The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCDP_011COA,,Tlly may_; IMI:.: ;; rVELO*- C062% IL POLICY P-L CITY OT NEU-PORT BEACH AAr c29 f '0'-// eKication Rec'd by t Fee: S PIAWIING DEPARTlSE2M CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION 3300 Newport Boulevard mewport Beach. CA 92663 (714) 640-2218 or 640-2219 Applicant (Print) SOM£RS and ASSOCIATES I Somers Phones 714/720-1417 C/o an ills Bayside Drive, Suite 280, Corona Del .*Bar, CA 92625 Mailing Address property owner R. Curtis Crooke and Jean E. Crooke Phone 714/675-9779 Mailinq Address 307 Carnation Avenuer Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Address of Property Involveid 307 Carnation Avenue, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Legal description of Property Involved (if too long, attach separate sheet) See attached sheet immediately following this page. Deszription of the Proposed Project One (1) structure containin four (4) residential Condominiums Humber of Units Four (4) ltit!!!f!!f!f!f!!!iflitftlf tffflts!lRRff!!lf Rtlfafl RitfffRRa••arfwara•taRwfi•wlfrRfrfafwwflt Please attach a statement indicating the proposed selling price of the units, the anticipated cost of developing the proposed project and any other information that could affect the feasibility of providing low/moderate income units in conjunction with the proposed project. •*R>fftlifffflflliff/flttf if•ftftt/f RftRfi!lRtffifii•!!it!!f•t!flfffr•aaff ifirfftRRRlfff!!ff in (ire) R. Curtis Crooke and Jeane E. Crooke depose and say that (7jao (we are) the owner (s) of the property (ies) involved in this application. (ZK (o) further certify, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith suamitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of 00#) (our) knowledge and be Signatures) NOT-. An agent may sign for the owner if written authorization from the record owner is filed with the applicant. Do NOT COKPLEtE APPLICATION BELOW THIS LINE Gate Filed .2 /G' /v �Fee Pd. f % 93-) . J 0 Receipt No. I Planninq Director Action Date P.C. Hearing Date C.C. Hearing Appeal P.C. Action Appeal C.C. action l x� _ Date • ORDER NO. 60928 EXUTHIT "A' PARCEL 1: THAT PORTION OF BLOCK D OF CORONA DEL MAR, AS SHOWN ON A NAP RECORDED IN BOOK 3, PAGES 41 AND 42 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECCRDS OF ORANGE COUNTY• CALIFORNIA, AND THAT PORTION OF CAR!1ATICN AVENUE (FORMERLY CALLED THIRTIETH AVENUE VACATED ACID ABANDONED JANUARY 13, 1920 BY ORDER CF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ORANGE • COUNTY, CALIFORNIA* A CZRTIFIED COPY OF VHICH C+RDER WAS RECORDED JANUARY 1•1* 1920 IN BOOK 14# PAGE 232 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECCRDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFCRNIA, DESCRIBED AS A 11HOLE AS FOLLOWS: CONMCI1CING AT T1:E MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF BLOCK T140 HUNDRED THIRTY—ONE OF SAID CORONA DEL RAR; THENCE NORTH 40 DEGREES 00' 00" EAST 100.00 FEET ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK: TWO HUNDRED THIRTY—ONE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE NORTH 50 DEGREES 00' 00" %JEST 290.74 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL I IN DEED TO EDNA V. HAYNE.Sr A14 UNMARRIED WOMAN, RECORDED APRIL 5, 1945 IN BOOK 1303, PACE 261 OF CFFICIAL RECCRDS: THENCE SOUTH 14 DEGREES 11' 00" EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LAUD TO EDNA V. HAYNES TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 50.00 FEET NORTHERLY OF AND klEASURED AT EIGHT A14GLF-S TO THE NORTHIJESTERLY PRCLONGATION OF THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF FIFTY-FIRST PLACE, AS SHORN Oti SAID IIAP; THENCE SOUTH SO DEGREES On* 00" EAST 220.94 FEET ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE TO THE NORTHUES:'ERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK TUO HUNDRED THIRTY-011E; THENCE HCRTH 40 DEGREES 00' 00' EAST 50.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE SOUTHEASTERLY 25.00 FEET. PARCEL 2: AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER THE SOUTHEASTERLY HALF OF CARNATION AVENUE (FORMERLY CALLED ':HIR-IETH AVENUE), AS S11CIiN Ot. A iIAP OF CORONA DEL NAP, RECORDED IN BOOK 3, PAGES 41 AND 42 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA# EXTENDING FROM THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SEA VIEW AVENUE ( FORMERLY CALLED FIFTY—FIRST PLACE), TO Tile NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOT EIGHTEEN IN BLOCK TWO HUNDRED THIRTY—ONE OF SAID CORONA DEL MAR EXTENDED NORTHWESTERLY, SAID CARIIATIO14 AVENUE HAVING BEEN VACATED AND ABANa1.ONED JANUARY 1? * 1320 13Y ORDER OF THE 30ARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ORANGE COUNTY, A CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH UADER 41AS RECORDED JANUARY 14, 1920 It. BOOK 1-4t, PAGE 282 OF 11ISCELLAMEOUS RECORD6 OF SAID ORANGU COUNTY* SAID E.:SEt1CNT TO BE USED IN COMMON WITH OTHERS. G092a -3- � x 4F=NEWPOAT ` 16CH COU�I�'•IL' "MAE�S co bt, 9�. S E.r May 12. 1986 MINUTES It was noted by the City Attorney that the above notion could not be allowed unless a member of the City Council wished to make a motion to recon.ider the vote just taken. to whicth there way no response. Due to the foregoing. Council Member Hart withdrew her motion. 2. Mayor Maurer opened the public hearing and City Council review of requests of SOMERS AND ASSOCIATES. Corona del mar, approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting of April 10, 1986. for: USE pERMT No. 3194 - To permit the construction of a four unit residential condominium project and related Garages on property located at 307 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar; zoned A-3. Proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code to allow second floor pot shelves and a wing wall to encroach two feet into the required ten foot front rear setback. and the acceptance of an Environmental Document; RESUgDMSION NO. 824 - To resubdivide an existing lot into a single parcel of land for residential condominium purposes; and RESIDENTIAL COASTAL DEVEI.Ui'MFI.'T PERMIT NO. 11 - To consider a Residential Coastal Permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance tar a four unit residential condominium development pursuant to the Ad lnistrative Guidelines for the implerentation of the state Law relative to lam. and moderate -income housing within the Coastal zone. Report from the Planning Department. was presented. Ian Somers. applicant. 1111 Sagside Drive, addressed the Council and stated a that s noted in the staff report. they have substantially complied with All standardso plans and zoning requirement, applicable to the R-3 District. He emphasized that the current zoning for the subject property allows t0 units to be constructed* whereas their development will only consist of four units.The saximun gross structural area allowed is 13.200 square feet. whereas the proposed development is approximately 7.600 square feet. %be Volume 40 - Page 163 talboa Bay ;lub Lease U%P 3194 (86) Reesub 824 84) IRCDPP 1 t ;-; cISVY -OVNEWPORT AVCH COUNCIL. MEI�S MINUTES VIP `rs p p �� May 12. 1986, NY R City requires six parking spaces. four IRCDP#ll U/P 3194 of which are to be covered. and they are Resub 824 providing eight parking spaces. The project has been well -planned and designed. and therefore, Mr. Somers ? feela it should receive Council approval. Barbara Tappan. 1007 Dolphin Terrace, i addressed the Council in opposition to the proposed condominium development. She stated that the proposed project would directly across the street from -.be the old Corona del ?oar Inn. which was just recently purchased by Robert Blake for restoration and historical preservation purposes. She stated she felt the development would impede the vier of the Ina from other locations. She displayed an old picture of the Inn located on the coastal bluff and discussed location of structures on the bluff@ as referenced in the staff report. She stated that Mr. Blake is very receptive to restoring the historical site and she hoped the Council would overrule the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the pied project. Discussion ensued. wherein the City Attorney stated he has reviewed the record that was presented to the planning Commission and from that Information does not find any substantiai evidence that there would be any significant environmental impact caused by the construction of the four -snit condominium project. reith French, Planner and Consultant for Mr. Blahs. addressed the Council in opposition to the condominium project. He stated he felt the project would obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the public. He also felt there were inconsistencies between the City's General plan and Zoning Code, and therefore. anggested this item be continued until such inconsistencies are resolved. In response to Council inquiry, the Planning Director noted that the Zoning Code would allow a motel on Mr. Blake's property. subject to a use permit. A hotel is not permitted on the R-3 classification. The particular use at the present time has been upgraded as a ,volums 40 - Page 164 QF` NEWPOIRT `BJCH MINUTES COUW.JL .YEMWJtS , , liav 12. 1986 multi -family apartment building and has been operating as such for a number of years. Discussion ensued. wherein Mr. French reiterared his concerns regarding the view and coastal bluff iasuc. Dick Nichols. 519 Iriv Avenue. addressed the Council in opposition to the condo=iniuls project. lie stated the subject property is a coastal bluff lot in an 1t-3 area that should have been down -zoned when other properties in old Carona -del liar were down -zoned from R-2 to 1.5. Durk Weinberger. Attorney representing Mr. Blake, addressed the Council and stated he has evaluated the Land Use Plan and General Plan. together with the Zoning ordinance. and in reviewing gRthe staff 'report. it appears that the zone'fa inconsistent with the Land Use ;rlesfent of the General Plan as adopted through the Local Coastal Plan. inasmuch as the subject property is designated for Multiple -Family Residential and the 1-3 zoning'allows a greater intensity of use'than permitted under the land use designation. He stated that the staff also does'not show in its report the calculation for development of the property -using the adopted General Plan standards for buildable area. and does not'discuss the location of the bluff and give the City Council information an to the auount of distance from the bluff side to the proposed property. He emphasized the importance of the preservation of an historic structure and the adverse effect the proposed development would have upon the viability of said historic building. Robert Blake. Blake Properties, 1550 Bayside Drive* addressed the Council and distributed copies of a booklet containing historical information regarding the old Corona del liar Inn. He stated he was currently attempting to .murk with'the adjoining property owners. and would be pleased to work with Robert Crooke, -owner of the subject property. He does not want to see a building on .the Crooke property that is higher than the present structure. and would be willing'to fund the razing of the existing building to create more parking In the area. He is also interested in Volume 40 - Page l05 /P 3194 esub 824 CDl'# 11 -OF`:NEiMPORT �1CH COlMICtL ME�RS MINUTES May 12. 1966 purchasing additional land surrounding the Inn in an attempt to make an overall general plan for the community. Mr. Rlaks reviewed the background of his property and the intent of the original owners. He stated he was making a $1 Million charitable contribution to the City by restoring the Inn. but needs encouragement to proceed. He is not trying to cause problems for Mr. Crooke and would be willing to pay him for the value of hia property. as well as pay Mr. Somera the amount he has already vested in the project. Sandy Ganis. Associate Planner. addressed the Council and stated that she had just attended a conference for the City in Monterey regarding Historical Preservation in California. She stated that she discussed the basic perimeters of the subject project with Sots and Federal representatives and it yes their opinion that a view impact has never prevented any structure from —icing the Historical Register. The most important factor is integrity of the structure, and they require that 751 of the exterior structure generally be in the form it was during the period it was most historically significant. It was also emph" ised that sandblasting is not to be done on historic structures as it ruins the textures underneath and there are no tax credits given when sandblasting is involved for rehabilitation. It was also indicated that there is a ly year backlog for designating historical structures and the State is not accepting any new applications until October 1. and then each application takes approximately one year to complete. In response to the question raised by the City Attorney regarding the visibility of Mr. Make'■ property frog Rsyside Drive. Hs. Cenis stated that it I* partially visible from different vantage points. but not a structure which is "that" noticeable from Bayside Drive. Curtis Crooks, present owner of 307 Carnation Avenue. addressed the Council and stated that there has been a lot of discussions during this hearing about coastal bluffs. which was "put to bed a good many years ago in this area. and Volume 40 - Page 166 J/l' 3194 Resub 824 RCDFI11 ti 7D4r NEWPO1tT 'BV&CH COiNM`ME#A�RRS s� �V s� Motion Ayes Hoes x x'xxx�xx May 12. 1986 therefore, Bayside Drive is no longer a coastal bluff of any sort." He also discussed the view issue. which he indicated should not be taken into consideration with rarpre.t to Mr. Make's property. MINUTES .ioe Collins. 301 Carnation Avenue. addressed the Council and expressed his concerns regarding sufficient parking if Mr: Blake's property is developed as an historical structure. Hearing no others wishing toaddress sethe Council. the public hearing was d. Motion was made to sustain the decision of the Planning Commission. based on the tindinge and Conditions set forth in fthibit "A" of the staff report. public 3. Mayoregarding ling er theopened PROPOSEDe"STATE`iENTaOFt�g regardin; OQ2Mm QgS.EOPM{E2ST OBJECTIVES AMiD PROPOSED USE OF Fl�M."DS' FOR TiIE 1986/87 Pis UMiITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT Rm. Report from the Planning Department. was presented. The City Clerk advised that after the agemda was printedp a lettar was received from Mesa Development Company regarding the proposed use of funds. It vas noted that the following funding allocations of $357,000 are recoatmended for tbs 1986187 ODBG funds: 1) Land acquisition for affordable housing $300.400 2) Social Services - Meals on Wheels --.000 3).Aiding the homeless 2.10.100 00 4) Fair Housing 0.000 S) Administration 000 6) Contingency TOTAL $352 0 Council Member Bart advirrd that she serves on a portion of the local YMCA Board, and would flallocatingesomerofthe these possibilit7r funds to their homeless and building programs. Volume 40 - page 167 CDBC. Program (87) H"fffcY -OFONEWPORT 19CH COIJMIL MEMBERS MINUTES `el May 12. 1986 MriDEX t .lames da boor, 1743 Bayport Way. CDBG ftecutive Director for the YMCA. program addressed the Council and described some of their ongoing programs. i.e.. shelter for the horal.ess (food. laundry. etc.) lath: -key care program. and substance abuse program. He stated that these progress do not pay for themselves, and therefore. he would request the Council consider allocating the sum of $I1.000 to subsidize these activities. Hearing no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Motion x Following discussion. motion was made to A I 1 Ayes adopt Resolution No. 86-34. authorizing the City Manager to submit the final stateaant and all understandings and assurances contained therein; to act as the official representative of the City in comaetion with the submission of the final statestent for the 1986/87 Cossrunity Development Block Grant Funds; and to allocats a sum not to exceed 511.000 to the YMCA following submittal of their proposal to the City Manager. A. Mayor Maurer opened the public hearing PD/Towing regarding CUTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND (70) NECESSITY FOR NEWPORT CENTER TOWING and BOKXAII 'TOWIM, pursuant to Chapter 5.13 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Reports from Business License Supervisor. were presented. Bearing no one wishing to address the Councilb the public hearing was closed. Motion x MUtion was made to approve the requests Newport All Ayes for Newport Center Towing and Bonham Center/ Towing for subject certificate. Bonham f. PUBLIC COMIF E TS t None. F. CONSENT CALENDAR: Motion x The following actions were taken as All Ayes indicated. except for those items removed: 1. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION - Pass to second reading on May 27, 1986: (a) Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 86-14. Ord 86-14 being. Business License (27) Volume 40 - Page 168 City Council loing May 12, 1966 Agenda Item No. D-2 CITY OF H 4fPQKr BEACH To: City Council t'AoH: Planning Department SUBJECT: Use Permit No. 3194 (Public Nearing) Request to permit the construction of a four unit residential condominium project and related garages on property located in the R-3 District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow two proposed second floor pot shelver and a wing wall to encroach two foot into the required ten foc,t front yard setback, and the acceptance of an environ- mental document. AND kesubdivision No. 824 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide an existing lot into a single parcel of land for residential condominium purposes on property located in the R-3 District. AND Pesidential Coastal Develo ent Permit No. 11 Request to consider a Residential Coastal Development Permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance for a four unit residential condominium development pursuant to the Administra- tive Guidelines for the implementation of the State Law relative to low- and moderate -income housing within the Coastal Zone. LOCATION: A portion of Plock D, Corona del Mar Tract, located at 307 Carnation Avenue, on the northwesterly side of Carnation Avenur between Seaview Avenue and Bayside Drive, in Corona del Mar. Z011E: R-3 APPLICANT: Somers and Associates, Corona del Mar 0WHEPS: R. Curtis and Jean E. Crooke, Corona del Mar ENGINEER: Lanco Civil Engineers, Newport Beach r7 - TO City PUncil - 2. 0 ApElication These applications involve requests for the approval of: 1) A use Permit to allow the construction of a four unit condominium and related garages on property located in the R-3 District, 2) The resuhdivision of an existing lot into a singly 1,4rcel of lan4 for residential condominium purposes, 3) A modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow two ■ecunrl floor riot shelves and a wing wall to encroach two feet into the required ten foot front yard setbacks and 4) A Coastal Residential Development Permit. In accordance with Section 20.73.015 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, condominium projects may be permitted in any residential district, subject to the approval of a use permit in each case, Use permit procedurt,■ are set forth in Chapter 20.80 of the Municipal Code. Section 19.10.030 of the Newport Leach Municipal Code provides that a parcel r.►ap (resubdivision) shall be required for all subdivisions creating four or fewer residential condominium units. Resubdivision procedures are outlined in Section 19.12.040 of the Municipal Code. Modification procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.81 of the Municipal code, and Coastal Residential Development Permit procedures are outlined in City Council Policy P-1. Suggested Action )sold hearing; close hearings if desired, sustain, modify or overrule the diction of the Planning Comission. Background On April 28, 1986, upon the request of Councilwoman Heather, the City CourciI voted to review the Planning Commission approval of the subject application and set this application for hearing on May 12, 1986. Project characteristics and issues of concern are discussed in the following sections. Planning Coaanission Action On April 10, 1966, the Planning Coaaission approved this application (4 Ayes, 2 Abstentions, i Absent) subject to the following Findings and Corditiones USE PERMIT NO. 3194 FINDINGS: 1. That each of the proposed units has been designed as a condominium with separate and individual utility connections. TOs City Council - 3. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. 3. That an adequate number of on -site parking spaces will be provided for the residential condominium development. 4. The project will comply with all applicable standards, plane and zoning requirementn for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at the time of approval except for minor encroachments into the required 10 foot front yard setback troy two pot shelves and a wing wall. 5. That the proposed modification to permit two pot shelves and a wing wall to encroach 2 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimwntal to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is con- sistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this coda. E. That a Negative Declaration has been prepared and that the proposed project, as conditioned, will not have any significant environmental impact. 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 3144 will not, under the cirr:urrstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, ccmfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighixjrhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONSs 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. That all construction shall comet the requirements of Chapter 20.02 of the Municipal Code, which regulates height. 3. That the driveway entrance shall be designed to provide a slope acceptable to the Newport Beach Traffic Engineer. 4. Development of site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Department. 5. That a grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants, 6. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be sub- mitted 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. TOs City Council - 4. • 7. The velocity of concentrated runoff froes the project stall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 8. 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. 9. That erosion control ryeasures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. 16. On -site drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the building and/or Public Works Departments. 11. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 824 shall be fulfil- led. 12. That two garage spaces (including one tandem space) small he provided for each dwelling unit at all times. 13. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.00.09U A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PESUBDIVISION NO. 824 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 and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problc-ms from a planning standpoint. 3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access thrcugh or use of property within the proposed subdivision. CGNDITIONSs 1. That a parcel map shall be recorded. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public works Department. 3. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. I • • To: City Council - 5. 4. That each dwelling unit be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 5. That curb, gutter, pavement and a 5 foot sidewalk be constructed along the abandoned Carnation Avenue frontage, and that the curb grades be approved by the Public Works Department. Roadway width shall bn 15 feet from center line to top of curb. b. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has nrit keen recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extensiur, is granted by the Planning Commission. COASTAL RESIDENTIAL, DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11 FINDINGS: 1. That a feasibility analysis has been performed which has Indicated that it is not feasible to provide affordable housing on or off -nit(. in conjunction with the proix,sed development. 2. That the proposed development has met the requirements of city Council Policy P-1. CONDITION: 1. That all conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 3194 and Pesubdivision No. 824 be met. Zoning Analysis The applicant proposes to remove the single-family dwelling, which currently exists on the project site, and develop a four unit residential condominium project on the property. Lot Sixes 12,B03 sq.ft. including abandoned Carnation Avenue right-of-way 11,553 sq.ft. excluding abandoned Carnation Avenue right-of-way Number of units: Permitted by Zoningi 10 Units (12,803 sq.ft. 4.1,200 sq.ft./ Proposed: 4 Units Unit in the R-3 District) TOs City Acil - 6. • Setbacks Front (from Carnation Avenue right- of-way) Rear Siden buildable Areas Required 10 ft. 10 ft. 4 ft. 8,855 ft, Pro sed 8 ft. 831 ft. 4 ft. Cross Structural Area Permitted% 13,283 sq.ft. excluding garages (1.5 x built)n)�1r area) Proposed: 7,603 sq.ft. excluding garages (.86 x buildable area) 9,199 sq.ft. including garages (1.04 x buildable area) Open Space Acquired: 70056 eu.ft. Proposed: 143,0001 cu.ft. Building freight Front Half of Lot Permitted: 24 ft. average, 29 ft. maximum {1} Proposedi 24 ft. average, 29 ft. maximum Rear Half of Tot Vermitteds 28 ft. average, 33 ft. maximum Proposed: 5.5 ft. average, 5.5 ft. maximum (measured from grade to roof overhang) Parking Required: 6 spaces (1.5 per unit), including 4 covered Proposeds 8 spaces (2 per unit), all within garages (1) As shown on the attached plans, the slope of the lot changes at the rear 3.75 ft. of the proposed structure, resulting in the creation of another plane for purposes of calculating height. If the roof con- tinued flat, as shown on the attached plans, that portion of the roof would exceed the City's height limit. However, the applicant has indicated that the height of that portion of the roof will be reduced in order to sweet City standards. In addition, the metal chimney caps illustrated in the attached elevations exceed the permitted height limit. Although chissneys are permitted to exceed the City's height limits in order to sheet requirements of the Uniform building Code, the chimney caps are architectural features which are not a function- al part of the chimney. Therefore, the chimney caps will not be included on final plans. The proposed development meats all applicable development standards for the R-3 District except for the proposed encroachment into the front yard setback which is discussed below. To. City Wil - 7. • Front Yard Setback The applicant has requested a modification to the Zoning Code in order to permit two second floor pot shelves and a wing wall to encroach twr, feet into the required ten foot front yard setback adjacent to Carnation Avenue. These encroachments are minor architectural features, and it is staffs opinion that they would not have detrimental effects on the surrounding neighborho(wi. Conformance with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, designate the site for "Multiple -Family Residential" titles. The proposed development falls within the uses permitted. The "Multiple -Family Residential" designation provides for ten to fifteen dwelling units per "buildable acre." The General Plan excludes areas with a slope groator than two to one from "buildable acreage" calculations. In the approval of major Planned Community Development Plans and nubdivioions in the newer areas of the City, these "buildable acreage" criteria have been used to determine the permitted number of residential units. This density classification system dcon not. lend itself well to applicationrs jr, the older areas of the City. The City's traditional P-3 zonita, claanificatior allows 21 to 36 dwelling units per buildable acre. Thins the 7.oniny Crxle density does not correspond to the General flan density classification sylstcm. In addition, the definition of "buildable area" contained in Section 20.1i7.050 of the Municipal Code does not exclude slope areas. The "buildable acreage" criterion deleting slope areas greater than 2:1 has not been applied by the City in cases where property is already subdivided and zoned uniny the R-: through R-4 system. Specific examples include approvals of Use Permits No. 2059, 2089, and 3033 for residential condominium development of 311 Carnation Avenue which is immediately north of the project site. Since the property in question is zoned R-3 and `is ar► existing subdivided parcel which would allow ten units, staff does not suggest the application of the buildable acreage criteria. Location of Structures on Bluffs Regulations and policies governing the location of structures on bluffs are found in Section 20.15.001 of the Municipal Codes, in the "Location of Struc- tures" Policy contained in the Land Use Klement of the General Plan, and it. the Local Coastal Program Development Policies. Under the above policies, a bluff is defined to be a landform having a slope greater than two to one (211) and a height greater than twenty-five feet, In conjunction with their considerations of a proposed development at 311 Car- nation Avenue, it was the opinion of the Planning Coirmission and the City Council that the northerly facing slope facing Bayside Drive was not a part of any particular coastal bluff system. The southwesterly facing slope could be considered part of a coastal bluff system. However, staff does not consider this site in its present state to be a natural slope formation. Although a portion of this site contains areas which exceed a 211 slope and appear to be in a natural state, the parcel has been subject to substantial man-made alter- ations, including the construction of Bayzide Drive and Bayside Place, the installation of drainage and sewer improvements, the extension of Carnation TO: City O=cil - 8. • Avenue, and the construction of the existing single-family dwelling and garage on the site. In any cane, no development is proposed on that portion of the site where slopes exceed two to one. Carnation Avenue The abandoned Carnation Avenue right-of-way provides accenu to the mu1,1r,ct property and to other lots northerly of the site. It in recommmar,ded t.tlat Carnation Avenue be maintained at private street standards and that curt,R, gutters, sidewalks, and paveout be constructed at the eaatnrly c+d,14, of the site. Coastal Presidential peyelo m nt Permit Inasmuch as the proposed development is located within the Coastal Zone and contains more than two dwelling units, the applicant must comply with Council Policy P-1 which requires the inclusion of low- or moderato -income housing in the Coastal `Lone, where feasible. As indicated in the feasibility analysis performed by Tarantella and Company, it would not he feasible to develop a low - or moderate -income housing unit either on -site or off -rite in conjunction with the davelornent of the proposed project. Staff thereforet r+-commendn that no affordable ur,its he required. Views Mr. Robert Blake of Blake II Properties has stated hin opposition to the subject application both by letter and at the Planning Commission public hear- ing of April 10, 1986. Since February 4, 1986, Blake II Properties has held a fifty percent interest in the property at 2500 Seaview Avenue as a tenant in common with Point Properties I, Inc., a California Corporation. This property, sometimes referred to as the Seaview Hotel or Corona del Misr motel, is located easterly of the project site, across abandoned Carnation Avenue. Mr. Blake has stated his concern that the proposed condominium may block the view from his property. Existing City view policies are directed toward maintenance of public views from locations such as public streets or parks. The City has not traditionally acted to preserve views from private property, including views from commercial facilities open to the public, where a proposed project meets City standards for such items as building height and bulk. It should be noted that, with no discretionary approvals whatsoever, a single- family dwelling or a duplex unit could be constructed to the same height and with a larger groom structural area than the proposed condominium development. Action by the City solely to preserve private views could set a precedent for future actions of the City. Historic Values Mr. Blake has protested that the view from his property must be preserved because it is a historic structure. As indicated in materials submitted by Mr. Blake, the hotel was built in 1905 and originally was called the Corona del Mar Hotel. Additional historical information is included in the attachments to the April 10, 1986, staff report to the Planning Commission. The hotel is not currently registered as a historical place at either the State or Federal level, although Mr. Slake has indicated that it is his intention to make appli- cation to the State for landmark status. Personnel at the State Historic TO: city kil - 9. • Preservation Office (SHPO) have indicated that there is a substantial backlog of applications and that there is, therefore, a moratorium on the acceptance of new applications until October 1, 1986. Typically, processing of applications has taken a year or more. Thus, assuming typical processinrj time, the hotel could potentially be entered in the Register of Historic Places Fri late 1907 at the earliest. In any case, personnel at the State Historic Praanrvation office have indicated that there are no regulations requiring prenervnt.lon of views to or from locations which are on the Register of Historic Places. Surrounding property owners are not normally constrained by registratinn of an Ad)acent site as a Historic Place. In fact, unless the owner of a Historic Place uses Federal monies or takes advantage of tax benefits for historic places, there are no constraints on the use of the actual historic sites historic structures may even be demolished, although demolition expenses could nrt he included as an expense for Federal tax purposes. In fact, the only real eftovts of historic designation are certain financial benefits which May accrue to the property owner, and the waiver of certain provisions of current building codes. The subject property is not registered by the City as a place of architectural or historical significance as provided under City Council Policy A-15, Places of Historical and Architectural Significance. To date thorn have been two sites which have been placed on a historical register file maintained by the City Clerks The Jolly Frger Restaurant on Balboa Island on October 15, 1985, ❑nd the Balboa Inn on December 20, 1985. City Council Policy A-15 does not address views. Although the City :might wish to cake special provision for preservation of public views toward visual land- marks in the City, the existing hotel is not a prominent visual landmark of the nature of, say, the Balboa Pavilion or Newport Harbor High School, which are highly visible and cossld be readily identified by most local residents. Local designation of a site as a landmark would be considered by the State in its review of any application for historic registration although this is only one of several criteria to be considered, in accordance with Section 5031 of the Public Resources Code. Any one of the other criteria, including first property of its type, association with important historical figures, ar,d outstanding example of an architectural style, could be adequate to justify registration as a Historic Place. Local registration alone, however, is not sufficient criteria for registration. historical Context Concerns have been raised that construction of the proposed condominium will alter the surrounding area, thus reducing the possibility that the structure at 2500 Seaview Avenue might be registered as a historic place. SHPO personnel have indicated that site integrity is an important consideration. The existing setting is to reflect that of the historically significant period. Of major concern is the extent to which a structure, or group of structures, has been altered. Generally speaking, seventy-five percent of the original exterior of the structure in question should be extant. Another factor to be considered is whether the property has been subdivided ar.d the presence and state of any of the original outbuildings. when property has been subdivided efforts should be made to include the entire complex in tt.e historic place. A property cannot be listed without the consent of the cwner, however. 