HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP_014CCASSAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP CCL%CIL POLICY P-1 Ct PP ! 7 ..
CITY OF NEWPORT REACH POT
cation Fec•.: yy
Fee: S
FLU N."ING DEPART!'OM
Cv""7 PLA%4= DIVISION
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport beach. CA 92661
(714) 640-2216 or 640-2219
"DIiV'D �t1sM
A California Limited 714-644-6060
Applicant (Print) Carnation Cove, p."sore
eartnerSIIIP
failing Address 18 Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Property Owner Same Phone
flailing Address Same
Address of Property Involved 2500 Seaview, Corona del Myer, C.A
Legal description of Property Involved (if too long, attach separate sheet) portions
of lots 2, 4, 6 6 8 in Block 231 Corona del Mar
Description of the Proposed Project
Number of Units s i x
Multi -Family
/ttttlftltlt!!fflfRt�tttt!!lttfltt!!!!!f Rltf tlwl+!!t!!l R+++lw w+mil++++w w++++*+++R++fl+w+f•+f+
Please attach a stateseent indicating the proposed selling price of the units, the
anticipated cost of developing the proposed project and any other infor-ation that could
affect ,the feasibility of providing low/moderate income units in conjunction with the
proposed project.
At!!lrtRtRttt!ltetsRftttllRtRltt!lttRltRtt!!lttt!*+wl++l+++wwl+et++++!l+.sv■+++•*+++++++!!ww
(T) (Mel Carnation Cove, A California Limited Partnership depose and say
that (I an) (we are) the owner(s) of the property(ies) involved in this application. (I)
(we) further certify, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing statements and answers
herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct
to the best of (my) (our) knowledge and belief.
Signature(s) By: -Westland Commercial Corp.
General Partner��
1iC)?f: An agent may sign for the owner if written authorization from the record owner is
filed with the applicant.
DO N= C0*3PLETE APPLICATION BELOW THIS LINE
Date Filed FQe Pd.
Planning Director Action
Gate
P.C. Hearing
Receipt No.
Appeal
P.C. Action /1-
r
Date Appeal
C.C. Hearing
C.C. Action
Date
1/06
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P-1 PRCCErURES FOR CONVERSIONS AND DEMOLITIONS
UET£RHINATIM OF APPLICABILITY
When an application for conversion or demolition of residential structures is
submitted, it grist be determined if P-1 is applicable by answering the
following questions:
1. Is the project in the Coastal Zone?
ElYes: See 02.
ED No: P-1 doesn't apply.
2. Does it involve demolition or conversion of three or more residential
units?
x�' Yes: Part A of the completed Application for Residential Demolition/
Conversion shall be filed. No fees will be required with this
portion of the application. Following completion and submittal
of Part A of the application, continue to Question 43.
0 No: The conversion and demolition provisions of P-1 don't apply,
however PART A of the Application for Residential Demolition/
Conversion must be completed and signed by the owner or
authorized agent.
3. Is the replacement use coastally dependent or coastally related and
consistent with the LCP7
Q
Yess
P-1
doesn't apply.
No:
See
14
ED
4. Has the structure been officially declared a public nuisance by a public
agency as defined by State Health and safety Code or City Ordinance?
Yess
The
conversion and demolition provisions of P-1 don't apply.
No:
P-1
may apply.
x�
PPOCEDURES IF P-1 IS APPLICABLE
If Policy P-1 is applicable under the above criteria then proceduren will
vary as to the type of replacement development contemplated as folla.+ss
!ion-Pesidential Uses Onl
If the new project proposed is neither residential not coastally derm ndent
than the applicant must provide information dea,onstrating that residential
use of the site is no longer feasible. In addition, the applicant must
provide all information, fees and other materials required of applicants for
conversion or demolitions for any purpose as described in the following
section. The conversion or demolition would be allowed only if the Planning
Director determined that the residential use was no longer feasible. If the
conversion or demolition is approved, replacement units would be required on
the same basis as for projects where the new use is residential.
Residential or Non -Residential Use
whether the proposed new development is residential or not, the property
owner and/or developer shall complete and file Part B of the Application for
Residential Demolition or Conversion. The application rust be accompanied by
a fee of $250.00 per unit to be converted or demolished or per new unit to be
constructed, whichever is greater. For projects of forty units or more, the
Planning Commission may approve a reduction in fees. In addition, the
applicant shall pay all projected -related costs of any feasibility studies
deemed to be necessary for the administration of these guidelines and/or
Section 65900 at seq of the Government Code.
Following receipt of the application, the Planning Department will, if
necessary, verify information by contacting current tenants and previously
evicted tenants to determine how many units are currently occupied by low or
moderate income people or families, or how many have been occupied by low or
moderate income people who have been evicted in the past twelve months. The
circumstances under which any low or moderate income people were evicted must
be provided for the purpose of determining if tenants have been evicted in
order to circumvent Policy P-l.
If there are low or moderates income tenants, or if low and moderate income
tenants were evicted to circumvent Policy P-1, then the need for replacement
units will be determined for the appropriate one of the two following casesi
1. Property with more than one structure and three to tan units.
Replacement of low and moderate income units will be required
on a one for one basis to the extent feasible. it will be the
applicant's responsibility to provide any information required
for the City to determine feasibility and pay any
project -related coat of any necessary feasibility studies.
- 2 -
•
2. Property with one structure and three or more units.
All Eraperty with eleven or more units.
Peplacement for low and moderate income units is required on a
one for one basis for all units occupied by low Anti moderate
income tenants and for all units from which low Anil moderate
income tenants have been evicted in the previous twt•lvo rr-onths
in order to circumvent the requirements of Policy 1'-1.
Within ten days after determining the number of required replru;t►ment units,
the Planning Department will notify the applicant by certified mA11 as to how
many replacement units will be required and his right to appodil the decision
to the 'Newport Beach Planning Commission or City Council. UIX)n final deter-
mination, the applicant must provide the City with information as to how he
proposes to provide the replacement units, where he proporuas the units be
located, and characteristics of the proposed units. The Planning Department
will then review the applicant's proposal to determine if the replacement
units provide housing similar to what is being converted or demolished. If
the applicant's proposal is acceptable, the developer and/or property caner
must enter into a written agreement with the City'specifyiny the type ar.d
location of the proposed replacement units and assuring thnr, the units will
be available for occupancy within three years of proleet approval.
MELLO
1/86
- 3 -
May 5, 1999
Mr. Craig Bluell
Planning Department
City of Newport Reach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Craig:
MOI MWAnhw Soubvard
&AW too
Newport t *Kk CA 92Ad0.3M
VU) e3 • Mo
4Z2 E Camafb.ck Rd.
SLOW 2%H
PtMfiX, AZ t1 d
lei) ego - W4
Pursuant to your request, Tarantello & Company is pleased to submit this brief
pre -contractual letter to provide a feasibility study of low to moderate income
level units on the Subject Site as specified above. More specific parameters and
details shall be provided to Consultant by Client.
The fee for the scope of services shall
be $3,300.
Payment in full
is due upon
completion of the assignment. Said
feasibility
study shall be
prepared and
delivered no later than May 22, 1999, or
within 10
working days of
the execution
date of the formal contract between
the City of
Newport Beach
(Client) and
Tarantcllo & Company (Consultant).
if this pre -proposal letter meets with your approval, please sign where indicated
below and return one copy to this office. Consultant expects a formal contract
to be drawn by May 8, 1989.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service and look forward to your
continued patronage in the future.
Kindest regards,
TARANTELLO & COMPANY
Diane W. Joslyn
Senior Marketing Consultant
APPROVED AND ACCEPTED FOR
City of Newport Beach
7r- ;tgtueu
'_55; a- �
Phonc
r
CITY OF NEW PORT BEACH
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-"15
PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225
Date tie —AU289
Diane Joslyn
Tarantello & Co.
3901 MacArthur Blvd,
Suite 100
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Dear Ms. Joslyn:
Within the California Coastal Zone, residential devc,lopment is governed by
State regulations contained in Article 10.7 of the Cavert=ent Code, "low -
and Modurate-Income Housing within the Coastal 'Lone." The City of flowport
Beach administers those State regulations throb h guidelines established by
Council Policy P-1. Council Policy P-1 provides for the preparation of a
study to determine whether the affordable hounlnY, required by State regu-
lations is feasible in new developments within Newport Beach's Coastal
Zone. The following information is being provided to unable the preparation
of a proposal/bid for such a feasibility study,
Project Location (address) 2599 Seaview. Corona dal Mar. CA 92625
Site Size 12,886 sa.ft. Number of Units 6
Number of:
1 Bdrm. Units 2 Bdrm. Units 3 Bdrm. Units 6
4 Bdrm, Units
Project is to be evaluated as: a rental project
both an ownership and rental project
For purposes of this feasibility, the City of Newport Beach requests that
the consultant prepare a feasibility study by analyzing the provision of __1
unit(s) at the _Moderate_ income level on -site. If this initial analysis
demonstrates 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.
If it is not feasible to provide an affordable unit on -site, the feasibility
of providing 1 ^. now two bedroom ownership unit off -site the the berate
income level within the City of Newport Beach should be anlayszed. If this
initial analysis demonstrates feasibility, the consultant shall continue to
perform analyses at each successively lower Income level until infeasibility
is demonstrated.
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
Kay 4, 1989 • •
Page two
Current income information in conformance with Article 10.7:
Moderate Income: 2 br: 553.300: 3 br: 559.950
Median Income: 2 br: 544.400: 3 br; S49,950
Affordability standard: 30% of income for rental —
Moderate income: Lhr,; SL332: 3 br: 51.499
Median Income:
Term of affordability: 20_ years.
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 under-
stands that this Information will be needed by the study start-up date and
that the availability of the information necessary to complete the feasibil-
ity study could influence the time required to complete the study.
Site Plan
Floor plan and description of various floor plan (hiulynn
Cost of land substantiated by a purchase agreement or other
official document
Construction period
Construction cost including off -site costs and list of amenities
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 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 copy for your files, and return the
original to the City. 'thank you.
Cost to prepare feasibility study: J �z V dollars,
Time required to propane fe si l�, ptu� days L�
L �-L y
Date on which preparation of feasibility can egi
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
By
Dat
CTB\P1-LET.89
CONSULTANT
By /1, 0/.
Date
02.701
02.71I-4
ury OF NE TORT 11EACN .
Huilding I)epurtment
'1300 Newport Illyd.
11.0. Iiox 1768
Newport lieuch. CA 926514-k rt
l'hune. 17 1.11 6.14.32FK
lsurlding Ilan Check
Valuatxrn
Grading flan Check
01. Yok- -..----._-.
Man Check No:.--
FEE
M.�.n •d I roar
r.26n:�, 6rf1 vl w A)6
S
s
LJ
02.701 708
0%erume I'lan Check • H G
❑
02.703
Speciallnrpection
S
❑
02.703
Ilein%pection 11 E If I'
S
02.121
Temporary Electric
S
El
0246u
Planning Department F'fvsg"5, `r1& ,c.,FS'ic7� nAl,
f Z}/ELO.AV1,6l1r'
❑
02-Moo
Sale of Maps R Ihlhlicution;
S
i72-2t8-d4Svo -3�A✓� -�c7- ic�s�d�ciTy'Srcvf �+E�o�
s
ao
TOTA1. FEES:
S
Whom talularrd thlI u a rrrolpt for the amount of fet ruder fed at rhotan in spared boce The anal mum bee
date and amal-N1 r altdufal Aeyon Auer ylw been raLdlattd on your application or ufAer doermeel and hate
beeame a part of the rerords of the CI rY CIF A•h'K PORT M.W71 from is AseA this reeeipt May be identified.
A X n n Validation
RI,CEIVED �_ Serial No. Date Fee
NOTICE: Plan Check expires 180 days after application.
DISTRIBUTION: Original - Permittee; Cashier (I)-. ,FIle 4(1)i Q1/11/37
,WO.GO TOIL
0 PURCHASE REQUISITION 0
CITY OI� N EW PO R"Ir BEACI l COPY
P.O. NO.
(if reserve
SUGGESTED VENDOR:
Tarantallo 6 Co.
3901 MacArthur Boulevard - Suite 100
Newport Beach, California 92660
DATE _._._May 12, 1989 . .
DEPT t,t.Atrrttw; aEpAjrrxtrrtT
SHIP TO PtOtersional/Technical Bldg.
QUAN. DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLES OR SERVICES REQUIRED UNIT PRICE
TOTAL BUDGET NO.
Professional services re feasibility study for
2500 Seaview (CRDP #14), as described in letter
dated May R, 1989
$3 500.00 02- -
CODE
AMOUNT
APPROVED; •
AmNoDEPT HEAD
asp
(or Pe n au or ze u e req s ens
PURCHASIH T
ADDEKWM TO PUHMA,;E ORDER
This Addendum to Purchase Order Nurrher
CUrI to jay
terms and conditions under which the work or services required by
said purchase order must be performed. Throughout thin Addendum,
the term "Consultant" refers to the party provi(I Ini; work or
services to City pursuant to the purchase order.
I. SERVICES ny CONSULTANT
Consultant shall prov a to Cl ty such work or services
required in the Purchase Order (or any other addendum thereto).
Consultant warrants and guarantees that all sery Ices performed
pursuant to the Purchase Order shall be provided In a manner
commensurate with the highest professional standards and shall be
performed by qualified and experienced personnel.
2. INDEPENDENT PARTIES
City and .Consu 1 tan t 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 .df 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 Corisul'tant Is services.
None of the benefits provided by City to its employees, including
but not limited to unemployment insurance, worker's compensation
plans, vacation and sick Icave are available from -.Ci ty to
Consultant, its employees or agents. Deductions shall not be
made for any state or federal taxes, FICA payments, 11F.ItS
payments, or other purposes normally associated with an employer -
employee relationship from any fees due Consultant. Payments of
the above items, if required, are the responsibility of
Consultant.
3. COST OF LITIGATION
If any legal 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.
4. BOLD HARMLESS
Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City, its
City Council, boards and commissions, officers and employees from
and against any and all loss, damages, liability, claims, suits,
costs and expenses 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 Consultant's
negligent performance of services or work conducted or performed
pursuant to this Agreement.
' Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City, its
City Council, boards and commissions, officers and employees from
and against any and all loss, damages, liability, claims, suits.
-2-
costs and expenses whatsoever, including reasonable attorneys'
fees, accruing or resulting to any and all persons, firms, or
corporations furnishing or supplying work, service.;, ma ter is Is
equipment or supplies arising from or in any manner c-onnec ted to
the Consultant's negligent performance of •servic:as or work
conducted or performed pursuant to this Agreement.
$. MOU113ITION AGAINST ?itANSPIItS
Consultant shal I not assign, sublease, hypotheen te, or
transfer this Agreement or any interest therein directly or
indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise without prior
written consent of City. Any attempt to do so shall be null and
void, and any assignee, sublessee, hypothecate or transferree
shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted
assignment, hypothecation or transfer.
6. PERMITS 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 may be required In
connection with the performance of services hereunder.
7. NOTICES
All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given
under this Purchase Order shall be given In writing and
conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally or
on the second business day after the deposit thereof in the
United States mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified,
-3-
C�
addressed as hereinafter provided. All notices, demands,
requests, or approvals from City to Consultant shall be addressed
to Consultant at the address set forth in the Purchase Order.
All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from
Consultant to City shalt be nddressed to City nt: f;Ity of
Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport ltunch,
California 92663
8. TERM I NAT ION
In the event Consultant hereto falls 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 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, Cit7
may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the Consultant
written notice thereof.
9. REPORTS
Each and every report, work product, map, record
and other document reproduced, prepared or caused to be prepared
by Consultant pursuant to or In connection with this Purchase
. Order shall be the exclusive property of 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 any individual or organization
by the Consultant without prior approval by City.
-4-
(0
in
Consultant shall, at such time and in Such form as City
may require, furnish reports concerning the status of the
services required under this Purchase Order.
10. INT£GRATM PUItCMSF. ORDER
This Purchase Order represents the full nitd coirxilete
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. No verbal agreement
or imptIed conversant 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.
11. WAIVER
A waiver by City of any breach of any terin, 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.
The Consultant has read this Addendum to Purchase Order
and accepts and agrees to each term and condition herein.
Dated: ! - o CONSULTAl�T
BY:
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. BOX 1768. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915
PLAMING DEPARTKENI (714) 644-3225
Date Mav_4.1989
Diane Joslyn
Tarantello b Co.
3901 MacArthur Blvd,
Suite 100
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Dear Ms. Joslyn:
Within the California Coastal Zone. residential development is governed by
State regulations contained in Article 10.7 of the Goverment Code, "Low -
and Moderate -Income (lousing within the Coastal Zone." The City of Newport
Beach administers those State regulations through guidelines established by
Council Policy P-1. Council Policy P-1 provides for the preparation of a
study to determine whether the affordable housing required by State regu-
lations is feasible in new developments within Newport Beach's Coastal
Zone, The following information is being provided to enable the preparation
of a proposal/bid for such a feasibility study,
Project Location (address) 2500 Sgaylew,. Corona del Har. CA� 92625,
Site Size 12.886 aq.ft. Number of Units 6
Number of:
1 Bdrm. Units 2 Bdru. Units 3 Bdrm. Units
4 Bdrm, Units
Project is to be :valuated 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 _—I
unit(s) at the maderate income level on -site. If this initial analysis
demonstrates 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.
If it is not feasible to provide an affordable unit on -site, the feasibility
of providing --I new two bedroom ownership unit off -site the the Moderate
income level within the City of Newport Beach should be anlayszed. If this
Initial analysis demonstrates feasibility, the consultant shall continue to
perform analyses at each successively lower income level until infeasibility
is demonstrated.
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
May 4, 1989 •
Page two
Current income information in conformance with Article 10.7:
Moderate Income: 2 hr: MAN: N:_ J_�r: $59.250
Median Income; 2 br., $44,400,r 4 `0
Affordability standard: 3Qt of income far rental
Moderate Income:br;_$1,499
Median Income: 4
err owls •, s�i,� `j X,���'n!!�F r,,- ,
Term of affordability: � l� years, �'dF.'%fro
� G
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 under-
stands that this information will be needed by the study start-up date and
that the availability of the information necessary to complete the fanaibil-
ity study could influence the time required to complete the study,
Site Plan
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 amonitios
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 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 copy for your files, and return the
original to the City. 'shank you,
Cost to prepare feasibility study: / doll -are.
Time required to prepare fe i sty turfy:, day 4_1
Date on which preparation of feasibility can egi
CITY OF NBWPORT BEACH
By
Dat
CTB\P1-LEt,89
CONSULTA2rf
By �.
Date S.
May 5, 1989
Mr. Craig Blucll
Planning Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re: Carnalion Core
Dear Craig:
MM IWdlrftr Doo"wd
SLAM too
HOWM Be"f% CA 9pG6D-3m
VU) 833.2660
4222 F C meftut M
Phoenix4 u e5=
PM 840-3e64
Pursuant to your request, Tarantello & Company is pleased to submit this brief
pre -contractual letter to provide a feasibility study of low to moderate income
level units on the Subject Site as specified above. More specific parameters and
details shall be provided to Consultant by Client.
The fee for the scope of services shall be $3,500. Payment in full is due upon
completion of the assignment. Said feasibility study shall be prepared and
delivered no later than May 22, 1989, or within 10 working days of the execution
date of the formal contract between the City of Newport Beach (Client) and
Tarantello & Company (Consultant).
If this pre -proposal letter meets with your approval, please sign where indicated
below and return one copy to this office. Consultant expects a formal contract
to be drawn by May 8, 1999.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service and look forward to your
continued patronage in the future.
Kindest regards,
TARANTELLO & COMPANY
a" Al
Diane W. Joslyn ?11L
Senior Marketing Consultant
APPROVED AND ACCEPTED FOR
City of Newport Beach
r. Craig Bluell
vice
a as 5
Phone
i
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
qwm� COPY
DEMAND FOR PAYMENT
Date F-I'l 30, 1911r)
Demand of: Tarantello & Company
Address: 3901 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 100
Nevpirt Beach, California 92660
In the amount of S3,500.00
ITEM OF EXPEA DITURE
BUDGET i
AMOUNT
Feasibility Study for 2500 Seaview, Corona dol Mar
(CHAP $14)
02-218-04
Job No. 17119
Approved For Payment:
w
TOTAL $3,500.00
Hance Director
d•
May 25. 1989
Mr. Craig T. Bluell
Planning Department
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
INVOICE
•
RE: CARNATION COVE, 2500 SEAViEW, CORONA DEL MAR
JOB NO. 17119
Services Rendered: Research and preparation of a feasibility report of the above
referenced property.
AMOUNT NOW DUE: 5t)
Terms: Net 10 days. A finance charge
of 1.0% per month which is an annual
percentage rate of 12% is charged on all
past due accounts.
Please make check payable to Tarantello do Company.
and remit with a copy of this invoice to:
3901 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 100
Newport Reach, California 92660
We appreciate this Opportunity to be of service and look forward to your
continued patronage in the future.
Respectfully submitted,
TA a-LLoa-
Diane& COMPANY
W. Joslyn
Senior Marketing Consu ant AP RO D FOR pA 'MENT
By
UNT tao.:
bAMCE- OE PUBILIC HEARING
W 40
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a
public hearing on the applications of
JhWI Merit Permit No. 14 i1nd Waiver of Combining Qf- Lots on property located at
Seaview Avenue.
w
Notice is hereby further given that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of
Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Negative Declaration states
that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the
present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This
is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. The
City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation.
Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and
inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport
Beach, California, 92659-1768 (714) 644.3225.
Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the ZW day of Scptembe
jM at the hour of Ta,.0 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300
Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons
interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in
this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing.
For information call (714) 644-3200.
Janice Debay, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach.
Note: The expense of this notice is paid from a Cling fee collected from the applicant.
'WLICAT10N FOR SESIDE?i:IAL DF_*4OL1T_CN/CCNVERSI0N Fayc i e: 3
CITY.OF NrWPORT BEACH
PLANNIl+NG DEPAFTHENT Application No.
CURRENT PI.M4NING DIVISION Application Rec`d by
3300 Newport Boulevard Fee
Newport Beach, CA 92663
(714) 644-3200
PART A (Please Print)
Applicant Carnation Love, A California Limited Phone 714-644-606n
Partnership
Mailing Address 18 Corporate% Plaza, Newport ReAch, CA 92660
Property Owner same Phone
Mailing Address Same
Address of Property Involved 2500 Seaview, Corona del Mar, CA 92625
Legal Description of Prcperty Involved (if too long, attach separate sheet) Por- ion
of lots 2, 4, 6 & B in Block 231 Corona del Mar
M.M 3-41 6 42
Number of Residential Units Currently Onsite
Number of Residential Structures onsi e
3
19 non -conforming
6 unit Multi -family
Description of the Proposed New Development
if the structure is being demolished as a public nuisance as defined by the State Health and
Safety Code or City Ordinance, describe those factors causing the existing residential unit
to constitute a nuisance. (Attach additional sheets if necessary)
(PART A NOT COKPLETE WITHOUT OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT ON PAGE 3)
*** DO NOT CO!'.PLETE APPLICATIC4 BELCId THIS LINE •••
Date Filed
Planning Dept. Determination 0
Determination by
P-i Not Applicable P-1 npplicable
Part B Not Required Fart B Required
PART B (Please Print)
Applicat.cn No.
Page 2 of 3
Number of Residential V its Proposed
six (6)
If proposal is for non-residential use, why is a residential use no lcnyer feasible on this
site? (attach additional sheets if necessary)
List of currant tenants (sea definition below).
Tenant Name NoneDatesof Tenancy
Current Residence Phone
Number of Bedrooms Current Monthly incc=e
Business Address Phone
Mailing Address
Tenant Name
Current Residence
Number of Sedroorss
Business Address
Mailing Address
Tenant Name
Current Residence
Number of Bedrooms
Business Address
Hailing Address
ATTACH ADDITIMIAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY
For those tenants involved in any eviction
previous twelve months, please provide the
None
Tenant Name
Address from which Evicted
Dates of Tenancy
Phone
Current r:anth ly
Phone
Dates of Henan-
Phone
Current Month!,;
Phone
11 ncene
.r.ccne
(see definition below) or leca: action within the
following:
Date Tenancy Be3an
Monthly Income at
of Eviction
Number of Bedrooms
Residence Address Phone
Business Address Phone
Mailing Address
Court, Name Court Address
Case Number Case Name
Description of case or action taken to cause eviction
Time
Tenant Nacre
Date Tenancy Be;&n
Address from which Evicted
Monthly 1ncoae a. Time
of Eviction
Nusiber of Bedrooms
Residence Address
Phone
Business Address
Phone
Mailing Address
Court Name
Court Address
Case Number
Case Name
Description of case or action taken to
cause eviction
Tenant Name
Date Tenancy Beyar.
Address from which Evicted
Tenthly Inge at 'ice
of Eviction
Number of Bedrooms
Residence Address
Phone
Business Address
Phone
Mailing Address
Court Nam
[oust Address
Case Number -- --
Case NW-'*
Description of case or action taken to cause eviction
ATTACH ADDI'TIONA-Ir SHEETS IF NECESSARY
Face -1 z_ 3
Avplica_zcr. ::e.
Tenantst For the pupose of this applicatior. the City of ::ew:ort Seach censtdc " all
persons nd families who occupy a residentiAl rental unit for a period srpa•_er than 45 days
to be tenants.
Eviction: The City of Newport Beach recogni_es legal or court actions and actions such as
rent increases beyond the current market rate, avoidance of state mar -dated rr-airterance,
harassment and other such actions which result in a tenant vacating his Ming unit against
his will as an eviction.
eWINER' 5 AFFIDAVIT*
(i) twe) Carnation Cove, A California Limited Partnership depose and say
that (I am) (we are) the owner(s) of the propertyties) involved in this application. (I)
(wen) further certify, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing statements and answers
herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct
to the best of (my) (our) knowledge and belief.
sicrature(s} g�= Westland Commercial Corp.
r
_mac.-/...� -�• ✓~
•NoTEt An agent may sign for the owner if urirten authorization frc= the record comer :s
filed with the applicant.
0— Do NOT COMPLETE APPLICATION BELOW THIS LIME ".'
Date tiled Fee rd.
planning Department Action
Date Appeal
P.G. Hearing P.C. Action
Date
G.C. Hearing
Date
HELLO
1/86
Appeal
C.C. Action
Receipt No.
Notice Is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will
hold a public hearing on the applications of
Coasul-bliftntial Development Permit No. 14 and¢11diver of_Combininr 21-1&U on property
located at 2500 Seaview Avenue.
ilesuest to Amad a vortion of DistrictingrMA2_No. 17_ so RE4_5fl establim
ygfd setback along the Carnetion_ivenue (private) frontage of, he su JrrLRropertX. The
RX0 2 sal aln naludes: _ a request to, waiy„ethe combining of to 'Xygui renent in
V
residential condominium deyelopmely=_pSLsuant to -the Administrative Cuillelines for the
implementation of thg StAtg Law relative to Low-and-Hoderate-Income Housing Xithin the is hereby further given that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City
of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above, The Negative
Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect
on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to nr.chpt the Negative
Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to ba construed as either approval
or denial by the City of the subject application. The City encourages members of the
general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Negative
Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at
the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach,
California, 92658.8915 (714) 644.3225.
Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the Jb day of
August 1989, at the hour of " p.m, in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City
Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and
all persons interested may Appear and be heard thereon. if you challenge this project
in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone also raised at
the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to
the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (714) 644-3200.
Cary J. Di Sano, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach.
Note: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant.
t�
. " COMMISSIONERS . , MINUTES
- - - -
ROLL CALL
August 10, 1989
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Req st to permit the construction of a single family dwelling
which ceeds the maximum allowable height in the 24/28 Foot
Height irritation District on property located In the R-1
District. Tha height of the proposed dwelling will not exceed
the height of the top of curb on Ocean Boulevard. lire
proposal also Includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as
to allow the proposed dwelling to encroach 10 feet into the
required 10 foot front yard setback adjacent to Ocean Boulevard.
LOCATION: Lot 15, Tract No. 1257, located at 3619
Ocean Boulevard, on the southerly side of
Ocean Boulevard between Orchid Avenue
and Poinsettia Avenue, in Corona dcl Mar.
ZONE: R-1
APPLICAN'T: EPAC Financial, Inc., Costa, Mesa
OWNER: Thomas Linden, Newport BcacW,
James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the appli t has
requested to withdraw the subject application.
Request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. 17 so as to
establlsh a 10 foot front yard setback along the Carnation
Avenue (private) frontage of the subject property and the
acceptance of an environmental document.
AND
Re nest to waive the combining of lots requirement in
conjunction with the proposed project and the approval of a
modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow an open stairway
to encroach 7 feet into a required 10 foot rear yard setback and
-42-
INDEX
Item No.12
V1155
Withdrarn,
Item No.13
A6 85
Waiver of
Combining
Requirement
CRUD 14
Cont'd to
9-21-89
COMMISSIONERS • O MINUTES
August 10, 1989
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL ) ) ] 11 } I I I INDEX
to allow a portion of the structure to encroach 2 feet into the
required 6 foot reverse corner setback adjacent to Seaview
Avenue, at the rear of the property.
AND
Request to approve a Coastal Residential Development Permit
for the purpose of establishing project compliance for a 6 unit
residential condominium development pursuant to the
Administrative Guidelines for the implementation of the State
Law relative to Low -and -Moderate -Income Housing within the
Coastal Zone.
LOCATION: Portions of Lots 2, 4, 6 and K, Block 231,
Corona del Mar and a portion of an
abandoned street (Carnation Avenue),
located at 2500 Seaview Avenue, on the
northeasterly corner of Seaview Avenue and
Carnation Avenue, in Corona del Mar.
ZONE: R-3
APPLICANT: Carnation Cove, Newport Beach
OWNER: Same as applicant
Commissioner Debay addressed the Coastal Residential
Development Permit as referred to in the staff report that states
"it will not be feasible for a low or moderate income unit either
on -site or off -site .... in accordance with Council Policy P-1..", and
based on said statement she requested that a fifth scenario be
provided in which an affordable unit be required in the form of
a contribution to a fund. Commissioner Debay referred to the
survey of two bedroom condominium units that was taken by the
consultants, and she noted that the survey was in the Corona del
Mar neighborhood where residential sales prices are higher than
elsewhere in the City, and she suggested that the survey should
have been taken in areas of the City where condominium units
are sold for less than they are in Corona del Star.
-43.
COMMISSIONERS 0
• MINUTES
August 10, 1989
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Rat! CALL ) ) ) ) ) I I INDEx
Commissioner Debay concluded that the applicants should be
required to participate in the City's affordable housing policy.
Robert Burnham, City Attorney, explained that the replacement
housing has to be only within the Coastal Zone. in reference to
establishing a fund, Mr. Burnham explained that there are cities
in the State that have housing programs which contemplate the
construction of units and require a payment of fee into a fund
from property owners, and that money is used to construct the
units. He explained that the units to be constructed are
requested for in the Housing Element of that jurisdiction in
accordance with the requirements of AB 1600 which states that
if a condition is imposed it has to be reasonably related to the
demands that are being created by a particular project. Mr.
Burnham stated that in the absence of a housing authority it is
difficult to satisfy the requirements of AB 1600.
Chairman Pomeroy and Mr. Burnham discussed the provisions
to grant a density bonus, and affordable housing that is included
in the General Plan. Commissioner Person commented that the
policy has not been applied to a project consisting of 10 units or
less.
Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Manager, addressed the
Housing Element that was recently revised by the City and the
State Department of Housing and Community Development.
He explained that the Housing Element now exempts projects
of 10 or less units, and that in the future the City shall amend
Council Policy P•1 to be consistent with the new General Plan
policy so the projects of the subject size will not be coming to
the Planning Commission under P•1. fie said that the Coastal
Residential Development Permit will be essentially administered
without a public hearing or any requirement for affordable
housing. Mr. Lenard alluded to the City's successful affordable
housing program that has been looked upon favorably by other
jurisdictions.
Chairman Pomeroy stated that the 10 or less exemption would
not apply if the applicant requested Density Bonus. Mr. Lenard
concurred.
-44-
COMMISSIONERS S • MINUSES
August 10, 1989
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL j i — - i INDEX ----
Don Webb, City Engineer, referred to Condition No. 16, Waiver
of Combining Requirement, and requested that the condition be
modified to state Mat a minimum 6 in. rise be provided.'
instead of 'That a minimum 6 ft rise be provided.'.
IMe public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and
Mr. David Diem, applicant, appeared before the Planning
Commission. Mr. Diem concurred with the findings and
conditions in Exhibit 'A'. Mr. Diem stated that the proposed
project was planned within the guidelines of the General Plan
and in consideradon of the adjacent neighbors. Mr. Diem
commented that each of the 6 units has been designed with
either a three or four car garage, and eight driveways have been
added to accommodate eight guest automobiles. Mr. Diem
explained that three units will have access off of Carnation
Avenue and three units will have access off of the alley. lie
explained that to have access off of Seaview Avenue would have
required a curb cut. fie stated that a turn -around area has been
created in the alley to enhance the traffic flow.
Mr. Diem stated that the requested 10 foot front yard setback
oft of the old Carnation Avenue right-of-way equates to a 20
foot front yard setback off of the curb. He explained that the
front yard setback corresponds with the new developments on
Carnation Avenue.
Mr. Diem moved to the exhibit area and described the requested
modifications. He explained that the requested rear yard
encroachment Is required by the Fire Department to allow access
around the property. Mr. Diem stated that the City considers the
front yard of the project to be on Carnation Avenue and the
side yard to be on Seaview Avenue which would be adjacent to
the Seaview Avenue neighbor's front yard. He explained that the
development is required to conform with the setback of the
building that is adjacent to the site on Seaslcw Avenue. Mr.
Diem explained that 20 feet of the property is required to
conform with the setback that is adjacent to the subject site. He
described what the project's impact would be if the sideyard
setback modification were not requested. Mr. Diem described
the second and third floor open deck encroachments.
.45.
COMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES
August 10, 1989
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROIL CALL ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) I tNDEX
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glovcr, Mr.
Diem explained that 12 garage spaces and 8 guest spaces will be
accessed from Carnation Avenue and 8 autortuthiles to
accommodate three condominium units will enter from the alley.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards with
respect to the applicants staking the subject property, Mr. Diem
explained that the applicants revised the plats after they
observed the project from the adjacent property decks, and the
applicants also staked the site with 28 foot poles to comply with
a request by the neighbors and staff. Mr, Diem stated that the
applicants delivered a revised set of plans to staff that do not
include the reverse corner setback modification. In response to
a question posed by Commissioner Edwards with respect to the
fire lane, Mr. Diem replied that he is in support of a fire lane;
however, it is not a criteria for the project inasmuch as the Fire
Department has indicated that adequate fire protection may be
provided without the subject fire lane.
In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill
regarding the automobile access to the alley, Mr. Diem explained
that the existing structure provides access for one automobile and
the proposed project will provide access for eight automobiles to
accommodate three condominium units. Mr. Diem stated that
the driveway will not be available to guest parking. and said
parking restriction will be included in the CC&R's. Mr. Diem
and Commissioner Merrill discussed the traffic flow and available
parking in the alley. Commissioner Merrill emphasized his
concern that it would be difficult to enforce the parking problem
and congestion in the alley. Don Webb, City Engineer,
explained that if a fire lane would be established that there
would be adequate room to turn automobiles around.
Mrs. Doris Boisscranc, property owner at 2520.2522 Seavicw
Avenue, adjacent to the subject property, appeared before the
Planning Commission to state concerns with respect to the
subject project on the basis that the project would have an
impact on their property. Mrs. Doisscranc explained that at the
Boisserancs' request, the applicants ineffectively staked the
subject project for the neighbors, and the result was that the
project would impair their view at the corner inasmuch as the
46-
COMMISSIONERS •
. MINUTES
August 10, 1989
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL j ) I ) ! ) ) I I INDEX
project's decks would extend into their view. Mrs. Boisseranc
requested a clarification of garages on Seaview Avenue.
Mrs. Boisseranc and Commissioner Pers6n discussed her concerns
with respect to the project and the impact the project would
have on their view. Mrs. Boisscranc referred to her letter dated
August 1, 1989, objecting to the rear yard setback that adjoins
their property, and the impact In the alley. She commented that
they do not object to the number of units or the development.
Mr. Burnham explained the City's position with respect to
protecting private views. fie stated that in consideration of the
subject project, there is a waiver of a combining requirement
provision that has been created in the Zoning Cate. tic stated
that in considering the merits of the proposed waiver the
Planning Commission may impose conditions that they consider
appropriate; however, he questioned if the conditions could
appropriately include restrictions on the building ai it relates to
Carnation Avenue and Seaview Avenue.
In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Hill
Ward, Senior Planner, explained that the normal sideyard setback
would be 4 feet and would apply to the entire Seaview Avenue
frontage of the building except for the fast 20 feet of the
property which is adjacent with the front yard area of the
adjoining lot. tic said that the Zoning Code requires that the
last 20 feet must maintain the same setback as exists on the
adjoining property, and the existing setback on the adjoining
property is 6 feet from the property line to the second floor
deck; therefore, the applicant must provide a six foot street side
setback on the last 20 feet of the property. Mr. Ward further
replied that the applicant is proposing to have the ground floor
portion of the building encroach two feet into the required six
foot reverse corner setback. tic said that the second and third
floor of Unit NP will maintain a 7 foot building setback and a
4 foot deck setback.
Chairman Pomeroy and Mr. Ward discussed the view that would
be Impacted by the project if the applicant withdrew the
modification requesting the reverse corner setback.
-47-
COMMISSIONERS .
0 MINUTES
August 10, 1989
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALLJ J I M i ) I INOEX
Chairman Pomeroy maintained that the proposed modification
would preserve the existing views better than if the applicant
withdrew the modification. He said that the applicant has
agreed to cut back the second and third floor: closest to the
Baisseranes property to improve the view from that area.
Mr. Jay Cohen, 2520 Seaview Avenue, appeared before the
Planning Commission. Mr. Cohen commented that if the 2 foot
encroachment is granted to the applicant, 70% to 100% of his
view would be blocked of Newport Harbor and that would affect
the value of the property. Mr. Cohen indicated that there is a
parking problem and 8 additional automobiles would impact the
alley. He agreed that a fire lane would be beneficial to the
area.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr.
Ward described the alternate plan that the applicant submitted
which fully conforms to the required side and rear yard setbacks.
He explained that the stairway at the rear portion of the
property has been moved into the interior portion of the
building. He explained that the 7 foot rear yard encroachment
would increase to 6 feet and would remain at 6 feet to the end
of the building. and on all three levels of the project.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr.
Ward described how the Boisseranc's view would be impacted if
the applicant fully complied with the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr, Mike Mack. 2524 Seaview Avenue, appeared before the
Planning Commission. Mr. Mack referred to his letter dated
August 3, 1989, expressing concerns with respect to the size of
the project and the sideyard setback. tic said that the view is
only one concern. Mr. Mack requested that the applicants' stake
the project so the neighbors will have a clear understanding of
the size of the development.
Mr. Steven W. Johnson, 331 Dahlia Place, appeared before the
Planning Commission. tic referred to his letters dated August
9, 1989, addressed to Mr. Ward with respect to the pproposed
project and to lire Chief Reed with respect to establishing a fire
lane. He supported the neighbors foregoing concerns, and he
stated that he has concerns that the proposed setback could set
. . COMMISSIONERS S
. MINUTES
August 10. 1989
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL -- J- IN0EK
Motion
a precedent on Seaview Avenue. Mr. Johnson emphasized the
importance of a fire Iane and the potential traffic in the alley.
Mr. Johnson referred to the Environmental Report's checkoff list
and he questioned staff's response to the questions pertaining to
transportation and circulation, and he rebutted that an additional
8 automobiles would create congestion In the area. lie
requested that the CC&R's require property owners participate
in the maintenance of the private right-of-way.
Mr. John Boisseranc appeared before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Boisseranc expressed his concern that the setback
measurement was to his property's deck area and not to the
structure. In summary, he stated that the Boisseranc's support
the alignment of the adjoining buildings and the adjoining decks.
There being no others desiring to appear and he heard, the
public hearing was closed at this time.
Commissioner Debay cummented that the applicant is not
constructing a project that is more than the lot requires;
however, she said that by combining lots that there is a sacrifice
of open space that would ordinarily be between each of the lots.
In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr.
Ward replied that the setback was measured from the adjacent
deck and not the structure. Commissioner Merrill and Mr.
Hewicker discussed the alignment of the adjacent deck area on
Seaview Avenue and the structure on Carnation Avenue. Mr.
Hewicker suggested that the applicant could submit plans that
would exhibit setbacks that would match structure with adjacent
structure and deck with adjacent deck.
Commissioner Edwards and Mr. tlewicker discussed the proposal
requesting exhibit.% to display the alignment of the adjoining
decks and structures.
Motion was made to continue Amendment No. 685, Waiver of
Combining Requirement, and Coastal Residential Development
Permit No. 14 to the September 21, 1989, Planning Commission
meeting. Commissioner Pers6n requested that the applicant
prepare exhibits that would show the alignments of the decks
-49-
COMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES
ROLL CALL
All Ayea
August 10, 1989
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
and structures as suggested, and that the applicant also stake
the property for the neighbors.
Commissioner Merrill requested an amendment to the motion
that the applicant submit plans showing a fire lane and a parking
layout in the alley. The maker of the motion agreed to amend
the motion.
Mr. Diem reappeared before the Planning Commission to state
that he would like to proceed with the project and he reviewed
the proposed project and the revisions to the proposed plan.
Chairman Pomeroy suggested that the applicant consider the
neighbors' requests and come back to the Planning Commission
with plans that address their concerns.
In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr.
Ward stated that the required setback for the adjoining property
is actually 20 feet. lie stated that there was a variance granted
on that property to allow a 10 foot setback, and the deck on
the second and third floors of the adjoining property encroach
approximately 5 feet into that 10 foot setback. Mr. Ward stated
that the reverse corner setback requirement is the equal to the
existing setback, not the required setback, of the adjoining
property.
Motion was voted on to continue this item to the September 21,
1989, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED.
Commissioner Pers6n stepp own from the dais because of a
possible conflict of interest.
James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated -sot what has been
adopted by the City Council for commercial pant spaces does
not allow the installation of garage doors. He said ftLtecause
of the concerns that have been expressed with respect I the
mixed use developments that the Planning Commission had.
•50-
INDEX
Discussion
Items
D-1
Encl.Comm'1
Parking
Spaces_
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PLAN REVIEW REQUEST
L,_ADVAZCZ FL1 IM DIVISION1
`PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
TRAFFIC ENGINEER
„FIRE DEPARTMENT
_PLAN REVIEW DIVISION
`PARKS & RECREATION
^POLICE DEPARTMENT
_MARINE SAFETY
,CRADINC
APPLICATION OF: Carnation Cove
Date July 19. JM
PLANS ATTACIIED ( PLEASE RETURN)
PLANS MI FILE. IN PUINNINC DEPT.
FOR: Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 14
t
i XWOM-200.07,51MMi It• • 1' ! i 1 rye
LOCATION: 2500 Seaview Avenue
REPORT REQUESTED BY: 7.28.82
COMMISSION REVIEW: 8-10.89
COMMENTS: Tilt Ca 119 L6 L PLh!j Lk?Jft Or,A-wD BE
LmtAu _tQACTraL PRO&kAN1 OF TI+ C{tY_ eF •iGWPUR ,__bfil►t*1+ D�91GlJL�c
Y44E S1TF- E20, MWi-FI.Nw1 1;6S1Dr,NTjAL ute - .Xdit rA0j_kj
is . r-cli.£1s1tNT WITH QIDELIt4cf OF.._BOT14 c.P.1..u,_,_,....... L.C.P. 211
Age* 3 _ wNtiLN LE12uitEi 2;140 SQ.FT. eF 1'3UIL.i A,&,F. jL&I AUA _ apt
G a 1A 4NT,�
140 CMFL t
Signature! ���- (�LVL
n.r.• 7 lZb 1101
•
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PLAN REVIEW REQUEST
LADVANCI iIAMING DIVISION
2LPUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
X_TRAFFIC ENGINEER
2LFIRE DEPARTMENT
Zf_PLAN REVIEW DIVISION
`PARKS 6 RECREATION
,POLICE DEPARTMENT
_ KARINE SAFETY
—CRADING
APPLICATION OF: Carnation Cove
FOR: Amendment No. 685
LOCATION: 2500 Seaview Avenues
REPORT REQUESTED BY: 7.28.02
COMMISSION REVIEW: 8.10.89
COMMENTS:
Date Jgly 19. f g89
PLANS ATTACHED (PLEASE RETURN)
—PLANS ON FILE IN PLANNING DEPT.
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission Meeting Member 21. 19�4
Agenda Item No. „ S
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Planning Commission
Planning Department
Request to amend a portion of Districting Map No, 17 so as to
establish a 10 foot front yard setback along the Carnation Avenue
(private) frontage of the subject property; and the acceptance of an
environmental document.
AND
Request to waive the combining of lots requirement in conjunction
with the proposed project; and the approval of a modification to the
Zoning Code so as to allow an open stairway to encroach 7 feet
into a required 10 foot rear yard setback and to allow a portion of
the structure to encroach 2 feet into the required 6 foot reverse
corner . setback adjacent to Seaview Avenue, at the rear of the
Property
AND
Request to approve a Coastal Residential Development Permit for
the purpose of establishing project compliance for a 6 unit residential
condominium development pursuant to the Administrative Guidelines
for the implementation of the State Law relative to Low -and -
Moderate -Income Housing within the Coastal Zone.
LOCA71ON: Portions of Lots 2, 4, 6 and 8, Block 231, Corona del Mar and a
portion of an abandoned street (Carnation Avenue), located at 2500
Seaview.Avenue, on the northeasterly corner of Seavlew Avenue and
Carnation Avenue, in Corona del Mar.
ZONE: R•3
APPLICANT: Camation Cove, Newport Beach
,�'
70: Planning Commission-2.
OWNER: Same as applicant
These applications involve a request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. 17 so
as to establish a 10 foot front yard setback along the Carnation Avenue (private)
frontage of the subject property, The proposal also includes: a request to waive the
requirement of the combining of lots in conjunction with the proposed project; a request
to approve a Coastal Residential Development Permit for the purpose of establishing
project compliance for a 6 unit residential condominium development Pursuant ' to the
Administrative Guidelines for the implementation of the State Law relative to Low -and -
Moderate -Income Housing within the Coastal Zone; and the approval of a modification
to the Zoning Cade so as to allow an open stairway to encroach 7 feet into a required
10 foot rear yard setback and to allow a portion of the structure to encroach 6 feet into
the required 6 foot reverse corner setback adjacent to Seaview Avenue, at the rear of
the property. Amendment procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.84 of the Municipal
Code; provisions for the waiver of the requirement to combine individual lots or
portions of lots into a single building site are set forth in Section 20.87.090 of the
Municipal Cade; and Coastal Residential Development procedures arc set forth in City
Council Policy P-1.
This Item was continued from the August 10, 1989 Planning Commission meeting so as
to allow the applicant additional time to review his project with the surrounding property
owners and to prepare alternative plans for the various setback configurations for the
reverse corner setback area which were discussed by the Planning Commission. Although
the following staff report will provide further discussions of the significant issues, staff has
also attached a copy of the original staff report for the Planning Commission's
information. Copies of the project plans will be on display at the Planning Commission
meeting. The applicant was also requested by the Commission to stake the property, to
show the neighbors the proposed encroachments in the reverse corner setback area. To
date the applicant has not accomplished the %taking.
As set forth in the attached excerpt of the Planning Coui mission minutes for the August
10, 1989 Planning Commission meeting, there was a great deal of discussion concerning
the required setback versus the proposed setback for, the reverse corner area'sdjioent to
Seavicw Avenue.. In., order to. clarify each of the three alternatives discussed, the
appllceut . has prepared the attached exhibit which, illustrates +eacb of the alternatives.
The first plan (Plan A) Illustrates,. the setbacks as proposed i by :the applicant which
Includes: a 7 foot 6 inch building setback and a 4 foot deck setback on the second and
third floors. Said setbacks are provided across the full 17 foot width of Unit 'P (27
feet from rear property line as shown on the attached Plan A) rather than on just the
rear 10 feet of the structure (20 feet from property line) as required bylCode: ;The
TO: Planning Commission-3.
second pbm (Plan B) includes a b foot building and deck setback on the second and
third floors; however. said setback is provided on just the last 10 feet of the mmcture
(20 feet from rear property line as shown is the attached Plan B), as required by Code.
The thud plan (Plan t:.') shows an II foot building setback and a 6 foot deck setback on
the second and third floors which are the same setbacks on the adjoining property to the
south.
7be applicant has also prepued a composite drawing which illustrates tho effect each of
the alternative plans has on the view shed from the second and third floor decks of the
adjoicdng property to the south. As can be seen, the applicant's proposed setbacks
provide more view shed than any of the other alternatives. Therefore, it is gaffs opinion
that the proposed setbacks are preferred. It should also be noted that although the
major concern expressed by the adjoining property owners has been with regard to the
loss of vier, the reverse corner setback requirement was never intended for the purpose
of maintaining views.
At the previous public hearing, there was considerable discussion concerning the
applicant's use of the private alley at the rear of the property for vehicular aceess_to the
project. Although some of the surrounding property owners have objected to the
applicant's use of the alley, it should be pointed out that in accordance with Council
Policy UZ, when a residential property maintains alley access, it must be used for
vehicular access rather than the public street. In the case of the proposed project, the
site also fronts onto a private street which provides an opportunity for additional
vehicular access without effecting Seavicw Avenue. Of the six units proposed by the
applicant, only three of them will use the rear alley for vehicular access. The remaining
3 units will use the private street. According to the City nafftc Engineer and the Public
Works Department, the private alley is more than adequate to serve three additional
dwelling units. In fact, the applicant's project has significantly improved the circulation
within the alley by providing additional turn -around area at the end of the alky.
At the previous public hearing there was also discussion with regard to the need of a fire
lane within the private alley at the rear of the subject projem as well as in tM prime
Street pmAxely known as Dahlia Avenue, se as to pr a emergency vehicle access
to the near of the proje
ct from Scaview Avenue. `Althougb , the :Fire Department
codtiooa a Mcate that such a fire lane is not required , in order to provide adequate
tiro protecdon to the subject project, they have supported the idea of establishing a fire
Inc .9 a majority of the affected: property owners, were. in favor,, I Sirtee, the previous
public hearing, the Fire Department has sent out questionnaires to agated property
owners, asking if they agreed or disagreed with the creation of the subject Cure lane.
Eighty percent of the respondents indicated they agreed. Subsequently, the Traffic
Affairs Coatmittee has reviewed and approved the establishment of the fire fare subject
to the final approval of the Fire Chief. The Fire Department has recently indicated that
•o
TO: Punning CommiuioD 44.
the Fire Chief has approved the lacstion of the fire lane (see attached driving) and the
applicant has agreed to install the appropriate striping and signage for the purpose of
marking the fire lute.
During the previous public hearing there was discussion regarding the lass of open apace
on the site as a result of combining the property into a single building site rather than
developing each of the four existing parcels individually. Although this may be a concern
of some of the surrounding property owners, it should be pointed out that the proposed
project provides approximately 52,940r cubic feet of open space which is 3.75 times the
amount required ' (14,112 cubic feet). Considering the typical two unit development In
Corona del Mar provides between 4,000 and 6,000 cubic feet of open space in addition
to required setbacks, the proportional open space for the proposed project is more than
twice that which would be provided if the existing parcels were developed individually
(4 developments with 6,000 cu.ft. of open space n 24,000 cu.ft. of open space whercm
the proposed development is providing 52,940± cu. ft.).
At its meeting of September 7, 1989, the Planning Commission approved Amendment No.
687 which recommended to the City Council the establishment of the Multi -Family
Residential (MFR) District. In light of said action, and for the Planning Commissiods
Information, staff has reviewed the proposed project relative to its compliance with the
draft MFR District regulations and determined that it complies with all provisions except
allowable height, and the side yard setback requirement.,
In accordance with the draft MFR District, the new height limit requirement will be 24
foot average roof height and 29 foot maximums ridge height, whereas the proposed project
Includes! a height of 24 feet (height of roof deck handrail) on the front half of the lot
and 28 foot average and 30 foot maximum ridge height on the rear half of the lot. .
With regards to the side yard setback requirement, the new MFR District would require
7.36 foot wide side yards (8% of the average lot width of 92 feet), whereas the proposed
project includes a 5 foot aide yard setback on the interior property line and a 4 foot side
yard setback adjacent to Seaview Avenue (where the Municipal Code now requires 4 foot
side, yard setbacks, except for the reverse corner.'area, where the proposed side
setback Is as previously described.) It should be further mentioned that these new height
limit , aad setback standards do no apply to the subject property inasnwch as the : MFR
District has not yet been adopted by the City Council nor,has the subject property been
rezoned frorn , the R•3 District to the MFR District.. ' Said . discussion is provided for
informadon only.
Planning Commission-5.
7be August 10, 1989 Planning Commission staff report Includes findingx and conditions
in support of three different actions relative to the subject applications. Should the
PWmiag Commission approve the project with either Exhibit "A" or "11", the following
Additional condition is suggested;
That the applicant shall stripe and sign the proposed fire lane as may be
established by Newport Beach Fire Department.
Should the Plarming Commission wish to aappprove all of the applications as submitted,
the findings and conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" are suggested. Should the Planning
Commission wish to approve all of the appUcations but deny the requested modification
for side and rear yard encroachments, the findings and conditions of approval in Exhibit
"B' are suggested. Should the Planning Commission wish to deny the waiver of
combining requirement and the requested modifications but approve Amendment No. 685
and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 14, the findings %et forth in the
attached Exhibit "C are suggested,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. RMCKER, Director
B
tIllarn Ward
Senior Planner
Attachments: Original staff report dated August 10, 1989
Excerpt of the Planning Commission` Minutes
dated August 10, 1989
Letters of Interest
Plan showing the proposed fire lane location
Exlu'bit showing alternative setbacks for the
reverse corner area of the property
to
FROM:
Planning Commission Meeting August 10, 1989
Agenda Item No. 13
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Planning Commission
Planning Department
Request to. amend a portion of Districting Map No. 17 so as to
establish a 10 foot front yard setback along the Carnation Avenue
(private) frontage of the subject property and the acceptance of an
environmental document.
