HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP_007COASTAL RESIDLNTIAL DEVEIA:)&, COUNCIL POLICY t'-1
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
af - 7
Application Knc'd by
Fee: 5
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach. CA 92663
(7141 640-2218 or 640-2219
Applicant (Print) Pulaski £s Arita. Architects
Phone (714)SQ-(3 l
!sailing Address 5120 Birch street Ne wmrt Pjea h, CA 92660 __„
6-7 57a «ate
Property Owner Helen F. KreutKkn
M Phone -
!tailing Address, 2961 Cliff Drive. Neuport Mach, CA 92663
Address of Property Involved 2%31 Cliff Thrive, NLe laort Beach, CA
Legal description of Property Involved (if too long, attach separate sheet)
-__ A subdivision of Park Z of first aMit Inn to NN-Alvirt Heights, ! .M. 4191
Description of the Proposed Project A subdivision of said property into four lots.
Number of Units Fair
warass�wwwsawrwarwwwawawawwraaww■.•wwaawwaawwarwwwwwwr■■■aw■■www■www■w■wwa.rwr■*■wwwwwwaaaww
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
affact the feasibility of providing low/moderate income units in conjunction with the
proposed project.
err■wswaawwwwwwwwrwwwwwarw■•rwwrr■r•awarrarra•rrwwr•wr■wa••wr■■rr■arrrarrrrwrrrrrrr■arrrwrrr
(I) N," Helen KreutzkLnW 1 depose and say
that (I am) *p�' the owner(a() of the propartyi involved 1n thxs app,icatlon. (I)
XM) further certify, uneer penalty of perjury, that the foregoing statement: and answers
herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct
to the best of (my) Am) knowledge and belief.
Signature (s) /C1L/' ,�' 1/��-1�_ 4 40e
NOTE: An agent may sign for the owner if written authorization from the record owner is
filed with the applicant.
Date Filed
Planning Director Action
Date
P.C. Hearing q
Lai NOT COKPLETE APPLICATION BELOW THIS LINE
Fee Pd.
Receipt No.
Appeal
rr>1►
P.C. Action
Date Appeal
C.C. Hearing
C.C. Action
L
Data
!7r ! r n l
�l. �6" ">-' / '"*_ � 's•1'•,r' i'.1i. - "i.'dlyR"i•r _''�c�t1� rr' •1, kC `*� W4 --. -{1VIri�,fy ns+
`� �C%.�- , x 'i' s ':4`- rh� ..:r«�r r•� F e � r i-�y * y._+ e`' :,�•�✓ -tt ;�
�t�m ,,. _ ...f',-+• .. •'�•3r'' ..-a.. :kf`ri •R r. :. r .. .r .. L �"s� f•w - k I�Nei..,�,ll
• 'a Fr °' ,' •i•��'*• � ' • y r, s•n f.: Jw +:• +.1%`. •,•h 1� ,r'- ,rW �.. r�s i.Y Jet P I !i .ti yY +rA
>i1'{v ;. .:.�7,... 7"••'.r..r�i.r .. .. ... s v.. • n ��^c+.�.i r•• �' Y_ r.. .� . , J : f'E' !' � �� ��'� 1�
rr r• �n...r.t ► -.ra•-Lys.•. �, .• •` •.rA �• ,•y> I.B�• �N ��� MA,.
r uw•FY M. r '•i , , r.�r,- /• , r.•' �t a 1 I T r .0 fit• • `"r`,.Q log
' .. r" . �..� • .. •... 3 � .. L.., _ r .. r •ry. • .' •rs... •'�s•t"� '� !'� fsc .
.. , , '. Mach Z, 19d�+ � � .... ..... , . .. � .. • . _ �y-
Mr. Rabert•P.,L"enaord
Advance P1mriG*`Admtnistrator
f. Community Dtwlapment Department
WY OF -NEW ORT: much �f
3300 Ne%jWt.BdulevaM
�.• �NA.+rpa•t B�clr, CeHjornia� g2tie3 � � �. • � - �y:r;:
RF.: AVON SMUT PR
OJS�GT -- Z9di Cllrl� "Nifft HWPOff WAC11 „
Dow Mr. Lenard.
In accordance with your request and authorixatton, Tarantella Company hde
report mIuatin0 the feadlbllity of requiring a 8POW(flod number olfordcbli�u�itts
w►ithin the above -referenced development.
tncluclet! (n the fou owing report"M_an analysts of the Alb/ect Lot &WIVIaion Project pith
the inclusion of one low- or moderato -income tmlt. The •. �: '
appraprfate price level and • ...
' avera0e ' absorpt(On period have 'been estimated and the ime of "fatr reftuTe to the
developer has boon addressed.
We thank you for, this opportunity to be" of service and look forward to your continued
patronoge in: the: f4ture.
r , ,AResWtju^y aA iWi94d,
wK fir,^, • r �_ - - ,- . .
F ' '�• - 1•i�ARANT6l.LO ��`CaNPANY� , .. _. , . � ,... . ..�� 'r' r � �r':w
:...• � R. Ta�onteilo, CRIt • .. • ... •Y .. :..... ',. _ �• ...• -' �u+�"
dw�.�
_ ~•planet c. �Ktab� _ . - • . • ... • " . ,.� 4 ,.
Pro/ot Manager ? .. - • ,1'
I; •• .... .Z, :�a•��y,.. i: of t-•^,li
r1Hr'-tK'�'v.t::��,; '+�•`. h• `,� u ..r,: �3'_.', , ... a.:":' 4 ..{r ...� ' ryai. rw ••. lti. .a, ',^•.• i�.
:,jwe; �'*•yr;;. ice- .''t' :. j . r,,....•.. t• r;..,�'r#.'. ,t .: .•.rr r .�'• «.a...:.i:" �.j,W��':
,,,I;I;p;:,t .- 11.•.Ifc::.i{.::.•r:'. '�: rs. � i..wr• -i., � • .. .._ ....al. .�• � .t. !':�•.i..:U,'
w �,n r+� .., r +.. ! * �,�r.:.f�;; {'ss,.rl�*,� ^�r'•rw-.,.,.. +". .+t ..r .r swa_Ra+ v +� "•.1' f
�,iK..' + s..;trw,�:i.�i��� .. I` �h.}•7r� _ ~i• s z• � '•w•fr 1 - 5,.. t 4'.::2
�s..,.%j Mt, •..�• : 1 ., �'M it 5; ''t.. �.. y,.,s :i.. ;s .[�ryr�e.;6::'/ ��' _. '}'F.:.) •.,'ri. t".^•-i : �/i �%: :;ra��
'r";'= �:Y �' .•+. .w !'f r,7w.T+ "n.{. .•`'.�. -t,�. cM1 niter.;�„.,..rq-.�.:.r•.'�• �.' �,ri.;lr• .,Z. .. .i�"•f'•^`. �'v�'w
�rw :.'�.. . J'!!�'�•'�i. +� `.•,,.. `• •.": hdr .F.. ..«�-�4r.a?4 ti.r Y •ri r
'Y �:iStt���'.,�: f'1 rr .•.�::. �. ;���'� ,F,"i .. •, 1' « �� ..�. �• '!/, ..w.'•£,ti;• Yy,,. .•+L r �•,.� : , :Jr'.w:,4:ri.';.': ,,�.^w.1•:•r::� `�; rr,
tt.u«.r•..J,yT.�. .'y, ,,.. eu.r•'.'•/p•, u. ✓•<,'.. •.f•r .y:.•vs.y._.rY•, �.:. w':`�;'' ,rt .-w. ,. �i'r•-i. r`�""'"y��`_�!':yy'...iLy.�'
t tx- 'L Js' :ri r 11 .1<: � fl .'M*� , r'.; .. r; i.`r. ..!'.;...,' :ii-:� l:y ' s a..ca�r:` �-s :�-••.?'•,�,r .. .ry. ••f " I P' �4'is+-h'•.K •1. 4l;_•., r „i. i'...:,1 +'•�tj♦ y,L ray,. •: .«^�•i '' w I.t:.,r•.. 'it'i��r 'g>• +b. •��.• `� +n.nws.tA •
' t .: w, ♦ • MriY,.... 1 k;. � y.},.o, ri }a` /, 't,i�rnW► 4 i+r s'. �'�'.•
J.4, Ate•:. C -V.w i 3•+:J•r�.._, �, �h'r` � y�:�L�r�. ��y. ! r.a.. ': P... :v 'kt-. ��'!•s` e �'..r /
•.4 r.r� rw;`,ls:�-: S.v� r"Ls J ;,,y ,.�• r- • a t.'. .4, •� +'y�Y �'s:r.• J, � � e •} . o i a. � 'R� .,)•' 1 i
a w•A « f ,l ." � aj. r -+� ,. N •h�a r. ., r '� .� .,, , w'.r S y wl.r.r 1 w.�r.�l., y //a••.I Lw�•� wns
M���� �_� _.:_sir•r*'rb��Y'��i,-�..7�G;''*"'�.e�'�,i4'';i�'s'�`�N _iis'Sp4..�.��r� .'��:�._.SSL"'�:_3 ^L°I!'r'!r3'rrM�'�t`"#K
ArroAoA9LE Hous1NG FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
of
2961 CLIFF DRIVE
Three UnIOProved Lots
NEWPORT BIEACH, CALIFORNIA
Subdivision Applicutlon by:
PULASKI AND ARITA, ARCHITECTS
Submitted To:
CITY OF NEWPOR T UEACFI
03/ 02/ 84
Submitted tiy:
TARAHTELLO A COMPANY
I
STATEMENT Of ASSMPTION5
2961 Cliff Drlre
(1) Project Characteristics
Square Feet _--YncrletIon
Lot t 10,760
Lot 2 8,200 -.
Lot 3 9,780
Affordable Unit 1,40U ? Hadruom/1 batrn
(2) land Ownership: At the start of project construction, it is assumed
that the land Is owned outright by the developer%.
(3) Land Cost: Provided by the Ownership -• $300,000.
(4) Construction Pertod: A nine-uonth eun,truction perlorl ha: been assumed
from comisencement of construction to comliletlon of unit.
(5) Construction Costs: i3a3eu upon astlmutas cis lcuiataa fruw other trplcai
slaltar-s11110 prpptrtlts in Nowliort Be 4icis and Corona del M,lr. .
Unit Construction Costj
Development Co&ts
total Cost
s 104,0uo
lW4,120
1 228,120
Tr,a construction costa are assuse;d to bu incurred evenly over the entire
construction period.
(6) Financing / Prism Rata: The rate ch,IrUed against ten outstanding loan
balance 15 2.5 percent over ptime; prime is assumed to average 11.0
percent. Ine loan fee was assumed to he 3.0 percent of the construction
costs.
(7) Rs a sent of Lain: Based on too perr.ent of gross sales.
(a) Absorption: An at:,orptlon rate of one tut ur unit per two months has
been Incorporated Into the calculations. It has been assumed that the
unit would be absorbed first with sale% beginning in the ninth Montt,
after cumsencrment of construction.
(9) Affordable knit PricinO: The affordable unit w$3 considered to replace
A lot In each scenario. Unit pricing was based upon Income infotmetion
provided by Robert P. Lollard, Advance Ntanning Administrator, City of
Newport Ueach.
2
Because the designated affordable unit is a two-bedrooa cor,doolrrtue, the
irecoae level far a four -person household sirs conr.lderrd celevunt fur
Potential occupancy. Based upon industry stanastds, a ma,riaua ur 3j
peteent of the households% gross Income can be allocated towards fit►using
debt service. Typical financing terra for residential units hall been
ussumed as follows; 10 percent down; 13.5 percent rate; !u-jeer arrrottirr.
tton. Both Ioer trrCrlae and auderate Income levels were andlyted -- the
resulting Affordable unit pticlnq used to the calculations it as follow*,
Los-lncuae Unit f 6916100
Moderate-IrecOsso Ue+l t s 100,000
(!7) Affordable mental Rates; Rental Rates were tensed uV0A dllnwable sonth.
ly expense lnforwation providtd by Robert P. tenata, Adiar}ce Planning
Administrator, City of Newport beach. These figures fur a four -person
household are as follows=
Luw-Income unit % G56
Moderate -Incomes unit f1.0.1
(llr Nrnrlwiors of Uft-Site. Affardat.le unit; Tree folluwlny neldlttons,,
as'luapt lun, have boast ineurporrted I"Ito tilt rnuiysls, pr„vIillnU low. rwr
a,�rletrtn-Ineuaees ureits at un off -site lucutlun. The 60e94yn Sidles l+rlcu
for all re:.1duntlirl units for ;alp% whtch uccured since tfle Irst Mt;
11.ting buui+ was used ati the pu:cr"se prtcu of the uff_sltn units.
A tJsorpt1of, : It hus been ySsuars tfuet ihu off.sJty unit will be
purchusud and sold In the ntntn eonth.
Pricy; It has been a,sunea tn,et the purthdse price of the ufr-sLte
unit !. $245,600. thts rtpre:enta the Current arerayos residential
%dies% !,rice.
(!li Anrsual cash Flows The e:.tlwated rnnudl cusp flow rtum r+rntlnil out the
affordable units lncurporatuc, the followlnei annual e.aense;;
Taxei
s 3,750
1itsurare ce
00
EKpanscS
i,040
Subtot•A1
$ 6,150
Ueot Service
75,2�i •
Tutul
s Sl,4�l
• (bo.ox loun.tu.value, 13.5%1 iu_year usortllist ton)
LOr Mrsderdte
Per Wilt Annual Cush flow (Rentini, for 10 years) (:27,64t) ($19,3031
(14) Residual Value; The re;lduul value of an affordable urelt at tilt end or
the 10th ye.et Is bused upon un annual 5.0 percent escalation fnctar less
Ina re■4inlrtiy loans balance at trrat t sae;
% 407,224 - j 1b7,7&0 . t 219,494
Cate; ,tr
pi -MI
111D at te►► y'::::•x
three Bevreorl
All Ofeldertla.
9,AMAAt Of RLSIOir11AL
ISSONf1 AL11rJrf
(As of fabrvarr
21. I1ee)
av(aa'1 J_l: *laic(
T r�
- —�
evE*a.[ D&OS C+, VAR*((
A:tlrf
11:t1ti.S
S1nte .aat
;S*ce
,aft
SlA.e
tel:
S1nca telt
adera;e
a.rreze
ce*L Bcs•
+ear.ty-Dale Las: Bor•
tlstir.; loar 1ear.ta-Pate
►lati-y ►rlco
Daft 0+ oa:■et
1 TOL
1
2'..at:
1 :14,1Co
:SE
147 !f6
1 214,130
lL:
1 :0.0cc
1
i4',1::
S 4-1J.00"
11:
:51 lei
1 711.490
11:
1 249,9C0
1
1+7.6L7
1 :49,900
111
ia: 176
1 994.234
1L:
01 Atea
AllLrltl a (tih:.:t Seat+•) 1 IB�,904 S 1JJ,S,: 1 1b4.9�D le: 35: 190
All pos:00,tial 1 2ai,14G 1 7al,[L: 1 7a9,944 17[ la7 176
S9ur.'f; w�1L::;e—..,111nj Bca'+ Yol�+ee 6 {ra:,��a:f ia. :91a:1'4feD+rt harO.rlLCeta n/1a B:arl 0! aea:tC:6
1 21G,900 9!
1 JAa.200 14J
SU.IMAAt Of CIIRP[M� 1 ltSftllcs
(As o/ February 21, 19i4)
District 110. & -. Mesport Desch
met Per
Aa:res.
�.
6.=: »es/6atns
S.uere rent
.1stln; Price
14.+ere foot
761i
C:4f :tree:
5,'1
..
432
eestel"ttrr Are^ue
2523
«,411r Lanr
1/1.7S
1'40:
]
177.030
3
126.43
S34
i1110 44en49
1,279
1
17;P.T=
3
139.95
310
Sen $erl4wllno Avenue
71
,.
3
1 r• 1 s.CJ.
,.
$31
Son bern4r91ne A,enut
f/1
1,14;
1
i79.530
1
157.46
325
[: +.v�eha/Cltfr
7/1
..
1
117,000
2791
M211r Lane
3/l.S
--
f
1920000
_.
415
"well Place
V 2
..
f
t9e,o60
,-
531
tus:l^ frenue
)/2.75
..
t
235.000
..
416
St. Ars:ers
311
--
1
2s:9,0C^
-_
626
Cot411►1 0rl,e
311.5
..
1
211,000
..
522
S4^ Bern4rilna A,enue
3/2
..
t
723,000
--
:1S
'.stl- Avenwe
2/1.5
__
1
21% 303
..
ICI
.err
3/2
..
1
}24,000
..
467
atstAlnster A.tnue
3/1
1,315
t
7751003
S
1A1.51
315
Alieo Avenue
3/2.3
..
1
7331000
..
53i
San Sernerelno A.en"s
3/1.13
7,000
1
7aC.000
3
110.00
St4
619011:19
312
..
S
219. n
--
7230
"Oil? Lent
313.5
1,OOG
S
249.000
f
134.50
Sit
Irelme Avenue
313.71
2,000
3
79s.5Ct,
1
149.25
Sc,,rte; ter4,114110 a Co.as•�f
S MnJt•r Of CURRENT L1571f1G4.
(as of 21. 1m)
Oletrtet ete. i M•eport s•ath
of 1re •ef
- _
afes& _--
g13f401t'baS�f
Sgoeft feet
yIstlm; Ptlte
Si.sit
fof.:
)'.
:a;'ef .ane
?
:,lU".
S 111,5W
1
19.96
...
S--e:s r;as1
7r2
..
1 4 1 y 5",
:U^
:ei"rf ;ane
?':
••
1 119,700
--
...
123,000
..
aef
102.3
1,450
S 1?4.070
1
16.97
et:
:::on tar
312.5
1,220
1 1)2.390
1
100.41
s21:
a+t:1c. Noe:
3/2.5
1,22:
S 132.S00
S
s0�.11
)::
Lane
2.:
..
S 13i,000
--
4.3
Crsa^ 9s7
212
•-
1 133,000
--
.�:
S:,%:is P:411
2/6"
--
s 144,90D
,.
ass
U::cn ee,
31)
-.
1 143,000
•-
alJ
-el•ere
2/2.3
1,440
s 149,500
1
1a3.12
;-sefi:r Aef"'i•
2/2.5
--
S 136,ODC
..
J:D
r:%fll
211.77
••
1 162,300
_•
��
_a7nel Lane
2/1.73
1.00D
1 115,000
1
11).00
J r
•1:. Lane
2/1
..
1 119.9so
_.
242
:a;nel Lane
7/2
i,sea
1 174,300
1
17a.33
102
S:nolr •)era
2/2
..
1 173,000
--
331
St. AMSrers
3/2.3
2,000
1 1790000
1
1f.30
220
41:e Lent
2/2
1.300
1 119,000
1
1i3.31
132
Wi:l tier•
212
.-
1 11f.000
-.
1..
W—clt Pill&
J12
--
S 1191000
••
21:
t42P*1 Link
212
1,11a
195,000
1
)1D.32
22.
i::• Lane
2/2
••
1 105,000
••
$'
'.tintr Lene
61/2
••
1 1f9,300
••
03
eeet•:n1:er 1►en.e
242.5
J,30.
S 215,000
1
fl.a1
:?s
!:halt ►lase
212
.-
1 225,000
••
2%0
:a;nes Letie
212
••
S 225,000
--
2e1
•:te Len•
2/2
••
S 229,000
-•
71,^.
C4091 Len•
2/2
1.7J0
1 274.9W
S
l)9.39
14�19e3 Tarent1110 a :oese':y
as'2rrs.e Ci•.. ttCI
SCIeja10: 0M1 MWER4TE-114COMI UNIT
fop Sale/ors-S1te
Cols:
Dr.4:oters
pMt�r" at
Cvwtr�•:s
ry-rcSry
L+re:c;we„t
(m%ta11I%
Cross
DoOT1wwr's
CtrttIwtr3
1M.alatrrs
r►nt�
[xrelrKwr". 4cti,itr
tar+d
GMtr
lxts
Coats
Draw
4rar
to:roc♦
ysln
Cain now
[Wttr
Iwl!r
_---
Pmflt PWWO
1
pecarC toeni
*trort:e Cantrvrtla�
S AIC,'Xt
S 25,3+'
S 771
1 }s4,�P.
S 2U.T72
S Sr
1 2PA,C77
y .6
s 1606mc,
S in, am
2
.1
25.347
3,1%
26.M3
26,34)
312,615
D.
41).(1m
7
.0.
25,341
3.5.7
2A,tw
2e,WA
.G
34.,AY#
.fr
.0.
do,mi
+
•�
75.34,
3.w
2S,1E9
r01"
.:.
37%&M
.0.
.6
fo.mi)
.C.
,p
5
25.3.'
4
.G
25.U?
4.5C:
2$,4+'+
4X,034
.0.
.G
40,OW
7
•0.
75.E+7
4,evs
30.145
]O,i1S
.^.
460,21E
.N
.G
ID, MU
.G
.C6
0
(Ogin srTr+tlfg
.C6
25,34>
f.ifl
k;,524
3C,524
.G
4A0,743
_0.
.0.
4
Co%lete CantrvcOw
tali irrarSa:/t lr,.t
25.1t+
5,f:;
37,+l66
.G
77.i32
613,411
10a.CW
.G
40.000
.r.
46
17
.0
_C.
4.455
4,653
4,455
.d•
418,244
.0.
.G
40,OCt
.C.
.a
11
Seii tot
.n.
.�
4.T^,S
4,705
_0.
iva,m
277,",
Jss.nm
.a
4o,om
.G
_0.
l2
-C.
-;.
2.54!
2,%5
21545
.G
230,734
.Or
.G
Ii,D1L
.G
.G
13
Sell tot
.0.
.(.
2,5sr
2,5%
-G
2sa,f34
.O.
19S,00D
(]+3,SI>!;
�,124
(3e,121;
(fE.i24;
VIALS
�Ttgoan
�iI7�
��
_��2s
i �•
�.to
L-a
son,
$1fx 11
Lu►v
U.L'lbl L��
Swrce: Tarentelly 4 Crawy
m
"OfOyre CA%" rLOe
Sc(NAA101 ONE tots-31 COMI UNIT
For Sala/On-Sit•
Tote]
!ie,eI +per's
srtuvi 0
La+strrtlar
rlrwcl�I
Derslatrr:
ortstwaing
cross
:e•e:one-16
Cwtrlt.,tws
to-nluva's
wnL�
perelouso+,t sctlr:t!
Wool
Costs
Costs
Casts
ores
laps/
WArve
%Its
:IL-1r+ F.w
EV,ttf
l4+ltr
irnflL itro4nt
l
ttettire Lowv
ow"fu Csnstructlm
! 3(x,cfx
i 25,UO
i 13,725
1 3a4,C" i
i 2e+,o72
i •4
! 2M.(.
t .;r
1 i6007LJ
i B1,tlfl
i .G
t -p
2
.0-
25,347
3,194
21,543
25,343
.6
312,615
..
..
60,af,
.6
-b
3
.o.
25,347
3,517
2e,6u
23,3/a
-O.
341,474
_6
.G
Rl,tlrj
.06
.r.
e
-C_
25,347
3.e42
29,1"
29,1e9
•6
377,UA
.c.
.6
Morin
.L►
_G
5
.G
25,347
4,17n
20,517
29,517
.6
4m,le5
.1'-
.t:
60,ruj
6
.a
25,341
4,MR
29,e4i
29,e49
-6
4]C,034
.:.
.C.
60,(a)
.G.
.6
7
_G
25,347
4.638
30,10
3o,1e5
.6
"0,219
.G
-G
6a,0r0)
.6
.6
e
lagtn w41w.,v
.a
25,3s7
3.177
30,524
30,524
.6
490,74)
.6
.6
60,OrD
4
C1seGlete E1r•stsu!Sy./
$r11 slrrorls:I4 aP.,!
.ti
75,i47
3,521
30.ua
G.
36,02
452,111
69.5,70
.6
60,tll1
to
_.
.a
3,os56
SOW
5,006
.6
457,1417
.6
•6
60,cm
11
Sall tat
.G
.6
30143
5,143
.6
1e9,657
267.340
I",=
.6
do, UP
.6
.6
l2
.4
.0.
3,om
I,UCE
l,tit]e
.&
27o,34A
.ti
.6
6o,cm
.5.
.a.
13
9011 Lat
.6
.6
3.041
3,G41
.6
m,3"
.c.
I95.'=
[Te,301
134,30
170.301
i136,3e91
TUTALT,
}-]m1aD
IL1,1T3
ifdt7K
} M9
}�fe�tiT7
1�ifl3i�
� 4
i �
���!a
L��-1
3!!L �
3uroes TeranUll: 4 �x+�r '�
•F^i,AM6 CLSH fto!
SCiMAm14: Of HOOMAT[-INCOMI U111T
For Smta/O►t-Sit:
t�t�l
Ct.slot�r't
+�!et• tr
�, slrv.::a
rl.rl:rr;
pe.s:ots�:
rss strCi�
Csoas
Snwlww's
CcrtrltutW
d..,lut*1•s
simtr,
a.s1cK*er: IC:t+lt1
tr4
tw:,
C=1.1
Casts
Moo
Aelal
bL:rce
5nln
iav,,lw
twitrY
_ iniltr
milt
1
nsccr7 ;,or
here
25,u'
1 1e.7.0
!; 3"10-1d
1 21A,012
1 -(6
2
.a
2),347
3,17e
25.u)
25.S47
.a
3::.c13
.C6
}
.^.
21,347
7,5.7
I8.NA
25.W
-a
Ss:,+'9
-o`
•a
1O,71t.
.�
-rr
3,bA2
27,1"
29,1"
.0.
)7Q.{4d
-a
-a
_:
2s.3+7
L,17D
29,117
z,,f17
_a
rcr,te�
.a
.a
_a
.a
7
_a
27,3A7
4,13e
X.19S
7o,1e7
-a
40,219
.a
.c.
ir:,ts7D
.0.
-O-
b
W.1f OWW..,%
.(►
25,347
7,177
30,774
7r;,U4
-a
A+r..743
40,til0
-a
-0-
xli L•ros�c:e T!:
-f.
2s,3+7
1,12.
:7i.LRb
_t~
26,532
"&.111
10),t73D
.a
et;,Usr
51=
S,m
1,T:1
-a
47,413
•a
C.
e0.0m
_a
-a
11
4Pll Lot
5,2D1
S,Ibl
-tr
3Y1,719
7".714
1"'am
.a
fC'mo
-a
•4
12
•a
.a
),147
3,147
).147
-N
I ,'Kl
.a
•a
W.(im
43
•s11 tot
.a
-a
3.152
3,tic
-a
282'"1
.6�
I"'a 7
I91,c777
1f1,D7]
I9i,C17�
[111,477J
fo AL:.,
LIM
} TMyLZ3
UfT1O
} e 3 DO
f 4".11t
} M19.t1?
; •a
l�.oqono
}�1f11mn�
�0.GM
;.Lq�,t??1
J[LSjCM l-s`-'M
►NorOpMl Ca,� ►.t•
SiC1NAN10l 041 LOW-jesC0Ni UNIT
far SalarOr►-Sito
•.: A.
:wit tr.j • r
mar or
Curs!rj l:a
r;•a�c:N
:+r.r. �crr .t
s.l st�att+;
«5s•
U*sl.%Mvs
Con,rirut�
P.
'r.s. cwr' �!1f;iy
LinC
r
CDS:f
;.s is
Cu :s
pry.
Nt:arr
lalrky
!Aln
Catf►, Floe
[1.11rY
[ri:il7
sT:rl: rrrir�•
:4AWT:r :1'15: !JC41[r
S :..•1(Ti'
i �,3:•
1 11. T.]
f 3u,07'7
S 2M,U71
...
3 iaa
1 160.MDI
1 Ir.,nr,
S -0.
1 G.
r
D.
25.u7
2-.u1
2e,s.3
-�
112,615
.4
-o.
C.a1
_a
.C-
a
.a
-.S47
f,s:7
n.IV4
rll.ab:
.:
U., 1679
.o.
.a
x,7rx
.C.
_4
.�
r:.U,
3,ea;
r►,s»
29,1in
.G
37u,fiU
.o.
.4
40,crD
.o.
.o•
3
.a
:5,u7
r.lr.,
r9.517
27,317
.00,1a,
.C.
.0.
tz,O[,u
.0.
G.
I
.N
i31f4t
4,s,
29.a+y
r9,e61
.y
•n,ck
_G.
.a
ID,crG
_a
.0.
•0•
21,337
1,13!
30.1el
30,103
..
46G,rlI
/G,flr.
.(L
.9.
!1
{*'. • r4^r�li
.{y
'►3.3�7
S,177
XJ,�21
30,324
.C.
490,713
.F
.0•
i}.Olt
.¢
.4
9
C.�:r.r ::r•slrctly
s.l A'l-r.1L::• lsdt
..
:S.1a�
S„i.
?74,I6M
11,l6a
.G
3ifJ,7il
164,xh
C.
f[J,trr,
.(.
.}
to
•tL
•0.
S,1'S
!,1)S
3,13!
.(.
7ilb, Yb
.o.
.4
Ir,Oro
-G.
.C.
5,7:y
3,71Y
.0.
1R7.3NJ
911,0a•
11'1,000
•Q
40 au1
.C.
3,57
3,m
3,590
.1
3»,17;
.0.
.0.
a,crr,
.o.
.o.
13
�•: Lit
_ •4
_z
3,Oc
3.630
.o.
f:r,f71
C.
IA,mr.
11111W
1fi.vA
1191.1305l
ttill IxS:
uo"
} NYLT2
ytTi
AVE
I K_,Q+
} sk'An
sll�+�c
t_ .a
1 cat
r t9l m
o�,mo
LVI.IA01
:cIMAM 10t 0M1 Ilti'1iN�tt-1M:OrL UM11
FOR tests
�t:^tre r•! r,.t St WC:rr f9;rr 11: llte. ' (re rt..GC. S
rr•. ',e.e:c;mt ►:::.:', '.r �a'.1 1.3:• Matt Nod r.Jr 10:1tf li.:'t
f7�+a! iMSt.Kt
Ue:•,r� �nr
f/►ef:e .f11:t.S::7
f 711.1r
1 4134,
i :0171`
S 344,0 :•
1 21:,r*2
7'.
0.
f .6
3,1w
78,'i4l
n,453
..
R2.4.`.I�
r
-4
3
M. �a�
3.
i5,&,�
`f IV.
♦r
3w ,+fir
.J
.y
�Q.Irrf..,
6�, YW)
.J
.(►
+
21,%-•
1,m.
17..t^.
7a,lor,
.s
7T_.6ft
..
6ii,UYJ
(w
.!.
2;,S47
i,17'i
iN.S11
:•151'
^.
►r,,le-A
..
-1
04,w
•1
-�
t
•i
21.34?
46,i7.'
i5,t4Si
'.-,,SAf
+3',ak
.i
.i
OAK:
J
.kr
t,ela
x.l@r,
37"w
.r
+6%1219
Z,W
.1
-6
i
yr;r M+TSRtI'�:
Z ,3+1
5,17t
30.5.4
K,5:+
+r,76►
.c.
-t:
60,DM
t
Crclate :�str�ctlr'
21.34>
:,%.,
}.;,ty.P
-+.
1" 1131.
T..6,611
19S,7J-
.5.
CIAL
.1
-6
1,L;a
),611.
3,f7Ts
...
37r.,'d`
..
-+
63.ML
-G
.6
I�tl'v�r.. a+tcr�a.:r
u1'
•:
),'IC
1.714
3.1Q1TeS
S.
1".fxC
i13ti3Oc::
191.CL4
[I)'#.1c:i
(l".001)
n"ALS
;!ONOTm
; rxn-iy
tr,,tm
} xn�aoi
�rA17
1 �r.6,a11
1_�6
� r�,��
�L���l
�.�
3 L�La1
! Lit LM-i L�1
+rr.4: Casf� /ln OOPII NN to wtur/tt-lruwa colt /cf ttr Vast[, f :191"1
rstsl1.a1 Val -a f5rl:ing Vr Cr1! at Ve Vis of Ve trrtn Marl f 21t,Id+
ya.::�: tatMtt 1 '-rNara
m
f6:1^a�S �A•,N r;"
SCLKA1110. 0001 LOV-:NCW UNIT
fat taste
'vtlrxt; r "I. "WegJ-m: s
.rr ry:tS Cct!% toll! 1 :•.a. 6P.:A PCarc r !1:n 1%, :.tw (quit1 (alitr,3fit ft—=.+:
1
to .: , • CW
:z.s..--• Caat:�::f
; xr,,Yr.
f �+'
3 :!, :'
1 uA.0 -,
f 2M4,C74
3 .r�
f «+,:`1
.�,Yd.
