Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP_006�•INOWCOLTION FOR RESIDENT'IALOLI, ON/CONVERSIOlt Page 1 of 2 C TY Or N 3MRT BFAC[i 46 PLAMING DEPARTMENT CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 (714) 640-2218 or 640-2219 Applicant (Print)Wale Development Corporation Na. L Application Rec'd b Fee: 5 Mailing Address 17752 Mitchell Street, Irvine, Ca. 92714 Property Omer La Verne and Betty W. Hart Mailing Address 303 Cypress St., Balboa, Ca. 92661 Phone (714) 663-0322 Phone (714) 673-7950 Address of Property Involved 303 Cypress Street, Balboa, Ca. 92661 Legal Description of Property Involved (if too long, attach separate sheet) See attached Number of Residential Units Currently Onsite Ten 10 Maximum Number of Residential Units Onsite in the Previous Twelve Months Ten (10) Number of Residential Structures Onsite Ten (10) Description of the Proposed Development A Nine 9 Unit TownhouseProiect: one building with two parking spaces Rer unit Number of Residential Units Proposed Nine (9) If proposal is for non-residential use, why is a residential use no longer feasible on this site? (Attach additional sheets if necessary) N/A - List of any legal actions involving property owner and/or developer and tenants Within previous twelve months (Attach additional sheets if necessary) Court !tame None Court Address Case Number Case Name Tenant(s) involved Description of case List of Current tenants (Attach additional sheets if necessary) Tenant Kane None Residence Address business Address Mailing Address Date Tenancy Phone Phone Began Tenant Name Date Tenancy Began Residence Address Phone Business Address Phone Mailing Address Tenant Name Date Tenancy Began Residence Address Phone Business Address Phone Mailing Address Page 2 of 2 Forwar tenants residing in the project in the previous twelve months (Attach additional sheets if necessary) Tenant Nano Dates of Tenancy Current Residence Phone Business Address Phone flailing Address Tenant Name Dates of Tenancy Current Residence Phone Business Address Phone Bailing Address Tenant Name Dates of Tenancy Current Residence Phone Business Address _ Phone Bailing Address, OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT (I) Edward H. Wale depose and say that (I am) (we are) the owner(s) of the props �i nvolved'i is application. (I) (we) further certify, under penalty of per , that the rejoin statements and answers herein contained and the information herevi submit �dXF1,61111Z i re respects true and correct to the best of (my) (our) knowledge and belie Signatures) Edw,-d/d HIWale, President Wale Development Corporation N=s An agent may sign for the owner if written authorization from the record owner is filed with the applicant. DO NOT COMPLETE APPLICATION BELOW THIS LINE Date filed Fee Pd. Planning Director Action Date Appeal P.C. Hearing Date C.C. Hearing Date P.C. Action Appeal C.C. Action Receipt No. 5G:nma 12/14/82 r PITY OF NEWPORT RACH Is� I ■ COUNaL MEMBERS 9p �o ;9 y� s� � s,• ROLL August 27. 1984 'A MINUTES iNnF x Mayor Hart submitted. for the record. notes of concern from the North Sluff Villas Community Association Board of Directors. which had been discussed with her and Council Herber !leather this morning. Motion x Following discussion. notion was made to All Ayes modify the reco=mendation of the Planning Commission. amending Condition No. 23 as set forth in the foregoing by the City Attorney; adding Condition No. 36. which requires that the chain link fence be installed to the satisfaction of the City; wheel stops be installed to protect said fence; and a gate be installed at the entrance. which will be locked during the eight tournaments. In addition. Newport !teach Tennis Club to work out agreement with North Bluff Villas Homeowners Association regarding the maintenance of landscaping in the buffer area. Said improvements and agreement to be completed within 60 days from the date of this meeting. 2. Mayor hart opened the public hearing and City Council review of: Tentative Y.ap of Tract No. 1220SS - T.wapTr 1220 Request of WALE DEVELOPY.EN"T CORPORATION. 'eix Irvine. to subdivide existing lots into a single lot for residential condominium purposes on property located in the R-4 District, and the approval of an Environmental Document; AND Use Permit No. 3101 - Request of WALE U/P 3101 DEVLmLOPl= CORPORATION. Irvine. to (88) permit the construction of a nine unit residential condominium development and related garages on property located in the R-4 District. at 303 Cypresb: Street on the Balboa Peninsula. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a 7'7" building encroachment into the required 11' 7" northerly side yard setback area; AND Residential Coastal Development Permit RCD Perm06 No. 6 - Request of WALE DEVELOPw..E-N"T CORPORATION, Irvine, to consider a residential coastal development permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance for a nine unit residential Volume 38 - Page 265 f &Y OF NEWPORT B ACH COUNCIL MEWERS � c+ f � 'S •o s August 27, 1984 ROLL MINUTES condominium development pursuant to the Administrative Guidelines for the implementation of the State Law relative to Low -and Moderate -Income Housing within the Coastal Zone. Report from the Planning Department, was presented. Ed Wale of the Wale Development Corporation, applicant, 17752 Mitchell Street, Irvine, addressed the Council and stated that he had read the staff report and had some concerns relative to wood -burning fireplaces, and the feasibility study regarding affordable housing. He also stated that many residents in the subject area feel his project is too dense, but they do not realize that he could, pursuant to the Zoning Code, build more units than what he is requesting. With respect to the proposed fireplaces. Mr. Vale stated that it is not his Intent to eliminate wood -burning fireplaces from his project even though it has been suggested by the Planning Commission. as noted on page 7 of the staff report. Pertaining to the affordable housing issue. Mr. hale stated that he is not being given any special aid for the one affordable unit he is providing in this project. and that he is providing it "under protest." He also feels that he. as well as other small builders in the City, are being discriminated against with respect to affordable housing. He urged approval of the project as requested. The Planning Director responded to Mr. Wale's ressarks regarding the proposed fireplaces and the feasibility report by the Newport Economic Group. He also answered questions of the Council regarding the Bello Bill and affordable housing. Bob Shricner. 407 East Edgewater. addressed the Council and stated he felt the proposed density was too great due to the safety problems which exist on the Peninsula. He stated he would rather see duplexes than what is being requested. He also expressed his concerns relative to curb openings on Cypress Street. Volume 38 - Page 266 v/P 3101/ TMpTr 12208/ RCD Perm!6 CIRY OF NEWPORT BACH COU NCL MEMOM tea, t' �► s 'SE• � v',, August 27. 1984 MINUTES INDEX .wr Mr. Wale addressed the Council again. U/P 31011 and discussed his concerns with regard T'tpTr 122081 to the feasibility analysis done by The RM Perm#6 Newport Beach Economics Croup. He also suggested that the City research its method in determining the affordability of a project. Andy Peralez, 310 Fernando Street. .Newport Bay Towers. addressed the Council and stated that the proposed project is too close to their development, and if wood -burning fireplaces are allowed. the smoke would interfere with the enjoyment of their property. He stated that their association had met with Mr. Wale. Who agreed to install glass screens and gas log fireplaces. Mr. Wale also agreed to allow their group to control the landscaping on the northern boundary of the project. The Newport Say Towers are located immediately north of the project. Hearing no others wishing to address the Council. the public hearing was closed. Motion x Following consideration, motion was wade ec sustain tile-recosaaendation of the Planning Co=ission, and approve the public curb cuts at Cypress Street, with the added condition that the garage doors be the type that open straight up. rather than into the alley way. Council Herber Plummer stated that she was not going to oppose. or support this project because of the Hello Bill requirements regarding affordable housing. and therefore. will abstain from voting. Mayor Pro Tem Maurer invited Mr. Wale to contact hiss regarding Mr. Wale's concerns pertaining to the North Ford Project. In response to inquiry of Mr. Andy Peralez of the Newport Bay Towers. it was noted that the motion did not include the requirement that applicant provide only non -wood burning fireplaces. Ayes x x x x The motion was voted on and carried. Abstain x x E. PUBLIC COti*1S_N`TS: Bone. Volume 38 - Pahc :67 City Council Meetill Aue ust 27, 1984 Wel FPnMs SUBJECTS Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Planning Department Tentative Map of Tract No. 12208 D-2 Request to subdivide six existing lots into a single lot for residential condominium purposes on property located in the R-4 District, and the approval of an environmental document. AND Use Permit No. 3101 RequeHt to pemit the construction of a nine, unit re elde .tial condnminium development and related garaged oi, property located in tho R-4 District. The proposal also include:; a modification to tho: Zoning Code so au to allow a 7' 7" buildin(p encroachment into; the required 11' 7" northerly side yard setback area. Qo' Residential Coastal Develo ment Permit No. 6 Request to consider a residential coastal development permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance for a nine unit residential condominium development pursuant to the Adminiatrative Guidelines for the implementation of the State Law relative to Low- and Moderate -Income Housing within the Coastal zone. LOCATIONi Lots 7-12, Block I of the Balboa Bayside Tract, located at 303 Cypresn Street, on the northwesterly corner of Cypress Street and East Bay Avenue, on the Balboa Peninsula. LONE: R-4 APPLICANT: Wale Development Corporation, Irvine OWNERS: LaVerne and Betty W. Hart, Balboa Suggested Action Hold hearing; close hearings if desired, sustain, modify or overrule the recommendation of the Planning CoamLissioni and approve the proposed curb cuts on Cypress Street. a TO: City Acil - 2. Background At its meeting of July 19, 1984, the Planning Cocraission voted unanimously to approve the Tentative Map of Tract No. 12208, use Permit No. 3101, and Resi- dential Coastal Development Permit No. 6. A :codification to the zoning Code also was approved so as to allow a 6' 7" building encroachment into thin required 11' 7" northerly side yard setback area. The approval also included the requirement of one cn-site "affordable unit" with the affordable nature of the unit guaranteed for a period of ten years. Said applications were approved with the Findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval as follows: TENTATIVE MAP OF TPACT NO. 12208 FINDINGS: 1. That the map meet$ the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Coda, all ordinances of the City, all applicable General or Specific Flans, and the Planning Commission is satiufied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the propcsed subdivision presents no problems frrm a planning standpoint. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the development proposed. 4. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. 5. That approval of curb openings on Cypress Street will not result in the loss of on -street parking spaces inasmuch as parking presently is not permitted on the westerly side of Cypress Street. 6. That the Planning Commission has determined that the inclusion of one unit affordable to a County moderate -income family within the project is feasible. CONDITIONS: 1. That a final map be recorded. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a final map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That each dwelling unit be served with an individual crater service and sever lateral connection to the public water and surer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. a � •TO City Co oil - 3. 5. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 6. That a fifteen foot radius corner cutoff at the corner of Cypress Street and East Bay Avenue be dedicated to the public. 7. That landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and the Public Works Department. G. That street, drainage and utility improvements be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 9. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared and approved by the Public works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site isaprovemrnts prior to recording of the Final map. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and ,sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 10. That prior to issuance of any grading or building permits For the site, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification from the City's Utilities Department. 11. That PCC gutter be constructed along the East Bay Avenue: frontage and that any deteriorated curb and sidewalk be reconstructed] that the curb and gutter along Cypress Street be reconstructed to provide drainage along with the construction of a storm drain system if requiredt that the deteriorated sidewalk along the Cypress Street frontage be reconstructed; that a 20' radius curb return be constructed along with a curb access ramp per City STD 181-L at the intersection of Cypress Street and East Bay Avenue] that the adjacent unimproved 15' wide alley be improved with concrete per City STD 140-LJ that the existing substandard alley approach on East Bay be reconstructed per City Standards] and that street lights (per City STD 200-L) be provided along the East Bay frontage and Cypress Street frontage as approved by the Public Works Department. 12. That approval of the City Council shall be obtained for the proposed curb openings on Cypress Street, or the project shall be redesigned so that ail vehicular access to the property is from the adjacent alley. 13. That prior to the recordation of the Final Tract Hap, the applicant shall pay the required fees pursuant to the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance. 14. That prior to the recordation of the Final Tract Hap, the applicant s:-all enter into an agreement with the City Guaranteeing the provision of one unit affordable to a County moderate -income family for a period of no less than ten years. ��5 i TOs city council - 4. • USE PERMIT NO. 3101 FINDINGS: I. That each of the proposed units has been designed an a condominiva with separate individual utility connections. 