Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CDP_001
' '. C�lfb'rAL RISID TIAL �EVr1.0 1T. COL. CIL POLICY P ITY-1 ;'. C' OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT CURRENT PLAPiNING DIVISION 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 (714) 640-2218 or 640-2219 Applicant (Print) Mr ^ Max rlorgan • Not • .at:o:t Reed L.. cee: 5 -; �!, Phone 714/67S-S211— Mailing Address 2727 Ne ort Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Property Owner Morgan Develo went Inc. Phone�714/F75-8211 Nailing Address 2727 Eewport Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92663 Address of Property Involved None et established. Legal of Property Involved (lf too long, attach separate sheet) Description of the Proposed Project Residential duplex develo ment on the seaward side .f Balboa Blvd. at 32nd Street Number of Units 19 sessssfsrsrwtttttttttr.rttrritttrtssssrrrfsrrty.trrttrrr*rr..ttrttr*s..y+rrsssrttttsstrrrtstrs Please attach a statement indicating the proposed selling price of the units, the anticipated cost of developing the proposed project and any other information that could affect the feasibility of providing low/moderate income units in conjunction with the proposed project. sisrrtsrsssststlttsisrrrrtrrttsrs.tsrtsrsrtssrssstwrtrtsts.rrt.s.r...s.r*wt.w..rrwrw.rrt.r.♦ (Y) (tea /D•�G�� that (I am) (wlawo the owners) of the property(ies) i WW further certify, under penalty of perjury, that the herein contained and the information herewith submitted a to the best of (my) (mod knowledge and belief. depose and say 6rolved in this application. (I) foregoing statements and answers -4n all respect.§_ ,t--ue and correct Signature (s) Za -------------------------- NOT£: An agent may sign for the owner if written authorization from the record owner is filed with the applicant. DO NOT COMPLETE APPLICATION BELOW THIS LIRE Date Filed Fee Pd. 105,0 _ Receipt No. Z/(-? I _ planning Director Action Date . P.C. Hearing o -n �l-e3� 7 a�y'f33 f-3 Date C.C. Hearing/ <"�L Appeal P.C. Action Appeal C.C. Action iggl Ste " l :+?f2S: E. 47;t'? 03 TOT(. J 12/14/82 sc:nma 82-443606 IRM2 OF PR4PEM AT NE5%?ORT F- EMMIT "A" •W10.1• •- " •r :- Thar s. • 7�• a• r >r •a• 1: 2 SM l lm / PIP BIN• • la•• •,• • r ra• i• • • a�•.•.r ar r 7•la ?• 20, 1905 INBOOK 123 PAGE1 OF •- OF r ••1•` ' DESCRIBED 1 THE r aar • THE SANTA ANA AND IZEWPORT OOMPANY aa•:•.r ar mAY 8, 1899 INBOOK 1 PAGE 366, • • aa•. GF SAID COUNTY AND ./ t4MMEASTERLY I1 1 OF •r 18 IN BLOCK • . ON r MAP, AND rrS SCUniVMEM PROLONGATION THla• a• AND NOMM%STERLY BY InM FOLLaMC DESCRIBEDLINE: BElGINNM AT THE?•S• OF 1 • r]r PROMNGATION OF juE Mm[EASTM.,Y LINEOF • ►: THE SCUTBk7ESTERLY PFMONGATION OF 1 PAGE 41, OF PARCM MPS, IN THE M ERLY LINEit MENG THESO(JIlMRLY, SOUMESMELY AND NORnUESTERLY LINEOF SAIr pAICEL C 70 IHE NaKnMMy•• -. ra• THMX)F BEING POINT IN 1 S• la. a• 1 1 •: •s : • •.r • : a r •+ • • SAID OFFICIAL MAP; 7MjCE SOLMDD%STERLy ALCM SAM SOLMTRESTERLY LINE TO 'THE •'a •l?'LINEOp SAID 60.00 •• OF H DESCRIBED l BOOK e+ 366, OF RECORDS IOPANGE a•UNTY; TMaM EASTERLY• Ir • -a la. 'a'1 • tr •.•1 .IY ra`! LINE • 1 a'+ a • /• Tq;GEW nW BEARS •M • 1 1WEST FROM BEGINNING OF • • alm AT STATION1 AS SHOWN ON /r OFFICIAL MAP;E r EASITIMY ALCM SAID TANGENT' 70 'THE LRIERSEMON WM ME SCLMIEASTERLY PROMMUION OF e mmnWrMLY LIM OF • IN •Cs . ON •r OFFICIAL •• • THEWE s •a , +a. a•AIXM SAID EXTENSION Ta SAID CENTERLINE OF 1 60. 00 FOUr STRIP OF it SElMND DESCRIBED 1 t r ar • aC•F ar IN O OK 123 PAGE 110, a r }ar. RE10ORDS OF Ir COMM OF la r •.•a : y M Masa,•.r,ar FEBRYM 28, 1979 AS DoaMEW NO. 32422 IN : • U 13649, • . r 120 10MICIAL •IMs.-.r.. Page 1 of 1 F NEWPORT BERCH Y � MINUTES COUNCIL motion All Ayes Notion All Ayes x vas June 27. 1983 INDEX x Motion was made to direct the staff to 1pt Blvd EIS develop strategies for implementation of (Route 55 roving the navigation system in the a ject area and report back at the earliest posy ble time. 3. Mayor Ha opened the public hearing on the Cert Conven request of ILRYIS SERVICE FOR CERTIFICATE OF b Nec CO�TVL�ILtiCE A^' 'NECESSITY. Gary's Svc (70) Report from the G *tanager, vrts presented. It was recommended the ty Council deny the request for the reasons a set forth in the staff report. Hearing no one wishing to address the Council. the public hearing was closed. Motion was made to deny the request as \ recommended. 4. Mayor Hart opened the public hearing and City Council review of Ordinance so. 83-_l. being. AN oRDMNCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH A+ MLNG A PORTION OF DISTRICTLNC HAP No. 3 TO RECLASSIFY PROPERTY FRO.`t THE U.%,CLAsSIFIED DISTRICT TO THE R-2 DISTRICT - Planning Cosamission Amendment 'No. 585. and the acceptance of an Fnvironmental Document. the TIVE HAP OF TRACT NO. 11906 USE PEP-%IIT 40. 3022 AI0 COASTAL DEL rAAop4E1T PERMIT NO. 1; being applications of MXX MoR'�. Newport Beach. in connection with the GGA sLbdivision of land for the construction of seventeen reUidential units to be located at 120 32nd Street. on the southwesterly side of Vest Balboa Boulevard between 31st Street and 33rd Street in West Newport. Report from the planning Departments was presented. Hsu Horgan. 304 W. Ocean Front. Applicant. addressed the Council and stated he had read the recommended conditions of approval and concurred. and was available for questions of the Council. Hearing no others wishing toaddress the Council. the public hearing was closed. Council Member Strauss indicated he had some questions of Kr. Morgan, and there being no objections the public hearing was re -opened. Hr. Horgan explained how tho d0vel01.oent would be laid -out an the property and access to it. volume 37 - Page 203 Ord 83-21 PCA 585 b T1iap /T'r 11905 b Trfk Stdy/ U/P 3022 Cstl Dvi it Max Horgan (94) C{ Y OF NEWPORT BE CH COUNCIL !MEMBERS It Motion x June 27. 1983 MINUTES Hearing no further questions. thr Punlis hearing was closed. Council Member Strauss discussed a number of his concerns, i.e-. alternate uses of the land, affordable housing. and the assurance that affordability would be developed and approved on or before approval of the Final Kap, park dedicated land in -lieu of fees. (12.500 sq. ft. in this instance), investiga- tion of noise impacts from construction activities. etc. M% 555 a Thap/Tr 11906 The City Attorney advised that lie and the Planning Director intend to brim; to the. planning Commission and City Council, re- visions to Council Policy P-1. the Mello guidelines. This will give the Council an opportunity to develop a policy with respect to length of restrictions. height restric- tions on units. fire qualifications, etc. The City Attorney stated that the City Council is required to take action on tentative tract maps within a particular period of time. and in regard to the subject development. the staff was fearful of jeopardizing some of the conditions the City Council ray wish to impose on this project by not giving the council the opportunity to take action within the prescribed tisae period. He stated that the conditions relative to affordable housing are set forth on hand- written page 65 of the staff report, and it might satisfy Council Member Strauss's concerns if the agreement were added which is going to memoralize the conditions for affordable hosing. subject to approval the'City Council - Following discussion. motion was wade to ustain the recommendations of the Pawning CQmmilsion, and a) Accept. approve and certify the Final EIR as indicated in Attach-ment A; b) !lake the findings contained in the Statement of Facts (Attachment A. Exhibit 1) with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final EIR; c) Find that the facts setforth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment A. Exhibit 2) are true and are supported by substantial evidence in the record. including; the final EIR; d) Vith respect to the project. find that although the Final EIR identz:i-'_ certain unsvoi"ble :"9=4 iL3nL environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, those Volu=e 37 - page 204 M Ay COUNCIL MEY8ERS one � �►w� � � 9 �% Of NEWPORT BACH June 27. 1983 MINUTES INDEX mitigation measures i.i.:nt i t ic►1 in the l'CA 585 6 Certified Final EIR ,shall be incorporated 7Yap/Tr into the proposed project. and all 11906 significant environmental effects that can feasibily be mitigated or avoided have been eliminated or reduced to an accept- able level. and that the remaining un- avoidable significant effects. when bal- aaced against the facts set forth in said Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment A. Exhibit 2). giving greater weight to the unavoidable environ- mental effects. are acceptable; e) Adopt Ordinance No. 83-21; Ord 83-21 f) Sustain the recommendations or the Planning Commission with respect to the Traffic Study; g) Approve the Tentative `Sap of Tract No. T-ap/Tr 11906 with the Findings and subject to 11906 the Conditions as recorraended by the Planning Commission; h) Sustain the action of the Planning Cora- U/P 3022 mission and approve Use Permit No. 3022 with the Findings and subject to the Conditions as recosaended; i) Sustain the action of the Planning Com- Cst1 Dev mission and approve Coastal Development Permit $1 Permit No. l with the findings subject to the Conditions as recommended; j) Add as an additional Condition of Approvalj,;(No. 45). the following: "A minim = of ten (lO1) percent of the units to be developed on the site shall be 'affordable units' as defined by the Government Codes and City Policy P-1 at time of occupancy. Cuieelines to guaranty the affordability of said units shall be developed and approved on or before the Final Tract 'Sap by the City Council." Council Member Plum=er stated that she would not support the motion as she was opposed to the intense density proposed for luxury units which will be subsidizing two affordable units in an area she feels is already tremendously impacted. Ayes x x x x x The motion was voted on and carried. Noes x x 5. :Uyor hart opened the public hcaring sn' Resub 750 City Council review of RESVIM11%'• "40%'N ti. Valleti 750 OF VALLEY CLKSULTAN . .. Santa Amu. Consultants to resubdivide a tint parcel of land (84) into two Is for single family resi- d development located at 2305 Pacific Volume 37 - Page 1U..) /99011ru * 3 �� OFDIrUL-4CE No. r"f , 1 3st AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY CF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING A PORTION OF DISTRICTINC MAP No. 3 so AS TO RECLASSIFY PROPERTY FROM THE UNCLASSIFIED DISTRICT TO THE R-2 DISTRICT (Planning Commission Amendment No. 585) The City Council of the City of Newport Beach DOES OFMAI`: as follow : SECTION 1. The following described real property located in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California: Portions of Blocks 31 and 32 of the Lake Tract, Iccated on the southwesterly side of Kest Balboa Bouleva-rd, between 31st street and 33rd street, more specifically described in the attached Exhibit "A", as shown on Districting Map no. 3, referred to in Section 20.01.050 of the Newport Reach Municipal Code, and by such references made a part of Title 20 of said Code, is hereby amended to change the land use designation of said property from the Unclassified Districo to the R-2 District. Furthermore, Disti-ict.ing Map No. 3 is hereby amended to designate front yard setback.: of ten (10) feet for lot frontages adjacent to 32nd Street (Extended) and 33rd Street, and a front yard setback of nine (9) feet on 31st Street. SECTION 2. The Planning Director of the City of Newport Beach is hereby instructed and directed to change Districting Map No. 3 to reflect said change as described in Section 1 hereof, and as said Districting Hap shall have been so amended, the same shall be in full force and effect and be a part of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. SEC'7IC.N 3. This ordinarce shall be pub -',shed once ir. the official newspaper of the City and the sas+t shall be effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of ;,he City Council of the City of Newport Beach, held on the day of MAY ', 1963, and was adopted on the day of J H 2 7 , 1983, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL HH?MERS NOES, CCUICIL -X-M3--RS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS S MYOR ATTZST s CITY CLERK IW4M WR ✓xk S/4/83 THAT CERTAIN LAND IN THE CITY OF NEHPORT BEACH. COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN; BOOK 2 SHEE": !.0. 16 OF OFFICIAL MAPS. ORANGE COUNTY BOUNDED AS FOLLAWS: NORTHWESTERLY BY THE SOUTHEASTEFL7 LINE OF 33FD STREET. AS SHC %'N ON SAID BAPS: NORSHE'ASTERLY BY THE CENTERLINE OF THE 60.00 FCOT STRIP OF LAND SECOND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILfiO:+D Cw".?A:.Y PMCORD.ED DECEMBER 20, 1905 IN BOOK 123 PAGE 110, OF DEEDS OF SAID CO',TY: SCU:?ro%TS.E: LY BY THE SOLTrHWT—STERLY LINE OF THE 60.00 FOOT STRIP OF LAND FIRS': DESCRIBED Iti THE DEED TO THE SANTA ANA AND NEWPORT RAILWAY COMPANY RECCRDED IY.AY 8, IE399 11Z BOOK 40 SAGE 366, OF DEEDS OF SAID COUtiTY A.4D BY THE NORTFE'rASTERLY LINE CF LOi 18 IN BLOCK 31, AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP, AND ITS SOUT-HEASTERLY PROLC.:GATICN. THEREOF: A M NORTTMEASPERLY BY THE' FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGGING AT THE INTERSECTICN OF THE LAST MENTIONED PROLCNGATIO.t OF THE NORTHEASTERLY LIEF OF LOT 18 WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY PR0LC`;GA7--CS OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL C AS SHOWN ON A PARCEL MAP FILED Ili SOCK 32 PAGE 41, OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE CCUNTY RECORDER OF STAID CCi:tiTY; THENCE NORTHWTSTERLY ALONG SAID PROLONGATION AND SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE AND AIASG Th: SOUTHERLY, SOUT.46=ERLY AND NORTh-WESTERLY LINE OF SAID ?�tCri' C TO THE NORTHERLY CORNER TH--RECF BEING A POINT IN THE LINE OF COAST BOULEVARD (NOW BALBOrA BOULEVARD) AS SHOIAN ON SAID OFFICIAL MAP; TliENCE SOUTIM-ASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE TO THE NORTHERLY LINE CF SAID 60.00 FOOT STRIP OF LAND DESCRIBED IN BOOK 46 PAGE 366, OF DEEDS, RECORDS IN ORANGE COUNTTY; 21ia3CE EASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID COAST BOULTEVARDj THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALCl3G SAID NORTHEASTERLY LIRE TO THE INTERSECTION WITH A TANGENT THAT BEARS NORTAH 75007'30" WEST FROM THE BEGINNING OF A 12 FOOT CURVE AT STATION 5+13.20 AS SHCW`N ON SAID OFFICIAL MAP; THv—NCE FsLSTERLY ALONG SAID TANGENT TO THE N77" :RS'ECTION WITH THE SCz,T•r—rEASTERI.Y Pi40LONGoNTION OF THE NORTMASTERLY LIRE OF LOT 24 IN BLOCK 132 AS SHOWN CN SAID OFFICIAL MAP; THENCE NORMiWESTERLY ALONG SAID EXTENSIONS TO SAID CENTErxLl.%E OF THE 60.00 FOOT STRIP OF LAND SECOND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED RECCEOED Iti BOCK 123 PAGE 110, OF DEEDS RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. £XCEFT THEREFROM PARCEI-3 1 AND 2 DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO THE CITY OF NEUWRT BEACH RECORDED FEBRUARY 28, 1979 AS DOCL*ME T NO. 32422 Iti BOOK 13649, PAGE 120, O"ICIAL RECORDS. — 3 — MIWSSIUN�LS Ppteatber 8 1983 � * ROLL CAL! !Lotion All Ayes X I 1 I lotion All Ayes Ix Motion Ayes Abstain Absent u x �s»s� Ml MES 7 Notion was made to set for public hearing General Plan Continued Asmendmant 83-1 W and Amendment No. 594 for the t,u se tm- ning Commission meeting on September 22, 1983, ber 22, whic Iola CARRIXD. 1983 fiEFo FROM AD HOC COMMITTEES None. ADOITYONAL INE55 General Plan Amendment 82-2(b), ( ourt), Amendment X No. 591, Tentative Map of Tract No. 1 4, Use permit No. 354, Amendment No. 2 to the Aeron onic Ford Traffic Phasing Plan, a Traffic Study, nd the Acceptance of an Cnvironmental Document ware for public hearing for the Planning Comrission meeting f September 22, 1983 - All Ayes The Planning Commission reviewed the Affordable Housing Agreement for Max Morgan, !organ Development, in x conjunction with the proposed residential development on 32nd Street, and forwarded said agreement to the City Council - 4 Ayes, 2 Abstain,•l Absent A A A There being no further business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 12 W a.m. A James Person, Secretary City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 38 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 0 DEMAND FOR PAYMENT Date Septatrt,o r 21, 1903 Demand of Morgan Cevelopme3nt, Inc. Address: 2727 tiewport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 In the amount of $soo.00 [;1TE:MOF EXPENDITURE BUDGET I AMOUNT Rotund of Rortion of filing fee for o st Posidential Developmqnt report - CIRLE No. 19 units @ 2250.00 14750.00 Project covered 17 units only - Refund of $500 due 02-700 Receipt No. 4981 538 1 O1j28/B33 dnnrnupA Vnr Pavmpnt TOTAL $500.00 Finance rector • III • OCNNIS a ONCIL McDox000e. SoLiAzrD & ALLEN A P*aYC9t1Oar+l C04►014wTlOw ATTORNEYS 34100 PARK CCNl[A DRIVC•iu1TS im COST^ 64c%A.cALiraaP4i^ 9aete (s14) OSO.11460 May 5, 1983 Robert L. Wynn City Manager City of Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 %acm.-awIO OI►✓( Nf ph}OL -&"y SWItC 420 1: 11. Ma MIQ (Ji.►O.ui. 91 @44 IS1@I..".3,660 EC► Syr 1/fig MAY9 1983 �� � IJ •. � C � 1 Re: Tentative Map of Tract No. 11906 (Morgan Condominium Project) Dear Bob: At their meeting of May 9, 1983, the City Council will receive the staff report and Planning Commission recommenda- tion on the ^raffic Study, Districting Map Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Use Permit, and Coastal Development Permit for the proposed 17 unit condominium project located at 32nd Street and Balboa Boulevard. I have received some indication from the staff that the City Council may want to consider setting the public hearing on these matters beyond May 23, 1983, the next regularly scheduled meeting. Should the Council act to continue the public hearing on these matters beyond the next meeting, I am authorized by my client, Max Morgan, to consent to such a continuance an Would be required by the Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code 566452.2). I would ask however that these matters be scheduled for a public hearing on the second meeting of the Council in June (June 27, 1983) as Mr. Morgan has a conflict and will be unavailable to appear at'the first Council meeting in June (June 130 1983). I would appreciate it if you would convey this information to the City Council at the May 9th meeting and advise me of the Council's action regarding the continuance. _ Very tru 7 yours, 1G D n D.l'Neil DDO:lw cc: Robert Burnham James Hewicker / Max Morgan i.'i, }.'{laf�ih ;`,.l-��.Y, �'. �Y�' x.�. i.�%, !'�. .�v.V=�.�1iiti+#.��. ea melee!• • • City Council Planning Commission Meeting June 27 1983 Agenda Items No. D 4 CITY OF NEKPORT BEACH FROM: planning Department SUB.1ECTc Amendment No. 585 (Public Hearing) Request to consider an amendment to a portion of Districting Map No. 3 so as to reclassify property from the Unclassified District to the R-2 District. In addition, the applicant proposes to establish 10 foot front yard setbacks on said Districting Hap for lot frontages adjacent to 32nd Street (extended) and 33rd Street and a 9 foot front yard setback on 31st Street. The proposal also includes the acceptance of an Environmental Impact Report and the approval of a Coastal Residential Development Permit. fib Traffic Stud (Public Hearin ) Request to consider a Traffic Study in conjunction with the construction of nineteen residential units. Ml§ Use Permit No. 3022 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of eight individual two -unit residential condominium projects and related garages, on property proposed for rezoning to the R-2 District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow minor building encroachments into the required front and side yard setback areas. 0 Tentative Map_of Tract No. 11906 (public.Heari!a) Request to subdivide 1,65 acres of land into eight lots for residential condominium develop wnt, one lot for residential duplex development and one lot for single family residential development. The application also includes a request for exceptions to the Subdivision r TO, *Council -2. is Code so as to allow the creation of corner lots containing less than 60 foot Widths and leas than 6,000 square feet in land area, and interior lots containing less than 50 foot widths and less than 5,000 square feet in land area. The proposal also includes a request to establish grades for the purpose of measuring heights of proposed buildings. The request also includes the extension of Seashore Drive from 33rd Street to Balboa Boulevard and the extension of two existing alleys. LOCATION, Portions of Blocks 31 and 32 of the Iake Tract, located at 120 32nd Street, on the southwesterly side of West Balboa Boulevard between 31st Street and 33rd Street, in West Newport. ZONEi Unclassified APPLICA ri Max Morgan, Newport reach OWNER, Same as applicant ENGINEER: Donald E. Stevens, Costa Mesa A lications The applicant, Mr. Max Morgan, has requested the following application approvals in order to construct 17 units on 1.65 vacant acres of land located on the seaward side of West Balboa Boulevard at 32nd Street in West Newport. 1. Traffic Phasing _ordinance. Acceptance of a traffic study prepared pursuant to Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1, and approval of the project based on data contained therein for the ultimate purposes of issuance of building and grading permits. 2. Development Permit. The applicant has requested approval of Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 1 pursuant to Chapter 1007, Statutes of 1981, Government Code Section 65900 and City Policy P-1 ("Administrative Guidelines for the Implamentation of the Provision of State Law Relative to Low- and Moderate•Income Housing within the Coastal zone"). 3. Certification of an Environmental I act Report. Acceptance of an envIronisental. document as having been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CDQA Guidelines, and City Policy K-3, and certification that the information contained therein was considered in the final decisions on the project. TO: Ci 9uncil -3. 0 4. Amendment No. 585 A request to establish an R-2 zone on the property, replacing the existing Unclassified zoning designation. The proposed amendment will also establish 10 foot front yard setbacks on Districting Map No. 3 for each lot fronting on 32nd street (extendgd� and 33rd Street, and a 9 foot front yard setback on 31st Street�1 . Amendment procedures are outlined in Chapter 20.84 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. Tentative Map of Tract Map No. 11906 Request to subdivide 1.65 acres of land into eight lots for residential condominium development, one lot for residential duplex development, and ono lot for single-family residential development. The tentative tract map application also includes a request for an exception to allow the creation of corner lots containing less than 60 foot widths and areas less than 6,000 square feet and interior lots containing less than 50 foot widths and areas less than 5,000 square feet. The proposal also includes a request to establish grades for the purpose of measuring heights of proposed buildings. Subdivision procedures are as outlined in Chapter 19.12 of the Newport Beach Municipal Coda. 6. Use Permit No. 3022 Request to establish eight individual, two -unit residential condominium projects on property proposed for rezoning to the R-2 District. The request also includes modifications to the zoning Code so as to allow minor encroachments into required setback areas. Use Permit procedures are outlined in Chapter 20.80 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Modification procedures are outlined in Chapter 20.81 of the Municipal Code. Suggested Action Hold hearing; close hearings if desired, 1. Sustain the recommendations of the Planning Con ission AND a) Accept, approve and certify the Final F.IR as indicated in Attachment A; 0 b) Make the Findings contained in the Statement of Facts (Attachment A, Exhibit 1) with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final EIRr AND {1) The proposed front yard setbacks discussed in item No. 4 on page 16 of the draft environmental report have changed so as to establish a 9 foot front yard setback for the single lot fronting on 31st Street. This 9 foot setback is consistent with the front yard setbacks established on Districting Map No. 8 on the adjoining residential los on 31st Street. T0: C ncil -4. 9 c) Find that the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment A, Exhibit 2) are true and are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIRI AND d) with respect to the project, find that although the Final EIR identifies certain unavoidable significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, those mitigation measures identified in the Certified Final EIR shall be incorporated into the proposed project, and all significant environmental effects that can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level, and that the remaining unavoidable significant effects, when balanced against the facts set forth in said Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment A, Exhibit 2), giving greater weight to the unavoidable environmental affects, are acceptable; AIM e) Adopt Ordinance No. (Planning Commission Amendment No. 585) 0 f) Sustain the recommendations of the Planning Commission with respect to the Traffic Studyl AND g) Approve the Tentative Map of Tract No. 11906 with the Findings and subject to the Conditions as recommended by the Planning Cosmissioni AND h) Sustain the action of the Planning Comission and approve Use Permit No. 3022 with the Findings and subject to the Conditions as recommended. 0 i) Sustain the actions of the Planning Commission and approve Coastal Development Permit No. 1 with the findings and subject to the Conditions recommended. OR 2. modify the recommendations of the Planning Commission. TO: Cil&uncil -5. �J Planning Commission Recommendation At the April 21, 1983 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission approved the proposed project (All Ayes). Copies of the Planning Commission minutes and back-up information are attached. Subject Property and Surrounding Land Use The subject property is located on the seaward side of West Balboa Boulevard at 32nd Street. The site is 1.65 acres. The project site is nearly level. The site will require minimal grading to achieve the desired finished grade. it is anticipated that a maximum of 1,000 cubic feet of fill will be imported to the site in preparation for the project. A bike path extends along the central portion of the site, connecting with similar bike paths along Seashore Drive and West Balboa Boulevard. Curb and gutter improvements exist along the site's northern and western boundaries which front 33rd Street and West Balboa Boulevard, respectively. Existing duplex residential units in the R-2 District, adjoining the subject site, are located to the northeast and southwest. The beach is located approximately 400 feot to the west. Project Characteristics The project involves the subdivision of the property into 8 lots for residential duplex condominium development, 1 lot for single-family residential development (Lot No.l) and the expansion of an existing residential lot (Lot No.7) Jor duplex development (see Figures 2.3 and 2.4 in the draft environmental document). Lot No.7, which presently accos:nodates an existing single-family dwelling is included as part of the tentative tract asp because of a property line exchange at the boundary of Lots No.7 and 8. in regards to this project, the existing residence will remain. However, the northeasterly property line of Lot No.7 will conform to that shown in the tract :map and the property will be formally designated to allow for future duplex development. The applicant is not proposing additional development of Lot No.7 at this time. The single-family unit on Fat No. 1 will be developed according to the same unit plans specified for the condominiums. Development of the 1.65 acre site will result in a net buildable area Of 1.1 acres. The development of these units on the site will represent a density of 17.3 units per buildable acre. rour different floor plans will be utilized in the units and comprise the following overall site statistics: Unit antit STuare Footage A 3 Bdro. 2S bath 2 1,550 a 2 Bdrm. A bath 3 10,550 C 4 Bdrm. 2 bath 4 10510 D 2 Bdrm. 2 bath 1 1,230 B 2 Ddrm. 2 bath 1 1,123 r 3 Bdrm. 2+ bath 3 1,750 C 3 Mm. 2% bath 3 1,750 T4: c0ouncil -6. All units will be two stories in height with ground floor access. Landscaped open space areas are limited to the front and side yards of the units, a minimum setback of 9-10 feet and 4 feet, respectively. The minimum front setbacks would be established for the property on the districting map rather than the standard 20 foot front yard setback established for the R-2 classification. No roar yard or exterior private deck space is included in the plans. The initial landscaping will be provided by the developer and will ba maintained in common by the homeowners' association for the townehomen. Maximum building height of the units would equal approximately 26 rant with an average roof height of 21 feet. This meets the City's height requirement per the R-2 zoning district. The airspace between the first and second stories for all unit plans functions' as a component of the overall open space computed for this project as being 44,6000 cubic feet. Vehicular access to the condominium development will be provided from Kest Balboa Boulevard, via the two onsite alloys proposed for the project, from 33rd Street, 32nd Street (extended), and from the proposed extension of Seashore Drive. The extended alignment of Seashore Drive would follow and encompass the City's currently owned right-of-way which at present functions as a bike path. seashore Drive will provide internal access to the project site and to West Balboa Boulevard. The existing signalization at West Balboa Boulevard and 32nd Street will need to be expanded to allow the implementation of a four-way versus a three-way intersection. The extended Seashore Drive would be a one-way street with traffic moving in a southeasterly direction towards the west Balboa Boulevard-32nd Street intersection. Project plans also indicate the onsite extension of the two existing alleys located between 31st Street, 32nd Street and 33rd Street. Said alleys provide access to the attached two -car garages for each dwelling unit. It is assumed that both alleys would be accessible off of Best Balboa Boulevard and that the alley serving the northwestern portion of the site would be accessed from the proposed Seashore Drive extension. onsite parking is provided in the form of 2 covered garage spaces for each unit, or a total of 34 spaces. This provision is in conformance with the City's requirement of 1.5 spaces per unit for residential uses. The provision of onsite quest parking spaces may also be accommodated at those units with adequate driveway areas, specifically the unit clusters facing the north side of Seashore Drive extension. Preliminary plans indicate that on -street parking will total 14 new spaces along the seashore Drive extension. on -site pedestriAn circulation is afforded by sidewalks along the internal street system with walkways to residences which primarily emanate from Seashore Drive and 33rd Street. The existing bikeway will be incorporated into the sidewalk bordering the south side of Seashore Drive extension, following the sane general route as it does at present. Construction of the project is estimated to be completed in approximately 9 months, or Susseer, 1984. TO: Council -7. 0 Conformance with the General Plan and Local Coastal Plan The proposed project is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (LCP). A discussion of each element and the LCP relationship to the proposed project is contained in the Draft EIR on pages 19-23. The General Plan does provide for alternative uses of this site and this is discussed in the Draft EIR (Project Alternatives Section 6) and the Planning Commieaion staff reports. Environmental Significance In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (COQA), the "State CEQA Guidelines", and City Policy K-3, a Draft EIR was prepared on the proposed project. The official public review period established by the State Clearinghouse concluded on March 4, 1983. The Citizens Environmental Quality Advisory Comittee (CE7QAC) reviewed the project and Draft EIR at its March 1, 1983, greeting. Their coements are included in the attachments. Zoning The project site is designated "U" (Unclassified). The surrounding parcels are zoned R-2. The applicant has requested approval of Amendment No. 585 to reclassify the property to the R-2 (Two -[gamily Residential) District. The proposed project is a permitted use within this District designation subject to securing a use permit for condominium uses. As part of the subdivision map process, the applicant is requesting an exception to the residential standards relative to the minimum lot area and lot width of corner and interior lots. Front Yard Setbacks The applicant is also requesting the establishment of a 10 foot front yard setback requirement on the lots fronting on 32nd Street (extended) and 33rd Street as a component of the amendment when a 20 foot front yard setback is normally required for the R-2 District. At present there is no front yard setback designation on the districting map for the property, except for a 5 foot front yard designation along the west Balboa frontage of the site. The surrounding R-2 properties have front yard setbacks between 5 and 10 feet. The proposed 10 foot setback requirement would most or exceed the existing setbacks for adjacent residential properties. The Planning Commission and staff support this request. Pr sed Front and Side Yard Encroachments The applicant is also requesting modifications to the Zoning Code so as to allow minor building encroachments into required front and side yard setback areas within the development. The Planninq Commission and Staff had no objections to the proposed encroachments, inasmuch as they are minor in nature and will not obstruct existing views or significantly reduce available light and air to proposed living areas within the development. TO: Coyincil -8. 0 Traffic Phasing Ordinance The applicant has requested approval of a Traffic Study prepared pursuant to Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1 ("Administrative Guidelines for the Implementation of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance"). A copy of the Traffic Study is provided in the Draft EIR. The Traffic Study indicates that the project will not generate more than one percent of the projected 2S hour volume on any leg of any critical intersection. The Ordinance and policy provide that when this is determined, the City shall approve the Traffic Study. Amendment No. 585 The applicant has requested approval of Amendment No. 585 to reclassify the property to the R-2 (two-family) zoning district. The request is consistent with the city's General Plan, LCP and adjacent zoning designations. However, the General Plan and LCP also provide that the City should consider alternative uses of the aite . Possible alternative uses of the site are discussed on pages 75-03 of the Draft EIR. It is the opinion of staff that denial of the requested amendment could be supported by information in the LCP (public access and public facilities) and the General Plan Recreation and Open Space Element (designation of the site as a proposed park). Tentative Hap of Tract No. 11906 The applicant has requested approval of the Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the 1.65 acres of land for residential development, street, and alley purposes. The subdivision will allow the construction of 17 units. The map will also establish grade for the purpose of measuring the height of structures. The applicant has also requested exceptions to the subdivision ordinance to allow for less width and area on both interior and corner lots sizes proposed use as indicated below: Lot Area in Sq.ft. Lot widths in feet Pad Elevation Use 1 2926 31 10.40 SFR 2 4614 49 10.27 DUP 3 5094 55.5(Average) 9.90 DUP 4 4720 46 9.00 DUP 5 4650 50.75(Average) 10.20 DUP 6 45B6 50.5 10.35 DUP 7 5736 96.8 N/A N/A 8 4155 72.0 9.8 DUP 9 4191 72.0 9.7 DUP 10 4148 1 (regular) 9.5 DUP 44,814 (DUP - Duplex: SFR- Single Family Residence) TO: Council -9. 0 Use Permit Ila. 3022 The applicant has also requested approval of Use Permit No. 3022 which will establish eight (8) individual two (2) unit rouldential condominium projects. Additionally, the proposal includes modifications to the Zoning Code so as to allow minor building encroachments into required front and side yard setback areas and Planning Commission and Staff had no specific concerns with these requests. Coastal Residential Develo nt Permit No.l The applicant has requested approval of Coastal Residential Development Permit No.l. In accordance with City Council Policy P»1. This Council policy established the administrative procedures for implementation of these state laws (mello). The applicant intends to meet this requirement by the provision of two (2) on -site units. It was the opinion of the Planning Commission and staff that this is appropriate. Park Dedication The applicant has indicated that he wishea to meet the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance through the payment of in -lieu fees. The Park medication Ordinance (PDO), Chapter 19.50 of the Municipal Code, requires that as a condition of a final subdivision map, the subdivider shall dedicate land or pay a fee in lieu thereof, or both, at the option of the City, for park or recreation purposes at the time and in accordance with the provision of the PDO. eased on a 17 unit project and existing fees the applicant will be required to pay approximately $56,578.02. Issues During the Planning Commission hearings on the project, several issues related to the development of the site surfaced. The are discussed below: Land Use The Draft SIR explores several alternative uses for the project site. The General Plan and LCP would allow the site to be developed for several different land uses including residential, a public park, public parking or other public service facility uses, and other similar uses consistent with the intent of the General Plan and LCP. During the fall of 1982 the City Council and Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission reviewed the use of the property for park purposes. The City Council has taken no formal action to either acquire the property or remove it from consideration for use as a park. Tpt Ci ncil -10. is Additionally the City has recently completed a R/UDAT Study effort which addressed this general area of the City, but not the project site. The R/UDAT effort does suggest generally the need for a series of ssiall parking lots in the area without specifically and identifying the site or any other site. THe project site is the largoat vacant parcel in close proximity to the R/UDAT project area. Approval of this project and its development will preclude future action% related to the site. Design The applicant's proposed design attempts to meet the R-2 "Two -Family" District requirements and provide for the extension of Seashore Drive. The Planning Commission recommended the extension of Seashore Drive to west Balboa Boulevard. while City staff supports this extension, there is no City requirement for its extension. During the Planning Commission public hearings the applicant presented a plan for the property without the extension of this road which is attached. Affordable Housing State Law and Council Policy P-1 both lack detail in the area of specific project requirements. The City has the opportunity to define detailed unit requirements or allow the developer the latitude of choice on how the requirement of providing units for low or moderate income families will be fulfilled. If desired, the City could require that the units be built and turned over to the City or another agency for management. The units could also be made subject to a grant dead restriction as a means of control. Other conditions which the City could consider controlling are: unit size, total purchase price, down payment, tenure (ownership vs. rental), :method of disposition (first come, first serve, lottery, etc.), the qualification or verification that occupants meet the required conditions, the term over which the units will be occupied by low or moderate income persons or families, resale, and the method of final disposition of the units if necessary. As the conditions become more detailed, the amount of mranagemrent and control required to administer the units increases. Increased financial costs would also be associated with the increased administration. The agency or individual expected to bear these costs would vary with the assignment of responsibility for administration of the development conditions. A Coastal Residential Development Affordable Housing Agreement will need to be a condition of any project approval. The effect of the planning Commission action on Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 1 is to require the units, but to postpone any decisions on the previously mentioned areas to a latter date. Agreemnt will be needed to reach and approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of any grading permits for project development. .. TO: C cil -11. is PLANNING DEPARTMENT JA}ES D. HEWICKER, Director ay Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator FT:tn Attachments: Attachment "A" Actions & Findings Exhibit 1 Statement of Facts Exhibit 2 Statement of Overriding Considerations Attachment No. 1 to Draft EIR Proposed Ordinance Draft EIR Tentative Map of Tract No. 11935 Plot Plan, Floor Plan, Elevations, Section r A TOr City Council. ATTAC194M "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS AF APPROVAL ORDINANCE N0. , (AMENDMENT NO. 585) TRAFFIC STUDY TENTATIVE MAP TRACT No. 11906 USE PEAKIT NO. 3022 COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PEWIT NO. 1 JUNE 27, 1983 A. ENVIRONMENTAL. IMPACT REPORT 1. Accepting and approving the Environmental Docment with the following findings$ a. The City of Newport Beach has prepared a final Environmental Impact Report consisting of those items indicated below: 1. Draft EiR 2. Attachment No. 1 to the Draft gin 3. Minutes of the City Council Meeting of June 27, 1963 4. All correspondence and information received prior to the certification of this EIR and not included in l through 3 above. b. The City Council of Newport Beach accepts and approves the Final EIR and certifies that the final EIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (hereinafter referred to as "CnQA") and the State EIR Guidelines (hereinafter referred to as "Guidelines") and fully co"lies with, and satisfies, all of the requirements of CSQA and the Guidelines. c. The City Council of Mewport Beach certifies that it has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR in conjunction with the decision and approval associated with this project. d. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental doctiaesnt have been incorporated into the proposed project. Specific economic, social or other considerations wake infeasible any other Potential mitigation measures or alternatives to the proposed project. s. The mitigation measures to be incorporated into the 1?xc~ project are contained in the Draft EIR. /;z TO$ City council. June 27, 1983 B. STATEKENT OF FACTS 1. hake the Findings contained in the Statement of facts (Exhibit 1), with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final EIR. C. STATEKENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 1. Find that the facts set forth in the Statement of Gvirrriding Consideration (Exhibit 2) are true and are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the Yinal E1R. D. PROJECT FINDING 1. with respect to the project, find that although the Final LIR identifies certain unavoidable significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, those mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR shall be incorporated into the proposed project, and all significant environmental affects that can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level, and that the remaining unavoidable significant effects, when balanced against the facts set forth in said Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment 2), giving greater Freight to the unavoidable environmental effects, are acceptable. E. ORDINANCE 140. (AMzNDIIEM' N0. 585) I. Adopt Ordinance No. (Planning Commission Amendment No. 585). F. TRAFFIC STUDY 1. Sustain the recommendations of the Planning Commission with respect to the Traffic Study. G. TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 11906 1. Approve the Tentative flap of Tract No. 11906 with the Findings and subject to the Conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. H. USE PERMIT NO. 3022 I. Sustain the action of the Planning Commission and approve Use Permit No. 3022 with the bindings and subject to the Conditions as recommended. I. COASTAL 1=rDEXPIAL DLVZWPllW PERMIT MD. 1 1, Sustain the action of the Planning Commission and approve Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 1 with the Findings and subject to the Conditions reca■mended. /3 TO: City Council . June 27, 1983 EXHIBIT 1 STATMENP OF FACTS JUNE 27, 1983 SIGNIFICANT EWIRrOl WAL IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IN THE PROPOSAL IS IMPLEKENTED, FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO IMPACTSo AND STATE)UM OF FACTS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, ALL WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED IMPLEME11TATIOH OF THE SEASHORE TOWNZHOICC PROJECT IN NEWPORT BEACH. 0 «_ -,. o,v.. The California Environmental Quality Act (CE+QA) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines) prosulgated pursuant thereto provide: "No public agency shall Approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been completed and which identifies one or more significant effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more of the following written findings for each of the significant effects, accogmnie:d by a statement of the facts supporting each finding." (Section 15088 of the Guidelines). The City of Newport Beach proposes to approve the implementation of the Seashore Townshomos. Because this constitutes a project under CEQA and the Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has prepares! an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This EIR has identified certain significant effects that will flow from this project and should the City Council desire to approve this project, after determining that the EIR is complete and has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the Guidelines, the findings set forth herein should be made. WA 0 0 TO: City Council - 4. June 27, 1983 LAND USE POTENTIAL SIGNIFICADTP ADVERSE IMPACT 1. No significant project -related adverse land use impacts were identified which cannot be mitigated to a level at insignificance. FINDINGS a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the Final EIR. b) The affect which resiains will be substantially lessened through the incorporation of mitigation measures into the project, and the remaining effect, when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statems nt of Overriding Considerations and giving greater weight to the significant effects, is acceptable. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS 1. The Planning Cosmission and the City Council have approved a use permit for the project. 2. Appropriate public hearings were held in conjunction with the use permit approval as outlined in the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 3. The Planning Co=ission deterslined that the project was consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan, which includes the Housing Element. 4. The project will provide 10% of the units for affordable housing on site. S. That all mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR or Public Hearings were incorporated into the project as Conditions of Approval directly or were modified and incorporated. 15 • • TOs City Council - 5. June 27, 1983 TRAFFIC POTEyrrn SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS I. Upon completion, the project will generate approximately 152 vehicle trips daily, contributing an incremental increase in traffic on local streets. These increases can be Accommodated without street capacity or intersection refinements. However, this project along with other local and regional development projects will incrementally utilise remaining roadway capacities. FINDINGS A) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the Final EIR. b) The effect which remains will be substantially lessened through the incorporation of mitigation measures into the project, and the remaining effect, when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations and giving greater weight to the significant effects, is acceptable. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS 1. The project has been reduced from 19 to 17 units. This will reduce the total ADT. 2. Conditions on the sale of affordable housing units related to those ewployeed within the City will reduce total vehicle wiles travelled. 3. The project Traffic Study passed the City02 Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). • To: City Council - 6. June 27, 1983 NOISE POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT 1. Unshielded exterior noise levels on portions of thu mite within the 65 to 59 CNF.L contour for Balboa Boulevard will exceed the City and State guidelines and requires noise attenuation techniques to be employed in the construction of the project units. Such techniques will mitigate the interior noise impacts to a level of insignificance. FINDINGS a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the Final EIR. b) The effect which remains will be substantially lessened through the incorporation of mitigation measures into the project, and the remaining effect, when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations and giving greater weight to the significant effects, is acceptable. PACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS 2. A qualified acoustical engineer shall certify that roadway noise impacts do not exceed 65 dB CNLL for exterior living areas on the site and 45 de C3ML for interior living areas. 2. Applicant will investigate the feasibility of further mitigating localised noise impacts from construction activities. 3. The location of the project and its density are reasonable in conjunction with adjacent land use and will allow for mutually - supportive activities which will reduce traffic impacts. 0 • TO: City Council • 7. June 27, 1983 HOUSING POTEtiTIAL SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS 1. No significant adverse housing impacts were identified which cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. FINDINGS a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the Final EIR. b) The effect which rss�ains will be substantially lessened through the incorporation of mitigation measures into the project, and the remaining effect, when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations and giving greater weight to the significant effects, is acceptable. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS 1. That the goals of providing affordable housing as addressed in the City's General Plan related to this site will be met. 2. That (10%) ten percent of the project will be provided as affordable housing. 3. That Coastal Residential Developswnt Permit No. 1 has been approved as a portion of the project. 4. The project is consistent with City Council Policy P-1 and appropriate State legislature. /ia. • 0 TO: City Council - 8. June 27, 1983 LIGHT AND GLARE POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS 1. No significant adverse impacts related to light and glare were identified which cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. FINDINGS a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the Final EIR. b) The effect which remains will be substantially lessened through the incorporation of mitigation measures into the project, and the remaining effect, when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations and giving greater weight to the significant effects, is acceptable. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS 1. A landscape plan will be approved by the City of Newport Beach in accordance with the Conditions of Approval of the Tentative Tract Map. 2. on•site lighting shall be designed to conceal the light source, and minis<ise glare and light spillage to adjacent residential u0e81 plans to be prepared by a licensed electrical engineer. 3. The development will be in substantial compliance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations. 4. That to lessen the glare impact to protect residences from oncoming vehicles, affected windows shall be properly tinted to refract glare. l9 Tds City Count 9. June 27, 1983 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS POTEWrIAL SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT • 1. Noise generated by construction equipment can at times reach high levels although such impacts would be short-term in nature. Construction activities will temporarily interfere with vehicle and pedestrian circulation in the immediate site area. FINDINGS a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or Incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environ ntal effects thereof as identified in the Final nut. b) The effect which restrains will be substantially lessened through the incorporation of mitigation measures into the project, and the remaining effect, when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations and giving greater weight to the significant effects, is acceptable. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS 1. Development of site shall be subject to a grading permit. 2. Grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and baud on site specific geotechnical studies. 3. The grading plan shall include a provision for temporary and p*rmanent drainage facilities which minimize potential water quality impacts. 4. The grading permit shall include description of haul routes and measures to be taken during grading to minimize the impact of haul operations. S. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted for approval of the Building Department and forwarded to the Regional water Quality Control Board. 6. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the design engineer shall certify that runoff from the site will not accelerate erosion downstream. 7. A qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shall evaluate the sits prior to grading, and all work shall be done according to City Council Policies B-S and K-6. 8. Erosion control measures shall be don* on exposed soils within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. 9. Erosive velocities of runoff from the site shall be controlled as part of the project design. 10. All construction shall comply with current seismic safety/ structural standards. 00 0 0 T03 City Council - 10. June 27, 1983 EXHIBIT 2 STATEKENT OF 0MAIDING CONSIDERATIONS 1. The alternatives to the proposed project described in the Final EIR, with the exception of the "Ho Project" alternative, would not avoid the unavoidable environmental effects of the proposed project. 2. The proposed project is consistent with the Newport beach General Plan. 3. The project will provide reasonably -priced housing to meet the demand in the area. 4. That two units of affordable housing will be provided. 5. The density of the project is reasonable for its location. 6. The development will be ccspatible with adjacent uses. 7. The project will extend Seashore Drive. This will improve pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular circulation in this area. B. The extension of Seashore Drive will provide for increased levels of public service to the area especially fire protection. 9. The project is Isms dense than adjacent development. 10. The development will serve to encourage redevelopsrsnt and enhancement of other properties within the area. 11. The development of the site is consistent with the City of Newport leach Local Coastal Program. 4?/ • • Attachment No. 1 to the DRAFT E)i IFAX WAL IMPACT REPORT for the proposed 'SEASHORE TOMNEiiOMlE PROJECT" prepared by CITY 08 NEWPORT BEACH PLAMING DEPARTMENT and NESTEC SERVICE$, INC. 3211 rifth Avenue San Diego, CA 92103 (619) 294-9770 June 14, 1993 2Z 0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION J wysl W. abd$4 Negri.rnllg. .g.M 4WINO.0 me. aa.. ~awwe..00. ►.. $agog .. fl . .. . +otta tTloTt A)a0 ElW1lOm[7Rk wwtuT folrt � r A 3105" 32nd STREET PARCEL, SEASHORE. TOWNHOMES 1. r*s3ece tll,e Z. Lose Agency: NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPT,. Conuct JertcA: FRED TALARICO 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. NEBEACH U. Street wares:: _ In. Est)- ORANGE _ M��7T9T__..." 3c. Canty: _ 3d. Ip: 7 le. nrwr: " ram' ,tl LWTta A. cwnty:. - QItANGE U. cltr,csw.,nitr:,____NFWPORT BEACH ati.(60110 al) Assessor's Parcel to. ac. Section U. Cross Str«ts; 32nd STlBAL80A BI,VD So. for a"ral' Nearest cumunity: _ 6. elthlm 2 all" of: a. State All No._ I 1), AlrWtf c. alterwys 7. D6QmeT TYit G. taAl J: T oil TIPE lo. qtrttoPih7 r A .LP 41101aent1lll: ',n,t% 19 1, b,5- bl General via" update Ol xtrn 01 MOP O2 _%ft ll~t 02 Office- SQ.ft. C2 {arty cons (13 General plan 4wranent Acres L"101ee6 03 Mq OK 04 Master Plan 03 _Snoppin9/{owwcl4l: Se.ft. Oi j)braft Ell 05 Mnflatton +toes (59tvPees OS �Svpplowu 06 —:peelfic Plan 04 —" lnduttrlat: %,ft. Soesoweet Ell (tf to. prior SCw I 01 _11"eeelopaent Acres [$play«: I 0d leyona GS Sngr: w.o _ KPA 01 X4414 Otr)slon Ob -sister! NLG�_ Od1Mislon, Parcel I+ap. 06 3me of Intent Tract'tao. etc.) 91 _'eanlporutlCr Type_ 07 {n4ir, Assetswu la X-wlt Lse aer DE 111neral EAtrattIOn: 141AMral `JONSI '-- 11 —Cancel AQ Prestrre ower power Generation: Matta/e _p Otl .+1ft EIS 12 ,-Other cnagt,% l Typt: _ permi t 10 3 •�?', , 09 _Inforeiatlon, Oely , 1 . b _,,other: v' L.TOTAL Mats 10 `/Iad1 Ouuaent 11 ---Othar It. rlallCT ISWIS,011CUSSEa IR oomill. 01 MestAetic/Y11w1 ologltlSellmlc IS _S~ Capacity O2 Mgrlcullyra) Land vs �+vosllwutlnq Ialance 16 _:oil Erosion 03 Mir Quality 10 _Minerait It _Solid 'caste a It XiMlisd l�puDlic 18 TomiclNasardows 06 Castel I2 Serrlces 19,ITraff4U{Irculation 06 lire Hissed 13 _,_"_Stnools 20 �legeutlon 07 I1oodlhyy/Oraleayle la ,Septic Sms" 2l ,," •wtar Qua11t1 J 300 IF , 7) �iletla !lf�arl�1: �r11d11/ i�j Ir• �I 3 Grooth I044C 26 _ 104 patible tandute 21—Ev,ulatlre Effects ;f �3tne+ 32. FtIg %(IN ro■.) federal S _•, State S total 1 u, 11lt31,47 Sato v:E Alo iathc: a &MTS WILL- ar `WraOgg4E" Rs C 9ee-Ar%c.r DMAD. CONSTRUCT 19 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND ASSOCIATED la ! qua rT GARAC/EN ORIEN'1'I:fl IN DUi'I.1:x C(iNl`IGTiJITIONS ON THE 1.65 ACRE SITR.IN WT.S'[` NHWIDORT AT INTERSECTION OP BALBOA VLVD AND 32nd STREET. WITHIN DEAC11F'RUNT COMMUNITY SUPPORTING PRIMARILY, DUPLEX AND SINGLE-FAMILY FtESTDENTIAI. USES. PUBLIC BEACH IS WAY °rxOR DIRR Ph" t Tsvx 'ff"Pi.Ah"t��l�'Ti•ci>��ri� EX FJV _&Mj% J;.�j I w JL4 • • CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 025 LITY OF NEWPORT 8t_ cow. MINUTES .� May 9, 1941 Motion s ►, Motion Van made to [•save AXenda it@% I•r!►1 llr( tnllr. All Ayea i from the Coasast [al.ndar, a prnpaeed 7,,.IntlCi� reaoluLiom amawalna tee,.lution Aa, a/-1 in s +b..rtk,r { regarding cIatitIrat s,... ..' ln.nrn cal And other mattc►v rrl.,tlnX t.. 1: • W, .04 Her►or Towing of rolico and/or prir..tu vehicles, vhlrb van preseatod with a t.rhee from the City Nan4ger, Pets Cooper. 202 +apphtre. AAlboa lelin4, a44tessed the Counctt. regarding C 1 U Towiea Ccrpsny's polity Chat the eXact change be presented 1n order to remove a car from fi,.Ir -storage lot during the late night hour. The City Manager stated that the City rssulattoos do not 0peclfically address gibe foragotag. sad suggested that Mr, Cooper Submit a letter with pertinent information, 00 that staff can Investigate and report back to him. Notion ■ Motion we made to adopt Ran olution No, men 93-47 All Alan 43-/7, amendtes Resolution No. 82-110 regarding clartfication of hours of upeeafinn sad other matters relating to C a V. &A4 I<arbor Towing of Police and/or private vehicles. Motion ■ S, Agent& Item F-4(o) was rseoved in error, a04 Solid Wafter All Ayse aftsr clarification. notion was made to Kam approve action on the Consent Calendars Tu (74) staff for inclsatoa to the records. sumoery recommtndatioas of Solid waste Manat"Not Commission vo Solid Usage Gate Fees for lei]-gl. 6. OSDIIIAKI FOR 11IT&COUCT10N - Schedule for Public haartag oa May 23. 1983: i Proposed 001MAKI being, ORDINARiCI OF THg CITY or NtVPoNT ri.rten_'si,�,lw.:lgifiles i�yritirjJ gRYT nom Tig UfiCt ' Pt1MItOC COMIJItg Newport Beath, boug a 9 4, at to consider on amen4meat to a portion at Districting Map Ito. 3 so &a to rsclassity property from the unclassified District to the R-2 District. IS addition, the applttamt propose to establish tea toot front yard satbacks on said Diatrtctlag Map for log iroatagee 64jecent to 1204 Street (sstemte4) and 33rd Street and a at" toot front yard setback on 31st Street. The propoaal also Includes the accgta war of on Uvlronsrntal Impact Rtpart (grpr,rt trust Ow Planning De part.sl.r } i Tolvism 37 - Pass I60 ,20 Zoning Ord (9i) Y tTY OF NEWPORT BEAC (MUTES �.� May 4. 1Its] 1040E X A)(D ►U1LIC RZA1I11G SO DULLD - For May 21. 114): 70"ATITt MAP OF TRACT NO. 1Ll" a ?/Tr raquest of W MMZAN, wowport sch. re 11VA asbdivlle 1.65 acres of lane late sin• lots for residential condominium development, one lot for redldeattAl duplex development, mad one Lot for single-family residential daysteperat. The application also Includes a rgueat for exceptions to the Subdlvisloo Cede to as to allow the creation of corner lots coetainins less than sixty foot widths sad lass than 6,D00 sg.lt. to lead area. and interior lots co•tatales leas chain fifty last width& lad lama than 5.000 aq.ft. In land area. The proposal ;lee included A request to establish grades for the purpose of ow asurlss heights of proposed bulldinrs. The request also includes the estoadtoa of Seashore Drive from 13rd street to Balboa Boulevard and the extea&tea at tw existing allays. Cropertl lcsared At 120 - 32nd street in West sw"tt (Report from the Planning Departarat). wore presented. Itatiox a After discussion by staff rd 83-21 All Also wnce io. -2 rtalaln CA 585 to on err cti i t o e p/Tr L 1106 (EliC*s�iasion AmoMment�go. mad 6 rase t c earn s e rfk Stdy/ • a re &tsd // 3022 emta tee Ns Tract No. a Mow act Dvl /1 rUx Morpa • t of o. _3077 nabCoact& Dew t Mo —Zlii i T'o ftm at tu Booting OF 13t IMP OIL 9158 OV41914 =4 of wi..r..,: i letter or . 11. 00111AN S FOR ADOMOV 1 Mome. 9. COMi PM Rai I> M t 1. AMIlTIMM To NICTCI.i TRAILS CITLZZ BTICAC ADTISM 00=rM I / mottos R Mottos w•a nod• to dater (District 1) council All Ale* Meier Stramaa's. and (District 1) Cowell Maier Casa ayi Otio"Is to Jump 27. lisl. J. CURAM wsl]<L%SBjlii�me. i vblsses 37 - Nss 161 ; F Y MMi56101�5 �w r � r t • c � O s ROLL CAU February 24, 2963 . A*kJTES ' 7! W i'. N f Amendment No. SBS (public Hearing) Request to consider an amendment to a portion of Districting Map ito. 3 so as to reclassify property from the Unclassified District to the R-2 District. in addition, the applicant proposes to establish 10 foot front yard setbacks on said Districting hap for lot frontages adjacent to 32nd Street (extended) and 33rd Streit and a 9 foot front yard setback on 31st Street. The proposal also includes the acceptance of an Environmental Impact Report and the approval of a Coastal Residential Development Permit. Traffic Stud (public Hearin ), Request to consider a Traffic Study in conjunction with the construction of nineteen residential units. AM Use Permit No. 3022 (Public Hearings Request to permit the construction of nine individual two -unit residential condominium projects and related garages, on property proposed for rezoning to the R-2 District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code sa as to allow minor building encroachments into the required front and side yard setback are". AND Tentative Kap of 'tract No. 11906 (Public Hearing) Request to subdivide 1.65 acres of land into nine lots for residential condominium development, one lot for residential duplex development and one lot for single family residential development. The application also includes a request for exceptions to the Subdivision Code so as to allow the creation of corner lots containing less than 60 foot widths and less than 6,000 square feet in land area, and interior lots containing I*" than So foot widths and less than 5,o0o square fast in land area. TM proposal also includes a request to establish grades for the purpose of measuring heights of proposed buildings. The request -i0- INDEX I TEKS NO. 12 THF4J 15 ALL CONTINUED TO MARCH 24, 1983 C�C/ MM�SS�Of�iRS • � r ; r � rebruary 24, 1983 0 M NOTES also includes the extension of Seashore Drive from 33rd Street to Balboa Boulevard and the extension of two existing alleys. LOGTION: portions of Blocks 31 and 31 or the Lake Track, located at 120 32nd Street, on the southwesterly side of west Balboa Boulevard between 31st Street and 33rd Street, in West Newport. ZONES Unclassified APPLICANT: Max Morgan, Newport Beach OWNER: Saute as applicant ENGINEERi Donald E. Stevens, Costa Mesa Agenda Items No. 12 through 15 were heard concurrently, due to their relationship. In response to questions posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, planning Director Hewicker stated that The State Clearinghouse official review period for the environa mtel impact report on this project will and on March 4, 1983. He stated that staff has placed these items on the Agenda so that testimony may be taken and questions asked. He further stated that this will not set a precedent relating to the processing of other projects. The public hearing opened in connection with these items and Mr. Richard Brumfield, architect for the project, appeared before the Cossaission. Mr. Brumfield referred to Page 11 and of the staff report and stated that the environmental impact report has addressed a number of different options available for this particular piece of property. He stated that they feel that the proposal is a reasonable compromise of all of the issues presented. .41- 2,00 • o n O > ? ! =. a 0 February 24, 1983 • City of f R..Ymt Beach MNLf 'Es Mr. Brumfield referred to Page 12 of the staff raport and stated that the proposal is requesting 19 units. He stated that the R-2 development standards woulri only permit 10 units on the site which constitutes an enormous land cost burden for the applicant. He stated that a higher density project consisting of 211 units would be more in compliance with adjacent property uses, but that they are only requesting 19 units. He added that they are requesting slight modifications for the proposed setbacks. Mr. Brumfield stated that they do not have much control over the affordable housing insue. He stated that thin issue needs to be carefully defined and guidelines established, but that the processing should continue. He stated that they are prepared to provide two, on -site affordable housing units to comply with the Mello Bill. Chairman Xing referred to Mr. Brumfield's comment in which he stated that compliance with the R-2 develop ant standard for 10 units would create a financial hardship. He questioned why it is not possible for the applicant to develop a project which is affordable to the site, rather than having the city remedy the project so that it becasa s profitable, after the fact. Mr. lrumfield stated that One of the major problems with this particular site is the extension of seashore Avenue, which reduces the land area of the project by approximately 36 percent. He stated that this has a significant impact upon the project. Chairman Icing stated that the buyer of the project should have been aware of this issue. In response to a question posed by Comissioner Goff, Mr. Brumfield stated that there would be five buildable lots resulting in 10 units for the R-2 District, if no modifications to the Zoning Code were beinq requested. -42- 3� = x � r c � � a February 24, 1983 1* MINUTES Commissioner Allen referred to Page 10 of the EIR and stated that the calculations in the Elk relating to the units per buildable acre are not consistent with the staff report calculations. Planning Director Hewicker referred to Page 4 of the staff report and stated that developwnt of the 1.65 acre site will result in a net buildable area of 1.1 acres. He stated that the development of these units on the site will represent a density of 17.3 units per buildable acre. Commissioner Allen referred to Page 55 of the ETA, relating to the CNEL contours, and stated that according to rigure 4.4, the noise impact contours will be quieter in 1995 than it will be in 1983. she asked if this could be correct. Mr. Mike Wright, consultant with Westec services, Inc., which prepared the draft environmental impact report, appeared before the commission. Mr. Wright stated that the 1995 contours do not indicate that it is getting quieter, but show that the distance of the 65 CNEL is moving further into the site. He stated that this indicates that more of the noise will be moving into the site. He stated that the noise source is from Balboa Boulevard. He further stated that the second story elevation of the project will experience greater noise than the ground floor elevation. Commissioner Allen referred to page 48 of the EIR and stated that the noise measurements were taken on January 7th. She asked if these measurements are pro- rated over the course of the year to include summer traffic noise. Mr. alright stated that the noise contours have made allowances for summer traffic and for growth in the traffic. Commissioner Allen requested two charts which indicate noise impact levels from April to September, versus noise impact levels from September to April. Mr. aright stated that they will provide the requested charts. Commissioner Alien referred to Page 45 of the EIit, Itea NO. S and asked for clarification on the statement that a 10 foot ■idwalk say also be provided on the eastern side of Seashore Drive depending upon final specifications by the City Lngineer. Mr. Don Melmb, City engineer, stated that on Seashore Drive there will -43- INDEX 3:2 M . February 24, IN3 . 3 : o City of Newport Beach ROLL CAU MINUTES be a 13 foot wide sidewalk on the ocean side and a 10 foot wide sidewalk on the inland side. Comissioner Allen asked if the guest parking spaces are being provided on the public street or on an interior street. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the guest parking spaces are located on the $treat, just as in any other residential area. He stated that there are parking spaces adjacent to the alley and additional on -street parking which is not provided at this time. Commissioner Allen expressed her concern that the on -street parking on seashore Drive will not likely be available for guest parking. In response to a question posed by Coiissioner Allen, Planning Director Hewicker stated that if the setbacks were to be increased to 20 feet, as required by the Code, the building would still be located inside of the 6S Cmm. Commissioner Goff referred to Page 30 of the BIR, Item Fr and asked if ,the square footages listed refer to proposed projects or to potential build -out. Mr. Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator, stated that the square footages listed refer to the potential build -out of the various specific area plans. Commissioner Goff asked if there are any easements on the property, other than the bike trail and the extension of Seashore Drive to 32nd street, which would affect 0wre the buildings could be located on the Project sits. Mr. Webb stated that there is a sewer line which is located in 32nd street, otherwise, he stated that he is not aware of any other easements. Mr. Max Morgan, the applicant, appeared before the commission. Mr. Horgan stated that all of' the easements on the property were taken off by Southern Pacific at the time of the escrow. He stated that escrow on the property was closed on December 17, 1962. He stated that the City owns half of the proposed eoctsasion of Seashore Drive to 32nd Street and the "Sim ent of an alley which bisects the project on both •idea• Be stated that the requirements for the setbacks and the sidewalks have caused problems for the Project because of the actwi amount of laud which is remaining. -44- INDEX �3 0 February 24, 1983 0 MINUTES c; i 0 t p M 7 POLL CALL City of Ne Nport Beach Mr. Dorgan discussed the parking distribution for the proposed project. He also stated that the City should be responsible for the Mello Bill, rather than having the orange County Housing Authority peke the determination. He stated that they will abide by the City's requirement for the Mello Bill. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Morgan stated that the alley is 20 feat with a 21 foot parking apron located behind the garage. He stated that there is a 2� foot setback in the alley in which a vehicle can not protrude. Mr. Morgan stated that all of the utilities for the project will be located underground. He stated that the project will utilize a Cape Cod these and described the various layouts of the proposed units. He stated that the Mello units will not differ in quality from the other units. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Morgan stated that there are 24 guest parking spaces on -site, not counting the garage spaces or the parking spaces on Seashore Drive which will be provided. In response to & question posed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Brumfield stated that depending on the lot, the floor area ratio ranges from 1.1 buildable arm& to 1.8 buildable area. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Morgan stated that the project will provide for enclosed garages which will utilise roll -up doors. Mr. Louis Xaufnan, resident of 112 32nd Street, appeared before the Commission. Mr. uaufban stated that the proposed sidewalk and bicycle Path will be located immediately adjacent to his home. He expressed his concern with the bicycles utilising the path and his safety. He stated that the bicycle path belongs on the street. -4 S- INDEX 3y 0 c 7 C x 0 a f 4,1 c :. February 24, 1983 0 lV MMS F4CXI CALL 1 1 I I 1 1 f 1 NM 1 Motion All Ayes IK Mr. Webb stated that the survey which was conducted for the parcel map indicates that the corner property line of Mr. Kaufman's house is located at the back of the sidewalk. He stated that some of the fencing installed at the house is on what use to be the southern Pacific property. He stated that Mr. Ksuhsan's house was coestructed in 1907. Mr. Kaufman requested that a three foot easement be pxvwided between his house and the sidewalk. Mr. Webb stated that the sidewalk width of 13 feet is being recommended for the project which will provide for joint pedestrian and bicycle uses. He stated that the sidewalk will provide the ability of bicycles to get from, Balboa Boulevard to Seashore Drive to join the bicycle trail. He stated that the sidewalk will ba close to Mr. Kaufman's house on one corner, but his house has been constructed on the property line. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Kaufman stated that they propose to trade the back oorner of Parcel 7, for the front. Mr. Webb stated that deficiencies are common in right-of-way lines which were granted many years ago. No stated that the proposed trade will not affect the front property line. Commissioner Allen suggested that the street could be am further away from the house and the turn on Seashore Drive could be made more gentle and the corner rounded out. She stated that what would be lost on one side could be taken off of L)t 6 on the other side. she stated that in this way, the necessary width can be p=wided which will not take away from Mr. Kaufman's Party - Motion was made to continue thew items, to the Planning Commission Meeting of March 24, 2963, which NMOM CABMIID. A-45, cc nk RIICMJIR PLAWINC =ISSI IM � rE� • PLACZ: City Council Z A ■ TIME: 7:30 p.■, 3 ! : DATE: March 24, 1983 o is O* GO O f Beach ��3os• 1 Newport fdfJl.l c9 INDEX THX ix All Present. MMERS PRESENTt James D. Hewic , Planning Director Robert Burnham, C Attorney • STAPT NEMURS PRESENT: William R. i.ayoock, Current Planning A4mini Donald Webb, City Engineer Pamela Woods, Secretary * • • Amendment No. 585 (Continued Public Hearin ) for Request to consider an amendment to a portion of Districting Nap NO. 2 so as to reclassify property frog the tlnalassified District to the A-2 District, In addition, the aWlicant proposes to establish 10 foot front yard setbacks on said Districting Nap for lot frontages adjacent to 32nd Street (extended) and 33rd Street and a 9 foot front yard setback on 31st Street. The proposal also includes the acceptance of an Znvironmental Impact Report and the approval of a Coastal Residential Development Perwit. AND Traffic St Continued Public Heari ) Request to conai4er a Traffic Study in conjunction with the construction of nineteen residential units. -I- Items No. l thru 4 All Continued to 21., 1983 3b 0 search 24, 14A 3 • Wk f E5 3* r c ? U p s x � 3 0 LK-16 Use Permit No. 3022 (Continued Public fiearinr ) Request to permit the construction of nine individual two -unit residential condominium projects and related garages, on property proposed for rezoning to the N-2 District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow minor building encroachments into the required front and side yard setback areas. Tentative ME of Tract No. 11906 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to subdivide 1.65 acres of land into nine lots for residential condominium development, one lot for residential duplex development and one lot for single family residential development. The application also includes a request for exceptions to the subdivision Code so as to allow the creation of corner lots containing less than 60 foot widths and less than 6,000 square foot in land area, and interior lots containing less than 50 foot widths and lose than 5,000 square feet in land area. The proposal also includes a request to establish grades for the purpose of measnrinq heights of proposed buildings. The request also includes the oxtension of seashore Drive from 33rd Street to Balboa Boulevard and the extension of two existing allays. 