AND
Request to waive the combining of lots requirement in conjunction
with the proposed project; and the approval of a modification to the
Zoning Code so as to allow an open stairway to encroach 7 feet into
a required 10 foot rear yard setback and to allow a portion of the
structure to encroach 2 feet into the required b foot reverse corner
setback adjacent to Seaview Avenue, at the rear, or the property.
U 01
Request to approve a . Coastal Residential Development ' Permit for
the purpose'
of establishing project compliance for a 6 unit residential
condominium development pursuant, to the 'Adminlstrative Guidelines
for the implementation , of the State Law relative to Low-and-
ModerataIncome Housing within the' Coastal Zone.
LOCA'nON: Portions of Lots 2,' 4, 6 and 8, Block 231, Corona del Mar and a
portion of an abandoned street (Carnation Avenue), located at 2500
Seaview Avenue, on the northeasterly corner of Seaview Avenue and
Carnation Avenue, in Corona del Mar.
ZONE: R-3
APPIJCANT: Carnation Cove, Newport Beach
OWNER: Same as applicant
h
TO: Planning Commission-2.
These applications involve a request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. 17 so
as to establish a 10 foot front yard setback along the Carnation Avenge (private)
frontage of the subject property. The proposal also includes: a request to waive the
requirement for the combining of lots in con unction with the proposed project; a request
to approve a Coastal Residential Development Permit for the purpose of establishing
project oontyliance for a 6 unit residential condondnium development pursuant to the
Administrative Guidelines for the implementadon :of the State Law relative to Law-and-
ModerawIncome Housing within the Coastal Zone; and the approval of a' modification
to the Zoning Code so as to allow an open stairway to encroach 7 feet into a required
10 foot rear yard setback and to allow a portion of the structure to encroach 2 feet into
the required 6 foot reverse corner setback adjacent to Seaview Avenue, at the rear of
the property. Amendment procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.84 of the Municipal
Code; provisions for the waiver of the requirement to combine individual lots or
portions of lots into a single building site are set forth In Section 20.87.090 of the
Municipal Code; Coastal Residential Development Permit procedures are set forth in City
Council Policy P-1; and modification procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.81 of the
Municipal Code.
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State'CEQA
Guidelines and City Council Policy K-3, an Initial Study has been prepared for the
proposed project. Based on the Information contained In the initial study, it -has been
determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project and is attached for
the Planning Commission's information.
Subject &May and Surro�land Uses
The subject property is currently developed with a 19 unit apartment,building and related
garage spaces. Said building was originally built as a hotel in the ,carly 20'3; however,
a search of the Building I epartmcnt records revealed that in 1950 'and 'again in '1954,
alterations and additions 'were permitted to the building, including a small garage
structure. This was prior to any City requirements for on -site parking or the
establishment of density standards. The 19 unit apartment W1 11ding;that' evolved from
the original hotel does not conform with the current Zoning Code pertaining'td"pa"rking,
density and setback requirements. The property is comprised of portions of four lots, a
portion of the vacated Carnation Avenue and a portion' `oi a vacated 'alley. ''To the
northeast is an old , apatment building; to the southeast are two condominium
developments; to the southwest, across Seaview Avenue, are duplexzs;` `and rto ' tlic
northwest, across the abandoned portion of Carnation Avenue are single family dwellings
and two four unit condominium developments.
�j
TO: Planning Commission 3...
The Land.Use Element of the General Plan and the. Local Coastal Program Land Use
Plan designate the site for "Multi -Family, Residential'. usm' With a maximumdensity of
one dwelling unit for each 2,140 square, feet of W16ble, lot area. Based on such a
denity limit, the nubjact property, which Contains 12JW square. feet'of buildable lot area,
would permit 6 dwclUW (12,886 sq.h. 2,140, s%' Jrt. =,' 6.02 or .6 dwelling units)., Based
on the abase calatlatioq the proposed project is consistent' with ' the established land use
designation and allowable density as set forth, in the. Land Use Element of the General
Plan and the Loaf Coastal Program Land Use Plaa. .
At its meeting of September 4, 1980, the Planning Commission approved Use' Permit
No. 1948 and Rembdivision No. 666 which involved a request to permit the construction
of a six unit residential condominium development on the subject property, Said action
was taken with the findings and subject to the conditions of approval set forth 'in the
attached excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes dated September 4, 1980. Said
project was never constructed and the above applications expired 24 months later.
Analyal
The - applicant is proposing to construct a 6 unit residential condominium development
with related prages as shown on the attached plaits. Each of the units within . the
project will c6atafin three bedrooms, 2S5 baths, a living roam, formal dining room'and
kitchen. The following outline sets forth the major characteristics, of the proposed
Pry
Land Area: 12,886 sq.ft.
Buildable Area: 7,568 t ' sq.ft. "
Permitted Dwelling Units:
(As established by General Plan): 6 units or 1 D.U. for each
2,140—sq1t. of lot areas
PC
rmitted `,Gnu Structural Area
(1.51 x.,13g0dole Area) 11.352; sq.ft.
Proposed Gross Structural Area: 11,298 + 'sq.ft.
Floor. Am Ratio:" IA9 'z Buildable Area''
3The attached plans incorrectly indicate that 10 dwelling unitsare
permitted on the site.
TO: Planning Commission4.
Setbacks:
Front (Carnation Ave.) 20 ft. 10 ft. from original right•
of -way of Carnation Avenue
Rear 10 ft. Varies ,between 4 ft. and
10 ft for condominium;
14 ft. for 1 car garage
Northeasterly Side 4 ft. S ft.-for condominium;
4 ft. for 1 car garage
Southwesterly Side 4 ft.; 6 feet on See discussion below
the rear 20 feet
Required Parking:
1,5 spaces per D.U. or
9 spaces
Proposed Parking:
Tenant Parking
Guest Pam
Unit A
3 garage spaces
1 open space
Unit B
3 garage spaces
3 open spaces
Unit C
4 garage. spaces
2 open spaces
Unit D
4 garage spaces
2 open spaces
..Unit »
3 garage spaces
0
Unit F
3 T)aces
0
Total
20 garage. spaces
8 open spaces
Permitted Building Height:
Front'Half of Parcel:
24 ft. average`
"
29 ft.' maximum
Rear'Half of Parcel:
28' ft. average-
33 ft. maximum
Proposed Building Height:
Front`, Half of Parcel:
Varies, 18` rt. to 24
.
ft: msuiimum height
of 'dick hatid6dl
Rear. Half of Parcel:
28ft`. average.' and
30 ft. iirtW im
height' of xloping roof
Required Open Space:
14,112,cult'."
Proposed Open Space:
1n excess of 52,940 cu.ft.
TO: Planning Commission-5..
In accordance with Section 20.16.045 of the Municipal Code, the front yard setback
requirement for,the subject property is 20 feet measured from the'original right-of-way
line of Carnation Avenue. Said requirement is based on the standard setback for the
R-3 District inasmuch as the subject property has no setback identified on the Districting
Map. It is also noted that Districting Map No. 17 includes a 10 foot front yard setback
for all the properties on the opposite side of Carnation Avenue as well as on both sides
of Carnation Avenue in the next block (see attached vicinity map), In light of this
situation, the applicant is proposing to establish a 10 foot setback on Districting Map
No, 17 for that portion of the subject property which fronts on Carnation Avenue
(private street). Staff has no objections to such a proposal inasmuch as said setback is
consistent with the front yard setback requirement for other propenies along Camation
Avenue. It should also be noted that the adjacent property located northeasterly of the
site, currently maintains an 8t foot front yard setback on Carnation Avenue.
In accordance with Section 20.16.045 B of the Municipal Code, the side yard setback
requirement in the R-3 District, for parcels that are 40 feet or wider, is 4 feet; provided
that the side yard setback on the rear 20 feet of the street side of a cornier lot," where
there is a reverse frontage, shall not be less than the front yard required or existing on
the adjacent reversed frontage. In the case of the subject project, the adjoining lot
located southeasterly of.the site has a reverse frontage and maintains a 6:t foot setback
for the existing decks adjacent to Seaview Avenue. Therefore, the subject project', is
required to provide a 4 foot setback along Seaview Avenue, except for the last 20 feet
adjacent to the southeasterly property line, where the required setback is 6± feet. As
shown on the attached plans, the applicant is proposing a 4 foot building,setback'oh each
floor of the entire biding frontage adjacent to Seaview Avenue except far the last 16
feet of the building closest to the southeagerly, property line, Whore. the ground floor
building setback will be 4 feet (2 foot ericioacbmeat into required'6 toocreverse'eorner
setback). In addition, the applicant is requesting approval of second and third floor
decks which encroach 2 feet into the required 6, foot reverse corner setback. It is staffs
opinion that tbe' ground floor setback encroachment 'along Seaview Avenue should not
be detrimental to the adjoining property inasmuch as it does not have any ground floor
living area. With regards to the second and third floor deck encroachments, thf
applicant has agreed to provide a second arid third floor building''setback' of 7 feet`for
the entirefrontage of unit "F" (16 ft. of frontage), in order to permit the second and
third floor deck encroachments. It should be noted that the applicant Is currently
discussing this Issue with .the adjoining property:owncrs most affected. It should also be
that ,should , the, adjoining property owners object to these encroachments, the
applicm ha+i kipared'an alternate plan which fully conform to the required front and
rear yard setbacks. Said alternate plan will be available for review at the Planning
Commission meeting. :;
TO: Planning Commission-6.
In accordance with Section 20.16.045 C of the Municipal „Code, the rear yard setback
requirement In the R-3 District is 10 feet. Therefore, no structure or, improvements in
exceu of 6 feet in height may be placed within the rear 10 feet of the subject property.
As
tonally submitted, the applicant was proposing to construct an open stairway which
encroached 7 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setback. However, as shown on
the attached plaru, the applicant has reduced the encroachment to 6 feet so as to provide
a minimum 4 foot clema= between the stairs and the rear property line, as requested
by the Fire Department. It should also be 'noted that the improvements which constitute
the patio and entry areas for unit `P and which are located In the 10 foot rear yard
setback appear to be approximately 7 feet 6 inches high, whereas the Zoning Code
allows a maximum height of 6 feet for said Improvements. Staff has discussed this with
the applicant and he has agreed to lower the height of Said improvements.
As shown on the attached plans, three of the proposed units will have vehicular access
from Carnadon Avenue and the other three units will have vehicular access from the
private alley at the rear of the site. As shown on the attached plans, the overall design
and placement of buildings and walls adjacent to the private alley at the rear of the
property, have taken into consideration the vehicular backup area needed for the
adjoining three story building and the two story condominiums on the opposite side of
the private alley. It should be noted that the proposed ramp area adjacent to the private
alley will also provide additional maneuvering; area within .the alley so. as to provide
easier turn around apace for anyone using the alley. It should also be noted that, the
propaied access and circuladon for the project has. been approved by the City ,Traffic
Engineer and the Public Works Department. .
It should also be noted that staff has received comments. from some of the, property
owners in the neighborhood who use the private alley °at the rear of the site. Said
comments are in regards to the Illegal parking that takes place within the private alley
during the evening and on weekends, and which prevents emergency vehiclelaeccss to -the
rear oaf the properties using the alley. It appears that many, of the, property, owners are
in favor of establishing a 14 foot wide fire line -;within the.private alley, Wuding.'the
subject applicant. Should a majority of, the property owner's ,wish to. have a. futr lam, and
the . (Sty Fue Chic f feels that it Is justified, svwh a, fire: lane ' can , be eslablishcd La any
caw, the .establishtneat of , a. fire lane should, ao(d(ect. the, ,decisiatt; regarding. the
proposed project, inasmuch as there are , adequ to alternativea pailabli to . the. Fire
Department in order to insure adequate fire prow on of the I property,in'questioa. , The
Fite Chief is currently, reviewing the. possibility, of.esitablishing:the subject Ore lava.
Inasmuch as the proposed project is located in the Coastal Zone and contains more than
two dwcU4 units, the applicant must comply with Council Policy P-1 which requires
To: Planning Commission-7.
the inclusion of low or moderate income housing In the Coasts! Zone, where feasible.
As indicated in the attached feasibility analysis perfomwd by Tarantsllo and Company,
it will not be feasible for a low or moderate income unit either on -site or off -site in
conjunction with the development of the proposed project. 'Therefore, in accordance with
Council Polity P-1, no affordable units are required
As indicated previously, the subject property Is comprised of portia s of four lots, a
portion of vacated Carnation Avemae and a portion of a vaceted a1ky. In accordance
with Section 20.87.020 A of the Municipal Code* where a new building Is planned to
cross existing property lines, no new construction my be rnnitted until such time as
said lots ' or parcels have been combined into a single building site. However, in
accordance with Section 20.87.090 B of the Municipal Code, when buildinp are planned
to be constructed over existing lot lines, and where said building site Is found to be in
multiple ownerships in fee, leasehold or other estate in real property, the requirement
for a resubdivision as required in Subsection A may be waived by the Planning
Commission upon the finding that the estate in the real property is of sufficient length
to guarantee that the lots or parcels which constitute the site will be held as a single
entity for the economic duration of the building improvements to be placed on the site.
Said section'also provides that the Planning Commission or City Council, on appeal, may
impose such conditions as 'deemed necessary to secure the purpose of Title 20 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code. It should also be noted that inasmuch as the applicant
intends this project to be sold as a condominium project, he will be requesting a royal
of a Tentative Tract Map prior to the completion of the project. Staff has no ob etions
to the waiver of the combining requirement inasmuch as all the conditiwrowhich the
Planning Commission would require in conjunction with the combining of the parcels can
be made conditions of the waiver. In regards to establishing a single parcel for
condominium purposes, that will be accomplished in ' conjunction with the Cling of a
tentative tract map application which must be approved by the Planning Commission and
thCouncil prior to occ e City upancy of the condominium units.
AW
Staff has attached three exhibits' which include findings and conditions in support of three
different' action: relative to tbe'subject appliattiorm Should the Planning Commission
wish to epprove all of the applications, as 'submitted, the findings and condition set � forth
in 'the attached Exhibit' "A" are sugested.' Should the' Planning Commission wish to
approve ill of the applicatioa! -but dew► the requested modiflution for iide and rear yard
encroachments, the findings' and' condjdons' of approval set forth' in the attached Exhibit
V are iuSV%ted.' ' Should the Plain ng Cbmminion wish. to` deny 1Wwaiver+-of
combining nigitiretnent and file icgtsestad modiflcatlons but approve Amendment No, 685
and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 14, the findings set forth in the
attached Exhibit "C" are suggested.
TO: Planning Commission-8.'
I J' I•
4:1' ,
Mr,",
Attachments: ExIait "A"
Elmit " r
Exlu'bit T*
Vicinity Map
Excerpt of the Planning Commission Minutes
dated September 4, 1980
Affordable Housing Feasibility Study
Negative D"laration
Letters from Doris and John Boisseranc dated
August 1, 1989 mW August 2, 1989
Letter from Michael J. Mack, Attorucy at Law
dated August 3, 1989
Site Plan, Floor Plans, and Elevadons
13
TX). Planning Commission-9.
EXHIBIT 'A'
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. FOR
AME.NDMENr NO. 685, WAIVER OF COMBINING) REQUIREMENT,
COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMfI' NO. 14
AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCC . .
(As submitted'by appUesht)
A. Environmental I?=menl: Acce t the environmental
document, making the following fin ings and requiring the
following mitigation measure:
1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been
prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K-3.
2. That the contents of the environmental document have been
considered in the various decisions on this project.
3. The project will not have any significant environmental
impact.
1. That a photo survey of the existing buildings on the site shall
be prepared and donated to the historical photos collection
of the Balboa Pavilion prior to the issuance of demolition
permits.
B. : Recommend approval of Amendment
No, 685 to the City Council, with the following findings:
I. That the proposed ten foot front yard setback is the same as
other setbacks along Carnation Avenue.
2- That the proposed ten foot setback along the Carnation
Avenue frontage of the subject property is compatible with
the proposed and allowable scale of development in the R-3
District.
C. : Approve the waiver of
the combining requirement with the following findings and
subject to the following conditions:
to
Planning Commission-IO.
1. That the waiver of the combining requirement is justified
inasmuch as the proposed development of the subject property
Is intended to be a condominium project which requires the
approval and recordation of a tract map prior to occupancy
of the project and which will effectively combine the parcels
Into a single site.
2. That the provisions of Section 20-87.090 B of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code provide that the Planning Commission
or City Council on 'appeal, may impose such conditions as
deemed necessary to secure the purpose of Tide 20 of the
Municipal Code.
3. That the approval of a modification to the Zoning Code so
as to allow the proposed side and rear yard setback
encroachments will not, under the circumstances of this case,
be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort,
and general welfare of persons residing and working in the
neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and
improvements in theneighborhood or the general welfare of
the City and further that the proposed modification is
consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code.
ry;m-117i
L That development shall be In substantial conformance with
the approved plot plan; floor plans, and elevations, except as
noted below.
2. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be
screened from Carnation. Avenue, Seaview Avenue and
adjoining properties.
3. 'That a tract trap be processed and' recorded prior to
occupancy' of the proposed condominiums. That the tract
map be prepared so that the bearings relate to the State
Plane Coordinate System.
4. That` all 'impravements be constructed as required by
Ordinance and the Public .Works, Department.
TO, Planning Commission-11.
S. 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.
b. That the on -site parking, vehicular'circulation and pedestrian
circulation Witetas be subject to further review by the Traffic
Engineer. That no diagonal parking will be permitted along
the Carnation Avenue or the Seaview Avenue frontages.
7. That the intersection of the streets and drives be designed to
provide sight disunae for a speed of 25 miles per hour.
Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstruction shall be
considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping
within the sight line shall not exceed twenty-four Inches in
height., The sight distance requirement may be modified at
non -critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic
Engineer.
8. That the California Vehicle Code be enforced on the private
streets and drives, and that the delineation acceptable to the
Police Department and Public Works Department be provided
along the sidelines of the private streets and drives.
9. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared by the
applicant and approved by the Public Works
Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and
storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to
issuance of any building or grading permits. Any
modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water
and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be
the responsibility of the developer.
10. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance
of any building permits.
11. That a 10 foot radius corner cutoff at the corner of Seaview
Avenue and :Camattion Avenue be dedicated to the public on
the tract map.
12 That a non-exdusive easement for ingress and egress be
dedicated over Carnation Avenue frontage and that an
easement for',publfe emergency 'and security Ingress, egress
and public utility purposes over Carnation Avenue be
dedicated to the City.
TO:
Punning Comnbion-!z
13. That oub, Sutter, sidewalk and pavement be constructed
along the Carnation Avenue frontage; that the displaced
portions of sidewalk be reconstructed and the existing brick
pavers be removed and replaced with landscape or
reconstructed on a 4 in. thick concrete base aloe the Seaview
Avenue frontage; that the curb return at the corner of
Carnation Avetwe and Seaview Avenue be reconstructed using
a 20 fL radius return and incorporating a curb acceu ramp
within it. All work shall be completed under an
encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department
or by signed plans approved by the City Engineer. All street,
drainage and utility improvements shall be shown on standard
improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer.
14. That a standard agreement and accompanying surety be
provided to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public
and private street improvements, if it is desired to obtain a
building or grading permit prior to completion of the public
improvements.
15. That a minimum 20 ft. clear width be provided in the alley
casement located northerly of and parallel to Seaview Avenue.
This revision will provide adequate room for vehicles backing
from the adjacent garage. The final design of the site plan
shall be approved by the Public Works Department. 'That no
guest parking spaces shall be permitted within the rear
driveway area.
16. That a minimum 6 ft. rise be provided between the existing
alley flow line and the high point of the proposed driveway
prior to descending into the subterranean garages along the
alley unless otherwise approved by the Public Works
Department.
17. That Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire
Department.
18. That the entire building shall be sprinklered unless otherwise
permitted by the Fire Department.
19. That the improvements constituting the raised entry and patio
for unit w', which extend into the required 10 foot rear yard
setback, shall not exceed a height of 6 feet measured from
existing grade.
R
Iq
•
•
TO'. Ph=ivg C.,13.
20. That prior to the istwa xe of building permits, the applicant
shall record a covenant which shall hold the subject property
as a time buildiag site until such time as a tract map or
parcel map is raorded on the property.
D. : Approve the Coastal
ResideatW Dow1opment Permit with the following findings:
1. That the feasibility analysis has been performed which has
indicated that it is not &&ale to provide affordable housing
oo-site a off -site is coujunction with the proposed project.
2. That the proposed development has met the requirements of
the City Council Policy P-1.
TO: Planning 14.
EXHIBIT vW
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
AMENDMENT NO. 685, WAIVER OF COMBINING REQUIREMENT,
COASTAL RESIDENTUL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 14
AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
(beaky rcquated side and rear yard encroachments)
A. EavironmentW Documen Aocept the environmental
document, making the following findings and requiring the
following mitigad wn measure:
1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been
prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act
(CEOA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K-3.
Z. That the contents of the environmental document have been
considered in the various decisions on this project.
3. The project will not have any significant ernirorunental
�,,,� ►. HAM
1. That a photo survey of the cxisting buildings on the site shall
be prepared and donated to the historical photos collection
of the Balboa Pavilion prior to the issuance of demolition
permits. ,
B. Amendmeat No. 6$5: Racommend approval of Amendment
No. 685 to the City Council, with the following findings:
I. 'That the proposed tea foot front yard setback is the same as
other setbacks along Carnation Avenue.
Z. 71M the proposed ten foot setback along the Carnation
Ave= frontage of the subject, property is compatible with
d�•proposed and allowable scale, of development in the R-3
. ,
G Wahw of CaMWWW: Approve the waiver of
the combining regWrement . with. the following findings and
subject to the fallowing eonditians:
11
TO: Planning Corn:nisdoa-15.
1. Tinat the waiver of. the combining -requirement is justified
inasmakh M the proposed development of the subject property
is Intended to be a condominium project which requires the
spprovai and recordation of a tract map prior to occupancy
of the project and which will effectively combine the parcels
into a single site.
2. That the provisions of Section 20.87.090 B of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code provide that the Planning Commisslon
or City Council, on appeal, may impose such conditions as
deemed necessary to secure the purpose of Title 20 of the
Municipal Code.
3. That the approval of a modification to the Zoning Code so
as to allow the proposed side and rear yard setback
encroachments will, under the circumstances of this case, be
detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and
general welfare of persons residing and working in the
neighborhood 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 not
consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code,
1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with
the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations, except as
noted below.
2. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be
screened from . Carnation Avenue, Seaview Avenue and
adjoining properties.
3. That the proposed :project shall provide a minimum 4 foot
side yard setbut-adjacent to Seaview Avenue except for the
rear 20 feat of the property which shall provide a minimum
b foot setback.
4. That the roject "'provide a minimum 10 foot
rear yard i�paerass the co*c width of the site.
0 •
TO.-
Planning Commfss}oa-16.
5.
That a tract map be processed and recorded prior to
ocarpa ce of the proposed ' eoodominiumt That the tract
map be ed so that the bearings gs relate to the State
Plane Cool Enate System.
6.
That all improvements be onostxucted as required by
Orftance and tbt Public Works Department.
7.
That each dwelling unit 'be served with an individual water
service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and
surer systems unkda odmwise. approved by the Public Works
8.
That the on -site parking. vehicula circulation and pedestrian
circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic
Enginea. That no diagonal -parking will be permitted along
the Carnation Avenue or the'seaview Avenue frontages.
9.
Than the Intersection of the streets and drives be designed to
_
provide sight distance for a speed of 25 miles per hour.
Slopes, landscape, .walls � and 'otherobstruction shall be
cantidered int he sight distance requirements. landscaping
Within the sight line''sMil -trot atoned twenty-four inches in
height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at
noon -critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic
Engineer.
10. That the'California Yebiclo Code be enforced on the private
streets and drives, and that the delineation acceptable to the
Police Department and Public Works Department be provided
along- the sidelines, of the private streets and drives.
11. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared by the
applicant and, approved by the Public Works
Depavtment,alorrg wMh a master flan of water, sewer and
storm drain kilities, for Ahe o"te improvements prior to
issuance of any , hwilding:: or grading permits. Any
modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water
and :ewer toms shown to be required by the study shall be
tbt respoasibf!#g► of � the developer.
12 That County Sanimion'Dlstrkt fees be paid prior to issuance
of any building permits. ' ' `
To: Planning Commissioa-17.
13. That a 10 foot radius corner cutoff at the airner of Seaview
Avenue and Carnation Avenue be dedicated to the public on
the tract map.
14. 7bat a non exclu 'we easement for ingress and egress be
dedicated over Carnation Avenue frontage and that an
easement for public emergency ; ind security Ingress, egress
and public utility purposes over Carnation Avenue be
dedicated to the City.
IS. 71at curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement be constructed
along the Carnation Avenue . frontage; that the displaced
portions of sidewalk be reconstructed and the existing brick
paver be removed and, replaced with landscape or
reconstructed on a 4 in. thick concrete base along the Seaview
Avenue, frontage; that the curb return at the corner of
Carnation AVemue and Seaview Avenue be reconstructed
using a 20 ft. radius return and incorporating a curb access
ramp within it. All work ,shall be completed under an
encroachment permit issued by'the Public Works Department
or by signed plats approved by the City Engineer. All street,
drainage and utility improvements shall be shown on standard
improvement plus prepared by a licensed civil engineer,
16. That a standard agreement and accompanying surety be
provided to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public
and private street improvements, if It is desired to obtain a
building or, grading permit prior_ to completion of the public
improvements.
17. That a minimum 2A,it. clear;.width be provided in the alley
casement located northerly of and parallel to Seaview Avenue.
This revision will provide adequfte room for vehicles backing
from the: adjacent. prage,., The; final 'design of the site plan
shall be approved by, the Public' Works Department. That no
guest -parking : spaces.; shalt.; be' permitted within the rear
driveway i area.. ,
That a minimum b ti. riso, be,. provided between the existing
AUey flow line and -the , bigh point of the proposed driveway
prior to descending into the subterranean garages along the
alley:.unleu, otherwit _ r appr"d by the Public Works
Departmea ,
19. 7bat Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire
Department.
u
TO: Planning Cornmissioa-M
20. That the entire building shall be sprinldered unless otherwise
permitted by the Fire Department.
21. That the improvements constituting the raised entry and patio
for writ "F", which extend into the require! 10 foot rear yard
sed**, s3ta11 trot exceed a height of 6 feet measured from
exisdi ice•
22. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the appUcant
shall record a covenant which shall hold the subject property
as a single building site until web timeas a tract map or
parcel map is recorded on the property.
D. CoaitA ReaidtUt&I Doelopment ECUWI: Approve the Coastal
Residential Development Permit with the following findings:
1. That the feasibility analyeis has been performed which has
indicated that it is not feasible to provide affordable housing
on -site or off -site in conjunction with the proposed project.