2. The project, as conditioned, will comply with all applicable standard plans and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at the time of approval, except for a side yard encroachment. 3. The project lot size conforms to the Zoning Code requirements in effect at the time of approval. 4. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and Adopted Local Coastal Program, Lard Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 5. That adequate on -situ parking spaces are available for the pro,.csed residential condominium development. 6. The entabliehment, maintenance or oicrarion of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of person& residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or, be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighbor- hood or the general welfare of the City. 7. The proposed side yard setback encroachment is comparable to existing setbacks of other proportion in the area and adequate open space will bt provided elsewhere on the site. Therefore, approval of the requested encroachment will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighbor- hood or the general welfare of the City, and further, that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. ©. That the proposed use will be less intensive than the existing use (as defined in Section 15.30 of the 1413nicipal Code), and therefore, a fair - share contribution is not warranted in this case. CONUITIONSi 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That the structure shall be redesigned so as to maintain the required three foot front yard setback along Cypress Street, and a minimum setback Of five feet adjacent to the northerly side property line. t TO: City Coil - 5. , 3. That no landscaping shall be permitted at grade in the five foot rear yard setback adjacent to the alley, Furthermore, that the portion of the building that is permitted to encroach 216" into the rear yard setback shall have a minimum ground clearance of eight feet. 4. That the proposed wall shown adjacent to East Ray Avenue shall be reduced in height to three feet. 5. That the proposed skylights shall be redesigned to conform to the require- ments set forth in the Zoning Coda. 6. That all applicable Conditions of Tentative Map of Tract No. 12208 be fulfilled. 7. That this use permit shall expire if not exercised within twenty-four months in accordance with Section 20.80.090 A of the Municipal Code. RF.SIDF.lrrIAL COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 6 FIND:NGS , 1 • That the proposed development is not exempt from the prc,viuions of Stato Law relative to low- and moderate -income housing units within the Coastal Zone. 2. That the Planning Commission has determined that it is feasible to provide one on -site rental or ownership unit that is affordable to a moderate - income household, as defined by the County of Orange. CONDITICRI = 1. That all Conditions of the Tentative Map of Tract No. 12208 and Use Permit No. 3101 shall be fulfilled. Staff had also recommended the approval of these applications, inasmuch as the Proposed development substantially conforms with all applicable development standards for the R-4 District, with the exception of the items discussed in the following sections. Ifortherly side Yard Encroachment In order for the proposed building to be considered a two-story structure per the Uniform Building Code, the applicant proposes to raise the minimum of 50% of the perimeter of the building ■o that half grade the g rage level will be a minimum of six feet below finished grade. This proposal is acceptable to the Building Department provided that the building maintains a minimum setback of five feet from the property line in areas where the grade is to be raised. According to the Building Department, it will be necessary for the plans to be slightly revised so as to provide the required five foot setback adjacent to the interior side property line. _ - • ^44s City Count 6. Section 20.17.045 of the Municipal Code requires that a side yard setback area equal to eight percent of the average lot width shall be provided for structures three stories or less in height in the R-4 District. In this case, the Code would require the building to be set back 11' 7"1 from the northerly side property line (Bs x 145.27' - 11' 7�t), The applicant has requested a modification to the Zoning Code ■o as to allow the building to Wmintain a four foot setback. As noted above, the Building Department will require a five foot side yard setback, which is acceptable to the applicant. Inasmuch as the intent of the side yard setback requirement is to provide open area on the site, the planning Coedesion had no objections to the proposed encroachment, since adequate open space will be provided in the landscaped courtyard adjacent to Cypress Street. Front Yard Setback (ress Street) The plans submitted indicate that portions of the two floors above the garage level are proposed to encroach 1' 6" into the required three foot netback area adjacent to Cypress Street. The Zoning Code does not permit encroachments of this nature into the required front yard setback area. Therefore, the Planning Commission required the project to be redesigned to conform to the setback requirement, inasmuch as a modification to the Zoning Code wan not requested. Front Yard Setback (East Bay Avenue) The plans submitted show a 5' 6" high stone wall located within the required five foot front setback area along the East Bay Avenue frontage. Since this setback is designated on the Districting Map, it constitutes a front yard setback, where fences may not exceed three feet in height. The applicant has agreed to reduce the height of the wall to conform to Code requirements. Rear Yard Setback Section 21.10.025 G of the Zoning Code allows projections into a rear yard setback adjacent to an alley, provided that the projection maintains a 2' 6" setback and the portions of the building which encroach into the rear yard setback have a minimum ground clearance of eight feet. The second and third level projections shown on the plans conform to this criteria, and thus are permitted by Code. The landscape plans indicate that landscaping is proposed to be installed within the required rear yard setback area. Section 21.10.025 F of the Zoning Code provides that any obstructions, including fences and landscaping, shall maintain the required rear yard setback when the property abuts an alley. Therefore, the planning Commission required that the landscape plans be revised accordingly so as to maintain adequate vehicular maneuverability to the garages on the opposite side of the alley. Proposed Sk li hts The proposed skylights located on the flat portion of the roof are approxi- mately 29 feet above natural grade, and thus exceed the 26 foot average height limit. The applicant has indicated that the skylights will be installed flush with the roof so as to conform to the height limitations not forth in the Code. TO= City Cecil - 7. • Pr tied Curb Cuts on 2aress Street The Public Works Department recommended that the project be redesigned so that all vehicular access to the property be from the adjacent allay. This is in accordance with City Council Policy L-2, which provides that street curb Openings shall not be permitted to residential property which abuts an alley. The intent of this policy is to preserve as many on -street parking spaces as possible. However, the Planning Commission was of the opinion that the proposed curb openings would not be contrary to the intent of the policy, since parking is not permitted along the westerly side of Cypress Street. Therefore, approval of the curb openings would not result in a loss of GA -street parking spaces. The Planning Commission recommended the approval of the Tentative Hap of Tract No. 12208 with curb cuts along Cypress Street for vehicular access to proposed garages, subject to City Council approval. Pro sed Fire laces As indicated on Page 22 of the attached excerpt of the Draft Planning Co=is- eion Minutes, there was discussion concerning the use of glass -fronted, non -wood burning fireplaces within the subject project. Such a proposal had been suggested by the residents of the Newport Bay Towers during their meeting with the applicant prior to the Planning Commission meatiru). Although the Planning Commission neglected to impose a Condition to require nor, -wood burning fireplaces, Commissioner King suggested that the City Council to advised of the Omission so that Council can consider imposing such a Conditior,. City Council desire to imposeShould the this requirement, the following additional Condition to Use Permit No. 3101 is suggestedc Be That the applicant shall provide only non -wood burning fireplaces with glass fronts and artificial logs for each dwelling unit within the project. Coastal Residential Development Permit Council Policy P-1 sets forth procedures and requirements for the processing of demolitions, conversions and new development constructed within the Coastal Zone. This policy and Government Code Section 65590 require the City to determine the feasibility of requiring the inclusion of dwelling Lr:its affordable by persons or families of low- or moderate -income within the project and on the project site. Staff has contracted with the Newport Economics Group of Newport Beach to provide a feasibility analysis using funds provided by the developer. A copy of their report is attached for consideration by the Council. The consultant has estimated that the developer would realize a return of 51.5% if all units were to be sold at market rate. The inclusion of one moderate -income unit, priced at $130,600, would result in a drop of the rate of return to 43.0%. The alternative of renting a unit affordable to a moderate -income household for ten years, followed by a sale of the unit, would yield a rate of return of 58.7%0 based on the assumption that the generated income losses would provide tax credits against other income. Therefore, it is the opinion of the consultant that the inclusion of one moderate -income unit within the project is feasible. The Planning Commission has recommended that one affordable unit (10% of the total nusiber of units) be provided. This unit should be affordable to an Orange County moderate -income family. This requirement will result in rental T0: City Colcil - 8. to a family earning no more than $44,695 per year at a rental rate of $1:68/mo. for a two bedroom unit (based on current median income of $37,246). This compares to a maxim= rental rate of approxizately $931/month (based on current median incomes) on previous Coastal Residential Development Permits (91 - Morgan, 12 - Wale, 14 - Briggs, 15 - Gfeller), and rental rates of $540 and $675/month in conjunction with the North Ford Community Development Block Grant site. The Feasibility Analysis prepared by the Newport Economics Group indicates that the average market for a 1200 sq.ft. two bedroom unit is $1,080/month. The applicant has indicated that he finds the affordable housing) reaiuirement unreasonable and is dissatisfied with the economic feasibility analysis prepared by the Newport Economics Group. As a result, Mr. Wale provided additional information (see attached letter dated August 10, 1984) for consideration by the City and the Newport Economics Group. Newport Economics Group responded in their August 20, 1984 letter (copy attached) that, in their judgment, the provision of one affordable unit on site was still economically feasible in conjunction with this pro)ect. Attached for the information and review of the City Council are copies of the Planning Co=ission staff report dated July 19, 1984, and an excerpt of the Draft Planning Co=ission Minutes in conjunction with said applications. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director by W. WILLIAM WARD Senior Planner WWW/kk CCx Attachments for City Council Only Planning C-11 ission Staff Report dated July 19, 1984, with attachments Excerpt of the Draft Planning Cocaission Minutes dated July 19, 1984 Letter from the Applicant dated July 16, 1984 Letters of opposition (2) Letter from Newport Bay Tower Letter from the Applicant (with attachments) dated August 10, 19B4 Letter from The Newport Economics Group dated August 20, 1984 Tentative Tract Map Plot Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations Schematic Landscape Plan . , . . . - . 0 0 Planning Comission Meeting July 19, 1984 Agenda Item no. 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH T0: Planning Commission FROMI Planning Department SUBJECTI Tentative Map of Tract No. 12208 (Public Haarinq) Request to subdivide 6 existing lots into a aingle lot for residential condominium purposes on property located in the R-4 District, and the approval of an environmental document. AND B. Use Permit No. 3101_(Public Nearing) Request to permit the construction of a y unit residential condominium develolAcent and related garages on property located in the R-4 District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a 7 foot 7 inch building encroachment into the required 11 foot 7 inch northerly side yard setback area. AM C. Residential Coastal Develoa nt Permit Ito. 6 (Discussion) Request to consider a residential coastal development permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance for a 9 unit residential condominium development pursuant to the Administrative Guidelines for the implementation of the State Law relative to Lore -and -Moderate -Income Housing within the Coastal zone. LOCATION Lots 7-12, block I of the Balboa baysida Tract, located at 303 Cypress Street, on the northwesterly corner of Cypress Street and East Bay Aventie, on the Balboa Peninsula. ZONE I R-4 APPLICAIrrs hale Development Corporation, Irvine OWNERSt La Verne and Betty K. Hart, Balboa y io lining Commission - 2. • A lications These applications are a request to permit the construction of a nine unit residential condominium development, u►d to subdivide six existing lots into a single lot for residential condominium purposes. pesidential condominium developments are permitted in any residential district upon securing a use permit. Use Permit procoltires are set forth in Section 20.80 of the Municipal Code. Tentative asap procedures are set forth in Section 19.12 of the crie. Coastal Residential Development Permit procedures are outlined in Council Policy P-1. Environmental Significance An Initial Study was prepared for this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and City Council Policy K-3, it has been determined that this project will not have a significant impact on the environment. A negative Declaration has keen prepared and is attached for Planning Comission review, Conformance with General Plan and -Adopted Local Coastal Pro ram Land Use Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan and Program, Land Use Plan, designate the Residential" uses. The proposed development land use designation. Subject Property and Surrounding Land tloos the Adopted Local Coastal site for "Multi -Family is consistent with this The site is presently developed with ten small cottages that are rented on a weekly basis during the months of May through September. These units will be demolished in conjunction with the proposed redevelopment. To the north is the Newport Say Tuw*rs residential condominium buildings to the east, across Cypress Street, the recently approved "Spinnaker Bay" ten unit residential condominium project is under construction; to the south, across East Day Avenue, are duplexesi and to the west, across a 15 foot wide alley, are duplexes and single family dwellings. Analysis The applicant proposes to construct nine residential condominium units on the site. All of the units will contain a living room, dining rocxa, kitchen, two bedrooms, and two and one-half bathroomm. The following outline describes the major characteristics of the lroposed development. 