10MT10Ni Portions of Blocks 31 and 32 of the Lake Tract, located at 120 32nd Street, on the southwesterly side of West Balboa Boulavard between 31st Street and 33rd street, in West Newport. Z=ZJ Unclassified APPLICANTs Max Morgan, irewpart isach s7UJul lI same as applicant ZOGINMi Donald S. Stevens, costa Mesa -2w INDEX 37 I I com March 24, 1983 r�s C x G � a i a ill . C of at Beach C w 3 RM CAu EttvXx Motion All Ayes Ix Staff stated that the applicant for these ltnAn hen requested a continuance tn the Planninq Ce;mminalon meeting of April 21, 1983, in order for tho Citizens Environmental Quality Advisory Committee to Complete its review and comment and response for this pruject. Notion was made to continue these items to the Planning X x X X Commission Meeting of April 21, 1983, which NOTION CARRIED. . . . ZoningAmendment No. 587 (CalTrans west) Item 15 Request to amend a portion of Districting Hap No. 46 from 0-8 (Open Space) to P-C (Planned Community). I=TIONu Northwesterly corner of Best Coast Highway and Superior Avenue (as AXEXDKDrr realigned). too. 587 1jr tINITIATZD Wu Recreation and environmental open Space O-S (Open Space) tato of California, Department of sportation APPROVED EYt The ty of Newport Beach Planning Director Hew\proSes" orpresented background information on this ites.ted that adoption of a Planned Community Distrihis time would be an initial step towards implproposed General plan policies and would clstraints on sit• development which couldpo ntial orresers end developers. He stated opti of a Planned Community District also ahis City o comply with State laws relating to planni and actual soninq of property for ceusing types. -3- 3� • April 21, 1983 MINUTES m � r s � v - = City of N&NWt Beach Traffic stud (Continued Public Hearin ) Request to Consider a Traffic Study in conjunction with the construction of nineteen residential units. AND Amendment No. 565 (Continued Public Hearin Request to consider an amendment to a portion of Districting Map No. 3 so as to reclassify property from the Mclassified District to the R-2 District. In addition, the applicant proposes to establish 10 In front yard setbacks on said Districting Nap for lot frontages adjacent to 32nd Street (extended) and 33rd Street and a 9 foot front yard setback on list Street. The proposal also includes the acceptance of an Environmental Impact Report and the approval of a Coastal Residential Development Permit. AND Tentative Map of Tract No. 11906 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to subdivide 1.65 acres of land into nine lots for residential condominium development, one lot for residential duplex development and one lot for single family residential development. The application also includes a request for exceptions to the subdivision Code so as to allow the creation of corner lots containing less than 60 foot widths and less than 6,000 square feet in land area, interior lots containing less than 50 foot widths and less than 5,000 square feet in land area and lot depth of less than 85 feet. The proposal also includes a request to establish gradea for the purpose of measuring heights of proposed buildings. The request also includes the extension of Seashore Drive from 33rd street to Balboa Boulevard and the extension of two existing alleys. AND Use Permit go. 3022 (Continued Public Heearinq) Request to permit the construction of nine individual two -unit residential condominium projects and related qua"s,, on property proposed for rezoning to the 2-2 District. Tba propmal also 1=10des a modification to INDEX Items No. 1 thru 5 ALL A11PkovLO co1rDl T I O NA LLY -3- S CORM► M1 S April 21, 1983 Tit ik a Q = City of Newport Beach the Zoning Code so as to allow 91mr building encroachments into the required front And side yard setback areas. LOCATIOHs Portions of Blocks 31 and 12 of the Lake Tract, located at 120 32nd Street, on the southwesterly side of West Balboa Boulevard between 31st street and 33rd Street, in crest Newport. AND Coastal. Development Permit No. 1 (Discussion) Request to consider a Coastal Development Permit for the purpose of establishing project cceplianrw for A 17 unit residential development pursuant to the Administrative Guidelines for the implema ntation of the State law relative to Law -and -Moderate -Income Housing within the Coastal Zone. Zmt Unclassified APPLICANT: Max Morgan, Newport Beach OWIMRs same as applicant ENGINIMRs Donald L. Stevens, Costa Mesa Agenda Items No. 1 through 5 were heard concurrently, due to their relationship. Planning Director Hewicker distributed to the Planning Comission revised and now conditions recommended for Coastal Development Permit No. 1. He also distributed information relating to a study which was performed by the University of California at Davis regarding the i2plsssentation of the Mello legislation. In addition, a supplemental staff report was submitted by the Public works Department relating to the Tentative Map of Tract go. 119061 a letter dated April 19, 1983, from xunsaan Associates relating to the Traffic Studyl and, a letter dated April 14, 1983, from Mrs, W. K. Davis expressing her concern with the proposed northerly boundary wall. -4- f o ON M • 7�2 (ty0�.3 April 21, 1983 0 MINUTES t Beach In response to a question posed by C(maissioner McLaughlin, Planning Director Hevicker etal-I that the City of Newport Beach has adopted guideliflon for th(, enforcement of the !Mello legislation which Provide for the replacement of dwellinq units within tlur ca.intni zone which are to be demolished and to be r,ccupled by persons of certain affordability clashes. He stated that this application will become the first case to be acted upon by the City of Newport Beach relating to the implementation of the Mello legislation. In response to a question posed by Ctivoissioner McLaughlin, Planning Director Hewicker utatnd that the recommendation before the Planning Comminalon indicates that the provisions for the affordable unite would be enforced either by the staff or by an mutest le agency selected by the staff. The public hearing opened in connection with these items and Mr. Max Morgan, the applicant, appeared before the Commission, and presented background information on the proposed requests. Mr. Morgan stated that the proposed development has been reduced from 19 units to 17 units. He stated that he will be dedicating 13,784 square feet to the City for street dedication and easements. He stated that the 0-2 District surrounds the proposed development and described the square footage of the proposed lots and proposed units. He stated that he now supports the extension of Seashore Drive, rather than the landscaped greenbelt area. Mr. Morgan expressed his concern with the longevity of the 10 year rental for the affordable housing units. He stated that 5 year& would be considered a long term rental and would be more appropriate. Mr. Morgan referred to Condition No. 7 on the use Permit and stated that the report from the acoustical engineer indicates that fixed windows would not be necessary to achieve the City and State required Interior noise standard. -5- INDEX L// COMMff+or Z April 21, 1983 cX r- c I._ 5 n ` City of Newport Beach ? p 7 � _ 4 y 3 G w 7 MlhAA E 5 RDLL CALL IIIIIIII I1ex Mr. Morgan referred to Condition No. 38 on the tentative tract and stated that if he in 1.tinq required to dedicate 13,784 square foot to the City, it would not seem reasonable for him to be required to purchdst- the 2.5 and 7.5 foot strips of land, amounting to 1,100 square feet, from the City. Mr. Morgan stated that he concurs with the remainder of the findings and conditions as recos nded in the staff report, including the revised and new conditions as indicated in the supplemental staff report on the Coastal Development Permit No. 1. In response to a question posed by Comissioner McLaughlin, Mr. Donald Webb, City Engineer, stated that the extension of Seashore Drive will allow the Fire Department access to the front of the proposed residential units. Cowissioner Winburn asked why 10 years is being required for the rental of the affordable units, rather than 5 years. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the inclusionary provisions for providinq affordable housing in other jurisdictions varies widely. He stated that the 10 year provision more closely relates to the actions of the County in the past. Comissioner 8alalis discussed the various aspects of the greenbelt area versus the extension of Seashore Drive. He stated that the applicant should be required to have some responsibility for the extension of Seashore Drive, but that the applicant should not be required to assume the total responsibility for the development of Seashore Drive. Chairman King stated that 10 years seems to be excessive for the rental of the affordable units. He stated that the average tenure of a sales unit is approximately 5k years. Comissioner balalis stated that the average tenure of low income rental housing is approximately 3 years. -b- y� 0 April 21, 1983 • CALL MINUTES Planning Director Hewicker expressed the concern of the staff relating to the first owner and the possibility for windfall profit. He stated that th« longer the affordability requirements are maintained, iiorhapm the better. He stated that the Planning Caaeslsninn can shorten the teas relating to the affordable units, In response to a question posed by CoMminnioner Walls, Planning Director Newicker stated that in terns of the Mello legislation, utilizing median income figures, a 1,200 square foot unit could he ranted at $898.00 per month. Commissioner Balalis stated that the average price of a 3-bedroom rental in the 32nd Street area ranges between $750.00 to $000.00 per month, maximum. He stated that requirinq the rental of the affordable units for more than a 5 year period, may not be accomplishing what is intended. Commissioner Balalis stated that in order to dater the windfall gain, the resale value of the unit could be limited. Mr. Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator, stated that staff has suggested that if the affordable units are to be "for -sale" units, the units shall he owner occupied for a three year period. He ntated that the three year period was derived from discussions with the City of Irvine and the County of Orange. Ile stated that the 10 year rental period was derived from all housing construction for apartments under revenue bond programs which are required to maintain affordability for a 10 year period. Commissioner McLaughlin stated that private universities, such as Stanford, have dealt with the affordable housing issues in the past. Commissioner Balalis stated that this would be a different concept, because the universities own the housing which they are making available. Mr. Robert Burnham, City Attorney, stated that Council Paliry P-1 was adopted pursuant to the Mello legislation which requires that the developer or PrqP*rtY owner and the City enter into an agreement with respect to the units. He stated that the -7 - INDEX 1--5 0 April 21, 1993 0 MNLffI:S r agrement could be structured so as to require that any sale or resale of the units takes place subject to city staff approval and subject to certnin price restrictions. He stated that the agreewant could provide the term during which the price restrictions would be in place. He further stated that the agreement would come to the attention of prospective purchasers because the agreement would be recorded, as required under the Mello guidelines. He stated that this is the mechanism the city would utilise to control the sales price of the affordable units. In response to a question pored by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Burnham stated that if the developer were to sell the affordable units, the developer would no longer be involved with the affordable unites. Caesiissioner Balalis stated that if the developer were to rent the affordable units, the developer would have to rent the affordable units for a period of 10 years. He stated that if the developer were to sell the affordable units during that ten year period, he would have to sell the affordable units at the affordable range. In xesponss to a question posed by Chairman King, Mr. Morgan referred to a letter dated April le, 1983, from Mrs. M. K. Davis. Mr. Morgan stated that a representative of Mrs. Davis had stated that a two foot gate into the backyard of her property, would be an acceptable solution. Mr. Morgan submitted a petition to the planning Comission which contained approximately 150 signatures of surrounding residents and property owners in favor of the proposed development. Mr. Louis Kaufman, resident of 112 32n4 Street, appeared before the Conotission. Mr. Kaufman stated that the residents of the area need the street extension more than they need a landscaped greenbelt. Be stated that this will enable the rire Department to gain access to this area. He requested that the proposed development be approved with the street extension. -a- INDEX M NINYSSIOPERS April 21, 2983 r City of Newport Beach M1NW ES RUL CAII 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 11MAX Mr. Curt Pinckert, resident of 109 32fil ritreet, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Pinckort stated that he purchased his property in 1930 and tins no objections with the proposed devolopment. If* mated that the street extension would be preferable to the greenbelt. Ms. Janice De Bay, resident of 5107 Seashore Drive, and Chairwwm of the Citizens Environmental Quality Advisory Cossmittee (CDQAC), appeared before the Commission. Ma. De Bay stated that she is only speaking as an individual at tonight's meeting. She stated that the applicant has presented the proposed development to CEQAC and to the Best Newport Beach Association. She stated that the residents of the area had hoped that a park would be proposed for this area, however, she stated that she understands that the land would be too expensive for the City to purchase. She stated that she supports the proposed development which will upgrade the area and encourage more full-time residents in this area of the City. She expressed her concern that Seashore Drive not become a two-way street. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Planning Director Hewicker stated that the staff report for ?abruary 24, 1983, addressed the controls which could be iaplawented for the affordable units and Contained a Copy of City Council Policy P-1. He stated that the new and revised conditions relating to Coastal Developssent Permit No. 1 were suggested after staff had set with the Chairman and first Vice -Chairman of the Planning Corission. Chairman King stated that the new and revised conditions insure that the affordable units, whether they be "for -sale" or rented units, remain affordable for a certain period of time. Commissioner Allen stated that at this point, she is not ready to determine if resale controls should be imposed upon the affordable units for this project. Planning Director Hewicker stated that this is the first application before the City relating to the inpleswntation of the Mello legislation. -9- A(/5 M � r r s CO ROLL CALL April 21, 1983 . �`• Coe■miasioner Balalis stated that he would be willing to act upon the proposed development, but would not he willing to act upon the conditions which relate to the affordable housing issue. He stataal that thlp, particular application will be setting a precedent for future applications dealing with affordable housing. He stated that all of the available information must he considered before a decision is made on this issue. He stated that he would like further information on the Coastal Commission rental requirments for the Bank of Newport and the affordable housing requirements on the Kciain development. In response to a question posed by Chairman King, Hr. Burnham stated that the City can develop an agreement to give control over the administration of rental or "for -sale" restrictions to some other entity. lie stated that the Planning Commission could approve the Project* with the condition that the Planninq Commission approve the terns and conditions of the agreement pursuant to which the two units will be provided and insured to be affordable over a period of time. He stated that the Planning Commission must determine the number of affordable units to be imposed upon the project at this time, but the controls and affordability issues can be determined at a later date. Kr. Burnham stated that he would prefer this course of action because there are only three to four jurisdictions in the State which are actively involved in requiring developors within the Constal Zone to provide low and moderate income units pursuant to thr! Hello legislation, He stated that he can obtain copies Of there agreements which will provide a consensus as to what the legislative bodies are requiring in terms of resales and controls. Kr. Burnh= stated that the current City Policy P-1, does not require resale or rental controls, However, he stated that the formulation of such controls were not discarded by the City Council. He stated that this coarse of action will allow the Planning Commission the time to study the impact of the resale and rental restrictions, and the enforcement of same. -10- mr"AA E S INDEX 7IV MI kff ES Ah April 21, 1983 i • Mr. Burnham stated that the provisions should be made self -enforcing through a recorded ogre&" nt, with a possible requirement that "for -sale' Lnforp4tLon be provided to the City staff which cr,ulel Lre chocked periodically against assessment records. Mr. Burnham stated that he would be reluctant to turn the controls over to the County Housing Authority. Mr. Burnham stated that should the Planning Cc -'mission approve the project with the requirement of two affordable units, the approval should indicate that it is the Planning Commission's intent to require restrictions which mould eliminate the possibility of windfall profits which would ensue from the affordable units. Commissioner Allen suggested that the Plnnning Cosrsission hold a study session in the future to obtain further information relating to affordable housing sites and vacant land within the City. she stated that this application will be setting a precedent for future affordable housing implementation by the City of Xewport beach. Cosaissioner Ninburn referred to revised Conditions No. 5 arA 7 on the Coastal Development permit MD. l and asked staff to determine the impacts of sage. planning Director Hewicker stated that the agreement, as suggested by the City Attorney, will be brought back before the Planning Comission at a later date, which will address the affordable housing, length of time, "tor -sale* versus rental units, and enforcement of ■Asia. In response to a question posed by Comissioner Goff, Mr. Morgan explained the square footage of the units for the two Mello units and the square footage of the re ininq units. Cosaissioner Goff asked if the setba the front of the units are being additional parking space to the rear liougan concurred and described th layout for the units. -11- ck encroachments in compensated for by Of the units. Mr. e proposed parking V7 Motion All Ayes M o;o�.0;> c;ty i i o a : •s 3 a IX IX April 21, I(M 71 � � r EWIRONMl.NTAL IMPACT REPORT • Motion was rude for approval of the rrivironmental Impact Report, as follows, which NOTION CAPkrrD, 1. Approve the 'Draft EIR, City of Newport Beach,"Seashore Townehomes" and supportive materials theretot 2. Recomend that City Council certify that the Environmental Document is complete; 3. Direct staff to prepare a Statement of facts and Statement of overriding Consideration*, and a. Make the findings listed below: PINDINCS: I. That the environmental document is complete and has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CDQA Guidelines end City Policy. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible Mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed project. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible any other potential mitigation measures or alternative to the proposed project. 4. That the :Litigation measures have been incorporated into the proposed project and are expressed as Conditions of approval. The findings made in regards to approval of the Seashore Townebo■* project EIR apply also to the approval of Coastal Residential Developoent permit go. 1, Amendment rio. SAS, Tentative Map of Tract Xo. 119ob and Use Permit so. 3022. -12- MNLIfES INDEX M C a : city Of a t c = K a ,�►on il'Ayea IX1x 1XIXI motion All Ryes I AXIXIXIX April 21, 1983 0 t Beach "MffES INM TRAFFIC STUDY Motion was gads for approval of the Traffic Study, subject to the following Findings, which WYnort CARRIEDs PINDINGSi 1. That the Traffic Study has been prepared which analyses the impact of the proposed project on the circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport beach Municipal Code and City Policy 6-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project - generated traffic will not be greater than one percent of existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on any leg of the critical intersections, and will not add to an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at critical intersection which will have an Intersection Capacity Utilization of grsater than .90. 3. That the proposed project, including circulation system improvements, will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "ssajor", 'primary -modified" or "primary" street. AKDMK 1R' NO. se Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 1093, approving RESOLUTION Amendment lb. 585 and recommending sane to the city NO. 1093 Council for adoption, subject to the following Findings, which Wrion cA unD, FINDIWA r 1. That the environmental document is complete and has been prepared in compliance with the California tnvironmrmtal Quality Act (CZQA), the state CNQrI Guidelines and City Policy. -13- yy MNAES f x Motion substitute lotion 0 April 21, 1983 0 "tY Of art Beach 2. That the contents of the environmental documrnt have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the Proposed project, all feasible mitigation mmasures discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed project. specific econwie, social or other considerations make infeasible any other potential mitigation measures or alternative to the proposed project. 4. That the mitigation measures hnve been incorporated into the proposed prnjoct, and are expressed as conditions of approval. TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 11906 Motion was made for approval of the Tentative map of Tract No. 11906, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Exhibit "A'. Chairman King suggested that Condition No. 38, relating to the 2.5 and 7.5 strips of land to be purchased by the applicant, be deleted. Mr. Webb stated that portions of the right-of-way which are being requested to be purchased, are owned in fee by the City. He stated that the Southern Pacific Land company had granted the City fee rights to the right-of-way, eat easesment rights. He explained the setbacks of the proposed devslopmnt and stated that since the city only owns the fee rights to the property, the city can not vacate the property. Therefore, he stated that right-of•vay must be appraised and purchased by the applicant at the fair market value. He stated that deleting the 0Wition, will not change the situation. Substitute lotion was made for approval of Tentative Map of Tract No, 11906, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Exhibit "C", which approves the project with the landscape area replacing the road extension. -14- INDEX .-rQ MIW56i0I�R5 • cX r cd A � i ? City of i II April 21, 1983 is i •. Comissioner Balalis referred to Condition No, 50 and asked if the $70,000 contribution required of the developer will be utilized for the exts,nsiurI of Seashore Drive, or if additional funds will he naoided for the extension. Mr. Webb stated that the City acquired the fee rights to the property with Gas Tax Funds. Therefore, if the property is to be utillred for park purposes, the Gas Tax Fund must be reimbursed the amount which was expended. He stated that this amount will be determined in accordance with the State's procedures and guidelines for the expenditure of Gas Tax Funds. Commissioner Balalis asked how much money will be needed for the extension of Seashore Drive. Fie suggested that the applicant could be required to contribute to the future extension of seashore Drive through either a cash contribution or the posting of a bond for a certain amount of money. Mr. Webb stated that he does not have a dollar figure for the extension of Seashore Drive at this time. Comissioner Balalia stated that if seashore Drive is not extended now, this will leave the option open for seashore Drive to be extended in the future. M.r. Webb stated that the residents of the area should be allowed the opportunity to improve the circulation of the area now, rather than later. He stated that it mould be difficult to arrive at a cost estimation for the future extension of Seashore Drive, because of cost Of living escalation factors. Commissioner Balalis stated that escalation factors can be included in the Posting of the bond. Mr. Webb stated that he would not feel comfortable with a park site at this location, because the City has enormous difficulty in constructing new streets, once a develop wnt is put in place. Commissioner Xurlander stated that he can not support the Substitute Motion, because the testimony received from the adjacent property owners indicates their desire for the street extension and the Fire Department is recasrndinq the street extension. -Is- MINUTES INDEX -0/ April 21, 1983 • MINUTES g�; ROLL CALL Substitute Mo t.i on withdiawn Cosmissioner Allen statcri that perhaps the cmergonvy access problem could he resolved without rtaklsi,$ Seashore Drive a public street. She suggented that thf, landscaped area be moved to the sides and the pavatl strip for the pedestrian walkway/bicycle path ha located in the center which would also be wide enrxiflh for mergency vehicle access. She stated that the paved strip could be sealed off with two posts and a chain. She stated that in this way, the emergency vehicles could still gain access to the area. Mr. Webb stated that the paved strip would have to he at least 26 feat wide, in order to allow for an emergency vehicle to be parked within the area and another emergency vehicle to pass and grain access. tin stated that the Tire Department may consider such a proposal. Mr. Webb further stated that vehicles such as trash trucks will also have to gain access to the area. He also stated that there is the likelihood that the posts and chain will be knocked down and the paved strip will then be utilized as a public street. Mr. Webb stated that the current residents on seashore Drive encounter access problems in the area and that the 33rd Street intersection With West Balboa Boulevard has extruwly poor sight distance. He referred to his m=o 4ated April 20, 1983, and stated that Seashore Drive was changed to a one -Way street by the city Council at the request of the west Newport residents, He stated that the one-way street system is working well. Comissioner Balalis withdrew his substitute Motion. He stated that if the residents of Seashore Drive want a change, they can make a request to the city council. CaWssioner Goff referred to rinding No. 11 in Exhibit "A• for Tentative Tract of Map No. 11906 and stated that the proposed lots are not similar to existing lots In the area. He stated that he Was concerned with the Possible precedent setting indication that the proposed 6,500 square foot lots are similar to the existing 2,375 square foot lots in the area. -16- INDEX .5'Z April 21, 1983 MlNUES Dem Amendment Amendment AmendMnt All Ayss Ix Ix Commissioner Goff stated that the zoning Crde requires 5,000 square feet for interior lots and 6,000 square feet for corner Iota. tic stated that thu surrounding area has been previously over -developed at an average of 2,375 square feet per lot. He stated that because of the irregular shape of the property and the dedications which are being required of the applicant, he can understand that lots of 5,000 to 6,000 square are impossible for this particular pierce of property. He stated that it should be made clear that the area can not continue to be over -developed, just because it has been over -developed in the past. Planning Director Hewicker suggested that rinding No. 11 could be worded as follows, "That the area, width and depth of the lot included in the subdivision are reasonable considering the irregular shone of the subject property." Commissioner Goff concurred with the proposed language. Commissioner McLaughlin accepted the proposed language as an amendment to her original motion. Commissioner McLaughlin amended her motion to include the additional condition as suggested in the Public Marks Department memo dated April 20, 1983. The additional condition would read as follows, 'That a raised median be installed in Balboa Boulevard between 32nd Street and the shopping center drive. The design is to be approved by the public Marks Department." Mr. Burnham suggested an additional condition which would require that the developer either dedicate land or pay in -lieu fees in accordance with the provinions of the Park Dedication Ordinance. Comissioner McLaughlin accepted this as an amendment to her original motion. Amended Motion made by Commissioner McLaughlin for approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 11906, was now voted on as follows, which AXWED Wrio I CARAImt l21IDIMGB 1 I. That the map masts the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans, and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. -17- I ` AX 53 ■ F x April 21, 1993 0 COY Of NevWt Beach 2. That the proposed subdivision presents no problems frow a planning standpoint. 3. That the site is physically suitahla for the development proposed. 4. That the site is physically suitable, for the proposed density of development. 3. That an Environmental Document has been prepared in cawpliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and that their cOntentu have been considered in the decisions on this project. 6. That based on the information contained in the Draft MR, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation srsasures to reduce potentially -significant environmental effects, and that the project will not result in nignificant enviranssntal ispacts. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed isprMernts will not substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 8. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. g• That the, design of the subdivision or the proposed improvments will not conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. 10. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision will not result in or add to any violation of existing requirements prescribed by a California Mgional dater Quality Control Board pQM"nt to Division 7 (cos■iancing with Section 1300) of the Water Code. 11. That the area, Width and depth of the lots included in the subdivision are reasonable considering the irxegnlar shape of the subject may• -is- MINUTES INDEX 5y EM • April 21, 1983 40 MINUTES � r � v } a o C 1 Q Ici 3 CA, 3 a'--i 1 a COIFITIONSt (TWrATIVZ MAP OF TRAM NO. 11906) 1. That a final map be filed. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That no tress be planted within the public utility easement without prior review and approval of the Public Works Department. 4. That each dwelling unit be serv„i1 with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and Rower ■ysteats unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 5. That the intersection of all drives be deaigned to provide sight distance for a speed of 25 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. I.andacaping within 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 City Traffic engineer. 6. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompanyinq surety be provided to guarantee satisfactory completion of the street improveeents, if it is desired to obtain a building permit or record the tract map prior to completion of the public improvements. 7. That street, drainage and utility improvements he shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. S. That all work within the public right-of-way be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 9. Dewlop■•nt of the site shall be subject to a grading peewit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. -19- INDEX j� April 21, 1983 • M NUTIS t Cr ? <a R � / 7 O N • 1`y LA01 10. That a grading plan, if required, shall Include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential Impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 11. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimise impact of haul operations. 12. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be aubritted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Idr-glnn. 13. The velocity of concentrated run-off from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 14. That grading 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 coWrehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Guilt" grading plans on standard size shoots shall be furnished to the Building Department. 1S. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and Phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. (Prior to the occupancy of any structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping hits been installed in accordance with the prepared plan). 15. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the public Works Department, parks, Reaches and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department. 17. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance progr&A which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. -20- INDEX .06 ROLL LAU M s rx � r a � LO o � x a City c x 4 } o j S p r 3 April 21, 1963 0 16. The landscape plan shall place heavy pmmf•hasi, rill the use of drought -resistant native vegetation aii�1 be irrigated with a system designed to aysliil surface runoff and over -watering. 19. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphaeip on fire -retardant vegetation. 20. Street trees shall be provided along the pum it streets in the front yard setback area an a Part of the landscape plan and shall be approved by thv Public darks Departnent and the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department. 21. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained fret, of creeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regularly trimped and kept in a healthy condition. 22. Prior to issuance of any building permita authorised by the approval of this project, the applicant shall deposit with the City Finance Director the sum proportional to the percentage Of future additional traffic related to the project in the subject area, to be used for the construction of a sound attenuation barrier on tho southerly mid* of West Coast Highway in the west Newport Area. 23. That prior to the occupancy of any unit a Qualified acoustical engineer, retained by the City at the applicant's expense shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that the noise upset from Balboa Boulevard on the project does not exceed 65 db CNLL for outside living areas and the requirements of law for interior spaces (for future winter traffic conditions). 24. That any roof top or other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated in such a manner as to achieve a ■&ximum sound level of 55 (12A at the Property line, Z'i• The fire DsparUwnt access shall be approved by the Fire Department. -21- MINIAES INDEX EA M � r � a j G + a a CAU April 21, 1983 0 26. That all on -site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shall he approved by the fire and Public works Deparementrn. 27. Prior to the Occupancy of any buildins111, a program for the sorting of recyclable material form other solid wastes shall be developed and approved by the Planning Department. 28. A qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shall evaluate the site prior to Commencement of construction activities, and that all work on the site be done in accordance with the City's Council Policies K-5 and K-6. 29. The project should be designed to conform to Title 24, Paragraph 6, Division T-20, Chapter 2, Sub -chapter 4 of the California Administrative Code stealing with energy requirements. 30. The project shall investigate the use of alternative energy sources (i.e. solar) and to the mAximm extent ecan00.ically feasible incorporate the use of said in project designs. 31. final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water -saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities. 32. Any construction on the site should be done in accordance with the height restriction of said should apply to any landscape materials, signs, flags, etc. as well as structures. 33. That a 10 foot radius corner cutoff at the corner of 31st Street and Balboa Boulevard be dedicated to the public. 34. That street, drainage and utility improvements be sham on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensee civil engineer. 35. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared 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 the recording of the final map. Any modifications -22- MINUT E S INDEX M 0 April 21, 1983>r�s x � r ra p C C ? 1 O ' - C r : C4ty \ ' '"'fit Beach z = c = � � 1`R, rAr'fl lr�l[. LJ4(.�.h Roll or extensions to tho rxietinrl rte-m r3rnlr,, wnrrr And nower system %hewn to to! r.•rllilrrrrl I,/ j114, study shall be the responsihiIiry r,t the developer. 36. That full roadway improvements be runstructed along both sides of Seashore Drive, and that Seashore Drive have a 33 foot curb to curb width with a 10' wide sidewalk along the northerly side of the roadway and a 13 foot wide sidewalk along the southerly side of the roadway. On the southeast corner of Seashore Drive at 32nd Street the sidewalk may be tapered to 11 feet in order to provide a 2 foot clearance from the adjacent structure. 37. That full roadway improvements be rnnstructed along the 32nd Street frontage and that the 32nd Street extension have a 37' curb to curb width with a 10 foot sidewalk along the westerly side of the roadway and a 13 foot sidewalk along the easterly side of the roadway. Traffic signal modifications at the intersection of Balboa Boulevard and 32nd Street shall be included in the 32nd Street improvements. 38. That the existing 32nd Street right-of-way (a 2.5 foot strip of land on the easterly side of 32nd Street and the southerly curb returns located at the intersection of 32nd Street and Balboa) cared in fee by the city be purchased by the developer at fair market value prior to recordation of the final tract map, and that the existing excess 32nd Street easement (7.5 foot strip of land on the westerly side of 32nd Street) be vacated to the adjacent property owners prior to the recordation of the final tract Map and that any public facilities in the areas to be purchased or vacated be relocated into the public right-of-way by the developer. 39. That 20 foot wide alleys be dedicated to the City between 31st Street and 32nd Street and between 32nd Street and 33rd Street and that the alleys be improved to City standards. -23- INDEX S ry CALL Notion All Ayes 0 April 21, 1si83 .0 of t Beach NEON 40. That all vehicular access to the lots be from the adjacent alleys. 41. That 5 foot wide p.C.C. sidewalk be rfinntructed along Balboa Boulevard from 31st Street to 32nd Street and widened to 5 feet whatp 4 ftx,t sidewalks presently exist and that access ramps be provided at the corner of 31nt Street and Balboa Boulevard at the southwesterly corner of 32nd Street and Balboa Boulevard. 42. That Seashore Drive (56 feet in width), 32nd Street (60 feet in width) and the alleys (20 feet in width) between list Street and 32nd Street and the alleys between 32nd Street and 31rd Street be dedicated to the City. 43. That a raised sedian be installed in Balboa Boulevard between 32nd Street and the shopping center drive. The design is to be apprerled by the Public Works Department. 44. That the developer shall either dedicate land or Pay in -lieu fees in accordance with the provisions of the Park Dedication Ordinance. USE PZMIT NO. 3022 In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, Mr. Talarico stated that Condition No. 7 on the use permit relating to the double pane windows, could be deleted and replaced with Condition no. 23 of the tentative tract, which allows for an acoustical engineer to determine the noise impact. x Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 3022, X X x X A 31 X sub)ect to the Findings and Conditions of Exhibit "A", replacing Condition No. 7 with Condition No. 23 of the tentative tract, which MOTION CARRIED, as followsc FIXDIWGSs 1. That each of the proposed units has been designed as a condominim with separate and individual utility connections. -24- MINWE5 0 April 21, 1983 0 MINUTES Cr 5 or 0, o'-a a0 2. The project will comply with all afplirahln standard plans and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district In whlrh thn proposed project is located at the tine or approval. 3. The project lot size conforms to the Zoning V(Aln requirements in effect at the time of approval, or as modified by the Planning Commission in conjunction with this approval. 4. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan. 5. That adequate on -site parking spaces aro available for the proposed residential r_ondominium development. 6. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of building applied for will not, under the circuwatances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property And improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 7. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Elerent of the General Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. S. 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. 9. That the establishment, maintenance of operation of the use of the property or building will not, under the circumstances of the particular came, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and iaprave ments in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed srodifications so as to allow minor building -25- INDEX M • r Citya ROLL CAU April 21, 1963 i encroachments into required front and side yard setback areas are consistent with the 1eglalative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal CrAn, 10. The Police Department has indicated that It does not contemplate any problems. 11. Adequate off-street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. CONDITIONSi 1. That development shall he in ruhstantial conformance with the approved plot 1,14n, floor plan, and elevations except as noted helm+. 2. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from Seashore Drive and West Balboa Boulevard and adjoining properties. 3. That all construction employees shall park their vehicles on -site. 4. That all applicable conditions of Tentative Tract No. 11906 be fulfilled. S. That all proposed signs shall be in conformance with the provision of Chapter 20.06 of the Newport Mach Municipal Code and shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress. 6. That the on -site vehicular and pedestrian circulation system be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 7. That prior to the occupancy of any unit a qualified acoustical engineer, retained by the City at the applicant's expenso shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that the noise impact from Balboa Boulevard on the project does not exceed 65 db CNZL for outside living areas and the requirements of law for interior spaces (for future winter traffic conditions). -26- M1NLff ES INDEX Z_ COMMSONERSI , April 21, 19836 MNffES 9 x � � z City of Newport kac:h waL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 INIAX 8. Mechanical ventilation equipment shall he rwluired for all units located within the 65dii to ',7,11t rtIF;1, zone. 9. Prior to the issuance of building permitx far each of the planned units, an acoustical enginngring study shall be performed, based on autuxl pad, property and roadway grades and building locations and orientations to assure that the exterior building shells of each structure will be sufficient to reduce existing and future noise levels to an acceptable intensity. 