Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 - Santa Ana Avenue Cottages AppealCITY OF � SEW �RT tu: NEWPORT BEACH City Council Staff Report February 28, 2017 Agenda Item No. 12 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Kimberly Brandt, A1CP, Community Development Director 949-644-3232, Kbrandt@newportbeachca.gov PREPARED BY: Benjamin M. Zdeba, AICP, Associate Planner PHONE: 949-644-3253, bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov TITLE: Santa Ana Avenue Cottages Appeal Located at 20452 Santa Ana Avenue (PA2016-069) ABSTRACT: An appeal of the Planning Commission's November 17, 2016, decision to approve Major Site Development Review No. SD2016-002 for a seven (7) -unit residential condominium project located at 20452 Santa Ana Avenue, as shown on the vicinity map (Attachment A). The appeal was filed by a neighboring resident on behalf of the Coalition Against Santa Ana Ave Cottages as a 3 -Story Development. RECOMMENDATION: a) Conduct a de nova public hearing; b) Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 (In -Fill Development) of the CEQA Guidelines, because this project has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and c) Adopt Resolution No. 2017-15, A Resolution of the City Council of Newport Beach, California, Upholding the Planning Commission's Approval of Major Site Development Review No. SD2016-002 for a Seven -Unit Residential Condominium Project Located at 20452 Santa Ana Avenue (PA2016-069). 12-1 Santa Ana Avenue Cottages Appeal (PA2016-069) February 28, 2017 Page 2 DISCUSSION: Prosect Setting and Description The property is located in the Santa Ana Heights area near the intersection of Santa Ana Avenue and Mesa Drive. The lot is 11,489 square feet (82' x 140.11') in size and is developed with three units. It is located within the Multi -Unit Residential Detached (RM - D) Zoning District and is surrounded by multiple -unit residential to the north, east, and south. To the west across Santa Ana Avenue, and beyond the City boundary line, is the Santa Ana Country Club golf course, which is within unincorporated County area. This property was annexed into the City as part of the West Santa Ana Heights Annexation. Although the intent of the RM -D Zoning District states that it is intended to provide for "areas appropriate for multi -unit residential developments exclusively containing detached dwelling units", there are no development standards in place to require the detached design. Furthermore, much of the existing multi -family residential development in RM -D Zoning District is attached. The proposed project would replace the existing three -unit residential development with seven residential condominium units, guest parking, landscaping, and common open space. Background On November 17, 2016, the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing and, following receipt of public comments and deliberation, voted 6-0 (1 absent) to adopt Resolution No. 2036 approving the project, which includes the written findings for the action (Attachment C). On December 1, 2016, an appeal was filed primarily stating concerns with: 1) incompatibility with the existing development pattern of the neighborhood; 2) insufficient parking and increased traffic; and 3) poor site/aesthetic design. The complete appeal application is attached as Attachment D. Under Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Sections 19.12.050 and 20.64.030(B)(1), appeals shall be filed with the City Clerk within ten (10) days after the action of the Planning Commission. Due to the timing of the appeal, Tentative Tract Map No. NT2016-003 is final and is not subject to appeal. The only item before the City Council is an appeal of Major Site Development Review No. SD2016-002. Pursuant to NBMC Section 20.64.030(C)(3) (Conduct of Hearing), a public hearing on an appeal is conducted "de novo," meaning that it is a new hearing and the Planning Commission's prior decision on the application has no force or effect. The City Council is not bound by the Planning Commission's prior action or limited to the issues raised by the appeal. 12-2 Santa Ana Avenue Cottages Appeal (PA2016-069) February 28, 2017 Page 3 The staff report and meeting minutes are attached to this report for review: Attachment E - Planning Commission Staff Report from November 17, 2016 Attachment F - Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from November 17, 2016 Basis of Appeal The appeal application indicates that the appellant is a group of area residents. The person who signed the application resides at 20442 Santa Ana Avenue, which is located immediately north of the property. Staff notes that five opposition letters to the project were submitted to the Planning Commission, and one person spoke in opposition to the project at the public hearing. The written correspondence received in opposition is provided as Attachment G. The appellant's primary concerns are discussed below: 1) The project is incompatible with the neighborhood. Staff response: The majority of properties surrounding the project site are within the same zoning district (RM -D). The 33 -foot maximum height limitation is applied throughout this district (see Figure 1). The adjacent properties to the east within the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan (SP -7) have a maximum height limitation of 35 feet. Several two-story developments exist along Santa Ana Avenue and are constructed to heights that are comparable to that of the proposed project. There are taller two-story structures to the northeast at the corner of Santa Ana Avenue and Orchard Drive. The Newport Palisades project off of Orchard Drive on Estuary Lane is also three stories and is built to 35 feet in height. The applicant is not requesting to increase the allowable height afforded to all of the adjacent properties within the same zoning district; therefore, the project's density and height are compatible with the neighborhood and will be consistent with any future redevelopment in the vicinity. 12-3 Project Site J, Santa Ana Avenue Cottages Appeal (PA2016-069) February 28, 2017 Page 4 fig' Figure 1 — Aerial map with zoning districts. 2) Increased density will lead to parking issues, increased traffic and will compromise public safety. Staff response: The density allowed by the General Plan Land Use Element would allow 11 units on the project site. The project proposes seven dwelling units, four dwelling units less than the maximum allowable density. However, the project does represent four additional units when compared to the existing conditions of three units. The proposed project is able to provide onsite the required number of parking spaces by providing two enclosed parking spaces attached to each unit and providing four dedicated guest spaces at the rear of the property. The City Traffic Engineer has communicated with the City of Costa Mesa and County of Orange regarding potential existing issues with the Mesa Drive and Santa Ana Avenue intersection. The City of Costa Mesa and the County are actively working to improve safety of that intersection. Improvement ideas being reviewed include adding a protected left -turn for Santa Ana Avenue, signal timing changes, and review of speed limits. The increase of four dwelling units is not anticipated to have a negative impact to this intersection's operations. 3) The project is poorly designed with respect to functionality, drainage, and aesthetics. 12-4 h S� 0 54 9 S p yP� h4 f �t �e ao e", ��. � _' �.c � :. •fid, 1 fig' Figure 1 — Aerial map with zoning districts. 2) Increased density will lead to parking issues, increased traffic and will compromise public safety. Staff response: The density allowed by the General Plan Land Use Element would allow 11 units on the project site. The project proposes seven dwelling units, four dwelling units less than the maximum allowable density. However, the project does represent four additional units when compared to the existing conditions of three units. The proposed project is able to provide onsite the required number of parking spaces by providing two enclosed parking spaces attached to each unit and providing four dedicated guest spaces at the rear of the property. The City Traffic Engineer has communicated with the City of Costa Mesa and County of Orange regarding potential existing issues with the Mesa Drive and Santa Ana Avenue intersection. The City of Costa Mesa and the County are actively working to improve safety of that intersection. Improvement ideas being reviewed include adding a protected left -turn for Santa Ana Avenue, signal timing changes, and review of speed limits. The increase of four dwelling units is not anticipated to have a negative impact to this intersection's operations. 3) The project is poorly designed with respect to functionality, drainage, and aesthetics. 12-4 Santa Ana Avenue Cottages Appeal (PA2016-069) February 28, 2017 Page 5 Staff response: The project layout has been reviewed by the City's Building Division, Life Safety Services, and the Public Works Department. No concerns were identified with the proposed layout. A preliminary water quality management plan (WQMP) has also been approved for the project to ensure the proposed design will comply with water quality standards (i.e., drainage). With respect to the aesthetics of the proposed structures, the Planning Commission conditioned its project approval on the applicant making improvements to the architectural details. Since the Planning Commission's approval, the applicant has made changes to improve the architectural treatment, which can be reviewed in the most recent renderings provided as Attachment H. The project applicant has also prepared a response letter to the appellant, which has been attached as Attachment I. Alternatives The City Council may choose to modify the Planning Commission's approval or deny the project. If denied, a draft resolution of denial is provided as Attachment J. FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: There is no fiscal impact related to this item. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Staff recommends the City Council find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 (In -Fill Development) 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. The Class 32 exemption applies to projects meeting all of the following conditions: a. The project is consistent with the applicable General Plan designation and all applicable General Plan policies as well as with the applicable zoning designation and regulations; b. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; c. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; d. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality; and e. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. 12-5 Santa Ana Avenue Cottages Appeal (PA2016-069) February 28, 2017 Page 6 In this case, the proposed seven -unit residential condominium project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element category of RM as well as the RM -D Zoning District. The project site area is less than five acres and generally surrounded by residential development and a golf course. The lot is substantially developed and is not within any environmentally sensitive area. The proposed project was reviewed by the Public Works Department and concerns with traffic were not found. Further, a traffic study was not required under the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. No significant effects are anticipated for the lot with regard to noise or air quality as the proposed project will be replacing an existing multi -family development. A preliminary WQMP was reviewed and approved to address potential water quality issues. The project was also reviewed by the Public Works and Fire Departments, and it was determined both lots maintain adequate access to both utilities and public services. NOTICING: Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights-of-way and waterways) including the applicant and posted on the subject property at least 10 days before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item). ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Vicinity Map Attachment B — Draft Resolution for Approval Attachment C — Planning Commission Resolution No. 2036, adopted November 17, 2016 Attachment D — Appellant's Appeal Application Attachment E — Planning Commission Staff Report from November 17, 2016 Attachment F — Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from November 17, 2016 Attachment G — Correspondence Attachment H — Project Renderings Attachment I — Applicant's Response Letter Attachment J — Draft Resolution for Denial 12-6 Attachment A Vicinity Map 12-7 12-8 Attachment B Draft Resolution for Approval 12-9 RESOLUTION NO. 2017- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. SD2016-002 FOR A SEVEN - UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 20452 SANTA ANA AVENUE (PA2016-069) WHEREAS, an application was filed by Adrienne Brandes, with respect to property located at 20452 Santa Ana Avenue, and legally described as the Southwesterly 82 feet of Lot 6 of Tract No. 456, in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 17 Page(s) 9 of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, except the Southeasterly 150 feet thereof, requesting approval of a seven -unit residential condominium project. The following approvals are requested or required to implement the project as proposed: a. A tentative tract map pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Chapter 19.12 (Tentative Map Review) to allow the individual sale of each dwelling unit as a condominium; and b. A major site development review pursuant to Table 5-2 of NBMC Section 20.52.080(B) (Site Development Reviews) for construction of five or more dwelling units with a tentative tract map; WHEREAS, the subject property is designated Multiple -Unit Residential (RM) by the Land Use Element of the General Plan and located within the Multi -Unit Residential Detached (RM -D) Zoning District; WHEREAS, the subject property is not located within the coastal zone; WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on November 17, 2016, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to adopt Resolution No. 2036, approving the project; WHEREAS, on December 1, 2016, a neighbor living adjacent to the subject property appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council; WHEREAS, the neighbor's appeal of Major Site Development Review No. SD2016- 002 was timely because it was made within the fourteen -day appeal period provided in NBMC Section 20.64.030(B); however, the appeal of Tentative Tract Map No. NT2016-003 12-10 Resolution No. 2017 - Page 2 of 8 was not timely because it was past the ten-day appeal period provided in NBMC Sections 19.12.050 and 20.64.030(B)(1); WHEREAS, due to the timing of the appeal, Tentative Tract Map No. NT2016-003 is final and not subject to appeal, and the only item before the City Council is an appeal of Major Site Development Review No. SD2016-002; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Council on February 28, 2017, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach to consider the appeal. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as follows: Section 1: The City Council does hereby uphold the Planning Commission's approval of Major Site Development Review No. SD2016-002 subject to the conditions of approval attached as Exhibit "A," and incorporated herein by reference. The City Council's decision is made in accordance with NBMC Sections 20.52.080(F) (Site Development Reviews — Findings and Decision), and is supported by the following findings and facts: Finding: A. The proposed development is allowed within the subject zoning district. Fact in Support of Finding: The subject property is located within the RMD Zoning District, which principally provides for areas appropriate for multi -unit residential developments exclusively containing detached dwelling units. The proposed multi -unit residential development is replacing and improving an existing multi -unit residential development. Although the proposed development does not contain detached dwelling units, the project is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable development standards within the Zoning Code and is allowed in the RMD Zoning District. Finding: B. In compliance with all of the applicable criteria identified in NBMC Subsection [20.52.080](C) (2) (c): a. Compliance with this Section, the General Plan, the Zoning Code, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or structure; 12-11 Resolution No. 2017- Page 3 of 8 b. The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent developments; and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design; C. The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas; d. The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces; e. The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plant and irrigation materials; and f. The protection of significant views from public right(s)-of-way and compliance with NBMC Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protections). Facts in Support of Finding: The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject property as RM, which is intended primarily for multi -family residential developments containing attached or detached dwelling units. The proposed multi -unit residential development is consistent with the General Plan designation. 2. The proposed development complies with the development standards of RMD Zoning District. The proposed buildings are approximately 33 feet tall, which complies with the maximum height limitation. The buildings also meet all required setbacks and common and private open space requirements. Seven, two -car garages and four uncovered guest parking spaces are proposed for the development, which meets the Zoning Code required parking. 3. The proposed development will incorporate consistent architectural design such that all structures on the property are unified. Architectural treatment will harmonize with the surrounding neighborhood. 4. The proposed site layout maintains the existing vehicular access from Santa Ana Avenue. The site layout and guest parking area allow vehicles sufficient space to turn around on-site. Pedestrian access to the site is available along Santa Ana Avenue along an existing public sidewalk. 5. The Public Works Department has reviewed and approved the site plan, proposed improvements, parking configuration, and access driveway subject to the conditions of approval. 6. The 20 -foot front setback and site layout provide for additional landscaping opportunities immediately adjacent to the street. As conditioned, all landscaping will comply with NBMC Chapter 14.17 (Water -Efficient Landscaping). 12-12 Resolution No. 2017 - Page 4 of 8 7. The subject property is not located at or near a public view point or corridor as identified in the General Plan Figure NR3 (Coastal Views); and therefore, is in compliance with NBMC Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protections). Finding: C. Not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. A similar multi -unit residential development has existed at this location since 1975, according to County records. The proposed seven -unit residential condominium development will replace and improve the existing development. The amount of traffic to and from the site will not significantly change. 2. The proposed development will comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes. The project will also comply with all City ordinances and conditions of approval. 3. The project has been conditioned to ensure that potential conflicts with surrounding land uses are minimized to the extent possible to maintain a healthy environment. Section 2: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated into the operative part of this resolution. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 4: This action is categorically exempt under Section 15332, of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines — In -fill Development because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. In this case, the project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element category of RM as well as the RM -D Zoning District. Residential condominiums are an allowed use in the land use category designation as well as in RM -D. The project site area is less than five acres and surrounded by residential development and a golf course. The lot is substantially developed and is not within environmentally sensitive areas. The proposed project was reviewed by the Public Works Department and concerns with traffic were not found. Further, a traffic study was not required under the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). No significant effects are anticipated with regard to noise or air quality as the proposed project will be replacing an 12-13 Resolution No. 2017 - Page 5 of 8 existing multi -family development. A preliminary water quality management plan (WOMP) was reviewed and approved to address potential water quality issues. The project was also reviewed by the Public Works and Fire Departments and it was determined the lot maintains adequate access to utilities and public services.. Section 5: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting this resolution. ADOPTED this 28t" day of February, 2017. Kevin Muldoon Mayor ATTEST; Leilani 1. Brown City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Aaron ' arp oa 6.R City Attorney 'On�, Attachments): Exhibit A — Conditions of Approval 12-14 Page 6 of 8 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Division Resolution No. 2017 - 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval. (Except as modified by applicable conditions of approval.) 2. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 3. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Use Permit. 4. A copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval listed as Exhibit "A" shall be incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans prior to issuance of the building permits. 5. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Division an additional copy of the approved architectural plans for inclusion in the Site Development Review file. The plans shall be identical to those approved by all City departments for building permit issuance. The approved copy shall include architectural sheets only and shall be reduced in size to 11 inches by 17 inches. The plans shall accurately depict the elements approved by this Site Development Review and shall highlight the approved elements such that they are readily discernible from other elements of the plans. 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Division. Compliance with Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 14.17 (Water -Efficient Landscaping) shall be appropriately demonstrated. 7. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the fair share traffic contribution in effect at the time shall be paid in accordance with the Municipal Code. 8. All landscape materials and irrigation systems shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 12-15 Resolution No. 2017- Page 7 of 8 9. Building owners and tenants shall keep the building exteriors and facades clean and in good repair. 10. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the Director of Community Development, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 11. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall prepare photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division. The survey shall show that lighting values are "1" or less at all property lines. 12. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing agent. 13. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise -generating construction activities that produce noise to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise -generating construction activities are not allowed on Sundays or Holidays. 14. This approval shall expire and become void unless exercised within 24 months from the actual date of review authority approval, except where an extension of time is approved in compliance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 15. 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 Santa Ana Avenue Cottages including, but not limited to, Major Site Development Review No. SD2016-002 (PA2016-069).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. 12-16 Resolution No. 2017- Page 8 of 8 16. Prior to submittal for building permits, the applicant shall submit revised elevations reflecting smooth stucco and enhanced architectural features for review and approval of the Planning Division. If the Planning Division determines the revisions do not meet the intent of the City Council's action, the design shall be submitted to the City Council for review. Public Works Department 17. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work activities within the public right-of-way. An encroachment agreement shall be required for any private improvements installed within the public right-of-way. 18. All on-site drainage shall comply with the latest City water quality requirements. 19. All improvements shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement per City Standard 110-L. 20. The parking layout and drive aisles shall comply with City Standards STD -805 -L- A and STD -805 -L -B. Dead end drive aisles shall provide a dedicated turnaround space and a five-foot minimum clear paved hammerhead/drive aisle extension. The drive aisle shall be a minimum of 26 feet wide. Fire Department 21. Adequate emergency access shall be required pursuant to California Fire Code Section 503.1. 22. Pursuant to California Fire Code Section 507.1, an approved water supply capable of supplying the required fire flow for fire protection shall be provided to the premises upon which the buildings are to be constructed. 23. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in compliance with California Fire Code Sections 903.2.8 and 903.2.18. Building Division 24. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City's Building Division and Fire Department. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City -adopted version of the California Building Code. The construction plans must meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. 12-17 Attachment C Planning Commission Resolution No. 2036, adopted November 17, 2016 12-18 RESOLUTION NO. 2036 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. SD2016-002 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. NT2016-003 FOR A SEVEN -UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 20452 SANTA ANA AVENUE (PA2016-069) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. An application was filed by Adrienne Brandes, with respect to property located at 20452 Santa Ana Avenue, and legally described as the Southwesterly 82 feet of Lot 6 of Tract No. 456, in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 17 Page(s) 9 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, except the Southeasterly 150 feet thereof, requesting approval of a major site development review and tentative tract map. 2. The applicant proposes the construction of seven residential condominium units. As proposed, each unit will be three stories and will include a two -car garage. Four guest parking spaces, including one accessible parking space, will be constructed on-site. 3. The subject property is located within Multi -Unit Residential Detached (RMD) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Multiple -Unit Residential (RM). 4. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone. 5. A public hearing was held on November 17, 2016, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 under Class 32 (In -Fill Development) 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. 2. In this case, the project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element category of RM as well as the RMD Zoning District. Residential condominiums are an allowed use in the land use category designation as well as in RMD. The project site area is less than five acres and generally surrounded by residential development and a golf course. The 12-19 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2036 Page 2 of 13 lot is substantially developed and is not within environmentally sensitive areas. The proposed project was reviewed by the Public Works Department and concerns with traffic were not found. Further, a traffic study was not required under the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). No significant effects are anticipated for the lot with regard to noise or air quality as the proposed project will be replacing an existing multi -family development. A preliminary water quality management plan (WQMP) was reviewed and approved to address potential water quality issues. The project was also reviewed by the Public Works and Fire Departments and it was determined both lots maintain adequate access to both utilities and public services. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. Site Development Review In accordance with NEMC Section 20.52.080(F) (Findings and Decision), the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding; A. The proposed development is allowed within the subject zoning district. Fact in Support of Finding: The subject property is located within the RMD Zoning District, which principally provides for areas appropriate for multi -unit residential developments exclusively containing detached dwelling units. The proposed multi -unit residential development is replacing and improving an existing multi -unit residential development. Although the proposed development does not contain detached dwelling units, the project is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable development standards within the Zoning Code and is allowed in the RMD Zoning District. Finding: B. In compliance with all of the applicable criteria identified in NEMC Subsection [20.52.080](C)(2) (c): a. Compliance with this Section, the General Plan, the Zoning Code, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or structure; b. The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent development; and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design; C. The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas; d. The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces; 05-26-2016 12-20 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2036 Paqe 3 of 13 e. The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plant and irrigation materials; and f. The protection of significant views from public right(s)-of-way and compliance with NBMC Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protections). Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject property as RM, which is intended primarily for multi -family residential development containing attached or detached dwelling units. The proposed multi -unit residential development is consistent with the General Plan designation. 