HomeMy WebLinkAbout18 - PA2004-137 - Espinoza Condominium Conversion - 329 Marguerite AvenueCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
• Agenda Item: is
November 23, 2004
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Planning Department
James Campbell, Senior Planner, (949) 644 -3210
jcampbell@city.newport-beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Espinoza Condominium Conversion (PA2004 -137)
Condominium Conversion No. 2004 -014
Newport Tract Map No. 2004 -002
Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2004 -001
PROJECT SITE: 329 Marguerite Avenue, Corona del Mar
APPLICANT: Maclovio Espinoza
2744 E. Coast Highway
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
0 RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council affirm the action of the Planning Commission.
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission approved the referenced applications on October 7, 2004 by
a 3 -2 vote. Mayor Ridgeway called this item for review on October 12, 2004.
The applicant proposes to convert an existing 7 -unit apartment building built in 1956 to
condominiums for individual sale. The project site is located at the southwest corner of
the intersection of Bayside Drive and Marguerite Avenue. The project provides 1
parking space per unit, which is the amount of parking required when the site was
developed. The project fully complies with existing condominium conversion standards
and all utilities will be separated and upgraded as required by the Code. A complete
discussion of the standards applicable to condominium conversions can be found on
Pages 4 through 7 of the Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 23, 2004
(Attachment 2).
The Planning Commission was very concerned about the dated appearance of the
exterior of the building. Additionally, the Commission expressed concern about the
Espinoza Condominium Conversion (PA2004 -137)
November 23, 2004
Page 2 of 3
amount and design of the parking provided on -site. Lastly, the Commission was
concerned about the fact that the existing nonconformities of the site would be
preserved as a result of the conversion.
The project provides the minimum parking spaces be eligible for conversion. Parking is
available directly across Bayside Drive in the City municipal parking lot. Although the
design of the 7 on -site spaces, which require direct access to Bayside Drive, is not
optimal, the reconstruction of the abutting public improvements and the removal of
encroachments within the public right of way improve the situation.
The applicant responded to the concern of the dated exterior appearance of the site by
proposing a complete renovation of the exterior (Exhibit No. 4). The final renovation
plans will be reviewed by the Commission prior to implementation. The applicant is also
providing garage doors to screen the existing tuck under parking.
On balance, the Commission believed that the improvements and reinvestment into the
property outweighed the preservation of the nonconformities. The attached Planning
Commission staff reports and minutes from their meetings ate attached for review and
they provide additional detail on the issues highlighted in this report.
Environmental Review
This project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing
Facilities) of the implementing Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act. This is
exemption allows the alteration of existing facilities including interior and exterior
alterations and utility conveyances provided there is no expansion of the use. Staff
believes the proposed project meets this standard and is exempt from environmental
review.
Public Notice
Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot with the agenda, mailed to
property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10
days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Notices were also
provided to all known tenants of the building. Additionally, the item appeared upon the
agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website.
ALTERNATIVE
The City Council has the option to deny the request — this option is warranted if the
Council determines that the approval of the applications is detrimental to the community
in some respect. In this event, staff recommends the Council continue the item to the
next meeting so staff can prepare written findings for denial.
0
0
Submitted by:
PATRICIA L. TEMPLE
Planning Director
Espinoza Condominium Conversion (PA2004 -137)
November 23, 2004
Page 3 of 3
Prepared by:
JAMES W. CAMPBELL
Senior Planner
EXHIBITS
1. Planning Commission Resolution
2. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated September 23, 2004
3. Excerpt of the Minutes of the September 23, 2004 Planning Commission
meeting
4. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated October 7, 2004
5. Excerpt of the Minutes of the October 7, 2004 Planning Commission meeting
6. Exterior improvement concept
PA2004- 137_11- 23- 04_ccrpt.doc
0
Ll
MA I -: tal
E
h
• RESOLUTION NO. 1648
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION NO.
2004 -014, NEWPORT TRACT MAP NO. 2004 -002 AND COASTAL
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 2004 -001 FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 329 MARGURITE AVENUE (PA2004 -137).
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY
FINDS. RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, an application was filed by Maclovio Espinoza requesting convert an
existing 7 -unit apartment building located at 329 Marguerite Avenue in Corona del Mar
to condominiums for the purpose of individual sale. Pursuant to the Municipal Code, the
request requires the approval of a Condominium Conversion Permit, Tentative Tract
Map and a Coastal Residential Development Permit.
WHEREAS, the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the certified Local
Coastal Program, Land Use Plan designate the project site as Multi- family Residential
and the site is zoned MFR (Multi - Family Residential).
WHEREAS, A public hearing was held on September 23 and October 7, 2004 at
6:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach,
California. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in
accordance with the Municipal Code. Additionally, notice of this hearing was provided to
the tenants of the project site in accordance with Government Code Section 66452.9.
Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning
Commission at the meetings.
WHEREAS, the project is consistent with Chapter 19.64 (Conversion of Rental
Units to Ownership) for the following reasons:
1. The project was originally required to provide one parking space for each unit,
which meets the minimum number required to be eligible for conversion.
2. The building was not constructed with separate sewer connections and
separation of the sewer lines is required as a condition of approval. Each lateral
shall be fitted with proper cleanouts at the property line.
3. The project presently has separate water connections, as required.
I
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1648
Page 2 of 10
•
4. The existing electrical connection will be placed underground, unless the Building
Director issues a waiver if undergrounding is not feasible.
5. An inspection of the building was conducted by the Building Department and all
deficiencies are required to be eliminated prior to the approval of the final tract
map.
6. Permanent lot stakes and /or tags shall be installed at all lot corners by a licensed
land surveyor or civil engineer. A corner record or record of survey shall be
recorded in accordance with applicable laws.
7. The General Plan does not include any specific goals for the dispersion of rental
housing within the area and the conversion from rental to ownership will reduce
the number of rental opportunities in Corona del Mar; however the elimination of
7 rental units will not create a detrimental impact to housing opportunities in the
City.
8. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed 7 -unit
condominium project will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental .
or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general
welfare of the City for the following reasons:
a. The proposed conversion will riot create any substantial construction- related
disruption other than to separate the existing sewer and underground the
existing electrical service.
b. Construction - related work will be temporary in nature and the long -term
operation of the site will not change from current conditions.
c. The proposed project meets or is conditioned to meet all applicable standards
for the conversion of rental housing to ownership.
d. The proposed 7 -unit condominium is consistent with the Multi - Family
Residential designation of the Land Use Element of the General Plan and
Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan.
WHEREAS, the tentative tract map is consistent with Title 19 and the Subdivision
Map Act for the following reasons:
1. The site is designated Multi - Family Residential by the Land Use Element and no
change in use or density is proposed. Apartments or condominiums are expected
to be located within this designation. The Multi - Family Residential designation
t•
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1648
Page 3 of 10
does not have a density standard and the Estimated Growth Table contained
within the Land Use Element for Statistical Area F3 accounts for the 7 existing
units.
2. Land Use Element Policy G and the Housing Element Policy 2. 1, Program 2. 1.1
indicate that conversions must be "restricted" unless the vacancy rate is below
5 %. Subdivision Code Section 19.64.060.D implements these policies by stating
that a conversion project containing 15 or more units shall be disapproved when
the vacancy rate is equal to or less than 5 %. With the current project being less
than 15 units, the vacancy rate is not relevant to compliance with Subdivision
Code even though the vacancy rate ranges from 7.27% to 6.11% during the
preceding three quarters of 2004. For these reasons, the subdivision is
consistent with Policy G and the Housing Element Policy 2. 1, Program 2.1.1.
3. The project site is currently developed with a 7 -unit residential development and
the proposed tract map is for condominium purposes only. The site is designated
for multi - family residential use by the General Plan. The site presently has no
known environmental resources that would be affected by the physical upgrades
to the site required to convert the apartments to individual ownership. The
subdivision will not likely create significant environmental impacts due to the
limited physical changes proposed and the fact that the site has no resource
value. The site has been developed with the 7 -unit complex since 1957, and due
to these factors, the site is suitable for the type and density of development
proposed.
4. The existing residential structure is permitted by local ordinance and the General
Plan. No evidence is known to exist that would indicate that the proposed
subdivision pattern will generate any serious public health problems.
5. No public easements for access through or use of the property have been
retained for the use by the public at large. Public utility easements for utility
connections that serve the project site are present and will be modified, if
necessary, to serve the new project. Therefore the proposed subdivision will not
impact public easements. Public improvements may be required of a developer
per Section 19 of the Municipal Code and Section 66411 of the Subdivision Map
Act and public improvements may be required of a developer per Section
20.91.040 of the Municipal Code.
6. Pursuant Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City's share of the
regional housing needs was considered in conjunction with the proposed
subdivision and the approval of the condominium conversion will not eliminate
housing nor will it create any new housing units. The elimination of 7 rental units
will not create a detrimental impact to housing opportunities in the City.
CI
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1648
Page 4 of 10
7. The discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer
system will not create or add to a violation of Regional Water Quality Control
Board requirements as approval of the subdivision will not increase the number
of residential units and the units will continue to discharge waste into the sewer
system at existing rates.
WHEREAS, the entire project is located within the coastal zone and requests the
conversion of 7 rental units within a single building to ownership and as. such,
Government Code Section 65590 requires the replacement of any units occupied by low
or moderate income households. Information supplied by the applicant indicates that 2 of
the 7 units located at the subject property are occupied by low or moderate income
households. On -site replacement is not feasible taking into account the significant gap
between the projected $600,000 sales price and what a moderate income household
might be able to afford. Additionally, the long term administration of an affordability
contract for 2 units is undesirable. Due to the reduction in affordable units within the City
with the conversion proposed, the applicant should mitigate that loss through the payment
of an in -lieu fee to the City, which can be used to increase the affordable housing supply
within the City. An in -lieu fee of $13,500 per unit ($27,000 total) has been proposed by the
City and the applicant has agreed to the p .;ment. A condition of approval has been
included that will ensure payment of this fee. With the payment of this in -lieu fee, the
proposed conversion is consistent with the provisions of Chapter 20.86 of the Municipal
Code and Government Code Section 65590.
WHEREAS, the project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section
15301 (Existing Facilities) of the implementing Guidelines of the California Environmental
Quality Act. This exemption allows the alteration of existing facilities including interior and
exterior alterations and utility conveyances provided there is no expansion of the use. The
project consists of the conversion of an existing apartment building to condominiums and
only minor interior and exterior improvernents are planned and no expansion in the
number of units is proposed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
Section 1. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves Condominium Conversion No. 2004 -014, Newport Tract Map No.
2004 -002 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2004 -001 subject to the
conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit "A ".
•
16
0
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1648
Page 5 of 10
9
Section 2. This action shall become final and effective fourteen (14) days after
the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk
or this action is call for review by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Title
20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
ADOPTED THIS 7th DAY OF OCTOBER 2004.
BY: �'D -2
Larry Tucker, Chairman
BY:
Jef C ecretary
AYES: Tucker. Selich and McDaniel
NOES: Eaton and Toerge
ABSENT: Cole
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1648
Page 6 of 10
Exhibit "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION NO. 2004 -014
NEWPORT TRACT MAP NO. 2004 -002
COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 2004 -001
1. The project shall be in substantial conformance with the submitted plot plan, floor
plans and elevations, except as noted below.
2. No more than 7 dwelling units shall be permitted on the site.
3. Each of the tenants of the proposed condominium shall be given 180 days
written notice of intention to convert prior to the termination of tenancy due to the
proposed conversion.
4. Each of the tenants of the proposed condominium shall be given notice of an
exclusive right to contract for the purchase of their respective units upon the
same terms and conditions that such units will be initially offered to the general
public or terms more favorable to the tenant. Such right shall run for a period of
not less than 90 days from the date of issuance of the subdivision public report •
(Section 11018.2 of the Business and Professions Code), unless the tenant gives
prior written notice of his or her intention not to exercise the right. Prior to final of
the condominium conversion permit, the applicant shall provide a copy of the
written verification forwarded to the tenants and said verification shall be
presented to the Planning Department.
5. The number of off - street parking spaces that were required at the time of the
original construction (7) shall be provided on the same property to be converted
to condominium purposes, and the design and location of such parking shall be
in conformance with the residential provisions of Title 20 of the Municipal Code.
6. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public
Works Department.
7. All applicable Public Works Department plan check fees and inspection fees shall
be paid prior to recordation of the parcel map.
8. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to
guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to
record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public
improvements.
0
I�-
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1648
Page 7 of 10
0
9. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code or other applicable section or chapter, additional street trees shall be
provided and existing street trees shall be protected in place during construction
of the subject project, unless otherwise approved by the General Services
Department and the Public Works Department through an encroachment permit
or agreement if required.
10. Each dwelling unit shall be served with an individual water meter and sanitary
sewer lateral and cleanout. Each water meter and cleanout shall be installed with
a traffic -grade framelbox and cover within the public right -of -way per City
Standards. The sewer service shall be separated so that each unit is served with
a sewer lateral connection to the public sewer system with a clean -out to grade
at the property line. If there is evidence that sewage is leaking from the facility or
if it is substandard, the existing sewer lateral shall be replaced. Said work shall
be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works
Department, unless otherwise approved by the Utilities Department and the
Building Department. This work shall be completed prior to final of the
condominium conversion permit.
11. Each dwelling unit shall be served with individual gas and electrical service
connection and shall maintain separate meters for the utilities.
12. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be undergrounded to the nearest
appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.28.090 of the Municipal Code
unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is
unreasonable or impractical.
13. In compliance with the requirements of Chapter 9.04, Section 901.4.4, of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code, approved street numbers or addresses shall be
placed on all new and existing buildings in such a location that is plainly visible
and legible from the street or road fronting the subject property. Said numbers
shall be of non - combustible materials, shall contrast with the background and
shall be either internally or externally illuminated to be visible at night. Numbers
shall be no less than four inches in height with a one -inch wide stroke. The
Building Department Plan Check Engineer shall verify the approved street
number or addresses during the plan check process for the new or remodeled
structure.
14. All work conducted within the public right -of -way shall be approved under an
encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department.
15. County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any building
permits, if required by the Public Works Department or the Building Department.
0
13
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1648
Page 8 of 10
16. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of
construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control
equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and
materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements.
17. Approval of Condominium Conversion No. 2004 -014, Newport Tract Map No.
2004 -002, Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2004 -001 shall expire
unless exercised within 36 months from the date of approval as specified in
Section 20.93.055 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The final tract map
shall be recorded within 36 month unless an extension is granted by the Planning
Director in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.16 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code.
18. The existing electrical service connections shall comply with the requirements of
Chapter 15 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; specifically, that each unit will
have a minimum 100 amp service.
19. Smoke detectors shall be provided in each bedroom.
20. The corrections listed by the Building Department in the special inspection report
shall be made prior to final of the condominium conversion permit.
21. The property owner shall provide information to the Building Department that the
roof is a Class C fire retardant roof as certified by a roofing contractor.
