Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
16 - AERIE Project - Project Overview
I 1. 7 0 201 -207 Carnation Avenue Corona del Mar, California May 8, 2006 (Revised February 15, 2007) Submitted to: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach; CA 92663 Prepared for: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc 23792 Rockfield Blvd., Suite 100 Lake Forest, CA 92630 David Lepo, Planning Director Jim Campbell, Senior Planner Prepared by: Brion Jeannette Architecture 470 Old Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 i 1 1 Aerial View �� � "°ice+"* `vY` � \�' ��v �v� B,� % � ✓ �'�"� � ' �! it 0�� 9 •. v� CJ �..i"_ "".' ..r /FY >,f �T>, ji Del alai "e 1; i 9i wq s> �3 0 vp 5 _ : 7 at 1 �.°i u 1 I I 0 iV g- �p nfrl Idps_ 1 L Civil Engineer: Hunsaker & Associates 3 Hughes Irvine, CA 92618 (949) 583 -1010 Consultants: 0 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 Karman, Suite 240 Irvine, CA 92714 (949) 474 -0502 2 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. 4`" Floor Orange, CA 92868 (714) 835 -4447 Coastal Hazard Study: GeoSoils Inc. 5741 Palmer Way, Suite D Carslbad, CA 92010 (760) 438 -3155 0 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 Karman, Suite 240 Irvine, CA 92714 (949) 474 -0502 2 I I 3 Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. ..............................5 A. REQUEST .................................................................................. ..............................5 B. DISCUSSION ............................................................................ ............................... 5 11. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION ........................................... ............................... 6 A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................... ..............................: 6 B. MFR ZONING OVERLAY .......................................................... ............................... 7 C. PROJECT FEATURES .............................................................. ............................... 8 D. VICINITY MAP ................ ........................... ............................... 9 1 E. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: .......................................................................... 10 111. COASTAL BLUFF .......................................................................... .............................11 A. COASTAL BLUFF PRESERVATION .......................................... .............................11 VI. COASTAL RESOURCE PROTECTION .......................................... .............................23 A. ENDANGERED OR PROTECTED HABITAT SPECIES ............. .............................24 B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW ........................................ .............................25 B. PREDOMINANT LINE OF DEVELOPMENT ............................... .............................12 C. BUILDING MASS: .................................................................................................... 14 - D. PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT ON OCEAN BLVD. & CARNATION AVE ..............14 A. 1. Furthest Line of Development toward the Bay from Street Curb ..........................15 2. The Furthest Line of Development from the Bluff Edge: ....................................... 16 B. 3. Closest Line of Development as it Relates to Mean Low Tide: ............................. 17 E. CLASSICAL STRINGLINE INTERPRETATION .......................... .............................18 ' F. SUMMARY ................................................................................. .............................18 27 IV. BUILDING SITE COVERAGE ......................................................... .............................19 27 V. PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION .......................................... .............................19 III. Tsunami and Seiche :.............................................................. .............................28 A. PUBLIC VIEW ACCESS ............................................................. .............................20 IV. Coastal Hazards: ................................................................................................. B. VERTICAL AND LATERAL PUBLIC ACCESS ............................ .............................21 V. Bluff Erosion: ....................................................................................................... C. CREATION OF ADDITIONAL PUBLIC STREET PARKING ....... .............................23 VI. COASTAL RESOURCE PROTECTION .......................................... .............................23 A. ENDANGERED OR PROTECTED HABITAT SPECIES ............. .............................24 B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW ........................................ .............................25 E. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ..............................................:...... .............................30 Vlll. MODIFICATION TO FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS ............................31 IX. SUMMATION .................................................................................. .............................31 I I C. PALEONTOLOGICAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES .....25 D. WETLANDS ................................................................................ .............................26 - VII. GENERAL GEOLOGIC SETTING .................................................. .............................27 A. GENERAL B. .................................................................................. .............................27 BEDROCK FORMATION ............................................................ .............................27 C. SEISMIC HAZARDS ................................................................... .............................27 I. Liquefaction: ........................................................................................................ 27 It. Earthquake Induced Landslides: .......................................................................... 