♦7,Y
-J
34.,. Ali
r
�5,14,
4.
N.bA
11,64)
- r
41%],C3-1
4,03r
3C,m
X.1!5
!
ir;: •u::r.;-.r
,5si
3,1T7
3 ,57<
3J.5:+
-0.
49;,743
'f:i .=t
7:.•st
5,%::
}.,+J.+
-.
14i,77:
>a.[:1
.. Sr.. -ss SW I. we
ieJ.•ares i•fjT34<S.t
VIAL'S I —im4?i } zra,123 } 494lie � Sef� }" 417 S r►4,�=9 t
6c,CA(i
.i
193,OC3] (1)9,C:) 19 00. I1)9.Or:; i399,x:)
s Lu*,Lm1 4 SaT ! ttW.LM-1 LL+!A-M R-
i1Vna: Cith f1W (Wtl% r LMP-:•Curer tfdt f0: !0% 10414) i
FPSIOLr: WOUS (SWIPeo Ve sn:t At t1W [•ti of " IV*-% •tt:1 f Zst,[M
1
11
I I
J
SUNNARY AND CONCLUSIONS
As evidenced by the preceding Proforma Cash Floss and as summarized below,
the estimated rate of return under the six scenarios range between (9.60) per-
cent and ( 315.843 percent. As expected, the rate of return improves as the
location of the affordable unit is moved offslte and when a •uderate-income
unit is incorporated into the project rather than a low-income unit.
ESTIMATED RATE OF RETURN
Moderate -Income Low -Income
Fur Sale / Onslte (163.551 % (230.651 x
Fur Sale I Offsite 1251.721 % (31a.at) %
For Lease / Onsite (9.601 % (11.50) %
It should tie noted that these rates of return reflect point estimates
L.rsed upon a series of 4si%umption, detailed earlier in 041s report. The
Actual rate of return aehiesed by the 2961 Cliff Drive development will depend
upon to what degree variance, from these as,umptluns are experleneed and in
what direction (l.e., positive or negative) they occur. it is the opinion of
Tarantello i Company that if variances do occur, they are mars likely to occur
in a negative direction resulting In a reduction of the rate of return. The
ante significant factors which could cause such a result are as follows: (1)
4 more langthly absorption period, and (2) a reduction in achievable sale
prices. There are several more downside risks than upside potential. For
example, it is far more probable that In the midst of an economic recovery
period that Interest rates, labor costs and construction materials are all
likely to rise In price; thereby, further reducing potential profit. Yet at
the some time, recently rising interest rates have substantially slowed
residential lot sales and substantially suppressed real estate appreciation
rates to below current estimated cost of living price levels. Any anticipated
increase in potential sales price$ Is extremely unlikely. In simple languagu,
the adownslde- is greater then the ■upside.•
Given the risk level associated with this type of development and the
aforementioned likely direction of any variances, it Is our opinion that the
only reasonable scenario is the exclusion of any affordable units -- onsite or
offsite. Based upon our experience and knowledge of specific development
projects, Tarantalto L Company has found that most developers would not under-
take such a development without an expected rate of return of at must 50
percent.
In summation, In a financial world where high-grade corporate bonds are
yielding 12 percent or more, with full liquidity and no management require-
ments, our most recent experience In the evaluation of development projects
for similar clients suggests required rates of return in excess of 50 percent
on invested capital over the term of the project. It is evident that none of
the previous scenarios approach this benchmark, and we strongly recommend that
no affordable unit requirement be imposed upon the 2961 Cliff Drive
development.
1
1
1
1
1
1
f�Sq+ '^..r w rrr + n.:. r� yr:l:r•::'q i:.,rl.,•, rtr'i'r, r. 3 �i
C .,{ • _ y! . ,s .; r}► .:z r t . ,� t :« `,•;'•' s. �'; 7 •-Y ti S `'.;.�,.�t�i.�l1 !�!"!,!y
5'~ '7�' �ry ...� .....
..�i ;•" ,.1.. ..a .i i.`'' .�:, y T tk ell '.{r• x['- �,,...-...•k�� y.�rM.r:. • 1iN •` 5 .,n t�hRa•'
n x . )'. 4 :S y ��.,�.is�p,;.xt•,��r:�'•'.,M�gyy� i' ♦T' t.:' :.r.M1 ..: •!' �, �,V + ,, ••, ./, _','. Z204
�w�
Mick •iP�7 �'• 'fyr ..' tef! N! N•,i ., r•'Y ,n�.,: • '•N 5� - .. '.r• 'r ,.r °. '•Y •.: 7. , . ,•« Kew,. 4:��v:i:rt%
" , .. .. a`i' 4• � 1. t...•!�F •- ." - r' arr.r ",•!'T "r• .a,:.:. k.....! 'l f.; .'��,#� iH. ��'���
.. .. r •y. a:i �•' u . ti.. �.� "rr1'r a:;.-.- .-�+ ., _ "<!• .. T rr• f
zv
4 i s:•a t... �'a A- r�e.•r.:� �i.S:iT y. .. ...,. ... ,. - �%'� ^ . Y :.r.' .. ,,-�i'.-��
�'•;Comm�iit#ji.D�1►l�gp�l��jt•.pepiartrpeist. '�'-�- ..
. ,;Cll•]E OF NBWQTBBACN, �. :'' .. 4
.. .•��t'31�04=Nii�por'#'•Aoule'�rm'd; ;: ,. ' . .. `" ���a •;;,�� : -• . - . • •- . , ,.. �, ���•,�,
tNeeipa•t .#iich,• �aU/onrnto 81i6� , r - .
• •i .. �. '.t' ::"{— .1l.:a:•t• r .., .. .. C,.R.�a. .e_3. ••r •,•.""+! � .r' .... :,{ �ti��
• - 'Dear.• 1Wr':..Lerta�d� . '.- . - ` _ • .. •�.
fi��acca�dance•with , -' �," - -� � y'; • - .: ;• ..•. • •. - , , . 'Y- � �'�:
�Olir' ogwst and e�lthorizatiah Tarantelt4 dr City hee p�epwid o {,
tBj?01'C . OV�hildLtl ::1fA '��IA ntt�t A� • roqufring a . "c rltld rumba o off ~te- Wto m
101thk, the- above- W1 ul. - r.-Ow dn►eto�ment. "
lhciiidod Mtn the aiiit r,iypart ti mi anal ats•o tha Sub s#' -
' _ Y 1 Lot Stlr ivbtan Project _Wh
th¢ Inc Stan �% :or�r,;la�r • ar moderate-irfeame t�r�tt. Tho ctpp�ndp'iats Price . tewt
F ,!awrae e?!"`p'itO�rt pi'ta4 have beRri. estirriatsd m7d the' #sae
,`,' �'. - - �►vetop«• ha�a been �� • .. • ~.. • - -� • •. .. r, . , r , • ... ''� :y:: .
, +r• a •r 4i6;M• q. 1, V: •S • A � Ji aV,�r
r.'+ - •. '-uw. l,•�, r' 4 Y �F ^r/M.•s •. t' 7�,.•,`.a r ., •. �,:, �.' ' • .' .w •. ,� •.. r�
Pa'a #Y to.De'Or'eerl►tCe arrd.Zoatr"jarMard to yow•.'contimed,
' ,Pale. trial;/ate•.
f
Tr i .- ,+.Y -•`ir �,..4 �; ..r .'r ., E:.,.M1 `- rd • •.d', w,. _ `fR, , ':
•.1., •T i 1 `y.)L ' .. ' � e � 4i.. . e. a c w:0 n ..y., �, ': Y'. _ u.yeq.•u
.s�.vi +:'f+ :i".1.y.w,}:a .��`, ,d, ••y'. _ .M,� �r �," . y.. �r�: L.,
A_ A�iTBI.LO,'�-•C±QMr 1�Y, � •� �,` .-
+� ..a�r•ei w-tr••~' ^. w'•t s•rv.b :SI•:. er•4 e�L 1 . •f :1 rp ... !. r. y• l r • ��•r"n.•" •�• �,-,�,
k may.} • j. , ` i ..! -.r r !` �• r t"+" ! ir! �{l,e;:f1:;:.^ :, .';j:
^Af � • + a., Y ",a'n r I •�i' � : '• rq r { ...y r • .7 ; ..'r••Vill "yrY�!.«.i-�; �»•s %Mt.�
-« � -w• ... •+r �:y_re .Me.'� _ 'r ••v t a � � ' t 't .ad. �'
'fir ..�'"�„ �, .•i N•'i: ,•.,. �:� r�: •• �k .{e..., 4 .•.,<,"t.+" •:'• ��:5 -"� '" .. `-.''• .. tX{,
+tall cRa
. .rr �1rM ♦ S .• if �� xC Y .♦ +i •r f••u, fey^ ••J'. 77v:. + -
.'r .. •~ dMrl . r.M rr{ ' • � ./ '• , • . !•Y Y •. IfY J,.. ¢ �,�.
!' .• . {' . ,, .•o- a i• 'hr r �� �'} �.. ,,.c. �� t{*:-�; ~i!•'"�r": ' . � Ie F r • 1. v5 ep - ��'• i+r • �
!.« � - :7•-•.,�-M,r - _a- e - ,, a li, -y .. r '�'!' - Sys +...+w� -• -� -'��_ I.�'t.
�' ..•.. � i '�� ..� +- 1�. • ., w' - - *• i� � L- : � rr ♦ _ r -`w V.,r t• J ,a ; i ' - t "Y' ., f4wir, '�'t . fF y�
.. • . Y -.,.. <, r, - u ...... - '- N•• ,:1,,,� rl'•' ♦ '� �1 !d� � � � 1" .. 7 - an r ,.x Y M _ � Q .
ai•.•n
ar'r'r. Yf /� �// �y - r �• y
:.:: " .wy,.,r �. T � 7p�•IrFVI�:�`�yr-\ y ,�,r. a,+, y;',•r.: ; r�. .. !! r ..w : 4 2 S, . taY . � ..��� � h,+"` ..I �d dr
t �«* f r.{ei,.^�e.-r �� .^• . w��/� � ,y, .. . t a ', - ! .. �.,,,"� • t.. � i �.r � "'� ' f '7" : r.! [ e • - -
M'! .,r••,i• 4:"I .: J .�. n• sr .. 'r"a •'�:/. r. ,,,.{►•ir'r- - _ y-.ris
,h r •w.y.•_.,�r4 ..�1.�.`:t, tit .F' _ i •w."y�;.�. ' ,",:...': -. » ,; �.1 ". ti` �'E �,'..'`�•,'•�•t'` r;•,. S
y _ �! fir;. ......w,.. r:r �,. • _.rr.,� t,
•'�•, 1'�..► r�.n ,. 4'.iyr,.:ir ,�3. a'rF � .i, ,l,••.{�,•a;. ,l. Y^te"• f".i°?.Trl,•�h tt'+M'a'a!'Ta t�, 1$��%}'n'r" .'T=;.�'.:,i
�� �..'R+, ^fA:h;.,.r\a,. ..e ..f75�' . �- a . C' t ' .� <' !'?V:... -u?. v. � tr 4 i F�. P«+�,Y,i�� �•'F :Lri:. w.F.xt:
.'ie r .•�-•� Z t•. ''�, *:'r .'•, •. •: •.q. '�,'J.r . ,......rtt SA,w'.,..; rt jr.si�,9. 5. •" �•�'!* r ! .:"t. d+ +r+'♦r X eea• ,�� i yw
.}w 411...FY r'., J �.e +• a '.• w.." .1 R .. �. 1, rx 7 'r 4 y7., lr `^.,.i .. rR. "�•./�
.:, .♦ w..«Ai r1lk+�tj�/�/'.,'r•: !., "'11"��•►-'.. t.-a 1.. .. •• '•q;.• r ,sa�Y ":� •r j t r r i. �.,.., '•''r.,• f�. M ,.,�. -•T" fi.. r
�MrI'bi
•.•y,D ,.Vol, , i ��a, '.l.}:..x:,: ".•. a �..' .' sue• •r i.ie ✓ a+'aS•"ir�we'•s.�:wa"„>trf;,.k�..,�,rw•rM,e•:'::...•,a�4:�•±�:i..: `.�,'�`.i
rf.rar '•t� 4: ' .r �'i" r j...- ..•� 1 .w,• .fir.;, .. r . , r.,,...j .,.
{^.;'�'4E ..,., :.��n: !- ,r:, :,r... (•..'' �P:"i.�"e"`•,4:t�•!+?y»►- i.rr ,��'1."' ` _ .• '� . + ♦<K ,r
''r ~ rc• ..: �`.. �{...�.r%.yr '";�•• ,..a.,.:''�•A'lirY'!^';'.r�::���w� r� F+• .'3 i�l;:.f:i '�°fYrK,. ..>��
.,.: ;:.•ry' . 1.., ri•+`�L;+ '
.j� �`�iF ••.���14'Y' a"r'1..,. ,.►v:•',t,� ...� •'r�,w•� rr� {'«'+�' s q,,.drwlis,�n:iN..F.,M ,r:•riFir;.�.' +�
r fii. r c � 'try #. •R... �. yr .w, -"•+ar 1 19
�, . k:�f .s�yw�,•.,yY!t �� i�. " :d.4.,.,.�.:,' 1 t. .�',`;'t ' .. �. r, 9: -4 t., i► i.X.? .4-4tk.M4�►� :,i•` _Tf
+k t. a N .�J v 1 .„ • ;"liN;, yeik: � ,.r W t'l.n.•t�",�►• M"' ,r,,,r S' fM+ti'ur, f n t.: -a ..: • :� r r• r M �f.
,'x4. ryi[ ..'4 •..",7 � '•: '�, M �,.-• i�lt Y r..•�•,i �•M !,..,. .,.r.rr I.. ,1, w! f� s fn �,,�,. i; •.qr ,i:. •�•f"y 'e.e to
at n.,1,t i._�I�,�Sh}k.'.Y�`'+*x �,.►, 'r.- F°t7?"•9 yt•c l i 14'rl'.; a r'•` r;�v r't`''i"oiE
♦ �.• r•.. ..,�...;;�;;,�; ity •q.. a o..•}!3;+:. ;..i:rR .^re..,,.7`x:�'�`�•� i..,,- r !`' �e :"" .�•�!•• ':a'.;'
.�y�• r:J `,.til.i: r< 1 rd 4, ' arrr, as �^r, f'� r'.+�h"'y, . '."y '^'a`' `L-
r.
`�e?.'J'�•-�� .ra+► {�.Ti�., :t•?.•, e-a.•''�"" r:fr'.e..:...kh+� .v.......,,, t.. r ..r+!•rt,e i ,� ��� ,�r`.'2't{','�'. '... t.•' iE
..+:, +.{ '�r.i r -.xi r�?•is R' u• •{ '17 a' 'Ar i 4 s
., s♦.�•dwa/R...t•-..'r>l.ti.R:sl.4t!"fl a�.:']!:.!L"'�E... w•:S:ii1'Ae '��i G;:,i:,...�rr q.: �.4st'�.Y.i�""',���:_r-....�L �a'r„na��.-�.-1++if>k+:i�a+.Y.:.f(;".d. �f.Y;:i.SI..I,.law%:�.Si
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
of
2961 CLIFF DRIVE
TRraa Uniapruvcd Lots
NEVPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
Subdivision Appllrution By;
PULASKI AND ARITA, ARCHITECTS
Sub0mitted Taf;
CITY OF NEVPORT UEACrt
03i02iea
SubNitted fly:
TARANTELLO S COMPANY
I
STATEMENT of ASSUMPTIONS
2961 Cliff Drive
(1) Pro set Characteristics
;yuare retlt hesctt tian�
Lot i W.760
Lot 2 h,200 _.
Lot 3 7,780 --
AffcrJable Unit 1.400 2 lledr00■/2 buth
(2) Land ownership: At this start of project construction, it Is assumed
that the land Is owned outright by the developers.
(3) land Cost: provided by the Ownership -- f300,600.
(4) Construction Pariodl A nine -month construction period has been assumed
from coseentement of consttiletlon for LUOPletlUn of unit.
(5) Construction Costs: fi.wtiCit taping er.lil<8tes crlculutud ftr,w other typic+.1
slallar-stied pruperties In Newport beach and Corona del moil.
unit t:orgstructlull Custs
uevelopma6t Custs
Total Cost
The construction costs are assumed to be incurred evenly user the entire
construction period.
(6) Financing / Prima date_: The rate charged ,wrjainst the outstanding loan
balance is 2.5 percent over prime; prime Is assumed to overage 11.0
percent. The loan tea was assuaged to be 3.0 percent of the construction
costs.
(7) Repayment of Loan: Bused on 100 percent of Uross soles,
{8} Absorption: Art absorption rate ur one lot of unit per two ■unths hay
been incorpurate(i ltgto the ca)culatluns. It ties been sssumed treat the
ursit would be absorbed first with sales beginning in the ninth month
after co4mencerioerlt of constructlotl.
0) Affordable UnLt Pricing: The ufford.ble unit was considered to replace
a lot in each scenario. Unit pricing was based upon Income Information
Provided bi Robert P. Lenard, Advance Planning Adalnistr#tor, City of
Newport Beach.
11
2
'
isecause tht designated affordable unit is a
two -bedroom crndominlua, the
Income level for a four -person household
was cor{sldstf4 relevant fot
'
potential occupancy. Based upon industry
percent of the householdos gross Income can
standards, a aaxleum or 33
be allocated
debt
to.ates housing
service. Typical financing terms for
residential .?,It, has bden
assumed as follows: 10 patcent down; 13.5 percent rate, l(r.jedr dmorticd-
'
tlan. Both low income and moderatu Income
1eVels Wolf rr+alyrfd .- the
resulting Affordable Unit Pricing used in the colculatluns is as follows:
'
Low-income unit
Modarate-income
S 69,50U
Unit
S 106,000
{10) Affordable Rental Rates, Hentel Hates vote based upon eilawable month.
'
ly expanse information' pruvided by Robert
P. Lenard, Adr4nee Planning
Adalnistrbtor, City of Newport Beach. These figures fur a four -portion
household are as follows -
Low -income Unit S 65U
Moderate-tr►come unit S1,iJll
(11j Pruvislurr of off -Site Afrordable Unit: the follbdlnq adriltiunaI
azsumptions have been incorpurated into the analysis, l+rr,rlrlf+►g low- of
4oderate-income units at an ore -site lucatlun. The avarw;OJ ,lies pried
for all rrsldar�t(ol units for S,rtes which uccrared sinLa tot ld,t MLS
!luting book was used as the purchase price or the off -site +rnits.
nb%G_U_t n: It has been assumed that the ore -site unit will be
purchased anti sold In the ninth month.
L': (re; it has been assumed that the purchase pricy L► the Orr -site
unit iti $245,60U. This repru,ants the currant avurd,w rasldentlal
rules :stied.
(12) Annual Cast + flog. the u!,tlmuted annual cash now rro• rar.tinq out the
affordable units lnt:orporates the fulluvinU annuui expense;:
Taxes
: 3,/50
insurance
4U0
Expanses
2,Uou
Subtotal
S 6,150
oebt Service
25,21,01 •
Tutul
S 31,441
• (00.0% loan-ta-value, 13,4>L; ell -year aeurtic.tiurr)
Luw� Moderate
Pet Unit Ar.rrual Cash Flow (Hantln(i fur !0 years) ($23,641) ($19,303)
(14) Residual value: The residual value of an arfordable unit at the and of
the loth year is "Led upon an annual 5.0 percent escdlettcn factor lesy
the remaining loarr balance at that times
S 407,224 - S 187,740 . S 219,404
CIttI')'r�.-�
!!f SSts
tta at 1•►a Rt:rssats
*"too 1611a54A
L:1 Rssidertial
�ncwear
W eFSTO[_Htil.
�A�1rC1 ACilr r•.
SAS Of ist+tuSrt
Zip 19S41
lcCoLGE OA•! Cr M4orC1
SCtTrE cTS'Tw:!
e f E R i a E S i L[ S PRICE
ft
SCI�^atIa
SIntt Lost
SI^cs Lost S:�cs Leat ta:ea
051107 133�
LSaAti.s�t7 S,Ptr1CGeJfAaG^Jt•;ett a'
a .
!:�e
LlStin; 0pUr •
LDaft
L7�L 60a•
+.711117FV
! 2l4,7::
156 JAI 15L
3 714,805 1•�
7 1L7 :7L
3 114,705
f%
District L (re.part Gea:••)
IY; L!I :4. 3 7T0,90:
17a 3 JlL,4v%�
All RttTGartiai 3 :a),•;7 i 7LS,LDD 3 7aY,7S; 17L YSI _ J
;aurces�w�ItlDls Listir; (+750--^Y�l.se ! ttearuert 74,r;96S1; Neeto;ft ncrrLcsta Mese baerC c• Re•;tart
m = = m m = = m= m m= m m = = = ■■ r
9ra,a9• OF CV4AtMT LIST111C5
(AS of igbr4Wrt 21, 1964)
011triCt VA. i __ 1WVgQrt 91goch
rr�i�«f
vritr vex
i2:r.ar
9e:r:ogs:ar.+s
5r,rate reel
tlst:ng Price
fo,gtg root
24:4
=:a1 street
432
9astalnster i.r-.r
2/1.:
••
S
149.ik �
..
2525
will, Lane
)I1.7!
l,a09
f
177,O.0
S 174.43
S34
ills: a.enue
3';
1,279
179,OJ0
i 129.95
530
Sir tlerpar.i••: Avg-.#
2•':
--
j
179,003
..
53;
Sam 11er+.arSl-: ►,t..v
311
1.142
S
179,500
1 15�.44
329
[:
11s,000
..
7251
64:11 y long
3.' 1.5
••
S
1920000
.-
t1S
v,grl: s:ote
3/2
-•
S
199,000
..
T4stl� a.gn,.t
3/2.75
--
a
705,000
..
a:a
St. Antrrgs
3/1
--
i
709,000
..
424
Cetallna Orl+e
3f:.3
•.
215,030
..
522
San t09%.4
7/2
--
S
720,000
..
Sf5
T,stl' i•r".e
227.000
..
4:1
Carr
3!2
--
S
274,000
..
497
92stolnster Leon.:*
3/:
1,515
S
22S,000
1 141.51
325
ilieo !.gore
3J2.f
,-
S
330,000
.-
53e
s.�, err-ors:-� i,e-•..
3,1.71
7.QC2
[
240,030
t 12C.00
51S
•:.etslCa
31;
-.
S
2690000
..
2200
w�ilf tons
3/3.5
7,000
3
769,000
= 114.50
S11
Irving i.gn,e
3/2.!S
26000
S
29B,500
S 149.31
S24rce: iatantr:la a ::*;Any
M M M M
9 IGART Or CUAREK1 LIS77NCS
(As of fe4raerr 21, 1944)
OletrlCt no. 4 .- lseeport peach
atrAtof'
Pries Per
address
Be3rctesrlatns
1.4441e Feet
L11tinp Price
11..ar► root
1:0
Caper :en►
Zr;
y,10,
1
lce,50]
et.Sa
102
Stn01t Plate
Ir2
..
S
119,509
..
50C
Cagney lane
7/2
--
S
119,1000
..
10C
Scholl Plate
2/2
.•
S
1251CCO
..
43.0
S:indrift ear
1r2.3
1,00
3
123,000
S
1t.07
4t3
Orion ear
3r2.5
1.22-0
S
132,500
S
106.11
e211
Patrice l,oal
1;1.5
1,220
1
132,500
S
14E.1:
!09
C42ner lane
2r2
..
S
135,000
..
4:3
Orlon ear
212
..
3
113,000
..
102
Schnit Plate
2/2
__
S
144,900
..
Asa
Orlon Par
Sri
..
143,000
._
172
)#Alvaro
2/7.5
1,A40
S
169,50C
S
103.11
1421
Suptrlor evtnrt
I/2.1
..
S
i3s,000
..
20C
wtNR11
2/:.75
..
S
142.500
..
SC:
Ce2mey life
2/2.75
1.000
1
165,000
f
117.00
220
Mice Long
V 1
..
S
11969l0
..
210
C W01 Lane
2!2
3,310
S
114,500
1
12e.31
107
Schaal plate
212
..
S
1750000
..
+01
St. Andrew$
)/2.5
7,000
S
179,000
{
19.50
270
Nice Lane
2/7
1,100
S
119,000
S
lal.71
102
Slholt Plato
2/2
..
1
149,000
..
100
Scholz Plata
2,1
-.
S
119,000
..
210
Caper Lent
2/2
1,610
S
115,000
S
120.72
220
hie@ Lane
212
--
f
193,000
._
500
Ca9ntr Lane
2/2
..
S
199,500
--
431
eestel►sttr t.en.e
712.5
7,1ca
S
215,000
S
93.44
$01
Scn131r 01419
2/2
-•
S
220,000
..
210
Lamer Lana
212
.•
S
7IS,000
--
740
Mice Lane
212
..
S
331,000
..
260
Capner Lane
V2
4,721
S
276,500
S
159.59
56urce1 Tarantelle A Camipany
m = = = = = = = = = i m = S = = = m
raIrcumA CASH r10p
S[ERAAIOt ON( MOOERATI-INCOME NMI!
for S411/on-sit•
:1�rAti't!1fY+ rValslng
tan.vpwt
DAitvC-I ,
�tON
I1ee:�er'e
C:rttlh.:r}
f+�a;t�;'6
OWV'
(Ie0e1'4sM''t Att:.:tr
tart
;s
Us s
Coe!s
Dr1w
Retur
U1rre
SAln
Car P:o.
Eu:tr
tut?
Ptvr1L Percent
1
ee�cnM ti+r!
G "wt4v Cr.stT xt:r
1 mc.7x
1 .36'
1 r.5
1 3u,^,7:'
1 2bt1:72
i -0.
1 ZU1777.
1 -D.
1 16N401 C:
1 6r,!fe;
2
. r
25,347
3.1W,
21.U3
2%,MI
-ti
312,415
-a
.C.
9;.7f,
.0.
.a
3
•.
1%U,
3,S17
28,VA
28,VA
.a
341,479
.0.
.f:
10,fim
6
•t
25,la'
3,&Q
?9,189
29.IP
-a
170.64
.00.
.ir
co.ow
3
•�
25.310
61170
29,511
29,917
-a
am, Ir'
G.
-a
iC,nw,
25.3+7
4,9m
ri,869
29,8a)
.0.
63o,C14
D.
.a
fic'mIl
.0.
.d
7
-'+
Zs' 3•+7
4,1341
3C,185
30,115
.0.
40,211
G.
.a
ACOFIM
.0.
.0.
1
4wq!^ wse.t:rr
. r
25,34,
5,177
30,524
30,126
.0-
610,7U
.a
.0.
C'cm
9
Cowalete LL►'sir�c!ion/
�911 Af hr:a'.:f 'xit
.i
23,U7
3.321
3;,MA
.G
7T,1)?
413,9;1
01 wo
-a
iC,7fn
.Q
.a
10
.:
-C.
4,673
6,653
6,i31
.0.
618.2"
46
.;r
iC,UX)
.C.
.0.
I
Sell ut
.a
•,7Qj
s.7C3
.a
190,2"
:27,%V
0011(m
.Cr
iC,(IIA
46
-6
12
2,365
2,565
21%5
-D.
23C.336
.4
-0.
COW
13
Sell tot
�_c.
!_ -
2,I94
2.5%
G.
-X,$3a
_0.
1n,fAiU
I3s.1rI;
18.128
131,i2S'
;98.1231
1tnAts
} LC—W
Lmi! Z1
6BIOm
f!i 17!
677 +a
sLi
! _ -4
I sm ow
x 1
1 OU—
5D61tf: 16rr!el:a / Anr
"Orp•.s Lal.. rt0s
S[ENA4103 ONE too-114tONE U1111
for Salo/on.slte
Cmr
snstrtXt:m
rl*+rr:-;
D".-pwt
uAltv'CIN
Qms
brnlotxr's
t7rltrlts,!a4
tamlwwrls
wrt'+
r.•.v-swt Actle:tf
ta'r`
:as:s
Gusts
:Zsts
LT be
It:nr
ealwco
$:•s
rAO Flow
Ev+ltr
[gatt7
ttcrlt ft?Wit
. 13-47
s le, n.
s 3+4.c17
s
2
-G
21.U7
3,1W.
2e,sat
21.543
-G
312,415
G.
r
-.5,317
3.7:7
79's +
20,WA
_C►
ul.a1-9
M
-0.
2:.34,
3,M7
N.ler
r'lp
46
M'fim
..
.G
C.71•
.{�
.r
5
•'+
Z.4?
4,1n
2'r.517
71.5:7
.tL
•m'les
. .
-0.
a✓,•11.
.G
.G
a
..
2s,%47
4,5tu
23,e0
2946ss
.0-
430.734
.G
.0.
e.orr,
.G
..
:3.34►
4,e35
3G.Ies
r.le`.
.0.
A0,219
.0.
D.
4D,CFL
-a
46.
6
�.r_ •er�rt: ,
•;.
2y,3s7
S,lr7
Y.,12s
f0,CXL
-G
.O.
r.: s'•ar'.c:• tr:t
r
zl.w
5,52:
3o.WA
.G
33,432
452,111
Av.54O
-0.
C.'"i
5,W
s,pe.
51W
.a.
071177
.0.
.0.
fic,rm
!I
�:: t�'
•i
.2
$,lsl
S.l•3
.G
leg,e+7
W?,3a0
I".=
•0-
O,Mf;
.0.
-a
t2
-s
•a
3.71e
5,0'rt
),am
-0.
tr,Ph
-0.
.6
60.0M
.G.
.0.
77O,30
.0.
1"law
(73.3"1
lU.f17
17413e91
113413"1
VIALS
m
t rsr, to
}
m,!�_'
l� .�?
�
i �
i 'a?
LIM M)
ids
9arr�.e � ta: sr=• 11: i Lbpr7
SCEMAl11Oi Owt M(>pt!AM-11COM[ UNit
For Wo/oF/-site
•:tr:
[t.t:%q-'s
�tutn Of
n
:rfstctIM FSfWCI.nq
'Jr".t�tr''_
0.tttvdlrq
trust
5rOslaDc'r
C_� :::�.:r.
DWOVI"t'r
LWV
:.-Its
Costs
7r:s
�SYrr
uegrf
bslarcr
scr%
cast rlor
13::t
twit3
Hroflt Avant
a�+•►r-• [ass:r�stl:n
>v x�,ar
s �.34'
s 16,715
1 34.t.i72
1v 294,372
s .0.
!G 254,M
{ -0.
t (60,Cfr.;
i C.7L
t .0.
s -a
25.347
3,196
23,543
2S.S43
.0.
312,615
.0.
-0.
C.7L
G.
•0.
3
.a
2r,34•
3.%7
2s,trl
29,IVA
.t.
341,479
C.
.r.
C,:rx
.a
-Q
C.
33,34f
3,M2
29.:rf
29,lag
_f.
170,US
.0.
-0.
C.9'L
.a
C.
s
.[.
Z'S47
4,17a
27.s17
2S.517
.a
ao,les
.a
-r;
C.7.
4
.S
2S,347
•,SM
29,e.9
29,549
C.
430,034
.0.
- 0.
C.7r
.a
.0.
7
.0.
25,341
4,936
141145
30,185
.0.
4,0,219
.a
.0.
0.7m
e
23,347
3,177
3C.124
30,124
.0.
W,743
.a
.6.
1t'.7=
C.
-a
9
C�w::re Ca'•s:ntt:n�
Sel: a�►or ►s:r Ins:
.:.
2s,3.•
5,12:
274,4�
.0.
i4,S3;
461,211
A]S,OC>e
.G.
4C.7r
.0.
.a
10
.0.
.a
3.n2
7,271
5,T2?
.L
469,433
-a
.a
C,71t
.a
.a
11
asl: ;tt
.a
.a
5,211
3,21.
.a
lr7,713
M,714
1ts,xn
-a
4t,=
12
D.
.C.
1,147
3,141
),147
.C•
2t2.641
.%
.0.
C.A
.a
.0.
13
1011 yx
.a
.0.
3,IC2
%it:
•a
292.Ul
91,m3;
13..:37
(f1,O3)J
(lt:,C37J
3Oi41S
LR[T
L21f,127
�7 T1tf
£w a3
Is94ll?
yl1T
} •�
�s�3 ®
Ul
���i0
fl
LSl M
1.,1t�� T4: rtr:1 ❑ 4 C��c+r�r
0
M9 yrgawx cash r�co
'XtM4Ripi OM[ LOW-IM4OMt U%11
Val sale/Off-sits
.:rt!r.[!`�
rl"-vrl �
fx+el.cx�►•.
lww; s
------
Uuts!r+n:•y
G7;nv
Ur.e:aL+�'�
:an:;lu.•�n
•
Copts
fix'.s
as.
ir.+fr
t~.rca
Salt%
Cay r.ar
mi 1
.t
(711 f
Mrrvfit t�LM+t
!
