Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP_014CCASSAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP CCL%CIL POLICY P-1 Ct PP ! 7 .. CITY OF NEWPORT REACH POT cation Fec•.: yy Fee: S FLU N."ING DEPART!'OM Cv""7 PLA%4= DIVISION 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport beach. CA 92661 (714) 640-2216 or 640-2219 "DIiV'D �t1sM A California Limited 714-644-6060 Applicant (Print) Carnation Cove, p."sore eartnerSIIIP failing Address 18 Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Property Owner Same Phone flailing Address Same Address of Property Involved 2500 Seaview, Corona del Myer, C.A Legal description of Property Involved (if too long, attach separate sheet) portions of lots 2, 4, 6 6 8 in Block 231 Corona del Mar Description of the Proposed Project Number of Units s i x Multi -Family /ttttlftltlt!!fflfRt�tttt!!lttfltt!!!!!f Rltf tlwl+!!t!!l R+++lw w+mil++++w w++++*+++R++fl+w+f•+f+ Please attach a stateseent indicating the proposed selling price of the units, the anticipated cost of developing the proposed project and any other infor-ation that could affect ,the feasibility of providing low/moderate income units in conjunction with the proposed project. At!!lrtRtRttt!ltetsRftttllRtRltt!lttRltRtt!!lttt!*+wl++l+++wwl+et++++!l+.sv■+++•*+++++++!!ww (T) (Mel Carnation Cove, A California Limited Partnership depose and say that (I an) (we are) the owner(s) of the property(ies) involved in this application. (I) (we) further certify, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of (my) (our) knowledge and belief. Signature(s) By: -Westland Commercial Corp. General Partner�� 1iC)?f: An agent may sign for the owner if written authorization from the record owner is filed with the applicant. DO N= C0*3PLETE APPLICATION BELOW THIS LINE Date Filed FQe Pd. Planning Director Action Gate P.C. Hearing Receipt No. Appeal P.C. Action /1- r Date Appeal C.C. Hearing C.C. Action Date 1/06 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P-1 PRCCErURES FOR CONVERSIONS AND DEMOLITIONS UET£RHINATIM OF APPLICABILITY When an application for conversion or demolition of residential structures is submitted, it grist be determined if P-1 is applicable by answering the following questions: 1. Is the project in the Coastal Zone? ElYes: See 02. ED No: P-1 doesn't apply. 2. Does it involve demolition or conversion of three or more residential units? x�' Yes: Part A of the completed Application for Residential Demolition/ Conversion shall be filed. No fees will be required with this portion of the application. Following completion and submittal of Part A of the application, continue to Question 43. 0 No: The conversion and demolition provisions of P-1 don't apply, however PART A of the Application for Residential Demolition/ Conversion must be completed and signed by the owner or authorized agent. 3. Is the replacement use coastally dependent or coastally related and consistent with the LCP7 Q Yess P-1 doesn't apply. No: See 14 ED 4. Has the structure been officially declared a public nuisance by a public agency as defined by State Health and safety Code or City Ordinance? Yess The conversion and demolition provisions of P-1 don't apply. No: P-1 may apply. x� PPOCEDURES IF P-1 IS APPLICABLE If Policy P-1 is applicable under the above criteria then proceduren will vary as to the type of replacement development contemplated as folla.+ss !ion-Pesidential Uses Onl If the new project proposed is neither residential not coastally derm ndent than the applicant must provide information dea,onstrating that residential use of the site is no longer feasible. In addition, the applicant must provide all information, fees and other materials required of applicants for conversion or demolitions for any purpose as described in the following section. The conversion or demolition would be allowed only if the Planning Director determined that the residential use was no longer feasible. If the conversion or demolition is approved, replacement units would be required on the same basis as for projects where the new use is residential. Residential or Non -Residential Use whether the proposed new development is residential or not, the property owner and/or developer shall complete and file Part B of the Application for Residential Demolition or Conversion. The application rust be accompanied by a fee of $250.00 per unit to be converted or demolished or per new unit to be constructed, whichever is greater. For projects of forty units or more, the Planning Commission may approve a reduction in fees. In addition, the applicant shall pay all projected -related costs of any feasibility studies deemed to be necessary for the administration of these guidelines and/or Section 65900 at seq of the Government Code. Following receipt of the application, the Planning Department will, if necessary, verify information by contacting current tenants and previously evicted tenants to determine how many units are currently occupied by low or moderate income people or families, or how many have been occupied by low or moderate income people who have been evicted in the past twelve months. The circumstances under which any low or moderate income people were evicted must be provided for the purpose of determining if tenants have been evicted in order to circumvent Policy P-l. If there are low or moderates income tenants, or if low and moderate income tenants were evicted to circumvent Policy P-1, then the need for replacement units will be determined for the appropriate one of the two following casesi 1. Property with more than one structure and three to tan units. Replacement of low and moderate income units will be required on a one for one basis to the extent feasible. it will be the applicant's responsibility to provide any information required for the City to determine feasibility and pay any project -related coat of any necessary feasibility studies. - 2 - • 2. Property with one structure and three or more units. All Eraperty with eleven or more units. Peplacement for low and moderate income units is required on a one for one basis for all units occupied by low Anti moderate income tenants and for all units from which low Anil moderate income tenants have been evicted in the previous twt•lvo rr-onths in order to circumvent the requirements of Policy 1'-1. Within ten days after determining the number of required replru;t►ment units, the Planning Department will notify the applicant by certified mA11 as to how many replacement units will be required and his right to appodil the decision to the 'Newport Beach Planning Commission or City Council. UIX)n final deter- mination, the applicant must provide the City with information as to how he proposes to provide the replacement units, where he proporuas the units be located, and characteristics of the proposed units. The Planning Department will then review the applicant's proposal to determine if the replacement units provide housing similar to what is being converted or demolished. If the applicant's proposal is acceptable, the developer and/or property caner must enter into a written agreement with the City'specifyiny the type ar.d location of the proposed replacement units and assuring thnr, the units will be available for occupancy within three years of proleet approval. MELLO 1/86 - 3 - May 5, 1999 Mr. Craig Bluell Planning Department City of Newport Reach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Craig: MOI MWAnhw Soubvard &AW too Newport t *Kk CA 92Ad0.3M VU) e3 • Mo 4Z2 E Camafb.ck Rd. SLOW 2%H PtMfiX, AZ t1 d lei) ego - W4 Pursuant to your request, Tarantello & Company is pleased to submit this brief pre -contractual letter to provide a feasibility study of low to moderate income level units on the Subject Site as specified above. More specific parameters and details shall be provided to Consultant by Client. The fee for the scope of services shall be $3,300. Payment in full is due upon completion of the assignment. Said feasibility study shall be prepared and delivered no later than May 22, 1999, or within 10 working days of the execution date of the formal contract between the City of Newport Beach (Client) and Tarantcllo & Company (Consultant). if this pre -proposal letter meets with your approval, please sign where indicated below and return one copy to this office. Consultant expects a formal contract to be drawn by May 8, 1989. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service and look forward to your continued patronage in the future. Kindest regards, TARANTELLO & COMPANY Diane W. Joslyn Senior Marketing Consultant APPROVED AND ACCEPTED FOR City of Newport Beach 7r- ;tgtueu '_55; a- � Phonc r CITY OF NEW PORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-"15 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 Date tie —AU289 Diane Joslyn Tarantello & Co. 3901 MacArthur Blvd, Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Ms. Joslyn: Within the California Coastal Zone, residential devc,lopment is governed by State regulations contained in Article 10.7 of the Cavert=ent Code, "low - and Modurate-Income Housing within the Coastal 'Lone." The City of flowport Beach administers those State regulations throb h guidelines established by Council Policy P-1. Council Policy P-1 provides for the preparation of a study to determine whether the affordable hounlnY, required by State regu- lations is feasible in new developments within Newport Beach's Coastal Zone. The following information is being provided to unable the preparation of a proposal/bid for such a feasibility study, Project Location (address) 2599 Seaview. Corona dal Mar. CA 92625 Site Size 12,886 sa.ft. Number of Units 6 Number of: 1 Bdrm. Units 2 Bdrm. Units 3 Bdrm. Units 6 4 Bdrm, Units Project is to be evaluated as: a rental project both an ownership and rental project For purposes of this feasibility, the City of Newport Beach requests that the consultant prepare a feasibility study by analyzing the provision of __1 unit(s) at the _Moderate_ income level on -site. If this initial analysis demonstrates feasibility for one or both types of tenure. the consultant shall continue to perform analyses for the feasible tenure type at each successively lower income level until infeasibility is demonstrated. If it is not feasible to provide an affordable unit on -site, the feasibility of providing 1 ^. now two bedroom ownership unit off -site the the berate income level within the City of Newport Beach should be anlayszed. If this initial analysis demonstrates feasibility, the consultant shall continue to perform analyses at each successively lower Income level until infeasibility is demonstrated. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach Kay 4, 1989 • • Page two Current income information in conformance with Article 10.7: Moderate Income: 2 br: 553.300: 3 br: 559.950 Median Income: 2 br: 544.400: 3 br; S49,950 Affordability standard: 30% of income for rental — Moderate income: Lhr,; SL332: 3 br: 51.499 Median Income: Term of affordability: 20_ years. The applicant has received a copy of this letter and understands that a request for a feasibility study will require additional Information, including but not limited to that listed below, The applicant also under- stands that this Information will be needed by the study start-up date and that the availability of the information necessary to complete the feasibil- ity study could influence the time required to complete the study. Site Plan Floor plan and description of various floor plan (hiulynn Cost of land substantiated by a purchase agreement or other official document Construction period Construction cost including off -site costs and list of amenities This letter does not constitute a contract, however it does constitute a request for a proposal/bid for services. A contract for services will be executed between the City and the consultant at such time as the project applicant requests a feasibility study. Please provide below an estimate of cost, time required to prepare, and start-up date for a feasibility study on the project identified above. In addition to the proposal/bid information, please sign and date this letter, keep copy for your files, and return the original to the City. 'thank you. Cost to prepare feasibility study: J �z V dollars, Time required to propane fe si l�, ptu� days L� L �-L y Date on which preparation of feasibility can egi CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH By Dat CTB\P1-LET.89 CONSULTANT By /1, 0/. Date 02.701 02.71I-4 ury OF NE TORT 11EACN . Huilding I)epurtment '1300 Newport Illyd. 11.0. Iiox 1768 Newport lieuch. CA 926514-k rt l'hune. 17 1.11 6.14.32FK lsurlding Ilan Check Valuatxrn Grading flan Check 01. Yok- -..----._-. Man Check No:.-- FEE M.�.n •d I roar r.26n:�, 6rf1 vl w A)6 S s LJ 02.701 708 0%erume I'lan Check • H G ❑ 02.703 Speciallnrpection S ❑ 02.703 Ilein%pection 11 E If I' S 02.121 Temporary Electric S El 0246u Planning Department F'fvsg"5, `r1& ,c.,FS'ic7� nAl, f Z}/ELO.AV1,6l1r' ❑ 02-Moo Sale of Maps R Ihlhlicution; S i72-2t8-d4Svo -3�A✓� -�c7- ic�s�d�ciTy'Srcvf �+E�o� s ao TOTA1. FEES: S Whom talularrd thlI u a rrrolpt for the amount of fet ruder fed at rhotan in spared boce The anal mum bee date and amal-N1 r altdufal Aeyon Auer ylw been raLdlattd on your application or ufAer doermeel and hate beeame a part of the rerords of the CI rY CIF A•h'K PORT M.W71 from is AseA this reeeipt May be identified. A X n n Validation RI,CEIVED �_ Serial No. Date Fee NOTICE: Plan Check expires 180 days after application. DISTRIBUTION: Original - Permittee; Cashier (I)-. ,FIle 4(1)i Q1/11/37 ,WO.GO TOIL 0 PURCHASE REQUISITION 0 CITY OI� N EW PO R"Ir BEACI l COPY P.O. NO. (if reserve SUGGESTED VENDOR: Tarantallo 6 Co. 3901 MacArthur Boulevard - Suite 100 Newport Beach, California 92660 DATE _._._May 12, 1989 . . DEPT t,t.Atrrttw; aEpAjrrxtrrtT SHIP TO PtOtersional/Technical Bldg. QUAN. DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLES OR SERVICES REQUIRED UNIT PRICE TOTAL BUDGET NO. Professional services re feasibility study for 2500 Seaview (CRDP #14), as described in letter dated May R, 1989 $3 500.00 02- - CODE AMOUNT APPROVED; • AmNoDEPT HEAD asp (or Pe n au or ze u e req s ens PURCHASIH T ADDEKWM TO PUHMA,;E ORDER This Addendum to Purchase Order Nurrher CUrI to jay terms and conditions under which the work or services required by said purchase order must be performed. Throughout thin Addendum, the term "Consultant" refers to the party provi(I Ini; work or services to City pursuant to the purchase order. I. SERVICES ny CONSULTANT Consultant shall prov a to Cl ty such work or services required in the Purchase Order (or any other addendum thereto). Consultant warrants and guarantees that all sery Ices performed pursuant to the Purchase Order shall be provided In a manner commensurate with the highest professional standards and shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel. 2. INDEPENDENT PARTIES City and .Consu 1 tan t Intend that the relation between them created by this Agreement Is that of employer- independent contractor. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the control .df Consultant, except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the express terms of this Agreement. No civil service status or other right of employment will be acquired by virtue of Corisul'tant Is services. None of the benefits provided by City to its employees, including but not limited to unemployment insurance, worker's compensation plans, vacation and sick Icave are available from -.Ci ty to Consultant, its employees or agents. Deductions shall not be made for any state or federal taxes, FICA payments, 11F.ItS payments, or other purposes normally associated with an employer - employee relationship from any fees due Consultant. Payments of the above items, if required, are the responsibility of Consultant. 3. COST OF LITIGATION If any legal action is necessary to enforce -any provision hereof or for damages by reason of an alleged breach of any provisions of this Purchase Order, the prevailing party shall be entitled to receive from the losing party •all costs and expenses in such amount as the court may adjudge to be reasonable attorneys' fees. 4. BOLD HARMLESS Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers and employees from and against any and all loss, damages, liability, claims, suits, costs and expenses whatsoever, Including reasonable attorneys' fees, regardless of.•the merit or outcome of any such claim or suit arising from or in any manner connected to Consultant's negligent performance of services or work conducted or performed pursuant to this Agreement. ' Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers and employees from and against any and all loss, damages, liability, claims, suits. -2- costs and expenses whatsoever, including reasonable attorneys' fees, accruing or resulting to any and all persons, firms, or corporations furnishing or supplying work, service.;, ma ter is Is equipment or supplies arising from or in any manner c-onnec ted to the Consultant's negligent performance of •servic:as or work conducted or performed pursuant to this Agreement. $. MOU113ITION AGAINST ?itANSPIItS Consultant shal I not assign, sublease, hypotheen te, or transfer this Agreement or any interest therein directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise without prior written consent of City. Any attempt to do so shall be null and void, and any assignee, sublessee, hypothecate or transferree shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. 6. PERMITS AND LICENSES Consultant, at its sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Purchase Order, all appropriate permits, licenses and certificates that may be required In connection with the performance of services hereunder. 7. NOTICES All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Purchase Order shall be given In writing and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally or on the second business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified, -3- C� addressed as hereinafter provided. All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from City to Consultant shall be addressed to Consultant at the address set forth in the Purchase Order. All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from Consultant to City shalt be nddressed to City nt: f;Ity of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport ltunch, California 92663 8. TERM I NAT ION In the event Consultant hereto falls or refuses to perform any of the provisions hereof at the time and in the manner required hereunder, Consultant shall be deemed in default In the performance of this Agreement. If such default Is not cured within a period of two (2) days after receipt by Consultant from City of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such default, Cit7 may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the Consultant written notice thereof. 9. REPORTS Each and every report, work product, map, record and other document reproduced, prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant pursuant to or In connection with this Purchase . Order shall be the exclusive property of City. No report, Information or other data given to or prepared or assembled by the Consultant pursuant to this Purchase Order shall be made available to any individual or organization by the Consultant without prior approval by City. -4- (0 in Consultant shall, at such time and in Such form as City may require, furnish reports concerning the status of the services required under this Purchase Order. 10. INT£GRATM PUItCMSF. ORDER This Purchase Order represents the full nitd coirxilete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or imptIed conversant shall be held to vary the provisions hereof. Any modification of this Purchase Order will be effective only by written execution signed by both City and Consultant. 11. WAIVER A waiver by City of any breach of any terin, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition contained herein whether of the same or a different character. The Consultant has read this Addendum to Purchase Order and accepts and agrees to each term and condition herein. Dated: ! - o CONSULTAl�T BY: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 PLAMING DEPARTKENI (714) 644-3225 Date Mav_4.1989 Diane Joslyn Tarantello b Co. 3901 MacArthur Blvd, Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Ms. Joslyn: Within the California Coastal Zone. residential development is governed by State regulations contained in Article 10.7 of the Goverment Code, "Low - and Moderate -Income (lousing within the Coastal Zone." The City of Newport Beach administers those State regulations through guidelines established by Council Policy P-1. Council Policy P-1 provides for the preparation of a study to determine whether the affordable housing required by State regu- lations is feasible in new developments within Newport Beach's Coastal Zone, The following information is being provided to enable the preparation of a proposal/bid for such a feasibility study, Project Location (address) 2500 Sgaylew,. Corona del Har. CA� 92625, Site Size 12.886 aq.ft. Number of Units 6 Number of: 1 Bdrm. Units 2 Bdru. Units 3 Bdrm. Units 4 Bdrm, Units Project is to be :valuated as: a rental project both an ownership and rental project _.X._ For purposes of this feasibility. the City of Newport Beach requests that the consultant prepare a feasibility study by analyzing the provision of _—I unit(s) at the maderate income level on -site. If this initial analysis demonstrates feasibility for one or both types of tenure, the consultant shall continue to perform analyses for the feasible tenure type at each successively lower income level until infeasibility is demonstrated. If it is not feasible to provide an affordable unit on -site, the feasibility of providing --I new two bedroom ownership unit off -site the the Moderate income level within the City of Newport Beach should be anlayszed. If this Initial analysis demonstrates feasibility, the consultant shall continue to perform analyses at each successively lower income level until infeasibility is demonstrated. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach May 4, 1989 • Page two Current income information in conformance with Article 10.7: Moderate Income: 2 hr: MAN: N:_ J_�r: $59.250 Median Income; 2 br., $44,400,r 4 `0 Affordability standard: 3Qt of income far rental Moderate Income:br;_$1,499 Median Income: 4 err owls •, s�i,� `j X,���'n!!�F r,,- , Term of affordability: � l� years, �'dF.'%fro � G The applicant has received a copy of this letter and understands that a request for a feasibility study will require additional information, including but not limited to that listed below. The applicant also under- stands that this information will be needed by the study start-up date and that the availability of the information necessary to complete the fanaibil- ity study could influence the time required to complete the study, Site Plan Floor plan and description of various floor plan designs Cost of land substantiated by a purchase agreement or other official document Construction period Construction cost including off -site costs and list of amonitios This letter does not constitute a contract, however it does constitute a request for a proposal/bid for services. A contract for services will be executed between the City and the consultant at such time as the project applicant requests a feasibility study. Please provide below an estimate of cost, time required to prepare, and start-up date for a feasibility study on the project identified above. In addition to the proposal/bid information, please sign and date this letter, keep copy for your files, and return the original to the City. 'shank you, Cost to prepare feasibility study: / doll -are. Time required to prepare fe i sty turfy:, day 4_1 Date on which preparation of feasibility can egi CITY OF NBWPORT BEACH By Dat CTB\P1-LEt,89 CONSULTA2rf By �. Date S. May 5, 1989 Mr. Craig Blucll Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Carnalion Core Dear Craig: MM IWdlrftr Doo"wd SLAM too HOWM Be"f% CA 9pG6D-3m VU) 833.2660 4222 F C meftut M Phoenix4 u e5= PM 840-3e64 Pursuant to your request, Tarantello & Company is pleased to submit this brief pre -contractual letter to provide a feasibility study of low to moderate income level units on the Subject Site as specified above. More specific parameters and details shall be provided to Consultant by Client. The fee for the scope of services shall be $3,500. Payment in full is due upon completion of the assignment. Said feasibility study shall be prepared and delivered no later than May 22, 1989, or within 10 working days of the execution date of the formal contract between the City of Newport Beach (Client) and Tarantello & Company (Consultant). If this pre -proposal letter meets with your approval, please sign where indicated below and return one copy to this office. Consultant expects a formal contract to be drawn by May 8, 1999. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service and look forward to your continued patronage in the future. Kindest regards, TARANTELLO & COMPANY a" Al Diane W. Joslyn ?11L Senior Marketing Consultant APPROVED AND ACCEPTED FOR City of Newport Beach r. Craig Bluell vice a as 5 Phone i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH qwm� COPY DEMAND FOR PAYMENT Date F-I'l 30, 1911r) Demand of: Tarantello & Company Address: 3901 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 100 Nevpirt Beach, California 92660 In the amount of S3,500.00 ITEM OF EXPEA DITURE BUDGET i AMOUNT Feasibility Study for 2500 Seaview, Corona dol Mar (CHAP $14) 02-218-04 Job No. 17119 Approved For Payment: w TOTAL $3,500.00 Hance Director d• May 25. 1989 Mr. Craig T. Bluell Planning Department CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 INVOICE • RE: CARNATION COVE, 2500 SEAViEW, CORONA DEL MAR JOB NO. 17119 Services Rendered: Research and preparation of a feasibility report of the above referenced property. AMOUNT NOW DUE: 5t) Terms: Net 10 days. A finance charge of 1.0% per month which is an annual percentage rate of 12% is charged on all past due accounts. Please make check payable to Tarantello do Company. and remit with a copy of this invoice to: 3901 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 100 Newport Reach, California 92660 We appreciate this Opportunity to be of service and look forward to your continued patronage in the future. Respectfully submitted, TA a-LLoa- Diane& COMPANY W. Joslyn Senior Marketing Consu ant AP RO D FOR pA 'MENT By UNT tao.: bAMCE- OE PUBILIC HEARING W 40 Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the applications of JhWI Merit Permit No. 14 i1nd Waiver of Combining Qf- Lots on property located at Seaview Avenue. w Notice is hereby further given that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92659-1768 (714) 644.3225. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the ZW day of Scptembe jM at the hour of Ta,.0 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (714) 644-3200. Janice Debay, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach. Note: The expense of this notice is paid from a Cling fee collected from the applicant. 'WLICAT10N FOR SESIDE?i:IAL DF_*4OL1T_CN/CCNVERSI0N Fayc i e: 3 CITY.OF NrWPORT BEACH PLANNIl+NG DEPAFTHENT Application No. CURRENT PI.M4NING DIVISION Application Rec`d by 3300 Newport Boulevard Fee Newport Beach, CA 92663 (714) 644-3200 PART A (Please Print) Applicant Carnation Love, A California Limited Phone 714-644-606n Partnership Mailing Address 18 Corporate% Plaza, Newport ReAch, CA 92660 Property Owner same Phone Mailing Address Same Address of Property Involved 2500 Seaview, Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Legal Description of Prcperty Involved (if too long, attach separate sheet) Por- ion of lots 2, 4, 6 & B in Block 231 Corona del Mar M.M 3-41 6 42 Number of Residential Units Currently Onsite Number of Residential Structures onsi e 3 19 non -conforming 6 unit Multi -family Description of the Proposed New Development if the structure is being demolished as a public nuisance as defined by the State Health and Safety Code or City Ordinance, describe those factors causing the existing residential unit to constitute a nuisance. (Attach additional sheets if necessary) (PART A NOT COKPLETE WITHOUT OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT ON PAGE 3) *** DO NOT CO!'