Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout15 - Parking Requirement for DuplexesCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 15 September 27, 2005 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3209, jmurillo @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Code Amendment No. 2005 -010 amending Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code to increase the minimum parking requirement for duplexes not located within the Coastal Zone or Old Corona del Mar from 1.5 spaces per unit to 2.0 spaces per unit. (PA2005 -201) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve Code Amendment No. 2005 -010 by introducing the attached draft ordinance. DISCUSSION Background At the June 28, 2005 City Council meeting, the City Council approved a change to the parking requirements for residential condominium conversions. During the meeting, the Council indicated their concern with the current parking standards for duplexes not being consistent citywide. The Council suggested that the parking standards be made consistent requiring 2 spaces per unit for all R -2 properties. Staff prepared this Code Amendment pursuant to this direction, and the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the amendment on August 4, 2005. The differing parking standards for R -2 zoned properties evolved over time, beginning with the enactment of the California Coastal Act of 1976. Prior to this event, all duplexes required a minimum of 3 parking spaces (1.5 spaces per unit). Properties located within the coastal zone were then required to provide a minimum of 2 parking spaces per unit in order to avoid Coastal Commission review. In 1990, the parking standards for R -2 zoned properties located within the area delineated as Old Corona del Mar was then increased from 1.5 spaces per unit to 2 spaces per unit. And, as part of Parking Standards for Duplexes September 27, 2005 Page 2 the 1997 reorganization of the Zoning Code, the requirement to provide a minimum of 2 spaces per unit for R -2 zoned properties within the coastal zone was finally codified to reflect the Coastal Commission requirement. To date, R -2 zoned properties not located within the coastal zone, or within the area of Old Corona del Mar, require only 1.5 spaces per unit. Analysis The change to Chapter 20.66 (Off - Street Parking and Loading Regulations) will simply require 2 parking spaces per unit for all R -2 properties. There are 3,622 R -2 zoned properties within the City and only 136 of those properties (3.8 %) are located outside the coastal zone and outside of the area of Old Corona del Mar. These properties are all located within the Newport Heights Area, Statistical Division H of the Land Use Element of the General Plan (See Exhibit 2 — Map of Affected R -2 Properties). The construction of a new duplex on any of the 136 properties will require 4 total parking spaces, with 2 of these spaces being covered, identical to the construction of a duplex in other areas of the City. The change will also affect those of the 136 properties that presently do not provide 4 complying parking spaces. Additions to these nonconforming structures would be limited pursuant to Chapter 20.62 (Nonconforming Structures and Uses) and no new habitable rooms could be added without providing the additional parking spaces. Converting these nonconforming duplexes to condominiums would also be limited should the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to the condominium conversion parking standards (appears as a separate item on this agenda). Environmental Review The proposed action is not defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and procedure making activities not associated with a project or a physical change in the environment (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines). Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the local Daily Pilot newspaper and mailed to the 136 property owners affected by the proposed change to the R -2 parking amendment. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Parking Standards for Duplexes September 27, 2005 Page 3 Altematives The City Council can choose not to adopt the proposed amendment. Prepared by: Submitted by: - Jain'% Murillo Patricia . Temple Associate Planner Planning Director Attachments: 1. Draft Ordinance approving Code Amendment No. 2005 -010. 2. Map of Affected R -2 Properties 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005 -1675 4. August 4, 2005 Planning Commission Minutes 5. June 28, 2005 City Council Minutes ATTACHMENT 1 Draft Ordinance No. ORDINANCE 2005- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 20.66 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCREASE THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR R -2 PROPERTIES NOT LOCATED WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE OR OLD CORONA DEL MAR FROM 1.5 SPACES PER UNIT TO 2 SPACES PER UNIT (CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2005 -010). WHEREAS, Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code currently requires properties within the R -2 zoning district to provide a minimum of 1.5 parking spaces per unit, with the exception of R -2 properties located with the Coastal Zone or within the area of Old Corona del Mar, where a minimum of 2 spaces per unit must be provided; and WHEREAS, at the June 28, 2005 City Council meeting, the Council directed the Planning Commission to review potential amendments to Title 20 of the Municipal Code to establish a consistent parking requirementfor all duplexes and evaluate the condominium conversion parking regulations of Title 19 applicable to duplexes; and WHEREAS, on August 4, 2005, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach held duly noticed public hearings regarding this Code Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of this Code Amendment to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council on September 27, 2005, held duly noticed public hearings regarding this Code Amendment; and WHEREAS, by simplifying the parking standards of Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code to require that all R -2 zoned properties provide a minimum of 2 spaces per unit, an equitable and consistent application of parking standards for R -2 properties will be achieved: and WHEREAS, the proposed action is not defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and procedure making activities not associated with a project or a physical change in the environment (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code shall be amended to revise Section 20.66.030 (Off - Street Parking and Loading Spaces Required), specifically related to the minimum parking requirements for Two - Family Residential uses as follows: 7 Ordinance No. 2005- Off -Street Parking and Loading Spaces Required Use Classification Off -Street Parking Spaces Off -Street Loading Spaces RES IDENT /AL TWO - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R -1.5 District: 2 per unit with a minimum of 2 enclosed per site. All other districts: 2 per unit, including 1 covered. All other provisions of Chapter 20.66 shall remain unchanged. SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on September 27, 2005, and adopted on the _day of October, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: W NOES: ABSENT: y • fel ATTEST: CITY CLERK U ATTACHMENT 2 Map of Affected R -2 Properties i WR ..1'.�� " ice` • ;.►� � ♦�� �`�O� ` ♦`� � � � TURNING BASIN C LIDO ISLE �4.W�.oer Vicinity Map Location of Properties Zoned R -2 °• T,Gx�' that are Outside the Coastal Zone and Not a Part of Old Corona del Mar sN1 F, III WE 0 445 890 111 Feet Ii NW ATTACHMENT 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005 -1675 0 RESOLUTION NO. 1675 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2005-008 RELATED TO PARKING STANDARDS FOR DUPLEXES AND CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS (PA 2005 -168). WHEREAS, in 1994, the City Council adopted amendments to the condominium conversions standards of Title 19 in an effort to facilitate the conversion of smaller rental units to potential affordable ownership units, and while maintaining a balance of rental and ownership opportunities; and WHEREAS, the amendments to the condominium conversion standards were anticipated to increase home ownership which eventually would improve the visual character of the area by providing a greater sense of pride in ownership and a vested interest in the maintenance of the property; and WHEREAS, on June 28, 2005 the City Council determined that the desired effects of the original objectives of the 1994 Code Amendment may not have been achieved and introduced Ordinance No. 2005 -12 amending the parking requirements for residential