0 TOT CitY cil - 10. • Corvlitions on surrounding prop.srty would be of secondary concern. While views may be included in the evaluation of site integrity, Mate and Federal officials contacted indicated that loss of view should not affect a place's eligibility for Register status. No instances where loss of view had killed an application could be recalled. Mr. Blake has indicated in hin letter of Plarch 31, 1986, which is attached to the April 10, 1986 staff rrrport, that the structure at 2500 Seaview Avenue "is without question the flrRt building in Corona Del Mar (sic)." Thus, All of the surrounding structures wriuld have been built at a later date, altering the surrounding area subst4ntially. Among these later structures is the existing residence on the subject. Nrnperty at 307 Carnation Avenue for which a building permit was issued in 191.4. The proposed condominium would not alter thu developed, residential nature Of the neighbor- hood. Previous Approvals for 3500 Seaview Property Building Department records indicate that in 1950 and in 1954 alterations and additions were permitted to the hotel, including a small garage structure on the site. An apartment building gradually evolved from the Original hots-1, and City records indicated that the hotel was functioning are a 19 unit apartment buildinq in 1980. Or. September 4, 1900, the Planning Commission approved (f. Ayes, 1 ijf,), Use Permit No. 194H and Resubdivision No. 666 which would have permitt,.!d the construction of a six unit condominium on the hotel site, (ir: September 22, 1980, a motion was made for City Council review of this approval, which motion failed i3 Ayes, 4 Noes), and the use permit was permitted to stand. Staff was, hcewever, directed to prepare information regarding the abandoned Carnation Avenue right-of-way for further discussion. On April 13, 1991, the California Coastal COL -mission approved, on the Consent Calendar, Permit No. P-81-7668, which provided for the demolition of a "20 unit apartment structure and related garage," and construction of a six unit cordominium. The approval was subject to the condition that one housing unit be rented for no more than that amount permitted for rent subsidy under Section 8 of the Federal Housing Act of 1937, or sold for no more than two and one-half tires the median income for the Standard Metropolitan statistical Area which includes Newport Beach. The unit could be provided on site or elsewhere in the City's Coastal Zone. In addition, the developer was required to deposit into a housing fund an amount equal to six percent of the market price of all the units in the development. On March 4, 1982, the Planning Commiasion approved a two year extension of the resubdivision approval. However, the Zoning Code makes no provision for the extension of use permits, and because no construction was commenced within two years of the original approval, Use Permit No. 1984 expired on September 26, 1982. Existinq Use of 2500 Seaview Avenue Applications filed for Use Permit No. 1948 and Resubdivision No. 666 in 1980, indicate that the Seaview Hotel was operating as a mmulti-fanily residential use at that time. As discussed previously, approvals have lapsed an these applications which would have permitted the construction of a six unit condominium on the Seaview site. A current business license exists for operation of an apartment building at 2500 Seaview Avenue. This license will 0 TO: City Council - 11. expire at the end of August, 1986, and was issued in the name of a previous owner. The firms managing the property, Savage, Tilde and Company, indicated that the structure was functioning as a 19 unit apartment building until February 5, 1986, when they were advised that the property had been sold and management thereof transferred to Blake Properties. Under Section 5.04.210 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, business licenses are nontransferrable. No application has been made for a business license in the name of the new owner. Neither was a request made for a Report of Residential Building Records when the property was sold, as required under Chapter 15.35 of the Municipal Code. Hotel Use A hotel is not a permitted use in the R-3 District. In accordance with Section 20.16.020 of the Municipal Code, a motel could be permitted if a use permit were approved. Under Section 20.30.035 of the Municipal Code, a srtel would require one parking space per rooms. Were the number of units to remain the same, 19 parking spaces would be required (1 space per room x 19 rooms - 19 spaces). Under Chapter 20.83 of the Municipal Code, an existing use may crunt.inue without obtaining a use permit if such use was originally in lawful existence even though codes have since been changed. Under Section 20.83.050 of the Municipal Code, if a nonconforming use ceases for six months or more, it will he considered abandoned, and current codes will henceforth apply. Although the structure was originally built as a hotel, a hotel use on the site could not t.n considered legal nonconforming inasmuch as the site has bel.n used as en apartment building for a number of years. This is evidenced in the information presented above as well as the fact that the City has no record that any Uniform Transient Occupancy Tax has been remitted by the owners of the site. In accordance with Chapter 3.16 of the ,Municipal Code, the tax must be collected for any person paying to occupy the premises for less than thirty days. Signs in front of the structure state that parking is for the use of residents" only. No reference is made to hotel quests. In addition, local telephone books list several individuals occupying various units at 2500 Seaview Avenue, and at least one resident has listed the site as a residence address in applying for a business license. city Council Policy_P-1 In order to remove or alter the existing apartment use at 2500 Seaview Avenue, a Coastal Residential Demolition or Conversion Permit must be obtained. tinder pity Council Policy P-1 this would be required for any change in use resulting in a reduction of more than two units from the number of units currently on a site. If the existing apartments were replaced with a new residential or non -coastal dependent use, replacement units would be required for any dwelling units currently occupied by low- or moderate -income tenants. Under Council Policy P-1, there are no exceptions to this rule when three or more units in one structure or more than tan units in more than one structure are removed. Thus, 61 potential redeveloper of the site could be required to provide up to 19 replacement units, depending on the characteristics of the existing tenants. T03 City Council - 12. In accordance with Section 65590 of the California State Government Code, if a visitor serving facility is developed, then replacement housing is required only if feasible. Overnight visitor accommodations, such as hotels and motels, are visitor serving uses. Thus, it mould be possible to eliminate the apart- ment use for a motel use without providing replacement units. Environmental Significance After an Initial Study, it has been determined that this project, as condition- ed, will not have any significant envirommntal impact. It is ataff's opitilun, based on an evaluation of the existing area and consultation with SHPO permon- nel, that the proposed condominium will not have any significant effect on the historical resource represented by the property at 3500 Seaview Avenue, A Negative Declaration has heen prepared and is contained in the attachmentn to the April 10, 1986 Planninq Commission staff report. Respectfully submitted, PLAI;NING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. IfEWICKYR, Director h1 SANDRA L. GENIS WRL Associate Planner S1.G/kk CC16 Attachments for City Council Only: Excerpt of the Minutes of the Planning Coo ission Meeting of 4/10/86 Planning Commission Staff Report dated 4/10/86 Planning Cov%mission Staff Report Addendum dated 4/10/86 Plot Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations CU,41Ml551C7�RS April 100 1906 • M.N1JTES 71,, a=,(`fir /}�({�.s�( w w CityOf- ROLL Beach X a a � w A ROIL C-At.11 I I H I I Ilt�i3EX 6. That the two main access drives between the Shell Station and xeatcliff Plaza be at least 20 feet ride, and in the areas where the driver are nar- owed, the islands on either side of tha parking •lea be modified to provide for a minienum 15 ! curb returns radius. 17. That 1l car wash activities shall be contained within a building. 19. That wash water shall drain into the sanitary sewer syst and not into tho bay or the storm drains. 19. That grease tra shall be provided in all drains where petrolern sidues may enter the sewer system unless oche se permitted by the nuildtng Department. 20. That the service stat shall be ravpslred to provide restroosss to it customers during all hours of operation. 21. That the Planning Commission y add/or modify conditions of approval to thi use permit, or recommend to the City Council t revocation of this use permit, upon a determin ion that the operation which is the subject of t use permit causes injury, or is detrimental to health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or gone welfare of the coesunity. 22. This use permit shall expire unless axe iced within twenty-four months from the date of ap o- val as specified in section 20.80.090 A of e Newport Beach Municipal Code. A. Uma Permit No. 3194 (Public Nearing) Request to permit the construction of a four unit residential condominium project and related garages on property located in the R-3 district. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow two proposed, second floor pot shelves and a wing wall to encroach 2 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback, and the acceptance of an environ- mental document. -15- Item No,6 L? 3194 CO3%NN%6SKWRS1 0 ! C O A = 11 C ! 7 1 = r 0 2 A o M } 0 1 s x _ V w Roll C: April 10, 1986• MINWES of Newmt Beach B._Resubdivision_No. 824 (Public Nearing) Request to resubdivide an existing lot into n nincile parcel of land for residential condominium purpose% on property located in the R-3 District. C. Residential Coastal Development Permit No. 11 (Discussion) Request to consider a Residential coastal Development Permit for the purpose of establishing project compli- ance for n four unit residential condominium develop- ment pursuant to the Administrative Guidelines for the Implementation of the State Law relative to low and moderate income housing within the Coastal ?.one. LOCATION: A portion of Block D, Corona del Mar Tract, located at 307 Carnation Avenue, on the northwesterly side of Carnation Avenue between Seaview Avenue and Bayside Drive, in Corona del Mar. ZONE R-3 APPLICANPt Somers and Associates, Corona del Mar OWNE'RSt R. Curtia and Jean E. Crooke, Corona del Mir ENGINEER: Lanco Civil Engineers, Newport Loath James Hewicker, Planning Director, presented the following supplawntal information in response to concerns raised after the original staff report was distributed. Mr. Hewicker referred to the General Plan Policies of the General Plan as adopted in 1972, which stated 'that the City shall identify and endeavor to preserve and protect those individual areas, buildings, structures, or tress which are deemed to be of major historic, cultural, or aesthetic value to the community". Mr. Herwicker advised that in March, 1976, the Planning Comm Ission initiated Amendstent No. 465 to establish a -16- INDEX .r...�..... R82 4 RCD Pe rmit Ito. 11 11 roved /j� • CUMMIS50*4RS April 10, 19" MhtUTES xx n C O !w O n.s w ` ° City of Newport Beach Rai CAU I I I I I I I I - INDEX historical overlay zone which could have been applied to various properties within the City. He said that two properties that the City had in mind in 11JIG wain the Balboa Pavilion., and the Lovell residence 10r4m.«d on Kest ocean Front whose architect was a protago or Frank Lloyd Wright. Mr. Hewicker advised tt+at Amsndm►ent No. 465 was forwarded to the City Couriel l , whereby the Amendment was tabled by the City Council, Mr. Hewicker stated that there has been no activity fear nine years as far an establishing a historical overlay zonal however, on Flay 28, 1985, the City Council adopted Council Policy A-15 which provides for the designation of historical properties and buildings within Newport Beach. Mr. Iiewicker pointed out that the application for the historical designation largely lies with the individual property owner and the policy requires that upon application to the City Manager, the City Manager will forward the application to the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission, the Arts Commission and the Newport Beach Historical Society for review and recomusyendation prior to City Council determination. He said that to date there have been two sites which have been placed on a historical register file as maintained by the City Clerki the ,lolly Roger Restaurant on Balboa Island on October 15, 1985, and the Balboa inn on December 20, 1985. tee commented that a conservation agreement dedicated to the City would leave the exterior appearance of the Balboa inn in its current restored state. Mr. Hawicker referred to the supplemental staff report distributed to the Planning Commission regarding certain aspects of the subject application. He pointed out that Mr. Robert Blake, property owner at 2500 Seaview Avenue, formerly the Seaview Hotel, has concerns regarding the application. lie cited that the staff report addresses private views and historical value. Mr. Hewicker co=ented that there has been no application for any historical designation at 2500 Seaview Avenue at this time. He commented that regardless of whether or not the landmark hotel has any historical designation, does not mean that the City has to modify the dayslopwsnt rights that would be permitted for the four unit residential condomainiusu project across the street in terns of its size or configuration. -17- COM NUSS04RS I • ROLL CAR! ra i a s V ~ 7 r 7 w =c s w s c7t +" oR 00�GtV O = 7 � Of April 10, 19860 M NUT ES t Beach In reference to the operation of the aforamentionv+l hotel, Mr. Hewicker coimmented that for over five year• the complex has been operated as an apartment huildirr), and under the City's current regulations, there is p.0 legal nonconforming right that the owner of that property would have to restore that particular bulldirri back to a hotel use. He said that in fact, under thN R-3 zoning of the property, a hotel is not listed as n permitted use either automatically or under the approval of a use persuti however, the R-3 zoning does permit a motel use, subject to the securing of a urn permit which the owner could request. The Municipal Code requires 1 parking space for each motel unit on a site, and if he would retain all 19 units, 19 parkinq spaces would be required. Mr. Hevicker said that an ar. apartment use, the building is nonconforming with respect to parking in that the current Coda requires 1.5 parking spaces for each of the apartment units on the property, one of which must hP covered for each dwelling unit. Mr. Hewicker said that at the present time the property is nonconforming with respect to parking, inasmuch as there are only a few covered parking spaces on site and there are some open parking spaces adjacent to Carnation Avenue. Mr. Hewieker stated that the City did receive a request from Mr. Blake to demolish the covered parking on the propertyt however, the demxslition permit was not approved on the basis that he would be removing required parking. Mr. Havicker consented that City Council policy p-1 requires owners of property within the coastal zone to provide replacement housing for persons of lower or moderate income prior to the construction of nev residential or non -coastal dependent uses on a site. He said that staff has had extensive discussion with Mr. Blake regarding the requirement for replacement housing on his property and that Mr. Blake intends to go ahead with a visitor serving type of use on his property no that the requirement of replacement housing may be eliminated. Mr. liewicker ccamented that this type of use would probably be to his best advantage since he would only have to demonstrate that replacement housing is not feasible. -18- INDLX L COMM1SSKM6 e o to s • % = C I" PI = •7 7 xr` O 7 c x M o c o 0 w o s7 s )li ww R4t1 CAU • April 10, 1986 iMINUTES of Newvort Beach Mr. Hewicker advised that according to the City's records regarding ownership of the former hotel alto, Mr. Blake purchased the property during the early pact. of February, 1986. He said that prior to that time, the site was under management of the former managemwnt company which bad operated it as an apartment buildlnry, Mr. Hewicker ec+iented that the Finance Department drmm not show any record of a Transient Occupancy Tax aver being collected on the property, which is an indication that the City has no record in the Finance Departrw nt that the building was ever used as a hotel in recent times. Commissioner Koppelaan asked if the Planning Department finds out about sites with historical significance through the property owner filing an application, and whether there a list of old or significant huildingn that the City takes into consideration? Gh+r pointed out that the staff report dated Septerlier, 1980, for the previously approved Use Permit No. 1948 on property located at 2SOO Seaview Avenue, does not Indicate that the hotel on the site was the first building in Corona del Mar. Mr. Hevicker replied that the Planninq Department does not have a list of properties that would identify historical sites. He pointed out that there is a Newport Beach Historical Society, and there have been efforts by the City to attempt to identify historical properties and to establish a historical overlay zone which would limit what could be done to a building as far as the architectural style. Commissioner Koppelman asked if the City has a received an application from Mr. Blake? Mr. Hewicker replied that there has boon no request to designate the former hotel as a historical site. He pointed out that the Planning Commission permitted the demolition of the former hotel in 1980 when a six unit residential condominium crssplax was approved on the property. Commissioner toppelman asked that when the Initial Study and Negative Declaration were prepared regarding the subject application, if the former hotel adjacent to the subject property was taken into consideration? 12r. Hewicker replied that it there had been a full ftvirensental Impact Report, the document would have boon oWmitted to the State Clearing House, and the State Clearing House would then have forwarded copies of the EMvironsental Document to various INM -19- r �; • C OMV1�x 9"r s NUNUTf S April 10, 1986 xx c o s e 0. s n ; City of Newport BeachIsa=a K)ll CAI I I I I I i I I-TiNDEX agencies. Kr. Hewicker explained that a four unit residential development is categorically exempt under CEQA, but because of the location on a bluff, the City required the environmental documentation. f.taff prepared a check list for the Initial study ani then prepared a Negative Declaration. In reference to the applicant's project descriptiosi of the surrounding properties, including information on any cultural, historical or scenic aspects, Commissioner Koppelm= noted that the applicant replied that "the mite is exclusively residential and consists of a combination of multi -family and single family residences", and that there was no mention at that time that there was a structure of historical Kignificance nearby. She questioned if under CEQA or applicable lawn, since this site has not presently s,t,talned any historical recognition under Federal, State, or City levels, the necessity under the law as to whether or not there should have been an indication ns to the structure's existence. Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, replied that CZQA requires a categorical exemption or an Initial Study in the preparation of a Negative Declaration, and does not impose an affirmative obligation on an applicant to seek potential historical sites around the neighborhood. She said that CEQA requires consideration of existing historical sites and potential historical sites if brought to the attention of the agency doing the determination. Ms. Korade pointed out that in this case staff answered the Environmental Checklist questions "will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant architectural historical site structure, object or building", and determined that the answer was "no". Comissioner Koppelman asked if during the preparation of the checklist whether staff was aware of the existence of the building? Mr. Hewicker replied that the Planning Comission received an application regarding the former hotel site in 1980, and that thero have been other discretionary permits on Carnation Avenue. He said that staff has a 1976 newspaper clipping regarding the former Palisades Hotel. Commissioner Koppelman asked if the historical aspect of the site was taken into consideration? Mr. Hewicker replied that staff has never distinguished whether the -10- /g CUmmsViNtRS 1 0 April 10, 1986 • M.NUfES Ir co n i 7 s - -+ � r 7 Ir C_ 0 Otoo i w O w> w 0 City o� i Z i w NMI Kou. CAl11 1111.1 1 1 itirAx building should have a historical designation►. He said that preserving views from private property vas not been the direction of the planning Coaenission or the City Council. Commissioner Koppelman canted that she was not referring to the preservation of views, but about any recognition that may be required under CErdA. She opined that if Mr. Slake had not written the letter there would not have been an indication that the former hotel was located on the property. Ms. Korade stated that Mr. alake's letter was dated March 31, 1986, and was received by the Planning Department on April 1, 1986. She coemnnted that the signature on the Negative Declaration was on April 1, 1986. She said that the letter had been received and considered by the Planninq Department nn the date the Initial Study was done prior tr, naktnq the determination of the affect of the protect on the historical aspect of the building. Mr. ilevicker stated that Mr. Blake met with Sandra Genis of the Planninq Department on Friday, March 28, 1986, and Ks. rents spot With Patricia Temple, Lnvironmental Coordinator, in reference to the Negative Declaration, on ifonday, March 31, 1986. Commissioner Turner cited that the Federal legislature in 1900, gave the property owner$ an opportunity to help preserve old structures and gain a tax advantage. If& asked if the City has to approve the building as a historical site before qualifying under State law? ile asked if in this case, in order for this to be designated a historical structure, wo-ild it be necessary for the present owner to restore the former hotel to Its original use, or merely be required to restore the facade and continue to operate the structure as a hotel? Me. Korade replied that the City's designation is one of the factors that the Federal and State governments will consider prior to awarding or refusing a historical designation, but the City's designation is not required if the applicant goes directly to the State and Federal government. In response to what is required to get a state and Federal historical designation, Ms. Korade replied that this would be on a location basis, and after the applicant has received a State and Federal designation, there would not be any obligations on the owner, unless there are Federal monies used. She said that there are tax benefits, and the owner does not have to comply with -21- CORN WSS!(Y"tIRS x" T * y + al 'i A r f I r, aw : ws a i,-az _ r a [ 0 0 s P.,O A r w i i = i"O« c:Au • 0 MINUT April 10, 1986 E S City of Newport Beach all building Code requirements. She pointed out that the owner may have to restore the facade or the hotel use may have to be restored prior to securing the historical designation, but after the designation I% secured, the historical use may not have to tin maintained. In response to Coestiesioner Turner's inquiry reggarding the length of time to process an application, Hs. Korade replied that the State Historical Preservation office informed her there is a minimum of one year to obtain a State designation and then the application in forwarded to Washington, D. C. to receive a lredernl designation. She said that the applicant must receive a State historical designation beforn a Federal designation. The public hearing wes opened in conrectl(,n with thin item. Mr. Ian Somers, I111 Bayside Drive, applicant, appeared before the Planning Comission. Mr. Somers ntated that he concurs with the findings and conditions contained in Exhibit "A". In response to questions poned by Commissioner Yoppelman, Mr. sowers stated that the applicant has an option to purchase the subject property. Hr. Somorn stated that the proposed development will be constructed away from the slope, and he described the layout of the development. In response to Commissioner Koppelman's question regarding the excavation of the slope, Mr. Scntt Crawford, I.anco Civil Cngineers, 25741 white Sands Street, Dana Point, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Crawford explained that the excavation for the project will be S feat into the natural grade. He commented that a preliminary soils investigation will be prepared if the application is approved. Mr. Crawford stated that there Es an existing report for the adjacent vacant lot which states that the slope Is very stable. Kr. Crawford cosssented that the applicant will be working with the City staff regarding drainage and improvements so that the rain water will not go over the slope. -22- INDEX CG%N &VSSkx4RS xr r 7 Z C 1n � ,S i s a Z= r 4 Z c:M oco0 o ��.. r s s M 0 April 10. 