27 III. Tsunami and Seiche :.............................................................. .............................28 IV. Coastal Hazards: ................................................................................................. 28 V. Bluff Erosion: ....................................................................................................... 28 VI. Surface Rupture and Strong Ground Motion: ....................................................... 28 D. EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS ............................................ .............................29 E. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ..............................................:...... .............................30 Vlll. MODIFICATION TO FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS ............................31 IX. SUMMATION .................................................................................. .............................31 I I I EXHIBITS ATTACHMENTS APPENDICES 1. Applications for Tentative Map, General Amendment, Zone Change, Lot Line Adjustment, Coastal Residential Development Permit, and Modification Permit UK 2. Notice of Intent for Mitigate Negative Declaration s 3. Staffs Comments 4. Letter from Coastkeeper regarding water quality management plan I I 4 A. Tide Planes and Tidal Datum Relationship S. Slope Analysis prepared by Hunsaker & Associates C. Setback Exhibit D. Aerial View with Proposed Development 1 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. J. Allowable Building She Coverage Public View K. Coastal Views Map 4 -3 of the Coastal Land Use Plan 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 UK 2. Notice of Intent for Mitigate Negative Declaration s 3. Staffs Comments 4. Letter from Coastkeeper regarding water quality management plan I I 4 n 5 ' 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. 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 small 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 to an 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 mufti - 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 B. 7 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 December 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 slips and a gangway. 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 (hum Califomia 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) [3 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 UNIT 4 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/ Spa/ Restrooms/ 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) 1� 1 r r D. VICINITY MAP .MFR��? R -2 V �" ry 9� . Subject Property MFR ?iS r rye, �O : �'�' ,� ��p f? �? • . On 1 L � GEIFi'� op F R-1 IV MEN met, 201 — 207 Carnation Avenue Tentative Tract Map 16862, Lot Line Adjustmerit, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Modification Permit Subject Property: Multi- Family Residence (MFR) & R -2 request change to MFR zone To the north: (Carnation Ave.) Mufti- Family Residence (MFR) To the north: (Bayside 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 N 'J L 10 iE. 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. I Zoning Code Existing Proposed Development Mod. Requirement Development Request 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" Avg. 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. Units 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) auto lift) (2 golf cart) Height Limit 28' -0" / 32' -0" 24' -0" 28' -0" / 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. I 11 Ill. 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 CLUP 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, Pacf6o Drive, Camation 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 fleet 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 B. 12 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 CLOP continues: 4.2.3-8 Coastal Bluffs (Preservation) Prohibit development on bluff faces, "except' private development on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard and Camation 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. PenWt such improvements only when no feasible altemative 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.) 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 lime (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). 13 Where principal structures exist on coastal bluff faces" along Ocean Blvd. and Camation 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. See pages 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. Reference: Establishing development setbacks from coastal bluffs by Mark Johnsson, Calfomia Coastal Staff Geologist, dated January 18, 2003 Slone Stabi /1t1: Once the bluff edge is located, the first aspect to consider in establishing development setbacks hrnn the bluff edge is determine whether the existing coastal bluff meets minimum requirements for slope stability. If the answer to this question is "yes", then no setback is necessary for slope 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.) C. IIa 14 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. 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 distance from the curb at Ocean Boulevard or Carnation Avenue to the furthest line of development toward Newport Bay. r 1 15 1. Furthest Line of Development toward the Bay from Street Curb Diagram A r STREET CURB CARNATION AVEJ DECW POOL :OCEAN SLVO. IAI BUILDING CURB DISTANCE FROM M CURB TOWARD BAY MEAN S LOW TIDE �SULXNEAD POOU DECK DISTANCE IFROM CUf TOWARD BAY I li 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. 277' -7" 314' -3" * 2501 Ocean Blvd./ 2495 Ocean Blvd. 1081-51, 215' -7" lower deck 201 -207 Carnation (PIO) 111'- 8"_(Avg) 126' =10" (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 t i i1:=1 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 B ( A ) ( B ) Address Building Distance from Bluff Ede i STREET CURB 101 Dahlia BLUFF EDGE --___- I 2525 Ocean Blvd. 192' -1" (Avg.) CPRNATION AVE 2501 Ocean Blvd./ 2495 Ocean Blvd. OEM POOL- OCEAN BLVD. 201 -207 Carnation:(PIQ) 26'-3" (Avg.) SURDWG DISTANCE 215 Carnation Ave. 24' -9" (A) FROM BWFFEOGE TOWARD BAY BULKHEAD 11' -8" 19' -2" -i MFJ N LOW TIDE 1 POW DECK DISTANCE (B) PROM BLUFF EDGE TOWARD BAY ii Table B ( 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" (Av_g.) 