.PLETE APPLICATIC4 BELCId THIS LINE ••• Date Filed Planning Dept. Determination 0 Determination by P-i Not Applicable P-1 npplicable Part B Not Required Fart B Required PART B (Please Print) Applicat.cn No. Page 2 of 3 Number of Residential V its Proposed six (6) If proposal is for non-residential use, why is a residential use no lcnyer feasible on this site? (attach additional sheets if necessary) List of currant tenants (sea definition below). Tenant Name NoneDatesof Tenancy Current Residence Phone Number of Bedrooms Current Monthly incc=e Business Address Phone Mailing Address Tenant Name Current Residence Number of Sedroorss Business Address Mailing Address Tenant Name Current Residence Number of Bedrooms Business Address Hailing Address ATTACH ADDITIMIAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY For those tenants involved in any eviction previous twelve months, please provide the None Tenant Name Address from which Evicted Dates of Tenancy Phone Current r:anth ly Phone Dates of Henan- Phone Current Month!,; Phone 11 ncene .r.ccne (see definition below) or leca: action within the following: Date Tenancy Be3an Monthly Income at of Eviction Number of Bedrooms Residence Address Phone Business Address Phone Mailing Address Court, Name Court Address Case Number Case Name Description of case or action taken to cause eviction Time Tenant Nacre Date Tenancy Be;&n Address from which Evicted Monthly 1ncoae a. Time of Eviction Nusiber of Bedrooms Residence Address Phone Business Address Phone Mailing Address Court Name Court Address Case Number Case Name Description of case or action taken to cause eviction Tenant Name Date Tenancy Beyar. Address from which Evicted Tenthly Inge at 'ice of Eviction Number of Bedrooms Residence Address Phone Business Address Phone Mailing Address Court Nam [oust Address Case Number -- -- Case NW-'* Description of case or action taken to cause eviction ATTACH ADDI'TIONA-Ir SHEETS IF NECESSARY Face -1 z_ 3 Avplica_zcr. ::e. Tenantst For the pupose of this applicatior. the City of ::ew:ort Seach censtdc " all persons nd families who occupy a residentiAl rental unit for a period srpa•_er than 45 days to be tenants. Eviction: The City of Newport Beach recogni_es legal or court actions and actions such as rent increases beyond the current market rate, avoidance of state mar -dated rr-airterance, harassment and other such actions which result in a tenant vacating his Ming unit against his will as an eviction. eWINER' 5 AFFIDAVIT* (i) twe) Carnation Cove, A California Limited Partnership depose and say that (I am) (we are) the owner(s) of the propertyties) involved in this application. (I) (wen) further certify, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of (my) (our) knowledge and belief. sicrature(s} g�= Westland Commercial Corp. r _mac.-/...� -�• ✓~ •NoTEt An agent may sign for the owner if urirten authorization frc= the record comer :s filed with the applicant. 0— Do NOT COMPLETE APPLICATION BELOW THIS LIME ".' Date tiled Fee rd. planning Department Action Date Appeal P.G. Hearing P.C. Action Date G.C. Hearing Date HELLO 1/86 Appeal C.C. Action Receipt No. Notice Is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the applications of Coasul-bliftntial Development Permit No. 14 and¢11diver of_Combininr 21-1&U on property located at 2500 Seaview Avenue. ilesuest to Amad a vortion of DistrictingrMA2_No. 17_ so RE4_5fl establim ygfd setback along the Carnetion_ivenue (private) frontage of, he su JrrLRropertX. The RX0 2 sal aln naludes: _ a request to, waiy„ethe combining of to 'Xygui renent in V residential condominium deyelopmely=_pSLsuant to -the Administrative Cuillelines for the implementation of thg StAtg Law relative to Low-and-Hoderate-Income Housing Xithin the is hereby further given that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above, The Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to nr.chpt the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to ba construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92658.8915 (714) 644.3225. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the Jb day of August 1989, at the hour of " p.m, in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may Appear and be heard thereon. if you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone also raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (714) 644-3200. Cary J. Di Sano, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach. Note: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. t� . " COMMISSIONERS . , MINUTES - - - - ROLL CALL August 10, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Req st to permit the construction of a single family dwelling which ceeds the maximum allowable height in the 24/28 Foot Height irritation District on property located In the R-1 District. Tha height of the proposed dwelling will not exceed the height of the top of curb on Ocean Boulevard. lire proposal also Includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the proposed dwelling to encroach 10 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback adjacent to Ocean Boulevard. LOCATION: Lot 15, Tract No. 1257, located at 3619 Ocean Boulevard, on the southerly side of Ocean Boulevard between Orchid Avenue and Poinsettia Avenue, in Corona dcl Mar. ZONE: R-1 APPLICAN'T: EPAC Financial, Inc., Costa, Mesa OWNER: Thomas Linden, Newport BcacW, James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the appli t has requested to withdraw the subject application. Request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. 17 so as to establlsh a 10 foot front yard setback along the Carnation Avenue (private) frontage of the subject property and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND Re nest to waive the combining of lots requirement in conjunction with the proposed project and the approval of a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow an open stairway to encroach 7 feet into a required 10 foot rear yard setback and -42- INDEX Item No.12 V1155 Withdrarn, Item No.13 A6 85 Waiver of Combining Requirement CRUD 14 Cont'd to 9-21-89 COMMISSIONERS • O MINUTES August 10, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL ) ) ] 11 } I I I INDEX to allow a portion of the structure to encroach 2 feet into the required 6 foot reverse corner setback adjacent to Seaview Avenue, at the rear of the property. AND Request to approve a Coastal Residential Development Permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance for a 6 unit residential condominium development pursuant to the Administrative Guidelines for the implementation of the State Law relative to Low -and -Moderate -Income Housing within the Coastal Zone. LOCATION: Portions of Lots 2, 4, 6 and K, Block 231, Corona del Mar and a portion of an abandoned street (Carnation Avenue), located at 2500 Seaview Avenue, on the northeasterly corner of Seaview Avenue and Carnation Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R-3 APPLICANT: Carnation Cove, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Commissioner Debay addressed the Coastal Residential Development Permit as referred to in the staff report that states "it will not be feasible for a low or moderate income unit either on -site or off -site .... in accordance with Council Policy P-1..", and based on said statement she requested that a fifth scenario be provided in which an affordable unit be required in the form of a contribution to a fund. Commissioner Debay referred to the survey of two bedroom condominium units that was taken by the consultants, and she noted that the survey was in the Corona del Mar neighborhood where residential sales prices are higher than elsewhere in the City, and she suggested that the survey should have been taken in areas of the City where condominium units are sold for less than they are in Corona del Star. -43. COMMISSIONERS 0 • MINUTES August 10, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Rat! CALL ) ) ) ) ) I I INDEx Commissioner Debay concluded that the applicants should be required to participate in the City's affordable housing policy. Robert Burnham, City Attorney, explained that the replacement housing has to be only within the Coastal Zone. in reference to establishing a fund, Mr. Burnham explained that there are cities in the State that have housing programs which contemplate the construction of units and require a payment of fee into a fund from property owners, and that money is used to construct the units. He explained that the units to be constructed are requested for in the Housing Element of that jurisdiction in accordance with the requirements of AB 1600 which states that if a condition is imposed it has to be reasonably related to the demands that are being created by a particular project. Mr. Burnham stated that in the absence of a housing authority it is difficult to satisfy the requirements of AB 1600. Chairman Pomeroy and Mr. Burnham discussed the provisions to grant a density bonus, and affordable housing that is included in the General Plan. Commissioner Person commented that the policy has not been applied to a project consisting of 10 units or less. Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Manager, addressed the Housing Element that was recently revised by the City and the State Department of Housing and Community Development. He explained that the Housing Element now exempts projects of 10 or less units, and that in the future the City shall amend Council Policy P•1 to be consistent with the new General Plan policy so the projects of the subject size will not be coming to the Planning Commission under P•1. fie said that the Coastal Residential Development Permit will be essentially administered without a public hearing or any requirement for affordable housing. Mr. Lenard alluded to the City's successful affordable housing program that has been looked upon favorably by other jurisdictions. Chairman Pomeroy stated that the 10 or less exemption would not apply if the applicant requested Density Bonus. Mr. Lenard concurred. -44- COMMISSIONERS S • MINUSES August 10, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL j i — - i INDEX ---- Don Webb, City Engineer, referred to Condition No. 16, Waiver of Combining Requirement, and requested that the condition be modified to state Mat a minimum 6 in. rise be provided.' instead of 'That a minimum 6 ft rise be provided.'. IMe public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. David Diem, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Diem concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit 'A'. Mr. Diem stated that the proposed project was planned within the guidelines of the General Plan and in consideradon of the adjacent neighbors. Mr. Diem commented that each of the 6 units has been designed with either a three or four car garage, and eight driveways have been added to accommodate eight guest automobiles. Mr. Diem explained that three units will have access off of Carnation Avenue and three units will have access off of the alley. lie explained that to have access off of Seaview Avenue would have required a curb cut. fie stated that a turn -around area has been created in the alley to enhance the traffic flow. Mr. Diem stated that the requested 10 foot front yard setback oft of the old Carnation Avenue right-of-way equates to a 20 foot front yard setback off of the curb. He explained that the front yard setback corresponds with the new developments on Carnation Avenue. Mr. Diem moved to the exhibit area and described the requested modifications. He explained that the requested rear yard encroachment Is required by the Fire Department to allow access around the property. Mr. Diem stated that the City considers the front yard of the project to be on Carnation Avenue and the side yard to be on Seaview Avenue which would be adjacent to the Seaview Avenue neighbor's front yard. He explained that the development is required to conform with the setback of the building that is adjacent to the site on Seaslcw Avenue. Mr. Diem explained that 20 feet of the property is required to conform with the setback that is adjacent to the subject site. He described what the project's impact would be if the sideyard setback modification were not requested. Mr. Diem described the second and third floor open deck encroachments. .45. COMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES August 10, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROIL CALL ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) I tNDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glovcr, Mr. Diem explained that 12 garage spaces and 8 guest spaces will be accessed from Carnation Avenue and 8 autortuthiles to accommodate three condominium units will enter from the alley. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards with respect to the applicants staking the subject property, Mr. Diem explained that the applicants revised the plats after they observed the project from the adjacent property decks, and the applicants also staked the site with 28 foot poles to comply with a request by the neighbors and staff. Mr, Diem stated that the applicants delivered a revised set of plans to staff that do not include the reverse corner setback modification. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards with respect to the fire lane, Mr. Diem replied that he is in support of a fire lane; however, it is not a criteria for the project inasmuch as the Fire Department has indicated that adequate fire protection may be provided without the subject fire lane. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill regarding the automobile access to the alley, Mr. Diem explained that the existing structure provides access for one automobile and the proposed project will provide access for eight automobiles to accommodate three condominium units. Mr. Diem stated that the driveway will not be available to guest parking. and said parking restriction will be included in the CC&R's. Mr. Diem and Commissioner Merrill discussed the traffic flow and available parking in the alley. Commissioner Merrill emphasized his concern that it would be difficult to enforce the parking problem and congestion in the alley. Don Webb, City Engineer, explained that if a fire lane would be established that there would be adequate room to turn automobiles around. Mrs. Doris Boisscranc, property owner at 2520.2522 Seavicw Avenue, adjacent to the subject property, appeared before the Planning Commission to state concerns with respect to the subject project on the basis that the project would have an impact on their property. Mrs. Doisscranc explained that at the Boisserancs' request, the applicants ineffectively staked the subject project for the neighbors, and the result was that the project would impair their view at the corner inasmuch as the 46- COMMISSIONERS • . MINUTES August 10, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL j ) I ) ! ) ) I I INDEX project's decks would extend into their view. Mrs. Boisseranc requested a clarification of garages on Seaview Avenue. Mrs. Boisseranc and Commissioner Pers6n discussed her concerns with respect to the project and the impact the project would have on their view. Mrs. Boisscranc referred to her letter dated August 1, 1989, objecting to the rear yard setback that adjoins their property, and the impact In the alley. She commented that they do not object to the number of units or the development. Mr. Burnham explained the City's position with respect to protecting private views. fie stated that in consideration of the subject project, there is a waiver of a combining requirement provision that has been created in the Zoning Cate. tic stated that in considering the merits of the proposed waiver the Planning Commission may impose conditions that they consider appropriate; however, he questioned if the conditions could appropriately include restrictions on the building ai it relates to Carnation Avenue and Seaview Avenue. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Hill Ward, Senior Planner, explained that the normal sideyard setback would be 4 feet and would apply to the entire Seaview Avenue frontage of the building except for the fast 20 feet of the property which is adjacent with the front yard area of the adjoining lot. tic said that the Zoning Code requires that the last 20 feet must maintain the same setback as exists on the adjoining property, and the existing setback on the adjoining property is 6 feet from the property line to the second floor deck; therefore, the applicant must provide a six foot street side setback on the last 20 feet of the property. Mr. Ward further replied that the applicant is proposing to have the ground floor portion of the building encroach two feet into the required six foot reverse corner setback. tic said that the second and third floor of Unit NP will maintain a 7 foot building setback and a 4 foot deck setback. Chairman Pomeroy and Mr. Ward discussed the view that would be Impacted by the project if the applicant withdrew the modification requesting the reverse corner setback. -47- COMMISSIONERS . 0 MINUTES August 10, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALLJ J I M i ) I INOEX Chairman Pomeroy maintained that the proposed modification would preserve the existing views better than if the applicant withdrew the modification. He said that the applicant has agreed to cut back the second and third floor: closest to the Baisseranes property to improve the view from that area. Mr. Jay Cohen, 2520 Seaview Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Cohen commented that if the 2 foot encroachment is granted to the applicant, 70% to 100% of his view would be blocked of Newport Harbor and that would affect the value of the property. Mr. Cohen indicated that there is a parking problem and 8 additional automobiles would impact the alley. He agreed that a fire lane would be beneficial to the area. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Ward described the alternate plan that the applicant submitted which fully conforms to the required side and rear yard setbacks. He explained that the stairway at the rear portion of the property has been moved into the interior portion of the building. He explained that the 7 foot rear yard encroachment would increase to 6 feet and would remain at 6 feet to the end of the building. and on all three levels of the project. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Ward described how the Boisseranc's view would be impacted if the applicant fully complied with the Zoning Ordinance. Mr, Mike Mack. 2524 Seaview Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Mack referred to his letter dated August 3, 1989, expressing concerns with respect to the size of the project and the sideyard setback. tic said that the view is only one concern. Mr. Mack requested that the applicants' stake the project so the neighbors will have a clear understanding of the size of the development. Mr. Steven W. Johnson, 331 Dahlia Place, appeared before the Planning Commission. tic referred to his letters dated August 9, 1989, addressed to Mr. Ward with respect to the pproposed project and to lire Chief Reed with respect to establishing a fire lane. He supported the neighbors foregoing concerns, and he stated that he has concerns that the proposed setback could set . . COMMISSIONERS S . MINUTES August 10. 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL -- J- IN0EK Motion a precedent on Seaview Avenue. Mr. Johnson emphasized the importance of a fire Iane and the potential traffic in the alley. Mr. Johnson referred to the Environmental Report's checkoff list and he questioned staff's response to the questions pertaining to transportation and circulation, and he rebutted that an additional 8 automobiles would create congestion In the area. lie requested that the CC&R's require property owners participate in the maintenance of the private right-of-way. Mr. John Boisseranc appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Boisseranc expressed his concern that the setback measurement was to his property's deck area and not to the structure. In summary, he stated that the Boisseranc's support the alignment of the adjoining buildings and the adjoining decks. There being no others desiring to appear and he heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Debay cummented that the applicant is not constructing a project that is more than the lot requires; however, she said that by combining lots that there is a sacrifice of open space that would ordinarily be between each of the lots. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Ward replied that the setback was measured from the adjacent deck and not the structure. Commissioner Merrill and Mr. Hewicker discussed the alignment of the adjacent deck area on Seaview Avenue and the structure on Carnation Avenue. Mr. Hewicker suggested that the applicant could submit plans that would exhibit setbacks that would match structure with adjacent structure and deck with adjacent deck. Commissioner Edwards and Mr. tlewicker discussed the proposal requesting exhibit.% to display the alignment of the adjoining decks and structures. Motion was made to continue Amendment No. 685, Waiver of Combining Requirement, and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 14 to the September 21, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Pers6n requested that the applicant prepare exhibits that would show the alignments of the decks -49- COMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES ROLL CALL All Ayea August 10, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH and structures as suggested, and that the applicant also stake the property for the neighbors. Commissioner Merrill requested an amendment to the motion that the applicant submit plans showing a fire lane and a parking layout in the alley. The maker of the motion agreed to amend the motion. Mr. Diem reappeared before the Planning Commission to state that he would like to proceed with the project and he reviewed the proposed project and the revisions to the proposed plan. Chairman Pomeroy suggested that the applicant consider the neighbors' requests and come back to the Planning Commission with plans that address their concerns. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Ward stated that the required setback for the adjoining property is actually 20 feet. lie stated that there was a variance granted on that property to allow a 10 foot setback, and the deck on the second and third floors of the adjoining property encroach approximately 5 feet into that 10 foot setback. Mr. Ward stated that the reverse corner setback requirement is the equal to the existing setback, not the required setback, of the adjoining property. Motion was voted on to continue this item to the September 21, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Pers6n stepp own from the dais because of a possible conflict of interest. James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated -sot what has been adopted by the City Council for commercial pant spaces does not allow the installation of garage doors. He said ftLtecause of the concerns that have been expressed with respect I the mixed use developments that the Planning Commission had. •50- INDEX Discussion Items D-1 Encl.Comm'1 Parking Spaces_ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLAN REVIEW REQUEST L,_ADVAZCZ FL1 IM DIVISION1 `PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC ENGINEER „FIRE DEPARTMENT _PLAN REVIEW DIVISION `PARKS & RECREATION ^POLICE DEPARTMENT _MARINE SAFETY ,CRADINC APPLICATION OF: Carnation Cove Date July 19. JM PLANS ATTACIIED ( PLEASE RETURN) PLANS MI FILE. IN PUINNINC DEPT. FOR: Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 14 t i XWOM-200.07,51MMi It• • 1' ! i 1 rye LOCATION: 2500 Seaview Avenue REPORT REQUESTED BY: 7.28.82 COMMISSION REVIEW: 8-10.89 COMMENTS: Tilt Ca 119 L6 L PLh!j Lk?Jft Or,A-wD BE LmtAu _tQACTraL PRO&kAN1 OF TI+ C{tY_ eF •iGWPUR ,__bfil►t*1+ D�91GlJL�c Y44E S1TF- E20, MWi-FI.Nw1 1;6S1Dr,NTjAL ute - .Xdit rA0j_kj is . r-cli.£1s1tNT WITH QIDELIt4cf OF.._BOT14 c.P.1..u,_,_,....... L.C.P. 211 Age* 3 _ wNtiLN LE12uitEi 2;140 SQ.FT. eF 1'3UIL.i A,&,F. jL&I AUA _ apt G a 1A 4NT,� 140 CMFL t Signature! ���- (�LVL n.r.• 7 lZb 1101 • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLAN REVIEW REQUEST LADVANCI iIAMING DIVISION 2LPUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT X_TRAFFIC ENGINEER 2LFIRE DEPARTMENT Zf_PLAN REVIEW DIVISION `PARKS 6 RECREATION ,POLICE DEPARTMENT _ KARINE SAFETY —CRADING APPLICATION OF: Carnation Cove FOR: Amendment No. 685 LOCATION: 2500 Seaview Avenues REPORT REQUESTED BY: 7.28.02 COMMISSION REVIEW: 8.10.89 COMMENTS: Date Jgly 19. f g89 PLANS ATTACHED (PLEASE RETURN) —PLANS ON FILE IN PLANNING DEPT. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Meeting Member 21. 19�4 Agenda Item No. „ S CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Planning Department Request to amend a portion of Districting Map No, 17 so as to establish a 10 foot front yard setback along the Carnation Avenue (private) frontage of the subject property; and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND Request to waive the combining of lots requirement in conjunction with the proposed project; and the approval of a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow an open stairway to encroach 7 feet into a required 10 foot rear yard setback and to allow a portion of the structure to encroach 2 feet into the required 6 foot reverse corner . setback adjacent to Seaview Avenue, at the rear of the Property AND Request to approve a Coastal Residential Development Permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance for a 6 unit residential condominium development pursuant to the Administrative Guidelines for the implementation of the State Law relative to Low -and - Moderate -Income Housing within the Coastal Zone. LOCA71ON: Portions of Lots 2, 4, 6 and 8, Block 231, Corona del Mar and a portion of an abandoned street (Carnation Avenue), located at 2500 Seaview.Avenue, on the northeasterly corner of Seavlew Avenue and Carnation Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R•3 APPLICANT: Camation Cove, Newport Beach ,�' 70: Planning Commission-2. OWNER: Same as applicant These applications involve a request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. 17 so as to establish a 10 foot front yard setback along the Carnation Avenue (private) frontage of the subject property, The proposal also includes: a request to waive the requirement of the combining of lots in conjunction with the proposed project; a request to approve a Coastal Residential Development Permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance for a 6 unit residential condominium development Pursuant ' to the Administrative Guidelines for the implementation of the State Law relative to Low -and - Moderate -Income Housing within the Coastal Zone; and the approval of a modification to the Zoning Cade so as to allow an open stairway to encroach 7 feet into a required 10 foot rear yard setback and to allow a portion of the structure to encroach 6 feet into the required 6 foot reverse corner setback adjacent to Seaview Avenue, at the rear of the property. Amendment procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.84 of the Municipal Code; provisions for the waiver of the requirement to combine individual lots or portions of lots into a single building site are set forth in Section 20.87.090 of the Municipal Cade; and Coastal Residential Development procedures arc set forth in City Council Policy P-1. This Item was continued from the August 10, 1989 Planning Commission meeting so as to allow the applicant additional time to review his project with the surrounding property owners and to prepare alternative plans for the various setback configurations for the reverse corner setback area which were discussed by the Planning Commission. Although the following staff report will provide further discussions of the significant issues, staff has also attached a copy of the original staff report for the Planning Commission's information. Copies of the project plans will be on display at the Planning Commission meeting. The applicant was also requested by the Commission to stake the property, to show the neighbors the proposed encroachments in the reverse corner setback area. To date the applicant has not accomplished the %taking. As set forth in the attached excerpt of the Planning Coui mission minutes for the August 10, 1989 Planning Commission meeting, there was a great deal of discussion concerning the required setback versus the proposed setback for, the reverse corner area'sdjioent to Seavicw Avenue.. In., order to. clarify each of the three alternatives discussed, the appllceut . has prepared the attached exhibit which, illustrates +eacb of the alternatives. The first plan (Plan A) Illustrates,. the setbacks as proposed i by :the applicant which Includes: a 7 foot 6 inch building setback and a 4 foot deck setback on the second and third floors. Said setbacks are provided across the full 17 foot width of Unit 'P (27 feet from rear property line as shown on the attached Plan A) rather than on just the rear 10 feet of the structure (20 feet from property line) as required bylCode: ;The TO: Planning Commission-3. second pbm (Plan B) includes a b foot building and deck setback on the second and third floors; however. said setback is provided on just the last 10 feet of the mmcture (20 feet from rear property line as shown is the attached Plan B), as required by Code. The thud plan (Plan t:.') shows an II foot building setback and a 6 foot deck setback on the second and third floors which are the same setbacks on the adjoining property to the south. 