2. The proposed development complies with the development standards of RMD Zoning District. The proposed buildings are approximately 33 feet tall, which complies with the maximum height limitation. The buildings also meet all required setbacks and common and private open space requirements. Seven, two -car garages and four uncovered guest parking spaces are proposed for the development, which meets the Zoning Code required parking, 3. The proposed development will incorporate consistent architectural design such that all structures on the property are unified. Architectural treatment will harmonize with the surrounding neighborhood. 4. The proposed site layout maintains the existing vehicular access from Santa Ana Avenue. The site layout and guest parking area allow vehicles sufficient space to turn around on-site. Pedestrian access to the site is available along Santa Ana Avenue along an existing public sidewalk. 5. The Public Works Department has reviewed and approved the site plan, proposed improvements, parking configuration, and access driveway subject to the conditions of approval. 6. The 20 -foot front setback and site layout provide for additional landscaping opportunities immediately adjacent to the street. As conditioned, all landscaping will comply with NBMC Chapter 14.17 (Water -Efficient Landscaping). 7. The subject property is not located at or near a public view point or corridor as identified in the General Plan Figure NR3 (Coastal Views); and therefore, is in compliance with NBMC Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protections). Finding: C. Not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development. 05-26-2016 12-21 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2036 Page 4 of 13 Facts in Support of Finding: A similar multi -unit residential development has existed at this location since 1975, according to County records. The proposed seven -unit residential condominium development will replace and improve the existing development. The amount of traffic to and from the site will not significantly change. 2. The proposed development will comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes. The project will also comply with all City ordinances and conditions of approval. 3. The project has been conditioned to ensure that potential conflicts with surrounding land uses are minimized to the extent possible to maintain a healthy environment. Tentative Tract Map In accordance with NBMC Section 19.12.070(A) (Required Findings for Action on Tentative Maps), the following findings and facts in support of a tentative tract map are set forth: Finding: A. That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with the applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City Subdivision Code. Facts in Support of Finding: The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site as Multiple Residential (RM), which is intended to provide for areas appropriate for multiple -unit residential developments containing attached or detached dwelling units. This designation allows 43 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project is well within the maximum allowable density of 11 units (43 x 0.26). 2. The proposed project is consistent with General Plan Policy LU 5.1.9, which requires multi -family dwellings to be designed to convey a high quality architectural character in regard to building elevations, ground floor treatment, roof design, parking, open space, and amenities. The ground treatment principles are not applicable because the dwelling unit entrances face the interior private streets. Parking is provided as attached garages integrated with the residential structures, while the guest spaces on the site are uncovered. Consistency with the remaining principles of LU 5.1.9 is ensured through compliance with development standards. 3. The proposed project is consistent with General Plan Policy LU 6.6.2, which promotes the development of a mix of residential types and building scales as the proposed project includes a detached product type that will contribute to the variety of housing types in Santa Ana Heights and the surrounding areas. 05-28-2018 12-22 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2036 Paae 5 of 13 4. The subject property is not located within a specific plan area. 5. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed tentative tract map and found it consistent with the Newport Beach Subdivision Code (Title 19) and applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. 6. The applicant will provide an in -lieu park dedication fee pursuant to Chapter 19.52 (Park Dedications and Fees), as required for park or recreational purposes in conjunction with the approval of a residential subdivision. The existing multi -unit residential development has three units and the proposed project would increase the number of dwelling units to seven. The in -lieu park fee would be required for the four additional dwelling units. Credit for the existing residential units is provided because the impact to park services is related to the increase in residents associated with the new units. 7. Conditions of approval have been included to ensure compliance with Title 19. Finding: B. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. Fact in Support of Finding: The 11,490 -square -foot site is regular in shape, has a slope of less than 20 percent, and is not within a zone deemed to be subject to seismically induced liquefaction potential. The site is large enough to accommodate the density proposed in compliance with all applicable Zoning requirements. The site is suitable for the type and density of development proposed in that the infrastructure serving the site and surrounding area has been designed and developed to accommodate the proposed project. As required by Condition of Approval No. 23, a water and sewer demand study will be prepared to ensure that the water and sewer mains are adequate, and upgrades will be required if the infrastructure is not adequate. Finding: C. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision-making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. 05-26-2016 12-23 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2036 Page 6of13 Fact in Support of Finding The proposed project is not located near fish or wildlife habitat and the design of the subdivision will not cause substantial damage to habitat. See Section 2 (California Environmental Quality Act Determination) above. Finding: D. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is for condominium purposes. All construction for the project will comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes, which are in place to prevent serious public health problems. Public improvements will be required of the developer per NBMC Section 19.28.010 (General Improvement Requirements) and Section 66411 (Local agencies to regulate and control design of subdivisions) of the Subdivision Map Act. Furthermore, the proposed project conforms to all applicable City ordinances. 2. No evidence is known to exist that would indicate that the planned subdivision pattern will generate any serious public health problems. Finding: E. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision-making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The design of the development does not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development as there are no public easements that are located on the property. Sufficient site access is provided from the abutting public right-of-way (Santa Ana Avenue) with the proposed tract map. 2. Public improvements, including removal and replacement of damaged concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk along Placentia Avenue will be required of the applicant pursuant 05-26-2016 12-24 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2036 Paqe 7 of 13 to the Municipal Code and the Subdivision Map Act. Each residential unit will be required to provide separate water service/meter and sewer lateral and cleanout. Finding: F. That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land. Fact in Support of Findinq: The property is not subject to the Williamson Act. The subject property is not designated as an agricultural preserve and is less than 100 acres. Finding: G. That, in the case of a "land project" as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code: (a) there is an adopted specific plan for the area to be included within the land project, and (b) the decision-making body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area. Fact in Support of Finding: California Business and Professions Code Section 11000.5 was repealed by the Legislature in 2006 via Assembly Bill 2711. However, the proposed subdivision is not a "land project," as defined in prior California Business and Professions Code Section 11000.5 because it does not consist of 50 or more parcels. Finding: H. That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map Act. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The proposed Tentative Tract Map includes attached dwelling units with open space, private streets, and walkways further separating the units. The proposed subdivision design allows for solar access and future passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities. The proposed building height complies with the maximum limit of 33 feet, which is compatible with the existing and allowed heights of other structures in the area. All of the units are aligned east -west with sufficient setbacks to provide southern exposure. 05-26-2016 12-25 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2036 Page 8 of 13 2. The proposed improvements are subject to Title 24 of the California Building Code that requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards based on location and climate. The Newport Beach Building Division enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check and inspection process. Finding: That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. Fact in Support of Finding: The maximum residential density allowed for the site will remain unchanged with project approval. The proposed 7 -unit project is consistent with the RM General Plan land use designation which allows a maximum of 11 residential units on the property. The minor increase in units will improve the City's ability to meet its regional housing goals. Finding: J. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Facts in Support of Finding Wastewater discharge from the project into the existing sewer system has been designed to comply with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements. 2. A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared and approved for the proposed project. 3. Compliance with the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program involves the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction -related activities, which will specify the Best Management Practices (BMP's) that the project will be required to implement during construction activities to ensure that all potential pollutants of concern (including sediment) are prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to being discharged from the subject property. 4. The conditions of approval include the requirement for a sewer demand study to determine if the existing sewer main on Santa Ana Avenue will be able to handle the sewage flows from the proposed development. Sewer connections have been 05-26-2016 12-26 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2036 Page 9 of 13 conditioned to be installed per City Standards, the applicable provisions of NBMC Chapter 14.24 (Sewer Connection, Permits), and the latest revision of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Finding: K. For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act. Fact in Support of Finding: The subject property is not located within the Coastal Zone. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Major Site Development Review No. SD2016-002 and Tentative Tract Map No. NT2016-003, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 2. The approval of Major Site Development Review No. SD2016-002 shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution was adopted, and approval of Tentative Tract Map No. NT2016-003 shall become final and effective 10 days following the date this Resolution was adopted, unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of NBMC Title 20 and/or NBMC Title 19. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 17F" DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016. AYES: Dunlap, Hillgren, Lawler, Koetting, Krarner and Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: None s 05-26-2016 12-27 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2036 Paqe 10 of 13 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Division The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval. (Except as modified by applicable conditions of approval.) 2. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval 3. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Use Permit. 4. A copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval Exhibit "A" shall be incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans prior to issuance of the building permits. 5. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Division an additional copy of the approved architectural plans for inclusion in the Site Development Review file. The plans shall be identical to those approved by all City departments for building permit issuance. The approved copy shall include architectural sheets only and shall be reduced in size to 11 inches by 17 inches. The plans shall accurately depict the elements approved by this Site Development Review and shall highlight the approved elements such that they are readily discernible from other elements of the plans. 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Division. Compliance with Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 14.17 (Water -Efficient Landscaping) shall be appropriately demonstrated. 7. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the fair share traffic contribution in effect at the time shall be paid in accordance with the Municipal Code. 8. Prior to the recordation of the Final Tract Map, park dedication fees shall be paid consistent with the fee amount in effect at the time of payment as established by the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. 9. All landscape materials and irrigation systems shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and 05-26-2016 12-28 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2036 Page 11 of 13 trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 10. Building owners and tenants shall keep the building exteriors and facades clean and in good repair. 11. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the Director of Community Development, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 12. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall prepare photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division. The survey shall show that lighting values are "1" or less at all property lines. 13. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing agent. 14. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise -generating construction activities that produce noise to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise -generating construction activities are not allowed on Sundays or Holidays. 15. This approval shall expire and become void unless exercised within 24 months from the actual date of review authority approval, except where an extension of time is approved in compliance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 16. 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 Santa Ana Avenue Cottages including, but not limited to, Major Site Development Review No. SD2016-002 and Tentative Tract Map No. NT2016-003 (PA2016-069).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 45-26-2416 12-29 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2036 Paae 12 of 13 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. 17. Prior to submittal for building permits, the applicant shall submit revised elevations reflecting smooth stucco and enhanced architectural features for review and approval of the Planning Division. If the Planning Division determines the revisions do not meet the intent of the Planning Commission's action, the design shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review. , Public Works Department 18. A Tract Map shall be recorded for this development. The Map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD88). Prior to recordation of the Map, the surveyorlengineer preparing the Map shall submit to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a digital -graphic file of said map in a manner described in Sections 7-9- 330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. The Map submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the City's CADD Standards. Scanned images will not be accepted. 19. Prior to recordation of the Tract 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 Sections 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. 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 construction project. 20. Prior to the recordation of the Final Tract Map, a Subdivision Agreement shall be obtained and approved by City Council. 21. Prior to Final Tract Map approval, the applicant shall provide a Faithful Performance Bond and a Labor and Materials Bond, each for 100 percent of the estimated public improvements. An engineer's cost estimate shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer, and approved by the Public Works Director. 22. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work activities within the public right- of-way. An encroachment agreement shall be required for any private improvements installed within the public right-of-way. 23. The existing concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the Santa Ana Avenue frontage shall be removed and replaced per City Standards. 24, Sewer and water demand studies shall be prepared and submitted to the applicable utility providers. Approvals of said studies by the utility provider shall be provided to the City prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map. 05-26-2016 12-30 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2036 Page 13 of 13 25. The on-site sewer system shall be privately owned and maintained, unless otherwise approved by the utility provider. 26. Each unit shall be served by its own individual water service/meter and sewer lateral and cleanout, unless otherwise approved by the utility provider. 27. All on-site drainage shall comply with the latest City water quality requirements. 28. All improvements shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement per City Standard 110-L. 29. A two -foot wide pedestrian easement shall be granted to the City along the back of the proposed driveway approach to provide a clear four -foot wide ADA path along the sidewalk. 30. The parking layout and drive aisles shall comply with City Standards STD -805 -L-A and STD -805 -L -B. Dead end drive aisles shall provide a dedicated turnaround space and a five-foot minimum clear paved hammerhead/drive aisle extension. The drive aisle shall be a minimum of 26 feet wide. 31. In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development site by the private construction, additional reconstruction within the public right-of-way could be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. Fire Department 32. Adequate emergency access shall be required pursuant to California Fire Code Section 503.1. 33. Pursuant to California Fire Code Section 507.1, an approved water supply capable of supplying the required fire flow for fire protection shall be provided to the premises upon which the buildings are to be constructed. 34. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in compliance with California Fire Code Sections 903.2.8 and 903.2.18. Building Division 35. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City's Building Division and Fire Department. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City - adopted version of the California Building Code. The construction plans must meet ail applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. 05-26-2016 12-31 Attachment D Appellant's Appeal Application 12-32 Appeal hri City Clerk's Office 100 Civic Center Driver ". r?,..,, 1?66 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 949-644-3005 ❑ Hearing Officer - NBMC §20.64 ❑ Operator License - NBMC §5.25.060 Attention: City Manager) tanning Commission - NBMC §20.64 ❑ Zoning Administrator - NBMC §20.64 and §15.45.080 (F) ❑ Other Appellant Information: Name(s):.� Address: Clerk's Date & it c- 1c. - n- I 1 EC R/ED 70111A DEC - t I PPS 3: 35 CFTIC�- Applicably phi e� tau pant to Master Fee Medd dam€ 9-22-15: j Hearing Officer - $1,536.00 Operator License - $692.00 Commission - $1,536.00 i oning Administrator - $1,536.00 Other $ A--, +. S T A„ &- A ✓z- e5,5 5+o -r,/ 6vt G- Y T %IC— / City/State/Zip: 1K) C4,"Perl V,-Jr- Phone: tomPhone: elpq w -z l `i 6-p 63 Fax i 'l,q `1 �63o Zq4 3' Email: i UAI\� Appealing Applicati®n Regarding: Name of Appiicant(s):A-o(r1-(-e\1\C-� Date of Decision: O�� Project No.: PA Z®1 (� PG 51 —�W ,ctivity No.: 1 0c)'2- N 2-® iG "m3 Site Address: Zo-qSz A -ye Description of application: t5e,,46. .,,-__Avg 1 -H -6e5 Reason(s) for Appeal (attach a separate sheet if necessary): r� Cc �,1 i � : � 4--� (Acz,.*�-- !", f Appellant:_ ®ate: -20 o�,' IG Signature a pp _ _____.._......__ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Appeal filed and Administrative Fee rec iv 3:l _ -- -- 20 . auto-/ Cit '� lerk cc: Department Director, Deputy Director, Staff, File Cashier Code: CDD004 F:1UserslClerklSharedlFormsOppee! ?ppl;cetr UpdateC 1025.„ 12-33 Coalition against Santa Ana Ave cottages as a 3 story Development' November 28, 2016 Planning Commission City clerks office 100 Civic Center Drive/ PO Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Planning Commission, 20442 Santa Ana Ave Newport Beach Ca 92660 T 949 214 5063 F 949 630 2943 d�nndirect@gmail.com On behalf of the `Coalition against Santa Ana Ave cottages as a 3 story Development' we are appeal- ing the planning commission's a r,w e Santa Ana Ave cottages. This is a letter to express concern for the safety and compiiar,ce c." Santa Ana Ave Cottages proposal. It is also going to open up the city of Newport Beach to lawsuits from all the surrounding properties which are adversely affected by this out of place 3 stor•,11 This 3 story property will also breach the privacy of the surrounding properties and create fire acid safety hazards for itself and surrounding properties. `Coalition against Santa Ana Ave collages as a 3 story Development' sites the following reasons: 1. Does not fit the neighborhood - The Santa Ana Ave Cottages proposai , cds not fit the area. A three story, 7 unit rental apartment complex into an area of one and two story homes? Yes the area is RMD but all properties whether they are single family residences, or apartments are all 2 story maximum. There are no 3 story dwelling in Newport or in Costa Mesa and the design is not in architectural harmony with the rest of the area. 2. No precedent for three story dwelling in this area - Does the city want to approve and acs ,t the liability of two 33 foot high three story dwellings, one that is 100 feet long and orta 75 ,. s� 5 feet from the next door neighbors which are both sin- gle story single family residences. 3. Planning Commission ignored < ; :_;?s brought up by surrounding property owners - Planning commission ignored all the issues raised by Five property owners in the area who wrote let- ters and even ignored the expene- cc ` ✓ inspection by Commissioner Erik Weigand Who could not find parking anywhere and It was such an egregious issue for him that he made a formal request to the liaison to Costa Mesa to request more street parking in that area. They have also ig- nored the fact that it will reduce the values of all properties adjacent to the proposed three story development We invite all seven commissioners to core meet at the site in person, drive separate cars and lets see where you have to park to visit the 20452 Santa Ana Ave property. You will need to walk a quarter of a mile to park your car. 12-34 4. Property Value Decline of all adjacent properties - AII the adjacent and surrounding properties values will drop significantly due to the lack of privacy that a 3 story dwelling will create on the surrcunding one story dwellings. Is the city of Newport Beach asking the neighbors to effectively pay for this development by us being forced to take significant property value cuts to approve a 3 story building that does not fit the area and has no precedent in the area? The city is opening itself up to massive liability with this approval due to dealing value of the surrounding property and a bread ; ot Qi i; -.a:; r to Surrounding properties. 5. Newport Beach opening itself to !�E:;al a;cposure from Property owners adversely affected - As a 7 unit 3 story project it is not, , °"'; << .area and we are unanimously going to appeal this ap- proval. However we support this pr; r;t r a 2 story design which reflects the density and architec- tural classification of the area without impacting parking, violating other property owners rights and exacerbating a precarious intersect;c;,,'s traffic flow and safety. This will not violate the surrounding property owners property rights and brir,i,-,y the city under legal exposure for knowingly approving a project that will cause the decline of many others. 6. Mrs. Brandes gave false testimony to the Planning Commission regarding the next door neighbor supporting the project - I know this because I am the next door -7�a;nhbor she was falsely claiming that I supported the project. She also gave false testimony to me the next door neighbor that the development would be a two sto- ry development and then the the plans are revealed they were 3 story. 7. Traffic and public safety - Three story and too many units -nlready dangerous intersection. Does the city want to approve and accept the liability and block the vision and more than double the traffic coming and going from a property that is less than 100 feet from an Traffic light intersection with an average of one accident e,,%- and where the posted speed limit 45 mph? 8. Fire Hazard and poor functional :les,;;qn - With no access to the backyard exc�­(r-ough the garage this is a fire hazard and design flaw that can not be approved without the city accepting the liability of approving such dangerous and haphaz- ard structural design. Also with a 5 foot deep back yard there is no room for any fire escapes. 9. Parking - By his own admission when Commissioner Erik Weigand came here to inspect the property he could not find parking anywhere in the vicinity. It was such an egregious issue for him that he made a formal request to the liaison to Costa Mesa to request more street parking in that area. Which i explained to him later in the meeting why they can not and will not put parking there. Yet the entire commissioner panel still approved a plan to add four more 3 story units and 10 more cars to this already restrictive parking situation. 10. Drainage - A Sloped land with drainage out the f: 7^ ; ^f the property is impossible. There lot drains on to my lot. Seven units draining on to my lo -L. �,,ity want to approve and accept the liability of a property with improper drainage and sloping of [rte lot? in addition the sunken garages will constantly flood the way this property is designed with nr' t o :it f_trds in any of the units and expecting the water to drain down the driveway is 11. Aesthetic - The three story block with little to no archi'actural styling and which looks more a kin to a prison cel block than a "cottage". 12-35 12. Trash - There is not enough street t: cn°acie to lDrovide for each of the 7 dwelling to have 2 or three cans out from of the property. The project Mil require a dumpster and this has not been included in the already impacted parking situation These are the twelve points that the 'Coalition against Santa Ana Ave cottages as a 3 story Develop- ment' will sight as why this project is not good for the area. The project is trying to put too many units in a property that can not handle it and the neighborhood property owners are being asked to suffer heavy losses property losses in order approve a project that does not fit the area in the first place In conclusion, The 'Coalition against Santa Ana Ave cottages as a 3 story Development' is not anti growth we are interested in maintaininc our property values, the architectural harmony and safety of our neighborhood which this 3 story ::rc :: ,will erode. We will support a design with 2 story dwelling and less units which will mitigate ria ma:;v issues raised with this appeal. Sincerely yours, 'Coalition against Santa Ana Ave co,ta =.s a 3 story Development' and Dunn Voyer 12-36 City of Newport Beach Revenue 100 Civic Center Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92669 949-644-3141 Welcome 000931-0001 Meg W. MISCELLANEOUS CDD004 ZONING & SUBDIVISION FEES 2017 Item: CDD004 1 @ 1,536.00 CDD004 ZONING & SUBDIVISION FEES Subtotal Total 12/01/2016 03:41PM 1,536.00 -------------- 1,536.00 1,536.00 1,536.00 CHECK 1,536.00 Check Number 0061022517 -------------- Change due 0.00 Paid by: DIRECT CAPITAL GROUP INC Thank you for your payment CUSTOMER COPY DUPLICATE RECEIPT 12-37 Attachment E Planning Commission Staff Report from November 17, 2016 12-38 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT November 17, 2016 Agenda Item No. 2 SUBJECT: Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) 20452 Santa Ana Avenue ■ Major Site Development Review No. SD2016-002 ■ Tentative Tract Map No. NT2016-003 ■ County Tentative Tract Map No. 18039 APPLICANT: Adrienne Brandes OWNER: Adrienne Brandes PLANNER: Benjamin M. Zdeba, AICP, Associate Planner (949) 644-3253, bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY A major site development review and tentative tract map for the construction of seven residential condominium units. As proposed, each unit will be three stories and will include a two -car garage. Four guest parking spaces, including one accessible parking space, will be constructed on-site. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. approving Major Site Development Review No. SD2016-002 and Tentative Tract Map No. NT2016-003 (Attachment No. PC 1). 