Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP_015CCAS?AL. RFSZDEnIAL :)rr OP0, COUNCIL POLICY P-1 CZ?Y OF N EWPI= BEACH 01:,caticn Pec'd ty! J ee: 5 7 O PLAM M. DEPAR;TSF-%"T CURRENT PLA.M.' ING DIVISION 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 (714) 640-2218 or 640-2219 Applicant (Print)- p Phone c•'- r.a• -R --- — mailing Address r3 IL S o- Bad( 9--a.e+ T Q 4 c. i.e,a � 5= so -- Property Owner p pi. 4Z21be Phone 7 3- G J L C ?tailing Addre s 2,4 r r Address of Property Involved 1 1 c� - r 2 ] Z3- A G-A, -- f?AqLld o e r.ZCA Al 1a - — Legal description of Property Involved (if too long, attach separate sheet) zgrX oi_-rd_t.,V C c. 1'sc ♦rvo ca. Description of the Proposed Project Number of Units ltwrr!!##twlwwttlt#e#sewwlrlrrtw!!#wrrwlwttwwltlwttwwrwrwwwwrrrrrrrrrrrwrrwwewrwwrwrwwrrrrrr please attach a statement indicating the proposed selling price of the t.rits, the anticipated cost of developing the proposed project and any other infc=-a` ca -..hat could affect ,the feasibility of providing low/moderate income units in conjunction with the proposed project. •t!!##!!#w!tlfwlfltwt!ltwwttfttwttfttrww!!wlwwlwrwrrwwlwwrrwrrwwrrrwrwrwlw+wwwrrwwwrrrr#wrrwr (I) (We) depose and say that (I an) (we are) the cwner(s) of the property(ies) involved in this application. (I) (we) further certify, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing state^ents and answers herein contained and the inf'or=at.ion herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of (tsy) (our) knowledge and belief. Signature (a) �=a2 N: An agent may sign for the owner if written authorization from t.e record owner is NOTE: filed with the applicant. Do NOT COMPLETE APPLICATION BELOW THIS LINE Date Filed � r - 99 Fee Pd. �. � �•(10�- Receipt No. Planning Director Action Date P.C. Hearing Date C.C. Hearing Appeal P.C. action Appeal C.C. Action r_. Date :R52.00 TLC!? MELLO 1/86 A FINAL FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON AUGUST 14, 1989 AND SEPTEMBER 25, 1989 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89.1 (E) LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 16 AMENDMENT NO. 680 USE PERMIT NO. 3353 COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 15 RESUBDIVISION NO. 895 Findings; 1. That an Initial Study has been prepared for the project In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State C1:QA Guidelines and City policy. 2. That based upon the information contained in the initial Study, the project is not anticipated to have a significant effect on the environment. A Negative Declaration has, therefore, been prepared. 3. That the information contained In the environmental document has been considered In the decision on the project. D. Adopt Resolution No. 89.95, recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 89-1(E) to the City Council. LOCAL COAML PROGRAM AMENDMENT NQ. 16. Adopt Resolution No. 89-96, recommending approval of Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 16 to the City Council. 2 AMENDMENT NO. 680. Approval of Amendment No. 680, proposes Ordinance No. 89-20 with the following findings: 1. That the amendment is necessary to Implement the provisions of the Newport Beach General Plan. 2. That the proposed project cannot be implemented without the proposed amendment. FINAL FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS PAGE 2. ' u • Findings: I. That the project is consistent with the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. 2. Adequate off-street parking is being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. 3. The project will comply with all applicable City and State Building Codes and Zoning requirements for new building applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located, except those items requested in conjunction with the proposed modifications. 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 3353 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 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. Conditions: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations and sections, except as noted below. 2. That two garage spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit at all times. These garages may not be rented or leased for general or automobile storage. 3. That areas provided for refuse storage or utility services do not encroach into required parking or aisle areas. 4. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. S. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 895 shall be satisfied. 6. That the residential and commercial portions of the development be served with separate water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. FINAL FINDINGS AND CONDMONS PAGE 3. 7. That car washing may be allowed if the washing area legally discharges Into the Sanitary sewer in accordance with the Building Code requirements to the satisfaction of Public Works and Building Departments. 8. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 9. That this Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Findings: 1. That the proposed development has met the requirements of City Council Policy P-1. 2. That the feasibility analysis performed has indicated that it Is not feasible to provide affordable housing on -site or off -site in connection with the proposed development. Findings: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the design of the subdivision. 2. That the proposed subdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint+ 3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed Improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. 4. That public Improvements may be required of the developed per Section 19.08.020 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. FINAL FINDINGS AND CONDMONS PAGE 4. Conditions; 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to issuance of building permits unless otherwise approved by the Public Works and Planning Depanments, 'That the Parcel Map be prepared using the State Plane Coordinate System as a basis of bearing. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That the drive depression on Agate Avenue be removed and replaced with curb and sidewalk and that the power pole in the alley be relocated so that it does not interfere with the proposed parking. That all work be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 5. That all vehicular access to the property be from the adjacent alley. 6. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to the issuance of any building permits. e3 resent; �tion �11 Aye's r 3tion # 11 Ayes i c i OTY OF NEWPORT %ACH 4� C% REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. PLACE: Council Chambers ���J► TIME: 7:30 P.H. �► DATE: September 23, 1989 x x x x x x x A. x B. MINUTES. nvu. ... Reading of M es of Meeting of September 11. 19 was waived, approved as written, and order filed. Reading in full of all ord is and resolutions under consideration w waived, -and City Clerk was directed t read by titles only. HEARINGS: Mayor Strauss opened the public hearing regarding APPEAL BY-DAVID M. STONE, Balboa Island, from the denial by the planning Commission on July 6. 1989, of: A. planning Coatmission Amendment No. 680 - Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 89-20. being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEVPORT BEACH SING TITLE 20 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE AliMING THE C-1 DISTRICT REGULATIONS TO ALLOW AUTOMOBILE AND GENERAL STORAGE WHERE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE SECURIIiG OF A USE PERMIT IN EACH CASE; AND THE ACCEPTANCE QF AN ENVIRONMENTAL DOCU2gNT; AND B. USE PERMIT No. 3353 Request to permit the construction of automobile and general storage with three second floor residential units on property located at 119--12,34 Agate Avenue; zoned C-1. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a second floor access deck to encroach four feet into the required ten foot rear yard setback. Report from the Planning Department. It was noted that at the August 14. 1989 meeting, the City Council approved General Plan Amendment 89-1(E). Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 16, Coastal Residential Devslopwent Permit No. 15 and Resubdivision go. 895; all to allow construction of automobile and Volume 43 - Page 377 PCA 680 Zoning (94) U/P 3353 (88) C IT Yy' OFi N EW PO RT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS 4CG 00 September,..25. _ 1989 .. general storage in a mixed use commercial/residential project located on,Agate Avenue, Balboa Island. The Amendsieat_required as part of the project approval was passed to second reading of the proposed Ordinance. and the Use Permit required was continued to allow the applicant to submit revised plans which incorporate the design changes suggested by staff should the project be approved. It was also pointed out that the revised plans submitted by the applicant have addressed all the design chances proposed by staff. These are: That two car garages be provided for the residential units, that an additional _.open parking space be provided for the nonresidential component of the project, that the access stair at'the rear of the property be relocated to provide a winimum 20 foot clear access driveway from the alley, that a minimum 5 foot area be provided at the end of the aisle beyond the last garage for turning purposes, and that the areas provided for refuse storage or utility services not encroach into required parking or aisle areas. In addition. the revised project eliminates the balcony/accessway encroachment into the 10 foot alley setback. Staff has provided a revised Zxhibit "A" for the component of the application under current consideration of the City Council. Henrietta Fisher, 122 Agate Avenue. Balboa Island. addressed the Council and stated that she resides across the street from the proposed project, and questioned whether the applicant would be using his commercial display cases to advertise businesses on Agate Avenue. or for other areas in the City. David M. Stone, applicant, 132 S. Bay Front, addressed the Council and stated that his project has received co=unity support as well as approval from both Island Associations, and since the last City Council meeting, he has met with staff and concurs with their recomendations. The intent of the display windows are,for local merchants on Balboa Island. He would like his tenants to be able to wash their cars if persdasible, and if so, he will have the necessary drain installed. Volume 43 - Page 378 MINUTES I NDI PCA 680 U/P 3353 r;: M - . •� f T �qCH -ATY, OFr NEWPOR P� IL MEMBERS � GSA September 25. 