7be applicant has also prepued a composite drawing which illustrates tho effect each of the alternative plans has on the view shed from the second and third floor decks of the adjoicdng property to the south. As can be seen, the applicant's proposed setbacks provide more view shed than any of the other alternatives. Therefore, it is gaffs opinion that the proposed setbacks are preferred. It should also be noted that although the major concern expressed by the adjoining property owners has been with regard to the loss of vier, the reverse corner setback requirement was never intended for the purpose of maintaining views. At the previous public hearing, there was considerable discussion concerning the applicant's use of the private alley at the rear of the property for vehicular aceess_to the project. Although some of the surrounding property owners have objected to the applicant's use of the alley, it should be pointed out that in accordance with Council Policy UZ, when a residential property maintains alley access, it must be used for vehicular access rather than the public street. In the case of the proposed project, the site also fronts onto a private street which provides an opportunity for additional vehicular access without effecting Seavicw Avenue. Of the six units proposed by the applicant, only three of them will use the rear alley for vehicular access. The remaining 3 units will use the private street. According to the City nafftc Engineer and the Public Works Department, the private alley is more than adequate to serve three additional dwelling units. In fact, the applicant's project has significantly improved the circulation within the alley by providing additional turn -around area at the end of the alky. At the previous public hearing there was also discussion with regard to the need of a fire lane within the private alley at the rear of the subject projem as well as in tM prime Street pmAxely known as Dahlia Avenue, se as to pr a emergency vehicle access to the near of the proje ct from Scaview Avenue. `Althougb , the :Fire Department codtiooa a Mcate that such a fire lane is not required , in order to provide adequate tiro protecdon to the subject project, they have supported the idea of establishing a fire Inc .9 a majority of the affected: property owners, were. in favor,, I Sirtee, the previous public hearing, the Fire Department has sent out questionnaires to agated property owners, asking if they agreed or disagreed with the creation of the subject Cure lane. Eighty percent of the respondents indicated they agreed. Subsequently, the Traffic Affairs Coatmittee has reviewed and approved the establishment of the fire fare subject to the final approval of the Fire Chief. The Fire Department has recently indicated that •o TO: Punning CommiuioD 44. the Fire Chief has approved the lacstion of the fire lane (see attached driving) and the applicant has agreed to install the appropriate striping and signage for the purpose of marking the fire lute. During the previous public hearing there was discussion regarding the lass of open apace on the site as a result of combining the property into a single building site rather than developing each of the four existing parcels individually. Although this may be a concern of some of the surrounding property owners, it should be pointed out that the proposed project provides approximately 52,940r cubic feet of open space which is 3.75 times the amount required ' (14,112 cubic feet). Considering the typical two unit development In Corona del Mar provides between 4,000 and 6,000 cubic feet of open space in addition to required setbacks, the proportional open space for the proposed project is more than twice that which would be provided if the existing parcels were developed individually (4 developments with 6,000 cu.ft. of open space n 24,000 cu.ft. of open space whercm the proposed development is providing 52,940± cu. ft.). At its meeting of September 7, 1989, the Planning Commission approved Amendment No. 687 which recommended to the City Council the establishment of the Multi -Family Residential (MFR) District. In light of said action, and for the Planning Commissiods Information, staff has reviewed the proposed project relative to its compliance with the draft MFR District regulations and determined that it complies with all provisions except allowable height, and the side yard setback requirement., In accordance with the draft MFR District, the new height limit requirement will be 24 foot average roof height and 29 foot maximums ridge height, whereas the proposed project Includes! a height of 24 feet (height of roof deck handrail) on the front half of the lot and 28 foot average and 30 foot maximum ridge height on the rear half of the lot. . With regards to the side yard setback requirement, the new MFR District would require 7.36 foot wide side yards (8% of the average lot width of 92 feet), whereas the proposed project includes a 5 foot aide yard setback on the interior property line and a 4 foot side yard setback adjacent to Seaview Avenue (where the Municipal Code now requires 4 foot side, yard setbacks, except for the reverse corner.'area, where the proposed side setback Is as previously described.) It should be further mentioned that these new height limit , aad setback standards do no apply to the subject property inasnwch as the : MFR District has not yet been adopted by the City Council nor,has the subject property been rezoned frorn , the R•3 District to the MFR District.. ' Said . discussion is provided for informadon only. Planning Commission-5. 7be August 10, 1989 Planning Commission staff report Includes findingx and conditions in support of three different actions relative to the subject applications. Should the PWmiag Commission approve the project with either Exhibit "A" or "11", the following Additional condition is suggested; That the applicant shall stripe and sign the proposed fire lane as may be established by Newport Beach Fire Department. Should the Plarming Commission wish to aappprove all of the applications as submitted, the findings and conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" are suggested. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve all of the appUcations but deny the requested modification for side and rear yard encroachments, the findings and conditions of approval in Exhibit "B' are suggested. Should the Planning Commission wish to deny the waiver of combining requirement and the requested modifications but approve Amendment No. 685 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 14, the findings %et forth in the attached Exhibit "C are suggested, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. RMCKER, Director B tIllarn Ward Senior Planner Attachments: Original staff report dated August 10, 1989 Excerpt of the Planning Commission` Minutes dated August 10, 1989 Letters of Interest Plan showing the proposed fire lane location Exlu'bit showing alternative setbacks for the reverse corner area of the property to FROM: Planning Commission Meeting August 10, 1989 Agenda Item No. 13 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Planning Department Request to. amend a portion of Districting Map No. 17 so as to establish a 10 foot front yard setback along the Carnation Avenue (private) frontage of the subject property and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND Request to waive the combining of lots requirement in conjunction with the proposed project; and the approval of a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow an open stairway to encroach 7 feet into a required 10 foot rear yard setback and to allow a portion of the structure to encroach 2 feet into the required b foot reverse corner setback adjacent to Seaview Avenue, at the rear, or the property. U 01 Request to approve a . Coastal Residential Development ' Permit for the purpose' of establishing project compliance for a 6 unit residential condominium development pursuant, to the 'Adminlstrative Guidelines for the implementation , of the State Law relative to Low-and- ModerataIncome Housing within the' Coastal Zone. LOCA'nON: Portions of Lots 2,' 4, 6 and 8, Block 231, Corona del Mar and a portion of an abandoned street (Carnation Avenue), located at 2500 Seaview Avenue, on the northeasterly corner of Seaview Avenue and Carnation Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R-3 APPIJCANT: Carnation Cove, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant h TO: Planning Commission-2. These applications involve a request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. 17 so as to establish a 10 foot front yard setback along the Carnation Avenge (private) frontage of the subject property. The proposal also includes: a request to waive the requirement for the combining of lots in con unction with the proposed project; a request to approve a Coastal Residential Development Permit for the purpose of establishing project oontyliance for a 6 unit residential condondnium development pursuant to the Administrative Guidelines for the implementadon :of the State Law relative to Law-and- ModerawIncome Housing within the Coastal Zone; and the approval of a' modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow an open stairway to encroach 7 feet into a required 10 foot rear yard setback and to allow a portion of the structure to encroach 2 feet into the required 6 foot reverse corner setback adjacent to Seaview Avenue, at the rear of the property. Amendment procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.84 of the Municipal Code; provisions for the waiver of the requirement to combine individual lots or portions of lots into a single building site are set forth In Section 20.87.090 of the Municipal Code; Coastal Residential Development Permit procedures are set forth in City Council Policy P-1; and modification procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.81 of the Municipal Code. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State'CEQA Guidelines and City Council Policy K-3, an Initial Study has been prepared for the proposed project. Based on the Information contained In the initial study, it -has been determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project and is attached for the Planning Commission's information. Subject &May and Surro�land Uses The subject property is currently developed with a 19 unit apartment,building and related garage spaces. Said building was originally built as a hotel in the ,carly 20'3; however, a search of the Building I epartmcnt records revealed that in 1950 'and 'again in '1954, alterations and additions 'were permitted to the building, including a small garage structure. This was prior to any City requirements for on -site parking or the establishment of density standards. The 19 unit apartment W1 11ding;that' evolved from the original hotel does not conform with the current Zoning Code pertaining'td"pa"rking, density and setback requirements. The property is comprised of portions of four lots, a portion of the vacated Carnation Avenue and a portion' `oi a vacated 'alley. ''To the northeast is an old , apatment building; to the southeast are two condominium developments; to the southwest, across Seaview Avenue, are duplexzs;` `and rto ' tlic northwest, across the abandoned portion of Carnation Avenue are single family dwellings and two four unit condominium developments. �j TO: Planning Commission 3... The Land.Use Element of the General Plan and the. Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan designate the site for "Multi -Family, Residential'. usm' With a maximumdensity of one dwelling unit for each 2,140 square, feet of W16ble, lot area. Based on such a denity limit, the nubjact property, which Contains 12JW square. feet'of buildable lot area, would permit 6 dwclUW (12,886 sq.h. 2,140, s%' Jrt. =,' 6.02 or .6 dwelling units)., Based on the abase calatlatioq the proposed project is consistent' with ' the established land use designation and allowable density as set forth, in the. Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Loaf Coastal Program Land Use Plaa. . At its meeting of September 4, 1980, the Planning Commission approved Use' Permit No. 1948 and Rembdivision No. 666 which involved a request to permit the construction of a six unit residential condominium development on the subject property, Said action was taken with the findings and subject to the conditions of approval set forth 'in the attached excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes dated September 4, 1980. Said project was never constructed and the above applications expired 24 months later. Analyal The - applicant is proposing to construct a 6 unit residential condominium development with related prages as shown on the attached plaits. Each of the units within . the project will c6atafin three bedrooms, 2S5 baths, a living roam, formal dining room'and kitchen. The following outline sets forth the major characteristics, of the proposed Pry Land Area: 12,886 sq.ft. Buildable Area: 7,568 t ' sq.ft. " Permitted Dwelling Units: (As established by General Plan): 6 units or 1 D.U. for each 2,140—sq1t. of lot areas PC rmitted `,Gnu Structural Area (1.51 x.,13g0dole Area) 11.352; sq.ft. Proposed Gross Structural Area: 11,298 + 'sq.ft. Floor. Am Ratio:" IA9 'z Buildable Area'' 3The attached plans incorrectly indicate that 10 dwelling unitsare permitted on the site. TO: Planning Commission4. Setbacks: Front (Carnation Ave.) 20 ft. 10 ft. from original right• of -way of Carnation Avenue Rear 10 ft. Varies ,between 4 ft. and 10 ft for condominium; 14 ft. for 1 car garage Northeasterly Side 4 ft. S ft.-for condominium; 4 ft. for 1 car garage Southwesterly Side 4 ft.; 6 feet on See discussion below the rear 20 feet Required Parking: 1,5 spaces per D.U. or 9 spaces Proposed Parking: Tenant Parking Guest Pam Unit A 3 garage spaces 1 open space Unit B 3 garage spaces 3 open spaces Unit C 4 garage. spaces 2 open spaces Unit D 4 garage spaces 2 open spaces ..Unit » 3 garage spaces 0 Unit F 3 T)aces 0 Total 20 garage. spaces 8 open spaces Permitted Building Height: Front'Half of Parcel: 24 ft. average` " 29 ft.' maximum Rear'Half of Parcel: 28' ft. average- 33 ft. maximum Proposed Building Height: Front`, Half of Parcel: Varies, 18` rt. to 24 . ft: msuiimum height of 'dick hatid6dl Rear. Half of Parcel: 28ft`. average.' and 30 ft. iirtW im height' of xloping roof Required Open Space: 14,112,cult'." Proposed Open Space: 1n excess of 52,940 cu.ft. TO: Planning Commission-5.. In accordance with Section 20.16.045 of the Municipal Code, the front yard setback requirement for,the subject property is 20 feet measured from the'original right-of-way line of Carnation Avenue. Said requirement is based on the standard setback for the R-3 District inasmuch as the subject property has no setback identified on the Districting Map. It is also noted that Districting Map No. 17 includes a 10 foot front yard setback for all the properties on the opposite side of Carnation Avenue as well as on both sides of Carnation Avenue in the next block (see attached vicinity map), In light of this situation, the applicant is proposing to establish a 10 foot setback on Districting Map No, 17 for that portion of the subject property which fronts on Carnation Avenue (private street). Staff has no objections to such a proposal inasmuch as said setback is consistent with the front yard setback requirement for other propenies along Camation Avenue. It should also be noted that the adjacent property located northeasterly of the site, currently maintains an 8t foot front yard setback on Carnation Avenue. In accordance with Section 20.16.045 B of the Municipal Code, the side yard setback requirement in the R-3 District, for parcels that are 40 feet or wider, is 4 feet; provided that the side yard setback on the rear 20 feet of the street side of a cornier lot," where there is a reverse frontage, shall not be less than the front yard required or existing on the adjacent reversed frontage. In the case of the subject project, the adjoining lot located southeasterly of.the site has a reverse frontage and maintains a 6:t foot setback for the existing decks adjacent to Seaview Avenue. Therefore, the subject project', is required to provide a 4 foot setback along Seaview Avenue, except for the last 20 feet adjacent to the southeasterly property line, where the required setback is 6± feet. As shown on the attached plans, the applicant is proposing a 4 foot building,setback'oh each floor of the entire biding frontage adjacent to Seaview Avenue except far the last 16 feet of the building closest to the southeagerly, property line, Whore. the ground floor building setback will be 4 feet (2 foot ericioacbmeat into required'6 toocreverse'eorner setback). In addition, the applicant is requesting approval of second and third floor decks which encroach 2 feet into the required 6, foot reverse corner setback. It is staffs opinion that tbe' ground floor setback encroachment 'along Seaview Avenue should not be detrimental to the adjoining property inasmuch as it does not have any ground floor living area. With regards to the second and third floor deck encroachments, thf applicant has agreed to provide a second arid third floor building''setback' of 7 feet`for the entirefrontage of unit "F" (16 ft. of frontage), in order to permit the second and third floor deck encroachments. It should be noted that the applicant Is currently discussing this Issue with .the adjoining property:owncrs most affected. It should also be that ,should , the, adjoining property owners object to these encroachments, the applicm ha+i kipared'an alternate plan which fully conform to the required front and rear yard setbacks. Said alternate plan will be available for review at the Planning Commission meeting. :; TO: Planning Commission-6. In accordance with Section 20.16.045 C of the Municipal „Code, the rear yard setback requirement In the R-3 District is 10 feet. Therefore, no structure or, improvements in exceu of 6 feet in height may be placed within the rear 10 feet of the subject property. As tonally submitted, the applicant was proposing to construct an open stairway which encroached 7 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setback. However, as shown on the attached plaru, the applicant has reduced the encroachment to 6 feet so as to provide a minimum 4 foot clema= between the stairs and the rear property line, as requested by the Fire Department. It should also be 'noted that the improvements which constitute the patio and entry areas for unit `P and which are located In the 10 foot rear yard setback appear to be approximately 7 feet 6 inches high, whereas the Zoning Code allows a maximum height of 6 feet for said Improvements. Staff has discussed this with the applicant and he has agreed to lower the height of Said improvements. As shown on the attached plans, three of the proposed units will have vehicular access from Carnadon Avenue and the other three units will have vehicular access from the private alley at the rear of the site. As shown on the attached plans, the overall design and placement of buildings and walls adjacent to the private alley at the rear of the property, have taken into consideration the vehicular backup area needed for the adjoining three story building and the two story condominiums on the opposite side of the private alley. It should be noted that the proposed ramp area adjacent to the private alley will also provide additional maneuvering; area within .the alley so. as to provide easier turn around apace for anyone using the alley. It should also be noted that, the propaied access and circuladon for the project has. been approved by the City ,Traffic Engineer and the Public Works Department. . It should also be noted that staff has received comments. from some of the, property owners in the neighborhood who use the private alley °at the rear of the site. Said comments are in regards to the Illegal parking that takes place within the private alley during the evening and on weekends, and which prevents emergency vehiclelaeccss to -the rear oaf the properties using the alley. It appears that many, of the, property, owners are in favor of establishing a 14 foot wide fire line -;within the.private alley, Wuding.'the subject applicant. Should a majority of, the property owner's ,wish to. have a. futr lam, and the . (Sty Fue Chic f feels that it Is justified, svwh a, fire: lane ' can , be eslablishcd La any caw, the .establishtneat of , a. fire lane should, ao(d(ect. the, ,decisiatt; regarding. the proposed project, inasmuch as there are , adequ to alternativea pailabli to . the. Fire Department in order to insure adequate fire prow on of the I property,in'questioa. , The Fite Chief is currently, reviewing the. possibility, of.esitablishing:the subject Ore lava. Inasmuch as the proposed project is located in the Coastal Zone and contains more than two dwcU4 units, the applicant must comply with Council Policy P-1 which requires To: Planning Commission-7. the inclusion of low or moderate income housing In the Coasts! Zone, where feasible. As indicated in the attached feasibility analysis perfomwd by Tarantsllo and Company, it will not be feasible for a low or moderate income unit either on -site or off -site in conjunction with the development of the proposed project. 'Therefore, in accordance with Council Polity P-1, no affordable units are required As indicated previously, the subject property Is comprised of portia s of four lots, a portion of vacated Carnation Avemae and a portion of a vaceted a1ky. In accordance with Section 20.87.020 A of the Municipal Code* where a new building Is planned to cross existing property lines, no new construction my be rnnitted until such time as said lots ' or parcels have been combined into a single building site. However, in accordance with Section 20.87.090 B of the Municipal Code, when buildinp are planned to be constructed over existing lot lines, and where said building site Is found to be in multiple ownerships in fee, leasehold or other estate in real property, the requirement for a resubdivision as required in Subsection A may be waived by the Planning Commission upon the finding that the estate in the real property is of sufficient length to guarantee that the lots or parcels which constitute the site will be held as a single entity for the economic duration of the building improvements to be placed on the site. Said section'also provides that the Planning Commission or City Council, on appeal, may impose such conditions as 'deemed necessary to secure the purpose of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. It should also be noted that inasmuch as the applicant intends this project to be sold as a condominium project, he will be requesting a royal of a Tentative Tract Map prior to the completion of the project. Staff has no ob etions to the waiver of the combining requirement inasmuch as all the conditiwrowhich the Planning Commission would require in conjunction with the combining of the parcels can be made conditions of the waiver. In regards to establishing a single parcel for condominium purposes, that will be accomplished in ' conjunction with the Cling of a tentative tract map application which must be approved by the Planning Commission and thCouncil prior to occ e City upancy of the condominium units. AW Staff has attached three exhibits' which include findings and conditions in support of three different' action: relative to tbe'subject appliattiorm Should the Planning Commission wish to epprove all of the applications, as 'submitted, the findings and condition set � forth in 'the attached Exhibit' "A" are sugested.' Should the' Planning Commission wish to approve ill of the applicatioa! -but dew► the requested modiflution for iide and rear yard encroachments, the findings' and' condjdons' of approval set forth' in the attached Exhibit V are iuSV%ted.' ' Should the Plain ng Cbmminion wish. to` deny 1Wwaiver+-of combining nigitiretnent and file icgtsestad modiflcatlons but approve Amendment No, 685 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 14, the findings set forth in the attached Exhibit "C" are suggested. TO: Planning Commission-8.' I J' I• 4:1' , Mr,", Attachments: ExIait "A" Elmit " r Exlu'bit T* Vicinity Map Excerpt of the Planning Commission Minutes dated September 4, 1980 Affordable Housing Feasibility Study Negative D"laration Letters from Doris and John Boisseranc dated August 1, 1989 mW August 2, 1989 Letter from Michael J. Mack, Attorucy at Law dated August 3, 1989 Site Plan, Floor Plans, and Elevadons 13 TX). Planning Commission-9. EXHIBIT 'A' FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. FOR AME.NDMENr NO. 685, WAIVER OF COMBINING) REQUIREMENT, COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMfI' NO. 14 AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCC . . (As submitted'by appUesht) A. Environmental I?=menl: Acce t the environmental document, making the following fin ings and requiring the following mitigation measure: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K-3. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. 1. That a photo survey of the existing buildings on the site shall be prepared and donated to the historical photos collection of the Balboa Pavilion prior to the issuance of demolition permits. B. : Recommend approval of Amendment No, 685 to the City Council, with the following findings: I. That the proposed ten foot front yard setback is the same as other setbacks along Carnation Avenue. 2- That the proposed ten foot setback along the Carnation Avenue frontage of the subject property is compatible with the proposed and allowable scale of development in the R-3 District. C. : Approve the waiver of the combining requirement with the following findings and subject to the following conditions: to Planning Commission-IO. 1. That the waiver of the combining requirement is justified inasmuch as the proposed development of the subject property Is intended to be a condominium project which requires the approval and recordation of a tract map prior to occupancy of the project and which will effectively combine the parcels Into a single site. 2. That the provisions of Section 20-87.090 B of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provide that the Planning Commission or City Council on 'appeal, may impose such conditions as deemed necessary to secure the purpose of Tide 20 of the Municipal Code. 3. That the approval of a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the proposed side and rear yard setback encroachments will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in theneighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. ry;m-117i L That development shall be In substantial conformance with the approved plot plan; floor plans, and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from Carnation. Avenue, Seaview Avenue and adjoining properties. 3. 'That a tract trap be processed and' recorded prior to occupancy' of the proposed condominiums. That the tract map be prepared so that the bearings relate to the State Plane Coordinate System. 4. That` all 'impravements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public .Works, Department. TO, Planning Commission-11. S. 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 Works Department. b. That the on -site parking, vehicular'circulation and pedestrian circulation Witetas be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. That no diagonal parking will be permitted along the Carnation Avenue or the Seaview Avenue frontages. 