1486 • MINUTES City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL 1 I I I I 1 i I I Rix V4 Aosent Mr. Robert Blake, 1550 Bayside Drive, appeared before the Planning Cowl asion. Mr. Blake rebuked Mr. Nevicker's aforementioned statement regardinq the request for a demolition permit by stating that the garage was unsafe an4 was only used as storage ar,;ce. Mr. Blake emphatically stated that he had informd the Planning Department of the historical significance of the former hotel site. He said that he wanted to try to avoid demolishing the former hotel site. because of the historical significance. Mr. Blake pointed out that Senator Robbins' office has informed hiss that ninety days after April 15, 1986, the former hotel site would be reviewed for State Historical approval. Mr. Blake referred to a letter that he has received from supervisor Tom Riley's office, and that ha lies spoken to Robert N. Solway III, each regarding the former hotel site. Mr. Blake stated that he will have attorneys prepare a report for non-compliance of CP.QA, that he is not just interested in preservin*1 the view, but to upgrade the economical value of the property. Mr. Blake declared that he will ask the City Council for a historical overlay zone for his property, and an ordinance to protect buildings such as the former hotel. Mr. Blake rebuked several of Mr. Mewicker's aforementioned statements regarding the former hotel's operation. At this time Mr. Blake's remarks had taken the full five minutes awarded during a public hearing and he asked the Planning Comission for an additional five minutes. Commissioner Goff and Commissioner Turner informed Mr. Blake that if the requested five minutes are approved then he should only discuss how the historical value of the former hotel relates to the proposed development. Motion was made to allal Mr. Blake an additional three minutes. Motion voted on, MOTION APPROVKD. Mr. Blake vehemently comented upon the historical value of the former hotel site's impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Blake requested that the proposed application be continued for an additional two weeks to .ilia+ additional time to prepare adequate reports. Commissioner Turner asked Mr. Blake if he knew that the former hotel had any historical significance at the time Mr. Blake purchased the property? Mr. blake replied that he became aware of the historical -23- CUMl1IIi55Kx 0 April 10, 19860 MINUTE5 c a �+ s 7 I x r ~ a V c +'+ A 7 ■ i ! Z r p = _ a v ` ° i O w 7 > A 7 City of Newport Beach V1111 (_ni1 NONE I5CA significance before the escrow closed in February, 1986. Commissioner Turner askef! it Mr. Blake anticipated any problems for constru.ting a residential condow4nium project on his property? Mr. Rtake replied that the worst problem that could happen would ba to vacate the former hotel and leave the building empty for a year, and then tear the structure down, which would eliminate the requirement of replacement hounim2. Mr. Blake stated that he was aware that a project had been previously approved, and ■o he did not foresee any further problems. Discussion followed betwoon Commissioner Turner and Xr. Blake regardiM whether or not the operation is a hotel, and Mr. Alake advised that the operation is a hotel and was alwayn been a hotel. 'n response to a question posed by r'(,mmisnion,!r Y.oppelnan regarding economic obsolescence, Mr. Blake replied that the value to the cccounity to see a renovated building, or the value of any person who 11tays at the hotel known for the hotel'■ view is greatly diminished because of a structure being placed directly in said view. He cc=wnted that the lose of the view would create an economic hardship, In addition to the cost of renovating the former hotel. Commissioner Xoppeltman asked Mr. Blake if he has hired a staff to process the historical designation. Mr. Blake replied that he has hired a consultant and a local historian to write a book about the former hotel. In response to Corssissionsr Koppelnan's inquiry regarding the start of the hotel renovation, Mr. Blake replied that he was infor"d that he would he Able to begin renovation of the hotel prior to the hotel's historical designation. Discussion followed betwasn Comissioner Turner and Mr. Make regarding the legal opinions previously made by Mr. Blake's attorney to Mr. Blake, and the preparation, of that opinion. Commissioner Xurlander advised Mr. Blake that a tuilding of the requested height and greater mass could is constructed on the subject prcVerty without any discretionary review, and he opined that the issue is whether to construct a condominium develoment or apartments on the subject property. Mr. Blake replied that he will be asking the City Council for special -24- C0N%ANSSKX4R5 XX c O n E N 7 ". r 1 E x r Q 2 _ O [ o O J. Y 7 e MIS. w RCx I f_ AU 0 April 10, 19als MINUTES City of Newport Beach protection relative to that. Commissioner Turner agreed with Commissioner Kurlander's statement. Mr. Harvey Pease, 314 Carnation Avenue, 411pa4red before the Planning Commission. Mr. Pease stated his concerns regarding the parking problem in the area. In response to a question posed by Chairman Person regarding the former hotel site as a site for motel type usage, Mr. Pease replied that his opinion has been that the area would be upgraded. Chairman Person noted that adjacent to Mr. Pease'@ property at the end of the abandoned Carnation Avenue there is not a guard rail. Mr. Pease replied that a guard rail will be installed in less than two weeks. Chairman Person comaented that this is a very dangerous conditinn. In ranponse to a question rased by Mr. Hewicker regarding the statue of Kr. Pease's private parking area, Mr. Paaeo replie(I that he im currently unable to park autovk)biles in hin two car garage because he has just recently moved into his home and the covered area is currently being used for storage. Ms. Barbara Tappan, 1007 Dolphin Terrace, appeared before the Planning Cosssiesion requesting that the subject application be denied. Ms. Tappan presented background information regarding the former hotel. she said that six years ago she researched the former hotel and discovered that the hotel was the first structure In Corona del Mar, wherein she wrote to the City Council and the Newport beach Historical Society. In reference to the staff report, she read "that this project will not have any significant environmental impact", and she noted the staff report's reference to the old Seaview Hotel. She further stated her concern regarding the two foot encroachment into tho required 10 foot front yard setback adjacent to Carnation Avenue and the impact that the encroachment could have on the parking. No. Tappan stated that the loss of view would distract from the former hotel, and she noted that CEQA must be taken into consideration. No. Tappan expanded upon the historical significance of the former hotel. Chairwyn Person asked if the Planning Commission approved or denied the subject application, would that decision affect the ability of Mr. Make to obtain historical designation on the former hotel site? Ms. Korade replied that she has not seen the view from the second story of the former hotel. She said that there -23- INDEX COMMS-V-1461 0 se n r 1 : C P1 � q ! •s s !r o s c! M o! d C sw O r, a � •• �I ! : s ! w w April 10, 19860 MINUTES of Newport Beach ROLL cAii ! 11.1 1.1 1 1 INFAX would be a need to look at the original pur(rjee of the hotel in 1905, the view corridor, and whether or not the view was an integral part of the historical setting. She pointed out that in line of the testimony and current evidence before the Planning Comission, that it would appear that the view from the hotel is not of historical significance, and so the approval of the subject residential condominiun wrrald not affect the ability of the former hotel to receive a historical designation. She pointed out that the view has changed during the past 80 years, and the area is currently zoned R-3. She noted that the view Pay now be impacted now from the second floor, and since there has been a gradual eroding of view over the yeers that the historical attributes of that view at this time are questionable. Mr. Ian Somers reappeared before ttie Planning Commission. Mr. Somers responded to prriioua testimony by Stating that the proposed project would not detrimentally impact the former hotel; that the current zoning allows for the proposed structure to have a second story; that the height of the proposed residential condominium project would be an additional seven to eight feet above the existing structure on the site; that the eight covered parking spaces provided are two more parking spaces than ghat is required by the City, and in addition to the eight parking spaces, four parking spaces will be allowed in the driveway; and that the two foot •neroachm4nt includes a pot shelf which is an architectural feature. Mr. Somers stated that the R-3 zoning peraLits ten units to be built on the site, and the proposed development includes only four units. Mr. Robert Blake reappeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Blake asked that the Planning Commission continue this item for an additional two weeks so that his attorney may have an opportunity to properly study and determine the subject application. Ms. Pat Hug, Park Newport, Newport Beach, appeared before the Planning commission, as a somber of several historical societies. MS. Hug recoearended that Mr. Blake's request for a continuation be approved so as to give Mr. Blake an opportunity to make a comprehensive presentation. -26- COAAMSSOr I • April 18, 1986 0 MItiLff ES ss �o - • ► y w IR i C M JO s • a • i ► d Y ti • oa: 0 a O w r ci ■ i a FJOU CAU ri)tioli M Mr. Ian sosser Coia01on. Mr. continuation, an diligent working all of the zoning sm f � T ■ d reappeared before the Planninq Sow rs objected to a two week he stated that he has been extrewly with the staff in order to comply with requireslents. The public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Kopp* Lain corented that sht has contacted various people that Mr. slake previously referred to regarding the former hotel site. She further cosmented that she understands Ms. Korade's reluctance to say definitely whether this project would affect the historical significance of the former hotel site, because there is an "integrity of sight" criteria, and nhe Is not certain what that means in termn of Mr. filake's proposal. Commissioner Koppelman opined that there to an effort on the part of Mr. Slake to maintain and preserve something that has home integrity, and a great deal of historical significance for Corona del Mar. Cocetiesioner Koppelman made a motion to continue this iter to the April 24, 1966, planning Commission meeting to allow Mr. Blake and his advisors additional time. Commissioner Turner stated that he will not support the motion. Commissioner Turner cited that the historical designation will take a considerable amount of time. He said that he does not understand what additional information Mr. Blake will be able to bring back to the Planning Commission within two weeks other than the opinion of his attorney, and he questioned if Mr. Blake would be able to tell the Planning Commission at that time how he will achieve the historical designation. Commissioner Turner opined that without additional information to make a determination, all the Planning Commission would be doing is postponing the decision at the expense of the applicant, and that the Planning Comission is losing sight of the fact that the applicant has his rights in this matter. Cosesissioner Turner stated that the applicant is complying basically within ties guidelines, that the applicant is not asking for anything more than any other applicant has asked for in the seas general area, and Commissioner Turner opined tbAt if the Planning Cosssission chose to approve the application as written, the proposed development would not infringe upon the rights of Mr. Blake to have his property designated as a historical location. -27- INDEX .Z6— COMM6SKX,RS xx c a � a • z ! C r w Y s = r O Z �x osoo a .. 311. o Y 1 ! It_ ! _ % M KU1 L CAL • April 10, 1980 M INMES City of Nerw=t Beach Comsaissioner Goff stated that he would support the motion. He opined that the former hotel prnt,atily does have soars historical value inasmuch as the bnilldtntl is 81 years old. Comissioaer Goff pointed oijt, that his concern would be whether or not the proposed development or future developments would have any impact on the historical significance of the former hotel, and that would be the testimony he wonr1A expect in two weeks. Ch4irman Person stated that he would not support the motion. He opined that an attorney would not be able to tell the Planning Cosssiesion or any other group to two weeks or in a year whether or not the former hotel would be designated a historical buildinq kmcause that decision is suede by the State Historical ResourCea Commission before the application noes back to Washington D. C. Chairman Person stated that. Hr. Hlake contacted him regarding the subject 4pplic4tlon before Chairman Person was aware of the subject application, and urged him at that time to continue the item, and Mr. Blake had contacted hire several times since the initial contact. Chairman Person pointed out that Mr. Blake has had an opportunity to contact an attorney and have that attorney present this evening. Chairman Person opined that the request for the continuance is a detriment to the applicant. He commented that the issue as to whether or not the former hotel across the street from the proposed application is qoing to be hindered in obtaining a historical desiqnation has nothing to do with the application, and is purely one of economics, and the economic viability of that structure as it exists. Ccomissioner Winburn stated that she would support the motion. She pointed out that she has never had an application involving a historical site come up at the very last minute, and that she would like to give Mr. Blake more time to core up with additional information pertaining to the answer Ms. Korade previously gave regarding the integrity of the might as far as the view is concerned, she opined that this has to be determined at a higher level. Cosssissioner Winburn advised that she would like the information within the next two weeks. -28- INDEX /; T CUMMIS%WRS 0 MINUTES ',V)t l CALI A cs Noes Absent n14 co r � x C A s A s • s s Y r A Z 09 d 0 • o A y IN w : : as w w x Ix April 10, 19960 ity of Ne►n =t Beach Mr. Howicker informed the Planning Commission that the requested information would need to be submitted on Wednesday, April 16, 1la6, in order to be distributed to the Planning Commission on 1'riday, April 18, I946. He stated that if the information would not he distributed until the Planning Commission Meeting rat April 24, 1986, the staff would have no time to respond. Coasmissioner lcoppelman commented that maybe the Planning Commission should give Mr. Blake additional time. Ms. Korads stated that the only legal issue pertaining to this application pertains to CLQA, which is whether or not a Negative Declaration or an environmental I"a t Report is appropriate. She further stated that whether there is a pending historical designation or not on the former hotel site may impact on the decision the Planning Commission makes under CLQA. Ms. xorade advised that the sole issue is whether or not the Initial Study and Negative Declaration is appropriate. Ms. toi4rda advised that she and staff continue to feel that the Negative Declaration is appropriate. Motion was voted on to continue Use Permit No. 3194, Resubdivision No. 824, and Residential Coastal Developisisnt Permit No. 11 to the Planning Commission Meeting of April 24, 1986. WrION !AILED. In response to a statement made by Mr. Blake regarding Chairman Parson's potential conflict of interest relative to the Balboa Inn and Grisvold's, Incorporated, Ms. Korads stated that the City Attorney's office has analyzed any possible conflict of interest and has determined in advance that there is none. Coomissioner winburn stated that she would abstain from the voting on this project because she felt that the did not have sufficient evidence at hand to make an informed decision. Commissioner Koppelnan stated that she did not feel that she had sufficient information in order to make an informed decision, and she stated that she would also abstain. -19- INDEX Al . CUMMIS5KXsVZS April 10, 19860 MINUTES C a It z C on • ar a o J c z M o t 4 0 ! � OB I�� C"`,y of Ne�wmt Beach • • „ORION motion 11"1x1x1x Ryes xAbstain x Absent Cossaissioner Turner stated that he felt that he had sufficient information to make an inforund decision, and he felt that he had delved into the issue very thoroughly. Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3194, Rasubdivision No. 824, and Residential Coastal Development Permit No. 11, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit who. Motion voted on, WynoN CARRIED. Use Permit No. 3194 YINDING4t 1. That each of the proposed units has been designed as a condominiums with separate and individual utility connections. 2. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. 3. That an adequate number of on -site parking spaces will be provided for the residential condominium development. 4. The project will comply with all applicable standards, plans and toning requirements for now buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at the time of ap- proval except for minor encroachments into the required 10 foot front yard setback for two Pot shelves and a wing wall. S. That the proposed modification to permit two pot shelves and a wing wall to encroach two feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, he detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improve- ments in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modifica- tion is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. -30- .n C(_1MA%S9CWRS • April 10, 19860 MI-MAES ex c o y � r 7 f = ++ ws s s z o =,.as o w r s o A o " �`t , of Newport Beach = s = � i It �1 kULL CAII ItiDEX 6. That a Negative Declaration has been prepared and that the proposed project, as conditioned, will not have any significant environmental impact. 5. The approval of Use permit No. 3194 will not, under the circumstances of this case Im detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and vorking in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONSt 1. That development shall be in eubstantlal confor- mance with the approved plot plan, flour plans and elevations, except as noted in the rollowing conditions. 2. That all construction shall meet the requirements of Chapter 20.02 of the Municipal Code, which regulates height. 3. That the driveway entrance shall be designed to provide a slope acceptable to the Newport Beach Traffic Engineer. 4. Development of site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Department. 5. That a grading plan, if required, shall Include a complete plan for temporary and perssanunt drainage facilities, to miniaite any potential Impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 6. 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. 7. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. -31- �9 COMMS510%4RS 7iz i 9 Y w +� O h j w Y) j Ta i R A nOU CAI 0 April 10, 190610 City of Newvort Beach 8. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based an recosseendatione of a soil engineer and an angi- nearing geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of tale "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard site sheets shall be furnished to the Building Depart- ment. 9. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. 10, on-site drainage facilities shall b•r Installed as required by the Building and/or Public Works Departments. 11. That all conditions of approval of kasubdivislon No. 624 shall be fulfilled. 12. That two garage spaces (including one tandtm space) shall be provided for each dwelling unit at all times. 13. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Such Municipal Code. Aesubdivision No. 824 FINDINGSt 1. That the asap swats the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances Of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no Problems from a planning standpoint, 3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed Lprovgmnts will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivi- sion. WARES INDEX -32- 3a C COMM3SSKDtARS X : „ 22 • s r 7 +� s+s � Xr O I c it u fl[ o 0 a w O w a n : a x a i 14 w RCU CAII QV of CONDITIONSr April 10, 1986 0 t Beach 1. That a parcel slap shall be recorded. 2. That all Improvements be constructed as requirod by ordinance and the Public works Department. 3. That arrangements be made with the Public Worka Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a build- inq perwit prior to completion of the public lepravements. 4. That each duelling unit be served with an indi- vidual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer eystaas unlons otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 5. That curb, gutter, pavment and a 5 foot sidewalk be constructed along the abandoned Carnation Avenue frontage, and that the curb grades be approved by the Public works Department. Roadway width shall be 15 feet from center line to top of cu rb . b. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. Coastal Residential Development Pernit Ro. 11 FINDINGS[ 1. That a feasibility analysis has been performed which has indicated that it is not feasible to provide affordable houminq on or off -sits in conjunction with the proposed development. 2. That the proposed development has met the require- Mnts of City Council Policy P-1. -33- MIKES INDEX 0 J/ CormAMSS x s s. : y ! ► ! M = C M s ,» Z City Of ii o �r ROLL CALI April 10, 19860 W"AME$ t Beac:h CO$M I TIDY: I. That all conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 3194 and Resubdivision No. 824 be met. e Planning Commission recessed at 9:25 p.m. and convened at 9:40 p.m. yarianck No. 1128 (Public Heart Request t Permit the construction of a single family dwelling o property located in the R-1 Aistrict which exceeds 1.s lsses the buildable area of the mite. The proposal als includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a corner of a pot shelf on the second floor of structure to encroach 6 inches into the required S f t front yard setback and to allow a single car carport n the front one half of the lot. WCATION: Lot 3 d a portion of Lot 11, Block A32, ona del Mar Tract, located at 2618 Co Street, on the northeasterly side of a Street, between rernleaf Avenue and improved Dahlia Avenue, in China Cove. ZONE: R-1 APPLIMITS: Ernest and Donna �Chroeder, Corona del Mar OWNLRs Sane as applicant The public hearing was opened in con tion with this items, and Mr. Brian Jeannette, 470 N rt Boulevard, Newport Beach, appeared before the plann Commission, on behalf of the applicants. Mr. Jeannet stated that the proposed single fas:ily structure consi of 2,700 square feet of total buildable area. Mr. eannette pointed out that because of the lack of parki within the China Cove area that the applicants are r eating a third parking space in the front one half of t fat. Mr. Jeannette stated that the applicant agrees wl the findings and conditions contained in Exhibit "A". -34- INDEX Iten No.7 v112a A .raved 3.21 • Planning Commission Meng April 10, 1986 Agenda Item No. 6 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Use Permit No. 3194 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a four unit residential condominium project and related garages on property located in the R-3 district. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow two proposed, second floor pot shelves and a wing wall to encroach 2 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback, and the acceptance of an envirion- mental document. AND B. Resubdivision No. 824 {Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide an existing lot into a ntrigle parcel of land for residential condominium purrinon on property located in the R-3 District. AND C. Residential Coastal Develo xwf:nt Permit No. 11 (discussion) Request to consider a Residential Coastal Development Permit for the purpose of establishing project compli- ance for a four unit residential condominium develop- ment 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 Block D. Corona del Mar Tract, located at 307 Carnation Avenue, on the northwesterly side of Carnation Avenue between Snaview Avenue and Rayside Drive, in Corona del star. ZONE r APPLICANT: OWNERS: LNG INFER: R-3 Soarers and Associates, Corona del Mar R. Curtis and Joan L. Crooke, Corona del Mar Lanco Civil Engineers, Newport Reach It TO: POing Commission -2. 0 Application These applications involve requests for the approval of: 1. A use permit to allow the construction of a four unit condominium and related garages on property located in the R-3 District; 2. The resubdivision of an existing lot into a single parcel of land for residential condominium purposrs; 3. A modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow tw,) necand floor pot shelves and a wing wall to encroach 2 failt into the required 10 foot front yard setback; and 4. A Coastal Residential Development Permit. In accordance with Section 20.73.015 of the Newport Beach l4unicipnl Crxle, condominium projects may be permitted in any reni(If,ritiai din- trlct, subject to the approval of a use permit in en("-h cnfus. llse permit procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.5U of thn Municipal Code. Section 19.10.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that a parcel map (rPsuWivision) shall be required for all nubdivisions creating four or fewer residential condominium units. W!"libdivision procedures are outlined in Section 19.12.040 of the Municipal Code. modification procedures are net forth in Chapter 20.91 of the Munici- pal Code, and Coastal Residential Development Permit procedures are outlined in City Council Policy P-1. Environmental Significance After an Initial study, it has been determined that this project will not have any significant environmental impact. A Negative Declaration has been prepared, and is attached for Commission review, Conformance with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the adopted focal coastal Program, Land Use Plan designate the site for 'Multiple Family -kent- dential" uses. The proposed development falls within the uses permit- ted. Subject PropertX and Surrounding Land Use The subject property is occupied by a single family residence. Property to the north is currently vacantl to the east, across 4ban- doned Carnation Avenue is the old Seaview Hotel: to the south, is a single family residence; and to the west, across Hayside Place, (a private street), are additional residences. 3f� Tn: Pifting Comission -3. 0 Analysis The applicant proposes to remove the existing single family duelling and develop a four unit residential condominium project on the sub3oct property. rajor project characteristics are summarized an follows: Lot Size: 12,803 sq.ft. including abandoned carnation Avenue right of way 11,553 sq.ft. excludinc) abandoned Carnation Avenue right of way Number of Units: Permitted by Zonings 10 Units (12,803 sq.ft. T 1,200 sq.ft./unit in the k-3 District) Proposed: 4 Units Setbacks REQUIRED PROPOSE[) 1'rnnt 10 ft. 8 ft, (from Carn4tion Avenue right of way) Fear 10 ft. 831 ft, sides 4 ft. 4 ft. huild4ble Area: 8,955 sq.ft. Gross Structural Area Permitted: 13,283 sq.ft. excluding garages (1.5 x buildable area) Proposed: 7,603 sq.ft, excluding garages ( .86 x buildable area) 9,199 sq.ft. includinq garages (1.04 x buildable area) an Space Required: 7,056 cu.ft. Proposed: 143,0001 cu.ft. Building Height From Half of Lot Permitted: 24 foot average, 29 foot maximum Proposed: 24 foot average, 29 foot maximum (1) Pear Half of Lot Permitted: 20 foot average, 33 foot maximum Proposed: 5.5 foot average, 5.5 foot maximum (meanured from Parking grade to roof overhang) _ Required: 6 spaces (1.5 per unit), includinq 4 covered Proposed: 8 spaces (2 per unit), all within garages (1) As shown on the attached plans, the slope of the lot changes at the rear 3.75 feet of the proposed structure, resulting in the creation of another plane for purposes of calculating height. If the roof continued flat, as shown on the attached plans, that portion of the roof would exceed the City's height limit. However, the applicant has indicated that the height of that portion of the roof will be reduced in order to meet City standards. In addition, the metal TO: Paing Commission -4. i chimney caps illustrated in the attached elevations exceed the permitted height limit. Although chimneys are permitted to exceed the City's height limits in order to meet requirements of the. Uniform Building Code, the chimney caps are architectural features which are not a functional part of the chimney. Therefore, the chimney rapm will not he included an final plans. The proposed development meets all applicable development gtdndarde for the R-3 District except for the proposed encroachment into the front yard setback which is discussed below. Front Yard Setback The applicant has requested a [codification to the Zoning Code in order to permit two second floor pot shelves and a wind wall to encroach 2 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback adjacent to Carnation Avenue. These encroachments are minor architectural fea- tures, and it staff's opinion that they would not have detrimental effects of the nurroundinq neighborhood. Buildable Acreage The Newport Bench General Plan excludes areas with a slnpn rlreater than two to one from the calculation of "buildable acreage." hensity ranges are then established as follows: low density ---------- 0 to 4 dwelling units per buildable acre two family ---------- no density range medium density ---------- 4 to 10 dwelling units per buildable acre multi -family ---------- 10 to 15 dwelling units per buildable: acre In the approval of major P-C Development Plans and subdivisions in the newer areas of the City, these density classifications have been used to determine the Jm rmitted number of residential units. This density classification system does not lend itself well to applications in the older areas of the City. The City's traditional Zoning classification allows the following approximate densities: R-1-------- 9 dwelling units per buildable acre R-1.5-------- 18 to 44 dwelling units per buildable acre R-2 -------- 18 to 44 dwelling units per buildable acre R-3-------- 27 to 36 dwelling units per buildable acre R-4-------- 36 to 54 dwelling units per buildable acre As can be seen above, these Zoning Code densities do not correspond to the General Plan density classification system. In addition, the definition of "buildable area" contained in Section 20.87.05o of the Municipal Code does not exclude slope areas. The "buildable acreage" criterion deleting slope areas greater than 2:1 has not been applied by the City in cases where property is already subdivided and zoned using the R-1 through R-4 system. Specific examples include approvals of Use permits No. 2059, 2089, and 3033 for residential condominium development of 311 Carnation Avenue which is immediately north of the project site, 3� T0: Ping Commission -5. 