14 •Mt Plan* CoaMission - 3. • Lot size Number of Units Permitted: Proposed: Setbacks Front (Cypress Street): Front (8. Say Avenue): .237 acres 10,323.7 sq.ft. 12 (1 du per 800 sq.ft.) 9 (1 du per 1,147 sq.ft.) Paquired Proposed 3' (designated on 316" first floor on Districting Nap) 1160 04cond floor 5' (designated 5' on Districting Map) Side (adjacent to northerly property line): 11'7" (Bt of aver. 4' age lot width) Bear (adjacent to alley): 5' first floor 516" first floor 216" second floor 316" ■acond floor buildable Area (lot area lees setbacks) H,G1(i.8 uq.ft. Gross Structural Area Permitted: 24,056.4 sq.ft., excluding garages (3 x Buildable Area) Proposeds 11,365 sq.ft., excluding garages (1.42 x Buildable Area) 16,763 sq.ft., including garages (2.09 x Buildable Area) Parking Required: 14 spaces (1.5 per du) Provided: 18 spaces (2 garage spaces per du) Open Space Required: 21,621 cu.ft. Providedi Mere than 35,000 cu.ft. Building Height Pernitteds 28/32 Foot Height Limitation District Proposedi 28 ft. average, 33 ft. m"is:ua (with proposed skylights 29 ft. above natural grade) Number of Stories: 2 stories over garage fJ . TO PlaA*g Comission - 4. • The project conforms to all applicable development standards for the P-4 District, except for the building height and setbacks, which are discussed below. Pro22eed Building_Height 71te proposed skylights located on the flat portion of the roef are approximately 29 feet above natural grade, and thus exceed tr►e 20 foot average height limit. The applicant has indicated that the skylights will be installed flush with the roof so as to conform to the height limitations set forth in the Code. Side Yard Setback In order for the proposed building to be considered a two-story structure p©r the Uniform Building Cede, the applicant prrpoues to raise the grade along a minimum of 50% of the perimeter of the building, so that half of the garage level will be a mintrum of six feet below finished grade. This proposal is acceptable to the Building Department, provided that the building mnintaina s minimum setback of five feet from the property line in nrean where thh grade is to be raised. According to the Huilding Department, it will be necessary for the plans to be slightly revised so as tf, provide the required five foot setback adjacent to the interior side property line. Section 20.17.045 of the Municipal Code requires that a side yard setback area equal to eight percent of the. average lot width shall be provided for structures three stories or less in height sn the R-4 District. In this case, the Code would require the building to by act back 1117"t from the northerly side property line (8t x 145.27' a 1117"t). The applicant has requested a modification to the Zoning Coda so as to allow the building to maintain a 4 foot setback. As noted above, the Building Department will require a 5 foot side yard setback, which is acceptable to the applicant. Inasmuch as the intent of the side yard setback requirement is to provide open area on the site, staff has no objections to the proposed encroachment, since adequate open space will be provided in the landscaped courtyard adjacent to Cypress Street. Front Yard Setback (East Bay Avenue) .he plans submitted show a 5'6" high stone wall located within the required 5 front foot setback area along the Past Day Avenue frontage. Since this setback in designated on the Districting Hap, it constitutes a front yard setback, where fences may not exceed three feet in height. The applicant has agreed to reduce the height of the wall to conform to Code requirements. 703 Plan Commission - S. • Front Yard Setbacks (Cypress street) The plans submitted indicate that portions of the two floors above the garagm level are proposed to encroach 1'6" into the required 3 foot setback area adjacent to Cypress Street. The Zoning (;ode does not permit encroachments of this nature into the required front yard setback area. Therefore, the project must be redesigned to conform to the setback requirement, inasmuch as a modification to the Toning Coda was not requested. Rear Yard Setback Section 21.10.025, C of the Zoning Code allows projections into a rear yard setback adjacent to an alley, provided that the projection maintains a 2'6" setback and the portions of the building which encroach into the rear yard setback have a minimum ground clearance of 8 feet. The second and third level pro)ectians shown on the plrsrns conform to this criteria, and thus are permitted by Code. The landscape plans indicate that Iandscaping is prc,p,-)-%ud •r, 1,tr installed within the required reAr yard setha4k areo. Section 21.10.025, F of the Goninq Code provides that any ol,►,tructinnK, includinfi fences and landscaping, sr -all maintain the required ruar yard setback when the property abuts an alley. Therefore, it will be necessary for the landscape plans to he revised accordingly. Proposed Curb Cuts on Cypress Street The Public Works Department has rec-,mmended that the projoct be redesigned so that all vr.hicuiar access to the property is from the adjacent alley. This is in accordance with City Council Policy L-2, which provides that street curb openings shall not be permitted to residential property which abuts an alley. The intent of this policy Is to preserve as " ny on -street parking spaces as poscible. however, staff is of the opinion that the proposed curb openings would not be contrary to the intent of the policy, since parking is not permitted alone the curbs on Cypress Street. Therefore, approval of the curb openings would not result in a loca of on -street parking spaces. The attached exhibit for the approval of this application includes ts finding regarding approval of the curb Openings. It bhould be noted that the curb openings would also have to be approved Ly the City Council. However, if the Commission believes the project should be redesigned, Finding No. 5 for thn approval of the Tentative Kap of Tract Ro. 12208 should be deleted anti Condition No. 11 revised as followsg "12. That the project be redesigned so that all vehicular access to the property he from the adl,icent alley." TO: 1?1&ng Commission - 6. i Pair -Share The recently adopted Fair -Share Contribution Ordinance (Section 15.38 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code) provides that in canes where an existing structure is located on the site of a proposed project, and the existing structure is to be demolished, credit can be granted for the building square footage or for the number of existing residential units to be removed for the purposes of calculating the fair -share contribution. when the new use is less intensive than the previous use, no fair -share contribution shall be required, and no refund shall be granted to the developer. Ten motel units presently exist on the site. Based on the trip generation rates set forth in the Ordinance, the present use generates 100 daily trips (10 trips per motel room times 10 rooms). The proposed use will generate 58.5 trips 1mr day (6.5 trips per dwelling unite times 9 units). Inasmuch as the proposed use is lees intensive than the existing use, no fair -share contribution is necessary. Park Dedication The Park Dedicatinn Ordinance (Chapter 19.50 of the Hunicipnl Cade) requires that ns a condition of a tentative aul".divinion map, the subdivider shall Pal a fee in lieu of park dedicnrion when a development consists of 50 parcels or less, for park or recreation purposes. Based on a nine unit project and present fees, the applicant will be required to pay approximately $45,261.00. Coastal Residential Development Permit Council Policy P-1 sets forth procedures and requirements for the processing of demolitions, conversions and new development constructed within the Coastal zone. This policy requires the Planning Commission to determine the feasibility of requiring the inclusion of dwelling units affordable by persons or families of low or moderate income within the project and on the project site. Staff has contracted With the Newport Economics Group of Newport Beach to provide a feasibility analysis using funds provided by the developer. A copy of their report is attached for consideration by the Commission. The consultant has estimated that the developer would realize a return of 51.51 if all units were to be sold at market rate. The inclusion of one moderate income unit priced at $130,600 would result in a drop of the rate of return to 43.0%. The alternative of renting a unit affordable to a moderate income household for ten years followed by a sale of the unit would yield a rate of return of 58.7%, based on the assumption that the generated incomo losses would provide tax credits against other Income. Therefore, it is the opinion of the consultant that the inclusion of one moderate income unit within the project is feasible. Staff recommnds that one affordable unit (10• of the total number of units) be provided. This unit should be affordable to an Orange County moderate income family. This requiree,ent is consistent with fy TOs Plant! Commission - 7. • the City's overall goal of providing ten percent of the annual housing production as affordable units for low and moderate income families. In addition, it is consistent with requirements imposed by the Commission and City Council on other recent residential developments within the City. Specific Findi s and Aecosmmendatinns Section 20.73.025 of the Municipal Code sets forth the n4qcess6ry rindings to approve a residential condominium project. In Odition, Section 19.12.070 of the Code sets forth the procedurea for recommending to the City Council the approval of a Tentative Map. Council Policy P-1 sets forth procedures for approving new residential construction in the Coastal Zone. Staff recommends the approval of these requests, and suggeatu that the Planning Coamission take such action, sub;ect to the findings and conditions of approval set forth in the attached Exhibit "A". PL"IrNr DEPARTMENT JMES D. HEWICXZR, Director W1%4&&jOL-- 9heri Vander Dussen Associate Planner Attachments, Exhibit "A" Vicinity Map Negative Declaration Affordable Housing Feasibility Analysis Tentative Tract Map Plot Plan, Floor Plays and Elevations Schematic Landscape Plan /S . TOs Plaeg Consriission » B. . EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS :AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE HAP OF TRACT NO. 12208, USE PERMIT NO. 3101, AND RESIDENTIAL COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 6 TFNTATIVE TRACT HAP fio. 12200 FINDINGS r 1. That the nap meets the requirements of Title 19 of the ffowport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans, and the Planning CO"minsion is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 1. That the proposed subdivision presents no problems frorr+ n planning standpoint. 3. That the site is physirnlly suitable for the, i4evelopment proposed. 4. That the design of the nubdivision or the proposed-nprovements will not conflict with any easements, acquired by tip public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. 5. That approval of curb openings on Cypress Street will not result in the loss of on-ntreet parking spaces, inasmuch as parking is presently not permitted on Cypress Street. 6. That the Planning Comission has determined that the inclusion of one unit affordable to a County moderte income family within the project is feasible. CONDITIONS r 1. That a final map be recorded. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public works Dopartsrent. 3. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a final map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. a. That each dwelling unit be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sever systems unless otherwise approved by the Public works Department. 6 to MR To= Plan& Cawmission - 9. . 5. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Ergineer. 6. That a 15 foot radius corner cutoff at the corner of Cypress Street and East Bay Avenue be dedicated to the public. 7. That landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval of the Parks, beaches and Recreation Department and the Public Works Department. 8. That street, drainage and utility improvements be shown on standard isprovement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 9. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, setter and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to recording of the final map. Anf modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 10. That prior to issuance of any grading or nuilding peraitfti for the site, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification from the City's Utilities Department. 11. That FCC gutter be constructed along the East Bay Avenue frontage AM that any deteriorated curb and sidewalk be reconstructed) that the curia and gutter along Cypress Street be reconstructed to provide drainage along with the construction of a storm drain system if requiredr that the deteriorated sidewalk along the Cypress Street frontage be reconstructed) that a 20' radius curb return be constructed along with is curb access ramp per City STD 181-L at the intersection of Cypress Street and East Bay Avenuer that the adjacent unimproved 15' wide alley be improved with concrete per City STD 140-L) that the existing substandard alley approach on East Say be reconstructed per City Standards) and that street lights (per (City STD 200-L) be provided along the East Bay frontage and Cypress Street frontage as approved by the Public works Department. 