conversion projects consisting of 3 or more units to provide the number of off - street parking spaces in conformance with current parking standards; and WHEREAS, Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code currently requires properties within the R -2 zoning district to provide a minimum of 1.5 parking spaces per unit, with the exception of R -2 properties located with the Coastal Zone or within the area of Old Corona del Mar, where a minimum of 2 spaces per unit must be provided; and WHEREAS, at the June 28, 2005 City Council meeting, the Council directed the Planning Commission to review potential amendments to Title 20 of the Municipal Code to establish a consistent parking requirement for all duplexes and evaluate the condominium conversion parking regulations of Title 19 applicable to duplexes; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on August 4, 2005, held duly noticed public hearing regarding this code amendment; and WHEREAS, by simplifying the parking standards of Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code to require that all R -2 zoned properties provide a minimum of 2 spaces per unit, an equitable and consistent application of parking standards for R -2 properties will be achieved; and 1a City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, the current condominium conversion regulations of Title 19 (Section 19.64.070.A) allow the conversion of a duplex to comply with the minimum number of off- street parking spaces that were required at the time of original construction, provided there is a minimum of 1 covered space per dwelling unit; and WHEREAS, by maintaining the current minimum parking regulations for the conversions of duplexes, the City risks preserving older non - conforming housing stock that is more reliant on street parking and constructed to older building code standards; and WHEREAS, the proposed action is not defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and procedure making activities not associated with a project or a physical change in the environment (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED SECTION 1: Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code shall be amended to revise Section 20.66.030 (Off - Street Parking and Loading Spaces Required), specifically related to the minimum parking requirements for Two - Family Residential uses as follows: Off- Street Parking and Loading Spaces Required Use Classification Off Street Parking Spaces Off Street Loading Spaces RES/DENTMAL TWO - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R -1.5 District: 2 per unit with a - -- minimum of enclosed per site. All other districts: 2 per unit, including l covered. All other provisions of Chapter 20.66 shall remain unchanged. SECTION 2: Title 19 (Subdivision Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code shall be amended to revise Section 19.64.070.A as follows: "A. Off - Street Parking Requirements Residential Conversions. The minimum number, and the design and location of, off - street parking spaces shall be provided in conformance lk City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 3 of 3 with the provisions of Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code (Off - Street Parking and Loading Regulations) in effect at the time of approval of the conversion. 2. Nonresidential Conversions. The number of off- street parking spaces that were required at the time of 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 of the Municipal Code (Off - Street Parking and Loading Regulations)." All other provisions of Chapter 19.64 shall remain unchanged. SECTION 3: Should the City Council adopt the amendment to Title 19 (Subdivision Code), the effective date of the ordinance should be 6 months from the date of adoption and that any condominium conversion application of a duplex deemed complete prior to the effective date of the ordinance should not be subject to the amendment. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2005. AYES: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker. McDaniel and Henn NOES: ABSENT: BY: Michael Taa __,Chaifrnan E ATTACHMENT 4 August 4, 2005 Planning Commission Minutes 13 Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 EGT: Parking standards for duplexes Code Amendment No. 2005 -008 (PA2005 -168) • Amendment No. 2005 -008 amending Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal • to increase the minimum parking requirement for duplexes not ted within the Coastal Zone or Old Corona del Mar from 1.5 Spaces Unit to 2.0 spaces per unit and amendment to Title 19 of the Municipal e (Subdivisions) related to minimum parking standards for the iersion of a duplex to condominiums (PA 2005 -168). Murillo, gave a brief overview of the staff report noting: • At the June 28th meeting, the City Council adopted condo conversion regulations for projects three units or more to provide the number of off - street parking spaces required by the parking standards in effect at the time of conversion. • In addition to the public comments received on the issue, the Council indicated the concern of the current parking standards for duplexes not being consistent and suggested that the parking standards be amended. • Therefore, two unit projects were excluded from the ordinance and Council directed staff to prepare the subsequent amendment for the Planning Commission to evaluate. • The Code amendment proposed tonight is intended to address the Council's concern and consists of two components: first, staff recommends amending Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code to increase the minimum parking requirement for all R -2 zone properties to two spaces per unit minimum in order to establish citywide consistent parking requirements; second, staff recommends amending the condo conversion regulations of Title 19 to increase the minimum parking requirement for the conversion of a duplex consistent with the requirements for larger projects. • The amendment will simply require the conversion of a duplex to require parking and conformance with the current parking standards which in effect will reduce the preservation of older non - conforming structures. • A detail analysis of these amendments are provided in the staff report. Tucker asked if this was adopted by the City Council, when it be effective? Ir. Harp answered it would be effective 30 days after the second reading Is. Temple added that in the prior action on the condominium of three nits or more, the Council adopted a fairly substantial period before which le ordinance would become effective and that any application received nd deemed complete prior to the time frame would be allowed to move irward under the rules in existence today. I would expect that the Council ,ould take a similar action on this. http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas /mn08- 04- 05.htm Page 1 of 8 ITEM NO. 5 PA2005 -188 for approval 08/29/2005 0 Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 e Commission would make recommendations to the City Council on iendments to the Zoning Code and in this case they ask also for your riew of this particular amendment to the Subdivision Code, which does t require your consideration. Normally, we would consider the effective to of the ordinance to be something that the Council establishes as a after of policy and that would come forward with similar suggested action ien the ordinance is introduced at the City Council level. However, if the tablishment of a similar grace period is important for your consideration d recommendation of this change, then you should ask staff to add that as an additional section in the resolution. mmissioner Tucker noted it is important for him as there are people out ire who have some desire to convert and maybe this is last call. If we !re to do that, the language that was in the Council's resolution, an plication was deemed complete by a specific date. Could you tell us iat deemed complete means, if we are going to include that language as !ll? s. Temple explained that'deemed complete' is a technical identification a step contained within the California Permit Streamlining Act. Usually, hen we receive an application from an applicant, there may be questions at staff has, or requests for additional information. Staff is required to ovide the applicant within the minimum period of thirty days the specific ;ms which need to be added in order for the application to be considered complete application. Once that process is concluded, the application is eemed complete' and thus it would start the timeframes of action !quirement pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act. However, we often >e that step as an identifier for times when we think an application is efficiently complete in order for staff to analyze it and bring it forward for ommission and /or Council consideration. ommissioner Tucker asked if you need it deemed complete for the CEQA art of an application? The deemed complete part of this, unless someone es an application that didn't require any additional information, so there is timeframe beyond filing the application. 