10. To lessen or eliminate glare impactn to prr,ject residences from oncoming vehicler, affocted window areas shall be properly tinted to refract glare to the satisfaction of the rlanninq and Building Departments. 11. Prior to the occupancy of any unit, the visual impact of glare from headlights to the existing residences from the proposed Seashore Drive extension and to project units fronting on West Balboa Boulevard shall be mitigated in a manner approved by the Planning and Public storks Departmwnts. 12. >rencing or other effective barriers shall he used in order to discourage access through potentially dangerous construction zones on the site in a manner approved by the Planning and Building Departments. 13. The Planning and Building Departments shall approve a construction schedule for the proposed project. 14. That open parking spaces with direct access from a public alley shall have a minimum average depth of 17.5 feet from the rear property lines. Said parking spaces shall be designated for compact cars only and appropriately identified, subject to the Planning Director's approval. 25. That garage doors adjacent to open parking areas as described in Condition No. 14 above shall be roll -up or other type approved by the City Traffic Engineer. -27- 4P3 • ROU CALL Motion All Ayes K � r [ • � G � c � v o a 7[ p y � City Of ` 7 ] y 3 Ix April 21, 1983 • r COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 1 In reRponso to a question posed by Chairman King, yr, Burnham suggested that the Planning Comminrslnn apnrnve this item subject to the Conditions No, 1, 2, 3 and (I of Exhibit "A". He suggested that Condition No. :1 could be modified to read, *That the afforrlahle nature Of the units shall be quaranteed for a specified 14-riod of time az provided in a written agreement adopted pursuant to Council Policy P-1. Said written agreement shall be brought back for Planning COMI RRion review and approval." Motion was made for approval of Coastal Development Pemit No. 1, subject to the above reconar,en,lod changen as stated by the City Attorney, which MOTION CARRIP.D, as follow", PINDINGSs 1. That the environmental document is complete and has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CBQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City policy. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed project. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible any other potential mitigation measures or alternative to the proposed project. 4• That the mitigation measures have been incorporated into the proposed project and are expressed as conditions of approval. 3. That based upon the information presented to the City, if s*venteen (17) units were to be developed on -sit*, two (2) affordable units could be provided on -site. -28- MINUTES INDEX COAA c x City of "��_r � 1\ • am April 21, 1993 0 t Beach 3. That this affordable nature of the, utiltu f,hnll I,r guaranteed for a npecifitol jKjrlc,jf r,f timr ,,t. provided in a written agreement n,lopt,rd purml,jr,t to Council Policy P-1. Said written ngreerent shall be brought back for Planning Commission review and approval. d. That in order to reduce any adverse environmental effects of development of this site, preference in the rental or sale of the "affordable units" shall be given to those persons employed in the City of Newport Beach or residents of the City of Newport Beach in a manner to be approved by the City Planning Director and City Attorney. „ t 0 The Planning Cosmnission recessed at 9110 p.m. and reconvened at 9t25 p.m. A t t -30- MIKES INDEX m • • PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 407 c01 Planninq Commission Meeting April 21, 19a3 Agenda Itema No. 1,2,3,4,5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM. Planning Department SUBJECT: Traffic Stud (Continued Public Hearing) Request to consider a Traffic Study in conjunction with the construction of nineteen residential units. AND Amendment No. SAS (Continued Public Roaring) Request to consider an amendment to a portyrin of Districting Map No. 3 so as to reclassify property from the Unclassified District to the R-2 District. In addition, the applicant proposes to establish 10 foot front yard totbacks on said Districting Map for lot frontages adjacent to 32nd Street (extended) and 33rd Street and a 9 foot front yard setback on 31st Street. The proposal also includes the acceptance of an Environmental Impact Report and the approval of a Coastal Residential Development Pera:it. AND Tentative Map of Tract No. 11906 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to subdivide 1.65 acres of land into nine lots for residential condominium development, one lot for residential duplex development and one lot for single family residential development. The application also includes a request for exceptions to the Subdivision Code so as to allow the creation of corner lots containing less than 60 foot widths and less than 6,000 square feet in land area, interior lots containing less than 50 foot widths and less than 5,000 square feet in land area and lot depth of less than 85 feet. The proposal also includes a request to establish grades for the purpose of measuring heights of proposed buildings. The request also includes the extension of Seashore Drive from 33rd street to Balboa Boulevard and the extension of two existing alleys. TG: *ins Commission -2. G t15t Permit No. 3622 (Contint-led public !fr_tstin� j Request to permit the construction of nine individual two -unit residential condominium protects and related gara7es, on property proposed for rezoning to the R-2 District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow minor building encroachments into the requiraai front and side yard setback arean. I.00AT:dNi Portions of Blocks 31 and 32 of the Lake Tract, lncat.vd at 120 32nd Street, on the Southwesterly side of west St411)o$5 MUIevard between 31st Street •end 33rd Street, in West Newport. AND Coastal Development Permit No. 1 (Discussion) Request to consider a Coastal Development Permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance for a 17 unit residential development pursuant to the Administrative Guidelines for the implementation of the State law relative to Low -and -Moderate -Income Housinq within the Coastal zone. ZONE: unclassified APPLICANT: Max Morgan, Newport Beach O'ER: Sane as applicant ENGINEER: Donald E. Stevens, Costa Mesa Background At the February 24, 1983 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission opened the public hearing, heard all those wishing to testify, requested additional information from staff and continued the public hearing to the Planning Cosmission meeting of March 24, 1983. At the March 24, 1983 Planning Commission meeting, the items were continued to the April 21, 1983 meeting at the request of the applicant. The reason for this request was to allow the necessary time for the Citizen's Environmental Quality Advisory Committee to review and make its recommendations on the proposed project. Their comments are attached (Attachment No 14.) It would be greatly appreciated if members Of the Commission could bring their previous staff reports, back-up information, and Draft EIR's to the continued hearing. Any Planning COMissioner wishing additional copies or information on the project should contact the Planning Department at 640-2197. Environmental Significance In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CGQA), the 'State CEQA Guidelines", and City Policy K-3, a Draft EIR was prepared on the proposed project. The official public review period established by the State Clearinghouse concluded on March 4, 1983. Comments from the state 113 TO: *ine) rommis9ion -3. 0 Clearinghruse are att„shed and will he renponde-1 to ,rat Incorporated �r,r.r, tine Final EIR. .he Citizens Environmental Quality Advi sort' Co=ittee (Cf7¢AC) reviewed the protect and Draft EIR at its March 15, 1983, meeting and cwnents on the project are attached (Attachment No. 14) for any Planning COmmission consideration. Additional Information At the Planning Commisnion meetincl of February 24, I48.3 the Co.rjmlnaihn requested additional information reg4rdinq summer traffic/noise impacts on the project and the design of the extension of Seashore Drive related to the existing single family dwelling on proposed Got No. 7 of Tentative Tract Map No. 11906. Additionally, the applicant has submitted a revised tentative tract nap site plan which proposes a reduction in the project from 11 lots and 19 units to 10 lots and 17 units. .raffic/Noise La cts Attached for the Planning Commission's review and consideration is a letter -report from the City's Consultants related to traffic/noise impacts during the summer months on the project site (Attachment tto. 11). Seashore Drive Extension At the February 24, 1983 Planning Coxtnission meeting, the Canraissinn requested that staff and the applicant explore a design for Seashore Drive that would move the edge of pavement further from the located on Lot No. 7. The applicant's engineer has provided such a design and is attached (Attachment No. 12). Staff does not believe this is an appropriate solution. Staff suggests that the sidewalk alignment as shown in Attachment No. 11, would provide an interim solution for the existing structure on Lot No. 7 and that it remain as a legal nonconforming situation until redevelopment of this lot occurs, Revised Tract Map and Site Plan Since the Planning Comission meeting on February 24, 1983, the applicant has provided two alternative designs for the property. Both include various revisions to his tentative asap and site plan. The first design provides for the extension of Seashore Drive. The second design converts the Seashore Drive extension into a landscaped area. Copies of both designs are attached. Both designs include the establishment of three lots on the easterly side of 32nd Street (extended) where four lots were previously proposedi revised site plans for Lots No. 8 and 9 (previously Lots No. e,9 and 10)i and the remval Of the following front and side yard building encroachmentes 1. The front yard building setbacks for Lots mo. 8 and 9 are now 10 feet (as proposed in Amendment No. 585) whereas the previous Lot No. 9 had only a 7 foot 6 inch front yard setback. 2. The side yard building setback on Got No. 9 (previously Lot 10) adjacent to west Balboa Boulevard is now 10 feet (4 feet required) whereas the previous building setback was 3 feet. 3. The southerly side yard setback on Lot No. 8 is now 5 feet (4 feet required) whereas the previous building setback was 3 feet. //y TO: Sing Commission -4. 0 All other setback encroachments described in the previous staff report ressain unchanged. Said encroachments are primarily ediscant to interior property lines within the development. Revised Floor Plans As outlined in the previous staff report the applicant Originally proposed four different floor plans ranging between 1,123 sq.ft. (S►len C) and 1,550 sq.ft. (Plan A i B) of floor arena, Since that time the ai)S+lSrant has enlarged the A and B units located on the westerly side of 32nd Strnnt (extended) which are now identified as Plan F and G. In addition the applicant has enlarged Plan C and created a new Plan E for Lot No,10 located on thin southwesterly corner of Best Balboa Boulevard and 31st Street. The followinq table outlines the new overall site statistics. PLAX ~� TYPE QUANTITY.� Ste[ IJARF. FEAT A 3 bedroom 2� bath 2 h 2 bedroom 2S bath 3 1,550 C 4 bedroom 2S bath 4 1,510 D 2 bedroom 2 bath 1 1,50 P: 2 bedroom 2 bath 1 230 1,1 F 3 bedroom 2S bath 3 1,2323 0 3 bedroom 2S bath 3 1,750 1,750 The exterior elevations will not change nor will the proposed bulldinq heights which will be 26 feet maximum with an average height of 21 feet. Analysis It is the opinion of staff that the several issues identified in the February 24, 1983 staff report need to be addressed by the commission. staff has reviewed the alternative design for the subdivision submitted by the applicant. Based upon the advantages provided by the revisions to Lots No. 8 and 9 (previously Lots No. 8, 9, & 10), the extension of Seashore Drive, and the provision of affordable housinq, staff has recommnded approval of the project. Staff cannot support the concept of not extendinq Seashore Drive. The existing circulation pattern in the area is not appropriate. When roads have not been extended or widened prior to the construction of adjacent 11omes, homeowners$ opposition has precluded or made road extension difficult even if future needs require said extensions. Additionally, while the applicant has indicated his willingness to maintain the landscaped area for a five year period, it is the opinion of staff that the homeowners* association in time will not wish to provide maintenance for a public area such as proposed. Finally, the proposed landscaped area concept will not allow for the increased ability to provide public services to this area. The Fire Department has requested that this design not be approved because of the limits on access. Additionally, a memo from the Public Works Aepartmont expressing their concerns with this concept will be forwarded to the Commission prior to the continued public hearing. CQMM65g6ER5 WINAAES CAU cx 1 r. v;oxp„� a 0 April 21, 1983 City of Newwrt Beach 6. That based u;*�n the information preflernInt] to the City, if seventeen (17) units were to lu= lnvplrjppii on -site their would be no soci4l, technical, environment or related problem ansocj.et „1 with thf, provision of two (2) of said units nn nffordahle housing units. 7. That based upon the information preepnttfl to the City, if saver.teen (17) units were to he developed on -site, two (2) units could bet provided as affordable housing units and allow a reasonable return on investment. 8. That development on this site is not nxampt frog the provisions of State law relativo to low and moderate incc= housing units within the coastal sons. 9. That the approval of this permit shall advise this applicant and any successor in interest that the provision of affordable housing units nn this site is feasible and needs to be assumed in any sale, lease, trade or other use of said property. 10. That it is :lot necessary to provide affordable housing related to this application on another site. CONDITIONS: 1. A minimrun of ten (10%) percent of the units to be developed on this site shall be "affordable units" as defined by the Government Code and City policy P-1 at the time of occupancy. 2. That prior tc the issuance of any grading and or buildinq permits for development of the site, an agrooxw st shall be executed that guarantees the provisions of 'affordable units" on -site in a manner and in a reasonable tis0frame related to the construction of other units onsits. Said agreement shall be acceptable to the planning Director and the City Attorney's Office. -Z9- I,;DEX 46 TO: *ng CC,a=ais4ir,r& -5. • R. crjmmendod Art ir,n %tdtf rPcorr.'^vr,t % al.l.rr,,Jnl ftf the Prr11,o:.1-d 1.ro.)F• f iitr11 thr Ci(t'n7.iUf1 �+! Seashore Drive with the findings and sub3ect to the cur 1itiong irtlrr•rrtCt! !n Exhibit "A". If based upon the testimony presented at the public henrinh the Planning Commission wishes to deny the project "witiaut prejudice" dun to the design of the subdivision not meeting City Standards, appropriate findinqu Arid conditions are provided in Exhibit "e". Finally, is ths. plannirg ('t,r:v,tinsirsn wishes to approve the project with the landscape area ruplacirrl thit road extension, appropriate findings and conditions are provided in Exh.fblt "C". PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director BY 4�02e Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator Attachments: (Previously Distributed) 1. Draft FIR 2. Policy P-1 3. Staff Report: City Manager to City Council 11-22-82 4. Staff Report: City Council 10-12-82 5. Memo: Ronald A. Whitley 9-15-80 6. Reports P.B. i R. Commission 11-9-82 7. Vicinity Hap Attachment: B. Letter- State Office of Planning A Research 3-4-83 9. Letter- Dept. of Health Services - 2-23-83 10. Letter- Louis xaufman - 3-10-83 11. Proposed sidewalk Alignment - 3-7-83 12. 32nd and Seashore Intersection Study - 3-9-83 13. Letter Report - Westee Service 14. Letter- Citizen's Environmental Quality Advisory Committee 4-7-83 15. Memo: Office of the City Manager 4-10-83 16. Revised Site Plan, Floor Plan Elevations 17. Revised Tentative trap of Tract No. 11906 FT:tn �rl2 POnel Coatmisslon -7. ?INDItics: 1. That the onvironz►enta: document lb c �:l�;te t,+.rl has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CMA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of the environrx:ntsl clocumnasit have been considered in the vdriuun derir.[r,nA on this project. 3. That in order to reduce adverse impActn of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed project. Specific economic, social or other concidar4tions make infeasible any other potential mitigation measures or alternative to the proposed project. 4. That the mitigation measures hove born incorporated into the proposed project and are expressed as conditions of approval, 5. That based upon the information prnnas,tod to the City, if seventeen (17) units were to be developed on -site, two (2) affordable units could be provided on -site. 6. That based upon the information presented to the. City, if seventeen (17) units were to be developed on -site their would be no +social, technical, environment or related problem associated with the provision of two (2) of said units as affordable housing units. 7. That based upon the information presented to the City, if seventeen (17) units were to be developed on -site, two (2) units could be provided as affordable housing units and allow a reasonable return on investment. B. That development on this site is not exempt from the provisions of State law relative to low and moderate income housing units within the coastal zone. 9. That the approval of this permit shall advise this applicant and any successor in interest that the provision of affordable housinq units on this site is feasible and needs to be assumed in any sale, lease, trade or other use of said property. //6 Pang Comission -6. LXII I I- I T "A" ALTERNATIVE ACTIGNS FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OP APAROVAL April 21, 1983 A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1. Approve the "Draft PIN, City c,f Newport. Beach,"Seashore Townehomes" and nupportive materials thereto; 2. Recommend that City Council certify that the Environmental Document is complete; 3. Direct staff to prepare a Statement of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and 4. Make the findings listed below: FrI hM I NGS r 1. That the environmental document is complete and has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmentnl Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions an this project. 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed project. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible any other potential mitigation measures or alternative to the proposed project. 4. That the mitigation measures have been incorporated into the, proposed project and are expressed as conditions of approval. The findings made in regards to approval of they Seashore Townehome project RIR apply also to the approval of Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 1, Amendment No. 585, Tentative Map of Tract No. 11906 and Use Permit No. 3022. B. DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.1 Approve Development Permit No. 1 with the findings and Subject to the Conditions listed belays 117 .0. Oinq Commission -6. • 10. That it is not necessary to provide affordable housing related to this application on another rite. CONDITIONS 1. A minimum of ten (10t) percent of the units tr, be dnvoloped on this site shall be "affordable Units" as defined Y.y the Governmont CC.de and City Policy P-1 at the time of occupancy. 2. That prior to the issuance of any grading and or building permits for development of the sitar, an agreement shall be executed that guarantees the provisions of "affordable units" on -site in a manner and in a reasonable timeframe related to the construction of other units onsite. Said agreement shall be acceptable to the Planning Director and the City Attorney's Office. 3. That the "affordable units", if rentain, shall he guaranteed for a minimum of 10 years. 4. If rentals, the "affordable units" shall 6e occupied by persons qualified by the City of Newport Beach or its designated representative at the renters' expense. 5. If the "affordable units" are to be rented at present, and at a later date, the applicant wishes to sell individual units, that prior to the subdivision of the property the maintenance of the units shall be provided in accordance with these conditions. 6. If the "affordable units" units are to be "for -sale" units, the first time buyer shall be qualified by the City of Newport Beach or its designated representative at the buyers' expense. T. If the "affordable units" units are to be converted from rental to "for -sale" units within the specified term of this approval, the "for -sale" units shall be as provided in the conditions of this approval except .as maybe modified by the City Policy at the time of conversion. S. That in order to reduce any adverse environmental effects of development of this site, preference in the rental or sale of the "affordable units" shall be given to those persons employeed in the City of Newport Beach or residents of the City of Newport Beach in a manner to be approved by the City Planning Director and City Attorney. 11y TO: Oning Cor%mission -10. 0 2. That the proposed subdivisiar, prea"nt% nn problems frrn a planning standpoint. ]. That the site is physically suttnhle for tlios development proposed. 4. That the Rite is Physically SuitAhln far the. proposed density of development. S. That an Environmental Document h.,a. 1„111h ljrf•pare(J in compliance with the Californi„ Liesironmental Quality Act, and that their cor.tFntn have been considered in the decisions on this pr(,)net. 6. That based on the information cos+twined in the Draft EIR, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce Potentially -significant environmental effects, and that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts. 7. That the design of the gubdivinion or the proposed improvements will not substantially And avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 8. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 9. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large, for acceus through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. 10. That the discharge of waste free, the proposed subdivision will not result in or add to any violation of existing requirements prescribed by a California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 1300) of the Water Code. 11. That the area, width and depth of the lots included in the subdivision are similar to existing lots in the area and are reasonable considering the irregular shape of the subject property. COMMONS 1. That a final asap be filed. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the public Works Department. '•C= Oning co=iszion -9. 0 `l. 'A;at tnic apprcval shall t)c years, with one extencton of tlr+u• i+ rrnlr.ted, no, to exceed 2 years for a total of f1v" years. 10. That the affordable units shall b4Y rddo available to the general public through a "10ttar7 sysrem" in a canner approved by the Plarnnlnf) Department and City Attorney. C. TRAFFIC STUDY 1. Approve the Traffic Study, making the following findings listed below: FINDINGS: 1. That the Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the circulation system in accordance with chapter 15.40 of the Newport Reach Municipal CGde and City Policy S-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project - generated traffic will not be greater than one percent of existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on any leg of the critical intersections, and will not add to an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at critical intersection which will have an Intersection Capacity Utilization of greater than .W. 3. That the proposed project, including circulation system improvements, will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any ":sajor", "primary -modified" or "primary" street. D. AXENDK= No. 585 Adopt Resolution No. approving Amendment No. 550 and recommending same to the City council for adoption with the four findings listed in "A" of Exhibit "A". E. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 11906 Approve the Tentative Map of Tract No. 11906 with the findings and subject to the conditions listed below: FINDINGS: 1. That the map mo@ts the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific Plans, and the Planning Comseission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 'O_ *Ing commission -12. 0 13. The v0oeiry of ►:r.ncentrar.eri run -tiff from thc: project shall be evaluated and erocive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 14. That grading shall he conducted in accordance with Plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based or, reco=%endations of a soil enginoer and nn engineering geologist subsequent to the crmplut sq,r, of a comprehensive soil And geologic investignt.ir,n of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of t�,e "Approved as built" grading plans on standard nine sheets shall be furnished to the buil(iir,g Department. 15. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. (Prior to the occupancy of any structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Plnnnlnq Department that the landscaping has boon installed in accordance with the prepared plan). 16. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Public Works Department, Parkn, Reaches and Recreation Department and approval o! the Planning Department. 17. The landscape plan shall include a a+aintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 18. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought -resistant native vegetation and be irrigated with a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over -watering. 14. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on fire -retardant vegetation. 20. Street trees shall be provided along the public streets in the front yard setback area as a part of the landscape plan and shall be approved by the Public works Department and the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department. 21. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of woods and debris. All vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. l,23 TO; *ng Commission -13. . 22. Prior to issuance of .ir,y huileln,, perMita authcir ized Ly the approval r.f Oil!' i,rr, ject, t?ir. applicant shall defosit wl"4 the t'lty Finance Director the sus proporticnal tr, the percentage of future additional traffic relatggl to the project in the subject area, to he 11404 for the construction of a sound attenuation harrier on tho southerly side of West Co.jrt Highway 11, the Went Newport. Area. 23. That prior to the occupancy of nr,y unit a qualified acoustical engineer, retalnad by the City at the applicant's expense_ ahnl l elt,mr nstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Dirnctor that the noise impact from Balboa Boulevnrd on the project does not exceed 65 db CUM for outside living areas and the requirementn of law for interior spaces (for future winger traffic conditions). 24. That any roof top or other merh,tnir.41 eyuipmant shall be sound attenuated in :such a m4nnur as to achieve a maximum sound level of �d1SA at the: property line. 25. The Fire Depart,-.ent access shall he npprnvec by the Fire Department. 26. That all o::-site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shall be 4pproved by the Fire and Public Works Departments. 27. Prior to the occupancy of any buildinqu, a program for the sorting of recyclable material form other solid wastes shall be developed and approved by the Planning Department. 28. A qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shall evaluate the site prior to commencement of construction activities, and that all work on the site be done in accordance with the City,$ Council Policies K-5 and K-6. 29. The project should be designed to conform to Title 24, Paragraph 6, Division T-20, Chapter 2, Sub -chapter 4 of the California Administrative Code dealing with energy requirements. 30. The project shall investigate the use of alternative energy sources U.e. solar) and to the maximum extent economically feasible incorporate the use of said in project designs. /.2 1(/ ro: �irg Commission -14. . 31. Final design of the project shall provide, for the incorporation of water -saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities. 32. Any construction an the site should be done in accordance with the height restriction of said should apply to any landscape materials, signs, flags, etc. as well as structures, 33. That a 10 foot radius corner cutott nt the corner of 31st Street and Balboa Boulevard be dedicated to the public. 34. That street, drainage and utility improvements be shown on standard improvement plane prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 35. That a hydrology and hydraulic utudy to prepared and approved by the Public Works Department, alone; with a master plan of water, ceraer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to the recording of the final nap. Any modifications or extensions to the existing ntorm drain, water and sewer systems shown to �,e required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 36. That full roadway improvements he constructed along both sides of Seashore Drive, and that Seashore Drive have a 33 foot curb to curb width with a 10' wide sidewalk along the northerly side of the roadway and a 13 foot wide sidewalk along the southerly side of the roadway. On the southeast corner of Seashore Drive at 32nd Street the sidewalk may be tapered to 11 feet in order to provide a 2 foot clearance from the adjacent structure. 37. That full roadway improvements be constructed along the 32nd Street frontage and that the 32nd Street extension have a 37' curb to curb width with a 10 foot sidewalk along the westerly side of the roadway and a 13 foot sidewalk along the easterly side of the roadway. Traffic signal modifications at the intersection of Balboa Boulevard and 32nd Street aha11 be included in the 32nd Street improvements. 38. That the existing 32nd Street right-of-way (a 2.5 foot strip of land on the easterly side of 32nd Street and the southerly curb returns located at the intersection of 32nd Street and Balboa) arced in fee by the City be purchased by the developer at fair mcket value prior to recordation of the /a-5 Him P109 Cnmmissior, -11. 0 3. That no trees N, plantr-n within, the public utility caserent withnut prior review anri „pprn•�al of th4. Public Works Departmen*. 4. That each dwelling unit be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Workn Department. 5. That the internection of all drives be doosiryned to provide sight distance for a speed of 25 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. i.andscaping within the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty four inches in height. The sight distance rnquiremont may be approximately modified at non -critical locations, subject to approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 6. That a standard subdivisinn-mgreament and accompanying surety be provided to quarantar satisfactory completion of the strout improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit or record the tract reap prior to completion of the public improvements. 7. That street, drainage and utility improvements he shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 8. That all work within the public right-of-way be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 9. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 10. That a grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 11. The grading permit shall include, it required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 12. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. j2,2 TO: Oing Conmissinn -15. 0 final tract map, and that the exiuting excess 32nd Street easement (7.5 foot strip of land on the westerly side of 32nd Street) be vacated to the adjacent property owners prior to the recordation of the final tract cwp dnd that any public facilities in the areas to he purchased or vacated be relocated into the public riqht-of-way by the developer. 39. That 20 foot wide alloys be dedicated to the City between 31st Street and 32nd Street and between 32nd Street and 33rd Street and that the alleys be improved to City standards. 40. That all vehicular access to the loth he from the adjacent alleys. 41. That 5 foot wide P.C.C. sidewalk be constructed along Balboa Boulevard from 31nt Street to 32nd Street and widened to 5 feet where 4 faut sidewalks presently exist and that access ramps he provided at the corner of 31st Street and Balboa Boulevard at the southwesterly corner of 32nd Street and Balboa Boulevard. 42. That Seashore Drive (56 feet in width), 32nd Street (60 feet in width) and the alloys (20 feet in width) between 31st Street and 32nd Street and the alleys between 32nd Street and 33rd Street be dedicated to the City. USE PERMIT NO. 3022 1. That each of the proposed units has been designed as a condominium with separate and individual utility connections. 2. The project will comply with all applicable standard plans and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at the time of approval. 3. The project lot size conforms to the Zoning Coda requirements in effect at the time of approval, or as modified by the planning Commission in conjunction with this approval. 4. The project is consistent with the adopted goals AM policies of the General plan. / 1 26e s, 'G: *.ng Cocsaission -I6. • That atlo-quate on -site parking s-acen ere availabl(- for the proposed residential Condom inium development. 6. The establiahraent, maintenance or operation of the use of building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, padre, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such propomid use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 7. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. and is compatible with surrounding land uses. B. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and the adopted inr.,ll const,ll Program, Land Use Plan, and is cnopntible with surrounding land uses. 9. That the establishment, maintenance of operation of the use of the property or building will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modifications so as to allow minor building encroachments into required front and side yard setback areas are consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 10. The Police Department has indicated that it does not contemplate any problems. 11. Adequate off-street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. CONDITIONS 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor Plan, and elevations except as noted below. 2. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from Seashore Drive and west Balboa Boulevard and adjoining properties. TO: * nq Commission -17. 0 3. That all constructior. em hype, ui;ni i park their vehicles on -site. 4. That all applicable conditions of Tentative; tract No. 11906 be fulfilled. 5. That all proposed signs shall be In cnnfnrmA n^.e with the provision of (k.al,ter 20.0r. of t tti� tN•wIv)rt Beach Municipal Cade "Ad r.r,.,1 i toe •approved by rho City Traffic Engineer it located ndincunt to tho vehicular ingress and r:groxs. 6. That the on -site vehicular and pedestrian circulation system he approved by the City Traffic; Engineer. 7. All units within the p.rr•su•nt and tliturr; 65 dB tc, 57 dB zone fixed drur.le panod windows st.r.11 he installed to achieve the city utid stnto requireri interior noise standard of 45 dB CNEL. 3. Mechanical ventilatie,r. equipment r;h,111 bu requirn(l for all units located within they 65dh to 1,7dB zone. 9. Prior to the issuance of building permits for eacit of the planned units, an acoustical engineering study shall be performed, based on actual pad, property and roadway grades and building locaticns and orientations to assure that the exterior building shells of each structure will be sufficient to reduce existirrl and future noise levels to an acceptable intensity. 10. To lessen or eliminate glare► impacts to project residences from oncoming vehic)en, affected win*low areas shall be properly tinted to refract glare to the satisfaction of the Planninq and Building Departments. 11. Prior to the occupancy of any unit, the visual impact of glare from headlights to the: existing residences from the proposed seashore Drive extension and to project units fronting on west Balboa Boulevard shall 2.e mitigated in a tits:;ner approved by the Planning and Public Workr. Departments. 12. fencing or other effective barriers shall be uted in order to discourage access through potentially dangerous construction zonept on the situ in a manner approved by the Planninq and l+ulldinq Departments. 12 r TO: Ding commission -18. • The. Pianninq and 1,,ii l,3rrej I,r•I..IrI1,)1 7 t+; :a•.11 uj,j,rhvt; a conr:tructic.:, :.c :rr3irlec t+.r r.:,,• I.r�la.5�•r, project. 14. That open parking spaces with direct .tccM+;r, fr+-M ,1 public alley shall have a miniriur avorage depth of 17.5 Feet from the rear property liner.. q;siel parking spacas ahall re de .sigi„rted ro,r cars only and gippror.imately tdent i f ivfl, +il.Inr:t to the Planninq Director's approval. 15. That garage doors adjacent to open parking areas as described in Condition. No. 14 above shall be roll -up or other type approved by the catty Traffic Engineer. TO: Ding COMMiasion -19. 0 :.TA'r F FINDINGS AN'D CCNZITIGN.s ,X Or.rr "WITHOUT PREJUDICE" : •:6A7IVE "AP OF ':NA;_. 11906 AND USE PFi-MIT NO. 3022 April 21. 19143 A. }:to'VIWjUMk-NTAI. IMPACT RKPO,NT 1. Approve the "Dr,s:t F.IR, Ctr/ fit !iewfx;rt. Beach,"Searthore Tow --homes" ar,rl IlOpPor+_ive materials thereto; 2. Recnmmend that City CnuncA 1 c•rrt i fy t t,,,t the: Environmental Document is comllletfsj 1. Direct utaff tr, prf'parf! o :StatemKrit E,t }',lf;tr: ,In(, Statement of (werridinq Consider,,t.ior,r:; „nfi 4. Make the t indi rny•: 1 it,ted below: FINDINGS: i. That the environmental document it. cotr.pletN �Ir,f: has been prepared in complin7rri with the CaliforniA Environmental Quality Act WKDA1, the State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of the environinontal docuinri,t have been considered in the variowi decisions on this project. 3. That in order to reduce Adverse Impact.n of the proposed project, all feaniblo mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have beer. incorporated into the proposer] project. fir. economic, nocial nr other conotiderat icing Crake infeasible any other potential mitigation measures or alternative to the proposed project. 4. That the mitigation measurj�s have hen-, incorporated into the proposed prulect and are expressed as conditions of approval. The findinqu made in renardn to approval of the Seashore Townehome protect i.IR apply Also to the approval of Coastal Punidential Development Permit no. 1, Amendment No. 585, Tentative Map of Tract No. 11906 and Use Permit No. 3022. B. DEVEIAmerr PFRHIT H0. 1 Approve Development Permit tin. 1 witll tt:.• ;•inoliinur• ,Md Subject to the Conditlnna listed bc-lovi TO: *ning Commission -20. • MMINGS : 1. That the environmental document ih complete anti has been prepared in crmpliance with the California Environmental duality Act (CDQA), tht, State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of the errvirommwntal docuuwrnt have been considered in the varioun decisions or, this project. 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed project. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible any other potential mitigation measures or alternative to the proposed project. 4. That the mitigation measurers have been incorporated into the proposed project and are expressed as conditions of approval. 5. That based upon the information presented to the City, if seventeen (17) units were to be developed on -site, two (2) affordable units could he provided on -site. 6. That based upon the information presented to the City, if seventeen (17) units were to be developed on -site their would be no social, technical, environment or related problem associated with the provision of two (2) of said units as affordable housing units. 7. That based upon the information presented to the City, if seventeen (17) units were to be developed on -site, two (2) units could be provided as affordable housing units and allow a reasonable return on investment. 8. That development delete on this site is not exempt from the provisions of State low relative to law and moderate income housing units within the coastal zone. 9. That the approval of this permit shall advise this applicant and any successor and interest that the provision of affordable housing units on this site is feasible and needs to be assumed in any sale, lease, trade or other use of said property. 