12. That approval of the City Council shall be obtained for the proposed curb openings on Cypress Street, or the project shall be redesigned so that all vehicular access to the property is fro& the adjacent alley. 13. That prior to the recordation of the final Tract Map, the applicant shall ' pay the required fees pursuant to the requirements of the park Dedication Ordinance. 17 TO. Pi Commission - 10. 0 14. That prior to the recordation of the Final Tract flap, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City guaranteeing the provision of one unit affordable to a County moderate income family for a period of no less than 10 years. USE PERMIT NO. 3101 FINDINGSt 1. That each of the proposed units has been designed as a condominium with separate individual utility connections. 2. The project, as conditioned, will comply with all applicable standard plans and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at the time of approval, except for a side yard encroachment. 1. The project lot size conforms to the Zoning Code requirements in effect at the time of approval. 4. That the proposed development is consistent with the Go neral Plan and Adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 5. That adequate on -site parking spaces are available for the proposed residential condominium development. 5. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the une or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 7. The proposed side yard setback encroachment is comparable to existing setbacks of other properties in the area and adequate open space will be provided elsewhere on the site. Therefore, approval of the requested encroachment will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or be detrimental or injurioup to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of 'title 20 of this Code. 8. That the proposed use will be less intensive than the existing use (as defined in Section 15.38 of the Municipal Code), and therefore, a fair -share contribution is not warranted in this case. k, 0 TOO PUA Ctssission COKDIT �: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, accept as noted below. 2. That the structure shall be redesigned so as to maintain the required 3 foot front yard setback along Cypress street, and a minimum setback of 5 feet Adjacent to the northerly aide property line. 3. That no landscaping $hall be permitted at grade in the 5 foot rear yard setback adjacent to the alley. Furthermore, that, the portion of the building that is permitted to encroach 2160 into the rear yard setback shall have a minim = ground clearance of B feet. 4. That the proposed wall shown adjacent to East Hay Avenue shall be reduced in height to three feet. 5. That the proposed skylights shall be redesigned to conform to the requirements met forth in the Zoning Code. 6. That all applicable Conditions of Tentative flap of Tract No. 12208 be fulfilled. 7. That this use permit shall expire if not exercised within 24 months in accordance with Section 20.80.090, A of the municipal Code. RESIDENTIAL COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 6 FIB : 1. That the proposed development is not exempt from the provisions of State law relative to low and moderate income housing units within the Coastal Zone. 2. That the Planning Commission has determined that it is feasible to provide one on -site rental or ownership unit that is affordable to a moderate income household, as defined by the County of Orange. COND-_�- ITION c 1. all conditions of the Tentative map of Tract No. 12208 and Use rmit No, 3101 &hall be fulfilled. ■ M SV�3EGT ?ROP�i'y aJ~�C fff�> VICINITY MAP . BAL 80.4 /SL AIVC7 v r, *I • U8E PERMIT N0. 310 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 12208 COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 6 PLUIOXER COURT FEASIBILITY ANALYS:S JULY 1984 Prepared for: SANDY GENIS CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 33DO Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 THE NEWPORT ECONOMICS GROUP 1600 Dove Street, Suite 425 Newport Beach, California 92660 e�L�, • July 11, 1984 Hs. Sandy Gents Associate Planner City Planning department 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Sandy: This letter presents our analysis of the feasibility of one moderate income unit in the planned Plummer Court project. The following paragraph; will summarize the key factors involved in the analysis. An Appendix to this letter contains substantial housing market data for the Peninsula area. INTRODUCTION Plummer Court is a planned The site, comprising 10,344 of Bay and Cypress streets. is as follows: Plan Price Size Price/Sq. Ft. Bedrooms/Baths fiumber of Units condominium project on the square feet, is located at The planned configuration Table 1 PLUMMER COURT PROJECT PROFILE A total of nine units will be at $215,000. These units are with 2 bedrooms and 2� baths. for 1,114 sq. ft. Balboa Peninsula. the intersection of the units A B C $215,000 $215,000 $275,000 1,200 1,217 1,714 $179.16 $179.66 $160.44 2/2� 2/2� 2/2� 5 3 1 in the project with all but one priced in the 1,200 to 1217 sq. ft. range i One larger unit s priced at $275,000 4 X Ks. Sandy Genis City Planning Department k%wrt death, CA July 11, 1984 Page 2 The objective of this study is to analyze the sales prices in relation to the market and to examine the profit potential with and without the moderate income dwelling. The source of information for this report is. primarily, extensive field research by The Newport Economics Group staff into the Peninsula area condominium market. Additionally, the firm's data bank on construction costs has been supplemented by discussions with builders active in the area. The following section will summarize the conclusions of the study. Subsequent sections provide all of the supporting data. SUMMARY The Plummer Court project appears definitely feasible in relation to the Peninsula area condominium market. Sales prices, Unit sizes, and the general character of the project should find adequate market acceptance. , The profit margins appear to be unusually high at close to 26% of the total project sales price. This determination has been based on estimates of probable construction and related costs in that the developer declined to provide this information. In the absence of unusual costs, however, it is probable that the real level of profits will not be significantly different than those indicated. A typical profit margin is considered to be 15% of the total sales price. with one moderate income unit of 1,200 sq. ft., priced at $130.000, the profit as a percentage of total sales price falls only to 22.5%. On this basis. the provision of this unit should be considered feasible for the developer. A second common calculation relates profit to initial equity. For a subdivision to be sold out in approximately one year. this comparison is not always meaningful in that the true amount of the initial equity may.not be known. For example, there is no evidence that the property has been sold, as yet, to the developer. In the event of a joint venture with the present land owner, the developer may have no equity whatever. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that 25% of the total project value would represent a possible true equity. On this basis, the amount would be $5M,OOO. A comparison of equity with return both before and after taxes is as follows: • • Ms. Sandy Denis City Planning Department Kewport Beach. CA All Market Rate July 11, 1984 Page 3 Table 2 PLUMMER COURT MODERATE INCOME UNIT SALES OPTION One Moderate Income Unit Sold for $130,600 One Moderate Income Unit Rented for 10 years, then sold 1/ $500,000 or 25% project value. Project Net After Sales Profit Tax $515,400 $430,400 $257,700 $215, 200 Percent 1/ E ui� ty 51. 5% 43.0% $461.200 2/ $293,300 1/ 58.7% 2/ Based on no sales profit for one unit. After tax account includes cash flow from rental and subsequent sale. On the basis of the above equity assumption, a return of 51.5% would be realized with all market rate units. The inclusion of one moderate income unit priced at $130,600 would result in a drop of the rate of return to 43.0%. Then, the alternative of renting the unit for ten years followed by a sale would yield a rate of return of 58.7%. This latter high return results from the assumption that the generated income losses would provide tax credits against other income. Such a calculation is common for investments of this type. The conclusion from these comparisons is that: (1) the entire project on an all market rate basis is definitely feasible; (2) the inclusion of one 'for sale" unit on a moderate income basis is also feasible, but that (3) the rental/sale option would be substantial more attractive to the developer than an iwediate sale. ANALYSIS This section of the report will present the supporting data for the conclusions, as follows: Housing Prices The following graph illustrates housing sales prices in the Balboa Peninsula area. The Appendix of this report contains substantial data on both condominium and single family prices. However. the two major condominium projects both offer ocean and/or bay viers. There- fore the prices do not appear appropriate for comparison The single family prices, which do not include ocean or bay views, should be discounted somewhat to reflect the reduced desirability of a multi- family project. i r i _�� J �. A[gt0 Ili ls-JAMtt► INN MAU ' I S Irisir _ lo.'2021't ' Ijto�n II _ . � ' t � ' . ' U1 21)a Mlraryr . I1. 1123 Plato !. 2. 1031 N1a•o DO Beim a�:: Itl.lil:w' • �� L— . � , . �a ., � _ . • . » .: 1. lif' •i• s :. 11. �:I l loy, � i • of -ilf' . tlpp Ilria.ir{. t!O!�';iirur --•- ;:` .-'� ., • _ _�t !�! [•. 4�l� " - .���1! gaga Ilk- 100. A-3. :; �_ .•I1_'_+ t_ I —. f._:.�... I I _ ,t I.. !• I' 110 .. .ISO +-__�.._s.� •) �al) I G I I ` + ' • 1000 1100 1?00 ! 1�00 1;00 I 1500 1 00 1100 1�00 I C: Ks. Sandy Denis July 11, 1984 City Planning Department Page 5 Newport Beach, CA The great majority of the units sold were in the 1,200 to 1,400 sq. ft. range. Sales prices per square foot extend --most typically --from $180 up to $240. There is, of course, a wide range of values repre- sented in terms of age and design of these units. Host importantly, the Plummer Court project will be priced competi- tively in relation to the market. The A and B units will be $180 per square foot for 1,200 sq. ft., while the C unit will be 1,700 sq. ft. at $160 per sq. ft. These prices do reflect a significant discount from the prevailing price range of single family units and, therefore, are deemed appropriate. Housing Costs Profits The following Table 3 sets forth an analysis of each unit in terms of the recormended sales prices vs. estimated costs. Again, it is important to note that the developer declined to provide cost informa- tion except for the land price. Each of these cost factors has been checked against The Newport Economics Group data bank on housing construction plus interviews have been held with developers currently active in the market. There is the possibility, of course, that significant unknown costs could be involved. However, it would be up to the developer to disclose these items. For the 1,200-1,217 sq. ft. units, the total costs including a 150. profit are in the $122,000 to $123,000 range. The land value repre- sents an additional $70,800. Note that the recommended sales price less these items results in a balance of $21,2004 21,900. Based on these estimates, therefore, a real profit involved in the project would be $32,300 plus these latter items. The ratio of total profit to the sales price is over 25%. The one large unit is priced at $275,000 with costs totaling $161,600. Assuming the 15% profit in the indicated land value, there is a $42,600 balance following sale. On this basis, the total profit involved would be 30.5% of the sales price. Rental Survey To determine appropriate rents for Plummer Court, an extensive survey was made of units on the market throughout the Balboa Peninsula. The following Table 4 summarizes these data. Unfortunately, the diversity of types of units, locations, and sizes presents a rather complex picture to analyze. An examination of the units revealed that the condominium projects at 600 Ocean Front and 310 Fernando do have ocean and/or bay views. In some cases, however, the views are marginal at best. Interestingly, some of the rents on these L_J • Sales Prices Costs Offsites J J Engrg. 6 Design Direct ($40/S.F Parking Barn 3 ihO/S.F. ) Admin./Mgt.4 Indirects Financing Marketing / Profit - Subtatals Land Table 3 PLWKR CO(JRT SALES PRICE/COSTS A 5 8 3 $2159000 $216,000 C 1 Total 9 $275,000 i1,995,000 5,700 5,700 MOO 51,700 2,900 2,900 4,100 27,300 48,000 . 48,700 68,600 454,700 61700 6*700 6,700 60,300 2,400 2,400 3,400 22,600 4000 4,300 5,500 39,900 9,200 9,200 12,100 85,700 106800 10,800 13,800 100,200 32,300 32,300 41.300 299,700 $122,300 $123,000 $161,600 $1.142,100 70,800 70,800 70,800 637,200 $21,900 $21,200 $42,600 $215,700 I/ W OO/S.F. land area--109344 S.F. J 6% of direct construction J 5% of direct construction 4/ 2% of sales price J Construction loan for 6 months a 15% ♦ 2 points and 2 points for pinmantat loan. 6/ 5% of sales price J 15% of sales price - 6- Table 4 BALBOA PENINSULA RENTAL SURVEY Location Rent Size Rent/S.F. Bdrm/Bath 600 Oceanfront $19000 11100 $.91 3/2 310 Fernando 11195 860 $1.40 1/2 606 South Bayfront 11500 1.500 1.00 3/2 1012 Bayside Cove 11500 1,600 .94 2/2 211 l9th Street 1,300 _ - 2/2 1815 west Bay 1,750 2,100 .83 3/2 213 Via Karon 1,300 1,450 .90 3/2 3112 Nest Ocean 1,250 1,274 .98 3/2 324 Buena Vista 11800 1,474 1.22 3/2 1130 Nest Bay �1,500 2.274 .66 5/3 1225 E. Balboa 1,500 11915 .78 5/3 424 Belvue 1,200 1,754 .68 4/2 317 Fernando 11,100 10080 .98 2/2� W 0 0 Ms. Sandy 6enis City Planning Department Newport Beach, CA projects are not signficantly higher without views. If a comparison were of course, there would be a dramatic The full range of rents per cents up to $1.40. However. price is about 90 cents per sq. ft. unit would rent for moderate income rent allowed Therefore, the differential Rental Sale Analysis July 11, 1984 Page 8 than other desirable units to be made of sales prices, difference. square foot per month is from about 66 between the extremes, a typical median square foot. On this basis, a 1,200 $1,080 per month. Interestingly, the for such a unit is $1,014 per month. is only 6.5%. The following Table 5 sets forth an analysis of a 1,200 sq. ft. unit rented for ten years and then sold. The rent has been set at the $1.014 per month allowed for moderate income households. Operating expenses have been based on typical community associa- tion costs plus taxes and insurance and maintenance. The interest rate is set at 14% for 30 years, while the depreciation is on an accelerated basis over 18 years. Net income losses are assumed to represent tax credits against other income, a very typical presumption in an analyses of this type. The indicated cash flow, after taxes, represents a rooderate annual loss for each of the ten years. These amounts have then been discounted at 18% per year --to reflect an opportunity cost of 12% for the money plus 6% to offset the annual increase of 6% set into the rent level. The criteria for sate of the building in the tenth year is indicated on the following Table 6. The sales price is assumed to be the current figure plus an increase of 6% annually. After the capital gains tax, the net proceeds are $310,300. This amount has been discounted back to today, combined with the losses, to represent a present worth of $62.700. The Summary section of this report indicates-& comparison of this revenue in relation to the other alter- natives. Following your review of this report, please tali me with any questions or comments you away have. Sincerely, Robert J. Dunham RJD:Iec President Enclosures MJW TABLE S -- PLUMER COURT MCOCKM SNCOME RENTAL MIT CASH FLOW 1985 1986 1987 imp 1989 19" 1991 1992 1993 1994 Gross Rent/ 112,200 •. •• .. .. .