Nrtnt^, lbr '
Ctwrrr,e
23.U'
s 1e,725
1 344.:^
•
-a
2l,Sa!
),19a
29,743
79,4+17
D.
3
.�
z±.s+•
3,s:7
:e.�.
:s.Iu
.p.
a
.r
4
.r
7S.Ss•
3,M7
ro IOro
29,;ir.
.C.
1'J,bbB
.C6
5
•G
Z:.s+�
4,1'0
29,3:7
7'+.s17
.r.
a7n,iQs
.a
.'r
tC.'rA
..
4.
4,Sm
Y9,ra1
29,S"
.G
43;.a4
46
..
�i.rrA
.:.
-a
4,138
Y},1f-
10,16.
46
-a
W.711
.v.
.ram
6
Isgin wr.r:-p
.G
25.34•
3,177
3f1,374
3C.574
.a
11C,743
-(6
60,an
..i
,C)
9
G�'�P:ete Viy:7•x!tr•
toll Affui d:.s ;r:t
.f.
-S,34•
36321
271,6L
11,Sv,E
.6
><3.711
2",5O0
.i
�✓lr,
�
.G
5,d35
SIM
5,453
_.
MA.3"
.0.
I1
Sall lot
.G
.'.
$,719
S,7;I
.G
ia4 M
3;f,045
14S'am
.G
1D,Cjrx
3,370
3,W,
1,540
.C*
Y22,C's
D.
-.
6O,TC
13
%11 lot
.f-
..
3,450
3,CX
.a
x` em
.0.
1!!AO
t:l:,3Cl;
l�:,XS
i11:.7iCl:
j1f1,1CSJ
xn+u
3m om
>a to
77�teI
580
I-I!Lpm
sit
Sa,:;r. tarrt9;:t 1 C:nCwl _� --
= = = w = m = = = = m m m = m = m z
PV�r'�"Ok CAS� FLr%
M I "Am 10: CAt OCOEPATE-WOul UNI;
for Lease
'. '.4.
:qp 't "
lot'll" V
.�t A
aV*ti
ro'A' '40" 1$
:Was
FV;d'
ift! wir r
rjob
4�10--,f;t
zw
Xr'
I V, YA'
;4,u!
&.7c
aoo' 1 v
4z'w
29. We
430,LU
'fr
ix
rf.Q.
110) 11"
S.
3XIM
arc
139. M)'.
IOTAL.S
.4
1_?TLCM
1 L9.j= __1
MDAM
JjL"_jMJ
kv.A; '.&V- F.-4 kpfr!!N 1 tP.14 ftr ,, #Van) S I 19,3m.,
"S13-4: wS.A V* wit End or ve tjr.tr ISO,
Pw,r.awi Cli• t.01
SCE14AN10t ONE LOt•31KOttt UN1I
Tar teal•
..J"ti:SJ'1rr C1•.�'�, 'h ,.'•+ry..r • �1.f.;r S'4 Alt.i.•T of
Irr.• ;R.r.Itrr'•. ac:l.::/ L#ti
_.�-- --------- -, — +_� Drr. �'rer [a:a^ce - �.ti :as•. t.w {1.•t [oil,I Woor1'
1
Xr,']U_
3 2".3.'
• ,
:1,3+7
P
-1
15, 341
F
tom'.' w:I!• 1T}I
. t
�. 7�7
9
:./:.1to
1='
•C.
.3
11 .1:. ..-t roar.! Y
1ut^.i
5wtu� •ur!r::s s �J�+r
3:►.':�
l .0%
t ?t.41011
s ..
f 21sr,C7;
s ••
s �C.,71D:
f i:.lr s
.C>• f
.�
20.uI
.`
312.413
?V w
. '
th ..,14
.:
SJ,115
40,219
..
.r.
.. 1
2.
SL,!2+
.C.
4'+ti,14!
.1
.!�
G.,lt
.p
I*' Off
.Cr
E 7r[
C.
C.
%6r4
7,670
.'.
W.2r'S
-C.
.2
i:,'11
.f1
.{
._��.
__ .c
_7.�•:
�s,71s
� ..
7x,r-3—.____�
1t`.�C
(:+•,a�1?
:r,.'i..
�!i►n,r.}
,:ih.x:;
YI `tIIG•
l73
�t31t111
+001
�U##.�l i
�t7M �17 -O.
} 9
; J t1y1Cn1
Ld-W!R
Ilk!! 001
)Jl yaUl �t_L
�X1J1
Arrv: 'ev I -A '.ar• tl++; A La -tom Wlt fw tir ►rut) f I2),w)
(So,'Mn; tr4 V+lt 1t tt+a Ere of tr* lantt+ ram!) f S:9,t,64
11
SUMIARV AND CONCLUSIONS
As evidenced by the preceding PrpfOrma Cash Flows and as summarised below,
the estimated sate of return under trio six scenarios range between 19.es0J per.
cent and (318.8AJ percent. As expected, the rate of return impro.es as the
location of the affordable unit is moved ofrslte and when a sodestate-incoa•
unit Is incorporated Into the project rather than is low-lncomn unit.
ESTIMATED RATE OF FIETURN
Moderate -Income Low-income
For Sale / Onsite (163.551 X (23q,65J 1ti
Fur Sale / offsite (251.72) % (7lH.H�J x
For Lease / gnsite 19.601 % (11.54j T<
It shou:d t.e noted that tr,ese rates or return reflect paint estimates
based upon a series of asr.srmptlons detolled earlier In this tnport. The
actual rate of return achieved by the 2961 Cliff Drive development will depend
upon to what Ccjree variances from these assumptions are exlserienced 4n.1 to
what direction (I.e., positive of negative) they occur. It is trio opinion of
Tarantello i Costpany that if variances do nccur, they are more llwely to occur
In a negative direction resulting In a reduction of the rate of return. The
more significant factors which could cause such a result are as rollows: (1)
a more lengthly absorptlon period, and (2) a reduction in achlevarle sales
prices. There are several more downside risks than upside potential. For
example, it is far more probable that in the midst of an ecl+nomic recovery
petlod that interest rates, labor costs and construction materld?s ate all
likely to rise In pttcel thereby, further reducing potential profit. yet at
the same time, recently rising interest rates have substantially slowed
residential lot sales and substantially suppressed real estate appreclatiun
rates to below current estimated cost of living price levels. Any anticipated
Increase In potential sales prices is extremely unlikely. In simple language,
the *downside* is greater than the "upside."
M verl the risk level associated with this type or development and the
' aforementioned 1119ely direction of any variances, It is our opininn that trio
only reasonatile scenario is the exclusion or any affordable units -- onslte or
offslte. Based upon our experience and knowledge of specific development
' projects, Tarantello 6 Company has found that most developers would not ufsder-
takes such a Jevelopment without an expected rate of retutrs of at least 50
Percent.
'
In summation, In a
financial world where high-grade
corporate bonds are
yielding 12 percent or
more, with full liquidity and
no
managemerst require-
ments, our most recent
experience in the evaluation
of
development projects
for similar clients suggests required Cates of return
in
excess of SO percent
on Invested capital over the term of the project. It
is
evident that none or
the previous scenarios
approach this benchmark, and we
strongly recommend that
' no affordable unit requirement be imposed upon the 2961 Cliff Orlve
development.
Planning Com:ission Meeting April 19 1984
Agenda Item No. 3
CITY OF N NPORT BEACH
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: A. Amendment No. 600 (Continued Public Hearin
Request to amend the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan
District so as to allow the construction of a
cul-de-sac at the westerly terminus of Avon Street,
easterly of Santa Ana Avenue. The proposal also
includes a request to amend portions of Districting
Maps No. 4 and 5 so as to reclassify a portion of the
southerly half of unimproved Avon Street (proposed to
be vacated), between Santa Ana Avenue and a point
approximately 210.0 feet easterly of Santa Ana Avenue,
from the SP-5 District (Mariner's Mule Specific Plan
Area) to the R-1 District (Single Family Residential).
The extension of the 5 foot front yard setback on Santa
Ana Avenue and the 10 foot front yard setback on Avon
Street designated on said Districting Maps are also
proposed, and the acceptance of an environmental
document.
LOCATION: Property located at the southerly one-half of the
unimproved portion of Avon Street, between Santa Ana
Avenue and a point approximately 210.0 feet easterly of
Santa Ana Avenue, measured along the southerly boundary
of unimproved Avon Street.
ZONE: SP-5
�•
a._Resubdivision No. 767 (Continued Public Hearing)
Request to resubdivide an existing parcel of land and a
portion of unimproved Avon Street '(proposed for
vacation) into four parcels for 'single family
residential purpose. The proposal also inelndes an
exception to the Subdivision Code so as to permit a
parcel with less than 80 feet in depth,-snd to allow
the construction, of a cul-de-sac with a 32 foot radius
where a minimum 40 foot radius is required.
TOs Pting Commission -2. 7
• .
C. Residential Coastal Devel nt Permit No. 7
(Discussion)
Request to consider a Residential Coastal Development
Permit for the purpose of establishing project
compliance for three additional single family
residential lots, pursuant to the administrative
guidelines for the implementation of the State Law
relative to low -and -moderate -income housing within the
Coastal Zone.
LOCATION; A portion of Lot 2 of the First Addition to the Newport
Heights Tract, located at 2961 Cliff Drive, on the
southeasterly corner of Cliff Drive and Santa Ana
Avenue, in Newport Heights.
ZONESs R-1 and SP-5
APPLICANT: Pulaski and Arita, Newport beach
OWNER: Helen Kreutskamp, Newport noftch
ENGINEER: Robin B. Hamers and Associatas, Inc., Conta Mesa
packer nd and Applications
The Amendment, Resubdivision and Coastal Residential Development
Permit requested were previously discussed by the Planning Camission
on March 8, 1984. At that time, discussion was continued to allow for
submittal to the City Council of recommendations of the Ad Hoc
Mariners Mile Traffic Circulation Committee. On April 5, 1994,• the
Planning Commission received a report on the recommendations of the
Mariners Mile Committee. Additionally, the applicant requested a
further continuance .of the previously described applications to allow
for submittal of revised plans. This request was granted by the
Planning Commission.
The revised Tentative Parcel map submitted by the applicant changes
the applications as follows:
1. Amendment No. 600 is no longer needed as Avon Street is now
proposed to connect to Santa Ana Avenue.
2. Resubdivision No. 767 now requests to resubdivido an existing
parcel .of ;land into three, parcels for family residential
purposes. The -previously required exception to the Subdivision
Code for Jot depth is no longer needed. However, an exception to
the Subdivision Code is now required to allow a t5o foot wide
right -of- way on Avon Street where a:winisum 60 feet is required.
3. Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 7 is no longer needed
In that only two additional,residential units are proposed.
Resubdivision procedures are outlined in Section 19.12 of the
Municipal Code.
' TO: Plorsinq Commission -3. •
Environmental Significance
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CMA),
the "state CEQA Guidelines" (Guidelines) and City Policy K-3, an
Initial Study was prepared on the proposed project. Based upon the
information contained in the initial study, the City's Environmental
Affairs Committee has determined that the project will not Create any
significant adverse environmental effect and a Negative Declaration
has been prepared. The Initial Study prepared for this project has
been previously distributed to the Planning Commission.
Conformance With the General Plan
The land use designation of the subject property is "Lo+w-Density
Residential." At the time the General Plan was adopted, this
designation permitted development up to ten dwelling units per irnns
acre. In 1975, the General Plan was amended to crea�.0 a
"Kedium-Density Residential" designation permitting development of
more than four, to a maximum of ten dwelling Units per buildable acre
and to change the "low -Density Residential" designation to permit a
maximum of four dwelling units per buildable acre. The aelum-density
category was added to be applied to existing residential subdivisions
and new subdivisions where the existing neighborhood character is
within the four to ten dwelling units per buildable acre limit.
The low -density category was to be applied to existing residential
subdivisions where the existing neighborhood character is four or less
dwelling units per buildable acre and to the major undeveloped
residential sites in the City.
Buildable acreage was defined as including the entire site less areas
with a slope greater than tyro -to -one and any perimeter open space and
has been amended to delete, also, park dedication areas and areas to
be used for streets. The revised project is 4.48 dwelling units per
buildable acre.
Subject PropertX and Surroundin Land Uses
A single-family dwelling and related garage spaces are located on the
subject property. To the north, across Cliff Drive, are single-family
dwellinga# to the southeast are a single-family dwelling and vacant
land# to the south, across the unimproved Avon Street right-of-way,
are the Newport Loports auto sales facility, T.N.T. Mexican restaurant
and The Arches restaurant, all of which front on west Coast Highway#
and to the northwest, across Santa Ana Avenue, are singla-family
dwellings.
Previous Related Applications
On !larch 8, 1982, the City Council voted (4 Ayes, 1 wo) to deny
Resubdivision No. 707, which was a request to divide the subject
property into four parcels of land for single-fassily development (see
attached Assessor's slap). The City Council made the following
1'iadings_in.conjunction with the denial:
To= Pldlining Commission -4.
1, That the approval of this request would be inconsistent with the
Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Draft Local Coastal
Plan inaaaruch as the proposed division would increase the density
of the site from 1.68t units per buildable acre to 6.74t units
per buildable acre, where the low -density residential designation
of the sits would allow a Maxtamm density of four units per
buildable acre,
2- That the approval of this request would result in extensive cuts
and substantial alterations in the existing Iand foram in order to
accommodate development on Parcels No. 1, 2 and 3.
3, That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed
development because of the steep slopes and Problems related to
vehicular access to the site from Santa Ana Avenue,
Resubdivision No. 707 had been approved previously by the Planning
Commission at its meeting of February le, 1982 (see attached excerpt
of Planning Comrsission minutes). This project wan initiall
considered by the Planning Commission on December 10 y
ultimately continued to the meeting of February1H 19Fl2Is
1991 and
raised and addressed at the public hearings included the nacnNsityeues for
extending Avon Street westerly to a connection with Santa Ana Avenue,
the desirability of dividing the site into three parcels an apposed to
four parcels, the cost of off -site improvements (S200,000, including
the extension of Avon Street), preservation of views from existing
residences and public streets, grades of existing and proposed streets
and driveways, access to Avon Street as opposed to Santa Ana Avenue,
and hydrology and site stability.
On February 21,
651 19801 the Planning Coesaission denied Resubdivision No.
65which was an application requesting to divide the adjoining
parcel, to the east of the subject property (see attached Assessor's
map), into three parcels. Said action was taken by the Planning
Commission subject to the following Findings:
I. That the approval of this request would permit an increase in
residential density on the site from 1.8 to 5.7 dwelling units
per buildable acre.
2, That the approval of this resubdivision would create two building
sites containing less land area than siost of the existing
residential development on adjoining property in Newport Heights.
3. That the approval of this r*Voa t mould result in extensive cuts
and substantial alterations in the existing land form in -order -to
accommodate development on Parcels No, 2 and 3.
4. That the site is not physically suitable for the r
of development. p oposed density
5. That the Commission is not satisfied with the plan of subdivision.
On December 2, 1976, the planning,Coswisslon
No. 534 that permitted the creation of two �r�+� fireside residential
development on Avon Street (see attached assessor rcels for ma silent id
p). Said
TOs P19ing Commission -5. •
parcels would have contained 5,1921 sq.ft. and 7,1151 sq.ft.,
respectively, with the ten foot wide street dedication required by the
Commaission. This map was never recorded, and the Commission's
approval subsequently lapsed and became null and void.
Analxsis
Resubdivision Ho. 767
Resubdivision No. 767 is a request to resubdivide an existing Parcel
of land into three parcels for single family residential development.
Also proposed is the dedication of 3,894 sq.ft. for the ultimate
completion of Avon Street to a connection with Santa Ana Avenue. As
proposed, the resubdivision will create three parcels as outlined
below:
Proposed
Average
Average
Area
Depth
width
Parcel No. 1 8,077 sq.ft.
105 ft.
78 ft.
Parcel No. 2 9,250 sq.ft.
148 ft.
68 ft.
Parcel No. 3 11,950 sq.ft.
185 ft.
64 ft.
The revised project addresses most of the major concerns of staff
relative to the previous proposal. Avon Street is proposed to be
extended and connected to Santa Ana Avenue. As required by the
Planning Commission in the previous Resubdivision No. 707, additional
dedication of right-of-way is shown for Avon street to allow for
adequate connection to Santa Ana Avenue. The density of the project
has been reduced by proposing three parcels instead of four parcels.
Access to the two new parcels is to be from Avon Street, rather than
Santa Ana Avenue. Following is a discussion of the issues related to
this resubdivision.
Density The previous Resubdivision No. 707 was approved by, the
Planning Commission but denied by the City Council with the finding
that the density increase was inconsistent with the General Plan. The
proposed resubdivision has reduced the proposed number of lots from
four to three, which brings the overall density proposed to 4.48
dwelling units per buildable acre. .
Land Use C2!etibilitg Staff has previously expressed concern with
the land use relationship of the proposed residential use . to
commercial properties fronting on hest coast Highway. It bas been the
experience of staff that when commercial and residential uses adjoin
without appropriate natural or swan -made barriers, that parking, noise,
hours -of -operation and other conflicts will occur. Where is still
concern about the location of residential ' wma closer to commercial
uses. , The. resubdivision as proposed addresses this concern in that
the proposed residences will be separated from the commorcial uses by
Avon street. The previous submittal, showed residential use
is.sdiataly adjacent to the commercial ,ar".,: Additionally, :the
dsirelop o' nt of Avon ,Street will result in: a grade differential which
0 TO% Poing Commission -6.
will separate the residential units from the coamercial property
below. The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) which proposes
other actions to help mitigate the anticipated impact of the existing
commercial uses 'on the proposed residential uses. These include
construction of a noise wall and installation of landscaping in the
southerly aide of the Avon Street right-of-way. The City usually
requires noise mitigation facilities to be installed within the
subject property. Also suggested is the incorporation of language
into the covenants and restrictions for the property regarding the
current and future use of co=ercial property across Avon Street and
hold the City harmless from any future action it might take in
approving projects in this area. It is not usual for the City to
require a disclosure statement on existing zoning for inclusion in
covenants and restriction for new development. However, in this case
the Planning Commission may wish to include a statement regarding the
possibility of view obstruction at the time commercial properties
across Avon Street redevelop.
Avon Street In order to construct residences on the two proposed new
building mites it will be necessary to improve Avon Btrnet. :he Ad
Hoc Mariners Mile Traffic Circulation Committee recommended to the
City Council that a Mariners Milo Highway Improvement and
Implementation Program be prepared, including the widening of west
Coast Highway, the extension of Avon Street, and a financing plan to
implement these improvements.
Fair -Share The City is currently drafting an ordinance regarding fair -
share a contributions for new development in the City for the
circulation system and noise walls. The ordinance will establish
specific procedures for the application of fair -share on a specific
fee schedule established by the City Council. A condition regarding
fair -share has been included for this project. Based on the current
draft Fair -Share ordinance, the Pair -Share contribution is estimated
at $3,021.20.
In the public hearings on the previously -denied Resubdivision No. 707,
a number of issues were raised relative to that proposal, including
the desirability of dividing the site into four parcels as opposed to
three "parcels, the cost of off -site improvements, preservation of
views from existing residences and public streets, grades of existing
and proposed streets and driveways, access to Avon Street as opposed
to Santa Ana Avenue, hydrology and site stability. Should the
Planning Commission wish to approve the proposed resubdivision, the
Conditions of Approval provided include all conditions imposed on the
previous application relative to these concerns.
CxceMioh to Subdivison Code
Included in 'the proposed resabdivision•in a request for an exception
to the Subdivision` Code alloying a t50 foot wide•right-ct-wsy on Avon
street where the Code requires a minimmm 60 foot width. The standard
60 foot street width allows for a curb -to -curb with of 40 feat. The
Public -Works' Department"has •indicated'""hat `a •32 foot curb!=to-cZirb
width �Ia-,acceptable' for' the proposed Avon Street extension. This
could be accommodated within the proposed right-of-way. This street
section is acceptable to the Public Works Department with the
extension of Avon Street to Santa Ara Avenue.
TO: PlIking Commission--7.
Conclusions and Recommendation
The revised parcel map submitted addresses the major concerns of staff
relative to the proposed project in that the density of the project is
reduced and Avon Street is proposed to be extended. Some concern
still remains in the area of compatibility of the proposed residential
use with the commercial uses across Avon Street. Should the Planning
Commission desire to approve the project, Findings and Conditions for
Approval are included in Exhibit "A". Should the Planning Commission
wish to deny the proposal, Findings for Denial are attached as Exhibit
"e".
PLAMMINC DEPARTMENT
JAM D. HEWICKER, Director
By.
Patricia Temple
Environmental Coordinator
PTito
Attachments: 1. Exhibit "A"
2. Exhibit "B"
3. Assessor's Map
4. April 4, 1984 letter from Pulaski and Arita
5. March 6, 1984 letter from Patricia Conover
6. March 6, 1984 letter from William A. Conover
7. March 6, 1984 latter from Donald E. Olson
8. March 6, 1984 letter from Beverly A. Kongle
9. March 5, 1984 letter from Helen F. Kreutrkamp
10. March 7, 1984 memo from Chief Reed, Nepwort Beach
Fire Department.
11. Negative Declaration
12. Planning Cossmission Staff Report of March 8, 1984
13. Tentative Parcel Map
TO: Ploing Comission -8.
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Environmental Document
Resubdivision No. 767
April 19, 1984
A. RW I RONK WrAL DOCUMENT
1. Approve the Negative Declaration and supportive
materials theretol certifying that the
environmental document is completes and
2. Hake the findings listed belows
FINDINGSt
1. That the environmental document is complete and
has been prepared in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CMA), the
State CEQA Guidelines and City Polity.
2. That the contents of the environmental document
have been considered on the various decisions on
this project.
]. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the
proposed project, all feasible mitigation treasures
discussed in the Environmental Document have been
incorporated into the proposed projects
4. That the mitigation measures identified in the
Initial Study have been incorporated into the
proposed project and are expressed as Conditions
of Approvals
5. That based' upon the information contained in the
Initial Study, Negative Declaration and supportive
materials thereto that if the mitigation measures
are incorporated into the project it will not have
a significant adverse impact on the environment.
The Findings made in regard to the approval of tho
environmental document apply also to the approval of
Resubdivision No. 767.
Be RESUBDIVISION NO. 767
1. Approve Resubdivision No. 767 with the Findings
and subject to the Conditions listed below,
Aing Commission -9.
FINDINGS
1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of
the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances
of the City, all applicable general or specific
plans with the exception of the t50 foot width for
Avon Street, and the Planning Commission is
satisfied with the plan of subdivision.
2. That the proposed subdivision presents no problems
from a planning standpoint.
3. That the site is physically suitable for the
proposed development.
4. That the site is physically suitable for the
proposed density of development.
S. That an environmental document has been prepared
in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act, and that its contents have been
considered on the project.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements will not substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements are not likely to cause public health
prob lems .
8. 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.
9. That the discharge of waste from the proposed
subdivision will not result in or add to any
violation of existing requirements prescribed by
California Regional Hater Quality Control Board
pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Capital
Section 1300) of the Water Code.
10. That the area width and depth of the lots included
in the subdivision are similar to existing lots in
the area and are reasonable considering the
location of the subject property.
11. That the Avon Street extension to Santa Ana Avenue
is needed to provide adequate vehicular
circulation and police and fire protection for the
properties adjoining Avon street.
12. That a street section of acceptable width will be
required of the development.
TOs Pleing Ccssaission -10. •
13. That the proposed development will generate an
increase in daily trips] sufficient in magnitude to
warrant a fair share assessment to mitigate the
increased traffic congestion and traffic noise
resulting from the cumulative affect of additional
traffic generated by residential development.
CONDITIONSs
1. That a parcel map be recorded.
2. That all improvements be constructed as required
by Ordinance and the Public Works Department.
3. That additional right-of-way be dedicated along
Avon Street so as to allow the connection of Avon
Street to Santa Ana Avenue, and that a corner
cutoff be provided at the angle point on Avon
Street right-of-way with radius as approved by the
Public Works Department.
4. That sidewalk, curb, gutter, street lights and
32-foot width of pavement be installed along the
Avon Street frontage. The slopes needed to
accotmodate standard street improvements shall be
located an the building mites. Any drainage
facilities and retaining walls needed to be the
developer's responsibility.
5. That a minintm 24' width of pavement be installed
on Avon Street from the easterly property line to
connect to the existing pavement easterly of the
site near Riverside Avenue,
6. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared
and approved by the Public Works Department, along
with a caster plan of water, sewer and storm drain
facilities for the on -site improvement prior to
recording of the final map. Any modifications or
exte"ions to the existing storm drain, water and
sewer systems shown to be required by the study
shall be the :responsibility of the developer.
That the research enginatring and facilities
needed to resolve the sewer, water supply,
drainage, and street improvement problems
associated with this development shall be the
responsibility of and provided by the developer.
As a part of the development, an 8" water main
shall be constructed in Avon Street connecting the
existing line in Riverside Drive and to the
existing line in West Coast Highway at Newport
Boulevard and that fire hydrants be constructed
along Santa Ana Avenue and Avon Street as required
by the Tire Department and the Public Yorks
Department.: A sanitary, sorer wain shall also be
coast=vctsd to suv all parcels.
TO: Plakng commission -11.'
7. That 15-foot-radius corner cutoffs be dedicated to
the public at 'the corner of Santa Ana Avenue and
Cliff Drive and at the corner of Santa Ana Avenue
and Avon Street.
B. That a new concrete curb be constructed along the
Cliff Drive and Santa Ana Avenue frontages to
replace the existing deteriorated curb. The curt,
face height shall be determined by the amount of
water carries! in Santa Ana Avenue and as approved
by the Public works Department. The curb return
at the corner of Santa Ana Avenue and Cliff give
shall be constructed on a 25 foot radius, and the
existing street light relocated. An accean ramp
shall be included in the curb return.
4. That 5-foot-wide concrete sidewalk be constructed
along the Cliff Drive frontage and Santa Ana
Avenue frontage.
10. That the street improvements and public water and
sewer facilities be shown on standard improvement
plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. The
street grade on Avon Street shall be designed and
connected to Santa Ana Avenue in a manner
acceptable to the Public works Department.
11. That a standard subdivision agreement and
accompanying surety be provided if it is desired
to record the slap or obtain a building permit
before the required public improvements are
completed.
12. Development of the site shall be subject to a
grading permit to be approved by the Building and
Planning Departments. Surface and subsurface
drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of
the Building Department and the Public works
Department.
13. That the applicant or subdivider shall design the
proposed structures to preserve the pedestrian
view of the bay and ocean from the proposed
sidewalk on the easterly side of Santa Ana Avenue
and shall submit plans to the Modifications
Comm.1ttee for approval of the design of the
structures prior to • permits being issued.
Proper notice of this shall be given to the
residents in this area.
14. That a condition survey of the existing retaining
wall along the south side of Avon Street be wade
by a civil or' structural' engineer, and that the
retaining wall be reinforced in conformance with
the recommendations of the condition survey and to
the satisfaction of the Building Department.
TOO Plging Commission -12.
15. That each dwelling. unit be serv*d with an
individual water service and sewer lateral
connection to the public water and sewer systems
unless otherwise approved by the Public works
Department.
16. That a grading plan, if required, shall include a
complete plan for temporary and permanient drainage
facilities, to minimise any potential impacts from
silt, debris, and other water pollutants.
17. The grading permit shall include, if required, a
description of haul routes, access points to the
site, watering, and sweeping program designed to
minimize impact of haul operations.
18. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if
required, shall be submitted and be subject to the
approval of the Building Department and a copy
shall he forwarded to the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region.
19. The velocity of concentrated run -riff from the
project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities
controlled as part of the project design.
20. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with
plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on
recommendations of a soil engineer and an
engineering geologist subsequent to the completion
of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation
of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the
"Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size
sheets shall be ' furnished to the Building
Department,
21., That erosion control measures shall be done on any
exposed slopes within ,thirty days after grading or
as approved by the Grading Engineer.
22. That prior to: the occupancy of any unit, a
qualified .acoustical engineer, retained by the
City at the applicant's expense, shall demonstrate
to the satisfaction of - the Planning Director that
the noise isipact from West, Coast Highway, Avon
Street or Santa Ana Avenue on any dwelling unit
does not exceed 65 ,db CHM for outside living
areas and the requirements of law for interior
spaces.
23. That any, building address, and street name shall
cOmPly, with City, Standards. and shall be approved
by,the,rire,Department.. ,
• TOs
PAing Cosaission -23.
1
24. The Fire. Department access shall be approved by
the Fire Department.
25. That all buildings on the project bite shall be
equipped with fire suppression systems approved by
the Fire Department.
26. That all on -site fire protection (hydrnnts and
Fire Department connections) shall be approved by
the Fire and Public Works Departments.
27. A qualified archaeologist or paleontolwll st shall
evaluate the site prior to cosRaer C#"nt of
construction activities, and that all work on the
site be done in .accordance with the City's Council
Policies K-5 and K-6.
28. Prior to occupancy of any building, the applicants
shall provide written verification► from the Orange
County Sanitation District that adequate sewer
capacity is available to serve the project.
29. That prior to the issuance of a building permit
the applicant shall provide the Building
Department and the Public Works Department with a
letter from the Sanitation District stating that
sewer facilities will be available at the time of
occupancy.
30. Final design of the project shall provide for the
incorporation of water -saving devices for project
lavatories and other water -using facilities.
31. That garage access to Parcel No. 3 shall be taken
from Avon Street.
32. That the project shall contribute to fair -share
for circulation system and noise wall
improvements, prior to the issuance of any
building or grading permits for the project.
i
'I'o: Aing Commission —14.- .
- MCHIBIT "B"
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL
April 19, 1904
A. ENVIROMMENTAL DOCUMENT
1. Take no action on the Initial Study and Negative
Declarations
2. Recommend that the City Council take no action on
the environmental documents and
3. Hake the findings listed below:
FINDINGS:
1. That the environmental document is complete and
has been prepared in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act WIVA), the
State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy.
2. That the contents of the environmental document
have been considered on the various decisions on
this project.
3. That the Guidelines indicate that environmental
documents are not required for projects that arc
denied.
The .Findings spade in regard to the Environmental
Document described above also apply to the denial of
Resubdivision No. 767.
B. RESUBDIVISION NO. 767
1. Deny •Resubdivision No. 767 with the Findings
listed belowr
F'INDINGS3
I. That the project is inconsistent with the Land Use
Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal
Plan inasmuch as the proposed division mould
increase the density of the site from 1.681 units
per buildable acre to 4.48 units per buildable
acre, where the low density residential
designation of the site would allow a &axis=
density of four units per buildable acre.
2. That the approval of this request would result in
extensive cuts and substantial alterations in the
existing land form in order to accommodate
development on Parcels lio. 2 and 3.
J
0
TO: Pl*nq Comission -15. •
r'v
3. - That the site is not physically suitable for the
Proposed development.
4. That the proposed subdivision proposes problems
from a planning standpoint. The proposed
subdivision will create conflicts with adjacent
coam rcLal areas.
S. That existing noise and activitidn from the
adjacent cosmrcial areas cannot be screened from
this area.
NE a"�\/
44 .� . 0 �� f
,0
n
5uB1EtT RESU
Na. 1101 �sNo.�sr
I,SO, 2Esud NM xn �flFNtSD� SECT R 6.
Rc-suis.No. s.qq
_ (APPONC-P Our
Nan' atowev)
•
•
=andArtta
Apri 1 4, 1984
Ms. Pat Temple
Environmental Coordinator
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, California
Bear Pat,
�M Rach tirrrct
Nrr;'P�rt Ekxh,(,a, WNhp
92b58-8915
Tcicp&c ac r'11) %5VAli
Pursuant to our discussion regarding the Avon Street project, the following are
ideas that I have regarding the residential commercial proximity question:
1. At Mitchell Brown's (PBA) suggestion, I spoke with my attorney, Burleigh
Brewer, about the possibility of incorporating language into the covenants
and restrictions for the proposed lots. He indicated that it was possible
and not uncommon to do so. Essentially, it would state that the buyer is
Purchasing the propertywith the full knowledge of what current as well as
future coanercial uses are possible for the adjacent properties. Additionally,
,the buyer would hold the city harmless from any future action'it might take
in approving projects which fall within the cofv*rcial standards.