22. The building permit obtained from the Building Department in order to convert the
subject residential units into condominiums shall be "finaled" after the Tract Map
for "condominium purposes" has been recorded with the County of Orange and
all conditions of approval have been completed and verified by the Planning
Department.
23. The applicant shall be responsible: for the payment of all administrative costs
identified by the Planning Department within 30 days of receiving a final notification
of costs or prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
24. The applicant snail contribute twenty -seven thousand dollars ($27,000) to the Citys
affordable housing fund prior to the recordation of the final map.
25. A Final Tract Map or Final Map shall be recorded. The Final Map shall be
prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD83). Prior to recordation of the
Final Map, the surveyor /engineer preparing the Map shall submit to the County
Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a digital - graphic file of said Final Map in
a manner described in Section 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County
Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. The
1 `�
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1648
Page 9 of 10
0
Final Map to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the
City's CADD Standards. Scanned images will not be accepted.
26. Prior to release for recordation of the Final Map, all of the Public Works
Department conditions shall have been satisfied and all fees shall have been
paid.
27. A 7 -1/2 foot radius corner cutoff at the corner of Bayside Drive and Marguerite
Avenue shall be dedicated to the public for street and highway purposes and
shall be shown on the final map.
28. Prior to release for recordation of the Final Map, the existing private planter(s)
and walls that currently encroach within the Bayside Drive public right -of -way
shall be removed.
29. Prior to release for recordation of the Final Map, a full -width concrete sidewalk
shall be constructed along the entire Bayside Drive property frontage per City
Standards as the Bayside Drive was declared by the City Council as a Significant
Link street.
30. An ADA compliant curb access ramp shall be constructed at the southwesterly
corner of the Bayside Drive and Marguerite Avenue intersection and at the
intersection of Bayside Drive and the first alley west of Marguerite Avenue
adjacent to the development site prior to release for recordation of the Final Map.
31. Prior to release for recordation of the Final Map, existing damaged and /or uplifted
concrete sidewalk panels along the Marguerite Avenue frontage shall be
reconstructed.
32. Prior to release for recordation of the Final Map, new concrete curb and gutter
shall be constructed along the Bayside Drive and Marguerite Avenue frontages.
The cost of red curb painting on said curbs shall be paid by the Owner.
33. Per City water quality and on -site non -storm runoff retention requirements,
a. All existing planter weep holes that discharge onto the public right -of -way
shall be plugged; and
b. All existing or proposed building downspouts shall be retrofitted for on -site
retention; and
c. A bottomless trench drain or drains shall be installed along the Marguerite
Avenue property line across the width of the existing entrance to the
development.
0
15
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1648
Page 10 of 10
34. The existing carport finish floor surface is not at an elevation where storm runoff
traveling on Bayside Drive can be prevented from flooding the carports. The
subdivider shall submit a plan to the Public Works Department a plan showing
how the carports will be retrofitted to prevent flooding during storm events. The
retrofit shall be implemented prior to release for recordation of the Final Map
unless it is determined that such a retrofit is not feasible.
35. Unless otherwise permitted by the Public Works Department, all traffic lanes on
Bayside Drive and Marguerite Avenue shall be maintained at all times.
36. The applicant shall prepare a detailed and dimensioned set of drawings
(elevations, floor plans, site plan and landscape plan) specifying all materials to
be used on the exterior of the project site including exterior finishes, plant
species and sizes, hardscape materials. The drawings shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit
for the improvements.
0
0
)b
0
U
EXHIBIT 2
11
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
0
Agenda Item No. 3
September 23, 2004
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner
jcampbell @city.newport - beach.ca.us
(949) 644 -3210
SUBJECT: Espinoza Condominium Conversion (PA2004 -137)
• Condominium Conversion No. 2004 -014
• Newport Tract Map No. 2004 -002
• Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2004 -001
PROJECT SITE: 329 Marguerite Avenue, Corona del Mar
APPLICANT: Maclovio Espinoza
2744 E. Coast Highway
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
INTRODUCTION
The applicant requests approval of a Condominium Conversion Permit and a Tentative
Tract Map to convert an existing 7 -unit apartment building to condominiums for the
purpose of individual sale. The Coastal Residential Development Permit relates to
compliance with affordable housing regulations applicable within the Coastal Zone.
RECOMMENDATION
At the conclusion of the public hearing, staff recommends that the Planning
Commission approve Condominium Conversion No. 2004 -014, Newport Tract Map No.
2004 -002 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2004 -001 (PA2004 -137)
subject to the findings and conditions of approval within the draft resolution for project
approval (Exhibit No. 1).
11
Vicinity Map
329 Marguerite Avenue
Corona del Mar
Current
Development:
The subject property is currently developed with a seven unit,
two-story apartment building with a pool
To the north:
Municipal parking lot and a restaurant
To the east:
Multi-family residential uses and commercial uses
To the south:
Multi-family residential uses
To the west:
Single and two family residences
DISCUSSION
In November of 1956, the City approved Use Permit No. 275 allowing the construction
of the existing 7 -unit apartment building in the R -3 zone and the construction took place
in accordance with the plans in 1957. The project supplied 1 parking space for each
unit and the project has a pool. As noted, the applicant desires to convert the project to
condominiums so that the units can be sold independently. The applicant is currently
renovating and updating the interior of the units. The only exterior improvements
planned are maintenance and painting.
O
E
1J
Espinoza Condominium Conversion (PA2004 -137)
September 23, 2004 '. b
Page 2 of 7
General Plan Compliance
The site is designated Multi - Family Residential by the Land Use Element and no
change in use or density is proposed. Apartments or condominiums are expected to be
located within this designation. The Multi - Family Residential designation does not have
a density standard and the Estimated Growth Table contained within the Land Use
Element for Statistical Area F3 accounts for the 7 existing units.
Zoning Compliance (Title 20 of the Municipal Code)
The current development has several nonconformities from current zoning provisions.
1. The site has one more unit than the MFR zone would allow. Presently, the MFR
zone would permit 1 unit for each 1,200 .square foot of lot area, which would
permit 6 units on the 7,316 square foot lot. The site was developed with 7 units
when the density standard was 1 unit for each 1,000 square foot of lot area.
2. The project provides less than the minimum required parking. The site has one
covered parking space per unit (carports) and the current code requires 2 spaces
per unit (1 covered) and 4 guest parking spaces.
3. The buildings have minor encroachments into setbacks. All setbacks for this lot
are a minimum of 5 feet per the zoning code and the District Map. Based upon
the site plan submitted and field reconnaissance, the building appears to
encroach approximately 1 -foot into the front setback, 3-4 feet into the side yard
facing Bayside Drive for a portion of the building, 1 -foot into the opposite side
yard and 1 -2 feet for portions of the building into the alley setback.
Each of these nonconformities is allowed to remain indefinitely; however, alterations
and additions are restricted per Chapter 20.62 (Nonconforming Structures and Uses).
The renovations currently underway have been permitted by staff in accordance with
applicable regulations.
Condominium conversions are not regulated by the Zoning Ordinance but are regulated
by Title 19 (Subdivisions), which is discussed below.
Chapter 20.86 (Low Income Housing within the Coastal Zone) requires an evaluation of
the potential loss of affordable housing when three or more units are demolished or
converted to condominiums. This requirement implements Section 65590 of the
Government Code, which requires the replacement of eliminated affordable housing
within the Coastal Zone. The project site is within the Coastal Zone and based upon
information submitted by the applicant, 2 units were occupied by low or moderate
income households. The feasibility of requiring replacement units to be provided on -site
was evaluated by staff, and it was determined that requiring the replacement units on
site would not be feasible. This determination took into account the significant gap
between the projected $600,000 sales price and what a moderate income household
might be able to afford and the long term administration of the affordability contract.
Espinoza Condominium Conversion (PA2004 -137)
September 23, 2004
Page 3 of 7
Staff has requested the applicant to pay an in -lieu fee in the amount of $13,500 per unit
($27,000 total). This fee is the amount of the City's contribution to the Bayview Landing
affordable housing project and the applicant has agreed to pay the fee.
Subdivision Compliance (Title 19 of the Municipal Code)
Condominium conversions require that existing tenants be notified and be provided the
opportunity to purchase the units. All of the existing tenants have been notified of this
meeting in accordance with the Title 19 and Subdivision Map Act and they will receive
future notices related to the opportunity to purchase the units. New subdivisions are
also required to provide underground utility connections. The existing electrical and
cable service is above ground and a standard condition of approval has been included
that will require the project to underground these utilities to the nearest pole unless it is
determined to be infeasible from a construction standpoint by the Public Works and
Building Director.
The following standards are applicable to condominium conversions:
A. The number of off - street parking spaces that were required at the time of the original
construction shall be provided on the same property to be converted to
condominium purposes, and the design and location of such parking shall be in
conformance with the provisions of Chapter 20.66 (Off- Street Parking and Loading
Regulations). Under no circumstance shall there be less than one covered parking
space per dwelling unit.
The project was originally required to provide one space for each unit.
B. Each dwelling unit within a building shall have a separate sewer connection to the
City sewer.
The building was not constructed with separate sewer connections and the draft
resolution has a condition of approval requiring the separation of the sewer lines. The
applicant has not requested a waiver from this standard and staff would not recommend
such a waiver in this case.
C. Each sewer lateral shall be retrofitted/fitted with a cleanout at the property line.
This requirement has been included as a condition of approval.
D. Each unit shall maintain a separate water meter and water meter connection.
The project presently has separate water connections.
E. The electrical service connection shall comply with the requirements of Chapter
15.32 of the Municipal Code.
Chapter 15.32 requires new utility connections to be underground. Each unit presently
has a separate utility meter but the utility connection is above ground. The Building 0
Espinoza Condominium Conversion (PA2004 -137)
September 23, 2004
Page 4 of 7
Director can consider issuing a waiver from this requirement it undergrounding is not
feasible.
F. The applicant for a condominium conversion shall request a special inspection from
the Building Department for the purpose of identifying any building safety violations.
The applicant shall correct all identified safety violations prior to approval of a final
map for the condominium conversion.
An inspection of the building was conducted by the Building Department. The report did
indicate several deficiencies and many of the deficiencies were related to the on -going
renovation of the building. The remaining deficiencies were minor in nature (smoke
detectors) and staff has included a condition of approval that requires elimination of all
deficiencies prior to the approval of the final tract map.
G. Permanent lot stakes and tags shall be installed at all lot corners by a licensed
surveyor or civil engineer unless otherwise required by the City Engineer.
Staff has included a condition of approval that requires the permanent corner tags to be
set and recorded in accordance with applicable laws.
H. For residential conversions, the project shall be consistent with the adopted goals
and policies of the General Plan, particularly with regard to the balance and
dispersion of housing types within the City.
The General Plan does not include any specific goals for the dispersion of rental
housing within the area. Obviously, the conversion from rental to ownership will reduce
the number of rental opportunities in Corona del Mar. It is not known how many rental
opportunities exist within the area, but it is not likely that the project will create a
detrimental impact to housing opportunities.
The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for shall
not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health,
safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and
improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City.
The proposed conversion will not create any substantial construction - related disruption
as the project will only necessitate the undergrounding of electrical service and
separation of server connections. Construction - related work will be temporary in nature
and the long term operation of the site will not change from current conditions. Staff
does not see any negative physical or environmental issues against making this finding.
Condominium Conversions also require the approval of parcel maps or tract maps as
the case may be. Pursuant to Section 19.12.070 of the City Subdivision Code, several
findings for the approval of a tentative tract map are required; however, many of the
typical subdivisions findings, including the finding that the subdivision is consistent with
the General Plan, are rendered inapplicable to condominium conversions by
Espinoza Condominium Conversion (PA2004 -137)
September 23, 2004 93
Page 5 of 7
Government Code Section 66427.2. In this case, the proposed subdivision is consistent
with the Multi - Family Residential designation of the property. The following remaining
findings are applicable:
A. That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act
and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of
the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region
against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal and
environmental resources.
The proposed subdivision will not eliminate housing nor will it create any new housing
units.
B. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer
system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
The proposed subdivision will not increase the number of residential units and the units
will continue to discharge waste into the sewer system. Therefore, the subdivision will
not create or add to a violation of Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements.
Environmental Review
This project qualifies for a Categorically E= xemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing
Facilities) of the implementing Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act. This
exemption allows the alteration of existing facilities including interior and exterior
alterations and utility conveyances provided there is no expansion of the use. Staff
believes the proposed project meets this standard and is exempt from environmental
review.
Public Notice
Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot with the agenda, mailed to
property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10
days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Notices were also
provided to all known tenants of the building. Additionally, the item appeared upon the
agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website.
Alternatives
The Commission has the option to disapprove the proposed subdivision if it is believed
that the retention of the project as apartments if in the best interest of the City to
maintain more rental opportunities in the area. Project denial will not retain the two units
that were occupied by low or moderate income households. The applicant would retain
the ability to adjust rents as desired.
Espinoza Condominium Conversion (PA2004 -137) l
September 23, 2004
Page 6 of 7
SAROUK ORIENTAL RUGS &
9 ANTIQUES
0
November 11, 2004
Dear Mr. Campbell,
We received a letter from your office, dated November 7'h, 2004, regarding the terrmnation
of the commercial use of the 2°d floor of our building located on 2610 'h East Coast
Highway in Corona Del Mar.
It is imperative to mention that it was indeed the city of Newport Beach itself that issued
the commercial pertnit which allowed business operations on the second floor of the
building.
Our tenant, Dr. Gail Lawrence, currend a
v has a three -year lease with a renewal option for n
additional three years. Your short notice of vacating the premises in one month causes us,
the landlords, as well as Dr. Lawrence, an unfair and unnecessary financial burden and we
would like to appeal for some additional tune.
In spite of our desire to continue our present business establishment, Sarouk Oriental Rugs
& Antiques, we have decided to move and as a courtesy, we have deiced to lease our own
present space at 2610 East Coast Highway, which is located on the first floor of the same
building, to our above- mentioned tenant who is currently occupying the second floor.
Since we are going to fully cooperate with vour request and terminate our agreement with
this upstairs commercial tenant in such a short notice, we are hereby requesting an additional
rime period, one year to be exact, to facilitate the move, both for us as well as for our tenant.
The reason being, we need ample time to search for another location not to mention moving
our very heavy and large volume of merchandise out of the premises, followed by some
structural repairs and upgrades before the place can be operational and suited for our tenant
to make the move from upstairs — unit 2610'/2 to the downstairs unit, #2610.
We greatly appreciate your cooperation in this matter as we are trying our best to facilitate
and accommodate our commercial tenants who in turn generate thousands of dollars in tax
revenue for the city of Newport Beach.