Z Tbat the proposed development has met the requirements of
the City Council Policy P-1.
TO: Planning 19.
EXHIBIT "C
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
AMENDMENT NO. 685, COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT NO, 14 AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT;
AND FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF WAIVER OF COMBINING REQUIREMENT
(Derda the waiver of combining requirement
and denies the requested modification for
side and rear yard encroachments)
A. Accept the environmental
document, making the Mowing findings and requiring the
following mitigation measure:
1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been
prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K-3.
2. That the contents of the environmental document have been
considered in the various decisions on this project.
3. The project will not have any significant environmental
impact.
1. That a photo survey of the existing buildings on the site shall
be prepared and donated to the historical photos collection
of the Balboa Pavilion prior to the issuance of demolition
permits.
B. Amcodment No. 685: Recommend approval of Amendment
No. 685 to the City Council, with the following findings:
I. That the proposed ten foot front yard setback is the same as
other setbacks along Carnation Avenue.
2. That the proposed ten foot setback along the Carnation
Avenue frontage of the subject property is compatible with
the proposed and allowable scale of development in the R-3
District
ay
'gyp; Pith CO:i�mlidioQ-20. i
C, ' : Approve the Coastal
Residential Development Permit with the following findings:
t. That the feasibility analysis has been performed which has
Indicated that it is not feasible to provide affordable housing
o"te or off -site in conjunction with the proposed project.
2, 'That the proposed development has met the requirements of
the City Council Policy P-i.
D. Waiver of Combining ReQUiremCat: Deny the request to
waive the combining requirement with the following Hn&W
2. That the waiver of the combining requirement is Inappropriate
inasmuch as It is more desirable to have the property
combined into a single building site prior to the issuance of
building permits.
2. That the combining of the subject parcels prior to the
construction of the project will insure that the property will
be beW as a single parcel should the applicant fail to record
a tract map for condominium development.
��� i ,r 1 t �,1 '•`},ins•.• .}i ••ti ° r ,.� •s � .,. .1 ^+` 1 4"��+Y,. �; .L.%•� p4: ��4 Si�,1 � tV•w•� .�.* �.
w
T%i. �� �M1���'v-�K .►•^ }a .r ..� �R..NNO
�I}' i ^'M ��4 � ]1±k\R TNT
V161AI17r
C
sri .vAp
Art y--r6 . o
/ VV
� J
rRr / ;4 •
'h1
k+ * j '
p �
Ap
f A
A+
sr icrry
~AStM
�y r ' V /
ti r •,
41
�y
*d *, *i
r � C
DISTRICTING MAP
NEWPORT BEACH — CALIFORNIA
AAIKWft SJW4XTk% aw w" mol"w"A4
twat rawu rr�rnti - U" oT oww' Al
Mm wti s r a scwm coomc
i $fom ammwAo
....w *w /M • of rwA``brA/r-�+ fd A MJAW.r
Opp S
AemI a A.N 94+
tmiFAIrII/D.685. WANEOK OP ab
vlAI& mwaAmcAo,&vr mljo ow&
WIQ ZW V&XMW&vl7 Aiftfr AV. i4
C0616.1"04Ud aptember {. 1980 "r.LIIks
IIIf� C.�iY Of ..�'VYpOf t. �dCfl _
Request to construct a sic -unit residential can. L't"m !i"
dominiaa project in the 1-1 District. the rtow
application alto requests a modificatina to the
MYnlClpal Code SO AS to allow the Structure t0 TW
ONCrOsch 10 fQ-et Into the required 20 fact front APPAOV(i
yard sotback (aeasrred from the abandoned
Carnation avenue rigtit-of-wsy). MLr
AND
Request to create one parcel of land for resi-
dential condominium purposes so as to permit tits Item -I:
construction of a sta-unit Condoolnium project 4n the 1-3 District. R[SUa-
i 0'.
LOCAYIgM: Portions of Lots 2. i. 6 & B.
Block Z11. Corona del Mar. and a pPRCYfC
portion of abandoned Carnation Pam..
Avenue located at 2WO Sery4er
Avenue on the easterly corner of t`
Seavlew aw:flie and Carnation AvenY
in Corona del Mar.
ZONE. R- )
APPtICAMT: John llrkpatrich. Ur,a Southern
Cal Property. Santa And
OWNER: Same as Applicant
ENGINEEA: Loren C. Phillips I Associates,
Arcades
Agenda Items No. 13 and 14 were hear concurrently
due to their relationship.
Planning Director Newicker stated that the allay .
will not be utilized. and that there are provisio s
for trash facilittis to the subterranean parking
structure. Mr: Bill Laycock, Currant Planning
Administrator noted that Cho architect ha! indi-
cated that the Plot Plan itself Is in error, and
that the atne foot width requirement for the
Parking spaces will be met.
Commissioner 1Ae041 stated that 14 units rill be a
big9 lass ill'the rental Stock In Corona del Mar, If
Ilk ?a it Is approved, tie stated that the real l
stock will drop completely If the Comm4=Sla" coni4 ues
to approve Condominium conversion% at each peet1 .
•I1- '
i
ti)httY»Itlhlatl Ot-abor 4, 1980 .. fyttrtylt,
� City of. Newpot Beach
Conntssioner Thomas stated that he can; enders -a —PT
the problems of renting, due to vacancy r4%Q$; 4nd
offordab111ty. but people of'moderate incom♦ Whb
work In these araes, w111 still need a l.l4cf tq
live. He added that the Coroas del Mar rolnters
are not transient, but they are very stable renter
A 10ss of 19 units in an area of stahle renter% is
a big loss and a problem that tee Commission needs,
to consider,
Thr public hearing was ovened in cnnnectltln 411h
these items and Mr. Lewis Rodwell, repres 0in9
the owner, appeared before the Commisslor an4
stated that they are in agreement with t„r start
report.
Mr, liarvey peAte, owner of the property at th. I
end of Carnation Avenue« appeared before }he•
COmmisslOn. Mr. PrAsr 4tatr4 Ihat Carnatl,l„ Ar.-
nue from Seavlew to the end It An ahandonr4 4.1rer
which 1% therefore a priv#tr street, withoyl
adequate control. This creates a very (ritital
parkinq problem, He also stated that the fire
Department has deterailned that their equipstenl
can not get access to a fire hydrant to service
the Area with all the cars parsing on both sides
of the street. III Stated that a provistOn should
be made in the Covenants. Conditions and Rastrlc.
tions that every property owner 11 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 W11l1b,
AssistAnt City engineer. ttAtod that this c4u1d
he done on thi♦ trttlon of thr •.trertI Wit the
lhrer to fnler nlber v
prnrrtty nwnrrt lnnlvr4
%01111 4.1y1• in Anrrt•. In nr•ler In roaiF it Nrl,•l.
I Iry Mr 11r1.1. .I.Idr,t It..@) br11,00. 1},I• irpnw. l ,,.l,
hn
e .Ir, .•plr�l, 11 w111,1 1..1ve. It$ P.P. ifolo It.1 ui. 11
turrrnt Street titandrrA% for Iles- 1 Ily
plannlog Director IlewiCkir Stated that; the ro.
quired 0417111111 for the project is on -site in to.
toss of three spates per dwellingy unit, The
developers are also rtauir-d to.mprove'Carn4tJolt
Avenue In the front of .the project.
CoAalissiover•3eek asked the applicatw if rti ►foeld
be in favor of rededlestimg,the street.; Nr.t
$odwell stated -that he has been disco ln'g ,tglt
matter -with Mr Pease amd"they hage 1iVit new; ,
Afreed to hart a wetting setwoon the holzyownera
on the Itrrel in work thl•, aul
-4f. ;
• lr / • L1
4 f -`
kotion
ayes
hots
absent
'`� •• mil l.a r�1.� ��. `'•:.,~.;.�' �,� .. .� ... .. .. :r.. i •. i '
i
1 City of Nc.L Beac..h
Mr. Webb su9gested that the owner tender ah
irrevocable offer of dedication to be eaercise4
at such tin as dedications can be obtelr,ed from
other areas. Mr. Rodaell stated that this would
be acceptable. Mr. tease stated that this would
not be satisfactory because It goes not address
the problem of street maintenance in the Interim
period and the parking problem.
Commissioner lack asked staff If there Is a
better solution to this problem. Mr. Burnham,
Assistant City Attorney, stated that the SYq•
gestion by Mr. Webb is a good attempt to start
to rtsolve this problem. There li not a malnttn.
ante condition that you can Impose to either
action that would accomplish Mr. Pease's r►Qurst,
Commissioner McLaughlin Stated that she would
Include the lrrerocable after of dedication
as a condition of approval on the resubdlviiion.
7I Motion was made that the »leaning Comnlssion ap.
x I it t prove Use Permit Re. 194a with the followlog
t findings and conditions:
f1Nb1N6s;
1. 1he project complies with all applicable
standard plans and Specifications, adopted
City and State huildlnl code%. and loftipq
requirements for new buildings, with the
tireptlpn of the requested modification to
the Zoning Code ptr•ltting a 10 foot en.
croschmsnt Into the required ?0 foot front
setback.
2. The project lot sift conforms to the Ioolnl
Code area requirements in effect at the time
of approval.
]. The project Is consistent with the adopted
goals and policies of the Gentral plan.
4. Adequate on -site parking spaces are arallable
for the proposed residential camdoninium
projtCt.
.a=.
ramrrru
$A'
Motion
Ares
trots
Absent
«'JTts
That the prop*$ad encroachments lnw thi roe
aulred 24 foot setback along the 1111004e4
Carnation Argue frontage of the site: end
tandea parking spaces, will not, under the
circuastances of the particular caSs, be
detrimeatal to the health, safety, peace,
comfort and 98neral welfare of persons fa•
siding or rorkin In the aeighborhood of such
proposed use or to detrimental or injerlou•
to property and 11rovew ats In the neighbor.
hood or the lateral welfare of the City 604
further that the pro osed modifications are
con:tsteRt with the ralslative intent of
Title 70 of this Cade.
6. The establishment. maintenance or Operation
of the vsr or building applied for will ant.
under the circv0stancel of the particular
cast, be detrimental to the health. safety,
peace. comfort and 9areral welfare of persons
residi41 or working in the neighborhood of
Such proposed,use or be detrimental or In-
jurious to property and lmprovements in the '
neighborhood or the general welfare of the
City.
COMIII T IONS:
i. That development shall be in substantial cor-
formAnce with the approved plot plan, floor
plan. and 01e1400ris,
2. That all conditions of Resubdlvisioa 00. 666
shall be fulfilled,
Notion was made that the Planning Commission Ap-
prove Resvbdivision No 666 with the following
findings and conditions:
FINDINGS:
1. That the maps wet the requirement% of Title
14 of the Newport teach Nunicipal Code, all
ordinamcas of the C13 . all applicable
general or specific plans and the plennine
Commission is satisfied with the plan of
subdivision.
-44.
3a
a
i
• . wawa• . ,..,►� ~I��M w.. --- - ��rqa.� ,...Mawr. ' ... . Aar. . . _
CC*VAtS1xJRlts �teteber •. 19RD `+Q` MIS
City:cf Newport Beach
7. That the proposed ro%ubdIvi%Inn pretrnts Re
problem% from a planniuq •-landhnint.
CONDITIONS:
1. That a parcel map be filed.
2.- That at•I improvements be constructed as re-
quired by lydfnances and the public MorkS
Department.
3. That each unit have separate rater services
and sewer connections, unless otherwise ap-
proved by the Public Mork% nrpartmeKt
4, that curb. gutter, pavement amO s4dew*0 he
constructers alono the abandoned Cerootlon
Avenue frontage, and that the tu►b q►ades be
approved by the Public Mortis Den+rtPont.
S. That a Standard %ubdiviston aareetr«nt and
surety be proviaed to guarantee thi sati:-
factory completion of the street improvements
if tt is desired to record the p•reel Map
prior to completion of the street improvements
6. That.the owner tender an lrreto►.able offer of
dedication for that portion of the abandoned
Carnation Avenue located on the subject
property. (Note: It was i a Intent of the
Planning Commission that laid offer shalt be
#%orci%ed at such time a% dedicattoms ran
he obtained from property nwner% of ether
abutting prapertirs withir, the,04ndone4
portion of Carnation Avenut).''
1
Chi an Haidinger asked the audience if there
= was an Qnt present who wished to speak on the
j Local Coiltpl Program this evening. item NO 19
on the Agendas Chairman Haldinger noted that no
one
tame forth this time.
Chairman Haidinger stated that the local Coastal
Program would therefore' continued to an
adjourned Planning Commiss maetrng on Septeo-
ber 18. 1960 at 2:00 p.m.. be se of the lateftes
of tr.e hour. a a
I
I J
r:I
Rrc `
fty 25, 1919
r�
»,
Mr. Craig T. Bluell
Planning Department
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beack, California 92663
R& CARNATION COVIt 2500 SRAVIRW, CORONA DEL MAR
Dear Mr. Bluell:
In accordance with your request and authorisation, Tarantello A Company has
prepared a report evaluating the feasibility of requiring one affordable unit
within the proposed development at the above address.
Included within the following report is an analysis of the' Subject proposed
development of six multi•famay residential units. Both 'for rear sad 'for sale'
scenarios have bean addressed. The appropriate rent levels, pries levels and
absorption period have been estimated, and the issue of 'fair return' to the
developer has been addressed.
We thank you for this opportunity to be of service and look forward to your
continued patronage in the future.
Respectfully Submitted,
TARANTELLO A COMPANY
R. Tarantello, CRE
President
C. M. Hale
Senior Consultant
i
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
of
2500 SNAVIEW
Si: Multiple Family Residential Units
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
Development By:
POINT PROPERTIES I, INC.
Submitted To:
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
5/22/89
Submitted By:
TARANTELLO & COMPANY
--.
E.
u
IJ
STATEMENT OF ASSUMPTIONS
CARNATION COVE, 2S" SEAVIEW, CORONA DEL MAR
(1}
prober CharaeL,C%l1L
i
Sirs
Unit A
QMrintion
3 Bedroom / 2.5 Bath
2,449 0.
Unit B
3 Bedroom / 2.5 Bath
2.176 s,f.
Unit C
3 Bedroom / 3.5 Bath
1.960 0.
Unit D
3 Bedroom / 2.5 Bath
2,519 0.
Unit E
2 Bedroom + Den/ 2.3 Bath
1.9280.
Unit F
2 Bedroom + Den/ 3.5 Bath
1.874'_f.
TOTAL LIVING AREA:
(2) Sswtigi This study could consider four scenarios in which an affordable
unit may be provided.
Scenario 1: Five or the six proposed units are sold at market prices; the
sixth unit is sold at the moderate income affordable standard
rate.
Scenario 2: Five of the six proposed units are sold at market prices; the
sixth unit is leased at the moderate income affordable
standard rate, and sold at market rate after twenty years.
Scenario 3: The six proposed units are sold at market prices; an off -site
unit is purchased at market rates and sold at the moderate
income affordable standard rate.
Scenario 4: The six proposed units are sold at market prices. an off -site
unit Is purchased at : market i prices, leased at the moderate
Income affordable standard rate, and sold at market prices
after twenty years.
(3) Land Owairable: At the start of project construction, it is assumed that
the land is owned outright by the developer.
(4) Laced _Cost: Purchase Price provided by the Owncrship: $1,672,658. or
approximately $27$,776 rper 1 WL An' additional I percent closing costs for
escrow and title fees ($16,727) are estimated and added to the land
purchase price along with the pre -construction interest carry on the land
(SI66.777), indicating a total land cost of $1.856.162, or approximately
$309,360 per unit. r
1
t
I
I'd
{Sy `Ca:ahretl.,. rerlM:::' A nine month..constrttctiw , period -. has been, assumed i
from commefcement of Construction, to completion of the! anits
(6) Cost�gil" C"J Bosed upon tha cost estimates supplied by the project
developer (Polate Properties, David, Deim, 5/M construction costs acre as
follows:
}
On -bite i1.199,b1S 5 92.95/s.f.
Orr -Site: S46,500 S 3.60/s.f.
Indirect
Advertising: K000 S 0.46/s f.
Supervision/O.H. SIi7,500 S 14.53/Lf.
Other Soft Costs: 5177.200 S 13.73/Lf.
TOTAL: t 12/ems r�
The construction costs appear to be reasonable based on comparison. with
cost estimates or other similar high -end condomialem projects in the general
market area, and based on comparison with Marshall's Cost Guide.
The construction costs are assumed to: be incurred evenly over the entire
construction period.
(7) 1Fisaaeiast / Prince Rate: Current. construction ; financing terms were
researched and the following terms were found realistic. The rate charged
against the outstanding loan balance ' is 2.5 over prima; 'prim . is : assumed to
be 'an ` 'average of' 11.5 , percent over the constructios period. • The, loan fee is
auumed to ' be 2.5 percent: of the total loan amount. The terms are assumed ,
to be a maximum',75 'percent -loan- to value; based on discussions. with Karen
Madsen of Security Pacific National Bank on May 22, 1989.
(9) Reeavraeet of Loan: Proceeds from sale or the units after completion of
construction or from ti: • take-out loan shall be credited to the outstanding
balance or the construction loan; any remainder shall be credited to the
capital account of the developer, constituting developer's profit and, overhead {
on the project.
(9) Absgrsllew: Based, on information, obtained ova . a similar ..,condominium;
project ' In Corona Del � Mar and other absorption information. the subject
' development ,• is expected W absorb l at,, s gate w - one , unit per ;meads. with all
`units sold , and closed ;!-(proceeds • received) within !,six;, moatl<s „after the!
completionl�w comtriaetion..., It is assumed that the affordltbler,unit willf
absorb f irst. . : {
2
J
■
11
IA]
I J
Ii
r ■i
(10) Prkias,-of the.-coedomiaiaet +sails,,a, based upon
rough aaalyeW are intornattiott M aoadoraiolum, asta a. the•:iaamediate market
stea. On the coeservalive side, a reasonable pricing scheme is considered
to : range from 5425.000 :to S4ti4,000.- with; aa,, averaso ..unit price of
Approximately S440,000. based pritmrity on , traassctioAs .within s iimilar 4-
unit development also on Carnation Avenue, ICU than one block. from the
Subject Property. (These transactions occurred about twelve months ago,
and an assuaged d percent coaserenlivs,.annusl increase has been applied to
obtain the Subject's estimated prices.)
The market surrey of recent condominium transactions in the specific
market area is included within the text of this report.
(11) Afforimble Ualt PC1cJLU The affordable unit was .condidered to replace
Unit F In all wenarioL Unit Pricing: was based .-wpoa; income information
provided by Craig T. Bluell, Dcpartatant of Planning, City of Newport Beach.
Affordable unit pricing criteria was also provided by the City of Newport
Beach. A copy of the letter in which this information wan conveyed is
attached as Addendum. A summary of the pricing is as follows:
On -Site Sale Maximans, Moderate income: $1790310
Orr -Site Sak Maximum. Moderate Income: S149,850
The designated affordable off -site. unit must be a two bedroom condominium
Of house within the City of Newport Beach.
(12) Affordalth Itestal Not= The affordable unit is assumed to be a 3 bedroom
trait in the oo-site scenario, and a 2 bedroom . unit in the .off -site scenario,
The pricing or this lease is based upon in4omc information. and the
affordability standard for moderate income ,units provided . by Craig ,T. B1uell,
Department of P[anntng, City of Newport Beach., This , information is
attached as Addendum.
On -Site Rent Maximum: S1,499 per month ;
orf-Site Rent hhximum: 51.332.per month
(13) Provision of Oft -Site Affordable UaitThe following additional assumptions
have been incorporated ' into the 7 analysis, providing moderate, .income units
at an, off -site location.,,. iThe purchase, price of the ., orf•sitc unit was
determined by obtaining the average , sales prlco ; for ., all two -bedroom units
in the City of : Newport Beach sold, Within I the- past year,. as,. evidenced by
Multiple : , Listing Service : information provided, by Jennifer; Eacarnacso or,
Harbor Realty.
3
I.s
At�so tiae� It;'hst;= beef ,assnt ied: that ''the ..off -site 'unit will be purchaud is
the ninth, "AO, nth'"{tosspletio�`'of 'construction)'` and sold int . the tenth month
at the affordable rate;
palm It :has"beta assumed that the purchase price of the orr-site unit is
$343,706. This represents an approximations or the current average
residential (2 bedroom) snits price in Newport Beach.
(1�) Nffem Ci■h - Flow The estimated annual cash' flow from reeling out the
affordable units incorporates the following annual expenses:
Oa -Site Unit 517,988
Taxes and Insurance (4.9%) (Sgsl)
Other Expenses (26.2%) ' }
Net income: S1,024/mo.
Off -Site Unit S15,984
Taxes and Insurance (4.9%) (S783)
Other Expenses (26.5%) („4,284)
Net Income: M217 $910/mo.
(15) Rtsidull Value The residual value of an affordable unit at the end of the
twentieth year is based on an annual 4 percent escalation factor. 11 must
be noted that this is a speculative value.
(16) The project is analyzed utilizing a
multi -period cash flow over the construction and absorption periods of the
project. The cash outflows include the land cost, the development costs, E
and the repayment of the construction loan and the various closing costs `
incurred upon sale of the property in the final month. The cash _j flora
include the construction loan disbursements, the rents received during
leascup, and the proceeds rrom sale at the end of the leaseup period. The
Project is feasible if the developer receives a return sufficient to justiry
development. The criteria for development feasibility is a return op equity
to the developer of at least 25 percent. Standard ROE's in the
development industry typically run 25 to 50 percent, and frequently even
higher, varying with the level or risk involved.
The initial cash outflow to the equity Investor is estimated to be $1,600,000.
This amount is derived through the assumption that all existing land loans
(four trust deeds) will be paid orf prior or upon the receipt of a
construction loan. This is the amount of equity required in order to
sustain a maximum construction loam balance of 75 percent of value,
f 1,930,000, or less over the entire construction period.
4
i
The : net cash (tow --column rsprpents, the -actual- equity, E outflows ; and inflows
to the developer of, the - Subject. L Property, IS this ,; Model, , sit, of . the cash i
outflows to be assumed by the developer ore.,, incurred , , up,,,. front; the
construction loan covers the remainder of all project expenses, hence the
zero ; monthly : flows for a avabor of, moatbs. The sposltiva. flows represent
the laflows to the developer, from excess revenues over cost:.
The cumulative undiscounted cost column represents the amount of money
dw developer has; in, the dal at any point in time. The . final period of the
cash flow incorporates any inflows, he has received. , A neplive ■umber in
the final period reports that the developer has not received even his
original capital back from the completed project.
The return on equity - to the developer is usually ..calculsled .by. internal rate
of return. using the above assumptions for pat cash flow. In this particular
use, the developer does not receive even his original.,capital back from the
project revenues upon completion, much less any profits. Hence, the
amount of loss is calculated as a percentage of the total , invested capital.
Rcfer to the proforms spreadsheets -for the calculations.
S
s
• �
TAMt A -0 COMM Ott 40 COM MINIM SAttS
..................... ........................................
rlmomtss IRACT, DAY! OATH 804M
SAtt/tlsl
0 owl 31"
.............................................................
M1CR
CLOW TRARSACT IOH
...................
497 marring Corn
MI6
19
04/OS/69
2
52S0.000
3 Crest Cie
CCST
63
06/10/66
2
s230.000
11 Conran Crest
CUT
56
06/16/66
2
f297.000
19 Crest Circle
CCST
66
03/67/69
3
$313,000
a Co wpon two
CCST
46
06/01/aa
3
sm.=
426 setlatrege
Cos
al
09/12/da
2
MIS.0oo
42e Carnation
CDM
56 "10/03/66
2
ST".000
AM Avatads Ave
MIN
20
121141"
2
SS10.000
3" molls
CONS
76
06/16/88
2
$226,300
0212 Carnation
CONS
W*
Coma
3
u20.000
•214 Carnation
CONE
W*
06/16/06
3
U10,000
•216 Cara"tlsn
CONS
Unk
09/02/66
3
T44o,000
late Carnation
CDI"
3
06/17/88'
3
600,000,
US mollotrops
CONS
71
04/11/89
3
sS37.SM
Bat Wdom-
CDO
31
03/10/69
3
$490.000
All 0oblia
Cm
33
05/12/86
3
s37o,000
/02 msilotrape A
CONS ,.
2",
01130/89
3
2350#000
'304.3 mernlest
CDW
38
12/11/aa
3
s396.000
7M iris
CNNW
S"
05/01/a9
3
S30S.00o
ntS ocean 1tvd 6
C311F
too
06117/aa
2
s360.o00
2m Ocean 6tvd so
CRlm
33
05/11/69
i
$450,000
2523 Ocean Blvd 0
Ctti
23
08/18/89
2
s .000
to am low kaod,
UN
163
06/15/66
2
5190.000
106 ft~ Naads
"m
33
03/2i/p
2
8169,900
406 ma bsr hoods
MW
76
03/30/69
2
0243.000
207 moan Ummb
MARK
13
"min
2
S177,000
409 mobsr Woods
MW
101
06110/0
2
"",No '•
17 owbo"
Nis
14
03iZol a
3
114".000
So3 marber o ds
J#"
10
021161"
2
s260.00o �
16 Jetty Odra
JASC
21
09/21/M
2
14IT. 000 i
i
21 Joawlne Creek
JASC
M
06/02/M
2
s43S,00o
43 beachcomber
JASC
S!
03/12/69
2
$450.000
19 Carl ori.e
MIC
, Ito
10/16/60
2
S4e6.'000 ;
17 Nalmooil
JASC
1ba
To/0!/N
2
s4Sv�000
301612water
JASC
119.
O7/30/06,
2
ri4t,000 +-
139 Jeanine Crook
JASC
213,
�l/10/M
,3
".006
15 461 tec"
JAN
41
04/OTi69 '
3'
"mom
e1•
45 Joadow Crack
JA1C
!1
11/"
3
"".on
331t1naait
JASC
147
a/30/09
3
1430,U00
32 Polnaall
JAK
a
Y"Ma
3
un,11M '
36 161taastar
JASC
a
41/0s/M
3
543S,m
9 Allawlsr
JASC
i
09131/0
3
"".on
12 Altevotsr
JASC
41
10/27/M
3
1430,000
16 skyeall
JosC
10
Ob21/M
3
$430,000
920 04rdenIs
J"K
66
11/02/M
2
$360,000
9s2 Cardanis vyr
im
35
OUM M
2
1390.000
9S6 Csrvisnia uT
ARK
7r
06/Ot/M
2
1343.000
131 aardanla
JMK
6
11/111/16
3
11491.000
807 Osrdonis Wf
im
M
11/i12/M
3
MO."*
009 a l bi st•us C t
im
77
O l in/M
3
"37.000
1209 "Ida or
wllr
711
011311"
1
"".000
1241 ""Ida
11AIK
ITS
02JI0100
2
1703,000
1319112"Ida
MAIK
102
09Imse
3
11,000,000
3 Cwl Or
OUTA
10
"/Is/M
3
13a3,000
72s Avocado
me
31
04/19/19
1
S11"'No
T13 Avscada
un
15
12/12/>b
2
sm's00
To Asada
SA110
26
03/111M
2
t200,000
3731 Geranium
TCON
14
o9/12/d0
2
s415.000
3710 off fodll
ICON
232
02.Wf39
2
1s340,00o
3510 Daffodil
.........................................................
