Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3901 E COAST HWY3901 E Coast Hwy RESIDENTIAL ZONING CORRECTIONS Telephone: (714) 644-3200 Plan Check NO:,O lanner By:Dana Aslami Associate Planner By".� is Ka Assistant P By:Scot Ferris, Assistant Planner Date: v /a 40 Corrections Required: Legal Description By: Address Lot Block Section Tract _ Verify legal description with Public Works Covenant required. Please have owner's signature ~notarized on the attached document and return to me. �p�/ - , /l Lot Size l 9%%�' �7 ! GL�y Zone Number of Units 9,!�r h Buildable Area Maximum Structural Area 5fi '(Area including exterior walls, stairway(s) on one level and required parking). x buildable area. Proposed Structural Area: x buildable area. Provide tissue overia of ca ations verify_ina Dronosed souare footage, Open Space Area cu.ft. (Volume of space equal to buildable width x height limit x s x). This area must be at least six feet in an direction (61x 61x 61), and open on at least two sides, or one side and one end. Required Setbacks �'?.oU10�-.�rn �P�1�Sua U=hv�eeT � Setbacks: ' H. Coast Highway, 30t ft. (Wing A) 23S it. (Wing A)iy 6 ' 'L "✓ �'L• A ILI 95t ft. (Wing C) 104t ft. (Wing C); ,Z 0 44V Varies 30t ft. to 433 ft. (Wing D) Buck Cully (a PCH) 29t £t. 19t ft. Buck Cully: 68t £t. 681 ft. Prnvioun Preieet Ravined Project Hazel Drive 7 10 ft. 13d: ft. (Sublevel - setback: 8*ft. to ft. to to' 2); V aries (Levels £t. to 27* fe. . ,(Leya1 3) r Southerly R-1 Lot; y 15 £t. 26 ft. Parking: 42 spaces in 46 spaces - 42 tandem (.49 spaces spaces in tandem porunit) and independently accessible spaces spaces* per unit) IT: Pormittod Building v ny,0 Height: R 37 c. 1Vy' Building Height of Revised Project: - 4s an additional t�n ' Wing A 322 ft.•G in.±28 ft.-6 in. E24 6: , 'VlmgB ti d5 ft. None 1:10 ft. .6 in. p (� Wing C S24 ft. -6 in, ±30 ft. r *28 ft. Wing D ±24 fe. �'t28 £t. Noao Tower *31 ft. None None 1t Cupola Now t39 ft. Noma Dimension all elevations fro natura grads to:� mid-point(s) of roof plane(s) ridge(s) of roof plane(s) Remarks: Label natural grade and finished grade on all elevations. Distance between buildings Maximum Coverage Number of Stor ,x Required.Parking:' clear inside minimum ', Parkin�'i 42 spacen in ' 46 spaces - 41 taniam (.49 spacmn ep40es in tsndam 4 per unit) and4 ind"epandantly -' 'accessible spaces (.54 spaces' per '�" dtit), Label clear inside dimensions of provided parking spaces Is demolition proposed?�-� — Number of units to be demolished c DFairshare Contribution_ ✓ -` 1 � -?`� San Joaquin hills Transportation Corridor ] Park Dedication Fee --- SPECIAL APPROVAL REQUIRED THROUGH: 65f 61 - ,4 -(D ITS o5E, Tr�9 C Al Modifications Committee. Indicate Modification Approval No. on plans. Modification required £or Planning Commission: 5 i �1_. _//) 4< Use Permit 33VcW — #S(% G . % 02uw (, Variance ((/�(U/ Resubdivision/Tract Site Plan Review Other Public Works: _ Easement/Encroachment Permit Subdivision Engineer Traffic Engineer Approval of Landscape Plans Building Department: Grading Engineer lf' Parks Department: t Approval of Landscape Plans Coastal A roval Required: /� p� Approval In Concept (AIC) No. /l (Note: File 3 sets of plans: site flooJ , and elev t ns Coastal development Permit No. rr ��/o�—�/ Categorical Exclusion No. (C.E.O.) (Note: Building permits may be issued 10 days following issuance of C.E.O.) Waiver # Exempt, Because Miscellaneous K1. Provide floor plan(s), fully dimensioned, showing all room uses. 2. Provide plot plan, fully dimensioned, showing: _ location of all buildings, and distance to property lines. distance from face of curb to front property line (verify with Public Works) second and third floor footprints (if applicable) all projections (i.e. fireplaces, bay windows), label distance(s) to PL(s) 3. Chimney (and chimney caps etc.) heights permitted only as required by U.B.C. or manufacturer specifications. 4. Pools, spas, walls, fences, patio covers and other freestanding structures require separate reviews and permits. 5. Association Approval (Advisory). Issuance of a Building Permit by the City does not relieve applicant of legal requirement to observe covenants, conditions and restrictions which may be recorded against the property or to obtain community association approval of plans. A Plan Check 895-90 3901 E. Coast Hwy. SUMMERHOUSE AREA CALCULATIONS Level L 4,113.73 Wing "Al' 2,830.575 Wing "B" 3,141.784 Wing "C" 1 1:. 1:' Garage 13,780.88 Level "B" 4,158.232 Wing "A" 2,506.319 Wing "B" 1,937.41 Wing "C" 8,601.961 Level 1 4,221.101 Wing "A" 6,387.152 Wing "C" 3,272.21 Wing "D" 13,880.463 Level 2 2,616.492 Wing "A" 6,095.652 Wing "C" 2,930.03 Wing "D" 11,642.174 Level 3 4,453.37 TOTAL ALL LEVELS 62,445.738 Buildable Area .75 x site area (64,773.72) = 48,580.29 62,445.738 total sq.ft. less 13,780.88 subterranean garage 48,664.858 gross structural area 9/17/90 i CONDITION OF APPROVAL USE PERMIT #3342 3901 East Coast Highway PC # 895-90 Condition 1. Substantial Conformance 2. Hydrology study 3. Improvements 4. Use permit/surety agreement 5. Vehicular circulation 6. Access ramp curb/gutter 7. Encroat;hment permit 8. Sight distance 1 Dent Planning Public Works Public Works Public Works Traffic Engineer Public Works Public Works California Department of Transportation Traffic Engineer 9. Sewer facilit'es Public Works 1 .Sanitation fees Building Department --.J11.Off-street parking Planning Q Traffic Engineer Action Plans Approval Plans Approval Plans Approval Plans Approval Plans Approval Plans Approval, Permit issuance Plans Approval Field check .. Conditions of Approval 3901 East Coast Highway Page 2 12.Construction Building 13.Fire access Fire Department Building 14.Sprinklers Fire Department Building 15.Smoke detectors/fire alarms Fire Department Building 16.Exit stairways Fire Department Building 17.Fire access Fire Department Building 18.Standpipe Fire Department Building 19.Ramps for non -ambulatory Fire Department Building " 20. lanter height Plannin See LA-N7�Sc',4-P� I�ta�1 _ �21.V,et parking Planning ati M2EmpPee parking Planning ��ti 4kechanical equipment/ Planning trash screened Building See (_AJDSCAPE::b TLAr.I 0 Plans Approval Plans Approval Plans Approval Plans Approval Plans Approval Plans Approval Plans Approval Plans Approval Plans Approval Letter of ompliance Letter of Compliance Plans Approval Field check 1 v Yto,& E, Conditions of Approval 3901 East Coast Highway Page 3 k24.Signs Planning Separate pemut 25.Landscaping Public Works Plans Approval gLandscape Plan Planning Plans Approval/, ' Licensed land. arch o��$�ilicti% 27. dscape Plan Parks,Beaches & Rec Plans Approval Planning d� Public Works i fighting system Planning Plans Approval Licensed Elect Eng. Letter 6-.Grading Plannin Plans Approval Building 30.Temp. plan/ Building Plans Approval drainage i 31.Haul routes Building Plans Approval 32.Erosion control Building Plans Approval plan CRWQC Board 33.Runoff control Building Plans Approval 34.Grading Plan Building Plans Approval ��35.Roof/mechanical Planning Letter ' L, equipment Acoustical Engineer a IL Conditions of Approval 3901 East Coast Highway Page 4 .Sound attenuation Planning a Letter I Acoustical Engineer 7.Excavation Building =tter are fenced ig OVA 38.Traffic control Public Works (:7Letter App plan ofpliance 39.Handicapped Traffic Engineer parking C5t ter of t li of eck 40.Inspection fees Public Works Permitlssuance R 41.Number of beds/ Planning Letter to State residents' f California 42.N/A W�(43%.Occupancy/Age Planning Letter of r fiance 44.Ancillary Planning Letter ;Of commercial uses )Ce 445.Residents' cars Planning Letter of Compliance VDeed 72estriction Planning Prior to issuance 4 Conditions of Approval 3901 East Coast Highway Page 5 7.Coa tat Commission pfmlry-f I -P vt 48.N/A 14,�.Facility operation 50.Tree height Iy,J.Bus service Garden area ��construction material 11 53 Onsite parking survey of 4 54.Improvement Public right-of-way 55.vegetation maintenance/ Buck Gulley 6. struction parking 57.Buck Gulley City Attorney . of grading permits Planning Pending Planning Letter of Complia Planning Fi check Planning tter o Complia c Building Plans Approval Planning Letter of Compliance Planning After opening Commission facility Review er C on fin Parks,Beaches & Rec Plans Approval Fire Department Plans Approval Building Plans Appro Field check Parks,Beaches & Rec Plans Approval "i Conditions of Approval 3901 East Coast Highway Page 6 58.Traffic signal Public Works Fees paid Cal Trans e; TO: City Q ncil - 3. In order to assist the City Council's comparative analysis, staff has prepared the following outline which sets forth the major characteristics of the previous project and the revised project: 6,,4 17 3, 72 Site Area: 1.487.acres ( �773.72 sq.ft.)i Buildable Area: 1.487 acres (66,773.72 sq.ft.) Permitted Gross Structural Area (Established by General Plan) .75 x site area or 50 680—sq—f Gross Structural Area: Floor Area Ratio: Setbacks: E. Coast Highway Buck Gully (@ PCH) Buck Gully: Hazel Drive Southerly R-1 Lot; Parking: Previous Project 50,060 sq.ft. .75 30± ft, (Wing A) 95± ft. (Wing C) a; 29± ft. 68± ft. Previous Project 10 ft. 15 ft. 42 spaces in tandem (.49 spaces per unit) Revised Prc 'Lect 50,050 sq.ft. 75 23± ft. (Wing A); 104± ft. (Wing C); Varies 30± ft. to 43± ft. (Wing D) 19± ft. 68± ft. Revised Proiect 13± ft. (Sublevel - 1); Varies 10 ft. to 48± ft. (Levels 1 & 2); Varies 10± ft. to 27± ft. (Leyel 3) 20 ft. 46 spaces - 42 spaces in tandem and 4 independently accessible spaces (.54 spaces' per unit) 'The attached plans incorrectly indicate the subject property contains 66,900 sq.ft. 2This figure does not include any portion of the subterranean parking structure in accordance with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. fi.( TO: City '+ cil - 4. Permitted Building Average Height: 32 ft. Building Heights of Previous Project: Wing A ±22 ft. Wing B ±16 ft. Wing C ±24 ft. Tower ±33 ft. Cupola None Maximum Ridge 37 ft. ±28 ft. ±22 ft. ±30 ft. None ±41 ft. Maximum Flat 32 ft. ±24 ft. ±24 ft. ±28 ft. None None Building Height of Revised Project: Wing A ±22 ft.-6 in. ±28 ft.-6 in. ±24 ft. Wing B ±6 ft. None ±10 ft.-6 in. Wing C ±24 ft.-6 in. ±30 ft. ±28 ft. Wing D ±24 ft. ±28 ft. None Tower ±31 ft. None None Cupola None ±39 ft. None 01 Alternative Parking Proposal As indicated in the excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes dated March 9, 1988 which were attached to the April 24, 1989 City Council staff report, Condition No. 52 of the Planning Commission's approval requires that the garden area above the subterranean parking lot to be constructed of building materials that will permit said garden area to be converted to additional parking spaces, if needed, in the future. Inasmuch as the applicant is now proposing to add Wing "D" into a portion of the previous garden area, it appears that the opportunity for additional parking spaces has been reduced by approximately 50 percent. Based on staff's review, it appears that the remaining garden area could provide between 10 and 15 additional parking spaces to alleviate any future parking problem. Amended Condition of Approval If it is the desire o£ the City Council to approve this matter, staff recommends that Conditions of Approval No. 1 and No. 11 of Use Permit No. 3342 be revised as follows: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and sections approved by the City Council on May 22, 1989, except as noted below. 11. That a minimum of 46 off-street parking spaces shall be provided for the proposed development. FROM: MEMORANDUM PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH James D. Hewicker, Director W. William Ward, Senior Planner June 19, 1992 SUBJECT: Background Information and Permit History for the Emerald Associates Project at 3901 East Coast Highway (Use Permit No. 3342) Owner of property shown on application: Emerald Village Associates, Inc. Applicant shown on application: Date of filing for Use Permit No. 3342: Date of Planning Commission approval: Date of City Council call-up: Date of City Council approval: Date of Coastal Permit approval: Date of Building/Grading Permit issuance: Extension of Building/Grading Permits: Date Building/Grading Permits expired: Date of issuance for grading restoration: Same as Owner February 13, 1989 March 9, 1989 March 27, 1989 May 22, 1989 (4 Ayes, 2 Noes, 1 Abstain) September 14, 1989; amended on April 17, 1991. May 15, 1991 January 28, 1992 to February 15, 1992 May 10, 1992 May 28, 1992 A -r -J� y September 11, 1990 Dana Aslami CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dorius Architects 1550 Bayside Drive , Corona del Mar California 92625 (714) 644-7111 Re: Summerhouse - Plan Corrections, PC#895-90 Dear Dana: The enclosed letter is addressing Item #52 for Conditions of Approval, Use Permit #3342. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincer. Ed u o ER:pam Enclosure RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEM" AM SEP 13 1990 PM 718,911pIll112111213141516 A MARTIN STRUCTURAL DESIGN 15375 Banana Pkwy., Suite B-207, Irvine, CA 92718 (714)753-1315 August 10, 1990 Ed Rubio DORIUS ARCHITECTS 1550 Bayside Drive Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Re: Summer House Dear Ed: This letter is to confirm a prior verbal agreement between our offices. The concrete deck over the garage, in the area presently to be occupied by the Roof Garden Planters, was designed to support automobile parking. This parking would have to be accomodated in lieu of the planters, i.e., they could not both exist at the same time. We hope this clarifies any questions regarding the design intent. Cordially, Martin Structural Design, Inc. • l i'w� 061 Felix Martin, S.E. a W WILLIAM R. ISHII & ASSOCIATES, INC. ELECTRICAL & MECHANICAL ENGINEERS 10805 HOLDER STREET • SUITE 150 • CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA 90630 • (714) 236-0492 September 6, 1990 City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Re: Summerhouse - Plan Corrections Condition of Approval use Permit #3342 3901 East Coast Highway PC#895-90 CONDITION 28 - Lighting System 35 - Mechanical equipment sound attenuate ACTION Area Liqhtinq system is so designed to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential users. The sound level of mechanical equipment at the property line do not exceed 55 dBa. If you have further questions please do not hesitate to call our office. Very truly yours, WILLIAM R. ISHII & ASSOCIATES, INC. /Su7no ` SJ:yo RECEIVED QY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT REACH AM SEP 10 1990 7J819i10i1h12i1i2I31415I6 A '" if .L RECEIVru L'V STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PLANNING DEPARTMENTu DFTC Um ennr Ccwm r ME Pr fP0RT --A CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION Page 1 of SOUTH COAST AREA APR 10 1991 Date: April 9 245 WEST BROADWAY, SUITE 380 AU PO Permit No. 5- LONG BEACH, CA 9osD2 (413) SW5071 ` 019110111112111213AN6 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT On September 14, 1989, the California Coastal Commission granted to This permit subject to the ttached Sta development consisting of: al conditions, for Demolish existing facilities and construct an 84 unit senior assisted care facility, 32 feet high, 48,588 sq. ft. of rental units and auxillary space; and 13,920 sq. ft. of subterranean parking with 47 tandem parking spaces. more specifically described in the application file in the Commission offices. The development is within the coastal zone in Issued on behalf of the California Coastal Commission by ACKNOWLEDGMENT PETER DOUGLAS Executive Director County at By: Title: Staf Analyst The undersigned permittee acknowledges receipt of this permit and agrees to abide by all terms and conditions thereof. The undersigned permittee acknowledges that Government Code Section 818.4 which states in pertinent part, that: "A public entity is not liable for injury caused by the issuance. . . of any permit. ." applies to the issuance of this permit. IMPORTANT: THIS PERMIT IS NOT VALID UNLESS AND UNTIL A COPY OF THE PERMIT WITH THE SIGNED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT HAS BEEN RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION OFFICE. 14 Cal. Admin. Code Section 13158(a). Date Signature of Permittee 09 1 STANDARD CONDITIONS: 5-89-622 Page 2 Page 2 of 3 Permit Application No. 5-89-622 1. Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgment. The permit is not valid and development shall not commence until a copy of the permit, signed by the permittee or authorized agent, acknowledging receipt of the permit'and acceptance of the terms and conditions, is returned to the Commission office. 2. Expiration. If development has not commenced, the permit will expire two years from the date on which the Commission voted on the application. Development shall be pursued in a diligent manner and completed in a reasonable period of time. Application for extension of the permit must be made prior to the expiration date. 3. Compliance. All development must occur in strict compliance with the proposal as set forth in the application for permit, subject to any special conditions set forth below. Any deviation from the approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the staff and may require Commission approval. 4. Interpretation. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any condition will be resolved by the Executive Director or the Commission. S. Inspections. The Commission staff shall be allowed to inspect the site and the project during its development, subject to 24-hour advance notice. 6. Assignment. The permit may be assigned to any qualified person, provided assignee files -with the Commission an affidavit accepting all terms and conditions of the permit. 7. Terms and Conditions Run with the Land. These terms and conditions shall be perpetual, and it is the intention of the Commission and the permittee to bind all future owners and possessors of the subject property to the terms and conditions. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: I. Prior to issuance of permit, the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Executive Director landstaping:-pTans-'whith`show drought resistant- plaAtings. a.1'olig ttfe"blufftop and -slope aPea iibQtiny,8uck Gu11y; and -show plantings or tsaiaftenance plans 4hat provide for an'essentially unimpeded_yiea through the. view c_o'rridor_designated-in,the_proposed project. 2. Prior to issuance of permit, the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Executive Director drainage plans which will protect the slope along Buck Gully from excessive run-off and erosion. 3. Prior to issuance of permit, the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Executive Director a letter from the firm of Leroy Crandall 6 Associates that states that all of their geotechnical recommendations have been incorporated into the design and construction plans for the project. 5-89-622 Page 3 4. Prior to issuance of permit, the applicant shall execute and record a deed restriction, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director, which shall provide: (a) that the applicant understands that the site may be subject to extraordinary hazard from slope failure and the applicant assumes the liability from such hazard; and (b) that the applicant unconditionally waives any claim of liability on the part of the Commission and agrees to indemify and hold harmless the Commission and its advisors relative to the the Commission's approval of the project for any damage due to the natural hazards. The document shall run with the land, binding all successors and assigns, and shall be recorded free of prior liens and encumbrances which the Executive Director determines may affect the interest conveyed. STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY RECEIVru of PLANNING DEPARTMENT, WILSON, co�nor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SOUTH COAST AREA APR 2 4. 1991 a 245 W. BROADWAY, STE. 380 Atl PRi P.O. BOX 1450 718,9110,11,12111213141516 LONG BEACH, CA 90802.4416 (213) 590.5071 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE AMENDMENT TO PERMIT Date: 17 April 1991 Permit Number 5-89-622 issued to Emerald Associates for demolishing existing facilities and constructing 84 unit senior assisted care facility, 32 ft. high, 48,588 sq. ft. of rental units and auxillary space; and 13,920 sq. ft. of subterranean parking with 47 tandem parking spaces, at 3901 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Newport Beach. has been amended to include the following changes: Addition to Special Condition #4 (underlining indicates new language added) regarding assumption of -risk to read thus: Prior to issuance of permit, the applicant shall execute and record a deed restriction, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive -Director, which shall provide: (a) that the applicant understands that the site may be subject to extraordinary hazard from slope failure and the applicant assumes the liability from such hazard; and (b) that the applicant unconditionally waives any claim of liability on the part of the Commissiona nd agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Commission and its advisors relative to the Commission's approval of the project for any damage due tothe natural hazards. The document shall run with the land, binding all successors and assigns, and shall be recorded free of prior liens and encumbrances, except for _leasehold _trust deeds _Nos. 8 & 10 on which the Executive Director determines may a conveyed. ng a page 2 This amendment was determined by the Executive Director to be immaterial, was duly noticed, and no objections were received. The amendment is being held in the Commission office until fulfillment of Special Conditions imposed by the Commission. Once these conditions have been fulfilled, the amendment will be issued. For your information, all the imposed conditions are attached. Sincerely, PETER M. DOUGLAS Executive Director By: -- Title: STAFF ANALYST ACKNOWLEDGMENT I have read and understand the above amendment and agree to be bound by the remaining conditions of permit number 5-89-622 Date — b l l C6:0175E Signature • Pmnh Na. �7 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION(CALTRANS) O'� L '� STANDARD ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATION DWJCNRIc/PM DAFM•P201A (REY1/D0) PARTA - 2'-Q��-• Imo- I�/j�8 County - 21 Hoare I15713 Name 6 ( Cross Street (distance anddiradion from 10 Est Completion Data - 111 Estimated Coat in State R(W Max Depth 13 Avemgo Depthl4 Average WidthlS Length t6 Surface Type--"�-'--`-`"-----Yl- EV AVATION N/A FL N/A FL N/A FL N/A Ft N/A ' APES Typo V A 81012 meter N/A 19 1 VottognIPSIG N/A 20 Product N/A, 21 FULLY DESCRIBE WOf, WITHIN STATE R/W. Attach complete plans (5 sets folded 854 x 14 apocs; CDICA maps Otc, If 8ppflcabk 1. Remove and replace existing drive approach 2. Install 4" drain pipethrough curb- AUG 2 3 90 S IS ANY WORK BEING DONE ON APPLICANTSPROPERmit-Yee bd*nydoscrf6o end ahach 0o andgrzdtrag Phrsl-r fr-4` I' --" 22 Ekyes ❑ No -- tS A CITY, COUNTY OR OTHER AGENCY INVOLVED IN ENVIRONMENTALAPPROVAL? 23 ❑ Yes (Check Documentation type and attach approved copy) ❑ Exempt ❑ N.O. ❑ E1R E;kNo (Check the categorybebowhich daaaibasthe prokctj ❑ urRVEY ❑ FENCE ❑ PARADE^..cama4ticas ❑ LWHTEHgKXOFD=NG ❑ ta.AGS SIGNS FANNERS ❑ SINGLE FAMMYOWELL• ❑ coumum1YAmrNNAw LANDSCAPING DECORATIONS NG GRAIEWAY SYSTEM ❑ I SGu A7ORYWARNINa, ❑ TEMPONARYSIGNALS ❑ REMOVAL -REPLACEMENT ❑ ExxwN comROL INFORMATION SIGNS ❑ Pumic URLIfYMODF OFDtsnNc;nrEROADWAY ❑ Aw=Lmm%.APPROAcH ❑ mTcH PAVING FICATIOHS OOIIrarONS. MARIONGS C3 41wMwRLmm ❑ moow moN HOOKUPS ❑ DDCN PAVING - RNAINTl7ANIMAIISCONSTRUC. XX FIC OFTRAFLSYSJEMS ❑ FN 61DEWALK/GUITS ❑ NAILDOX I�t1 TIOKORRFACINOOFA DRNEWAYOFHDAD APPROACH ❑ NONE OF THE ABOVE IF PROJECTCANNOT BE DESCRIBED IN ABOVE CATEGOREES,RMUESTAPPLICATION PARTS FROM THE PERMROFFICE THE UNDERSIGNED AGREES THAT THE WORK WILL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WM CALTRANS MULES AND REGULATIONS AND SUBJECT TO OtSPECTION AND APPROVAL , OrgaKaGonor ApPlIcant Phone Architect, Etghmwor Prefect Mx I Fnew Emerald Associates Q14 476-0880 1 Wayne E..Ahrens (714 851-0333 Addrw ryry,d* dty sndzlp,code) 4770 Campus Drive, Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660 AuthoAzad S na ra Tea Project Manager E M E R A L D A S S O C I A T E S April 12, 1991 Ms. Genia Garcia, Assistant Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92659 re: SummerHouse Use Permit #3342 Conditions / PC #895-90 Dear Genia , EMERALD VILLAGE ASSOCIATES, INC. 4770 CAMPUS DRIVE SUITE 100 NE'WPORT BEACH CA 92660 TEL. (714) 476-0880 FAx. (714) 851-1918 This letter outlines and catalogs the steps taken to fulfill each of the 58 conditions of approval required by the above -referenced Use Permit. Many of these requirements are fulfilled by the architectural, mechanical, plumbing, electrical, structural, civil and landscaping plans dated August 23,1990 which have been previously submitted to the City for Plan Check and have received approvals as noted herein. These shall be referred to as 'the Plans' herein. 1. 'Substantial Conformance: The above -referenced Plans have been presented for your review. We believe these to be in substantial conformance with our May 22, 1989 plans. 2. Hydrology Study: This study has been incorporated into the Civil Engineering plans by the civil engineer and the plumbing plans by the mechanical engineer. The signature of the Public Works Department on the Plans is evidence of the required approval. 3. Public Improvements: The signature of the Public Works Department on the Plans is evidence of the required approval. 4. Surety Agreement: The processing for the surety agreement is being handled by the Public Works Department. They will not allow us to commence without completing this agreement. 5. Vehicular Circulation: The Plans fulfill these requirements as evidenced by the approval of the City's Traffic Engineer. 6. Access Ramp: Included in Plans as approved in Condition 3. 7. Encroachment Permit: A Cal -Trans Encroachment Permit is only valid for 30 days, so we do not want to pull this permit for a number of months. Evidence of our application and payment of fee is enclosed. 8. Sight distance: Completed per Condition 5 9. Sewer Facilities: Service letter from Public Works attached herein. Ms. Genia Garcia April 2, 1991 Page 2 10. Sanitation Fees: All fees will be paid simultaneously with the pulling of Building Permits. 11. Off-street Parking: Plans contain compliance requirements set forth in the Use Permit. Traffic signature is evidence of approval. 12. Construction: Building Department will follow approval of the Planning Department. 13. thr -ugh 19. Fire Access: The signature of the Fire L partment on the Plans is evidence of the required approval. 20. Planter Height. Included in the Plans. Evidenced by Planning Department review and signature. 21. Valet Parking: This is an operating condition covered by the Letter of Compliance, attached herein. 22. Employee Parking: This is an operating condition covered by the Letter of Compliance, enclosed herein. 23. Equipment and Trash Screen: Included in the Plans. Evidenced by Planning Department Review and signature. 24. Signs: No signage is included in the Plans. The signage will be developed and submitted separately at a later date. 25. Landscaping: Landscaping drawings have been submitted and approved by Public Works, as evidenced by signature on the Landscape Plans. 26. Landscape Plans: The Plans submitted contain the required landscaping plans. 27. Landscape Plan: The signature of the Public Works or Building Department on the Plans is evidence of the required approval. 28. Lighting System: The submitted Plans include the required lighting plan, signed by an electrical engineer. The letter required of the engineer is enclosed herein. 29. Grading Permit: A grading permit has been applied for. A copy of our application is enclosed, and a permit will be pulled upon receipt of Planning Department approval. 30. Drainage Plan: The Grading Plan as submitted and approved includes temporary and permanent drainage and siltation plans. EMERALD VILLAGE ASSOCIATES, INC. 4770 CAMPUS DR.. STE. 100 714476.0880 ry NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 OL n� O E r PAY r d- TOTHE c;L ORDER OF a�Z � GUn j/lC 15 LI511D 6'00 L i 2 2 2 2 a 0 0 3: 0 20 L 1492 90.280011= 3 ,9� , $�/(��. DOLLARS p 3�. Christeson Company"- April 30, 1990 Page 2 (LCA O89049.AEB) The professional opinions presented in this letter have been developed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this letter. We were provided with a set of drawings, Sheets Sl through S15, by Dorius Architects, print dated April 23, 1990. Based upon our review of these drawings, the design meets the intent of the recommendations presented in our prior reports. Sincerely, LeROY CRAANNDDALLrae'��e� AND ASSOCIATES �/' James L. Van Beveren Vice President Orange County Branch Manager OC18rjw (4 copies submitted) cc: (1) Dorius Architects Attn: Mr. Craig Si Teller (1) Martin Structural Attn: Mr. Felix Martin �.SCS'LGoNDLTIrtJ Ku WILLIA,M R. IS4 MII & ASSOCIATES, INC. ELECTRICAL & MECHANICAL ENGINEERS 10605 1 fOLDER STREET • SUITE 150 • CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA 90630 • (714) 236-0492 SepLember 6, 1990 City of Newport BeaCh Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Re: Sumlrerhouse - Plan Corr.ecL.ions Condition of Approval Use Permit- 03342 3901 Gast Coast )lighway PC8895-90 CONDITION 28 - Lightinq System 35 - Mechanical equiplent sound attenuate ACTION Area Liglitinq system is so designed to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent -residential users. The sound level of mechanical equipment at the property line do not exceed 55 dBa. If you have further questions please do not hesitate to call our office. Very truly yours, WILLIAM R. ISHII & ASSOCIATES, INC. ,. Sung o SJ:yo Netilm Greve 4ssociates MMM Consulting F491noors Septemlxx 10. 1990 Mr. David Keefe Dorius Architects 1550 Bayside Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Dear Dave, This letter pertains to the City of Newport Beach's noise related "conditions of approval" which the Emerald Village (Summer House) project must meet. The project must comply with the City's 45 CNEL indoor noise standard and 65 dl3A CNEL outdoor noise standard. Mestre Greve Associates has conducted the report "Noise Agalysis for the $merald Village" on April 25, 1990 which presents mitigation measures that are necessary to comply with the noise standards. This report should satisfy the City's `conditions of: approval" for the Fmerald Pillage project. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Mestre Greve Associates Tanya NguydVl U 280 Newport Center Drive, Suite 230 • Newport Beach, Cahtornia 92660 • (714) 760.0891 28 UA WILLIAM R. ISHII & ASSOCIATES9 INC. ELECTRICAL & MECHANICAL ENGINEERS 10805 HOLDER STREET • SUITE 150 • CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA 90630 • (714) 236-0492 September 6, 1990 City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658-89L5 Re: Summerhouse - Plan Corrections Condition of Approval use Permit #l3342 3901 Past Coast highway PC8895-90 CONCITION 28 - Lightinq System 35 - Mechanical equip6enL- sound attenuate ACTION Area Liqhtinq system is so desiqned to conceal the liqht source and to minimize light spillaqe and glare to the adjacent residential users. The sound level of mechanical equipment at the property line do not exceed 55 dIIa_ if you have further questions please do not hesitate to call our office. Very truly yours, WILLIAM R Sung o SJ:yo ISHII & ASSOCIATES, INC. VOi 32 E M E R A L D EMERALD VILLAGE ASSOCIATES, INC. 4770 CAMPUS DRIVE SUITE 100 NEWPORT BEACII CA 92660 TEL. (714) 476-0880 FAx.(714)8i1-1915 September 24, 1990 A S S O C I A T E S Mr. Michael Adackapara California Regional Water Quality Control Board 6809 Indian Ave. Suite 200 Riverside, C \ 92506 via: Gertifoed Mall, Re . ., lRes ipt Requested f rSf'- (j455 MO-1 I re: SummerHouse Erosion Control Plan Dear Mr. Adackapara, Dance with our Conditional Use Permit #3342, issued by the lewport Beach, we are enclosing herein a copy of our Erosion Plan. )rovide any additional information, do not hesitate to call. ly, ;hristeson Vice President cc: Genia Kaznocha, N.B. Planning Department 34.. UROY CRANDAkna AND ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Coi,,...,tants • One of the Law Companies 7¢1 Fact Ran Rnnd. Suite 104. Anaheim. California 92805, Phone (714) 776-9544, Fax (714) 776-9541 Offices: April 30, 1990 Glendale Anaheim Christeson Company 4770 Campus Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Attention: Mr. Wayne Ahrens Vice President Gentlemen: Marina del Rey t : Sjp DWq 4/ E: D J U N 1 0 1990 EMERALD VILLAGE. ASSOC., IFIC. Conformance of Drawings to Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Personal Care Facility 3901 East Coast Highway Corona del Mar, Newport Beach, California for Emerald Village Associates. Inc. (LCA 089049.AEB) As requested by Mr. John Christeson, we have reviewed drawings for the project to determine if the project design is in accordance with the recommendations contained in our report of geotechnical investigation. The following documents have been submitted by our firm for the project: Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Crown House Senior Citizens Complex, East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive, Corona del Mar, Newport Beach, California, for the SJS Development Corporation dated March 3, 1986 (LCA AE-85412). Report of Supplementary Geotechnical Studies, Applicability of Prior Report, Proposed Emerald Village, East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive, Corona del Mar, Newport Beach, California, for Emerald Village Associates, Inc., dated September 15, 1989 (LCA 089049.AEB). Supplementary Design Data, Retaining Walls and Temporary Shoring, Recommendations for Landscaped Areas Adjacent to Slope, Clarification of Floor Slab Support on Grade, Proposed Emerald Village, East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive, Corona del Mar, Newport Beach, California, for Emerald Village Associates, Inc., letter dated February 19, 1990 (LCA 089049.AEB). SOUTH R QUALITY PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT/OPERATE 9150 FLAIR DRIVE, EL MONTE, CALIFORNIA 91731 CONTINUATION OF PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT/OPERATE Permit No. D33873 A/N 237978 Page 2 7. THE IGNITION TIMING OF THIS ENGINE SHALL BE INSPECTED, ADJUSTED, AND CERTIFIED, AT A MINIMUM, ONCE EVERY THREE YEARS OF OPERATION. INSPECTIONS, ADJUSTMENTS, AND CERTIFICATIONS SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A QUALIFIED MECHANIC AND ACCORDING TO THE ENGINE MANUFACTURER'S PROCEDURES. 8. AN OPERATING RECORD OF THIS EQUIPMENT SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A FORMAT APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT. THE RECORD SHALL INCLUDE, AT A MINIMUM, THE HOURS AND DAYS OF OPERATION AND THE QUANTITY OF FUEL USED. THE OPERATING RECORD SHALL BE KEPT FOR A MINIMUM OF TWO YEARS AND MADE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST OF DISTRICT PERSONNEL. 9. FUEL OIL SUPPLIED TO THIS ENGINE SHALL BE NO. 2 OR LIGHTER GRADE AS DESCRIBED BY THE LATEST ASTM SPECIFICATIONS AND SHALL HAVE A SULFUR CONTENT OF NOT MORE THAN 0.05% BY WEIGHT. NOTICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 206, THIS PERMIT TO OPERATE OR COPY SHALL BE POSTED ON OR WITHIN 8 METERS OF THE EQUIPMENT. THIS PERMIT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE EMISSION OF AIR CONTAMINANTS IN EXCESS OF THOSE ALLOWED BY DIVISION 26 OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR THE RULES OF THE AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. THIS PERMIT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS PERMISSION TO VIOLATE EXISTING LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS OR STATUTES OF OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. EXECUTIVE,QFFICER By FL' quel Puerta/lv November 16, 1990 ORIGINAL FT,zr-v-- WED APR 10 1991 1 v L'I:'E:Rhi0 V1L LAGI ASS0C. IIIC. STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY OFF U^I Cna� �romor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION Page 1 of SOUTH COAST AREA Date: A ri 1 9 245 WEST BROADWAY. SUITE 380 Permit No. 5- LONG BEACH, CA 90S02 (213) 590-5071 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT On September 14, 1989, the California Coastal Commission granted to this permit subject to the attached Stan development consisting of: conditions, for Demolish existing facilities and construct an 84 unit senior assisted care - facility, 32 feet high, 48,588 sq. ft. of rental units and auxillary space; and 13,920 sq, ft. of subterranean parking with 47 tandem parking spaces. more specifically described in the application file in the Commission offices. The development is within the coastal zone in Issued on behalf of the California Coastal Commission by PETER DOUGLAS Executive Director County at By: Title: Staff Analvst ACKNOWLEDGMENT The undersigned permittee acknowledges receipt of this permit and agrees to abide by all terms and conditions thereof, The undersigned permittee acknowledges that Government Code Section 818.4 which states in pertinent part, that: "A public entity is not liable for injury caused by the issuance. . . of any permit. . ." applies to the issuance of this permit. IMPORTANT: THIS PERMIT IS NOT VALID UNLESS AND UNTIL A COPY OF THE PERMIT WITH THE SIGNED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT HAS BEEN RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION OFFICE. 14 Cal. Admin. Code Section 13158(a). Date'— Si nature of Perms ee V. P. t t I ITL Asr% oel ^c GoNoii.� 1 POR @v CITY OF NEVI PORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659-1768 c'9C7 FO RN�P August 8, 1990 Wayne Sylvester, General Manager County Sanitation Districts of Orange County 10844 Ellis Avenue, Post Office Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92728-8127 Subject: 84-unit Summerhouse Senior Care Development 3901 East Coast Highway, Corona Del Mar Sewer & Water Connections To Those Concerned: The City of Newport Beach has sufficient water supply capacity to serve the subject project. Sewerage can be provided for the subject project also. Provision of both water and sewerage service is contingent upon developer installed connections and/or system improvements to the water distribution and the sewer collection systems in accord with City standards. The specific requirements for this project have not yet been reviewed. However, the City will provide water and sewer services on the assumption that any necessary system improvements will be provided by the developer. In the instance of this project, sewer mains and sewer pumping facilities may have to be installed adjacent to, or on the project site. The City will maintain facilities in the public right-of-way. If you have questions, please call me at (714) 644-3011. Very truly yours, Mb Jeff Staneart, P.E. Deputy Utilities Director JS: sdi cc: Bob Dixon Pete Mtista Ed Burt 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach 73 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALi PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT/OPERATE P, EC EI VE NOY 2 8 1990 9150 FLAIR DRIVE, EL MONTE, CALIFORNIA 91731 [KRALD VILLAGE This initial permit shall be renewed by 04/01 ANNUALLY unless the equipment is moved, or changes ownership. If the billing for annual renewal fee (Rule 301.f) is not received by the expiration date, contact the District. Legal Owner ID 81735 Or Operator: EMERALD VILLAGE ASSOC., INC. SUMMERHOUSE DBA 4770 CAMPUS DRIVE, STE.100 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ATTN. JON CHRISTESON Equipment located at: 3901 E. COAST HIGHWAY, CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA Equipment Description: INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE, JOHN DEERE, DIESEL -FUELED, EMERGENCY ELECTRICAL GENERATION, MODEL NO.6076A, 6 CYLINDERS, FOUR CYCLE, TURBOCHARGED, AFTERCOOLED, 289 BHP, WITH 1 EXHAUST. D33873 AIN 237978 Page 1 Conditions: 1. OPERATION OF THIS EQUIPMENT SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL DATA AND SPECIFICATIONS SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION UNDER WHICH THIS PERMIT IS ISSUED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED BELOW. 2. THIS EQUIPMENT SHALL BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED AND KEPT IN GOOD OPERATING CONDITION AT ALL TIMES. 3. AN ELAPSED TIME METER SHALL BE INSTALLED/MAINTAINED, SO AS TO INDICATE IN CUMULATIVE HOURS, THE AMOUNT OF TIME THE ENGINE HAS OPERATED. 4. THE ENGINE IS LIMITED TO AN OPERATING SCHEDULE OF NO MORE THAN 18.1 HOURS IN ANY ONE DAY AND NO MORE THAN 125 HOURS (CUMULATIVE) IN ANY ONE CALENDAR YEAR UNLESS ADDITIONAL HOURS ARE OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER. THIS EQUIPMENT MAY ONLY OPERATED DURING -MAINTENANCE TESTING, PERFORMANCE TESTING, OR IN CASES OF EMERGENCY. S. THE UNCONTROLLED EMISSION RATE OF REACTIVE ORGANIC GASES SHALL NOT EXCEED 0.26 LB/HR; THE UNCONTROLLED EMISSION RATE OF OXIDES OF NITROGEN SHALL NOT EXCEED 6.3 LB/HR. 6. THE FUEL INJECTION TIMING OF THIS ENGINE SHALL BE RETARDED A MINIMUM OF 4 DEGREES RELATIVE TO STANDARD TIMING. ORIGINAL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Present x x Motion Ayes x x Abstain Motion All Ayes MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING PLACE: Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: April 24, 1989 Mayor Strauss presented a Proclamation in recognition of Professional Secretaries Week. Mayor Strauss also presented Proclamations to the five Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program essay contest winners. A. ROLL CALL. B. Reading of Minutes of Meeting of April 10, 1989, was waived, approved as written, and ordered filed. C. Reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions under consideration was waived, and City Clerk was directed to read by titles only. D. HEARINGS: 1. Mayor Strauss opened the public hearing and City Council review of: TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 54 A request of EMERALD ASSOCIATES, Newport Beach, to approve a traffic study so as to permit the construction of an 85 unit elderly personal care facility located at 3901 East Coast Highway, Corona del Mar; zoned P-C; 0 USE PERMIT NO. 3342 A request of EMERALD ASSOCIATES, Newport Beach, to permit the construction of an 85 unit elderly personal care facility on property located in the P-C District. The proposal also includes a request to allow a portion of the structure to exceed the 32 foot basic height limit in the 32/50 Height Limitation District; a request to establish an off-street parking requirement based on a demonstrated formula; a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of tandem parking spaces in conjunction with a full-time valet parking service; and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. Report from the Planning Department. Letters to Council with 75 signatures in favor of subject project. Letters to Council with 130 signatures in opposition to subject project. Volume 43 - Page 140 /P 3342 Msw . (88) c Study 54 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES C0� April 24, 1989 The City Clerk advised that after the U/P 3342 agenda was printed, 56 additional signatures were received in favor of the subject project, and 148 signatures in opposition. David Neish, representing the applicants, addressed the Council and summarized the proposal. He stated they felt the facility is unique to the property and is compatible with the recently adopted General Plan. The project represents a 300% reduction 1n traffic, compared with present use on the site, and has been reduced in size from 120 to 85 units. The building was originally designed with 66,500 sq. ft., but has been reduced to 50,060 sq. ft.; landscaped areas have increased from 57% to 63%; and heights have been lowered and setbacks increased. After a land use analysis was completed on the site, they felt the proposed elderly care facility was the best use for the property., John Christeson, Vice -President of Emerald Associates, addressed the Council in support of their request. He stated they were aware that traffic was a major concern, but inasmuch as the residents residing at the facility would not be driving, there would be one -tenth of the traffic currently generated by a commercial use permitted under the new General Plan. With regard to open space, they propose a 22,000 sq. ft. front yard with 63% landscaped as open area. He compared the differences between single-family use and senior housing on the site relating to traffic, building height, parking, floor area ratios, etc. He stated he felt the City needs a personal care facility of this type and that it would be a definite asset to the community. Victor Regnier, Associate Professor of Gerontology and Architecture at USC, addressed the Council on behalf of the applicants and stated that he has visited approximately 200-250 senior care facilities in the United States and Europe, and in the past 10 years, he has worked on approximately 80 senior projects varying in size from 20 to 1400 units. He felt the site was excellent for the proposed project, inasmuch as it provides access to Pacific Coast Highway as well as easy access to visitors of the facility. He stated that older Volume 43 - Page 141 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES C+ 6c O� April 24, 1989 persons have a desire to be located in an area where there is street activity, and also where there is a passive view of the ocean. He advised that there is a crisis as to the need for senior housing for those persons older than 75 years of age, and that the proposed project will only fulfill one-third of the demand. In conclusion, he commented that the City "desperately" needs this type of facility, and urged approval. Emily Headly, Vice -President of Transamerica Retirement Properties, addressed the Council on behalf of the applicants, and stated that if the project is approved, their property management company would operate the facility. She explained the difference between residential, convalescent and congregate care pursuant to State regulations. With regard to employee parking, she felt that less than half of the staff would be driving their own automobiles and others would be carpooling, or using public transportation. Concerning any increase in traffic, their busiest time would be the change in shifts at 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. She also estimates only eight deliveries per week. She summarized the "manning" of the facility,•and indicated there would be one skilled attendant per 25 occupants. She stated that the average age of residents in apersonal care facility is 77, but that legally they are required to accept anyone 62 years of age or older. In response to question raised by Council Member Sansone, Mr. Regnier stated that noise is a major issue which they attempt to mitigate when designing a building. As to air pollution and emission from vehicles along Pacific Coast Highway, Mr. Regnier indicated he felt it was not a serious problem, inasmuch as the residents would be living near the ocean, which could be of some benefit to those persons who may have emphysema, respiratory problems, etc. Mr. Neish addressed the Council again and closed his remarks as follows: 1) The proposal will generate considerable less traffic than the current existing project; Volume 43 - Page 142 U/P 3342 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES co a 9 \�� � +l!'