7. That the intersection of the streets and drives be designed to provide sight disunae for a speed of 25 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty-four Inches in height., The sight distance requirement may be modified at non -critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 8. That the California Vehicle Code be enforced on the private streets and drives, and that the delineation acceptable to the Police Department and Public Works Department be provided along the sidelines of the private streets and drives. 9. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to issuance of any building or grading permits. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 10. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 11. That a 10 foot radius corner cutoff at the corner of Seaview Avenue and :Camattion Avenue be dedicated to the public on the tract map. 12 That a non-exdusive easement for ingress and egress be dedicated over Carnation Avenue frontage and that an easement for',publfe emergency 'and security Ingress, egress and public utility purposes over Carnation Avenue be dedicated to the City. TO: Punning Comnbion-!z 13. That oub, Sutter, sidewalk and pavement be constructed along the Carnation Avenue frontage; that the displaced portions of sidewalk be reconstructed and the existing brick pavers be removed and replaced with landscape or reconstructed on a 4 in. thick concrete base aloe the Seaview Avenue frontage; that the curb return at the corner of Carnation Avetwe and Seaview Avenue be reconstructed using a 20 fL radius return and incorporating a curb acceu ramp within it. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department or by signed plans approved by the City Engineer. All street, drainage and utility improvements shall be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 14. That a standard agreement and accompanying surety be provided to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public and private street improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building or grading permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 15. That a minimum 20 ft. clear width be provided in the alley casement located northerly of and parallel to Seaview Avenue. This revision will provide adequate room for vehicles backing from the adjacent garage. The final design of the site plan shall be approved by the Public Works Department. 'That no guest parking spaces shall be permitted within the rear driveway area. 16. That a minimum 6 ft. rise be provided between the existing alley flow line and the high point of the proposed driveway prior to descending into the subterranean garages along the alley unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 17. That Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department. 18. That the entire building shall be sprinklered unless otherwise permitted by the Fire Department. 19. That the improvements constituting the raised entry and patio for unit w', which extend into the required 10 foot rear yard setback, shall not exceed a height of 6 feet measured from existing grade. R Iq • • TO'. Ph=ivg C.,13. 20. That prior to the istwa xe of building permits, the applicant shall record a covenant which shall hold the subject property as a time buildiag site until such time as a tract map or parcel map is raorded on the property. D. : Approve the Coastal ResideatW Dow1opment Permit with the following findings: 1. That the feasibility analysis has been performed which has indicated that it is not &&ale to provide affordable housing oo-site a off -site is coujunction with the proposed project. 2. That the proposed development has met the requirements of the City Council Policy P-1. TO: Planning 14. EXHIBIT vW FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR AMENDMENT NO. 685, WAIVER OF COMBINING REQUIREMENT, COASTAL RESIDENTUL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 14 AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT (beaky rcquated side and rear yard encroachments) A. EavironmentW Documen Aocept the environmental document, making the following findings and requiring the following mitigad wn measure: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEOA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K-3. Z. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. The project will not have any significant ernirorunental �,,,� ►. HAM 1. That a photo survey of the cxisting buildings on the site shall be prepared and donated to the historical photos collection of the Balboa Pavilion prior to the issuance of demolition permits. , B. Amendmeat No. 6$5: Racommend approval of Amendment No. 685 to the City Council, with the following findings: I. 'That the proposed tea foot front yard setback is the same as other setbacks along Carnation Avenue. Z. 71M the proposed ten foot setback along the Carnation Ave= frontage of the subject, property is compatible with d�•proposed and allowable scale, of development in the R-3 . , G Wahw of CaMWWW: Approve the waiver of the combining regWrement . with. the following findings and subject to the fallowing eonditians: 11 TO: Planning Corn:nisdoa-15. 1. Tinat the waiver of. the combining -requirement is justified inasmakh M the proposed development of the subject property is Intended to be a condominium project which requires the spprovai and recordation of a tract map prior to occupancy of the project and which will effectively combine the parcels into a single site. 2. That the provisions of Section 20.87.090 B of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provide that the Planning Commisslon or City Council, on appeal, may impose such conditions as deemed necessary to secure the purpose of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 3. That the approval of a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the proposed side and rear yard setback encroachments will, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is not consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code, 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from . Carnation Avenue, Seaview Avenue and adjoining properties. 3. That the proposed :project shall provide a minimum 4 foot side yard setbut-adjacent to Seaview Avenue except for the rear 20 feat of the property which shall provide a minimum b foot setback. 4. That the roject "'provide a minimum 10 foot rear yard i�paerass the co*c width of the site. 0 • TO.- Planning Commfss}oa-16. 5. That a tract map be processed and recorded prior to ocarpa ce of the proposed ' eoodominiumt That the tract map be ed so that the bearings gs relate to the State Plane Cool Enate System. 6. That all improvements be onostxucted as required by Orftance and tbt Public Works Department. 7. That each dwelling unit 'be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and surer systems unkda odmwise. approved by the Public Works 8. That the on -site parking. vehicula circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Enginea. That no diagonal -parking will be permitted along the Carnation Avenue or the'seaview Avenue frontages. 9. Than the Intersection of the streets and drives be designed to _ provide sight distance for a speed of 25 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape, .walls � and 'otherobstruction shall be cantidered int he sight distance requirements. landscaping Within the sight line''sMil -trot atoned twenty-four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at noon -critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 10. That the'California Yebiclo Code be enforced on the private streets and drives, and that the delineation acceptable to the Police Department and Public Works Department be provided along- the sidelines, of the private streets and drives. 11. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared by the applicant and, approved by the Public Works Depavtment,alorrg wMh a master flan of water, sewer and storm drain kilities, for Ahe o"te improvements prior to issuance of any , hwilding:: or grading permits. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and :ewer toms shown to be required by the study shall be tbt respoasibf!#g► of � the developer. 12 That County Sanimion'Dlstrkt fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. ' ' ` To: Planning Commissioa-17. 13. That a 10 foot radius corner cutoff at the airner of Seaview Avenue and Carnation Avenue be dedicated to the public on the tract map. 14. 7bat a non exclu 'we easement for ingress and egress be dedicated over Carnation Avenue frontage and that an easement for public emergency ; ind security Ingress, egress and public utility purposes over Carnation Avenue be dedicated to the City. IS. 71at curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement be constructed along the Carnation Avenue . frontage; that the displaced portions of sidewalk be reconstructed and the existing brick paver be removed and, replaced with landscape or reconstructed on a 4 in. thick concrete base along the Seaview Avenue, frontage; that the curb return at the corner of Carnation AVemue and Seaview Avenue be reconstructed using a 20 ft. radius return and incorporating a curb access ramp within it. All work ,shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by'the Public Works Department or by signed plats approved by the City Engineer. All street, drainage and utility improvements shall be shown on standard improvement plus prepared by a licensed civil engineer, 16. That a standard agreement and accompanying surety be provided to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public and private street improvements, if It is desired to obtain a building or, grading permit prior_ to completion of the public improvements. 17. That a minimum 2A,it. clear;.width be provided in the alley casement located northerly of and parallel to Seaview Avenue. This revision will provide adequfte room for vehicles backing from the: adjacent. prage,., The; final 'design of the site plan shall be approved by, the Public' Works Department. That no guest -parking : spaces.; shalt.; be' permitted within the rear driveway i area.. , That a minimum b ti. riso, be,. provided between the existing AUey flow line and -the , bigh point of the proposed driveway prior to descending into the subterranean garages along the alley:.unleu, otherwit _ r appr"d by the Public Works Departmea , 19. 7bat Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department. u TO: Planning Cornmissioa-M 20. That the entire building shall be sprinldered unless otherwise permitted by the Fire Department. 21. That the improvements constituting the raised entry and patio for writ "F", which extend into the require! 10 foot rear yard sed**, s3ta11 trot exceed a height of 6 feet measured from exisdi ice• 22. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the appUcant shall record a covenant which shall hold the subject property as a single building site until web timeas a tract map or parcel map is recorded on the property. D. CoaitA ReaidtUt&I Doelopment ECUWI: Approve the Coastal Residential Development Permit with the following findings: 1. That the feasibility analyeis has been performed which has indicated that it is not feasible to provide affordable housing on -site or off -site in conjunction with the proposed project. Z Tbat the proposed development has met the requirements of the City Council Policy P-1. TO: Planning 19. EXHIBIT "C FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR AMENDMENT NO. 685, COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO, 14 AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT; AND FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF WAIVER OF COMBINING REQUIREMENT (Derda the waiver of combining requirement and denies the requested modification for side and rear yard encroachments) A. Accept the environmental document, making the Mowing findings and requiring the following mitigation measure: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K-3. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. 1. That a photo survey of the existing buildings on the site shall be prepared and donated to the historical photos collection of the Balboa Pavilion prior to the issuance of demolition permits. B. Amcodment No. 685: Recommend approval of Amendment No. 685 to the City Council, with the following findings: I. That the proposed ten foot front yard setback is the same as other setbacks along Carnation Avenue. 2. That the proposed ten foot setback along the Carnation Avenue frontage of the subject property is compatible with the proposed and allowable scale of development in the R-3 District ay 'gyp; Pith CO:i�mlidioQ-20. i C, ' : Approve the Coastal Residential Development Permit with the following findings: t. That the feasibility analysis has been performed which has Indicated that it is not feasible to provide affordable housing o"te or off -site in conjunction with the proposed project. 2, 'That the proposed development has met the requirements of the City Council Policy P-i. D. Waiver of Combining ReQUiremCat: Deny the request to waive the combining requirement with the following Hn&W 2. That the waiver of the combining requirement is Inappropriate inasmuch as It is more desirable to have the property combined into a single building site prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. That the combining of the subject parcels prior to the construction of the project will insure that the property will be beW as a single parcel should the applicant fail to record a tract map for condominium development. ��� i ,r 1 t �,1 '•`},ins•.• .}i ••ti ° r ,.� •s � .,. .1 ^+` 1 4"��+Y,. �; .L.%•� p4: ��4 Si�,1 � tV•w•� .�.* �. w T%i. �� �M1���'v-�K .►•^ }a .r ..� �R..NNO �I}' i ^'M ��4 � ]1±k\R TNT V161AI17r C sri .vAp Art y--r6 . o / VV � J rRr / ;4 • 'h1 k+ * j ' p � Ap f A A+ sr icrry ~AStM �y r ' V / ti r •, 41 �y *d *, *i r � C DISTRICTING MAP NEWPORT BEACH — CALIFORNIA AAIKWft SJW4XTk% aw w" mol"w"A4 twat rawu rr�rnti - U" oT oww' Al Mm wti s r a scwm coomc i $fom ammwAo ....w *w /M • of rwA``brA/r-�+ fd A MJAW.r Opp S AemI a A.N 94+ tmiFAIrII/D.685. WANEOK OP ab vlAI& mwaAmcAo,&vr mljo ow& WIQ ZW V&XMW&vl7 Aiftfr AV. i4 C0616.1"04Ud aptember {. 1980 "r.LIIks IIIf� C.�iY Of ..�'VYpOf t. �dCfl _ Request to construct a sic -unit residential can. L't"m !i" dominiaa project in the 1-1 District. the rtow application alto requests a modificatina to the MYnlClpal Code SO AS to allow the Structure t0 TW ONCrOsch 10 fQ-et Into the required 20 fact front APPAOV(i yard sotback (aeasrred from the abandoned Carnation avenue rigtit-of-wsy). MLr AND Request to create one parcel of land for resi- dential condominium purposes so as to permit tits Item -I: construction of a sta-unit Condoolnium project 4n the 1-3 District. R[SUa- i 0'. LOCAYIgM: Portions of Lots 2. i. 6 & B. Block Z11. Corona del Mar. and a pPRCYfC portion of abandoned Carnation Pam.. Avenue located at 2WO Sery4er Avenue on the easterly corner of t` Seavlew aw:flie and Carnation AvenY in Corona del Mar. ZONE. R- ) APPtICAMT: John llrkpatrich. Ur,a Southern Cal Property. Santa And OWNER: Same as Applicant ENGINEEA: Loren C. Phillips I Associates, Arcades Agenda Items No. 13 and 14 were hear concurrently due to their relationship. Planning Director Newicker stated that the allay . will not be utilized. and that there are provisio s for trash facilittis to the subterranean parking structure. Mr: Bill Laycock, Currant Planning Administrator noted that Cho architect ha! indi- cated that the Plot Plan itself Is in error, and that the atne foot width requirement for the Parking spaces will be met. Commissioner 1Ae041 stated that 14 units rill be a big9 lass ill'the rental Stock In Corona del Mar, If Ilk ?a it Is approved, tie stated that the real l stock will drop completely If the Comm4=Sla" coni4 ues to approve Condominium conversion% at each peet1 . •I1- ' i ti)httY»Itlhlatl Ot-abor 4, 1980 .. fyttrtylt, � City of. Newpot Beach Conntssioner Thomas stated that he can; enders -a —PT the problems of renting, due to vacancy r4%Q$; 4nd offordab111ty. but people of'moderate incom♦ Whb work In these araes, w111 still need a l.l4cf tq live. He added that the Coroas del Mar rolnters are not transient, but they are very stable renter A 10ss of 19 units in an area of stahle renter% is a big loss and a problem that tee Commission needs, to consider, Thr public hearing was ovened in cnnnectltln 411h these items and Mr. Lewis Rodwell, repres 0in9 the owner, appeared before the Commisslor an4 stated that they are in agreement with t„r start report. Mr, liarvey peAte, owner of the property at th. I end of Carnation Avenue« appeared before }he• COmmisslOn. Mr. PrAsr 4tatr4 Ihat Carnatl,l„ Ar.- nue from Seavlew to the end It An ahandonr4 4.1rer which 1% therefore a priv#tr street, withoyl adequate control. This creates a very (ritital parkinq problem, He also stated that the fire Department has deterailned that their equipstenl can not get access to a fire hydrant to service the Area with all the cars parsing on both sides of the street. III Stated that a provistOn should be made in the Covenants. Conditions and Rastrlc. tions that every property owner 11 obligated to participate in the maintenance of this private Street and the abutting alley. Commissioner seek Asked if dedicating this Street has been considered by the Staff. Mr. Don W11l1b, AssistAnt City engineer. ttAtod that this c4u1d he done on thi♦ trttlon of thr •.trertI Wit the lhrer to fnler nlber v prnrrtty nwnrrt lnnlvr4 %01111 4.1y1• in Anrrt•. In nr•ler In roaiF it Nrl,•l. I Iry Mr 11r1.1. .I.Idr,t It..@) br11,00. 1},I• irpnw. l ,,.l, hn e .Ir, .•plr�l, 11 w111,1 1..1ve. It$ P.P. ifolo It.1 ui. 11 turrrnt Street titandrrA% for Iles- 1 Ily plannlog Director IlewiCkir Stated that; the ro. quired 0417111111 for the project is on -site in to. toss of three spates per dwellingy unit, The developers are also rtauir-d to.mprove'Carn4tJolt Avenue In the front of .the project. CoAalissiover•3eek asked the applicatw if rti ►foeld be in favor of rededlestimg,the street.; Nr.t $odwell stated -that he has been disco ln'g ,tglt matter -with Mr Pease amd"they hage 1iVit new; , Afreed to hart a wetting setwoon the holzyownera on the Itrrel in work thl•, aul -4f. ; • lr / • L1 4 f -` kotion ayes hots absent '`� •• mil l.a r�1.� ��. `'•:.,~.;.�' �,� .. .� ... .. .. :r.. i •. i ' i 1 City of Nc.L Beac..h Mr. Webb su9gested that the owner tender ah irrevocable offer of dedication to be eaercise4 at such tin as dedications can be obtelr,ed from other areas. Mr. Rodaell stated that this would be acceptable. Mr. tease stated that this would not be satisfactory because It goes not address the problem of street maintenance in the Interim period and the parking problem. Commissioner lack asked staff If there Is a better solution to this problem. Mr. Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the SYq• gestion by Mr. Webb is a good attempt to start to rtsolve this problem. There li not a malnttn. ante condition that you can Impose to either action that would accomplish Mr. Pease's r►Qurst, Commissioner McLaughlin Stated that she would Include the lrrerocable after of dedication as a condition of approval on the resubdlviiion. 7I Motion was made that the »leaning Comnlssion ap. x I it t prove Use Permit Re. 194a with the followlog t findings and conditions: f1Nb1N6s; 1. 1he project complies with all applicable standard plans and Specifications, adopted City and State huildlnl code%. and loftipq requirements for new buildings, with the tireptlpn of the requested modification to the Zoning Code ptr•ltting a 10 foot en. croschmsnt Into the required ?0 foot front setback. 2. The project lot sift conforms to the Ioolnl Code area requirements in effect at the time of approval. ]. The project Is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the Gentral plan. 4. Adequate on -site parking spaces are arallable for the proposed residential camdoninium projtCt. .a=. ramrrru $A' Motion Ares trots Absent «'JTts That the prop*$ad encroachments lnw thi roe aulred 24 foot setback along the 1111004e4 Carnation Argue frontage of the site: end tandea parking spaces, will not, under the circuastances of the particular caSs, be detrimeatal to the health, safety, peace, comfort and 98neral welfare of persons fa• siding or rorkin In the aeighborhood of such proposed use or to detrimental or injerlou• to property and 11rovew ats In the neighbor. hood or the lateral welfare of the City 604 further that the pro osed modifications are con:tsteRt with the ralslative intent of Title 70 of this Cade. 6. The establishment. maintenance or Operation of the vsr or building applied for will ant. under the circv0stancel of the particular cast, be detrimental to the health. safety, peace. comfort and 9areral welfare of persons residi41 or working in the neighborhood of Such proposed,use or be detrimental or In- jurious to property and lmprovements in the ' neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. COMIII T IONS: i. That development shall be in substantial cor- formAnce with the approved plot plan, floor plan. and 01e1400ris, 2. That all conditions of Resubdlvisioa 00. 666 shall be fulfilled, Notion was made that the Planning Commission Ap- prove Resvbdivision No 666 with the following findings and conditions: FINDINGS: 1. That the maps wet the requirement% of Title 14 of the Newport teach Nunicipal Code, all ordinamcas of the C13 . all applicable general or specific plans and the plennine Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. -44. 3a a i • . wawa• . ,..,►� ~I��M w.. --- - ��rqa.� ,...Mawr. ' ... . Aar. . . _ CC*VAtS1xJRlts �teteber •. 19RD `+Q` MIS City:cf Newport Beach 7. That the proposed ro%ubdIvi%Inn pretrnts Re problem% from a planniuq •-landhnint. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2.- That at•I improvements be constructed as re- quired by lydfnances and the public MorkS Department. 3. That each unit have separate rater services and sewer connections, unless otherwise ap- proved by the Public Mork% nrpartmeKt 4, that curb. gutter, pavement amO s4dew*0 he constructers alono the abandoned Cerootlon Avenue frontage, and that the tu►b q►ades be approved by the Public Mortis Den+rtPont. S. That a Standard %ubdiviston aareetr«nt and surety be proviaed to guarantee thi sati:- factory completion of the street improvements if tt is desired to record the p•reel Map prior to completion of the street improvements 6. That.the owner tender an lrreto►.able offer of dedication for that portion of the abandoned Carnation Avenue located on the subject property. (Note: It was i a Intent of the Planning Commission that laid offer shalt be #%orci%ed at such time a% dedicattoms ran he obtained from property nwner% of ether abutting prapertirs withir, the,04ndone4 portion of Carnation Avenut).'' 1 Chi an Haidinger asked the audience if there = was an Qnt present who wished to speak on the j Local Coiltpl Program this evening. item NO 19 on the Agendas Chairman Haldinger noted that no one tame forth this time. Chairman Haidinger stated that the local Coastal Program would therefore' continued to an adjourned Planning Commiss maetrng on Septeo- ber 18. 1960 at 2:00 p.m.. be se of the lateftes of tr.e hour. a a I I J r:I Rrc ` fty 25, 1919 r� », Mr. Craig T. Bluell Planning Department CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beack, California 92663 R& CARNATION COVIt 2500 SRAVIRW, CORONA DEL MAR Dear Mr. Bluell: In accordance with your request and authorisation, Tarantello A Company has prepared a report evaluating the feasibility of requiring one affordable unit within the proposed development at the above address. Included within the following report is an analysis of the' Subject proposed development of six multi•famay residential units. Both 'for rear sad 'for sale' scenarios have bean addressed. The appropriate rent levels, pries levels and absorption period have been estimated, and the issue of 'fair return' to the developer has been addressed. We thank you for this opportunity to be of service and look forward to your continued patronage in the future. Respectfully Submitted, TARANTELLO A COMPANY R. Tarantello, CRE President C. M. Hale Senior Consultant i AFFORDABLE HOUSING FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS of 2500 SNAVIEW Si: Multiple Family Residential Units NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Development By: POINT PROPERTIES I, INC. Submitted To: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5/22/89 Submitted By: TARANTELLO & COMPANY --. E. u IJ STATEMENT OF ASSUMPTIONS CARNATION COVE, 2S" SEAVIEW, CORONA DEL MAR (1} prober CharaeL,C%l1L i Sirs Unit A QMrintion 3 Bedroom / 2.5 Bath 2,449 0. Unit B 3 Bedroom / 2.5 Bath 2.176 s,f. Unit C 3 Bedroom / 3.5 Bath 1.960 0. Unit D 3 Bedroom / 2.5 Bath 2,519 0. Unit E 2 Bedroom + Den/ 2.3 Bath 1.9280. Unit F 2 Bedroom + Den/ 3.5 Bath 1.874'_f. TOTAL LIVING AREA: (2) Sswtigi This study could consider four scenarios in which an affordable unit may be provided. Scenario 1: Five or the six proposed units are sold at market prices; the sixth unit is sold at the moderate income affordable standard rate. Scenario 2: Five of the six proposed units are sold at market prices; the sixth unit is leased at the moderate income affordable standard rate, and sold at market rate after twenty years. Scenario 3: The six proposed units are sold at market prices; an off -site unit is purchased at market rates and sold at the moderate income affordable standard rate. Scenario 4: The six proposed units are sold at market prices. an off -site unit Is purchased at : market i prices, leased at the moderate Income affordable standard rate, and sold at market prices after twenty years. (3) Land Owairable: At the start of project construction, it is assumed that the land is owned outright by the developer. (4) Laced _Cost: Purchase Price provided by the Owncrship: $1,672,658. or approximately $27$,776 rper 1 WL An' additional I percent closing costs for escrow and title fees ($16,727) are estimated and added to the land purchase price along with the pre -construction interest carry on the land (SI66.777), indicating a total land cost of $1.856.162, or approximately $309,360 per unit. r 1 t I I'd {Sy `Ca:ahretl.,. rerlM:::' A nine month..constrttctiw , period -. has been, assumed i from commefcement of Construction, to completion of the! anits (6) Cost�gil" C"J Bosed upon tha cost estimates supplied by the project developer (Polate Properties, David, Deim, 5/M construction costs acre as follows: } On -bite i1.199,b1S 5 92.95/s.f. Orr -Site: S46,500 S 3.60/s.f. Indirect Advertising: K000 S 0.46/s f. Supervision/O.H. SIi7,500 S 14.53/Lf. Other Soft Costs: 5177.200 S 13.73/Lf. TOTAL: t 12/ems r� The construction costs appear to be reasonable based on comparison. with cost estimates or other similar high -end condomialem projects in the general market area, and based on comparison with Marshall's Cost Guide. The construction costs are assumed to: be incurred evenly over the entire construction period. (7) 1Fisaaeiast / Prince Rate: Current. construction ; financing terms were researched and the following terms were found realistic. The rate charged against the outstanding loan balance ' is 2.5 over prima; 'prim . is : assumed to be 'an ` 'average of' 11.5 , percent over the constructios period. • The, loan fee is auumed to ' be 2.5 percent: of the total loan amount. The terms are assumed , to be a maximum',75 'percent -loan- to value; based on discussions. with Karen Madsen of Security Pacific National Bank on May 22, 1989. (9) Reeavraeet of Loan: Proceeds from sale or the units after completion of construction or from ti: • take-out loan shall be credited to the outstanding balance or the construction loan; any remainder shall be credited to the capital account of the developer, constituting developer's profit and, overhead { on the project. (9) Absgrsllew: Based, on information, obtained ova . a similar ..,condominium; project ' In Corona Del � Mar and other absorption information. the subject ' development ,• is expected W absorb l at,, s gate w - one , unit per ;meads. with all `units sold , and closed ;!-(proceeds • received) within !,six;, moatl<s „after the! completionl�w comtriaetion..., It is assumed that the affordltbler,unit willf absorb f irst. ­. : { 2 J ■ 11 IA] I J Ii r ■i (10) Prkias,-of the.