TCPH
72
03/30/89
2
2us.000
LISTl1NW -- 5/89
:93 ltorn l rp Cyn
CAMC
2
1274, 3O0
1s Crest Circle
CC$I
3
$337,100
'309 Carnation
am2•d
1430,000
8214 Carnation
C01N1
3
I1s11,000
602 Mllotrops s0
Cm
]
f39'3,000
,r
NS,Ja�ine A
Cori
2
13$0,000
613 Jamins 09
CIINY
I
A50,000
61s JslNne 1A
CIINY
3
539s,000
207 Harbor Woo*
M W
2
$219.000
14 faobar
JASC
2
uss.000
1s ilipall Or
JAit
2
il39.000
il3lllblacus_Ct
Jm
3
W0,000
................::.::.....................................
M1 .CCI "Mil►tt UsTl 10 Unto
J111111 FIN
NIwAram, mm *MIT
AM. l"IjiLO 6
COOMT
.............................................................
AIRAAM 2 loom Pu1cum ►R l C111 >13N, T06
MUM 3 seem mum Hlicas 1444,229
TMII I — a'ECEMT calmloltm SAtff YIT110 "Cio011A Ctl NM fa ll"
.........................................................................
0.....................
Afmif
We CA11 mb1f UT"
ASU
MICE M1c9li/ ifIC1/1CA
ACA
Y1E11
�212 Carnation
04/29/Y ] 2.3
020,000 f1i0,000
aAT
11214 Carnation
08/16/Y 3 2
=,063
5410,000 9196.55 2136,667
now
► ocmul
0216 Carnatlan
09/02/Y 3 3
i40,000 $146,667
nor
1 Oc"I
4218 Carnatlan
a0/17/Y 3 2
1,690
fi10,000 u48.4a $136,667
ram
i COMY
4ZI 1lallotropo
04/111" 3 2.5
Z,200
1557,500 aaMl 5185,LA
16 V
no
"I 6oldo w
03A01" 3 2.9
$490,000 fT63,333
-'nAw -
No
411 Dahlia
03/12/Y 3 2.3
"1370,000 $123,333
Yb 17
CITY lif
602 Mallotropo A
01/30/89 3 2.9
1JDO
$350,000 A2o].0 6116,667
nor
n0
93Oi.5 lirinlaaf
12/l1/Y ] 3.2
1,471
sm,ow um.fa 6132,6N'
nw l
I10
8309 Carnation
UST 3 2.73
1,TM
SU0,000 MU.77 f21],333
near
Ocim,ul
•21i Carnation
111j: 3
2,ON
fliS,000 i2N.39 11i1,667
/ OMANI
b2 Not lotrgw A
. till' 3 2
1,bia
!39l,000 s2]/.24 1131,Y7'
aw
MO
:...................:....::.....::................:.....:.....::....:::::......................
UNCIs WATIKI UVjlGVNIa
r
XMIyRR W."mcm, mum'"ary
t Alb TAKWTlU0'i"WWANi
,
•............................................. ........ .......111.......... 1...........
,,.......
i
.t-
•
•
SOL4410 1
004 w! ONIIT1, Iroa.rsta Incais
•o.................4...........................1... a... a.aaa.a.i.... i.a a...... i 1i...............i..i...i..a... a.................i.. 4006.00...........
. ICIAI
ti1T
COttSTst alcm
OMM IN
04ALOMMY
CIfl4TANIIt0
am CAN rum U01s00 K M
IMMIM 04VILOP IMT ACTIVIIT
LAO CCiT
COSTS
COSTS
CWTS
WIN
SAWICS
WA1
4AUS to 8011iWg4
0....... i...............
CLIG"TIM!
................................................ i..... .............. .................
1 foeord LooNlgin Caret (11,11M,1s21 p1T9,W) (649,3011) (S2,0fl,3M)
.... a .... ....................
SM.30/ 544S,301
.............
s0 M (11,600.0m)
(N,s40,OM)
2
so
(S1T9,s4A)
CSs,ss21
(s1/6,30)
iiw,304
3670,616
14
so M
ISI'm,M1)
3
10
(S1T9,60A)
(17,M)
(5147,470)
$187,470
s464,0Y
so
s0 M
(61,600,M)
4
10
(0119,646)
(i10,011)
(8109,657)
$199,697
$1,047,745
10
so M
481,sM,M )
S
10
(1179,"6)
(512,224)
(5191,M)
$191,M
11,239,613
10
M 14
(111,601,Mf)
i
60
(5179,64A)
($14,442)
01%,1011)
5194,104
f1,433,721
10
14 SO
(t1,10o,0Si)
7 Wn tlsrk4tins
s0
(5179,646)
(1116,M)
(Sl%,373)
S19A,3fl
61,630,0%
s0
a s0
(61,60o,m)
4
to
(51T9,64A)
(S19,114)
(s19f,ss4!
s1M,6K
21,M,7sf
So
10 10
ol,s0o,m)
9 Sid Const./Mll Unit r
M
(S1T9,A4A)
{521;33A)
pao,912)
s21,132
S1,f49,490
10
6179,Mo s0
(st,s00,N0)
10 Soil Unit A
S0
M .
` 031'su)
(S21,in)
so
$1,431,472
(0411,418)
s440,M1 s0
(61,600,M0)
11 fall Unit s
s0
SO
(S16,T01)
(2160T01)
to
f1,o04,112
Cf423,2M)
s "'m toCf1,s00,M1)
12 salt unit C
so
'10
(511jul
'(511,7s2)
So
ssT9,1134 "(s424,nf)
S".Mf M
(81,sm,1M)
13 Mil Unit 0
SO
'so
4"'1 )
(fA,TiA1
M
f14A;1M '
(Sw,2l41
t4M,1M M
pt,s0o,1M)
14 8411 unit S
so
s0
{51;712)
(21,712)
M
a 19
CS148,413)
11440,a1' °5291,l1/
(S1,304,412)
10TALf
(N,16A,'ls2!(51,�1s,�13)
(5213;2f!)
Cf3,/1f,2A2! Sl,ill,MO ` ' r .' ' (21;851,641)
1U,Jh,/M (51.30/,412)
firanolh Costa or*o
„
Mfnillw Athrdsrla•
r
Ulm ' •41.7111111
2.5% war prim •
14:oo1c
laMfwlua"
S1,!lA,1�!
S1T9,160
' "
(Gaii'mtlnu ica "MICO)
tom points a
2.l�
t
land drMl
too moue + 7511'(2,s40,0001• $I'M0,OM
,
pultlt Yaq.1
S1,s00,0f0
•
•
r-�
1 ��
L. C....r L.Mn
MUM t
104 LUs1 011111111. red race tnwr
..........................................................................................................................................................
TOTAL
COri1M)CTION
III KIN4
OMLOMAT
anSTAMINO
1t10111 400s1 Imm
All INOIstM10190
NON1N "VILOPNIIT ACTIVITY
LAM Costs
Costs
omit
OKAY
4ALANCI
WAY
MUs
FUN Y11
CAST FLOW OPULAIIYI
............................................................................................................................................4......................
10 so sO.M (11,400,000}
ts1,40o,0001
{ hard twvs"tn C.rt ts1.1S4,142)
(1179.444)
($49,500)
($2,049,304)
"'30i
U6,304
s0.00
10 t4t,400,000t
:
s0 titT4,6Ui
(150,442)
(1189,30/)
i115.301
i470,414
so
s0
3
to (1179,444)
(1T,424)
(1147,470)
$167,470
s4S4,O"
so
so
60.00
so (s1,iM,000)
4
s0 (5179,46)
($10,011)
(s149,657)
11M,13T
$1.047,743
t0
14
M.00
so (51,00 mi
i0 :(f1�,�t4)
ts12,224)
(1191,470)
it91,t7+b
11,1",413
so
s0
M.M
M t41.114.t#41
4
s0 Ci179,K4)
(114,4U)
(i194,1011)
51%,104
s1,433'm
s0
so
M.M
so tri,404,100)
7 s«tn Narkatlti
10, .(i1T9,"4)
($14,T27)
(i194,3T3)
11%,373
51,4]0,094
so
s0
M.M
M tst,400,100}
s0 (1179.444)
-
ti11,011)
{119M,444)
i194.14i
/1,1Z4,TSi
M
s0
10.04
s0 p1.404,4M1
9 Nd Cant./64I1 unit A
W
so
i1,li►,T4o
(82M,411)
1440.000
M.M
MAC
s0 t11,tiM,OM)
so
10 Sall unit 1
so s0
10
(411,l47)
(it],430)
(114.547)
(613,430)
M
s0
i1,INO]4T
114�,91T
(SU1.413)
�{14M,3T0) F
MY,MO
i444,M0
44.40
;(s1.iM,410)
M :�11,M4�11i}
;.N,SaN Llnit C
12 Nll Unit o
s0
10 so
'('(M,164)
(OAM)
i'� .80
s]10tin
'001' 44)
"i4M,140
= M.M
so ,ti1rIM,IM)
13 MI l Unit 1.
so 00
` r' (t3.41])
(a,�)
t ... , . p
M
tww.l9i} '
i444,M0
4l.M
N:l�04 ; (t+1�1iir1M)
14 Rant Unit f
: so s0
.. (10)
Ct0)
; . '00
10
i0
s0
s0
s0
M
so
0,40.13
st,034 ti1,4TI,1N)
M
id
s0
.M
. i0
M
M
•
r
M p
s0
i0
M
q
M
M
s1,4a.0
s1,404 : , • ' .
2S3 Mlt unit 1
_
e .
s0
s0
tovo",om
s1.on.113
1MS.1t• t.'iT1114,lit)
TOTALS
tlt.ss4�14:)Cis,;)1,�t!}
s201�719) (sa,47a,194I
i1,tS2i,?!1
`;
q,1ii,494
s214.3N.M
1si14.3i3) s::
amAead r. 253 vMwn,;ti,i4J.Nr
f IrwrKiq trlilts arse
lint wlw�
'' 142
91ri4i;
Maiilaus Atlsiil�ti•
;' 41N,#d0
'"'
IV 125.Mi
t4.00xIdAi+d'drwi
s2x4;142
AwisN
! 4Mr+ar
f'• , ',
`,
IV 01 fsg4 �
< M7+�,7t}s � • (9� r*Mv.) ,
2.S% awr Or1a�1 •
�lsa+,f�14µ• �
=,s4orvi+isr
.�400,000..
ialf ►rlu
• "
t3N�T0s
,.
19i4,11a rats mom".
(�� �rlt"•'
11,1M1�-.. � �' �:! _=f
l ! - , .. a .
.'.' t
(.i. ' +• � � :
`)`
:.'
AWL
•
�' . - . _ i
�'1�f�
.
....... ..
MORIOLl
•
•
L.r ter
sCUM10 3
idlt SAU 0111111, 14derst• Ifasio
•....................................,..,....,....,..................,..,..........•...u.........................r.r..r.......,......u.....♦.........
a ..u.rr...........
TOTAL
COMitkalOR
IINWIMi
FARCIMA
/MUPSI MT
OVT/TAMIMO
am$
■T W11Ls 1111t0
MOM1N NVOL0/MMY ACTIVITY
LAW cost
t0i1f
mats
0/i6111
C011s
MAY AAIAMtI
19PAY
sAUs
CASH SLOW Ct/4LATIVR
..**a* ............................................. as ....... *.* .................
........ ..•.......... .......1....... ....0
1 4860rd L•W14410% Coat 01,06,142)
(11179,04)
(14*,501
go
ta,o/et,3o/)
ms,= 1 jIm
to
M 411,60/,M/) (1IAN.iM)
2
s0
ti171,•Y)
("."a)
s0
(ONSju)
51•!,]/i 1670,616
so
14
1f 411.iff.MO)
3
so
ti1H,•L•)
tu.vo
so
(1157,4701
i187,470 sfs/,o/•
so
t/
M (1111.41/.M0)
4
so
0141611)
s0
g1M,i67)
i1M,N7 61,447,743
s0
10
ff (f1,fM,MO) 0
!
sb
ti1:.33K)
s0
<f1lt.tri/)
$111,r7/ 11,ap.613
1ta
1f
M O"'WI/M)
•
so
4i17l,M"61
cm.M3)
so
(11"'106)
51"'I i i1,133,7Z1
10
f0
M {i1,/f/ W)
7 sgln Markatlm
so
l6179,•l+1
tit6,7m
so '
t61M,373)
s1M,373 il.•M,01
W
s0
so g1.i�,fM1
f
so
1117►,•i•) .
tiM,ili)
so
(0191."41
11N,1i4 11,f2f,7li'
so
>b
M . ti1.iM,10i)
! &W Cana1.18W Olhlta/
so,
(6179,6:6)
(u1,336)
ts3Aa,7M)`
(iKl,Mf)
110/.6m, 11'M'4 =•
so,
f4W'm
so, (1T,s",W)
Ytt Unit /-
10 ht� tAnlc E/fell 0Tlaita
a
so,
(Ou'611)
so `
(Su'6131
M' 61,3li'm
t13.7,311)
swam ;
a•M,411,M/,M11
11 jell unit /.
so
s0
ti1•;lil)'
sO
111•,iN)
so'° 1Mi,m
("u'12!).
1i40,Mi..
, ..I�,.ti1�M,/so)•,
13 ietl unit, G
10
so
au."
so
4811,30fl
ts .; OW'3a
(sN/,N3) '
SM.M/,
13fat�:llM1lc,O
s0
fo'
ts1;K3)
'40'
4M,601"'
't11D,3l7)
ft alwl,
Ma,til.Ml•1M)
14 fetl,Llnlc.I
sor
90'
(SIM)
so
t61,ii41"
�. to ='; Is °
(814/,313),
"'m
TO1AL1
Itl,ss•,1.2�;f1,11�,113)
tRll,iS3)
t»,?tiL)
(fr;,037,114)f1,t�,�+�i ,tf1,N7,131) i2.7M,M0 t1t,30s,l77)
14alna AIT•rdile +
0149,00
'
•
•/1.1 slnm :. .
AV* = sadroos
sale !rise
SM.?!li
t1Y/I1 OawTssICT111 IAIa . .
ihw+clry Coots ores
2.3x Over ItIm •
14.003
, ` lad
rel+rti
f1+16. 1.2
:.
tam points •
=.300
" lied
iwn` ..
456,1u
tart moat • .
f1,1M.000
a ltji iiq.t
i1,:00,i00
%WIG 4
X LUM 014111s, madras. IHsaM
..........................................................,................•.....i................ ............. ............. ..................
.f..........ff..................
TQTAi.
CdfsTsti<T10>t rtaawtClN rutatAM osvalLcVMAL WIVArtlw tapes am ism GGT MIKMNTW
]rift sfML011l11T ACTIVITT WO camcal+ ar+lTe cars iw,w >uurci< aaauAT GAu+ f'+aal suT UN FLOW CINrAttYG
......................i........ ........... ....... ................................ f.......................... ............... .. >a to.00 (G1,i00,IM} ts1,Mo,iGG�
1 Gecwd mowVGdsin Carat t:1,IJi,ti:} (slr,iii) {s41r.SOG� so (13,m,]M} 1 ajo sdis,]oi ss pt Ns GGG
= so (+179.6") (+s,6") so (s1Gs,]M) s1Gs,7Gr Mr1,616 s+1 w ++.iQ , �
3 10 ts1><'l,ilii t0i,i24} so (8187,474) s1p,410 Utli;OY sir t0 q'M so
w tG1TO,i4i) til0,ot1) GQ gtM,i3T) s1q,b7 i1,o4T,�43 +Q q +a p1,IQG,
4 s1,2]1,N] q q s0.00 sQ p1,iM,IGsi
S so (sim,"o ts17 xo so (G191,s m) Gtt1 ,ITO
s0 cs114 t0s1 st14,1sas s1,4A,n1 sQ , si sO.M s0 (sl,isi3OM)
i s8 (s1Tt1,i4�) {s14,Y2) so tGl.isi,lGli
r sosin xvtoom s0 (1179,W) ISM,= s0 Is1M,m) s1fi,m s1.MO.O14
so (Sm,i4i} (s11,01i1 s0 (i1"Aw s1111*4 st.i2i,}3i to si so.0 so tsl,ioa,No
G so s44o,GaIG M.ss i
1 frd Cmrt.nuv Offdlts/ w (+170,4Y) (Sal 13 i) cou'rOi) (i341,MG) . s1o1,w i1,17i,44i.'
=Nl! Unit a► G0 (s27,i1f} s0 s1,320,1'il {s410.2131 s4�0,+M M01.i3 M ti1.i00,M
10 sell Unit A Merl Offhitd s0 q isiZ,ils) twos sa g1,fi0, 1
11 Mil Unit s s0 so (s11,TJS1 so s1,ON.070 (s4a.1TJ) s440, so
s0 (sit !M) W .Y3 (1►4>s,112) s440,Gs0 _MOLTS at
12 sNl Unit C s0 00 (s12,T9�) ' . M ti1.p.M0•
s0 clr,s0]) s0 (sr,iml so s�b,?'!i (SIX1,10/) s�0,sw s10t►.?S }
1] Mll Unit o so N - (sm,S01} s440.OM MM.TS 61".00 js1,400,1561
14 Gott Unit s 'SO q (91731) 10 ; {s7.N1} W !0 ; r NM.tS t►14 }
sQ ,., I+0) b s0
q s0 toWWJS
� s0 so
fh0
• i0 1011
Gs s1M.fl Gf10
s0 s0sQ s4
so q sp :; Gp . irµ,06i f101.n sm,1" (un.
233 sail Whits: 10 so s0- _ _
04= 14G) +1 17i 44+ {s1,K1.1lIi +].�.0q +21i,i4i.i0 tM22,i00)
1QfAms (s1,164,ti2}cf1.41iti,i1s1 (s220,4i6} Is34i,iOi) Is4, . . ..
• :. ouul•t.r aaara 276 wtuot 1141,547,11
Horsley Coate as ' Msit[ddw Affordable, • +t4t►,GSO s6�1,4s] 49% r*lnrdottau+t nu
Itd of Orion . 14.OU ArG 2 to Sato sold
sTi4,i ooadipttna)
ras �intd .
•t Meant s1,10Q,000 . dYpA4L gTliGut
s1
Malmo
didMtuao isle
N diem t 125�, ls2
� i
ri CJ �l s t'S i, ii G R 4
�r ZCti -
ats�iMA>Rif Co
As --eYi kited by the -'pro. forina cash '' flow ` a atyus,` there" is little to no
♦ 4
profit, to be atade ' by -'the developer in this project. Each scenario presents a
different aptioa for the provision of an affordable unit, all ylelding a negative
or extremely low rate "of return to the developer on the project. Those
scenarios yielding positive
rates of
Morn (2.37%
and. 2r81%
for
Scenarios 2
and
4, respectively) yield thew
positive
returns only
because of
the
assumption
of a
9 percent reinvatment fate for the latter positive cash flows, and the 4 percent
per year assumed appreciation of the •leased unit. A lower reinvestment rate
assumption (i.e. 4 percent) would eliminate all profit. All of the estimated
returns fall well below 25 percent, a rate considered to be 'a minimum
'benchmark' in the Industry.
It should be noted that the rate of returns reflect point estimates based
upon a series of assumptions detailed earlier in this report: The actual rate of
return
achieved by the
'development will
depend
upon
to what
degree variances
from
these assumptions
are experienced,
and in
what
direction
(i.e. positive or
negative) they occur.
In this particular case, the developer might obtain higher prices for the
units for sale. Should a price of SSIS.000 on the optimistic side (the price of a
listing of a similar condominium that was, on the-, rket 'for _'one month and
taken off, no offers made) be attainable, the project would still remain
unprofitable, as the total of land and construction ',costsalone total over
WIMP. (The •-inclusion of financing costs " and developer's overhead In this
tough model would push the project further in the 'red.*) "
.:Given the .risk level associated with this type of ;development. it is our
opinion that the only reasonable scenario is the exclusjon of any ,affordable
units on -site or off -site. The 'return' to the developer' would be 'maximized
s 14 r _
. C.
V f T � �' .`. Y • h 1rt w. Cf :f� �;. h. w n V�. ; � �
i (or, in this case, the Ions minimised) through allowing the free market to
prevail. Based upon our experience and knowledge of specific development
projects, Tarantello dt Company has found that most developers would not
undertake a development such as this one without an expected return on equity
of at least 25 percent. It is evident that the scenarios do not approach this
benchmark, and we recommend that no affordable unit requirement be imposed
upon the subject development.
1S 4
•
�i
CITY 4F NEW PORT BEACH
PA. BOX 1764, NEWPORT 5EACN, CA 926kW)91 S
PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225
Data K&X 4,1992
Diane Joslyn
Tarantella b Co.
3901 MacArtlws Blvd.
Suita 100
Newport Mach, COL 92660
Dear No. Joslyn:
Within the California Coastal Zone, residential davelopsanc is governed by
State regulations contained in Article 10.7 of the Government Code, "Low.
and Moderate -Incase Housing within the Coastal Zona." The City of Newport
Beach adalnistars those State regulations through guidelines established by
Council policy P-1. Council policy P-1 provides for the preparation of a
] study to determine whether the affordable housing required by State regu-
a� lacions to feasible in new developrancs within Newport Basch's Coastal
Zone. The following information is being provided to enable cha preparation
of a proposal/bid for such a feasibility study.
Project Location (address)
Site Sits _,12.886 sg_ft, Number of Units 6 ,
Number of;
.j 1 ddrm. Units 2 Sdro. Units, 3 Bdrs. Units
J 4 Bdrs. Units
•� Project is to be evaluated so: a rental project
Jboth an ownership and rantal project_
For purposes of this feasibility, the City of ;Newport. Beach requests chat
the consultant prepare a feasibility study by analyzing the provision of __1
unit(s) ac the _sa:4srats - income level on -site. If this initial analysts
demonstrates feaalbLlicy for one or both types of tanurs, the - consulcant
shall continue to perform analyses for the feasible Tenure type at each
successively lover encase level until Infeasibility is demonstracad.
J
1
1
If It is noe feasible to provide an affordable unic,on-slce, the feasibility
of providing I new two bedroom ownership unit off -sits the"rhi wdirsgg
Inc*" level within the City of Newport beach should be aniayszod. If this
initial analysis dasonstraces feasibility, the consultant shall continue to
perform analyses at each successively lower -!nose loval,until infaasibillcy
is demonstrated.
j
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Bach
31
ADDENDA ITEM B
1
f
I
,
1�
i
I
f
1
.l�
ONSOLIDATED R"PRoGRAI 1.1ICS
1lCROFILM
0
J
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P-Q BOX. 061, NBWPORT BEACH, CA 926W" I S
FLAMING DbPARTHFAT (714) "4-3225
Data may 4,1992
Diana Joslyn
Tarantella & Co.
3901 MacArthur Blvd.
Suite 100
Newport Beach, Ch .92660
Dear Ms. Joslyn:
Within the California Coastal Zonis, rosidantial development is governed by
Scaca regulations contained in Article 10.7 of the Government Coda, *Low -
and Modarate-Income Ilousing within the Coastal Zone," The City ae Newport
Beach administers those, Scats regulations through guidelines established by
Council Policy P-1. Council Policy P-1 provides for the preparation of a
scudy to determine whether the affordable housing required by Scats ragu-
lations is feasible in now developments within Newport beach's Coastal
Zone. The following information is being provided to enable the praparacLon
of a proposal/bid for such a feasibility study,
Project Location (address)
ISite Sirs-.12-296 mq- ft- !timber of Unlcs
Humber of:
.� 1 bdrm. Units 2 bdrm. Unita 3 Mrs. Unics �.
4 bdrm. Units
Project is to be, evaluated ■e: a rental project
bosh an
ownership and rental project I_
For purposes of this feasibility,, the'City Of'Newport -leash .Taquasca that
Cho consultant prepare a feasibility study by analyzing the provision of __I
unic(s) at the Inca" level on -site. If this initial analysis
demonstrates feasibilityfor one or both types of coaurs,' the:consultant
shall continue to perform analyses for the feasible conure type ac each
successively lower Lneo" level until infessibilicy is demonstrated.
If it is not feasible to provide an affordable unic'on•sico, the fassibility
of providing �_ 1 now two bedroom ovnorshLp unit off -site the `the agljigicg
income level within the City of Newport beach should be anlaysz'ed. If cIlLs
initial analysis damonstraces feasibility, the consultant shall'conttl%us to
Perform analyse• at each successively lower income lavat-uncil..infeaslbLllcy
Ls demonstrated.
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
L I
May 4, 1989
Vale two
Current income information In`conforminca vith'Arttcle 10.7:
Moderate Income:
Median Income: 1 n
Affordability standard:
Moderate Income;
Median Income; 2 hr: 41.11A: 7 hr. gL.244
"f try,• � d � I
Term of affordability: 2_ years. t�1i i. ti
The applicant has recaived a copy of this letter and understands that- a
request for a feasibility study will require additional information.
including but not limited to chat listed below. The applicant islad under-
stands that this information will be needed by the study start-up dace and
chat the availability of the information necessary co complace"ths, ,risibil-
ity study could influence the tixa required co complete the study.
51to Plan
• floor plan and description of various floor. plan designs
' Cost of land ■ubstantistad by a purchase agreenanc or other
official docuaant
• Construction period
• Construction cost including off -sits costs and list"of aaanicias
This letter does not constitute a contrsct', however it'doea' constitute. a
request fat a proposal/bid far services. A„contract for services will be
exacuced between the City and the 'consultant at 'such ii"! ,:as' Iche' project
applicant requests a feasibility study. Please provide below an aacio4ca of
cost, time required to prepare, and start-up date for a feasibility study'on
the project identified above. In addition to tha propoaal/bid inforsoacion.
please sign end date this latter, kaap 'copy for your files, and racurn"che
original co the City. Thank. you.
Cost co prepare feasibility. study:
Ties required to prepare feasibility study: e.dAys.
Deco on which preparatioa.of feasibility can,bagin;,
CITY Op - NzWMT • B9ACii .CONSUi.TArrr
Sy
Dal
CTA\rl•LCl.19
f
L
1("If.:,t� .li.!�':7�.:; [i'�.ti1'llili,ii.{ D7+;�•:�SNs;�i'.l�j{�,
ADDENDA ITEM 0
I
w
l]DR.
R. TAItANTLLLO, Clit
RUUCATION• Doctor or Business Administration - Real Estate and Urban
Land Economics, 1976; University or Southern Gllrornia
I
1
Master or Business Administration - Financial
Business Economics, 1971; University of southern Cait Management and
I
Bachelor or Science - Real Estate and Finance, 1970
California Stale University - Los Angela
IPROFESSIONAL
AFFILIATIONS., American Society of Real Estate Counselors, CRE
Urban Land Institute (Full Member)
American Institute or Corporate Asset Management, FCA
National and California Association of Realtors
American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association
American Reel Estate Society
UIRE:C1'ORSIIII'S: Chorlcr Savings clank - Orange County, California
IIUSINESS
EXPERIENCE: 1978 to Prescnl, President, TARANTELLA do COMPANY, with
ru11
I
responsibillty for all real estate research, consulting,
investment advisory, and management services.