10 Since the property in questions is zoned R-3 and is an existing subdivided parcel which would allow 10 units, staff does Mt !suJyezt the application of the buildable acreage criteria. Location of Structures on Bluffs Regulations and policies governing the location of structures on bluffs are found in a number of locationsr MUNICIPAL CODEi Section 20.15.080 was added to then Municipal Code by Ordinance No. 1798, adopted by the City Council on March 26, 1979. This was one of the City's earliest attempts at bluff -top development and applies only to the three Planned Coci unity areas designated as Weatbay, Castaways and Newporter North, and the Downcoast Sphere of Influence. The term "bluff" as used in this section is any landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (50% or greater) with a rise of twenty-five feet or greater. .P.NERAL PiAN3 During the Cenernl Plan hearings conducted in 1979 and 1980, policies were aeAed to the Land Use Ele"r,t regardinel "U)cation of Structures," The Policy reads: "In the discretionary review of Prolects, no struct+irer, shall be built in the following sensitive areas, at, de- termined by the Planning Commission or City Council: 1. Envirnnrentally-sensitive habitat areas 2. Coastal bluffs 3. Bluff -top setback areas 4. Riparian areas 5. Geologic hazard areas 6. Residential development areas impacted by noise levels of 65 CHEL or greater 7. Flood plain areas 8. Natural slope areas greater than two to one (2:1) and greater than twenty-five feet high." LOCAL COASTAL PR0GRAM: The Development Policies and Land Uso Plan of the Local Coastal Program similarly addresses development in they eight sensitive areas listed above. However, it makes a distinction between a liuited number of regulations (la. thrnugh Id., Pagers 24 and 25) which apply to all building sites and 2n. through 2f., Pages 25 through 27, which apply to new tracts and subdivisions (see attached pages from the LCP). In conjunction with their consideration of the proposed development at 311 Carnation Avenue, it was the opinion of the Planning Commission and the City Council that the northerly facing slope facing Aayside Drive was not a part of any particular coastal bluff system. The southwesterly facing slope could be considered part of a coastal bluff system. However, staff does not consider this site in its present state to be a natural slope formation, Although a portion of this site contains areas which exceed a 21l slope and appear to be in a natural state, the parcel has been subject to substantial man-made TO P]Ginq Coamission -6. • alterations, including the construction of Bayside Drive and Bayside Place, the installation of drainage and sewer improvements, the extension of Carnation Avenue, and the construction of the existing single-family dwelling and garage on the site. In any case, no development is proposed on that portion of the site where slopes exceed two to one. Carnation Avenue The abandoned Carnation Avenue right of way provides access to the subject property and to other lots northerly of the site. it is recommended that Carnation Avenue be maintained at private street standards and that curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and paveout be constructed at the easterly edge of the site. Coastal Residential Development Permit Inasmuch as the proposed development is located within the Coastal Zone and contains more than two dwelling units, the applicant must comply with Council Policy P-1 which requires the inclusion of low or moderate income housing in the Coastal zone, whero f+sasihle. As indicated in the attached feasibility analysis performed by Tarantallo and Company, it would not be feasible to develop a low or mrA,!rate income housing unit either on -site or off -site in conjunction with the development of the proposed project. staff therefore recommends that no affordable units be required. Driveway Grade The City Traffic Engineer has expressed a concern that the driveway grade be designed to provide an adequate upslope to prevent street drainage from entering the garage while allowing for a transition area and shallow enough slope to prevent cars from scraping bottom as they go down into the garage, The project architect has met with the Traffic engineer, and has indicated that final plans will be designed to meet his concern. Views A letter has been submitted by Robert Blake, the owner of the 5eavier Hotel, expressing his concern as to how the proposed condominium may affect the view from his property. The City's Local Coastal Program does contain policies regarding preservation of coastal views, liowever, these policies are directed toward the preservation of public views from locations such as public streets. The hotel owner has indicated that he is particularly concerned due to the historic character of the hotel, located at 2500 Seaview Drive. As indicated in the materials submitted by Mr. Blake, the hotel was built in 1905 and was originally called the Corona del Mar hotel. Additional historical information is included in the attached letter. The hotel is not currently registered as an historical place, although Mr. Blake has indicated that it is his intention to make application to the State for landmark status. The State historical Preservation Office has indicated that inclusion of a structure in the Register of 3 TOs Pl&ng Commission -7. 9 Historic Places confers no obligation on surrounding prq*rty owners to maintain views from or of an historic place. While the City slight wish to make special provision for preservation of public vie-os toward visual landmarks in the City, the existing hotel is not a prcainent visual landmark of the nature of, may, the Balboa Pavilion or Newport Harbor High School, which are highly visible and could to readily identified by most local residents. In any case, City Council polio A -IS, Places of Historical and Architectural Significance, does not address views. Building Department records indicate that in 1950 and its 1954 al- terations and additions were permitted to the hotel, including a small garage structure on the site. An apartment building gradually eiolved from the original hotel, and City records indicated that the hotel was functioning as a 19 unit apartment building in 1980. on September 4, 1980, the Planning Commission approved (6 Ayes, 1 No), Use Permit No. 1948 and Resubdivision No. 666 which would have permit- ted the construction of a 6 unit condominium on the hotel site. on September 22, 1980, a motion was made for City Council review of this approval, which motion failed (3 Ayes, 4 Noes), and the use permit was permitted to stand. Staff was, however, directed to prepare informa- tion regarding tho abandoned Carnation Avenue right of way for further discussion. on April 13, 1981, the California Coastal Commission approved, on the Consent Calendar, Permit No. P-81-7668, which provided far the demoli- tion of a "20 unit apartment structure and related garage," and construction of a 6 unit condominiums. The approval was subject to the condition that one housing unit be rented for no more than that amount permitted for rent subsidy under Section 6 of the Federal Housing Act of 1937 or sold for no more than 24 times the median inctme for the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area which includes Newport Beach. The unit could be provided on -site or elsewhere in the City's Coastal Zone. In addition, the developer vas required to deposit into a housing fund an amount equal to 6 percent of the market price of all the units in the development. On March 4, 2982, the Planning Commission approved a 2 year extension of the resubdivision approval. However, the zoning Code makes no provision for the extension of use permits, and because no con- struction was commenced within 2 years of the original approval, Use Permit No. 1984 expired on September 26, 1982. Should a new application for condominiums at 2500 Seaview Drive be made, compliance with existing City policy, including City Council Policy P-1, would be required. Council Policy P-1 regulates residen- tial demolition and constructions it includes guidelines for the provision and preservation of tar and moderate income housing. The hotel owner has, however, indicated that he wishes to preserve the existing structure at 2500 Sesview Drive for hotel use. 3q TVs plaing Comission -8. • Specific Findings and Recoemendations Section 20.80.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal code proviclen that in order to grant any use permit, the Planning Commission shall find that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, corals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to prnperty and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. In addition, Section 20.73.025 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code also provides that the Planning Commission shall make specific find- ings in order to approve a use permit for a condominium projects and Section 19.12.020 (D) provides that the Commission shall make specific findings in order to approve a resubdivision. Staff recommends the approval of this request and suggests that the Planning Commission take such action, subject to the findings and conditions as sot forth in Exhibit "A" attached. Pl"iING DFPARTMEtr' JtxES D. HEWICKER, Director r B Sandra L. Genie Associate Planner SLCrla UP35 Attachments: Exhibit "A" Vicinity Map Negative Declaration Excerpt of the Local coastal Program Development Policies Affordable Housing Feasibility Analysis Letter from Robert Blake, dated March 31, 1986 Plot Plan, Floor Plans, and Elevations Tentative Parcel Flap 40 T03 Paing Comsission -9. 0 EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR USE PERMIT NO. 3194, RESUSDIVISION NO. 824 AND COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPKENT PERMIT 90. 11 Use Permit No. 3194 FINDINGSi 1. That each of the proposed units has been designed as a condominium with separate and individual utility connections. 2. The project is consistent with tha 4(10pted goals and policies of the General Plan awl the local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. 3. That an adequate number of on -site parking spaces will be provided for the residential condominium development. 4. The project will comply with all applicable standards, plans and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at the time of ap- proval except for minor encroachments into the required 10 foot front yard setback for two pot shelves and a wing wall. S. That the proposed modification to permit two pot shelves and a wing wall to encroach 2 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improve- ments in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modifica- tion is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Cade. 6. That A ltegative Declaration has been prepared and that the proposed project, as conditioned, will not have any significant environmental impact. TO Plaing Commission -10. • S. The approval of Use Permit No. 3194 will not, under the circumstances of this cane bt detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, murals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrisshntal or injurious to property and iaprovemento in the neighborhood or the general welfare of tho City. COMITIOHSe 1. That development shall be in substantial crinfor- mance with the approved plot plan, floor p14r,R and elevations, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. That all construction shall meet the roquire2 nts of Chapter 24.02 of the Municipal Coda, which regulates height. 3. That the driveway entrance shall he 41e+eigned t�i, provide a slope acceptable to the fiawlbort Bead^. Traffic engineer. 4. Development of site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Department. S. That a grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to niniaize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 6. 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. 7. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. S. That grading shall be conducted in accordance With plans prepared by a Civil rngineer and based on recoismendations of a soil engineer and an engi- neering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Quilt" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Depart- ment, . TO° P&inq Cesmrission -11. . 9. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. 10. On -site drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Building and/or Public works Departments. 11. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivininn Mo. 824 shall be fulfilled. 12. That two garage spaces (including one tandem space) shall be provided for each dwelling unit at all times. 13. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Resubdivision no. 824 FINDINGS= 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the X*wport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific Plans and the planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed isiprovements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivi- sion. COND ITIOUS s 1. That a parcel map shall be recorded. 2. That all iaproveaents be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public :forks Department. 3. That arrangments be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory COOP"tion of the public isprovemonts, if it is desired to record ing a parcel map or obtain a build- permit prior iapr veiments. to completion of the public TOr PlOing Commission -12. 1* 4. That each dwelling unit be served with an indi- vidual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systews unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 5. That curb, gutter, pavement and a 5 toot nidownik be constructed along the abandoned Cnrnntion Avenue frontage, and that the Curb grAdan he approved by the Public Works Department. Ar,adway width shall be 15 feet from center line to top of curb. 6. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of tho 1Ate of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. Coastal Residential Develo nt Permit No. 11 FINDINC5t 1. That a feasibility analysis has keen performed Which has indicated that it is not feasible to provide affordable housing on or off -site in conjunction with the proposed development. 2. That the proposed development has met the recrsire- ments of City Council Policy P-1. CONDITIONi 1. That all conditions of approval of use permit No. 3194 and Resubdivision No. 824 be met. si VICIRIT4 MAF* �cxt w tat JIt wl4r AO. �1 DISTRICTING NEWPORT BEACH - C bell" O" M"41011M `t low f8mv issipslt}ftt Rw--f svt►/ t numorr" ftp% LL&MA Fow tasovvo M MAP A1LIFORN m-lifts isMisoify 6+48r carracw SPAW fte" tok"W14s � in ac is. USE PERMIT NO,3174/ RE505. NO. ?gPy C.R,bo?. No, tl . CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768. NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92658-891 S NEGATIVE DECLARATION Tos Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street; Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 FCounty Clerk of the County of Orange P.O. Sox 836 Santa Ana, Cif 92702 FROM, Planning Del+irtmQnt City of tleuTAut bunch P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 NAME OF PROJECTi Use Permit No. 3194 PROJECT LOCATIONt 307 Carnation Avenue. Corona del Mar, Ca 92625 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of a four unit condominium with related garage space. FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaininy 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: See attached initial study INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BYs The City of Newport Beach INITIAL. STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: 3300 Newport Boulevard. Newport Beach, CA Environmental Coordinator DATE: April 1, 1986 3300 NmWrt Boulevard, Ntwport Btach Date Filed AfFMIX H b 1romfttal InforaLtion Fora (TO be completed by. applicant) KX 1. ]iine and address ot developer or project sponsor: SOMERS AND ASSOGL US, 1111 saYLide priv�&Juite 2$0. Goronn ste L !law. CA 92625 2. Address or prof es t t u , Aseessoe's mock and Lot 3. Names address, mW telephone number of person to be contacted ' QoMernilt this projeett Ian F. Somers Mar . b. Indicate maber of the permit application for the project to which thin form pertaino:.lI,e n.rmir AnnIfiltinn 13�44 R b too Laos • s o r related persita and other public approvals required lout is ptroltet, 1nclt:d1n6 those required by citye rwonals state, and federal agencies: 6. Lxlstini sonini "strict: . ?posed use or site (Project tor -which this . form is filed): r our 4 unit ramidaatial eondowinium and related naraAAs. FRW nZ a 09=IMOw � � ^y _ter $. site, size. 9. square rootage. . 10. thumber or floors or construction. U . Amount or off-street parking provided. 12. Attach plans. 11. Proposed scheduling. 14. Associated projects. IS. Anticipated inert"ntal development. • H2 16. If residential, include the rAmber•of units, schedule of unit also*, range of Sala prices cr rents, end type of hausehald rise expected. 17. If commercials indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or Malonally oriented* square footage of face] Iles.loading salsa area, and 18. Ir Industrial, indicate trps, estlsated eaploywent per shirt, and loading facilities. 19. If inatltuttonal, Indicate the rajor function, estiwated employmat per shift, eetiaated Occupancy, loading laailities, and commUty benefits to be derited from the project. 20. If the project Involves a variame, conditional use or rezoning aplipcation, state this and indicate clearly why the application required. Are the follorirg hooka applicable to the praject or its effects? Discuss below all itan chackN yes (attach additional rheet* as necessary). YfS no I . X. 21. in mdatIng. roaturss or ani bays, tidelands, beaches, T ms or hills, orsubstantiaalteration or ground contours. . X. 22. Change its scenic viers or vistas from existing residential areas or public lasds or roads. -•--- 2 Change In Pattern; scale or character or general area of project. 24. Significant aaoonts of solid waste or litter. __L 25• Change in dust, ash, moke, ruses or odors in vlclnity. x 26. Charge In ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage Patterns. X 2Y. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. 28. 51ts on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or noc•e. _jL 29. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous mates•tals, such as toxic substances, flAma bles or explosives. U3 V F i No x 30. Substantial change.in damnd for municipal Services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). 31. SubstantW ly increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, all, natural gas, etc.). 32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. EmVIROWWAL 3MIS 33. Describe the project site as Itexists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures, on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs -of the site. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. 34. Describe this surrounding properties, including Information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, cowiwrcial, ets.), intensity of laQ use (one -family, spartawnt houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale or develop want (heliht, frontage, set -back, rear yard, etc.). Attach photoeraphs of the vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photon will be accepted. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statownts furnished above &M In the attached exhibits preecl,t the data and Infor- mation required for this initial evaluation to the best or my ability, and that the facts, statenents, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and beliuf. Date March 20, 1986 Ian ezp�is Par .-BQ }ERS 1Np-AS SOC I! ATES 3 0 �J PROJECT DESCRIPTION 8. Site size. 12,803 sq. ft. 9. Square footage. Approximately 7,200 sq. ft. of floor area. 10. Number of floors of construction: About 55• of the building will be 2 floors and about 45% of the building will be 3 floors. 11. Amount of off-street parking provided. None. 12. Attach plans. Plans have been submitted to City of Newport Beach Planning Department. 13. Proposed scheduling. None. 14. Associated projects. None. 15. Anticipated incremental development. None. 16. 4 total units 2 units - 1,768 sq. ft. Projected Sales Price 6400,000 2 units - 1,825 sq. ft. Projected Sales Price $400,000 Type of household size: 2 singles or young family of 3-4. 20. bone. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 33. The project site consists of an existing single family residence on a 12,803 sq. ft. R-3 lot. From the site, there is an ocean view to the west and a view of Newport Hay to the northwest. Please see the topographic survey provided for a description of the topography of the site, and for the relative location of the existing structure on the site. • • 34. The area surrounding the site is exclusively residential and consists of a combination of multi -family and single family residences. There are a number of two, three, and four-plex buildings as well as a small apartmant building in the immediate area. This area has been zonod R-2 and R-3 by the City of Newport Beach and typical development along Carnation Avenue is one and two story wood frame construction. S ' /►CIS I tITMOMNIRAL CIRMIST TO*M Lnriroasestal Checklist tors (To is CmPleted by Load Ardency) I. SackSroUTA /} 1. Wise of propose a t 2. Address add Pb we Po0or of h seat 1 ! 2. bate of Checklist Oel.iaelon r1.L'a p err f , 14 f 6...aw— i. Ayes►ay l oquiring Checklist � )ll +' LIA-fil, So Mauve of Fropaal. if nolLcable A00 II. [evironretat Lpects (Uplawattoss of all "yes" and %Sybe" savors are requi:ad on attached sheets.) I I I !d NAYIK Ile 1. Barth. Will the prspeel n alt ins a. Vsetable earth coalitions or in ckaeyee is sooloric eubotnctures? r. bisru}tio". disyleceuants, co.- pwctLas or evercoverisb of the soil? e. Chowe is topography or rreewd surface relief features? d. Tre destructiow, covering or .odi— ticatios of any uwiqso =oologic or physical features? a. Any face*@" in Vied er water erosion of voile, either on or off the site? f. Qua=es is deeositioe or erosion of btsch sasds. or thwos is siltation. deooeitles or aroslew Chich may sodity the channel of a river or stros■ or the red of the seeaw or any bay. islet or lake? 73 6 ' :• i iYES KAV5Z it. Expur.ure of people or prop«rey to geological hazards such as earth- ' quakrs. landsliden. mudslides. ground ' failure. or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result is: a. Substantial air emissions or detstri- oration of ambient air quality? b. the creation of objectionable odors? �.r �� ✓� c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any chaste in clieeate, either locally or regionally? ]. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water sove"ats, is either "ciao or freab raters? v` b. Changes is absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Alteratises to the course of flow of flood waters? V d. Chants in the amount of surface water �f is any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters or in any alteration of surface rater quality, including but not limited • to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ` f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? j S. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cutM or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise availatle for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards sucb as flooding or tidal waves? 74 0 7 ' • rns MAYRE IND L. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change is the diversity of species, or nw*er of any species of plants (including tress, shrubs. grass, crops. and aquatic plaate)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique. rare or sedsag" species of plants? c. Introduction of m►m species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the nomal replaaisbw t of existiag specieat d. Reduction in acreage of amp agricultural crap? S. Animal Life. Mill the proposal result is: a. Change is the diversity of species, or WAAMCa of asuy species of animals (birds, lsnd aaiaals including reptiles. fish and shellfish. baathic erxamisss. or iawects)? U. Reductios of the numbers of my unique. rare or eadaegered species of animals? c. Introduction of New species of ani- Mls into as a". m result is a barrier to the uigratiosr or ssvnent of aairalst d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Moils. Will the proposal result is: • a. Increases is existias noise levels! J b. rnposure of people to a mere noise levelaT 1. Li ht and Clare. Will the proposal produce sw light or ; are? A. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a 4� wry ataatiel alteration of the present or it planned land use of so am? is I �! MAYNF �+ 9. Z�scvral sesonrces. will the proposal result in: s. Increase in the rate of use nf any / natural resources? be Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource? .10 sink of U ast. Does tho pro opal involve a risk o an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but cot limited to, oil, poeticidsa, Chemicals or radiation) is the eremt of as sceldent or upset coaditions? H. Population Will the proposal alter the locst on, distribution, dessity, or growth rate of the lwaft populating of as area? l?. Naasin Will the proposal affect sat st ng housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. 7ransportatiam/Circulation, Will the proposal resule ia; "'.�..` a. Ceneration of substantial additional vehicular moveneet? b. =fleets on existing parking facilities, / or demand for new parkins? v C. substantial impact upon existing traetsportatioa systems= d. Alterations to proseat pattern* of circulation or movaeent of people OW/or foods? . s. Alterations to waterborne, sail or air traffic? / to Increase in traffic hazardous to rlotor vehicles, bicyclists or ` pedestrians? l4. Public tervicos. Will the propose, have an Rff:ct upon, or cesule in a need for new or altered Aovernw*ntal services in any of tow follewirt areas: J 76 f pK-L:2i • • xu MAYBE NO a, riles protection? Ill. tolice pcotectioa? C. schools? d. Parrs or other rocreatioaal facilities? to 1kioteaaec• of public facilities, iecludiog reeds? to Other ;onreisental serricesY lf. Reenry. Mill tM propeal result is: a. t1se of substantial iserate of twi or eserfy?_ b. Substantial inareaso is doo&W upon aai,tias eaurces of energy. or require the dowt1opmat of now, sources of / seder;y►t J li. Wltilities. Will tbe'rropsal. result is a wed loorawr system, or substantial alteratioee to do follmile utilitiess a. Fewer o: satursl ;aei b. Caeeairsitatiosa syste"? ✓ fi. %tar? V d. 6ower or aortic tasks? a. Storn water draisa;e? ✓ t. solid Mate sad Aieposalt v / 17. Sums Realth. Will the proposal result int a. Creative •f say health hasard or poteatial beelth basard (mmIudias aeatal health)? \i b. Sxreewce of reorte to petsatial ' Meltb baser�la? „/ 1S. /-esthetics. Will the Proposal result ii� the ��ow of say scenic viata or vier open to the public, or will the propaeal result is the creaties of an sestbettcaliyr affoosive site oleo to pablia view? , 0 r IME 19. =ecreetion, till the proposal result in an t epos the ,wlity or wastity of existies recreational eppottveities? 10. Archeological h[istorital. Mill tl�@. proposal result re r alterstion of a sipificaat arcbsolodicsl or bistarical site. structures object or bmitalml 21. ModatEZ Ttndfu a of •i tploasea. a. Was the project bare tie poteetiat to ftrade the 9sality of the onvirenment. sabstantirlly =l'o CM ►obUst of a fish or wildlife epeeiae. cause a fish or wildlife popolatiem to drop below sort-snstataing lowelse tbroetoa to eliminate a plant or arimel assswNtty, reduce the member or reetrist the raade of a Isle er esdayered plant or animal Or eliminate impertaet esawplee of dw major perieds of California bistory or prebieteryt b. Does tbs jtoject-have the potestial to achieve skeet -term, to tbs 4i"*wmtsp Of 1041-term. mils@ wtal Vale? (A short -tern impact os oho eaviroomest is one rbich occurs in a relatively brief defieitive period of time %rile lwy- to" i is will esdere poll isto the fntare. c. Uses the project have is"ets which are individually limiteds but cuov- latively crnsiderable? (A project 64Y impact on two or acre separate resources where the impact so each resource is relatively wall. but Aere the effect of the total of those impacts ON the "Wiroament Is significant.) d. Qoes the project have aeviroa.estal effects which rill cause substantial adverse effects on humm beivts. either directly or indirectly? III. Discussion of [nvironawtat rvaluatiom Il'. r>.terrinatian (To be somplets4 by the Coed Apewcy) 1d YU MAt7[ lid V i S on tbo basis of this initial eralustioa: 0 I find that the proposed project CO= NOT have a significant effect oa the emvitomr t. and a W=TIVt WCLARATION wilt be prepared. © I find that although the prapeaed project could liars a significant effect os< the eaviroareat. there will not be a siptalficant effect in this sand because the mitigation useaseres described on an attached abset bar• besuw •idea to the project. A WCATIVZ MC ARATION will be prspsred. Q I lied the proposed ps+ojeet MAT bane a significant effect on the setupirommot, and as ISVMO UL IWA T gMxT is rewired. l I ])atA for (pots: Ihis is only a suggested tore. Public ageerciao are free to devise their om format for initial etndiss.) i 14L r�7 4 60, f Implementation of the proposal may result in unstable earth conditions and changes in the topography and ground surface relief features due to the grading required for completion of the project. The effects shall be insignificant upon compliance with the mitigation measures incorporated into the project. The proposed project will add to the erosion presently occurring on the site. The slope at the roar of the site shows signs of erosion resulting from on -site drainage. As there are no drainage facilities provided, the proposed project may increase erosion, change the absorption rates, drainage patterns, and rate and amount of surface runoff due to the grading necessary for the proposal. Upon applica- tion of mitigation measures, the effects shall be insignificant. Implementation of the project may result in an increase in existing noise levels during the course of construction. Such increase in the noise level due to machinery shall be short-term effects that will be alleviated upon completion of construction, and are, therefore, insignificant. The proposed project results in a demand for new parking dua to the increase in dwelling units on -site. The project will include on -site parking facilities and the effects are, therefore, insignificant. FLT3 13 MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Development of site shall be subject to a grading Permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Department. 2. That a grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent Qrainage facilities, to minimize any potential impact.% from silt, debris, and other crater pollutants. 4. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, it 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. S. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 5. Thit grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recossendations of a soil engineer and an engi- neering geologist subsequent to the completion of a corprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the mite. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built' grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Depart- ment. S. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. 4• On -site drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Building and/or Public works Departments. PLT3 �y �0 y'•4; • 1� flushing. Since restoration projects necessarily irrrolve many uncertainties, restoration should precede the diking or filling project. At a minimum, the permit will be conditioned to assure- that restoration will occur sim 1tarmnoly with project construction. Restoratirm and vAnagement plans shall be submittal with the permit application. 7. In tion, arrf project +Which includes diking, filling or drediing of a wet estuary nut maintain the hnctional capacity of the wr:tland or estuary. oral capacity weans the ability of the wetland or estuary to be self ining and to maintain natural species diversity. In order to establish t the f:a�ctional capacity is being maintained, the applicant ra:st to all of the following: a. That the prof does not alter presently occurring plant and animal popula in the ecosystem in a manner that would impair the ility of the ecosystem; i.o., natural species diversity, and oo�osition are essentially unchanged as a result of project. b. That the project does not destroy a species or habitat that is rarer or endangered. c. That the project does no harm a ies or habitat that is essential to the natural biological oning of they wetland or estuary. f I d. That the project does not significantly eonm rptive {e.g., fishing, aquacultwre and heartting) or ive (e.g., water quality and research opportunity) val of the wetland or estuarine ecosystem. 8. If new or expanded boating facilities are to be providexd in lieM, a -ach, they shall be developed in natural harbors, protected water areas, in areas dredged from dry land. Mtrance channels for new or expanded boating facilities may be permitted in wetlands, subject to all other requirements for development in wotlands discussed in B1, B3, B4, BS, and 86 above. C. Develoa!nt of Coastal Bluff. Sites { The City of Newport Beach finds that the natural bluffs represent a significant scenic and envircxmental resource. In order to preserve these unique laniforms, don on nnts 'preporred for bluff areas shall be subject to the following regulations: 1. The following regulations apply to all building mites: a. Definition of Bluff. As used in this section, "Slu. s MW MUCem having an average slope of 26.6 degroes (UK) or greater, with a vartical rise of 25 feet or greater. / � 24 Where there is see question as to the applicability of this section to a spec.