3. Temple answered if a project also required an environmental termination and information was needed in order to make that ,termination such as it was a larger project needing an initial study or an R, then we would deem it complete when we had all the information we .eded to proceed with the study as well. It is very specific wording in ate planning law. ommissioner Tucker asked if we adopted this and someone came along nd had an application that was deemed complete and therefore qualified nder the prior law, how long would they have under that permit to actually onclude that conversion? How long do they have once they have the ght to convert in which to complete the conversion before the conversion ght lapses? Page 2 of 8 k✓ httn: / /www.citv.newnort- beach. ca.us /PlnA2endas /mn08- 04- OS.htm 08/29/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 s. Temple answered that the Permit Streamlining Act requires the City tc ke final action at whatever body level is required within a period of 180 iys. The Subdivision Map Act has a three year horizon for an approval. ie added that our Code allows for extensions of not only maps but all ou scretionary applications beyond the 24 months that are specified. missioner Tucker asked if an extension was requested would the cant have to comply with the all then parking requirements? In other s, your approval would no longer comply, am I wrong on that? answered they would have to check that. missioner Tucker noted this would be of interest because typically king when I come up against one of those type of issues, the fear I is the new requirements that are out there. One of the findings for ision is that the approval complies with all the requirements. Harp noted our Code does not have any findings for an extension. Temple added that we have always considered our extension ,isions to allow the extension of the approval as approved originally. It us a total of 5 years and then there are no further extensions. Harp noted that typically ordinances are effective 30 days after the end reading so if you are going to make modifications it would have to expressed in the enabling ordinance. )mmissioner Hawkins noted in connection to the change to the off street rking and loading spaces required, the proposal is to change from 1.5 t( what is the effect of the current code requirement of 1.5? Do you get 2 rs in the 1.5, a big car in 1.5, or more storage? >. Temple answered that in those areas that still carry the zoning which i ally limited in town that if someone chose to implement their project in at fashion, you would end up with one 2 -car garage that would serve one the units and one 1 -car garage or carport serving the other. imissioner Cole stated his understanding there are R2 properties that not in the Coastal Zone, is that all we are in effect dealing with just ,e units outside of the Coastal Zone? Murillo answered yes, for this part of the amendment. airperson Toerge noted there is another part of the amendment being nsidered too a change to Title 19 of the Municipal Code which would quire that condominium conversions be required to have current code rking at the time they are converted whatever that current code is. blic comment was opened. Page 3 of 8 1� httn: / /www.citv.newt)ort- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas /mn08- 04- 05.htm 08/29/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 Johnson, resident, noted: • If the ordinance that was approved in 1994 allowing people to conve their properties should you now decide to change the ordinance and make the conversions all comply to 2 car, she requested that notification be sent to the 3,000+ property owners of that change. • When the ordinance was first adopted in 1994, the momentum did not pick up until 5 -7 years later. Most of the conversions were for new construction so a lot of the figures are for new units that do comply. It took years for the older units to want to convert, split the properties. • All the property owners need to be notified otherwise we are doing a dis- service to the community. Davis, duplex owner in Corona del Mar, noted: • The change will effect her property and now it will be improper for her to do what I want to do to her property. • It is not fair. • She stated notices should be sent to all property owners. Coles noted: • This is a significant issue for duplex owners and you need to allow enough time for people to make their applications or allow them to speak their objections. • Property duplexes options would be limited. ublic comment was closed. issioner Tucker asked if it is feasible to notify everybody with an R -2 property? Temple noted that we did direct notice all property owners whose ing requirements are actually being changed, about 186. It would take e time but we can develop a list for ones that are solely affected by the mmissioner Tucker noted it is important that we have notice put out re. I don't want it to be a legal requirement of this, I just think as a itical matter everyone ought to have a chance to weigh in on this and )w what is going on. The reason I don't want the legal part of this I don't nt to hear people showing up saying they didn't get noticed. s. Temple noted she will work with Mr. Harp on the form of the notice cause amendments to the Subdivision Code do not require noticing. It II be considered a community outreach. Hawkins asked that the notice for this hearing complied Page 4 of 8 \'A htti)://www.citv.newport-beach.ca.us/PlrlAgendas/mnO8-04-05.htm 08/29/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 law and our own Code, correct? r. Harp answered yes. 3cussion followed on MFR and R -1.5 properties, the mailing will be sent R -2 property owners. Tucker noted: 'deemed complete' - I would look at something on the order of 6 months after the ordinance is adopted to get an application in and have it deemed complete. At that point it still would have to go through the process and get approved. There are three years to implement those approvals with the potential of extending it another two years. I think if we do a reasonable job of giving notice, those with duplexes, almost everybody is going to know there is an issue out there. It will create a rush to get these things done, but I think it is fair to give people the warning. Our goal is to get things to conform and I support what staff has prepared. I would suggest to the Council that six months or some timeframe other than the normal course of 30 days after the second reading, I think that is too short a period of time. mmissioner McDaniel asked how long it takes an applicant to get an plication deemed complete? Campbell answered that typically an application comes in and we iiew it within two weeks and it might take a couple of days or a couple of nutes to review the application. An application with additional submittal m and applicant can range anywhere from two weeks to sixty days pending upon the complexity of the application. For a condo conversion, ate law requires a 60 day prior notice of the tenants that you are ending to convert. So people need to understand that if they are going rush in and bring an application, they need to provide notice to the cants 60 days in advance of filing the application. nmissioner McDaniel noted that 6 months is ample time yet no matter i long we give, I agree, there will be problems. We have done the best can and I support 6 months. :hairperson Toerge noted that the current Code that was amended in 994 essentially preserves older, non - conforming structures with under - upplied parking. I don't know anybody that feels a condominium today rhether existing or not existing should have only one car parking. It oesn't make sense. I am baffled on the inequity our Code places on new onstruction when in fact it allows a conversion to have just one parking pace. I am in favor of this modification. He then noted that other coastal ities in our vicinity all require with a condo conversion that it be Page 5 of 8 httn: / /www.citv.newnort- beach. ca.us /PlnAuendas /mn08- 04- 05.htm 08/29/2005 0 Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 :ompanied with current code parking. Ours is the only coastal city in ange County where this is allowed. It was created in 1994 to correct a blem which was largely identified to be in West Newport but yet the atest bulk (75% roughly) of the conversions have appeared