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. 1 1 17 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 Table C ( A ) ( B ) Address Edge of Bldg. to MLT BLUFFEDGE -� 2525 Ocean Blvd. CURB Deck beyond MLT 2501 Ocean Blvd./ 2495 Ocean Blvd. 37' -10" (Avg.) 21'-4" (Avg.) ,L�REET ATION AVE. 127' -8" (Avg.) 107' -0" (Avg.) 101 Bayside Place 61' -6" �� N BLVD. 103 Bayside Place 17' -11" from bulkhead BAY DE PLAGE 105 Bayside Place 16'-4" from bulkhead To Bulkhead BULKHEPD, 10' -7" from bulkhead To Bulkhead MEAN LOW TIDE �] I BUILDING DIOiANCEDISiANCE AS TT RELATES TO BULKHEADAS RRELATES TO BULKHEAD XI- POOL/DECKDIBTANCEAS R RELATES TO MEAN LOW TIDE B. W ILDINO DISTANCE AS R RELATER TO MEAN LOW TIDE A Table C ( A ) ( B ) Address Edge of Bldg. to MLT Edge of Deck to MLT 2525 Ocean Blvd. 34` -9" (Avg.) Deck beyond MLT 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.) 11 ' Results: ' 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.) 1 1 I 1 I3 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. 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.) 1 1 I 1 I3 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. 1 19 1 1 IV. BUILDING SITE COVERAGE The building site coverage (building footprint less overhangs) is a calculation that 1 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) 1 11 hJ 1 1 L 1 1 1 Address Lot size Allowable BSC Allowable Actual BSC in In square feet BSC in percentage percentacle 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 % 24.80% 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 l: Allowable Building Site Coverage) V. PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION 1 Taken from Newport Beach CLUB 3.1 Shoreline and Bluff Top Access 1 Coastal Act policies related to shoreline and bluff top access that are relevant to Newport Beach include the following: 1 30210. In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California 1 Constitution, maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and 1 20 recreational opportunities shall be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public tights, 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: ' (See Exhibit J. Public View) (See Exhibit K: Coastal Views Map 4-3 of the Coastal Land Use Plan) (1) Topographic and geologic site characteristics. (2) The capacity of the site to sustain use and at what level of intensity. (3) The approptiateness of limited public access to the tight to pass and repass depending an 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 comer 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) B. 21 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. CLOP 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 OM. 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 grading, 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 dangerous 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. 22 Excerpt from CCC Staff Report dated November 20, 2003 Application No.: 5- 03421(Approved) ' Project Location: 103 Bayside Place, Newport Beach (2 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, 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: Appilcation No.: 5-02-M3 (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: • Proied Deschiolion: 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 The public access currently exists at the subject site. nearest public access exists at Bayside Drive Beach approximately Y4 mile northwest of the subject site and at Corona del Mar State Beach, approximately X 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: Appilcation No.: 5-02-M3 (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: 23 ' Subject: Addendum to item Tues 4c, Coastal Commission Permit Application 4502 -083 (Brigands) for the Commission Meeting of September 10, 2002 ' parking wherever feasible. • Neither vertical nor lateral public access exists on the subject property. In garage and that onto Carnation creating a addition, there is no established lateral public access in the vicinity. curb cut of approximately I I V in length. This property currently allows for 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 Sheriff / 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 sheet 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 amass 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. (See Exhibit L: Coastal Access and Recreation Map 3-1 of the Coastal Land ' Use Plan) 1 VI. COASTAL RESOURCE PROTECTION 7 L C. CREATION OF ADDITIONAL PUBLIC STREET PARKING Chapter 3 of the CLUP recommends: °Dose curb cuts to create public parking wherever feasible. The new project presently has nine (9) carports and a standard two (2) car back directly Avenue driveway garage and that onto Carnation creating a curb cut of approximately I I V in length. This property currently allows for one on street panting 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 7 L 24 i A. ENDANGERED OR PROTECTED HABITAT SPECIES Reference from CLOP: 4.1.1 Description of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat 'List The California Department of Fish and Games (CDFG) of Califomia Tarrasb-W 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 ihighly limited distribution. These rare communities may or 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 in Southern California. This is the sensitive resource species within 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 iplant or animal species. i (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) i i I i B. 113 ` ;1 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 public 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: Aene Residential Project) PALEONTOLOGICAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES Reference Tram CLUP: 4.5 Paleontological Cultural Resources Cultural or palsorrAftIcal 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. I J 7 L 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 P 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). Then: 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 Impact Mitigation Program to offset any impacts. (Reference: August 2005, P&D Consultants, Environmental Information Form: Aerie Residential Project) 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, Aene Residential Development Tentative Tract Map No. 16882, P&D Consultants, Letter to Planning Director, City of Newport Beach, January 31, 2006. ) 27 ' Vll. GENERAL GEOLOGIC SETTING ' A. GENERAL ' 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. From a geologic and geotechnical engineering standpoint, the site is considered suitable for the proposed development. It is our opinion that the rI. 