No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout22 - Whitacre Residence Appeal (PA2010-105)�EWPORr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH c9`pp0."`P City Council Staff Report Agenda Item No. 22 September 13, 2011 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Community Development Department Kimberly Brandt, AICP, Director 949 - 644 -3226, kbrandt @newportbeachca.gov PREPARED BY: Fern Nueno APPROVED: 0,� TITLE: Whitacre Residence Appeal (PA2010 -105) 101 15th Street ABSTRACT: An appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Use Permit No. UP2010 -021 and Modification Permit No. MD2010 -027, requesting an addition to a nonconforming structure. The Use Permit would allow for an addition of up to 75 percent of the existing gross floor area and alterations of up to 75 percent of the existing structural elements of the nonconforming structures. The Use Permit would not allow a demolition and rebuild of the existing structures, only alteration of up to 75 percent of the structural elements. The Modification Permit would allow for encroachments into the rear and side setbacks. The site is developed with two (2) commercial structures adjacent to 15th Street and a residential structure to the rear. The applicant proposes an addition to the existing residence and the addition of a new dwelling unit above the commercial structures. Four - car parking is proposed to satisfy the residential parking requirements. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and adopt Resolution No. _ (Attachment A) denying Use Permit No. UP2010 -021 and Modification Permit No. MD2010 -027; or 2. Reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and adopt Resolution No. _ (Attachment B) approving Use Permit No. UP2010 -021 and Modification Permit No. MD2010 -027. FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: There is no fiscal impact related to this item. 1 101 15th Street September 13, 2011 Page 2 DISCUSSION: Ordinance 2010 -21, which adopted the current Zoning Code, provides that discretionary applications deemed complete prior to the effective date of the ordinance may be processed under the previous Zoning Code, provided they are found consistent with the General Plan. The application was submitted and deemed complete prior to the adoption of the current Zoning Code and is consistent with the General Plan, Therefore, this project is being reviewed subject to regulations of the previous Zoning Code (1997 Zoning Code), which is available online at htti)://www.newi)ortbeachca.gov/index.asr)x?[)age=1 75. Project Setting The subject property is located on the Balboa Peninsula on the corner of 15th Street and West Ocean Front and is approximately 5,000 square feet in area (50 feet wide by 100 feet deep). The subject property is surrounded on three (3) sides by public rights -of- way and is adjacent to a mixed -use structure located to the north. The nearby surrounding land uses are residential, commercial, places of worship, schools, beaches, and parks. Vicinity Map 2 101 15th Street September 13, 2011 Page 3 Proiect Description The applicant proposes an addition to the existing residence and the addition of a new dwelling unit above the commercial structures. No intensification of the commercial uses is proposed. The applicant requests a use permit for an addition of up to 75 percent of the existing gross floor area and alterations of up to 75 percent of the existing structural elements of a nonconforming structure. The applicant also requests a modification permit to allow the proposed addition to encroach five (5) feet into the required 5 -foot side setback on the northerly side of the property in order for the proposed residential unit on the second floor to line up with the wall of the commercial structure on the first floor. The modification permit request is also to allow an 8 -foot encroachment into the required 10 -foot rear setback for the carports with a deck above. The site is developed with two (2) commercial structures adjacent to 15th Street and a residential structure to the rear. Four -car parking is proposed to satisfy the residential parking requirements. The existing mixed -use development is nonconforming due to encroachments into the required 10 -foot rear alley setback and 5 -foot side setback along the northerly property line. The property to the north (105 15th Street) is a mixed -use structure located on a lot that is in a residential Zoning District. However, the property owner recently received approval of General Plan and Zoning Code amendments to allow mixed -use. If the Coastal Commission approves the associated Coastal Land Use Plan amendment, the 5 -foot side setback requirement will no longer be applicable. The subject property is also nonconforming because the commercial uses do not provide off - street parking. Two (2) previous modification permits were approved for additions to the nonconforming structure allowing encroachments into the rear alley setback. Of those, only one (1) was constructed, which allowed encroachments into the required 10 -foot rear setback of 5 feet, 8 inches with an additional 6 inches for the roof eave. The construction also included interior alterations that converted a duplex into a single -unit residence. The applicant submitted structural calculations demonstrating that the structural alterations may be as low as 8 percent (Attachment C). However, because of the age of some of the structures on -site, dry rot, termite damage, or other issues may lead to a higher percentage of structural alterations. Under no circumstances would approval of this application allow more than 75 percent structural alterations or a demolition and reconstruction of the existing structures in their entirety. Background On May 25, 2011, the Zoning Administrator conducted a public hearing, reviewed the applicant's request, and received testimony from the applicant and members of the public. The Zoning Administrator approved the application (Attachment D). On June 8, 2011, Planning Commissioner Hawkins appealed the Zoning Administrator's action. 3 101 15th Street September 13, 2011 Page 4 On July 7, 2011, the Planning Commission reversed the decision of the Zoning Administrator and denied the application. The Commission discussed concerns regarding parking, structural alterations, trash, and safety. The findings were discussed and the Commission inquired about the costs associated with the proposed construction and with the nonconforming condition. A motion was made to approve the application and failed to pass (3 ayes, 4 noes). A second motion was made to deny the application and carried (5 ayes, 2 noes). The minutes, resolution, and staff report are provided as Attachments E -G. On July 19, 2011, Mayor Henn appealed the Planning Commission's action (Attachment H) to allow the City Council review of the pertinent policies regarding additions and alterations to nonconforming structures. The appeal brought up the issues regarding the interpretation of the 1997 Zoning Code relating to percentage of remodel, the cost of remodel in comparison to cost of new construction, and the issue of prolonging the life of a nonconforming structure and the potential benefit from Council review in light of improved guidance on these issues in the new Zoning Code. Analysis Of primary concern are the following two findings from the 1997 Zoning Code that are required in conjunction with a use permit for structural alterations and additions to nonconforming structures; these findings are not included in the current Zoning Code. The findings relate to the cost of the improvements, value of the nonconforming condition, and the cost of correcting the nonconforming condition. The cost of improvements to be made is minor in comparison to the value of the existing nonconforming condition. • The cost of correcting the nonconforming condition would exceed the cost of the other alterations proposed. The estimated cost of the proposed project is $550,000 based on the applicant's calculations that were verified by staff. The existing nonconforming conditions include encroachments into the side and rear setback areas and nonconforming parking for the commercial uses. The value of the nonconforming condition is difficult to quantify and compare with the monetary costs of the proposed project. If the existing mixed -use structure were to be demolished, it could not be rebuilt without discretionary approvals. In order to bring the existing buildings into conformance with the required setbacks, it would be necessary to remove a significant portion of the residential living area, garage, and the retail surf shop. The estimated cost of demolishing and rebuilding the structures to conform with the City's setback requirements is $860,000. ra 101 15th Street September 13, 2011 Page 5 The proposed addition is 2,668 square feet, which is approximately 58 percent of the existing square footage (4,591 square feet). The proposed setback encroachments are 8 feet into the 10 -foot rear setback and 5 feet into the 5 -foot side setback. The Code comparison table below depicts the proposed project and how the project can be implemented under the 1997 and Current Zoning Codes. The proposed project requires approval of a use permit and modification permit under the 1997 Code. The applicant requested to have the application reviewed under the 1997 Code because under the current Zoning Code the proposed project would require a variance for the addition and setback encroachments. Code comparison table Proposed Project 1997 Zoning Code Current Zoning Code Structural alterations of a Use Permit required Allowed by right nonconforming structure e Maximum 75 structural /o up to 100% of approximately 51-75% alterations allowed Additions to a Use Permit required Allowed by right nonconforming structure Maximum 75% addition up to 50% Variance required of approximately 58% allowed for over 50% Rear and side setback Modification Permit for Modification Permit for encroachments of 80 -100 encroachments of up to encroachments of up to 10% percent into the required 100 /o Variance for encroachments setbacks of 10 -100% Alternatives The City Council may find that the proposed project meets the legislative intent of the 1997 Zoning Code and that findings for approval can be made. Facts in support of the required findings are included in the draft resolution reversing the Planning Commission's decision (Attachment B). The City Council may find that the findings for approval cannot be made, and facts in support of this are included in the draft resolution upholding the Planning Commission's decision (Attachment A). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Should City Council wish to approve this project, staff recommends the City Council find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 1 — Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. Class 1 exempts minor alterations to existing facilities that involve negligible expansion of the use, including the addition of a new residential unit. 5 101 15th Street September 13, 2011 Page 6 NOTICING: Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the property, and posted at the project site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this meeting consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Submitted by: 4-4-- Kimberly BranO AICP Director Attachments: A. Draft Resolution — Uphold and deny B. Draft Resolution — Reverse and approve C. Structural Calculations D. Zoning Administrator Action Letter E. Planning Commission Minutes F. Planning Commission Resolution G. Planning Commission Staff Report H. Mayor Henn's Appeal I. Project Plans 0 City Council Attachment A Draft Resolution — Uphold and deny 7 2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DENYING USE PERMIT NO. UP2010 -021 AND MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. MD2010 -027 FOR AN ADDITION AND ALTERATIONS TO A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE THAT WILL ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS LOCATED AT 101 15TH STREET (PA2010 -105) WHEREAS, an application was filed by William Azzalino, with respect to property located at 101 15th Street, and legally described as Lots 1 and 2, Block 15, Section B, requesting approval of a use permit and modification permit; and WHEREAS, the applicant proposes an addition to a nonconforming, mixed -use structure. The Use Permit would allow an addition of up to 75 percent of the existing square footage and up to 75 percent structural alterations to the existing structures. The Modification Permit would allow the proposed addition to encroach five (5) feet into the required five -foot side setback on the northerly side of the property and eight (8) feet into the required ten -foot rear alley setback; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the Mixed -Use Cannery Village /15th St (MU -CV /15th St) Zoning District; however, the Retail and Service Commercial — Residential Overlay (RSC -R) District regulations from the 1997 Zoning Code apply to this project. The General Plan Land Use Element category is Mixed -Use Horizontal (MU -H4); and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is Mixed -Use Horizontal (MU -H); and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on May 25, 2011, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Zoning Administrator at this meeting; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator approved the application; and WHEREAS, on June 8, 2011, Planning Commissioner Hawkins called the item up for review; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on July 7, 2011, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting; and City Council Resolution No. Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission denied the application and reversed the decision of the Zoning Administrator; and WHEREAS, on July 20, 2011, Mayor Henn called the item up for review; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on September 13, 2011, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council denied the application and upheld the decision of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the City Council may approve a use permit and modification permit only after making each of the required findings set forth in Section 20.91.035, Section 20.62.040, and Section 20.93.030 of the 1997 Zoning Code. In this case, the City Council was unable to make the required findings based upon the following: 1. Allowing an addition above the commercial structures and alterations of up to 75 percent of the existing structural elements prolongs the life of the nonconforming commercial structures. The nonconforming parking for the commercial uses is detrimental to the community and the life of the structures should not be extended to allow for an additional dwelling unit above. 2. The proposed structure should not be constructed within a setback area and the structure should be at least partially brought into conformance with the required setbacks. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1: Deny Use Permit No. UP2010 -021 and Modification Permit No. MD2010- 027 (PA2010 -105), upholding the decision of the Planning Commission. SECTION 2: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution. Tmplt: 04/14110 10 City Council Resolution No. Page 3 of 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach at a regular meeting held on the 13th day of September, 2011. AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Tmplt: 04/14110 11 12 City Council Attachment B Draft Resolution — Reverse and approve 1 3 Q9 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVING USE PERMIT NO. UP2010 -021 AND MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. MD2010 -027 FOR AN ADDITION AND ALTERATIONS TO A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE THAT WILL ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS LOCATED AT 101 15TH STREET (PA2010 -105) WHEREAS, an application was filed by William Azzalino, with respect to property located at 101 15th Street, and legally described as Lots 1 and 2, Block 15, Section B, requesting approval of a use permit and modification permit; and WHEREAS, the applicant proposes an addition to a nonconforming, mixed -use structure. The Use Permit would allow an addition of up to 75 percent of the existing square footage and up to 75 percent structural alterations to the existing structures. The Modification Permit would allow the proposed addition to encroach five (5) feet into the required five -foot side setback on the northerly side of the property and eight (8) feet into the required ten -foot rear alley setback; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the Mixed -Use Cannery Village /151h St (MU -CV /15th St) Zoning District; however, the Retail and Service Commercial — Residential Overlay (RSC -R) District regulations from the 1997 Zoning Code apply to this project. The General Plan Land Use Element category is Mixed -Use Horizontal (MU -H4); and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is Mixed -Use Horizontal (MU -H); and WHEREAS, this project has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 1 — Existing Facilities). Class 1 exempts minor alterations to existing facilities that involve negligible expansion of the use, including the addition of a new residential unit. The proposed project includes an addition to the existing residential unit, the construction of an additional unit, and the construction of a two -car garage and a two -car carport; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on May 25, 2011, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Zoning Administrator at this meeting; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator approved the application; and WHEREAS, on June 8, 2011, Planning Commissioner Hawkins called the item up for review; and 15 City Council Resolution No. Paqe 2 of 10 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on July 7, 2011, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission denied the application and reversed the decision of the Zoning Administrator; and WHEREAS, on July 20, 2011, Mayor Henn called the item up for review; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on September 13, 2011, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved the application and reversed the decision of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 20.91.035, Section 20.62.040, and Section 20.93.030 of the 1997 Zoning Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Findinq: A. The proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. Facts in Support of Finding: A -1. The site is located in the RSC -R (Retail and Service Commercial — Residential Overlay) District of the 1997 Zoning Code. The intent of this district to provide areas which are predominantly retail in character but which allow some service office uses. The intent and purpose of the Residential Overlay district is to provide for the establishment of residential uses in commercial districts. The proposed mixed use project is a permitted use in this district. The existing eating and drinking establishment and retail surf shop meet the intent of the RSC district, and the existing and proposed residential units meet the intent of the R- Overlay District. Finding: B. The proposed location of the use permit and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the Tmplt: 04/14110 10 City Council Resolution No. Paqe 3 of 10 neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city. Facts in Support of Finding: B -1. The existing commercial structures and residential units on site are consistent with the Mixed Use - Horizontal (MU -H4) land use designation of the General Plan, which applies to properties where it is the intent to establish the character of a distinct and cohesively developed district or neighborhood containing multi - family residential with clusters of mixed -use and /or commercial buildings. Mixed -use or commercial buildings are required on parcels at street intersections. B -2. The neighborhood is developed with commercial, residential, and mixed use properties. The subject property has been developed with mixed use for at least fifty years, and the addition of one (1) residential dwelling unit will not create any significant negative impacts. B -3. The property abuts public rights -of -way of three sides; therefore, the addition is directly adjacent to only one (1) other property. B -4. The proposed addition will provide the required parking for the residential units. The existing commercial structures are not being enlarged or intensified, so the commercial parking demand is not being increased. B -5. The proposed addition will conform to all other requirements of the 1997 Zoning Code, including height and square footage limitations. Finding: C. The proposed use will comply with the provisions of this code, including any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. Facts in Support of Finding: C -1. The proposed mixed -use project is consistent with the legislative intent of Chapter 20.15 (Commercial Districts) and Chapter 20.52 (Residential (R) Overlay District) of the 1997 Zoning Code. The proposed project meets the development standards of the RSC -R district in regards to minimum site area per unit, height limit, and minimum lot area. C -2. The existing structures are nonconforming due a 6- foot -2 -inch encroachment into the 10 -foot rear alley setback, a 5 -foot encroachment into the 5 -foot northerly side setback, and due to insufficient off - street parking for the commercial uses. The proposed remodel of the existing residential unit and the addition of a unit are in conformance with the standards of Chapter 20.62 (Nonconforming Structures and Uses) of the 1997 Zoning Code. Section 20.62.040 (Nonconforming Structures) Tmplt: 04/14110 17 City Council Resolution No. Paqe 4 of 10 allows for structural alterations and additions of up to 75 percent with the approval of a use permit. C -3. The existing residential unit conforms with the parking requirements of the R- Overlay District of two (2) parking spaces per unit. The proposed construction includes the addition of two (2) parking spaces for a total of four (4) parking spaces, meeting the residential parking requirements. No addition is proposed to the commercial structures. Finding: D. The cost of improvements to be made is minor in comparison to the value of the existing nonconforming condition. Facts in Support of Finding: D -1. The existing mixed -use structure could not be rebuilt if it were to be demolished. In order to bring the existing buildings into conformance with the required setbacks, the removal of a significant portion of the residential living area and the retail surf shop would be necessary. The nonconforming, rear setback encroachment maintains the existing livable space within the structure. The five -foot encroachment of the retail surf shop into the side setback allows reasonable use of the commercial tenant space. The estimated cost of the proposed project is $550,000, which is minor in comparison to the value of the nonconforming parking and setbacks. D -2. Per the County Assessor's records, the total value of the property was assessed at $1,508,322 for the 2010 calendar year. Finding: E. The cost of correcting the nonconforming condition would exceed the cost of the other alterations proposed. Facts in Support of Finding: E -1. Correcting the nonconforming setbacks would require the removal of existing floor area from the residential structure and retail surf shop. The proposed alterations within the setback areas are only a minor portion of the entire project; therefore, the cost of the overall project is greater than the cost of the alterations within the setback areas. E -2. Demolition and replacement of the structures could not be accomplished without approval of a parking waiver. E -3. Based on information from the applicant, which was reviewed by staff, the estimated cost of demolishing the structures within the setbacks and rebuilding them would be approximately $860,000 and the estimated cost of the proposed project is $550,000 Tmplt: 04/14110 12 City Council Resolution No. Paqe 5 of 10 E -4. The City has no plans on file for the original construction. Based on information from the County of Orange, the existing structures were built in the 1920s. Finding: F. Retention of the nonconforming condition is necessary to maintain reasonable use of the structure. Facts in Support of Finding: F -1. Retention of the nonconforming parking for the commercial structures is necessary because a mixed -use structure similar to the existing development could not be built under current development standards. The number of parking spaces required for the amount of commercial floor area allowed on this site is a minimum of ten (10) spaces based on a parking ratio of one (1) parking space for every 250 square feet of gross floor area. The minimum allowed floor area for a commercial structure on this mixed - use property is 1,250 square feet, which would require a minimum of five (5) parking spaces. This site does not provide adequate space for a code - compliant parking lot with 5 -10 parking spaces, in addition to the required residential parking. F -2. Retention of the nonconforming rear setback encroachment maintains the existing livable space within the structure. Removing the encroachments would result in one (1) less bedroom and reduced living area in the living room and master bedroom. Finding: G. The addition and alteration does not increase the structure's inconsistency with the regulations of the Zoning Code. Facts in Support of Finding: G -1. The proposed project includes the addition of two (2) parking spaces, satisfying the requirements for residential parking. The commercial structures are not being enlarged or intensified. G -2. The proposed addition and alterations will meet all other development standards for the RSC -R District, with the exception of the Modification Permit requests. G -3. The proposed construction is contained generally within the footprint of the existing structure. Finding: H. The granting of the application is necessary due to the practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. Tmplt: 04/14/10 J O) City Council Resolution No. Paqe 6 of 10 Facts in Support of Finding: H -1. The northerly side yard setback requirement of five (5) feet is due to the abutting property's Zoning designation of R -2 (Two -Unit Residential). The Zoning Code requires a side yard setback only because the abutting property is designated for residential use; however, the property to the north is developed with a mixed -use structure. This property is subject to abatement of the nonconforming mixed -use, but the property owner has applied for General Plan, Zoning Code, and Coastal Land Use Plan amendments to change the property to allow for mixed -use. If the amendment application is denied, then the property owner may request an extension on the abatement. Therefore, there is a possibility that the property will remain mixed -use for the foreseeable future. H -2. The additional dwelling unit is being proposed within the required setback in order for the wall to line up with the existing commercial structure on the first floor. H -3. The existing commercial structures and residential dwelling unit constitute a practical difficulty associated with the property as the only location available for the four -car parking is located within the side and rear yard setbacks. Finding: 1. The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. Facts in Support of Finding: 1 -1. The deviation from the Zoning Code requested through this application is compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding properties, many of which do not provide side yard or rear yard alley setbacks, either because of differing Zoning Code requirements or nonconforming encroachments. 1 -2. Other properties on the block contain similar mixed -use projects with commercial structures on the first floor and residential uses above. Finding: J. The granting of such an application will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. Facts in Support of Finding: J -1. The alley is approximately 25 feet wide and provides sufficient access for vehicles to park in the garages and carports. The 25 -foot width is also adequate for circulation. Tmplt: 04/14110 20 City Council Resolution No. Paqe 7 of 10 J -2. The existing structures on site are built up to the northerly property line. The existing mixed -use structure to the north is also built on the property line, and this layout has not proven to be detrimental. J -3. The proposed encroachment into the alley setback is for the carports and a deck above. No new living area is proposed within the alley setback. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1: Approve Use Permit No. UP2010 -021 and Modification Permit No. MD2010 -027 (PA2010 -105), reversing the decision of the Planning Commission, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. SECTION 2: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach at a regular meeting held on the 13th day of September, 2011. AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR r_�IIIIIr *1n CITY CLERK Tm plt: 04/14/10 21 City Council Resolution No. Paqe 8 of 10 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. The guard rail for the deck adjacent to the alley shall be constructed with wrought iron, glass, or similar open or translucent material. 3. The addition is limited to 75 percent of the existing gross floor area. 4. The alterations are limited to 75 percent of the structural members. 5. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.67 of the Municipal Code or any applicable comprehensive sign program that is in force for the subject property. 6. No temporary "sandwich" signs, balloons or similar temporary signs shall be permitted, either on -site or off -site, to advertise the proposed food establishment, unless specifically permitted in accordance with the Sign Ordinance of the Municipal Code. Temporary signs shall be prohibited in the public right -of -way, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department in conjunction with the issuance of an encroachment permit or encroachment agreement. 7. All trash shall be stored within the building or within public dumpsters provided for the convenience of businesses in the area, or otherwise screened from view of neighboring properties except when placed for pick -up by refuse collection agencies. The trash dumpsters shall have a top which shall remain closed at all times, except when being loaded or while being collected by the refuse collection agency. 8. The applicant shall maintain the trash dumpsters or receptacles so as to control odors which may include the provision of fully self- contained dumpsters or may include periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, if deemed necessary by the Planning Division. Trash generated by the establishment shall be adequately contained in sealed plastic bags to control odors prior to placement in the trash dumpster. 9. Anything not specifically approved by this Use Permit and Modification Permit is prohibited and must be addressed in a separate and subsequent review. 10. A building permit shall be obtained prior to commencement of the construction. The construction must meet all applicable Building Code requirements including parapets and guards and fire resistant construction, where required. 11. A copy of this approval letter shall be incorporated into the City and field sets of plans prior to issuance of the building permits. Tmplt: 04/14110 22 City Council Resolution No. Paqe 9 of 10 12. Approval from the California Coastal Commission is required prior to issuance of a building permit. 13. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide a covenant for review and approval by the Office of the City Attorney as to form and content, that will address holding the site to no more than two (2) dwelling units. Once approved and properly executed, that document shall be forwarded to the City officials for recordation against the property with the County Recorder. 14. If any of the existing public improvements surrounding the site are damaged by private work, new concrete sidewalk, curb and gutter, street pavement, and other public improvements will be required by the City at the time of private construction completion. Said determination and the extent of the repair work shall be made at the discretion of the Public Works inspector. 15. All work performed within the public right -of -way shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department under an encroachment permit/agreement, if required. 16. Any nonstandard encroachment within the public right -of -way shall be removed, including any stairs or railings. 