Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout23 - Final Tract Map 15829�EW?ogr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH o PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (714) 6443200; FAX (714) 644 -3250 Date: Agenda Item No.: Staff Person: REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL PROJECT: Final Tract Map No. 15829 900 Sea Lane December 12, 2000 23 Robert J. Kain 644 -3231 PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: Request to subdivide an existing lot containing 7.5 acres of land into a single parcel of land in conjunction with the development of a 90 unit attached and detached residential condominium project on property located in the MFR (Multi - Family Residential) District. ACTION: Approve Final Tract Map 15829 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 235, Block 93, Irvine Subdivision ZONE: MFR(2178) (Multi- FamilyResidential) OWNER: 1995 Shores Partners, L.P., Irvine Points and Authority Environmental Compliance (California Environmental Quality Act) All significant environmental concerns for the proposed project have been addressed in a Mitigated Negative Declaration approved on January 6, 2000. The City of Newport Beach intends to use the conditions included in said report for the project under consideration. There are no additional mitigation measures to be considered at this time. Copies of the Mitigated Negative declaration are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Blvd., California, 92663. • Final Map procedures are set forth in Chapter 19.16 of the Municipal Code. Final Tract Map No. 15829, Current The subject property is currently developed with a 120 unit residential Development: apartment complex with associated on —site surface level parking, carports, and accessory facilities including a swimming pool and tennis courts To the north: Are single family residential dwelling units. To the east: Are additional single family residential dwelling units, Harbor View Elementary School and Grant Howald Park. To the south: Across Sea Lane are additional single family and duplex residential development. To the west: Across MacArthur Boulevard is the Corona Del Mar Plaza retail commercial center. E Page 2 Background On January 6, 2000 the Newport Beach City Council approved Tentative Tract Map 15829 and Modification No. 5002. Tentative Tract Map 15829 Authorized the subdivision of an existing lot containing 7.5 acres of land into a single parcel of land in conjunction with the development of a 90 unit attached and detached residential condominium project on property located in the MFR (Multi - Family Residential) District. Modification No. 5002 Allowed detached structures on the same lot to be built 6 feet apart where the code required structures maintain a 10 foot separation. Street Names The City's Subdivision Code requires that the Planning Commission review and approve street names for new subdivisions. The applicant did not submit a street name list for the approval of the Tentative Tract Map. The applicant now wishes to submit the names of the private streets in conjunction with the approval of the Final Tract Map. The requested names appear on the attached final map. The Fire Department has reviewed the request and has no objections to the proposed street names. The Newport Information Systems/GeographicalInformation Systems (NIS /GIS) Division has also reviewed the request, and has no objections or potential discrepancies with the proposed private street names. Proposed Final Tract Mao and Recommendation Procedures in Section 19.16.150 of the Municipal Code provide that if the City Council determines that a Final Map is in conformity with the Tentative Map and is satisfied with the plan of subdivision, it shall approve the map. The City of Newport Beach Planning and Public Works Departments have reviewed the Final Map of Tract Number 15829 and are satisfied with the plan of the subdivision. In addition, the required Subdivision Agreement and bonds have been submitted and approved by the Public Works Department for the off -site improvements. Staff believes that the Final Map conforms with the approved Tentative Map and therefore, recommends approval of the Final Map, with the finding and condition set forth in the attached Exhibit "A ". Staff has not included an exhibit for denial, since the Final Map conforms with the tentative map. Submitted by: PATRICA L.TEMPLE Planning Director Prepare by: ROBE J A I It It er ttac menu: EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 15829 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION DATED 1/611000 Page 3 EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 15829 FinaO Map of Tract No. 15829 Finding: 1. That the Final Map of Tract No. 15829 substantially conforms to the Tentative Map of said Tract, with all changes permitted and all requirements imposed as conditions to its acceptance. Condition: 1. That all conditions imposed by the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission, in conjunction with its approval of TTM 15829 and ModificationNo. 5002, shall be fulfilled. it Page 4 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 2000 INDEX SUBJECT: 900 Sea Lane (Tim McSunas, applicant) Item No. 4 ✓ 1995 Shores Partners, L.P. TTM No. 15829 Modification No. 5002 • Tentative Tract Map No. 15829 Acceptance of • Modification Permit No. 5002 Negative Declaration • Acceptance of a Negative Declaration Request to subdivide an existing lot containing 7.5 acres of land into a single Approved parcel of land in conjunction with the development of a 90 unit attached and detached residential condominium project on property located in the MFR )Multi- Family Residential) District. Also included is a request for a modification to allow detached structures to be built 6 feet apart, where the Code requires 10 feet minimum. Commissioner Fuller referred to correspondence received regarding the proposed project which made reference to relocation assistance to the tenants in the apartment complex, unrelated comments to private views, and reference to the CC & R's being amended to include language that private views be protected. He requested that Ms. Clauson clarify what items the Commission can and cannot consider for decision. Ms. Clauson stated that there are no requirements within the City's codes regarding relocation costs. She noted private views are not generally considered under CEQA unless there is some sort of physical effect