Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2.0 - Aerie Project - PA2005-196
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 4, 2009 Agenda Item No. 2 SUBJECT: AERIE (PA 2005-196) 201-205 & 207 Carnation Avenue & 101 Bayside Place ■ General Plan Amendment No. GP2005-006 ■ Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2005-002 • Code Amendment No. CA2005-009 ■ Tract Map No. NT2005-004 (TT16882) ■ Modification Permit No. MD2005-087 ■ Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2005-002 ■ Environmental Impact Report No. ER200-002 APPLICANT: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. Richard Julian, President PLANNER: James Campbell, Principal Planner (949) 644-3210 icampbelll(cDcity.newport-beach.ca.us DISCUSSION This item was continued from the May 21, 2009, Planning Commission meeting. After taking public testimony on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and the project in general, the Commission discussed the project and requested the following: 1. Harbor Commission report and recommendation related to the proposed docks. 2. Posting of the Construction Management Plan on the internet. 3. Proposed project and Alternative A side-by-side comparison. 4. Draft resolution for recommendation of Alternative A. 5. List of necessary changes to the DEIR noted in the Responses to Comments or staff report. As noted in the prior staff report, the Harbor Commission considered the proposed AERIE dock structure on April 8, 2009. The Harbor Resources Division staff report and minutes of the April 8, 2009, meeting are attached (Exhibits #1 & #2). The appendix including the Construction Management Plan was posted to the internet on May 26, 2009, and can be found at the following page: http://www.citv.newport- beach.ca.us/PLN/Aerie Proiect/Aerie EIR.asp. Commissioner Eaton requested an item-by-item comparison of the proposed project and Alternative A. Staff has prepared a table comparing various aspects of the project and Alternative A (Exhibit #3). The applicant has prepared a table (Exhibit #4) which AERIE (PA 2005-196) June 4, 2009 Page 2 of 3 provides additional details. Both tables contain updated information on Alternative A. The applicant's estimates of the floor area, grading quantity, number of dump trucks and days of excavation used by staff and the City's consultant to prepare the analysis of Alternative A in the DEIR contained several inadvertent errors. The correct information is contained in Table 1. Table 1 Alternative A Alternative A Item Information in Corrected Difference DEIR information Gross floor area 49,362 sq. ft. 50,431 sq. ft. +1,069 sq. ft. Excavation Quantity 17,436 cu. yds. 18,578 cu. yds. +1,142 cu. yds. Number of dump trucks 1,454 trucks 1,549 trucks +95 trucks Excavation Duration 55 days 58 days +3 days The corrected increased values in Table 1 remain below the levels associated with the proposed project, which were evaluated in the DEIR. The corrected information provided in Table 1 does not represent any new impact or increase in the severity of an impact that was not identified or evaluated in the DEIR. Therefore, the inclusion of the corrected information in the DEIR will not require recirculation of the DEIR pursuant to CEQA (CCR §15088.5). In response to the Commission's request, staff has prepared a draft resolution recommending approval of Alternative A (Exhibit #5). It should be noted that the DEIR adequately evaluates the identified alternatives to the proposed project sh ould the Commission choose to recommend one of them. If the Commission identifies a different alternative than one evaluated in the DEIR, additional environmental analysis may be necessary. Staff has revised the previous draft resolution that recommends approval of the proposed project (Exhibit #6). The changes include a new recital to reference prior public hearings regarding the project and several refinements to conditions of approval. The changes are highlighted. Staff and the City's environmental consultant have prepared an "errata" or list of necessary changes to the DEIR as identified in the Responses to Comments and staff reports (Exhibit# 7). Lastly, staff and the consultant have prepared a draft of the findings for certification of the DEIR and a draft Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit #8). Staff has received additional correspondence, which is attached (Exhibit #9). AERIE (PA 2005-196) June 4, 2009 Page 3 of 3 RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Consider the draft DEIR, comments and responses to comments, draft findings for certification of the DEIR, and draft Statement of Overriding Considerations; and 3) Adopt one of the attached draft resolutions recommending City Council certification of the DEIR, adoption of Statement of Overriding Considerations and approval of the project (Exhibit #5 or#6). ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS The Planning Commission may choose to: 1. Deny the project based upon its impacts to the environment or finding that it is not consistent with applicable General Plan or Coastal Land Use Plan policy. 2. Recommended one of the other alternatives evaluated in the DEIR to the City Council if the Commission believes a further reduction in short-term, project- related impacts is warranted. Prepared by: Submitted by: James Cim- pbell David Lepo Principal Planner Planning Directo EXHIBITS (in the order they are referenced within the report) 1. Harbor Commission report dated April 8, 2009 2. Harbor Commission minutes from April 8, 2009 3. Project/ Altemative A" comparison table prepared by staff 4. Projectr'Alternative A° comparison table prepared by the applicant 5. Resolution recommending "Alternative K approval 6. Revised Resolution recommending Project approval 7. Draft "Errata" for the DEIR 8. Draft findings for DEIR Certification and draft Statement of Overriding Considerations 9. Additional correspondence received F:\Users\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2005\PA2005-196\07-PC 6-04-09\AERIE_PC_rpt_06-04-09.docx Intentionally blank Exhibit No. 1 Harbor Commission report Dated April 8, 2009 S Intentionally blank _.............. . -- ----- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HARBOR COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 2 April 8, 2009 TO: HARBOR COMMISSION FROM: Harbor Resources Division Chris Miller, Harbor Resources Manager (949) 644-3043, cmiller@city.newport-beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Aerie Dock Project at 201-207 Carnation Avenue ISSUE Should the Aerie project applicants at 201-207 Carnation Avenue be permitted to replace the existing double U-shaped float with a dock system capable of berthing 8 vessels for residents and 1 guest side-tie? A Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2007021054) has been prepared and is available for public comment and review. The 45-day public review period ends on May 4, 2009 and the Draft EIR and comments received will be considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council who will make a final determination on the adequacy of the Draft EIR prior to taking action on the proposed dock system. RECOMMENDED ACTION The Harbor Commission is requested to: 1. Provide comments on the environmental aspects of the dock system, as well as its overall design. Harbor Resources will forward this input to the Planning Commission and the City Council who will review the entire project as a whole. DISCUSSION History On March 12, 2008, staff sought the Harbor Commission's advice on the proposed Aerie dock layout in order to help facilitate the environmental review that would follow. On June 19, 2008, the Planning Commission recommended that the Mitigated Negative Declaration (environmental review) be approved. On July 22, 2008, the City Council heard nearly three hours of testimony and postponed their decision on the Mitigated Negative Declaration until their September 9, 2008 meeting. Relevant to the Harbor Commission's purview, much public discussion focused on the view from the water up to the rocky bluffs, and how the vessels might impact this scenic view. Therefore, staff was tasked with investigating this potential view issue. In addition, the project opponents asked that the Mitigated Negative Declaration be denied and that a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared. Minutes from the July 22, 2008 Council meeting may be viewed on the City's website via the Council Agenda for August 12, 2008. In the end, the applicant chose to prepare a full EIR which is publicly available either online at: http://www.city.newport-beach.ca.us/PLN/proaeGts/pro'ects.htm or at the following locations: L Aerie Dock Project April 8,2009 Page 2 Planning Department Central Library 3300 Newport Boulevard 1000 Avocado Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Newport Beach, CA 92625 (959)644-3200 (949) 717-3800 Project Location and Existina Dock System The Aerie project at 201-207 Carnation Avenue is located near the intersection of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard near the harbor entrance channel. See Exhibit 1. As indicated, the Bulkhead, Pierhead and Project Lines extend beyond the nearby adjacent docks into the channel. The reason for this unusual Harbor Line configuration is because the Army Corps of Engineers anticipated the bay to be filled to those lines when they were established in 1936. As the years progressed, this never materialized. The existing floating docks (timber frame, concrete pontoons, and timber deck) are in very poor condition and require complete replacement. These docks can accommodate four (4) small vessels at about 25' to 30' in length. See E xhibit 2. In June 2007, Harbor Resources requested the applicant to voluntarily demolish the existing dock system because of its hazardous condition. The applicant expressed concern that such an action could jeopardize his ability to construct a replacement dock system; therefore, the deteriorated docks still remain. Proposed Dock Layout Eight (8) replacement slips and one (1) guest side tie dock are requested for the eight (8) new residential units proposed. The new dock layout is located between the existing Pierhead Line and the natural rock outcroppings, with special attention to the existing eelgrass bed on the southern side of the property. The new docks will be composed of timber supported by rotationally molded plastic pontoons which require less draft (bottom clearance) than concrete floats, allowing the dock system to be located as close to the rock outcropping as possible. This layout will accommodate boats up to 100-feet in length. See Exhibit 3 and 4. The current six (6) steel dock guide piles that support the existing docks will be replaced with 19 new guide piles supporting the new dock system. Of these 19 piles, nine (9) will be larger diameter piles (approx. 2-foot diameter) to support the long, outside, bayward-most side-tie float. All guide piles will be pre-stressed concrete piles set in pre-drilled holes. The wave attenuator, as previously discussed in earlier revisions, has been eliminated from the project design. The existing 20-foot long gangway will be replaced by a 44-foot gangway. The pile-supported pier walkway between the existing gangway platform and the existing concrete pad will be repaired / replaced with a structure in-like-kind (timber-framing system, a 2x timber deck, and timber railings all around). The existing concrete piles supporting the walkway will be repaired in the form of concrete repairs. The gangway platform construction will include the repair and replacement of four (4) steel piles, timber framing with metal connectors, and a 2x timber deck with railings all around. The existing concrete pad, concrete steps, and safety railings will be repaired and patched as necessary. Aerie Dock Project April 8,2009 Page 3 As discussed at the March 2008 Harbor Commission meeting, the project engineer (URS Cash and Associates) did evaluate several alternative dock designs before finalizing the proposal as described in this report. One of the Harbor Commission's concerns at the March 12, 2008 meeting was the possibility of the new dock system encroaching upon the main harbor entrance channel. The project engineer has attempted to illustrate that there are ten "lanes" in the entrance channel (defined as 50' wide lanes) at the project location. As one moves further inside the harbor, these ten lanes decrease to nine lanes as a result of the channel marker near Carnation Cove and not as a result of the proposed docks. See Exhibit 5. Eelgrass is also abundant near the project's edge, particularly near the southern end. See Exhibit 6. As is typical of all dock construction projects, the applicant will submit an eelgrass survey as part of the application process to the federal and state agencies for review. Any impacts will mitigated. Harbor Commission's Previous Concerns At the March 28, 2008 Harbor Commission meeting, several concerns were discussed. The applicant's responses to those concerns are: Storm Wave Conditions Under extreme conditions, up to 2.5 ft. waves could be experienced at the project site (Noble Consultants, Inc. report, May 9, 2006), impacting 30 to 35 boats in Newport Harbor, including those proposed at the Aerie project. This would be an uncommon event occurring under storm conditions from the South to South East. Based on historical accounts, some boat owners have elected to remain in their existing slips during these extreme events, while others have moved their vessels to City of Newport Beach-managed mooring cans within Newport Harbor. The City has between 80 to 100 mooring cans available to the public at any given time, and has traditionally made these available to boaters on a first come, first served basis. It is understood from the Harbor Resources Department that this practice will remain in place. The Aerie project will utilize a wood-framed system for strength and flexibility which will be beneficial during extreme wave conditions. The dock design shall be based on the extreme wave conditions identified in the coastal engineering study (Noble Consultants, Inc. 2008). A greater concern is the interaction between a berthed boat and the dock system, since the two will move at different cycles from one another thereby causing large line forces and potential physical impacts. During these infrequent severe conditions, boat owners from the Aerie project, like other boat owners in Newport Harbor, will likely request mooring cans from the City. Toward that end, Mitigation Measure 4.9-2a requires that "during periods when boats would be exposed to excessive wave-induced motions, boats should be sheltered at mooring can locations that are available inside Newport Harbor to avoid dam age." Number of Slips Provided for Project The Aerie docks will consist of eight boat slips for the eight Aerie residences, with a headwalk extension allowing for the potential side-tie of up to a 30 foot boat for guest Aerie Dock Project April 8,2009 Page 4 use (visiting vessels). This additional guest dock extension is feasible, since the water depth, eelgrass adjacency and navigation to the adjoining slips is not impacted by the installation of such a dock. This slip would be used strictly for visiting boats and will not be rented or leased. Eelgrass and Biological Impacts The eelgrass impact and location of the boat docks has been taken into account with the dock location being previously shifted to mitigate the eelgrass environment. The Harbor Resources Department has reviewed this issue in the past, made recommendations to the Applicant, and the dock design has been revised accordingly. The potential impacts to the eelgrass and biological habitats have been studied by Mr. Rick Ware of Coastal Resources Management (May 12, 2008). The assessment provides for mitigation measures before, during and after construction to ensure protection of habitat that exists on site. With incorporation of these mitigation measures, the project's EIR concluded that potential impacts to eelgrass and other marine species located within the Carnation Cove will be reduced to a less than signif icant level. Small boat access to Private Beach and along the Harbor's edge Access by small and human-powered boating craft along the harbor line is currently restricted by existing docks on the Aerie project site. Although the proposed replacement docks would project further toward the Main Channel than the existing docks,the fundamental navigation conditions for small and human-powered boating craft will not undergo a meaningful change as a result of the project. Public access to the mean high tide line of the small cove adjacent to the Aerie docks will not be restricted by the project. Kayakers and human-powered watercraft have, and will be able to continue to, access this cove area. Impacts to natural environment during construction; ie, rock outcropping The project site's waterfront area is characterized by various rock outcroppings that form a small cove beach. These exposed outcroppings will be protected during the installation of the Aerie docks. To this end, the applicant will not drive pilings into the submerged bedrock, as is typical for these installations. Instead, holes will be drilled into the subgrade (mostly rock strata) and then piles will be installed into those drilled holes. This type of construction limits both noise and vibration. Potential Shoaling The Noble Consultants Inc. Report of May 6, 2008, addressed potential shoaling conditions. This report was based on recent observations as well as a review of historical sediment movements, storm conditions, channel orientation, maintenance dredging and storm drainage. Noble Consultants concluded that "with a small percent (approximately 6 percent) of the along-channel blockage areas resulting from the proposed new dock facility, the potential impact to this unique sediment movement process in the entrance channel is insignificant, although localized sand deposit resulting from the presence of the proposed guide piles within the sand-moving path may occur. In addition, the project is located in the down-drift direction of the neighboring Channel �a Aerie Dock Project April 8,2009 Page 5 Reef, the project's potential impact on sedimentation at the up-drift location such as Channel Reef is inconsequential. Future Dredging Based on the Noble Consultants Report, the impact of this project, as it relates to scour and sedimentation, is considered to be minimal and inconsequential and should not change the characteristics of these processes from historical experience. The beach within the 201-207 Carnation Cove project has historically scoured over time, requiring sand replenishment. The China Cove property to the south has traditionally shoaled, with dredging efforts and sand replenishment of these two facilities coinciding to a balanced "cut and fill"condition. Special Conditions Staff has proposed several Special Conditions which the Harbor Commission may evaluate and advise modifying as appropriate. Aside from the routine conditions, these unique Special Conditions are: 1. In accordance with Municipal Code 10.08.030 A. the project applicant shall obtain the proper permits for equipment and materials storage. "Except as otherwise provided in this section, no person shall use any public street, sidewalk, alley or parkway or other public property for the purpose of storing or displaying any equipment, materials or merchandise, or any other commercial purpose. B. Public streets, sidewalks, alleys, or parkways may be used for the purpose of selling, storing, or displaying any equipment, material, merchandise or for other commercial purposes in the following cases:.. For the temporary storage of construction equipment or material provided a permit is issued pursuant to Chapter 12.62 of this Code and the storage is consistent with provisions of the Uniform Building Code." 2. The contractor shall post and update a two week schedule of construction activities at a location(s) easily accessible to local residents. 3. In accordance with Municipal Code 10.28.040 the following noise regulations apply: "A. Weekdays and Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any weekday except between the hours of seven a.m. and six-thirty p.m., nor on any Saturday except between the hours of eight a.m. and six p.m. B. Sundays and Holidays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any Sunday or any federal holiday." 4. The project shall be implemented in conformance with the Local Coastal Program - Coastal Land Use Plan. li Aerie Dock Project April 8,2009 Page 6 5. Eelgrass beds have been found adjacent to the project area and shall be protected per the "Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy" prepared and managed by NOAA/ National Marine Fisheries Service. 6. During construction, disturbance of the adjacent beach shall be minimized. Construction materials and equipment shall not be placed on the beach. The beach's sand dollar habitat shall be protected during construction. The project applicant shall submit a Beach Protection Plan to the Harbor Resources Manager for approval prior to start of construction. 7. The project applicant and its successors are notified that even though the proposed dock system replaces an existing dock system, the new docks will be constructed in the Entrance Channel to Newport Bay which is subject to surge and swell activity which may cause damage to the dock system and vessels berthed therein. It is the responsibility of the project applicant and its successors to maintain and operate the dock system to minimize damage to the dock system and vessels. The dock system shall be subject to nuisance abatement per Title 17 of the Municipal Code, if in the opinion of the Harbor Resources Manager, it presents an endangerment to other facilities or vessels in the harbor. 8. The project applicant must remove the existing dock system including the gangway and pier within 90 days of receiving all final regulatory permits allowing the construction of the replacement dock system. 9. The vessels that will be side-tied to the outside, bayward-most float shall not extend into the harbor more than 24' feet from the edge of this outside, bayward-most float. 10. The guest side-tie on the north end of the dock system shall only be available for vessels less than or equal to 30 feet in length. This slip shall be used for guest berthing only and will not be used for any permanent, long term vessel storage, and will not be rented or leased. 11. The number of boat slips approved in the final design must be the same as the number of dwelling units approved by the City Council in the final project approval. PUBLIC NOTICE This meeting has been publicly noticed via a mailer (to the residents and occupants within a 310' radius of the project) and jobsite posting on March 23, 2009 and also posted on the City's website on April 3, 2009. See Exhibit 7. Written comments received as of April 3, 2009 are attached. See Exhibit 8. This agenda item has been noticed according to the Ralph M Brown Act(72 hours in advance of the public meetings at which the Harbor Commission considers the item). It was also posted on the City's website. ja Aerie Dock Project Apri!8,2009 Page 7 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An EIR (SCH# 2007021054) has been prepared for the entire project which includes both landside and harbor improvements. The Planning Commission will consider the entire project and will forward their recommendation to the City Council who will make a final determination as to the adequacy of the Draft EIR. After this point, Harbor Resources staff may issue an Approval in Concept with Special Conditions for the dock portion of the project, assuming the EIR has been approved. If the final review process suggests substantial changes to the dock design, then staff may return to the Harbor Commission for review in the future. Prepared by: Chris Miller Harbor Resources Manager Attachments: Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map Exhibit 2: Existing Dock Layout Exhibit 3: Proposed Dock Layout Exhibit 4: Proposed Dock Layout with Dimensions Exhibit 5: Proposed Dock Layout with Channel Lanes Exhibit 6: Vicinity Map with Eelgrass Exhibit 7: Public Notice Exhibit 8: Public Comments as of April 3, 2009 d3 i - _ fir. `�y" '`n. ._� •:r. _. r" I` _ _� .. P SW's'""'' '�'�• .il '�i 1�_. yv'd-.•.� -0 Lis L I � jr I � � � _ • .��:�='...: ryes- f�7 r _- _4y p i 1. ............ MR, a s. et ww a __— _ v p f� —_ i YpNl90 891E?J�43V'8/8w&8!� k j ] Haao4iasua atvav N r ll s3¢nnn, avwoa x. d4� � 51I3aHb�a3tOd U+1 �. Q mars-ten ni snw ? -eruS(a7,$ma3crx s o ~ S � i '�� AYM9ilY3 S3;39V 1a3n t O 27 ? b5 d I5M3335W 3A W fs3arw sa:+ut ujaaarg moa 66 a. '3000 3a W.1 AlJ I _ � b ti g m' O b w Aerie Dock Project April 8,2009 Page 11 Exhibit 4 Proposed Dock Layout with Dimensions D w •'y`.I jM 1 ', IM rw` rr * � rfrry�rt�d"� k. y 4 I� r N P � O 3 05 CL S rl � 2 l � Page 12 Exhibit 5 Proposed Dock Lay OU t With'C ha n hel Lanes pl ,=P�� rlkrlivp v rue 0 ICA ip R q z Ii3a01" VIC I;C �Z. 5 , •t� rv`� t� rye .£ ' i. . i. I l ,�:. •. ,y .. Aerie Dock Project April 8,2009 Page 14 Exhibit 7 Public Notice CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 11ARBORRESOURCIES Foe PUBLIC NOTICE 201 - 207 Carnation Avenue Dock Replacement Project The W applicant at.201 —.207 Carnation Avenue is proposing a project wNch to plicament of an existing two slip dock system capable of berthing four v,e .vessels.with a syMW capable of berthing up to nine vessels, In,addition, the pland property will be rebulk with 8 condominiums, A Draft.Erlivirdrtmental Impact Report (DEIR):for the entire prof has:been:prepared and Is available :either online at: ftJ1wwwxiiv,n8wwrt- beach.ca.usJOI-NdprojecL the, owing ti gliprojects,irtm or at foll foce-6ns: Planning Department Central uizary: 3300 Newport Boulevard. 1000A o Avenue NewportBeach,CA 9n56-8915, Newport Beach;cA 92625 (959)644.3200 (94g)717�31t()& During the EIR public review pertod. the Harbor Commission is requested to evaluate the DER and advise the City's Harbor Resources Division on the Approval in Concept lrrr the dock reviacement Aoilloa of-the Mied only, The public is invited to provide comments try attending this mee"andfor smelling to the address below. The meeting will W held on: Wednesday,April 8,2009 &OD PM City Hart Council Chambers 3300 Newport Boulevard The Harbor Commission agenda and staff report will be available online by April 9,2009, at: The Planning Commission will be conducting.-a noticed public hearing on ft.w.DEIR for ft entire project In,May or June of 2609. Notice of said hearing will be separately Provided In accordance with applicable law When the hearing dates are knowrL Chris Miller,Harbor Resources Manager cmiller tymewporl-beach.mus 829Harbor Island.Drive,f1cwpart:13each'CA-1"2660 PH:l5i49)644-3034 FX:(949)723-0599-We.lisiie:m .rw.wport-beuh-m."/RBR/ . .......... Aerie Dock Project April 6,2009 Page 15 Public Outreach 310' Radius from Project RHO Buffer Weedan for Lates bq zmu =fflm�MWAWI I.g ell- re� ENPOM BEALH CA 4.81$ 107 &Oom EAb Aerie Dock Project April 8,1009 Page 16 Exhibit 8 Public Comments as of April 3, 2009 August 4, 2008 Dear Mr. Miller; I hope the members of the Harbor Commission are not seriously considering a dock configuration in its present size and design at this location of Carnation Cove. I live above the Cove to the east, and have resided here for 18 years and in this area most of my life. I am going to attempt to bring to light the many factors why I feel the existing dock should be rebuilt in its present location, with possibly one more alongside, which are presented in the following comments. A)An obsolete 78-year old law enacted in 1930 when the Pierhead line was established for this area should not apply today with 13,000-plus yachts in this harbor. B) This dock configuration would allow two 60' yachts to be docked on the other side of this Pierhead line projecting another 20'to 25' further into the harbor. C) The dock should stay within the bulkhead line as the McIntosh dock is to the east and the Sprague dock is to the west. D) The present plan would project approximately 61' beyond the bulkhead line, with two 60' boats in their slips. (Note, all calculations are from the Harbor Commission Public Notice Plans.) E) When exiting the harbor, the channel narrows starting at the Sprague dock to the west and continues to the mouth of Newport Harbor. F) Carnation Cove is within this narrow area, and with this project plan projecting out into the harbor it will be a hindrance to navigation for boats entering a nd leaving the harbor. G) Another consideration should be the many sailboats, large and small, that use this point to come about-tacking within the harbor. Now let us consider the environmental impacts. 1) 1 am requesting a full Environmental Impact Report to be done on this project. 2) In a recent City Council meeting on the Aerie Project the city attorney called the rock formation running parallel to the dock project "A Natural Relic" and the MND report states that "Carnation Cove is an important Marine Relic Habitat that no longer exists in other areas of Newport Bay." 3) Eight to nine boats, two-40', two-45', two-55' and two-60' boats, with an occasional guest vessel at dock#9 would almost completely cover the natural rock formation as it would be out of view to the Public and all boaters who enjoy the beauty of the harbor. I �,a Aerie Dock Project April 8,2009 Page 17 4) Directly in front of the cove is a favorite spot for rental boats from the Pavilion as well as other small boats fishing in the harbor. (They do catch fish here.) 5) The rock formation and cove is a habitat for heron, cranes, pelicans, seagulls and occasionally osprey, all which abound here. 6) There are only two natural rock formations surrounded by water in Newport Harbor, Carnation Cove and P irates Cove just to the east. 7)Another consideration is disturbing the Eel Grass and marine habitat below the water. 8) The project would close off or potentially eliminate public access to the cove which is often frequented by kayakers, paddlers and small boats. Last of all is the 155' long, 8' wide concrete wave attenuator that projects into the harbor. 1) There is a history of sand build-up along the Channel Reef Seawall and docks that continues west to the McIntosh Dock. The attenuator wall would most probably create the same problem and could also affect vessel navigation with shallowing of the harbor depth. 2) It could also create wave bounce off the attenuator wall that would affect docks across the bay and farther into the harbor, in particular when dealing with a south swell, as the rock formation as it exists acts as a natural wave diffuser. If this all sounds negative, it's because it is. This project is not in the best interest of the harbor, boaters or the public, and will negatively impact the community of Newport Beach. It will also affect our children and the future of all who enjoy the beauty and use of this harbor. I thank you for reading this and am hopeful you will take this project quite seriously. Sincerely, Joe Vallejo �3 5 fD 3 rr O 7 gu K �i 7 Exhibit No. 2 Harbor Commission minutes From April 8, 2009 3 m 3 O m �G cr of 7 6" NEWPORT BEACH HARBOR COMMISSION MINUTES City Council Chambers April 8, 2009 CALL TO ORDER 6:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Chairman Duffield, Commissioners Seymour Beek, John Corrough, Tim Collins, Don Lawrenz, Karen Rhyne and Ralph Rodheim were in attendance. Staff: Lome Arcese, Chris Miller and Shannon Levin MINUTES: The minutes from the last meeting were approved. ACTION ITEM ACTION & APPEAL ITEMS ITEM#1 Subject: General Harbor Commission Orientation-POSTPONED ITEM#2 Subject: Aerie Dock Project at 201-207 Carnation Avenue Issue: Should the Aerie project applicants at 201-207 Carnation Avenue be permitted to replace the existing double U-shaped float with a dock system capable of berthing 8 vessels for residents and 1 guest side-tie Discussion: Chris presented the staff report on the project. Randy Mason with URS spoke on the technical concerns. He said there are 10 boat "lanes" in that channel. The boats berthed at Aerie will be moved to moorings or other places during storm events with wave action of 2 feet or more. Bryan Jeannette spoke on the parking issues, saying they will have at least 15-23 additional parking spaces on-site, beyond what is required by the Code. Commissioner Lawrenz presented a PowerPoint presentation on the project, showing what he feels are issues with the project. The storm wave conditions were only studied for the last five years, ignoring large storms of 1969 and 1990's. These storms happened before that time and they did a lot of damage. A 100 ft vessel may not have a safe mooring site in the case of a large storm event. Storms will affect the movement of sand and affect the sand dollar population. There are a lot of sand and shoals in this area and this needs more study. Conditions need to be listed if sand studies show a problem, such as who is responsible when dredging comes up. The 24 foot extension will go into public waters and needs to have reflectors. This could start a building boom with all the other slips in this area. The pier is to be set lower than usual attracting the sea lions to rest upon. What about fire suppression, trash and sewage? Commissioner Beek said that the problem also is that the project will occupy space that is now open. He said that there are no lanes in the harbor and the example has no meaning. This is one of the narrowest points. We need to restrict the 24 foot overhang and can restrict the side be. All residents don't have to have a slip. 19 new pilings will affect the sand movement. Commissioner Rhyne asked who will move the boats during storm events and wave action. Are there moorings available and what are the other options if they need to move? What happens between 1.5 to 2 feet? A 100 foot boat is too massive and who will monitor the overhang? • Commissioner Corrough said that this project is legally conforming and has not been kept under the radar. The EIR has not found any significant exceptions and has documented recommended mitigations. The project has changed with previous requests. Every dock that sits out there now is in the same physical situation, subject to storm events, that this dock will be in if it is built. We need to set responsible improvements to the plans rather than just saying we are troubled by this project; give specific guidance and constructive recommendations. The proposed project has gone through multiple revisions. The unit to dock ratio is representative of the rest of the harbor. The Commission does want new docks in this harbor. • Commissioner Collins said that we have given case by case exceptions for extensions, but in this case there is no basis to extend beyond the Pierhead line. Commissioner Rodheim said that the Bulkhead and Pierhead lines of the 1939s were made when the area was filled with sand and the City has not done its job in redrawing the lines. To follow those lines as they are currently is not wrong. The approval of all these large condo projects should not be happening and we may end up looking like Miami Beach. He does not support the project going out further than the neighboring docks. The surge tears up the boats and docks. He would like to have larger slips but not in this location. They stick out too far. We want the Planning Commission and City Council to see that the Harbor Commission will not support this project. There is no right of residents to have the right to have a pier. Chairman Duffield reminded everyone that storms go directly into our harbor as designed by the Army Corps. Putting in a jetty would be a solution to stop that action. There has been a lot of work put into the plan and we are not against new docks, but we are boaters who use the harbor, so there is knowledge. The City Council makes the ultimate decision, but we are boaters and can make recommendations. Storm events do happen, so we need a plan that will work. Why not come to the Harbor Commission to ask for advice, we would like to work with the applicant. Perhaps restrict the time that boats may be dock there during a storm season? Public Comments: • Kathleen McIntosh, 2495 Ocean Blvd., reminded everyone that the approval has not been granted yet. They could have up to 12 boats on the docks. Public access to the cove and marine outcropping would be restricted and maybe eliminated. Shoaling is a problem in that area. Sand comes from that area and is shoaling under the neighbors' docks. This project doesn't consider the problems the 2 adjacent properties will have when they want to dock boats larger than 17 feet. She hopes Harbor Resources denies the request and requests that marker buoys be put out for at least a month showing the lines of the project so everyone concerned can see how far out into the channel it will go and what will be taken away from them. • Joe and Lisa Vallejo, who are not on the water and don't have a dock, wanted to add their explanation as to why no one is out that far in the channel. 73 years ago they thought this area would be built up with sand and even Channel Reef would not be allowed to build now. Wants to declare 1936 Harbor Lines null. She cited Munidpal Code 17.50 Rules for Interpretation and Harbor Development Permits which says the application shall be denied if it may interfere with the rights of other permittees and oceanfront property owners and the application does not conform to the policies and regulations of the certified Local Coastal Program. They feel that the scenic and the visual outcropping will be covered up, but the applicant said the boats will be coming and going and won't be a problem. How often does that happen when all boats come and go all that often? Thank you for your consideration and time,we ask that you do the best for Newport Harbor. • Marilyn Beck, 303 Camation Ave. This project has not been passed by the City. There are many people with significant concerns with project size. The General Plan requests that developers of this project take a conservative approach in their projects. We worked hard to have responsible development included in the plan 17 so we would have responsible development within the City. This is a super-sized project, not conservative. I wish this meeting was out at the site to show you how hard the wind blows and how destructive it can be. Boats have capsized and docks have broken up. • John Connelly, owns and resides at 401 Avocado Ave. and owns 2317 Bayside Drive, said if a 100 foot boat breaks free during wave action it will create significant damage to the boats and properties in the area. The extension will be a bump in the harbor that doesn't need to be there. No one receives prior notices of high wave occurrences so boats can be moved to safety. Owners could be out of town or unavailable to act. The boat parade could be impacted. This sets a precedent for everyone to build their docks out further into the harbor. • Bud Razner, 2500 Ocean Blvd., is a supporter of the project and he say's most people are. He was in the Harbor Patrol and knows the harbor. His work experience has taught him to look at all things, weigh all the sides and don't include personal feelings. Neighboring piers build to property lines so they may be impacted by Aerie. Accidents will always occur and liability should not be passed on to a new dock owner. Many people think they own the harbor. This project is a quality, responsible one and is a tax maker. The project provides a water element to clean the effluent that runs into the bay. The old structures need to be in place and need to look for reasons why it will work, not won't. Action: The Commission provided comments on the environmental aspects of the dock system, as well as its overall design. Commissioner Beek made an advisory motion, "While not opposed to the expansion of the existing dock and its area and capacity we believe the size and configuration of the proposed dock project would create significant negative impact on, navigation and recreational boating in the harbor". The motion carried with all ayes. Harbor Resources will forward this input to the Planning Commission and the City Council who will review the entire project as a whole. ITEM#3 Subject: Newport Bay Marina at 2300 Newport Blvd.— Update Issue: The Harbor Commission heard an oral report on the status of the Newport Bay Marina located at 2300 Newport Boulevard. Discussion: The project was approved by Coastal Commission in February with special conditions It has a lot of public access. The little channel is there because Pickle Weed grows there and need to be preserved. They hope to attract water related business to attract tourists. They don't have any commitments but will be consistent with the regulations. The buildings are protected from shipyard noise and disclosures are required. The guest slips are tight for the smaller boats but they will comply with the Fire Code. The commissioners felt it was a good, responsible plan. Action: Receive and file. ITEM #4 Subject: Harbor Projects and Funding Projections Issue: The City Council's Finance Subcommittee has requested an updated list of Harbor Commission approved projects and funding projections in order to plan for the future financial needs of the Harbor. The Harbor Commission reviewed the first draft at the March meeting and requested staff to return to the Commission with an updated draft for further review. Discussion: Chris was complimented on the new format for the report. Commission Lawrenz added that there needs to be a column for ongoing projects, such as Eelgrass. Public Comments: Mark Sites reminded everyone that fees will need to be raised to fund this. Funding sources need to be identified. We don't want to create any friction with the Army Corps as they already are giving us a hard time in approving dredging permits. He asked why we need to dredge in West Newport. 6 Action: The motion was carried to advise staff to forward the attached document to the Finance Committee with suggested changes. SUB-COMMITTEE REPORTS: • Mooring Subcommittee - Commissioner Duffield said that the boundaries are finalized and they are still working on the transferability issue, but almost complete. Chris said that the proposed CAD site may affect 20 moorings in area F. Commissioner Rodheim said that we need to go over the rules for rental of moorings that the Harbor Patrol follows. • Marketing — A new guide document is being produced and will be presented to the Harbor Commission for comments. • HAMP—The draft will be coming in May. HARBOR RESOURCES UPDATE — Chris gave an update on the harbor. Please refer to the following website: The update is posted at. httaJ/www.citv.newport-beach.ca.us/hbr (under Harbor Resources Updates). PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SUB-COMMITTEE REPORTS OR HARBOR RESOURCES UPDATE: • Chuck South voiced a concern with the City's purchase of Lower Castaway, making it into a park. The City is losing facilities for equipment loading and unloading. Properties that have been for water related uses are being turned into condos or parks. • Mark Sites said he supports what Chuck said and is also quite concerned. Commissioner Corrough advised that those concerned need to voice their concerns to the City Council, since they are the one that keep approving those projects. COMMISSIONER'S ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT • Duffy will present the Wakeless Wonder at the next meeting. RECOMMENDED TOPICS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS: • Harbor Area Management Plan - Final • Update from Anchor Environmental concerning Confined Aquatic Disposal option for Lower Bay dredging • Harbor Resources and water quality—staff's outreach efforts • Evaluate fishing needs at the public piers • Harbor Fee Study DATE OF NEXT MEETING: May 13, 2009 City Council Chambers ADJOURNMENT Exhibit No. 3 Project/Alternative A Comparison table prepared by staff � j 3 '+ fD 7 �rt O 3 �_ �G 3 Gs R1 Proposed Aerie Project/Alternative A Comparison Table HE ��. ....................... 5 i5h v% ;T 171111 Units 8 8 Same Building levels 6 5 1 less level Finished Elevation of lowest 30 feet 37.5 feet TS feet less level behind bluff face excavation depth Lowest Elevation of 52.83 feet 52.83 feet Same Development on bluff face Number of Boat Slips 8 8 Same Parking spaces(all possible) 31 28 3 fewer spaces Living area 32,413 sq.ft. 31,362 sq.ft. 1,051 less sq.ft. Garage/storage/mechanical 29,296 sq.ft. 19,069 sq.ft. 10,227 less sq.ft. Total floor area 61,709 sq.ft. 50,431 sq.ft. 11,278 less sq.ft. Grading quantity 25,240 cu.yards 18,578 cu.yards 6,662 fewer cu.yards Dump trucks 2,105 1,549 556 fewer trucks Excavation duration 77 days 58 days 19 fewer days Caissons 61 36 25 fewer caissons Caisson duration 19 days 12 days 7 day reduction Cement trucks 622 601 21 fewer trucks Minimum Distance from Varies from Varies from Increase distance basement to bluff face 2'-11"to 15'-1" V-8"to 20'-0" provided Phase I duration 126 days 97 days 29 day reduction Phase 11 duration 375 days 292 days 83 day reduction Phase III duration 235 days 208 days 27 day reduction Phase IV duration 903 days 783 days 120 day reduction Total Construction durationr 32 months 27 months 5 month reduction Air quality Less than significant Less than significant Reduced emissions Water quality Less than significant— Less than significant— Same improved water quality improved water quality Noise Significant& Significant& Reduced unavoidable unavoidable duration only Aesthetics Less than significant Less than significant Same Public views Enhanced views from Enhanced views from Same Ocean&Carnation Ocean &Camation Marine environment Less than significant Less than significant Same Upsize catch basin Yes Yes Same Underground existing utility Yes Yes Same Bench&drinking fountain Yes Yes Same I Project objectives Meets all project Partially meets all Basic project objectives project objectives objectives achieved to a lesser degree than with the project Total construction is not a sum of the days associated with all construction phases as there are overlapping tasks. Prepared by:J. Campbell 0512812009 33 Intentionally blank 3f Exhibit No. 4 Project/Alternative A Comparison table prepared by the applicant � S 3 .f co r. 0 m AERIE-ALTERNATIVE A-8 UNIT COMPARISON CHART 5/28/2009 Alternative A 8 Units with i Proposed Project Reduced Program Net Changes 1 Livable(Square Footage) 29,426 I 29,426? 0! .............................. Recreation 2,987 1,9361 -35% ........ . ........ ... .............................................. ..................... . ............. Garage Storage/Circulation/Elev Equipment [SF) I 27,876i 18,420! -10,227- Mechanical/ -37% ............. ....................................................................................... ..................!....................... ......... Mecha nica V Green Equipment Room 1,420: 649 -771- -54% ............ :Total Structure(Square Footage) 61,709! 50,4311 11,278, -18% Parking :Guest/Service Parking(4 required) 9 5 -4' -_-__--....... .......... =Resident Parking(16 required) 16. 16. 0� .............. ;Resident Parking(additional on lift) i 6' 7' ...--—--- —----------- .. ------ 0 2 'Misc. Parking(golf cart) 2- ............... ........... ......... -- - -- - - ------ ------------ 'Misc. Parking(motorcycle/bicycle) 0 .1. .......... ...... ----------- ...... ................ Street Parking 3 D! Benefits -Catch Basin Upgrade X X Underground 2 Power Poles X X ...................................................................... ------- Public View Expansion X X .......................... ------- 'Provide Public Amenties d bench) X X I _1.(drinking fountain an I ----------------1.1-41.1--—---- -- -------------------------- Mechanical/Green Equipment Room X (18%reduction) ............ _._1_-1.................... ............. .. Below Maximum Height Limit X X Construction No.of Dump Trucks for Demo(Approx.) 60= 60 0 ;Cubic of Excavation (Approx.) 25,24 18,578' -6,662 -26% ...........r.r..r............. ........................................................ .....................---------------............................... ------- No.of Dump Trucks(Approx.) 2,105 1,5491 -556 -26% ............. ......----------------- .............................. No.Caissons 61j 36- -25: -41% ------------------ No.of Cement Trucks(Approx.) 6221 601? -21� -3% Construction Phases Asbestos Removal(days) 17. 17i 01 Demolition (days) 6j 61 0, -- ------ -_-__ - ............... Ph (;'Excavation Duration (days) . 77'i 58 -19 -25% Caisson Installation Duration (days) 19: 12, .7, -37% "X" Bracing System Installation (days) 7-. 7% 0, ................... Total Phase I(days) 126' 100 -261 -21% -----------_,_............ ...... Forming 345 Forming 269' Forming -76 -22% V ii� fir! Pouring 30, Pourinp 23� Pouring -7€ -23% ; Concrete Construction Duration (days) Total 375- Total 292- Total -83�7 -22% ............................... .. . ..................................... .......... ........ Framing/MEP/Windows and Doors Pru4j)1 In tallation Duration(days) .... 235 2081 . ...-27 -11% ...... . . ..... ....... ....... .. .... ....... Exterior and Interior Finish Duration (days) 903! 7831 -1201 -13% ..................................... ............................. ........................ Approx. !:Total days for all tasks 1 1,639' 1,380 i _259! -16% Approx. Total Construction Duration(mths) 32 27;� -5& -15% Total construction time is not a sum of the days associated with all construction phases because there Is overlapping of certain tasks. Refer to Construction Schedule associated with Alternatives A-8 Unit. I Intentionally blank 3l Exhibit No. 5 Resolution Recommending Alternative A approval l 3 rt fD 3 rt O 3 c 01 7 Cy Cy RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RESCINDING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS 1723, 1751 and 1761 AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2007021054) AND APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2005-006, COASTAL LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2005-002, CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2005-009, NEWPORT TRACT MAP NO. 2005-004 (TTM 16882), MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2005-087 AND COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 2005-002 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 201-205, 207 CARNATION AVENUE 101 BAYSIDE PLACE (PA 2005-196). WHEREAS, an application was filed by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. with respect to property located at 201-205, 207 Carnation Avenue, and 101 Bayside Place to construct an 8-unit residential condominium development on a 1.4 acre site. The application includes: 1. General Plan Amendment No. 2005-006 to change the land use designation of a 584 square-foot portion of a parcel identified as 101 Bayside Place from RT (Two- Unit Residential) to RM (Multiple-Unit Residential, 20 dwelling units per acre). 2. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005-002 to change the Coastal Land Use Plan designation of the same 584 square-foot portion of a parcel identified as 101 Bayside Place from RH-D (High Density Residential - 50.1 to 60 dwelling units per acre) to RM-A (Medium Density Residential - 6.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre). 3. Zone Change No. 2005-009 to change the zoning designation of the 584 square-foot portion of a parcel identified as 101 Bayside Place from R-2 (Two-Family Residential)to MFR (Multifamily Residential, 2178 square feet per unit). 4. Newport Tentative Tract Map No. 2005-004 (TTM16882) to combine the 584 square- foot portion of a parcel identified as 101 Bayside Place with parcels identified as 201- 205 Carnation Avenue and 207 Carnation Avenue, and to subdivide the air space for 8 residential condominium units. 5. Modification Permit No. 2005-087 to permit a 5-foot subterranean building encroachment and 42-inch high protective guardrails within the required 10-foot front setback along Carnation Avenue; subterranean and above grade building encroachments of 5 feet and 1-foot, 7-inches into a required 10-foot, 7-inch side yard setback between the project and 215 Carnation; and three balconies and one at grade landing each with protective guard rails that exceed the maximum height of 6 feet from natural grade within the required 10-foot, 7-inch side yard abutting Bayside Place. �1 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 2 of 37 6. Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005-002 to allow demolition of the existing dwelling units within the Coastal Zone pursuant to Chapter 20.86 of the Municipal Code. WHEREAS, on February 22, 2007, April 5. 2007, and May 17. 2007, the Planning Commission held noticed public hearings in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach California at which time the applications, project and a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and approval of the applications to the City Council: and WHEREAS, on August 14 2007, the CitV Council held a noticed public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, project and a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the City Council at the hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing the City Council identified thepredominant line of existing development (PLOED) at 50.7 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). Since the proposed project was not consistent with the PLOED as required by the policies of the 2005 Coastal Land Use Plan further consideration of the proposed project was postponed until such time that the proiect was revised to conform to the PLOED: and WHEREAS, subsequent to the August 14, 2007 City Council hearing, the applicant revised the proposed proiect in accordance with the PLOED as established by the City Council. Additionally, the applicant further revised the project to include a proposed dock structure. WHEREAS on February 21 2008 and June 19 2008 the Planning Commission held noticed public hearings in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. at which time the applications, the revised proiect and a revised draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was resented to and considered b the Planning Commission at the hearing. _ Y V q q At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the revised draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the revised proiect and approval of the applications to the City Council: and WHEREAS. on July 8. 