help to support the policies in that you a
otecting the coastal bluffs to the maximum amount feasible by having
edominant line that is below that and the deed restriction would help
otect that portion of the bluff below the project and above the line.
imissioner Hawkins noted his concern of approving this project with
le bound predominant line of development as the City needs a specii
and the applicant and general public need a specific line so everyboc
ros where this thing is going. While I support bluff face protection,
t see how the Local Coastal Plan as currently drafted and approve
ides such protection.
irman Cole asked if there were any other questions or corn
jrding the predominant line of existing development. None
Cole asked if there were any design concerns.
imissioner Eaton noted that this project is unusual and will be unique.
City does not dictate architecture and it is beyond our purview.
iissioner Hawkins asked if the interim design policies effective April 1
were applicable and he was answered no as that ordinance only
d to single and two- family residential projects.
iairman Cole noted this project is under the density that this site could
jilt to and there is no variance, only a modification for an encroachm
at is subterranean.
r. Campbell answered the General Plan and Coastal Land Use PIS
Acies have a higher density range. This project is well within tho:
msity ranges. The Zoning Code has more strict limit and allows
aximum 9 units, which is what we have before us in this project. TI
oposed project is consistent with all regulatory documents in terms
msity. The project complies with all development standards with tl
cception of the encroachments for the front yard setback which is who
jbterranean and the sideyard setback encroachments most of which a
jbterranean but there is a single story encroachment that is a small an
the building. Staff feels the findings for the Modification Permit can I
missioner Eaton noted is support for the proposed
n setbacks.
http://www.city.newport-beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas/ninO5-17-07.htm
Page 16 of 23
0. 7P
08/07/2007
C
1
U
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007 Page 17 of 23
Commissioner Eaton noted possible parking issues with the vehic
elevator concept and queuing. He noted that the traffic analysis prepan
by the applicant did not address the issue of vehicle access or potent
queuing. He stated he would be able to find this consistent with tl
Circulation Element and CLUP policies. He noted that the Conditior
Covenants and Restrictions (CC and R's) have to say that the members a
required to park in their garages and they cannot be used for oth
Harp suggested adding a condition that the CC and R's be recorded
1 as to require the homeowners and /or association to maintain
perty and lifts in operation as well as the other conditions
iscaping.
Campbell noted that conditions 26, 27 & 28 provide restrictions on
of parking but do not include these restrictions in the CC &Rs.
Commissioner Toerge noted General Plan Policy CE7.1.1 which require:
new development provide adequate and convenient parking for residents
guests and visitors. Adequate parking is provided, but is it convenient?
Not only for residents, but guests and visitors. Each unit is required t(
provide 2 cars of parking for residents and 1/2 car per unit for guests; witt
®nine units, the project has to provide 4 1/2 cars for parking for guests an(
he Code requires rounding up, so the project is required to provide 5 car:
of guest parking that is convenient. On the ground level there are three
nest parking spaces and the other two are to be used through access t(
he elevator. Further, with such large storage units in the basement, user:
will be inclined to back into the vehicle elevators so that the rear of the
vehicle will be oriented toward the storage side of the basement. A residen
hat pulls a car or truck into the vehicle elevator in a forward manner an(
proceeds to the storage area will then be required to off -load their vehicle
on the opposite side of the storage area, requiring that they maneuve
themselves and their storage items between the vehicle elevator wall an(
he side of the vehicle. Practically speaking, the design will compe
basement storage users to back into the elevators at street level where
here is no queuing area or other accommodation for such backin(
maneuver. Of course, while the user is off - loading, the vehicle elevator wil
be tied up and not available for use by other residents or guests. Also, if
very day use, given the time it will take for a resident to access the vehicle
elevator, lower their vehicle to the proper level, exit the elevator an(
maneuver in tight quarters to their garage and repeat the same in revers(
to exit the garage, I believe the parking arrangement is not "convenient" a:
required by General Plan Policy CE 7.1.1. To the contrary, I find the parkin(
configuration to be "inconvenient" for residents, visitors and guests.
®Brion Jeannette noted is opinion that people will not be able to drive a
into the lowest level as items to be taken to that level will be brought tl
on small carts or a golf card. He then explained the mechanism
operation of the lifts adding that the two other guest parking spaces at o
D. 77
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas /mn05- 17- 07.htm 08/07/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007
might be for family members who are visiting those households
be specifically granted access to those levels.
ssioner Toerge noted his belief that the five guest spaces t
iently located without having to use the elevators. He then noted h
i about the large subterranean storage areas and the use of tl
rs as being inconvenient.
Jeannette answered unless you are keyed for access, you will not
to do this. He then explained the use of a cart or dolly
sportation, elevator use and the use of storage by the residents.
mmissioner Hawkins indicated that there will be an increase in parki
the street with the reduction in the width of the drive approach.
ion continued on the placement and use of the guest parking.<
hairman Cole then asked for any changes or modifications to
mditions by the Planning Commission.
McDaniel, noted that:
Condition 8, regarding a performance bond on completion of
and retaining walls should be require completion for the
project.
was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded
issioner Hillgren, to approve the project per staffs recomme
ion with Exhibit D as amended and including the following:
redominant line of development - use the "blue" line on the elevation
thibit (23ft up to 42ft).
missioner Eaton noted this would require a deed restriction
ested using the "green" line which transitions from 30.5' at
iwest corner of the project, to 59' at the northeast corner.
was consensus to use the "green" line. The maker of the
I and motion includes.
ominant line of development - the "green" line on the elevation exhibit.
e was a consensus.
was consensus on the following conditions:
Condition 103 - amend to add schedule grading to avoid the busy
summer season and a portion of a nearby parking lot to be leased
for the use of the construction crew parking;
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PinAgendas /mnO5- 17- 07.htm
Page 18 of 23
0. 7J'
08/07/2007
11
E
11
Planning Commission Minutes 05/17/2007
Condition 4 - reflect the date of the newly- revised submitted plan
® (Exhibit Z);
Condition 30 - Re -word as, "Idling of construction vehicles and
equipment shall be limited to the extent feasible. Construction
vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and
maintained and shall be fumed off immediately when not in
use. The use of audible signals, horn honks, whistles, beeps,
etc. during the hauling and construction process shall be
prohibited subject to the maximum extent permitted bylaw."
Condition 8 - Completion bond for the entire project.
Mr. Jeannette brought up the issue of irrigation and stated that there al
many conditions that they cannot do. He asked that staff work with them.
r. Campbell noted the use of the word permanent and indicated that on
mporary irrigation may be used on the bluff face to re- establish tt
antings that would occur and staff will make those corrections to t
I here was consensus on the following conditions:
® Condition 11 - submit to the Planning Director, not Planning
Commission; permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation
system where allowed by Code.
Condition 26 - add, "The location of the generator be approved
by the Planning Director and shall be sound attenuated."
Add new condition or amend condition 27- CC and R's be recorded
to require that the Homeowner's Association maintain the property
and lifts in operative condition, landscaping and other improvements
in compliance with the conditions. The City Attorney's office shall
approve the CC and R's.
Mr. Harp noted that the City would not be enforcing the CC and R's but the)
would give a private cause of action to a party to that contract.
missioner Hawkins asked that the CC and R's require residents to pa
vehicles in their garage.
Harp confirmed that could be added if the residents agree.
®�Mr. Jeannette agreed to this and to condition that garages not be used
torage rooms.
missioner McDaniel noted a lot of people have more than
Page 19 of 23
o.7?
http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas /mn05- 17- 07.htm 08/07/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/1,7/2007
es.
iscussion continued.
Peotter amended his motion as follows:
Add Condition 104 - CC and R's to be reviewed and approved by
the City Attorney. The CC and R's shall include use of garage
for cars and not storage, owners agree to park in their garage;
maintain elevators in good working order; visitors' spaces shall
not be used for continual parking.
Add condition to prohibit the conversion of the common areas to
exclusive residential use by residents in the future.
Or. Jeannette referring to Condition 8 suggested a phasing situatio
)erformance bond to be reduced in 25% increments commensurate wit
ncremental building completion.
Or. Campbell noted Condition 8 as currently worded would include th
estoration of the excavations if the project doesn't go to completion, w
;ould restore it back to its condition as opposed to building and finishing th
iroject. Removing the improvements and filling the hole back in would be
nuch smaller bond and that is what we thought was appropriate if th
iroject should fail in the middle.
Or. Jeannette suggested doing 100% of the project with release in 25�
aff and Commission agreed.
m Paone, land use counsel for the applicant, noted the suggestion wou
to bond for the entire construction of the shell and release that in 25
crements to completion of shell with a new bond for the interior work.
r. Jeannette defined the shell as being the parking structure, tt
rvelope, roofs, windows, etc. so that the concrete and systems are
ace. The finish work for the interior would be the cabinetry, bathroo
lures, etc.
was agreed that Condition 8 shall refer to 100% of the shell cost ar
lease in 25% increments.
Commission inquiry, Mr. Jeannette, representing the applicant, agreed
the conditions and amendments as discussed. He noted that or
indition related to the 5 -foot easement for a sewer line which is five fe
vay from the property and asked if that can be worked out with Pubi
Lepo noted they can administratively find conformity with
,loner Peotter noted the motion is the resolution that w
d tonight with the modification on the Mitigated Negatl
nn to modify Mitigation Measure 15 -1 to include those two itei
grading to avoid summer season and the shuttling of constructi
and:
http://www.city.newport-beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas/mnO5-17-07.htm
Page 20 of 2'
. 2M
08/07/2007
E
C
E
Planning Commission Minutes 05 /17/2007 Page 21 of 23
Condition 4 - reflect the date of the newly revised submitted plan
® (Exhibit Z).
Condition 8 - add, shall refer to 100% of the shell cost and
release at 25% increment per the Building official.
Condition 11 - submit to the Planning Director, not Planning
Commission; permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation
system where allowed by Code.
Condition 26 - add, "The location of the emergency generator be
approved by the Planning Director and shall be sound
attenuated. "
Condition: 30 - Re -word as, "Idling of construction vehicles and
equipment shall be limited to the extent feasible. Construction
vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and
maintained and shall be turned off immediately when not in
use. The use of audible signals, horn honks, whistles, beeps,
etc. during the hauling and construction process shall be
prohibited subject to the maximum extent permitted by law."
Condition 103 - amend to add schedule grading to avoid the busy
summer season.
® Add Condition 104 - CC and R's to be reviewed and approved by
the City Attorney. The CC and R's shall include use of garage
for cars and not storage, owners agree to park in their garages;
maintain elevators in good working order; residents shall not
use visitors' spaces for continual parking.
Commissioner Toerge noted that the minor change to the project related to
he view corridor will eventually be a hugely significant change in the
future. He thanked the applicant for this. He noted he has a different
opinion on this project related to the predominant line of development and
that the architecture is not compatible with the existing neighborhood. The
parking situation, while novel, does not meet the Code as it is not
convenient. For these reasons, he stated he would not be in support of this
application.
Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel and Hillgren
Noes: Toerge
Excused: None
� x x
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONA
a. ® BUSINESS
City Council Follow -up
Mr. Lepo noted that at the last meeting, the City Council took
,Q. S'l
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /PlnAgendas /mnO5- 17- 07.htm 08/07/2007
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 3
April 5, 2007
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner
(949) 644 - 3210, icampbell(a city.newport- beach: ca. us
SUBJECT: AERIE (PA2005 -196)
201 -205 & 207 Carnation Avenue
101 Bayside Place
APPLICANT: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc.
Richard Julian, President
The Planning Commission considered this project on February 22, 2007. The project was
continued to this meeting for the following reasons and the minutes of the meeting are
attached as Exhibit #1:
1) Applicant to revise the project plans to reduce the bayward extent of the northwestern
portion of the proposed building; and,
2) Provide responses to questions posed by Commissioner Eaton; and,
3) Address comments related to the proposed draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
expressed by Commissioner Toerge; and,
4) Allow for the conclusion of the public review period for the draft MND.
RECOMMENDATION
1) Hold a public hearing; and,
2) Consider the changes to the draft MND; and,
3) Adopt the attached draft resolution recommending adoption of the MND and
recommending approval of a revised project such that the proposed building does not
extend below 52 feet above mean sea level (Exhibit #2).
DISCUSSION
Coastal Land Use Plan
The project must be considered within the context of the Coastal Act and all of the policies of
the Coastal Land Use Plan. At the last meeting, the emphasis was on the predominant line of
existing development and the various methods to determine its location. However,
p. 9z
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
® April 5, 2007, Page 2
consideration must be given to all applicable policies and this report includes analysis of the
project in the context of all policies. The most significant considerations related to this project
are the scenic and resource protection policies within Chapter 4.4 of the Coastal Land Use
Plan. These policies implement Section 30251 of the Coastal Act, which states:
"The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a
resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to
protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the
alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of
surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually
degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in
the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department
of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character
of its setting."
Implementing this section of the Coastal Act, the Coastal Land Use Plan states that:
"Bluffs, cliffs, hillsides, canyons; and other significant natural landforms are an important
part of the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone and are to be protected as a
resource of public importance.
Corona del Mar is one of the few areas in the coastal zone where there is extensive
development of the bluff face; specifically, residential development on Avocado Avenue,
® Pacific Drive, Carnation Avenue, and Ocean Boulevard. The initial subdivision and
development of these areas occurred prior to the adoption of policies and regulations
intended to protect coastal bluffs and other landforms. Development in these areas is
allowed to continue on the bluff face to be consistent with the existing development
pattern and to protect coastal views from the bluff top. However, development on the
bluff face is controlled to minimize further alteration." (emphasis added)
Coastal bluffs are significant resources. In this area of Corona del Mar, development on the
bluff face is allowed; however, development must be sited and designed to meet the goal of
minimizing alteration of the bluff and preserving and, if feasible, enhancing public views and
the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone. In furthering this objective, the following
CLUP policies must be considered:
4.4.1 -1. Protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the
coastal zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor
and to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas.
4.4.1 -2. Design and site new development, including landscaping, so as to minimize
impacts to public coastal views.
4.4.1 -3 Design and site new development to minimize alterations to significant natural
landforms, including bluffs, cliffs and canyons.
4.4.3-8- Prohibit development on bluff faces, except private development on coastal
bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in
® Corona del Mar determined to be consistent with the predominant line of
existing development or public improvements providing public access,
0.Y3
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
April 5, 2007, Page 3
protecting coastal resources, or providing for public safety. Permit such
improvements only when no feasible alternative exists and when designed
and constructed to minimize alteration of the bluff face, to not contribute to
further erosion of the bluff face, and to be visually compatible with the
surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible.
4.4.3 -9. Where principal structures exist on coastal bluff faces along Ocean
Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar, require all
new development to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of
existing development in order to protect public coastal views. Establish a
predominant line of development for both principle structures and. accessory
improvements. The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure
safety and stability of the development.
4.4.3 -12. Employ site design and construction techniques to minimize alteration of
coastal bluffs to the maximum extent feasible, such as:
A. Siting new development on the flattest area of the site, except when an
alternative location is more protective of coastal resources.
B. Utilizing existing driveways and building pads to the maximum extent feasible.
C. Clustering building sites.
D. Shared use of driveways.
E: Designing buildings to conform to the natural contours of the site, and arranging
driveways and patio areas to be compatible with the slopes and building design.
F. Utilizing special foundations, such as stepped, split level, or cantilever designs.
G. Detaching parts of the development, such as a garage from a dwelling unit:
H. Requiring any altered slopes to blend into the natural contours of the site.
Predominant Line of Existing Development
The logical starting point for project review is the identification of the predominant line of
existing development as it establishes a line beyond which private development cannot
extend. The applicant agrees with this statement (Exhibit #3) although the applicant does not
agree with the location of the predominant line of existing development for this property
proposed by staff in the February 22, 2007 staff report. In the prior report, staff provided the
rationale for determining 52 feet above mean sea level as the predominant line of existing
development for the Carnation Avenue bluff face. This elevation is consistent with the existing
development pattern located on the bluff face. Staff also identified 34 feet above mean sea
level for the Ocean Boulevard bluff face as the predominant line of existing development
based upon the location of abutting residences. Please see Exhibit #4 showing staffs
recommended predominant lines of existing development. Please see Exhibit #5 showing the
proposed project extending down the bluff below these lines.
D11�
C
11
C
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
is April 5, 2007, Page 4
Minimizing Alteration of the Bluff and Reducing Visual Impacts
Once a predominant line of existing development has been determined that identifies the
maximum extent of development, a maximum permissible building envelope within the area
bounded by the predominant line of existing development can be defined. Development that
may occur within this maximum permissible building envelope must be consistent with all
CLUP policies requiring the development to be sited to minimize alteration of the bluff and
preserve and, if feasible, enhance public views and the scenic and visual qualities of the
coastal zone. This may result in a building that is less than the full extent of the building
envelope defined by the predominant line of existing development. The applicant contends
that the predominant line of existing development establishes a line up to which the building
can extend without further consideration of minimizing alteration of the bluff or the preservation
and, if feasible, enhancement of public views and the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal
zone.
The Commission needs to consider the project's consistency with each policy identified above.
To help the Commission evaluate consistency, staff has prepared several visual simulations
that show variants of the project, each representing a different level of alteration of the bluff
face and impacts to visual resources.
In the variant shown in Exhibit #6 with the project at staffs recommended predominant line of
existing development, grading would be reduced by approximately 9,000 cubic yards. Visual
building mass would be reduced and a portion of the bluff would be preserved by eliminating
® the lower level proposed on the Carnation bluff face. The Planning Commission may
determine that a change such as this would make the project consistent with policies requiring
minimizing alteration of the bluff and the protection or enhancement of the scenic and visual
quality of the coast.
The Planning Commission may also determine that further reduction of the project is
necessary to minimize alteration of the bluff or avoid a negative visual impact consistent with
Policy 4.4.1 -1. Staff has developed a visual simulation of the project with the entire building
being sited at 52 feet above mean sea level (Exhibit #7). This potential alternative is further
within the predominant line of existing development identified by staff. Grading with this
variation would be reduced by approximately 12,000 cubic yards and would reduce the visual
building mass by eliminating the 2 lower levels visible to the public from the west. Floor area
would be reduced by approximately 26,000 sq. ft.
The most conservative and restrictive application of policy would be to allow redevelopment of
the property within the footprint of the existing buildings. The existing developed footprint is
well within the predominant line of existing development and development within that area
would limit grading and alteration of the bluff to the ground under the existing buildings. The
entire bluff that extends below the existing buildings would remain unaltered. This scenario
would minimize alteration of the bluff to the greatest extent. Policy 4.4.1 -1 could also be
implemented to require enhancements to the bluff that could include removal or reconstruction
of the existing stairs and the removal of non - native vegetation and replacement with plantings
indigenous to California coastal bluffs.
Public Views
® Public views are also protected by the following policy of the CLUP:
0 . ?S
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
April 5, 2007, Page 5
Policy 4.4.1 -6 Protect public coastal views from the following roadway segments:
® Ocean Boulevard.
As noted in the February 22, 2007 staff report, a public view corridor from Ocean Boulevard
and Carnation Avenue exists between the existing building and the structures located at 2495
Ocean Boulevard. The siting of the proposed building would provide a greater separation
between these properties than exists today. The applicant prepared a view exhibit showing the
existing view angle measuring 25 degrees and with the project, the view will increase to 32
degrees. This exhibit is representative of the view from Carnation Avenue at its intersection
with Ocean Boulevard to the southwest. The project architect has prepared a visual exhibit
depicting the view from Ocean Boulevard to the west (see Sheet A -20). The exhibit suggests
that there will. be an improvement of the view due to the position of the proposed building. Staff
believes that the project is consistent with this policy; however, further enhancement of the
view can be required pursuant to Policy 4.4.1 -1 by modifying the location of the building walls
to increase the view angle between the project and the abutting structures and to enhance
views from various locations on Ocean Boulevard.
Parking
Several policies related to parking were not identified in the prior report. General Plan Land
Use Element Policy LU 5.1.8 requires adequate enclosed parking considering the number of
bedrooms. Most of the units have three bedrooms; however several units have other rooms
that could be used as bedrooms and the unit sizes range from 4,000 to 6,300 square feet. The
project provides 3 spaces for 7 units and 2 spaces for the 2 remaining units (25 spaces).
Seven (7) guest parking spaces and 2 golf cart spaces are provided for a total of 34 covered,
vehicle spaces. Staff believes the project is consistent with this policy.
Policy 2.9.3 -1 of the CLUP requires new development to avoid the use of parking
configurations or parking management programs that are difficult to maintain and enforce. The
Circulation Element contains the identical policy and it also contains Policy CE7.1.1 that
requires new development to provide adequate, convenient parking for residents, guests,
business patrons and visitors. The Commission had concerns about the convenience of below
grade parking accessed by vehicle elevators. If the elevators are in use and someone desires
to access them from Carnation, they will be forced to wait within the public right -of -way for the
elevator possibly inconveniencing the public. Additionally, residents and their guests and
service providers might be more inclined to park on the street when it is more convenient to do
so. This will take on- street parking away from visitors to the coastal zone, which would be
negative impact to public access. The proposed parking configuration may be inconsistent with
these policies for these reasons.
Revised Plans
On February 22, 2007, the Commission directed the applicant to reduce the bayward extent of
the northwestern portion of the proposed building to be consistent with the bayward extent of
the southeastern portion of the building. The applicant revised the plans accordingly by moving
the deck and building wall closer to the approximate location of the bluff edge on Level 2
(lower floor of Unit #7) by approximately 6.5 and 6 feet respectively. Additionally, the deck and
building wall on the level above (Level 3) were also modified, but were not moved closer to the
estimated bluff edge (Exhibit #8). Overall the project changes reduced the overall floor area by
C%. f G
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
® April 5, 2007, Page 6
527 square feet. If the Commission determines that the changes to the project bring the project
into compliance with applicable CLUP policies, the Commission may recommend approval of
the revised project.
Commissioner Eaton's Comments
Prior to the February 22, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Eaton sent an e-
mail to staff containing 12 comments or questions regarding the staff report and project in
general. Staff has prepared responses to the questions, and both the comments and
responses are attached as Exhibit #9.
Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Commissioner Toerge commented on the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (Exhibit
#10). His comments lead staff to hire an independent environmental consultant to review
and /or revise the document. Revisions to the draft MND are contained within Exhibit #11.
Changes recommended by the consultant provide additional project information and
clarification. Revised mitigation measures are identified and will provide equivalent or superior
environmental protection. No new environmental impacts were identified and recirculation of
the document is, therefore; not necessary in the consultant's opinion (Exhibit #12).
A quantitative air quality assessment was completed after the February 22, 2007 meeting and
incorporated into the MND. Construction - related air emissions will be below applicable
® thresholds of significance. Staff and the environmental consultant concluded that the analysis
and proposed mitigation were insufficient to support a finding that there would not be a
potential impact to marine resources. As a result of the subsequent review and analysis,
expansion of the docks was eliminated from the project description by the applicant. Should
the applicant choose to pursue permits for expanded docks in the future, a permit from the
Harbor Resources Department would be required and it would be subject to environmental
review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act.
No other comments on the adequacy of the prior draft environmental document, other than
Commissioner Toerge's, were received prior to the closing of the comment period on March
15, 2007.
SUMMARY
Staff concludes that the project is inconsistent with the following CLUP Policies:
1) 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9 regarding predominant line of existing development.
2) 4.4.1 -1 regarding the protection and /or enhancement of public views and the scenic and
visual qualities of the coastal zone.
3) 4.4.3 -1 and 4.4.3 -12 regarding the siting and design of new development to minimize
alteration of the coastal bluff.
Additionally, staff believes that the project may be inconsistent with CLUP Policy 2.9.3 -1 and
Circulation Element Policy CE7.1.1 regarding the parking configuration.
D.F 7
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
April 5, 2007, Page 7
Staff recommends that the project should be redesigned such that the proposed building does
not extend on the bluff face below 52 feet above mean sea level. This option provides a
balance between preserving the scenic quality of a significant portion of the bluff through
minimizing its alteration while siting the building within the predominant line of existing
development. Although allowing portions of the project to be developed further down the bluff
to 44, 34 or 29 feet above mean sea level might be within an alternate predominant line of
existing development, staff does not believe that development at these levels minimizes
alteration of the bluff and preserves the scenic and visual quality of the landform as a visual
resource consistent with policy.
ALTERNATIVES
1) Provide direction on design changes deemed necessary by the Planning Commission to
make required findings that the project is consistent with Coastal Land Use Plan policies
4.4.1 -1, 4.4.1 -2, 4.4.1 -3, 4.4.3 -8, 4.4.3 -9 and 4.4.3 -12.
2) Deny the project.
Prepared by:
°.
James
Campbell
a-
James Campbell, Senior Planner
EXHIBITS
Submitted by:
David Lepo, Planning Director
r
3. Letter from Tim Paone on behalf of the applicant dated March 27, 2007
4. Staff recommended predominant line of existing development
5. Visual simulation of the proposed project
6. Visual simulation of the project within staffs recommended predominant line of existing
development
7. Visual simulation of Staffs recommendation
9. Commissioner Eaton's comments and staff responses
10. Comments on the MND from Commissioner Toerge
12. Memorandum from Randy Nichols
13. Additional correspondence
E
�J
n. � L�
E
Exhibit No. 3
Letter from Tim Paone on behalf of the applicant dated March 27, 2007
�J
Page left blank intentionally
F_
L 1
manatt
manall I phelps I phillips
March 28, 2007
James Campbell
Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re: Aerie (PA2005 -186)
Dear Mr. Campbell:
Tim Paone
Manatt, Phelps &. Phillips, LLP
Direct Dial: (714) 371 -2519
E -mail: tpaone@manatt.com
I am writing on behalf of Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. ( "Advanced ") with respect
to the Aerie project at 201 -205 & 207 Carnation and 101 Bayside. Since the February
22, 2007, Planning Commission hearing on the project, a number of design changes
have been made in response to the direction of the Commission, all of which are
reflected in revised submittals. This letter is written before distribution of the staff report
for the April 5, 2007, hearing on the project, and may be supplemented once that report
is released. This letter will focus on the February 22 staff report's analysis of two
specific CLUP policies, as well as demonstrate why the application should be found to
be in compliance with those policies. Those policies are:
Policy 4.4.3 -8. Prohibit development on bluff faces, except private development
on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific
Drive in Corona del Mar determined to be consistent with the predominant line of
existing development or public improvements providing public access, protecting
coastal resources, or providing for public safety. Permit such improvements only
when no feasible alternative exists and when designed and constructed to
minimize alteration of the bluff face, to not contribute to further erosion of the bluff
face, and to be visually compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum
extent feasible.
Policy 4.4.3 -9. Where principal structures exist on coastal bluff faces along
Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar, require
all new development to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of
existing development in order to protect public coastal views. Establish a
predominant line of development for both principle structures and accessory
improvements. The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure safety
and stability of the development.
695 Town Center Drive, 14th Floor, Costa Mesa, California 92626 -1924 Telephone: 714.371.2500 Fax 714.371.2550
Albany I Los Angeles I New York I Orange County I Palo Alto I Sacramento I Washington, D.C.
G—r
0.9I
manatt
manatt I phelps I phillips
March 28, 2007
Page 2
F 1
`
The implications of both the February 22 staff report and the applicant's discussions
with staff are that this application represents the Planning Commission's first opportunity
to apply those policies. While the applicant recognizes that each application for a
coastal project can present its own distinct issues, we also urge the Commission to note
that the CLUP was in place roughly a year before the City's amended general plan was
approved by the voters in November 2006. The general plan and the CLUP should not
be confused. This simply is not the first time that the City has considered a project in the
context of the CLUP policies. So while it is correct to say that the decision in this case
could, as with any approval, serve as precedent for other cases, it would not be correct
to assume that there is no existing precedent under the existing CLUP.
To properly understand and apply these CLUP policies, it also is important to consider
all of the guidance provided in the CLUP and not just the isolated language of the
policies. Of great significance is the statement contained in Section 4.4.3 at Page 4 -76
of the CLUP:
"Corona del Mar is one of the few areas in the coastal zone where there is
extensive development of the bluff face; specifically, residential development on
Avocado Avenue, Pacific Avenue, Carnation Avenue, and Ocean Boulevard.
The initial subdivision and development of these areas occurred prior to the
adoption of policies and regulations intended to protect coastal bluffs and other
landforms. Development in these areas is allnwed fn cnntinue nn the hhiff
race to be consistent with the existing development pattem and to protect
coastal views from the bluff top. However, development on the bluff face is
controlled to minimize further alteration." (Emphasis added.)
Thus, the CLUP expressly intended to allow continued development on the bluff face of
this property provided that it is "consistent with the existing development pattern." That
statement, however, is followed by another statement that, only if viewed in isolation,
could lead to a contradictory conclusion about development on the bluff face:
"...development on the bluff face [shall be] controlled to minimize further alteration."
Although the pending application is before the City and not the Coastal Commission, the
policies to be interpreted are CLUP policies, and those policies are based upon a
Coastal Commission - certified LUP. Further, because a full LCP has not yet been
adopted, when this application reaches the Coastal Commission, the Commission will
treat the CLUP as guidance only. Therefore, there is much to be learned from the
Coastal Commission's analysis of the CLUP policies which were not only certified by the
Coastal Commission, but in some instances drafted by Commission staff as
recommended modifications to the City's proposed LUP. That, of course, means that
0.
manaft
® manatt I Phelps I phillips
March 28, 2007
Page 3
those policies did not necessarily originate with the City or its committees which worked
on the City's proposed LUP and, therefore, random recollections of the intent of those
committees, the Planning Commission, or the City Council are not instructive.
Based upon a review of the Coastal Commission staff report dated September 28, 2005
(see the staff report at http: / /www. coastal .ca.gov /lb[Th8d- 10- 2005.pdf1, the statement
set forth above from Page 4 -76 of the CLUP was, in fact, drafted by Coastal
Commission staff as a proposed modification to the City's proposed LUP. Similarly,
CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -9 was drafted by Coastal Commission staff.. Therefore, Coastal
Commission interpretation and application of these very policies in prior actions in
Newport Beach is relevant to the Aerie application. Further, although the references
below are to the Coastal Commission's actions, the preceding City decisions were less
restrictive than the Coastal Commission's decision. As a result, the precedent discussed
below is even more restrictive than the City Council's precedents for the same projects.
It is a very basic principle of law that these policies should be read in a manner that
gives meaning to each of them. It is not a matter of choosing one over the other, but of
reconciling them so that all have meaning. So the question becomes, "How does the
City both allow continued development on the bluff face AND control development to
® minimize further alteration "? The answer, of course, is not to choose one directive over
the other, but rather to interpret and apply the policies in a manner which implements
both directives. To gain insight into the analysis which must be undertaken to
simultaneously give meaning to both directives, review should be made of earlier
planning decisions involving the very same CLUP policies which are at issue with this
application.
u
In November 2006, the Coastal Commission approved an application for the demolition
of an existing house and the construction in its place of a new duplex at 3130 Breakers
Drive in Corona del Mar. This construction differed significantly from the Aerie
application because the construction was at the base of the bluff and went up the bluff,
whereas Aerie starts on top of the bluff and comes down. The principles related to
predominant line of development and bluff face alteration, however, are the same. What
is important to note about the Breakers application is that even though there was a pre-
existing house proposed for demolition, the Commission did not interpret the
"predominant line of development" as being established by the pre- existing house.
Rather, the Commission used the extent of adjacent development to establish the
maximum distance which the new structure could ascend up the bluff. The new house
was proposed to rise to a 70' elevation on the bluff face, while the tallest adjacent
property was at 52'. The Commission, therefore, limited the new house to the 52'
contour line. The issue of minimizing bluff alteration was, as it should be, treated as a
separate consideration from the predominant line of development issue. It was not used
0.73
rratanatps
manalt I Phelps I Phillips
March 28, 2007
Page 4
to change the predominant line of development, but rather to assess whether the
"amount of grading would be the minimal amount necessary to construct the project."
The policies of the CLUP were in effect when this Coastal Development Permit was
analyzed and approved. This action clarifies that the predominant line of development
should first be determined on the basis of the extent of development of existing adjacent
structures or adjacent series of structures, and then the development of the project
within the resulting building envelope should be accomplished in a manner which has
the least impact on the bluff face. With Aerie, the proposed plans are, on each
elevation'of the project, within the predominant line of development of the adjacent
series of structures.
In January of this year, the Coastal Commission considered an application for the
demolition and reconstruction of a home at 3415 Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar.
Again, while specifically referencing Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9, the Coastal
Commission addressed the predominant line of existing development on the basis of
the maximum extent of the adjacent series of structures.
These are but two decisions under the current CLUP which demonstrate that
establishing the predominant line of development is a separate exercise from
minimizing alteration of the bluff face. These and other decisions also clarify that in
determining the predominant line of development, the most important factor is the
maximum extent of encroachment of other structures in the area, typically those within
the same viewable area.
When these principles are applied to the Aerie project, it becomes apparent that the
extent of encroachment onto the bluff face is within the predominant line of
development, with that line being drawn at a different contour line for each perspective
of the building as it wraps around a "turn in the bluff. It also is indisputably Gear that
the CLUP intends that structures in this area be permitted to descend down the bluff to
the predominant line of development. Once that line has established a building
envelope, there is a separate obligation to limit alteration of the bluff face while still
allowing construction of the proposed project within that building envelope. The Aerie
proposal meets these requirements. The Planning Commission not only can, but, to be
consistent with all prior decisions under the CLUP, should find as follows:
The project complies with Policies 4.4,3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9 of the CLUP which
expressly permit construction on the bluff face at this location. The project will be
constructed within the predominant line of development for the immediate area.
That line is defined by the series of structures immediately upcoast from the
project for the northerly elevation of the project at the 44' contour line, and by the
series of structures immediately downcoast from the project for the westerly
11
manatt
® manatl I phelps I phillips
March 28, 2007
Page 5
elevation of the project at the 29' contour line. The project minimizes alteration to
the bluff face because, within the building envelope defined by the predominant
line of development, the proposed alteration of the bluff face is the minimal
amount necessary to construct the project.
By taking this approach, which is consistent with prior actions of both the City and the
Coastal Commission in interpreting the very CLUP policies which are at issue here, the
Planning Commission will have given effect to not only these policies, but the statement
from the LUP quoted earlier in this letter and repeated here, in part:
"Corona del Mar is one of the few areas in the coastal zone where then= is
extensive development of the bluff face; specifically, residential development on
Avocado Avenue, Pacific Avenue; Carnation Avenue, and Ocean Boulevard....
Development in these areas is allowed to continue on the bluff face to be
consistent with the existing development pattern and to protect coastal views
from the bluff top. However, development on the bluff face is controlled to
minimize further alteration." (Emphasis added.)
With the changes to project design since the February 22 hearing, we believe the
® project fully complies with both the Planning Commission's direction and those policies
of the City's General Plan and CLUP which were brought into question with the previous
Staff Report. Specifically, we urge the Planning Commission to approve the project as
modified and to find compliance with the policies of the CLUP.
Sincerely,
Tim Paone
70042339.1
J
✓ J
O.9 5
Page left blank intentionally
C
0
Exhibit No. 4
Staff recommended predominant line of existing development
E
l�. �/�
Page left blank intentionally
�
, � ^:
� � � }2
� \ \� \ \�
�� ¥
� � \�
: � y _
���� \�
� � s��
: � <ƒ
/ \� � /�\
� ��� � \\<
. /
� ~:
�
�
�w.�
\
}
� \�
��/� �
r
jl-
..: 8,...
® • •
Predominant Line of Existing Development
j -
52 feet '
1�-
i.
} _ t 4M•w�� Y � .,; �� 'u 4t yt( vk^y}���� ;i
;
w .1L
�'�•,T7� '� � r � �• -�... r a.- a i$�° �'-ar'����a'crtG_i` ,r.- ri.: ,F- -''2 � ,��x,� "'[.
_ ... +Ya<•,<� -�'"i< ,.a_ ...._:._... -, _. � ._... «._ ., ._ _.- _. _.� �9:: ��mY Src ;ss.___r sS�.^ - ':a�"Ly'Y.%s.��..i -�";�� F°..:I -. ��
View 2
Page left blank intentionally
E
E
Exhibit No. 5
Visual simulation of the proposed project
E
P -1 U 3
Page left blank intentionally
�...
._ ...
.: x
�� _
_� ,_ ;.
,.-
-- ,- �-
View 21
C
0
Exhibit No. 6
Visual simulation of the project within staffs
recommended predominant line of existing development
E
_17t-r
0-10-7
Page left blank intentionally
A
tL i
A
:<
—v+
� L
:.i: : 4. a. ... .:�. u ♦ �u �C., ;fit �i xa � `�`e
.._ _ . 3 w .... _ _ _. ._ _ _..�_.