Kind Regards,
,7/"0/0'Y< 'W 43441
Gholamreza Azadgan
2610 EAST
COAST HIGHWAY
• CORONA DEL
MAR, CA 92625
PHONE:
(949) 720 -1777
FAX:
(949) 720 -0241
n
GALE LkWKENCi~ M.D. enMILYMBDICNP.
i5oo PAcrp,.c COAST HIOEW.w. Ss.+t 93AC_, CA 90746 Telephone (S62) 596-4246
Fax 1552)596.197T
Nm,cmber 12, 2OD4
Dan Reza,
I would like tt, dztify my business in Corona del Diu. Cutrently, I b=e a full-tim.e snedical
practice in S=) Hcach. I have beet pracdci,ag medicine for 16 ,,•e(zrs and play on continuing
for many more. M-v practice is family medicine and it enta is treating between 40 and 611
patients a dry f* a v-v'' tt, of tncdical conditions.
My business o_•ientation in Corona del Diar is complete)y different. I do NOT see or treat
ant pallet+.,;. for medical conditions. I do howeoer see 1.3 patients, three days a week by
appoietmen, on:y :r..r. Botox and Collagen lip cnhanccmant• Normally, patients will come in
it:dividunliy for Pprcx rsttly or_e ho=- M!e nature of this business is personalized
cosmetic mid aesthetic ;i& care. and it is no wey inclu iee medical treatment of any sort
If You haws any f=ther ccrice:ns, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for yo',tr ume)
Sinccrcly '
GRh( aa2ence, TNMI
E
0
0
CONCLUSION
Staff believes the application meets all established standards for a condominium
conversion and tentative tract map and that the loss of the rental opportunities is not
detrimental to the City. Additionally, the acceptance of the in -lieu fee is adequate
compensation for the elimination of two affordable dwelling units. Therefore, staff
believes the applications should be approved.
Submitted by:
PATRICIA L. TEMPLE
Planning Director
EXHIBITS
2. Plans
Prepared by:
JAMES W. CAMPBELL
Senior Planner
Espinoza Condominium Conversion (PA2004 -137)
September 23, 2004
Page 7 of 7
2
�V
C6
n
N
v
N
E
i
it
s
qG
3
__ _ - _ - - _._._- _
40 "30'19" E_ 54.08', ��
_N _
---- r .— -- '---
I
-------------- I
31
,
1
c = =i
u �
�
1�
I!I
>-S�OFf
Mu�N-r,Wl(��NG)GE.
n
� �
1 N
t �
„
{
l
I*
0
gT2004 -002
PA2004 -137 for CC2004gltf;plol
329 Maf9Fue{EET NG' RR
MARGUFRITF AVENUE mow pATEp
•
MINI
IN 7m
�oli
Fw--mllml ■
■
•
, L
L
L
- -
-----------
wo,
IN 7m
�oli
Fw--mllml ■
■
•
, L
L
L
- -
-----------
LL
qi
J1
3�
m
w
3
0
0
0
5%l
0
0
0
z
ti
■
O
�l
0
33
0
9
gf S
i
i
i � I
i
�1
Z
0
a
w
J
W
H
Z
O
K
w
N �
r
o w
m 3
a
J
W
W
O
^I N
w
W
J
LJ I
E
3 "3
0
Z
0
0
r'1
LJ
3(
35
Nu
-.` - -- --- -� -.._
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
I
____
1 1)
II
!1 II
I
I
1
II 11
1
11
I 11
1 11
11 11
I II
11 11
'
1 11
II II
1-_ 11
11
q II
11 II
II
' - II
4
11 11
n U+IMBI
11 �I
11
II II
II
11 11
II
I 11
�
)hi6
li
-J
11 p
ij I
C
� 1
Nu
-.` - -- --- -� -.._
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
I
____
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
—
�
1
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
I
I
I
I
�
I
I
I
aw n
—
I
I
�
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
1
t
R
KBCN",
I
I
d
1
I
uvm Q
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
• "r
I
I
I
1
t
1
I
NOOK
1
I
I
I
I
I
�
1
I
I
1
� I
j
I
I
NOOK
I
I
I
I
I
R
I
i
I
WING
I
1
1
KIfCNFN
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
6
1
i
I
t
I
I
1
I
I
BEDROOM
I
BFDROOU
I
�
I
1
I
1
_
1
1
I
�
1
I
I
I
t
I
1
1
1
E
I
1
1
BE m
t
1
I
I
I
I
� BEORDOM
1
I
I
1
I
I • �
m
I
I I
1
1
au.coNrI
l
I
1 Ib
1
I
- I
KIIONNEN
I
I
!
_ 1
I
I
I
I
I
I,P1HG
� 1
1
I
I
I
I
I
�
r -r
1/DON
I
I
�
I
1
1
1
0
J
I-
0
r --
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
,.s
Y
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I ,
I
I
1
1
I
I
1 °l
I
I
I 1
4
V
1
i
1
I 11
-------- - - - - -j
1 I
I I
I I
I I
I f
I I
I
!I
1
I
1
1
I
}
I
1
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
1
Y
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
„ 1
1
4
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
1
t
1
I
1
}
Y
1
I
4
1
t
I
1
I
t
1 --
t
1
t
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
�� II
Y
l
{
I
I
s
1
I
I
I
L---------- -
- - - -J
!I
1
I
1
1
I
}
I
1
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
1
Y
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
„ 1
1
4
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
1
t
1
I
1
}
Y
1
I
4
1
t
I
1
I
t
1 --
t
1
t
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
�� II
Y
l
{
I
I
s
1
I
WINOW
MR.
STOR.
STM
STOR
now.
I
STOR.
SiOR.
STOR.
MM SPACE
STORAGE
STALL 11
STALL 12
STALL �3
$TALL 14
STU.E Is
STALL FS
5 ALL #]
I I
II II
II II
II II
II II
II II
yI II
li II
�1 I
I II
11 II
II II
II II
yi II
yy 11
yl II
yl II
11 11
ly II
yl 11
11 11
11 II
II II
II II
yl II
II II
yi II
II it
II II
II II
II II
11 II
II II
I II
ly II
yl 11
II II
II 11
I •
TENTATIVE TRACT
IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY, OF
FOR CONDOMINIUM
VICINITY MAP
SUNSET HOMES, INC.
4]M G
CQPq{1 2 MW
9 }4
IEIEPAYNE (t19) u6 075j
PREPARED BY:
DAVID: W. GRAVE!
u lwe x"
wnxd q �asNx IoW
AP 1667;
ANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
?POSES
j
I
a � �
v4�'oWIB44 p"
M DP. }31-09 A
Fw s CIY \\ ?
"F R CAU \d1'.
I �
� I
I
_
MARGUERITE i Y.
OC ALLEY
N 4078'19' E 54.08'
tD6.166LD CORD 9
T
; DATE. FEBRUARY 25, 2004
I ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER
V
°
o
cc Dads ' %
M 2 -102-z! :.
1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
IM Z. lZ A M NCR &H IMY 10 FOU bF IDI 47
KIAFlL DEWS.�P11
6
9`'S
H
SFO � I
Y6tp.UxM .1 RE IS OF p4NC =W..
��� t
MULR!lpUM1Y BUI[DINCI I
J:M
\
p
G `A
p8
q�
'YJ
c
ISO' W i
LOT 12
— — — —
I e
ca
o,�n
Qi
ego MULTI -f IDING I
IXISTNC
H
NULR -fANRY BONDING pell�C i /I \ I
I I
N
F 4'. I•� I
'
�`9e
I
0 oN 10'J079' E Air+ 89,81' ' 8 �
0, s:�iBFJ.
Fc 'IF 4 +9 4p
0, s j
0
I Gy �Ti
F
MARGUERITE i Y.
9
EXHIBIT 3
t,ji
Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004
4
r
L
4
Page 2 of 23
�a
f e.i uaDi »nmm�o�� H Inmonnne
S ECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of September 9, 2004.
ITEM NO. 1
Motion s made by Commissioner Toerge to approved the minutes as amended.
Approved
Ayes:
, Tucker, Selich and McDaniel
Noes:
\Eaton
Absent:
Abstain:
E ARING ITEMS
SUBJECT: Balboa Theater (PA2 -032)
ITEM NO. 2
707 East Balboa Boule d
PA2004 -032
Request for approval of a Use Permit for t Balboa Performing Arts Theater, a
Approved
designated Landmark Building and permitted to allow an increase in building
height up to a maximum of 55 feet pursuant to S tion 20.65.070 of the Municipal
Code.
Public comment was opened.
arol Hoffman, representing the applicant, noted that they ha they have worked
very hard to meet all the Balboa Design Guidelines. They are v excited about
the future of this theater and request approval of this application.
Public comment was closed.
Motion was made by Commissioner Cole to approve Use Permit No. 2004 -0 to
allow the Balboa Theater to increase in height up to a maximum of 55 feet, subje
to the findings and conditions of approval within the draft resolution.
Ayes:
Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich and McDaniel
Noes:
None
Absent:
Eaton
Abstain:
None
SUBJECT: Espinoza Condo Conversion and Tract Map (PA2004 -137)
ITEM NO. 3
329 Marguerite Avenue
PA2004 -137
The Condominium Conversion and Tentative Tract Map relate to the conversion of
Continued to
n existing 7 unit apartment building to condominiums for the purpose of individual
1010712004
Pale. The Coastal Residential Development permit Application relates to
compliance with affordable housing regulations applicable within the Coastal Zone.
t1 '�
�a
f e.i uaDi »nmm�o�� H Inmonnne
Planning Commission Minutes 09/23/2004
Senior Planner Jim Campbell outlined the project, as described in the staff report,
,toting the following:
. Convert a 7 -unit apartment building to condominiums
. Applicant is renovating the interior. Painting and routine maintenance are the
only upgrades to the exterior
. Although several nonconformities exist, the project can proceed, as it
complies with condo conversion provisions of the Municipal Code
. Findings for the Tract Map can be made and are outlined in the staff report.
. An in -lieu fee, paid by the applicant to the City's Affordable Housing Fund,
would satisfy the requirements of the Coastal Residential Development
Permit application, as two low /moderate households would be displaced
Commissioner Selich posed a question to the Acting City Attorney regarding
Section 66427.2 of the State Subdivision Map Act.
Ms. Clauson replied that she had not reviewed that section and could not verify the
statement related to that section in the staff report.
Discussion ensued between Commissioner Selich and Mr. Campbell regarding the
supply of rental housing and the number of condo conversions in Corona del Mar.
Commissioner McDaniel inquired about the two parking space requirement, and he
was told, by Director Temple, that the two- space- per -unit standard dated back to
the 1960's.
Commissioner Cole discussed the City's in -lieu fee with Mr. Campbell, and it was
indicated that a formal fee would eventually go before the City Council to be
established. Mr. Campbell also mentioned that the proceeds would benefit the
City's Affordable Housing Fund and not be directed to any single project.
Maclovio Espinoza commented that he was doing the condo conversion for the
people and asked that it be approved.
Chairperson Tucker posed a question to David Graves, Civil Engineer for the
project, regarding exterior improvements.
Mr. Graves remarked that the owner had few plans to update exterior other than
,paint and the addition of basic landscape and hardscape improvements.
Page 3 of 23
L
9
`I
i ninRnnna
Planning Commission Minutes 09/2' )/2004
41
41
Page 4 of 23
Chairperson Tucker opened the matter for public comment.
A member of the public stated that he planned to purchase one of the condos.
Commissioner Selich expressed concern over the following:
I
. Adaptability of the building to condos, specifically:
• Parking concerns
• Impact to rental supply
• Exemption of Section 66427.2 of the Subdivision Map Act
He also recommended a continuance to obtain additional information from staff.
Commissioner McDaniel echoed the concerns of Commissioner Selich.
Further discussion ensued regarding the subdivision findings and whether the
proposed conversion was in the best interest of the City.
Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to continue this item to October 7,
2004.
Ayes:
Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich and McDaniel
Noes:
None
Absent:
Eaton
Abstain:
None
CT: Gates Residence Appeal (PA2004 -208)
ITEM NO. 4
505 J Street
PA2004 -208
Appeal of the de 'nation of compliance with the provisions of Chapter 20.65 of
Continued to
the Newport Beach .. ipal Code (building Height) by the Planning Director
1012112004
related to the approval of a revision for a project at 505 J Street. The appeal
contests the correctness of that ination.
Ms. Temple noted that the appellant has req ted that this item be continued to
October 21, 2004. However, there is a possibility t this item will be resolved and
therefore will not be heard by the Planning Commissio .
Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to continue this item to ober 21,
2004.
Ayes:
Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich and McDaniel
MNoes:
None
Absent:
Eaton
Abstain:
None
LA
EXHIBIT 4
E
p
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 3
October 7, 2004
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner
jcampbell@city.newport-beach.ca.us
(949) 644 -3210
SUBJECT: Espinoza Condominium Conversion (PA2004 -137)
• Condominium Conversion No. 2004 -014
• Newport Tract Map No. 2004 -002
• Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2004 -001
PROJECT SITE: 329 Marguerite Avenue, Corona del Mar
APPLICANT: Maclovio Espinoza
2744 E. Coast Highway
. Corona del Mar, CA 92625
DISCUSSION
This project was continued from the previous meeting to allow staff the opportunity to
provide additional information. The applicant has also taken the time since the last
meeting to consider further architectural enhancements to the exterior of the building in
an effort to freshen up the dated architecture. The applicant is preparing several
conceptual enhancement plans and other site improvements to the landscaping and
hardscape. The concepts will be presented by the applicant at the hearing. Staff
inadvertently did not include conditions related to subdivision improvements requested
by the Public Works Department. Necessary public improvements include the
reconstruction of most of the existing curb, gutter and sidewalks that abut the project
site a new handicapped ramp. These conditions are included in the attached revised
resolution.
Tentative Tract Map
The Commission requested additional information related to staffs statement in the
prior staff report as to the applicability of certain findings. Government Code Section
66427.2 removes the grounds for tentative map denial for the conversion of existing
buildings to condominiums.
to
066427.2 Unless applicable general or specific plans contain definite objectives and policies, •
specifically directed to the conversion of existing buildings into condominium projects or stock
cooperatives, the provisions of Sections 66473.5, 66474, and 66474.61, and subdivision (c) of
Section 66474.60 shall not apply to condominium projects or stock cooperatives, which consist
of the subdivision of airspace in an existing structure, unless new units are to be constructed or
added.
A city, county, or city and county acting pursuant to this section shall approve or disapprove
the conversion of an existing building to a stock cooperative within 120 days following receipt of
a completed application for approval of such conversion. This section shall not diminish, limit
or expand, other than as provided herein, the authority of any city, county, or city and county to
approve or disapprove condominium projects."
Sections 66474.61 and subdivision (c) of Section 66474.60 are not applicable to
Newport Beach as the population does not exceed 2.8 million people.
Section 66473.5 states that no local agency shall approve a tentative map, or a parcel
map for which a tentative map was not irequired, unless the legislative body finds that
the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement,
is consistent with the general plan or any adopted specific plan.
Section 66474 contains 7 criteria for the denial of tentative maps and a legislative body
of a city or
county shall deny approval of a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a
tentative map was not required, if it makes any of the following findings:
(a)
That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific
plans as specified in Section 65451.