in Corona Mar. I respect the speakers tonight because those people who have de an investment in their real estate with the expectation of employing codes we have should be a part of the process and should be down e and involved in protecting their investments. The Newport Heights a that represents only about 4% of the current duplexes in the city, I see reason why they should not be two per unit. As for the effective date, I ee that no matter how much time is given, there is going to be a tleneck at the end of that period of time. I think that six months might more than I was going, I was thinking more of 90 or 120 days to give arybody the opportunity to go through the process. I support this finance primarily due to the incremental erosion of the quality of life that / one of these projects tends to impose on the community. We are king at the overall impact of this across the entire city and on that basis t I am more concerned with the quality of our environment and the living iditions in our community. ommissioner Eaton noted his agreement with the Chairman. He noted ie need for the conversions to have two car garages. Re -doing a project ito a condominium is perpetuating the existing problem present in many uplex areas and that is insufficient parking. The concern I have is of erpetuating the nonconforming buildings. It will be impossible for two wners to agree on when to rebuild and how to rebuild and how to allocate ie costs. It is going to make it difficult to assume those buildings ever get sbuilt and become conforming. Finally, if you are talking about the wnership of low cost housing, a small unit of less than 800 square feet ke we had in front of us tonight, at $700,000 and the building was almost 0 years old starting out with only a one car garage, that is not moderate ost housing in my opinion. I endorse this ordinance. Considering the leemed complete' requires a month or so at the end and the prior otification requires two months in the beginning, six months probably is sasonable. ;ommissioner Hawkins noted this will increase the parking requirements or a condo conversion, but I think the parking situation and the parking supply in the city will be quickly exhausted if we stay with the current code equirements. I do believe that our recommendation in connection with thi,, )rdinance is important and will preserve and enhance the parking supply. im sympathetic with the burden it will impose upon property owners both n Corona del Mar, Newport Heights as well as West Newport, but as the :hairman said, we need to look out for the entire City and the City's esources. I will favor this recommendation. The timing issue focuses on he end point, when an application is deemed complete. There may be another way to calculate the timing and that is when the application is iled. Is there a difference in work load if we do it on the day the application is filed, does that alleviate staff of some work compression that vas addressed earlier. Page 6 of 8 J° httn: / /www. city. newnort- heach. ca.usIPInAeendas /mn08- 04- 05.htm 08/29/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 Temple answered the real answer depends on the knowledge and gence of the applicant and how interested he is in achieving short term ution. I can foresee that someone just files a piece of paper to say he s filed an application, with virtually no supporting requirements. It may and embark on an every 30 day correspondence of what is needed, or, application will die after a period of time. I don't know if it makes much 'erence. If we get a lot of applications in right before the timeframe all it es is make the compression a little further out. There is no time savings s the Council has already adopted an ordinance that specifies a replete application and I would not want to have two different luirements. The difference between the two unit condos and the other idos related to the general sophistication of the applicants is in fact 'erent. You will see more of an individual mom or pop, not one of those scialized people, who are just converting their own home. Those people I find the process a little more confusing and will need more time. mmissioner Hawkins noted there was an approved action in connectior i larger condominium projects. I believe the Council set a date certain which applications needed to be deemed complete. Is it feasible to re a recommendation to have that particular date, not matter what it is? Campbell answered they could look at that as a possibility. He is ;erned that about the time this gets to the Council and it may be ientious that 60 day prior notice period might get a little tough so it may d to be effective after the effective date of the prior amendment of the ncil adopted. We will take a look at that too. clarified that the noticing is to be done prior to the City Council )tion was made by Chairperson Toerge to recommend approval of Code iendment No. 2005 -008 amending Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code increase the minimum parking requirement for duplexes from 1.5 space: r unit to 2.0 spaces per unit and amendment to Title 19 of the Municipal de related to minimum parking standards for the conversion of a duplex condominiums (PA2005 -168) with the proviso that the effective date be months after the second reading and date of adoption by the City uncil. nissioner Tucker asked if we need to do anything for the non - �rsion aspect of this, is six months too much? We really have two to this. 3. Temple noted that we do not have to break apart your resolution of ;ommendation.. However, that is a good point and we will likely forward the Council two separate ordinances so that one would be effective in vs and one would be effective six months from the date of the second followed regarding people applying for condominium Page 7 of 8 NO htto: / /www.citv.newoort- beach. ca.us /PlnA2endas /mnO8- 04- 05.htm 08/29/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 08/04/2005 inversions having the 6 months and the difference from someone coming for a building permit for new construction or a major remodel to one of existing buildings and the plan review requiring two spaces per unit nissioner Eaton noted the motion is the amendment to Title 19 would the effective date of 6 months for applications deemed complete. maker of the motion agreed. ;: Eaton, Hawkins, None None None Toerge, McDaniel, Tucker and http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.usiP1nAgendas /mnO8- 04- 05.htm Page 8 of 8 08/29/2005 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes June 2&, 2005 Ayes: Selich, Rosansky, Webb, Ridgeway, Daigle, Mayor Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Nichols N. CONTINUED BUSINESS [continued] 25. CODE AMENDMENT NO" 200b -001 AMENDING TITLE 19 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO PARKING STANDARDS FOR CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS (PA 2005 -015) (contd. from 5/10/05 & 6114/05). City Clerk Harkless clarified that the ordinance will be passed to second reading at the next meeting. Council Member Rosansby recused himself because he owns several properties that may be affected. Council Member Ridgeway recused himself because of a possible conflict of interest. Associate Planner Murillo reviewed the staff report, stating that it was determined at the November 9, 2004 Council meeting that the desired effects of the 1994 update to the condominium conversion standards may not have been achieved and Council directed staff to return with potential changes to the minimum parking standards. He reported that Option 1 increases the minimum parking standards for condo conversions to conform to today's current standards, Option 2 increases the minimum parking standards to two spaces per unit, Option 3 increases the minimum parking standards to 1.5 spaces per unit, and Option 4 maintains the current standards which allows the same number of spaces that were required at the time of original construction, as long as a minimum of one space per unit is provided. He stated that, based on the analysis and to reduce the risk of preserving the older non - conforming housing stock, staff is recommending that Council either adopt Option 1 or Option 2. He indicated that either option will prevent the conversion of units built prior to 1989 if the structures were constructed with the minimum parking standards in effect at that time. However, Option 1 still allows the conversion of smaller projects (duplexes and triplexes) which may meet the current parking standards today, but nearly eliminates the conversion opportunities for larger apartments since few have been built since 1989 and few provide more than 2 spaces per unit. He noted that Option 2 will facilitate the