1 12-39 2 12-40 Santa Ana Avenue Cottages Planning Commission, November 17, 2016 Page 2 VICINITY MAP MU_ '' - LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ON-SITE Multiple -Unit Residential RM Multi -Unit Residential Detached RMD Multi -family residential (4 units) NORTH RM RMD Multi -family residences SOUTH RM RMD Single-family residence EAST RM RMD -Single-family residences WEST - - Santa Ana Country Club 3 12-41 Santa Ana Avenue Cottages Planning Commission, November 17, 2016 Page 3 INTRODUCTION Project Setting The subject property is located in the Santa Ana Heights area near the intersection of Santa Ana Avenue and Mesa Drive. The lot is 11,489 square feet (82' x 140.11') and is developed with three units. It is located within the Multi -Unit Residential Detached (RMD) Zoning District and is surrounded by multiple -unit residential to the north, east, and south. To the west across Santa Ana Avenue, and beyond the City boundary line, is the Santa Ana Country Club golf course, which is within unincorporated County area. Project Description The proposed project would replace the existing three -unit residential development with seven residential condominium units, guest parking, landscaping, and common open space. Residential Units The project includes seven residential dwelling units that would be sold individually as condominiums. Each dwelling unit would be three stories and would include an attached, two -car garage. The proposed structures would not exceed the 33 -foot sloped roof height limit for RMD. The proposed residences include six identical floor plans with gross floor areas of approximately 1,402 square feet. This plan offers a two -car garage on the first floor, a kitchen, great room, laundry room and powder room on the second floor, and two bedrooms with two bathrooms on the third floor. The floor plan for the seventh unit represents a gross floor area of approximately 1,953 square feet. This plan offers a two - car garage on the first floor with an enhanced entry including a powder room and a coat closet. The second floor is comprised of a kitchen, great room, and laundry room, and the third floor has two bedrooms with two bathrooms. Each unit would have an area within the garages to store refuse and recycling so that it is screened from view. The applicant's project description is included as Attachment No. PC 3. The residences would be oriented towards each other and separated by a common drive aisle, which provides access to the private garages as well as the guest parking area at the rear of the project site. The applicant's design team describes the proposed residences as eclectic with blends of various architectural styles and Spanish elements that would include a combination of stucco and metal materials as shown in the visual simulations, materials and color scheme, and project plans (Attachment Nos. PC 4-6). The colors of the materials would generally include white with shades of grey as accent colors. Any stucco on the building would have a smooth finish. 12-42 Santa Ana Avenue Cottages Planning Commission, November 17, 2016 Page 4 On -Site Improvements The proposed project includes the installation of a private sewer system, which will connect to the main on Santa Ana Avenue. The current service providers for electric, gas, cable, and telephone would continue to serve the site. A 6 -foot -high site wall is proposed along each side of the property. The vehicular entrance to the site will be maintained from Santa Ana Avenue. Four guest parking spaces are proposed throughout the subject property. Common open space areas are proposed at the front and the rear of the property. Walkways are provided along each side of the drive aisle, providing pedestrian access to the right-of-way. Landscaping is proposed throughout the site, with significant plantings within the front and rear setback areas including a mixture of 24 -inch and 36 -inch box trees with low- lying shrubs and bushes. A 6 -foot -high vinyl fence would be constructed in the 5 -foot side setback area between each unit to create private yards. A conceptual planting plan is provided as Attachment No. PC 5. Where the units face each other across the private aisle, a 28 -foot separation is provided between structures. The proposed project includes site grading and the rear of the property will be elevated for appropriate drainage. Off -Site Improvements As conditioned, all existing curb, gutter and sidewalk along the entire Santa Ana Avenue property frontage will be required to be reconstructed and any damage to the public right- of-way improvements will be required to be repaired by the applicant. The applicant would also provide an in -lieu park dedication fee pursuant to Chapter 19.52 (Park Dedications and Fees), as required for park or recreational purposes in conjunction with the approval of a residential subdivision. The existing multi -unit residential development has three units and the proposed project would increase the number of dwelling units to seven. The in -lieu park fee would be required for the four additional dwelling units. Credit for the existing residential units is provided because the impact to park services is related to the increase in residents associated with the new units. DISCUSSION Analysis Consistency with the General Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site as Multiple Residential (RM), which is intended to provide primarily for multi -family residential development containing attached or detached dwelling units. The General Plan allows a maximum 5 12-43 Santa Ana Avenue Cottages Planning Commission, November 17, 2016 Page 5 density of 43 dwelling units per acre; and therefore, 11 units would be allowed (0.26 X 43) on the subject property. The proposed seven -unit, detached residential development is consistent with this designation. The proposed project is consistent with General Plan Policy LU 5.1.9, which requires multi -family dwellings to be designed to convey a high quality architectural character in regard to building elevations, ground floor treatment, roof design, parking, open space, and amenities. The dwelling unit entrances would face the interior and not Santa Ana Avenue. The view from Santa Ana Avenue is consistent with the policy because of the proposed landscaping, privacy fencing, and building setbacks. Furthermore, the proposed design of the building elevations facing Santa Ana Avenue would convey a high quality architectural character through the building modulation, quality materials, and multiple colors and materials. Parking is provided as attached garages integrated with the residential structures, while the guest spaces on the site are uncovered. Consistency with the principles of LU 5.1.9 is ensured through compliance with development standards. The proposed project is consistent with General Plan Policy LU 6.6.2 (Attachment No. PC 7), which promotes the development of a mix of residential types and building scales. The proposed project would contribute to the variety of housing types in the Santa Ana Heights area. Consistency with the Zoning Code The proposed project is consistent with the requirements of the RMD Zoning District as further described in Table 1. This property was annexed into the City as part of the West Santa Ana Heights Annexation. Although the intent of this district states that it is intended to provide for areas appropriate for multi -unit residential developments exclusively containing detached dwelling units, there are no development standards in place to require the detached design. Furthermore, much of the existing multi -family residential development in RMD Zoning District is attached. Table 1 — RMD Development Standards Development Standard Requirement Proposed Lot Area 5,000 sq. ft. 11,489 sq. ft. (existing) Lot Width 50 ft. 82 ft.(existing) Min. Site Area per Unit 1,000 sq. ft. 1,641 sq. ft. Floor Area Limit N/A 10,365 sq. ft. Building Height 33 ft. sloped 33 ft. sloped Front Setback 20 ft. 20 ft. Side Setback North 5 ft. 5 ft. Side Setback (South) 5 ft. 5 ft. Rear Setback 25 ft. 25 ft. 0 12-44 Santa Ana Avenue Cottages Planning Commission, November 17, 2016 Page 6 Development Standard Requirement Proposed Common Open Space 525 sq. ft. (75 sq. ft./unit) 1,240 sq. ft. (177 sq. ft./unit) Private Open Space 70 sq. ft. (5% GFA/unit) 116 sq. ft. (8% GFA/unit) Parking 2 per unit covered (14 spaces) 14 garage spaces 0.5 per unit guest (4 spaces) 4 guest spaces Major Site Development Review A major site development review is required to allow the construction of five or more dwelling units with a tentative tract map. In accordance with Section 20.52.080(F) (Findings and Decisions), the Planning Commission must make the following findings for approval of a major site development review. The proposed development is: 1. Allowed within the subject zoning district; 2. In compliance with all of the applicable criteria identified in subsection (C)(2)(c): i. Compliance with this section, the General Plan, this Zoning Code, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or structure; ii. The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent developments; and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design; iii. The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas,- iv. reas,iv. The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces,- V. paces,v. The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plant and irrigation materials; and vi. The protection of significant views from public right(s)-of-way and compliance with Section 20.30. 100 (Public View Protection). 3. Not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endangers, jeopardizes, or otherwise constitutes a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development. As demonstrated in the draft resolution (Attachment No. PC 1), staff believes the findings for approval can be made. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code, which is discussed in the previous sections (Consistency with the General Plan and Consistency with the Zoning Code). The proposed design will comply with all applicable development standards, which helps to ensure compatibility with future development and redevelopment in the surrounding area under identical 7 12-45 Santa Ana Avenue Cottages Planning Commission, November 17, 2016 Page 7 zoning classifications. Vehicular access to and circulation within the project site has been reviewed by the Public Works Department to ensure adequacy and efficiency. As conditioned, a two -foot wide pedestrian easement will be granted to the City along the back of the proposed driveway approach to provide a clear four -foot wide pathway along the sidewalk, which will comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. Also as conditioned, all landscaping will compl� with the City's Water - Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. The common open space area of approximately 1,240 square feet more than doubles the required 525 square feet, and is thereby adequate. Lastly, the subject property is not located at or near a public view point or corridor as identified in the General Plan Figure NR3 (Coastal Views); and therefore, is in compliance with Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protections). Tentative Tract Map A tentative tract map is proposed for condominium purposes to allow multiple property owners for one parcel. In accordance with Section 19.12.070 (Required Findings for Action on Tentative Maps), the Planning Commission must make the following findings for approval of a tentative tract map: 1. That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code; 2. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development; 3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report, 4. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems; 5. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of 'The land area within a residential development that is not individually owned or dedicated for public use and that is designed, intended, and reserved exclusively for the shared enjoyment or use by all the residents and their guests. Does not include enclosed spaces/facilities (e.g., community center, meeting rooms, etc.). Illustrative examples include: Areas of scenic or natural beauty, barbecue areas, habitat areas, hiking, riding, or off-street bicycle trails, landscaped areas, play areas, swimming pools, tennis courts, and turf areas. 2 12-46 Santa Ana Avenue Cottages Planning Commission, November 17, 2016 Page 8 property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision; 6. That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land; 7. That, in the case of a "land project" as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code: (1) There is an adopted specific plan for the area to be included within the land project; and (2) the decision making body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area; 8. That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map Act,- 9. ct, 9. That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal and environmental resources,- 10. esources, 10. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board; and 11. For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act. As demonstrated in the draft resolution (Attachment No. PC 1), staff believes the findings for approval can be made. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, Subdivision Map Act, and City Subdivision Code. The 11,489 -square -foot site is 9 12-47 Santa Ana Avenue Cottages Planning Commission, November 17, 2016 Page 9 regular in shape, has a slope of less than 20 percent, and is large enough to accommodate the density proposed in compliance with all applicable Zoning requirements. Alternatives 1. The Planning Commission may require changes to the project to alleviate any concerns related to the design or the ability to make the required findings. If the changes are substantial, the item should be continued to a future meeting to allow the applicant to make the necessary adjustments and to allow staff to prepare a revised resolution incorporating new findings and/or conditions. 2. If the Planning Commission believes that there are insufficient facts to support the findings for approval, the Planning Commission should deny the application and provide facts in support of denial to be included in the attached draft resolution for denial (Attachment No. PC 2). Environmental Review This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 under Class Class 32 (In -Fill Development) 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. The Class 32 exemption applies to projects meeting all of the following conditions: a. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with the applicable zoning designation and regulations; b. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; c. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; d. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality; and e. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. In this case, the project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element category of RM as well as the RMD Zoning District. Residential condominiums are an allowed use in the land use category designation as well as in RMD. The project site area is less than five acres and generally surrounded by residential development and a golf course. The lot is substantially developed and is not within environmentally sensitive areas. The proposed project was reviewed by the Public Works Department and concerns with traffic were not found. Further, a traffic study was not required under the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). No significant effects are anticipated for the lot with regard to noise or air quality as the proposed project will be replacing an existing multi -family development. A preliminary water quality management plan (WQMP) was reviewed and approved to address potential water quality issues. The project was also reviewed by the Public Works and Fire 10 12-48 Santa Ana Avenue Cottages Planning Commission, November 17, 2016 Page 10 Departments and it was determined both lots maintain adequate access to both utilities and public services. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights-of-way and waterways) including the applicant and posted on the subject property at least 10 days before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of 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: ruin eba, AICP iate ITIOner ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Draft Resolution for Approval PC 2 Draft Resolution for Denial PC 3 Applicant's Project Description PC 4 Colored Renderings/Materials PC 5 Conceptual Planting Plan PC 6 Project Plans PC 7 Tentative Tract Map No. 18039 Submitted by: ICP, Deputy Director :\Users\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs - 2016\PA2016-069\PC 11172016\PA2016-069 PC Staff Report_11172016.docx 05/26/16 11 12-49 12 12-50 Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Resolution for Approval 14 12-52 RESOLUTION NO. #### A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. SD2016-002 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. NT2016-003 FOR A SEVEN -UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 20452 SANTA ANA AVENUE (PA2016-069) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by Adrienne Brandes, with respect to property located at 20452 Santa Ana Avenue, and legally described as the Southwesterly 82 feet of Lot 6 of Tract No. 456, in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 17 Page(s) 9 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, except the Southeasterly 150 feet thereof, requesting approval of a major site development review and tentative tract map. 2. The applicant proposes the construction of seven residential condominium units. As proposed, each unit will be three stories and will include a two -car garage. Four guest parking spaces, including one accessible parking space, will be constructed on-site. 3. The subject property is located within Multi -Unit Residential Detached (RMD) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Multiple -Unit Residential (RM). 4. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone. 5. A public hearing was held on November 17, 2016, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 under Class 32 (In -Fill Development) 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. 2. In this case, the project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element category of RM as well as the RMD Zoning District. Residential condominiums are an allowed use in the land use category designation as well as in RMD. The project site area is less than five acres and generally surrounded by residential development and a golf course. The 15 12-53 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Paae 2 of 13 lot is substantially developed and is not within environmentally sensitive areas. The proposed project was reviewed by the Public Works Department and concerns with traffic were not found. Further, a traffic study was not required under the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). No significant effects are anticipated for the lot with regard to noise or air quality as the proposed project will be replacing an existing multi -family development. A preliminary water quality management plan (WQMP) was reviewed and approved to address potential water quality issues. The project was also reviewed by the Public Works and Fire Departments and it was determined both lots maintain adequate access to both utilities and public services. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. Site Development Review In accordance with NBMC Section 20.52.080(F) (Findings and Decision), the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: A. The proposed development is allowed within the subject zoning district. Fact in Support of Finding: The subject property is located within the RMD Zoning District, which principally provides for areas appropriate for multi -unit residential developments exclusively containing detached dwelling units. The proposed multi -unit residential development is replacing and improving an existing multi -unit residential development. Although the proposed development does not contain detached dwelling units, the project is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable development standards within the Zoning Code and is allowed in the RMD Zoning District. Finding: r B. In compliance with all of the applicable criteria identified in NBMC Subsection [20.52.080](C) (2) (c): a. Compliance with this Section, the General Plan, the Zoning Code, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or structure; b. The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent development; and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design; C. The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas; d. The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces; 05-26-2016 10 12-54 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Paae 3 of 13 e. The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plant and irrigation materials; and f. The protection of significant views from public right(s)-of-way and compliance with NBMC Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protections). Facts in Support of Findina: 1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject property as RM, which is intended primarily for multi -family residential development containing attached or detached dwelling units. The proposed multi -unit residential development is consistent with the General Plan designation. 2. The proposed development complies with the development standards of RMD Zoning District. The proposed buildings are approximately 33 feet tall, which complies with the maximum height limitation. The buildings also meet all required setbacks and common and private open space requirements. Seven, two -car garages and four uncovered guest parking spaces are proposed for the development, which meets the Zoning Code required parking. 3. The proposed development will incorporate consistent architectural design such that all structures on the property are unified. Architectural treatment will harmonize with the surrounding neighborhood. t ®� 4. The proposed site layout maintains the existing vehicular access from Santa Ana Avenue. The site layout and guest parking area allow vehicles sufficient space to turn around on-site. Pedestrian access to the site is available along Santa Ana Avenue along an existing public sidewalk. 5. The Public Works Department has reviewed and approved the site plan, proposed improvements, parking configuration, and access driveway subject to the conditions of approval. L 6. The 20 -foot front setback and site layout provide for additional landscaping opportunities immediately adjacent to the street. As conditioned, all landscaping will comply with NBMC Chapter 14.17 (Water -Efficient Landscaping). 7. The subject property is not located at or near a public view point or corridor as identified in the General Plan Figure NR3 (Coastal Views); and therefore, is in compliance with NBMC Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protections). Finding- C. indin : C. Not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development. 05-26-2016 z7 12-55 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Paae 4 of 13 Facts in Sugaort of Findina: 1. A similar multi -unit residential development has existed at this location since 1975, according to County records. The proposed seven -unit residential condominium development will replace and improve the existing development. The amount of traffic to and from the site will not significantly change. 2. The proposed development will comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes. The project will also comply with all City ordinances and conditions of approval. 3. The project has been conditioned to ensure that potential conflicts with surrounding land uses are minimized to the extent possible to maintain a healthy environment. Tentative Tract Map In accordance with NBMC Section 19.12.070(A) (Required Findings for Action on Tentative Maps), the following findings and facts in support of a tentative tract map are set forth: Finding: A. That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with the applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City Subdivision Code. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site as Multiple Residential (RM), which is intended to provide for areas appropriate for multiple -unit residential developments containing attached or detached dwelling units. This designation allows 43 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project is well within the maximum allowable density of 11 units (43 x 0.26). 2. The proposed project is consistent with General Plan Policy LU 5.1.9, which requires multi -family dwellings to be designed to convey a high quality architectural character in regard to building elevations, ground floor treatment, roof design, parking, open space, and amenities. The ground treatment principles are not applicable because the dwelling unit entrances face the interior private streets. Parking is provided as attached garages integrated with the residential structures, while the guest spaces on the site are uncovered. Consistency with the remaining principles of LU 5.1.9 is ensured through compliance with development standards. 3. The proposed project is consistent with General Plan Policy LU 6.6.2, which promotes the development of a mix of residential types and building scales as the proposed project includes a detached product type that will contribute to the variety of housing types in Santa Ana Heights and the surrounding areas. 05-26-2016 g 12-56 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Paae 5 of 13 4. The subject property is not located within a specific plan area. 5. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed tentative tract map and found it consistent with the Newport Beach Subdivision Code (Title 19) and applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. 6. The applicant will provide an in -lieu park dedication fee pursuant to Chapter 19.52 (Park Dedications and Fees), as required for park or recreational purposes in conjunction with the approval of a residential subdivision. The existing multi -unit residential development has three units and the proposed project would increase the number of dwelling units to seven. The in -lieu park fee would be required for the four additional dwelling units. Credit for the existing residential units is provided because the impact to park services is related to the increase in residents associated with the new units. 7. Conditions of approval have been included to ensure compliance with Title 19. Finding: B. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. Fact in Support of Finding: The 11,490 -square -foot site is regular in shape, has a slope of less than 20 percent, and is not within a zone deemed to be subject to seismically induced liquefaction potential. The site is large enough to accommodate the density proposed in compliance with all applicable Zoning requirements. The site is suitable for the type and density of development proposed in that the infrastructure serving the site and surrounding area has been designed and developed to accommodate the proposed project. As required by Condition of Approval No. 23, a water and sewer demand study will be prepared to ensure that the water and sewer mains are adequate, and upgrades will be required if the infrastructure is not adequate. Finding: IV C. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision-making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. 05-26-2016 1� 12-57 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Paae 6 of 13 Fact in Support of Finding_ The proposed project is not located near fish or wildlife habitat and the design of the subdivision will not cause substantial damage to habitat. See Section 2 (California Environmental Quality Act Determination) above. Finding: D. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is for condominium purposes. All construction for the project will comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes, which are in place to prevent serious public health problems. Public improvements will be required of the developer per NBMC Section 19.28.010 (General Improvement Requirements) and Section 66411 (Local agencies to regulate and control design of subdivisions) of the Subdivision Map Act. Furthermore, the proposed project conforms to all applicable City ordinances. 2. No evidence is known to exist that would indicate that the planned subdivision pattern will generate any serious public health problems. Finding: E. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision-making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The design of the development does not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development as there are no public easements that are located on the property. Sufficient site access is provided from the abutting public right-of-way (Santa Ana Avenue) with the proposed tract map. 2. Public improvements, including removal and replacement of damaged concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk along Placentia Avenue will be required of the applicant pursuant 05-26-2016 20 12-58 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Paae 7 of 13 to the Municipal Code and the Subdivision Map Act. Each residential unit will be required to provide separate water service/meter and sewer lateral and cleanout. Finding: F. That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land. Fact in Support of Finding: The property is not subject to the Williamson Act. The subject property is not designated as an agricultural preserve and is less than 100 acres. Finding: G. That, in the case of a "land project" as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code: (a) there is an adopted specific plan for the area to be included within the land project; and (b) the decision-making body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area. Fact in Support of Finding: California Business and Professions Code Section 11000.5 was repealed by the Legislature in 2006 via Assembly Bill 2711. However, the proposed subdivision is not a "land project," as defined in prior California Business and Professions Code Section 11000.5 because it does not consist of 50 or more parcels. Finding: r H. That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map Act. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The proposed Tentative Tract Map includes attached dwelling units with open space, private streets, and walkways further separating the units. The proposed subdivision design allows for solar access and future passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities. The proposed building height complies with the maximum limit of 33 feet, which is compatible with the existing and allowed heights of other structures in the area. All of the units are aligned east -west with sufficient setbacks to provide southern exposure. 