(b)
That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not
consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
(c)
That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
(d)
That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of
development.
(e)
That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely
to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
(f)
That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause
serious public health problems.
(g)
That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use
of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the
governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for
access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially
equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall
apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment
of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a
legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements
for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
•
Espinoza Condominium Conversion (PA2004 -137)
October 7, 2004
Page 2 of 7
5�
If Section 66427.2 is applicable, it would render all of the above mentioned findings
inapplicable to the proposed project.
Looking back to Section 66427.2, it must be noted that the General Plan does contain
two nearly identical policies related to the conversion of rental housing to ownership.
Land Use Element Policy G and the Housing Element Policy 2.1, Program 2.1.1
indicate that conversions must be "restricted" unless the vacancy rate is below 5 %.
Subdivision Code Section 19.64.060.D implements these policies by stating that a
conversion project containing 15 or more units shall be disapproved when the vacancy
rate is equal to or less than 5 %. With the current project being less than 15 units, the
vacancy rate is not relevant to compliance with Subdivision Code. The vacancy rate has
been surveyed and it has ranged from 7.27% to 6.11% during the preceding three
quarters of 2004 and therefore, the conversion is consistent with the Land Use and
Housing Element policies.
Although the General Plan contains these policies, staff concluded that the Government
Code Section 66427.2 would be applicable and removed the findings above from
consideration as noted in the previous report because the General Plan Policies do not
pertain to the project. If it is determined that Section 66427.2 is applicable because the
General Plan has policies applicable to conversions (Policy G and Housing Element
Policy 2.1, Program 2.1.1) all of the findings above are required to be made. However,
even if the findings are applicable to this application, staff believes that a determination
of consistency with the General Plan can be made based upon the analysis presented
and the fact that the site is designated for Multi - Family Residential uses with no specific
density limitation. The General Plan indicates that existing nonconforming density was
carried forward within the development projections. Although staff has not presented a
detailed analysis of the remaining findings, staff believes that each of these findings
could be made.
Housing Statistics for Corona del Mar
The Commission also requested housing statistics for old Corona del Mar. Using
Census 2000 figures, there are 1,460 owner occupied units and 1,693 renter occupied
units in Corona del Mar (Exhibit No. 1). After removing the single family homes and
duplexes, there are approximately 50 lots with 178 apartment units and 13 lots with 131
condominiums. The 7 units in question are 3.9% of the apartment stock. Additionally,
there are only 2 condominium projects out of the 27 muiti - family properties along
Marguerite Avenue between Bayside Drive and Seaview Avenue. These statistics
support staffs belief that the conversion will not impact the diversity of rental housing
stock within Corona del Mar.
Espinoza Condominium Conversion (PA2004 -137)
October 7, 2004
Page 3 of 7
Condominium Conversion Permit
Several Commissioners expressed reservations about the proposed conversion due to .
a variety of factors and one inquiry explored the findings with the possible intent to deny
the request. First of all, the request must be found consistent with the Municipal Code.
Title 19 (Subdivisions) and Title 20 (Zoning) provide the standards and process to
regulate this type of project. Title 19 requires the requested Tentative Tract Map and
Condominium Conversion Permit to be consistent with the Subdivision Map Act (SMA).
Title 20 simply directs compliance with Title 19.
1. The Unintended Regulation?
Due to the Commission's inquiry, staff re- evaluated all Subdivision Code requirements
and came across one provision that should be discussed as it has a potentially
significant impact upon the project at hand as well as other conversion applications.
Section 19.64.030 (General Requirements), Subsection D states; 'Applicable
Standards. Condominium conversion projects shall conform to: (1) The applicable
standards and requirements of the zoning.district in which the project is located at the
time of approval Per Title 20 (Planning and Zoning); and (2) the applicable provisions of
this Subdivision Code." This requirement was added to the Subdivision Code in 2001
when the City adopted a the comprehensive update to the Title 19.
The question at hand is...what are the applicable standards and requirements of the
zoning district at the time of approval? A literal interpretation of the language would lead
to the conclusion that the applicable standards are the standards in effect at the time of
the approval of the condominium conversion permit. This would subject the application
and all other condominium conversion applications to current development standards of
the Zoning Code including, but not limited to, building height, floor area limits, open
space, setbacks and density (a specific standard allows a reduced parking standard).
Since the subject application is nonconforming in terms of density and setbacks, the
application could not be approved.
An alternative interpretation of this section is to apply zoning standards in effect at the
time of construction. This practice began in 1994 when the City eliminated a provision
of the code that required compliance with building and zoning standards in effect at the
time of conversion. The 1994 regulation change was intended to promote home
ownership by easing the conversion process. The Modifications Committee continued
to apply zoning standards in effect at the time of construction even after Section
19.64.030 above was adopted since the change was unintended and not analyzed.
Since the adoption of the Title 19 update in 2001, the Modifications Committee has
approved a modest number of condo conversions with setback and height
non conformities. In one case, a conversion involved nonconformity density. These
cases were approved with the belief that the building considered for conversion met the
applicable zoning standards in effect at the time of construction.
0
Espinoza Condominium Conversion (PA2004 -137)
October7,2004 6a
Page 4 of 7
The importance of this question cannot be understated in that if all condo conversions
are held to current development standards, many conversions that can be approved
under current the practice will no longer be able to occur or existing buildings will need
significant modification to comply with current standards. A discussion of whether or
not a conversion must comply with all applicable development standards of the current
code should occur so staff can react accordingly. Staff believes that conversions that
have the effect of preserving minor nonconformities might not be a significant problem
depending upon the specifics of a case; however, preserving nonconforming density or
land uses inconsistent with the Land Use Map is counterproductive to the long term
implementation and administration of the General Plan.
In summary, staff believes that Section 19.64.030.D cited above represents an
unintended policy shift as staff does not recall intending to foster such a change. If it is
determined that this section is truly the intent and policy of the City, staff will apply all
current zoning standards to all condominium conversion requests. Otherwise, a formal
interpretation that can be followed up by a code amendment is in order.
2. Is the Conversion Detrimental?
Provided that the preceding policy question is decided such that further consideration of
the subject application can proceed, the Commission had reservations about the project
and was considering whether or not it is in the best interest of the City to approve it.
One of the standards of the Section 19.64.070 requires the exercise of discretion by the
approving authority, and all other standards are satisfied. Section 19.64.070.E states:
"The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for shall
not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety,
peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood
of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the
neighborhood or the general welfare of the City,"
As noted, several Commissioners expressed some reservations regarding the
conversion of this building to condominium ownership due to the age and design of the
building as well as the presence of zoning nonconformities. Some Commissioners also
indicated the belief that should the conversion be approved, the change in ownership
(single to multiple owners) will significantly reduce if not eliminate the potential for the
future redevelopment of the site thereby effectively preserving the existing
nonconformities (density and minor setback encroachments) and sub - optimal parking
design.
As noted in the previous report, the MFR Zoning of the property would permit 6 units
where 7 presently exist. The site was developed in accordance with the approved plans
pursuant to Use Permit No. 275 in 1956. The density standard at that time was 1 unit
per 1,000 square feet of lot area, which was changed in the 1970s to 1 unit per each
1,200 square feet of lot area. The proposed conversion does not expand or alter the
basic nonconforming density. If the existing apartments are converted to
condominiums, Section 20.62.070.D would preserve all nonconforming rights to the
condominium units if they were damaged or destroyed by fire earthquake, explosion, or
Espinoza Condominium Conversion (PA2004 -137)
October 7, 2004
Page 5 of 7
other disaster. No reduction in the number of units can be required by the City and the
replacement units would be permitted to be equivalent in size and location to the units
that were damaged or destroyed. In essence, once the building is converted to
condominiums, the nonconforming density is effectively ensured even in the event of
total destruction in a manner other than demolition. This level of protection is not
available to non - conforming apartments.
The building is a 1950's vintage apartment building that is not similar to present day
development trends. The dated architecture and open carports visible from Bayside
Drive and Marguerite Avenue is not the rnost aesthetically pleasing of sights in Corona
del Mar as well. The existing parking design requires vehicles parked in any of the 7
carport spaces to back directly onto Bayside Drive, which is not an optimal design from
a traffic safety standpoint. As noted previously, the applicant is developing exterior
enhancements to the site with the hope that the improvements will freshen up the dated
architecture. Included within the various concepts is a plan to install garage doors to
screen the parking.
In summary, these factors might collectively be considered detrimental to the
community in that the proposed conversion will significantly reduce opportunity for
future elimination of the shortcomings of the site and the nonconforming density will be
preserved indefinitely.
CONCLUSION
Should the Commission determine that the Zoning Standards in effect at the time of
construction of a building proposed to be converted to condominiums is the intended
standard; the Commission needs to determine whether or not the standards for
approval of a Condominium Conversion Permit can be made. Staff believes there are
facts to support the conclusion that the conversion would be detrimental to the
community. However, facts to support approval of the project also exist especially if the
applicant's exterior enhancements and the public improvements are implemented.
Should the Commission determine that current Zoning Standards are applicable; staff
recommends denial of the project based upon the project's inconsistency with density
and setback standards, and therefore, the inability to find the project compliant with the
Subdivision Code. The applicant would have the opportunity to modify the project to
bring the building into conformance with current standards, and should the applicant
desire to do so, a continuance might be necessary to a!!Ow the applicant time to modify
the design of the building.
If denial is directed, staff suggests a continuance for two weeks to prepare a resolution.
0
Espinoza Condominium Conversion (PA2004 -137)
October 7, 2004 /
Page 6 of 7 F�
Ll
0
The Planning Commission might conclude that the larger policy question might need
Council guidance, and in that case, staff suggests a continuance of sufficient duration
to accomplish that task. The City has until December 24, 2004 to act on the application
pursuant to Section 66427.2 of the Subdivision Map Act.
Submitted by:
PATRICIA L. TEMPLE
Planning Director
Prepared by:
JAMES W. CAMPBELL
Senior Planner
EXHIBITS
1. Map of Corona del Mar with housing statistics
�a ; s° ' o ' ; tk�.GeWitiea"f ,a rev l
Espinoza Condominium Conversion (PA2004 -137)
October 7, 2004
Page 7 of 7
Blank
9
won
.i
c
"'at
i3 \\ <.✓
Ix
co to A4
\ Mi
kIN
r A
O
cc
to
•
OM10 N1 iii N
to CM
ft
_ � d
L +: + 1 L
w O
1 O 0 w F- ■ V d LO c
ca
wL� a
0
EXHIBIT 5
P
w
Planning Commission Minutes 10/07/2004 Page 2 of 12
ent: Cole
Abslbk. I Eaton
HEARING ITEMS
SUBJECT: Sweeney
401 -403
Appeal of the Planning Director's
measuring structure height
appeal (PA2004 -206)
Avenue
of grade for the purpose of
Ms. Temple reported that the applicant has uested this matter be
continue to October 21, 2004.
Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to continue is item to
October 21, 2004.
Ayes:
Eaton, Toerge, Tucker, Selich and McDaniel
No
None
Absent:
Cole
Abstain:
None
ITEM NO. 2
PA2004 -206
Continued to
10/21/2004
SUBJECT: Espinoza Condo Conversion and Tract Map (PA2004- ITEM NO. 3
137) PA2004 -137
329 Marguerite Avenue
Approved
The Condominium Conversion and Tentative Tract Map relate to the
conversion of an existing 7 unit apartment building to condominiums
for the purpose of individual sale. The Coastal Residential
Development Permit application relates to compliance with affordable
housing regulations applicable within the Coastal Zone.
Chairperson Tucker noted this matter was before the Commission
previously. At that time issues were raised and staff has come back
with responses in this staff report.
Mr. Campbell affirmed that staff would like direction on the issue as to
whether or not the applicable development standards are those as of
the date the project was originally built or the conversion date.
Commissioner Eaton discussed how the Modifications Committee
dealt with the number of condo conversions with setback and height
nonconformities and asked how many of the condo conversions are
new duplex construction and how many have nonconformities.
Mr. Campbell answered that approximately 1/3 of the applications
61
file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \1007.htm 11/5/2004
Planning Commission Minutes 10/07/2004
have non - conformities such as minor encroachments into the
setbacks, as well as one or two cases that the buildings were over the
height limit. In one case there was a nonconforming density that was
a duplex in a single family area. None of these are new condo
conversion applications. There have been 62 conversions done in
the last four and one half years of .which approximately 95% were
duplexes; there are a few triplexes that have been converted but
nothing any larger during the time studied.
Ms. Temple added that not every non - conformity can be approved by
the Modifications Committee if the current standards are applied. For
instance a building over the height limit would require approval
through a variance.
Commissioner Selich noted that the issue before the Commission is
to continue the existing practice or do a completely new interpretation
of the Code beyond what has been done in the past as far as meeting
new development standards except for the parking for conversions.
Staff answered yes, and would follow up with a clarifying code
amendment if the Commission chooses to continue with the current
practice. He then noted that the City Council intended when they
adopted this ordinance for condominium conversion to promote home
ownership. If we were to require all these developments to adhere to
all these development standards probably very few of those 65 that
were mentioned would qualify for conversions. He then stated he
would not be comfortable taking a new interpretation without at least
some concurrence from the City Council on this matter.
Chairperson Tucker asked if this condominium conversion was
approved, would it automatically go to the! Council, or would it have to
be appealed?
Ms. Temple answered the Tract Map will only go to the Council upon
filing for a Final Tract Map. The Condominium Conversion and the
Coastal Residential Development do not automatically go. If the
application is denied, the applicant could appeal the decision.
Commissioner Selich noted that the applicant has provided a lot of
detailed exhibits at the podium tonight. If we were to stay with the
existing interpretation of the Codes and vote to approve this project,
would the Commission be able to condition it to adhere to all of the
material that has been submitted to us?
Ms. Temple answered yes, they would become conditions of approval
on the condominium conversion.
Chairperson Tucker noted a clause in the Zoning District that talks
about the project not being detrimental to the health, safety, peace,
comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the
file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \1007.htm
Page 3 of 12
9
•
b�
11/5/2004
Planning Commission Minutes 10/07/2004
neighborhood, etc.
Commissioner Selich asked about the garage doors with windows on
the carports. He was answered that it would add some marginal
additional visibility for people exiting the garages given the relatively
small setback from the right of way.
Public comment was opened.
Mr. Bill Edwards, architect of Planet Design speaking for the
applicant, noted the following:
• The interior renovations are of a high quality and our design on
the outside of the building will be of the same quality.
• He then referenced the materials that were presented at the
meeting tonight including a color and materials board.
• The proposal, site lines, ingress /egress considerations are the
best for this project site.
• He then discussed possible alternate design scenarios that had
been contemplated.
. At Commission inquiry, he noted the tower depicted on one of
the exhibits does comply with the height; however, there are no
dimensions noted on the exhibits as it is an artist's rendering.