1989 a i MINM3 It was indicated by Council Member Watt that if car washing is allowed. Condition of Approval No. 7 should be amended. The Public Works Director commented that pursuant to the provisions of the Building Code, a car washing area may be permitted to drain and connect into the sanitary sever provided it is covered. and provided no surface drainage from rainfall can get'inco the sever. With regard to the corr,rcial display cases referenced earlier, Mr. Stone stated that he will offer advertising _ space in all the display cases to all businesses on Agate Avenue initiallyp and then to all other merchants on Balboa Island. Hearing no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. _ Motion was made to adopt proposed or, inance.xo. 89-20, amending itle 20 of the Nevport Beach Municipal Code to •, amand the C-1 District regulations; and approve Use Permit No. 3353, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval contained in Exhibit A," with the provision that Condition of Approval No. 7 be amended -to add that "car washing may be allowed if the washing area legally discharges into the sanitary sewer in accordance with the Building Code requirements to the satisfaction of Public Works and Building Departments. Mayor Strauss opened the public hearing regarding W2WTTY DEVEL.OP?4W BLOCK .....,..e.&.vrrr vrans 988/89. from the Planning Department. The Ci !Sanger noted that at the beginnin of the fiscal year. the City had antitl ent funds of $407.DDD plea carryover f ds of $47,447 for a total we $436,447. wring the year. funds were spent for. Community Cen er $307,647 Social Service Rehab. 74.225 Fair Housing b5�701 Administration ?O? $439.233 volume 43 - Page 379 0 CA 6B0 /P 3353 SG Prgrml [87) GQ C Motion wil Ayes k i t t r -� OF' NEWPORT41EACH _- `!CITY. y. MEg10ER8 a % �¢ September 25. 1989 It was also noted that the remaining $15,216 is in reserve, primarily to fulfill obligations to social service agencies that dial not complete their ervice obligations before June 30th and or the emergency rehab grants fund. e City also used a $1,200,000 HUD S tion 108 loan to assist with the ac uisition of the West Newport ity Center. Clear ag no one wishing to address the Counc 1, the public hearing was closed. Motion was made to authorize the City Manage to transmit the 1988/69 Grantee Perfo ce Report (CPR) to the Depar t of Housing and Urban Developme t (HUD). PUBLIC C S: Nancy'skinne Member of the Harbor Quality Comm ;tee, invited the Council to attend a m eting on September 26 at 7:00 p.ta. in e;Council Chambers concerning the status of water quality In Newport Bay. She stated that Senator Marian Bergeson ill,be presenting the update, and ther will also be a presentation by D nald Lorenz of the Harbor Quality Co ittee regarding a new educational progra known as "Bay Watchers." CONSENT CALENDAR: he following actions were aken as ndicated, except for those terns removed. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODU ON: .Pass to second reading on October 9. -- 1989 (a) Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 89-27, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING SECTION 12.56.020 OF THE ORT REACH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTA ING TO THE WAIVER OF BICYCLE REGIS TION FEES AT CITY SPONSORED BICY £ SAFETY PROGRAMS. [Report fr the City Attorney] I : Volume 43 - Page 380 MINUTES CDBG Prgt ' HUD Harbor Quality Ord 89-27 Veh/Trfc Sic Regist (85) A*Y OFF NEWPORT = B10cH MttilIJTES !lotion Ayes !toss C 0 August 14, 1989 Cransa Coast Yellow Cab Company. but that they had to cancel his lease due o dishonesty and overcharging stomrs, and therefore. they would to request this application be d The C Attorney commented that there are spe ific grounds for denial of this type of plication; however, none of then role specifically to the character the applicant or to the possibility hat the applicant engaged in dishonest ractices in the past. Wilber L. Knowl ,'applicant. addressed the Council and sted that the allegations made b Kr. Craig were false and -that the cancel tion of his lease was unjustified. Th reason he left Orange Coast Yellov Company was because he wanted to be independent and on his own, and operate lean good -Looking automobiles. He stated he was a hard working individ 1 and would like the opportunity to ope to his taxicabs in the City. It was noted by the City Attorn that if the subject cab company does t comply with the required municipal code :re,guUtions. the Council has the _ _authority to revoke the Certificate Public Convenience and Necessity. x in view of the foregoing. notion was x x x x x x undo to uphold staff's recommendation to ZI I approve the requested Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for CALITMIA SUNSHINE CAB COMPANY. S. 'Mayor Strauss opened the ppublic hearing and city Council review of an APPEAL BY DAVID_M.�SME,_8a�boa,_Island,_ftom the denial by the Planning Commission on July -6. 1989- of: -- A. GENERAL PLAN AME?MMEXT 89-1(E) - Request to ascend the General Plan Land Use Element to allow automobile and general storage in areas designated for Retail and Service Commercial and to specify these allowed uses in the specific area description for Agate Avenue. Balboa Island; and the acceptance of an Environmental Document; Volume 43 - Page 319 CA Sunbhine Cab Company `GPA 89-1(£; I (4S) Hi,,,,,OTjY',-OFWEWPORT'i IOACH W b6iCIONVEWa ALL _ I August 14.-1989 MI"Ma . B. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT No' Request to Aoend t e Local L astal-Program. Land Use Plan. to allot- automobile and general storage in arias designated for Ratail and Service Comercial and to specify those allowed uses in the specific area•description for Agate Avenueo,Balboa•Island; C. AMEND10W N0. 680 - Request to amend the C-1 District regulations to alloy autoaobile and general storage where;coasistent with the Central Plans subject to, the approval of a use permit in each cane; D. USE PERMIT NO. 3353 - Request to permit the construction of w autoobile aid gsaersl storage with three second floor residential units on property located at 119-12311 Agate Avenue; toned C-1. The proposal alsoincludes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a second floor access deck to encroacW four feet into the required ten.foot rear yard setback; E. COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVMPMENT TIM 0. Rsquost to a rove a f �s�dsn`ti}� �_ tpelo_pmeat Permit for_th9._pu�'p9ge of establishing pr _ajecx:compliance pursuant_-- thGJa,.iaistrative guidelines for the ispl"entation Q�State law �ele�tiv4 _ to. low- and modern--incoas !sousing within the Coastsl7zini•" a`c ajuactibn vitls the copstri�ct1oa of a coinbiried cos�s_rcial/retid�ential development on propertylocated_ in the C-1 District; F. RESUBDIVISIOW N0. 895- Request. to ,combine three parcels cf laud into .A, single building site _for swe corcial/residsntiil development on property located_ in the C-1 District. .Report from the Planning Department. Appeal application from David Stone. volume 43 - Page 320 LCPA#16 PCA 680 U/P 3353 (88) ICRDP#15 IResub 895 i Motion I All Ayed H0 ,%WY~ OF WEWPORT' 8*CH _ August 14. 1989 NUUMS It was noted that the applications described above will. if approved. allow the construction of a mixed -use development which will include general and automobile storage and three residential units. David Stone. 132 S. Bay Front, Balboa Island. addressed the Council and referenced an elevation of the project which he stated is currently improved with two duplexes and a single-family residence on the subject property. He discussed the lack of parking on the Island. and stated he.felt the proposed use would provide a support for the is■ediate residential area as there is a great demand for garages and storage. He stated that the Balboa Island Improvement Association. Little Balboa Island Homeowners Association. as well as neighbors in the vicinity have endorsed the project. He plans on having an on -site manager living in one of the units and felt that the project would upgrade the present use and be an asset to the community. Richard A. Higbie, 229 ?urine Avenue, addressed the Council in favor of the project. He stated that the proposed project is the first one he has ever seen that tends to ameliorate any of the problems on the Island. He felt that Agate Avenue is marginal for residential use due to its continued traffic. and therefore, parking is almost nonexistent. He also felt the project takes away a lot of the residential use that would have impacted the area, and it would definitely improve the 100 block of Agate Avenue. Discussion ensued wherein it vas suggested that the applicant make the _ changes that were requested by the planning comission in the event the application is approved. and bring back a revised set of drawings which reflect those changes at the same time the public hearing is held on the proposed ordinaiace under consideration. Hearing no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. In view _of_the ._f_oregoing, motiOU was. made to onerird'. the 'decision of the _,_._ ..w _ Plannin Comission, ands Volume 63 - Page 321 CPA 89-1(E) & U/P 3353 r� - ' 41TY'-0F;--NEWP0RT *ACH GpV�lIC1L`�IIIE��ER � � MINUTES August 14, 1989 111111111 t i a) _. Adopt Resolution No. 89-95, Res 89-95 adopting General Plan Amendment 89-1(E),.and accepting the Environmental Document; b) Adopt Resolution No. 89-96. Res 89-96 adopting Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 16; c) Introduce and schedule public Ord 89-20 bearing on September 251989,' Zoning proposed. OA_DIIUWCE NO. 89-20, (94) bring, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING TITLE 20 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MNICIPAL CODE AKOWING THE C-1 DISTRICT TO ALLOW AUTOMOBILE AND GENERAL STORAGE WHERE CONSISTENT WliH THE GENERAL PLAN, SUBJECT TO THH SECURING OF A USE PERMIT IN EACH CASE. (PtANNINC GOHMISSION PCA 680 AMENDMENT NO. 6801; d) Continue to September 25. 1989. Uie Permit No. 3353; and a) Approve Coastal Residential Development permit No. 15 and. Resubdivisi�on No- 895, sub,'ect a-tlie jags atldC_onditiOns _-find cantainad_it► Exhibit "Aof the planning Co=14aioa staff report, Tait the "additional condition VAC e! _that a-Pplraioa!