2008, the City Council held a noticed public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, revised proiect and a revised draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing �Ea City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 3 of 37 was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the City Council at the hearing. The City Council expressed several concerns including the project's potential visual impact on the area and the City Council took no action; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the City Council hearing on July 8, 2008, the City and the applicant mutually agreed that an Environmental Impact Report would be prepared for the proiect pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, on May 21, 2009, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, project and a draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2007021054) were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing. WHEREAS, the project site has two separate land use designations assigned by the Land Use Element of the General Plan (584 square-feet is designated RT (Two-Unit Residential) and the remaining portion of the site, 60,700 square-feet, is designated RM (Multi-Unit Residential, 20 dwelling units per acre). The proposed amendment changing the land use designation of the 584 square-foot portion of the site to match the remainder of the site will numerically allow 1 additional unit; however, the density limitation as dictated by the Zoning Ordinance is more restrictive as A excludes submerged lands and slopes in excess of 50% from the calculation. The density of the proposed project is below the resulting maximum density permitted by the General Plan (28 dwellings) and is consistent with the maximum density allowed by the existing MFR zone (9 units). The residential condominium project is consistent with the proposed Multi-Family Residential land use designation and is consistent with residential developments within the area. WHEREAS, Charter Section 423 requires that all proposed General Plan Amendments be reviewed to determine if the square footage (for non-residential projects), peak hour vehicle trip, or dwelling units thresholds would be exceeded as the means to determine whether a vote by the electorate would be required to approve the General Plan Amendment. Pursuant to Council Policy A-18, voter approval is not required as the proposed General Plan Amendment represents an increase of 1 dwelling unit and an increase of 1 A.M. and 1 P.M. peak hour trip. Additionally, no prior amendments have been approved within Statistical Area F3 and, therefore, the project and prior amendments do not cumulatively exceed Charter Section 423 thresholds as to require a vote of the electorate. WHEREAS, the proposed project subject to conditions of approval is consistent with General Plan Policy LU5.1.9 inasmuch as building elevations that face public streets need to be treated to achieve the highest level of urban design and neighborhood quality. Architectural treatment of building elevations and the modulation of mass are to convey the character of separate living units or clusters of living units, `�3 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 4 of 37 avoiding the appearance of a singular building volume. Street elevations are to be provided with high quality materials and finishes to convey quality. Roof profiles are modulated to reduce the apparent scale of large structures and to provide visual interest and variety. Parking areas are designed to be integral with the architecture of the development. Usable and functional private open space for each unit is incorporated as each unit has an outdoor deck or patio that may include a fire pit and spa. Common open space that creates a pleasant living environment with opportunities for recreation is also included. Private storage areas for each unit are also provided. The project design incorporates building articulation, roof modulation and a diverse architectural style. Although specific exterior finishes or building materials are not identified at this time, the applicant and architect are committed to providing the highest quality project commensurate with the expense of the project and appropriate to their target buyer. WHEREAS, the proposed project subject to conditions of approval is consistent with General Plan Policy LU 5.1.8 that requires adequate enclosed parking considering the number of bedrooms. One unit has 2 bedrooms, five units have 3 bedrooms, one unit has 4 bedrooms and one unit has 5 bedrooms. Five of the units have other rooms that could be modified and used as bedrooms and the unit sizes range from 2,662 to 4,990 square feet. The project provides two spaces for each of 2 units without vehicle lifts, and three spaces for each of 6 units with vehicle lifts. Six guest parking spaces, one service vehicle space and 2 golf cart spaces are provided for a total of 31 covered, vehicle spaces. An area for motorcycle or bicycle parking is also included. Provided parking is in excess of the minimum required pursuant to the Zoning Code (2.5 parking spaces per unit or a total of 20 spaces for 8 units proposed). WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with General Plan Policy CE7.1.8 and Policy CE7.1.1 as well as Coastal Land Use Policy 2.9.3-1 that require new development to avoid the use of parking configurations or parking management programs that are difficult to maintain and enforce and that new development is required to provide adequate, convenient parking for residents. All parking is enclosed on site with access to lower parking levels taken from two vehicle elevators. Five of the six guest parking spaces and parking for one unit are located at street level where access to the vehicle elevators is not necessary. No gates are planned that could possibly inhibit access to the street-level parking. Only seven of the eight units and one guest parking space will require the use of the vehicle elevators. The below-grade parking configuration accessed by elevators is sufficiently convenient in that two vehicle elevators to access the garage are proposed, which will reduce vehicle wait times to avoid significant conflicts entering or exiting the elevators. Emergency power generators are required so that vehicle access is maintained if electrical power is lost. The vehicle maneuvering areas within the parking areas meet or will be modified prior to the issuance of a building permit consistent with applicable standards required by the City Traffic Engineer. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 5 of 37 WHEREAS, the Land Use and Natural Resources Elements of the General Plan contain general policies regarding the protection of public views, visual resources, coastal bluffs and other natural resources and the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLOP) reflects these same policies and includes additional policies that expand upon the topics addressed in the Land Use and Natural Resources Elements of the General Plan and are applicable only within the Coastal Zone such that a finding of consistency with the CLUP is an implicit finding of consistency with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Accordingly, based upon facts in support of findings that the project is consistent with the relevant CLUP policies as indicated below, the project is determined to be consistent with all resource protection policies within the Land Use and Natural Resources Elements. WHEREAS, the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) designates the majority of the site RM-A (Medium Density Residential - 6.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre) and a 584 square-foot portion of the site is designated RH-D High Density Residential - 50.1 to 60 dwelling units per acre. The proposed amendment of the land use designation for the 584 square-foot portion of the site will result in a land use designation the same as the larger portion of the site and will numerically increase the maximum permissible project density by 1 unit, from 13 to 14, but not the maximum permissible density pursuant to the RM-A Zoning for the site. WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with applicable policies within Chapter 2 (Land Use and Development) of the Coastal Land Use Plan based upon the following: 1. Policy 2.7-1. Continue to maintain appropriate setbacks and density, Noor area, and height limits for residential development to protect the character of established neighborhoods and to protect coastal access and coastal resources. The project conforms to the height limit of the MFR zone and no deviation is proposed. The project proposes 61,709 gross square feet, below the maximum 75,868 square feet allowed by the existing MFR zone standard. The proposed project does not exceed the 28/32 foot height limitation of the Zoning Code. The proposed 8-unit project is below the maximum permissible density established by the RM-A (Medium Density Residential - 6.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre). Setback encroachments are primarily subterranean and would not impact the character of the area. The above-ground encroachments are minor in nature. The project provides a 9-foot setback area to the north abutting 215 Carnation Avenue creating a public view where none presently exists due to current site conditions. The setback proposed will provide adequate separation from the building to the north and the encroachments will not impact fragile resources as the encroachments are located on the opposite side of the building away from the bluff and bay. �S City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 6 of 37 2. Policy 2.7-2. Continue the administration of provisions of State law relative to the demolition, conversion and construction of low and moderate-income dwelling units within the coastal zone. Government Code Section 65590 (Mello Act) regulates the demolition or conversion of low and moderate income units within the Coastal Zone. All units were vacated in December of 2001 and only a caretaker and the applicant's family reside at the project site. No low or moderate income residents currently reside within the project and, therefore, Government Code Section 65590 is not applicable. 3. Policy 2.8.1-1. Review all applications for new development to determine potential threats from coastal and other hazards. Policy 2.8.1-2. Design and site new development to avoid hazardous areas and minimize risks to life and property from coastal and other hazards. Policy 2.8.1-3. Design land divisions, including lot line adjustments, to avoid hazardous areas and minimize risks to life and property from coastal and other hazards. A Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Neblett & Associates, August 2005, the Coastal Hazard Study prepared by GeoSoils Inc., dated October 2006, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated March 17, 2007, a report titled Bluff and Shoreline Reconnaissance by GeoSoils Inc., dated June 11, 2007, and a third party review of all geotechnical reports prepared by GMU Geotechnical, Inc. dated October 29, 2009, collectively support that potential hazards due to seismic ground shaking, coastal bluff retreat due to erosional forces and tsunamis are minimal. Seismic issues are mitigated with the implementation of the Building Code and coastal bluff retreat is not expected to impact the project during the 75 year economic life of the building. Inundation by wave action or tsunami is considered very remote and the proposed residential improvements are well above wave action. 4. Policy 2.8.1-4. Require new development to assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landtbrms along bluffs and cliffs. Policy 2.8.3-1. Require all coastal development permit applications for new development on a beach or on a coastal bluff property subject to wave action to assess the potential for flooding or damage from waves, storm surge, or seiches, through a wave uprush and impact reports prepared by a licensed civil engineer with expertise in coastal processes. The conditions that shall be considered in a wave uprush study are: a seasonally eroded beach combined with long-term (75 years) City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 7 of 37 erosion; high tide conditions, combined with long-term (75 year) projections for sea level rise; storm waves from a 100-year event or a storm that compares to the 1982/83 El Niho event. Policy 2.8.6-10. Site and design new structures to avoid the need for shoreline and bluff protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years). Policy 2.8.7-3. Require applications for new development, where applicable [i.e., in areas of known or potential geologic or seismic hazards], to include a geologic/soils/geotechnical study that identifies any geologic hazards affecting the proposed project site, any necessary mitigation measures, and contains a statement that the project site is suitable for the proposed development and that the development will be safe from geologic hazard. Require such reports to be signed by a licensed Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer and subject to review and approval by the City. A Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Neblett & Associates, August 2005, the Coastal Hazard Study prepared by GeoSoils Inc., dated October 2006, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated March 17, 2007, a report titled Bluff and Shoreline Reconnaissance by GeoSoils Inc., dated June 11, 2007, and a third party review of all geotechnical reports prepared by GMU Geotechnical, Inc. dated October 29, 2009, collectively indicate that the project will not be subject to nor contribute to erosion, geologic instability, geologic hazard nor require shoreline protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years). 5. Policy 2.8.6-9. Require property owners to record a waiver of future shoreline protection for new development during the economic life of the structure (75 years) as a condition of approval of a coastal development permit for new development on a beach, shoreline, or bluff that is subject to wave action, erosion, flooding, landslides, or other hazards associated with development on a beach or bluff`. Shoreline protection may be permitted to protect existing structures that were legally constructed prior to the certification of the LCP, unless a waiver of future shoreline protection was required by a previous coastal development permit. A waiver of future shoreline protective devices is included as a condition of approval. 6. Policy 2.9.3-10 Require new development to minimize curb cuts to protect on-street parking spaces and close curb cuts to create new public parking wherever feasible. The project will reduce the width of existing curb cuts creating 3 additional street spaces available to the public. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 8 of 37 WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with Chapter 3 (Public Access) of the Coastal Land Use Plan based upon the following: Policy 3.1.1-1. Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance public access to and along the shoreline and to beaches, coastal waters, tidelands, coastal parks, and trails. Policy 3.1.2-1. Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance public access to and along coastal bluffs. Policy 3.1.2-2. Site, design, and maintain public access improvements in a manner to avoid or minimize impacts to coastal bluffs. Policy 3.1.1-11. Require new development to minimize impacts to public access to and along the shoreline. Policy 3.1.1-9. Protect, expand, and enhance a system of public coastal access that achieves the following: • Maximizes public access to and along the shoreline; • Includes pedestrian, hiking, bicycle, and equestrian trails; • Provides connections to beaches, parks, and recreational facilities; • Provides connections with trail systems of adjacent jurisdictions; • Provides access to coastal view corridors, • Facilitates alternative modes of transportation; • Minimizes alterations to natural landforms; • Protects environmentally sensitive habitat areas; • Does not violate private property rights. Policy 3.1.1-24. Encourage the creation of new public vertical accessways where feasible, including Corona del Mar and other areas of limited public accessibility. Policy 3.1.1-13. Require a direct dedication or an Offer to Dedicate (OTD) an easement for lateral public access for all new shorefront development causing or contributing to adverse public access impacts. Such dedication or easement shall extend from the limits of public ownership (e.g. mean high tide line) landward to a fixed point seaward of the primary extent of development (e.g, intersection of sand with toe or top of revetment, vertical face of seawall, dripline of deck, or toe of bluff). Policy 3.1.1-14. Require a direct dedication or an Offer to Dedicate (OTD) an easement for vertical access in all new development projects causing or contributing to adverse public access impacts, unless adequate access is available nearby. Vertical accessways shall be a sufficient size to accommodate two-way pedestrian passage and landscape buffer and should be sited along the border or side property line of the project site or away from existing or proposed development to the maximum feasible extent. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 9 of 37 Policy 3.1.1-24. Encourage the creation of new public vertical accessways where feasible, including Corona del Mar and other areas of limited public accessibility. Policy 3.1.1-26. Consistent with the policies above, provide maximum public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the shoreline with new development except where (1) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal resources or (2) adequate access exists nearby. Policy 3.1.1-27. Implement public access policies in a manner that takes into account the need to regulate the time, place, and manner of public access depending on the facts and circumstances in each case including, but not limited to, the following: • Topographic and geologic site characteristics; • Capacity of the site to sustain use and at what level of intensity; • Fragility of natural resource areas; • Proximity to residential uses; • Public safety services, including lifeguards, fire, and police access; • Support facilities, including parking and restrooms; • Management and maintenance of the access; • The need to balance constitutional rights of individual property owners and the public's constitutional rights of access. The project site has no dedicated public access easements or physical access to the coastal bluff or bay. No abutting vertical or lateral public access presently exists that would connect to any access that might be considered within the development. The steep topography of the site makes vertical access a safety concern and access for the disabled could not be accommodated. Public support facilities presently do not exist nor are they planned and parking in the area is constrained. Lastly, access through the site would be in close proximity to residential uses. The lower portion of the bluff face (below 50.7 feet MSL), submerged lands and tidelands will remain in their existing condition, with the exception of the construction of a new dock system to replace the existing one. Public access to the sheltered cove from the water will not be affected due to the location of the proposed dock system. Access to the designated view point at the end of Carnation Avenue will also remain unaffected and the public view from that point and Ocean Boulevard will be enhanced with project approval with the installation of a bench and/or other public amenity at the corner to improve the experience. The project will create 3 new parking spaces along Carnation Avenue with the reduction in the width of the existing driveway approaches. These new public parking spaces will enhance access to the area. With the reduction in residential density and the fact that no access rights or prescriptive access rights exist, the project will not impact or impede public access. Public access to the bay is currently provided in the vicinity at China Cove, Lookout Point and at a street-end located in the 2300 block of Bayside Drive. These access City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 10 of 37 points are located approximately 450 feet to the east, 1,125 feet to the east and approximately 480 feet to the northwest, respectively. Based upon the forgoing, requiring public access easements or outright dedication of land for public access is not necessary. WHEREAS, the proposed, project is consistent with Policy 4.1.3-1 of the Coastal Land Use Plan that states "Utilize the following mitigation measures to reduce the potential for adverse impacts to ESA natural habitats from sources including, but not limited to, those identified in Table 4.1.1." Only Subsections E, F, G, and N are applicable to the proposed project as the other subsections are clearly inapplicable as they relate to different physical and operational aspects of Newport Bay. E. Limit encroachments into wetlands to development that is consistent with Section 30233 of the Coastal Act and Policy 4.2.3-1 of the Coastal Land Use Plan. The residential portion of the project will not encroach into wetlands or open coastal waters. The expanded boating facility (replacement docks) is a permitted encroachment within open coastal waters pursuant to Section 30233 of the Coastal Act and Policy 4.2.3-1 that specifically allows new or expanded boating facilities, including slips, access ramps, piers, and marinas in open coastal waters provided that the impacts of construction are appropriately mitigated. Adequate measures are contained within the Environmental Impact Report and are required as conditions project approval. * Regulate landscaping or revegetation of blufftop areas to control erosion and invasive plant species and provide a transition area between developed areas and natural habitats. A condition of approval requires all non-native plantings on the bluff to be removed and revegetation of the bluff face is regulated to only allow native and non-invasive plantings indigenous to the California coastal bluff environment. G. Require irrigation practices on blufftops that minimize erosion of bluffs. An irrigation plan is required pursuant to conditions of approval for the project and temporary irrigation on the bluff face may only be to be used to establish vegetation. N. Prohibit invasive species and require removal in new development. A condition of approval requires all non-native plantings on the bluff to be removed and revegetation of the bluff face is regulated to allow only native and non-invasive plantings indigenous to the California coastal bluff environment. WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with the following policies of Chapter 4 (Coastal Resource Protection) based upon the following: Jd City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 11 of 37 Policy 4.3.1-5. Require development on steep slopes or steep slopes with erosive soils to implement structural best management practices (BMPs) to prevent or minimize erosion consistent with any load allocation of the TMDLs adopted for Newport Bay. Policy 4.3.1-6. Require grading/erosion control plans to include soil stabilization on graded or disturbed areas. Policy 4.3.1-7. Require measures be taken during construction to limit land disturbance activities such as clearing and grading, limiting cut-and fill to reduce erosion and sediment loss, and avoiding steep slopes, unstable areas, and erosive soils. Require construction to minimize disturbance of natural vegetation, including significant trees, native vegetation, root structures, and other physical or biological features important for preventing erosion or sedimentation. Policy 4.3.2-22. Require beachfront and waterfront development to incorporate BMPs designed to prevent or minimize polluted runoff to beach and coastal waters. Policy 4.3.2-23. Require new development applications to include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The WQMP's purpose is to minimize to the maximum extent practicable dry weather runoff, runoff from small storms (less than 3/4" of rain falling over a 24-hour period) and the concentration of pollutants in such runoff during construction and post-construction from the property. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, Stormwater Pollution Prevention plan and a Water Quality Management Plan are required by conditions of approval and they must include best management practices to ensure that erosion is controlled to the maximum extent feasible. WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with Policy 4.4.3-4. of the Coastal Land Use Plan that states "On bluffs subject to marine erosion, require new accessory structures such as decks, patios and walkways that do not require structural foundations to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development in the subject area, but not less than 10 feet from the bluff edge. Require accessory structures to be removed or relocated landward when threatened by erosion, instability or other hazards." No new accessory structures are proposed. The policy also requires that accessory structures be removed or relocated landward when threatened by erosion, instability or other hazards. A condition of approval is included such that the existing accessory structures (concrete pad, staircase and walkway) will be removed if threatened by erosional processes in the future. WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with Policy 4.4.3-11 of the Coastal Land Use Plan that states "Require applications for new development to include slope stability analyses and erosion rate estimates provided by a licensed Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer." � I City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 12 of 37 A Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Neblett & Associates, August 2005, the Coastal Hazard Study prepared by GeoSoils Inc., dated October 2006, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated March 17, 2007, a report titled Bluff and Shoreline Reconnaissance by GeoSoils Inc., dated June 11, 2007, and a third party review of all geotechnical reports prepared by GMU Geotechnical, Inc. dated October 29, 2009, collectively indicate that the project will not be subject to nor contribute to erosion, geologic instability, geologic hazard nor require shoreline protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years). WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with the following policies of Chapter 4 (Coastal Resource Protection) that regulate the protection of public views based upon the following: Policy 4.4.1-1. Protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor and to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas. Policy 4.4.14 Design and site new development, including landscaping, so as to minimize impacts to public coastal views. Policy 4.4.1-4. Where appropriate, require new development to provide view easements or corridors designed to protect public coastal views or to restore public coastal views in developed areas. Policy 4.4.1-6. Protect public coastal views from the following roadway segments...Ocean Boulevard. (Figure 4-3 of the CLUP identifies the intersection of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard as a "view point.') Policy 4.4.1-7. Design and site new development, including landscaping, on the edges of public coastal view corridors, including those down public streets, to frame and accent public coastal views. Policy 4.4.24 Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. Policy 4.4.2-3. Implement the regulation of the building envelope to preserve public views through the height, setback, floor area, lot coverage, and building bulk regulation of the Zoning Code in effect as of October 13, 2005 that limit the building profile and maximize public view opportunities. A public view presently exists over the southeastern portion of the site from Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue to the south and southwest between the existing 14- unit apartment building and improvements on the adjoining property to the southeast. The siting of the proposed building would provide a greater separation between these buildings than exists today. Presently, the horizontal view window measures 25 degrees and with the project, the view window will increase to 44 degrees. Based upon the 5,2 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 13 of 37 visual simulations prepared for the project presented within the Environmental Impact Report, the public view from Ocean Boulevard to the west will be improved due to the position of the proposed building. Although the proposed building is taller than the existing building, there is no public view over the buildings; therefore, the taller building proposed will not impact a public view. The project is consistent with the 28132-foot height limitation zone of the Zoning Code as demonstrated by the project plans and verified by staff, and with other building envelope restrictions with the exception of setback encroachments as proposed. Based upon the visual simulations prepared for the project presented within the Environmental Impact Report, and since the residential portion of the proposed will not extend below 50.7 feet MSL and is consistent with the predominant line of existing development as identified by the City Council on August 14, 2007, impacts to public views of the site from the south, west and from Begonia Park are not significantly impacted so as to be inconsistent with CLUP policy. The visual impact of the proposed docks as depicted in the project visual simulations presented within the Environmental Impact Report do not represent a significant impact. The expanded docks with boats create a transient impediment to viewing the project bluff and rocks depending upon the viewer's location. The closer to the site the viewer is, the more prominent the boats in the docks would be in a particular view; however, views of the project site would be provided as one "cruises" in and out of the harbor and the bluff, rocks and cove below the proposed residential building are not being physically altered or covered. The proposed residential building provides a 9-foot setback to the property line abutting 215 Carnation Avenue. Improvements within this setback area are low to the ground and would not be high enough to obstruct public views from Carnation Avenue to the west. This view does not presently exist given existing site improvements to be removed with project construction. Other setback encroachments are below the grade of the street and would not impact a public view. Project encroachments into the required side yard setback abutting Bayside Place do impact public views from Begonia Park or other vantage points from the northwest as the balconies and walkway do not project beyond the silhouette of the remainder of the building that conforms to setback regulations. No other public views exist from the street through the site due to the position of the current buildings. Therefore, the proposed project will not have an impact upon existing public views through the site to the south and west. The recordation of a public view easement to protect the public views over the site from Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue is required as a condition of approval. WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with the following policies of Chapter 4 (Coastal Resource Protection) as they related to the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone and to minimizing the alteration of the coastal bluff based upon the following: 5-3 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 14 of 37 Policy 4.4.1-1. Protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor and to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas. Policy 4.4.1-2. Design and site new development, including landscaping, so as to minimize impacts to public coastal views. Policy 4.4.1-3 Design and site new development to minimize alterations to significant natural landforms, including bluffs, cliffs and canyons. Policy 4.4.3-8. Prohibit development on bluff faces, except private development on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Camation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar determined to be consistent with the predominant line of existing development or public improvements providing public access, protecting coastal resources, or providing for public safety. Permit such improvements only when no feasible alternative exists and when designed and constructed to minimize alteration of the bluff face, to not contribute to further erosion of the bluff face, and to be visually compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible. Policy 4.4.3-9. Where principal structures exist on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Camation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar, require all new development to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development in order to protect public coastal views. Establish a predominant line of development for both principle structures and accessory improvements. The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure safety and stability of the development. Policy 4.4.3-12. Employ site design and construction techniques to minimize alteration of coastal bluffs to the maximum extent feasible, such as. A. Siting new development on the flattest area of the site, except when an altemative location is more protective of coastal resources. B. Utilizing existing driveways and building pads to the maximum extent feasible. C. Clustering building sites. D. Shared use of driveways. E. Designing buildings to conform to the natural contours of the site, and arranging driveways and patio areas to be compatible with the slopes and building design. F. Utilizing special foundations, such as stepped, split level, or cantilever designs. G. Detaching parts of the development, such as a garage from a dwelling unit. H. Requiring any altered slopes to blend into the natural contours of the site. The City Council has interpreted Policies 4.4.3-8 and 4.4.3-9 to mean that development on bluff faces is prohibited, except private development on coastal bluff faces along J ` City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 15 of 37 Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar determined to be consistent with the predominant line of existing development. Additionally, public improvements on coastal bluff faces that are allowable are those that provide public access, protect coastal resources, or provide for public safety when no feasible alternative exists and when they are designed and constructed to minimize alteration or further erosion of the bluff face and are visually compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible. In all cases where the predominant line of existing development is used to establish a development limit, it shall not be the only criteria used for this purpose. All coastal land use policies shall be considered in determining the appropriate extent of new development and size of new structures. The City Council made these clarifications by adopting Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2007- 003, which has not yet been considered by the California Coastal Commission. Existing development of the site is located on the face of a coastal bluff. Identification of the project site as a coastal bluff is based upon the professional opinion of Sidney Neblett, a Certified Engineering Geologist. The coastal bluff transitions from northwest- facing to southwest-facing roughly southwest of the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue almost bisecting the project site. This transition point extends down to the northwest to the western extent of a small pocket beach unofficially known as Carnation Cove. North of the transition point of this bluff, is a series of residential structures developed on Carnation Avenue between 42 and 58 feet NAVD88. East of the transition point along Ocean Boulevard is a series of residential structures that were developed much farther down the bluff face with several at the water's edge. The City Council reviewed this existing development pattern at a noticed public hearing on August 14, 2007, and determined that the predominant line of existing development is 50.7 NAVD88, which is similar to and consistent with the development pattern established by the project site and development to the north along Carnation Avenue. The visible portion of the residential component of the project does not extend below the 50.7 NAVD88 contour except where it connects with an existing access staircase on the bluff face leading to the docks below. The exit below the 50.7 NAVD88 contour is recessed and screened from public view. The project minimizes alteration of the coastal bluff and protects public views of the coastal bluff by not altering the bluff face below the predominant line of existing development and preserving the majority of the visible bluff. The project is required to blend any altered slopes outside of the building footprint to the natural contours, native rocks or soils of the site. For these reasons, the project protects the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, minimizes alteration of the bluff and is consistent with CLUP Policies 4.4.1-1, 4.4.1-2, 4.4.1-3, 4.4.3-8, 4.4.3-9, 4.4.3-12 and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2007-003. WHEREAS, the granting of the Modification Permit allowing above grade and below grade encroachments into the front and side yard setbacks is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code for the following reasons: 55 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 16 of 37 The site is irregular in shape, has steep topography and has submerged lands which make it difficult to design a project at the density proposed while providing required parking and avoiding significantly altering the bluff. Approximately 43% of the site is submerged or has slopes in excess of 50%. The requirement to provide on-site parking requires that a significant portion of the building area be allocated for the parking, thereby reducing available area for residential units. The required side yard setback is also larger than the required front yard setback and the application of this standard represents a practical difficulty given the relatively small buildable area available on the entire site. WHEREAS, the granting of the Modification Permit allowing above grade and below grade encroachments into the front and side yard setbacks will be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood and the granting of the permit application will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood for the following reasons: The requested encroachments within the front yard setback, with the exception of the 42-inch high protective guardrails, will be entirely subterranean and will not be visible. The proposed guardrails wi II have an open design allowing visibility through while providing adequate protection to pedestrians on the public sidewalk from falling over the proposed (and allowable) retaining wall located within the required front yard setback. Building encroachments within the required side yard setback on levels below the street will not be visible. The requested above-grade, 1-foot, 7 inch, building encroachment in the required side yard setback adjacent to 215 Carnation Avenue will provide a 9-foot setback that will create a public view from Carnation Avenue. This public view presently does not exist given the location and nature of existing improvements. The provided setback exceeds typical 4-foot setbacks between buildings along Carnation Avenue. This 9-foot setback will provide sufficient separation between the project and the abutting residence to the north. The encroachments of balconies, including protective guard railings, within the side setback abutting Bayside Place should not impact these residents given the change in topography, the separation provided by Bayside Place, a private roadway, and the fact that these residences are oriented toward Newport Bay and not project. The encroachments within the side setback abutting Bayside Place also do not encroach within a public view from Begonia Park or other vantage points from the west any more than the proposed building does which is compliant with the setback. The encroaching balconies and guard railings will encroach into private views of residents to the north on Carnation Avenue, but the majority of the view to the west and southwest will remain unchanged. WHEREAS, Newport Tract No. 2005-004 (TTM16882) can be approved based upon the following findings: 1. The modified project is consistent with the current land use designation including the proposed amendment. The project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy LU5.1.9 regarding the character and quality of multi-family residential development. 5� City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 17 of 37 The project is consistent with Land Use Element and Natural Resources Element policies related to the protection of public views, visual resources, coastal bluffs and other natural resources based upon the project's consistency with the Coastal Land Use Plan. The site is not subject to a specific plan. Minimum lot sizes established by the Zoning Ordinance are also maintained as required by the City Subdivision Code. The tentative tract map, pursuant to the conditions of approval, is consistent with the Newport Beach Subdivision Code (Title 19) and applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map. 2. The buildable area of the site is relatively small compared to the entire 1.4 acre site. The development of the site is not likely to be subject to coastal erosional processes or hazards during the 75-year economic life of the project. No earthquake faults were found on-site and there is not likely to be an incidence of landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse of soils on-site or near the site given site soil conditions. These factors indicate that the site is suitable for the development proposed. 3. The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements, subject to conditions of approval, will not cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat based upon the Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2007021054) and the adoption of mitigation measures as conditions of project approval. 4. The tract map would recombine two lots and a small portion of a third lot and subdivide the planned airspace of the proposed building for residential condominium purposes. The subdivision is not expected to cause serious public health problems given the use of typical construction materials and practices. No evidence is known to exist that would indicate that the proposed subdivision will generate any serious public health problems. All mitigation measures as outlined in the Environmental Impact Report and the Building, Grading and Fire codes will be implemented to ensure the protection of public health. 5. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, because a utility and sewer easement that affects the site is presently not in use and can be abandoned. The design of the proposed subdivision will avoid and protect in place an existing storm drain easement and storm drain. The storm drain easement will appear on the final map. Public utility easements for utility connections that serve the project site are present and will be modified, if necessary, to serve the proposed project. 6. The site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. 7. The subdivision is subject to Title 24 of the California Building Code that requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The Newport Beach Building Department enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check and field inspection processes. The site has a City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 18 of 37 western exposure and incorporates curved roof elements that will provide some shading of windows and passive solar cooling. Significant exterior wall segments are below grade which will benefit from passive cooling. 8. The subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of the regional housing needs although the proposed subdivision will have the effect of reducing the residential density on the site from 15 units to 8 units. The reduction is insignificant given the City's current housing supply and projected housing needs. Although the reduction in units does not assist the City in reaching its production goals, no affordable housing units are being eliminated based upon the fact that the project was not occupied by low or moderate income households. The reduction in density is consistent with existing density limitations of the Municipal Code. 9. Wastewater discharge into the existing sewer system will be consistent with existing residential use of the property, which does not violate Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements. 10.The proposed subdivision is entirely within the coastal zone and the site is not presently developed with coastal-related uses, coastal-dependent uses or water oriented recreational uses that would be displaced by a non-priority use. The project site is constrained by topography and public access exists nearby making on-site vertical and lateral access unnecessary. Public access to the area is enhanced as a result of increasing public parking opportunities on Carnation Avenue afforded by 3 on street parking spaces to be added with closure of existing driveway curb cuts. The position of the proposed building enhances public views from Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue by increasing the view angle between the development on the project site and adjacent development as well as creating a view corridor between the proposed building and 215 Carnation Avenue where a public view presently does not exist. The modified project developed in accordance with the conditions of approval will minimize alteration of the coastal bluff and preserve the scenic and visual quality of the coast by preserving the bluff below 50.7 feet NAVD88. Lastly, the project will not impact sensitive marine resources with the implementation of the conditions of approval including the mitigation measures identified in the AERIE Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2007021054). WHEREAS, the project includes the demolition of 15 dwelling units within the Coastal Zone within 2 buildings and pursuant to Chapter 20.86 of the Zoning Code, units proposed for demolition and occupied by low or moderate income households must be replaced if such replacement is determined to be feasible. The 15 units are not occupied by low or moderate income households and, therefore, no replacement units are required. Households potentially meeting the low or moderate income limits were not evicted for the purpose of avoiding a replacement requirement within the previous 12 months. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 19 of 37 WHEREAS, a draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2007021054) has been prepared pursuant to the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3. The DEIR was circulated for a 45-day comment period beginning on March 20, 2009, and concluding on May 4, 2009. Comments and responses to the comments were considered by the Planning Commission in its review of the proposed project. WHEREAS the draft Environmental Impact Report identified a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project in accordance with California Code of Regulations Section 15126.6 that would feasibly attain most of the basic project obiectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. The "Existing Zoning/8-unit Multiple-Family Residential Proiect with Reduced Grading — Alternative A" substantially lessens the short-term construction-related noise impact by reducing the overall construction duration by 5 months. Additionally, Alternative A lessens construction-related air quality and construction-related traffic impacts as compared to the proposed project even though the impacts attributable to the proposed project are considered less than significant Although Alternative A impedes to some degree the attainment of the project objectives the substantial lessening of these short-term construction-related impacts is feasible WHEREAS, on the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project (or alternatives) will have a less than significant impact upon the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures, with the exception of short-term construction noise. Additionally, there are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified are feasible and reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level, with the exception of short-term construction noise. The mitigation measures are applied to the alternative project ("Alternative A") and are incorporated as conditions of approval. Benefits 9f the n.^J of existing Fesidential buildings GonsideFed unattFarstive, elimination of unsightly GWP04 parking, sreatien of an nµFactiv^ eneFoy efficieRt development, PMSWVation f +h visual quality ef the bluff below the prepased building, eRhaRGement of public; views utility lines, preseWatiGR of a substantial PFOpeFty right established by the Land Use Designs+iM of the GeneFal RInn and ' d PFOperh to WHEREAS the record further supports a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act in that the project includes benefits that outweighs the short-term construction-related impacts of the proposed project. �59 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 20 of 37 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Section 1. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council certify the AERIE Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2007021054). Section 2. Based on the aforementioned findings and information contained in the administrative record. the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations specifically identifying project benefits that outweigh the short-term construction-related impacts of the proposed pro.ect. Section 23. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 2005- 006 per Exhibit "A", Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005-002 per Exhibit "B", Code Amendment No. 2005-009 per Exhibit "C'; and approve Newport Tentative Tract Map No. 2005-004 (TTM 16882), Modification Permit No. 2005-087 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005-002 (PA 2005-196), which reflects a change to the project consistent with the "Existing Zoning/8-unit Multiple-Family Residential Proiect with Reduced Grading — Alternative A" as described in the DEIR, subject to conditions of approval attached as Exhibit "D". Section 3. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 1723, 1751 and 1761 are hereby rescinded. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY , 2009. AYES: NOES: I BY: Scott Peotter, Chairman BY: Barry Eaton, Secretary 6a City of Newport Beach. Planning Commission Resolution'No. Page:21 of 37 Exhibit ".A?' A, an gi. 5 RM- ...... td- 'Irv.- - If 7A' .......... .. ...... O/L pr O :1. z J, ez ry ........................ Pity of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. - Page-23 of 37 Exhibit."C" nn ,n.. Vol 'j, M JIM -64 R fM. g v W� a NI N? lr R A NFL, roe; V3 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 24 of 37 Exhibit "D" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Newport Tract No. 2005-004 (Tentative Tract Map No. 16882) Modification Permit No. 2005-087 (Project-specific conditions are in italics) Planning Department 1. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use will be cause for revocation of this permit. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 2. This approval was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not in and of itself or in combination with other approvals in the vicinity or Citywide constitute a precedent for future approvals or decisions. 3. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing agent. 4. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans stamped and dated May 21, 2009, except that the projectincluding the Construction Management Plan (CMP) shall be revised to make it consistent with the "Existing Zoning/8-unit Multiple-Family Residential Project with Reduced Grading—Alternative A" as described in the draft Environmental Impact Report or as modified by other conditions of approval. The construction management plan shall be revised to incorporate the following additional pMiect design features: 1) the use of a steel sleeve for the drilling of holes for dock piles and procedures for the containment of tailings from the drilling process; 2) the placement of a silt curtain across the entrance to the cove: and 3) the placement of a protective barrier (15 mil Stegowrm or equivalent) under the upper fixed pier walkway prior to the repair and renovation of the walkway. The revised CMP shall contain all the provisions contained within the CMP dated March 17. 2009, and the CMP shall be implemented throughout implementation of the project to the maximum extent possible. be in substantial GGnfGRnanre �Wth the appmved plans stamped and dated May 217 within the—Canstrfrstien Manage tamed " 2008,- shallge possible. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 25 of 37 5. Project approvals shall expire unless exercised within 36 months from the effective date of approval. Reasonable extensions may be granted by the Planning Director in accordance with the Municipal Code and Subdivision Map Act. 6. The applicant shall obtain a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of any building, grading or demolition permit for the project. 7. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the proposed condominium association shall provide for the long term maintenance of the project and shall be reviewed and approved by the Office of the City Attorney prior to their recordation. The CC&Rs shag include a provision that residents shall park only operable vehicles within the parking garage that are in active use (i.e. no long term storage of vehicles). 8. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. the applicant shag provide the City with a performance bond or its equivalent to ensure timely completion of all improvements represented on plans and drawings submitted for permit approval in the event construction of improvements consistent with project approval is abandoned. The performance bond or its equivalent shag be an amount equal to 100% of the cost of completing project improvements from the start of grading activities up to completion of the building shell and shall be issued with the City as beneficiary by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance in the State of California and shall have an assigned policyholders' Rating of A (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class Vii (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Bests Key Rating Guide unless otherwise approved by the City Risk Manager. The bond or equivalent shall be released in 25% increments upon completion of each quarter of construction of the building shell. 9. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for new construction, the applicant shall execute a waiver of all claims against the City for future liability or damage resulting from the approval to build the project. The form and content of the waiver shall be in a form acceptable to the office of the City Attorney and the waiver shall be recorded against the property in question. 10. Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code. Exterior on-site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance (SC 4.5.1). 11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Director. The site shall not be excessively illuminated as excessive illumination may be determined consistent with the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America or by the Planning Director in the event the 65 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 26 of 37 illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. 12. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare. The Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated (SC 4.5-2). 13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director. The plans shall incorporate native drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices. All planting areas, with the exception of bluff areas, shall be provided with a permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitable for the type and arrangement of the plant materials selected. The irrigation system shall be adjustable based upon either a 9 Y 1 p signal from a satellite or an on-site moisture-sensor. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or similar permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. The proposed landscaping adjacent to the back of sidewalk shall be designed with provisions that will prevent irrigation and/or other runoff from spilling onto the sidewalk. 14. Bluff landscaping shall consist of native, drought tolerant plant species determined to be consistent with the California coastal buff environment. Invasive and non- native species shall be removed. Irrigation of bluff faces to establish re-vegetated areas shall be temporary and used only to establish the plants. Upon establishment of the plantings, the temporary irrigation system shall be removed (SC 4.7-2). 15. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall schedule an inspection by the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm that all landscaping materials and irrigation systems have been installed in accordance with the approved plans. 16. All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, watering, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 17. A floating dock and boat slips may be developed, maintained and operated in open coastal waters adjacent to the residential condominium development provided all necessary permits are first obtained. The docks and slips shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the approved dock layout plan and must City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 27 of 37 be reviewed and approved by the Harbor Resources Manager prior to construction. The maximum number of permanent boat slips shall be no greater than the total number of residential units developed. Use of the boat slips shall be limited to residents and their guests and the slips shall not be leased, subleased or allowed to come into the control of non-residents of the condominium development. 