- -- -- -. .. Less Vacancy (31) 370 -- -- •- -- -- -- -• .. .. Stabilized Income 11.830 12.540 13,290 141090 14.940 15.830 16.780 17,790 18.960 19,990 Operating Expenses Cow.. Ass'nJ $ 11200 •- .. .. .. •. .. .. .. .. Taxes l Ins. 21450 -- -- •, .. -- -• •• .. .. Maintenance 250 •• •• •• •• •- •• •• •• •. Subtotal S 3.900 S 4,060 S 4,220 s 4,390 S 4,560 S 4,740 S 4,930 S 5,130 S S,340 i 5,SSO -Operating income $ 7,930 S 5,480 19,070 S 9,700 $10,380 S11,090 $11,850 S12.660 111,520 $14,440 Interests/ 24,160 23,960 23,960 23,760 23,760 23,460 23,460 23,460 23,260 23,060 ' Depreciation-'/ 14,000 13,200 12,800 12,200 11.500 10,900 10,200 9.500 81800 8,000 Not Income (30,230) (28,680) (27,690) (26,260) (24.980) (23,210) (21.810) (20,300) (1,.S40) (16.620) Fed'l Income Tax (50%) (15,123) (14,340) (13,550) (13,130) (120440) (11,640) (10,910) (10,150) ( 9,270) ( 8,310) met After Tax (15.110) (14.340) (13.840) (13,130) (12.440) (11,630) (10.900) (10.150) ( 1,270) ( 8.310) Add: . Depreciation 14,000 13.200 12.8M 12.200 11.500 10.900 10,200 9.500 8.800 8,000 Less: Debt Service 300 S00 S00 7DO 700 1,000 1.000 11000 1,200 1,400 Cash flow (1.410) (1,640) (1,540) (1,630) (1,640) (1.730) (1.700) (1,650) (1.670) (1.710) 1310.300 Discounted (1.410) (1,390) (1,100) ( 990) to 501 { 160) ( 630) ( $10) ( 450) ( 390) S 71.400 TOTAL 16700 1/ 11,0111mo. (affordable rate) increased by 61/year - erp. increase ! 41/yr, 21 140/mo. 1/ 141 loan oa $172.000 9 + 14.22 �1 4/ ACAS • 18 yrs., Depreciable • 1144,200 O Sales Price 11 Less Comission (6%) Net Proceeds Tax Base Initial Cost Less Depreciation Gain on Sale Capital Gains Tax (20%) Net After Tax Original ♦ Wyear Table 6 PLUMMER COURT MODERATE INCOME UNIT STILE $215,000 111,100 $103,900 $258,000 $385.000 23,100 $361,900 51.600 $310,300 -10- =LL= TO: Secretary for Resources mG Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 ® Clerk of the Board of Supervisors P. 0. Box 687 FROM: PLANNING oenAS-TWrrr C'Ty OF `IDIPOkT BEAM P.O. BOX 1768 NEWPnRT BEACH, CA 92658_6915 NAME OF PROJECT: Plumer Court Condominiums PROJECT LOCATION: Cypress street and East Say Avenue PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nine unit residential condominium development and related parkinq spaces i1 1 1 FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedure; and guidelines to implement the California Environr,ental G�ality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: None INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: City of Newport Beach INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: Environmental Coordinator Date: July 12, 1984 zN' Wale Development Corporation ,Tune 13, 1984 Ms. Sandy Genis Associate Planner Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport bedc:h, Ca. 92663 Dear Sandy: I had the opportunity to din uns with the HarLn their relative, concerning the occupancy of that one unit. As eitated by them they have: not rented a unit nor nag a unit been occupiud more than a few weeks by the same tennntn over the past 30 years. In reference': to their relative, they stated that tnin unit is being provided for her use as a family accomodation and that even though she pays a nominal amount of approximately $150.00 per month to cover their expenses, under no circumstances was thin to be considered a rental fee. In a th arts are concerned that this type of inquiry is of lion nature and a private matter not necessarily open lion crutiny. 1 r c wa0 H�f��Ja1e Pre den EIMIths 177,2 ► ictu I Slree t. Irvine, CalOcinia 92714, (714) c},3M22 Wale Development Corporation May 29, 1984 llr. Robert Lenard Advanced Planning Administrator City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Blvd,, Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Dear Bob: At ttie present time there are 10 exif;ting bungalows at 303 Cypress Street. One is occupied an a full time bnsis by the r.,anagers/owners Mr. and Mrs. I,a Verna dart and Unit 2 has been ocr_upler! by Margarette Tousley, the sister to Mru. Betty Bart, for the previous twelve months. The remaining 8 Units are rented on a weekly basis during the months of HaY--t,hraugh Septomber. There; is no winter-occupan either on a weekly or most bafzis for t e remainder of the year. 9-in arc IMw y ale Pr do /tvs / r Rif 17752 Wtcrol Street. brine. Caktorrna 92714, (714) 863-0322 Appendix BALBOA PENINSULA HOUSING LISTINGS (DETACHED) Address Brice Sq. Ft. Bdrm/Bath Year Built $/Sq. Ft. 717 W. Balboa $195,000 1,111 2/1.5 1926 $175.52 1223 W. Bay/13th 289,500 1,377 3/2 1930 210.24 1576 E. Ocean 295,000 1,842 4/2 1947 160.15 • 2145 Seville 295,000 1,605 3/2 1951 183.80 2217 Channel 365,000 1,B00 3/2 1958 202.78 1723 !Miramar 375,000 1,817 4/2.5 1961 206.38 2056 E. Ocean 270,000 1,039 2/2 1949 259.87 1515 E. Balboa 285,000 1,415 3/1.5 1921 201.41 321 Anade 215,000 1,062 3/2 1925 202.45 1755 Miramar 250,000 1,500 4/2 1946 166.67 • Address 310 Fernando, #149 600 E. Oceanfront, C-3 310 Fernando, #104 310 Fernando, N204 600 E. Oceanfront, 1C 310 Fernando, 0207 600 E. Oceanfront, 1E Appendix BALBOA PENINSULA ROUSING LISTINGS (ATTACHED) Price Sq. Ft. Bdrm/Bath Year Built S/Sq. Ft. $245,000 1,300 1/1 1963 $188.46 245,000 1,200 2/2 1972 204.17 250,000 1,272 2/2 1963 196.54 264,000 1,272 2/2 1963 207.55 279,000 1,200 2/1.75 1972 232.50 350,000 11800 2/2 1967 194.44 279,900 1,250 2/2 1972 223.20 11 Ll Appendix BALBOA PENINSULA HOUSING SALES (ATTACHED) Address price Sq. Ft. Odrm/liath When Sold Year 110It �. 310 Fernando, #2 $250,000 861 112 4/84 1963 310 Fernando, #411 325,000 1,337 212 5/84 310 Fernando, #311 350,000 1,337 2/1.75 5/84 310 Fernando, #408 350,000 1,278 2/2 5/84 600 E. Oceanfront. 2G 279,000 1,260 2/2 3/84 310 Fernando, #100 265,000 850 1/1 12/83 600 E. Oceanfront, A-2 259,000 1,153 3/2 11/83 427 E. Bay 269,000 212 7/82 310 Fernando, #G-1 285,000 850 1/1 2/83 310 Fernando, #212 299,000 1,346 212 6/82 600 E. Oceanfront, 3E 275,000 1,120 2/2 4/82 600 E. Oceanfront, H2 249,000 1,052 2/1 9/82 600 E. Oceanfront, 2A 269,000 1,153 3/2 11/82 924 W. Balboa. #A 320,000 - 3/2 3/83 924 W. Balboa, 08 330,000 - 3/2 3/83 $S . Ft. $290.36 243.08 261.78 273.87 221.43 311.76 335.29 222.14 245.54 236.69 233.30 • • Appendix BALBOA PENINSULA HOUSING SALES (DETACHED) Address Price Sq• Ft. Bdrm/Rath When Sold Year Built S/Sq. Ft. 1755 Miramar $194,900 11100 4/2 3/84 1947 $177.18 2134 Miramar/Balboa 298,500 1,755 5/1.5 4/84 1929 $170.09 1034 W. Balboa 190,000 1,236 3/2 1/84 1940 153.72 619 W. Balboa 158,500 836 2/1.25 10/80 1915 189.59 424 Belvue 235,000 1,754 4/2 1/84 1951 133.98 129 "G" Street 249,000 1,327 3/1 1/84 1945 187.64 311 Island 339,000 1,788 3/1.5 2/84 1923 189.59 1533 Miramar 359,000 2,300 5/3 3/84 - 156.09 2100 Miramar 295,000 1,263 2/2 2181 1948 233.57 701 W. Bay 325,000 - 3/3 1/84 .. .. 1505 E. Ocean/G St, 270,000 11199 3/2 10/83 1947 225.19 2024 E. Ocean/L St. 240,000 1,288 3/1.75 10/83 1951 186.34 1723 Plaza Del Sur 210,000 1,372 3/1.5 3/83 1941 153.06 409 Belvue 299,500 1,371 3/1.75 10/83 1951 218.45 1123 W. Bay 275,000 1,402 2/1.75 1/83 1950 196.15 1211 W. Bay 250,000 1,367 3/2 6/82 1936 182.75 1585 Miramar 300,000 1963 3/3 4/82 1960 152.83 1537 E. Ocean 340,000 1,674 3/1.75 10/82 1949 203.11 2050 E. Ocean 260s000 19190 3/1 10/82 1926 218.49 • • ■ -4- t" eyr l w '`1 Wale Development Corporation July 16, 1984 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Honorable commissioners: In a recent meeting held with the homeowners of the Newport Bay Towers I have agreed to the following: A. All woodburning fireplaces will have glass doors and y.is logs will be provided. This is being clone as to discourage the burning of wood or other combustiblua given that the Prevailing windu could present a problem to a number of homeowners. B. The north boundary landscaping design will be submitted for review to this association prior to installation of trees as there is a concern with the height and type of trees to bQ used. In summary, I l—that #ire majority of homeowners agree with the proposed pr6 e t and feu 'that it will be a desirable improvement to t �a. inter y,�/ Edwar ' R. Wale' Prey nt j1 ERW the L cc: Mrs. Fox V.P. Board of Directors Newport Bay Towers 17752 Mxriol Street, Irvine, Calstorrua 92714, (714) 863-0322 Ju l y 18, l %4 To: Planning Conmisslon, City of Newport Beach From; Ray Stits, Property owner, 310 Fernando, tlewport Beach RE; Proposed building project by dale Development, for Tentative Map of Tract No: 12208, Use permit Mo. 3101, and Coastal ResIdentlal Development Permit hro. 6 on property located at " Cypress Street 1 alish to voice a protest to the proposoo, building project Q3 ind icatd above. The height of the project, visual bulk and Intensity are of a ncture tnat will not be compatlble with the existing envlrorment. Sincerely Yours, r L. July 10, 1984 F EC6' t \ IS94 •� r r l5 CITY 07 C1J,iF. To The Honorable Mayor Evelyn Hart; RECEIVED' JUL 12 3384 ► MW/W �cg; c4 w.wpc,.l The residents of the Balboa Peninsula are very concorne(d with the intense development proposed and under construction on our penin- sula. Ruth Ellen Plummer stated her concern over the intensity of the development ocurring in the subject area at the City Council Heet- ina on October llth, 1983. She stated that she hopes the city will make a re-evaluation at some future time of the multi -family zone that permits such intense use. I am enclosing a copy of the October 11th, 1983 meeting minutes outlining her statement. 1 I believe that the proposed development in this same location at the intersection of Cypress and Say on the [dart property involves development that is too intense for the peninsula area. It acc- elerates the police, fire, traffic and tourist congestion problems; it lowers the quality of life in this area. I hope the City Council will take action studying the zoning of this area and will prohibit any construction from taking place un- til this study is complete. Very truly yours, RL'11 5,5t Robert S. Schrimmer 407 East Edgewater Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92661 W Slo NEW PORT BAY TOWER (714 ) 675•e651 310 FERNAN00 STREET NEWPORT BEACH. CA. 92661 Jv1T 19, 1984 pia n ing ommim9d m City of Fewport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 Honorable Commissioners: Our board of directors met with Mr. Edward Wale on his d "Plummer Court+�project on July 11,1984. There are a nom�"M of questions we would like to bring before you. The existing structures do not have wood burning fireplaces. 110 in proposing to build nine. He tells us he will install gas loge in each unit in order to discourage the burning of wood, paper etc., However should any of the owners decide to remove the gas logo and burn wood, the smoke mould come directly into the front door of eight condominiums. The smoke could not possibly disburse before entoring our homes, due to the prevailing winds and the height of our building. We propose gas log fireplaces ONLY and not the rood burning ones. The north boundary encroachment Mr. Wale is requesting is very detrimental to our building, especially in case of fire. Building a three story wood structure that close is much different than the one story cottages that are there now. It would place eight condo. miniums in immediate jeopardy, and the sparks blowing on our roof would place the whole building in danger. We propose the installa- tion of not only the battery smoke alarms, but also sprinklers, The reason being peopla do not change the batteries,.thiestx�L-e making thanlawrative. If euc:td !maw ads sea • the y firs V0QU �ii . itbs =13d'nw A d thwY — Our ing has a► ten foot set• back amad ss mma d 7Sii'to sit the :P.o. posed project also have at least that azowlt* jor-01fsrtl 2@10, .TMt would mean there would be at least twenty feet betwwm'Mr stood structures and our building. We feel the project is a nice one and if we can solve the smoke and fire dangers it would enhance our area. Sincerely, 07/ 8. Tahwahnah Re oY V.P. Board of Directors Newport Bay Towers 5-f Wale Development Corporation August 10, 1984 Mr. Robert P. Lenard Advance Planning Administrator Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Bob: As requested by you, I am providing a cost breakdown per square foot as to analyze the true profitability of Plummer Court. The cost reflects actual contract amounts available for your roview at our main office. This will present a true and accurate comparison as that' reflect cost to date of Spinnaker Bay, a similar type product at the same location. As you can see, this does not reflect sales commissions or interest carry over the 12 month period. As stated, tax advantages are zero. I do not or can use additional tax deductions which should be eliminated, and added there should be a minimum of $300 per month for administration, advertising, and legal work involving this affordable unit. As also stated previously, I am obligated by my land purchase agreement to build and sell back to the Harts, Plan C at a price not to exceed $250,000.00. I am looking forward to a new financial analysis that takes in consideration ption rate determined by a proper marketing 5;g t th point should reflect approximately 1y unit hi a t al of 12 months for construction and completion c , th s as starting thereafter. Edwr��fd H.rle Pre dent I HHyscc 17752 MIchOO Stream 1rvM Caktomia 92714. (714) 863-0322 0 . I'T. . . - , . I A -.1Y.. - it Aj I a ;10 a IL-Lij.-I 11- - 1 11 1 VAIIIIST Wilson w 3:1113 : rim gaff 1 Ir IIIIN Slid, I --ji.Aw -.-- 4:111111PICT 'l 1 M 1111116 35 640990,4 04 OU LWV,6 W OIL 3.1,11111171 sIIA RM = 111.0,11 RM IMS N.IF..