-coedomiaiaet +sails,,a, based upon rough aaalyeW are intornattiott M aoadoraiolum, asta a. the•:iaamediate market stea. On the coeservalive side, a reasonable pricing scheme is considered to : range from 5425.000 :to S4ti4,000.- with; aa,, averaso ..unit price of Approximately S440,000. based pritmrity on , traassctioAs .within s iimilar 4- unit development also on Carnation Avenue, ICU than one block. from the Subject Property. (These transactions occurred about twelve months ago, and an assuaged d percent coaserenlivs,.annusl increase has been applied to obtain the Subject's estimated prices.) The market surrey of recent condominium transactions in the specific market area is included within the text of this report. (11) Afforimble Ualt PC1cJLU The affordable unit was .condidered to replace Unit F In all wenarioL Unit Pricing: was based .-wpoa; income information provided by Craig T. Bluell, Dcpartatant of Planning, City of Newport Beach. Affordable unit pricing criteria was also provided by the City of Newport Beach. A copy of the letter in which this information wan conveyed is attached as Addendum. A summary of the pricing is as follows: On -Site Sale Maximans, Moderate income: $1790310 Orr -Site Sak Maximum. Moderate Income: S149,850 The designated affordable off -site. unit must be a two bedroom condominium Of house within the City of Newport Beach. (12) Affordalth Itestal Not= The affordable unit is assumed to be a 3 bedroom trait in the oo-site scenario, and a 2 bedroom . unit in the .off -site scenario, The pricing or this lease is based upon in4omc information. and the affordability standard for moderate income ,units provided . by Craig ,T. B1uell, Department of P[anntng, City of Newport Beach., This , information is attached as Addendum. On -Site Rent Maximum: S1,499 per month ; orf-Site Rent hhximum: 51.332.per month (13) Provision of Oft -Site Affordable UaitThe following additional assumptions have been incorporated ' into the 7 analysis, providing moderate, .income units at an, off -site location.,,. iThe purchase, price of the ., orf•sitc unit was determined by obtaining the average , sales prlco ; for ., all two -bedroom units in the City of : Newport Beach sold, Within I the- past year,. as,. evidenced by Multiple : , Listing Service : information provided, by Jennifer; Eacarnacso or, Harbor Realty. 3 I.s At�so tiae� It;'hst;= beef ,assnt ied: that ''the ..off -site 'unit will be purchaud is the ninth, "AO, nth'"{tosspletio�`'of 'construction)'` and sold int . the tenth month at the affordable rate; palm It :has"beta assumed that the purchase price of the orr-site unit is $343,706. This represents an approximations or the current average residential (2 bedroom) snits price in Newport Beach. (1�) Nffem Ci■h - Flow The estimated annual cash' flow from reeling out the affordable units incorporates the following annual expenses: Oa -Site Unit 517,988 Taxes and Insurance (4.9%) (Sgsl) Other Expenses (26.2%) ' } Net income: S1,024/mo. Off -Site Unit S15,984 Taxes and Insurance (4.9%) (S783) Other Expenses (26.5%) („4,284) Net Income: M217 $910/mo. (15) Rtsidull Value The residual value of an affordable unit at the end of the twentieth year is based on an annual 4 percent escalation factor. 11 must be noted that this is a speculative value. (16) The project is analyzed utilizing a multi -period cash flow over the construction and absorption periods of the project. The cash outflows include the land cost, the development costs, E and the repayment of the construction loan and the various closing costs ` incurred upon sale of the property in the final month. The cash _j flora include the construction loan disbursements, the rents received during leascup, and the proceeds rrom sale at the end of the leaseup period. The Project is feasible if the developer receives a return sufficient to justiry development. The criteria for development feasibility is a return op equity to the developer of at least 25 percent. Standard ROE's in the development industry typically run 25 to 50 percent, and frequently even higher, varying with the level or risk involved. The initial cash outflow to the equity Investor is estimated to be $1,600,000. This amount is derived through the assumption that all existing land loans (four trust deeds) will be paid orf prior or upon the receipt of a construction loan. This is the amount of equity required in order to sustain a maximum construction loam balance of 75 percent of value, f 1,930,000, or less over the entire construction period. 4 i The : net cash (tow --column rsprpents, the -actual- equity, E outflows ; and inflows to the developer of, the - Subject. L Property, IS this ,; Model, , sit, of . the cash i outflows to be assumed by the developer ore.,, incurred , , up,,,. front; the construction loan covers the remainder of all project expenses, hence the zero ; monthly : flows for a avabor of, moatbs. The sposltiva. flows represent the laflows to the developer, from excess revenues over cost:. The cumulative undiscounted cost column represents the amount of money dw developer has; in, the dal at any point in time. The . final period of the cash flow incorporates any inflows, he has received. , A neplive ■umber in the final period reports that the developer has not received even his original capital back from the completed project. The return on equity - to the developer is usually ..calculsled .by. internal rate of return. using the above assumptions for pat cash flow. In this particular use, the developer does not receive even his original.,capital back from the project revenues upon completion, much less any profits. Hence, the amount of loss is calculated as a percentage of the total , invested capital. Rcfer to the proforms spreadsheets -for the calculations. S s • � TAMt A -0 COMM Ott 40 COM MINIM SAttS ..................... ........................................ rlmomtss IRACT, DAY! OATH 804M SAtt/tlsl 0 owl 31" ............................................................. M1CR CLOW TRARSACT IOH ................... 497 marring Corn MI6 19 04/OS/69 2 52S0.000 3 Crest Cie CCST 63 06/10/66 2 s230.000 11 Conran Crest CUT 56 06/16/66 2 f297.000 19 Crest Circle CCST 66 03/67/69 3 $313,000 a Co wpon two CCST 46 06/01/aa 3 sm.= 426 setlatrege Cos al 09/12/da 2 MIS.0oo 42e Carnation CDM 56 "10/03/66 2 ST".000 AM Avatads Ave MIN 20 121141" 2 SS10.000 3" molls CONS 76 06/16/88 2 $226,300 0212 Carnation CONS W* Coma 3 u20.000 •214 Carnation CONE W* 06/16/06 3 U10,000 •216 Cara"tlsn CONS Unk 09/02/66 3 T44o,000 late Carnation CDI" 3 06/17/88' 3 600,000, US mollotrops CONS 71 04/11/89 3 sS37.SM Bat Wdom- CDO 31 03/10/69 3 $490.000 All 0oblia Cm 33 05/12/86 3 s37o,000 /02 msilotrape A CONS ,. 2", 01130/89 3 2350#000 '304.3 mernlest CDW 38 12/11/aa 3 s396.000 7M iris CNNW S" 05/01/a9 3 S30S.00o ntS ocean 1tvd 6 C311F too 06117/aa 2 s360.o00 2m Ocean 6tvd so CRlm 33 05/11/69 i $450,000 2523 Ocean Blvd 0 Ctti 23 08/18/89 2 s .000 to am low kaod, UN 163 06/15/66 2 5190.000 106 ft~ Naads "m 33 03/2i/p 2 8169,900 406 ma bsr hoods MW 76 03/30/69 2 0243.000 207 moan Ummb MARK 13 "min 2 S177,000 409 mobsr Woods MW 101 06110/0 2 "",No '• 17 owbo" Nis 14 03iZol a 3 114".000 So3 marber o ds J#" 10 021161" 2 s260.00o � 16 Jetty Odra JASC 21 09/21/M 2 14IT. 000 i i 21 Joawlne Creek JASC M 06/02/M 2 s43S,00o 43 beachcomber JASC S! 03/12/69 2 $450.000 19 Carl ori.e MIC , Ito 10/16/60 2 S4e6.'000 ; 17 Nalmooil JASC 1ba To/0!/N 2 s4Sv�000 301612water JASC 119. O7/30/06, 2 ri4t,000 +- 139 Jeanine Crook JASC 213, �l/10/M ,3 ".006 15 461 tec" JAN 41 04/OTi69 ' 3' "mom e1• 45 Joadow Crack JA1C !1 11/" 3 "".on 331t1naait JASC 147 a/30/09 3 1430,U00 32 Polnaall JAK a Y"Ma 3 un,11M ' 36 161taastar JASC a 41/0s/M 3 543S,m 9 Allawlsr JASC i 09131/0 3 "".on 12 Altevotsr JASC 41 10/27/M 3 1430,000 16 skyeall JosC 10 Ob21/M 3 $430,000 920 04rdenIs J"K 66 11/02/M 2 $360,000 9s2 Cardanis vyr im 35 OUM M 2 1390.000 9S6 Csrvisnia uT ARK 7r 06/Ot/M 2 1343.000 131 aardanla JMK 6 11/111/16 3 11491.000 807 Osrdonis Wf im M 11/i12/M 3 MO."* 009 a l bi st•us C t im 77 O l in/M 3 "37.000 1209 "Ida or wllr 711 011311" 1 "".000 1241 ""Ida 11AIK ITS 02JI0100 2 1703,000 1319112"Ida MAIK 102 09Imse 3 11,000,000 3 Cwl Or OUTA 10 "/Is/M 3 13a3,000 72s Avocado me 31 04/19/19 1 S11"'No T13 Avscada un 15 12/12/>b 2 sm's00 To Asada SA110 26 03/111M 2 t200,000 3731 Geranium TCON 14 o9/12/d0 2 s415.000 3710 off fodll ICON 232 02.Wf39 2 1s340,00o 3510 Daffodil ......................................................... TCPH 72 03/30/89 2 2us.000 LISTl1NW -- 5/89 :93 ltorn l rp Cyn CAMC 2 1274, 3O0 1s Crest Circle CC$I 3 $337,100 '309 Carnation am2•d 1430,000 8214 Carnation C01N1 3 I1s11,000 602 Mllotrops s0 Cm ] f39'3,000 ,r NS,Ja�ine A Cori 2 13$0,000 613 Jamins 09 CIINY I A50,000 61s JslNne 1A CIINY 3 539s,000 207 Harbor Woo* M W 2 $219.000 14 faobar JASC 2 uss.000 1s ilipall Or JAit 2 il39.000 il3lllblacus_Ct Jm 3 W0,000 ................::.::..................................... M1 .CCI "Mil►tt UsTl 10 Unto J111111 FIN NIwAram, mm *MIT AM. l"IjiLO 6 COOMT ............................................................. AIRAAM 2 loom Pu1cum ►R l C111 >13N, T06 MUM 3 seem mum Hlicas 1444,229 TMII I — a'ECEMT calmloltm SAtff YIT110 "Cio011A Ctl NM fa ll" ......................................................................... 0..................... Afmif We CA11 mb1f UT" ASU MICE M1c9li/ ifIC1/1CA ACA Y1E11 �212 Carnation 04/29/Y ] 2.3 020,000 f1i0,000 aAT 11214 Carnation 08/16/Y 3 2 =,063 5410,000 9196.55 2136,667 now ► ocmul 0216 Carnatlan 09/02/Y 3 3 i40,000 $146,667 nor 1 Oc"I 4218 Carnatlan a0/17/Y 3 2 1,690 fi10,000 u48.4a $136,667 ram i COMY 4ZI 1lallotropo 04/111" 3 2.5 Z,200 1557,500 aaMl 5185,LA 16 V no "I 6oldo w 03A01" 3 2.9 $490,000 fT63,333 -'nAw - No 411 Dahlia 03/12/Y 3 2.3 "1370,000 $123,333 Yb 17 CITY lif 602 Mallotropo A 01/30/89 3 2.9 1JDO $350,000 A2o].0 6116,667 nor n0 93Oi.5 lirinlaaf 12/l1/Y ] 3.2 1,471 sm,ow um.fa 6132,6N' nw l I10 8309 Carnation UST 3 2.73 1,TM SU0,000 MU.77 f21],333 near Ocim,ul •21i Carnation 111j: 3 2,ON fliS,000 i2N.39 11i1,667 / OMANI b2 Not lotrgw A . till' 3 2 1,bia !39l,000 s2]/.24 1131,Y7' aw MO :...................:....::.....::................:.....:.....::....:::::...................... UNCIs WATIKI UVjlGVNIa r XMIyRR W."mcm, mum'"ary t Alb TAKWTlU0'i"WWANi , •............................................. ........ .......111.......... 1........... ,,....... i .t- • • SOL4410 1 004 w! ONIIT1, Iroa.rsta Incais •o.................4...........................1... a... a.aaa.a.i.... i.a a...... i 1i...............i..i...i..a... a.................i.. 4006.00........... . ICIAI ti1T COttSTst alcm OMM IN 04ALOMMY CIfl4TANIIt0 am CAN rum U01s00 K M IMMIM 04VILOP IMT ACTIVIIT LAO CCiT COSTS COSTS CWTS WIN SAWICS WA1 4AUS to 8011iWg4 0....... i............... CLIG"TIM! ................................................ i..... .............. ................. 1 foeord LooNlgin Caret (11,11M,1s21 p1T9,W) (649,3011) (S2,0fl,3M) .... a .... .................... SM.30/ 544S,301 ............. s0 M (11,600.0m) (N,s40,OM) 2 so (S1T9,s4A) CSs,ss21 (s1/6,30) iiw,304 3670,616 14 so M ISI'm,M1) 3 10 (S1T9,60A) (17,M) (5147,470) $187,470 s464,0Y so s0 M (61,600,M) 4 10 (0119,646) (i10,011) (8109,657) $199,697 $1,047,745 10 so M 481,sM,M ) S 10 (1179,"6) (512,224) (5191,M) $191,M 11,239,613 10 M 14 (111,601,Mf) i 60 (5179,64A) ($14,442) 01%,1011) 5194,104 f1,433,721 10 14 SO (t1,10o,0Si) 7 Wn tlsrk4tins s0 (5179,646) (1116,M) (Sl%,373) S19A,3fl 61,630,0% s0 a s0 (61,60o,m) 4 to (51T9,64A) (S19,114) (s19f,ss4! s1M,6K 21,M,7sf So 10 10 ol,s0o,m) 9 Sid Const./Mll Unit r M (S1T9,A4A) {521;33A) pao,912) s21,132 S1,f49,490 10 6179,Mo s0 (st,s00,N0) 10 Soil Unit A S0 M . ` 031'su) (S21,in) so $1,431,472 (0411,418) s440,M1 s0 (61,600,M0) 11 fall Unit s s0 SO (S16,T01) (2160T01) to f1,o04,112 Cf423,2M) s "'m toCf1,s00,M1) 12 salt unit C so '10 (511jul '(511,7s2) So ssT9,1134 "(s424,nf) S".Mf M (81,sm,1M) 13 Mil Unit 0 SO 'so 4"'1 ) (fA,TiA1 M f14A;1M ' (Sw,2l41 t4M,1M M pt,s0o,1M) 14 8411 unit S so s0 {51;712) (21,712) M a 19 CS148,413) 11440,a1' °5291,l1/ (S1,304,412) 10TALf (N,16A,'ls2!(51,�1s,�13) (5213;2f!) Cf3,/1f,2A2! Sl,ill,MO ` ' r .' ' (21;851,641) 1U,Jh,/M (51.30/,412) firanolh Costa or*o „ Mfnillw Athrdsrla• r Ulm ' •41.7111111 2.5% war prim • 14:oo1c laMfwlua" S1,!lA,1�! S1T9,160 ' " (Gaii'mtlnu ica "MICO) tom points a 2.l� t land drMl too moue + 7511'(2,s40,0001• $I'M0,OM , pultlt Yaq.1 S1,s00,0f0 • • r-� 1 �� L. C....r L.Mn MUM t 104 LUs1 011111111. red race tnwr .......................................................................................................................................................... TOTAL COri1M)CTION III KIN4 OMLOMAT anSTAMINO 1t10111 400s1 Imm All INOIstM10190 NON1N "VILOPNIIT ACTIVITY LAM Costs Costs omit OKAY 4ALANCI WAY MUs FUN Y11 CAST FLOW OPULAIIYI ............................................................................................................................................4...................... 10 so sO.M (11,400,000} ts1,40o,0001 { hard twvs"tn C.rt ts1.1S4,142) (1179.444) ($49,500) ($2,049,304) "'30i U6,304 s0.00 10 t4t,400,000t : s0 titT4,6Ui (150,442) (1189,30/) i115.301 i470,414 so s0 3 to (1179,444) (1T,424) (1147,470) $167,470 s4S4,O" so so 60.00 so (s1,iM,000) 4 s0 (5179,46) ($10,011) (s149,657) 11M,13T $1.047,743 t0 14 M.00 so (51,00 mi i0 :(f1�,�t4) ts12,224) (1191,470) it91,t7+b 11,1",413 so s0 M.M M t41.114.t#41 4 s0 Ci179,K4) (114,4U) (i194,1011) 51%,104 s1,433'm s0 so M.M so tri,404,100) 7 s«tn Narkatlti 10, .(i1T9,"4) ($14,T27) (i194,3T3) 11%,373 51,4]0,094 so s0 M.M M tst,400,100} s0 (1179.444) - ti11,011) {119M,444) i194.14i /1,1Z4,TSi M s0 10.04 s0 p1.404,4M1 9 Nd Cant./64I1 unit A W so i1,li►,T4o (82M,411) 1440.000 M.M MAC s0 t11,tiM,OM) so 10 Sall unit 1 so s0 10 (411,l47) (it],430) (114.547) (613,430) M s0 i1,INO]4T 114�,91T (SU1.413) �{14M,3T0) F MY,MO i444,M0 44.40 ;(s1.iM,410) M :�11,M4�11i} ;.N,SaN Llnit C 12 Nll Unit o s0 10 so '('(M,164) (OAM) i'� .80 s]10tin '001' 44) "i4M,140 = M.M so ,ti1rIM,IM) 13 MI l Unit 1. so 00 ` r' (t3.41]) (a,�) t ... , . p M tww.l9i} ' i444,M0 4l.M N:l�04 ; (t+1�1iir1M) 14 Rant Unit f : so s0 .. (10) Ct0) ; . '00 10 i0 s0 s0 s0 M so 0,40.13 st,034 ti1,4TI,1N) M id s0 .M . i0 M M • r M p s0 i0 M q M M s1,4a.0 s1,404 : , • ' . 2S3 Mlt unit 1 _ e . s0 s0 tovo",om s1.on.113 1MS.1t• t.'iT1114,lit) TOTALS tlt.ss4�14:)Cis,;)1,�t!} s201�719) (sa,47a,194I i1,tS2i,?!1 `; q,1ii,494 s214.3N.M 1si14.3i3) s:: amAead r. 253 vMwn,;ti,i4J.Nr f IrwrKiq trlilts arse lint wlw� '' 142 91ri4i; Maiilaus Atlsiil�ti• ;' 41N,#d0 '"' IV 125.Mi t4.00xIdAi+d'drwi s2x4;142 AwisN ! 4Mr+ar f'• , ', `, IV 01 fsg4 � < M7+�,7t}s � • (9� r*Mv.) , 2.S% awr Or1a�1 • �lsa+,f�14µ• � =,s4orvi+isr .�400,000.. ialf ►rlu • " t3N�T0s ,. 19i4,11a rats mom". (�� �rlt"•' 11,1M1�-.. � �' �:! _=f l ! - , .. a . .'.' t (.i. ' +• � � : `)` :.' AWL • �' . - . _ i �'1�f� . ....... .. MORIOLl • • L.r ter sCUM10 3 idlt SAU 0111111, 14derst• Ifasio •....................................,..,....,....,..................,..,..........•...u.........................r.r..r.......,......u.....♦......... a ..u.rr........... TOTAL COMitkalOR IINWIMi FARCIMA /MUPSI MT OVT/TAMIMO am$ ■T W11Ls 1111t0 MOM1N NVOL0/MMY ACTIVITY LAW cost t0i1f mats 0/i6111 C011s MAY AAIAMtI 19PAY sAUs CASH SLOW Ct/4LATIVR ..**a* ............................................. as ....... *.* ................. ........ ..•.......... .......1....... ....0 1 4860rd L•W14410% Coat 01,06,142) (11179,04) (14*,501 go ta,o/et,3o/) ms,= 1 jIm to M 411,60/,M/) (1IAN.iM) 2 s0 ti171,•Y) ("."a) s0 (ONSju) 51•!,]/i 1670,616 so 14 1f 411.iff.MO) 3 so ti1H,•L•) tu.vo so (1157,4701 i187,470 sfs/,o/• so t/ M (1111.41/.M0) 4 so 0141611) s0 g1M,i67) i1M,N7 61,447,743 s0 10 ff (f1,fM,MO) 0 ! sb ti1:.33K) s0 <f1lt.tri/) $111,r7/ 11,ap.613 1ta 1f M O"'WI/M) • so 4i17l,M"61 cm.M3) so (11"'106) 51"'I i i1,133,7Z1 10 f0 M {i1,/f/ W) 7 sgln Markatlm so l6179,•l+1 tit6,7m so ' t61M,373) s1M,373 il.•M,01 W s0 so g1.i�,fM1 f so 1117►,•i•) . tiM,ili) so (0191."41 11N,1i4 11,f2f,7li' so >b M . ti1.iM,10i) ! &W Cana1.18W Olhlta/ so, (6179,6:6) (u1,336) ts3Aa,7M)` (iKl,Mf) 110/.6m, 11'M'4 =• so, f4W'm so, (1T,s",W) Ytt Unit /- 10 ht� tAnlc E/fell 0Tlaita a so, (Ou'611) so ` (Su'6131 M' 61,3li'm t13.7,311) swam ; a•M,411,M/,M11 11 jell unit /. so s0 ti1•;lil)' sO 111•,iN) so'° 1Mi,m ("u'12!). 1i40,Mi.. , ..I�,.ti1�M,/so)•, 13 ietl unit, G 10 so au." so 4811,30fl ts .; OW'3a (sN/,N3) ' SM.M/, 13fat�:llM1lc,O s0 fo' ts1;K3) '40' 4M,601"' 't11D,3l7) ft alwl, Ma,til.Ml•1M) 14 fetl,Llnlc.I sor 90' (SIM) so t61,ii41" �. to ='; Is ° (814/,313), "'m TO1AL1 Itl,ss•,1.2�;f1,11�,113) tRll,iS3) t»,?tiL) (fr;,037,114)f1,t�,�+�i ,tf1,N7,131) i2.7M,M0 t1t,30s,l77) 14alna AIT•rdile + 0149,00 ' • •/1.1 slnm :. . AV* = sadroos sale !rise SM.?!li t1Y/I1 OawTssICT111 IAIa . . ihw+clry Coots ores 2.3x Over ItIm • 14.003 , ` lad rel+rti f1+16. 1.2 :. tam points • =.300 " lied iwn` .. 456,1u tart moat • . f1,1M.000 a ltji iiq.t i1,:00,i00 %WIG 4 X LUM 014111s, madras. IHsaM ..........................................................,................•.....i................ ............. ............. .................. .f..........ff.................. TQTAi. CdfsTsti<T10>t rtaawtClN rutatAM osvalLcVMAL WIVArtlw tapes am ism GGT MIKMNTW ]rift sfML011l11T ACTIVITT WO camcal+ ar+lTe cars iw,w >uurci< aaauAT GAu+ f'+aal suT UN FLOW CINrAttYG ......................i........ ........... ....... ................................ f.......................... ............... .. >a to.00 (G1,i00,IM} ts1,Mo,iGG� 1 Gecwd mowVGdsin Carat t:1,IJi,ti:} (slr,iii) {s41r.SOG� so (13,m,]M} 1 ajo sdis,]oi ss pt Ns GGG = so (+179.6") (+s,6") so (s1Gs,]M) s1Gs,7Gr Mr1,616 s+1 w ++.iQ , � 3 10 ts1><'l,ilii t0i,i24} so (8187,474) s1p,410 Utli;OY sir t0 q'M so w tG1TO,i4i) til0,ot1) GQ gtM,i3T) s1q,b7 i1,o4T,�43 +Q q +a p1,IQG, 4 s1,2]1,N] q q s0.00 sQ p1,iM,IGsi S so (sim,"o ts17 xo so (G191,s m) Gtt1 ,ITO s0 cs114 t0s1 st14,1sas s1,4A,n1 sQ , si sO.M s0 (sl,isi3OM) i s8 (s1Tt1,i4�) {s14,Y2) so tGl.isi,lGli r sosin xvtoom s0 (1179,W) ISM,= s0 Is1M,m) s1fi,m s1.MO.O14 so (Sm,i4i} (s11,01i1 s0 (i1"Aw s1111*4 st.i2i,}3i to si so.0 so tsl,ioa,No G so s44o,GaIG M.ss i 1 frd Cmrt.nuv Offdlts/ w (+170,4Y) (Sal 13 i) cou'rOi) (i341,MG) . s1o1,w i1,17i,44i.' =Nl! Unit a► G0 (s27,i1f} s0 s1,320,1'il {s410.2131 s4�0,+M M01.i3 M ti1.i00,M 10 sell Unit A Merl Offhitd s0 q isiZ,ils) twos sa g1,fi0, 1 11 Mil Unit s s0 so (s11,TJS1 so s1,ON.070 (s4a.1TJ) s440, so s0 (sit !M) W .Y3 (1►4>s,112) s440,Gs0 _MOLTS at 12 sNl Unit C s0 00 (s12,T9�) ' . M ti1.p.M0• s0 clr,s0]) s0 (sr,iml so s�b,?'!i (SIX1,10/) s�0,sw s10t►.?S } 1] Mll Unit o so N - (sm,S01} s440.OM MM.TS 61".00 js1,400,1561 14 Gott Unit s 'SO q (91731) 10 ; {s7.N1} W !0 ; r NM.tS t►14 } sQ ,., I+0) b s0 q s0 toWWJS � s0 so fh0 • i0 1011 Gs s1M.fl Gf10 s0 s0sQ s4 so q sp :; Gp . irµ,06i f101.n sm,1" (un. 233 sail Whits: 10 so s0- _ _ 04= 14G) +1 17i 44+ {s1,K1.1lIi +].�.0q +21i,i4i.i0 tM22,i00) 1QfAms (s1,164,ti2}cf1.41iti,i1s1 (s220,4i6} Is34i,iOi) Is4, . . .. • :. ouul•t.r aaara 276 wtuot 1141,547,11 Horsley Coate as ' Msit[ddw Affordable, • +t4t►,GSO s6�1,4s] 49% r*lnrdottau+t nu Itd of Orion . 14.OU ArG 2 to Sato sold sTi4,i ooadipttna) ras �intd . •t Meant s1,10Q,000 . dYpA4L gTliGut s1 Malmo didMtuao isle N diem t 125�, ls2 � i ri CJ �l s t'S i, ii G R 4 �r ZCti - ats�iMA>Rif Co As --eYi kited by the -'pro. forina cash '' flow ` a atyus,` there" is little to no ♦ 4 profit, to be atade ' by -'the developer in this project. Each scenario presents a different aptioa for the provision of an affordable unit, all ylelding a negative or extremely low rate "of return to the developer on the project. Those scenarios yielding positive rates of Morn (2.37% and. 2r81% for Scenarios 2 and 4, respectively) yield thew positive returns only because of the assumption of a 9 percent reinvatment fate for the latter positive cash flows, and the 4 percent per year assumed appreciation of the •leased unit. A lower reinvestment rate assumption (i.e. 4 percent) would eliminate all profit. All of the estimated returns fall well below 25 percent, a rate considered to be 'a minimum 'benchmark' in the Industry. It should be noted that the rate of returns reflect point estimates based upon a series of assumptions detailed earlier in this report: The actual rate of return achieved by the 'development will depend upon to what degree variances from these assumptions are experienced, and in what direction (i.e. positive or negative) they occur. In this particular case, the developer might obtain higher prices for the units for sale. Should a price of SSIS.000 on the optimistic side (the price of a listing of a similar condominium that was, on the-, rket 'for _'one month and taken off, no offers made) be attainable, the project would still remain unprofitable, as the total of land and construction ',costsalone total over WIMP. (The •-inclusion of financing costs " and developer's overhead In this tough model would push the project further in the 'red.*) " .:Given the .risk level associated with this type of ;development. it is our opinion that the only reasonable scenario is the exclusjon of any ,affordable units on -site or off -site. The 'return' to the developer' would be 'maximized s 14 r _ . C. V f T � �' .`. Y • h 1rt w. Cf :f� �;. h. w n V�. ; � � i (or, in this case, the Ions minimised) through allowing the free market to prevail. Based upon our experience and knowledge of specific development projects, Tarantello dt Company has found that most developers would not undertake a development such as this one without an expected return on equity of at least 25 percent. It is evident that the scenarios do not approach this benchmark, and we recommend that no affordable unit requirement be imposed upon the subject development. 1S 4 • �i CITY 4F NEW PORT BEACH PA. BOX 1764, NEWPORT 5EACN, CA 926kW)91 S PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 Data K&X 4,1992 Diane Joslyn Tarantella b Co. 3901 MacArtlws Blvd. Suita 100 Newport Mach, COL 92660 Dear No. Joslyn: Within the California Coastal Zone, residential davelopsanc is governed by State regulations contained in Article 10.7 of the Government Code, "Low. and Moderate -Incase Housing within the Coastal Zona." The City of Newport Beach adalnistars those State regulations through guidelines established by Council policy P-1. Council policy P-1 provides for the preparation of a ] study to determine whether the affordable housing required by State regu- a� lacions to feasible in new developrancs within Newport Basch's Coastal Zone. The following information is being provided to enable cha preparation of a proposal/bid for such a feasibility study. Project Location (address) Site Sits _,12.886 sg_ft, Number of Units 6 , Number of; .j 1 ddrm. Units 2 Sdro. Units, 3 Bdrs. Units J 4 Bdrs. Units •� Project is to be evaluated so: a rental project Jboth an ownership and rantal project_ For purposes of this feasibility, the City of ;Newport. Beach requests chat the consultant prepare a feasibility study by analyzing the provision of __1 unit(s) ac the _sa:4srats - income level on -site. If this initial analysts demonstrates feaalbLlicy for one or both types of tanurs, the - consulcant shall continue to perform analyses for the feasible Tenure type at each successively lover encase level until Infeasibility is demonstracad. J 1 1 If It is noe feasible to provide an affordable unic,on-slce, the feasibility of providing I new two bedroom ownership unit off -sits the"rhi wdirsgg Inc*" level within the City of Newport beach should be aniayszod. If this initial analysis dasonstraces feasibility, the consultant shall continue to perform analyses at each successively lower -!nose loval,until infaasibillcy is demonstrated. j 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Bach 31 ADDENDA ITEM B 1 f I , 1� i I f 1 .l� ONSOLIDATED R"PRoGRAI 1.1ICS 1lCROFILM 0 J CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P-Q BOX. 061, NBWPORT BEACH, CA 926W" I S FLAMING DbPARTHFAT (714) "4-3225 Data may 4,1992 Diana Joslyn Tarantella & Co. 3901 MacArthur Blvd. Suite 100 Newport Beach, Ch .92660 Dear Ms. Joslyn: Within the California Coastal Zonis, rosidantial development is governed by Scaca regulations contained in Article 10.7 of the Government Coda, *Low - and Modarate-Income Ilousing within the Coastal Zone," The City ae Newport Beach administers those, Scats regulations through guidelines established by Council Policy P-1. Council Policy P-1 provides for the preparation of a scudy to determine whether the affordable housing required by Scats ragu- lations is feasible in now developments within Newport beach's Coastal Zone. The following information is being provided to enable the praparacLon of a proposal/bid for such a feasibility study, Project Location (address) ISite Sirs-.12-296 mq- ft- !timber of Unlcs Humber of: .� 1 bdrm. Units 2 bdrm. Unita 3 Mrs. Unics �. 4 bdrm. Units Project is to be, evaluated ■e: a rental project bosh an ownership and rental project I_ For purposes of this feasibility,, the'City Of'Newport -leash .Taquasca that Cho consultant prepare a feasibility study by analyzing the provision of __I unic(s) at the Inca" level on -site. If this initial analysis demonstrates feasibilityfor one or both types of coaurs,' the:consultant shall continue to perform analyses for the feasible conure type ac each successively lower Lneo" level until infessibilicy is demonstrated. If it is not feasible to provide an affordable unic'on•sico, the fassibility of providing �_ 1 now two bedroom ovnorshLp unit off -site the `the agljigicg income level within the City of Newport beach should be anlaysz'ed. If cIlLs initial analysis damonstraces feasibility, the consultant shall'conttl%us to Perform analyse• at each successively lower income lavat-uncil..infeaslbLllcy Ls demonstrated. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach L I May 4, 1989 Vale two Current income information In`conforminca vith'Arttcle 10.7: Moderate Income: Median Income: 1 n Affordability standard: Moderate Income; Median Income; 2 hr: 41.11A: 7 hr. gL.244 "f try,• � d � I Term of affordability: 2_ years. t�1i i. ti The applicant has recaived a copy of this letter and understands that- a request for a feasibility study will require additional information. including but not limited to chat listed below. The applicant islad under- stands that this information will be needed by the study start-up dace and chat the availability of the information necessary co complace"ths, ,risibil- ity study could influence the tixa required co complete the study. 51to Plan • floor plan and description of various floor. plan designs ' Cost of land ■ubstantistad by a purchase agreenanc or other official docuaant • Construction period • Construction cost including off -sits costs and list"of aaanicias This letter does not constitute a contrsct', however it'doea' constitute. a request fat a proposal/bid far services. A„contract for services will be exacuced between the City and the 'consultant at 'such ii"! ,:as' Iche' project applicant requests a feasibility study. Please provide below an aacio4ca of cost, time required to prepare, and start-up date for a feasibility study'on the project identified above. In addition to tha propoaal/bid inforsoacion. please sign end date this latter, kaap 'copy for your files, and racurn"che original co the City. Thank. you. Cost co prepare feasibility. study: Ties required to prepare feasibility study: e.dAys. Deco on which preparatioa.of feasibility can,bagin;, CITY Op - NzWMT • B9ACii .CONSUi.TArrr Sy Dal CTA\rl•LCl.19 f L 1("If.:,t� .li.!�':7�.:; [i'�.ti1'llili,ii.{ D7+;�•:�SNs;�i'.l�j{�, ADDENDA ITEM 0 I w l]DR. R. TAItANTLLLO, Clit RUUCATION• Doctor or Business Administration - Real Estate and Urban Land Economics, 1976; University or Southern Gllrornia I 1 Master or Business Administration - Financial Business Economics, 1971; University of southern Cait Management and I Bachelor or Science - Real Estate and Finance, 1970 California Stale University - Los Angela IPROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS., American Society of Real Estate Counselors, CRE Urban Land Institute (Full Member) American Institute or Corporate Asset Management, FCA National and California Association of Realtors American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association American Reel Estate Society UIRE:C1'ORSIIII'S: Chorlcr Savings clank - Orange County, California IIUSINESS EXPERIENCE: 1978 to Prescnl, President, TARANTELLA do COMPANY, with ru11 I responsibillty for all real estate research, consulting, investment advisory, and management services. TRACIIING EXPERIENCE: Adjunct Associate Proressor or Real Estate and Urban Land .J J Economics; University or Southern Calirornia, 1979 to Present •' J Assistant Proressor or Real Estate and Urban Land Economics; University or Southern Calirornia, 1976 to 1979 I Assistant Professor or Real Estate, Finance, and Urban Land Development; Calirorni■ State Polytechnic University, Pomona.: 1971 to 1976 I11UNt!