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. I r— C. SEISMIC HAZARDS Seismic Hazards have been reviewed relative to the development on this site. rI. L9uefaction: 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 (MSL) 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 descending the development slopes from proposed expose with resistant sandstone of the Monterey formation. Extensive through - going, low angle discontinuities within the dense massive sandstone bedrock are absent. Literature I r— I 1 I 1 i 1 1 I I r L 1 IV 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 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 (MSL). (Refer to: October 5, 2006, GeoSo#s Inc, Coastal Hazard Study for New Development at 201 — 207 Carnation, 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 FE 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,OOOt years (Holocene age). 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 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. 30 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 storing 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) I I L1 1 r— L 1 1 Vlll. IX. 31 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 Y -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 7'-6" at ground level and bekhw grade. The project setback of 5' exceeds all other properties in the area. The project meets the required front yard setback of 10' -0". The project architect is requesting a 5' encroachment for the subterranean parking at Camation Avenue. This same 5' encroachment was granted to 215 Carnation Avenue for subterranean parking (ref: Modification Permit #MD2001 -106). The approved modification was reviewed by the Planning Commission. The project design exceeds the required rear yard setback of 10' with a proposed setback of 212'. 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. iYA • 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 • 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. 33 EXHIBITS I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 34 Fide Pfanes gAd Tidal Datum Relationshins (U.S. Survey Foot) The chart below displays tidal datums for benchmark TIDAL -INP located at Newport Bay Entrance and are based on the following: Length of series 19 years Time Period 1960 -1978 Tidal Epoch 1960 -1918 Control Tide Station 1 sr Reduction HWMdHW Water 7.86' i tbaR6aandio or fteW Wider Mew= law S� Mid Water SAW i Man Fffeh Water 4.65' Lima U$ PubSe Lands Man Reap HM ltdes Luna Puebb ar Retda after MtUK I�jp Sd lead 2.76' unat Slate paw of P*& tanas (N9! 2fX —OF' � (Ciup Code tLRn) Mean New Lew tides UM11 U.S. Pled to idM" per N TEWCOM riot —10- Men Low Watr o.93' ZI UMR U.S. pa0ant m kWwadnd par state MeadU t.oW w.w aoo' MM m U -Mis)j Tiaeweas rnaery •i �J de y Lowest ldw Welty Z.14' Su MxWd Lands Thoary #1 7 SUL�merge0 Landrs 11nanY ¥2 l Theory #1 - Tidelands lie between mean high and mean of low neap tides. Theory #2 - Tidelands lie between mean of all high and mean of all low tides. Information was talm front 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 2 + AN_ P, DATE IDEMFIEP, 1� LEGEND: TOTAL SITE AREA = 61,284 S.F. /1.4 ACRES L)aS PING BULI]IN(: PAL) ;13,485 S.F. /J.3 ACRE) SLOPE AREA LESS T-+AN SOX 21,362 S.F. /0.5 ACRE) SLOPE AREA GREATER THAN SOX (15.146 S.F. /0.3 ACRE) Op AREA UND €R MEAN LOW TIDE ELZVATION (11,283 S.F. /O.3 ACRE) • WEAN LOW TQ (ICAN LOW WAICRi ELLVATIM - 0.74' 4AYM DAI (0.8Y TIDAL DATUM) GIUYHtC 5C.1LF PREPARED FOR: ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES 22714 EL TORO ROAD. LAKE F'ORES -1 CA 9263D PREPARED BY: ®HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES I R V I N F I N C PLANNING LNONCCR NG • SURVEY'NG Ilree : k,h irvve, CA 9260 . rlt 19A9 iAJ -,OA: • R 1919) '4}0 7,9 SLOPE ANALYSIS EXHIBIT CORONA DEL MAR EXHIBIT B NEWPORT BAY 2525 OCEAN BLVD. LINE OF AVERAGE / BUILDING DEVELOPMENT LINE OF AVERAGE -� POOL& DECKS r� ffl . im 101 DAHLIA AVE. / / / 01 BAYSIDE PL. / EXISTING CONCRETE PAD,j; / CANTILEVER BUILDING 314'2 s =. fx� I I I I r I z ci J m Z LU w U O �, l GSA �\1 ' "',y ' \ p i4 i \ n5 ate, 2�1�' �����4£ 1j➢3 BAYSIDE PLACE STREET CURB LINE r¢4 201 -207 215 I� 221 .,CARNATION -'spy= CARNATION I ICARNATION 11 r PIO SUN >� I CARNATION AVE. -STREET CURB LINE PREDOMINANT LINE OF DEVELOPMENT MEDIAN DISTANCE FROM STREET CURB TO FURTHEST LINE OF DEVELOPMENT TOWARDS BAY EXHIBIT E SCALE: V= 60' -0- Z OQ Q Z W (r wQ wUQ < r� z op N w O N 8 3 � i 1 � � a r &9 � 5 = ftl m 1 3 _ �g f O} � Q mmm U � w NW LL F_ W Z mO,:2 = a LLLJ W O U] Z W Q 0 H U) F 0 w Z W Q F_ FD D DECK ABOVE POOU SPA —� LINE OF AVERAGE -� POOL& DECKS DEVELOPMENT LINE OF AVERAGE — BUILDING DEVELOPMENT CANTILEVER 1 DECK ABOVE COLUMNS BELOW— TO SUPPORT DECKS,TYP. OUTLINE OF XIST''G BUILDING F--2-495--1 OCEAN BLVD. - BUILDING 314'2 s =. fx� I I I I r I z ci J m Z LU w U O �, l GSA �\1 ' "',y ' \ p i4 i \ n5 ate, 2�1�' �����4£ 1j➢3 BAYSIDE PLACE STREET CURB LINE r¢4 201 -207 215 I� 221 .,CARNATION -'spy= CARNATION I ICARNATION 11 r PIO SUN >� I CARNATION AVE. -STREET CURB LINE PREDOMINANT LINE OF DEVELOPMENT MEDIAN DISTANCE FROM STREET CURB TO FURTHEST LINE OF DEVELOPMENT TOWARDS BAY EXHIBIT E SCALE: V= 60' -0- Z OQ Q Z W (r wQ wUQ < r� z op N w O N 8 3 � i 1 � � a r &9 � 5 = ftl m 1 3 _ �g f O} � Q mmm U � w NW LL F_ W Z mO,:2 = a LLLJ W O U] Z W Q 0 H U) F 0 w Z W Q F_ FD D i ff L \� A- I \'� y- 'I BAYSIDE PLACE OUTLINE 41' i - ST(3 FXI ILPING, ESTIMATED BLUFF LINE ------------------ 2 zzi 201-20ATI 7 CARNATION CARNATION CARNATION PIO K CARNATION AVE. 2501 OCEAN BLVD. 2525 OCEAN BLVD. < LLI L) 0 PREDOMINANT LINE OF DEVELOPMENT - DAHLIA MEDIAN DISTANCE FROM BLUFF LINE TO FURTHEST LINE OF DEVELOPMENT TOWARDS BAY EXHIBIT F SCALE: I'= 60 - 0 z of p 0 < < 