17. Each unit shall be served by separate water and sewer, and traffic grade lids shall be provided for each. 18. The applicant is responsible for all upgrades to the City's utilities as required to fulfill the project's demands, if applicable. 19. New and existing fire services shall be protected by a USC approved double check detector assembly and installed per STD - 517 -L, if required by the Fire Department. 20. New water services shall be installed per STD -502 -L or STD - 503 -L, depending on the size. 21. New and existing commercial water meter(s) shall be protected by a USC approved reduced pressure back-flow assembly and installed per STD - 520 -L -A. 22. New and existing sewer laterals shall have a cleanout installed per STD - 406 -L. 23. The project will need to meet fire flow requirements with the addition to the building. The City and field sets of plans shall show all existing and proposed fire hydrants located within 300 feet of the project. 24. Smoke alarms will be required in the R occupancies and shall be installed as per California Building Code Section 907.2.11.2 outside of each separate sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of bedrooms and in each room used for sleeping purposes. Tmplt: 04/14110 23 City Council Resolution No. Paqe 10 of 10 25. For new construction, an approved carbon monoxide alarm shall be installed in dwelling units and in sleeping units within which fuel- burning appliances are installed, and in dwelling units that have attached garages. 26. The address will need to be placed on the street side of the building, as required by the Fire Department. 27. Required vertical and horizontal occupancy separation must be met as per California Building Code Section 508.2.5.1. 28. As per California Fire Code Section 903.2.8, an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3 shall be provided throughout all buildings with a Group R fire area, as required by the Fire Department. 29. Exit hardware on new doors shall comply with California Fire Code Section 1008.1.9.3, as required by the Fire Department. 30. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the Whitacre Residence including, but not limited to, Use Permit No. UP2010 -021 and Modification Permit No. MD2010 -027. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. 31. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the approval date, as specified in Section 20.93.050 (A) of the 1997 Zoning Code. Prior to the expiration date of this approval, an extension may be approved in accordance with Section 20.93.050 (B) of the 1997 Zoning Code. Requests for an extension must be in writing. Tmplt: 04/14110 24 City Council Attachment C Structural Calculations 25 20 COMMERCIAL SURF SHOP V) 17 SF Q W 71 152 SF � Q z O 180 SF Q 200 SF ❑ ❑ ❑ z 8 SF � LL. RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL RESTAURANT FOUNDATION AREAS COMMERCIAL SURF SHOP 75 SF 1057 SF 48 SF Q W iLL Q 1558 SF 1034 SF 61 SF LL RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL RESTAURANT ROOF AREAS 18 SF 18 SF 696 SF 352 SF 21 SF 311 SF 20 SF 21 SF 58 SF 58 SF 711 SF El WEST /BACK NORTH INTERIOR FRAME SOUTH INTERIOR FRAME EAST /FRONT RESTAURANT WALLS 342 SF 400 SF ❑ El 807 SF 21 SF 786 SF 46 SF 46 SF < Q W WEST /BACK EAST /FRONT NORTH SOUTH Q SURF SHOP WALLS J J Q 211 SF 70 SF 70 SF NO 229 SF 360 SF 617 SF 47 SF 362 SF 12 SF 392 SF K725 SF 236 SF 47 SF NORTH GARAGE EAST RESIDENTIAL 223 SF WEST RESIDENTIAL NORTH RESIDENTIAL SOUTH RESIDENTIAL EAST GARAGE RESIDENTIAL AND GARAGE WALL AREAS AREA ANALYSIS CALCULATION AREA T TOTAL SF M MODIFIED SF % %MODIFIED ROOFS 3 3833 SF 1 184 SF 4 4.8% RESTAURANT WALLS 2 2284 SF 7 78 SF 3 3.4% SURF SHOP WALLS 2 2448 SF 2 21 SF 0 0.085% RESIDENCE WALLS 3 3712 SF 6 663 SF 1 17.9% FOUNDATIONS 5 557 SF 2 25 SF 4 4.5% TOTALS 1 12,834 SF 9 971 SF 7 7.5% 714 -721 -4144 CLIENT RUTHIE WHITACRE RESIDENCE 101 - 103 15th STREET Balboa, CA Lots 1 & 2 in Block 15 of Section B, Newport Beach, CA, as shown on a map recorded in Book 4, Page 27 of Misc. Maps, Records of Orange County. PROJECT KEY MAP THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIUNS ARE PROPERTY OF WILLIAM AZZALIN❑ ARCHITECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER PROJECT EXCEPT BY THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH WILLIAM AZZALIN❑ ARCHITECT. WRITTEN DIMENSIUNS SHALL TAKE PREFERENCE OVER THE SCALED DIMENSIUNS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPENCIES SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NUTICE OF WILLIAM AZZALIN❑ ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK OR ERRORS AND COSTS ARISING THEREFROM ARE CONTRACTOR'S SOLE RESPONSIBILITY. SHEET TITLE STRUCTURAL CHANGES IMPORTANT YARNING -USE OF THESE PLANS THIS DOCUMENT SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS THEY CONTAIN A SIGNED ARCHITECTURAL SEAL FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND ARE NARKED FOR CONSTRUCTION. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD THIS DRAWING BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS SD SIGNED AND NDTED, IN COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CDC SECTION 5538, THIS DOCUMENT IS TO BE USED O11LY IN CUNECTION WITH THE PROJECT AND NO LICENSE IS GRANTED DV [DNECTI@! WITH THESE DD[IBffNTS FOR ANY OTHER USE. PROJECT NUMBER 09- 101104 DATE 6 -11 -10 SCALE REVISIONS 11 -17 City Comments 12 -28 City Comments 006 -28 City Area Calc, 0 SHEET NUMBER Copyright, William Azzolino, 2009 OF 3 22 City Council Attachment D Zoning Administrator Action Letter 2j 30 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION LETTER PLANNING DIVISION 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 (949) 644 -3200 FAX (949) 644 -3229 Application No. PA2010 -105 • Use Permit No. UP2010 -021 • Modification Permit No. MD2010 -027 Applicant William Azzalino, AIA Site Address 101 15th Street Whitacre Residence Legal Description Lots 1 and 2, Block 15, Section B On M ay 25, 2011, the Zoning Administrator a pproved the following: A use permit application for an addition of up to 75 percent of the existing gross floor area and alterations of up to 75 percent of the existing structural elements of a nonconforming structure. The applicant also requested a modification permit to allow the proposed addition to encroach into the required five -foot side setback on the northerly side of the property and the required ten -foot rear setback. The site is developed with two (2) commercial structures adjacent to 15th Street and a residential structure to the rear. The applicant proposes an addition to the existing residence and the addition of a new dwelling unit above the commercial structures. Four -car parking is proposed to satisfy the residential parking requirements. Ordinance 2010 -21, which adopted the current Zoning Code, provides that discretionary and ministerial applications deemed complete prior to the effective date of the ordinance may be processed under the previous Zoning Code, provided they are found consistent with the General Plan. The application was submitted and deemed complete prior to the adoption of the current Zoning Code. Therefore, this project is being reviewed subject to regulations of the previous Zoning Code (1997 Zoning Code). The property is located in the within the MU- CW15th Street Zoning District, however, the RSC -R (Retail and Service Commercial — Residential Overlay) District regulations from the 1997 Zoning Code apply to this project. The Zoning Administrator determined in this case that the proposed Use Permit and Modification Permit are consistent with the legislative intent of the 1997 Zoning Code and is approved based on the following findings per Section 20.91.035, Section 20.62.040, and Section 20.93.030 and subject to the following conditions: 31 Whitacre Residence May 25, 2011 Page 2 Findings CEQA Compliance 1. The project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) of the Implementing Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act. This exemption allows for the minor alteration of existing buildings and the addition of a new residential unit. Use Permit 2. Finding: The proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. Facts in support of finding: • The site is located in the RSC -R (Retail and Service Commercial — Residential Overlay) District of the 1997 Zoning Code. The intent of this district to provide areas which are predominantly retail in character but which allow some service office uses. The intent and purpose of the Residential Overlay district is to provide for the establishment of residential uses in commercial districts. The proposed mixed use project is a permitted use in this district. The existing eating and drinking establishment and retail surf shop meet the intent of the RSC district, and the existing and proposed residential units meet the intent of the R- Overlay District. 3. Finding: The proposed location of the use permit and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city. Facts in support of finding: • The existing commercial structures and residential units on site are consistent with the Mixed Use - Horizontal (MU -H4) land use designation of the General Plan, which applies to properties where it is the intent to establish the character of a distinct and cohesively developed district or neighborhood containing multi - family residential with clusters of mixed -use and /or commercial buildings. Mixed -use or commercial buildings are required on parcels at street intersections. F: \Users \PLN \Shared \PA's \PAs - 2010 \PA2010- 105\UP2010 -021 action.docx 32 Tinpir: 04114/10 Whitacre Residence May 25, 2011 Page 3 • The neighborhood is developed with commercial, residential, and mixed use properties. The subject property has been developed with mixed use for at least fifty years, and the addition of one (1) residential dwelling unit will not create any significant negative impacts. • The property abuts public rights -of -way of three sides; therefore, the addition is directly adjacent to only one (1) other property. • The proposed addition will provide the required parking for the residential units. The existing commercial structures are not being enlarged or intensified, so the parking demand is not being increased. • The proposed addition will conform to all other requirements of the 1997 Zoning Code, including height and square footage limitations. 4. Finding: The proposed use will comply with the provisions of this code, including any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. Facts in support of finding: • The proposed mixed -use project is consistent with the legislative intent of Chapter 20.15 (Commercial Districts) and Chapter 20.52 (Residential (R) Overlay District) of the 1997 Zoning Code. The proposed project meets the development standards of the RSC -R district in regards to minimum site area per unit, height limit, and minimum lot area. The existing structures are nonconforming due to encroachments into the 10- foot rear alley setback and 5 -foot northerly side setback, and due to insufficient parking for the commercial uses. The proposed remodel of the existing residential unit and the addition of a unit are in conformance with the standards of Chapter 20.62 (Nonconforming Structures and Uses) of the 1997 Zoning Code. Section 20.62.040 (Nonconforming Structures) allows for structural alterations and additions of up to 75 percent with the approval of a use permit. • The existing residential unit conforms with the parking requirements of the R- Overlay District of two (2) parking spaces per unit. The proposed construction includes the addition of two (2) parking spaces for a total of four (4) parking spaces, meeting the residential parking requirements. No addition is proposed to the commercial structures. 5. Finding: The cost of improvements to be made is minor in comparison to the value of the existing nonconforming condition. Facts in support of finding: F: \Users\PLN \Shared\PA's \PAs - 2010\PA2010- 105\UP2010 -021 action.docx i��„N�r: 04/14/10 33 Whitacre Residence May 25, 2011 Page 4 • The cost of the addition and alterations in comparison to the value of the existing nonconforming condition is minor because although the cost of the remodel as proposed may be high, the existing mixed -use structure could not be rebuilt if it were to be demolished. In order to bring the existing buildings into conformance with the required setbacks, the removal of a significant portion of the residential living area and the retail surf shop would be necessary. Per the County Assessor's records, the total value of the property was assessed at $1,508,322 for the 2010 calendar year. 6. Finding: The cost of correcting the nonconforming condition would exceed the cost of the other alterations proposed. Facts in support of finding: • Correcting the nonconforming setbacks would require the removal of existing floor area from the residential structure and retail surf shop. The proposed alterations within the setback areas are only a minor portion of the entire project; therefore, the cost of the overall project is greater than the cost of the alterations within the setback areas. Demolition and replacement of the structures could not be accomplished without approval of a parking waiver. • The City has no plans on file for the original construction. Based on information from the County of Orange, the existing structures were built in the 1920s. 7. Finding: Retention of the nonconforming condition is necessary to maintain reasonable use of the structure. Facts in support of finding: • Retention of the nonconforming parking for the commercial structures is necessary because a mixed -use structure similar to the existing development could not be built under current development standards. The number of parking spaces required for the amount of commercial floor area allowed on this site is a minimum of ten (10) spaces based on a parking ratio of one (1) parking space for every 250 square feet of gross floor area. The minimum allowed floor area for a commercial structure on this mixed -use property is 1,250 square feet, which would require a minimum of five (5) parking spaces. This site does not provide adequate space for a code - compliant parking lot with 5 -10 parking spaces, in addition to the required residential parking. F: \Users \PLN \Shared \PA's \PAs - 2010 \PA2010 - 105 \UP2010 -021 action.docx T�„��r. 04/14/10 34 Whitacre Residence May 25, 2011 Page 5 • Retention of the nonconforming rear setback encroachment maintains the existing livable space within the structure. Removing the encroachments would result in one (1) less bedroom and reduced living area in the living room and master bedroom. 8. Finding: The addition and alteration does not increase the structure's inconsistency with the regulations of the Zoning Code. Facts in support of finding: • The proposed project includes the addition of two (2) parking spaces, satisfying the requirements for residential parking. The commercial structures are not being enlarged or intensified. • The proposed addition and alterations will meet all other development standards for the RSC -R District, with the exception of the Modification Permit requests. • The proposed construction is contained generally within the footprint of the existing structure. Modification Permit 9. Finding: The granting of the application is necessary due to the practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. Facts in support of finding: • The northerly side yard setback requirement of five (5) feet is due to the abutting property's Zoning designation of R -2 (Two -Unit Residential). The Zoning Code requires a side yard setback only because the abutting property is designated for residential use; however, the property to the north is developed with a mixed -use structure. This property is subject to abatement of the nonconforming mixed -use, but the property owner has applied for General Plan, Zoning Code, and Coastal Land Use Plan amendments to change the property to allow for mixed -use. If the amendment application is denied, then the property owner may request an extension on the abatement. Therefore, there is a possibility that the property will remain mixed -use for the foreseeable future. • The additional dwelling unit is being proposed within the required setback in order for the wall to line up with the existing commercial structure on the first floor. F:\Users\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs - 2010\PA2010-105\UP2010-021 action.docx r�„Pit: 04/14/10 .3,5 Whitacre Residence May 25, 2011 Page 6 • The existing commercial structures and residential dwelling unit constitute a practical difficulty associated with the property as the only location available for the four -car parking is located within the side and rear yard setbacks. 