TRACIIING
EXPERIENCE: Adjunct Associate Proressor or Real Estate and Urban Land
.J
J
Economics; University or Southern Calirornia, 1979 to Present
•'
J
Assistant Proressor or Real Estate and Urban Land Economics;
University or Southern Calirornia, 1976 to 1979
I
Assistant Professor or Real Estate, Finance, and Urban Land
Development; Calirorni■ State Polytechnic University, Pomona.:
1971 to 1976
I11UNt!{tfi,
D1STIN(711IONS
ANU AWARDS: Wall Street Journal Achievement Award, 1971
Wittenberg Fellowship ror Doctoral Studies, 1976
University or Southern Calirornia 'Outstanding Faculty
Member% 1973.1979
Data Gamma Sigma, National Honorary Fraternity
Editor-in•Ci:ier, gat- EgisleInueL Journal or the American
society or Rest Estate Counselors
II
Ja
3
II
I i
I I
2
EXPERT WITNIESS
TzsTmompts: UWC-Canoge Ltd. vs. Irvel. Inc., L.A. topeilor civil, -Cold No.
C433052. bby, I"I
W,-Orange County Superior Covift, CAN No. 396755,
February 1991
Beverly Hills Savings iL The Fixoncief Center, U.S. Donkruptcy
'Court, Con No. LA'86-24591-LF, Deumber,'1937
Lloyds or London 'vs. 'Ansell, U.S. DIII&I Court, Case No, CV.
85 4356 KN, November, 1997
Olive Daylk'Cl 91, VL City or Newport sCaCb, Orange County
Superior Court, Case No. 32.95-13, July, 1986
Juan Segundo Jr., el at vs. city or Rescho Mirage and C/W
Kopp VL City or Cathedral City, Federal District Court, Cn2c
Not. CV 92.4339 AAH and CY $4.3678. June -July 1985 -
Oceanside City - Covncll, Mobile Iforna Park Rent Control
Oidinence - testimony on October 22, 1985
Son Jon City Council, Mobile Home Park Rent Control
Ordinance - testimony an bkt 21, 1915.
City Or ONNI's CiIY;COVncil, Commercial Development Potential
- testimony on February 19, 1945
Son Jose Rent Slabillullon Board, The Economic impact or
Real Control on Investor Returns - testimony on September 24-
25. 1984
President's Commission on Housing — presentation on October
28,1911.
Los Angeles County Rent Control Advisory Board. Fair and Just
Return In Kent Controlled Units • lestimony'on April 9, 1980
Los Angeles City Council, Rent Control testimony on July 25,
1979
cailrornin Assembly, Committee on 11ousing and Community
y
Development - Icstimonron May 3,1978
US. house or Representatives, Committee on Hankins, Finance
sled Urban Arriars * icstiwmy an January 17.-1973
I
�a
I
�r
Ilk
i
7:
SE1.[CTEI)
PUBLICATIONS; .1lNks
T4'ran1cllo,- Rocky A.; Findlay .• Al, Chafaran M;' and Mcssncr,
Stephen D. Uxinglon,
Massachuscur. Lexington ,gooks pvbli@W by D.C. Health and
Company, 1983
•A,
, with
K C. Findlay and 3. D. Mgsner, Center for Real Estate end
Urban Land Studied,.University:or.CoNWX1 *4 1981
Center for Fulures
Research, University. of. Southern California, 1974
Iteferead Journal Articles
e'rhe inflallon - Dependency of Lovereged Investment; BS21
Vol. 10, Number 2, Fall/Winter 1985
'FMMR; A Programmable Calculator Implementation; with C.
Tenzer, The Real Eslalg„AnoisJUL 1981
'Risk Analysis in Real Estate, Part I: Is There Even an Old
1RR Literature under, Rlsk, , with k C. Findlay and S. Messner,
JMIy-A%gusl, 1979
'Real: Estate Education at U.S.C", J urnal__ of _Fjnancial
fibLuLlin, January, 1978
Abstract: , "A CAPM View -of I VRMs', with R. V. Eastin and
M.C. .Findlay, ; .
November, 1976
Other P8611calle"s ,. .
'Continuation of Single Digit Rates Likely`,
Cguntti. June/July, 1986
'Mortgage -iendinr. ! -,: Baying , the Asirmptione, Iiuildinr S2lJLt1ge
Countr. June/July 1985
'1995 Outlook for Real Estate and the Economy',
Oranae,County, December/January 1985 �lAg 1
3
, .11 rat: '1 1it uerii J ,t r;., i
'Pall fEicctioll f.s latest , Rates:: ! -What ' , to Expect%
Oranar, County October/November 1994 �
','Presidential -Elections - - and : Noising,' Eememics•. HMIs iini OAan:e
Cgunl]G March/April 1984
'The Plight of the Thrift!', F scut ve Miaa:ine- Vol. 1. No. 2,
February 1982
j
3
.�y
1-1
`The Plight of the Thrift Industry% A.B. Laft'er, At-ociatcs,
August 17, 1991
"Free Market 3yslem Motion to Housing ' Problem*, DIA/Ortntt,
County October 1990
'Rent Co+rtrei and the Housing Crisis in Southern California",
t'arb I sod 11, Wilk K C. Findlay, Real' Estate ttlu"rra jedt Vol.
1, Not 9 and 10, March Igo
"Why Firms Leave Loa - Aagake,
The Lincoln Instituta for Land Policy,
October, 1979
"Faulty Vision: The - Econonak 3hortaightcdacss of Rent
Cotttrai", December 19711
'Los Angeles Housing Costs, Economics and Public Policy%
Februsry,1978
DllA Dissertation,
March 1976
PROFFSSIONAI.
AND ACADEMIC: Guest Speaker, International Council of Shopping Centers. 'An
Economic Look into �lhe, 199ft.. -Anaheim, California, February
24,19b9
Guest Speaker, California society of CPA's, 'California Market
Overview*, Newport Beach, Cafifornis, October 19, 1988
Guest Speaker, society � of � -Baal � Palate Appraisers. 'Commercial
Real Estate Trcnde, Los Angela, California, September 14.
, A 988
Guest Speaker. institute for Real Estate Managenicnt, 'Office Absorption sad Dentogropkle , Trends'; Costa Mesa, Callfornia.,
July 13, 1988
Guest Speaker, Medical Group Management Association, "Leasing,
Medical OfficeSpece", Aashelm. Californie, June 27, 1988
Guest Speaker, Wharton Alumni. Association. "Caiifornis orrice,
Trcnds", Dcvcrly Hills, California, June 14. 1989
Oucsl,tspeaker, + California s' Building: IIndustry Assoeiallon. *Mid.
year Economic Faf casl",'LosFAngcla; Calif ovals, June I, 198g.
Anaheim, California, June 3, 1988
Guest Speaker, American Institute or Architects', The Orange'
County Slow Growth Initiative", Irvine, California, May 19, 198E
511�
Ij
n
11
u
00,
S
PNUFKSSIUNAL
AND ACADEMIC:
{Cfat'd) Guest Speaker, Society of Industrial and office Rcaltnrl,
'Eeoaoaek Overview - 31OR Annual Conference, 8ererly Hill,
March 27, 1917 .
Goat Speaker, National Association of Industrial and Office
Porks', grange: County office and InduSUISI Trends% Newport
Beach, California, February S, 1917
Guest Lecturer, Stanford University Graduate School
or 7 oasiaKas,+ ,jttoi zooso, Development Strategies', Palo Alto,'
California, January 26, 1917
Goat Lecturer, DeM.4 of Interior, 091e29 of Indian Affairs,
'Orooad ; Lease P►ovisleas for Indian A1lotteee, Palm Springs,
California, April 16, 1915
(guest Lecturer, University of Chicago, "Real Estate Reseirch
and The Development Prove»', Chicago, Illinois, November 15,
1915
Guest Lecturer, University of Chicago Graduate School of
Business, 'The Business of Rea! Estate Consulting', Chicago,
Illinois, April 25, 1913
Guest Speaker; Building Owners and Managers Association, 'file
Impact of Urban Economics on Real Eslalc Investment Valucs',
Santo Monica, California, April IS, 1913
Guest Speaker, ; , Union Oil Corporation, 'The impact of Real'
Estate Economics on Timing and Location Choice, Rancho Santa;
Fe, California, September 17,� 1914
Guest Speaker, Tavche Ross A Co., "Real Estate Economics',!
Scottsdale, Arizona, May 17, 1912
Guest .Speaker, Los Angeles Society of Financial Analysts, `ncc�
Future for Housing: Boom or= Bust', Los Angeles, Colifornia 1
October I, 1911
Guest Speaker, Coortty -Planning; � Commissioners Conference, 'SU�
200 and the Peripheral Conov, Newport Beach, California '
Marcie I1, 1911
Guest Speaker, Internationol Association of Assessment
Ofricers, : •'Thai Ampact , K ' Real vContral oa Residential Values';
Los Angela, Califorttla. June 21; 1979, -
i
• t
I
L
a1
M
t
I
6'
PROFFMIONA16
AND ACADEMIC:
(CoNI`dj Guest Speaker, Lincoln Load, Institute Conference on Local
Government Decisions and the Tax Base, 'Why Firms Leave Big
Cities: The Los Apgela Arcs Surrey. Los Angeles, California,
February 9. 1979
Guest Speaker, State Convention of the California Association
of Realtors, "Rent Control: The Myopia Solution", San
Francisco, California, September 25, 1978
Presentation: American Real Estate sad Urban Economic
Association Meetings; "Single-7criod ,,vs.! Motel-tarlod hftgsvres
of Risk and Return', Chicago, Illinois. August 30, 197E
Presentation: Eastern Finance Association; "Stochastic
Dominance Analysis . of the Fixed -Rate vs. Variable -Rate
Mortgagor", with M. C. Findlay, Boston, Massachusetts, April
1977
Prcaentatlon: Financial Management Association Annual
Meetings; "An FMRR Real Estate InreslmeW Vi'U"Iation Model".
with M. C. Findlay ■nd:S. D. Messner, Montreal, Caaads, 1976
Presentation: Western Finance Association, 'A CAPM view of
VRMs", with R. V. Eariin and M. C. Findlay, San Francisco,
California, 1976
5
..�-.iV..ik.i ~ -'^-- - ----_- .. w •
BIQGIIAIPIUCAL SKETCH
D►. 1t. Taireat�ll•
Or. Rocky Tarentello Joined the faculty of the University of Southern
California in 1974. lie currently' holds the position of Adjunct Associate
Professor of Real Estate and Land Economics, He received his Doctor of
Ousiness Administration end Master of HoWnen Administration degrees from
U.S.C. and a ilachelor of Science in 'Business Administration from California Stnic
University at Los Angeles.
Profrnionai credentials Include the CRE designation of the American
Society of Rest Estate Counselors, Full Member of the Urban Land Institute.
Fellow of the American Institute of Corporate Asset Management, National and
California Association of Realtors. He has extensive experience In real estate
development, investment, market research, appraisal, end counseling throughout
the United Slaics. Ile is also President of Tarantello & Company, a real estate
counseling and valuation company with offices in California and Arizona, and
serves on the Board of Directors of Charter Savings'Bank.
I
{
3/89
u
I�
EDUCATION:
PROs>Z ZONAL
AMLIATIONS:
■USINIM
EXPERIENCE:
CATHERINZ W HALL .. .
Bachelor of Arts, Ero1§o0ies,' Cans Laude
University of California, Irvine
U.C. Extension: Urban Ptaaniag, Light Construction and
Development
Phi Seta Kappa. Aaserices Real Estate Society
September 1997 to Present, Sealer, , " Cirtsalteat,
TARANTFLLO. A COMPANY; February 1986 to !So1►t4amber
1987. Cemsaltaat. TARANTELLO' A COMPANY, with lull
responsibility for condactlog real estate research,
consaltiag and valuation 'services; 1985, Markotlag
ItWessalative. NEWPORT PACIFIC CAPITAL COMPANY,
with responsibility for wholesale marketing of public and
Private real estate limited partnerships.
REPRESENTATIVE
PROJECTS: Real Estate Consultation Stalees, Full responsibility for
the analysis of macro/saicroeconomic Influences on a
specific project and/or location, and for determining
future development potential and marketing strategy for
the following:
Highest and • Best Use Study for 17 acre waterfront
parcel in downtown San Diego, California
Market and Development Potential Studies for custom
homesites, zero lot line attached homes, townhomes,
and stacked flat condominiums, Orange County,
California
Market Analysis of Multi -Family Residential land. Los
Angeles and Ventura Counties, California
Rssl Estate Research and Valuation Servlcgr Full
responsibility for the production of the following
competitive market profiles and/or valuation analyses:
Residgntla- Proposed and/or existing apartments,
townhomes, condominiums, detached homes, waterfront
detached homes with boat slips, mixed residential in Los
Angeles. San Bernardino, Riverside, Alameda. Santa Clara,
Contra Costa, Napa and Solano Counties
High -Rise Class `A', garden, and
medical office buildings, in Los Angeles, Orange. Ventura
and San Diego Counties
i
i
0
RIPRIMENTATIVs
CLIENT&
�l
i
1i
i
CAWMAMdAlaknik :'4 t t Naigkborhood shopping ccaters, fast
food re:;aonaa, financial buildiags, service stations in
Orange, Loa Angeles, San Bernardino, San Joaquin and
Freasw Couatias . ,
Indu2trLk Warehouse, distribution (aciti M San Diego
County
L iAt Single family detached, townhome, condominium and
mixed residential subdivisions, school sites, -. pleased Bait
developommu {ailed, use), specific plans io , .Loa ;Anpies,
San Bernardino, San Diego, Ventura, Riverside, Alameda,
Santa Clara, Contra Costa, Napa and Solano Counties
The, Departmeat of the Navy.
Coatiantai, MUsois National Bank and Trust Company of
Chicago
O'Brien and Hicks Devclopmeat
The Andes Qfoup
IDYL Corporation
Occidental Lead Research
Bank of America
Fieldstone Company
Wasaaingtoa Homes
R.P. Warmisgton Company
Winbrook Development
PhU Financial
Brighton International
Transpacific lodustrics
Crawford Hills Development Company
City of Newport Reach
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. BOX 1768. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92fi"I5
WGATM DEMARAIM
TO: Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacramento, CA 95614
County Clerk of the County
X of Orange
P.O. Box 838
Santa Ana, CA 92702
NAME OF PROJECT:
FROM: . Planning Do"ttawnt
City of Newport beach
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
PROJECT LOCATION: 2700 J/zvm v Ammuej Comm dil f26zsr
PROTECT DESCRIPTION:
GOI�I?IL1YOA �X Q�cl�D�i�/!!A� krl/f� .
FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy,K-3 pertaining to
procedures and guidelines to ixplewent the California Environmental Quality
Act, the Environ'ental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project
and determined that.the proposed project will not.have a significant effect
on the environment.
MITXGATION KEASURES:
. See a��cli�d .1���/may. •
INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY:
#1000 �-;
INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW ATi}. 3300 0ewport,boulevard,;Newport beach, CA
DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING:
EnviroaMental'Coordihator'
DiiTE:,p✓u%, a
.—
r
; 91
CMZOKUSr FaM
Background
1. !la.e �L:1'xopae�sEt; /11r 1� .
T. Address and Phone M srber of Prooenant 7�QD Sd<dHQ1L1. P/ll/L�
S. Date Checklist Submitted /
b. Agency Requiriing, Checklist S. dame of Proposal, if applicable IIt1llu¢ .fib, G!s ,�
Ix. �arriroasatal impacts
(lsiplan-tions of all "yes' and "maybe' anomrs are required on attached
abeets.)
xU
bib,
NA
1. Rsrth.
Will the proposal result in:
i
a.
Unstable earth conditions or in changes in
geologic substructures?
b.
Dinuptioos, displacements, compaction or
oe+ercu"ring of the soil?
t c.
Clue in topography or ground surface
-•
rslia! faatu;est
_
�_
Ed.
The dest%vctioo,.cave ring or modificatAou
$
of arty %ldque 'geologic' or physical' laitures?
e.
Any increase in rind or water erosion of
�-
Soils,,either on or off the sits? �
AL
f.
Changes in deposition or erosion -of beach
sands or cbani in si2tstioa..depaiWon or
I
erosion which,may 'modify the charml.of a,
rivet`ot-'strean or the'bed of the ocean or
bry, ial:t or lain?
_.
7'48'�i s'et-PeaPi•,oar,property to gologic
hews ft such as earthquakes, landslides,!
�
■udslldss, ground,failurs, or ■imilir hazards?
(XJU ��--
-.1 .,1 il • 0
2_
3.
xU dub, H2
Air. will tM proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement. moisture. or
tsmperaturs, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally?
Pater. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes is currents, or the course of
direction of water morsments. in either
marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in abeorptlon rates, drainage
patterns. or the rate and amount of
surfaca runoff?
C. Alterations to the course. or flow of
flood waters?
d. Change in ths amount of surfoca water
in =7 water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality,
Including but not limited to tsmpsraturs.
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground water? .
g. Cheap in the quantity of &xpux d raters.
either through direct additions or with-'
drawals, or througb interception.of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
h. Substantial reduction in the swount.of
water otherwise available.fcr,'.public
water supplies? '
L. Uposure.of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or tidal
waves?
. 2 r
.A_
X
x
x
r
0
0
4. rlaut Life. Will the proposal result in:
A.
Change in the diversity of species, or num-
bar of any species of plants � (including trees,
shrubs, grass, crops. and aquatic plants)?
b.
Reduction of the'nuabers of any unique, rare
or endangered species of plants? �.
C.
Introduction of new species of plants into
as area, or in a barrier to the dorsal
X
replenishment of existing species?
--. ..--
d.
Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result In:
a.
Change in the diversity of species. or Mm1-
bers of any species of aniwsls (bit"..laad
animal including ripttles, fish and sball-
fish, benthic organisms or insects)?
b.
Reduction of the umbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals?
C.
Introduction of new species of animals into
an area, or result in a barrier to the Ulgra-
X
tion or movement of animals?
d.
Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
hab i tat? �---»
b. guise. Will the proposal result in:
7,
asset
a. Increases in existing Miss levels? X
b. zxposure of psopla' to severenoise' le"lat.
Light gad Ctrs. Vill the proposal produce new
light or glare ,
Lead Use. Vill the proposal result in`s sub-
stsatial alteration of the present 'or rpla:used
land use of an area? ---
-3-
XU daft
H2
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources? ,.._ .
10. Risk of Opset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or Abs,reiease'of
hazardous substances (iacluding.'but not
limited to. oil. pesticides. chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
x
upset conditions?
b. Possible interference with as emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
11. Population. Vill the proposal alter the location,
distribution. density, or growth rate of the huean
population of an area?
12. Housing. Vill the proposal affect existing housing
or create a demend for additional bousing?
13. Transportatioc/Ciraulation. Will the proposal
result in:
s. Generation of substantial additional
v
vehicular Mvement?
3
b. Effects an existing parking facilities. or
demand for now parking? ..
_
c. Substantial impact upon existing'trxns- -• -
portation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circula-
tion or swve■ent•of people and/or goods?
e. Alterations ,to iwaterborhs. "Il or air traffic?,__,
f. Increase in traffic"hazards to Soto; vehicles,
bicyclists. or'pidestiians?..
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered gov-
ernmental services in any of the following areas:
- 4 -
Gr
•
0
a.
Fire protection?
L
b.
Police protection? _
C.
Schools? ^,
X
d.
Parks or other recreational facilities?
a.
liaintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
f .
othar governmental services?
15. Rerp. Will the proposal result in:
A.
Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? ,_--�
X,
b.
Substantial increase in .demand upon existing
sources or enorgy, or req re the development
of now sources of enemy?
16. Qtilitss. Will the proposal result in a need for
now
systems. or substantial alterations to the
following utilities:
a.
Power or natural gas?
b.
Commmications systems?,
c.
Water?
d.
Saver or septic tanks?
e-
Storm rater draiaase7
f.
Solid waste and disposal?
17. • Human Health. Will the proposal result in?
A.
Creation of any healthkazard or potential
health heazard (excluding mental health)?
b.
Exposure of people to potential bealth
hazards?
. 5 -
j
r.. X"HalhM
18. Aestbatics. Will;the proposal result in the
obstruction of any* scenic 'vista "or view open to
the public, or Will the proposal 'so' in the
creation of an.aestheticallr offensive site open
to public view?
X
_
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
Impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
x
recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal 'result in the alteration
of or the destruction"of a prehistoric or
historic
vv
archaeological'site?
L
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic affects to i prehistoric or
buildLog,
historic structas, or object?
C. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which could affect
unique ethnic cultural values?
r
i
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious
or sacred uses vith the potential impact
area?
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality, of tha,sovitonment, substantially
reduce the habitat of'a fish'or nildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below,self.suataining.levels, threaten
to eXimis3ati .'a, plant or 'ints"1 "commmuaity,
reduce .ths Ta her or restrict the rani' of a
raga or eiidang'ored plani'_or animal or eliriinate
! important examplia of the major periods cif:, -
California history or probistoryt
M. A ILn
b. Does the project bave the potatial 4Q iehieve
abort -tars, to. tbs sid�`ranta�n of long-teXsi;
emrironwental,pals? (A'shoit=term impaction
the environment is one rbich'occussr iu'a''rela-
tively brief, definitive period of time while
long-term impacts will endure well into the
X
future.)
._.
C. Does the project bave impacts which are
individually Baited, but cuoulatively con-
siderable? (A project nay impact on two or
more separate xasouross.where the impact on
each resource is relatively saill, but where
the affect of the total of 'those impact]i'an
the eaei,rommant is sigaif icant.)
d. Doss the project bans anvirotsental effects
wbicb will cause substantial adverse effects
on bumm beings, either directly or Indirectly?r,
,
M. Discussion of Ra►iroaweatal ihraluatioo
(Narrative description of saviroa ental impacts.)
•r y
Iv. DateYsination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COUID Wr have, a sirdfieaat
effect on the saviro went, and a IUWATM MARMOR VM SL Q
"WABED.
i find that although the proposed,pxigJect could have a sigaif-
icaat effect on the savizoswent. there will, not be ii'si&ificant
affect in this ease,because the ait11Ation msaauriii discilbed
on an attached shest:have been added ti,tba p6jact.'
A IMMU V6 VUL pi U=iAM.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the anvirnt, and an W AL IWACr RIPOR? is required. Q
Data 7 Signature
C\FL2NJ MUST. M For •
-7-
3jii,r`,f.>>l4pf(�;) 2*hMQN /!�)�1���
DISCUSSION OF_ ENVIRONMBkfAI. 9 AL r t
1b c. Demolition and construction will t the soil, arid may also result in some soils
erosion from the site if construction occurs during the rainy season. These effects
are not considered significant, due to the flat topography of the site and the fact
the site is currently developed
3b. Demolition and construction may result in changes to drainage patterns from the
site, due to the new site plan associated with the development. ;; This is not
anticipated to result in any adverse effects due to the I fact that area surrounding
the development is completely developed, and the project run -oil will utilize the
existing storm drainage system which is adequate to serve this project.
7. Development of the project may'result in the increase in light and glare produced
from the site, 'Ibis is not anticipated to be a significant effect, however, due the
fact that the project is residential in nature and light generated by the project will
be similar to the surrounding residential development.
13b. The new residential units will generate the demand for, new parking. Three
parking spaces are proposed for each dwelling unit, which is adequate to serve the
project,. The development of the project will have a positive effect on the
enviroL rent in this area due to the fact that the existing development does not
provide sufficient puling on -site.
20b. The existing building is not currently designated 'as an historical structure.' It is
anticipated, how+em, that some members of the comatunity: may consider this
structure to be of historical importance due to its age and its previous use as a
hotel in Corona del Mir. The potential: adverse effect.which may: result from
demolition of the structure will be reduced -to a level- of imigaif cance by a
mitigation measure requiring a photo survey of ( the oxisting building prior to
demolldon.
A photo survey of the building will be conducted before the issuance of a demolition
permit• These photos will be donated to the historical photos collection of the Balboa
Pavilion , ,
The mitigation measure must be fulfilled prior to the issuance of the demolition permit,
and that permit will,sem monitoe n and report requirements.
{
AUG08
c"T v . ,
L' l�Tt� Nam_
• •
Doris and John Boisseranc
272 C 'ra ni Hay DsiW{ A f ,° E_' : ; .
Lagww Beach, California 92651
(714) 494-2935
August 2, 1989
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boukyard
Newport Beach, CA 92658.891E
Attn: Btu Ward, Planner
Dear Commission Members,
Re: 2500 Seaview Avenue
Since writing my letter of August 1, 1989 we met with Mr. Diem at the property and
discussed some modifications to the plats, nanxiy:
1, ?he 2Q' from our garage door to the side of Mr. Diem's property its required or
recommended by Mr. Wells of Public Works.
2. 'lire rear yard eneroachmcnt to be approximately b' x 12' in lieu of the 7.5'
previously roqucivA.
3. Mr. Diem has Weed to move the second And third floors immediately adjacent
to our property back 3' by lb' on the third floor and 2' by 16' on the second
floor with a 3' encroaching bakony.
We requested the erection of staking so that we can visualize the impact of the building
on ours, indicating where his building will commence on the second and third floors
which pole is also to indicate the maximum height of the structure adjoining our r
building.
Upon seeing the staking in place we will be in a position to make a decision.
'Thank you once again for all your assistance.
Very lyun
John and Doris isscranc
J-DBftm
cC City Council Members
Dan Webb, Public Works
Mike Mack
70
•
•
Doris and John Boisseranc
272 Crescent Bay Drivc
Laguna Beach, California 92651
(714) 494-2935
August 1, 1989
Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658.8915.
Attn: Bill Ward, Planner
Re: 2500 Seaview Avenue
Dear Commission Members,
We arc the owners of two units at 2520.2522 Seaview, the property adjacent to the
condominium project at 2500 Seaview Avenue. We purchased our pioperty as an
investment in 1971 for the purpose of enabling our retirement. An obvious
consideration in the purchase was the charming area of.Corona del Mar and its marry
desirable arImenitics.
We are concerned that the project as it now stands adversely affects our investment. in
order to enable us as well a*othcr concerned property owners to accurately assess the
full impact of the project we request that you instruct the applicant to stake the project
showing all exterior dimensions of the structure, height of structure and also garages.
With the exception of the 2 foot by 6 foot reverse corner setback on Seaview, the
proposed structure sits approximately 6.5 to 7 feet in front of our structure on Seaview,
thereby dekting the bay view which our tenants now enjoy. This is u ma* concern of
ours. We would like to see the setback on Seaview the same: as that which exists on
both our property and property at 2524-2526 Seaview. The setbacks on the North side
of Seaview are all situated so that no structure interferes with the view of any other
structure from Dahlia Place to Carnation Place.
We object (1) to an encroachment of 7 ft. into a required 10 ft. rear yard setback, and
(2) an encroachment of 2 ft. into the required 6 ft. reverse corner setback adjacent to
Seaview Avenue, at the rear of the property.
"'N
B8l WW Gbmmission
1f1989
Page TM...'