Page left blank intentionally
LJ
CJ
Exhibit No. 7
Visual simulation of Staffs recommendation
1
Page left blank intentionally
� +� 1Ile'
OL
u�
i
v _
v
Staff Recommendation
(Project Above 52 Feet MSL)
View 2
0
L
a
n
LJ
Exhibit No. 9
Commissioner Eaton's comments and staff responses
E
Page left blank intentionally
Commissioner Eaton's comments on the 2/22/07 staff report and staff responses
® 1) The footnote to the table on page 3 states that the "Common areas include.... all parking
areas'; but there is column that separately details the garage areas for each unit. Do these
two overlap, or is there 3,369 sq. ft. of garages, plus additional parking areas included in the
20,687 sq. ft. of common area?
Each unit has an enclosed garage that is not included in the 20,687 square foot common area
2) The last sentence in the top paragraph on page 10 states that "If the project is found
consistent with Coastal Land Use Policies, the project is also consistent with the Land Use
and Natural Resource Elements (of the General Plan)." Is this literally true? Are there are no
policies whatever in either the Land Use or Natural Resource Elements of the General Plan
that go beyond the Coastal Land Use Policies, or that address themselves to topics not
included in the Coastal Land Use Policies? (I thought that there were a few inconsistencies
betweenthem that needed resolving.)
Staff reviewed all elements of the General Plan and compiled a listing of all applicable policies.
The Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) policies are more specific and cover all of the topics
contained within applicable General Plan policies. Therefore, if it is determined that the project
is consistent with applicable CLUP policies, the project is consistent with the General Plan.
3) The 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph on page 18 states that "No view presently exists
above the existing building other than sky views... ". Is this sentence intended to describe
public views? (I would think that there may be private bay or ocean views above the existing
building from some of structures on the lots a little uphill from this building.)
® The sentence refers to public views. There are private views over the existing building from the
upper levels of residences across the street, but private views are not protected by policy.
4) The 2nd sentence of the 4th paragraph on page 9 states that "Although specific exterior
finishes or building materials are not identified at this time..." but the 4th sentence of the 1st
paragraph on page 22 states that "The new elevations with high quality materials and
unique design will improve the streetscape aesthetic." How do you know that there will be
"high quality materials" if the "building materials are not identified at this time "?
This comment was based on the applicant and the architect's representation that they plan to
use high quality materials.
5) The 3rd sentence of the 2nd paragraph on page 23 states that "Public improvements and not
private development are subject to the policy directions (in the CLUP) to minimize alteration
of the bluff face... ". Is this correct? I seem to remember a great deal of discussion when we
were considering the adoption of the CLUP, of the effect of these policies on private
development.
The question relates to Policy 4.4.3 -8 which states
4.4.3 -8. Prohibit development on bluff faces, except private development on coastal bluff
faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar
determined to be consistent with the predominant line of existing development or public
improvements providing public access, protecting coastal resources, or providing for
public safety. Permit such improvements only when no feasible alternative exists and
® when designed and constructed to minimize alteration of the bluff face, to not contribute
0.117
Commissioner Eaton's comments on the 2122/07 staff report and staff responses
to further erosion of the bluff face, and to be visually compatible with the surrounding
area to the maximum extent feasible.
The statement in the staff report is specific to the applicability of the second sentence of the
policy to public improvements and not private development. Private development is subject to
the Policies 4.4.3 -1 and 4.4,3 -12 that requires development to minimize alteration of the natural
landforms.
6) In the further discussion on pages 23, 24 and 25, staff appears to be expressing some
concern with the methodology utilized by the project architect in attempting to outline
alternative interpretations of the CLUP language that refers to "predominant line of
development "; goes on to state that staff had developed a method for determining this line in
connection with the proposed CLU Implementation Plan; but then states (in the 3rd
paragraph on page 25) that "..staff has not prepared an analysis (of this project) using the
draft regulations and guidelines... ". Why not? If there are proposed draft regulations and
guidelines, would not such an analysis here have been very useful to the Commission (and
the City Council) in not only evaluating this project, but also in evaluating the validity and
usefulness of the proposed regulations and guidelines?
Within the proposed guidelines for bluff development, a methodology was identified using the
median distance of development from a representative point or line. Staff measured the extent
of development of 7 lots on Carnation Avenue including the project site and the abutting lot on
Ocean Blvd. (2495 Ocean) from the front property line. We averaged the extent of the building
on 2495 Ocean and the project site as they are not parallel to Carnation Avenue or Ocean Blvd.
The median distance from the curb is 83.9 feet and the mean distance is 98.2 feet. Given the
uniqueness of the area, the usefulness of the exercise is questionable. The draft guidelines
were reviewed by the LCP Committee and no action has been taken since.
7) In the first full paragraph on page 26, the report discusses the possibility of using contour
lines of 52 feet (above mean sea level) along the extension of Carnation, and 34 feet along
the extension of Ocean Blvd. Exhibit 5 shows where these contours are on a plan view of
the existing site, but there is no exhibit showing (in plan view) how the locations of these
contours would overlay on the proposed project. Is that something that can be provided at
the hearing Thursday evening, so that the Commission could evaluate the resulting
difference?
The architect prepared an exhibit showing these two contours, which was available at the 2122f7
hearing.
8) The last sentence of the next to last paragraph on page 30 states that "Conditions of
approval have been included to ensure compliance with Title 19." But no conditions of any
kind have been provided thus far to the Commission, as far as I was able to determine. Did
this intend to refer to conditions that will be furnished later in the process?
That reference was in error and condition of approval will be provided at the appropriate time.
9) In light of the complexity of the project, it's very deep and horizontally confining excavation,
and the rather unique method of access to the garages, I was a little surprised that these
considerations did not seem to be addressed at all in the staff report. For instance, if access
to 75% of the parking spaces can only be obtained by vehicular elevators, were any
problems with this method of access evaluated? For example, drivers using small vehicular
Commissioner Eaton's comments on the 2/22/07 staff report and staff responses
® elevators are going to want to drive into them in a forward direction both going into and
exiting the building. Were the turnaround areas for all of these parking spaces evaluated for
their ability to allow the drivers to enter the spaces from the elevators, and to also exit the
parking spaces and enter the elevators in a forward direction? What if there is a backup in
the evening rush hour of residents (and guests) desiring to use the elevators at the same
time, and where would such a queuing occur - in the street ROW? How will the elevators be
secured? How will residents be able to access their vehicles to the street in the event of a
power failure?
The vehicle elevators are approximately 9.5 feet wide by 19 feet deep which exceeds our
residential parking stall size. Vehicles can turn around in the garage levels so they will face
forward when exiting the lifts. It is a little tight in the garage, and a few spaces will require
several backing movements, but the Traffic Engineer finds that vehicles will be able to safely
maneuver in the garage. If both elevators are in use and one wants access to the elevators, one
will have to wait. Parking or waiting in the public right -of -way would occur in that instance. There
will be a garage door to control access to the elevators but unlike a standard garage, the door
won't open when the elevator car is not present. It will operate like an elevator and the applicant
indicated to staff that the elevator car will return to the street level when not in use. The
applicant plans on a back up power generator such that If the power is out, access will be
provided. Please see the 4/5/07 staff report for further information.
10) As another example, with the nearest edge of this very deep excavation being only 5 feet
from the street ROW, how and where will the dirt trucks be loaded? Will they have to be in
the street? If so, how will the dirt be lifted up to them from the deeper levels of the proposed
® excavation? If there is a queuing of such trucks (and there will be a total of perhaps 3,000+
of them), will this also have to take place an the streets? Why did the environmental
assessment and MND fail to discuss in any way whatsoever the traffic impacts of 3,000
round trip dirt truck trips on this area of CDM? (As best I can tell, that would probably mean
6,000 trucks passing through the intersection of PCH /Marguerite, for instance.) Shouldn't the
MND have also discussed the air quality impacts of all these truck trips (as well as all the
concrete truck trips) on the AQMD daily thresholds, as did the MNDs for the Dover & PCH
and the Lennar projects? Will there need to be special mitigation measures or restrictions on
such operations during the summer season?
n
LJ
Given the size of the site and the fact that they plan to go down approximately 50 feet vertically,
they will need to park the dirt haulers and cement trucks in a portion of the right -of way. Dirt will
be brought to the street level by a conveyor or they will need a crane. The revised MND
contains additional information on the number of trucks and the need for a construction /parking
management plan. The plan will be to conduct the dirt hauling outside of summer months and to
maintain the sidewalk in front of the site for pedestrians during the evening hours.
11)The MND notes that there were 11 separate studies produced for this project, and relied
upon in the MND. But none of those have been furnished to the Commission. Would not at
least the Conceptual Grading Review Report, Water Quality Plan, and Traffic Analysis have
been useful to our consideration of the MND and the project?
The reports will be made available as soon as possible and they are available to the public at
the Planning Department. The water quality plan was revised and submitted on March 27, 2007.
D.11y
_5_�-
General Plan Policies applicable to the AERIE Project.
Goal LU 1 - A unique residential community with diverse coastal and upland
neighborhoods, which values its colorful past, high quality of life, and community
bonds, and balances the needs of residents, businesses, and visitors through the
recognition that Newport Beach is primarily a residential community.
Policy LU 1.3 Natural Resources
Protect the natural setting that contributes to the character and identify of
Newport Beach and the sense of place it provides for its residents and
visitors. Preserve open space resources, beaches, harbor, parks, bluffs,
preserves, and estuaries as visual, recreational and habitat resources.
(Imp 1.1)
Policy LU 1.6 Public Views
Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual
resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean,
and harbor from public vantage points. (Imp 1.1)
Goal LU 3 - A development pattern that retains and complements the City's
residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts, open spaces, and
natural environment.
Policy LU 3.7 Natural Resource or Hazardous Areas
Require that new development is located and designed to protect areas
with high natural resource value and protect residents and visitors from
threats to life or property. (Imp 2.1, 6.1)
Goal NR 20 - Preservation of significant visual resources.
Policy NR 20.1 Enhancement of Significant Resources
Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual
resources that 'include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean,
and harbor from public vantage points, as shown in Figure NR3. (Imp 2.1)
Policy NR 20.2 New Development Requirements
Require new development to restore and enhance the visual quality in
visually degraded areas, where feasible, and provide view easements or
corridors designed to protect public views or to restore public views in
developed areas, where appropriate. (Imp 20.3)
Page 1 of 3
20
-rr�
General Plan Policies applicable to the AERIE Project.
® Policy NR 20.3 Public Views
Protect and enhance public view corridors from the following roadway
segments (shown in Figure NR3), and other locations may be identified in
the future:
■ Ocean Boulevard
(Note that figure NR3 identifies the intersection of Carnation
Avenue and Ocean Boulevard as a "view point." A view point is also
shown on the Balboa Peninsula at the east jetty.)
Goal NR 22 - Maintain the intensity of development around Newport Bay to be
consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach.
Policy NR 22.1 Regulation of Structure Mass
Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent
with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. (Imp 2.1)
Goal NR 23 - Development respects natural landforms such as coastal bluffs.
® Policy NR 23.1 Maintenance of Natural Topography
Preserve cliffs, canyons, bluffs, significant rock outcroppings, and site
buildings to minimize alteration of the site's natural topography and
preserve the features as a visual resource. (Imp 2.1)
Policy NR 23.7 New Development Design and Siting
Design and site new development to minimize the removal of native
vegetation, preserve rock outcroppings, and protect coastal resources.
(Imp 2.1)
Goal S 3 - Protection of people and property from the adverse effects of coastal
erosion.
Policy S 3.9 Shoreline Protection for New Development
Require property owners to record a waiver of future shoreline protection
for new development during the economic life of the structure (75 years)
as a condition of approval of a coastal development permit for new
development on a beach or shoreline that is subject to wave action,
erosion, flooding, landslides, or other hazards associated with
development on a beach or bluff. Shoreline protection may be permitted to
protect existing structures that were legally constructed prior to the
Page 2 of 3 p. 121
General Plan Policies applicable to the AERIE Project
certification of the LCP, unless a waiver of future shoreline protection was
required by a previous coastal development permit. (lmp2.1
Policy S 3.10 Bluff Stabilization
Site and design new structures to avoid the need for shoreline and bluff
protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years),
unless an environmentally acceptable design to stabilize the bluff and
prevent bluff retreat is devised. (Imp 2.1)
Policy S 3.11 New Development Impact on Coastal Erosion
Require that applications for new development with the potential to be
impacted or impact coastal erosion include slope stability analyses and
erosion rate estimates provided by a licensed Certified Engineering
Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer. (Imp 7.1)
Policy S 3.12 Minimization of Coastal Bluff Recession
Require new development adjacent to the edge of coastal bluffs to
incorporate drainage improvements, irrigation systems, and/or native or
drought- tolerant vegetation into the design to minimize coastal bluff
recession. (Imp 7.1)
Page 3 of 3 Z Z
11
1 J
Exhibit N ®e 10
Comments on the MND from Commissioner Toerge
V. I
Page left blank intentionally
® Questions of Staff
Discuss how the city determines the need for an EIR vs. a MND.
Did the City's Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee review the MND? If so,
where is report? If not; why?
The CC can request that EQAC review any environmental document, can the PC make such a request?
If not, 1 suggest that the PC consider a recommendation to the CC that they have EQAC review the
MND.
MIND Questions:
I. c) Aesthetics Describe how the "Less than Significant Impact" determination was
made. Under what circumstances would a determination of "Significant Impact" be found?
IX. b) Land Use & Planning: Explain how the "Potentially Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated" determination was made.
XI. b) Noise Describe how the "Less than Significant Impact" determination was made
when there is no representation of how the excavation operation will be conducted.
Page 22: Aesthetics The staff report and MND suggest that public views will be protected, however,
the exhibits presented in the staff report depict the view from the public view site at Carnation and
Ocean, however, it does not present graphics to illustrate the status of public views along Ocean Blvd,
® a street designated as a public view street. The view protection must take into consideration the
dynamic nature of the view from various points along Ocean Blvd rather than a single point of
reference at Carnation and Ocean.
C
Page 28: Air Quality The MND inadequately addresses the Noise, Air Quality and Water
Quality impacts associated with the tremendous amount of excavation and removal to occur on site.
With 2,500 to 3,000 truck loads of material to be excavated and removed, together with who knows
how many cement trucks and other delivery vehicles, the MND needs much work to address potential
mitigation measures such as:
How will trucks access the neighborhood and project site?
Where will trucks stage while waiting to be filled?
Will trucks be allowed to use the public right of way for staging?
What is the planned haul route out of CdM?
Page 29, Mitigation Measure III -2: Washing down the street is not an acceptable method for
controlling the mess created by the hauling operation as doing so will flush the dirt and debris through
the storm drain directly into the bay. Another method must be implemented.
Page 29, Mitigation Measure 111 -3: When we get to the conditions of approval, delete the last portion
of the last sentence so that all diesel powered vehicles and gasoline powered equipment shall be tamed
off when not in use. Trucks should turn off their engines as soon as they arrive on -site. (5 minutes is
way too long).
7 S
Disallow the use of audible signals (horn honks, whistles, beeps, etc.) during the hauling and
construction process. CB Radios or other discreet communication devices should be used.
Page 29, Mitigation Measure III -4: Delivery of construction equipment is restricted during peak hour
traffic periods. They also should be restricted in the early morning (before 7 :00 am) hours.
Page 29, Mitigation Measure III -5: Fails to address the parking demand of construction workers in a
residential area. Include a Construction Parking Management plan for workers, idle equipment and
materials.
Page 40, Policies 4.4.1 -1 and 4.4.1 -2: Inadequately addresses the public view along Ocean
Blvd.
Page 41, FirsLparawaph The first two sentences are misleading and inaccurate. The calculations
noted in items 1, 2 and 3 need additional information or references for the reader to confirm the claims
made in this paragraph. The proposed development is bayward of the string -line noted in this
paragraph.
Page 42, Noise a) Construction noise impacts are not permanent; however, the reference to
short term construction noise is questioned in that this is not a short term construction project.
b) Excessive ground home vibration and noise Without a description of the
method to be used to excavate, I cannot conclude that this is a Less Than Significant
Impact. Depending on the method proposed, Mitigation Measures may be necessary.
Request of Applicant and Presenters:
Describe in detail the method of operation and vehicular movements necessary for each resident to
utilize the garage, including auto elevators, vehicular circulation to each parking stall, garage
assignments and path of travel between each residence and their respective, garage, garage lifts,
interior queuing at the elevators and exterior queuing of vehicles arriving to the site and waiting for the
vehicle elevators, how are power outages are dealt with.
Thoughts:
Predominant Line of Development: Pursuant to the applicant's project overview (page 12) the PLD
should be gauged against a specified group of structures such as a block of homes on a coastal bluff
rendering properties along Bayside Place irrelevant to this guideline. Cite the Ocean Blvd Breakers
Drive comparison.
As in other projects that have significant excavation, shoring and grading, I recommend a condition of
approval that requires the applicant to secure a performance bond ensuring that once the excavation
commences, it will be completed in the event of financial trouble.
E
E
E
r 1
L_J
Exhibit N®. 12
Memorandum from Randy Nichols
Page left blank intentionally
I/
E
To: James Campbell, Senior Planner, City of Newport Beach
From: Randy A. Nichols, AICP
CC: David Lepo
Date: March 30, 2007
Re: Recirculation of AERIE Project Draft IS /MND Not Warranted
Section 15073.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines sets forth the requirements for recirculation of
a Negative Declaration, prior to adoption by the Lead Agency.
As stated therein, "A lead agency is required to recirculate a negative declaration when the
document must be substantially revised after public notice of its availability has previously
been given pursuant to Section 15072, but prior to its adoption."
A "substantial revision' includes:
® 1. A new, avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures o project revisions
must be added to reduce the effect to insignificance, or
2. The proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less
than significant and new measures or project revisions are required.
Neither of these two circumstances has occurred as a result of the recent revisions to the
Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration, as discussed below.
One new impact has been identified, the need to replace the Citys catch basin along
Carnation Drive, because the drainage plan has changed to direct all site runoff into that
small basin, which does not have sufficient capacity for the additional volume of runoff. That
is a minor, not significant impact, because the new catch basin can be constructed along with
other site improvements, vdith no significant effects on local traffic or surrounding properties,
and no adverse environmental effects that are unique to replacement of a catch basin.
Temporary construction traffic, noise and air quality impacts and associated mitigation
measures have been clarified through additional information; however, these clarifications did
not change the Initial Study conclusion that these effects would be less than significant.
Minor revisions to the Project Description have been made to clarify that construction of
expanded boat docks must be approved by separate discretionary permit, subsequent to
action on this redevelopment/development project. Potential impacts to eel grass and the
marine environment will be addressed through subsequent CEQA documentation. This is
not a deferral of impact analysis and significance determination; rather, it is recognition of the
project entitlement process that separates the docks expansion from the rest of the project.
Other revisions made to the IS simply clarify and provide further explanation of less than
significant impacts concerning aesthetics, light and glare, noise, water quality and traffic.
D.izy
It is also important to note (ff this is the case) that no significant issues conceming the
adequacy of the Draft IS/MND have been raised during the public review process. No
evidence has been introduced to suggest that there would be new significant impacts not
identified in the Draft IS /MND, or that impacts identified as less than significant would actually
be significant.
Recirculation of the Draft IS /MND is not warranted.
• Page 2
130
7G
C
11
11
Exhibit No. 13
Additional correspondence
�J
0-1,31
73
Page left blank intentionally
1J
MICHAEL AND JEANIE NIILLIKAN
2222 Channel Road
Newport Beach, CA 92661 -1513
March 22, 2007
David Lepo
Planning Director
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Dear Mr. Lepo:
Please be sure to distribute a copy of this letter to all of the Planning Commissioners and
City Council members so that they clearly understand that I support the AERIE project. I
was the one quoted in the Daily Pilot as opposing the project since it affected my view from
across the bay. At that time I received a call from someone who frantically requested that I
gather people to fight a project that was destroying the entire hillside to the water. After
mobilizing neighbors and attending the first Planning Commission Meeting, I realized that
not only did this project respect the hillside, but it was in fact a perfect development for that
hillside. I did not speak against the project there, and in fact felt badly that .I even
considered opposing the project.
I also had the opportunity of meeting the Julians and hearing a bit of their side of the story.
After that Planning Commission Meeting, I was invited by the Julians to view the property,
see the exhibits fast hand, as well as the scaled model of the property. I also met several
neighbors of the project and learned that the Julians had spoken to all of them, and made
significant changes to the plans to accommodate the desires and input of the neighbors.
I don't think that I have ever found a builder who respected the wishes of the neighbors as
much as the Julians. After fully investigating what was being done, I realized that the
AERIE project is not only respectful of the hillside, but rather it conforms perfectly to the
surroundings. It is exactly what should be built there. Design -wise and architecturally, I feel
that the project represents a perfect respect for nature and the surroundings here in the
harbor. I can't wait to see that project framed in my living room window.
Please approve the AERIE project. We need more projects like this along our shores.
Sincerely,
Michael Millikan
cc: Mayor Steven Rosansky
Rick Julian
Jeani" e MiLkan'
/x.133
75
Mar -27 -07 01 =59P D_ Cord 949- 7.59 -3423
March 22, 2007
David and Betty Cord
2 Canyon Lane
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
To the City of Newport Beach Planning Commissioners and City Council,
RE: AERIE Proposed Condominium Development
My wife and I have lived in Corona del Mar for many years, and have recently become
familiar with the proposed condominium project at the north end of Ocean Blvd. and
Carnation Ave.
This is, by far, the worst possible re- development plan imaginable for this beautiful
location. We regularly walk Ocean Blvd., and so enjoy the view liom that area, as you
can look down at the bluff, cove and harbor. Anytime we have relatives visiting from out
of town, that's one of the best places to get abeautiful photograph.
The proposed development seems to be the exact opposite of what the street represents,
with its' lovely homes and views, and we're surprised that this project would be allowed
at all, especially since it is so much larger than the existing building.
We urge the Planning Commission to look at the possibility of reducing the number of
condominiums so that the building would not impact the natural environment and public
views.
'thank You for your consideration,
Sincerely,
Vgj
x&7t7- l�
David and Betty Cord
HO-99 MAN 10 910
LODZ a NVW
INIVUW430 E)NINNVId
At ®3N3038
P.O1
E
C9• /���
® March 23, 2007
Joseph and Lisa Vallejo
2501 Ocean Blvd.
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
Newport Beach Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MAR 27 2007
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
RE: Condominium development at 201 -207 Carnation Ave., CDM
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
We recently e- mailed you a brochure regarding the proposed development for the site at
Ocean Blvd. and Carnation Ave., in Corona del Mar. We live at the comer of Ocean and
Carnation, on the water side, with the proposed project directly next door, which makes
us, by far, the most affected by this development.
We have lived here since 1990, and have remodeled our. 1949 home into something that
is an asset to the neighborhood. Along with the points in the brochure regarding the
California Land Use Plan provisions, we believe that this project will negatively impact
® our neighborhood, and we are unconditionally against it. We have seen the model and
feel that it is just "too, much" for this site.
Further, other then the Channel Reef which was built in 1962, before there was a
definitive land use plan, there is nothing else on Ocean Blvd. as massive and dense as this
project, This would never even be considered anywhere else along Ocean Blvd., as it is a
major view corridor, and an asset to the city and the many people who come here to enjoy
the natural beauty.
Shouldn't the fact that this project is "so complex that it will take another.four to five
years, or more •to build after flour years of planning, be a red flag that maybe it's not
suitable for this area?
We hope that upon more intense review, the Commission will realize that this project
must be scaled down or denied, and if constructed as planned will do a great disservice to
the citizens of Corona del Mar, and the community as a whole.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Josephand Lisa Vallejo ...
P 135
HELP PRESERVE THE COASTAL BLUFF AT CARNATION COVE
There is a mossive condominium
Comdex Proposed to be built on the
bluff lnCoionodel Mar. tnudertobuild
the Project the developer mclu es a
General Plan Amendment, Zone
Change Arnenrdment Coostot Lana {ire
Ran Amendment Mod&:allon Pamdt.
and Coastal Residential Development
Permil.
The 74evel, 9 -urdt cormplex will be
approximately 75,000 square feet,
replacing a structure that Is
approximately 20.000 square feet The
site located at the comer of Ocean
Boulevard and Canation Avenue is so
constrairredfhattheonlyway 9 units can
be squeezed on the property is through
the use of automobile elevators, where
you dlveyou car into theetevolor and it
takes you and the car down to a 4 -level
parking structure.
If this project is approved the bluff face
will be destroyed, and replaced with
multi -level decks and overhangs
protiuding tojustabove the water. Thsis
an area of puda enjoyment from many
places in the city, and most notably,
horn the hart o.. Once this bluff is gone.
we cannot replace the natural beauty
of the .rock formation mat presently
exis% Before this is changed forever, fa
ourselves. and for future generations, we
nwst speak up. NC%V I The project was
recerdH presented to the planning
convrdstion where a majority of the
commissiomrs were In support of the
project . ittough it was obvbus That the
comet ndly had not been informed. The
pudic hearing was continued to April
5th and we reed YOUR SUPPORT I
The Califolnla Land Use Plan (CWPI wos winen Please don't be distracted by the
Past lostyear oil a gulaellne in duallonssch as riffs argument that the e)lsfing apartment
ono marry provIsOnslnCkrde- nnin"krg atiemrim building is an eyesore, and that this
of the duff face and keeping development vlsrdty developmentistheonlysotution. Weall
comparrJewth the suimardhgarear. Atthismeo know at so mB
consists piedotrgnfty. of single family Igmes paint this property will be
m
we1easlJngthatiNSprgect developed, owntx, t e n way that will
1. BE SCALED DOWN TO MINIMIZE andth o owner, the neighborhood,
and the communiryas a while:
ALTERATION OF THE BLUFF
2. BE MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE
NEIGHBORHOOD
3. PRESERVE THE PUBLIC VIEW
CORRIDOR ALONG
OCEAN BOULEVARD
This project must be held to the'predamUront
Ina of development-=r dords as descrhed In
the Coastal land Use Pan.
What the planning commission has to
Warm is not the truck routes or ddN
construction clean -up, but rather
whether or not to allow a beautiful public
treasure such as tins bluff to be eMloted
for econon-Jc incentives. There is no other
location in the harbor that has such an
opportunity to change our coastline to
such an extreme exteni. Shouktnl our
civic leaders en onthe side of cros&Mng
this well -Wrown and enjoyed scenic
landmark?
PLEASE ATTEND THE PLANNING
COMMISSION PUBLIC NEARING
ON THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 2007 AT
THE HOUR OF 6:30 p.m. IN THE
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
(BUILDING A) AT 3300 NEWPORT
BOULEVARD, NEWPORTSEACH.
FOR INFORMATION CALL THE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT
(949) 644 -3200.
LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD TO SAVE
AN IRREPLACEABLE SCENIC RESOURCE OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE BEFORE IT'S TOO LATEI
C
0
P• �3�
® DAVID K. LAMB
815 VIA LIDO SOLID
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
949 -833 -1554 EXT. 228
February 22, 2007
Mr. David Lepo
Planning Director
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, Ca 92663
Re: Aerie Development Project in Corona Del Mar
Planning Commission Hearing February 22, 2007
Dear Mr. Lepo:
I have known Rick Julian for twenty years and have seen many of his developments and
rehabilitated residential projects. Mr. Julian does all of his developments in a first class
® manner. He has the talent and foresight to make a spectacular condominium project in
this landmark location on the bluff above our harbor entrance. His plans are of the
quality that we as Newport Harbor neighbors and boaters will enjoy well into the future.
The dynamic plans demonstrate the amount of forethought that has gone into this project.
Mr. Julian always uses the best consultant team and this project is no different with his
selection of Mr. Jeannette as his architect.
My wife and I have been to the old apartment community in the past and go by the
location often as we go in and out of the harbor. What is there now is embarrassing to
Newport Beach. The Aerie Development will be a beautiful addition to our Harbor entry
and we whole heartedly support your approval of the development.
Please approve the Aerie Development at the February 22, 2007 Planning Commission
meeting.
urs tmly
David K. amb
E
a.�3 7
Tax &rin:ancire Group
CHARLES K. TURNER, Ph D
CA I kmae No. DE4065S
FNdNCL%L ADv1SDR
February 16, 2007
Richard Julian
Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc.
23792 Rockfield Blvd., #100
Lake Forest, CA 92630
Dear Rick:
INVESTMENT ADVISOR% SERVICES
1 saw a petition for development of the old Corona Cove apartments land. As a Back Bay
resident, I took some interest in it, and have had the opportunity to review the location,
overall plans, and renderings for the proposed project.
I think we need to be smart about development in Newport Beach, and this seems to me
the kind of project we want to encourage. 1 wish you luck, and would be happy to offer
any support if that would be of value.
Charles Turner
2900 Quedada
Newport Beach, CA 92660
4001 MaeAnhur Boulevard, 3' Floor • Newport Beach, CA 92660 a (800) 373 -2177 TDII -Frw m (949) 223 -8100 Main • (949)223 -6101 Fax
chucktume rr Amun.eom • (949) 223.8214 Dlreel • Vvsysv.lfmoun.cmn Vlasuvrom
Securities& Investment dthisory Services offer ed thraugh Securlarr Flmuxial Services. hx. Ake&er NASalsIPC Wat&n+u
& it Raglsrered Invearment Ashisor • rat & Financial Group. an affiliate oJSecurlaa Is Independently operated
C
E
February 9, 2007
Mr. David Lepo, Planning Director
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
3151 Airway Ave., Suite F -110
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
714.850.1965 Voice
714.850.1592 Fax
�.coastkeeper.org
RE: "AERIE" Tent. Tract 16882 in Newport Beach
Dear Mr. Lepo:
Orange County Coastkeeper is a non -profit corporation focused on water quality
and healthy marine habitats. Our mission is to protect and preserve our marine habitats
and watersheds through education, advocacy, restoration and enforcement. One of our
programs is to constructively work with the development community to review and make
recommendations on proposed water quality management plans of specific development
projects. This effort is to ensure that new development projects embrace state -of -the -art
® technologies, design, and management to eliminate polluted runoff from discharging off
the project property.
l J
Coastkeeper has reviewed the water quality management plan for the AERIE
project (Tent. Tract map 16682) and have met with the applicants on several occasions.
The project proposes to install media filters to remove trash, grease, oils, and metals. We
have made a recommendation to add a technology to the water quality plan. Though we
realize current regulations do not require it, we recommend technology, such as
AbTech's "Smart Sponge", that will remove approximately 90% of the bacteria from the
discharge. Coastkeeper believes this to be important since the project discharges directly
into the harbor. The applicant has agreed with our recommendation to install this type of
technology.
Coastkeeper endorses the proposed water quality management plan for the AERIE
project. When completed, the water quality management plan will be state -of -the -art and
exceed regulatory standards. It is our opinion that the water quality of the runoff
discharge into the harbor will be significantly unproved over the current runoff condition
from this property.
February 14, 2007
Lloyd `Bud' and Linda Rasner
2500 Ocean Blvd.
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
Mr. David Lepo
Planning Director
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Subject: —Aerie Development
Dear Mr. Lepo,
We live at the corner or Ocean and Carnation. Arguably our home is potentially the most
affected of all residences by this development.
Mr. Julian as owner of the project has been very forthright with and responsive to our
concerns. His outreach to the neighborhood has been admirable and congenial.
We unconditionally support the project and have seen the plans on a continuing basis
since the project was conceived years ago. The recent model confirms our approval
decision.
The existing building has been an eyesore for the 35 years that we have lived in Corona
del Mar. Of course we expect some impact from construction but that would happen
under any development. I am certain that this project will be considerate to the
neighborhood and to the greatest extent possible mitigated to cause the least impact.
We earnestly endorse the project and encourage you to support it as well. The view from
the comer and water will see a first class endeavor.
Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
D —& Linda Rosner
n
L_J
rj. / y0
® IKENT S. MOORE
210 CARNATION AVENUE CORONA DEE NEAR. CALIFORNIA 92626
6
TEL: (949) 073-7692 FAX: (949) 673-7699 entmoore ®wor1dnel.al1.ae(
February 14, 2007
Newport Beach Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
RE: Aerie Project, 201, 205 & 207 Carnation Ave., CDM
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
I am writing in support of Mr. Rick Julian and his proposed project at the site of the old
Corona Cove Apartments located at the comer of Ocean Blvd. and Carnation Ave. in
Corona del Mar.
® I have owned property across the street from this location since 1975 and have seen
several building projects undertaken in our neighborhood over the years, some good and
some bad.
In reviewing Mr. Julian's plans it is obvious that he is attempting to create a world class
residential development at this beautiful and scenic location above the harbor entrance.
He has also gone out of his way to get to know the local property owners and outline his
project plans for them. I have spoken with many of my neighbors who favor the current
plan which is now before you for approval.
I hope that, upon careful review, the Commission will also come to realize that the
adoption of the Aerie Condominiums plan will be a win -win situation for this
neighborhood and will enhance life for both residents and visitors in this very unique
comer of Newport Beach.
Sincerely, /
U
D. FYI
Implants
�J
William L. Mihram, D.D.S., M.S.D.
I -� ",Z o7
coro'la ZIe( �1�/, i� Ck
k-\ .ps AP 01
��cZl�n enf c a rr ®� n 7-A
W1 l
(I L' ce n a -'7
it -2 o u al f� 0. lt� ,CS uJe GtGl�
.Q v s
Santa Ana - Tustin Medical Center
801 N. Tustin Avenue Suite 708
Santa Ana; California 92705
714 -558 -1137 FAX 714 -558 -1459
(/-t Y� sceC Ct C.�i
1-r)Lf n
/ h J 650.'.
D.�yz
PAS
Feb 21 07 07:I1p Jennings Pierce
949 646 5007
Karen A_V.Pierce
2772 Bayshore Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Cellular (949) 795 -4829 Fax (949) 646 -5007
ladybond2@hotmail.com
February 21, 2107
To Whom It May Concern
I have lived in Newport Beach and Corona del Mar for sixteen years and I am
writing to express my support of the proposed redevelopment of the former
Corona Cove Apartments and adjacent single family dwellings located on
Carnation Avenue in Corona del Mar.
Rick Julian, through his company Advanced Real Estate Services, is
proposing to !wild a new residential development, to be known as Aerie,
located on the bluffs of Newport Harbor.
For as long as I have resided in Newport Beach and Corona del Mar, the
apartment building at this location has been has been a run -down, dilapidated
eyesore. It sits at the end of the street with breathtaking views of
Newport Beach, Newport Harbor and the ocean. However, despite this
commanding location, the building, the community areas, and the boat dock
has always been in disrepair and neglect. Over the years, it has
deteriorated so significantly that renovation is no longer a viable option
I have reviewed the blueprints and artist renderings of the proposed new
development and I am extremely impressed at the caliber of the new
architectural design It will simply be a jewel on the bluff as one views it
from the ocean and Newport Harbor, as well as from Ocean Blvd. and
Carnation Avenue.
By this letter, I wish to convey my complete support of the proposed Aerie
development. I believe it will be a stunning world class residential
development.
Sincerely,
% A . ?, erc
Karen A. Pierce
P. 1
p. /y�
3(0
11
n
LJ
11
11
E
Page 1 of I
Robb Cerruti
From: Tim Newman [tlnewman1954 @hotmail.comj
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 2:25 PM
To: dlepo@ city. newport- beach.ca.us;jcole @city.newport- beach.ca.us
Subject: 201 -207 Carnation Ave, Corona del Mar
Chairman Cole and Members of the Planning Commission,
Please allow this message to serve as our endorsement and support for the project at 210 -207 Carnation Ave.,
Corona del Mar. As long -time local residents, to us this is certainly is a positive development for the
neighborhood and for the community. With an established local architect, an excellent design, and a top -notch
builder, this is a great opportunity for this site. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Tim and Christina Newman
949- 760 -0994
528 Cancha
Newport Beach, CA 92660
P -1q 5
2/16/2007 ty
Ralph W. and Karen R. Spargo
26 Sandy Cove
Newport Coast, CA 92657'
February 16, 2007
Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Honorable Commissioners:
As 30 year residents of the City of Newport Beach (6 of which were spent 4 blocks away from the
proposed project) we would like to heartily endorse the approval of the AERIE development plans
in the 200 block of Carnation Avenue. We have reviewed the plans that have been prepared by
Advanced Real Estate Services and believe that the concept will be a unique response to a very
challenging site and will provide a source of pride for the surrounding neighborhood and the
community as a whole.
Again, we sincerely hope that through your careful evaluation of the proposed project that you will
approve the AERIE submittal.
�P.- _
Ralph W. Spargo I Karen R. Spargo
D -ly(O
® Ron and Marsha Beard
3208 Ocean Blvd
Corona Del Mar, CA
Feb 13, 2007
RE: former Corona Cove Apartments to be replaced w/ 9 single family attached
homes
To the City of Newport Beach Planning Commissioners and / or City Council,
I have met w/ Rick Julian several times regarding the subject development as there
was a time when I was a potentially interested purchaser of a unit. I must tell you that
I absolutely love the plan! Clearly, there has been so much time, effort, and thought
put into it. i think it's a great addition to our neighborhood, and- I think it's in character
for the neighborhood. I believe that the team of architects and designers on this
project as well as the developer has really placed a tremendous amount of
architectural features and beauty into the project
I believe that the development will be very attractive from the street, and it will be even
more beautiful from the water. We live in a world class area, and we are getting a
world class development on this site.
is I strongly endorse the project, and I hope that you do as well.