10. Finding: The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. Facts in support of finding: • The deviation from the Zoning Code requested through this application is compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding properties, many of which do not provide side yard or rear yard alley setbacks, either because of differing Zoning Code requirements or nonconforming encroachments. • Other properties on the block contain similar mixed -use projects with commercial structures on the first floor and residential uses above. 11. Finding: The granting of such an application will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. Facts in support of finding: The alley is approximately 25 feet wide and provides sufficient access for vehicles to park in the garages and carports. The 25 -foot width is also adequate for circulation. • The existing structures on site are built up to the northerly property line. The existing mixed -use structure to the north is also built on the property line, and this layout has not proven to be detrimental. • The proposed encroachment into the alley setback is for the carports and a deck above. No new living area is proposed within the alley setback. Conditions 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. The guard rail for the deck adjacent to the alley shall be constructed with wrought iron, glass, or similar open or translucent material. 3. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.67 of the Municipal Code or any applicable comprehensive sign program that is in force for the subject property. F:\Users \PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs - 2010 \PA2010 - 105 \UP2010 -021 action.docx Tn,p�c 04/14/10 .3 o Whitacre Residence May 25, 2011 Page 7 4. No temporary "sandwich" signs, balloons or similar temporary signs shall be permitted, either on -site or off -site, to advertise the proposed food establishment, unless specifically permitted in accordance with the Sign Ordinance of the Municipal Code. Temporary signs shall be prohibited in the public right -of -way, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department in conjunction with the issuance of an encroachment permit or encroachment agreement. 5. All trash shall be stored within the building or within public dumpsters provided for the convenience of businesses in the area, or otherwise screened from view of neighboring properties except when placed for pick -up by refuse collection agencies. The trash dumpsters shall have a top which shall remain closed at all times, except when being loaded or while being collected by the refuse collection agency. 6. The applicant shall maintain the trash dumpsters or receptacles so as to control odors which may include the provision of fully self- contained dumpsters or may include periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, if deemed necessary by the Planning Division. Trash generated by the establishment shall be adequately contained in sealed plastic bags to control odors prior to placement in the trash dumpster. 7. Anything not specifically approved by this Use Permit and Modification Permit is prohibited and must be addressed in a separate and subsequent review. 8. This approval was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not, in and of itself or in combination with other approvals in the vicinity or Citywide, constitute a precedent for future approvals or decisions. 9. A building permit shall be obtained prior to commencement of the construction. The construction must meet all applicable Building Code requirements including parapets and guards and fire resistant construction, where required. 10. A copy of this approval letter shall be incorporated into the City and field sets of plans prior to issuance of the building permits. 11. Approval from the California Coastal Commission is required prior to issuance of a building permit. 12. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide a covenant for review and approval by the Office of the City Attorney as to form and content, that will address holding the site to no more than two (2) dwelling units. Once approved and properly executed, that document shall be forwarded to the City officials for recordation against the property with the County Recorder. 13. If any of the existing public improvements surrounding the site is damaged by private work, new concrete sidewalk, curb and gutter, street pavement, and other FAUsers\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs - 2010 \PA2010- 105\UP2010 -021 action.docx Tmplt 04 /14 /10 37 Whitacre Residence May 25, 2011 Page 8 public improvements will be required by the City at the time of private construction completion. Said determination and the extent of the repair work shall be made at the discretion of the Public Works inspector. 14. All work performed within the public right -of -way shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department under an encroachment permit/agreement, if required. 15. Any nonstandard encroachment within the public right -of -way shall be removed, including any stairs or railings. 16. Each unit shall be served by separate water and sewer, and traffic grade lids shall be provided for each. 17. The applicant is responsible for all upgrades to the City's utilities as required to fulfill the project's demands, if applicable. 18. New and existing fire services shall be protected by a USC approved double check detector assembly and installed per STD - 517 -L, if required by the Fire Department. 19. New water services shall be installed per STD -502 -L or STD - 503 -L, depending on the size. 20. New and existing commercial water meter(s) shall be protected by a USC approved reduced pressure backflow assembly and installed per STD - 520 -L -A. 21. New and existing sewer laterals shall have a cleanout installed per STD - 406 -L. 22. The project will need to meet fire flow requirements with the addition to the building. The City and field sets of plans shall show all existing and proposed fire hydrants located within 300 feet of the project. 23. Smoke alarms will be required in the R occupancies and shall be installed as per California Building Code Section 907.2.11.2 outside of each separate sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of bedrooms and in each room used for sleeping purposes. 24. For new construction, an approved carbon monoxide alarm shall be installed in dwelling units and in sleeping units within which fuel- burning appliances are installed, and in dwelling units that have attached garages. 25. The address will need to be placed on the street side of the building, as required by the Fire Department. F: \Users\PLN \Shared\PA's\PAs - 2010 \PA2010 - 105 \UP2010 -021 action.docx Tn,ptt: 04/14/10 SR Whitacre Residence May 25, 2011 Page 9 26. Required vertical and horizontal occupancy separation must be met as per California Building Code Section 508.2.5.1. 27. As per California Fire Code Section 903.2.8, an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3 shall be provided throughout all buildings with a Group R fire area, as required by the Fire Department. 28. Exit hardware on new doors shall comply with California Fire Code Section 1008.1.9.3, as required by the Fire Department. 29. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the Whitacre Residence including, but not limited to, Use Permit No. UP2010 -021 and Modification Permit No. MD2010 -027. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. 30. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the approval date, as specified in Section 20.93.050 (A) of the 1997 Zoning Code. Prior to the expiration date of this approval, an extension may be approved in accordance with Section 20.93.050 (B) of the 1997 Zoning Code. Requests for an extension must be in writing. APPEAL PERIOD The applicant or any interested party may appeal the decision of the Planning Director, Zoning Administrator and department staff to the Planning Commission by a written request to the Planning Director within 14 days of the action date. A $4,333.00 filing fee shall accompany any appeal filed. For additional information on filing an appeal, contact the Planni ent at 949- 44 -3200. By: i Patrick Alford, Zo ing Administrator PA/fn Attachments: Vicinity Map Project Plans F: \Users\PLN \Shared \PA's \PAs - 2010\PA2010- 105\UP2010 -021 action.docx Tmplt 04/14/10 3J GSA City Council Attachment E Planning Commission Minutes 41 ran NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 07/07/2011 require that the arbor in the front -yard setback be removed because it impacts othgrSand property owners. Commissio Hawkins mentioned that the property owner across the street who i ost affected by the variance reitluest for the arbor in the front yard is in full support of the a ication and verified with staff that the ApKicant could leave the structure in place if he "cuts it meaning the applicant would be in complianc ith two or three adjacent arbors as long as h one constitutes no more than 16 square feet as the a does not limit the number of these pAructures in the required yards. Commissioner Hawkins also state at he believes the Co fission can make findings with respect to: all of the rear -yard improvement ue to the cir stances of the property and the utility easement; side -yard height issues for thi privacy issues and especially the easterly to approve the granny unit thus enhancing because the chimney is necessary for th yard arbor that is an issue but if the a icy the code. nes both sides because they are necessary for e property especially if the Commission is going iva 'ty of the structure; the chimney on the fireplace fety of th ireplace; and stated that it is only the front - "cuts-it-up" t it will be in substantial compliance with Motion made by Commis ' ner Hawkins and seconded by Vice Chair erge, and carried (7 — 0) to approve the minor us permit and all the variances with respect to the dings previously stated regarding the arbor , walls, fireplace, and storage building. AYES: Ameri, Hawkins, Hillgren, Kramer, Myers, Toerge, and NOES: None. AB T: None. STAIN: None. ITEM NO. 3 Whitacre Residence Appeal - (PA2010 -105) 101 15th Street The applicant requests a use permit for an addition of up to 75 percent of the existing gross floor area and alterations of up to 75 percent of the existing structural elements of a nonconforming structure. The applicant also requests a modification permit to allow the proposed addition to encroach five (5) feet into the required 5 -foot side setback on the northerly side of the property in order for the proposed residential unit on the second floor to line up with the wall of the commercial structure on the first floor. The modification permit request is also to allow an 8 -foot encroachment into the required 10 -foot rear setback for the carports with a deck above. The site is developed with two (2) commercial structures adjacent to 15th Street and a residential structure to the rear. The applicant proposes an addition to the existing residence and the addition of a new dwelling unit above the commercial structures. Four -car parking is proposed to satisfy the residential parking requirements. Although the Zoning Administrator granted the use permit and modification, this decision was timely appealed to the Planning Commission. Assistant Planner Fern Nueno provided a staff report and utilized a PowerPoint presentation. Community Development Director Kim Brandt noted that this is a De Novo hearing and that all the evidence can be considered. In response to a question from Commission Hawkins, Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill clarified that Commissioner Hawkins is vote on this item even though he submitted an appeal letter on the Zoning Administrator's decision and requested review of the application, noting that the code allows for the Planning Commission to call items up for review with no requirement of recusals. Page 4 of 15 43 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 07/07/2011 Chair Unsworth spoke regarding the previous Zoning Code and parking issues relative to the commercial site and the totality of the project. In response to Chair Unsworth's comments, Ms. Nueno referenced the "Nonresidential Parking" section in the code and clarified that parking for the residential addition is being provided (four car parking with two per unit) and that the Code does not require that the commercial parking be provided because there is no enlargement or intensification of the commercial use proposed because the applicant is only expanding the existing residential and proposing a new unit. Commissioner Hawkins referenced Point No. 6 under Appeal Letter on page seven (7) of the staff report, mentioned that "demolitions' are not a defined term in the code however "alterations' and "structural alterations" are defined terms in the code, stated that his concern is regarding the demolition of majority of the commercial and then reconstruction of that noting that under the code's language it can be regarded as an alteration and mentioned that he feels the project is at 75 percent alteration, spoke regarding the findings in the resolution in comparison to the finding of the Zoning Administrator resolution, referenced handwritten page 16 New Finding: E which states that the cost of correcting the nonconforming condition would exceed the cost of the proposed project, New Information E3 that the Zoning Administrator did not have noting that the Zoning Administrator did not base his determination on the new information, stated that the new findings put a dollar number to the costs, mentioned that there was a missing part in connection with the Zoning Administrator's determination based on the new information and spoke regarding whether the Zoning Administrator made the appropriate findings in connection with the nonconformity of the use. Assistant Planner Nueno clarified that historically the City has not considered demolishing entire walls and then rebuilding them as just a structural alteration, noted that demolishing three (3) out of four (4) walls would not be considered a structural alteration from the City's point of view, stated that the 75 percent rule allows for alterations to structural elements, that typically the City has done surface area calculations including roofs, foundations, and exterior walls and not necessarily each structural member within the wall, noted that the plans provided in the packet are essentially the same plans from the Zoning Administrator with the addition of the structural calculations since the appeal, noted that Fact in Support of Finding E3 was not included in the Action Letter findings, that the facts stated in the Action Letter were the basis for the approval and noted that there are just a few changes to the resolution based on the new information. Community Development Director Brandt clarified for the record that there is new information in the Planning Commission Resolution that is different from the Zoning Administrator's Action Letter and asked Assistant Planner Nueno to point out what additional and supporting findings have been included in the Planning Commission Resolution. Chair Unsworth stated that he is concerned about putting a brand new structure on top of a commercial building and potentially exceeding the 75 percent rule and inquired as to how Staff determined that $550,000 (the estimated cost of the proposed project) is minor in comparison to the value of the nonconforming parking and setbacks. Ms. Nueno noted the cost of the proposed project is compared to value of the nonconformity, not the cost of the nonconformity. Ms. Nueno further stated that the value of the nonconformity is not necessarily a monetary value, but rather the value of the existing, nonconforming condition. A development comparable to what is existing would not be able to be constructed under the current code, so the value of the existing nonconformity is value of having a mixed -use development on site compared with the cost of the proposed construction. Page 5 of 15 -4-4 