18. Water leaving the project site due to over-irrigation of landscape shall be minimized. If an incident such as this is reported, a representative from the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division of the City Manager's Office shall visit the location, investigate, inform resident if possible, leave a note and in some cases shut-off the water. 19. Watering should be done during the early morning or evening hours to minimize evaporation (between 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m., the following morning). 20. All irrigation system leaks shall be investigated by a representative from the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division of the City Manager's Office and the applicant or future owners shall complete all required repairs. 21. Prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit, a waiver of future shoreline protection during the economic life of the structure (75 years) shall be recorded against the property. The waiver shall be binding upon all future owners and assignees. The waiver shall be reviewed and approved by the Office of the Office of the City Attorney prior to recordation (SC 4.9-3). 22. Accessory structures shall be relocated or removed if threatened by coastal erosion. Accessory structures shall not be expanded and routine maintenance of accessory structures is permitted (SC 4.9-4). 23. Prior to issuance of a certificate occupancy for the project, the applicant shall install a public bench within the public right-of-way as depicted on the site plan. The specific design and location of the bench shall be approved by the Public Works, Planning and General Services Departments prior to installation. 24. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets within the limits authorized by this permit, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control. 25. Noise-generating construction and/or maintenance activities may be permitted only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. on Saturdays. No noise-generating construction activities may occur at any time on Sundays or on federal holidays. These days and hours shall also apply any servicing of equipment and to the delivery of materials to or from the site (SC 4.4-1). City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 28 of 37 26. The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all administrative costs identified by the Planning Department within 30 days of receiving a final notification of costs or prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 27. All altered slopes that are outside of the building envelope shall be contoured to resemble the existing natural terrain. Any alteration or damage of the bluff face not part of the approved grading or building plans shall be repaired and said repairs shall resemble the existing natural terrain. 28. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the AERIE Project including, but not limited to, the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2005-006, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005-002, Code Amendment No. 2005-009, Tentative Tract Map No. 2005-004 (Tract 16882), Modification Permit No. 2005-087 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005-002 collectively referred to as PA 2005-196; and/or the City's related California Environmental Quality Act determinations, the adoption of a Environmental Impact Report and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the AERIE Project. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. 29. The project shall incorporate and implement an emergency power backup system so the vehicle lifts will operate during a power outage. The location of the generator shall be sound attenuated and screened from public view and subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director. 30. Remote control operators for the vehicle elevators, in quantities equal to the number of parking spaces assigned to each dwelling unit shall be provided to occupants of the respective units. The project shall incorporate an extemal indicating system to alert drivers which vehicle elevator will be available for immediate use. The vehicle elevator system shall be maintained for efficient use throughout the life of the project. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 29 of 37 31. Vehicle parking and maneuvering areas shall be restricted to the operation, maneuvering and parking of operable vehicles and shall not be used for storage of any kind including the long-term storage of vehicles not in regular use. 32. No idling of construction vehicles or equipment shall be allowed. Construction vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and maintained and shall be turned off immediately when not in use. Construction workers, equipment operators or truck drivers shall not employ any form of audible signaling system during any phase of construction. 33. Reclaimed water shall be used wherever available, assuming it is economically feasible. 34. All plans and proposed uses within the project site shall to comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to the transport, storage, use and/or disposal of hazardous materials (SC 4.8-1). 35. Residents of the project shall comply with California Code Title 14 (Natural Resources), Section 29.05, which prohibits the taking of any marine organisms within 1,000 feet of the high tide line without a sport fishing license (SC 4.7-1). 36. The applicant shall dedicate a view easement; however, it will only affect the project site. Structures and landscaping within the easement area shall not be permitted to block public views. The easement shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit for new construction and shall be reflected on the final tract map (SC 4.5-2). 37. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials (SC 4.10-1). 38. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the project applicant to develop a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) consistent with the guidance of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). In the event that fossils are encountered during construction activities, ground-disturbing excavations in the vicinity of the discovery shall be redirected or halted by the monitor until the find has been salvaged. Any fossils discovered during project construction shall be prepared to a point of identification and stabilized for long-term storage. Any i � l City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 30 of 37 discovery, along with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, shall be accessioned into the collections of a suitable repository. Curation costs to accession any collections shall be the responsibility of the project applicant (SC 4.10-21). Fire Department 39. One gurney-accommodating elevator shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 30 of the California Building Code within the project that must access each level. 40. A Class /it standpipe system shall be provided at the private dock in accordance with Newport Beach Fire Department guidelines. 41. A public fire hydrant shall be provided at the comer of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. The hydrant shall be installed and tested prior to occupancy of the project, unless required earlier by the Fire Department. 42. A fire alarm system with.fire control room shall be provided within the project. Monitored Automatic fire sprinklers shall be required for the entire structure to meet NFA13, 2003 Edition and in accordance with Newport Beach Fire Department requirements. Shut-off valves and a waterflow device shall be provided for each unit. A Class i standpipe shall be provided at every level at all stairs. Standpipe and sprinklers may be a combination system. 43. The project shall provide pressurized exit enclosures and vestibules in accordance with the Building Code. Enclosures shall be a minimum two-hour fire rated construction. 44. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position that is plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall be of made of non-combustible materials, shall contrast with their background, and shall be either internally or externally illuminated to be visible at night. Number shall be no less than six inches in height with a one-inch stroke. Public Works 45. All parking stall dimensions shall comply with City's Standard Drawings STD-805- L-A (SC 4.2-1). 46. Driveway/drive aisle slopes shall comply with City Standard STD-160-L-C, which accommodate a 15 percent maximum slope and a maximum change in grade of 11 percent. The building plans shall show detailed profile of each of the proposed driveways (SC 4.2-1). 47. Project driveways must conform to the City's sight distance standard 110-L. The project driveway to the parking area on the Second Level shall maintain a 16 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 31 of 37 minimum 20-foot width. The overall design of vehicle access and parking areas shag be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer(SC 4.2-1, SC 4.2-2 & SC 4.2-3). 48. All work conducted within the public right-of-way shall be approved under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 49. Construction surety in a form acceptable to the City, guaranteeing the completion of the various required public improvements and repairs, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for City Council approval prior to the issuance of Public Works Department encroachment permit. 50. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 51. A water demand, a storm drain system capacity, and a sanitary sewer system capacity study shall be submitted to the Public Works Department along with the first building plan check submittal. The recommendations of these studies shall be incorporated as a part of the submitted plans. 52. Street, drainage and utility improvements within the public right-of-way shall be submitted on City standard improvement plan formats. All of the plan sheets shall be wet sealed, dated, and signed by the California registered professionals responsible for the designs shown on said plans. 53. All new landscaping within the public right-of-way shall be approved by the General Services Department and the Public Works Department. 54. The applicant shall submit detailed plans for the on-site drainage system(s) to demonstrate that it will prevent the underground garage from being flooded during storm events. 55. The Developer shall file one (1) Final Tract Map (Map). 56. The roadway cross section shown on the Map with a 110-foot right-of-way width should be labeled as "Ocean Boulevard". 57. The Map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD88). Prior to Map recordation, the surveyor/engineer preparing the Map shall submit to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a digital-graphic file of said map in a manner described in the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual. The Map to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the City's CADD Standards. Scanned images will not be accepted. 58. Prior to recordation, the Map boundary shall be tied onto the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Sections 7- 9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County `L� City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 32 of 37 Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set On Each Lot Comer unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. 59. The applicant's request to vacate the existing sewer/utilities easement shall be approved by the City Utilities Department prior to the issuance of a building permit or the recordation of the final tract map. The existing private ingress/egress easement with the same width, length, and alignment as the existing sewer/utilities easement shall be vacated or permission from the beneficiaries of the private easement shall be documented prior to the issuance of a building permit or the recordation of the final tract map. 60. A 5-foot wide public sewer and utilities easement as measured from the centerline of the existing sewer main fronting the development site shall be recorded against the property. The applicant shall prepare and submit the legal description for said easement for City review and approval. 61. All easements of record shall be recorded as a part of the Final Map. 62. All improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the current edition of the City Design Criteria, Standard Special Provisions, and Standard Drawings. 63. The sidewalk portion of the proposed new driveway approach shall be constructed with 2% cross-fall per City Standards. 64. Temporary construction sheet piles shall be installed to protect all existing storm drain and sanitary sewer mains within and adjacent to the development site. 65. No structures or construction tie-backs shall be constructed within the limits of any easements or public right-of-way without the approval of an Encroachment Agreement and Permit. 66. Full-width concrete sidewalk and curb and gutter shall be constructed along the length of the Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard frontages. The new sidewalk shall join the existing sidewalk in front of 2501 Ocean Boulevard. 67. New concrete curbs shall be dowelled into sound concrete roadway pavement. 68. Trees shall not be installed at locations where mature tree roots could damage the existing City sewer main. 69. Adequate safety provisions for pedestrians and W/B Ocean Boulevard vehicle traffic along the length of the perimeter/retaining walls along the Carnation Avenue frontage shall be shown on building plans and shall be installed and maintained throughout the life of the project. �a City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 33 of 37 70. Each dwelling unit shall be served by its individual water service and sewer lateral connection and cleanout. 71. All utility connections shall be placed underground in accordance with the Subdivision Code. 72. The on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review and approval by the Traffic Engineer and any corrections/modifications shall be made to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. 73. All non-standard improvements within the public right-of-way wsuld-shall require an Encroachment Agreement and Encroachment Permit. 74. Standard curb, gutter and sidewalk shall be installed within the public right of way across the frontage of the project site. Curb cuts for vehicle driveway approaches shall directly lead to the parking areas or vehicle elevators. 75. Gates shall not be designed to open out into the public right-of-way. 76. Raised planters shall not be permitted within the Public right-of-way. Planting adjacent to the curb shall accommodate a vehicle car door opening. Project landscape plans shall provide details of the planters and shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 77. The driveway approaches within the public right-of-way shall be shall be narrowed to the width of garage openings they serve. Six-inch curbs shall have a 3 foot flare. Drive approaches shall be modified to comply with ADA requirements. 78. Planters adjacent to the freight elevators shall be pulled back from the Carnation Avenue property line two feet to improve vehicle maneuvering. Planters in the front yard shall not encroach into the projection of the garage door edge. 79. No structural support column shall be located in the middle of the driveway leading to the parking area located on the Second Level. 80. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare a study of the existing drainage area and catch basin in Camation Avenue to determine the appropriate size of catch basin. The study shall be subject to the review and approval by the City. The developer shall enlarge the existing catch basin accordingly and shall bear all costs of design, permitting and construction. 81. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee shall be paid. 82. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall prepare a final Construction `l-3 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 34 of 37 Management Plan that includes routing of large vehicles. The plan shall include a haul route plan for review and approval of the Public Works Department. Said plan shall specify the routes to be traveled, times of travel, total number of trucks, number of trucks per hour, time of operation, and safety/congestion precautions (e.g., signage, flagmen). Large construction vehicles shall not be permitted to travel narrow streets and alleys as determined by the Public Works Department. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. The plans shall include a provision that maintains the public right-of-way open to vehicular and pedestrian traffic after working hours daily. 83. Where vehicles leave the construction site and enter adjacent public streets, any visible track-out extending for more than fifty (50) feet from the access point shall be swept within thirty (30) minutes of deposition. 84. Prior to commencement of demolition and grading, the applicant shall submit to the City calculations showing the proposed travel route for haul trucks, the distance traveled, and how many daily truck trips that can be accommodated to ensure that the daily cumulative miles traveled is below the assumed total vehicle miles traveled in the quantitative air quality assessment of the Environmental Impact Report, Building Department 85. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits for construction from the City of Newport Beach. The final construction plans must comply with the most recent, City-adopted version of the California Building Code. The facility shall be designed to meet fire protection and safety requirements and shall be subject to review and approval by the Newport Beach Building and Fire Departments (SC 4.3-5, SC 4.6- 4, SC 4.9-1, and SC 4.9-2). 86. County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 87. Prior to the issuance of the aradina permit, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared and approved by the City of Newport Beach as the local permitting agency in accordance with the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The SWPPP shall include BMPs to eliminate and/or minimize stormwater pollution prior to, and during construction. The SWPPP shall require construction to occur in stages and stabilized prior to disturbing other areas and require the use of temporary diversion dikes and basins to trap sediment from nun-off and allow clarification prior to discharge (SC 4.6-3). 88. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the applicant shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying the Best Management Practices (BMP's) that will be used on site to control predictable pollutant runoff. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 35 of 37 The plan shall identify the types of structural and non-structural measures to be used. The plan shall comply with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). Particular attention should be addressed to the appendix section "Best Management Practices for New Development." The WQMP shall clearly show the locations of structural BMP's, and assignment of long term maintenance responsibilities (which shall also be included in the Maintenance Agreement). The plan shall be prepared to the format of the DAMP title "Water Quality Management Plan Outline" and be subject to the approval of the City (SC 4.6-2). 89. Prior to the issuance of the grading or building permit, the applicant shall obtain a NPDES permit and/or coverage under the NPDES statewide General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit. The applicant shall incorporate storm water pollutant control into erosion control plans using BMPs to the maximum extent possible. Evidence that proper clearances have been obtained through the State Water Resources Control Board shall be given to the Building Department prior to issuance of grading permits (SC 4.6-1). 90. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building pen-nit, the applicant shall submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) in a manner meeting approval of the City Building Official, to demonstrate compliance with local and state water quality regulations for grading and construction activities. The ESCP shall identify how all construction materials, wastes, grading or demolition debris, and stockpiles of soil, aggregates, soil amendments, etc. shall be properly covered, stored, and secured to prevent transport into local drainages or coastal waters by wind, rain, tracking, tidal erosion, or dispersion. The ESCP shall also describe how the applicant will ensure that all Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be maintained during construction of any future public right-of-ways. A copy of the current ESCP shall be kept at the project site and be available for City of Newport Beach review on request. The ESCP shall include and require the use of soil stabilization measures for all disturbed areas. 91. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the project applicant shall document to the City of Newport Beach Building Department that all facilities will be designed and constructed to comply with current seismic safety standards and the current City- adopted version of the Uniform Building Code. 92. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, a geotechnical report shall be submitted with construction drawings for plan check. The Building Department shall ensure that the project complies with the geotechnical recommendations included in the preliminary geologic investigation as well as additional requirements, if any, imposed by the Newport Beach Building Department. 93. Prior to issuance of the building permit, school impacts fees will be paid to the Building Department to assist in funding school facility expansion and educational services to area residents. `lS City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 36 of 37 94. The project shall strictly adhere to SCAQMD Rule 403, which sets requirements for dust control associated with grading and construction activities (SC 4.3-1). 95. The project shall strictly adhere to SCAQMD Rules 431.1 and 431.2, which require the use of low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment (SC 4.3-2). 96. The project shall strictly adhere to SCAQMD Rule 1108, which sets limitations on ROG content in asphalt (SC 4.3-3). 97. The project shall strictly adhere to SCAQMD Rule 1113, which sets limitations on ROG content in architectural coatings (SC 4.3-4). Mitigation Measures from Environmental Impact Report(SCH#2007021054) 98. All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained muffling devices, intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer (MM 4.4-1 a). 99. The construction contractor shall properly maintain and tune all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions (MM 4.4-1 b). 100. The construction contractor shall locate all stationary noise sources (e.g., generators, compressors, staging areas) as far from residential receptor locations as feasible (MM 4.4-1c). 101. The construction contractor shall post a contact name and telephone number of the owner's authorized representative on-site (MM 4.4-1d). 102. The construction contractor shall install temporary sound blankets or plywood panels with a minimum Sound Transmission Class rating of 32 or higher and a density of 1.5 pounds per square foot or greater (e.g., SoundSeal BBC-13-2 or equivalent) along the entire outer perimeter of the construction area. The temporary sound blankets or plywood panels shall have a minimum height of six feet. If plywood panels are selected, they must have a minimum density of four pounds per square foot and have no perforations or gaps between the panels (MM 4.4-1 e). 103. The construction contractor shall select quieter tools or construction methods whenever feasible. Examples of this include the use of plasma cutters, which produce less noise than power saws with abrasive blades and ordering precut materials to specifications to avoid on-site cutting (MM 4.4-1f). 104. The construction contractor shall maximize the use of enclosures as feasible. This includes four-sided or full enclosures with a top for compressors and other stationary machinery. This also includes locating activities, such as metal stud and rebar cutting, within constructed walled structures to minimize noise propagation (MM 4.4-1g). Z�P City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 37 of 37 105. Any repairs, renovations, removal or demolition activities that will impact the ACM or inaccessible ACM shall be performed by a licensed asbestos contractor. Inaccessible suspect ACM shall be tested prior to demolition or renovation. Air emissions of asbestos fibers and leaded dust would be reduced to below a level of significance through compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulatory requirements. Proper safety procedures for the handling of suspect ACM shall always be followed in order to protect the occupants of the building and the asbestos workers (MM 4.8-1). 106. A contractor performing paint removal work shall follow the OSHA lead standard for the construction industry. The lead content of the paint should be considered when choosing a method to remove the pain, as proper waste disposal requirements and worker protection measures shall be implemented throughout the removal process (MM 4.8-2). 107. Project implementation shall adhere to the engineering recommendations for site grading and foundation design and construction presented in the Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Nebeltt & Associates, Inc., and subsequent detailed geotechnical engineering analyses (MM 4.9-1 a). 108. Accessory structures shall be relocated or removed if threatened by coastal erosion. Accessory structures shall not be expanded and routine maintenance of accessory structures is permitted (MM 4.9-1b). 109. During periods when boats would be exposed to excessive wave-induced motions, boats should be sheltered at mooring can locations that are available inside Newport Harbor to avoid damage (MM 4.9-2a). 110. The dock design shall be based on the extreme wave conditions identified in the coastal engineering study (Noble Consultants, Inc., 2008) (MM 4.9-2b). 3 rt fD 3 O 3 fl1 K cr Ol 7 Exhibit No. 6 Revised Resolution recommending Project approval M M 3 O 3 cr a) 3 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RESCINDING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS 1723, 1751 and 1761 AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2007021054) AND APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2005-006, COASTAL LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2005-002, CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2005-009, NEWPORT TRACT MAP NO. 2005-004 (TTM 16882), MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2005-087 AND COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 2005-002 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 201-205, 207 CARNATION AVENUE 101 BAYSIDE PLACE (PA 2005-196). WHEREAS, an application was filed by Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. with respect to property located at 201-205, 207 Carnation Avenue, and 101 Bayside Place to construct an 8-unit residential condominium development on a 1.4 acre site. The application includes: 1. General Plan Amendment No. 2005-006 to change the land use designation of a 584 square-foot portion of a parcel identified as 101 Bayside Place from RT (Two- Unit Residential) to RM (Multiple-Unit Residential, 20 dwelling units per acre). 2. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005-002 to change the Coastal Land Use Plan designation of the same 584 square-foot portion of a parcel identified as 101 Bayside Place from RH-D (High Density Residential - 50.1 to 60 dwelling units per acre) to RM-A (Medium Density Residential - 6.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre). 3. Zone Change No. 2005-009 to change the zoning designation of the 584 square-foot portion of a parcel identified as 101 Bayside Place from R-2 (Two-Family Residential) to MFR (Multifamily Residential, 2178 square feet per unit). 4. Newport Tentative Tract Map No. 2005-004 (TTM16882) to combine the 584 square- foot portion of a parcel identified as 101 Bayside Place with parcels identified as 201- 205 Carnation Avenue and 207 Carnation Avenue, and to subdivide the air space for 8 residential condominium units. 5. Modification Permit No. 2005-087 to permit a 5-foot subterranean building encroachment and 42-inch high protective guardrails within the required 10-foot front setback along Carnation Avenue; subterranean and above grade building encroachments of 5 feet and 1-foot, 7-inches into a required 10-foot, 7-inch side yard setback between the project and 215 Carnation; and three balconies and one at grade landing each with protective guard rails that exceed the maximum height of 6 feet from natural grade within the required 10-foot, 7-inch side yard abutting Bayside Place. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 2 of 37 6. Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005-002 to allow demolition of the existing dwelling units within the Coastal Zone pursuant to Chapter 20.86 of the Municipal Code. WHEREAS, on February 22 2007, April 5, 2007, and May 17, 2007, the Planning Commission held noticed public hearings in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach California at which time the applications, proiect and a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and approval of the applications to the City Council: and WHEREAS. on August 14, 2007, the City Council held a noticed public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, proiect and a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the City Council at the hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing the City Council identified the predominant line of existing development (PLOED) at 50.7 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). Since the proposed proiect was not consistent with the PLOED as required by the policies of the 2005 Coastal Land Use Plan further consideration of the proposed project was postponed until such time that the proiect was revised to conform to the PLOED: and WHEREAS, subsequent to the August 14, 2007, City Council hearing, the applicant revised the proposed proiect in accordance with the PLOED as established by the City Council. Additionally, the applicant further revised the proiect to include a proposed dock structure. WHEREAS, on February 21 2008 and June 19, 2008, the Planning Commission held noticed public hearings in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, the revised proiect and a revised draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the revised draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the revised proiect and approval of the applications to the City Council; and WHEREAS. on July 8, 2008 the City Council held a noticed public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach California at which time the applications, revised proiect and a revised draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 3 of 37 was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the City Council at the hearing. The City Council expressed several concerns including the project's potential visual impact on the area and the City Council took no action; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the City Council hearing on July 8. 2008, the City and the applicant mutually agreed that an Environmental Impact Report would be prepared for the proiect pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, on May 21, 2009, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time the applications, project and a draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2007021054) were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearing. WHEREAS, the project site has two separate land use designations assigned by the Land Use Element of the General Plan (584 square-feet is designated RT (Two-Unit Residential) and the remaining portion of the site, 60,700 square-feet, is designated RM (Multi-Unit Residential, 20 dwelling units per acre). The proposed amendment changing the land use designation of the 584 square-foot portion of the site to match the remainder of the site will numerically allow 1 additional unit; however, the density limitation as dictated by the Zoning Ordinance is more restrictive as it excludes submerged lands and slopes in excess of 50% from the calculation. The density of the proposed project is below the resulting maximum density permitted by the General Plan (28 dwellings) and is consistent with the maximum density allowed by the existing MFR zone (9 units). The residential condominium project is consistent with the proposed Multi-Family Residential land use designation and is consistent with residential developments within the area. WHEREAS, Charter Section 423 requires that all proposed General Plan Amendments be reviewed to determine if the square footage (for non-residential projects), peak hour vehicle trip, or dwelling units thresholds would be exceeded as the means to determine whether a vote by the electorate would be required to approve the General Plan Amendment. Pursuant to Council Policy A-18, voter approval is not required as the proposed General Plan Amendment represents an increase of 1 dwelling unit and an increase of 1 A.M. and 1 P.M. peak hour trip. Additionally, no prior amendments have been approved within Statistical Area F3 and, therefore, the project and prior amendments do not cumulatively exceed Charter Section 423 thresholds as to require a vote of the electorate. WHEREAS, the proposed project subject to conditions of approval is consistent with General Plan Policy LU5.1.9 inasmuch as building elevations that face public streets need to be treated to achieve the highest level of urban design and neighborhood quality. Architectural treatment of building elevations and the modulation of mass are to convey the character of separate living units or clusters of living units, $ 3 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 4 of 37 avoiding the appearance of a singular building volume. Street elevations are to be provided with high quality materials and finishes to convey quality. Roof profiles are modulated to reduce the apparent scale of large structures and to provide visual interest and variety. Parkin areas are designed to be integral with the architecture of the tY 9 9 9 development. Usable and functional private open space for each unit is incorporated as each unit has an outdoor deck or patio that may include a fire pit and spa. Common open space that creates a pleasant living environment with opportunities for recreation is also included. Private storage areas for each unit are also provided. The project design incorporates building articulation, roof modulation and a diverse architectural style. Although specific exterior finishes or building materials are not identified at this time, the applicant and architect are committed to providing the highest quality project commensurate with the expense of the project and appropriate to their target buyer. WHEREAS, the proposed project subject to conditions of approval is consistent with General Plan Policy LU 5.1.8 that requires adequate enclosed parking considering the number of bedrooms. One unit has 2 bedrooms, five units have 3 bedrooms, one unit has 4 bedrooms and one unit has 5 bedrooms. Five of the units have other rooms that could be modified and used as bedrooms and the unit sizes range from 2,662 to 4,990 square feet. The project provides two spaces for each of 2 units without vehicle lifts, and three spaces for each of 6 units with vehicle lifts. Six guest parking spaces, one service vehicle space and 2 golf cart spaces are provided for a total of 31 covered, vehicle spaces. An area for motorcycle or bicycle parking is also included. Provided parking is in excess of the minimum required pursuant to the Zoning Code (2.5 parking spaces per unit or a total of 20 spaces for 8 units proposed). WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with General Plan Policy CE7.1.8 and Policy CE7.1.1 as well as Coastal Land Use Policy 2.9.3-1 that require new development to avoid the use of parking configurations or parking management programs that are difficult to maintain and enforce and that new development is required to provide adequate, convenient parking for residents. All parking is enclosed on site with access to lower parking levels taken from two vehicle elevators. Five of the six guest parking spaces and parking for one unit are located at street level where access to the vehicle elevators is not necessary. No gates are planned that could possibly inhibit access to the street-level parking. Only seven of the eight units and one guest parking space will require the use of the vehicle elevators. The below-grade parking configuration accessed by elevators is sufficiently convenient in that two vehicle elevators to access the garage are proposed, which will reduce vehicle wait times to avoid significant conflicts entering or exiting the elevators. Emergency power generators are required so that vehicle access is maintained if electrical power is lost. The vehicle maneuvering areas within the parking areas meet or will be modified prior to the issuance of a building permit consistent with applicable standards required by the City Traffic Engineer. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 5 of 37 WHEREAS, the Land Use and Natural Resources Elements of the General Plan contain general policies regarding the protection of public views, visual resources, coastal bluffs and other natural resources and the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) reflects these same policies and includes additional policies that expand upon the topics addressed in the Land Use and Natural Resources Elements of the General Plan and are applicable only within the Coastal Zone such that a finding of consistency with the CLUP is an implicit finding of consistency with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Accordingly, based upon facts in support of findings that the project is consistent with the relevant CLUP policies as indicated below, the project is determined to be consistent with all resource protection policies within the Land Use and Natural Resources Elements. WHEREAS, the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) designates the majority of the site RM-A (Medium Density Residential - 6.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre) and a 584 square-foot portion of the site is designated RH-D High Density Residential - 50.1 to 60 dwelling units per acre. The proposed amendment of the land use designation for the 584 square-foot portion of the site will result in a land use designation the same as the larger portion of the site and will numerically increase the maximum permissible project density by 1 unit, from 13 to 14, but not the maximum permissible density pursuant to the RM-A Zoning for the site. WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with applicable policies within Chapter 2 (Land Use and Development) of the Coastal Land Use Plan based upon the following: 1. Policy 2.7-1. Continue to maintain appropriate setbacks and density, floor area, and height limits for residential development to protect the character of established neighborhoods and to protect coastal access and coastal resources. The project conforms to the height limit of the MFR zone and no deviation is proposed. The project proposes 61,709 gross square feet, below the maximum 75,868 square feet allowed by the existing MFR zone standard. The proposed project does not exceed the 28/32 foot height limitation of the Zoning Code. The proposed 8-unit project is below the maximum permissible density established by the RM-A (Medium Density Residential - 6.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre). Setback encroachments are primarily subterranean and would not impact the character of the area. The above-ground encroachments are minor in nature. The project provides a 9-foot setback area to the north abutting 215 Carnation Avenue creating a public view where none presently exists due to current site conditions. The setback proposed will provide adequate separation from the building to the north and the encroachments will not impact fragile resources as the encroachments are located on the opposite side of the building away from the bluff and bay. a5 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 6 of 37 2. Policy 2.7-2. Continue the administration of provisions of State law relative to the demolition, conversion and construction of low and moderate-income dwelling units within the coastal zone. Goverment Code Section 65590 (Mello Act) regulates the demolition or conversion of low and moderate income units within the Coastal Zone. All units were vacated in December of 2001 and only a caretaker and the applicant's family reside at the project site. No low or moderate income residents currently reside within the project and, therefore, Government Code Section 65590 is not applicable. 3. Policy 2.8.9-9. Review all applications for new development to determine potential threats from coastal and other hazards. Policy 2.8.9-2. Design and site new development to avoid hazardous areas and minimize risks to life and property from coastal and other hazards. Policy 2.8.9-3. .Design land divisions, including lot line adjustments, to avoid hazardous areas and minimize risks to life and property from coastal and other hazards. A Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Neblett & Associates, August 2005, the Coastal Hazard Study prepared by GeoSoils Inc., dated October 2006, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated March 17, 2007, a report titled Bluff and Shoreline Reconnaissance by GeoSoils Inc., dated June 11, 2007, and a third party review of all geotechnical reports prepared by GMU Geotechnical, Inc. dated October 29, 2009, collectively support that potential hazards due to seismic ground shaking, coastal bluff retreat due to erosional forces and tsunamis are minimal. Seismic issues are mitigated with the implementation of the Building Code and coastal bluff retreat is not expected to impact the project during the 75 year economic life of the building. Inundation by wave action or tsunami is considered very remote and the proposed residential improvements are well above wave action. 4. Policy 2.8.9-4. Require new development to assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and Cliffs. Policy 2.8.3-9. Require all coastal development permit applications for new development on a beach or on a coastal bluff property subject to wave action to assess the potential for flooding or damage from waves, storm surge, or seiches, through a wave uprush and impact reports prepared by a licensed civil engineer with expertise in coastal processes. The conditions that shall be considered in a wave uprush study are: a seasonally eroded beach combined with long-term (75 years) City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 7 of 37 erosion; high tide conditions, combined with long-term (75 year) projections for sea level rise; storm waves from a 100-year event or a storm that compares to the 1982183 El Niho event. Policy 2.8.6-10. Site and design new structures to avoid the need for shoreline and bluff protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years). Policy 2.8.7-3. Require applications for new development, where applicable [i.e., in areas of known or potential geologic or seismic hazards], to include a geologic/soils/geotechnical study that identifies any geologic hazards affecting the proposed project site, any necessary mitigation measures, and contains a statement that the project site is suitable for the proposed development and that the development will be safe from geologic hazard. Require such reports to be signed by a licensed Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer and subject to review and approval by the City. A Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Neblett & Associates, August 2005, the Coastal Hazard Study prepared by GeoSoils Inc., dated October 2006, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated March 17, 2007, a report titled Bluff and Shoreline Reconnaissance by GeoSoils Inc., dated June 11, 2007, and a third party review of all geotechnical reports prepared by GMU Geotechnical, Inc. dated October 29, 2009, collectively indicate that the project will not be subject to nor contribute to erosion, geologic instability, geologic hazard nor require shoreline protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years). 5. Policy 2.8.6-9. Require property owners to record a waiver of future shoreline protection for new development during the economic life of the structure (75 years) as a condition of approval of a coastal development permit for new development on a beach, shoreline, or bluff that is subject to wave action, erosion, flooding, landslides, or other hazards associated with development on a beach or bluff. Shoreline protection may be permitted to protect existing structures that were legally constructed prior to the certification of the LCP, unless a waiver of future shoreline protection was required by a previous coastal development permit. A waiver of future shoreline protective devices is included as a condition of approval. 6. Policy 2.9.3-10 Require new development to minimize curb cuts to protect on-street parking spaces and close curb cuts to create new public parking wherever feasible. The project will reduce the width of existing curb cuts creating 3 additional street spaces available to the public. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 8 of 37 WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with Chapter 3 (Public Access) of the Coastal Land Use Plan based upon the following: Policy 3.1.1-1. Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance public access to and along the shoreline and to beaches, coastal waters, tidelands, coastal parks, and trails. Policy 3.1.2-1. Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance public access to and along coastal bluffs. Policy 3.1.2-2. Site, design, and maintain public access improvements in a manner to avoid or minimize impacts to coastal bluffs. Policy 3.1.1-11. Require new development to minimize impacts to public access to and along the shoreline. Policy 3.1.1-9. Protect, expand, and enhance a system of public coastal access that achieves the following: • Maximizes public access to and along the shoreline; • Includes pedestrian, hiking, bicycle, and equestrian trails; • Provides connections to beaches, parks, and recreational facilities • Provides connections with trail systems of adjacent jurisdictions; • Provides access to coastal view corridors; • Facilitates alternative modes of transportation; • Minimizes alterations to natural landforms; • Protects environmentally sensitive habitat areas; • Does not violate private property rights. Policy 3.1.1-24. Encourage the creation of new public vertical accessways where feasible, including Corona del Mar and other areas of limited public accessibility. Policy 3.1.1-13. Require a direct dedication or an Offer to Dedicate (OTD) an easement for lateral public access for all new shorefront development causing or contributing to adverse public access impacts. Such dedication or easement shall extend from the limits of public ownership (e.g. mean high tide line) landward to a fixed point seaward of the primary extent of development (e.g. intersection of sand with toe or top of revetment, vertical face of seawall, dripline of deck, or toe of bluff). Policy 3.1.1-14. Require a direct dedication or an Offer to Dedicate (OTD) an easement for vertical access in all new development projects causing or contributing to adverse public access impacts, unless adequate access is available nearby. Vertical accessways shall be a sufficient size to accommodate two-way pedestrian passage and landscape buffer and should be sited along the border or side property line of the project site or away from existing or proposed development to the maximum feasible extent. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 9 of 37 Policy 3.1.1-24. Encourage the creation of new public vertical accessways where feasible, including Corona del Mar and other areas of limited public accessibility. Policy 3.1.1-26. Consistent with the policies above, provide maximum public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the shoreline with new development except where (1) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal resources or (2) adequate access exists nearby. Policy 3.1.1-27. implement public access policies in a manner that takes into account the need to regulate the time, place, and manner of public access depending on the facts and circumstances in each case including, but not limited to, the following: • Topographic and geologic site characteristics; • Capacity of the site to sustain use and at what level of intensity; • Fragility of natural resource areas; • Proximity to residential uses; • Public safety services, including lifeguards, fire, and police access; • Support facilities, including parking and restrooms; • Management and maintenance of the access; • The need to balance constitutional rights of individual property owners'and the public's constitutional rights of access. The project site has no dedicated public access easements or physical access to the coastal bluff or bay. No abutting vertical or lateral public access presently exists that would connect to any access that might be considered within the development. The steep topography of the site makes vertical access a safety concern and access for the disabled could not be accommodated. Public support facilities presently do not exist nor are they planned and parking in the area is constrained. Lastly, access through the site would be in close proximity to residential uses. The lower portion of the bluff face (below 50.7 feet MSL), submerged lands and tidelands will remain in their existing condition, with the exception of the construction of a new dock system to replace the existing one. Public access to the sheltered cove from the water will not be affected due to the location of the proposed dock system. Access to the designated view point at the end of Carnation Avenue will also remain unaffected and the public view from that point and Ocean Boulevard will be enhanced with project approval with the installation of a bench and/or other public amenity at the corner,to improve the experience. The project will create 3 new parkingspaces along Carnation Avenue with the reduction in the width of the existing driveway approaches. These new public parking spaces will enhance access to the area. With the reduction in residential density and the fact that no access rights or prescriptive access rights exist, the project will not impact or impede public access. Public access to the bay is currently provided in the vicinity at China Cove, Lookout Point and at a street-end located in the 2300 block of Bayside Drive. These access City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 10 of 37 points are located approximately 450 feet to the east, 1,125 feet to the east and approximately 480 feet to the northwest, respectively. Based upon the forgoing, requiring public access easements or outright dedication of land for public access is not necessary. WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with Policy 4.1.3-1 of the Coastal Land Use Plan that states "Utilize the following mitigation measures to reduce the potential for adverse impacts to ESA natural habitats from sources including, but not limited to, those identified in Table 4.1.1." Only Subsections E, F, G, and N are applicable to the proposed project as the other subsections are clearly inapplicable as they relate to different physical and operational aspects of Newport Bay. E. Limit encroachments into wetlands to development that is consistent with Section 30233 of the Coastal Act and Policy 4.2.3-1 of the Coastal Land Use Plan. The residential portion of the project will not encroach into wetlands or open coastal waters. The expanded boating facility (replacement docks) is a permitted encroachment within open coastal waters pursuant to Section 30233 of the Coastal Act and Policy 4.2.3-1 that specifically allows new or expanded boating facilities, including slips, access ramps, piers, and marinas in open coastal waters provided that the impacts of construction are appropriately mitigated. Adequate measures are contained within the Environmental Impact Report and are required as conditions project approval. F. Regulate landscaping or revegetation of blufftop areas to control erosion and invasive plant species and provide a transition area between developed areas and natural habitats. A condition of approval requires all non-native plantings on the bluff to be removed and revegetation of the bluff face is regulated to only allow native and non-invasive plantings indigenous to the California coastal bluff environment. G. Require irrigation practices on blufftops that minimize erosion of bluffs. An irrigation plan is required pursuant to conditions of approval for the project and temporary irrigation on the bluff face may only be to be used to establish vegetation. N. Prohibit invasive species and require removal in new development. A condition of approval requires all non-native plantings on the bluff to be removed and revegetation of the bluff face is regulated to allow only native and non-invasive plantings indigenous to the California coastal bluff environment. WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with the following policies of Chapter 4 (Coastal Resource Protection) based upon the following: 16 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 11 of 37 Policy 4.3.1-5. Require development on steep slopes or steep slopes with erosive soils to implement structural best management practices (BMPs) to prevent or minimize erosion consistent with any load allocation of the TMDLs adopted for Newport Bay. Policy 4.3.1-6. Require grading/erosion control plans to include soil stabilization on graded or disturbed areas. Policy 4.3.1-7. Require measures be taken during construction to limit land disturbance activities such as clearing and grading, limiting cut-and fill to reduce erosion and sediment loss, and avoiding steep slopes, unstable areas, and erosive soils. Require construction to minimize disturbance of natural vegetation, including significant trees, native vegetation, root structures, and other physical or biological features important for preventing erosion or sedimentation. Policy 4.3.2-22. Require beachfront and waterfront development to incorporate BMPs designed to prevent or minimize polluted runoff to beach and coastal waters. Policy 4.3.2-23. Require new development applications to include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The WQMP's purpose is to minimize to the maximum extent practicable dry weather runoff, runoff from small storms (less than 3/4" of rain falling over a 24-hour period) and the concentration of pollutants in such runoff during construction and post-construction from the property. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, Stormwater Pollution Prevention plan and a Water Quality Management Plan are required by conditions of approval and they must include best management practices to ensure that erosion is controlled to the maximum extent feasible. WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with Policy 4.4.3-4. of the Coastal Land Use Plan that states "On bluffs subject to marine erosion, require new accessory structures such as decks, patios and walkways that do not require structural foundations to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development in the subject area, but not less than 10 feet from the bluff edge. Require accessory structures to be removed or relocated landward when threatened by erosion, instability or other hazards." No new accessory structures are proposed. The policy also requires that accessory structures be removed or relocated landward when threatened by erosion, instability or other hazards. A condition of approval is included such that the existing accessory structures (concrete pad, staircase and walkway) will be removed if threatened by erosional processes in the future. WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with Policy 4.4.3-11 of the Coastal Land Use Plan that states "Require applications for new development to include slope stability analyses and erosion rate estimates provided by a licensed Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer." City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 12 of 37 A Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Neblett & Associates, August 2005, the Coastal Hazard Study prepared by GeoSoils Inc., dated October 2006, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated March 17, 2007, a report titled Bluff and Shoreline Reconnaissance by GeoSoils Inc., dated June 11, 2007, and a third party review of all geotechnical reports prepared by GMU Geotechnical, Inc. dated October 29, 2009, collectively indicate that the project will not be subject to nor contribute to erosion, geologic instability, geologic hazard nor require shoreline protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years). WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with the following policies of Chapter 4 (Coastal Resource Protection) that regulate the protection of public views based upon the following: Policy 4.4.1-1. Protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor and to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas. Policy 4.4.1-2. Design and site new development, including landscaping, so as to minimize impacts to public coastal views. Policy 4.4.1-4. Where appropriate, require new development to provide view easements or corridors designed to protect public coastal views or to restore public coastal views in developed areas. Policy 4.4.1-6. Protect public coastal views from the following roadway segments...Ocean Boulevard. (Figure 4-3 of the CLUP identifies the intersection of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard as a "view point.') Policy 4.4.1-7. Design and site new development, including landscaping, on the edges of public coastal view corridors, including those down public streets, to frame and accent public coastal views. Policy 4.4.2-2. Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. Policy 4.4.2-3. Implement the regulation of the building envelope to preserve public views through the height, setback, floor area, lot coverage, and building bulk regulation of the Zoning Code in effect as of October 13, 2005 that limit the building profile and maximize public view opportunities. A public view presently exists over the southeastern portion of the site from Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue to the south and southwest between the existing 14- unit apartment building and improvements on the adjoining property to the southeast. The siting of the proposed building would provide a greater separation between these buildings than exists today. Presently, the horizontal view window measures 25 degrees and with the project, the view window will increase to 44 degrees. Based upon the q, City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 13 of 37 visual simulations prepared for the project presented within the Environmental Impact Report, the public view from Ocean Boulevard to the west will be improved due to the position of the proposed building. Although the proposed building is taller than the existing building, there is no public view over the buildings; therefore, the taller building proposed will not impact a public view. The project is consistent with the 28132-foot height limitation zone of the Zoning Code as demonstrated by the project plans and verified by staff, and with other building envelope restrictions with the exception of setback encroachments as proposed. Based upon the visual simulations prepared for the project presented within the Environmental Impact Report, and since the residential portion of the proposed will not extend below 50.7 feet MSL and is consistent with the predominant line of existing development as identified by the City Council on August 14, 2007, impacts to public views of the site from the south, west and from Begonia Park are not significantly impacted so as to be inconsistent with CLUP policy. The visual impact of the proposed docks as depicted in the project visual simulations presented within the Environmental Impact Report do not represent a significant impact. The expanded docks with boats create a transient impediment to viewing the project bluff and rocks depending upon the viewer's location. The closer to the site the viewer is, the more prominent the boats in the docks would be in a particular view; however, views of the project site would be provided as one "cruises" in and out of the harbor and the bluff, rocks and cove below the proposed residential building are not being physically altered or covered. The proposed residential building provides a 9-foot setback to the property line abutting 215 Carnation Avenue. Improvements within this setback area are low to the ground and would not be high enough to obstruct public views from Carnation Avenue to the west. This view does not presently exist given existing site improvements to be removed with project construction. Other setback encroachments are below the grade of the street and would not impact a public view. Project encroachments into the required side yard setback abutting Bayside Place do impact public views from Begonia Park or other vantage points from the northwest as the balconies and walkway do not project beyond the silhouette of the remainder of the building that conforms to setback regulations. No other public views exist from the street through the site due to the position of the current buildings. Therefore, the proposed project will not have an impact upon existing public views through the site to the south and west. The recordation of a public view easement to protect the public views over the site from Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue is required as a condition of approval. WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with the following policies of Chapter 4 (Coastal Resource Protection) as they related to the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone and to minimizing the alteration of the coastal bluff based upon the following: City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 14 of 37 Policy 4.4.1-1. Protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor and to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas. Policy 4.4.1-2. Design and site new development, including landscaping, so as to minimize impacts to public coastal views. Policy 4.4.1-3 Design and site new development to minimize alterations to significant natural landforms, including bluffs, cliffs and canyons. Policy 4.4.3-8. Prohibit development on bluff faces, except private development on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar determined to be consistent with the predominant line of existing development or public improvements providing public access, protecting coastal resources, or providing for public safety. Permit such improvements only when no feasible alternative exists and when designed and constructed to minimize alteration of the bluff face, to not contribute to further erosion of the bluff face, and to be visually compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible. Policy 4.4.3-9. Where principal structures exist on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar, require all new development to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development in order to protect public coastal views. Establish a predominant line of development for both principle structures and accessory improvements. The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure safety and stability of the development. Policy 4.4.3-12. Employ site design and construction techniques to minimize alteration of coastal bluffs to the maximum extent feasible, such as: A. Siting new development on the flattest area of the site, except when an alternative location is more protective of coastal resources. B. Utilizing existing driveways and building pads to the maximum extent feasible. C. Clustering building sites. D. Shared use of driveways. E. Designing buildings to conform to the natural contours of the site, and arranging driveways and patio areas to be compatible with the slopes and building design. F. Utilizing special foundations, such as stepped, split level, or cantilever designs. G. Detaching parts of the development, such as a garage from a dwelling unit. H. Requiring any altered slopes to blend into the natural contours of the site. The City Council has interpreted Policies 4.4.3-8 and 4.4.3-9 to mean that development on bluff faces is prohibited, except private development on coastal bluff faces along City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 15 of 37 Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar determined to be consistent with the predominant line of existing development. Additionally, public improvements on coastal bluff faces that are allowable are those that provide public access, protect coastal resources, or provide for public safety when no feasible alternative exists and when they are designed and constructed to minimize alteration or further erosion of the bluff face and are visually compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible. In all cases where the predominant line of existing development is used to establish a development limit, it shall not be the only criteria used for this purpose. All coastal land use policies shall be considered in determining the appropriate extent of new development and size of new structures. The City Council made these clarifications by adopting Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2007- 003, which has not yet been considered by the California Coastal Commission. Existing development of the site is located on the face of a coastal bluff. Identification of the project site as a coastal bluff is based upon the professional opinion of Sidney Neblett, a Certified Engineering Geologist. The coastal bluff transitions from northwest- facing to southwest-facing roughly southwest of the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue almost bisecting .the project site. This transition point extends down to the northwest to the western extent of a small pocket beach unofficially known as Carnation Cove. North of the transition point of this bluff, is a series of residential structures developed on Carnation Avenue between 42 and 58 feet NAVD88. East of the transition point along Ocean Boulevard is a series of residential structures that were developed much farther down the bluff face with several at the water's edge. The City Council reviewed this existing development pattern at a noticed public hearing on August 14, 2007, and determined that the predominant line of existing development is 50.7 NAVD88, which is similar to and consistent with the development pattern established by the project site and development to the north along Carnation Avenue. The visible portion of the residential component of the project does not extend below the 50.7 NAVD88 contour except where it connects with an existing access staircase on the bluff face leading to the docks below. The exit below the 50.7 NAVD88 contour is recessed and screened from public view. The project minimizes alteration of the coastal bluff and protects public views of the coastal bluff by not altering the bluff face below the predominant line of existing development and preserving the majority of the visible bluff. The project is required to blend any altered slopes outside of the building footprint to the natural contours, native rocks or soils of the site. For these reasons, the project protects the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, minimizes alteration of the bluff and is consistent with CLUP Policies 4.4.1-1, 4.4.1-2, 4.4.1-3, 4.4.3-8, 4.4.3-9, 4.4.3-12 and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2007-003. WHEREAS, the granting of the Modification Permit allowing above grade and below grade encroachments into the front and side yard setbacks is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code for the following reasons: �5 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 16 of 37 The site is irregular in shape, has steep topography and has submerged lands which make it difficult to design a project at the density proposed while providing required parking and avoiding significantly altering the bluff. Approximately 43% of the site is submerged or has slopes in excess of 50%. The requirement to provide on-site parking requires that a significant portion of the building area be allocated for the parking, thereby reducing available area for residential units. The required side yard setback is also larger than the required front yard setback and the application of this standard represents a practical difficulty given the relatively small buildable area available on the entire site. WHEREAS, the granting of the Modification Permit allowing above grade and below grade encroachments into the front and side yard setbacks will be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood and the granting of the permit application will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood for the following reasons: The requested encroachments within the front yard setback, with the exception of the 42-inch high protective guardrails, will be entirely subterranean and will not be visible. The proposed guardrails wi II have an open design allowing visibility through while providing adequate protection to pedestrians on the public sidewalk from falling over the proposed (and allowable) retaining wall located within the required front yard setback. Building encroachments within the required side yard setback on levels below the street will not be visible. The requested above-grade, 1-foot, 7 inch, building encroachment in the required side yard setback adjacent to 215 Carnation Avenue will provide a 9-foot setback that will create a public view from Carnation Avenue. This public view presently does not exist given the location and nature of existing improvements. The provided setback exceeds typical 4-foot setbacks between buildings along Carnation Avenue. This 9-foot setback will provide sufficient separation between the project and the abutting residence to the north. The encroachments of balconies, including protective guard railings, within the side setback abutting Bayside Place should not impact these residents given the change in topography, the separation provided by Bayside Place, a private roadway, and the fact that these residences are oriented toward Newport Bay and not project. The encroachments within the side setback abutting Bayside Place also do not encroach within a public view from Begonia Park or other vantage points from the west any more than the proposed building does which is compliant with the setback. The encroaching balconies and guard railings will encroach into private views of residents to the north on Carnation Avenue, but the majority of the view to the west and southwest will remain unchanged. WHEREAS, Newport Tract No. 2005-004 (TTM16882) can be approved based upon the following findings: 1. The modified project is consistent with the current land use designation including the proposed amendment. The project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy LU5.1.9 regarding the character and quality of multi-family residential development. W City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 17 of 37 The project is consistent with Land Use Element and Natural Resources Element policies related to the protection of public views, visual resources, coastal bluffs and other natural resources based upon the project's consistency with the Coastal Land Use Plan. The site is not subject to a specific plan. Minimum lot sizes established by the Zoning Ordinance are also maintained as required by the City Subdivision Code. The tentative tract map, pursuant to the conditions of approval, is consistent with the Newport Beach Subdivision Code (Title 19) and applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map. 2. The buildable area of the site is relatively small compared to the entire 1.4 acre site. The development of the site is not likely to be subject to coastal erosional processes or hazards during the 75-year economic life of the project. No earthquake faults were found on-site and there is not likely to be an incidence of landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse of soils on-site or near the site given site soil conditions. These factors indicate that the site is suitable for the development proposed. 3. The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements, subject to conditions of approval, will not cause substantial environmental d amage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat based upon the Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2007021054) and the adoption of mitigation measures as conditions of project approval. 4. The tract map would recombine two lots and a small portion of a third lot and subdivide the planned airspace of the proposed building for residential condominium purposes. The subdivision is not expected to cause serious public health problems given the use of typical construction materials and practices. No evidence is known to exist that would indicate that the proposed subdivision will generate any serious public health problems. All mitigation measures as outlined in the Environmental Impact Report and the Building, Grading and Fire codes will be implemented to ensure the protection of public health. 5. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, because a utility and sewer easement that affects the site is presently not in use and can be abandoned. The design of the proposed subdivision will avoid and protect in place an existing storm drain easement and storm drain. The storm drain easement will appear on the final map. Public utility easements for utility connections that serve the project site are present and will be modified, if necessary, to serve the proposed project. 6. The site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. 7. The subdivision is subject to Title 24 of the California Building Code that requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The Newport Beach Building Department enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check and field inspection processes. The site has a L� City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 18 of 37 western exposure and incorporates curved roof elements that will provide some shading of windows and passive solar cooling. Significant exterior wall segments are below grade which will benefit from passive cooling. 8. The subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of the regional housing needs although the proposed subdivision will have the effect of reducing the residential density on the site from 15 units to 8 units. The reduction is insignificant given the City's current housing supply and projected housing needs. Although the reduction in units does not assist the City in reaching its production goals, no affordable housing units are being eliminated based upon the fact that the project was not occupied by low or moderate income households. The reduction in density is consistent with existing density limitations of the Municipal Code. 9. Wastewater discharge into the existing sewer system will be consistent with existing residential use of the property, which does not violate Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements. 10.The proposed subdivision is entirely within the coastal zone and the site is not presently developed with coastal-related uses, coastal-dependent uses or water oriented recreational uses that would be displaced by a non-priority use. The project site is constrained by topography and public access exists nearby making on-site vertical and lateral access unnecessary. Public access to the area is enhanced as a result of increasing public parking opportunities on Carnation Avenue afforded by 3 on street parking spaces to be added with closure of existing driveway curb cuts. The position of the proposed building enhances public views from Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue by increasing the view angle between the development on the project site and adjacent development as well as creating a view corridor between the proposed building and 215 Carnation Avenue where a public view presently does not exist. The modified project developed in accordance with the conditions of approval will minimize alteration of the coastal bluff and preserve the scenic and visual quality of the coast by preserving the bluff below 50.7 feet NAVD88. Lastly, the project will not impact sensitive marine resources with the implementation of the conditions of approval including the mitigation measures identified in the AERIE Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2007021054). WHEREAS, the project includes the demolition of 15 dwelling units within the Coastal Zone within 2 buildings and pursuant to Chapter 20.86 of the Zoning Code, units proposed for demolition and occupied by low or moderate income households must be replaced if such replacement is determined to be feasible. The 15 units are not occupied by low or moderate income households and, therefore, no replacement units are required. Households potentially meeting the low or moderate income limits were not evicted for the purpose of avoiding a replacement requirement within the previous 12 months. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 19 of 37 WHEREAS, a draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2007021054) has been prepared pursuant to the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3. The DEIR was circulated for a 45-day comment period beginning on March 20, 2009, and concluding on May 4, 2009. Comments and responses to the comments were considered by the Planning Commission in its review of the proposed project. WHEREAS, on the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures, with the exception of short-term construction noise. Additionally, there are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified are feasible and reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level, with the exception of short-term construction noise. The mitigation measures are applied to the project and are incorporated as conditions of approval. IRe-Reof the nrnien+ eU+,.reinh the energy effiGieRt development, pFeseFvatmen of the visual q4a4ty below the of the bluff ' e.d building, nha nt of uhlie views frn Garnr�+inn Avenue and OneaR Boulevard, reed Ater ality, ed screearkinn e � + , elimination of a defiGi Rt GatGh basin, undergrounding of existing eveFhead utility lines, pFesewatieR ef a substaRtial property right established by the Land Use DesigRati the lleneral Dhn, rd 'ann e ed sen arts taxes. WHEREAS, the record further supports a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act in that the project includes benefits that outweighs the short-term construction-related impacts of the proposed proiect. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Section 1. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council certify the AERIE Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2007021054). Section 2. Based on the aforementioned findings and information contained in the administrative record. the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 20 of 37 Council adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations specifically identifying project benefits that outweigh the short-term construction-related impacts of the proposed rp oiect. Section 23. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 2005- 006 per Exhibit "A", Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005-002 per Exhibit "B", Code Amendment No. 2005-009 per Exhibit "C; and approve Newport Tentative Tract Map No. 2005-004 (TTM 16882), Modification Permit No. 2005-087 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005-002 (PA 2005-196) subject to conditions of approval attached as Exhibit "D". Section 3. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 1723, 1751 and 1761 are hereby rescinded. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY , 2009. AYES: NOES: BY: Scott Peotter, Chairman BY: Barry Eaton, Secretary 160 i � t v� is !. A A � - Y e I: a AA I F City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 22 of 37 Exhibit "B" 'tiife �r F. r E l r,+ h Ea2w. pp I E" tie JIM /aa City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 23 of 37 Exhibit "C" t � 9 cif fit 3 F. ( At FP qll �, P3 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 24 of 37 Exhibit "D" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Newport Tract No. 2005-004 (Tentative Tract Map No. 16882) Modification Permit No. 2005-087 (Project-specific conditions are in italics) Planning Department 1. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use will be cause for revocation of this permit. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 2. This approval was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not in and of itself or in combination with other approvals in the vicinity or Citywide constitute a precedent for future approvals or decisions. 3. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be noted of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing agent. 4. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans stamped and dated May 21, 2009, except as modified by the conditions of approval. All provisions contained within the Construction Management Plan dated March 17, 2009, shall be implemented throughout implementation of the project to the maximum extent possible. The construction management plan shall be revised to incorporate the following additional project design features: 1) the use of a steel sleeve for the drilling of holes for dock piles and procedures for the containment of tailings from the drilling process; 2) the placement of a silt curtain across the entrance to the cove: and 3) the placement of a protective barrier (15 mil Stegowrap or equivalent) under the upper fixed pier walkway prior to the repair and renovation of the walkway. 5. Project approvals shall expire unless exercised within 36 months from the effective date of approval. Reasonable extensions may be granted by the Planning Director in accordance with the Municipal Code and Subdivision Map Act. 6. The applicant shall obtain a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of any building, grading or demolition permit for the project. 7. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the proposed condominium association shall provide for the long term maintenance of the project )6Y City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 25 of 37 and shall be reviewed and approved by the Office of the City Attorney prior to their recordation. The CC&Rs shall include a provision that residents shall park only operable vehicles within the parking garage that are in active use (i.e. no long term storage of vehicles). 8. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall provide the City with a performance bond or its equivalent to ensure timely completion of am improvements represented on plans and drawings submitted for permit approval in the event construction of improvements consistent with project approval is abandoned. The performance bond or its equivalent shall be an amount equal to 100% of the cost of completing proiect improvements from the start of grading activities up to completion of the building shell and shall be issued with the City as beneficiary by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance in the State of California and shall have an assigned policyholders' Rating of A (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class Vil (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Bests Key Rating Guide unless otherwise approved by the City Risk Manager. The bond or equivalent shall be released in 25% increments upon completion of each quarter of construction of the building shell. 9. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for new construction, the applicant shall execute a waiver of all claims against the City for future liability or damage resulting from the approval to build the project. The form and content of the waiver shall be in a form acceptable to the office of the City Attorney and the waiver shall be recorded against the property in question. 10. Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code. Exterior on-site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance (SC 4.5.1). 11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Director. The site shall not be excessively illuminated as excessive illumination may be determined consistent with the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America or by the Planning Director in the event the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses.or environmental resources. 12. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare. The Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated (SC 4.5-2). 16 -5 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 26 of 37 13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director. The plans shall incorporate native drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices. All planting areas, with the exception of bluff areas, shall be provided with a permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitable for the type and arrangement of the plant materials selected. The irrigation system shall be adjustable based upon either a signal from a satellite or an on-site moisture-sensor. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or similar permanent bander. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. The proposed landscaping adjacent to the back of sidewalk shall be designed with provisions that will prevent irrigation and/or other runoff from spilling onto the sidewalk. 14. Bluff landscaping shall consist of native, drought tolerant plant species determined to be consistent with the California coastal buff environment. Invasive and non- native species shall be removed. Irrigation of bluff faces to establish re-vegetated areas shall be temporary and used only to establish the plants. Upon establishment of the plantings, the temporary irrigation system shall be removed (SC 4.7-2). 15. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall schedule an inspection by the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm that all landscaping materials and irrigation systems have been installed in accordance with the approved plans. 16. All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, watering, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 17. A floating dock and boat slips may be developed, maintained and operated in open coastal waters adjacent to the residential condominium development provided all necessary permits are first obtained. The docks and slips shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the approved dock layout plan and must be reviewed and approved by the Harbor Resources Manager prior to construction. The maximum number of permanent boat slips shall be no greater than the total number of residential units developed. Use of the boat slips shall be limited to residents and their guests and the slips shall not be leased, subleased or allowed to come into the control of non-residents of the condominium development. 18. Water leaving the project site due to over-irrigation of landscape shall be minimized. If an incident such as this is reported, a representative from the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division of the City Manager's Office shall visit the �66 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 27 of 37 location, investigate, inform resident if possible, leave a note and in some cases shut-off the water. 19. Watering should be done during the early morning or evening hours to minimize evaporation (between 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m., the following morning). 20. All irrigation system leaks shall be investigated by a representative from the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division of the City Manager's Office and the applicant or future owners shall complete all required repairs. 21. Prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit, a waiver of future shoreline protection during the economic life of the structure (75 years) shall be recorded against the property. The waiver shall be binding upon all future owners and assignees. The waiver shall be reviewed and approved by the Office of the Office of the City Attorney prior to recordation (SC 4.9-3). 22. Accessory structures shall be relocated or removed if threatened by coastal erosion. Accessory structures shall not be expanded and routine maintenance of accessory structures is permitted (SC 4.9-4). 23. Prior to issuance of a certificate occupancy for the project, the applicant shall install a public bench within the public right-of-way as depicted on the site plan. The specific design and location of the bench shall be approved by the Public Works, Planning and General Services Departments prior to installation. 24. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets within the limits authorized by this permit, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control. 25. Noise-generating construction and/or maintenance activities may be permitted only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. on Saturdays. No noise-generating construction activities may occur at any time on Sundays or on federal holidays. These days and hours shall also apply any servicing of equipment and to the delivery of materials to or from the site (SC 4.4-1). 26. The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all administrative costs identified by the Planning Department within 30 days of receiving a final notification of costs or prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 27. All altered slopes that are outside of the building envelope shall be contoured to resemble the existing natural terrain. Any alteration or damage of the bluff face not part of the approved grading or building plans shall be repaired and said repairs shall resemble the existing natural terrain. f(� 7 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 28 of 37 28. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the AERIE Project including, but not limited to, the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2005-006, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005-002, Code Amendment No. 2005-009, Tentative Tract Map No. 2005-004 (Tract 16882), Modification Permit No. 2005-087 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005-002 collectively referred to as PA 2005-196; and/or the City's related California Environmental Quality Act determinations, the adoption of a Environmental Impact Report and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the AERIE Project. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. 29. The project shall incorporate and implement an emergency power backup system so the vehicle lifts will operate during a power outage. The location of the generator shall be sound attenuated and screened from public view and subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director. 30. Remote control operators for the vehicle elevators, in quantities equal to the number of parking spaces assigned to each dwelling unit, shall be provided to occupants of the respective units. The project shall incorporate an external indicating system to alert drivers which vehicle elevator will be available for immediate use. The vehicle elevator system shall be maintained for efficient use throughout the life of the project. 31. Vehicle parking and maneuvering areas shall be restricted to the operation, maneuvering and parking of operable vehicles and shall not be used for storage of any kind including the long-term storage of vehicles not in regular use. 32. No idling of construction vehicles or equipment shall be allowed. Construction vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and maintained and shall be turned off immediately when not in use. Construction workers, equipment operators or truck drivers shall not employ any form of audible signaling system during any phase of construction. 2� City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 29 of 37 33. Reclaimed water shall be used wherever available, assuming it is economically feasible. 34. All plans and proposed uses within the project site shall to comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to the transport, storage, use and/or disposal of hazardous materials (SC 4.8-1). 35. Residents of the project shall comply with California Code Title 14 (Natural Resources), Section 29.05, which prohibits the taking of any marine organisms within 1,000 feet of the high tide line without a sport fishing license (SC 4.7-1). 36. The applicant shall dedicate a view easement; however, it will only affect the project site. Structures and landscaping within the easement area shall not be permitted to block public views. The easement shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit for new construction and shall be reflected on the final tract map (SC 4.5-2). 37. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials (SC 4.10-1). 38. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the project applicant to develop a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) consistent with the guidance of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). In the event that fossils are encountered during construction activities, ground-disturbing excavations in the vicinity of the discovery shall be redirected or halted by the monitor until the find has been salvaged. Any fossils discovered during project construction shall be prepared to a point of identification and stabilized for long-term storage. Any discovery, along with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, shall be accessioned into the collections of a suitable repository. Curation costs to accession any collections shall be the responsibility of the project applicant (SC 4.10-21). Fire Department 39. One gurney-accommodating elevator shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 30 of the California Building Code within the project that must access each level. 161 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 30 of 37 40. A Class 111 standpipe system shall be provided at the private dock in accordance with Newport Beach Fire Department guidelines. 41. A public fire hydrant shall be provided at the comer of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. The hydrant shall be installed and tested prior to occupancy of the project, unless required earlier by the Fire Department. 42. A fire alarm system with fire control room shall be provided within the project. Monitored Automatic fire sprinklers shall be required for the entire structure to meet NFA13, 2003 Edition and in accordance with Newport Beach Fire Department requirements. Shut-off valves and a waterflow device shall be provided for each unit. A Class I standpipe shall be provided at every level at all stairs. Standpipe and sprinklers may be a combination system. 43. The project shall provide pressurized exit enclosures and vestibules in accordance with the Building Code. Enclosures shall be a minimum two-hour fire rated construction. 44. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position that is plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall be of made of non-combustible materials, shall contrast with their background, and shall be either internally or externally illuminated to be visible at night. Number shall be no less than six inches in height with a one-inch stroke. Public Works 45. All parking stall dimensions shall comply with City's Standard Drawings STD-805- L-A (SC 4.2-1). 46. Driveway/drive aisle slopes shall comply with City Standard STD-160-L-C, which accommodate a 15 percent maximum slope and a maximum change in grade of 11 percent. The building plans shall show detailed profile of each of the proposed driveways (SC 4.2-1). 47. Project driveways must conform to the City's sight distance standard 110-L. The project driveway to the parking area on the Second Level shall maintain a minimum 20-foot width. The overall design of vehicle access and parking areas 9 p 9 shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer(SC 4.2-1, SC 4.2-2 & SC 4.2-3). 48. All work conducted within the public right-of-way shall be approved under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 49. Construction surety in a form acceptable to the City, guaranteeing the completion of the various required public improvements and repairs, shall be submitted to the Ito City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 31 of 37 i Public Works Department for City Council approval prior to the issuance of Public Works Department encroachment permit. 50. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 51. A water demand, a storm drain system capacity, and a sanitary sewer system capacity study shall be submitted to the Public Works Department along with the first building plan check submittal. The recommendations of these studies shall be incorporated as a part of the submitted plans. 52. Street, drainage and utility improvements within the public right-of-way shall be submitted on City standard improvement plan formats. All of the plan sheets shall be wet sealed, dated, and signed by the California registered professionals responsible for the designs shown on said plans. 53. All new landscaping within the public right-of-way shall be approved by the General Services Department and the Public Works Department. 54. The applicant shall submit detailed plans for the on-site drainage system(s) to demonstrate that it will prevent the underground garage from being flooded during storm events. 55. The Developer shall file one (1) Final Tract Map (Map). 56. The roadway cross section shown on the Map with a 110-foot right-of-way width should be labeled as "Ocean Boulevard". 57. The Map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD88). Prior to Map recordation, the surveyor/engineer preparing the Map shall submit to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a digital-graphic file of said map in a manner described in the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual. The Map to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the City's CADD Standards. Scanned images will not be accepted. 58. Prior to recordation, the Map boundary shall be tied onto the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Sections 7- 9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set On Each Lot Corner unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. 59. The applicant's request to vacate the existing sewedutilities easement shall be approved by the City Utilities Department prior to the issuance of a building permit or the recordation of the final tract map. The existing private ingress/egress �)i City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 32 of 37 easement with the same width, length, and alignment as the existing sewer/utilities easement shall be vacated or permission from the beneficiaries of the private easement shall be documented prior to the issuance of a building permit or the recordation of the final tract map. 60. A 5-foot wide public sewer and utilities easement as measured from the centerline of the existing sewer main fronting the development site shall be recorded against the property. The applicant shall prepare and submit the legal description for said easement for City review and approval 61. All easements of record shall be recorded as a part of the Final Map. 62. All improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the current edition of the City Design Criteria, Standard Special Provisions, and Standard Drawings. 63. The sidewalk portion of the proposed new driveway approach shall be constructed with 2% cross-fall per City Standards. 64. Temporary construction sheet piles shall be installed to protect all existing stoma drain and sanitary sewer mains within and adjacent to the development site. 65. No structures or construction tie-backs shall be constructed within the limits of any easements or public right-of-way without the approval of an Encroachment Agreement and Permit. 66. Full-width concrete sidewalk and curb and gutter shall be constructed along the length of the Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard frontages. The new sidewalk shall join the existing sidewalk in front of 2501 Ocean Boulevard. 67. New concrete curbs shall be dowelled into sound concrete roadway pavement. 68. Trees shall not be installed at locations where mature tree roots could damage the existing City sewer main. 69. Adequate safety provisions for pedestrians and W/B Ocean Boulevard vehicle traffic along the length of the perimeter/retaining walls along the Carnation Avenue frontage shall be shown on building plans and shall be installed and maintained throughout the life of the project. 70. Each dwelling unit shall be served by its individual water service and sewer lateral connection and cleanout. 71. All utility connections shall be placed underground in accordance with the Subdivision Code. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 33 of 37 72. The on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review and approval by the Traffic Engineer and any corrections/modifications shall be made to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. 73. All non-standard improvements within the public right-of-way would-shall require an Encroachment Agreement and Encroachment Permit. 74. Standard curb, gutter and sidewalk shall be installed within the public right of way across the frontage of the project site. Curb cuts for vehicle driveway approaches shall directly lead to the parking areas or vehicle elevators. 75. Gates shall not be designed to open out into the public right-of-way. 76. Raised planters shall not be permitted within the Public right-of-way. Planting adjacent to the curb shall accommodate a vehicle car door opening. Project landscape plans shall provide details of the planters and shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 77. The driveway approaches within the public right-of-way shall be shall be narrowed to the width of garage openings they serve. Six-inch curbs shall have a 3 foot flare. Drive approaches shall be modified to comply with ADA requirements. pP p y p 78. Planters adjacent to the freight elevators shall be pulled back from the Carnation Avenue property line two feet to improve vehicle maneuvering. Planters in the front yard shall not encroach into the projection of the garage door edge. 79. No structural support column shall be located in the middle of the driveway leading to the parking area located on the Second Level. 80. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare a study of the existing drainage area and catch basin in Carnation Avenue to determine the appropriate size of catch basin. The study shall be subject to the review and approval by the City. The developer shall enlarge the existing catch basin accordingly and shall bear all costs of design, permitting and construction. 81. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee shall be paid. 82. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall prepare a G9R6..WGti9R phasing plan and ,.enstrwGtien deli ,eFy p4m4final Construction Management Plan that includes routing of large vehicles. The plan shall include a haul route plan for review and approval of the Public Works Department. Said plan shall specify the routes to be traveled, times of travel, total number of trucks, number of trucks per hour, time of operation, and safety/congestion precautions (e.g., signage, flagmen). Large construction vehicles shall not be permitted to 10 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 34 of 37 travel narrow streets and alleys as determined by the Public Works Department. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. The plans shall include a provision that maintains the public right-of-way open to vehicular and pedestrian traffic after working hours daily. 83. Where vehicles leave the construction site and enter adjacent public streets, any visible track-out extending for more than fifty (50) feet from the access point shall be swept within thirty (30) minutes of deposition. 84. Prior to commencement of demolition and grading, the applicant shall submit to the City calculations showing the proposed travel route for haul trucks, the distance traveled, and how many daily truck trips that can be accommodated to ensure that the daily cumulative miles traveled is below the assumed total vehicle miles traveled in the quantitative air quality assessment of the Environmental Impact Report. Building Department 85. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits for construction from the City of Newport Beach. The final construction plans must comply with the most recent, City-adopted version of the California Building Code. The facility shall be designed to meet fire protection and safety requirements and shall be subject to review and approval by the Newport Beach Building and Fire Departments (SC 4.3-5, SC 4.6- 4, SC 4.9-1, and SC 4.9-2). 86. County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 87. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared and approved by the City of Newport Beach as the local permitting agency in accordance with the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The SWPPP shall include BMPs to eliminate and/or minimize stormwater pollution prior to, and during construction. The SWPPP shall require construction to occur in stages and stabilized prior to disturbing other areas and require the use of temporary diversion dikes and basins to trap sediment from run-off and allow clarification prior to discharge (SC 4.6-3). 88. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the applicant shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying the Best Management Practices (BMP's) that will be used on site to control predictable pollutant runoff. The plan shall identify the types of structural and non-structural measures to be used. The plan shall comply with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). Particular attention should be addressed to the appendix section "Best Management Practices for New Development." The WQMP shall clearly show the locations of structural BMPs, and assignment of long term maintenance City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 35 of 37 responsibilities (which shall also be included in the Maintenance Agreement). The plan shall be prepared to the format of the DAMP title 'Water Quality Management Plan Outline" and be subject to the approval of the City (SC 4.6-2). 89. Prior to the issuance of the grading or building permit, the applicant shall obtain a NPDES permit and/or coverage under the NPDES statewide General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit. The applicant shall incorporate storm water pollutant control into erosion control plans using BMPs to the maximum extent possible. Evidence that proper clearances have been obtained through the State Water Resources Control Board shall be given to the Building Department prior to issuance of grading permits (SC 4.6-1). 90. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) in a manner meeting approval of the City Building Official, to demonstrate compliance with local and state water quality regulations for grading and construction activities. The ESCP shall identify how all construction materials, wastes, grading or demolition debris, and stockpiles of soil, aggregates, soil amendments, etc. shall be properly covered, stored, and secured to prevent transport into local drainages or coastal waters by wind, rain, tracking, tidal erosion, or dispersion. The ESCP shall also describe how the applicant will ensure that all Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be maintained during construction of any future public right-of-ways. A copy of the current ESCP shall be kept at the project site and be available for City of Newport Beach review on request. The ESCP shall include and require the use of soil stabilization measures for all disturbed areas. 91. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the project applicant shall document to the City of Newport Beach Building Department that all facilities will be designed and constructed to comply with current seismic safety standards and the current City- adopted version of the Uniform Building Code. 92. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, a geotechnical report shall be submitted with construction drawings for plan check. The Building Department shall ensure that the project complies with the geotechnical recommendations included in the preliminary geologic investigation as well as additional requirements, if any, imposed by the Newport Beach Building Department. 93. Prior to issuance of the building permit, school impacts fees will be paid to the Building Department to assist in funding school facility expansion and educational services to area residents. 94. The project shall strictly adhere to SCAQMD Rule 403, which sets requirements for dust control associated with grading and construction activities (SC 4.3-1). 95. The project shall strictly adhere to SCAQMD Rules 431.1 and 431.2, which require the use of low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment (SC 4.3-2). �j5 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 36 of 37 96. The project shall strictly adhere to SCAQMD Rule 1108, which sets limitations on ROG content in asphalt (SC 4.3-3). 97. The project shall strictly adhere to SCAQMD Rule 1113, which sets limitations on ROG content in architectural coatings (SC 4.3-4). Mitigation Measures from Environmental Impact Report(SCH#2007021054) 98. All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained muffling devices, intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer (MM 4.4-1 a). 99. The construction contractor shall properly maintain and tune all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions (MM 4.4-1 b). 100. The construction contractor shall locate all stationary noise sources (e.g., generators, compressors, staging areas) as far from residential receptor locations as feasible (MM 4.4-1 c). 101. The construction contractor shall post a contact name and telephone number of the owner's authorized representative on-site (MM 4.4-1d). 102. The construction contractor shall install temporary sound blankets or plywood panels with a minimum Sound Transmission Class rating of 32 or higher and a density of 1.5 pounds per square foot or greater (e.g., SoundSeal BBC-13-2 or equivalent) along the entire outer perimeter of the construction area. The temporary sound blankets or plywood panels shall have a minimum height of six feet. If plywood panels are selected, they must have a minimum density of four pounds per square foot and have no perforations or gaps between the panels (MM 4.4-1 e). 103. The construction contractor shall select quieter tools or construction methods whenever feasible. Examples of this include the use of plasma cutters, which produce less noise than power saws with abrasive blades and ordering precut materials to specifications to avoid on-site cutting (MM 4.4-1f). 104. The construction contractor shall maximize the use of enclosures as feasible. This includes four-sided or full enclosures with a top for compressors and other stationary machinery. This also includes locating activities, such as metal stud and rebar cutting, within constructed walled structures to minimize noise propagation (MM 4.4-1 g). 105. Any repairs, renovations, removal or demolition activities that will impact the ACM or inaccessible ACM shall be performed by a licensed asbestos contractor. Inaccessible suspect ACM shall be tested prior to demolition or renovation. Air emissions of asbestos fibers and leaded dust would be reduced to below a level of c c� City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 37 of 37 significance through compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulatory requirements. Proper safety procedures for the handling of suspect ACM shall always be followed in order to protect the occupants of the building and the asbestos workers (MM 4.8-1). 106. A contractor performing paint removal work shall follow the OSHA lead standard for the construction industry. The lead content of the paint should be considered when choosinga method to remove the pain, as proper waste disposal P P p P .requirements and worker protection measures shall be implemented throughout the removal process (MM 4.8-2). 107. Project implementation shall adhere to the engineering recommendations for site grading and foundation design and construction presented in the Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Nebeltt & Associates, Inc., and subsequent detailed geotechnical engineering analyses (MM 4.9-1 a). 