We understand that Don Webb of the Public Works Department is requiring the
deletion of two uncovered parking spaces marked "guest parking" on, plans, which
spaces are immediately behind our rear property line as well as the deletion of the
walkway, and that a retaining gall is to be built along a line 20 ft. from the face of our
garage: to provide an area where our tenants can turn around to exit the alley: in
connection with the alley we are concerned about the difficulty emergency fire and
medical service vehicles will meet in attempting to enter the alley.
We would like the developer to furnish us with a bond or some other enforceable
Instrument protecting us against any damage to our structure caused by excavation for
the project. There also exists a run-off problem during rains from the alley along the
westerly side of our property as we discussed with Bill Ward.
We greatly appreciate the invaluable assistance of Councilman Phil Sansone, Bill Ward,
the Planner and Don Webb of Public Works.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns as well as those of other concerned
property owners prior to reaching a decision on this project,
701
i •
MICHAEL J. MACK
ArTOANCY AT LAW
Silo f[AVIKW
C40*039A DZL MAC, CALIFORNIA QZeYO
August 3. 1989
Janice DeBay, Secretary
Planning Commission
Planning Department
Citof Newport Beach
3306 Newppo�rt Boulevard
Newport;Beach, CA 92659-»1768
RE: AMENDMENT NO. 685. COASTAL RESIDER
Dear Me. Dabay,
DE
PERM
Please note for the planning commission my opposition to the
proposed development plans for the property located at 2500
Seaview, Corona del Mar, California. My opposition is based on
the review of the plans with benefit of explanation from both
Senior planner, Mr. William Ward and Developer, Mr. David Dees.
My home fronts on Seaview, the building is setback ap roximately
eleven feet with open balconies setback approximately � feet from
the edge of the sidewalk. Parking is accessed from the rear
through,a very narrow and unpatrolled private alley off'of Dahlia
Place. The proposed development would result in a building
setback only lour feet off of Seaview and at a height of 28 feet,
effectively walls off a significant portion of the bay view
ex'istliig 'from the top balcony. The development would also be
acci�si,ng three' double 'car garages and parking off of the
aforementioned already overburdened and unsafe private alley.
This oversized building can only be accomplished with the
requested amendments and variances. Specifically, the request to
amend a portion of Districting Keg No. 17 so as to establish a
10 foot setback along the Carnation Avenue frontage eliminates
one half of the current required kat beck of 20 fast. A set back
that is already calculated from the,, middle of Carnation Place at
that point, where as a dedicated street would require a setback
measured from the sidewalk, which in this case would be an
additional 15 feet for a total of 35 feet. A setbeck'redvction
of 25 feet on this property would allow the now rear -half of the
development an additional 12.5 feet of 28 foot height from grade.
With Carnation the new frontage the slope or elevation of the lot
increase's significantly to the reart where the maximum height
requirement's increase from 24 feet 28 feet from grade which in
turn result's in this huge building 28 feet high only four feet
from the sidewalk of seaview in front of me as well as butting
out in front of the neighboring buildings on both aides on
Carnation Place. This building is then.further developed by
excavation for all underground. (below grade) parking. I submit
73
Janice D Oay August 3, 19$4
Planning Commission Page 2
that to grant such amendments and variances would only allow the
over development of this property at the long term disadvantage
of all community members.
Considering myself very fortunate to be able to make my home and
own property in this city, I have the utmost respect' for an
individual's property rights. I also accept the growth' such a
desirable place to live is going to experience and I appreciate
the City's responsibility to so accommodate as possible. An
example would be the development across the'street frog this
proposed project, 311 Carnation Place. I understand that the
District Map was aodif ied to allow for a 10 foot set back.
However, the lot slope, although continuing -down 'to the Newport
Bay in the same direction as the slope on the property Of' the
proposed development, is much more dramatic. The higher building
height from grade at the rear of that lot results In a'building
height lower in elevation than the lower building height from
grade at the front of the lot. The 10 foot setback modification
did not result in any building butting out in front of the
neighboring buildings yet still provided an aesthetically
pleasing building pad. Such distinctions from the proposed plans
for 2500 Seaview provide a perfect comparison of 'Common sense
variances and responsible management of development for the long
term to maximizing square footage for the short term.'
Mr. Yard and his office were available on 'a moments notice. I'd
like to thank he and'his staff for their cooperation and
patience.
It is my opinion that this development as proposed will have a
negative impact on .the community and environment. Therefore, I
urge the planning, commission to deny the proposed amendments and
variances. Your 'anticipated consideration 'is appreciated.'
Respectfully submitted.
-COMMISSIONERSPAN UTES
-August/10. 19A9
" "dTY OFF MEWPORT�, QE'Ad
ROLL CALL_
W�,: .
Item Mo J2
Request to permit the conaructioa of a single family dwelling
vllss
which exceeds the maximum allowable height ,In the 24/28 Foot
Height 13rnitation District on property located In the R-1
withdraw
District. The height of the proposed dwelling ,will not exceed
the height of the top of curb on Ocean Boulevard. The
proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code to as
to allow the proposed dwelling : to encroach 10 feet Into the
required 10 foot front yard setback adjacent to Ocean Boulevard.
LOCATION: Lot 1S, Tract No, 1257, located at 3619
Ocean Boulevard, on the southerly side of
Ocean Boulevard between Orchid Avenue
and Poinsettia Avenue, in Corona del Mar.
ZONE: R-1
APPLICANT: EPAC Financial, Inc., Costa Mesa
OWNER: 'Thomas Linden, Newport Beach
James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant has
requested to withdraw the subject application.
A. Amendment No-6U (Public Heiriag)
Item Ho.13
Request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. 17 so as to
A695
establish a 10 foot front yard setback along the. Carnation
Avenue (private) frontage of the . subject property and the
waiver of
acceptance of an environmental document.
Combining
Requirement
AND
CRDP 14
B. Waher of Q mbining ReQuiM=nL(1?i=ssjgn)
Cant' d to
Re t to waive the combining. of lots requirement in
9-2��
con unttion with the proposed project; and tha approval of a
modification to the Zoning Code so 'as to allow an open stairway
to encroach 7 feet into a required 10 foot rear yard setback and
-42•
Tt'6OYMIsiIONERS
3 ♦ E S * t' l� /1� rINO
. .
- to allow a portion ad the structure to ewoach 2 fact Iwo the
required 6 foot reverse corner setback adjacent to Seaview
Avenue, at the rear of the property.
AND
Request to approve a Coastal Residential Development Permit
for the purpose of establishing project compliance for a 6 unit
residential condominium development pwaumd to the
Administrative Guidelines for the implementation of the State
Law relative to Low -and -Moderate -Income Housing within the
Coastal Zone.
LOCATION: Portions of Lots 2, 4, 6 and K, Block 231,
Corona del Mar and a Ix)rtion of an
abandoned street (Carnation Avenue),
located at 2500 Seaview Avenue, on the
northeasterly corner of Seaview Avenue and
Carnation Avenue, in Corona del Mar.
ZONE: R•3
APPLICANT: Carnation Cove, Newport Beach
OWNER: Same as applicant
Commissioner Debay addressed the Coastal Residential
Development Permit as referred to,in the staff rq mn that states
'it wlll not be feasible fora low.or,moderate income unit either
on -site or off -site .... in accordance with Council, Policy, P-L.7, and
based on said statement she requested .that a fifth scenario be
provided in which an affordable unit be required is the forma of
a contribution to a fund. Commissioner Debit' 4 referred to' the
survey of two bedroom condominium units that was taken by the
consultants, and she noted that the survey,was in!the Corona del
Mar neighborhood where residential sales prices'are higher than
elsewhere in the City, and she suggested that ;the Wivey should
have been taken In areas of the City where condominium units
arc sold for Im than they are. in Corona del : Mar,
s
-43-
0 IPPUNISSIONERS
IM!PUTES
3 A 0! 1 mm
A6gM 10e,1"9
VATY-OF- ,UrEWPORT IWACH'
7 07-
ROLL CALL
Comminioner Debay concluded that the applicant shmid be
required to Participate In` the 'CiVs affordable housing policy.
Robert Sumbank City Attoriley, explained that the replacement
hooslas has to be only within the Coastal Zone. In reference to
es 'UH.Ls- a NA4 Mr, Burnham explained that theta are cities
In the State that We housing program whlcb contemplatethe
Construictiod of units and require a payment of fee into & fund
from property owners, 'and that money is 'used d to construct '' the
units. He explained that the :units tobeconstructed
requested for In the Housing Element of that JurlsdlctW In
&=fdarwe with the` requirements of AB'1600 which states that
If a Oondidon is Imposed It has to be reasonably related to the
demands that are being created by a particular project. Mr.
Burnham stated that In the absence of a housing authority it is
difficult to satisfy the requirements of AB 1600,
Chairman Pomeroy and Mr. Burnham discussed the provisions
to grant a density bonus, and affordable housing that Is included
In the General Plan, Commissioner Persdn commented that the
Policy has not been applied to a project consisting of lo units or
less.
Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Manager, addressed the
Housing Mernent that was recently revised by the City and the
State Department of Housing and Community Development.
He explained that the Housing Element now exempts projects
of 10 or less units, and that 'In the future the City shall amend
Council Policy P-11 to be consistent with 'the new Central Plan
p9Ucy so the projects of the subject &Izi will not be! c6rfiinS to
the' Planning Commission undc''r V-1. He'said that Lhj Coastal
Raddentiall Developmerit Permit)hrill be'eisentially administered
without a public, hearing or any requirement for affoirdable
houtin& Mr. Lenard alluded to thetfly's iuccmful affordable
housing program that has been looked upon favorably by other
Jurisd1lctlorm
Chairman Pomeroy stated that the' ld'or' ictis exemption would
Dot'&Oply It the applicant rcqOes1e'd'Density' BonUs.' Mi. Lenaid
concuffc-A
-44-
COMMISSIONERS fAIMUTEs
Atlrist 10, 1"0
CITY 'OF NEW ORT i BEACH
CALL WDEX
Don Webb, City neer, referred to Condition No. 16, Waiver
of Combining R rement, and requested that the condition be
modified to state 'That a minimum 6 In. . rise be provided..'
instead of 'Mt a miaitnum 6 ft rise be provided.',
'the public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and
Mr, David ' Diem, r applicant, appeared . before the Planning
Commission. Mr. Diem concurred with' tha findings and
condition in Mibit W. Mr. Diem stated that the proposed
Ipwo)W was planned, within the g�uuideliries' of the Gerieml Plan
am inconsidemdan` of the ad1aco nt neighbors. Mr. Diem
commented . that each of the 6 units has _been designed with
either a three or four cat` garage, and eight driveways have been
added to accommodate eight guest automobiles. Mr. Diem
explained that three units will have access off of Carnation
Avenue and three units will have access off of the alley. He
explained that to have access off of Seaview Avenue would have
required a curb cut. He stated that a turnaround area has been
created in the alley to enhance the traffic now.
Mr. Diem stated that` the requested 10 foot front yard setback
off of the old Carnation Avenue right-of-way equates to a 20
foot front yard setback .off of the curb. He explained that the
front yard setback ' corresponds with the new developments on
Carnation Avenue,
Mr, Diem moved toi the exhibit area 'and described the ricquested
modifications. He .'explained tath' . �thc .requested ` rear yard
encroachrnent is required by the Fire Department to allow access
around tha property. Mr. Diem stated that the Uty'coWders' the
front yard of the . project to be on"C,ar,uttlon Avenue � and ; the
side yard to be on Seaview Avenue which would be adjacent to
the Seaview Avenue neighbor's front yard,'He explain that the
development is required to' conform` with the setback of! the
building that is adjacent to the site on Seavicw Avenue. Mr.
Diem explained that 20 feet of the property is acquired to
conlonn with the r setback that Is adjacent to the subject site: He
described, what tine projects" impact."'would' be 1f the'sidera A
setback rrtadillcation were not requested.', Mr. Diem described
the second and third floor open deck cneroachnlents; 'i
r
-45-
1
?- 3 T UGOMMIs3IONER3 •
ROLL, CALL
• MINU�ts
lea..
Cri QF° N1NP,OAW
040EX
In reWm a to a question posed by Commoner Olover, Mr,
Dim explained that 12 prap spaces and 8 put spaces will be
accered from Carnation n Avenue and 8 automobiles to
accommoMe three coadominium twits will enter from the alky.
Its r+esporna to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards witb
respect w the applicants staking the subject property, Mr. Diem
aplaineA that the applicants . revised the plans after they
obKmd the project from the adjacent property decks, and the
applicants also staked the site with 28 foot poles to comply with
a request by the neighbors and staff., Mr. Diem stated that the
applicants delivered a revised set of plans to staff that do not
ladade the reverse comer setback modification. In response to
a question posed by Commissioner Edwards with respect to the
fire lane, Mr. Diem replied that he is in support of a fire lane;
however, it is not a criteria for the project inasmuch as the Fire
Department has Indicated that adequate fire protection may be
provided without the subject fire lane.
In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill
reprding the automobile access to the alley, Mr. Diem explained
that the existing structure provides access for one automobile and
the proposed project will provide access for eight automobiles to
accommodate three condominium units. Mr. Diem stated that
the driveway will not be available to west patkln� ind said
parking restriction will be included in the CUR's.1 Mr.� Diem
and CommiWoner Merrill discussed the traffic flow and available
parwag in: the alky.. Comm.15siontr Merrill emphasized; his
comern that:it would.be difficult to enforce the parkipg'ptoblem
and congestion 1n . the alley.. , , . Don Webb, Otyj Enorieer,
explained that if a: fire lane ,would be. established , that there
would be adequate room to turn automobiles around.
I
Mrs. Doris Boisseranc, property owner at 2520.2522 5eaview
Avenue, adjacent to the subject property, appeared - before the
Planning Commission to state concerns with i respect to the
subject project on the basis that the project ,would i have an
impwt on their property, Mrs. Bolueranc pcplainedthat° at the
Bointerancs" requat, the applicants inei%ttively l staked ! the
subject project for the neighbors, and the result; was: that the
project would Impair their view at the corner inasmuch is the
-4&
9
I t
7i $
COMMISSIONERS
9 • '-, il -� 0 0 1;',? I hi ftNUTIES
CITY. OF-MWPORT -.BEACH',.
-ROLL CALL
:INDEX,-
ProJects decim would, extend into their � vkw. -Mrs: Bolsseranc
requested a clarificadoe of Vnga on SeW. Avenue.
MM Baesseranc and Cmadidoner Pers6n discussed her concerns
with respect to the project and the Impact The project would
have on their view. Mrs. Boisserane referred'to her letter dated
1989, Obk* xto the felf yard setback ,that' adjoins
tZW1-
Epropet , and the Impact in'the : allay.,: She commented
men ted that
they do W object to the number of units Or the development.
Mr. Burnham explained the Cftysposition with respect to
protecting private views. He stated that in consideration of the
subJed project, there Is a waiver of a combining requirement
provision that has been created In the Zoning Code. He stated
that in considering the merits of - the proposed waiver the
Planning Commission may Impose conditions that they consider
appropriate; however, he questioned if the conditions could
appropriately Include restrictions on the building as it relate's to
Carnation Avenue and Seaview Avenue.
In response to questions pond by Commissioner Merrill, BM
Ward, Senior Planner, expWned that the' normal sideyard setback
would be 4 feet and would'apply to the entire Seaview Avenue
frontage of the building except for the !'last 20' feet of'the
property which Is adjacent - with - the, front yard ' area of the
ididalig lot. He said that the -Zoning Code requires! that= the
list' 20feet must maintain the same setback as exists 6nithe
zdMAi% property, and the existing sad*A on the idjolift
PIs 6 feet from the property -lint 16 the:' sec* floor
&dropertY q t"fore, the applicant most provide a six', foot' street We
setback on the last 20 feecof the property., Mr. Ward furthir
replied that the applicant is proposing to have the ground floor
portion of the building encroach two feet into the required six
foot revers corner setback. He said 'that'the second and third
flOOf Of Unit "P will maintain a'7 foot building setback and a
4 foot deck setback."
CWrMan ftmerby and Mr. Ward discussed the view that would
be by the project if the applicant �Wthdrew°' the
rno� tkm requesting 'the reverse corner setback
47-
I
AL
I F 1 4 1 1 1 40
AgMINISSIONERS• MINUTES
10
MU , CALL ANDEX
(3ftifff", Pon,". maintained -that the Pfopmed.mc4iffiation
would presenme the existing vim betta than It the soll"At
withdrew the modifiaWon. , He said tint the NPOICa"t his
agreed W cut, t*&'the 'second AW d" floor` Ciolest to'the
Bowerines mm" to improve the vim from that Area,'
Mr. Jay Coher;,.2320'Seaview�Avenue, . appeared before 'the
eomiq CommlssioiL'' Mr. Cohen ommoned that if, the 2 foot
ttsent is to, the amikant 70% to`l"';of his
YL-w would be blocked of Newport Harbor and that would, affect
the value of the: property. Mr.'Coben indicated. that there is {a
parkhn problem vW 8 additkx%al wAamobfies would ,lni act the
alley. He agreed that a fire I&= would be beneficlaFto. the
area.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr.
Ward described the alternate plan that the applicant submitted
which fully confornis to the required side and rear yard setback&.
He explained that the stairway at the rear portion of the
Proerty has been moved � into the interior portion of the
building PHe explained that the 7 foot rear yard encroachment
would increase to 6 feet and would remain at 6, Net to the' end
of the building. and on all three levels of the projc6.,f
in response to a. question posed by Cornmissioher Glover.' Mr.
Ward described how the Boluenmes view would be I im'p cted, if
the applicant fully 'complied with the Zoning Ordin4noe. I
Mr. Mike Mack, 2524 Seavkw-Avenue, appeiredibdore the
Planning , Commission; M Mack referred to i his le ttef dated
AuOt .3p 1999; expressino, concerns, with , respect to' the I siie! of
the pmjw'and the sideyird setbuL � Hesaid,� that the iviiw, is
only one concern. Mr. Mack requested that the'a0plicints' stake
the, project so the neighbori will have a clear undirsiandingi of
the %I= of the dewlopment.
I
Mr. Steven W. Johnson, 331 Dahlia Place, appeared before the
Planning Commission. t, Ha referred ito bb- lettiri datidt Mgust
1"90, sddr"sed 1 to Mr. Ward with re spact 'to thei go"A
prupct ikid Fire ChlefReed'with nmpect to establishing p fire
He, I ed, the r ndokn foreong 6icirfis, I add he
stated that h7 0: concerns that the, proposed ieftick could set
48-
A I
l
U ' 11 M
COMMISSIONERS
ROLL -CALL,
Notion
WiOUTED
ff- 'dF'.KEWP0RT__f. 6EACH
a precedent. oa Sur**w AvenLw- Mr. Johnson eniphadud the
inporacm of a fira. lane , and the potcn,,t,w traffic in the alley.
Mr. Johnson referred to the Environmental Repoft'i chec6ff list
and be questioned staffs response to the quesdoia pirtilaing to
tvLospoirtation and dmd%Lkxi. and he rebutted that an additional
a anumobiles would creme congestion in' tbe' area. He
requested that the 0C&W& require property owners 'participate
In the mawenam Of the pa"to n&-of-way.
Mr. John BoWwanc, appeared before, the Pbuuftg Commission.
Mr. Boissenux end his concern ,.that the setback
me wmnent was to � his propertys i deck area MW 'not to the
structure. In summary. he stated that the Bo6scraries support
the alignment of the adjoining buildings and the adjoining decks.
11wre beI4 no others deshl' to appear and be heard, the
public hearing was closed at this time.
Commissioner Debay commented that the applicant Is not
eorastructIng.a project that is more than the lot requires;
however. she said that by combining lots that there is a sacrifice
of open space;that would ordisaffly be between each, of the lots.
In response. to questkws, posed by Commisslocer Merrill, Mr.
Ward replied that i the setback was measured from tha a� jacent
doh --and not, the: structure. Commimloner Merrill and Mr.
Hewicker discussed the alignment of the adjacent deck area on
Senview Avenue NO the structure 00 Carnation Avep'ui- , Mr.
Hewicker; suggested that the applicant could submit phins'tbat
would exhibit setbacks " wmW match structure with adjacent
structure and deck with adjacent deck.
Commissioner Edwards and Mr. Hewicker discussed the proposal
requesting exhibits to display the alignment of the, adjoining
decks and structures.
Motion was made to continue Amendment Nm 685. Waiver of
Combining RequiremeaU and C=Wr, Residential bevclopment
Pendt No.,114.toithe September 211 1989, PlarWiStonin"on
meeting. , Commissioner Pers6n requested,,that the', ' am
prepare. exhibits, that .would show the; alignments of, the Vocks
-49.
50
' COMM SlIONL�4 . MINUTES
NEW
BEACH
CITY 4F NE
ROLL CAll. s., WDEX
and structures as suggested, ; and that the applicant also stake
the property for the neighbors, ,
Commissioner Merrill requested in amendment to the motion
that the applicant submit plans showing afire lane and a parking
layout In the alley. The maker of the motion agreed to amend
the motion.
Mr. Diem reappeared before the Planning Commission to state
that he would like to proceed with the project and he reviewed
t1=01omerby
d project and,the revisions to the proposed plan.
suggested 'that the applicant consider the
neighbors' requests and come back to the Planning Commission
with plans that address their concerns.
In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr,
Ward stated that the required setback for the adjoining property
is actually 20 feet. He stated that there was a variance granted
on that property to allow a 10 foot setback, and the deck on
the second and third floors of the adjoining property encroach
approximately S feet Into that 10 foot setback. Mr. Ward stated
that the reverse corner setback requirement is the equal to the
eidsting setback, not the required ' setback, of the adjoining
Party.
Motion was voted on to continue this Item to the September 21,
1989, Planning Commission rneeting. MOTION CARRIED.
• r •
Discussion of Encl_=d Co Lm__ercial Parking 5paW
Commissioner Person stepped down from the dais because of a
possible conflict of interest.
James Hewicker, Planning DIrector, stated that what has been
adopted ,by the, City: Council for, coon mrcial,parking spaces does .
• not allow, the, Installatloa of garage doors. He said , that because
of the ooticetns' that have beeri 'mrpressed with, respect to tin
nibted ' use' developments' thaV the - PtaWag-,Commission has
Discussion
IItems
ri 11
encl.coma'l
Parking
spaces
P3
4 4
lftsMi !, c bm W87, t4cwpoci lks h, CA16raja 92618-WA7
AurRofm
3 �A U
CITI
WjPC*A"
August 9, 198
CALW.
0 1
06�
06F
Mr. 0111 Ward
City.of Newport lloach.Planipinq,Department
3300 Newport Beach Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 9259-1768
SUBJECT: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT' 2500 SEAVIEW,.,CORONA DEL ;MAR
Dear Mr. Ward:
This letter has been written to formally express my concarn.'rag4rding the pro-
posed development at 2500 Seavlow-In Corona del Mar.-Until'racontly.:1 was
not even aware that plans were moving, "...very rapidly through City Hall."
My 'concerns are focused on several. Ite*3 of, importance.., They are: .
1) concern forpropertyowners of,ex;sting, nearby. I mpioved
properties;
Fa I I ure by, the j.Cj ty to notify anXone.in,the,Ch1na,Cove Condo-
Wnluin Asso * cfatlon (of width am a I/Ilth propertyowner)
of the Planning Cbenmission Mme'tin''g'on'Thursday,IA�ig4si 10.,
3) Establistnent of a fire lane to ensure the aidjolninp right-
of-way property owners,, and the Ciky, the i uthorlty , 4o-
sure continuous Fire %partment sccess,
4) A request fo011itokln9l of the proposed"Improve ents to
the property,at, 2500 Seaview.
ITEM 01
,Flrst� I 1--am not against: development,.of, the property.,,,, However, I dq, lin fact.
share the concerns -of wy.neI9hborsAnsth* China .Coves Condor 161tim Association
4nd,'the property'owwro, Immedlately.. *4jwAnt to-,tha Prqpwdp� 6-ni,t 'Condo pro-
lject: Af, any r co4e;.var lance's.1 pre.,granted., I,t.could possibly reducethe proper-
ty value of existing structures,
iProposed additional use of the right-of-way leading to some of tha1poposed pro-
ject garages and parking areas Is unacceptable to an sires yl-o a b r4cn.ed right -
:of -way.
9
Mr. Bill hard
August 9, 1989
Page Two
The recent condominium development of the properties located in the 300-block
of Carnation accomplished garage access without the use of an alleyway or rear
right-of-way. Why can't all garage and parking access for the proposed develop-
ment be accomplished off of Seaview or Carnation?
ITEM 12 -
l am perturbed at the Planning Department's failure to notify ALL. residents and
property owners within 300 feet of the proposed development, teat a Planning
Commission Public Hearing was to take place on Thursday, August 10. 4t is my
understanding that the property was posted. but the signs "disappeared" soon
after the posting.
Also, I've been advised that this project is. "...moving through City Hall very
rapidly." If this is the case, "WHY?"
ITEM 13 -
Because of existing congestion, already -heavy use, and 'illogai' parking practices
by some thoughtless, inconsiderate parties to the existing right-of-way, I believe
It Is mandatory that a city -mandated fire lane be established on Dahlia Place and
the adjoining alleyways leading to the proposed project.
This fire lane is already overdue and should be established regardless of the pro-
posed development at 2500 Seaview.
On Saturday, August 5, and Sunday, August 6, 1 spoke with the other owners in
China Cove Condominium Association regarding their support for the establishment
of a fire lane. Although one owner was somewhat reluctant, support for the fire
lane is unamlmoust
Because of my concern for the fire protection of my own Investment as well as
that of others, and because of my concern for the lack'of authority to ensure
Fire Department access, I am Insisting that afire lane be established coinci-
dentally to the development of 2500 Seaview. (The developer, Mr. David Clem
did, In fact, telephone me and Indicate his desire for the establishment of a
fire lane.)
This fire lane should be established in the same manner as the fire lane on
Carnation approximately two years ago. - including the "Fire Lane" sign post-
ing and the line -painting at the City's expense. This Is a public safety Issue
and the costs of the establishment and maintenance of this fire lane should be
borne by all taxpayers.
Please review the attached copy of my letter to Newport Beach Fire Chief Jim
Reed.
Mr. Bill ward
August 9, 1989
Page Three
IT£N /4
Finally, because I want to 'see''what is`going tol'happen' at 2500 Seaview, I
am Insisting on a "staking" of the proposed project. It is' only fair that those
who already have an investment in the area be able to 'see' what is to be con-
structed. I am concerned that this is moving "too fast" and those of us who
will be affected by this development are not being given the proper opportunity
to have Input.
In closing, I do plan to attend the Planning Commission Meeting on Thursday,
August 10.
Also, I want to reiterate that I am in favor of development of the property
In question. However, I do Intend to "do my part" to ensure that the interests
of others are considered and protected - especially where public safety is
concerned.