{tfi, D1STIN(711IONS ANU AWARDS: Wall Street Journal Achievement Award, 1971 Wittenberg Fellowship ror Doctoral Studies, 1976 University or Southern Calirornia 'Outstanding Faculty Member% 1973.1979 Data Gamma Sigma, National Honorary Fraternity Editor-in•Ci:ier, gat- EgisleInueL Journal or the American society or Rest Estate Counselors II Ja 3 II I i I I 2 EXPERT WITNIESS TzsTmompts: UWC-Canoge Ltd. vs. Irvel. Inc., L.A. topeilor civil, -Cold No. C433052. bby, I"I W,-Orange County Superior Covift, CAN No. 396755, February 1991 Beverly Hills Savings iL The Fixoncief Center, U.S. Donkruptcy 'Court, Con No. LA'86-24591-LF, Deumber,'1937 Lloyds or London 'vs. 'Ansell, U.S. DIII&I Court, Case No, CV. 85 4356 KN, November, 1997 Olive Daylk'Cl 91, VL City or Newport sCaCb, Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 32.95-13, July, 1986 Juan Segundo Jr., el at vs. city or Rescho Mirage and C/W Kopp VL City or Cathedral City, Federal District Court, Cn2c Not. CV 92.4339 AAH and CY $4.3678. June -July 1985 - Oceanside City - Covncll, Mobile Iforna Park Rent Control Oidinence - testimony on October 22, 1985 Son Jon City Council, Mobile Home Park Rent Control Ordinance - testimony an bkt 21, 1915. City Or ONNI's CiIY;COVncil, Commercial Development Potential - testimony on February 19, 1945 Son Jose Rent Slabillullon Board, The Economic impact or Real Control on Investor Returns - testimony on September 24- 25. 1984 President's Commission on Housing — presentation on October 28,1911. Los Angeles County Rent Control Advisory Board. Fair and Just Return In Kent Controlled Units • lestimony'on April 9, 1980 Los Angeles City Council, Rent Control testimony on July 25, 1979 cailrornin Assembly, Committee on 11ousing and Community y Development - Icstimonron May 3,1978 US. house or Representatives, Committee on Hankins, Finance sled Urban Arriars * icstiwmy an January 17.-1973 I �a I �r Ilk i 7: SE1.[CTEI) PUBLICATIONS; .1lNks T4'ran1cllo,- Rocky A.; Findlay .• Al, Chafaran M;' and Mcssncr, Stephen D. Uxinglon, Massachuscur. Lexington ,gooks pvbli@W by D.C. Health and Company, 1983 •A, , with K C. Findlay and 3. D. Mgsner, Center for Real Estate end Urban Land Studied,.University:or.CoNWX1 *4 1981 Center for Fulures Research, University. of. Southern California, 1974 Iteferead Journal Articles e'rhe inflallon - Dependency of Lovereged Investment; BS21 Vol. 10, Number 2, Fall/Winter 1985 'FMMR; A Programmable Calculator Implementation; with C. Tenzer, The Real Eslalg„AnoisJUL 1981 'Risk Analysis in Real Estate, Part I: Is There Even an Old 1RR Literature under, Rlsk, , with k C. Findlay and S. Messner, JMIy-A%gusl, 1979 'Real: Estate Education at U.S.C", J urnal__ of _Fjnancial fibLuLlin, January, 1978 Abstract: , "A CAPM View -of I VRMs', with R. V. Eastin and M.C. .Findlay, ; . November, 1976 Other P8611calle"s ,. . 'Continuation of Single Digit Rates Likely`, Cguntti. June/July, 1986 'Mortgage -iendinr. ! -,: Baying , the Asirmptione, Iiuildinr S2lJLt1ge Countr. June/July 1985 '1995 Outlook for Real Estate and the Economy', Oranae,County, December/January 1985 �lAg 1 3 , .11 rat: '1 1it uerii J ,t r;., i 'Pall fEicctioll f.s latest , Rates:: ! -What ' , to Expect% Oranar, County October/November 1994 � ','Presidential -Elections - - and : Noising,' Eememics•. HMIs iini OAan:e Cgunl]G March/April 1984 'The Plight of the Thrift!', F scut ve Miaa:ine- Vol. 1. No. 2, February 1982 j 3 .�y 1-1 `The Plight of the Thrift Industry% A.B. Laft'er, At-ociatcs, August 17, 1991 "Free Market 3yslem Motion to Housing ' Problem*, DIA/Ortntt, County October 1990 'Rent Co+rtrei and the Housing Crisis in Southern California", t'arb I sod 11, Wilk K C. Findlay, Real' Estate ttlu"rra jedt Vol. 1, Not 9 and 10, March Igo "Why Firms Leave Loa - Aagake, The Lincoln Instituta for Land Policy, October, 1979 "Faulty Vision: The - Econonak 3hortaightcdacss of Rent Cotttrai", December 19711 'Los Angeles Housing Costs, Economics and Public Policy% Februsry,1978 DllA Dissertation, March 1976 PROFFSSIONAI. AND ACADEMIC: Guest Speaker, International Council of Shopping Centers. 'An Economic Look into �lhe, 199ft.. -Anaheim, California, February 24,19b9 Guest Speaker, California society of CPA's, 'California Market Overview*, Newport Beach, Cafifornis, October 19, 1988 Guest Speaker, society � of � -Baal � Palate Appraisers. 'Commercial Real Estate Trcnde, Los Angela, California, September 14. , A 988 Guest Speaker. institute for Real Estate Managenicnt, 'Office Absorption sad Dentogropkle , Trends'; Costa Mesa, Callfornia., July 13, 1988 Guest Speaker, Medical Group Management Association, "Leasing, Medical OfficeSpece", Aashelm. Californie, June 27, 1988 Guest Speaker, Wharton Alumni. Association. "Caiifornis orrice, Trcnds", Dcvcrly Hills, California, June 14. 1989 Oucsl,tspeaker, + California s' Building: IIndustry Assoeiallon. *Mid. year Economic Faf casl",'LosFAngcla; Calif ovals, June I, 198g. Anaheim, California, June 3, 1988 Guest Speaker, American Institute or Architects', The Orange' County Slow Growth Initiative", Irvine, California, May 19, 198E 511� Ij n 11 u 00, S PNUFKSSIUNAL AND ACADEMIC: {Cfat'd) Guest Speaker, Society of Industrial and office Rcaltnrl, 'Eeoaoaek Overview - 31OR Annual Conference, 8ererly Hill, March 27, 1917 . Goat Speaker, National Association of Industrial and Office Porks', grange: County office and InduSUISI Trends% Newport Beach, California, February S, 1917 Guest Lecturer, Stanford University Graduate School or 7 oasiaKas,+ ,jttoi zooso, Development Strategies', Palo Alto,' California, January 26, 1917 Goat Lecturer, DeM.4 of Interior, 091e29 of Indian Affairs, 'Orooad ; Lease P►ovisleas for Indian A1lotteee, Palm Springs, California, April 16, 1915 (guest Lecturer, University of Chicago, "Real Estate Reseirch and The Development Prove»', Chicago, Illinois, November 15, 1915 Guest Lecturer, University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, 'The Business of Rea! Estate Consulting', Chicago, Illinois, April 25, 1913 Guest Speaker; Building Owners and Managers Association, 'file Impact of Urban Economics on Real Eslalc Investment Valucs', Santo Monica, California, April IS, 1913 Guest Speaker, ; , Union Oil Corporation, 'The impact of Real' Estate Economics on Timing and Location Choice, Rancho Santa; Fe, California, September 17,� 1914 Guest Speaker, Tavche Ross A Co., "Real Estate Economics',! Scottsdale, Arizona, May 17, 1912 Guest .Speaker, Los Angeles Society of Financial Analysts, `ncc� Future for Housing: Boom or= Bust', Los Angeles, Colifornia 1 October I, 1911 Guest Speaker, Coortty -Planning; � Commissioners Conference, 'SU� 200 and the Peripheral Conov, Newport Beach, California ' Marcie I1, 1911 Guest Speaker, Internationol Association of Assessment Ofricers, : •'Thai Ampact , K ' Real vContral oa Residential Values'; Los Angela, Califorttla. June 21; 1979, - i • t I L a1 M t I 6' PROFFMIONA16 AND ACADEMIC: (CoNI`dj Guest Speaker, Lincoln Load, Institute Conference on Local Government Decisions and the Tax Base, 'Why Firms Leave Big Cities: The Los Apgela Arcs Surrey. Los Angeles, California, February 9. 1979 Guest Speaker, State Convention of the California Association of Realtors, "Rent Control: The Myopia Solution", San Francisco, California, September 25, 1978 Presentation: American Real Estate sad Urban Economic Association Meetings; "Single-7criod ,,vs.! Motel-tarlod hftgsvres of Risk and Return', Chicago, Illinois. August 30, 197E Presentation: Eastern Finance Association; "Stochastic Dominance Analysis . of the Fixed -Rate vs. Variable -Rate Mortgagor", with M. C. Findlay, Boston, Massachusetts, April 1977 Prcaentatlon: Financial Management Association Annual Meetings; "An FMRR Real Estate InreslmeW Vi'U"Iation Model". with M. C. Findlay ■nd:S. D. Messner, Montreal, Caaads, 1976 Presentation: Western Finance Association, 'A CAPM view of VRMs", with R. V. Eariin and M. C. Findlay, San Francisco, California, 1976 5 ..�-.iV..ik.i ~ -'^-- - ----_- .. w • BIQGIIAIPIUCAL SKETCH D►. 1t. Taireat�ll• Or. Rocky Tarentello Joined the faculty of the University of Southern California in 1974. lie currently' holds the position of Adjunct Associate Professor of Real Estate and Land Economics, He received his Doctor of Ousiness Administration end Master of HoWnen Administration degrees from U.S.C. and a ilachelor of Science in 'Business Administration from California Stnic University at Los Angeles. Profrnionai credentials Include the CRE designation of the American Society of Rest Estate Counselors, Full Member of the Urban Land Institute. Fellow of the American Institute of Corporate Asset Management, National and California Association of Realtors. He has extensive experience In real estate development, investment, market research, appraisal, end counseling throughout the United Slaics. Ile is also President of Tarantello & Company, a real estate counseling and valuation company with offices in California and Arizona, and serves on the Board of Directors of Charter Savings'Bank. I { 3/89 u I� EDUCATION: PROs>Z ZONAL AMLIATIONS: ■USINIM EXPERIENCE: CATHERINZ W HALL .. . Bachelor of Arts, Ero1§o0ies,' Cans Laude University of California, Irvine U.C. Extension: Urban Ptaaniag, Light Construction and Development Phi Seta Kappa. Aaserices Real Estate Society September 1997 to Present, Sealer, , " Cirtsalteat, TARANTFLLO. A COMPANY; February 1986 to !So1►t4amber 1987. Cemsaltaat. TARANTELLO' A COMPANY, with lull responsibility for condactlog real estate research, consaltiag and valuation 'services; 1985, Markotlag ItWessalative. NEWPORT PACIFIC CAPITAL COMPANY, with responsibility for wholesale marketing of public and Private real estate limited partnerships. REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS: Real Estate Consultation Stalees, Full responsibility for the analysis of macro/saicroeconomic Influences on a specific project and/or location, and for determining future development potential and marketing strategy for the following: Highest and • Best Use Study for 17 acre waterfront parcel in downtown San Diego, California Market and Development Potential Studies for custom homesites, zero lot line attached homes, townhomes, and stacked flat condominiums, Orange County, California Market Analysis of Multi -Family Residential land. Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, California Rssl Estate Research and Valuation Servlcgr Full responsibility for the production of the following competitive market profiles and/or valuation analyses: Residgntla- Proposed and/or existing apartments, townhomes, condominiums, detached homes, waterfront detached homes with boat slips, mixed residential in Los Angeles. San Bernardino, Riverside, Alameda. Santa Clara, Contra Costa, Napa and Solano Counties High -Rise Class `A', garden, and medical office buildings, in Los Angeles, Orange. Ventura and San Diego Counties i i 0 RIPRIMENTATIVs CLIENT& �l i 1i i CAWMAMdAlaknik :'4 t t Naigkborhood shopping ccaters, fast food re:;aonaa, financial buildiags, service stations in Orange, Loa Angeles, San Bernardino, San Joaquin and Freasw Couatias . , Indu2trLk Warehouse, distribution (aciti M San Diego County L iAt Single family detached, townhome, condominium and mixed residential subdivisions, school sites, -. pleased Bait developommu {ailed, use), specific plans io , .Loa ;Anpies, San Bernardino, San Diego, Ventura, Riverside, Alameda, Santa Clara, Contra Costa, Napa and Solano Counties The, Departmeat of the Navy. Coatiantai, MUsois National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago O'Brien and Hicks Devclopmeat The Andes Qfoup IDYL Corporation Occidental Lead Research Bank of America Fieldstone Company Wasaaingtoa Homes R.P. Warmisgton Company Winbrook Development PhU Financial Brighton International Transpacific lodustrics Crawford Hills Development Company City of Newport Reach CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92fi"I5 WGATM DEMARAIM TO: Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95614 County Clerk of the County X of Orange P.O. Box 838 Santa Ana, CA 92702 NAME OF PROJECT: FROM: . Planning Do"ttawnt City of Newport beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 PROJECT LOCATION: 2700 J/zvm v Ammuej Comm dil f26zsr PROTECT DESCRIPTION: GOI�I?IL1YOA �X Q�cl�D�i�/!!A� krl/f� . FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy,K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to ixplewent the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environ'ental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that.the proposed project will not.have a significant effect on the environment. MITXGATION KEASURES: . See a��cli�d .1���/may. • INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: #1000 �-; INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW ATi}. 3300 0ewport,boulevard,;Newport beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: EnviroaMental'Coordihator' DiiTE:,p✓u%, a .— r ; 91 CMZOKUSr FaM Background 1. !la.e �L:1'xopae�sEt; /11r 1� . T. Address and Phone M srber of Prooenant 7�QD Sd<dHQ1L1. P/ll/L� S. Date Checklist Submitted / b. Agency Requiriing, Checklist S. dame of Proposal, if applicable IIt1llu¢ .fib, G!s ,� Ix. �arriroasatal impacts (lsiplan-tions of all "yes' and "maybe' anomrs are required on attached abeets.) xU bib, NA 1. Rsrth. Will the proposal result in: i a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Dinuptioos, displacements, compaction or oe+ercu"ring of the soil? t c. Clue in topography or ground surface -• rslia! faatu;est _ �_ Ed. The dest%vctioo,.cave ring or modificatAou $ of arty %ldque 'geologic' or physical' laitures? e. Any increase in rind or water erosion of �- Soils,,either on or off the sits? � AL f. Changes in deposition or erosion -of beach sands or cbani in si2tstioa..depaiWon or I erosion which,may 'modify the charml.of a, rivet`ot-'strean or the'bed of the ocean or bry, ial:t or lain? _. 7'48'�i s'et-PeaPi•,oar,property to gologic hews ft such as earthquakes, landslides,! � ■udslldss, ground,failurs, or ■imilir hazards? (XJU ��-- -.1 .,1 il • 0 2_ 3. xU dub, H2 Air. will tM proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement. moisture. or tsmperaturs, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? Pater. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes is currents, or the course of direction of water morsments. in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in abeorptlon rates, drainage patterns. or the rate and amount of surfaca runoff? C. Alterations to the course. or flow of flood waters? d. Change in ths amount of surfoca water in =7 water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, Including but not limited to tsmpsraturs. dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground water? . g. Cheap in the quantity of &xpux d raters. either through direct additions or with-' drawals, or througb interception.of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the swount.of water otherwise available.fcr,'.public water supplies? ' L. Uposure.of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? . 2 r .A_ X x x r 0 0 4. rlaut Life. Will the proposal result in: A. Change in the diversity of species, or num- bar of any species of plants � (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops. and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the'nuabers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? �. C. Introduction of new species of plants into as area, or in a barrier to the dorsal X replenishment of existing species? --. ..-- d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result In: a. Change in the diversity of species. or Mm1- bers of any species of aniwsls (bit"..laad animal including ripttles, fish and sball- fish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the umbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the Ulgra- X tion or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife hab i tat? �---» b. guise. Will the proposal result in: 7, asset a. Increases in existing Miss levels? X b. zxposure of psopla' to severenoise' le"lat. Light gad Ctrs. Vill the proposal produce new light or glare , Lead Use. Vill the proposal result in`s sub- stsatial alteration of the present 'or rpla:used land use of an area? --- -3- XU daft H2 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? ,.._ . 10. Risk of Opset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or Abs,reiease'of hazardous substances (iacluding.'but not limited to. oil. pesticides. chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or x upset conditions? b. Possible interference with as emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation 11. Population. Vill the proposal alter the location, distribution. density, or growth rate of the huean population of an area? 12. Housing. Vill the proposal affect existing housing or create a demend for additional bousing? 13. Transportatioc/Ciraulation. Will the proposal result in: s. Generation of substantial additional v vehicular Mvement? 3 b. Effects an existing parking facilities. or demand for now parking? .. _ c. Substantial impact upon existing'trxns- -• - portation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or swve■ent•of people and/or goods? e. Alterations ,to iwaterborhs. "Il or air traffic?,__, f. Increase in traffic"hazards to Soto; vehicles, bicyclists. or'pidestiians?.. 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered gov- ernmental services in any of the following areas: - 4 - Gr • 0 a. Fire protection? L b. Police protection? _ C. Schools? ^, X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? a. liaintenance of public facilities, including roads? f . othar governmental services? 15. Rerp. Will the proposal result in: A. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? ,_--� X, b. Substantial increase in .demand upon existing sources or enorgy, or req re the development of now sources of enemy? 16. Qtilitss. Will the proposal result in a need for now systems. or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Commmications systems?, c. Water? d. Saver or septic tanks? e- Storm rater draiaase7 f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. • Human Health. Will the proposal result in? A. Creation of any healthkazard or potential health heazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential bealth hazards? . 5 - j r.. X"HalhM 18. Aestbatics. Will;the proposal result in the obstruction of any* scenic 'vista "or view open to the public, or Will the proposal 'so' in the creation of an.aestheticallr offensive site open to public view? X _ 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an Impact upon the quality or quantity of existing x recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal 'result in the alteration of or the destruction"of a prehistoric or historic vv archaeological'site? L b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic affects to i prehistoric or buildLog, historic structas, or object? C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which could affect unique ethnic cultural values? r i d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses vith the potential impact area? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality, of tha,sovitonment, substantially reduce the habitat of'a fish'or nildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below,self.suataining.levels, threaten to eXimis3ati .'a, plant or 'ints"1 "commmuaity, reduce .ths Ta her or restrict the rani' of a raga or eiidang'ored plani'_or animal or eliriinate ! important examplia of the major periods cif:, - California history or probistoryt M. A ILn b. Does the project bave the potatial 4Q iehieve abort -tars, to. tbs sid�`ranta�n of long-teXsi; emrironwental,pals? (A'shoit=term impaction the environment is one rbich'occussr iu'a''rela- tively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the X future.) ._. C. Does the project bave impacts which are individually Baited, but cuoulatively con- siderable? (A project nay impact on two or more separate xasouross.where the impact on each resource is relatively saill, but where the affect of the total of 'those impact]i'an the eaei,rommant is sigaif icant.) d. Doss the project bans anvirotsental effects wbicb will cause substantial adverse effects on bumm beings, either directly or Indirectly?r, , M. Discussion of Ra►iroaweatal ihraluatioo (Narrative description of saviroa ental impacts.) •r y Iv. DateYsination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COUID Wr have, a sirdfieaat effect on the saviro went, and a IUWATM MARMOR VM SL Q "WABED. i find that although the proposed,pxigJect could have a sigaif- icaat effect on the savizoswent. there will, not be ii'si&ificant affect in this ease,because the ait11Ation msaauriii discilbed on an attached shest:have been added ti,tba p6jact.' A IMMU V6 VUL pi U=iAM. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the anvirnt, and an W AL IWACr RIPOR? is required. Q Data 7 Signature C\FL2NJ MUST. M For • -7- 3jii,r`,f.>>l4pf(�;) 2*hMQN /!�)�1��� DISCUSSION OF_ ENVIRONMBkfAI. 9 AL r t 1b c. Demolition and construction will t the soil, arid may also result in some soils erosion from the site if construction occurs during the rainy season. These effects are not considered significant, due to the flat topography of the site and the fact the site is currently developed 3b. Demolition and construction may result in changes to drainage patterns from the site, due to the new site plan associated with the development. ;; This is not anticipated to result in any adverse effects due to the I fact that area surrounding the development is completely developed, and the project run -oil will utilize the existing storm drainage system which is adequate to serve this project. 7. Development of the project may'result in the increase in light and glare produced from the site, 'Ibis is not anticipated to be a significant effect, however, due the fact that the project is residential in nature and light generated by the project will be similar to the surrounding residential development. 13b. The new residential units will generate the demand for, new parking. Three parking spaces are proposed for each dwelling unit, which is adequate to serve the project,. The development of the project will have a positive effect on the enviroL rent in this area due to the fact that the existing development does not provide sufficient puling on -site. 20b. The existing building is not currently designated 'as an historical structure.' It is anticipated, how+em, that some members of the comatunity: may consider this structure to be of historical importance due to its age and its previous use as a hotel in Corona del Mir. The potential: adverse effect.which may: result from demolition of the structure will be reduced -to a level- of imigaif cance by a mitigation measure requiring a photo survey of ( the oxisting building prior to demolldon. A photo survey of the building will be conducted before the issuance of a demolition permit• These photos will be donated to the historical photos collection of the Balboa Pavilion , , The mitigation measure must be fulfilled prior to the issuance of the demolition permit, and that permit will,sem monitoe n and report requirements. { AUG08 c"T v . , L' l�Tt� Nam_ • • Doris and John Boisseranc 272 C 'ra ni Hay DsiW{ A f ,° E_' : ; . Lagww Beach, California 92651 (714) 494-2935 August 2, 1989 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boukyard Newport Beach, CA 92658.891E Attn: Btu Ward, Planner Dear Commission Members, Re: 2500 Seaview Avenue Since writing my letter of August 1, 1989 we met with Mr. Diem at the property and discussed some modifications to the plats, nanxiy: 1, ?he 2Q' from our garage door to the side of Mr. Diem's property its required or recommended by Mr. Wells of Public Works. 2. 'lire rear yard eneroachmcnt to be approximately b' x 12' in lieu of the 7.5' previously roqucivA. 3. Mr. Diem has Weed to move the second And third floors immediately adjacent to our property back 3' by lb' on the third floor and 2' by 16' on the second floor with a 3' encroaching bakony. We requested the erection of staking so that we can visualize the impact of the building on ours, indicating where his building will commence on the second and third floors which pole is also to indicate the maximum height of the structure adjoining our r building. Upon seeing the staking in place we will be in a position to make a decision. 'Thank you once again for all your assistance. Very lyun John and Doris isscranc J-DBftm cC City Council Members Dan Webb, Public Works Mike Mack 70 • • Doris and John Boisseranc 272 Crescent Bay Drivc Laguna Beach, California 92651 (714) 494-2935 August 1, 1989 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658.8915. Attn: Bill Ward, Planner Re: 2500 Seaview Avenue Dear Commission Members, We arc the owners of two units at 2520.2522 Seaview, the property adjacent to the condominium project at 2500 Seaview Avenue. We purchased our pioperty as an investment in 1971 for the purpose of enabling our retirement. An obvious consideration in the purchase was the charming area of.Corona del Mar and its marry desirable arImenitics. We are concerned that the project as it now stands adversely affects our investment. in order to enable us as well a*othcr concerned property owners to accurately assess the full impact of the project we request that you instruct the applicant to stake the project showing all exterior dimensions of the structure, height of structure and also garages. With the exception of the 2 foot by 6 foot reverse corner setback on Seaview, the proposed structure sits approximately 6.5 to 7 feet in front of our structure on Seaview, thereby dekting the bay view which our tenants now enjoy. This is u ma* concern of ours. We would like to see the setback on Seaview the same: as that which exists on both our property and property at 2524-2526 Seaview. The setbacks on the North side of Seaview are all situated so that no structure interferes with the view of any other structure from Dahlia Place to Carnation Place. We object (1) to an encroachment of 7 ft. into a required 10 ft. rear yard setback, and (2) an encroachment of 2 ft. into the required 6 ft. reverse corner setback adjacent to Seaview Avenue, at the rear of the property. "'N B8l WW Gbmmission 1f1989 Page TM...' We understand that Don Webb of the Public Works Department is requiring the deletion of two uncovered parking spaces marked "guest parking" on, plans, which spaces are immediately behind our rear property line as well as the deletion of the walkway, and that a retaining gall is to be built along a line 20 ft. from the face of our garage: to provide an area where our tenants can turn around to exit the alley: in connection with the alley we are concerned about the difficulty emergency fire and medical service vehicles will meet in attempting to enter the alley. We would like the developer to furnish us with a bond or some other enforceable Instrument protecting us against any damage to our structure caused by excavation for the project. There also exists a run-off problem during rains from the alley along the westerly side of our property as we discussed with Bill Ward. We greatly appreciate the invaluable assistance of Councilman Phil Sansone, Bill Ward, the Planner and Don Webb of Public Works. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns as well as those of other concerned property owners prior to reaching a decision on this project, 701 i • MICHAEL J. MACK ArTOANCY AT LAW Silo f[AVIKW C40*039A DZL MAC, CALIFORNIA QZeYO August 3. 