on the environment as a result of the view impacts; perhaps a degradation in the community or a physical impact on the appearance such as blight. Finally, she stated that the City has no regulations to enforce CC & R's that would protect private views and noted that CC & R's are a private agreement between the property owners. After further review of the findings and- conditions, Ms. Clauson reported that the Commission would have to find evidence in the Negative Declaration that the private view blockage would result in sort of an environmental impact, and include a mitigation measure for the impact. Lacking any impact, it would be up to the applicant to agree to limit heights of trees and landscaping. Commissioner Kranzley asked Ms. Temple and Mr. Edmonston if the traffic study for this project, which creates fewer trip generations than existing, was taken into consideration and factored into the studies for other projects and traffic counts proposed through recent general plan amendments and the related environmental impact reports. Mr. Edmonston stated the information pertaining to this project should be treated in the some manner as the other projects, and that it would be timely to include the traffic study information in the forecast for other projects still in process. 14 ej El City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 2000 INDEX Ms. Temple noted that this proposal is not a general plan amendment and there is no proposal at this time to remove the potential for additional allowable development from the General Plan, although that action could be taken in the future. Therefore, it may not be appropriate to reduce the projected trip generations in other projects of proposed general plan amendments unless for a shorter term projection. The public hearing was opened. Coralee Newman, principal of Government Solutions, 120 Newport Center Drive, representing the applicant, 1995 Shores Partners, formed by the Province Group and Laing Homes for development of the subject property. Mrs. Newman submitted to the Secretary of the Commission a copy of supplemental notices sent out to adjacent homeowners and tenants of the Shores Apartments giving notice of this public hearing, which was continued from December 9, 1999. Mrs. Newman provided the following information regarding the proposed project: • The tentative tract map is in full conformance with the City's General Plan and multi - family residential zoning for the site. • The project proposes to reduce the existing density from 120 apartments to 90 homes, which represents approximately 25% reduction in density. • The proposed project is well below the City's General Plan growth projection for the site, which projects up to 149 units. • Benefits of the reduced density are a reduction in traffic and an increase of 24 more., parking spaces for 30 fewer dwelling units. • Upgraded architecture and land use planning design standards will be incorporated to be compatible with the Corona del Mar community. Mrs. Newman noted that the development team worked with the neighboring community associations, such as Harbor View, Point del Mar and the adjacent elementary school to address their concerns, and participated in numerous meetings beginning in February, 1999, to the present time. In response to concerns of Harbor View Elementary School administration, the project closed off two existing access points on Goldenrod Avenue, which improves access to the school and increases parking on that street. Mrs. Newman stated Harbor View Hills Community Association has its own view restrictions, which do not apply to the proposed project. In a desire to be good neighbors, the project team worked closely with the association and sub - committees and the 12 residents who live directly adjacent to the project site. Through these meetings, the applicant agreed to place 15 6 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 2000 restrictions on both the height of buildings and height of future trees in the CC & R's. In addition, revisions were made to the site plan to improve orientation, shifting residential access away from Harbor View residents, the site was lowered, architectural changes were made such as the alteration of roof lines and location of chimneys and cupolas, and existing trees currently impacting views will be removed. Recognizing this is a difficult transition for the existing tenants, the applicant is offering the following: • A relocation program provided by the Irvine Apartment Community (IAC) at any of their 50 rental communities (9 of which in are in Newport Beach). • A $500 moving allowance. • A preferred moving rate and reduced security deposit. • Waiver of application and of cable fees. A meeting with the tenants on December 9th resulted in the relocation program being extended to those tenants who do not choose to live in an IAC community. Notification from the tenant to the property owner was reduced from 30 days to 15 days, and the property owner will give a 60 day notice to vacate versus a 30 day notice. In closing, Mrs. Newman stated the applicant has read all conditions of approval and is in agreement with them, with the exception of Condition #3 for Modification No. 5002. They are requesting the term be changed from 24 months to 36 months to match the timing of the map recordation. Chairman Selich asked staff if there was a problem with amending this condition, to which Ms. Temple replied no. Commissioner Fuller asked the applicant for specific information regarding the removal of trees and height limits. Mr. Tim McSunas of Laing Homes, Director of Land Acquisition, 19600 Fairchild in Irvine, replied that the agreement reached with the Harbor View Homeowners Association states that no tree or landscaping shall exceed the nearest facia board of the adjacent condominium unit. Mr. McSunas submitted to the Secretary of the Commission the qualifications of the consultants who worked on the project, and provided a historical overview of John Laing Homes. He also informed the Commission that many of the project team members live or grew up in this community. Mr. McSunas proceeded to provide key elements of the proposed project, as follows: The site elevation will be lowered to preserve views of the homeowners above the project site. 16 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 2000 INDEX • A retaining wall along the northeastern edge of the property will be built. • Both entries to the project will be along