��A f►G��A April 24, 1989 2) The proposal represents the least intense project in terms of overall traffic generation as compared with any other land use; 3) 63% of site will be open space. With regard to the proposed 42 parking spaces, Mr. Neigh stated that if all the employees drive individually to the facility each day, there will still be ample parking space to accommodate them. He stated they concur in the findings and recommendations of the staff and request the City Council to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission. In response to question raised by Mayor Pro Tem Plummer, Mr. Neigh stated that the applicant will commit to improving the City -owned open space area adjacent to the subject property for a view park purpose. He also stated they would donate to the City any trees currently on the site that they could not use in the project. With regard to the parking question raised by Council Member Turner, Mr. Neigh advised that a condition was added by the Planning Commission, which states that "the garden area above the subterranean parking lot shall be constructed of building materials that will permit said garden area to be converted to additional parking spaces, if needed, in the future." He also commented that they are looking into the feasibility of allowing some of the Five Crown Restaurant employees to park at the proposed senior facility in the evening, and therefore, they would not have to park on the public streets. in response to inquiry of Council Member Hart regarding possible development standards for this project, the Planning Director stated that the subject property is in a P-C Zone, and there are three methods in which a development plan can be adopted for a planned -community district, i.e., 1) reference to an existing zoning district, or a combination of different zoning districts; 2) a "custom" zoning ordinance for this particular piece of property which would set forth development standards for a specific Volume 43 - Page 143 DIP 3342 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 0 NApril 24, 1989 type of use; or 3) be site specific and u/P 3342' come back to the City Council with a specific proposal. He stated it is not the staff's intention to come back to the City Council at any future date with specific development standards for assisted living or congregate care facilities outside of what has already been presented. In response to question raised by Council Member Hart regarding total gross area footage, Mr. Neish reported that said amount is 50,060 sq. ft., not including the covered parking which is 13,480 sq. ft. The footprint of the building is 16,858 sq. ft. The Planning Director advised that covered parking, mechanical spaces, rooms devoted to telephone switching, electrical and plumbing spaces, etc., have never been included in computing total gross floor area ratio within a building. With regard to height limit, Mr. Neish stated that the only area which exceeds the height limit is the "cupola," an architectural feature which, by code, is allowed to exceed the basic height limit. The following persons addressed the Council in opposition to the project: Len Seltzer, 519 Hazel Drive, indicated the community felt this facility was inappropriate for the site due to its size, related traffic and parking problems, and could set a precedent for the area. They also felt the building should be constructed at a more "logical" location, and that the site should be utilized as a park, or single-family housing. Jim Crane, 323 Driftwood Road, stated he resides within two blocks of the proposed project and has lived in the City his entire 66 years. He expressed his concerns with regard to increased traffic, the possibility of the facility going out of business, employee parking, and number of deliveries to the site. Volume 43 - Page 144 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES fr avy9� o+ N April 24, 1989 Dick Nichols, 519 Iris Avenue, U/P 3342 President, Corona del Mar Community Association, discussed the height limit and floor area ratio for the proposed project, trash and delivery areas, parking, and setback areas. He indicated the proposed facility was not viable for this property, inasmuch as it is adjacent to residential use. Mary Gilchrist, 441 Seaward Road, stated she has been in the field of nursing for 27 years, and has not heard anyone mention such items as patients in wheelchairs, number of trips for medical treatment, number of parking spaces to be required for family visitors and recreational activities. She stated that the proposed one attendant for every 25 patients for medication was inadequate according to finding of Attorney General Van de Kamp. She also commented that it was her understanding that the Kirkwood Motel has recently been sold and there is a proposal to convert the building into condominiums which would be another impact on traffic in the area. The following persons addressed the Council in favor of the project: Luvena Hayton, 235 Poppy Avenue, stated she has lived in Corona del Mar for 38 years and has seen nine restaurants fail at the subject site due to the location being too far removed from the business district. She felt it was time the site was used for the "good of the area," and that the proposal of Emerald Associates will fill the need in the community, as well as greatly enhance the beauty of the site. She was opposed to the property being converted to a park or used for single family housing. Jack Dunn, 174 Shorecliff Road, stated he has lived in the area for 25 years and has seen a number of businesses come and go on the site. He felt the proposed project was the best suited for the property, and would be of great benefit to the community. Volume 43 — Page 145 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES April 24, 1989 Phil DeCarion, 2524 Ocean Boulevard, stated .that he has failed twice as a restauranteur at the,subject location, and that Emerald Associates has put together, a project which will have lesa' traffic problems as well as less deliveries than a restaurant, Del Bunn, Physician in the community, stated there is a definite need for this type of facility, and he felt that people will oppose the project no matter where it is located. He stated it is very frustrating to him to have to recommend an elderly care facility that is located outside the city to a patient who resides in Newport Beach and who .would like to remain here. Irving Burg, 2301 Bayside Drive, stated that persons who choose to continue living in the City in their later years do not have a place to go unless a project such as the one being proposed is allowed. Dee Masters, 140 Fernleaf Avenue, stated that the developer has complied with all of the City's regulations for the use requested, and should, therefore, be allowed to proceed. She stated she welcomed the proposed project as she felt it would clean up the existing "tacky" appearing building., She also felt the applicants should be applauded for their efforts and time spent with the individual community groups. John Killefer, 161 Shorecliff Road, stated he has been a resident for 23 years and felt the proposal was a very viable, workable project. He highlighted some of the nuisance problems as a result of the various restaurants that have been located on the site. He indicated the City now has the opportunity of "getting rid of an absolutely abominable building," which contains a restaurant, flower shop, nail salon and dog grooming shop, and urged the Council to sustain the action of Volume 43 - Page 146 U/P 3342 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES co \C0-0F0 * April 24, 1989 the Planning Commission and approve U/P 3342 the project. He added that the Shorecliff Community Association took no position on this proposal. Robert J. Moore, 1216 Sandpoint Way, stated that he was opposed to this project initially, but after reviewing it in detail, he strongly recommends its approval. Elizabeth Skinner, 1233 Portside Way, stated she and her husband have been residents for 37 years; are in their early eighties; and would very much like to be one of the first occupants of the proposed facility if it is approved. She stated it is their desire to spend their golden years near their family in Newport Beach. Renfro Newcomb, 3 Sandbar, stated he has been a resident of Corona del Mar for almost 32 years, and felt the proposed project was the "best thing that could happen" to the subject property. The following additional persons spoke in opposition to the project: Walter Ziglar, 327 Poppy Avenue, stated that many of those speaking in favor of the project do not live within 1,000 feet of the subject area. He also does not feel the development will reduce traffic as stated by the applicant, and disputed many of the remarks made by previous speakers regarding parking, use of public transportation, etc. He submitted a petition with 40 signatures in opposition to the project from residents in Shorecliff. Alana Peters (no address given) stated she has a Masters Degree in Gerontology and is an advocate for senior citizens; however, she felt the subject proposal could be a "disaster" socially and environmentally. She indicated that due,to past experience, she believes the project as proposed will be short—term and transitional between an active life and a higher level of care or death. The cost would be prohibitive to most Volume 43 — Page 147 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES \y��sOy�;3tA9G�N April 24, 1989 seniors as they do not want to pay out hard earned money for this type of care. She felt the owner/ builder would be in financial straits within two years at which time they could possibly turn the senior residency into a hotel. Marian Parks, 233 Morning Canyon, indicated she was opposed to the project primarily because of increased traffic generation, parking problems for Shorecliff residents, and noise. She also felt that since the facility was legally required to accept seniors 62 years of age or older, this "opened wide" the possibility of a totally different type of facility than what is currently proposed. She urged the Council to deny the project and any other facility for the elderly in Corona del Mar. Dan Wiseman, 336 Hazel Drive, stated he cannot dispute the need for senior housing, and complimented the developer for his efforts, but felt the location was a poor choice and the project should be denied. John Christeson addressed -the Council again, and responded to previous comments regarding subterranean parking, trash and delivery areas, wheel chair patients, visitor parking spaces, traffic volumes, etc. In response to question raised by Council Member Turner regarding the Housing Element, Craig Bluell of the Planning Department, stated that the City's Housing Element addresses all the legal requirements of State law, and those requirements specify that the City provide a variety of housing types for all income segments of the community. There are two programs in the Housing Element, which address the issue, i.e., 1) the City will achieve a variety of housing types; and 2) senior housing programs. On the issue of the amount of housing, State law does not specify the City provide any specific amount to senior citizens; however, it does specify housing shall be provided in total to meet a specific target and that those units be provided to meet the income segments of the community. Volume 43 — Page 148 U/P 3342 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES L C0 4 April 24, 1989 Council Member Sansone commented, in part, that he felt the majority of opposition to this project is a result of frustration that has been developed in old Corona del Mar due to the already existing parking problems in the area. The City has allowed an intensification of land use in old Corona del Mar through the commercial district and also an intensification of mass and bulk through the residential area, which is destroying some of that community. if building continues in this area, as has been in the past, it will no longer be a "lovely" area much longer. Ile also felt that the majority of residential property constructed in old Corona del Mar is speculation, with no consideration being given to the community. He expressed his concerns regarding fire access to the site, operation of the facility, parking and traffic. In closing, he indicated he could possibly support the project, to some degree, if the bulk and mass were reduced. Council Member Watt commented that she has viewed the site and is aware of the residents' desire to protect their residential neighborhood and views. She also recognizes the need for elderly care facilities, but feels the proposed use is "wrong" for this site, and that there are other sites available in the City for this type of facility. She felt the best use for the subject property would be open space, or single-family residential. Council Member Hart asked the applicant if the building could be reduced to .75 x buildable including parking, whereupon Mr. Christeson replied "no." Council Member Hart stated she was very disappointed in Mr. Christeson's answer, as she thought the project was .75 x buildable, including parking, until this evening. She also does not think single-family homes would be appropriate at the site; therefore, if there is no way to reduce the "bulk and mass" to something approximately .75 x buildable, she will have to oppose it. Council Member Turner stated that in the recent adoption of the General Plan Amendment, the Council approved a program whereby building is allowed up to .75, with parking below ground not Volume 43 - Page 149 UP 3342 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Motion Ayes Noes COUNCIL MEMBERS A \10-09 Cto the NN April 24, 1989 x I x I x I x I x I x I x included in the calculation, and this applicant has designed a project which complies with the requirements of the General Plan "to the letter." MINUTES Hearing no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Christeson addressed the Council again and stated he was aware of the concerns regarding the "bulk and mass," and if there were no objections, they would like to continue the public hearing and look into the feasibility of coming back with a more "palatable" looking structure. In view of the foregoing, motion was made to reopen the public hearing and continue to May 22, 1989. 2. Mayor Strauss opened the public hearing regarding the PROPOSED "STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES AND PROPOSED USE OF FUNDS" FOR THE 1989/90 FISCAL YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM. Report from the Planning Department. Request from "Street People In Need" (SPIN) for assistance. The City Manager summarized the funding recommendations set forth as Items 1 through 14. He stated the total funding allocated from HUD is $423,000; however, the available total amount for social services programs is 15%, or $63,450. It was pointed out that three late requests had been received from the following organizations: 1) S.P.I.N. - Street People in Need, Newport Beach; 2) Assessment and Treatment Services Center; 3) Y.M.C.A., Newport Beach. Charlene M. Turco, Executive Director for S.P.I.N., addressed the Council in support of their request for $4,928.40. She stated the funds would be used to provide free services to homeless people. S.P.I.N, was founded in 1987 by a group of Newport Beach residents who Volume 43 - Page 150 U/P 3342 CDBG '89/90 Program (87) s .9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH * MINUT6� April 24, 1989 recognized that increasing numbers of individuals were left unprotected by the "safety net," leaving them hungry and unsheltered. Three times each week, Newport Beach volunteers assemble and distribute food, clothing, personal hygiene and medical items to these people. She urged the Council to approve their request in order that the City many participate in programs to assist the homeless. Gloria Smith, Executive Director for the Assessment and Treatment Services Center, addressed the Council and stated that they accept referrals from all the Newport -Mesa High Schools, and have been the diversion program for the City's police department since 1972 when it was initially a federally -granted program. She stated they are a privately -funded nonprofit organization and receive no direct federal, state or county funds; however, they do receive about 9X of their budget from United Way. They are a family counseling center and last year they serviced 78 homes from Newport Beach. They are making a structural change in their building which is estimated to cost $7,800; and therefore, they are requesting $4,000 to help defray the construction cost. Alison Klakovich, Administrative Assistant with Orange County Homeless Issues Task Force, addressed the Council and commended the City for making homeless issues the number one priority for the City's social services program, and stated that to her knowledge, Newport Beach is the first City in Orange County to have done this. She also commended the City on the formula they have developed regarding CDBG funding, allocating an equal percent of what the City's share is in the County to regional solutions to homelessness. She added that the City has also taken a leadership role in the County and has issued a challenge to other cities to meet their commitment to regional solutions. She expressed appreciation for the allocation of $1,500 recommended by staff, but indicated she would like her request be reconsidered for an increased amount. Diane Russell, representing South Coast Y.W.C.A. Hotel for Homeless Women, addressed the Council in support of their request for $20,000 to provide Volume 43 - Page 151 CDBG '89/90 Program ivis. Genia Garcia April 2, 1991 Page 2 10. Sanitation Fees: All fees will be paid simultaneously with the pulling of Building Permits. 11. Off-street Parking: Plans contain compliance requirements set forth in the Use Permit. Traffic signature is evidence of approval.. 12. Construction: Building Department will follow approval of the Plsning Department. 13. through 19. Fire Access: The signature of the Fire Department on the Plans is evidence of the required approval. 20. Planter Height. Included in the Plans. Evidenced by Planning Department review and signature. 21. Valet Parking: This is an operating condition covered by the Letter of Compliance, attached herein. 22. Employee Parking: This is an operating condition covered by the Letter of Compliance, enclosed herein. 23. Equipment and Trash Screen: Included in the Plans. Evidenced by Planning Department Review and signature. 24. Signs: No signage is included in the Plans. The signage will be developed and submitted separately at a later date. 25. Landscaping: Landscaping drawings have been submitted and approved by Public Works, as evidenced by signature on the Landscape Plans. 26. Landscape Plans: The Plans submitted contain the required landscaping plans. 27. Landscape Plan: The signature of the P,B & R Department on the Plans is evidence of the required approval. 28. Lighting System: The submitted Plans include the required lighting plan, signed by an electrical engineer. The letter required of the engineer is enclosed herein. 29. Grading Permit: A grading permit has been applied for. A copy of our application us enclosed, and a permit will be pulled upon receipt of Planning Department approval. 30. Drainage Plan: The Grading Plan as submitted and approved includes temporary and permanent drainage and siltation plans. Ms. Genia Garcia April2, 1991 Page 3 31. Haul Routes: The subcontractor will submit haul routes and other maintenance plan items upon pulling the permit, as is customary. 32. Erosion Control Plan: See #30. A copy of this plan has been forwarded to the CRWQCB as evidenced by the transmittal copy enclosed. 33. Runoff Control: The hydrology study included with the Civil Engineering Plans includes this data. 34. Grading Plans: Soils and Geological Reports have been submitted. A letter from the Soils Engineer evidencing compliance with recommendations is enclosed. 35. Rooftop Equipment: A letter is enclosed from the mechanical engineer evidencing compliance with this requirement. 36. Sound Attenuation: A complete accoustical evaluation has been prepared and submitted with the Plans. The requirements of the report have been noted on the plans for the affected units. Compliance with the pre -occupancy portion of this requirement is noted in the Letter of Compliance. 37. Construction Fence: See Letter of Compliance. A construction fencing plan will be prepared and a separate permit sought at the appropriate time. 38. Traffic Control Plan: See Letter of Compliance. A plan is being prepared by the General Contractor and will be submitted to - Public Works Department prior to construction. 39. Handicapped Parking. See Letter of Compliance. Signature of Traffic is evidence of compliance and approval. 40. Inspection Fees: These fees must be paid at the time we pull the permit. 41. to 45. See Letter of Compliance. 46. Deed Restriction: The deed restriction has been approved by the City Attorney and recorded as evidenced by the conformed copy enclosed herein. 47. Coastal Commission: The Letter of Permit Effectiveness is being sent directly to you by the Coastal Commission and should be in your hands by April 2, 1991. 48. Future Conditions: See Letter of Compliance. 49. Facility Operation: See Letter of Compliance. Ms. Genia Garcia April 2, 1991 Page 4 50. Tree Height: See Letter of Compliance. 51. Bus Service: See Letter of Compliance. 52. Garden Construction: A letter from the Structural Engineer evidencing compliance is enclosed 53. Parking Survey: See Letter of Compliance. 54. Public Lookout: The signature of the Public Works Departmen is evidence of the required approval. The surety agreement being handled by the Public Works Department will also cover this work. They will not allow us to pull permits without completing this agreement. 55. Vegetation Maintenance: This is included in the Landscape Plan. Approval is evidenced by the signature of the Fire Department.. 56. Construction Parking: A letter from The Five Crowns allowing construction period parking is enclosed. <7-10 days away> 57. Sidewalk Improvements: See #54. 58. Traffic Signal: Cal trans has no interest in a traffic signal at this time. They also don't seem to have any interest in writing me a letter to this effect. Please call Tony Liudzius at the Santa Ana Cal -Trans Engineering Department at 724-2183 for confirmation. We trust that this body of information will be satisfactory to the Planning Department and enable them to stamp and sign our plans as approved. With this approval we will be released to complete the surety agreements and pay the fees required to begin pulling our grading and building permits. Thank you very much for your continued assistance with this process. Sincerely, Jon E. Christeson Vice President encl. 52. Conversion of Garden Deck into Parking 53. Parking Survey 55. Buck Gulley Landscape Maintenance Please note that these subheadings are used for convenience only and are not to be construed as supplementing or interpreting the precise wording of the actual condition as stated in the Permit. If we can provide further information, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely .0 setnetson Ms. Genia Garcia April 2, 1991 Page 3 31. Haul Routes: The subcontractor will submit haul routes and other maintenance plan items upon pulling the permit, as is customary. 32. Erosion Control Plan: See #30. A copy of this plan has been forwarded to the CRWQCB as evidenced by the transmittal copy enclosed. 33. Runoff Control: The hydrology study included with the Civil Engineering Plans includes this data. 34. Grading Plans: Soils and Geological Reports have been submitted. A letter from the Soils Engineer evidencing compliance with recommendations is enclosed. 35. Rooftop Equipment: A letter is enclosed from the mechanical engineer evidencing compliance with this requirement. 36. Sound Attenuation: A complete accoustical evaluation has been prepared and submitted with the Plans. The requirements of the report have been noted on the plans for the affected units. Compliance with the pre -occupancy portion of this requirement is noted in the Letter of Compliance. 37. Construction Fence: See Letter of Compliance. A construction fencing plan will be prepared and a separate permit sought at the appropriate time. 38. Traffic Control Plan: See Letter of Compliance. A plan is being prepared by the General Contractor and will be submitted to Public Works Department prior to construction. 39. Handicapped Parking. See Letter of Compliance. Signature of Traffic is evidence of plan compliance and approval. 40. Inspection Fees: These fees must be paid at the time we pull the permit. 41. to 45. See Letter of Compliance. 46. Deed Restriction: The deed restriction has been approved by the City Attorney and recorded as evidenced by the conformed copy enclosed herein. 47. Coastal Commission: The Letter of Permit Effectiveness has been sent directly to you by the Coastal Commission. 48. Future Conditions: See Letter of Compliance. 49. Facility Operation: See Letter of Compliance. Ms. Genia Garcia April 2, 1991 Page 4 50. Tree Height: See Letter of Compliance. 51. Bus Service: See Letter of Compliance. 52. Garden Construction: A letter from the Structural Engineer evidencing compliance is enclosed. 53. Parking Survey: See Letter of Compliance. 54. Public Lookout: The signature of the Public Works Department is evidence of the required approval. The surety agreement being handled by the Public Works Department will also cover this work. They will not allow us to pull permits without completing this agreement. 55. Vegetation Maintenance: This is included in the Landscape Plan. Approval is evidenced by the signature of the Fire Department.. 56. Construction Parking: A letter from The Five Crowns allowing construction period parking is enclosed. 57. Sidewalk Improvements: See #54. 58. Traffic Signal: Cal trans has no interest in a traffic signal at this time. They also don't seem to have any interest in writing me a letter to this effect. Please call Tony Liudzius at the Santa Ana Cal -Trans Engineering Department at 724-2183 for confirmation. We trust that this body of information will be satisfactory to the Planning Department and enable them to stamp and sign our plans as approved. With this approval we will be released to complete the surety agreements and pay the fees required to begin pulling our grading and building permits. Thank you very much for your continued assistance with this process. Sincerely, je E. Cist President encl. coNDtT►a,G 2,4 d*--Z E M E R A L D A S S O C EMERALD VILLAGE ASSOCIATES, INC. 4770 CAMPUS DRIVE SUITE 100 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 TEL. (714)476.0880 FAx. (714) 851-1918 October 1, 1990 Ms. Genia Kaznocha, Assistant Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92659 I A T E S re: Conditional Use Permit Requirements for SummerHouse CUP #: 3342 PC#: 895-90 Dear Genia , This letter is to serve as our "Letter of Compliance" for the above - referenced Use Permit. We herein reiterate our commitment to comply with all the conditions of the permit, including those which control future operations. These conditions, which cannot be fully implemented at this time, include the following: 21. Valet Parking Requirement 22. On -site Employee Parking 36. Sound Attenuation and Certification 37. Construction Fencing 38. Traffic Control Plan 39. Handicapped Parking Compliance 41. Maximum Occupancy and Operating Reports 43. Age RestrictedOccupancy 44. No Public Commercial Uses 45. No Resident's Parking 48. Subject to Future Conditions 49. Personal Care Facility Only 50. Tree Height Restriction 51. Park and Ride Service 0i April 16, 1991 TO: CHRISTY TEAGUE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: TRAFFIC ENGINEER SUBJECT: REVISED FAIR SHARE FEES FOR EMERALD VILLAGE PROJECT The Fair Share Fee for the proposed 84 unit Personal Care Facility known as Emerald Village is $24.42*-.-23._/This fee was calculated based upon the following: �' 1. The project will result in a 219 daily trips according to the traffic study approved by the City Council on May 22, 1989. The study was based upon 130 units but has been factored to the current proposal for 84 units. 2. There has been no traffic generating use on the site during the past twelve months, hence'no credits. 3. The current Fair Share fee is $1 K 17 per daily trip. Please contact me if you have any questions agarding the fee. NOTE: THIS MEMO SUPERCEDES MY MEMO DATED APRIL 2, 1991 Qt".t.ae pl� &Um� Richard M. Edmonston Traffic Engineer WP\FRSHREMR.VL2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES G REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING `\k000 0 PLACE: Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. to tn,D NS DATE: May 22, 1989 Present Ix I x Motion All Ayes Motion All Ayes x A presentation of poppies was given to Mayor Strauss and Council Members in recognition of the ANNUAL POPPY DAY PROGRAM. X 1 A. ROLL CALL. B. Reading of Minutes of Meeting of May 8, 1989, was waived, approved with correction to line 18 on Page 196 as follows, and ordered filed: "With regard to the Laventhol & Horwath report, Mayor Strauss stated...... and that there are no cities in Orange County that take part of the occupancy tax and allocate it to a convention and visitors bureau;" C. Reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions under consideration was waived, and,City Clerk was directed to read by titles only. D. HEARINGS: 1. Mayor Strauss opened the continued public hearing and City Council review of: A. TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 54 - A request of EMERALD ASSOCIATES, Newport Beach, to approve a traffic study so as to permit the construction of an 85 unit elderly personal care facility located at 3901 East Coast Highway, Corona del Mar; zoned P-C; IE B. USE PERMIT NO. 3342 - A request of EMERALD ASSOCIATES, Newport Beach, to permit the construction of an 85 unit elderly personal care facility on property located in the P-C District. The proposal also includes a request to allow a portion of the structure to exceed the 32 foot basic height limit in the 32/50 Height Limitation District; a request to establish an off-street parking requirement based on a demonstrated formula; a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of tandem parking spaces in conjunction with a full-time valet parking service; and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. Report from the Planning Department. Volume 43 - Page 200 Traffic Study No. 54 J/P 3342 (88) f CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES \G�d' May 22, 1989 Letter from Doctors and Nurses Medical U/P 3342 Management, Inc., dated May 1, suggesting Council deny the subject use permit. It was noted that at the request of the applicant, this item was continued from the City Council meeting of April 24, 1989, to allow the applicant additional time to make further revisions to the proposed project which would address concerns relative to the "bulk and mass" of the proposed building. The applicant has removed almost all of the above grade portion of Wing "B," thereby creating a minimum 50 foot wide view corridor through the middle of the project. The square footage which comprised the upper two levels of Wing "B" has been relocated to the northwesterly portion of the site adjacent to Hazel Drive and is shown as Wing "D" on the plans. The addition of Wing "D" over the subterranean parking area will allow the applicant to maintain the 85 units which they have previously indicated is the bottom line that the project will support. Other changes to the project include: Four additional off-street parking spaces within the subterranean parking area, bringing the total number of parking spaces from 42 to 46. An independent van storage area was included in both plans; 2. An increased setback of 20 feet (previously 15 feet) on Wing "C" adjacent to the southerly R-1 Lot fronting on Hazel Drive; 3,/ A reduced setback of 23± feet (previously 30 feet) on Wing "A" adjacent to East Coast Highway; A reduced setback of 19± feet (previously 29± feet) on Wing "A" adjacent to Buck Gully at East Coast Highway; and An overall reduction in height of 2 feet for the proposed elevator tower and cupola (from 41 feet to 39 feet). Volume 43 - Page 201 L CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 4 \G�0 May 22, 1989 It was further noted that if it is the U/P 3342 desire of the City Council to approve this matter, staff recommends Conditions of Approval No. 1 and 11 of Use Permit No. 3342 be revised as follows: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and sections approved by the City Council on May 22, 1989, except as noted below. 11. That a minimum of 46 off-street parking spaces shall be provided for the proposed development. John Christeson, Vice -President of Emerald Associates, addressed the Council and advised them of the following: They have redesigned the proposed building and are moving one-half of the view units out of what was previously Wing "C," placing them closer to the Five Crown property; and dividing the structure into two wings, which will provide a wide opening between the two buildings and create ocean views for residents living above the project, as well as views for pedestrians or motorists traveling down Pacific Coast Highway. They have also increased their parking by an additional 10% (42 parking spaces vs. 46); large area for van space; and moved the loading dock to accommodate parking spaces for two panel trucks. They also felt they have the ability to add an additional 11 parking spaces if deemed necessary by the City Council. The following persons addressed the Council in opposition to the proposed project: James A. Crane, 323 Driftwood Road, stated his primary concern was what would happen to the property if the elderly care facility were to go defunct; and the traffic that would be created on Shorecliff Road. Volume 43 - Page 202 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES , p ,fy n0 �9 VC -1 f �� May 22, 1989 Dick Nichols, 519 Iris Avenue, U/P 3342 indicated he felt the loading area was inadequate; that refuse should not be stored inside the building; handicapped parking spaces should be increased; and that the developer should have proposed single-family residential for the property as an alternative, as he felt the property was not the appropriate location for an elderly care facility. Wally Ziglat, 327 poppy Avenue, indicated it was his understanding the project was to be reduced by 25% as a result of action taken on this item two weeks ago, and stated that this issue has not been addressed by the developer. He referred to the proposed 70-foot gap in the middle of the building; parking and density. Haskell Shapiro, 287 Evening Canyon Road, stated he felt the subject location was inappropriate for the proposed facility. Len Seltzer, 519 Hazel Drive, stated he felt that 95% of the residents in the immediate area of the proposed project are in opposition due to its "massive" size, and if approved, it will be much larger than any other structure in the vicinity and would not 'fit with the ambience of Corona del Mar." The following persons addressed the Council in favor of the proposed project: Luvena Hayton, 235 Poppy Avenue, stated that she is a close neighbor to the proposed project; supports the concept of senior housing; the facility will greatly enhance the area; this type of elderly care is needed for senior residents who do not wish to move outside the City; the project will result in less traffic than any commercial venture; and the facility Will be a tremendous asset to the community. Volume 43 - Page 203 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES �p \.AMay 22, 1989 Resident of 2524 Ocean Boulevard, U/P 3342 in response to comment by Mr. Nichols, stated he was in the restaurant business and that it was very common to store and compact trash within a building. He felt the existing structure on the subject property was an eyesore and fire hazard, and that the community will benefit from the proposed project. Donald J. Regan, 924 W. Ocean Front, stated he was not speaking for, or against this project; that he is owner of and counsel to a company who owns 22 elderly care facilities throughout California and was not aware of a facility that would be "less" impactive on a municipality or a neighborhood than f what is being proposed. He added that in their facilities, the average age is 82, which means there are no late night parties; very few residents with current driver's licenses; parking is more than sufficient; and deliveries are always made at off-peak hours. Mr. Christeson addressed the Council again, and summarized some of what he felt were the key benefits of the project as follows: 1. It will be the lowest traffic generator of any use zoned for the site; 2. The facility will be operated professionally by Trans- america, Inc., who have been in this type of business for 20 years; 3. There are no other elderly care facilities in the City to serve the many long-time residents; 4. They comply with the updated General Plan and all the requirements of the Zoning Code, and will be providing more parking than required by Code; Volume 43 - Page 204 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Motion x a��9 y9� G� A ifs GNS May 22, 1989 5. The building is residential in U/P 3342 style and will be compatible with the village type of architecture in Corona del Mar; 6. They have support from approximately 100 residents in the area; two past presidents of the Friends of the Oasis, and unanimous support from the Planning Commission. With regard to Fire Department access, the Planning Director advised that he had met with Fire Chief Reed and a representative from the Building Department, wherein it was noted that there will be two levels of concrete and steel construction under the frame construction, and the project is required to conform to all building and fire codes in any case. Hearing no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Council Member Turner commented that the applicant has complied with the criteria for this site set forth by the City Council last October when the General Plan was updated; the project complies with all development standards required by the City and will generate less traffic than any other use for the property; and therefore, moved to sustain the decision of the Planning Commission; including revisions to Conditions of Approval No. 1 and No. Ili as enumerated in the staff report dated May 22, 1989; adding a new Condition of Approval requiring the developer to be responsible for the improvement of the public right-of-way adjacent to the view lookout at Glen Drive and Pacific Coast Highway, subject to approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department; and further, that an additional Condition of Approval be added to require that a plan for the control and maintenance of vegetation on the slope of Buck Gully shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department. Council Member Sansone stated he could not support the motion. He commented that when the Council updated the General Plan last October, he had requested the staff provide a complete Volume 43 - Page 203 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Motion 4 9 0,0 \Co-o \A N May 22, 1989 review of all perimeters incident to a U/P 3342 P-C district before development plans were accepted for processing on this site, which has not been done. It has been stated that this property is in the P-C Zone in the Land Use Element; however, pursuant to the Zoning Code, a minimum of 10 acres is needed for P-C Zoning, which the subject development does not have, and therefore, the Zoning Code should be amended. He also noted that many of the speakers and residents who spoke in favor of the project do not reside in old Corona del Mar, and consequently will not be affected by the impact this project will have on the area. He stated the site was inappropriate for the proposed use; the project was not supported by any of the homeowner associations in the area, nor the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce; the facility will be incompatible with the immediate area and will have a significant detrimental impact on the community; the facility will be understaffed to handle its residents; tandem parking will not work in this project; the employees will not use public transportation as mentioned previously; there is a lack of open space for recreational use by the patients; fire access is not adequate; and that traffic will be impacted on Pacific Coast Highway. In view of the foregoing comments, Council Member Sansone moved a substitute motion to overrule the decision of the Planning Commission and deny Use Permit No. 3342 and Traffic Study No. 54, stating the project under the circumstances will be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood, as well as detrimental or injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood. Council Member Watt stated that when the General Plan was adopted, she felt some essential issues, not just in this project but others, were left for Council discretion over the use of property and the intensity of that use, as well as the compatibility with the site itself and the neighborhood. Volume 43 - Page 206 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES !� * �f A GNP May 22, 1989 She added that the Council could judge U/P 3342 the proposed project's use and intensity raises questions of enough significance that it should be reduced or denied; questions about parking and safety consequences, and a failure of the exact use leads to more impacted use in the future; the size* bulk and scale of the structure and whether it is in keeping with the character and stability of the neighborhood. She felt the intensity was particularly out of scale on the Buck Gully side; that the developer could be induced to bring a project forth which would meet the basic .5 FAR standards, and that a project half the size as proposed would still be financially viable; that nearby residents have the most at stake as the future unfolds; and therefore, she will support the substitute motion made by Council Member Sansone. Mayor Pro Tem Plummer stated that if single-family residential housing was built on the site* as suggested by some speakers, there could be twice as much building and development, and because the housing would be on Pacific Coast Highway, a sound wall would have to be constructed. She felt the applicant has "bent over backwards" to meet the concerns of residents in old Corona del Mar, and inasmuch as the applicant has met all Code regulations, the City could be left open to a legal challenge if the use permit is not approved, and therefore, she will not support the substitute motion, Council Member Hart noted that employee parking is to be on site, which should alleviate the concerns of on -street parking in the residential areas; supports the subterranean parking garage; has reviewed the revised plans and feels that the redesigned project provides a great deal of public benefit, inasmuch as ocean views will be seen by passing motorists, as well as pedestrian traffic; all of which warrants her support of the project. Mayor Strauss commented that he felt the project did not fit into the neighborhood as he sees it, and therefore, he will be supporting the substitute motion. Volume 43 - Page 207 L CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Ayes Noes y9'A�o� N lA NN May 22, 1989 x I x I x I x I x I x I x The substitute motion was voted on and FAILED. In view of the foregoing, Council Member Sansone requested that the following Condition of Approval be added to Council Member Turner's motion: "That during the construction period, all construction parking shall be on -site, or on an approved off -site location." Council Member Hart requested that the following Condition of Approval be added to the main motion: "That the applicant be responsible for grading the top portion of Buck Gully adjacent to the site, including installation of sidewalk and landscaping, subject to approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department." Council Member Turner indicated he had no objections to the foregoing two amendments to his motion. Council Member Sansone suggested the motion be revised to require that the applicant install a traffic signal at Seaward and Pacific Coast Highway, to which the City Attorney responded that the applicant does not have the power to install a signal at that location, and the City can only impose conditions that the property owner is capable of fulfilling. The Public Works Director stated it appears from the 'Traffic Studies and the amount of traffic generated as a result of the project, that there would be very minimal impact on the intersection of Seaward and Pacific Coast Highway. He added, however, that CalTrans has permitted the installation of traffic signals on State Highway intersections in accordance with the meeting of technical warrants for traffic signals. Following consideration of the foregoing, the City Attorney suggested that a Condition of Approval be added requiring the developer to pay his fair share of a traffic signal at the subject intersection should CalTrans technical warrants for a signal are met. Volume 43 - Page 208 U/P 3342 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Ayes I x Noes Abstain p0 •� May 22, 1989 x x x Council Member Turner agreed to x x include Council Member Sansone's x recommendations in his motion, and the motion, as amended, was voted on and carried. Council Member Hart was excused from the meeting at this time. 2. Mayor Strauss opened the public hearing regarding GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88-2(C), a request initiated by the City of Newport Beach to revise the HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN as required by State law. Report from the Planning Department. The City Manager pointed out that the City's current approval of this Draft Housing Element is only an approval in concept, and not the the adoption of the Element; that after this approval in concept, the draft revised Housing Element will be sent to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for their required review; and after the HCD's review, the City Council will hold a final public hearing at which they will consider HCD's comments, any staff recommended changes, and adopt the Housing Element. He added that when the final action is taken on the Housing Element, the Council will also include acceptance of the Environmental Document as recommended by the Planning Commission. Dave Dmohowski of The Irvine Company, addressed the Council and stated that they have met on several occasions with City staff and participated in Planning Commission hearings on this matter, and are generally supportive of the Housing Element as currently proposed. However, while they recognize the need for the City to maintain an adequate Housing Element and update targets and objectives, the strengthening of its criteria is coming at a time when there is actually a decrease in Federal and other forms of governmental subsidies that have been available in the past, such as mortgage revenue bond financing that help make affordable housing economically feasible. He submitted a letter for the record that summarized his comments. Hearing no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Volume 43 - Page 209 GPA 88-2(C) (45) '"1C0MMIS5I, 'IERS b p'.O� r �d`dY' Oc'� �p� '�N `` CITY OF NEWPORT ®EACH April 5, 1940 MIN ROLL. CALL INDEX NDITI N . 1. That development s e in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan a elevations except as noted below. 2. That this approval shall permit Signs "A", " d "D" as shown on the approved plans and that Sign "C" s be removed from the property. Discussion Items Discussion Items: Use Permit No 3342 (Review) D-1 `: Request to review a portion of the proposed landscaping plan for UP3342 the Emerald Village Personal Care facility previously approved in conjunction with Use Permit No. 3342. Said review is for the purpose of determining that the proposed landscape plan adjacent to Buck Gully is in substantial conformance with the approved plans. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 85-257 (Resubdivision No. 811), located at 3901 East Coast Highway, on the southeasterly corner of East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: Emerald Associates, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Commissioner Pers6n determined that the landscaping plan is in substantial conformance with the plot plan. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve the submitted All Ayes landscape plan and sections with the determination that they are in substantial conformance with the plans previously approved by -41- COMMISSIONERS MIN .0 A as a April 5, 1990 CITY OF NE9 FUM ! LIMA%im INDEX ROLL CALL the Planning Commission and the City Council. MOTION CARRIED. Use, Permit No 1677 (Amended) (Review) D-2 quest to review the City Council's September 11, 1989 UP1677A ap oval of Use Permit No. 1677 (Amended), permitting a of the existing Stuft Noodle than in operational characteristics Resta t so as to allow a lunch operation during the week whereas a previous use permit prohibited the restaurant from operating fore 5:00 p.m. during the week. LOCA'UON: A portion of Lot D, Tract No. 919, located at 215-217 Riverside Avenue, on the northwesterly comer of Riverside Avenue and on Street, across Avon Street from the U ' ed States Post Office. ZONE: SP-5 APPLICANT: Stuft Noo Restaurant, Newport Beach OWNER: Ms. Nelly Bra sma, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, in ' ated that the conditions two hour parking of the use permit are adhered to; howeve the Avon Street is not being enforced by th Police Department. on He explained that it appears that Post Mee employees occasionally use the parking in front of the re urant. Rich Edmonston, City Traffic Engineer, stated at he has a Police contacted the parking enforcement section of Department when he has observed automobiles in fro of the restaurant for the entire day. He explained that olice officer to mark the tire and enforcement would require a police hours later to govern any infractions. e then to follow up two commented that the City has previously suggested metere parking in front of the restaurant, and that he would refer the meter issue to the Traffic Affairs Committee at the next meeting. -42- LAW OFFICES OF JOHN B. HEFFERNAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 610 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 700 • NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 TELEPHONE (714) 640-4300 TELECOPIER (714) 721-1140 December 13, 1990 SENT BY MESSENGER Director Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 DEC 1 7 1990 RURALD IV11LAGEASSOc., ItIr Re: Emerald Village Associates, Inc. - Use Permit No. 3342, approved May 22, 1989 - 3901 Pacific Coast Highway, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Gentlemen: This law firm represents Emerald Village Associates, Inc., the Applicant of Use Permit No. 3342, and Ground Lessee of the above Property. In accordance with our previous correspondence with Robert Burnham at the City Attorney°s office, enclosed with this letter is a: (a) conformed recorded copy of the Deed Restriction, dated October 1, 1990, confirmation recordation on December 3, 1990, as Instrument No. 90-636012, in the Official Records of Orange County, California; and (b) copy of an updated Preliminary Title Report, dated December 11, 1990, confirming this Deed Restriction encumbers the real property for which the Use Permit applies. It is our understanding the receipt of the above final items will now satisfy Condition No. 460 of Permit No. 3342 and allow a Building Permit to be issued to our client. -Please call me should you have any questions. Thank you. ?Very truly �yoouuQr�s, Ohneffernan /es cc: Jon E. Christeson, Emerald Village Associates (with xerox copy of conformed Deed Restriction, only, by FAX) M STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF / t 1)S I`'/ eS ss. On Oje4I ?r i9 , 1990, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared WILLIAM L. SEAY, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed the within Instrument as President, on behalf of WILLIAM L. SEAY, INC., a California corporation, the corporation therein named, and he acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the within Instrument pursuant to its Bylaws or a Resolution of its Board of Directors, said Corporation being the one of the Qualified Pen- sion Asset Managers of THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA IBEW-NECA PENSION PLAN, the entity that executed the within Instrument, and he acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the within Instrument as such Qualified Pension Asset Manager and that THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA IBEW-NECA PENSION PLAN executed the same. WITNESS by hand and official seal. OF SEAL you KATHY FLUHRER 777\\\ NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA Notary Pub is LOS ANGELES COUNTY My comm. expires DEC 27, 1991 /SEAL 2330 Beverly CUd., ,' :_:._ Ae;el;:,:A 9CD57 ss. COUNTY OF On , 1990, before me, the and signed, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally app ed personally known to m or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to the person who executed the within Instrument as , on behalf of BANK OF AMERICA, NTSA, the en y therein named, and he acknowledged to me that such entity ecuted the within Instru- ment, said entity being the one o he Qualified Pension Asset Managers of THE SOUTHERN CALIF IA IBEW-NECA PENSION PLAN, the entity that executed the wi an Instrument, and acknowl- edged to me that such en y executed the within Instrument as such Qualified Pensio sset Manager and that THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA IBEW-NE PENSION PLAN executed the same. hand and official seal. Notary Public 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) On Ylftw- OL _ , 1990, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared WILLIAM X. TODD, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed the within Instrument as President, on behalf of EMERALD VILLAGE ASSOCIATES, INC., a California Corporation, the Corporation therein named, and he acknowledged to me that such Corporation executer, the within Instrument pursuant to its Bylaws or a Resolutio of its Board of Directors. WITNESS my hand and official seal. �» CEJSA� 's a OOy, y NotakTcPablic and for said ' County and St e Ky Cotivn. F� Oca 27.1092 /SEAL/ STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE On NOV 2 R )9911 , 1990 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared Rdbc.t; "vzN�+.. a , personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed this Instrument as the C, -rX kT" XA�E,/ fflF riS eC� y m r ��oi�o tr .auµc r� on behalf of the City of Ne ort Beach, and' acknowledged to me that rl,r-- sighed the within Instrument for such City and that such City also thereby also executed such Instrument. v 'Notary Public n and for Said County and State /SEAL/ OFFICIAL. EFAL MUM.-) E. BROWN tioTNO'PUBI.--GIFO..NIA PFItICiPnt CTrICE IN OWNCECOUNTY FoMy Comm''Won Up. Dec. 8, 1992 EXHIBIT °Au LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA: PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP 85-257, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 218, PAGE 5 & 6, INCLUSIVE, OF PARCEL MAPS, OFFICIAL RECORDS, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. 1 COMMISSIONERS 99 o Q�oyo March 9, 1989 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL E. Resubdivision No. 889 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide four existing lots into a single parcel of land for commercial development. LOCATION: Lots .25-28, Block 23, Newport Beach, located at 111-117 23rd Street, on the.northwesterly side of 23rd Street, between West Ocean Front and West Balboa Boulevard, in the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP-6 APPLICANT: Piero Serra, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: Jim Skaug, Laguna Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant has requested that this item be continued to the March 23, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to contihue. Item No. 4, All Ayes General Plan Amendment No. 88-2(A), Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Amendment No. 15, Amendment No. 674, Use Permit No. 3195 (Amended), and Resubdivision No. 889 to the March 23, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. A Traffic Study No 54 (Public Hearing) Item No.5 Request to approve a traffic study so as to permit the TS 54 construction of an 85 unit elderly personal care facility on property located in the P-C District. UP3342 AND Approved B. Use Permit No 3342 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of an 85 unit elderly personal care facility on property located in the P-C District. The proposal also includes a request to allow a portion of the structure to exceed the 32 foot basic height limit in the 32/50• Height Limitation District; a request to establish an off-street parking requirement based on a demonstrated formula: a modification to the - 17 - COMMISSIONERS yo��yo March9, 1989 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL Zoning Code so as to allow the use of tandem parking spaces in conjunction with a full time valet parking service; and the acceptance of an environmental document. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 85-257 (Resubdivision No. 811), located at 3901 East Coast Highway, on the southeasterly corner of East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: Emerald Associates, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that inasmuch as the subject use permit constitutes a Planned Community Development Plan for the property in question, the Planning Commission's action shall be to make a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Hewicker submitted four letters of correspondence to the Planning Commission that were presented to him prior to the subject public•heari.ng. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. David Neish, appeared before the Planning Commission to represent the applicants. Mr. Neish explained that the applicants' presentation will consist of concerns expressed by area residents prior to the subject public hearing. He stated that Mr. Victor Regnier, Associate Professor of Gerontology and Architecture at USC will address the appropriateness of the site and the need for the use. He stated that Emily Headly, Vice President of Transamerica Retirement Properties, will address the concerns regarding the facility's operation. Mr. Neish addressed the previous senior care proposals that were submitted to the Planning Commission. He explained that subsequent to the approval of Use Permit No. 3312 by the Planning Commission on June 9, 1988, that the applicants withdrew the application prior to the City Council public hearing pending the adoption of the General Plan update. Mr. Neish stated that as a result of the previous opposition by the residents to the previous proposals, and the adopted General Plan, that the land use analysis that the applicants prepared considers floor area ratios, percentage of property that would remain in open space, traffic and parking statistics. He stated that after completion of the study, the applicants considered uses such as restaurants, retail facilities, office -i$- COMMISSIONERS G yd � �9N�P �9 9 m'¢f. � �Q �O y0 y o� y C 1 March 9, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I I I INDEX facilities, hotel, residential, senior congregate care, and the proposed senior personal care facility. Mr. Neish explained that as a result of the study, the applicants decided that the senior personal care facility was the use they desired to pursue. • � 11 Mr. Neish compared the proposed project to the foregoing Use Permit No. 3312, and he stated that there is a 25 percent reduction in the gross floor area, and a deletion of 23 units. He explained that the proposal consists of approximately 55,000 square feet, the footprint is 16,858 square feet, resulting in 63.2 percent of the site to be open space and landscaping. He stated that the westerly wing has been removed, the building has been reduced, and the setbacks have been increased at East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive. Mr. Neish explained that the proposed project complies with the adopted General Plan inasmuch as the General Plan recognizes the need for additional senior housing throughout the City. He stated that the Land Use Element of the adopted General Plan encourages property owners to build senior housing based on uses that attract a lower traffic generation. He explained that a low trip, generation use may exceed the base floor area ratio of 0.5 up to a maximum of 0.75 floor area ratio. Mr. Victor Regnier, Gerontology and Architecture Professor at USC appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicants. Mr. Regnier stated that senior care facilities are often located on major streets similar to East Coast Highway for reasons that include a better access to public transportation for employees, and as an easy access for families and friends of the residents. He advised that the residents have a desire to be located in areas that include both a passive side such as the ocean, and the activity of an urban area. Mr. Regnier indicated that there is a need for senior housing inasmuch as the City consists of 10,000 senior citizens, 4,500 residents older than 75 years of age, resulting in four to five times the number of qualified applicants that is needed to fill the facility. Mr. Regnier commented that statistically 20 to 25% of the residents would move to the facility in Newport Beach so as to be closer to their children. Mr. Regnier concluded that the number of residents 75 years of age or older is growing eight times faster than the general public. 19- COMMISSIONERS March9, 1989 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX In response to questions posed by Commissioner Debay regarding residents who oppose a senior facility in their residential community, Mr. Regnier commented that residents are often concerned about the financial impact that a senior facility would have in the neighborhood, and also what the affect would be on the lifestyle of the neighborhood. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn regarding the economic feasibility of "freestanding" senior facilities, Mr. Regnier indicated that there are a number of "freestanding" facilities throughout the State of California that are economically successful. He explained that the subject facility is designed to be financially viable considering the demand in the community for senior facilities. In response to questions posed by Chairman Pomeroy concerning the length of time of residency per apartment, Mr. Regnier replied that depending upon other alternatives, that the estimated tenure is from two and one-half years to five years. Mr. Regnier further replied that the quality of life in a personal care facility is much better than in a nursing home, and he forecastod.a great demand for similar facilities. Ms. Emily Headly, Vice President of Transamerica Properties Management, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicants. Ms. Headly presented personal and management background information concerning the property management company that operates senior housing facilities exclusively. Ms. Headly explained that the personal care facility must adhere to numerous Government medical care regulations, and the facility is also controlled by the types of residents that the facility may admit. Mr. Neish reappeared, before the .Planning Commission to summarize the proposed project. He concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". . In response to questions posed by Commissioner Pers6n regarding Condition No. 41 which states that the facility shall be limited to a maximum of 85 units and 100 beds, Mr. Hewicker explained that the City could request that the applicant submit a report verifying the number of persons or beds that are occupied on a semi-annual or annual basis. -20- ' COMMISSIONERS yd '+i �PN�A y99 March 9, 1989 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL Mr. Neish advised that the applicants would be willing to produce reports to the Planning Department when the reports are submitted to the State of California. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards regarding concerns that have been expressed by residents regarding fire access along the southwesterly and western property lines, Mr. Hewicker and Mr. Neish explained that the Fire Department will be reviewing preliminary plans and final plans of the project and the applicants will be required to adhere to all of the recommendations by the Fire Department. In response to Commissioner Pers6n's statements concerning the possible need for an increase in the number of parking spaces, Mr. Neish explained that there is ample parking for the facility; however, he said that the front garden and entry area could be converted to accopmodate additional parking spaces. Mr. Neish requested that the Planning Commission approve the parking plan as submitted by the applicant with the option to review the available parking periodically. Commissioner Pers6n asked if the applicants would accept a condition requesting that the garden area above the subterranean parking lot be constructed in such a manner that there would be an area for additional parking spaces if needed in the future. Mr. Neish advised that the area that the applicants had considered for additional parking, if needed, would be the landscaped courtyard area at the intersection of Hazel Drive and East Coast Highway. Commissioner Debay commented that Condition No. 45 states that the residents of the project shall not be permitted to own cars that are parked or stored on the subject property. Mr. Neish commented that the parking area would only be for the staff and visitors. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn regarding the aforementioned analysis chart that was submitted by the applicants that is attached to the staff report, Mr. Hewicker replied that the applicants submitted the results of the analysis between October and December, 1988, for staff's review. Mr. Hewicker stated that staff was agreeable to the applicants' results after staff considered all of the uses and intensities that would be permitted on the site. In reference to Condition No. 46 regarding an agreement binding the applicant to an elderly personal care facility, Commissioner Winburn asked if the applicant would agree to 21- COMMISSIONERS 'J6A A3.F arG March9, 1989 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL limit the use to an assist care or personal care facility so the operation could not be converted into a congregate care or convalescent facility. Mr. Neish agreed to the request. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Neish stated that if the applicants constructed 20 residential units as an alternate use, that each unit would be marketed in the range of $750,000. to $1 million. The Planning Commission recessed at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened at 9:05 p.m. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pers6n regarding the height, bulk, and mass of the cupula portion of the project, Mr. Kermit Dorius, architect, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Dorius explained that the height of the cupula that houses the elevator and stairway could be reduced; however, the cupula is the focal point of the project's design. Commissioner Debay asked how the residents could be monitored to be assured that they would not park their automobiles on the adjacent streets. Mr. Hewicker stated that it would be necessary for the residents to park or store their automobiles at another location. Ms. Headly reappeared before the Planning Commission to state that assist living residents do not drive automobiles, and that is one reason why they move into this type of a facility. She stated that if a resident wanted to drive an automobile that the individual would move into a congregate care facility. Commissioner Winburn and Ms. Headly discussed the relationship of the individuals to each other who reside together, and if their would be an attendant that would be driving an automobile. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pomeroy regarding the 15 double occupancy rooms, Ms. Headly explained that the applicants are required to designate the maximum number of beds when they are applying for a license. Mrs. Marian Parks, 233 Horning Canyon Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission to address the following concerns. Mrs. Parks referred to Condition No. 43 that states that "Occupancy of the facility shall be limited to persons 62 years of age or older. (A younger spouse of a 22 - COMMISSIONERS yOG����N��9 ti' v m9t �o�9yo March 9, 1989 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL qualified resident may occupy the facility.) State law may further restrict occupancy to persons 62 years of age or older.", and she stated that'the condition maintains that individuals other than what the applicants have indicated could reside at the facility. Mrs. Parks inquired if the facility will provide linen and laundry service, and if the operators of the beauty and barber shop have been included, as a part of the staff. Mrs: Parks stated that no bus service would be provided for the evening and night employees after 8:00 p.m., and she indicated that inasmuch as it is nearly impossible for a van to make a "U" turn at the intersection of Seaward Road and East Coast Highway that the van would be required to drive through the Shorecliffs area so as to turn north at the signal at the intersection of Morning Canyon Road and East Coast Highway. Mr. Jon Christeson, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission to address the foregoing concerns. Mr. Christeson advised that Condition No. 43 would not directly affect their operation, but that the condition is a standard requirement used by the City and tested by the courts inasmuch as it is a valid age restriction. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pers6n, Mr. Christeson stated that he would not be opposed to the deletion of "a younger spouse of a qualified resident may occupy the facility". Robert Burnham, City Attorney, stated that provisions of the Unruh Act allow the City to establish conditions which require occupancy for persons of a certain age or more depending upon the size of the project. Mr. Burnham stated that he would have a concern if the foregoing statement were deleted inasmuch as it would be infringing upon the freedom of individuals who are otherwise qualified to reside in the establishment. Mr. Christeson stated that the residents' personal laundry needs will be performed on the premises, and that the beauty salon staff was not included as a part of the staff inasmuch as the operators would not be on the premises on a full time basis. He stated that the evening shift consists of ten employees and the late night shift consists of five employees, indicating that there would be adequate parking spaces if the employees drove automobiles. In reference to the "U" turn at Seaward Road and East Coast Highway, Mr. Christeson maintained that any business that would be located 'on the site would have the same difficulty, but that the subject facility would be making the fewest "U" turns. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Pers6n, Mr. Christeson replied that the evening and late night employees could be picked up and -23- COMMISSIONERS 0��9�\11P0\1\\ y March9, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I I I I INDEX delivered to the Park and Ride facility located in Newport Center. Mr. Christeson stated that he would agree to a condition stating "that employees who travel on the bus when bus service is not available to the site would be picked up at Park and Ride facility in Newport Center." Mrs. Betty Felling, 309 Grand Canal, appeared before the Planning Commission to address concerns regarding the cost of emergency equipment to the City, emergency exits for the senior residents, and modes of transportation to the site by the visitors and employees. Mr. Hewicker commented that there are stringent emergency standards that need to be met in accordance with the Fire and Building Departments. Mr. Dick Nichols, representing the Corona del Mar Community Association Board of Directors, appeared before the Planning Commission to state that the Association unanimously opposes the proposed project, and he referred to the letter that they submitted to the Newport Beach City Council. Mr. Nichols objected to the commercial project extending into an R-1 residential area. Mr. Nichols proposed the subject site be developed for residential at six to 10 units per acre. He addressed the bulk of the project, that the building would be an imposing structure in Corona del Mar, that no service entrances have been provided and that there are no provisions for a trash dumpster, that there is not a service road access from East Coast Highway, and that the roof line would exceed the height of a residential development. Mr. Nichols stated that the Association did not study the proposed plans because the developers did not submit project plans to them. Commissioner Winburn and Mr. Nichols discussed a condition requesting that the facility be limited to personal care only. Mrs. Dottie Valentine, 307 Driftwood Road, appeared before the Planning Commission, to personally state her support of the project. As a member of the Board of Directors of the Shorecliffs Community Association, Mrs. Valentine stated that the Board of Directors met and voted on March 1, 1989, to not oppose the proposed project. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mrs. Valentine concurred that the Shorecliffs Community Association opposed the previous project. Mr. Lars DeJounge, 208 Marigold Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission, Mr. DeJounge stated that there is a need for privately owned senior facilities in the -24- COMMISSIONERS yyyos oy c�'o�yo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 9, 1989 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX community, and he emphasized that the need is going to become greater in the future. Mr. John Killifer, resident of Shorecliffs in Corona del Mar, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the proposed project. Mr. Killifer stated that when restaurants were proposed for the subject site many years ago, the residents stated their concerns regarding "U" turns at Seaward Road and East Coast Highway. Mr. Killifer emphasized that there is a need for a senior housing facility in Corona del Mar, and for a "decent" development on the subject property. He stated that the subject site is ideal for the facility, and the disruption to the neighborhood would be minimal. Mr. Bill DeMayo, 511 Hazel Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission to state that his preference would be that the subject site consist of residential units. Mr. DeMayo pointed out that the proposed project will be in a view plane, and he requested that a condition be established that the trees on the property not be allowed over the roof line. Mr. Christeson reappeared before the Planning Commission to state that the applicants would agree to the condition. Mr. Haskel Shapero, resident of Shorecliffs in Corona del Mar, appeared before the Planning Commission, to state his concern regarding the traffic impact that the project would have on the neighborhood during the summer when the residents will have many visitors. Ms. Kay Hull, resident of Shorecliffs in Corona del Mar, appeared before the Planning Commission to state her opposition to the proposed project. She stated that the opinion of the Shorecliffs Community Association Board of Director is not the opinion of all of the residents in Shorecliffs. Ms. Hull expressed her concern that if the facility is not properly fenced that the residents could wander away from the facility. Ms. Headly reappeared before the Planning Commission to explain that staff will take a resident roll call at each meal. She stated that a member of the staff will escort any resident outside who needs assistance. She commented that the .majority of the residents are"individuals who are capable of taking care of themselves inasmuch as residents must meet that requirement before they are accepted by management to reside at the facility. -25- COMMISSIONERS •rjA A;. 10 , . 010, �y�v v m� �y9o� y c�''osyo March 9, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Jon Christeson reappeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that the project is proposed to have a fence that will be designed to blend in with the English Country Garden theme. He explained that the access points will be controlled, and that there will be two outdoor recreational areas away from the egress of the site. Mr. Christeson stated that the combination of staff supervision, the architectural design of the facility, and the entrance requirements of the residents should address the concerns regarding residents wandering from the site. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Pers6n compared the proposed project to the previous projects that have come before the Planning Commission. He stated that he supported Use Permit No. 3312 that was approved by the Planning Commission on June 9, 1988, and he commented that the proposed development has been reduced from that project. Commissioner Pers6n indicated that the Planning Commission has the ability to impose controls on the proposed project that are necessary to insure that the facility maintains itself, to be assured that it is properly operated, and to maintain a minimal impact on the commercial and residential communities. Motion was made to approve Traffic Study No. 54 and Use Motion * Permit No. 3342 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", including the following modifications and additions to the conditions: Modify Condition No. 41: add "The applicant shall provide to the Planning Department a copy of the report that is submitted to the State of California indicating the number of individuals residing on the premises, and the number of available beds." Add Condition No. 49: "That this facility be operated only as a personal care facility as is currently described to the Planning Commission." Commissioner Winburn suggested that "or similar use with the same trip generation characteristics which" be deleted in Condition No. 46, and that Condition No. 46 be modified to state "...binding the applicant and successors -in -interest in perpetuity to an elderly personal care facility, and shall, be limited to an occupancy by persons 62 years of age or older. Commissioner Pers6n explained that modified .." Condition No. 46 and added Condition No, 49 would require the applicants to come back to the Planning Commission for 26 - COMMISSIONERS yy9o� y Vya�,yo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 9, 1989 MINUTES ROLL CALL I I I INDEX a modification if there would be any change in the operational characteristics to any other type of senior facility or any other type of residential facility. Add Condition No. 50: "That the height of trees on the site shall be restricted to the height of the building." The maker of the motion explained that the height of the building does not include the height of the cupula. Add Condition No. 51: "That the cupula be substantially reduced in height." Add Condition No. 52: "That when bus service is not available to the employees of the facility, the applicant shall be required to provide van service to and from the Park and Ride facility in Newport Center." Add Condition No. 53: "That the garden area above the subterranean parking lot shall be constructed of building materials that will permit said garden area to be converted to additional parking spaces, if needed, in the future." Commissioner Pers6n explained that if it is found by the Planning Commission that there is a need for additional automobiles on site that adequate parking spaces would outweigh the aesthetics of the project. Add Condition No. 54: "That the applicant shall submit an on -site parking survey to the Planning Commission, to commence six months after the date of the opening of the facility for a period of six months. The survey hours shall be determined by the staff. The survey shall consist of the number of automobiles onsite, the number of employees onsite, and the number of vehicles that are parked." Commissioner Debay stated that she concurred with the foregoing motion with the exception of Condition No. 51 regarding the reduced height of the cupula. Commissioner Di Sano stated that he would support the motion with the exception of Condition No. 51 as stated by Commissioner Debay inasmuch as the cupula maintains the theme for the project, and it is aesthetically pleasing. He stated his support of Use Permit No. 3312 as approved in June, 1988, and the proposed project. He commented that the applicants have been especially responsive to the needs and concerns of the people who have been supportive of the project, and the people who were not supportive of the .27 _ COMMISSIONERS ymGpy��nyin�y9,k9 v �'ES. yy°i1Qy° March 9, 1989 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL project. Commissioner Di Sano emphasized that the residents of the City should be totally responsible for their own citizens through their senior years. Commissioner Pers6n stated that the cupula is 11 feet, or one story, taller than the maximum ridge of any other element in the project. He stated that the cupula could be reasonably reduced to be. aesthetically pleasing. Discussion ensued between the Planning Commission regarding what they would consider a "reasonable" height reduction. Substitute motion was made and voted on to delete the Substitute foregoing Condition No. 51 regarding the height of the Motion * cupula, and to request that the height of the cupula remain Ayes * * * * * as it exists on the plans that were submitted by the Noes * * applicant. MOTION CARRIED. Motion was voted on to approve Traffic Study No. 54 and Use All Ayes Permit No. 3342, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", as previously stated. MOTION CARRIED. A. Environmental Document: Accept the environmental document, making the following findings: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K-3. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. The project . will not have any significant environmental impact. B. Traffic Study No. 54: Approve the traffic study with the following findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. 2. The project, as proposed, will generate less traffic than the uses which currently exist on -site in the evening peak hour on a daily basis. 28 - COMMISSIONERS MINUTES p� o� March 9, 1989 ymp�m�yN�"y v v m9 9y�o< � C`�oyo s. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 3. The increased traffic in the morning peak hour is less than 10% of existing traffic on any approach leg of affected intersections. C. Use Permit No. 3342: Approve the use permit with the findings and subject to the following conditions of approval: Findings: 1. The project will comply with all applicable City and State Building Codes and Zoning requirements for new building applicable to the district in which the I proposed project is located, except the height of the proposed stair/elevator tower. 2. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 3. That adequate off-street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. 4. The building height will result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit. 5. The building height will result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit. 6. The building height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces inasmuch as the project has provided increased setbacks from public streets and adjoining residential property. 7. The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit for the building height. 8. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public -at large for access through or use of property with the proposed development. 29 - COMMISSIONERS pA �r Mtn . ymc�F�yN�Py q 9 �� low y'Irr, l o March 9, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 9. That the use of tandem parking spaces in conjunction with a full-time valet parking service will not, under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modifications are consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 10. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 11. That Section 13.05.010 of the Municipal Code requires that public improvements be completed in commercial areas prior to the issuance of Building Permits for a new structure. 12. That the sidewalk along East Coast Highway is the, only pedestrian access between the Shorecliffs Development and the business district of Corona del Mar on the southerly side of East Coast Highway. 13. That it has been demonstrated that the traffic to be generated by the proposed project will not exceed that which would be generated if the base traffic generation rate were applied to a project developed at the base floor area ratio. 14. That the projections of traffic to be generated by the project have been based on standard traffic generation rates generally applied to an elderly personal care facility. 15. That the proposed project is a single use development that will be restricted to an 85 unit (100 bed) elderly personal care facility upon which the traffic equivalency was based. 16. The proposed use and physical improvements are such that the approved project would not readily lend itself to conversion to a higher traffic generating use. 17. The increased floor area ratio will not result in significant impairment of public views. -30- COMMISSIONERS 4 0 March 9, 1989 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL 18. That the site is physically suitable for the floor area proposed, considering that a 0.5 F.A.R. office or retail use with an additional 0.25 above grade structure parking could be constructed on the site which would contain approximately the same building floor area and building bulk as the proposed project. 19. The approval of Use Permit No. 3342 will not under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions• 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations and sections, except as noted below. 2. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improve- ments prior to issuance of a grading permit. Any modifications or extension to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 3. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4. That a standard use permit agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to comple- tion of the public improvements. 5. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer and shall be modified in the following manner: a. Access to the subterranean parking area shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide. 31- COMMISSIONERS March 9, 1989 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX b. Parking shall not be permitted within the circular motor court so as to provide required emergency vehicle access to the project. C. That the planter at the center of the circular motor court shall be redesigned to Fire Department standards. d. That the driveway design shall conform to Sight Distance Standard Plan 110-L. e. That the proposed drives and ramps shall not exceed a 15 percent slope with change of grade not to exceed 11 percent. f. A minimum five foot wide sidewalk shall be provided on the west side of the driveway. 6. That an access ramp be constructed per City Standard No. 181-L at the intersection of East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive; that unused drive aprons be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk along the East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive frontages; and that all deteriorated portions of curb, gutter and sidewalk be reconstructed along East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive frontages. 7. That all work within the East Coast Highway right- of-way be completed under an Encroachment Permit issued by the California Department of Transportation. 