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 07/07/2011 Commissioner Hawkins stated that one of the grounds for appeal was that the approval is inconsistent with use permits in the area and inquired as to whether it is an appropriate grounds for an appeal. Assistant Planner Nueno clarified that D1 and E3 were the only changes to the findings from the Action Letter to the Planning Commission Resolution. Chair Unsworth called for Ex Parte Communication reports from the Commission. Commissioner Hawkins reported that he spoke with Mr. Todd Schooler, an agent of one of the adjacent property owners who appeared at the hearing, noted that Mr. Schooler did not participate in the drafting of the appeal or call for review, and mentioned that he visited the site. Commissioner Toerge reported that he visited the site. Commissioner Myers reported that he visited the site. Chair Unsworth opened the public hearing period. Joe Angelo, applicant, stated that he believes the structures were built around 1945, that he does not intend to invade the majority of the commercial structure, commented regarding his neighbor's mixed -use property and stated that he read and is in agreement with all of the conditions. William Azzalino, architect for the Whitacre Residence, spoke about the structure on the property, stated that the intention is to leave the existing walls complete, that the only new addition to the existing buildings would be the addition of two (2) new columns on either side for support, mentioned the carports, parking for the commercial, 75 percent rule, stucco upgrades, residential redevelopment and stated that he does not think there would be any problem with a condition that distributes the 75 percent alteration to the entirety of the structures but suggested that the condition state that there will be no more than 75 percent alteration to the commercial structures at all. Chair Unsworth invited comments from the public. Todd Schooler, architect representing Morrie Nero, asked why a use permit is required if the applicant only intents to demolish or alter 8 -25 percent, suggested that the applicant be required to submit a demo plan, expressed his concerns regarding the cost of the proposed project, spoke regarding trash storage and suggested that the revised conditions of approval regarding the trash storage state that any trash enclosures belonging to the commercial site be located on their property. Morrie Nero, property owner adjacent to the applicant, expressed his concerns regarding the parking requirements for the applicants' commercial establishment, the cost of the proposed project, requested removal of the trash storage from off the street, mentioned a potential handicapped parking space once the trash storage is removed, spoke regarding trenching along the Surf Shop property, stated that the Surf Shop wall is not adequate enough to support a second story and mentioned potential earthquake damage. Maret Kunze, tenant of the adjacent property, expressed her concerns regarding high- density parking and requested that the construction be completed in a timely manner so it does not interrupt her business. In response to comments and concerns, Mr. Angelo spoke regarding the trash storage, noted that he ordered a smaller trash storage and plans to move it from its current location, estimated that the Page 6 of 15 45 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 07/07/2011 commercial space will be down for approximately 30 days and stated that his goal is to rapidly complete the exterior and complete the project as fast as he can. Chair Unsworth closed the public hearing. Chair Unsworth re- opened the public comment period to allow the architect to elaborate on construction time. Mr. Azzalino stated that a demolition plan has already been provided to the City and stated that an estimate of 12 months is a reasonable time frame for the anticipated completion of the project. Chair Unsworth closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ameri spoke regarding the integrity of the existing structure, public safety issues, and a thorough review of the Traffic Engineer's report and stated that he is uncomfortable approving the project without a thorough review of the structural plans. In response to questions from the Commission, Community Development Director Brandt clarified that Building and Planning will work together during the plan check review process to ensure that if the Planning Commission decides to approve this project, the proposed improvements will comply with all the applicable building codes and Zoning Code approval and noted that the approved permit for any demolition, structural alterations and new construction will comply with any zoning entitlement obtained for the project. She stated that if during construction, the structure is altered in a manner that is not consistent with the approval or require modifications to the permit, the City will issue a Stop Work Order (Red Tag) until the issues can be resolved. Commissioner Kramer made a motion to uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator and adopt the resolution with the Use Permit and Modification Permit. Commissioner Hawkins seconded this motion for the purposes of discussion and noted the following additional amendments: make an additional finding that the structure is a nonconforming structure and base those findings on the appropriate language; the resolution also affirm the appeal in that there are several issues including the new facts that have been added; add a condition that states that the 75 percent alteration cannot be located in the existing nonconforming structures and note that the applicant accepts this condition. Commissioner Hillgren expressed his concern regarding Item No. 10 under the conditions of approval and recommended that it be moved or tied to Item No. 31. The maker and the second of the motion accepted this recommendation. In response to a clarification request from Mr. Ramirez regarding the added condition for 75 percent structural alterations, Commissioner Hawkins requested that the public comment period be re- opened to allow the architect to restate his more restrictive condition. Chair Unsworth re- opened the public comment period. Mr. Azzalino suggested that the condition state that the majority of all commercial walls shall remain intact meaning at least 50 percent of every wall has to remain intact and noted that there will be more specifics and information in the plans that he will submit to the Building Division. Chair Unsworth closed the public hearing Page 7 of 15 40 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 07/07/2011 Community Development Director Brandt spoke regarding the limitations of alterations, referenced handwritten page 20 of the staff report and suggested Condition No. 4 read that "the alterations to all commercial structures on the property shall not exceed more than 50 percent of any structural exterior wall or roof noting that this condition is limited to the exterior as proposed. Commissioner Hawkins recommended that the amendment to Condition No. 4 state that "the alterations to all commercial structures on the property shall not exceed more than 30 percent of any structural exterior wall or roof' instead of 50 percent as proposed by Community Development Director Brandt. He stated that if his recommendation of a 30 percent limit to the amended Condition No. 4 is not acceptable to the maker of the motion then he would not support the motion. Commissioner Kramer stated that the amendment was acceptable. Commissioner Toerge expressed his concerns regarding the effectiveness of the estimate on construction costs, asked how or if staffs recommendation would change if the construction costs were to double, how much support staff has done to confirm the estimated numbers, inquired as to how the construction costs were estimated without detail plans, structural plans and structural calculations, stated that the numbers do not make sense, that there is a lack of hard evidence and stated that he does not believe that the applicant can build with the numbers he has proposed. Assistant Planner Nueno stated that if construction costs were to double the only finding it would change is Fact in Support of Finding E3 which states that "the cost of correcting the nonconforming condition would exceed the cost of the other alterations proposed ", mentioned that projected costs were provided by the applicant and reviewed by staff based on the valuation of projected which can be verified by the permit system and that the numbers are based on square footage and occupancy. Motion made by Commissioner Kramer and seconded by Commissioner Hawkins, and failed (3 — 4) to uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator and adopt the Resolution for Use Permit No. UP2010- 021 and Modification Permit No. MD2010 -027. AYES: Hawkins, Hillgren, and Kramer NOES: Ameri, Myers, Toerge, and Unsworth ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Chair Unsworth stated that appeal rights will terminate 14 days after today and that the decision will stand unless it is so appealed. Later in the meeting, at the conclusion of Item No. 4, there was a motion made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner Hawkins, and passed (5 — 2) to adopt the resolution for the findings of denial for Item No. 3, Whitacre Residence Appeal - (PA2010 -105). MEAL.NO. Nero Property Amendment, 15th Street (PA2011 -061) 105 15th Street The property owner is ing to continue the existing non- confor commercial uses of the subject property by requesting following amendments: 1 eral Plan Land Use designation from Two -Unit Residential (RT) to -Use Horizo (MU -H4), 2) Coastal Land Use Plan designation from Two -Unit Residential (RT- fixed -Use Horizontal (MU -H), and 3) Zoning designation from Two -Unit Residential (R- the 1 -Use Cannery Village and 15th Street (MU- CV /15th ST). No new land use or d opment is proposed a time. Senior Planner Javie arcia provided a staff report and utilized a Power resentation Chair orth called for Ex Parte Communication reports from the Commission. Page 8 of 15 47 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City Attorney Mulvihill clarified that the vote must pass by a two - thirds ly call for the question and stop any discussion on the motion on the floor. Commissio r Toerge moved to terminate discussion and call for the majority vote forqo discussion carried (6 -1). AYES: wkins, Hillgren, Kramer, MyeZpending NOES: Am ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Chair Unsworth requested that the Commis ' vote on 07/07/2011 two- thirds Motion made by Commissioner Toerge ands d by Commissioner Kramer and carried (4 -3) to approve Use Permit No. UP2011 -012 wit closing ur of 12:00 midnight for the interior of the establishment and 10:00 p.m. for the door dining pa ti ubject to the findings and conditions of approval in the draft resolution. AYES: Kra5wf, Myers, Toerge, and Unsworth NOES: 4Keri, Hawkins, and Hillgren ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Chair Un orth stated that the decision will be final unless appealed within 14 days from City Attorney Mulvihill requested to be heard before moving on to New Business. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill clarified that Item No. 3 was a motion to uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator which failed, pointed out the resolution identifying findings for denial of the Zoning Administrators' decision on handwritten page 25 of the staff report and respectfully requested that one of the members of the prevailing vote on the denial (Ameri, Myers, Toerge and Unsworth), under the rules of procedure, consider reconsidering Item No. 3 simply for the purposes of adopting the resolution for denial and noted for the record that the Zoning Administrators' decision was reversed. Motion made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner Myers, and passed (6 — 1) to reconsider Item No. 3 simply for the purposes of adopting the resolution for denial. AYES: Ameri, Hawkins, Hillgren, Myers, Toerge, and Unsworth NOES: Kramer ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill requested that the Commission vote to adopt the resolution for the findings of denial. Motion made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner Hawkins, and passed (5 — 2) to adopt the resolution for the findings of denial. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill clarified that a "no" vote means upholding the decision of the Zoning Administrator. Discussion ensued between the Commission regarding what the "yes" and "no" vote entails. Page 14 of 15 42 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AYES: Ameri, Hillgren, Myers, Toerge, and Unsworth NOES: Hawkins and Kramer ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. NEW BUSINESS — None. J. TAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO.6 \ Community Development Director's report None. ITEM NO.7 Annou ements on matters that Co future age a for discussion, action, None. ITEM NO, 8 Request for excused Commissioner Toerge requested an exc Commissioner Myers requested a xcused 07/07/2011 members would like placed on a I absen %eonJu 21, 2011. absenc21, 2011. Commissioner Hillgren requ ed an excused absence on July 2112,011 ComXada requested a tentative excused absence on July %2011. Coment Director Brandt stated that the meeting on Aug a lend stated that if the Commission anticipates that they are r quor 2011, staff will just reorder the projects in terms of g Com e sure that the agendas are appropriately balanced. JOURNMENT - The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:07 p.m 1 at 4:00 p.m. has oing to have a ttin them to the Page 15 of 15 -9 50 City Council Attachment F Planning Commission Resolution 51 52 RESOLUTION ISO. 1841 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ARID DENYING USE PERMIT NO. UP2010 -021 AND MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. tllID2010 -027 FOR AN ADDITION AND ALTERATIONS TO A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE THAT WILL ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS LOCATED AT 101 15TH STREET (PA2010 -105) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by William Azzalino, with respect to property located at 101 15" Street, and legally described as Lots 1 and 2, Block 15, Section B, requesting approval of a use permit and modification permit. 2. The applicant proposes an addition to a nonconforming, mixed -use structure. The Use Permit would allow an addition of up to 75 percent of the existing square footage and up to 75 percent structural alterations to the existing structures. The Modification Permit would allow the proposed addition to encroach five (5) feet into the required five -foot side setback on the northerly side of the property and eight (8) feet into the required ten -foot rear alley setback. 3. The subject property is located within the Mixed -Use Cannery Village /15th S t (MU- CV /15th St) Zoning District; however, the Retail and Service Commercial — Residential Overlay (RSC -R) District regulations from the 1997 Zoning Code apply to this project. The General Plan Land Use Element category is Mixed -Use Horizontal (MU -1­14). 4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is Mixed -Use Horizontal (MU -H). 5. A public hearing was held on July 7, 2011, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. SECTION 2. FINDINGS.. The Planning Commission may approve a use permit and modification permit only after making each of the required findings set forth in Section 20.91.035, Section 20.62.040, and Section 20.93.030 of the 1997 Zoning Code. In this case, the Planning Commission was unable to make the required findings based upon the following: 53 Planning Commission Resolution No 1847 Paqe 2 of 2 Allowing an addition above the commercial structures and alterations of up to 75 percent of the existing structural elements prolongs the life of the nonconforming commercial structures. The nonconforming parking for the commercial uses is detrimental to the community and the life of the structures should not be extended to allow for an additional dwelling unit above. 2. The proposed structure should not be constructed within a setback area and the structure should be at least partially brought into conformance with the required setbacks. SECTION 3. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies Use Permit No. UP2010 -021 and Modification Permit No. MD2010 -027 (PA2010 -105), reversing the decision of the Zoning Administrator. 2. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this Resolution unless w,tnin such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 7`h DAY OF JULY, 2011. AYES: Amen, Hillgren, Myers, Toerge, and Unsworth NOES: Hawkins and Kramer ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Charles Unswo h, Chairman BY: - I6 ren Secretary Tmplt: 03108!11 54 City Council Attachment G Planning Commission Staff Report 515 50 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT July 7, 2011 Meeting Agenda Item 3 SUBJECT: Whitacre Residence Appeal - (PA2010 -M5) 101 15th Street • Use Permit No. UP2010 -021 • Modification Permit No. MD2010 -027 APPLICANT: William Azzalino, AIA PLANNER: Fern Nueno, Assistant Planner (949) 644 -3227, fnueno @newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY An appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of Use Permit No. UP2010 -021 and Modification Permit No. MD2010 -027, which allowed an addition to a nonconforming structure. The Use Permit would allow for an addition of up to 75 percent of the existing gross floor area and alterations of up to 75 percent of the existing structural elements of the nonconforming structures. The Use Permit would not allow a demolition and rebuild of the existing structures, only alteration of up to 75 percent of the structural elements. The Modification Permit would allow for encroachments into the rear and side setbacks. The site is developed with two (2) commercial structures adjacent to 15th Street and a residential structure to the rear. The applicant proposes an addition to the existing residence and the addition of a new dwelling unit above the commercial structures. Four -car parking is proposed to satisfy the residential parking requirements. RECOMMENDATION 1. Conduct a public hearing; and 2. Uphold or reverse the decision of the Zoning Administrator and adopt Resolution No. _ (Attachment No. PC 1 or PC 2) for Use Permit No. UP2010 -021 and Modification Permit No. MD2010 -027. 57 VICINITY MAP GEN Whitacre Residence Appeal July 7, 2011 Page 2 Subject Property bay°p�otvbw c -.< �' %keoe atvow '��R2 i bFlb63 bEVbw k- 3 f '..y P °gIBM BIV°W 7 u MU-CV/15TH ST 'V ,. � y R -2 rzr a y, P, 1.1(FAR R k Y 2 t x s a P1.1;FAR. ':, (e. 9 ,.r. ':� a • r� Z R 2 R p w t o i gyp,„ `ti w F.T =•4- �� "�,<,..'�v�x3�,� �,.. ...ix.. .,s.'u�.:.. _..,.... , },�'* "'��..,,d°RZR 2R3 �, _ R2•`. ,,.? °ceavrb°H.w : R "24M"` v+„ ZONING i RZ�S ar CV1a,"✓�n6'iu AU - CVNSTH 5T Mixed Use Horizontal (MU -H4) Mixed Use (MU -CV /15th St) Mixed use with fast food, retail surf shop, and residential ticEµEF°HTw � � S Two -Unit Residential (R -2) `N12i;+ LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ON -SITE Mixed Use Horizontal (MU -H4) Mixed Use (MU -CV /15th St) Mixed use with fast food, retail surf shop, and residential NORTH Two -Unit Residential (RT) Two -Unit Residential (R -2) Mixed use with acupuncture and residential SOUTH Parks and Recreation PR Parks and Recreation PR Beach and public restrooms EAST Two -Unit Residential RT Two -Unit Residential R -2 Multi -unit and two -unit residential WEST Two -Unit Residential RT Two -Unit Residential R -2 Two -unit residential WIN Whitacre Residence Appeal July 7, 2011 Page 3 INTRODUCTION Project Setting The subject property is located on the Balboa Peninsula on the corner of 15th Street and West Ocean Front and is approximately 5,000 square feet in area (50 feet wide by 100 feet deep). The subject property is surrounded on three (3) sides by public rights -of -way and is adjacent to a mixed -use structure located to the north. The nearby surrounding area is developed with residential, commercial, places of worship, schools, beaches, and parks. Project Description The applicant requests a use permit for an addition of up to 75 percent of the existing gross floor area and alterations of up to 75 percent of the existing structural elements of a nonconforming structure. The applicant also requests a modification permit to allow the proposed addition to encroach five (5) feet into the required 5 -foot side setback on the northerly side of the property in order for the proposed residential unit on the second floor to line up with the wall of the commercial structure on the first floor. The modification permit request is also to allow an 8 -foot encroachment into the required 10- foot rear setback for the carports with a deck above. The site is developed with two (2) commercial structures adjacent to 15th Street and a residential structure to the rear. The applicant proposes an addition to the existing residence and the addition of a new dwelling unit above the commercial structures. Four -car parking is proposed to satisfy the residential parking requirements. The existing mixed -use development is nonconforming due to encroachments into the required 10 -foot rear alley setback and 5 -foot side setback along the northerly property line. The property is also nonconforming because the commercial uses do not provide off - street parking. Two (2) previous modification permits were approved for additions to the nonconforming structure allowing encroachments into the rear alley setback. Of those, only one (1) was constructed, which allowed encroachments into the required 10- foot rear setback of 5 feet, 8 inches with an additional 6 inches for the roof eave. The construction also included interior alterations that converted a duplex into a single -unit residence. Pursuant to Chapter 20.62 (Nonconforming Structures and Uses) of the 1997 Zoning Code, an increase of up to 75 percent of the gross floor area and alteration of up to 75 percent of the structural elements are permitted with the approval of a use permit. The proposed project is an addition to the existing residential structure and the addition of a new residential unit. No intensification of the commercial uses is proposed. Since the appeal, the applicant has submitted structural calculations demonstrating that the structural alterations may be as low as 25 percent (Attachment No. PC 3). However, because of the age of some of the structures on -site, dry rot, termite damage, or other issues may lead to a higher percentage of structural alterations. Under no 151 Whitacre Residence Appeal July 7, 2011 Page 4 circumstances could this approval allow more than 75 percent structural alterations or a demolition and reconstruction of the existing structures in their entirety. Background On May 25, 2011, the Zoning Administrator conducted a public hearing, reviewed the applicant's request, and received testimony from the applicant and members of the public. The Zoning Administrator approved the application. A copy of the Action Letter is attached (Attachment No. PC 4). Staff recommended approval of the project to the Zoning Administrator based on the circumstances of the project and the facts in support of the required findings. Prior to the Zoning Administrator hearing, three (3) comment letters (Attachment No. PC 5) were received via email that expressed concerns about the project, including trash and parking. Staff also described the project to members of the public in person and over the telephone. During the hearing, members of the public expressed concerns regarding allowing up to 75 percent structural alterations and the lack of parking for the commercial portion of the development. The Zoning Administrator determined that there were facts in support of the required findings and approved the project. As part of the approval, a condition was included requiring the trash to be located on site and screened from view. On June 8, 2011, Planning Commissioner Hawkins appealed the Zoning Administrator's action. DISCUSSION Ordinance 2010 -21, which adopted the current Zoning Code, provides that discretionary applications deemed complete prior to the effective date of the ordinance may be processed under the previous Zoning Code, provided they are found consistent with the General Plan. The application was submitted and deemed complete prior to the adoption of the current Zoning Code. Therefore, this project is being reviewed subject to regulations of the previous Zoning Code (1997 Zoning Code). Analysis Required Findings Section 20.91.035, Section 20.62.040, and Section 20.93.030 of the 1997 Zoning Code require certain findings to be made in order to approve the project. In order to grant approval of the Use Permit and Modification Permit, the Planning Commission must make each of the following findings: 00 Whitacre Residence Appeal July 7, 2011 Page 5 Use Permit 1. The proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. The proposed location of the use permit and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city. 3. The proposed use will comply with the provisions of this code, including any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. 4. The cost of improvements to be made is minor in comparison to the value of the existing nonconforming condition. 5. The cost of correcting the nonconforming condition would exceed the cost of the other alterations proposed. 6. Retention of the nonconforming condition is necessary to maintain reasonable use of the structure. 7. The addition and alteration does not increase the structure's inconsistency with the regulations of the Zoning Code. Modification Permit 8. The granting of the application is necessary due to the practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. 9. The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. 10. The granting of such an application will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. 01 Whitacre Residence Appeal July 7, 2011 Page 6 The Zoning Administrator believed that the proposed project meets the legislative intent of the 1997 Zoning Code and that findings for approval could be made, and facts in support of the required findings are included in the draft resolution upholding the Zoning Administrator's decision (Attachment No. PC 1). Appeal Letter The letter of appeal (Attachment No. PC 6) listed seven (7) points regarding why the decision was appealed. The appeal letter primarily addressed facts in support of fthe required indings for the Use Permit regarding the alteration of up to 75 percent of the structural elements. The numbered points below correspond to the seven (7) points made in Commissioner Hawkins' letter. 1. Use permits are reviewed on a case -by -case basis. Several use permits for a variety of developments and uses have been approved in the vicinity of the proposed project, including use permits for a mixed -use structure with tandem parking, a church, and alterations and additions to nonconforming structures. 2. Section 20.62.030.A states that the "Planning Director shall determine the nonconformity of any use, building, structure, or lot." The project description included in the Zoning Administrator Action Letter and public notice indicate that the proposed project is a request to allow an addition to a nonconforming structure. The existing structures are nonconforming due to deficient commercial parking and setback encroachments into the rear and northerly side setback areas. 3. The Zoning Administrator determined that the facts presented in the action letter supported making the health, safety, and welfare finding. The required four -car parking for the residential uses is proposed with the project and an enlargement or intensification of the commercial uses is not proposed. Therefore, a request for a parking waiver is not required or requested. 4. The cost of the proposed project is minor in comparison to the value of the nonconforming condition. The existing development could not be built under current development standards. The nonconforming, rear setback encroachment maintains the existing livable space within the structure. The five -foot encroachment of the retail surf shop into the side setback allows reasonable use of the commercial tenant space. The estimated cost of the proposed project is $550,000, which is minor in comparison to the value of the nonconforming parking and setbacks. 5. The cost of correcting the nonconforming condition would exceed the cost of the proposed project. Correcting the nonconforming setbacks would require the removal of existing floor area from the residential structure and retail surf shop, and would likely require demolition and reconstruction of the entire structures. 02 Whitacre Residence Appeal July 7, 2011 Page 7 The proposed alterations within the setback areas are only a minor portion of the entire project. Based on information from the applicant, which was reviewed by staff, the estimated cost of demolishing the structures within the setbacks and rebuilding them would be approximately $860,000 and the estimated cost of the proposed project is $550,000. 6. Approval of the Use Permit for 75 percent structural alterations would not allow a demolition and reconstruction of the existing structure as only alterations are permitted. 7. The 1997 Zoning Code remains available at City Hall and is available online at http:// www .newportbeachca.gov /index.aspx ?page =175. The link to the 1997 Zoning Code on the website was removed because only a few projects remained under the 1997 Zoning Code. Additionally, even though the website noted that the 1997 Zoning Code had been superseded and was only being used for the projects that met the submittal deadline, having the link posted on the website created confusion for the public. The City wanted to avoid any potential misuse of the 1997 Zoning Code during project design; therefore, staff made the determination that it was best to remove the link from the website. The project title is "Whitacre Residence" even though this is a mixed -use property because the addition is to the existing residence and the addition of a second dwelling unit. This title was not intended to be misleading and the project description describes the mixed -use development on -site. Alternatives 1. Should the Planning Commission find there are facts to support the findings required to grant approval of the Use Permit and Modification Permit, as proposed or as modified, the Planning Commission should adopt Resolution No. _ (Attachment No. PC 1), upholding the decision of the Zoning Administrator, and approving Use Permit No. UP2011 -021 and Modification Permit No. MD2010 -027. 2. Should the Planning Commission find the facts do not support the findings required to grant approval of the Use Permit and Modification Permit, the Planning Commission should adopt Resolution No. _ (Attachment No. PC 2), reversing the decision of the Zoning Administrator, and denying Use Permit No. UP2011 -021 and Modification Permit No. MD2010 -027. Environmental Review If upheld and approved, then this project is exempt from CEQA, pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 1 — Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of O3 Whitacre Residence Appeal July 7, 2011 Page 8 Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, which exempts minor alterations to existing facilities that involve negligible expansion of the use, including the addition of a new residential unit. If reversed and denied, then the project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") review, pursuant to Section 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the property (excluding intervening rights -of -way), and posted at the project site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this meeting consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: Submitted by: q ueno, Assistant Planner Gregg R irez, 8ehior Planp r ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Draft Resolution — Uphold PC 2 Draft Resolution — Reverse PC 3 Calculations of Structural Alterations PC 4 Zoning Administrator Action Letter PC 5 Correspondence PC 6 Appeal Letter PC 7 Project Plans F: \Users \PLN \Shared \PA's \PAs - 2010 \PA2010 - 105 \PC 07 -07- 2011 \PA2010 -105 pc rpt.docx Tmpll: 04/18/11 04 City Council Attachment H Mayor Henn's Appeal 05 00 From: Brandt. Kim To: Campbell, lames; Ramirez. Greaa; Nueno, Fern Subject: FW: 101 15th St Appeal Date: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 1:21:08 PM Here you go. l- iw. From: Mike Henn [mailto:mfhenn @verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 20116:00 PM To: Brown, Leilani Cc: Brandt, Kim; Kiff, Dave Subject: FW: 101 15th St Appeal Hi Leilani: I wish to appeal the Planning Commission's recent decision to reverse the Zoning Administrator's decision for 101 15th Street. The key vote was 4 to 3, and there were issues regarding the interpretation of the old zoning code relating to percentage of remodel, the cost of remodel in comparison to cost of new construction, and the issue of prolonging the life of a non - conforming structure that may benefit from Council review in light of improved guidance on these issues in the new zoning code. Mike 07 02 City Council Attachment I Project Plans .