Res
Ronald P. Beard
n
U
February 16, 2007
RE: Proposed redevelopment of the former Corona Cove Apartments (201, 205, and 207
Carnation Ave, CDM)
To the City of Newport Beach Planning Commissioners and/or City Council,
I am writing this letter in support of the proposed AERIE redevelopment project at the
aforementioned address. As an immediate neighbor and boat owner who regularly views
this property from the street as well as the harbor, I can honestly say the redevelopment
will be aesthetically pleasing from all angles. I have reviewed the plans with Rick Julian
and Robb Cerruti, and after viewing a model of the structure I believe everyone in the
neighborhood will benefit from this redevelopment. The existing structure is unattractive
and doesn't blend with the other amazing homes in the neighborhood. The designer and
architect behind this project have a clear understanding of how beautiful oceanfront
Corona Del Mar should look.
I am sure that the AERIE project will draw praise and support from almost all of its
audience. As a neighbor and proud member of this community, I completely support and
endorse this project.
Thank you for your time.
Best regards,
WO-
Mitch McCoy
2600 Bayside Dr
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
E
11
r
February 14, 2007
Grant Sadler
207 Carnation Avenue
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
Mr. David Lepo
Planning Director
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Subject: Former Corona Cove Apartments/planned 9 Single Family Attached Homes
Tract 16882 —Aerie Development
Dear Mr. Lepo,
I am very familiar with Rick Julean's development since I live on the properly now and
have seen and reviewed the plans.
® The careful and thorough planning is very impressive. In addition; Rick has used fast
class architects and designers. The project will be fantastic and enhance the neighbor
hood from the street, the homes themselves and also from the water.
I enthusiastically endorse the project and encourage you to support it as well.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
E
o./yy
Jeffrey H. Hopkins
2725 Bungalow Place
Corona Del Mar, CA 92673
2/15/07
Sent via e- mail .
Re: AERIE Proposed Development
February 22, 2007 hearing
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
I send this letter in strong support for the AERIE Development ( "Project ").
My wife and I live in Corona Del Mar and I was bom and raised in Corona Del Mar and in fact
grew up going to the beach, just a few hundred feet from the Project.
As it stands, if the Project is approved, due to the complexity of this project, is still several years
out of being completed Denying the Project by contrast, will force the developer to go back to
the drawing board which will, at best, delay the Project for another 45 years or more and, at
worst, prevent its construction altogether. Either of these latter scenarios would do a great
disservice to the citizens of Corona Del Mar generally, and the homeowners located near the
project specifically.
I have been tracking the history of the re- development of the Project for well over four years.
This not about land use or zoning. This project is about a re- development of a blighted and
dilapidated apartments and single family dwelling units that are being re- developed into one of
the most premier developments along the cost and harbor. In addition to the foregoing research, I
attended a meeting in with the Project's developers and architects as well as with some of the
local homeowners within the area. All involved were very open about the details of the Project
and candidly answered all questions posed to them. After reviewing the plans for the Project and
participating in the question and answer session, I fully support the Project and strongly urge the
Planning Commission to approve it without delay.
In closing, I had high expectations for the Project before I saw the detailed design drawings. The
Project, as proposed, exceeds those expectations. The developer and City staff have done an
outstanding job.
I ask that you please approve the Project; it will be a welcome addition to our community.
Th@nk you for your time.
H.
D. l50
C
February 16, 2007
RE: Former Corona Cove Apartmemts to be replaced with nine single family
attached homes
To the City of Newport Beach Planning Commissioners and/or City Council:
I have has the opportunity to meet with Mr. Julian and review the subject site to
be redeveloped, formerly known as the Corona Cove Apartments. I am
thoroughly impressed with the floor plan design, architecture and overall beauty
® of this project. In my opinion, the approval of the redevelopment will enhance the
aesthetic beauty from the street and the water, thus increasing the property
values in the area. 1 am an avid boater and am extremely familiar with the lack of
waterfront homes with dock space in Newport Harbor, to which Mr. Julian's
project will also contribute. Corona del Mar is a beautiful place to live... the
approval of this redevelopment will only make it better. I strongly endorse the
approval for this incredible project!
Sincerely,
Paul Root
2600 BAYSIDE DRIVE l CORONA. DEL MAR I CA 1 92625 9.151
/ J
Newport Beach Planning Commission
Newport Beach, California
February 19, 2007
Dear Planning Commissioners:
We have been residents of Corona del Mar for more than 35 years and are in full support of
building the planned 9- single family attached homes proposed for the property at 201, 205 & 207
Carnation Avenue in Corona del Mar.
Respectfully Submitted,
Wade & Jan Roberts
606 Dahlia Avenue
Corona del Mar
CJ
�.15�
INL
Dr. Lawrence Brown
1501 Superior #304
Newport Beach, Ca 92663
February 17, 2007
To Whom It May Concern;
I am a resident of Newport Beach and have been following the development of this
exquisite hilltop. After reviewing the plans, Aerie seems to be the perfect plan.
I know that the neighbors have all been taken into consideration and all seem to approve
this project.
Pease approve this project as many of the residents, including myself, have already done.
Respect;Lesl� ,
't
® -
Dr. L awrence Bro
11
x.153
Tax& Financial Group
CHARLES K. TURNER, PhD
CA License No. OE40655
FINANCIAL ADVISOR
February 16, 2007
Richard Julian
Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc.
23792 Rockfield Blvd., # 100
Lake Forest, CA 92630
Dear Rick:
INVESTMENT ADVISORY. SERVICES
I saw a petition for development of the old Corona Cove apartments land- As a Back Bay
resident, I took some interest in it, and have had the opportunity to review the location,
overall plans, and renderings for the proposed project
I think we need to be smart about development in Newport Beach, and this seems to me
the kind of project we want to encourage. I wish you luck, and would be happy to offer
any support if that would be of value.
(mk�
Charles Turner
2900 Quedada
Newport Beach, CA 92660
4001 MacArthur Boulevard, 3t° Floor a Newport Bcach, CA 92660 a (800) 373 -2177 Toll -Free a (949) 223 -8100 Main • (949) 223 -8101 Fax
chuck.turnerOORroun.com a (949) 223 -8214 Direct a www.tfgrouv.com wESUFPORT
Securities & Investment Advisory Services offered through Securion Financial Services, Inc., Member NASLUSIPC W u@Ytr ". �.,.
& A Registered Investment Advisor a T= & Financial Group, an affiliate of Securiarc is independently operated —t o
o. r sy
C
Wendy Webb
115 Via Genoa
Newport Beach, Ca 92663
February 17, 2007
To Whom It May Concern:
I am a Realtor living in Newport Beach and have been concerned with how this exquisite
hilltop will be developed. After reviewing the plans, Aerie seems to be the perfect plan
for this opening to our harbor.
I know that the neighbors have all been taken into consideration and all seem to approve
this project.
Newport Beach needs to move into the fast class arena and I believe this project is a
fabulous beginning.
Please approve this project as many of the residents, including myself, have already done
® Respectfully,
Wendy Webb
E
r
D• l 5S
AERIE PETITION
This Petition is.in regard to the. proposed redevelopment of the farmer Corona Cove Apartments and single family dwellang
located at 201, 209 & 207 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar, California.
I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced property that
incorporates 9 single-family attached homes.
I am suppoiti .g:tliis development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach and
California Co'nWi Commission,
I am supporting this:development.
Property Address: ip2/1I? ate: /G
-....,
Print Name: 4 • 7_7'/%4 / qI r Print-Namdr
Signature: Signature;
Ptop erty Address. /nilc -- Date:')=q -O7
Print Name: T� Print Name:
Signat�. 7 "�-� Signature.
,r
Property Address: M 0mg.3 CW,P Dater M -01
Print Names
Signature:
Print Name: (. C
Signatuf
Print Name
Sigtuatute..�
Property Address:
Print Name: _
Signature:
Property Address:
Print Name: _
Signature: _
l
Print Natne:
Signature.
Print Name:
Signature:
Print Name:
Signature:
Date::
Date:
Date:
AERIE PETITION
77us Peddon is an regard to the proposed redevelopment of the former Corona CoveAparsments and single jhw&T dwelling
located at 201,205 & 207 Camadvn Avenue, Corona del Mar, Califomia.
I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced property that
incorporates 9 single -family attached homes.
I am supporting this development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach and
California Coas'ta7 Commission.
I am supporting t14-development.
Property Address:
MM
iignature:
hoperty Address:
?rintName:�l(liO
signature: J' pL �
'roperty Address:
'tint Name:
�igClatuIC:
Ci
v
riDa'Ee l Q� PropettyAddcess -:a �i�'1,��t7r Date:�e
Pant Namet' Ptmt Name b��5 �� G`
Sigva4Aiie' ° Sigaatureflr
Print Name:
Signatures:
Date:
Property Address:
Print Name: _
Signature:
Property Address:
Print Name: _
Signature:
Date:
Print Name:
Signature:
Date:
Print Name:
Signature:
"RM PEMION
MsPeddoa Is in rqg"d.;q.;h; proposed mdcvdopmcnt of the farmer Corona Cove Aparavents and siagiefarnfivdweNug
located i4A!,205&207Cawad6n Avenue, Camna dc]A&r, CdMzn&
I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced Red Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced property that
incotporatee 9 single- family attached homes.
I am supporml.g'" development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach and
California C6aiiACommxssion.
01. i.r. "I V pjji!j.--7T MI
2L 11 4• b
Property Addre,",- Date:
P#nfN=iL-' Pj= N2M=
.... ..... 77
Property Address: . '. '. Data —
MM�H
Print Name. Print Name:
Sigaafttre ftnawre.,
Ngn= Print Name:
attire: —
Property Add==
Print Name:
Signature:
sipalftlw-
Print Name:
s4natum.
0Z
AERIE PETITION
Ms Peddan is is regard to the .proposed redevelopment of the farther Corona Cove Apartments and single family dwelling
located at M,, 205 & 207 Camadon Avenue, Corona del Mar, California.
I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced property that
incorporates 9 single- family attached homes.
I am supporting this development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach. and
California .Coastal; Commission.
I am supporting this m development/Jy -�
'petty Address: t R / /Q Propetry.Addcess: '" Date:
'tint N Print Names ... Print Name .......: > . Prior Name:
_..
aura: i4ti3e: Signature: 5ignatrtte:
mac 3j/ t 3�3 C��_2�iI'�Ti7y11t�t.� � i3.
na L e ui Ptiat A'aar iM5r" Wre LA-iJ
rapetty Address:
-rintNatne: TA 4'A GlwriD A14 Print Name: dyJV
I Signature.
U�
Property Address:
Print Name
Signature: —
Property Address:
Print Name:
Signature: _
Date:
Print Name:
Signature:
Date:
Print Name
Signature:
-A_ERIE PETITION
This Petition is in regard to the proposed redevelopment of the former Corona Cove Apartments and single family dweMng
located at 201,205 & 207 Camadon Avenue, Corona del Mar, CaUforctia.
I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced property that
incorporates 9 single-family attached homes.
I am supporting this development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach anc
California Coastal Commission.
I am supporting this.iddy.elopment.
Property Address; Pt
A,4
Date:
nn emu_
PrintNeinell
Print NM 6::: 4iA-4:
Signature: -7 S
Property Address: Date:
Print Name : riat Name:
Signature: Signature:
Property Address: -10 SAVON ----Date;
0 0
Print N _r. A 9J t Mum:
Signa Signature:
Property Address: 52?4:�& -'.Date: /4i
V,-T 4e-
Property Address: -Date:1-L/0-7
T-7-
Print Name; _4�4. Pidat Name:
Signature,g, 47)Vj�ignatuxe;
,1� I , I
r: c� r'r' °rs; -: .°row ,•...- s "°•.r -WPM I ✓. r' "r .. .':.. 4r •r °r+
I = supporting this development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach and
California Coastal Commission.
116 O'nNTI, �,.*
Y -
print Nsme.•!lmo7"!i SM Print Nun. �", °►'
�'t1v�E -a/ Fail -�ylp prod
Signature: signatum
Punt Name:
Ptope Addtem: '1•S (6 0CC*t-j `l �_2 Duc 7 prop Aadtess:
Paint Natam TQ e-T?Z1 Print Nsme(1 •�j * D Ptiat Nmne:
_!4 47'1°Goo�r�
PwpergAd& as: AO/ 6V ra 4„d� �� to a� v y PmpertyAddtess:
print Nzrne A' �A` print Name Pest Name _
S tote: Signature —
b
Faint Name:
$ignatum
Print Name:
sigaau=
print Name:
signatuae:
Date!
Hate;
Date
411,111
1A t ...... ....
. u rmi'C-
. I -
*qwmm mwl ;4 Adu=oW:W bum -SwrWro, 4M. C k6jbdRm WAWwA FMP*ftf dw
bT 6@1104
cazwkwm pmBoxib
�p"VE*-ma*w -07
Pmpmbn C WA§r.
ftftakm �!a� somopm
Faw mnm
lmvz'el asses;...; vmm N "
� 11--. MI.
-AERIE PETITION
MsPeddon is in regard to the proposed redevelopment of the former Corona Cove Apartments and single family dwelling
located at 201,205&207Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar, California.
I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced prop" that
incorporates 9 single-family attached homes.
I am supporting this development conditioned upon the developer satisfy* reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach ant
California Coastal Commission.
I am supporting this : 4ey.4?pment
Propert7Addre98_.K!S'f,,.'1 QeZE4V QLV ,
: 1
not N
Print Name ZA4 not
,I.. I t I e:
... ..
rL
I Property Address:hoaa ee I l
'W.�V Pate: eop)_
r-7
Print Name: Name:
Signature: Signatur
CN
Date:
signature-J tur
e.
Proi3etty Address: Date:I
Property Address: Date:
Print Name: Print Name:
Signature: Signature:
AERIE PETITION
This Petition is in regard to the proposed redevelopment of the fanner Corona Cove Apartments aad single family dweMng
located at 201, 209 & 207 Carnation Avenue, Corona delMar, California.
I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced property that
incorporates 9 single-family attached homes.
I am supporting this development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach anc
California Coastal Commission.
I am supporting this 4development.
Property Address;
Property Ads .1toss. -
Date:
PtintNarngt-(5;f
Pnt,Ngole:
-ik'
Print ii
raw
2
Signatjjr�
.... ..
Signatt ire: 46 "natlare
_7
.... 7
J. . .
Property Adfir q1 .0 107'�
a.
Property Address:
-Date:
Print
Name:
Print Name:
Signature:
Property Address: Q5_11 AS4Vet-_J — Date: V(—,L-Ycft% Property Address:
06�
-1Z
Print Name:
Signature:
Print Name:
Signature:
Print Name:
Signature:
Date:
051171
AERIE PETI'T'ION
This Peddon 19 in regard to the proposed redevelopment of the former Corona Cove Apartments and single family dwelling
located at 201,205 & 207 Carnation Avenue, Corona de/Mar, California.
I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced heal Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced property that
incorporates 9 single -family attached homes.
I am supporting this development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach anc
California Coastal Commission.
IN
I am supporting this d;eyelopment
Property Address: �^�
cXC��2 �Q� _
pate/ D S
Ptopertp Address+'
Pont Name:7on r1 jeQ
Qt{�
it �T tint Nader:.
yo- kh�4
Pant Name.
Signature.
Signature
Signature
Property Address: 29—'
12. o GPI. i. '$ V �' '
Date:
Property Address: �S
Print Name: 4a 62 cq Print Name: ?tint Name:
Signature: Signature: Signature:
Property Address: C Date: l .6105 Property Address:
Print Name: �� 1
Signa e:
Print Nam
Signature:
Print Name:
Signature:
Print Name:
Print Name:
Signature:
Date:
Date:
1111-6 `6V
AERIE PETITION
This Petition is in zvgwW to the proposed redevelopment of the JbnnerCorona Cove Apartments and single family dwelling
located at 204205&207Camadon Avenue, Corona de/Mar, California.
I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced prop" that
incorporates 9 single-family attached homes.
I am supporting this development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach any
California Coastal Commission.
I am supporting this development
N:
Property Address-.. _921
Pi
Print Name. 6WPAY pi
Siguatur Signature:
Property Address:
1tv.
Print Name; =t Name:
Signature.
oca"',
PidatName;
Date: N ( 9
Property Add ress: 2
-..Date:
Print Name: Ske; It, P0.5S "CLL- Print Name:
Signature A.i:9e.�9nature:
Property Address:. - 117 4rd J?q L Date: Property Address: Date:
Print Nsm is R/1 1 01418% tName; Print Name: Print Name:
Z'
Signature: " 0'U loe*. Signature: Signature-.
017
CL
W
LL
E
IL
N
Lo
O
.m. tn
LL.
OT -ill'-,-"' j 71W�Mllrl I, 714711M
2. 1-17 777,77,76,,A'��� F.M.W MI
�RommirV.9m
pmpeq M&CM Dam
Pxht Nwm PAOtN=z
hint Nxble FtintNm
Date:
PzbitNmnr
hapaq Ad&em
PftNo=. PhaNw=
Nut N=v.
a4matue.
A 'ERIE PETITION
zz,
ko�AO:idatX4 209&207Ckmadon Avenue.. Coro= d4rJA* Caffon2&
I have =viewed the proposed development made by Advanced Red Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced property that
incorporates 9 single- family attached homes.
LOT;
I am supporting this development
ptop,:,VAd&,,,: 2600 54f3tr>a C4
Dam
Print Name
Property Address: Date:
Print Name: Print Nn= —
Sigamm Signature:
PropertyAdc1rem-
Print N=M
Print Nainc.
Datr. —
Irr
Property Address:
Print Nara= Print N&m=—
SignaLr Signatare-
PwperLy Address:
Print Name Print Name:
Signstxw. Signstam: —
Property Address:
Print Name: Print Name:
Signature: Signature:
IM
Date:
Dltf-. —
FF—M
AERMPETITION
r.
I have reviewed the proposed , devdoPmmt made by Advatmed Reg Estate Services, erty
incorpotateOp Inc for the above referenced prop that
�'�.fiw*amched homes,
ent conditioned upon the developer satisfying reamrable req=ements by the Q tY of Newport Beach
and
ab
j• 8fII 0
Date-
T
T,
.4 -&L
Property Addresai
Date:
Print Nam=
Name:
Property A ddms;
Date.
Print Nam=
PxiiztNu=
Property Address: te
Print Name: Print Nam
S%naltum.
PropertyAddmo: Date.
Print Name: Print Nt=c
S*&tU=
a
Pmpeety Addteek Date
Pdu Naeo:
Pmxt No=
P.wped9 mace:
a
PitNl= Pz�tNama
Q
PmpettyAdam r. Dace,
Psiat Name: Pleat Namc
PtoputyAddmae: — —Date
Print Name Peiu Fume:
943mum
pmpmVAdbm Bate
PAtNIMC Not Nome:
staRom
AERIE PETITION
This Petition is in regard to the proposed redevelopment of the former Corona Cove Apartments and single family dwaffLIg
locatedar 201,205 & 207 Causation Avenue, Corona del Mar, California.
I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced property that
incorporates 9 single-family attached homes.
I am supporting this development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach anc
California Coastal Commission.
I am supporting this :development
PtOPertY&d-&ess- ';)l '&-
Property Address: Da f e:
PxintNanxe: :Print Name:.
Signature: MQ '`°= l -.Mw-
Iff Signature:
Property Address: . Date:
Print Name:
Signature:
Print Name:
Signature:
Property
Date;
Peat Name
Pzint.Name:
Signature-..... . ........ ..... .
ture
Property Address:
7 17'
Print Name: Print Name:
Signature. Signature:
Property Address: Date:
Print Name: Print Name:
Signature.
Signature:
AERIE PETITION
This Petition ism regard to the proposed redevelopmen t of the former Corona Cove Apartments and single fan2dy dwelling
located at 201, 205 & 207 Camadon Avenue, Corona de/Mar, California.
I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced property that
incorporates 9 single- family attached homes.
I am supporting this development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach anc
California Coastal Commission.
am supporting this development --
i
Property Address: ri �� ,� X3ate Property Adiizess i (y 9 y eA Date:11'4• 0S�
Priat Name s 3 :.. L1S0 WA
Pant Name Pant N�tnel. Punt Name:
SYgna M §lgnahite Slgna r, au�, aatSrre
Property Address: IEt�rLT �0c, ,, pater " Property Address 1fSU/� G�NUA. Date:
Print Name: Zc�0 CcL e: Print Name: Name:
Signature: Signature: Signa ature:
Property Address: cf �CEI 'S �'ti� C Date: dtl d S Property Address: Dat - JI -G'ji
Print Name: 7 Print Name: Print Name: Als*'Print Name. a
Signature: Signature: Sign ur _ gnattue:
b
AERIE PETITION
ION
77dopetit =19 jb AWwd to dwpn7puwcdzvdemkpn=t of &c comer coming are Aparmunts and single buw7f dwcfibrg
,(Di7t ced at 2 Z 205& 2A7 C!awadon Avmue, COt wa cid Mary CafiOm&
:1 YI U • 1 1 1 11 � S • • 11 w • 1'. 1 t • {I. ,• I. 1 -1 L 11 ' 1 > • 1 L :. l : 1 � •�" • 1 ' 1 1 11 1 G 1 1 •1 1. • ] • • i 1 � .
•1 '1 1 • 11 11 •1 • 1
1 sml svpotdng tills devdopmmt.
... � . his. � ► � , -
Pratt Nemk- V§V 9Wr— Pant Name
Sigaatatet ' Siamtarmt
_ a.
PdntName: _,•_
Propetty Addms:
Pant Nam= _,T,
0
v
w
Print Nan=
L&M,
Print Ns=m
Pmpetty Addce= Date:
Print Nam= Print Namc
Sigaatatet Sk=taec
P» nt Neale: Print Naate:
=1
Print Namc:
Print Namc
Date
a.
C. It If *k4-1
r3-,7.r. r, rrmw I T-n I R-11T, TP-7, (.T
pdgNa=l hiaNmv-
awlatmm
P=pcdyAddtcw Data
Pant Name PtiatNw=—
PmpedyAdd=L- —mtm_
Print Name Print Name
PjibtNw= Not Nam®:
Psoper[yAddma: DOB. —
PAMtN==
17M-nz
TA& Petition is in regard to the proposed redevelopment of the former Corona Cove Apartments and singie faartly dwepiV
located at 214 205 dt 209 Carnation Avenue, Corona defMat, Cafifonaia.
I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced heal Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced property that
incorporates 9 single- family attached homes.
I am supporting this development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach and
California Coastal Commission.
I am supporting . development
. •
MWA,70 IM
Date:
Print Name:
Print Name:
Signature: signature:
Property Address: Date
print Name:
Signature:
J
N
Print Nerve:
Signature:
Print Name:
Signature:
Print Name:
Signature:
Date:
Property Address: Date:
Print Name: Print Name:
Signature: Signature:
Property Address: Date:
Print Name: Print Name
Signatum:
Signature:
AERIE PETITION
This Petition is an tegand to d2e proposed redevelopment of the former Corona Cove Aparanems and single famil7 dwelling
located at 201, 205 & 207 Camadon Avenue, Corona del Mar, Califomia.
I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced property that
incorporates 9 single- family attached homes.
I am supporting this development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach and
California Coasiil�Commission.
I am supporting this -development. r- ,
roperty Address: ll U� rf y�,�/ Da'te:7 Pmpetty Address: �7 Date:G��•
4m: Name Olil t /P ' .yl Print Name Print No,=, • . Priest Name:
igna signafiriee;
t,v
Ades: imperty Date:9Jw -J
tint Name: 11 i}Y jin G1ar k�. print Name:
ignature• (/� Signature.
mperty Address: 57 k UkLj&c CL49 Date: p%
Tint Name:
O
1
Priest Name:
Signature:
Signature:
.2-'2o .d'7
Property Address Date:
Print Name: 4N Ct t< � Print Name:
Signa Signature:
Property Address: (10 i V ;t7t� Date:
Print Namc s�a"+� Print Name:
Signature: Signature: .
AERIE PETITI ®N
This Pennon is in regard to; ebeprioposed redevelopment of the former Corona CoveApar7rneots and single famfly dwelling
located at 201, 205 & 207 Carnadon Avenue, Corona del Mar, California.
I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced property that
incorporates 9 singe- family attached homes.
I am supporting this development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach and
California Coastal Commission.
I am supporting this development
'ropertyAddress: nn W Date:�Q ., Prop" Address.' U%l[daZL Pl C�MDate:d%
rintName : PnntName:}ri Print Name:
ignatute: `` o Signatture:` Signature: Signatum
'ropertyAddmss:l9Si i61T IAf40 h iU —Date: Z) /on Property Address:_ i (B —LU I Dated
tint Name: act Sb�i -Q
0
roperty Address: l t t�d 1 W,J
tint Name: 'DA AJLO- S L- 'rt-wq
ignature:
J
Print Name: Print Name: f�k �% Print Name: fX
Signature: Signature: "'"� Signature:
/l Date: Z Zo .0 + Property Address;
Print Name: Print Name: 'sOL Print Name:
Signature: Signature.. Signature;
Date: j46-1007
AEAtIE PETITION
This petition is. za regard to,.thepxoposcdtedevelopment of the former Corona Cone Apartments and single family diveff
located at201, 205 & 207 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar, CaMfornia.
I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced property that
incorporates 9 single - family attached homes.
I am supporting this development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach and
California Coastal Commission.
I am supporting tb``is- development`;/ n `
'topertyAddress: l �� U� �+\ r:Date:
` n t
'tint Name: PrintNamE:'
'ignature: Siwaiiire:. '
topertp
M
roperty, Address:
rint Name:
Q
Print Name:
Signatute:
Dater
Pmpesty.Add=eas: �. S �GZt Q Date:
Print. Name. - i C lqrl% :. Pirint Name:
Signature: Signature:
Property Address: 1��1 \Ori"�i IRV���1� Date"Z a o
Print Names v Print Namr.
Signature Signature:
Property Address: Date:
Signature:
Print Name:
Signature:
j
AERIE PETITION
This Petition is in aega d:(o tbeproposed redevdOpment of the former Corona Cove Apartments and single family dweBi b
located ar 201, 205 & 207 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar, CaMfomia.
I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced property that
incorporates 9 single - family attached homes.
I am supporting:tliis development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach and
California GoastalComtnission.
I am supporting this-development
toperty Address:
'rint Name: j('Vrs to s .,t PriatNaniei` F—�'�� f1 tr (� l✓
iguatute: Signature:"
roperty Address. ! �1 1 1 i' Date:
rint Name:. f% allm:` Print Name:
ignatuw'.�aA&jj�� Signature:
roperty Address: _ � � j V_ I QiS/ m nl T Date: �' � 0+
dnt Natne \ `I� Print Name:
Ignature- Signaum.
Q
Property;;Addtess:
Print Natne :.. . . . . :.:.... - % Print Name:
Signature: Signature:
Date:
Property Address: Date:
Print Name: ' Print Natne:
Signature: Signature:
Property Address: Date:
Print Name:
Signature:
Print Name:
Signature:
AERIE PETITI ®N
r �
779s Peddon is in regaW to the prqposedredevvlqpment of the fozmer Corona Cope Apartments and single f=iFy dwelling
located at 2111, 205 &W Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar, Calffvrnia.
1 have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc, for the above referenced property that
incorporates 9 single -family attached homes.
I am supporting this• development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach and
California Coasia%Commission.
I am supporting this development
'toperty Address: Pro . _2w+ a✓t ae Date.
'riot Name: czicA Pdnt Nam;c " — RdntNam .: a ..., tint Name:
ignature S Signature: Signature:
roperty Address: Date: Property Address: Date:
tint Name: Print Name. Print Name:
ignatute Sigmtute Signature: _
roperty Address: Date: Property Address:
tint Name: Print Name: _ _ _ _ _ Print Name: _ _
ignatute• Signature• Signature: -
Q ; A.
Print Name:
Signature:
Date:
Print Name:
Signature:
I
I. SUPPOtt6g thk devtloptUnt.
PXW Nam* t Nan*
S*Atum
Daft
Pzibt N=40 Ps*t
40
I.
Nan*
ftt&.
jj
•
I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced property that
incorporates 9 single - family attached hotnes.
I am Supporting this dde�evv�e�lopment conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach and
t�.Alifomis Coastal Commission.
_ Properq Addmr.
• rte I ,y print
Date:
Peat Name:
S:
Data PtopedyAddeesa: Date
Ptat Name: Print Name: print Name:
PtopertyAddrm:
Staab= Siganwre
f WAMWM -
Sivatum.
Date property Addxrms Date
Print Name: Print Name Peat Na=:
Signaaetc Sigaatute:, Signatarer-
b
N
Print Name:
sipatutc
M-0—kOw
WE
AERIE PETITION
YWs Petition is in regard to the proposed redevelopment of the former Corona Cove Apartments and single faffXydwelling
located at 201,209 & 207 Carnation Avenue, Corona deJMar, Caffonzia.
I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced property that
incorporates 9 single-family attached homes.
I am supporting this development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach anc
California Coastal Commission.
I am sunnorfirip, this development.
Property Address: F
Print Name: KhtL_UA*WO N
Signature- t- Signature
Property Address: Date:
Print Name:
Signature:
Property Address:
Print Name:
3ignature..
Print Name:.
Signature:
Date:
Print Name:
Signature:
Date:
Print Name:
Signature.
Property Address:
Print Naray.
Print Name:
Signature:
Date:
Print Name:
Signatate• Signature-
Pratt Niffi6..
Pant Name:
Signatum:
15Qjuaruiv.
X13
d. Z.-
Property Address:
.7: Pate:
Print Name:
Signature.
Property Address:
Print Naray.
Print Name:
Signature:
Date:
Print Name:
Signatate• Signature-
i�
AERIE PETITION
This Petition is M seganf to the ptpposed redevelopanent of the former Corona Cove Aparmants and single family dwe!ltng
located at 201, 205 & 207 Camadon Avenue, Corona del Mar, California.
I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced property that
incorporates 9 single- family attached homes.
I am supporting this development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach and
California Coastal Commission.
I am supporting this development
'riot Name:
ignatute:
toperty Address:
Print Name:
ignatum: _
Punt Name:
Date:
Signatute:
Date:
Print Name
Signature:
Property. Address:
hint Name:, Print Name:
Signature' Signature:
Pzopetty Address:.
Print Name:
Signature:
Property Address:
Print Name:
Signature:
Date:
Date:
Print Name:
Signature:
Date:
Print Name:
Signature:
U
AERIE PETITION
7WS Peddon is is riegatd to the proposed redevelopment of the former Corona Cove Aparrmeate and &Eagle family dwelling
located at2W, 205 & 207 Comadon Avenue, Corona del Mar, CaMomia.
I have reviewed the proposed development trade by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced property that
incorporates 9 single - family attached homes.
I am supporting this development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach and
California Coastal Commission.
I am supporting this development
PrapertyAddresa: 5��&/ !�
Property Address:
Date
Pant Name 00 acne:
!
Print Name:
Print Name:
Sigma Signarerx:
Signature
Signature-
Property Address: !
Date: ` G" D %
Property Address:
Date:
Pant Name: aat Name:
Pant Name:
Pant Name:
Signature: Signature:
signature:
Signature:
Property A ess:
Date:
/
Property Address:
Date:
Pant Name: t Name:
Print Name:
Print Name:
Signature ` siguatutet
Signatnm:
signature:
�J
AERIE PETMON
21'ris Perrtloa is in mgad.to,.thep;nposed .redevelopment of the former Corona Cove Apartments and single family dwelling
located at 201, 205 & 207 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar, California.
I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced property that
incorporates 9 single - family attached homes.
I am supportingOm development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach and
California CoastlCommission.
I am supporting this development
'roPertyAddress; 2.606 &ISIDe M natec. a°x
'riot Name: ftnot' ' Print Natoei
lignature: si'patuce.: `
'ropettyAddress: 1210 FoL —Agit 9g Date: ($01'
'rint Name:
lgna
roperty Address: e�
tint Name
ignature:
Ptint Name:
.Signature-
Date:
Print Name:
Signature:
�•
PdIA! r
-j—. PriatName:
Property A°ddr�m: Z S� SFj4btew
dd
P6ntName: M ST�PRS Print Name: {/q
.SlgnatnrC: �• .StplraLlrre.�a'S�e •te�is
q e p ia•tte
Propuq Address: M t A AAA A.— Date: 3 —11
Print Name:jtmw Print Narne: I MC 4TG�/
Signs Signature: tI4PUcc►tSe0AVi iTA4
ED"
.... 1
r.,
n
775is Petition is .in rcgw d ,;o the, proposed redevelopment of &e former Corona Cove Apartments and single family dwelling
located at 201, 205 & 207 Camadan Avenue, Corona del Mar, Califomia.
I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced property that
incorporates 9 single - family attached homes.
I atn suppoxtingtivs development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach and
Califarrtia Coastal Commission.
I am supporting this development
'roP Y Address: Prope Address. Date:
Tint Name:
Print t Print Name:
... =Name ,
iig'n$ titre. Slgn:at11f2C•, ,;.,:.: Signature: Signature:
'ropetty Address: 3z. (a oe eat'- Date: 3 -I ! ?/ 07
'Tint Name: R 9EK zkk- Ao Print Name:
Q
;ignatute: 1` ,e ,2 Signature:
'roperty Address: 4—,5ZO \On kj ra=e A-P_ Date: ELI
J
Property Address:
Print Name
Signature:
Property Address:
Print Name
Signature:
Date:
Print Name:
Signature:
Date:
Print Natne•
Signature:
AERIE PETITION
This B'etidon is in m gwdp, ..theproposed mrdev&opment of&he Jammer Corona Cove Apamnents and abVic fvn3ly dwelling
located at 201, 205&207 Camadon Avenue, Corson de/Mar, CWbrztia.
I have reviewed the proposed development made by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. for the above referenced property that
incorporates `9 single - family attached homes.
I am suppoxtiag this. development conditioned upon the developer satisfying reasonable requirements by the City of Newport Beach and
California Coastal: Commission.
I am supporting this development.
'ropertyAddress: /B
A/ ®Rp
Date 7 ,i.7
Propert�;Address _'
Date:
'tint Name:
Print Naw
I?nnt Name:
Print Name
ignantte: ,�_
5ignatune
Signature:
Signature:
koperty Address:
Date:
Property Address:
Date:
tint Name
Priest Name:
Print Name:
Print Name:
ignatlaw.
Signature
Signature:
Signature:
roperty Address:
Date:
Property Address:
Date:
mint Name:
Print Name
Print Name:
Print Nan=
ignature•
Signature
Signature:
Signature:
.AERIE PETITION
MaPeddonisinregr dtorhupmpowdzedeWopmentof &c former CotuowCoveA,parwm wa and aiggkfrrmffrdme qg
located at201, 205 &207Canaatfan Avenue, Comma delllA0 Caffibmla.
I have teviewed the proposed development made by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. fox the above tefetemced property that
=cotpotates 4 =gIe•family attached homes.
I am supporting this development eouditioaed upon the developer satisfying reasonable mquitrmeats by the City of Newport Beach and
California Coastal Comrwsioa.
I am supporting this development
Pmpecty Adduces: 7l// G(`/, �Yi�. '�ybl NW W4 7
Print Name: h �iG[ Pant Name:
Sdgnatuae: Signatru�
PmpectyA&hm: Tti�TIh AwFL Date:? v&47
Slg tat== Signature _
SZc 41&.yd." A,-4
Print Name: Pan: Nara
S Signmuce: .
PmpectyAddwr, Date:
Print Names Plot Name:
signah9w,
PtwpenyAddren:
Pant Nara
Pmu Name:
signamm signatorm
Date:
Planning Commission Minutes 04/05/2007
ncing in association with the existing restaurant use. Additionally, a
liver of the parking requirements related to the introduction of live
tertainment is also requested. The property is located at 105 Main Stree
d is within the Retail and Service Commercial designation of the Centra
dboa Specific Plan (SP -8) District.
I. Lepo stated that staff requests this item be continued to April 19,
allow additional time to analyze and review the project.
on was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded
missioner McDaniel to continue this item to April 19, 2007.
Page 2 of 5
Ayes:
Noes:
Excused:
Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren
one
Peotter
ITEM N.O. 3
SUBJECT` Advanced Real Estate Services (PA2005 -196)
PA2005 -196.