conversion of larger apartments by allowing conversions when at least a minimum of two spaces per unit are provided. Associate Planner Murillo reported that the original proposed ordinance did not include a grandfather clause delaying the effective date of the ordinance to accommodate applications which may currently be under preparation, so staff recommends that the effective date of the adopted ordinance be 60 days after the date of second reading and that any application deemed complete by the effective date be allowed to proceed under the existing rules in effect prior to the amendment. . Associate Planner Murillo stated that staff received three letters and comments from the public related to this amendment. He indicated that Volume 57 -Page 331 INDEX (100.2005) City of Newport Beach. City Council Minutes June 28, 2005 `�� local developer, Barry Saywitz, expressed concern that the data in the November staff report was inaccurate regarding the number of units that were approved for conversion since 1995. He reported that they reviewed the data for accuracy and concluded that it is accurate; however, confusion could've occurred because the data only showed converted units that completed the conversion process and are recognized by the County Tax Assessor as a condominium unit. He stated that, in an effort to provide a different approach to the analysis, staff tallied and mapped the geographical locations of all condo conversion applications that were submitted to the City since 1995. He indicated that staff concluded that the geographical distribution of conversion applications is similar to the prior analysis. In response to Mayor Pro Tern Webb's questions, Associate Planner Murillo confirmed that the current standard is 1.5 spaces per unit unless in Corona del Mar or the Coastal Zone. However, triplexes and larger apartment buildings have guest parking requirements. He stated that this ordinance would apply only to conversions. Council Member Selich reported that the Planning Commission did not review condo conversions for duplexes because those went through the Modifications Committee and only came before the Commission if they were appealed. He stated that the project that brought this to light was a seven unit condo conversion on Bayside and Marguerite because the Commission was concerned about only providing seven parking spaces and its impact on street parking. He indicated that they brought this to Council's attention and Council elected to initiate this code amendment. He noted that he contacted all the coastal cities in the County to see how they handle this situation, and reported that all the cities have small lots and similar ages of housing stock. He stated that all of the cities require that condo conversions meet the parking standards in effect at the time of conversion. He pointed out that the zoning code has a large section about non - conforming uses and one of the goals of the zoning code is to eventually bring non - conforming uses into conformance. He noted that the duplexes that are under - parked are non - conforming uses and, if the City allows condo conversions without requiring that they meet current parking standards, then it is perpetuating the continuation of non- conforming uses. Council Member Daigle stated that the City doesn't know if the standards in other communities are relaxed. She expressed concern about affordability and that going to two spaces means they'd have to clear a lot. She stated that she doesn't advocate two spaces, but could probably support 1.5 spaces. She indicated that the City needs to be sensitive to the people with projects already in the pipe. Assistant City Manager Wood stated that the City originally eased up the requirements on condo conversions in the hopes of providing more homeownership opportunities. Associate Planner Murillo stated that they looked at converted units that are recognized by the County as a condominium and used the assumption that, if the site address matches the owners mailing address, it's an owner - occupied unit, otherwise its a rental unit. He reported that staff concluded that, of the converted units Volume 57 - Page $32 P,3 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes June 28, 2005 INDEX since 1995, 61% are owner- occupied and 39% are renter- occupied. He stated that they compared that to the owner- occupancy rate for all duplexes throughout the City and found that 43% are owner - occupied. Regarding the affordability issue, Council Member Selich noted that the converted units are selling for $800,000 to $1 million. He stated that there are different ways of measuring affordability, but he's not sure if this provides more affordable housing than if it stayed a rental unit. He noted that it may be easier for someone to qualify for a $2,000 or $2,500 rental unit rather than qualify to buy an $800,000+ piece of property. Council Member Daigle stated that affordability means creating ownership opportunities and believed that this was part of the original intent of this. Mayor Heffernan indicated that rents haven't skyrocketed and this is why rental affordability is more reachable than ownership. Joy Brenner stated that she has two charming duplexes in Corona del Mar, has three people in each of them, one unit has two spaces, and the other has four spaces. She believed that more people might live there if they were sold as condos and possibly even more if she bulldozed them and built them to the maximum. However, she would like the option to leave them as is and do a slight conversion to maintain their character. She noted that she doesn't object to bulldozing properties if they're dilapidated, but she doesn't want the City to do anything that's going to encourage people to bulldoze and build to the maximum so old Corona del Mar isn't lost any faster than it has to be. Assistant City Manager Wood reported that, if a property doesn't meet the property standard that Council sets, the property owner would have the option to retain it as a duplex and rent out one unit, or they would need to redevelop the property if they wanted a condominium if there was no way to provide the additional parking. Barry Saywitz took issue with staffs analysis, believing that it doesn't mean someone doesn't live at a location just because the mailing address doesn't match the title on the home since the person could have a second home or mail their bills to their work. He stated that almost all the properties he has converted into condos have been owner- occupied and are currently owner - occupied. He agreed that the prices for the condos have gone up over the years and it doesn't pencil out to make them rentals and lose money. He stated that his letter notes that there was a 50% reduction in the number of people in the units when it was a rental versus when it was converted to a condo, and added that there was also a reduction in the number of cars. He believed that this amendment precludes some of the mid -aged properties with existing two car garages from ever being converted to anything other than its present use. Scott Dalton presented a letter from a Corona del Mar resident who is in favor of keeping things as it is, offers solutions to the parking issues, and doesn't want this amendment passed. He noted that condo conversions were initially allowed to encourage ownership in West Newport and, • initially there were more conversions in Corona del Mar than West Newport; however, that has shifted and now the City's policies are working. He indicated that the seven unit building is an anomaly and Volume 67 - Page 8E$ el OA City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes June 26, 2005 INDEX suggested limiting the larger buildings. He agreed that there are less occupants in the units after the conversion. Further, the aesthetics has improved and the buildings have been brought up to code. He asked whether the 111 units that have been converted to condos are considered new construction or remodels. He requested more time and studies before the policies are changed. Laura Curran stated that she does not believe that this proposal will change the level of street parking by residents or visitors in neighborhoods that have single family or multi - family units. She indicated that there was still ample parking this morning even when 40 cars were parked on a flower street and 20 to 30 cars were parked on the school streets. She believed that staff needs to look at parking policies and how they affect parking behavior. She agreed that owner - occupied or converted condos have fewer residents. She believed that, if owners cannot convert their existing units to condos, they're more likely to keep them as rentals. Further, a permit parking policy might encourage landlords