2 z -i Lu 0 Lu < c) z 0 oU cli >- I < m I 0 w z LL 0 LL F— z co I LL 2 F— 0 Fnaf 0 LL -i w Xw> wow Z < LL F— 0 co W F- oco W LLI 2i m: F— LL 101 ss IBAYSIDE PL. \ -fir . J MEAN LOW TIDE I 0.74' NAV088 r 2495 OCEAN BLVD. � i /,// � O s e4oq s?, O v / / p 2501 -1 OCEAN BLVD. CO Z 2525 Q OCEAN BLVD. W U \ 103 105 i BAYSIDE PL, BAYSIDE PL. \9 0 o r� sv � i lam: j CARNATION AVE. YSIDE 1 1 1 s N� m �! to ;o OCEAN BLVD. E I 1 it :r 1 TION I - - ---" - - I PREDOMINANT LINE OF DEVELOPMENT - MEDIAN DISTANCE FROM MEAN LOW TIDE TO CLOSEST LINE OF DEVELOPMENT TOWARDS BAY m EXHIBIT G SCALE: 1"= 40'- 0' OQ Q Z J W W D Q Z h 00 r0 i oU N LE' i�3€ E . s O Q �p (1 W Q 0 c t Q F { 00 i W Z LLI O m0 -j 1 of LU wwo U , QOLL ; t �Z ! Z� Q U 4 W 0 I 0 I �! � f / rI4 f t / .rte 101 103 105 BAYSIDE PL. BAYSIDE PL. BAYSIDE PL. ! l ✓ICS /`/:../ / / / //`� /J"�` 2495 OCEAN BLVD. ri p,T PROPOSED _(D) BUILDING BUILDING STRINGLINE 7 lB) 23, (A) _18 -- `✓mss �+ 4 J CD 'I L I 1 I I I r: J e _J BAYSIDE PL. BAYSIDE PLACE CARNATION AVE. PREDOMINANT LINE OF DEVELOPMENT \ \ t. r \ xr �r 221 CARNATION I � MINE�. ,.; ME I i AVERAGE CALCULATION FOR CLASSIC STRINGLINE SETBACK (A) 18.08' (B) 23.42' (C) 35.0' (D) 67.67' AVERAGE 3604' Z OOf Q� X w w wUQ Qf- Z °O %N ()� O O N ym y� pb y e 4 7i � fil u I } C y C f Ii '1 U Q CO f- w U) _w Z J CO (7 Z w F- U) U U) Q J U ll <o U1 O R 'o. / 6 / / / \ \ 101 BAYSIDE PLACE \ 814 / LOT SIZE: 14,814 ig S SF � BSC: 11,1195E 2495 OCEAN BLVD. LOT SIZE: 16,517 SF BSC: 13,3845E =81 °! 2501 OCEAN BLVD. LOT SIZE: 5,502 SF BSC: 3,943 SF =72% \ BAYSIDE PLACE 25040CEAN BLVD. LOT: 3,322 SF j / BSC: 2,058 SF = 62% / ------- - - - - -- IIALLOWABLE BUILDING SITE COVERAGE EXHIBIT SCALE: 1'= 40'- 0" O QQ Q C W Of W wUO Q t-- Z 0 N It oU 04 J2 E 2 31 E � s I m s13 m o � ; e W W 0 U W _H m Q) Z XJ W m W J m 0 J Q J 2495 nfr MAKI Di vn OUTLINE OF EXISTING BULIDING PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED DECK �� ff•�� �\ 2 �V �Q OTC Q� O �t \\ i 2501 OCEAN BLVD u rte' ry I' I IJ PUBLIC VIEWPOINT: PROJECT TO PROVIDE NEW PARK BENCH AND DRINKING FOUNTAIN FOR PUBLIC USE Z Ici w J Om _r- 201 -207 CARNATION PIQ y� � l I I a��M� a I I I I CARNATION AVE II PUBLIC VIEV!! EXHIBIT J 20'. 0' c z OQ Q� Z J W� W WU� Q z op N Q. 'o N n 15 @ I z d c i!I c g ml C g C ¢I 8 9 W ED(.) W� a TURNING 'r� - <o C� o�i cy ,, l N UR ' ±����+ �'�>� sue_ � s ®e_I ��,■: ■s■ a ..1►� j��i PACIFIC City of Newport Beach, California (Harbor Area) :.w.., Local Coastal Program ' Coastal Land Use Plan AugusN2005 LCP05CoastaMewHarb m d C I q N NFL OCEAN PROJ SITE' A ' m Z A D Z n m Coastal Views Map 4 -3 (Map 3 of 3) LEGEND Care r ,ra way Proposed Park Public Beach or Park ",.1I -. ortr a i,y��ecad� NO RTH OMiles EXHIBIT K J Public View Point Coastal View Road Coastal Zone Boundary '�`.. City Boundary Shoreline Height Limitation Zone Care r ,ra way Proposed Park Public Beach or Park ",.1I -. ortr a i,y��ecad� NO RTH OMiles EXHIBIT K J I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - -- ♦ A" y i 4 04 11�q-- FA- City of Newport Beach, California (Harbor Area) :�j µy Local Coastal Program ` Coastal Land Use Plan Z m r Coastal Access and Recreation: Map 3 -1 (Map 3 of 3) LEGEND P8 Public Beach Location A Public Beach Access Location L Potential Access Point `%F Coastal Zone Boundary ti Lateral Access Potential Lateral Access Vertical Access Blufftop Access Potential Blufftop Access �L City Boundary Proposed Park K Public Beach or Park C "' 0 Pacific d.�an w NORTH EXHIBIT L I D u 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . • .N litions for Tentative Map, General Iidment, Zone Change, Lot Line justment, Coastal Residential ipment Permit, and Modification Permit it I �Ewro4, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Application: a� F COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT ' `K N� �11 U Cyr �a,,.•'r 3300 NEWPORT BOUt,EVARD �U � m\,* -J NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92658 t_ _C „y4 ;_ 1 (949) 644 -3200: FAX 1949) 644 -3250 YJx L2J� PART I: Cover Page Proiect Common Name (if anolicable): Aerie ❑ Use Permit No. • Planning Director's Use Permit No. • G.P.A./Amendment No • Variance No. CI Tmov2,C en4�� 1�^�1c�tnq�i,Z°nQ sa LDtlivu � ^; 8 YDQe) FEES: To j wt COYJW - APPLICANT (Print): Advanced Real Estate Seruices,Inc. CONTACT PERSON (if different): Brion Jeannette Architecture Mailing Address: 22974 E) Toro Road Lake Forest, CA 92630 Mailing Address: 470 Old Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Contact: Robb Cerruti Contact: Ainy Creager Phone:(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) (APN 052 - The Caryll Mudd Sprague Trust (APN. 052-013-12) and Robert R. Sprague Living Trust 013 -21) Mailing Address: 470 Old Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Phone: ( 949) 645 -5854 Fax ( 949 ) 645 -5983 201 & 205 Carnation Avenue.,, Newport Beach, CA 92625 (APN 052 - 013 -13); PROJECT ADDRESS: 209. Carpation Avenue; Newport Beach; -CA 92625 (APN 052- 13 -12); 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 boundaryes for APNs 052 - 013 -12, 052 - 013 -13 & 052- 013 -21 so that the 1 general• plan land use designations and zoning boundaries are consistent with the proposed Aerie.residential development project boun ZY- ROPERTY OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT � �epo e sa property(ies) involved in -this application. (I) (We) further ce rtify, under o answers herein contained and the;information herewith submitted are in I spe s knowledge and belief Signatures) 1 %that (I am) (we are) the owner(s) of the ierjury, 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. PART I1: Project Data Sheet Project Common Name: Application Number(s): Aerie Zoning Code Requirement Project AddresslLocation: 2011, 205 &. 207 Assessors Parcel Number(s): Carnation Avenue, Newport Beach & a 052- 013 -12, 052 - 013 -13 & 052- 013 -21 portion of 101 Baysi a Place, Newport 132 FT.'Avg; ;. Legal Description (Attach on separate sheet, if necessary): Be i ng a portion of Block D of boron del Mar, as shown on a map recorded in Book 3, Pages 41 and 42 of Miscellaneo Maps, Records of Orange County, California. 