8. That the intersection of the East Coast Highway and drives be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 40 mile per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping with the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be approximately modified at non -critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 9. That prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such - 32 - COMMISSIONERS March 9, 1989 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL demonstration shall include verification from the City's Utilities Department and the Orange County Sanitation District. 10. County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 11. That a minimum of 40 offstreet parking spaces shall be provided for the proposed development. 12. Construction shall meet the requirements of the UBC and the California Administrative Codes - Titles 19 and 24. 13. Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department. 14. The entire building shall be sprinklered. 15. The building shall be equipped with smoke detectors and a fire alarm system. 16. All exit stairways must lead to an exit path that is continuous to a public way. 17. Access to the building for Fire Department use shall occur at each exit point and the main lobby. 18. A Class I standpipe shall be required at locations to be designated by the Fire Department. 19. Consideration of the use of ramps and exiting may have to be given in building design if non -ambulatory residents occupy the building. 20. The planter shown on the site corner at East Coast Highway and Buck Gully shall not exceed 24 inches in height. 21. That valet parking service be provided at all times. 22. That all employees shall park their vehicles on -site. 23. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from Hazel Drive, East Coast Highway and adjoining properties. 24. That all signs shall be in conformance with the provision of Section 20.06.050 A3 of the Newport 33 - COMMISSIONERS plyos'oy9�'°�N9o'�. s < CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 9, 1989 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Beach Municipal Code and shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress. This shall not preclude the applicant from requesting a modification for the size, number and location of proposed project signs in accordance with Section 20.06.100 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 25. That any proposed landscaping adjacent to the public right-of-way be approved by the Public Works Depart- ment. 26. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The , landscape plan shall integrate and phase the instal- lation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. Prior to occupancy, a licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the approved plan. 27, The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department, and the approval of the Planning Department and Public Works Department. 28. That the lighting system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a Licensed Electrical En- gineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 29. Development of site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 30. That the grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 31. The grading permit shall include a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. -34- . y COMMISSIONERS MINUTES A A'{. FG Gj GSA y� of �� �� G to N\PIX 1100 y90o� o March 9, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 32. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 33. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 34. That grading, excavation and recompaction of the site shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. 35. That any roof top or other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated in such a manner as to achieve a maximum sound level of 55 dBA at the property line. 36. That units shall be sound attenuated to a maximum of 45 dBA CNEL for the interior living areas and 65 dBA CNEL for exterior living areas associated with individual units, as measured from the area expected to experience the highest sound levels. Measurement and certification of compliance with this condition shall be completed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by a registered engineer practicing in acoustics. 37. The excavation area shall be fenced to prevent safety hazards during the grading and building phases. 38. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. 39. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the on -site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self 35 - COMMISSIONERS A3.�O�, o� • ydG�%,��s,�4'y y 9 9c �y9o� y ���'o�,yo March 9, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX parking and shall be identified in a manner acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. Said parking spaces shall be accessible to the handicapped at all times. One handicapped sign on a post shall be required for each handicapped space. 40. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee shall be paid. 41. That the facility shall be limited to a maximum of 85 units and 100 beds. The applicant shall provide to the Planning Department a copy of the report that is submitted to the State of California indicating the number of individuals residing on the premises, and the number of available beds. 42. That it is the intention of this use permit to constitute the official zoning of the subject property in accordance with Title 20 of the Municipal Code, the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and said use permit shall run with the life of the property or until such time as the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan are amended. 43. Occupancy of the facility shall be limited to persons 62 years of age or older. (A younger spouse of a qualified resident may occupy the facility.) State law may further restrict occupancy to persons 62 years of age or older. 44. Ancillary commercial uses in the structure shall be for the use of residents and their guests only and shall not be available to members of the general public. 45. That the residents of the project shall not be permitted to own cars that are parked or stored on the subject property. 46. Prior to issuance of Building Grading Permits, the applicant shall enter into an agreement, the form and content of which is acceptable to the City Attorney, binding the applicant and successors -in - interest in perpetuity to an elderly personal care facility and shall be limited to an occupancy by persons 62 years of age or older. The only exception shall allow co -occupancy by the spouse of a qualified - 36 - .y COMMISSIONERS March 9, 1989 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL 7in person. Restrictions shall be placed on the deed and any other suitable binding document consistent with the provisions of the above agreement. 47. That the proposed project shall be subject to the approval of the Coastal Commission. 48. The Planning Commission may add and/or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 49. That this facility be operated only as a personal care facility as is currently described to the Planning Commission. 50. That the height of trees on the site shall be restricted to the height of the building excluding the height of the cupula above the main roofs of the structure. 51. That when bus service is not available to the employees of the facility, the applicant shall be required to provide van service to and from the Park and Ride facility in Newport Center. 52. That the garden area above the subterranean parking lot shall be constructed of building materials that will permit said garden area .to be converted to additional parking spaces, if needed, in the future. 53. That the applicant shall submit an onsite parking survey to the Planning Commission, to commence six months after the date of the opening of the facility for a period of six months. The survey hours shall be determined by the Planning Department staff. The survey shall consist of the number of automobiles onsite, the number of employees onsite, and the number of vehicles that are parked. 37 - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACh MINUTES April 24, 1989 the Planning Commission and approve the project. He added that the Shorecliff Community Association •took no position on this proposal. Robert J. Moore, 1216 Sandpoint Way, stated that he was opposed to this project initially, but after reviewing it in detail, he strongly recommends its approval. Elizabeth Skinner, 1233 Portside Way, stated she and her husband have been residents for 37 years; are in their early eighties; and would very much like to be,one of the first occupants of the proposed facility if it is approved. She stated it is their desire to spend their golden years near their family in Newport Beach. Renfro Newcomb, 3 Sandbar, stated he has been a resident of Corona del Mar for almost 32 years, and felt the proposed project was the "beat thing that could' happen" to the subject property. The following additional persons spoke in opposition to the project! Walter Ziglar, 327 Poppy Avenue, stated that many of those speaking in favor of the project do not live within 1.000 feet of the subject area. He also does not feel the development will reduce traffic as stated by the applicant, and disputed many of the remarks made by previous speakers regarding parking, use of public transportation, etc. He submitted a petition with 40 signatures in opposition to the project from residents in Shorecliff. O/P/3342 Alana Peters (no address given) stated she has a Masters Degree in Gerontology and is an advocate for senior citizens; however, she felt , the subject proposal could be a "disaster" socially and environmentally. She indicated that due to.past experience, she believes the project as proposed will be short-term and transitional between an active life and a higher level of care or death. The cost would be:prohibitive to most Volume 43 - Page 147 CITY OF NEWPORT BEAC., MINUTES s® April 24. 1989 seniors as they do not want to pay U/P 3342 •out hard earned money for, this•type of care. She felt the owner/ . builder would be in Financial . straits within two years at which time they could possibly turn the senior'residenty into a hotel. •Marian Parke;. 233 Horning Canyop, indicated she was opposed to the ' project primarily because of increased traffic generation, ,perking problems for Shbrecliff residents, and noise. She also felt that since the facility was legally required to accept seniors 62 years of age or older, this "opened wide" the possibility of a totally different type of facility 'than what is'currently proposed. She urged the Council to deny the project and any other facility for the elderly in Cortina del Mar. Dan Wiseman; 336 Hazel Drive, stated be cannot dispute the need for 'senior housing, and complimented the•developer for his efforte, but felt the location was a poor choice and the project should be'danied. John Christeson addressed'the Council. again, and responded•to previous comments regarding subterranean parking, 'trash and delivery areas, wheel chair. patients, visitor parking spaces, ' traffic volumes, etc. In response to question raised by - Council Hember'.Turner regarding rho Housing Element, Craig Eluell of the, Planning Department, stated that the City's Housing Element addresses all the legal requirements of State law, and those requirements specify that the City ,provide a variety of housing types for all income segments of the community. There are -two programs in the Housing 'Element, which address the issue, i.e., 1), the City will achieve a variety of housing,types;'and 2) senior housing' programs. on the issue of the amount of ' housing, State law -does not specify the City, provide any specific amount to , senior•citizens; however, it does specify housing shall•be provided in total to meat a 'specific target and that those units be provided•to 'meet the income segments'of the community. ' Volume 43 — Page 148 rn„Nru NFYRFRR CITY OF NEWPORT BEAL MINUTES April 24, 1959 Council Member Sansone commented, In part, that he felt the majority of opposition to this project is a result of frustration that has been developed in old Corona del Mar due to the already existing parking problems in the area. The City has allowed an intensification of land use in old Corona del Her through the commercial district and also ,an intensification of was and bulk through the residential area, which_ is destroying some of that community. If building continues in this area, as has been in the past, it will no longer be a "lovely" area much longer. }le also felt that the majority of residential property constructed in old Corona del Her is speculation, with no consideration being given to the community. He expressed his concerns regarding fire access to the site, operation of the facility, parking and traffic. In closing, he indicated he could possibly support the project, to some degree, if the bulk and mass were reduced. Council Member Watt commented that she has viewed the site and is aware of the residents' desire to protect their residential neighborhood and views., She also recognizes the need -for elderly care facilities, but feels the proposed use is "wrong" for this site, and that there are other sites available in the City for this type of facility. She felt the beat use for the subject property would be open apace, or single-family residential. Council Member Hart asked the applicant if the building could be reduced to .75 x buildable including parking, whereupon Mr. Christeaon replied "no." Council Member Hart stated she was very .disappointed in Mr. Christeson's answer, as, she thought the project was .75,x buildable, including parking, until this evening. She also does not think single-family homes would be appropriate �at'tha site; therefore,, if there is no� way to reduce the "bulk and mesa" to something approximately .75 x buildable, she will have to oppoae'it. Council Member Turner stated that in the recent adoption Of the General Plan Amendment, the Council approved a program whereby building is allowed up to :75, with parking below, ground not Volume 43 - Page 149 U/P 3342 14' CITY OF NEWPORT BEAT. MINUTES Motion Ayes Noes xlklxlxlxlxlx April 24, 1989 included in the calculation, and this applicant has designed a project which complies with the requirements of the General Plan "to the letter." Hearing no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Chrieteson addressed the Council again and stated he was aware of the concerns regarding the "bulk and mesa," and 1E,there were no objections, they would like to continue the public hearing and look into the feasibility of coming back with a more "palatable" looking structure. "Mayor Strauss regarding.the hearing Rep•rt from the Planning Department. Reque t from "Street People In Need" (SPIN) for assistance. The City anger summarized the funding recommend tions set forth as Item@ 1 through 14 He stated the total funding allocated f m HUD is $423,000; however, the availabl total amount for social services•prog me is 15x, or $63,450. It was pointed t that three late requests had bee received from -the following organize ions: 0 S.P.I.N. - rest People in Need, Newport Be ch; 2)•Assesement and reatment Services Center; 3) Y.M.C.A., Newport each. Charlene M. Turco, Executive irector for 3.P.I.N.,•addreesad the C ncii in support'of their request for $ '928.40. Shwataeed the foods would be u d to provide free services to homeles people. S.P.I.N.�was founded in 87 by a group of Newport Beach residents ho Volume 43 -,Page 150 u 3342 189/90• ;ram April 2, 1991 TO: GENIA GARCIA PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: TRAFFIC ENGINEER SUBJECT: FAIR SHARE FEES FOR EMERALD VILLAGE PROJECT �y r ✓b The Fair Share Fee for the pjr'oposed 130 unit Personal Care Facility known as Emerald Village is $7 ,237.46. This fee was calculated based upon the following: , 1 9 3. P1 The projec� will result in a 338 daily trips according to the traffic study approved by the City Council on May 22, 1989. There has been\no traffic generating use on the site during the past twelve Nnonths, hence no credits. current Fair contact me if you have any Richard M. Edmonston Traffic Engineer fee is $110.17 per daily trip. ions regarding the fee. i- fd'!.. —E o I t'C I - Jul Wda -1601 DOVE Sr. SUrM200 MEWPO,RT BEACH, CA 92660. (714)476-Ogaa 5 7D pO o0� pll � ril - 7 Dorius'.Architects Corona- del mar, -Ca all 644-7111 9 =1 2:ff% A r Dorius Architects September 101, 1990 1550 Bayside Drive , Corona del Mar California 92625 (714) 644-7111 City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. ewport Beach, CA 9 58-8915 Re: Summerhouse - Plan Corrections Condition of Approval Use Permit #3342 3901 East Coast Highway PC#895-90 CONDITION ACTION k. Substantial Submitted per substantial conformance. Conformance 8. Sewer Facilities Owner shall coordinate with Public Works Department and Planning Departments with verification from City's Utilities Department and Orange County Sanitation District. A. Off -Street Parking Minimum off-street parking provided per submitted plans. (90 Planter Height 24" maximum planter height verify per landscape plans. ,21. Valet Parking Valet parking service verified by owner. 2x. Employee Parking On site employee parking verified by owner. 23. Mech. Equip./ Screening of mechanical equipment and trash Trash Screened verified per landscape plans.. 24. Signs Separate permit to be pulled by owner. 26. Landscape Plan See landscape architect for landscape and irrigation plan and certification of installation. . Landscape Plan See landscape architect for landscape plan approval. .44 J ,CONDITION ACTION 6 a�11 8Lighting System Letter to be provided by licensed electrical Vengineer. See attached letter. �1,^�. Grading Grading permit to be coordinated by owner. N\19)( Roof/Mechanical Maximum sound level from mechanical Equipment equipment to be verified by mechanical engineer. See plans, sht. 2 and attached letter. ,3/6. Sound Attenuation Unit sound level compliance verified by sound engineer. See plans, sht. 19 and attached letter. 37. Excavation Area Contractor to provide site plan for separate Fenced permit 41. Number of Facility's maximum limit of beds and units to Beds/Residents be verified by owner. 43. Occupancy/Age Minimum occupant age limit to be verified by owner. 44. Ancillary Ancillary commercial restrictions to be Commercial Use verified by owner. 45. Resident's Cars Vehicle ownership restriction to be verified by owner. 46. Deed Restriction Deed restriction to be verified by owner. 47. Coastal Commission Coastal Commission approval verified by owner. 49. Facility Operation Facility operation to be verified by owner. 50. Tree Height Tree height restriction to be verified by owner. 51. Bus Service Van service to be coordinated and verified by owner. 52. Garden Area Additional parking at garden deck noted on Construction plans and load carrying capacity verified by structural engineer, see attached letter. 53. On Site Parking On site parking survey to be verified by Survey owner. Planning Department Corrections Plan Check No. 895-90: From 6-12-90 3901 East Coast Highway Parcel 1, Parcel Map 85-257 (Resub 811) 1.. Area calculation overlays provided. See attached drawings. 2. Require set backs, see sht. 2. 3,: Building heights from natural grade levels. See shts. 9 and 10. 4. Natural grade levels see shts. 9 and 10. All finished grade and building elevations, see shts. 12 - 18 and C1. 5. Handicapped parking spaces, signage and dimensions. See sht. 4. 6. Special approval required by: Public Works, Parks Department, Planning Commission, Building Department and Coast approval provided by owner. 7. Fully dimensioned plot plan, see sht. 2. MIN '.T4 a ril 5, 1990 ROLL CALL 1 INDEX NDITI N 1. That developme�se substantial conformance with the approved pelevations except as noted below. 2. That this approval shall permit Signs "A", " d "D" as shown on the approved plans and that Sign "C" bliaube removed from the property. Discussion Items Discussion Items: Use Permit No 3342 (Review) D-1 %: Request to review, a portion of the proposed landscaping plan for UP3342 the Emerald Village Personal Care facility previously approved in conjunction with Use Permit No. 3342. Said review is for the of determining that the proposed landscape plan purpose adjacent to Buck Gully is in substantial conformance with the approved plans. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 85-257 (Resubdivision No. 811), located at 3901 East Coast Highway, on the southeasterly corner of East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: Emerald Associates, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Commissioner Pers6n determined that the landscaping plan is in substantial conformance with the plot plan. Motion was made and voted on to approve the submitted Motion * landscape plan and sections with the determination that they are All Ayes in substantial conformance with the plans previously approved by -41- ' "JRWIMISSIONERS A April 5, 1990 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTEa ROLL CALL EEEE _ INDEX the Planning Commission and the City Council. MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No..1677 (Amended) (Review) D-2 quest to review the City Council's September 11, 1989 UP1677A ap oval of Use Permit No. 1677 (Amended), permitting a of the existing Stuft Noodle chan in operational characteristics Restau t so as to allow a lunch operation during the week whereas a previous use permit prohibited the restaurant from operating fore 5:00 p.m, during the week. LOCArUON: A portion of Lot D, Tract No. 919, located the at 215-217 Riverside Avenue, on northwesterly corner of Riverside Avenue and von Street, across Avon Street from the U ' ed States Post Office. ZONE: SP-5 APPLICANT: Stuft Noo Restaurant, Newport Beach OWNER: Ms. Nelly Bra sma, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, in ' ated that the conditions hour of the use permit are adhered to; howeve the two parking Avon Street is not being enforced by th Police Department. on He explained that it appears that Post ffice employees occasionally use the parking in front of the re urant. Rich Edmonston, City Traffic Engineer, stated at he has a Police contacted the parking enforcement section of Department when he has observed automobiles in fro of the He that olive restaurant for the entire day. explained tire enforcement would require a police officer to mark the .And infractions. e then to follow up two hours later to govern any rr.ztere commented that the City has previously suggested - the parking in front of the restaurant, and that he would .Jfer issue to the Traffic Affairs Committee at the ney. . meeting. meter -42- Ms. Genia Garcia April2, 1991 Page 1 «DATA planning—* April 2, 1991 «fname> « lname>> «company» «street* «city>> re: Conditional Use Permit Requirements for SummerHouse CUP #: 3342 PC#: 895-90 Dear «sal >, This letter is to serve as our "Letter of Compliance" for the above -referenced Use Permit. We herein reiterate our commitment to comply with all the conditions of the permit, including those which control future operations. These conditions, which cannot be fully implemented at this time, include the following: 21. Valet Parking Requirement 22. On -site Employee Parking 36. Sound Attenuation and Certification w, 37. Construction Fencing 38. Traffic Control Plan 39. Handicapped Parking Compliance 41. Maximum Occupancy and Operating Reports 43. Age Restricted Occupancy 44. No Public Commercial Uses 45. No Resident's Parking 48. Subject to Future Conditions 49. Personal Care Facility Only 50. Tree Height Restriction 51. Park and Ride Service Ms. Genia Garcia April 2, 1991 Page 2 52. Conversion of Garden Deck into Parking 53. Parking Survey 55. Buck Gulley Landscape Maintenance Please note that these subheadings are used for convenience only and are not to be construed as supplementing or interpreting the precise wording of the actual condition as stated in the Permit. If we can provide further information, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Jon E. Christeson Vice President t FINAL FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE PERMIT NO. 3342 AS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 22, 1989 A. Environmental Document: Accept the environmental document, making the following findings: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K-3. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have een considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. B. Traffic Study No. 54: Approve the traffic study with the following findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beacll Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. 0 2. The project, as proposed, will generate less traffic than the uses which currently exist on -site in the evening peak hour on a daily basis. 3. The increased traffic in the morning peak hour is less than 10% of existing traffic on any approach leg of affected intersections. C. Use Permit No. 3342: Approve the use permit with the findings and subject to the following conditions of approval: Findings: 1. The project will comply with all applicable City and State Building Codes and Zoning requirements for new building applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located, except the height of the proposed stair/elevator tower. 2. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with — surrounding land uses. 3. That adequate off-street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. 4. The building height will result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit. l C2�:1'? USE PERMIT NO. 3342 FINAL FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 22, 1989 - PAGE 2 a 5. The building height will result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit. 6. The building height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces inasmuch as the project has provided increased setbacks from public streets and adjoining residential property. 7. The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit for the building height. 8. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property with the proposed development. 9. That the use of tandem parking spaces in conjunctXon with a full-time valet parking service gill not, under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modifications are consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 10. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 11. That Section 13.05.010 of the Municipal Code requires that public improvements be completed in commercial areas prior to the issuance of Building Permits for a new structure. 12. That the sidewalk along East Coast Highway is the only pedestrian access between the Shorecliffs Development and the business district of Corona del Mar on the southerly side of East Coast Highway. 13. That it' has been demonstrated that the traffic to be generated by the,, proposed project will not exceed that which would be generated if the base traffic generation rate were applied to a project developed at the base floor area ratio. 14. That the projections of traffic to be generated by the project have been based on standard traffic generation rates generally applied to an elderly personal care facility. USE PERMIT NO. 3342 FINAL FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 22, 1989°- PAGE 3 15. That the proposed project is a single use development that will be restricted to an 85 unit (100 bed) elderly personal care facility upon which the traffic equivalency was based. 16. The proposed use and physical improvements are such that the approved project would not readily 1 nd itself to conversion to a higher traffic generating use. 17. The increased floor area ratio will not result in significant impairment of public views. 18. That the site is physically suitable for the floor area proposed, considering that a 0.5 F.A.R. office or retail use with an additional 0.25 above grade structure parking could be constructed on the site which would contain approximately the same building floor area and building bulk as the proposed project. 19. The approval of Us+6 Permit No. 3342 will not under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions• ( 1.L That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plgn, floor plans, elevations and sections approved by the City Council on May 22, 1989, except as noted below. 2. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to issuance of a grading permit. Any modific tions or extension to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 3. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the — Public Works Department. 4. That a standard use permit agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 5. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer and shall be modified in the following manner: USE PERMIT NO. 3342 FINAL FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 22, 1989 - PACE 4 a. Access to the subterranean parking area shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide. b. Parking shall not be permitted within the circular motor court so as to provide required emergency vehicle access to the project. C. That the planter at the center of the circular motor court shall be redesigned to Fire Department standards. d. That the driveway design shall conform to Sight Distance Standard Plan 110-L. e. That the proposed drives and ramps shall not exceed a 15 percent slope with change of grade not to exceed 11 percent. f. A minimum five foot wide sidewalk shall be provided on the west side of the driveway. 4� 6. That an access ramp be constructed per City Standard No. 181-L at the intersection of East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive; that unused drive aprons be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk along the East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive frontages; and that all deteriorated portions of curb, gutter and sidewalk be reconstructed along East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive frontages. 7. That all work within the East Coast Highway right-of-way be completed under an , Encroachment Permit issued by the California Department of Transportation. 8. That the intersection of the East Coast Highway and drives be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 40 mile per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight, distance requirements. Landscaping with the sight distance line shall no, exceed twenty-four inches in height. The sight distance requirement mal be approximately modified at non -critical locations, subject to approval Ceof the Traffic Engineer. That prior to issuance of an radin or building permits for the site, the applicant s a emonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification from the City's Utilities Department and the Orange County Sanitation District. 10. County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. '.y USE PERMIT NO. 3342 FINAL FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 22, 1989 - PAGE 5 0 That a minimum of 46 off-street parking spaces shall be provided for the proposed development. 12. Construction shall meet the requirements of the UBC and the California Administrative Codes - Titles 19 and 24. 13. Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Departme t. 14. The entire building shall be sprinklered. 15. The building shall be equipped with smoke detectors and a fire alarm system. 16. All exit stairways must lead to an exit path that is continuous to a public way. 17. Access to the building for Fire Department use .shall occur at each exit point and the main; lobby. 18. A Class I standpipe shall be required at locations to be designated by the Fire Department. '\�9. Consideration of the use of ramps and exiting may have to be given in building design if non -ambulatory residents occupy the building. 20 The. planter shown on the site corner at East Coast Highway and Buck Gully shall not exceed 24 inches in height. 2© That valet parking service be provided at all times. 4 22 That all employees shall park their vehicles on -site. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from Hazel n Driv,, East Coast Highway and adjoining properties. /� 0 That all signs shall be in conformance with the provision of Section 777" 20.06.050 A3 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and shall be approved -bye. the City Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress. This shall not preclude the applicant from requesting a modification for the size, number and location of proposed project signs in accordance with Section 20.06.100 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 25. That any proposed landscaping adjacent to the public right-of-way be approved by the Public Works Department. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase USE PERMIT NO. 3342 FINAL FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 22, 1989 - PAGE 6 a the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. Prior to occupancy, a licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the approved plan. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches t�"yM and Recreation Department, and the approval of the Planning Department and Public Works Department. /� 28 That the lighting system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner v as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a Licensed Electrical Engineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 2 Development of site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. ya 30. That the grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 31. The grading permit shall include a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 32. An, erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 33. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. \J4. That grading, excavation and recompaction of the site shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of, the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. L 3 That any roof top or other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated in such a manner as to achieve a maximum sound level of 55 dBA at the property line. 136A That units shall be sound attenuated to a maximum of 45 dBA CNEL for the interior living areas and 65 dBA CNEL for exterior living areas associated USE PERMIT NO. 3342 FINAL FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 22, 1989 - PAGE 7 with individual units, as measured from the area expected to experience Ua,JF the highest sound levels. Measurement and certification of compliance with y this condition shall be completed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by a registered engineer practicing in acoustics. J 3 The excavation area shall be fenced to prevent safety hazards during the grading and building phases. \� 38. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the p„ 3;c [7oor_ks Department. 39. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated ��� within the on -site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self parking and shall be identified in a manner acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. Said parking spaces shall be accessible to the handicapped at all times. One handicapped sign on a post shall be required for each handicapped space. 40. That the Public works Department plan check and inspection fee shall be paid. 41 That the facility shall be limited to a maximum of 85 units and 100 beds. The applicant shall provide to the Planning Department a copy of the report that is submitted to the State of California indicating the number of individuals residing on the premises, and the number of available beds. 42. That it is the intention of this use permit to constitute the official zoning, of the subject property in accordance with Title 20 of the Municipal Code, the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Progr m Land Use Plan and said use permit shall run with the life of the property or until such time as the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan are amended. 43. Occupancy of the facility shall be limited to persons 62 years of age or older. (A younger spouse of a qualified resident may occupy the facility.) State law may further restrict occupancy to persons 62 years of age or older. ' 44 Ancillary commercial uses in the structure shall be for the use of residents and their guests only and shall not be available to members of the general public. G�z�a USE PERMIT NO. 3342 FINAL FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 22, 1989 - PAGE 8 i5J That the residents of the project shall not be permitted to own cars that are parked or stored on the subject property. Prior to issuance of Building Grading Permits, the applicant shall enter into an agreement, the form and content of which is acceptable to the City Attorney, binding the applicant and successors -in- iX':erest in perpetuity to an elderly personal care facility and shall be lii.lted to an occupancy by persons 62 years of age or older. The only excel. ion shall allow co - occupancy by the spouse of a qualified person. Restrictions shall be placed on the deed and in any other suitable binding document consistent to with the provisions of the above agreement. 01� That the proposed project shall be subject to the approval of the Coastal re9 Commission. 48. The Planning Commission may add and/or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a; determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. That this facility be operated only as a personal care facility as is currently described to the Planning Commission. (/ ©0 That the height of trees on the site shall be restricted to the height of t/ the. building excluding the height of the cupula above the main roofs of the structure. Vv 51 That when bus service is not available to the employees of the facility, the applicant shall be required to provide van service to and from the Park and Ride facility in Newport Center. 52 That the garden area above the subterranean paz .ing lot shall beJP constructed of building materials that will permit sa d garden area to be Oh% converted to additional parking spaces, if needed, in the future. r V� 53 That the applicant shall submit an onsite parking survey to the Planning-. Commission, to commence six months after the date of the opening of the facility for a period of six months. The survey hours shall be determined by the Planning Department staff. The survey shall consist of the number of automobiles onsite, the number of employees onsite, and the number of vehicles that are parked. 54. That the developer shall be responsible for the improvement of the public right-of-way adjacent to the view lookout at Glen Drive and East Coast Highway, subject to the approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department. N USE PERMIT NO. 3342 FINAL FINDINGS.AND CONDITIONS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 22, 1989 - PAGE 9 0 55. That a plan for the control and maintenance of vegetation on the slope of Buck Gully shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department. That during the construction period, all construction parking gshall be on - site, or on an approved off -site location. OVA44�-(_/� 57. That the applicant shall be responsible for gr ding the tap portion of Buck Gully adjacent to the site, including' the i_.stallation of sidewalk and landscaping, subject to the approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department. 58. That the developer shall pay his fair share of a traffic signal at the intersection of Seaward Road and East Cast Highway should CalTrans technical warrants for a signal are met. x ,t 04 e. a Ms. Genia Garcia April 2, 1991 Page 1 «DATA planning» April 2, 1991 «fname» « lname» «company» «street* «City» re: SummerHouse Use Permit #3342 Conditions/ PC #895-90 Dear «sal», This letter outlines and catalogs the steps taken to fulfill each of the 58 conditions of approval required by the above -referenced Use Permit. Many of these requirements are fulfilled by the architectural, mechanical, plumbing, electrical, structural, civil and landscaping plans dated August 23,1990 which have been previously submitted to the City for Plan Check and have received approvals as noted herein. These shall be referred to as 'the Plans' herein. ✓ 1. Substantial Conformance: The above -referenced Plans have been presented for your review. We believe these to be in substantial conformance with our May 22,1989 plans. 2. Hydrology Study: This study has been incorporated into the Civil Engineering plans by the civil engineer and the plumbing plans by the mechanical engineer. The signature of the Public Works Department on the Plans is evidence of the required approval. 3. Public Improvements: The signature of the Public Works Department on the Plans is evidence of the required approval. 4. Surety Agreement: The processing for the surety agreement is being handled by the Public Works Department. They will not allow us to commence without completing this agreement. 5. Vehicular Circulation: The Plans fulfill these requirements as evidenced by the approval of the City's Traffic Engineer. 6. Access Ramp: Included in Plans as approved in Condition 3. 7. Encroachment Permit: A Cal -Trans Encroachment Permit is only valid for 30 days, so we do not want to pull this permit for a number of months. Evidence of our application and payment of fee is enclosed. 8. Sight distance: Completed per Condition 5 9. Sewer Facilities: Service letter from Public Works attached herein. Mestre Greve Associates Consulting Engineers September 10, 1990 Mr. David Keefe Dorius Architects 1550 Bayside Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Dear Dave, This letter pertains to the City of Newport Beach's noise related "conditions of approval" which the Emerald Village (Summer House) project must meet. The project must comply with the City's 45 CNEL indoor noise standard and 65 dBA CNEL outdoor noise standard. Mestre Greve Associates has conducted the report "Noise Analysis for the Emerald Village" on April 25, 1990 which presents mitigation measures that are necessary to comply with the noise standards. This report should satisfy the City's "conditions of approval" for the Emerald Village project. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Mestre Greve Associates i l li Tanya Nguy 280 Newport Center Drive, Suite 230 0 Newport Beach, California 92660 • (714) 760.0891 City Council Meeting April 24, 1989 Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A. Traffic Study No. 54 g Request to approve a traffic study so as to permit the construction of an 85 unit elderly personal care facility on property located in the P-C District. AND B. Use Permit No. 3342 Request to permit the construction of an 85 unit elderly personal care facility on property located in the P-C District. The proposal also includes a request to allow a portion of the structure to exceed the 32 foot basic -height limit in the 32/50 Height Limitation District; a request to establish an off- street parking requirement based on a demonstrated formula; a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of tandem parking spaces in conjunction with a full-time valet parking service; and the acceptance of an environmental document. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 85-257 (Resubdivision No. 811), located at 3901 East Coast Highway, on the southeasterly corner of East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: Emerald Associates, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Application This application involves a request to permit the construction of an 85 unit elderly personal care facility on property located in the P-C District. The proposal also includes: A request to allow a portion of the structure to exceed the basic height limit in the 32/50 Height Limitation District; a request to establish an off-street parking requirement based on a demonstrated formula; a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of tandem parking spaces in conjunction with a full-time valet parking service; and the approval of a Traffic Study. In accordance with Section 20.02.040 of the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission may approve structures in excess of the basic height limit provided that in each case a use permit is approved. Use Permit procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.80, Modifications procedures are outlined in Chapter 20.81, and Traffic Study procedures are set forth in Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. TO: City Council - 2 Suggested Action Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired, A) Approve Traffic Study No. 54 and Use Permit No. 3342 with the Findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth in Exhibit "A" of the attached Planning Commission staff report; m B) Take no action on Traffic Study No. 54 and deny Use Permit No. 3342 with the Findings set forth in Exhibit "B" of the attached Planning Commission staff report. Planning Commission Recommendation At its meeting of March 9, 1989, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend the approval of Traffic Study No. 54 and Use Permit No. 3342 to the City Council. It was the feeling of the Commission that the project, as conditioned, would maintain a minimal impact on the adjoining residential and commercial areas. Requirement of City Council Approval The General Plan provides that the development of the subject property shall be subject to the approval of Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan, which the applicant is accomplishing through the use permit approval process. Inasmuch as the approval of a P-C Development Plan requires City Council approval, it will be necessary for the City Council to approve the subject use permit and related Traffic Study, whereas use permits and traffic studies normally do not require City Council action. It is staff's opinion that the use permit rather than a P-C Development Plan procedure will allow the City the opportunity to review the specifics of a proposed project based on the operational characteristics of the specific type of senior housing being proposed, and establish the appropriate development standards relative to the specific nature of the project. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING.DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director by'zibL2 Gltk _ W. W LLIAM WARD Senior Planner WWW/kk COUNCIL\UP3342.424 TO: City Council - 3 Attachments for City Council Only: Planning Commission Staff Report dated 3/9/89 Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes dated 3/9/89 Letter of Information from Transamerica dated 3/8/89 Letters of Support Letters of Opposition Typical Floor Plans of Proposed Units Site Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations and Sections Planning Commission Meeting March 9, 1989 Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A Traffic Study No 54 (Public Hearing) Request to approve a traffic study so as to permit the construction of an 85 unit elderly personal care facility on property located in the P-C District. AND B. Use Permit No 3342 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of an 85 unit elderly personal care facility on property located in the P-C District. The proposal also includes a request to allow a portion of the structure to exceed the 32 foot basic height limit in the 32/50 Height Limitation District; a request to establish an off-street parking requirement based on a demonstrated formula; a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of tandem parking spaces in conjunction with a full time valet parking service; and the acceptance of an environmental document. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 85-257 (Resubdivision No. 811), located at 3901 East Coast Highway, on the southeasterly corner of East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: Emerald Associates, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Application This application involves a request to permit the construction of an 85 unit elderly personal care facility on property located in the P-C District. The proposal also includes: a request to allow a portion of the structure to exceed the basic height limit in the 32/50 Height Limitation District; a request to establish an off-street parking requirement based on a demonstrated formula; a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the 1'� 3 A TO: Planning Commission-2. use of tandem parking spaces in conjunction with a full time valet parking service; and the approval of a Traffic Study. In accordance with Section 20.02.040 of the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission may approve structures in excess of the basic height limit provided that in each case a use permit is approved. Use permit procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.80, modification procedures are outlined in Chapter 20.81 and traffic study procedures are set forth in Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Environmental Significance In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City Council Policy K-3, an Initial Study has been prepared for the proposed project. Based on the information contained in the Initial Study, it has been determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project and is attached for the Planning Commission's information. Subject Property and Surrounding Land Use The subject property is currently developed with a commercial building which contains a restaurant and a variety of retail and service related commercial uses. To the northeast, across East Coast Highway, are a combination of retail and office uses; to the southeast is Buck Gully with single family residential uses beyond; to the southwest is a single family dwelling; and to the northwest, across Hazel Drive, is the Five Crowns Restaurant. Extended Background At its meeting of October 10, 1985, the Planning Commission denied the following applications associated with the proposed development of a 77 unit senior congregate living facility on the subject property. Said development was originally considered at the Planning Commission meeting of August 22, 1985; however, because of several concerns expressed by the Planning Commission, relative to the size and bulk of the building, proximity to East Coast Highway, and the overall intensity of development, the item was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of October 10, 1985 so as to allow the applicant to make revisions to the proposed project. Excerpts of the Planning Commission minutes dated August 22, 1985 and October 10, 1985 are attached for the Commission's review. 1. General Plan Amendment 85-1(C): A request to consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the City of Newport Beach General Plan, so as to redesignate a portion of the property located at 3901 East Coast Highway, Corona del Mar, from "Low Density Residential" and a mixture of "Administra- tive, Professional and Financial Commercial" and "Retail and Service Commercial" to a combined designation of "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" and "Multi -Family Residential" uses. TO: Planning Commission-3. 2. Amendment No. 7 to the Local Coastal Program: A request to consider an amendment to the Certified Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, so as to redesignate a portion of the property located at 3901 East Coast Highway, Corona del Mar, from "Low Density Residential" and "Retail and Service Commercial" to a combined designation of "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" and "Multi -Family Residential" uses. 3. Amendment No. 620: Request to amend a portion of Districting Map. No. 18 so as to reclassify the subject property from the R-1 District and the C-1 District to the Planned Community District. 4. Traffic Study: Request to consider a traffic study so as to permit a 77 unit (reduced from 80) senior congregate living facility on the site. 5. Use Permit No. 3155: Request to permit the construction of a 77 unit (reduced from 80) senior congregate living facility on property located in the R-1 and the C-1 District (proposed to be rezoned to P-C). The proposal also includes: a request to allow a portion of the structure to exceed the basic height limit in the 32/50 Height Limitation District; a request to establish an off -site parking requirement based on a demonstrated formula; and a request to allow the use of a full time valet parking service. At its meeting of December 9, 1985, the City Council overruled the decision of the Planning Commission and approved the applicant's appeal of the above described applications. Attached for the Planning Commission's information, is an excerpt of the City Council minutes dated December 9, 1985. Inasmuch as the previous applicant did not implement his project within two years of the City Council's approval, the Traffic Study and Use Permit No. 3155 expired on December 9, 1987. In accordance with the provisions of Section 20.80.090 A and 15.40.030 F of the Municipal Code, projects that have required the approval of a Traffic Study and a use permit, are required to obtain Building Permits within 24 months of the effective date of approval or said approvals expire. Due to the expiration of the previously approved applications, the previous applicant filed Use Permit No. 3303 which involved the resubmittal of the previously approved project so that he could proceed with its construction. Said project was consistent with the previous approval, with the exception that additional tandem parking spaces were added to the approved garage area as a requirement of the California Coastal Commission and the project floor area increased slightly. At its meeting of December 10, 1987, the Planning Commission denied Use Permit No. 3303. Said action was subject to the findings set forth in the attached excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes dated December 10, 1987. Recent Background At its meeting of June 9, 1988, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. 3312 and related traffic study at a public hearing which was continued from the April 21, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant's proposal originally included a 120 unit project with a Parking Ratio of .33 .s TO: Planning Commission-4. parking spaces per unit (40 spaces), a Floor Area Ratio of .99 which included the Buck Gully portion of the site (FAR excluding the Buck Gully portion of the site is 1.28) and approximately 17.2 percent of the building that exceeded the 32 foot basic height limit. However, as a result of concerns expressed by the Planning Commission, relative to the size and height of the building, the number of units and the amount of off-street parking spaces provided, the Planning Commission allowed the applicant the opportunity to redesign the project in order to address these concerns. As a result of the redesign effort, the applicant presented a revised project at the June 9, 1988 Planning Commission meeting which included 108 units, a Parking Ratio of .47 (51 spaces), a Floor Area Ratio of .849 and a 6 foot reduction of the overall building height with the exception of the elevator tower and cupola which were lowered 2± feet. It should also be noted that the Planning Commission's approval of the project included the additional Condition No. 71 which limited the project to a .80 FAR and which resulted in a net reduction of 3,272 square feet of building area which was to be converted into a minimum of 3 additional parking spaces within the subterranean parking area. At its meeting of June 27, 1988, the City Council called up for review Use Permit No. 3312 and the related traffic study. However, prior to the City Council public hearing, the applicant withdrew his application pending adoption of the General Plan update which was in progress at the time. Conformance with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan designate the subject property for "Retail and Service Commercial" uses as part of the Corona del Mar commercial strip (Statistical Area F-9). The allowable Floor Area Ratio within this area is a variable F.A.R. of 0.5/0.75. The Land Use Element of the General Plan provides that certain uses which demonstrate a lower trip generation than 60 trips per 1,000 square feet, may exceed the base F.A.R. of 0.5, up to a maximum of 0.75. At its meeting of February 23, 1989, the Planning Commission reviewed the Draft Floor Area Ratio and Building Bulk Ordinance which is intended to be the implementing ordinance for the flexible F.A.R. provisions included in the General Plan. Included within the Draft Ordinance are suggested findings which the Planning Commission would have to make in order to approve the maximum F.A.R. for a given project. Said findings are listed as follows: 1. It has been demonstrated that the traffic to be generated by the proposed Maximum FAR use will not exceed that which would be generated if the base traffic generation rate were applied to a project developed at the base floor area ratio. 2. The projections of traffic to be generated utilize standard traffic generation rates generally applied to a use of the type proposed. 3. The building tenants would be restricted to the uses upon which the traffic equivalency was based. i_" Planning Commission-5. 4. The proposed use and physical improvements are such that the approved project would not readily lend itself to conversion to a higher traffic generating use. 5. The increased floor area ratio does not create abrupt changes in scale between the proposed development and development in the surrounding area. 6. That the proposed structure and use are compatible with the surrounding area. 7. The increased floor area ratio will not result in significant impairment of public views. 8. That the site is physically suitable for the floor area proposed, taking into consideration site characteristics including, but not limited to, slopes, submerged areas, and sensitive resources. Although the above required findings have not been adopted yet, it is staff's opinion that it is appropriate to use these findings as a basis for evaluating the subject project, inasmuch as they are consistent with the intent and spirit of the General Plan language concerning variable Floor Area Ratio limits. It is staff's further opinion that the subject project fully conforms with the above findings, including Finding No. 8, considering that a 0.5 F.A.R. office or retail use with 0.25 above grade structure parking could be constructed on the site which would contain approximately the same building floor area and building bulk as the proposed project, and would not be required to comply with any of the above findings. It should also be noted that the applicant has included his comments concerning this issue on pages 2-7 of his attached letter. The General Plan also provides that the development of the property shall be subject to the approval of Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan, which the applicant is accomplishing through the use permit approval process. Inasmuch as the approval of a P-C Development Plan requires City Council approval, it will be necessary for the City Council to approve the subject use permit, whereas use permits normally do not require City Council action. It is staff's opinion that the use permit rather than a P-C Development Plan procedure will allow the City the opportunity to review the specifics of a proposed project based on the operational characteristics of the specific type of senior housing being proposed, and establish the appropriate development standards relative to the specific nature of the project. The General Plan Housing Element recognizes and supports the provision of senior citizen housing (Objective 11) in all areas of the City in order to provide increased housing opportunities for elderly residents of the community. Based on the above information, it is staff's opinion that the project is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan. 7 TO: Planning Commission-6. Analysis In light of the adoption of the General Plan update, the applicant has revised his project in accordance with the new Land Use Element. The revised project includes a proposal to construct an 85 unit elderly personal care facility which will contain a maximum of 100 beds. The applicant describes "personal care" facilities as having a level of service which is a step above that provided by a "congregate care" facility. The latter is primarily aimed at single persons, ages 75 to 85, which are frail but fully ambulatory and require no nursing assistance. Whereas the former provides a staff of personal aides which provide assistance with a myriad of personal care activities. The activities of the personal aides are supervised by a nurse, however the facility is not a licensed nursing home. Project facilities will include a common dining area for full daily meal service, a beauty/barber shop and linen/laundry services. As is common for senior care facilities, services include a full time staff and transportation services. The following outline has been prepared which describes the major characteristics of the proposed project, as well as the characteristics of the previous project. Site Area: 1.487 acres (66,773.72 sq.ft.)' Buildable Area: 1.487 acres (66,773.72 sq.ft.) Permitted Gross Structural Area (Established by General Plan) .75 x site area or 50,080 sq.ft. Gross Structural Area Floor Area Ratio: Setbacks: E. Coast Highway Buck Gully (@ PCH) Buck Gully: Proposed Project Use Permit No. 3342 50,060 sq.ft. .75 30 ft. (Wing A) 95± ft. (Wing C) 29± ft. 68± ft. Previous Project Use Permit No. 3312 66,145 sq.ft. m 27 ft. (Wing A) 14 ft. (Wing D)2 29± ft. 68± ft. lThe attached plans incorrectly indicate the subject property contains 66,900 sq.ft. 2Wing "D" of the previous project has been removed. l: TO: Planning Commission-7. Proposed Project Previous Project Use Permit No. 3342 Use Permit No. 3312 Hazel Drive 10 ft. 0 ft. (Sublevel -1); Varies 7 ft. to 17± ft. (Levels 1, 2 & 3);26± ft. Southerly R-1 Lot; 15 ft. 15 ft. Parking: 42 spaces in 40 spaces in tandem unit) tandem (.49 spaces (.33 spaces per per unit) Permitted Building Average Maximum Ridge Maximum Flat Height: 32 ft. 37 ft. 32 ft. Building Height of Previous Project: ±�8 ft.-6 in. ±33 ft.-6 in. ±29 ft. Wing A Win B ±25 ft. ±30 ft. None Wing C g ±29 ft.-6 in. ±36 ft.-6 in. ±34 ft.-6 in. Wing D ±30 ft. ±34 ft. ±30 ft. Tower ±35 ft. ±39 ft. None Cupola ±46 ft. ±49 ft. None Building Heights of Proposed Project: + 24 ft. Wing A ±16 ft. ±22 ft. Wing B ±16 ft. ±22 ft. + 24 ft. Wing C ±24 ft. ±30 ft. ±28 ft. Tower ±33 ft. None None Cupola None ±41 ft. None As indicated from the above outline, the proposed project represents a 24.4 percent decrease in gross floor area and a reduction of 35 units when compared to the previous project. Another significant change worth noting is the increased setbacks being provided adjacent to East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive as a result of the deletion of the westerly wing of the building and the provision of the large garden and entry area which provides varying setbacks between 95± feet and 127± feet from East Coast Highway or over 65 percent of the site frontage. Applicant's Statement of Support and Alternative Land Use Comparison• On pages 7-10 of the applicant's attached letter, as well as the attached Use Analysis Table, the applicant has provided a comparison of alternative land uses and the extent of development for each land use included. Staff has reviewed this comparison and have found it to be accurate in its content with the exception that under the existing General Plan language, any development of the subject property will require discretionary approval from the City, in the form of a Planned Community Development Plan or a use permit. It is important to note that the proposed development represents the least intense project in terms of overall traffic generation, with N TO: Planning Commission-8. approximately the same overall floor area and building bulk as would be permitted for an office or retail commercial development of the site (approximately 50,000 square feet of gross floor area). It should also be noted that the Planning Department staff has met with a group of homeowners from Corona del Mar who are opposed to the subject project on the basis that the site location is improper for such a use and that based on their information, the economic viability of the project is somewhat questionable. As an alternative use, these homeowners have suggested to the applicant that a residential townhome development would be an acceptable development of the site. The applicant has rejected such a proposal on the basis that the construction of luxury homes on property directly adjacent to East Coast Highway is not desirable and that depending on the number and size of the dwelling units, a residential development on the site could result in 20,000 to 30,000 square feet of additional floor area when compared to the proposed project. It should also be noted that any consideration of a residential alternative would require a further amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. The applicant's response to this issue is contained on page 9 of the attached letter from the applicant. Traffic Study In conjunction with the previous 120 unit proposal, a Traffic Study was prepared in conformance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and City Policy S-1; however, final action was not taken on the traffic study prior to the applicant's withdrawal of his previous applications. Therefore, the applicant has resubmitted the traffic study in conjunction with his current project. The Traffic Phasing Ordinance procedures allow for credit to be granted for existing development in redevelopment projects. The traffic generated by existing land uses compares to the proposed project as follows: TRAFFIC GENERATION COMPARISON EXISTING MIXED USE VS. PROPOSED PROJECT Total Trips Generated Existing Mixed Proposed Project Use Retail Single Use Commercial and Retirement Time Period Restaurant Apartments Morning Peak Hour 18 15 Evening Peak Hour 66 20 Morning Peak 2.5 Hours 34 31 Evening Peak 2.5 Hours 131 42 Two -Way Traffic Total 670 338 V TO: Planning Commission-9. The above comparison indicates that during all time periods, the project will generate less traffic than generated currently by the existing retail shops and restaurant. On a daily basis, the project will generate only half as much traffic as currently generated by the site. Based on the above figures, the proposed project will not produce traffic impacts greater than those that currently exist for the site; they will in fact be reduced. The overall level of service for the intersections in the vicinity of the project should not be impaired by the project. For this reason, the one percent analysis was not required. It should also be noted that the above trip generation figures were taken from the previous Traffic Study which was based on 130 units within the project. Therefore, the actual trip generation for the 85 unit project will be approximately 34 percent lower than the above figures. Use Permit No. 3342 A Use Permit is required for the proposed project to serve as the P-C Development Plan for the site. A Use Permit is also required to allow the stair and elevator tower with cupola to be constructed to a height of 4L+ feet in the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation District; and to allow parking to be provided based upon a demonstrated formula. A modification to the Zoning Code is required to allow tandem parking spaces in conjunction with a full time valet parking service. The issues associated with the project are in the areas of building height and views, visual intensity and building mass, parking and emergency access. Building Height and Views The site is located in the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation District. As indicated in the previous outline, the only portion of the proposed building which exceeds the 32 foot basic height limit is the stair and elevator tower located in the center of the project. In accordance with Section 20.02.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, structures may exceed the 32 foot basic height limit up to a maximum of 50 feet, subject to the approval of a use permit in each case. It is also required that the Planning Commission determine that the proposed project fully complies with each of the following findings: a. The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular attention shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of all setback and open areas. b. The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. C. The increased building height would not result in any undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure TO: Planning Commission-10. and existing developments or public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizonal and vertical dimensions. d. The structure shall have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the Use Permit. The project is no more intense than would be allowed in the C-1 District, which is the designation of the other areas along East Coast Highway in Old Corona del Mar. None of the proposed buildings will be located in Buck Gully portion of the site, which is approximately 20% of the site. The first above grade level is set back approximately 30± feet from the Buck Gully property line, providing some visual open space to the Buck Gully and the ocean beyond. The views down Buck Gully will be reduced, but not eliminated, by the project. It should also be noted that approximately 63.2 percent of the site is open space, a large amount of which is provided adjacent to East Coast Highway, in the form of a large motor court entrance and garden area which separates the two portions of the building which exceed the basic height limit from East Coast Highway. As a final note, it should be mentioned that the portions of the proposed building which exceed the basic height limit represent only 4 percent of the total roof area. Said portion of the building is well away from East Coast Highway (117± feet) and from the southerly R-1 property (43± feet). It is staff's opinion that the proposed project has been designed so as to substantially conform with the required findings necessary to approve the construction in excess of the basic height limit. Visual Intensity and Building Mass The project has a Floor Area Ratio (exclusive of subterranean parking) of .75 when calculated over the entire building site. It should be noted that the Buck Gully portion of the site is designated for "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" and is defined as an environmentally sensitive area. If this area is omitted from the FAR calculation, the project building intensity is approximately .998. It should be noted, however, that there is no provision within the Zoning Code, General Plan or Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan which requires the removal of the "Environmental Open Space" area from the Floor Area Ratio calculation, nor has it been the policy of the Planning Department to calculate the Floor Area Ratio in such a manner. As indicated in the attached elevations and sections, the proposed structure includes four different levels directly adjacent to Buck Gully which will be visible from the Buck Gully side of the project; however, it will appear as a two level structure from East Coast Highway. Required Off -Street Parking The Zoning Code does not include a specific parking requirement for personal care, elderly housing projects; therefore, staff required in conjunction with the previous project submittal, the preparation of a parking demand study which compares the proposed project to several similar existing Ir TO: Planning Commission-11. facilities, for the purpose of establishing a demonstrated parking demand. A copy of the parking study is contained on pages 9-11 of the attached Traffic Study. Based on the observations and data gathered from the various projects, it is the consulting traffic engineer's opinion that the parking ratio which provides adequate capacity for a given facility may vary widely and may be influenced by a variety of factors. The critical factors appear to be the age of the residents, the size of the dwelling units, and the availability of transportation and full meal service. Larger dwelling units with more active seniors require higher parking ratios, typically 0.6 to .75 spaces per residential unit because they are more likely to maintain a car. Senior residential complexes which cater to a slightly older age group, have smaller dwelling units and provide a full spectrum of services, especially transportation and full meal preparation, require lower parking ratios, typically 0.2 to 0.3 spaces per residential unit. The parking demand at these complexes is due as much or more to the staff parking demand as it is to the resident parking. Based on such a parking formula, the proposed facility would require between 17 and 26 parking spaces. The attached plans indicate that there are 44 parking spaces located within the subterranean parking area, two of which will be used for van storage. The attached parking study indicates that there will be a maximum of 23 employees at the facility during peak daytime periods; however, the applicant has reduced that number to 18 in light of the deletion of 35 units. Assuming that all employees will drive a car to work (which they may not) and considering that two of the parking spaces will be used to store the project shuttle vans, there will be 24 parking spaces available for guests inasmuch as residents will not be permitted to own vehicles that will be parked or stored on -site. It should also be noted that the proposed parking design includes a tandem handicap parking space which is not independently accessible. Therefore, should the State require self -park handicap spaces, the available guest parking spaces will be reduced to 22. Not including the two parking spaces used for van storage, the remaining 42 available parking spaces will result in an actual ratio of 0.49 parking spaces per dwelling unit which should be adequate for a personal care facility of this type. Proposed Parking Desien In conjunction with his review of the proposed parking design, the City Traffic Engineer has submitted the following comments and corrections: 1. Access to the subterranean parking area shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide. 2. Parking shall not be permitted within the circular motor court so as to provide required emergency vehicle access to the project. 3. That the planter at the center of the circular motor court shall be redesigned to Fire Department standards. i3 TO: Planning Commission-12. 4. That two handicap parking spaces are required unless otherwise waived by the Building Department and that each handicap parking space shall be independently accessible unless otherwise permitted by the Building Department. 5. That the driveway design shall conform to Sight Distance Standard Plan 110-L. 6. That the proposed drives and ramps shall not exceed a 15 percent slope with change of grade not to exceed 11 percent. 7. A minimum five foot sidewalk shall be provided on the west side of the driveway. The City Traffic Engineer has also suggested that the overall site circulation and parking design should be subject to his further review and approval, so as to allow further alteration to the proposed parking design relative to the above mentioned comments and corrections. As indicated on Sheet 3 of the attached plans, all of the proposed on -site parking is designed in a tandem configuration which the applicant intends to use in conjunction with a full time valet parking service. Tandem parking is usually allowed in conjunction with valet parking. Therefore, staff has no objections to the use of tandem parking, provided that the valet parking service is on duty at all times, and the valet parking plan is reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. Emergency Access In the review of the original project, the Fire Department expressed concern relative to the accessibility of portions of the building. The Fire Department recommended additional setbacks which have been incorporated into the new project design. Conclusion and Recommendation In order to grant any Use Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Additionally, specific findings in regards to public visual open space and views, architectural treatment, scale relationships and floor area must be made to approve a Use Permit to exceed the basic height limit. The use proposed for the property meets the criteria of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, will decrease traffic generated by the site and is a use which is permitted by the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. The use is generally residential in character, which should minimize conflicts with adjacent residential areas. The project also maintains an open space corridor along Buck Gully. Should the Commission TO: Planning Commission-13. wish to approve the subject applications, the findings and conditions set forth in the attached Exhibit "A" are suggested. Should the Planning Commission wish to deny the applications, the findings set forth in the attached Exhibit "B" are suggested. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director B � W. W lliam Ward Senior Planner Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Vicinity Map Planning Commission Minutes dated August 22, 1985 and October 10, 1985 for Use Permit No. 3155 and related applications City Council Minutes dated December 9, 1985 for Use Permit No. 3155 and related applications Planning Commission Minutes dated December 10, 1987 for Use Permit No. 3303 Planning Commission Minutes dated April 21, 1988 and June 9, 1988 for Use Permit No. 3312 Applicant's Letter of Support and Alternative Use Analysis Letter from Victor Regnier Traffic and Parking Study Revised Staffing Plan Letter of Support Letter of Opposition Initial Study and Negative Declaration Site Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations, Sections and Typical Unit Floor Plans �S TO: Planning Commission-14. EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TRAFFIC STUDY NO.54, USE PERMIT NO. 3342 AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT A. Environmental Document: Accept the environmental document, making the following findings: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K-3. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. B. Traffic Study No. 54: Approve the traffic study with the following findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. 2. The project, as proposed, will generate less traffic than the uses which currently exist on -site in the evening peak hour on a daily basis. 3. The increased traffic in the morning peak hour is less than 10% of existing traffic on any approach leg of affected intersections. C. Use Permit No, 3342: Approve the use permit with the findings and subject to the following conditions of approval: Findings• 1. The project will comply with all applicable City and State Building Codes and Zoning requirements for new building applicable to the district in 1� TO: Planning Commission-15. which the proposed project is located, except the height of the proposed stair/elevator tower. 2. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 3. That adequate off-street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. 4. The building height will result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit. 5. The building height will result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit. 6. The building height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces inasmuch as the project has provided increased setbackst from public streets and adjoining residential property. 7. The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit for the building height. 8. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property with the proposed development. 9. That the use of tandem parking spaces in conjunction with a full-time valet parking service will not, under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modifications are consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 17 TO: Planning Commission-16. 10. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 11. That Section 13.05.010 of the Municipal Code requires that public improvements be completed in commercial areas prior to the issuance of Building Permits for a new structure. 12. That the sidewalk along East Coast Highway is the only pedestrian access between the Shorecliffs Development and the business district of Corona del Mar on the southerly side of East Coast Highway. 13. That it has been demonstrated that the traffic to be generated by the proposed project will not exceed that which would be generated if the base traffic generation rate were applied to a project developed at the base floor area ratio. 14. That the projections of traffic to be generated by the project have been based on standard traffic generation rates generally applied to an elderly personal care facility. 15. That the proposed project is a single use development that will be restricted to an 85 unit (100 bed) elderly personal care facility upon which the traffic equivalency was based. 16. The proposed use and physical improvements are such that the approved project would not readily lend itself to conversion to a higher traffic generating use. 17. The increased floor area ratio will not result in significant impairment of public views. 18. That the site is physically suitable for the floor area proposed, considering that a 0.5 F.A.R. office or retail use with an additional 0.25 above grade structure parking could be constructed on the site which would contain approximately the same building floor area and building bulk as the proposed project. 19. The approval of Use Permit No. 3342 will not under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to R TO: Planning Commission-17. property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations and sections, except as noted below. 2. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to issuance of a grading permit. Any modifications or extension to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer-. 3. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4. That a standard use permit agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 5. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer and shall be modified in the following manner: a. Access to the subterranean parking area shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide. b. Parking shall not be permitted within the circular motor court so as to provide required emergency vehicle access to the project. C. That the planter at the center of the circular motor court shall be redesigned to Fire Department standards. d. That the driveway design shall conform to Sight Distance Standard Plan 110-L. TO: Planning Commission-18. e. That the proposed drives and ramps shall not exceed a 15 percent slope with change of grade not to exceed 11 percent. f. A minimum five foot wide sidewalk shall be provided on the west side of the driveway. 6. That an access ramp be constructed per City Standard No. 181-L at the intersection of East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive; that unused drive aprons be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk along the East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive frontages; and that all deteriorated portions of curb, gutter and sidewalk be reconstructed along East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive frontages. 7. That all work within the East Coast Highway right- of-way be completed under an Encroachment Permit issued by the California Department of Transportation. 8. That the intersection of the East Coast Highway and drives be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 40 mile per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping with the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty- four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be approximately modified at non- critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 9. That prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification from the City's Utilities Department and the Orange County Sanitation District. 10. County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 11. That a minimum of 40 offstreet parking spaces shall be provided for the proposed development. 12. Construction shall meet the requirements of the UBC and the California Administrative Codes - Titles 19 and 24. d TO: Planning Commission-19. 13. Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department. 14. The entire building shall be sprinklered. 15. The building shall be equipped with smoke detectors and a fire alarm system. 16. All exit stairways must lead to an exit path that is continuous to a public way. 17. Access to the building for Fire Department use shall occur at each exit point and the main lobby. 18. A Class I standpipe shall be required at locations to be designated by the Fire Department. 19. Consideration of the use of ramps and exiting may have to be given in building design if non - ambulatory residents occupy the building. 20. The planter shown on the site corner at East Coast Highway and Buck Gully shall not exceed 24 inches in height. 21. That valet parking service be provided at all times. 22. That all employees shall park their vehicles on - site. 23. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from Hazel Drive, East Coast Highway and adjoining properties. 24. That all signs shall be in conformance with the provision of Section 20.06.050 A3 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress. This shall not preclude the applicant from requesting a modification for the size, number and location of proposed project signs in accordance with Section 20.06.100 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 25. That any proposed landscaping adjacent to the public right-of-way be approved by the Public Works Department. 26. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape TO: Planning Commission-20. architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. Prior to occupancy, a licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the approved plan. 27. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department, and the approval of the Planning Department and Public Works Department. 28. That the lighting system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a Licensed Electrical En- gineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 29. Development of site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 30. That the grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 31. The grading permit shall include a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 32. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 33. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 34. That grading, excavation and recompaction of the site shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion TO: Planning Commission-21. of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. 35. That any roof top or other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated in such a manner as to achieve a maximum sound level of 55 dBA at the property line. 36. That units shall be sound attenuated to a maximum of 45 dBA CNEL for the interior living areas and 65 dBA CNEL for exterior living areas associated with individual units, as measured from the area expected to experience the highest sound levels. Measurement and certification of compliance with this condition shall be completed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by a registered engineer practicing in acoustics. 37. The excavation area shall be fenced to prevent safety hazards during the grading and building phases. 38. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. 39. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the on -site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self parking and shall be identified in a manner acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. Said parking spaces shall be accessible to the handicapped at all times. One handicapped sign on a post shall be required for each handicapped space. 40. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee shall be paid. 41. That the facility shall be limited to a maximum of 85 units and 100 beds. oP-3 TO* Planning Commission-22. 42. That it is the intention of this use permit to constitute the official zoning of the subject property in accordance with Title 20 of the Municipal Code, the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and said use permit shall run with the life of the property or until such time as the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan are amended. 43. Occupancy of the facility shall be limited to persons 62 years of age or older. (A younger spouse of a qualified resident may occupy the facility.) State law may further restrict occupancy to persons 62 years of age or older. 44. Ancillary commercial uses in the structure shall be for the use of residents and their guests only and shall not be available to members of the general public. 45. That the residents of the project shall not be permitted to own cars that are parked or stored on the subject property. 46. Prior to issuance of Building Grading Permits, the applicant shall enter into an agreement, the form and content of which is acceptable to the City Attorney, binding the applicant and successors -in - interest in perpetuity to an elderly personal care facility or similar use with the same trip generation characteristics which shall be limited to an occupancy by persons 62 years of age or older. The only exception shall allow co -occupancy by the spouse of a qualified person. Restrictions shall be placed on the deed and in any other suitable binding document consistent with the provisions of the above agreement. 47. That the proposed project shall be subject to the approval of the Coastal Commission. 48. The Planning Commission may add and/or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. q� TO: Planning Commission-23. EXHIBIT "B" FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF TRAFFIC STUDY NO 54 AND USE PERMIT NO. 3342 A TRAFFIC STUDY Findings: 1. A Traffic Study is not required for a project which is denied. B. Use Permit No. 3342 Findings• 1. That the project will be visually imposing and out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood. 2. That the intensity of the proposed project results in difficult site access. 