108. Accessory structures shall be relocated or removed if threatened by coastal erosion. Accessory structures shall not be expanded and routine maintenance of accessory structures is permitted (MM 4.9-1 b). 109. During periods when boats would be exposed to excessive wave-induced motions, boats should be sheltered at mooring can locations that are available inside Newport Harbor to avoid damage (MM 4.9-2a). 110. The dock design shall be based on the extreme wave conditions identified in the coastal engineering study (Noble Consultants, Inc., 2008) (MM 4.9-2b). Intentionally blank J/Y i Exhibit No. 7 Draft "Errata"for the DER ro o' 3 �_ �_ 3 R Rl o, Final Environmental Impact Report Aerie (PA 2005-196) Errata Several "typographical' errors and/or minor revisions to the text in the Draft EIR have been identified. The errata identified below will be incorporated into the Final EIR. 1. Page 1-9: The last sentence in the second bullet in the second column (Mitigation Measures)will be revised to read: "Soil disturbance shall be terminated whenever wind conditions exceed 25 miles per hour." 2. Page 1-17: "SC 4.5.1" in the second column(Mitigation Measures)will be revised to"SC 4.5-1". 3. Page 1-17: The last sentence of SC 4.5.1 in the second column (Mitigation Measures) will be deleted. 4. Page 1-17: SC 4.5-2 will be revised to delete "and glare specified in Condition of Approval No. 5. Pagel-18: "SC 4.10-21" in the second column (Mitigation Measures)will be revised to"SC 4.10- 2). 6. Page 2-4: The first sentence in the second paragraph in Section 2.1.7 will be revised to read: "Agencies, organizations and individuals are invited to comment on the information presented in the Draft EIR during the public review period, which will begin on March 20, 2009 and will end on May 4, 2009." 7. The final elevation of the emergency exit was incorrectly identified as elevation 40.5 feet NAVD88. Elevation 40.5 NAVD88 is the lowest elevation of the basement. The elevation of the emergency exit where that feature "daylights" at the bluff face is 44.48 feet NAVD88. This correction does not result in any changes to the conclusions presented in the Draft EIR. The reference to the emergency exit at elevation 40.5 feet NAVD will be revised in the Final EIR on the pages listed below to reflect the correct elevation of 44.48 feet NAVD88. Page 3-24-Second paragraph Page 4.1-16- Discussion of GP Policy NR 22.1 in Table 4.1-1 Page 4.1-16-Discussion of GP Policy NR 23.4 in Table 4.1-1 Page 4.1-25-Discussion of CLUP Policy 3.1.1-9 in Table 4.1-2 Page 4.1-31 -Discussion of CLUP Policy 4.2.3-13 in Table 4.1-2 Page 4.1-35-Discussion of CLUP Policy 4.4.3-5 in Table 4.1-2 Page 4.1-36-Discussion of CLUP Policy 4.4.3-8 in Table 4.1-2 Page 4.1-36-Discussion of CLUP Policy 4.4.3-9 in Table 4.1-2 Page 4.1-36-Discussion of CLUP Policy 4.4.3-12 in Table 4.1-2 Page 4.1-42-Discussion of RCPG Policy 3.22 in Table 4.1-3 Page 4.9-8-Second paragraph 8. Page 4:1-5: The last sentence in the last paragraph under the heading of "Zoning" will be revised to read: 'The R-2 zoning permits up to 2 dwelling units per legal lot; the MFR zoning would permit up to 20 du/ac." Errata Final Environmental Impact Report Aerie(PA2005-196) i lay 9. Page 4.3-13: The last sentence in the second bullet will be revised to read: "Soil disturbance shall be terminated whenever wind conditions exceed 25 miles per hour." 10. Page 4.6-3: Table 4.6-2 will be revised to add "4041401 Permits" as a new row under the first column (Water Quality Requirement) and "U.S. Army Corps of Engineers" and "California Regional Water Quality Control Board" will be added in the second column (Enforcement Agency) opposite the new entry in the first column. 11. Page 4.6-9: The third line of the first "bullet' (N1 — Education for Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants) will be revised to read, "... informs facility users of the impacts of dripping and dumping oil, paints, solvents or other potentially ...". 12. Page 4.7-5: The fifth line in the last paragraph will be revised to read: "... Appendix J), only the African umbrella sedge is considered dominant. However, in this instance, the..." 13. Page 10-27: Table 10-1 will be revised as indicated below: Table 10-1 Summary of Project Alternatives :- Significant' Reduced inpacls Avoided - Meets AltemaMve Project orSubstantially - - Environmentally . Project : . :Effects - Reduced' _.. Other Effects S .. rioYl Ob ves Traffic' land Use No ProjectlNo , Water Qualw Development Air Qualogy° Noise utilities'PaleonYes None Aesthetics° Reduced Intensity Air Q ality"� None Uttlities7 No 2,3,and 7 ffle. Noise" 3 Single Family Unit.s Pale-onto Aesthetics' (Partial) Reduced Intensity Traffic" e a Utilities' 2.3.5,7,and 8 5 Multiple Family Units Air Quality"' Noise Reduced Gradin PaleonM Aesthete° N0 (Partial) Existing Zoning Traffic 8 Multiple Family Units Air Qualil ° None None Yes All Reduced Grading— Nolse (Partial) Alternative Paleontot ° Existing Zoning Traffic 8 Multiple Family Units Air Qualily"'B Utilities' All Reduced Grading— Noise? Noire Aesthetics' No (Partial) Alternative B Paleontol ° 'Numbers refer to Project Objectives identified in Section 10.5. "During the construction phase. 'Substantially reduces or eliminates a significant unavoidable adverse impact. `Does not achieve City goals and objectives and/or inconsistent with adopted land use policies. °Does not result in improved surface water. °Project effects less than significant:reduced project effects is the result of reduced grading required for the alternatives. 'Does not upgrade existing deficient catch basin. "Does not underground existing power poles and wimp. °Duration of construction phase reduced:however,alternative will not significantly reduce construction noise Levels. 1ODuration of oonstnttiion phase increased. 14. Page 10-16: The first sentence in the paragraph under "Alternative A" will be revised to read: "This 8-Unit Multiple-Family Residential Project alternative (refer to Exhibits 10-2 through 10-6) includes the elimination of the sub-basement included in the proposed project, and a reduction of Errata Final Environmental Impact Report Aerie(PA2005-196) 2 1,069 square feet, resulting in a reduction of 6,662 cubic yards of excavation when compared to the proposed project." 15. Page 10-22: The second sentence in the paragraph below"Alternative B" will be revised to read: "However, implementation of this alternative would also result in a reduction of 4,502 square feet from the proposed project." 16. Page 10-22: "2,055' in the third line in the paragraph in Section 10.3.4.2 (Traffic Circulation)will be revised to"2,150." 17. Page 10-24: The first sentence in the paragraph in Section 10.3.4.4 (Noise) will be revised to read: "These reduced grading alternatives (i.e., Alternative A would eliminate 1,069 square feet and Alternative B would eliminate 4,502 square feet) would also eliminate several noise- generating components associated with construction, including the elimination of 25 caissons that would not be necessary for structural integrity." Errata Final Environmental Impact Report Aerie(PA2005-196) 3 �a3 m 3 3 O1 L1 3 ^C Exhibit No. 8 Draft findings for DER Certification and draft Statement of Overriding Considerations ��s i i Intentionally blank la � AERIE (PA 2005-196) DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(SCH NO. 2007021054) FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS 1. INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21081, and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code of Regs. Section 15091 requires that a public agency consider the environmental impacts of a project before a project is approved and make specific findings. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provides: (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a projedi f-r which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant envirotrctental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findin,- r each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of he ratios ,for each finding. The possible findings are: V 1. Changes or alterations haven required in, or=ln' lporated into, the project which avoid or substaffim lessen the significari€_rlvironmental effect as identified in the final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations ahimgh�hn�.the responsibilityit jurisdiction of another public'aJecy and not the ency making the finding. Such changes have been adolttO 6q=5ich other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. _ — �i� 3 Sge. ffi economic, legal social,,tklrnyglogicaIRM other considerations, including ffuisrorofi employmentpoft<?dnaespr highly trained workers, make infeasible the mdigafit[il=measures or_prolict alternataidentified in the final EIR. (b) The finding equiredffl subdivision shall be supported by substantial evidence in the ti { The firidr- in subt9tuision (a)(2) shall=gWbe made if the agency making the finding has concurrent' lith another :agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or attemafives=_The finding in subdivision (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rei titling identi5e�ir_mitigation measures and project alternatives. (d) W , making thefflndings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a pro ,for reportipo on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project4jrr, made`aaeondition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environritiKal,< ffdcts. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions;etetents, or other measures. i (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based. (f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section. Having received, reviewed and considered the Aerie Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2007021054 (the "EIR") for the proposed Aerie project (the "Project"), as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings set forth below are adopted by the City of Newport Beach (the"City") in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency: 1 )a� A. Document Format These Findings have been organized into the following sections: (1) Section 1 provides an introduction to these Findings. (2) Section 2 provides the background information and the Project Description. (3) Section 3 provides the City's findings as to why an Environmental Impact Report is the appropriate document for the Project. (4) Section 4 sets forth findings regarding thosewronmental impacts which were ft determined either (i) not to be relevant to th�effl, Ject or (ii) clearly not manifested at levels deemed to be significant. Sectiny ddresses both Project-specific and cumulative impacts. (5) Section 5 sets forth findings rega" "potentiallq`s ificant environmental impacts identified in the EIR which, afteclevaluation in the Et"the City has determined are either not significant or can;fesi6ly be mitigated to _ess than significant level through the imposition of p*"act design features, s"111 d conditions, and/or mitigation measures. It al cusses t1e Project'sle significant and unavoidable environmental imparQshor� `..,t constructiori=ftise). Section 6 addresses both feet-specific afid-cu€ ultive impacts. InOrder to ensure co5 entation, all of these measures will be included in the Mitigation MorntonngEidl�IReporting Progam (MMRP) for the Project. Where potentially significant jacts_can_.be avoifel_or substantially lessened through adherence to project desiOn feafure�and stan%fa`rtconditions, these findings specify how thole potQntially sign's ant impacts were so a�MWed or substantially lessened. it (6) Sibn 6 sets-forft findings FW -§p alternafikesto the Project. (7) Sectiolt;M;consists-nf a Statem6fft of Overriding Considerations which sets forth the hat s0`6f iceconomic, legal, I'F � Outer cons a. onsoas's t't 2ted �vitfY"the Project outweighthePro ecfs technological,potential 4 F ! 9 1 unar7c�tdable environmental'�tt,�cts.. ' _ urs}. B ,uqwustodian and 129ocation�aq�pcords "_ �y T The documenai ts? d other mater. )s which==.e0nstitute the administrative record for the City's actions related to the P14W are located the City of Newport Beach Planning Department, 3300 Newport � Boulevard, NewpotQach CAS 2658. The City Planning Department is the custodian of the administrative record foT-tk�_e ProtEIN 2. BACKGROUNDAFltaiMMECT DESCRIPTION The Project Site is located at 201 - 207 Carnation Avenue (west side of Carnation Avenue at the intersection of Ocean Boulevard) and 101 Bayside Place in the City of Newport Beach. The Project consists of the proposed development of the 1.4-acre Project Site with an 8-unit condominium development. Project implementation includes the demolition of the residential structures (i.e., fourteen- unit apartment building and one single-family residence) that currently occupy the Project Site. The total gross floor area of the Project will encompass 61,709 square feet, which includes not only living space commonly referred to as `square footage" for a residential unit (a total of 29,426 square feet, or an average of 3,678 square feet per unit), but also common recreational areas (2,987 square feet), storage areas (5,943 square feet), parking (13,234 square feet), and circulation and mechanical areas (10,119 square feet). In addition, existing docks will be replaced with an eight (8) slip dock with a single guest 2 �d� side tie dock. The new docks will consist of timber construction and 19 new concrete uide piles, and the 9 existing 20-foot long gangway will be replaced by a 44-foot gangway. The new dock layout is located within the existing pierhead line and natural rock outcroppings, the property line to the north and south, and an existing eelgrass bed to the south. In addition, a Construction Management Plan ("CMP") has been prepared as a component of the Project. The CMP addresses all aspects of the construction phase (e.g., phasing, schedule, construction equipment, and the construction process). In addition, the CMP addresses parking management (e.g., off-site and short-term parking, staging, etc.), traffic control (e.g., haul routes and delivery requirements), safety and security (e.g., pedestrian protection, fencing, and safety and security), air quality control and noise suppression measures (e.g., dust control, noise control vibration monitoring), and environmental compliance/protection (e.g., erosion and sediment control and beac g tection, water quality control, and environmental protection measures). The following discretionary approvals are requested or req @,'a City in order to implement the Project: (a) General Plan Amendment (GP2005-006); (b) C:@.- I'11-Nd,.Use Plan Amendment (LC2005- 002); (c) Zone Change (CA2005-009); (d) Tract Map_{P1T2005-004/TT16882); (e) Modification Permit (MD2005-087); and (f) Coastal Residential Development Pe-rmit(CR2005.002). 3. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPO iti. After determining that an EIR should be prepared toQ. tuateAW91-Project's poter-tilIW impacts, the City distributed a Notice of Preparation ("NOPQ for the EIR oi>-ESepteritrer 23. 2008. TheVP provided for a 30-day review period. The NOP wEi 17 buted to the Stats-Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Research, public agencies, utility and senvcproviders, inti re5tied persons who requested notice, the Orange County Clerk/Recorder, and hoitrepw1RQ,, ociations the Project area. The City also conducted a community scoping meeting anQctoberlg.!i2008 pur a�pt to Section 15083 of the State CEQA Guidelines. As au a Section 1; Q60(d) ofy'��tate CE AlIGuidelines, an initial study was not prepared. The Citylreg ve (5) written responses tome=NOP prefer to EIR Appendix B). The initial NOP comments) Y used Meg the scope of the issaes-addressed in the EIR, which are as follows: • Land Upeand Planningil _ Traff@", Gi- elation f ;: • �Ut;Qiiality _F[nse • Aesthetics , • DraiFi age and Hydrologi.- al'I • Biologictt Resources . HIu • Public HeC,end Safety ; i..,,:_ - • Soils and Geitl-o-may =- • Cultural/Scienfrf °Resourcas 4. ENVIRONMENT L-..ACTS WHICH WERE DETERMINED NOT TO BE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT This Section 4 describes, by issue, those potential effects of the Project which were determined not to be potentially significant and which, therefore, are not discussed in the EIR. CEQA provides that an EIR shall focus on all potentially significant effects on the environment created by a project, with an emphasis upon their severity and probability of occurrence. The City has concluded that the Project would not result in significant impacts with respect to the following: • Agriculture - No Prime Farmland, Farmland of State or Local Importance, or Unique Farmland occurs within or in the vicinity of the Project Site. The Project Site and adjacent areas are designated as "Urban and Built-up Land" and "Other Land" on the Orange County Important 3 �a� Farmland Map. Further, neither the Project Site nor the adjacent areas are designated as prime, unique or important farmlands by the State Resources Agency or by the Newport Beach General Plan. The Newport Beach General Plan, Land Use Element designates the Project Site as "Multiple-Unit Residential (RM)" and "Two Unit Residential (RT)'; the zone designation for the Project Site is "Multiple Family Residential" and "Two Family Residential." Therefore, there is no conflict with zoning for agricultural use, and the property and surrounding properties are not under a Williamson Act contract. The Project Site is not being used for agricultural purposes and, as indicated previously, is not designated as agricultural land. The Project Site and the area surrounding the Project Site are developed with residential uses. Therefore, no agricultural uses on the Project Site or within the Project Site's vicinity would be converted to non-agricultural use. No significant impacts to agricultural resources are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. rt,ala,, • Population and Housing - The Project will result in a=decrease in the total number of dwelling units from fifteen (15)to eight(8). Therefore, ProjecUffp tation will not result in a substantial increase in population based on the population pdrEfibUse-Kokhtrecognized by the City. Further, the Project Site could accommodate up to nine (9)-dwelling"uns;based on the existing zoning. Therefore, Project Site development would result`in a decrease-iirboth the number of dwelling units that currently exist on the Project Site ar�dbe number that couft:".constructed- 14000 The Project will result in the demolition of fh existing fourteen (14)-unrfartment building and the single-family residence that exist on the Pf: Apt Site _P�oject implemel futon, therefore, will result in a decrease in a total of seven dwelling u7%1 zi sed on the existing'' lopment on the Project Site. The loss of sevens ling) dwelling Ub.fjsyrs not considered a significant decrease of housing units within the City k aus;; the existing totab�acancy rate in the City is estimated to be 10.91 percent. With the exM-tidh0I1gne tenant=e-uTrently residing in the single-family residence (207 Carnation) and residents of daev apartrilf units that are currently occupied, the remaining units avacant Although these rest is wouldi. displaced by the Project, it is anticipated that uate [Qplacement#�ousmg exis se1rhere iri the City to acx ommodate their relocation NpemenFhousing wouTtt berequired Ault of Project implementation. As a result, a poterihl significant reduction of housing within the City will not occur as a result of Project implemeri Uon. - � , In1 � ttte net retl�ibtin' d ��'j g urnts'! not contribute significantly to the cumulative tpaa;of` omen 8ntl/or dispj�ement ofvcS�ipanfs in the City. The existing apartment building upying one 6Fjfe. Pro�ecYSite's two'paraels exceeds the permitted development density ba d on currently fegglatoryr uirements. If built today, only nine (9) dwelling units would be pe MI on the combin ProaecSjte. Together with the approved and planned development ident :in EIRTable ='t, (the Cumulative Projects"), a substantial increase in residential develop �1 is anticipatecr the City, including 974 dwelling units alone on the Conexant and Koll grope es;an the Airp©etrarea. Other smaller residential developments are also proposed in the City, includirig_the Mggg�aigal residence and other single-family and duplex dwelling units in the area. Therefgrel thePeoject's incremental effect on the reduction of housing in the City is not cumulatively considerap1e°and, as a result, when combined with the effects of the Cumulative Projects, is not signif—M. The existing residential development is not included in the City's inventory of affordable housing. No low- and/or moderate-income households occupy the Project Site and, therefore, none would be displaced as a result of Project implementation. Further, once the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are adopted by the City of Newport Beach, the decrease in the number of dwelling units on the Project Site will not adversely affect the jobs/housing balance because the Project will be consistent with the City's long-range plans, which are the basis of the jobsthousing projections. Therefore, Project implementation will not result in potentially significant cumulative impacts to population and housing. 4 ��a Recreation -The Project will result in a decrease of actual dwelling units on the Project Site from the current fifteen (15) to the proposed eight (8). This would, of course, result in a similar reduction in the number of residents potentially occupying the Project Site. The Project includes private common amenities that will help offset the need for recreational facilities. With a pool and private outdoor decks that may have spas and fire pits, most residents of the Project are expected to utilize their private recreation amenities rather than public parks within the City. Although residents of the Project would occasionally visit local and regional parks and beaches, use of those public facilities by the future residents would not represent a substantial change in the intensity of usage and the impact would not result in substantial physical deterioration of those park areas. Although the Project will increase the number of occupied�ttjs on the Project Site, the increase in residents associated with the Project is minimal and Juld not result in the requirement to construct new or expand existing recreational amenifthe City. Furthermore, the Projects eight dwelling,units represent a significant decre, a the number of dwelling units that '-.. t, presently exist on the Project Site. This reduction N. it l a and resulting likely decrease in potential population supports the conclusion that no ne tfacilities will be required to accommodate future residents of the Pro'ee,pfflf�urther, Title 11-r(Subdivisions) of the New rt 1r..�:. Newport Beach Municipal Code (Section 19.52) regiatres the developer to pay .fee for each unit created by the proposed condominium map. This fee Will be used to augmenPffi eational facilities in the City. Therefore, no significant impacts are ariGj: ted and nig,mitigation mWsures are required. On a cumulative basis, alththe generatic ough _ tCditional residents associated with the -.. Cumulative Projects could result_-demand for recreational amenities, the Project's incremental contribution to the cumulative detflands created by tW.Cymulative Projects is not cumulatively considerable due to the �rrdrilrriaUlrtumber number of redertial units within the Project and the actual decrease in the number of' residentialunits from existing conditions. Furthermore, the Project includes in,gate- ecreational drtienities on site to accommodate Project residents. As with the Cumulative f'roJsats--twat will constr}�ot res�entiei ,dWetling units, the Project is subject to the City's park m,4,1§1 fee requirements co frtaiAq Sectio _ 19 52 of the Municipal Code (Park Dedications ar�d0--ees) to 8%t any poqewpl, demands recreational facilities in the City. Therefore, the P#k'ect's indtefnental effdo ion recreational resources is not cumulatively considerable and a resu�j lvhen--combmedWith the effects of the Cumulative Projects, is not si I ` nt • Jiineral Resources• Neithee Newport L3each General Plan (Recreation and Open Space Event) nor the StataUf Cahfiiaia,has identified the already-developed Project Site or environs as fi tential mineral I urce oStatewide or regional significance. No mineral resources are known tt€ xist and, there°pre, Proj4ffimplementation will not result in any significant impacts to regional opstate wide imppif int resources. Furthermore, the Newport Beach General Plan does not identifyproJect enuis as having potential value as a Iocaliy important mineral resource site. The propiftl demoftil and construction will not result in the loss of any locally important mineral resource_isit and',-tffierefore, no significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. l- On a cumulative basis, the Project, the Project's incremental contribution to the impacts to mineral resources created by the Cumulative Projects is not cumulatively considerable because the Project does not result in the loss of any important mineral resources. Although the Project will require the use of mineral resources (e.g., sand and gravel, wood, etc.), many are renewable and/or sustainable. Additionally, with the exception of the Newport Banning Ranch, which has been a producing oil field for several years, many of the sites on which development of the Cumulative Projects is proposed are either already developed (e.g., Conexant/Koll, Newport Beach Country Club, etc.) or are located in areas of the City that do not possess mineral resources. Therefore, there appears to be no significant cumulative impact to mineral resources from the Cumulative Projects. Therefore, the Project's incremental effect on mineral resources is 5 not cumulatively considerable and, as a result, when combined with the effects of the Cumulative Projects, is not significant. • Public Services: Fire Protection - Fire protection facilities and service to the Project Site are provided by the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD). In addition to the City's resources, the NBFD also maintains a formal automatic aid agreement with the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) and all neighboring municipal fire departments to facilitate fire protection in the City should the need arise. The Project will result in seven fewer, though larger, residential dwelling units requiring fire protection. As a result, there will not be any increase in residential units or persons requiring emergency services. The Project must comply with the City's current building and fire codes and is replacing a decades old structure which is not consistent with today's building codes. The Project includes all necessary fire protection devices, such as fire sprinklers. It has been designed with several features to facilitate and-c Vance the provision of adequate fire protection, including an emergency communication deuj. tlocated at the existing concrete pad at the beach level and a new wet standpipe which will b' : gd to the existing docks. In addition, an automatic and manual fire alarm system will t1 tall �r� fire control room is provided at ground level which will be monitored by a cents.d ation, a a:Class I wet standpipe will be provided at every level at all stairs to facili te'fire protectio n-El'Adequate water supplies and ==-_ infrastructure, including fire hydrants, exisf=iN the vicinity of (t9'e project, and there is no requirement for other new facilities or 1111ergency services. A preffmnary code compliance analysis was conducted by City staff. Based on that analysis, the proA d,building will comply with code. A final compliance determination 'MI lbe ma� aPnce of a building rior to the permit. On a cumulative basis, the less=t n'sjgn cant potential impacts associated with the Project will not alter the ability of the Newport-6eacWE F Departmenf�'(o provide an adequate level of service to the Project, even when considentlg the pot¢fltial develppmant of the Cumulative Projects, because the Proleeit . is currently provided fire service Development of the Cumulative Projects will alss evaaed by the po ,; chiE Department to ensure that adequate FT levels of serve' ' Mn� n be proNided. Theltifple�e�s are waw.the long-range projections of the City's Generaf Fan and, theore, would not-`adversely affect the City's ability to provide an adequate level ofTrfotection T ierefore the Project's incremental effect on the provision of fire services-is not cumuTa#rvelyt ti t,�erable and. as a result when combined with the effects of the Curtl�tlwi� ects is fp g g i fi er - }: ' - • }j ublic Serncei _Rwice I'!� ection The=Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) is responsible for provr g_poh and law enforcement services within the corporate limits of the City' ;,_The Police Deji#ment fieuarters is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, at the inters on of Jamboreeb�oad anl-N. anta Barbara, approximately two miles northeast of the Projectjte :The NBPD`OITently has a ratio of 1.91 sworn officers for each 1,000 residents in the City. Tfilijiratio is adequate for the current population. Police and law enforcement service in .,- the City is prdiAW by p' tpl5Is with designated "beats." The Project will reduce the number of residential units"tNJ.t,Me P.0ject Site through the demolition of an existing fourteen-unit apartment building and one single=€amity residence and their replacement with an 8-unit condominium structure. As a resM,;'the Project will not require an expansion of local law enforcement resources and, therefore, will not require the construction of new law enforcement facilities. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. On a cumulative basis, the potential (less than significant) impacts associated with the Project would not alter the ability of either the Newport Beach Police Department from providing an adequate level of service to the Project Site, even when considering the Cumulative Projects, because the Project Site is currently provided police service. The potential development of the Cumulative Projects would also be evaluated by the Newport Beach Police Departments to ensure that adequate levels of service can be provided. The Cumulative Projects are within the long-range projections identified in the City's General Plan and, therefore, would not adversely affect the City's ability to provide an adequate level of protection. Therefore, the Project's 6 i�� incremental effect on the provision of police services is not cumulatively considerable and, as a result, when combined with the effects of the Cumulative Projects, is not significant. • Public Services: Schools - The provision of educational facilities and services in the City of Newport Beach is the responsibility of the Newport-Mesa Unified School District. Residential and non-residential development is subject to the imposition of school fees. Payment of the State- mandated statutory school fees is the manner by which potential impacts to the District's educational facilities are mitigated. Government Code Section 65996 significantly limits the scope of evaluation of school facilities impacts under CEQA. Despite this limitation, the following information has been evaluated regarding the Project's potential generation of school age children and is provided for informational purposes. The existing dwelling units have been vacant for several years except for caretakers living in the single-family home and two of the apartment units . tffie present time, therefore, this property has little or no impact on the Newport Mesa Unified Sct-oo District. It is estimated that, upon Project completion and occupancy, fewer than twenty=(20)'-studants, distributed between various grade levels, would be generated by the Project�New or expai d school facilities would not be required to provide classroom and supports " >for these Iow'nbers of school age children. However, the Project is subject to the p�yHt of any required sc'� 1.fee to the school district pursuant to Section 65995 of the Californf_IG-overnment Code in order' offset the incremental cost impact of expanding school resources=tC2 accommodate the incr ' d. student enrollment associated with new residential development Vtilith the payment of the me school school fees, no significant impacts would occur., result of Proj "2 i p; hentation. -= Similarly, with the payment of the= ry schooFfe=es no potentially significant cumulative impacts would occur as a result ofProject implementation • Public Sernces� Qf�rer Public Faa rir yes DUe to .the reduction in residential density, no increased dem� � or other.. public seices Ampticiptgd ani- there would be no need to construct an ew public i. "'Ytglities. No-si9i i nt im arst care anticipated and no mitigation measures are fe ced. Min— On _ oo- a qumulative bass�LieIat�4ala�perease iiYCesidents generated by the Cumulative Projects cagld,7esulitl: an mcrett demarTfor otheF public facilities. However, because the Project r `sents ai �ecreasein the number 3� actual residential units, and, therefore, potential l idents and 4R' tt(G tett eppbGant will be b�toired to pay in-lieu park fees to further offset any cti�tct or cumulativ pacts toplreational facilities, the Project's incremental effect on other put5lfacilities will not b�a(cumulevtjly_considerable. These fees are used by the City to provide recrea#lttltal facilities a _amenities that serve the residents of Newport Beach. Therefore, the Project 5if(j(!ttot have a sigrisant cumulative effect on other public facilities. • Utilities - Wastewater ge. ted by the Project will be disposed into the existing sewer system and will not exce08 was ewater treatment standards of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water demand and wastewater generation will not increase significantly over existing uses due to the increase in the number of occupants who will reside on the Project Site when compared to the number of currently occupied dwelling units. The Project will connect to an existing 12-inch water main in Carnation Avenue. Wastewater connections will be made either in a 10-inch main in Carnation Avenue or an 8-inch main in Bayside Place below the Project Site. No expansion of these facilities is necessary due to existing capacity and the reduction in density. Future water demand based on the General Plan projections would not be increased significantly. Even though the Project will result in a decrease in dwelling units by a total of seven, the potential exists for additional water demand on a per unit basis due to the larger size of the dwelling units and the . pool and spa areas. However, if there is an increase in demand, that increase is anticipated to be minor and not significant. 7 133 The Project will not result in a significant increase in solid waste production due to the decrease in dwelling units. Existing landfills are expected to have adequate capacity to service the Project. Solid waste production will be picked up by either the City or a commercial provider licensed by the City. All federal, state, and local regulations related to solid waste will be adhered to through this process. On a cumulative basis, the incremental increase in the demand for utilities as a result of replacing the older (i.e., 1949-era) multiple-family apartment building with a "state-of-the-art" energy efficient development is intended to minimize demands for energy resources. For instance, the Project includes extensive use of "green" technology intended to reduce demands for energy resources, including gray water retention for property irrigation, natural ventilation systems that capitalize on prevailing ocean breezes and thermal convection dynamics, and the use of high- thermal mass for capturing and retaining heat through sv.,la[ beat gain apertures. Although the Project decreases runoff from the Project Site to the -'Wing catch basin located in Carnation Avenue near Ocean Boulevard and does not require--2n-y,,improvements to that catch basin, Project implementation will include the replacemefi si2iq_ of the catch basin to correct an existing deficiency and improve water quality treafirient in thea) community. Therefore, the incremental effect of the Project on utilities is iipt cumulatively considerable and, when associated with the effects of the Cumulative Projects I "g;�_I&significant. i l _ 5. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIt IFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL.EFFECTS The following potentially significant envimpmental impacts were evaluated in the diEIRIM each instance, that evaluation demonstrated that as e klt of either project'design features (in" ding the CMP), compliance with existing laws, codes ar,M§ttiites, the identfi tion of feasible mitigation measures, and/or a combination of one or more of ttfesa fact" the potenti5ptsignificant impact had been avoided or reduced to a level of less than significari There re, for these`effects and in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(1) and 3CQA_Gwdelinesection " 5a9A(a)(1j, i1 ;,City finds that "Changes or alterations have been regbiiiWOrouncorporated into the pro)ee4 which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental_effect as ntified in the final-MIR (Note_€or the purposes of these Findings, Section 21081(a)(1)s`v✓orsis "mitigator avoid are deemed to have the same meaning as Section 15091(a)(1)'s words "avoidor,:substanti.ally lessen 2lhd will be used interchangeably.) Because project design features standard confl'iions or regulations are=considered "incorporated into the Project," where environmerihtlludeffects have been: avDidea cyeduced o less than significance solely due to these _.. measuresslsigmficantmpact wdl'-tie found and tt�e_,refore, no "mitigation" is required. Nonetheless, the City wtlhvithin these finefmgs, ini;lade findings 'explaining how such measures are proposed to be incorporattt within thePro)e_0 ith the result that the applicable environmental effect has been avoided or reduced�fofa level of insigance where on the other hand, a significant impact is identified despite the inclusion .,;project design -futures a applicability of existing laws, codes, and statutes, that significant impactijw jl,_be identifiedao-�d, where'feasible, mitigation shall be proposed. --= S s 5.1 LAN©`CJSE AND 0113ANNING �:, ._ (1) Potential Impact: .i.3fi Project create a conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jff sdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant land use and planning impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: As demonstrated in EIR Table 4.1-1 (City's General Plan), EIR Table 4.1-2 (Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan), and EIR Table 4.1-3 (Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide), the Project is consistent with the City's Land Use Element and Coastal Land Use Plan of the City's General Plan, the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, and with the long-range goals, policies and objectives adopted 8 13q by the City in the General Plan Update. The Project is also compatible with the existing land uses in the area. Tables 4.1-1, 4.1-2, and EIR Table 4.1-3 as well as Responses to Comments 10-1 through 10-5, which also address Land Use Element and CLUP policy consistency related to bluff development, are incorporated into these findings by reference. Further, implementation of the standard condition identified for the Project (i.e., comply with the zoning district regulations, California Building Code, and other regulatory requirements) will ensure that no significant impacts will occur. No significant long-term unavoidable adverse land use impacts will occur as a result of Project implementation. (2) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a conflict with the Newport Beach Planning and Zoning Code(Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code)? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project`t1-at avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant land use and planning impact such tha"tfhe impact is considered Less Than Significant. . _ Discussion: The majority of the Project Site is zone&.M Multipl""sftily Residential, 2,178), which would accommodate up to 20 du/ac based on one dwWg unit for everf' 78 square feet of land. The maximum density that could be achieved on the;;[?ojiicI Site is based owe MFR zoning parameters identified below. k� Total Site Area ,NN6>J282 sq� e feet 44—MRIN Existing Building Pad feet :w ?; i: Slope area less than 50% 7-46E_square feet Slope area greater than 50% ;% - 119 26rvo_are feet Area under mean higher high watt aklevatu( 28,41i % feet WL The maximum density that w u ld,be permitted 5q the Proj G�FiI a is d6li ffiained by subtracting the area of the Project Site that a �t5ff;percent sl 11 926ai' afi the area of the Project Site located below mean hi „l r high-water (2841gpa�gj) eet) a total Project Site area (61,284 square feet). This ca-14 resultsl frl a total of 20,9-05 square feed Based on the minimum of 2,178 square feet of land area peslwellingllt int a maxirram,of nine dwelling units would be permitted on the Project Site The Project appltcant i Tlgpcsmg a total of eight dwelling units, which is consistent with the density provislonlldMFR za11 �a'ssrfica;k0g, A smaBp,%irtfon of the Project Site(5 �spuare feet) i��oned R-2 (Two-Family Residential). The applicant has proprised a zone cha;9i- recla�jty_that small portion of the Project Site to MFR, which would be consistent N-4 the accompt2ng reglst, to amend the Newport Beach Land Use Element to redesignate it7.'as=RM. ApprovaA the zone cwge(and General Plan Amendment) would eliminate the R-2 zoning andiAtexisting con fi f(yith the MFR zoning that applies to the majority of the Project Site, which permits higfterkjensity Bevel' �jnent. Development of the Project Site as proposed complies with the zoning district regllations a��tl `development standards prescribed for the MFR zoning district. 0 r;::: Therefore, no significant nnicts with the zoning would occur and no mitigation measures are required. (3) Potential Impact: Wid; Project create a conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant land use and planning impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: The Project Site is located within the limits of the Central/Coastal NCCP adopted by the County of Orange. The NCCP is intended to ensure the long-term survival of the coastal California gnatcatcher and other special status coastal sage scrub (CSS) dependent plant and wildlife species in accordance with state-sanctioned NCCP program guidelines. The biological surveys conducted on the 9 135 Project Site revealed that although some native species exist on the bluff property, neither CSS habitat nor the coastal California gnatcatcher exists on the Project Site. Therefore, no impacts either to 'CSS habitat or the coastal California gnatcatcher are anticipated as a result of Project implementation. As a result, Project implementation is consistent with the adopted NCCP for the Central/Coastal Subregion. No mitigation measures are required. (4) Potential Impact: Will the Project physically divide an established community? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant land use and planning impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: The area surrounding the Project Site is entirely_e velbped with single- and multiple-family residential development. Although development of the PrrojeLQggite as proposed would change the architectural character of the Project Site by replacing ari„bide rt i i-family structure with a modern multiple-family structure, development of the Project Sj; ;Mbiild not fsely affect adjacent properties. In particular, no design component or feature of the E�li awould physicajlyldivide or otherwise adversely affect or significantly change an established cRf1lRj tlity. No significant-, rlpacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. e (5) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in substanfial or extr land use inCOMMty. -_ �..:. Finding: The City makes the finding-set (.forth in Publk #�i sources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorRar ed.'nto the Proj that avoid or substantially lessen this wn potentially significant land use and plarifjag lm such thaf !ttte impact is considered Less Than Significant. �G Discussion: Redevelop,OFTpfrthe Project Sl will nq R i4 a significant land use conflict. The Project is consistent wtft ttte gen=rRlan and zoning tle sdies fors Project Site. The Project's density is 57 du/ac, compared to the 11.4 dulac that current{y,ezists basedon the 15 existing dwelling units, the 20 du/ac permitted by thij jae, ral Plan Land Use 1 f4, ent and zoning, and the nine units possible on the Project Site when all develop sint standards are taken nto consideration. The Project complies with the developmen t alts(e g se F s buil Qg heighQo�ttcoverage, etc.) prescribed for the MFR zoning district Thpib{� 9ect7trr�cture issa consistl nfhW�tl�ttieolicies articulated in the General Plan. (6) Potentitaf, Impact: Wl1liItti, Proidob-ibsult in incompatible land uses in an aircraft accident potential area as de .in an airport land-rise plank ,i F Finding: The Vh makes the kidmg setjforth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterr ols have beePh;(ncorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially sign ificanEla id use ai3a`_-planning impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. �p Discussion: The Project Sitia"is not located within two miles of any existing public airport, public use airport, or private airstrip. John Wayne Airport, which is located approximately five miles northwest of the Project Site, is the nearest aviation facility. No portion of the Project Site is located within the accident potential area of such a plan. The Project would neither affect nor be affected by aircraft operations at any aviation facility that would generate noise in excess of regulatory standards. Therefore, no significant land use impacts would occur as a result of Project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. (7) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this 10 136 potentially significant land use and planning impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: The Newport Beach General Plan identifies the City's open space and conservation areas. However, because the area of the City in which the Project Site is located is nearly completely developed, natural open space and habitat are limited in the project environs. The Project Site encompasses approximately 1.4 acres that are currently developed with single- and multiple-family residential dwelling units. The Project Site previously has been altered in order to accommodate the existing development. Neither the Project Site nor the surrounding areas is located within a Natural Community Conservation Plan or Habitat Conservation Plan, Therefore, Project implementation will not adversely affect such a plan, sensitive habitat and/or resources. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of Project implementation. (8) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative Land.M.1 and Planning impact? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Pub1i ,�Resourn � Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into t,0kP'inject thaWid or substantially lessen this potentially significant cumulative land use and plannj`gpact such ttia_ to impact is considered Less Than Significant. — n, Discussion: The Project Site is currently developed I,tjjs identified-for develop--- .in the City's adopted long-range plans. The Project is, consistent with the�1lplicablgoals, policies, _objectives of the Newport Beach land Use Element andapther general `plan=eibments, as well as t ity's CLUP. No design component or feature of the `PresHould physicllyIivide or otherwise adversely affect or significantly change an established comrttitysddition, th�2roject Site is located within the limits of the Central/Coastal NCCP adopted by they' ouhwe,-Orange. A��h�h the biological surveys conducted on the Project Site revealed that some nativei pecie z ist_on the bFuff=property, neither CSS habitat nor the coastal California gnats chef_exist on th', ject lfde artd no impacts to those species would occur as a result of Project im i69en-tatios. Therefor Rhe si atl mulative impacts to land use will occur Y as a result of Project imentatio Ria, _ 5.2 TRAFFIC AND CfRf{1LATION` 1 PotentraN al' rti ul W �. ( ) X11 the Pt �ct �etj Xe an lh Rase in traffic at intersections in the City that resultsm ifilorsecttor� CapacityjiHzahon �}Clj) Ghahge of 0.01 or more and a resulting !CU of 0.91 (LOS t �gligYeater) _ Finding FfsCity makes tFr ndmg §W-forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and,Q; H.tions have beeidi mcorpotated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially sigrilh it t. land use a 'd4 planning impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. = 4, Discussion (PotentiaFE.Zpnis _:'=Ghon Impacts): Implementation of the Project will require the exportation of more than 25C3)3))�bic yards of earth material to the Brea Olinda Landfill, resulting in the generation of approximately�� heavy truck trips over the 5-month grading and excavation phase. Grading and excavation necessary to implement the Project will be scheduled to occur after the summer months to avoid truck traffic impacts during that already congested time period. Although a maximum of up to 44 haul truck trips per day (based on a minimum 15-minute interval between departures from the Project Site as set forth in the CMP) could be generated by the daily grading activities, the CMP limits the number of heavy truck trips to 27 to 29 trips per day during the three excavation "segments." Other construction-related heavy truck trips will be those related to concrete pouring, which will account for a total of 622 trips in 12 concrete pour events that would take 30 to 40 days each within the 18-month Phase II period. Concrete truck traffic would be generated on only three to five days during each concrete pour event. In addition, truck traffic that is related to material deliveries to the Project Site would average two to four heavy trucks per week during the final nine months of the construction phase. 11 137 The CMP includes several measures to ensure that the construction traffic will not result in significant impacts in the residential neighborhood, including the following: • The Project's haul route shall follow the route depicted in the CMP. Specifically, dump trucks, concrete mixers, deliveries, and shuttles for off-site parking will access the Project Site via East Coast Highway and travel south on Marguerite Avenue, west on Seaview Avenue, and south on Carnation Avenue to the Project Site. The trucks and construction vehicles will exit by driving east on Ocean Boulevard, north on Marguerite Avenue, and back to East Coast Highway. • Dirt will be hauled to Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill in the City of Brea (or a closer siteflocation if available at the time grading occurs). Dump trucks leaving from East Coast Highway will travel north on MacArthur Boulevard to SR-73, and continue orthbound on SR-55 to the 1-5 northbound and to SR-57 northbound. Grading and dirt'4 ng shall occur only between Labor Day and Memorial Day. tj'!'' i iii': a i��li • All deliveries will use the designated haul route o[j h '. F�ter the neighborhood starting from Marguerite Avenue. --__ • The contractor will request an encroacil'Gnent permit for a t r> rary staging area during r.construction, as described and illustratedliliffilt-heCMP. Loading and urali ding of all construction e_ materials/equipment and/or construction vefitcls will take place on-site of,"Vliithin the staging area. Loading and unloading will be managed by tti'e&copstructi5 valet team and)ill be overseen by the contractor. Dump trucks cement trucks, and otEe�heavy trucks will arriveOt the Project Site with no greater frequency thar th rriv'a mum 15-miN scharge rate so that no more than one truck is on-site at one time and=that trucks will not uqueuie on Carnation Avenue. Once each delivery is complete, the truck will exit the Project areawlt" he identified haul route. All trucks (except cement trucks) will be required to shut.off their d s during the loadingloff-loading process. iN • To prevent obstttilction of H ugh traffic lanes a cent tc Project Site, a flag person will be retained to mairltaR-safety adi ent to theex(sting roadways. I. • Traffic:,Qon will be eoordlr tetF=with the P.lice Department and Public Works Department, Tr iaffiaild`b4 Y2elppmen�ces VVR so ffi street traffic is not obstructed. Potents Iinstruction-rela traffic irribacts, which could include slowing of local traffic and impeding ...._ turning nsements at priva tiiyeways 91_1 Id be avoided through the implementation of the measures prescribed it #Se CMP. To ensu e:that tK[Fy;oject's construction traffic does not result in adverse traffic congestion impdts and to avoidq'rapacts alo"rtg local residential streets, especially narrower streets, the CMP has ad 9 sgtl_%all aspects QfEPP.pe construction phase, including traffic control, haul routes, and the frequency of heavy 6 k trips. Tholleavy truck construction traffic (a maximum of four trips per hour) will not adversely affect 5 �!Cmtersecton operation during either the a.m. or p.m. peak hours. In addition, construction of the replagement_,dikk will not generate additional traffic because both materials and equipment will be deliveretFfa_ `-Project Site on a barge to the dock location. Therefore, no significant traffic impacts will occur as a'rsiilt of Project implementation. Discussion (Potential Operational Impacts): As shown in the table below, Project implementation represents an increase of 24 trips per day, including two a.m. peak hour trips and two p.m. peak hour trips. When compared to the potential occupancy of the 15 dwelling units that presently exist on the Project Site, the Project would generate 57 fewer daily trips, including four fewer a.m. peak hour trips and six fewer p.m. peak hour trips. 12 13Y Land Use Dwelling Daily ADT AM Peak PM'Peak Units ADT ADT Potential 15 104 8 10 Occu anc Baseline 3 23 2 2 Proposed 8 47 4 4 Net Change 5 24 2 2 from Baseline Assumes all units are occupied. 2"Baseline" conditions reflects 3 units currently occupied, including the SFD home and two apartments. SOURCE: Institute of Transportation Engineers The City requires that a traffic analysis be prepared for projeef theYgenerate 300 or more trips per day. As indicated in the above table, the Project does not : ach the minimum;threshold. Therefore, a traffic 6 . analysis was not required. Although the assessmenaffic impacts cv�sldered the decrease in total dwelling units, it likely does not reflect the potentialf r rease in traffic generate-1;by the proposed dwelling units adjusted for possible lifestyle factors associ2fe with extremely affluent1b.ouseholds, which could generate a small amount of additional traffic atable to omestic emplr)yees, pool and spa maintenance workers, and so forth. However, even -flit such onal traffic Prpt implementation will not result in an increase in either speak hour traffic "I s or total daily trWhc in excess of i iu, established thresholds. Therefore, future,traf�>~,;generated by„_ .eHProject will not result in any significant long-term traffic impacts. No mitigation m,.astarov, re required'.