373.83 FT Avg. Existing Land Use: Vacant,, mul ti -fami ly Proposed Land Use: structure & single - family residence .. Multi- family residential Zoning District: MFR & R -2 Land Use Designation: ISFA, 8 FT TFR & MER 3 Existing Development Proposed Development Zoning Code Requirement Lot Area (sf) 60;697 SF 61,282 SF 5,000 SF Lot Width (R) 132 FT.'Avg; ;. 132.79. FT Avg. 50 FT Lot Depth (R) 373 FT Avg. 373.83 FT Avg. Setback Yards Front (R) 8 FT 10 FT- Above. ground FT - Side (R) 5 FT 5 FT /7 FT- 6 inche 8 %dof Avg. lot Bayside Place -Side .18 FT 10 FT - 7 inches 8% idtoh f Avg. Idt w Rear (ft) 226 FT 212 FT - 2 inches 10 FT Gross Floor Area(sf). �; � tt � slpngle- ai . 74,533 SF 76,250.82SEEmax. Buildable Area 1.5 X BA 50,833.88 5F Building Coverage (°i°) governs a e area ul coverage minus setbacks Building Height (ft). O' —C MAX 28 FT/ 32 FT 28 FT /32 FT Landscaping ( %) N/A N/A Paving ( %) N/A N/A Parking 9 covered Zb 18- resa /7cguests 23 parrking spaces h 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 1 '-apartment 1-single dwelling 9 units 1 9.6 units 3 Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' Proposed ' Lot Line Adjustment APN 052 - 013 -21 COT 0 - W / Z 1 I APN 052- 013 -13 I i 1 0& Oj� �P P� L Off, �LF� F�ti CAF I �N Legend ' ® MFR - Multi - Family Residential G r TFR • Two-Family Residential fF PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: C[ICWA � /A DVANCED ' L WM9LY4, ' ev vev .m. �w com PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory Proposed Zoning ' CITY OF NEWPORT BENCH Proposed Lot Line Adjustment ' APN 052 - 013 -21 Q- 9q PS 2, w O�1 APN 052- 013 -13 Q� L � � Fyti ' Legend ® MFR - Multi - Family Residential iR -2 • Two - Family Residential i ' PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.r)dffactoFy.com I i TENTATIVE MAP APPLICATION No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Application R ;c d by: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Fee: $ G' f: OR $ per 3300 Newport Boulevard lot (whichever is greater) P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 (714) 644 -3200 APPLICANT (Print) Advanced Real Estate Serviaes, Inc. PHONE . (949) 595 -5900 MAILING ADDRESS 22974 E1 Toro Road, Lake Forest, CA 92630 Corona Cove Partners (APN 052 - 013 -13) The Caryll Mudd Spraque Trust PROPERTY OWNER JAPN 052 - 013 -12) & Robert R. Sprague Living pH.ON1 f949) 645 -5854 MAILING ADDRESS 470 Old Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 ADDRESS OF PROPERTY INVOLVED 201 Carnation Avenue, 205 Carnation Avenue, 20: .Carnat,aon 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 W sc:ellaneous 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. ■� J Sign tur o Own, r r' / Date Signature of Applicant or Agent v Date ' DO 'NOT COMPLETE APPLICATION BELOW THIS LINE a„1 WA05 10:40 9495443229 CNB PLANNING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION (CRDP) PAGE 01 ' Planning Department Application Number 3300 Newport Boulevard Application Received by Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 Fee (949) 644 -3200 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. 1 I I PART A Do Not Complete Without Owner's Affidavit On Page 3 . a i�.a_ tsla... -311 �i�ad ' e r � - �• - Mailing ) Property Address of rr- Involved 5- M e&tsim e_' . N �.- 7e Legal Description of -.- Involved rr long, attach '-. G3 :n; 1`` C J k?._ i�F� !,: ►_ ' ,• • 4 b _ \ !' -tom - Number of Residential Structures Currently Onsite I &)Nk i -V / 1 tftAH -'C tkiCr- Number of Residential Structures to be Demolished/Converted &U_ 16 fft t laWL \31iF� Number of Residential muits. Currently Onsite 14- UN11" / 1 Asa Number of Residential Units to be Demolished/Converted ku- Te It&- L r lotaSHt� Number of Residential Units in each Structure A Number of Residential Units in each Structure to be Demolished/Converted A11A) W-- tx1-� P Description of the Proposed New .Development N1:i4 q- A41 l 12 gICa1TIR1 Miu iUM K111N 9t1f3TFK1eAl.11 =at,l i'PrKI;IfJ(��11rrn�e�,. .. Number of Residential Units Proposed `j- tUq nYgj)DMiglat4 If the structure is being demolished as a public nuisance as delisted by the State Health and' Safety Code or City Ordinance; describe those factors causing the existing residential unit to ' constitute a nuisance. (Attach additional sheets if necessary) M/A 1 & ** DO NOT COMPLETE APPLICATION BELOW THIS LINE * ** Planning .Department Determination Date Filed _ Chapter 20.86 Not Appli.cahle Chapter 20.86 Applicable ' Part 13 Not Required : Part B Required Determination by I I LOUD 1G: 4G ' 47b443ZZ' J I PART B ' If proposal is for non- residen additional sheets i'fneccssary). I L IdYG rLANVINU FIAUL 02 Application Number use, why is a residential use no longer feasible on this site: (attach List of all current tenants (soe definition below). Tenant Name i ?&51 Current Residence Number of Bedrooms Business Address Mailing Address Tenant Name Current Residence Number of Bedrooms Business Address Mailing Address Tenant Name 111 f� Current Residence Number of Bedrooms :Business Address Mai -ling Address C_t)12�iI � cal— sccU-- Date of Tenancy Phone ( ) Current Monthly Income Phone!_ 1 Date of Tenancy Phone.( Current Monthly Income Date of Tenancy Phone L Current Monthly Income ATTACH ADDITIONAL 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: 1. Tenant Name J�:l( f -V Date Tenancy Began Address from which Evicted Monthly .Income at Time of Eviction Number of Bedrooms Residence Address Phone Business Address Pl)one L_ Mailing Address Court Name Court Address Case Number Case Name Description of case or action. taken to cause eviction TenantName W& _ Address .from which Evicted Monthly Income at Time of )eviction Residence Address Business Address Mailing Address Court Name Cou Case Number Case Name Description of case or action taken to cause eviction _ Date Tenancy Address ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY of Bedrooms Phone ( Page 2 of 3 ' 1111005 10:40 9496443229 CNE PLANNING PAGE 03 Application Number Tenants: For the purpose of this application the City of Newport Beach considers atl 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 A"IDAVIT* (I) (We) -�3M Lt-�ekf- AAWnZ & 1 I depose and say that (I am) (we are) the owner(s) of the pmperty(ies) involved in this application. (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) *NOTE: 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, Receipt No. Hearing Date: Posting Date Mail Date P.C. Action Date Appeal C.C. Hearing C.C. ,action Date P3nl:harcdlformskWp 1 Page 3 of 3 i I HUNSAKER &ASSOCIATES I R V I N E, I N C. 