3. That construction of the project will require a significant amount of grading which may affect the sensitive resources in Buck Gully. 4. The proposed use and the physical improvements of the site are such that the approved project would readily lend itself to conversion to a higher traffic generating use. 5. That the site is not physically suitable for the floor area proposed. 6. That the project will, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City in that the structure exceeds the basic height limit and is larger and has more bulk than other uses in Corona del Mar and will reduce public views of Buck Gully from East Coast Highway. ,a WG/N/7'1' 14AP SeF MAP NO, 17 9.r Ry 9� 711'n Rr rypp Rr P 9.( A� jc AM.fMI LM (-!wr/. �.kt.tl11F A►ewf AV AR.1 A1FiN .IYW Av(i..e /LE41.lii (R.,yy Nwtt[ •AV.'lI) llp A. TRACT M1f A'Gnf OI<e�/ AJnt t/M1A, TRA(l RfT - dw[r•Y I AM IEe fYAf+f tmr /(KR AAM Als.r A•/ Ta •✓• . MA )M AMfM /.IWI Y.w IeII/d'Pv.Wd¢iM NG%FF 7 FEET O �V DISTRICTING MAP NEWPORT BEACH - CALIFORN P—A ASAKAILTURAL RE&DENTIAL Rti MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL C—T R-2 DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL C-2 LIGHT COMMERCIAL GENERAL COMMERCIAL R—] RESTIL MULTIPLE HOMEY RESIDENTIAL M-1 MANUFAGTURNG COMBINING DISTRICTS �U ®® UNCLASSIFIED - Depth !n Feet Shawn Th°e :-10d6je r )ci5w/ v H Cy •( — 94 d m . I 1 OpO. NO. fff DR. M. Ifw MAP 70,99clC �TLL�i' NQ S�f � y 6 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT June 22, 1989 TO: File FROM: Bill Ward SUBJECT: Emerald Village a Project site area is less than that indicated in the May 22, 1989 City Council staff report. Site Area is 64,773 sq.ft. rather than 66,773 sq.ft. This results in 1,500 sq.ft. less gross floor area than previously indicated. Applicant was notified of this information on June 22, 1989. L M E R A L D A S S O C April 5, 1991 Mr. Phillip Crowley, General Manager Five Crowns Restaurant 3801 E. Coast Highway Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Re: Construction Period Parking for SummerHouse Dear Phil: C ohtl�l 16qrt 661 T E S We are preparing to pull final building permits on SummerHouse, 3901 E. Coast Highway, next door to your restaurant. We have requested to utilize your parking lot, in the 3700 block of Coast Highway, for construction employee parking for a period of one year from the commensement of construction, currently anticipated for early May. You have stipulated, and we have agrred to the following conditions: 1. No more than 25 vehicles will be parked in the lot at any one time. 2. All our vehicles will vacate the lot by 4:00 p.m. 3. Only passenger cars and pick-up trucks may utilize the lot - no construction equipment or heavy trucks will be allowed. 4. At any time you may designate specific locations in the lot where the vehicles may or may not park. 5. We will slurry -coat and restripe your lot upon the completion of the year period and be responsible for any damage which occurs as a result of our employees or firms in our employee. 6. We will indemnify and hold harmless Lawry's Restaurants, Inc. ("Lawry's") of and from any loss, cost or expense of any kind or nature resulting from our use of your lot. We will also carry, at our -own expense, during the term of our use of your lot, EMERALD VILLAGE comprehensive general liability insurance with a combined single AssociArEs, tNc. limit of not less than Three Million Dollars ($,3,000,000.00) for bodily injury and property damage which shall be written by a 4770 CAMPus DRIVE reputable insurance company licensed to de business in California. Any such policy shall name Lawry's as an additonal SUITE 10o insured and include a provision for thirty (30) days advance NEwroRT BEACH written notice to Lawry's in the event of any pending material change, notice of non -renewal or caancellation of the insurance. CA 92660 TEL. (714)476.0880 FAx. (714) 851-1918 Mr. Phillip Crowley April5, 1991 Page 2 Please acknowledge your acceptance of this agreement below. We appreciate your help in this matter, and we look forward to a long and mutually beneficial relationship as neighbors. If we can provide further information, do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, �' tinE,,Christeson dent Five Crowns Restaurant #y,Genera Phillip CroManager Date February 28, 1989 Bill Ward Page 2 Section 1: Policy A and Senior Housing Policy A strongly encourages a diverse community with the needs of our citizenry distributed throughout the neighborhoods. Senior Citizen housing is specifically mentioned within the implementation steps of Policy A as well as other places within the LUE as an approved use for any zone within the City, provided it does not create more traffic than the underlying use designated for any particular site. These statements were placed in the LUE in order to counter a longstanding trend in the City to segregate vital uses into remote or undesirable neighborhoods. For example, all the care facilities provided in this City to date have been in a the industrialized neighborhood behind Hoag Hospital. The City's first modern Congregate Facility (approved with an FAR of 1.46 and a parking ratio of .29) is currently under construction on Superior Avenue. This is not a residential location that any of us would find appealing or in any way similar to where we are currently living. The LUE clearly recognized that seniors are not a'used commodity' to be sent to the least desirable corner of the community, but that they are to be integrated into the fabric of the neighborhoods in which they already reside. To portray Emerald Village as importing a problem into Corona del Mar which would otherwise not exist is to continue the denial and segregation of our seniors' needs which the first policy of the new LUE seeks to eliminate! Emerald Village clearly fulfills Policy A of the LUE by meeting these needs right in the neighborhood in which they exist. Section 2: Policy B, Floor Area Ratios and Traffic Policy B seeks to encourage the redevelopment of older or underutilized properties (of which the A.T. Leo's site is a classic example) as low traffic generators as opposed to high traffic generators. It is hard to imagine a more important goal within the General Plan or a top- February 28, 1989 Bill Ward Page 3 higher priority among the citizens of our town. How does it seek to do that? By providing property owners "greater incentive to engage in uses which are low traffic generators" on these sites instead of more of the same noisy and busy restaurants, stores and offices. Objective analysis has repeatedly shown that Emerald Village represents the lowest possible traffic generator for this site and in fact, causes a significant net reduction in traffic from the existing uses on the site!. The 1988 Kunzman Study (which assumes a viable restaurant and retail in the existing building), projected a traffic load from the existing building of some 670 car trips per day. As we will summarize below, we are reducing the existing traffic by a factor of approximately two thirds. We believe that this is somewhat unprecedented in the history of development in Newport Beach, and should be encouraged not discouraged To implement Policy B of the LUE, the City established various floor limits on our site of .5 to.75. Step 2.A. of Policy B (Page 6) dictates that we multiply the square footage of the site (66,900) times the base FAR of .5 for a result of 33,450 base square feet. We then multiply this hypothetical base building times 60 trips per 1,000 square feet to produce the maximum allowable vehicular trips per day of 2,010. Similarly, using the factor of 3 trips per 1,000 square feet for peak hour traffic we have a peak hour limit of 100 vehicular trips. These two numbers, 2,010 and 100, serve as limits to test whether we can exceed the .5 base FAR. We skip over Step B and Step Cbecause they do not apply to our use. In Step D then, we calculate the ultimate traffic impact of our project as follows: February 28, 1989 Bill Ward Page 4 Using the data provided by the Kunzman Associates Traffic Study, we see that Senior Housing has a average daily trip factor of 2.6 per unit. 2.6 trips times 85 units equals 221 trips per day. Since 221 divided by 2,010 yields a ratio of only 11% of the maximum trips, we are allowed to exceed the base FAR according to the test of average daily trips. (As an interesting side note, Professor Regnier from U.S.C. estimates the average daily trips from Personal Care Senior Residences are as low as 1 to 1.5 trips per unit per day. Utilizing the higher 1.5 trip ratio, our project would generate a mere 128 trips per day, or 6% of the maximum permitted traffic load.) Similarly, Kunzman estimated that our peak traffic load would be .15 trips per unit. 85 units times .15 trips equals 13 peak hour trips or 13 % of our allowable peak hour trips, again, substantially inside the limits. It is clear then that we fulfill the tests of Policy B, Step 2, A and D; that the proposed use does not exceed the traffic generation limits. Having passed the traffic test, we must deal with the four final conditions to earning the .75 maximum FAR which are spelled out on page 6. Condition 1 is a discretionary review by the City, which is being conducted by virtue of this CUP process. Condition 2 is a finding that the building tenants would be restricted to Senior Citizens, which is clearly our intention and easy monitor as a condition over the life of the project. Condition 4 is similar: the recordation of a deed restriction binding the current, as well as future owners, to Senior Citizen assisted living housing. Therefore, the key provision of this section is Condition 3 which requires a finding that the increased FAR does not cause abrupt scale relationships with the surrounding area. In this regard, Emerald Village fulfills not only the letter of the law but the spirit as well. By every objective test of scale relationship in the zoning code, Emerald Village sets a standard which exceeds the requirements of the Zoning Code by 100 to 200%. To wit: February 28, 1989 Bill Ward Page 5 To begin with, every required setback is exceeded by a minimum of 100% over the code requirement. Most notably, the LUE requires a 25 foot setback on the Bulk Gully property line, whereas our actual set back vanes between 60 and 110 feet. In addition, our front setback varies between 35 to 110 feet, most of which is landscaped open area and not simply a paved parking lot. Our total site landscaping ratio is 63%1 A builing with almost a half acre of landscaped front yard certainly does not create any'abrupt scale relationships.' These architectural features are unique in the entire Corona del Mar strip and are facilitated by voluntarily placing all parking in a subterranean structure, a fact on which we will comment more below. The second area with which we have more than complied with is our height. Although Emerald Village is a multi -level building, the sloping topography of the site provides the opportunity to step the building down in several places. Despite having a height restriction of 32 feet variable to 50 feet, the bulk of the building is 30 feet or less from existing grade and the wing which is closest to Bulk Gully averages approximately 23 feet to the ridgeline. These are important facts for two reasons: 1) On the eastern edge of the property the existing building is some 26 feet Lail (measured to the edge of a parapet of a flat roof, which is a much harsher visual line than the ridge of a hipped roof.), It seems somewhat strained to declare a building that is shorter than the existing building in key areas 'to cause abrupt scale relationships. 2) All of these height measurements are taken from the peak of a beautiful hipped roof. In many locations, the distance from grade to the eave of the roof is as little as 17 or 18 feet. This is a totally appropriate scale and entirely compatible to neighboring houses and in fact less than or equal to the Five Crowns immediately next door. lAs' February 28, 1989 Bill Ward Page 6 Although this last condition pertaining to 'abrupt scale relationships' could be very subjective, the height and setback requirements of the LUE and the Zoning code form a clear, objective standard of what 'abrupt scale relationships' are. Since the setbacks and building heights are significantly under all code requirements Emerald Court more than fulfills this remaining condition to the granting of an FAR of .75. A point of interest is the fact that as a multi -family residential use, we have placed units inside the hipped roof, making them invisible from the street. So although the height is measured to the top of the roof, the visual appearance of the building from Coast Highway is that of a 2-story building. In addition, we have placed most of our common areas, that is the spaces which residences do not live but in which they partake of the common dining and recreation, as well as the kitchen, offices, and laundry, etc. below grade. These design factors contribute to making the visible floors of the building read to the passing observer the same as a building with a floor area ratio of about .4. Any commercial building of .5 FAR would all be above grade, with a flat roof and a parapet, creating a significantly 'heavier' visual mass. As a result, with Emerald Village the community gets the traffic reduction of the Senior Housing but the visual benefit of a building about half its actual size. In closing this section of policy B, we would like to make two additional comments. The first is that approving Emerald Village at a floor area ratio of .75 sets no precedent that other commercial uses could be approved above the .5 FAR because of the very precise methodology outlined in the General Plan. In other words, approving a Senior Housing Project at .75 does not allow a restaurant or an office building or a retail facility to be built anywhere in Corona del Mar bigger than the General Plan .5 FAR. This was a major r06 February 28, 1989 Bill Ward Page 7 concern a year ago when the General Plan was more vague in regards to floor area ratios. The second point is that, to deny the .75 FAR in the face of these incredibly low traffic generation numbers would be to pardon the phrase, hypocritical. On the one hand, the variable FAR exists to reduce the square footage of the highly intensive users, such as restaurants. It would then be very counter productive to the City's desire to encourage low traffic users to deny the variable FAR increase to -a user which generated about 13% of the allowed daily trips. It is impossible for senior housing to compete with retail and restaurants for land on a foot for foot basis. To deny the variable FAR at Emerald Village is to ensure the development of more commercial uses with all their attendant noise and traffic and to defeat the goals of Policy B. Section 3: Alternate Uses under the LUE Statistical Area F-9 the Corona del Mar commercial strip is designated for a wide variety of retail and service commercial, administrative, professional, and financial commercial uses. For discussion purposes, these uses fall into four categories. 1. Restaurant 2. Retail 3. Office Building 4. Hotel/Inn Since the defeat of the Emerald Village proposal would undoubtedly give rise to development of one of these uses (which do not require a Use Permit), Emerald Associates conducted a detailed analysis of the impacts of these uses. Utilizing the same floor area ratio methodology outlined above we find that restaurant uses must be built below the .5 FAR. Likewise, we find that a hotel is eligible for the .75 FAR, by virtue of its lower traffic generation. The detailed calculations and a table outlining all of the building 1o:7 February 28, 1989 BillWard Page 8 characteristics of each of these four uses is attached as Exhibit "A", however, let me make several salient observations about this data. The first observation is that the hypothetical restaurant, retail facility, or hotel would each generate in excess of 1100 car trips per day, with the retail at 1333. _ All of them generate the full compliment of 100 peak hour trips. The office would fall somewhat behind that with 435 total daily trips, but of course a heavy peak load of 77 rush hour trips. Our understanding is that the retail and the office could be built without discretionary reviews at the .5 FAR or less and yet generate as much as 6 times the traffic as the Personal Care Facility. The second observations is that each of these four uses require significant parking, with retail, for example requiring approximately 133 spaces. Obviously much of this parking is going to be provided in a parking structure. The most economic parking structures are built above grade not below grade. Page 20 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan provides that up to .25 floor area ratio of above grade parking structures are not included in the base floor area ratio calculations of new buildings. As a result, although the retail and the office building are limited to .5 FAR, or approximately 33,450 sq. ft., with the addition of the inevitable parking structure, the above grade portion of that parking structure would actually generate a building mass of .75, exactly the same as our total facility. Therefore, to deny the Senior use at .75 is to invite a retail use at .75 but with 1333 trips instead of 221 trips. Without saving any building mass, the traffic numbers have gone to the moon! In addition, there is going to be a minimum of landscaped open space. Our calculations indicate that the maximum landscaped open space on the site would be about 30% (mostly in Bulk Gully) versus the' 63% provided by Emerald Village. r tag February 28, 1989 Bill Ward Page 9 Finally, allow me to comment on the result of the recent idea to change the use from commercial to residential. The first argument against this idea is that the City just went through an exhaustive General Plan amendment process, and the result of that process was to reaffirm this property as a commercial designation. The second argument against a change to single family is that luxury housing directly on Coast Highway is an unattractive proposition to most people. The third argument relates to the enlarged floor area ratio of residential uses in old Corona del Mar. Regardless of the designation, attached, detached, 16, 18, or 22 units, the floor area ratio for all residential in Corona del Mar is 1.5. Residential FAR s are calculated differently, but regardless of the configuration, whether 16 very expensive houses, 22 more affordable houses or something in between, the total project could readily approach 70,000 square feet. Assume twenty 3,000 square foot houses (which are very average houses today) plus their three car garages. Since all this construction is above grade, this produces a total square footage of 72,000 of above grade construction, for a total FAR of 108%, well a within the limits, but significantly larger than Emerald Village. In addition, Senior Housing is allowed in a residential zone, as spelled out on page 20 of the Land Use Element. Therefore, a zone change or a General Plan amendment does not preclude the same project, but in fact, raises the floor area ratio by another 20,000 - 30,000 sq. fL One final note relates to the potential height of a residential project. Recall that all of our height measurements are taken at the ridge. The same roof on a residential project, without the dormer -style units, would classify as a 24-25 foot roof, and would therefore fit inside the single family height limits established in the code. In conclusion, a single family use could be significantly larger, and just as tall as Emerald Village. 14 February 28,1989 Bill Ward Page 10 To summarize this letter, a clear analysis of the goals and the methodologies of the Land Use Element of the 1988 General Plan show the desirability of Emerald Village. No other conceivable project can combine the benefits of meeting longstanding community needs in a neighborhood setting, slashing traffic generation and building a low -slung, residential scale facility which will raise the architectural standards of all of Corona del Mar. Thank you for your consideration of our project. Best regards, Jon E. Christeson Vice President QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES 1 The older, less physically able person is the primary client for assisted care housing. From past experience we can predict with some level of accuracy the type and composition of individual attracted to this type of living arrangement. We can expect the average age at move -in will be between 75 and 80 years of age. Because of the 7 year life ex- pectancy difference in men and women, the vast majority will be female. We might expect that 80-85% would be single females, 5-10% single males, and 7-15% couples. Most will make a move to this facility because of a change in their health status. We might expect in the beginning that as many as 40-50% would need some type of ambulatory aide like a cane, walker or wheelchair to get around. As the facility ages this could increase to as much as 65-70% The vast majority of the resident population will be men- tally alert, engaging individuals who have led interesting lives. Their major problem will be physical impairments. Many of. these impairments will be caused by severe chronic conditions like arthritis or heart disease. A few will have experienced mild memory loss problems and on occasion may be confused. Housing projects such as this have a strong neighborhood/ local community orientation. We would expect the majority of residents will come from a surrounding 3-5 mile radius. These will either be life long members of the community who have chosen this setting to stay within a familiar neighborhood/city context or they will have moved because they have family in the immediate area and want to be close to their children and grandchildren. Their socio-economic status will mirror that of the sur- class. rounding community and is likely to be upper -middle Most will have selected this facility in a deliberate move to maintain their independence by using a housing 0p tyand which provides them assistance with dressing, g� g ambulation. Others, who may have recently moved from an isolated dwelling unit, will find the community aspects of this living arrangement attractive. In this setting they can engage themselves in stimulating activities or establish new friends and social contacts. In general, we can expect this place to house the generation of residents who are responsible for building the Newport Beach community and who want to stay engaged with the community and the city as as long as they are able to do so. Questions and Responses Page Two 2 What will these people be like as neighbors? These older, frail residents will not cause any negative impacts on the surrounding context. Once they move die into the facility they will likely stay until they. are moved to a skilled nursing facility. We might expect a maximum of 20% will eventually live to be old -and frail enough to require 24 hour medical supervision in a nursing home setting. In general, we can expect the average stay to be in the range of 3 to 5 years. Because their ambulatory abilities are limited and because they have little need to make trips outside of the facility for shopping and personal business, trip making behavior will be limited to their unit, the common activity area and nding the building. Most of the the outdoor patios surrou trips outside of the facility will be in the limo/van rs. vided by management or as passengers with family members. The nature of medical emergencies that require use of paramedic assistance rarely, if ever, require for emergency transportation to the hospital. Facility per- sonnel trained in CPR techniques are normally alerted first and stabilize the resident. 3 How does assisted care differ from skilled nursing and congregate housing? Assisted care (or personal care as it is sometimes referred to), is a form of housing that falls halfway between congre- gate care and skilled nursing care. It is a relatively new housing type which orginated in Europe. It was first im- plemented in the United States about 20 years ago in larger continuing care retirement communities (CCRC) as step in the continuum of care they provided. For example,Regents Point is a CCRC and has an assisted care unit. CCRC provi- ders were troubled by the fact that residents who had dif- ficulty in getting to the dining room or -needed self main- tenance help had no alternative but to move into a nursing home environment. The purpose of assisted care was to provide the resident who needed extra help with bathing, dressing, grooming, and ambulation with a residential alter- native. Overnight, rates of institutionalization fell in the continuing care facilities that created assisted care units and the notion of assisted care as a "stand alone" independent model began to be implemented outside of CCRC's. Questions and Responses Page Three The major difference which seperates nursing care from assisted care is the need for 24 hour medical supervi- sion. The main difference between congregate arer Typically, assisted care is the amount and type ate vice provided to the older person. Typ y, congregate g g facilities will ask a resident to leave when they become unable to walk unassisted to the dining room.' From a staffing perspective assisted care is similar to congre- gate housing except that a greater number of personal care assistants are needed to provide the help these residents require. 4 What will the parking demand be like and what number of tri s off -site can we expect residents, staff and visi- tors to generate? Residents who seek this level of housing and service support will do so because they are currently exper- iencing difficulty.maintaining their independence. One important component of that struggle is operating a motor vehicle. Often children sense the oldepe son'sreaction time and visual/sensory losses are so greaty place themselves at risk and will take the car away. In other cases these same losses will lead to a license being re- voked or not being renewed. The major parking demand will be by staff. Because the staffing pattern has a 24 hour cycle the greatest peak demand is usually between shift changes in the afternoon. Because many employees are lower paid service workers, car pooling and dependence on public transportation is common. This further reduces the need to park cars on range ee 20-25 cars parking demand thanormal staff ofloadlofe15-20hcars. visitor traffic is concentrated on the weekends when lower staff loads are present. In most facilities the drop in staff demand on the weekends will compensate for the added visitor demand. Sadly, the number of visitors is not as great as we might hope. Furthermore, when visitations occur they are often of very short duration (less than 30 minutes) or they involve off -site trips to rec- reational events or to destinations like restaurants. the Most residents, if they are able to, prefer to leave site rather than entertain family and friends in their units or in the common areas. The parking demand for visitors will likely be greater in the afternoon and could be as high as 10-15 cars on the weekend. During Questions and Responses Page Four the weekdays peak demand could be estimated at around 5-7 cars. Because this is an issue which many munici- palities are concerned with some data are available from other facilities. The following table reports on the parking demand observed for 8 facilities in the Beverly Hills.area for 3 time periods on weekends and weekdays. As you can see from the table a relatively low level of parking demand is present. ,10 am 2 pm 6'pm in use in use in use 3 3 Beverly carmel Ret. Hare Wit. 10 8750 Burton Way Sign. 7 Los Angeles Mount Carmel Ret. Hare 10 8755 W. Olympic Blvd. 10 Los Angeles 9 Olympic Carmel Ret. Hone 13 6717 Olympic Blvd. 10 Los Angeles 10 Beverly Hills Ret. Hone 2 1019 S. Wooster 1 Los Angeles 2 Beverly Hills Gardens 8 1470 S. Robertson 4 5 Los Angeles Bevy-lv Carlton Ret. Hone 10 9400 Id' Blvd. 9 Beverly Hills 9 Westwood Plaza Ret. Home 8 2228 Westwood Blvd. 8 Los Angeles 7 12 11 6 10 11 12 13 11 11 11 4 1 3 2 3 3 11 7 7 8 12 9 13 total No. Peak 0emand # of Soaces spaces apts. # of Units2 # of Units 8 62* 5 1 5 5 5 6 0 2 3 5 6 6 4 3 90 • ..12 .68 44* 80 .16 1 48* 1 48* 1 40 45* 1 47 80 .16 65 .06 55 .15 90 .12 70 .17 5 42* 100 .15 .55 .60 .74 .73 .50 .67 .42 arent,nod Manor 11 t5 5 1 1449 Wellesly Ave. 9 12 Los Angeles Footnotes: 1. More than 508 of the parking spaces were tandem arrangements 2. Highest narking deiund over 8 sa,aple periods used as numerator 3. These are grass wants including all cars (resident, employee, visitor) Questions and Responses Page Five In terms of trips/day/unit a conservative estimate would be in the range of 1.0 to 1.5 trips/day/unit. Keep in mind that peak traffic load is rarely an issue because there is no predictable trip pattern (like there might be for residents making a trip to work at a specific time). The trip patterns are spread throughout 3 shifts .and visitor trips are short and are often at different times of the day. Most of the trips taken off -site by residents will be'group trips in a limo/van. 5 Is 108 dwellin units lar a for a race" � �. - - In order to make comparisons with conventional apartments, it is important to recognize that the small average unit size (325 square feet) and predominance of single occupied units (95%) make this comparable to 35 to 40 2•bedroom apartments. The scale of the project and its massing is more like a modest sized apartment complex. Most modern, full service stand alone" personal care arrangements that are not connected to a nursing home or to congregate apartments require a minimum of 125 - 150 units to provide a critical mass for the provision of therapy, services and the amortization of expensive fixed equipment items. Projects smaller than this are very uneconomical to -manage and subsequently charge more for a comparable unit or provide fewer flexible services. Critics also argue that projects of over 200 units are too large for effective -mutual recognition. A more in- timate sense of community is achieved when the place is small enough that everyone can recognize or know one another. 6 Is the site a ood one for assisted care? Yes. Although the location criteria for facilities like this are less stringent than for congregate facilities which house residents that are more ambulatory, sponsors are concerned about selecting a site that -is considerc accessible to residents both physically and psychologically - settings -are popular because they Centrally located urban are easy for staff and visitors to access. The site should be one which is percieved by older residents as a good area of town. In addition to psychological fit, it is useful for the site to be located near public transportation for employee access and within the vicinity of a hospital which provides geriatric services and has a publically accessible emergency room. Questions and Responses Page Six 7 Is there a need for this type of housing now and in future? In the last 20 years we have seen -an enormous increase in the number and percentage of persons over age 65. Be- tween 1980 and the year 2000 the greatest population gains will be in the oldest age cohorts (age 80+). in fact, conversative census projections forecast a 129% increase in the 85+ population. This is a rate 8 times higher than projected general population growth. These are long term trends which will begin to abate in 2030 when the last cohort of baby boomers move into old age. The number of facilities available to receive this onslaught of older persons is minimal. In fact many of the existing facilities are old and stylistically institutional in their design and in their service/management philosophy. The lack of these facilities for this oldest segment of the population may cause older citizens who have lived in Newport Beach for most of their lives to seek a retirement setting_in another city. Conversely,•the lack of facilities may also force older residents who need support and supervision to try and live independently in their homes. For some of these people driving to and from the store and isolating themselves will cause a hazard to themselves as well as the community. A facility like this will allow these individuals to live inde- pently using services to supplement lost abilities. Moving to settings like this has been shown to forestall premature institutionalization by providing the resident with good preventive medical care, excellent nutrition and a safe hazard -free environment. The largest single event that leads to institutionalization are broken hips caused by poor nutrition and falls on stairs and in bathrooms. Finally, well designed and expertly managed facilities like the one proposed set a positive precedent in the community by raising the standards of excellence under which all ex- isting and proposed facilities will be judged. The project as proposed will establish a very positive example of as- sisted care in the community not only directly helping Newport Beach but by its example aiding the entire industry, which is continually•searching,for good, creative, innova- tive solutions to this building type. EYHFL MERCY ANUKUS GENownLOGY CENYEII UNIvER51YY PARK • 4CO191 LOS ANCELES. CAUFOPNIA 9MS"191 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH AND QUALIFICATIONS OF VICTOR REGNIER AIA 1213) 747fi060 victor Regnier is an Associate Professor with a unique joint appointment between the School of Architecture and the Leonard David School of Gerontology at the University of Southern California. He holds the only joint appointment between a school of architecture and a school of gerontology in the country. Professor Regnier has published two books, as well as numerous articles and monographs dealing with various aspects of housing for the elderly. In his most recent book, Housing for the Aged, (Elsevier, 1987), he has translated social science research regarding housing for the elderly into policy and design directives for architects and design decision makers. He has been principal investigator of nine major research grants. His latest project is a programming and research study for the Los Angeles Childrens Museum. Professor Regnier is a registered architect and maintains an active consulting practice. Among his present and past clients are the cities of Santa Monica, Long Beach and Riverside, Retirement Inns of America, The Charles Shaw Company, American Medical Inter- national, The Marriott Corporation and Pacific Scene Inc. He has completed numerous research and feasibility studies in the last 14 years and has received several awards for his work, including the 1986 American Society of Landscape Architects Merit Research Award for a Rational -Endowment for the Arts sponsored investiga- tion of outdoor spaces in housing for the elderly. His most recent award is a 1988 Progressive Architecture Citation for Research. Professor Regnier holds a Master of Architecture from the University of Southern California. Before joining the USC faculty, he was an Associate professor with a joint appointment between the Graduate Program of Housing in the School of Archi- tecture and the Program of Housing Research and Development at the University of Illinois, Champaign -Urbana. 2635 HOLLYRIDGE DRIVE LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA.)90068 (213) 465.7292 CONSULTING Architectural & Consulting Fires: Archlplan, Los Angeles,. CA ' Architects Collective. Tulsa. OK Anshen and Allen, Beverly Hills. CA Babraw-Thomas a Associates. Los Angeles. CA Building Diagnostics, Boston, MA Carl Masten FAIA Architect, Los Angeles, CA City West, Beverly Hills. CA Cranston Securities, Columbus, OH de Bretteville and PaIgzaides. Los Angeles, sMaCA CA Gerontological Planning Associates, Santa James Design Associates, San Antonia, TX Koning Elzenburg, Architecture. Santa Monica, CA Litigation Sciences, Palos Verdes, CA Malcolm, Withee Partnership, Hermosa Beach. CA McCune. Gerwin and Partners. Los Angeles. CA Molnar/Ormenyi & Associates, Los Angeles. CA Mutlow-Dimster Partnership. Los Angeles. CA Pncific Health Resources. Los Angeles. CA The Brighton Group, Pasadena, CA.. Sponsors of Housing & Nursing Homes: American Medical International. Beverly Hills, CA American Residential Properties. Boulder. CO American Savings & Loan. Stockton. CA American Senior Inns-. Irvine. CA AFCOM. Seal Beach. CA Barnett Range Corporation. Stockton. CA Brethern Hillcrest flames. La Verne. CA C. Ounn Inc.. Paso Robles. CA Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles DiCott Development. Los Angeles.. CA Drexel Corporation, Dallas. TX Eskaton Hospital Corporation. Sacramento. CA Marriott Corporation. Washington. DC Medici Equities. Irvine. CA Pacific. Scene Inc.. San Diego. CA Pacific Union Development. Son Francisco. CA Pelican Properties. Santa Ann. CA Retirement Inns of America. Los Angeles. CA Sacramento Redevelopment Agency. Sacramento. Sacred Heart General Hospital. Eugene. OR sngc Development Corporation. Philadelphia. Shaw Company. Chlcnga. If, Sterling Properties. Denver. CO Thomas Safran & Associates. Los Angeles. CA Watt Parker Development. Santa Monica. CA Ventra, Inc.. Downey. CA Los Angeles. CA CA PA CURRICULUM VITAE VICTOR A. REGNIER. AIA December 1987 Dorn: September. 1947 (213) 743-4754 EDUCATION M. Arch. UniversiLy of Southern California. 1973. 0. Arch. Kdnsns Slate University. 1971. O.S. Cngr. Kansas State Unlvers.ity. 197r. TEACHING AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 1983-Present Associate Professor. (.Joint Appointment), School of Architecture. Leonard Davis School'of Gerontology. University of Southern California. Los Angeles, CA. 1983-Present Associate Director. Division of Environmental UP.sign Resonrch and Planning, ProFrnm In Policy and Services Research. Ethel Percy Andrus Gerontology Center. Los Angeles, CA. 1906 Visiting Lecturer. Department of Architecture. School of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee. 1983 Visilint� Scholar and Research Associate. Ethel Petry Andrus Gerontology Center. University of Southern California. Las Angeles. CA. 1980-1983 Associate Professor. (Joint Appointment). School of-ArchiLerture. Program of Housing, Research and Development. University of Illinois, Urbana. IL. 1977-Present Princlunl. Victor ReF,nier, ALA. Architect, Los Angeles. CA. 1977-1979 Laboratory Chief and Research Associate. Environmental Studies Laborntory, Research Institute. Ethel Percy Andrus Gerontology Center. University of Southern California. Los Angeles, CA. 1974-1977 Preceutor, Environmentni Studies Laboratory, Research Institute. Ethel Percy Andrus Gerontology Center. University of Southern California. Los Angeles. CA. 1973-1974 Vice -President. Gerontological Planning Associates, Santa Monica. CA. 1970-1971 Designer. William-R. Eidson. AIA. Manhattan. KS. 1909 Architectural Assistant. Warner Burns Taan and Lunde. Architects. New York. NY. 1965-1968 Draftsman. Uri Selden and Associates. Kansas. City, MO. FUNDED RESEARCH Principnl Investigator. Los Angeles Children's Museum Site Selection and Programming Study. Community Redevelopment Agency of L•os Angeles. Los Angeles. CA. 1986-1987. Principal Investigator. (subcontract) Santa Monica Community Service Center Programming Study, Koning-Eizenburg Architects. .tulle Eizenburg. Principal in Charge. City of Santa Monica. Santa Monica. CA. 1986-1987. Princioal Investigator. (subcontract) Union Rescue Mission Architectural Programming Studv. James Glass Co.. James Glass. Principal In Charge. Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles. 1985. Co -Principal Investigator. Patterns foe Designing the Office in the Home. National Endowment for the Arts. 1984-1485 Principal Investigator. Beverly Hills Congregate Housing Planning & Programming Process. Weiner Properties. 1984-85. Principal Investigator. outdoor Space Use in Housing for the Elderly: Implications for Site Planning and Design. National Endowment for the Arts, 1983-1984. Principal Investigator. Urban Design Theory Building for Neighborhoods with High Concentrations of Older People. University of Illinois Research Board. Urbana, Illinois. 1980. Principal Investigator. (subcontract) Determinants of Housing Choice Among Elderly: Policy Implications. MIT. Dr. Sandra Howell. Principal Investigator. Administration on Aging IVB Research Grant, DHEW, 1979-1981. Princioal Investigator. Senior Citizens Needs Assessment and Program Coordination for Riverside County. City of Riverside, Riverside. California. 1978-1979. Princioal Investigator. (subcontract) Community Analysis Techniques. County of Los Angeles. Leon Harper. Principal Investigator. Administration on Aging IVB Research Grant. DHEW. 1977-1980. co-Princioal Investigator. Environmental Cognition and Spatial Abilities. National Institute of Mental Health. 1977-1980. Co-Princival Investigator. Geriatric Health Care Project. City of Long Beach. Long Beach. California. 1976-1977. Project Director. Environmental Planning and the Elderly Training Program. Alan Kreditor. Principal Investigator, Administration on Aging. DHEW. 1974. 1975. 1976. -2- 1�T FUNDED RESEARCH: CONSULTING Programming & Design Consultant. Retirement Inns of America. Generic Program & Prototype Unit Design. Los Angeles. CA. 1987. Programming Consultant. Burbank -Joslyn Multi -Service Adult Center. Mutlow-Dimster Partnership. Frank Dimster. Partner in charge. City of Burbank. 1986. Programming Consultant. Programming and Site Selection for the West Hollvwaod Civic, Center. de Brettville and Polyzoides. Architects. Peter de Brettville. Principal in Charge, Los Angeles. CA. 1986. Project Consultant. Santa Monica Multi -Service Center. Koning-Eizenhurg Architects. Julie Eizenhurg, Principal in Charge. City of Santa Monica. 1986. Project Consultant. Los Angeles City Senior Needs Assessment. The Planning Group, G. Grisby, Principal Investigator. Los Angeles Area Agency on Aging, 1985. Project Consultant. Union Rescue Mission Split Facility Plan. James Glass Co.. Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles. 1985. 1986. Technical Consultant. Design for Aging Project, American Institute of Architects Research Corporation. DHHS. 1984-85. Proier.t Consultant. Pacific Springs Congregate Housing Prototype. Pacific Scene Properties, San Diego. California. 1984-85. Project Consultant. Loral Solutions to Housing Needs of the Elderly. Building Diagnostics. John Zeisel. Principal Investigator. DHUD. 1983-84. Project Consultnnt. Galleria Elderly Housing Prototype. Barnett -Range Corporation. Stockton. California. 1983. Proiuct Consultant. Future Market Potential of Life Care Communities. USC. Jon Pynoos. Principal Investigator. American Medical International. Beverly Hills. California. 1983. Project Consultant. Development of Research in Congregate Housing. University of Illinois Gerontology Center, Thomas Byerts. Principal Investigator. Retirement Research Foundation. Chicago, Illinois, 1900-1982. Project Consultant. Housing. and Social Service Needs of Retired California Teacher.s, USC. Jon Pynoos, Principal Investigator. Foundation to Assist California Teachers. Los Angeles. California, 1980. Project Consultant. Mid -Rise Housing for Older People, Zeisel Associates, John Zeisel. Principal Investigator. DHUD, 1978-1980. Projer.t Consultant. Testing a Congruence Model of Aging and Mental HenLth. Wright Institute. Francis Carp, Principal Investigator. N LM11. 1978-1980. -3- Proiect Consultant. Intergenerational House Sharing. USC. Steve McConnell. Principal Investigator. Haynes Foundation. Los Angeles, California. 1978-1979. Proiect Consultant. Social and Architectural Programming Services for Design of Skid Row Housing. Social Engineering Technology, George Rand. Principal Investigator. Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los•Angeles, 1978. Proiect Consultant. Developing Architecture Curriculum Materials in Aging. Gerontological Society. Leon Pastalan. Principal Investigator. AoA. 1976-1977. Proiect Consultant. Presbyterian Homes Feasibility Study, USC. Paul Kerschner. Principal Investigator. Southern California Presbyterian Homes. Glendale, California. 1975. Proiect Consultant. Senior Citizens Center Feasibility Study, USC. Paul Kerschner, Principal Investigator. Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, New York. New York, 1975-1976. Proiect Consultant. Behavioral Mapping in Housing for the Elderly. MIT. Sandra Howell. Principal Investigator. AOA, 1974-1975. Proiect Consultant. 1975 Regional Transportation Plan. Southern California Association of Governments. Transportation Section. Los Angeles. 1974. HONORS AND AWARDS 1988 University Scholar. University of Southern California. Los Angeles. CA 1968 Progressive architecture Citation for Research. (Los Angeles Children's Museum). Progressive Architecture. 1986 Merit Award in Research, (Behavioral and Environmental Aspects of Outdoor Spare Use in Housing for the Elderly). American Society of Landscape Architects. Fellow. Gerontological Society of America. 1982- Center Fellow. UCLAtUSC Long Term Care Gerontology Center., 1983-64. 1980 Award for Meritorious Planning. (Riverside Senior Citizens Needs Analysis). Southern California Chapter. American Planning Association. 1979 Award for Meritorious Planning. (Long Beach Geriatric Health Care System). Southern California Chapter, American Planning Association. 