Sea Lane, eliminating the entry along Goldenrod Avenue in consideration of the school. • Architectural features such as landmark gazebos, second floor patios, and poseo walkways on which many units will front allowing residents to interact, in keeping with the character of old Corona del Mar. • Two different product types, which are attached triplex units and detached single "cottage" units. • Open space volumes will be 13 times the amount required and projected build out will be 39% of the allowable square footage permitted by Code. Mr. McSunas noted the request for a modification to reduce the distance between the cottage units from 10 feet to 6 feet, while maintaining the distance of 10 feet between the triplex units. He stated approving this modification provides the design flexibility to allow detached single family homes in an MFR district and the proposed building separation would be similar to that found on standard 30 foot wide lots in old Corona del Mar. Commissioner Tucker asked why there is no recreation facility on site for the proposed 90 unit project. Mr. McSunas explained there are many facilities adjacent to the project, including the school, the Grant Howland Park, and tennis courts, and that the proposed project probably could not do as good a job as these existing facilities. Commissioner Tucker asked about the visual aspects of the dual retaining walls. Mr. McSunas explained that the second wall, which is adjacent to the road and is 3 feet in height, will provide a planter area to allow for landscaping to hide the higher retaining wall behind it. The lower wall will be • concrete face wall, and the walls along Sea Lane will be slump stone with • brick cap. .A similar texture will be used for the walls along the series of walkways to the street. Commissioner Tucker asked about the agreement regarding the landscaping and the adjacent homeowners association. Mr. McSunos stated this is a private agreement with the homeowners and will be incorporated in the CC & R language, a recorded document that is sent to the Department of Real Estate. The public hearing was opened. Carol Blair, 900 Seal Lane, #37, stated her issue is not with the developer, who she feels is doing a fine job in terms of design, but with the lack of concern for the existing tenants of the Shores. She feels that the 140 families are being segregated from Corona del Mar because the Shores apartments are low income apartments, and she doesn't know where in Corona del Mar the families will be able to relocate. She stated she is concerned about elitism in America and the quality of life in Corona del Mar in terms of not making it 17 b City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 2000 INDEX elitist to live there. She and her neighbors would like to continue living in Corona del Mar but is unsure they'll be able to find affordable housing. Jeanie Griffin, 900 Sea Lane, #26, stated her correspondence is attached to the staff report. She said she is concerned about the loss of diversity Corona del Mar offers, which is one of the reasons she moved here from Texas. She cannot afford to live in the IAC communities because she is a first year law student and she is unable to show income. She noted that when she moved into the complex she was unaware of the proposed development and that the apartment managers are still showing apartments for rent today. Her concern is about the displacement of human beings. She asked about the in -lieu fee that is to be paid to the City for affordable housing. Chairman Selich asked staff to explain the in -lieu fee, how it works and is administrated in conjunction with the housing element. Ms. Temple explained the City's Housing Element provides a number of options to address the provision of affordable housing, and includes off -sets by the development community. In this particular case, the developer requested consideration of the payment of in -lieu fees based on a similar fee imposed by the City on the One Ford Road project several years ago. The in -lieu fees, for the proposed project were calculated by using the fee set for the One Ford Road project with an adjustment based on the Consumer Price Index, which resulted in a fee of $6,000 per constructed dwelling unit. Those fees would come to the City and held in a dedicated account that would be used to facilitate the construction of affordable housing in other parts of the community. Chairman Selich asked if the developer did not elect to take the in -lieu fee route, how many affordable housing units would be required on this site. Ms. Temple stated the developer would be required to provide 18 of the 90 dwelling units as affordable dwelling units, either for sale or for rent. Additionally, the City's program allows for off -site affordable housing, so the developer could find another appropriately zoned site to construct 18 rent - controlled apartment units. Mrs. Wood offered further explanation as to why staff is recommending an in- lieu fee rather than construction of affordable units. First, the proposed development is a for -sale project. That type of program is easy to monitor with the first buyer of an affordable for -sale program, but becomes problematic when the first owner wishes to sell. Secondly, it is due to the small number of affordable units that would be required for this project. If they were to be done as rental units it becomes difficult over time for staff to monitor those affordable housing agreements. When asked by Chairman Selich if her question was answered, Ms. Griffin replied no. She asked where affordable housing is located in the City and where the fees that have been paid to the City go. At Chairman Selich's 18 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 2000 INDEX request, Ms. Temple stated the City has only the accrual from the One Ford Road project at this time, which is approximately $2 Million and has not yet expended the funds. The City is currently looking at various opportunities for utilization of the funds. With the CDBG program, the City has done 6 -8 projects in various parts of the City, consisting of between 20-40 units each. Commissioner Ashley stated there is a sheet that can be obtained from the Planning Department that lists approximately 10 -12 for -sale and rental housing projects in the City, and explained what a potential tenant would need to do. Mrs. Wood stated that there generally is not much availability in these affordable units. Commissioner