Chairperson Tucker noted that the applicant has not applied for any
variance for height. If this item is approved tonight based upon
elevations that are not scaled and it turns out this can not be done
without a variance there is no guarantee there will be a variance
forthcoming.
Mr. Chris Brandman, designer of the project, noted:
• The existing building has a dated look as it is over fifty years
ago.
• The building form allows for common space to be used by the
tenants.
• The existing building mass is small and everything that exists is
well below what is currently allowed for heights and square
footages.
• Highlights of the proposed design are the Mediterranean
architectural style with art deco details.
file://HAPIaneornm\2004\I 007.htm
Page 4 of 12
11/5/2004
b5
Planning Commission Minutes 10/07/2004
. The addition of the parapets is the largest change to the existing
building shell.
. The use of the high end materials will enhance the overall
image of the building.
. There is no additional square footage planned for the building.
. The building as it is designed will comply with all current
planning requirements.
. The proposed design best deals with the existing difficulties of
the building and updates the look and preserves and improves
the private exterior areas.
. At Commission inquiry, he noted that all the windows, glass and
doors will be changed.
Commissioner McDaniel noted his concern of one parking spot per
unit on this corner, which is incredibly busy. There is no parking on
Marguerite.
Mr. Lorenzo Espinoza, project superintendent, noted the following:
• The project has been developed to benefit the neighborhood
and community.
• The project is designed to have a single professional or a small
family and will have less parking demand.
• There is no real solution to the parking but he hopes to have
less cars with ownership as opposed to rental tenants.
• The previous owner wrote in a letter that there were no minor or
major accidents on site due to oncoming traffic.
. He noted that all the public works improvements will be
provided; a sidewalk will replace a planter on the corner of
Bayside and Marguerite; open space will be used for a
recreational area with yards and a pool; the density is about
46% covered area; the construction quality the plans depict.
He then discussed the materials board.
. At Commission inquiry, he noted that the occupants will move in
after everything is done and a final is received by the Building
Department.
Public comment was closed.
Page 5 of 12
file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \l007.htm 11/5/2004
0
0
(t
Planning Commission Minutes 10/07/2004
Commissioner Selich noted his concerns at the last meeting being the
quality of what was being done and the safety issues with the carports
backing onto Bayside Drive and the parking situation. Since then, the
applicant has done a lot of work to alleviate my concerns if we are
able to condition this project on the quality aspects of what they would
be doing. I am satisfied on that; however, I am still concerned about
the parking and the number of spaces per unit and the way the
spaces are designed backing out onto Bayside Drive, neither of which
we would allow to occur today if this was a new project. This is an
unintended consequence of a City Council Ordinance adopted many
years ago that was primarily aimed at duplexes and maybe some
triplexes to promote home ownership, and not a project like this. It is
still something that qualifies under the ordinance, but it is a tough call
because of the parking and the way the parking spaces are
designed. I am inclined to go ahead and approve this conversion
even though I don't like the parking and access to the site. The
building has been here for fifty years and the building will probably
remain if converted. In this situation I would give on the parking and
access to get the better looking building in the community. The
applicant could conceivably come in with a larger, bulkier building, the
floor area is less than would be allowed to build under current
standards with less open space. I come down on the side of approval
of this project.
Commissioner Eaton noted that he had listened to the discussion at
the last meeting as he was not present. He noted his concern that if
the condo conversion was approved as it could still get re -built exactly
as is with the same one to one parking and the same dangerous
relationship to Bayside Drive. He therefore would vote for denial of
this application.
Commissioner McDaniel noted his concern with the parking issue.
The exterior changes and articulations look great; however, there is
no place to park. When you are an owner, many people may have
two cars.
Ms. Clauson clarified that the provisions of the condominium
conversion ordinance specifically authorize the conversion of these
units with only one parking space. It allows for the number of off
street parking spaces to be those that were required, and has to
comply with the number that was required, at the time of construction
of the project. Most of the older duplexes that have been turned into
condominiums only had two parking spaces. Many of the
condominium conversions approved in the past have been with only
one parking space per unit. One of the standards is the design and
location of the parking, which if that was the biggest concern, would
be something that staff could come back with some standards or
basis for denial. This project is parked to comply with the number of
off - street parking spaces that were required at the time of the original
file: //H:1Plancomm\2004\ l 007.htm
Page 6 of 12
11/5/2004
b�
Planning Commission Minutes 10/07/2004
construction and a use permit was granted for it. In that case, we
would not be able to use the number of parking spaces as a basis for
denial of this application.
Commissioner Toerge noted:
. Improvements to the property will be a nice addition.
. His concern is the safety issue of the garages located that close
to Bayside Drive.
. Converting this project to condominiums assures that this will
remain in the present configurations for a longer period of time
than if it is not converted and, as a result, will prolong what he
considers to be an unsafe condition.
. He would be supportive of continuing this item for the
preparation of findings for denial based upon the fact that it is
not safe.
Chairperson Tucker noted the applicant has taken care of a lot of
issues he had. He then discussed possible scenarios of parking this
site if it was redeveloped; number of parking per ownership versus
tenants; and ordinance policy.
Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to approve Condominium
Conversion No. 2004 -014, Newport Tract Map No. 200 -002 and
Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2004 -001, subject to the
findings and conditions of approval within the draft resolution and with
the additional condition that the applicant bring back for the
Commission review a set of dimensioned elevations, floor plans and a
landscape plan specifying all the materials to be used on the
construction of the exterior of the building and sizes and plant
specification and the hard surface areas in the landscape plan.
Ms. Temple suggested a time frame of prior to issuance of the
building permit. The maker of the motion agreed.
Ayes:
Tucker, Selich and McDaniel
Noes:
Eaton, Toerge
Absent:
Cole
Abstain:
None
Residence (PA2004 -155)
The application requests a Variance app
Page 7 of 12
0
0
ITEM NO. 4
PA2004 -155
Approved
file: //H:1Plancomm\200411007.htm 11/5/2004
i
EXHIBIT 6
61
44L
a
PC
,•!G � : Q!� | || 8i
- «� | ;■�l=. |f l2 ;|�!!;!
is CFA
M
-,a t
,
x,. ,i! |.
!$! ! |!t)
LEI a" � % .!® #2
g -2
!�
/ |f
.0
"a
;' &§!
lei |a)
9 • § §§ !§!■! | §�
N�§2�§ � ■2 § |§�!§° ||
§§ �' '~ go |f |§)2; /�
�§ q
!/m
� !}
� i|\
� \ §t
� J(
§
a
(
E
§
(
)
\ On
of \!
§ Ij 1
�
0
I
`J
11
0
e 65 e
jeg W:�B.�°ad pia �tgra `yr a
U=rte m� ds aE
.$
Oil
All y°w
p
d
w
WE
0
0
0
i
H
d
E
F
-13
z
O
p
d
w
WE
0
0
0
i
H
d
E
F
-13
a e o v
YY y s8s.
e11
v 98g18
a°
ma�c49�aA�:�„�s� °eg�e
>u9 y$��gm Lie �a d6gu
VA
HIRe
m 8aaUMNI
E
F
G
w
a
0
U
aOy�
G�.
ai w
O�
z
A
P
0
0
0
s �
p � a
oo.oagegB s$g�ecF� Im
via ° •° i� 8§
eab 55s�ig8p¢� aae��B *d
C!� 8 e� n�yv 8.ea R19 a`
d .,k
$
8.�n nU3B�d ��RI Leg �q u� =E�
t°8= >V„Ci°.a 8.g °9 doe
y I
ova a 3 ro' =8 laaga o:
0 oh. a eg
of �?qo
co
Lam'
p
(n
a
w
°a
w
0
I
F
E
F
15
��E
Qj.98
�9
r,
co
Lam'
p
(n
a
w
°a
w
0
I
F
E
F
15
ae�
�3
W
0
e
Q
o� 1
�nl .
t; F
I a i #it Iftf
IV GOO
w
w�
i
i
I
I
h
•I
U
1�
gr
�a
��
S3gt
�u
rna
t9 }
MoE
S
tt S
I
filtf
l
SSl
E t
t; F
I a i #it Iftf
IV GOO
w
w�
i
i
I
I
h
•I
U
1�
as EE °
_ eil�9ag aA °aY JBi�o$3Y3x':
086
V7�Y .p °'ayye §xE as BII$ L
Z w��cSi98�p �.�O��Ey�Jee�E
Wr
W s;g S. yy6 t62s a Ya � aw ..i
aY Sa'E ��zx'S�s
I;���
x ae p 3 °
rl 5'xotl`g a d.=°�5€m EGo�B°O.
x e W" 3 6@
'aa 33a5�e'aL a °z"
a fagegV pez6 $ ie
��{� 60.a?E F •s�9 ppg ge_
oes'PJ'�. n_pa
Yc°a3. Cxgafiaa 9:! p289e U
p4 q�aY
W B oa a rqu .8 2yvt a�,g C
F U N `ggn u V� Wd p 6 ,.,
0p a3c7 ci I3ti ii>p� dd S oa'e
MIT
0pi "m.
F .]'•''O .s pFpO"j O'yi ClVy58
NUkkk777mmoa3N o3 33�u, atl y�
c.:rni +�tdrme:rr '
O
F
W�
H
zN
0
rib-
E�<
F'=
= =I
ow
a,e
v Rig 1
a
'Pis v a
�u9
eZ�q�Y'eS
Y8 Y° B'OpO �•�
af�s`e'rr`s ij�m
e"�a Dios$ °oe
aa�c a 2
88MMU oe
;4 of EE 8
9
jaoui°�is $y3 fir$ o�
al Vgic mo= d�
3o C 8q$
No
��ce avEsz$Y
gSe°xE3 g.ta °v��
G7 M
yo �:gvsa
60 T
a aN�
d �ddpa a
.° mwmg 8
0
•,
sin
z�; K
kQj3e$�
��q
C
e
C
a �s�
•,
0
0
1 1
1
11
7 I
0QnG a nx
e8 ao -0e
ZIP
"Vol
e's�B
Aa
32%
as °�paa�aS9a'�a��g�`�S "9
a"
�.oz a�3 °zeog�;;aa2 x cB
�a3t� ���uU������e3$xa
h A 40,
'`i�o��,y � o3��wv�v���Q
mc� wdow3 Ei $3333 Miele
I
S1
'�v`
"3W 2 W
TAU �
r85c d
a
set
0
3
I
S1
z
03
a=
B
a�
a
ri �
of
a�
�a
I I
1
.T A
b
slip
�+ --
ow
:.
I
4t I
g
1 W UIs
0
G•
r
/
1
I�
r
,
e
1
Pu
a�
�m
N�
A A
rzl _: =� -
p��
al
z
03
a=
B
a�
a
ri �
of
a�
�a
I I
1
.T A
b
slip
�+ --
ow
:.
I
4t I
g
1 W UIs
0
G•
r
/
1
I�
r
,
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Espinoza Condo Conversion
(PA2004 -137)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a
public hearing on the application of Maclovio Espinoza for Condo Conversion No. 2004 -014,
Newport Tract Map No. 2004 -002 & Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2004 -001 on
property located at 329 Marguerite Avenue, Corona del Mar. The property is located in the Multi -
Family Residential District. The Condominium Conversion and Tentative Tract Map relate to the
conversion of an existing 7 unit apartment building to condominiums for the purpose of individual
sale. The Coastal Residential Development Permit Application relates to compliance with
affordable housing regulations applicable within the Coastal Zone. This project has been reviewed,
and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities).
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on
November 23, 2004, at the hour of 7:00 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 (949) 644 -3200.
LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk
City of Newport Beach
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Espinoza Condo Conversion
(PA2004 -137)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a
public hearing on the application of Maclovio Espinoza for Condo Conversion No. 2004 -014,
Newport Tract Map No. 2004 -002 & Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2004 -001 on
property located at 329 Marguerite Avenue, Corona del Mar. The property is located in the Multi-
Family Residential District. The Condominium Conversion and Tentative Tract Map relate to the
conversion of an existing 7 unit apartment building to condominiums for the purpose of individual
sale. The Coastal Residential Development Permit Application relates to compliance with
affordable housing regulations applicable within the Coastal Zone. This project has been reviewed,
and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities).
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on
November 23, 2004, at the hour of 7:00 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 (949) 644 -3200.
LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk
City of Newport Beach
(44 DI
^
�I � 1 o � )6l u
� C�. � q �o Ian
iolac I0,.1
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
On A )0,/. / , 2004, I posted the Notice of Public Hearing
regarding:
Espinoza Condo Conversion
(PA2004 -137)
Date of Hearing: November 23, 2004.
w' d
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Espinoza Condo Conversion
(PA2004 -137)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public heating on
the application of Maclovio Espinoza for Condo Conversion No. 2004 -014, Newport Tract Map No. 2004 -002 &
Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2004 -001 on property located at 329 Marguerite Avenue, Corona del
Mar. The property is located in the Multi- Family Residential District. The Condominium Conversion and
Tentative Tract Map relate to the conversion of an existing 7 unit apartment building to condominiums for the
purpose of individual sale. The Coastal Residential Development Permit Application relates to compliance with
affordable housing regulations applicable within the Coastal Zone. This project has been reviewed, and it has been
determined that it is categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
under Class 1 (Existing Facilities).
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on November 23, 2004, at the
hour of 7_00 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 (949) 644 -3200.
LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk
City of Newport Beach
Jam 9M$ed het TM
www.averycom
_L* "A®
UsiAveip'TEMPLA 516
1- 800 -GO -AVERY
051-101 14
052 101 15
052 101 16
Rebekah Gale Gladson
Lankford Jet L
Singleton
313 Larkspur Ave
315 Larkspur Ave
317 -317 112 Larkspur Ave
Curoua Del Mar, CA 92625
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
052 101 18
052 101 20
052 101 25
John Nlessersmith
Walter Edward Tr Eck
Del & Connie Worsham
200 Laeuuita Dr
309 Larkspur Ave
3135 Bayside Dr
Soquel. CA 9.073
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
05? 101 ?6
052 101 27
052 101 28
Kathleen Christian & Cochran
James & Karen Oconnell
Joseph Tr Caputi
3125 Bayside Dr
321 Larkspur Ave
954 Tempera Ct
Corona Del Mar. CA 92625
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
Oceanside, CA 92057
0i? 102 01
052 102 02
052 102 03
Milton Ti Kopecky
Thomas Tr Steft
Mary Kay Heebner
3207 Bayside Dr
322 Larkspur Ave
320 Larkspur Ave
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
052 102 04
052 102 05
052 102 08
Richard Wackerbarth
Harold Tr Pinchin
Seth Christian & Kathy Clu istian
Patricia Wackerbarth
PO Box 187
308 Larkspur Ave
316 Larkspur Ave
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
052 102 13
052 102 15
052 102 18
Helen Tr >9 iali
Carole Urie- chickening
Jin Yuan Tr Liu
229 Iris .Ave
17 Camel Point Dr
PO Box 9862
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Newport Beach, CA 92658
052 10' 19
052 102 20
052 102 21
Siene Marie Tra Ahlquist
Yonis Kabir
Joseph Chinowth
I I 1 5 Santa Cn¢ Ave
6391 E Via Arboles
325 -112 -327 Marguerite Ave
:Menlo Park, CA 94025
Anaheim, CA 92807
Newport Beach, CA 92625
052 102 23
052 102 28
052 103 10
: \,loi dyn Clark
Jean Tr Kelleher
Troy Reyna
PO Boa 39891
990 Capistrano Ave
311 Marigold Ave
Los Aneeles, CA 90039
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
052 10; 11
052103 12
052103 13
Joseph T Hills
Lucien Mercurio
Stephen & Roselinda Blood
711 Jasmine Ave
319 Marigold Ave
321 Marigold Ave
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
Corona Del Mar, CA 9262=
052 103 14
052 103 16
052 103 17
James & Elizabeth Zachman
Julius Tr Evans
Pauline Tr Godfrey
335 :Marigold .Ave
4709 Seashore Dr
314 Grand Canal #B
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Newport Beach, CA 92662
®asL 'fil�°O"�'V Address LabeM�N°e
®09L5
PU ther tj
U e MXNFC09TawTM 1 -800 GO -AVERY= �TMbW®
052 103 23
Dicorpo Nello C & E G
8642 Cherokee Dr
Downey, CA 90241
052 103 28
Team One Concepts Inc
PO Box 2270
Littleton, CO 80161
459 195 15
Michael Tr Franklin & Inter Vivos For
PO Box 673
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
459 201 04
Beverly Tr Evans
4709 Seashore Dr
Newport Beach, CA 92663
930 254 27
Kathleen Robertson
330 Marguerite Ave #B
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
459 20l OS
Beverly Ti s
4709 shore Dr
wport Beach, CA 92663
930 254 33
Bennie Mann & Carroll Mann
309 Marguerite Ave #1
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
930 254 34
Betmie Tr Mat
309 M ente Ave #A
na Del Mar. CA 9262.5
Corona del Mar Comm. Assoc
Attn: Dick Nichols
519 Iris Avenue
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
052 103 20
Adam Tyler Macdonald
312 Marguerite Ave
Corona Del Mar, CA 9267-5
052 103 27
Ella Giordano
1975 Hunter Rd
Chino Hills, CA 91709
052 103 32
Hayim Ninyo & Miriam Ninyo
8 Brillantez
Irvine, CA 92620
459 194 01
Francis Tr #A Boero
Houstons Restaurants
8 Piedmont Ctr NE #720
Atlanta, GA 30305 __
459 201 02
Ludmila Sultanova
12217 Samoline P.ve
I Downey, CA 90242
459 202 01
Myrtle Cox Family Partners
1781 Shady Crest PI
El Cajon, CA 92020
930 254 30
Raymond Albers & Lena Albers
3016 Breakers Dr
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
Corona del Mar Res. Assoc.
P.O. Box 1500 179
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
Oil 103 19
Jack Award Watkins
3334 E Coasi Hxv. .
Corona Del ,Mar. C.\ 92625
052 103 33
Celia Tr Sanch
8317 V' erde Dr
rer, CA 90605
052 103 24
King Eleanor C
2994 Corte Hermosa
Newport Beach, CA 92660
052 10- 30 .
Celia Tr Sanchez
S', 17 Villaverde Dr
\�'hirtier. CA 90605
459 191 14
J Ray Rite Aid Sanderson & Com Lic
M99 White Rd #150
' Irvine, CA 91_614
459 201 01
Donna Adeie Tr Gallant
Rea & Eadynn Albright
PO Boa 54400
Los Aneeles. CA 90054
930 254 28
PO Box 732
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
y
930 254 35 Corona del Mar Chamber of Comm.
Maclovio Espinoza Bennie Mann & Carroll Mann Attn: Luvena Hayton
2744 W. Coast Highway 309 Marguerite Ave # 1 2843 E. Coast Hwy. ,
Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 P.O. Box 72
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
PA2004 -137 for CC2004 -014 & NT2004 -002
329 Marguerite Avenue
DATE OF MEETING: -
®69 Uvldwu an ash
®a RYDAddress Labels Aw8o14tl an9 e n0r8 m L
Laser 6uriu. Ier
Jam Free Printing www.avery.com ANEW(9) 5160®
Use Avery® TEMPLATE 51600 1- 800 -GO -AVERY
Andrea Marino & Nicole Canon
Y & R Advertising
7535 Irvine Center Drive
Irvine, CA 92618 -2930
Steve Duablon
329 Marguerite Avenue, Unit 4
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
Andrea Marino & Nicole Canori
329 Marguerite Avenue, Unit 3
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
Letty Green
629 Marguerite Avenue, Unit 6
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
Steve Duablon
Sure Prep, LLC
450 Newport Center Drive
Suite 330
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Letty Green
709 151 Place
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 -5207
091,s ®Jl2l3A\/ A113A"9.008-L ems uvidwu akaw ash
wm AAare nnrmm Bu. . d awl war
Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public notices by
1
-
Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California. Number A -6214,
September 29, 1961, and A -24331 June 11, 1963.
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
'04 NOV 22 19:34
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
am a Citizen of the United States and a
NOiICF OF project has been re-
resident of the County aforesaid; I am
PUBIKNEAl11NG viewed, and it has been
determined that it is
Fspin4
:a Cando cNaenton categorically exempt
over the age of eighteen years, and not a
I (PA2B1(14.13n under the requirements
party to or interested in the below entitled
NOTICE IS HEREBY of the California Envi-
th Quality Act
GIVEN that the City
matter. I am a principal clerk of the
under la
Council the City of under Class 1 (Existing
Newport Beach will hold Facilities).
NOTICE IS
NEWPORT BEACH - COSTA MESA
a public hearing on the HEREBY
application of Maclovio FURTHER GIVEN that
Espinoza for said public hearing will
DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general
Condo
Conversion No. 2004- be held on November
014, Newport Tract Map 23, 2004, at the hour
circulation, printed and published in the
No. 2004 -002 & Coastal of 7:00 p.m. in the
Residential Development Council Chambers of the
Newport Beach
tty of Costa Mesa, County of Orange,
Permit No. 2004 -001 on City Hall,
Property located at 329 3300 Newport Boule-
Marguerite Avenue,i vard, Newport Beach,
State of California, and that attached
Corona del Mar. The California, at which time
is located in and Place any and all
Notice is a true and complete copy as
property
the Multi - Family Resi -, persons interested may
dential District. The' appear and be heard.
was printed and published on the
P
Condominium Conver- I thereon. If you challenge
Sion and Tentative Tract this project in court, you
may be limited
Map relate to thel to raising
following dates.
conversion of an exist - only those issues you or
ing 7 unit apartment someone else raised at
building to condomini- the public hearing
ums for the purpose of described in this notice
NOVEMBER 13, 2004
individual sale. The or in written corre-
Coastal Residential spondence delivered to
Development Permit the City at, or prior to.
Application relates to the public hearing. For
compliance with afford- information call (949)
644 -3200.
able housing regulations
applicable within the LOVOnne M, N°rkless,
Coastal Zone, This CN"Clerk
City °f Newport
h
Published Newport
w p o r
I declare, under penalty of perjury, that
Beach /Costa Mesa Daily
Pilot November 138
the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on NOVEMBER 13, 2004
at Costa Mesa, California.
Signature
COUNCIL AGENDA
NO.I. f ) -a3 -0Y
PIANET
DESIGN
ARCHIT ECTORE
P L A N N I N G
November 18, 2004
Hon. Tod W. Ridgeway, Mayor
City of Newport Beach
Members of the City Council
3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92663
RE: 329 Marguerite, Corona del Mar, CA - Condominium Conversion PA2004 -137
Condominium Conversion No. 2004 -014, Newport Tract Map No. 2004 -002
Council Meeting, November 23, 2004
Dear Mayor Ridgeway & Council Members:
This is to express our sincere appreciation for the time and energy you have shared with us in
further consideration of the proposed seven (7) — Unit Condominium conversion at Marguerite
Avenue and Bayside Drive, which was approved by the Planning Commission some weeks ago
and more recently reviewed by City Council.
We had the opportunity in our recent site visits with you to further discuss the existing carports
which are designed to be converted into seven (7) garage spaces, each with separate roll -up
sectional custom doors having two (2) stacked rows (high) of glass vision lites as coordinated and
suggested by the city Traffic Engineer to maximize visibility. The non - partitioned nature of the
spaces will also be maintained for further visibility, which is also supported by the attached
consultant Traffic Review. The slope of the existing concrete carport apron (which is to also serve
as a walkway along Bayside Drive from the alley to Marguerite Avenue) for some of the bays
(especially the westerly three spaces) was noted as being in excess of what would be a
comfortable gradient for pedestrian usage as well as vehicular ingress and egress. The project
civil engineer has redesigned the elevation of the parking space garage slabs and the
walkway /apron slopes to be much more comfortable, approximately 3.61/o to 10.6% versus the
original 18 to 27 %. The garage slabs for four (4) of the bays will be lowered accordingly to
accommodate these more desirable gradients. The attached `Carport Exhibits' include a Master
Plan and seven (7) cross - sections, one for each existing carport bay, showing the proposed change
in slope from the existing to the new, lower slope percentage. Carports `E', `F and `G' were
observed and determined in the field with Councitperson Daigle and others, to be comfortable
enough (10.5 %, 6.3% and 3.6% respectively) so as to not require necessarily modification, but
with the goal being to provide a similar, lesser slope for the steeper ones, which re- engineering
has achieved per the attached exhibits.
aoau�ae r1P.uryrc:roli�ons�ax a smal�uranli%..
3334 East Coast Highway Ste. 237 Corona del Mar, CA 92625
Tel: USA 949.721.5500 Fax: 949.721.5502 www.PlanetDesignlnc.com Email: architect(@,bigplariet.com
Mayor Tod W. Ridgeway / CNB Councilmembers
329 Marguerite Ave., CDM, CA — Condominium Conversion PA2004 -137
November l8, 2004 Page Two
The portion of the existing planter at the corner of Bayside and Marguerite is to be removed with
the planter wall line along the Marguerite walkway to be radiussed back into the northeast
building corner, so as to allow the walk to connect accordingly with the newly created pedestrian
walkway along Bayside Drive. The building corner will be `buttressed' with a relatively low
profile wainscot structure as shown on the color artist's perspective renderings and exterior
elevation previously submitted to mitigate any resultant structural issues. This will greatly
increase the safety factor along Bayside Drive as some pedestrians have been observed using the
very narrow paving strip to reach the corner at Marguerite. The overall new width of the sidewalk
is designed to be five (5) feet wide as compared to the existing minimal clearance of only about
twenty (20) inches. The only other obstruction remaining would be the existing utility pole.
Additionally, the planter at the northwest building corner adjacent to the alley will be reduced to
accommodate the greater width required for the pedestrian walkway, and lowered to provide
clearer visibility to the alley intersection as well as to eastbound oncoming traffic along Bayside,
upon egress from the garages. Low profile planting with minimal depth vertical planting directly
adjacent to the building wall will be provided in the remaining small planter space as shown on
the conceptual landscape plan provided earlier.
The developer has also made a commitment to create the `new' building exterior aesthetic as
depicted on the renderings, plans and exterior elevations, color and materials legend and
presentation (sample) board as submitted and approved by the commission, and presented to you
at our recent meeting. The upcoming construction documents will also reflect this level of detail
and correlation with all the exhibits to attain and most likely exceed the level of `substantial
conformance' as required by the Planning Department. The entire building will be modernized
and updated to successfully alleviate the 'dated apartment house' appearance which has existed
for the last half century. This transformation will clearly be a superior solution in consideration of
the alternate option for this remaining a rental property for the next fifty years, with a superior
design for this existing structure being very important especially in that it is situated at such a
primary location adjacent and as a backdrop to the upcoming Centennial Plaza, whose
commemoration most attended recently.
The traffic report which was suggested by engineering to be provided, has just been received at
the time of this writing. RK Engineering Group of Newport Beach, CA conducted the review,
with the report dated November 15, 2004, and is included as a supplemental attachment for your
reference. The report concludes that there are no reported accidents associated with the existing
apartment use, that the proposed remotely operated roll -up garage doors are appropriate for
usage, that the maintenance of a non - partitioned overall garage space will positively effect
visibility, and that the elimination of planter structures and cutback of landscape elements will
increase visibility and safety, as well as enhance site circulation. We feel that the daily trip count
and vehicle load associated with the proposed condominium conversion, will most likely be less
than that experienced over the years of apartment use, which is generally characterized by
multiple occupants and vehicles, etc.
The project is to be marketed to a `young professional' demographic, and based on the inquiries
received thus far, this well seems to be the case. This would also indicate a lower owner /occupant
load factor, which would tend to be a forecast of potentially reduced vehicular load count as well.
The units as they are to be listed will present a comparatively reasonable `entry level' opportunity
for local young professionals to enjoy the benefits of home ownership, especially in an area
Mayor Tod W. Ridgeway / CNB Councilmembers
329 Marguerite Ave., CDM, CA — Condominium Conversion PA2004 -137
November 18, 2004 Page Three
where the median price is comparatively much higher, with many attached units in the
community going for well into the low and mid - $IM's, some even much higher. Conversely, any
full redevelopment of the site would result in fewer, larger, more expensive units which would
otherwise fully leave behind this important young professional demographic.
From a development standpoint, other site options were considered with most on both the public
and private sides being in general concurrence that based on the demands of the site, the end
result as relates to parking and circulation would be fundamentally very similar to the current
parking configuration along Bayside Drive. The challenging site factors considered include the
very steep slope of the adjacent alley which severely limits any vehicular site access, also no
provision or possibility for vehicular ingress/egress from the Marguerite frontage, and together
with a primarily deep and narrow site which would otherwise limit or negate any onsite vehicular
circulation result in multiple intrinsic factors and limitations leading to results which favor the
current site design as being fundamentally viable. The current parking configuration has been
shown to have safely existed for more than fifty years.
The design program includes the preservation of unique site features such as an excess of 50%
open space, outdoor amenities such as a water element and generous decoratively paved patio and
loggia areas with a landscape palette which will fully transform the exterior open space
environment for all the prospective homeowners to enjoy. The individual units are currently being
fully modernized as well, with new appliances, granite countertops, new doors and windows, new
wiring, piping, high -end finished electrical and plumbing, limestone paved and lush carpeted
floors, etc. The ultimate result will be a clear asset to the community, a significant architectural
enhancement to the neighborhood, an important benefit to the prospective young professional
market of homeowners and an enhancement to public safety and convenience as well.
We appreciate your kind consideration and favorable review of this proposed high quality
development. We are available at your convenience to address any final issues or concerns prior
to the next meeting. Any questions may be referred to our office directly at 949.721.5500. My
personal mobile number is: 949.439.0974.