to rent to fewer people. She asked how many parking spaces would be added to each area if all rental units were rebuilt as conforming spaces. She stated that this policy also changes the value of duplexes that could be converted. She requested that existing owners have the opportunity to be grandfathered with the current policy until the property is sold or allow them one year to submit a conversion application. She encouraged staff to put out more notice about this because she only found out about it by reading the minutes. Marilyn Gill indicated that she found out about this issue when she called to get a condo conversion package and believed there should've been a mailing to everyone in Corona del Mar. She stated that she was planning to fund her retirement by converting her property to a condo and then selling one unit. She requested an extension of the effective date from 60 to 90 days from the date of adoption of the ordinance. BJ Johnson expressed concern that notices weren't sent to Corona del Mar since this would affect their pocket book and a Sot of people are planning to convert their properties. She stated that this would change the aesthetics of their village and suggested that this be postponed. She reported that, of the 37 condo sales that were done on the flower streets since December, five of those would not meet the proposed requirements. Jim Hildreth believed that this amendment tells people that their property is worthless to be resold as is. He noted that there are parking issues on Balboa Island and the Peninsula, but isn't sure if there are complaints in Corona del Mar. He stated that there may be a reason to have allowances for certain areas in Newport Beach in the interim. He recommended grandfathering these in but not allow them to do any type of remodel down the road unless they conform to the new standards. Alexander Bronna expressed his opposition to the amendment and believed that the parking issues in Corona del Mar have little to do with homeownership. He stated that there is a midrange of properties that could be cost effectively converted to preserve some of the character of the area, rather than tearing them down. He believed that the amendment is Volume 57 - Page 334 0 0 '17 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes June 28, 2005 • counterproductive and ineffective in terms of dealing with parking issues. Further, he believed that condo conversions and the individual sale of R -1 properties after the conversions will reduce the density and population in Corona del Mar. Council Member Selich stated that there are a lot of people who purchase these duplexes with certain expectations. He indicated that he could support having this go into effect after one year and that he is in favor of Option 1. Associate Planner Murillo reported that the current standard for duplexes is 1.5 spaces per unit everywhere except in Corona del Mar and the Coastal Zone. He noted that these duplexes make up about 95% of the duplexes in the City. Council Member Selich indicated that there is a problem with the parking standards not being equitable and believed that the parking standards in the zoning code should be amended. He added that the condo conversion standards should be consistent with the parking standards. Council Member Daigle stated that the data concludes that conversions mean less people and cars, but noted that there is no data on parking and how much will be generated. Further, it's questionable if this will put a dent in the parking problem. She stated that she sees this ordinance as a tear down ordinance which will change the community aesthetics and make them larger as they get developed. She believed that this is a good ordinance to spur discussions about parking issues, but not be a • mechanism to resolve them. She indicated that she could possibly support 1.5 spaces per unit, but not 2 spaces. City Attorney Clauson clarified that the proposed 60 day period extension relates to any application that is in process. She received confirmation from Council Member Selich that the one year extension means that a condo conversion permit would have to be issued within the year. She reported that pursuant to the City's Charter, in order to enact an ordinance. four votes are needed. Motion —by Council Member Selich to approve Code Amendment No. 2005 -001 by introducing Ordinance No. 2005.12 amending the Condominium Conversion Regulations of Title 19 of the Municipal Code to increase the minimum required parking standard to the current standards with an effective date of the ordinance to be one year after the date of its adoption, and that any condominium conversion applications deemed complete by the effective date be allowed to proceed under the existing regulations in effect prior to this amendment; and pass to second reading on July 26, 2005. Mayor Pro Tem Webb asked, if the City changed the parking requirement for condominiums to two spaces per unit, does this ordinance need to be modified. City Attorney Clauson indicated that, since the ordinance references current standards, that is what they would follow. Further, this action clarifies the existing code because they've just been using the standard that was in effect when the building was built. • Council Member Daigle suggested that there be 1.5 spaces per unit across the board. Assistant City Manager Wood stated that the City is able to do Volume 57 -Page 335 INDEX au City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes June 28,2005 condo conversions without meeting the current parking standards and that only new construction is required to meet the higher number. She confirmed that a condo conversion does not qualify as new construction, so the City's existing ordinance which allows a lower number of parking spaces is used. Mayor Pro Tem Webb emphasized that the vote today is to make the standards for new construction and condo conversions the same. Council Member Selich stated that the concerns that the Commission had were related to the larger buildings and offered as a compromise to have this ordinance only apply to triplexes or larger units. He indicated that the duplexes can stay as they are and possibly have the Commission look at the parking standards so there is rationality as to how it's applied. Council Member—Selich amended his motion to approve Code Amendment No. 2005 -001 by introducing Ordinance No. 2005 -12 amending the Condominium Conversion Regulations of Title 19 of the Municipal Code to increase the minimum required parking standard to the current standards for projects that are three units or larger with an effective date of the ordinance to be one year after the date of its adoption, and that any condominium conversion applications deemed complete by the effective date be allowed to proceed under the existing regulations in effect prior to this amendment; and pass to second reading on July 26, 2005. Council Member Selig amended his motion to change the effective date of the ordinance to be 90 days after the date of its adoption to have any condominium conversion application deemed complete. Council Member Selich explained that most of the comments he has received are from duplex owners. He said that there aren't that many triplexes and four - plexes. Mayor Pro Tem Webb added that the unit that was approved because there was no other way to handle it should've provided 17 parking spaces instead of 7. The amended motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Selich, Webb, Daigle, Mayor Heffernan Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Nichols Council Member Selich suggested sending the issue of duplexes back to the Commission. Mayor Pro Tem Webb asked if consistency between the Coastal Zone and Corona del Mar areas and the rest of the City can be looked at so there is one parking requirement for duplexes and condo conversions. He indicated that this can be included in the Zoning Code Update. 26. NAMING OF PARK LOCATED BEHIND THE NEWPORT BEACH CENTRAL LIBRARY (eontd. from 6114/05). Recreation and Senior Services Knight reported that they received 425 suggestions for the name of this park which were forwarded to the Parks Volume 57 - Page 3a6 1(100 -2005) 0 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Code Amendment No. 2005 -010 (PA2005 -201) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on a proposed amendment to Chapter 20.66 (Parking and Loading) of the Municipal Code. The amendment, if adopted, will increase the minimum parking requirement for duplexes from 1.5 spaces per unit to 2.0 spaces per unit. This amendment will affect all R -2 (Two Family Residential) zoned properties that are that are not located in the Coastal Zone or within Corona del Mar. This proposed amendment will make the parking requirement for the affected R -2 properties consistent with the parking requirement for duplexes zoned R -2 that are located within the Coastal Zone and Corona del Mar. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that this project is not subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under the General Rule Exemption when it is clear that an activity has no possibility that it would have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed change in a development standard does not in authorize any development projects or any physical change to the environment. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on the 27th day of September, 2005, 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 Bch 'Iii j-W) L-tA VljivS -012A-`o r `7I fG/� PO tiIA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Code Amendment No. 2005 -010 (PA2005 -201) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on a proposed amendment to Chapter 20.66 (Parking and Loading) of the Municipal Code. The amendment, if adopted, will increase the minimum parking requirement for duplexes from 1.5 spaces per unit to 2.0 spaces per unit. This amendment will affect all R -2 (Two Family Residential) zoned properties that are that are not located in the Coastal Zone or within Corona del Mar. This proposed amendment will make the parking requirement for the affected R -2 properties consistent with the parking requirement for duplexes zoned R -2 that are located within the Coastal Zone and Corona del Mar. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that this project is not subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under the General Rule Exemption when it is clear that an activity has no possibility that it would have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed change in a development standard does not in authorize any development projects or any physical change to the environment. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on the 27th day of September, 2005, 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. LaVon-ne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach Jam and Smudge Free Printing www.averycom © AVER @ 51600 Use Ave TEMPLATE 51600 1- 800 -GO -AVERY A P & KAREN J BRUTMAN ALAN W CHEE ALBERT J MARSHALL 2011 KINGS RD PO BOX 10 330 SAINT ANDREWS RD NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 LOS ALAMITOS CA, 90720 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 ALICE LESNIKOFF ANTONY & KATHY SHAW BACK BAY ESTATE GROUP LLC 3312 CLAY ST 320 CATALINA DR #A 140 NEWPORT CENTER DR NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92660 BAILEY FAMILY TRUST BARBARA J KALBUS BRUCE K CLEWORTH 22322 HARWICH LN 3200 CLAY ST 3250 BROAD ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA, 92646 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 CARLO G SALVADOR CARLOS GUILLERMO GARCIA CAROLAN FAMILY TRUST 762 TUSTIN AVE #4 336 CATALINA DR 3238 CLAY ST NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 CHRISTOPHER D & JAMIE L CHRISTOPHER E HOBSON CLAIRE STEELE PURCELL 510 BOLSA AVE 3231 CLAY ST 3227 BROAD ST NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 CLAUDIA P AGUDELO CREASON FAMILY TRUST CYNTHIA MIRANDA 2515 E 16TH ST 1811 CLIFF DR 316 CATALINA DR NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 DANIELLE DIESTEL DAVID A FOX DAVID E BUETER PO BOX 15974 215 LA JOLLA DR 300 SAINT ANDREWS RD NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92659 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 DAVID W ARNOLD DAVID W ARNOLD DE LANE J THYEN M D INC 434 E 16TH ST 434 E 16TH ST 3535 E COAST HWY #306 COSTA MESA CA, 92627 COSTA MESA CA, 92627 CORONA DEL MAR CA, 92625 DEAN J SAINATO DENNIS B BEAN DENNIS DILLEY 3220 BROAD ST 3204 BROAD ST 1192 E CARTAGENA ST NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 LONG BEACH CA, 90807 DENNIS SIGALOS DON T SMITH III DONNA ADELE GALLANT 523 WESTMINSTER AVE 760 TUSTIN AVE #3 424 SAINT ANDREWS RD NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 n AN3AV-O9.008 -1 ®0915 jIjege5 al zason ®0915 p/\jJ��/ worAiane'n MM aoidei a6ewas a is a6eimoonue uoissaidwi lam and Smudge Free Printing www.averycom © AVERV@ 51600 Use Avery® TEMPLATE 51600 1- ii00 -GO -AVERY DOROTHY A RESSEL EDWIN KRAUS ENID F HOFMANN 601 LIDO PARK DR 40335 PEBBLE BEACH CIR 306 SAINT ANDREWS RD NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 PALM DESERT CA, 92211 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 ERIKA SIMS FRANK L & ENNA E DOYLE 3226 CLAY ST 3262 BROAD ST NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 GEORGE M YELLICH GEORGE S BARFIELD 1701 CLIFF DR 2001 KINGS RD NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 FREDERICK K GLEASON 1501 CLIFF DR NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 GREGORY M ADAMS 3239 CLAY ST NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 HENRY SCHNEPF HERBERT S ZIVE HICKMAN FAMILY TRUST 3214 CLAY ST 431 WESTMINSTER AVE 3309 CLAY ST NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 HILDA HINE DIMANCHEFF HOOTEN FAMILY TRUST HORMUTH 768 TUSTIN AVE 14811 SAINT MARYS LN #270 9762 BRIER LN NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 HOUSTON TX, 77079 SANTA ANA CA, 92705 IAN J MACGREGOR JACKO LUONG JACQUELINE M KASHEY 3225 CLAY ST 2519 E 16TH ST 3229 BROAD ST NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 JAMES A OWEN JAMES P TRAMMELL JANET M HILBERT 427 WESTMINSTER AVE #A 400 SAINT ANDREWS RD 754 TUSTIN AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 JASON B SCHOEMAN JEAN FRANCOIS ALBERT ERB JEFFREY JOHN GORDON 218 OLD NEWPORT BLVD 120 VIA QUITO 322 CATALINA DR NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 JERRY WOOD JILL C DONAHUE JOHN E SR RAIDY 3239 BROAD ST 3245 BROAD ST 409 BOLSA AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 JOHN GORDON MILLER JOHN HAWLEY JOHN J OGBURN 25292 BUCKSKIN DR 3245 CLAY ST 309 LA JOLLA DR LAGUNA HILLS CA, 92653 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 ®0915 ®J121�it/ 1� 1 Aa3AV-OD-009-L @09LS }lJege6 al Yasilan W0YAl8Ae'MMM aoidej o6ewas a 3a o6emnocolue uoissardwi Jam and Smudge Free Printing www.averycom ® AVERY@ 51600 Use Avery® TEMPLATE 51600 1- 800-GO -AVERY JOHN LYNN HART JOHN P MOREY JOHN R BROWNING 49 BALBOA CV 10072 MEREDITH DR 3256 BROAD ST NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA, 92646 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 JOHN R WILCOX JOSEPH BAIRIAN JUAN ANTONIO JR CAMACHO 2509 E 16TH ST 328 CATALINA DR 3305 CLAY ST NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 KAREN J HERSH KAREN K FABIAN KAREN M BECKINGHAM 3221 BROAD ST 304 SAINT ANDREWS RD 3253 BROAD ST NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 KATHLEEN VAUGHAN KENNETH J MATTHEWS KIRK C STRODEL 427 WESTMINSTER AVE #B 244 CATALINA DR 508 ORANGE AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 KROLL FAMILYTRUST LAKEVIEW VILLAGE CORP LAURIE L SCHILLING 1229 E LOMITA AVE 12901 HARBOR BLVD #A5 3222 CLAY ST ORANGE CA, 92867 GARDEN GROVE CA, 92840 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 LISA M FABIAN LISA NELSON LLOYDS CAL BANK 3301 CLAY ST 3216 CLAY ST 9022 REGATTA DR NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA, 92646 LLOYDS CAL BANK LOIS MANDERSON MARCEL P BRUETSCH 6952 SIERRA HWY 611 CLIFF DR 207 LA JOLLA DR AGUA DULCE CA, 91390 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 MARILYNN LEE HENRY MATT M MATTHEWS MATTHEW & JESSICA 2525 E 16TH ST 1717 CLIFF DR MCCULLOUGH NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 211 LA JOLLA DR #1 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 MATTHEW K & JULIE A CLAYTON MATTHEW K CLAYTON MATTHEW K CLAYTON 3308 CLAY ST COSTA MESA COSTA MESA NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 CORONA DEL MAR CA, 92625 CORONA DEL MAR CA, 92625 MCCULLOUGH MCCULLOUGH MCCULLOUGH 1410 KINGS RD 1411 CLIFF DR 1410 KINGS RD NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 � Aa3AV-OD-008 -1 00915 Iuege6 al zos an ®0915 0AH3A%f nqv wo:'iGaAewAw ® apidea a6eypas a 1a a6eianogllue uoissaidwl Jam and Smudge free Printing www.avery.com Use Avery®TEMPIATE51600 1- 600 -GO -AVERY �� 5160 MICHAEL BENSON MICHAEL GANDY MICHAEL NEWBY 3235 BROAD ST 222 -224 N NEWPORT BLVD 2511 E 16TH ST #12 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 MUSTAFA Y & LYNN C SOYLEMEZ NEAL DOFELMIER NEIL J POWERS 407 BOLSA AVE 3247 BROAD ST 3408 MARCUS AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEIL POWERS NIGEL D STOBART OBBAGE 3408 MARCUS AVE 325 LA JOLLA DR 3307 CLAY ST NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 ORALIA MARTINELLI ORAVECZ PATRICIA JONES 418 SAINT ANDREWS RD 5253 RIVIERA AVE 3232 BROAD ST #1 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 BANNING CA, 92220 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 PATRICIA JORGENSEN PATRICK J PERSICHINI PATRICK WONG 3227 CLAY ST 3214 BROAD ST 213 LA JOLLA DR #2 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 PAUL & CRYSTAL CHU PAUL HAYNES PETER M CONLON 423 -1/2 -423 WESTMINSTER AVE 756 TUSTIN AVE 1401 CLIFF DR NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 POOMUDI SHANMUGAM RALLIN D BLACK RALPH BONDS 2517 E 16TH ST 1705 CLIFF DR 312 SAINT ANDREWS RD NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 RENATO TROTTA RICHARD & MARTY DUTCH RICHARD H ALLRED 6 WINGED FOOT LN 539 WESTMINSTER AVE 3331 E 15TH ST NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92660 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 RICK D B KENNEY ROBERT D STONE ROBERT E & MARIE C WHITE 1212 WESTCLIFF DR 1911 CLIFF DR 1751 E OCEAN BLVD NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92660 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92661 ROBERT LEO BROOKS ROBERT READ ROBERT S MILLER 3233 CLAY ST 413 BOLSA AVE 463 WESTMINSTER AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 ®0915 ®i �1� A83AV-OD-008 -t ® 009i5;!