Kronzley commented on a copy he received of a market resource survey, which was written by the Pacific Relocation Consultants. The survey contains information regarding the available housing in Orange County. Within the survey is information that there are 125 one and two bedroom units in Newport Beach ranging in price from $950 to $1,980 that are currently vacant and in Irvine there are 264 one and two bedroom units available between $885 and $1,875. He suggested this information be made available to the Shores tenants to assist in locating new housing. Peter Templeton, 2710 Point del Mar, president of the Point del Mar Residents Association, the 43 homes that back up to Sea Lane across from the proposed project. Mr. Templeton reported they met 3 times with Laing Homes, and as a result from the meetings, a letter was written providing additional information and cooperation regarding certain aspects of the proposed development, as follows: • New landscaping for Point del Mar's frontage on Sea Lane is being designed and installed by the applicant, with maintenance by the Point del Mar Residents Association. • The applicant's landscape architect will provide new designs with attention to landscaping and hardscape for the entry on Sea Lane. • The applicant has agreed to include language in their CC & R's which prohibits the use of garages for storage to ensure the garages are used for parking. In addition, the homes and garages have been designed to include cabinetry for storage. • The Point del Mar association will be exploring the possibility of including a pool facility on their land for joint use. Mr. Templeton closed stating they are in favor of the project and believe it will be a positive addition to the community. Mr. Keyes, Harbor View Hills South. Mr. Keyes stated that people are very opposed to the modification request for the reduced setback from 10 to 6 feet. He referred to the two alternatives provided in the staff report, and noted that requiring 10 feet would reduce the number of units that could be 19 lz9 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 2000 build, which he supported particularly because this is a new project. He is opposed to the development as designed. Doug Campbell, president of Harbor View Hills Community Association, speaking on behalf of the association. Mr. Campbell stated the association began meeting with Laing Homes approximately 1 year ago. In November, 1999, a meeting with the 12 homeowners adjacent to the project resulted in an agreement to 5 specific conditions. Mr. Campbell submitted a letter in support of the project. He stated one of the homeowners, Mr. Jan Robertson, successfully negotiated an agreement with Laing Homes to have a condition in the CC & R's which protect the views for 120 years, limiting the height of trees and shrubs. Jon Robertson, 2509 Harbor View Drive. Mr. Robertson reported that they struck a deal with the developers, which will allow for maintenance of the view corridor over this project. There will be only a couple of areas where blue water views will be pierced, but on balance they do support the project. Chairman Selich asked Mr. Campbell if the letter of support was voted an by the Board of Directors, to which Mr. Campbell replied it was a motion and approved by the Board of Directors. Commissioner Fuller asked if the some would be true of Mr. Templeton /Point del Mar Association. Mr. Templeton stated there was no formal action by the Board, just the items agreed to in the letter. Kelly Faye, 900 Sea Lane. Ms. Faye stated she spoke with the district manager of the Legacy Partners, David Ibarra, at his request, because she has been actively involved with other Shores tenants in opposing the project and has talked with a lawyer. She stated tenants who have recently moved in feel they have been misled, and that she has prepared a letter and questionnaire for the Shores tenants to solicit information regarding the matter if need be. The relocation fees would be inadequate if one were planning on moving to a comparable location. In her conversation with Mr. Ibarra she requested two things - an increase in the relocation fees and delaying the move out date for families with children to after the close of the school year. Commissioner Fuller asked Ms. Faye for information regarding her rental agreement, which she explained was originally a year -to -year lease and then changed to month -to -month a couple of years ago. Ms. Faye understands the property owner can ask a tenant to leave at any time; she is just asking that the move out date be delayed to the end of the school year. Commissioner Ashley asked if the Planning Commission has the authority to deny a property owner the right to clear the property of all improvements if they wish to simply and exclusively because it will result in the displacement of people who rent the property as it is improved. Ms. Clouson replied no. INDEX 20 (� City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 2000 INDEX Commissioner Tucker clarified the Planning Commission's limits on the matter before them, which is to approve a tentative tract map, and not to determine the magnitude of human suffering that may result from this project. The Commission does not have the authority to say whether the relocation fees are fair or not or what should occur to the tenants. Jacquelyn Sidman, 900 Sea Lane, #101. Ms. Sidman stated she recognizes many issues are not subject to the Commission's approval. However, they need to be voiced in the event of any type of court hearing. She is an earthquake victim of 1994, when she lost her home and all contents. She moved to Orange County 1'/, years ago and has had to relocate 4 times. She was not informed that the property was intended to be demolished when she moved in September, 1999. The property managers had a good faith obligation to inform the tenants of the proposed development. Fred Kline, 923 Goldenrod Avenue. He resides in one of the 12 houses above the project. He has tentatively given his approval, although he did state some opposition to the project in a letter sent in October or November, 1999. Mark Kerslake, 120 Newport Center Drive, a principal of the 1995 Shores Partners. Mr. Kerslake stated that the partnership has owned the fee real estate to the property since 1995, but did not acquire the leasehold improvements until February, 1999. Within a month after the close of escrow, they sent a letter regarding the change in terms of