10. That it is not necessary to provide affordable housing related to this application on another site. .0: nq Coasmission -21. COXSD I T IONS 1. A minimum of ten (10%) percent of any units to be developed on this site shall be "affordable unite" as defined by the Government Code and City Policy P-1 at the time of occupancy. 2. That prior to the issuance of any gr,,dinq and or building permits for development of the situ, ,,n agreement shall be executed that gu,,rnnteen the, provisions of "affordable units" on -site in a manner and in a reasonable timeframo.- relateid to the construction of other units onsite. Said agreement shall be acceptable to the Planning Director and the City Attorney's office. 3. That the "affordable units", if rentals, shall be guaranteed for a minimum of 10 years. 4. If rentals, the "affordable units" shall be occupied by persons qualified by the City of Newport Beach or its designated reprennntativr at the renters' expense. 5. If the "affordable units" are to be rented at present, and at a later date, the applicant wishes to sell individual units, that prior to the subdivision of the property the maintenance of the units shall be provided in accordance with these conditions. 6. If the "affordable units" are to be "for -sale" units, the first time buyer shall be qualified by the City of Newport Beach or its designated representative at the buyers' expense. 7. If the "affordable units" are to be converted from rental to "for -sale" units within the specified term of this approval, the "for -sale" units shall be as provided in the conditions of this approval except as maybe modified by the City Policy at the time of conversion. 8. That in order to reduce any adverse environmental effects of development of this site, preference in the rental or sale of the "affordable units" shall be given to those persons employeed in the City of Newport Beach or residents of the City of Newport Beach in a manner to be approved by the City Planning Director and City Attorney. 9. That this approval shall be for a period of three years, with one extension of time permitted, not to exceed 2 years for a total of five years. /,3 P. TO: *ng Caasuission -22. 0 10. That the affordablA units shall be made available tO the general public through a "lottery systea" in a manner approved by the Planning Department and City Attorney. C. TRAFFIC STUDY 1. Approve the Traffic Study, making the follwlnj findings listed below, Findings, 1. That the Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project - generated traffic will not be gr04tor than one percent of existing traffic during the 2.5 hw r peak period on any leg of the critical Intersections, and will not add to an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at critical intersection which will have an Intersection Capacity Utilization of greater than .90. 3. That the proposed project, including circulation system improvements, will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major", 'primary -modified" or "primary" street. D. AMENDMENT NO. 585 Adopt Resolution No. approving Amendment No. 550 and recosmsnding same the City Council for adoption with the four findings listed in "A" of Exhibit "A". E. TENTATIVE MAP Or TRACT No. 11906 Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 11906 with the findings listed belows FINDINGS I 1• That the nap does not meet the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Coda, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans, and the Planning Cosa,ission is not satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed subdivision presents probims from a planning standpoint. /3-3 TO *ng Cosmaission -23. • 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 4. That an Mvironrntal Document has been prepared in cowl', noe with the California ltnvirommental Quality Act, and that their contents have been Considered in the decisions on this project. S. That based on the information contained in the Draft RJR, the project does not incorporated sufficient mitigation measures to reduce Potentially -significant environmental effects, and that the project will result in aLgnificant environmental impacts. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed imProvewsm3ts may conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. 7. That all lots proposed on the Tentative Tract Map do not sleet the minis" lot size for interior lots. a. That all lots proposed on the Tentative Tract Map do not met the minimum lot size for corner lots. 9. That all lots on the proposed Tentative Tract Map do not NOW the minisa mm requirements for lot width. 10. That all lots on the proposed Tentative Tract Map do not meet the minim= requirement@ for lot depth. 11. That the proposed design of the subdivision is not consistent with adjacent development. F. 118E PEWIT M0. 3022 Deny Vae Persmit f. 3022 with the Findings indicated belcwm FMIWA m 1. This project will not comply with all applicable standard Plans and son3n9 requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at the Fir of approval. /3y •nning Ca=iasion -24. • 2. The project 10t size does rot cf,nform to the Zoning Code requirements in affect at the tins tii approval. 3. That the site is not physically suitable for tha developrnt proposed. 4. That the site is not physically suitable feir the Proposed density of developoent. 5. That an Environmental Docva,ent has been prepgreci in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and that their contnnts have been considered in the decisions on this project. 135 'M3 long CnWission -25. EXHIBIT "C" AI:ETMATIVE ACTIONS FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPWJVAL 'WITHOUT THE E7V=SIOld OF SEASHORE ONIVF." April 21, 1983 A. ENVIWMxw'AL TMPACT REPORT 1. Approve the "Draft EIR, City Of Newport Beach,"Seashore Townehomes" and supportive materials thereto, 2. Aeoosrn4 that City Council certify that the Z"ironmantal Document is ecoplete, 3. Direct staff to prepare a Statement of Facts and staternt of Overriding Considerations, and 4. Hake the findings listed below$ FINDIWAs 1. That the environmental document is complete and has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CeQA), the State CZQrA Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the Proposed DrOject, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the enviromental document have been Incorporated into the proposed project. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible any other potential mitigation measures or alternative to the proposed project. 4. That the mitigation measures have been incorporated into the proposed project and are eWrosssd as conditions of approval. "M findings made in regards to approval of the project slit apply also to the sppde+anal of Coastal ilesidential Development permit No. It smemdrnt No. 585, Tentative Map of Tract No. 11906 and USS PIMMIt No. 3022, 1. DlvsiA=! PEMIT 00.1 Approve Dfwlasrnt Hrleit NO- 1 with the Findings and aabjeet to the Conditions listed belay$ 136 TO: *aq Commission -26. FINDINGS: 1. That the environmental document :s complete And has been prepared in compliance with the California Pnvironemental Quality Act (CDQA), the State CLQA Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the varioun decinion:; un this project. 3. That in order to reducr adverse impacts of tim proposed project, all feasible mitigation measure. discussed in the environmental document have bean incorporated into the proposed project. Specific: eca cRic, social or ether considerations make infeasible any other potential mitigation measures or alternative to the proposed project. 4. That the mitigation measurer have been incorporated into the proposed project and are expressed as conditions of approval. S. That based upon the information presented to the City, if seventeen (17) units were to be developed on -site, two (2) affordable units could be provided on -site. 6. That based upon the information presented to the City, if seventeen (17) units were to be developed on -rite their would be no social, technical, emiro a gnt or related problem associated with the provision of two (2) of said units as affordable housing units. 7. That based upon the information presented to the City, If seventeen (17) units were to be developed on -site, two (2) units could be provided as affordable housing units and allow a reasonable return on investment. S. That development delete on this site is not exempt from the provisions of Stake law relative to low and swderata incoee housing unite: within the Coastal son*. 9. That the approval of this permit shall advise this applicant and any successor and interest that the provision of affordable housing units on this site is feasible and needs to be assumed in any sale, lease, trade or other use of said proporty. 3 TO: �ing Commission -27. • 10. That it is not necessary Lo provide affordable housing related to this application on another site. COMMONS 1. A minimum of ten (10%) percent of the units to he developed on this site shall be "affordable unita" as defined by the Government Code and City policy P-1 at the time of occupancy. 2. That prior to the issuance of any grading and or building permits for development of the site, an agreement shall be executed that guarahtr,oe the provisions of "affordable units" on -site, jr. a manner and in a reasonable timefram rolaied to the construction of other units %mite. SAid agreement shall be acceptable to the P14nnlnq Director and the City Attorney's Office. 3. That the "affordable units", if rentals, steal: be guaranteed for a minimum of 10 years, 4. If rentals, the "affordable unit%" nhall be occupied by persons qualified by the City of Newport Beach or its designated representative at the renters' expense. 5. If the "affordable units" are to be rented at present, and at a later date, the applicant wishes to sell individual units, that prior to the subdivision of the property the maintenance of the units shall be provided in accordance with those conditions. 6. If the 'affordable units" are to be "for -sale" units, the first time buyer shall be qualified by the City of Newport Beach or its designated representative at the buyers` expense. 7. If the "affordable units" are to be converted from rental to "for -sale" units within the specified terse of thin approval, the "for -sale" units shall be as provided in the conditions of this approval except as maybe modified by the City Policy at the time of conversion. S. That in order to reduce any adverse environmental effects of development of this site, preference in the rental or sale of the "affordable units' shall be given to those persons oMloyeed in the City of Newport Beach or residents of the City of Newport Beach in a manner to be approved by the City Plaratinq Director and City Attorney. To: *ng CCOmission -28. • 9. That this approval shall he for a periw of three! years, with one extension of time rcrmitted, not to exceed 2 years for a total of five years. 10. That the affordable units shall be made available to the general public through a "lottery system" in a scanner approved by the Planninq Department and City Attorney. C. TRAFFIC STLDy 1. Approve the Traffic Study, making the follrwinq findings listed below: FINDINGS: 1. That the Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the circulation system in accordance with chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Cede and City Policy S-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indiGatea that the project - generated traffic will not be grPntoir than one percent of existing traffic durii,y the 2.5 hour peak period on any leg of th"i critics: intersections, and will not add to an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at critical intersection which will have an Intersection Capacity utilization of greater than .90. 3. That the proposed project, including circulation system improvements, will neither cnuse nor make worse an unsatisfactor, level of traffic service on any "major", "primary -modified" or "primary" strut. D. AMP No. 585 Adopt Resolution Na. approving Amendment No. 550 and reonMending same to the City Council for adoption with the four findings listed in "A" of Exhibit "A". E. TREATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 11906 Approve the Tentative trap of Tract No. 11W6 with the findings and subject to the conditions listed below: FINDINGS I. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the X@wPort beach Municipal Code, all ordinances Of the City, all applicable general or specific Plye and the planning Comission is satisfied with the plan of sabdivision. TO: Oinq Commission -29. is 2. That the proposed subAivision pre_ents no pro}lrr.ss from a planning standj)nlnt. 3. That the site in physically suitable for tho development proposed. 4. That the site is physically buttat,lrt for ths, proposed density of development, 5. That an Environmental Document i.atc biter, prupdrml in compliance with the California Flivironmont.il Quality Act, and that their contents havu noon considered in the decisions on this project. b. That based on the information contained to the Draft EIR, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce potentially -significant criviront*.rntnl effectu, And that the project will riot result In Rignificant environmental impacts. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the proFF.sod improvements will not substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. S. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 9. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. 10. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision will not result in or add to any violation of existing requirements; prescribed by a California Regional water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (cc=encinq with Section 1300) of the water Code. 11. That the urea, width and depth of the lots included in the subdivision are similar to existing lots in the area and are reasonable considering the irregular shape of the subject property. I. That a final map be filed. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public storks Department. I7V TO: l0ing Commission -30. 0 3. That ro trees be planted within the public easement without prior review and approval u: tie Public Works Department. 4. That each dwelling unit be served with an individual water service and hewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. S. That the intersection of all drives be deljjelrc� ,d tc, provide sight distance: for a speed of 25 silos per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty four inches in height. The sight distance requirement. may be approximately modified at non -critical locations, sub3act to approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 6. That a standard subdivinjon afirnrrent and accompanying surety be provided to quarnr.teq satisfactory completion of tt,r street improvements, if it is denired to obtain 4 building permit or record the tract map prior to completion of the public improvements. 7. That street, drainage and utility improvements he shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. B. That all work within the public right-of-way he cesipleted under an encroachment permit issued by the Public storks Department. 9- Development of the site shall be nubject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 10. That a grading plant if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 11. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to ainistise iVact of haul operations. 12- An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be subaitted and be subject to the approval of the Buildinq Department and a copy sM11 be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana "ion. /y/ I ; *ng commiaairn -31. 13. The velocity of conc-entratvd rur,-off from ti.e project shall be evaluated and erosive velocirleb controlled as part of the project design. 14. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with Plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and teased on recommendations of a .oil engineer and an enginiinring geologi,it, sut,sequent to thn •.t,mpletion Of a canprehensive soil and geolcfitf, lnv.,Rtigatior, of the site. Permanent reproducible ctillios of the "Approved at Built' grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. 15. 11 landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall Integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed ccnstruction schedule. (Prior to the occupancy a: any structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planninq Department that the landscaping has been lnutalled in accordance with the prepared plan). lb. The landscape plan shall be suhject to the review of the Public works Department, Parks, beaches ana Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department. 17. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 28. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought -resistant native vegetation and be irrigated with a systems designed to avoid surface runoff and over -watering. 19. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on fire -retardant vegetation. 20. -Street trees shall be provided along the public streets in the front yard setback area as a part of the landscape plan and shall be approved by the Public Works Department and the Parks, Reaches and Recreation Department. 21. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of veWs and dabris. All vegetation shall be regularly triaged and kept in m healthy condition. IZ12- TO: *ng Coemission -32. is 22. Prior to issuance of any bui lrling p .r,i tr. authorized by the approval of this project, the applicant shall deposit with the City Finance Director the sum proportional to the percentage of future additional traffic related to the project in the subject area, to be used for the construction of a sound attenuation barrier on thrf southerly side of Wect Coast tiighw4y in the ilhsit Newport Area. 23. That prior to the occupancy of nny unit a qualified acoustical engineer, retain,id by the City at the applicant's expense shell demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that the noise impact from Balboa boulevard on the project does not exceed 65 db CNEI. for 0+4tside living areas and the requirements (if law for interior spaces (for future winter traffic conditions). 24. That any roof top or other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated in such a ► Anner an to achieve a maximum sound level of 55 MIA at the property line. 25. The Fire Department access shall he approved by the Fire Department. 26. That all on -site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shall be approved by the Fire and Public works Departments. 27. Prior to the occupancy of any buildings, a program for the sorting of recyclable material fore other solid wastes shall be developed and approved by the Planning Department. 28. A qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shall evaluate the site prior to commencement of construction activities, and that all work on the site be done in accordance with the City's Council Policies K-5 and K-6. 29. The project should be designed to conform to Title 24, Paragraph 6, Division T-20, Chapter 2, Sub -chapter 4 of the California Administrative Code dealing with energy requirements. 30. The project shall investigate the use of alternative energy sources (i.e. solar) and to the maximum extent economically feasible incorporate the use of said in project designs. ///3 TO: Oning Commission -33. 31. Final design of the project shall prr,vide for the: incorporation of water-savinq deviceft Mr project lavatories and other water -using facilities. 32. Any construction on the site should :.a done in accordance with the height restriction of said should apply to any landscape materials, n1fins, flags, etc. as well aQ structures. 33. That a 10 foot radius corner cutoff at the rr,rr.er of 31st Street and Balboa Boulevard he dedicated to the public. 34. That street, drainage: and utility improvev*r.ts he shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 35. That a hydrology and hydraulic study ha prepared and approved by the Public Works Dep.irtment, alanq with a master plan of water, sewer and sto = drain facilities for the on -site improvempr,tn prior to the recording of the final asap. Any aK.�iLficationr: or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall he the responsibility of the developer. 36. That full roadway improvements he constructed along both sides of Seashore Drive, and that Seashore Drive have a 33 foot curb to curb width with a 10' wide sidewalk along the northerly side of the roadway and a 13 foot wide sidewalk along the southerly side of the roadway. On the southeast corner of Seashore Drive at 32nd Street the sidewalk may be tapered to 11 fact in order to provide a 2 foot clearance from the adjacent structure. 37. That full roadway improvements be constructed along the 32nd Street frontage and that the 32nd Street extension have a 37' curb to curb width with a 10 foot sidewalk along the westerly side of the roadway and a 13 foot sidewalk along the easterly side of the roadway. Traffic signal modifications at the intersection of Balboa Boulevard and 32nd Street shall be included in the 32nd Street improvements. 38. That the existing 32nd Street right-of-way (a 2.5 foot strip of land on the easterly side of 32nd Street and the southerly curb returns located at the intersection of 32nd Street and Balboa) owned in fee by the City be purchased by the developer at fair market value prior to recordation of the TO: *ning Cacsiission -34. final tract map, and that the; existinq excess 32nd Street. easement (7.5 font strip of land an the westerly side of 32nd Street) be rar:dtecl to th+* adjacent property owners prior to tLe recordation of the final tract cusp and that any public facilities in the areas to be purchased or vacated be relocated into the public right-of-way by tilts developer. 39. That 20 foot wide alleys be dedicated to the City between 31st Street and 32nd Street and betwenr, 32nd Street and 33rd Street and that the alley,$ L„ improved to City standards. 40. Mat all vehicular access to the lots be from the adjacent alleys. 41. That 5 foot wide P.C.C. sidewalk be constructed along Balboa Boulevard from 31st Street to 32nd Street and widened to 5 feet where 4 foot sidewalks presently exist and that access ramps i,U provided at the corner of 3lat Street and Balboa Boulevard at the southwesterly corner of 32nd Street and Balboa Boulevard. 42. That the right of way on the extension of Seashore Drive and 32nd Street be improved with a 13-foot wide sidewalk along the southerly side and that the sidewalks be separated by 33 feet on Seashore Drive and 37 feet on 32nd Street. 43. Traffic signal modifications at the intersection Of west Balboa Boulevard and 32nd Street shall be provided as necessary to remove the signal equipment from the parcel to be vacated or sold by the city. 44. That the existing 32nd Street right-of-way (a 2.5 foot strip of land on the easterly side of 32nd Street and the southerly curb returns located at the intersection of 32nd Street and Balboa) owned in fee by the City be purchased by the developer at fair market value prior to recordation of the finial tract snap, and that the existing excess 32nd Street easement (7.5 foot strip of land on the westerly side of 32nd Street) be vacated to the adjacent property owners prior to the recordation of the final tract slap and that any public facilities in the areas to be purchased or vacated be relocated into the public right-of-way by the developer. )y5r'- TO: Wing Coaaission -35. 0 45. That 20 foot :ride alley!. be dedicated to the tity hetween list Street and 12r.ki Strvo.,t and between 32nd Street and 33rd Street and that the alleys be improved to City standards. 46. That all vehicular access to the lot% be from the adjacent alleys. 47. That 5 foot wide P.C.C. sidewalk he con%tructed along isalbon Boulevard from 318t Strovat to 32nd Street and widened to 5 feet where 4 font sidewalks presently exist and that acc;ons ramp:. be provided at the corner of 31st Street and Balboa Boulevard at the southwesterly corner of 32nd Street and Balboa Boulevard. 46. That Seashore Drive (56 feet in width), 32nd Street (60 feet in width) and the alleys (20 feet in width) between 31ut Street and 32n4 Street and the alleys between 32nd Street and 33rd Street be dedicated to the City. 49. That a 26-foot-wide improved surfa r, accept,ablr to Fire and Public Works Department I:o provided in the area between the sidewalks. This surface shall provide adequate support for eeergency vehicles. 50. That the developer contribute to the Gas Tax Fund a minimum of $70,000 to replace those funds used to purchase the existing right of way for street purposes. This amount will be determined in accordance with the State's procedures and guidelines for the expenditure of Gas Tax Funds. 51. That 33rd street be widened by 5 feet adjacent to the tract and that parking be prohibited on 33rd Street between the northerly edge of the tract and West Balboa Boulevard. USE PERMrT NO. 3022 PINDINGSc 1. That each of the proposed units has been designed as a condominium with separate and individual utility connections. 2. The project will comply with all applicable standard plans and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at the time of approval. IY4 TO: Oninq Commission -36. 0 3. The project lot size conforms to the Zoning CrAJ(, requirements in effect at the time Of approval or a modified by the Planning Commission in conjunction with this approval. 4. The project is consistent with the adopted goalm and policies of the General Plan. 5. That adequate on -site parking spacer, are available for the proposed residential condominium development. 6. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, Peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 7. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and In compatible with surrounding land uses. 8. That the proposed developmsent is connistent with the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 9. That the establishment, maintenance of operation Of the use of the property or building will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modifications so as to allow minor building encroachments into required front and side yard setback areas are consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 10. The Police Department has indicated that it dons not contemplate any problems. 11. Adequate off-street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. 111:7 TO: fling Commission -37. 0 CONDITIONS 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plan, and elevations except as noted below. 2. That all mechanical equipment and trnsh areas shall be screened from Seashore Drives anal [falbna Boulevard and adjoininq proportion. 3. That all construction employees shall park their vehicles on -site. 4. That all applicable conditions of Tentative Tract No. 11906 be fulfilled. 5. That all proposed nigns nhall be In conformance with the provision of Chapter 20.06 of the Newport [coach Municipal Code and shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to thn vehicular inqress and egress. E. That the On -Site vehicular and pedestrian circulation system be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 7. Signing shall be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer. 10. All units within the present and future 65 dB to 57 d9 zone fixed double paned windows shall be installed to achieve the city and mate required interior noise standard of 45 dD MEL. 11. Mechanical ventilation equipment shall be required for all units located within the 65d» to 57dA CNEL zone. 12. Prior to the issuance of building permits for each of the planned units, an acoustical engineering study shall be performed, based on actual pad, property and roadway grades and building locations and orientations to assure that the exterior building shells of each structure will be sufficient to reduce existing and future noise levels to an acceptable intensity. 13. To lessen or eliminate glare impacts to project residences from oncoming vehicles affected window areas shall be properly tinted to refract glare to the satisfaction of the Planning and iuilding Departments. /yb TO: Being Commission -38. 0 14. Prior to the occupancy of nny unit the visual impact of glare fron r,4F-,+dlighti: t,, the exintiliq residences on Balboa F.ulevard shall be mitigated in a manner approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments. 15. Use fencing or other effective barriers its order to discourage access through potentially dangeroun construction zones on the site in a manner approved by the Plannirq and Building Departmenta, 16. The Planning and Building Departments nhall approve a constructior, schedule for the proponasl pro3ect. 17. That open parking spaces with direct access from n public alley shall have a minimum average depth of 17.5 feet from the rear property lines. Said parking spaces shall he designated for compact cars only and approximately identified, subject to the Planning Director's approval. 18. That garage doors ud)ecent to open parking areas as described in Condition No. 17 nixOve shall be roll -up or other type approved by the City Traffic Engineer. � r'r r _ � ., 4tilte If il.iT�i111 Attachment ra. 8 YIYItI GOVERNOWS OFFICE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH lapp TENTH 5Tkt_k 1 SACRAMENTO 95f11.1 March 4. 1()8:J Fred Talarico �;�.� :.. ; D •;i,_} planning Dq)t. ;��► � .'4--- art Blvd. c%7jrt ?,each, Gl 92663 Subject: S011 821223105 32nd Street Parcel, Seashore 'rownhome5 Dear Itr. Talarico: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named draft Envirrgental Impact Report (EIR) to selected state agencies for review. 7t�e review and the mments of the individual Period is clo�.,d aecomendat ins ) attached. if you would like to discuss their conceraa and reoomtoendations, please contact ma str►ii irc� the appropriate agency(ies). When preparing the final EM, you must include all tents and Guidelines, Section 15:46). The certified EIR must be consideredinthe mkB Process for the project. In additiondecision- the , we urge you to reapond directlydeci to the crenting agency{Sew} by writing to themincluding the State Clsringha� number ca all correspondence, , A 1981 appellate Court decision iu Cleary v. County of Staa 3d 348) clarified ceia�ausr (118 Cal. App.ctuirew,ents for responding to review cwNWts. 5 the court indicated that cOm ents must be addressed in detail g re '6cslly, the specific 00mwnts and buggpstions sere not accepted. 'lee' giving reasons shy !actors of overriding b4mificance %Wc4 �reaid the su ro�°� tint be rejected. Re Bgeetio�a nr Commcsr�+ x Responses to ax enis must not be c onclusOry suternenis but rmt be supported tYy empirical or experimental data, scientific auth)rity or explanatory information of any kind. The court further said that the responses must ae it good faith, reasoned a-ia 1 ysi s . In the evenr that the protect is approved without sdecluatF adtigation of s;g_ ri!icant effects, the l Httead agency Must Make written findings for eucn significant Oct and _t must support its actions with a written statement of overriciin�r ;xsr� sideraEt,lons for each unraicigated significant effeer (CMA rAllde:ines Section :;:1�'.fi a nd :WR9). :t the projf�cr rerluires d:5cracir=ry approval fran any Mats tgency, :hp t:c� Ut Deterairatic'r Mst bP !iIAd xith the Ss:cretary for It lit,-e.4, riF wrl; -tv ,,.�. +�.�sric�tins! Clerk. ?sew ron'.acc ?'eery Roberts It ,:}i�, 4.45 �'u31.3 � : yat: �v�• �:,;, i ' - about the znv. rumen Cal review proccs,a. 4r L staft of CaWWRIG /1 b MiV....Kr1.V /K/. J ,Wftd*Ssn Memorandum ro Ron Bass STATE CLEARINGHOUSE 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 From ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION 714 P Street, Room 430 322-2308 0,. 1 Ito? 3 S„bod, 32nd Street Parcel, Seashore Townhomes SCH #82123105 The Department ha3 reviewed the subject environmental document and offers the following comments. The authors of the section on noise are commended for their usual thorough acoustical analysis and recommendations. However, there is a misstatement on page 50 that warrants correction. It is stated that a l dH Increase of the CNEL is insignificant because only a 3 d0 Increase is noticable (sic). The facts are that about 10% of people exposed to traffic noise at 60 dBA (Ld. or CMEL) will report being highly annoyed with the noise, and each In- crease of i d8A (Ldn) is associated with 2% more people being highly annoyed. When noise sources are aircraft, about twice those numbers are expected to be highly annoyed. More importantly, when aircraft noise exceeds 55 Ldn and traffic noise exceeds 60 Ldn, people begin complaining. Croup and legal actions to stop the noise can be expected to begin at levels 10 dBA higher. If you have any questions or need further Information concerning these COMWnts, please contact Dr. 0erome Lukas of the Noise Control Program, Office of Local Environmental Health Programs, at 2151 Berkeley Way, Room 6131 Berkeley, CA 94704, 415/540-2665. L Richard P. Wilcoxon Assistant Deputy Director JW / _5/ • Attachrwnt W. 10 1 112 32nd Street Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 March 10, 1093 City of Newport Beach 3300 West Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Atten: Engineering and Public Work Department Gentlemen: Subject: Tract 11906 Newport Beach, Cal i f orni.i I Louis Kaufman, hereby accept and approve the proposed sidewalk alignment per plans dated March 7, 1983, at Seashore and 32nd Street, Newport Beach, California. Sincerely, Louis Kaufman 714 673-1572 A>d' 1lttoch {3 .., t � i��r_.�•r0 / If � 1, /� J'T,vrxl7/,4E r } e +l.J+ j 4 L Il a���!Y�lENT TQ.ocr //94G mruo L STEODS. Ihi. w. n! 11/4,.S'UlrE40 CIVIL MI■W ='4 K.U. CALIF. N627 Q.C.{. 11064 1714) GI; -s%fv DOI 3 7 CY.3 $CAE f �. f ULD ou rp,2jla% • � � � j'�.•�ar,� � • � . / � tip. • AttachsWnt i.o. 13 ADDENDUM TO THE SEASHORE CONDOMINIUMS EIR NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA MARCH 15, 1983 At the February 29, 1983 Planning Commission hearing for the proposed Seashore Condominium project, a request was made by the commission VhAt the noise analysis In the Draft EIR also include noise impacts to the project as a result of summer rather than just winter traffic conditions. This addendum represents the findings made by WESTEC Services, Inc. and Acoustical Impacts International regarding summer noise Conditions. The attached Exhibit A shows the calculated distances from the centerline of Balboa Boulevard to the 70, 65, 60 and 57 db CNEL contour lines. 'Reese distances correspond to the contour lines plotted on the project site plans shown in Exhibit B and C. Exhibit B indicates the CNEL contours at the project site assuming summer weekday traffic conditions (18,000 ADT) and Exhibit C displays noise contours resulting from summer Sunday, or worst -case traffic conditions (24,000 ADT). The Impact of project -generated traffic on the roadway traffic noise for summer conditions would be negligible. Separate contour lines are shown for first and second floor residence elevations since second floor elevations would experience higher noise levels due to the Lack of ground absorption as the sound radiates upward and thus restricts dissipation of the noise. The noise impacts under the summer conditions studied involves more of the site area resulting in a greater portion of the development expected to experience higher noise levels. First floor outdoor living space along Balboa Boulevard would require noise shielding since the levels would be over 65 dB CNEL. However, the project as proposed does not include any outdoor living area, decks or patios. Although the noise contours resulting from summer traffic conditions impact more of the site area, noise mitigation under these conditions is essentially the same as that presented in the EIR for winter traffic conditions. The summer noise Impact findings do not require any additional conditions to be placed on the project in order to meet city and state interior noise standards. It should be noted that although there Is an increase in traffic noise due to the increased traffic flow, there may be an offsetting decrease in speed from congestion which would tend to decrease the noise. Since this is a va-riable that Is not easily determined, the calculations used the same traffic speeds for all conditions (summer and winter) thus representing a worst -case situation. �1ss 1 so /5rop Z Q W u J ~ / W [ i J 7 c y A{ cr z b 1J/ uj t J Z llr in Y PI <•�'3'K,C.ia- L=. I 'iI qn_ = W LY UA a - _ j •��.w.r���b[40.t�a {j y� z � I x- �8 � W R x Z. NW � w � � r ' J j ICA • ay a .�- t __.- {a .. '� Y '• 7• �r `t � 1 � s• � q -��� ti —l1 1 � W43 'a I� i �+aaA 0 6_ Attachment M. 14 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1769. NE%%'K)RT BEACH. CA 92663-3884 CITIZENS ENVIRiN.MENrTAI. QUALITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE April 6. 1933 Newport Beach City Council 3300 west Nvdport Blvd. P.O. sox 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3664 ;UBJECT: "Draft EIR of Seashore Townehomes" Honorable r-ayor and Councilt The Citizens' Environmental Qunlity Advisory Committers dt Its ameting of April 50, 1983, reviewed thin letter and the "Seashore TorrAhumes Draft EIR'. The Ccmit'_ee feels that the Seashore Townehomes Uiaft EIR hag adequately addressed all pertinent issues including: LAND USE TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION NOISE HODS I N-5 LIGHT AND GLARE CONSTAVCTION IMPACTS we feel the EIR has effectively dealt with density, height, affordable housing units, ingress And egress and compatible land use. The Proposed project is compatible and consistent with existing land uses. Also, we feel permanent designation of Seashore Drive as a orie „ay street is considered highly desirable. Respectfully submitted, CITIZENS EIMRONIMENTAL QUALITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE �y �- u � J i ce Df Hay Cha i rman JDB:rr:tn OFJ!-O- 9 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach 9, • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER March 10, 1983 TO: PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: Assistant to the City Manager Attacl►rient .o. 15 {2,MAR ,eJ SUBJECT: PROPOSED nEVELOPMENT OF THE 32ND STREET (FORMERLY SOUTHERN PACIFIC) PARCEL On March 8, 1983, Max Morgan the owner/developer of the above - referenced parcel telephoned me to discuss the status of the project. Since the project will be coming before the Planning Commission in the near futuro, I wanted to apprise you of fir. Morgan's questions.and concerns. Mr. Morgan would like to obtain from staff some sort of conunit- ment that his proposed development of the parcel will not he opposed in favor of some other "public use." He apparently fuels that since the City Council, during the Study Session on November 22, 1982. had reviewed several alternatives to residential development of the parcel and had not taken a position specifically opposinq residential development, that he was in for "clear sailinq." He now states that the Planning staff is suggesting as an alternative use for the site a shuttle bus facility. I began by informing Mr. Morgan that a commitnent by staff would be meaningless since it is the Planning Commission and/or City Council which will make the final decisions. With respect to a shuttle bus facility, I informed him that the evaluation of alterna- tive possibilities to development is as much a part of the staff's and Commission's job as is the evaluation of the impacts of develop- ment. I reiterated to Mr. Morgan that there has in fact been no formal action whatsoever regarding the eventual use of the parcel and that he should proceed through the normal review process. He also attempted to gain some insight as to the potential for eventual condemnation of the parcel for a public use. He was informed that the taking of property for a legitimate public use can occur after development as well as before but that again, as noted earlier, the Council had made no formal determination whatsoever relative to the 32nd Street parcel. A TO: PLANNING DIRECTOR - Page Two Mr. Morgan concluded by stating that he would proceed through the Commission process noting that the residents in the project area were "solidly" behind him. BOLINT s nt to the City Manager GJB/ j xc: ty Manager 9<uflamap (Associates Transportation Planning • Traffic Engineering April 19, 1983 Mr. Fred Talarico City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Talarico: This letter is a supplement to our December 30, 1982 32nd Street - Balboa Boulevard Traffic Study for the 1.5 acre site with 19 proposed -condominiums. In the original study it was assumed that Saanhore Drive would be extended from 33rd Street to 32nd Street, and that 32nd Street would be extended from its present terminus to Balboa Boulevard. Figure A of this letter illustrates the Seashore/32nd Street extensions. This figure is identical to Figure 4 in the original study. The purpose of this supplemental letter is to evaluate the traffic impacts if Seashore is not extended as a street, but rather contains a bicycle trail and open space. Listed below are the advantages and disadvantages of not extending Seashore Drive, The traffic advantages of not extending Seashore Drive are as follows: 1. Without Seashore Drive extension, the project site itself will be leas traffic impacted. There will be a reduction in traffic noise, fumes, and vibration. however, the traffic volumes are quite low and are not expected to pose any kind of problem. 