_atytll ,not, be deemed approved until the effective _date-9 -- he Qrdinange introduced above. Donald Hunter, Alternate Director of \6unci e Mobile Hose Owners League, he Council and discussed SB artaina to mobile hone ights. He stated he has on the bill which was sed, and will forward it to l their mailboxes. Volume 43 - Page 322 June 26, 1989 Mt. Craig T. Bluell Planning Department CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 RE; 119 - 123 1/2 Agate, BALBOA ISLAND Dear Mr. Illucll: 39M MKAnhur UOUI vard Suns = Newport Bw-h, CA OM • 3ptp (714) 833. M60 4M E. CarrselbKk NJ Sufle:Url H Phoenix. AI hog1h (6M)11 0- .UWW In accordance will' your request anti aulhorization, Tarantclio h Company has prepared a report evaluating the feasibility of requiring one affordable rental unit within the proposed development at the above address. Included within the following report is an analysis of the Subject proposed mitcd use development including the following: three multifamily rental units, approximately 4,505 square feet of storage space (3,155 s(juarc fcct first story/garagc, 1,350 square feet second story), 195 square feet of office space for onsitc property management, and 100 square feet of display cases. Feasibility will be tested with the inclusion of one 3 bedroom moderate income rental unit onsitc. The appropriate rent levels and average 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 dt COMPANY OTaranicilo RE President C. M. 1121c Senior Consultant ■■ AFFORDABLE HOUSING FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS or 119 - 123 1/2 Agate, BALBOA ISLAND Three Multi -Family Rental Units and Storage Space NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA Mixed Use Development By: D.M. STONE Submitted To: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 6/26/99 Submitted By: TARANTELLO do COMPANY e STATEMENT OF ASSUMPTIONS 119 - 123 1/2 Agate, BALBOA ISLAND Apartment * I Apartment » 2 Apartment N 3 Residential Garages TOTAL RESIDENTIAL: Downstairs/Garage Storage Second Story Storage Property Management Officc Display Cases TOTAL COMMERCIAL: Descrintion- _ Size 3 Bedroom / 2 Bath 1.400 s.f. 2 Bedroom / 2 Bath 1.139 s.f, 2 Bedroom / 2 Bath 1,120 s.f. 1.200I.E. 4,65E s.f. 3,155 s.f. 1.350 s.f. 195 s.f. 100 s.f. 4,800 s.f. TOTAL PROJECT: r, There are nineteen garages in this project. Six of these garages will be utilized for the residents of the apartments, while the remaining thirteen garages will be rented out on a monthly basis for storage of automobiles, boats, etc. The office space will not be rented out, but will be utilized for property management purposes. The display cases will be divisible into five separate portions, and will be rented out on a monthly basis to nearby retailers, according to the developer of the property. (2) sceiarlas: This study could consider two scenarios in which an affordable unit may be provided. Scenario l: Two of the proposed units are leased at market rates (the two bedroom units), the third (a three bedroom unit) is leased at the moderate income affordable standard rate. Scenario 2: The three proposed units are leased at market rates; an off - site unit (a 2 bedroom unit) is leased by the developer at the moderate Income affordable standard rate (I.c. after purchasing or leasing the unit himself). This scenario will be run should the on -site affordable 3 bedroom unit proves Infeasible. (3) Land Ownershis At the start of project construction. it Is assumed that the land is owned outright by the developer. 1 (4) La■i Cost: Purchase Price provided by the Ownership; fg00,000. An additional 1 percent closing costs for escrow and title fees (SE,000) are estimated and added to the land purchase prices indicating a total land cost or SEOE,000. (5) A seven month construction Pet lod has been assumed from commencement of construction to completion or units and storage space. (6) Casstroetloo Cgit; Based upon the cost estimates supplied by the project developer (David Stone, )unc 23, 19E9). construction costs are as follows. on both a total cost and cost per square foot basis (based on the total project area or 9,65E s.f.): On and Off -Site $387.060 (includes supervision. orrsites) 3 4o.oE/s.r. Indirect Plans, Fees, Misc: $42,440 $ 4.39/s.f. Legal, title. ins: 514.000 S_ 1.4M1, TOTAL: 143� 5 45,23 The construction costs appear to be reasonable based on comparison with cost estimates or other mixed -use projects in the general market area, and based on comparison with Marshall's Cost Guide for both product type components. The construction costs are assumed to be incurred evenly over the entire construction period. (7) Fluaacint / Prime ^gam; The rate charged against the outstanding loan balance is 3 over prime, prime is assumed to be an average of i 1 percent over the construction period. The loan fee Is assumed to be 3 percent of the total loan amount, based on conversations with potential construction lenders. (E) HenaIteat of Coastrorl(o■ Loam : Proceeds from an assumed sale of the mixed use development upon completion of construction and Icaseup to normalized occupancy levels shall be credited to . the outstanding construction loan. Any remainder shall be credited to the capital account of the developer. constituting profit and overhead on the development project. 2 v TUMTELLJO&COMPkisly (9) Abseratle Because the vacancy rates for apartment units in the Newport Beach area are so low, the units are expected to absorb very quickly after the completion of construction. It is assumed that the affordable unit will be the first to be Ieased. An absorption period of approximately I month following the completion of construction Is projected for the apartment units. An absorption rate of 2 units per month is estimated, with the "affordable' unit occupied immediately following construction. Based on conversations with property management companies handling the leasing of garages in Newport Beach (Lido Island area and Balboa Peninsula), and with Public Storage marketing and property management staff, the garage space is estimated to absorb to a 100 percent occupancy level virtually immediately, due to the strong demand and waiting lists for garages in this vicinity. The upstairs storage space, however, is estimated to absorb at the slower rate of 3 months. it Is assumed that preleasing will begin in the Sth month of construction (2 months prior to completion), with all of the garages and approximately 25 percent of the upstairs storage space preieascd. The remaining 75 percent of the upstairs storage space is assumed to be teased evenly over the last three months. The normalized occupancy figure of 90 percent for the upstairs storage space is estimated based on conversations with various storage firms In the industry. It is assumed that the display cases will absorb within the three month time frame expected for the upstairs storage space, with all of the display cases rented by the end of the tenth month. (10) It is assumed that the rental units, based upon information obtained from a recent market survey and from recent extensive surveys done for the market area, are to be leased at the following rates: 3 bedroom / 2 bath unit: 2 bedroom / 2 bath units: $1,400 per month $1,100 per month These lease prices were estimated based primarily on a per bedroom analysis of rentals in the immediate vicinity. The most recent market survey is included within the text of this report. 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (! 1) Affordable U1111 Lease Halt; The affordable unit is assumed to be a 3 bedroom unit in the on -site scenario, and a 2 bedroom unit in the off• site scenario. The pricing of this lease is based upon income information and the affordability standard for moderate income units provided by Craig T. elucll, Department of Planning, City of Newport peach. This information is provided in Item A or the Addenda of this report. On -Site Rent Maximum: $1,449 per month off -Site Rent Maximum: $1,332 per month In this case, the rent maximums are higher than market rents (by an amount between S49 and $232) for rental housing such as the Subject Property, rendering the 'constraint* or 'requirement, ineffectual. (12) Eriglna of Storage Spact: The storage space, based on inrormation from a recent market survey performed by Tarantclto do Company. is to be leased at the following rates: Garages: Second Story Storage: suo/s.r. S0.75/s.r. The second story space is estimated at the lower rate clue to the Subject Property's lack of elevators for ease of access and for ease in moving. The market survey is included within the text or this report. (13) Pricing of Display CAUV The five display case windows will be assumed to rent out at a monthly rate of $100 per month each, as per the developer's projections. (14) Eallmatgd—Net Operating incomes The net income from rent figures are estimated by applying the appropriate square footagcs or bedroom count with the corresponding estimated lease rate or amount. less the percentage expenses described in the proforma, (15) Annual Cash Flow: The estimated annual cash flow from renting both the residential units and storage space is outlined in the proformas for each scenario, and the assumptions are outlined therein. (16) The value of the proposed mixed -use residential and storage development at the completion or construction and leaseup of the project to normalized occupancy is estimated via capitalization of the projected net operating income to be attained at normalized occupancy at the Subject Site. The estimated net Income attainable of both the residential and storage portions of the Subject Property will be capitalized separately, then added together to obtain the total estimated sale price of the development at normalized occupancy, Based on an analysis of recent transactions In the general market area for both product types, the capitalization rates of 7.0% and 10.0% are utilized for the residential and storage/commercial portions. respectively. Hence, the sale price of the development as a whole assumed in the analysis is as follows: $1.082,307 (Sum of Residential Value: S28,620/.07 • $408,837 and the Commercial Value: $67,345/.10 • S673.450) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -rr%.i� ■wew.#%.w .0 (17) %rlloria_of Dergl2pmeaI Fesst`ilitw The project is analyzed utilizing a multi -period cash flow over the construction and leafeup periods of the project. The cash outflows include the land cost, the development costs, and the repayment of the construction loan and the varlous closing costs incurred upon sale of the property in the final month. The cash inflows include the construction loan disbursements, the rents received during leaseup. and the proceeds from we at the end of the leaseup period. The project is feasible if the developer receives a return sufficient to justify development. The criteria for development feasibility it a return on equity to the developer of at least 23 percent. Standard ROE's in the development industry typically run 25 to 50 percent, and frequently even higher, varying with the level of risk involved. The initial cash outflow (equity required) is calculated by subtracting the land draw obtainable ($243,949) from the total land cost (SA08,000). (The land draw is obtained through an iterative process of analysis of the total debt capacity of the completed building leased to normalized occupancy and the necessary draws throughout the construction period to pay for both the construction costs and financing costs (interest on outstanding balance).) The initial equity required to do the deal is then $647,691, Net income from rent Is obtained through application of the absorption assumptions to the rental prices to he obtained, net of the expense percentage applicable for each product type. Hence, the total "net income from rent' figures for months g, g and 10 ($5.620, $7,236 and $7,997 respectively) represent the summation of both storage and residential net income figures. The expense percentage assumptions are outlined on the proforma spreadsheet. The apartment expense estimates represent the low end of IREM standards for the Orange County submarkct, as the Subject building will be a newer building assumably which can be expected to incur less maintenance and other expenses as a percentage of effective gross income than older, less efficient buildings. The expense percentage assumptions for the storage space are taken from actual expenses on mini storage facilities analyzed by Tarantello It Company. Last, the residual equity