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. PLANNING ENGINEERING August 12, 2005 single family, residence located at 207 Carnation Avenue and the 14 -unit vacant SURVEYING apartment building located at 201 and 205 Carnation Avenue. The existing structures ..GOVERNMENT RELATIONS will be demolished as part of the grading and site preparation for the proposed multi - FRED GRAYLEE family building with nine condominium units and its corresponding subterranean Ms. Patricia Temple parking, freight lift, swimming pool, multi - purpose room, wine cellars and patio areas. PAUL HUDDLESTON IRVINE Planning Director DOUGLAS L. STALEY LOS ANGELES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH concurrently . processed to reconfigure the ownership lines for assessor parcel RIVERSIDE 3300 Newport Boulevard SAN DIEGO Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 previously submitted to the ,City of Newport Beach in November of 2004 and has Subject: Aerie — Proposed Multi- family Residential Development with the project's other applications. Furthermore, to reconfigure the area's general Tentative Tract Map 16882, General Plan Amendment plan land use designations and zoning into one consistent land use designation and 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 Carnation Avenue and the 14 -unit vacant apartment building located at 201 and 205 Carnation Avenue. The existing structures DAVID FRATTONE will be demolished as part of the grading and site preparation for the proposed multi - FRED GRAYLEE family building with nine condominium units and its corresponding subterranean BRADLEY HAY parking, freight lift, swimming pool, multi - purpose room, wine cellars and patio areas. PAUL HUDDLESTON 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 concurrently . processed to reconfigure the ownership lines for assessor parcel JOSEPH E. WIGHTMAN 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 Mufti- Family Three Hughes Residential from Single Family Attached and Two - Family Residential to Mufti- Family Residential. The project's zone change will adjust the zoning boundary of the small Irvine, California triangle portion to be added to the project site with the lot line adjustment by 92618 -2021 (949) 583 -1010 PH (949) S83 -0759 F% www.hunsaker.com I o°� Ms. Patricia Temple � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ®� August 14, 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, HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES IRVINE, INC. ��a Ted D. Frattone ■ Planning & Government Relations TF:hb xc: Robb Cerruti, Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. Rick Julian, Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. Amy Creager, Brion Jeannette Architecture Kim Svitenko, P &D Consultants Phil Dowry, H&A W.O. 0751 -5 (tic1wo10751 -5 L01- tf.doc) MODIFICATION PERMIT APPLICATION PL.ANNINGDEPARTMENT SUbMJj g•t10.�5 aol Cosv\0M«na aoSCr von , ao-1 Co�rc Project Address: Grt& a �DeiFiore 6�- Iol nj a hlnce . owria. Cwe � (>n o5a- a3 -t3) [ke Can�1l rtYud d sprogae T�.,� Name(s) of Owner(s): (W4 r52- OI3 -I2} ta• Kulc . R SaM&Ue- 4irinJkTU5-E.(&U62- U3- -zt} iT 1 Owner's mailing address Nu be4� Lo43 ® Phone Number . , P Owner s Email �MUM s`s Applica sal am .� n� gx t, Applit att sim "Iling address`a ` p .. J� i �, T1�y{�f .tf,,�'`nh } #` ..� �yF Y; 1C a �itr 'ir 4� '%•"Y -T " t- Ib'` t'1� Y'' � ®1,((i Y �y"! QW Att*"` i rt`{ �J �R..y`� 4t .e C �• i,i'r; Phone Number I`Fr5 'at�pr 5 u i. Fa J , ma z 2 1 _s -- r.:=� ! Contacts ^Name e Contacts mailing address kar " 1 a ry sc K 1 j. Phone Numbei`t r m" Numlie Contact's Email Address '`'• `.PROPER ©WNE S FIDAUIT , r (1) (We) W. Attnshed, �} ' ....... � d P.o e and say that (I am) (we are) nv the owner(s) of the property (ies) Iol�ecLin this, - 'P5i e) 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. I! Signature(s) Please Print C�'ea�e� NOTE: An agent may sign for the owner if written authorization from the record owner is filed with the application. F: \USERS \PLN\Shared \Forms \New Forms\ Applications \Modapplication.doc Dated 05 -05 -05 I D d 1 '(319E Std I J 1 I J Project Description and Justification (describe briefly): erot) SD t�. P, rteu,) nnu-lt6 -ti hikk- 9- IAn64, YP5("AAA O A (DYt MLd niurot Wi�1 RA JEyr ran D/1r�r�G "01 Work to be done: DemACsh FXisit'ha Wnib NA an UjEbo� :qno e �wu,`t -1. hDtM_. �"n htAil(�l a y1QUJ CGClrltmtinium p - Code ;Re ulremea.,. } Rwst n I -i Q" osed ` Front setback tJ' - ^O't . 4 ^, t Vfai., lo'A'r', Right side setback s FAY .lA'L lct „ `T,. 1\' `_ > . • lo' @6i amp Lam# side setbaoic k o Rear setback Main bwldin 6 aatea Ik 13.4$1 SO, � Garage area. Open s ace k Parkinq spaces CPIfiti y- - _ 5Ta1RlCh)ee£D:' ��I Buildin Height _t ' -Cl - O" _RRPsl" Irw r-_ Iauests uate oeemeo compiete Hearing date: Submittal Date Posting /Mailing date: Zoning Administrator's Action: Fee Paid: Date of Zoning Administrator's Actiom Receipt #: Coastal Zone: ❑ Yes ❑ No General Plan Designation: Form of Payment: Zoning District: Check # (if applicable) IFAUSERSIPLN\SharedlForms\New Formsl ApplicationslModapplication.doc Dated 05 -05 -05 or— I I 11 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, 20047-all Modification Permit,Applications received in the Planning Department shall include a written` applicant's statement addressin'g•the three required findings listed below. Please note: Applications. submitted . without the accompanying may be deemed incomplete and may cause a delay in etappllcation preceAs. Required AdditionalInformatlon �ri ■ 5r Please provide'�a detailed. description of the proposed request in resat nach_of the, findings listed below. In addition, clea- state only the aective.reasonsJ r requesting Xa Modification Permit (attach additional sheets if necessary)' xtz Proiect Criteria: e >� A. Why�is the }�ranting\of this ''applicatlow -neces'sarytdue to_'practica('difficulties s ciated?i ith the property and wh�the_stnct application of the ZoningiCode'fesults iri physical hprdships inconsistent with,ttie pu' pose nd intent of the Zoning'Code ?