2. Without Seashore Drive extension, less traffic will utilize the Balboa Boulevard and 32nd Street intersection. This intersection is signalized today and experiences no operational problems. The additional traffic is not expected to cause an overload. 4664 Barrencs Parkway r Irvine. CA 92714 • (714) 559-4231 3. Bicycle safety will be improved if a bicycle trail is constructed in the Seashore Drive alignment and Seashore Drive is not opened for auto traffic. This will be beneficial to bicycle traffic, particularly in light of the high trail usage that can be expected in this location. The traffic disadvantages of not extending Seashore Drive are as follows: 1. If Seashore is not extended, site access to 11 of the 19 proposed condominium units will be from the alley off of Balboa Boulevard between 32nd and 33rd Streets. The section of the alley closest of Balboa noulevard will have to be widened to as wide as that part of the alley adjacent the homes, and a STOP sign should be erected facing outbound alley traffic. Care should be taken to assure adequate sight distance at the intersection of the alley and Balboa Boulevard. Because of the close proximity to 32nd and 33rd Street, a median opening on Balboa Boulevard at the alley is not feasible. Thus, the alley will be restricted to right -turn -in and right -turn -out only operation. 2. Not extending Seashore Drive will restrict emergency vehicle access, not only to the project site but also to nearby dwellings. This can be partially mitigated by constructing the bike lane to 10 feet wide or wider and thick enough to support emergency vehicles. To prevent unauthorized autos from using the widened bicycle trail, removable posts or other means of restricting auto usage will be necessary on each end of the 10 foot wide or wider bicycle trail section. 3. Without extension of Seashore Drive from 33rd Street to 32nd .street, traffic will have to continue to access Balboa Boulevard via the 33rd Street and Balboa Boulevard intersection. With Seashore Drive extended, traffic can take advantage of the signal at Balboa Boulevard and 32nd Street, and avoid the Balboa Boulevard and 33rd Street intersection. The Balboa Boulevard and 33rd Street intersection is substandard and potentially hazardous. 33rd Street is narrow and has parking along it, and both it and Balboa Boulevard have minimum building setbacks from the curb. As a result of the narrow street and minimum building setbacks, the intersection has poor visibility. Vehicles on 33rd Street approaching Balboa Boulevard have to partially enter the intersection to see approaching autos from either direction on Balboa 0 Boulevard. With the higher speeds on Balboa Boulevard, coupled with landscaping in the Balboa Boulevard median and limited sight distance at the intersection, a potential hazard exists that is not present at the 32nd Street and Balboa Boulevard intersection. The above discussion presents both the advantages and disadvantages from a traffic viewpoint of not .extending fleashore Drive from 33rd Street to 32nd Street. If there are any questions, or if we can be of farther assistance, please do not hesitate to call. sincerely, KUN2MAN ASSOCIATES William Kunzman, P.E. Figue A Citcutat ion Conditions 06hron tAsoccnips Planning Coassission Meeting April 21, 1983 Agenda Item No. 1 2,3 4 S MISED AND NEW CONDITIONS COASTAL, DSVELOPtlERr PERMIT NO.1 MISM S. It the "affordable units" are to be rented at present, and at a later date, the applicant wishes to sell individual units, that the maintenance of the units "affordability" ■hall be provided in accordance with these conditions. 7. If the "affordable units" units are to be converted from rental to "for -sale" units within the guaranteed minimum of ten years, the "for -sale" units shall be sold as provided for in these conditions of this approval except as maybe modified by the City Policy at the time of sale. NEW 11. The "affordable units" if rental shall be rented at affordable rates as defined by the Government Codes and City Policy P-1. 12. If the "affordable units" are to be "tar -sale" units the units shall be owner occupied for a three year period. The owners shall provide assurance of said in a manner approved by the City Attorney's Office and Planning Department. CITY COUNCIL STAFF i+ZKkTS E City Counceetinq __nY 9 1983 TOt City Council Agenda Item Ito. P-1 (a CITY OF KEWPORT HEACH FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: AMENDMENT NO. 585 LOCATION: Portions of Blocks 31 and 32 of the Lake Tract, located at 120 32nd Street, on the southwesterly side of West Balboa Boulevard between 31st Street and 33rd Street in west Newport. ZONE: Unclassified APPLICANT: Max Morgan, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant ENGINEER: Donald E. Stevens, Costa Mesa Suggested Action If desired, introduce ordinance and set for public hearing on May 23, 1983. Jpplication The applicant, fir. Max Morgan, has requested the following application approval in order to construct seventeen units on 1.65 vacant acres of land located on the seaward side of West Balboa Boulevard at 32nd Street in West Newport. AMOUNT NO. 585 - A request to establish an R-2 Zone on the property, replacing the existing Unclassified zoning designation. The proposed amendment will also establish ten foot front yard setbacks on Districting Map No. 3 for each lot fronting on 32nd Street (Extended) and 33rd Street, and a nine foot front yard setback on 31st Street. Ariendment procedures are outlined in Chapter 20.84 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Planning Comission Racoa ndation At the Planning Comission sleeting of April 21, 1983, the Cowmissicn approved the above subject item, (Ali Ayes). A copy of the minutes will be forwarded at the time of the public hearing. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAM D. R MICKER0 Director by ,RED TALUICG `nVir0n ntal Coordinator F=,/kk & Cl Attachments vieinity May �y alai ! !• 44 ]1 fit 1,4 j{ Z�ji�iaN Or 41. 00, d �fstt.;it�ill}:fiiyl r+ trfC i �� �11ftf3fltttlt]]T ltlt r • rr drw rr. t � I •� C to *ti �` r j � ♦ or # r It ft1 r r. ♦. a r ` a �;y r I ♦ I� PO ' •t♦ r �• rt% ! +� P �� I• + Gam/ V W j j ` ++ r �• r` ' cr • ( ` ,• 2� r� ♦ f � I r �. I � f ., f o �•� s i 1lf � O i AMENDMENT M1 58s' USE PERMIT Nar 3oa.s TIW-ciC STUDY TENTATIVE TRA cr No. J19o(# 21 Planning Camanission Meeting February 24, 1983 Agenda Items No. 12 13 14 and 15 CITY OF NWPORT BEACH TO Planning commission ?"s Planning Department SUB3ZCTs Amendment No. 585 (public Hearing) Request to consider an amendment to a portion of Districting Map No. 3 so as to reclassify property from the Unclassified District to the R-2 District. In addition, the applicant proposes to establish 10 foot front yard setbacks an said Districtinq Map for lot frontages adjacent to 32nd Street (extended) and 33rd Street and a 9 foot front yard setback on 31st Street. The proposal also includes the acceptance of an Environmental Impact Report and the approval of a Coastal Residential Development Permit. AND Traffic Study (Public Hearing) Request to consider a Traffic Study in conjunction with the construction of nineteen residential units. AND Use permit No. 3012 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of nine individual tvo-unit residential condominium projects and related garages, on property proposed for rezoning to the R-2 District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow minor building encroachments into the required front and side yard setback areas. AND Tentatin Map of Tract Xo. 11906 (public Hearing) Request to subdivide 1.65 acres of land into nine lots for residential condominium development, one lot for residential duplex development and one lot for single family residential development. The application also includes a request for exceptions to the Subdivision Code so as to allow the creation of corner lots contaiaing less than 60 foot widths and less than 6,000 square feet in land area, and interior lots containing less than SO foot widths and less than 5,000 square feet iu land area. Zhe proposal also includes a request to establish grades for the purpose of measuring heights of proposed buildings. The request also includes the extension of Seashore Drive from 33rd Street to Balboa Boulevard and the extension of two existing alleys. TO Pla* Comission -2. 0 LOCATION: Portions of Blocks 31 and 32 of the Lake Tract, located at 120 32nd Street, on the southwesterly side of west Balboa Boulevard between 31st Street and 33rd Street, in west Nouport. zomrt Unclassified APPLICANT: Max Morgan, Newport Beach OWNER: Sara as applicant P.NCINEER: Donald E. Stevens, Costa Mesa A lications The applicant, Mr. Max Morgan, has requested the following application approvals in order to construct 19 units on 1.65 vacant acres of land located on the seaward side of West Balboa Boulevard at 32nd Street in West Newport. 1. Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Acceptance of a traffic study prepared pursuant to Chapter 1 ,40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy 9-1, and approval of the project baseil on data contained therein for the ultlaete purposes of issuance of building and grading pezzLits. 2. Develo t Permit. The Applicant has requested approval of Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 1 pursuant to Chapter 1007, Statutes of 1981, Gover=ent Code Sectian 65900 and City Policy P-1 ('Adsinistrative Guidelines for the 30plasientation of the Provision of State Law Relative to Low- and Moderate-Incos:e Housing within the Coastal Zone•). 3. Certification of an Environmastal I ct Re rt, Acceptance of an environmental document as haw ng .,been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CZQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Policy K-3, and certification that the Information oontained therein was considered in the final decisions on the project. 4. Amendment No. 585 A request to establish an 9-2 zone on the property, replacing the existing Unclassified toning designation. The proposed amendment will also establish 10 foot front yard setbacks on Districting Map go. 3 for each lot fronting on 32nd Street (extend*V)and 33rd Street, and a 9 foot front yard setback on 31st Street 0 Amendment procedures are outlined in Chapter 20.84 of the Newport Teach Municipal Code. {1) The propoeed front yard setbacks discussed in item No. 4 on page 16 of the draft environmental report have changed so as to establish a 9 foot front yard setback for the single lot fronting on 31st Street. This 9 foot setback is consistent with the front yard setbacks established on Districting Map No. 8 on the adjoining residential Ica on 31st Street. D r• TOs Play* Commission -3. 0 5. Tentative Map of Tract Map No. 11906 Request to subdivide 1.65 acres of land into nine lots for residential condominium development, one lot for residential duplex development, and one lot for single-family residential development. The tentative tract map application also includes a request for an exception to allow the creation of corner lots containing less than 60 foot widths and areas lase than 6,000 square feet and interior lots containing loan than 50 foot widths and areas less than 5,000 square feet. The proposal also includes a request to establish grades for the purpose of measuring heights of proposed buildings. Subdivision procedures are as outlined in Chapter 19.12 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. Use Permit No. 3022 Request to establish nine individual, two -unit residential condominium projects on property proposed for rezoning to the R-2 District. The request also includes modifications to the Zoning Code so as to allow minor encroachments into required setback areas. Use Permit procedures are outlined in Chapter 20.80 of the Newport Reach Municipal Code. Modification procedures are outlined in Chapter 20.81 of the Municipal Code. Suggested Action open hearing, hear all those wishing to testify, and continue hearing to the Planning Commission heating of March 10, 1983 for action. Background The applicant has requested that his project be placed on the Planning ccumission agenda at the earliest possible date. The Planning Commission has directed staff not to place projects on its agenda until such time as any required environmental review has been concluded. The State Clearinghouse official review period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on this project will end on March 4, 1983. Staff has placed this items on the agenda so that testimony night be taken and any questions related to the project raised and answered. Subject property and surrounding Land Use The subject property is located on the seaward side of Nest Balboa Boulevard at 32nd Street. The site is 1.65 acres. The project site is nearly level. The site will require minimal grading to achieve the desired finished grade. It is anticipated that a maximum of 1,000 cubic feet of fill will be imported to the site in pt+eparation for the project. A bike ,path extends along the central portion of the site, connecting with similar bike paths along Seashore Drive and West Balboa Boulevard. Curb and gutter improvemnt■ exist along the site's northern and western boundaries which front 33rd Street and West Balboa Boulevard, respectively. Existing duplex residential units in the 1-2 District, adjoining the subject site, are located to the northeast and awtbwast. The beach is located approximately 400 feet to the west. 7V TOs P1 189 Commission -4. • Protect Characteristics The project involves the subdivision of the property into 9 lot's for residential duplex condominium development, 1 lot for single-family residential development (Lot No.1) and the expansion of an existing residential lot (Lot No.7) for duplex development (see Figures 2.3 and 2.4 in the draft environmental document). Lot No.7, which presently accosmnodatna an existing single-family dwelling is included as part of the tentative tract map because of a property line exchange at the boundary of Lots lto.7 and n. In regards to this project, the existing residence will remain. However, the northeasterly property line of Lot No.7 will conform to that shown in the tract map and the property will be formally designated to allow for future duplex development. The applicant is not proposing additional development of Lot No.7 at this time. The single-family unit on Lot No. 1 will be developed according to the same unit plans specified for the condominiums. Development of the 1.65 acre site Will result in a net buildable area of 1.1 acres. The development of these units on the site will represent a density of 17.3 units per buildable acre. Pour different floor plans will be utilized in the units and comprise the following overall site statistics, Unit No. MeQuanttty Square Pita e A 3 Writ. A bath 5 1,550(1) 8 2 edru. 2% bath 6 1,550 (1) C 2 6dm. 2 bath 7 1,123 D 2 Bdra. 2 bath l 1,230 TMALi lg 23,141 (1) A and 8 units fronting on 32nd Street (extended) will be slightly larger than 1550 sq.ft. due to minor changes to these floor plans. All four types will be two stories in height with ground floor access. Landscaped open space areas are limited to the front and side yards of the units, a minimum setback of 9-10 feet and 4 feet, respectively. The minimum front setbacks would be established for the property on the districting map rather than the standard 20 foot front yard setback established for the R-2 classification. No rear yard or exterior private deck space is included in the plans. The initial landscaping will be provided by the developer and will be m intaired in oaswa by the hoMeowftrs' association for the tow ehomes. Maxima building height of the units would equal approximately 26 feet with an average roof height of 21 feet. This wets the City's height requirement per the R-2 xoning district. This airspacs between the first and second stories for all unit plans functions ne a camVenent of the overall open space cceputsd for this project as being 44,GOW cubic feet. 7-5 TO s PL* Commission -5. • Vehicular access to the condominium development will be provided from Nest Nlboa Boulevard, via the two onsita alleys proposed for the project, from 33rd Street, 32nd Street (extended), and from the proposed extension of Seashore Drive. The extended alignment of Seashore Drive would follow and encompass the City's currently amu d right-of-way which at present functions as a bike path. Seashore Drive will provide internal access to the project site and to West Balboa Boulevard. The existing signalisation at Hest Balboa Boulevard and 32nd Street will need to be expanded to allow the implementation of a four-way versus a three-way intersection. The extended Seashore Drive would be a one-way street with traffic shoving in a southeasterly direction towards the West Balboa Boulevard-32nd Street intersection. Project plans also indicate the onsits extension of the two existing alleys located between 31st Street, 32nd Street and 33rd Street. Said alleys provide access to the attached two -car garages for each dwelling unit. It is assumed that both alleys would be accessible off of west Balboa Boulevard and that the alley serving the northwestern portion of the site would be accessed from the proposed Seashore Drive extension. Onsite parking is provided in the form of 2 covered garage spaces for each unit, or a total of 38 spaces. This provision is in conformance with the City's requirement of 1.5 spaces per unit for residential uses. The provision of 13 onsite quest parking spaces may also be accommodated at those units with adequate driveway areas, specifically the " unit clusters facing the north side of Seashore Drive extension. Preliminary plans indicate that on -street parking will total 14 new spaces along the Seashore Drive extension. On -site pedestrian circulation is afforded by sidewalks along the internal street system with walkways to residences which primarily emanate from Seashore Drive and 33rd Street. The existing bikeway will be incorporated into the sidewalk bordering tine south side of Seashore Drive extension, following the sae general route as it does at present. Construction of the project is estimated to be coWleted in approximately 9 months, or Sumer, 1984. Conformance with the General Plan and Local Coastal Plan The proposed project is consistent with the Newport !leach General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (LCP). a discussion of each element and the LCP relationship to the proposed project is contained in the Draft EIR on pages 19-13. The General Plan does provide for alternative uses of this site and this is discussed iA the Draft EIA (Project Alternatives Section S) and further sections of this report. tnviroasmtal 115aificance In accordance with the California tnvironmsntal Quality Act (CEQA), the 'State CaQA Guidelines', and City Policy X-30 a Draft RIM was prepared on the proposed project. As previously mentioned, the official public review period established by the State Claaringhouss cc -'eludes on March 4, 1983. The Planning Co mission should therefore not maim its recommendations on the project to the City Council until they have had an opportunity to review any comments that may be received. The Citizens 1hviromantal Quality Advisory Cosmittee (COW) will be reviewLag the project and Dealt tilt at its March 1, 1983, Mating and any oammsmts as the project they Right have will be transmitted prior to the Planniay Commission setiona. -16 TO: P1 10 Ccer<ission -6. • 177 The project site is designated "U" (Unclassified). The surrounding parcels are zoned R-2. The applicant has requested approval of Amendment No. 585 to reclassify the property to the R-2 (Two -Family Residential) District. The proposed project is a permitted use within this District designation subject to securing a use permit for condominium uses. The following Table 3.1 compares the requirements of the R-2 District with the characteristics of the proposed project. As part of the subdivision map process, the applicant is requesting an exception to the residential standards relative to the minimum lot area and lot width of corner and interior lots. Front Yard Setbacks The applicant is also requesting the establishment of a 10 foot front yard setback requirement on the lots fronting on 32nd Street (extended) and 33rd Street as a component of the amendment when a 20 foot front yard setback is normally required for the R-2 District. At present there is no front yard setback designation on the districting map for the property, except for a 5 foot front yard designation along the West Balboa frontage of the site. The surrounding R-2 properties have front yard setbacks between 5 and 10 feet. The proposed 10 foot setback requirement would meet or exceed the existing setbacks for adjacent residential properties. As mentioned above, Lot No. 11 is proposed to have a 9 foot front yard setback on 31$t Street, which is consistent with the adjoining residential lots. Actual front yard setbacks shown On the attached site plan are 16 feet for the lots fronting on 32nd street (extended) and 33rd street. The applicant has submitted a revised site plan which shows 10 foot front yard setbacks for the sane lots. The revised site plan, which will be on display at the Planning Commission meeting, provides increased rear setbacks adjacent to the alley which vary betwen 15 feet and 21 feet for Waits fronting on 33rd Street and 19 and 26 feet for the A and a units fronting on 320d Street (extended). Increased Rear Yard Setbacks The applicant has indicated that the increased rear yard setbacks are for the purpose of creating additional onsite guest parking spaces. Staff has no major objections to parking spaces adjacent to the alley, provided said parking will not encroach into the required 2.5 foot rear yard setback. In order to insure that this is accomplished, it is staff's recommendation that any rear setback area that may be used for off-street parking purposes shall have a minimm average depth of 17.5 feet (depth of a 15 foot compact space plus 2.5 feet for the required rear yard setback). It is also suggested that if such setbacks are allowed, the garage doors for said units shall be roll -up or other type approved by the City Traffic Engineer and that such parking spaces be marked for compact cars only. Proposed Tront and Side Yard encroachments The applicant is also requesting modifications to the Zoning Code so as to allow minor building encroachments into required front and side yard setback areas within the dwalopment. Each of the units on rots no. 1.6 have 5 foot aids yard setbacks between lots (4 feet is required). However, the applicant proposes to construct a covered trash enclosure and an outside shower area which encroaches one foot into one of the required 4 foot side yards on each lot (Table 3.2 incorrectly allows the required side yard setbacks to be 3 feet). v a Tii■ 1.0 .. VMUHI 0011FAM M CHART Pft I[-! p MONATiOW 11-i ze" t 1qf Ar.n hark latr COnw I446 i,N1 p, tl. or/N 11. --- 1,t10 PIS1 �i/S --- 1,ti/ 1,tM 1,l/a -- —• fla . I,oSZ f,7aa I,I11 a W widul Wwki► Lots C.er�Y I.olr N 11. N ll. -- it /t -� 11• it --- to a la -- M •-- -.. 9"14M w4m >f h• 0 (a. MOMM d 10 ►taf Ilnf, It A. 0 ku evaWe root h■W n AaloAU=el1■11M Flow Am 14*11 1X beeftble ■ va Net to frofsd 1% trMrS*M ■rf■ (i■ckr11K Xenp.) a a Uses Bkplfr- family �p>!r ImP1•% ri~glrt �r D�plar t1uNw■ 1>rp1■r tkpter Ihyl■r rtpkr w o � Ifallwir � prim "k „ri. i h. 10 1/3 li 3/3 14 I0 11 to lo•• 1/6 1/3 !"i` to to to Rrw 10 muff) r) 1 h, i in. 1 1 1/1 313 see 0 In" Ino, I!'i" rr••• i/s a >f/� 1'i' 3/3 logo 1/1 S ll■Irabal.Ir,MIUM to rl, --- --. — _ _ `. 1000 w. !.. -M «. I�rrlu� t.1 ap■Nr/u"It IA 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 !.0 1.0 !.0 7.0 7.4 1.0 WIND "1* tool orafwll � Mu1a�� • w*►+K+ aMlh 01(rryutar l01 ••+Nl+.arrur6114tlKMruetu►o(s)cm144IT do I TOr Pl*g Comission -8. • Each unit on Lots No. 8-10 have a covered trash area and a washer/dryer area which encroach one foot into the required 4 foot side yard setback, with the exception of one of the units on Lot No.10 which encroach 2 feet into a required 5 foot setback off of West Balboa Boulevard (established on the districting map). Due to the larger rear setback (5 feet) required for Lot No.B, resulting from the lot being adjacent to a 10 foot wide allay, the applicant prnposeB to shift the duplex structure forward so as to maintain the required 5 toot rear yard setback. In doing no, the applicant establishes a 7 foot 6 inch front setback where a 10 foot setback is being proposed as the standard. Staff has no major objections to the proposed encroachments, inasmuch as they are minor in nature and will not obstruct existing views or significantly reduce available light and air to proposed living areas within the development. Traffic Phasin2 Ordinance The applicant has requested approval of a Traffic study prepared pursuant to Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City policy S-1 ("Adminiatrative Guidelines for the Im4Plementation of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance"). A copy of the Traffic Study is provided in the Draft EIR. The Traffic Study indicates that the project will not generate more than one percent of the projected A hour volume on any leg of any critical intersection. The Ordinance and policy provide that when this is determined, the City shall approve the Traffic study. Amendment No. 585 The applicant has requested approval of Amendment No. 585 to reclassify the property to the R-2 (two-family) zoning district. The request is consistent with the City's General Plan, LCP and adjacent zoning designations. However, the General Plan and LCP also provide that the City should consider alternative uses of the site . Possible alternative uses of the site are discussed on pages 75-83 of the Draft EZR. It is the opinion of staff that denial of the requested amendment could be supported by information in the LCP (public access and public facilities) and the General Plan Recreation and Open Space Element (designation of the site as a proposed park). Additionally, the City may not wish to preclude options at this time related to the Balboa Peninsula Shuttle Bus/Trolley Train" study. Tentative Map of Tract No. 11906 The applicant has requested approval of the Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the 1.65 acres of land for residential development, street, and alley poses. The aubdivision will allow the construction of 19 units. The map will also establish grade for the purpose of measuring the height of structures. The applicant has also re"ated exceptions to the subdivision ordinance to allow for less width and area on both interior and corner lots sixes proposed use as indicated bslowt 0 Tot P1* Cossaission -9. is Lot Area in Sts.ft. Lot Widths in Feet Pad Elevation Use 1 2720 31 10.40 Spa 2 4372 47 10.27 dUP 3 4800 55(Average) 9.90 AUP 4 4940 45 9.60 AUP 5 4892 51 10.20 AUP 6 4852 50 10.3; AUP 7 5736 70 N/A N/A 8 2796 48 9.6 AUP 9 2760 48 9.7 AUP 10 2790 48 9.5 AUP 11 4148 65(Average) 9.5 AUP 39,070 (DUP a Duplex: Spas Single Paaily Residence) Use Permit No. 3022 The applicant has also requested approval of Use Permit go. 3022 which will establish nine (9) individual two (2) cunt residential condominium projects. Additionally, the proposal includes modifications to the Zoning Code so as to allow minor building encroachments into required front and side yard setback areas. Staff has no specific concerns with these requests. However, should the Planning Cossission direct staff to prepare findings for denial of the Project or a portion of the project, the need for the modification to the standards is added rationale for project denial. Coastal Msidential DOYslofflant Permit No.1 The applicant has regneatad approval of Coastal !residential Development Permit lio.l. Senate sill 626 (Me110) was approved by the state Legislature on September 15, 1981. This seta Bill added sections 65590 to the Goverment Codet amended section 30213, and added sections 30500.1 and 30607.2 to the Public Aesourcaa Code. It also removed the issue of "affordable housing* from the jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission. Any responsibility for requiring •affordable housings in a development within the Coastal Zone now rests exclusively with local jurisdiction& (i.e. the City of Xewport Beach for this area). In addition, th& City Council adopted Policy p-1 on August 9, 1982. This Council Policy established the administrative procedures for imples�ent- ation of these state Lots, TO: Pi# Co=issinn -10. 0 In the case of new con9truction, Section 65590 (d) requiren tktat "Kew housing deveiopr_ents constructed within the coastal zone shall, where feasible, prcVide 'rousing units for nr•raons and fasulies of low or vv,ggrnte income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code.' Currently the State Dep.irtment of Housinq and Community Development has verified low and moderate incomes as defined by Section 540h3 of the Ftanith and Safety Code to be total annual income as follows: Family Size Income Category 1 2 3 4 5 a 7 8 VERY LOW $10,450 11,950 $13,450 $14,950 $16,150 $17,350 $18,550 $19,750 (helow 50% of median) LarlZR 15,250 17,400 19,550 21,750 23,100 24,450 25,850 27,200 (below 80% of median) MEDIAN 20,950 23,900 26,900 29,900 31,750 3156C, 35,500 37,400 MODERATE 25,100 280700 32,320 35,900 38,100 40,350 42,600 44,850 (below 120• of median) Council Policy P-1 requires that the Planning Director or Planning Commission consider specific development cost information when making a determination of feasibility. That information has been requested. However, the developer has indicated a preference of providing the units for persons and families of low or moderate income to providing the cost information. This developer preference puts the City in the position of requiring the affordable housing on site. The requirement of State law is that units be provided for persons and families whose total annual income does not exceed the limits shown in the Table above. The Administrative Guidelines of Council Policy P-1 state that "the developer and property owner shall enter into an Agreement with the City of Newport Beach which shall include the following provisions, a. A description of the project, including its location and the number of units to be constructed if the property is to be developed for residential purposes: b. A statement of the number of units designated for persons of low or moderate incoos, c. A coAaiteent that the low and moderate income housing units shall be provided, and available for occupancy, within three years hro>r the date upon which the project is approved] d. A comitment that the Agreement be recordedl 0 T03 Pla*Ccmission -11. e. The provision of a surety bond, or other instrument guaranteeing the provision of units in an amount to be determined by the Planning Director, but not less than two times the cost of providing the units." Implementation Plan f of Program Objective 7 of the Housing Element reads as follows: "f. For new developments proposed in the Coastal Zone, thy, City shall require the provision of housing affordable to Persons or families of low and moderate income, where feasible. The units shall be located on -site where feasible, or off -site and inside the Coastal Zone, or off -site and within three (3) miles of the Coastal Zone (within the City). Feasibility will be determined in accordance with Goverment Code 65900. The number of units will be determined in accordance with the other provisions of this Housing Element.• Performance Objective 2-of the housing Element requires the City to encourage the housing industry to allocate at least 10% of the annual production to affordable housing for low and moderate income households. Based on the Housing Element standard of 10%, Z of the 19 units should be provided for persons and families of low or moderate income as defined by Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. Park Dedication The applicant has indicated that he wishes to meet the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance through the Dedication Ordinance (PDO), Chapter 19.5 as a condition of a final subdivision ma or pay a fee in lieu thereof, or both, recreation purposes at the time and in PDO. Eased on a 19 unit project and required to pray approximately $90,739.75. Issues 0 payment of in -lieu fees. The Park of the Municipal Code, requires that p, the subdivider shall dedicate land at the option of the City, for park or accordance with the provision of the existing fees the applicant will be It is the opinion of staff that there are several issues related to the proposed project. It would be greatly appreciated by staff if the Planning pu Ccomission could review the project, open the blic hearing take testimony fros those wishing to testify, give staff direction on each of the following issues and oontinne the project to the Planning Comrission meeting of March 10, 19i3. , Land Use The Draft EIA explores several alternative uses for the project sit*. The' General Plan and LCP would allow the site to be developed for several different land uses including residential, a public park, public parking or other public service facility uses, and other similar uses consistent with the Intent of the General plan and LCP. During the fall of 1992 the City Council and Parks, Machos and Recreation Cosnission reviewed the use of the property for park purposes. The City Council has taken no formal action to either acquire the property or zomm it from consideration for use as a park (see attacked staff report). I P1j* Commission -12. Density The applicant has requested approval of 19 units on the 1.65 4cre site. The requirements of the R-2 District provide that interior lots contain 5,000 sq.ft. of land area with lot widths of 50 feet and corner lots be 6,000 sq.ft. with lot widths of 60 feet. The applicant has requested the waiver of theme restrictions. As previously discussed, the Planning Commission may be of the opinion that new development needs to meet these standards. The offset of meeting the standards would be to reduce the number of units (permitted on the site. However, the Planning Commission may feel that the proposed subdivision is not similar in density and that a higher density project wrp4ld be more in keeping with adjacent property. This could be accomplished with lot sizes more closely approaching those of adjacent properties. Design The applicant's proposed design attempts to meet the R-2 "Two -Family" District requirements and provide for the extension of Seashore Drive. As previously discussed, the Planning Commission may not wish to recommend a waiver of the R-2 District development standards. Additionally, the Planning Commission may or may not wish to recommend the extension of Seashore Drivo to West Balboa Boulevard. While City staff supports this extension, there is no City requirement for its extension. Affordable Housing State Law and Council Policy P-1 both lack detail in the area of specific project requirements. The City has the opportunity to define detailed unit requirements or allow the developer the latitude of choice on how the requirement of providing units for low or moderate income families will be fulfilled. If desired, the City could require that the units be built and turned over to the Orange County Housing Corporation or to the City for management. The units could also be made subject to a grant deed restriction as a means of control. Other conditions which the City could consider controlling ores unit size, total purchase price, down payment, tenure (ownership vs. rental), method of disposition (first come, first serve, lottery, etc.), the qualification or verification that occupants meet the required conditions, the terms over which the units will be occupied by low or moderate income persons or families, resale, and the method of final disposition of the units if necessary. As the conditions become more detailed, the amount of management and control required to administer the units increases. Increased financial costa would also be associated with the increased administration. The agency or individual expected to bear these costs would vary with the assignment of responsibility' for administration of the development conditions. A Coastal Residential Development Affordable Housing Agreement will need to be a condition of any project approval. PLANNING DEPARTKINT JAM D. HEWIC335 , Director By !— Fred Talarico, tmriroresntal Coordinator 93 Mtn P1ao Comission -13. • Attachments: 1. Vraft ElR (Previouuly Distributed) 2. Policy P-1 3. Staff Report: City Manaqer to City council 11-22-82 4. Staff Reports City Council 10-12-82 5. Memo: Ronald A. Whitley 9-15-8o 6. Report: P.B. r. R. Comission 11-9-82 7. vicinity Map 6 1/ 0 P-1 ATTACHMENT 2 ADKINISTRATIVE CUIDELINES FOR THE IHPLEKENTATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW RELATIVE TO LAM AND MODERATE INCO M HOUSING WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE - PaRe l BACKGROUND The City of Newport Beach has the responsibility for thr adainistru- tion of provisions of State law relative to the demolition and con- version of existing low and moderate income residential units within the Coastal Zone. (Chapter 1007, Statutes of 1981, Government Code Section 65900 at seq.) This Council Policy establishes the Administrative Guidelines and Implewwtation procedures to be used by the City of Newport Beach in administering the provisions of the State law referenced above. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach has, by virtue of the adoption of this policy, determined that it is not feasible to require replacement housing units for low and moderate income pwrsons for pro- jects involving the conversion or demolition of one or more structures located upon any parcel within the City of Newport Beach containing two or fewer residential units. The City Council finds that replacement housing for projects involving two or fewer units is not feasible due to the high cost of land within the City of Newport Beach, the limited number of substandard housing units that can be rehabilitated and the negligible iwpact that such conversions or dmolitions have on the low and moderate income housing opportunities within the City of Newport Beach. I GENERAL RULES I. Axempt Projects This policy shall not apply to the following projects: a. Projects not located within the Coastal 7.one as estab- lished pursuant to the Coastal Act of 1976 and as sub- sequently ascended; b• The conversion or demolition of a residential structure on any single parcel which contains two or fewer resi- dential units; c. The conversion or demolition of a residential structure for purposes of a non-residential use which is either "coastally dependent" or "coestally related" as those terms are defined in the Coastal Act of 1976, as amended, and which non-residential use is consistrot with the app- licable local Coastal Plan designation; ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES FOR THE IHPI.kNEh7ATIO-.q OF THE PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW RELATIVE TO LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING WITHIN THE COASTAL ?.ONE - Page 2 d. Demolition of any structure which has been declared to be, or constitutes a public nuisance, purniu,nt to the provisions of Division 13 of the Health 1. Safety Code of the State of California or any Ordinance of the City of Newport Beach enacted pursuant thereto. II DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this policy, the following words and terms shall be defined as follows: 1. "Conversion" shall mean any change in the form "f rn+nership of any residential structure, including, but not limited to, a change in ownership to a condominium, stock cooperative, cooperative, community apartment, timeshare or similar form of ownership, such that the right to occupy the structure is not based upon a rental or lease agreement, written or oral, rather, based upon the purchase of the right to occupy 01 some or all of the structure, for a portion of some or all of the structure, during a portion or all of the year, or for a period of years or in perpetuity, or any change from a resi- dential use to a non-residential use; 2. "Demolition" shall swan the destruction or tearing down of a residential structure which has been found feasible for reten- tion, pursuant to Section 30612 of the Public Resources Code; 3. "feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technical factors; 4. "Replacement Unit" shall mean a residential structure suitable, in terms of size and other characteristics, for occupancy by the saw number of low or moderate income persons that occupied the converted or demolished unit. 5. "Low Income" shall be defined as set forth in 550093 of the Goverment Code of the State of California; 6. Noderate Income" shall be defined as set forth in $50093 of the Government Code of the State of California; ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES FOR THE IHP[EKENPATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF STATE Ulu RELATIVE To LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING WITHIN THE COASTAL 7.ONE - Page 3 7. "Family" shall be defined as persons related by blood, mar- riare. formal adoption or those persons living together by virtue of economic. social and psychological bonds; 8. "lief+ Housing Development" shall be def fined to md-ors the con- struction, on previously occupied by two or lean residential units. or land previously occupied by two or more mobile homes, of three or more residential units. 