1989 Janice DeBay, Secretary Planning Commission Planning Department Citof Newport Beach 3306 Newppo�rt Boulevard Newport;Beach, CA 92659-»1768 RE: AMENDMENT NO. 685. COASTAL RESIDER Dear Me. Dabay, DE PERM Please note for the planning commission my opposition to the proposed development plans for the property located at 2500 Seaview, Corona del Mar, California. My opposition is based on the review of the plans with benefit of explanation from both Senior planner, Mr. William Ward and Developer, Mr. David Dees. My home fronts on Seaview, the building is setback ap roximately eleven feet with open balconies setback approximately � feet from the edge of the sidewalk. Parking is accessed from the rear through,a very narrow and unpatrolled private alley off'of Dahlia Place. The proposed development would result in a building setback only lour feet off of Seaview and at a height of 28 feet, effectively walls off a significant portion of the bay view ex'istliig 'from the top balcony. The development would also be acci�si,ng three' double 'car garages and parking off of the aforementioned already overburdened and unsafe private alley. This oversized building can only be accomplished with the requested amendments and variances. Specifically, the request to amend a portion of Districting Keg No. 17 so as to establish a 10 foot setback along the Carnation Avenue frontage eliminates one half of the current required kat beck of 20 fast. A set back that is already calculated from the,, middle of Carnation Place at that point, where as a dedicated street would require a setback measured from the sidewalk, which in this case would be an additional 15 feet for a total of 35 feet. A setbeck'redvction of 25 feet on this property would allow the now rear -half of the development an additional 12.5 feet of 28 foot height from grade. With Carnation the new frontage the slope or elevation of the lot increase's significantly to the reart where the maximum height requirement's increase from 24 feet 28 feet from grade which in turn result's in this huge building 28 feet high only four feet from the sidewalk of seaview in front of me as well as butting out in front of the neighboring buildings on both aides on Carnation Place. This building is then.further developed by excavation for all underground. (below grade) parking. I submit 73 Janice D Oay August 3, 19$4 Planning Commission Page 2 that to grant such amendments and variances would only allow the over development of this property at the long term disadvantage of all community members. Considering myself very fortunate to be able to make my home and own property in this city, I have the utmost respect' for an individual's property rights. I also accept the growth' such a desirable place to live is going to experience and I appreciate the City's responsibility to so accommodate as possible. An example would be the development across the'street frog this proposed project, 311 Carnation Place. I understand that the District Map was aodif ied to allow for a 10 foot set back. However, the lot slope, although continuing -down 'to the Newport Bay in the same direction as the slope on the property Of' the proposed development, is much more dramatic. The higher building height from grade at the rear of that lot results In a'building height lower in elevation than the lower building height from grade at the front of the lot. The 10 foot setback modification did not result in any building butting out in front of the neighboring buildings yet still provided an aesthetically pleasing building pad. Such distinctions from the proposed plans for 2500 Seaview provide a perfect comparison of 'Common sense variances and responsible management of development for the long term to maximizing square footage for the short term.' Mr. Yard and his office were available on 'a moments notice. I'd like to thank he and'his staff for their cooperation and patience. It is my opinion that this development as proposed will have a negative impact on .the community and environment. Therefore, I urge the planning, commission to deny the proposed amendments and variances. Your 'anticipated consideration 'is appreciated.' Respectfully submitted. -COMMISSIONERSPAN UTES -August/10. 19A9 " "dTY OFF MEWPORT�, QE'Ad ROLL CALL_ W�,: . Item Mo J2 Request to permit the conaructioa of a single family dwelling vllss which exceeds the maximum allowable height ,In the 24/28 Foot Height 13rnitation District on property located In the R-1 withdraw District. The height of the proposed dwelling ,will not exceed the height of the top of curb on Ocean Boulevard. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code to as to allow the proposed dwelling : to encroach 10 feet Into the required 10 foot front yard setback adjacent to Ocean Boulevard. LOCATION: Lot 1S, Tract No, 1257, located at 3619 Ocean Boulevard, on the southerly side of Ocean Boulevard between Orchid Avenue and Poinsettia Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R-1 APPLICANT: EPAC Financial, Inc., Costa Mesa OWNER: 'Thomas Linden, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant has requested to withdraw the subject application. A. Amendment No-6U (Public Heiriag) Item Ho.13 Request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. 17 so as to A695 establish a 10 foot front yard setback along the. Carnation Avenue (private) frontage of the . subject property and the waiver of acceptance of an environmental document. Combining Requirement AND CRDP 14 B. Waher of Q mbining ReQuiM=nL(1?i=ssjgn) Cant' d to Re t to waive the combining. of lots requirement in 9-2�� con unttion with the proposed project; and tha approval of a modification to the Zoning Code so 'as to allow an open stairway to encroach 7 feet into a required 10 foot rear yard setback and -42• Tt'6OYMIsiIONERS 3 ♦ E S * t' l� /1� rINO . . - to allow a portion ad the structure to ewoach 2 fact Iwo the required 6 foot reverse corner setback adjacent to Seaview Avenue, at the rear of the property. AND Request to approve a Coastal Residential Development Permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance for a 6 unit residential condominium development pwaumd to the Administrative Guidelines for the implementation of the State Law relative to Low -and -Moderate -Income Housing within the Coastal Zone. LOCATION: Portions of Lots 2, 4, 6 and K, Block 231, Corona del Mar and a Ix)rtion of an abandoned street (Carnation Avenue), located at 2500 Seaview Avenue, on the northeasterly corner of Seaview Avenue and Carnation Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R•3 APPLICANT: Carnation Cove, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Commissioner Debay addressed the Coastal Residential Development Permit as referred to,in the staff rq mn that states 'it wlll not be feasible fora low.or,moderate income unit either on -site or off -site .... in accordance with Council, Policy, P-L.7, and based on said statement she requested .that a fifth scenario be provided in which an affordable unit be required is the forma of a contribution to a fund. Commissioner Debit' 4 referred to' the survey of two bedroom condominium units that was taken by the consultants, and she noted that the survey,was in!the Corona del Mar neighborhood where residential sales prices'are higher than elsewhere in the City, and she suggested that ;the Wivey should have been taken In areas of the City where condominium units arc sold for Im than they are. in Corona del : Mar, s -43- 0 IPPUNISSIONERS IM!PUTES 3 A 0! 1 mm A6gM 10e,1"9 VATY-OF- ,UrEWPORT IWACH' 7 07- ROLL CALL Comminioner Debay concluded that the applicant shmid be required to Participate In` the 'CiVs affordable housing policy. Robert Sumbank City Attoriley, explained that the replacement hooslas has to be only within the Coastal Zone. In reference to es 'UH.Ls- a NA4 Mr, Burnham explained that theta are cities In the State that We housing program whlcb contemplatethe Construictiod of units and require a payment of fee into & fund from property owners, 'and that money is 'used d to construct '' the units. He explained that the :units tobeconstructed requested for In the Housing Element of that JurlsdlctW In &=fdarwe with the` requirements of AB'1600 which states that If a Oondidon is Imposed It has to be reasonably related to the demands that are being created by a particular project. Mr. Burnham stated that In the absence of a housing authority it is difficult to satisfy the requirements of AB 1600, Chairman Pomeroy and Mr. Burnham discussed the provisions to grant a density bonus, and affordable housing that Is included In the General Plan, Commissioner Persdn commented that the Policy has not been applied to a project consisting of lo units or less. Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Manager, addressed the Housing Mernent that was recently revised by the City and the State Department of Housing and Community Development. He explained that the Housing Element now exempts projects of 10 or less units, and that 'In the future the City shall amend Council Policy P-11 to be consistent with 'the new Central Plan p9Ucy so the projects of the subject &Izi will not be! c6rfiinS to the' Planning Commission undc''r V-1. He'said that Lhj Coastal Raddentiall Developmerit Permit)hrill be'eisentially administered without a public, hearing or any requirement for affoirdable houtin& Mr. Lenard alluded to thetfly's iuccmful affordable housing program that has been looked upon favorably by other Jurisd1lctlorm Chairman Pomeroy stated that the' ld'or' ictis exemption would Dot'&Oply It the applicant rcqOes1e'd'Density' BonUs.' Mi. Lenaid concuffc-A -44- COMMISSIONERS fAIMUTEs Atlrist 10, 1"0 CITY 'OF NEW ORT i BEACH CALL WDEX Don Webb, City neer, referred to Condition No. 16, Waiver of Combining R rement, and requested that the condition be modified to state 'That a minimum 6 In. . rise be provided..' instead of 'Mt a miaitnum 6 ft rise be provided.', 'the public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr, David ' Diem, r applicant, appeared . before the Planning Commission. Mr. Diem concurred with' tha findings and condition in Mibit W. Mr. Diem stated that the proposed Ipwo)W was planned, within the g�uuideliries' of the Gerieml Plan am inconsidemdan` of the ad1aco nt neighbors. Mr. Diem commented . that each of the 6 units has _been designed with either a three or four cat` garage, and eight driveways have been added to accommodate eight guest automobiles. Mr. Diem explained that three units will have access off of Carnation Avenue and three units will have access off of the alley. He explained that to have access off of Seaview Avenue would have required a curb cut. He stated that a turnaround area has been created in the alley to enhance the traffic now. Mr. Diem stated that` the requested 10 foot front yard setback off of the old Carnation Avenue right-of-way equates to a 20 foot front yard setback .off of the curb. He explained that the front yard setback ' corresponds with the new developments on Carnation Avenue, Mr, Diem moved toi the exhibit area 'and described the ricquested modifications. He .'explained tath' . �thc .requested ` rear yard encroachrnent is required by the Fire Department to allow access around tha property. Mr. Diem stated that the Uty'coWders' the front yard of the . project to be on"C,ar,uttlon Avenue � and ; the side yard to be on Seaview Avenue which would be adjacent to the Seaview Avenue neighbor's front yard,'He explain that the development is required to' conform` with the setback of! the building that is adjacent to the site on Seavicw Avenue. Mr. Diem explained that 20 feet of the property is acquired to conlonn with the r setback that Is adjacent to the subject site: He described, what tine projects" impact."'would' be 1f the'sidera A setback rrtadillcation were not requested.', Mr. Diem described the second and third floor open deck cneroachnlents; 'i r -45- 1 ?- 3 T UGOMMIs3IONER3 • ROLL, CALL • MINU�ts lea.. Cri QF° N1NP,OAW 040EX In reWm a to a question posed by Commoner Olover, Mr, Dim explained that 12 prap spaces and 8 put spaces will be accered from Carnation n Avenue and 8 automobiles to accommoMe three coadominium twits will enter from the alky. Its r+esporna to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards witb respect w the applicants staking the subject property, Mr. Diem aplaineA that the applicants . revised the plans after they obKmd the project from the adjacent property decks, and the applicants also staked the site with 28 foot poles to comply with a request by the neighbors and staff., Mr. Diem stated that the applicants delivered a revised set of plans to staff that do not ladade the reverse comer setback modification. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards with respect to the fire lane, Mr. Diem replied that he is in support of a fire lane; however, it is not a criteria for the project inasmuch as the Fire Department has Indicated that adequate fire protection may be provided without the subject fire lane. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill reprding the automobile access to the alley, Mr. Diem explained that the existing structure provides access for one automobile and the proposed project will provide access for eight automobiles to accommodate three condominium units. Mr. Diem stated that the driveway will not be available to west patkln� ind said parking restriction will be included in the CUR's.1 Mr.� Diem and CommiWoner Merrill discussed the traffic flow and available parwag in: the alky.. Comm.15siontr Merrill emphasized; his comern that:it would.be difficult to enforce the parkipg'ptoblem and congestion 1n . the alley.. , , . Don Webb, Otyj Enorieer, explained that if a: fire lane ,would be. established , that there would be adequate room to turn automobiles around. I Mrs. Doris Boisseranc, property owner at 2520.2522 5eaview Avenue, adjacent to the subject property, appeared - before the Planning Commission to state concerns with i respect to the subject project on the basis that the project ,would i have an impwt on their property, Mrs. Bolueranc pcplainedthat° at the Bointerancs" requat, the applicants inei%ttively l staked ! the subject project for the neighbors, and the result; was: that the project would Impair their view at the corner inasmuch is the -4& 9 I t 7i $ COMMISSIONERS 9 • '-, il -� 0 0 1;',? I hi ftNUTIES CITY. OF-MWPORT -.BEACH',. -ROLL CALL :INDEX,- ProJects decim would, extend into their � vkw. -Mrs: Bolsseranc requested a clarificadoe of Vnga on SeW. Avenue. MM Baesseranc and Cmadidoner Pers6n discussed her concerns with respect to the project and the Impact The project would have on their view. Mrs. Boisserane referred'to her letter dated 1989, Obk* xto the felf yard setback ,that' adjoins tZW1- Epropet , and the Impact in'the : allay.,: She commented men ted that they do W object to the number of units Or the development. Mr. Burnham explained the Cftysposition with respect to protecting private views. He stated that in consideration of the subJed project, there Is a waiver of a combining requirement provision that has been created In the Zoning Code. He stated that in considering the merits of - the proposed waiver the Planning Commission may Impose conditions that they consider appropriate; however, he questioned if the conditions could appropriately Include restrictions on the building as it relate's to Carnation Avenue and Seaview Avenue. In response to questions pond by Commissioner Merrill, BM Ward, Senior Planner, expWned that the' normal sideyard setback would be 4 feet and would'apply to the entire Seaview Avenue frontage of the building except for the !'last 20' feet of'the property which Is adjacent - with - the, front yard ' area of the ididalig lot. He said that the -Zoning Code requires! that= the list' 20feet must maintain the same setback as exists 6nithe zdMAi% property, and the existing sad*A on the idjolift PIs 6 feet from the property -lint 16 the:' sec* floor &dropertY q t"fore, the applicant most provide a six', foot' street We setback on the last 20 feecof the property., Mr. Ward furthir replied that the applicant is proposing to have the ground floor portion of the building encroach two feet into the required six foot revers corner setback. He said 'that'the second and third flOOf Of Unit "P will maintain a'7 foot building setback and a 4 foot deck setback." CWrMan ftmerby and Mr. Ward discussed the view that would be by the project if the applicant �Wthdrew°' the rno� tkm requesting 'the reverse corner setback 47- I AL I F 1 4 1 1 1 40 AgMINISSIONERS• MINUTES 10 MU , CALL ANDEX (3ftifff", Pon,". maintained -that the Pfopmed.mc4iffiation would presenme the existing vim betta than It the soll"At withdrew the modifiaWon. , He said tint the NPOICa"t his agreed W cut, t*&'the 'second AW d" floor` Ciolest to'the Bowerines mm" to improve the vim from that Area,' Mr. Jay Coher;,.2320'Seaview�Avenue, . appeared before 'the eomiq CommlssioiL'' Mr. Cohen ommoned that if, the 2 foot ttsent is to, the amikant 70% to`l"';of his YL-w would be blocked of Newport Harbor and that would, affect the value of the: property. Mr.'Coben indicated. that there is {a parkhn problem vW 8 additkx%al wAamobfies would ,lni act the alley. He agreed that a fire I&= would be beneficlaFto. the area. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Ward described the alternate plan that the applicant submitted which fully confornis to the required side and rear yard setback&. He explained that the stairway at the rear portion of the Proerty has been moved � into the interior portion of the building PHe explained that the 7 foot rear yard encroachment would increase to 6 feet and would remain at 6, Net to the' end of the building. and on all three levels of the projc6.,f in response to a. question posed by Cornmissioher Glover.' Mr. Ward described how the Boluenmes view would be I im'p cted, if the applicant fully 'complied with the Zoning Ordin4noe. I Mr. Mike Mack, 2524 Seavkw-Avenue, appeiredibdore the Planning , Commission; M Mack referred to i his le ttef dated AuOt .3p 1999; expressino, concerns, with , respect to' the I siie! of the pmjw'and the sideyird setbuL � Hesaid,� that the iviiw, is only one concern. Mr. Mack requested that the'a0plicints' stake the, project so the neighbori will have a clear undirsiandingi of the %I= of the dewlopment. I Mr. Steven W. Johnson, 331 Dahlia Place, appeared before the Planning Commission. t, Ha referred ito bb- lettiri datidt Mgust 1"90, sddr"sed 1 to Mr. Ward with re spact 'to thei go"A prupct ikid Fire ChlefReed'with nmpect to establishing p fire He, I ed, the r ndokn foreong 6icirfis, I add he stated that h7 0: concerns that the, proposed ieftick could set 48- A I l U ' 11 M COMMISSIONERS ROLL -CALL, Notion WiOUTED ff- 'dF'.KEWP0RT__f. 6EACH a precedent. oa Sur**w AvenLw- Mr. Johnson eniphadud the inporacm of a fira. lane , and the potcn,,t,w traffic in the alley. Mr. Johnson referred to the Environmental Repoft'i chec6ff list and be questioned staffs response to the quesdoia pirtilaing to tvLospoirtation and dmd%Lkxi. and he rebutted that an additional a anumobiles would creme congestion in' tbe' area. He requested that the 0C&W& require property owners 'participate In the mawenam Of the pa"to n&-of-way. Mr. John BoWwanc, appeared before, the Pbuuftg Commission. Mr. Boissenux end his concern ,.that the setback me wmnent was to � his propertys i deck area MW 'not to the structure. In summary. he stated that the Bo6scraries support the alignment of the adjoining buildings and the adjoining decks. 11wre beI4 no others deshl' to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Debay commented that the applicant Is not eorastructIng.a project that is more than the lot requires; however. she said that by combining lots that there is a sacrifice of open space;that would ordisaffly be between each, of the lots. In response. to questkws, posed by Commisslocer Merrill, Mr. Ward replied that i the setback was measured from tha a� jacent doh --and not, the: structure. Commimloner Merrill and Mr. Hewicker discussed the alignment of the adjacent deck area on Senview Avenue NO the structure 00 Carnation Avep'ui- , Mr. Hewicker; suggested that the applicant could submit phins'tbat would exhibit setbacks " wmW match structure with adjacent structure and deck with adjacent deck. Commissioner Edwards and Mr. Hewicker discussed the proposal requesting exhibits to display the alignment of the, adjoining decks and structures. Motion was made to continue Amendment Nm 685. Waiver of Combining RequiremeaU and C=Wr, Residential bevclopment Pendt No.,114.toithe September 211 1989, PlarWiStonin"on meeting. , Commissioner Pers6n requested,,that the', ' am prepare. exhibits, that .would show the; alignments of, the Vocks -49. 50 ' COMM SlIONL�4 . MINUTES NEW BEACH CITY 4F NE ROLL CAll. s., WDEX and structures as suggested, ; and that the applicant also stake the property for the neighbors, , Commissioner Merrill requested in amendment to the motion that the applicant submit plans showing afire lane and a parking layout In the alley. The maker of the motion agreed to amend the motion. Mr. Diem reappeared before the Planning Commission to state that he would like to proceed with the project and he reviewed t1=01omerby d project and,the revisions to the proposed plan. suggested 'that the applicant consider the neighbors' requests and come back to the Planning Commission with plans that address their concerns. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr, Ward stated that the required setback for the adjoining property is actually 20 feet. He stated that there was a variance granted on that property to allow a 10 foot setback, and the deck on the second and third floors of the adjoining property encroach approximately S feet Into that 10 foot setback. Mr. Ward stated that the reverse corner setback requirement is the equal to the eidsting setback, not the required ' setback, of the adjoining Party. Motion was voted on to continue this Item to the September 21, 1989, Planning Commission rneeting. MOTION CARRIED. • r • Discussion of Encl_=d Co Lm__ercial Parking 5paW Commissioner Person stepped down from the dais because of a possible conflict of interest. James Hewicker, Planning DIrector, stated that what has been adopted ,by the, City: Council for, coon mrcial,parking spaces does . • not allow, the, Installatloa of garage doors. He said , that because of the ooticetns' that have beeri 'mrpressed with, respect to tin nibted ' use' developments' thaV the - PtaWag-,Commission has Discussion IItems ri 11 encl.coma'l Parking spaces P3 4 4 lftsMi !, c bm W87, t4cwpoci lks h, CA16raja 92618-WA7 AurRofm 3 �A U CITI WjPC*A" August 9, 198 CALW. 0 1 06� 06F Mr. 0111 Ward City.of Newport lloach.Planipinq,Department 3300 Newport Beach Boulevard Newport Beach, California 9259-1768 SUBJECT: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT' 2500 SEAVIEW,.,CORONA DEL ;MAR Dear Mr. Ward: This letter has been written to formally express my concarn.'rag4rding the pro- posed development at 2500 Seavlow-In Corona del Mar.-Until'racontly.:1 was not even aware that plans were moving, "...very rapidly through City Hall." My 'concerns are focused on several. Ite*3 of, importance.., They are: . 1) concern forpropertyowners of,ex;sting, nearby. I mpioved properties; Fa I I ure by, the j.Cj ty to notify anXone.in,the,Ch1na,Cove Condo- Wnluin Asso * cfatlon (of width am a I/Ilth propertyowner) of the Planning Cbenmission Mme'tin''g'on'Thursday,IA�ig4si 10., 3) Establistnent of a fire lane to ensure the aidjolninp right- of-way property owners,, and the Ciky, the i uthorlty , 4o- sure continuous Fire %partment sccess,­ 4) A request fo011itokln9l of the proposed"Improve ents to the property,at, 2500 Seaview. ITEM 01 ,Flrst� I 1--am not against: development,.of, the property.,,,, However, I dq, lin fact. share the concerns -of wy.neI9hborsAnsth* China .Coves Condor 161tim Association 4nd,'the property'owwro, Immedlately.. *4jwAnt to-,tha Prqpwdp� 6-ni,t 'Condo pro- lject: Af, any r co4e;.var lance's.1 pre.,granted., I,t.could possibly reducethe proper- ty value of existing structures, iProposed additional use of the right-of-way leading to some of tha1poposed pro- ject garages and parking areas Is unacceptable to an sires yl-o a b r4cn.ed right - :of -way. 9 Mr. Bill hard August 9, 1989 Page Two The recent condominium development of the properties located in the 300-block of Carnation accomplished garage access without the use of an alleyway or rear right-of-way. Why can't all garage and parking access for the proposed develop- ment be accomplished off of Seaview or Carnation? ITEM 12 - l am perturbed at the Planning Department's failure to notify ALL. residents and property owners within 300 feet of the proposed development, teat a Planning Commission Public Hearing was to take place on Thursday, August 10. 4t is my understanding that the property was posted. but the signs "disappeared" soon after the posting. Also, I've been advised that this project is. "...moving through City Hall very rapidly." If this is the case, "WHY?" ITEM 13 - Because of existing congestion, already -heavy use, and 'illogai' parking practices by some thoughtless, inconsiderate parties to the existing right-of-way, I believe It Is mandatory that a city -mandated fire lane be established on Dahlia Place and the adjoining alleyways leading to the proposed project. This fire lane is already overdue and should be established regardless of the pro- posed development at 2500 Seaview. On Saturday, August 5, and Sunday, August 6, 1 spoke with the other owners in China Cove Condominium Association regarding their support for the establishment of a fire lane. Although one owner was somewhat reluctant, support for the fire lane is unamlmoust Because of my concern for the fire protection of my own Investment as well as that of others, and because of my concern for the lack'of authority to ensure Fire Department access, I am Insisting that afire lane be established coinci- dentally to the development of 2500 Seaview. (The developer, Mr. David Clem did, In fact, telephone me and Indicate his desire for the establishment of a fire lane.) This fire lane should be established in the same manner as the fire lane on Carnation approximately two years ago. - including the "Fire Lane" sign post- ing and the line -painting at the City's expense. This Is a public safety Issue and the costs of the establishment and maintenance of this fire lane should be borne by all taxpayers. Please review the attached copy of my letter to Newport Beach Fire Chief Jim Reed. Mr. Bill ward August 9, 1989 Page Three IT£N /4 Finally, because I want to 'see''what is`going tol'happen' at 2500 Seaview, I am Insisting on a "staking" of the proposed project. It is' only fair that those who already have an investment in the area be able to 'see' what is to be con- structed. I am concerned that this is moving "too fast" and those of us who will be affected by this development are not being given the proper opportunity to have Input. In closing, I do plan to attend the Planning Commission Meeting on Thursday, August 10. Also, I want to reiterate that I am in favor of development of the property In question. However, I do Intend to "do my part" to ensure that the interests of others are considered and protected - especially where public safety is concerned. Sincerely, ST£V£N W. JOHNSON Member, China Cove Condominium'Assoclatlon SJ:sj cc: An Reed, fire Chief Phil -Sansone, Council member China Cove Condoolnium•Association IN • • e��ee�w � �alindov Post afire Box 8007. Newport Be*&,Cali(or"is 926mw August 9, 1989 HAND -DELIVERED Fire Chief Jim Read City of Newport Beach Fire Department 3300 Newport Beach 11mlovard Newport Beach. California 92659-1768 SUBJECT: ESTABLISHMENT OF FIRE LANE - DAHLIA PUKE AWID ADMININ Dear Chief Reed: Approximately two years ago, the Newport Beach City Counci'l'passed an ordinance establishing a 1$-foot fire lane in the 300-block of'Carnatlon, Corona del Mar. Because I anticipated the potential need for a similar fire lane In the 300-block of Dahlia Place (and adjoining alleyway easements), I spoke In favor of the fire lane'at the council meeting regarding this matter. , It Is Important to note that both 300-blocks of Carnation' and 'Dahila.Place are non -dedicated, private access easements, as are the adjoining alleyways `F`orseveral reasons. I ao now requesting your Department's asslstanca in t;rinq- ' Ingt�Jbout thi establishment of a fire lane on Dahlia Plaed dhd adjoining alleyways. 