` i � (2) Potential Impact: Will the Project will generate aPi �crgaseNin c at a Congestion Management Program intersection resulting m Leve! of Setyre:YPsee ONr,J-”if a O-'ragestion Management Program intersection maintains art,exr hng<Ll?5 F, an incl s= rnINKv results in an ICU change beyond 0.10? Finding: The City m-3 the findir%' set forth` EPublic Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations fiavebeen #'46 orated mto=the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially signifi.paI land M, impact h that the impact is considered Less Than Significant{ ,'fin)'' DiscussSee disctegljalJmpact No:'1=5bove. (3) Potentrjj?pact: Will the'1 i ect will't9gult in inadequate access or parking capacity? Finding: Theu 11pakes the fi'Wing set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alts.have beeixmcorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such:ihat the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion (Potential Coii�itict!on Impacts): The total construction period is estimated to extend approximately 32 months over four phases that vary in duration from five to 18 months each. The daily construction employee work force will vary from phase to phase, depending on the construction activity. Nonetheless, it is estimated that an average of 25 workers will be at the Project Site each day during Phase I and 45 workers each day during Phase II. During Phases III and IV, when work will mostly occur indoors, an average of 60 to 80 workers are expected to be on-site on a daily basis. To ensure that adequate employee parking is provided during each phase of construction, the CMP includes a detailed parking management plan. This plan mandates the following: i • Construction workers are prohibited from parking on Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard (or any residential street in the neighborhood). Instead, before permits may be issued for a 13 l39 construction phase that will require off-site parking, the applicant must secure one or more binding off-site parking agreements to accommodate the applicable number of workers needed for that phase. The off-site parking location(s) will be located within a five-mile radius of the Project Site. The agreement shall ensure that the off-site parking location (1) will commit a sufficient number of parking spaces to Aerie construction workers during the relevant term and (2) possesses the proper permits and authority to rent the subject spaces. The off-site parking agreement shall be present to the City which shall verify compliance with these requirements as provided in the CMP. • Shuttles will transfer construction workers from the remote parking locations to the Project Site. Specifically, two 10-passenger shuttle vans will run up to eight trips each morning and evening and up to five trips at lunch, assuming that some workers wi,IL_remain at the jobsite during lunch. Carpooling among construction workers will also be en20 Wad throughout the duration of the construction phases. • Once vehicular elevators are installed, workers wiN=t�ii3 perriitfed to park in the completed on-site garages. It is anticipated that approximately 3_Lcars�vill be able to park on-site once the parking garage is completed. Personnel will be prov. 5 to assist in parklt he construction workers on- II,; . site. As previously indicated, construction workers±NfU be prohibited from parkiCarnation Avenue • and Ocean Boulevard. Compliance with tfjis prohrgipor will be m ed daily by the construction valet and flagm am. However`# is prphibition shall, not"wily to short-term ti,r n .: .:: visitors to the Project Site EM City inspect'�- City staff, architects, and consultants. Carpooling will also be encouragg profession �r;,. e'R Discussion (Potential Operational Impac ;.The`Re ,Rpropos' aunique access plan that includes a four-level parking garagelm. altotal of 25 Irking spaces r the eigh.wI 9ndominiums, not including the six private auto Efts i"' include s;'xteen for �esWants eight for visitors, and one service s ;;, vehicle space. Two ppw rg space also have been pr-Vided fo�rgolf carts. In addition, the garage is equipped with mechani u! ehicle lifts�i.six of the r�...Mintial parking spaces. These lifts can be used by t fl:. s:—. the residents themselves tatncrease �ev own parkriSfrom two spaces per unit to three per unit and are not counted towrrd the cod e patkin `irements. �. At ccess d r, % y�ar'inggaTage is proposed to be vr��dn5eway on Carnation Avenue, which leads directly to/from,vefiiole elevators f aled at, face of t wilding. Two vehicular elevators will be used to accomni"Pte residents' park ng with;h tfie structure. The two on-site vehicular elevators will serve the private gareg s of seven of itW units-an d,,overflow guest parking spaces that are located in the subterranean"gorge. Parking far e eighth chit and the required guest parking spaces are located four feet below streii svel and do n'. ke access via the proposed elevators. The East (i.e., right side) elevator is designated-,for entrance=and West (i.e., left side) elevator is designated for exiting. Access control panels are locafed.,adjacen"4 the elevator (on driver's side) on each floor. Residents will have a remote control similar to=a arad--bor controller that can activate the elevator through the touch of a button as they approach theer trance. Lighting signals are located on top of the elevator opening on each floor that indicate the elevator position or if it is currently in use. The entrance elevator will be programmed for"destination dispatch" so that it is automatically recalled to the street level when it is not in use. Therefore, the driver can access the elevator immediately upon entering the Project Site when it is not in use, thus minimizing the potential for creating a vehicle queue. Inside the elevator, another keypad is located on the driver's side of the wall. A lighting signal indicates the designation (i.e., floor) of the elevator. Once the elevator has reached its designated level, ample turnaround space is available for the car to maneuver into the private garages. The elevators will always be used by a car pulling into and out of it in a forward direction. 14 t.�b The interior cab size of the elevator is approximately 10' x 20'with an 8' high ceiling. It takes the elevator approximately eight seconds to travel from floor to floor and completely cycle in less than two minutes. PP Y 9 P Y Y Furthermore, an emergency generator will be provided so that in the event of a power outage, the generator will automatically activate to operate the elevator, allowing residents to exit the building safely. This safety feature will also send the cabs to the recall position at street level. In addition, a fire service switch will be provided that allows fire department to access the elevators in case of emergency. Two spaces designed for golf cart sized vehicles are proposed. These spaces are within the three sub- basement levels of the structure with the lower levels accessed by vehicle elevators large enough and with sufficient capacity to accommodate vehicles and vans. The Newport Beach Zoning Code requires attached single family residential projects to provide one covered and one uncovered space per dwelling unit. Additionally, 0.5 space per dwelling unit is required for guests:_Under this code, the Project requires a total of sixteen spaces for residents and four spaces for guests;_for a total of twenty spaces. As indicated in the table below, the Project proposes 25 parking spes-for residents and guests, exceeding the minimum twenty off-street parking spaces required by Lh hicipal Code. As noted above, the six parking spaces provided by the lifts are not included in 0%aikx7 tion of spaces toward the code requirement. Code No. of Required No.of Parking Typo Re uirement Parkin S aces S aces Provided _. Multi-Family Residential2 Spaces/Unit' 6 ., 23Z 4 or more DUs t,ilF; EMs.:.: :_ Guests 0.5/SpaGe/unit _= =4`" == 8 Total 31 Includes one (1)covered parking spate_ z Includes 77 "at-grede parking spacesl�nd 6rff? parkmg (i6arking spaces located above surface parking spaceSAI.Affit the use d';'a hft) - 3 Total parking does nptinct �tvvo (2) golf Cart parkrhg spades and bicycle parking spaces also provided. All parkin paces are covered. Yz ,y — _ SOURCE: Newport Brat lifCode(Secfi(? 20.66.030) Archlv . _x $rtgn,Jeannettei . r Finally the length of#('eig Tcurb cutxi(which prov(des vehicular access to the Project Site, has been substan'Iatdy reduced, "Ibliifte is tnP�tfte creation of three (3) new on-street public parking spaces. The addition of t(ese on-street patting spaces is considered a beneficial impact, particularly during the peak summer/toufi$xseason. The AFA analysw'j Investigated flim condominium complexes with similar characteristics located in the immediate vicinity dF.Vie,.Project to=_c snduct counts and evaluate the potential for circulation conflicts. This study was conducted'fts''i__evaluate:fti potential for ingress/egress queuing. Traffic counts taken by AFA included minute by-minute 4bs'er t n of the arrivals and departures from the thn�condominium complexes �.. .. -- (8, 15, and 42 units) durin0h'— _m:, noon, and p.m. peak two hour periods. Based on those observations, only during one minute did the-airival rate reach as high as three vehicles per minute and that was only one time for the 15-unit condominium project. On six occasions, two vehicles per minute arrived at the same time. However, that occurred at the 42-unit complex. Based on the actual field-measured arrival rates, it is estimated that rarely, if ever, will the queue of waiting vehicles at the entry to the Project back out onto Carnation Avenue. Nonetheless, the question of safety was also examined by AFA and documented in the study prepared for the Project. Existing traffic counts on Carnation Avenue are modest. The traffic volumes observed were 24 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 22 trips during the p.m. peak hour. These figures equate to less than one vehicle every three to four minutes.The elevators can completely cycle in less than two minutes. 15 The AFA analysis concluded that the garage access design, which utilizes two vehicle elevators would not create any substantial vehicle queuing onto Carnation Avenue. This is particularly true for the Project because only seven of the eight units will utilize the vehicle elevators. With one vehicle lift for each of six units combined with single car elevators, evacuation of all vehicles from the garage could be difficult in an emergency situation and both elevators may need to be operated as exit only in such a case. (4) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative Traffic and Circulation impact? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: Cumulative traffic impacts are those occurring within-Yfi ' immediate vicinity of.the Project Site and into the Corona del Mar area along Coast Highway ap'fidtfi'er arterials in the City based on the distribution of construction traffic associated with the Projec1-100rtclicated in EIR Table 9-1, the Project and the Cumulative Projects would contribute traffic bot"Si rfng c ywruction and as a result of their development which could affect the existing circulatiga-_syetem, irirurg Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, and Newport Boulevard. As indicated in._l=#kZSection 4.2 (Tratfc and Circulation), Project implementation will result in the generation of cor)$Cryy!¢tion traffic (i.e., short-tfm) as well as an increase in the number of daily and peak hour vehicles rips when compared tot'ta existing baseline (i.e., occupancy of three units). The short-term vehicle t i5,,are thosei§ssociated wtt££i ipavy trucks (i.e., dirt hauling, equipment and materials deliveries, etc.) and%. tructioit"6rks commuti to the Project Site. However, these short-term impacts wilt,pe minimized througd itis implementation of;the CMP which, among other things, prescribes a ha ute and inhibits!rwsite queuing Although other of the uld Cumulative Projects coalso contnb� sttwction traffic tttat could affect roadway and intersection operations, the contribution of these s oR-#er O--Wps wouldM-a represent a potentially significant cumulative impact because potential impacC wculd`b�Umided throfxgh specific provisions prescribed in the CMP, including the i } abon of a haull ate plaff=W encs to atraffic control plan, limitations on haul truck amvaVdep _ ase=of flag pions dun g tlie- ons#ruction phases, and so forth. Implementation of these_-tneasure$11R.Will ensunel,.th, tential dri aiatroe construction impacts will be minimized. Although pest development Project ttn vehicle rips would be greater than those generated by the existittg fesidenbal development the Project Site, they would not result in any potentially significant cumuf 10 s In the Coro el Mar community or outlying areas because when added t 41111 sal ciroul �` 4 system fF1$� would nstitute a very small fraction of the total trips gen eratesii1by die u�tijdlabve P ;( _ts Whemadde�j to.the City's arterial roadway system, the small increase iw both constfon-relatend operafldal vehicle trips would, therefore, not result in potential1r. hinificaritcurnuftV -traffi15ulation impacts. — 6.3 AIR C ITY FN (1) Potential ImpaE ,:Will the Prof Cat create a conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? "'_�_ Finding: The City maks tc iffi`ding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations haM le"n incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant land use and planning impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: Because the Project will reduce the number of residential units on the Project Site, the Project will not involve growth inducing impacts or cause an exceedance of established population or growth projections. Furthermore, the Project is of a size such that it will not create either short- or long- term significant quantities of criteria pollutants. Additionally, with the included mitigation, the Project will not result in significant localized air quality impacts. As such, the Project is consistent with the goals of AQMP, and in this respect does not present a significant impact. 16 1 "" (2) Potential Impact: Will the Protect violate any ambient air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant land use and planning impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion (Project Construction): The Project Site includes approximately 1.4 acres of land. The URBEMIS model estimates that 25 percent of this area (0.35 acre) is disturbed on a daily basis. This acreage (i.e., 0.35 acre) is then used in the calculation of daily dust emissions, which are assumed to occur during excavation and grading activities. Based on the URBEMIS model, a value of 20 pounds per acre per day is assumed. Also, based on the URBEMIS model, ;a,:,' ssion of 55 percent is assumed for adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403 as required for all projects.!,66ttructed in the Southland. Truck trips are also included for the removal of debris and delivery of matenalsl The structures are then constructed over time with varioq phases of' ;truction overlapping each other. Some of these phases involve work over five days a_.;i}�?aek'while others!; extend to six days a week. The analysis includes both, and in these cases or eaM Cs those emission ft.—Ahe five days a week that overlap (though the greenhouse gas analysis cons[ders the sixth day in itsFat21),.The URBEMIS model considers dust emissions negligible during the consfctwn of the actual struc)}{res, and this analysis follows that approach. Like excavation, the analysis codes the daily delivery ofrials to the Project Site. = IQL ig # �Ii�t The structure is painted in the final stages g totl t uction Th 'Ilflajor source of emissions associated with the application of paints and surface coati is f �m the release ofevolatile organic compounds (VOCs). These are also a form ROG and are assessed as sulctt _The architeetffi specified that interior paint is to contain no more than 10 gramner liter and exterior paint is to contain�i. more than 27 grams per liter of VOC. The area to be pa d rs based on data fr(�3luded I t1h ?iRBEMISImodel. All interior surfaces are to receive three coatail, exteurtaces would: receive one=coat. While the application of asphalt also releases VOC 6" 1 tons, no all is prop-med for the Project and these surfaces will be of concrete construction. _== �l As shown In:Ef€��alale.4 3 4 all daily�mn�s are under their respective criteria levels and the impact is less thl'enificariT ylnl?n Discus si#rtl,(Mobile Source��ttnissionSy:.The occupation of the Project Site is based on the URBEMIS 2007 model '(�1e URBEMIS def uIt value for,condominiums is 5.86 vehicle trips per unit. In accordance with the ITE th. eneration Ma gal these vatues can range from 1.83 to 11.79 trips per unit. Based on the size of the 14osed units a'-a. t case scenario this analysis uses a trip rate of 11.79 trips per unit per day and theroject is estlztated to result in 94 average daily trips (ADT). In actuality, the Project V is to replace a fourtet: . t apartment complex, so the actual number of new trips would be less than this value, (and there could e?r be a reduction in the number of daily trips). As such, the analysis presents a worst-case scenario The calCutat cl emissions of the Project are compared to thresholds of significance for individual projects using {5e SCAQMD Handbook and Internet web site updates. The Handbook recommends assessing emissions of reactive organic compounds (ROC or ROG) as an indicator of ozone. Emissions are based on a year 2013 occupancy. Both summer and winter scenarios were modeled and the higher of the two values are included in EIR Table 4.3-4. Note that all values are within their respective threshold values and the impact is less than significant. Model runs are included in the Appendix. Discussion (Stationary Source Emissions): In addition to vehicle trips, the proposed land uses would produce emissions from on-site sources. The combustion of natural gas for heating the structures and water would occur. Landscaping would be maintained requiring the use of gardening equipment and their attendant emissions. Additionally, the structures would be maintained and this requires repainting over time resulting in the release of VOC emissions. The resultant emissions are projected by the 17 }} URBEMIS2007 computer model and included in EIR Table 4.3-4. Again, note that all emissions are below their respective threshold values and the impact is less than significant. (3) Potential Impact: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant land use and planning impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. fQHN Discussion: In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, anyg[gjvf that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily threshold values does not add51)oiOificantly to a cumulative impact. The Project is of a size such that it does not result in daily_e6 iQ_Q10ns above either the construction or operational threshold values suggested by the SCAQMA=%nds uch, the Project does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. =" At this time, greenhouse gases are not specifically fegulated as a criter; - Ilutant and there are no established significance criteria for these emissions:Furthermore, the Final'- .7 AQMP does not set CEQA targets that can be used to determine any potential threshold values. Irtheless, in order to provide decision-makers with as much informationasz_gssible; this analysis _U as, to the extent P....:.. feasible, potential greenhouse gas emissions associated'w ttlAhi 'o't developrne (4) Potential Impact: Will the Pro/ expose sensrhve eptors to substantial air pollutant concentrations? Finding: The City make lifindmg set forth in Mlc Resourde—Mode Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alteration." i. the Pro1e1 hat avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant iEq�such tha�ihe impac(1i , nsidere d Leahan Significant. Discussion: In accorrRi with SGRQMD methodplogy, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily threshold vales doeP;r t add significantly to a cumulative impact The Project ispfiia r 0ph that it tloes n`01 m si y emissions above either the construction or operational tM�eshod x Blues suggested by a SCAQ " D and as such, the Project does not add significartdti to a cumulative_ act.` The Prole6Y4he contains exist`iila structure" hat would be removed during the first phase of construction. Based on the'lop and age of.- tures fo . removed, asbestos containing materials (ACM), which could include fiobr_`ti)es and mastgypsum wallboard and joint compound, base cove mastic, carpet glue, thermal syst6ii? ktsulation, spitay-applied fireproofing ceiling plaster, and roofing mastics, felts and flashing would be rerll{ed. Additionally, lead-based paint would be removed. Demolition and renovation activities that involve ACMareaFijcly regulated under SCAQMD Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Actti[t3 ' adopted on October 8, 1989, and amended April 8, 1994. The requirements for demolition-,aV `renovation activities include asbestos surveying, notification, ACM removal procedures and time schedules, ACM handling and clean-up procedures, and storage, disposal and landfilling requirements for asbestos-containing waste materials (ACWM). Any demolition work involving asbestos-containing material must be identified and potential emissions of asbestos determined. Any building to be demolished or renovation that involves asbestos-containing material would be subject to provisions related to the following tasks: • Asbestos surveying (inspection, identification, quantification) to be conducted by a qualified environmental laboratory, and 18 1I • SCAQMD notification to include project description, removal procedures and time schedules (options provided in Rule), material handling and clean-up, material storage and disposal methods. • All handling and removal of ACM must be performed by a certified California State licensed contractor that has been certified under the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal OSHA). All workers must undergo forty hours of hazardous materials handling training and receive eight hours of refresher training on a yearly basis. Similarly, lead paint is a toxic material and its removal is regulated as such. Like asbestos removal, workers are trained and certified in the handling of these materials. Where necessary, actual asbestos and lead paint removal would be accomplished under a negaGve__pressure environment with high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtration, through the use of a, oy@ bag or through adequate wetting. These materials are to be contained in certified leak-proof,;c a ners and the general public is not allowed access to the demolition-site. Mandatory compliap - ,notification and removal processes identified in the SCAQMD Rules and Regulations would ensrTre tha ari potential impacts remain below a level considered significant. " n!15 (5) Potential Impact: Will the Project create,qb tionable odors affeffc£Fg,a substantial number of people? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Rt0c Res4 ces Code Se- 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been inpft rated into theme 1fiat avoid or subst ally lessen this potentially significant impact such thatth arj t is conside mss Than Significant -_- Discussion: Project construction would i'iiolve tie+0se of heav uipment creating exhaust pollutants from on-site earth movement and from equpment b irgig concret end other building materials to the Project Site. With regards tttn§a ce odorstany air q5 i �)mpact VW. be confined to the immediate vicinity of the equipments-am lir . , time such emisslQ rea my sensitive receptor sites away from the Project Site, they wi(�e dilutedito=well below euel of air qua)1ty concem. An occasional "whiff' of diesel exhaust from pas1l� equipment_and trucksaccessing the Project Site from public roadways may result. Such brief exhaust ddra are an_adverse, but not significant, air quality impact because they will be short-term in nature and wouldnnot aff8b 1sigmficant nr mber of people. (6) Poter(t)atgmpact t-- . Pro result in a cumulatii�"e air quality impact? a Finding fhe City makestl(,findingforth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes aMr 14,l,10rations havO An mcolltated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially sig hi r,rit impact suc t the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: Cumetl thm air qualify impacts are those associated with development occurring within the South Coast Air Basit five-codhty region in southern California. As a result, it is anticipated that a significant number of '6"veloptt-' i. projects throughout the City and the five-county region would contribute to the cumulativeation of the air basin. Although the Project will result in the generation of both short-term (i.e., t "' occurring during the 32-month construction phase) and long-term operational emissions (i.e., those resulting from the operation of automobiles and stationary sources), which will be emitted into the air basin, the vast majority of those emissions would be short-term and temporary in nature. Although the Project's contribution of construction emissions (primarily fugitive dust) is short-term and because the CMP will be implemented, these impacts will not be significant on a cumulative basis when considered with the other projects in the City and in the air basin. Once construction is completed, a nominal fraction of the total mobile-source emissions within the basin would be attributed to the Project. The long-term (i.e., operational) emissions associated with the Project are the result of the incremental increase in vehicular traffic generated by the project and on demands for natural gas and electricity. Because these incremental operational emissions would not exceed significance thresholds recommended by the SCAQMD and identified in EIR Section 4.3.2, the incremental addition of the Project's mobile-source emissions, when combined with other emissions resulting from the 19 l�5 development of the other projects within the City and larger air basin, will be less than significant on a cumulative basis. 5.4 NOISE (1) Potential Impact: Will the Project cause exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels? Finding: The City determines that there is no impact with respect to the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive roundborne vibration or roundborne noise levels. No mitigation measures 9 9 9 9 were identified for the Project. Discussion: Project related construction activities were assessed;(otlie potential to result in annoyance at the nearest vibration sensitive uses. The assessment of and dice from vibration from construction activities is based on several criteria including perceptibilitytrequecy of occurrence, time of occurrence and duration. In terms of perceptibility, using the FTA criteri�Ri6iafion=which is "barely felt" is not deemed significant because it does not constitute"exposure of prsois to orgehetation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels" as per Appertdj* the CEQA gid Iines. The word "excessive" is defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as"exceeding what is usual; nRer, necessary, or normal." If something is"barely felt," it cannot reasonably tinsidered "excessive."Tht fore, for the evaluation of human annoyance caused by vibration from r§truction activities, the " ..__ria for establishing �:a. potentially significant vibration induced annoyance impao�s average daytime (thi§ will be no nighttime r :::. - -= construction) vibration measurements that:;are "felt." The-F_TA=haW_" tablished 84 Vd a the level that is "felt"or readily perceived. The assessment of the potential for Prolectrelated construction*F,ation to cause annoyance includes four criteria: perceptibility, frequency of occurrence,_time of ocx tijprence and duration. Although the maximum vibration levels�sswiated with certain cwnstructrort_activitiesiwp,Vld, in some instances, be"felt under FTA criteria and aauld ecr frequently m the da s a 4. occ�ii?` because construction activity would be limited to the fast wbrafR irrs nsitive hrt7F�s Q the day ftt a duration of perceptible vibration would be relatively brief d.mtermitt9t potential'vrbration impacts will not result in a significant vibration annoyance impact. (2) Potentr ,, pct Wrtl tb& PxOtacFema su1599itial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levBfS 6 proj f vrcmrty a bye levelsUar without the project? Findmg{i" The City determrQs_that noise exposure from project-related construction activities at the nearby resid ittial receivers widild..resulf-aEsubstantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity`above levels existing withoutlithe Project. This is a short-term significant and unavoidable p = _- im act. •� fi3E _ Discussion: Noise— ,Is vary._substantially depending on the number and types of construction �7 vehicles, type of con On^activity, and the location of occurrence. Noise levels for each of the construction phases were aY Iu- at a reference distance of 100 feet from the eastern edge of the Project Site on Carnation Aveii ti-to produce a chart of noise levels over the entire construction period, as shown in EIR Figure 16, Construction Noise Levels Occurring Over the Construction Period. Noise levels are expected to increase when receptors are closer than 100 feet and diminish beyond 100 feet. EIR Figure 16 is provided at this distance to illustrate the differences in noise levels over time based on the type of construction activity being performed. Noise levels are highest during the demolition, caisson drilling, and the concrete pouring when construction vehicles are at grade with Carnation Avenue. Noise levels subside substantially when construction equipment is working within the various depths of the excavated area due to the noise attenuation provided by the excavated walls. These excavated walls have no effect when residences are overlooking the Project Site and have direct view of the construction equipment. After excavation, construction of the formwork and interior metal framed walls would occur with hand tools. Noise levels from these hand tools are substantially lower than the levels generated by construction vehicles, based on noise monitoring and noise level data provided by the RCNM. 20 it Construction vehicles would not be used during these phases, with the exception of concrete pouring when short periods of substantial noise exposure would occur. In addition, noise generated by metal framing would occur within the interior of the newly constructed floor and be attenuated by the presence of exterior concrete walls and a concrete ceiling. After all the exterior and interior walls are constructed, the finish work would commence. The finish work would also be done with hand tools. Noise levels associated with the finish work were conservatively assumed to be comparable to.those of metal stud framing. However, interior finish work would occur within the interior of the building and be substantially attenuated by both the interior and exterior walls of the residential structure. Exterior finish work would also be done with hand tools. The ambient average daytime (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) noise levels (dBA Leq) in the vicinity of the Project Site range from 50.5 dBA to 59.9 dBA. Construction mise from the phases that involve construction vehicles results in noise levels of 42.6 dBA to 82A,dBL`at 100 feet. For the worst case noise generating phase, this level of noise would be appriziXIMafely 22-31 dBA Leq above ambient background noise and would last approximately three to[ertC—M.b.nths during the demolition, caisson drilling, and excavation phases before the noise from cppshvctio'-vehicles would be attenuated by excavated walls. Second story residences adjacent to-ttiPProject fi with a clear line of sight to the construction vehicles would experience these noise=iev`els for a penia, --f seven months during the demolition, caisson drilling, and excavation phaseg& ause the excavatedlts provide less attenuation. For approximately one and a half years, noise leWld would be, on average; _veen 42.6 dBA to 61.9 dBA Leq at 100 feet from the construction of the'=interior and exterior wallsse levels would be approximately 2-11.5 dBA above the ambient backgroy�tk;,noiseg rl error finish wd' s assumed to be equivalent to noise from interior metal stud work and would generate noise levels of NW.- BA at 100 feet. Exterior hardscape and landscape "Ia=last approximately four months. Noise levels would be approximately 0-2 dBA above the ambieacround noise. ' Due to the length of construction activdies ( pproximatgly 32 grid level of noise from the period of construction vehicle usermise exposurefrom Projectgelated cortstryction activities at the nearby residential receivers WQA. a short-terincantrOPact from Project-related construction activities, notwithstanditi f e incorj�Iatlon of th%fol ¢�I'mitigattart fneasures: • MM 4.4-1a: All cot)atrucu "Fiiipment stabdnary and mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and mamtefUng devices ihtake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effa¢)p a ttaar as ongm p ga ped by the mar .i facturer. • r"{uNF 4.4 1b. Tti'e eonstrucftj contractor SY1811 properly maintain and tune all construction '' ji�pment to minimi;t±i;�flpise errif�spns. ii • MM 4?fi',c; The construoti,�h contra torshall locate all stationary noise sources(e.g., generators, compressat5,.staging areas)as far from residential receptor locations as feasible. µ • MM 4.4-1d: Tfyp, istructi contractor shall post a contact name and telephone number of the owner's authorizepreseWative on-site. Nm._, • MM 4.4-1e: The con ion contractor shall install temporary sound blankets or plywood panels with a minimum Sound Transmission Class rating of 32 or higher and a density of 1.5 pounds per square foot or greater(e.g., SoundSeal BBC-13-2 or equivalent) along the entire outer perimeter of the construction area. The temporary sound blankets or plywood panels shall have a minimum height of six feet. If plywood panels are selected, they must have a minimum density of four pounds per square foot and have no perforations or gaps between the panels. • MM 4.4-1f: The construction contractor shall select quieter tools or construction methods whenever feasible. Examples of this include the use of plasma cutters, which produce less noise than power saws with abrasive blades and ordering precut materials to specifications to avoid on- site cutting. 21 ` l/7 • MM 4.4-1g: The construction contractor shall maximize the use of enclosures as feasible. This includes four-sided or full enclosures with a top for compressors and other stationary machinery. This also includes locating activities, such as metal stud and rebar cutting, within constructed walled structures to minimize noise propagation. (3) Potential Impact: Will the Project cause exposure of parsons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? Finding: The City determines that there is no impact with respect to the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. No mitigation measures e e identified for the Project. Discussion: EIR Table 4.1-1 in EIR Section 4.1 (Land Use and-0anning) of the EIR summarizes the relationship of the Project with the applicable policies adopt Pjj, PNoise Element. As revealed in the analysis presented in that table, the Project is consistent wittk,ytu r akwt policies in the Noise Element. �hi 'S:• (4) Potential Impact: Will the Project cause a substaraffal permanent rncrese in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without th_e Pco/ect? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not gate a substantial perm 64 increase in ambient 6 noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existint h9ut thf -- 'ect. No r4l�'� on measures were identified for the Project. "` Discussion: Based on the ambient nois�Wevalsudentified in'13IR Table 4.4-3, noise levels in the nearby harbor area are considered to be compatibl&-bwitH Idential use_N'Rthis area. Residents of the proposed luxury condominiums, therefore, would not e expose';;" R isi nificarit&M-g-term noise sources. The Project replaces an existing reside q ase and, moreover, redaces the numb9f dwelling units on the Project Site b near) 50 ercen ° ! ' y y pen: owgh on-site horse levsls associated 6 residential activities on the redeveloped Project Slee would ind[ease compal.po 0Wh_'irrent danditions because the only the single- family residential dwellinig unit and taTI iunits witHiEllf1hi `apartment building are occupied, it is anticipated that any increase in long=fermi noise1sociated wit7';t,0e residential uses would be those occurring as a result of outdoor activities Pass[ve,� 't tip nal activities in and around the proposed pool, on the private decks and alpngtfts walkway a4; q ch ales at the bottom of the property are not expected to result in significa ,tare levels ;t [uture rr�idents and their guests should engage in activities that result in temporauy loud noise lev i at exceed the limits set forth in Chapters 10.26 and 10.28 of to City's MuniapalxCode, the City ise tp2wered twa. ke actions to abate that activity. The Project will not result in exposure of_[eighboring resir�b-6 or futu&Project residents to noise levels that exceed City standards. Therefore ridUiqnificant long T_ noise; impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. (5) Potential Impact: _F r a pro1agiScated within an airport land use or, where such.a plan has not been adopted, within two mil's" ' f_airport or public use or private airport, will the Project expose people residing or working in the Fhrssrea to excessive noise levels. Finding: The City determines that the Project will not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels in connection with the John Wayne Airport. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: The Project is not located within the limits of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA). Therefore, the residential use would not be exposed to significant noise levels associated with that commercial aviation facility. The County of Orange Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) uses the current AELUP for JWA as the basis for determining potential aircraft noise impact from JWA. The Project Site is located outside the 60 dBA CNEL aircraft operation noise contours, where the AELUP defines the noise exposure to be"Moderate Noise Impact' (i.e., an impact that would require some kind of mitigation to reduce the aircraft noise) within Noise Impact Zone "2.° The AELUP 22 4 to also recognizes that individual sensitivities to annoyance can vary from person to person. Because the Project Site is located outside of this noise impact zone, no significant noise impacts from aircraft activities would occur and no mitigation measures are required. (6) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative noise impact? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not result in significant cumulative noise impacts. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: Cumulative noise impacts are those that would occur within the immediate Project environs, particularly during the construction phase. The greatest increase in ambient noise would occur during the construction phases. However, no other development is proposed irigtt1e immediate vicinity of the Project (refer to EIR Table 9-1)that would contribute to the cumulative irlgm a in noise in the area. As indicated in EIR Section 4.4, the construction activities resulting from Proj Ugmmplementation will result in significant impacts in the neighborhood. Once construction ceases and titV`% ect is completed and occupied, the cumulative noise environment could also extend beyond the rmmed�earea to outlying areas, depending on the nature and extent of project-related traffic Projef related t ev✓ould contribute to insignificant increases in the ambient noise levels in the nearb. t "idential area w' 0'in.Corona del Mar and along a i ., arterial roadways in the City. However, project-reW long-term noise-associated with vehicle trips generated by future residents would be minimal iffid would not contribute s 661fieantly to the cumulative increase in long-term noise levels because the presjet would add only 47 veisles per day onto the circulation network. While Project-related traffic, wtaen-_adde�to; existing arid'ill ffic utilizing the :. neighborhood streets could contributetfto an increase'irr amb'40 i#noise levels aloi3{ ahe streets, the increase would not result in significar1 m i ative long teml g6lse impacts because none of the local streets within the Project area are chararim�.y� noise leViN ifthat current exceed, or are forecast to exceed, 65 dBA CNEL as indicated in tT�",fCitytscMise Elem i"j'' hich evaluated future noise levels based on buildout of the General Plan. It i5"2ticipafe i=th t the reihling gradual incremental increase in project-related traffic ontof meighborhoodlii'I culation�5 dem woulEbe less than 1 dBA and would, therefore, generally notki�I CtdlSle- Jherefore, o sign f� nt ItMA gg term Lmulative noise impacts would occur as a result of Profjimplem2 T tion. _ I -- -= 5.5 AESTHETICS = - (1) Potential(efp�ct Woufd tieoyeot eve=a Substaaf#;a(adverse effect on a scenic vista? e_ Finding iii The City dei ert Ines that fhei Project wiltLopt create a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista Nb mitigation measures_Ntere i ' fled for the Project. Discussion 'lttplementation of#)ie Prosect would not result in significant aesthetic impacts. Specifically, as illustrated iii"tQ;extensive visi5al:.simulatons set forth in EIR Section 4.5 of the EIR, the proposed FI , structure would riRlsdyerseI aft',.a scenic resource. With only a minor exception (i.e., emergency access), the Project"isisituate d abpYE the PLOED as prescribed by the Newport Beach City Council in order to preserve the cb8sfal bluj( as a visual resource. The Project has been designed to avoid any significant impact associatetiidjthe emergency access by creating a feature that is recessed, which would be indistinguishablefr the existing topographic character of the bluff. Furthermore, none of the significant features, including rock outcroppings, significant vegetation, the sandy beach, etc., existing on the Project Site would be affected by Project Site development. The Project Site is devoid of historic structures. As a result, the Project would have no significant adverse visual impact on these features. Although the visual character of the Project Site would be transformed, the Project, including the proposed docks, has been designed to avoid potentially significant impacts to the visual character of the bluff and harbor environment. As previously indicated, the proposed multiple-family residential structure has been designed to comply with the development standards prescribed in the City's zoning ordinance, including building height, lighting, landscaping, etc., to ensure that no significant visual impacts occur. A modification to the side yard setback requirement is proposed. In addition, the existing scenic vista available from the designated Public View Point along Ocean Boulevard near the southern property boundary has been expanded through the project design to create a wider view angle. As illustrated in 23 EIR Exhibit 4.5-1, the scenic vista would be expanded by 76 percent and a new view corridor will be created along the northern property line, which does not exist at the present time. In order to ensure that adverse effects on a scenic vista will be avoided, SC 4.5-3 requires the dedication of a view easement through the property. As stipulated in that condition, no structure or landscape feature located within the easement would block any public view. Therefore, no significant visual impacts are anticipated as a result of Project implementation. As described in EIR Section 4.1 (Land Use/Relevant Planning), the Natural Resources Element of the General Plan addresses aesthetic resources, with emphasis on coastal views. The City has identified several policies that are intended to guide development and avoid potential significant visual impacts to important coastal resources, including coastal bluffs, the harbor, and associated natural features. EIR Table 4.1-1 summarizes the relationship of the Project with the,. icable policies adopted with the Natural Resources Element that address aesthetics and visual renes. In addition, EIR Table 4.1-2 in �- � EIR Section 4.1 provides a summary of the relationship of the j"with the relevant aesthetics policies in the Coastal Land Use Plan. As revealed in the analys p led in those tables, the Project is consistent with the relevant policies in the Natural Resources_�Mm (and the CLUP. (2) Potential Impact: Will the Project substantially,da "ge scenic restires, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings n%jfhtti`a state scenic high- Finding: The City determines that the Project � i!ilnQt substantially damage;;; nic resources. No W mitigation measures were identified for the Project -T __ — : E Discussion: See discussion of Potentia pt No. 1, above ,ii:! (3) Potential Impact: Will the Project subst`antratty degrade the eaiisting visual character or quality of the Project Site and its surroundings? ILI Finding: The City deterrrt�w Ilg h�tthe Projectw, not sukstan(tal�(y�degra7Je the existing visual character or quality of the Projec r(e and ds'surroundings NgA0 n`iMasures were identified for the Project. Discussion: See discussiotnof Poter#tlsl Impact No 'tt above. til i (4) Potential1.1"iMt . tiff l ,Wil! et a ne�1kurce of substantial light or glare that would adverseljt ai der aig y ar.ghtt�me yr w the area? ,. yIP r Findin TheCity makes e:_finding_set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and=alterations have been mcorjl fated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially sigh ficant impact suc'i%it the i4l.kt is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: ThePajgct has beetdesigned to minimize glare by incorporating building materials that are not conducive to th8 creationut �!,glare. For example, exterior materials proposed for the residential structure would consist o[Ktan refleGfive materials, including a titanium roof and photo-voltaic array with a matte finish, stucco-cover edr=_Q_ nd stone accents with rough, rather than polished textures. Tinted glazing is proposed on the windows and most of the windows will have overhangs that will cast shadows over the glazing. As a result, no significant glare impacts from building finish materials anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Lighting of interior rooms would be designed to provide illumination for interior activities and would not produce any significant light or glare effects outside of the structures that could adversely affect adjacent properties. Although outdoor lighting from exterior patios and possibly along the walkway and lower level landing would be visible from the bay as minor point light sources, it would not create a glaring effect. Living areas in the homes to the north, west, and south are oriented toward the bay and ocean, away from the Project Site, and are separated by a considerable distance from the Project Site and proposed residential structure. In addition to the distance between the existing proposed and existing structures, there are also substantial elevation differences between adjacent living spaces and the proposed outdoor 24 E � living levels within the Project Site that minimize the effects of lighting at night. Outdoor lighting within the Project Site would be designed to illuminate only the desired activity area on the Project Site, and would not cast any illumination or incidental glare beyond the property limits, consistent with the City's adopted lighting standards (refer to SC 4.5-2). All of these circumstances minimize and possibly eliminate any opportunity for lighting on the Project Site to adversely effect at neighboring homes and/or properties. Indoor and outdoor lighting in the developed project would not result in adverse day or nighttime light or glare effects. Although the applicant is proposing to improve the existing landing and expand the boat dock to accommodate nine vessels, resulting in an increase in the area that would require lighting in that location, it would be similar to that which currently exists in this area and would be designed to cast light only on the affected area; therefore, no additional lighting and/or glare impacts associated with the waterside development would occur. Potential impacts will be less than significant. (5) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative aesthat{ {rrhpact? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not result Wfinulative visual impacts. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. `_' Discussion: Of the Cumulative Projects identified_trrEIR Table 9 1; ; y one project, the proposed Megonigal residence, would also potentially affect th -sthetic character ofthe Project area. The visual simulations prepared for the Project revealed no significant Project r, ed impacts would be anticipated, either from the Public View Pointon 69 6"h,Boulevard or from the is Park Public View Point vantages as a result of the Project. The potent aE visual im-,aeNs of the Proje re also evaluated from four Newport Harbor vantages that::include the prtxtsesf NFegonigal residen #o determine the extent of project-related cumulative visual.il3ipacts. As mttOita in Exhibit 4.5-12, construction of the W11.1Megonigal residence at the Pacific Avengo 10 ion would virtuat4y eliminate the entire harbor and more distant ocean view, including the Project Site fr5rt tis�,vantage I' -� result, the proposed Project would not contribute to the cumulative visual impaG# {om this he view Inca on. ,3k i Three other visual sim4laboris et ,also prepared to ith the potential cumulative impacts of the Project and the Megonigafresidencd brf Pacific Avf num:, -12 ;E-c22NhibitSRtf3egonia Park Upper Bench), Exhibit 5-2 (Begonia Park Lower;B.ench), and exhibit 5-311, Park) illustrate views of the Project, including the proposed development"oLthe Mepoiligal residettoe;at 2333 Pacific Avenue. As illustrated in each of these simulations the in6McMbhonirq{, the Megomgaf tesidence would affect views from each of the vantages m#hap exhibits C4n3paft u�ar, th LUlegon�gy�iresidence would block a portion of the harbor area north of he Proje6-%e Af illw3h portions o tk e H bor are visible, views to this area are "filtered" AI by inte€vefr ' landscaping and develft ment. WhiiB ftt2 views to the harbor from these vantages would be changetlk;with the develgpment of' ,Megonigaf residence and the Project, encroachment of the Project in fe viewshed woftnot be grnificant on a cumulative basis when viewed from those locations bedause the effect on dtQ view it [e vicinity of the Project, even with the introduction of the proposed Mego;�g'ol, residence, mould not change significantly. Therefore, no potentially significant cumulative visual impacts would ocCt t as a result of Project implementation. None of the CumulatW Protects„Heluding the proposed Megonigal residence, would affect views from the harbor to the existing'co2st81jf51uff. Potential visual impacts are not significant from the harbor area because views from those vak€8ges would be only momentarily affected; none of the visual amenities in the intertidal area would be destroyed as a result of Project implementation. Furthermore, based on the visual analysis conducted for the Project, no potentially significant visual impacts would occur either to the character of the bluff or the intertidal area, which is characterized by rock outcroppings and a small cove are located where the dock is proposed, would adversely affect the harbor views to the Project Site. While the coastal bluff would be altered, the Project has been designed to conform to the existing topographic features and character to minimize visual impacts. Therefore, no potentially significant cumulative visual impacts would occur. 25 5.6 DRAINAGE AND HYDROLOGY (1) Potential Impact: Will the Project cause substantial and adverse increased inundation, sedimentation and/or damage from water forces to the subject project and/or other properties are caused by improvements such as grading, construction of barriers or structures? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: Project Site grading and construction activities may result in short-term increases in silt and sediment to downstream locations. However, implementation of the:BMPs prescribed in the SWPPP and WOMP that must be prepared for the Project will ensure that the;'. truction-related impacts resulting from Project Site grading will minimize the amount of silt and sedimdnt that is transported to downstream locations. These potential impacts will be avoided or reducedrrr-ugh the implementation of appropriate BMPs as prescribed in the Orange County DAMP and in the sTandconditions previously identified. In addition, other standard conditions (e.g., compliance .VWth'applicabte building code requirements) will further minimize construction-related impacts. Ther'implementatiR., f-the Project will not have a significant effect on water quality as a result of Silt.,a iti "sediment transport fir iconstruction activities. Thetotal discharge from the Project Site in the dpeve� d condition is estimated a only 1.95 cfs or a 15 p ercent decrease in surface runoff when coin are othe exi�ti2.31 cfs Th osed storm drain system will capture more of the Protecti#e runoff andffides sheet flows that curdirectly impact Newport Bay. The improved efficiency q) new storm dr�a�l "tem, together with the filtration element within the outlet structure, will ensure tfilat W redeveloped fr ct Site does not result in erosion or siltation on-or off-site. � i� i iii, Construction of the repla erfent-.dock wouldgsult m 111 ��I wattt,,� ality impacts. During the pile removal and subseque�tsllmg :Pequired for the emplartemerit_Qroce§ water turbidity will increase. Turbidity ma also i e rf v '' y y r Ps egSe) propellers ampact the bay}Igor or prop wash stirs up bottom sediments. In order to 11 went the spi2d of any turbxfi#y plume oudf the area, BMPs, which eliminate any disposal of trash and'-dipbrrw�Qis at tKiRKPra� oject Site s well as the removal of construction debris, will be implemented during construcgttH pu "%tG the CMP his will ensure that turbidity impacts and related water quality rnp passociate�t 7itts �e ff pore activities are avoided or reduced to an acceptable M level y - � - JI (2) Potentlal..lmpact: Will-thdNprojectitort in development within the 100-year flood plain as delineated by FEMA thafwou7d expose pule anF property to potential serious injury and/or damage? N' L Finding. The V_ 4- the firing set Mirth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have bee,a ricorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant`itQpct such fl the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: Project impfe'jnf8n will not result in the placement of any portion of the development proposed on the Project Site` Yt-in the limits of the 100-year flood plain as delineated by FEMA. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. (3) Potential Impact: Will the Project cause impervious surfaces to increase and/or divert storm water runoff resulting in the inability of the existing collection and conveyance facilities to accommodate the increased flows? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. 26 15a Discussion: Impervious surfaces comprising the existing development encompass approximately 22 percent of the total area of the Project Site. When redeveloped as proposed, impermeable surfaces will cover approximately 28 percent of the Project Site. The remaining 72 percent will remain permeable. In addition, Project implementation will result in the elimination of two of the drainage areas that currently exist. However, although the Project Site will encompass only one drainage area after grading and Project Site development, the Project will not alter the existing off-site drainage patterns. Moreover, the total discharge from the Project Site in the developed condition is estimated to be only 1.95 cfs or a 15 percent decrease in surface runoff when compared to the existing 2.31 cis. The proposed storm drain system will, therefore, capture more of the Project Site runoff and reduce sheet flows that currently directly impact Newport Bay. The improved efficiency of the new storm drain system, together with the filtration element within the outlet structure, will ensure that the redeveloped Project Site does not result in erosion or siltation on-or off-site. (4) Potential Impact: Will Project implementation cause,, i �I n of water quality objectives and impede the existing beneficial uses of on-site surface wateoff-`sw, '' I astal waters? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in± I Resouroes de Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated- roject that avt'substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact 100-considered Less Than Sigiilfnt. Discussion: A Conceptual Water Quality Management;;),Lpn (W,°h ) has been pP ♦red for the Project and is incorporated by reference into these Findings Th,.i!? dentifies a nurn structural and non-structural BMPs that will be inc ot 8'"' within the designs to comply with the applicable provisions of the Orange County Dramag ±Ri'OaIManagemen Ikin (DAMP) and the City's water quality regulations and to address anticipated req, iremefl s±;by the Sari %na Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) as part of a General Construction Petlflit,, In additiott;Project Site design and treatment BMPs have also been identifiedfn the WQMt ..d wtll i#j9 lementectto;,ensure that water entering the harbor has been adequatelyb'eaWo avoid potential lm}tat ,j ili,t�at impaired water body. Other BMPs that will be implementedtnclude pang and storage atehµnaintergtse to ensure that the parking area is cleaned on a regular basis=.The BMRJP ave been'selected to address the main pollutants of concern for this type of project, and for the,"impactwqIwater body♦,pi e,. Newport Bay. Lower Newport Bay is listed as an "impaired" water body und9lnSectionlilftof the Clean Water Act, with respect to metals, pesticides and pnonty argahlryiTbey also tnd rrreesies that are intended to avoid water quality impacts within NewportBay_Pd'uring t#ie construX n of the pi msed .dock facility. With the incorporation of these measuil,W�prescribed in th, P, rim significant water uality impacts to Newport Bay would occur as a result of4P.F ect implemented k Construction of-the replacemenflock would;`result in potential water quality impacts. During the pile removal and subsequent drilling r uired for the emplacement process, water turbidity will increase. Turbidity may a101-1lcrease if vd I propellers impact the bay floor or prop wash stirs up bottom sediments. In order 4a P{event the;spread of any turbidity plume out of the area, Best Management Practices (BMPs), which ,ll in, any disposal of trash and debris at the Project Site as well as the removal of construction d0 J W-1101-be implemented during construction pursuant to the CMP. This will ensure that turbidity impacts and'"related water quality impacts associated with the off-shore activities are avoided or reduced to an acceptable level. (5) Potential Impact: Will a usable groundwater aquifer for municipal, private, or agricultural purposes be substantially and adversely affected by depletion or recharge? Finding: The City determines that there is no impact with respect to groundwater aquifers. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: The relatively small-scale of the Project will not result in a significant increase in water demand and all of the Project's potable and non-potable water needs will be met through a connection to the City's domestic water system. Compared to the existing development, which includes only three 27 1A3 occupied units of the 15 dwelling units on the Project Site, the Project's eight dwelling units represents an insignificant increase in the demand for domestic water. No water wells are proposed or required to meet the water demands of the Project. There are no water wells located on or near the Project Site, and since the Project would not affect any existing water wells or require any new water wells, the Project will not result in the lowering of the water table. The Project Site is not located near to, and will have no impacts on, a usable groundwater aquifer for municipal, private, or agricultural purposes. (6) Potential Impact: Will storm water and/or induced runoff mix with a tidal habitat or pond causing instability to the existing water quality(e.g., reduction of salinity, increase of dissolved solids, introduction of sediments, etc.)that, in tum, will substantially and adversely affect the habitat? Finding: The City determines that there is no impact with respect;Wstorm water and/or induced runoff mixing with a tidal habitat or pond causing instability to the exisbng;v$ter quality. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. s iC Discussion: The total discharge from the Project Site in theEi rteveli9d condition is estimated to be only 1.95 cfs ora 15 percent decrease in surface runoff, teYi compark'rito the existing 2.31 cfs. The proposed storm drain system will capture more of_ eject Site ru _and reduce sheet flows that currently directly impact Newport Bay. The improv,"- iciency of the new rm drain system, together with the filtration element within the outlet structure will ensure that there i$0, impact with respect to storm water and/or induced runoff mixing with a hda(ejtabitat or pond ceusing'j i Yability to the existing water quality. (7) Potential Impact: Will sediments beilncreased and/or at t�d by proposed improvements and cause sediment deposition in sensitive habrtaf+ eas(eg., riparian,'e# ), to the detriment of the habitat andlor sensitive species. ' � l3i. Finding: The City makesEnding set 'jor in P' b"• esourcesiode Section 21081(a)(1) that I�i�SR I'�__.�.. changes and alterations�h e.twee ncorpoi d into t 'e .r,r ig that a' id or substantially lessen this EEE�II iiI.E" ;; b' p" potentially significant such ttta;_the impac �s '; red estian Significant. SsIIIE'�4r Discussion: Project Site"1111f; and"cbnstruction vdies may result in short-term increases in silt and sediment to downstream loc�atians HtSyrever,,implemQ6tion of the BMPs prescribed in the SWPPP and WQMP thatuF..0% reparet# Prihp�d °',fid mulblfamily residential project will ensure that the constructiar 'la)ed impacts rest7tprig from Project Sit��rading will minimize the amount of silt and sediment that is transportedto downstream locatrohs_Wiese potential impacts will be avoided or reduced through the implementation o ppropi` e,BMPs as prescribed in the Orange County DAMP and in the standard conditions previously�gntifie l t addition, other standard conditions (e.g., compliance with applicable builiigcode requirements)willfuer minimize construction-related impacts. The total discha m the Proje4f Bite in the developed condition is estimated to be only 1.95 cis or a 15 percent decrease rrTSllrtace ru)t(jffwhen compared to the existing 2.31 cfs. The proposed storm drain system will capture more qr the_ip i,"bct Site runoff and reduce sheet flows that currently directly impact Newport Bay. The improvihcy of the new storm drain system, together with the filtration element within the outlet structure, wily"ensure that the redeveloped Project Site does not result in erosion or siltation on-or off-site. Construction of the replacement dock will result in potential water quality impacts. During the pile removal and subsequent drilling required for the emplacement process, water turbidity will increase. Turbidity may also increase if vessel propellers impact the bay floor or prop wash stirs up bottom sediments. In order to prevent the spread of any turbidity plume out of the area, Best Management Practices (BMPs), which eliminate any disposal of trash and debris at the Project Site as well as the removal of construction debris, will be implemented during construction pursuant to the CMP. Appropriate measures have been incorporated into the CMP to ensure that turbidity impacts and related water quality impacts associated with the off-shore activities are avoided or reduced to an acceptable level. 28 dJ` 1 (8) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative Land Use and Planning impact? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: Although Project implementation would result in a small increase in impervious area, the post-development peak flow would be reduced when compared to the existing surface runoff conditions. Specifically, the 1.95 cls emanating from the Project Site will be detained in a vault, treated, and discharged into the existing storm drain at a rate of 0.50 cfs, which is slightly less than the 0.51 cfs currently being discharged. Potential cumulative impacts would be those resulting from other development within the watershed sub-area; however, no other pr,,, ects are proposed within the area affected by the Project. Nonetheless, Project implementation will,;, , n upgrading the existing deficient catch basin in Carnation Avenue near Ocean Boulevard to enS!" t adequate capacity is provided to accommodate not only the Project but also existing stormw,"P"'I "Mff.In addition, the applicant will be required to implement Best Management Practices and reld(edEine es in accordance with the NPDES requirements to ensure that both storm water runoff andiquatity meet tfra requisite criteria. All of the other related projects are located outside the immediate prdje€t;area. Each of approved or Projects, should they be implemented,will be required to implementSlt llar stormwater toll '_'`,,;,;,and conveyance facilities and water quality structural and non-structural Meg% (i.e., BMPs) to reottCe;and avoid water quality impacts. Implementation of these measures, whidi uld be prescribed in the W_,,MP prepared for the Project (and other projects in the City and watershed) st comj24 ith the regw its established by the City and County of Orange in the Drainage Area Mas€erPlatthich have been toped to address the cumulative impacts of developmeritilpqywatershed These measures are in to ensure that water quality objectives are achieved an' i�tained. The`rre, Project implementation will result in an overall improvement to hydrology and' ter gt1a.E.ty by upgrading, the stormwater collection facilities that serve the drainage area. Therefore, apotentially significant cumulative impacts to either hydrology prwa>er quality. :, 5.7 BIOLOGICAL=i I URC ES i,'_ (1) Potential Impact INN* Project-hove a subste!ttllal adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any speQh,identrft d a&R candidal .,sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans�tr1s or regu�attells or ftp Cakfo_ a Departmenf of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Findmg The Cdy makesf tha,findid set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes acrd ltt rations have en mcorq fated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially sigrlicant impact sudl)tat the maet is considered Less Than Sign cant. hr.. Discussion: A tota'I bf_82 special_ atus plant and wildlife species are identified as potentially occurring Hew,:. in the region which inclif,�es the Pfct. Of these 82 species, nine plant species and one wildlife species M:4'=. have potential to occurrdtlato ; ble habitat conditions or were observed at the Project Site. The remaining plant and wildlife } is described in the sensitive species table were determined not to have potential to occur at the Prd]W'Site due to lack of suitable habitat conditions (e.g., soils or vegetation associations) or geographic range. The nine plant species that have the potential to occur at the Project Site are listed and described in EIR Table 4.7-1. The Project Site has been significantly altered as a result of past development, resulting in the elimination of the potential for many special status wildlife to occur. Six threatened animal species were identified as potentially occurring within the region and 15 endangered animal species were also identified as potentially occurring within the region, as discussed in EIR Section 4.7. None of these threatened or endangered species are expected to occur on the Project Site because of the level of disturbance that has occurred on the property. One wildlife species, currently listed as endangered by the State (SE) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FE), was observed utilizing the Project Site. Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis)was observed during the reconnaissance survey conducted in 2008. 29 i55 The CMP includes several measures that will be implemented as rt of the Project to ensure that part 1 potential impacts to sensitive plant species and other terrestrial biological resources are avoided. If one or more of the species exist on the Project Site and it is determined that Project implementation would result in impacts, an incident take permit under Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code must be obtained. The measures prescribed in the CMP include: • A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey for active nests of covered species at least seven (7) days prior to any habitat disturbance that occurs during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31). If no active nests are round, no further actions are required. However, if nesting activity is observed during the pre-construction survey, the nest site must be protected until nesting activity has ended or as otherwise directed by a qualified biologist in order to ensure compliance with the MBTA and the California Fish! Game Code. • Bluff landscaping shall consist of native, droughtmffilirffint plant species determined to be consistent with the California coastal buff environrne6F_1nwaslNe and non-native species shall be :,, a removed. Irrigation of bluff faces to establish�r<�ye�etated shall be temporary and used only to establish the plants. Upon establishrn&ofi the plantingg-,E temporary irrigation system shall be removed. �.M • A qualified botanist shall perform focused`s4iveys to determine the ji'r"eset�ce/absence for the nine sensitive plant species. The focused su!�"eys sFl performed ag the appropriate blooming window identified foc:;aach species. Sd kyr® rods shall follow GDFG guidelines. If any State-listed threatened or en�n�jered plant specac are impacted by project development, an incident take permit pursuant to_t Sectio72g81 of the FisF=and Game Code shall be obtained prior to issuance of a grading permit. = = . '4; I Iii 4 *e -n O i'✓ As indicated above, impl,gentatrQn of these��iproject dell features wJll:ensure that the coastal bluff habitat is enhanced w h: name p species and that potent) ( sigm�fCant impacts to sensitive plant species as well as mtrilced non= ive species 4f treethat ma "upport avian species and nests will not occur. In addition m order to en fe that no s�gmficant impacts occur to the vegetation, only species that can tolerate the suntfgbUshadr. conditions that, would be anticipated as a result of Project implementation ed ark proposformMe pjla1In the area under the extension of the deck over the bluff. ;t�I4t 11 M 6 F Potentialacts to 60-bon wiiciNfff species were evaluated by considering the habitat loss for each species occurring or potentially occurtg at the Projeot$de. Development of the Project would not result in signiW impacts to M,&, on wil' ike. species currently or potentially utilizing the Project Site. Temporary disturbance impacts_s prewf described, would occur for roosting birds(e.g., cormorants, HH_gulls. pelicans "M the existing dr3e . until th& ew dock is built. Birds utilizing the bay directly adjacent to the Project Site+tqy also experie temporary indirect disturbance while the new dock is being built Terns, skiers,`a td_fails are loq #ed in Upper Newport Bay and will not be affected by the Project. These impacts, while ad rse, wodrd-not be expected to reduce any current wildlife population below self- sustaining levels. Tt of ttare„_h- project-related impacts associated with night lighting would be considered less than signift2fi3t= (2) Potential Impact: Will the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (including protections provided pursuant to Section 1600 et seq.)? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: Eelgrass (Zostera marina) is a marine flowering plant that grows in soft sediments in coastal bays and estuaries and occasionally offshore to depths of 50 feet. As indicated in the Natural 30 156 Resources Element of the Newport Beach General Plan and CLUP, the City has identified eelgrass beds as an important biological resource. Eelgrass beds, which are illustrated in EIR Figure NR1 of the Natural Resources Element, are located within the Newport Harbor entrance channel, including in the vicinity of the Project Site, as well as along the Balboa Peninsula, Linda Isle, Harbor Island and Balboa Island west of the Project Site. Although the eelgrass beds are recognized as an important biological resource, they are not included in the environmental study areas (ESAs) illustrated in EIR Figure NR2. Nonetheless, the Natural Resources Element includes specific policies intended to avoid impacts to eelgrass. The project is consistent with the relevant Natural Resources Element and CLUP policies as described in EIR Tables 4.1-1 and 4.1-2 as well as in Responses to Comments 10-22 through 10-27, which are incorporated by reference into these Findings of Fact. No direct losses of eelgrass are anticipated as a result of the dock construction component of the Project. Nonetheless, post-construction surveys will be conducted to verify_ttwao eelgrass losses have occurred. Construction of the replacement dock would result in potential watei_quality and vessel-related impacts on eelgrass habitat, which may include both direct and indirect IQ{jg ,.effects. During the pile removal and subsequent drilling required for the emplacement process Vpetgr tuftij81 y will increase. Turbidity may also increase if vessel propellers impact the bay floor or Rep vlash stvs-'�a_p=bottom sediments. In order to prevent the spread of any turbidity plume out of the Best Managetillent Practices (BMPs), which eliminate any disposal of trash and debris at the R_eject Site as well ascthe removal of construction debris, will be implemented during construction-pursuant to the CMP. Veif I related impacts include those associated with barges and work vessels worltujg=.over existing eelgrass deby deploying anchors ,;. and anchor chain within eelgrass habitat, grounding' eelgraS habitat, and eller scarring and prop wash of either the barge or support vessels for the barge `these vessels could7apate furrows and scars within the eelgrass vegetation a�nC`aKOuld result in averse losses of eelgrass habitat that would require the implementation of an eelgres tri canon program=(Wer to MM 4.7-3), which would minimize disturbances related to vessel operations�nd-vessel anchor positioning. It is anticipated that barge operations will have only minimal shading eZ.€(ects11ogge rass since the position of the barge will shift each day, preventing continuous.shading of aki}1pne pad of the eelgrassbed. a b The proposed dock st wdl a ompass Ufa 0111116" f 2pproxiffi ely 3,450 square feet. The area of Mrs eelgrass habitat that is $Welly affect-ed by long to � ding will be tletermined during post-construction monitoring surveys condii�ed pursuatl0 to National r rine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (WAFS" 10�1l as amend The location and amount of eelgrass to be transplante"11M a,germih 8 fojtow�fng thig results o�€the two annual monitoring efforts stipulated in the CMP whtc".0 iil fie i1;�,�lertaken as art of't el[li°azrject Specifically, the following measures will be undertaken as identified'rhe CMP to$ensure that IIIptf5ntial impacts to eelgrass are avoided or reduced to a lei 11"e significant leve • An up€.Wd pre-construction eelgra .land invasive algae survey shall be completed within 30 days or,Winitiation of the PA posed d"ock/gangway construction. The results of this survey will be used to ui:F the resul "" the March 2007 eelgrass survey and to identify, if any, potential :, project-relatedkQelgrass lasses and the presence or absence of the invasive algae (Caulerpa taxifolia) in acco0r# nce w A1MFS requirements. • A post-construction"prpject eelgrass survey shall be completed within 30 days of the completion of project construction in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). The report will be presented to the resources agencies and the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission within 30 days after completion of the survey. If any eelgrass has been impacted in excess of that determined in the pre- construction survey, any additional impacted eelgrass will be mitigated at a ratio of 1.2:1 (mitigation to impact). • Eelgrass shall be mitigated based on two annual monitoring surveys that document the changes in bed (i.e., area extent and density) in the vicinity of the footprint of the boat dock, moored vessel(s), and/or related structures during the active-growth period for eelgrass (typically March through October). Mitigation shall be implemented pursuant to the requirements of the Southern 31 ts7 California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). A statement from the applicant indicating their understanding of the potential mitigation obligation that may follow the initial two-year monitoring is required. If losses are identified, a final eelgrass mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach and resources agencies for review and acceptance. • The Project marine biologist shall mark the positions of eelgrass beds in the vicinity of the dock and gangway construction area with buoys prior to the initiation of any construction activities. • The Project marine biologist shall meet with the construction crew prior to initiation of construction to orient them to specific areas where eelgrass presently exists. • Support vessels and barges shall maneuver and work overgrass beds only during tides of+2 feet mean lower low water (MLLW) or higher to prevent grounding within eelgrass beds, damage to eelgrass from propellers, and to limit water turbidity Anchors and anchor chains shall not impinge upt1grass h tilt# t. (3) Potential Impact: Will the Project have a substfttraJ adverse effect orrf# lsrally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water i(including, but not limiferE#p, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrolog f4nterruptiort, pr other m6' p Finding: The City determines that th ?loject will not` MAO bstantial adverse, fect on federally protected wetlands as defined by SectildA 4.,of the CleanO ft. ter Act. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: The 190 square foot area ideritihed on th bluff belovl#fie_building pad does not meet the criteria for either U.S. A r� N'Corps of Engin s (Sectio 994 of the Glean Water Act) or California Department of FishandeGame`(Se(tron 1600 ottte Calitonxtfi and Game Code). Further, given the clear and demonstrabl l lack of we`tt�rld hydrology'and dric srni Ombined with the characteristics of the African umbrella sedge a highly AOaptable contmSsn landscape plant that occurs in upland areas for one-third of its occurrences no portr{ rot the Prolest'Site is considered a wetland under the California Coastal Act. TIerefore Prolecflmplernefrta3ton will not foult in any potential impacts to wetlands: (4) Poten#ta(dmpact INiN the ,lt tant�d ly with the movement of any native resident or migrato sh or wildlife spies or;with. establistred.»ative resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede tha-fuse of native wirdlr',tnurseites? Finding: Thea, _ determines ff :the Pro " will not impact the movement of an native resident or l"� p Y migratory fish oe l)dlife species, `a 1 established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. The City also finds that that"tthe,.Project wiiOnot impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. No mitigation measures were identife7=for the Project. Discussion: The Project SiWlwd surrounding areas are developed and no migratory wildlife corridors occur on Project Site or in the vicinity of the Project Site, and therefore, the Project will not interfere with resident, migratory or wildlife species. (5) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. 32 (S�f Discussion: As acknowledged in the Natural Resources Element of the Newport Beach General Plan, Newport harbor is home to valuable habitat such as eelgrass and mudflats that support a wide range of species and also provides the public with recreational boafing opportunities. Therefore, the City has placed a high priority on the protection of the biological resources, including both habitat and species and to continue to serve the needs of the recreational boating community by ensuring compatibility between the uses within Newport Harbor. The City adopted several policies that apply to future development within the City. EIR Table 4.1-1 (Land Use and Planning) summarizes the relationship of the Project with the applicable policies adopted with the Natural Resources Element. In addition, EIR Table 4.1-2 provides a summary of the relationship of the Project with the relevant policies in the Coastal Land Use Plan. As revealed in the analysis presented in those tables, the Project is consistent with the relevant policies in the Natural Resources Element and the CLOP. (6) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a conflict with. Ijp'rovisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, 40. approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. sNiiO- " Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Pybli&�t esour Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated mtb Project that a##, or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is Gprlsdered Less Than 9t scant. O, Discussion: There are no local, regional or state H2Ft conservation plans tuld regulate or guide -:: development of the Project Site. The Project Site is Id"r" d on � u�#within the cftal zone. Therefore, the Project Site is not included in either a Habitat ngertaation Plan or a 'ural Community Conservation Plan. However, the Prqteca occurs within the vicinity of estuarine and eelgrass habitats, which are considered habitat are- warticular concertf;;(HAPC) for various federally managed fish species (i.e., northern anchovy) withi-ft Coastal_Pelagics Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) and Pacific Groundfish FMP (i.e., rockfishes) HIt C areae c.iibed in the j gulations as subsets of essential fish habitat (EFH) which _ re, particull suscepa tp humananduced degradation, especially ecologically important, or-loca � i.an envirort ntally sed area though designated HAPCs are 9 y P not afforded any additional regulator protection i hde(<....`h 'Magn€-geh,Stevens is Conservation and Management Act(1997}-federally PAI%ted project ,jfjth potential 9&erse impacts to HAPC will be more carefully scrutinized during the consultation procd$&,,Potential impacts to the eelgrass and species inhabiting that habitat have tieenevalbAe and measl r have been identified in the CMP. iiAi t i�i,iglilili "54 (7)Potential I11p11O tyilLthe Pro/ect result in a cunwlatiue Biological Resources impact? I - h Findmg� The City makes ttra finding Set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes an alterations have 1n incotGf ted into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially sigh!" I impact such1l.,t the iiiT}5a t is considered Less Than Significant. Illl�h': Discussion: For't)e��urposes ofR7termining potential cumulative impacts to biological resources, the harbor area was iderit(fgd as the graphic "area of potential effect" due to the potential for adversely affecting coastal biologidei% sopffi including eelgrass. Project implementation could result in potential impacts to biological resoe as`-indicated in EIR Section 4.7. These impacts include the potential to create both direct impacts, '{{articularly during construction, and indirect impacts that may include the creation of shadows that could adversely affect the existing eelgrass bed in the vicinity of the project. However, the Project and other projects proposed within the harbor area listed in EIR Table 9-1 that have the potential to affect eelgrass are required by the City to mitigate any potential loss at a ratio of 1.2:1. As indicated in EIR Section 4.7.5, if it is determined as a result of the pre-and post-construction surveys that eelgrass is impacted, the applicant will be required to replace it at the specked mitigation ratio. The same or similar measures would be prescribed for projects located within Newport Bay that have the potential to adversely affect eelgrass as a result of dredging or other construction and development activities. Similar to the Project, other projects in the harbor that have the potential to impact eelgrass would be subject to the same measures prescribed for the Project to adequately offset the potentially significant impacts, including pre- and post-construction surveys, potential replacement of eelgrass, avoidance of the rocky intertidal habitat, use of silt curtains during construction, and limiting construction 33 � �9 to optimal tide conditions. As a result, no potentially significant cumulative impacts to marine biology would occur. Other potential impacts to biological resources include effects on the intertidal area as a result of increased activity in the small cove and potential effects on sensitive plant species that may exist on the Project Site. For example, important resources (e.g., sand dollars) have been identified in the intertidal area below the bluff that could be affected by construction activities associated with the construction of the dock. However, in each case, the CMP includes measures (e.g., signage, avoidance of the intertidal area during construction, etc.) that will either eliminate the potentially significant impacts to biological resources or reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. In the same way, potential impacts to terrestrial species of plants and/or animals are also addressed through project design features prescribed in the CMP, including the use of native plant species, which will effectively reduce the impacts to a less e. than significant level as prescribed by the Coastal Land Use Pla>CyiYOlicies. As a result, no potentially significant cumulative impacts to terrestrial biology would occur.,-: n_`-lft.. 5.8 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY =- (1) Potential Impact: IM!!the Project create a signs azard to th 'A�r¢Ac or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous`',rials. ""r!'??;;;_ Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code rtjon 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated intofFi' Qrojectat avoid or sUotially lessen this potentially significant impact such that tt�e=iimpact is considgMazardous 5'Than Significant r = Discussion: Construction activities wouJ lnvIve the usmaterials associated with the construction of a residential building such Ws.o:l ga$, t r construed materials and adhesives, cleaning solvents and paint. Transport of these mafehals c) II ,gProject SRe�nd use on the Project Site would only create a localized hazgrd m the event o an accidi pills C17ardous materials use, transport, storage and handling 5@fr sisel suplett to federal, s nd pal regulations to reduce the risk of accidents. Equipment. rti�i.rntenancep�lond disposal .f '. hicular fiords is subject to existing regulations, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination=System (NPDES). In addition, trash enclosures are required to be maintained covere'tl�bins and of ft measures to prevent spillage and/or seepage of materials into the ground. OiVA.h.thelnatute of the pr8le tt in terms of scope and size, it is anticipated that normal store/'1li�s apd transptiraf�a2ardous mai", "is will not result in undue risk to construction workers,Qrt the Project Site or to p§.g pns on surtotrUnding=areas. The use and disposal of any hazardous matenals,en the Pro/ecf Site; and`ira_eonlunct:on witkr-the project will be in accordance with existing regulatiSQMith the excepttept!of small qi) ntities of pesticides, fertilizers, cleaning solvents, paints, etc., that are typic lly used to malfttain resid, ial properties, on-going operation of the Project Site for residential use dill not result in ili forage ot_u8e of hazardous materials. As indicated in EfR-.Table 4.8-2, a O,ial of 43 suspect asbestos bulk samples were collected during the Project Site inspedrf,.i''_..These .talaterials, which contain detectable amounts of ACM that could be potentially hazardous 'if ogLpmpe[)y removed, must be properly removed by a licensed and Cal/OSHA registered asbestos abatei7flOntractor prior to the demolition of the building in accordance with all �. applicable regulations. The Tff survey (refer to EIR Table 4.8-3)concluded that no immediate response action is necessary with respect to the noted LBP that is intact. Nonetheless, similar to ACM removal, implementation of industry standard removal practices will ensure that any potential health risk would be avoided. Project implementation includes the activities associated with site preparation and construction of a structure that contains eight condominium units and the continued long-term use of the Project Site for residential development, which does not typically involve the use and/or transport of hazardous materials and other substances that would represent a hazard in the community. Although some fertilizers, herbicides, cleaning solvents, paints, and/or pesticides would be utilized on-site, such materials are of the household variety and do not pose a significant health hazard or risk. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. 34 ��a (2) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: The existing structures were found to contain ACM and LBP. However, the ACM were observed to be in good condition and although they do not pose a significant health and safety concern to occupants of the Project Site in their current state, they must be properly removed prior to demolition of the existing structures. Similarly, the general overall condd+or, c,,�hhe subject interior and exterior painted/finished surfaces was observed to be intact. No +mmedr response action is necessary with respect to the noted LBP that is intact. Project implementatlotr uGjlH' suit in the demolition of the existing structures; however, the ACM and LBP will be handled in acordan 'an dh the procedures prescribed by the City and other regulatory agencies, as discussed intr)tgation Me s 4.8-1 and 4.8-2: • MM 4.8-1: A contractor performing paint t# val work shall follo+hi tfe OSHA lead standard for the construction industry. The lead contetWt of the paint should be considered when choosing a method to remove the pain, as proper disposal requiremenand worker protection measures shall be implemented throughout the: ifoval prfiess. ') • MM 4.8-2: A contractor perfor i g paint removal we s'halI follow the OSHA lead standard for the construction industry. The I ft+'t1Kn t of the parnthould be considered when choosing a method to remove the painas prop'{{ rite disposal`requirements and worker protection measures shall be implemented thr6lp oZnlo�v1al process Implementation of the 0.14A ardticiendition an tt ad+gatitl l:ifYidz * s prescribed by the City and other regulatory agencies hwmgg lur+sdic tori-will ensu?thattatry pote6 W significant health hazard to either the public or env+ronmertkwould red'uc l to a less a i%igmficant level as a result of the proper removal I::r� of those contaminants. k:, (3) Potential Im ct Will the f?Efifect ei73if#�azardtsus, emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous.fla ens srititances,-fin rite withe-gUaiter mile of an existing or proposed school? OF Finding:===The City makes_the,finding" t forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes an ajlterabons have Lie n mcofp ted into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially siYR—ficant impact suctr at the + 1I eet is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: The cSosest schoolTd;3he Project Site is Harbor View School, located approximately 0.7 mile from the Project Site=to the nE%ffreast. The school is physically separated from the Project Site by a residential community and=Eastlytast Highway (SR-1) and will not be directly impacted by construction activities on the Project Site_Affidugh the proposed condominiums would not include any activities or mechanical or chemical processes that would emit hazardous emissions, the existing structures were found to contain ACM and LBP. However, as prescribed in the mitigation measures, the existing ACM and LBP will be handled in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the SCAQMD and other Orange County Health Care Agency. Therefore, release of hazardous materials during demolition of the existing structures would be prevented through adherence to routine control measures monitored by the City Building Department and other regulatory agencies. (4) Potential Impact: Will the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 35 l� i Finding: The City determines that the Project Site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, therefore, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: P&D Consultants conducted a Phase I ESA on the Project Site, including both records and literature searches as well as a site survey conducted on the Project Site. Based on the results of the Phase I ESA, the Project Site is not included on any list of hazardous materials sites. Further, there is no evidence of either on-site or off-site environmental conditions that would adversely affect Project Site development. No historical recognized environmental conditions were identified in connection with the Project Site. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. (5) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a safety hazard tpt;,pecple residing or working in the project area if located within two miles of a public airport or public.4( lrportz Finding: The City determines that the Project will not res- afety hazard for people residing or working in the project area because it is not located withM. lvoris:,of a public airport or public use airport. No mitigation measures were identified for the,!?,,..,ft Discussion: The Project Site is located approxi )y five miles southea ,�,; #,4,John Wayne Airport. As public airport or private such, the site is not located within the limits of t� +VA land use plan or oti) ,,p rp p landing strip. Neither that commercial airport nor eny-ether public airport or ate aviation facility is located within two miles of the Project Site. As a resuRMMect,io mentation wtlF t result in potential adverse impacts, including safety hazes to people` ' "dr t working m the oject area. No significant impacts will occur as a rdww f;;;?rojeGt impl6imentation and no mitigation measures are necessary. (6) Potential Impact: Will the Project impar rmple»1tabon of 6>1,6ysically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evad73etion plane tN�l ililiil! i� Finding: The City Mefinines tfi e Project ilt ridf�ft-pair irttptementation, of or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency respons- Ian or emty= SCjt evacuatioii'plan. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. - -_, Discussion T � has pre�pta# �Yi ncy Prej7 redness Plan that designates procedures to be foltowedari case of a5im�a�or emergency. The plan identifie§ resources available for emergency response and es- hes coordiri'ated_actioir pians for sped emergency situations and disasters, including =— _. earthquaices,fires, majorrail)_€.and ro�tlway accidents, Flooding, hazardous materials incidents, civil disturbance and nuclear disi&-m and'I Mft- k. The Project Site is not designated for emergency use within the Eme"_rg_ency Preparedo , 1!+ ,,ps PIanFhe primary concern of the Safety Element and the City Newport Beacti-i'.�tmlerms of risks;to;,persons and personal property. Although the Project Site is subject to potentially sev aseismic sffiaing or fires, development pursuant to building and fire code requirements will ensure that the IN.ntial impacts are minimized or reduced to an acceptable level. The Project is not located wA'0,{ a Florid hazard area. Development of the Project Site as proposed will not adversely affect either 9li 66vacuation routes or the adopted emergency preparedness planning program(s) being implemenffttiy the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, Project implementation will not physically interfere with the City's emergency planning program. No significant impacts will occur as a result of Project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. (7) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative Public Health and Safety impact? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: The Project Site has been altered and currently supports urban development,(i.e., 15 residential dwelling units) which do not involve the use of hazardous materials in the daily operations 36 boti beyond household variety fertilizers, herbicides, cleaning solvents, paints, and/or pesticides. As previously evaluated, demolition of the existing residential structures could yield some asbestos containing materials or lead-based paint. However, demolition will not only comply with AQMD and regulatory agency requirements for abating these components, but appropriate measures have also been identified to ensure that no significant emissions of potentially hazardous materials occurs. Similarly, Cumulative Projects characterized by ACM and LBP would also be required to comply with AQMD and regulatory agency requirements so that no significant emissions occur. If determined necessary as a result of the environmental analysis conducted for them, each of the Cumulative Projects would be required to remediate an existing or potential source of contamination. Finally, like the existing residential development, the Project would only use household variety hazardous materials such as fertilizers, herbicides, cleaning solvents, paints, and/or pesticides. Therefore, no potentially significant cumulative impacts would occur when compared to other projects that have beer .approved or proposed in the City of Newport Beach or surrounding areas. 5.9 SOILS AND GEOLOGY (1) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in the loss 6 eliminatigir of prime" agricultural lands as designated by the State of California and/or County of f}(ange and suctr tlesignated soils as are capable of sustained, viable agricultural production? 4 y ,,.T, ' i s Finding: The City determines that the Project a[riot result,jjt the loss or elimination of "prime" agricultural lands. No mitigation measures were idents for the_P!xject. Discussion: Development of the Ph�f6l ivoll not result M,, a conversion of any designated prime agricultural soils or otherwise significanfatTl7 t latid The Proj i6ite is located within a developed and urbanized area of the City of Newport 134ioh.Ail,previously mdr d, the Project Site and surrounding area are designated as"Urban and Built Upend Therefore, Proje� �lementadon will not result in any impacts to agricultural soilsRRIirpgortant farm 6d No sig tt nt impacts fe anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. . NO 2 Potential Impact: s'luld rounrf akin anAkV.Seconda seismic effects re., liquefaction, slope ( ) P 9 9 rY (• 9 P failure, etc.) cold cause s`rMential so'aural damdg iandlor an unmitigated risk to human safety, even after implementation of the faoipm, ,ended geotechnical measures, required local and State seismic design para[A�tisrsa, ,comrrrbit Lfit�erfg; raatrces [seismic hazard abatement? „3, Findin The City mal20 fi6datg set forth rn Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changeg%', ave be alterations hen mcofporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact sadl;that the fthpact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion The Barest Type��fault is the Cucamonga Fault, which is located approximately 60.2 miles from the Projct?_Site This faP[ is capable of generating a 7.0 magnitude earthquake. The nearest Type B fault is the offs1lore Newp ftyinglewood fault (2.8 km from the Project Site), which is capable of generating a maximum ifl,•„ it d irr}f 6.9. The estimated mean peak ground acceleration at the Project Site is 0.3458. The prelim"in _' geiilogiclgeotechnical investigation report identifies the appropriate CBC seismic coefficients for strudf I design. Implementation of the recommendations prescribed in the preliminary geologic/geotechnical investigation, Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report, and compliance with CBC structure design parameters will ensure that potential impacts associated with ground shaking associated with a seismic event on one of the causative faults are reduced to an acceptable level (i.e., minimize loss of life and/or property). According to the conceptual grading plan prepared for the Project, excavation necessary to implement the Project will extend to an ultimate elevation of approximately 30 feet NAVD88 in order to accommodate the subterranean levels of the proposed structure. The proposed excavation will effectively remove the artificial fill and terrace materials and will expose bedrock throughout the excavation. The removal of these materials, combined with the lack of subsurface water, effectively eliminates the potential for liquefaction to occur. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. 37 163 Excavations for and construction of planned subterranean levels, which will remove existing fill soils as well as a majority of the terrace deposits capping the bedrock and daylighting on the bluff face, will leave a trapezoidal (i.e., pillar) section of intact rock as part of the exposed bluff face to approximately Elevation 52.8 NAVD. With the removal of these materials, the bluff face will be less vulnerable to bluff erosion. Considering the both the lithologic bedrock unit exposed and the rock quality, the remaining trapezoidal section of intact rock will have sufficient strength to remain in place during the economic life of the structure (i.e., 75 years). Furthermore, the Coastal Hazard Study prepared by GeoSoils, Inc., concluded that the proposed improvements will neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the Project Site or adjacent area. The proposed grading plan indicates that excavation will daylight on the bluff face at approximately 52.8 NAVD, resulting in the removal of existing fill soils as well as a majority of the terrace deposits capping the bedrock and daylighting on the bluff face. The removal of these materials as well as the incorporation of ProJeetdrainage measures recommended by the geotechnical consultant in the conceptual Grading Plan,.Revew Report will further reduce the potential for future bluff erosion. Based on the analysis conaacted for the Project, and with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.9-1b, bluff erosion is fioC Copsidered a factor in design over the life of the structure. N- • MM 4.9-1b: Accessory structures shall be re tee-d or removed�f-_threatened by coastal erosion. Accessory structures shall not be expandeetnd routine maintename of accessory structures is permitted. A slope stability analysis was included in the Conc"e{tyal Grad is Plan Reviem-E ort prepared by Neblett & Associates, Inc. The comp r..gd factor of sa &f A,46 temporary exc' ".,,on under static conditions is greater than the minimu ; 'red 1.25. Tht re, based on the results of the stability analyses, the project geotechnical cni6ltantg- Included that the temporary excavation with soldier pile shoring system is acceptable, provided tHOrecoiWi ti, at[ons prasc[[bed in the Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report are implemented during con ety ction (n ing temporary shoring during excavation and construction of the deePer=excavations, tie's ck ancf t or, internal;ebracing, etc., as prescribed by Mitigation Measure 4.9-11 —_ • MM 4.9 1a Pao [mplemenfation shall Were to the engineering recommendations for site and cons etion presented in the Conceptual Grading Plan grading and foundation desEllReview Re ort preps d by" keltt& Assoociltes, Inc., and subsequent detailed geotechnical encu 4lyse-s In addivoh—the structurg�Rbsun worst& also [ncludeprovisions to accommodate basement wall water- proofing AtNn installation, eta The slopes des_iding from the'aprQposed exelopment expose very resistant sandstone of the Monterey formation. Lite raa M_reviews, shell. " Aping, aerial photo analysis, and subsurface exploration conducted for the Project duff�g-_the prepars'on of the Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report (Neblett & Associates, Inc., 200&��[Evealed tf;-aRPandslides do not exist on or adjacent to the Project Site. The lack of landslide features indica ;_that=Y e"area has been relatively stable in the recent geologic past (i.e., Holocene) and has not -6esr ��ubject to earthquake-induced large-scale landsliding. Therefore, the potential for earthquake-indut*o%ndsliding is considered low. A Coastal Hazard Study was prepared by GeoSoils, Inc., (October 2006), which includes an analysis of wave run-up, including that generated from a tsunami. The maximum tsunami run-up in the Newport Harbor area is less than two meters in height. Any wave, including a tsunami, that approaches the Project Site in Corona del Mar will be refracted, modified, and reduced in height by the Newport jetties. Based on the same methodology that was used to estimate the surface gravity wave and boat wakes, the 6 foot high tsunami would yield a run-up to elevation +16.2 feet NAVD 88 (i.e., six feet run-up + 10 feet NAVD 88 water elevation). The basement elevation of the proposed structure is proposed to be approximately 30 feet NAVD88, with the lowermost exposed face of the structure daylighting on the slope at approximately 52.8 feet NAVD88. In addition, the dock access/emergency exit is located at elevation 40.5 feet NAVD88 and would also be located above the potential tsunami/wave run-up limits. The 38 l 6 `� tsunami, like the design extreme wave/wake, will not reach the proposed improvements. Due to the infrequent nature and the relatively low 500-year recurrence interval tsunami wave height, combined with the elevation of the proposed improvements, the Project Site is reasonably safe from tsunami hazards. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated during the 75-year economic life of the Project and no mitigation measures are required. Further, considering the proposed finish pad elevation, the potential for seiche effects to the Project Site is considered remote due to the shallow depth of Newport Harbor. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. The Project Site is exposed to impinging waves from either wind-generated period waves in the bay or ocean swells that will propagate through the entrance channel. For about 65 percent of the time, there would be no wind waves. For the remainder of the time, significant wave heights would be 0.5 foot or less. On less frequent occasions, wind-induced significant wave hits would be higher than one foot and up to 2.5 feet. Extreme SSE-SSW swell generated by distant s could reach the Project Site with significant heights of approximately 1.5 feet and periods in 66K.42 to 14-second range. The Noble Consultants study concluded that from a wave climate perpee, the proposed docking facility is feasible in a wide range of conditions. However, extreme wmd viave t, m the SSE-SSW are expected to exceed the recommended maximum wave heights and,..Ette'n-' re, da to the moored vessels and/or docking facilities may occur. In these less frequent c, djitions, vessels s be moved and sheltered in a less exposed location. Implementation of thew StaTjdard conditionspreJ ad in Section 4.9.3 and Mitigation Measures MM 4.9-2a and MM 4.9-2b wl)Ilensure that wave induced tt4-acts will be reduced to a less than significant level: ail, • MM 4.9-2a: During periods when.boats would 6e�expos"d to excessive wa induced motions, boats should be sheltered atmbpf can locations that are available inside Newport Harbor to avoid damage. ' :r ,vt f haft . t i, • MM 4.9-2b: The dock design shallljti° basedt11, he extr�md wave conditions identified in the nif�{I �u+ '! coastal engfneerinpw (Noble Consult{nts In 0 ). Ih q tY I, �� 'f�iif(;� ',r Ayt Sand- uali sediment ement wg the Profeet rhe 1qn Is ty rel n the along-channel direction from the harbor entrance to E e ipner bay''IIIIp' table bayF�o conddfon is"-'-'served at the Project Site. Regular sedimentation observed atnina Reef)ocated in the;updrift area is primarily due to the groin-like outcrop feature that entraps the along tthannet transported sdiftent. With a small percentage (approximately six percent) of r'bnchannel tslbile area fesultmg m the proposed new dock facility, the potential mpact to thhhnfque sediment mf5vement profsa m'tfe entrance channel is insignificant, although local¢ '41fid deposit re-tGng from I)e presenca o the proposed guide piles within the sand-moving path maq oecur. In additwrhi ;!'jtllbe Prorts located m the downdrift direction of the neighboring China v ll Reef thesect's potential mnpact on sedimentation at the updrift location such as China Reef is inconsequenfra_No significant ur3Ws to sariei'transport resulting from project implement are anticipated and no mitigation"`:ilk_ '€n asures are reg itred - (3) Potential Impact M the Pr0jopt leave adverse soil conditions such as compressible, expansive, or corrosive soils unmitigated;and enting a damage hazard to occupied structures or infrastructure facilities? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: The Project Site and the surrounding area are not known to be located within an unstable geologic area and, therefore, are not expected to be exposed to or create on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse hazards. A representative soil sample was tested for expansion potential in accordance with EIR Table 18-1-6, which concluded that existing Project Site soils have a "very low" potential for expansion and, therefore, are not a significant issue given on-site soil conditions. A final geotechnical analysis will be completed as part of the final building permit review process, and strict adherence to the design recommendations are mandatory with building permit 39 1 � s issuance. As required in SC 4.9-2, the Project must comply with the applicable design parameters prescribed in the 2007 CBC as well as those required by the City. Soluble sulfate and corrosivity testing on representative samples of the on-site soils conducted for the Project indicate a negligible sulfate concentration; however, because the Project is located in a coastal environment, the potential for severe sulfate exposure to concrete exists. As a result, the type of concrete utilized should be consistent with the requirements of the 2007 CBC and City of Newport Beach. (4) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative geology and soils impact? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project thatavoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Le4,5i.ian Significant. Discussion: Unlike any of the Cumulative Projects, the PrJys-�pcated on a bluff in Corona del Mar, which requires the consideration of unique geologic and sei's€i3 c chata teristics. Although the Project will consist of residential development, the potential expose to the effe ' f seismic activity, slope failure, bluff erosion, and/or soil conditions will not increase aricJ-Rroject implem ':..,:,tion will not result in potential cumulative impacts because the new residential) k alopment will beriaquuiired to meet applicable structural design requirements. Furthermore,''=n-doe of the Cumulative'iects would contribute IRRO cumulatively to bluff instability and/or erosion becaelsWhey are not located M11he same bluff as the Project. In addition, the Cumulative Projects must oompty with the-pecific build'tg'design parameters prescribed in the applicable regulations=to ensure that=paZert€raMs of life and stWTOtural damage is minimized. The Project Site and the ng area aren`o#known to be located within an unstable iK geologic area and, therefore, are not expeefdd'td be exposed't c verse soils conditions, including lateral spreading, .subsidence, liquefaction or dflapsd�,ialazards. Findlf&rthe Project Site does not support "prime" and/or"important" agricultural soils.WierefdheMpotentialYy sNnificant cumulative seismic, slope failure, bluff erosion, and) s ndition imp*#p would E �Eur;as a res iqf Project implementation. :.::..:.. "`�I�IIIIIi 3iiiIF:z ¢I,E On Y 3Eewv=,c. . c3a;;;ecc'ci:.. With a small amount (i,ei^approx riga 3eEly six pert) �f fMd aldng.- nel blockage areas resulting from the proposed new dock:facility, the`j�ttential impq fhe sedimenfi'movement process in the entrance channel is insignificant. '=;,r—.additio ,because tti roject is located in the down-drift direction of neighboring Channel Reef, 3tsTpfootenjrljpapt on sedirggntation at the up-drift location such as Channel Reef 3s inconssq ektEpal UndeF�exheme c-Mitions up to 2.5-foot waves could be experienced at the Project S.it ,i3 unliddt3rt 30 to 35 boats residing nSlevdport Harbor, including those proposed for the Project f�bWever, the C3ty_ffaintaihs2retween 80 an 0 mooring cans in the harbor, which are available to the 156 _at any given lamenon a first;_come, first served" basis. Because the severe conditions that would resulElhthe need to Ake the mooting cans are infrequent and, further, because the City has indicated that lblto 100 mcoring" ns are 04-ilable for temporary mooring within the harbor during these infrequent periods,no potentially vsgttificant cumulative impacts would occur. 5.10 CULTURAMIENTIFIC RESOURCES (1) Potential Impact: Wrl_tfe=P`rdject cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined–, Resources Code(PRC) §15064.5? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: Project implementation will result in the demolition of the existing residential structures on the Project Site. However, because neither structure is recognized either by the City or the State of California as an important historic resource, no significant impacts to historic resources are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. (2) Potential Impact: Will the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to PRC§15064.5? 