•i f is lan form, a det ndMtiCn as to whether or not the specific landfom constitutes a bluff uhnll rxt rude by the Pl mvW g casaission, consistent wilt, the purposes of this regualtian. b. G . PFe raitted developmennt shall be des1cpwi Eo ze the alteration of natural landfonns { along bluffs and cliffs. In anus of geolrxiic hazard, the City may require that a developwnt permit not be issued until an applicant has signed a waiver of all claim against the public for future liability or damage resulting fran permission to build. All mxb waivers should be recorded with the county Aeoord,er's office. C. Geologic Iort. TO pramte public safety, a 9eOlOgic study shall be perfo=ed for each site to determine areas of potential instability. 7be bluff areas of potential hazard or instri)i 1 ity shall be indicated on maps as part of any Planned Camu ity development plan. d. Height oA Structures. The !height of structures BM11—b as i ad in the Newport Beach Municipal code. 2. The following regulations apply to all new tracts and subdivisions. If development is residential in natL=, this policy will apply to new development of 4 or more hits. a. Setback PO*d "sa s t. A bluff setback adegwta to Pnwide safe public access, taking into account bluff retreat and erosion, small be providc d in all new development. As a general guideline, the Property line setback fran the edge of a bluff should be no closer to the edge of the bluff than the point at which the top of the bluff is fntereected by a lire drawn fr'= the solid toe of the bluff at an angle of 26.6 degr w to the horizontal. A greater setback distance shall be roguir+ed where warranted by geological or grourXI"ater ornditians, but in no case shall a propertY line be closer than 44 feet to the edge of a bluff. In additione no part of a proposed developrnt shall be closer than 20 feet to the bluffaide property litre. Zhis requited building setback may be ir=vased or decrossed by thQ Planrning Como issian in the review of a Proposed site plan consistent with the purpoaea of this section. • b. Public Via m. The location and design of a p ji;ect shall twice into account public view potential. c. Public 1looess and Dedication nMirementn. The location o a pxuposed project nNi l l maximize public access to the coastal bluff areas as followst 1. Public access to coastal bluff areas stall be eamu>ed through design of the local street systes and through the location of public trails and wallamys adjacent to the bluffs. I The City may require the dedication of right--of-way,, or the granting of easenents. Ttnese may be iaps%ved or not improved at the option of the City Council. 2. Areas adjacent to coastal bluffs having significant vi.aw potential shall be designated for use as vier parks or vista points consistent with parkland dediention requizenents . 3. Iand required to be dedicated for neighborhood parks, but which is intended to remain in an unisprov+ed, natural state, should be located adjacent to the bluffs; any portion of that land required to be dedicated for neighborhood parks which is intended to provide active recreational facilities may be located in the interior portions of the proposed developnnent. 4. Bluff fire areas need not be acaept©d by the City for any type of dedication. d. Subdiv_isim Desiel. In preparing a development plan, natuW9 boor areas shall not be included in develcpaent area as designated on the site plan. The design of any subdivision shall not include arrf bluff fboe or bluff edge ns part of any residential lot or building site. e. Lardsca Plans and Plan material. For the purpose or regulater conditions,, Land: cape plans for those area imvdiately adjacent to the bluffs shall incorporate native vegetation or other dro ght-r+esiatant plant material. f. Gr . Grading, cutting, and filling of natural bZ ff—faces or bluff edges zW1 be prohibitod in order to parosezve the scenic value of bluff areas, except for the purpose of performing emergesxy 26 /*7 43 f 9 • repairs, or for the installation of erosion -preventive devi s or other measures necessary to assure the stability of the bluffxs. Any plan irmlving grading of the bluff face or bluff area shall be appr+vved by the PlAnning Oanmissi.on, including such measures designod to oc) ntrol urban runoff, erosion, and grourndwat+ar aonditians. D. Archaeolc Aical,P&Isontolcgical t and Historical Resourcon +h Archa+eolagical, pnleantolcgical, and historical resources within the Coastal zone sisall be in a igated in accordance with acceptable scientific prvoedurea, and appropriate mitigation msaaurss (including testing, salvage, or pseaervat.ion) shall be adopted on a case--by-case basis in acoo %lanoe with regular City policy. { r to any developnent, archaeological, paclamtological, and f hi is resources shall be mapped and evaluated by it qualified prof . A City Council approved list of such personnel shall established, following adequately notic:od public hearings. E. Coastal Views ' Where coastal v from existing roadways exist, any development an priva within the sight lines fran the roadway shall be sited designed to maximize protection of the coastal view. psis liry is not intended to prohibit development rn any site. [. Coastal view areas: a. Ocean Boulevard, Course del. b. Eastbluff remnant c. Coast Highway near Janboree i d. Pacific Coast Highway Bridge ram r e. Castaways fran the bluff setback f. Constellation near Santiago g. Irvine between Santiago and University Dr + h. Galaxy Park t i. Ensign View Park j . Pra =tort' Point Fast k. N Street 1. 14th Street beach m. 19th Street beach 27 • • AFFORDABLE HOUSVG FEASIBIIATY ANALY513 of 307 CARNATION AVENUE Four Condominium Units CORONA DEL MAST CALIFORNIA Residential Development By: Somers and Associates Submitted Tot CrrT OF NHIIPORT BEACH March 17, 1936 Submitted By: TARANTZLLO & COMPANY 49 • • S+1b ect Property; Location. - Date: Rates of Return: Recommendations: EXECUTM SUMMARY Four unit condominium project 307 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar, California To determine feasibility of inclusion of affordable units. February 26, 1986 For Sale/Onsite For Sale/Offsite For Lease/Onsite Moderate income (30.31%) (0.78%) (90.81%) (negative) Based on the projected negative returns for each scenario, the only reasonable recom- mendation is to exclude any type of afford- able unit — onsite or of (site. «20 2 8TXr iMENT OF ASSUMPTIONS 307 Carnation Avenue (1) Project Characteristics: Number of Units Description SIZE Plan A 2 3 Bedrooms/2.5 Bathrooms 10825 Sq. Ft. Plan B 2 3 Bedrooms /3 Bathrooms 1,768 Sq. F_t. Total 4 7018d Sq. Ft. (2) Developer Contributions At the start of the project construction, It Is assumed that the developer contributes $400,000 or 25% of the total value of the project. The $4000000 is applied toward the purchase of the land. (3) Land Cost: Based on option agreement provided by Somers and Associates -- MOAN. The land for the offslte unit was projected to be $155,000. This figpare was based on the average of the five lowest Ustings or sales of parcels of land in the City of Newport Beach that would support one residential unit over the past 18 months. it is questionable that at the time of development, a parcel as inexpensive as the two lowest priced parcels would be available. Therefore, the average of the five lowest listings/sales was used. In comparison, the mean and median of the listings/sales were each nearly $600,000. (4) Construction Period: An 8-month construction period has been assumed from commencement to completion of construction, based on Information provided by Somers and Associates and construction Industry averages. (5) Construction Costs: Construction costs are assumed to be Incurred evenly over the construction per o . The direct and indirect construction cost estimated by Somers and Associates are felt to be reasonable based on construction cost estimates by contractors for similar developments and the Marshall and Swift Valuation Service. However, the more conservative estimates from Marshall and Swift were used and are as follows: Construction Costs for Four Subject Condomimiums$: $502,689 Construction Coats for One offsite Unit•: 117 498 Total Construction Costs•: iaZ�=ia . ......... *Except financing .2/ (6) Financing/Prime state; All financing terms were based on current lending industry averages. Tne rate charged on the construction loan is assumed to be 3.0 percent over the prime lending rate; the prime rate is assumed to be 9.5 percent. That construction interest for the construction period i3 assumed to be con3t3nt over 011. construction period. These monthly interest costs are oared on the previously mentioned 12.5 percent interest rate applied to the average outstandinj loan ualanee. The average outstandinj loan balance is calculated by averadinx the initial draw and the total loan amount. The monthly interest costs for the solax period are based on the same 12.5 percent Interest rate applied to the monthly out3tanding loan balance. (7) Repayment of Loan: The loan will be repaid as the units are sold. (8) Absor Lion: An absorption rate of one unit per two months has been estimated by �n�a e'"�rs. and Associates. This absorption rate means one unit will oe absorbed In two months, another In four months, another in six months, and the last unit in eight months. This can be interpreted as an average absorption period of 5 months for each unit, since marketing will be for all of the units available, not one at a time. A review of the active listings and avera a days on the market prior to sales for residences In District 12 (Corona del Marl shows an absorption averaging 11�1.-137 days or 4-5 months. Assuming the five month average absorption period, a projection of one unit per two months is in order. It is assumed that the affordable unit will be absorbed first. Marketing will begin one month prior to the completion of construction and the first unit will sell two months later, or In the ninth month after commencement of construction. (9) PriciES of Condominiums: Pricing of the condominiums was based upon projected sa es supplied Somers and associates. No appraisal of the proposed development units was made available to Tarantello do Company, however, active brokers in the Corona del Mar area felt the projected pricing might be reasonable. Plan A $400,000/unit x 2 units = $ 8001000 Plan B $400,000/unit x 2 units = $ 8000000 Total Sales Revenue without Offslte Unit: $1 600 000 Offsite Unit $272,498 x 1 unit = $ 272,498 Total Sales Revenue with Offsite Unit: $1,872,498 its) Affordable Unit Prici : The affordable unit was considered to realace Plim A (Unit no) in all scenarios. Affordable unit pricing ,was based upon information provided by Craig T. Bluell, Senior Planner, City of Newport Beach. Because the designated affordable unit is a 3-bedroom condominium, the income level for a 6- person household was considered relevant for potential occupancy. Based upon the information provided, a maximum of 3-times a household's gross Income may be applied towards the price of housing. The resulting Affordaole Unit Pricing used is as follows: ONE MODERATEANCOME UNIT: 3 x $47,5000 = $142,500 $47,500 is the moderate -income level for a 6-person family living in Orange County to V;)a IL • 4 (11) Affordable Rental Ratex Affordable rental rates were based upon allowable mont y expense Information provided by Craig T. Bluell, Senior Planner, City of Newport Beach. Based upon the information provided, a maximum of 30 percent of a households gross income may be applied toward housing rent. The figure for a six person household is as folio-ws; ONE NIODERATE-INCOME UNIT: 0.30 x 1/12 x $47,300 = 31,167/mo. (11) Suality of Off -Site Affordable Units The offsite affordable unit is assumed to have good "qua quality class "DO comtruMoon and the amenities typically associated with good quality units. The offsite affordable unit will be of lower overall quality than the Subject units and will not be as extensive as the Subject units. In order to conform to neighborhood standards the quality of the offsite unit would be good rather than average. Construction Coats Land Cost $155000 Total Construction Coats 117,498 TOTAL COSTS $272,498 Absorption: It has been assumed that the off -site unit will be purchased when the first unit is purchased, or in the ninth month after commencement of construction. (13) Annual Cash Flow: The estimated annual cash now from renting the affordable unit Incorporates the following annual expenses: TAXES $4,167 (1.04186%) (total value) INSURANCE 381 ($0.23/$100 of 85% of replacement EXPENSES (maintenance, repair and value of improvements) reserves) 4,000 (1% of total value) SUBTOTAL $8,548 DEBT SERVICE 40,983_ (12.5% 30 yr., 80-16 LTVR) TOTAL $49,531 Per unit Annual Cash Floo (Renting For 10 Yaars) MODERATE -INCOME: 41,181 X 12) - $49031 = ($35,287) (14) Residual Value: The residual value of an affordable unit at the end of the 10th year is based upon an annual 5 percent appreciation factor less the remaining loan balance at the end of the tenth year. 4400,000) x (1.0510) : $6511,558 Remaining Loan Balance 300,599 Residual Value $350,959 ..5 (15) Present Value of Rental Unit: The present value of the rental unit is (negative) ;90,348 . The present value of the rental unit is based on the $350,959 residual value in ten years, the negative annual cash now of (;35,287) for ten years, and it 13% internal rate of return. This figure, when added to the final unit sale of $400,000 leaves a $309,654 gross sale entry. .2y *10 . , t'V . 6 RES1DENTIA[, KARKET ACTIMY The following pages include summaries of residential activity broken down by size, type of home, area, listings and stress. This information is included marely to offer an overview of the residential market as a whole and specifically threw bedroom condominiums in the Corona del Mar area. 7 SUMMARY OF RERDENTUL MARKET ACTIVrI'Y (As of January 7, 1986) AnMe Sales Price Since Last Since Last G.---tgory Cow Book ListLM Book Year to -Date By Size 2 Bedrooms or less $158,000 $113,000 $137,,i00 3 Bedrooms 208,000 164,200 205,400 All Residential 231,100 204,800 244,100 By Area District 12 W9,000 $353,000 $405,700 All Residential 231,'!00 204,800 244,100 Average Days on Market 2 B:drooms or 1" 101) B7 93 3 S:drooms 81; 92 87 All Residential 9 ; 89 94 a area Dis Act 12 111) 127 112 All Residential 9 , gg 94 Active lAstinp AmW Average i,lsti mice RM On Market III. size 2 B,.-drooms or less $201,900 102 3 B:droo:ns 3730200 110 All Resident.al 453,900 113 B lrea DW rict 12 $6111500 137 All :Residential 45 3,900 t13 Sou-ces MW - Volume 2 Wanwiry 10, i986); Newport Harbor - Costa 34esa Boer od of Res hors • • S SUMMARY OF CURRENT 3 BEDROOM LISTINGS (As of .lawary 79 1966) DISTRICT NO. 11 — SOUTH OF PACIFIC COAST HWY. Ookooma/ Square Idating Price Per ADDRESS Baths Feet Price mWe Foot 510.5 Poinsettla Ave. 3/2 1,367 $260,000 $190 3 Jetty Drive 3/2.5 - 344,500 - 45 Jasmine Creek Dr. 3/2 - 345,000 - 16 Jetty Drive 3/2 - 345,000 - 35 whitewater 3/2 - 349,000 - 314 Jasmine Drive 3/3.5 - 350,000 - 312 Jasmine Drive 3/3.5 2,150 350,000 $163 133 Jasmine Drive 3/2.5 2,275 357,500 $157 19 whitewater 3/2.5 - 375,000 - 5 Jetty Drive 3/2.5 - 377,500 - 30 Mainsail Drive 3/2.5 - 384,000 - 21 Shoal Drive 3/2.5 2,550 395,000 $155 14 Barrier Reef 3/2.5 - 420,000 - 17 Beachcomber Dr. 3/2 - 575,000 Average $3731393 3ourcet Multiple Listing Book - Volume 2 (January 10, 1986); Newport Harbor/Costa Mesa Board of Realtors v27 • • 9 SUMMARY OF RECHNT SAIM OF 3 BEDROOM CONDOMINIUMS (AS OF JANUARY 7, INQ DWRICT NO. 12 -- SOUTH OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY Bedrooms/ Listing Sales ADDRESS Baths Price Price Date of We 4 Whitewater 3/2.5 $3320000 $300,000 0/30/84 33 Hainsall 3/2.5 299,000 285,000 9/15/84 28 Whltewater 3/2 355,000 3259000 9/15/84 32 Mainsail 3/2.5 429,000 375,000 9/29/84 11 Seaf aring 3/2 335,000 305,000 11/14/84 7 Jetty Drive 3/2 369,500 359,750 11/14/84 12 Skysail 3/2.5 325,000 290,000 1/11/85 407 Poppy Avenue 3/2.5 235,000 225,000 1/30/85 14 Barrier Reef 3/2.5 3890000 375,000 3/3/35 1 i Stoll 3/2 335,000 315,000 7/3/85 i Jasmine Creek 3/2.5 415,000 395,000 7/30/85 35 skysail 3/2.5 365,000 355,000 8/29/85 23 Canyon Crest 3/2.5 215,000 204,000 9/17/85 6 Small 3/2 419,000 385,000 11/11/65 AVERAGE $344,107 $320,982 Sources: Multiple Listing Book - Volume 2 (January 10, 1986)1 Newport Harbor/Costa Mesa Board of Realtors Multiple Listing Book - Volume 24 (June 14, 1985)1 Newport ElurSor/Cost© Mesa Board of Realtors Multiple Listing Book - Volume 52 (December 28, 1984); Newport Harbor/ Costa Mesa Board of Realtors EIT-1 10 SUMMARY OF RECENT LEMN4S AND SALES OF (AS OF JANUARY 70 1996) L LOTS IN Listing Sales ADDRESS mice Price Date of Sale 512 Dahlia $1920500 11/30/85 211 Evening Cyn $850,000 09/09/85 36981 Menlo 8000000 12/30/85 301 Narcissus 605,000 01/01/86 12 Rocky Pt. 995,000 11/22/85 23 Augusts Ln. 787,500 09/30/85 1 Crestwood D. 6951000 10/30/85 72 Hlllcrest $490000 12/01/85 1119 E. Balboa Bl. 5950000 12/08/85 1235 W. Balboa Bl. 2950000 11/01/85 5306 Neptune Ave. 1050000 10/09/85 312 Via Lido 1,500,000 12/09/85 120 24th St. 174,500 12/23/85 119 40th St. 175,000 ll/11/85 4 1i111sborough 190,000 01/14/85 16 Narbonne 439,000 05/31/85 617 Carnation 275,000 04/08/85 437 ,Morning Cyn 11000,000 05/21/85 2312 Ocean Front 350,000 01/17/85 311 Carnation 11200,000 01/09/85 3014 W. Balboa Bl. 210,000 12/07/84 220 Orange St. 128,000 11/01/84 824 Harbor island 9100000 12/01/84 1319 E. Balboa Bl. 850,000 10/24/84 17 Neppaau 5200000 11/25/84 31 Ridgeline 8100000 12/01/84 8 Sari Sebastian 325,000 11/26/84 Mean $5782722 Medlan 1$595.000 Sources: Multiple Listing Book - Volume 2 (January 10, 1386); Newport Harbor/Costa Mesa board of Realtors Multiple Listing Book - Volume 42 (October 18, 1985); Newport Harbor/Costa Mesa Board of Realtors Multiple Listing Book - Volume 24 (June 14, 1td5); Newport Haroor/Costa Mesa Board of Realtors Multiple Listing Book - Volume 6 (February 8, 1985); Newport Haroor/Costa Mesa Board of Realtors Multiple Lbtirq Book - Volume 52 (December 28, 1984}; Newport Harbor/Costa Mesa Board of Realtors u • 11 PROFORMA CASH FLOW The following pages Include the proforma cash rows for the throe scenarios regurding moderate Income housing units. The first scenario assumcs Orin unit for sale, onsite; the second assumes one unit for sale, offsite; and the third assumes one unit for lease, onsite. In each proforma the cash flows wO profit/doss) are based on the assumptions stated previously In this report. 3G mom CAN FIAT awla1 ill[ POSIMII•ICK IF111 FOR UU 1 /It1E .« titM IErELD►t1*s KtMA lr CWTIM1121 FILIK14 KV(L~ WI IAM11f I=$ IEYEL711S CDIT1IPJTE1 KWELIFU't MOM KV11"W KTl7III LW COST CATS CsiTs Gusts vM 11H1 Mt111U sacs Clial Roll Hulil EMI11 PWII IEKI31 1 an LNWs[M u W MKOM ti1MKTI■ 1III,M1 MOM suj" "lit' ib 1510,114 M AII,I31 11 11111,M11 10,111 M 2 1 N1I311 I'm 11.M 1I,1M 1 711,us 1 1 1 1 3 r I71Ili I'm 11.7m 11,7I1 1 M2,117 r r r 1 s s UJVA I,t1I 11,1i 1l,lu r 151,291 1 r r 1 1 1 47,/li I,IS2 ?I'm 11,10 "S,"R r 1 1 1 i 1 am I'm 1s,117t 11,111 1 A7,111 1 1 1 1 1 Kim amid r 47,V6 I'm 1I,1i1 II' M r Wow 1 1 r 1 I ONUTt MIMICTIM r a7,Ilb I'm 11.11I ?I,1M 1 1,41,333 1 1 r 1 I MILL elf a r 1 lt,&" II,A11 Isom l4i'm /felt? 11715M r 1 i t1 1 / I'm t,lbb t,21i 1 II1,1Si 1 r 1 r It ML dul IN / 1 t,ls2 t,ta t,ii? 40,0 SM,131 , IM,IN 1 1 1 13 • 1 / S,7t3 SIM IM 1 U1,413 I 1 1 1 tS ML sit I= r 1 3134 S.Si 3,34 111,01 111,1r1 111,111 1 1 / 14 r i low t.231 l,Is1 1 llt,tll I I i 1 Is siLL elf FM 1 1 1,2% tab I'm l7'I,t11 r 111141,11111 I1t,TS7 1 77i,117 1111114,11 M1,104 Motto! 6141,CR 11,4113,7011 01,163,141 11,11U.11/ M r1,117,lM 11171. v) 0"'"0 Mom 1111142"1 -*.$It OMMMsrms wswwaws wrsw.Mwa ss� awswswa a,ru,+s,nsw 0000 r srwwss '0 ssspsaasw www ssssssrsr sassrrww • Ilara m cMsfl FUN $CEWIj$ at laWIrt-IMM WIT IN INtt r N1rllit _.............-- _�,_._..._..._........._..� ..................__.»......_...»�.......__.....w_.�..�..._w�.......____.....__.._...__ 1NUMI'I Ntr>r v C»ri1 sXrtal FINKI■ TOTAL SW" Ifr11/1• VONK NI III on srtl ItYtl"ls WMI1NE1 u�l ar U111n Ism1► 11 umrt Iw11 rflICFIr • rrtr Itre111sit ACTIVITY UNcmL01r1 asTs 171fl l Al IrrtltAM WMl �IQ CMIKII■ II11,111 I17,373 142,131 11,N1,tb4 giN,12e � ",� M 111M,1231 1 I1i1,127 1 N 1 = 1 1r,i23 Ilom ■,tet ■,lot 1 114,631 3 l 17,3i! II,m M,fll r,lli 1 M2,1i2 l b f f l b 11,321 f1,m 0,141 r,l/l 1",111 1 4 1 s 1 n,W :I'm Motel 0,111 / M'm I 1 f 1 b 1 n,321 Il,m r,Ill ■,lot 1 I,Ml,f11 N 1 f l ? Big M11Etiia ! n,1I3 Isom•,Ill ■,101 1 / 1,la'131 l,i13,13t 1 1 I b 1 t11m t21MtI pis f 17'm b,m ",III Ii,19/ HIM ti,191 iti,lll 1ti,NA Now b 1 N 1 s1;L IMIR sit b f ti,H/ t+ 0 str R f 1 I,04 1,434 1,131 f Rt,iil I f I 1 it stllL sit rr1 f 1 1,313 11313 1,113 111,4" 33,in NMoiM 1 1 1 :i f ! 1 3,413 3,171 3,123 3,qe 11113 I 3,h1 Move Vill" f 1 W'm 61,M2 f N,N2 t3 iQl slr ran1 1 I 1 f 1 1 1 11 1 1 f b ll/,lff Is stir oil reW �111,111 IIrILs I77i,i11 .»ti24,111 11S1,1i► 11,166,143 I1,�I11,111 I1,211,111 00w0=000 400088Y00 _»� M w�MMw 11�~SMI �� iq,N31 ��f Ni1,t2! r� 1W.M2 Ii3,N11 ♦.m ��iMwr p,W/�rF� wM,M� • wevde� �AwM�IM •YAM sm"em/YN ■ Iw 1WONemrue KEWAIII Of l KUIE•14M {otr FOR LLW tlllk KKLruII KIM OF Cal TIN Fh1K1/ IEYE111wl WISTWIN fiMti KVElWU I WMII1 Q I VRDK1"f Win IEMWK1T ACTIVIST L" Cal tsar; dIn Cuts NO KMt iIIua mus (AW FUIV [slur (MITI IWIF RKEff I MR uMl KW LAW CHITIN CNIF>WI• 10,111 max& m6l" Mt/,llu all,lil M gll,tii to IIiM,M11 t+11,a11 M = / 61,Ci I'm r1,1M 11,1M a 1"A" a 1 1 1 r o 1JX6 k"I 11,10 1i'm 1 1/r,111 1 1 • 1 ! 1 1tAU 00m 1T,111 11,1II 1 n4,xl / f 1 1 1 UAS k"I 11,10 ?I,= o m1w 1 1 1 I 1 u,Ir1 I'm ?I'm ?I'm 1 mom 1 1 a 1 1 Trill! MITI■ 1 am* 1i'm 11, 1 111,ii3 1 1 1 1 1 CIWLM CISTWEN 1 aim I'm 11,1M JI'm 1 I,a71,3l3 1 1 1 1 + 1 1 10,6" II,i11 11'A" 1 1,u1,112 1 1 1 1 p 1 i 14,111 II,r11 Ii,TJ1 1 1,Mr,JU 1 1 1 1 It 13 it Kit To 1 1 "'Nu Isom 1•,Iu IM,IM fm'w IM,IM 1 1 1 I 1 14 M 64M1 1,1N 1 E0,411 1 1 1 1 a UL oil tea 1 a 119i a,11` 16Q1 IM,IM W'm I0,10 1 1 1 11 1 s 1,1i1 1,r1/ Lm a I11,Ili 1 1 1 1 13 sal,1011 FIMKII 1 1 1,111 1,111 2,113 m1m 1 la1,&u 14,113 1 11,111 MIT ME It Io TI1M1 lftt,/11 1111.M it31,111 i1,llr,llfl ll,Itr,Ml Il,l11,111 M II,IM,U/ {IIIJ,t13F 1101,114 su'lis mul'im-11.I1i .M0040f 40 wM rMMN,� �Ml.�M M 04"Wmm swmm�Y �MMM�MI ma 1� SUMMARY AND CONCLUMONS As evidenced toy the preceding Proforma Cash Flows and as summarized oeloN, the estimated rate of return under the three scenarios range between (negative) (0.78 0 Am (negative) (90.8116). As expected, the rate of return improves as an additional affordable unit is moved offsite. EW MATED SATE OF RETURN Moderate -income For Sale/Onsite (30.30% For Sale/offsite (0.78)% For Lease/Onsite (90.80% It should t>e noted that these rates of return reflect point estimates based upon a series of assumptions detailed earlier in this report. The actual rate of return achieved by the 307 Carnation Avenue development will depend upon to what degree variances from these assumptions are experienced and in what direction (l.e., positive or negative) they occur. It is the opinlon of Tarantello & Company that if variances do occur, they are more likely 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 follows: (1) a more lengthy absorption period; (2) an increase in construction costs; and (3) a reduction In achievanle sale prices. Given the risk level associated with this type of development and the afore- mentioned likely direction of any variances, it is our opinion that the only reasonable scenario is the exclusion of any affordable units — onslte or offsite. Based upon our experience and knowledge of specific develoment projects, Tarantello do Company has found that most developers would not undertake such a development without an expected rate of return of at least 50 percent on invested capital over the term of the project. 3y �� • • 16 In summstion, in a financial world where high-grade corporate bonds are yielding 8.5 percent or more, with full liquidity and no management requirement3, our mast recent experience to the evaluation of development projects for similar cllents suggests required rates of return in excess of 50 percent on invested capital over the turin of the project. It is evident that none of the previous scenarios approach this benchmark, and we strongly recommend that no affordable unit replacement be imposed upon the 307 Carnation Avenue development. 3r $ f 1560 say" Dri» Corona Del Mar, CA 92M (714) 750-5400 (313)429.60a? March 31, 1986 i�i• �t i 19$b y Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Planning Department Attn: Ms. Sandy Genis, Associate Planner 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Commissioners: By the time you receive this letter I will have already spoken to many of you. The subject of any concern relates to a use permit pending before the Planning Commission at a public hearing scheduled for April 10, 1986. The applicant for this permit is Somers Associates. The property in question is located on the bluff at 307 Carnation. A staff report is currently being prepared by Sandy of the Newport Beach Planning Department. Located on the property currently is a single family home that is in very good condition. The hove is, in my opinion, quite marketable in its current state. Therefore, I was quite surprised to find that any application for a change of use was being made or considered. The applicant. Somers Associates, does not currently own the property in question. I did attempt to contact the current owners before writing this letter. however, I am inforlmed they are in Europe until May. I therefore can only sunrise that this current application is a highly speculative attempt to profit from the property's R-3 zoning designation by a small company. There is a very strong reason why I find this particular application so distressing. The property 1s located directly across the street from the old Corona Del Mar Hotel. The hotel is a proper y which 1s owned by the entity, Blake Properties II. of which I as the sole shareholder. when I bought this building located at 25DO Seaview I will admit that I also considered the possibility,of demolition and eventual condominium use. However, soon after my purchase I was contacted by interested citizens and community groups informing ale of the importance of this property at the corner of Carnation and Seaview. As a mutter of corporate responsibility I conducted a study of the history of the site and its significance. Our findings were no less than astonishing. This same building 1s without question the first building in Corona Del Mar. In its heyday It was the location for some of the great classic films. The property over the years was frequented by the great stars and directors that built the movie industry and eventually southern California. A new addition to our list of film credits is "Spawn of the North" starring Henry Fonda, John Barrymore, Dorothy Lamour, and George Raft. 3t 0 • • Page 2 March 31, 1986 Quoting from the book "Great Movies Shot in Orange County" written by Jim Sleeper, page 58: "lie were filming an eptsode of "The Son of iarvan" (1920) and needed a primitive shoreline - p4lisaGe area where Tars = could cow ashore. lifers was no coast htgtmisy then, an arter a long drive around the head of the bay, we finally arrived at Corona Del Mar. As I reswsber, there was only cafe fram building on the headland overlooktns the harbor entrance -- a sort of tavern (the Corona Dal Mar Hotel) where our little crew put up. one shot called for a prinittve eapanse of shoreline. Just south of here you could shoot along the short as far as the lens cutild see, with no atgn of habttatton, trsnsarisalon lines, piers, bwte, ate. to mar the scene. The cliff• obscured any sign of developrunt above . . .0 Our city has changed a great deal since those days. Yet if you allow the use pe mit and construction of condominiums at 307 Carnation you will block the last view of this hotel. Not only will the hotel's guests lose their view of the bay but other longtime Newport residents will lose their view of this great old building. I have agreed with community groups not to tear down this historic structure. In addition I have agreed to spend a million dollars of my money to renovate this building and bring back its old glory. We have no intention to change one single part of the building's current facade or interior. Our plan only entails a massive upgrade. I am following this course despite the fact that my Systems Analyst informs me that our company could lose over a million dollars in revenue by doing the project in this manner. Yet, instead of receiving commendation for a fine civic act, I am insulted by the possibility of ny neighbor attempting to destroy the integrity of the area I am working so, hard to preserve. In the past month I hired the recognized county historian and author, Jim Sleeper, to write first a synopsis and then a book about the hotel. I have additionally hired the historical consultant, Diane Marsh, to process our application on the state and federal level for formal historical designation. I will also be working closely with Dr. William 0. Hendricks, director of the Sherman Foundation and Sherman Gardens. Or. Hendricks and a local resident, Barbara Tappan, are responsible for initially informing me of the great significance of this historical structure. I have also been in contact with the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences which has offered their full support and extensive film library to help detail the story of a building that I hope will become almost a museum of our local heritage. I have always had great respect for the Newport Beach Planning Commission. I believe you serve in your positions because you care about our community. I have been a resident of Newport Beach a long time and I also care about our future and aLst. We don't have a lot left of our history. I urge you to help preserve what we do have. Page 3 March 31, 1986 in summary, I ask each of you to reject the application for a use permit for 307 Carnation out of hand. This application is after all totally discretionary. If you feel you cannot on April 10. 1986 deny this application then I urge you to table this matter for a more formal hearing in May. This will give my office, consulting and legal staff a chance to prepare a strong civic and legal case against this ill-advised request. Thank you for all of your time and concern. Sincerely, !Robert B1 e President jmh P.S. Attached to this letter is a short synopsis and photos of the history of this building and area. 38 e THE OLDEST BUILDING Call it Corona del Mar Hotel, Balboa Palisades Tavern, Palisades Inn, Hotel del Mar. or what you will! These are all the same location - the corner of Carnation at Seaview, and it is the oldest structure in Corona del Marl HISTORY In 1904, George E. Hart purchased 700 acres of this oceanfront location called Palisades Hills, behind Rocky Point, from the Irvine family. He built the Corona del Mar Hotel in 1905. The hotel was called by various names, but the surrounding property Mr. Hart developed was given the original name of the hotel - Corona del Mar. with only a few exceptions, the freehold townsite he started in 1904 is the "old', Corona del Mar today. FERRY The lumber for the hotel was brought to Balboa Peninsula on the Pacific Electric Railroad and then floated across the bay to a pier. The original bay ferry went back and forth from the peninsula to this same pier for the Corona del Mar Hotel. BATHHOUSE Later the hotel was called the Balboa Palisades Club, and of which the swimmer. Duke Kahanamoku was a member. The "Duke" and actress Dorothy Mackaill dedicated the $50,000 concrete, three- story "bathhouse". It is now known as the William G. Kerchoff Marine Laboratory. ROCKY PO1KT The hotel enjoyed quite a bit of notoriety. As the hotel was located 80 feet above the bay and the ocean it commanded one of the grandest and most inspiring views in Southern California. MOVIES Movie stars, celebrities. and film makers frequented the hotel and the surrounding locations. Rocky Point and the "still water beach" off Palisades were locations for Mack Sennett's The Sea S uawwkk and Sherlock Jr., starring Buster Keaton. Far -away for the Tarzan series and the intriguing Nile in William Fox's Cleo atra.with Theda Bara, were shot an these same Corona del RaF cliffs and waters. The film crews for Sea Wolf and Sons of Tarzan often stayed at the "tavern like build a on e cliffw ch became known as The Palisades Tavern. The companies filming Monte Cristo, Captain Salvation and To Have and To Hold frequented the hotel. LEGENDS There are many legends that follow the hotel. Some of the stories include a murder, a famous poker game, and drinking after prohibition had started. The fact remains: the sarrre hotel is still standing on the Corona del Mar corner of Carna- tion and Seaview. It is now time to remember our heritage! 