2. That a block wall be constructed on the southerly side of Avon Street as a
noise buffer as well as safety.
3. That dense shrubbery be planted on the southerly side of Avon such as Acacia
Latifolia or other planting materials known to assist in sound reduction.
4. That special sound insulating techniques be required and incorporated into the
construction of the dwellings such as sound insulation, double glazing, etc.
I feel that these measures, if required and incorporated into the project, would have
a significant iapact in solving the residential to coa®ercial proximity concerns.
e trulyWo,
Rolly Pul ski
RP:jw
17
0
?larch 6, 1984
Mayor Evelyn Hart
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport boulevard
Newport beach, California 92663
Dear Mayor Marti
$404 ^VOCAer *6@1U9. sV1T[ 201
04WV*" �y1I00ru1 MMO
T��aMi►OM�,1iN1 •so•os�o
Isr� MMM s?A;RT. iu1T[ MOi
p1/1�fIMOft 0444MCAUP"MIA MMi
ra�aaMOMa 1�1�1 •r•-s�rr
This letter is a protest against tha Pulaski proposed development on
Cliff Drive. It is my understanding that the lots' measurements will
be substandard and x think this isn't right in a R-1 dwelling zone.
Further, it is unlikely that the soil can take thin multi -dwelling
development. 'flute is sw mpy water constantly at the bottom of the
Cliff. Little•fish, frogs and cattails thrirs in it. The city
seriously needs the opinion of a soil erosion expert (preferably more
than one). otherwise an incident such as the haws slipping in Ban
Clements could occur years down the line sad then our city would have
multiple lawsuits. Developers are 'in and out' and do not have to
face the hazards that ultimately.ariss.
r'
Sinc!Lsly yours, /
Patricia Conover
ccs City Council
Planning Coudesion
Is
.
•
March b, 1984
James Person, Secretary
Planning Co=ision
City of Newport Beach
Dear Sir,
,r4e&IS sr-�
Res ubp6:vry bn. 0. ?G7
Rise 6olikax:"," VA''
1401 AVOCADO AVCNUt.8VIVE 301
MIMPORT •tACM.CAIIIORMIA u040
YeIC•.1011C 17141 440-0700
10700 MAIN 1T1111CT, SU1Ti ROG
i.U16TI4Y10.1 89ACM.CAUIO11111A 68#40
TCIC ►.40NC 17141 R41m-6R4R
Ihis letter is wtitten in protest to the three Pulaski -Arita development
proposals for subdividing properties easterly of Santa Ana Aveneue and between
Cliff Drive and Avon Streets in Newport Beach, California.
My home is located at 2949 Cliff Drive adjacent to the 2953 and 2961 Cliff
Drive Pulaski development projects. You can ace I am deeply concerned.
It is my opinion that the existing property lines here involved were well
thought out by the original architects. The area concerned is prime Newport
Beach property from an aesthetic point of view. The existing four housed lin-
ing Cliff Drive are dignified and the park lends to the peacefulness and beauty
of the !cmediate area. To dice the cliff below the homes and cram seven tiny
units on the undersized parcels would cheapen and destroy the value of the
land.
I can see developing. single full scale home: to each full lower cliff lot
now available attractively designed to reflect the dignity, theme and feeling
of our unique harbor city. (This precludes an appropriate Improvement of Avon
Street.) 1 believe our city planners are trying to protect thin concept and
image. Spare us from the cheap bee -hives with all they imply.
My feeling is that the developers do not care about the city or the local
residents whom they may effect in.this instance. The developers will be in and
out with profits and will care less about the added congestion, noise,inconven-
tence and traffic problems that will ensue. I don't mind profits realized from
an unselfish desire to create or develop something worth while for our city to
be proud of, however, 1 see nothing to be either worthwhile or proud of in the
Pulaski -Arita proposals.
There well may be a terracing problem associated with the proposed devel-
opments. A drainage problem to Avon currently exists. The stability of all the
properties lining Cliff Drive would have to be seriously considered -
The-engin-eering and soil movement for terracing and landscaping the new WO
Knrch 6, 1984
Pulaski -Arita projects
Page two
to guarantee protection for the Cliff Drive homes. Let us have no San Clemente
soil and home slipping episodes. Who will underwrite this protection - the
developers or the city?
Furthermore, with the prevailing winds who will catch all the added car
exhaust fumes and smoke from the chimneys of all these tiny hrmaul Existing
home owners have been trapped before in such a situation and their property val-
uud have been jeopardized by ignoring the inevitables.
Our city Planning Commission is well aware of Avon Street with the jungle
of car lots and mobile homes that border it. 11m sure their whole idea is to
upgrade this area with a more picturesque, sensible and efficient use of the
land. of prime importance is a widening Pacific Coast Highw:y and planning a
styled business area between it and PCH. I would think the city could not wish
to compromise these objectives by being locked into a private development that
proposes nothing for the city of Newport Beach.
1 have not touched on another important problem arising with the Pulaski -
Arita changes, namely, that of the Santa Ana Street hill. Here we go again.
Aside from increased traffic and parking problems, despite a proposed cul-de-
sac only for Avon, the grading and movement of soil will effect the land support
of the hillside road. Who is to pick up the tab to protect against this and for
future problems that may arise? Newport Beach taxpayers? No thank you. Pul-
aski and Arita will be long gone.
Thank you kindly for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
WILLIAM A. CONOYP.lt, M.D.
WAC/jr
Suleli'wJim No. 'I 07
DONALp E. OLSON �Suf�i�liSlox.'l�lo: �I88
AT T OpH RY . CITY A"0""ay
1221 W. coAwr HIa HWAY 6uty1171 GITY 19041.6"
1�cwuoo 1aas.��
NRWP00IT ImACH, CA 02463
(714) 4496000
March 6, 1984
� {
PLANNING COMMISSION a °
CITY OF ■EMRT BRACE �Ac�iery � 2 3300 Newport Boulevard oI
Newport Beach, CA 92663 L ft�JI*ACK
RE: REMDIVISIOM MS. 767 a 768
Dear Honorable Chairman and Members:
As a co-owner of the commercial property at 3300 Went Coast
Highway I respectfully request that you deny the above -referenced
resubdivision applications.
Since I will be unable to attend the Planning Commisnion meeting
of !larch 8, 1984 I submit this letter in opposition to the
proposed resubdivisions and respectfully request that it be read
into the record in the proceeding in lieu of my appearance at the
public hearing.
The reasons for our opposition to Resubdivision 1767 and 768
include the following:
Since our commercial property lies at the foot of the bluff which
comprises the area proposed -for Resubdivision #767, we would be
the first to be adversely affected by any soil slippage at the
overlying property.
The land substructure under proposed Lots lr 2 i 3 of Subdivision
767 is presently undermined by�an underground spring or water
course. Water flows continuously beneath the upper strata and
surfaces to invade our'property. Some of this water courses
along Avon Street right of way. On any given day one can see
some of the.surface water runoff along Avon Street. Persons who
park behind the Riverside Post Office routinely hear the
distinctive croaking of -.the frogs inhabiting this water course.
The,land itself is suable. The Planning Staff.in its:
recommendation of denial of November 9, 1981 (considering -an
earlier resubdivision) included in its proposed findings for
dens al, the . statement :
"That the approval of this request would result in
extensive cuts and substantial alterations in, the ;
existing land form in order to accommodate development
on Parcels 1, 2 and 3 and there is evidence of soil
movement and slippage in the area of ispxovewnt•
(emphasis added).
Unfortunately there is no known engineering tscbniquerwtiichywould
•
concluafvely in.advance of actual excavation, reveal the extent
'of unetability;`ihort of care drilling every foot of the property
- a cost --prohibitive procedure.
This same engineering dilemma has confronted countless developers
and homeowners in other areas. Until relatively recently,
developers in Los Angeles County, for example, have constructed
homes on 2 to 1 slopes and then later been witnesses to those
same homes sliding down the hill or suffering subsidence damage
in one degree or another. (The County has taken measures to
forestall calamitous damage involving hillside developments.
Their Department of Regional Planning has developed a
comprehensive set of regulations governing hillside developments
under date September 23, 1981.)
As the professional planning body of this city, you have full
authority to deny a proposed subdivision application whether that
denial is based on unstability of soil, substandard circulation,
general plan deficiencies or any other public welfare
consideration.
It has become axiomatic in city planning that not every square
foot of a city is, or should be, capable of development. Two to
one parcel slope grades are problematical building bites at best,
quite apart from the unstability of soil conditions or
underground water courses.
We also note that the practical effect of granting the proposed
subdivisions would be to violate the established general plan as
regards density. In the November 19, 1981 staff recommendation
of denial for an earlier resubdivision of the same parcel, the
staff concluded as folows:
"It is the opinion of staff that the property in
question be defined as "low -density residential"
since the property is similar in nature to adjacent
residential properties to the east which are
developed on sloping lots at leas than 4 dwelling
units per buildable acre. The project as proposed
is inconsistent with the "low -density", designation."
Finally, concurring with Patricia Trimble's excellent and well -
reasoned report and recommendation, feel,that it would just be
"plain bad" planning to permit a single family residential
development to Abut and overlook cormercial development. This,
undoubtedly, will lead to discord among respective property
interests and inevitably to the expenditure of city tine and
effort attempting reconciliation of these interests wollinto the
perpetual future.
E
We support the recommendation of
denial of Applications 1767 and
epectfu01in
tad,
Donald E.
the Planning staff and 'urge your
i7b 8 .
!;!;I., Lee,14st,, 1 r t .77 ,. .,
.. +�rts.!,:i w i h4i e, : ti.. s f i 1r I •. .: 1.f
■
0
-T70e�- '5"-40 f7G7*Cja`eW7
rlpnninf Co-rirrion
Cit- of "fyFort Pfach
7411C 1. ''ewport Blvd,
tieArort Pesch, CA 924
r"rvto
o[Pr,
ii(-1
MAR? ou 2
HfW�iIVY
r, EACII. J
�
:L.: Sutdivirion #7F7 - loYer property et 2cF1 C
Lear Sirr:
i A,:, ta'4irC this opportunity to express sty support in favor of the
pro noeee rubdivieion of the property located at 29Fi Cliff Lrive.
I e-+ druphter to Helen Areutzkomp and 'hillian Kreutxkemp (deceared),
an-i lived in the houre At 290 Cliff Lrive until 1 reached the hge
of 71 ,years. :luring my childhood I recell hPvinj• Hn unoletructee
vie,r to the North, so post of the howPr on Santa Anh Avenue hi11 F,idc
hPd not vet bfen built. You Pre probably a%are of the fact that
there are not %pny houres iAr�wed onto Santa AnE. Av;;nuf . Not once
did anyone come to my parents and ask if they mins#-d Part of the
vier being otstructed by the house to be built. It refl%e thet the
riphtr of the property owner sere 'yore respected then than they ere
no*. gut Chet is not even the iemue in this cpre. She homrr
deripmed to by built on the property on the lower portion of 29F1
Cliff Drive rould be of A level to not obrtruct the vier of the
ho+meownerp on Santa Ann Avenue. If we had restricted them in like
garner, they could not have built!
Cne of the SArta Ane Avenue homeowners has expressed concern over
the "eterdinr water" .following a rainstorm, In answer to hip
concern, I personally walked over the property after p severe storm
fart %inter. I did not find any water - anywher_e. I will fxear
that under oeth. I will give thAt an ter i�rt ony—in any deposition.
Another concern I have heard expressed is that Santa Ana is a
nnrro% street, and additional ho-nes might add to the burden of
traffic, not to mention pP.rking. Frankly, I rupport the proposal
to eprixnate my mother's side of Santa Ana Avenue ap a "no parking"
zone. ''hen people chose to buy homes in that location, they did
ro in Tull And complete knowledge thr.t the street is nerrow and
pEriing ie li-mited. Thie fact of life is the fare for people who
purchase hoi er on the Peninaulr, on balboa Ipland, in Corona Lei
Por, and on the hillride r+ection of Sent& Ana Avenue. It goes with
the territory. Plerse rear in mind that the hover on Santa Ana
hvEr.ue hillrite-have tpnefit of an alley, which affords them more
alternetiver than most of us have.
I have never urderptood the proposal to put Avon Street through
to Santa Ana Avenve. % het purpose would to served by creating
tottlenecks rt Coret Highway and Santp Ana Avenue or ■ell as at
Coast Hiphr.ey are Riverside Drive?
Subdivirion 0767 - PPFe T%o
wA for Pe the City of Newport Leach in concerned, there are
only poritive results to be valned ty rubdividinp thh property:
Thst barren, weed -covered lot it an eyesore that la hirhly visitle
froN the entire harror. All pictures tPlen from the hArt•or d ieplay
thrt tarren lot. It Vould be Tuch iiproved hsvo lovely howen
there is such a virible location.
The necempity to cut the wePdr Each vear to lersrn the firs: hazard
could to el irinated . (A necessity that cruet be arrrneed and prid
for by .y mother, not tho*e perronn who gent to keep the lot eipty.)
Uwe additional teT revenge would be realized fro" the Improved
property if homer were built.
The oreverty, the neighborhood, and the City would bt lmprcved ty
thin rubdivirsion.
The viewr of the hoper on Santa Ana Avenue hiliei.de would to
preserved, which it a ripnificent concession to aek of Any property
owner.
The value of all the homes in the neighborhood would be elevated.
I hope that I have been able to rive the positive ride to this
•uestion since in the part we have been deluged with unrc:bstantiPted
allepationa Wok a ter+ ind ividuslr who ere only concerned Mite their
own relfimh interests. Please consider the facto and the benefits
then come'to a positive decision for the subdivision of 29F+ Cliff
Drive.
Sincerely, Ol
Beverley Fonvl
beverley ,.. Longle
20042 Cove Circle
Ontinrton beach, CA 9264E
ROGRAPHICS
IVISION
qw
po .4;
.'C1/ L•. ? f �1�'1,�rrl
- � � � � 1 +•y 1 1r yTMI
r i' ! � � `'` � �• "' �-" - . �� �. % Y�+�-. �, sus ,
A#— 1�� I � T �� F • , i r : ! i ! _ f• �. 4_ !j ram.
� M �• _ l►'M 1}.1 t+ I 1 i1k:1f/` ,hhey' r AL cf.
id
�+ �.�I ,�-,� .. j � ��� •l� � • i 1 r f .,. �� r• ^i ` J���, :�•��•-� �� I' +,. 'a �'yIJ+ , � 1
r a — .
�-�'Tt sfLS"�rt Y67
Planning Cawdaeion
City of Newport Beach
no Proposed snbdivisiom t'fr
29Q cliff Strive, 1eeport Beach, 92663
Members of the Cassissiont
RAl�se�
Q MAR5
or
imp"? BUM
I as vftthsg tp you to slab Sartain that 4 side of the Owe ILI FA
smtdivision is beard. At the eouseil meeting last year# wbeft the proposal was
voted down, the meeting was closed befers I ooald give a rebattlo. I do not
want that to happen spin. It was eMSr that the eomail had gat stsdied your
very thorough findings, but relied as Serrespewdssre tram Ins /esos. This nor
respondence was not shared , bat kept for tM oo ell aloof. I de not think
tkis is right in a public hesving.
During the thirty.eiu yeas that I'have lived here, NOW builders have
approached ■e about developing the vacant lards lsilders know wlat to er is net
buildable. The attached Owteetat above two rsasat Owes Yes wil3 r10ta lbat
the address ut the gyro Co.. is to address of the oomparq WdA ar4S the
petition that Mr. Bass@ took around the entire nsdghborhoWe Snip reprssbt_
ative, Mr. Indwp caste by the first time as a realtor. geveral spathe later he
ease by to info= ma that his ooglsst► vAU be interested in ba ifg the lad to
develops.
The gxeatios Of dc"It' was raised. There would be four, houses on 4
side of the street in ooupasison to some possibly eight an the other sides
also, there are lets in this meighbortrad which contain two hoYmoml a have
and garage -house; and at least one duplex* the" are residewase of people dw
have signed the petition against MY prepoaed subdivision. Ana congestion is doe
to rental a.
An to the sontswr of tbs land. There ass several lots og Beata Agee
La Jolla and even Cliff Brave rhieh are far steeper than say► lardy and yet
building was allowed on all these. The proposed hares Would rest on Bendy►.
sloping lard instead of eliffaide iota scab ss exist in We mefi*borhood.
If the questiow.st *UbIUly has been raised agate, it is not tree.
This property looks such the some se it did 1n Jury, 1946. NuW
@OU was rowmed from the cosy bottom of car proper Ve and fr or ssighbovog
by a man who told us he tbovot it was pablis prspg ft TM sAI bid &Uftdy
best► taken away when q sai$6M sa . him. AMS*W time fares %Wk away Nil
along the curb. Also, fow dsive;ve!"es and m4tormrolas have oat'ruTpus am
the hillside. Those cannot be blamed on Vg1grese Liter ore wi OMarefooe
Fillip Nasser and Evelyn girt Same- by to hive the dsosp. SW tire treads
wets clearly marked on the'gro md. .
As to an undez stresm, the water In gassttaa is. -a wfult of the
daily washing off of the Pau" lot by the jasitM at tie restsurrat l
There was sire a gwstiea of vim, Bofors aq of tM buss were
hilt axcrum from ass or s ■aslita3, I ooM1d Sae 'nor 'an
'It's
Pro"ed %bdirisioa of r 296a, .Olin[ Drriwe, 11"rt Beach, Be. 747
a clear day. I ow"also '0e0 aas
long Cot Way alsost to Superior street.
rs ?hohairs a=rend, boom twu aubdirisisms an Avon Street. *my yO&M M*
N". Gsrtler sold.. off a lower ■eation Cf her }refesty at Aran aM 41.0 side. A
twu etfilry tuiiding was emted there. The laver part of the p"MV to the west
of the part was sold by the 6WAWv N6 AMOU, to a dsteloper, let the two lots
did rot warrant the espouse of- buildirAg sine• 00 nearest streets Were top ar
away.
If Aron Street is oper►ed to Santa AM Arenuet it .rill be a ncery . it
w 'W be bidden from peliee suprriWoa. If the street Bust sspty so Old Nwrprrt
kowde it MIA be better tO put it darn sad let it inters"t OIQ XwpW N"t
sent to Santa Ana A"=@,,
lb smiNhbms haq act had is pieY up the tmh, out the weedso or pay to
hate then out, or par taxes on land that is not being used. It is q feeling
that three attrastire bowers with laadesapirg would be an
tWjj�" of weeds. r+tes►ent snow a
3isserelyt
Helen T. Yreut=kW
2961 Cliff Drin
Newport Nemsbr 92663
e
KOM Endow � •'t1
s��cHd
yCN Ness ` O, lue.
/N (�� v BEALASTATE «
IIr11ESTE1E kTs
r` Al, f,19 YG
f•'. i,t7;. is
:N I � i•ti.
, Nk
nor � 1000-2261
mdd ire*s % "�
D�0 Wl�rt ,Carr Hrjpr, gray
IC. wport 6�rh. Cs. 92m, l
IaM'••�rr L:&:
t
• _ .
ARITA rtKtiurnun
►. .�... .. - il..i�i• fit. r•• . �.�
1 �(� .1 t� J••�ry�ptt,�
/N kllrri"Al v�tlS�x
01;
e
- cc��ld
ct ��'�c.vc� o �-ry �vc►}1
.� � �
� nr�s c��7ier�
• -0
< kleJ 76,
.9 rltr,.IC-J-,
T c e. t.v k
A (.-�r,.f
i !� f' � a fi•'�: •::IS !H. � e• .� - : 'T 1r.--- t!: iee ii" - _..-.- -.{,
i�!�1'� ft, i 'i i jje i!i t s t !': t, .M, :'•'ii tlieti sti Neat �i••' i.t.+ t4.'' '! t! tt ° lii f}•t'
i :fL� °• IMP"; .3�ilM'- }�.�`I���Nft4+l i�,. �r �....h:'� 4 �tMN �j ,t fit; ��
� •i
. . r:rYm N
d.ticr'e /I S4
Shs��rr+0
7r t-ry A %
S.rr+� 11raAa
J
i
I &-fee rr,
•wwKti
Czm,xf,v -4/0vr
Na / s1'C'me - c tlT
y l V1 p0
-i 41ax wa fmT o I ��
CONSOLIDATED REPROGRAPHICS
MICROFILM DIVISION
j ieTr• r r f yjrI Qr. Lf /7.-"- ('�J...r4 44-
LIOalM�S�rta.d��� � t .«.-
"/ IMac,./q st.;*r
.la4r aT U.L c! '
a0,Ir
Madmt Elam FIRE , WOO M
Mini 7, 1964
T0: Pat Teeple, Environmental Coordinator
M M: J. M. Reed, Fire Chief
SUBJECT: Development of Property Along Avon Street by Rolly Pulaski
A review of the property development along Avon Street by Mr. Rolly
Pulaski indicates the following concerns in regard to emergency
services by the Fire Deparbment.
1. The Fire, Utilities and Public Works Departments
need to review the details of the proposed rater
system to insure proper mein sizing, hydrant
distribution, looping and other installation tech-
nicalities.
2. The plans indicate a street width of 24 feet cub to
curb. MiniaKs city standard for a street width is
36 feet. Racoamend this standard be required without
any deviation.
3. The major problem with this project appears to be the
question regarding Avon Street being extended through to
Santa Arta Avenue.
It has always been a strong recoamendstion from the fire
department that dead-end streets be avoided wherever
possible. Providing two means of ingress and egress
is highly dasirable and can lake a difference in fin
department operations and effectiveness to suppress
the spread of fire. Deed -end streets quickly becane
congested during times of emergency. This street will
serve the property being developed and the ccamercial
-buildings along Coast Highway.
It is therefore recommended that Avon Street should be
extended through to Santa Ana Avenue if design and
aginsering problems do not make this impractical.
If Avon is approved as a dead-end street (5"feet
beyond design criteria) then, the cal de sac should
be increased to a 40 ft. radius to meet the City's
minimum standard.
. M. REM
ire Chief
JMR: w
.
-WAIIYE DULARATION
TO: xx Secritary - for"Resources FROM:
1�16 Tenth Street - 'Planning Department
City of Newport Beach
Sacraiiento, CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard
0 Clerk of the Board of Newport Beach, CA 92663
Supervisors
P. 0. Box 687
KAK OF PROJECT: AVON STREET PROPERTIES
PROJECT LOCATION: 2953 and 2961 Cliff Drive, Newport Beach, CA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Amendment No. 600 to allow vacation of right -of --way and redistrict to A-1 and establishment
of buildinq setback&. Resubdivision No. 767 to create four single fancily residential
parcels where one currently exists. Resubdivision No. 768 to create three single
family residential parcels where one currently'exists. A detailed description is
contained in the attached Initial study.
FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions ohf City tI 1 , P y Council Policy K-3 pertaining to
Procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental quality
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:
SZE ATTACKED INITAL STUDY
INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: City of Newport Beach
INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300-Newport Bouievard,_Mewport Beach, CA
DATE RECEIVED'FOR FILING: •`. ;
•icia
�nvMronien
�oo�d !"ne
,. ,..�
_- Date:
Be
Planning Commission Meeting
Agenda Item No.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
TOI planning Comission
!flAMI Planning Department
SMZCTs A. Amendment Ito. 600 (Public Hearing)
!larch 8, 1484
S �
Request to a and the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan District so as
to allow the construction of a cul-de-sac at the westerly
terminus of Avon Street, easterly of Santa Ana Avenue. The
proposal also includes a request to amend portions of
Districting flaps No. 4 and 5 so as to reclassify . a portion of
the southerly half of unimproved Avon Street (proposed to be
vacated), between Santa Ana Avenue and a point approximately
210.0 feet easterly of Santa Ana Avenue, from the RP-5 District
(mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area) to the R-1 District
(Single -Family Residential). The extension of the Live foot
front yard setback on Santa Ana Avenue and the ten foot front
yard setback on Avon Street, designated on said Districting
!laps, are also proposed, and the acceptance of an environmental
doctsient.
LOCATIOMs Property located at the southerly one-half of the unimproved
portion of Avon Street, between Santa Ana Avenue and a point
approximately 210.0 feet easterly of Santa Ana Avenue, measured
along the southerly boundary of unimproved Avon Street.
9OME1 SP-5 .
AND
SUBJECT: B. Resubdivision No. 767 (Public Hearinq)
Request to resubdivide an existing parcel of land and a portion
of unimproved Avon Street (proposed for vacation) into four
parcels for single-family residential purposes. The proposal
also includes an exception to the Subdivision Code so as to
permit a parcel with less than eighty feet in .depth, and ,to...
allow the construction of a cul-de-sac with a thirty-two foot
.radius when.a minivans forty foot radius is required.
AWD
SUBJECTs C. Residential Coastal_ Development Permit llo. 7 '(Discussion)
Request to consider a Residential Coastal Developmant.Permit.for
the purpose of ' establishing project compliance for three
additional ,single-family residential. lots, -'pursuant to the
Administrative Guidelines for the iaplessentation of the State
Law. relative .to low- and moderate-incoas housing within the
Coastal' zone. '
- - wMwwMpwnyf "'t
i •
Tos Planning Comwission - 2.
LOCATIONS A portion of Lot Z of the First Addition to the, Nwport Heights
Tract, located at 2961 Cliff Drive, on the southeasterly corner
of Cliff Drive and Santa Ana Avenue, in Newport Heights.
ZONZt R-1 and SP-5
APPLICANT: Pulaski and Arita, Newport Reach
OWNERS Helen Kreutskaesp, Newport Beach
ENGINCERt Robin B. Hamra and Associates, Inc., Costa Mena
Applications
The applications include a request to amend the Mariner's Mile Specific Area
Plan District to allow a cul-de-sac of Avon Street and amendmente to
Districting Maps No. 4 and 5 to reclassify the southerly half of unimproved
Avon Street to the R-1 District, and establishing setbacks on Santa Ana Avenue
and Avon Street. Also requested is approval of a resubdivisinn to establish
four parcels where one lot and a portion of unimproved Avon street now exist,
with exceptions to the Subdivision Code for lot depth on one parcel and a
reduced cul-de-sac radius. A Coastal Residential Development Pernit also is
requested for the purpose of establishing compliance of the project pursuant to
the Administrative Guidelines for the implementation of State Law relative to
the provisions of low -and moderate -income housing in the Coastal Zone.
Amendment procedures are outlined in Section 20.84 of the Municipal Code.
Resubdivision procedures are outlined in Section 19.12 of the Municipal Code.
Environmental Significance
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (c?,QA), the "State
CZQA Guidelines" (Guidelines) and City Policy 'K-3, an Initial Study was
prepared on the proposed project. Based upon the information contained in the
Initial study, the City's Environmental Affairs Committee has determined that
the project will not create any significant adverse environmental, effect and a
Negative Declaration has been prepared. Copies of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Initial Study are attached.
conformance With the General Plan
The land use designation of the subject property is "Low -Density Residential."
At the time the General 'Plan rag adopted, this designation permitted
development up.to'ten'dwelling units per gross acre. In 1975, the General`Plan
was ascended' to create' a "Hedium-'Density''Residential" designation permitting
development of more than 'four,' to a xaiclmuss of ' ten dwelling snits per buildable
acre and to change 'the 'Low -Density Residential" designation -to permit= a
maximise of flour, Qwlling'uniti'pir'buildable acre. ° The iiedium-density=category
was added to.' be applied, to existing 'residential' 'subdivisions' and'!- new
subdivisions where the oxIsting 'neighbarhood'character is within'the four`to
ton dwelling units per buildable acre limit.
The low -density c'ate'gory'was`to be applied to oxisting resi.&Atial sabdiriisions
where the ' *xisting neighborhood 'character ' 1i four or `less :dsr Mi q units "per
buildable' acre and to the sia jor undeveloped 'resi&ndal iites is tlbr}'City.
a
TO: Planningssion 3 •
- ,
Buildable acreage was defined as including the entire site less areas with a
slope greater than two -to -one and any perimeter open space and has been mended
to delete, also, park dedication areas and areas to be used for streets, A
strict interpretation of the "Low -Density Residential" land use designatlon
would not permit the project as proposed.
Sub act Property and Surrounding Land Uses
A single-family dwelling and related garage spaces are located on the subject
property. To the north, across Cliff Drive, are single-family dwellingal to
the southeast are a single-family dwelling and vacant lands to the south,
across the unimproved Avon Street right-of-way, are the Newport Imports auto
sales facility, T.N.T. xexican restaurant and The Arches restaurant, all of
which front on west Coast Highways and to the northwest, across Santa Ana
Avenue, are single-family dwellings.
Previous Related Applications
On March 8, 1982, the City Council voted (4 Ayes, 1 No) to deny Resubdivision
No. 707, which was a request to divide the subject property into four parcels
of land for single-family development tape attached Assessors map). The City
Council made the following Findings in conjunction with the denials
1. That the approval of this request would be inconsistent with the
Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Draft Local Coastal
Plan inasmuch as the proposed division would increase the density
of the site from 1.68t units per buildable acre to 6.741 units per
buildable acre, where the low -density residential designation of
the site would allow a maximum density of four units per buildable
acre.
2. That the approval of this request would result in extensive cuts
and substantial alterations in the existing land fors in order to
accommodate development on Parcels No. 1, 2 and 3.
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed
development because of the steep slopes and problems related to
vehicular access to the site from Santa Ana Avenue.
Resubdivision No. 707 had been approved previously by the Planning Commission
At its meeting of February 18, 1982 (see attached excerpt of Planning
Commission minutes). This project was initially considered by the planning
COMMission on December 10, 1981 and ultimately continued to the meting of
February 18, 1982, issues raised and addressed at the public hearings included
the necessity for extending Avon Street westerly to a connection with Santa Ana
Avenue, the desirability of dividing the site into three parcels as opposed to
four parcels, the cost of off -site improvements ($200,000, including the
extension of Avon Street), preservation of.views from existing residences and
public streets, grades of existing and proposed streets and driveways, access
to Avon Street as opposed to Santa Aria Avenue, hydrology and site stability.`
On February 21, 1980, the Planning Commission denied Resubdivision go, 651
which was�an application requesting to divide the adjoining parcel, to the east
of the, subject property (see attached �,�Asssssor's' map), into three parcele.
ti
said acoa was taken by, the Planninq, Cos�mission subject' to the following
Findings
TOs Planning Commission - 4.
1. That the approval of this request would permit an increase in
residential density on the site from 1.6 buildable acre. to 5.7 dwelling units per
2. That the approval of this resubdivision would create two building
sites containing less land area than most of the existing
residential development on adjoining property in Newport i(eiq?its.
3. That the approval of this request would result in extensive cuts
and substantial alterations in the existing land form in nreler to
accosinodate development on Parcels No. 2 and 3.
4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density
Of development.
5. That the Commission is not satisfied with the plan of subdivIxion,
On December 2, 1976, the Planninq Commission approved Pesubdivision No. 534
that permitted the creation of two parcels for residential development on Avon
Street (see attached Assessor's map). Said parcels would have contained 5,1921
sq.ft. and 7,115s sq.ft., respectively, with the ten fast wide street
dedication required by the Comission. This map was never recorded, and the
Commission's approval subsequently lapsed and became null and vnid.
Analysis
AMLNDMSNT NO. 600
Amendment No. 600 is a request to amend the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan
District to allow the construction of a cul-de-sac at the westerly terminus of
Avon Street where the current plan shows Avon Street connecting to Santa Ana
Avenue. The proposal also includes an amndment to portions of Districting
Maps No. 4 and 5 to reclassify a portion of the southerly half of unimproved
Avon Street to the R-1 District in order to allow Its vacation and
incorporation into a single-family residential building site. An extension of
the five foot front yard setback on Santa Ana Avenue and the ten foot front
yard setback on Avon Street, designated on the Districtinq Naps, is also
proposed.
These requests focus primarily on the proposal to establish Avon' Street
adjacent to the proposed project as a cul-de-sac street, rather .than -,A through
street to Santa Ana Avenue as currently shown on the Mariner's Mile.SpeclIfic
Area Plan. The purpose of extending Avon' street to Santa Ana Avenue is to provide secondary access for the commercial properties between this: segment of
Avon Street and west Coast Highway. This secondary access will be.particularly
important for deliveries and trash collection to be made from the'resr, once
West Coast Highway is widened. The closing off of Avon street with an
inadequate'turnaround area will impact these uses an well As. 'the'ability'of the
Fire Department to serve both the proposed development and 'the' commercial
properties. The extension of Avon Street will require raining Avon Street at a
ten percent grade to reach Santa Ana Avenue. In order to provide an sde,"te
intersection,' the roadway' will ' need � ` to ' be' curved ' "nortberly to ;!properly interseict: Santa' Ana Avenue: 'Phis 'rill require' approximtely 6,000 eqfft. of
additional road right-of-way acquisition. If the extension of Avon Street is
completed in this manner, parcel No. 1 of the proposed resubdivision would be
rt, eliminated and Parcel fio. 2 would be altered substantially.