tenancy stating that either side could give 30 days notice to vacate. He provided copies of the letter along with a copy of a revised rental agreement with paragraph 26 in bold print which states the owner has development plans for the property and is entitled to give a 30 day notice to the residents. He also submitted letters signed by the managers and assistant managers which state that during their tenure at the project they advised all interested parties of the development plans, the tenancy would be short term in nature and subject to a 30 day termination notice. Mr. Kerslake reiterated certain key facts presented earlier in the public hearing by Mrs. Newman and Mr. McSunas. He stated they would provide copies of the results of the Pacific Relocation Consultants survey to the tenants. Finally, in response to comments about recreational facilities, he stated that they would be paying park fees on incremental development as well as exploring a coordinated facility with Point del Mar. Commissioner Fuller referred to item number 4 in a letter dated January 5"' from Mr. Kerslake regarding the tentative tract map. He stated he is sensitive to the testimony regarding families with children, and would the applicant be willing to delay the notice to vacate from May 151 to after the conclusion of the school year. Mr. Kerslake stated that in response to that request they met with Ms. Barbara 21 �2 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 2000 INDEX Hack of the Newport Mesa School District. Ms. Hack confirmed that if someone needed to move out of the district in April or May before the conclusion of the school year, the child could complete the school year at the school they are currently enrolled. He submitted their signed statement representing the telephone conversation for the record. He stated they have been working on the project for approximately 5 years and they would like to move forward while the market is good. Commissioner Fuller clarified there will still be tenants as of May 1, and understands the economics involved, but stated the applicant could buy a lot of goodwill if they were to allow the families remain through the conclusion of the school year. Chairman Selich and Commissioner Kranzley both concurred with Commissioner Fuller's comment. Chairman Selich asked when the applicant plans to start construction if approved. Mr. Kerslake stated they would hope to obtain a demolition permit in May and hopefully start construction a month later. Chairman Selich asked staff if is was realistic the applicant would have grading permit to start in June, to which Ms. Temple replied it is possible. She stated on a project of this size, it would be possible to meet the timeline Mr. Kerslake mentioned if they submitted a complete package. Chairman Selich asked for clarification regarding the design, grading and the circulation of the project with respect to the setback modification. Mr. Kerslake explained in order to have detached units the Public Works and Fire Departments required access from all four sides of the project. Jeremy Sparks, 900 Sea Lane, #6. Mr. Sparks stated he is upset with the management of the property and the way the tenants have been treated, and further, that he never received a copy of his month to month lease to which Mr. Kerslake referred. Public comment was closed. Chairman Selich requested that Ms. Clauson to explain what the Commission has the authority to act upon. She stated the City has not adopted any ordinances or regulations regarding relocation when converting a project from rental to for -sale. State law prohibits the City from preventing a property owner from going out of business if they have rental units. The actual approvals of this project are within the what is authorized by the Code, so there isn't any ability to impose conditions on the tentative map or other approvals being requested in regards to relocation. Commissioner Tucker stated his only concern is a lack of recreational facilities, and that the project is well thought out otherwise. Commissioner Kronzley stated he believes the design of the project is 22 /3 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 2000 INDEX dramatically better than what is allowed through the General Plan and well thought out, and therefore would support the modification request for 6 foot separation between buildings. He encouraged the applicant to extend the act of goodwill allowing the families with children stay in the units until the conclusion of the school year. Commissioner Gifford indicated she believes this is a nice project and would approve the modification request. Commissioner Ashley asked Ms. Clauson if the Commission could place a condition on the project that demolition could not occur prior to a certain date after all approvals were received. Ms. Clauson replied no. Commissioner Ashley stated he is favor with the project because it is in full conformance with the General Plan and Zoning ordinance except for the modification request, which he feels is reasonable. Commissioner Fuller stated he supports the project for the some reasons as raised by the other Commissioners. He seconded Commissioner Kranzley's remarks regarding the families with children. Chairman Selich open the public hearing and requested that Mr. Kerslake comment on the request regarding the school year issues. Mr. Kerslake stated he did not believe this would be an issue based on the sequence and the time schedule and he did not have the authority make a decision on behalf of the partnership. Chairman Selich asked staff what the different requirements would be if this project were being processed as a PRD, which Ms. Temple explained. He also asked if the two associations reached an agreement for a common recreation area, would it come back before the Commission. Ms. Temple stated that would depend on the existing zoning provisions for the Point del Mar development. Chairman Selich expressed a concern regarding the landscape plan and requested a condition be imposed that would require the plans be reviewed. Each Commissioner concurred with the importance of this condition. Chairman Selich asked Mr. Kerslake if he would agree to bringing the landscape plans before the Commission for final review, which he did. Motion was made by Commissioner Fuller to approve Tentative Tract Map No. 15829, Modification Permit No. 5002 and the Acceptance of a Negative Declaration subject to the Findings and Conditions in Exhibit "A" and an addition of item number 4 to the conditions under Modification No. 5002, requesting that the landscape plan be brought back to the Commission for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit, and a revision to condition 3 of Modification No. 5002, extending the time from 24 months to 36 months, and to include the revised items provided by Ms. Clauson on pages 23 /V City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 2000 14 and 18. INDEX Ayes: Fuller, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS, MITIGATION MEASURES AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Mitigated Negative Declaration Tentative Tract Map No. 15829, and Modification Permit No. 5002 A. Mitigated Negative Declaration The project lighting plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer acceptable to the City. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall provide to the Planning Department, in conjunction with the lighting system plan, lighting fixture product types and technical specifications, including photometric information, to determine the extent of light spillage or glare which can be anticipated. All outdoor lighting shall be shielded, directed downward, and have sharp cut -off qualities at property lines, in order to minimize light and glare spillover effects. This information shall be made a part of the building set of plans for issuance of the building permit. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified by this condition of approval. 2. All building windows on the perimeter of the site shall utilize glazing that minimizes reflection or a comparable window treatment, in order to reduce potential light and glare impacts to adjacent residences. 3. The developer shall adhere to the Dust Suppression Mitigation Measures identified in the SCAQMD's Rules 402 and 403: a) During demolition, clearing, grading, earth - moving, or excavation operations, fugitive dust emissions shall be con- trolled by regular watering, paving of roads, or other dust - preventive measures using the following procedures: 24 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 2000 INDEX All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering, with complete coverage, shall occur at least twice daily, preferably in the late morning and after work is done for the day. U All clearing, grading, earth - moving, or excavation activities shall cease during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 20 mph averaged over 1 hour) or during second stage ozone episodes. All material transported off site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 4. After clearing, grading, earth - moving, or excavation operations, fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled using the following measures: Portions of the construction area to remain inactive longer than a period of three months shall be revegetated and watered until cover is grown. 9 All active portions of the construction site shall be watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 5. At all times, fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled using the following procedures: 9 , Onsite vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 mph. b All elements of the internal road shall be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized. 9 Maintain all work and access areas to minimize dust. 6 Sweep streets if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares. 6. At all times during the construction phase, ozone precursor emissions from mobile equipment shall be controlled using the following procedures: U Equipment engines shall be maintained in good condition and in proper tune according to manufacturer's specifications. U Onsite mobile equipment should not be left idling for a period 25 2 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 2000 longer than 60 seconds. 7. Outdoor storage piles of construction materials shall be kept covered, watered or otherwise chemically stabilized with a chemical wetting agent to minimize fugitive dust emissions and wind erosion. 8. Construction equipment shall operate for no more than seven consecutive hours. A qualified archaeologist /paleontologist, certified by the County of Orange, shall conduct a site examination after demolition of the existing buildings and structures. The archaeologist /paleontologist shall be present during grading activities to inspect the underlying soil for cultural resources. If significant cultural resources are uncovered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to stop or temporarily divert construction activities for a period of 48 hours to assess the significance of the find, consistent with the procedures set forth in Council Policies K- 5. The observer shall prepare and submit to the City a written report describing and making recommendation for further actions, if necessary. 10. Prior to demolition of the existing structures on site, the project applicant shall retain a licensed asbestos contractor and a State Certified Asbestos Consultant, pursuant to EPA /AHERA Section 206 and CCR Title 8, Article 2.6 to perform a focused sampling and analysis to accurately determine the presence of any asbestos containing material. The project applicant shall retain a licensed asbestos contractor, as noted above, to conduct a comprehensive, pre - demolition, quantitative survey, provide a copy of the survey to the City, and make specifications for the removal of any identified asbestos materials as necessary, to ensure compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. 11. The project applicant shall retain a licensed asbestos contractor and a State Certified Asbestos Consultant, pursuant to EPA /AHERA Section 206 and CCR Title 8, Article 2.6 to properly document, inspect, monitor, remove, and encapsulate the asbestos materials prior to disposal. This is to ensure adherence to applicable regulations and to provide the safety of personnel in the asbestos containing materials abatement area. During any proposed removal of asbestos containing materials from the site, the project applicant shall conduct air monitoring in the area far the detection of airborne asbestos fibers under the direction of a 26 / INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 2000 Certified Asbestos Consultant, to further ensure both adherence to applicable regulations and the safety of personnel or tenants in the asbestos containing material abatement area. 12. Prior to demolition of the existing structures on the site, the project applicant shall retain a qualified consultant to perform a preliminary qualitative, lead based paint survey of the site structures, and, if needed, a focused sampling and analysis to fully determine the presence of any lead based paints. All demolition and disposal activities will thereafter be performed in accordance with all applicable AQMD and EPA regulations. 