- '.x 5 \ \ .J B. Howlwill' theyequ�esfed{ modifici�bepatiblewtexistngeoen (s)j`ntie eiglbohood? C. Flow and why will the grantQ of�such,Aan application not -Cadler ly affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in th� hiigh,, or od 4'f1be�p }Q erty nd not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious 6o property or impfovem� its in thg-neigtiborh od? s LI 1 For Office Use Only F:\USERS \PLN \Shared \Forms\New Forms\ Applications \Modapplication.doe Dated 05 -05 -05 I� 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 Staff's Comments I 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 Plan. 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. IThe Coastal Land Use Policies applicable to the Aerie Project are 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. I 1 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 the coastal resources. protecting 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. I 1 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 32 °, and the setback increases by 70 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 28132' building height across the full Camation 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, Exhibit E,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 altemative. Concern #6 4.4.3 -9 Where prirrclpal 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 I I I 1 I • 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 -05328 Elieff 5- 04466 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 I 1 Ll n I 11 1 H n 1 u 1 I u 1 SCALE: I"=20' m � I gill? m,, / /' NEW PROPERTY LINE OLD PROPERTY LINE A = BUILDABLE AREA VVITHIN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT B = SETBACK AREA WITHIN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT Al 0�- QOM / 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% `N� o Jc OQ Qr e,�, m® �e 9A �� • -------- - - - - -- - -- \ O� - -- - - -- 0.96 % �? a r � r r a + � PROJECT IN QUESTION mm I I 201 -207 CARNATION AVE. o j APN 052- 013 -13 1 • 1 ' .\ \ ®� 009 100010 9L •• `'� /o 40000 m �iGCO m \ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT EXHIBIT M i/00or O� �P GPI IBRION JEANNETTE ARCHITECTURE PROJECT: AERIE 5r-ALE: 410 OLD NEWPORT BLVD. N.B, GA 92665 g49.645.5854 DRAWING: LLA EXHIBIT DAIM /22/2006 % I E,1 �7 wk 4 4 V Ws� f" pio 0' A& ) nV 4W 0 4w * wb 104- 4 4A. er A� .m OL-, Oil PROROSED CORRIDOR EXISTING VI CORRIDOR I 7 %Oneil z z Lu Q uj Lj z 0 LLJ z 0 Z Fn w 1 > XU LLJ 7j CO IL I I I 1 r . 1 r 1 r r 5 -05- 328 - (Palermo] Regular Calendar Page 18 of 21 Appendix "A" A. 3431 Ocean Boulevard (Located 6 lots down -coast from the subled site):CDP No. 5 -01- 191- ITabakl 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 Droject would not have a cumulative were allowed below the 33 -foot elevation contour upon the lower bluff face.. 3431 Ocean Boulevard (Located 6 lots down -coast from the subject site)L.CDP No- 5-02 - y, 203- At- fTabaki At the March 2005 Commission Hearing, the Commission approved an Immaterial Amendment to Coastal Development Permit Application No. 5-02- 203- A1- [fabak] 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 habitable area would extend vast the approved line of 5 -05 -328- [Palermo] Regular Calendar Page 19 of 21 F-C). 3425 Ocean Boulevard (Located 5 lots down -coast from the subiect site): CDP No. 5-03 - i._.A_ 100- [Halfacre) At the January 2005 Commission Hearing, the Commission approved Coastal Development Permit Application No. 5 -03- 100- [Halfacrej 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 33 -foot 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 2od Floor decki on the seaward side of the existing single - family residence. The primary issues before Me 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 and Ene project would not have a cumulative adverse impact on E. 3415 Ocean Boulevard (Located 4 lots down -coast from subiect 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 stairway 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. I F1 3415 Ocean Boulevard (Located 4 lots down -coast from the subiect site): CDP NO. 5 -05- .k—. j 095 - [Circle) 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) story single family residence with an attached garage and comstruction 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 1 5` floor deck and a 383 square foot 2 "" Floor deck. The foundation for the residence consisted of a caisson and deepened conventional footings system. The primary concern before the 1 5-05- 328- [Paiermol 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 predominantline of development and would not affect public views and would be consistent with the hazarc es of the Coastal Act. THe s project propose iv�T able area aligned approximately with the 56 -foot elevation contour line, while the basement level deck did not extend ,eaward from approximately 46 -foot contour to the east and the approximately Sp -foot contour to the ;west, tt us t e projec was landward ot the Tabak and Hallacre prolec s. G. 3401 Ocean Boulevard (Located 3 lots down -coast from the subiect site): CDP NO. 5-01 - 199- tButterflebdl ' At the December 2001 Commission Hearing, the Commission approved in part and denied in part Coastal Development Permit Application No. 5 -01- 199 - [Butterfield] for the afterahe -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 the proposed sand pit cut -out *would not minimize alteration natural landfJrms, 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-rBattraml 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. I 1 APPENDIX 4 Letter from Coastkeeper regarding water quality management plan 1 1 1 1 I 0 I I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 February 9, 2007 Mr. David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Bleach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 COASTKEEPER EDUCATION / ADVOCACY / RESTORATION / ENFORCEMENT 3151 Airway Ave., Suite F -110 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 714.850.1965 Voice 714.850.1592 Fax www.mastkeepuorg 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. 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 1 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. 1 1 1 I,