TO Planning Commission - 5 •
The traffic analysis performed for the Initial Study projected that 2,600 to
3000 vehicles would use Avon Street if it Were connected to Santa Ana Avenue. This is a diversion of approximately 2,000 trips from west coast Highway.
These will be primarily local trips. These projections, as well a■ the
Mariner's Mile Specific Area Plan racorwendations, indicate there is a future
need for an Avon Street extension to Santa Ana Avenue, although this diversion
will not decrease significantly traffic levels on west Coast Highway.
It is the opinion of staff that the cul-de-sac of Avon Street not be approved.
The road extension will be needed to provide local access to the Mariner's Mile
Specific Area Plan coem%ercial areas primarily from the Newport Heights area.
Access at grade can be provided to all commercial properties along West Coast
Highway from Riverside Avenue to Newport Soulevard with the exertion of The
Arches' property and the site presently occupied by the T.N.T. restaurant.
should the Planning Commission wish to approve the requested amwkWwnt, staff
has no objections to the establishment of a five foot setback on Santa Ana
Avenue and a ten foot setback on Avon Street to long as Avon Street is
developed to sufficient width to allow for guest parking on the street.
P SUebIVISION 160. 767
Aesubdivision No. 767 is a request to resubdivide an existing parcel of land
and a portion of unimproved Avon Street into four parcels for single-family
residential developsient. As proposed, the resubdivision will create four
single-family residential parcels as outlined below:
Proposed
Average
Average
Area
Depth
width
Parcel
No.
1
9,760 sq.ft.
135 ft.
75 ft.
Parcel
No.
2
8,200 sq.ft.
77.5 ft.
100 ft.
(72 ft.with
expanded cul-
Parcel
No.
3
10,760 sq.ft.
de-sac)
120 ft.
92.5 ft.
Parcel
No.
4
8,077 sq.ft.
105 ft.
77.5 ft.
This proposal will require the vacation of a portion of Avon Street by the
City. Also included is an exception to the Subdivision code to permit a parcel
(Parcel No. 2) with leas than eighty feet in depth, and to allow construction
of a cul-de-sac with a thirty -tyro foot radius where a minimum of forty toot
radius is required.
As indicated in the section on previous applications, a resubdivision for the
subject site wan denied by the City Council after it had boon eppraved by the
Planning Commission. staff has two major areas of..concern solativ& to this
resubdivision as proposed.
The curb -to -curb radius of the Proposed cul-de-sac is thirty-two foot where the
Subdivision Code requires a curb -to -curb radius of a tsifiimsu► of forty . feet.
This standard is primarily to allow adequate fire accoss•and.tnrniaq radius for
• 0
TO: Planning Commsission - b.
fire trucks. The lire Department indicates that even these minim= standards
are not sufficient to allow a fire truck to turn around without raking at least
one maneuver backing up (see attached memo) .
The public Works Design Criteria for Street Alignment requires that in addition
to the minimum forty foot radius standard a cul-de-sac shall net exceed 500
feet in length. The closure 'of Avon Street would result in a 1000i ft. long
cul-de-sac. The rive Department indicates that this length is unacceptable for
the purpose of response to dead end streets.
It is also a concern of staff that the proposed resubdivision is inappropriate
from a planning/land use perspective. Avon Street currently is Iocated to
provide service to commercial properties frontinq on West Coast Highway.
Residential and open space properties abutting Avon Street take their access
from Cliff Drive. The physical separation of use by elevation provides for
some relief from the inherent conflict between commercial and residential uses.
The approval of this resubdivision will locate residences substantially closer
to cosmiercial areas with noise and other conflicts anticipated to occur.
It has been the experience of staff that when commercial and residential uses
adjoin in the manner proposed without appropriate natural or man-made barriers,
that parking, noise, hour s-of-operation and other conflicts will occur. This
has occurred repeatedly in the older commercial areas of the community. The
existing residential uses in the area facing on Cliff Drive have a view of the
bay and ocean in the distance and a near field view of commercial activities.
The proposed resubdivision will locate residences closer to the commercial area
resulting in greater visual impact of the commercial uses on the proposed
residences. Additionally, it could be anticipated that redevelopment will
occur on the commercial properties, and existing one-story buildings will
become two- or three-story structures (26/35 height limit) as they try to
achieve viers through windows on the south of Coast Highway to the bay.
US tions to the Subdivision Code
Section 19.32.020 of the Newport Nsach Municipal Code sets forth the findings
necessary to grant an exception to the Subdivision Code as followsr
(a) That there are special circumstances or conditions'affectinq
the property.
(b) That the exception is necessary for the reservation and enjoy-
ment of a substantial property right of the petitioner.
(c) That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to
the -public welfare or injurious to. other property in the
vicinity in which the property is situated.
It is the opinion of staff that finding (c) cannon be made for the previously -
stated concerns with prowlsion of adoquata fire protection services.
An exception to the Subdivision Code is requested also to allow one parcel
(Parcel no. 2) of the proposed subdivision to be lea■ than the minimum eighty
feet required. The narrowest portion of the pie -shaped parcel is approximately
seventy-seven feet deep, as dimensioned from the center of the parcel, from
A
• •
TO% Planning Cossiission - 7.
the proposed cul-de-sac to Santa Ana, Avenue. The depth increases to ninety
feet and one hundred twelve feat, respectively, at the side property lines.
However. the subject parcel mould be reduced in depth to approximately seventy-
two feet in the center of the parcel if the curb -to -curb radius of the
cul-de-sac were increased to a minim s< diamter of forty feet. Approximately
63% of the parcel would have a depth of less than eighty foot, staff is of the
opinion that there is not justification to permit an exception to the
Subdivision Code in this particular case inasamsch as the deficient parcel depth
is being created by the cul-de-sac on Avon Street proposed by the applicant.
In the public hearings on the previously -denied Resubdivision 90. 707, a number
of issues were raised relative to that proposal, including the desirability of
dividing the site into four parcels as opposed to three parcels, the cost of
off -site improvements, preservation of views from existing residences and
public streets, grades of existing and proposed streets and driveways, access
to Avon Street as opposed to Santa Ana Avenue, hydrology and site stability.
Should the planning Commission wish to approve the proposed reeubdivision, the
Conditions of Approval provided include all conditions imposed on the previcus
application relative to these concertos.
COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT No. 7
This application is a request to consider a Coastal Residential Development
Permit to establish project compliance with the City's Administrative
Guidelines (policy P-1) for the implementation of State Law relative to low -
and moderate -income housing in the Coastal ?one. Council policy p-1 sets fordo
the procedures for processing new developments in the Coastal Zone. When new
housing developwnts of three or more units are proposed, the Planning Director
or Planning Commission shall determine the feasibility of requiring the
Inclusion of dwelling wits affordable to persons or families of low and
moderate -income housing within the project and on the project site.
In order to determine the feasibility of requiring an affordable housing in
conjunction with the proposed project, staff has contracted with Tarantello t
Company of Newport Beach to provide -this analysis. A copy of this report is
attached for consideration by the Camission. The report provides an analysis
of return on investment with the project, including one moderate -income unit on
one of the three new residential lots. It is the opinion of the consultant
that the provision of one moderate -income unit on site is not feasible.
There has been a question raised as to the appropriateness of requiring
compliance with State. Law on Coastal ZWe.housing for an application for a
resubdivision establishing building sites for sale as lots where the subdivider
is not proposing to construct the dwelling units (custom home sites). The
Administrative Guidelines require this review for all projects resulting in the
construction of more than two residential .Units. This is the only
discretionary approval needed by the project. After this level of approval is
achieved, individual permits could be issued for each dwelling with no otber
requirements. Therefore, review for compliance with these provisions must be
made at the time the subdivision occurs.
J�j
TO: Plannillikoaamission - 8.
•
Fair -Share Contribution
In the discretionary review of projects, the City has been requiring
contributions by developers to the 'fair -share" improvements to the ultimate
circulation system and also to the construction of sound attenuation barriers
on the southerly side of west Coast Highway in the west Newport area, adjacent
to Irvine Terrace on East Coast Highway, and adjacent to T.istbluff on Jamboree
Road. With the approval of the Chart douse project, these conditions have been
applied to discretionary projects which did not require a Traffic Study under
the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Based on an estimated trip
generation of 35 trips per day for the three new residential dwelling units,
the "fair -share" allocation for ultimate circulation system improvements will
be approximately $7,704. This figure is based on $214 per daily trip
generated. The noise wall fund contribution will be appromimatoly $720, based
on $20 per daily trip. Conditions requiring contribution to the 'fair -share"
circulation and noise wall funds are included in Exhibit* •B■ and "Co.
Conclusions and Recommendations
As discussed in the Amendment and Resubdivision sections of this report, it is
the opinion of staff that the various applications related to the proposed
project be denied. The primary concerns of staff are 1) the importance of the
extension of Avon Street to Santa Ana Avenue to local circulation patterns; 2)
the length and design of the proposed cul-de-sac street, particularly as it
relates to the provision of adequate fire protection services to both the
proposed residential units and the commercial properties fronting on West Coast
Highway; and 3) the close proxizity of the proposed residential uses to
existing cosssercial development and the conflicts which may arise between these
uses. Findings for denial have been attached to this report as Exhibit "A".
Should the Planning Co®ission desire to approve the proposed project but deny
those portions related to the cul-de-sac of Avon Street, and require the
extension of said street to Santa Ana Avenue, Findings and Conditions of
Approval have been attached to this report as Exhibit "8". The Commission may
desire also to continue this matter to a subsequent Planning Commission meeting
so as to allow the applicant additional time to redesign the resubdivision
application with the extension of Avon Street to Santa Ana Avenue.
Should the Planning Commission desire to approve the proposed project,
including the cul-de-sac of Avon Street, Findings and Conditions of Approval
have been attached to this report as Exhibit "C".
PLANNING DEPARTKENT
JAMS D. HEWICKER, Director
by t0tf,6ivj
PATRICIA LEE Z
Environmental Coordinator
PLT/kk
3q
TOs Planning ssi -
ocf 9.
Attachments b bibit 'A'
Exhibit 030
Tshibit 'CO
Vicinity Map
Assessor's Parcel flap
Excerpt of Planning Comission Minutes dated 2/19/82
"Mo from lire Department
Memo tram public Works Department
Letter free molly Pulaski
Letter tram Rugo and Juliet Hasse
Report from Tasantello a Company
Negative Declaration
Initial study
Tentative Parcel Map
TO: lwzinq Commission -10. •
EXHIBIT 'A"
ALT6WIATIVB ACTIOM
FINDINGS YOR DMIAL
MARCH B, 1984
A. EUVINONKUPAL DOLIDWIT
1. Take no nation on the initial study and Negative
Declarations
2. AacamNNIend that the City Council take no action on
the environmental docent, and
3. Make the findings listed belore
FTWIN0 3
1. That the environmental document iu crmplete and
has been prepared in compliance with the
California environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the
State CZQA Guidelines and City Policy.
Z. That the contents of the environmental document
have bean considered on the various decisions on
this project.
3. That the Guidelines indicate that environmental
documents are not required for projects that are
denied.
The Findings made in regard to the environmental
Document described above also apply to the denial of
Amendment No. 600, Resubdivision 15o. 767, and Coastal
!residential permit No. 7.
B.
AMLIOKDR No. 600
1.
Deny Amendment No. 600 with the Findings listed
belown
FINDINGS i
I.
That the proposed project is inconsistent with
the
Mariner's Mile specific Area plan.
2.
That the environmental documnt is coWlete
and
has been prepared in compliance with
the
California environmental Quality Act (cep),
the
State CsQA Guidelines and City policy.
70 Plannirq Consission -11. • .
3. That the contents of the environmental document
have been considered on the various decisions on
this project.
`. That the Guidelines indicate that environmental
documents are not required for projects that are
denied.
s• That the establishment of the proposed project
would not, under th* circumstances of this
Particular case, be beneficial to the health,
safety, peace, comfort arA general welfare of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood of
the proposed project.
6. That the proposed Amendment will rat provide an
adequate circulation pattern for the Mariner's
Mile Specific Area Plan area.
7. That the proposed Amendment would impede the
City's ability to impleoent the Master Plan
Circulation Element and the widening of Coast
Highway by 12' on the northerly side.
8. That the proposed project would impede the orderly
growth and redevelopment of the Mariner's Mile
Specific Area Plan.
9. That the proposed project is inconsistent with the
goals of providing for a balanced codmercial and
residential community.
10. That the project as proposed would not provide for
adequate on -street parking for the proposed
residential and,adjaCent commercial uses.
21. That the project as proposed will not provide for
an adequate landscaped baxrier and access to
cceimercial uses from Avon Street.
12. That theproposed project is not satisfactory to
the City'
s Fire Department.
C. RLSUBDIVISION NO. 767
1• any Resubdivision No. 767 with the Findings
listed belowi
n
9�
Td! Planning Can -mission ..12.
IFTWI11GS:
1. That the proposed project is inconsistent with the
Mariner's Mile Specific Area Plan.
2. That the environmental document is complete and
has been prepared in coWliance with the
California Lnvirormental Quality Act (CMDA) , the
State CBQA Guidelines and City Policy.
3. That the contents of the environmental document
have been considered on the various decisions on
this project.
4. That the Guidelines indicate that environmental
documents are not required for projects that are
denied.
5. That the approval of the proposed Resubdivision
would not, under the circumstances of this
particular case, be beneficial to the health,
safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of
persona residing or working in the neighborhood of
the proposed project.
6. That the proposed project will not provide an
adequate circulation pattern for the Mariner's
Mile Specific Area Plan area.
7. That the proposed project would impede the city's
ability to implement the Master Plan Circulation
Clear nt and the widening of Coast Highway by 12'
on the northerly side.
8. That the proposed project would impede the orderly
growth and redevelopment of the Mariner's Mile
Specific Area Plan.
9. That the proposed project is inconsistent with the
goals of providing for a balanced comercial and
residential community. ' '
10. That the project as proposed would not provide for
adequate off-street parking for the proposed
residential and adjacent ccowercial uses.
API&nnin9 Commission -13. •
11. That the project as proposed will not provide for
an adequate landscaped barrier end access to
commercial uses from Avon Street,
12. That the proposed project is not satisfactory to
the City's Firs Department.
13. That the area width and depth of the lots included
in the subdivision are not similar to existing
lots in the area southerly of Cliff Drive and
therefore are not reasonable considering the
location of the property.
14. That the site is not suitable for the proposed
density of development as the applicant has
proposed substandard streets, a cul-de-sac of
extresms length and the proposed lots are on steep
slopes.
15. That the proposed subdivision proposes problem
from a planning standpoint. The proposed
subdivision will create conflicts with adjacent
commercial areas.
lb. That existing noise and activities from the
adjacent comercial areas cannot be screened from
this area.
17. That the map does not meet the requirements of
Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
19. That there are no special circumstances or
conditions affecting the property.
19. That .the granting of the requested exception to
the Subdivision Code is. not necessary for the
reservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the petitioner in that the
exception for lot depth is being created by the
applicant in the proposal for a cul-de-sac of Avon
Street.
20. That the granting of the requested exception to
the Subdivision Code will be detrimental to the
Public welfare and inJuxious.to other property in
the vicinity in which the property is situated in
that the Fire Department will not be able to
prwide adequate fire protection services to the
area.
D. COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEYELOPIWT PERMIT NO. 7
1. Deny Coastal residential Development Permit No. 7
with the Findings listed belows
HJ
• Tp . P1 anni ng Cossti ss ion -U
•
rINDIPWZ s
1.
That the proposed project is inconsistent with
the
Mariner's Mile Specific Area Plan.
2.
That the environmental document is complete
and
has been prepared in compliance with
the.
California Environmental Quality Act (CP*A),
the
State CZQA Guidelines and City Policy.
3.
That the contents of the environmental document
have been considered on the various decisions
on
this project.
4.
That the Guidelines indicate that environmental
documents are not required for projects that
are
denied.
S. That the establishment of the propound project
would not, under the circumstancen of this
particular case, b* beneficial to the health,
safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood of
the proposed project.
6. That the proposed project will not provide an
adequate circulation pattern for the Mariner's
Mile Specific Area Plan area.
7. That the proposed project would impede the City's
ability to implement the Master Plan Circulation
Elownt and the widening of Coast Highway by 12'
on the northerly side.
8. That the proposed project would impede the orderly
growth and redevelopment of the Mariner's Mile
Specific Area Plan.
9. That the proposed project is inconsistent with the
goals of providing for a balanced commercial and
residential com=nity.
10. That the project as proposed would not provide for
adequate off-street parking for adjacent
cosssercial uses. '
11. That the project as proposed will not provide for
an adequate landscaped' barrier and access to
ccmmercial uses from Avon street.
12. That the proposed project Is not satisfactory to
the City's rare Department'.
ToPlanning .Commission. -] S.. ..
EXHIBIT 'B'. . -
ALTZMATIVE ACTIONS
FItM'U= Mo CONDXTIONS OF APPROVAL
March 8, 1984
�►. aNVl�oa�rrAl. aocvxrarr
1. Approve the Negative Declaration and aupportive
materials thereto,
2. Recosmend that the City Council certify that the
rnv#rom sntal Document is complete; and
T. ;make the Findings listed below:
FINDINQ 1
1. That the environmental document is complete and
has been prepared in compliance with tho
California Environmental. Quality Act (CEQA), the
State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy.
2• That the contents of the environmental docur*nt
have been considered on the various decisions on
this project.
3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the
proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures
discussed in the Environmental Document have been
incorporated into the proposed project;
6• That the Mitigation measures identified in the
Initial study have been incorporated Into the
proposed project and are expressed as Conditions
of approval;.
S. That based upon the information contained in the
Initial Study, Negative Declaration and supportive
materials thereto that if the mitigation measures
are incorporat*d into the project it will not have
A significant adverse impact,on the environment.
The Findings made in regard to the approval of the
environmental documsAt apply also to the approval of
Amendment No. 600, Aesubdivision No. 767, and Coastal
Aesidential Development Permit No. 7.
3. AMMMM wo. 600
L Adopt Resolution No.�`, spprovinq a portion of
feet
Amendment 600 establishing a setback of S
feett oo n Bantta Ana Avenue and a setback of 10 feet
on Avon Street for the project sit* and
recommending the same to the City Council tome
adoption with the find#ngs listed below:
.
0
TO: lamming Commission -16,
"' ' ' ---- - - 0 1
FINDINGS t
1. That the environmental document is complete And
has been prepared in coWliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (COQA), the
State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy.
2. That the contents Of the environmental document
have been considered on the various decistons on
this project.
3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the
proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures
discussed in,the Environmental Document have been
incorporated into the proposed project,
4. That the mitigation treasures identified in the
Initial Study have been incorporated into the
proposed project and are expressed as Conditions
of Approvals
S. That based upon the information contained in the
Initial Study, negative Declaration and supportive
materials thereto that if the mitigation measures
are incorporated into the project it will not have
a significant adverse impact on the environment.
6. That the setbacks proposed are consistent with
those in the vicinity of the proposed project.
C. RESUBDIVISION NO. 767
1. Approve Resubdivision,No. ,767 with the Findings
and subject to the Conditions listed below:
FINDINGSt
1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of
the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances
of the City, all applicable general or specific
plans, with the exception of one parcel with less
than 80 feat in depth, and the Planning Commission
is satisfied with the plan of subdivision.
2. That the proposed subdivision presents no problems
from a planning standpoint.
3.' 'That the site is physically suitable for the
proposed development.,.
4. That the site is physically suitable for the
proposed density of development.
V
TWlsnning Commission -17. .
a
S. That an environmental document has been prepared
in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act, and that its contents have been
considered on the project.
b. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements will not substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the propound
improvements are not likely to cause public health
problesis.
B. That the design of the subdivision or the propound
improvements will not conflict with any easements
acquired by the public at large, for access
through or use of property within the proposed
subdivision.
9. That the discharge of waste from the proponed
subdivision will not result in or add to any
violation of existing requirements prescribed by
California Regional water Quality Control Board
pursuant to Division 7 (cosmancing with Capital
Section 1300) of the hater Code.
10. That the area width and depth of the lots included
in the subdivision are similar to existing lots in
the area and are reasonable considering the
location of the subject property.
11. That the Avon street extension to Santa Ana Avenue
is needed to provide adequate vehicular
circulation and police and fire protection for the
properties adjoining Avon Street.
CONDITIONS
1. That a parcel snap be recorded.
2. That all improvements be constructed as required
by Ordinance and the public Works Department.
3. That additional right-of-way be dedicated along
Avon Street so as to allow the connection of Avon
Street to Santa Ana Avenue, and that a corner
cutoff ,be provided at the angle point on Avon
Street right-of-way with radius as approved by the
Public Works Department.
TAPlanninq Commineion'
4. That sidewalk, curb, qutter, street lights and
32-toot width of pavement be installed along the
Avon Street frontage. The slopes needed to
accommodate standard street improvements Rhall be
located on the building sites. Any drainage
facilities and retaining walls needed to be the
developer's responsibility.
5. That a minims 24' width of pavement be installed
on Avon Street from the easterly property line of
Resubdivision No. 768 to connect to the existing
pavement easterly of the site.
6. 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 improvement 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.
That the research engineering and facilities
needed to resolve the sewer, water supply,
drainage, and street improvement problems
associated with this development nhall be the
responsibility of and provided by the developer.
As a part of the development, an 8" water main
shall be constructed in Avon Street connecting the
existing line in Riverside Drive and to the
existing line in West Coast Highway at Newport
Boulevard and that fire hydrants be constructed
along Santa Ana Avenue'and Avon Street as required
by the Piro Department end the Public Works
Department.
7. That 15-foot-radius corner cutoffs be dedicated to
the public at the corner of Santa Ana Avenue and
Cliff Drive and at the corner of Santa Ana Avenue
and Avon Street.
8. That a new concrete curb be constructed along the
Cliff Drive and Santa Ana Avenue frontages to
replace the existing deteriorated curb. The curb
face height shall be°dete-rained by the amount of
water carried in Santa Ana Avenue and as approved
by the Public Works,Depnrtment. The curb return
at the corner of Santa Ana,Avenue and Cliff Drive
shall be constructed on a 25 foot radius, and the
'existing street light rolocated.� An access ramp
shall be included in the curb return.
.9. That 5-foot-wide concrete sidewalk be constructed
along the Cliff Drive frontage and Santa And
Avenue frontage.
�9
70 Planning. CcULissioA
10. That the:stxeet iwProvements and Public water and
satyr facilities be shown on standard improvement
Plans Prepared by a licenaed civil engineer. The
stxeet grade on AVon Street shall be designed anti
connected - to Santa Ana Avenue in a manner
acceptable to the Public Works Department.
11. That a standard subdivision agreement and
accompanying surety be provided if it is desired
to record the asp or obtain a building permit;
before the required public completed. impxovanents are
12. Developarent of the site shall be subject to a
grading permit to be approved by the Building and
Pls=ing Departments. Surface and subsurface
drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of
the Building Departasnt and the Public Works
Department.
13. That the applicant or subdivider shall design the
Proposed structures to
views of the bay
preserve the pedestrian
and
sidewalk on the easterly
ocean from the proposed
side of Santa Ana
Avenue
and shall submit plans to the Modifications
C014ittee for approval
of the design of the
structures prior to
permits being issued.
Proper notice of this
shall be given to the
residents in this area.
14. That a condition survey of the existing retaining
wall along the south side of Avon Street be suede
by a civil or structural engineer, and that the
retaining wall be reinforced in conformance with
the recommendations of the condition survey and to
the satisfaction of the Building Department.
IS. 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
Department.
16• That a grading plant If rep ired, shall include a
ccWlete plan for temporaxy.and Permanent drainage
facilities, to minimize,any Potential impacts from
siltv debxis, and other water pollutanta.
174 The grINUM peMIt shall include if r
description of haul routes,.access points to the
site, watering,and
sweeping program designed to
Kiniaiwlapel of � haul • operations.
TOsOlanninq Co■siission -20.: .. •
18. An erosion, siltation and duet control plan, if
required, shall be submitted and be subject to the
approval of the Building Department and a copy
shall be forwarded to the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region.
19. The velocity of concentrated run-off from the
project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities
controlled as part of the project design.
20. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with
plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on
recommendations of a soil engineer and an
engineering geologist subsequent to the completion
of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation
of the site. Permanent reproducible copiox of the
"Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size
sheets shall be furnished to the nuilding
Departmient.
21. That erosion control measures shall he clone on any
exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or
as approved by the Grading engineer.
22. That prior to the occupancy of any unit, a
qualified acoustical engineer, retained by the
City at the applicant's expense, shall demonstrate
to the satisfaction of the planning Director that
the noise impact from West Coast Highway, Avon
Street or Santa Ana Avenue on any dwelling unit
does not exceed 65 db CNEL for outside living
areas and the requirements of law for interior
•pads.
23. That any building address and street name shall
comply with City Standards and shall be approved
by the Fire Department.
24. The Piro Department access shall be approved by
the Tire Department.
25. That all buildings on the project site shall be
equipped with fire suppression systems approved by
the Fire Department.
26. That all on -site fire 'protection (hydrants and
Fire Deparbwnt connections)'shall be approved by
the fire and Public works'Departments.
27. A qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shall
*valuate' the site ' ' prior to commencement of
construction activities; ' And ''that all work on the
site be done in accordance with the City's Council
Policies x-S and A-6.
aPlanning Caesaisaion -21. 0
28. Prfor.to occupancy of any building, the applicants
shall provide written verification from the orange
County Sanitation District that adequate sewer
capacity is available to serve the project.
29. That prior to the issuance of a building permit
the applicant shall provide the Buildiny
Departaext and the Public Works Department with a
letter from the Sanitation District stating thnt
sewer facilities will be available at the tigm of
occupancy.
30. Final design of the project shall provide for the
incorporation of water -saving devices for project
lavatories and other voter -using facilities.
31. Prior to issuance of any Building Permita
authorized by the approval of this use permit, the
applicant shall deposit with the City Finance
Director the sum proportional to the percentage of
future additional traffic related to the project
in the subject area, to be used for the
construction of a sound attenuation barrier on the
southerly side of hest Coast Highway in the :rest
Newport area, and in the Irvine Terrace and
Jamboree Road areas.
32. Prior to the issuance of any Building and/or
Grading Permits the applicant shall pay his
'fair -share" of circulation systess improvements
for the ultimate circulation system.
D. COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVEWpKC iT PERMIT No. 7
1. Approve Development.Pernit Ito. 7 with the rindings
and subject to the listed below:
tt� ,Ss
1. That based upon the information presented to the
City, if three new units were to be developed
on -site, it is infeasible. to provide affordable
housing unit on -site -or off -site.
2. That the development of this site is not exempt
from the provisions of Stats Law -relative to low
and moderate incoM housing units within the
.Coastal zone.:;
3. That .is is not necessary to provide affordable
housing; related to this application on -site or
oft -site.
EN
70AUnninT CasMission -22.: -
EXHIBIT "C"
ALTP.RKATIVE ACTION
PILINGS AND COKDITIONS FOR AP'PROVAI.
March 6, 1984
A. ENVIRONMMAL DQCIA{w
1. Approve the Negative Declaration and supportive
materials thereto,
2. Recoamend that the City Council certify that the
Environmental Document is complete$ and
3. Make the Findings listed below:
FII1DINGS:
I. That the environmental document is Complete and
has been prepared in cCOPliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CfVA), the
State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy.
2. That the contents of the envirora:ental document
have been considered on the various decisions on
this .project.
3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the
Proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures
discussed in the Environmental Document have been
incorporated into the proposed projects
4. That. the mitigation measures identified in the
Initial Study have been incorporated into the
proposed project and are expressed a■ Conditions
of Approval=
S. That based upon the information contained in the
Initial Study, Negative Declaration and supportive
materials thereto that if the mitigation measures
are incorporated into the project it will not have
a significant adverse impact on the environment.
The Findings made in regard to the approval of the
environmental document apply also to the approval of
Amendment No. 600, Resubdivision No. 767, and Coastal
Residential Development PennrLit f. 7.
D. A+ZNDM1T N0. 600
1. Adopt Resolution go.approvinq a portion of
Amendoent No. 600 with the findings listed belows
53'
J
Tm Planning Comission -23..- ' .
.
PIS r
1. That the environmental docueent is cowplete and
has been Prepared in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEgA), the
State CEOA Guidelines and City Policy.
2. That the contents of thin environmmntal document
have been considered on the various dacisions an
this project.
3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the
Proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures
discussed in the Environmental Document have been
Incorporated into the proposed project,
6. That the mitigation measures identified in the
Initial Study have been incorporated into the
Proposed project and are expressed as Conditions
of Approvals
S. That based upon the information contained in the
Initial Study, Negative Declaration and supportive
materials thereto that if the mitigation measures
are incorporated into the project it will not have
a significant adverse impact on the environment.
6. That the setbacks proposed are consistent with
those in the vicinity of the proposed project.
7. That the extension of Avon Street to Santa Ana
Avenue is not needed for circulation purposes in
the Newport Heights Area.
S. That circulation on Hest Coast Highway will not be
adversely affected by the cul-de-sac of Avon
Street.
C. RESUBDIVISION-WO. 767
1. Approve Resubdivision go. 767 with the Findings
and subject to the Conditions listed below:
1. That -the map meets the xegairm@nts of Title 19 of
the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances
Of the City, all apQlicable general or specific
plans, with the exception of one parcel with less
than 00 feet in depth, and the Planning Commission
is satisfied with the plain of subdivision.
2. That the proposed subdivision presents no problems
from a planning standpoint.
r 5-41
APIanning COMission -24 . , '. ° •
3. That the site is physically suitable for the
Proposed development.
4. That the site is physically suitable for the
proposed density of development.
S. That an enviromental docMent has been preparm,d
in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act, grid that its contents have boon
considered on the project.
6. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed
Improvements will not substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvesments are not likely to cause public health
problems.
S. 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.
9. That the discharge of waste from the proposed
subdivision will not result in or add to any
violation of existing requirements prescribed by
California Regional water Quality Control Board
pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Capital
Section 1300) of the Water Code.
10. That the area width and depth of the lots included
in the subdivision are similar to existing lots in
the area and are reasonable considering the
location of the subject property.
It. That the Avon Street extension to Santa Ana Avenue
is not needed to provide adequate vehicular
circulation and police and fire protection for the
properties adjoining Avon street.
CONDITIONS t
I. That's parcel snap be recorded.
Z. That all ,Impr0V nts be constructed as required
by.Ordittamsce wd the Public lNorks Department.
3. That,'additiomal right-ofway be dedicated to
'provide -for a 40, nini"M radius paved cul-da-sac
with 4' minimum Width sidewalk around the outside
and that parking be prohibited in the cul-de-sac
area.
�6
J
■
lanninq Conassion -25. s ;*
r
d• That sidewalk, curb, gutter, street lights and
32-foot width of pavement be installed along the
Avon Street frontage. The slopes needed to
accasmwdate standard street improvements shall be
located on the building sites. Any drainage
facilities and retaining walls needed to be the
developer's responsibility.
5. That a minimum 241 width of pavement be installed
on Avon Street from the wterly property line of
PAsubdivision No. 768 to connect tc the existing
pavement easterly of the site.
6. 7hat a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared
MA approved by the Public Works Department, along
with a ureter plan of water, sewer and storm drain
facilities for the ova -site improvement prior to
recording of the final map. Any modifications or
extensions to the existing storm drain, water and
sewer systaos shown to be required by the study
shall be the responsibility of tha developer.
That the research engineering and facilities
needed to resolve the server, water supply,
drainage, and street improvement problems
associated with this development shall be the
responsibility of and provided by the developer.
As a part of the development, an 8" rater main
shall be constructed in woe Street connecting the
existing line in Riverside Drive and to the
eaisting line in West Coast Highway at Newport
Boulevard and that fire hydrants be constructed
along Santa Ana Avenue and Avon Street as required
by the tiro Departwnt and the public Works
�epat'tment.
7. That a 15-foot-radius corner cutoff be dedicated
to the public at the corner of Santa Ana Avenue
and Cliff Drive.
8. That a new concrete curb be constructed along the
Cliff Drive and Santa Ana Avenue frontages to
replace the existing deteriorated curb. The curb
face height shall be detemined by the amount of
water carried in Santa Ana Areaue and as approved
by the Public works Department. The curb return
at the Corner of Santa Ana Avenue and Cliff Drive
shall be constructed on a 25 foot radius, and the
existing streetlight relocated.:- An access ramp
shall be included in the Curb return.