39 ,16 CONSOLIDATED REPROGRAPHICS MICROFILM DIVISION • CgROtiA DEL MAR---NL.k-PORT BAY 2 7 p T. lktel7.lel Afar Staled on Me Imering.ctif fs JO feel above the tide overlooAing bolh bay and ocean, and commanding one of Me grandest and most inspiring virus in Soalhem California YO Planning Commission Wrog A ril 10, 1986 Agenda Item No. 6 Addendum CITY OF NE PORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SU9JECTs Use Permit No. 3194 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a tnur unit residential condominium project and related elarages on property located in the R-3 district. Thet proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code no as to allow two proposed, second floor pot shelves and a wing wall to encroach 2 feet into the requirad 10 foot front yard setback, and the acceptance of an environ- mental document. B. Resubdivision No. 824 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide an existing lot into a single parcel of land for residential condominium purposes on Property located in the R-3 District. C. Residential Coastal Development Permit No. 11 (Discussion) Request to consider a Residential Coastal Development Permit for the purpose of establishing project compli- ance for a four unit residential condominium develop- ment pursuant to the Administrative Cuidelines for the Implementation of the State Law relative to low and moderate income housing within the Coastal Zone. LOCATIONS A portion of Block D, Corona del Mar Tract, located at 307 Carnation Avenue, on the northwesterly side of Carnation Avenue between Seaview Aven+se and Bayside Drive, in Corona del Isar. ZONES R-3 APPLICANTS Somers and Associates, Corona del Mar OWIF,PSI R. Curtis and Jean E. Crooke, Corona del Mar ENGINEERS Lances Civil Engineers, Newport Beach TO: Aing Comission -2. • The following supplemental information is provided in response to concerns that have been raised by an owner of the property located at 2500 Seaview Avenue, which is located easterly of the project site across abandoned Carnation Avenue. Existing records indicate that, on April 4, 1986, title to the property trasnferred to Blake Properties II, a Michigan Corporation, and Point Properties I, Inc., a California Corporation as tenants in cossaon with equal, 50 percent interests. Private Views Mr. Robert Blake, of Blake II Properties, has stated his concern that the proposed condominium may block the view from his property. Existing City view policies are directed toward maintenance of public views from locations such as public streets or parks. The City has not traditionally acted to preserve views from private property, including views from commercial facilities open to the public, where a proposed project meets City standards for such items as building height and bulk. It should be noted that, with no discretionary approvals whatsoever, a single family dwelling or a duplex unit could be constructed to the name height and with a larger gross structural area than the proposed condominium development. Action by the Planning Commission solely to preserve private views could set a precedent for future actions of the Commission. Historic Values Mr. Blake has protested that the view from his property must be preserved because it is an historic structure. The property at 2500 Seaview Avenue has not been accepted for listing in the Register of Historic Places at either the State or Federal level, nor, to the knowledge of City staff, has such application been made. Mr. Blake has, however, indicated that he does plan to make such application at some time in the future. In any case, personnel at the State Historic Preservation Office have indicated that there are no regulations requiring preservation of views to or from locations which are on the Register of Historic Places, Surrounding property owners are not normally constrained by registration of an adjacent site as a Historic Place. In fact, unless the owner of an Historic Place chooses to take advantage of certain grants or tax benefits for historic places, there are no constraints on the use of the actual historic sites historic structures may even be demolished. As noted in the earlier staff report for Use Permit No. 3194, the Planning Commission has previously approved redevelopment of the Seaview site. The only real effects of historic designation are certain financial benefits which may accrue to the property owner, and the waiver of certain provisions of current building codes such as requirements for handicapped access. A concern has been raised that construction of the proposed condomi- nium will alter the surrounding area, thus reducing the possibility that the property at 2500 Seaview Avenue might be registered as an Historic Place. Mr. Blake has indicated in his letter of March 31, 1996, which is attached to the earlier staff report, that the struc- ture at 2500 Seaview Avenue "to without question the first building in Corona Dal Mar (sic)." Thus, all of the surrounding structures would have been built at a later date, altering the surrounding area substantially. Ji TO: Aning Commission -3. • Among these later structures is the existing residence on the subject property at 307 Carnation Avenue for which a buildi" permit was issued in 1954. The proposed condominium would not alter the develo- ped, residential nature of the neighborhood. The subject property is not registared by the City as n place of architectural or historical significance as provided under City Council Policy A-15. While such designation mould be considered by the State in its review of any application for historic reqistratinn, this is only one of several criteria to be considered, in accordance with Section 5031 of the Public Resources Code. Any one of the other criteria, including first property of its type, association with important historical figures, and outstanding example of an architec- tural style, could be adequate to justify regiatration as an Historic Place. Local registration alone, however, is not sufficient criteria for registration. Existing Use of 2500 Seaview Avenue Applications filed for Use Permit No. 1948 and Resubdivision No. 666 in 1960, indicate that the Seaview Hotel was operating nm a multi- family residential use at that time. As discussed prevlossr)y, appro- vals have lapsed on these applications which Would have permitted the construction of a 6 unit condominium on the Seaview site, A current business license exists for operation of an apartment building at 2500 Seaview Avenue. This license will expire at the and of August, 1986 and was issued in the name of a previous owner. The firms managing the property, Savaqe, Wilde and Company, indicated that the structure was functioning as a 19 unit apartment building until February 5, 1986, when they were advised that the property had been sold and management thereof transferred to Slake Properties. Under Section 5.04.210 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, business license are nontransferr- able. No application has been shade for a business license in the name of the now owner. Neither was a request spade for a Report of Pesiden- tial Building Records when the property was sold, as required under Chapter 15.35 of the Municipal Code. Hotel Use A hotel is not a permitted use in the R-3 District. In accordance with Section 20.16.020 of the Municipal Code, a motel could be permit- ted if a use permit were approved, Under Section 20.30.035 of the Municipal Code, a motel would require one parking space per room. Were the number of units to remain the same, 19 parking spaces would be required (1 space per room x 19 rooms a 19 spaces). Under Chapter 20.83 of the Municipal Code, an existing use slay con- tinue without obtaining a use permit if such use was originally in lawful existence even though codes have since been changed. Under Section 20.83.050 of the Municipal Code, if a nonconforming use ceases for six ssonths or more, it will be considered abandoned, and current codes will henceforth apply. Although the structure was originally built as a hotel, a hotel use on the site could not be considered legal nonconforming inaswch as the site has been used as an apartment building for a number of years. TO: Poring Commission -4. • This is evidenced in the information presented above as well as the fact that the City has no record that any Uniform Transient Occupancy Tax has been remitted by the owners of the site. In addition, local telephone books list several individuals occupying various units at 2500 Seaview Avenue, and at least one resident has listed the site as a residence address in applying for a business licess. In accordance with Chapter 3.16 of the Municipal Code, the tax must be collected for any Person paying to occupy the premises for less than thirty days. City Council Poli P-1 In order to remove or alter the existing apartment use at 2500 Senvlew Avenue, a Coastal Residential Demolition or Conversion Permit must be obtained. Under City Council Policy P-1 this would be required for any change in use resulting in a reduction of more than two units from the number of units currently on a site. If the existing apartments were replaced with a new residential or non -coastal dependent use, replacement units would be required for any dwelling units currently occupied by low or moderate income tenants. Under Council Policy P-1, there are no exceptions to this rule when three or more units in one structure or more than ten units in more than one structure are removed. Thus, a potential redeveloper of the site could be required to provide up to 19 replacement units, depend- ing on the characteristics of the existing tenants. In accordance with Section 65590 of the California State Government Code, if a visitor serving facility is developed, then replacement housing is required only if feasible. overnight visitor accommo- dations, such as hotels and motels, are visitor serving uses. 'Thus, it would be possible to eliminate the apartment use for a motel use without providing replacement units. PLANKING DEPARTMENT JAtES D. HENICKER, Director Hy Sandra L. Genis Associate Planner SLG:la UP35 Attachments: Use Permit Application xo. 1948 Excerpt of the Planning Ccannission Minutes dated September 4, 1980 Staff Report of the Planning Commission Besting dated September 4, 1980 Business License Application No. 10586 USE PERMIT APPLICATION No. ! / ��•�, CITY OF NEWPORT B£I�CH Ap7 tcliCtr�n ec i by Fee: slY7.(A . a- �7,r-for Department of Community Development Zoning and Ordinance Administration Division 1100 Newport Boulevard Phone (lltl 611.2110 Applicant ( P r i n i) Vt''�� ha►,aG �dA. rvr,i' cieG�i•.p� h o n e �-�}�� t o: Y• M a i l in g Address k. Property Owner_ Dhonr Matllny Address Address of Property Involved aerd r,c4&eW f1..L 1y1aR -- Purpose of AppllCatlon (describe fully) (!) e--1 W,4W � --- - - ems. 1oneT��(a-,� ^Present use MGrJ�' Ff}MI�J' Lhgil Oescriptlon of Property Involved (If too long, attach separste %heet'l 6 #A i r�cAi4 OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT (1) (We) tT?1,`w pose and say that am we Art.)the owners ai the property es nvo depose it, application. (I) (Wafurther certify. under penalty of perjury, th,t the foregoing statements and answers hereln contained, and the Information herewith submitted are In all respects true and co nett to the bast of (my) (our) knowledge and belief. f, Stgnatura(s) MOTE: An agent •ay sign for tha owner If written authorization from the reco,d owner Is filed with the application. DO NOT COMPLETE APPLICATION BELOW THIS LINE �r Date Filed_ Ss - 7-0 fee Pd.�-4_Aeceipt I*, Hearing Oate y Rublieation Date Posting flat- /..r i, Mall Date P. C. Action f-/� i.AviL,wr, Cate Appeal C. C. Hearing C. C. Action Date ,11 CQ�t�1155K?,�tFS Oep tembe r 4. 19FIn 0 I i S OTFIL- City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL Request to construct a six -unit residential r.on- doninium project in the R-3 District. The application also requests a modificntinn to the Municipal Code so as to allow the structure to encroach 10 feet into the required 20 foot front yard setback (measured from the abandoned Carnation Avenue right-of-way). 1 ter; 4 1 3_ USE PERMI fa�TT+T3_ APPROVED C 1101 ;1'r ONALLY AND Request to create one parcel of land for resi- dential condominium purposes so as to permit the construction of a six -unit condominium project in the R-3 District, `ten �1C K"Ug- ~71 )Ioii LOCATION: Portions of Lots 2. 4, 6 b g, Block 231. Corona del Mar, and a portion of abandoned Carnation `I Avenue 1,9ca ted at 2500 Sewv i ew Avenue on the easterly corner of Seaview Avenue and Carnation Avenue in Corona del Mar. .+ __01 APPROVED C01, MWX17LY ZONE: R-3 APPLICANT: John Kirkpatrick, Dba Southern Cal Property, Santa Ana OWNER: Same as Applicant ENGINEER: Loren C. Phillips b Associates, Arcadia Agenda Items No. 13 and 14 were hear concurrently due to their relationship. Planning Director liewicker stated that the alley will not be utilized, and that there are provisions for trash facilities in the subterranpan parking structure. Mr. Bill Laycock, Current Planning Administrator noted that the architect has indi- cated that the plot plan itself is in error, and that the nine foot width requirement for the parking spaces will be met. Commissioner Thomas statrci that 19 wnit; will be a big} loss in the rental :tuck in Corona del Mar, if th I s request Is approval, Ile stated th,i t the renuil stock will drop completely if the Commission cost: to approve condominium conversions at each meetir trues . -41- C %Lk, 165 0\1 RS E EL S) KUL.L CALL ptember 4, 980 , INIJ i ES City of Newport Beach Commissioner Thomas stated that ne can understand the problems of renting, due to facanr.y rates and affordability, but people of moderate Income who work in these areas, will still need 4 place to live. He added that the Corona del Mar renters are not transient, but they are very :table renter A loss of 19 units in an area of stable renters is a big loss and a problem that the Ca:nmis:ion needs t0 consider. The public hearing was opened in connection with these items and Mr. Lewis Rodwelt, representing the owner, appeared before the Comfnission and stated that they are in agreement with the staff report. Mr. Harvey Pease, owner of the property at the end of Carnation Avenue, Appeared before the Commi-.,.ion. Mr. Pease stated that Carnation Ave- nue from 5caview to the end is an abandoned stree which Is therefore a private street. without adequate control. This preates 3 very critical parking'problem. He also stated that the Fire Department has determined that their equipment can not get access to a fire hydrant to service the area with all the cars parking on both sides of the street. He stated that a provision should be made in the Covenants, Conditions and Restric- tions that every property owner is obligated to participate in the maintenance of this private street and the abutting alley. Commissioner Seek asked if dedicating this street has been considered by the staff. Mr. Don Webb, Assistant City Engineer, stated that this could be done on this section of the :trees, but the three to four other property owner% involved would have I agree. in nr+lvr Ia ni.is i t effe.r.- ive. Mr. Wi-b s ailili-il I11,11 It(Inr- the- f rve-t wuuif hr .�t s�ltf eel, It wnu 1 sl I+.s vs. [it III- (,rr$uil?sl current s treat ,standards ror the City. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the re- quired parking for the project is on -site in ex- cess of three spaces per dwelling unit. The developers are also required to improve Carnation Avenue in the front of the project. Commissioner Beek asked the applicant if he would be in favor of rededicating the street. Mr. Rodwe l l stated that he has been 11 scus s i ng th i ; matter with Mr. Pease and they hove just now agreed to have, a meeting hatwPrn the homeowners on the Street to work thi: nut. _42. INLAX I ' cor�>r� u�ytc�a.Ks Sitember a, 191,00 . tiil`L. ; i s MOLL CALL Motion Ayes Noes Absent Ix City of Newport Beach Mr. Webb suggested that the owner tender an irrevocable offer of dedication to be exercised at such time as dedications can be obtained from other areas. Mr. Rodwell stated that this would be acceptable. Mr. Pease stated that this would not be satisfactory because it does not addresp, the problem of street maintenance in the interim period and the parking problem. Commissioner Beek asked staff if there is A better solution to this problem. Mr. Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, @stated that the sug- gestion by Mr. Webb is a good attempt to start to resolve this problem. There is not a mainten- ance condition that you can impose to either action that would accomplish Hr. Pe4se's request. Commissioner McLaughlin stated that she would include the irrevocable offer of dedication as a c�nditi,on of approval on the resubdivision. Motion was made that the Planning Commission ap- prove Use Permit No. 1948 with the fallowing findings and conditions: FINDING5: , I. The project complies with all applicable standard plans and specifications, adopted City and State building codes, and zoning requirements for new buildings, with the exception of the requested modification to the Zoning Code permitting a 10 foot en- croachment into the required 20 foot front setback. 2. The project lot size conforms to the Zoning Code area requirements in effect at the time of approval. 3. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan. 4. Adequate on -site parking space, are available for the proposed residential condominium pro jec t. -a3- INDEX ''rf CON L%IISS+* ERS 0ptember 4, 1990 • City of ort Beach ROIL CALL I # I I I I I I it-iIAx Motion Ayes Noes Absent 5. That the proposed encroachments into the re- quired 20 foot setback along the abandoned Carnation Avenue frontage of the site, and tandem parking spaces, will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons re- siding or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighbor- hood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modifications are consistent with the. legillative. Intent of Title 20 of thi% Code. 6. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons re 'iding .or workin in the neighborhood of su�� proposed use �r be detrimental or in- jurious to property and Improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial con- formance with the approved plot plan, floor plan. and elevations. 2. That all conditions of Resubdivision No. 666 shall be fulfilled. Motion was made that the prove Resubdivision No. findings and conditions: FINDINGS: Planning Commission ap- 666 with the following 1. That the maps meet the require�ents of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicabe general or specific plan. and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. -44- f C0"%115SQX`LI~S -, Ult • tembrr 4. 19:10 ,1►1i�.1� I�.S City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL Lax 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planninil stan+iiinint. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all Improvements be constructed 4s re- ' quired by ordinances and the Public Works Oepartment. 3. That each unit have separate water services and sewer connections. unless otherwise ap- proved by the P" blic Work; Department. 4. That curb, gutter, pavement and sidewalk be constructed along the abandoned Carnation Avenue frontage, and that the curb grades be approved by the Public works Department. 5. Thit a standard subdivision agreement and surety be provided to guarantee the satis- factory completion of the street Improvements if it is desired to record the parcel map prior to completion of the street improvements. 6. That the owner tender an Irrevocable offer of dedication for that portion of the abandoned Carnation Avenue located on the subject property. (dote: It was the Intent of the Planning Commission that said offer shall be exercised at such time as dedications can he obtained from property nwnrr: of other abutting properties within thr! abandoned portion of Carnation Avenue). Cha an Haidinger asked the audience If there was an a present who wished to speak on the Local Coa 1 Program this evening, Item Ho. 19 on the Agen Chairman Haldinger noted that no one came forth this time. Chairman Haidinger s ed that the Local Coastal Program would therefore continued to an adjourned Planning Commiss meeting on Seatrm- her 18, 1980 at 2:00 p.m., be use of the lateness of the hour. � , , -RS- Planning Commission heeting September 4._ 1930� Agenda Item No. 13 and 14 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 28, 1980 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Use Permit No. 1948 (Public -Hearing) Request to construct a six -unit residential condominium project in the R-3 District. The application also requests a modification to the Municipal Code so as to allow the structure to encroach 10 feet into the required 20 foot front yard setback (measured from the abandoned Carnation Avenue right-of-way). LOCATION: Portions of Lots 2, 4, 6, A 8, Block 231, Corona del Mar, and a portion of abandoned Carnation Avenue located at 2500 Spaview;Avenue on11the easterly corner of Seaview Avenue and Carnation Avenue in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R-3 APPLICANT: John Kirkpatrick, Dba Southern Cal Property, Santa Ana OWNER: Same as Applicant and Resubdivision No. 666 (Public Hearing, Request to create one parcel of land for residential condominium purposes so as to permit the construction of a six -unit condominium project in the R-3 District. LOCATION: Portions of Lots 2, 4, 6, 3 8, Block 231, Corona del Mar, and a portion of abandoned Carnation Avenue located at 2500 Seaview Avenue on the easterly corner of Seaview Avenue and Carnation Avenue in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R-3 APPLICANT: John Kirkpatrick, Dba Southern Cal Property, Santa Ana OW14ER: Same as Applicant ENGINEER: Loren C. Phillips A Associates. Arcadia TO: Planning Commission Application The applicant proposes to demolish an existing 19-unit apartment building on the site and construct a 6-unit residential condominium building. A modification to the Zoning Code is also requested in that the structure, as proposed, encroaches 10 feet into the required 20 foot front setback area, measured from the abandoned Carnation Avenue right-of-way. In accordance with Section 20.73.015 of the Newport (leach Municipal Code, condominium projects may be permitted in any residential district, subject to the securing of a use permit in each case. Use permit procedures are outlined 1n Chapter 20.80 of the Municipal Code. Section 19.10.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code also provides that a parcel map (resubdivision) shall be required for all sub- divisions creating 5 or more condominiums on property containing less than 5 acres abutting upon a public street. Resubdivision procedures are contained 1n Section 19.12.040 of the Municipal Code. Environmental Significance This project has been reviewed and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruc- tion) from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Conformance with the General Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "multiple -family residential uses." The proposed development falls within the uses permitted. Sub ect Property and Surrounding Land Use There is an existing 19-unit apartment building and related garage spaces on the subject property. To the north, directly above and to the east, directly behind the subject property are multiple - family residential buildings; across Seaview Avenue to the south are duplexes; and to the west, across the abandoned portion of Carnation Avenue, are single-family residences and multiple - family residential units. Background The existing building was originally built as a hotel in the early 1920's. A search of the Building Department files revealed that In 1950 and again in 1954, alterations and additions were permitted to the building, Including a sma 11 garage structure on the site. This was prior to any City requirements for on -site parking or the establishment of density standards. The 19-unit apartment building that evolved from the original hotel does not conform with the 0 10 TO: Planning Commission current zoning codes pertaining to parking, density, and setback requirements. Analysis The applicant is proposing to construct a six -unit residential condominium project on the site. The following outline reflects the major characteristics of the proposed development, - Land Area Number of Units: 12,88G sq. ft. Permitted by zoning code (12,886 sq.ft.f1200 sq.ft.) Proposed Setbacks Front Rear Sides Buildable Area (lot 1.5x Buildable Area Proposed Structural Parking Open Space Required Provided Buidling Height Permitted Proposed Required 20' 10, 4' area less setbacks) Area 10 6 Prnposed 10, 10' 5' (north 4' (south B,696 sq. ft. 13,044 sq. ft. 11,501 sq. ft.+(exclu- ding parking spaces) or 1.32 x buildable 21 provided (3.5 spaces per uni t) 92'x24'x6' ■ 13,248 cu. ft. 14,080 cu. ft. + 24' front 28' rear 24' front 28' rear The subject property contains 12,886 sq. ft. of land area on an irregularly shaped parcel. in the R-3 District, the zoning code requires 1,200 sq. ft. of land area per unit. The subject property therefore could conceivably accomodate 10 units, where the applicant is proposing 6 units. Yard Setbacks The required setbacks for the subject property have been determined to be 20' along the front of the lot measured from the abandoned Carnation Avenue right-of-way; 4' along the side (north and south) property lines; and 10' at the rear of the si te. The applicant is requesting a mods fication to the toning code to permi t a 10 foot encroachment into a portion of the required 20 foot front setback. The 20' front setback is required in the R-3 District when the Districting Map (Attached) does not designate another setback. The surrounding parcels across Carnation Avenue and across Seaview Avenue from the site all have 10' setbacks designated on the Districting Map„ Furthermore, the existing apartment building northeasterly of the property encroaches 12 feet+ into the required 20 foot front yard. Staff therefore is of the opinion that the 0 1 0 TO: Planning Commission proposed encroachment request is reasonable and consistent with other structures and permitted setbacks in the immediate vicinity. Buildable Area The buildable area of the site (lot area less the required setbacks) is 8,696 sq. ft.. which is multiplied by 1.5 to determine the maximum structural area, less parking and decks. permitted on the site. The total buildable area permitted is 13,044 sq. ft, The plans, as subaitted, indicate a total of 11,501 sq. ft. or 1.32 x the buildable area. Parking The current parking standards for the R-3 District in the Residential Development Standards Area, as set forth in Section 20.11.030 (B} of the Municipal Code, requires 19 spaces; 21 spaces are proposed including 8 tandem spaces. The City Traffic Engineer has indicated that because of the 1 foot columns in the subterranean parking many of the spaces do not conform to the 9' clear widthrequiredrea, by the code. Tenant spaces of 8'6" clear width are generally permitted when a 26 aisle is provided. The 21 space parking layout, as proposed, a 24' aisle with 4 tandem spaces and 4 single spaces with Brovi4es '6" of clear with. Staff is of the o inion that this is acceptable, primarily because additional spaces in excess of the required number are being provided. It should be noted that the parking requirements have recently been revised (Amendment No. 535), but the new standards are not effective until September 10, 1980. The revised standards will require 1.5 spaces per unit, for a total of 9 spaces (1.5x 6 units). The proposed 21 spaces will allow 3.5 spaces per unit. Open Space The open space required in the Residential Development Standards Area is a volume of space equal to the buildable height (241) times the buildable width ( 92') times 6', resulting in a total of 13,298 cubic feet that must be provided within the first 1Z feet behind the front setback line (20' from the abandoned Carnation Avenue right-of-way) or within the first 12 feet behind the required side yard along Seaview Avenue. The required open space is provided within the area of the driveway approach at the northern end of the structure and the southeasterly corner of the site adjacent to Seaview Avenue. Building Nei ht The height limit in the R-3 District within the Residential Develop_ ment Standards Area is 24 feet on the front one-half of the lot and 28 feet on the rear one-half of the lot. The plans, as subiti tied, indicate that the building conforms to these standards. TO: Planning Commission 5 Specific Findings_ and Recommendations Section 20.80.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that In order to grant any use permit, the Planning Commission shall find that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be'detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Section 20.73.025 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that the Planning Commission shall make specific findings in order to approve a use permit for a condominium project. in addition, Section 19.12.020 (0) of the Municipal Code provides that the Commission shall make specific findings in order to approve a resubdivision. It is staffs recommendation to approve these applications subject to the findings and conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached. PLANNING DEPARTMENT # JAMES HEWICKER, DIRECTOR By Chris Gust n Assistant Planner jg Attachments: 1. Exhibit A 2. Vicinity Map 3. Plot Plan, Floor 4. Tentative Parcel Plans, Elevations map TO: Planning Commission -b- EXHIBIT A FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL USE PERMIT NO. 1932 FINDINGS: I. The project complies with all applicable standard plans and specifications, adopted City and State building codes, and zoning requirements for new buildings, with the exception of the requested modification to the Zoning Code permitting a 10 foot encroachment into the required 20 foot front setback. 2. The project lot size conforms to the Zoning Code area require- ments in effect at the time of approval. 3. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan. 4. Adequate on -site parking spaces arelavailabie for the proposed residential condominium project. 5. That the proposed encroachments into the required 20 foot set- back along the abandoned Carnation Avenue frontage of the site, and tandem parking spaces, will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detri- mental or injurious to property and improvements in the neigh- borhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modifications are consistent with the legislative Intent of Title 20 of this Code. 6. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plan, and elevations. 2. That all conditions of Resubdivision No. 666 shall be fulfilled. TO: Planning Commission -7_ EXHIBIT A FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Resubdivision No. 666 FINDIr16S: 1. That the maps meet the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satis- fied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. CONDITIONS: I. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all improvement be constructed as required by ordinances and the Public WorksIDepartment. I 3. That each unit have separate water services and sewer connec- tfons, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 4. That curbs gutter, pavement and sidewalk be constructed along the abandoned Carnation Avenue frontage, and that the curb grades be approved by the Public Works Department. S. That a standard subdivision agreement and surety be provided to guarantee the satisfactory completion of the street improve- ments if it is desired to record the parcel map prior to com- pletion of the street improvements. • • //I M-4f SAW ... Y*" "r 4 Q\ _ i � *� ' J► 4%, *I 1 CA" tov'rry Aaw Awe •w.� rr, ,y DIS'TRICTI AP NEWPO T BEACH N CALM ORNIA wrirr..�►.af "Isft wanlas aora.+w aih mum mm Rmnwra awr*%Ow fat.�i 40 MI40 Use Pecom a- No. 19q 8 1� s�.r4o. ursov IU o. 6 G G "Mum 66% FI[ Ja.fow �CemwNCL Itwoo ..-:��... Day •• wi City Of NfWM IT BEACH 40 Sushimss License Application PLEASE RSTURN TO. GIV Of f wMI Beach. Liceme Owrlaw r"`'ra""�� X= Pllesm BW,. N"wPOrt Beds h. CA 92661 Ptwwec/7141502131 DegnsuurenAt _ ►e 1�e4Oy _ __. 1 f 71i 575-a41•, 9�vnrrtt ihpna c/o S.avage. 1rl idtr a Co., Ltd. 8vuweuAaalwlgACdrewSflg.A Z. BaLho4 Blvd, CityYawpnrt Beech =2 12Ra1 u.,..i 94j{.nn%sIrwAddrtw 2S0C 904viw AV*- Citr Corona Dal ?tar zp 921,15 ,"UW4 a.wn�ri yr.r 1 1I..u1 Stir! to+lv tha cox. rrtun cI :a�tlnlu lOr rr+rKft the IKanta .I regwteed: ApArttrent building IF APPLICABLE Stjta COntrxlor'I NO. ClanSIA14 Safes Tar 4a. If 1'4 b4tlrytt i{ t0{et� OrMnM:,•1diClte pvrn�n IKidlr+ce addlfll, raI}derKe Ororle Ind Dr1vIrI I. �Clnq nur^:N. John Kirkp4triti 428 H. Huntington Dr. 11. �wti402.1.al4 wt{10e4CO A til -- +1T .3 Arcadia 91006 J 825775 Cal. :iTr 9I7 =II Mi (iA YID {t1C{A{I NU iT4fI l=L3i 405-2621 +MO4a If Vw but+nm iI a prtrw>r+q cr Ctirporat10r1 i1a1 di Princl0$'6 i,elow. tl+eu rltidanc/ add►aI{, phone, ti11e Itar:n n ire{,c}I�I. Secretary, Tramrw, hrvw. etc) and Drkr Lifts rtumbar'. ` 11} w.re w! AOW1laf ptr r„ {--t - M1aA lr10111111 eae.�«� ry u trtrviwt u1CaMy{ w0 sr.r1 �— In %"& ales AOOw/Ia OR au t cult• hq.IwWMw �lrrt 1J1raw11.1GIMyahO yi.rl t�l W�.I wlt+oewca "OOwle1 CM • Tortilfii�-t;-`--- I Pwow cwtify undw Wilt., Of Per. f true awd correct. 9-<-110 I Apoi+cant'e Dated APPIS;q„wr printed Christopher A. gav4,;, Aaol+cant'I Orwa'I Literw Na if not L{dKlteelr a�„4 T LICENSE /tE OF L PENALTY PEE OP S______ . TOTAL DUE WITH APPLICATION 105' • 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 9265"915 PL&%I?41!;G DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 February 11, 1986 Diana Hoard Tarantello i Co. 3901 MacArthur Blvd. Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: 307 Carnation Avenue, Corona del star ❑ear Ms. Hoards Attached is the information furnished by Soirers anti ARnociateis regarding the above referenced property. Also attached is the purchase order agreement (No. 27280) between Tarantello L Co. and the City of Newport Beach. Please sign the addendum to the purchase order (3 pages), make a copy for your file and return the signed original to the City. The developer understands that he must also bear any costs incurred in evaluating additional scenario(s). should you require further information regarding the project or if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HENICKER, Director By I T BLUELL Senior Tanner cTB3/j Attachments 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Bach P.O. NO. 27280 (if reserve SUGGESTED VENDOR: 0 PURCIME REQUISITION 46 CITY OF NEW PORT B E ACH DATE N bruary 10, 1986 DEPT Tarantallo & Co. SNIP TO 3901 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 100 New22rt Beach, CA. 92660 Planninu Advance Planninel QUAN. DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLES OR SERVICES REQUIRED UNIT PRICE: TOTAL BUDGET NO. 1 Pour co ien of the New constr y StudV nor attached letter dated January 2819A� --Z2000.00 CODE AMOUNT • APPROVED: Jll/ I&L DEPT HEAD , (or son au r ze o exetute f"tilsitionsl PURCMI A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768. NEWP'ORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 PLANNING DEPART,4Mrr ( 714 ) 644-3225 Date January 28, 1986 Diana Hoard Tarantello i Co. 3901 !MacArthur Blvd. Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Ms. hoard: Within the California Coastal Zone, residential development is governed by State regulations contained in Article 10.7 of the Government Code, "I.ow- and Moder- ate-Ineme !lousing within the Coastal Zone." The City of Newport peach adminis- ters these State regulations through guidelines established by Council Policy P-1. Council Policy P-1 provides for the preparation of a rtudy to determine whether the affordable housing required by State regulations is feasible in new davelopaentn within Newport Beach's Crustal zone. The following information is being provided to enable the preparation of a proposal/bid for such a fea- sibility study. Project Location (address) 307 Carnation, Corona del Mar Site size _ t11,500 ag.ft. lumber of Units 4 Nunber of: 1 Bdrm. Units 2 Bdrm. Units 3 Bdrm. Units 4 4 Bdrm. Units Project is to be evaluated as: a rental project both an ownership and rental project x For purposes of this feasibility, the City of Newport Beach requests that the consultant prepare a feasibility study by analyzing the provision of 1 units) at the moderate incorse level. If this initial analysis demon- strates feasibility for one or both types of tenure, the consultant shall continue to perform analyses for the feasible tenure type at each successively lower intone level until infeasibility is demonutrated. Current income information in conformance with Article 10.7: $47,500 Affordability standard: 30% of income for rental - $1,167/cnnth rent 3 X incrm.e for ownership - S142,300 Term of affordability: 10 years. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach • The applicant has received a copy of this letter and understands that a request for a feasibility study will require additional information, including but not limited to that listed below. The applicant also understands th4t this Informa- tion will be needed by the study start-up date and that the availability of the information necessary to complete the feasibility study could influence the tine required to complete the study. Site Flan • Floor plan and description of various floor plan design# Cost of land substantiated by a purchase agreement or other official document • Construction period • Construction cost including off -site costs and lint of asannities Thin letter does not constitute a contract, however it does constitute a request for a proposal/bid for services. A contract for services will be executed between the City and the consultant at such time as the project applicant requests a feasibility study. Please provide below an estimate of cost, time required to prepare, and start-up date for a feasibility study on the project identified above. in addition to the proposal/bid information, please sign and date this letter, keep a copy for your files, and return thh original to the City. Thank you. Cost to prepare feasibility studys _ a& ?l7 C?50 0 r 'dollars. Time required to prepare feasibility studys - Q datio days. Date on which preparation of feasibility can bellgins �A&r-, F1 4/1 O�lp 7$ k)-� aVZ&-" d4l il� CITY OF IMWORT BEACH SULTA?rr i 1OWN 'M WA .rA WOFAI - W A am ..r .LI �Iff/.M Date II HOUSE2 1/86 xcs Somers 6r Assoc. Date c;�- 3- eeo 10 ADDE`TUM TO PURCHASE ORDER This Addendum to Purchase Order dumber 2780 contains terms and conditions under which the work or services required by said parchase order must be performed. Throughout this Addendum, the terms "Consultant" reform to the party providing work or services to the City pursuant to the virchasa ordor. 1. SERVICES 9Y CONSULTANT. Consultant shall provide to City such work or services required in the Purchase Order (or any other addendum thereto). Consultant warrants and guaran- tees that all services performed pursuant to the Purchase Order shall be provid- ed in a manner commensurate with the highest professional standards and shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel. 2. INDEPENDE?rr PARTIES. The parties to this Agreement intend that the relation between thews created by this Agreement is that of employer -independent contractor. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the control of the Consultant, except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the express terms of this Agreement. No Civil Service status or other right of emplcrIment will be acquired by virtue of the Consultant's services. None of the benefits provided by the City to its employees, including but not limited to unemployment insurance, workers' compensation insurance, retirement and deferred compensation plans, vacation and sick leave, aia available from the City to the consultant, its employees or agents. From any fees due the Consultant, de- ductions shall not be made for any State or Federal taxes, FICA payments, PERS payments, or other purposes normally associated with an employer -employee relationship. Payment of the above item, if required, are the responsibility of the Consultant. 3. INTF.GRATFD PURCHASE ORDER. This Purchase Order represents the full and cowplete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. too verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions hereof. Any modification of this Purchase order will be effective only by written execution signed by both City and Consultant. 4. COST OF LITIGATION. If any loyal action is necessary to enforce any provision hereof or for daxwges by reason of an alleged breach of any provisions of this Purchase Order, the prevailing party shall be entitled to receive free the losing party MEN f c: i41 "`A all costs and expenses in such arAmnt as the court may adjudge to be reasonable attorneys' fees. 5. HOLD HARMLESS. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City, ito City Council, boards and ccmmissions, officers, agents, servants, and employee* from and against any and all loss, damages, liability, claims, suits, costs, and ex- penses, whatsoever, including reasonable attorneys' fees, regardless of the merit or outcome of any such claim or suit, arising from or in any manner connected to the negligent performance or omission of any services or work conducted pursuant to this Purchase Order. 6. PROHIBITION AGAINST rRAHSPERS. Consultant shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Agreezent or any interest therein directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise. Any attempt to do so shall be null and void, and any assignee, sublessee, hypothecate or tranaferee shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. 7. PERMITS AND LICENSES. i Consultant, at its sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Purchase Order, all appropriate permits, licenses and certificates that may be required in connection with the performance of services hereunder. H. WAIVER. A waiver by the city of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be dees*d to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein whether of the same or a different character. 9. TEPMItlATION. In the event Consultant hereto fails or refuses to perforce any of the provisions hereof at the time and in the manner required hereunder, Consultant shall be deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not cured within a period of two (2) days after receipt by Consultant from City of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such default, City may terminate the Agreerm nt forthwith by giving to the Consultant written notice thereof. 10. REPORTS. Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record and other document reproduced. prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant pursuant to 2 - _ • i or in connection with this Purchase order shall be the exclusive property of the City. No report, information or other data given to or prepared or assembled by the Consultant pursuant to this Purchase Order shall be made available to xny individual or organization by the Consultant without prior approval by the City. Consultant shall, at such time and in such form as the City may require, furnish reports concerning the status of services required under this Purchase Order. 11. 110rices. All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Purchase order, shall be given in writing and conclusivell shall be dagr,ed served when delivered personally or on the second business day after the dapnsit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified, addressed as hereinafter provided. All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from Consultant to City shall be addressed to the City at: Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 • All notices, demands, requests, or approvals frcm City to Consultant shall be addressed to Consultant at the address set forth in the Purchase Order. The Consultant has read this Addendum to Purchase order and accepts each tern and condition hereof. CONSULTAIrr FM APPROVED 7 TO FORM Ey r• Ci f Attorney MELLO M - 3 - i February 6, 1986 Ms. Diana Hoard TARANTELLO b COMPANY 3901 MacArthur Boulevard Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re; Proposed four (4) unit residential condominium project 307 Carnation Avenue, Corona Del Mar Dear Ms. Hoard; We have enclosed certain information in order to facilitate preparation of the feasibility study requested by the City of Newport Beach. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter. Cordially, Ian F. Somers SOMERS AND ASSOCIATES 1111 Bayside Drive Suite 280 Corona Del Mar, CA 92660 (714) 720-1417 • PROJECTED SALES PRICE OF UNITS: C014STRUCTION PERIOD: COST TO DEVELOP PROJECTs $400#000 per unit $1,600,000 total sales price 6 - 9 months Four (4) Condominiums - excellent. quality Class "D" construction 7,182 sq. ft. @ $50* per sq. ft. $ 359,000 Garages 1,418 sq. ft. @ $14 per sq. ft. 200000 Luxury Upgrades 7,182 sq. ft. @ $10 per sq. ft. 72 000 $ 451,000 Indirect Expenses Permanent Loam fees (1) $36,000 Carrying Costs (2) 75,000 Sales Expense (3) 96,000 Escrow Fees (4) 51000 212 000 $ 663,000 Land Cost Cost $795,000 + $25,000 option fee Total Cost s 820,000 $1 483 000 'Includes plans, specifications, surveys, construction loan fees, labor and materials, site preparation, contractor's overhead and contractor's profit. Marshall 6 Swift current cost for excellent quality multiple residential construction is $51.60 per sq. ft. Please note that there are no proposed amenities or anticipated off -site costs. Footnotes: (1) Permanent Loan Fees: $1,600,000 projected sales price @ 75% Loan-to--Valua $1,200,000 @ 3 points n $36,000. (2) Carrying Costs: Projected 8 month sales period beyond conatructlon - loan of $1,200,000 fully disbursed $1,200,000 x 50% x 13% x 2/3 = $52,000 Insurance and real estate taxes M 23_,000 $75,000 (3) Sales Expense: Projected Sales Price of $1,600#000 @ 61 sales commission through local multiple listing service = $96*000. (4) Escrow Fees: Escrow service and title policies - $5,000 9 ---- k G FV#AnO 1 AVV" M umlrm S.• - N1 o� :l ffft i �twl'Av;j r o r kN 1 ao patio ng /dining I _ ary9iy pow - I& 1 r1 tA• r4r�'wa'�-�1.+�.rv.ia�w.��wr�.�►�r- i.`� \ -tOWERLEM 4 2 Bft DEWSR x 112 BA. Q � Y. U� `00 s.�..�y..�..�..�«�...�..�..rr■..r�.s.�.w..�..�.•.�. s. �.� .�. ��i.rr.�.. •i31r�yr� ell -oi f �Arm mba ba garoPA smiks mbr lira lop PM 11 TQWNHONE-M LEVEL •�.1�� II.w�1,�I.1�1.�.11 �!. SI... B2 BR. DMBR. 3 EIA Sir ,Jl f �� 11 `tom ? � •�J.r L •fir f+ +r �i:.=.t?' 7-7 - _ as•.tlii�LiC3ri�Z.'i.:r.rrifias.�� cckww "C' �1) I I -,0_0 /'.* , I __ . . 9 0 OPTION AGREEMENT 1. Introductionj__Parties. This Option Agreement is made on n e, , 1985, between R. C. CROOKE and JEAN E. CROOKE owner ) and SOME RS ASSOCIATES, a general partnership ("Optionee"). r 2. Grant of 22tion. Owner grants to Optionee an option to purchase the real property (the "Property") described in the purchase and sale agreement attached to this option as Exhibit "A," for a purchase price of Seven Hundred Ninety -Five Thousand Dollars ($795,000.00) cash, on the terms and conditions set forth in this Option Agreement and in the Purchase and Sale Agreement attached. 3. Opt -ion Consideration. Consideration for the grant of this option shall be the sum of Twenty -Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), which sum shall not be applied to or credited against the purchase price of the property in the event the option is exercised. In the event that condition of title is not approved by Optionee the Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), less the owners' cost of procurring the preliminary title report required in paragraph 8, shall be refunded to Optionee. The Option consideration shall be paid as follows: a. Upon execution of this Option Agreement, Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) cash will be paid to owner; and, b. Upon approval of conditions of title by Optionee, the balance of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) will be paid to the Owner in the force of a non -interest bearing straight note in like sum due and payable on January 5, 1986. This note shall be secured by an irrevocable letter of credit issued by a national banking association for the Owners' benefit. 4. Term of Option. The terra of the option shall commence on the date of this Option Agreement and shall expire at 12:00 p.m. on September 30, 1986. S. Manner of Exercisin O tion. Provided Optionee is not in default under any term or provision of this option, the option may be exercised by optionee's delivering to Owner, before the expiration of the option term, written notice of such exercise (the "exercise notice"), which exercise notice -shall state that the option is exercised without condition or qualification. The exercise notice oust be accompanied by (a) two (2) copies of a Purchase and Sale Agreement identical to the form of Purchase and Sale Agreement attached as Exhibit "A" executed by Optionee and with the blank in paragraph 5 of the Purchase Agreement completed by insertion of a date which is not less than forty-five (45) nor more than sixty (60) days following the date the exercise notice is given. 1 5. Completion of Sale. On receipt by Omer before the expiration of the option tern of the exercise notice and two (2) copies of the Purchase Agreement executed by Optionee, Owner shall execute the Pur- chase Agreement and deliver an executed copy to Optionee. Owner's failure to execute and deliver a copy of the Purchase Agreement'in accordance with this paragraph shall not affect the validity of the Purchase Agreement. The Purchase Agree- ment shall be immediately effective and binding on both Owner and Optionee without further execution by the parties, on exercise of the option in accordance with paragraph 5 of the Option Agreement. 7. Representa tions_and Warranties. Owner warrants that it is the owner of the Property and has marketable and insurable fee simple title to the Property and has no knowledge of any restriction, leases, liens or other encumbrances on or against the property which would not be disclosed by a preliminary title report. In the event this Option is exercised.by Optionee, Owner will convey title to the property to Optionee by grant deed subject only to (a) taxes for the current year which are not then due and payable, and (b) only those exceptions which Optionee has approved in writing in accordance with paragraph 8 of this document. S. Condition of Title. Within ten (10) days after execution of this option by both parties, Owner shall deliver to Optionee a preliminary report of the condition of title to the Property. From the date of receipt by Optionee, Optionee shall have five (5) days in which to approve or disapprove of any and all exceptions shown on the report. If Optionee disapproves any exception to title, as pro- vided above, Owner shall notify Optionee within five (5) days of notice of approval from Optionee if Owner is unwilling to clear the disapproved exceptions. If Owner elects not to clear any such exceptions, Optionee may elect, by giving notice to Owner within five (5) days of receipt of Owner's notice, to terminate this Option and receive a refund of the option consideration paid to Owner, or to waive this condition and this option shall then remain in full force and effect. 9. Right of Entry on Proper. During the option term, Optionee and its designated agents and independent contractors shall have the right to enter on the Property to the extent necessary for the purpose of conducting soil tests, engineering studies, and architectural studies. Optionee agrees to repair any damages it or its agents or independent contractors shall cause to the Property, and further agrees to indemnify and hold Owner harmless from any and all costs, expenses, losses, attorneys' fees and liabilities (including, but not limited to, claims of mechanics' liens) incurred or sustained by Owner as a result of any acts of Optionee, its agents, or independent contractors pursuant to the right granted by this paragraph. -2- • 10, owner's Coo ration in Seeking Permits and A22rovals. owner agrees to execute any and all documents or to join in any applications that may be required to obtain approval of the development plan proposed by optionee by any municipal or other agency having jurisdiction. Optionee agrees to hold Owner harmless from any costs and expenses arising in connection with gaining approval of the optionee s development plan. 11. Time of Essencel Failure to Exercise option. Time is of the essence of this Option Agreement. If the Option is not exercised in the manner provided in para- graph 5 before the expiration of the option term, Optionee shall have no interest whatever in the Property and the option may not be revived by any subsequent payment or further action by Optionee and optionee agrees to deliver to owner all soil tests, engineering and marketing studies, and the like respecting the Property in optionee's possession or under Optionee's control. 12. Recording uitclaim*Deed on Termination of 012tion. if this Option is terminated, Optionee agrees, if re- quested by Owner, to execute, acknowledge, and deliver a quitclaim deed to Owner within five (5) days after termination and to execute,'acknowledge, and deliver any other documents required by any title company to remove the cloud of this option from the Property. 13. Notices - All notices, demands, requests, and exercises under this option by either party shall be hand -delivered or sent by United States mail, registered or certified, postage prepaid, addressed to the other party as follows: Owners Mr. and Mrs. R. C. Crooke C/o Steven C. Crooke, Esq. 2913 Pullman Street, Suite B P. o. Box 15707 $ants Ana, CA 92705 Sooners and Associates c/o Whylie Somers Optionee: 5009 Oaklon Drive, Palos Verdes, CA 90274 Notices* demands, requests and exercises served in the above manner shall be considered sufficiently given or served for all purposes under this option at the time the notice, demand or request is hand -delivered or postmarked to the addresses shorn above. 14. Assignment of option. Optionee may not assign this option and the rights under it. -3- 15. Attorneys' Fees. if it becomes necessary for either party to take any action to enforce this option, or any of its terms, the pre- vailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and all costs. 16. Entire Agreementt Signatures. This option contains the entire agreement between the parties respecting the matters set forth, and supercedes all prior agreements between the parties respecting such matters. Executed on the day and year first a Written. R. C. CROO Q JEAN(, . CROOKE "Owner" SOMERS & ASSOCIATES, A General Partnership By-. -44L1 _5 j&U4 — Title : ,jwLQ!-par6w- I, o m rs &id A!�Svudiz_< "Optionee" -4- EXHIBIT 'A" PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT 1. This Agreement is made on . 1955 between R. C. CROOKE and JEAN E. CROOKE ("Seller ) and SOMERS'& ASSOCIATES, a general partnership, ("Buyer'). 2. Seller agrees to Bell and Buyer agrees to purchase the property known an 300' Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar, California. It is also known as Assessor's Parcel 1052-013- 28. 3. The purchase price for the property is Seven Hundred,Ninety-Five Thousand Dollars ($795,000.00) payable prior to the close of escrow. 4. This sale shall be consummated through an escrow established with Guardian Title Company, 1010 North Main Street, Santa Ana, California. 5. The closing date for the escrow will be no later than Escrow shall be considered closed when the grant aea to the property is recorded. 6. Buyer shall deposit money and signed and acknowledged documents, and Seller shall deposit signed and acknowledged documents as required by this agreement, and both parties shall.sign and deposit escrow instructions, and perform those acts reasonably required to consummate the transaction in accordance with this Agreement. 7. Current taxes and premiums of insurance policies being assumed by Buyer shall be prorated as of the close of escrow. S. Title insurance premiums, escrow fees, transfer taxes and other closing costs, including escrow Fees, shall be charged to the parties in accordance with custom and usage of Orange County. 9. Buyer shall receive possession of the property at the close of escrow. 10. On close of escrow title shall vest in SOMERS b ASSOCIATES, a general partnership, 11. Seller shall by grant deed convey to Buyer, a fee simple interest free and clear of all title defects, liens, encumbrances, deeds of trust, and mortgages, real property taxes, or those items approved by Buyer in accordance with paragraph 8 of the attached Option Agreement. -1- 12. Seller shall procure a California Land Title Association standard policy in the amount of Seven Hundred Ninety -Five Thousand Dollars ($795,000.00) to be paid for by Seller and to be issued by Guardian Title Company. 13. All notices and demands shall be given in writing either by personal service or by registered or certified ■ail, return receipt requested. Notices shall be addressed as below for each party, provided that if any party gives notice of a change of name or address, notices to the giver of that notice shall be addressed as demanded. 14. The undersigned Seller accepts the offer to purchase the property and agrees to sell the property to the Buyer on the terms and conditions specified. in consideration of real estate brokerage services rendered by Coldwell Banker and Whylie Somers, a real estate brokerage fee is to be paid equal to two and one-half percent (2--1/21) of the purchase price, each: The fee is to be paid to each separately from the escrow at the close of escrow. The Seller is aware that.Whylie Somers, a licensed real estate broker, is also one of the principals in the entity purchasing the property. 15. Executed on the day and year first above written. SELLER: BUYER: -2- AW JWnrELLO&O W AAw�� _`; � .. ,.. ' ' •, • ' ' . � - - .. iPiawnx� #3asch, C1192Et3Q-�otiv �.�. ;.+ NTr;ICrd19 T. dlueU 42V E Carrieftim*'BiL.. ::.'., _ Sol or'Planner Sulle=•H Coi�inuhlty bevelo,pinent Department WY OF NEWPORI'dBACH 4 111.3. ilox"1708 Hcwpor�t- [Mach, CA 92058-8915 R P4 307 CARNA'17ON AVENUE — CORONA DEL MAR , % Dear ift, Bluell: fit 4ccordanco with your 'request and autho'*rlzatlont Tarantello 4 Company has prepared n report evaluating the' feasibility. of requiring a specified number of afrordnblo Units x1thin the above -referenced devolopmonL., Included In the Wowing report 11, all annlyak'of tho Subject Four -Unit ZoondamI11161111 Project with the Inclusion of one moderate-Inaome unit. The appropriate price level mind -iverago ubs6rption period have boon estimated and , the Issue of "fair returill, to ilia `', developer has been addressed. We thank you for this opportunity to be of service and look forward to your continued '`' patronage In tile future. itespectfully submitted,, -TARANTELLO'* COMPANY' VICIIIII'M 110ard Senior P;ojeot Co6rdinditor:- Ucnt'K� Sugino �' project Manager z W-W e-,41M 37 1 44", Z. R. ty 7; M " `lie j7 4 •7 1 14 A� EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Subject Property: Four unit condominium project Loci 307 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar, California Purpose: To determine feasibility of Inclusion of affordable units. Date: February 26, 1886 Rates of Return: Moder►ite Income For Sale/Onsite (30.31%) For Sale/Offsite (0.78%) For Lease/Onsite 00.81%) (negative) Recommendations: Based on the projected' negative returns for each scenario, the only reasonable recom- mendation is to exclude any type of afford- able unit -- onsite or offsite. 1 � s 1 AFFORDABLE HOUSING FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS ' of ' 307 CARNATION AVENUE Four Condominium Units CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 1 i Residential Development By: ' Somers and Associates Submitted To: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 March 17, im Submitted ay: TARANTELLO 6c COMPANY 1 1 0 • 2 STATEMENT OF ASSUMPTIONS 307 Carnation Avenue (1) Project Characteristics: Number of Units Description SIZE Plan A 2 3 Bedrooms/2.5 Bathrooms 1,825 Sq. Ft. Plan A 2 3 Bedrooms /3 Bathrooms 1,768 1,�q. F_t. Total 4 7,186 Sq. Ft. (2) Developer Contribution: At the start of the project construction, it is assumed that the developer contributes $400,000 or 25% of the total value of the project. The $400,000 is applied toward the purchase of the land. (3) Land Cost: Based on option agreement provided by Somers and Associates -- 820,000. The land for the offsite unit was projected to be $155,000. This figure was based on the average of the five lowest listings or sales of parcels of land In the City of Newport Beach that would support one residential unit over the past 18 months. It is questionable that at the time of development, a parcel as inexpensive ea the two lowest priced parcels would be available. Therefore, the average of the five lowest listings/sales was used. In comparison, the mean and median of the listings/sales were each nearly $600,000. (4) Construction Period: An 8-month construction period has been assumed from commencement to completion of construction, based on information provided by Somers and Associates and construction industry averages. (5) Construction Costs: Construction costs are assumed to be Incurred evenly over the construction period. The direct and Indirect construction cost estimated by Somers and Associates are felt to be reasonable based on construction cost estimates by contractors for similar developments and the Marshall and Swift Valuation Service. However, the more conservative estimates from Marshall and Swift were used and are as follows: Construction Costs for Four Subject Condoinimiums': $502,689 Construction Costs for One Offsite Unit*-. 11.72438 Total Construction Costs': 4o U,l 'Except financing 1 • • 3 1 (6) Financing/Prime Rate: All financing terms were based on current lending industry ' averages. Tne rate charged on the construction loan Is assumed to be 3.0 percent over the prime lending rate; the prime rate is assumed to be 9.5 percent. The construction interest for the construction period Li assume.! to oe constant over trw ' construction period. These monthly interest costs are oared on the previously mentioned 12.5 percent Interest rate applied to the average outstanding loan udlance. 