+ege8 ai zesion wos•Fiane•mmm ® apidea a6eyns a ;a a6eaanogigue uoissaidwi Jam and Smudge Free Printing www.avery.com AWERY@ Use Avery® TEMPLATE 51600 1- 800 -GO -AVERY tom' �� 5160 ROBERT SHAW 318 SAINT ANDREWS RD NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 ROBERT W GIN PO BOX 330 HANFORD CA, 93232 ROSA O COUCH PO BOX 3101 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92659 SARAH J CARE 3212 BROAD ST NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 SHEED DARKHOR 230 N NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 SURAT SINGH 2574 OXFORD LN COSTA MESA CA, 92626 SUSAN; IRANI 51 CORONADO POINTE LAGUNA NIGUEL CA, 92677 TEGEL FAMILY TRUST 3211 E 15TH ST NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 THOMAS G MOOERS 406 SAINT ANDREWS RD NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 TOM HERSH 3221 BROAD ST NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 ROBERT TAYLOR 2507 E 16TH ST NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 RONALD & PAMELA LOPEZ 411 BOLSA AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 ROSS E MCELFRESH 514 BOLSA AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 SCOTT D & PATRICE K PETERSON 3244 BROAD ST #B NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 SHERYL L REV BREWER 214 FERN LEAF AVE CORONA DEL MAR CA, 92625 SUSAN A LINDGREN 8426 116TH AVE SE NEWCASTLE WA, 98056 SUSAN; IRANI 51 CORONADO POINTE LAGUNA NIGUEL CA, 92677 TERRY A TRAMBLIE 3244 CLAY ST NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 TIM DECINCES 12 STRAWBERRY FARM RD IRVINE CA, 92612 VALERIE DURANT 1048 IRVINE AVE #156 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92660 ROBERT V WISE 3233 BROAD ST NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 RONAN M O'MAHONY 220 NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 RYAN & LAUREN LARSCHEID 766 TUSTIN AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 SCOTT D PETERSON 424 W CRYSTAL VIEW AVE ORANGE CA, 92865 STEPHEN D GILBERT PO BOX 2207 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92659 SUSAN E BURNS 251 OCEAN VIEW AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 SUSAN; IRANI 51 CORONADO POINTE LAGUNA NIGUEL CA, 92677 THOMAS B MATHEWS 517 WESTMINSTER AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 TIM DECINCES 12 STRAWBERRY FARM RD IRVINE CA, 92612 VANCE P COLLINS 3220 CLAY ST NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 ®09L5 p ub A83AV-OD-008 -L 009LS 31aege6 ai zaslian wOYAJO a ANWO n apldea a6mpas a Is a6emnogllue uoissaidwi Jam and Smudge Free Printing www.averycom a AVERYp 5160® Use Avery® TEMPLATE 51600 1- 800 -GO -AVERY VAUGHN L & SALLY BRINKMAN 467 WESTMINSTER AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 W JOYCE LACHENMYER 431 WESTMINSTER AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 WEIGHTMAN FAMILY TRUST 2001 CLIFF DR NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 WILLIAM J DAVIS 16485 LAGUNA CANYON RD IRVINE CA, 92618 WOODCO INVESTMENT CO INC 3740 CAMPUS DR #100 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92660 VERTA LORRAINE WILLIAMS 324 SAINT ANDREWS RD NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 W SCOTT BALDWIN 3231 E 15TH ST NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 WILLIAM BELDEN GUIDERO 342 62ND ST NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 WILLIAM J WINTER 1905 FULLERTON AVE #W COSTA MESA CA, 92627 XIRA PROPERTIES LLC 174 BROADWAY COSTA MESA CA, 92627 VOIGNE YVONNE DES 504 ORANGE AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 WALTER CHEN 17612 EMBER DR ROWLAND HEIGHTS CA, 91748 WILLIAM CHARLES ANDERSON 340 CATALINA DR NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 WILLIAM R MANN 519 WESTMINSTER AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92663 ®09L5 ®/�tj�td AL13AV- 09.0o8-L ®09LS tiaege6 ai zasiian w03-63anp °AAAAAA anidei afipmas a is afipiinonnue uoissaidui L U m a) m t O CL z Z 0 U m p N Fo CV 'O C 3H m != c C N� O U P O O' 0 c� m 'o o Co o N a>a� 3� O� m cc)� cU o .� c mw, o am NZ a) C .� ° a) N U p p w ,O°0 aa) m Co .'� m a) Z a) 'F, 'O cm a) a) N a) act L a Co E U m 'O ... O .� am ° a>it aa)- w '� N a a EN c a) U O o'h'm ° a aEmco ca) a o w wCm c w w a)mm w m m m L 0 _ ma) acid E oama) � A= t co a) .? a 'c°° ° m o o =��mu �c� �omEa 3 a c 00 O > m c m O 'O o m o N M a) N O M a" U CA O m O Y m L Co m a) - .L.. _] N am °� co " 0 co c C) T- m oa°�wa)w aa))�c)aa)) a)wEa`�im o acm 0 -(14 3] a a UCE Co c0 LU'D yw a) U i a)� N�Y� 7 N N+' m L N O N 0 U a co a C) C c ca)a)c '3m °)o C m Z o w o E CL.- N L N .N 3 °a � w c o ama) a 0 Uc°o o a o co a) x °m y� aiai a) a a)>0ca) ai o E N O m N Co x E a O m E L E am m m L m U � Z a c c C d o � — x ~= c ym c m 'C c E v CL a) c C y LLJ w U a °a c m° m a ac) o c° d ° C N N N co d' C y y >, a) o o O U c� c aa)) L C) '. co a m e m a m E U U wco a� Z�ca ZEm =c UaE'EaQ jcmc Ztca� m Co (� a) m w U a s ... o L CI = c N c c co c u° m 3~ W m° co CL o � U ° 0 °o Z� c wL ��— ) � ao ° O a 2 E r .� �_ N > U Co a) aN'OL D •- c L ° M .- c C LL Q c a) D C= f/� V LL E c3 > curia 3cwa m 'Co _ w E E4- o arc w c ao m am c'�v LU w E :c m U y w a .m) a>i o� w c E= c m =Em3too x cu w° E a a- v_7m��3yc U) a) 3: 3: 1: N v_7o� cc �O m ° o w a)a)E °mac w�tN wgUm) Ucc� Uo.°o H> U_ oLcc)E L H a a) c a o j L H c= co Z a m N aU Z W 3 m' Z w m LL) t L U m a) m t O CL z Z 0 U 00 00 CL Ix Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds includia., public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California. dumber A -6214. September 29, 1961, and A -24831 June 11, 1963. PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT BEACH - COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following dates: September 17, 2005 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 17, 2005 at Costa Mesa, California. Signature ,,_ YG11(EOFPUBIKNEAANG all R -2 (Two Family any and all persons Residential) zoned interested may appear cohkIl01imd properties that are that and be heard thereon. If 1Ya2005 -010 are not located in the you challenge this Coastal Zone or within project in court, you. (12005 -201) Corona del Mar. This may be limited to raising NOTICE IS HEREBY proposed amendment only those issues you or GIVEN that the City will make the parking someone else raised at Council of the City, of requirement for the the public hearing Newport Beach will hold affected R -2 properties described in this notice a public hearing on a consistent with the or in written corre proposed amendment to parking requirement for spondence delivered to Chapter 20.66 (Parking duplexes zoned R-2 that the City at,.or prior to, and Loading) of the are located within the the public hearing. For Municipal Code. The Coastal Zone and Corona information call (949) amendment, if adopted, del Mar. .644 -3200. will increase the mini- NOTICE IS HEREBY LaVonne M. Harkless, mum parking require- FURTHER GIVEN that City Clerk ment for duplexes from this project is not City of Newport Beach 1.5 spaces per unit to subject to the require- Published Newport 2.0 spaces per unit. This ments of the California Beach /Costa Mesa Daily amendment will affect Environmental Quality Pilot September 17, 2005 Act under the General Sa896 Rule Exemption when it - - - - - -- - -- is clear that an activity has no possibility that it would have a signifi- cant effect on the .environment. The pro posed change in a development standard does not in authorize any development projects or any physical change to the environ- ment NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on the 27th day of September, 200S, 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