1979 Award of Distinction in Social Planning, (Long Beach Geriatric Health Care System). California Chapter. American Planning Association. -4- I ii EMERALD VILLAGE PERSONAL CARE FACILITY TRAFFIC STUDY 0<uNpao (-ASSOCiateg Transportation Planning •Traffic Engineering C-Iu�n�.u�a�n v4ssoc�ates Transportation Planning *Traffic Engineering February 16, 1988 Ms. Patricia Temple Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 Dear Ms. Temple: We are pleased to present this traffic impact analysis for the Emerald Village of Corona Del Mar Personal Care Facility. This analysis is in accordance with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing ordinance. In addition we have reviewed the parking requirements of the project. We trust that this report will be of immediate as well as continuing value to the City of Newport Beach. Should you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Lee Royalty, P.E. 4664 Barrenca Parkway t Irvine, CA 92714 • (7143 559-4231 o 1vgl.ou S. (0. R8 OtPT= 0- -- Kermit Dorius FAIA Architects and P35-v Kermit Dorius FAIA Architects and 5•// -0 0 APPROVAL BY OWNER: THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA IBEW-NECA PENSION PLAN By: William L. Se y, Inc., a California Corporation, its • Qualified Re ion Asset Manager By: IV' . r =".r I APPROVAL BY TENANT: EMERALD VILLAGE ASSOCIATES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION By. William M. Todd, President APPROVAL BY CITY: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA By: , its d f7-Y W-r1Z'/L1tSY 3 • C•DN1�IT�p MARTIN STRUCTURAL DESIGN s2 15375 Barranca Pkwy., Suite 13-207, Irvine, CA 92718 (71-1) 753-1315 August i0, 1990 Ed Rubio DORIUS ARCHITECTS 1550 Bayside Drive Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Re: Summer Hjuse Dear Ed: This letter is to confirm a prior verbal agreement between our. offices. The concrete deck over the garage, in the area presently to be occupied by Lhe Roof Garden Planters, was designed to support automobile parking. This parking would have to be accomodated in lieu of the planters, i.e., they could not both exist at the same time. We hope this clarifies any questions regarding the design intent. Cordially, Martin Structural Design, Inc. r Felix -Martin, S.E. CONFORMED COPY Not Compared with Original RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED NAIL TO: Jon E. Christeson Emerald Village Associates, Inc. 4770 Campus Drive, 0 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 CHICAGOTITLE COMP p� DEC 31990 Official Records Orange County, California ace, ,, Recorder DEED RESTRICTION RECITALS• A. THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA IBEW-NECA PENSION PLAN ("Owner") is the fee owner of that certain real property located in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, California, as described in attached Exhibit "A", which is incorporated herein by this reference ("Property")- B. Owner has ground leased the Property to EMERALD -VILLAGE ASSOCIATES, INC., a California Corporation ("Tenant") pursuant to hat certain "Ground Lease", dated December 21, 1989. The Ground Lease is referred to in that certain Memorandum recorded December 21, 1989, at 89-691314, in the Official Records, Orange County, California. C. Tenant has applied to the City of Newport Beach, Cali- fornia ("City") for the development of the Property, pursuant to Use Permit No. 3342 ("Use Permit"). The Use Permit was approved by the City, subject to conditions stated in the Use Permit, on May 221 1989. D. The purpose of this Deed Restriction is to cause the Property to be developed, occupied and used in accordance with the Use Permit. AGREEMENT: 1. To conform to the requirements of the Property to be developed in the manner an in the Use Permit, Owner and Tenant, as t interests in the Property, hereby consent and after the date of recordation of this EMERALD2.CTY 9/07/90 1 2 d o Use Permit to allow the for the use described their respective and agree that, from Deed Restriction: A. The Property will be developed, occupied and used in accordance with the following 01Condition", which is Item 46 of the Use Permit: "PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING GRADING PERMITS, THE APPLI- CANT SHALL ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT, THE FORM AND CONTENT OF WHICH IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, BINDING THE APPLICANT AND SUCCESSORS -IN -INTEREST IN PERPETUITY TO AN ELDERLY CARE FACILITY AND SHALL BE LIMITED TO AN OCCUPANCY BY PERSONS 62 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER. THE ONLY EXCEPTION SHALL BE THE SPOUSE OF A QUALIFIED PERSON. RESTRICTIONS SHALL BE PLACED ON THE DEED AND IN ANY OTHER SUITABLE BINDING DOCUMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ABOVE AGREEMENT." B. This Deed Restriction shall: (a) constitute a permanent encumbrance upon the Property; (b) run with title to the Proper- ty; and (c) be binding upon all assigns and successors in inter- est of Owner and Tenant, of whatever particular designation or title. C. Any modification or cancellation of this Deed Restric- tion shall be by recorded instrument and be subject to concurrent written consent of the City. D. The City shall be entitled to specifically enforce the terms and conditions of this Deed Restriction. 2. The City hereby: (a) approves the form of this Deed Restric- tion; (b) subject to the recordation of this Deed Restriction, acknowledges that this Deed Restriction satisfies the requirement of the Use Permit regarding the Condition; and (c) agrees to execute a document upon future request from Owner, in recordable form, which will remove this Deed Restriction from title to the Property, if either: (i) Owner elects not to proceed with the development of the Property in accordance with the Use Permit and the Use Permit lapses and is no longer of any force and effect; or (ii) the improvements at the Property are converted or rebuilt for- another type of use then approved by the City which does not require the continuation of the Condition as an encumbrance on title to the Property. 3. Dated: OCTOBER 1, 1990. FINAL FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE PERMIT No. 3342 AS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 22, 1989 A. Environmental Document: Accept the environmental document, making the following findings: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K-3. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. B. Traffic Study No. 54: Approve the traffic study with the following findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. 2. The project, as proposed, will generate less traffic than the uses which currently exist on -site in the evening peak hour on a daily basis. 3. The increased traffic in the morning peak hour is less than 10% of existing traffic on any approach leg of affected intersections. C. Use Permit No. 3342: Approve the use permit with the findings and subject to the following conditions of approval: Findines• 1. The project will comply with all applicable City and State Building Codes and Zoning requirements for new building applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located, except the height of the proposed stair/elevator tower. 2. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 3. That adequate off-street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. 4. The building height will result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit. II� USE PERMIT NO. 3342 FINAL FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 22, 1989 - PAGE 2 5. The building height will result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit. 6. The building height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces inasmuch as the project has provided increased setbacks from public streets and adjoining residential property. 7. The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit for the building height. 8. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property with the proposed development. 9. That the use of tandem parking spaces in conjunction with a full-time valet parking service will not, under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modifications are consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 10. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 11. That Section 13.05.010 of the Municipal Code requires that public improvements be completed in commercial areas prior to the issuance of Building Permits for a new structure. 12. That the sidewalk along East Coast Highway is the only pedestrian access between the Shorecliffs Development and the business district of Corona del Mar on the southerly side of East Coast Highway. 13. That it has been demonstrated that the traffic to be generated by the proposed project will not exceed that which would be generated if the base traffic generation rate were applied to a project developed at the base floor area ratio. 14. That the projections of traffic to be generated by the project have been based on standard traffic generation rates generally applied to an elderly personal care facility. G USE PERMIT NO. 3342 FINAL FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 22, 1989*- PAGE 3 15. That the proposed project is a single use development that will be restricted to an 85 unit (100 bed) elderly personal care facility upon which the traffic equivalency was based. 16. The proposed use and physical improvements are such that the approved project would not readily lend itself to conversion to a higher traffic generating use. 17. The increased floor area ratio will not result in significant impairment of public views. 18. That the site is physically suitable for the floor area proposed, considering that a 0.5 F.A.R. office or retail use with an additional 0.25 above grade structure parking could be constructed on the site which would contain approximately the same building floor area and building bulk as the proposed project. L 1 19. The approval of Use Permit No. 3342 will not under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations and sections approved by the City Council on May 22, 1989, except as noted below. 2. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to issuance of a grading permit. Any modific tions or extension to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 3. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4. That a standard use permit agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 5. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer and shall be modified in the following manner: f C" USE PERMIT NO. 3342 FINAL FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 22, 1989 - PAGE 4 a. Access to the subterranean parking area shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide. b. Parking shall not be permitted within the circular motor court so as to provide required emergency vehicle access to the project. C. That the planter at the center of the circular motor court shall be redesigned to Fire Department standards. d. That the driveway design shall conform to Sight Distance Standard Plan 110-L. e. That the proposed drives and ramps shall not exceed a 15 percent slope with change of grade not to exceed 11 percent. f. A minimum five foot wide sidewalk shall be provided on the west side of the driveway. 6. That an access ramp be constructed per City Standard No. 181-L at the intersection of East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive; that unused drive aprons be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk along the East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive frontages; and that all deteriorated portions of curb, gutter and sidewalk be reconstructed along East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive frontages. 7. That all ,pork within the East Coast Highway right-of-way be completed under an Encroachment Permit issued by the California Department of Transportation. 8. That the intersection of the East Coast Highway and drives be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 40 mile per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight., distance requirements. Landscaping with the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. The sight distance requirement mall be approximately modified at non -critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. . 9. That prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification from the City's Utilities Department and the Orange County Sanitation District. 10, County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. USE PERMIT NO. 3342 FINAL FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS APPROVED BY CITY 'COUNCIL ON MAY 22, 1989 - PAGE 5 11. That a minimum of 46 off-street parking spaces shall be provided for the proposed development. 12. Construction shall meet the requirements of the UBC and the California Administrative Codes - Titles 19 and 24. 13. Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department. 14. The entire building shall be sprinklered. 15. The building shall be equipped with smoke detectors and a fire alarm system. 16. All exit stairways must lead to an exit path that is continuous to a public way. 17. Access to the building for Fire Department use ,shall occur at each exit point and the main lobby. 18. A Class I standpipe shall be required at locations to be designated by the Fire Department. 19. Consideration of the use of ramps and exiting may have to be given in building design if non -ambulatory residents occupy the building. 20. The planter shown on the site corner at East Coast Highway and Buck Gully shall not exceed 24 inches in height. That valet parking service be provided at all times. 22. That all employees shall park their vehicles on -site. 23. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from Hazel Drive, East Coast Highway and adjoining properties. 24. That all signs shall be in conformance with the provision of Section 20.06.050 A3 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress. This shall not preclude the applicant from requesting a modification for the size, number and location of proposed project signs in accordance with Section 20.06.100 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 25. That any proposed landscaping adjacent to the public right-of-way be approved by the Public Works Department. 26. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase USE PERMIT NO. 3342 FINAL FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 22, 1989 - PAGE 6 the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. Prior to occupancy, a licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the approved plan. 27. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department, and the approval of the Planning Department and Public Works Department. 28. That the lighting system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a Licensed Electrical Engineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 29. Development of site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. , 30. That the grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 31. The grading permit shall include a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 32. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 33. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 34. That grading, excavation and recompaction of the site shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. 35. That any roof top or other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated in such a manner as to achieve a maximum sound level of 55 dBA at the property line. 36. That units shall be sound attenuated to a maximum of 45 dBA CNEL for the interior living areas and 65 dBA CNEL for exterior living areas associated USE PERMIT NO. 3342 FINAL FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 22, 1989 - PAGE 7 with individual units, as measured from the area expected to experience the highest sound levels. Measurement and certification of compliance with this condition shall be completed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by a registered engineer practicing in acoustics. 37. The excavation area shall be fenced to prevent safety hazards during the grading and building phases. 38. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. 39. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the on -site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self parking and shall be identified in a manner acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. Said parking spaces shall be accessible to the handicapped at all times. One handicapped sign on a post shall be required for each handicapped space. 40, That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee shall be paid. 41. That the facility shall be limited to a maximum of 85 units and 100 beds. The applicant shall provide to the Planning Department a copy of the report that is submitted to the State of California indicating the number of individuals residing on the premises, and the number of available beds. 42. That it is the intention of this use permit to constitute the official zoninv,of the subject property in accordance with Title 20 of the Municipal Code, the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Progr m Land Use Plan and said use permit shall run with the life of the property or until such time as the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan are amended. 43. Occupancy of the facility shall be limited to persons 62 years of age or older. (A younger spouse of a qualified resident may occupy the facility.) State law may further restrict occupancy to persons 62 years of age or older. ' 44. Ancillary commercial uses in the structure shall be for the use of residents and their guests only and shall not be available to members of the general public. USE PERMIT NO. 3342 FINAL FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 22, 1989 - PAGE 8 45 That the residents of the project shall not be permitted to own cars that are parked or stored on the subject property. -46. Prior to issuance of Building Grading Permits, the applicant shall enter into an agreement, the form anti content of which is acceptable to the City Attorney, binding the applicant and successors -in -interest in perpetuity to an elderly personal care facility and shall be limited to an occupancy by persons 62 years of age or older. The only exception shall allow co - occupancy by the spouse of a qualified person. Restrictions shall be placed on the deed and in any other suitable binding document consistent with the provisions of the above agreement. 47. That the proposed project shall be subject to the approval of the Coastal Commission. 48. The Planning Commission may add and/or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 49. That this facility be operated only as a personal care facility as is currently described to'the Planning Commission. 50. That the height of trees on the site shall be restricted to the height of the building excluding the height of the cupula above the main roofs of the structure. 51. That when bus service is not available to the employees of the facility, the applicant shall be required to provide van service to and from the Park and Ride facility in Newport Center. 52. That the garden area above the subterranean pat Iing lot shall be constructed of building materials that will permit sa d garden area to be converted to additional parking spaces, if needed, in the future. 53. That the applicant shall submit an onsite parking survey to the Planning Commission, to commence six months after the date of the opening of the facility for a period of six months. The survey hours shall be determined by the Planning Department staff. The survey shall consist of the number of automobiles onsite, the number of employees onsite, and the number of vehicles that are parked. 54. That the developer shall be responsible for the improvement of the public right-of-way adjacent to the view lookout at Glen Drive and East Coast Highway, subject to the approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department. � �i • � r; h,d `a USE PERMIT NO. 3342 FINAL FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 22, 1989 - PAGE 9 55. That a plan for the control and maintenance of vegetation on the slope of Buck Gully shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department. 56. That during the construction period, all construction parking shall be on - site, or on an approved off -site location. 57. That the applicant shall be responsible for grading the top portion of Buck Gully adjacent to the site, including the installation of sidewalk and landscaping, subject to the approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department. 58. That the developer shall pay his fair share of a traffic signal at the intersection of Seaward Road and East Coast Highway should CalTrans technical warrants for a signal are met. L Conditions of Approval Use Permit No. 3342 3901 East Coast Hwy. Plan Check #1282-89 Condition Department Action 1. Substantial conformance Planning Plans approval 2. Hydrology Study Public Works Plans approval Planning Grading permit issuance 3. Improvements Public Works Plans approval 4. Public Improvements Surety Public Works Plans approval 5. Parking, vehicular circ. Traffic Eng. Plans approval pld. circ. see (a)-(f) 6. Access ramp Public Works Plans approval E. Cst. Hwy. & Hazel, Encroachment permit reconstruction Public Improvements Planning Hold on final 7. E. Coast Hwy. Public Works Encroachment permit R/W improvements Calif. Dept of Trans. 8. Sight distance requirements Traffic Engineer Plans approval 9. Demonstration of adequate Public Works Plans approval sewer facilities 10. Sanitation fees Building Permit issuance 11. 46 parking spaces Planning Plans approval Traffic 12. UBC requirements Building Plans approval 13. Fire Access Fire Dept. Plans approval 14. Sprinklered Building Plans approval 15. Smoke det's & fire alarm Building Plans approval 16. Exits Building Plans approval 17. Access for fire Fire Plans approval 18. Class i Standpipe Fire Plans approval 19. Existing ramps Building Plans approval L ♦ , Use Permit No. 3342 Conditions of Approval Page 2 20. Planter corner E.Cst.Hwy/ Planning Plans approval Buck Gully 24" max. Separate permit 21. Valet parking Planning Letter of compliance 22. Employees park on -site Planning Letter of compliance 23. Screen equipment Planning Letter of compliance 24. Signs Planning Separate permit issuance 25. Landscaping adj. to Planning Plans approval public R/W Public Works 26. Landscape & irrigation plan, Planning Dept. Prior to occupancy, licensed land, architect Hold on final 27. Landscape plan Planning Plans approval P B & R Public Works 28. Lighting System Planning Letter from licensed Electrical Engineer 29. Grading permit required Planning Plans approval Building 30. Drainage facilities Building Plans approval 31. Grading haul routes, etc. Building Plans approval 32. Erosion, siltation, dust Building Plans approval control plan 33. Erosive velocity control Building Plans approval Grading 34. Grading plans Building Plans approval 35. Mech. equipment 55 dBA @ PL Planning Letter of compliance 36. Units @ 45 dBA CNEL for Planning Certified & measured for interior areas & by acoustic eng. 65 dBA CNEL for exterior areas 37. Safety hazard fencing Planning Letter of compliance Use Permit No. 3342 Conditions of Approval Page 3 38. Traffic control plan, Public Works flagmen 39. Handicapped spaces & sign Traffic posted 40. Public Works plan check & Public Works inspection fee 41. 85 units max, 100 bed max. Planning 42. No Action 43. Occupants 62 yrs, age or older Planning 44. Ancillary commercial uses Planning only for guests & residents City Attorney 45. Residents may not own cars Planning parked or stored on premises 46. Occupants 62 yrs. & older Planning 47. Coastal Commission approval 48. No Action 49. Personal care facility only 50. Hgt. of trees limited to hgt. of building 51. Van serv. in lieu of bus sery 52. Garden area to add'l parking 53. On -site parking survey to commence 6 mos. after opening of facility 54. Public R/W improvement, view lookout @ Glen & E. Coast Hwy. City Attorney Planning Planning P B & R Planning Planning Building Grading Engineer Planning Traffic P B & R Prior to grading permit Plans approval Plans approval Copy of report submitted to State of Calif. 7 See Cond. #46 Letter of compliance Suitable binding document Plans approval Letter of compliance Landscape Plans approval Letter of compliance Letter of compliance Plans approval Letter of compliance Plans approval Use Permit No. 3342 Conditions of Approval Page 4 55. Maintenance plan of Fire Plans approval Buck Gully 56. Construction parking on -site or an approved off -site 57. Sidewalk adj. to Buck Gully P B & R Plans approval 58. Applicant pays fair share Planning Letter of compliance of signal installation if warranted TO: Planning Commission-17. property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions• 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations and sections, except as noted below. 1 2. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to issuance of a grading permit. Any modifications or extension to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 3. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4. That a standard use permit agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 5. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer and shall be modified in the following manner: a. Access to the subterranean parking area shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide. b. Parking shall not be permitted within the circular motor court so as to provide required emergency vehicle access to the project. C. That the planter at the center of the circular motor court shall be redesigned to Fire Department standards. d. That the driveway design shall conform to Sight Distance Standard Plan 110-L. TO: Planning Commission-18. e. That the proposed drives and ramps shall not exceed a 15 percent slope with change of grade not to exceed 11 percent. f. A minimum five foot wide sidewalk shall be provided on the west side of the driveway. 6. That an access ramp be constructed per City Standard No. 181-L at the intersection of East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive; that unused drive aprons be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk along the East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive frontages; and that all deteriorated portions of curb, gutter and sidewalk be reconstructed along East Coast Highway and Hazel Drive frontages. 7. That all work within the East Coast Highway right- of-way be completed under an Encroachment Permit issued by the California Department of Transportation. 8. That the intersection of the East Coast Highway and drives be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 40 mile per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping with the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty- four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be approximately modified at non- critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. `1 J 9. That prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works 1 Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification from the City's Utilities Department and the Orange County Sanitation District. 10. County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 11. That a minimum of 40 offstreet parking spaces shall be provided for the proposed development. 12. Construction shall meet the requirements of the UBC and the California Administrative Codes - Titles 19 and 24. TO: Planning Commission-19. 13. Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department. 14. The entire building shall be sprinklered. 15. The building shall be equipped with smoke detectors and a fire alarm system. 16. All exit stairways must lead to an exit path that is continuous to a public way. 17. Access to the building for Fire Department use shall occur at each exit point and the main lobby. 18. A Class I standpipe shall be required at locations to be designated by the Fire Department. 19. Consideration of the use of ramps and exiting may have to be given in building design if non - ambulatory residents occupy the building. 20. The planter shown on the site corner at East Coast Highway and Buck Gully shall not exceed 24 inches in height. 21. That valet parking service be provided at all times. 22. That all employees shall park their vehicles on - site. 23. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from Hazel Drive, East Coast Highway and adjoining properties. 24. That all signs shall be in conformance with the provision of Section 20.06.050 A3 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress. This shall not preclude the applicant from requesting a modification for the size, number and location of proposed project signs in accordance with Section 20.06.100 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 25. That any proposed landscaping adjacent to the public right-of-way be approved by the Public Works Department. 26. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape TO: Planning Commission-20. architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. Prior to occupancy, a licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the approved plan. 27. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department, and the approval of the Planning Department and Public Works Department. 28. That the lighting system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a Licensed Electrical En- gineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. J29. Development of site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments, 30. That the grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. V 31. The grading permit shall include a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of J haul operations. 32. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 33. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 34. That grading, excavation and recompaction of the site shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion TO: Planning Commission-21. of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. 35. That any roof top or other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated in such a manner as to achieve a maximum sound level of 55 dBA at the property line. 36. That units shall be sound attenuated to a maximum of 45 dBA CNEL for the interior living areas and 65 dBA CNEL for exterior living areas associated with individual units, as measured from the area expected to experience the highest sound levels. Measurement and certification of compliance with this condition shall be completed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by a registered engineer practicing in acoustics. 37. The excavation area shall be fenced to prevent safety hazards during the grading and building phases. 38. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control u equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and (�v w transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. 39. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the on -site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self parking and shall be identified in a manner acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. Said parking spaces shall be accessible to the handicapped at all times. One handicapped sign on a post shall be required for each handicapped space. 40. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee shall be paid. 41. That the facility shall be limited to a maximum of 85 units and 100 beds. TO: Planning Commission-22. 42. That it is the intention of this use permit to constitute the official zoning of the subject property in accordance with Title 20 of the Municipal Code, the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and said use permit shall run with the life of the property or until such time as the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan are amended. 43. Occupancy of the facility shall be limited to persons 62 years of age or older. (A younger spouse of a qualified resident may occupy the facility.) State law may further restrict occupancy to persons 62 years of age or older. 44. Ancillary commercial uses in the structure shall be for the use of residents and their guests only and shall not be available to members of the general public. 45. That the residents of the project shall not be permitted to own cars that are parked or stored on the subject property. 46. Prior to issuance of Building Grading Permits, the applicant shall enter into an agreement, the form and content of which is acceptable to the City Attorney, binding the applicant and successors -in - interest in perpetuity to an elderly personal care facility or similar use with the same trip generation characteristics which shall be limited to an occupancy by persons 62 years of age or older. The only exception shall allow co -occupancy by the spouse of a qualified person. Restrictions shall be placed on the deed and in any other suitable binding document consistent with the provisions of the above agreement. 47. That the proposed project shall be subject to the approval of the Coastal Commission. 48. The Planning Commission may add and/or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. K K RESIDENTIAL ZONING CORRECTIONS ��ly //' / Xn. Q�C� ATelephene: (714) 644-3200 Plan Check No:/ " v P-" � r U ` By: Bill Luttrell, Associate Planner By: Javier Garcia, Associate Planner By: ,ana Dob Assistant Planner Date: D Address: A qO ` 6' `^'avA- 1� Corrections Required: Legal Description: Lot Block Section Tract Covenant required to combine lots or portions of lots. Please have owner's signature notarized on attached documentandreturn to me. Lot Size.. lfJ' r� ( -7 Zone !- V Number of Units 25 Buildable Area Maximum Structural Area�J'(Area including exterior walls, ) 7S b ',a_t,..�.�a. STEP �cr� stairway on one level and required parking) . r x----¢--^T•-^- - ProposedStructural Area: © �i(7, x buildable area. Provide tissue overlay�opf c 1 lations to ve >.fy rovided square footage. Obt�—V6� "r" vGt �LeG�fc�' f J17(�J!` Open Space Area NA cu.ft. (Volume of space equal t b six feet in >n any Q a� width times buildable height times 6). This area must be direction (6'x6'x6') and open on two sides_or-ane side and above. I n / j 8. Cout 91{h.q 90t ft, (VitiE A) 'o ft, (Rfn6 A); �s I i.e. bay windows Or 9L ft. (?t63 ft. (Gln6 �) n6 0) 10a' OPAA f .� 4 Distance between buildings ;' Aoe10 eo11Y (Q fORp 291 ft. Ptavfeu. Peeleee �, Rnel Dtiao 10 ft. 9outhorly R-1 tat; 15 !c. guilding`Neight of Revised Pro Wing A t22 ft.-6 in. Wing B t6 £t. Wing C t24 ft.-6 in. Wing D t24 ft. Tower t31 ft. Cupola Nona A9f fed 7/ ,68i le.l � 1 RMn.A Proiece/�.I 1); ft. 1.1 10 It. 1); 8± ft. 10 ft. to 2) Et. Le.101 1 d 2); vacfe. 103 fe. eo xli fc. (Lyel 1) 20 ft. --.// t28 ft.-6 in. None t30 ft. t28 ft. None t39 £t. t24 £t. t10 ft.-6 in. Dension all ±28 None idge of roof None None Show natural grade line shown on all elevations. Maximum Coverage Number of Stories FA�.p;,(r qF Parking (9' - 4" x 19' - 0" min. clear dimensions, one space; 17' - 6" x N 19' - 0" min. clear dimensions, two spaces). (Third required space may be B' x 161) Sh w.clear interior dimensions of garage. n 4 Fair f/re Connt..Qributi-on .n / A. . A n/ i..n ien _/ l �1 � .rii� .. A o .i Ada i//7,1� San Joaquin .SPECIAL APPROVAL RE9UIRED THROUGH: Modifications Committee. Planning Commission - OIL Use Permit Variance Resubdivision - Tract Site Plan Review Other - Indicate Modification Approval Number on plans. 6pa-/m GC* Public Works: Easement/Encroachment Permitu Curb Cut V Subdivision Engineer 'Traffic Engineer Approval of Landscape Plans IO rj Building Department: Grading Engineer Parks Department: Approval of Landscape Plans Coastal Development Permits: �i� Approval in Concept � l w-a- (Note: File 3 sets of plans: plot plan, floor plan, elevations). Coastal Development Permit No. Categorical Exclusion No. (Building permits may be issued 10 days following issuance of C.E.O.) Waiver/Exemption A - Miscellaneous aj-b a4/L � A 1. Floor planfully dimensioned showing a eem-uses+ t 2. Plot Plan fully dimensioned showing location of all buildings, fences to property line. Show second and/or third floor building footprint on plot plan. 3. Association Approval (Advisory) 4. Other NOTE: it is the responsibility of the applicant to circulate their plans and obtain the necessary approvals from the departments checked above. If you have questions regarding your application, please contact me at (714) 644-3200. MISC3 [« CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES "00 S Present x x Motion All Ayes Motion All Ayes % REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING \� PLACE: Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: May 22, 1989 X I I I I X x A presentation of poppies was given to Mayor Strauss and Council Members in recognition of the ANNUAL POPPY DAY PROGRAM. A. ROLL CALL. B. Reading of Minutes of Meeting of May 8, 1989, was waived, approved with correction to line 18 on Page 196 as follows, and ordered filed: "With regard to the Laventhol & Horwath report, Mayor Strauss stated...... and that there are no cities in Orange County that take part of the occupancy tax and allocate it to a convention and visitors bureau;" C. Reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions under consideration was waived, and City Clerk was directed to read by titles only. D. HEARINGS: 1. Mayor Strauss opened the continued public hearing and City Council review of: A. T}2AFFIC STUDY N0. 54 - A request of ERALD ASSOCIATES, Newport Beach, to approve a traffic study so as to permit the construction of an 85 unit elderly personal care facility located at 3901 East Coast Highway, Corona del Mar; zoned P-C; AND B. USE PERMIT NO. 3342 - A request of EMERALD ASSOCIATES, Newport Beach, to permit the construction of an 85 unit elderly personal care facility on property located in the P-C District. The proposal also includes a request to allow a portion of the structure to exceed the 32 foot basic height limit in the 32/50 Height Limitation District; a request to establish an off-street parking requirement based on a demonstrated formula; a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of tandem parking spaces in conjunction with a full-time valet parking service; and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. Report from the Planning Department. Volume 43 - Page 200 . 54 J/P 3342 (88) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES C��Gy9� G+ 9�A May 22, 1989 Letter from Doctors and Hurses Medical U/P 3342 Management, Inc., dated May 1, suggesting Council deny the subject use permit. It was noted that at the request of the applicant, this item was continued from the City Council meeting of April 24, 1989, to allow the applicant additional time to make further revisions to the proposed project which would address concerns relative to the "bulk and mass" of the proposed building. The applicant has removed almost all of the above grade portion of Wing "B," thereby creating a minimum 50 foot wide view corridor through the middle of the project. The square footage which comprised the upper two levels of Wing "B" has been relocated to the northwesterly portion of the site adjacent to Hazel Drive and is shown as Wing "D" on the plans. The addition of Wing "D" over the subterranean parking area will allow the applicant to maintain the 85 units which they have previously indicated is the bottom line that the project will support. Other changes to the project include: 1. Four additional off-street parking spaces within the subterranean parking area, bringing the total number of parking spaces from 42 to 46. An independent van storage area was included in both plans; 2. An increased setback of 20 feet (previously 15 feet) on Wing "C" adjacent to the southerly R--1 Lot fronting on Hazel Drive; 3. A reduced setback of 23± feet (previously 30 feet) on Wing "A" adjacent to East Coast Highway; 4. A reduced setback of 19± feet (previously 29± feet) on Wing "A" adjacent to Buck Gully at East Coast Highway; and 5. An overall reduction in height of 2 feet for the proposed elevator tower and cupola (from 41 feet to 39 feet). Volume 43 - Page 201 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES \p���► � N May 22, 1989 It was further noted that if it is the U/P 3342 desire of the City Council to approve this matter, staff recommends Conditions of Approval No. 1 and 11 of Use Permit No. 3342 be revised as follows: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations, and sections approved by the City Council on May 22, 1989, except as noted below. 