05-26-2016 21 12-59 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Paae 8 of 13 2. The proposed improvements are subject to Title 24 of the California Building Code that requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards based on location and climate. The Newport Beach Building Division enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check and inspection process. Finding: That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. Fact in Support of Finding: The maximum residential density allowed for the site will remain unchanged with project approval. The proposed 7 -unit project is consistent with the RM General Plan land use designation which allows a maximum of 11 residential units on the property. The minor increase in units will improve the City's ability to meet its regional housing goals. Finding: J. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Wastewater discharge from the project into the existing sewer system has been designed to comply with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements. 2. A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared and approved for the proposed project. 3. Compliance with the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program involves the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction -related activities, which will specify the Best Management Practices (BMP's) that the project will be required to implement during construction activities to ensure that all potential pollutants of concern (including sediment) are prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to being discharged from the subject property. 4. The conditions of approval include the requirement for a sewer demand study to determine if the existing sewer main on Santa Ana Avenue will be able to handle the sewage flows from the proposed development. Sewer connections have been 05-26-2016 22 12-60 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Paae 9 of 13 conditioned to be installed per City Standards, the applicable provisions of NBMC Chapter 14.24 (Sewer Connection, Permits), and the latest revision of the Uniform Plumbing Code. Finding: K. For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act. Fact in Support of Finding_ The subject property is not located within the Coastal Zone. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Major Site Development Review No. SD2016-002 and Tentative Tract Map No. NT2016-003, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 2. The approval of Major Site Development Review No. SD2016-002 shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution was adopted, and approval of Tentative Tract Map No. NT2016-003 shall become final and effective 10 days following the date this Resolution was adopted, unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of NBMC Title 20 and/or NBMC Title 19. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: M. Kory Kramer, Chairman Peter Zak, Secretary 05-26-2016 23 12-61 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Paae 10 of 13 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Division 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval. (Except as modified by applicable conditions of approval.) 2. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 3. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Use Permit. 4. A copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval Exhibit "A" shall be incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans prior to issuance of the building permits. 5. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Division an additional copy of the approved architectural plans for inclusion in the Site Development Review file. The plans shall be identical to those approved by all City departments for building permit issuance. The approved copy shall include architectural sheets only and shall be reduced in size to 11 inches by 17 inches. The plans shall accurately depict the elements approved by this Site Development Review and shall highlight the approved elements such that they are readily discernible from other elements of the plans. 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Division. Compliance with Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 14.17 (Water -Efficient Landscaping) shall be appropriately demonstrated. 7. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the fair share traffic contribution in effect at the time shall be paid in accordance with the Municipal Code. 8. Prior to the recordation of the Final Tract Map, park dedication fees shall be paid consistent with the fee amount in effect at the time of payment as established by the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. 9. All landscape materials and irrigation systems shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and 05-26-2016 24 12-62 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Paae 11 of 13 trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 10. Building owners and tenants shall keep the building exteriors and facades clean and in good repair. 11. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the Director of Community Development, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 12. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall prepare photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division. The survey shall show that lighting values are "1" or less at all property lines. 13. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing agent. 14. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise -generating construction activities that produce noise to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise -generating construction activities are not allowed on Sundays or Holidays. 15. This approval shall expire and become void unless exercised within 24 months from the actual date of review authority approval, except where an extension of time is approved in compliance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. IV 16. 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 Santa Ana Avenue Cottages including, but not limited to, Major Site Development Review No. SD2016-002 and Tentative Tract Map No. NT2016-003 (PA2016-069).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 05-26-2016 25 12-63 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Paae 12 of 13 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. Public Works Department 17. A Tract Map shall be recorded for this development. The Map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD88). Prior to recordation of the Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the Map shall submit to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a digital -graphic file of said map in a manner described in Sections 7-9- 330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. The Map submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the City's CADD Standards. Scanned images will not be accepted. 18. Prior to recordation of the Tract 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 Sections 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. 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 construction project. 19. Prior to the recordation of the Final Tract Map, a Subdivision Agreement shall be obtained and approved by City Council. -k>%� 20. Prior to Final Tract Map approval, the applicant shall provide a Faithful Performance Bond and a Labor and Materials Bond, each for 100 percent of the estimated public improvements. An engineer's cost estimate shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer, and approved by the Public Works Director. 21. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work activities within the public right- of-way. An encroachment agreement shall be required for any private improvements installed within the public right-of-way. 22. The existing concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the Santa Ana Avenue frontage shall be removed and replaced per City Standards. 23. Sewer and water demand studies shall be prepared and submitted to the applicable utility providers. Approvals of said studies by the utility provider shall be provided to the City prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map. 24. The on-site sewer system shall be privately owned and maintained, unless otherwise approved by the utility provider. 25. Each unit shall be served by its own individual water service/meter and sewer lateral and cleanout, unless otherwise approved by the utility provider. 26. All on-site drainage shall comply with the latest City water quality requirements. 05-26-2016 20 12-64 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Paae 13 of 13 27. All improvements shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement per City Standard 110-L. 28. A two -foot wide pedestrian easement shall be granted to the City along the back of the proposed driveway approach to provide a clear four -foot wide ADA path along the sidewalk. 29. The parking layout and drive aisles shall comply with City Standards STD -805 -L-A and STD -805 -L -B. Dead end drive aisles shall provide a dedicated turnaround space and a five-foot minimum clear paved hammerhead/drive aisle extension. The drive aisle shall be a minimum of 26 feet wide. 30. In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development site by the private construction, additional reconstruction within the public right-of-way could be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. Fire Department 31. Adequate emergency access shall be required pursuant to California Fire Code Section 503.1. 32. Pursuant to California Fire Code Section 507.1, an approved water supply capable of supplying the required fire flow for fire protection shall be provided to the premises upon which the buildings are to be constructed. 33. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in compliance with California Fire Code Sections 903.2.8 and 903.2.18. Building Division I r 34. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City's Building Division and Fire Department. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City - adopted version of the California Building Code. The construction plans must meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. 05-26-2016 27 12-65 2g 12-66 Attachment No. PC 2 Draft Resolution for Denial 29 12-67 so 12-68 RESOLUTION NO. #### A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. SD2016-002 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. NT2016-003 FOR A SEVEN -UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 20452 SANTA ANA AVENUE (PA2016-069) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by Adrienne Brandes, with respect to property located at 20452 Santa Ana Avenue, and legally described as the Southwesterly 82 feet of Lot 6 of Tract No. 456, in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 17 Page(s) 9 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, except the Southeasterly 150 feet thereof, requesting approval of a major site development review and tentative tract map. 2. The applicant proposes the construction of seven residential condominium units. As proposed, each unit will be three stories and will include a two -car garage. Four guest parking spaces, including one accessible parking space, will be constructed on-site. 3. The subject property is located within Multi -Unit Residential Detached (RMD) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Multiple -Unit Residential (RM). 4. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone. 5. A public hearing was held on November 17, 2016, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. Site Development Review In accordance with NBMC Section 20.52.080(B) (Applicability), residential construction of five or more dwelling units with a tentative tract map requires the approval of a major site 31 12-69 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Paae 2 of 2 development review subject to the findings in NBMC Section 20.52.080(F) (Findings and Decision). In this case, the Planning Commission was unable to make the required findings set forth based upon the following: Tentative Tract Map In accordance with NBMC Section 19.08.010 (When Tract Maps Required), a tentative tract map shall be required for any subdivision creating five or more condominiums subject to the findings in NBMC Section 19.12.070 (Required Findings for Action on Tentative Maps). In this case, the Planning Commission was unable to make the required findings set forth based upon the following: SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies Major Site Development Review No. SD2016-002 and Tentative Tract Map No. NT2016-003. 2. The approval of Major Site Development Review No. SD2016-002 shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution was adopted, and denial of Tentative Tract Map No. NT2016-003 shall become final and effective 10 days following the date this Resolution was adopted, unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of NBMC Title 20 and/or NBMC Title 19. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: AN In Kory Kramer, Chairman Peter Zak, Secretary 05-26-2016 S2 12-70 Attachment No. PC 3 Applicant's Project Description 12-72 Planning Division Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 1 949-644-3200 Site Development review Project Description & Justification Address: 20452 Santa Ana Avenue. Newport Beach, CA. 92660 Assessor's Parcel Number 439-241-03 Tentative Track No. 18039 Tentative Track Map No. NT2016-003 Lot size: 0.264 acres / 11,489 sq ft Zoning designation RMD Public Records for 20452 Santa Ana Ave Official property, sales, and tax information from county (public) records as of 08/2015: o Existing Triplex: 3,386 sq ft (3 units, any combination) o Built In 1975 o County: Orange o Parking: Attached Garage o Tax Rate Code Area: 7-214 In -fill multi -family redevelopment projects are commonplace in this area. Our proposal is the demolition of all three existing structures, and the new redevelopment of two (2), three- story free-standing buildings encompassing seven (7) single-family attached units. Our proposed 2 -structure multi -family condominium buildings will be divided by a common driveway, positioned through the center of the lot. All zoning and building requirements have been fully implemented and is presented as such under this instrument for planning approval consideration. Building No. 1 will encompass (3) SF condominium units as indicated by 1 through 3. Building No. 2 will encompass (4) SF condominium units as indicated by 4 through 7. S5 12-73 Unit one, the largest plan, will include 1507 SF of conditioned area. The remaining units, plan 2 through 7, will include 949 SF each. All seven units will rest above a standard, on - grade two -car garage w/ approx. 446-453 SF of non -conditioned area. Four (4) standard -sized & properly placed open parking spaces will satisfy the 4 -car directive. The required property open space of 525 SF will be more than satisfied by a proposed open space of 1,240 SF. The required private open space of 98 SF for unit 1 will be more than satisfied by a proposed private open space of 230 SF. The required private open space of 70 SF for the remaining units, plan 2 through 7, will be more than satisfied by a proposed private open space of 116 SF. No portion of any building structure will exceed the restricted height limit of 33"-0". Compliance to all building setbacks have been adhered to: 20' front, 25' rear, and 5' setbacks. A 28' wide concrete drive entering from Santa Ana Avenue will separate the two condominium buildings. The architectural design will enact a blend of various styles. The largely eclectic style will be a vocabulary composition of Spanish elements, including accent components of projected metal shade frames constructed with steel mesh screens within, supported by approved structural brackets/struts. The exterior finish will be selected stucco, with horizontal bands of trim at the vertical stucco accent pop -out bases. The roofs will be gable, with varied roof pitches and out - lookers. The roofing material will be a selected composite shingle. Garage doors will be metal roll -up with a similar pattern as shown in the exterior elevation design. Windows will be double glazed, and with single -hung action. A color and materials board will be provided with the Architectural Design submission. Please direct any questions concerning this decision to Jon Hedrick at Knitter Partners International, Inc., Architecture & Planning at (949) 752-1177. On behalf of KPI, Francesca Horton I Project and Marketing Coordinator MWCH 3090 Pullman Street I Costa Mesa CA, 92626 t: 714.434.4365 c: 760.579.3645 f: 714.557.1838 mwcustom.com Office Hours: Monday -Friday 8am-5pm so 12-74 Attachment No. PC 4 Colored Renderings/Materials 12-75 s g 12-76 rr W 0- 0 rr d WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 4" " = 1'-0 12-77 SANTA ANA AVENUE SOUTH WEST PERSPECTIVE GARAGE DOOR TRIM I$ FASCIA ORONO L4 k 1 li SANTA ANA ,AVENUE NORTH WEST PERSPECTIVE ROOF STUCCO BODY ENTRY DOOR WINDOW FRAME TEXTURED AGGENT STUCCO ACCENT The color board represents approximate __pprintable color only.Job color and texture will vary due to methods of application and job conditions. Pease refer to the Cor Matrix and material suppliers for colors. KPIE KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. architecture & planning 1401 DCvE STREET, SUITE 240 NEwPaRT BEACH, CA 92660-2431 949.752.1177 www.knittevcom COHRICe IU915 KNIT zRR TUNERS INTE! Ano LNC KN[lTER RhRiNE1t8 E2 1 NkIMN R+FC R.NO SIE51J. NOT BE L] bA Y TN}A'N'OAK HF .094- bK b[Si:LOSk`b 1 ] IX1141 C PF 3v WKrm-N -IMI—Ail- l- FRI'm -0—vn sI nb 1..— NO. DATE REVISION A 0 a e _ PROJECT INFO PROJECT NUMBER: 130769 PROJECT MANAGER: MJK DRAWN BY: SAS SHEET ISSUE DATE: 10/18/16 SHEET TITLE COLOR & MATERIALS SHEET NUMBER 07 40 12-78 PA2016-069 Santa Ana Avenue Cottages Color Scheme and Materials List 41 12-79 42 12-80 Attachment No. PC 5 Conceptual Planting Plan 4s 12-81 44 12-82 4 3 4 4 5 4 12 4 =Sjl_ SD SSu SB -Si _S8 Sij CV CV CV CV CV Cv i L L L `'i, ■ ■ O L/ I / CV CV CV V CV - iC ' ' a UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6 UNIT 7 2 N L 11 �/ � \ dILu �: dIZ .. dt� NO PARKING 0 J �+ (L _ a Ir w 8 6 6 8 Z LU w3 -y, Q Q Z 7 5 Q XZ 1-- Z8 8 6 8 Q Cn WEST ELEVATION - -- -- L L L L L L L SCALE: N.T.S. ' L L L L L L L L L L L • / f 9 ' UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 I � PROPOSED PLANT MATERIAL 1t cv cv cl TI.. cv cV 10 2 cv cv cv cv �cVcvCv Cv CV(00000 a LO PLANT SCHEDULE PROJECT TABULATION LEGEND TREES BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS QTY SITE AREA ± 11,489 SQ. FT. SYMBOL DESCRIPTION " - - �-- COMMON OPEN SPACE 524 SQ. FT. REQUIRED Cercis canadensls'Forest Pansy' Koelreuteria bipinnata Melaleuca quinquenervia COMMON OPEN SPACE 1,600 SQ. FT. PROPOSED Q PUBLIC SIDEWALK AND DRIVEWAY APRON - REFER TO Forest Pans Redbud Chinese Flame Tree Ca'e ut Tree CERCIS CANADENSIS `FOREST PANSY' TM FOREST PANSY REDBUD 36" BOX 'LOW BRANCH' LOW 1 PRIVATE OPEN SPACE 1,006 SQ. FT. PROPOSED CIVIL PLANS Y 1 P PARKWAY 168 SQ. FT. Q z COMMON AREA EXISTING TREE NOTKNOWN EXISTING 2 - O 2FT HIGH RETAINING WALL W/ 6' MAX CMU PRIVACY WALL WATER CONSERVATION REQUIREMENT ONSIDEYARDPROPERTYLINE -REFER TOCIVIL PLANS KOELREUTERIA BIPINNATA CHINESE FLAME TREE 36" BOX MULTI TRUNK MEDIUM 1 J "�- �'+' y �` � s of �A �.. - 1) Landscape shall meet City of Newport Beach Municipal Code 20 36.050 Q4 6FT HIGH VINYL FENCE (42" HIGH AT FRONTYARD �:;;A MELALEUCA QUINQUENERVIA CAJEPUT TREE 48"BOX LOW t General Landscape Standards. SETBACK)2) Landscape shall meet State Mandated Water Conservation requirements r i using the following guidelines: Q EXISTING WALL - PROTECT IN PLACE L� , .... a. No turf grass is proposed ,y SHRUBS BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS QTY b. All plant material is in the Low to Medium water use category Q ENHANCED CONCRETE UNIT ENTRY- COLOR/FINISH TBD \ " ` d Ftw'N' +xE �\ c. Plants in the Medium water use category shall be valued (hydrozoned) s a Cv CALLISTEMON VIMINALIS 'BETTER JOHN` DWARF WEEPING BOTTLE BRUSH 5 GAL LOW 32 separately from those with Low water use Q CONCRETE DRIVECOURT W/ SAWCUT SSCORE JOINTS - d. Trees will be irrigated with separate bubbler systems for periodic deep COLOR/FINISH TBD watering Callistemon viminalis'Better John' Carex divulsa Cupressus sempervirens'Tiny Tower' Dianella revoluta'Baby Bliss' CUPRESSUS SEMPERVIRENS `TINY TOWER' TM TINY TOWER ITALIAN CYPRESS 15 GAL LOW 10 e. All irrigation shall be irrigated with subsurface landscape dripline Q CURB AND GUTTER - REFER TO CIVIL PLANS Dwarf Weeping Bottle Brush Berkeley Sedge Tiny Tower Italian Cypress Baby Flax LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA' BREEZE' DWARF MAT RUSH 5 GAL LOW 53 f. Controller will be "smart" weather based including rain shutoff device O ® s TURN AROUND AREA- GRASSCRETE OR EQUIVALENT EXISTING TREES - PROTECT IN PLACE LOROPETALUM CHINENSE'PURPLE DIAMOND' FRINGE FLOWER 5 GAL MEDIUM 7 >> BIORETENTION - REFER TO CIVIL PLANS iz � PRUNUSCAROUNIANA'COMPACTA' CAROLINA CHERRY 15 GAL MEDIUM 8 PRIVATE PATIO/LANDSCAPE AREA ey ;y VINE/ESPALIER BOTANICALNAME COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS QTY GREWIA CAFFRA LAVENDER STARFLOWER 15 GAL ESPALIER MEDIUM 6 GROUND COVERS BOTANICALNAME COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS SPACING QTY Dianella revoluta'Sig Rev' Dymondia margaretae Grewia caffra Lomandra Longifolia 'Breeze' Dianella Big Rev Dymondia Silver Carpet Lavender Starflower Dwarf Mat Rush O CAREX DIVULSA BERKELEY SEDGE 1 GAL LOW 12" o.c. 223 SF DIANELLA REVOLUTA ' BIG REV' DIANELLA 1 GAL LOW 24" o.c. 130 SF ,;. DIANELLA REVOLUTA'BABY BLISS' BABY FLAX 1 GAL LOW 24" o.c. 184 SF DYMONDIA MARGARETAE DYMONDIA V POT LOW 8" o.c. 168 SF Loropetalum chinense'Purple Prunus caroliniana'Compacta' Diamond' Fringe Flower Carolina Cherry 0 8 16 24 32 SANTA ANA AVENUE COTTAGES PREPARED FOR ADRIENNE BRANDES 4 BGB DESIGN GROUP _ NORTH t /s" = r-o" FEET L 1 Landscape Architecture Planning Urban Design 20452 SANTA ANA AVENUE, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA P1814-545-28 8C AirwayVeFu714-545528 8esabgb nccom 10/26/2016 12-83 40 12-84 Attachment No. PC 6 Project Plans 47 12-85 4 g 12-86 PA2016-069 i I SITE PLAN - ALTERNATE 5 0 4' 8' 16' a Attachment No. PC 6 - Project Plans SITE PLANS ZONING: GENERAL PLAN: RM ZONING: RMD BUILDING HEIGHT: 33TO ROOF(>_sn2) SETBACK: 20' FRONT 3rd FLOOR 5SIDE TOTAL 25' REAR PARKING: 2 SPACES COVERED / HOME GROSS TOTAL + 0.5 SPACES / HOME GUESTS TABULATION: SITE AREA ±11,489 sq ft UNIT 1 1 HOME UNITS 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, $ 7 6 HOMES TOTAL 7 HOMES PARKING 4 SPACES REQ'D (451RACES PROPOSED) UNIT SIZE: 15076 UNIT 1 MJK 1st FLOOR ±198 sq ft 2nd FLOOR ±680 Sq ft 3rd FLOOR ±629 sq ft TOTAL ±1,507 sq ft GARAGE ±446 sq ft GROSS TOTAL ±1,953 sq ft UNITS 2,3,4,5,6,$7 2nd FLOOR 3rd FLOOR TOTAL GARAGE GROSS TOTAL OPEN SPACE: COMMON OPEN SPACE' ±435 sq ft ±514 sq ft ±949 sq ft ±453 sq ft ±1,402 sq ft 525 sq ft REQUIRED (7s sq ft per UNIT) ±1,240 sq ft PROPOSED PRIVATE OPEN SPACE' UNIT 1 ±98 sq ft REQUIRED (5%OFORO55 UNIT AREA) ±230 sq ft PROPOSED UNITS 2,3,4,5,G,$ 7 ±70 sq ft REQUIRED (E%OF CROSS UNIT AREA) ±116 sq ft PROPOSED AN OUTDOOR OR UNENCLOSED AREA DIRECTLY ADJOINING AND ACCESSIBLE TO A DWELLING UNIT, RESERVED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE PRIVATE ENJOYMENT AND USE OF RESIDENTS OF THE DWELLING UNIT AND THEIR GUESTS (E.G., BALCONY, DECK, PORCH, TERRACE, ETC.). BOUNDARIES ARE EVIDENT THROUGH THE USE OF FENCES, GATES, HEDGES, WALLS, OR OTHER SIMILAR METHODS OF CONTROLLING ACCESS AND MAINTAINING PRIVACY VICINITY MAP KPIL KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. architecture & planning 1401 DOVE STREET, SUITE 240 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660-2431 949.752.1177 www.knifter.com COPYRIGHT©2015 KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK, BE REPRODUCED OR DISCLOSED TO OTHERS EXCEPT BY WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL,INC. NO. DATE REVISION A D A 0 .L D PROJECTINFO PROJECT NUMBER: 15076 PROJECT MANAGER: MJK DRAWN BY: BAS SHEET ISSUE DATE: 6/16/16 SHEET TITLE SITE STUDY SHEEP NUMBER 01 <i , 12-87 PA2016-069 i I �Alow SANTA ANA AVENUE NORTH WEST PERSPECTIVE MAX BUILDING HEIGHT 33-0" 4 WEST ELEVATION I DRIVEWAY EAST ELEVATION MAX BUILDING HEIGHT 33-0" 0 4' 8' 16' 993' EAST ELEVATION 0 4' 8' 16' S 7 N (--� SANTA ANA AVENUE SOUTHWEST PERSPECTIVE 993, MAX BUILDING HEIGHT 33'-0' 9945 SANTA ANA AVENUE ELEVATION la , __ -._ -_ 4 ��4+`� M�4T4- 4�-44i-44�".�4Tr-' X44�4YT.'-44�"-X44-_44 15076 PROJECT MANAGER: MJK DRAWN BY: ea 0o SHEET ISSUE DATE: BB 00F,00 o e 88 I e 00000000 00000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 000000 000000 I 00 00000000 0000000 000000 0000 OOOOOO 000000 17 00000 00000 000 000000 000000 00000 000000 0000000 010000000 00000000 0000000 00000 00 000000 000000 000000 000000 0000000 000000 DRIVEWAY EAST ELEVATION MAX BUILDING HEIGHT 33-0" 0 4' 8' 16' 993' EAST ELEVATION 0 4' 8' 16' S 7 N (--� SANTA ANA AVENUE SOUTHWEST PERSPECTIVE 993, MAX BUILDING HEIGHT 33'-0' 9945 SANTA ANA AVENUE ELEVATION la , __ -._ -_ 4 ��4+`� M�4T4- 4�-44i-44�".�4Tr-' X44�4YT.'-44�"-X44-_44 DRIVEWAY WEST ELEVATION 0 4' 8' MAX BUILDING HEIGHT 33'-0" 66 N1 L SOUTH ELEVATION 0 4' 8' 16' 16' F� Attachment No. PC 6 - Project Plans KPIL KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. architecture & planning 1401 DOVE STREET, SUITE 240 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660-2431 949.752.1177 www.knifter.com COPYRIGHT©2015 KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK, BE REPRODUCED OR DISCLOSED TO OTHERS EXCEPT BY WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. NO. DATE REVISION D A A A A 0 PROJECTINFO PROJECT NUMBER: 15076 PROJECT MANAGER: MJK DRAWN BY: ea 0o SHEET ISSUE DATE: 6/18/16 o e I e 00000000 00000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 000000 000000 00 00000000 0000000 000000 0000 OOOOOO 000000 DRIVEWAY WEST ELEVATION 0 4' 8' MAX BUILDING HEIGHT 33'-0" 66 N1 L SOUTH ELEVATION 0 4' 8' 16' 16' F� Attachment No. PC 6 - Project Plans KPIL KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. architecture & planning 1401 DOVE STREET, SUITE 240 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660-2431 949.752.1177 www.knifter.com COPYRIGHT©2015 KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK, BE REPRODUCED OR DISCLOSED TO OTHERS EXCEPT BY WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. NO. DATE REVISION D A A A A 0 PROJECTINFO PROJECT NUMBER: 15076 PROJECT MANAGER: MJK DRAWN BY: BAS SHEET ISSUE DATE: 6/18/16 SHEET TITLE BUILDING ELEVATIONS SHEE'I'NUMBER 02 12-88 PA2016-069 WEST BUILDING ROOF 0 4' a' 16' i I WEST BUILDING THIRD FLOOR 0 4- B. 10' WEST BUILDING SECOND FLOOR 0 4' 8' 16' 14 RIV 10.5. PRIVACY FENCE 42" HIGH MAX. WEST BUILDING 0FIRST FLOOR 0 4' 8' 16' Attachment No. PC 6 - Project Plans KPIL KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. architecture & planning 1401 DOVE STREET, SUITE 240 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660-2431 949.752.1177 www.knifter.com COPYRIGHT©2015 KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK, BE REPRODUCED OR DISCLOSED TO OTHERS EXCEPT BY WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL,INC. NO. DATE REVISION A 0 0 A A 0 PROJECTINFO PROJECT NUMBER: 15076 PROJECT MANAGER: MJK L - - - - - -J WEST BUILDING 0FIRST FLOOR 0 4' 8' 16' Attachment No. PC 6 - Project Plans KPIL KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. architecture & planning 1401 DOVE STREET, SUITE 240 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660-2431 949.752.1177 www.knifter.com COPYRIGHT©2015 KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK, BE REPRODUCED OR DISCLOSED TO OTHERS EXCEPT BY WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL,INC. NO. DATE REVISION A 0 0 A A 0 PROJECTINFO PROJECT NUMBER: 15076 PROJECT MANAGER: MJK DRAWN BY: BAS SHEET ISSUE DATE: 6/16/16 SHEET TITLE WEST BUILDING PLAN SHEEP NUMBER 03 -1 12-89 PA2016-069 I 1 � I I 1 4+/2 :12 —5LOPE- UNIT 4 4h: 12 -SLOPE— > 7 h i II II II i MJK 31/4:12 — SLOPE BAS SHEET ISSUE DATE: [�'TT � SLOPE — " 3P4 SLOPE SLOPE I 1 I - 1 I I � UNIT 4%: 12 SLOPE `L 6 — — 4K :12 SLOPE J I� II II II II I I I 1 1 1StOPE J i 44x:12 -SLOPE- UNIT 4%:12 -SLOPE- 5 I II II II II 31/4:12 SLOPE % 1 - -* 1 -374:17 - SLOPE ------ T/4_FU__--- SLOPE I I ' 1 { 1 1 1 UNIT 4'Fz :12 F SLOPE 6 li II II II �i II I -—- 4 4 :12 SLOPE > EAST BUILDING ROOF 0 4' 8' 16' i I EAST BUILDING THIRD FLOOR 0 4' B. 16' EAST BUILDING SECOND FLOOR 0 4' 8' 16' EAST BUILDING FIRST FLOOR 0 4' B. 16' 0 Attachment No. PC 6 - Project Plans KPIL KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. architecture & planning 1401 DOVE STREET, SUITE 240 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660-2431 949.752.1177 www.knifter.com COPYRIGHT©2015 KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK, BE REPRODUCED OR DISCLOSED TO OTHERS EXCEPT BY WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL,INC. NO. DATE REVISION A IL A 0 CC W PROJECTINFO PROJECT NUMBER: 15076 PROJECT MANAGER: MJK DRAWN BY: BAS SHEET ISSUE DATE: 6/18/16 SHEET TITLE EAST BUILDING PLAN SHEEP NUMBER 04 12-90 PA2016-069 UNIT PLAN 1- THIRD FLOOR i I I THIRD FLOOR 629 sq ft UNIT PLAN 1 - SECOND FLOOR SECOND FLOOR 680 sq ft UNIT PLAN 1 - FIRST FLOOR 0 r 4� 81 FOR ARCHITECTS USE ONLY. SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION FIRST FLOOR 198 sq ft TOTAL s 1,507 sq ft GARAGE 446sgft TOTAL GROSS x 1,953 sq ft Attachment No. PC 6 - Project Plans KPIL KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. architecture & planning 1401 DOVE STREET, SUITE 240 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660-2431 949.752.1177 www.knifter.com COPYRIGHT©2015 KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK, BE REPRODUCED OR DISCLOSED TO OTHERS EXCEPT BY WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL,INC. NO. DATE REVISION A 0 A 0 A A 0 0 W U F O U W � � �U Z CIS 0 a CIS t �r k o �Nz F PROJECTINFO PROJECT NUMBER: 150716 PROJECT MANAGER: MJK DRAWN BY: BAS SHEET ISSUE DATE: 6/18/16 SHEET TITLE UNIT PLAN 1 SHEET NUMBER 05 12-91 PA2016-069 UNIT PLAN 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, $ 7 - THIRD FLOOR i I THIRD FLOOR 514 sq ft UNIT PLAN 2,3,4,5,G,$ 7 - SECOND FLOOR SECOND FLOOR 435 sq ft UNIT PLAN 2,3,4,5,G,$ 7 - FIRST FLOOR 0 r 4� 81 FOR ARCHITECTS USE ONLY. SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION FIRST FLOOR 0 sq ft TOTAL t 949 sq ft GARAGE 453 sq ft TOTAL GROSS :1,402 sq ft Attachment No. PC 6 - Project Plans KPIL KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. architecture & planning 1401 DOVE STREET, SUITE 240 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660-2431 949.752.1177 www.knifter.com COPYRIGHT©2015 KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK, BE REPRODUCED OR DISCLOSED TO OTHERS EXCEPT BY WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL,INC. NO. DATE REVISION A 0 A 0 A A 0 0 W U F O U W � � �U Z CIS 0 a CIS t �r k o �Nz F V1 PROJECTINFO PROJECT NUMBER: 15076 PROJECT MANAGER: MJK DRAWN BY: BAS SHEET ISSUE DATE: 6/18/16 SHEET TITLE UNIT PLAN 2,3,4,5,6,&7 SHEEP NUMBER 06 �� 12-92 Attachment No. PC 7 Tentative Tract Map No. 18039 55 12-93 50 12-94 5 0 10 20 1 1 1 1 I Feet SCALE: 1"=10' 33 3 3 F � 6�06g31 P III w R P CURB &GUTTER III �,ba5 40' 40.00' 313 A R T 666011 V bbd 5' �n 9 8' �D 3 3 3 F 6¢)1 4G }5 N �6�71 I f -MESA DRIVE CALC POINT FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1 THE SOUTHWESTERLY 82 FEET OF LOT 6 OF TRACT NO. 456, IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 17, PAGE 9 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. EXCEPT THE SOUTHEASTERLY 150 FEET THEREOF. 