201 & 207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place
Continued to
The application would allow the demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment
May 17, 2007
building and a single - family home and the construction of a 7- level, 9-unit
multiple - family residential condominium complex with subterranean parking
on a 1.4 acre site located bayward of the intersection of Ocean Boulevard
and Carnation Avenue. The existing General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan
and Zoning Designations of a small portion of the site (584 square feet)
would be changed to be consistent with the larger portion of the site (from
two-family residential to multi - family residential). The application includes a
tentative tract map for the creation of 9 "airspace" condominium units for
individual sale and. The Modification Permit application requests the
encroachment of subterranean portions of the building within the front and
side yard setbacks. Lastly, the Coastal Residential Development Permit
application relates to replacing lost units occupied by low or moderate
income households. No units meeting this criteria are known to exist and,
therefore, no replacement of affordable housing is required.
Lepo noted that the applicant and the City are in agreement that thi;
should be continued to May 17, 2007 to allow re- circulation the revise(
fated Negative Declaration with the mandatory 30 -day commen
:)d. Additionally, there are discussions related to the application of th(
3ed General Plan policies. He then suggested that the Chair ope(
lic Comment then close the hearing and continue this item to May 17th.
Commission inquiry, Mr. Lepo added that a comment had been receive(
t there was a new potential view impact, and staff wants to address this.
irperson Cole asked if there will be a revised staff report. He was
vered yes, and it would depend on discussions with the applicant.
ever, discussion of the current staff report, unless there is specifi(
:tion or information, need not be considered.
/3.196
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas /mn04- 05- 07.htm 08/07/2007
E
�J
Planning Commission Minutes 04/05/2007
Commissioner Eaton asked if the re- circulated Mitigated NegatN
® Declaration would also include resolving issues such as Mitigation Measui
V -2 being missing, and the difference between consistency with the CLU
and the MND. Will they be incorporated before it is re- circulated?
C
E
Ir. Lepo answered that the other changes will be incorporated to make i
s tight as possible. Again, relative to the recommendation and extent o
isturbance of the bluff face and the project that is the MND. The MND will
e the project last seen by the Planning Commission. That is the projec
ntil we get different direction. In the event the MND is re- circulated anc
omes back for Planning Commission review and you determine additiona
hanges, then that would require a further revision to the project that is
escribed and the potential impacts as described in the MND; the MNE
!ould again have to be revised and re- circulated if changes are required tc
ie project that minimize impacts. The staff report presumed revisior
irected by the Planning Commission consistent with recommendations, bu
ntil that direction is given, the MND will still evaluate the project a:
ubmitted.
continued on issue of consistency, re- circulation premise, etc.
,nissioner McDaniel noted his concern that members of the audience
wish to speak, can as well as have the ability to speak at the nex
ing. There are going to be changes to issues and you can speak
wer, you may wish to wait until the next meeting when the changes wil
been made.
r. Harp noted that this item is going to be continued and the M
�gative Declaration is being re- circulated. You are welcomed to cc
is evening; however, you may want to wait to see what those re
e so that comments can be more focused.
ommissioner Toerge asked if the consultant who helped with the MND will
at the hearing? He was answered yes. He agrees that a project of this
ature is very complex and encouraged members of the audience to speak
they wish.
N vote was taken on this item being continued. All ayes.
is comment was opened.
Beck asked if the property will be re- posted? Staff answered yes.
is comment was closed.
was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded
ioner McDaniel to continue this item to May 17, 2007.
Eaton, H
None
oerge and Hillgren
http://www.city.newport-beach.ca.us/PlrlAgendas/mn04-05-07.htm
Page 3 of 5
JOJIF/
08/07/2007
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 3
February 22, 2007
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner
(949) 644 -3210, Icamobellla�city .newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: AERIE (PA2005 -196)
201 -205 & 207 Carnation Avenue
101 Bayside Place
APPLICANT: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc.
Richard Julian, President
ISSUE
Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the AERIE project to the City
Council?
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission, after holding a public hearing, continue
the hearing to a future date to be determined at the meeting and direct the applicant to
modify the project to be consistent with Coastal Land Use Plan policies.
DISCUSSION
The AERIE project consists of the demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment building and
single - family residence and the construction of a new 9 -unit residential condominium
building. The following discretionary approvals are requested or required in order to
implement the project as designed:
1. General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -006 would change the land use designation of a
584 square foot portion of 101 Bayside Place from RT (Two -Unit Residential) to RM
(Multiple -Unit Residential, 20 dwelling units per acre).
2. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -002 would change the Coastal Land Use
Plan designation of the same 584 square foot portion of 101 Bayside Place from RH -D
High Density Residential - 50.1 to 60 dwelling units per acre to RM -A (Medium Density
Residential - 6.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre).
D. / 92
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
® February 22, 2007, Page 2
3. Zone Change No. 2005 -009 would change the zoning designation of the 584 square
foot portion of 101 Bayside Place from R -2 (Two - Family Residential) to MFR
(Multifamily Residential, 2178 square feet per unit).
4. Tract Map No. 2005 -004 (TT16882) combines the 584 square foot portion of 101
Bayside Place with 201 -205 Carnation Avenue and 207 Carnation Avenue and
subdivides the air space for 9 residential condominium units.
5. Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 would permit a 5 -foot subterranean encroachment
within the 10 -foot front setback along Carnation Avenue, and a 3'-l" to 5' -7" above -
grade and subterranean encroachment into a 10' -7" side yard setback between the
project and 215 Carnation.
6. Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -002 is an application required by
Chapter 20.86 of the Municipal Code to review the potential loss of affordable housing
within the Coastal Zone. No low or moderate income households occupy the site and
no replacement housing is required.
The existing 14 -unit apartment building (approximately 13,688 square feet of gross floor
area) and single - family residence (approximately 2,810 square feet of gross floor area) will
be demolished to construct a new 9 -unit condominium complex. The existing apartment
® building has a total of four levels, three levels visible above existing grade from the street,
with all four levels visible from Newport Bay. The existing single - family home north of the
apartment building is single -story.
The new building will have a total of seven levels, three of which will be visible above the
existing grade adjacent to the intersection of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. A
total of 6 levels will be visible when viewed from the south and west from Newport Bay.
The lowest level will be fully subterranean and will not be visible. The structure includes
outdoor patios, decks and may include spas at each level. The project includes
encroachments into the front and side setbacks, much of which are which are to be
subterranean. Approximately 32,400 cubic yards of earth will be excavated and removed
from the site. The site currently consists of two parcels and a small portion of a third parcel
(584 square feet) with a total project area of 1.4 acres.
Each unit will have a private storage room located in the lowest basement level. Additional
amenities include a private spa, lounge, patio, locker room, exercise room, and a pool
located on Level 1. Residences are located on Levels 1 through 6. Two parking spaces per
unit and 7 guest parking spaces are provided on Levels 1 through 4. Parking on Level 4 is
accessed via a typical driveway and is approximately 3 feet below the grade of Carnation.
It accommodates two, 2 -car garages and 3 guest parking spaces. All other parking is
below Level 4 and is accessed from Carnation Avenue utilizing two freight elevators
designed to accommodate vehicles.
® A staircase is currently located on the bluff face extending from the existing apartment
building to the existing floating docks. The upper portion of the stairs will be removed
D./7s
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 3
where the new building is proposed and a new staircase will be constructed in the side
yard to connect Level 1 to the existing stairs. Construction of a ramp from the lowest
basement level connecting it to the existing stairs is also proposed. Lastly, the project will
also include improvements to the existing private boat dock increasing the berthing
capacity from 4 to 9 boats. A comprehensive set of architectural plans, conceptual grading
plans and a tract map is attached for reference.
The proposed condominium building will consist of the following areas:
2
Level
3,348
369
1,638
5,355
3
Level
4,459
361
962
5,782
4
Level
4,671
361
897
5,929
5
Level
5,094
361
794
6,249
6
Levels 4 & 5
4,091
368
824
5,283
7
Levels 2 & 3
5,211
369
863
6,443
8
Levels 2, 3 & 4
4,962
442
734
6,138
9
Levels 5 & 6
6,239
369
1,264.
7,872
Total
42,908
3,369
9,369
55,646
.Common
All levels
n/a
n/a
n/a
20,687
Areas
Common areas include the gross floor area not devoted to individu .
residences and common recreational spaces and all parking areas
Project Setting
The site is currently developed with a 14 -unit apartment building (201 -205 Carnation) and a
single - family residence (207 Carnation). The site is a steeply sloping coastal bluff and cliff
and is subject to marine erosion. The westerly portion of the site is partially submerged, rocky
and includes a small, sandy cove at the base of the landform occasionally referred to as
Carnation Cove. The buildings are located at the top of the bluff and the westerly extent of
the foundations of the existing buildings are located on the most elevated portions of the
landform. A staircase presently exists on the bluff face that connects the apartment building
with an existing; irregularly - shaped, concrete pad (approximately 720 square feet) and a
private floating dock bayward of the rocks. Introduced, non - native vegetation covers the
upper portions of the bluff below the existing buildings and the lower portion of the bluff has
exposed rocks.
West of the project site is the main entrance to Newport
eastern end of Balboa Peninsula. North of the site
residences on Carnation Avenue and Bayside Plac
Avenue is a developed coastal bluff with Bayside Plz
Place provides access to single - family residences
submerged lands. South and east of the site are
developed on the coastal bluff face between Ocean Bo
Bay from the Pacific Ocean and the
are single- family and multi - family
. The western side of Carnation
-e located directly below. Bayside
constructed on previously filled
multi - family residential buildings
levard and Newport Bay.
I7. /9 �
u
C
u
C
E
f J
Tidelands
Site area above 2:1 slope
Site area below 2:1 slope
Building coverage existing
Building coverage proposed
Project area
Maximum building height:
Building height proposed
Area Basement:
Area Level 1:
Area Level 2:
Area Level 3:
Area Level 4:
Area Level 5:
Area Level 6:
Total Area:
Maximum floor area:
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 4
Project Statistics
11,293 square feet
15,164 square feet
21,362
13,483 square feet
15,198 square feet
61,282 square feet (1.4 acres)
28 to the midpoint of sloping roof, 33 to the
peak
Varies depending upon level, none exceed 28
feet
14,604 square feet
12,984 square feet
13,388 square feet
12,158 square feet
9,744 square feet
7,989 square feet
5,557 square feet
76, 333 square feet
90,759 square feet (50,833 s. f. buildable area
X 1.75 + 200 s. f. per enclosed garage)
Required parking: 18 resident spaces and 5 guest spaces
Parking provided: 18 resident spaces and 7 guest spaces
Setbacks required
Front:
Side:
Rear:
Setbacks provided
10 feet
10 feet, 7 inches
10 feet
Front: 10 feet above grade, 5 feet below grade
Side: 10 feet, 7 inches on south and northwest,
between 5 and 7.5 feet at Carnation Ave. grade
and below grade on the north and between 28
to 30 feet on Levels 5 & 6 on the north.
Rear: Over 210 feet
�o
C
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 5
Air photo with utilities and easements
(plan view, March 2001)
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 7'
0
Existing General Plan Land Use Designations
Existing Zoning Designations
E
E
P. lye
LJ
l-
cz
0
a
3
W
Z
E
Amendment Exhibit
AR O52
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 8
Pxoposcd
Lot Linc .4djustrrient
584 sq. ft. area subject to land
use & zoning amendments
Legend
MFR - Mul &Family Residential
R-2 • TwuFamily Residential
I
P. / ?9
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 9
ANALYSIS
General Plan
Presently, the site has two separate land use designations assigned by the Land Use
Element of the General Plan. First, a small portion of the site, approximately 584 square
feet is designated RT (Two -Unit Residential) and the remaining portion of the site
(60,700 square feet) is designated RM (Multi -Unit Residential, 20 dwelling units per
acre). The designation of the 584 square foot portion of the site will be changed to RM
(Multiple -Unit Residential) to match the remainder of the site. Although the additional
land area would otherwise numerically allow 1 additional unit, the density limitation as
dictated by'the Zoning Ordinance is more restrictive as it excludes submerged lands
and slopes in excess of 50% from the calculation. The maximum density as calculated
by the Zoning Ordinance is 9 units and is not increased with the increased project area.
The density of the proposed project is well below the maximum density permitted by the
General Plan (28 dwellings) and it is consistent with the maximum density allowed by
the existing MFR zone.
The Land Use Element contains general goals and policies for residential development
encouraging compatible and diverse development. Property maintenance is stressed
and multi - family development must be designed to convey a high - quality architectural
character.
Policy LU5.1.9 indicates that building elevations that face public streets need to be
treated to achieve the highest level of urban design and neighborhood quality.
Architectural treatment of building elevations and the modulation of mass is important to
convey the character of separate living units or clusters of living units, avoiding the
appearance of a singular building volume. Street elevations need to be provided with
high- quality materials and finishes to convey quality. Roof profiles should be modulated
to reduce the apparent scale of large structures and to provide visual interest and
variety. Parking areas should be designed to be integral with the architecture of the
development. Usable and functional private open space for each unit should be
incorporated. Common open space that creates a pleasant living environment with
opportunities for recreation should also be provided.
The project reflects building articulation, roof modulation and a diverse architectural
style consistent with Land Use policies. Although specific exterior finishes or building
materials are not identified at this time, the applicant and architect are committed to
providing the highest quality project commensurate with the expense of the project and
appropriate to their target buyer. Parking areas are integrated within the overall design
and each unit has an outdoor deck or patio that may include a fire pit and spa. Common
recreational amenities and storage areas for each unit are provided. In conclusion, staff
believes that the project is consistent with Policy LU5.1.9.
11
2vo
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22,, 2007, Page 10
The Land Use and Natural Resources Elements of the General Plan contain general
policies regarding the protection of public views, visual resources, coastal bluffs and
other natural resources. The Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) contains more specific
policies regarding these topics and a discussion of the relevant CLUP policies follows. If
the project is found consistent with Coastal Land Use Policies, the project is also
consistent with the Land Use and Natural Resources Elements.
Coastal Land Use Plan
The Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) presently designates the 584 square foot portion of
the site RH -D High Density Residential - 50.1 to 60 dwelling units per acre and approval
of this application would change the designation to RM -A (Medium Density Residential -
6.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre) to match the remainder of the site. The additional
area, as previously indicated, numerically increases the maximum density by 1 unit from
13 to 14, but the density limitation as required by the Zoning Ordinance is more
restrictive as it excludes submerged lands and slopes in excess of 50% from the density
calculation and results in a maximum permissible density of 9 units. The proposed
project is below the maximum density of the RM -A designation and equal to the
maximum density permitted by the Zoning Code.
Land Use and Development - Chapter 2 of the CLUP regulates land use and
® development. The site is designated for residential use and, as discussed above, the
CLUP designation would be changed to RM -A. The following additional policies within
Chapter 2 of the CLUP apply and several discussions of policies are grouped by issue.
Policy 2.7 -1. Continue to maintain appropriate setbacks and density; ,floor area, and
height limits for residential development to protect the character of established
neighborhoods and to protect coastal access and coastal resources.
1
The project conforms to the height limit of the MFR zone and no deviation is proposed.
The project proposes 76,333 gross square feet, well below the maximum 90,759
allowed by the existing MFR zone standard. The proposed density is below the
maximum established by the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan as noted above
and by Zoning regulations as discussed below.
Setback encroachments are primarily subterranean and would not impact the character
of the area. The only above ground encroachments are on the north side of the building.
The project provides between 5 and 7.5 feet of separation at the street level and
approximately 28 to 30 feet of separation on the levels above. No public view exists in
this area where the above ground encroachments are requested. The provided setback
proposed should provide an adequate separation from the building to the north and the
encroachments would not impact fragile resources as they are located on the opposite
side of the building away from the bluff and bay. Additional discussion of setbacks
follows in the discussion of the Modification Permit request.
?)• 2-0 /
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 11
Policy 2.7 -2. Continue the administration of provisions of State law relative to the
demolition, conversion and construction of low and moderate- income dwelling units
within the coastal zone.
Government Code Section 65590 (Mello Act) regulates the demolition or conversion of
low and moderate income units within the Coastal Zone, All units were vacated in
December of 2001 and only a caretaker resides in the apartment. No low or moderate
income residents currently reside within the project and, therefore, Government Code
Section 65590 is not applicable.
Policy 2.8.1 -1. Review all applications for new development to determine potential
threats from coastal and other hazards.
A coastal hazards study has been prepared by GeoSoils Inc., dated October, 5, 2006.
Given the location, topography and development proposed, potential hazards are
seismic ground shaking, coastal bluff retreat due to erosional forces and tsunamis.
Seismic issues are mitigated with the implementation of the Building Code and coastal
bluff retreat is not expected to impact the project during the 75 year economic life of the
building. Inundation by wave action or tsunami is considered very remote and the
proposed improvements are well above wave action.
Policy 2.8.1 -2. Design and site new development to avoid hazardous areas and
minimize risks to life and property from coastal and other hazards.
Policy 2.8.1 -3. Design land divisions, including lot line adjustments, to avoid hazardous
areas and minimize risks to life and property from coastal and other hazards.
A coastal hazards study has been prepared by GeoSoils Inc., dated October, 5, 2006.
Given the location, topography and development proposed, potential hazards are
seismic ground shaking, coastal bluff retreat due to erosional forces and tsunamis.
Seismic issues are mitigated with the implementation of the Building Code and coastal
bluff retreat is not expected to impact the project during the 75 year economic life of the
building. Inundation by wave action or tsunami is considered very remote and the
proposed improvements are well above wave action. The proposed building is located
above potential wave action and, as such, is sited to avoid the most hazardous portion
of the project site.
Policy 2.8.1 -4. Require new development to assure stability and structural integrity, and
neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction
of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective
devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs.
Policy 2.8.3 -1. Require all coastal development permit applications for new
development on a beach or on a coastal bluff property subject to wave action to assess
the potential for flooding or damage from waves, storm surge, or seiches, through a
E
C
7).7a 2
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
® February 22, 2007, Page 12
wave uprush and impact reports prepared by a licensed civil engineer with expertise in
coastal processes. The conditions that shall be considered in a wave uprush study are:
a seasonally eroded beach combined with long -term (75 years) erosion; high tide
conditions, combined with long -term (75 year) projections for sea level rise, storm
waves from a 100 -year event or a storm that compares to the 1982183 El Nino event:
Policy 2.8.6 -10. Site and design new structures to avoid the need for shoreline and bluff
protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years).
Policy 2.8.7 -3. Require applications for new development, where applicable [i.e., in
areas of known or potential geologic or seismic hazards], to include a
geologic /soils/geotechnical study that identifies any geologic hazards affecting the
proposed project site, any necessary mitigation measures, and contains a statement
that the project site is suitable for the proposed development and that the development
will be safe from geologic hazard. Require such reports to be signed by a licensed
Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer and subject to review and
approval by the City.
Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Neblett & Associates, August 2005, the
Coastal Hazard Study prepared by GeoSoils Inc., dated October 2006, a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated June 2005
collectively indicate that the project will not be subject to nor contribute to erosion,
geologic instability, geologic hazard nor require shoreline protective devices during the
economic life of the structure (75 years).
Policy 2.8.6 -9. Require property owners to record a waiver of future shoreline
protection for new development during the economic life of the structure (75 years) as a
condition of approval of a coastal development permit for new development on a beach,
shoreline, or bluff that is subject to wave action, erosion, flooding, landslides, or other
hazards associated with development on a beach or bluff. Shoreline protection may be
permitted to protect existing structures that were legally constructed prior to the
certification of the LCP; unless a waiver of future shoreline protection was required by a
previous coastal development permit.
A waiver of future shoreline protective devices will be required as a condition of
approval.
Policy 2.9.3 -10 Require new development to minimize curb cuts to protect on- street
parking spaces and close curb cuts to create new public parking wherever feasible.
The project will reduce the width of existing curb cuts creating 3 additional street
spaces.
Public Access - Chapter 3 establishes policies regarding public access. The following
policies within Chapter 3 apply and a discussion of project consistency follows the
® policies, and again, several discussions of policies are grouped by issue.:
P. Z 6 3
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 13
Policy 3.1.1 -1. Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance public access to and
along the shoreline and to beaches, coastal waters, tidelands, coastal parks, and trails.
Policy 3.1.2 -1. Protect; and where feasible, expand and enhance public access to and
along coastal bluffs.
Policy 3.1.2 -2. Site, design, and maintain public access improvements in a manner to
avoid or minimize impacts to coastal bluffs.
Policy 3.1.1 -11. Require new development to minimize impacts to public access to and
along the shoreline.
Policy 3.1.1 -9. Protect, expand, and enhance a system of public coastal access that
achieves the following.
• Maximizes public access to and along the shoreline,
• Includes pedestrian, hiking, bicycle, and equestrian trails;
• Provides connections to beaches, parks, and recreational facilities;
• Provides connections with trail systems of adjacent jurisdictions;
• Provides access to coastal view corridors
• Facilitates alternative modes of transportation;
• Minimizes alterations to natural landforms;
• Protects environmentally sensitive habitat areas;
• Does not violate private property rights.
Policy 3.1.1 -24. Encourage the creation of new public vertical accessways where
feasible, including Corona del Mar and other areas of limited public accessibility.
Policy 3.1.1 -13. Require a direct dedication or an Offer to Dedicate (OTD) an easement
for lateral public access for all new shorefront development causing or contributing to
adverse public access impacts. Such dedication or easement shall extend from the
limits of public ownership (e.g. mean high tide line) landward to a fixed point seaward of
the primary extent of development (e.g. intersection of sand with toe or top of
revetment, vertical face of seawall, dripline of deck, or toe of bluff).
Policy 3.1.1 -14. Require a direct dedication or an Offer to Dedicate (OTD) an easement
for vertical access in all new development projects causing or contributing to adverse
public access impacts, unless adequate access is available nearby. Vertical
accessways shall be a sufficient size to accommodate two -way pedestrian passage and
landscape buffer and should be sited along the border or side property line of the
project site or away from existing or proposed development to the maximum feasible
extent.
Policy 3.9.1 -24. Encourage the creation of new public vertical accessways where
feasible, including Corona del Mar and other areas of limited public accessibility.
E
0-26Y
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 14
Policy 3.1.1 -26. Consistent with the policies above, provide maximum public access
from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the shoreline with new
development except where (1) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security
needs, or the protection of fragile coastal resources or (2) adequate access exists
nearby.
Policy 3.1.1 -27. Implement public access policies in a manner that takes into account
the need to regulate the time, place, and manner of public access depending on the
facts and circumstances in each case including, but not limited to, the following:
• Topographic and geologic site characteristics;
• Capacity of the site to sustain use and at what level of intensity;
• Fragility of natural resource areas;
• Proximity to residential uses;
• Public safety services, including lifeguards, fire, and police access;
• Support facilities, including parking and restrooms;
• Management and maintenance of the access;
• The need to balance constitutional rights of individual property owners and
the public's constitutional rights of access.
The project site has no dedicated public access easements or physical access to the
coastal bluff or bay. The proposed project does not make any accommodations through
® the site for access to the water nor is the applicant dedicating or offering to dedicate
public access. No abutting vertical or lateral public access presently exists that would
connect to any access that might be considered within the development. The steep
topography of the site makes vertical access a safety concern and access for the
disable could not be accommodated. Support facilities presently do not exist and
parking in the area is constrained. Lastly access through the site would be in close
proximity to residential uses.
The lower portion of the bluff, submerged lands and tidelands will remain in their
existing condition. Public access to the tidelands from the water will not be affected as
the development will be well above the tidelands. Access to the designated view point at
the end of Carnation Avenue will also remain unaffected and the public view from that
point and Ocean Boulevard will be enhanced with project approval (see discussion
below). The applicant plans to install a bench or other public amenity at the corner to
improve the experience. As noted above, the project will create 3 new parking spaces
along Carnation Avenue with the reduction in the width of the existing driveway
approaches. These new public parking spaces will enhance access to the area. With
the reduction in residential density and the fact that no existing or proscriptive access
rights exist, the project will not impact or impede public access, but rather it will improve
it.
Public access to the bay is currently provided in the vicinity at China Cove, Lookout
Point and at a street end located in the 2300 block of Bayside Drive. These access
points are located approximately 450 feet to the east, 1,125 feet to the east and
12- 2a�5
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 15
approximately 480 feet to the northwest respectively. Based upon the forgoing, requiring
public access easements or outright dedication of land for public access is not
necessary and the project can be found consistent with the CLUP policies above and
the Coastal Act. Staff believes that the project is consistent with the CLUP given the
variety of factors considered above.
Public views and the scenic & visual quality of the Coastal Zone - Chapter 4
establishes policy regarding the protection of coastal resources. The following policies
are applicable, and as with the two previous sections, several discussions of policies
are grouped by issue.
Policy 4.1:3 -1 identifies 17 mitigation measures to reduce the potential for adverse
impacts to natural habitats. Applicable measures require the control or limitation of
encroachments into natural habitats and wetlands, regulate landscaping or revegetation
of blufftop areas to control erosion and invasive plant species and provide a transition
area between developed areas and natural habitats, require irrigation practices on
blufftops to minimize erosion of bluffs and to prohibit invasive species and require their
removal in new development. The project does not encroach within habitat areas or
wetlands and the landscaping plan indicates the bluff to be hydroseeded with a drought -
tolerant mix native to coastal California natives with temporary irrigation to be used only
to establish the vegetation.
Policy 4.3.1 -5. Require development on steep slopes or steep slopes with erosive soils
to implement structural best management practices (BMPs) to prevent or minimize
erosion consistent with any load allocation of the TMDLs adopted for Newport Bay.
Policy 4.3.1 -6. Require grading /erosion control plans to include soil stabilization on
graded or disturbed areas.
Policy 4.3.1 -7. Require measures be taken during construction to limit land disturbance
activities such as clearing and grading, limiting cut -and fill to reduce erosion and
sediment loss; and avoiding steep slopes, unstable areas, and erosive soils. Require
construction to minimize disturbance of natural vegetation, including significant trees,
native vegetation, root structures, and other physical or biological features important for
preventing erosion or sedimentation.
Policy 4.3.2 -22. Require beachfront and waterfront development to incorporate BMPs
designed to prevent or minimize polluted runoff to beach and coastal waters.
Policy 4.3.2 -23. Require new development applications to include a Water Quality
Management Plan (WQMP). The WQMP's purpose is to minimize to the maximum
extent practicable dry weather runoff, runoff from small storms (less than 314" of rain
falling over a 24 -hour period) and the concentration of pollutants in such runoff during
construction and post- construction from the property.
11
u
ID, ZQ(�
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 16
The project requires the issuance of a grading permit and the stabilization of soils during
construction is a standard requirement. A final WQMP and SWPPP are another
mandatory requirement with the issuance of building and grading permits. These plans
are prepared by qualified professionals and include best management practices, both
structural and non - structural, to insure that erosion and stormwater discharge will not
impact Newport Bay.
4.4.1 -1. Protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the
coastal zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor
and to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas.
4.4.1 -2. Design and site new development, including landscaping, so as to minimize
impacts to public coastal views.
4.4.1 -3. Design and site new development to minimize alterations to significant natural
landforms, including bluffs, cliffs and canyons.
4.4.1 -4. Where appropriate, require new development to provide view easements or
corridors designed to protect public coastal views or to restore public coastal views in
developed areas.
® Policy 4.4.1 -6. Protect public coastal views from the following roadway
segments... Ocean Boulevard. (Figure 4 -3 of the CLUP identifies the intersection of
Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard as a "view point. ")
4.4.1 -7. Design and site new development, including landscaping, on the edges of
public coastal view corridors; including those down public streets, to frame and accent
public coastal views.
4.4.2 -2. Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with
the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach.
Policy 4.4.2 -3. implement the regulation of the building envelope to preserve public
views through the height, setback, floor area, lot coverage, and building bulk regulation
of the Zoning Code in effect as of October 13, 2005 that limit the building profile and
maximize public view opportunities. (This date is the date when the Coastal
Commission approved the Coastal Land Use Plan,)
Policy 4.4.3 -4. On bluffs subject to marine erosion, require new accessory structures
such as decks, patios and walkways that do not require structural foundations to be
sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development in the subject
area, but not less than 10 feet from the bluff edge. Require accessory structures to be
removed or relocated landward when threatened by erosion, instability or other hazards.
P. Zoe
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 17
No new accessory structures are proposed. The policy also requires that accessory
structures be removed or relocated landward when threatened by erosion, instability or
other hazards. A condition of approval is required such that the existing accessory
structures (concrete pad; staircase and walkway be removed if threatened by erosional
processes in the future.
Policy 4.4.3 -8. Prohibit development on bluff faces, except private development on
coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in
Corona del Mar determined to be consistent with the predominant line of existing
development or public improvements providing public access, protecting coastal
resources, or providing for public safety. Permit such improvements only when no
feasible alternative exists and when designed and constructed to minimize alteration of
the bluff face, to not contribute to further erosion of the bluff face, and to be visually
compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible.
Policy 4.4.3 -9. Where principal structures exist on coastal bluff faces along Ocean
Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar, require all new
development to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing
development in order to protect public coastal views. Establish a predominant line of
development for both principle structures and accessory improvements. The setback
shall be increased where necessary to ensure safety and stability of the development.
Policy 4.4.3 -11. Require applications for new development to include slope stability
analyses and erosion rate estimates provided by a licensed Certified Engineering
Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer.
Policy 4.4.3 -12. Employ site design and construction techniques to minimize alteration
of coastal bluffs to the maximum extent feasible, such as:
A. Siting new development on the flattest area of the site, except when an
alternative location is more protective of coastal resources.
B. Utilizing existing driveways and building pads to the maximum extent feasible.
C. Clustering building sites.
D. Shared use of driveways.
E. Designing buildings to conform to the natural contours of the site, and
arranging driveways and patio areas to be compatible with the slopes and
building design.
F. Utilizing special foundations, such as stepped, split level, or cantilever
designs.
G. Detaching parts of the development, such as a garage from a dwelling unit.
H. Requiring any altered slopes to blend into the natural contours of the site.
E
D. Zoe
E
E
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 18
Public Views
A public view presently exists over the southeastern portion of the site from Ocean
Boulevard and Carnation Avenue to south and west. The Pacific Ocean, harbor
entrance, Newport Bay and the Balboa Peninsula are features in the view depending
upon the vantage point. Presently, the view measures 25 degrees between the existing
apartment building and the neighbor's garage and fence to the south when standing at
the designated view point closest to the project site. With the project, the view will
increase to 32 degrees due to the proposed building being located approximately 8 feet
further to the west than the existing building.
Levels 5 and 6 are taller than the existing building and are in the same position as two
upper levels of the existing split -level apartment building. No view presently exists
above the existing building other than sky views as shown in the following photographs
taken from Carnation Avenue looking south and Ocean Boulevard looking west. The
project architect has prepared a visual exhibit that shows that the view to the west will
not be impacted (see Sheet A -20).
The project is consistent with the 28 -foot building height limits as demonstrated on
Sheet A -16 and verified by staff and with other building envelope restrictions with the
exception of setback encroachments noted above and discussed below. The above-
grade encroachment of the building to the north is single -story and does not impact a
public view as one presently does not exist in that location. No other public view exists
from the street through the site due to the position of the current buildings. Therefore,
the proposed project will not have an impact upon existing public views through the site
to the south and west. Pursuant to Policy 4.4.1 -4, staff proposes a condition of approval
requiring the recordation of a public view easement to protect the public view over the
site from Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. The easement can specifically
identify the 3 dimensional space where structures and landscaping will be prohibited to
ensure view preservation.
P, Zo q
T
I
4."
pa
Z.
11,4
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 21
View west with project
E
C
C
P. Z/2
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
® February 22, 2007, Page 22
Scenic and visual quality — Predominant line of existing development
The visual quality of the area encompasses the natural and built environment. The
visual quality of the street is dominated by the built environment and the aesthetic of the
existing buildings. The existing buildings are dated and are not aesthetically pleasing
especially given the open carports. The new elevations with high quality materials and
unique design will improve the streetscape aesthetic. The visual quality of the site as
seen from the public vantage points from the west and northwest include both built and
natural character. What is visible includes a rocky intertidal area, coastal bluff, exposed
rocks, vegetation and the western elevations of the existing buildings. Sheet A -18 and
Sheet A -19 of the project plans have photographs of what the site looks like today and
what it will took like with implementation of the project. The vantage points are from the
northwest from a public beach located on Bayside Drive and the west from a public
beach and public dock located on Balboa Peninsula.
The predominant line of existing development is one tool in determining if a project
protects or possibly enhances the scenic and visual quality of the area. The Planning
Commission is responsible for determining the location of the predominant line of
existing development more fully described below. Alternative methodologies for
locating the predominant line of existing development are included in the discussion that
follows and include that used by the project architect. If the Planning Commission
® determines that the project architect's methodology is most appropriate for the subject
site, the Commission should conclude that the project is consistent with the Local
Coastal Program policies set forth in this section and may approve the project as
proposed. Alternatively, a different methodology may be deemed appropriate and the
Planning Commission may require modification of the proposed project to so as to be
located on the landward side of the predominant line of existing development so
determined. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission use the photographic
simulations on Sheets A -18 and Sheet A -19 of the project plans representing the
proposed project when viewed from a vantage point to the west of the site to determine
the appropriate location of the predominant line of development.
E
Polices 4.4.3 -8 and Policies 4.4.3 -9 establish the concept of the predominant line of
existing development. The concept of predominant line of existing development is
central to the Planning Commission's determination as to the project's consistency with
policies of the CLUP. The CLUP defines the predominant line of existing development
as "the most common or representative distance from a specified group of structures to
a specified point or line (i.e. topographic line or geographic feature). For example, the
predominant line of development for a block of homes on a coastal bluff (a specified
group of structures) could be determined by calculating the median distance (a
representative distance) these structures are from the bluff edge (a specified line)." The
"median" was used in the definition rather than the "average" as it takes out extreme
values while using the "average" can skew the predominant line of existing development
when distances vary significantly.
P. Z13
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 23
The concept of the "predominant line of development" was originally intended to set
limits on the extent of development on top of coastal bluffs. However, the definition was
intentionally broad so that this concept could be used in other situations, such as along
canyons or the shoreline. The example included in the CLUP suggests one of several
possible ways to locate the predominant line of development for any given site and a
more narrowly- defined methodology for locating the predominant line of development
will likely be included in the Implementation Plan for the CLUP when finalized and
submitted for Coastal Commission certification. The definition itself was crafted to allow
flexibility in locating the predominant line of development for a variety of site
configurations, topography, and patterns of existing development. Location of the
predominant line of development may evolve based on determinations of the Planning
Commission, including that for the subject development proposal which may set a
precedent for future determinations. This effort requires thoughtful, case -by -case
evaluation especially in instances such as the present proposal wherein the site's
topography does not lend itself to traditional techniques such as the "stringline" method
often employed by the Coastal Commission.
Policy 4.4.1 -3 is a general policy requiring new development to minimize alterations to
significant natural landforms, including bluffs, cliffs. This policy is should be viewed in
the context of Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9 that provide more specific direction allowing
new development to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing
development. Public improvements and not private development are subject to the
policy directions to minimize alteration of the bluff face, to not contribute to further
erosion of the bluff face, and to be visually compatible with the surrounding area to the
maximum extent feasible in accordance with Policy 4.4.3.8. A setback from the
predominant line of existing development must be increased where necessary to ensure
safety and stability. An increased setback is not necessary based on the geologic report
and coastal hazards report.
The traditional stringline method was employed by the project architect to illustrate one
way to identify the predominant line of development. A stringline was drawn by the
project architect in plan view (looking down from above) from the existing residential
structure at 2495 Ocean Boulevard to the existing structure located at 101 Bayside
Place. Staff is of the opinion that this approach does not conform to the definition
provided in the CLU,P as 101 Bayside Place is actually located bayward of the landform
on previously filled land. The landform is situated above the lots on Bayside Place and
the predominant line of existing development would be more appropriately located
utilizing the lots on Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. If the Carnation and
Ocean lots are utilized, the stringline method of extending a straight line in two
dimensions in the horizontal plan between a point on each of two abutting structures
may not be appropriate to the curving land form of the properties' landforms. Moreover,
this method does not recognize the extension of the proposed development, in a vertical
plane, down the face of the bluff and the consequent impact to the visual quality of this
natural landform.
J
. 2/y
E
J
AERIE (PA20O5 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 24
Stringlines
Stringline of principal structures between
101 Bayside PI. & 2495 Ocean Blvd.
Stringline of principal structures between 215 & 2495 Ocean Blvd.
Given that the CLUP definition provides an example that uses the median distance to a
specified point or line, the project architect included a scenario based upon the
calculation of the median distance of structures from three representative lines: the
street curb, the approximate bluff edge and from mean low tide line (see the project
overview prepared by the architect). The median was incorporated into the CLUP
definition as averages can create undesirable results when distances between the
structures and each of the three representative lines vary significantly. The calculations
the architect represents as medians, however, are actually averages of distances
measured on several abutting properties without including the project site in the
calculation. Including the project site reduces the averages, but the building remains
within the average distances calculated.