13. Sound barriers such as plexi- glass, wood, or concrete blocks, or their combination, with a minimum height of five feet, shall be required for second floor decks or balconies of Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 4, where active outdoor use would occur. 14. Mechanical ventilation, such as an air conditioning system, shall be required for up to 10 residential buildings along Sea Lane in the northwest corner of the project site (Unit Nos. 1 to 10), to ensure that windows can remain closed for prolonged periods of time, thereby reducing interim noise levels to less than significant levels, and still meet the fresh air exchange required by the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Tentative Tract Map No. 15829 Fndinas: The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Multi- Family Residential" use and the proposed ninety unit residential condominium project is consistent with this designation. 2. Based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, comments received, and all related documents, there is no substantial evidence that the project, with the mitigation measures and conditions of approval, will have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, a Negative Declaration has. been prepared. The Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project, and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, and is therefore approved. The Negative Declaration was considered prior to approval of the project and reflects the City's independent judgment. 27 INDEX le City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 2000 INDEX 3. An Initial Study has been conducted, and considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before this agency that the design of the subdivision or the proposed project will have the potential to cause substantial environmental damage or for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of the evidence in the record, this agency finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) has been rebutted. Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for a De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5(c) of Title 14, CCR. 4. The design of the subdivision improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. 5. Public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.08.030 of the Municipal Code and Section 66411 of the Subdivision Map Act. 6. The approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 15829 is in conformity with the standards and requirements of the Subdivision Map Act, Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, and all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans of the City for the following reasons: Conditions: • The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan since the site is designated as Multi - Family residential. • The proposed map meets all.of the design and improvement requirements contained in the zoning code including minimum .lot size, density requirements, parking requirements, height limits, floor area ratios, and open space. • The proposed site is physically suitable for the proposed development since the site is flat and surrounded by additional multi - family residential developments. • The proposed site is suitable for the proposed density of development since the proposal is for 90 units where 149 are permitted. • Adequate on -site parking is available for the existing and proposed uses. • An in -lieu fee will be paid to satisfy the affordable housing requirement for the project. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, except as noted below. 28 Ig City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 2000 INDEX 2. In lieu of the requirement for 20% of the proposed dwelling units to be affordable as defined by the City's Housing Element, a fee of $6,000.00 per unit shall be paid to satisfy the project's affordable housing requirement. 3. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4. All trash areas shall be screened from adjoining properties and streets. 5. A final map shall be recorded. The final map shall be prepared so that the Bearings relate to the State Plane Coordinate System. The final map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD83) and prior to recordation of the final map, the surveyor /engineer preparing the map shall submit to the County Surveyor a digital - graphic file of said map in a manner described in Section 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. Prior to recordation of the final map, the surveyor /engineer preparing the map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Section s 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. 6. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set on each lot corner unless otherwise approved 'by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of the construction project. 7. A standard subdivision agreement and accompanying surety shall be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a tract map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 8. Each dwelling unit shall be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and the Building Department. 9. The final design of all on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to the approval of the Traffic Engineer. 10. An encroachment agreement shall be executed for all non- standard improvements constructed within public utility or City 29 IPA City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 2000 easements. 11. The design of private streets and drives shall conform with the City's Private Street Policy (L -4), except as approved by the Public Works Department. The basic roadway width shall be a minimum width of 32 feet except at planter and stair pop -outs where a minimum width of 28 feet must be provided unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. The curb return radii at the alleys shall be 15 feet minimum. The location, width, configuration, and concept of the private street and drive systems shall be subject to further review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. 