- 70 P.9 EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS /PROPOSED EXPANSION AF SCALE 1/4 " ::V -0" A IENTIAL Existing Development Proposed Development Zoning Code Requirement Lot Area (sf) 5,000 sf (2 lots) 5,000 sf 2,000sf Lot Width (ft) 50' -0' (2 @25') 50' -0' 25' Lot Depth (ft) 100' -0' 1001 -0' - Setback Yards m Te•� Front (ft) 0' -0' 0' -0' 0' -0' Side (ft) - North 0' -0' 5' -0' S' -0' Side (ft) - South 0' -0' 0' -0' 0' -0' Rear (ft) 3-10' 31 -10' 101 -0' 1st Fir/ 6-0' End Fir Gross Floor Area (sf) LlmlitRd to 757. structural alterations 2,358el commercial 5895tgarage 10 42 at residential isi noor 802strasldential 2nd floor 0, an9Total GFA 3�44asf- 95Toallerad.n, 2.35adcommerdal -ex 485 At garage lAel 676teresldental- ea9mglARlwr 1235 slurreentlal- and MrRr 2.30551rasidenlial -and floor 7,259st T.1o16FA 4,901 At Resider al 2,500 sf CAmmenelal 5, 000 si r.s,denfal 4 cars - 2 residential ex. garag 1 omXI new 1 garage new Floor Area Ratio 4716%co —dal 9.18% garage 34.96 %residential 47.16 %commerdal 13 -12% garage 43.60 %resident laaeradons .5 Comm, 1.0nes, Building Coverage (7.) 60.827. 77,50'% - Building Height (ft) 21' -1' 26' mid, 31 -enof 26'flattmid of 31'roof Lnndscaping (%) 39.18% 35.46% - Pnving (%) 1.28% 1.28% - Parking 2 Cars Residential 4 Cars Residential 2 per unit reswentlal Number of Employees 3 3 - Number of Seats 0 0 - Dmelling Units 1 - Grade & Second Floor 2 Units 1 - Grade+ End FI. 1 - Second Floor A IENTIAL Em6Ra almRM somuE EXISTING SURF SHOP AND m m' RESTAURANT PER A m sa sa .gym m Te•� o m N. m mir' ,K CO m Cm exlsllnGEUersxoP ® m jIm �Earmmsnmsm Is :�. m^ m A IENTIAL SITE PLAN SHOWING EXPANSION` p PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ' RESIDENTAIL ORY EXISTING RESTAURANT sscTloN as W WILLIAM AZ�UND ARCHITECT M 1110r Ib MrYaP fNr RIDTE WTAERE RESIICNE£ IM - Inl SIR STREET Iiii G lots l t e F.. IS LSM�vm m n mo t RiK .R .4 p�21eI RI My. RrinsR 06 o.ro. cwrry. MIXED U� 6 ,z o R_ -rne s 1 , n 1X11 IND "I II111 llf tlGVaLS MID SmaN IGI®6 ux mmERIT a• Ynlw . Jul MSgIECi M10. Wi E .. QI Y1Y a11ER RRWER EMSEPi BT tE YRI " XA00R "N" vaLUx ... RREMIEET. vall ... . Tin¢ RRENTRIEE AVER THE Mulls ... AVa Sal E vwI® W THE A0 SIT% MIY D]SSEEEIEE II E 6RWMT To TE .. Eva. /SZRLa[I MExITEET . m aEE]IEERT W un vM M ERRORS AND CONS MaSM iEEIT®I ARE [ RN S SIDE RESSIRST JTY. IDXXIDI MIND 1L.1 a:a.�a.q„R and mu STRUCTURAL CHANGES 09- 101104 r1PQI P.m urz 6 -11 -IO R ,L11-17 11 -17 ay Contents m12-28 City Convents A\06-28 City Area Calc. m A-0 I- ... as NEW RESIDENTIAL OVER EXISTING SURF SHOP AND RESTAURANT PER A _,rte E+ N. ,K CO RTV D exlsllnGEUersxoP jIm isusrvr i PENCE r A . D ar'lar ErMl V SITE PLAN SHOWING EXPANSION` p PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ' RESIDENTAIL ORY EXISTING RESTAURANT sscTloN as W WILLIAM AZ�UND ARCHITECT M 1110r Ib MrYaP fNr RIDTE WTAERE RESIICNE£ IM - Inl SIR STREET Iiii G lots l t e F.. IS LSM�vm m n mo t RiK .R .4 p�21eI RI My. RrinsR 06 o.ro. cwrry. MIXED U� 6 ,z o R_ -rne s 1 , n 1X11 IND "I II111 llf tlGVaLS MID SmaN IGI®6 ux mmERIT a• Ynlw . Jul MSgIECi M10. Wi E .. QI Y1Y a11ER RRWER EMSEPi BT tE YRI " XA00R "N" vaLUx ... RREMIEET. vall ... . Tin¢ RRENTRIEE AVER THE Mulls ... AVa Sal E vwI® W THE A0 SIT% MIY D]SSEEEIEE II E 6RWMT To TE .. Eva. /SZRLa[I MExITEET . m aEE]IEERT W un vM M ERRORS AND CONS MaSM iEEIT®I ARE [ RN S SIDE RESSIRST JTY. IDXXIDI MIND 1L.1 a:a.�a.q„R and mu STRUCTURAL CHANGES 09- 101104 r1PQI P.m urz 6 -11 -IO R ,L11-17 11 -17 ay Contents m12-28 City Convents A\06-28 City Area Calc. m A-0 I- ... as I W1 J 0' W: A 14�1 low Nib" ICA j"I I -ul I [F ER 'HT IrW 10415t 1, .11 1 1 Ill RAI NEW R VER "RES "I -- RD IN NF. Tr 1: T 515 ESIDEN D I Fil J ND: ! - " , , 'I k. 1.44 RE ul n r Ir III I I In MR. ir. 7 Sm 14 ii L91 dP rr rye Fri i7 IL LO!YC§ffIIEELOCX WALPS �FO REMAIN . . . . . . . . . . RN HIIi. i III' 70S HLE-M! 7 z YN II LU if l I r '" , . - , I 71 I uIpm, I I MMINN E, L7 CE NTE. ; iL 1 RE, of th e'BOARDWALK �r Nil A WILLIAM AIIALINO ARCHITECT ap�agb f® CARPORT 1112• NEW GARAGE ELEV. -32" OPEN AREA GARAGE EXPANSION 9 -9 1/2 RUTx vlfxv00B PESIRxtE OVERHEAD DO R ® ® GFA 618sf 101 - 103 5" SIISET BMW , CA CARPORT NEW GARAGE EXISTING RETAIL (SURFS OP) 5°c °tlm B�Xnpm! Mtlu L4 ® ELEV. -27" o .Ie<LL1 OVERHEAD DOOR m m mw xm 1/2, ® N 11' -5 1/2• EX DECK LL, n9,-9 ° GF W -10' - NM MT vow ELEV. -32" O EXISTING WALKWAY M- 1 OR ELEV. -27" ++ L0 nc wnvwrs •xv rPELCVVwlvva Aa w ri VRLIaI nzw.00 awlscT am sxaL mr ve usvv r ox em oww PLw Laver BEDROOM 1 BATHRM BEDROOM 2 B6Y/ b- 0 E v�B�wl�irzu�vm ..r vnx YRltlEx ppFx51@6 swLL Tai wwtt xa Duce vc suuv O apTm Lar ooLfl xr. G µo L/.lE 1 1 I LL.I vRIFTIla rNV swu x wuYA a TE JOB SITL. Pxf Z oLxxEPUnLS swu a X11 m rIL xm¢L of vnuaB •aarxv aswlLxl Raw m cblxwmvn EL 27 J of ear vwL w craws am Lows owo wrnru Q/ � msvw r1E S. as ac�LSU�mnm. vbb «v Lvrle DN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL 2 081 DP 712 .a EXISTING ELEV. -11" RESTAURANT' Lu z o U N 6R vaaa LIVING ROOM KITCHEN cROUNU �LOORnnN ELEV. +0" CT x.T.S. xr. 'bLL am ELEV. 1" w1" -1 100.00' xom..am CENTERLINE of the BOARD ALK 0I- I0II04 h a Ot -30 -IB w a —P 011 -18 City Cow=s 012 -28 City COnnents GROUND FLOOR PLAN SCALEI /4 "- 1'd" ® g Q61-31/11 City Cocaents Rev. LEGEND p02 -25/11 City COnnents Rev. PROPERTY LINE p 0 EXISTING WALL p ® NEW WALL p B 3 1 Ak— ma_� b. 12' -6" j 17' -4" III COMPUTE ALCOVE /DER O — TO ROOF I �- 16' -9" N LIMIT OF EXISTIN 42" GLASS RAIL III GARAGE N BY BELOW IlIIl1l1l1l1�1�1l1lII III II�� DECK I N HALL CV 594 SF GFA -- a CLOSET qL IlIIl1l1l1lEl�i!!!1l11 o N I it DD III 8/� MIKE'S ROOM IlIIl1l1l1l1l1l1l1l11 SECOND FLOOR PLAN 0 EL. -0'-11" I 0 15-10" j 17' -4" /DER — TO ROOF I 16' -9" IlIIl1l1l1l1l1l1l1l11 III 77 N BY IlIIl1l1l1l1�1�1l1lII III II�� RECEPTION I HALL CLOSET .ET IlIIl1l1l1lEl�i!!!1l11 OFFICE N KITCHEN I,® EXISTING STAIR TO BE RECONSTRUCTED I1111l1l1l1l1l1l1l1�1. I1111l1l1l1l1l1l1l1 ING RESIDEJTIAL I�II�ii l�lyl3l�I�I�I� ' NO FLOOR BIEDROOM 641 SF GFA !IIl1l1l1l1l1l1l1l�� - '..• . E I01010101 L.1.1 .1. � 5 SECOND FLOOR PLAN 0 EL. -0'-11" I 0 15-10" j 17' -4" /DER — TO ROOF I 16' -9" III 77 N BY III III III III II�� RECEPTION I HALL O CLOSET .ET / OFFICE N KITCHEN MASTER C� CLOSET BATHROOM EL. 10'-1" 4 LIVING R M C' 16' -9" 77 BEDROOM O N KITCHEN C Walls Below �L_J 2305 SF GFA NOOK I D�/ 1 � -I W W 2/ C Lo 9 3l � 6� / iH p O W Z b J €� w v C U w " N.T.S. 5� -4 LEGEND e e e PROPERTY LINE o EXISTING WALL ® NEW WALL €I 11 WILLIAM AEAALN0 ARCHITECT RUff0fiCii Rf6ERtE 101 - 103 I5M SIISET BnOiOU, [A hc1Yn B. In 4nN. LR. pnmpem� a mp ncm4a n h�'cordt K hnro� �r•h^G•• RfNOVAiION AND .XPANSION Or RESIDENCE AD ITION OF 5ECOND FLOOR - .%PARSION Or GARAGE 11E OUVOl4S Y0 SPEL61Gi05 MS iR�fflnY LT VYLGx aSLLL110 MFMIIER MS AMLL 1Ui H VSO Iw ury RRxm eRniECi LSFPi BY ilE VRITIEH aGREf101f VRM VOLWI RII OOExSUM SwiL MI T. vNiiEx ix2 Ff6SEREN2 OVER TE SGfID MIFMD WI MTI SINIL E Wi1'IEO W JOB SIIF. utt 0SL(FFOIYES 9VLL BE 8®GR To Tic emrnx of v¢aiui •rrueo MRMIIER fAl01t m cO1..ExSEIEI!!f LT N!Y V Wx dl fPRORS N0 LMii .RII INRDE HBI MIE mnaRCmR�s me icsRmavrtm. 5ECOUO F100R FIAN MIXED LEE &JILDING- RE5IDENTIAL OI- 101104 jai x.� 01 -30 -10 uw .5p6p. All -IB city Connents Al2 -28 City Connents AOI -31/11 City Cownts Rev. 002 -25/11 City Comments Re, 0 0 0 A-2 7 PL 00 o IR E -IMF I a] MIMIN41, MATERIAL SCHEDULE A STUCCO B SYNTHETIC SHINGLES C GL WOOD RAKERS ASS F GL E SYNTHETIC STONE F CEDAR SIDING G STAINLESS RAILING H CONCRETE BLOCK K —. M! 1�1 �I�I�I�IrY�I�I�YI�I�IiYI I ME ICE- MIU r IN • �ITN�1a LLN. NE FINISH FLOOR O 6 y� d RUTH vIM K RESOIEHtE 101 - 103 6M S3REET B ., G tlamI 2 A WeW IS eI B, Xmpm! Yndu G. slnm m a ^W r�cWM F RrceM oi�u <nw cwnh �• Me In v1KOED ON THE AD � MY BOARDWALK ELEVATION RESIDENTIAL WEST ELEVATION RESIDENTIAL EAST ELEVATION �ar.am %- 101(04 01 -30 -10 un: Z�II -18 City Comments Z�12 -28 City Comments 001 -31/11 City Comments Rev. 002 -25/11 City Comments Rev. 0 0 0 A-3 1� .. �� 2' -0" I � M N MLLIAM AZ ALI NO ARCHITECT M M:IYI � a D - dEw e;�.N. NNESR�.fwAL�. I ..., '.. •.. ., . .. . . . 101 - 103 RM SiFEET mmm, [A c ". ss curao=mL nGlA GMR=RAIL in PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL EXPANSION Q d=am\ f Y, Wu4 L9 eP N farneP S,nsne. ______ jj e.m�. w.: L •' •. III' '. .• NEW. GARAGES (2.) . IiIii NEW GARPOUS (2)':..�j ooboR � Exx[n nom smP: e ea.a.. __ll_ 11 I' .• III � EXISTING NAtURALGPApE en (SmJ Naeensl THE mUV11GS W0 3 IMC.iml6 ME Pm T M 6 VI . RRNP9 _ MRMIER MA SINLI WI K =SID w =t -v I� p1 MY mYT PP. fFLFPS w Tlm vnrtTEx Ilmmum vLTx @ v6m .II/lPU fMMrtECT. � wmu+ uNmmmrm sxuf TME PFEiEPE1dE AEa 11E SWEO mllElaallla ram Slue of vfnm¢o w *xf ,oe mf. ur �I msc¢v N`YZ avu vllw MSWTIDT u mmlwr S m Tls T 6 v .axvm Pmv m 6 rnweel1 MY 0.V0 VmM � fMdf C6tSi OPoSmG 1MER6101 0➢E g 01TR/LNPS SOfE H9WSmILm. pn tlm ml[ k I O AUIC ^ RESIDfM ®p %- 101(04 ulf n 01 -30 -10 @ @ QNX € A 0 0 g! 0 tl 0 Lmroa...erosl v. Whitacre Residence Appeal— PA2010 -105 Use Permit No. UP2010 -021 Modification Permit No. MD2010 -027 City Council Public Hearing September 13, 2011 r 11k� F v �tWP!jIV �LIFOR Vicinity Map 13A I 2a2s , W ,� 0 - ftw OrpQ' RONr y ubject Prope A Approvals Requested Use Permit • up to 75% addition to a nonconforming structure • up to 75% alterations to a nonconforming structure Modification Permit • side setback encroachment • rear setback encroachment h � ���� ®® MEN V 4:: •I'P 2,_Q.. T� South Elevation —West Ocean Front II �.__ 11 QD •,• — __ _ _ _ �H�rr a'n5 =�r.•s[2;:,, air,•?,v cngd�rrr [zp'..`� . no North Elevation — 105 151h Street Use Permit Findings 1997 Zoning Code • The cost of improvements to be made is minor in comparison to the value of the existing nonconforming condition. • The cost of correcting the nonconforming condition would exceed the cost of the other alterations proposed. Code Comparison Proposed Project 1997 Zoning Code Current Zoning Code Structural alterations of a nonconforming structure of approximately 51 -75% Additions to a nonconforming structure of approximately 58% Rear and side setback encroachments of 80- 100 percent into the required setbacks Use Permit required Maximum 75% structural alterations allowed Use Permit required Maximum 75% addition allowed Modification Permit for encroachments of up to 100% Allowed by right up to 100% Allowed by right up to 50% Variance required for over 50% Modification Permit for encroachments of up to 10% Variance for encroachments of 10 -100% 0 ) J GROUND FLOOR PLAN CAlIi,lP aq' �.J 0 r LEGEND PROPERTY LINE D EXISTING WALL ® NEW 1WAU. y y Y CARPORT ,.� NEW GARAGE ' �• GM1NkGL EI,EV. E%VAN^4 ' Lv'_3n9Vl of :P xt B CrEM GpF 61411 ]E WAY "4Y EXISTING RETAIL (SURF 5 OP) CARPORT NEW G ®RA E � Ct'_�ta]COOP ui CEiS W W ixx EXISTI G WALKWAY U) rev, -x; In Gc�i HCOIA 1 PAWRM , di�li RCCIAZ O cwm wai W i E _ z m Lu EXISTI G RESTAURANT W F EXISTING RESIDENTIALn I""" : eu v MIKG RC l KRCIIEN E! •d Otl ni.1 �J.EV. •11' CENTERLINE of the BOAR❑ ALK ) J GROUND FLOOR PLAN CAlIi,lP aq' �.J 0 r LEGEND PROPERTY LINE D EXISTING WALL ® NEW 1WAU. I oe I gx,gi W J J tlP°' I olsnn� Q � B1xIi iCEE I .3Ka,na.creo E%13 {ING REGIGErjIildL W SEC4v @El,na +er�Reoln J W us ex W a lax e � I enLCC.r CENTERLINE of the BOAR SECOND FLOOR PLAN :03.w lei El uox:,R:�a �rm.x LEGEND —PROPERTY LINE D EXISTING WALL ® NEW WALL W W w / O W z J K W F Z W 0 x qv x :L. a, Evlxr rczsri III —I YR CfCX C� vlRi -_F vanv-x � xl.ts R]Nt - . FIICrEx P �+ I oe I gx,gi W J J tlP°' I olsnn� Q � B1xIi iCEE I .3Ka,na.creo E%13 {ING REGIGErjIildL W SEC4v @El,na +er�Reoln J W us ex W a lax e � I enLCC.r CENTERLINE of the BOAR SECOND FLOOR PLAN :03.w lei El uox:,R:�a �rm.x LEGEND —PROPERTY LINE D EXISTING WALL ® NEW WALL W W w / O W z J K W F Z W 0 East Elevation - Courtyard East Elevation —15th Street West Elevation — Alley WnnUc 6 onnncE r West Elevation - Courtyard Todd%i�ooler 8 A S S 0 C I A T E S I N C Total GFA Existing Residence to Remain Existing Commercial to Remain Total New Structure 101 15th Street Proiect Cost per Staff report 7,330 SQ. FT. (1,522 SQ.FT,) (2,358 SQ.FT.) 3,450 SQ.FT. Estimated project construction cost per Staff estimate $550,000 Estimated Cost per SQ. FT. $550,000 _ 3,450 SQ = $1591SQ,FT. Cost to replaceCommercial Building Existing Commercial Building 2,358 SQ.FT. Estimated Cost To Replace per staff Report $860,000 Estimated Cost per SQ. FT. $860,000 _ 2.358 SQ.FT.= $3641SQ.FT. Architects • Planners • Builders • 301 East 17th Street • Suite 204 • Costa Mesa, CA • 92627.949 6468605 • FAX 949 6468862 Nonconforming Uses and Structures �._ ! 20.38 NOW C`-r C. Structural alterations. Structural elements, with the exception of foundations of nonconforming principal structures (see Subsection D, below), may be modified, repaired, or replaced. Structural alteration of nonconforming accessory structures is not allowed. D. Foundation alterations. Maintenance and repairs may be made to foundations of nonconforming principal structures. A foundation of a nonconforming principal structure may be modified, retrofitted, or replaced when necessary and in conjunction with additions allowed in compliance with Subsections 20.38.040 G and 20.38.060 A, below. For any alterations beyond routine repair or maintenance, the nonconforming structure shall be required to be brought into compliance with all applicable standards and regulations of this Zoning Code, except as provided in Subsection F, below. Alterations to nonconforming accessory structures shall not be allowed. E. Seismic retrofits. Alterations to nonconforming structures due to seismic retrofitting requirements are allowed in compliance with Chapter 15.07 (Earthquake Hazard Reduction in Existing Buildings) of the Municipal Code. F. Reasonable accommodation. Improvements to a nonconforming structure that are necessary to comply with an approved reasonable accommodation in compliance with Section 20.52.070 (Reasonable Accommodations) shall be allowed. G. Additions. Nonconforming structures may be expanded and the existing nonconforming elements of the structure shall not be required to be brought into compliance with the development standards of this Zoning Code subject to the following limitations and the limitations provided in Section 20.38.060 (Nonconforming Parking). 1. Expansion shall be limited to a maximum ,o�ff OU percent of the gross floor area of the existing structure within any 10 year pence 2. The floor area of any addition, together with the floor area of the existing structure, shall not exceed the allowed maximum floor area for the zoning district; 3. The addition shall comply with all applicable development standards and use regulations of this Zoning Code ; and 4. Additional parking shall be provided in compliance with Section 20.38.060 (Nonconforming Parking), below. H. Exceptions. 1. Corona del Mar and Balboa Village. Existing nonresidential structures within Corona del Mar and Balboa Village that are nonconforming because they exceed the allowed floor area shall be exempt from the limits of this Section and may be demolished and reconstructed to their pre- existing height and floor area provided that not less than the pre- existing number of parking spaces is provided. 2. Landmark structures. Landmark structures shall be exempt from the requirements of this Chapter in compliance with Section 20.38.070 (Landmark Structures), below. October 26, 2010 Newport Beach Zoning Code, Title 20 O Page rrnin 2 Lo Nonconfoorming Structures and Uses 20.62.040 Nonconforming Structures A. Maintenance and Repairs. Ordinary maintenance and repairs may be made to legal nonconforming structures. No structural alterations shall be made which would prolong the life of the supporting members of a structure, except as provided in this section. B. Interior Alterations. Changes to interior partitions or other nonstructural improvements and repairs may be made to a legal nonconforming structure, provided that the cost of the desired improvement or repair shall not exceed 50 percent of the replacement cost of the nonconforming structure, as determined by the Building Director, over any consecutive 12 month period. C. Structural Alterations. Structural elements of a legal nonconforming structure may be modified or repaired subject to the following provision: Alteration of up to 25 percent of the structural elements within any 12 month period may be permitted by right. 