6.5'x24' = 156 5F 2 V5)- g0/OY I. � ri ? e�' S -5N490 38"W 140.11' S=0.01 g_ r -- ae5=0.01 bOC�".. V.,. � \ \ \1 11 ioo.aoro 67.08 FS 1bb D " UNIT 7 UNIT 6 �"�' UNIT 5 TOP CURB 76 50 TOP CURB = 67.50 TOP CURB = 67.75 66.50 FS 65.66 F5 66.75 FS DATE OF PREPARATION: �10 As 67.08 FS UNIT 4 TOP CURB = 6775 tV 66.91 F5 01 �1�p10 \b1 UriF 0.5% 66 �., Gk Qv 666 GF \. v e eboti ,� bb5� SST b bbd e �' 6� G4�w 0.5% 0 a6 A EXISTING ON -SI TRUCTUR 5 TR 5 bb. a 1 •o �c REMOVED, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED N - _�0�2�624LAJPS � N P C.0 DRIVEWAY S 6"' li=+ W `Q \ N S I N Qb\ a July 29, 2016 Uc 9 � .n 6 4 ,� , A) p11 (66.66) E o� 6' 0 n 9� b.y p5 _7% .5�, 0.5/ 05% bb'l 0.5% - - •hd- 1 Z 66.66 FS 66.74 F5 66.82 FS W 0ti11' _ 66.8 P l6 �gpOwP F /0 FL/Hp - s t FF r 67.66 1 4 TOP CURB = 67.66 1 SPACES / (g5 g0 TOP CURB = 67.66 TOP CURB = 67.66 e PAD 670 t CAR ease N F 20' f ;J OF y s 6 UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 66.99 FS b��� 66.99 FS -- - - - - - 66.99_ FS.. � - 5=0.01 5D ,S SD 5=0.01 b�. 666 F00 Cq� N4 22'38"W 140.10 �7L o I R T 3 7'x16.5'=1165F P.L. SITE EX_ BLOCK WA �L5' MIN. 2- SWALE �u Z w R CUF E77: N ARA O �I • w - - _ - =111 III --------- 111 1-11IIIIIII= III-III-III-III=III=III=III=1 - - t =IIS �_I11II -1i. NOTE: _14-1 -�-' VERTICAL SEPARATION BETWEEN FINISHED FLOOR AND FINISHED GRADE(SOIL) SHALL BE 8" MINIMUM. SECTION A NOT TO SCALE EASEMENTS PER NORTH AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY PRELIMINARY REPORT, ORDER NO. 1397321, SCHEDULE B ITEM 5- EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, RECORDED OCTOBER 7, 1927 AS BOOK 93, PAGE 52 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. EASEMENT IS LOCATED AS NEAR THE PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 6, TRACT NO. 456 AS PRACTICAL. ITEM 6- EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF A. F. HIBBETT AND WIFE FOR IRRIGATION WATER AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, RECORDED MAY 1, 1946 AS BOOK 1405, PAGE 304 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. EASEMENT I5 LOCATED ON THE SE'LY 150' OF LOT 6, TRACT NO. 456. �P.IL. SITE I flfl RETAIN III C P + WALL TO REMAIN 6" CURB EXIST. A P.C.C.PAVEM T SECTION B NOT TO SCALE 8039 [_�1al 6) J GRA55CRFTF OR EOUIV TURN AROUND AREA r EX TREE TO REMAIN 56� �b6 T VIM NOTES: LEGEND: - 00 0 0.264 ACRES GROSS/NET (11,489 SF) --� T-� _ LAND NOT SUBJECT TO INUNDATION OR OVERFLOW. AC 33 NO LAND OR PARKS TO BE DEDICATED 5_ CURB FACE EX EXISTING PROPOSED LAND USE: FF � FH 2' RETAINING WALL g01 7 SINGLE FAMILY CONDOMINIUM RESIDENCES. 3 FINISHED SURFACE PAD ELEVATION ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS: PCC PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE 439-241-03 ST LT STREET LIGHT 4'= SF SQUARE FEET SETBACK REQUIREMENTS: TC TOP OF CURB FRONT 20' ao 33 EX. TREES s TO REMAINBMPL� CURB & GUTTER LEGAL DESCRIPTION: -- - - - - DRAINAGE SWALE THE SOUTHWESTERLY 82 FEET OF LOT 6 OF TRACT NO. 456, IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 17, PAGE 9 OF - - - PROPERTY LINE MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. EXCEPT THE SOUTHEASTERLY 150 FEET I I 3: BOTTOMLESS TRENCH 27 CF SEWER W 3 3 � P P SIDEWALK EASEMENT °c FLOOD ZONE: W ZONE X, OUTSIDE THE 500 YEAR FLOOD BOUNDARIES. 61 w WATER MAIN ESTIMATED GRADING QUANTITIES: od�o WATER METERS Q m l6 `1) 1% RAW CUT 450 CY -SD- DRAINPIPE RAW FILL 450 CY IMPORT 0 CY Z ❑® INLET a 3 dl6q 6 3 �n N o N u1 W 3 3 3 � 3 E EX TREE TO REMAIN EX WATER 5ERVICE TO BE �n REUSED FOR IRRIGATION I 1G � 4� 3 3 � � 2'RETAINING WALL REPLACE EXISTING 4' SZ� EW -- ow - CURB & GUTTER 4' SIDEWALK 3' 40' 40.00' 313 A R T 666011 V bbd 5' �n 9 8' �D 3 3 3 F 6¢)1 4G }5 N �6�71 I f -MESA DRIVE CALC POINT FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1 THE SOUTHWESTERLY 82 FEET OF LOT 6 OF TRACT NO. 456, IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 17, PAGE 9 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. EXCEPT THE SOUTHEASTERLY 150 FEET THEREOF. 6.5'x24' = 156 5F 2 V5)- g0/OY I. � ri ? e�' S -5N490 38"W 140.11' S=0.01 g_ r -- ae5=0.01 bOC�".. V.,. � \ \ \1 11 ioo.aoro 67.08 FS 1bb D " UNIT 7 UNIT 6 �"�' UNIT 5 TOP CURB 76 50 TOP CURB = 67.50 TOP CURB = 67.75 66.50 FS 65.66 F5 66.75 FS DATE OF PREPARATION: �10 As 67.08 FS UNIT 4 TOP CURB = 6775 tV 66.91 F5 01 �1�p10 \b1 UriF 0.5% 66 �., Gk Qv 666 GF \. v e eboti ,� bb5� SST b bbd e �' 6� G4�w 0.5% 0 a6 A EXISTING ON -SI TRUCTUR 5 TR 5 bb. a 1 •o �c REMOVED, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED N - _�0�2�624LAJPS � N P C.0 DRIVEWAY S 6"' li=+ W `Q \ N S I N Qb\ a July 29, 2016 Uc 9 � .n 6 4 ,� , A) p11 (66.66) E o� 6' 0 n 9� b.y p5 _7% .5�, 0.5/ 05% bb'l 0.5% - - •hd- 1 Z 66.66 FS 66.74 F5 66.82 FS W 0ti11' _ 66.8 P l6 �gpOwP F /0 FL/Hp - s t FF r 67.66 1 4 TOP CURB = 67.66 1 SPACES / (g5 g0 TOP CURB = 67.66 TOP CURB = 67.66 e PAD 670 t CAR ease N F 20' f ;J OF y s 6 UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 66.99 FS b��� 66.99 FS -- - - - - - 66.99_ FS.. � - 5=0.01 5D ,S SD 5=0.01 b�. 666 F00 Cq� N4 22'38"W 140.10 �7L o I R T 3 7'x16.5'=1165F P.L. SITE EX_ BLOCK WA �L5' MIN. 2- SWALE �u Z w R CUF E77: N ARA O �I • w - - _ - =111 III --------- 111 1-11IIIIIII= III-III-III-III=III=III=III=1 - - t =IIS �_I11II -1i. NOTE: _14-1 -�-' VERTICAL SEPARATION BETWEEN FINISHED FLOOR AND FINISHED GRADE(SOIL) SHALL BE 8" MINIMUM. SECTION A NOT TO SCALE EASEMENTS PER NORTH AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY PRELIMINARY REPORT, ORDER NO. 1397321, SCHEDULE B ITEM 5- EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, RECORDED OCTOBER 7, 1927 AS BOOK 93, PAGE 52 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. EASEMENT IS LOCATED AS NEAR THE PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 6, TRACT NO. 456 AS PRACTICAL. ITEM 6- EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF A. F. HIBBETT AND WIFE FOR IRRIGATION WATER AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, RECORDED MAY 1, 1946 AS BOOK 1405, PAGE 304 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. EASEMENT I5 LOCATED ON THE SE'LY 150' OF LOT 6, TRACT NO. 456. �P.IL. SITE I flfl RETAIN III C P + WALL TO REMAIN 6" CURB EXIST. A P.C.C.PAVEM T SECTION B NOT TO SCALE 8039 [_�1al 6) J GRA55CRFTF OR EOUIV TURN AROUND AREA r EX TREE TO REMAIN 56� �b6 T (TYR) P.L. SITE VARIES 1'._ MAX. FX R1 nCK 111A E5'MIN. I 2 z SWALE �u Z A w T ARA CUR I T RA i y G -A -R -AGE FL - --- _ - 7:-V C� 1=1 11=111=1 11=1I1=1 11=1I II III i ---------- ' L II-III=III=III=III=III=III=1 �� iii=1Ti=1 I IJ I1=1 11-1I1=1 I I -1I Ih NOTE: VERTICAL SEPARATION BETWEEN FINISHED FLOOR AND FINISHED GRADE(SOIL) SHALL BE 8" MINIMUM. SECTION C NOT TO SCALE OWNER/SUBDIVIDER: ADRIENNE BRENNAN 1400 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, #100 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 SITE ADDRESS: 20452 SANTA ANA AVENUE NEWPORT BEACH, CA BENCHMARK: ORANGE COUNTY SURVEY VERTICAL CONTROL NUMBER "CM -16-71" ELEVATION: 65.97' (NAVD88) 2005 ADT DESCRIBED BY OCS 2001 - FOUND 3 3\4" OCS ALUMINUM BENCHMARK DISK STAMPED "CM -51-89", SET IN THE TOP OF A 4" BY 4" CONCRETE POST. MONUMENT IS LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF SANTA ANA AVENUE AND MESA DRIVE, 57 FT. WESTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF MESA DRIVE AND 21 FT. NORTHERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF SANTA ANA MONUMENT I5 SET LEVEL WITH TOP OF CURB. RNV RNV 70' PROSECT SITE 30' 40' 6' 24• 3Z• 1 � I 8 BE REMOVED AND REPLACED TO BE REMOVED FX AC PAVEMEN AND REPLACED TYPICAL SECTION: SANTA ANA AVENUE NOT TO SCALE 26 13' SECTION D: DRIVEWAY NOT TO SCALE VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE 12-95 NOTES: LEGEND: 0.264 ACRES GROSS/NET (11,489 SF) LAND NOT SUBJECT TO INUNDATION OR OVERFLOW. AC ASPHALTIC CONCRETE NO LAND OR PARKS TO BE DEDICATED CF CURB FACE EX EXISTING PROPOSED LAND USE: FF FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION FH FIRE HYDRANT 7 SINGLE FAMILY CONDOMINIUM RESIDENCES. FS PAD FINISHED SURFACE PAD ELEVATION ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS: PCC PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE 439-241-03 ST LT STREET LIGHT SF SQUARE FEET SETBACK REQUIREMENTS: TC TOP OF CURB FRONT 20' - - CENTERLINE SIDES 5' REAR 25' CURB & GUTTER LEGAL DESCRIPTION: -- - - - - DRAINAGE SWALE THE SOUTHWESTERLY 82 FEET OF LOT 6 OF TRACT NO. 456, IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 17, PAGE 9 OF - - - PROPERTY LINE MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. EXCEPT THE SOUTHEASTERLY 150 FEET THEREOF. -S- SEWER TRACT BOUNDARY FLOOD ZONE: ZONE X, OUTSIDE THE 500 YEAR FLOOD BOUNDARIES. w WATER MAIN ESTIMATED GRADING QUANTITIES: od�o WATER METERS RAW CUT 450 CY -SD- DRAINPIPE RAW FILL 450 CY IMPORT 0 CY ❑® INLET (TYR) P.L. SITE VARIES 1'._ MAX. FX R1 nCK 111A E5'MIN. I 2 z SWALE �u Z A w T ARA CUR I T RA i y G -A -R -AGE FL - --- _ - 7:-V C� 1=1 11=111=1 11=1I1=1 11=1I II III i ---------- ' L II-III=III=III=III=III=III=1 �� iii=1Ti=1 I IJ I1=1 11-1I1=1 I I -1I Ih NOTE: VERTICAL SEPARATION BETWEEN FINISHED FLOOR AND FINISHED GRADE(SOIL) SHALL BE 8" MINIMUM. SECTION C NOT TO SCALE OWNER/SUBDIVIDER: ADRIENNE BRENNAN 1400 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, #100 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 SITE ADDRESS: 20452 SANTA ANA AVENUE NEWPORT BEACH, CA BENCHMARK: ORANGE COUNTY SURVEY VERTICAL CONTROL NUMBER "CM -16-71" ELEVATION: 65.97' (NAVD88) 2005 ADT DESCRIBED BY OCS 2001 - FOUND 3 3\4" OCS ALUMINUM BENCHMARK DISK STAMPED "CM -51-89", SET IN THE TOP OF A 4" BY 4" CONCRETE POST. MONUMENT IS LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF SANTA ANA AVENUE AND MESA DRIVE, 57 FT. WESTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF MESA DRIVE AND 21 FT. NORTHERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF SANTA ANA MONUMENT I5 SET LEVEL WITH TOP OF CURB. RNV RNV 70' PROSECT SITE 30' 40' 6' 24• 3Z• 1 � I 8 BE REMOVED AND REPLACED TO BE REMOVED FX AC PAVEMEN AND REPLACED TYPICAL SECTION: SANTA ANA AVENUE NOT TO SCALE 26 13' SECTION D: DRIVEWAY NOT TO SCALE VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE 12-95 Woodco Investment Company, Inc. ii�Ni,w•.woodcoinv eom NOVEMBER 7TH, 2016 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMM, DEV. DEPT. - PLANNNING DIVISION P.O. Box 1768 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. 92658 8915 RE: PA 2016 069 20452 SANTA ANA AVE, NOV 0 9 2016 I THINK THE DEVELOPMENT MAY BE VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT IS OCCURRING IN THE COSTA MESA AREA WHERE THESE 'ULTRA TIGHT' 3 STORY, NO YARD OR ACCESSIBLE AREA ARE CURRENTLY 'FLOODING THE MARKET', WHAT 'IF' THE MARKET SLOWS UP AND THESE, BEING OVERPRICED, AND NOT VIABLE ARE TO BECOME FORECLOSURES? How SOON DOES GOVERNMENT FINANCING AND LACK OF ALTERTNESS OPENS UP A MARKET OF 'UNQUALIFIABLES'? WE'VE GDT "INSTANT SLUM", SANTA ANA AVE IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA is "APARTMENTS GALORE", PARKING ALMOST UNOBTAINABLE REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU CITE WOULD BE THE "APPROACH" GARAGES ARE FOR "CRAP, CLUTTER, AND COMBUSTABLES" I'VE GOT 14 SETS OF APARTMENT COMPLEXES AND HAVE BEEN IN THE BUSINESS 82 YEARS. GOOD "INTENSIONS' OF OCCUPANTS DON'T USUALLY RESULT IN GOOD RESULTS. CAN WE VOTE A BIG "NO" ON THIS? VERY -171 LY YOURS, W 0 LEWIS 3740 Campus Drive • Suite #100 • Newport Beach, CA 92660-2639 • TEL.: (949) 756-8557 • FAX: (949) 833-0153 12-96 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received CITY OF NEWPORT BEACFSanta Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Thursday, November 17, 2016, at 6:30 p.m. or soon thereafter as the matter shall be heard, a public hearing will be conducted in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will consider the following application: Santa Ana Avenue Cottages - A major site, development review and tentative tract map for the construction of seven residential condominium units. As proposed, each unit will be three stories and will include a two -car garage. Four guest parking spaces, including one accessible parking space, will be constructed on-site. The project is categorically exempt under Section 15332, of the State CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines - Class 32 — In -fill Development Project. 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 raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City, at, or prior to, the public hearing. Administrative procedures for appeals are provided in the Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 20.64 (Appeals) and Section 19.12.060 (Subdivision Code). The application may be continued to a specific future meeting date, and if such an action occurs, additional public notice of the continuance will not be provided. Prior to the public hearing, the agenda, staff report, and documents may be reviewed at the Community Development Department Permit Center (Bay C -1st Floor), at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, CA 92660 or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.new ortbeachce. ovl lannin commission. Individuals not able to attend the meeting may contact the Planning Division or access the City's website after the meeting to review the action on this application. For questions regarding this public hearing item please contact Benjamin M. Zdeba, AICP, Associate Planner, at (949) 644-3253, bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov. Project File No.: PA2016-069 Zone: RM -D (Multi -Unit Residential Detached) Activity No.: SD2016-002 and NT2016-003 General Plan: RM (Multiple -Unit Residential) Location: 20452 Santa Ana Avenue Applicant: Adrienne Brandes Peter Zak, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach 12-97 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) Subject: FW: PA2016-069 From: Wisneski, Brenda Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 4:43 PM To: 'Rob Dodman' Cc: Biddle, Jennifer Subject: RE: PA2016-069 Thank you. Your comments will be distributed to the Planning Commission for consideration. From: Rob Dodman[maiIto: rdodman @ratkovichproperties. com] Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 4:42 PM To: Zdeba, Benjamin Cc: Wisneski, Brenda Subject: Re: PA2016-069 As I am unable to speak at the Planning Commission hearing this Thursday I would much appreciate the following be presented to the Commissioners as they hear the case. The first point is the height and size of the project with respect to its surrounding neighborhood. I've lived at the corner of Santa Ana/Mesa for nine years and know the neighborhood well. I recently walked the neighborhood again to confirm that there is no precedent for three-story structures. Three -stories simply doesn't fit with the neighborhood and more importantly sets a dangerous precedent for our neighborhood moving from predominantly single-family residential to an apartment community. We enjoy our sight lines in the neighborhood and even get peek-a-boo views of Saddleback mountain from time to time and it would be sad to look up and see more structure. The second point is the existing issues of traffic, congestion and noise which we've currently been working through with the City of Costa Mesa. While the folks in the Newport Beach Planning Commission may not be privy to all these concerns (the other two corners are in Costa Mesa and the other is a golf course) I can assure you that there is an active community outreach program in the Eastside Costa Mesa community regarding slowing things down in this district. Adding density and height and further "urbanity" to this area is not wanted by the residents or desirable from a planning standpoint. We recently met with the Mayor about how we can curtail development and slow traffic and the City's Traffic and Engineering folks as well as Planning are looking into improvements in this regard. The third point is the project turning its back on the street and aligning the garage walls to face Santa Ana. Again, this is against any good planning principles when considering this is a single-family, surburban neighborhood. Adding a large parkway, setting back and then building up three stories, only disengages the project from the street. Again, more concerns here that traffic will only speed faster as height and setback have a direct correlation on vehicle speed. We would encourage the applicant to look throughout the Eastside Community and look at the numerous two-story, detached structures that have been recently built or are under construction. This is really the precedent to be looked at rather than a new precedent upping the ante on height, density, traffic, noise and congestion. I really appreciate your consideration of the above and welcome any of you or the applicant to reach out to me directly. Further, I would be happy to meet folks on-site so they can visually experience my points above. Best, 12-98 Rob Dodman Principal R T OVI H P R 0 F E R T I E 5 The ART of urban living 2465 Campus Drive Third Floor Irvine, CA 92612 714.425.3203 rdodman(@ratkovichprooerties.com www.ratkovichDrooerties.com From: "Zdeba, Benjamin" <bzdeba@newportbeachca.Rov> Date: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 3:15 PM To: Rob Dodman<rdodman@ratkovichproperties.com> Cc: "Wisneski, Brenda" <BWisneski@newportbeachca.Rov> Subject: RE: PA2016-069 M• Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) I appreciate your patience in letting me get back to you as I am staffing our public counter today. Thanks again for writing and for your thoughtful comments — this is the exact reason why public hearing notices are distributed. Although the immediate surrounding built environment may not be three stories, the maximum height for the surrounding properties is the same 33 feet, which would allow similar redevelopment often without the need for a public hearing. This project requires a public hearing as it is more than four residential units and includes a subdivision map for condominium purposes. I forwarded your concern regarding the intersection to our City Traffic Engineer. We understand the intersection is being studied by the City of Costa Mesa in conjunction with County of Orange as the signal is under County jurisdiction. 12-99 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Staff makes a recommendation to the Planning Commission with the Comm ta(Ana (A4niaepWflagw 016-069) holding a public hearing. This project will be reviewed during the public hearing on the evening of November 17th. It is a discretionary application, which is never guaranteed and is not a done deal. If you would like to submit written correspondence for the record outlining your concerns with the proposed project, please do so. It would be distributed to the Commissioners and would also be included as part of the public record regarding the project. You may also attend the hearing to speak before the Planning Commission. As a note written comments are equally considered by the Planning Commission if you are unable to make it. If you would like to discuss further, I am available today through Thursday. Best, BENJAMIN M. ZDEBA (949) 644-3253 1 bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov From: Rob Dodman[mailto:rdodman(alratkovichproperties.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2016 1:17 PM To: Zdeba, Benjamin Cc: Wisneski, Brenda Subject: Re: PA2016-069 Thanks Benjamin. Final question, is there any consideration Staff and/or the Planning Commission will give regarding the proposed 3 -story nature of the project relative to the its surrounding neighborhood being built out at a 2 -story maximum? Also, is there any consideration given to the existing condition at the intersection being problematic and there being an open case at the City of Costa Mesa looking into what mitigation measures are needed to reduce congestion and quell vehicle speeds? In short, is this a done deal or are the concerns I've raised able to be considered? Thanks again. Rob Dodman Principal RATKOVICH P R 0 P E R T I E 5 The ART of urban living 12-100 2465 Campus Drive Third Floor Irvine, CA 92612 714.425.3203 rdodman@ratkovichproperties.com www.ratkovichproperties.com From: "Zdeba, Benjamin" <bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov> Date: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 11:30 AM To: Rob Dodman <rdodman@ratkovichproperties.com> Cc: "Wisneski, Brenda" <BWisneski@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: RE: PA2016-069 Hi Rob, Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) No problem as I am happy to help. For ease of reference I have excerpted the development standards for the RMD District at the end of this email (the middle column). The maximum height for the RMD District is 28 feet to a flat roof and 33 feet to the ridge of a sloped roof (minimum pitch of 3:12). The proposed project will not exceed the allowable height limitation. The maximum density for the RMD District is established by requiring a minimum site area of 1,000 square feet per dwelling unit. As this property is 11,489 square feet in area, the maximum allowable density is 11 dwelling units. The proposed project is for 7 dwelling units. Development impact fees will be charged on the increase of units from 3 to 7. The applicant will be required to pay in - lieu park dedication fees as well as fair share traffic fees, should the project be approved. School fees and any other applicable fees will be charged on the building permit issuance. The project meets the Zoning Code requirements for parking of 2 per unit covered (14 spaces) and 0.5 per unit for guest spaces (4 spaces). Garages are required to remain accessible at all times such that they are used for parking. If garages are not being kept clear, then this is an enforcement issue. Elevations are depicted on the second page of the first PDF attachment I sent you. If you have any further questions, please contact me. Best, BENJAMIN M. ZDEBA (949) 644-3253 1 bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov 12-101 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) TABLE 2-3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TWO -UNIT AND MULTI -UNIT RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (Continued) Development Feature RM RMD RM -6,000 Additional Requirements Lot Dimensions Minimum dimensions required for each newly created lot. Lot Area (1) (2) (3) Corner lot 6,000 sq. ft. 6,000 6,000 sq. ft. sq. ft. Interior lot 5,000 sq. ft. 5,000 6,000 sq. ft. sq. ft. Lot Width Corner lot 60 ft. 60 ft. 60 ft. Interior lot 50 ft. 50 ft. 60 ft. Lot Depth N/A N/A 80 ft. Minimum required site area per dwelling unit based on net area of the lot unless the maximum Site Area per number of units is shown on the Zoning Map. Dwelling Unit 1,200 sq. ft. (7) 1,000 1,500 sq. ft. sq. ft. Maximum percentage of the total lot area that may be covered by structures. Site Coverage N/A N/A 60% Floor Area Limit 1.75(4) N/A N/A (gross floor area) Setbacks The distances below are minimum setbacks required for primary structures. See Section (Setback Regulations and Exceptions) for setback measurement, allowed projections into setbacks, and exceptions. The following setbacks shall apply, unless different requirements are identified on the setback maps in which case the setback maps shall control. (See Part 8 of this title.) Side and rear setback areas shown on the setback maps shall be considered front setback areas for the purpose of regulating accessory structures. Also refer to 12-102 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) TABLE 2-3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TWO -UNIT AND MULTI -UNIT RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (Continued) Development Feature RM RMD RM -6,000 Additional Requirements Section (Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria). Front: 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. Side (interior, each): Lots 40 ft. wide 3 ft. N/A 6 ft. or less Lots 40'1" wide 4 ft. 5 ft. 6 ft. to 49'11" wide Lots 50 ft. wide 8% of the average N/A 6 ft. and greater lot width (5) Side (street side): Lots 40 ft. wide 3 ft. N/A or less 5 ft. Lots 40'1" wide 4 ft. N/A to 49'11" wide Lots 50 ft. wide 8% of the average 6 ft. and greater lot width (5) Rear: 10 ft. 25 ft. 6 ft. Lots abutting a 10 ft. alley or less that are Abutting Alley directly across the alley from the side yard of a lot abutting the alley shall provide a setback for 10 ft. wide or N/A N/A N/A the first floor of at least 10 ft. from the alley. less 15 ft. wide or 5 ft. N/A less 15'1" to 19'11" 3'9" N/A 20 ft. wide or 0 N/A 12-103 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) TABLE 2-3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TWO -UNIT AND MULTI -UNIT RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (Continued) Development Feature RM RMD RM -6,000 Additional Requirements more Waterfront 10 ft. N/A As provided in Section (Bluff (B) Overlay District). Bluff edge setback Bulkhead Structures shall be set back a minimum of 10 ft. from the bulkhead in each zoning district. setback Maximum height of structures without discretionary approval. See Section (C) Height (6) (Increase in Height Limit) for possible increase in height limit. Flat roof 28 ft. 28 ft. 28 ft. See Section 20.30.060(C) (Increase in Height Sloped roof; 33 ft. 33 ft. 33 ft. Limit) minimum 3/12 pitch Open Space Minimum required open space. Common: 75 Common: 75 See Section 20.48.181 (Residential square feet/unit square feet/unit Development Standards and Design Criteria) Minimum Minimum for R-2 open space standards. dimension shall be dimension shall be 15 feet. Private: 15 feet. Private: 5% of the gross N/A 5% of the gross floor area for each floor area for each unit. unit. Minimum Minimum The minimum dimension is for length and width. dimension shall be dimension shall be 6 feet. 6 feet. Bluffs See Section (Bluff (B) Overlay District). Fencing See Section (Fences, Hedges, Walls, and Retaining Walls). 12-104 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) TABLE 2-3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TWO -UNIT AND MULTI -UNIT RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (Continued) Development Feature RM RMD RM -6,000 Additional Requirements Landscaping See Chapter (Landscaping Standards). Lighting See Section (Outdoor Lighting). Parking See Chapter (Off -Street Parking). Satellite Antennas See Section (Satellite Antennas and Amateur Radio Facilities). Signs See Chapter (Sign Standards). Notes (1) All development and the subdivision of land shall comply with the requirements of Title (Subdivisions). (2) Lots may be subdivided so that the resulting lot area and dimensions for each new lot are less than that identified in this table in compliance with the provisions of Title (Subdivisions). The minimum lot size shall not be less than the original underlying lots on the same block face and in the same zoning district. Lot width and length may vary according to the width and depth of the original underlying lots. New subdivisions that would result in additional dwelling units beyond what the original underlying lots would allow are not permitted unless authorized by an amendment of the General Plan (GPA). (3) On a site of less than five thousand (5,000) square feet that existed prior to March 10, 1976, a two-family dwelling may be constructed; provided, that there shall be not less than one thousand (1,000) square feet of land area for each dwelling unit. (4) The total gross floor area contained in all buildings and structures on a development site shall not exceed 1.75 times the buildable area of the site or 1.5 times the buildable area of the site in Corona del Mar; provided, that up to two hundred (200) square feet of floor area per required parking space devoted to enclosed parking shall not be included in calculations of total gross floor area. (5) Interior and street side setback areas are not required to be wider than fifteen (15) feet; however, the side setback area on the street side of a corner lot, where the abutting lot has a reversed frontage, shall not be less than the front setback area required on the abutting reversed frontage. (6) On the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard, the maximum height shall not exceed the elevation of the top of the curb abutting the lot. 12-105 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received (7) Portions of legal lots that have a slope greater than two -to -one (2:1) or that are samerge"d laads oetnde�n��sfia�6e e�CPA�16-069) from the land area of the lot for the purpose of determining the allowable number of units. (8) The floor area of a subterranean basement is not included in the calculation of total gross floor area. (9) The maximum gross floor area for a residential structure is determined by multiplying either 1.5 or 2.0 times the buildable area of the lot (Ord. 2010-21 § 1 (Exh. A)(part), 2010) From: Rob Dodman[maiIto:rdodman(a)ratkovichproperties.