P. z15
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 25
In calculating distances from the curb and approximate bluff edge, two properties
bayward of the bluff landform are employed; Staff believes that their inclusion in the
calculation is not appropriate. The predominant line of existing development establishes
a setback on the bluff to balance property rights and protection of the visual quality of
the coastal zone. Using structures that are bayward of the landform could lead to the
establishment of a predominant line of existing development beyond existing
development on the bluff itself. Additionally, average distances and maximum distances
are used, which may distort the results in a manner not intended by the CLUP definition.
Using the approximate bluff edge is difficult as there is no way to determine where the
bluff edge was with certainty due to past development altering or otherwise obscuring
the bluff edge. Lastly, the calculation of the distance from the mean low water line
includes several lots on Bayside Place that are bayward of the landform and staff does
not believe this is an this an effective method in this case as it does not account for the
predominant line of existing development established by the structures on Carnation
Avenue.
Staff developed a method for determining the predominant line of existing development
in conjunction with preparation of the implementation plan for the CLUP.. The
methodology uses the median distances in the vertical and horizontal planes of a
representative block of structures uses the median distance in the vertical and
horizontal plane of a representative block of structures. The median distance would be
calculated for accessory structures and principal structures at the midpoint of each lot
measuring perpendicular to the front property line. Only those abutting and nearby
buildings on the bluff face itself within the same block would be used. In this case, staff
would include the lots on Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard and exclude lots
bayward of the landform. This technique was reviewed by the Local Coastal Program
Committee who guided the preparation of the CLUP. The Committee provided feedback
but took no action on the draft regulation and guidelines that staff had prepared.
Although staff has not prepared an analysis using the draft regulations and guidelines,
this discussion is included to demonstrate that a variety of methods may be employed in
identifying and locating the predominant line of development. Because the ultimate
purpose for identifying and locating the predominant line of existing development is the
protection and enhancement, where feasible, of public views and the scenic and visual
qualities of the coastal zone, the range of possible outcomes would result in significantly
different impacts to the visual character of the face of the bluff. As discussed previously
in this report, the visual character of the face of the bluff on the project site is most
evident when viewed from vantage points west of the site. These include locations on
Balboa Peninsula and on the waterway leading into Newport Bay.
The predominant line of existing development can best be seen on Sheet A -18 and
Sheet A -19 of the project plans since this is what the public will see. The buildings on
Carnation Avenue to the north (left of the proposed project in the visual simulation) and
the project site establish a line of existing development. The abutting residence at 2495
E
/7. 2/(o
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
® February 22, 2007, Page 26
Ocean Boulevard (white house to the right of the proposed project) also establishes a
line of development on the bluff face.
The abutting lot to the north of the project, 215 Carnation Avenue, is comes down the
bluff face to approximately 57 feet above mean sea level. The downward extent of the
other buildings to the north of the site on Carnation Avenue vary and are lower. The
existing single- family residence is higher at approximately 70 feet and the downward
extent of the existing apartment building also varies with its lowest extent being
approximately 52 feet. Fifty -two feet appears to be consistent with the variations in
downward extent of development. The elevation of the closest foundation of the
principal structure to the south, 2495 Ocean Boulevard, is 34 feet and the structure
extends even lower on the bluff face. Extending this elevation to the north across the
project site would suggest a lower predominant line of existing development for the
southern portion of the project site. Creating a transition between these two elevations
is the remaining challenge.
For discussion purposes, staff believes that the predominant line of existing
development as described by elevations should be approximately 52 feet above mean
sea level parallel to Carnation Avenue. This line would extend across the site to where
the bluff turns east to roughly follow Ocean Boulevard. The line would then step down to
elevation 34 feet to match the elevation of the closest the foundation of the principal
® structure at 2495 Ocean Boulevard. Staff has prepared two exhibits to show what this
line would look like based upon the photographs on Sheets A -18 and A -19 of the project
plans (Exhibit 5 separate from the report).
r
L_J
One must also account for the predominant line of existing development in the plan view
looking down from directly above. Staff suggest that this line be identified based upon
the 52 -foot contour and the 34 -foot contour. Staff has prepared an exhibit showing this
approximate line in plan view (Exhibit 5 separate from the report).
In conclusion, the Commission must determine whether or not the project is within the
predominant line of existing development and if the project protects, and if feasible,
enhances the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone. If one concludes that the
methods used by the architect are reasonable methods for determining the predominant
line of existing development, one can conclude that the project is consistent with the
CLUP. Staff suggests to simply use the visual simulations to identify the line or lines that
protect or enhance the visual quality of the coastal zone. Once that line is established,
the project can be modified to conform.
Title 20 — Zoning Compliance
The zoning designation of the 584 square foot portion of the site is R -2 (Two - Family
Residential) and the remainder of the site is MFR (Multifamily Residential; 2178 square
feet per unit). As noted, the zoning of the 584 square foot portion of the site would be
changed to match the larger portion of the site. The donor parcel will be reduced from
0 -Zl_7
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 27
15335.1 square feet to 14751.1 square feet, which well exceeds the 5,000 square foot
minimum parcel size of Section 20.10.030 of the Municipal Code. The new lot line will
not render any of the existing structures located at 101 Bayside Place nonconforming as
to setbacks and Bayside Place itself, a private roadway, will remain within the donor
parcel. The additional area in this case does not increase the maximum density as the
area is mostly excluded from the calculation as the slope of the area exceeds 50 %, The
maximum density calculation permitted before and after the minor adjustment is 9 units
and the project conforms.
The project architect has designed the structure to conform to the 28 -foot building
height limit as measured in accordance with Municipal Code. Sheet A -16 of the plans
includes a table that demonstrates conformance and staff has confirmed the grade and
height measurements.
The 9 -unit building requires 2 parking spaces for each unit (total of 18) with at least one
space per unit being covered. Additionally, 0.5 space is required for guest parking.
Therefore, the project requires 18 spaces for residents and 5 spaces for guests. The
project exceeds this standard by providing 3 spaces for 7 units and 2 spaces for the 2
remaining units (25 spaces). Seven 7 guest parking spaces and 2 golf cart spaces are
provided for a total of 34 covered, vehicle spaces. Parking is located on Levels 1, 2, 3
and 4. Level 4 parking accommodates parking for units 2 & 6 and 3 guest parking
spaces and is directly accessed from Carnation Avenue. Parking on Levels 1, 2, & 3 are
below Level 4 and below the street level. These levels are accessed separately than the
access to Level 4 directly from Carnation Avenue by two freight elevators. The traffic
engineer has reviewed the layout and finds that it will meet minimum standards. The
minimum clearance for the spaces under the lifted vehicle must be 7 feet pursuant to
Section 20.66.040.3. The overall vertical clearance planned for spaces with lifts will vary
between 10 feet and 13 feet depending on the level and location. The golf cart spaces
and the "lifted" spaces do not technically comply with standards, but they are extra
spaces and are not held to the same standard.
The irregular shaped of the site necessitated a project specific determination of
minimum setbacks as it was not readily discernable what the depth of the side yard
setback would be, where it would be located and where the rear yard would be. The
minimum required front setback along Carnation Avenue is 10 feet and is established by
the Districting Map. By definition, the rear yard should be opposite the front, but the lot
line directly opposite the front faces Bayside Place and could be treated as a side yard.
The minimum rear yard setback is 10 feet pursuant to the Section 20.10.030 of the
Municipal Code. The rear setback was determined by staff to be measured from the
curved bayward lot line only. The minimum side yard is 8% of the lot width. The lot width
was determined to be 132.25 feet based upon a site specific method as the use of the
definition contained within the Zoning Code could not be used given the irregular shape
of the lot. Staff averaged the width of the lot as measured in three places selected by
' Parking calculations are rounded up pursuant to Section 20.66.030.E.1 of the Municipal Code
C
12. 21l
11
E
u
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 28
staff. Eight percent of 132.25 feet is 10' -7 ". The side yard were determined to extend to
the southwest to the bay between the project and 2495 Ocean Boulevard and along the
north and western property lines between the site at 215 Carnation Avenue and the lots
on Bayside Place. The following map depicts the lot determination made by staff with
the approval of the Planning Director.
Setbacks
Sideyard,
depth 10'_7"
Side yard,
depth 10'-7"
Project site t r r- ~r •' �� ^��� �� `
r Qq
..............
Setback line '� .`�3• ",'�.\�:"`
y I } 1 iron[ yard,
" depth 10 feet
rfi
Rear yard, � .•• i �, � °c �\ .' �o
�4„ depth 10 feet x �"1 � �� „ �' F'�✓ ro �
^ �?"` �Tir ` •may '� ', l � e�L�
N \
n q BSc y
Side yard
,
rz �� depth 10' -7
The project adheres to these setbacks with the following exceptions that are shown on
the project drawings:
a) A 5 -foot by 43 -foot subterranean encroachment within the front yard setback for
basement areas. Additionally, the applicant proposes to construct a 55 -foot long
retaining wall at the property line south of the this encroachment that will extend into
the side yard between the project and the abutting property to the south (2495
Ocean Boulevard). The wall will be approximately a maximum of 40 feet high and
will allow light and air to reach the living areas on Levels 1 -3 on the south side of the
building (street side). Both of these features require the approval of the proposed
Modification Permit.
x.219
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 29
b) The proposed structure will encroach 3' -1" to 5' -7" into the 10' -7" side yard setback
between the project and abutting property to the north (215 Carnation Avenue). This
encroachment occurs on the basement level and on Levels 1 -4. The encroachment
on Level 4 will be the only portion above grade. Additionally, a retaining wall and
staircase at the north property on Level 3 requires consideration of the Modification
Permit.
It must be noted that the distances to the property lines in all cases are measured from
the exterior surface of both above and below grade walls. This means that the final
plans for the foundation system must comply with the dimensions shown on the plans
and will not be permitted as additional encroachments within the minimum required
setbacks without a Modification Permit.
The Planning Commission may approve the request for a Modification Permit to allow
the encroachments subject to the following findings contained within Section 20.93.030
of the Municipal Code:
1. The granting of the application is necessary due to practical difficulties associated
with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical
hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code.
The site is irregular in shape, has steep topography and has submerged lands which
make it difficult to design a project at the density proposed while providing required
parking. Approximately 65% of the site is submerged or has slopes in excess of 50 %.
The need to provide on -site parking also occupies a significant portion of the building
reducing available area for residential units. The side yard setback is also larger than
the front yard setback and the application of this standard is also a practical difficulty
given the relatively small area to work with as compared to the entire site.
2. The requested modification will be compatible with the existing development in the
neighborhood.
The requested encroachments within the front yard will be entirely subterranean and will
not be visible. The encroachments within the side yard on levels below the street will
also not be visible. The side yard setback encroachment on Level 4 (above the street)
provides a T -6" setback for approximately 57.5% of the length of the building and 5' for
approximately 42.5% of the length of the building. The larger setback is closer to the
street. On Levels 5 and 6 above the encroachment on Level 4, the project provides a 28
to 30 -foot setback in excess of the minimum 10' -7" setback. This increased setback
provides an enhanced separation of building mass between the project and the single -
family home to the north. This increased setback provides private views over the
building from upper levels of residences across Carnation Avenue and enhanced
building articulation as suggested by General Plan policy.
3. The granting of such an application will not adversely affect the health or safety of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be
E
U
0- 2 zo
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 30
detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the
neighborhood.
Given the fact that the setback encroachments are predominantly subterranean and the
above - ground encroachments are off -set with increased setbacks above them and they
do not block a protected public view, the requested encroachments should not prove
detrimental or injurious to the community.
Title 19 — Subdivision Code — Tract Map
Pursuant to Section 19.12.070 of the City Subdivision Code, the following findings must be
made to approve the tentative tract map. If the Planning Commission determines that one
or more of the findings listed cannot be made, the tentative map must be denied.
1. That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are
consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with
applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code.
As noted above, the project is consistent with the current land use designation including
the proposed amendment. Additionally, as noted previously, the project is consistent
with Land Use Element Policy LU5.1.9 regarding the character and quality of multi-
family residential development. A finding that the project is consistent Land Use and
Natural Resources Element policies related to the protection of public views, visual
resources, coastal bluffs and other natural resources is contingent upon a finding that
the project is consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan. This determination has yet to
be made and when it is made, this finding of consistency with resource protection
policies of the General Plan can also be supported. The site is not subject to a specific
plan. Minimum lot sizes established by the Zoning Ordinance are also maintained as
required by the Subdivision Code. The Public Works Department has reviewed the
proposed tentative map and believes that it is consistent with the Newport Beach
Subdivision Code (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 usable area of the site is relatively small compared to the entire 1.4 acre site. The
site is not likely to be subject to coastal erosional processes or hazards during the 75
year economic life of the project. Additionally, no earthquake faults were found on -site
and there is not likely to be and incidence of landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse on -site or near the site given on -site soils conditions. These
factors would suggest that the site is suitable for development. However, the density
coupled with the size of the units and the need to provide on -site parking call into
question whether or not the site is suitable given the amount of alteration of the site
proposed. Smaller unit sizes, a reduction in amenities such as the basement level or
common amenities or even a reduction in density, with its parking needs, would reduce
® the amount of excavation necessary to implement the project. Additionally, the project
t?, 2 z I
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 31
must be found consistent with CLUP policy regarding the predominant line of existing
development to protect, and if feasible enhance the visual quality of the coastal zone. If
it is determined that the project is beyond the predominant line of existing development
or that the project does not protect or enhance, if feasible, the scenic and visual
qualities of the coastal zone, the site is not suitable for the proposal.
3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish
or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision -
making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental
impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to
Section•21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific economic,
social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and it concludes that no significant
environmental impacts will result with proposed development of the site in accordance
with the proposed plans and tentative tract map; therefore, staff believes this finding can
be made.
4. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause
serious public health problems.
The tract map would subdivide airspace for residential condominium purposes and is
not expected to cause serious public health problems given the use of typical
construction materials and practices. No evidence is known to exist that would indicate
that the proposed subdivision will generate any serious public health problems. All
mitigation measures as outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Building,
Grading and Fire codes will be implemented to ensure the protection of public health.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property
within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the 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.
A utility and sewer easement affects the site and is located roughly in the middle of the
site running perpendicular to Carnation Avenue. No utility or sewer lines run through
the easement and the easement should be abandoned. A storm drain easement and
storm drain are located in the side yard between the proposed building and the abutting
property to the south (2495 Ocean Boulevard). The proposed improvements will not
1�. 222
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
® February 22, 2007, Page 32
affect the easement or storm drain. The Public Works Department is requiring the
replacement of the storm drain given that the proposed retaining wall will be located
very near the storm drain itself and the age of the line. No other public easements for
access through or use of the property have been retained for the use by the public at
large. Public utility easements for utility connections that serve the project site are
present and will be modified, if necessary, to serve the proposed project.
6. That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map
Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land
Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a
subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the
subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial
agricultural use of the land.
The site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract; therefore, this finding does not
apply.
7. That, in the case of a "land project" as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California
Business and Professions Code: (a) there is an adopted specific plan for the area to
be included within the land project; and (b) the decision - making body finds that the
proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area.
® The subject property is not located within the boundaries of a specific plan; therefore,
this finding does not apply.
U
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. The site has a western exposure and
incorporates curved roof elements that will provide shading and a measure of passive
solar cooling.
9. That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act
and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of
the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region
against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal and
environmental resources.
The proposed subdivision will have the effect of reducing the density from 15 units to 9
units. A reduction of this small scale given the City's current housing supply is
considered insignificant. This reduction does not assist the City in reaching its
1) . 2 2 3
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
February 22, 2007, Page 33
production goals as it is not increasing housing supply; however, the reduction in
density is consistent with existing density limitations of the Municipal Code.
10.That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer
system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Waste discharge into the existing sewer system will be consistent with existing
residential use of the property; which does not violate Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) requirements.
11. For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the subdivision
conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public
access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act.
As discussed above, the project conforms to the Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan
multi - family designation of the site taking into account the proposed amendment and it
complies with density standards. The project site is constrained by topography and
public access exists nearby making on -site vertical and lateral access unnecessary.
Public access is not impacted by the project and due to the position of the proposed
building, public views from Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue will be improved. A
determination as to whether or not the project is consistent with visual resource
protection policies (predominant line of existing development and protection and
enhancement, if feasible, of the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone) needs to
be made. Depending upon the determination, this finding may or may not be possible.
Environmental Review
A draft mitigated negative declaration was prepared by the City for this project in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. A notice of intent to adopt the
MND was posted and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site on
February 13, 2007 indicating that a 30 -day comment period on the MND will conclude
on March 15, 2007.
The analysis indicates that mitigation measures related to air quality, biological
resources, cultural resources and land use /planning are necessary to reduce or avoid
potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels. The analysis shows that the
potential impact of the project will be either less than significant or no impact related to
all other issue areas.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice of the draft mitigated negative declaration and this public hearing was
provided in accordance with applicable law.
C
E
0.zzy
AERIE (PA2005 -196)
® February 22, 2007, Page 34
ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
The Commission must determine if the proposal is consistent with the Coastal Land Use
Plan as it relates to the predominant line of existing development and whether or not the
project protects and enhances, if feasible, the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal
zone. If the proposal is deemed consistent with the CLUP, the Commission can
recommend approval of the project. If the proposal does not meet these policies, the
project must be modified to a point that it can be found consistent with CLUP policy or it
should be denied.
Prepared by: Submitted by:
James
Campbellaw'w1� w� M
James Campbell, Senior Planner David Lepo, Planning Director
EXHIBITS
2. AERIE project overview prepared by Brion Jeannette (separate bound document)
9. PFejeet Plans (sepaFate FBI' 8f PlaRB)
® 4. Correspondence
5. Predominant line of existing development exhibits prepared by staff
L J
/2.225
Exhibit No. 2
AERIE project overview prepared by Brion Jeannette
11
E
E
(.-22P
r1!riL �iaw:.)e.Rw,eZt�e ,orcnEt$cture
201 -207 Carnation Avenue
Corona del Mar, California
May 8, 2006
(Revised February 15, 2007)
Submitted to: David Lepo, Planning Director
City of Newport Beach Jim Campbell, Senior Planner
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Prepared for: Prepared by:
Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc Brion Jeannette Architecture
23792 Rockfield Blvd., Suite 100 470 Old Newport Blvd.
Lake Forest, CA 92630 Newport Beach, CA 92663
D -zz7
Consultants:
Civil Engineer:
Hunsaker & Associates
3 Hughes
Irvine, CA 92618
(949) 583 -1010
Consulting Engineers & Geologists:
Neblett& Associates, Inc.
4911 Warner Ave., Suite 218
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
(714) 840 -8286
Environmental Consultants:
P &D Consultants
999 Town & Country, 41" Floor
Orange, CA 92868
(714) 835 -1447
Coastal Hazard Study:
GeoSoils Inc.
5741 Palmer Way, Suite D
Carslbad, CA 92010
(760) 438 -3155
Fire Protection Consultants:
Rolf Jensen &Associates, Inc.
One Pointe Drive, Suite 210
Brea, CA 92821
(714) 257 -3555
Landscape Architect:
Robert Mitchell & Associates
22982 El Toro Rd:
Lake Forest, CA 92630
(949) 581 -2112
Consulting Structural Engineers:
Ficcadenti Waggoner
16969 Von Karm an, Suite 240
Irvine, CA 92714
(949) 474 -0502
C
C
O
/x.236
CJ
E
C
Table of Contents
I.
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... ..............................6
A.
REQUEST ..................................................................................... ..............................6
B.
DISCUSSION ................................................................................ ..............................6
II.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................... ..............................7
A.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............. ................ ........................................... ...............
7
B.
MFR ZONING OVERLAY .................................... ... .................... .....: ...........................
8
C.
PROJECT FEATURES ..................... ....................................... ..............................9
D.
VICINITY MAP ........................................................... ............................... ............10
E.
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: ...........................................................................
11
III.
COASTAL BLUFF ............................................................................ .............................12
A.
COASTAL BLUFF PRESERVATION ........................................... .............................12
B.
PREDOMINANT LINE OF DEVELOPMENT ................................ .............................13
C.
BUILDING MASS: ......................................................... ........ .............................15
D.
PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT ON OCEAN BLVD. & CARNATION AVE ..............15
1. Furthest Line of Development toward the Bay from Street Curb ...........................
16
2. The Furthest Line of Development from the Bluff Edge: ........ ..............................
17
3. Closest Line of Development as it Relates to Mean Low Tide: .............................
18
E.
CLASSICAL STRINGLINE INTERPRETATION ........................... .............................19
F.
SUMMARY ........... .....................................................................................................
19
IV.
BUILDING SITE COVERAGE .......................................................... .............................20
V.
PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION ........................................... .............................20
A.
PUBLIC VIEW ACCESS ........... ............................... ........_ ......................21
B.
VERTICAL AND LATERAL PUBLIC ACCESS ............................ .............................22
C.
CREATION OF ADDITIONAL PUBLIC STREET PARKING ........ .............................24
VI.
COASTAL RESOURCE PROTECTION ........................................... .............................24
A.
ENDANGERED OR PROTECTED HABITAT SPECIES .............. .............................25
B.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW ......................................... .............................26
C.
PALEONTOLOGICAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES.....
26
D.
WETLANDS ................................................................................. .............................27
VII.
GENERAL GEOLOGIC SETTING ................................................... .............................28
A.
GENERAL .................................................................................... .............................28
B.
BEDROCK FORMATION ............................................................. .............................28
C.
SEISMIC HAZARDS .................................................................... .............................28
I. Liquefaction: ..........................................................................................................
28
II. Earthquake Induced Landslides: . ..........................................................................
28
III. Tsunami and Seiche :................................................................ .............................29
IV. Coastal Hazards: ............................................... ........ .........................29
V. Bluff Erosion : ..... ................................................................... .............................29
VI. Surface Rupture and Strong Ground Motion: ........................................................
29
D.
EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS ............................................. .............................30
E.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................... .............................31
VIII.
MODIFICATION TO FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS ............................32
IX.
SUMMATION .................................................................................... .............................32
0.'2,3/
61
ATTACHMENTS
EXHIBITS
A. Tide Planes and Tidal Datum Relationship
B. Slope Analysis prepared by Hunsaker & Associates
C. Setback Exhibit
D. Aerial View with Proposed Development
E. Furthest Line of Development towards the Bay from Street Curb
F. Furthest Line of Development from Bluff Edge Setback
G. Furthest Line of Development as it related to Mean Low Tide
H. Stringline Setback
I. Allowable Building Site Coverage
J. Public View
K. Coastal Views Map 4 -3 of the Coastal Land Use PI an
L. Coastal Access and Recreation Map 3 -1 of the Coastal Land Use Plan
APPENDICES
1. Applications for Tentative Map, General Amendment, Zone Change, Lot Line
Adjustment, Coastal Residential Development Permit, and Modification Permit
2. Notice of Intent for Mitigate Negative Declaration
3. Staffs Comments
4. Letter from Coastkeeper regarding water quality management plan
11
E
C
7.232
® TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Brion S. Jeannette, Architect
SUBJECT: Aerie Staff Report
201 -207 Carnation
Tentative Tract Map 16882, Lot Line Adjustment, General Plan Amendment,
Zone Change; and a Modification
APPLICANT: Brion Jeannette Architecture for Rick Julian, Advanced Real Estate
I. INTRODUCTION
A. REQUEST
Applicant is requesting approval of TT16882 for a 9 (nine) unit condominium,
included is a request for lot line adjustment and request to reconfigure the
area's General Plan and Zoning to include 584 S.F. into the MFR zone, a
Modification to encroach into the Easterly front and Northerly side yards and
®
request to modify and add slips to an existing dock.
B. DISCUSSION
The review of the request focused on these primary issues:
• The required findings to approve a tentative tract map
• The required findings to approve a General Plan Amendment
• The required findings to approve a lot line adjustment
• The required findings to approve a zone change
• The required findings to approve a modification permit
• Conformance with the Coastal Land Use Plan relating to pattern of
development on Ocean Blvd. and Carnation Ave., public access and
recreation, and coastal resource protection.
11
C
0.233
E
II. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Aerie project site is located northwest of the intersection of Carnation
Avenue and Ocean Boulevard within the Corona del Mar area of the City of
Newport Beach. The project site consists of approximately 1.4 acres (61,284
square feet) of gross area with a portion of the site being submerged lands in
part of Newport Bay.
The proposed project will consist of the demolition of two existing residential
buildings; a single family residence located at 207 Carnation Avenue, built in
1955, and a 14 -unit apartment building located at 201 and 205 Carnation
Avenue constructed in 1949. A sm all parcel (584 square feet) located at 101
Bayside Place has been acquired and incorporated into the project.
Following the demolition of the existing buildings, grading and site
preparation will be conducted to accommodate the construction of a multi-
family building with nine individual custom designed single family attached
homes with subterranean parking and storage, automobile elevators,
swimming pool, multi- purpose room, patio areas and modifications town
existing dock.
Several entitlements are associated with the Aerie project. Tentative Tract
Map 16882 for single family attached homes will merge the two existing
parcels with one smaller parcel (recently acquired). With the recordation of
the project's final tract map the project will be nine (9) single family attached
homes in a multi- family residential zone (MFR).
A lot line adjustment will be concurrently processed with the tentative map to
reconfigure the ownership lines for assessor parcel numbers 052- 013 -13 and
052- 013 -21 to incorporate an additional 584 square foot triangle- shaped area
of land into the project site (assessor parcel number 052 - 013 -12). To
reconfigure the area's general plan land use designations and zoning into
one consistent land use designation and zoning district for the project site, a
general plan amendment and a zone change will be processed. The general
D. 23y
Ll
® plan amendment will change the small triangular portion of the project site
which is presently Two Family Residence (R -2) to Multi Family Residential
(MFR) so that it will be consistent with the balance of the project area. With
the general plan amendment and zone change, the general plan land use
designations and zoning boundaries will be coterminous with the proposed
project boundary and consistent with the project's proposed land use. A
modification permit is requested to allow encroachment into the required front
yard and side yard setback areas for the subterranean portions of the multi-
family structure, as well as side yard above grade encroachments.
The existing 14 apartments, constructed in 1949, and the single family
dwelling, constructed in 1955, have been vacant since D ecember 2001. The
present development occupies 13,483 square feet or 22% of the site. The
proposed development will occupy 15,198 square feet or 24.8% of the site
and the proposed docks will have an additional nine sli ps and a gangway.
® B. MFR ZONING OVERLAY
The Multi- Family Residential (MFR) Zone requires 2178 square feet of land
per unit on this site.
The MFR Zone does not allow the use of `submerged land or slopes greater
than 2:1/ 50% in calculating the total number of allowable living units.
'Submerged lands shall be defined as lands which lie below the line of mean
low tide (from California Code of Regulations, Section 13577. See Public
Trust Land.)
Reference: Implementation Plan Draft 2006: Definition 20.03 -28
(See Exhibit A: Tide Planes and Tidal Datum Relationship
See Exhibit B: Slope Analysis prepared by Hunsaker & Assoc.)
The gross lot area is 61,284 sq. ft. (1.4 acres)
O
0.235
The MFR zoning only permits 34,845 square feet of the total acreage to be
used in calculating the number of dwelling units resulting in 15 allowable
dwelling units. The new project is designed90
for 9 dwelling units.
It is important to note that the adjacent bayward properties are R -1 and R -2 .
When calculating the number of allowable units in R -2 zone, submerged
lands and slopes exceeding 2:1 / 50 % are not excluded from the total lot area
as they are in the MFR zone.
C. PROJECT FEATURES
SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATION:
UNIT
LIVABLE
GARAGE
STORAGE
TOTAL
UNIT 1
4,833
369
1,393
6,595
UNIT 2
3,344
369
1,638
5,351
UNIT 3
4,459
361
962
5,782
UNIT4
4,671
361
897
5,929
UNIT 5
4,959
361
794
6,114
UNIT 6
3,959
368
824
5,151
UNIT 7
5,211
369
863
6,443
UNIT 8
4,969
442
734
6,145
UNIT 9
6,362
369
1,264
7,995
SUB -TOTAL
42,767
3,369
9,369
55,505
Common Space!
Lounge/ Exercise/
Spat Restroomsr
Parkin
4,430
11,243
1,800,
(circulation)
4,936
18,809
TOTAL
47,197
12,812
14,305
74,314
"Note: Per City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.10.030(M) of the
Residential Districts: Property Development Regulation states that for "MFR District -
The total gross floor area contained in all buildings and structures on a development
site shall not exceed 1.75 (1.5 times in Corona del Mar) times the buildable area of the
site; provided that up to 200 square feet of floor area per required parking space
devoted to enclosed parking shall not included in calculations of the total gross floor
area." (Calc: 200SF x 9 units = 1,800 SF)
11
L J
P, 2 3(�
E
O
u
10
D. VICINITY MAP
201 — 207 Carnation Avenue
Tentative Tract Map 16882, Lot Line Adjustment, General Plan Amendment, Zone
Change, and Modification Permit
Subject Property:
Multi - Family Residence (MFR) &
R -2 request change to M FR zone
To the north: (Carnation Ave.)
Multi - Family Residence (MFR)
To the north: (Bay side Place)
Two Family Residence (R -2)
To the east:
Two Family Residence (R -2)
To the south:
Single Family Residence (R -1)
To the west:
Newport Bay
P. 237
11
E. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS:
The Subject property is currently zoned MFR and R -2 and has the following
development regulations:
Development Regulation
Note:
* Indicate modification request for front and side yard setback.
** See Exhibit C (Setback Exhibit) for lot width and depth calculations.
* ** Parking lifts at designated private garages.
P- Z3�?
Zoning Code
Existing
Proposed Development
Mod.
Requirement
Development
Re uest
Lot
Zone
MFR & R -2
MFR
-
Size .
5,000 SF Min.
60,700 SF
61,284 SF
-
(MFR)
584 SF (R -2)
Width **
50' -0"
±133' -6" Avg.
±133' -6" Avg.
-
Depth *'
±373' -0" Avg.
±373' -0" Avg.
-
Setback
Front at
District Map
10' -0" /Abv. grade
Carnation Ave. *
10' -0"
8' -0"
5-0" Subterranean
Yes
Side at 215
8% of avg.
7' -6 "/ Abv. grade
Carnation Ave. *
width 10' -7"
5' -0"
5' -0" Subterranean
Yes
Side at
Ba side Place
10' -0"
18' -0"
10' -7"
Side at
2496 Ocean Blvd.
10' -7"
8' -5" Av .
10' -7"
Rear at
Newport Bay
10' -0"
226' -0"
212' -2"
1.5 x BA
13,688 SF- Apts.
Gross Floor Area
(50,578.75) =
2,810 SF- SFR =
74,533 SF
75,868,13 SF
16,498 SF
14 Apt. U nits
Dwelling Units
15 Units
1 Single dwelling
9 Units
23 spaces —
11 covered
32 spaces in garage —
Parking
(9 covered)
(20 tenants)
(5 guests)
(5 guests)
(9 uncovered)
l7 auto lift
(2 golf cart)
Height Limit
28' -0" / 32' -0"
24' -0"
28'-Op'/ 32' -0"
Note:
* Indicate modification request for front and side yard setback.
** See Exhibit C (Setback Exhibit) for lot width and depth calculations.
* ** Parking lifts at designated private garages.
P- Z3�?
u
12
111. COASTAL BLUFF
A. COASTAL BLUFF PRESERVATION
1. The CLUP adopted by the City and the California Coastal Commission
regulates that development of coastal property adhere to the predominate
line of development, minimize alterations of the bluff face and be visually
compatible with the surrounding area.
2. Reference excerpt from CLOP:
4.2.3 Coastal Bluffs (Preservation)
This coastal bluff at the shoreline is protected by the jetty groins and the small cove
at the waters edge. Coastal bluffs are considered significant scenic and
environmental resources and are to be protected. Coastal staff and city staff have
considered all consequences in protecting the coastal bluffs to the greatest extent
possible. The CLOP discusses these issues extensively and came to the conclusion
® that Corona del Mar is one of the few areas in the coastal zone where there is
extensive development of the bluff face; specifically, residential development on
Avocado Avenue, Pacific Drive, Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. The initial
subdivision and development of these areas occurred prior to the adoption of policies
and regulations intended to protect coastal bluffs and other landforms. Development
in these areas is allowed to continue on the bluff face to be consistent with the
existing development pattern and to protect coastal views from the bluff top.
However, development on the bluff face' is controlled to minimize further alteration.
3. This project has over twice the amount of open space than required`.
City zoning in Corona del Mar generally allows 63% lot coverage„ 37%
open space, based on a typical lot of 30 feet by 118 feet with a standard
setback of 20' front yard setback, 3' side yard setback, and a 5' rear yard
setback. The project site is 61,284 square feet with proposed
development of 24.8% of the site (15,198 square feet) being utilized for
development of the residences and parking garages. Over 75.2% of the
site is left as open space and bay usage. City zoning allows for a
buildable area on this site of 75,868.13 square feet. The structural area
0.239
13
of this project is 74,533 square feet including credit of 1800 square feet
for parking garage.
"Based on Section IV: Building Site Coverage on page 13.
4. Reference excerpt from CLUP continues:
4.2.3 -8 Coastal Bluffs (Preservation)
Prohibit development on bluff faces, "except' private development on coastal
bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue in Corona del Mar
determined to be consistent with the predominant line of existing development or
public improvements providing, public access; protecting coastal resources, or
providing for public safety. Permit such improvements only when no feasible
alternative exists and when designed and constructed to minimize alternation of
the bluff face, to not contribute to further erosion of the bluff face, and to be
visually compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible.
Note that 75.2% of the property is being maintained as open space.
(See Exhibit D - Aerial view with proposed development.)
B. PREDOMINANT LINE OF DEVELOPMENT
The Predominant Line of Development was designed to create "consistency"
of development between parcels of similar orientation. This will prevent
arbitrary, capricious and subjective lines of development.
Reference from CLUP 5.0 Glossary: Definitions of Predominant Line of
Development:.
Predominant line of development is the most common or representative
distance from a specified group of structures to a specified point or line (e.g.
topographic line or geographic feature). For example, the predominant line
of development for a block of homes on a coastal bluff (a specified group of
structures) could be determined by calculating the median distance (a
representative distance) these structures are from the bluff edge (a specified
line).
E
0.2vJ
Where principal structures exist on "coastal bluff faces" along Ocean Blvd.
and Carnation Ave. in Corona del Mar, require all new development to be
sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development in
order to protect public coastal views. Establish a predominant line of
development for both principle structures and accessory improvements.
Seepages 15 - 18 for analysis of three different approaches to defining the
predominant line of development.
The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure safety and
stability of the development.
14
Reference: Establishing development setbacks from coastal bluffs by Mark
Johnsson, California Coastal Staff Geologist, dated January 16, 2003
Slope Stability: Once the bluff edge is located, the first aspect to consider
in establishing development setbacks from the bluff edge is determine
whether the existing coastal bluff meets minimum requirements for slope
isstability. if the answer to this question is "yes" then no setback is necessary
forslope stability considerations.
When the 1.5 factor of safety can not be met, the setback shall be reviewed
and adjusted accordingly to "ensure safety and stability of development'.
Slope stability analyses were performed for a typical cross- section of the
planned excavation required for the installation of the temporary shoring
system (Soldier pile/ Lagging System with Tie -back Anchors) for the
proposed development. The excavation slope was analyzed by calculating
the factors of safety for a circular -type failure using the Modified Bishop's
Method. Calculated factors of safety exceed 1.5 for permanent excavation
and 1.25 for temporary excavation under static conditions. (Refer to
Appendix D: Slope Stability Analyses in Conceptual Grading Plan Review
Report for more information.) A top of bluff setback is not required. The
predominant line of development establishes the required line of
development.
® Reference: (Neblett & Associates, Inc. Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report' for
the Condominium Project dated August 5, 2005. Appendix D.)
D. 241
15
C. BUILDING MASS:
The building mass has been reduced by utilizing subterranean areas and is
consistent with the city's height limit and building area limitations.
The project is designed to minimize visible landform alteration by
consolidating the project on the upper 24.8% of the site, while at the same
time respecting the CLUP requirement of meeting the "Predominant Line of
Development ".
The project is designed with the new residences on the upper portion of the
lot and partially on the slope face, similar to the existing development and
surrounding parcels. The proposed parking garages, mechanical equipment
and storage areas are all subterranean. Parking for the project exceeds
zoning requirements. Two automobile elevators will be utilized to access the
parking garages. Parking lifts will be installed in private garages to increase
off - street parking. In addition, a 28' -0" wide setback view corridor at the
Northerly side yard, adjacent to 215 Carnation Avenue, has been provided at
the upper floors to reduce the building mass while allowing the neighbors on
Carnation Avenue a view corridor to the Bay.
D. PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT ON OCEAN BLVD. & CARNATION AVE.
This project has been designed to maintain the Pattern of Development and
does not encroach on the bluff beyond the adjacent neighbors and is in fact,
behind the existing Pattern of Development. To date, there have been no
formulas defining this concept. I have chosen 3 representative examples to
define consistency with the surrounding neighbors. The following charts
evaluate the Predominant Line of Development as a definitive measurement
from the street to the furthest line of development using a median distance.