40 1 (O i I Finding: The City determines that the Project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: A cultural and paleontological resources records survey was completed b LSA Associates, p 9 Y P Y Inc. in July of 2005. All recorded archaeological sites and cultural resource records on file were reviewed and no sites were identified on the Project Site. Although Project implementation includes extensive excavation of the Project Site to accommodate the proposed residential structure, it is unlikely that the disturbance of the subsurface soils would result in significant impacts to cultural resources due to Project Site alteration associated with the past development of the existing structures and the nature of the bedrock materials that underlie the Project Site. It is unlikely that any archaeological sites have ever existed on the Project Site or will be encountered during constructionmTherefore, no significant impacts to archaeological resources are anticipated and no mitigation meas_ullei(including archeological monitoring, 4:... are recommended. (3) Potential Impact: Will the Project directly or indirectlyro} =unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? _ Finding: The City makes the finding set forth Fiiblic Resources _Section 21081(a)(1) that .. changes and alterations have been incorporated�l(jtithe Project that avoid substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is sto§ dered Les$.Than Sigrnft�(ax, ly � � � ��ll��� _ i 3 Discussion: The cultural and paleontological resources recti ds survey conducts t#jjin 2005 for the Project indicates that no known palegpffi gical resource�`�rl�r known to exist on the Project Site. However, the Project Site contains Bie=lUloAterey Formatiorti which is known to contain abundant _... fossilized marine invertebrates and vertebEatee"r' Tait=;presence ,R.ecorded fossils in the vicinity of the Project areas exists. As previously indicated;,. the-'s`uK+�_conclud'041P.1hat the Project Site should be considered to have a high pateentological sei vity arfd-Wssils may bei countered during grading and excavation. It is likely;lttasedir3aents containing fro s�15-wllbe enuntered during construction. Therefore, implemen q of SC 411{ 2 in accordAnce_wtNR—th CLUPa7=Olicy 4.5.1-1 will ensure that potential significant impacts to Msits encounWrod during grading/excavation" activities can be avoided through measures prescribed by 1MRf6 paleontof3gical monitoRI&H a result, no significant impacts will occur and no IL mitigation measures are regU71 v TheProject ode t trrroundmy areas, iffiftrig the' bluff, have been altered to accommodate development that mcludtdomirientjy residential.uses: the only potentially unique geologic feature on the Projef~t bite would be lock outcropping that forms a small cove at the base of the Project Site. Although P Qt implementaii ncludesxt) .replacement of the existing 4-slip dock located within the cove below thbtfNect Site, it w bt resulfifthysical changes or alterations that would either directly or indirectly alter tha ical characteristics of the cove. The Project will not impact the rock outcropping as construction of they`. osed condominiums will occur well above the feature and construction of the replacement dock w1f "' ur seaw_._ard of the rack outcropping. As a result, alteration of the rocks or the cove will not occur andlignifieaiit impacts are anticipated. (4) Potential Impact: Will 'fltliiProject disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: Because implementation of the Project requires the approval of an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport General Plan, it is subject to the provisions of SB 18, which requires consultation with Native American representatives. Native American Heritage Commission representatives have been contacted in accordance with the mandate prescribed in SB 18. Based on the degree of disturbance that has already occurred on the Project Site and the fact that no request for 41 consultation by the Native American community, Project implementation will not result in potentially significant impacts to human remains. Nonetheless, SC 4.10-1, which is mandated by State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, will ensure that any human remains that may be encountered during construction will be adequate mitigated. (5) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative Guttural/Scientific Resources impact? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: The Project Site is currently developed and no sigg' cant cultural, historic or scientific resources are known to be located on the Project Site. Althoughpossible that other proposed and s.,t approved development could result in impacts to cultural, hiaIf or scientific resources, appropriate mitigation will be required to ensure that such impacts are le&4han significant. While grading and excavation are required to prepare portions of the ProjeaFSiIa forc �gtruction, no cultural or historical resources would be affected and no impacts would op4uf such r ,_ces. Although paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) may be encountered dunnge traction of the ffject based on the geologic formation underlying the Project Site, monitoring -9l sure that any suc W ntial resources that may exist on the property would be identified during )fie grading phase by fl aleontological monitor. Adequate measures would be implemented to en Etre that pot3ptially sign t impacts would be avoided. This would also be true for other projects 3a encgt�nitering such re noes is possible or likely, as prescribed in environmental analysis undert n fdt;a1rr h projects listed_h EIR Table 9-1, Therefore, Project implementation willt_raw It in potentiaiiynificant impacts, eitherjndividually or on a cumulative basis. T 6. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJE CEQA requires fiat finrtigs be made for eaph..6la five cahsidered in an EIR. The EIR considered a reasonable=range of" "Alprnativesqw l roje ___t _ vide informed decision-making in accordance with Section:F5126.6 ofltfie State CE#'&),. uidelines. the alternatives analyzed in the EIR included: (1) No Proj46ft Deve(op'ment; (2) Reduced Intensity/3 Single-Family Residences; (3) Reduced Intensityi5 MultipliamilK3esldantial Project, and (4) Existing Zoning/8-Unit Multiple-Family Residential Pcojec Witk� ReducerL ceding T_g s fit_djpgs, and facts in support of those findings, with respect to eaeH fit �tdlt$rnatweFconsidered g%,V ded below: N.=- ROJECT 114 Dt*YELO t NT o>v.Gescriotion — Ttfe=_No Prdjep'kAltemative evaluates the potential environmental effects t ,ling from the�ontinuance of the development currently existing on the site at the tirWilihe Notice of f' eparation (NOP) was published, `. . . as well as what would be reasonably expecte? fo occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based `OR_, and consistent with available infrastructure and community services" (tit-GSR guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). Therefore, this alternative assumes full occupanc)r of the existing 14-unit apartment building and one single-family residence, which represents an increase in occupancy of 12 units over the baseline condition (i.e., three occupied units). This alternative also includes the implementation of deferred maintenance activities (if any). Because the City has requested that the applicant repair or remove the existing dock due to its present (deteriorated) condition, the No Project Alternative also includes the replacement of the existing (3-slip) dock with a new dock in an identical configuration. o Attainment of �Project Objectives — Implementation of the No Project alternative would� P 1 not achieve any of the eight objectives identified for the proposed project. Most importantly, the No Project alternative would not allow for a state-of-the-art multiple-family residential project and the existing structures will not enhance the aesthetic character of 42 l6 � the community as articulated in several of the General Plan policies. Furthermore, no private recreational amenities would be provided and it is anticipated that the existing energy inefficient structures would continue to consume greater quantities of energy resources when compared to the proposed project, which has been designed to incorporate state-of-the-art energy efficient energy systems. Finally, existing views from the important public vantages would not be enhanced. o Avoidance of Project Impacts — This alternative would eliminate the unavoidable adverse construction noise impact and potential impacts to paleontological resources identified for the proposed project. It would also substantially reduce construction traffic and related air emissions when compared to the proposed project. However, it would not substantially reduce other potential effects, includi hydrology/water quality, biological resources, and operational traffic. The existing asin near the corner of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard would not be u� resulting in the continuation of the stormwater collection deficiency. In additi '+ qut seismic retrofitting necessary to improve the structural integrity of the 2UM4 s Matures, the buildings and future residents would be exposed to potentia ismic hazadrrs s= Finally, abatement of the LBP and ACM would not be required soJu te-residents car tso be exposed to ACM and LBP unless remediated during thel:rdmodeling process. OR n: . • REDUCED INTENSITY: 3 SINGLE-FAMILY`'f ESIDENCES;,. r H NIP o Description—This alternative would result_in_tlre bdivision of the existing property into three single-family lots!,c'_ of which woulL ccupied by one custom residence (refer to EIR Exhibit 10-1). Eaehftie:;;three homesould consist of two above-grade living levels as well as a basern4 JeWIll I c1C=a roof de _T.he two residences facing Carnation Avenue might have garagerpntmgbr(ithat street-wfrile the third residence would likely have subt nean.parking accessible via]- d iveway fries Carnation Avenue. Similar to the propj�pnj basement levels`f�he-trames assumed to "daylight" at 50.7 feet N li 88 the "T'Vi ouncil apPPov edom r line of existing development. Each res+ ld en ass apprely 6,900 sZjuare feet of living space and a total structural fir or area if about 7 fl. . square feet (including living space, garages, „tpechanical specs ) fona total structural floor area of approximately 23,200 square Although tfils uCed mtens+tyfernative would reduce the amount of grading 4 nec�ss3 to aodate 'thef[�iree hf7mes (i.e., 10,000 cubic yards of excavation *+ versus6 cubic yards for the proposed project), up to 75 caissons would be required to providetructurakintegrity of the three homes. The existing dock would be ,i replaced with arw 3 slip dock that would accommodate a 40-to 60-foot boat for each of �I, 14e three residences For thivalternative, there is no requirement for implementation of tfi"tate-of-the w energy features, upgrading of the existing catch basin, or undit-ounding o xisting power poles and wiring, which are included within the proposed=groject.,'.Therefore, this alternative will not provide those benefits. o Attainment=ofoiect Obiectives — Implementation of this alternative would only achieve portiocis of Objectives 1 (i.e., enhance the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood by replacing a deteriorating structure), 2 (i.e., incorporate a design that reflects the architectural diversity of the neighborhood), 3 (i.e., provide a dock for each residence), and 7 (enhance scenic views from the harbor). However, this alternative would not result in the construction of a multiple-family residential condominium project of sufficient size (Objective 1) to provide range of recreational and health amenities or ample storage space (Objective 4), enhance aesthetics of the neighborhood to the degree of the proposed project, and remove two existing overhead power poles (Objective 2), incorporate energy-saving, sustainable, and environmentally sensitive technology, construction techniques, and other features designed to conserve energy and/or improve the existing environment to a greater degree than required by current applicable regulations (Objective 3), enhance public access by increasing public street parking 43 ! l�9 (Objective 5), or remove two existing power poles on Carnation Avenue, as well as the associated overhead wires, all of which presently affect the view from certain perspectives or replace the existing poles and overhead wiring by undergrounding the new wiring, all in order to enhance scenic views to the harbor and ocean from designated vantage points (Objective 6). In addition, if the homes in this alternative were built to the maximum building height, this alternative would not minimize encroachment into private views when compared to the proposed project(Objective 8). o Avoidance of Protect Impacts—This alternative would decrease the amount of grading required to construct the three single-family residential dwelling units, construction of the three homes would extend over a six year period (Le., two years for each home) because they which would be constructed consecutively ranter than concurrently due to market ...:........... conditions. Therefore, implementation of this alte>jti* a would not avoid or substantially reduce the potential construction noise impact aciated with project implementation. Depending on market conditions, the consfsr,noise impacts could extend for a greater period of time than would be the case for the, sroposed project or the multi-family project alternatives. Implementation of ,thj§' alternatnte;..would also result in reduced construction and mobile-source aWr,i ,Issions and 06nstruction traffic, which were rr:.t�t: determined to be less than signficit #h the proposed proj `as well. • REDUCED INTENSITY: 5 MULTIPLE-FAMIL�T RESIDENTL4L PROJECT , NE o Description — This aI Mative includes tit it I ation of the propr d project's Sub- Basement Level and the ti, Basement L` �The location and basic design of levels above the Basement IevIW art assumed to bdtTWlar as the proposed project Twenty- five(25) caissons below tH )tuWldtitg perimeter aCd $ayside Place and Newport Bay are eliminated due to the changln baseYrjt and fours ' n design. Due to the elimination of parkin g�l9ted.,.on the Sufi=BasemeriT mid Basem #evets, required parking spaces have been-' alopated among 81e proposer# patkjr�g araas within the First and Second levels- 'the result ft.ZT._parking plen wOvtd cortipl, ;:with the City's off-street parking reguirenjeats for the dbvelopmeh 6 '5 units. If vehicle spaces on vehicle lifts were consrdereilrlequate #o satisfy requited parking, the number of units could be higher assuming noa ducttott in .,b-uilding afr a devoted to residential uses would occur to — ale the iWfti capaf the gge areas. The interior layout of the proposed hi�D4 !� a resu units'(5 b..The a 7pas wood ' IIC,eated and/or redesigned for a reduced number of '( ) ppj the ability to increase the size of units, provide - area for c---"'on amen#Wes or mechanical spaces for energy independent systems. ':.Compared to�thlej;;proposeQ, project, this multiple-family alternative has three (3) fewer _ units and the extra guest pai ' T£izlg including golf cart and motorcycle parking spaces would ly gIWminated • ,._Elimmahor pf 2 levels (Sub-basement and Basement Levels) • DddW* Win number of units from 8 to 5 5 ai;i • Elimination of 25 caissons along the building perimeter facing Newport Bay and Bayside Place • Total reduction of 12,240 cubic yards of excavation • Reduction of 1,021 dump trucks and 126 cement trucks • Reduction of approximately 9 months of construction time compared to the proposed project 44 ` 2� • Reduction or possible elimination of mechanical spaces impacting the ability to provide energy independent systems such as photovoltaic and gray water storages • Reduction or possible elimination of common amenities for all units including fitness center, less private storage • Proposed dock design would be reduced; 5 slips for 5 units plus 1 guest side-tie For this alternative, state-of-the art energy features, upgrading of the existing catch basin, or undergrounding of existing power poles and wiring, which are included within the proposed project, would not be required. Therefore r.."s alternative will not provide those benefits. o Attainment of Proiect Objectives— It is not ola8tiiether this alternative could feasibly accomplish most of the project objectives In moSS ases,octhe degree to which the objectives would be achieved would #� less than' curring with the proposed project. This alternative might not b ilk kl cted to contain uffiicient number and size of units to justify the same level of adM6bed design and arch ure which would reflect the architectural diversity of the iroTmunity and add distftidn, to the harbor and neighborhood, use energy conservrr xechnotogy,,in excess that which is legally required, or include significant common menitiea!ij4'# jective 1, Obj a 3, Objective 4). P g While this altemative vgkl im rove the`aharacter of the sif' j�d neighborhood by replacing the existigMs.'. ture with a rjiq� modern structure, lt would not remove overhead power poles (g � A dditio ,ahe significantly reduced scale of the .; project may also reduc 1 e e nj of land and streetscape enhancements (Objective 2) compared to th.. ropose act Fuu er, the provision of energy efficient systems (Q ettve No 3) Ijjcely would"f�linited � '. luded by the elimination of electri €" �1 Mage areas all�eated for"?' a� oposed project. Similarly, the ability to prowde�sto�age andl mmunity{araaQnites would verely constrained (Objective No. 4) Obleettve Nos. 5 � and 8 laid lyi'could be achieved in a similar fashion as the proposed pr.�}o'-ect. l,,,ilik; ,. 4 i�V1��tlil, alttiiciance of Ptttett ImFkic Impfementation of this alternative would result in , generaiCy stmilar (fig, soils ant( " olo�y, drainage and hydrology, cultural resources, aesthetics;Wtublic heaijjtand safet' '' (C.) or slightly reduced (e.g., traffic and circulation, air quality eto ); effects, those identified for the proposed project. Although this aLLalternative woui .rpduce t overall duration of construction by approximately 9 months, ..:.<. =jthe reduction mtfie!durabono ®xcessive noise would be significantly reduces. Therefore, of, struction reit noise anticipated for this alternative would remain significant. • EXISTING ZQNING I AL L3RNATIVE DESIGN: 8-UNIT MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT WITHREDUCED`GRADING o Descriation'Wistina Zonina/Aitemative Desion Alternative AI—The 8-Unit Multiple- Family Residential Project Alternative A(refer to EIR Exhibits 10-2 through 10-6) includes the elimination of the sub-basement included in the proposed project, and a reduction of 1,069 square feet at the basement level, resulting in a reduction of 6,662 cubic yards of excavation when compared to the proposed project. Building perimeter walls along Bayside Place and Newport Bay have been modified to accommodate the distance required for a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) cut slope in order to eliminate the need for 25 caissons along that side. As a result, the perimeter walls are pulled back from the PLOED of 50.7 feet NAVD88. In addition, common facilities and amenities have also been reduced in an effort to minimize grading and potential impacts. The resulting parking plan complies with the City's off-street parking requirements; however, due to the 45 171 elimination of the sub-basement parking, parking spaces have been reallocated in this alternative to the first, second and basement levels of the structure. This alternative has 3 fewer guest parking spaces and does not include the golf cart and motorcycle parking. The proposed dock design in this alternative, which includes eight slips for the eight dwelling units as well as one guest"side tie,"would be the same as the proposed project. For Alternative A, the applicant has indicated that it would provide state-of-the art energy features, upgrading of the existing catch basin, and undergrounding of existing power poles and wiring to the same extent as provided for the proposed project. These improvements would be voluntarily provided even though there is no basis to require the implementation of these improvements. o Descrintion (Existing Zonina/Altemative Desion_Altemative 8) – This alternative is similar to Alternative A, described in the previous;section (i.e., no sub-basement level). However, implementation of 8-Unit Multiple-Ramlly` Residential Project Alternative B would also result in a reduction of 4,502,sqt .6Jeet at the basement level from the proposed project. Only the garage "core",,iWi sitai,i ortion of circulation, mechanical, and storage space would remain at the b�is&hent lev�fer to Exhibit 10-7 and Exhibits 10-3 through 10-6). In addition comt�}�Orrifacilities such as tie recreation room and most of the storage areas have been eliminaited. A reduction m mechanical spaces would also result in the elimination 'til'4ome energy-independ&',i#1.systems such as the photovoltaic and gray water storag@ features; however, the appEl;rant would retain the ability to modify the plans to mcorpo'fake these filities withino , areas. A small portion of excavation bond the basement pent)eter is necessaryfy�r the pool on the first floor. This alternalvr ould result msite' elimination of 25 caissons along the building perimeter facingj�ieNipdrt Bay and Byii Place and would require 9,229 cubic yards less of excavation to accbmrnodate the p"Ap113 ed structure. The first and second floor plans are the same asMe 8 Unat Multiple Farr�i Residential Project Alternative A and the required parking woril3also tie rkallocated t l # first, second, and basement levels of3�the MUMre Althou the exfrafgU§ rarkin spaces would be eliminated in this altOgNtive theidesign would cornply;with the y s off-street parking requirements. Also ih'e proposed idbok desig6lM�,��d€ild be the same as the proposed project. For itmAltemative #3, there ilk`!no regwrMent for incorporating the state-of-the art energy features, upgwad.ngoC 3 , lcng catCtybasin, or undergrounding of existing power poles hPli d wrong whiewaw.7nclut �utthln tFr proposed project. The applicant has indicated it would riot be able to provide these lmprdvements for Alternative B. p_ Attainment ofiP_roiectQbiectrves (Existing Zonina/Altemafive Design Alternative At – Implementatloltof AIteElastive A will, to some extent, achieve all project objectives. Given the redudW bwldinuvea with the basement level eliminated and sub-basement g���w rKial,reduced in stye,there would be less area to accommodate the mechanical/electrical spade for the en��gy-efficient features that go beyond the minimum Title 24 code compilaj)ce Thejmon amenities proposed would be significantly reduced, with the axcapti�frlb_thQR I itself, and the private storage areas would be also be reduced in size. The'�jrW�m6d! docks would remain the same as that included in the proposed project. -—, o Attainment of Project Objectives (Existing Zoning/Alternative Design Altemative 8) – Implementation of Alternative B also achieves, to some degree, most of the project objectives. The ability to incorporate the use of energy-conserving technology would be constrained, as would the inclusion of common amenities (Objective 1). Achievement of Objectives No. 2 and No. 4 is compromised to a degree because, as with Objective 1, the reduced scale of the project will eliminate the requirement to remove the exisfing power poles. Alternative B has reduced areas available for mechanicallelectrical spaces, common amenities and storage areas relative to Alternative A. As with Alternative A, the proposed docks would remain the same as that included in the proposed project. 46 f �a o Avoidance of Project Impacts (Existing Zoning/Attemadve Design Altemadves A & B) - With the exception of reducing the duration of construction by five or six months, which would reduce the number of heavy truck trips entering the roadway system and the daily air emissions (both of which were determined to be less than significant), the reduced grading alternatives described above would result in generally similar impacts as those described for the proposed project. Potential construction-related noise impacts would be significantly be reduced but the remaining impact will remain significant. 7. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS A. Introduction The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency undq.r;If 'QA for preparation, review and certification of the Final EIR for Aerie project. As the Lead AgE ncy, the City is also responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts of the proppr# Elaject and which of those impacts are significant, and which can be mitigated through impositio .Ig f`mi 4Pn measures and project design ... features to avoid or minimize those impacts to a leve.I,`-eft than 94 cant. CEQA then requires the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of a propos-ed'. n against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in determining whether or approve the proposl�rProject. Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) requires that where a puktl =,agency finds that speclfeconomic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasiblethe mdigat}oppeasures 6F matives identified in an EIR and thereby result in significant unavoidabld1 cts 1l?a ublic a en st also find that 9 cY }a overriding economic, legal, social, techrrpl4gical, or othefafbf the project out . h the significant effects of the project. } i a In making this determination the Ity lsJili ft ed by CEQ Guidelines Section 15093 which provides as follows: _ - � .I'1 IVI (a) CEQA Sequins th+ decision-rh lung ageYiCy #o balance as applicable, the economic, legal social technolo ical, or oth lr efits of a-;pyeposed project against its unavoidable environttaental asks Tien determ�dl�gj'whether to approve the project. If the specific M. economio,_fjfcgal, soci„jgitechnologica r other benefits of a proposal project outweigh the unavoidabV Overse ertuJtonmental acts, the adverse environmental effects may be iKd d accept Ie - (b) When WI.W. ad agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects whroFte identiffe�! in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, ^ _the agency sl )l. to i ng the specific reasons to support its action based on the fr al EIR and/-r._other 1 ation in the record. The statement of overriding corYsiderations s supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) If an a ency a _11ja statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be include` ill the._recOfd of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of deter minatirVntis'statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the proposed Project against the following unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the proposed Project and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts. The City also has examined alternatives to the proposed Project, none of which both meet the Project Objectives and is environmentally preferable to the proposed Project for the reasons discussed in Section 6 of these findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach, having reviewed the Final EIR for Aerie project, reviewed all written materials within the City's public record, and heard all oral testimony presented at public hearings, adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City has balanced 47 � 73 I the benefits of the Project against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in reaching its decision to approve the Project. B. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impact Although the vast majority of potential Project impacts have been avoided or mitigated, as described in Section 5 of these findings, there remains one Project impact for which complete mitigation is not feasible. Specifically, although the project will comply with the City's Noise Control Ordinance and will incorporate project features included in the Construction Management Plan, including the preparation of a construction schedule that minimizes potential construction noise impacts, which have been prescribed to further reduce construction noise during the length construction phase, the Project's short- term noise impacts(Impact 4.4-1)will remain significant and unavoile. ti 1 L C. Overriding Considerations = ` Ia%. The City, after balancing the specific economic, legaIW cig(=technological, and other benefits of the proposed Project, has determined that the unavoidable advers7� vironmental impact identified above may be considered acceptable due to the following specific co'n erations which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impact of the_.plbpsed Project _. 1. Promote the NeighbortiQq Architetura! Dive:and Enhance its Overall Aesthetic Quality: T__ ProjeFt¢ state-of-the-a _, gn will reflect the architectural dtvetity of the comn7utlltyFadd distinction t _ harbor and the neighborhood rp also enhan, the overall aesthetic quality of the neighborhood bs a deteno'rating 60-year old structure with a high- quality residentiaU /lung unigU modern design principles. Specific aesthetic improvemen#s include a.)_the elimin tion of conventional garage doors forkalLWpits, (b) the`Concealin _I-atl. parkihUfrorn street view, (c) significant WNW stre'Ascape hancements, and (d) the removal and ur�dergrou",% of two 1219 gx.jower €s on Carnation Avenue, as well as _ter associa =overhea ': 2 /nc� bfate Advanced Erte►gy Efficiency Features: The Project will replace enengyriefficsentstructure #ypical of mid-20th Century development with an advancedhly efficenttructure. Among other things, the Project will 'incorporate�,en�ergy-saving- `sustainable, and environmentally sensitive techgai, , construction techniques, water quality treatment elements, and other featu4iftesigrid conserve energy and/or improve the existing environment to a greate . rAgree thM%?equired by current applicable regulations. IINK Provide New Public Parking Spaces: The Project will enhance public access uiiNLl. IU the coast=by creating three new public street parking spaces adjacent to the ct._sikbecause the length of the curb cut on the Project site has been sutrXf� ll'y reduced. aid Iu. 4. Enhance Public Views from the Project Site: The Project will enhance scenic views to the harbor and the ocean from designated public vantage points in the immediate neighborhood by (a) significantly expanding the existing public view corridor at the southern end of project site, (b) creating a new public view corridor at the northern end of the project site, (c) removing two existing power poles on Carnation Avenue, as well as the associated overhead wires, all of which presently obstruct the view from certain perspectives, (d) replacing the existing poles and overhead wiring by undergrounding the new wiring, and (e) providing a public bench and drinking fountain at the corner of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard to enhance the public viewing experience. 48 ' 1 � 5. Enhance Public Views from Newport Harbor: The Project will enhance public views of the Project site from the harbor by (a) maintaining all visible development above the predominant line of existing development, (b) incorporating 207 Carnation Avenue into the project, which presently is within the Categorical Exclusion Zone and would not be subject to the PLOED if not part of the project, (c) replacing the existing outdated apartment building with modem, organic architecture with articulated facades to conform to the topography of the bluff, and (d) replacing the unsightly cement and pipes and the non-native vegetation on the bluff face with extensive native vegetation. 6. Minimize Building Height: The Project will minimize encroachment into private views by maintaining a maximum building h,Ojght on average four feet below the zoning district's development standards". 7. Improve Hydrology for Both the Pr_4jffidlte and the Drainage Area: Project implementation will result in a redu an irFiffi n flows generated on the Project site. In addition, the Project in Hades-the upgPQ Ing of the existing deficient catch basin to ensure that adequa d-Wacity exists td!&ommodate storm flows within the drainage area. p!I= Ar - =_ '� _ % 49 ��5 Intentionally blank 1 � � Exhibit No. 9 Additional correspondence received 1� ? Intentionally blank l7� From: Don Krotee [mailto:dkrotee@krotee.com] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 11:53 AM To: Richard Julian; Jane Watt Cc: Paul Julian; Brion jeannette; Campbell, James Subject: SPON and Aerie Hi Rick: Per our discussion, I'm certainly willing to continue trying to engage our Steering Committee and we all remain optimistic about that outcome. Having reviewed the latest plans we have enough to forward our current criticisms but, as we discussed on the phone, they are somewhat unchanged form the last proposal. In great hope to meet to continue and try to mitigate the areas of concern, this is a busy time in that the SPON Annual meeting (attached and all that are copied and blind copied shall consider themselves cordially invited) is coming up and the Banning Ranch folks, some of which hold Steering Committee seats, are cross conflicted. Regardless, we are still willing to meet as a Council and Coastal actions, SPON's focus, would seem to allow all of us some breathing room. In the broadest and most simple sense our resistence to the project and our message to PC, is to condition the project (or have PC urge the Council to consider) to take care of the following concerns, some of which I briefly explained on the phone. They are: 1. The stability and sustainability of Natural Bluff at the PLOED- The bluff at the PLOED, as established, shall be able to be self supporting and sustainable and not be affected by the activities (very aggressive retaining on this project) of construction reasonably employed to construct the projects structural systems. Simply put, no one wants the preserved portion of the bluff at the PLOED to be wrecked by retaining work and then re-built as if a Disney project and the project as proposed brings this into an awful reality. Where such PLOED intersects the bluff and that point is not structurally sustainable and unable to remain intact through construction, a setback from that intersection measured to the buildings nearest point of construction shall be provided )as a buffer) to ensure the wellbeing and protection of the portion of natural bluff being preserved. Since the policy and the development of the PLOED are to provide a point to be preserved, such PLOED shall remain natural and not be subject to reconstruction. A reasonable setback to the PLOED shall be provided to allow for construction of the project without jeopardizing the bluff in the area of the PLOED. 2. PLOED as covered by a deck- None of the existing buildings that established the PLOED cover or obscure the natural bluff with a balcony like or to the extent as the proposed project. The result is the very bluff that the policies attempt to protect for the purpose of view, are forever covered by architecture. Regardless of anyone's taste in the architecture, some of the coverage depicted by the latest drawings cross sections obscures forever the vision of the natural part of the bluff 171 and this is a poor handling and development of the PLOED. A reasonable setback above and (the amount of coverage) of the PLOED shall be provided. 3. Project is too massive- We don't believe that the project fits well within or preserves the Community regardless of the admittedly diverse mix of housing types. Simply put, There are no SFD's this large (when presenting the area per unit figure) and there are no Duplex's or triplexes that compare (in this area calculation) in bulk and there are no building bulks, on either street, that are of this bulk. We can not agree that the policies set forth to protect Community fabric are satisfied. There may be likelihood that fulfilling the first 2 conditions above might reduce the bulk and we are very hopeful that that is the case. 4. Project EIR should not be certified- We don't believe that the project EIR addresses air quality (short or long term) nor mitigates the admittedly impactful findings. With all due respect to our City, we have seen worse certifications but, as other project opponents have approached SPON for their use of our consultants and some of those consultants have reported glaring vulnerabilities, the City's certification should be guarded if there is no further mitigation. The hope of anyone urging the City to employ a CEQA justification using a Statement of over riding considerations', as if this was a type of public facility with any public benefit, will be a circumstance for which we see the project opponents fully prepared. It may be that the project will be approved by PC and SPON hopes that these mitigation measures will be forwarded to Council for thier fair consideration. Let's continue to work together. Don Krotee SPON Marilyn L Beck 303 Carnation Avenue Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 949-723-1773 mdb ibecktrustee,com RECEIVED BY May 20, 2009 PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAY 2 2 2009 VIA EMAIL AND US MAIL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92658 i Re: Aerie (PA 2005-196) Dear Commissioners: I It is very difficult to understand why the Planning Department finds this project so acceptable when almost every aspect of the project fails to meet either the letter or the intent of the General Plan. If I didn't know the protocol, I might have concluded that the Staff Report had been written by the Applicant himself to promote his project, rather than by the City's Senior Planner who has a duty to the City and the residents of Newport Beach to uphold the provisions of the General Plan. This Staff Report and Draft Resolution seem to compromise the basic tenets and provisions of the General Plan for the benefit of an outside developer. This is difficult to understand for the following reasons: 1. How could this project have been set for hearing at the Planning Commission prior to the completion of the DEIR? My understanding is that the Draft EIR requires the City to respond to public comments prior to submitting it for certification by the City. As of noon on the day before the Public Hearing, the City's responses have not yet been incorporated into the EIR. Indeed, the Draft Resolution for Approval of the project recommends certification of the DEIR prior to the inclusion of these responses to comments into the EIR. Is that proper City protocol? 2. This project requires numerous variances and modification permits, not the least of which require encroachments into setbacks on a protected coastal bluff. How is it that the City Planning Dept which was instrumental in drafting the General Plan would simply ignore all that the General Plan was trying to do, and on the first major project coming before the City after the General Plan was implemented, simply issue variances to allow this project? Does the City intend Planning Commission May 20,2009 Page 2 to protect its natural resources as provided in the General Plan or not? What is the threshold of responsibility that the City is prepared to stand on in upholding City provisions? 3. How can the Planning Department find that this project conforms to CLUP Chapter 4 Policies, in particular 4.4.1-3 which requires new development to minimize alterations when the developer is proposing 62,000 sq feet of building on a site that is described as "steeply sloping coastal bluff, the west-facing portion of which is subject to marine erosion...the westerly portion of the site is partly submerged and rocky"? The plans show excavation to 28 feet above mean sea level, completely obliterating the natural bluff when the City Council set the PLOED at 50.7 feet above mean sea level. The response is that all this destruction is subterranean and cannot be seen. In other words, it is okay to destroy the bluff as long as the developer puts fake rock back in its place and no one can see the damage. How is that consistent with the intent of the General Plan and specifically the CLUP Policy 4.4.1-3? 4. One glaring example of the City Planning Department's irresponsibility in recommending approval of this project is the proposed swimming pool. The pool deck is at 40.5 feet above mean sea level and the structure of the pool descends to 30.0 feet above mean sea level. CLUP Policies 4.4.3-3 and 4.4.3-5 both apply to this parcel (see the. DEIR description of the property), and state: "Require all new bluff top development....be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development....but not less than 25 feet from the bluff edge. This requirement shall apply to the principal structure and major accessory structures such as....pools." How can the City Planning Dept allow a swimming pool to be built below the predominant line of existing development? 5. The Harbor Commission met and unanimously voted to DENY the marina in its.present form. The Harbor Commissioners each stated very concise reasons why the marina as proposed is dangerous to the harbor, to other boaters, to the environment of the harbor, and opens the City to significant liability. The Staff Report ignores completely all of the comments and recommendations of the Harbor Commission and makes the statement that the Harbor Commission is only an advisory board.and has no authority. This seems like a slap in the face to the Harbor Commission. It is indeed an advisory board, a citizen's advisory board. Doesn't the City want to listen to its informed citizens? 6. The Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC) also met and reviewed this project and issued a six-page list of concerns about the project, none of these items have yet been addressed. 7. The Notice of Public Hearing states: "The DEIR concludes that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment on Air Quality, Land f� � Planning Commission May 20,2009 Page 3 Use, Noise, Traffic/Circulation, Aesthetics, Drainage and Hydrology, Public Health and Safety, Cultural Resources, Soils and Geology, and Biological Resources". The Staff Report states "specific mitigation measures have been included to reduce the potentially significant adverse effects to a less than significant level, with the exception of one short-term impact related to construction noise". (Emphasis added) How can 3000 heavy trucks moving through the village and streets of Corona del Mar in order to carry away 25,000 cubic yards of coastal bluff constitute a "short-term impact'? Who will be responsible for damage to City streets and potential liability to residents during this "short-term"? For all of the above reasons, I ask you, the Planning Commissioners, to take a very careful approach to this project in reviewing the requests for modification permits and variances. You are also an advisory board, please give informed and conscientious consideration to this massive project. Please do not allow for unwarranted exceptions to the General Plan which will set dangerous precedents for future development along the Carnation Avenue coastal bluff and have significant repercussions to the residents of Corona dei Mar. 9 P Sincerely, Ma?ynL Beck Cc: City Council Coastal Commission Harbor Commission City Attorney F�3 WILLIAM J. McCAFFREY JR. 2525 OCEAN BOULEVARD,APT. G4 CORONA DEL MAR,CALIFORNIA 92625 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT May 26,2009 Planning Commission MAY 2 $ 2��9 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach,CA 92658 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Dear Commissioners: At the Planning Commission public hearing on Thursday, May 21"Commissioner Toerge referred to Channel Reef as "egregious overbuilding". I take exception to this remark for the following reasons: a) Channel Reef was developed and built by Mr. Cedric Roberts,a very honorable gentleman who built thousands of homes in southern California and who, near the end of his life, was recognized by the state as being the longest-licensed builder (license number 19) in the state. As part of that recognition it was noted that he never had a singlecomplaint filed against him. He would not have overbuilt and he would not have done anything egregious. He was exceptionally proud of Channel Reef, where he hada home. The time to voice criticism was 50 years ago,not 20 years after his death when he is not able to defend his cherished project. b) Although Mr. Toerge referred to the height restriction on Ocean Boulevard as being curb level, he did not recognize that the structure which Channel Reef replaced was two stories above curb level and even today our next door neighbor has a structure which is one story above curb level. With this perspective it is hard to say that Channel Reef is overbuilt. c) A typical criteria relative to overbuilding is the extent to which a project uses municipal services. During my 23 years living at Channel Reef I can remember only a single instance of a school-aged child, and the situation would have been similar or less than that prior to my residency. Also, Channel Reef does not use municipal trash collection, but instead pays for private trash collection. And because many of our units are second homes, the demand for water and sewage is less than half what it would otherwise be. Based on these criteria Channel Reef can not be considered overbuilt. d) Another criteria which seems to be an exceptionally important*concept for the Commission is that of"existing development", so much so that the existing development seems to define what is proper and acceptable. Since Channel Reef has been in existence for nearly 50 years it would seem that on this basis as well it can not be considered overbuilt. 1 e) With respect to parking, the Commission seems to not only require the minimum per code but also to prefer that there be an excess of parking. In the case of Mr. Toerge, I have seen him vote against a project only because, although it had more than the required parking, he did not consider it to be convenient parking. Channel Reef has convenient parking for nearly 100 vehicles. Again,relative to municipal services Channel Reef uses little or no street parking for either residents or guests, which very few properties can match. But it is somewhat disingenuous to then say that, in part as a result of providing abundant and convenient parking, Channel Reef is overbuilt f) In terms of public reaction, the limited press coverage at the time of construction which I have seen was positive. Moreover, in the 23 years I have lived at Channel Reef, including over 20 years on the Board of Directors and since 2001 its president, I am not aware of a single complaint or negative remark concerning being overbuilt, until W. Toerge's comment. I might also add that it was inappropriate in a public forum for Mr. Toerge to make such a statement as if it were a fact rather than merely his personal opinion which, as shown in this letter, is unsupported and unsupportable by the facts. Mr. Commissioners, my dictionary defines egregious as "outstanding for undesirable qualities; remarkably bad;flagrant" Obviously, I do not believe that Channel Reef is overbuilt on any of the several criteria noted above. To say that it is egregious overbuilding is itself an egregious statement. Sincerely, William I McCaffrey Jr. 949-675-6468 185 I am unable to attend the meeting tonight and have asked J Wo read this brief speech on my behalf. As you know, I am opposed to this project and have submitted a written statement to you with all my comments. I want to add only this. The City Council set a predominant line of development at 50.7 feet above mean sea level. The project as it stands today excavates to 28 feet above mean sea level, with a swimming pool at between 30.0 feet and 40.5 feet, completely subterranean. This accessory is specifically barred under provisions 4.4.3-3 and 4.4.3-5 of the CLUP. This is only one aspect of the many conditions which are inconsistent with the General Plan. The Staff Report states that: "the project will encroach into the front and side setbacks; however, the majority of the encroachments are subterranean". It then states: "given that the encroachments are below grade and will not be visible, no negative impacts are expected". I find this statement mind-boggling. So long as no one can see all the damage that has been done, it is okay. Is that correct? It is like saying you can drive over the speed limit, as fast as you like, so long as no one is on the roadway. If no one sees me speeding, it is okay. Is that how the City of Newport Beach interprets its laws? I direct this question to the City Attorney, is this a correct interpretation of the General Plan? Thank you. Marilyn Beck May 25, 2009 RECEMEDDY PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAY 2 9 2009 To: Planning Commissioners CITY OF NEWPORT 3EACH From: Kathleen McIntosh Re: Request for copy of speech given at Planning Commission Hearing for Aerie +-► o.-! 2 i . 9-oo1 1 �7 It has always been my impression that when a person works in a public position for a City that they are there to hopefully leave the City a better place than when they took office. I like most residents expect City representatives to represent the highest level of honesty, dedication and adherence to policy and the law as demanded by your office for the good of all residents of this great City. I am encouraged to hear this evening that you are concerned with the City theCt Coastal Bluff. In the past it has seemed as though y was willing to compromise its own General Plan, the Coastal Land Use Plan and Coastal Bluff Protection Policies to mention a few in favor of one applicant and the potential of significant tax revenues for the City as mentioned by Mr. Rasner, an investor in the project, at the Harbor Resources meeting last month. The project was first recommended for denial by Staff April 17, 2007, when staff listed at least 6 CLUP policies that this project is inconsistent with. Following excerpt: Staff recommends that the project should be redesigned such that the proposed building does not extend on the bluff face below 52 feet above mean sea level. This provides a balance between preserving the scenic quality of a significant portion of the bluff through minimizing its alteration while siting the building with the predominant line of existing development. Although allowing portions of the project to be developed further down the bluff to 44, 34, or 29 feet above mean sea level might be within an alternate predominate line of existing development, staff does not believe that development at these levels minimizes alteration of the bluff and preserves the scenic and visual quality of the landform as a visual resource consistent with policy. 2 years later and the proposed project is still inconsistent with policy. Mr. Campbell has admitted that there is a high risk for damage to the surrounding properties — which include public streets due to massive excavation. What has changed since that time — the excavation is still considerably more that the stated 26,000 cubic yards of Protected Coastal Bluff. The intent is to cut straight down from the sidewalk area to a depth of approximately 24 feet above mean sea level and to gut the entire bluff. There are legal policies in place against this type of thing for a reason. This bluff provides buttressing of the surrounding properties both private and public. Are you the City going to be financially responsible for that collapse if it happens — as it has in so many other Cities. The applicant certainly won't. How, in a time of such massive economic downturn — investigations into corruption in City and State agencies, their policies, management and fiscal irresponsibility, Ponzi schemes and massive fraud can the City turn a blind eye to such an economically and ecologically unsound project. Why not tear up the rules for all other applicants — past, present and future. This proposed project does not fit into the General Plan in any way shape or form so why should any other applicants be held to the rules. If you vote to approve this project once again you are approving the same project that was presented more than 2 years ago with a reduction of less than 14% in scale and the addition of a massive marina which the Harbor Commissioners unanimously recommended denial of at their meeting last month and which staff has decided to either downplay or ignore. The EIR is still not complete, does not properly address the issues that existed 2 years ago, does not meet the criteria of the CLUP, the General Plan or the Coastal Bluff Protection Policies and the report minimizes the negative aspects of this project and its ramifications in favor of the applicant — which is understandable as the applicant paid for the report. As 1 have stated every time I have spoken in front of the Planning Commission and the City Council, my late husband and I have always been in favor of redevelopment of this predominant Coastal Bluff — it should have been done years ago, but feel that it should be done with respect and scale to the existing neighborhood, the governing policies of the City of Newport Beach and without complete t �� destruction of a Protected Coastal Bluff and the disruption and possible destruction of their portion of the Historical Cove below. Mr. Julian already pumped in sand in from the Channel Reef Condominiums 2 years ago — prior to finalizing the purchase of the property — filled in one of the caves, raised the level of the beach by approximately 4 feet high and about 30' deep towards the water which has created a shoaling problem that did not exist during the 17 years prior to this new beach addition and completely covered the sand dollar population — which is why they are now so concerned with maintaining the sand dollars from further damage...had this not been reported and stopped who knows how large that beach would now be. y: Thank you for your time and attention. 71Cc_ I addressed the dock situation as an addition at the Planning meeting last week and covered other issues in the attached speech made at the Harbor Resources meeting last month. It would be worth your time to hear the reasons that Mr. Laurenz stated for denial of the marina. lq6 Approval of the condominium project has not been granted and will not go to the City until May or June of this year. As no decision has been made on the number of units to be built — no decisions should be made regarding the number of boat slips until that time. Nothing in the City rules legislates that slips must match the number of units. The existing dock replacement plan is actually capable of berthing at least 3 (three) additional boats for a total of 12 —versus the 9 as stated by the applicant. The space is clearly visible on the plans. The proposed dock would be built to the pierhead line (yellow) encroaching the two outside 60' yachts or one 1 00' yacht into Public right of way traffic lanes by at least 25 ' to 30 '. This is unacceptable. How can private use be allowed to take public right of way. The proposed dock would be built deeper into public traffic lanes than any other dock of the east side of Newport Harbor at this location which would upset the flow of boat traffic, would inhibit the passage of all small boats, kayaks and paddleboards inside of the existing marker bouy and would set a precedent for the future development of the Harbor. Access to the cove and historically significant marine outcroppings would be severely restricted, if not completely eliminated from public enjoyment. This cove has been accessible to the public from the water dating back to the existence of Newport Beach. The applicant originally asked us to allow our docks to be joined to privatize the cove — we are totally against this idea. Historically this side of Newport Harbor and the existing docks near the entrance of the Harbor sustain massive damage due to the the storm surge each winter and spring. Additionally the architect and applicant have engineered their proposed dock without consideration of the two existing docks on either side and the possibility that those owners might want to dock something larger than 17'. Also, the photos of the 100' yacht have been minimized in terms appearance and scale in relationship to the dock and the view of the outcroppings. A 100' yacht will eliminate any view from the water and the opposite side of the bay. True scale should be required at each presentation. I would ask that the applicant be required to float marker bouys in the exact location of his proposed marina for a minimum of 1 month during the summer so that the public would be made aware of the enormous size of the structure and the potential taking of public waters for private use (sounds illegal). IQ