Thank you very much, and we look forward to seeing you at next Tuesday evening's meeting,
and to a successful conclusion to this application.
m erely your/s�in [Qu�a�li�ty� B,uilt Environment,
/UcOC
illiam R. Edwards,
Principal Architect
PLANET DESIGN
W RE /sb
CC. Downey Development, LLC
ALLEY
F
(E)Im m
IIIfF m.
MARGUERITE AVENUE
PREPARED Br..
DAVID W. GRAVES, P.E.
pp0.a[Ap� 2620 CANTO ROMPEOLAS
u.p AnBUq�� SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92673 (949) 395 -6493
xo Riai G g
� F6 Jdid
r nmL
°Ea cwt
DAND W. (AK P.E. 421$1. CV. 0]1]1105
� r
m F^
v A
DATE: NOV. 8, 2004
DRIVEWAY EXHIBIT
LOT 29, 31, AND PORTION LOT 27, BILK 238
CORONA DEL MAR
NEWPORT BEACH, CA
AS SHOWN I DAZE: 11101101 ORA" BY.. DWG I CHECKED BY..- Ore
329 MARGUERITE
II
oR�I •a'
I H III
�'
I �m >d_
1 1 Xy i
I�
Y
XI571NC
EPOOL o.$flll 8R6
Ea
'd
I
Vf
�II
<
m
11 1 II
12.0 H.0
E
I I EII � sa
1 I s
1 al
1
I t
`
sn
I I m y
w
% 9�
�ysp
EXISTING MUL71- FAMILY BUILDING R I 10.0'
20.0,
a Sy0
�Z
—IL
D� 10.0
d )IS d01S
II
i
D, cvTtir
D.I. LmclIIOx
L
x jr•aar'
Eoa
c EXISW SIDEWALK
EXISTNO SIDEWALK
(E)Im m
IIIfF m.
MARGUERITE AVENUE
PREPARED Br..
DAVID W. GRAVES, P.E.
pp0.a[Ap� 2620 CANTO ROMPEOLAS
u.p AnBUq�� SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92673 (949) 395 -6493
xo Riai G g
� F6 Jdid
r nmL
°Ea cwt
DAND W. (AK P.E. 421$1. CV. 0]1]1105
� r
m F^
v A
DATE: NOV. 8, 2004
DRIVEWAY EXHIBIT
LOT 29, 31, AND PORTION LOT 27, BILK 238
CORONA DEL MAR
NEWPORT BEACH, CA
AS SHOWN I DAZE: 11101101 ORA" BY.. DWG I CHECKED BY..- Ore
329 MARGUERITE
F
1W- ~
W V=V
W
o�
aI=
20
vs cc
;a
V
ALLEY
I
9 so
Co O0 2.$X%
Z I' s. 3x .
$ g
m l :'
co
I— — —coI. .
2' OX
v I: 8 ;77L).
I o^ ► :.
r- - -- o �.csX�:
9�
CD
~ c� ij WON
ca
to
eto
co
��I►
rox�
I
Z
U
k
4
cc
W
0
W
m
z
0
0
W
3/1124 341S.tb'8
i
Pc
c�
z�
xxh j
WU
W
�=
�
Ow
W
-a
w
?
C.7
W
�Cl)w
�.
NFU
00
0-
C7 '
Z
O
W
W
CL ..
•N
a
e
J
0
N
3AI80 301SAVB
z
0
W
2�
h �
W U
W
'=
ZV
o
L,�."'m
w
Elmo
(;3
W
CC
atri
a
N:
Cl) cc
N
CC V
:.
M
(6
t6
�.
^O •
fO 6
Z : ;
1=
W
0
V7
W r
�
0
•N
0;.
S
3AI80 341SAVG
W
Z�
xh j
W U
LU
�aw
W
low
LU low
O�CCl)OC
a
o
W a
'-
�Cl)
ix
0
N
ILL :.
o
a
2
W
'
•.
a
N
�u
�I
y
0
N
3/11210 301S.1b'8
g
0
zt
V�
ui
�=
z
O
Ww
�
W ~
O
oQ
Nf
CM
(V)
C�►
o
cx) ..
'.:
co
LL = .
O
O
CL
CL
C9
D
�
_Z
CL
CL
N
R
A
LJ
3/11210 301SAVB
r
v
z�
W U s-
�W
W W
UJ
C3
CC Cl)
�
Q O _Q
Cl) am
cc
�0Q
N � V
00
0
� .fr
U
Z
ti
W N
4i
NZ
3AI80 301SAVB
WU
w
Z
0
Lu
LL
W
cri
am
Cl)
cc
cl)
0
cq
co
3/11210 301SAVB
it
Q�
WU
LO
to
u
It
0
R
.S
N
s
N
1
_.
0w
W
w
W
I-
ac�a
�v�oc
C,oa
NCc
C)
00
3/11210 301SAVB
it
Q�
WU
LO
to
u
It
0
R
.S
N
s
N
1
ft-OM N
717
I.OwNbi 7 Lo
'SRI,
._,
ESPINOZA CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION
TRAFFIC REVIEW
Newport Beach, California
engineering
group, inc.
engineering
group, inc.
November 15, 2004
Mr. Lorenzo Espinoza /Maclovio Espinoza
DOWNEY DEVELOPMENT, LLC.
2744 Coast Highway
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
transportation planning • traffic engineering
acoustical / air quality studies
Subject: Espinoza Condominium Conversion (PA 2004 -137) Traffic Review
Dear Mr. Espinoza:
Introduction
RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. (RK) has completed a traffic review for your proposed
Espinoza Condominium Conversion (PA 2004 -137). The project includes a Condominium
Conversion No. 2004 -014, Newport Tract No. 2004 -002, and Coast Residential
Development Permit No. 2004 -001. The project is located at 329 Marguerite Avenue the
in Corona del Mar area of the City of Newport Beach.
The project consists of the request to approve a condominium conversion permit, and a
tentative tract map to convert an existing seven (7) unit apartment building to
condominiums, for purpose of individual sale. The project is located on the south side of
Bayside Drive, just west of Marguerite Avenue, as shown in Exhibit A. The existing site plan
for the project is shown in Exhibit B. The existing project includes seven (7) multi - family
units with "tuck- under" parking without garage doors along Bayside Drive. Photographs
taken of the vicinity of the site are shown in Appendix A.
The site plan for the proposed project is shown in Exhibit C. No additional dwelling units
will be developed as part of the project. However, exterior and interior improvements will
be made to complete the condominium conversion process. The project will also include
enclosing the exterior parking areas with garage doors.
Traffic Review
The purpose of this traffic review:
1. Review traffic speeds along Bayside Drive.
2. Review accident data as provided by the City of Newport Beach.
3. Develop recommendations with respect to traffic circulation for the project.
20201 s.w. birch street, suite 250
newport beach, california 92660
tel 949.474.0809 fax 949.474.0902
http://vvww.rkengineer.com
Traffic Speed
The existing speed limit along Bayside Drive is 30 miles per hour. Bayside Drive is a
two -lane collector roadway, which connects Marguerite Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway
(SR -1) to the north of the project. The existing traffic speeds along Bayside Drive were
measured at two locations during three (3) time periods in the vicinity of the site. This
included the AM peak hour, noon, and the PM peak hour. Site 1 was located
approximately 100 feet west of the intersection adjacent to the site and Site 2 was
measured approximately 200 feet from the intersection. The results of these speed surveys
are shown in Exhibit D.
The measured speeds adjacent to the proposed project are approximately ten (10) miles per
hour less than the speeds further west along Bayside Drive. The morning AM peak hour
85th percentile speed adjacent to the site is approximately 25 miles per hour. The 85th
percentile speed at noon is also 27 miles per hour. The 85th percentile speed during the
evening PM peak hour is 27 miles per hour.
Further to the west of the project away from the intersection of Marguerite Avenue and
Bayside Drive the speeds increase to 36 -37 miles per hour. These speed surveys are
consistent with previous speed surveys conducted by the City of Newport Beach traffic
department, which indicated an 85th percentile speed of approximately 37 miles per hour.
Accident Review
RK contacted the City of Newport Beach traffic department regarding accident history
along Bayside Drive in the vicinity of the project. According to discussions with the City
traffic engineer (Mr. Rich Edmonson) no reported accidents have occurred directly related
to the existing project on Bayside Drive. It does not appear that an accident problem exists
with respect to the existing use of the property as apartments with the associated
driveways on Bayside Drive.
Sight Distance Review
In conjunction with the review of the project, an onsite visit of the site was completed. As
noted, photographs taken of the vicinity of the site are included in Appendix A. There
currently is a large shrubbery at the east and west ends of the property. The shrubbery and
planter box located on the west side of the site is somewhat overgrown, and should be
trimmed back to provide better visibility to the west.
There is also a large cypress tree located on the east side of the property adjacent to the
existing Stop sign. The existing landscape does block the view of the existing Stop sign and
should be trimmed back accordingly to provide better visibility of the Stop sign.
2
Recommendations
Based upon the speed survey, review of accidents, and the field review of existing sight
distance, the following recommendations are suggested for the project:
1. Trim the landscaping on the west and east sides of the project to provide better
visibility.
2. Provide electronic "rollup" garage doors that can be activated by the future owners of
the condominiums with the use of a push button device within their vehicle.
3. Do not enclose the interior of the individual garages to improve visibility and access to
vehicles within the garages.
Conclusions
RK has completed a traffic review of the proposed Condominium Conversion at
329 Marguerite Avenue in the Corona Del Mar portion of the City of Newport Beach.
Based upon this review, the 85th percentile speeds range from approximately 25 to 27
miles per hour throughout the day adjacent to the project. There have been no reported
accidents associated with the existing apartment use of the property along Bayside Drive.
A number of recommendations are suggested to help improve traffic circulation for the
project.
RK appreciates this opportunity to work with Downey Development, LLC. on the Espinoza
Condominium Conversion. If you have any questions regarding this study, please call me
at (949) 474 -0809.
Sincerely, OQ�oF
RK ENGINEERING GROUPo��
a; Z
Il + m
No. 0555 m
EXP.12131105 �
Robert Kahn, P.E. *� %RAFF\G
Principal 9lE n,- �\F
Attachments
RK: rd1RK2776. doc 3
JN :1725 -04 -01
Exhibits
Exhibit A
Location Map
1725 -04 -01 (EXA) engineering
ESPINOZA CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION (PA 2004 -137), Newport Brach, Califomia group, inc.
N
.ALLEY _-
- _ I
0.. j.
'D N 107719: ;E SkOB'
-
106.168LD CORi
°
s � �° uu�n -ryt�r euuouti; l
k I I d
��j�,
W�kW
LOT 12 q y0�
c c Qi'
1'�ma Elt'IS�NC
FAWIL N0 iI .�, uuLn-FAu1L1\emlflsvc
MULTI- FAMILY BOIfLINO
10 i
0.
I
MARGUERITE AVENUE
i
37), —N.-p= B
Exhibit B
Existing Site Plan
i.
a
m
engineering
group, inc.
MARGUERITE AVENUE
Exhibit C
Proposed Site Plan
._._ -------
N _54.08'
II i
1
I
I
I
I
h
I725-04 -01 (Ex2 '
ESPINOZA CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION (PA2004 -137), Newport Beach, Cahfomia
WLA -suer rt¢vw2 }zmv
I
sari
rP
jo
ja
1
1 3
I
ek•
12
2
O.
3
N
2
/
MARGUERITE AVENUE
Exhibit C
Proposed Site Plan
._._ -------
N _54.08'
II i
1
I
I
I
I
h
I725-04 -01 (Ex2 '
ESPINOZA CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION (PA2004 -137), Newport Beach, Cahfomia
WLA -suer rt¢vw2 }zmv
I
jo
ja
1
1 3
I
12
I
engineering
group, inc.
Exhibit D
Existing Speed Surveys
Legend:
37 M h 85th %5 eed
28 -37 Mph 10 Mph Pace Speed
AM
Noon
PM
i
N
1725 -04 -01 (ExD) engineering
ESPINO7A CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION (PA 2004.137), Newport Beach, Cali(omia group, inc.
Appendices
Appendix I
Bayside Dr. West of Marguerite Ave.
IS 01 ® engineering
ESPINO ZA CO NDOMINIUM CONVERSION (PA 2004 -13�, Newport Bech, California group,
inc.
Appendix 2
Existing Apartments on Bayside Dr.
1725.04 -01 (A -2) engineering
ESPINOZA CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION(PA2004 -137), Newpon Beach,Calitomia group, inc.
Appendix 3
Bayside Dr, at Marguerite Ave.
1725 -04 -01 (A -3) engineering
ESPINOZA CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION (PA 2004 -137), Newport Beach, California group, inc.
Appendix 4
Looking West on Bayside Dr.
From Existing Apartment Driveway
1725 -04 -01 (A-4) engineering
ESPINOZA CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION (PA 2004 -137), Newport Beach, Califomia group, inc.
Appendix 5
Looking East on Bayside Dr. From Existing Driveway
1725- 04- 01(A -5) engineering
ESPINOZA CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION (PA 2004 -137), Newport Beach, Califomia group, inc.
Appendix 6
Looking West on Bayside Dr. From Existing Driveway
1725.04 -01 (A-b) engineering
ESPIN07A CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION (PA 2004 -137), Newpon Beach, Cali(omia group, inc.
Appendix 7
Looking Weston Bayside Dr.
From the East Side of Marguerite Ave.
1725 -04 -01 (A -7) engineering
ESPINOZA CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION (PA 2004 -137), Newport Beach, California group, inc.
SPEEDPLOT 2 Spot Speed Analysis Ver. 2.00A /McTRANS
corona del mar: BAYSIDE 100' W/O MARGURITE
DIRECTION(S) ....... E /W
DATE ...............11 /12 /2004
TIME ............... 7:00
POSTED SPEED LIMIT.30 MPH
50TH PERCENTILE SPEED ..................IS
85TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................25
10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 12 through 21
PERCENT IN PACE SPEED .............. 59.3
PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED............ 23.9
PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED...,....... 16.8
RANGE OF SPEEDS ..................5 to 41
VEHICLES OBSERVED ....................113
AVERAGE SPEED .......................18.1
CUMULATIVE PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +- --- +---- +---- + - - - -+
100 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *10
90 ** 90
80 ** 80
70 * 70
60 60
50 50
40 * 40
30 * 30
20 * 20
10 ** 10
0 * * * * ** 0
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +- --- +---- + -- - -+
0 10 20 30 40
PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----*---- +- --- +- --- +---- +---- +--- - + - - --+
15 15
10
5
0
+----+----+---- +--- - +-- -- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
0 10. 20 30 40
10
5
CUM
MPH
NO.
PCT.
PCT.