This diagram and table depicts the d istance from the curb at Ocean
Boulevard or Carnation Avenue to the furthest line of development toward
Newport Bay.
P. 292
16
® 1. Furthest Line of Development toward the Bay from Street Curb
E
Diagram A
CARNA AWJ
OCEAN OLM
Table A (A) ( B )
Address
Building Distance
from
curb toward Bay
Pools /Decks distance
from curb toward Bay
101 Dahlia Avenue
332' -1"
352' -6"
' 2525 Ocean Blvd,
27T -7"
314' -3"
* 2501 Ocean Blvd./
2495 Ocean Blvd.
108' -5"
215' -7" lower deck
201 -207 Carnation.(PIQ)
111' -8" (Avg.)
126'AO" (Avg.)
` 215 Carnation Ave.
109 -9"
120' -4"
221 Carnation Ave.
88' -3"
95' -7"
101 Bayside Place
121' -10"
To bulkhead 173' -5"
103 Bayside Place
114' -0"
To bulkhead 135' -8"
105 Bayside Place
105' -10"
To bulkhead 127' -3"
107 Bayside Place
102' -7"
To bulkhead 114' -8"
(See Exhibit E — Furthest Line of Development toward the Bay from Street Curb.)
Results:
The Median distance from access road to the furthest projection of building
structure on Carnation Ave. and Ocean Blvd. towards Newport Bay is 183' -2"
and 219' -8" for deck and pool structures. The proposed project is 111' -8" and
126' -10 ", substantially landward of the median distance.
Note:. lots used to calculate the median distance.
0.24 3
17
2. The Furthest Line of Development from the Bluff Edge:
The City of Newport Beach and Coastal Commission adoption of the land
use plan define the Predominant Line of Development. This diagram and
table depicts a median distance of existing development relative to the
bluff edge.
Diagram B
Table ( A ) ( B )
- Address
Building Distance
from Bluff Ede
Pool/ Deck from Bluff
Edge
101 Dahlia
254' -6" (Avg.)
352' -6"
2525 Ocean Blvd.
192' -1" (Avg.)
239' -8" (Avg.)
2501 Ocean Blvd./
2495 Ocean Blvd.
81' -7" (Avg.)
99' -0" (Avg.)
201 -207 Carnation (PIQ)
26' -3 "- (Avg.)
44' =0" (Avg:)
215 Carnation Ave-
24' -9"
21' -1"
221 Carnation Ave.
11' -8"
19' -2"
(See Exhibit F - Furthest Line of Development from Bluff Edge Setback.)
Results:
The median distance from bluff edge to the furthest line of development
towards Newport Bay is 112' -11" and 146' -3" for deck and pool structures.
The proposed project is 26' -3 and 44' -0" for deck and pool structures,
substantially landward than the median distance.
E
0. viv
IN
® 3. Closest Line of Development as it Relates to Mean Low Tide:
The Predominant Line of Development should also be analyzed as it
relates to MLT (Mean Low Tide at elevation 0.74' NAVD88 Datum or 0.92'
Tidal Datum). This diagram and table depicts the median distance of
proximity from the water line at low tide to the closest structure.
Diagram C
WUF r
CARNAl10H AM
=C Mm
Table (A) ( B )
Address
Edge of Bldg. to MILT
Edge of Deck to MILT
2525 Ocean Blvd.
34' -9" (Avg.)
Deck beyond MILT
2501 Ocean Blvd./
2495 Ocean Blvd.
37' -10" (Avg.)
21'-4" (Avg.)
201 — 207 Carnation
PIQ
127' -8" (Avg.)
107' -0 " (Avg.)
101 Bayside Place
61' -6"
To Bulkhead
103 Bayside Place
17'-11" from bulkhead
To Bulkhead
105 Bayside Place
16' -4" from bulkhead
To Bulkhead
107 Bayside Place
10' -7" from bulkhead
To Bulkhead
(See Exhibit G — Furthest Line of Development as it relates to Mean Low Tide.)
J
p.2y5
19
Results:
The median distance from the mean low tide to the closest line of building
development towards the bay on bay front properties is 29' -10 ". The
proposed property is 127' -8 ", substantially landward from the median
distance.
E. CLASSICAL STRINGLINE INTERPRETATION
1. The Project was analyzed based upon the "old" concept of a coastal
stringline. (i.e. Closest adjacent neighbor's line of structural
development.)
2. The project is landward of the'classical stringline' by average of 36' -0"
feet.
(See Exhibit H — Stringline Setback.)
F. SUMMARY
This project is landward of the predominant line of development based
on four different criteria:
• The furthest line of development toward the Bay from street curb.
• The furthest line of development toward the Bay from the Bluff Edge.
• The closest line of development as it related to Mean Low Tide.
• Classical Stringline interpretation.
J
o.Iy�
11
1
J
20
IV. BUILDING SITE COVERAGE
The building site coverage (building footprint less overhangs) is a calculation that
determines the maximum site coverage (total site area minus setbacks) of this parcel
relative to adjacent parcels.
Estimate of building site coverage (building footprint less overhangs)
Address
Lot size
Allowable BSC
Allowable
Actual BSC in
In square feet
BSC in
percentage
percentage
2495 Ocean Blvd.
16,517 SF
13,384 SF
81%
13%
South
2501 Ocean Blvd.
5,502 SF
3,943 SF
72%
51%
South
2500 Ocean Blvd.
3,976 SF
2,573 SF
65%
64%
2504 Ocean Blvd.
3,322 SF
2,058 SF
62%
59%
201 -207
61,284 SF
50,578.75 SF
82%
24:8 " /6
Carnation PIQ
215 Carnation Ave
7,189 SF
5,033 SF
70%
55%
North
221 Carnation Ave
5,012 SF
3,400 SF
68%
48%
North
101 Bayside Place
14,814 SF
11,119 SF
75%
26%
North
The project utilizes only ± 24.8% of the site, 75.2% is devoted to and will remain as a
coastal resource, Newport Bay, rock outcroppings, and lands that are submerged.
This project is less dense than developments surrounding this lot.
(See Exhibit 1: Allowable Building Site Coverage)
V. PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION
Taken from Newport Beach CLOP: 3.1 Shoreline and Bluff Top Access
Coastal Act policies related to shoreline and bluff top access that are relevant to Newport
Beach include the following:
30210. In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California
® Constitution, maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and
P- 2L/7
21
recreational opportunities shall be provided for all the people consistent with public
safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of private property owners,
and natural resources areas from overuse.
30212. (a) Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along
the coast shall be provided in new development projects except where: (1) it is
inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, of the protections of fragile
coastal resources, (2) adequate access exists nearby, or (3) agriculture would be
adversely affected. Dedicated accessway shall not be required to be opened to
public use until a public agency or private association agrees to accept responsibility
for maintenance and liability of the accessway.
30214. (a) The public access policies of this article shall be implemented in a
manner that takes into account the need to regulate the time, place, and manner of
public access depending on the facts and circumstances in each case including, but
not limited to, the following.
(1) Topographic and geologic site characteristics.
(2) The capacity of the site to sustain use and at what level of
intensity. is
(3) The appropriateness of limited public access to the fight to pass
and repass depending on such factors as the fragility of the
natural resources in the area and the proximity of the access
area to adjacent residential uses.
(4) The need to provide for management of access areas so as to
protect the privacy of adjacent property owners and to protect
the aesthetic values of the area by providing for the collection of
litter.
A. PUBLIC VIEW ACCESS
The new project will provide a public bench and water fountain at the corner
of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. The project design will enhance
public views of the jetty and ocean as a result of increased setbacks and side
yards. Public views will be increased 29% over what exists today.
(See Exhibit J: Public View)
(See Exhibit K: Coastal Views Map 4-3 of the Coastal Land Use Plan)
/-).2y$
11
J
E
22
B. VERTICAL AND LATERAL PUBLIC ACCESS
Public access to a public beach does not currently exist across this private
property. Public beach access exists to China Cove south of the site at
Fernleaf Avenue, approximately 250' south of this site. Public beach access
also exists further south of this site at Goldenrod Avenue and Jasmine
Avenue to public beaches and recreational facilities at Corona del Mar State
Beach.
CLUP Chapter 3: Public Access and Recreation
Provide offers to dedicate (OTD) for vertical public access on the south side
of the site. Provide easement for this, provided the public agency accepts
liability for public access.
If access is requested, the city of Newport Beach or the California Coastal
Conservancy will have to be responsible to accept liability for access safety
prior to acceptance of OTD.
Providing any type of public access from Carnation Ave. to the shoreline
below this site carries a high level of risk and liability to the responsible
agency. If vertical access were possible it would require extensive grad ing,
caissons, foundations and be prohibitively expensive. If vertical access were
created there would still be no lateral access on either the northerly or
southerly properties. Adjacent parcels have bulkheads with no provision for
public access. The rock formation at the shoreline is dangero us and unsafe
and should be protected.
Public easements do not exist to the north or south of this parcel. Recent
Coastal Commission approvals of projects on 103 Bayside Place (CCC
Application No. 5 -03 -432) and 105 Bayside Place (CCC Application No. 5 -02-
083) did not require any lateral or vertical access because neither vertical nor
lateral public access exist on the property or on adjacent parcels.
23
Excerpt from CCC Staff Report dated November 20, 2003
Application No.: 5 -03 -421 (Approved)
Project Location: 103 Bayside Place, Newport Beach (2 parcels to the North)
• Project Description:
The subject site is a harbor front, bulkhead lot. The site is located within a
private, gated community between the sea and the first public road. No
public access currently exists at the subject site. The nearest public access
exists at Bayside Drive Beach approximately Y. mile northwest of the subject
site and at Corona del Mar State Beach, approximateiy % mile southwest of
the subject site. The proposed development, remodel and addition to an
existing single family residence, will have no impact on existing public access
in the vicinity.
• Public Access.,
The proposed development will not affect the public's ability to gain access
to, and/or to use the coast and nearby recreational facilities. Therefore, as
proposed the development, as conditioned, conforms with Sections 30210
through 30214, Sections 30220 through 30224, and 30252 of the Coastal
Act.
Excerpt from CCC Staff Report dated August 22, 2002:
Application No.: 5 -02 -083 (Approved)
Project Location: 105 Bayside Place, Newport Beach (3 parcels to the North)
Public Access:
The proposed development will not affect the public's ability to gain access
to, and /or to use the coast and nearby recreational facilities. Therefore, as
proposed the development conforms with Sections 30210 through 30214,
Sections 30220 through 30224, and 30252 of the Coastal Act.
Excerpt from CCC Addendum dated August 20, 2002:
E
r
U
1).25-()
24
® Subject: Addendum to Item Tues 4c, Coastal Commission Permit Application
#5 -02 -083 (Brigandi) for the Commission Meeting of September 10, 2002.
• Neither vertical nor lateral public access exists on the subject property. In
addition, there is no established lateral public access in the vicinity.
However, there are several opportunities for public access to the coast near
the proposed development. Bayside Drive County Beach is accessible via
the Orange County Shenff /Harbor Patrol Bureau located approximately a
half mile to the northwest of the proposed development (Exhibit #1). This
area allows the launching of small boats by the public. Also, public access is
available at China Cove Beach and Rocky Point Cove located a mile to the
southeast. Finally, a street end access point located five lots north of the
property offers an overtook to the Harbor (Exhibit #2). Since the proposed
project involves the reconstruction of an existing single - family residence,
neither the existing access situation nor the intensity of use of the site will be
changed. The proposed development will not have an impact on existing
coastal access or reaction in the area.
is (See Exhibit L: Coastal Access and Recreation Map 3 -1 of the Coastal Land
Use Plan)
C. CREATION OF ADDITIONAL PUBLIC STREET PARKING
Chapter 3 of the CLUP recommends: "Close curb cuts to create public
parking wherever feasible."
The new project presently has nine (9) carports and a standard two (2) car
garage and that back directly onto Carnation Avenue creating a driveway
curb cut of approximately 111' in length. This property currently allows for
one on street parking space. The new project design will create four on
street parking spaces available for public parking. This will enhance public
parking and public view access.
® VI. COASTAL RESOURCE PROTECTION
0. 2sl
25
A. ENDANGERED OR PROTECTED HABITAT SPECIES
Reference from CLOP: 4.1.1 Description of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat
The California Department of Fish and Game's (CDFG) 'List of California
Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by the California Natural
Diversity Database" (CNDDB) provides an inventory of California's natural
communities and identifies those that are considered rare because of their
highly limited distribution. These rare communities mayor may not contain
individual species that are rare, threatened, or endangered.
A reconnaissance field visit of the project was conducted on May 5, 2005 to
assess current site conditions, identify plant and wildlife species present or
having the potential to occur at the project site. The result of the study shows
that suitable habitat conditions do not exist on the project site to support any
of the threatened or endangered terrestrial plant or animal species listed in
the literature review. The marine plant species eelgrass is considered a
sensitive resource in Southern California. This species is within the property
boundary of the project site immediately offshore of the cove but impacts can
be reduced or avoided with development of an Eelgrass Habitat Mitigation
and Management Plan. No threatened or endangered species of marine
plants or animals were observed on the project site. Therefore, the proposed
project will not have any impacts on threatened or endangered terrestrial
plant or animal species_
(Reference: August 2005, P &D Consultants, Environmental information Form.
Appendix B °Biological Constraints Analysis for AERIE Project, Marine Biological
Field Survey and Eelgrass Study, and Bathymetric Survey)
r
L
J
D. 25Z
zs
® B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW
Reference from CEQA: Environmental Review Section
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the state to review
the environmental impacts of projects that require state or local government
approval. CEQA requires appropriate mitigation of projects that contain
significant environmental impacts.
An Environmental Information Form including the Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment has been conducted for the project by P &D Consultants.
Based on their review of the Potential Environmental Effects, the project will
not have a significant impact on the environment. An environmental records
search was conducted to identify any listed sites with environmental concerns
within the project vicinity. The site conditions do not pose a hazard to future
residents nor is the project site included on the list of sites containing
hazardous materials. The project will not result in a significant hazard to the
ispublic or environment, nor is the site within a flood hazard zone, therefore, no
mitigation measures will be required.
(Reference: August 2005, P &D Consultants, Environmental Information Form: Aerie
Residential Project)
C. PALEONTOLOGICAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL
RESOURCES
Reference from CLUP: 4.5 Paleontological Cultural Resources
Cultural or paleontological resources (Section 4.5. 1) requires the submittal of
an A/C resources monitoring plan.
Review of records of any paleontological resources finds that there are No
known resources. Following the requirement of Section 4.5.1, the monitoring
plan is submitted as part of this application.
U
D.253
27
A research study was performed to determine if past use of the site or nearby
sites could have adversely impacted the project. There was no evidence of
hazardous material usage or of practices or conditions of environmental
concerns on this site.
A cultural resources records search was completed through South Central
Coastal Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information
System. Results of the search indicate that no archaeological sites are
recorded within the project area. Therefore, no survey had been conducted
on the project area. The project will not result in a physical or aesthetic
impact to historic resources since none exist near the site. However, in the
event any cultural resources are identified during construction, a qualified
archaeologist should be contacted to review the finding(s) and make
appropriate mitigation recommendations.
The Monterey Formation, which forms the bluff sediments, is known to
contain abundant marine invertebrates and vertebrates (primarily fish). There
are many recorded fossil localities in similar sediments in the immediate
vicinity of the project area. Therefore, a qualified paleontologist shall be
retained to develop a Paleontological Resource I mpact Mitigation Program to
offset any impacts.
(Reference: August 2005, P &D Consultants, Environmental Information Form: Aerie
Residential Project)
D. WETLANDS
P &D Consultants conducted a reconnaissance site assessment to evaluate
biological associated with redevelopment of the project site. During the
reconnaissance site visit no "wetlands" were noted. Redevelopment of the
project site will not cause alteration or impacts of any kind to federal
'\wetland ".
(Reference: Svitenko, Kimbeny,2006, Aerie Residential Development Tentative Tract
Map No. 16882, P &D Consultants, Letter to Planning Director, City of Newport
Beach, January 31, 2006. )
L
D. 2 sy
ORN
® VII. GENERAL GEOLOGIC SETTING
A. GENERAL
From a geologic and geotechnical engineering standpoint, the site is
considered suitable for the proposed development. It is our opinion that the
Conceptual Grading Plans (Reference No. 6) are suitable for their intended
purpose provided the recommendations presented herein are incorporated
into the design and implemented during construction.
B. BEDROCK FORMATION
The bedrock on site is largely west striking, moderate to steeply northeast
dipping with localized moderate southwest dip. The prevailing strike and dip
orientation of the bedrock is into slope with respect to planned excavation
cuts, and therefore favorable from a slope stability standpoint.
® C. SEISMIC HAZARDS
Seismic Hazards have been reviewed relative to the development on this site.
I. Liquefaction:
According to the conceptual grading plan for the site, the site
area will be cut to a proposed ultimate elevation of
approximately 20 feet mean sea level (M SL) for subterranean
level construction. This will effectively remove the artificial fill
and terrace materials, and will expose bedrock throughout the
excavation and liquefaction within the bedrock material is not a
concern. Furthermore, subsurface water was not observed
during the field investigation.
II. Earthquake Induced Landslides:
The slopes descending from the proposed development
expose with resistant sandstone of the Monterey formation.
Extensive through- going, low angle discontinuities within the
® dense massive sandstone bedrock are absent. Literature
D- 25S
W
MA
VI
o
reviews (CDMG, 1994), site mapping, aerial photo analysis,
and subsurface exploration indicate that landslides do not exist
on or adjacent to subject site. The lack of landslide features
indicates that the area has been relatively stable in the recent
geologic past (Holocene) and has not been subject to
earthquake- induced large -scale land- sliding. The potential for
earthquake induced, large - scale, land- sliding at the subject
site is therefore considered low.
Tsunami and Seiche:
Based on the proposed pad elevations shown the Conceptual
Grading Plans, and the above discussions, the risk to the site
in response to tsunami is considered remote.
Coastal Hazards:
Coastal hazards include shoreline erosion, wave runup and
coastal flooding. The shoreline at the site is comprised of is
resistant sandstone and is protected by a jetty at the mouth of
the Newport Harbor. As previously indicated, the lowermost
exposed face of the planned development will daylight on the
bluff at approximate Elevation 30t feet (MSQ.
(Refer to: October 5, 2006, GeoSoils Inc, Coastal Hazard Study for
New Development at 201 — 207 Cametion, Corona del Mar,
California)
Bluff Erosion:
The exposed bluff material is comprised of resistant sandstone
and is not prone to erosion. In view of this and the base
elevation of the planned condominium development, bluff
erosion is not considered a factor in design over the life of the
structure.
Surface Rupture and Strong Ground Motion:
Based on the site - specific fault investigation (see Appendix E).
the fault activity levels have not displaced terrace deposits for
V. 25(p
30
® at least 80,000 to 120,000 years before present (ybp).
According to CDMG Special Publication 42, "active" faults are
defined as those faults which have displaced during the last
11,000± years (Holocene ag e). Therefore, the faults identified
on site are not considered "active ". It is unlikely the subject
site will experience fault related surface rupture. However, the
subject site may experience ground motion as the result of
regional seismic activity. Presented in Appendix C are the
2001 CBC (1997 UBC) Seismic Design Parameters for the
subject site.
D. EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS
Bedrock rippability was reviewed in order to evaluate the rippability of cut
areas comprised of hard sandstone Monterey Formation (Tm) bedrock. Rock
® hardness was assessed utilizing information obtained from three diamond
core borings penetrating to depths of approximately 46 to 51 feet below
E
grade, excavation of two fault trenches, site mapping, laboratory unconfined
compression testing on several samples obtained from the subject site, and
review of the shallow seismic refraction profile for the bordering 2495 Ocean
Boulevard site (Westland Associates, 1982).
Based on our experience, rock masses displaying seismic shear wave
velocities of up to approximately 5,000 feet per second are considered
economically rippable using conventional mechanical grading equipment.
Rock masses displaying seismic shear wave velocities of approximately
5,500 to 7,000 feet per second are considered marginally rippable. Rock
masses with seismic shear wave velocities greater than approximately 7,000
feet per second will likely require a Caterpillar 245 hoe -ram track excavator or
equivalent equipped with a rock chisel. The shallow seismic profile velocities
for 2495 Ocean Avenue from 4,000 to 8,350 feet per second, and similar
velocities can be anticipated for the subject property.
07 257
31
E. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Recommended design consideration for shoring design and engineering:
Temporary shoring consisting of soldier pile/ lagging system is recommended
to permit excavation and construction of the planned subterranean levels. In
view of planned deep excavations, tie -back anchors and /or internal bracing
will be required to provide a stable shoring system. The tie -back anchors
should be tested as discussed below.
The design of shoring should consider lateral earth pressures as well as
surcharge of effects of existing structures and anticipated traffic, including
construction equipment, when loading is within a distance from the shoring
equal to the depth of excavation.
As proposed, the building is located at or close to the property limits, the
feasibility of integrating the shoring system with the structural elements of the
basements should be evaluated by the Project Structural Engineer.
The solider piles should be adequately designed to resist both the design
anchor loads and test load conditions. The structural design should include
provisions to accommodate basement wall water - proofing, drain installation,
etc. The shoring system should be designed by qualified and experience
Shoring Engineer.
(August 5, 2005. Neblett & Associates, Inc. Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report.
Condominium Project. Project No. 416-000-03)
E
D_25�
11
32
VIII. MODIFICATION TO FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS
The applicant is requesting approval of a modification to setbacks. Because of the
irregular shape of the lot the average lot width creates a side yard setback that
exceeds the front yard setback.
The front yard setback as noted in the Districting Maps is 10' -0" while the side yard
setback calculation is based upon 8% of average lot width and is 10'-7 ". It is
uncommon that a side yard setback exceeds a front yard setback. All adjacent
parcels have side yards ranging from T -0" to 4' -10" and are as noted in the attached
Exhibit C — Setback Exhibit.
Applicant is requesting encroachments to the Northerly side yard setback (adjacent
to 215 Carnation Ave) that vary from 5' -0" to T -6" at ground level and below grade.
The project setback of 5' exceeds all other properties in the area.
® The project meets the required front yard setback of -0 ". The project architect is
requesting a 5' encroachment for the subterranean parking at Carnation Avenue.
This same 5' encroachment was granted to 215 Carnation Avenue for subterranean
parking (ref: Modification Permit #MD2001 -106). The approved m odification was
reviewed by the Planning Commission. The project design exceeds the required
rear yard setback of 10' with a proposed setback of 212'.
IX. SUMMATION
The site has unusual topography as well as submerged lands and a very irregular
shape. The new structure is on a coastal bluff top and on the face of the slope that
has been identified in the city's and Coastal Commission's adopted Land Use Plan
which allows for such development as long as it follows the existing Pattern of
Development. The project meets this criteria and does not exceed the Predominant
Line of Development.
i J
D. zsq
33
• The Aerie 9 unit custom attached home project is replacing a dilapidated 14
unit apartment building that does not meet current zoning energy and building
codes.
• There are no variance requests required for this new project
• The project seeks approval of a tentative tract map and minor adjustments to
the General Plan and Zoning Ordinances.
• The project requires a modification to the front yard setback for a
subterranean parking structure and side yard encroachments. The
adjustments to the setbacks are minor and are consistent with adjacent
properties that have been granted similar relief.
The environmental factors have been evaluated
a No threatened or endangered species of habitat exist on this site
• No impact to sensitive terrestrial species occur
• Eelgrass is present on the project site. Mitigation and management plans will be
employed to avoid impacting it.
Archaeological resources have been reviewed
No historic resources exist on the site. Consequently the project will not
result in a physical or aesthetic impact to historical features.
Paleontological resources have been reviewed
There are recorded fossil localities in similar sediments in the immediate
vicinity of the project area. The project area is considered to have a high
paleontological sensitivity therefore a qualified paleontologist will be retained
to monitor and direct any possible findings and handling.
Refer to the Environmental Information Form prepared by P &D /EDAW Consultants for
additional site information.
C
0,'Zl'U
E
E
Cl
EXHIBITS
34
Key
Foot)
The chart below displays tidal datums for benchmark TIDAL -1NP located at Newport Bay
Entrance and are based on the following:
Length of series
19 years
Time Period
1960 -1978
Tidal Epoch
1960 -1978
Control Tide Station
IatReduction
Theory #1 - Tidelands lie between mean high and mean of low neap tides.
Theory 92 Tidelands lie between mean of all high and mean of all low tides.
Information was taken from National Ocean Service (NOS), Office of Ocean and Earth Science (OES),
Tidal Datum sheet- Publication Date 07/17/89
TIDE PLANES AND TIDAL DATUM RELATIONSHIPS EXHIBIT A
12.ZfP2
`I/
/ I
PREPARED FOR:
ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES
22974 El. TORO ROAD.
LARS FOREST, CA 92630
PREPARED BY
Z
RUNSAKER &L ASSOCIATES
I R V I N I N C
PIAPNMONGWE"INC I SURVEIMC
U
SLOPE ANALYSIS EXHIBIT
CORONA DEL MAR
EXHIBIT B
LEGEND.
TOTAL SITE AREA - 61.284 S.F./1.4 AMES
EMS11NG SUIUOINQ PAD (13.483 S.F./O.3 ACRE)
SLOPE AREA -ES5 THAN 5OX 21.362 S.F./0.5 ACRE)
SLOPE AREA GREATER lAN 50%(15.1W S.F:/0.3 ACRE)
AREA UNDER MEAN LOW ME
ELEVATION (11,293 S.F. /O.3 ACRE)
LOW VW (UFM LO WAI ) E1i MW - p l NAb DAOU'
M.1 IDIL
PREPARED FOR:
ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES
22974 El. TORO ROAD.
LARS FOREST, CA 92630
PREPARED BY
Z
RUNSAKER &L ASSOCIATES
I R V I N I N C
PIAPNMONGWE"INC I SURVEIMC
U
SLOPE ANALYSIS EXHIBIT
CORONA DEL MAR
EXHIBIT B
SNm Yw ECI 1A 4,,ATION
\> D�
"
\ / \\ 51
AP, Av.. OF VDI 10, ISEEIS• 0
Y.Y MCWA16.Dm. . Z
OW
W Z<
EI
00
DIM A M ST
END
END
tM B 125b Dim c w v 4aa
41)
t6 40'G'
TO TE SIDE
IA :_. 1
I�= SIDE
A47
ED
�Llk! Q� V-P.
EST , 1 11 1
G IDDPRIN,
—ir
wneA T,IAl
18-0
WINE IVN
WE SENE CKI
F 3013%
OUTLINEO;\
BUIM.0
FOOTPRINT
§ 10i
---- --- -- -----
. . . . . . . . . . .
x
q
x <
WED
1— — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — —
L— — — — — — — — — —
SETBACK EXHIBIT EXHIBIT C
ME
NEWPORT BAY
/ CONCflEtE PAO \ .� H
CAIPILEVER
DECK.LDbJE
Poou sPA BAVSIDE PLACE
ENEOP/AV .E
LINE OF iLVEAGE y/5 CMXPP0.Y .MU j 1 .g CM.Wi10Nl
DNLEINPy
OE`IELOPMEM
CaHnLEVER —
OECKMOVE
CMUNN3YL.-
LOEVPNRT
OEEK iYP.
O NE uP
�EAS1V D ILO HG
oceiw eLw
A4�. -
1
OCFpN BLVD
4
DEVELOP
'
DEVEIE,.ENi
u
I .�p
E`
s
aF�
/
O
Da]
W
O
7 _1
CARNATION AVE.
9TREEi CURD
LIRE
PREDOMINANT LINE OF DEVELOPMENT
MEDIAN DISTANCE FROM STREET CURB TO
CUHO
OQ
who
wo<
aoZ
N
I
NO
1
�I
3 I I
L
III f
I 1
x I �
I I
F Q I
(D m
C) I
W s
W
O
WNZ
hoW
m02 1 1
S LL
xw0
W l
WFQ l
co l
1
<=
® W 7 I
I
i
O
ED
E`
ll�f SM
O
O
ci
0
I
7 \31
BAYSIDE PLACE
El
I IN
CARNATION AVE
PREDOMINANT LINE OF DEVELOPMENT -
MEDIAN DISTANCE FROM BLUFF LINE TO
FURTHEST LINE OF DEVELOPMENT TOWARDS BAY
Ll
z
LD W
1- <
<
z
wo<
<�z
0
w
-0
C)
Ill
o
Z
0
m UJ
�>
�uww I
Z 0
0
w
Qf
ow
WW
m
1-
of
n
2
OCEAN 9'
OBLVD
0
RAYSIDE PL.
10*
_0
PR OPOSED (C 5,
LDWQ
STRWGLIhE
JA)
F/
1 3
SAYSIDE PL.
z
0 Q
2
Z
WHO
<�z
0
-0
SAYSIDE PLACE
i1i t
221
CARNATION f
I'll W
I I , YE 6rl�
Pi R
10 N� .2M
m �
R
§
---- --------- -- - ----- §
z
X 0�
W
CARNATION AVE.
>
LVD,
z
'I' PREDOMINANT LINE OF DEVELOPMENT
..... ...... ... lZ
2695
OCEAN BLVD: � �
I Al
fU
-0
tOt m£� 103 ��d
BAYSIDE PL. �.�e'E�:�; BAYSIDE PL. '-any
6° pO p Q
W_<w
} \ QUO
Q0Z
00
4i. -r'I 1 ° p
o:`�'� ? ,� •,fit' \ h.,5 � ,.�yy,��.(�,�� R; � �
I E ,• a ISt •,: d
OCEAN BLVD. I,I
} J 201 207 221
- i C RNATION ' CARNATION
� r
m
O.m I
p <
r I
All; ( it I Z F-
m p
!Ew'
' CARNATION AVE. w o
NZ
p oz i
2 J Q0
501 i
OCEANBLVD. m p W
2525 Z PREDOMINANT LINE OF DEVELOPMENT - g O I
ocEAN BLVD. W MEDIAN DISTANCE FROM MEAN LOW TIDE TO O I
U II CLOSEST LINE OF DEVELOPMENT TOWARDS BAY FYNIRITr
I JIM f
f .
2695
OCEAN BLVD: � �
I Al
fU
-0
tOt m£� 103 ��d
BAYSIDE PL. �.�e'E�:�; BAYSIDE PL. '-any
6° pO p Q
W_<w
} \ QUO
Q0Z
00
4i. -r'I 1 ° p
o:`�'� ? ,� •,fit' \ h.,5 � ,.�yy,��.(�,�� R; � �
I E ,• a ISt •,: d
OCEAN BLVD. I,I
} J 201 207 221
- i C RNATION ' CARNATION
� r
m
O.m I
p <
r I
All; ( it I Z F-
m p
!Ew'
' CARNATION AVE. w o
NZ
p oz i
2 J Q0
501 i
OCEANBLVD. m p W
2525 Z PREDOMINANT LINE OF DEVELOPMENT - g O I
ocEAN BLVD. W MEDIAN DISTANCE FROM MEAN LOW TIDE TO O I
U II CLOSEST LINE OF DEVELOPMENT TOWARDS BAY FYNIRITr
Q
K
9PL.
103
BAYSIDE PL.
p <
<
a:
< z
�o
E f 0
PNOPOSED X BAYSIDE PLACE
BUILDING
F-722-1-1
BUILDING ICARNATION
S"INGUl
(A) 18 i I apg
<
- ------------------ - -------------- z
CARNATION AVE.
------ V5
OCEAN
BLVD.
z
PREDOMINANT LINE OF DEVELOPMENT
.... ........ . . .......
r.
m
1111110
OUTLINE OF
EXISTING BULIDING
PROPOSED —
DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSED
DECK
j--
ON
NMI
- - - - - - - - - __ - -_ - --- - - - - - - - - - - -_ -J
PUBLIC VIEWPOINT:
PROJECT TO PROVIDE NEW
PARK BENCH AND DRINKING
FOUNTAIN FOR PUBLIC USE
Z ci
LLJ >
U
_j
0 co
CARNATION AVE.
LI u7j
Z
X
<
<
z
<
wc) <
0
C)
ON
NMI
- - - - - - - - - __ - -_ - --- - - - - - - - - - - -_ -J
PUBLIC VIEWPOINT:
PROJECT TO PROVIDE NEW
PARK BENCH AND DRINKING
FOUNTAIN FOR PUBLIC USE
Z ci
LLJ >
U
_j
0 co
CARNATION AVE.
LI u7j
Z
X
r7
i --
V
N
F,
Na
PLAE / \
LOT SIZE 148146E
101 BAYSIpE C
~
95 OC BLVD:
L l'
\
\
\
\
l
\
-0' BAYSIDE PLACE
ss.
r�
;/ //I I v / —TI Ir/ 11
/ /I"
/ / / ✓ N
/ M1 20i CARNATION / I , I RL GI,012 SF
]15 NATION
OP T IBB 6F
0i. 5.0135F I
<8F , B6C: 3.00 SF
B3i I I I ssc sB30 sP -ro% I I , B% U
/s {Y�bbA'B I. 50.3�Y Z2 I I �
�, Bsc wne.
1_
CARNATION AVENUE
{SC 3BA35F'
Z% LOT: 3.DT6 F /
pZBb. (] YBS. 25000CEAN H / Sq
F.Y.B.B. / R.Y.S.B.
� esc 2,513 sF65%
J m L/ __L_ L__�
Z T
W r m/ 35,mccE eL
O LL__5C:3.0 SF..BE!4
ALLOWABLE BUILDING SITE COVERAGE EXHIBITI
I acALB: r • m.o..
LD Q
H 2
w�W
wU�
QoZ
N �
O
oU
N
1 I
i
E �!
!�I i
W
W
O
O
w
F
F to
m0
— Z
Xo
XJ
W5
m
W
J
FD
3
O
J
a
OUTLINE OF
EXISTING BULIDING
PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT Z
PROPOSED
DECK
4z
Q
,z
I
J
z
<
z
wow
2 wu<
0
0
f Ig
PUBLIC VIEWPOINT:
PROJECT TO PROVIDE NEW W
PARK BENCH AND DRINKING >
FOUNTAIN FOR PUBLIC USE CARNATION AVE. ED :C :i C)
X m
U-1
Z
U
0 co
VAIVA
FA-71,
aw
0
O
N
/.\ J' 2V T on
ail
Applications for Tentative Map, General
Amendment, Zone Change, Lot Line
Adjustment, Coastal Residential
Development Permit, and Modification
Permit
D . Z70
�1il�c! .'.rtan�J'e lY`it�mcia,
_
(sns
® ODIFI ATION PERMIT .P L[8aA I0N
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
aol Caff'o'kicni carrvvon
Project Address: "tL . . •Ji...a . • Ea .. a
,�f?ropert34 wner(s,) =Inforr>aatlon �S�,z
of Owner(s):
Owner's mailing address:
Phone Number : F11 N b 4 r
Owners Emallr/ktl`dress L�YY9 ��tsinwr2r„' rlrtre �r�
.. x...
Applicant's Eigand'1 Q "-
zz
s Ye e♦ O . s e -
ContactNName: _
Contact's malting address. �fr
Phone Number` Numbe
.. '
Contact's Email Aress
(1) (We) TVP A1tedno -A and say that (I am) (we are)
the owner(s) of the property (ies)•irftPv [i_tn this "'aPplic2hon =1(I)" (We) further certify, under penalty of
perjury, that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the.. information herewith
submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of (my) (our) knowledge and belief.
Signature(s) Please Print
:6xv\� Nemec
NOTE: An agent may sign far the owner if mittenauthonalion from M record owner is filed with the application.
f:IUSERSIPLNISharefformslNew For ms4A ,pllcationsW,,Iapplioation.doc Dated 05-05 -05
D-Z? ;7
tPCir-SID'E
Project Description and Justification (describe briefly): eron {- r. n i;. nAW4 :,a
10'4{ . YP4iLIlJ iOA CZY7dliNiV)6JL a M Ql&kYrGYL? Wd— vLa1
Work to be •• 'iN•. 3 , w. `&./. L /i �u a.a Ala 1.11. f.� adiekin , •;.
Posting /Mailing date: Fee Paid:
Zoning Administrator's Action:
Date of Zoning Administrator's Action: Receipt M
Coastal Zone: ❑ Yes ❑ No Form of Payment:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning District: Cheek # (if applicable):
F :%USERSIPLNISharedlForms\New FormsVWplicationsUvtodapplication .doc Dated 05 -05-05
r
L J
p. 27Y
C
E
In order to review and evaluate your Modification Permit Application, please provide responses to the
three required findings listed below. The intent of the code is to establish objective reasons or facts in
support of the Modification Permit Findings utilized by the Zoning Administrator in the decision making
process.
Therefore, effective November 23, 2004, all Modification Permit,Applications received in the Planning
Department shall include a writiert applicant's statement adtlressing-tbe three required findings listed
below. Please note: Appitca'tions submitted ttbopt the accompanyincf statement may be deemed
incomplete and may cause a delay in the` -,pppf tjt1Rd prd'ce s.