to be received by the developer upon property disposition is calculated by subtracting an estimated S percent closing costs (SS4,115, for brokerage commissions to sell the project and the escrow and title fees and other closing costs to be incurred at that time) from the sale price calculated through income capitalization. $1.032,307, giving a subtotal of $1,028,192 and then subtracting the loan balance ($676,035) from the subtotal. Hence, the residual equity becomes $352.136. Hence, the return on equity to the developer is calculated via internal rate of return, using the above assumptions for net cash flow. Refcr to this column on the proforma spreadsheet for the calculations. M TUIANTS.LO&COMPAW (18) Exclusion of Off -fife Unit Scengrlo- The second scenario was excluded in this case due to the fact that the allowable maximum rental assuming an off•site 2 bedroom unit is actually greater than existing market rents for units of this type and size in the Newport Beach area. The maximum rental price according to affordability standards is not an effective constraint in this case, rendering the additional scenario inappropriate. According to the affordability standard provided by Craig Blucli of 111e City of Newport Beach, an affordable 2 bedroom rental at the moderate income level could rent for a maximum of $1,332 per month. Market rent► range between S875 and $1,300 for basic 2 bedroom units in the market. (Two rentals are priced at $1,400 and $1,600, due to their added half bath and condominium status (for the first), and the security gates and bay view (for the second). These are not considered to be appropriate rents for the Subject Property's location and proposed physical features.) Further testing of feasibility at lower income levels would result in an even greater negative return to the project as proposal. Therefore. subsequent scenarios were not considered. Please refer to the Residential Rental Survey, included on tlic following page. b ...................................................... ............................ COVARAILE NEIA T $EACM RENIAIS •- 6/69 AXIESS/AREA ROCm COUMT RERT/W3 PER ROOM COMP1411 1 417 E laf Ave 02, BP 1/1 1550 SSSO Refrig,stove.utll 2 1147 lalbu Ave 11 1/1 SX0 $900 0dry,110,1st class 3 106 I/2 Pearl, 1[ 2/1 "is S43a 4 40t1 Seaward. CDM 2/1.5 5940 S450 Community pool, FP S 514 Marguerite, COM 211 S925 2463 ►P, Garage 6 319 1/2 awy, it 211 1975 SW 1i/D, I parking space 7 901 E Balboa Blvd MA, BP 211 Se/�S U90 ►P, Garage 6 924 E Oceanfront BP 2/1 $1,000 $500 9 226 1/2 Caltins, It 211 11.4G0 $500 10 32S 1/2 Diamond. at 211 11,GA 5530 11 corona :It mar 211 11,100 S550 (P,DW,gar,taundry 12 Balboa island 2/1 11,3w $650 new,carport,patio 13 Newport oelghts 2/2 11,1010 $550 Harbor vlew,garage 14 villa Balboa 2/2 11,100 $550 Pool, tennis, gated IS t22 Pearl, BI 2/2 S1050 S575 Y/D, parking space 16 102 Schultz Plaza 0126 2/2 11,110 S575 lay/ocean views 17 Newport earth 2/2.5 S1."0 $700 Upgraded Condo 15 Newport mach 2/2 S1,6CO Saga Security,boy view 19 Balboa Peninsula 3/2 $1,375 S456 1P,Ldry,Gar,3 decks 20 1409 Priscilla lane, As 3/2 S1,400 $467 Nouse,patio,ysrd 21 716 Poird4ttta, MM 5/2 S1,450 $433 22 50a E Oceanfront, SP 3/2 $1,750 S543 Oceanfront 23 209 1/2 4 Bayfront, 11 5/2 S21600 5867 waterfront 14 305 Apolena 3/2 S3,500 $1,167 2-story house,wfront 25 12" Part Averspe, It 412 S1.6Co $400 recently elgned 26 216 Amth"t, It 4/2 $1,W4 $450 Duples,larage,DW,gnf 2? 212 Agate. It 413 $2,200 $550 recentty cloned EVE STONAGE SPACE RENTALS -- 6/89 •.................•..............•............................... FACILITY SIZE/s.f. WXTKV RYNT/S.f. .................................................................. 1 Balbos Yacht Basin 10120 $75 so.3a storage garages 200 N.B. Marine Dept W-3044 In order to rent storage spec* here, lust be t~t in Marine. 20.23 storage spaces, waiting list of 50 people. tent will Increase to sa01m nth in September. felt by aw"*r to be below market for non -restricted space, which sn+a.td be 1.75 to st.00/s.f. 2 The Anchorage IOA20 st2S $0.63 storage garages, Lido 200 673.9330 (100 garages, S yr waiting list) Thai* are for commercial tenants or PoW le hat park tenants only. Obviously below market, with S year walting list. 3 Palo Avenue i Bay ICA20 S300 SI M gar"*s 200 Balboa Peninsula There is a long welting list for the spaces, all of which are full. There are no restrictions as to lassoes. i Newport Mass Self storage 1045 s22T SO.91 2550 Newport Blvd 230 Costa Mesa 646.68M upstairs: 10410 $100 $1.00 full freight 100 elevators 10412 $112 $0.93 120 S Public storage 1DA20 %179 SO." 2065 Placentia Ave 200 Costa Note "6.6166 upstairst 10413 $109 $0.n (Newport Blvd location, 130 no 10m20 available) W 127 SIM 25 ` 6 Sure Wud M" $131 $0.66 BW Ilverbend Drive 200 mu+tinpton bseA ' IK7- AGOG AmI s l rs s 500 U7 $0.94 no elevators 30 ' 7 [mire Ulf store" 101120 $1110 f0.90 959 V l7th Street 200 Coats mesa 642•3722 gxtalrss 11,114 1139 SO." 154 ' 3 Casts Bass mini Staage MO issr ' Costs mesa S:O•GC00 ICA20 2199 $1.00 200 ' 9 Storage Centers of Aawt-Ics 16M S.perlor Ave 1040 none avail Costs Mass 200 631.3930 11114 %109 $0.71 154 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r it = m = = = = = r m = r = = = m = = IRO FORMA CASH FLOW, SCENARIO t .................................................................................................................................................................. scenario 1 Lease 1 AfforeMle Unit On -Site total Total Construction Flnancing Development Outstandirg Disposition Net Undiscowted Month Oeveloparnt Activity Land - Costs Colts Costs Draw Repay tsismo 11.0.1. of Property Cash flow Cusulat(ya .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Record LoWsollin font. SMS'000 163,351 120,2E2 Sd91,639 1243.948 t0 1243,90 s0 30 MA1,691) (364T,691) 2 SO $63,357 $2,046 S66,203 s66.203 to 3310,151 t0 so So (t64T,691) 3 10 $63,357 13,615 S66.9TS S66.975 s0 $317.126 t0 s0 in (s641.691) A s0 163.357 t4,400 $67,757 $67,757 to S444.663 to s0 t0 (6647,691) 5 teg(n Markstlrg s0 963,3S7 S5,190 $ 0,547 S"'541 s0 SS13.430 s0 s0 so (3641.691) 6 s0 t63,357 $5,990 969,341 $69,347 s0 SSA2,TT7 s0 s0 to (164T.691) 7 End Construction to 563.350 $6,799 1TO,SSr t70,1ST $0 9652,934 s0 t0 so (t64T,691) 0 Leasing Income Nuns to 10 17,613 17.615 t7.618 s0 1660.552 1S.620 s0 $5,620 (1642.071) 9 s0 to s7.1% t7.706 1r,T06 so "a,m t7,236 to SY,236 (s634.835) 10 3e11 Project s0 s0 ST,796 S7.796 SY.796 $676.055 ISO) U.99r 61,028,192 1352,136 (1202,699) VM,000 1443,500 172,246 11,323,146 1E11N1 or CilntltrATION LOAN Pr Is* . 3% • 14.00% Loan Fee ■ 3.00% $676,055 $676,055 14.454.060 s20,853 11,021,192 41282,699) s6T6.OSS •T.9?5Z% IRR per wnth -95.M% per year .................................................................................................................................................................. NET INtO1111 CALCULATIONS •• APARTMENT UN112 NET IltfCslE CALCMATIONS •• StORM/GARAGE SPACE 8 units Area (s.f.) Monthly tent tstimled Narks( Rent-3 1d $1.400 1 Garages 3,1SS $2.00 16.310 PROPERTY 01%POS111011 Estlarted Market Rent-2 Id $1,100 2 upstairs 1,350 $0.13 $1.013 S1,052,30T SALE "ICt •• (S54,11S)leset Ss closing costs total f Units 3 TOTAL SIORAGE RENUM SY,323 (1676.055110AN NLANCE 13520136 1E2101ML tomy total Rants / "h s3,600 ANNUAL RE1. CAS# FLOW: $43,200 TOTAL AMR4MI. $11101t mr.em LAND AOGU111110N Lase Las; $=,0N "McusE "let Est. Vacancy (11) 1f1,296) 161. Vacancy 410% of (1164) 118,110111 plugs is closing costs 910. GROSS INWt 141.904 4*tNir• sPacer, PIUO "",Ooo wlfotAL 1% prow (frictional)) M = = = = = = = = = = = r = = = r loxes S IMu►arct Opt►.11"CI. "W") Noint. S Reserves TOTAL 4lr4MSIS MET INCOK Nat Inta.W/Na. Cap. a 1.0% (S2,011) (S7,110) (53,520) (513,284) S28.620 12,365 5408,557 4."% Site "mint 13.00% (511,423) 10.40% utilities 2.00% (Sys?) 8.40% Prop Mgwt lot 3.00% (52,636) Insur/P.Ttits 12.0071 (1110,544) 31.10X TOTAL EKOENSESt 30.0011 (526,361) NET INCONCI S61,34S P(u+t dlspity salt Income S6,000 5500/mo TOTAL NET INCOW S61,345 Not Incamo/1,10. Caplt4lito a 10% Sue Or YALUEst 111.052,30? 3ta1 OT N.I./MO S7,99T MAX KONTNLY OE111 SERVICE! (1.15 OCR) $6,9S4 per month OEST CAPACITY (TAKE OUT LOAN)t $6.454 Monthly ptyMont 12.40Yper year 360 monihs 11676,05S 62.46%LIV KAKINLM LOAM A1101A1T $5,612 $673,450 1 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS As evidenced by the preceding Proforma Cash Flow Analysis, the estimated return on equity to the developer of this project would be a negative 7.9752 percent per month, or ncgative 95.70 percent annually. Inherent in tlils analysis is that all units are indeed leased at market rates, as the rcnlnl maximum for the moderate income level falls above the achievable market rents for the property. The second scenario, that the developer leases an off-sitc unit at the "affordable' rate for two bedroom units, would $ce no change in the results of the analysis, as the 'affordable' rate for two bedroom units falls above market rates again. Further testing of feasibility at lower income levels would result in an even greater negative return to the project as proposed. Therefore. subsetlucnt scenarios were not considered. It should be pointed out that although the development appears Infeasible from an economic standpoint, given the achievable rents on site, it does not necessarilyfollow that it is illogical to build such a 8 project. A developer with a longer term investment horizon (rather than short term development horizon) may logically choose to build the project with the expectation that net operating income and/or value will appreciate at a rate over time to justify investment, (The project may eventually achieve his hurdle rate with sufficient property and rent appreciation.) However, future rates of appreciation of net operating income and/or value are purely conjectural, and development feasibility Is best assessed with a minimum amount of speculation. As in previous cases. the rate of return derived reflects point estimates based upon a series of assumptions detailed earlier in the report. The actual rate of return achieved by the development will depend upon to what degree 12 variances from these assumptions arc experienced, and in what direction (i.e. Positive or negative) they occur. Given the risk level associated with this type of development, it is our opinion that the only reasonable scenario is the exclusion of any affordable units on -site or off -site. Imposing an "affordable` restriction for the moderate income level would be ineffectual, and imposing a restriction for a lower income level would render the development project more infeasible from an economic standpoint, and would place too heavy a reliance upon liberal speculation concerning future rents on the site. In summation, in a financial world where Treasury bonds guarantee approximately 8.6• percent at the present time (over an approximate one year time frame, or 8.3• percent over an approximate twenty year time frame) with no management requirements, and elimination of construction risk, rate risk and market risk, our most recent experience in the evaluation of development Projects for similar clients suggests required rates of return of at least 25 percent, and In many cases 5D percent. It is evident that the subject development project does not approach this benchmark from an economic standpoint, and we recommend that no affordable unit requirement be imposed upon it. • rates extracted from U.S. Government Treasury Bonds, Notes & Hills, Wall Street Journal, Monday, June 26, 1989. p. C14. 