'similar' •to the Carnation fire lane. Justificailon for the fire lane Includes the following: ; 1)Continual "angle parking" and "double parking" by the tenants occupying the two' trl'ptei os. `at 304''and 308. Dahl la Place; 2) Al leyway parking by teinanis' .64 'vlsltor s to the .apar'tm'ants located at 308 and 312 Carnitlon;' 3) The pending development of the "Olds Corona del Mar" hotel property located at 250 Ise 44,164; ' Item -by -Item, I will attempt to briefly explain the Justification Items'noted above, ITEM /I - For over two years, 1 have made numerous attempts to resolve the •�ngle parking/double parking" problem with the specifically- Involved tenants and their landlord. • E Fire Chief ..1im (teed August 9;.1989 Page Two When It became apparent that full cooperation was not going•to prevail - either from the tenants or the landlord - I began taking occasional photographs of the problem and recording some of any telephone conversations with the landlord. (More accurately. I made notes of the conversations, not "tape recorded" as rmay,be Implied,) After my latest plea for cooperation approximately six mon,ths'ago. I.was,told by the landlord to. 11 ...go ahead and write a letter to the-O.ty; I'm tired of your phone calls." However, after that call, the tenants did 'clean up their act' for several months - until recently. Again, the double parking has become a problem and annoyance to the others who ,are a party to the right-of-way...More Importantly, this type of parking, if allowed to continue, could concelvably, 10 t in a delayed response to a "rescue" call or "vehicle fire in a structure" call further down the right- of-way. Because the right-of-way In question is private, i have been told by both the Police Department and the Fire Department that there is no...suthority to enforce the prohibition of parking In the current "unmarked" fire 1•ane, The only resolve would be for the establishment of a Carnation -type fire lane by city ordinance. ITEM /x - When the Carnation fire lane was established, some "angle parking" that had existed for years in front of 308 and 312 Carnation was eliminated. The elimination of the angle parking and the resultant creation of parallel parking (to accommodate the fire lane) resulted in the loss of, I believe. four parking spaces"fdrlhe"teriantt'end visitors of 3081312 Carnation. Because of t" loss of these parking spaces, tenants and visitors began using both the China Cove ''Condo Assoclation-side and,.their own aide of the right-of-way for parking.' "Almost every night, a vehicle of some sort (v'an`, ootorcyol4, or automobile) Is parked all night long in the'tal leytiway. ' On` occasion, vehicles are parked across from each other on both sides of the alleyway`. (Parking.in this area of the right-of-way has'also'been documented in photographs.) Obvlously,'this,type'of parking Is lnapproprimte.and 'certa'Inly could hinder - If not preclude - access by a'Flre Department engine'company 'should a call of a "structure fire" or a "vehicle fire in an attached garage" berreceived by your Department.,.lt should be noted that all garages In this.al,leyway have living quar- ters 'directl r above 'them. In most cases, ,the I I'ving qu4rters, are bedrooms or "sleep ng ce." Again, the'Police and Fire Departments have been unable to respond to my com- plaint due to the lack of authority (i've been told), i.e'., a city -mandated fire lane. 0 Fire Chief Jim Reed August 9, 1989 Page Three ITEM /3 - Due to the pending development of 2500 Seaview • a six -unit condo- �iniu�+ project - I believe it Is Imperative to establish a fire lane as soon as possible. It Is my understanding that there will be both garage and open -sir parking space for nine vehicles In the condo project adjacent to the alleyway, Obviously, these vehicles will be accessing their parking spaces via the existing right-of-way easement. I am adamantly opposed to any additional traffic - and parking - on an already - overburdened easement. The Planning Department, clearly, gave me the impression that China Cove Condo Association could not, legally, stop development requiring additional use of the right-of-way. If additional use of the alleyway -easement Is permitted to.accomm date the 2500 Seaview development, that will - potentially - mean additional parking prob- lems In the alleyway. That will also, potentially, mean additional access problems for the Fire De- partment, if needed. During a telephone conversation several days ago, I was told by a representative of the Planning Department that there was, "...no need for a fire engine to re- spond Into the alley; they would attack a fire from Seaview or Carnation." That kind of rationale by a city representative for the sake of development and/or lack of recognition for a long -overdue fire lane, Is ridiculousl iN CLOSING... Chief Reed, I am not opposed to the development of 2500 Snavlew. In fact, I an for the development - but, only if It is done properly and In full consideration R—exlsting structures and development, and more Importantly, only In full consider- ation of the Impact on public safety. Certainly. I recognize the fact this develop- ment, if properly accomplished, will enhance my own property value. A now, 6-unit condominium structure will present less of a fire problem than,the old wood -frame hotel - If proper access is ensured In spite of the potential for Increased right-of-way usage. But, the authority to maintain proper Fire Department access Is a MUST and should coincide with this proposed development. The China Cove CondomInGm Association would expect that the posting of signs and painting of lines marking the fire lane would be at the city's expense - as It was done on Carnation. (Upon request, I will provide the photographs and other documentation I have accum- ulated regarding past and existing parking problems on the right-of-way.) t Fire Chief Jim Reed August 9, 1989 Page Four Incidently, l have been continuously employed by one of the "major Los Angeles" fire departments for over 23 years, currently holding the rank of Captain,,. And, "YesIll l,have responde'd to quite a few "vehicle fire in a garage" calls over the years. The establishment of a fire lane to ensure Fire Department access is not an unreasonable request. Sincerely, 4f STET EN W. JOHNSON Member, China Cove Condominium Association SJ:sj cc: Bill ward, Planning Department Phil Sansone, Council Member China Cove Condominium Association I To: PLANNING C"ISSION August 10, 1989 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 fromt Robt. G. Horn 358 Dahlia Place Corona del liar, CA 92625 Re: 2500 Seaview Avenue corner Carnation Dear City Plannert The residents in our area at the rear of 2500 Seaview Avenue ore very concerned about more traffic using our Half Alley entering from Dahlia Place. My home is at the very narrow blind corner of thin Alley - opposite the condominiums. Many vehicles strike wry property, my gate and entrance, and I would hope the Builders of the Sesview Property would check this situation - so that our condition will not be gorse. Thank you for your attention. Robt. G. Norn 358 Dahlia Place WPI., Corona del Mar, CA 92625 1Sr•�+ rt . AIJG10104. � r may. �a • M. bh 11. A • FAREL WALKER 325 Dahlia Place Corona de1,Nar', CA. 926I3 Phonet 675-4144 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 33M Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 926584915 August 81 1989 Attention: Bill Word, Planner Re: 2500 Seaviav Avenue Corona del Mar Dear Commission Members: We are some of the owners of our Condominium Hanes - Addreeeua: 309 - 331 Dahlia Plana 0-ore tie use the Alley that dead -ands at the rear of our Condoe, and at the rear of the Carnation Avenue Property - 2500 Seaviay. We understand the Builder is coneidering replacing the Old Carona del Mar Hotel on the Corner - and plane to odd garages enterirvl from Dahlia Place. There is no entrance or exit to this nirro►+ Alley from either Seaviaw Avenue or Carnation Avenue. And, this narrow Alley has two blind corners, and one corner will not accommodate large trucks, moving vans, trash trucks, delivery trucks, etc. Our Building on that corner has a hf b istory of damaged many times by large vehicles - and the telephone pole at that corner across from our property has evidence of many bumps - especially from vehicles trying to turn around after discovering the dead-end. we would appreciate your having ecm cr check this matter - especially the narrow corner. l�:,•r Thank you for your attention to our concern, Sincerely , CHINA COVE C OMINIUM ASSOCIATION ealker 325 Dahlia Place AMA 11, (AO41/p, VA GL•... N. B. Coleman 323 Dahlia Place Continued on Page - 2 - MOM PlanninqCai ission City or New*t-,Beach Page — 2 -- August S, 1989 Additional signatures concerning 2500 Seaview Avenues Copies to: N. B. Coleman 323 Dahlia Place Steve Arganbright 317 Dahlia Place Bill Robertson 321 Dahlia Place Lynne Valentine 319 Dahlia Place C4&46p.�1�0 J. SCOTr FARBER311 DAHLIA PLACE CORONA DEL YAB, CA 92625 August 9, 1989 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 Attention: Mr. Bill Ward, Planner Re: 2500 Seaview Avenue, Corona del Mar Dear Commission Members: I am a condominium homeowner near the proposed 2500 seaview condominium project. Our condominium property lines include ownership of one-half of an alley for access to certain garages in our complex. The alley is accessible from Dahlti�Place and runs parallel to Seaview, then makes a 90 degree.left turn towards Seaview and runs parallel to Carnation and Dahlia.' My understanding is that both Dahlia and Carnation are private roads from Seaview heading north. I also understand the builder of 2500 Seaview in considering replacing the Old Corona del star hotel on the corner of Seaview and Carnation Avenue and plans to add garages with access from the alley entering on Dahlia Place. There in currently no entrance to this narrow alley from either Seaview Avenue or Carnation Avenue. The narrow alley has two blind corners, and one corner will not accommodate large trucks such as moving vans, trash trucks and fire engines. Our building has a history of being damaged many times by large vehicles, and a telephone pole at that corner of the alley has been knocked down several times from vehicles trying to turn around after discovering the dead-end alley. I would like to suggest the Planning Commission pursue with the builder the need to construct an access road to the alley from Carnation Avenue. I do not see any reason why residents on Carnation should have to use the private road on Dahlia to access the alley, ■hen their own private road on Carnation is more appropriate. An additional access road to the alley will also help in the event of fire. Planning Commission August 9, 1989 City of Newport Beach Page 2 ?hank you for your attention to my concern. I would be happy to meet with the Commission to discuss this matter further.. Si c el, . Scott Farber reasurer China:Cove Condominium' Association Pg*MeD FlRe e. LOCATION D 1 —1 r ti i i I, 14 SEAVZEW / �v 14 n 12 10 Ir .. _ .� L p s 2501• •2511. •��2i��: N +icii• 12.. ... Of t j f1�GpaS6t> I r I-M OA40 - C u R 9LAW *AtW-744, 3 srOILq oPo�rD X s.IVrN4 OV64 dik hriV2/ 6' SET'? aV mtM� 2D I r WA c r Or �. ;.1 •.t Ac. k L ._�_ . LLA-" _. sroRy a1V/44 ODV&& 97 — I %I.b Vlh 45 y fg� Lis- CuRR&Air LV ?L-IA14 PXOPO.$6Z> --tmdA C>V 2.0 O'S 7*F=1 W/ry /v4-rrA/AV-4 <��7-� 6&$ Lb J Fb*- 6*7-55 RAP 0 i COMM13910MENS ROLL CALL Motion Ayes Absent 1*1*1;1# r� ! MINUTES September 21, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH roposed amendment involves an expansion and renovation of existing yacht club. Said additions include an expanded di room, new administrative ofiicM expanded kitchen, an ante snack bar, new bathrooms and a new bsuement area which l be used for additional locker storage and dry food storage fo the yacht club restaurant. LOCATION: Parcel 1, Parcel Map 84.721 (Resubdivision o. 791), a portion of Block 95 of Irvine's bdivision and a portion of Lots A and B, Tr No. 6927, located at 1801 Bayside Driv on the southwesterly side of Bayside Drive, uthwesterly of E1 Pamo Drive. ZONE: APPLICANT: � MI Balboa Yacht Crib, Corona del Mar OWNERS: Balboa Yacht Clu\statethat ounty of Orange James llewicker, Planning Director,staff has requested that this item be continued r 5, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. Motion was made and voted on to continue GeneXI Plan Amendment No. 89-2(K) and Use Permit No. 1681 (Am ded) to the October 5, 1989, Planning Commission me N MOTION CARRIED, A. Nmendmew No. 685 (Continued Public -lie Request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. 17 so as to establish a 10 foot front yard setback along the Carnation Avenue (private) frontage of the subject property; and the acceptance of an environmental document. -16- AND INDEX Item No.5 A6 85 Waiver of Combining Require. CRDP 14 Approved e� COMMISSIONER$ MINUTES September 21, 1989 • CITY OR NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX B, WaiYCI gf Cgimbining Require[Dent (Continued Dlignslon)] Request to waive the combining of lots requirement in conjunction with the proposed project; and the approval of It modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow an open stairway to encroach 7 feet into a required 10 foot rear yard setback and to allow a portion of the structure to encroach 2 feet into the required 6 foot reverse corner setback adjacent to Seaview Avenue, at the rear of the property. AND Request to approve a Coastal Residential Development Permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance for a 6 unit residential condominium development pursuant to the Administrative Guidelines for the implementation of the State Law relative to Low -and -Moderate -Income Housing within the Coastal Zone, LOCATION: Portions of Lots 2, 4, 6 and 8, Block 231, Corona del Mar and a portion of an abandoned street (Carnation Avenue), located at 2500 Seaview Avenue, on the northeasterly corner of Seaview Avenue and Carnation Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R-3 APPLICANT: Carnation Cove, Newport Bcach OWNER; Same as applicant James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant has complied with the requests that were previously made by staff and the Planning Commission at the August 10, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. David Diem, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". Mr. Diem presented a brief review of 47- COMMISSIONEIIS MINUTES September 21, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH IIOU_ CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX the application, and he addressed the following concerns that were expressed at the foregoing Planning Commission meting. Mr. Diem addressed concerns regarding the rear access on ilia alley portion of the property and the fire lane. He stated that two of the proposed units will require the use of the alley for vehicular access, and he described the design and setback of the tour garages that will access off of Carnation Avenue. Mr. Diem stated that the applicants will pay for the striping and signage for the fire lane on Dahlia Place and Dahlia Avenue. Mr. Diem further stated that the applicants will pay for a sign at the corner of Dahlia Place and Dahlia Avenue indicating the private alley has no through access. fie addressed the turnaround area that will be provided in the alley to case the traffic circulation, and he stated that the plans have been modified to allinv for a greater backup area out of the garage immediately adjacent to Seaview Avenue. Mr. Diem referred to the letter from Steven Johnson, dated September 16, 1989, on behalf of the China Cove Condominium Association, stating that their previous concerns regarding the establishment of a fire lane have been satisfied and the Association is supporting the project. Mr. Diem addressed the rear stairwell encroachment, and he explained that there will be a four foot access as required by the Fire Department. Mr. Diem addressed the reverse corner setback area, and he described the colored chart that was previously submitted to the Planning Commission depicting the three alternate proposals and how each proposal would affect the adjacent views. Mr. Diem also described each alternative from enlarged photographs taken at the site and what affect the project would have on the neighbors' views from the second and third floors. Mr. Diem submitted photographs depicting bow the stakes were placed as requested by the neighbors. Mr. Diem suggested the Planning Commission approve the project with the rear stairwell four foot encroachment and the reverse corner setback, the "purple plan' alternative, the fourth alternative for the reverse corner setback area. He explained that on the third floor of the "purple plan!, the setback meets the Code requirement and does not need modification; that the 'red plan" on the second floor is below the neighbors` line of sight -18- COMMISSIONER$ 0 MINUTES September 21. 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH and does not have any visual impact; and a modification w(mid be required on the first level adjacent to the neighbors' garages. In response to a question posed by Mr. Hewicker, Mr, Diem submitted and described a photograph of a view from the second floor balcony of the adjacent property. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Diem explained that the description of Waiver of Combining Requirement as stated is the original description of the application when submitted by the applicants. William Ward, Senior Planner, explained that the description "to allow a portion of the structure to encroach 2 feet into the required 6 foot reverse comer setback adjacent to Seaview Avenue at the rear of the property", is red plan alternative. Commissioner Pers6n advised that the Planning Commission not set a precedent by getting involved in the protection of private views and private property. Chairman Pomeroy and Commissioner Pers6n discussed the amount of involvement the Planning Commission should consider to accomodate a group of citizens who have expressed their concerns regarding view impact. Mr. Diem addresud the description of the modification request In the Wavier of Combining Requirement, and he explained that "open stairway to encroach 7 feet' has been modified to 6 feet. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr. Ward explained that the conditions stated in Exhibit "A" were written as originally proposed by the applicant but the conditions will be revised to reflect the following: ("purple plan alternative' on the third floor, the "red plan alternative" on the second floor and the first floor would consist of a four foot setback as originally proposed). Mr. Diem suggested that a condition be added stating that the applicants agree to pay for a fire lane as previously stated. Mr. Michael Mack, 2574 Seaview Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that the proposed project is not setting a precedent, and he supported the modifications that were made to the project. In response to a question posed by Mr. Mack, Mr. Hewicker replied that the photographs on display are part of the public record. -19- COMMISSIONER$ � • MINUTES Ktion Ayes Absent September 21, 1989 CITY OF NEW P O RT BEACH Mrs. Doris Boisseranc, 2520.2522 Seaview Avenue property owner, resident of 272 Crescent Flay Drive, Laguna Reach, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs, fioisseranc described the meeting that the Boisaerancs had with Mr. Diem on September 20, 1989, to view the single stake that was erected to indicate the maximum height of the property, the view impact and the overall impact of the project. Mrs. Boisseranc stated that the applicants have satisfied the neighbors' requests; however, she said that they would prefer that the third floor setback be the same as the second floor setback or extend to Carnatlon Avenue. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion was made to approve Amendment No. 085. Waiver of Combining Requirement, Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 14, and related Environmental Document, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". Commissioner Person requested that Condition No. 21, Waiver of Combining Requirement, be added stating 'That the applicant shall stripe and sign the proposed fire lane as may be established by the Newport Beach Fire Department: Commissioner Person requested the "purple plan" alternative on the third floor (11 foot building setback and 6 foot deck setback, within that portion of the property 37 feet from the rear property line), the "red plan' alternative on the second floor (7 foot 6 inch building setback and a 4 foot deck setback, within that portion of the property 27 feet from the rear property line), and the first floor as requested by the applicant (4 foot building setback on the ground level). Chairman Pomeroy expressed the Planning Commission's appreciation to the applicant for submitting the improved modified plan. The foregoing motion was voted on. MOTION CARRIED. A. Environmental Document: Accept the environmental document, making the following findings and requiring the following rnitigation measure: -20- COMM13l1 ONER$ 0 MINUTES September 21. 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1+tOLL CAu. 1 1 1 11 1 1 I - 1 INDEX 1, That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental ouality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K•3. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. 1. That a photo survey of the existing buildings on the site shall be prepared and donated to the historical photos collection of the Balboa Pavilion prior to the issuance of demolition permits. B. Recommend approval of Amendment No. 685 to the City Council, with the following findings: 1. Dat the proposed ten foot front yard setback is the same as other setbacks along Carnation Avenue, 2. That the proposed ten foot setback along the Carnation Avenue frontage of the subject property is compatible with the proposed and allowable scale of development in the R•3 District. C. WaiyCr of Combiniog ReqMiLCmenl: Approve the waiver of the combining requirement with the following findings and subject to the following conditions: 1. That the waiver of the combining requirement is justified inasmuch as the proposed development of the subject property is intended to be a condominium project which requires the approval and recordation of a tract map prior -21- ER • COMMISSION S • MINUTES September 21, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I ROLL CALL 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX to occupancy of the project and which will effectively combine the parcels into a single site. 2. That the provisions of Section 20.87.090 B of the Ncwlx)rt Beach Municipal Code provide that the Planning Commission or City Council, on appeal, may impose such conditions as deemed necessary to secure the purpose of Tine 20 of the Municipal Code. 3. 117hat the approval of a modification to the -Zoning Code so as to allow the proposed side and rear yard setback encroachments will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons reKiding and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from Carnation Avenue, Seaview Avenue and adjoining properties. 3. That a tract map be processed and recorded prior to occupancy of the proposed condominiums. That the tract map be prepared so that the bearings relate to the State Plane Coordinate System. 4. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 5. 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 Works Department. -22• COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES September 21, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Ra-L CALL III I I! I I -- I *10Ex 6. That the on -site parking. vehicular circuladon and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. That no diagonal parking will be permitted along the Carnation Avenue or the Seaview Avenue frontages. 7. That the intersection of the streets and drives be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 25 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty- four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non -critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 8. That the California Vehicle Code be enforced on the private streets and drives, and that the delineation acceptable to the Police Department and Public Works Department be provided along the sidelines of the private streets and drives. 9. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to Issuance of any building or grading permits. Any modificadons or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 10. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to Issuance of any building permits. 11. That a 10 foot radius corner cutoff at the corner of Seaview Avenue and Carnation Avenue be dedicated to the public on the tract map. 12. That a non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress be dedicated over Carnation Avenue frontage and that an easement for public emergency and security ingress, egress and public utility purposes over Carnation AVenue be dedicated to the City. -23- c COMMISSIONERS MINUTES Scpttmber 21, 14�4 CITY OF NEIMPORT BEACH MOLL CALL III lilt I I INDEX 13. That curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavwwnt be constructed along the Carnation Avenue frontages that the displaced portion■ of sidewalk be reconstructed and the existing brick pavers be removed and replaced with landscape or reconstructed on a 4 inch thick concrete base along the Seaviw Avenue frontagel that the curb return at the corner of Carnation Avenue and 8aaview Avenue be reconstructed using a 20 toot radius return and Incorporating a curb access ramp within It. All work ■hall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department or by signed plans approved by the city ingineer. All street, drainage and utility improvements shall be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 14. That a standard agreement and accompanying surety be provided to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public and private street improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building or grading permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 15. That a minimum 20 foot clear width be provided in the alley easement located northerly of and parallel to Seaviw Avenue. This revision will provide adequate room for vehicles backing from the adjacent garage. The final design of the site plan shall be approved by the Public Works Department. That no quest parking spaces shall be permitted within the rear driveway area. 16. That a minism a 6 foot rise be provided between the existing alley flow line and the high point of the proposed driveway prior to descending into the subterranean garages along the alley unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department 17. That Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department. 18. That the entire building shall be ■prinklered unless otherwise permitted by the Fire Department. 19. That the Improvements constituting the raised entry and patio for unit •F", which extend into the required 10 foot rear yard setback, shall not exceed a height of 6 feet measured from existing grade. 20. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall record a covenant which shall hold the subject property as a mingle building site until such time as a tract map or parcel map is recorded (' on the property. -24- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES A c� ��. September 21, 1989 CV CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ; ROLL CALL INDEX t 21. That the applicant shall stripe and sign the proposed fire lane as may be established by the Xewport Beach fire Department. 22. That the open stairway shall be permitted to encroach 6 feat into the required rear yard setback. 23. That the following setbacks shall be maintained in the revarse corner setback area adjacent to Seaview Avenue, at the rear of the propertys a 4 foot building setback on the first floorl a 7 foot 6 inch building setback and a 4 foot deck setback within that portion of the property 27 feet from the rear property line on the second floorl and an 11 loot building setback and a 6 foot deck setback within that portion of the property 37 feet from the rear property line on the third floor. D. s Approve the Coastal Residential Development Permit with the following findings[ 1. That the feasibility analysis has been performed which has indicated that it is not feasible to provide affordable housing on -site or off -site in conjunction with the proposed project. 2. That the proposed development has met the requirements of the City Council Policy P-1. • • • hmnsknot No._§QQ tPubiic. 1$arinal Item No. 6 Request to amend Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal ►6 89 Code so as to establish mixed residential/commercial uses as a permitted use within the -Recreational and Marine Continued Commercial' area of the Cannery Village/McFadden square 1C0 Specific Plan Area. 10-5-89 APPLICANTS City of Newport Beach M4615