11. That a minimum of 46 off-street parking spaces shall be provided for the proposed development. John Christeson, Vice -President of Emerald Associates, addressed the Council and advised them of the following: They have redesigned the proposed building and are moving one-half of the view units out of what was previously Wing "C," placing them closer to the Five Crown property; and dividing the structure into two wings, which will provide a wide opening between the two buildings and create ocean views for residents living above the project, as well as views for pedestrians or motorists traveling down Pacific Coast Highway. They have also increased their parking by an additional 10% (42 parking spaces vs. 46); large area for van space; and moved the loading dock to accommodate parking spaces for two panel trucks. They also felt they have the ability to add an additional 11 parking spaces if deemed necessary by the City Council. The following persons addressed the Council in opposition to the proposed project: James A. Crane, 323 Driftwood Road, stated his primary concern was what would happen to the property if the elderly care facility were to go defunct; and the traffic that would be created on Shorecliff Road. Volume 43 - Page 202 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 4 p'f9I May 22, 1989 Dick Nichols, 519 Iris Avenue, indicated he felt the loading area was inadequate; that refuse should not be stored inside the building; handicapped parking spaces should be increased; and that the developer should have proposed single-family residential for the property as an alternative, as he felt the property was not the appropriate location for an elderly care facility. Wally Ziglar, 327 Poppy Avenue, indicated it was his understanding the project was to be reduced by 25% as a result of action taken on this item two weeks ago, and stated that this issue has not been addressed by the developer. He referred to the proposed 70-foot gap in the middle of the building; parking and density. Haskell Shapiro, 287 Evening Canyon Road, stated he felt the subject location was inappropriate for the proposed facility. Len Seltzer, 519 Hazel Drive, stated he felt that 95% of the residents in the immediate area of the proposed project are in opposition due to its "massive" size, and if approved, it will be much larger than any other structure in the vicinity and would not "fit with the ambience of Corona del Mar." The following persons addressed the Council in favor of the proposed project: Luvena Hayton, 235 Poppy Avenue, stated that she is a close neighbor to the proposed project; supports the concept of senior housing; the facility will greatly enhance the area; this type of elderly care is needed for senior residents who do not wish to move outside the City; the project will result in less traffic than any commercial venture; and the facility will be a tremendous asset to the community. Volume 43 - Page 203 U/P 3342 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES p0 •f6 \�� Ztn �tno GIN May 22, 1989 Resident of 2524 Ocean Boulevard, U/P 3342 in response to comment by Mr. Nichols, stated he was in the restaurant business and that it was very common to store and compact trash within a building. He felt the existing structure on the subject property was an eyesore and fire hazard, and that the community will benefit from the proposed project. Donald J. Regan, 924 W. Ocean Front, stated he was not speaking for, or against this project; that he is owner of and counsel to a company who owns 22 elderly care facilities throughout California and was not aware of a facility that would be "less" impactive on a municipality or a neighborhood than what is being proposed. He added that in their facilities, the average age is 82, which means there are no late night parties; very few residents with current driver's licenses; parking is more than sufficient; and deliveries are always made at off-peak hours. Mr. Christeson addressed the Council again, and summarized some of what he felt were the key benefits of the project as follows: 1. It will be the lowest traffic generator of any use zoned for the site; 2. The facility will be operated professionally by Trans- america, Inc., who have been in this type of business for 20 years; 3. There are no other elderly care facilities in the City to serve the many long-time residents; 4. They comply with the updated General Plan and all the requirements of the Zoning Code, and will be providing more parking than required by Code; Volume 43 - Page 204 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Motion x a�qp 99 n0 May 22, 1989 5. The building is residential in U/P 3342 style and will be compatible with the village type of architecture in Corona del Mar; 6. They have support from approximately 100 residents in the area; two past presidents of the Friends of the Oasis, and unanimous support from the Planning Commission. With regard to Fire Department access, the Planning Director advised that he had met with Fire Chief Reed and a representative from the Building Department, wherein it was noted that there will be two levels of concrete and steel construction under the frame construction, and the project is required to conform to all building and fire codes in any case. Hearing no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Council Member Turner commented that the applicant has complied with the criteria for this site set forth by the City Council last October when the General Plan was updated; the project complies with all development standards required by the City and will generate less traffic than any other use for the property; and therefore, moved to sustain the decision of the Planning Commission; including revisions to Conditions of Approval No. 1 and No. 11, as enumerated in the staff report dated May 22, 1989; adding a new Condition of Approval requiring the developer to be responsible for the improvement of the public right-of-way adjacent to the view lookout at Glen Drive and Pacific Coast Highway, subject to approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department; and further, that an additional Condition of Approval be added to require that a plan for the control and maintenance of vegetation on the slope of Buck Gully shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department. Council Member Sansone stated he could not support the motion. He commented that when the Council updated the General Plan last October, he had requested the staff provide a complete Volume 43 - Page 205 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES L Motion Co \y�'Aso�F�qG���� May 22, 1989 sa review of all perimeters incident to a P-C district before development plans were accepted for processing on this site, which has not been done. It has been stated that this property is in the P-C Zone in the Land Use Element; however, pursuant to the Zoning Code, a minimum of 10 acres is needed for P-C Zoning, which the subject development does not have, and therefore, the Zoning Code should be amended. He also noted that many of the speakers and residents who spoke in favor of the project do not reside in old Corona del Mar, and consequently will not be affected by the impact this project will have on the area. He stated the site was inappropriate for the proposed use; the project was not supported by any of the homeowner associations in the area, nor the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce; the facility will be incompatible with the immediate area and will have a significant detrimental impact on the community; the facility will be understaffed to handle its residents; tandem parking will not work in this project; the employees will not use public transportation as mentioned previously; there is a lack of open space for recreational use by the patients; fire access is not adequate; and that traffic will be impacted on Pacific Coast Highway. In view of the foregoing comments, Council Member Sansone moved a substitute motion to overrule the decision of the Planning Commission and deny Use Permit No. 3342 and Traffic Study No. 54, stating the project under the circumstances will be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood, as well as detrimental or injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood. Council Member Watt stated that when the General Plan was adopted, she felt some essential issues, not just in this project but others, were left for Council discretion over the use of property and the intensity of that use, as well as the compatibility with the site itself and the neighborhood. Volume 43 - Page 206 U/P 33'42 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES \�s9��o+ AMay zz, 1989 She added that the Council could judge U/P 3342 the proposed project's use and intensity raises questions of enough significance that it should be reduced or denied; questions about parking and safety consequences, and a failure of the exact use leads to more impacted use in the future; the size, bulk and scale of the structure and whether it is in keeping with the character and stability of the neighborhood. She felt the intensity was particularly out of scale on the Buck Gully side; that the developer could be induced to bring a project forth which would meet the basic .5 FAR standards, and that a project half the size as proposed would still be financially viable; that nearby residents have the most at stake as the future unfolds; and therefore, she will support the substitute motion made by Council Member Sansone. Mayor Pro Tem Plummer stated that if single-family residential housing was built on the site, as suggested by some speakers, there could be twice as much building and development, and because the housing would be on Pacific Coast Highway, a sound wall would have to be constructed. She felt the applicant has "bent over backwards" to meet the concerns of residents in old Corona del Mar, and inasmuch as the applicant has met all Code regulations, the City could be left open to a legal challenge if the use permit is not approved, and therefore, she will not support the substitute motion. Council Member Hart noted that employee parking is to be on site, which should alleviate the concerns of on -street parking in the residential areas; supports the subterranean parking garage; has reviewed the revised plans and feels that the redesigned project provides a great deal of public benefit, inasmuch as ocean views will be seen by passing motorists, as well as pedestrian traffic; all of which warrants her support of the project. Mayor Strauss commented that he felt the project did not fit into the neighborhood as he sees it, and therefore, he will be supporting the substitute motion. Volume 43 Page 207 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Ayes Noes COUNCIL MEMBERS G�Z � `G� 9 'lo9� C� 9� G �► 0 �tno ��► May 22, 1989 x I x I x I x I x I x I x The substitute motion was voted on and FAILED. MINUTES In view of the foregoing, Council Member Sansone requested that the following Condition of Approval be added to Council Member Turner's motion: "That during the construction period, all construction parking shall be on -site, or on an approved off -site location." Council Member'Hart requested that the following Condition of Approval be added to the main motion: "That the applicant be responsible for grading the top portion of Buck Gully adjacent to the site, including installation of sidewalk and landscaping, subject to approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department." Council Member Turner indicated he had no objections to the foregoing two amendments to his motion. Council Member Sansone suggested the motion be revised to require that the applicant install a traffic signal at Seaward and Pacific Coast Highway, to which the City Attorney responded that the applicant does not have the power to install a signal at that location, and the City can only impose conditions that the property owner is capable of fulfilling. The Public Works Director stated it appears from the Traffic Studies and the amount of traffic generated as a result of the project, that there would be very minimal impact on the intersection of Seaward and Pacific Coast Highway. He added, however, that CalTrans has permitted the installation of traffic signals on State Highway intersections in accordance with the meeting of technical warrants for traffic signals. Following consideration of the foregoing, the City Attorney suggested that a Condition of Approval be added requiring the developer to pay his fair share of a traffic signal at the subject intersection should CalTrans technical warrants for a signal are met. Volume 43 - Page 208 U/P 3342, Ayes Noes Abstain CITY 3I1. MEMBERS s x x x x x x x OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 22, 1989 Council Member Turner agreed to include Council Member Sansone's recommendations in his motion, and the motion as amended, Was voted on and , carried. Council Member Hart was excused from the meeting at this time. Mayor Strauss opened the public hearing GPA 88-2(C) regarding GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (45) 88-2(C), a request initiated by the City of Newport Beach to revise the HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN as required by State law. Report from the Planning Department. The City Manager pointed out that the City's current approval of this Draft Housing Element is only an approval in concept, and not the the adoption of the Element; that after this approval in concept, the draft revised Housing Element will be sent to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for their required review; and after the HCD's review, the City Council will hold a final public hearing at which they will consider HCD's comments, any staff recommended changes, and adopt the Housing Element. He added that when the final action is taken on the Housing Element, the Council will also include acceptance of the Environmental Document as recommended by the Planning Commission. Dave Dmohowski of The Irvine Company, addressed the Council and stated that they have met on several occasions with City staff and participated in Planning Commission hearings on this matter, and are generally supportive of the Housing Element as currently proposed. However, while they recognize the need for the City to maintain an adequate Housing Element and update targets and objectives, the strengthening of its criteria is coming at a time when there is actually a decrease in Federal and other forms of governmental subsidies that have been available in the past, such as mortgage revenue bond financing that help make affordable housing economically feasible. He submitted a letter for the record that summarized his comments. Hearing no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Volume 43 - Page 209 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH rrnnunu OIRYARRS MINUTES Motion All Ayes Motion All Ayes x �p May 22, 1989 Council Member Watt pointed out two corrections on Page A-11, Table 9 and on Page A-107, Item 2d, which was noted by the staff. Council Member Watt also asked for further information when this item comes back for final approval regarding the 46% employment increase mentioned in the report. Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 89-32, approving in concept, revisions to the Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan as required by State law, and directing staff to forward those revisions to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for its review. 3. Mayor Strauss opened the public hearing regarding FINAL DRAFT/1989 COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN. Report from General Services Director with subject draft and resolution. The City Manager stated, in summary, that the plan is comprehensive in scope; provides long-term guidance in solid waste management planning; and highlights very favorably the City's efforts in the solid waste management field. Hearing no one wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 89-33, supporting approval of the final draft of the 1989 County Solid Waste Management Plan. 4. Mayor Strauss opened the public hearing regarding IMPROVEMENT OF OCEAN FRONT STREET ENDS FOR ORANGE AND PROSPECT STREETS. Report from Public Works Department. The Public Works Director referred to the two alternative sketches being considered, and stated that the West Newport Beach Association and one of the adjacent property owners have suggested an alternate to the sketches that were submitted to the Council when this matter was first considered on March 271 1989. He stated that the Public Works Department has no objection to that Volume 43 - Page 210 Res 89-32 I 0/C Solid Waste Mgm Plan/'89 (44) Res 89-33 Ocean Frnt/ St Ends Orange 5 Prospect (74) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ,;�,��A + ��� May 22, 1989 alternate sketch, and the primary' difference is that landscaping areas are provided in the southerly portion of the street ends; and therefore, recommended that the alternate sketch be included in lieu of the previous design, subject to the condition that the adjacent property owners agree to provide and maintain the landscaping in the planter areas. He also suggested the Council designate Mayor Pro Tem Plummer to work with staff on the final design refinement. Jerry Cobb, 6304 W. Ocean Front, representing West Newport Beach Association, addressed the Council in support of the proposed improvements and stated it was long overdue. He also stated that the property owners residing adjacent to the street ends bear the strongest use from the out—of—town visitors, and their association felt the proposed plan was an excellent solution. Dr. K. Batniji, 6800 W. Ocean Front, addressed the Council in favor of the proposal, stating he has been a resident for 16 years and the proposed improvements are needed in the area. Christine Pattison, 6710 W. Ocean Front, addressed the Council and stated that she had objections to the original plan, but that she had not seen the revised design, wherein she was given a copy by staff. She discussed the alternate plan and indicated her concern was the noise level as her bedroom window is approximately five feet from a public access way. She suggested that the planters be somewhat larger with shrubbery to allow some privacy and a noise buffer. She also recommended that the bicycle racks proposed at Orange Street be moved to another location, inasmuch as they accumulate trash, and suggested the area near the new restrooms. The Public Works Director stated his staff will work with the affected property owners on the specific details of the landscape design, but the planters cannot be so high as to create the appearance of private property. He also pointed out that the only vehicular access that would be permitted through the street ends would be for lifeguard Volume 43 — Page 211 Ocean Frnt St Ends CITY OF NEWPORT ®EACH MINUTES Motion All Ayes Motion All Ayes �j, y C �O� May 22, 1989 x x and emergency -type vehicles in the 12 foot access strip between the planters, but otherwise, the area would be posted for "No Parking." Hearing no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Motion was made to approve the alternate plan submitted for improvement of Ocean Front street ends at Orange and Prospect Streets, as recommended; designate Mayor Pro Tem Plummer to work with staff on the final design refinement; and direct staff to continue with the procedure to improve the street ends. E. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. F. CONSENT CALENDAR: Ocean Frnt St Ends The following actions were taken as indicated, except for those items removed. 1. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION - Schedule for public hearing on June 12, 1989: (a) Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 89-14, Ord 89-14 being, Zoning (94) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADDING CHAPTER 20.75 REGULATING SATELLITE DISH ANTENNAS TO THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE [PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 6283. PCA 628 (Report from Planning Department) 2. RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION: (a) Removed from the Consent Calendar. (b) Resolution No. 89-35 establishing "NO Prkg PARKING" RESTRICTIONS FROM 8:30 A.M. TO Rstrctns 12:30 P.M. ON DESIGNATED STREETS ON Res 89-35 CERTAIN DAYS TO IMPROVE STREET SWEEPING (63) EFFECTIVENESS AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NOs. 86-85, 84-98, 84-97, 84-34, 82-130, 10048, 8638, 8637, 7509 AND 88-122. (Report from Traffic Affairs Committee) (c) Resolution No. 89-36 establishing Off -St OFF-STREET PARKING METER ZONES AND Prkg/Mtr REGULATIONS FOR THE OPERATION OF PARKING Zones/Regs METERS AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. Res 89-36 88-16. (Report from Offstreet Parking (63) Committee) Volume 43 - Page 212 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH - :MS"S MINUTES LL►�'A9 f9,p A0 May 22, 1989 INDEX (d) Resolution No. 89-37 reestablishing a Prkg Prmt PARKING PERMIT SYSTEM FOR USE IN CERTAIN Sys/ CITY PARKING LOTS AND OFF-STREET PARKING Res 89-37 METER ZONES AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION (63) NO. 88-116. (Refer to report w/agenda item F-2(c)) (e) Resolution No, 89-38 ADOPTING A MAP Utilities/ SHOWING THE PROPOSED AMENDED BOUNDARIES Spcl Asmt OF A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (NO. Dist#57 57). (Report from Public Works Res 89-38 Department and letter from Brown and (89) Divan) (f) Resolution No. 89-39 DECLARING THE CITY Utilities/ OF NEWPORT BEACH'S INTENTION TO ORDER Spcl Asmt CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS IN CERTAIN Dist#57 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PROCEEDINGS (NO. 57) Res 89-39 AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 26, (89) 1989. (Refer to agenda item F-2(e)) (g) Removed from the Consent Calendar. 3. CONTRACTS/AGREEMENTS: (a) Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk Upr Npt Bay to execute a QUITCLAIM DEED Bic/Eques transferring trail easements for trl/QCDeed UPPER NEWPORT BAY BICYCLE AND C-2435 EQUESTRIAN TRAIL (C-2435) project (38) to the County of Orange. (Report from Public Works Department) (b) Approve Budget Amendment No. 067 to Wtr Mn Imp appropriate $129,801 received from BckBay/Bay- the Newport Dunes for (CONTRACT NO. side Dr 2733) WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS IN -2733 BACK BAY AND BAYSIDE DRIVES; and (38) approve ENTRY AGREEMENT with the Newporter Resort permitting the City's contractor to enter onto the Newporter Resort property to construct an 8" public water main; and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute subject agreement. (Report from Public Works Department) (c) Award CONTRACT NO. 2750 for Misc Cncrt MISCELLANEOUS CONCRETE REPAIR IN Rpr/Cameo CAMEO SHORES; ORANGE AND PROSPECT 5hrs/Orng/ STREETS/STREET END CONSTRUCTION; Prspct/Brd BROAD STREET BETWEEN WESTMINSTER C-2730 AND BOLSA AVENUES to Nobest, Inc., (38) for total bid price of $101,969; and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute subject contract. (Report from Public Works Department) Volume 43 - Page 213 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH rnuNru MEMBERS MINUTES �9 May 22, 1989 (d) Approve MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE CITIES OF NEWPORT BEACH, COSTA MESA, AND IRVINE regarding IMPACTS ONE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT MAY HAVE UPON OTHER CITIES. (Report w/Memorandum of Understanding from City Manager) (a) Approve a three part JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH LAGUNA BEACH COUNTY WATER DISTRICT/IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT/SOUTH COAST WATER DISTRICT/CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FOR REPLACEMENT OF PORTION OF WATER TRANSMISSION LINE KNOWN AS COAST SUPPLY LINE. (Report from Utilities Director) 4. COMMUNICATIONS - For referral as indicated: (a) To Public Works Department for response, letter from Kamine, Steiner & Ungerer representing John T. Malloy, Inc., and regarding WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS IN BACK BAY DRIVE AND BAYSIDE DRIVE (CONTRACT NO. 2733). (38) Laguna Bch/ Irvine/CNB Wtr Data/ Coast Sup- ply Line Jt. Pwrs Agm C-2753 (38) (38) Mu Imp Bay/ ide Dr (b) To Planning Department for Plan response, letter from Corona del (68) Mar Residents Association regarding SIDE YARD ENCROACHMENTS, OLD CORONA DEL MAR. (c) To Executive Assistant for reply, letter from S. W. Grasso complaining about the noise and pollution from the use of LAWN BLOWERS. (d) To Public Works Department for response, petitions signed by patrons of Cappy's Cafe, endorsing continuation of left turn into the business on Pacific Coast Highway; additional petitions received after the agenda was printed, and copy of letter from Gil Ferguson, Assemblyman, 70th District, to CalTrans. GS/Health & Sanitn (44) ?W/Cappy''s eft Trn In (85) (a) To Public Works for reply, letter PW/P from Corona del Mar Chamber of Marg Commerce requesting restriping work Rest on the MERGE LANES AT PACIFIC COAST (74) HIGHWAY AND MARGUERITE AVENUE as soon as possible. Volume 43 - Page 214 wrk CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH . EMBERS MINUTES I t May 22, 1989 INDEX 000- (f) To Traffic Affairs Committee for TAC/Trfc response* letter from Janet and Cntrl Bat David Gray regarding TRAFFIC Pnsla CONTROL ON BALBOA PENINSULA, (85) SATURDAY EVENING, MAY 6, 1989. (g) To Executive Assistant for COMCAST/ response, letter from John L. CATV Fellows, III, regarding COMCAST (42) CATV complaint. (h) To Aviation Committee for O/C -John consideration, letter from the Wayne Arprt Orange County 5th District, (24) Supervisor Riley concerning JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT in reply to the City's letter dated April 11, 1989. 5. COMMUNICATIONS - For referral to the City Clerk for inclusion in the records: (a) Copy of letter to General Manager of Newport Dunes Aquatic Park from De Anza Bayside Village General Manager regarding soil piled up against their block wall, bordering the subject properties. (b) Copy of letters from Karen Sanford regarding the "Homeless, and Freeway Patrol." 6. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES - For denial and (36) confirmation of the City Clerk's referral to the claims adjuster: (a) Terry Lee Carson alleging property Carson damage to his 1988 Honda Prelude while in possession of Newport Beach Police Officer on March 15, 1989. (b) Erick R. Christensen for property Christen - damage to his vehicle, alleging sen steel plate covering work area at the Jack In the Box at Pacific Coast Highway was raised and punctured both right tires and damaged the wheel rims on April 23, 1989. (c) Kurt Swanberg alleging City trash Swanberg truck picked up can of industrial stripper in the hopper, and it sprayed his truck and the alley near 211'k 29th Street during April, 1989. Volume 43 - Page 215 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES L ��tA9G�S� May 22, 1989 For rejection: (d) Removed from the Consent Calendar - Application for permission to present late claim for indemnity from Larry Earl Edmondson's cause of action. 7. SUMMONS AND COMPLAINTS - For denial and confirmation of the City Clerk's referral to the claims adjuster: (a) Sharon L. Schroeder, Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 589058, regarding injuries as a result of accident on August 6, 1988 at intersection of Emerald Street and S. Bayfront. B. REQUEST TO APPROVE/FILL PERSONNEL VACANCIES: (Report from the City Manager) (a) Four Police Officers, Patrol Division. (b) One Refuse Worker I, Refuse Division. (c) One Refuse Worker II, Refuse Division. (d) One Public Works Specialist, Engineering Division. 9. STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS - For Council information and approval: (a) Removed from the Consent Calendar. (b) Report from Offstreet Parking Committee regarding AVON STREET PARKING. (c) Report from Public Works/Traffic Engineering Department regarding TRAFFIC CONTROLS ON BALBOA BOULEVARD. (d) Report from the City Attorney recommending APPROVAL OF MODIFICATIONS BETWEEN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND THE NEWPORT BEACH CONFERENCE AND VISITORS BUREAU (CONTRACT NO. 2638). Volume 43 - Page 216 (36) Schroeder (66) Avon St Prkg 1(63) Bal B1 Trfc Cntrl (85) NB/Conf & Vstrs Bu C-2638 (38) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES A0� \NN May 22, 1989 (a) Authorize the Mayor to sign letter Legislation to be sent to Senator Bergeson in SB 1334 SUPPORT OF SB 1334 which would give (48) the Board of Supervisors the final authority to locate jails within the County's jurisdiction. (f) Removed from the Consent Calendar. For Council information and filing: (g) Report to the City Manager Planning regarding ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE (68) PLANNING COMMISSION ON MAY 4, 1989, and AGENDA FOR MAY 18, 1989. 10. PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULING - June 12, 1989: (a) Removed from the Consent Calendar - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-1(F). (b) 1989-90 ANNUAL BUDGET & PROPOSED '89-90 EXPENDITURES FROM THE FEDERAL Bdgt/Rvnu REVENUE SHARING FUNDS - Pursuant to Shrg Section 1102 of the Newport Beach City Charter. 11. AVON STREET IMPROVEMENTS/RIVERSIDE Avon St AVENUE TO 300 FEET WESTERLY/RIVERSIDE Imprm/Rvrsd AVENUE STORM DRAIN, LINE C/CLIFF DRIVE Strm Dr/ PARK STORM DRAIN, PHASE II - CONTRACT Clf Dr Prk No. 2715 - Approve thq plans and Strm Dr specifications; authorize the Negative PH II Declaration; and authorize the City to C-2715 advertise for bids to be opened at 11:00 (38) a.m. on June 15, 1989. (Report from Public Works Department) 12. IMUA OUTRIGGER CANOE CLUB/SEASONAL PB&R/IMUA OUTDOOR STORAGE - Approve the request Outrgr Cnu for storage at North Star Beach Clb Strg presented by the IMUA Outrigger Canoe (62) Club, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report from Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director. 13. COUNCIL TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION AND EXPENSE Cncl Trvl RECORD - Approve Mayor Pro Tem Ruthelyn Auth/Expns Plummer's expense record in the amount Rcrd of $154.48 to present Newport Beach, trophy in Ensenada, Mexico, April 28 - May 1, 1989. Volume 43 - Page 217 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 22, 1989 a 14. LEGAL PUBLICATIONS FOR 1989-90 - 189-90 Publication of Notice Inviting Bids to Legal Adv be received at or before the hour of 4:00 p.m., on Thursday, June 15, 1989, for a contract covering the publishing and printing of all legal notices, or other material required to be published in a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Newport Beach, for fiscal year ending June 30, 1990. 15. BUDGET AMENDMENTS - For approval: 1 (25) BA-067 - $129,801 (Refer to agenda item F-3(b)) G. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Report from Planning Department GPA 89-1(F) concerning scheduling public hearing for (45) June 12, 1989, on GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-1(F) - Request to amend the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan to increase the General Plan Intensity Limit for Koll Center Newport industrial Sites 1 and 2 by 39,000 square feet in order to allow the construction of a 65,000 square foot office building, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. Property located at 4311 Jamboree Road, on the westerly side of Jamboree Road between MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street; zoned P-C; and AMENDMENT NO. 677 - Request to amend the PCA 677 Koll Center Newport Planned Community District Regulations so as to combine Industrial Sites 1 and 2 into Light Industrial Site 1, increase the development entitlement in Light Industrial Site 1 by 39,000 square feet and increase the allowed building height to 55 feet, so as to allow the construction of a 65,000 square foot office building; and TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 56 - Request to Tfc Stdy approve a traffic study to allow the #56 construction of a 65,000 square foot office building on Koll Center Newport Industrial Site 1; and RESUBDIVISION NO. 892 - Request to I Resub 892 resubdivide two existing lots into a single parcel of land. Council Member Sansone stated that he will abstain from voting on this item due to possible conflict of interest. Volume 43 - Page 218 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Motion Ayes Abstain Motion All Ayes \\o N May 22, 1989 XIXIXI IxIX X Motion was made to schedule public hearing on June 12, as recommended. 2. Report from Executive Assistant to the City Manager with proposed resolution concerning Newport Beach Emergency Operations Plan. The City Clerk advised that after the agenda was printed, a letter was received from Beth Cooper regarding the City's Emergency Operations Plan. Motion was made to approve Resolution No. 89-34 adopting the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN, dated May, 1989 and rescinding Resolution No. 10063; but also to direct staff to look into the feasibility of developing a public outreach educational program and report back at a future study session. Mayor Pro Tem Plummer suggested to the staff that the Environmental Quality Citizens Advisory Committee may wish to get involved in this issue, as well as Neighborhood Watch Groups. Jeffrey Stern, 2020 Marlin Way, member of the Environmental Quality Citizens Advisory Committee, addressed the Council and complimented the staff on the Emergency Operations Plan. He statedi however, he does have a concern about the ability of the citizens being able to take care of themselves for the 72 hours, and suggested an ad -hoc committee be established to study emergency preparedness from the standpoint of citizens working as part of the staff plan and put the "burden where it belongs --on the residents." The motion was voted on and carried. 3. Proposed resolution concerning the Orange County Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Plan and letter from Orange County Transportation Commission. Reference was made to a letter received after the agenda was printed, from Orange County Transportation Commission dated May 22, 1989, recommending the following language replace Page 10, column 3, second paragraph: Volume 43 - Page 219 NB Emergcy Oper Pln (28) in 54) Tfc Imp h Mgm CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 00A0 4 � 9G�N�� May 22, 1989 "A special carefully -crafted Citizens Oversight Committee shall be convened to act as a watchdog on all transportation expenditures. No major changes in the expenditure plan can be made unless they are first approved by the Orange County Transportation Authority, and then ratified by a two-thirds vote of the independent Citizens Oversight Committee." The City Manager advised that the Citizens Oversight Committee will replace the Orange County Grand Jury as the watchdog on all transportation - related expenditures. Thomas C. Rogers, Chairman, Citizens Against Unfair Taxation, addressed the Council and distributed copies of a proposal relating to two elements of the 20-year Transportation Plan. He stated that pages 1 and 2 contain specific language for the formation and operation of a Citizens Oversight Committee, and page 3 consists of conditions which should be included in all Growth Management Plans. The principles set forth in the accompanying documents have been discussed at length with individuals representing many segments of the community, and he felt there is strong support for their inclusion in the 20-year plan. Council Member Watt expressed her concern as to how the Growth Management Plan will be implemented and stated that before this issue is placed on the ballot in November, she felt the Council should have some further information. Mayor Strauss commented that he had some reservations about the plan, but will support it being placed on the ballot; -however, he would like to see some type of companion document which would commit the County to set aside some portion of funds for beautification, open space, etc. Council Member Cox stated that Mayor Strauss's concerns have been expressed by others as well, and while it is not reflected in the subject transportation plan, the parties involved have agreed to move forward on a parks plan that would be separate from the transportation plan, but it too, will need County -wide support. Volume 43 - Page 220 O/C Tfc Imp Grwth Mgm 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Motion Ayes Abstain Motion All Ayes x NOy\FC0 l� May 22, 1989 x x Council Member Cox also stated that, inasmuch as he had been involved in this issue in a number of ways, he may have a conflict of interest; and therefore, will abstain from voting on the proposed resolution. Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 89-40 approving the ORANGE COUNTY TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, including the revised language as enumerated in the foregoing, for the purpose of placing this issue on the ballot. 4. Report from Traffic Affairs Committee regarding DESIGN STANDARDS AND PLANS FOR SPECIFIC LOCATIONS OF SPEED HUMPS. Council Member Watt stated she had pulled this item off the Consent Calendar because she had received two letters from residents on Balboa Island, who wish to have speed humps placed in the alleys adjacent to the Grand Canal, and she will forward the subject letters to staff. The City Manager commented that the pilot program of speed hump installations will provide the City with additional information on the desirable shape and location of speed humps. Should the Council determine that they are a useful tool for controlling speeds on local streets, a detailed set of criteria for screening candidate locations will be developed for Council approval and added to these design standards. At the end of the trial period, those locations deemed appropriate and necessary for speed humps can be considered. Council Member Sansone advised that he has also received a request for speed humps in China Cove. Motion was made to approve design standards for speed humps to be installed on local streets, alleys and City -owned property, as set forth in the subject document, and to approve the plans for specific locations on speed humps and authorize installation by the City. Volume 43 - Page 221 Tfe/Speed (85) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Motion All Ayes Motion All Ayes Motion All Ayes Motion All Ayes x A x co N A May 22, 1989 5. Memorandum from City Attorney Zoning recommending that the proposed ordinance (94) adding Chapter 20.07 to the Newport Beach Municipal Code PERTAINING TO FLOOR AREA RATIOS AND BUILDING BULK be continued to June 12, 1989. The City Manager requested this item be continued to June 26, in order to allow the Council to informally discuss the matter at their June 12, 1989 study session, and there being no objections, motion was made to continue the subject item to June 26, as requested. 6. Motion was made to deny and confirm the City Clerk's referral to claims adjuster concerning Application for Dermission to present late claim for indemnity from TYMCO, INC., regarding Larry Earl Edmondson's cause of action on or about August 31, 1988, as recommended by the City Attorney. H. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION: 1. Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 89-10, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING SECTION 11.08.030 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO USE OF THE BEACH AT NIGHT, was presented for second reading with recycled report from'Parks, Beaches & Recreation Director, dated February 23, 1989. Motion was made to adopt Ordinance No. 89-10. 2. Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 89-11, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 14.12.090 PERTAINING TO THE BASIC WATER QUANTITY CHARGES, was presented for second reading with recycled report dated May 8, 1989 from Utilities Director. Motion was made to adopt Ordinance No. 89-11. Volume 43 - Page 222 Claim/ Tymco, Inc. & Edmond, son (36) Ord 89-10 PB&R/Use of Beach (62) Ord 89-11 Utilities/ Basic Wtr Rate Chrg (89) f Motion All Ayes Motion All Ayes X { CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH EMBERS MINUTES MINUTES a4►gy9�G0 A G� tP May 22, 1989 INDEX 3. Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 89-12, being, Ord 89-12 Utilities/ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF Swr Use THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING Chrg SECTION 14.24.065 OF THE NEWPORT (89i BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO SEWER USE CHARGE, was presented for second reading with recycled report dated May 8, 1989 from Utilities Director. Motion Was made to adopt Ordinance No. 89-12. 4. Proposed ORDINANCE 140. 89-13, being, Ord 89-13 Taxi -Cab AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF Permits THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING (86) SECTION 5.12.080 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL, CODE PERTAINING TO GROUNDS FOR REVOCATION OF TAXI CAB CERTIFICATES OR PERMITS, was presented for second reading with recycled report dated May 8, 1989 from Business License Supervisor. X Motion was made to adopt Ordinance No. 89-13. 1. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1. Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 89-9, being, Ord 89-9 Open/Laun- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF Ching THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADDING Veals A ng CHAPTER 11.17 TO THE NEWPORT BEACH Pac Ocean MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING THE (51) OPERATION AND LAUNCHING OF VESSELS ALONG THE PACIFIC OCEAN, was presented for reintroduction and first reading with report from City Attorney. The City Clerk advised that after the agenda was printed, letters were received from Gene Kraus and Sam Stone regarding the proposed ordinance. It was noted that on April 24, 1989, following public testimony, the City Council directed staff to modify the proposed ordinance prohibiting vessel launching from the beach and imposing restrictions on vessel operation in the surf zone. The ordinance has now been revised and the key provisions contained therein are enumerated in the staff report. I Volume 43 - Page 223 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES C'0 \GNP May 22, 1989 It was also pointed out that there is an exception provision in the ordinance, which would allow jet ski activity if authorized pursuant to a special events permit issued in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 5.10 of the Municipal Code and approved by the City Council. Gene Kraus, 6502 W. Ocean Front, addressed the Council and submitted a petition requesting a designated area along Ocean Front for the launching and landing only of personal watercraft (jet ski), adding that they are not requesting permission for use of the surf line. He stated he was in support of the original ordinance presented to the Council on April 24, and opposed to the revised ordinance now under consideration. He felt there is a definite need for a designated jet ski area, and if the issue is not dealt with at this time it will only come up again. Andy Kirker, 222 N. Newport Boulevard, addressed the Council in opposition to the proposed ordinance, and stated he felt the ordinance unfairly discriminates against watercraft users such as jet skis; that by eliminating any beach front areas for launching, the only launching area left is Newport Dunes and by having to launch at Newport Dunes, it takes approximately 40 minutes to reach the ocean and jet skis only holds approximately three gallons of gasoline; therefore it is almost time to turn around and head back to Newport Dunes, or run out of gas. He stated that jet ski operators do not want to ride in the surf; they only want access through the surf. He requested Council action on the subject ordinance be deferred until a designated area has been established for the launching and landing of jet skis. Kevin Hutchinson, 114 33rd Street, addressed the Council and submitted a petition stating that jet skis should have the same launching rights and water use as commercial fishermen, surfers, and windsurfers. The following persons also addressed the Council in opposition to the ordinance, and in support of establishing a designated area for the landing and launching of jet skis: Volume 43 - Page 224 Oper/Laun- ching Vsls Aing Pac Ocean CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES t Motion All Ayes Motion All Ayes N� May 22, 1989 PA Larry Mason, 222 Newport Boulevard Ed Niemela, 200 Court Roger Hagey, resident of Irvine Catherine Martin, 1824 W. Ocean Front Council Member Cox indicated that if it were possible, he would support an access area for jet skis. Dr. Skinner, 1724 Highland Avenue, addressed the Council in support of the proposed ordinance. He related two personal incidents he had with jet skis while surfing, and stated that jet skis have discouraged him from entering the water because of safety reasons. Nancy Skinner, 1724 Highland Avenue, addressed the Council in favor of the proposed ordinance. She stated she supported the prohibition of vessel operation 1,000 feet oceanward from the shoreline from a safety standpoint, due to the fumes and noise generated from jet skis. Following discussion, motion was made to reintroduce Ordinance No. 89-9, as revised, and adding the following language to Items A and B of Section 11.17,020: "Except in those areas so designated by Resolution adopted by the City Council." The City Attorney and Marine Director were also directed to meet with individuals who spoke on this issue at this meeting, as well as the last Council meeting, to work out a favorable access corridor for jet skis. J. CURRENT BUSINESS: 1. HARBOR QUALITY CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE VACANCY. Motion was made to confirm (District 4) Council Member Turner's appointment of Doug Forde to fill unexpired term of Janie Arnold, ending December 31, 1980. Volume 43 - Page 225 Oper/Laun- ching Vsls Aing Pac Ocean Harbor Quality/ CAC E CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES \�'pSO2tn;3tA�9G���O� 9� May 22, 1989 2. AVIATION COMMITTEE (ALTERNATE) VACANCY. Motion x Motion was made to appoint Dan Stringer All Ayes as an alternate to Randolph J. Kroenert, Homeowners Association Representative. Meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. The agenda for this meeting was posted on May 18, 1989, at 10:30 a.m., on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. Volume 43 - Page 226 Aviation Cmte RESj�-NTIAL ZONING CORRECTIONS �,o: 1 aka l leph, ne: (714) 644-3200 Plan Check No: s By: Bill Luttrell, Associate Planner By: Javier Garcia, Associate Planner By: ana DobAssistant Planner Date: 82 Address: Corrections Required: Legal Description: Lot Block Section Tract Covenant required to combine lots or portions of lots. Please have owner's signature notarized on attached document and return qto me. Lot Size & (y�% Zone �✓ QQ�• Number of Units V_S Buildable Area h r� Maximum Structural Area $,5-q O, a ( (Area including exterior walls, stairway on one level and required parking) . r 75 x 'aR'� �'r+'• S� EP 411 Proposed Structural Area:6Q © x buildable area. Provide tissue overlay of c 1 1pa�ti`onss to ver,3fy rovided square footage. z�Ylnw c�e/L _"I `" Gt ✓ r �lQ �I�YUiY�Gxc - �C� L open Space Area Ncq cu.ft. (volume of space equaltd b ildable MCI - width times buildable height times 6). This area must be six feet in any 7 direction (61x6'x6') and open on two sides_or�ne side and above. i.lietZ: 8. Cout u1y`arq Sot ft. (Wing A) 231 ft. (Wing A); ns , i.e. bay windows or 95t ft. (Wit& 01041 ft. (Wing C) �V tuck =17 (Q MI) 29t ft. u Suck 6yuy; 60t It. ytneia.• fto%ot IIasA Dtiv loft. etottotly 1-1 Lot; 15 ft. Building Height of Revised Pro ct: N ��✓ Wing A t22 ft.-6 in. {4 Wing B 1:6 £t. ,,/ � •� Wing_Q 324 ft. •6 in. t1 , ) Win G14- *24 £t. Tower Nft. Cupola None e vitro 301 ft. to AM ft. (Wing 0) . 39t ft., 66t ft.( • dotA h°,net^e 13t ft. (Subl•vd - 1); V.169 30 ft. t° Olt ft. (Lovele 1 6 2); Writ, at it. to 272 ft. (L•y1 3) 1AX IZ iob-e' t28 £t.-6 in. None f30 ft. t28 ft. None t39 £t. /17Ajt-4�&q7 G�1drn�5! t24 £t. ±10 £t.-6 in, nension all None t Ldge of roof None None n'L Show natural grade line shown on all elevations. J Distance between buildings Maximum Coverage N Number of Stories Parking (9' - 4" x 19' - 0" min. clear dimensions, one space; 17' - 6" x 19' - 0" min. clear dimensions, two spaces). (Third required space may be S' x 161) Sh w_clear in�teer�ior�pd�imensions of gaar/age�A�/�j ll� y) f� wU✓ V�,G/° .^ CCvv (� �iL9G1? Fair Shjre Contribution %(Jd 6✓✓ jk San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Fee D A 10 . A p^'A /� 5 0 4 3 + Park Dedication Fee )3-a k�IYI.�/` ,{Q1� �j{�/ � 1 1 3 0 0 ° + 1 3 3 1 0+ 1 0 0 5 0+ 8 9 8 5 + t) 48588 SPE APPI :v Modifications Committee. Indicate Modification Approval Number on plans. k Planning Commission: Use Permit Variance Resubdivision - Tract Site Plan Review Other - 61ge g-I G .6L�`v Public Works: ) ��� ,.(,y P,t.:.� El -U J Easement/Encroachment Permit UMW Curb Cut V Subdivision Engineer Traffic Engineer `�'[ �` Approval of Landscape Plans r rb p- Building Department: Grading Engineer Parks Department: Plans 0 Approval of Landscape Coastal Development Permits: �n in Concept Z4- Approval YW (Note: File 3 sets of plans: plot plan, floor plan, elevations). `' Coastal Development Permit No. J , Categorical Exclusion No. (Building permits may be issued 10 days following issuance J of C.E.O.) V Waiver/Exemption V Miscellaneous 4V,? 1:4Floor planfully dimensioned showing all-T-ea.,;;�w� 2. Plot Plan fully dimensioned showing location of all buildings, fences to property line. Show second and/or third floor building footprint on plot plan. 3. Association Approval (Advisory) 4. Other NOTE: It is the responsibility of the applicant to circulate their plans and obtain the necessary approvals from the departments checked above. If you have questions regarding your application, please contact me at (714) 644-3200.