9. That 5-foot-wide concrete sidewalk be constructed
aLmg the Cliff Drive frontage and Santa Ana
A"=w frontage.
Td=16lanninq.Cossmission -26. A...
10. That the' street improvements and public water and
newer, facilities be shown on standard isprovewnt
plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. The
street grade on Avon Street shall be designed in a
manner acceptable to the Public Works Department.
11. That a standard anbdivision Agreement and
accosgaanying surety be provided if it is desired
to record the sap or obtain a building permit
before the required public improvements are
completed.
12. Development of the site shall be subject to a
grading permit to be approved by the Building and
Planning Departments. Surface and subsurface
drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of
the Building Department and the Public Works
Departmnt.
13. That the applicant or subdivider shall design the
proposed structures to
preserve the pedestrian
views of the bay and
ocean from the proposed
sidewalk on the easterly
mid* of Santa Ana Avenue
and shall submit plans to the Modifications
Comittee for approval
of the design of the
structures prior to
permits being issued.
Proper - notice of this
shall be given to the
residents in this area.
14. That a condition survey of the existing retaining
wall along the south side of Avon Street be made
by a civil or structural engineer, and that the
retaining .wall be reinforced in conformance with
the reconowndations of the condition survey and to
the satisfaction of the Building Department.
15. That each. dwelling unit- be served with an
individual water servic* and sewer lateral
connection to the public water and sewer systems
unless otherwise approved ;by -the Public Works
Department.'
16. That a 10-foot pedestrian access easement along
with improveasnts be provided,' from Santa Ana
Avenue to Avon' Street. The 'design of the access
shall be subject to the approval of the Public
Works Department.
17. That a grading plan, if required, shall include a
complete plan for temporary and perwiment drainage
facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from
si1t,:Aebris, &M'other water pollutants.
XoPlanninq Commission -27..
18. The grading -permit shall include.: if required, a
description of haul mutes# access points to the
site# watering, and swepinq..program designed to
minimise impact of haul operations.
19. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if
required, shall be submitted and be subject to the
approval of the Building Department and a crpy
shall be forwarded to the California Regional
Water Quality Control Boards Santa Ana Region.
20. The velocity of concentrated run-off from the
project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities
controlled as part of the project design.
21. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with
plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on
recommendations of a soil engineer and an
engineering geologist subsequent to the completion
of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation
of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the
"Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size
sheets shall be furnished to the Building
Department.
22. That erosion control measures shall be done on any
exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or
as approved by the Grading Znqineer.
23. That prior to the occupancy of any unit, a
qualified acoustical engineer, retained by the
City at the applicant's expense, shall demonstrate
to the satisfaction of, the Planning Director that
the noise impact.from West -Coast Highway, Avon
Street or Santa 'Ana Avenue -on any dwelling unit
does not exceed 65 db CNSL for outside living
areas and the requirements of law for interior
spaces.
24. That may building address .and street name shall
comply with City Standards and shall be approved
by the Fire Department.
25. The lire Department access shall be approved by
the Fire Department.
26. That all buildings. on. the project site shall be
equipped with fire suppression systems approved by
the Firs Department.:
27. That all cc -site .fire protection (hydrants and
lire Department connections): shall be approved by
the Fire and Public Works Departments.
• .1001anninq Cawsission -28.
2b. A qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shall
evaluate the site prior to ccumncement of
construction activities, and that all work on the
site be done in accordance with the City's Council
Policies K-5 and X-6.
29. Prior to occupancy of any building, the applicants
shall provide written verification from the Orange
County Sanitation District that adequate sewer
capacity is available to serve the project.
30. That prior to the issuance of a building permit
the applicant shall provide the Building
Department and the Public works Department with a
letter from the Sanitation District stating that
sewer facilities will be available at the time of
occupancy.
31. Final design of the project shall provide for the
incorporation of water -saving devices for project
lavatories and other water -using facilitieg.
32. Prior to issuance of any Building permits
authorized by the approval of this use permit, the
applicant shall deposit with the City finance
Director the sum proportional to the percentage
of future additional traffic related to the
project in the subject area, to be used for the
construction of a sound attenuation barrier on the
southerly side of West Coast Highway in the west
Newport area, and in the Irvine Terrace and
Jamboree Road areas.
33. Prior to the issuance of any Building and/or
Grading Permit, the applicant shall pay his
"fair -share" of circulation system improvements
for the ultimate circulation system.
D. COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVEWPMM PERMIT NO. 7
1. Approve Development Permit No. 7 with the Findings
and subject to the Conditions listed below,
FINDINGSs
1. That based upon the information presented to the
City, if three new units were to be developed
on -site, if is infeasible to provide affordable
housing on -site or off -site.
2. That the development of this site is not exempt
from the provisions of state Law relative to low
and sioderate income housing units within the
Coastal Zone.
aplanning Caswissiaei -29. 6
3. That is is not necessary to provide affordable
housing related to this application on -site or
off -sits.
r"O
VICINITY MAP
Resubdivision No. 767
Y"
10 Ot
SubNCT RE"
Also, REsuA NO.�an �OENIGD)
iO�IW�O)
�iftM ! y �, /•
�' rARAcr44
°
-+wszi rrzoro. Rms-mo.53q
No. �yq (A PROO OWT
NOr RCCOWEV)
tebreary lei, 1952 � s - ":< WatiYis
2 di��t
�3�.{,� 1 �
•0.
t•'�'_� .�
a r Mru a
•
The Planning Commission recessed at 900 p.m, and
reconvened at 9a40 p.r.
Request to create four paroels of land for jingle
family residtntiai purposes where one parcel presently
Mists, and the acceptance of an Snviron"Istal
Docwntf said application also includes an exception
to the subdivision cods juan"ch as one of the parcels
has an average depth of less than g0 feet and an
average width of less than 60 feet.
Item 12
RESUB-
LOGTIOMe A portion of Lot ?, Newport heights
Tract, located at 1961 Cliff Drive,
constituting the entire easterly side of
Santa Ana Avenue, between Cliff Drive
and an unLwvoved portion of Avon Street
in Newport 1Nei9tts.
1 "7W
�j R-1
APPROVED
`
APPI.IC'JUI'rc � Jeffery A. enterprises,
TWLLY
seachr�
,
OMMI ' Helen F. Kreutsica■p, Newport Beach
DIGllltlteI noYin D. flamers s Associates,
Newport leach
The public hearing opened in connection with this item
and Mr. Jeffx*y 8nrtman. the applicant,, apyeaxed before
the Commission. Mr. Uartman stated ; that aftar
substantial dlecussioas with that -Public Works
Department, he has agreed to install the; Avon Street,
improov+rnts for this pro'jact. Me requested that' the;
ComMosion approve four lots for this - project, rather
than three lots, because of the 1200,000' of 'off -site:
iNIPWOW meats , to be paid by the applicant, nhlch rile be'
Of benefit to the City. He stated -that' they! can
. redesign the project to awe the driveways! ofTf 'of Santa'
Ana Avenue: to. avoid any traffic ___. ,' which is' a.
main concern of the residents. ie furthei stated that
every effort will be fade to protect the 'VLims in the
are. i i
i I �
ail
�n. 710-W
�.
ii
Gtv
February is 1902
of _, Ne rpQrt, Beach
Commissioner Xurlander asked mr. Hartsm it the"
parcels will be taking their access off of Avon atrset.
Kr. Hartwan stated that they can redesign their project
to do so, but it would only be feasible it the four
lots are approved.
In response to a question posed by Coenissioner
Winburn, Mr. Don Webb, City Engineer, ucplairad the
Proposed design and location of the Avon street
isProveients. tie stated that this would also provide
an ersrgency access for the Fire and police
Departments. No stated that the street would be only
21 feet in width and that no parking would be allowed
on either side of the street. He stated that this
would be a requirement because of the grade differences
and the fill slopes. He stated that• the slope of the
proposed roadway would be approximately to percent,
which is the slope of Santa Ana Avenue. He stated that
the two 10 percent slopes meeting nay not be the beat
design, but it is the bast design for this particular
sits. He stated that Aron Street can soma the n+w
parcels and driveways. He clarified that the
improvements for Avon Street will cost the applicant
apRroximately S100,000 and that the additional off -site
isproveowts of water, sewer, sidswalk, curb Wd getter
for the project would be another $100,,000.
11r. Webb referred to qr. Hartmants latter � dated
February 9, 1962, which requests the City, to consider,
alternate tuMing through a 1 special: sssesssenJt
district. He stated that in the past, the Citi has not
participated in special asseesment districts for new
improvesnAts in connection with tract dsvelopusnts,
however, he stated that this -is done in many other
cities where the assesssenrt will cover the construction
for arterial. ispsvrements:' Mr. NOW -stated that if the
assesaeat alternative would not be approved by th.
City. the appliraat has Iadicatsd that he woi" try to
coatiAw with, the Project. -
Ur., - Webb- suggested an additional , oonditiorn of approval
which would regairs that garage •cotis'to Parcels 1,'2,
and 3 be takso from Avon Street:' i Ne ' stated that this
condition vcn24 belp to ait.190A the -traffic on Santa
; Anna : Avenue . E
•12r
s
CUMN
x
a
i
February 16, IM
th. � Beech ;
Iv-1�F.:.... �A FS
is
RM CAU1 .w� .a.t�.> .,.�..., �.._:r:,�r. :.tie. ,.,. 1 �M •
i
Commissioner King asked if the drainage and seepage
concerns related to this project have been identified.
Kr. Webb stated that the City's Grading Lngieesr has
'inspected the site. Me stated that the soils study
would address these concerns.
C6missioner King asked 'if the easement on the
properties will create a problem for the trash service.
Mr. Webb stated that the trash cans would be;caruied to
a general point on Avon street for pick-up.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen,
Mr. Webb explained the proposed joint ingress/sgrsss
easement for the parcels. He stated that easements of
this nature are not unusual in a subdivision.
Cossmissioner Seek stated that the areas of the parcel
with greater than Zrl slopes have been identified as
not being buildable. Planning Director Hevlcker stated
that those areas of the parcel are not used in
calculating the buildable area of lot, but structures
nay be constructed on said slopes.
Comissionar Salalis expreased' his concern that the 1
Cosrriselon be able to review the location of the
structures if the resubdivision is granta4.; Planning
Director Howicker stated that the' Commission can
request that the applicant provide information relating
i
to the location of the structures.
Mr. Cliff Williamson, resident of'233 Santa Ana Ayenue,
expressed his concern with the steep grade iof ,the
streets which ,creates a spillway and slippage weeder ;
Santa'Ana Avenue. No stated that he is'coftcirsed with
any movesrant of soil ' oar these parcels. ' He' also stated
that 64 ' proposed drivei sys will "'exit, an ainti ; Ana �
A4os ie 'which is sib -standard 'and :iarrov., lie; askid,wbo
will -be 'paying 'far the costs of widening 'Santa ,Aria;.
Avenue ' ` aria whose' ' property, will ' bf 'used ' for; this
Hasse 'of 231+ ' Tanta' Ana'' Av ` Hugh . emr;, rsgisestPd
denial _of this proposal because it will Ibi crsatiag;
higher density, and. the ' strap' slopes -dn Pis site aim
unsuitable for - bU. irq. te� d_istAbntad to the E
Cosimisiion a rap , be„ had prepar.d ifiicii eepiotid � t1re
existing topography of`tht`site:' so also isorasisd hiss
concern with the slippage whicb will occur ;od this I € j
s j
Siili�
..1
EX
_
February is, i I~-
. ,'ram.
ES
�
, k ,.Beach,
F
..
NEU--.
sits.. Me further stated that s Petition has been
subs�itted containing a,Pproxiaately 60 signatures
a!
residents and property ow"rs of the arcs Math are
opposed to this Project.
Mr. Manfred Stever, resident of 217 Santa Ana Avenue,
stated that he is in
support of this project and that
the Property should be developed as Proposed.
Mr. Pete Rodgers, resident of 3001 Clifl prLve,
expressed his emmern with the slippage and that the
structures be bunt low enough on the slope so that the
views ftm surrounding gropertisa not be obstguated.
Comissioner Kurlandsr stated that the gnlicsnt Me
Proposed to construct these buildings below the street
level vier. Mr. Sodgers requested that
this be as& a
requirewent of the project.
Mr. Webb referred to txhiblt 'A", Condition of Approval
NO- 8 and stated that prior to issuance of a grading
P*Mit, a kfdroLM
. study shall be Prepars4 and
:. WAmitted to .tbe l lublis Works Departitsnt showing the
Avmnt of draimiys rMaing down Santa An& ATsans, Cliff
Driv*.and Avon 8trsst. CosWasioner Wall@ ntpresssd
his
concern that. this study should be perform" befogs
the ssibdivision.is ipproved. Mr. Webb stated that the
Comission could Vsquin the study beforr the
pascal
so to f11e4.
Ms. :Melon. Kreutak asp. the. owner' of tlN 'sabjeQt
PrO"rtYp stated that, she has lived"on tbiS property
for ]S
.over years .sad that there to no;:illppsgs p< i ribs ,
P=Pesty- . She stated that .'tbs : slopsi can in4t !bs i ejy ,
steep, because shecan walk with 'nod
,tbjki difficulty.
she: stated; that the traffic `ptoblimm 'lei for ar" Fare .
created by people'who are rent ing hOUM14 An' the ` area.
.
he Salso stated that the rise of -,her
suitable for the ps�0rosed dsrslop nt.
1..
f
Mr. sruoe Kroatsluw, . tbs cniuer's son' " s
is ., tatod that be
. • a . surveyor , ,and , that hs lied : � :
topograDhiCal . 'mo ; ' for this site, He
. stated that
taotorcyclis . Ziavc . bias the sir jor cause of uroiiCm oat
_
i
`� • CMMN.SSCPhW 6 "
�. rebruary 18, 1962 x AMNUT6
s
920 X, ; City of Newwt Beach
this site. He stated that the City will be gaining
the improvements to Avon street through approval of
this project. He also stated that this parcel is the
most buildable oceanview lot in the area. H40 stated
that the structures being built on the westerly side of
the lots would actually serve as a retaining wall.
In response to a question posed by ComissiorAr Allen,
Mr. Xreutzkamp stated that the contour lines on Mr.
Hose's map are different than the map he had prepared.
Mr. Kreutakamp stated that the map that he had prepay
was based on elevations and measurements.
In response to a question posed by Cowirisslonar Allen,
Planning Director Hewicker explained that the slope
area greater than 211 slope is not deducte4 from the
square footage of the lot, but is only deducted from
the square footage for the purpose of determining the
Intensity of land use.
Mr. Krsuttkamp stated that the structures will be built
farther dam on the lots in order to preserve the
views.
Mr. Williamson stated that there is a possibility that
the land is stable, but he stated that once the removal
of the land and the excavation begins, the land will
not remain stable.
Mr. Hartman stated that they have cooperated with their
neighbors and that this project will not interfere with
the neighbors views. He stated that they have complied
with all of the City's requirements.
Cosmrissioner Allen asked Mr. Hartman if he would agree
to a condition which would guarantee that no views be
obstructed from adjacent properties. Mr. Hartman
stated that this would be agreeable.
Mr. Bob Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated that
this can be accomplished with the Consent of the
applicant and stated that it can also be accomplished
as a condition to granting the exception of the lot
site requirement. He stated that phrasing a condition
in terms of no view blockage say create a problea. He
stated that it may be appropriate for the scatter to
cosy back before the Carsission in the fors of a site
plan review.
-15-
■
• CON
� x
th I N[ •
Motion
Februarys Is, -1982 i .: . ,...,..r.. S •
F t
w
s
Commissioner Balalis stated that the Modifications
ComMdttae Could review the condition relating to the
views. He stated that the Commission heeds to ~poetry
what views the applicant can not obstruct, wUther it
be views of the post office, bay or ocean views. se
suggested that there be no rater view blockage. Ur.
Hartman stated that this would be acceptable.
Commissioner weir suggested that a site plans be
established, as was established in the Newport Cents
area to protect the views for this residents of Madwr
vier Hills. Mr. *amass stated that he would be
agreeable to such a oosdition.
Planning Director Herickar stated the view to be
Protected by the City should be the views snjoysd by the
pedestrian on Santa Arm Avenue. no stated that this
would also serve to protect the view tram private
properties as seats Asa Avsewe.
Mr. Burnham stated that the City has a l"itiaate
interest in protectIA9 the view of private rssidMtial
p:bparty. He buggested the following oonditioa, ' -xhst
the applicant or subdivider shall design the proptpe�d
structures to aiatsise the' ispeat on viowv, , f e`om �rytby
residernCis =arid "shall sW=lt plans to tbi rlatnsiag
Commission °for aMovaI of the design of thin stXUQtsrq'
prior • to' pendta being issued." ComissionNr salalis
suggested that review of this condition bi hai idled by
the Modifications Cosaittee.
lotion was made for approval or Assubdivision;lb. 707.
as Proposed,subject to'tbe findb"s and cioMitions of
exhibit - "SO with ' the added' canal tions ;that garage
OCCOss °to Patcale 1, and y a3• be taken from'Awron strestl
that, the 4 40p 1 sat ; or sabdiwridsr ahall # design the
: Pvopossd 'Strleturea to &Law" ` the tsp�at ow view
from nearby residers and shall snbwit plena to+the`
'Modifications CiaMasttae for appetoaal oe tins' damrigm of
'tM' irtrnctare• *i0r- to Permto being issued aMd that'
5r+opor, Inoties be - given to, the residents in ;thin areal
sad, that the hydrology study be prepared Prior 'to the,
recordation of the revabdivision.
i 3 f
F 1 t
• CON1Nu55i0t M
f_M11144ES
0 C off,: oat' l8each
r 1
s + .
60 L CAIi
1 Amendment
Ryes
Note
Commissioner Allan stated .that she is concerned with
the Cara "aininise the impact'. She .suggested an
additional finding which would specify that it,is the
Cams#ission's intent to preserve the pedestriah riw an
Santa Ana Avenue. Commissioner ealalis stated that he
would accept this additional finding as an ansnftsht to
his notion.
Canxissioner soak stated that he would be voting
Against the motion because the excessive 44nG'ity 'of
this project is out of character with the syrrouading
neighborhoode lie stated that the neighbors do not want
the extension of Avon street at this location: He
further stated that the completion of Avon ptxee't at
this location is irrelevant to this project and will
only be serving the cosmmarcial properties alohq Meet
Coast highway.
Ammrded Motion by Commissioner Balalis for appswal of
1lesnbdivision no. 707 was now voted on, which AN=M=
NMOM CAMIm as f011owst
1.., That the W. masts the requirawnts.of: Title ;l9 of
the Newport Beach. Municipal Coda, all ordi'anass ' t
Of the, City, , all applicable , vwwx4l ;oi spicific' i
plans ; and the , plaaaing Cosesiasion is sstistiBd'
with the plan of_ subdivision.
2. That the proposed resubdivision pro"nts so'
problems from a planning standpoint.
3.: That the granting,of .the exception for a lot depth
less than, 80 feet„and lot width of lose than 90
feet is ca■patible:with the Objectives ; of ;the.
regulations 9overninq.Aightr: air - WA the public
health, , safety. Oonyeaienw, dad general rielfars.
4.: ?bat; it the exception wart •deaied, t1is petitioryr;
would• bedeprive4: of a, subsuatial pzwperty right:
40Jwied, by others ;in the area...
_17_ ; {
f
ST
a - 0 ! M 2
• IT"
of
rebruarY 18, 1982 JW?
tBeach
5. That the proposed resubdivision is in conformance
with the General plan, and that the proposed
development is compatible with the objectives,
Policies, general land uses and programs specified
in said plan.
6. That there are special circumstances or conditions
Affecting the property in that the proposed parcel
So. 1 is deficient in average lot depth and width
only because the lot is triangular in shape and
located on a corner.
7. That the granting of an exception of the
Subdivision Code will not be detrimental to the
public welfare of injurious to other property in
the vicinity in which the property is located.
8. That it is the planning Cosmisslon's intent to
preserve the pedestrian viers of the bay and ocean
on Santa Ana Avenue,
CONDITIONS t
I. That a parcel map be filed.
2. That all improvements be constructed as required
by Ordinancs'and the Public Works Department.
3. That additional right-of-way be dedicated along
the southwesterly portion of Parcels No. 1 and 2
so as to connect a half street width of Avon
Street to Santa Ana Avenue. The right-of-way
width needed varies from approximately So• at
Santa Ana Avenoe to approximately 10' at the
easterly and of the property, and that a corner
cutoff be provided at the angle point on Avon
street right-of-way with tongs as approved by the
Public Works Department.
d. That sidewalk, curb, gutter and a minimum 24-foot
width of pavement be installed along the Avon
street frontage. The slopes needed to accommodate
standard street improvements shall be located on
the building sites. Any drainege facilities
needed shall be the developer's responsibility.
-ls-
70'
. corm
. � February 18, 19e2 MINIli'ES -
z
it
px==' Cityof
t Beach
ROLL CAU IMMUMMONEWS
1MXx
S. That a 6-inch water main be constructed in Santa
Ana Avenue looping the existing 6-inch line in
Cliff Drive and La Jolla Drive, and that fire
hydrants be constructed along Santa Ana Avenue as
required by the Fire Department and the public
Works Department.
6. That a sanitary sever main be constructed to serve
all parcels.
7. That 15-foot-radius corner cutoffs be dedicated to
the public at the corner of Santa, Ana Avenue and
Cliff Drive and at the corner of Santa Ana Avenue
and Avon Street.
B. That prior to issuance of a grading permit, a
hydrology study be prepared and submitted to the
Public works Department sharing the amount of
drainage running down Santa Ana Avenue, Cliff
Drive and Avon Street. if a storm drain system is
required as a result of the hydrology study, the
developer will be responsible for its assign and
construction.. The hydrology study @hail be
i prepared . prior to the recordation of the
resubdivision.
9. That new concrete curb be constructed along the
Cliff Drive and Santa Ana Avenue frontages to
replace thu existing deteriorated curb. The curb
face height shall be determined by the amount of
water carried in Santa Ana Avenue and as approved
by the Public works Department. The curb return
at the corner of Santa Ana Avenue and Cliff Drive
shall be constructed on a ZS-toot radius, and the
existing street light relocated. An access ramp
@hall also be included in the curb return.
10. That 5-foot-vide concrete sidewalk be constructed
along the Cliff Drive frontage and Santa Ana
Avenue frontage.
11. That the street improvements and public avatar and
serer facilities be shown on standard improvements
plans prepared by a licensed civil mWi,nser. The
street grade on Avon Street shall be designed and
connected to Santa Ana Avenue in a Mmwr
acceptable to the public works Departmnt.
-19-
CQIIANVSS $ February 16, 1962
r
ji
y
-- ! o 1 City OfNeMxxt,
Beach
PCU CN.L
13. That a standard subdivision sgromont =14
accompanying surety be provided it it is Desired
to record the parcel map or obtain a tvildinq
permit before the required public improversnts are
Completed.
13. That the research and the engineering needed to
resolve the sewer, water supply, drainage and
street improvement proble associated with this
development be the responsibility, of the
developer.
14. Development of the site shall be subject to e
grading permit to be approved by the Building and
Planning Departments. surface and subsurface
drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of
the Building Department and the Public works
Department.
15. That the grading plan shall include a complete
plan for temporary and permanent drainage
facilities, to siniaise any potential impacts from
silt., debris, and other water pollutants.
16. The grading permit shall include, if required, a
description of haul'route@, access points, to the
site and a watering and sweeping program designed
to miniYise impacts of haul operation.
17. That grading shall be conducted in accaordawt with
plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and, based on
recommendations of a soils engineer' and an
engineering geologist subsequent to the ccwpletion
of a comprehensive evil and geologic investigation
Of the site. Permanent reproductive copies of the
"Approved -as -Built" grading plans on; standard
sized &hosts shall be fbrgisbsd to the Euilding
Department.
18. That erosion control measures shall be A dons an any
exposed slopes within thirty (30) days after
grading, or as approved by the Grading zAqinew j10
as to reduce erosion potential.
r20-
j
7.
• :: cvMNuss�oe�s
rebruary is, 19s2
X
Cz * •
i City of, Newport Beach
". `:..:.~ES
19. An erosion and dust control plan shall be
submitted with the grading permit application and
be subject to the approval of the Building
Depsrtmnt.
20. A geological review for the project shall be
Provided as a part of the grading permit. Said
review shall include ground water infiltration
through contiguous slopes.
21. That an erosion and siltation control plan be
approved by the California Regional slater Quality
Control Board - sang Ana Region, and the plan be
submitted to said Board ten days prior to any
construction activities.
22. That prior to the occupancy of any residential
structure, a qualified acoustical engineer shall
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the planning
Director that the highway noise ispacts on the
project does not exceed 65 db CULL for outside
llviM areas and the require nts of law for
interior op"s.
23.
That garage access to Parcels 1, 2 and 3 shall be
taken from Avon Street.
24. That the applicant or subdivider shall design the
proposed structures to preserve the pedestrian
Vieas of the bay and ocean tram the proposed
sidewalk on the easterly side of Santa Ana Avenue
and shall submit plans to the Mo4lfic4tions
Ccmittee for approval of the design of the
structures prior to perwits being iss14e4. Proper
optics of this shall be given to the residents in
this aria.
* * *
-21-
0
. NEWPORT BEACH FIRE DIEPAR11M
NO:
TO: Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator
FROM: Tom Dailey, Fire Marshal-,�
SUBJECT: Avon Street Properties
I was reviewing the proposal of Mr. Rolly Pulaski for the subdivision along
the extension of Avon Street. There are several issues of major interest to
the Fire Department.
1. The first and easiest issue to resolve is the Fire Department
requirement to loop the water system for fire hydrants. This
should be accomplished with input from the Fire Department
for main sizing and hydrant distribution and utilities for
proper tie-in to the water system.
2. The second issue deals with the excessive length of the dead
end cul de sac. The two other issues also deal with the street.
It appears that the length of the street is 850 feet*. This
exceeds the city's design criteria for public works construction
by 300 feet. That length is unacceptable for the purpose of
fire department response to dead end streets.
3. This issue deals with the proposed width of the street. Exhibit 3
Indicates the width to be 24 feet curb to curb. City Standard 100L,
local streets indicates it should be 36 feet curb to curb. The
fire department requires 26 feet minimum for fire access without
parking on either side of the street.
4. Lastly, this issue deals with the radii of the proposed cul de sacs.
Recent tests by the Fire Department and traffic show that the
minimum standards, 102L and 103L, presently used by the City are
not of sufficient radii to allow the Fire Department to turn around
without making at least one maneuver backing up. He are now studying
the possibility of proposing new, larger radii for cut de sacs
to met the needs of the Fire Department.
Fred, most of the problems are based around the width and length of Avon Street.
I Mould like'to.discuss the"advantad planning of the area around Avon Street
vainly from Riverside to North Newport and -from Coast Highway to ClIff Drive.
If the arm is redeveloped -in the near futures Avon will be greatly impacted.
TD:rw
sc: Don Webb, City.Engineer
Rich Edmonston, Traffic Engineer
FO M No. 36_ 7 �
j`'
r
.,
February 29, 1984
TO; PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FROM: Public Works Department
SUBJECT: RESUBDIVISION NOS. 767 AND 768
The Public Works Department recommends that Resubdivision Mbs. 767
and 768 be denied. The proposed developments do not meet the following codes
and standards of the City:
1. N8MC Sec. 19.20.030(c).. This section requires a 40-foot-radius
cul-de-sac. The applicant has proposed a 32-toot-radius
street end.
2. NBMC Sec. 19.20.D40(d) - Street and Highway Width
The standard street right of way width for a local street is
60 feet. The standard curb -to -curb width is 40. To use the
lesser width, the subdivider must show to the satisfaction
of the Planning Commission that the topography or the smaller
mober.of lots served and the probable future traffic develop-
ment are such as to unquestionablyunquestimbly justify a narrower width
or a special type o eve opment. The applicant has proposed
a 24Lfoot-wide curb -to -curb width with a 5-toot side walk an
the northerly side with slopes in the right of way area.
3. NBMC Sec. 19.32.020 - Conditions for Granting Exceptions:
(c) That the granting of the exception will not be detri-
mental to the public welfare or injurious to other
property in the vicinity in which the property is
situated.
The Mariners Mile Specified Area Plan (MMSAP) provided
for Avon Street to be extended to join Santa Ana Avenue.
This plan anticipates redevelopment of the Commercial
Property betwaen Avon Street and Coast Highway. Due to
constraints placed on the widening of Coast Highway, it
will be necessary for Avon Street to be used as a second-
ary access to these commercial uses. It will be particu.
larly important for deliveries and trash collections to
be made from the rear. The closing off -of Avon Street
with an inadequate turn -around area will impact the
above-wentioned uses as well as the ability of the fire
Department to serve both the proposed developo nt and
the c=*rcial properties.
4. Design Criteria for Public
Sec. ILA - Street widths
Street width is less
Works Construction
than that shown for local streets.
L
•
•
February 29, 1984
Subject: Resubdivision Nos. 767 and 768
Page 2
Sec. ILC - Street Alignment
3. Cul-de-sacs shall not exceed 500 feet in length and
shall conform to Std.-102-L. (This provides a min-
imx,m 40-foot cul-de-sac radius.) The closure of
Avon Street would result in a 1,000-toot-long cul-
de-sac.
The two resubdivisions as proposed will have substandard access and
will, in the future, eliminate the possibility of extending Avon Street to
Santa Ana Avenue to provide a secondary access road for the commercial proper-
ties between Avon Street and Coast Highway.
Resubdivision No. 767 would require the abandonment of approximately
61304 square feet of existing Avon Street right of way. Approximately two-
thirds of Parcel 1 is in Avon Street right of way. The proposed five-foot
Pedestrian easement along the southerly boundary of Avon Street would not ade-
quately provide pedestrian access from Santa Ana Avenue to the cul-de-sac.
• w
The traffic study performed along with the initial study projected
that 2,600 to 3,300 vehicles would use Avon Street if it was connected to
Santa Ana Avenue. This reflects a diversion of approximately 2,000 trips from
Coast Highway. These will primarily be local trips. These projections,
as well as the Mariners Mile Specific Area Plan. recommendations, indicate
there is a future need for Avon Street extension to Santa Ara Avenue. For a
portion of Avon Street right of way to be abandoned, as is proposed in
Resubdivision 767, the City Council Will have to make a finding that the right
of way is not currently needed and will not be needed in the future for pub-
lic street purposes. The Public Works Department does not think this finding
can be made.
The extension of Avon Street to connect with.Santa Ana Avenue, can-
not be done within the 'existing 40 feet of right of-way,,due to the grade
differential. The intersection would need to be moved northerly to allow
for slope and retaining wall construction. Approximately 6,000 square feet
of added right.of way will be needed, This will take,all of Parcel l and
a portion of Parcel 2 on Resubdivision No. 767. The.,grade of Avon Street for
the last 350 Jett would be 10%* With .this alignment. rear access could be
provided to the easterly corner of the Coast Imparts' property, as well as
the other coemercial properties,to the east.
Sorge congern-h;s been expressed by residents in the Newport Heights
area, that a connectian;of Avon .Streit to'Santa.An&,Avenue, would. draw.traffic
bound for the Coast Highway commercial areas through the Height,, . lt•,is antici-
pated that most of the trips using Santa Ana Avenue to get to Avon Street would
be generated. inIthe western portion of the.Heights area. These people, would
find.A t more",convenient'to use'Santa Ana .Averwe.than .to wind through.the Heights
to get to Riverside Avenue." The connection would probably provide a night
reduction of traffic on Riverside Avenue northerly of Cliff Drive.
February 29, 1984
Subject: Resubdivision lbs. 767 and 768
Page 3
If the traffic on Santa Ana Avenue southerly of Cliff Drive proves
to be a problem, a one-way operation of Santa Ana between Avon Street and
Cliff Drive can be instituted.
The importance and usefulness of access to Avon Street can be seen
in the area between Riverside Avenue and Tustin Avenue as well as in the
commercial area around the post office. In the future as the area between
Riverside Avenue and Newport Boulevard redevelops with more intense uses,
Coast Highway will also have greater traffic voluins and will not be able to
accommodate all of the added trips. Avon Street can provide a secondary access
to handle these trips.
If it is the desire of the Planning Coaaission to approve the Resub.
divisions, it is suggested that they be redest d to allow Avon Street to be
connected to Santa Ana Avenue and that the following conditions and findings
be applied:
FINDINGS:
767,768 1. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not
conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, for access
through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.