13 ' ,1 , m09F &l* - ADDENDA ITEM A 7 CITE' OF NEWPORT BEACH P-0 BON 176,�. NENXTORT REACH. CA 92658 14915 PLANNING DEPAi?'MENT (714) 644-3225 Diane Joslyn Tarantello & Co. 3901 MacArthur Blvd. Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Hs. Joslyn: Within the California Coastal Zone, residential development is governed by State regulations contained in Article 10.7 of the Government Code, "Low - and Moderate -Income Housing 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 Broach'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) 1jQ - 123 1/2 Agate, Balboa Island Site Size 7.650 g„2,,_ft. Number of Units demolished: 3 units to„ba g onstructed Number of: 1 Bdrm. Units 2 Bdrm. Units 2 3 Bdrm. Units _L 4 Bdrm. Units Project is to be evaluated as: a rental project X_ 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 -, unit(s) at the moderate income level on -site. If this initial analysis demonscrates feasibility, 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 _ new two bedroom rental 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 continua to perforn analyses at each successively lover income level until infeasibility i, demonstrated. 1 ' . 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach 1 1 May 31. 1989 Page two Current income information in conformance with Article 10.7: Moderate Income: 2 ter: $53.300: 3 br: 559.950 J Median Income: 2 br: 544.400, 3 br+ u9.950 Affordability standard: 301„ef income for rental„— Moderate Income; 2 br: $1,332, air:_ S_1_.4Q9 Median Income: 49 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 data and that the availability of the information necessary to complete the fsasibil• 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 amenities This letter does not constitute a contract, however is does constitute a request for a proposal/bid for services. A contract for sarvices 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 data this letter, keep a copy for your files, and return the original to the City. Thank you, Cost to prepare feasibility study: • dollars. Time required to prepare feasibility study:-t— Date on which preparation of feasibility can begin: / CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH By Da CTB\P1-LET,993 CONSULTAIrT By �J Data L ADDENDA ITEM B &C0MPWY — DR. R. TARANTELLO, CRE EDUCATION: Doctor of Business Administration - Real Estate and Urban Land Economics, 1976; University of Southern California Master of Business Administration - Financial Management and Business Economics, 1971; University of Southern California Bachelor of Science - Real Estate and Finance, 1970 California State University - Los Angeles PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: American Society of Real Estate Counselors. CRE Urban Land Institute (Full Member) American Institute of Corporate Asset Management, FCA National and California Association of Realtors American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association American Real Estate Society DIRECTORSIIIPS: Charter Savings Bank - Orange County, California BUSINESS EXPERIENCE: 1978 to Present, President, TARANTELLO & COMPANY. with full responsibility for all real estate research. consulting, investment advisory. and management services. TEACHING EXPERIENCE: Adjunct Associate Professor of Real Estate and Urban Land Economics, University of Southern California, 1979 to Present Assistant Professor of Real Estate and Urban Land Economics; University of Southern California, 1976 to 1979 Assistant Professor of Real Estate, Finance. and Urban Land Development; California State Polytechnic University. Pomona, 1971 to 1976 HONORS, DISTINCTIONS AND AWARDS: Wall Street Journal Achievement Award, 1971 Wittenberg Fellowship for Doctoral Studies, 1976 University of Southern California "Outstanding Faculty Member% 1978-1979 Data Gamma Sigma. National Honorary Fraternity Editor -in -Chief. Real Estate Issyc,3, Journal of the American Society of Real Estate Counselors 2 r EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONIES: UWC-Canoga Ltd, vs. Irvel, Inc., L.A. Superior Court, Caw No. C-433052, May, 1988 Burkes, cf. al., Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 396755, February 1988 Beverly Hills Savings vs. The Financial Center, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Case No. LA 86.24591-LF, December, 1987 Lloyds of London vs. Ansell, U.S. District Court, Case No. CV- 85 4356 KN, November, 1987 Olive Davis, et al. vs. City of Newport Beach, Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 32-95.85, July, 1986 Juan Segundo Jr., et al vs. City of Rancho Mirage and C/W Kapp vs. City of Cathedral City, Federal District Court, Case Nos. CV 82.4338 AAH and CV 84.3678, June -July 1985 Oceanside City Council, Mobile home Park Rent Control Ordinance - testimony on October 22, 1985 San Jose City Council. Mobile Homc Park Rent Control Ordinance - testimony on May 28, 1985 City of Orange City Council, Commercial Development Potential - testimony on February 19, 1985 San Jose Rent Stabilization Board, The Economic impact of Rent Control on Investor Returns - testimony on September 24- 25, 1984 President's Commission on Housing - presentation on October 28. 1991 Los Angeles County Rent Control Advisory Board, Fair and Just Return in Rent Controlled Units • testimony on April 9, 1980 Los Angeles City Council, Rent Control - testimony on July 25, 1979 California Assembly, Committee on Housing and Community Development - testimony on May 3, 1978 U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs - testimony on January 17, 1978 L' Iw1Kw" 1 CIAM"VIvn+"T 3 SELECTED PUBLICATIONS: Books Tarantello, Rocky A.; Findlay III, Chapman M; and Messner, Stephen D. Real Estate Egrtfono Analvsii_ Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books published by D.C. Health and Company, 1983 A Multi -Period BjaI__Fjtate Investment on—MQskl; A with M. C. Findlay and S. D. Messner, Center for Read Estate and Urban Land Studies, University of Connecticut, 1981 The Euturl of lhg Real Est2tc Industry Center for Futures Research, University of Southern California, 1974 Refereed Journal Articles 'The Inflation Dependency of Leveraged Invcatmcnt," $S,11 Estate Issues. Vol. 10, Number 2. Fall/Winter 1985 'FMMR: A Programmable Calculator Implementation," with G. Tenzer. 1981 "Risk Analysis in Real Estate, Part I: Is There Even an Old IRR Literature under Risk; with M. C. Findlay and S. Messner, The Real EIIAILAppraiier and AnalylL July -August. 1979 'Real Estate Education at U.S.C.", Education. January, 1978 Abstract: 'A CAPM view of VRMs", with R. V. Eastin and M.C. Findlay, Journal of jil3ancial and„Quantitative—Analysis. November, 1976 Other Publications 'Continuation of Single Digit Rates Likely', BUildinQ Irani c County. June/July, 1986 'Mortgage Lending: Buying the Assumptions', 11"diag Orange county. June/July 1985 01935 Outlook for Real Estate and the Economy% Building Orange,Cgunty, December/January 1985 'Post Election Interest Rates: What to Expect', Qujldige Orange CoUDIL October/November 1984 'Presidential Elections and Housing Economics', uiidina.Orsnac County- March/April 1984 'The Plight of the Thrifts". Executive Maaazinc_ Vol. S. No. 2, February 1932 1 1 4 'The Plight of the Thrift Industry'. A.B, !.offer Associates, August 17, 1981 'Free Market System Solution to Housing Problem', >IIA/Orange County ; October 1980 'Rent Control and the Housing Crisis in Southern California% Parts I and 11, with M. C. Findlay, Egli Estate 11justr� il1d. Vol. 1. Nos. 9 and 10, March 1980 'Why Firms Leave Los Angeles', Lacal 00Y.Sramcnis, and the Local Tax DaM The Lincoln Institute for Land Policy. October, 1979 "Faulty Vision: The Economic Shortsightedness of Rent Control% California Real Estate. December 1978 'Los Angeles Housing Costs. Economics and Public Policy', Southern Calirorn4a Pusincsi February, 1978 DBA Dissertation, Variable-Raic__ vs. Fixed ggig NtOUgastc March 1976 PROFESSIONAL AND ACADEMIC: Guest Speaker, International Council of Shopping Centers, 'An Economic Look into the 1990's, Anaheim, California, February 24. 1989 Guest Speaker, California Society of CPA's, 'California Market Overview", Newport Beach. California, October 19, 1988 Guest Speaker, Society of Real Estate Appraisers, "Commercial Real Estate Trends Los Angeles, California, September 14. 1989 Guest Speaker, Institute for Real Estate Management, 'Office Absorption and Demographic Trends". Costa Mesa, California. July 13. 1988 Guest Speaker, Medical Group Management Association. "Leasing Medical Off icc Space', Anaheim, California, June 27, 1938 Guest Speaker, Wharton Alumni Association, California Office Trends", Beverly Hills, California, June 14, 1939 Guest Speaker, California Building Industry Association, 'Mid- year Economic Forecast% Los Angeles. California, June 1, 1988, Anaheim, California. June 3. 1938 Guest Speaker, American Institute of Architects", The Orange County Slow Growth Initiative% Irvine, California, May 19. 1988 PROFESSIONAL. AND ACADEMIC: (Cont,d) Guest Speaker, Society of Industrial and Office Realtors, 'Economic Overview - SIOR Annual Conference', Beverly Ilills, March 27, 1987 Guest Speaker, National Association of Industrial and Office Parks", Orange County Office and Industrial Trends", Newport Beach, California, February 5, 1997 Guest Lecturer, Stanford University Graduate School of Business, "Real Estate Development Strategies", Palo Alto, California, January 26, 1987 Guest Lecturer, Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, "Ground Lease Provisions for Indian Allottces", Palm Springs, California, April 16, 1986 Guest Lecturer, University of Chicago, "Real Estate Research and The Development Process% Chicago, Illinois, November 15, 1985 Guest Lecturer, University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, "Thc Business of Real Estate Consulting% Chicago, Illinois, April 25. t985 Guest Speaker, Building Owners and Managers Association, "The impact of Urban Economics on Real Estate Investment Valucs", Santa Monica, California, April 15, 1985 Guest Speaker, Union Oil Corporation, "The Impact of Real Estate Economics on Timing and Location Choice, Rancho Santa Fe. California, September 17, 1984 Guest Speaker, Touche Ross & Co., 'Real Estate Economics`, Scottsdale, Arizona, May 17, 1982 Guest Speaker, Los Angeles Society of Financial Analysts, *The Future for Housing: Boom or Bust% Los Angelcy, California, October 1. 