& Kill is" 111.11,11 KO 1111 M11. As gal $Mo 1-61 - I AM VANCL - -- ­ - - . . - - I " 31OKUL 101.1 oil M IF ERIFINU f US 4ma g-LW SON i N14111 11111111o. - L*4 WVL-1-1"448 VTO-It Mraw micuJI.Aasyll IL Ft. 141 00111iiI Mum twifto W-05 ftW KIM 96 %fj -Olib I.j;-nN%j?g oil lu aux w 111 so litaxi" pw PSOL."- Iwo Iftals , It I'Mmill lWalla Ilbrii 3 1 , Qj n" 4XIIN Ow" NW.0 left" 44Lm 31ISL$4 I 1431.141 114U.04 11GL34 10.6" 1 Ill INS 1-kam "?PLO@ .16 1=4.66 "M" ?Lin I so 304=191L 414A Sim," .1111 -t. Aq 1419A fkatitc 10-60. .311111-10 1 -101141-611 IrA1.M IMAM J41111.010 % "Me -- isr fe uFaNdke Willi 6. ­ . - A 61.3n I him 31m-M.4 WeNKTIM 1MM-06 QW11.1" 12110-004 6n",* 621A, WAS s am.m .04 MWAIIN "a" )*A3L" I OMNI bb".09 ibmis low,44 .40 GiAn "We Malmo IM1.16 Wall 13111.10 tall." M-00 IMJ.w I HI. NIAAIXI MCI$ MUM a" -=I 4wria 4WA 60414.4111 "W* 1 40.141 411i.io U. lose 04110=11 FACPS No." 1110110.1111 341 ffa---]•Wft Isk cm, abo4� in. $437,34 OAS • 11A 33LO "":I@- aii,ft "'n 311 so* 16-COPINIM MUM Milt." IM.0 1tMl.N 1. 319 11111 11-1111111111 "All JIM IWO nm.0 we TIPLM )IMM tilt." Ill 11611 93-M I.f.fous .0 A liJ 4wXti A - - - � 1. - 1. - .06 19KIIII raft "I Mo 1*10*1111111 M.0 lilt." 1 1449.1101 nil." 4111.06 Is* Of = IWO." AV -am p III MLO 40w,m own Inik" I "U."s Mo." nIVAN ISM." A U.M L i W".W fowls 1610.0 ­ -.I* - MIP16 114" ON ww" DOLM ri".11111 lit.. -IM 1640S On ow "Lis Own NO." US IN Ulu 21110-1111 =T 011111111 Ivan In".4011 llp"'Is I MW in".16 Ilai'm _40111111111 1111 IML" law" 1310.0 low" IaM.M 0011,10 IALN Ms. to 11.441 1: ut 1130 WIMULLORI Mo OWN Iwo.% w 1316 U-101.1111111111 .06 131M.0 lim"." 1. pi sm 14-om q In 11N.N OWN All U36 *41WI11 vIIPFl1s WLN 6015.4111 6114.4111 air 611 IN *40=4 am two 1ftLW If".111 633 up P-IIIIw Mo 00.46 10*011 1 III w . -*town on- A 3711.M )nil" 441 Oft 1P4~ Zy*o wo W?b-LLLOAO 0 IWLM 31111,011 OWN Il4.M "am IMLM 11160,1011 WIN 40 __J1lv-_JkM scam.- _OWN .10.0 IM.61 of 1111to J441111 lit. ULM ULM 3M." Ot zx 3*AMMS Flom Iwo Mao 61, -334­-j3qMw". . . .04 MLIO ftl 06 *Umm 211.1111 INLU MLO Ill 11111111 WORMS jun." msis na---xikKAuwaw­-----um% I&J":: ­ ­. .1, III me >dlll Isla OWN 13110." Mo I "Wool .68 lot IN UBL" Iwo I 31OLUS .14 IN b". www S3 IV- ""ftwo-w"Ift� 1111% IMIw 1MT 6 4002.111 41111ft" "all ma" sisim," I WrIj."I 3mw&.* =MN 1244L11 13JULIM WO 0 0 "41%44 alials nuft.14 ows.116 IONIA NUL13 LW"X UN&V -- WLU 17j1L31 '-U.in - L -Iwh&n am." Islows, U31L13 Isom" I m3wim bi" nw"lgg HaLls Ii&w.Ij WX $1111. • oil 0 Ill IL L WL - ---------------- S`I ,+. s 111 1 u I tt is I si 1 ii � 1! ■ ti .1�IIifLi_131r�f7�1l._. . _ rr11 1 CASKI - UJM 1 1331111 r»III sI3M/Ygr11 II thin n 4i+u/,4 IN MLS IN1,J, III ILL rli►�rr .,:,,; %4AHM "#.A RM IIM M.r1-A RM (IN IL MA itM 14" N.11.,1 rift litf aft. AMMl ilr DO W IMILAM rat Matsu. 1YlfKil�t.jslLieM lOLM m 1 UPI sma I� Jtlf11 i n-fiu f:t{ffr 11. rl. i ua t{,Iq 9L1t.1.A It1Il,IftiM rlw.M.rr.•uI.N,iis M. Il. 3N uN ft f It t It I ii ■ / ti / 101 1 if Islow 1t! ` �^'»MNww»wwY»r•..».N«NyNw....�I�.,»M».«»»N..»NNNMYM...IMi•.N.NN».». Il:fy. IMr tie 1Mt •lll■R tM■ NAM ONK PNIM WUM tw hell taf■LI $%.n fm Most iafl 1t;a>i4ran Mtn rsensr _.iIIINtL__.rwri.. tfrofltl _1111a 0411JJtt ulr t/e11a. IaJriluil:�r•wwrrrrr�rr•�w.r.w�urrrrru•nwr--------- - .•.warN NMI Ii■iiJ u Opulil lf.ri 11 ry-/[f IR M can >a~ ! t R. lai -_ tf/MIMIl INLa r" IM.N MN 0.M 11f.N M 1M.4001 It. All - - ---- -- A• �: ' •• •»wNwNN♦»w.•..Nr _ _ .. . - .•w.i...M.M.M Ili W fM }pJL /N Na1U111N pIf f INI.M I:II.N rA.N l7f.M 114.0 iscoo .N iN.Nl ��i��-,,".,_•• II7r.�rrwwwN ._ ,r..._ _ r+wrrwww+orw•N.w • ., . IN frMlll}IN iMl • tri .31i _ Ill IUI Lm hswx Htu 0M.46�3111N.11 M1/N.14 101104.16 - WIN-0 11■NLN - - .N 1N.Nh t3.I+ . Ili tf31 ►Ift MCI M ama.N if.M 3f.M M.N 1bM .M lM,Ms .11 OLM OWN f 11LN1 a/.N ,M IN.NI .1/ Ili IW fir" fin no.M N11.II 24"M I/n.0 I/>'LIS 30".1, .M iN.Nt fl 36A 10 K-WO ilN.f1 1111.11 r 041.911 ltl.,ft 11/1.11 .M (fl.11t .h }ILJ- Mliff MA kN _ -�ff•N _ K.M .1 M.NI _ f.N _ f1.N N {N.Nl, fl Its W34 �N.If1lMila {Y M 31i.f1 If1.N JILM 31i.N .N IN.Nt . • "titi t 1111 IK-M.a otu 1 fliIll,tl ISI.11 1 Ist.{f1 rr1.Jf iSI.DI M IN.ifi .f i -- . •Y�},K;;� �. Ulm IM n}ll dmllllat>t} 1 IIn1M.41 wwl.0 w4m.43 v7N.3■ NiI1f.11 1 I/11.111 ifiJ�l./I 11477Li1 lotIN. Ns T{.n v�. ...._... _„ _....w................N_....»»... s - 11J Ift$ _LWti11.1.1 M1111 197%.04 I0AIL44 IMA.N I41LN 'l 11:11 loll 1■M UI ■UM frrf 1MfM.N i11N1.M Inw.M 117fN,N Iw1►A Wri.N p IM.NI i.M • M` .f - I11i3. Jy 31it1.i1 lRli► Ii f ACII :f.15i II./•. ww.Nwww....w» w...Nwww•• NNN.N. i1 17 fi folL flu= cut 1 n".N IiMU.M 1Ni'3 N I6431.N w«»»•wwe.N.+NN•N«s. '�•~ .r M• _ -- - -. _ 04-606 '.wwrwwNwrww«w..N»wwww«NNN.... Mom' Iff61.11 1f1111.1i MSM.II 1r.I11 ill cm WX M-11■iQla iMK. 111M,M {IIM.N �311M.M - F ItMLM ItiN.N M IN. 113 so 11111 MM f II*. nu 11N.M Nt I.It -S _ "we i�a.M IIIiLN III1 ""A"333 am Iltirl M Illll,il N . � y.N .N I110,01 bk :..16 fl N it M I Ism If ILM aa,N 3111.16 1NI1.1i 11llf.li t1111.1i 1�.N Most L" '•' �._.f4!-Jll��1LIM,Ull1_....113/r!!�_..._ _.. _ .._ ..- ._ .N _ Sf:li Ilft•■ Im I1M.M 31M.N 3M1.M I !11 N1 1 { M 111 M - M IN.N2 .I1 Y, 111 NM HM I11.M a'•11 too-1iM Man IM. Iti.M Mid Il.N IILM .N •• ;* "I IIM f-Q� 16 f "to I/IM.IT hi.a � M 01" N IM.Mi N M 11 {M1tilA/ CA If IM. IMI.N 11a�M IIM,M MN.N IIS Nf.N �.N IN,tAt ,N f13r1 3N/-1'.11.011111 [ KXIA MM.N 3W,% 31111.19 11a M Mum .N I0.61 .M Jlia7 I311 iliM IIf111•11i 9,1311.16 MIL" 14111.36 IIIM.Y 1 600.1N If ak Wax .11 IN.Nt .t3 fi t 1M}CIIIU IafIM M.a Ilf-N In.M 31►M 111.16 ILN tN.Mi .q MX7 __• � /iillll 1tM1C[I _ M.N . I1f.N t11.N 91I,11 151,N .N IN.601 M q:M 341-OK M iIIm I111.11 $19.31 I M.1l 1il,p 111.11 .N IM.in ,f1 Jlf:lt 3fN MAJI1111111111 44 4.0 I.M LM 4.0 .N iM.Nt VM -_ W4MU-Mi1UI. {1634 _. _ - W34 16.34 U. I1 M . .M 116N1 JM aI 13101i1111111 f Nf1. W.N OWN 111011.100 IM.N MLM N 1N.N3 .M JN:q 1141-11" FLitl QL" 13LOO 43LN iLLM I�.M .N iN.NI .M lf:ll __311MIt3>,1M latrll■i rN N pw" /II.M 0111690 1f1.N .N IN.6" .Il rim {IIPa1111 VNISI1M M.N 111.10 11f.f1 1 M.M1 11r.M 11R.M N IM.NI .l! fro 3111•fMtMaliLilK. Iwo OWN WIN /M.M IM.N N 1N.N1 Y ""1gn"'tn_n* a.11 _14.11 a.11 1 "I it31 1•ra Inttp - r 11{l,M � Illt.il n M _ a.1f . _ _ � _ ,N - IN.MI , r1I n4 all - am go - - oil.N NI1 M N11 M ^ ' M11N MIS N "11.11 .M t1:.._RIO-}I1KIlr11p.` IIMw 31M.N .M 1N.fi1 .11 1143 3311-i11N Opw MiLN MILN MLM IOLM .11 W.1111 1fFa1M MIMI Now M7lN Itf M .N IM.NI A 11+ no IWIilittl nu 13Lij ��_ _••� _ .� ... _ --+M Yln 3f3MLCLDIiN 01.40 MLM MLIs MLN ILft .N IN.f11 .M Atli _ )iflilr/l LL Ma 1LM 1i,M IL" SS.M .N IN.MI .11 I{s NA i3;0= w 1sm I�L " afi.a IIf1.11 .21 M� 39►M I.fRf �M1 {f111.I1 III11,11 _Nl,.1�111✓f thMLat . _ M fit 3311 16/1.iuoummIla �1,5841.16 pJ Of Is -am I NOW 1fM N - . ..0 It 1I11 firm 1M1 AM AO 'N Will Illl T till MNNt MAO .N 3131M1.1/ Itlq,lf uM{,II :'1.M t7311.M .M MostLa "I INII4J�IM MMf.M N Mla - >•1"1�1r _ NILM lI1■If.M MIM.M _ 11M6a MILN , 1111LM 111N.N 11.3K _ _ 3.>• M cue M VfR WWX IIMi 13U13Ln MMn NItIf.N fifl.n IoNso.lr I IMl.30 111IMa MgN.11 1AM,N msLra 1L113 ' tl,lj WM.il 113un.13 MAI.11 IlM ILN 1.Ifaf,w Irla►M IMllllf i! 1/3111.3) 1lf1f/,11, /l•37t MLM Ufu I elm um SIM 1 I Ulu Ono "afflg•la 0 am A riwM/ 11111 InIA LAi,a, M ta. _ • �} r' Ulf.111h 111� 1LM t 1t4f2..1 Ilr left t1L fl„ L 1141 tITJ t4L11..s ftM t211 tf.rt. 14tt emit $AM fie wm 14ss W tiff IMILAM (111110OLL61111111A M040 . +......�rw� • 1IwA IL n. 1 Ulf 12.U1 ILn,&U IOs1s11r IIILM.l3..RII.II,IIl M. 11, us • tl:ftif. earl us m loom toll 41mm t1I10 loot Wima Lonf1M cNow U-11 /I1 11 ff" tit 1 ; -ttMlCl"- WN - tM • 1! Oft- NM LL t WJX - oakai1 0wU iD - u.11. to 111 MM altl>tt teeth 14I •,'fir': 111 MH 1-imiam 1W "NCO ,N .• I131 IMRfM lam. 4M11.N f311.0 f11.N 1.111.41 1 14M.111 NFAL" SOLO It,p ,M 11.M1 LIl • .• _ NISM- 11fLM`t-NILMI- fIMM-' 411LM----•._ ,M-1MN1---•!! *1 40 104wl M1M %31.41 , JJ 211161 111►IlfM11m 0U641 fr11.44 4114,11 13111.11 1 tA«,1f1 IIVf.41 IIVL4I 11M,N ,M U.Su .9 MM-itif>tMaU n- 411.1/ .M 4 left! iq►iJf21111111"I+ll. A1,14 1lt.il 01.54 31.11 114.11 .M mcm ,N Awn liiM. ITL14 IrLN 111.14 Imm 03.46 ON . s 21If1 OW-04-an am 40.00 113ZM Im" 1 Timm 1121.66 11II.N ,N 1N M1 .31 s.. US 410 6*r llt>Iel .N loin am-mmR.Smf2 Im" 1111.0 0R.N I NLNI INS." 1111.M ,N IN.Nt - N 2N slat f•MNIJMt#11tU 111M.M IIII.M 4MLM .8 -A 1111LM^1111f.N __ __�L11«.M�- •. 111M.M 11NL11- NM.M ...Nll.i�^1►1r1- .i !�R ' 231 4131 *M1 Aim 1111.11 .N ''' olt43 141F111M l� NN.« 331LN =64 "to 1t21N 3Ti1N Mi N IM.MI .14 INLM - 1W 4i 1 M«.NI • IM/.N 11f1.« - ,N lN.4Ci X At 40 I. mu Mltfx Oft two .N �� lien 112Fe" ts1AN 11M.N I11s M t!M M IlN.« if" r • �t11�-�--_ 1MLM - - -• 4N,fr • -__ .. ____ .___.. _ __ ._ - _ - . _ ...,� �...MI,11�..._ , _,M 34113 rats# 11111 341.111 14LV Kv 114110 J4LY ,N IN.W.. .11 '• r' H114 14UP41cIfK NU iM N 211.11 xLN 1M.M ALI4 .11 IN.4a .11 • 1: N1--II*---1t4Ia wRlMMR 411 III• l l,MIMIM Mla « Ott 41M 04 R1Ml 611 WRit1 N of -ULW --• U&13 Nin 11011Gq Isim 111.11 IILll IN -it 111.11 10.11 .« iN.44s .11 4fip OII ti111 q.t1 11.12 1LU ILU tLA .N IN.Ifl LN -- -- Lid .- LOB .. . _. . r' 411 4721 I} 1JJ11 tali 1111.4101.6 /;• Ni am *am 1nm NLM frl.$$ If1.N ,N 40 t21o— Milt -}M,M -----tA.N--•17ti.M ti NI all It•IW no NII.M mu WAS .0 l{' 41111 11t1-�IIIIO In.N 11LN Im" trLN 1►LN 331 . 00 1Fp111A1 WR1v nuo 30.12 1i1,22 .a i41p„• vrtiMiitlrit lllr tt2.T1 o1LN 11Lt/ I IN.221 11LU NLI& ,N IM.Nt .14 .. ' ..-1III""/!N•�fF'�.trR .... __. _ _._. _... ..ram __-_ ._.__ _... �_ . - ._ ._ .r_ .. ,N .. _ . _ ;; �, . •' 111 IA/ 1Mt111LJ■1tr. tMLM .N {rf-.� Ir111 39*;If11M a" 3W.M 11A.N U&14 1 I14.141 310.66 U&N ,N IN.«! .13 '+' • 111 04 21.10 4WIL 11111611111 141.0 low.N .N ^•= "� 11111 11M•LI.L= a" 1111.M 0111,1111 1>r1.N IOLM t11" ON 10.4111 .11 0111 NM 2:-M It11 a 11411t IL36 ILL N.Y 1 14.01 A14 6LU ,M IMAK 4II WI 21•M t1lllt1m111. 0.111111 4 .0 alM N*gmnoL4wui$ IN." 3716g 31LIl 3311,1111 2311.11 ,M 1111.162 .44 •141If "- i211Ar:AI1i- _ M... --- -iLM __ti M ' - - --N.N - 1LM "ken 441i1 0.0 1LM I M•MI NLM us ,« law M110 AM•4MtA ttUmm 111.411 2N.M 4 24LMI INA 32LIS ,M IN.I1t ,It i4 Hon 2NY40LOW Fnm 121,t1 iltq--ilk gEit1�_ »_ ..�-MU11`•. _`".-1111.40-=LN __."lflLM` OWN -- -.M'JILM ---.11 file 1MFMf smi 11164 IA.M 131.0 I1r•M 1M•M .N I0.42 A "IN 1444.44- L/AAW 1 10 IM,N PLO I NLno f1LM f1LN .M Iman .N -Ti li------- Lt1-'T'i1t].111-212Lu""'iflRl4 -11 141111 311*44- no r NO 3YILM MLS I ff 111 uIL1111 WLU ,N 10.04 014 Polls 141 Is MORRIS IN.M - PLO Wo I ! U.0 >ILN AL11 ,N 1M.M4 .N ♦♦ii `at-l1N.M--'4M.i1'�"_. - ULN "IN lmmuf sm nM m ISO.M 130.0 U3N.M I1M.M 131LM .M If1.«t .4I 41* _ 11•r�11� 1 M1M1 MILM 2#4M i1N,N A -� - .....-.�.`TM.M ""'_"'""�t�M�-1M.4s"'�'"�"_•' 1fL M • - l�Y ......... _... �M - lM.tlt ^•ftilt MI m 11i2112i so 4MLM ,p { 1140 11M•11a 1 MINOR II01.41 ...�_... NII.A 4111.17 1 141.211 may "U.19 .M IM.In .2t Sim tell 1111111101 AILM 3111111.6 11M.M mail 111L11 .N "Lot .13 Itl Not ti &Zdgtulplrl ArM,M .N '1sng-I grill-In 11.M 'TI1R0-FILM-I -moo -MfM.M-'w1Kw _ - •, _ -•-•.M IM.111---1.0 nI NO OW. m1 "NLp 11tv.11 IIIIr.11 wool am. 1:11./2 ULN CLU =12 =03 .M 111.41•t .n WIN PWO ._. �... .. M M...._ _. _. M _ .. .- •M 411.M - .M IMONI -.6 WIN 210r.Mr OR INLM INLO twoll 00.41 V" .M LILIIt .91 Min loodua Lrr 11.M "A 11.M ILM %A .M IN.M2 'M; `- ' IMldr' loftM 3MLM Iwo ` WIN 0.0 2LIR - A4 • }:� f2111 104ma.UA 1111140 1" INLM 11M.M 119LM ,M WAS .M 111411 NI•M1111 o poo IDI.M 11LM 21LM ULM Oka .M 111111 A � "NI fNlf1 0 Ift ti11Ai2131114 1111111" 2111111,41 1134ri,111 XULIk It13111.f1 21AL13 14MIs.21 11NLU WLU 22 A34 sf.on Lu i J August 20, 1984 Mr. Robert P. Lenard Advance Planning Administrator City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Bob: This letter is to provide some additional cocments regarding the feasibility analysis we performed for Plummer Court. As you know, Mr. dale provided us with a copy of his Spinnaker Bay budget to use as a guideline for Plummer Court. Generally, the costs indicated are very similar to those utilized in my study. There are two major exceptions, however. First, the indicated financing costs are close to $100,000 more than would be expected and the landscaping, at $8,500 per unit, appears unusually high. Additionally, his budget indicates $120,000 in contingencies, though this amount does not appear excessive in relation to the overall cost. Based on the increased cost figures, and the one price revision for Unit C. the indicated profit would be $238,200. This amount represents 12.3% of the total sales price versus the 25% indicated with our estimates of average costs for developments of this type. As mentioned in our original report, a 15% profit ratio would be considered typical for units in this price range. The affordable unit sales price of $130.000 would represent the loss of $85,000 in revenue for the project. The balance of the profit, $153,000, represents only 7.8% of the total sales price. It is our opinion that this profit ratio is definitely too low for a development of this type. The affordable rental option, however, continues to appear feasible. Mr. Wale has indicated that he has no need for the tax credits resulting from depreciation and, therefore, the analysis is not appropriate for his financial situation. If the calculations regarding tax credits were deleted, the rental and subsequent sale of a unit would not represent an attractive investment. Real estate investments, however, are virtually always based on the advantages to be derived from depreciation and the resulting credits WO DOIA sit M SUttE AM ►, #PW I AOt G 92WO • (hq O"M SG 4A t Mr. Robert P. Lenard City of Newport Beach August 20, 1984 Page 2 against taxes on other income. while this type of investment may be Inappropriate for Mr. wale, renting a unit at the indicated affordable price, followed by a sale in ten years, is a feasible investment. Following your review of this letter, please call me with any questions or comments you may have. Sincerely. f obe . Dunham President RJD:lec . COMMISSK1*,ERS Ju 49 , 1984 • MINUTES n x mm • ° a a City of rt Beach ROIL CALLtTT IN[?EX Motion All Ayes C.f Motion was made to defer this agenda item to the and of this eveninq`a agenda so as to 411ow tit" fe,r the Applicant to return to the Council Chambers, which W)TION CARRIED. (Discuaaion of this item begins on Page 40 of these minutes.) A. Tentative Ma)of Tract No. 12208 (F'�ihlir_ I1itarin3l Request to suh(iivtrie nix existinq lots into a nintllf, lot for residential condominium purposes on property located in the 14-4 District, and the approval of .in ++nvirnnmental document. AND B. Use Permit No. 3101 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a 9-unit residential condominium development and related garages on property located in the R-4 