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2016 9:08 AM To: Zdeba, Benjamin Cc: Wisneski, Brenda Subject: Re: PA2016-069 Thanks Benjamin. A couple of comments/questions. What is the maximum height for the RMD district? The reason I ask is because there currently are no three-story structures along Santa Ana Avenue and we as a neighborhood group are working hard to preserve the neighborhood's integrity and working to contain height and density. The intersection of Santa Ana/Mesa is currently being evaluated by the City of Costa Mesa due to traffic issues and public safety. This increased density would only add to that concern from my perspective. I am also not sure what consideration is being made that this location functions as the entrance to the Eastside Costa Mesa community. What is the maximum density for the RMD district? Also, what fees is the applicant paying with respect to contributions towards parks/schools/public improvements/etc.? Finally, with respect to parking, since these units have no driveways we know that they will be burdening the existing off- street parking. This is evidenced by neighboring projects as people fill their garages and usually max out with one car in the garage. The residual ends up on the street and in this case there is parking available only on one side of the street and it is already maxed out. Was this taken into consideration? Oh, one other thing, do you have any other elevations? It was hard to evaluate the building design from what was sent over which had no front elevations of the units. Thank you! Rob Dodman Principal 12-106 RTI H P R 0 F E R T I F } The ART of urban living 2465 Campus Drive Third Floor Irvine, CA 92612 714.425.3203 rdodman@ratkovichproperties.com www.ratkovichproperties.com From: "Zdeba, Benjamin" <bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov> Date: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 9:15 AM To: Rob Dodman <rdodman@ratkovichproperties.com> Subject: RE: PA2016-069 Good morning, Mr. Dodman, Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) Thanks for writing. Please see attached plans, which were submitted with the application for the project. I also included a conceptual planting plan that shows a rendering of the front elevation with new plantings. The proposed project complies with all development standards for the Multi -Unit Residential Detached (RMD) Zoning District; therefore, there are no variances or deviations requested. A major site development review is required as the project involves five or more units in conjunction with a tentative tract map that will allow the units to be sold separately as residential condominiums. The Planning Commission staff report will be made available online about one week prior to the hearing date. As a note, I will be out of the office beginning this Friday. During my absence, Deputy Director Brenda Wisneski will be overseeing the application. Her contact information follows in case you have additional questions once I leave. Brenda Wisneski, AICP Deputy Community Development Director 949-644-3297 bwisneski@newportbeachca.gov io 12-107 Thanks again, and please contact me if you have any further questions. Best, BENJAMIN M. ZDEBA (949) 644-3253 1 bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov From: Rob Dodman[maiIto: rdodman @ratkovichproperties. com] Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2016 7:59 AM To: Zdeba, Benjamin Subject: PA2016-069 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) Good morning Benjamin. I am in receipt of the notice of public hearing for the above project as I live a couple houses down. Would you please send me the submittal package for review and also advise me of any conditional approvals (variances) that the applicant is seeking? Thanks. Rob Dodman Principal R TKOVI CH F R 0 F E R T I F) The ART of urban living 2465 Campus Drive Third Floor Irvine, CA 92612 714.425.3203 rdodman(ya ratkovichproperties.com www.ratkovichproperties.com ii 12-108 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) From: Berkley Egenes <berkleyegenes@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 9:49 AM To: Wisneski, Brenda Cc: Brine, Tony; Biddle, Jennifer Subject: Re: PA2016-069 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Brenda, Thank you very much for your prompt reply. We really appreciate it. Please let us know if you or the planning commission need any additional information from us. Have a great day, Berkley On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Wisneski, Brenda <BWisneski&newportbeachca.gov> wrote: Thank you, Mr. Egenes. Your correspondence will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for their consideration. From: Berkley Egenes [mailto:berkleyegenes gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 9:42 AM To: Wisneski, Brenda Cc: Biddle, Jennifer Subject: PA2016-069 Hello Brenda, We were given your name from the Dobson's (our next door neighbor) as an avenue to share our concerns about the petitioned build that is being proposed on Thursday to the NB City Council. We live in the immediate intersection of Santa Ana and Mesa Drive. Our concern and objection to this build is two fold - (1) a significant increase in traffic to the intersection and (2) change to the immediate neighborhood of single/two story structures in the the area. Traffic. There have been 8 reported accidents since January 2015 at the intersection due to lack of speed control through the intersection. We have met with Mayor Mensinger, Mr. Sethuraman (head of traffic) and Mr. Trevino (head of planning) for the City of Costa Mesa. They are also investigating and proposing changes to the intersection. The point in the intersection where this property is located is at the immediate entry and exit of the intersection where the speed escalates to 45mph. The concern here is that with potentially 3x the number of vehicles coming into the intersection from that single property will greatly increase the traffic hazard. We 12-109 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received have a genuine concern for the owners/tenants that would enter and leave the Ana Avenue 2aitaoce d�ilie 016-069) intersection. An accident is just waiting to happen. We cannot have any more accidents into the intersection and anything that potentially increases the risk we are completely against. We have to keep our families and neighbors safe. Structure. The immediate neighborhood within a block radius of the intersection is all one-two story single family homes or rental units. To what appears could be 3 story structures is going to greatly change the integrity of the neighborhood and invite different properties to build and dramatically change the ecosystem of the neighborhood. We came to this neighborhood just a year ago because of the single family home community. We want to keep it that way and strongly urge the committee and applicant to review the neighborhood with a personal lens versus an economic one. If the units were to be two story from the ground up, then it would be a different conversation. Thanks for your help and support. Happy to discuss over the phone if that will help. Have a great day. Thank you, Berkley & Tiffany Egenes 12-110 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) Subject: FW: 4PIex - 20462 Santa Ana, Newport Beach From: Wisneski, Brenda Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 7:46 AM To: 'Carol Travis/Jeff Schuster' Cc: Biddle, Jennifer Subject: RE: 4PIex - 20462 Santa Ana, Newport Beach Thank you for your comments. Your correspondence will be distributed to the Planning Commission for their consideration. From: Carol Travis/Jeff Schuster [mailto:avxjsct@roadrunner.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 11:06 PM To: Wisneski, Brenda Subject: 4PIex - 20462 Santa Ana, Newport Beach Importance: High Dear Brenda, We have been homeowners on the county land at the south corner of Santa Ana Avenue and Mesa Drive since 1986. We are writing to voice our concerns with the proposed multi-level, maximum density development at 20462 Santa Ana, Newport Beach. During morning and evening rush hours the intersection of Santa Ana Avenue and Mesa Drive has become a choked thoroughfare between the freeway access near the O.C. Fairgrounds and the dense business community radiating from the airport. Increased density due to additional multi-level dwellings will dramatically lower the safe and generally tranquil character of the neighborhood including not only Newport Beach, but the adjacent Costa Mesa and county property at the Santa Ana Av./Mesa Dr. intersection mentioned. Also, the traffic signal at Mesa Drive and Santa Ana Avenue has increased accidents due to drivers speeding to make it through the intersection. Sincerely, Jeff and Carol Schuster 301 Mesa Dr. Costa Mesa, CA 92627 949-631-3260 12-111 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2e Additional Materials Received Wisneski, Brenda Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) From: Dunn Voyer <dunnvoyer@gmaii.com> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 4:30 PM To: Wisneski, Brenda Subject: Santa Ana Ave Cottages Hello Brenda, This is a letter to express concern for the safety and compliance of the Santa Ana Ave Cottages proposal. I arra the home owner next door to this Santa Ana Ave Cottages proposal. I vote no on this project for the following reasons: 1. Does not fit the neighborhood. The Santa Ana Ave Cottages proposal does not fit the area. A three story, 7 unit rental apartment complex into an area of one and two story homes? Yes the area is RMD but all three habited corners of the intersection are single story home thereby not to occlude the vision of this highly volatile accident prone intersection. Also all surrounding dwellings are also SFR's. In fact the two flanking properties are single story SFR's. 2. No precedent for three story dwelling in this area. Does the city want to approve and accept the liability of two 33 foot high three story dwellings, one that is 100 feet long and one 75 feet long just 5 feet from the next door neighbors which are both single story single family residences? 3. Traffic and public safety - Three story and too many units will occlude an already dangerous intersection. Does the city want to approve and accept the liability and occlude the vision and more than double the traffic coming and going from a property that is less than 100 feet from an Traffic light intersection with an average of one accident every three months and where the posted speed limit 45 mph? 4. Drainage - A Sloped land with drainage out the front of the property is impossible. There lot drains on to my lot. Seven units draining on to my lot. Does the city want to approve and accept the liability of a property with improper drainage and sloping of the lot? 5. Aesthetic Does the city want to approve and accept the liability of a dwelling that looks more a kin to a prison cel block than a "cottage"? I vote no on this project for the above reasons. Sincerely, Dunn Voyer 12-112 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Santa n a Avenue Cottages :y 4 � S � '� � art, ■ d 5 a Planning Commission �► Public Hearing November 17, 2016 _y -069) 12-113 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting -069) tiduction J Demolish three residential units Construct seven residential units Major Site Development Review Tentative Tract Map (to sell units separately) 11/17/2016 Community Development Department - Planning Division 2 12-114 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting -069 ) 0 j 'J N. a POS, a Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting -069) AW c '4C/fiORN\R' r ro3 sy��p, opf tis R o s (e Y ¢ B3 f + �O J J.�,�O J•�O OHO, � OHO ?D Y J O e K J Q gSk �✓ � \ �� • � �� O Y JD C� '0�, JVD 8' 7 n r 0 Residential (RM) 0 Y rP 4, r .s h '4• � �. .Ssc S ss R r �" 1 '� ��'r0 w iT5 '�S Q�4�•�,O 4OF Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 069) t {. 'DU d° ? a MU • I - n.�,. - Or° °299 r.• °� ° widen 12 C^ 2 ° y0 °3O et ch,ed RNID A v s Sq Quo iv ryas °ti T' h ti 7 rG 41 m19p F q Q QQO Lp ✓q CG 9 1� N �J Ana Heig>hts=--Sp►ecific silo ��y Pp ,,,Santa a Plan (SP -7) c ; Residential s Multi 1 -Family (RM F) 2 QGO �F. 3 01 mn- �.d 2s T 12-117 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting -069) .,rp;" xf iin � 4 � � � r a� L i;::�_a � {L ,r: � � • . _ 12-118 Site Photographs • � , ''1T.� - � I 3.11 T ,�. y � r qr 1 � _ ✓H r v o -. Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting _069) P"roiect Details Construct seven residential condominiums F Six 1,402 -square -foot, two-bedroom units One 1,935 -square -foot, two-bedroom unit F Two stories over attached two -car garages Open guest parking F Improved landscaping F Fair Share Traffic/In-Lieu Park Dedication fees Increase of four units 11/17/2016 Community Development Department - Planning Division 8 12-120 7■ 11/17/2o16 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting -069) Community Development Department - Planning Division 01 zkvr.1 M [ • Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting -069) '14t s- SkMFA AkA.AL54L8 EtEL:rT�CJN CRNV*kY WEST EEAIIGN EAST, 11/17/2016 Community Development Department - Planning Division 10 12-122 :aK:j9r. SANTA ARIA AVENUE SOUTH WEST PER5PEOiIVE Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting -069) SANTA ANA AVENUE NORTH WEST PERSPECTIVE GARAGE XOR TRIM I FASCIA ROOF ENTRY DOOR WINDOW FRAME STUCCO BODY 11/17/2016 Community Development Department - Planning Division 11 12-123 qpnciprinc Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting -069) SANTA ANA MSNUE SOUTH WEST PERSPECTIVE 11/17/2016 +NTA ANA AVENUE NORTH WEST PERSPECTIVE Community Developmen uepa men-[ - r -canning uivision 12 12-124 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting -069) 07/13/2012 Community Development Department - Planning Division 13 12-125 Ah Lot Area Lot Width Min. Site Area per Unit Floor Area Limit Building Height Front Setback Side Setbacks Rear Setback Common Open Space Private Open Space Parking 11/17/2016 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting -069) t 5,000 sq. ft. 11,489 sq. ft. (existing) 50 ft. 82 ft. (existing) 1,000 sq. ft. 1,641 sq. ft. N/A 10,365 sq. ft. total I 33 ft. sloped 33 ft. sloped 20 ft. 20 ft. Q 5 ft. 5 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 525 sq. ft. (75 sq. ft. /unit) 1,240 sq. ft. (177 sq. ft./unit) 70 sq. ft. (5% GFA/unit) 116 sq. ft. (8% GFA/unit) 2 per unit covered 14 garage spaces 0.5 per unit guest 4 uncovered guest spaces Community Development Department - Planning Division 14 12-126 •r. Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting -069) tmmendation '�(_1Fp Rel Conduct a public hearing Adopt a resolution approving Major Site Development Review No. SD20i.6-002and Tentative Tract Map No. NT2016-003 11/17/2016 Community Development Department - Planning Division 15 12-127 For more information cont Brenda Wisneski 949-644-3297 bwisnesl<i@newportbeachca.gov www.newportbeachca.gov Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2g Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) 20452 Santa Ana Ave. Cottages MWCH MATT WHITE CUSTOM HOMES WEST ELEVA-ROlel S oekLE J+ _ ---c- 12-129 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2g Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) About the Builder 10 1 live locally, work locally, and love being part of the community. • 20 years experience building homes in Southern California with locations like Newport Coast, Emerald Bay, and throughout Newport Beach. • As a custom home builder, I have had the opportunity to work closely with individual clients and be directly involved with every single aspect of the new home building process. 12-130 Homes Built fn Newport Bea • ti .aPWMbp �•�: e R _ = o �; ]j •. � 11.1. y ' �. f All r s f SRR h ` i s Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2g Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) 12-133 I Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2g Additional Materials Presented at Meeting -069) 12-134 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2g Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) 12-135 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2g Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) Infill Communities throughout NewDort Beach and Costa Mesa 111111 111111 I'1 nil ■,*ii wall iia' r 12-136 J I bib_+��. I Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 21g Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) An MIDTOWN. 12-137 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 No. 2g Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) w i MIDTOWN. 12-138 I Item No Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 101110ges (PA2016-069) ■t 12-139 T Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2g Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) 12-140 • � i1�1 T Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2g Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) 12-140 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2g Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) '�.,) '�i - - • • �`I � r" _'fO ' __.� ��.. x ' i „ . t� Gi �i 4S �. ' � -�'' '+'*"• � r ^ � .�, i i�il 2 � All NIV ��� a \•4y ��3..LLf{f� rl•z7 ,,fir . � �, �-�-� .. urs � � y � .� d .� � .: y l4PS t ♦ w 'a• hex x? Tari r z u ! 1 _ �p ` . 72, AP - � � � , �,-s .,►-� r �� £ fia �. .r74 , r y r +.��- ��rf r#.. � •y z�", ���: �� :/�. lip'� t" 3" .� � ` -{5 a �`" _� •`' '.I � �J � ����. �yf "`'Afaa�""?+'�, �, • ,./ a r fib, ` -i .'F, / +.� 4' -� t'f ►.�?��,�•� _ -A y�' ,f,r � r, ~ � � � � • +1'r �.' t F ��} uVA !1 ■11-' ..,,� 1 r® "�_` .,,wr• : i ;r ti . Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2g Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) Santa Ana Cottages Team VVEST ELF617 smE � = --c- j L- mr, .fiKf�l�1 1RU5r U5 TO BRING YOU HOW. Santa Ana Cottages - 7 new homes in Newport Beach, Calif. Owner: Adrienne Brandes Builder - Matt White Custom Homes. Architect: Sergio Sendowsky with Knitter Associates Landscape Architect: Art Guy with BG B Design Group Civil Engineer: Rob Hamers with Hamers and Associates MWCH MATT WHITE CUSTOM HOMES 12-143 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2g Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) Santa Ana Ave. Cottages: Aerial View M'v 12-144 • I • w e. J r o.� - 4 py , r • a , ae yam.. Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2g Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) About the project • Existing triplex: Consists of 31386 sq. ft. built in 1975 • We worked with Newport Beach Staff every step of the way - Ben Zdeba & Brenda Wisneski • Per the property zoning, 8 units are allowed • However, our site plan features 7 to allow for an ADA accessible unit • All zoning and building requirements have been fully implemented • We are asking for no variances MWCH MATT WHITE CUSTOM HOMES 12-146 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2g Additional Materials Presented at Meeting ,2016-069) 12-147 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2g Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) Site Plan Satisfies Space & Height Requirements • Required Open Space: 525 Sq. Ft. • Proposed Open Space:1,240 Sq. Ft. • Required private open space: 70 -98 Sq. Ft. depending on unit • Proposed private open space: 116 -230 Sq. Ft. depending on the unit • Building Heights: Will not exceed 33'-0' 12-148 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2g Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) • Living accommodations comply with all current codes and environmental standards • All building setbacks are in compliance (20' front 25'rear and 5' on the sides ) • All improvements comply with the latest city water quality requirements and NB Code • New homes use half as much water as most of the existing housing stock in California. • Through smart Green building techniques, new homes are able to completely offset any net new water demand. 12-149 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2g Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) Landscape Design • The Cottages' landscape is drought tolerant and complies with Newport Beach's Green Codes. WEST ELEtrAMON s.abl-E 4. = - •-:- 12-150 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2g Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) Landscape Plan ---cb—r-_-e ��•.a rr ".'�."romp- +� L•�-J ■ •i" &,. r—, •�%- W. -P n— �r'yr `Js v -w.•• arsyw _-- — + — •g -!. T-- --, tea. r .-d. Strr Vis° MWCH MATT WHITE CUSTOM HOMES 12-151 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2g Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) ParkingImprovements • The current 3 units provide 8 total parking spots. Our proposed project will included a total of 18 parking spots. • All seven units wiII have its own two -car garage with approximately 446-453 SF of non -conditioned aVWCH MATT WHITE CUSTOM HOMES 12-152 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2g Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) 12-153 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2g Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) Color and Materials SA�WA uTH%15 I Mf FVPC A A.A�!- AV5NUS NORTH WSJ ' 12-154 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2g Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) Thank You ! TRUSS US TO SIRING YOU HOME. Questions? MWCH MATT WHITE CUSTOM HOMES 12-155 Attachment F Planning Commission Minutes from November 17, 2016 12-156 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS —100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2016 REGULAR MEETING — 6:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Chair Kramer 111. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Kory Kramer, Vice Chair Peter Koetting, Commissioner Bill Dunlap, Commissioner Bradley Hillgren, Commissioner Ray Lawler and Commissioner Erik Weigand ABSENT: Secretary Peter Zak Staff Present: Deputy Director Brenda Wisneski; Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres; City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine; Police Sergeant Brad Miller; Assistant Planner Melinda Whelan; Assistant Planner Chelsea Crager; Principal Planner Jim Campbell; Planning Program Manager Patrick Alford; Associate Planner Makana Nova; and Administrative Support Specialist Jennifer Biddle IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Mosher remarked that the Commission at its last two meetings omitted public comment regarding minutes. Regarding the Museum House discussion, a Commissioner recommended deleting incorrect statements made by a member of the public. Minutes should reflect statements made. Director Brandt's comment regarding contemplation of conversion of hotel rooms to residences was incorrect. If the minutes were corrected, that statement would be removed; however, he recommended the minutes indicate what was said. V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES None. VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 3, 2016 Recommended Action: Approve and file Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Commissioner Hillgren to approve and file the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of November 3, 2016, as amended. AYES: Kramer, Dunlap, Hillgren, Lawler, Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN; Koetting ABSENT: Zak VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO.2 SANTA ANA AVENUE COTTAGES (PA2016-069) Site Location: 20452 Santa Ana Avenue Deputy Director Wisneski reported the project would include demolition of three existing units and construction of seven units. The property is located at the boundary of the City, in an area annexed into the City in 2008. Land use in the area is multifamily. Near the project site is land within the jurisdiction of Costa Mesa and County of Orange, including a golf course across the street. Uses on the unincorporated County land to the south are single-family and multifamily, while the uses in Costa Mesa are duplex. Structures in the area are predominantly two stories with a newer development containing multiple units of three stories. The applicant proposes demolishing the existing three units and constructing seven new units. Six of the seven units would be approximately 1,400 square feet, and one would be approximately 2,000 square feet. 1 of 9 12-157 Each unit would be two stories over a two -car garage with guest parking located in the rear of the lot. The architecture was described as somewhat eclectic, leaning more toward a Spanish style. Color highlights would be placed at exterior doors, and window frames and garage doors would be a darker color. A materials board was available. A low wall would be constructed at the front to create private open space. The project complies with existing regulations related to building height, setbacks, common and private open space, and parking. Staff recommends adoption of the Major Site Development Review and a Tentative Tract Map. Staff received letters from surrounding property owners, who shared concerns regarding the height of structures and safety at the Intersection of Mesa Drive and Santa Ana Avenue. The proposed three-story structures comply with height requirements. At the time of annexation, the City adopted County regulations for the area. The City's Traffic Engineer has been in contact with the City of Costa Mesa who, along with the County of Orange, are assessing the need for design improvements at the intersection. Staff does not believe the proposed project would create additional traffic or safety hazards at the intersection. Chair Kramer, Vice Chair Koetting and Commissioners Hiligren and Lawler reported no communications with the applicant. Commissioners Weigand and Dunlap advised that they had met with the applicant. Matt White, on behalf of the applicant, indicated he had been constructing custom homes in Newport Beach for 20 years. He shared photos of previous projects. The proposed project would have materials, style and quality similar to those of the Nautica project on Santa Ana Avenue. He introduced the project's architect, landscape architect, and owner. According to zoning regulations, eight units are allowed; however, the project would contain seven units, one of which would be ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) accessible. All zoning and building requirements have been implemented. The applicant did not request any variances. The project proposed 1,240 square feet of open space, while the requirement is only 525 square feet. Proposed private open space for the project was 116-230 square feet for each unit. Building height would not exceed 33 feet. The proposed project complies with all regulations and Codes. Landscape would be drought tolerant and would comply with Newport Beach's Green Codes. The proposed project would contain 18 parking spaces with a turnaround area located in the rear. Steel structures on the front would provide shade and decorative elements. The garage doors would be metal with dark gray, almost black trim. The roof would be a dark composite. Entry doors would be colorful. Window frames would be black. Adrienne Brandies, property owner, felt the project would add value to surrounding properties and provide revenue to the City. When speaking with neighbors, she did not receive any objections. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's inquiries, Sergio Sendowsky, project architect, explained that the California Building Code requires an ADA unit to have an accessible entry, exit, and bathroom, but no elevator. A physically handicapped person would need to retrofit the stairwell for a mechanical system. Vice Chair Koetting stated the roof for the project is not like those in other projects Mr. White showed. The architecture was bland on the outside; there is no trim around the windows and no variety on the elevations. The colors are the same. This project does not look like the other projects. The roof is not variegated or metal or standing seam. Architecture is lacking, especially on the street side. The units lacked great views over the golf course. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's questions, Mr. White indicated the exterior finish would be a troweled -on stucco In white. The stucco would be neither smooth nor "popcorn." Entry to a unit's private space is through the garage; however, the garage would be nice. Fences will be located between each yard and along the front of the property and will be painted white. Commissioner Dunlap liked the project's compliance with Codes and the fact that it provided more open space than required. He agreed with comments that the west elevation was bland, stark and flat. Perhaps the street elevation could be embellished. From a technical standpoint, the proposed project met all the conditions, which made the Commission's job easier. Mr. White advised that he could work with staff on a siding treatment and possibly add a couple more windows. The metal structures will be hand -forged and would elevate the architecture. In answer to Vice Chair Koetting's question, Mr. White explained that the metal structures are more of a decorative element but would provide some shade. 2 of 9 12-158 In response to Commissioner Weigand's inquiry, City Traffic Engineer Brine reported the City of Costa Mesa controlled Santa Ana Avenue as it is entirely within the City of Costa Mesa. He had requested but not received accident information for Santa Ana Avenue from Costa Mesa. In addition, he would join Costa Mesa's discussion with the County regarding potential improvements and changes to signal operations. Commissioner Weigand requested City Traffic Engineer Brine determine if adding on -street parking along Santa Ana would be possible. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Taso Nicklau supported the proposed project. He had no objection to increasing the density in the area. He requested the same rights in terms of building ADA accessible units when he develops his property adjacent to the proposed project. Because of trees and fences at the corners of properties, drivers cannot see around corners. This is a likely cause for automobile accidents. Dunn Voyer stated his home would be boxed in with the proposed project and an apartment building on the other side. This would be a fire hazard. There are no three-story units in the area and nothing to set a precedent for three-story buildings. The surrounding properties are single-family residences. Doubling the occupancy of the site would increase traffic at the intersection. He could support the project if it were two stories. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Chair Kramer supported the project and suggested a motion include provisions for smooth stucco and enhanced architectural features on the fronts of both buildings along Santa Ana Avenue. Vice Chair Koetting supported the project but did not like the architecture, which had to change. The applicant's submission showed the roof almost like concrete shingles rather than a flat composite. The windows needed better trim. He preferred the color be broken up. The street -side elevation needed to be improved. Smooth stucco was needed. Chair Kramer noted the Commission had not approved anything like troweled finish, blown -on stucco since he had joined the Commission. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's questions, Deputy Director Wisneski reported CC&Rs (conditions, covenants and restrictions) rather than a homeowners association would be needed. Common or individual trash collection would be decided by the property owner. Motion made by Vice Chair Koetting and seconded by Commissioner Dunlap to adopt Resolution No.2036 approving Major Site Development Review No. SD2016-002 and Tentative Tract Map No. NT2016-003, subject to conditions discussed by Commissioners. Commissioner Hillgren and Vice Chair Koetting clarified that elevations along Santa Ana Avenue should be enhanced, the eyebrows above the garages are acceptable, and the landscape plan needed more life. Vice Chair Koetting indicated that if the elevations were not improved to staff's satisfaction, the item should return to the Planning Commission for review. AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Dunlap, Hillgren, Lawler, Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Zak ITEM NO.3 VIEWPOINT CHURCH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA2016-144) Site Location: 866 and 864 W. 16th Street Assistant Planner Whelan reported the surrounding uses are industrial and general office buildings. The use permit would be for assembly use and off-site parking located in Costa Mesa. The existing building was constructed in the 1960s for light manufacturing. The project includes converting one tenant space of 5,000 square feet into a church use with offices, restrooms, reception area, and assembly area. The assembly area 3of9 92-959 would be sectioned off with a full -height wall according to Building Code requirements. Weekday uses would include office staff and groups of 32 people maximum. On-site parking is sufficient for those uses. Saturday uses would be small groups, which would also be served by on-site parking. On Sundays and some holidays, 75 off-site parking spaces would be provided at an industrial site in Costa Mesa. Shuttle service would be provided three times before and three times after services. Improvements include an existing storage shed towards the rear of the property, striping of 11 parking spaces for church use and 9 parking spaces for the adjoining tenant's use. The peak use during Sunday services and holidays would have a diminished impact because most of the surrounding businesses would be closed. Staff recommends approval of the use permit. In response to Commissioner Hiligren's questions, Assistant Planner Whelan advised that parking is sufficient for a seating of 128 people. Seating for 128 people is possible in the assembly area with required aisle widths. Details of the shuttle service have not been finalized, and the parking management plan is subject to approval by the City Traffic Engineer. In reality, street parking in the neighborhood would be available because most businesses are closed on Sunday. In response to Commissioner Dunlap's question regarding fixed seating, Assistant Planner Whelan advised that the applicant addressed the Building Department's concerns regarding seats with the proposed full -height wall, which would limit the assembly area. The applicant would be required to obtain building permits for construction of the wall and all of the improvements to the tenant space. In response to Vice Chair Koetting's inquiry, Assistant Planner Whelan explained that the wall would section off the assembly area and prevent people from spilling into other areas. Commissioners reported no ex parte communication with the applicant. Tim Palmquist, applicant, reported the church's maximum use time would be Sunday morning. He identified 24 parking spaces on-site and 75 parking spaces off-site and applied for a maximum seating of 144 people. On-site parking of 11 spaces would adequately serve all weekday uses. The assembly area would be 744 square feet with fixed chairs. The proposed wall Is designed to prevent spillover. An aisle of 5 feet would enclose seating. He summarized plans for exits. Carpeting would be placed in the assembly area to define the space. In answer to Vice Chair Koetting's inquiries, Mr. Palmquist stated the church employed five full-time and one part-time staff who would utilize on-site parking. The church's largest meeting, other than Sunday services, occurrs on Wednesday mornings during the fall. Staff would be instructed not to report for work until Wednesday afternoon so that parking would be available for meeting participants. Staff who attended the meeting would be available to unlock doors for the meeting. He had met with the adjacent tenant who employed eight people and utilized the parking stalls in the rear. In addition he had met with an adjacent property owner who would allow the church to use his parking spaces if his tenants indicated parking spaces were available. Mr. Palmquist informally surveyed most of the adjacent tenants who reported parking spaces would be available evenings and weekends. The church has a reciprocal easement with the adjacent owner for the common drive, but the easement needed to be expanded by a few feet. He did not anticipate any problems amending the easement. In reply to Commissioner Weigand's question, Mr. Palmquist explained that the church has held Good Friday services on the beach in the past. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. James Dobson, attorney for the adjacent tenant, reported the adjacent tenant is allocated ten parking spaces at the rear of the building. According to the Code, off-street parking should be located within 200 feet of the premises it served. The church's proposed off-site parking is located much further away. Assembly meeting facilities are required to provide 1 parking space per 3 seats or 35 square feet of assembly space. The applicant does not meet that requirement. The adjacent tenant's eight employees worked seven days a week, night and day. The adjacent tenant's business is growing, and it could have 12-15 employees in the next year. Parking spaces allocated by the lease are not available for church use at any time. The adjacent tenant is concerned about noise. Revival events could be noisy and create a nuisance. On behalf of his client, he objected to issuance of the use permit. In answer to Commissioner Hillgren's question, Mr. Dobson clarified that parking issues rather than violations have not been remedied. 4of9 12-160 Kathleen Voorhees, building owner, was not aware of the current tenant being unhappy about the church becoming a tenant. She has owned and occupied the space for 20 years and has never had parking or noise issues. Parking in the area has become congested in the last few years. She is not offering the adjacent tenant's parking spaces to the church. In response to Commissioner Hillgren's questions, Ms. Voorhees stated the proposed wall would be drywall. She did not know if there would be sound attenuation. In reply to Vice Chair Koetting's inquiry, Ms. Voorhees advised that the parking spaces in the rear are for the adjacent tenant. The tenant had voiced concerns about churchgoers using those spaces, but she did not believe there would be a problem because most people parked in the front. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing, Commissioner Weigand inquired about striking the handwritten amendment that parking for Good Friday services would be arranged with Griswold Industries. Chair Kramer advised that the applicant said they have held Good Friday services on the beach in the past. Mr. Palmquist calculated 46 parking spaces would be needed for a seating of 144 people. The church has secured 75 spaces off-site and 11 spaces on-site. In his communications with the adjacent tenant, the tenant is very positive with no mention of any concerns. He is confident the church could meet all conditions of the City. Commissioner Weigand reiterated his request for information about Good Friday services. Mr, Palmquist stated in the past the church met on the beach. The church could find alternate locations for Good Friday services or hold multiple services on-site with a limit of 32 attendees for each service. The van used as a shuttle will not be stored on-site. Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Chair Kramer to adopt Resolution No. 2037 approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2016-039 with amendments to the conditions to more accurately reflect seating and deleting Condition Number 9. In response to Commissioner Hillgren's question, Assistant Planner Whelan explained that the condition stating seating of 100 people has been changed to seating of 144 people. In answer to Vice Chair Koetting's question, Deputy Director Wisneski reported Condition Number 9 regarding parking spaces at the rear could be eliminated based on testimony that those spaces are not available. Commissioner Weigand felt the applicant was agreeable to striking the provision for offsite parking on Good Friday, which would prevent parking issues with businesses near the off-site parking location. Substitute motion made by Commissioner Weigand to strike Good Friday from the parking management plan. Chair Kramer stated the substitute motion failed for lack of a second. The main motion passed by the following vote. AYES: Kramer, Koetting, Dunlap, Hillgren, Lawler, Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Zak ITEM NO.4 OLEA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA2016-142) Site Location: 2001 Westcliff Drive, Suite 100 Assistant Planner Crager reported the property is located in the commercial general zoning district and is surrounded by commercial uses and the Coronado Apartments, The commercial center development was approved in June 2014 with 382 parking spaces and constructed with 406 parking spaces. Parking was designed to accommodate up to 52 spaces for a restaurant use. The applicant requested a Conditional Use Permit to establish a restaurant at the property with late hours, alcohol, and an outdoor dining patio. The 5of9 12-161 Attachment G Correspondence 12-162 Woodco Investment Company, Inc. W WWOOdcoim.com NOVEMBER 7TH, 2616 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMM, DEV, DEPT. - PLANNNING DIVISION P.O. Bax 1768 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF, 92658 8915 RE: PA 2616 669 26452 SANTA ANA AVE, N1)V 0 9 2 01 I THINK THE DEVELOPMENT MAY BE VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT IS OCCURRING IN THE COSTA MESA AREA WHERE THESE 'ULTRA TIGHT' 3 STORY, NO YARD OR ACCESSIBLE AREA ARE CURRENTLY 'FLOODING THE MARKET', WHAT 'IF' THE MARKET SLOWS UP AND THESE, BEING OVERPRICED, AND NOT VIABLE ARE TO BECOME FORECLOSURES? HOW SOON DOES GOVERNMENT FINANCING AND LACK OF ALTERTNESS OPENS UP A MARKET OF 'UNQUALIFIABLES'? WE'VE GOT "IiNSTANT SLUM", SANTA ANA AVE IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA IS "APARTMENTS GALORE", PARKING ALMOST UNOBTAINABLE REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU CITE WOULD BE THE "APPROACH" GARAGES ARE FOR "CRAP, CLUTTER, AND COMBUSTABLES" I'VE GOT 14 SETS OF APARTMENT COMPLEXES AND HAVE BEEN IN THE BUSINESS 82 YEARS. GOOD "INTENSI6NS' OF OCCUPANTS DON'T USUALLY RESULT IN GOOD RESULTS, CAN WE VOTE A BIG "N6" ON THIS? VERY LY YOURS, oo W 0 LEW1 S 3740 Campus Drive • Suite #100 • Newport Beach, CA 92660-2639 • TEL: (949) 756-8557 • FAX: (949) 833-0153 12-163 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received CITY OF NEWPORT BEACI$anta Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Thursday, November 17, 2016, at 6:30 p.m. or soon thereafter as the matter shall be heard, a public hearing will be conducted in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will consider the following application: Santa Ana Avenue Cottages - A major site development review and tentative tract map for the construction of seven residential condominium units. As proposed, each unit will be three stories and will include a two -car garage. Four guest parking spaces, including one accessible parking space, will be constructed on-site. The project is categorically exempt under Section 15332, of the State CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines - Class 32 — In -fill Development Project. 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 raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City, at, or prior to, the public hearing. Administrative procedures for appeals are provided in the Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 20.64 (Appeals) and Section 19.12.060 (Subdivision Code). The application may be continued to a specihc future meeting date, and if such an action occurs, additional public notice of the continuance will not be provided. Prior to the public hearing, the agenda, staff report, and documents may be reviewed at the Community Development Department Permit Center (Bay C -1st Floor), at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, CA 92660 or at the City of Newport Beach website at www. newportbeachca.govlplannincrcommission. Individuals not able to attend the meeting may contact the Planning Division or access the City's website after the meeting to review the action on this application. For questions regarding this public hearing item please contact Benjamin M. Zdeba, AICP, Associate Planner, at (949) 644-3253, bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov. Project File No.: PA2016-069 Zone: RM -D (Multi -Unit Residential Detached) Activity No.: SD2016-002 and NT2016-003 General Plan: RM (Multiple -Unit Residential) Location: 20452 Santa Ana Avenue Applicant: Adrienne Brandies Peter Zak, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach 12-164 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) Subject: FW: PA2016-069 From: Wisneski, Brenda Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 4:43 PM To: 'Rob Dodman' Cc: Biddle, Jennifer Subject: RE: PA2016-069 Thank you. Your comments will be distributed to the Planning Commission for consideration. From: Rob Dodman[ma iIto: rdodman (a)ratkovichproperties.com] Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 4:42 PM To: Zdeba, Benjamin Cc: Wisneski, Brenda Subject: Re: PA2016-069 As I am unable to speak at the Planning Commission hearing this. Thursday I would much appreciate the following be presented to the Commissioners as they hear the case. The first point is the height and size of the project with respect to its surrounding neighborhood. I've lived at the corner of Santa Ana/Mesa for nine years and know the neighborhood well. I recently walked the neighborhood again to confirm that there is no precedent for three-story structures. Three -stories simply doesn't fit with the neighborhood and more importantly sets a dangerous precedent for our neighborhood moving from predominantly single-family residential to an apartment community. We enjoy our sight lines in the neighborhood and even get peek-a-boo views of Saddleback mountain from time to time and it would be sad to look up and see more structure. The second point is the existing issues of traffic, congestion and noise which we've currently been working through with the City of Costa Mesa. While the folks in the Newport Beach Planning Commission may not be privy to all these concerns (the other two corners are in Costa Mesa and the other is a golf course) I can assure you that there is an active community outreach program in the Eastside Costa Mesa community regarding slowing things down in this district. Adding density and height and further "urbanity" to this area is not wanted by the residents or desirable from a planning standpoint. We recently met with the Mayor about how we can curtail development and slow traffic and the City's Traffic and Engineering folks as well as Planning are looking into improvements in this regard. The third point is the project turning its back on the street and aligning the garage walls to face Santa Ana. Again, this is against any good planning principles when considering this is a single-family, surburban neighborhood. Adding a large parkway, setting back and then building up three stories, only disengages the project from the street. Again, more concerns here that traffic will only speed faster as height and setback have a direct correlation on vehicle speed. We would encourage the applicant to look throughout the Eastside Community and look at the numerous two-story, detached structures that have been recently built or are under construction. This is really the precedent to be looked at rather than a new precedent upping the ante on height, density, traffic, noise and congestion. I really appreciate your consideration of the above and welcome any of you or the applicant to reach out to me directly. Further, I would be happy to meet folks on-site so they can visually experience my points above. Best, 12-165 Rob Dodman Principal RATI OVICH P R O P E R T I E S The ART of urban living 2465 Campus Drive Third Floor Irvine, CA 92612 714.425.3203 rdodman@ratkovichproperties.com www.ratkovichproperties.com From: "Zdeba, Benjamin" <bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov> Date: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 3:15 PM To: Rob Dodman <rdodman@ ratkovichproperties.com> Cc: "Wisneski, Brenda" <BWisneski@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: RE: PA2016-069 Rob, Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) I appreciate your patience in letting me get back to you as I am staffing our public counter today. Thanks again for writing and for your thoughtful comments —this is the exact reason why public hearing notices are distributed. Although the immediate surrounding built environment may not be three stories, the maximum height for the surrounding properties is the same 33 feet, which would allow similar redevelopment often without the need for a public hearing. This project requires a public hearing as it is more than four residential units and includes a subdivision map for condominium purposes. I forwarded your concern regarding the intersection to our City Traffic Engineer. We understand the intersection is being studied by the City of Costa Mesa in conjunction with County of Orange as the signal is under County jurisdiction. 12-166 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Staff makes a recommendation to the Planning Commission with the Comm tR(Ana(A\XbnuPpQAagkU 016-069) holding a public hearing. This project will be reviewed during the public hearing on the evening of November 17th. It is a discretionary application, which is never guaranteed and is not a done deal. If you would like to submit written correspondence for the record outlining your concerns with the proposed project, please do so. It would be distributed to the Commissioners and would also be included as part of the public record regarding the project. You may also attend the hearing to speak before the Planning Commission. As a note written comments are equally considered by the Planning Commission if you are unable to make it. If you would like to discuss further, I am available today through Thursday. Best, BENJAMIN M. ZDEBA (949) 644-3253 1 bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov From: Rob Dodman Finailto:rdodman@ratkovichproperties.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2016 1:17 PM To: Zdeba, Benjamin Cc: Wisneski, Brenda Subject: Re: PA2016-069 Thanks Benjamin. Final question, is there any consideration Staff and/or the Planning Commission will give regarding the proposed 3 -story nature of the project relative to the its surrounding neighborhood being built out at a 2 -story maximum? Also, is there any consideration given to the existing condition at the intersection being problematic and there being an open case at the City of Costa Mesa looking into what mitigation measures are needed to reduce congestion and quell vehicle speeds? In short, is this a done deal or are the concerns I've raised able to be considered? Thanks again. Rob Dodman Principal RATKOVICH P R, Q P E R T I E 5 The ART of urban living 12-167 2465 Campus Drive Third Floor Irvine, CA 92612 714.425.3203 rdodman@ratkovichproperties.corn www.ratkovichproperties.com From: "Zdeba, Benjamin" <bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov> Date: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 11:30 AM To: Rob Dodman<rdodman@ratkovichproperties.com> Cc: "Wisneski, Brenda" <BWisneski@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: RE: PA201.6-069 Hi Rob, Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) No problem as I am happy to help. For ease of reference I have excerpted the development standards for the RMD District at the end of this email (the middle column). The maximum height for the RMD District is 28 feet to a flat roof and 33 feet to the ridge of a sloped roof (minimum pitch of 3:12). The proposed project will not exceed the allowable height limitation. The maximum density for the RMD District is established by requiring a minimum site area of 1,000 square feet per dwelling unit. As this property is 11,489 square feet in area, the maximum allowable density is 11 dwelling units. The proposed project is for 7 dwelling units. Development impact fees will be charged on the increase of units from 3 to 7. The applicant will be required to pay in - lieu park dedication fees as well as fair share traffic fees, should the project be approved. School fees and any other applicable fees will be charged on the building permit issuance. The project meets the Zoning Code requirements for parking of 2 per unit covered (14 spaces) and 0.5 per unit for guest spaces (4 spaces). Garages are required to remain accessible at all times such that they are used for parking. If garages are not being kept clear, then this is an enforcement issue. Elevations are depicted on the second page of the first PDF attachment I sent you. If you have any further questions, please contact me. Best, BENJAMIN M. ZDEBA (949) 644-3253 1 bzdeba@newportbeaehca.gov 12-168 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) TABLE 2-3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TWO -UNIT AND MULTI -UNIT RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (Continued) Development Feature RM RMD RM -6,000 Additional Requirements Lot Dimensions Minimum dimensions required for each newly created lot. Lot Area (1) (2) (3) Corner lot 6,000 sq. ft. 6,000 6,000 sq. ft. sq. ft. Interior lot 5,000 sq. ft. 5,000 6,000 sq. ft. sq. ft. Lot Width Corner lot 60 ft. 60 ft. 60 ft. Interior lot 50 ft. 50 ft. 60 ft. Lot Depth N/A NIA 80 ft. Minimum required site area per dwelling unit based on net area of the lot unless the maximum Site Area per number of units is shown on the Zoning Map. Dwelling Unit 1,200 sq. ft. (7) 1,000 1,500 sq. ft. sq. ft. Maximum percentage of the total lot area that may be covered by structures. Site Coverage NIA NIA 600/6 Floor Area Limit 1.75(4) NIA N/A (gross floor area) Setbacks The distances below are minimum setbacks required for primary structures. See Section 20.30.110 (Setback Regulations and Exceptions) for setback measurement, allowed projections into setbacks, and exceptions. The following setbacks shall apply, unless different requirements are identified on the setback maps in which case the setback maps shall control.. (See Part 8 of this title.) Side and rear setback areas shown on the setback maps shall be considered front setback areas for the purpose of regulating accessory structures. Also refer to 12-169 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) TABLE 2-3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TWO -UNIT AND MULTI -UNIT RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (Continued) Development Feature RM RMD RM -6,000 Additional Requirements Section (Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria). Front: 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. Side (interior, each): Lots 40 ft. wide 3 ft. NIA 6 ft. or less Lots 40'1" wide 4 ft. 5 ft. 6 ft. to 49'11" wide Lots 50 ft. wide 8% of the average NIA 6 ft. and greater lot width (5) Side (street side): Lots 40 ft. wide 3 ft. NIA or less 5 ft. Lots 40'1" wide 4 ft. NIA to 49'11" wide Lots 50 ft. wide 8% of the average 6 ft. and greater lot width (5) Rear: 10 ft. 25 ft. 6 ft. Lots abutting a 10 ft. alley or less that are Abutting Alley directly across the alley from the side yard of a lot abutting the alley shall provide a setback for 10 ft. wide or NIA NIA NIA the first floor of at least 10 ft. from the alley. less 15 ft. wide or 5 ft. N/A less 15'1" to 19'11" 3'9" N/A 20 ft. wide or 0 N/A 12-170 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) TABLE 2-3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TWO -UNIT AND MULTI -UNIT RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (Continued) Development Feature RM RMD RM -6,000 Additional Requirements more Waterfront Bluff edge setback Bulkhead setback Height (6) Flat roof Sloped roof; minimum 3/12 pitch Open Space 10 ft. I I NIA As provided in Section 20.28.040 (Bluff (B) Overlay District). Structures shall be set back a minimum of 10 ft. from the bulkhead in each zoning district. Maximum height of structures without discretionary approval. See Section 20.30.060(C) (Increase in Height Limit) for possible increase in height limit. 28 ft. 28 ft. 28 ft. See Section 20.30.060(C) (Increase in Height 33 ft. 33 ft. 33 ft. Limit) Minimum required open space Common: 75 Common: 75 square feet/unit square feet/unit Minimum Minimum dimension shall be dimension shall be 15 feet. Private: 15 feet. Private: 5% of the gross N/A 5% of the gross floor area for each floor area for each unit. unit. Minimum Minimum dimension shall be dimension shall be 6 feet. 6 feet. See Section 20.48.180(Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria) for R-2 open space standards. The minimum dimension is for length and width. Bluffs See Section 20.28.O4 (Bluff (B) Overlay District). Fencing See Section 20.30.040 (Fences, Hedges, Walls, and Retaining Walls). rA 12-171 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) TABLE 2-3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TWO -UNIT AND MULTI -UNIT RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (Continued) Development Feature RM RMD RM -6,000 Additional Requirements Landscaping See Chapter.',: _':_ (Landscaping Standards). Lighting See Section _ > (Outdoor Lighting). Parking See Chapter (Off -Street Parking). Satellite Antennas See Section (Satellite Antennas and Amateur Radio Facilities). Signs I See Chapter _ ;-_'_ _ (Sign Standards). Notes: (1) All development and the subdivision of land shall comply with the requirements of Title-.,, (Subdivisions). (2) Lots may be subdivided so that the resulting lot area and dimensions for each new lot are less than that identified in this table in compliance with the provisions of Title (Subdivisions). The minimum lot size shall not be less than the original underlying lots on the same block face and in the same zoning district. Lot width and length may vary according to the width and depth of the original underlying lots. New subdivisions that would result in additional dwelling units beyond what the original underlying lots would allow are not permitted unless authorized by an amendment of the General Plan (GPA). (3) On a site of less than five thousand (5,000) square feet that existed prior to March 10, 1976, a two-family dwelling may be constructed; provided, that there shall be not less than one thousand (1,000) square feet of land area for each dwelling unit. (4) The total gross floor area contained in all buildings and structures on a development site shall not exceed 1.75 times the buildable area of the site or 1.5 times the buildable area of the site in Corona del Mar; provided, that up to two hundred (200) square feet of floor area per required parking space devoted to enclosed parking shall not be included in calculations of total gross floor area. (5) Interior and street side setback areas are not required to be wider than fifteen (15) feet; however, the side setback area on the street side of a corner lot, where the abutting lot has a reversed frontage, shall not be less than the front setback area required on the abutting reversed frontage. (6) On the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard, the maximum height shall not exceed the elevation of the top of the curb abutting the lot. 8 12-172 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received (7) Portions of legal lots that have a slope greater than two -to -one (2:1) or that are subamerge"d laads oetndelanos s a� e ekPGe 16-069) from the land area of the lot for the purpose of determining the allowable number of units. (8) The floor area of a subterranean basement is not included in the calculation of total gross floor area. (9) The maximum gross floor area for a residential structure is determined by multiplying either 1.5 or 2.0 times the buildable area of the lot. (Ord. 2010-21 § 1 (Exh. A)(part), 2010) From: Rob Dodman Finailto:rdodman@ratkovichproperties.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2016 9:08 AM To: Zdeba, Benjamin Cc: Wisneski, Brenda Subject: Re: PA2016-069 Thanks Benjamin. A couple of comments/questions. What is the maximum height for the RMD district? The reason I ask is because there currently are no three-story structures along Santa Ana Avenue and we as a neighborhood group are working hard to preserve the neighborhood's integrity and working to contain height and density. The intersection of Santa Ana/Mesa is currently being evaluated by the City of Costa Mesa due to traffic issues and public safety. This increased density would only add to that concern from my perspective. I am also not sure what consideration is being made that this location functions as the entrance to the Eastside Costa Mesa community. What is the maximum density for the RMD district? Also, what fees is the applicant paying with respect to contributions towards parks/schools/public improvements/etc.? Finally, with respect to parking, since these units have no driveways we know that they will be burdening the existing off- street parking. This is evidenced by neighboring projects as people fill their garages and usually max out with one car in the garage. The residual ends up on the street and in this case there is parking available only on one side of the street and it is already maxed out. Was this taken into consideration? Oh, one other thing, do you have any other elevations? It was hard to evaluate the building design from what was sent over which had no front elevations of the units. Thank you! Rob Dodman Principal 12-173 -e�1■_ RATVIH P R iC F F rJ T I F '_r The ART of urban living 2465 Campus Drive Third Floor Irvine, CA 92612 714.425.3203 rdodman@raticovicfiproperties.com www.ratkovichoroDerties.com From: "Zdeba, Benjamin" <bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov> Date: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 9:15 AM To: Rob Dodman <rdodman@ ratkovichproperties.com> Subject: RE: PA2016-069 Good morning, Mr. Dodman, Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) Thanks for writing. Please see attached plans, which were submitted with the application for the project. I also included a conceptual planting plan that shows a rendering of the front elevation with new plantings. The proposed project complies with all development standards for the Multi -Unit Residential Detached (RMD) Zoning District; therefore, there are no variances or deviations requested. A major site development review is required as the project involves five or more units in conjunction with a tentative tract map that will allow the units to be sold separately as residential condominiums. The Planning Commission staff report will be made available online about one week prior to the hearing date. As a note, I will be out of the office beginning this Friday. During my absence, Deputy Director Brenda Wisneski will be overseeing the application. Her contact information follows in case you have additional questions once I leave. Brenda Wisneski, AICP Deputy Community Development Director 949-644-3297 bwisneski@newportbeachca.gov 10 12-174 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Thanks again, and please contact me if you have any further questions. Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) Best, BENJAMIN M. ZDEBA (949) 644-3253 1 bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov From: Rob Dodman[ma iIto: rdodman (a)ratkovichproperties.