9. "Planning Director" shall include: the Planning Director of the City of Newport Beach and all employees of the Planning Depart- ment to whom the Planning Department has delegated. orally or in writing, the performance of duties required by these Guide- lines. III ADMINISTiIATIVE PROCEDURES FOR �. CONVERSIONS AND DEMOLITIONS The procedures for processing requests for the approval of this con- version or demolition of residential structures located within the Coastal Zone shall be as follows: I. Application for the approval of the conversion or demolition of residential structures located within the Coastal Zone shall be made to the Plannin= Department on a form provided by that department. The Applicant shall provide the following information: a. The address of the property for which approval is sought; b. A legal description of the property for which approval is sought; C. The number of residential units then in existence on the property; d. The maximum number of residential units on the property within the last 12 months; e. The number of residential units to be constructed, or, if no residential units are to be constructed, the nature of the use to which the property will be put upon conversion .. or demolition; ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLFHESTATIOS OF THE PROVISIONS OF STATE. LAW RELATIVE TO LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING WIT11IN THE COASTAL ZONE - Pa►Ke 4 f. The name, buulnesn addre:is, residence addri-in,rer.1- dence phone number, business phone number and such other information that would asbist the (;11 '/ it[ Newport Beach in obtaining financial infornuitlion, of each person then residing, on a permanent hsinlK or for more than 45 consecutive days, in structuren located on the property for which approval is sought; g. The name, business address, resident's addren s, resi- dent's phone number, busineax phone number, and such other information of Applicant that would unnist the City of Newport Beach in obtaining financial Informa- tion as to each person Who has resided, on a permanent basis or for more than 45 consecutive duyn In any of the structures located on the property withlit the 12 months immediately preceding the date on which the Application is filed; h. The court name, court address, case: number, case name, as well as all relative information, with respect to any legal action filed by, or on behalf of, the Applicant, and against any current tenant or any person who, within the 12 months immediately preceding the date on which the Application is filed, has resided, on a permanent basis or for more than 45 consecutive days, within any of the structures located on the property for which approval is sought within the past 12 months; i. Such other information as the Planning Director may con- sider necessary to the implementation of these Guidelines or the provision of State Law relative to the conversion or demolition of residential structures located within the coastal zone, which are occupied by low and moderate income persons. J. At the time the Application is filed, the Applicant shall pay a fee of $750.00, or $250.00 per each residential unit to be converted or demolished, whichever is greater, said fee to defray the administrative costs and expenses incurred by the City of Newport Beach in administering the provisions of these Guidelines and section 65900 et seq of the Goverrownt Code. The Planning Commission may approve a reduction in fees consistent with processing City cost for project of 40 units or more; i '_ • P_1 • ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW RELATIVE TO LOOT AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING WITHIN THE COASTAL ZON$ - Page 5 k. The project proposed by Applicant shall not be pro- cessed by the City of Newport BeaCh until much tiau..�s all informatlon required by thE.sL' Guidellnan lion been provided to the Planning Director. 1. Upon receipt of the Application and appropriate fees, the Planning Director shall cause an Investigation to be comenced to determine the following: (i} Whether the project is exempt under the provisions of these administrative Guide- lines; (11) Whether any person of low or nwderote income is presently occupying any residential unit located on the property for which approval is sought; (liI) Whether any person of low or moderate intone has, within the 12 months immediately preceding the date on which the Application is filed, occupied any of the residential units on the property for which approval is sought; (iv) The circumstances pursuant to which the tenancy of any person of low or moderate income was terminated during the 12 months Immediately preceding the date on which the application is filed; (v) With respect to property containing more than one structure, and more than three but less than 10 dwelling units, whether, given the cir- cumstances of the project, a requirement for re- placement of units occupied by low or moderate income persons is feasible; NO In the event of a conversion or demolition of any residential structure for purposes of a non- residential use which is not coastally dependent, as defined in Section 30101 of the Public Resour- ces Code, whether a residential use at that lo- cation is no longer feasible. 2. The Planning Director, after conducting the investigation set forth above, shall notify Applicant of the determination and Applicant's rights to appeal, by certified mail. • P_1 ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF STATE l W RELATIVE TO LW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING WITHIN THE COASTAL 'LONE - Page 6 3. Upon final determination as to the number of replace- ment units to be provided by Applicant, Applicant shall provide the Planning Director, on a form to be prepared by the Planning Depart- ment, with the following informationi a. Whether replacement units shall be made available through new construction, conversion of non-residen- tial structures to residential use, substantial re- habilitation of substandard dwelling units (as defined in $17910 st seq of the Health and Safety Code) through the provision of existing units not currently affordable by low or moderate income persons, by giving existing low and moderate income twnants the right to lease units on -site at affordable rates, or by any combination of the above; b. The location of the replacement units and, if those units are not located within the Coastal Zone, all of the facts and circumstances upon which the Applicant relies to support his contention that it is not feasible to provide replacement units within the Coastal Zoos; c. Information relative to the size, configuration and manner of construction of the units, together with all other information as to the amenities found within the replacement units. 4. The Planning Director shall conduct an investigation to determine the suitability of the replacement units and shall approve the replacom mt units if: a. The replacement units provide -housing opportunities similar to those provided by the dwelling units con- verted or that are demolished; b. The number of replacement units is equal to the number of dwelling units proposed for conversion or demolition which are occupied by persons or families of low or moderate income. or were occupied by persons or families of low or moderate income who weirs evicted within the past 12 months; S. Upon a final determination as to the number and location of repLwAmwnt units, said prior to, or concurrently with. giving the approval to Applicant. to convert or demolish the units, Applicant and the City of Bewpart Beach shall eater into an Agreement, prepared by and approved as 'J to form by the, City Attorney, which shall include the following provisions: ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLE?iENTAT161i OF THE PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW RELATIVE TO LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE - Page 7 a. A description of the project, including Lt% Location and the number of units to be developed, If the property is to be developed for residential purpoauu; b. A description of the replacement units to be provided, specifying their size, number and location; c. A commitment that the replacement units be affordable to persons of low or moderate income; d. That the replacement units shall be provided, and avail- able for occupancy, within three years from the date upon which the approval for the conversion or demolition was granted; e. A commitment that the Agreement be recorded; f. The provision of a surety bond, or other instrument guaranteeing the provision of replacement units in an amount to be determined by the Planning Director, but not less than two time the coat of providing the replacement units. IV ADKINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING 1IF31 DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE In the event that a new housing development is proposed within the Coastal Zone. the procedures set forth shall apply: I. The property owner and/or developer shall file an application for a Development Permit with the Planning Department of the City of Newport beach on forms provided by the Planning Department. An Application for Development Peralt shall be accompanied by a fee of $730.00, or $250.00 per each residential unit to be constructed, whichever is greater, said fee to defray the adainistrative costs and expenses incurred by the City of Newport Beach in adainiatering the provisions of these Guidelines and State low. The Planaiag Cosieeion may approve a reduction in the fees for projects in- volving 40 or more residential units; ADZIINISTRAYIVE GUIDELINES FOR THE IHPLEM..EtiTATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW RELATIVE TO LOW AND MODERATE INCO1iE HOUSING WITHIN THE COASTAL, ZONE - Page 8 2. The Planning Director shall determine whether the proposed project is exempt from these Guidelines as provided above; 3. If the project is determined not to be exempt from the pro- visions of these Guidelines, the Planning Director shall advise the Appli- cant of the requirements of these Guidelines and, in the event that the proposed project is one which requires an approval by the Planning Commission, the project, including the Development Permit, shall be referred to the Planning Commission of the City of Newport beach for review and decision; 4. The Planning Director, or the Planning Commission, in the case of a project requiring Commission approval shall determine the feas- ibility of requiring the inclusion of dwelling units affordable by persons or families of low or moderate income within the project and on the project site. If it is determined not to be feasible to provide low and moderate income housing on site, the Planning Director, or the Planning Commission, where appropriate, shall determine whether it is feasible to provide such housing at another location within the City of Newport Beach, and within the Coastal Zone, or within three miles of the Coastal Zone boundary; S. In evaluating the feasibility of providing affordable units as a part of the now housing development, the Planning Commission, or Planning Director, shall consider the following factors: a. The cost of the proposed development, both with and without the provision of affordable units; b. The return on investment provided by the development, both with and without the provision of affordable units; C. The effect upon costs and return on investment of development incentives provided by the City, such as the modification of zoning and subdivision requirements, accelerated processing of required applications, the waiver of appropriate fees, and the offer of density bo- nuses; and d. The social, technical, environmental and related problems associated with the provision of affordable housing units. b. When it is determined that provision of residential units, affordable by persons of low or moderate income, is feasible, the Planning Commission, or Planning Director shall make a determination as to the number of affordable units which shall be provided. The determinstion as to the number of units to be provided shall, again, take into account the factors considered In the determination of feasibility, including, but not limited to, the cost ✓ of providing affordable units. the return on investment provided by the develop- ment and the extent to which the cost and return on investment have been affect- ed by development incentives granted by the City of Newport Beach, and the mi . P-1 ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLEKExIATIOM OF THE PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW RELATIVE TO LOW AND MODERATE INC(ME HMSING WITHIN THE COASTAL ZOKE - Page 9 provisions of the Bowing Elements of the City of Newport Beach. 7. When a proposed new development in required to provide housing units affordable by persons or families of low or moderate income, the developer and property owner shall enter into an Agreement with the City of Newport Beach which shall include the following provisions; a. A description of the project, including its location and the number of units to be constructed if the property is to be developed for residential purposes; b. A statement of the number of units designated for per- sons of low or moderate Income; c. A commitment that the low and moderate income housing units shall be provided, and available for occupancy, within three years from the date upon which the pro- ject is approved; d. A cotaitun t that the Agreement be recorded; e. The prevision of a surety bond, or other instrument guaranteeing the provision of units in an amount to be determined by the Planning Director, but not lees than two time the cost of providing the units. V APPEALS 1. Deterld"tions of the Planning Director or Planning CoMission pursuant to this policy and these Guidelines, shall be final 10 days after notice of the determination as deposited in the UGlted States Post Office by certified ,rail, or personally served upon the Applicant, ualeas, within that period, Applicant files with the City Clark of the City of Newport ,each, a statement addressed to the City Council of the City of Nwrport leach, indicating Appli- cant$a ints"ion to appeal, and setting forth the facts mad circus at&=" regarding the action or determination that is the subject of the appeal. The City Clark shall then notify the Applicant, in writing, of the tip and place set for the bearing of the appesl. P-1 ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION Of THE PROVISIONS OIL STATE LAW RELATIVE TO LOW AXD MODERATE INCOME HOUSING WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE - Page 10 The City Council slay hear the appeal, or the City Council may delegate the responsibility for conducting the hearing to a hearing officer, who shall conduct the hearing, receive all relevant evidence, and who shall prepare and subtit to the City Council, written findings and recomendations. The City Council shall, within 30 days frog the date on which the hearing is held, or within 30 days frost the date on which written findings and recommendations are received from the hearing officer, render its decision on the appeal. Adopted - Aognst 9, 1982 ti ATI'ACHrilclrr s CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER November 22, 1982 STUDY SESSION TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ITEM N0, FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: VACANT 32ND STREET PARCEL Background On October 12, 1982 the City Council reviewed the attached report regarding the vacant Southern Pacific parcel located southerly of Balboa Boulevard at 32nd Street. Based upon its review of the subject report, the Council gave the following instructions to staff: 1. Contact the owner and indicate that the City has a preliminary interest in the parcel. Attempt to make a determination as to 'asking price." 2. Determine whether there is an acquisition. y state money available for park 3. Determine the current position of the P.B.&R. Commission with respect to acquisition of the parcel for park purposes. I. Determine the number of off-street parking spaces which the parcel could accommodate. Review of Discussions With Southern Pacific Immdiately subsequent to the October 12th meeting, staff contacted the appropriate.representatives of Southern Pacific and indicated that the City had a "preliminary interest" in the parcel for ssi ble use as a park, parking lot or some other public use. Staff hasbeen informed that Southern pacific has established a prelimi- nary range of value at somewhere between $1.5 and $3 million depending, of course, upon development potential and related factors. Furthermore, staff was advised that Southern Pacific had been working with a potential buyer of the Property who had sub- mitted an offer to Purchase. At a meeting held with planning staff during the week of October 12th, however, the potential buyer had been informed that his initial 4evelopment plan was far too intense to be compatible with the City's General Plan or L.C.P. As a result of this meeting, the potential buyer revised his plans and svbaitted thew again to the Planning Department for preliminary • • TO: PAYOR MM CITY CDUMC I L - Page TWO review. The revised plans were, according to the Planning Depart- oent, such scaled down and more compatible with existing City regulations. In developing the revised plans, the potential buyer has also submitted a revised offer to Soutbsrn Pacific. The representative of Southern Pacific with which staff had been dealing indicated that in fairness to the potential buyer, he Mould not divulge the now offer. Staff Was, of course, not in a position to make an offer of its awn since the Council had only authorised a 'preliminary indication of interest• and since the possible uses of the property have not been thoroughly reviewed by the Council or a potential value established for these uses. As of November 15th, staff was informed that Southern pacific we still in the process of evaluating the revised offer submitted by the potential buyer. It has been indicated that Southern Pacific is interested in selling the property before the and of the calendar year. Use of the Parcel„ for Park Attachm nt 2 is a report from the Parks, Beach" and Recreation Director concerning the use of the 32nd Street parcel for park purposes. The report begins by indicating that no funds are currently available on a grant basis for purchase of the subject property and that free an outright purchase standpoint the 32nd Street parcel retains a low ranking on the P, B i R COMMission Priority list. The report concludes by outlining a possible alternative approach to acquisition which would involve the sub- division and sale of the 38th Street park property. The funds generated oonld, it is suggested, be wee to finance purchase of the 32nd Street parcel. This latter appasecb, while novel, may be unrealistic given the current status of the negotiations between Soutbarn Pacific and the potential buyer, coupled With Southern Pacifio's desire to sell the property before the end of the calendar Yew. Use of the parcel as a Parkins Lot The Traffic Ingineering Division has analyzed the parcel With respect to potential use as a parking lot. Two possible alterna- tives have been developed. The first which would involve completion Of Seashare derive dad a 32nd Street oonrction provides for 130 spaces. The second which does not invOlva the above circulation is and �+ tom: PrCV� oo for rtisuinq access off o! Balboa loalevard and 164 ■papas. Iisps are attaobsd (Att. 3 and 4) CcooIasi" In 000clusion, the continuing availability of the vacant 32nd Street Parcel is questionable given the stator of negotiations between Southern Pacific and' a potential de+ralopar. As a result of Its revAW of this attar on Movembez 22ad it is assumed that the vi�shsoilwill give fastbw direction to staff regarding how it to Prooeed. ter, �i I �i TO: MYOR AND CITY COUNCIL - Page ?hree ROBZRT L. KM City Xanager RLMzWB: job Attachisent• s q`l 0 ,MV4 1 V n n ' • City Council Meetin4etober 12, 1982 Study Session Agenda Ite= no. r•(C)I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM$ Planning Department SUBJECT: vacant 32nd Street Parcel Discussion The vacant Southern Pacific parcel southerly of Balboa Boulevard at 32nd Street is currently being advertised as available for purchase. The t 1.5 acre site is currently zoned Unclassified, is designated "Two -Family Residential" in the General Plan Land Use Element and the Local Coastal Program and is designated as a future neighborhood park site in the General Plan Recreation and Open Space Element. During preparation of the City's Local Coastal Program Land use Plan (in September 1980), the Planning Commission discussed the issue of future uses for this parcel. The Planning Commission referred the matter to the Parks, JBeaches and Recreation Commission who reconumnded that the City,"... not pursue acquisition of that "32nd Street Parcel for recreational purposes ands change the 'Recreational and Environmental open Space' Local Coastal Plan designation for the site." It was the unanimous feeling of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission (at that time) that the probable high price of the property, and its small size fray a park davelopmant standpoint would hot place it high on a priority list. Consistent with this reaommsndation, the Planning Commission and City Council ultimately approved the Local Coastal Programs Land Use Plan with this site designated for 'Two -gaily Residential' uses. Sings this is one of very few large vacant parcels near the beach, there is potential for a number of public uses as follewst 1. Public park - The site is shaven on the ftecrsation and open Space clement of the General Plan for a future neighborhood park. The Parks, beaches and Recreation Commission has, however, indicated a wry lw priority !or acquisition of this site for public park purposes (see attached maim) 2. Public parking - The Local Coastal Program states 'The City shall locate and develop now public parking. XWLsstsntation is dependent upon the City's financial ability to do so." ♦ � A, WIN f 0 City Counci This site could be used t4 develup a puolic parAir,q lot for beach visitors. This property is one of very few vacant parcels in close proximity to the highly used west Newport bo ach areas. i. Public transit terminal - The City has, in the LCP, indicated a goal of establishing a comprehensive transit system. This site could be used as a transit/shuttle terminal to serve the Balboa Peninsula and West Newport Areas. 4. Public restrooms - Public restrooms could be provided on the site in conjunction with any of the above uses. The Public works Department has planned portions of the site far the possible extension of Seashore Drive to the intersection of 32nd Street and Balboa boulevard. The attached exhibits indicate the possible alignment of this roadway and the ownership of potential right-of-way areas required for the extension. If the City Council is interested in any of the public oriented uses listed above or any other uses, staff will pursue the issue further. We have contacted the sales representative and the asking price for the parcel is $1.82 million. Respectfully sube►itted, PLANNING UPARTM4EW JAKLS D. MWICKn, Director By. - lama, pw" 4;. -- PATRICIA L. Senior Planner FLIT ram Attachments r r I. - � ATTM`WW.fiT 5 September 15, 198o TO: PATRICIA TEMPLE, SENIOR PLANNER FROM: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director SUBJECT: 32nd STREET PARCEL RECONKNOATION: Do not pursue acquisition of the 32nd Street Parcel for recreational purposes and; change the "Recreational and Enviromental Open Space" Local Coastal Plan designation for the site. DISCUSSION: The Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission considered the possibilities of acquiring the ,mentioned property at their meeting of September 9, 1980. Proposed uses, need and possible purchase price were factors discussed with the unanimous feeling of the Commission that the high price of the Property, and its small size fray a park development standpoint would not plan it high on a priority list. f& a 4 V — Ronald A. Ilhitley RAW:= 0 P-A 7 0 • _f 32nd Street Parcel CITY —OWNED RIGHTS —OE —WAY good DEDICATION NEEDED FOR POTEINTIAL SEASHORE DRIVE EXTENSION CITY —OWNED, BUTPOTENTIAL EXCESS RIGHT— OF —WAY _j OCEAN FRONT 00,1@01 00a r, f• r• 0 i• 16 1» 0 r- tO e z (3) 0 0 0 @ MALMOA •OULiVAND ,r w t 3AW �'18F, • 'ON lop u ' Q Of • 0 A^Mc1WNT 6 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Parks, Beaches b Recreation Department Y DATE: November 9, 1982 TO: Gerry J. Bolint, Assistant to the City Manager FROM: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director SUBJECT: 32nd Street Parcel Your request of October 18, 1982 to provide input on the vacant 32nd Street Parcel has resulted in the following: 1. In contacting the State Department of Parks and Recreation, there appears to be no funds available on a grant basis for the acquisition of the property. 2. The Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission and staff, at their meeting of November 2, 1982, felt that an outright purchase of the property for park purposes would still be of low priority as it relates to our total park acquisition and development long range plan. 3. As a result of discussion on this matter, and as proposed by Margo Skiiling, an interesting, yet complex, alternative has been suggested. As the 38th Street Park will be con- siderably reduced due to the proposed widening of Balboa Blvd., this facility will be severely impacted and its ability to remain a viable park site is questionable. As the 38th Street Park is only four blocks from the subject 32nd Street Parcel, it is suggested that the remnant of 38th Street Park be subdivided and sold to generate sufficient funds for acquisition of the 32nd Street Parcel. Also, as the road widening project has certain conditions for refurbish- ment and relocation of park amenities to 38th Street Park, these funds could be directed to development of 32nd Street. If this alternative is a possibility, the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission has established a sub -committee to pursue the feasibility of the proposal. Commission minutes are attached that indicate the described actions. Also, during discussion of the matter, it was pointed out by the Commission that the subject property has additional multi -use values, i.e., parking, shuttle location, restrooms. If there are any questions regarding the commission or staff recommendations, please feel free to call. RA�t:df Ronaldt ey *V Enc. ON ATTACHMT 7 AMENDMENT NO. Sas T�tAF�rt �TvVY t `I Z i� Q 1. ti I T i u i �U u W a Z lTi-V ust r'9RM,r No. 30zz TENTATIVE TjCA+C'r Noa 1l9o(o Planning Commission !'Meeting !larch 24,�1903 Agenda Items No. -I, 2, 3, 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TOT Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Amendment No. 585 (Continued Public Hearin ) Request to consider an amendment to a portion of Districting Map Mo. 3 so as to reclassify property from the Unclassified District to the R-2 District. In addition, the applicant proposes to establish 10 foot front yard setbacks on said Districting Map for lot frontages adjacent to 32nd Street (extended) and 33rd Street and a 9 foot front yard setback on 31st Street. The proposal also includes the acceptance of an Environmental Impact Report. AND Traffic Stud (Continued Public Hearing) Request to consider a Traffic Study in conjunction with the construction of nineteen residential units. AND Use Permit No. 3022 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of nine individual two -unit residential condominium projects and related garages, on property proposed for rezoning to the R-2 District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow minor building encroach"nts into the required front and side yard setback areas. AND Tentative Map of Tract No. 11906 (Continued Pub: Hearino) Request to subdivide 1.65 acres of land into nine lots for residential condominium development, one lot for residential duplex development and one lot for single family residential development. The application also includes a request for exceptions to the Subdivision Code so as to allow the creation of corner lots containing less than 60 foot widths and less than 6,000 square feet in land area, and interior lots containing less than SO foot widths and less than 5,000 square /D7' TU: Ing Commission -2. 4F feet in land area. The proposal also includes a request to establish grades for the purpose of measuring heights of proposed buildings. The request also includes the extension of Seashore Drive from 33rd Street to Balboa boulevard and the extension of two existing alloys. LOCATIONS portions of Blocks 31 and 32 of the Lake Tract, located at 120 32nd Street, on the southwesterly side of West Balboa Boulevard between 31st Street and 33rd Street, in West Newport. ZONE: Unclassified APPLICANT: Max Morgan, Newport Beach O IER: Sane as applicant ENGINEER: Donald E. Stevens, Costa Mesa Recommendation At its Greeting of February 24, 1983 the Planning COmmisalon continued these items to its meeting of /larch 24, 1983. The applicant now wishes these items be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 21, 1983 in order for the Citizens Environmental Quality Advisory Committee to complete their review and comment and response on this project. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JMES D. HEWICKER, Director B Fred Talar co, Environmental Coordinator FT:tn s • MCDoNOUG11. fiot.tAND r..I•. rlDo+o..a+ .a tt. fo00..A0 A /Ad/[Pf l(}MAL CON /6AA I�p �. ..Fogg t _0%LArP .•c-.t► / .oa.fll ATTORNEYS P..49 / .L.<. ai. 9tOrr(i► 04/.0.1 W./ SFr w.rlti r7 L•/,Ct J01tM L COOr.1 I• ♦tr/H r Art1 ]iod •AAK CENTrA oAlv[. sWile 713 SSS :. 70k M.L_- S..Ir 140 r•L l�.r• uO. L,Yyf J. /O�i Ar f 7tpw r0/ DA�a• 1►CSr,sfOpa Pars.f • rP•L► COSTA ►4[1A,CA1.+/O$W9Y1& 97626 1.4..M9rIO CAL,roeq,A HP -a iLrtA � YUA01► .'+1.L�.1 I tVfK. (714) iso-+itfd 11-41044•r►oo 1IK..rP w r,irOL• f+S.A+ P -W" ,. •t �Lr wt►[A rp D6rA.0 C./00at ivw /PArCt SCN, A._....s.ptir Ptr.Po a PP.ror 0""a coat PLa.t., parr March 17, 1983 A�-�►�.11;. OA/r ► Lav".0P1 0. w Ian" . 40 O S4..A/o.16 +art/ rl,[Lir aV.frt r osrr,s o are, L r 001r Pirr1 w Pi WI• D.r,D Sr14r . tOurP Jar It oA . , ` 0 JOfr L CAfO�gm tA . - a/Kt w00wOv1. C"It t /OWUL � _.. ~ w,LLAr L OwiL/ O wL►/An Ot Mr,rp MA/. J MV46" SAAA*" D ■DfiMt F / .. i ., �� ,I ,1,,� JAIH1 P OrtAL Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Amendment No. 585, 'traffic Studyl _QpLe .Permit No. 3022 Ten tive a oL_Ukgt_V9z„ 1)906, coastal R si ential Develomytot UW Now11..and Certic o„�„o EIR JResident1199n&�m_iWitG Project) Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: On behalf of Max Morgan, applicant for the above - referenced permits and approvals, I am requesting that the Planning Commission continue consideration of these :natters from their meeting of March 24, 1983 to their regular held meeting on April 21, 1983. The reason for requesting this continuance is to allow the necessary time for the City's Citizens Environmental Quality Advisory Committee to review and make its recomendation on the proposed residential condominium project. By this request for continuance, Mr. Morgan is also waiving the time limits provisions in the Subdivision Map Act and in Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code relating to the filing and review by the Planning Commission of a tentative crap. veY1"1 ruly very rs, Dennis D. O'Neil DDO:dj cc: Mr. Max Morgan • TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: TRACT NO. 11906 . 0, -"--* -_- April 20. 1983 The Public Works Department recommends that Tract No. 11906 be denied as it is proposed, with a green belt instead of the street extensions of Seashore Drive and 32nd Street. The extensions of Seashore Drive and 32nd Street are needed both to serve the proposed tract as well as to improve the circulation of traffic in the area. To provide public services (fire, police and trash collection), a street is needed in front of the new residential units. Also additional on - street parking would be provided with the street extension. The street extensions would reduce the number of cars using 33rd Street to turn onto or cross Balboa Boulevard. Due to the narrow parkway width (S feet) on Balboa Boulevard, a car on 33rd Street has difficulty get- ting a clear view of oncoming traffic along Balboa Boulevard. Also, the street extensions would provide an outlet for the short section of 32nd Street between the proposed tract and the ocean front. This should benefit those residents on 32nd Street. It will greatly improve the ability of fire equipment to get to those residences. Some concerns have been expressed by West Newporters that once Seashore Drive is extended to meet 32nd Street. the City will change Seashore Drive back to a two-way street. Seashore Drive was changed to a one-way street by the City Council at the request of the West Newport residents. The one- way street system seen to be working well. It is not anticipated that any changes to the status of Seashore Drive Mould be made by the City Council unless West Newport residents were to request a change. The extensions of Seashore Drive and 32nd Street as previously proposed would be designed in such a way as to be more suited to parking and one-way use, than to two-way use. Most of the users of Seashore Drive and 33rd Street turn right at Balboa Boulevard and pass through the Balboa Boulevard/32nd Street intersection. Why not give them a direct route and eliminate an unnecessary turning movement with sight distance problems? During further review of the circulation in the tract, it was noticed that vehicles exiting the proposed alley easterly of 32nd Street may try to turn left onto Balboa Boulevard. Due to the alley's close proximity to 32nd Street and the fairly heavy use of the median area by people turning //o April 20, 1983 Subject Tract No. 11906 Page 2 left into the shopping center. left turns out of the alley should be pro- hibited. To accomplish this it is suggested that the developer be required to install a raised median in Balboa Boulevard between 32nd Street and the shopping center drive. left turns into the shopping center from Balboa Boulevard would still be allowed. It is recommended that the following con- dition be added: That a raised median be installed in Balboa Boulevard between 32nd Street and the shopping center drive. The design is to be approved by the Public works Department. c. Don Webb City Engineer DW : j d • CORRESPOHAEKE /L/O 7 • April 14, 1983 Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Attention: Jerry King, Chairman, Planning Commission Reference: Proposed condominium development between 32nd and 33rd St., Balboa Blvd. and Seashore Dr. by Mr. Max Morgan Dear Mr. King: APR 181983. i have not been able to attend your last few meetings because of recent hip surgery, however, 1 am concerned about a small, but to me important aspect of the proposed condominium development which lies immediately adjacent to my residence at 122 33rd St. (Lots 14 and 15, Block 32). Several weeks ago Mr. Max Morgan came to me, specifically to advise me that the curved Northerly boundary of the (old Southern Pacifica property line, on which he now proposes to build a wall, would probably run very close to the Southerly corner of my house. The house was built in 1929, and the exact location of the curved property line is difficult to deter- mine. I understand that Mr. Al Kauffman of 112 32nd St. (Lot 12, Block 31) has Approached the commission regarding the proposed bike trail which would lie directly against his house, and that a slight realignment of Seashore Drive is contemplated in order to allow a little room between the structure and the trail. I respectfully request that, although adequate clearance may now exist, such consideration be given to the much less involved, minor alignment of the Northerly boundary wall of Mr. Morgan's development, in order to assure a minimum of three feet of separation between the wail and the Southerly corner of my house. The existing walkway around this side of the house is the only street access to my fenced in back yard. I have appreciated its use for 28 years, and I would hate to lose it. Thank you for the comission's attention and Mr. Morgan's cooperation in this matter of inches which means so much to me. i cc: Mr. Max Morgan Very truly yours, Mrs. W. K. Davis r z2- ssRv ST. JOW FORT 469WN, CA q LG63 bPD:f: WZ %r,. A9 npDIUWZ or -Ar C17Y Or NLWT1U rT orJ.C,i AMEIIDINC A POIRT::m VF DISTPI{.'TING MAP No, 1 00 AS TO RZV—U%IrT PPOPERTY PALM WE IINCIASSIrILO DI•.-7:CT To TISE P-1 D1STYK7 (Planning Cometss:an ASwrAment No. 565) The City Council of the Cit7 of m@wMrc Basch DCPS OPAAIN sA fr,llrrrrsr SECTION 1. The followlAq described real prcpetty lrcateq It, the Clty of Newport Mach. County sf Change, State of Caltfnrntal Portions of Blocks 11 1,14 32 of the i.ake Tract, located on the amthwsterly sit+. of 'west Bolho.l Doulvvard. between ]lot Street and 31rd Street. more speclftcally described in the attached Whibit 'A', as shown on Districting Map No. 1, referred to in Section 2o,o1,0',o of lhs Newport death Municlpal Code, and by scch reference made s part of Tlrle 7o of said Coder Is hereby wended to cbsnge the land use designatir.n of Said property frow the Unclassified District to the 11-2 District. turthermnre, Districting Map No. I is hereby smarded to designate front yard setbacks of ten (10) feet for lot frontage■ AdJaoent to 72nd Street IEYtended) and lard f:treet, and a front yard setback of nine 1!) feet an list Street. SECTION 2. The tlanniAq Director of the City of Newport goad. is hereby inatraeted and directed to change, Vistricting Map No, 1 to reflect said change as described in Section 1 hereof, and as Bald Dlstrictltg May shall have been so mended, the smW dwell be In full force and effect and be s part of Title 20 of the Newport Mach ftniclpal Code. SZMICrt 3. This oidiMlSce %hall ho ru4llahed <.., ,- to, Official ravapaper 41 the City and the saati &hall 1.4 uIlective thiit, IlA may& alter the date of its adoption. This ordinance was Introduced at • re��ular eeeti� .,! t>. rity Council Of the City of Newport peach. held oh the day of , ;'ini and was adopted on tie& day of , 1983, by the lollowirq rot•, tr, wtts AT7m i CITY CIZAS WKI( li si4n3 Ayes. COUNCIL NmIm MLS, COUNCIL MPKIIEPS ABSLlrt CWticil, "FigbElks ISATOR . 3 . i • L%111it -A- THAT CIRTAIN 1AND IN THE CIT'l Gt ME'1tKifl biJCH, • i,1;=,; I 4r ORANGE, STATE OF CALINFLNIA, AS PLR MAP /[GGiOI;r ;4 bu'.I 2 Sftr.RT OFFICIAL NAM. ORAWIL COUHTY A)UNDW AS Ir:Li. *rs$ NORTW&MMi1LY BY THE SOvTnA,�TEPLY L.hf. Or 111L :TRI7.I.1. A•. :.luq,11 CK SAID MA?S1 1FiKHLASUOLY BY T1lk COMkLIMI Or Teti b3.:) pvr STI,,* 1w IM.I, StCDMD DESCRIBED IM THL DYED To SOMEPN PACUIC PAILA(AD CCMPAhf iut,ololto 0r.C►%1V 20, IW$ IN BOOK 121 PAGE 110, Or DENS Or SAID C^-CNTY1 SGUT111fI.S71.IN.T BY THE VX/r dZSTLlLY LINE Or THt 60.00 Pc!!c STRIP Or L&= riasT Dt.rvii,ri) IN T1it DEAD TO TNt SAMA AMA AND NC1d PT PAILWAT COMPAXT PtC00= MAY R, 141i'f I11 Km 44 PAGE 366. Or DELDr,, or SAID Gown ANi1 dY THt w)MRAS"PLY LINE fir wr 18 II SUCK 31, AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP, AM ITS ECmzA5TER:,Y PPOLOIIrAT1fA1 THER"s AMD MORTMZASTrRLY BY THE POLUXIING DLSCRIBE:r LINES UG19LING AT TKZ IMTLR4LCTj0R GI THt LAST XrNTICXM PROi.f*dr,AT1t,04 Or TV? UOVrKZA TrALY LINE Or LCn 10 WIT'( THE SCATtMrt3TEkLY P101MMiC.ATION or ur SCAfNt"TIRLY LIRE Or PARCEI, C AS SNOW ON A PARL'M MAP ✓ILLS IN hr/.r 1_+ pM;l. 41, Or PAh= K"S. IN THE Or►ICE Or THE COii;V f RLCLADER Or SAID CGl1MTY1 iNCMCL NORTwxSTIPLY AlLNc; SAID PROLONGATION AMCi SAID SOVIMASTL)PLY LINt AND AIAPIu; T11t SOLTTMLY. SOCTIfA XMILY AHD NORTHWUTZILY LINE Or SAID PAWGTt, C To"r NORTHIYLY cars 1 THEPLOI BXIW, A POINT IN THE i[1f:Httt.STKRLY LINE fir COAST SWLEYASD (W* BALBOA BOULtYAAD) AS SHOWN ON SAID WICIAL HAP$ TH1NCr 50VTtIASTEPLY hL016 SAID SOLI' MVXSTERLY LINE TC THE WkTHLk-Y LINT Cr SAID G0,0Q FooT InIP Or LAID DESCRIBED IN BOOK 46 PAGE 166, Gr Duzs, i1COPDE its (jPA)k;r COUNTY$ TIC EASTERLY ALOM SAID NCRTRIIILY LINE 70 THL 11nnHCASTERLY LINE Or SAID 00AXT 60M.EV"M; THWE MORT raSTULY ALCM'. SAID NOk:HtAS.ZAI.Y LINE TO THE IlIftPUMCIS WITH A TAIIGEWr THAT BEARS MOM 75°07.30- WXST nw% THE 8EGIIININC. Or A 12 TWT CL71a AT STATION S*I3.20 AS SW-V% CIO SAIL OFFICIAL MAPI T11CNCt LASTFILY AS1S1G SAID TAJIC.EkT TO THE I tISECr1CS1 PITH T11I SOUTHLASTERLY P110IAW—%TIC111 Of T1R NOR711EASTLRLY LIME Or La: 24 II BLDCII 132 AS SHOWN c111 SAID OrTICIAL UPI THX= IORTNME{TE3U.Y AUNG SAID EXTUSI011 To SAID CLMTEPLINL Or THE 60.00 FOOT m1p Or LAID SECOND DESCRIBED II THE DEED Al.COP'DED IN BOOK 123 PALL 110, or D=6 RLC01ft OF SAID COCICT7. 