District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a 7 foot 7 inch building encroachment into the required 11 foot 7 inch northerly side yard setback area. AID C. Residential Coastal Development Permit rlo. 6 (Discus- s ion � - -- ..,,__. Requent to consider a residential coastal development permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance for a 9 unit residential condominium development pursuant to the Administrative Guidelines for the implementation of the State Law relative to law- and Moderato -Income Housing within the Coastal Zane. IDCATION: Lots 7-12, Block I of the Balboa Baysido Tract, located at 303 Cypress Street, on the north+esterly corner of Cypress Street and Bast Bay Avenue, on the Balboa Peninsula. -0- COAAMSSONM Ju 019,1984 L" n � C Cr 7 Lity �Q+w o �[ Q fK VL.0 iL.7 7 �•' =� h ROLL CAL[ ZONES R-4 ~ES NDEX APPLICAUT: Wale Development Corporation, Irvine OWNERS: La Verne and Betty N. hart, Balboa Planning Director Itewicker reviewed the applications in question. Hr. Itewicker viviaed that there are currently ten dwelling units on tlw uubject property, which the applicant proposes to revfr va and replace with a nine -unit condominium. Mr.'Ilewicker added that the Minting density on the property is 42 dwulllnq units per acre. The detiaity of the proposed development, Mr. Itewicker advised, would be 38 dwelling units per acre, with 54 dwellinq units per acre being permitted under the existing R-4 zoning on the property. Mr. Itewicker reported that the City has received several items of correspondence from persons residing to the west of the subject property. Mr. Itewicker commented that those residents are concerned with the proposal that wood - burning fireplaces be included in the units. During the course of his presentation, Mr. Itewicker pointed out that the subject fireplaces would be required to meet all build- ing codes of the City so as to eliminate any lire hazard to adjoining property. Mr. Rewicker added that Mr. Wale has mat with the Newport Bay Towers residents and has indi- cated a willingness to abide by additional Conditions, as mot forth in his letter to the Planning Commission, dated July lb, 1984. Mr. Itewicker pointed out, however, that the suggested additional Conditions of Approval would be unenforceable. Mr. Newicker further advised that the City is requiring, in connection with the Residential Coastal Development Permit, that the Applicant provide one unit that is affordable to moderate -income people, i.e., a household earning $43,531 per year and paying a monthly rent of $1,088 per month. Q-M COMMSSIO�05 Ju09, 1984 Mr r Mr a x '4 City of Newport Beach C cr Ic e. CL - o ROLL CALL Qa (2ii MINUTES The public hearing was crooned in connection with this agenda item and Ed Wale, Applicant, appeared l►nfore the Planning Commission. Mr. Wale co:=ented that. ho has tried to accommodate the neighboring residesntn as much as possible. Mr. Wale then discussed his ce,ncorns with various proposed Conditions of Approval as ant forth below: With respect to setback requirements, Mr. Wale contended that he was provided orronnous setback information by staff and that ho did not becore aware that nald informa- tion was incorrect until aftor $15,000wan exponded on the project. Relative to staff'ts statement that the proj►n:t oxceeds the entabliahed hoicPub limit due to the proposed skylights, Mr. Wale commented that the skylights are uitunted between the recessed roofs of the units and hence not. visible from any side of the buildIn y. Mr. Wale referred to Page 4 of the staff relx,rt, wherein it states that "...the Building Cepartment will require a 5-foot sidoyard setback, which is acceptablu to the applicant." Mr. Wale stated that he did not agree to a 5' side yard setback, and spoke in support of a 4' setback inasmuch as he felt it would result in a mare -appealing project. Mr. Wale referred to the issue of the front yard setback, and brought notice to Page 5 of the staff report wherein it states, "...tho project must be redesignud to conform to the setback requirement, inasmuch as a modification to the Zoning Code was not requested." Mr. Wale stated that he Also did not request any of the other modifica- tions to the Zoning Code, and added that he was informed that such an encroachment would be permissible. Mr. Wale stated that he is proposing to provide some land- scaped buffering between the alley and the unit garages. Mr. Wale discussed the advantages that such landscaping would provide and urged that landscaping be permitted in the subject area. Mr. Wale opined that tandem parking.will encourage off - project parking inasmuch as peoples will park boats, etc. in the parking areas instead of cars. INDEX COMMlSSOSUS I * 19, 1984 L _ f'j� C ~ t a p Cat VI y ROLE. CALL I IT71 0 MINUr s t Beach INDEX In closing, Mr. Wale stated that he would object to the project being approved subject to the Conditions of Approval recommended by staff. Andy Peralez, 310 Fernando, appeared before the Planning Commission and advised that he resides in the Newport Bay Towers, which is situated immediately adjacent to the property in question. Mr. Peralez discussed his concern with the proposed reduction of the aide yard setback as well as his concern with Om provision of wood -burning fireplaces in thu units. Mr. Peralez stated that Mr. Wale has agreed to install glass -fronted fireplacen and to install artificial lcOln within thoso fireplaces. Mr. Peralez urged that the Planninq Commission 1twtudo the provision of glans -fronted fireplaces and artificial loja as Conditions of Approved. Additionally, Mr. Peralez expressed his objection to any waiver beiryl granted from the established height limit. Phil Campbell, 413-1/2 Edgewater, appeared before the Planning Commission and relayed his concern with area traffic. Mr. Campbell opined that the project should not be approved until such time as the Traffic Engineer has had an opportunity to study the traffic situation in the area. Wenton Ashton, 309 Coronado, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that he is the owner of 306 Fernando, which is located on the alley, adjacent to the property in question. Mr. Ashton discussed his concern with area traffic as wall as his concern relative to use of the alloy for vehicular access to the wale development. Mr. Ashton expressed his opposition to the application duo to the intensity of the project an well as his belief that the project would be contrary to surrounding devel- opment in the Balboa area. Bob Shximmer, 407 East Edgewater, appeared before the Pla ning Commission and questioned whether the City's Traffic Affairs Committee has considered the feasibility of re - designating the alley behind Edgewater for one-way traffic. -11- COMMISSiONXRS Ju*9, 1984 • MINUTES en x X 4 .f o x art F10 CiOf Na /� /t'1/1�• t Beach • j ea 7 City ROLL. CAII INDEX City Engineer Webb reviewed that at the tluru the 1,11inning Commission considered the Art's Landing project, the Commission suggested that an investigation be made rela- tive to the possibility of retdesignatincl the Alley behind Edgewater for one-way traffic. Mr. Webb minted that both the Traffic Engineer and he agree that such a redesignation would be possible, provided the area residentn desire* such a change. It was noted, however, that the City will not institute such a study until such time nn a formal request has been received from the arei reriirlernta. Mr. Shrimmer stated his oplxmiltion to the, l,rcponed project due to his concern with area density. Mr. 11hrinururr stated that he would like to see the property deivnllipod, but in a less intense manner. In addition, Mr. Shrimm r discussed his concerns related to tandem parking, curly ol,onings on Cypress Street, and annoyances associates with the con- struction process. Commissioner Person discuused the difficulty associated with downzoning a piece of property after an individual has purchased land with a particular zone applied to it. Mr. Shrimmer stated that tie doubts that the value of the property would be decreased by downzoning. Ile stated that a member of the City Council has indicated that a study of the Peninsula should be accomplished prior to further development being approved for the peninsula. Planninu Director llowicker advised that Council, Member Plummer did express an interest in a Peninsula study. Mr. flewicker added, however, that a majority of the City Council did not indicate concurrence with Council Member Plurrmer's suggestion, And hence staff was not directed to commence such a study. Commissioner Goff pointed out that the applicant proposes to replace ton units with nine units, and pointed out that the nine condominium units are likely to be occupied with year-round residents, whereas the present cottages are frequently occupied on a weekly basis. Mr. Shrimmor commented that the present cottages are densel occupied in the summer, but are seldom occupied during the remainder of the year. Additionally, Mr. Shrin w r relayed his opposition to the proposed mass of the project. -12- COMNUSSiC�.TRS Ju109, 1984 MINUTES �x _ ': � 7 � 4 " a t Xt City of Newport Beach ROIL CAII INDEX C �► �r Commissioner Goff concurred with Commsissionkir 11nrson' n statement relating to the unfairness of downfr,ning a project after an applicant has designed a prolnut and has approached the City for approval. Stan Sharp, 314 East lay, appeared before Ulu 1+lanning Co,unission and advised that he resides directly r<djacnnt to the proposed project. Mr. Sharp stntnd that. he generally supports the project niece the development will replace ten small, weekly rental units, an well an the fact that 18 additional off-street parking upacon w111 Le created. Mr. Sharp relaters that his primary concorri with the project 1,ertains to the prnpoi;al that vehicular nr:►onn to the property be from the adjacent alley. Mr. Nhnrp stated that such a situation would be undesirablu lr,anm,sch as children play in the alley and a potential would exist for damage to his property. Chairperson Winburn questioned whether the Applicant would accept a three-week continuance of his applications to enable him an opportunity to work out differences with staff. Mr. Walo responded that he would not accept a continuance. Mr. Wale pointed out that although he does not agree with all of the policies of the City, staff ban done an excel- lent job in connection with the project. Mr. Walo referred to Mr. Shrimmer's comment that the property should be downzoned, and pointed out that the property was originally zoned for "high-risn" development, and was subnecN ently downzoned to R-4. Commissioner Person referred to Mr. Wale's statement that he would oppose approval of the project sut,ject to the Conditions recommended in the staff report. Cot!=iadioner Person commented that the Conditions conform to City Ordinances and voiced his reluctance to aplJrove a project that deviates from City Codes. Inasmuch an the Conditions comply with City Codas, Cosrmisnioner Person questioned whether Mr. Wale would be willing to comply with the Conditions of Approval as written. Mr. Wale responded that he mould comply with the Conditions of Approval. -13- COAAMlSSbO%IRS iu*9, 1984 Fiz, �1 j{' of Newport Beach ROLL CAU Commissioner King requested clarification rolnu ve to the restriction for alley landscaping;. MINUTES Planning Director Hewicker stated that there in a restric- tion that a 5-foot setback be maintained freo and clear of all obstruction so as to allow ingress and eUress to the garages, etc. that take their access from the alley. City inginner Webb added that the landsc4pinrl, an proposed, would not limit access to the garages of Mr. Wale's units, but would limit the ability of someone acroun the alley to back out of their garage. Mr. Webb pointed aut that the 5-foot setback is needed for maneuveririq 1Fur,rses. Phil Campbell reappeared before the Plannin-1 r„rtrission and questioned whether City services can nup1w,rt the pro- posal in question. With respect to the a11u7 bOA nd Falgo- water, Mr. CamPbcll felt that it should not he male ono - way, but rather that one and should be close,] off to enterinq traffic. Mr. Wale reappeared before the Planning Commission and stated that the report prepared by the Newport Economics Croup is inconclusive and reviewed alleged omissions and inaccuracies contained therein. In particular, Mr. Wale stated that the report does not take into consideration the project's absorption rate. During the course of dis- cussion, Mr. Wale relayed his objection to being required to disclose financial information, and relayed his opinion that it is unfair to require him to provide an affordable emit in a small project. Commissioner King stated that the economics of the project will not affect his vote. Planning Director Ilewicker questioned whether the Applicant is claiming that he cannot provide one unit affordable to a moderato -income family. Mr. Wale responded that if he can rent the unit, he will be able to snake a profit, but added that he objects to being required to disclose finan- cial information. INDEX -14- COMMISSO,w Ju 1109 , 19 84 n a c 2 ? i Fr-4 ` �Cityof� �o ROLL CALL C� Motion Ix is • � a Mr. Wale continued hin c;ommnnts relative; to hin rcancarnn with the recotmiondod Conditions of Approval, as fallvra: MINUTES ilith respect to Condition tio. 11 of Tentative Tract M.ip No. 12208, which provides that PCC gutter be cunntructed along the Fast Bay Avenue, Mr. wale stated that the entire gutter was replaced four years ago. In connection with Condition no. 2 of Use permit tio. 3101, which addresses required eietbncks, Mr. 