2. Alteration of up to 50 percent of the structural elements within any 12 month period may be permitted upon the approval of a modification permit. 3. Alteration of up to 75 percent of the structural elements within any 12 month period may be permitted upon the approval of a use permit by the Planning Director, subject to the findings and provisions contained in Section 20.62.040 (F). D. Additions. Structures legally nonconforming for reasons other than for parking, open space, floor area, or building bulk, may be enlarged, extended or expanded subject to the following provisions: A increase of up to 25 percent of the gross floor area within any 12 month period may be permitted by right. 2. An increase of up to 50 percent of the gross floor area within any 12 month period may be permitted upon the approval of a modification permit. 3. An increase of up to 75 percent of the gross floor area within any 12 month period may be permitted upon the approval of a use permit by the Planning Director, subject to the following findings and provisions contained in Section 20.62.040 (F). No addition shall cause an increase in the structure's inconsistency with the regulations of the Zoning Code. "RECEIVED LAF�ER AGENDA McDonald, Cristal PRINTED: �1 — %3_'1 � From: City Clerk's Office Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 3:58 PM To: McDonald, Cristal Subject: FW: Item #22- September 13th Attachments: Item # 22 Correspondence (Morrie Nero).pdf From: McDonald, Cristal Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 3:57:44 PM To: Henn, Michael; Gardner, Nancy; Rosansky, Steven; Hill, Rush; Daigle, Leslie; Selich, Edward; Curry, Keith Cc: City Clerk's Office; Nueno, Fem Subject: Item #22 - September 13th Auto forwarded by a Rule Mayor Henn and Council Members. Mr. Nero has dropped off the attached correspondence regarding Item #22 (Whitacre Residence Appeal) for the September 13, 2011 Council meeting. He wanted you to receive prior to the meeting but has also provided hard copies for each of you which we will place on the diocese on the 13t6. Thank You, Cristal M. McDonald Administrative Assistant Office of the City Clerk City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. I Newport Beach I CA 192663 T (949) 644 -30051 F (949) 723 -3530 1 cmcdonald(ftewportbeachca.00v C & N INVESTMENTS Real Estate Development 13671=7,( 4 26� L VILrJE2 /oR /6z dev -,3D 1 pvP- wr f `_�104�9/ u6 J #OM 1/ui771 %/�t,� �/JLL CJPEe%- %IOt( ;3U /4J IgDi A 0E97 -%v LAS ON—LYe5- /03 �CoT T/ 002 I,tr776/9 Oe7v/ "D z9A2x-'11.(l 1�,ec ,4LL oizr��urc <� To 'T)44r- 0012V P ,*81 L! Ty Joe- Ag6cLo(youtz 'APP1-1c0Atv7-) /s '77,�'yl&� T 01,20 0^7 V &W 7- TY e- A%6 C-5.59,,19 f--� PA ojel 1.6�, J2EpufP'7�t�NTS 7ro-,e #iS a�Wti2 -0,A4- Fs %✓�is//a�E�T /4/S Ty6 �G�.'771 � PA/4tU,1ov6- c &mil % 7;A; ALAA� /L/ rG 1� & -Ploe Ism;: vi_ 775 Sv('00 rz7- T/fZ-� rre"L =z (?0/- vMR/s 105 112 - 15T" ST • NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 • (714) 675 -2660 ( DO e1 o la 5TAg opol.A ` (7- &V✓zc) &A 9L— '7i�Wr 77 ,/ /Al;!�, pN laro 155(OC- P7-77yf 1-bLse G411<L /-MLr& To 13 c= Dt4t�01 -1f E'D, V/#tFH / /�- '/yo�vs \F- t�LL =SRS L^iS/ L�'�U HrjL^ / c ) Wt45 %%�E F,vllaoriof,( vA-rcDEa T74c Svc S; f f9t POOP Out- XIAI) � RG11W TW c S,9wB S /,7zOjo lE vl.r 077 C/ So 77447- r� M z :AIO#C --s 14WIgf,'V4klL -72 C 1<-I(-=e & 2Z42j-.,- 7-6 5'vPPon-r A Tuo D124WlN1,s /a /©relPFL Tv 07714-rze 7-,b4-C,- C— is %iR- $v/ S�rfoP, tv� oAr ��r�� 11-14ZtS To SoPPoRT- 77 /-c- C -cord 5;7z)r2Y. A- Pc ,AL P srr3rL�T�j?,��r /.�r71� EclE- O� 7 A D1Jr�AT� �` 12- 64 Qv�91eE %tic %GtG6fvL� S �C�lue IUILL rijLL p-!% My #OUSE; Twz-�7 j2csrfWUPAect7- A -11) cgt)p E-y15%L b 1141 T,-L- /99-0 '(; . yov ffcf2Lr- 7- 1DF /)r-- !T!s APPf2oP,447Zr 70 Abb FD o12 4o y6 -Alz s S1WPo7vR i-}r71-11s 12�=s vrz�3 � Vic- PRE5Ca17- Tt4S# 13r,tl /s /yly&QAf C-- 2o114Z_ Uo4r7- WI'Zle,171 is ���v�rL -mod CL);l -O mc -tzsJ To /000's op Gomm- Rq I�A1D DO -C-14 I l`IM7 IJSt/24, 7J74 2C IS My pl2bv/gr6�4 7-L,> hb�og,OZ, 79� S6i0UL1 P�UvT T * ass fi PPS / (7-16A r. / l I.Allr A / tO P-D VA Q p A00)- te#Boar 7 SljgsTi70r4' K1 lA&IJ9 OF ti409- l?CW O1,` r ial L S�IROOTL) e Ta OWIDNWicir-- PA Rle & l ttsi�sr�-; r-3C/-/ 4Eu T 77I C- RC- 0 L) WOULD l3� f�CQU/ 2Era d� Cv�?2Y ©eel C— L=L �� CCU /J 14/Ws 12L` Q U/ IzL�^z:) )v l , ln� rod �ppe A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, September 13, 2011, at 7:00 p.m., a public hearing will be conducted in the City Council Chambers (Building A) at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach will consider the following application: Whitacre Residence Appeal — An appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Use Permit No. UP2010 -021 and Modification Permit No. MD2010 -027, requesting an addition to a nonconforming structure. The Use Permit would have allowed for an addition of up to 75 percent of the existing gross floor area and alterations of up to 75 percent of the existing structural elements of the nonconforming structure. The Modification Permit would have allowed for encroachments into the rear and side setbacks. The site is developed with two (2) commercial structures adjacent to 15th Street and a residential structure to the rear. The applicant proposes an addition to the existing residence and the addition of a new dwelling unit above the commercial structures. Four - car parking is proposed to satisfy the residential parking requirements. The project is categorically exempt under Section 15301, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines —Class 1 (Existing Facilities). All interested parties may appear and present testimony in regard to this application. 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. The agenda, staff report, and documents may be reviewed at the City Clerk's Office(Building B), 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.newportbeachca.aov on the Friday prior to the hearing. For questions regarding details of the project please contact Fern Nueno, Assistant Planner, at (949) 644 -3227, fnueno@newportbeachca.gov. Project File No.: PA2010 -105 Zone: MU- CV /15`h St (Mixed Use Cannery Village /15t0 St) Location: 101 15th Street Activity No.: UP2010 -021 and MD2010 -027 General Plan: MU -H4 (Mixed Use Horizontal) Applicant: Willia,,m /_'Aj IA zn /zalino, A) Leilani I. Brown City Clerk City of Newport Beach NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, September 13, 2011, at 7:00 p.m., a public hearing will be conducted in the City Council Chambers (Building A) at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach will consider the following application: Whitacre Residence Appeal — An appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Use Permit No. UP2010 -021 and Modification Permit No. MD2010 -027, requesting an addition to a nonconforming structure. The Use Permit would have allowed for an addition of up to 75 percent of the existing gross floor area and alterations of up to 75 percent of the existing structural elements of the nonconforming structure. The Modification Permit would have allowed for encroachments into the rear and side setbacks. The site is developed with two (2) commercial structures adjacent to 151h Street and a residential structure to the rear. The applicant proposes an addition to the existing residence and the addition of a new dwelling unit above the commercial structures. Four - car parking is proposed to satisfy the residential parking requirements. The project is categorically exempt under Section 15301, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines —Class 1 (Existing Facilities). All interested parties may appear and present testimony in regard to this application. 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. The agenda, staff report, and documents may be reviewed at the City Clerk's Office(Building B), 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.newportbeachca.gov on the Friday prior to the hearing. For questions regarding details of the project please contact Fern Nueno, Assistant Planner, at (949) 644 -3227, fnueno@newportbeachca.gov. Project File No.: PA2010 -105 Zone: MU -CV /15th St (Mixed Use Cannery Village /15th St) Location: 101 15th Street Activity No.: UP2010 -021 and MD2010 -027 General Plan: MU -H4 (Mixed Use Horizontal) Applicant: William Azzalino, AIA "-K D by Leilani Brown City Clerk City of Newport Beach PJi7I4-:E NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, September 13, 2011, at 7:00 p.m., a public hearing will be conducted in the City Council Chambers (Building A) at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach will consider the following application: Whitacre Residence Appeal — An appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Use Permit No. UP2010 -021 and Modification Permit No. MD2010 -027, requesting an addition to a nonconforming structure. The Use Permit would have allowed for an addition of up to 75 percent of the existing gross floor area and alterations of up to 75 percent of the existing structural elements of the nonconforming structure. The Modification Permit would have allowed for encroachments into the rear and side setbacks. The site is developed with two (2) commercial structures adjacent to 15th Street and a residential structure to the rear. The applicant proposes an addition to the existing residence and the addition of a new dwelling unit above the commercial structures. Four -car parking is proposed to satisfy the residential parking requirements. The project is categorically exempt under Section 15301, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines —Class 1 (Existing Facilities). All interested parties may appear and present testimony in regard to this application. 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. The agenda, staff report, and documents may be reviewed at the City Clerk's Office (Building B), 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.newportbeachca.gov on the Friday prior to the hearing. For questions regarding details of the project please contact Fern Nueno, Assistant Planner, at (949) 644 -3227, fnueno@newportbeachca.gov. Project File No.: PA2010 -105 Zone: MU -CV /15th St (Mixed Use Cannery Village /15th St) Location: 101 15th Street Tmplt: 05 -25 -11 Activity No.: UP2010 -021 and MD2010 -027 General Plan: MU -H4 (Mixed Use Horizontal) Applicant: William Azzalino, AIA Leilani Brown, City Clerk, City of Newport Beach. kiquettes laser www.3M.com /labels Compatible aveclegabarit5160 0doAverya - 1- 800 - 395 -1223 - am 047 212 15. Availone Properties 1367 Avenida De Cortez Pacific Palisades CA 90272 047 212 18 Chip Smiley 2408 Margaret Or Newport Beach CA 92663 0472,2206 Balbaa Palms LLC 1020 Kildonan Or Glendale CA 9:1207 047.223 25 Timothy ,Joseph:Graber it 200'E 15th St Newport Beach- CA.92663 93980011 Diaa'Samir Fahmy 44 Calle,Ameno San Clemente CA 92672 047212 16 Ronald Jay Seidner 611 Gordon, Highlands Ct Glendora CA 91741 047 21219 15th Street Property LLC 104 E 16th St Newport Beach CA.32663 047222 07 Paul Balalis 1500'W Balboa Blvd Newport,Beach CA 92663 047 300 03 State Of California 3300 - Newport Blvd Newport Beach CA 92663 047 212 17 Morrie Adnoff 14925 La Quarts St Whittier CA 90605 047 212 25 Roman Catholic Bishcp Of 28,1 -1 E Villa ReafDr Orange CA 92867 047 222 09 Orange County Sanitation P'o Box 8127 Fountain Valley CA 92728 939 800.10 BaherFahmy 2706 N Bentley St Orange CA 92867 C #1 PA2010405 for UP2010 -021 MP201.0 -027 jaded p9a8 aeldwol a09j9 aAjanyy;IMalggedwo0 LCJI n t 0-00ZEa ;eidwalW£ ® slegel jase-1 Easy Peel Labels ua i ° ® See Instruction Sheet i Use Avery® TEMPLATE 51600 M dFeed Paper for Easy Peel FeatureA AVERY®51600 William Azzalino, A!A 2407 Port Whitby Newport Beach, CA 92660 CENTRAL NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY ASSOC 808 W BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92$61 Joe Angelo, Trustee of Whitacre Revocable Living Trust 1504 W Ocean Front Newport Beach, CA, 92663 PA2010-105 for UP2010.021 MD2010 -027 101 15th Street 'Arilliam Azzalino. AIA PA2010.174 for LM2010.007 101 15:h Street Etiquettes faciles a peter eonsultei la feuille www.avery.com Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® Smo Sens de chargement d'instruction 1- 800 -GO -AVERY W.f 211 V L6r)g Kim Pharr 1629 W ealboa Blvd .NewpWt aeach:CA 92663 047.2112 04 QY'TtO Smith 45 Bethany Dr Irvine CA 92603. . 0472:11 09 Glace-Dove '117 E 15th St Newport Beach CA 92563 .W. 2'1I 13 Jb�hnVaaqrhum 1;109 Niirahetta Ave: Novato CA 9494'5 04,7 21118 Chades Banks 1510 W Obeanfepat New port &eadh CA, 92663 04.7-:21122 Abel Villalpando 304 8 Ofbvva:kd Dexter NM,682 30 04721128 Don Christensen 6508 N.Vista.St San Gabriel CAS 1775 :04.7 21128 Joseph Angelo 101 E 15th St N avvpoft Bea--h CA 92663 ap up aimpe4 el q zaildaH ap sues @09LS (Dklf3AV I!jeqeb al zasum v Jeled q salpL; sanar;�11� 047 21102 Terry Gallimore Po Box 65722 Valencia CA qi:ns .- . . - 047 21.1 Q5 1.621 WBalbob Bivd NeVjpbrCBebch CA:92563 .0.4.71 21114 -Morriie'Eijgene -Nero 105 E 15th St Newport Beach ; CA qn,63 047. 21119. . ­­ I I Alfred Gerrick 15.12 .W-Coeanfrbnt Newport Beach. CA 92663 047 21123 Xathl&,en Inge Morris 73331.0sley Ave Indianapolis IN 46250 047 211 26 Jairriqatahr 1996 N Lake Mead Cir orange CA 92867 64721129 Don aid aid Ray Donaldson 1517 W Balboa Blvd Newport Beach CA 92663 047 211,03 George E.Igeik.e 517 Gatrettl)r tqpona W Mar CA 92625 047 211 :OS ld.a Ziby .3632 Y.Jenturs'Dr HUIhthgton Beach QA.52649 04211 1-1 Edward. Healy 100. CIfff.Dr Newport Beach CA 92663 04721"! j. 7 :0 'MeIV6ny 400 S: Hope St #25th Las Anq4tes CA 90071 047'21:1 20 I errence:Chow 9 Hibiscas Irvine CA 92620 04.7:21'1.24 -R .Anderson James :5&49' Rolling :Rd' Woodland Hills CA 91367 047 211 27 James Cantwell 1. ­ . 151 -1 ..W Balboa 8tvd Newport Beach.C;A 92663 04:7'211 30 Tony Pinkert -Po. Box 401 .1-folualoa HI 96725 Niquettes faciles 'a pel 7 '��,afil)3 do -dDd asodxa � jade d Pad ' Visultez la feuille LftWMFeQjAM9&PS60@ Sens c I chara(WMpWOlepuqS 1% d'instruction "*'e asn 4 CITY CLERK'S OFFI�C CEIVED AFFIDAVIT OF POSTAbSEP -6 PH 12t 14 OFFICE OF , , THE CITY CLERK CITY 2011, I p osted the Notice of P NEN Q regarding: WHITACRE RESIDENCE APPEAL -101 15TH STREET (PA2010 -105) Date of City Council Public Hearing: September 13, 2011 �''f'OOC�F OF PU : LIC,4�IUP� STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County of Los Angeles; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the action for which the attached notice was published. I am a principal clerk of the "Newport Harbor News Press combined with Daily Pilot", which was adjudged a newspaper of general circulation for the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, and State of California. Attached to this Affidavit is a true and correct copy that was printed and published on the following date(s): September 3, 2011 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 7, 2011 at Los Angeles, California Signature All inlereeled PUtiea IiOna Of PM REM, may appear and prese "l NOTICEi IS XEFIEOY testimony is xegmd to GIVEN that on TlaiAiy, thii npplicaliun. U You Soplern6or 1],. 2011, chap. gyoue pmalY xthe of 7:00 pua:, a Qublic h�$aring, will ba condocl• limited la raising vnlq atl- tiOthe City. Council those issues you a Chambers (Oullding -A) someone dse ra,%w at at 3300 Npwpprt Boole, the public hearing ide- Vnrq:. Newport. 0ea`ct. suibad in this nobne) TA.. rvh Cnundl nt th. w in written em,e- an the the t the tion�Parmil would Aeva @riaw portbc ac hca: allowed for On. aonchments mlo the ggov. ° P•no erl. File No.: rear ondlslde setbacks: P010 -105 The site 5 davhlopeE aWc'!ty No. UP2010: 021.. MD2010.OD with two (2),'eominex- ciol sUbcturi)a adtocenl 2oow MU.GYl151h St to 15th S &eel and a (Mixed Use Cannery residentlal structure to Village /15th St) General the r�r- The opplicant Plmn MU-114 ( Mixed P an- addition to Uae MmixonlN)' the Ttmg rwlde..0 lowtlone 101 15th and the addition of a Sheet . new dwelOng unit above Ppllsanlr William the commercial 1,A alino,NR,,