9ZCCZ" THERLPROM PAACLLS 1 AND 2 DLSCRIB= IN TIft DEER To THE CITY CI' IEMW"? UACH 'U=MDCD rISKA1tT 28, 1979 AS DOCUMUT 00. 32412 IN NOOK 13649, FIAZ 120, Or►ICIAL RLC0114S. .3- 171 N W Z 2 J u r a. .% Vv i W •v-N rl Vll.tpv N td 3 G u in � o m G �• G u to to �. y eb .aAiw Cf W v]�•.v N u C O V :I d w '`. I,> O 0..E u ,y x 14 Q r 0. n SA u u 'q fO K W u V + .. > .Ow toJl c ., W ,� t6G..7� W to O N V v W O 1.. Lo si J uu.0. w ui,.0x ►+ 7 CC A L a 1 Cw GA to -+W r7 ti '�••+VAI'1 V0. u U -0 .0 w m w u u > a>�• e�, rj O u N u u u .W • U p it O u• V ri r V w uY l wV am 1y. O a V A .0 lu a V rl > sy u u [al Aped et [j -C .'Z C3 1 .-Fi' u A G u p p u a�i -�+ V q u I aM ro p 1 u y, O V V O L ro r iii u µ �rl Ll ' )'f u Y ta N u f >pt `r r. 1po. Pw V +'1 O O q C. . - H ►� /rq Y 0. V rpp-r 0. b 1. u m Chi u `/ I V U p y .. G rJ 1ai G O u u0 14 t1 OJ N OJ ri ro 1 a• r. �+ ro u p m G a0.i O H ; w O� u 0 +1 0 u M44 011 u NaiuUi O~ ro IA+a O. a U w�.w.OwolA ryNy0 a 'w Oc y 93� 10on et u la IA Ocpp UuG C0A O 0rIA Y w'to IA 1l ' Ci Ei U 14 u a' "l u a u 0. w by al C u V�wwryw.OOO~:W0;m M40 ti 0.100 roAij faa U roa4lroyfQ'I G • d w '' " p e~�p � CDu a i., a U Y, it NtCryry u Y u 0 00 lA 'v • O V u V Y 1pa Cpl V Y • 0Q~ Y 1�! w I 4 41 • U a N LL O V 0 u 'p U, 1 O Gl. V • f O ,sir � 14 0 O V ,w I wa �1�.ro sq +� Via,. a�i. •,c°aa wC6 saw°►�. ou.0 it lm ,m ul ►+ F( eA CW 0 � '� ~ A O th M V` O O U at � u 00. ++ u 41 ro � V. n A a uI d A U a . o1 0 u 93 ° ro u a w . ro A a 'a a0 A w a. IS 2 C0 u N�I u 1+ .' 4 64-dm Awalo Ad ""• � 1,4 m© '��•-•. �, t.;:.g..'fir.�:iACt"�s-�+...!?:.�+na;ii�ti,.:r�; o0 'm ■ " -UNIVERSITY OF CALIF#IA, DAVIS ssR tM • owns • s><nx>< • Ics wl+c=Ls>< • IleasSl,os • SAM M=Q • Sa r1tArCJKO "WfA AARAARA • SANTA CRi'i t olst"" or LKY1R0!01L.%TwL VMDILS DAVIS. CA1.1rORKIA 9961& April 13, 1983 To: Planning Directors and Other Interested Parties From: S.I. Schwartz, R.A. Johnston, G.A. Wandesforde-Smith Re: Study of the Implementation of S.B. 626 We enclose a surmary of findings about the implementation of S.E. 626 (Mello: 1981). We welcome your comments and requests for additional information. �N pry � ��• ;,1�..� APR2 ] 1983} C:.Lv. j! u�mi � �� pkullty//rr 19//C{1©k' © ! •�: /r1C�7�i:J p f ���//� 3 . 5 r • r 6 THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SB 626 IN SOUTHERN CALIFORtIIAs A SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Seymour I. Schwartz Robert A. Johnston Geoffrey A. Wandesforde-Smtth Kirk Savage Division of Environmental Studies University of California Davis, California 95616 March 22, 1983 This research was supported by the Public Service Research and Dissemination Program at the University of California. Davis. This summary report has been prepared for distribution to the State Department of Housing and Coamunity Development, the California Legislature, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, the California Coastal Commissions and local governments. This report is part of the dissemination program for making the results of university research available to interested policymakers, local officials, and concerned interest groups. , . V . OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH 1. Describe and evaluate the ray in which SB 626 is being implemented by local governments in southern California, which is the site of most of the housing activity in the coastal zone of California. 2. Identify problems with and obstacles to effective imsplementation. RESEARCH APPROACH 1. We identified, by a survey, which local governments had adopted or were In the process of adopting policies for implemnting SS 626. 2. we reviewed and analyzed each ordinance to determine how it proposes to meet the statutory requirements for new housing and replacement housing for low- and moderate -income households, 3. We examined, by detailed analysis of local government files and Inter- views with planners, the actions taken on specific development projects. THE STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION .' Table I summarizes the results of telephone and personal interviews with local planning, staffs in the South Coast and San Diego Coast regions In which we asked about the status of imP lamentation of S8 626. The responses are current as of November 10 1982. In response to the question about roplAgement housing , many planners stated that they had not yet processed any cases that raised the issue. Two jurisdictions -- Manhattan Beach and Hermosa Beach -- reported that they were = enforcing the replacement provisions of the law. In San Diego County, the adopted policy requires replacement units =G elocat,tlon gL lead tg1A= the relocation option does not swot the statutory requirements of G.C. 65590. In response to the mm his question, many planners, especially those In the built -out ,jurisdictions, reported no cases that raised the issue. Three jurisdictions — Santa Monica. Orange County, and San Clemente -- are relying on existing Inclusionary programs. Others are 1 • TABLE 1. Status of implementation Replacement _ New Policy provisions housing drafted or Jurisdiction enforced? required? adopted? 1. L.A. County Yes Unknown Drafted 2. L.A. City Unknown Yes Adopted 3. Santa Monica Yes Yes Using citywide element 4. El Segundoa N/A N/A N/A 5. -Manhattan Beach No No cases Using LCP policies 6. Hernosa Beach No No cases No 7. Redondo Beach No cases No cases No 8. Torrance No cases No cases No 9. Rancho Palos Verdes No cases No No 10. Long Beach LCP certified LCP certified LCP certified 11. Seal Beach No cases No cases Using existing cony. policy 12. Huntington Beach Yes 20% inclusionary Drafted 13. Newport Beach Yes No cases .' No 14. Laguna Beach No cases in -lieu tee No ($8,000/unit) 15. Orange County Yes 25% Inclusionary Drafted 16. San Clemente Unknown 15% inclusionary No 17. Oceanside Yes 5% inclusionary Drafted 18. Carlsbad Unknown Unknown Drafted 19. San Diego Co. No No Adopted 20. Del Mar Yes No cases Drafted 21. San Diego City Yes In -lieu fee Adopted (2% of gross) 22. Coronado No cases In -lieu fee Drafted ($2,100/unit) 23. National City No cases No cases No 24. Imperial Beach No cases No No a No housing in coastal zone; Zone developed industrial developing now Incluslonary or in -lieu fee poi ides to most the applicable provisions of the law. Some attempt was wade to verify responses in three cities -- Los Angeles, San Clemente and San Diego -- by examining permit records. Verifl- cation focused on demolitions and conversions approved locally beforo January Is I982, as most of the 65590 review in the first several months concerned these projects. Because of the small number of uses, and the Incomplete records on those cases, the verification did not prove to be conclusive. In the City of Los Angeles and In San Clemente the permit files yielded no information on 65590 determinations. In San Clemente, the only now permit application that raised the replacement issue received a tenta- tive condition simply requiring the project to conform to G.C. 655901 the Council has not yet decided how to specify the details of conformance. Our entry in the replacement column for these two cities is therefore "unknown." THE ADEOIJACY OF ADOPTED POLICIES Table 2 swmmmarizes six of the ten poi icies that have been drafted or Adopted In the two regions. we examine the specificity and completeness of the policies and other issues related to implementation. �o� A" CMla ene•. Jurisdictions that have adopted policies under S.B. 626 generally have not establ fished adequate procedures for imeplementing those pol ides. Some of the policies simply restate the statutory requirements of G.C. 65590, without providing clear guidance for dealing with important questions left open by the statute. Where these questions are not addressed, we show a "silent" entry in Table 2. Some jurisdictions, such as San Diego county, have no official procedure to guide administrative staff in handling permit applications that raise questions of compliance with the adopted policy. There is no explanation, for exammmple# of how replacement requirements will be imposed in ministerial permit applications, such as demolition permits. Orange County has addressed the question of how to incorporate the policy requirements into the permit review process, but it too has not set forth clear procedures for the developer to follow to guarantee replacement housing. Only the City of San Diego sets forth detailed procedures for both the staff and the developer. 2 TABLE 2. Features of Adopted Policies for New Construction and Replacement Housing (Six Jurisdictions). How Income determined 1. San Diego City (adopted) Tenant survey 2. San Diego Co. Developer oathl (adopted) 3. Oceanside (draft) Tenant survey 4. Orange Co. Developer's (draft) responsibility EPLACEMENT In -lieu fee Price option controls Yes -based on 5 years 5 yr writedown Yes - no details Silent No 10-20 years No Silent InclusIonary requirements Up to 20% in 25+ units Voluntary NEW CONSTRUCTION In -lieu fee Price tion controls 2% gross. 5 y* or ... No Silent 5%, in 10i 1.2% gross2 20 years units ---------iHP w/ slight changes3------- 5. Huntington Beach Tenant survey No 5 years 20%, in 10+ units No ... 5 years 6. L.A. City Silent No Silent (adopted) Varies by No Silent geoo area l To demonstrate that no low- or moderate -income tenant occupies the units. "the applicant shall vi such assurances under oath satisfactory to the Director of Planning." prode 2 Oceanside arrived at these numerical requirements by taking one -fifth of the Coastal Commission's old requirements (25% inclusionary. 6% fee). 3 anges. T Income range, although it allows transfers he Orange County will use its existing Inclusionary Housing Program, with a few necessary ch existing program requires that 25 percent of new units be affordable to persons in the low or moderate of credit which weans that the 25 percent requirement 1s an average over all projects. The program has no in -lieu fee option and requires 20 year resale price controls for projects that' receive a direct financial contribution from the County. Virtually all of the policies leave these questions unanswered: L What enforcement mechanise will be used to ensure that developers provide replacement units within three years? 2. Must developers actually build replacement units, or can they provide them from: the existing housing stock? 3. Should displaced tenants get the first option to occupy replac"wnt units? 4. How rill resale price controls be designed and enforced? S. What procedures rill local agencies use to spend in -lieu fees$ so that they result in the maximum number of affordable units? Even the City of San Diego's detailed policy raises important questions about how it will use its in -lieu fees to provide replacement housing, how it will enforce developer commitments to build replacement units, and how it will mks feasibility determinations in new developments. Without a fully articulated program to guide administrative staff and developers, prospects for successful implementation of the statute are greatly reduced. Experience has shown that implementation of similar housing policies is difficult and requires considerable planning and perseverance. , 8asalt Price Conti SB 626 does not require that replacement units or new affordable units remain affordable for any period of time. To reach low- and moderate -income households, developers will probably have to offer affordable units at below market prices. Without resale price controlso the affordable units are likely to reach market prices at the first resale. If the affordable units are for sale# the first buyers can turn the developer's subsidy into personal windfalls. Policies that lack price control provisions, while they may technically comply with the requirements of G.C. 65540# will put substantial burdens on developers without guaranteeing any lasting beneficial results. 3 The problem is especially acute for replacement housing. Without price controls on replacement units# the existing low- and moderate -income stock in attractive coastal areas rill rapidly vanish. The omission of price controls from a replacement housing program could make the program both ineffective and inequitable. There Is great variation among jurisdictions in establishing resale price controls. The City of San Diego and Huntington Beach require resale price controls for only five years: which is Inadequate for mmaintaining the units -at affordable prices for the long-term. It can be assumed that those jurisdictions that are silent on resale price controls do not require them. SB 626 requires one -for -one replacement of units proposed for demoli- tion or conversion if the units are occupied by low or moderate Income persons or families. Some local planning staffs, notably in Orange County and In San Clemente, claim that ascertaining and verifying tenants' incomes Is too difficult. They argue that the replacement provisions would be more workable if they protected units on the basis of rent levels rather than occupants' incomes. Other local staffs, notably In the City of San Diego, report that they are satisfied with the procedure of sending income ques- tionnaires to tenants. Meati no, 1ha Feasibility Fib RecuirgMent En construction_ For now construction projects, SB 626 requires affordable units "where feasible." Most local governments want to avoid opening the developer's books on a project -by -project basis. Oceanside and Orange County plan to avoid feasibility analyses by relying on mandatory lnclusionary ordinances. San Diego County allows the developer to make the determNination# without requiring supporting evidence from the developer. The City of San Diego's policy does not determine feasibility to the developer. According to the policy, the agency estimates the required in - lieu feet and determines whether this sum gill provide at least five units within three silos of the coastal zones if not. the In -lieu fee is deemed infeasible. This feasibility criterion Is arbitrary and unsupportable. The agency coul d easi 1 y col lect several seal 1 toes, whose sum woul d be sufficient to build the ■inimm number of units. The criterion of feasibility should be based on the economic Impact to the developer of 4 paying the foe --whether the fee will reduce profit to a level that makes the entire project infeasible. Replacement housina_ It 1s the position of the Department of Housing and Community Development that SO 626 requires local governcents to evaluate the feasibility of requiring replacement housing in each demolition or conversion that falls within one of the four exceptions to the mandatory replacement requirement. The HCO legal opinion assorts that loeal govurn- nents may not exempt any projects in the four categories frrA tho replace- ment requirement unless the local government first determines that replace- ment is not feasible. Local government officials generally do not appear to share this interpretation, and they have generally been treating the excep- tions as automatic exemptions. Orange County's draft policy is the only policy that discusses the possibility of subjecting projects in the four categories to feasibility tests. Ono of the four exceptions occurs when local government requires a fee In-liou of replacement units. It is difficult to understand why a feasibility determination is necessary when the in-lteu foe Is used since the fee must produce the sans number of replacement units that would otherwise be required, and the foe must be required in order for the developer to be exempted from having to provide the replaco- rent units directly. Vu gJ In-Lfnu Fees: S1tX Qi Can DJ= This program Is the only detailed one of its kind so far adopted. Since other local governments may look to It as a model, 1t Is appropriate to analyze It hero. The City intends to keep replacement housing affordable for a period of five years. The in -lieu fee is calculated so as to make up the difference for five years between the developer's expenses (mortgage costs and operating costs) for a "typical" unit and the revenue that unit would receive If rented to a low- or moderato -income tenant. Because of the assumptions used in calculating the fees, the program will probably not result In one -tor -ono replacement. First, and most sor- iouslyo tho calculation of the In -lieu fee assumes 30% equity particlpatton by the developor and only amortizes 70% of the development cost -- that is, it neglects to Include the opportunity cost of the developer's equity Investment. It therefore understates the amount that a developer would have to receive to repay his capital investment and operating costs. Thus, the fees would be able to pay for only about two-thirds of the cost of the replacement units. Socond the development cost does not Include admint- S strative costs, which the housing agency is bound to Incur if it is responsible for filling the replacement units. Third, the inflation in rents Is not considered in the amortization calculation lit Is not taken into account In the interest rate used in the calculation?. Nevertheless, the in -lieu fees collected eight result in ono -for -one replacement If the city used a less expensive replacement method than subsidizing new units, which is implied by the method for calculating the fees. The city's policy allows developers to replace units by subsidizing the rents of apartments in the existing stock. Similarly. the city could use its in -lieu foes to pay owners of existing apartments to write down their rents to low- and moderate -income levels. The subsidy to exacting units would probably be smaller than the subsidy to new units, and the procedure would probably be simpler to administer. As of this writing. developers in the city of San Diego are choosing to provide the replacement units themselves rather than pay the In -lieu fee. Ho developer has chosen to pay the In -lieu fee. This suggosts that developers bel love there are less expensive ways of complying with the replacement requirement than paying the fee as it is presently computed by the city. PROYIQIHG REPLACE14ENT UNITS FROM THE EXISTING STOCK Aside from the city of San Diego, most local governments have not specified how developers may "provide" replacement units. The possibility that local governments will follow San Diego's policy of allowing replace- ment units to be drawn from the existing stock raises some troubling ques- tions. A local government might technically comply with the replacement provisions by allowing developers to subsidize units already renting just above affordable levels. They could, in addition, require that the subsidy be for only one or two years. In both cases, there would be virtually no benefit from the program to low income renters. To make effective the option of providing replacement units from the existing stock, local governments should require thats 1. The rental subsidy be large enough that replacement units represent significant new affordable housing opportunities. 6 2. Replacement units have long-term rent controls. Long-term price controls on existing units are as Important as those on now units. Building now replacement units has the effect of reducing the depletion of the overall housing stock; subsidizing existing units simply rearranges the pricing of the depleted stock. If the policy does not require a long-term subsidys its effect on pricing rill be minimal. In this respect, the city of San Diego's five year subsidy Is inadequate. PROJECTS APPROVED LOCALLY BEFORE JMUARY 1s 1982 SB 626 left unclear the fate of projects that had received final discretionary approval frog local governments before the statute took effects but which had not yet received permits from the Coastal Commission. S8 626 opened up the possibility that these projects might escape both the former housing requirements of the Coastal Comission and the new require- ments of G.C. 65590. To eliminate this potential loophole. the Legislature enacted AB 321s which clarified that projects with local discretionary approval but no issued Coastal Commission permit must comply with the requirements of G.C. 65590. AS 321 gave the Coastal Commission authority to delay Issuance of the coastal permit until the applicant formally requested the local government to review the project under G.C. 65590 and the local government acted on the request. Local governments have no clear procedures for reviewing projects that received final approvals before January 1, 1982. Procedures have been ad hoc at best and non-existent at worst. So fart all 6SS90 determinations on previously approved projects (before SS 626 took effect) have been made administratively. In San C1 wntes the City Attorney has made the determl- nations. In the City of San Diego, determinations were first made by the Planning Department and later by the Housing Authority. Both cities keep documentation of the 65590 review separate from the normal permit records, Even after cross-checking with the permit filess we have been unable to understand the basis for some of the determinations. In the City of L.A.s we have been unable even to determine who is doing the 65590 reviews after many hours spent examining files and interviewing staff. In the San Diego region (District Office), some projects that received final discretionary approval before January 1, 1982 have received coastal permits even though they have never been reviewed under G.C. 65590. This failure to comply with statutory requirements is due mainly to the City of 7 San Diego. On projects where the Local Agency Review Forme which is appen- ded to the coastal permit application, was signed by the proper local offi- cial before January It 1982e the Coastal Commission staff has not issued a coastal permit and has instructed the applicant to obtain a G.C. 65590 review from the City. On projects where the Local Agency Review Form was signed after January 1, 1982e the Coastal Coamisslon staff assumes that the City made a proper G.C. 65590 determination. This is a reasonable assump- tion. However, the City of San Diego has not made such determinations on Its own; it has only made a G.C. 65590 determination if the applicant formally requested that it do so. The City maintains that the Coastal Commission should not issue the permit for Au project where discretionary approval was received before January 1, 1982r even those on which a city official signed the Local Agency Review Form after January It 1982. Thus, all projects that received final discretionary approval before January 1. 1982 and whose Local Agency Review Form was signed after that date have not been reviewed unless the developer voluntarily asked for a review. Because of this lack of willingness by the City of San Diego to accept responsi- bility for implementing the statutory rsquirementse some projects In the San Diego district have received permits without proper review. Even where applicants have formally requested a G.G. 65590 review, most local governments have been reluctant to take any action that would require them to amend their original discretionary approvals. If local government already required affordable housing conditions in its discretionary appro- val* which happened In Orange County and City of Los Angeles, It can fall back on its own conditions. Bute applying new conditions after final appro- val is unacceptable to most local governmentso even though G.C. 65590 requires such conditions. Most local governments consider such action a breach of their commitments to the developer. RECOMMENDATIONS Many local governments have little or no experience in handling affordable housing programs. They need technical assistance, which should take the following forms: 1. A model code, which includes resale price controls and screening procedures. 2. A recommended procedure for evaluating the economic feasibility of the projects with low- and moderate -income units. 8 • Several statutory changes should also be made: 1. Mend SB626 to require 30 year resale controls for new and replacement units, 7. Require HCn advisory review of local government ordinances, 3. Require that priority to occupy replacement housing be given to existing low- or moderate -income residents who are displaced Then units are demolished. d. Qifine economic feasibility in terms of the effect of providing the new affordable units on the profitability of the antjr2 project- At present, developers can argue that jhl Indlyigual affordable UIU is not economically feasible. 9 W 2 O a 1r� w W }, c+ j � i W x H a w H o O a w a > O a cn a u M z a a z �. H oa �a > c �. n > q� U ~ 4 th W R u Q W. a W O G' x a a z •fn a z w O w Z z W 0ch 1 C6 2 m a %tn w O (y 00 i. �+ H 0 U H w z V R7 •• W E-4 M o i4 E-4 Q iY• a M • !I r-Z� 2 o 00 rr H 1 I 9 w r A ,► H z Q 0 N H V WZ a ri 0 3 t� ca a w s ti N .. L4 0 fv 1 ti �• N w x h � w ° o � 7 a O • a Z w w Q M N w W O > a a a m U 0 _ p C a z • a w O .~'Z z a 2 OR Ln O ° N .. Q z >0 z z a a U EE-4 w z u M_ R: W h M01 rz G .. O 7 2 404 rA ' iY 4 ro •. v, N lf'` N M M nr s Nr r � i lr `• C 1Z �� �i •..� tii � � V !~ !� 'r '•lam 1 w` \ � E � -("\J� _ V �l � � �'+IN N. ; w ' , \ art` � �'\ ` � • ♦ � � �.� M w t Jim rN I r' .r• fyi tit r 7 f � `J L► J CONSOLIDATED REPROGRAPHICS MICROFILM DIVISION N�qr� W x H a H o s; M a N Rai U N H a • W Q z H W oo W O , M t11 ❑ � � u a a cn H C9 0 G a z a o ca z t� co C1R W { z j N a o in 0 p Q N to a H o a M M i U AC W Ei N W i !I /�. ly �i C� tV(�r :J n ` r* � .., - .. � rf • ~ ' IR rII ir 1 \) \ - : t• � f t ;. 1 _Ior h r 1 44, t sN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing an the applications of Hr. Max Mor an on ro rt located at 120 32nd Street on the southwesterly side of hest Balboa Boulevard between 31st street and 33rd Street for the following requests: Use Permit No. 3022 Request to permit the construction of nine individual two -unit residential condominium projects and related garages, on property proposed for rezoning to the R-2 District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow minor building encroachments into the required front and lido yard setback areas. Amendment No. 595 Request to consider an amendment to a portion of Districting Map No. 3 so as to reclassify property from the Unclassified District to the R-2 District. In addition, the applicant proposes to establish 10 foot front yard setbacks on said Districting hap for lot frontages adjacent to 32nd Street (extended) and 33rd Street and a 9 foot front yard setback on 31st Street. Tentative Mae Tract No. 11906 Request to subdivide 1.65 acres of land into nine lots for residential condominium development, one lot for residential duplex development and one lot for single family residential development. The application also includes a request for exceptions to the Subdivision Code so as to allow the creation of corner lots containing less than 60 foot widths and less than 6,000 square feet in land area, and interior lots containing less than 50 foot widths and less than 5,000 square feet in land area. The proposal also includes a request to establish grades for the purpose of measuring heights of proposed buildings. The request also includes the extension of Seashore Drive from 33rd Street to Balboa Boulevard and the extension of two existing alleys.. Traffic Stud Request to consider a Traffic Study in conjunction with the construction of nineteen residential units. Coastal Dovelop=nt permit No. 1 Request to consider a Coastal Development permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance for a :9 unit residential development pursuant to the Administrative Guidelines for the implementation of the state law relative to Low -and -Moderate -Income !lousing within the Coastal Zone. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared in connection with the applications noted above. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 west Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 (714) 640-2197. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 24th day of Few 1983, at the hour of 700 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. Dave Goff, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach NOTE: Tho expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. r BENJAMIN CHAVEZ 1558 W. AUDRE DR. ANANEIM, CA 92802 045-276-08 NETTO, MARY 3400 SEASHORE DR. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 045-276-09 rLORENCE AMERIAN P.O. BOX 2743 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 045-277-01 ROSS F. BLANDI 637 GREENGATES CORONA, CA 91720 045-277-03 MAYS GOODELL DAVID ROBERTS 3312 W. OCEAN FRONT 3200 W. OCEAN FRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 f1EWPORT BEACH, CA 045-277-10 0115-278-09 CASTLE BUILDERS INC. ROBERT FITZPATRICK 2005 W. BALBOA BLVD 0312 105 32N D ST. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92 63 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 045-277-11 045-278-10 AUBREY J. GILL VIRGINIA MILLER 106 33RD ST. 107 32ND ST. 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, 0115-278-01 045-278-11 GERALD ZATLIN 18311 VALLEY DR. VILLA PARK, CA 92667 045-2T7-04 BERNARD WACHTER 444 SANDRA AVE ARCADIA, CA 91006 045-277-05 WILLIAM MC KAY CURT PINCKERT 8111 EMERALD BAY 109 32UD ST. LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 NEWPORT BEACH, 045-278-02 0115-278-12 92663 1 CA 92663 1 CA 92663 WILLIAM J. MC ILWAIII, JR. LINDA MICHICK 2201 N. SANTA ANITA 8367 ORCHARD ST. SIERRA MADRE, CA 91024 ALTA LOMA, CA 045-278-03 045-278-13 DONALD BURDORF 2652 VISTA DR. ! NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 045-278-04 VERN LUCE MARSHALL P. STONESTREET 3304 W. OCEAN FRONT 1218 W. DWYER DR. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663, ANANEIM, CA 92801 045-277-06 045 -278-05 WILLIAM D. ROSBURG 3302 W. OCEAN FRONT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 045-277-07 LTD, CREEKSIDE 234 E. 17TH ST. COSTA MESA, CA 045-277-08 FRANCES M. SCOTT 301 E. FOOTHILL BLVD SPACE 112 POMONA, CA 917 045-278-06 MILDRED BURDORF SUITE 10fi 12251 DALE RD-316 92627 STANTON, CA 90660 o45-278-07 PROPERTIES WEST INC. 508 29TH ST. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 aa5-277-a9 . LLOYD L. THORSON 5390 NOTTINGHAM RD. RIVERSIDE CA 92506 0uc-'274-C i SUZANNE ROBINSON P.O. Box 363 TEA, SD 57064 045-278-14 { �.i'':7..IMMi/YyJlir.'�w.�.r-www'.Y�if%.1l'. ii�. - �+._• .._. ` y SANFORD S. KORNBLUM 3014 W. OCEAN FRONT SOUTHERN PACIFIC LAND CO SOUTHERN PACIFIC LAND NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 HERGENRED 119-8 34TH ST. COMPANY GUINTH-R 2637 VISTA 047-082-38 NEWPORT BEACH!, CA 92663 OitADA NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 045-272-17 445-273-10 DENNIS ASSAEL GAIL H.' WOLCOTT SOUTHERN PACIFIC LAND 1350 HIDDEN SPRINGS LN 121 34TH ST. COMPANY CARNEY GLENDORA, CA 91740 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 502 KING$ RD. 047-082-39 045-272-20 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 045-273-11 FRED CARROLL JACQUELINE WEAVER SOUTHERN PACIFIC LAND 9182 CARROL TOWN DR. 220 NICE LANE UNIT 307 COMPANY SEELEY HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 926 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 3310 SEASHORE DR. 047-082-40 045-272-21 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 0115-273-12 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 047-300-01 BETSY BOYD 539 RIVERSIDE AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 0115-272-08 ELIZABETH L. CONCANNON P.O. BOx 4686 IRVINE, CA 92716 045-272-09 CASSILDA 1. MARTINEZ ETAL P.O. BOX 629 YUMA, ARIZ 85364 045-273-01 FLORENCE MC CASLIN 126 34TH ST. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 045-273-02 ANNETTE BOYDSTON 1111 VIA PALERMO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 045-273-03 FRANK L. VANDER LINDEN DANA H. SMITH 550 E. SUCKIIELL 508 29TH ST. CLAREMONT, CA 91711 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 045-272-10 045-273-04 ROBERT J. KINGSBURY MARGARET ANN INGRAM 1-401 W. BALBOA BLVD 271 STRATFORD CT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663, CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92014 045-272-11 045-273-05 SOUTHERN PACIFIC LAND COMPANY PARKY!r 16562 CHANNEL LANE HUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92649 0115-273-13 SOUTHERN PACIFIC LAND COMPANY SALANI TRO P.O. BOX 1212 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 045-273-14 SOUTHERN4 AC1FiC5LAND COMPANY LEHMER %JEFFREY HARTMAN 200 NEWPORT CENTER DR. STi NEWPORT BEACH A ays-173-/S SOUTHERN PACIFIC LAND COMPANY MILLIGAN 121 41ST ST. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 045-273-16 EDWARD E. WALL, JR. 123 33RD. ST. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 045-273-17 SOUTHERN PACIFIC LAND JOHN YUSKIS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMPANY MEKETARIA 109 34TH ST. 2000 HOLIDAY AD. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 3300 NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 045-273-08 P.O. BOX 2768 NEWPORT BEACHo CA 045-272-15 045,274-06 SOUTHERN PACIFIC LAND CASSILDA I. M.ARTINEZ ETAL. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMPANY ALLEN 630 N. DAMIEN AVE P.O. Box 629 YUMA, ARIZ 0536$ 3300 NEWPORT BLVD 0 ! VE?NE,6CA 91750 2 1 O4$-273 09 P.O. BOX 1?66 . NEiiPORY =8 EACH CA d ROBERT HOLLINGSWORTH 1115 W. BAY AVE BALBOA, CA 92661 047-081-19 WALTER GAMBLE 1020 RODILEE WEST COVINA, 011 i -0 81-: 0 JAMES L. LIEDTKE 855 GRANDVIEW AVE FULLERTON, CA 92632 0117-052-05 JAMES L. LIEDTKE AVE 855 14. GRANDVI EW AVE CA 91791- FULLERTON, CA 92632 o47-082-06 HOMER J. MC DEVITT 3100 W. OCEAN FRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 047-061-21 JOHN SAVOLT 14292 STARSIA ST. WESTMINSTER, CA 92653 047-061-22 HOWARD LUCHAU 109 31ST ST. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 047-081-23 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 32,00 NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 047-081-25 SOUTHER PACIFIC LAND TAX COMMISSIONER 1 MARKET PLAZA SAN FRANCISCO, CA 047-082-26 SANTA BEECKERT 12323 OSASO LA MIRADA, CA 90638 047-082-01 JOSEPH HYATT 5565 BEN ALDER WHITTIER, CA 90601 047-082-07 JOSEPH HYATT 5565 S . BEN ALDER AVE WHITTIER, CA 90605 047-082-08 RICHARD C. MYERS 17934 JOSHUA DR. YORBA LINDA, CA 92686 047-082-09 JOHN J. LOFTUS 3008 CAROLYN CT BEDFORD, TX 76021 o47-082-10 RUSSELL WITTE 291 S. CRAIG DR. ORANGE, CA 92669 047-082-18 109 30TH ST. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 047-082-19 STEVEN R. EATON 121 30TH ST. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 04?-082-25 DAISY GIFFIN 47 ROUI.10 TABLE DR. RIVERSIDE, CA 92507 047-082-26 DARLE C. HUGHES 111 30TH ST. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 047-082-28 MURRAY L. ROCHE 1707 CAMDEN PARKWAY SO. PASADENA, CA 91030 047-082-31 EARL BYERS 125-B 30TH ST. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 047-082-32 MARIE R. WHITE 113 VIA LIDO SOUD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 047-082-33 MAURICE CARMICHAEL 1209 CON14ECT I CUT ANAHEIM, CA 92801 o47-082-34 IRVIN WINESUFF 1442 S . EUCLI D ST. FULLERTON, CA 92632 047-082-35 ROBEERT MC KASSON JAMES TAVAGLIONE GEORGE E. FOLTZ 124 31ST ST. 2805 KATHLEEN ST. 5975 SANTA FEE AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 RIVERSIDE, CA 92506 HUNTINGTON PARK CA 02 o47-082-02 047-082-22 047-082-36 55 GE?ORGE E, FOLTZ RAYMOND BOLAND 6w7 �avl-37 5975 SANTA FE AVE 115 30TH ST. ANGE LO ZABY %44W HUNTINGTON PARK, CA 9G25! NEWPORT EIE:ACHO CA g2663 4MOTEL .047-082-03 o4 -Uj 23AN4hujM .0 1;4 M. ItRTfLLA AVE ,' •�R��N�11�Yfr17►: "+.r+`rM.�r.�b __ __�-.-_�.�1"�- °.��.r-.,. (', .r.7...', ROBERT E. TAYLOR ' PROPERTIES WEST INC. r ROY MAMELLI 3414 W. BALBOA BLVD VEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 506 29TH ST; NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 3112 W. OCEAN FRONT NEWPORT ;a7-071-02 939-710-03 BEACH, CA 92663 04'7-081-07 Ak7HUR BAUMAN PROPERTIES WEST 111C. PAUL SLAYBACK 7012 W. BALBOA BLVD UEW20RT EEACH, CA 92663 508 29TH ST. NEWPORT BEACH, CA' 92663 426 RIVERSIDE AVE NEWPORT C47-071-03 939-710-04 BEACH, CA 92663 047-081-o8 JOSEPH FERGUSON P.C. BOX 2588 PROPERTIES WEST INC. 508 29TH JOHRI FI. OSTERKAMP P0.40NA, CA 91766 ST. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 4J5 S. RIo VISTO AVE BRAWLEY, CA 92227 C47-071-�o4 939-710-05 047-081-09 VARTHA M. LA JEUNESSE PROPERTIES WEST INC. JANET MOHR ="08 1/2 W. BALBOA BLVD N=WPORT BEACH, CA 92663 508 29TH ST. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 120 W. SANTA ANITA TER ARCADIA CA :Z:7-071-05 939-710-06 91006 047-081-lo C:•ROLE SHANNON LOUIS KAUFMAN PHILIP MYERS 2;222 CAMERCN LAME 112 32ND ST. 2460 ALMIRA AVE SANTA ANA, CA 92705 047-071-08 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 047-081-01 92663 FULLERTON, CA 92631 047-081-12 WILLIAM E. GARRETT VICTOR PINCKERT ROBERT J. CARPENTER 209 30TH ST. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 , 7017 GARDEN DR. SAN BERNRDINO, CA 92404 9295 MAGNOLIA AVE ARLINGTON CA 92503 04"t-071-09 047-081-02 047-081-14 JEAN LOWRY 3508 MARCUS AVE. DONALD STEPANIAN 9378 E. LUBIC ST, RICHARD FRANCUZ NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DOWNEY, CA 90240 P.O. BOX 53E8 FULLERTON, CA 92635 047-071-12 047-o81-03 o47-081-15 SOUTHERN PACIFIC LAND TAX COMMISSIONER 1 MARKET PLAZA SA14 FRANCISCO, CA 0 47-071-15 PROPERTIES WEST INC. 508 29TH ST. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 939-710-01 PROPERTIES WEST INC. 508 29TH ST. 11EWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 939-710-02 ROBERT V. FAUST 10582 KATELLA ANAHEIM, CA 92604 047-081-04 EVELYN DRAEMER P.O. BOX 5388 FULLERTON, CA 047-081-05 DONALD STEPANIAN 9378 E. LUBIC ST. SOWNEY..CA 90240 047-o8i-16 DALE RICHARD KEICHER 119 31ST ST. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 92635 047-081-17 ROY MAMELLI 3112-A W OCEAII FRONT NEWPORT BEACH.. BEACH.. CA 92660 SANFORD KATZ 5535 BALBOA BLVD STE 225 ENCINo, CA 91316. 047-081-18 f STEN A. GRAI4E 16J737 SHORECLIFF LAME hUNTINGTON BCH, CA 92646 045-282-05 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA OL5-282-07 RAY W. RAGSDALE 207 112 33RD ST. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 045-282-11 NORMAN DORNBLASER 636 SIERRA ST. EL SEGUNDO, CA 902115 045-282-12 STEPHEN MACRO 312 36TH ST. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 045-282-13 DONALD J. RAY 103 VIA SAN REMO NEWPORT BEACIt, CA G45-282-14 WILLIAM H. HARRISON WILLIAM KAPELA 216 33RD ST. 2742 N. FLOWER ST. 14EWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 SAIITA ANA, CA 92706 045-283-03 045-283-20 FIONA P. PASTUSHIN 214 33RD ST. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 045-283-04 BARRY S. MASON 1506 QUEENS CT CLAREMONT, CA 91711. 045-283-06 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 NEWPORT BEACH NEWPORT BEACH, CA o45-283-11 WILLIAM C. RAASIG P.O. Box 917 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 045-283-12 DANA H. SMITH 508 29TH ST. 92663 IIEWPORT BEACH, CA 045-283-15 EDWIN VANDEN BOSSCHE 121 40TH ST. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 045-282-18 GEORGE A. BROWN .0 N- 7TH ST. tODNTEBELLO, CA 90640 045-282-19 LOWELL HERTZBERG 245 33RD ST. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 045-282-25 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 NEWPORT BLVD UEWPORT BEACH, CA 045-283-23 MARY AlIN BRAUN 3607 1/2 FINLEY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 045-283-25 VINCENT MAIOCCO 740 S. TEAL CIR. A!IAHE I M, CA 92807 045-2 83-26 BERNITA EILERTSEN 3333 E. COAST HWY 92661 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 045-283-27 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 NEWPORT BLVD 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 045-283-28 FRANK J. EVERETT DA1IA H. SMITH 211 32ND ST. 508 29TH ST. 14EWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 045-283-16 045-283-29 HENRY R. WESTERSON DANA H. SMITH 716 35TH ST. 508 29TH ST. MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 045-283-17 045-283-30 JULIA WEGMANN %MC QUAID,JEWEL 2836 LA SALLE AVE COSTA MESA, CA 045-283-18 SOUTHERN PACIFIC LAND TAX COMMISSIONER 1 MARKET PLAZA SAN FRANCISCO, CA 047-060-12 THOMAS A. SHERMAN AGNES E. KLOSE SOUTHERN PACIFIC LAND 5015 BRUCE CRESCENT 120 N. RICHMAN AVE TAX COMMISSIONER ONiW5P0R7-2jACH, CA 92663 F+11LERRTOi, CA 92632 1 MRKET FU►U _ 9 , 015 3- 9 J•uv �RAr�Cssc0 �syS, fJ.:.1;}M� w 1 `_i �. �! a'1'.'.ti-1+� c�J.4: ,. X•w;a }a {w :r �,. ,..<:'w y�. .y��". 0,41k -1144 35 �OR!.rk'9.1 � "i"+S-�'F,j