'delft titnt.ed hin belief that ho should b(,.able to maintain the wetbacks as prevented in the project. Relative to Condition tin. 5 of Use. Permit Cin. .i1ol, which requires that the prolonod skylights bo rodesifined to conform to the requirements set forth in the Zoninq Codu, Mr. dale stated his apposition to this provision inasmuch as the skylights are not visible from any aiclu of the structure. There being no others desiring to appear and bu heard, the Public hearing was closed. In answer to a question posed by Commissioner toff, Assis- tant City Attorney Gabriele stated that the ro)port that war, prepared by Newport Economics Group, to whntover extent there may be some economic deficienclun, meets the general requirements of the law. lie adducl that State Law does not set forth any uniform criteria upon which "feasibility study" is defined, and added that it is left to individual jurisdictions to rely on whatever level of expertise it can obtain within its departments or by retaining an economic consultant. Motion was made for approval of Tentative Tract Map flo. 12208, subject to the Findings and Condition" contained in Exhibit "A". Commissioner Goff questioned whether the maker of the motion would accept an amendment to the motion so as to delete Finding 5 and to reword Condition No. 12 to read, "'fiat the project be redesicIned so that nil vehicular access to the property be from the adjacent alloy." Commissioner King responded that he did not wish to revise the motion, citing his reluctance to redesign the project at this time and hin desire for the City Council to make the determination with respect to curb cuts on Cypress. INDEX —1c_ COMM SSO'kUS Ju*9, 1984 • n � _\ � �1 +, o a = City of Newport Beach ,y y p C 5 0 M11UTES ROLL CALI I_ I I I I I I II NM Substitute Motion C�1 Ayes x Nayos x x x x All Ayes lllll Substitute motion was made for approval of Tantative Tract Hap No. 12208, subject to the F'indinqu and Corulitions contained in Exhibit "A", with revisions an followsi 1) That Finding No. 5 be deleted; and 2) That Condition No. 12 be revised to read, "That the project lxs redesigned so that all vehicular access to the property be from the adjacent alley." Commissioner Person clarified that his vote to support the project in question should not he construed as his approval of the area zoning. Commissioner Parson advised that the Planning Commisuion dociu r►ot have tho sower to rezone property once an applicant suinnits a deveioinent application. Provided a project conforms with oxisting City standards and is appropriate in terms of the currently existing zoning, Commissioner Parson stated that he is reluctant to redesign or deny a project. Commissioner King indicated his concurrence with commis- sioner Person'; statement. Commissioner Kirvl discussed his support for the project, commenting that all of the tenants' vehicles will be enabled to park on-nito, rather than on the street. Commissioner Coff's amended motion was then voted on and FAILED. Commissioner King's original motion was then voted on and CARRIED. TEWATIVE TRACT MAP 110. 12208 Findings: 1. That the map meats the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Cade, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or apecific plans, and the Planning Comminlion is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed subdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. _16— COMAAJSSXY.ARS J019, 1984 ROLL CALI n ZF C w . 5 p a 3 3 . . ° oz City Of Ne�wxt Beach w 3. That the site is physically Suitable for the (ievelop- ment proposed, 4. That the design of the subdivision or thn proposed improvements will not conflict with any annements, acquired by the public at large, for accnnn through or use of property within the proposed suixiivision. 5. That approval of curb openings on Cypresn Street will not result in the loss of on -street perking spaces, inasmuch as parking is prere ntly not per- mitted An the: wo3terly side of Cyprenn Sitrao t. C. That the Planning Co=mission han de ermirmd that the inclusion of one: unit affordable to a County moderate - income family within the project is foanihle. CONDITTONS : I. That a final map be recorded. 2. 7h4t all improvements be constructed as royuired by ordinance and the Public Works Department. MINUTES 3. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a final map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That each dwelling unit be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the Public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Departswnt. 5. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 6. That a 15-foot radius corner cutoff at the corner of Cypress Street and East Day Avenue be dedicated to the public. INDEX -17- COMMn51Q1'4R5 Juk, 1984 • ^ x 4 i ~ o City of Newport Beach Ro�� CAu 7. That landsCal..r plans shall be subject t�► ravlew and approval of the Parks, Beaches and Rncrantlon Depart- ment and the Public Works Department. S. That street, drainage and utility impray.,;r,ents be shown on standard improvement plans prepnred by a licensed civil engineer. 9. That a hydrology and hydraulic study hn prepared and approved by the Public Works Departrr•,rnt, along with n master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on-sitir improvement,-, prior to recording of the final map. Any modlfic:,,bons or ext.onsiona to the existing storm drain, water and newer systems sham to be required by rir,f ,-study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 0. That prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site, the applicant shall 1emonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification from the City's Utilities Department. 1. That PCC gutter be constructed along the East Bay Avenue frontage and that any deteriorated curb and sidewalk be reconstructed; that the curb and gutter along Cypress Street be reconstructed to provide drainage along with the construction of a storm drain system if required; that the deteriorated sidewalk along the Cypress Street frontage be reconstructed; that a 20' radius curb return be constructed along with a curb access ramp per City STD 181-L at the intersection of Cypress Street and East Bay Avenues that the adjacent unimproved 15' wide alley be improved with concrete per City STD 140-Ls that the existing substandard alley approach on East Bay be reconstructed per City Standards; and that street lights (per City STD 200-L) be provided Along the East Ray frontage and Cypress Street frontage as approved by the Public Works Department. MINUTES INDEX COMMISSK :ERS j„1Pis, 1984 • MINUTES T nX r/ c n g o y Z • 1 0 1 ROLL CALL Motion All Aye$ • a ' . 12. That approval of the City Council shall be Obtained for the proposed curb openings on Cyprens ZtgPot or the project shall be redesigned so that all vehicular access to the property is from tho Adjacent alley. 13. That prior to the recordation of the Final Tract Map, the applicant shall pay the required fees pursuant to the requirements of the Park C.vdicatlon Ordinance. 14. That prior to the recordation of the Fiflal Tract Mal), the applicant shrill enter into an -r.lreement with the City quaranteeincl the provininii of one unit affordable to a County =Werate incnnr: fap-illy for a puriod of no lens than 10 years. Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 3101, sub- ject to the Findings and Conditions set forth in exhibit "A", which MOTIotl CARRIED. USE PERMIT NO. 3101 Findings: 1. That each of the proposed units has been designed as a condominium with separate individual utility connections. 2. The project, as conditioned, will comply with all applicable standard plans and zoning requirer:nnts for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at the time of approval, except for a side yard encroachment. 3. The project lot size conforms to the Toning Code requirements in effect at the time of approval. 4. That the proposed development is consintent with the General Plan and Adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. INDEX -19- COMMISSiONER51 Ju0014, 1984 MINUTES } Cr ` 1 I � 1 ROLL CALI of Newport Beach 5. That adequate on -site parking spaces am available for the propouod residential condominium development. 6. The establislunent, maintenance or operatlor$ of the use or building applied for will not, under the circum- stances of the partic-zlar case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, ccmfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or be detrimental or injurious to property and impraveaents in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 7. The proposed nicks yard setback encroaclrnont is compara- ble to existing 30tbacks of other prop.,rUes in the are; and adequate open apace will be providuil *ilsewhesro on the site. Therefore, approval of the r1,.luosted encroachment will not, under the circurnntances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of per- sons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the pro- posed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. 8. That the proposed use will be less intensive than the existing use (as defined in Section 15.36 of the Municipal Code), and therefore, a fair -share contri- bution is not warranted in thin case. Conditional I. That devoloMent shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and eleva- tions, except as noted below. 2. That the structure shall be redesigned so as to main- tain the required 3-foot front yard setback along Cypress Street; and a minimum setback of 5 feat adja- cent to the northerly side property line. INDEX -1n- COMA%SKNERS Ju919, 1984 MINUTES ~ c a., Cat y of Newport Beach ROLL CALL [4 Motion All Ayes 3. That no landscaping shall be permitted nt #irade in the 5-foot rear yard setback adjacent to lhv alley. Furthermore, that the portion of this building that is permitted to encroach 2'6" into the runr yard setback shall have a minimum ground clearance of feet. 4. That the proposed wall shown adjacent to past gay Avenue shall be reduced in height to three feet. 5. That the proposed skylights shall txs rr.K1u4igned to conform to the requirements set forth in the Zoning Coda. 6. That all applicable Conditian3 of Tentative Map of Tract tio. 1220a be fulfilled. 7. That this use permit shall expire if not exercised within 24 months in accordance with Section 20.80.090A of the Municipal Code. Motion was made for approval of Residential Coastal Development Permit Ho. 6, subject to the Findings and Conditions net forth in Exhibit "A", which MOTION CARRIED. Findings: 1. That the proposed dovelolxnant is not exempt from the provisions of State law relative to low- and moderate - income housing units within the Coastal Zone. 2. That the Planning Commission has determined that it is feasible to provido one on -Bite rental or owner- ship unit that is affordable to a moderate -income household, as defined by the County of Orange. INDEX -21- COMMSSSIONER5 d*19, 1984 i n� x = City of Ne��vport Beach r 1 C O Q 7 Q ] r r O ROIL CAI.I Condition 1. That all conditions of the Tentative map (if Tract No. 12208 and Use Permit No. 3101 shall L& fulfilled. Planning Commission recessed at 9:15 p.m. and reconvened at 9:30 p.m. � f • MINUTES "Note: Cocraissioner King stated that he ncwilected to include additional Conditions in the motion on Agenda Item No. 4 to require the provision of glass-frorlterl fireplaces and artificial logs, which the applicant agreed to provide in response to the concerns of adjacent residents. Commis- sioner King requested that the City Council lea advised of this omission so that it can consider imrosirrf said Condi- tions at the time Use Permit No. 3101, Residential Coastal Development Permit f;o. b, and the Tentative Map of Tract 12208 are before the City Council. • * r Use Permit No. 3103 (Public hearing) Request to change the operational characteristics of the "Studio Cafe" Restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverages (formerly the hungry Tiger) so as to allow live enter- tainment in conjunction with the restaurant operation. LOCATIONS Parcel No. 1 of Parcel lip 107-40, Reuubdivision No. 552), located at 3201 East Coast highway on the south- westerly side of East Coast highway at the easterly terminus of Bay - side Drive, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: C-1 APPLICANT: Studio Cafe, Corona del Mar QWNEK: Euu3ano Dooro, Corona del Mar INDEX Item #5 U.P. #31( Continues to 8 4 6 CGASTAL MlI *X! M DEVELO*'T, COUNCIL POLICY P-1 CITY �_ OF NEWPORT BEAC}i _ fe;r PIJhNN I NC DEPARZISEt,TI' �— CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 (714) 640-2218 or 640-2219 Applicant (Print) Wale Development Corpoation Phone (714) 863-0322 Mailing Address 17752 !Mitchell St., Irvine, Ca. 92714 Property Owner La Verne R. Hart and Betty W. Hart Fhono (714) 673-7950 Mailing Address 303 Cypress St. Balboa, Ca. 92661 Address of Property Involved303 Cypress St., Balboa, Ca. 92661 Legal description of Property Involved (if too long, attach separate sheet) SEE ATTACHED DESCRIPTION Description of the Proposed Project 9 (Nine) Townhome Units/Average 1200 Sq. ft. Cape Cod look Woodsidinq River Rock trim ` Number of Units 9 (Nine) •lwf rrrlwrr#w#wwwrwwww#f rsrrfrrrrr#wrwfr#wrrrrfrrr#rwrwrrrfrrr rrrwwwrrrrrr*rrrwrrrrrrrrrrrrf Please attach a statement indicating the proposed selling price of the units, the anticipated cost of developing the proposed project and any other information that could affect the feasibility of providing low/moderate income units in conjunction with the proposed project. swwrrrtrrrrwrwrrrwrrrwwrwrwrrwrrrrrr+rrrwwwwwrrwrrrrrrrrwrrrrrrrrrr■rrrwrwrrrrwwrrrrrwrrrrrr (I) CK4 Edward H. Wale epose and say I am) i'i1iXXM the owner(s) of the pperty s) . volved .th(I) is application. WC further certify, under penalty of perjroury, at a fo i statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith s t are esgects true and correct to the beat of (my) (our) knowledge and belief. s. Signature(s) — �., ward WA4, President . Wale evelopment Corporation NOTE: An agent may sign for the owner if written authorization fro= the record owner is sled with the applicant. DO NOT COMPLETE APPLICATION SFJ0OW THIS LIME Date FiledFee Pd. ._� t �!'�•. Receipt 40_ Planning Director Action Date P.C. Hearing .&47 .t [. --,, Dat• C.C. Hearing ^t �,1,t .•, . , Date Appeal P.C. Action Appeal C.C. Action /r [% SG:nma 12/7/82 P-1 ILDURES FOR CO MRSIONS AM DPWITIOWS r• DMERNINATION OF APPLICABILITY When an application for conversion or demolition of residential atructurea is submitted, it should be deterssined if P-1 is applicable lly nrinwering the following questions: I. Is the project in the Coastal Zone? ■ Yes: See 42. Mos P-1 doesn't apply. 2. Does it involve demolition or conversion of three or nu,ry residential units? ■ Yes: A Preliminary Application for Residential Demolition/Converflion should be filed. %0 fern will be required with the. Preliminary Application. Following aubmlttal of that lareliminaty Application, continue to Question *3. Nu: The conversion and demolitior, provislonss of 1-1 41"ll't. apply. 3. Is the replacement use czastally cic-pendent or coastally relatr!d ahrl consistent with the LCP? Yess P-1 doesn't apply. . No: See 04. 4. Is the structure a public nuisance as defined by State Health and Safety Code or City Ordinance? Yess The conversion and demolition provisions of P-1 don't apply. No: P-1 applies. PROCEDURES IF APPLICABLE If Policy P-1 is applicable under the above criteria then procedures will vary as to the type of replacement development contemplated as follower Nan -Presidential Uses Only If the new project proposed is neither residential nor coastally dependent then the applicant must provide information demonstrating that residential use of the site is no longer feasible. In addition, the applicant must provide all information, fees and other materials required of applicants for