0
0
0.0
0.0
1
0
0.0
0.0
2
0
0.0
0.0
3
0
0.0
0.0
4
0
0.0
0.0
5
1
0.9
0.9
6
2
1.8
2.7
7
3
2.7
5.3
8
4
3.5
8.8
9
2
1.8
10.6
10
3
2.7
13.3
11
4
3.5
16.8
12
3
2.7
19.5
13
5
4.4
23.9
14
6
5.3
29.2
15
7
6.2
35.4
16
5
4.4
39.8
17
6
5.3
45.1
18
11
9.7
54.9
19
10
8.8
63.7
20
8
7.1
70.8
21
6
5.3
76.1
22
2
1.8
77.9
23
4
3.5
81.4
24
3
2.7
84.1
25
2
1.8
85.8
26
4
3.5
89.4
27
3
2.7
92.0
28
2
1.8
93.8
29
1
0.9
94.7
30
2
1.8
96.5
31
1
0.9
97.3
32
1
0.9
98.2
33
0
0.0
98.2
34
0
0.0
98.2
35
0
0.0
98.2
36
0
0.0
98.2
37
0
0.0
98.2
3B
0
0.0
98.2
39
0
0.0
98.2
40
1
0.9
99.1
41
1
0.9
100.0
42
0
0.0
100.0
43
0
0.0
100.0
44
0
0.0
100.0
45
0
0.0
100.0
46
0
0.0
100.0
>46
0
0.0
100.0
50TH PERCENTILE SPEED ..................IS
85TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................25
10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 12 through 21
PERCENT IN PACE SPEED .............. 59.3
PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED............ 23.9
PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED...,....... 16.8
RANGE OF SPEEDS ..................5 to 41
VEHICLES OBSERVED ....................113
AVERAGE SPEED .......................18.1
CUMULATIVE PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +- --- +---- +---- + - - - -+
100 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *10
90 ** 90
80 ** 80
70 * 70
60 60
50 50
40 * 40
30 * 30
20 * 20
10 ** 10
0 * * * * ** 0
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +- --- +---- + -- - -+
0 10 20 30 40
PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----*---- +- --- +- --- +---- +---- +--- - + - - --+
15 15
10
5
0
+----+----+---- +--- - +-- -- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
0 10. 20 30 40
10
5
SPEEDPLOT 2 Spot Speed Analysis Ver. 2.00A /McTRANS
corona del mar: BAYSIDE 100' W/O MARGURITE
DIRECTION(S) ....... E /W
DATE ...............11 /12/2004
TIME ...............11:00
POSTED SPEED LIMIT.30 MPH
37
4
1.4
CUM
MPH
NO.
PCT.
PCT.
0
0
0.0
0.0
1
0
0.0
0.0
2
0
0.0
0.0
3
0
0.0
0.0
4
1
0.8
0.8
5
0
0.0
0.8
6
0
0.0
0.8
7
2
1.6
2.4
8
0
0.0
2.4
9
3
2.4
4.8
10
4
3.2
8.0
11
3
2.4
10.4
12
3
2.4
12.6
13
4
3.2
16.0
14
3
2.4
18.4
15
4
3.2
21.6
16
7
5.6
27.2
17
10
8.0
35.2
18
8
6.4
41.6
19
9
7.2
48.8
20
6
4.8
53.6
21
8
6.4
60.0
22
6
4.B
64.8
23
8
6.4
71.2
24
7
5.6
76.8
25
6
4.8
81.6
26
4
3.2
84.8
27
4
3.2
88.0
28
6
4.B
92.8
29
2
1.6
94.4
30
1
0.8
95.2
31
3
2.4
97.6
32
1
0.8
98.4
33
0
0.0
98.4
34
1
0.8
99.2
35
0
0.0
99.2
36
1
0.8
100.0
37
0
0.0
100.0
38
0
0.0
100.0
39
0
0.0
100.0
40
0
0.0
100.0
41
0
0.0
100.0
42
0
0.0
100.0
43
0
0.0
100.0
44
0
0.0
100.0
45
0
0.0
100.0
46
0
0.0
100.0
>46
0
0.0
100.0
37
4
1.4
1UU.0
36
0
0.0
100.0
37
0
0.0
100.0
38
0
0.0
100.0
39
0
0.0
100.0
40
0
0.0
100.0
41
0
0.0
100.0
42
0
0.0
100.0
43
0
0.0
100.0
44
0
0.0
100.0
45
0
0.0
100.0
46
0
0.0
100.0
X46
0
0.0
100.0
50TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................20
85TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................27
10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 16 through 25
PERCENT IN PACE SPEED .............. 60.0
PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED............ 18.4
PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED........... 21.6
RANGE OF SPEEDS ..................4 to 36
VEHICLES OBSERVED ....................125
AVERAGE SPEED .......................19.9
CUMULATIVE PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +- --- +---- +- --- +-- -- +--- - +- - - -+
100 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *10
90 * 90
80 * 80
70 * 70
60 * 60
50 * 50
40 * 40
30 30
20 ** 20
10 ** 10
0 * * * * * * * ** 0
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +--- - + - - - -+
0 10 20 30 40
PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+----+ ---- +---- +-- -- +---- +---- - +----+
15 15
10
5
0 10 20 30 40
10
5
t l l
0 10 20 30 40
10
5
10
SPEEDPLOT 2 Spot Speed Analysis Ver. 2.00A /McTRANS
CORONA DEL MAR: BAYSIDE W/O MARGUERITE
DIRECTION(S) ....... e /w
DATE ...............11/ 1/2004
TIME ............... 7:00
POSTED SPEED LIMIT.25 MPH
50TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................31
85TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................36
10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 27 through 36
PERCENT IN PACE SPEED .............. 77.7
PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED............ 9.7
PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED........... 12.6
RANGE OF SPEEDS .................18 to 41
VEHICLES OBSERVED ....................103
AVERAGE SPEED .......................31.1
CUMULATIVE PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
100 * * * * * * *10
90 ** 90
80 80
70 * 70
60 60
50 * 50
40 40
30 30
20 * 20
10 * 10
0 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 0
+----+----+---- +---- +- --- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
0 10 20 30 40
PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +---- +--- - +---- +---- +---- + - -- -+
15
10
5
d
+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+---`+-----
0 10 20 30 40
15
10
5
CUM
MPH
NO.
PCT.
PCT.
0
0
0.0
0.0
1
0
0.0
0.0
2
0
0.0
0.0
3
0
0.0
0.0
4
0
0.0
0.0
5
0
0.0
0.0
6
0
0.0
0.0
7
0
0.0
0.0
8
0
0.0
0.0
9
0
0.0
0.0
10
0
0.0
0.0
11
0
0.0
0.0
12
0
010
0.0
13
0
0.0
0.0
14
0
0.0
0.0
15
0
0.0
0.0
16
0
0.0
0.0
17
0
0.0
0.0
18
1
1.0
1.0
19
0
0.0
1.0
20
2
1.9
2.9
21
3
2.9
5,8
22
0
0.0
5.8
23
1
1.0
6.8
24
0
0.0
6.8
25
4
3.9
10.7
26
2
1.9
12.6
27
6
5.8
18.4
28
6
5.8
24.3
29
11
10.7
35.0
30
8
7.8
42.7
31
10
9.7
52.4
32
11
10.7
63.1
33
5
4.9
68.0
34
8
7.8
75.7
35
9
8.7
84.5
36
6
5.8
90.3
37
2
1.9
92.2
38
2
1.9
94.2
39
3
2.9
97.1
40
2
1.9
99.0
41
1
1.0
100.0
42
0
0.0
100.0
43
0
0.0
100.0
44
0
0.0
100.0
45
0
0.0
100.0
46
0
0.0
100.0
>46
0
0.0
100.0
50TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................31
85TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................36
10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 27 through 36
PERCENT IN PACE SPEED .............. 77.7
PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED............ 9.7
PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED........... 12.6
RANGE OF SPEEDS .................18 to 41
VEHICLES OBSERVED ....................103
AVERAGE SPEED .......................31.1
CUMULATIVE PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
100 * * * * * * *10
90 ** 90
80 80
70 * 70
60 60
50 * 50
40 40
30 30
20 * 20
10 * 10
0 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 0
+----+----+---- +---- +- --- +---- +---- +---- + - - - -+
0 10 20 30 40
PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +---- +--- - +---- +---- +---- + - -- -+
15
10
5
d
+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+---`+-----
0 10 20 30 40
15
10
5
SPEEDPLOT 2 Spot Speed Analysis Ver. 2.00A /McTRANS
CORONA DEL MAR: BAYSIDE W/0 MARGUERITE
DIRECTION(S) ....... e /w
DATE ...............11/ 1/2004
TIME ............... 12:00
POSTED SPEED LIMIT.25 MPH
50TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................31
85TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................36
10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 26 through 35
PERCENT IN PACE SPEED .............. 78.6
PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED............ 16.5
PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED........... 4.9
RANGE OF SPEEDS .................24 to 41
VEHICLES 08SERVED ....................103
AVERAGE SPEED .......................31.5
CUMULATIVE PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +--- - +---- +---- +-- -- +---- + - - - -+
100 * * * * * * *10
90 * 90
80 * 80
70 * 70
60 * 60
50 * 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 * 10
0 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 0
+----+----+---- +- --- +--- - +---- +-- -- +---- + - - - -+
0 10 20 30 40
PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +---- +--- - +---- +-- -- +---- + - - - -+
15 15
10
5
+----+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +- -- --
0 10 20 30 40
10
5
CUM
MPH
NO.
PCT.
PCT.
0
0
0.0
0.0
1
0
0.0
0.0
2
0
0.0
0.0
3
0
0.0
0.0
4
0
0.0
0.0
5
0
0.0
0.0
6
0
0.0
0.0
7
0
0.0
0.0
8
0
0.0
0.0
9
0
0.0
0.0
10
0
0.0
0.0
11
0
0.0
0.0
12
0
0.0
0.0
13
0
0.0
0.0
14
0
0.0
0.0
15
0
0.0
0.0
16
0
0.0
0.0
17
0
0.0
0.0
18
0
0.0
0.0
19
0
0.0
0.0
20
0
0.0
0.0
21
0
0.0
0.0
22
0
0.0
0.0
23
0
0.0
0.0
24
1
1.0
1.0
25
4
3.9
4.9
26
5
4.9
9.7
27
7
6.8
16.5
28
8
7.8
24.3
29
11
10.7
35.0
30
9
8.7
43.7
31
8
7.8
51.5
32
9
8.7
60.2
33
10
9.7
69.9
34
8
7.B
77.7
35
6
5.8
83.5
36
4
3.9
87.4
37
5
4.9
92.2
38
2
1.9
94.2
39
3
2.9
97.1
40
2
1.9
99.0
41
1
1.0
100.0
42
0
0.0
100.0
43
0
0.0
100.0
44
0
0.0
100.0
45
0
0.0
100.0
46
0
0.0
100.0
>46
0
0.0
100.0
50TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................31
85TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................36
10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 26 through 35
PERCENT IN PACE SPEED .............. 78.6
PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED............ 16.5
PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED........... 4.9
RANGE OF SPEEDS .................24 to 41
VEHICLES 08SERVED ....................103
AVERAGE SPEED .......................31.5
CUMULATIVE PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +--- - +---- +---- +-- -- +---- + - - - -+
100 * * * * * * *10
90 * 90
80 * 80
70 * 70
60 * 60
50 * 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 * 10
0 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 0
+----+----+---- +- --- +--- - +---- +-- -- +---- + - - - -+
0 10 20 30 40
PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +---- +--- - +---- +-- -- +---- + - - - -+
15 15
10
5
+----+----+----+---- +---- +---- +---- +---- +- -- --
0 10 20 30 40
10
5
SPEEDPLOT 2 Spot Speed Analysis Ver, 2.00A /McTRANS
CORONA DEL MAR: BAYSIDE W/O MARGUERITE
DIRECTION(S) ....... e /w
DATE ...............11/ 1/2004
TIME ............... 4:00
POSTED SPEED LIMIT.25 MPH
50TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................32
85TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................37
10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 28 through 37
PERCENT IN PACE SPEED .............. 68.2
PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED............ 11.8
PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED........... 20.0
RANGE OF SPEEDS .................17 to 44
VEHICLES OBSERVED ....................110
AVERAGE SPEED .......................31.6
CUMULATIVE PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +- --- +---- +- -- - +---- +---- +- - --+
100 * * * * * *10
90 ** 90
80 60
70 * 70
60 * 60
so so
40 * 40
30 * 30
20 * 20
10 * * ** 10
0 * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * ** 0
+----+----+---- +---- +- --- +---- +-- -- +---- + - - - -+
0 10 20 30 40
PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +- --- +---- +-- -- +-- -- +- --- + - - - -+
15
10
5
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +-- -- +-- -- +---- +-- - -+
0 10 20 30 40
15
10
5
CUM
MPH
NO.
PCT.
PCT.
0
- --
0
-- --
0.0
--- --
0.0
1
0
0.0
0.0
2
0
0.0
0.0
3
0
0.0
0.0
4
0
0.0
0.0
5
0
0.0
0.0
6
0
0.0
0.0
7
0
0.0
0.0
8
0
0.0
0.0
9
0
0.0
0.0
10
0
0.0
0.0
11
0
0.0
0.0
12
0
0.0
0.0
13
0
0.0
0.0
14
0
0.0
0.0
15
0
0.0
0.0
16
0
0.0
0.0
17
1
0.9
0.9
16
0
0.0
0.9
19
2
1.8
2.7
20
2
1.8
4.5
21
2
1.8
6.4
22
2
1.6
8.2
23
1
0.9
9.1
24
2
1.B
10.9
25
1
0.9
11.8
26
5
4.5
16.4
27
4
3.6
20.0
28
5
4.5
24.5
29
8
7.3
31.8
30
9
8,2
40.0
31
9
8.2
48.2
32
6
5.5
53.6
33
9
8.2
61.8
34
8
7.3
69.1
35
7
6.4
75.5
36
8
7.3
82.7
37
6
5.5
88.2
38
4
3.6
91.8
39
2
1.8
93.6
40
2
1.8
95.5
41
3
2.7
98.2
42
1
0.9
99.1
43
0
0.0
99.1
44
1
0.9
100.0
45
0
0.0
100.0
46
0
0.0
100.0
>46
0
0.0
100.0
50TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................32
85TH PERCENTILE SPEED .................37
10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 28 through 37
PERCENT IN PACE SPEED .............. 68.2
PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED............ 11.8
PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED........... 20.0
RANGE OF SPEEDS .................17 to 44
VEHICLES OBSERVED ....................110
AVERAGE SPEED .......................31.6
CUMULATIVE PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +- --- +---- +- -- - +---- +---- +- - --+
100 * * * * * *10
90 ** 90
80 60
70 * 70
60 * 60
so so
40 * 40
30 * 30
20 * 20
10 * * ** 10
0 * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * ** 0
+----+----+---- +---- +- --- +---- +-- -- +---- + - - - -+
0 10 20 30 40
PERCENT VS. SPEED (MPH)
+----+----+---- +- --- +---- +-- -- +-- -- +- --- + - - - -+
15
10
5
+----+----+---- +---- +---- +-- -- +-- -- +---- +-- - -+
0 10 20 30 40
15
10
5