767,768 2. That the Avon Street extension to Santa Ana Avenue is needed to provide
adequate vehicular circulation and police and fire protection for the
Properties adjoining Avon Street.
CONDITONS:
767,768 1. That a final map be recorded.
767,768 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the
Public Works Department,
767,768 3. That additional right-of-way be dedicated along Avon Street so as to allow
the connection of Avon Street to Santa Ana Avenue, and that a corner cutoff
be provided at the angle point on Avon Streit right-of-way with radius as
approved by the Public Works Department. (Cutoff not needed for 768.)
767.768 4. That sidewalk, curb, gutter, street lights and 32-foot width of pavement be
installed along the Avon Street frontage. The slopes needed to accommodate
standard street improvements shall be located on the building sites. Any
drainage facilities and retaining malls needed shall be the developer's
responsibility.
767,768 5. That a minimum 24' width of pavement be installed on Avon Street from the
easterly property line of Resubdivision 130 to connect to the existing
pavement easterly of the site.
77
February 29. 1984
Subject: Resubdivision Nos. 767 and 768
Page 4
767,768 6. 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 improvement prior to recording of the final map.
Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, meter and sewer
systems shown to be required by the study shall be the msPonnibility of
the developer. That the research engineering and facilities needed to
resolve the sewer, water supply, drainage, and street improvement problems
associated with this development shall be the responsibility of and provided
by the developer. As a part of the development, an 8" water Brain shall be
constructed in Avon Street connecting the existing line in Riverside Drive
and to the existing line in Coast Highway at Meaport Boulevard and that fire
hydrants be constructed along Santa Ana Avenue and Avon Street as required
by the Fire Department and the Public harks Department.
767 7. That 15-foot-radius corner cutoffs be dedicated to the public at the corner
Of -Santa. Ana Avenue and Cliff Drive and at the corner of Santa Ana Avenue
and Avon Street.
767 8. That new concrete curb be constructed along the Cliff Drive and Santa Ana
Avenue frontages to replace the existing deteriorated curb. The curb face
height shall be determined by the amount of water carried in Santa Ana Avenue
and as approved by the Public Works Department. -The curb return at the
corner of Santa Ana Avenue and Cliff Drive shall be constructed on a 25-
foot radius, and the existing street light relocated. An access ramp shall
be included in the curb return.
767,768 9. That 5-foot-wide'concrete sidewalk be constructed along the Cliff Drive
frontage and Santa Ana Avenue frontage.
767,768 10. That the street improvements and public water and sewer facilities be
shorn on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer.
The street grade on Avon Street shall be designed and connected to Santa
Ana Avenue in a manner acceptable to the Public Works Department.
767,768 11. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided
if it is desired to record the crap or obtain a building permit before the
required public improvements are completed.
767,768 12. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be
approved by the Building and Planning Departments. Surface and subsurface
drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Building Department
and the Public Works Department.
767.768 13. That the applicant or subdivider shall design the proposed structures to
preserve the pedestrian views of the bay and ocean from the proposed
sidewalk on the easterly side of Santa Ana Avenue and shall submit plans
to the Modification Committee for approval of the design of the structures
prior to permits being issued. Proper notice of this shall be given to the
residents in this area.
February 29, 1984
Subject: Resubdivision Nos. 767 s 768
Page 5
767.768 14. That a condition survey of the existing retaining wall along the south
side of Avon Street be made by a civil or structural engineer, and that
the retaining wall be reinforced in conformance with the recommendations
Of the condition survey and to the satisfaction of
ment, the Building Depart-
15. That each dwelling unit be served with an individual water service and
sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless
athervise approved by the Public Works tlepartmient.
It is further recomended that the Mariners Mile Specific Area Plan
not be amended to delete the Avon Street connection of Santa Ana Avenue.
If the Planning Commission desires to approve the cul-de-lacing of
Avon Streeto the following condition should be substituted for condition 3:
3. That additional right -of -gay be dedicated to provide for a 40' minimum
radius paved cul-de-sac with 4' minimum width sidewalk around the out-
side and that parking be prohibited in the cul-de-sac area, and a con-
dition lb be added.
16. That a 10-toot pedestrian access easeoent along with improvements be
provided frog Santa Ana Avenue to Avon Street. The design of the access
shall be subject to the approvtl of the Public works Department.
1
in We
City Engineer
pw:jd
i
}D4 ft'lo S1lttl
December 6, 1993
City Manager, Bob Wynn
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
NewpUt Beach, CA 92663
ATT: City Manager
Ttkpl,.,nc 4"14i POR411
ro`Ql ��,c'`
H�,y1Y4 Atli I
RE: Avon Street Property
7961 'Clfff Drive, Newpor.t„Beacb, CA
A subdivision of Park Zwot first addition to Newport
Heights, M.M.14/94
Dear Mr. Wynn:
Pursuant to my conversation with Dick Hoff stadt•on December
1, 1983, we Are submitting this letter zogarding.th■
abandonment of a portion of Avon Street directly affecting
the above property. Per the enclosed Tentatvie Parcel Map,
the proposal is to abandon Avon Street and to dedicate a new
cul-de-sac replacement for the existing tight -of -way. The.
existing Avon Street right-of-way will then be relinquished.
to Parcel One of the new Subdivision, with -the exception.of
a new pedestrian easement? which will provide pedestrian
access to Santa Ana Avenue.
We hereby submit the following reasons for this proposal:
1) As indicated in an Environmental Report prepared by
Phillips Brandt Reddick dated November 1983, there
is no significant or strong reason for Avon Street
to extend to Santa Ana Avenue, therefore this prop-
erty could be reverted to its highest and next best
use as a part of the R-1 properties.
2) The cul-de-sac on Avon would prevent through traf-
fic, therefore eliminating excessive circulation
through this residential sector.
Lolw"Ij
3) This above reason was substantiated by council
action on March B. 1982 when a proposal
Avon Arid connect it to Santa Ana Aveno extend
primarily due to strong community ue wasde denied,
4} Terminating Avon as a cul-de-sac will provide ac-
cess to developable land in the most asthetically
Pleasing manner.
�) The cul-de-sac minimises
r.+ site thereby tsakinq develomeabam grading for the entire
Protecting view opportunitiesnfor All uphillMContias
-
guous properties.
We are confident that the above i■ substant
the abandonmeot of Avon str¢ ial reason for
the It-1 properties, and wi"��•,A4,.and its relinguishment to
matter will confirm our ,M 'Mgt that your review of this
PV _ 1.
Respectfully submitted,
Shirley M. Bassett
for Pulaski & Arita Architects
encl.
cc. Rally Pulaski
Rob ingold .
Helen P. Rreutskamp
Fred Talsrico
Don Webb
•
•
r� v
•
.
February 29, 1984
RR: Application of Pulaski and Arita for:
1) Resubdivision No. 767 and 768 on
properties located at 2953 and 2961
Cliff Drive, Newport Beach, CA
2) Application of Pulaski and Arita for
amendment No. 600.
Dear Members of the Planning Commissions
e,
RAR A*."�
ft*p�of198#.
My t
The undersigned owners of property located at 231 Santn Ana
Ave., ;iewport Beach, respectfully request a denial of the
two resubdivisions and amendment to the Mariner's Milo
Specific Plan District on the following grounds:
1. The proposed resubdivisions are inconsistent with the
density requirements of the General Plan, i.e., they
propose a higher density than adjacent properties,
this area is ,classified as'"Law-density Residential".
2. The sites are basically unsuitable as building sites
due to the radical slope condition: approximately 45.
feet difference in elevation between Avon St. and the
northerly side of the proposed resubdivision.
3. The bluff site is not stable and the subterranean water
is in evidence everywhere: the green trees growing and a
creek on Avon Ave.
4. The proposed lots would be smaller in size than the lots
easterly of the site, thereby undermining the quality of
the area.
5. Because extension' fill 'Would be required, the underlying
properties would be subject to erosion runoff and mud
damage during each rainy season.
6. The big cuts at the site on 2961 Cliff Drive and the in-
stability of the soil could cause danger to all the
buildings located on the westerly side of Santa Ana Ave.
and also undermine the foundation of the street which
was recently filled with concrete.
lJ
1,. ,
7. The lots are subject to subsidence and slippage of soil,
which can cause damage to future buildings. Therefore,
future owners could suffer great financial and personal
los3es and might hold the City responsible. The chief
appraiser of Home Savings and Loan Association, Heinz
Schmidt, told us some time ago that his institution does
not lend money on properties along the bluff in Newport
Beach because of the soil slippage that causes damages to
the structures.
8. in reference to Amendment No. 600, on March 8, 1982, the
City Council approved a motion of Council Member Mr. Maurer
that the proposed extension of Avon St. would not be aban-
doned and would remain in the Specific Area Plan.
9. Before approval of any resubdivision, of the bluff, studies
done by a soil and structural engineers, hired by the City
and paid by the applicant, should be required.
On March 8, 1982, the City Council denied 4 to 1 resubdivision
1707 of property located at 2961 Cliff Drive by applicant Jeffrey
Hartman with the findings designated as Exhibit "C" of the staff
report. Please seq the staff report Exhibit "C".
On February 21, 1980, the Planning Commission denied Resubdivision
4651 -- a similar -application requesting to divide the adjoining
parcel to the east of 2961 Cliff Drive said action was taken by
the Planning Commission subject to almost the same findings men-
tioned in Exhibit "C".
Respectfully yours,
H. Hugo Hesse
Juliet Hesse
0 NLUA1 LYE S1tGL RATION
TO: xx Secretary for Resources
1416 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
xx Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors
P. 0. Box 687
NAME OF PROJECT: AVON STREET PROPERTIES
FROM: •Planning Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
PROJECT LOCATION: 2953 and 2961 Cliff Drive, Newport Beach, CA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Amendment tio. bop to allow vacation of right-of-way and redistrict to R-1 and establishment
of building setbacks. Resubdivision No. 767 to create four single family residential
parcels where one currently exists. Resubdivision No. 768 to create three single
family residm ntial parcels where one eurrently'exists. A detailed description is
contained in the attached Initial Study.
FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions o+f Cit y CoFI
uncil Policy K-3 pertaining to
procedure; and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality
Act, the Environmental Affairs Comaaittee has evaluated the proposed project '
and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect
on the environment.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
SEE ATTACHED INITAL STUDY
INITIAL
STUDY
PREPARED BY:
City of
Newport Beach
INITIAL
STUDY
AVAILABLE FOR
REVIEW AT:
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA
DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING:
at icia To 1e
nvi�rorti.renUf Coordinator
Date: CIA,
2M Clif DEN rt B(mch G
. P-1 PAURES FOR COWER.SIMS MM D IO14S
DETER"IXAi_CN OF APPLICABILITY
When an a rlication for conversion or demolition of residential structures is •
submitted. it should be determined if P-1 is applicable by answering the
following -1,estions:
1. Is the pro,ect in the Coastal Zone?
® Yes: See 02.
EDlic: P-1 doesn't apply.
2. Dces is involve demolition or conversion of three or rrord residentia!
units:
,J Yes: A Preliminary Application for Residential aemolitior,/Corversia�.
�....� should be filed. No fees will be required with the Preliminarl
Application. Following submittal of the Preliminary Application
continue to Question 03.
N-.: The conversion and demolition provisions of P-1 don't apply.
3. Is t'e realacement use coastally 11p<::.dent% or coastan-i related and
consis:ert with the LCP? '
Yes: "r-1 doesn't apply.
p=:7.. See 04.
4. Is the structure a public nuisance as defined by State Health any: Safety
Code or City ordinance?
Yes: 1fie 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 replacewent development contemplated as follows:
Non -Residential Uses Only
If the ne•v project proposed is neither residential nor coastally dependent
then the applicant must provide information de-constrating that residential use
of the site is no longer feasible. In addition, the applicant gust provide
all information, fees and other materials required of applicants for
r
1
0 .•
conversion or demolitions for any purpose as described in the following
section. The conversion or demolition would be allowed only Director determined that the residential use was no longer feasible. if the Planning
fnthe
conversion or demolition is approved, replacement units would be required on
the same basis as for projects where the new use is residential.
Fesidential or 'ion -Residential Use
hather the proposed new development is residential or not. and/or developtra pr�,pgr:y owner
er shall file an applicaticn or deal,iition which
on for conversi
shall include the following information:
1. The address of the property in gfsestion,
2. The legal description of the property in question.
3. The number of residential units currently on the site.
4. The Maximum number of residential units on the sits in the
previous year.
5. The r1—Imber of units proposed to be converted or demolished.
5• The n1_1mber of units proposed to be constructed.
7. Infor'-ation on all persons who reside or have rouiclad in the
structures in question for more than forty-five days within the
twelve months immediately preceding application to rnnvert or
demolish. This information shall include:
a. Resident's name
b. Resident's current
c. Business address
d. Home phone
e. Business phone
f. Dates of residence
IN 11
residence addre§s
in the unit in question.
6. Court name, court address, case number, case name, and relevant
information regarding legal action between the property owner
and/or developer and any current tenant or tenant residing in
the structure for more than forty-five days within the year
prior to filing the application to convert or demolish.
The application must be accompanied by a fee of $250.00 per unit to be
converted or demolished. For projects of forty units or more the Planning
Cc=ission may approve a reduction in fees. .
Following receipt of the application, the Planning Department will, by
contacting existing and previous tenants, determine how any units
currently occupied by law or moderate are
income people or fAnilies and how many
have been Occupied by low or moderate income people in the past twelve nonths.
The circumstances under which any low or moderate e ended their
income peopl
tenancy should also be investigated for the purpose of dete eopl determining if tenants
have been evicted in order to circumvent Policy p-1.
If there are or were, in
the need for replacement
the two following cases:
the past year, low or moderate Lncoee tenants, then
units will be determined for the appropriate one of
1. Prope_rty with more than one structure and three to ten units.
Peplacement of low and moderate income units will be required on
a one for one basis to the extent feasible. It will be the
applicant's responsibility to provide any information required
to determine feasibility.
2. Property with one structure and.three or more units.
All Property with eleven or more units.
Peplacement for low and moderate inccce units is required on a
one for one basis for all units occupied by low anal moderate
income tenants and for all units frrm which low and modnrnte
income tenants have been evicted in the previous twaLve months
in order to circa%vent the requirements of Policy P-1.
The Planning Department will notify the applicant by certifleci mail as to how
many replacement units will be required and his right to appeal the decisicn
to the Newport Beach planning Co=ission within ten days. Upon final
determination, the applicant must provide the City with information as to how
he proposes to provide the replacement units, where he proposes the units be
located, and characteristics of the proposed units. The Planning Department
will then review the applicant's proposal to determine if the replacement
units provide housing similar to what is being converted or demolished. If
the applicant's proposal is acceptable, the developer and/or property owner
must enter into a written agreement with the City specLfying the type and
location of the proposed replacement units and as uring that the units will be
available for occupancy within 'three yells of ploject approval. To assure
.ompliarce, a surety bond equal to at least two tirocis the cost of providing
the replacement units will be required.
SLsnma
12/14/82
.w ' r�:r Sav,y..p r. i„tt�,v,.r.J- �. �. •ta rpai•. r. y w kF-y "`��-- �+� t's*�'aritrf,�E• a.n pr-;a@R:r'r •--'a*r•ry •:e• F.;
nr'rh ryr.✓,M,,n�?,. •rv-'w�r.•�fH%N•S'w# - r ., - w i t, .�'�.�.� � •:� y-s -r:. r rd •wa M= ,ws- r �'.• Y * 'h - �1`
-q ..•l. ,a..yr .�-mom„n ,.�E.ti•- -.. a riaw,sr. �h^••l m.a _ •1 r r�'� �.-r_ Su.�': :;."C
ti
.i v{: S�rYM ,n'• i•rk _ry- NE ti.r - -,i�r � , J� ++r-. _ i {Y. _ .� .b - ♦,q�a,+,31
i^' � s .�. .`i.`r ��.•,r i i•r r � r r; � .3 e:::r.: �3�
r..
w
M20 Nirch Simi
Nnrport Much. C4, 7.l4 Ttiephonc 171'11 Wit 4AM
nw aymet 150 M '
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
Attnt Sandy
RR: Projected Financial Information for the submittal
of the Coastal. Residential Developement Application
The proposed project is the subdivision of two lots located at 2961
and 2953 Cliff Drive, Newport Beach, CL The original owners will
retain the lots on which a residence now stands, 2961 Cliff Drive will
be divided into four lots, and 2953 will be divided into three lots.
The tune now empty lots will range in size from 6,400 to 100000 square
feet.
The pro Corrtws of the proposed subdivision is estimated below:
Rent Coat per lot naabeu of lots -":•
Land Costa 100,000 5 500000
Developamslt Costs .32,230 . 5 162,150 w, r
w
,-
.• •. .. ;eeles.Pacioa - • . 1750eoo
'. _ _ g't0pp r P'Ra
Profit::. 32,055:
S . 275
.7W, p+ Ision'of affovdable.housing.unitu
in "this. candy i:ii�aai:oaaipluc ` ••
'�
�•
. is:.rnat�• fassibli!!
; -.-t'��•:r,:. r. �
•r A
t
..? •we•he a.
'.
• r rs"
i'�y. '•i
lr'' '"'t'4.:r4 ._ >•'•. x��.�� 4.r9�'iM's.iiN
v
_ :{r u.t ;V 14 "1a.OW. i.'1$''ew}1
.y'{,-' .,y i:•- iw, ,�1:. •.i�.e:},'i.'.K ,r
4.',. •.,l •:;F q`-r �..,r;, .r r•+.� •. r.i�a&, t't. E,r'�f..,n . r4.n'f s.i. ?b.': ,.e:t f.. - _ �d, :Ji' 4 r� ¢ j+/t�
w.� • � .r'.' 7�A'."+.•.th� r•tr •r+R"T.'i�''r'+•Y.1�.T�j, :Yt•: ti3•;' •Y.I`•EP•a•!i rf wl• h �\•w ��iV^ 'Jdi'!N'•i M�lf: r:,a i �{ 7!:Y
�. r•.. ,y�yi •+?+t ,,,.�+w,;r. ks .:r. .. .-�--- ...t, '�,,�_..F..:�..,.....:i.:.+:»rA.k•.;..rta..��aL:+w,Y'J�P�4i.tss•�•:*..:w.d "..*r•;�K�
'.ry.'wt 't.w. , .•a`"d IJ... •+e�i/,tl 7 5' t.�d. - Ia C4'•ef iA.Z.-
16
RECQMMEN ATIONS OF MARINERS MILE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION COMMITTEE 0A.
3
1. The City Council should adopt a resolution supporting the preparation
Mariners Nile Highway Improvement and Implementation Program and delay the
implementation of Coast Highway improvements (such as Alternate A-8) in the
Mariners Mile area until the Program is completed, Traffic Phasing Ordinance
and minor operational improvements will not be delayed pending completion of
the Program.
2. City staff should be directed to prepare a Mariners Mile Highway Improvement
and Implementation Program as outlined in the attached Exhibit "A". This
program will include the widening of PCH (Pacific Coast Highway), the ex-
tension of Avon Street, and the development of an equitable financing plan
to implement these improvements.
3. The City Council should support the extension of Avon Street to ,join Santa
Ana Avenue, with further evaluation of the effects of traffic on Santa Ana
Avenue. Consideration should be given to a one-way operation on Santa Ana
Avenue northerly of Avon Street, or the prohibition of right -turn movements
from Avon Street onto Santa Ana Avenue. Also, consideration should be given
to the operational design and characteristics of the North Newport Boulevard
and Santa Ana Avenue intersection. The construction of the easterly extension
of Avon Street between Tustin Avenue and PCH should be studied further by
the affected landowners, the Mariners Mile Association and the City in con-
junction with the development of the Highway Improvement and Implementation
Program.
4. The City will continue to review its citywide circulation system including the
potential for a second bay crossing, University Drive extension and improvements
to the regional freeway system,
+-., .t.. .'F'.k, .., r. � t'.,�. :M:::+:K;::, . ':=;ti�pst 'x.•' ' - -1 :.�., s��i�,... .,. .�. ,.t� } wr' �.
EXHIBIT who •
MARINERS MILE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
PURPOSE: To develop a plan and implementation program for highway
and roadway improvements in the Mariners Mile area including
the widening of PCH (Pacific Coast Highway) and the
extension of Avon Street.
METHOD: Improvement plans, determination of required right-of-way
and cost estimates will be developed by the City. A
financing program to implement these improvements will
be developed which will-incl4de a variety of funding
sources including gas tax revenues, roadway development
fees, private contributions as part of the redevelopment
process, and revenues from the proposed OCTC 11 sales tax
for transportation improvements. As part of the financing
program, a schedule of improvements will be formulated
which will provide a "timetable" for early implementation
and completion of all of the projects in the program.
The Roadway Pee Program will be developed based upon
"traffic contribution" (trip -ends or vehicle miles travelled)
of those uses which are developed in the Mariners Mile area.
The calculation of fees will take into account "through"
traffic which will be financed from sources (i.e., gas or
sales taxes) other than the roadway fees provided by the
redevelopment of the Mariners Mile area. The City staff
will conduct a traffic engineering analysis to determine
an "area -of -benefit" which should contribute towards the
roadway improvements.
The overall costs of the Improvement Progam will include
right-of-way acquisition, required structural modifications
to buildings, and highway construction costs. Landowners/
developers would be given "credit" for any right-of-way
or improvements which they would provide as part of the
Implementation Program or their redevelopment process. In
• . . yr w
order to accomplish the •timely implementation of improve-
ments, the program should consider the feasibility of
revenue bonding other techniques which would accelerate
the generation of funds.
J
February l3, 1983
Mr. Robert f . Lenard
Advanced Plaruting Administrator
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92603
Dear Mr. Lenard:
MI it lei.a �kwt{ 114.41
Fk-
Pursuant to your request, we are pleased to suhmit this proposed ayroement for our
profesaianal ,iorvices In connection with the subject assignment. When executed and
returned to us, this document will authorize the preparation of a feasibility study
evaluating the (nefit3lon of affordable housiurg in the development located at 2053 Cliff
Drive, Newport ftracit.
The following rsitiines the scope of work,
acrompli311 the Stony objective.
OBJECrnli
the time schoWle and fee appropriate to
The primary objective of the assignment is to evaluate the feasibility of requiring a
3peclfied number of affordable units within the development. More specifically, the
analysis will include consideration of the following:
(1) A determination of both the appropiate price level and average
ab+orpUon period.
(2) Support for what is a "fair return" to the developer of this project.
(3) Consideration of one affordable unit mutts or offaite of the
development project.
(4) Consideration of the appropriate family size(3) ba3ed upon the number
of bedrooms provided within the existing structures.
(5) Analysis of the affordable tunit Issue on a "for sale" and "for lea3e"
basis.
SCUNDUM
The final written report will be prepared and delivered within ten (10) days from
receipt of written authorisation to proceed (Four copies of the report will be
furnished.)
....._'t .
Ctry OF NEWPORT BEACH
February 130 1983
Page two
Our fee for the scope of ssrvicess as outUnsd abows will be A000.00, payable upon
delivery of the fins! Wttten report.
We appreciate having the oppartmlty to submit this agreement, cnd wo look forward to
workt'V with you thraOUN; the development of this project. 1f fAb meets with your
acceptance, please sign and dots this document where Mooted bqlow and return one
copy to our office.
Napscifuny submitted,
TARANT ' & COMPANY
tL-Ly
Michael A. R*Uly 1
Project Coordinator
iialnh
Flwtaeures
APPM NAD AxD ACCEPTaD.
Clrr OP I XWPORT REACH
ode
i.►r-- -- r+iL:C.afir�.Gritti�kns •• a + ' '' f�-" �
0
• March 9, 1984
RECOMMENDATIONS OF MARINERS MILE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION COMMITTEE
1. The City Council should adopt a resolution supporting the preparation
of a Mariners Mile Highway Improvement and Implementation Program and
delay the implementation of Coast Highway improvements (such as Alter-
nate A-8) in the Mariners Mile area until the program is completed.
Traffic Phasing Ordinance and minor operational improvements will
not be delayed pending completion of the program. For purposes of
these recommendations, Mariners Mile is defined as that portion of
Pacific Coast Highway from Newport Boulevard to Dover Drive.
2. City staff should be directed to prepare a Mariners Mile highway Im-
provement and Implementation Program as outlined in the attached
Exhibit W . This program will include the widening of PCH (Pacific
Coast Highway), the extension of Avon Street, and the development of
an equitable financing plan to implement these improvements.
3. The City Council should support the extension of Avon Street to join
Santa Ana Avenue, with further evaluation of the effects of traffic
on Santa Ana Avenue. Consideration should be given to a one-way
operation on Santa Ana Avenue northerly of Avon Street, or the pro-
hibition of right -turn movements from Avon Street onto Santa Ara
Avenue. Also, consideration shall be given to the operational de-
sign and characteristics of the Newport Avenue and Santa Ana Avenue
Intersection. The construction of the easterly extension of Avon
EXHIBIT "A"
MARINERS MILE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT AND IMPLEME_YrATION PROGRAM
PURPOSE: To develop a plan and implementation program for highway
and roadway improvements in the Mariners Mile area including
the widening of PCH (Pacific Coast Highway) and the
extension of Avon Street.
METHOD: Improvement plans, determination of required right-of-way
and cost estimates will be developed by the City. A
financing program to implement these improvements will
be developed which will include a variety of funding
sources including gas tax revenues, roadway development
fees, private contributions as part of the redevelopment
process, and revenues from the proposed OCTC 1% sales tax
for transportation improvements. As part of the financing
program, a schedule of improvements will be formulated
which will provide a "timetable" for early implementation
and completion of all of the projects in the program.
The Roadway Pee Program will be developed based upon
"traffic contribution" (trip -ends or vehicle miles travelled)
of those uses which are developed in the Mariners Mile area.
The calculation of fees will take into account "through"
traffic which will be financed from sources (i.e., gas or
sales taxes) other than the roadway fees provided by the
redevelopment of the Mariners Mile area. The City staff
-1-
19
M
RESOLUT I ON NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH CALLING FOR THE PREPARATION OF A MARINERS MILE
HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, this Council, on July 11, 1983, created the "Ad Hoc
Mariners Mile Traffic Circulation Committee" for the purpose of study.
ing alternatives for improving traffic circulation along Coast Highway
In Mariners Mile in conjunction with the proposed Coast Highway improve-
ment project; and
WHEREAS, said Committee has reviewed various alternatives,
including those proposed by the City and CALTRAHS, as well as those
proposed in earlier related studies; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Statement for the Coast
Highway improvement project lists Alternative A-8 as the preferred alterna-
tive with the provision that "The highway is to be monitored closely and
implementation of any restriping and parking restriction program will
only be considered after appropriate City of Newport Beach/CALTRANS con-
currence with notice and an opportunity to be heard given those affected.";
and
WHEREAS, the Committee has determined that there exists a need
for a comprehensive plan covering the design, funding, construction and
operation of highway improvements in Mariners Mile;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Council supports and
directs the preparation of a Mariners Mile Highway Improvement and
implementation Program; and
ONSOLIIIATFII QF-DDnrnn
MIC
I I
1-11cs
lu IIVI S 10 N
•
March 9, 1984
2.
3.
RECOWEMDATIONS OF MARINERS MILE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION' COMiITTEE
The City Council should adopt a resolution supporting the preparation
of a Mariners Mile Highway Improvement and Implementation Program And
delay the implementation of Coast Highway improvements (such as Alter-
nate A-8) in the Mariners Mile area until the program is completed.
Traffic Phasing Ordinance and minor operational improvements will
not be delayed pending completion of the program. For purposes of
these recommendations, Mariners Mile is defined as that portion of
Pacific Coast Highway from Newport Boulevard to Dover Drive.
City staff should be directed to prepare a Mariners Mile Highway Im-
provement and Implementation Program as outlined in the attached
Exhibit "A". This program will include the widening of PCH (Pacific
Coast Highway), the extension of Avon Street, and the development of
an equitable financing plan to implement these improvements.
The City Council should support the extension of Avon Street to join
Santa Ana Avenue, with further evaluation of the effects of traffic
on Santa Ana Avenue. Consideration should be given to a one-way
operation on Santa Ana Avenue northerly of Avon Street, or the pro-
hibition of right -turn movements from Avon Street onto Santa Ana
Avenue. Also, consideration shall be given to the operational de-
sign and charactgri;tics of the Newport Avenue and Santa Ana Avenue
Intersection. The construction of the easterly extension of Avon
-1-
Street between Tustin Avenue and PCH should be studied further by
the affected landowners. the Mariners Mile Association and the City
in conjunction with the development of the Highway Improvement and
Implementation Program.
4. An Ad Hoc Committee shall be formed to review the Mariners Mile
Specific Area Plan in conjunction with the development of the High-
way Improvement and Implementation Program.
The widened six -lane Pacific Coast Highway and extended Avon Street
shall be considered as the basic Hariners Mile Circulation System
for the purposes of review of the Specific Area Plan. Consideration
shall be given to the affects of redirecting primary access for many
of the properties to Avon Street.
5. The City will continue to review its citywide circulation system,
including the potential for a second bay crossing, University Drive
extension. and Improvements to the regional freeway system.
Jiff Dale
Chairmen
13 _z-
6
EXHIBIT "A" 0
MARINERS MILE HIGHWAY IMPROVP.EMT AND IMPLFKENTATION PROGRAM
PURPOSE: To develop a plan and implementation program for highway
and roadway improvements in the Mariners Mile area including
the widening of PCH (Pacific Coast Highway) and the
extension of Avon Street.
METHOD: Improvement plans, determination of required right-of-way
and cost estimates will be developed by the City. A
financing program to implement these improvements will
be developed which will include a variety of funding
sources including gas tax revenues, roadway development
fees, private contributions as part of the redevelopment
process, and revenues from the proposed OCTC It sales tax
for transportation improvements. As part of the financing
program, a schedule of improvements will be formulated
which will provide a "timetable" for early implementation
and completion of all of the projects in the program.
The Roadway Fee Program will be developed based upon
"traffic contribution" (trip -ends or vehicle miles travelled)
of those uses which are developed in the Mariners Mile area.
The calculation of fees will take into account •through"
traffic which will be financed from sources (i.e., gas or
sales taxes) other than the roadway fees provided by the
redevelopment of the Mariners Mile area. The City staff
-1--
,7
•
wili-conduct'a traflic engineering analysis* to' deteraeine
an "area -of -benefit" which should contribute towards the
roadway improvements.
The overall costs of the Improvement Program will include
right-of-way acquisition, required structural modifica-
tions to buildings, and highway construction costs. Land-
owners/developers would be given "credit" for any right-of-
way or improvements which they would provide as part of the
Implementation Program or their redevelopment process. In
order to accomplish the timely implementation of improve-
ments, the program should consider the feasibility of
revenue banding or other techniques which would accelerate
the generation of funds.
Since a specific timeframe will be adopted as part of the
Implementation Program, there will be a need to reevaluate
the status of improvements, accumulated fees,land other
aspects of the program on an annual basis.
i
•
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWfPORT
BEACH CALLING FOR THE PREPARATION OF A MARINERS MILE
HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, this Council, on July 11, 1983, created the "Ad Hoc
Mariners Mile Traffic Circulation Committee" for the purpose of study-
ing alternatives for improving traffic circulation along Coast Highway
in Mariners Mile in conjunction with the proposed Coast Highway improve-
ment project; and
WHEREAS, said Committee has reviewed various alternatives,
including those proposed by the City and CALTRANS, as well as those
proposed in earlier related studies; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Statement for the Coast
Highway improvement project lists Alternative A-8 as the preferred alterna-
tive with the provision that "The highway is to be monitored closely and
implementation of any restriping and parking restriction program will
only be considered after appropriate City of Newport Beach/CALTRANS con-
currence with notice and an opportunity to be heard given those affected.";
and
WHEREAS, the Committee has determined that there exists a need
for a comprehensive plan covering the design, funding, construction and
operation of highway Improvements in Mariners Mile;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Council supports and
directs the preparation of a Mariners Mile Highway Improvement and
Implementation Program; and
N
v
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that it is the intent of this Council
that the City of Newport Beach shall not support, permit. allow, or in
any way participate in any action to implement said Alternative A-8
until it has received and considered said Program.
ADOPTED this day of , 1984.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City MR
RNE:jd
7
�O
Planning Covvissbm Meeting April 5, 1984
Agenda Item No. 1
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
To: Planning Comission
FRO14: Planning Department
SUBJECT: A. Am ndment No. 600 (Continued Public Heariyj)
Request to amend the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan
District so as to allow the construction of a
cul-de-sac at the westerly terminus of Avon Street,
easterly of Santa Ana Avenue. The proposal also
includes a request to amend portions of Districting
Maps No. 4 and 5 so as to reclassify a portion of the
southerly half of unimproved Avon Street (proposed to
be vacated), between Santa Ana Avenue nn4 a point
approximately 210.0 feet easterly of Santa Ann Avenue,
from the SP-5 District (Mariner's Mile flimcific Plan
Area) to the R-1 District (Single Family Residential).