'rhe average outstanding loan balance is calculated by averaging the ' initial draN and the total loan amount. The monthly interest costr for the sales period are based on the same 12.5 percent Interest rate applied to the montnty outstanding loan balance. ' (7) Repayment. of Loan: The loan will be repaid as the units are sold. (8) Absoor tionn: An absorption rate of one unit per two months has been estimated by mars and Awoclates. This absorption rats means one unit will oe absorbed In two ' months, another in four months, another In six months, and the last unit in eight months. This can be Interpreted as an average absorption period of 5 months for ' each unit, since marketing will be for all of the units available, not one at a time. A review of the active listings and average days on the market prior to sales for residences in Di%trict 12 (Corona del filar) shows an absorption averaging 113-137 days or 4-5 months. Assuming the five month average absorption period, a projection of one unit per two months is in order. It is assumed that the affordable unit will be absorbed first. Marketing will begin one month prior to the completion of construction and the first unit will sell two months later, or In the ninth 'nonth after commencement of construction. (9) Pricing of Condominiums: Pricing of the condominiums was based upon projected es supplied y Somers and Associates. No appraisal of the proposed development ' units was made available to Tarantella & Company, however, active brokers in the Corona del Mar area felt the projected pricing might be reasonable. ' Plan A $400,000/unit x 2 units = $ 8000000 Plan B $400,000/unit x 2 units = $ 8000000 Total Sales Revenue without Offsite Unit: ;Is6001000 Offsite Unit $272,498 x 1 unit = $ 272,498 Total Sales Revenue with Off -Ate Unit: $1,872,49a ' 10) Affordable Unit Pricing: The affordable unit was considered to replace Plan A (Unit Ono n all scenarios. Affordable unit pricing was based upon Information ' provided by Craig T. Bluell, Senior 'tanner, City of Newport Beach. Because the designated affordable unit 6 a 3-bedroom condominium, the income level for a a - person household was considered relevant for potential occupancy. Based upon the Information provided, a maximum of 3-times a household's gross Income may be applied towards the price of housing. The resulting Affordable Unit Pricing used is as follo..us: ONE MODERATE -INCOME U,Yrr: 3 x $47,50010 = $142.500 �$47,500 is the moderate -income level for a 6-person family living In Orange ' County 1 (11) Affordable Rental Rates: Affordable rental rates were based upon allowable monthay expense information provided by Craig T. Bluell, Senior Planner, City of Newport Beach. Based upon the Information provided, a maximum of 30 percent of a household's gross income may be Applied toward housing rent. The figure for it six person household is as follow3: ONE MODE1tAn-INCOME Uvrr: 0.30 x 1/12 x $4795a11 = $1,187/ino (12) quality of Off -Site Affordable Unit: The offsite affordable unit is ashu,ned to have good quality -class "D" construction artd the amenities typically unloclated with good quality units. The offsite affordable unit will be of lower overall quality than the Subject units and will not be as extensive as the Subject units. lit order to conform to neighborhood standards the quality of the offsite unit would be good rather than average. Construction Costs Land Cost $155,000 Total Construction Costs 117,49E TOTAL COSTS $272,498 Absorption: It has been assumed that the off -site unit will bu purchased when the first unit is purchased, or in the ninth month after commencement of construction. (13) Annual Cash Flow: The estimated annual cash flow from renting the affordable unit incorporates the following annual expenses: TAXES $4,167 (1.04186)6) (total value) ' INSURANCE 381 ($0.23/$100 of 85% of replacement EXPENSES (maintenance, repair and value of Improvements) reserves) 41000 (1% of total value) SUBTOTAL $8,548 DEBT SERVICE 40,983 (12.5%6 30 yr., 8016 LTVR) r0TAL $49,531 Per Unit Annual Cush Flow (Renting For 10 Years) :.IODEitxrE-iNC011E: 01,187 X 12) - $49,531 = ($35,287) (14) Residual Value: The residual value of an affordable unit at the end of the 10th year is based upon an annual 5 percent appreciation factor less the remaining loan balance at the end of the tenth year. (5400,000) x (1.0510) = $65L,558 Remaining Loan Balance 300p599 :iesidual Value $350,959 5 (15) Present Value of Rental Unit: The present value of the rental unit Is (negative) $90,346 . The present value of the rental unit is based on the $350,959 residual value in ten years, the negative annual cash flow of ($35,287) for ten years, and a 1.5% internal rate of return. This figure, when added to the final unit sale of $400,000 leaves a $309,6.54 gross sale entry. 1� B RESIDENTIAL MARKET AGnVTrY The following pugcm Include summaries of residential Activity brokerti (3nAm by size, type of home, area, listings and sales. This Information is included merely to offer an overvien of the residential market as a whole and specifically three bedroom condominiums in the Corona del Mar area. 7 SUMMARY OF RESIDENIIAL MARKET ACTIVITY (As of January 7, 1986) Average Sales Price Since Last Since Last Category Comp. Book Listing hook_ Year to -Date 01 Size 2 Bedrooms or less 315J,000 S1130000 $137,J00 3 Bedrooms 2060000 1640200 205,400 All Residential 251,200 2040300 244,100 aarea District 1'? $4J9,000 $353,000 $405,700 All Residential 231,200 204,800 244,100 Average Days on Market By Size 2 Bedrooms or less 100 87 03 3 Bedrooms 86 92 87 All Residential 92 89 94 By ,area District 12 119 i27 112 All Residential 92 89 94 Active Listings Average Average Listing Price Days_ On Market By Size 2 Bedrooms or less i109,900 102 3 Bedrooms J70,200 110 All Residential 453,90U 113 By Area District 12 $613,500 137 All Residential 456,900 113 Source: NILS - Volume 2 (January 10, 1986); Newport Harbor - Costa Mena Hoard of Realtors 8 SUMMARY OF CURRENT 3 BEDROOM LISTINGS ' (As of January 7, 1986) DISTRICT NO. 12 -- SOUTH OF PACIFIC COAST IIWY. ' ADDRESS Bedrooms/ Baths Square Feet Ulting Price Price Per §92ffe Foot 510.5 Poinsettia Ave. 3/2 1,367 $260,000 i o ' 3 Jetty Drive 3/2.5 - 344,500 - 45 Jasmine Creek Dr. 3/2 - 345,000 - ' 16 Jetty Drive 3/2 - 345,000 - 35 Whitewater 3/2 - 349,000 - ' 314 Jasmine Drive 3/3.5 - 350,000 - 312 Jasmine Drive 3/3.5 2,150 350,000 $163 133 19 Jasmine Drive Whitewater 3/2.5 2,275 357,500 $157 3/2.5 3750000 5 Jetty Drive 3/2.5 - 3770500 - ' 30 Mainsail Drive 3/2.5 - 384,000 - 21 Shoal Drive 3/2.5 2,550 395,000 $155 14 Barrier Reef 3/2.5 420,000 - 17 Beachcomber Dr. 3/2 - 575,000 - ' Average $373,393 ' Source: Multiple Listing Book - Volume 2 (January 10, 1980); Newport Harbor/Costa Nlesa Board of Realtors 1 1 1 9 SUMMARY OF RECENT SALES OF 3 BEDROOM CONDOM IN1UbtS (AS OF JANUARY 7, 1986) DISTRICT NO. 12 -- SOUTH OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY ADDRESS i�C'ooms/ Baths Llstina Price Sales Price Date of We 4 Whitewater 3/2.5 $332,000 $300,000 d/3 0/g4 33 Mainsail 3/2.5 299,000 285,000 9/1/84 28 Whitewater 3/2 355,000 325,000 9/15/94 32 Mainsail 3/2.5 429,000 375,000 9/29/84 it Seafaring 3/2 335,000 305,000 11/14/84 7 Jetty Drive 3/2 369,500 3590730 11/14/94 12 Skysall 3/2.5 325,000 290,000 1/11/85 407 Poppy Avenue 3/2.5 235,000 225,000 1/30/85 14 Furrier Reef 3/2.5 389,000 375,000 3/3/85 to Stoll 3/2 335,000 315,000 7/3/85 7 Jasmine Creek 3/2.5 415,000 395,000 7/30/85 35 Skysail 3/2.5 365,000 355,400 8/29/85 23 Canyon Crest 3/2.5 215,000 204,000 9/17/85 6 Skysail 3/2 419,000 385,000 11/11/85 AVERAGE $344,107 $320,9A2 ' Sources: Multiple Listing Hook - Volume 2 (January 10, 1986); Newport Harbor/Costa Mesa Board of Realtors t Multiple Listing Book - Volume 24 (June 14, t963); Newport }torbw/Cmc,a +iesa Board of Realtors Multiple Listing Book - Volume 52 (December 28, 1984); Newport ciarbor/ Costa Nlesa Board of Realtors 1 1 • • 10 1 1 1 SUMMARY OF RECEm,r LIMSGS AND SALES OF RP31DEN71A1. LOTS IN NEWPORT OF.ACII (AS OF JANUARY 7, 1986) Listing smes ADDRE33 Price Price Date of Sale 512 Dahlia $192,500 11/30/85 211 Evening C yn $850,000 09/09/85 36981 Menlo 800,000 12/30/85 301 Narcis3us 605,000 01/01/88 12 Rocky Pt. 995,000 11/22/85 23 Augusta L.n. 787,500 09/30/85 1 Crestwood D. 695,000 10/30/85 72 Hillcrest 649,000 12/01/85 1119 E. Balboa 81. 595,000 12/08/85 1235 W. 3alooa Bl. 295,000 11/01/85 5306 Neptune Ave. 105,000 10/09/85 312 Via Lida 1,500,ODU 12/03/85 120 24th St. 1740500 12/23/85 119 40th St. 175,000 11/11/85 4 Hillsborough 190,000 01/14/85 16 Nart=ne 439,000 05/31/85 617 Carnation 275,000 04/03/85 437 Morning Cyn 1,000100U 05/2L/85 2312 Ocean Front 3500000 01/17/85 311 Carnation lt2009OOO 01/09/85 3014 W. Balboa Bl. 210,000 12/07/84 220 Orange St. 1280000 11/0L/64 824 Harbor Leland 910,000 12/01/84 1319 E. Balboa Bl. 850,00J 10/24/84 17 Napoli 5•1U,000 11/25/84 31 Ri:geline 8101000 12/01/84 8 San Sebastian 325,000 11/26/84 Mean $578,722 Median $595,000 Sources: ,Multiple Listing Book - Volume 2 (January 10, 1386); Newport Harbor/Costa Mesa Board of Realtors Multiple Listing Book - Volume 42 (October 18, 1985); Newport Harbor/Costa .Hess Board of Realtors :Multiple Listing gook - Volume 24 (June 14, 1985); .Newport Harbor/Costa Mesa Board of Realtors Multiple Listing Book - Volume 6 (February 8, 1985); Newport Harbor/Costa Mesa Board of Realtors Multiple Listing Hook - Volume 52 (December 28, 1984h Newport llarbor/Costa Mesa Board of Realtors 11 0 rI LL PROFORMA CASH FLAW The following pages include the proforrna cash flows for tna three scenarios regarding moderate income housing units. The first scenario axsu nei ogle unit for sale, onsite; the second assumes one unit for sate, oftsite; and the third rusiurne<s one unit for lease, onsite. In each proforma the cash flows and profit/floss) are based an the assumptions stated previously In this report. P1OFCAIIA EASM FLOW ftEVARIO, ONE =4 utt•IK:K A11 FOR SkI f 01111E ».... »............ ......... ............. «....................................... TOTAL «.... _............................... KALYU I U%04 ,W C014TIuCT101 FINKI16 SIAL ! O OUTSTWI,1 iRO1S KVELMk'i MMIOVU ItrtLlK4 l KAN K41.7*01 ACTIllft LAO CZT Calls COSTS EOITI IRAN IEMI 14L4ff:E 144.E3 CASH RON ..»««... MITI ».«.._» twilf Hof II KKEll ._._ »_». ........... ...... »». I NY WOl1ECDRS 1041u ........». .»........ ..»»..... .r_..»» _..»«... .»_.«.... ........... .»_...._ 11400,000E NO►,000 . w CO KICE cWFUTION 4i24,000 i62,iii /I6,00► N11,i36 1311,136 w 6111,111 sa 2 0 62,1� I'm r1,JM it,JM / $",624 i 0 1 ► 3 1 62,II4 I'm 11,11e lt,lll 0 142,412 � 0 ► ► 4 4 61,134 I,tl2 11,1M r1,Jp 0 n4,20i 0 0 ► 1 0 will I,nt JI,Tp t1,Ji1 0 10S,te1 0 ► 1 ► + E 62,I36 1,132 1i,11i 11,1H 0 I77,111 0 0 e 0 1 Kill maEt111 0 42,036 1, "1 11,1H 11,114 0 44t,83 0 ► ► � 1 COFttLITE cullol ilal a 61,1I4 I'm II,JM rl,rH 1 1,121,$33 4 1 / ► 1 SELL toll ONE 4 0 11101 10,631 10,6It 141,504 W,412 1421YA ► 0 1 it 0 0 1,2W 1,344 1,2" 1 11e,I3e 4 It SELL UIIII i110 1 0 1,362 91162 1,362 404,000 SQI,120 . 400,00E 1 0 / 13 • 4 0 31213 31213 5,213 0 513,413 4 1 1 1 13 UU MIT MIA o 0 b,iw 3,30 I'm 400,00E 1116161 400,o►E 1 e ► 14 0 0 I,I31 1,211 I,231 a 111,11E 0 / 4 4 13 SELL golf FOUR 4 0 1,27E I'm 1,25E 131,244 0 44/,04► 271,7S2 1 2Te,132 III1L1 /12a,►oo s7o2,ut 1141,05E 11,463,141 $1,063,144 11,463,141 to 11,342,540 11121,2461 44►E,040 1rn,n2 11121,141E •30.111 111l1IMYI 1«Y/eYM YYYYMI /Y/IMF/Y ""46" !1 4I "Ml/dq YYYMN! Y/YYYY wsdI "Sof GY Osi► oo"I O" m m= m= m= m m = = m= = == r= m K ccli 99 KOUA1E-INUK U111 Fall SALE 11511111 . .....17r »..............»».�. ._ .........««...---•--...........»....i11AE...........«.«»..._...»»......----........«........_..._.._ 1ii�Jt ICTUR EoriMST% 1 /ICall aE�+MITI IT a11PLAK 1i a> sC�f:aFLON {71r111111L1 aEtouITVI'S MCNTM 6EYEi011E11! �(T:i:rf �} {L>St COST CDStS C9SrS - CS1S !� 1EIA1 ......._..__ .»..._._.. ICE S,1lU l C+4511 Fla E;aJlT1 E1i1111 MCfIT fEl{EZ♦t ._Mail.~ _ • __.. 1 ...«......»r_� to LAWIE.2" L:w, COIKKt Cor1rw:lw 1vrs,000 117,113 $41,111 11,01,1s1 WOZI 10 1ill,si? NN,II1 1/ I 0 71,123 14,511 M,111 0,161 0 111.01 M1 1 0 1 I 0 111111 I0,vs 10,111 Ujol 0 101,131 1 1 0 1 1 0 11,311 11,111 "ju ",III 0 0"All 1 0 11,us 10,311 N,101 ",lot 0 V11,113 1 1 0 1 i 0 11,1I3 14,111 $1,111 ii,111 4 1,04r,1u 4 1 0 0 1 Kill WWII* 0 17,111 II'vo "jot 0,111 0 l,tss,lls 4 1 0 6 1 MUTE Cw11 .1x 0 "'In 11,l1s N,lol 11,H1 0 I,I13,I31 1 1 0 8 I SELL OFFUlt'All 0 1 12,910 11,151 11,151 $41,300 113,60 S11.140 1 1 1 AN UMIt 1K 10 0 4 1,111 1,131 7,414 0 121,111 f 0 1 11 SELL IAll1 rIG 0 1 1,311 1,111 1,111 4"'0" 321,6I3 401,304 1 0 1 12 0 1 3,113 3,113 1,411 0 111.nl 1 0 1 1 13 Sill UNIT rOU 0 1 3,131 1,114 1,+51 313,311 1 4M.10 61.11; 1 0,111 11 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 Is KU W111 Ito 1 1 1 1 4 0 1 10,401 400,OM 0 440,001 IQ11�S 6117,000 M14,111 1154,rA 61,146,111 11+I11,411 11,111,011 N 11,141.S0o I13.Nll W1,12S 1464.42 (11,W) -4.11i de M""f SMMMMM oo"M " MM1meMM MM MMFN aM MMMM MM.too" •MMMMM MMMMM� mwm �mm ft-M * MMM4MM MMi�M Md • iIOFWuI �,1Sw itlr sawala; M q%(IATE•tKX (All Ro L" rllk 0E4E10/EII RCTM u tMtlK1101 IIMKIIi KAL"IT alsTwm slwi sftitunt I EalIT111U1E1 IEYELOIE i PON IfiEL~ XINITI LNG C367• WSTI M511 WWI "E vas CASH FOS EIUITI mull•+. PCWT _»MSH _ .. _ ...W4 - . .. »E1U:TI . I W LAMM all Ums OPEC rar1TUTIO1 11"Im III,III Y Salim 1111,1:4 1111,1u 84 1111,131 10 mo/,00ol 1400,000 10 I 0 12,1u 1.112 lilt* 11,111 1 Sf0,w 0 0 4 I 3 0 Ulm 0.151 Il'In 11,114 0 112,412 0 d 0 0 + 1 oju IM2 11,T11 11.111 a 131,201 $ 0 0 0 s 0 12.1u ),"1 11.IM 11,1u 0 m,m 0 0 a 4 i 0 12,131 I'm 11.T11 11,111 0 vyl? 0 0 0 0 I Kill 10 11IM6 0 12,tu I'm II,101 11,711 14f,565 0 0 0 0 1 CINUIC COMIn"llall 1 12,1u cm 11,1M II,Iu 4 1,011,333 0 0 1 4 f / 0 11.0 11.49 E4,i31 0 1,031,ff2 / 0 0 0 to I 0 ii'm nj% lyso 0 1,042,141 0 0 1 0 :1 ULL WIT M 0 1 11,112 II'MI 10,112 400,000 131,01 +"'m 0 0 0 12 I 1 111" 1,m 1,001 0 1",412 1 0 0 0 13 UIL MIT IOU 1 0 I'm I,m 1,111 I00,000 IU,m +01,000 0 0 0 1+ 0 0 2,111 I'm 2,764 0 210,014 0 0 0 0 Is KIL ullf 1011"at 0 0 2,111 2.111 2,111 272,1n 1 300,644 14,I0 1 Ulm "it =Itun ta1111 1121,m M2,W I151.240 11.1n,1u II,In,11f st,ln'I" 00 11,i11,15i 11u3,ml •~"",ON Iu,113 Ir.1I,Ml-10.11t ►MMiiasii .iiasuww/ 644 4a/a loos"/a"/ a//sYWM //siMM4i 1MNMaiM 8//00///a/a sa////aNM iiYasiaa/a a*"0006000 siawusiwa 13 I I 1 1 1 1 1 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS As evidenced :)y the praceding Proforma Cash Flons and as suininrirlxc+f ualnH, the estimated rate of return under the three scenurlos range between (negative) (0.78.,G) and (negative) (90.81:40. As expected, the rate of return improves as an additional affordable unit is moved offsite. ESTIMATED RATS OF RETURN tiloderate-Income For Sale/Onsite (30.30) 6 For Sale/Of fsite (0.78)% For Lease/Onsite (90.30% It should be noted that these rates of return reflect point estimates based upon a series of assumptions detailed earlier In this report. The actual rate of return achieved by the 307 Carnation Avenue development will depend upon to what degree variances from these assumptions are experienced and In what direction (i.e., positive or negative) they occur. It is the opinion of Tarantello & Company that if variances do occur, they are more likely 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 follows: (1) a more lengthy absorption period; (1) an increase In construction costs; and (3) a reduction In achievaole sale prices. Given the risk level associated with this type of development and the afore- mentioned 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 develoment projects, Tarantello & Company has found that mast developers would not undertake such a development without an expected rate of return of at least SO percent on Invested capital over the term of the project. L 16 In su,nmatlon, in a financial world where high-grade corporate bonds are yielding 3.5 percent or more, with full liquidity and no management requirements, our motet 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 tied project. It is evident that none of the previous scenarios approach this benchmark, {utitl we strongly recommend that no affordaole unit replacement be Imposed upon the 307 Carnation Avenue development. VENDOR C cipr OF NEWPORT BEA H 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFIFORNIA 92663 PHONE: (714) 644.3118 Tarantella & CrarTpany 3901 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 100 tiE.uWrt Beach, CA 92660 allAMM ... ra.-.,.t.:..*....Y 0221802 DATE DEPT. SHIP TO Four cOPies of the New Construction Feasibility Study per attached letter dated January 28, 1986. 2,000.00 TERMS: IMPORTANT Tnu Al1v,iA7 r;orafn+}!.y tn,rt i•,•:hase Oiler or C(VtHgCI m..ft ran fr:•ml:ra�plr.aG-eCa� OSHA St4�rtar,l7,an(1lnrotneraPPriyr,(ra lr.i rulq% and cvIvi of the FaAnral 6Z)Vernm«nl ar,11 Selo* It a %ftjj4 etrr itr'm as , •rl1.r'i 4.44js J'kx. uee fa, •rr Feder.l ! IN apF� ca(�a to tn�4 Nr�rUa1e T•� s rrr•1ar auUJrr.t to (:.r:acrn a w'es !.(r A:i P,�r:,nate� a•uS lrantpo-ta! -n rn.rrrp-i am e.(rrnpt trn•i. Feletrar e. G 4.7 r,( e NOTE A!l allriMaUih llan7Lo„At-Grt chitQgf rf(trgt t)r1 Vfep44 rn(1 �n�wn as itr.n un t'•e m.n '+f Uii n(�I nr'urle F.delst lrgn,p*rtat+on 1al No.27280 WVWCE IN DUPLICATE r,Ys CAQCi l ►wUMP weal A► fAa R"S CIF L1(Dv1Q EXPt41 t/i r+(rjAi tt, r *C ioACXAGES t?E:.'.rRti Tei'FTj drat ( 4,,AjCE February 11, 1986 Planning 777, 70TAL 2,000.00 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FRANK H. CLARKE III PURCHASING AGENT VENDOR'S COPY No-27280 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 PLANNING DEPARTHENT (714) 644-3225 Pebruarl 11, 1986 Diana Hoard Tarantello & Co. 3901 MacArthur Blvd. Suite 100 Newport Reach, CA 92660 Subjects 307 Carnation Avenue. Corona del Mar Dear Ms. Hoards Attached is the information furnished by Somers and Associates regarding the above referenced property. Also attached is the purchase order agreement (No. 2780) between Tarantello & Co. and the City of Newport Beach. Please sign the addendum to the purchase order (3 pages), make a copy for your file and return the signed original to the City. The developer understands that he must also bear any costs Incurred in evaluating additional scenario(s). Should you require further information regarding the project or if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director B CRAIG T. BLUELL Senior P 0anner CTB3/im Attachments 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach -'.. P.O. NO. 27280 (it reserve SUGGESTED VENDOR: Tarant_e_ llo a Co. • PURCHASE REQUISITION , CITY OF N��YVURT I3FACI R�r f 1v�0�' ' t `� DATE February 10, I W16 ��B 14 i996 9' i1 DEPT Planninq ,� t;EA' ,l�•tA':}�• f SHIP TO Advance Plnnrrtnf 3901 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 QUAN. DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLES OR SERVICES REQUIRED UNIT PRICE TOTAL BUDGET NO. 1 Four co ies nE t o New construction F Study 2er attached letter dated Januar 28 1986 CODE AMOUNT APPROVED: DEPT HEAD (or P on au or ze o e u e req s one PUMAS I A A, • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 9165"915 PLANNING DF.P?,PTMFirr (714) 644-3225 Date _ January 28, 1986 Diana Hoard Tarantello 6 Co. 3901 MacArthur Blvd. Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Ms. Hoard: Within the California Coastal Zone, residential development is governed by State regulations contained in Article 10.7 of the Cnvurnment Code, "Lev- and Moder- ate -Income Housing within the Coastal Zone." The City of Newport Beach adminis- ters these State regulations through quidelines entabliaheel by f:runcil Policy P-1. Council Policy P-1 provides for the preparation of a at"17 to determine whether the affordable housinq required by State regulations IN feasible in new develorments within Newport Beach's Coastal Zone. The followiry information is being provided to enable the preparation of a proposal/bid for such a fea- sibility study. Project Location (address) 307 Carnation, Corona del mar Site Size t11,500 aq.ft. Number of Units 4 Number o f : I edrm. Units 2 Bdrm. Units -`� 3 adrm. Units 4 4 Bd=. Units Project is to be evaluated an: a rental project both an ownership and rental project X For purposes of this feasibility, the city of Newport Beach requests that the consultant prepare a feasibility study by analyzinq the provision of 1 unit(s) at the moderate incorse level. If this initial analysis demon- strates feasibility for one or both types of tenure, the consultant shall continue to perform analyses for the feasible tenure type At each successively lower income level until infeasibility is domonatrated. Current income information in conformance with Article 10.7: $47,500 Affordability standard: 30% of income for rental . S1.187/rnnth rent 3 X incomw for ownership _ $142,500 Term of affordability: 10 years. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach �J • -2- • The applicant has received a copy of this letter and understands that a request for a feasibility study will require additional information, including but not limited to that listed below. The applicant also understands that this informa- tion will be needed by the study start-up date and that the availability of the information necessary to complete the feasibility study could influent" the tine required to complete the study. Site Flan ' Floor plan and description of various floor plan designs Cost of land substantiated by a purchase agreement or other official document • Construction period • Construction cost including off -site costs and list of amenitiou This letter does not constitute a contract, however it does constitute a request for a proposal/bid for services. A contract for services will be executed between the City and the consultant at such time as the project applicant requests a feasibility study. Please provide below an estimatn of cost, time required to prepare, and start-up date for a feasibility study on the project identified above. In addition to the proposal/bid information, please sign and date this letter, keep a copy for your files, and return the orirlinal to the City. 'Thank you. Cost to prepare feasibility study-. . _- _'j '� C?50Q �'+^�' -,Nv a. �u..� ' •dollars. . Time required to prepare feasibility study: 4_5'- 2Q C{alo da s Date on which preparation of feasibility can begin: 4Lr' 45" d CITY OF NEWPORT HEAC11 Ntl Data �f 11OUSE2 1/86 xci Somers & Assoc. Date a— 3- V eo r ALDEtMUM TO PUPCHASF ORDER This Addendum to Purchase Order Number 2780 contains terms And conditions under which the work, or services required by said purchase order munk be performed. Throughout this Addendum, the term "Consultant" reform to th" party providing work or services to the City pursuant to the purchase order. 1. SERVICES BY CONSULTANT. Consultant shall provide to City such work or services required in the Purchase order for any other addendum thereto). Consultant warrants and guaran- tees that all services performed pursuant to the Purchase Order shall be provid- ed in a manner commensurate with the highest professional standards and shall be performed by quAlified and experienced personnel. 2. INDEPENDEIrr PARTIES. The parties to this Agreement intend that the relation between them created by this Agreement is that of employer -independent contractor. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the control of the Consultant, except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the express terms of this Agreement. No Civil Service status or other right of employment will be acquired by virtue of the Consultant's services. None of the benefits provided by the City to its employees, including but not limited to unemployment insurance, workers' compensation insurance, retirement and deferred compensation plans, vacation and sick leave, are available from the City to the consultant, its employees or agents. From any fees due the Consultant, de- ductions shall not be made for any State or Federal taxes, FICA payments, PERS payments, or other purposes normally associated with an employer -employee relationship. Payment of the above items, if required, are the responsibility of the Consultant. 3. INTFGRATM PURCHASE ORDr.R. This Purchase order represents the full and complete understanding of ever/ kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions hereof. Any modification of this Purchase Order will be effective only by written execution signed by both City and Consultant. 4. COST OF I.ITIGATI011. If any loyal action is necessary to enforce any provision hereof or for damages by reason of an alleged breach of any provisions of this Purchase Order, the prevailing party shall be entitled to receive from the losing party all costs and expenses in such amount as the court may adjudge to be reasonable attorneys' fees. 5. HOLD HARMLESS. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City, ito City Council, boards and co=issions, officern, agents, servants, and employees from and against any and all loss, damages, liability, claims, suits, costs, and ex- penses, whatsoever, including reasonable attorneys' fees, regardless of the merit or outcome of any such claim or suit, arising from or in any manner connected to the negligent performance or omission of any services or work conducted pursuant to this Purchase Order. 6. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS. Consultant shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Agreement or any interest therein directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise. Any Attempt to do so shall be null and void, and any assignee, sublessee, hypothecate or transferee shall acquire no right or interen t by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. 7. PERM TS AND LICENSES. Consultant, at its sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Purchase Order, all appropriate permits, licenses and certificates that ray be required in connection with the performance of services hereunder. 9. WAIVER. A waiver by the City of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein whether of the same or a different character. 9. TEPMI11ATION. In the event Consultant hereto fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions hereof at the time and in the manner required hereunder, Consultant shall be deemed in default in the perforrasnce of this Agreement. If such default is not cured within a period of two (2) days after receipt by Consultant from City of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such default, City may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the Consultant written notice thereof. 10. REPORTS. Each and every report, draft, work product, asap, record and other document reproduced, prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant pursuant to - 2 - or in connection with this Purchase order shall be the exclusive property of the City. No report, infor=atior. or other data given to or prepared or assembled by the Consultant pursuant to this Purchase Order shall be made available to any individual or organization by the Consultant without prior approval by the City. Consultant shall, at such tine and in such form as the City may require, furnish reports concerning the status of services required under this Purchase order. 11. NOTICES. All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under thin Purchase order, shall be given in writing and conclusively shall be deemad served when delivered personally or on the second business day after the deposit thereof in the United States !fail, postage prepaid, registered or certified, addressed as hereinafter provided. All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from Consultant to City shall be addressed to the City at= ttewport Reach City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. fox 1768 ttewport Beach, CA 92658-89I5 All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from City to Consultant shall be addressed to Consultant at the address set forth in the Purchase Order, The Consultant has read this Addendum to Purchase Order and accepts each tern and condition hereof. CONSULTANT APPPOIJED 7 TO FORM i rV By Ciff Attorney MELLO - 3 - t rrr■ • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3300 Nrwpon SITd, i40-2139 FEE RECEIPT RECEIVED �uu4_- c s OI L JOB ADDRESS: 1 je-_�kl wHEri VALIDATED THIS IS A RECEIPT FOR THE AMO NT OF FEE COLLECTED AS SHOWN IN SPACE =s_+OW/. THE SERIAL NUMBER, DATE AND AMCLI T VALIDATED HEREON HAS ALSO '£EN 'VALIDAT_Q u`I YOUR APPLICATION OR OTHER DOCUMENT AND HAS BECOME A PART OF THE RECORDS OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FROm WHICH THIS RECEIPT MAY BE IDENTIFIED, ❑ PLAN CHECKING -VALUATION $ P �` �� • ❑ SANITATION DIST. NO. S FEE yvG vr.y� Cl BUSINESS LICENSE FEE 30% CmvJi cw. ❑ REMPECTION FEE B E P S L H ❑ EXCISE TAX FEE p MOBILFHOME PARK PERMIT FEE SPACES Li IWPORARY GAS ELEC. i] PLANNING DEFT. FEES VALID6T1PN ❑ PLAN CH KIN . RADIUG -_,_._� CU. YDS. CASH CHIC M.O. �C R U P� Julc f�& op -bog -(Jo RECEjvEr BY "WAL wQ CATS *Two" Pa_ t „► j CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 PLAltl;INc. DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 Date _ January 2H, 1986 Diana Hoard Tarantello 6 Co. 3901 MacArthur Blvd. Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Ms. Hoard: Within the California Coastal Zone, renidr:nrial development is lnverned by State regulations contained it, Article 10.7 of the Covernment Code, '%ow- nr,d looder- ate-Income dousing within the cnantal zur,©." The city of Itewle,rs Iisinc:h adminis- ters these State roijulationn through guidelines eutabl inhe►i by cr,11::cil policy P-1. Council Policy 1'-1 providna for the preparation of a ntuily to determine: whether the affordable housimf required by State regulations in Irn►iible► in new developmentn within 1iew1xt[t Hunch's Coastal Tone. The followinol inforration is being provided to enable the preparation of a prupoaal/hid for much a fea- nihility study. Project I.nCntion (address) 307 Carnation, Corona del Mar Site Size t111500 sq.ft. Number of Units 4 Number of: I Pdrm. Unite 2 Hdrn. Units 3 Hdrm. Units 4 4 ndrm. Units Project is to be evaluated ass a rental project both an ownership and rental project Y. For purposes of this feasibility, the City of Newport Beach reyuestR that the consultant prepare a feasibility study by nnalyzing the provision of 1 '1nit(s) at the moderate income level. If this initial analysiR demon- strates feasibility for one or both types of tenure, the consultant shall continue to perform analyses for the feasible tenure type at each successively lower income level until infeasibility is demonstrated. Current income infomation in conformance with Article 10.71 $47,500 Affordability standards 30% of income for rental - S1,187 month rent 3 X income for ownership_- $142,500 Term of affordability: 10 years. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach The applicant has received a copy of this letter and u derstnndR that a request for a feasibility study will require additional information, including but not limited to that listed below. The applicant also understands that this informa- tion will be needed by the study start-up date and that the availnbllity of the information necessary to complete the feasibility study could influence the time, required to complete the study. • Site Alan • Floor plan and description of various floor plan desiynn • Cost of land substantiated by a purchase agreer4nt or other official document • Construction period • Construction cost including off -site costs an,! list of am(-nities This letter does not constitute a contract, however :_ (toes constitute a request for a proposal/bid for services. A contract for services will be executed between the City and the consultant at such time as the project applicant requests a feasibility study. Please provide bel(jw an estimate of cost, time required to prepare, and start-up (late for A feasibility study on the pro3ect identified above. In addition to the proposal/bid irformation, plensu sign and date thin letter, keep a ropy for your Eller;, dr-d rilturn the t,rlyinal to the City. Thank yore,. Cost to prepare feasibility studys 'gig p?50 (collars, Time required to prepare feasibility study: Qlldaxiodays. Date on which preparation of feasibility can begins i �w -&M d (5 j CITY OF NEWPORT &P.ACIS CONSULTANT ��Wvr!' fllM rfAl IN Date IIOUSE2 1/11b xC: Sorern & Ansoc. Date c;�" 3— V 6 . r _ ,x .t }�` y o-„ -ems. i_ •- -�c wa 1..- ��• a.i.a'L',� �xti:u::.\�Jc,� �. .:S +._ :r. . � -:. >. "hr. <'=- , � .✓t' il. ... _:i..`i�..dL'l:a�i.ir.-.:5+'_i.ls..�'�::�.Y.<::.\..L.__a-1� ...•... .. . 'P'- •L. . � . ,r.. w s - ..::L...S...�a" .�: _ "7 ' dQ2Y�i�-ii'ra-ssi::i_7`. y � �•('pia` ..Y " 1' i •�,a...a.,.si1.i1 tiiliTl9. — _ .-�... � ... �-\,,'i :.-_ _v �..-. 4. ...:i ..._ ._. _ .- - - _ .- - s L,. • .11____.. u__+..a..-.i r_r... �i.s..:�...J ., a.r .� '��-r. . .. s.. •xi :v7\`_�a_:.w7 �SL.7:a....� .. al.. .<;.A. "... a... .a.- � ..ti.�.. ,•. �..-.,..».. .... S�«✓-.:,.� sw°.4•=�=ati:..a�:�•.-.�.��.i.:�.�:�.�S. i.-.:L��.-• .�-« 1 i 4�1