Required Additio 'I Information ' k
Please provide,; detailed description of the Proposed requestin rela on t e h.-of thl findin
below. In addttionr G tate only tf'e bbjective Apasons Or requestin o ification'ermi
additional s(ieets if nece ry) '`r :f �'` �` 'II '
�i iv A 3+zT J1%" E'.. "iG"• { i LC
A Why)'is the, ranGngSOf«hls applicators necessa t due to praaccd difficulties s oiated1l
prope ly tan ¢ , yt the strlc appllcaUon -tof tF a nin Code results in physical [ ardsh"ps Inc
with tF a pu ose. nil infent;of tite Zoning Code? " }
B. Howjvdithe eq e teii modifeattot mR aUbl ij tit (s)ii etghbgr
s listed
(attach
the
C. How and why Hill the gra fi ofsuch an applica4on otader3ely affect the health or safety of
persons residing br working. in Thee gtZrdf'the r e[ty a}�d not'be defh'iiiental to the general
welfare or injurious td°properfy &J mom,1 men i ;fhf ne orhoodv r
_AdiA[}kt D SHE F�
-A m fn C.y-w ,r
ri Name
Signature V For Office Use Only
F:IUSERSIPLN1SharedlForms\New FormsYApplications \Modapplication.doc Dated 05 -05 -05
b. 27q
Brion Jeannette Architecture
August 16, 2005
Modification Questionnaires for Aerie (201 -207 Carnation)
A. Why is the granting of this application necessary due to practical difficulties associated
with the property and why the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical
hardships inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code?
Due to the existing site, irregular shape, topography, submerged lands and site
slopes of 2:1, I believe the required side yard setback is out of scale with others in
this neighborhood. It seems inappropriate to require a side yard setback that is
greater than a front yard setback. In addition, 65% of the lot consists of submerged
land and slope area more than 50 %, which reduces the usable area for the site and
provides only a limited flat pad area to work with.
B. How will the requested modification be compatible with existing development(s) in the
neighborhood?
Our proposed and the code required side yard setbacks are greater than most
properties adjacent to this site. Our proposal to encroach 5' into the front yard
setback is below grade — above grade is required at 10' with no encroachments.
This 5' front yard encroachment is consistent with the approved residence north of
this site.
C. How and why will the granting of such an application not adversely affect the health or
safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and not be
detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the
neighborhood?
• Physical mass is reduced due to the 30' -0" wide setback elevated at second and
third floor of the East side. This helps the ability for sunlight and fresh air to reach
neighbor's patio. Also, the reduced mass will provide a view corridor to the bay
and beach for neighbor's enjoyment. I have designed this project with an
approximate 30' side yard setback above the first floor. This will reduce the mass
of the structure and allow sunlight, views and breezes to surrounding residences.
The granting of this request will "enhance" not adversely affect the health and
safety of residents.
• The proposed 9 -unit project is less dense than the existing 14 unit apartment
building and single family home. The resulting decreased automobile traffic will
also reduce the air and noise pollution around the neighborhood, which will provide
a healthier environment for everyone.
470 Old Newport Blvd. Newport Beach. CA. 92663 Phone: 949.645.5854 Fax: 949.645.5983
email@customarchitecture.com
/9 . 2sa
�cwro4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Application:
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
i PLANNING DEPARTMENT } I i II6Ii m,
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
® NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
(949) 644 -3200: FAX (949) 644-3250 l
PART I: Cover Page
.Project Common Name of applicable): Aerie
❑ Use Permit. No.
• Planning Director's
Use Permit No.
• G.P.A. /Amendment No.
• Variance No.
]�.�tU2,�ut, +t�.�tv�lt�n�4t4 rZo+u�
FEES:
APPLICANT (Print):
Advanced Real Estate Services,Inc.
CONTACT PERSON (if different):
Brion Jeannette Architecture
Mailing Address: 22974 El Toro Road
Lake Forest, CA 92630
MailingAddiess: 470 Old Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Contact: Robb Cerruti
Contact: Airy Creager
Pltone:(949)595 -5900 Fax(949)595 -5901
Phone: (949)645-5854 Fax(949) 645 -5983
Property Owner (if different from above): Corona Cove Partners (APN 052- 013 -13)
The Caryll Mudd Sprague Trust (APN 052- 013 -12) and Robert R. Sprague Living Trust (APN 052-
013-21)
Mailing Address: 470 Old Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Phone: ( 949) 645-5854 Fax (949) 645 -5983
® 201 & 205 Carnation Avenue Beach, CA 92625 (APN 052- 013 -13);
PR03ECTADDRESS: 207.Cargation Avenue; Newport..BeacFx -CR 92625 (APN 052- 13 -12)c
101 Bayside Place, Newport Beach, CA 92625 (APN 052 - 013 -21)
Project Description (If applying for a variance, also complete attached form for required findings.): A general
plan amendment and zone change application to reconfigure the general plan land use
designations and zoning boundaries for APNs 052- 013 -12, 052 - 013 -13 & 052 - 013 -21 so that the
general- plan land use designations and zoning boundaries are consistent with the proposed
Aerie residential development project boundary,. to be established by its lot line
a to tant n an en a ivi e tract Map Rica
11
r .rr PROPERTTY(�OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT
(I) (We) L -I J ' -1LLI (0%, , , 0� QY' R1((%1`1 depo e sa
property(ies) involved in-this appli anon. (1) (We) further certify, under o
answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in 11 spe
knowledge and belief. j
Signature(s)
%that (I ant) (we are) the owner(s) of the
mrjury, that the foregoing statements and
true and correct to the best of (my) (our)
NOTE: An agent may sign for the owner if written authorization from the record owner is filed with the application.
0,Zy/
PART II: Project Data Sheet
Project Common Name:
Application Number(s):
Aerie
Zoning Code
Requirement
Project Address/Location: 201, 205 &. 207
Assessors Parcel Number(s):
Carnation Avenue, New..ort Beach& a
052- 013 -12, 052 - 013 -13 & 052 - 013 -21
portion of 101 Rayside Place, Newport
132 FT. "Av§' ,.
Beach
Legal Description (Attach on separate sheet, if necessary): Bei og a portion of Block D of Coron
del Mar, as shown on a map recorded in Book 3, Pages 41 and 42 of Miscellaneo
Maps, Records of Orange County, California.
Existing Land Use: Vacant, mul ti -fami ly
Proposed Land Use:
struct=ure & single - family residence ..
Multi- family residential
Zoning District: MFR & R: -2
Land Use Designation:
SFA, TFR & MBR
C
u
O'zk2
Existing
Development
Proposed. Development
_
Zoning Code
Requirement
Lot Area(sf)
60;697 SF
61,282-SF
5,000 SF
Lot Width (ft)
132 FT. "Av§' ,.
132.79.FT Avg.
50 FT
Lot Depth (ft)
373 FT Avg.
373.83 FT Avg.
Setback Yards
Front(ft)
8 FT
50 TT_Above.ground Sub t rranpaik
10, FT
Side (ft)
5 FT
5 FT /7 FT -,.6 inclie
8 %dof Avg. lot th
Bayside Place -Side
18 )=T
10 F7 - 7 inches
8% of Avg. lot
width
Rear (R)
226 FIT
212 FT - 2 inches
10 FT
Gross Floot Area (sf).
1;864 SF
tt
spi ngleenfia
.. 74,533 SF
76,250.82SSEmax.
Buildable Area
1.5 X BA
5D,fl33.88 SF
8uildingCoverage( °i °)
NJA buildable area
governs
Full coverage
minus setbacks
-Building .Height (ft).
X —C MAX .
28 FT/ 32 FT
28 FT /32 FT
Landscaping CA)
N/A
N/A
Paving ( %)
N/A
N/A
Parking
9 covered
total covered
18- res. /7 guests
23
arking spaces
g
Number of Employees
N/A
N/A
N/A
Hours of Operation
N /A.
N/A
N/A
Number of seats
N/A
N/A
N/A
Dwelling Units
14- apartment
1 -sin le dwelling
9 units
9.6 units
C
u
O'zk2
J
A
Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations
Cie
0
a-
LL,
z
Q Al,
�o
� G,p
�9\
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Proposed
Lot Line Adjustment
Legend
MFR - Multi-Family Residential
TFR - Two-Family Residential
PREPARED FOR PREPARED BY:
.rum
_.aWp DVANCED '4k
F:\ 0136\ Planning \OA—P,.iect \Exhibits \General Plaa Load Use DesigaaUoa.dwg
PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactorV.com p , 2a' 3
Proposed Zoning
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Proposed
Lot Line Adjustment
F:\ 0136\ Planning \UA_ProjeCt \Ex bibits \Ce nerol. Plan Land Use Designolion.dwg
PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory com d _ Z& y
TENTATIVE MAP APPLICATION No.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Application Recd by:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT Fee. $`FOR $ per
3300 Newport Boulevard J lot (whichever is greater)
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
(714) 644 -3200
APPLICANT (Print) Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. PHONE .(949) 595 -5900
MAILING ADDRESS 22974 El Toro Road, Lake Forest, CA 92630
Corona'Cove Partners (APN 052 - 013 -13) The Caryl] Mudd Spraque Trust
PROPERTY OWNER (APN 052 - 013-12) & Robert R. Sprague Living pHONtE (949) 645 -5854
u - - c i ec urg-
MAILING ADDRESS 470 Old Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY INVOLVED 201 Carnation Avenue, 205 Carnation Avenue, .
20.7.Carnaton: Avenue and a portion of 101 Bayside Place, Newport Beach, CA 92625
ZONE MFR & R -2 PRESENT USE Vacant Apartment Building & Single Family Residence
Legal description of Property Involved (if too long, attach separate sheet)
Being a portion of Block D of Corona Del Mar, as shown on a map recorded in Book 3,
® Pages 41 and 42 or Miscellaneous Maps, Records of Orange County, California.
List any exceptions requested from standard subdivision requirements
No exceptions from standard subdivision requirments are-being requested at this time.
Signature of Applicant or Agent
_ DO NOT COM
Date
APPLICATION BELOW THIS LINE
Date Filed Fee Pd. Receipt No.
Hearing Date
p.2RS
09/1.712005 10:40
9496443229
CNB PLANNING.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COASTAL RESIDEN'HAL DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT APPLICATION (CRDP)
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915
(949) 644 -3200
Application Number _
Ppplication Received by
Fee
PAGE 01
The purpose of the Coastal Residential Development Permit application is to ensure compliance
with applicable requirements of California Government Code Section 65590 et seq. and Chapter
20.86 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. These codes and policies require the
preservation or replacement of existing affordable housing and they promote new affordable
housing within the Coastal Zone.
PART A Do Not Complete Without Owner's Affidavit On Page 3
Mailing �
Property
Address of Property Involved -V Jbi tL�jm "-km , LbgYb� ywN - nA q--Kpa�->
Ugal Descri tion of P erty Involved f too long, attach separate sheet.) ►� I ♦�y_Y r.' V., '.,� Iu . ♦Li" \�_ .: Via. __ '1...
e ! ' k3 —: ,� v" w-. tae' • •: 1. i� l fi_l�:
Number of Residential Structures Currently Onsite I L)jj SIT 1:5"Va / 1 MWA&t=Y Krnlmw-p-
Number of Residential Structures to be Demolished/Converted Ai.l. Tom. trtoit�HFn
Number of Residential units Currently Onsite 14 uw-Y I 1 -Zaaa€ r M&t Aso.
Number of Residential Units to be Demolished/Converted ALL -To W t �M115HEb
Number of Residential Un is in each Structure A / 1
Number of Residential Units in each Structure to be Demolished/Convcrted ML IC) M l7i�VIFP
Description of the Proposed New Development AtW 9-wit
t. :.: a WtAlj tLAWNG 6 . V
Number of Residential Units Proposed `i -Wl-r ttxlj�pMwrur?
If the structure is being demolished as a public nuisance as defined by the State !Health and-
Safety Code or City Ordinance, describe those factors causing the existing residential unit to
constitute a nuisance. (Attach additional sbeets if necessary) Mjjf s
* ** DO NOT COWLETE APPLICATIONBELOW THIS NE
LA * *°
inn Der Al Pnt I }� Jrinnn n- -r4l.A
Chapter 20.86 Not Applicable
Part B Not Required
Determination by
Chapter 20.86 Applicable
Pmt 13 Required
0. ZEI (o
1//2005 10:46 5456143229 CNE PLANNING PAGE 03
Application Number
® Tenants: For the purpose of this application the City of Newport Beach considers all
persons and families who occupy a residential rental unit for a period greater than 45 days to be
tenants.
Eviction: The City of Newport Beach recognizes legal or court actions and actions such as rent
increases beyond the current market rate, avoidance of state mandated maintenance, harassment
and other such actions which result in a tenant vacating his living unit against his/her will as an
eviction.
OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT*
(1) (die) 1� 1 &— bj) ji, yjL4 depose and say that (I am) (we are)
the owner(s) of the propeity(ies) involved in this application. (1) (5Ve) ho[t]ter certify, under
penalty of perjury, that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the
information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of (my) (our)
knowledge and belief.
Signature (s) `
'NO'T'E: An agent may sign for the owner if written authorization from the record owner is filed
with the applicant.
* ** DO NOT COMPLETE BELOW THIS LINE - * **
Date Filed: Fee Pd.
Hearing Date:
Posting Date Mail
P.C. Action Tlnfe
C.C.
E
Receipt No.
Hearing
PIn\xharcd�fo m kerdp
Page of
0.287
,7/2005 10:40
PART .B
9456443229 CNB PLANNING PAGE 02
Application Number)
If proposal is for non - residential use_ why is a. residential use no longer feasible on this site: (attach
additional sheets if.ueccssary•). 14
ALL - 7H4MT5 VACATED o1J IBC t StflE3
List of all current tenants (sce definition below).wrw� C1-4 Y T S
Tenant Name WP, r Date of Tenancy
Current Residence Phone ( )
Number of Bedrooms Current Monthly Tncome
Business Address ._ Phone ( )
Mailing Address.
C
Tenant Name wilt
Date of Tenancy
Current Residence
Phonef 1
Number of Bedrooms
Current Monthly Income
Business Address
Phone( 1
Mailing Address
Tenant Name 61b:
Date. of Tenancy
Current Residence
Phone ( )
Number of Bedrooms.
Current Monthly Income
Business Address-
Phone ( )
MailingAddress
ATTACH ADDTIT.ONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY FOR ALL TENANTS
For those tenants involved in any eviction (see definition below.) or legal action within. the previous
twelve months, please provide the following.
Tenant Name W—
Address from which Evicted
Monthly Income at Time of Eviction
Residence Address
Business Address
Mailing Address
Court Namc Con
Case Number Case Name
Description of case or action taken to cause eviction _
Date Tenancy Began
Address
of Bedrooms
Phone:
TenantName L 1& Date Tenancy Began
Address from which Evicted
Monthly Income at Time of Eviction Number of Bedrooms
Residence Address Phone ( )
Business Address Phone { )
Mailing Address
Court Name Court Address
Case Number Case Name
Description of case or action taken to cause eviction
ATTACH. 4,DDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY
Page 2 of 3
HUNSAKER
&ASSOCIATES
I R V I N E. I N C.
PLANNING
August 12, 2005
ENGINEERING
SURVEYING
• GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
Ms. Patricia Temple
IRVINE
Planning Director
LOS ANGELES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
RIVERSIDE.
3300 Newport Boulevard
SAN DIEGO
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Subject: Aerie — Proposed Multi- family Residential Development
Tentative Tract Map 16882, General Plan Amendment
Zone Change and Lot Line Adjustment
Dear Ms. Temple:
FOUNDING PARTNERS:
On behalf of Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc., Hunsaker &Associates Irvine, Inc.
is submitting Tentative Tract Map 16882 for the City of Newport Beach's review.
RICHARD HUNSAKER
Tentative Tract Map 16882, also know as the Aerie development, is located generally
TOM. R. MCGANNON
northwest of the intersection of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard within the
JOHN A. MICHLER
Corona del Mar area of the City of Newport Beach. The project site consists of
DOUGLAS G. SNYDER
approximately 1.4 acres (61,284 square feet) of gross area with a portion of the site
being part of Newport Bay and under sea level. Assessor parcel numbers 052 -013-
12, 052- 013 -13 and a portion of 052 -013 -21 make up the project area. The proposed
®
subdivision will consolidate the project site's two existing parcels and a small portion
of a third parcel into a 1.4 acre lot for condominium purposes.
Currently, the existing project site consists of two existing residential buildings; a
PRINCIPALS: single family residence located at 207 Camation Avenue and the 14 -unit vacant
DAVID FRATTONE apartment building located at 201 and 205 Carnation Avenue. The existing structures
FRED GRAYLEE will be demolished as part of the grading and site preparation for the proposed multi-
BRADLEY HAY family building with nine condominium units and its corresponding subterranean
PAUL HUDDLESTON parking, freight lift, swimming pool, multi - purpose room, wine cellars and patio areas.
KAMAL H. KARAM Several entitlements are associated. with Tentative Tract Map 16882. Along with
DOUGLAS L. STALEY Tentative Tract Map 16882 for condominium purposes, a lot line adjustment will be
KRIS WEBER concurrent
JOSEPH E. WIGHTMAN IY Processed to reconfigure the ownership lines for assessor parcel
numbers 052- 013 -13 and 052- 013 -21 to incorporate an additional 539 -square foot
triangle - shaped area of land into the project site. The lot line adjustment was
previously submitted to the City of Newport Beach in November of 2004 and has
been put on hold per City Staffs direction so that it could be processed concurrently
with the project's other applications. Furthermore, to reconfigure the area's general
plan land use designations and zoning into one consistent land use designation and
zoning district for the project site, a general plan amendment and a zone change will
be processed. The general plan amendment will change the portions of the project
site which do not have an existing general plan land use designation of Multi-Family
Three Hughes Residential from Single Family Attached and Two- Family Residential to Multi - Family
Irvine, C.Iff..ia Residential. The project's zone change will adjust the zoning boundary of the small
92618.1021 triangle portion to be added to the project site with the lot line adjustment by
(949) 583 -1010 PH
(949) 5834)7$9 F%
r..h.nsAk ,.eom
0, 29, 9
Ms. Patricia Temple
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
August14,2005
Page 2
changing its zoning to Multi - Family Residential from R -2 (Two- Family Residential) so
that is consistent with the balance of the project area. With the general plan
amendment and zone change, the general plan land use designations and zoning
boundaries will be coterminous with the proposed tentative map boundary and
consistent with the project's proposed land use.
Thank you for your consideration of proposed Tentative Tract Map 16882. If you
have any questions or need additional information regarding the proposed tentative
map, please give me a call at (949) 768 -2541.
Sincerely,
HUNSSAKER & ASSOCIATES IRVINE, INC.
{ n!1
Ted D. rattone
Planning & Government Relations
TFthb
xc: Robb Cerruti, Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc.
Rick Julian, Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc.
Amy Creager, Brian Jeannette Architecture
Kim Svitenko, P &D Consultants
Phil Dowty, H &A
W.O. 0751 -5
(Ac \wo\0751- 51-01- 1f.doc)
J
E
p. 290
E
0
n
u
Notice of Intent for Mitigate Negative
Declaration
lzl'EVUP0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768
u ,r Newport Beach, CA 92658 -891.5
cy oaN1r (949).644 -3200
Mitigated Negative Declaration
To: From: City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
X® Office of Planning and Research 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768
P.O. BOX 3044 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Sacramento, CA 95812 -3044 (Orange County)
County Clerk, County of Orange
Public Services Division
P.O. Box 238 Date received for filing at OPR /County Clerk:
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Public review period. February 13th through March 15, 2007
Name of Project: ARIE (PA2005 -196)
Name of Project Proponent: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc., 23792 Rockfield Blvd.
Suite 100, Lake Forest, CA 92630
Project Location: 201 -207 Carnation Avenue & 101 Bayside Place,
Newport Beach, Orange County
Project Description: Demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment building and single - family
residence to construct a 7- level, 9 -unit condominium complex, appurtant
facilities, grading and maintenance improvements to an existing private dock.
Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K -3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines
to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the City of Newport Beach has evaluated the
proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the
environment.
A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is 1XI attached ❑ on file
at the Planning Department. The Initial Study includes mitigation measures that would eliminate or
reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision - maker(s) prior
to final action on the proposed project. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider
this project on at 6:30PM on February 22, 2007 in the Council Chambers in City Hall located at 3300
Newport Blvd., Neweport Beach, Ca 92663.
Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project are be available for
public review. If you would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned.
If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should
be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically
identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant,
and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these
impacts.
If you have any questions or would like further information, please contact the undersigned at
(949) 644 -3200.
Date
C). 0 92
E
n
U
\i jR ,
Staff's Comments
0.293
December 22, 2006
City of Newport Beach
David Lepo, Director
Planning Department
Dear David,
I want to thank you and Jim Campbell for meeting with us last week to discuss the Aerie
project. The following are our responses to the concerns you had relative to our project
and the CLUP /General P Ian.
The "Aerie Project Overview dated May 2006, will be referenced below and I will add
my comments to the "Overview" for further clarification of your questions. The seven
sections identified below were your primary areas of concern. The other sections
appear to be resolved or not applicable.
The Coastal Land Use Policies applicable to the Aerie Project are:
Concern #1
4.4.1 -1 Protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the
coastal zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and
harbor and to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas.
• 'Review "Overview" (A) page 20, (C) page 23, (A) page 24
• The existing 57 year old apartment building is in disrepair, has many
building and zoning code violations and does not enhance the public
views.
• The new project will add to the unique architectural character of the
community.
• The building steps back following the general slope of the site while
protecting the coastal resources.
Concern #2
4.4.1 -2 Design and site new development to minimize alterations to significant
natural landforms, including bluffs, cliffs and canyons.
• Review "Overview" (A,3) page 11
• This project protects 75% of the site including the rock out croppings and
cove.
• This development is landward of all existing buildings.
J
C). zqy
® Concern #3
4.4.1 -6 Protect public coastal views from the following roadway segments: Ocean
Blvd.
• Review "Overview" (A) page 20, Exhibit J, K
• The guideline states to "protect" the public views.
• This project actually increases public views. The existing sideyard
setback creates a view cone of 25° as viewed from Ocean Blvd.
• The proposed project increases the view cone to 320, and the setback
increases by 7° or 5.25' as viewed from the street.
• See attached Exhibit "N ", Public View Cone.
Concern #4
4.4.2 -2 Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent
with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach.
• Review "Overview" (c) page 14, IV page 19, Exhibit I
• The unique architecture contributes to the character of the neighborhood.
The levels terrace back as it ascends the slope; unlike adjacent projects.
• The zoning code allows a 28/32' building height across the full Carnation
Avenue building elevation. The project height on the northerly 28' has
been reduced to 17' from the street curb.
• The reduction of height effectively reduces the mass of the building.
Concern #5
4.4.3 -8 Prohibit development on bluff faces, except private development on coastal
bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in
® Corona del Mar determined to be consistent with the predominant line of
existing development or public improvements providing public access,
protecting coastal resources, or providing for public safety. Permit such
improvements only when no feasible alternative exists and when designed
and constructed to minimize alteration of the bluff face, to not contribute to
further erosion of the bluff face, and to be visually compatible with the
surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible.
• Review "Overview" (A,2) page 11, (A;4) & (B) page 12, (D,1,2,3) page 14-
18, ExhibitE,F,G,H
• The predominant line of development establishes consistency of seaward
development. This project meets that goal.
• This project protects the lower portion of the bluff and all of the rock out
croppings and cove at the bay. Any feasible alternatives will likely
increase density and make the view smaller.
• "No development" or less density is not a feasible alternative.
Concern #6
4.4.3 -9 Where principal structures exist on coastal bluff faces along Ocean
Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar, require
all new development to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of
existing development in order to protect public coastal views. Establish a
predominant line of development for both principle structures and
accessory improvements. The setback shall be increased where necessary
to ensure safety and stability of the development.
• Review `Overview' (A,2) page 11, (A,4) (B) page 12, (D 1,2,3) page 14-
18, Exhibit E,F,G,H
0. Z 9S
• This project "protects public coastal views" by "increasing" the views from
Ocean Blvd. and Carnation Ave.
• The accessory improvements (sunning patio adjacent to cove) presently
exists and is smaller than all adjacent structures.
• The "predominant line of existing development" has been defined by the
California Coastal Commission through the approval of CDP #:
Palermo 5 -05 -328
Elieff 5 -04 -466
Tabak 5 -01 -191
Halfacre 5 -03 -100
Circle 5 -05 -095
® See attached excerpt of Appendix A, CDP #5 -05 -328 Palermo Staff
Report. Revised findings approved November 11, 2006.
Concern #7
4.4.3 -16 Design land divisions, including lot line adjustments, to minimize impacts
to coastal bluffs.
• Review "Overview" (A paragraph 4), page 6, Lot Line Adjustment
Application Encl.
• The lot line adjustment is a minor transfer of (584 sq. ft.) area from R -2
to MF4. This adjustment does not increase impact to coastal bluff any
further than the existing building at this triangular portion of the site.
• See attached Exhibit "M" Lot Line Adjustment.
In August 2005, Pat Temple told me the application was complete and was the most
thorough she had seen. Please publish the MND as soon as possible in anticipation of
the February Planning Commission Hearing .
David, after you review this information please give me a call if you have any additional
questions.
Thank you and have a wonderful holiday.
Sincerely,
Brion S. Jeannette
Architect, AIA
Attachments
Copy: Rick Julian
Robb Cerrutti
Tim Paone
u
`SCALE: 1"=20'
\ o
0
NEW
PROPERTY LINE
II OLD
PROPERTY LINE
ILII
A = BUILDABLE AREA WITHIN
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
moo. B = SETBACK AREA WITHIN
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
AI
QO 101 BAYSIDE DRIVE `
APN 052 - 013 -21 `
-' - -
AREA CALCULATION WITHIN
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (LLA)
A = BUILDABLE AREA 339 SF
B = SETBACK AREA 245 SF
TOTAL LLA AREA 584 SF
PECENTAGE OF LLA & LOT SIZE
LLA 584 SF
LOT SIZE 60,700 SF
% 0.96
OQ
Q�a?/
O `
- - -- \ s
s / 0.96%—/ 7
e
PROJECT IN QUESTION
I /
I 201 -207 CARNATION AVE. '
i
a APN 052 - 013 -13 i'e♦
a I �
o'
SCALE:
\ 1 „ =60'
.® F9
\ � e
e®
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
�P
GQQ-
BRION JEANNETTE ARCHITECTURE IPRO- IECT:AERIE
4-10 OLD NEWPORT BLVD. N.B, CA 92665 949 - 645.5854 DRAWING: LLA EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT M
SCALE:
DA-M /2242006
o.2l7
5 -05- 328 - [Palermo]
Regular Calendar
Page 18 of 21
® Appendix "A"
A. 3431 Ocean Boulevard (Located 6 lots down -coast from the subject site):CDP No. 5 -01-
191- frabakl
,l °•1
At the January 2002 Commission Hearing, the Commission denied Coastal Development
Permit Application No. 5 -01- 191- [Tabak] for the demolition of an existing three (3) story
single - family residence and construction of a new single - family residence. The proposed
structure would have covered virtually the entire upper and lower bluff face areas. The
primary issues of the proposed project were the appropriateness of approving the project
given landform alteration, the importance of preserving scenic resources, the seaward
encroachment of the development, the community character, and impacts to public
access. In denying the proposed development, the Commission found that the project, as
submitted, was primarily inconsistent with the Sections 30240, 30251 and 30253 of the
Coastal Act and the City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan (LUP) regarding coastal bluff
sites.
At the January 2003 Commission Hearing, the Commission approved Coastal
Development Permit Application No. 5 -02- 203- [Tabak] for the demolition of an existing
three (3) story single- family residence and construction of a new single- family residence
and also demolition and replacement of existing wooden staircase'to the beach. The
proposed project had been reduced compared with a prior proposal (CDP No.'5 -01 -191).
The Commission found that the proposed development was consistent with the pattern of
development in the immediate vicinity and the project would not have a cumulative
a verse impact on visual coastal resources. Under this proposal, living space additions
the
I c.l 3431 Ocean Boulevard (Located 6 lots down -coast from the subject site): CDP No. 5-02 -
�—'1 203- A1- ITabakl
At the March 2005 Commission Hearing, the Commission approved an Immaterial
Amendment to Coastal Development Permit Application No. 5-02- 203- A1- [Tabak] that
proposed redesign of the previously approved project including revision of an approximate
22 -foot long portion of the previously approved stairway located at the base of the bluff
and also the grading would now consist of 3,400 cubic yards of cut and export to an area
outside of the coastal zone. No habitablearea wou :extend past the approved line of
j).299
5 -05- 328- [Palermol
Regular Calendar
Page 19 of 21
D`] 3425 Ocean Boulevard (Located 5 lots down -coast from the subject site): CDP No 5-03 -
a_. -t,_ 1004FIalfacrel
At the January 2005 Commission Hearing, the Commission approved Coastal
Development Permit Application No. 5 -03- 100- [Halfacre] for'the conversion and addition
to an existing basement to living area, construction of a new basement -level deck,
.construction of a new sundeck on the bluff face that does not extend any further than the
'.83-fool contour line, a new stairway connection to an approved stairway leading down to
.the toe of the bluff located on the downcoast adjacent property (i.e. Tabak), removal and
.,replacement of existing side yard and rear yard fences, and after -the -fact approval of two
2id floor decks on the seaward side of the existing single - family residence. The primary
'issues before the Commission were the appropriateness of approving the project given
the importance of preserving scenic resources, minimizing landform alteration and
avoiding development in hazard prone locations. The Commission found that the
proposed development, as conditioned, was consistent with the pattern of development in
the immediate vicinity an the project wou ld not have a cumulative adverse : moact on
E. ;'1,3415 Ocean Boulevard {Located 4 tots down -coast from subject site): CDP No. 5-01-112 -
Ensi n
At the February 2002 Commission Hearing, the Commission approved Coastal
Development Permit No. 5 -02- 112 - [Ensign] for the after- the -fact authorization of a new
switchback bluff face.stainvay with keystone -type earth retention blocks, landscaping and
in- ground irrigation. The primary issues before the Commission were the appropriateness
of approving the project given landform alteration, the importance of preserving scenic
resources, community character-'and impacts to public access. As submitted, the
proposed project raised issues with Sections 30240, 30251 and 30253 of the Coastal Act
and the City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan (LUP) regarding development on coastal
bluffs. The Commission found that the proposed stairway that may have followed a pre -
Coastal Act pathway,.as conditioned, does not present an adverse visual impact because
it follows the natural topography of the bluff, was effectively screened with vegetation and
was consistent with the character of the surrounding area.
F 3415 Ocean Boulevard (Located 4 lots down -coast from the subject site)' CDP NO 5 -05-
095- [Circlel
At the October 2005 Commission Hearing, the Commission approved Coastal
Development Permit Application No. 5 -05- 095- [Circle] for the demolition of an existing .
approximately 2,100 square foot, two (2).slory single family residence with an attached
garage and construction of a new 4,488 square foot two (2) story single - family residence
with a basement and an attached 388 square foot four (4) car garage. Associated
construction consisted of: a 141 square foot basement deck, a 392 square foot 15, floor
deck and a 383 square foot 2 "0 floor deck. The foundation for the residence consisted of
a caisson and deepened conventional footings system. The primary concern before the
J
0 . 3d-o
C
E
5 -05- 328- [Palermo]
Regular Calendar
Page 20 of 21
Commission on this matter were to assure that the project conformed to the predominant
line of development such that scenic resources were preserved, landform alteration was
minimized and development in hazard prone locations was avoided. The Commission
found that the proposed development, as conditioned, conformed to the oredaminnnt line
or oevetoomenr ano wouio not arrect puouc views ana wouia oe consistent with the hazard
policies of the Coastal Act. Tfie projects proposed livable area aligned approximately
with the 56 -foot elevation contour line; while the basement level deck did not extend
seaward from approximately 46 -foot contour to the east and the approximatelv 59 -foot
G. 3401 Ocean Boulevard (Located 3 lots down -coast from the subject site). CDP NO. 5 -01-
199- [Butterfield]
At the December 2001 Commission Hearing, the Commission approved in part and
denied in part Coastal Development Permit Application No. 5 -01- 199- tButterfield] for the
after- the -fact approval of a new "sand pit" cut -out at the toe of the bluff, consisting of
three (3).32" high, 15' long retaining walls enclosed by a rope attached to four wooden
posts in the sand, and replacement of a decorative gate and lattice panels on the existing
pre- Coastal Act bluff,face stairway. The Commission denied the toe of slope'cut -out and
approved the portion of the lattice work and gate located on a.previously approved
landing area. The Commission found:that•the gate replacement and lattice enclosures on
the previously permitted landing areas to.be consistent with the scenic and visual
resources ,policies of the Coastal Act, as they will not obstruct views to or along the
shoreline and are in keeping with the pattern of development in the area and therefore is
consistent with Section 30251 of the Coastal Act. However,'the Commission found that
tha proposed sand pit cut -out would not minimize alteration natural landfor ms, was not
visually compatible with the character of surrounding development and would affect the
scenic and visual qualities of the subject area. As such, the portion of the proposed
project involving the establishment of a sand pit cut -out area was inconsistent with
Section 30251 of the Coastal Act.
H. 3335 Ocean Boulevard (Located 2 lots down -coast from the subiect site)' CDP No 5-04 -
214- [Battraml
In October 2005, the Commission opened a public hearing on Coastal Development
Permit Application No. 5 -04- 214 - [Battraml; however, the applicant withdrew the
application before the Commission took their action. The application was for the after -
the -fact approval for a stairway down the bluff face, retaining walls located on the bluff
face and sandy beach and grading. The applicant also proposed the following: adding
landscaping along the stairway; painting the upper portion of the stairway a color that
helps blend into the background; removing the existing iceplant at the bottom of the lot;
and the granting of a non - exclusive easement for public use and enjoyment of the sandy
portion of the lot adjacent to the public beach. Staff recommended denial of the proposal.
Since the October 2005 hearing, the'Battram's sold the property to a new owner who has
stated to staff that they intend to take over and process an after -the -fact permit
application.
19.30 /
F.4224MOVICA
Letter from C®astkeeper regarding water
quality management plain
E
0
C
0, 3 0'2
C
February 9, 2007
Mr. David Lepo, Planning, Director
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
COASrTKEEPER
EDUCATION /ADVOCACY/ RESTORATION / ENFORCEMENT
3151 Airway Ave., Suite F -110
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
714.850.1965 Voice
714.850.1592 Fax
w coastkeeper.org
RE: "AERIE" Tent. Tract 16882 in Newport Beach ..
Dear Mr. Lepo:
Orange County Coastkeeper is a non -profit corporation focused on water quality
and healthy marine habitats. Our mission is to protect and preserve our marine habitats
and watersheds through education, advocacy, restoration and enforcement. One of our
programs is to constructively work with the development community to review and make
recommendations on proposed water quality management plans of specific development
projects. This effort is to ensure that new development projects embrace state -of -the -art
® technologies, design, and management to eliminate polluted runoff from discharging off
the project property.
O
Coastkeeper has reviewed the water quality management plan for the AERIE
project (Tent. Tract map 16682) and have met with the applicants on several occasions.
The project proposes to install media filters to remove trash, grease, oils, and metals. We
have made a recommendation to add a technology to the water quality plan. Though we
realize current regulations do not require it, we recommend technology, such as
AbTech's "Smart Sponge ", that will remove approximately 90% of the bacteria from the
discharge. Coastkeeper believes this to be important since the project discharges directly
into the harbor. The applicant has agreed with our recommendation to install this type of
technology.
Coastkeeper endorses the proposed water quality management plan for the AERIE
project. When completed, the water quality management plan will be state -of- the -art and
exceed regulatory standards. It is our opinion that the water quality of the runoff
discharge into the harbor will be significantly improved over the current runoff condition
from this property.
D -3c3
Exhibit No 4
Correspondence
0, 3aq
�J
February 14, 2007
Lloyd `Bud' and Linda Rasner
2500 Ocean Blvd.
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
Mr. David Lepo
Planning Director
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Subject: — Aerie Development
Dear Mr. Lepo,
We live at the comer or Ocean and Carnation. Arguably our home is potentially the most
affected of all residences by this development.
® Mr. Julian as owner of the project has been very forthright with and responsive to our
concerns. His outreach to the neighborhood has been admirable and congenial.
We unconditionally suuooet the project and have seen the plans on a continuing basis
since the project was conceived years ago. The recent model confirms our approval
decision.
The existing building has been an eyesore for the 35 years that we have lived in Corona
del Mar. Of course we expect some impact from construction but that would happen
under any development. I am certain that this project will be considerate to the
neighborhood and to the greatest extent possible mitigated to cause the least impact.
We earnestly endorse the project and encourage you to support it as well. The view from
the comer and water will see a first class endeavor.
Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
r
�,
�I
Dr. . & Linda Rasner
11
L?, 30 5
Fab 15 07 09:17a Bud
19496735972 p,1
IKEP4T S. M001RE
410 C►R\ATYON AVENUE CORONA DEL MAR. C,&=rORWI(A 99626
TELS (949) 678 -7698 FAX: 4949) 678 -7699 genlnoora ®worlOnct.atl.net
February 14, 2007
Newport Beach Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
RE: Aerie Project, 201, 205 & 207 Carnation Ave., CDM
Dear Members of &e Planning Commission:
I am writing in support of Mr. Rick Julian and his proposed project at the site of the old
Corona Cove Apartments located at the comer of Ocean Blvd. and Canton Ave. in
Corona del Mar.
I have owned property across the street from this location since 1975 and have seen
several building projects undertaken in our neighborhood over the years, some good and
some had.
In reviewing Mr. JuliWs plans it is obvious that he is attempting to create a world class
residential development at this beautiful and scenic location above the harbor entrance.
He has also gone out of his way to get to know the local property owners and outline his
project plans for them. I have spoken with many of my neighbors who favor the current
plan which is now before you for approval.
I hope that, upon careful review, the Commission wrll also come to realize that the
adoption of the Aerie Condominiums plan will be a win -win situation for this
neighborhood and will enhance life for both residents and visitors in this very unique
corner of Newport Beach.
Sincerely,
C
® Ron and Marsha Beard
3208 Ocean Blvd
Corona Del Mar, CA
Feb 93, 2007
RE former Corona Cove Apartments to be replaced w/ 9 single family attached
homes
To the City of Newport Beach Planning Commissioners and / or City Council,
I have met w/ Rick Julian several times regarding the subject development as there
was a time when I was a potentially interested purchaser of a unit. I must tell you that
I absolutely love the plan! Clearly, there has been so much time, effort, and thought
put into it. I think it's a great addition to our neighborhood, and I think its in character
for the neighborhood. I believe that the team of architects and designers on this
project as well as the developer has really placed a tremendous amount of
architectural features and beauty into the project.
I believe that the development will be very attractive from the street, and it will be even
more beautiful from the water. We live in a world class area, and we are getting a
world class development on this site.
® 1 strongly endorse the project, and I hope that you do as well.
Rectfully,
!11t ae tr
Ronald P. Beard
February 14, 2007
Grant Sadler
207 Carnation Avenue
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
Mr. David Lepo
Planning Director
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Subject: Former Corona Cove Apartments/planned 9 Single Family Attached Homes
Tract 16882 — Aerie Development
Dear Mr. Lepo,
I am very familiar with Rick Julean's development since I live on the property now and
have seen and reviewed the plans.
The careful and thorough planning is very impressive. In addition, Rick has used first
class architects and designers. The project will be fantastic and enhance the neighbor
hood from the street, the homes themselves and also from the water.
I enthusiastically endorse the project and encourage you to support it as well
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
E
E
L_J
2/15/07
Sent via e-mail.
Re: AERIE Proposed Development
February 22, 2007 hearing
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
Jeffrey H. Hopkins
2725 Bungalow Place
Corona Del Mar, CA 92673
I send this letter in strong support for the AERIE Development ("Project ").
My wife and I live in Corona Del Mar and I was bom and raised in Corona Del Mar and in fact
grew up going to the beach, just a few hundred feet from the Project.
As it stands, if the Project is approved, due to the complexity of this project, is still several years
out of being completed. Denying the Project, by contrast, will force the developer to go back to
the drawing board which will, at best, delay the Project for another 4 -5 years or more and, at
worst, prevent its construction altogether. Either of these latter scenarios would do a great
disservice to the citizens of Corona Del Mar generally, and the homeowners located near the
project specifically. .
I have been tracking the history of the re- development of the Project for well over four years.
This not about land use or zoning. This project is about a re- development of a blighted and
dilapidated apartments and single family dwelling units that are being re- developed into one of
the most premier developments along the cost and harbor. In addition to the foregoing research, I
attended a meeting in with the Project's developers and architects as well as with some of the
local homeowners within the area. All involved were very open about the details of the Project
and candidly answered all questions posed to them. After reviewing the plans for the Project and
participating in the question and answer session, I fully support the Project and strongly urge the
Planning Commission to approve it without delay.
In closing, I had high expectations for the Project before I saw the detailed design drawings. The
Project, as proposed, exceeds those expectations. The developer and City staff have done an
outstanding job.
I ask that you please approve the Project; it will be a welcome addition to our community.
Thgnk you for your time.
a
C
0.50 q
Exhibit N ®o 5
Predominant line of existing development exhibits prepared by staff
LJ
C
o, 310
0. 31/
rO
W
l _
��YIEW PROM HAYSIDE DRIWO PARK - EXISTIN6
uzs.
Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 4 of 18
Ayes: I Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren
Noes: None
Abstain: None
ITEM NO. 3
OBJECT: Advanced Real Estate Services PA2005 -196
201 & 207 Carnation. Avenue and 101 Bayside Place
application would allow the demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment buildir
9 a single- family home and the construction of a 7- level, 9 -unit multiple -faro
idential condominium complex with subterranean parking on a 1.4 acre si
ated bayward of the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenu
existing General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan and Zoning Designations of
all portion of the site (584 square feet) would be changed to be consistent wi
larger portion �of the site (from two- family residential to multi- family residentia
application includes a tentative tract map for the creation of 9 "airspac
idominium units for individual sale and. The Modification Permit applicatic
uests the encroachment of subterranean portions of the building within the fro
I side yard setbacks. Lastly, the Coastal Residential Development Pern
Acation relates to replacing lost units occupied by low or moderate -incon
iseholds. No units meeting this criteria are known to exist and therefore, r
ilacement of affordable housing is required.
Planner, Jim Campbell, gave an overview of the staff report, noting:
• This is a bluff top property.
• Noted the planning activities of the project.
• A new 9 unit condominium complex will replace an existing 14 -un
apartment building and single - family residence.
• Parking to be provided will mainly be subterranean. The number of space
exceeds the current Code requirement.
® Access to the parking will be through two freight elevators designed t
accommodate vehicles.
• Units range in size from 3,400 square feet up to 6,200 square feet in th
seven -level building.
• Views of the project from various vantage points.
• Staff is seeking guidance on application of Coastal Land Use Plan policie
related to protecting, and where feasible, enhancing the scenic and vises
qualities of the coastal zone; establishing the predominant line of existin
development; establishment of this predominant line can be accomplishe
through a variety of means; staff is asking which method the Plannin
Commission wants to be used.
• The architect has attempted to measure the predominant line (gave a
example).
• Staff used a method proposed in conjunction with the draft Implementatio
Plan which talks about the median distances that these buildings exten
from. Additionally, they did the string line method which is a tradition
method that the Coastal Commission has used for many years.
• There is no set method of establishing this line and all of the methods the
staff has looked at do not work well due to the unique topography; the blu
does not line up with the streets and the buildings actually wrap around th
bluff so all the traditional methods are not helpful in establishing where th
building should be.
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /PlnAgendas /mn02- 22- 07.htm
nued to
5, 2007
L J
C
0.3ly
08/07/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007
• The purpose of the discussion is to determine if this project is consistent with
® the Coastal Land Use Plan as policies note minimizing the alteration of the
natural terrain, preserving and enhancing the scenic and visual qualities of
the coastal zone, prohibiting development on bluff faces except in this
particular geographic area; new development has to comply with this
predominant line of development.
• Views from public spaces to the west looking back to the bluff, that is the
scenic and visual quality.
• The proposed building appears to come further down the bluff than policies
seem to allow and we are looking for guidance as to what the predominant
line of development is.
• Visual simulations representing various lines of existing development are
included in the staff report to aid in the decision making process.
• The buildings on Carnation Avenue to the north come down the bluff furthei
than the existing development on subject sites. (He then discussed the
various exhibits in the staff report.)
• The Planning Commission needs to determine the predominant line of
development, and if the building conforms to it, then the application can be
approved; if the building does not conform to it, then the Commission needs
to provide direction to the applicant to re- design it to the line as agreed upon.
Chairperson Cole asked what discretionary approval request requires the
Commission to determine the predominant line of development?
Mr. Campbell answered that the Subdivision Map requires it as does the finding
consistency required for amendments to the Local Coastal Land Use Plan.
® Chairperson Cole noted the discussion of the 584 square -foot portion of the F
site seems to be the basis for the actions required for approval. If they didn't hZ
that 584 -foot portion, would they need to come in front of us for the discretion,
approval? What is the past City practice regarding determination of I
predominant line of development-
Ir. Campbell noted that the Subdivision Map finding needs to be made. There
ne prior example in an application for a variance on Pacific Drive where we we
coking at these same policies. On Ocean Boulevard, we haven't had tt
iscussion in the past as there were no variances or modifications tl'
ecessitated a finding of consistency with these policies. We have not had tt
wel of analysis or review.
ner Hawkins asked about the Circle residence where the
the predominant line.
Campbell noted that this was discussed in light of the string line method a
ked about other prior projects that were allowed to come down the bluffs by t
rastal Commission. We looked at the main issue of how far out the buildi
me because it could block the neighbor's view. We did not discuss t
dominant line of development in the context of these policies.
Richard Julian, applicant, noted this proposed project will become the gateway
®he harbor and the City of Newport. He noted the following consultants for t
project: Phil Dowdy and Ted Fetone of Hunsaker and Associates; Myron Sukut
Sukut Construction Co.; Sid Nedwit, soils engineer; Tom Castle, structu
engineer; and Brion Jeannette, architect and designer. He added that he h
http://www.city.newport-beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas/rrm02-22-07.htm
Page 5of18
0.315
08/07/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007
arched many issues related to the site and has worked closely with
hbors. He has worked with members of the City staff and is committed to
pct. He referenced an exhibit that includes letters of support from
munity.
Jeannette, architect, noted that the major issue is, what is the predomina
of development? He stated that they have reviewed the Mitigated Negati
aration and agree with the measures identified. He then proceeded with
presentation of the project:
® Discussed various views of the project site.
• Materials to be used are limestone, photovoltaic panels for electricity anc
green architecture.
• The existing building consumes approximately 21% of the site and the nem
building is about 25% of the site.
• He referenced the categorical exclusion zone on the exhibit noting the
treatment of the vegetation and bluff is handled by the City.
• There are 9 units replacing 15 units and range from 3,300 square feet tc
6,300 square feet of livable area with 3 parking spaces for each.
• The allowable project square footage is 90,759 and this proposal is for 74
314 square feet.
• Parking - 7 units with parking at the same level directly accessible to eact
unit; 2 units have access to parking via their own private elevators; gues
parking is 3 spaces at street level and 4 spaces at lower levels; additionally
there are 2 golf cart spaces at lower levels. 7 of the 32 parking spaces arc
created through the use of auto lifts. These individual lifts are separate an(
apart from the 2 auto elevators proposed. A total of 32 parking spaces wil
be provided.
• Reviewed garage configurations tumaround space and vehicular elevators.
There will be an emergency back up system.
• Grading will require 32,400 cubic yards of export that is scheduled after the
summer months. He discussed the schedule, amount of loads per day
drilling, and timing to construct shoring walls.
• Possible haul routes are from East Coast Highway on Marguerite Ave. wes
on Ocean Blvd to the site, north on Carnation Avenue, east on Seaview tc
Marguerite, north to East Coast Highway; flagmen and delineators will dire(
traffic; primary staging of maximum 2 trucks on Ocean Blvd., secondan
staging south of Cameo Highlands Drive on Coast Hwy.
• Shuttle workers to and from site until parking on -site is available withic
parking garage.
• Public access is not required as there are accessibility problems; Californi(
Coastal Commission has not required access on adjacent parcels; an(
public access is nearby at China Cove and Corona del Mar main beach.
• Public views - public view point identified in the LCP is at the corner c
Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Referencing the exhibit, he note(
that corner view will be increased to a 32 degrees wide cone from a 25
degree cone and public seating will be provided. He agreed to an easemen
being recorded on their property.
• Monitoring of ground motion will be on -going to assure that it is kept at
safe level and will be incorporated in the Construction Management Plan.
• Current landscaping can be trimmed and maintained.
• He then discussed the building heights and need for a Modification.
• Bluff face development - development is allowed on categorical exclusioi
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.usiPInAgendas /mnO2- 22- 07.htm
Page 6 of 18
U
11
LJ
0. 3i!(P
08/07/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 7 of 18
zone parcels to the north; the CLUP allows development on bluff face i
® Ocean Blvd., Carnation Ave., Pacific Dr., extensive development befo
Coastal Zone Act and new development is allowed to continue the 'pattern
existing development.' Predominant line of existing development is the me
common or representative distance from a specified group of structures to
specified point or line. (topo line or geographic feature) (CLUP 5
Glossary). He then discussed his approach.
. He then noted CLUP Policy 4.3.3 -12 and discussed his methods used
meet this criteria-
. Referencing the exhibits, he then explained the predominant line of existi
development and how it was reached at Pelican Point, Cameo Shore
Shore Cliffs, Corona del Mar on Ocean Boulevard, Breakers Drive, Chi
Cove, AERIE and Pacific Drive and the issue of fairness and equity
mandated by Coastal Commission.
• He gave a history of past Ocean Boulevard projects and examples
determining the predominant line of existing development using string -line
structures and decks.
• He discussed an aerial view of AERIE with cove and rock outcroppings a
buildings on either side and depiction of median distance from street curb
furthest line of development towards the Bay.
• Referencing another exhibit he discussed median distance from mean Ie
tide to closest line of development towards the Bay, analysis of propos
line of development with elevations of 34 feet on easterly side to 52 feet
the westerly side, 29 feet to 44 feet and 25 feet to 25 feet respectively.
• View simulation of superimposed model viewed from Channel Road put
beach.
®
• Existing view from Channel Road public beach with categorical exclusi
zone and with the proposed structure on project site.
• He then noted several letters of support and asked for ultimate approval
the 9 -unit project.
• At Commission inquiry, he noted he has not discussed this project with t
Coastal Commission.
Planning Commission focused on the following:
• The requirement of a Construction Management Plan with details on routes
truck sizes, street cleaning, timing, fugitive dust, etc.
• Impacts on air quality
• Need for the Mitigated Negative Declaration to address issues of hau
routes, size, access routes and air quality.
• View corridor - staff proposes an easement to be recorded.
• Ocean Boulevard is a public view street and the view corridor is dynamic.
Asked for an expansion of this presentation further up Ocean Boulevard t(
depict the view corridor impacts from Ocean Blvd at Fernleaf and Dahlia
Streets.
• Protection of neighboring properties during the drilling and coring process.
• Pattern of development on Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Street.
• Floor plan for the lower level.
• The Implementation Program discussion of line of development in Coro
del Mar-
. Reviewed the definition of "predominate line of development" in the gloss:
of the CLUP, specifically the use of a specified group of structures
determine the predominate line of development and the appropriateness
D, g f7
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas /mn02- 22- 07,htm 08/07/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007
using homes on Bayside Place to set the predominate line of development.
blic comment was opened.
ud Razner, Ocean Boulevard, noted his support of this project for the following:
o The project applicant has done an outreach in the neighborhood for in
and has made several concessions on height and density to addr
concerns.
® Applicant could build up to 28 units.
o Property rights of neighbors as well as the applicant are being addressed.
Tax base for the City.
. Removal of telephone poles and run -off from the site will be contained
treated.
I McAfree, Ocean Boulevard resident, and speaking as President of the
!ef Association, noted their support of the project.
• Impressed with the project sponsors and their plans and
communication with their neighbors.
• Project will be an upgrade to the neighborhood including visual appeal,
property values, etc.
• Like the low- density of only 9 living units versus 48 living units at Cho
Reef.
• We are aware there will be noise, dust, parking issues and
inconveniences during construction but the long term benefits of the pr
outweigh any temporary inconveniences.
• They urge approval of this project.
a Vallejo, Ocean Boulevard resident, noted she is not in support of this
the following:
• Many people are concerned with the destruction of this coastal bluff and tY
extremely large scale of the proposed complex.
• There are many issues, among them the loss of public enjoyment from th
development.
• This bluff and cove are viewed and enjoyed by people on the Peninsula wF
look directly across from the wedge and various other locations.
• This cove is a landmark.
• People do not want to lose the view of the last remaining bluff that is visib
from the harbor.
• Newport Beach is special and this area is governed by the CLUP. She the
read some of the provisions.
• Is this project visually compatible with the surrounding area and how is th
minimizing the impact on the bluff?
• There is nothing on Ocean Boulevard that looks like this other than Chann
Reef, but that was built in 1960.
• Ocean Boulevard is basically single- family homes but this project creates
'hotel' and is too much for that particular site.
• There is no Environmental Impact Report and I don't understand that as the
are taking 32,400 cubic yards of bluff away and cannot figure out what th
will do to the integrity and support of the surrounding properties and tl
impact of the construction and excavation.
Page 8 of 18
LJ
0-31Y
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /PinAgendas /mn02- 22- 07.htm 08/07/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007
® Before this is changed forever, you need to give this good thought.
i® Doug Snyder, Balboa Peninsula Point resident, noted his support of
development as it will be a great improvement over what is there currently.
u
E
leen McIntosh, Ocean Boulevard resident, noted the majority of the neighbor
the demolition of the existing structure and the re- development of the site.
noted:
• Concern over the intensity of development around lower Newport Bay led
the adoption of a series of ordinances in the early 1970's that establishe
more restrictive height and bulk standards around the Bay.
• The intent is to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consiste
with unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach.
• As a result, new development within the shoreline height zone is limited to
height of 28 feet.
• Development on the bluff face is generally prohibited with the exception
certain public improvements or private improvements determined to t
consistent with the predominant line of development.
• It is policy to regulate the development envelope to preserve public viev
through the height, setbacks, floor area, lot coverage and building bulk th
limits the building profile and maximizes the public view.
• In this case, the buildable site would grow from under 20,000 square feet
over 70,000 square feet.
• It seems the lateral projection of the structure would greatly impact the publ
view from the water across the Bay, and the view corridor established by tt
City of Newport Beach at the Ocean Boulevard /Carnation Avenue junction.
• To shift the bulk of the lateral development up to the allowable vertical heig
would keep the view corridor open but would eliminate the water viev
enjoyed by the residents on Carnation Avenue across from the proposE
development.
• It is our hope that the bulk and scale of the proposed development will t
reduced both laterally and vertically and in square footage to be in line ar
scale with the surrounding residences.
Dawson, Corona del Mar resident, noted:
• The current complex is an eyesore and is in a dilapidated state.
• This development is 1st class and there is hardly any opposition to
the compromises that have been made.
• This is a focal point and he supports the project.
• The developer has the property rights for this project.
Moore, Carnation Avenue resident, noted:
• The applicant has taken the time to get to know the neighbors and explaii
his project.
• All have had the opportunity to review the plans.
• The applicant has addressed all concerns and has made several desigr
changes.
• Directly next door to this project, the City allowed major excavation an(
building to take place on the rocky bluff and area below next to the water.
There was a lot of equipment and disruption but ultimately it turned ou
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas /mn02- 22- 07.htm
Page 9 of 18
0.319
08/07/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007
beautifully.
This is a superbly planned project that has been worked on for several y
prior to this meeting and urged that the Planning Commission approve
project.
,nmissioner McDaniel noted that this issue is not being voted on tonight. This
opportunity for public input and will be continued.
is comment was closed.
missioner Eaton noted:
• Project is extensive and there has been good outreach to the neighbors.
• Referencing an email he sent to staff, noted not all his questions had be
answered and would like those at the next hearing.
• Predominant line of development - referencing Exhibit F -noted the hea
black line symbolizes where the estimated top of bluff is. The predomina
line of development refers to the relationship of the bluff. This appears
angle off the corner of the street intersection and turns the corner. The me
appropriate sense of how to look at this predominant line of development
that the buildings ought to turn the corner in a consistent relationship to t
bluff.
• The upper level roofs do follow that rough line but that changes as you c
further down.
• What happens on the lower level of the westerly building as it extends at
angle further out than the fairly uniform progression of the terraces of t
easterly building?
• The two lower units of the easterly building have a view of a blank w;
which is the side wall of the westerly building. That part of the proji
extends beyond the curve of the bluff line and is inappropriate to t
predominant line of development.
• The westerly building should taper at a more consistent rate as the easte
building so that the levels are pulled back a bit. That would affect the loun
on the first level and the lower level of Unit 700 on the second level. If tt
area was pulled back, the building as a whole would have a shape and t
line fairly conforming to the bluff line, which would make a more sensible Ii
of development. Otherwise, this sticks out a good 20 feet beyond t
foundation line that is shown in the plan footprints of the buildings.
• He concluded that with that adjustment, this building would fit a predomin',
line of development that would turn the corner in a manner similar to the w
the bluff turns the corner.
missioner Hillgren asked what the bottom vertical line of this project was?
Campbell answered the lower extent of the easterly building is 29 feet and
go around the corner it steps up to 44 feet.
Commission inquiry, Mr. Jeannette noted that the elevation of the street
iyside Drive is at elevation 13 then it starts ascending from there to an elevat
18 or 19 feet.
missioner Hillgren noted he has heard a commitment from the developer
act the cove which is the most important part of this project. I look at the 28-
line to the property to the west as an appropriate datum line. The question
http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca .us /PlnAgendas /mn02- 22- 07.htm
Page 10 of 18
J
u
11
0, 320
08/07/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007
how to connect to the property to the east.
®Commissioner Hawkins noted the property lines to the east go down that far
because they are in the exclusion zone where they are not regulated.
E
r. Jeannette agreed, noting adherence to the Zoning Guidelines which require
ar yard setback.
oner Hillgren asked if they were regulated, how far down could they go?
Jeannette noted the bottom portion could be used for a casitas with the mai
ling on top of the bluff, they could go to that rear yard setback and then cary
it with a retaining wall behind; it would be difficult and expensive, but it
nmissioner Peotter, referencing the topo exhibit, noted the regulated areas an(
non - regulated areas where someone could go down to the 20 foot elevation.
leans more to the priority of maintaining the look and favors either the 29 or 3,
at the highest point as far as determining the setback line that will determin(
it will be seen from the bayside and how that cove will be protected.
rperson Cole noted the western portion of the site seems easier to unders
makes sense due to the adjacency of the buildings. He asked how
Aal Commission would determine a fair and equitable concept for
Mr. Jeannette noted the point at which you contact earth establishes that lowes
plane. Referencing an exhibit, he noted one elevation of a home at 48.6 elevation
other elevation points were at 44, 50 and 52. He then discussed the public beacl
relationship and drawing the horizontal line at that point to establish somf
termination of development.
Hillgren asked if it was the footing or the house itself that is
level at 44?
Jeannette answered the elevation of the house was at 50.
onerToerge noted:
• The charge of the Planning Commission is to ensure that the technic
aspects of the project are in tact.
• We are to comply with the existing Codes of the City for the benefit of the
residents who are not here and don't know about the project and can't
expected to come down and spend the kind of time that many of t
residents here have and we have.
• He noted he is a property rights supporter, but in a civilized society prope
rights are conditional. There are title reports, title restrictions, special la
use restrictions, zoning, building heights, etc. and in this particular propert
case there is a Coastal Land Use Plan that has to be adhered to.
• This is not about the integrity or the character of the applicant or I
representatives; it is about the technical components and how they can
applied to this project fairly and on balance with the property rights and w
the community.
• The predominant line of development doesn't contemplate what could
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /PlaAgendas /nm02- 22- 07.htm
Page 11 of 18
0.32-1
08/07/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007
developed on adjacent bluff top properties, it deals with what is in pla
today, so this whole discussion on what might happen to adjacent bluff t
properties along Carnation is irrelevant to me.
• Also irrelevant to me is what Coastal Commission might do. TI
Commission and this City has to get quickly up to speed on what the L(
says. It will require an amount of time and effort to do this.
• He noted his concern of how this project in this area meets the predominE
line of development on this bluff.
• He does not support the idea of using bayfront properties as simi
structures or similar group of homes, as the glossary of our CLUP sugges
by which to determine the predominant line of development as we are talki
about a property that is on the bluff. These homes take access off a differE
street that is almost at sea level. This property is a bluff- oriented prope
that takes access from the bluff.
• Referencing an exhibit, he noted the area that seems to encroach below t
predominant line of development and the area on the easterly side seems
be relatively consistent with the predominant line of development.
• Some transition is warranted in order to meet this finding of what
considers to be the predominant line of development.
iairperson Cole noted that there is consistency in that the easterly side at 29
agreed upon but as it goes around the westerly side, he would like to see r
Jicating the line of where those homes come down to right now.
missioner Toerge answered that is how he reads the Code. Thei
ominant line of development is higher than their proposal based upon how hE
s the Code. We need to understand what our predecessors decided an(
authority our Coastal Land Use Plan has. A couple of years were invested it
dishing this Local Coastal Plan and we took great care in developing this.
oral Planning Commissioners, including himself, served on this Committee.
plan was reviewed and approved by both the Planning Commission and City
icil. It is speculative to guess what the Coastal Commission will do.
Hawkins noted:
• Agrees that the Commission has an important job with this unique parcel a
project. The cove is a natural resource, the bluff outcroppings, etc. and t
project, in general, takes good care of that resource.
• He noted the concern of the easterly edge at elevations 44/48 and staff a
the applicant need to work on that level.
• He agrees about tracking the bluff around, and the two units noted
Commissioner Eaton did seem to project out distinctly. He would Ii
discussion on pulling those projections in.
• We are trying to understand what the predominant line of development is.
is a flexible metric and the string -line was a tough approach and could
problematic.
• The current structures on the site are poor; however, the site itself
fantastic.
person Cole noted there seems to be some consensus on the 29 foot I
on the east and the west at 44 feet.
nmissioner Hawkins noted there is some agreement on the 29 feet; however
questions the 44 -foot measurement. Another metric has been offered and hE
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas /mn02- 22- 07.htrn
Page 12 of 18
E
11
n. 32Z
08/07/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007 Page 13 of 18
would like to see If that could work.
® Commissioner McDaniel, noted:
• He was a member of the Local Coastal Committee and they spent a lot
time addressing heights and string -lines and doesn't want to ignore those.
• There are basic guidelines to go by and if you have to work around ther
then we need to document them so we can understand it now and in tt
future.
• He wants to save as much of the bluff as possible.
• He noted his concern of what happens to the parking if part of the building
taken away as previously suggested, what does that do to the quality of It
for the residents in that area, what does that do to the view corridor, and ar
other aspects.
• He would much rather give a little extra off that edge so that the parkir
does not become problematic in the project; that it looks right, works rig
and all those other aspects that we pickup.
• Recognizes that folks who look easterly look at a wall, but the panoram
view to the left may require that you may have to look at a wall to the right:
• This is a good project.
Commissioner Peotter asked about comparing this to properties in the exclusic
one, yet looking at the Land Use Plan, it follows the hotel and other homes that c
down to the water level again. Why are we going outside of that coastal area
get the predominant line?
® Commissioner Toerge answered by reading from the Glossary of the CLUP. "TI
most common or representative distance from a specified group of structures to
specified point or line." The example that was cited, "the predominant line
development for a block of homes on a coastal bluff (a specified group
structures) could be determined by calculating the median distance
representative distance) these structures are from the bluff edge (a specifiE
mtinuing, he stated that since the predominant line of development has alread,
!en determined to come into play here, and since the Local Coastal Plan doe:
ive jurisdiction over the site, this definition is something that needs to be overlaic
ito the project. It gives the example about the predominant line of developmen
a block of homes on a coastal bluff which is the specified group of structures.
iat is the reason why the homes that are not on the bluff should not be utilized ti
Iculate the predominant line of development as they are not on the bluff and tha
specifically the language that the Committee went through. That is the language
at has been approved and the City has adopted.
ommissioner Peotter asked if it make any difference whether it is in the Exclusic
one or not as far as when it refers to the coastal bluff. Do you stop looking at it
is in the Exclusion Zone?
Commissioner Toerge answered in his opinion the answer is "no ". This happens
be a bluff top development that happens to be at the end of the street, and simp
®because adjacent bluff top properties are within the Categorical Exclusion Are
oes not preclude them from the definition of predominate line of development.
on continued referencing exhibits showing Breakers Drive,
V. 323
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas /mn02- 22- 07.htm 08/07/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007
and the Cove.
Campbell noted the exclusionary area was established in 1977 and the Coasta
nmission allowed projects that are consistent with the zoning at that time
Ile- family and duplexes, without need to go back and get a Coasta
,elopment Permit. Under today's rules, you could build out to the setback at 1 C
and bring that building down to whatever elevation it might be. Does the
tominant line of development affect these properties: the answer is "yes ". We
e two policies in the Coastal Land Use Plan 4.4.3 -8 and -9 that talk abou
dings on the bluff face on Carnation Avenue, Pacific and Ocean Boulevard.
are referring to that particular bluff right there and they are allowed to built
iin the predominant line of development. That is what the policy says meaninc
: bluff does establish a predominant line. Would we use a predominant line tc
ulate that now given the exclusion order: the answer is "no ". Staff believe:
se homes on Carnation Avenue on that bluff do establish a predominant line o
>ting development and you would use that in relation to whether this projec
e is consistent with that.
Cole clarified that regardless if it is in the Category Exclusion Zone.
Campbell noted the predominant line of development would not affect
but those lots do establish the predominant line of development that
lot.
imissioner Toerge noted that properties are still subject to Coastal Commissi
:w under appeal. They are in the Coastal Zone so even though they a
;gorically Exempt, that doesn't mean that the Coastal Commission we
e. It means that the City can approve them, but approval can be appealed
Coastal Commission. The Coastal Commission has just given the City i
: to approve or condition those particular developments but it doesn't exen
i from Coastal and doesn't exempt them from review.
mmissioner Peotter asked that since part of this lot is in the Exclusion Zone
as that mean the project could go down to 10 feet on the side for a portion of hi:
and now establish a new line of development that we could use? You have twc
s of rules.
Jeannette noted the differences of access on Breakers Drive,
we and resulting development.
Commission inquiry, he noted that suggestions made about turning the corner
mething that he will look at and he will determine what impacts could or woL
wit. Additionally, he will look at elevation down to 10 feet. He noted tr
)testing the cove is most critical.
on was made by Commissioner Peotter to set the line at 29 feet as the I
for staff to review with the caveat that the applicant look at reducing
t1west wing to see if they could round that off to match the bluff face better.
Cole clarified that the 29 feet goes up to 44 feet going to
Mr. Jeannette answered that is correct.
missioner Hawkins suggested straw votes.
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.usfPlnAgendas /mn02- 22- 07.htm
Page 14 of 18
E
E
o, 32q
08/07/2007
E
Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007
Chairperson Cole noted the motion was not seconded, took straw vote on
he 29 feet on the east side of the property going to 44 feet, which is in the
report with the suggestion by Commission to have the applicant consider mat
he contour of the bluff specifically on levels one and two.
wing discussion by the Commission, consensus was reached consistent
discussion as to the predominant line of development. Straw
nissioner Toerge, yes; all other Commissioners, no.
Lepo noted the parking configuration as well as the impact the use of
ators might have on parking on the street. Are those concerns of
emission, or are you okay with the configuration of the working garage?
nmissioner McDaniel noted that after meeting with the applicant, tl
cerns have been addressed.
nmissioner Toerge noted his concern on the Mitigated Negative Declan
ing that the comment period is still open. He has reviewed it and asked
following be addressed at the next meeting:
When does the City determine when an EIR is necessary versus a Mitigate(
Negative Declaration?
Should the City's Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committe(
review the MND?
Referencing the Mitigated Negative Declaration:
• -Aesthetics - describe how the 'Less Than Significant Impacl
determination was made for Aesthetics 1.c, and under wha
circumstances would a determination of "significant impact" be made?
He noted page 10 and specific issues.
• Land Use and Planning - on Page 16 of the MND, explain how th(
"Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation is incorporated ", hov
was this determination made, and under what circumstances would i
be significant?
• Noise - on Page 17, describe how the "Less Than Significant Impact
determination was made when there is no representation of how th(
excavation operation will be conducted. This report does not reflec
some of the description that was on the screen on how the grading wil
take place with the borings, etc. The MND was silent on that; why?
• Aesthetics - on Page 22 The MND addresses this public view site a
the point of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard, but it does no
address the public view street that Ocean Boulevard is and th(
dynamic view. Until view sims are done, I cannot agree with thi?
report on this topic.
• Air Quality - on Page 28, the MND talks about haul trucks, etc. and th(
deliveries, etc. With 32,000 yards of dirt potentially being moved b)
2,500 to 3,000 trucks, this is a lot of activity. The residents in the are',
need to be protected while the property rights are being exercised.
We need to see maps of truck routes, staging, traffic patterns, flagmer
operations, public right -of -way use, etc. Washing streets is not ar
acceptable mitigation measure, another means needs to be identified.
Diesel- powered trucks and generator use, audible signaling,
restriction of delivery construction equipment need to be addressed.
• Adequacy of the public view - on Page 40, until those simulations ar(
provided, the widening of this angle may improve the view angle iron
http://www.city.newport-beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas/ninO2-22-07.htm
Page 15 of 18
0,325
08/07/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 02/22/2007
one spot, but I want to be sure that it improves or at least maintain
the view angle from all along that view corridor along Ocear
Boulevard.
o Stringline - on page 41 the MND seems to be inaccurate anc
misleading as it says, "stringlines were drawn from the existinc
residential structure located to the south on Ocean Boulevard and the
existing structure to the north on Carnation Avenue. The result is tha
all portions of the proposed building are landward of the stringline."
That is not true as shown in the exhibit. There are three calculation:
that discuss the median distance from the curb and from the bluff bu
there are no reference points specifically as to where those are
measured; that needs to be expanded for it to be accurate.
• Noise - on Page 42, this project may go on for at least 2 years and
while that is temporary, it is not short termed. This document says it is
short term and I do not agree with that. In "B" of that noise section, i
is claimed there is no impact as there is no pile driving; however, there
is going to be drilling and excavation. How can it conclude there wil
be no impact? The MIND does not address any mechanism on how it'E
going to be graded, yet it concludes an insignificant impact. This is
inaccurate.
• I believe these are shortcomings of the MND and I hope that they are
addressed at the next meeting.
missioner Hawkins noted:
• The environmental document is virtually silent on the construction impacts
the project and that analysis needs to occur. There will be a final respon
document that can address these issues. The points that were just ma
require something that corrects these errors or inadequacies, etc.
• There is an easy fix to the construction impacts and that is the Constructi
Management Plan. He proposes this as a mitigation measure and this pl
to be approved by Public Works as the appropriate body at the City, but tl
it come back to the Commission for hearing and approval as well.
• He stated he supports the MND concerns and they need to be addressed-
. He would also like to hear from EQAC.
rperson Cole asked about the procedures for comments to the Mitiga
3tive Declaration. Can we get a response document similar to an EIR for
meeting?
answered it can be done.
Cole then noted the issue of the view corridor and addition
view simulations.
:)mmissioner Hawkins supports the proposal for more extensive views. However
e position of the applicant is that there is no access required and that may be the
ise, but the applicant proposes a public amenity of a bench at the view site. Tha
important but insufficient, and he would like to see a more significant mitigatior
easure. He supports an offer of dedication for the bottom of this property, bu
ere is the access issue.
oner Toerge noted:
http://www.city.newport-beach.ca.us/PinAgendas/mnO2-22-07.htm
Page 16 of 18
D.32�
08/07/2007
E
E,
E
Planning Commission Minutes 02 /22/2007
Performance Bond - The project includes a retaining wall that regi
® substantial grading. If this is not completed there is a possibility that
homes and public right -of -way above could be damaged. If, for any rea .
there is a cease or stop work order issued, the area needs to be made
to the public. This would be similar to the one required of the Mariners
Gateway project.
Commissioner McDaniel agreed.
issioner Hawkins suggested that this be a completion bond so there is
facing the bay.
Jeannette noted:
• The MND is lacking and he agrees with the comments.
• He agreed 'to re- analyze the architecture based on Commission comm
and allow time for staff to fix the MND and recirculated for public review
comment, after which time we can seek final guidance from the Commis
Lepo agreed.
Hawkins asked if they would consider turning the MND into an EIR.
Jeannette said they would not consider it.
Chairperson Cole thanked the applicant and commended them for the detail of
proposed project.
Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissic
Peotter to continue this item to April 5th to allow time for the MND issues to
addressed and revisions to the building design be completed.
Page 17 of 18
Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren
Noes: None
Abstain : None
x + x
SUBJECT: Mile Gateway, LLC ITEM NO. 4
100 -600 West Coast Highway PA2006 -279
for Comprehensive Sign Program CS2006 -012 for the previou
d Be[ Mare Shopping Center. In addition, the Planning Commission will
g the project's 'landscape plan and evaluating proposed refinements
elevations to determine their substantial conformance with the aooro%
�pyes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren
Noes: None
bstain: None
BUSINESS:
City Council Follow -up - Mr. Lepo reported that the Council adopted
resolution initiating additional or new regulations for residential
tinued to
uncertain
BUSINESS
0.347
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnARendas /mn02- 22- 07.htm 08/07/2007