The extension of the 5 foot front yard setback on Santa
Ana Avenue and the 10 foot front yard setback on Avon
Street designated on said Districting Maps are also
proposed, and the acceptance of an environmental
document.
LOCATION: Property located at the southerly one-half of the
unimproved portion of Avon Street, between Santa Ana
Avenue and a point approximately 210.0 feet easterly of
Santa Ana Avenue, measured along the southerly boundary
of unimproved Avon Street.
?.ONE: S P- 5
u
B. Resubdivision No. 767 -(Continued Public Hearing)
Request to resubdivide an existing parcel of land and a
portion of unimproved Avon street (proposed for
vacAtion) into four parcels for single family
residential purposes. The proposal also includes an
exception to the Subdivision Code so as to permit a
parcel with less than 80 feet in depth, and to allow
the construction of a cul-de-sac with a 32 foot radius
where a miniam 40 foot radius is required.
0
TO: Wning CoMmission -2. •
C. Residential Coastal Development Permit No. 7
(Discussion)
Request to consider a Residential Coastal Developv,nt
Permit for the purpose of establishing project
compliance for three additional single rnmlly
residential lots, pursuant to the administrAtiva
guidelines for the implementation of the Saato Law
relative to low -and -moderate -income housing within the
Coastal Zone.
LOCATIOHs A portion of Lot Z of the First Addition to the Newport
Heights Tract, located at 2961 Cliff Drive, on the
southeasterly corner of Cliff Drive and Santa Ana
Avenue, in Newport Heights.
7.ONES: R-1 and SP-5
APPLICANT: Pulaski and Arita, Newport Beach
OWNER: Melon Kroutzkamp, Newport Roach
ENGINEER: Robin B. Hamers and Asnocintes, Inc., Coatn mesa
Background
On March 8, 1984, the Planning Comminsion held a public hearing on
Amendment No. 600, Resubdivision No. 167, Coastal Residential
Development Permit No. 7, and the environmental document, all in
regards to proposed residential development on Avon Street between
Santa Ana Avenue and Riverside Avenue. These items were continued to
this meeting pending the final report and action by the City Council
on the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Mariners Mile Traffic Circulation
Committee.
Discussion
On !larch 26, 1984, the City Council received the final report prepared
by the Ad Hoc Mariners Mile Traffic Circulation Committee (copy
attached). The recommendations which bear a relationship to the
proposed resubdivision on Avon Street are:
I. Adoption of a resolution by the City Council supporting the
preparation of a Mariners Mile Highway Improvement and
Implementation Program, which should include the widening of
West Coast Highway through Mariners Mile, the extension of
:Avon Street, and the development of an equitable financing
:plan to implement these improvements= and
2. The support of the extension of Avon Street to join Santa
Ana. Avenue, with :further evaluation ,of• the effects of
traffic on Santa Ana Avenue.
s
4rch 26, 1984
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Public Works Department
CITY COUMCIL AGENDA
ITEM NO. F-2(c)
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE AD HOC MARINERS MILE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION
COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution calling for the preparation of a Mariners Mile
Highway Improvement and Implementation Program and delaying major
improvements in the Mariners Mile area until the program is ap-
proved by the City Council.
DISCUSSION:
The Ad Hoc Mariners Mile Traffic Circulation Committee was formed
by Resolution 83-78 on July 1, 1983. The purpose of the Committee was to
study alternatives for improving traffic circulation in Mariners Mile. The
Committee has met periodically since that time to discuss various alterna-
tives.
The final set of recommendations of the Committee has been pre-
pared and is transmitted herewith.
The first recommendation requests the City Council to adopt a reso-
lution supporting the preparation of a Mariners Mile Highway Improvement and
Implementation Program. This recommendation stems from the Committee's recog-
nition that the City needs an implementation plan for the widening of Coast
Highway and other improvements in the Mariners Mile area. It further recog-
nizes the fact that some funding mechanism will have to be established in
order for the improvements to proceed in a timely manner.
Another key finding of the Committee is that an extension of Avon
Street to join Santa Ana Avenue would benefit circulation by providing an al-
ternate access to those lots between Avon Street and Coast Highway. The
Committee requests Council support for further study of this extension with
particular attention to minimizing its impact, on Newport Heights and a pos-
sible redesign of the Santa Ana Avenue and North Newport intersection.
A similar extension of Avon Street to the east of Tustin Avenue.
connecting to Coast Highway was also discussed. The Committee recommends
further study of this alternative. in conjunction with affected property
owners.
While the Committee's specific charge was to review circulation
alternatives, the members felt it would be appropriate to have an Ad Hoc
Committee formed to review the Mariners Mile Specific Area Plan in light of
the circulation improvements that will result from the reconended Improve-
t and Impleie t ion Irogram.
X4�+e
Benjamin B. Nolan
Public Works plrector
RE j d
TOt ; ' P1Ag Cossaission -3. '
Upon receipt of the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Ccomittee, the City
Council adopted Resolution No. 84-26 directing the preparation of a
Kariners Mile Highway Improvement and Implementation Program. The
reaubdivision as proposed will preclude the opportunity to extend Avon
Street to Santa Ana Avenue as recommended by the Ad Hoc CcAmittee.
Recommendation
The applicant has requested continuance, of this item to the Planning
Commission meeting of April 19, 1984, to allow for redesign of the
proposed subdivision with the extension of Avon Street to Santa Ana
Avenue. Staff has no objection to this request.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director
SY �.
PATRICIA TEMPLEIF
Environmental Coordinator
PT:tn
Attachments: Ad Hoc Mariners Mile Traffic Circulation Report
dated March 26, 1964.
AS , 1964
Call►71i
^ •
. MtM.dTEs
T I!'City of Newport Beach
Notion
Ayes
Absent
APPLICANT: Pulaski and Arita, Newport Mach
OWNER: Helen Kreutzkamp, Newport Beach
OiGINEER: Robin B. Hamers and Associates, Inc.,
Costa mesa
Staff advised that the applicant has requested continuance
of this items to the Planning CommIssian westing of April
19, 1984. to allow for redesign of the proposed subdivi-
sion with the extension of Avon Street to Santa Ana
• Avenue. Staff had no objection to this request.
x Notion was made to continue this items to the Planning
x x x x x x Commission meeting of April 19, 1984. which MoTlop CARRIED
Ik k k
Resubdivision No. 768 (Continued Public Heariaa)
Request to resubdivide an existing lot into three parcels
of land for single-family residential purposes. The pro-
posal also includes an exception to the Subdivision Code
so as to allow a 40-foot wide right-of-way on Avon Street
where a minimum 60-foot width is required.
LOCATION: Lot 2, Block B, First Addition to Newport
Heights Tract, located at 2953 Cliff Drive
on the southerly side of Cliff hive.
easterly of Santa Ma Avenue, in Newport
Heights.
fig: A-1
APPLICANT: Pula and Arita, Newport Beach
OWNERS: Holly Pul and Rob Ingold, Newport Beach
ENGINEER: Robin B. Raisers Associates, Inc.,
Costa Neal
Staff advised that the applicant hX
of this item to the Planning commi
19, 1984. Staff had no objection
-3-
Itm No. 2
Rasub. 766
Cont. to
4 19 84
• ~E5
•-�r�Tn���some
April 5, 1984
and a point approximately 210.0 feet easterly of Santa Ana
Avenue, from the SP-5 District (Mariner's We Specific
Plan Area) to the R-1 District (Single Family Residential).
The extension of the 5-foot front yard setback on Santa
Ana Avenue and the 10-foot front yard setback on Avon
Street designated on said Districting Maps are also pro-
posed, and the acceptance of an environmental document.
ION: Property located at the southerly one-half
of the unimproved portion of Avon Street,
between Santa Ana Avenue and a point
approximately 210.0 feet easterly of Santa
a Avenue, measured along the southerly
b dary of unimproved Avon Street.
ZONE. SP-5
D. Resubdivision No. 767
lic Hearing)IResub. 767
Request to resubdivide an existing parcel 64,4and and a
portion of unimproved Avon Street (proposed fo vacation)
Into four parcels for single-family residential p oses.
The proposal also includes an exception to the Subd sion
Code so as to permit a parcel with loss than 80 feet in
depth, and to allow the construction of a cul-de-sac with
a 32-foot radius where a minis s 40-toot radius is require
C. Residential Coastal Development Parwit No. 7 Discus -
■ion
Request to consider a Residential Coastal Development
Permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance
for three additional single-family residential lots, pur-
suant to the admiaistrative guidelines for the implementa-
tion of the State Law relative to low- and moderate -income
housing within the Coastal Zone.
LOCATION: A portion of Lot Z of the First Addition to
the Newport Heights Tract, located at 2961
Cliff Drive, on the southeasterly corner
of Cliff Drive and Santa Ana Avenue, in
Newport Heights.
ZOW: 1-1 and SP-5
to
Residential
CoasttA '-�
Developssrnt
Permit No.
7
ICoat. to
rrivu-
-2-
.. *&9. 19"
i
M
A. Amendment Ilo. 600 (Continued Public Hearing) ' Item 03
RaQusat to amend the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan District Amendment
so as to allow the construction of a cul-de-sac at the No. 00
terly terminus of Avon Street. easterly of Santa Ana —`^"-
us. The proposal also includes a request to amend par- Determined
do of Districting laps Nos. t and 5 no as to reclassify to beeun-
a port of the southerly half of unimproved Avon Street necessary
(propos o be vacated), between Santa Ana Avenue and a -
Point appr tely 210.0 fact easterly of Santa Ana Avanu
from the SP- strict (Mariners' Mile Specific Plan Area)
to the R-1 Dis t (Single -Family Residential). The
extension of the oat front yard setback on Santa Ana
Avenue and the 10-io front yard setback on Avon Street
designated on said Dis cting Maps are also proposed, and
the acceptance of an env nmental document.
LOCATION; Property loca at the southerly one-half
of the unimprov portion of Avon Street,
between Santa Ana enue and a point
approximately 210.0 t easterly of Santa
Ana Avenue, measured a g the southerly
boundary of unimproved A Street.
ZONZ I SP-S
AND
S. Resubdivision_No. 767 (Continued Public Hearing)
Resubdi-
Request to resubdivida an existing parcel of land and a
portion of unimproved Avon Street (proposed for vacation)
into four parcels for single-family residential purposes.
The proposal also includes an exception to the Subdivision
Cods so as to permit a parcel with leas than 80 feet in
depth, and to allow the construction of a cul-de-sac with
a 32-toot radius where a minissar 40-foot radius is required
vision
o. 767
A ad
Cond
tionall
AND --
C. Residential Coastal Development Permit No. 7 (Discus- Res.
sioa - .. Coastal
Dev. Per -
Request to consider a residential Coastal Development Per- mi_.t NO.
mit for the purpose of establishing project compliance
for three additional single-family residential lots, pur- Determined
suant to the administrative guidelines for the implementa- -to beem-
tion of the State Law relative to low- and moderate, -income necessary
bousing within the Coastal Zone.
-25-
ornr
4r*9, i994 ~E5
i I I City of Newport Beach
LOCATION: A portion of Lot Z of the Tirst Addition:
to the Newport Heights Tract, located
at 2961 Cliff Drive, on the southeasterly
corner of Cliff Drive and Santa Ana
Avenue, in Newport Heights.
DES: R-1 and SP-5
AM'GICANT: Pulaski and Arita, Newport Beach
=: Helen Kreutzkaaip, Newport Beach
ENGI1rLLRi Robin B. Haners and Aasociates, Inc.,
Costa Mesa
The public hearing was opened in connection with this item
and Rolly Pulaski, Applicant, appeared before the Planning
Commission and reviewed the background of the application,
advising that the plans have been redesigned in light of
the Ad Hoc Mariners Mile Traffic Circulation Comittee's
recommendation that Avon Street be extended to Santa Ana
Avenue. Mr. Pulaski stated that the merits of the project
are well defined within the staff report.
Hugo Hasse, 231 Santa Ana Avenue, appeared before the Plan-
ning Commission and presented a petition signed by 100+
Persons who reside within the area of Santa Ana Avenue.
Mr. Hasse advised that the subject petition requests denial
of Resubdivision Nos. 767 and 768. Mr. Hesse discussed
his concern that the bluff site is unstable and unsuitable
for development. In addition, Mr. Hesse stated that the
majority of the persons who signed the petition were of
the opinion that the best land use for the parcels in
question would be the extension of the existing park to
Banta Ana Avenue.
In response to Mr. Hesse's concerns relative to potential
bluff slippage, Planning Director Hevicker advised that
Bahr development, prior to the issuance of any grading per-
ults, moat meat rigorous City standards in order to estab-
lish that the site is capable of sustaining the proposed
development. In addition, Mr. Hewicker explained that
grading must be performed in compliance with the City's
Grading Coda.
-26-
Aerie
. 1984 0 MrES
�X
11,1
r ,
I it t=
Mr. Hevickar also noted that there has been sire previous
testimony alleging the existence of subterranean water
at the subject site. Mr. Hevicker stated that t13e City has
been unable to substantiate that such a situation actually
exists.
Mr. Hewicker then reviewed the feasibility of Mr. Hasse's
suggestion that the existing park be extended to 8snta Ana
Avenue. During the course of his remarks. Mr. llswicker
noted the difficulty of utilizing the backs or the lower
portions of the subject properties for a park unless Avon
Street were extended. Mr. Hewicker then voiced doubt that
the City would be amenable to extending Avon Street if the
subject properties were to be used solely for park purposes
In answer to a question posed by Commissioner Gaff an to
whether the proposed Conditions of Approval are sufficient
to relieve the City of liability in the event ground slip-
page were to occur, Assistant City Attorney Cabriele re-
sponded that the proposed requirements would minimize. if
not eliminate. any potential City liability.
Helen Kreutzksap, Owner, 2961 Cliff Drive, appeared before
the Planning Coee<ission and spoke in support of the pro-
ject. Ms. Xreutzk=p disputed previous testimony relative
to the instability of the parcels and existence of sub-
terranean water. Ms. Kreutzkamp also indicated that coof-
sents alleging excessive density are unfounded and opined
that the project would be an asset to the area.
Steve Dobbie, 330 Santa Ana Avenue, appeared before the
Planning Comdisaion on behalf of the Newport Heights
Community Association. Hr. Dobbie discussed the Aseotia-
tion'a concerns relative to the Avon Street extension,
commenting that the subject street extension would result
in major adverse physical conflicts between cowas rcial
and residential elements. and would compound traffic
problems in the area. especially at the intersection of
Avon Street and Santa Ana Avenue and the intersection of
Newport boulevard and Santa Ana Avenue.
With respect to the proposed project, Mr. Dobble advised
that the Applicant presented the proposed project to the
Newport Heights COMMunity Association approximately one
year ago, at which time the project was unanimously
approved by the Association's board of Directors. Mr.
-27-
0
ipri�. 19a4
n
u
'm
r*
ISO
Dobbie advised that the Board of Directors suggested four
conditions relating to the project as follows:
1. That Avon Street be made a cul-de-sac and not be
extended to Santa Ana Avenue. (Hr. Dobbie noted
that the issue of the Avon Street extension is not
within the purview of the Applicant.)
2. That the views of the existing properties be protected
and that the Newport heights Comunity Association
be counseled regarding the density and projections
within the existing view corridor.
3. That pedestrian access be considered via pedestrian
walkways from Santa Ana Avenue to Avon Street.
4. That the appropriate geological and civil erginsering
be performed to assure the stability of the building
site.
In closing. Kr. Dobbie stated that the Association is con-
vinced that the Applicant will work with wmbers
of the Association and commmity with respect to the
above -stated requests and will incorporate same into the
project's final design. Hr. Dobbie then stated that the
Association is therefore supportive of the proposed pro-
ject.
In response to Planning Commission inquiry. Traffic Engi-
neer Edmonston stated that the Ad Hoc Mariners Kile Traf-
fic Circulation Committee did address concerns relative
to the intersection of Avon Street and Santa Ana Avenue,
as well as the intersection of Santa Ana Avenue and Nevpo
Boulevard. Kr. Edmonston stated his belief that the con-
cerns of the Newport Heights Community Association can be
accommodated with the extension of Avon Street.
Barney Larks. 1901 beryl Lane, appeared before the Plan-
ning Commission and questioned the reference to low- and
moderate -income housing in connection with Residential
Coastal Development Permit go. 7. Staff pointed out that
Residential Coastal Development Permit No. 7 is no longer
needed in that only two additional residential units are
proposed.
Dr. Conover. 2949 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Plan-
ning Commission and related his concerns relative to the
possibility of the cliff being weakened by the proposed
-28-
IpriS. 1984
• MWEs
1mitt,
Wn
developownt, as well as his concerns relating to the pro-
posed density of the project and the resultant traffic
Increase.
Holly Pulaski, Applicant, reappeared before the planning
Commission and referred to his letter of April 4, 1984,
which suggests possible Conditions of Approval regarding
the residential/commarcial proximity question, to wits
1. That language be incorporated into the covenants and
restrictions for the proposed lot* which would assen-
tially state that the buyer in purchasing the property
with the full knowledge of the current and future com-
mercial uses which are possible for the adjacent prop-
erties. Further, that the language require that the
buyer hold the City harmless from any future action
It might take in approving projects which fall within
the commercial standards.
2. That a block wall be constructed on the southerly side
of Avon Street as a noise buffer and safety measure.
3. That dense shrubbery be planted on the southerly side
of Avon such as Acacia Latifolia or other planting
materials known to assist in sound reduction.
4. That special sound insulating techniques be required
and incorporated into the construction of the dwellings
such as sound insulation, double glazing, etc.
Mr. Pulaski then referred to Condition of Approval No. 25,
which provides that all buildings on the project site shall
be equipped with fire suppression systems approved by the
Fire Department. Mr. Pulaski stated that he recommended
this condition in connection with the prior project design
as a mitigating factor for fire protection in view of
Avon Street being made a cul-de-sac. Since Avon Street
is now proposed for extension, Mr. Pulaski felt that the
subject condition is unnecessary.
Mr. Pulaski then brought notice to proposed Condition of
Approval No. 26, which provides that all on -sits fire
protection (hydrants and Fire Department corrections) ■hal.
be approved by the Fire and Public Yorks Departments. in
answer to Mr. Pulaski's question relative to the need for
the subject condition, Environmental Coordinator Towle
commented that this condition is needed inasmuch as the
Fire Department will require that fire hydrants be pro-
vided within the confines of the tentative parcel map,
which includes the rededication.
-29-
yr*9. 19"
C
� st
�g
•
HIslog
11SE
Mr. Pulaski referred to Condition of Approval No. 9. which
provides that a 5-foot-vide concrete sidewalk be construc-
ted along the Cliff Drive frontage and Santa Ana Avenue
frontage. Although Mr. Pulaski concurred with the pro-
vision of a sidewalk along Santa Ana Avenue, he questioned
the need for a sidewalk along Cliff Drive inasmuch u the
Cliff Drive frontage is an isolated section of property.
Mr. Pulaski felt that it would be illogical to install
a short section of sidewalk that starts and stops at each
property line* and discussed the difficulty associated
with installing a sidewalk at this location. in view
of the severe grade conditions.
Co■aissioner Person relayed his concern relative to resi-
dential developments abutting coesaereial developments. and
questioned whether the Applicant has Instructed We
attorney to prepare appropriate language concerning a
restrictive covenant pertaining to the effects of the
commercial zone abutting a residential zone which could
be incorporated into the Conditions of Approval.
Mr. Pulaski answered that he was assured by his attorney
that such language could be created. He added that if
this project is approved, he will engage his attorney to
prepare such language that could subsequently be submitted
to staff for approval.
Cmanissioner Balalis brought notice to Mr. Pulaski's sug-
gestions that a block wall be constructed on the southerly
side of Avon Street as a noise buffer and that dense
shrubbery be planted on the southerly side of Avon Street
to assist sound reduction. Commissioner Balalis noted
that the south side of Avon Street is opposite the Appli-
cant's property and also noted that any commercial devel-
opment would have access off of Avon Street. Therefore.
Comad seloner Balalis stated that a block wall or shrubbery
on the south Bids of Avon Street would not be conducive
to development of that property.
Mr. Pulaski responded that based on his judgyment relative
to grade differentials,'the wall and shrubbery would best
serve noise abatement away from the housing area. With
respect to property access. Mr. Pulaski stated that deval-
opment of the commercial property would necessarily result
In a revision of the wall and shrubbery arrangasment.
Traffic Engineer Edaonston voiced concern with the 4-toot
public right-of-vay being utilized for a block wall and/or
shrubbery. Mr. Edmonston felt that the public right -of -
ray on Aron Street would be beat served as a public side-
walk.
-30-
.
Notion
CQM Apx19, 1994 ,
Em
�_I of NewWt
Beach
Motion x
Ayes xxx x x
Kays
Absent x
Ayes a Xxxxx
Absent x
MATES
Planning Director Hewicker brought notice to Mr. Pulaski's
suggestion that a Condition of Approval be added which
would provide that special sound insulating techniques
be required and incorporated into the construction of the
dwellings. hr. Hewicker stated that the Applicant can
incorporate the subject sound Insulating techniques into
the dwellings, ff desired; however, Mr. Hewicker questioner
the propriety of making such special techniques mandatory.
There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the
public hearing was closed.
Motion was wade to accept the Environmental Document and
approve Resubdlvision No. 767, subject to the findings
and conditions contained in Exhibit "A". with the following
reviaiona; 1) That Condition No. 25 be deleted; 2) that
a new condition be added which would require that a cove-
nant and restrictions be recorded that would notify any
potential buyer of such property of the fact that it is
located immediately adjacent to commercial properties and
specifying that those commercial properties way be devel-
oped or redeveloped; 9) that Condition No. 9 be revised
to eliminate reference to a sidewalk being constructed
along the Cliff Drive frontage; and 4) that Condition No.31
be expanded to reflect that the fair share contribution
way be waived in lieu of the dedication that is required
for the right-of-way of Avon Street.
Commissioner Goff requested that the motion condition
relating to the fair share contribution waiver be voted
on separately, which request was accepted by the maker
of the notion.
Motion was made that Condition of Approval No. 31 be
expanded to provide that the fair share contribution may
be waived in lieu of the dedication that is required for
the right-of-way of Avon Street, which )=I(* CARRIED.
The wain notion was then voted on and CARRIED. Resubdi-
vision No. 767 and the Environmental Document were thereby
approved. subject to the following findings and conditions:,
A. ENVIRI2'p/►1 DOCU?iF g
findings;
I. That the environmental document is complete and has
been prepared in compliance with the California
Lnviroisaental Quality Act (CEQA). the State CBQA
Guidelines and City Policy.
-31-
AprAk9, 1994
TA
1
0
2. That the contents of the environmental document have
been considered on the various decisions on this,
project.
MWES
3, That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed
project, all feasible mitigation measures discuNasd in
the Environmental Document have been incorporated into
the proposed project.
4. That the mitigation measures identified in the Initial
Study have been incorporated into the proposed project
and are expressed as Conditions of Approval.
S. That based upon the information contained In the
Initial Study, Negative Declaration and supportive
materials thereto that if the mitigation measures are
incorporated into the project it will not have a sig-
nificant adverse impact on the environment.
The findings made in regard to the approval of the environ-
mental document apply also to the approval of Usubdivision
No. 767.
B. RESUDDIVISION NO. 767
Find ine-.
1. That the Nap seats the requirements of Title 19 of the
Newport (leach Municipal code, all ordinances of the
City, all applicable general or specific plans with
the exception of the 150 foot width for Avon Street,
and the Planning Conmiasion is satisfied with the
plan of subdivision.
2. That the proposed subdivision presents no problems
from a planning standpoint.
3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed
development.
4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed
density of development.
S. That an environmental document has been prepared in
compliance with the California Environmental quality
Act, card that its contents have been considered on the
project.
-32-
hpz&9. 1984
INKS
1 9
_.
s 111 I i of t Beach
b. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements will not substantially and avoidably
Injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed
improveemmts are not likely to cause public health
problems.
8. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvementa will not conflict with any easements
acquired by the public at large, for access through
or use of property,within the proposed nubdivision.
9. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdi-
vision will not result in or add to any violation of
existing requirements prescribed by California
Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to
Division 7 (comencing with Capital Section 1300) of
the water Code.
10. That the area width and depth of the lots included in
the subdivision are similar to existing lots in the
area and are reasonable considering the location of
the subject property.
11. That the Avon Street extension to Santa Ana Avenue
Is needed to provide adequate vehicular circulation
mad police and fire protection for the properties
adjoining Avon Street.
12. That a street section of acceptable,vidth will be
required of the development.
13. That the proposed development will genarate an increa
In daily trips sufficient in magnitude to warrant a
fair share assessment to mitigate the increased traf-
fic congestion and traffic noise resulting from the
cumulative Effect of additional traffic generated by
residential development.
Conditions:
1. That a parcel sap be recorded.
2. That all improvements be emstructed as required by
Ordinance and the Public Morks Departwnt.
-33-
M
April 6i y' , 19 � TES
� 1 i 211 Gtv of Ne+Nport Bead,
3. That additional right-of-vay be dedicated Along Avon
Street ao as to allow the connection of Avon Street
to Santa Ana Avenue, and that a corner cutoff be pro-
vided at the angle point on Avon Street right-of-way
with radius as approved by the Public Works Depart-
ment,
4. That sidewalk, curb, gutter, street lights and 32-foot
width of pavement be installed along the Avon Street
frontage. The slopes needed to accoemodate standard
street ixprovements shall be located on the building
sites. Any drainage facilities and retaining walls
needed to be the devaloper's responsibility.
5. That a minimum 24' width of pavement be instnlled
on Avon Street from the easterly property ltne to
connect to the existing pavement easterly of the site
near Riverside Avenue.
6. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared
and approved by the Public Works Department, along
with a master plan of water, sever and store drain
facilities for the on -site improvement prior to
recording of the final map. Any modifications or
extensions to the existing storm drain, water and
never systems shown to be required by the study shall
be the responsibility of the developer. That the
research engineering and facilities needed to resolva
the sever, water supply, drainage, and street improve-
ment problems associated with this development shall
be the responsibility of and provided by the developer.
As a part of the development, an 6" water main shall
be constructed in Avon Street connecting the existing
line in Riverside Drive and to the existing line in
West Coast Righway at Newport Boulevard and that fire
hydrants be constructed along Santa Ana Avenue and
Avon Street as required by the Fire Department and the
Public Works Department. A sanitary sorer main shall
also be constructed to serve all parcels.
7. That 15-foot-radius corner cutoffs be dedicated to
the public at the corner of Santa Ana Avenua and Cliff
Drive and at the corner of Santa An& Avenue and Avon
Street.
S. That a new concrete curb be comtructed along the Clif
Drive and Santa Ana Avenue frontages to replace the
existing deteriorated curb. The curb fade height
shall be determined by the amo+mt of water carried
In Santa Ana Avenue and as approved by the Public
-34-
Ap*19, 1964
•
fa
sip9S o
as
~ES
Works Department. The curb return at the corner of
Santa Ana Avenue and Cliff Drive shall be constructed
on a 23-toot radius, sM the existing street light
relocated. An access ramp shall be included in the
curb return.
9. That 5-foot-aide concrete sidewalk be constructed
along the Santa Asa Avenue frontage.
10. That the street improvements and public water and
sever facilities be shown on standard improvement
plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. The
street grade on Avon Street shall be designed and
connected to Santa Ana Avenue in a iranner acceptable
to the Public Works Departsent.
11. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompanying
surety be provided if it is desired to record the map
or obtain a building permit before the required public
improvements are completed.
12. Davelopsitnt of the site shall be subject to a grading
Permit to be approved by the Building and Planning
Departments. Surface and subsurface drainage shall
be provided to the satisfaction of the Building
Department and the Public Works Department.
11. That the applicant or subdivider shall design the pro-
posed structures to preserve the pedestrian views of
the bay and ocean from the proposed sidewalk on the
easterly side of Santa Ana Avenue and shall submit
plans to the Modifications Committee for approval of
the design of the structures prior to pernitm being
Issued. Proper notice of this shall be given to the
residents in this area.
14. That s condition survey of the existing retaining
wall along the south side of Avon Street be made by a
civil or structural engineer, and that the retaining
wall be reinforced in conformance with the recommada-
tions of the condition survey aced to the satisfaction
of the molding Departmmt.
15. That each dwelling unit be served with an individual
water service and sever lateral connection to the
Public water and satyr systems unless otherwise ap-
proved by the public Works Department.
311
-35-
' . ,� C�QIV11W95 [FRS Apr1A 1984
. � ~ES
of *M�orl Beach
AM CAU
16. That a grsding plan, if required, shall include a
00
complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage
facilities, to sanimize any potential impacts from
silt, debris, and other water pollutants.
17. The grading permit shall include, if required, a des-
cription of haul routes, access points to the site,
watering. and sweeping program designed to minimize
impact of haul operations.
18. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if
required, shall be'submitted and be subject to the
approval of the Building Department and a copy shall
be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board, Santa Ana Region.
19. The velocity of concentrated run-off from the pro-
ject shall be evaluated and erosive velocities control-
led as part of the project design.
20. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with
plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recom-
mendations of a soil engineer sad an engineering
geologist subsequent to the completion of a compre-
hensive soil and geologic investigation of the site.
Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as
Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall
be furnished to the Building Depsrtswmt.
21. That erosion control measures shall be done on any
exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as
approved by the Grading Engineer.
22. That prior to the occupancy of any unit, a qualified
acoustical engineer. retained by the City at the
applicant's expense. shall demonstrate to the satis-
faction of the Planning Director that the noise impact
from West Coast Highway. Avon Street or Santa Ana
Avenue on any dwelling unit doss not exceed 65 dB
CNEL for outside living areas and the requirements of
law for interior spaces.
23. That any building address and street name shall comply
with City Standards and shall be approved by the Fite
Departmant.
-36-
Apr,*, 1954
•
XICTES
r
24. The Fire Department access shall be approved try the
Fire Departuent.
25. That all on -site fire protection (hydrants and Fire
Department connections) shall be approved by the
Fire and Public Works Departments.
26. A qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shall
evaluate the site prior to commeneesment of cunstruc-
tion activities, and that all work on the &its be done
In accordance with the City's Council Policies K-S
and K-6.
27. Prior to occupancy of any building, the applicants
shell provide written verification from the orange
County Sanitation District that adequate newer
capacity is available to serve the project.
29. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the
applicant shall provide the Building Department and
the Public Works Department with a letter from the
Sanitation District stating that sewer facilities
will be available at the time of occupancy.
29. Final design of the project shall provide for the
incorporation of water -saving devices for project
lavatories and other water -using facilities.
30. That garage access to Parcel No. 3 shall be taken
from Avon Street.
31. That the project shall contribute to fair -share for
circulation system and noise wall improvements, prior
to the issuance of any building or grading permits
for the project. The fair share contribution may be
waived in lieu of the dedication that to required for
the right-of-way of Avon Street.
32. That a covenant and restrictions be recorded that
would notify any potential buyer of such property of
the fact that it is located immediately adjacent to
coesercial properties and specifying that those com-
mercial properties say be developed or redeveloped.
A IN A
-37-
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
DEMAND FOR PAYMEHT
Date M4rc.,*h 7, 1904
Demand of: Tarantallo & company
Address: 3931 KacArthur Boulevard, Suite 102
Newport Beach, California 92660
In the amount of $ 2,000.00
ITEM OF EXPENDITURE BUDGET! AMOUNT
Professional Services Rendered re Awn Street Project
2961 Cliff Drive, Newport Beach - Job No. 3003 022716002
TOTAL $2,000.00
Approved For Payment:
LA64A •
Depd1rtment ea
date and Approved:
Hance Director
LAI
lo
-34
*v+
-4th,-*olLt'--4r:;;1In'%Li�.%7VI
IOB NO. 3003
SUCH
tosearch and preparattan of a rep
wr UM
payaD(O. �f4 11naWS,
per month ihich (s 1
p
Ito 07 Isw (S,Chw, ca clue fled ori an
check k�:61e-t to Tammunia Canpo
S'3931,UacArthjj�-
%- Badevard, te 10
wPOrt Beack COUtomia '92660
artunitY "to be
"-TARANTELLO& COMPANY
N
PAYM
11W
-p�
Ich"I A. R#Uly Ap
or
f Senior PINJOct Coardthat
)g Difecl
CO N