12. The turnaround at the end of the drive aisles is substandard for Unit Numbers 65, 78, and 79. Provide at least 7 feet for vehicles backings out of these garages. 13. The alignment for the curb line of Driveway "A" and the Entrance Driveway shall be revised unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. (Vehicles traveling eastbound on Driveway "A" are directed into the path of oncoming westbound traffic at the entrance). 14. Intersections of private streets and drives shall be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 25 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty -four inches in height. Sight distance requirement may be modified at non - critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. All walls and stairways shall be compliant with City Standard 110 -L for sight distance. It appears that the stairwell south of the intersection of Driveway "B" with Sea Lane blocks visibility for vehicles exiting the project. 15. California Vehicle Code shall be enforced on the private streets and drives, and delineation acceptable to the Police Department and Public Works Department shall be provided along the sidelines of the private streets and drives. 16. If it is desired to have a control gate at the entrance, a turnaround shall be provided prior to the gate. The design of the controlled entrance shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and Fire Department. 17. Easements for public emergency and security ingress, egress and public utility purposes on all private streets shall be dedicated to the City and all easements shall be shown on the tract /parcel 30 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 2000 INDEX map. 18. Asphalt or concrete access roads shall be provided to all public utilities, vaults, manholes, and junction structure locations, with width to be approved by the Public Works Department: 19. The existing displaced and deteriorated sections of curb, gutter and sidewalk shall be reconstructed along the Sea Lane and Goldenrod Avenue frontages. Existing unused drive aprons shall be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk along the Goldenrod Avenue frontage and a curb access ramp shall be constructed at the corner of Sea Lane and Goldenrod Avenue. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 20. Street, drainage and utility improvements shall be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 21. A hydrology and hydraulic study shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to recording of the parcel map /tract map. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. Water mains within the project shall be looped unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 22. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification from the Orange County Sanitation District and the City's Utilities Department. 23. Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee shall be paid. 24. Any Edison transformer serving the site shall be located outside the sight distance planes as described in City Standard 1 10 -L. 25. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. There shall be no 31 ;2 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 2000 construction storage or delivery of materials within the Goldenrod Avenue (ght -of -way. 26. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. 27. A fire protection system acceptable to the Fire Department shall be installed by the developer and tested by the Fire Department prior to storage of any combustible materials or start of any structural framing. 28. Easements for public emergency and security ingress, egress and public utility purposes shall be on the private drive to the City if they do not currently exist. Any existing easements for ingress and egress must be submitted to the Public Works Department for conformance with City requirements. All new and existing easements shall be 16 feet clear of any and all obstructions. 29. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification from the Orange County Sanitation District and the City's Utilities Department. 30. This Tentative Tract Map shall expire unless exercised within 36 months from the date of approval as specified in Chapter 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. C. Modification No. $002 Findings: The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Multi- Family Residential" use and a residential condominium project is consistent with this designation. 2. The proposed development will not have any significant environmental impact, based on information presented and incorporated into the negative declaration. 3. The modification to the Zoning Code, as proposed with the distance of 6 feet provided between detached buildings on the 32 INDEX )2 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 6, 2000 some lot will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City, for the following reasons: • The proposed distance between the detached buildings will not obstruct views from adjoining residential properties. • The cottage units are similar in size, and provide building separation distances consistent with the building setbacks provided on lots 40 feet wide or less, similar to those in Old Corona del Mar. • The distance of 6 feet between structures is consistent with the requirements of the UBC. • The proposal provides a balance of open space and landscaping with paving and hard surfaces while adhering to the standard regulations for the zoning district. 4. The modification to the Zoning Code as proposed would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code for the following reasons: The proposed 6 foot building separation is a logical use of the property that would be precluded by strict application of the zoning requirements for this District. The proposed distance between structures is consistent with other residential projects in the vicinity that are constructed on lots 40 feet wide or less. Conditions: 1. Development shall be in• substantial conformance with the approved site plan, except as noted below. 2. The development shall provide a minimum distance of 6 feet between the detached "cottage" structure units. 3. This Modification shall expire unless exercised within 36 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.93.055A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. The landscape plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of any building permit. >•• INDEX 33 4 `1