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2016 7:59 AM To: Zdeba, Benjamin Subject: PA2016-069 Good morning Benjamin. I am in receipt of the notice of public hearing for the above project as I live a couple houses down. Would you please send me the submittal package for review and also advise me of any conditional approvals (variances) that the applicant is seeking? Thanks. Rob Dodman Principal UMM•1 00= RATKOVI H r R 0 P F R T I F The ART of urban living 2465 Campus Drive Third Floor Irvine, CA 92612 714.425.3203 rdodinan(a—�ratkovichprol2erties.com www.ratkovichpropeities.com ii 12-175 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) From: Berkley Egenes <berkleyegenes@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 9:49 AM To: Wisneski, Brenda Cc: Brine, Tony; Biddle, Jennifer Subject: Re: PA2016-069 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Brenda, Thank you very much for your prompt reply. We really appreciate it. Please let us know if you or the planning commission need any additional information from us. Have a great day, Berkley On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Wisneski, Brenda eBWisneski(&newportbeachca, og_v> wrote: Thank you, Mr. Egenes. Your correspondence will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for their consideration. From: Berkley Egenes[mailto:berkleye4enes@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 9:42 AM To: Wisneski, Brenda Cc: Biddle, Jennifer Subject: PA2016-069 Hello Brenda, We were given your name from the Dobson's (our next door neighbor) as an avenue to share our concerns about the petitioned build that is being proposed on Thursday to the NB City Council. We live in the immediate intersection of Santa Ana and Mesa Drive. Our concern and objection to this build is two fold - (1) a significant increase in traffic to the intersection and (2) change to the immediate neighborhood of single/two story structures in the the area. Traffic There have been 8 reported accidents since January 2015 at the intersection due to lack of speed control through the intersection. We have met with Mayor Mensinger, Mr. Sethuraman (head of traffic) and Mr. Trevino (head of planning) for the City of Costa Mesa. They are also investigating and proposing changes to the intersection. The point in the intersection where this property is located is at the immediate entry and exit of the intersection where the speed escalates to 45mph. The concern here is that with potentially 3x the number of vehicles coming into the intersection from that single property will greatly increase the traffic hazard. We 12-176 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received have a genuine concern for the owners/tenants that would enter and leave ine proper Velrom tT�a poen di Che 016-069) intersection. An accident is just waiting to happen. We cannot have any more accidents into the intersection and anything that potentially increases the risk we are completely against. We have to keep our families and neighbors safe. Structure. The immediate neighborhood within a block radius of the intersection is all one-two story single family homes or rental units. To what appears could be 3 story structures is going to greatly change the integrity of the neighborhood and invite different properties to build and dramatically change the ecosystem of the neighborhood. We came to this neighborhood just a year ago because of the single family home community. We want to keep it that way and strongly urge the committee and applicant to review the neighborhood with a personal lens versus an economic one. If the units were to be two story from the ground up, then it would be a different conversation. Thanks for your help and support. Happy to discuss over the phone if that will help. Have a great day. Thank you, Berkley & Tiffany Egenes 12-177 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) Subject: FW: 4PIex - 20462 Santa Ana, Newport Beach From: Wisneski, Brenda Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 7:46 AM To: 'Carol Travis/Jeff Schuster' Cc: Biddle, Jennifer Subject: RE: 4PIex - 20462 Santa Ana, Newport Beach Thank you for your comments. Your correspondence will be distributed to the Planning Commission for their consideration. From: Carol Travis/Jeff Schuster[maiIto: avxjsctClroad run ner.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 11:06 PM To: Wisneski, Brenda Subject: Vex - 20462 Santa Ana, Newport Beach Importance: High Dear Brenda, We have been homeowners on the county land at the south corner of Santa Ana Avenue and Mesa Drive since 1986. We are writing to voice our concerns with the proposed multi-level, maximum density development at 20462 Santa Ana, Newport Beach. During morning and evening rush hours the intersection of Santa Ana Avenue and Mesa Drive has become a choked thoroughfare between the freeway access near the C.C. Fairgrounds and the dense business community radiating from the airport. Increased density due to additional multi-level dwellings will dramatically lower the safe and generally tranquil character of the neighborhood including not only Newport Beach, but the adjacent Costa Mesa and county property at the Santa Ana Av./Mesa Dr, intersection mentioned. Also, the traffic signal at Mesa Drive and Santa Ana Avenue has increased accidents due to drivers speeding to make it through the intersection. Sincerely, Jeff and Carol Schuster 301 Mesa Dr. Costa Mesa, CA 92627 949-631-3260 12-178 Planning Commission - November 17, 2016 Item No. 2e Additional Materials Received Wisneski, Brenda Santa Ana Avenue Cottages (PA2016-069) From: Dunn Voyer <dunnvoyer@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 4:30 PM To: Wisneski, Brenda Subject: Santa Ana Ave Cottages Hello Brenda, This is a letter to express concern for the safety and compliance of the Santa Ana Ave Cottages proposal. I am the home owner next door to this Santa Ana Ave Cottages proposal. I vote no on this project for the following reasons: 1. Does not fit the neighborhood. The Santa Ana Ave Cottages proposal does not fit the area. A three story, 7 unit rental apartment complex into an area of one and two story homes? Yes the area is RMD but all three habited corners of the intersection are single story home thereby not to occlude the vision of this highly volatile accident prone intersection. Also all surrounding dwellings are also SFR's. In fact the two flanking properties are single story SFR's. 2. No precedent for three story dwelling in this area. Does the city want to approve and accept the liability of two 33 foot high three story dwellings, one that is 100 feet long and one 75 feet long just 5 feet from the next door neighbors which are both single story single family residences? 3. Traffic and public safety -Three story and too many units will occlude an already dangerous intersection. Does the city want to approve and accept the liability and occlude the vision and more than double the traffic coming and going from a property that is less than 100 feet from an Traffic light intersection with an average of one accident every three months and where the posted speed limit 45 mph? 4. Drainage - A Sloped land with drainage out the front of the property is impossible. There lot drains on to my lot. Seven units draining on to my lot. Does the city want to approve and accept the liability of a property with improper drainage and sloping of the lot? 5. Aesthetic Does the city want to approve and accept the liability of a dwelling that looks more a kin to a prison cel block than a "cottage"? I vote no on this project for the above reasons. Sincerely, Dunn Voyer 12-179 Attachment H Project Renderings 12-180 x � . " �`. _ - � - � �� � �.. _ ��_ . _ _,z-,�, 0 ,F Ap f _ §41 ° y 3 i r a T. yd 1 � a� kms' •• a i r IL • a,.. _ ,�,,* J Z +.. r- Y T "atm •--d'M N L' - : i .•a .+, 'a F. • _' ._, x �J°vh 'ice. .i�+�'I�yJ.�Ya*J _ rr }IF �� FJv .ri.� '` a if! ii Id < `x: 'f@a•I ' r`r 11 1 04 JL IM Fil E Y , r' • ° -,' • d • . - ;^ ` a bF �k + ids!• � . _AJir**—,W. � d - ." ral, i- _ P ;r•rr• ate .s r *ems °�'•�`-. �+. ,t+:l. J r�L y'.l r+'4°.1 r • ' r 9 F k ' Ap f _ §41 ° y 3 i r a T. yd 1 � a� kms' •• a i r IL • a,.. _ ,�,,* J Z +.. r- Y T "atm •--d'M N L' - : i .•a .+, 'a F. • _' ._, x �J°vh 'ice. .i�+�'I�yJ.�Ya*J _ rr }IF �� FJv .ri.� '` a if! ii Id < `x: 'f@a•I ' r`r 11 1 04 JL IM Fil E Y , r' • ° -,' • d • . - ;^ ` a bF �k + ids!• � . _AJir**—,W. � d - ." ral, i- _ P ;r•rr• ate .s r *ems °�'•�`-. �+. ,t+:l. J r�L y'.l r+'4°.1 r • ' r 9 F 12-182 � 4�°t ° s�*�'. �� "+moi iz � L M'r� 1 + "' . �p - • �°� y rIW �x: 3r'.• + a•'_ k ' I 1�� � � Jti _ .• v fti I - S + ti . - {b r r lie jr srl: 4.:•'' .. f 12-182 � 4�°t ° s�*�'. �� "+moi iz � L M'r� 1 + "' . �p - • �°� y rIW �x: 3r'.• + a•'_ " * F SITE PLANS ZONING: GENERAL PLAN: RM ZONING: RMD BUILDING HEIGHT: 33TO ROOF(>_sn2) SETBACK: 20' FRONT 3rd FLOOR 5SIDE TOTAL 25' REAR PARKING: 2 SPACES COVERED / HOME GROSS TOTAL + 0.5 SPACES / HOME GUESTS TABULATION: SITE AREA ±11,489 sq ft UNIT 1 1 HOME UNITS 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, $ 7 6 HOMES TOTAL 7 HOMES PARKING 4 SPACES REQ'D (451RACES PROPOSED) UNIT SIZE: UNIT 1 1st FLOOR ±198 sq ft 2nd FLOOR ±680 sq ft 3rd FLOOR ±629 sq ft TOTAL ±1,507 sq ft GARAGE ±446 sq ft GROSS TOTAL ±1,953 sq ft UNITS 2,3,4,5,6,$7 2nd FLOOR 3rd FLOOR TOTAL GARAGE GROSS TOTAL OPEN SPACE: COMMON OPEN SPACE' ±435 sq ft ±514 sq ft ±949 sq ft ±453 sq ft ±1,402 sq ft 525 sq ft REQUIRED (7s sq ft per UNIT) ±1,240 sq ft PROPOSED PRIVATE OPEN SPACE' UNIT 1 ±98 sq ft REQUIRED (5%OFORO55 UNIT AREA) ±230 sq ft PROPOSED UNITS 2,3,4,5,G,$ 7 ±70 sq ft REQUIRED (E%OF CROSS UNIT AREA) ±116 sq ft PROPOSED AN OUTDOOR OR UNENCLOSED AREA DIRECTLY ADJOINING AND ACCESSIBLE TO A DWELLING UNIT, RESERVED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE PRIVATE ENJOYMENT AND USE OF RESIDENTS OF THE DWELLING UNIT AND THEIR GUESTS (E.G., BALCONY, DECK, PORCH, TERRACE, ETC.). BOUNDARIES ARE EVIDENT THROUGH THE USE OF FENCES, GATES, HEDGES, WALLS, OR OTHER SIMILAR METHODS OF CONTROLLING ACCESS AND MAINTAINING PRIVACY VICINITY MAP KPIE KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. architecture & planning 1401 DOVE STREET, SUITE 240 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660-2431 949.752.1177 www.knifter.com COPYRIGHT©2015 KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK, BE REPRODUCED OR DISCLOSED TO OTHERS EXCEPT BY WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL,INC. NO. DATE REVISION A D A 0 .L ZL D PROJECTINFO PROJECT NUMBER: 15076 PROJECT MANAGER: MJK DRAWN BY: BAS SHEET ISSUE DATE: 1/25/17 SHEET TITLE SITE STUDY SHEEP NUMBER 01 12-183 ,1 � • ' �. s �"'fit ` � �' 5 x INA SI � II w AIM r � MM I"III. ■ lillIII I l7n E_M-Immm--1 WIMMIMMIMmil polo mm ICE= MAN pEmm 00 IM MISS IIII i :IIIIII 1 ■ MM I"III. ■ lillIII I l7n E_M-Immm--1 WIMMIMMIMmil polo mm ICE= MAN pEmm 00 IM MISS WEST BUILDING ROOF 0 4' a' 16' F WEST BUILDING THIRD FLOOR 0 4- B. 10' WEST BUILDING SECOND FLOOR 0 4' 8' 16' PRIVACY FENCE 42" HIGH MAX. WEST BUILDING 0FIRST FLOOR 0 4' 8' 16' KPIE KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. architecture & planning 1401 DOVE STREET, SUITE 240 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660-2431 949.752.1177 www.knifter.com COPYRIGHT©2015 KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK, BE REPRODUCED OR DISCLOSED TO OTHERS EXCEPT BY WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL,INC. NO. DATE REVISION A 0 0 A A A 0 W O � Us. y O �U Z CIS 0 a CIS t �r k o �Nz F PROJECTINFO PROJECT NUMBER: 15076 PROJECT MANAGER: MJK DRAWN BY: BAS SHEET ISSUE DATE: 1/25/17 SHEET TITLE WEST BUILDING PLAN SHEEP NUMBER 03 12-185 L - - - - - -J WEST BUILDING 0FIRST FLOOR 0 4' 8' 16' KPIE KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. architecture & planning 1401 DOVE STREET, SUITE 240 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660-2431 949.752.1177 www.knifter.com COPYRIGHT©2015 KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK, BE REPRODUCED OR DISCLOSED TO OTHERS EXCEPT BY WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL,INC. NO. DATE REVISION A 0 0 A A A 0 W O � Us. y O �U Z CIS 0 a CIS t �r k o �Nz F PROJECTINFO PROJECT NUMBER: 15076 PROJECT MANAGER: MJK DRAWN BY: BAS SHEET ISSUE DATE: 1/25/17 SHEET TITLE WEST BUILDING PLAN SHEEP NUMBER 03 12-185 I I � I I 4+/2 :12 —5LOPE- UNIT 4 4h :12 -SLOPE— > 7 h i 4 II II i 31/4:12 — SLOPE [�'TT � SLOPE — " 3P4 SLOPE SLOPE I - I I I UNIT 4%: 12 SLOPE 6 - - 4K :12 SLOPE II II II i II II I II I I I J i 44x:12 —SLOPE- UNIT 4%:12 -SLOPE— 5 I II II II II 31/4:12 SLOPE % SLOPE SLOPE I I { I 1 UIT4-- 4'Fz :12 F 50PE 6 II II II li i 4Ys :12 SLOPE > =- EAST BUILDING ROOF 0 4' 8' 16' F EAST BUILDING THIRD FLOOR 0 4' B. 16' EAST BUILDING SECOND FLOOR 0 4' 8' 16' I COMMON 1 0.5. 26.0"x 20'-0' I 560 sq R Lu, I NIT I ,UNIT > I UNIT ;U L I EAST BUILDING FIRST FLOOR 0 4' B. 16' PRf 0. 1195 I PRI 0.5.1 6-0' x 23 5 119 s9 PRI 0.5. 5'-0" x 2 2' 117 sq 1 I KPIE KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. architecture & planning 1401 DOVE STREET, SUITE 240 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660-2431 949.752.1177 www.knifter.com COPYRIGHT©2015 KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK, BE REPRODUCED OR DISCLOSED TO OTHERS EXCEPT BY WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL,INC. NO. DATE REVISION a A 0 CC W PROJECTINFO PROJECT NUMBER: 150716 PROJECT MANAGER: MJK DRAWN BY: BAS SHEET ISSUE DATE: 1/25/17 SHEET TITLE EAST BUILDING PLAN SHEEP NUMBER 04 12-186 UNIT PLAN 1- THIRD FLOOR F I [IF -EAT RM 21' S" x 17.8" 9' CLC. No uu I / THIRD FLOOR 629 sq ft LAK o KIT s y.-0. 3.. x 9' e 13 x 9'-6' t UNIT PLAN 1 - SECOND FLOOR 5.E SECOND FLOOR 680 sq ft UNIT PLAN 1 - FIRST FLOOR 0 r 4� 81 FOR ARCHITECTS USE ONLY. SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION FIRST FLOOR 198 sq ft TOTAL s 1,507 sq ft GARAGE 446sgft TOTAL GROSS x 1,953 sq ft KPIE KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. architecture & planning 1401 DOVE STREET, SUITE 240 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660-2431 949.752.1177 www.knifter.com COPYRIGHT©2015 KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK, BE REPRODUCED OR DISCLOSED TO OTHERS EXCEPT BY WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL,INC. NO. DATE REVISION A 0 A 0 A A 0 W U F O 0 WCIS �U Z CIS 0 a CIS t �r k o �Nz F PROJECTINFO PROJECT NUMBER: 150716 PROJECT MANAGER: MJK DRAWN BY: BAS SHEET ISSUE DATE: 1/25/17 SHEET TITLE UNIT PLAN 1 SHEET NUMBER 05 3 1 1 12-187 UNIT PLAN 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, $ 7 - THIRD FLOOR F THIRD FLOOR 514 sq ft UNIT PLAN 2,3,4,5,G,$ 7 - SECOND FLOOR SECOND FLOOR 435 sq ft UNIT PLAN 2,3,4,5,G,$ 7 - FIRST FLOOR 0 r 4� 81 FOR ARCHITECTS USE ONLY. SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION FIRST FLOOR 0 sq ft TOTAL t 949 sq ft GARAGE 453 sq ft TOTAL GROSS :1,402 sq ft KPIE KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. architecture & planning 1401 DOVE STREET, SUITE 240 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660-2431 949.752.1177 www.knifter.com COPYRIGHT©2015 KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK, BE REPRODUCED OR DISCLOSED TO OTHERS EXCEPT BY WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM KNITTER PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL,INC. NO. DATE REVISION A 0 A 0 A A 0 0 W U F O U W � � �U Z CIS 0 a CIS t �r k o �Nz F V1 PROJECTINFO PROJECT NUMBER: 15076 PROJECT MANAGER: MJK DRAWN BY: BAS SHEET ISSUE DATE: 1/25/17 SHEET TITLE UNIT PLAN 2,3,4,5,6,&7 SHEEP NUMBER 06 12-188 Planning Division Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 1949-644-3200 Site Development review Project Description & Justification Address: 20452 Santa Ana Avenue. Newport Beach, CA. 92660 Assessor's Parcel Number 439-241-03 Tentative Track No. 18039 Tentative Track Map No. NT2016-003 Lot size: 0.264 acres / 11,489 sq ft Zoning designation RMD Public Records for 20452 Santa Ana Ave Official property, sales, and tax information from county (public) records as of 08/2015: o Existing Triplex: 3,386 sq ft (3 units, any combination) o Built In 1975 o County: Orange o Parking: Attached Garage o Tax Rate Code Area: 7-214 In -fill multi -family redevelopment projects are commonplace in this area. Our proposal is the demolition of all three existing structures, and the new redevelopment of two (2), three-story free-standing buildings encompassing seven (7) single-family attached units. Our proposed 2 -structure multi -family condominium buildings will be divided by a common driveway, positioned through the center of the lot. All zoning and building requirements have 12-189 been fully implemented and is presented as such under this instrument for planning approval consideration. Building No. 1 will encompass (3) SF condominium units as indicated by 1 through 3. Building No. 2 will encompass (4) SF condominium units as indicated by 4 through 7. Unit one, the largest plan, will include 1507 SF of conditioned area. The remaining units, plan 2 through 7, will include 949 SF each. All seven units will rest above a standard, on -grade two -car garage w/ approx. 446-453 SF of non -conditioned area. Four (4) standard -sized & properly placed open parking spaces will satisfy the 4 -car directive. The required property open space of 525 SF will be more than satisfied by a proposed open space of 1,240 SF. The required private open space of 98 SF for unit 1 will be more than satisfied by a proposed private open space of 230 SF. The required private open space of 70 SF for the remaining units, plan 2 through 7, will be more than satisfied by a proposed private open space of 116 SF. No portion of any building structure will exceed the restricted height limit of 33"-0". Compliance to all building setbacks have been adhered to: 20' front, 25' rear, and 5' setbacks. A 28' wide concrete drive entering from Santa Ana Avenue will separate the two condominium buildings. The architectural design will enact a blend of various styles. The largely eclectic style will be a vocabulary composition of Spanish elements, including accent components of projected metal shade frames constructed with steel mesh screens within, supported by approved structural brackets/struts. The exterior finish will be selected stucco, with horizontal bands of trim at the vertical stucco accent pop -out bases. The roofs will be gable, with varied roof pitches and out -lookers. The roofing material will be a selected composite shingle. Garage doors will be metal roll -up with a similar pattern as shown in the exterior elevation design. Windows will be double glazed, and with single -hung action. A color and materials board will be provided with the Architectural Design submission. Please direct any questions concerning this decision to Jon Hedrick at Knitter Partners International, Inc., Architecture & Planning at (949) 752-1177. On behalf of KPI, 12-190 -OR COLOR TO MATCH - 12 -191 Attachment I Applicant's Response Letter 12-192 January 30, 2017 City Council 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92658 Dear City Council, Please see our responses below to the concerns voiced by Mr. Voyer. We have worked directly with your staff, Ben Zdeba and Brenda Wisneski, at the City of Newport Beach to design a product that complies with all Newport Beach building codes and have asked for no variances. The design process of the Santa Ana Ave. Cottages has been a collaborative effort between your staff and our team and received a unanimous approval from Planning Commission. 1. Comment: The Santa Ana Ave. Cottages proposal does not fit the area. There are no 3 -story dwellings in Newport or Costa Mesa. Response: The majority of the neighborhood is zoned medium to high density housing. (apartments, condos, etc.) Mr. Voyer is one of two SFR on the block. The other SFR is currently in the process of redeveloping and is in support of this project. There are other 3 -story products in both Costa Mesa and Newport Beach. Echo 56 by Taylor Morrison is a new 3 -story development in Newport Beach. There is also a 3 -story product, Newport Palisades, around the corner from 20452 Santa Ana Ave. on Estuary Land. 2. Comment: No precedent for three story dwelling in the area. Does the city want to approve? Response: None of our building heights exceed the City's height restrictions nor do we ask for any variances. We went to the city and asked them what we could build and designed around their specifications. Three story products have already been approved and built in Newport Beach. (Echo 56 and Newport Palisades) 3. Comment: Planning Commission ignored all the issues brought up by surrounding property owners Response: Two property owners including an immediate neighbor of 20452 are in favor of the Santa Ana Ave. Cottages. Our proposed site plan includes attached two car garages for each homeowner in addition to 4 additional guest parking spaces. (One of which is an ADA compliant space). Not only will we be adding more onsite parking and guest parking, but this will also free up street parking as some current tenants park on the street. 4. Comment: Property value will decline of all adjacent properties. 12-193 Response: Property values will increase the value not decline the value. 5. Comment: Newport Beach opening itself to legal exposure from Property owners adversely affect. Response: Asked and answered. 6. Comment: Mrs. Brandes gave false testimony to the Planning Commission regarding the next door neighbor supporting the project Response: Mrs. Brandes did not give false testimony. See attached letter given to neighbors and notice posted in front of the project. 7. Comment: Traffic and Public Safety Response: No public safety issue. Traffic engineer was present at the Planning Commission hearing and indicated he would continue to work with the City of Costa Mesa and County of Orange regarding the nearby intersection. 8. Comment: Fire Hazard and Poor Functional Design Response: The design has been approved by the fire department. 9. Comment: Parking Response: See #3 we are adding parking. 10. Comment: Drainage Response: Drainage is not an issue. The drainage has been designed by a licensed civil engineer and is designed in accordance to current codes. 11. Comment: Aesthetic Response: Please see updated rendering. We have taken all the suggestions from the planning commission and incorporated them into our new design. As requested, the whole building will be smooth stucco and board and batten siding. We have also added additional siding to the front elevation and also to the elevations facing both neighbors for aesthetic appeal. 12. Comment: Trash Response: CM city has approved that a trash truck is able to pull in and out. All receptacles can be placed on one side of the street for pick up in the community. Trash pick-up will not be an issue and the plan has been verbally approved by Wendy H. Davis, finance manager for the CM Sanitary District. 12-194 Our goal for the Santa Ana Ave. cottages is to improve upon what is already there. After working with the City and applying all of the Planning Commissions comments to the revised elevations, the Cottages will be a great addition to the neighborhood. As residents of Newport Beach, all of Mr. Voyer's points regarding safety and aesthetic are important to us too, that is why we worked directly with City staff to build something that complies with all regulations and safety codes. Thank you. Sincerely, Adrienne Brandes. 12-195 November 14, 2016 Dear neighbor, I am the owner of the property located at 20452 Santa Ana Ave. In an effort to improve the property, I am proposing we build new units. The hearing is this Thursday, November 17th at Newport Beach City Hall. Notices were placed around the neighborhood but I wanted to personally reach out to you and answer any questions you may have. The intention is to build 7 units, each with their own garages, extra parking and open space behind each unit. This will add value to all of the properties in the area. I have attached the announcement for your review. I have drawings and am happy to share them with you if you like. Please feel free to call or a mail me and I can come and meet you and answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, Adrienne Brandes 714-401-8277 ABrandes@Surterreproperties.com 12-196 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Thursday, November 17, 2016, at 6,30 p.m. or soon thereafter as the matter shall be heard, a public hearing will be conducted in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will consider the following application: Santa Ana Avenue Cottages - A major site, development review and tentative tract map for the construction of seven residential condominium units. As proposed, each unit will be three stories and will include a two -car garage. Four guest parking spaces, including one accessible parking space, will be constructed on-site. The project is categorically exempt under Section 15332, of the State CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines - Class 32 — In -fill Development Project. 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 raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City, at, or prior to, the public hearing. Administrative procedures for appeals are provided in the Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 20.64 (Appeals) and Section 19.12.060 (Subdivision Code). The application may be continued to a spe,;ific future meeting date; and if such an action occurs, additional public notice of the continuance will not be provided. Prior to the public hearing, the agenda, Staff report, and documents may be reviewed at the Community Development Department Permit Center (Bay C -1st Floor), at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, CA 92660 or at the City of Newport Beachwebsite at www.newportbeachca.govlplannjngcomrniion. Individuals not able to attend the meeting may contact the Planning Division or access the City's website after the meeting to review the action on this application. For questions regarding this public hearing item please contact Benjamin M. Zdeba, AlCP, Associate Planner, at (949) 544-3253, bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov. Project File No.: PA2016-069 Zone: RM -0 (Multi -Unit Residential Detached) Activity No.: SD2016-002 and NT2016-003 General Plan: RM (Multiple -Unit Residential) Location: 20452 Santa Ana Avenue Applicant: Adrienne Brandes Peter Zak, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach 12-197 Attachment J Draft Resolution for Denial 12-198 RESOLUTION NO. 2017- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, OVERTURNING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. SD2016-002 FOR A SEVEN - UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 20452 SANTA ANA AVENUE (PA2016-069) WHEREAS, an application was filed by Adrienne Brandes, with respect to property located at 20452 Santa Ana Avenue, and legally described as the Southwesterly 82 feet of Lot 6 of Tract No. 456, in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 17 Page(s) 9 of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, except the Southeasterly 150 feet thereof, requesting approval of a seven -unit residential condominium project. The following approvals are requested or required to implement the project as proposed: a. A tentative tract map pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Chapter 19.12 (Tentative Map Review) to allow the individual sale of each dwelling unit as a condominium; and b. A major site development review pursuant to Table 5-2 of NBMC Section 20.52.080(B) (Site Development Reviews) for construction of five or more dwelling units with a tentative tract map; WHEREAS, the subject property is designated Multiple -Unit Residential (RM) by the Land Use Element of the General Plan and located within the Multi -Unit Residential Detached (RM -D) Zoning District; WHEREAS, the subject property is not located within the coastal zone; WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on November 17, 2016, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to adopt Resolution No. 2036, approving the project; WHEREAS, on December 1, 2016, a neighbor living adjacent to the subject property appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council; WHEREAS, the neighbor's appeal of Major Site Development Review No. SD2016- 002 was timely because it was made within the fourteen -day appeal period provided in NBMC Section 20.64.030(B); however, the appeal of Tentative Tract Map No. NT2016-003 12-999 Resolution No. 2017 - Page 2 of 4 was not timely because it was past the ten-day appeal period provided in NBMC Sections 19.12.050 and 20.64.030(6)(1); WHEREAS, due to the timing of the appeal, Tentative Tract Map No. NT2016-003 is final and not subject to appeal, and the only item before the City Council is an appeal of Major Site Development Review No. SD2016-002; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Council on February 28, 2017, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach to consider the appeal. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as follows: Section 1: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby overturn the Planning Commission's approval of Major Site Development Review No. SD2016- 002. The City Council's decision is made in accordance with NBMC Sections 20.52.080(F) (Site Development Reviews — Findings and Decision), on the basis that it is unable to make the following findings: Finding: A. In compliance with all of the applicable criteria identified in NBMC Subsection [20.52.080](C) (2) (c): a. Compliance with this Section, the General Plan, the Zoning Code, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or structure; b. The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent development; and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design; C. The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas; d. The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces; e. The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plant and irrigation materials; and f. The protection of significant views from public right(s)-of-way and compliance with NBMC Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protections). 12-200 Resolution No. 2017 - Page 3 of 4 Fact Not in Support of Finding: The proposed project as designed is not compatible in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments. Finding: B. Not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development. Fact Not in Support of Finding: The proposed project as designed would be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood. Section 2: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated into the operative part of this resolution. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 4: Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. 12-201 Resolution No. 2017 - Page 4 of 4 Section 5: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adaption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting this resolution. ADOPTED this 2811 day of February, 2017. Kevin Muldoon Mayor ATTEST: Leilani I. grown City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATT Y'S OFFICE e1 Aaro rp 02.611 City Attorney QWn* 12-202