Sincerely,
ST£V£N W. JOHNSON
Member, China Cove
Condominium'Assoclatlon
SJ:sj
cc: An Reed, fire Chief
Phil -Sansone, Council member
China Cove Condoolnium•Association
IN
•
•
e��ee�w � �alindov
Post afire Box 8007. Newport Be*&,Cali(or"is 926mw
August 9, 1989 HAND -DELIVERED
Fire Chief Jim Read
City of Newport Beach Fire Department
3300 Newport Beach 11mlovard
Newport Beach. California 92659-1768
SUBJECT: ESTABLISHMENT OF FIRE LANE - DAHLIA PUKE
AWID ADMININ
Dear Chief Reed:
Approximately two years ago, the Newport Beach City Counci'l'passed an ordinance
establishing a 1$-foot fire lane in the 300-block of'Carnatlon, Corona del Mar.
Because I anticipated the potential need for a similar fire lane In the 300-block
of Dahlia Place (and adjoining alleyway easements), I spoke In favor of the fire
lane'at the council meeting regarding this matter. ,
It Is Important to note that both 300-blocks of Carnation' and 'Dahila.Place are
non -dedicated, private access easements, as are the adjoining alleyways
`F`orseveral reasons. I ao now requesting your Department's asslstanca in t;rinq-
' Ingt�Jbout thi establishment of a fire lane on Dahlia Plaed dhd adjoining alleyways.
'similar' •to the Carnation fire lane.
Justificailon for the fire lane Includes the following: ;
1)Continual "angle parking" and "double parking" by the
tenants occupying the two' trl'ptei os. `at 304''and 308. Dahl la
Place;
2) Al leyway parking by teinanis' .64 'vlsltor s to the .apar'tm'ants
located at 308 and 312 Carnitlon;'
3) The pending development of the "Olds Corona del Mar" hotel
property located at 250 Ise 44,164; '
Item -by -Item, I will attempt to briefly explain the Justification Items'noted
above,
ITEM /I - For over two years, 1 have made numerous attempts to resolve the
•�ngle parking/double parking" problem with the specifically- Involved tenants
and their landlord.
•
E
Fire Chief ..1im (teed
August 9;.1989
Page Two
When It became apparent that full cooperation was not going•to prevail - either
from the tenants or the landlord - I began taking occasional photographs of the
problem and recording some of any telephone conversations with the landlord. (More
accurately. I made notes of the conversations, not "tape recorded" as rmay,be Implied,)
After my latest plea for cooperation approximately six mon,ths'ago. I.was,told by
the landlord to. 11 ...go ahead and write a letter to the-O.ty; I'm tired of your
phone calls."
However, after that call, the tenants did 'clean up their act' for several months -
until recently. Again, the double parking has become a problem and annoyance to
the others who ,are a party to the right-of-way...More Importantly, this type of
parking, if allowed to continue, could concelvably, 10 t in a delayed response
to a "rescue" call or "vehicle fire in a structure" call further down the right-
of-way.
Because the right-of-way In question is private, i have been told by both the
Police Department and the Fire Department that there is no...suthority to enforce
the prohibition of parking In the current "unmarked" fire 1•ane, The only resolve
would be for the establishment of a Carnation -type fire lane by city ordinance.
ITEM /x - When the Carnation fire lane was established, some "angle parking"
that had existed for years in front of 308 and 312 Carnation was eliminated. The
elimination of the angle parking and the resultant creation of parallel parking
(to accommodate the fire lane) resulted in the loss of, I believe. four parking
spaces"fdrlhe"teriantt'end visitors of 3081312 Carnation.
Because of t" loss of these parking spaces, tenants and visitors began using
both the China Cove ''Condo Assoclation-side and,.their own aide of the right-of-way
for parking.' "Almost every night, a vehicle of some sort (v'an`, ootorcyol4, or
automobile) Is parked all night long in the'tal leytiway. ' On` occasion, vehicles are
parked across from each other on both sides of the alleyway`. (Parking.in this
area of the right-of-way has'also'been documented in photographs.)
Obvlously,'this,type'of parking Is lnapproprimte.and 'certa'Inly could hinder - If
not preclude - access by a'Flre Department engine'company 'should a call of a
"structure fire" or a "vehicle fire in an attached garage" berreceived by your
Department.,.lt should be noted that all garages In this.al,leyway have living quar-
ters 'directl r above 'them. In most cases, ,the I I'ving qu4rters, are bedrooms or
"sleep ng ce."
Again, the'Police and Fire Departments have been unable to respond to my com-
plaint due to the lack of authority (i've been told), i.e'., a city -mandated
fire lane.
0
Fire Chief Jim Reed
August 9, 1989
Page Three
ITEM /3 - Due to the pending development of 2500 Seaview • a six -unit condo-
�iniu�+ project - I believe it Is Imperative to establish a fire lane as soon
as possible. It Is my understanding that there will be both garage and open -sir
parking space for nine vehicles In the condo project adjacent to the alleyway,
Obviously, these vehicles will be accessing their parking spaces via the existing
right-of-way easement.
I am adamantly opposed to any additional traffic - and parking - on an already -
overburdened easement. The Planning Department, clearly, gave me the impression
that China Cove Condo Association could not, legally, stop development requiring
additional use of the right-of-way.
If additional use of the alleyway -easement Is permitted to.accomm date the 2500
Seaview development, that will - potentially - mean additional parking prob-
lems In the alleyway.
That will also, potentially, mean additional access problems for the Fire De-
partment, if needed.
During a telephone conversation several days ago, I was told by a representative
of the Planning Department that there was, "...no need for a fire engine to re-
spond Into the alley; they would attack a fire from Seaview or Carnation."
That kind of rationale by a city representative for the sake of development and/or
lack of recognition for a long -overdue fire lane, Is ridiculousl
iN CLOSING...
Chief Reed, I am not opposed to the development of 2500 Snavlew. In fact, I an
for the development - but, only if It is done properly and In full consideration
R—exlsting structures and development, and more Importantly, only In full consider-
ation of the Impact on public safety. Certainly. I recognize the fact this develop-
ment, if properly accomplished, will enhance my own property value. A now, 6-unit
condominium structure will present less of a fire problem than,the old wood -frame
hotel - If proper access is ensured In spite of the potential for Increased
right-of-way usage.
But, the authority to maintain proper Fire Department access Is a MUST and should
coincide with this proposed development. The China Cove CondomInGm Association
would expect that the posting of signs and painting of lines marking the fire lane
would be at the city's expense - as It was done on Carnation.
(Upon request, I will provide the photographs and other documentation I have accum-
ulated regarding past and existing parking problems on the right-of-way.)
t
Fire Chief Jim Reed
August 9, 1989
Page Four
Incidently, l have been continuously employed by one of the "major Los Angeles"
fire departments for over 23 years, currently holding the rank of Captain,,.
And, "YesIll l,have responde'd to quite a few "vehicle fire in a garage" calls
over the years. The establishment of a fire lane to ensure Fire Department
access is not an unreasonable request.
Sincerely,
4f
STET EN W. JOHNSON
Member, China Cove
Condominium Association
SJ:sj
cc: Bill ward, Planning Department
Phil Sansone, Council Member
China Cove Condominium Association
I
To: PLANNING C"ISSION August 10, 1989
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
fromt Robt. G. Horn
358 Dahlia Place
Corona del liar, CA 92625
Re: 2500 Seaview Avenue corner Carnation
Dear City Plannert
The residents in our area at the rear of 2500 Seaview
Avenue ore very concerned about more traffic using
our Half Alley entering from Dahlia Place.
My home is at the very narrow blind corner of thin
Alley - opposite the condominiums.
Many vehicles strike wry property, my gate and entrance,
and I would hope the Builders of the Sesview Property
would check this situation - so that our condition
will not be gorse.
Thank you for your attention.
Robt. G. Norn
358 Dahlia Place
WPI., Corona del Mar, CA 92625
1Sr•�+ rt .
AIJG10104.
� r
may. �a
•
M. bh 11. A
•
FAREL WALKER
325 Dahlia Place
Corona de1,Nar',
CA. 926I3
Phonet 675-4144
Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
33M Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 926584915
August 81 1989
Attention: Bill Word, Planner Re: 2500 Seaviav Avenue
Corona del Mar
Dear Commission Members:
We are some of the owners of our Condominium Hanes - Addreeeua:
309 - 331 Dahlia Plana
0-ore tie use the Alley that dead -ands at the rear of our Condoe,
and at the rear of the Carnation Avenue Property - 2500 Seaviay.
We understand the Builder is coneidering replacing the Old Carona
del Mar Hotel on the Corner - and plane to odd garages enterirvl from
Dahlia Place. There is no entrance or exit to this nirro►+ Alley
from either Seaviaw Avenue or Carnation Avenue.
And, this narrow Alley has two blind corners, and one corner will
not accommodate large trucks, moving vans, trash trucks, delivery
trucks, etc.
Our Building on that corner has a hf b istory of damaged many
times by large vehicles - and the telephone pole at that corner
across from our property has evidence of many bumps - especially
from vehicles trying to turn around after discovering the dead-end.
we would appreciate your having ecm cr check this matter -
especially the narrow corner. l�:,•r
Thank you for your attention to our concern,
Sincerely ,
CHINA COVE C OMINIUM ASSOCIATION
ealker
325 Dahlia Place
AMA 11, (AO41/p, VA
GL•...
N. B. Coleman
323 Dahlia Place
Continued on Page - 2 -
MOM
PlanninqCai ission
City or New*t-,Beach Page — 2 -- August S, 1989
Additional signatures concerning 2500 Seaview Avenues
Copies to:
N. B. Coleman 323 Dahlia Place
Steve Arganbright 317 Dahlia Place
Bill Robertson 321 Dahlia Place
Lynne Valentine 319 Dahlia Place
C4&46p.�1�0
J. SCOTr FARBER311 DAHLIA PLACE CORONA DEL YAB, CA 92625
August 9, 1989
Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92658-8915
Attention: Mr. Bill Ward, Planner
Re: 2500 Seaview Avenue, Corona del Mar
Dear Commission Members:
I am a condominium homeowner near the proposed 2500 seaview
condominium project. Our condominium property lines include
ownership of one-half of an alley for access to certain garages
in our complex. The alley is accessible from Dahlti�Place and
runs parallel to Seaview, then makes a 90 degree.left turn
towards Seaview and runs parallel to Carnation and Dahlia.' My
understanding is that both Dahlia and Carnation are private roads
from Seaview heading north.
I also understand the builder of 2500 Seaview in considering
replacing the Old Corona del star hotel on the corner of Seaview
and Carnation Avenue and plans to add garages with access from
the alley entering on Dahlia Place. There in currently no
entrance to this narrow alley from either Seaview Avenue or
Carnation Avenue. The narrow alley has two blind corners, and
one corner will not accommodate large trucks such as moving vans,
trash trucks and fire engines.
Our building has a history of being damaged many times by large
vehicles, and a telephone pole at that corner of the alley has
been knocked down several times from vehicles trying to turn
around after discovering the dead-end alley.
I would like to suggest the Planning Commission pursue with the
builder the need to construct an access road to the alley from
Carnation Avenue. I do not see any reason why residents on
Carnation should have to use the private road on Dahlia to access
the alley, ■hen their own private road on Carnation is more
appropriate. An additional access road to the alley will also
help in the event of fire.
Planning Commission August 9, 1989
City of Newport Beach Page 2
?hank you for your attention to my concern. I would be happy to
meet with the Commission to discuss this matter further..
Si c el,
. Scott Farber
reasurer
China:Cove Condominium'
Association
Pg*MeD FlRe e.
LOCATION
D
1
—1
r
ti
i i
I,
14
SEAVZEW
/
�v
14
n
12
10
Ir
..
_ .�
L
p
s
2501• •2511.
•��2i��:
N +icii•
12.. ...
Of
t
j
f1�GpaS6t> I
r I-M OA40
- C u R 9LAW
*AtW-744, 3 srOILq
oPo�rD X s.IVrN4 OV64
dik hriV2/ 6' SET'? aV mtM� 2D I
r WA c
r
Or �. ;.1 •.t
Ac. k L
._�_
.
LLA-"
_. sroRy a1V/44 ODV&&
97
— I
%I.b
Vlh
45
y
fg�
Lis-
CuRR&Air LV ?L-IA14 PXOPO.$6Z>
--tmdA
C>V
2.0
O'S 7*F=1
W/ry /v4-rrA/AV-4 <��7-�
6&$ Lb J Fb*-
6*7-55
RAP
0
i
COMM13910MENS
ROLL CALL
Motion
Ayes
Absent
1*1*1;1#
r�
! MINUTES
September 21, 1989
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
roposed amendment involves an expansion and renovation of
existing yacht club. Said additions include an expanded
di room, new administrative ofiicM expanded kitchen, an
ante snack bar, new bathrooms and a new bsuement area
which l be used for additional locker storage and dry food
storage fo the yacht club restaurant.
LOCATION: Parcel 1, Parcel Map 84.721 (Resubdivision
o. 791), a portion of Block 95 of Irvine's
bdivision and a portion of Lots A and B,
Tr No. 6927, located at 1801 Bayside
Driv on the southwesterly side of Bayside
Drive, uthwesterly of E1 Pamo Drive.
ZONE:
APPLICANT:
� MI
Balboa Yacht Crib, Corona del Mar
OWNERS: Balboa Yacht Clu\statethat
ounty of
Orange
James llewicker, Planning Director,staff has
requested that this item be continued r 5, 1989,
Planning Commission meeting.
Motion was made and voted on to continue GeneXI Plan
Amendment No. 89-2(K) and Use Permit No. 1681 (Am ded)
to the October 5, 1989, Planning Commission me
N
MOTION CARRIED,
A. Nmendmew No. 685 (Continued Public -lie
Request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. 17 so as to
establish a 10 foot front yard setback along the Carnation
Avenue (private) frontage of the subject property; and the
acceptance of an environmental document.
-16-
AND
INDEX
Item No.5
A6 85
Waiver of
Combining
Require.
CRDP 14
Approved
e�
COMMISSIONER$
MINUTES
September 21, 1989
• CITY OR NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL
INDEX
B, WaiYCI gf Cgimbining Require[Dent (Continued Dlignslon)]
Request to waive the combining of lots requirement in
conjunction with the proposed project; and the approval of It
modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow an open stairway
to encroach 7 feet into a required 10 foot rear yard setback and
to allow a portion of the structure to encroach 2 feet into the
required 6 foot reverse corner setback adjacent to Seaview
Avenue, at the rear of the property.
AND
Request to approve a Coastal Residential Development Permit
for the purpose of establishing project compliance for a 6 unit
residential condominium development pursuant to the
Administrative Guidelines for the implementation of the State
Law relative to Low -and -Moderate -Income Housing within the
Coastal Zone,
LOCATION: Portions of Lots 2, 4, 6 and 8, Block 231,
Corona del Mar and a portion of an
abandoned street (Carnation Avenue), located
at 2500 Seaview Avenue, on the northeasterly
corner of Seaview Avenue and Carnation
Avenue, in Corona del Mar.
ZONE: R-3
APPLICANT: Carnation Cove, Newport Bcach
OWNER; Same as applicant
James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant has
complied with the requests that were previously made by staff
and the Planning Commission at the August 10, 1989, Planning
Commission meeting.
Mr. David Diem, applicant, appeared before the Planning
Commission wherein he concurred with the findings and
conditions in Exhibit "A". Mr. Diem presented a brief review of
47-
COMMISSIONEIIS
MINUTES
September 21, 1989
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
IIOU_ CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX
the application, and he addressed the following concerns that
were expressed at the foregoing Planning Commission meting.
Mr. Diem addressed concerns regarding the rear access on ilia
alley portion of the property and the fire lane. He stated that
two of the proposed units will require the use of the alley for
vehicular access, and he described the design and setback of the
tour garages that will access off of Carnation Avenue. Mr. Diem
stated that the applicants will pay for the striping and signage for
the fire lane on Dahlia Place and Dahlia Avenue. Mr. Diem
further stated that the applicants will pay for a sign at the corner
of Dahlia Place and Dahlia Avenue indicating the private alley
has no through access. fie addressed the turnaround area that
will be provided in the alley to case the traffic circulation, and
he stated that the plans have been modified to allinv for a
greater backup area out of the garage immediately adjacent to
Seaview Avenue. Mr. Diem referred to the letter from Steven
Johnson, dated September 16, 1989, on behalf of the China Cove
Condominium Association, stating that their previous concerns
regarding the establishment of a fire lane have been satisfied and
the Association is supporting the project.
Mr. Diem addressed the rear stairwell encroachment, and he
explained that there will be a four foot access as required by the
Fire Department.
Mr. Diem addressed the reverse corner setback area, and he
described the colored chart that was previously submitted to the
Planning Commission depicting the three alternate proposals and
how each proposal would affect the adjacent views. Mr. Diem
also described each alternative from enlarged photographs taken
at the site and what affect the project would have on the
neighbors' views from the second and third floors. Mr. Diem
submitted photographs depicting bow the stakes were placed as
requested by the neighbors.
Mr. Diem suggested the Planning Commission approve the
project with the rear stairwell four foot encroachment and the
reverse corner setback, the "purple plan' alternative, the fourth
alternative for the reverse corner setback area. He explained that
on the third floor of the "purple plan!, the setback meets the
Code requirement and does not need modification; that the 'red
plan" on the second floor is below the neighbors` line of sight
-18-
COMMISSIONER$
0 MINUTES
September 21. 1989
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
and does not have any visual impact; and a modification w(mid
be required on the first level adjacent to the neighbors' garages.
In response to a question posed by Mr. Hewicker, Mr, Diem
submitted and described a photograph of a view from the second
floor balcony of the adjacent property.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr.
Diem explained that the description of Waiver of Combining
Requirement as stated is the original description of the
application when submitted by the applicants. William Ward,
Senior Planner, explained that the description "to allow a portion
of the structure to encroach 2 feet into the required 6 foot
reverse comer setback adjacent to Seaview Avenue at the rear
of the property", is red plan alternative.
Commissioner Pers6n advised that the Planning Commission not
set a precedent by getting involved in the protection of private
views and private property. Chairman Pomeroy and
Commissioner Pers6n discussed the amount of involvement the
Planning Commission should consider to accomodate a group of
citizens who have expressed their concerns regarding view impact.
Mr. Diem addresud the description of the modification request
In the Wavier of Combining Requirement, and he explained that
"open stairway to encroach 7 feet' has been modified to 6 feet.
In response to questions posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr.
Ward explained that the conditions stated in Exhibit "A" were
written as originally proposed by the applicant but the conditions
will be revised to reflect the following: ("purple plan alternative'
on the third floor, the "red plan alternative" on the second floor
and the first floor would consist of a four foot setback as
originally proposed). Mr. Diem suggested that a condition be
added stating that the applicants agree to pay for a fire lane as
previously stated.
Mr. Michael Mack, 2574 Seaview Avenue, appeared before the
Planning Commission. He stated that the proposed project is not
setting a precedent, and he supported the modifications that were
made to the project. In response to a question posed by Mr.
Mack, Mr. Hewicker replied that the photographs on display are
part of the public record.
-19-
COMMISSIONER$ � • MINUTES
Ktion
Ayes
Absent
September 21, 1989
CITY OF NEW P O RT BEACH
Mrs. Doris Boisseranc, 2520.2522 Seaview Avenue property
owner, resident of 272 Crescent Flay Drive, Laguna Reach,
appeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs, fioisseranc
described the meeting that the Boisaerancs had with Mr. Diem
on September 20, 1989, to view the single stake that was erected
to indicate the maximum height of the property, the view impact
and the overall impact of the project. Mrs. Boisseranc stated that
the applicants have satisfied the neighbors' requests; however, she
said that they would prefer that the third floor setback be the
same as the second floor setback or extend to Carnatlon Avenue.
There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the
public hearing was closed at this time.
Motion was made to approve Amendment No. 085. Waiver of
Combining Requirement, Coastal Residential Development
Permit No. 14, and related Environmental Document, subject to
the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". Commissioner Person
requested that Condition No. 21, Waiver of Combining
Requirement, be added stating 'That the applicant shall stripe
and sign the proposed fire lane as may be established by the
Newport Beach Fire Department: Commissioner Person
requested the "purple plan" alternative on the third floor (11 foot
building setback and 6 foot deck setback, within that portion of
the property 37 feet from the rear property line), the "red plan'
alternative on the second floor (7 foot 6 inch building setback
and a 4 foot deck setback, within that portion of the property 27
feet from the rear property line), and the first floor as requested
by the applicant (4 foot building setback on the ground level).
Chairman Pomeroy expressed the Planning Commission's
appreciation to the applicant for submitting the improved
modified plan.
The foregoing motion was voted on. MOTION CARRIED.
A. Environmental Document: Accept the environmental
document, making the following findings and requiring the
following rnitigation measure:
-20-
COMM13l1 ONER$
0 MINUTES
September 21. 1989
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
1+tOLL CAu. 1 1 1 11 1 1 I - 1 INDEX
1, That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been
prepared in compliance with the Environmental ouality
Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council
Policy K•3.
2. That the contents of the environmental document have
been considered in the various decisions on this project.
3. The project will not have any significant environmental
impact.
1. That a photo survey of the existing buildings on the site
shall be prepared and donated to the historical photos
collection of the Balboa Pavilion prior to the issuance of
demolition permits.
B. Recommend approval of
Amendment No. 685 to the City Council, with the
following findings:
1. Dat the proposed ten foot front yard setback is the same
as other setbacks along Carnation Avenue,
2. That the proposed ten foot setback along the Carnation
Avenue frontage of the subject property is compatible with
the proposed and allowable scale of development in the
R•3 District.
C. WaiyCr of Combiniog ReqMiLCmenl: Approve the waiver
of the combining requirement with the following findings
and subject to the following conditions:
1. That the waiver of the combining requirement is justified
inasmuch as the proposed development of the subject
property is intended to be a condominium project which
requires the approval and recordation of a tract map prior
-21-
ER •
COMMISSION S
• MINUTES
September 21, 1989
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
I ROLL CALL 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX
to occupancy of the project and which will effectively
combine the parcels into a single site.
2. That the provisions of Section 20.87.090 B of the Ncwlx)rt
Beach Municipal Code provide that the Planning
Commission or City Council, on appeal, may impose such
conditions as deemed necessary to secure the purpose of
Tine 20 of the Municipal Code.
3. 117hat the approval of a modification to the -Zoning Code
so as to allow the proposed side and rear yard setback
encroachments will not, under the circumstances of this
case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals,
comfort, and general welfare of persons reKiding and
working in the neighborhood 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 consistent with
the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code.
1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with
the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations, except
as noted below.
2. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be
screened from Carnation Avenue, Seaview Avenue and
adjoining properties.
3. That a tract map be processed and recorded prior to
occupancy of the proposed condominiums. That the tract
map be prepared so that the bearings relate to the State
Plane Coordinate System.
4. That all improvements be constructed as required by
Ordinance and the Public Works Department.
5. 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.
-22•
COMMISSIONERS
• MINUTES
September 21, 1989
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Ra-L CALL III I I! I I -- I *10Ex
6. That the on -site parking. vehicular circuladon and
pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review
by the Traffic Engineer. That no diagonal parking will be
permitted along the Carnation Avenue or the Seaview
Avenue frontages.
7. That the intersection of the streets and drives be designed
to provide sight distance for a speed of 25 miles per hour.
Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstruction shall be
considered in the sight distance requirements.
Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty-
four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may
be modified at non -critical locations, subject to approval
of the Traffic Engineer.
8. That the California Vehicle Code be enforced on the
private streets and drives, and that the delineation
acceptable to the Police Department and Public Works
Department be provided along the sidelines of the private
streets and drives.
9. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared by the
applicant and approved by the Public Works Department,
along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain
facilities for the on -site improvements prior to Issuance of
any building or grading permits. Any modificadons or
extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer
systems shown to be required by the study shall be the
responsibility of the developer.
10. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to
Issuance of any building permits.
11. That a 10 foot radius corner cutoff at the corner of
Seaview Avenue and Carnation Avenue be dedicated to
the public on the tract map.
12. That a non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress be
dedicated over Carnation Avenue frontage and that an
easement for public emergency and security ingress, egress
and public utility purposes over Carnation AVenue be
dedicated to the City.
-23-
c
COMMISSIONERS MINUTES
Scpttmber 21, 14�4
CITY OF NEIMPORT BEACH
MOLL CALL III lilt I I INDEX
13. That curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavwwnt be
constructed along the Carnation Avenue frontages
that the displaced portion■ of sidewalk be
reconstructed and the existing brick pavers be
removed and replaced with landscape or reconstructed
on a 4 inch thick concrete base along the Seaviw
Avenue frontagel that the curb return at the corner
of Carnation Avenue and 8aaview Avenue be
reconstructed using a 20 toot radius return and
Incorporating a curb access ramp within It. All
work ■hall be completed under an encroachment permit
issued by the Public Works Department or by signed
plans approved by the city ingineer. All street,
drainage and utility improvements shall be shown on
standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed
civil engineer.
14. That a standard agreement and accompanying surety be
provided to guarantee satisfactory completion of the
public and private street improvements, if it is
desired to obtain a building or grading permit prior
to completion of the public improvements.
15. That a minimum 20 foot clear width be provided in
the alley easement located northerly of and parallel
to Seaviw Avenue. This revision will provide
adequate room for vehicles backing from the adjacent
garage. The final design of the site plan shall be
approved by the Public Works Department. That no
quest parking spaces shall be permitted within the
rear driveway area.
16. That a minism a 6 foot rise be provided between the
existing alley flow line and the high point of the
proposed driveway prior to descending into the
subterranean garages along the alley unless
otherwise approved by the Public Works Department
17. That Fire Department access shall be approved by the
Fire Department.
18. That the entire building shall be ■prinklered unless
otherwise permitted by the Fire Department.
19. That the Improvements constituting the raised entry
and patio for unit •F", which extend into the
required 10 foot rear yard setback, shall not exceed
a height of 6 feet measured from existing grade.
20. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the
applicant shall record a covenant which shall hold
the subject property as a mingle building site until
such time as a tract map or parcel map is recorded
('
on the property.
-24-
COMMISSIONERS MINUTES
A c�
��. September 21, 1989
CV
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ;
ROLL CALL INDEX
t
21. That the applicant shall stripe and sign the
proposed fire lane as may be established by the
Xewport Beach fire Department.
22. That the open stairway shall be permitted to
encroach 6 feat into the required rear yard setback.
23. That the following setbacks shall be maintained in
the revarse corner setback area adjacent to Seaview
Avenue, at the rear of the propertys a 4 foot
building setback on the first floorl a 7 foot 6 inch
building setback and a 4 foot deck setback within
that portion of the property 27 feet from the rear
property line on the second floorl and an 11 loot
building setback and a 6 foot deck setback within
that portion of the property 37 feet from the rear
property line on the third floor.
D. s Approve the
Coastal Residential Development Permit with the
following findings[
1. That the feasibility analysis has been performed
which has indicated that it is not feasible to
provide affordable housing on -site or off -site in
conjunction with the proposed project.
2. That the proposed development has met the
requirements of the City Council Policy P-1.
• • •
hmnsknot No._§QQ tPubiic. 1$arinal Item No. 6
Request to amend Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal ►6 89
Code so as to establish mixed residential/commercial uses
as a permitted use within the -Recreational and Marine Continued
Commercial' area of the Cannery Village/McFadden square 1C0
Specific Plan Area. 10-5-89
APPLICANTS City of Newport Beach
M4615