1991 Guest Speaker, County Planning Commissioners Conference, "SB 200 and the Peripheral Canal". Newport Beach. California, March 18, 1981 Guest Speaker, International Association of Assessment Officers, "The Impact of Rent Control on Residential Values Los Angeles, California. June 21, 1979 5 ■ 'J � I i,I � I � I � I � I � I I I I I 6 PROFESSIONAL AND ACADEMIC: (Cont'd) Guest Speakcr, Lincoln Land Institute Conference on Local Government Decisions and the Tax Base, 'Why Firms Leave Big Cities: The Los Angeles Area Survey% Los Angeles, California, February 9, 1979 Guest Speaker, State Convention of the California Association of Realtors, "Rent Control: The Myopic Solution", San Francisco, California, September 25, 1978 Presentation: American Real Estate and Urban Economic Association Meetings; "Single -Period vs. Multi -Period Measures of Risk and Return', Chicago, Illinois, August 30, 1978 Presentation: Eastern Finance Association; 'Stochastic Dominance Analysis of the Fixed -Rate vs. Variable -Rate Mortgagor', with M. C. Findlay, Boston, Massachusetts, April 1977 Presentation: Financial Management Association Annual Meetings; "An FMRR Real Estate investment Simulation Model", with M. C. Findlay and S, D. Messner. Montreal, Canada, 1976 Presentation: Western Finance Association, 'A CAPM View or VRMs", with R. V, Eastin and M. C. Findlay, San Francisco, California, 1976 I,lW41 CLLUOAAAWWW4T BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Dr, R. Tarantella Dr. Rocky Tarantello joined the faculty of the University of Southern California in 1974. fie currently holds the position of Adjunct Associate Professor of Real Estate and Land Economics. fie received his Doctor of Business Administration and Master of Business Administration degrees from U.S.C. and a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration from California State University at Los Angeles. Professional credentials include the CR£ designation of the American Society of Real 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, and counseling throughout the Unitcd States. fie is also President of Tarantcllo do 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. 3/99 CATHERINE 116L IIALE EDUCATION: Mastcr of Ilusinen Administration heal Fstalc Financc/Dccision Systems, Expected 1991, 1lnivc,sity of Southern California Bachelor of Arts - Economics, 1985 University of California, Irvine Cum Laudc U.C. Extension: Urban [Tanning, light Construction and Development IIONORS, DISTINCTIONS AND AWARDS: Phi Beta Kappa BUSINESS EXPERIENCE: September 1987 to Present, Senior Consultant, TARANTELLO & COMPANY; February 19A6 to Scl►tcmber 1987, Consullaul, TARANTE1.1.0 & COMPANY, with full responsibility for conducting real cstale tescarch, consulting and valuation scrviccs; 1985, Alsrkeliag Representative, NEWPORT PACIFIC CAPITAL COMPANY, with responsibility for analysis and wholesale m,irkcting of public and private real estate limited partnerships. TEACHING EXPERIENCE- Teaching Assistant to dr. R. Taramcllo in Kcal Estate Finance, Economics. Development and Management, University of Southern California, May 1988 to Present REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS: Dull responsibility for the analysis of macro/ nsicrocconomic influences on a specific project and/or location, and for determining future development potential and marketing strategy for projects and sites such as: Ilighcst and Best Usc Study for 17 acre waterfront parcel in downtown San Dicgo. California Market Siudics for a proposed view -oriented residential development containing custom homesilcs, zero lot line attached homes, townhomes, and slacked flat condominiums, City of Orange, California • Market Analysis of Multi -Family Residcntiai land, Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, California Affordable !lousing feasibility Studies for various residcntial and mixed retail/residential sites. Newport Beach. California Development ,Feasibility study for affordable for. sale multiple family housing within the various neighborhoods of the City of Anaheim, California .i;r, r�, rC W� r.�r, ' ';' ►,^rw ?Lf.1.J�,f.:...i�?e.�s M 11._.Scrviccs: Full responsibility for the production of the following competitive market profiles and/or valuatinn tsnalyses: Hillsalw; Proposed and/or cxilling apartments, townhomes, condominiums, +1clauhcd homes, waterfront detached homes with hrtnl slips, mixcd residential in such areas as nrnnge, Los Angcics, San Bernardino, Riverside, Venturn, Alamcda, Santa Clara, Contra Costa, Napa and Solano f'ounlics fligh•Risc C11115 'A', garden, and medical office buildings, in such areas as Los Angcics, Orange, Ventura and San Mcgo Countics Cil:[ritp.erc'al/Retail: Neighborhood shopping centers, fast fond restaurants, financinI buildings, service stations, health club/racquetball racililics in areas such as Orange, Los Angcics, Son llcrnardino, San Joaquin and Fresno Counties lndUg ial: Warehouse, distribution facilities in inn Diego County I mit Single family dctaclrccl, lownhomc, condominium and mixed residcnlial subdivisions, school sites, planned unit dcvclop+nerrts (mixed use), specific plans in such areas as Los Angeles, San Bernardino, San Diego, Ventura, Hivcrsidc, Alameda, Santa Clara, Contra Costa, Napa and Solo no Counties REPRESENTATIVE CLIENTS: 'Thc Department of the Navy Continental Illinois National flank and 'Trust Company or Chicago O'Brien and flicks Development The Anden Group IDM Corporation Occidental Land Research Bank of America Fieldstone Company Warmington Ilomcs R.P. Warmington Company Winbrook Development PM1 Financial Brighton International Transpacific Industries Crawford Ilills Development Company City of Newport Beach Sequoia Athletic Club/Racquetball World City of Anaheim t^R ['t •rrk;, .:a-.Yiiis�.4 i.$•�'r: 1 . �� ' +fe t. .: � ��.w ,9`..f %yisd.a 9 . 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92659.1768 NEGATNE DECLARATION TO, Office of Planning and Research u 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95B14 ® County Clerk of the County of Orange P.O. Box 838 Santa Ana, CA 92702 NAME OF PROJECT, &491 mf I PROJECT LOCATION: FROMI Planning Department City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 Mexf fl-1 e'F) _ ' *6VQ, 941A r /. ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION, 119�jY ! uye dQi'okf aiXtvvl eONol,�*-A� Po ov, FINDINGS Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to Procedures and quidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. KITICATION l4FASURES, Sae 44*4Ad /aih%d/ spy INITIAL STUDY PREPARED Byr _ll INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT, DATE RECEIVED FOR PILINGS 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA Environmental Coordinator DATEo dare 0141W 0,11.1,. I. Background 1, Name of Proponent 2. 3. Data Checklist Submitted jag. 2� /?.,(9. H�u�i►� 4. Agency Requiring Checklist/4-__ S. Name of Proposal, if applicable A • ,& f,2; 77N 1y�v; SPA' So; II. Errvironmental Impacts (Explanations of all 'yes' and Omaybe' answers are required on attached nheats.) 'lss debe 1[2 1. Earth, Will the proposal result in: A. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X b, Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? SL C. Change in topography or ground surface v relief features? - )_ d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of Soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bad of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? ..._, g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? -1- 2. 7. C 0AM Air. will the 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 temperature. or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? Water. Vill the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents. or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? �. e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, �. dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ._... f. Alteration of the direction or rate of t/ flow of ground water? 3. S. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? I. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? �. . 2 - 7- 9 W anf. L 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: Change in the diversity of species, or num- ber of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal 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 num- bers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles. fish and shell- fish. benthic organisms or insects)? _ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? ,_ 7 C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migra- tion or movement of animals? �.. d, Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? -- --- 6. poise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ._. 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? �. B. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned Y land use of an area? 1L _.- - 3 - • 0 Yra lies L 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? _ 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? .—. �. 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? _ 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? 'M 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? �. b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? C. Substantial itxpact upon existing trans- v portation systems? A `� d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?_ Y. f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? _ 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 - • 0It2 null & is. 16. 17. a, fire protection? x b. Police protection? C. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? A e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? YL f. Other governmental services? _ Y- P.nergy. Will the proposal result in: A. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Utilites. Will the proposal result in a need for now systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? C. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? Ihman health. Will the proposal result in? a. Creation of any health 0azard or potential health heazard (excluding mental health)?, b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? .�.. -S- 7'r Ia. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X _ 19. Recreation. will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses with the potential impact area? 21. Mxndatory Findings of Significance. A. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? -s- X. M • • 712 dgybe! tin b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a rela- tively brief, definitive period of time while long-term Impacts will endure well into the future.) C. Does the project have impacts which are Individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?,�, III. Dincussion of Euvironnental Evaluation (Narrative description of environmental impacts.) IV. Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation; I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. ED I find that although the proposed project could have a signif. icant effect on the envirorment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE, DECIMATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL WPACT FORT is required. Q � --�t i;a.� signature C\PLT\EI RLI ST. FRH PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment, an amendment to the Locul Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, a Tentative Tract Map, a Site Plan Review, and a Coastal Residential Development Permit, all to allow the demolition of an existing motel and the construction cif a 20 unit condominium project. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1b. Construction of the proposed project will result in the displacement of $oil by the parking structure and related subterranean uses, and the over -covering of portions of the site which are currently landscaped. These are considered insignificant adverse effects. lc. The construction of the subterranean parking structure and miscellaneous uses will change the topography of the site. This is considered an insignificant adverse effect. le. During excavation for the subterranean uses, there is the possibility of both wind and water erosion on the site. These potentially significant adverse effects will be reduced to a level of insignificance by mitigation measures incorporated into the project. lf. If any erosion occurs during construction, there is the possibility of siltation which could modify the channel of the Buck Gully stream course. This potentially significant adverse effect will be reduced to a level of insignificance by mitigation measures incorporated into the project. 2b. The use of heavy equipment during excavation and construction could result in the creation of localized objectionable odors from the motor vehicles. T195 effect is considered insignificant due to the short term nature of the effect, and the fact that the prevailing climate, which includes regular sea breezes, will rapidly disperse any concentrated odors. 3b. The increase in impermeable surfaces associated with implementation of the proposed project, and the placement of new buildings on the site, will change the absorption rate, drainage pattern, and the rate and amount of surface runoff from the site. This effect is considered insignificant due to the fact that the existing storm drainage system in the area is adequate to accommodate the increase, and the effect is further reduced by the mitigation measures incorporated into the project. 4e. Landscaping associated with development of the site could result in ornamental species being introduced into Buck Gully. This adverse effect is not considered significant, due to the dominance of ornamental plant species in the gully, which have been introduced over the years by neighboring residential development. 6b. During excavation and construction, persons residing and working in the vicinity of the site may be exposed to high noise levels produced by construction equipment. This effect is considered insignificant due to short term nature of the effect and the imposition of a mitigation measure which will limit hours of construction as specified in the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Persons residing in the proposed project may also be exposed to severe noise levels generated by the traffic on East Coast Highway. This impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance by mitigation measures requiring sound attenuation and air conditioning of the project. 8. Construction will change both the existing and planned land use of the area. The site is currently development with a motel use. The General Plan land Use Element designates the site for Retail and Service Commercial. A General Plan Amendment has been requested, and is being processed as part of the project approval. No adverse environmental effects are anticipated from the change, due to the close proximity of the site to other existing residential areas. 13b. Construction of the proposed project will generate demand for parking facilities. All parking required for the project will be provided on site in the subterranean parking garage. No adverse effects arc anticipated. 13f. The project has the potential to generate traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians at the ingress/egress ramp of the parking structure. The potential impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance by mitigation measures incorporated into the project which require adequate sight distance at the top of the ramp, and review of the ramp design and landscaping by the City Traffic Engineer. 18. Construction of the proposed project will not result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, and is not anticipated to result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to the public. The project proposed is within all applicable height and setback regulations. The project will, however, be substantially more visually intense than the existing development, and also more intense than any other commercial development which could be implemented under the commercial land use designation shown in the General Plan for this site. This is considered an insignificant adverse effect of the project. 1. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 2. The grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize impacts from silt, debris and other water pollutants. 3. The grading permit shall include a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering and sweeping program designed to minimize the impact of haul operations. 4. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 5. The grading, excavation and recompaction of the site shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on the recommendations of a soil engineer or an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. 6. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of the landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. Prior to the occupancy of any structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the prepared plan. 7. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department and the approval of the Planning and PubUc Works Departments. 8. All rooftop and other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated in such a manner as to achieve a maximum sound level of 55 dBA at the property line, and 'that all mechanical equipment shall be screened from view. 9. All units shall be sound attenuated to a maximum of 45 dBA CNEL for interior living areas and 65 dBA CNEL for exterior living areas associated with individual units, as measured from the area expected to experience the highest sound levels. Measurement and certification of compliance with this condition shall be completed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by a registered engineer practicing in acoustics. 10. All units shall be air conditioned. 11. The design and layout of the parking structure and ramp shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. Ramp design and landscaping on Seaward Avenue shall be designed to provide adequate sight distance from behind the sidewalk for automobiles exiting the structure. 12. Construction shall conform to the hours of operation set forth in the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Mitigation measures 1-5 shall be verified for compliance prior to the Imance of the grading permit by the City of Newport Beach. Measures 6, 7 and 11 shall be verified by the City prior to the iuuance of any building permits. Measures 6, S, 9 and 10 shall be verified by the City prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Measure 12 will be monitored by the the City building inspectors. PLT/F:\WP50 ED\GPAMICIS Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the A of Movport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of David M. Stone For General plan Awndeent 89-l(E) _ Local Coastal ErRgrglaAtaendment No. 16. Asrendagl3t_Ho. 680, g e*rM1t M9 3123 C20stal ReMidential DeveloRment Permit N2,__15_and Resubdivision Ha. 99.1 on property located at 119,-123h Arate venue. Rgguest to ascend the General Plan Land_]12!2 Element to allow eutmt,tlgeneral storage In argAl_des gOBtgdfor, Retail and Service CommIlgiAl and t2 specify ths►se allowed uzeg in the specific area deacrb tl= fQr_&Mte_Avenue. Balboa-AMIAnd6 and the accesatance of an environgental dor,latnt: resluest to attend the Local Cnut■jffqgra�;d Use Plan t2 allow aytpmobile and general storage in _GC2AA _d ;�Retai 1 and 5ervire_Comnercial and to specify thog2ljowed uses in tfie sveclfie •ram descriR inn r, . automobile and general storage where c2aslatat_with_the General Plan_ sehject to the eacLcAAe, request to Rermit the c2astrue-1.1-on of autonobilt �d.,,iengXal_storage Kith three second floor resid nt.(A1 units on Rr4P,EYLx located in the C-1 District: the 2r,000sal also in"es a modification to the Z,g,ning_Codg so as to allow a second f1gor, access deck to encroach four (4) feet „JotQ__the regyiiredsen (10) ,foat rear yard setback adjacent to an alley: reutsest to approve a Coastal „RC21dential_Develot)2ent zuidglints for the implementation of State ,lawr,eStiye to low and moderate_lm= housing within thl Coastal Zons! -In conjunction with the g2natruction of a combine c_ommarciel/residential development on pra orty lor,aLed in the C-1 District, ,and .,aS.! 411gbL to combine throo plrce s of land „tntR_a single building site for r,2MM r ial/residential development on_pIQoety located in the C-1 District, NOTICE I5 HEREBY YUATHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been propared 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 dental by the City of the subject application. The City encourages Mobers 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 §.Lb day of JjLU ],M, at the hour of I-M 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. Cary Ai Sano, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach. NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. NEWPORT CENTER ESCROW, INC. D. M. Stone, Trustee 132 South Day front Balboa Island, CA 92662 EXCHANGE 119, 121 Units 73, 24M Ww Coast RWrAay - — Ntwppt Bouk Ca1i/vrn14 92663 • 714101.3d63 Closing Date: March 10, 1989 iscrov No. 1752-J Pao* 1 i 123 Agate Avenue, Balboa Island, CA 93662 for 74, 102, 103, of Lot I, Tract 9581, City of Tustin CLOSING STATIEW DnITS CONSIDERATION: Total Value - Agate 800,000.00 DZPOSITN: Initial Deposit Deposit Deposit EXISTING AND NEW ENCUMBRANCES: / Agate Loan to remain of record - Imperial Savings New loan to file - Jeffery E. Stone racily Trust Loan to remain of record - William it. Oriffing ADJUSTMENTS: Total value - Tustin 1st TD of record/Tustin 261*018.51 Costs/Iscrow 8 17a3•-J 309.00 Costs/Escrow, 9 1779-1 372.00 Costs/Escrow 8 2781-1 251.00 PRORATION: Re: imperial Ravings Interest at 11.25% From 02/10/89 To-03/10/89 Re: Williaa R. Griffing Interest at 10.5% From 02/15/89 To 03/10/39 County Taxes at $3094.95 per 6 months From 01/01/89 To 03/10/89 119 Agate at $600 per mouth From 03/10/89 To 03/31/89 119 1/2 Agate at $450 per month From 03/10/89 To 03/31/89 121 Agate at 1500 per mouth From 03/10/89 To 03/31/89 123 Agate at S675 per mouth From 03/10/89 To 03/31/19 123 1/2 Agate at $350 per moats From 03/10/89 To 03/31/09 DISBURSEl=TS PAID: Is: Imperial savings Statement/rorardimg tee 15.00 3/10/89 Daxseat CREDITS 11000.00 50,000.00 302,200.00 92,489.04 100,000.00 70,000.00 451,018.51 457.70 510.42 1,286.40 420.00 315.00 350.00 472.50 245.00 Pai ta: 6s Uessenger/Sicor Iscrow Paid to: Zsecetiee Kuck 15, 1989 gayest paid to: William 1. TITL! CUROE3: binder Policy/Tustin • Mwess Criiling, Icautinued on page 40.00 4.15 612.50 1,710.50 2) 0 D. V. Stone, Trustee Closing Date: 132 South Day front Marcb 10, lost Balboa Island, CD 92662 =scrow No. 1752-J Page 2 EXCHMIGE 119, 121 A 123 agate avenue, Balboa Isl&M, CA 92662 for Units 73, 74, 102, 103, Lot 1, Tract 95al, City of Tustin, CA CLOSING STATZKMVT Transfer Tax/Tustin Record Grant Deed/Agate Record TD Assign/kgate Record Grant Deede/Tustin =SCRON MS: Lscrow fee/Agate some Statement/Agate Ixebangs Lscrow fee Draw Deeds M /Tustin Draw Reconvoyances/Tustin TD Assignment/Agate Check Serewitb Total 3kVL TOR INCOU TAX YUM$95 DLBiss CREDITS 201.00 7.00 7.00 14.00 1,350.00 75.00 2,153.00 75.00 100.00 100.00 736.90 1,070,063.57 1,070,063.57 PURCHASE REQUISITION CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. NO. (if reservea)� SUGGESTED VENDOR: 3901 MacArthur Boulevard - Suite 100 Neyport Beach California 92660 DATE June 13, 19B9 DEPT N-UnrtNG DFI-AR M"IT SHIP TO I'm N anionnI/Technical Bldg. QUAN. DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLES OR SERVICES REQUIRED UNIT PRICE TOTAL BUDGET NO. Professional services re feasibility study for 119 - 1231 Agate Avenue (CRDP #15) as described in letter dated May 31, 1989 $3,500.00 02-219-05 CODE AMOUNT APPROVED: DEPT HEAD (or son au prized a x cu a requ s tfbnsj PURCHASING AGENT ADDENDUM TO PURCHASE ORDER This Addendum to Purchase Order Number contra ins terms and conditions under which the work or services required by said purchase order must be performed. Throughout this Addendum, the term "Consultant" refers to the party providing work or services to City pursuant to the purchase order. 1. SERVICES BY CONSULTANT Consultant shall provide to City such work or services required In the Purchase Order (or any other addendum thereto). Consultant warrants and guarantees that all se vlces performed pursuant to the Purchase Order shall be provided In a mnoner commensurate with the highest professional standards and shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel. Z. INDEPENDENT PARTIES City and Consultant Intend t a the relation between them created by this Agreement is that of employer -independent contractor. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the control of 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 Consultant's 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 leave are available from City to ■ 1 ■ ' Consultant, its employees or agents. Deductions shall not be made for any state or federal taxes, FICA payments, PERS 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 act on is necessary to enforce •nny 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. HOLD 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, services, materials, equipment or supplies arising from or in any manner connected to the Consultant's negligent performance of services or work conducted or performed pursuant to this Agreement. 5. PRO©1IIITION AGAINST 71tANSFERS ' Consultant s al 1 not assign, sublease, hypothecate, 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, sub lessee, hypo theca to or t rans fer ree shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. 6. PERMITS AND LICENSES Consultant, at is sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Purchase Order, till 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 writ ing 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- 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 Purchaae Order. All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from Consultant to City shall be addressed to City al: City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, Ca 11 forn la 92663 8. TERMINATION In the event Consultant hereto fails or refuses to Perform any of the provisions hereof at the time and in the manner required hereunder, Consultant shall be deemed In default In the performance of this Agreement. if such default Is not cured within a period of two (2) days after receipt by Consultant from City of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such default, City may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the Consultant written notice thereof. 9. REPORTS Each and every report, draft, 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. 2111 1'. 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. INTEGRATED PURCHASE ORDER This Purchase Order represents the full and complete 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 Implied 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 term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition contained herein whether of the same or a different character. The Consultant has read this Addendum to Purchase Order and accepts and agrees to each term and condition herein. Da t ad : Alln CONS CAK/mlh C-3: BY: -5- rM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1760, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.W)15 PIMNINC DEPARTKENT (714) 644-3225 Date Diane Joslyn Tarantella & Co. 3901 MacArthur Blvd. Suite 100 11evport 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 Government Coda, "Im- and Moderate -Income housing within the Coastal Zane." 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 Zeno. The following information is being provided to enable the preparation of a proposal/bid for such a feasibility study. Project location (address) 119 - 123 1/2 Agete. Balboa isIdo Site Size __7.650 so_,ft.i� Number of Units g Number of: 1 Bdra. Units 2 Bdrm, Units 2 3 Bdrm. Units 4 Bdrm. Units Project is to be evaluated as: a rental project __x 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 _—I unit(s) at the modgrate income level on -site. If this initial analysts demonstrates feasibility, 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 _ new two bedroom rental unit off -site the the m2derate 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 lover income level until infeasibility I* demonstrated. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach May 31, 1989 Page two Current income information in conformance with Article 10.7: Hoderate Income: 2 br: S53.300: 3 br: $59.950 Median Income: "r: S44,400:I hr: S49.950 Affordability standard: IQ&_of income far rental Moderate Income: Median Income: 2 hr._ SlAlO: 3-„br Si.249 Tern 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 data 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 designs 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 a copy for your files, and return the original to the City. Thank you, Cost to prepare feasibility study: dollars. Tine required to prepare feasibility study: �Q days, t Date on which preparation of feasibility can begin: By Da CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CONSULTANT By to Date CTB\P1-LET.893 sa. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.c I K)X 174-�. NE11i'WRT BEACH, CA 91o5s I-')15 PIANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644.3225 Date liay, 1,19J2 Diane Joslyn Tarantello & 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 Covernment Code, O'Low- and Moderate -Income housing within the Coastal Zone." The City of Newport Beach administers those State regulations through guidelines ofit.nblished by Council Policy P-1. Council Policy P-1 provides for the pr,iiinrntion of a study to determine whether the affordable housing roquired by State regu- lations is feasible in new developments within Newport hoinc:ii'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) a oi Site Size 7,650_sa.ft. Number of Units 5-ggistinF.-units to be demolished: 3 unit t 92115tructed Number of: 1 Bdrm. Units 2 Bdrm. Units_ 3 Bdrm, Units 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 mode[ate income level on -site. If this initial analysis demonstrates feasibility. 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 rental unit off -site the the modelatg 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 31, 1989 Page two Current income information in conformance with Article 10.7: Moderate Income: Median Income: 7--br: 544.400: 3 br: $49,950 Affordability standard: 30% Qf income for rental — Moderate Income: Median Income: 4 Term of affordability: 20 years. The applicant has received a copy of this letter and undurptands that a request for a feasibility study will require additional Information, including but not limited to that listed below. The applicant also under- stisiula 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 tLmo required to complete the atudy. • Site Plan • Floor plan and description of various floor plan destyna • Cost of land substantiated by a purchase agreement ur 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 coat, time required to prepare, and start-up date for a feasibility study on the project identified above, In addition to the proposal/bid information, please sign and date this letter, keep a copy for your files, and return the original to the City. Thank you, Cost to prepare feasibility study: dollars. Time required to prepare feasibility study: �0 % days, -f- Date on which preparation of feasibility can begin: / CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH By Da. CTB\P1-LET,893 CONSULTANT By! !/l/ Date '/ l� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Building Department 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach. CA 92658.8915 Phone: (714) 644.3288 Ilan Check No: FEE RECEIPT Jok AMrv" 02.701 Building flan Check - Valuation 3 02.708 Grading Plan (;heck Cu. Yds. ❑-- 62.7011709 Overtime Plan Check • B G LJ 02.703 Speciallnspection C1 02.703 Fteinspection 11 E It P ❑ 02.421 Temporary Electric �Vli►fvT &*5F p1E.?M/T 02.700 Planning Department Fee4q1S&6i CRD-b,. . 3 .. a a .. 1 8 02.801 Sale of Maps & Publications .... ... .. ... ............ ..... TOTAL FEES: _&Z 02 When ualidatrd this is a receipt for the amount of fie collected as shown in spat# above. The serial number, date and amount validated hereon hour also been ualdated on your application or other document and have betume apart of the records of the CITY o MEWPORT BEACH than trhith this receipt may U (d#Ndl[rd Validation RECEIVEDE3A Serial No. 4,10g. Data Fee NOTICE: Plan Check expires 180 days after application. DISTRIBUTION: Original - Permittee; Cashier (1); File (1) 3 a�t<-�;J t r a �i �� K ti.t ,. • 'h .� � } T s N ?;:� ti h a r ,� �f_-.r-.., • i4;t.: •s{;{1 w�ti �.-�r+-f., ,�- :. � tJ1 � iT' y� i t V �, t,'�J,. •-. ,T!` JE'1 t� �, t?k w}{?i y t= �:i- T' k.,, t '•t � r.�' r fi 1 � �� r�5 ar ,.�Y y�', • ' i=.�', ru - 1�.. .L I t..r>r:�'.+.yrN � '4�".': :.L � s' "r�'- s � . � �r '.4 w� 4 �7� 1 j� _} r . _? t I 'Ls=,-1��,�"'x; r � / !. �Y - x i g; ��" J i e . sf > i y Ir'� "i• st t. -u- �' - t t - � ��w��> 4}. a.- tirot; -.o-- ��trt,i�..y.rei { , '`7 tip# �.���t€'�.��,, tif.a','} _i. j- {yf M1:R .l r J�t,../-�yy i4• yZ,x�l �„a.d'tif'Sf � ', -• -- f ; r .1 I.Y t ��` � 7i -�'� , r .,a, r )) r 1 1 �_T""_'^ � t ,�• '.L •J r' 1 tl , { t-. ilr'.`1 •+•v {.t R' t 1 t- S{y . i ,•1! i iJ-_4�^..fr i..- {Y q ,. t t t !.l'C.. ,•� �-- 1 J -r'.�)t,'.' M l E �� ,' 7. 'r ! i r t�f�� _�• � �- IW E CWnWbGM Rd June 26, 1939 t�►gesoo.M . low) W.3W Mr. Craig T. Bluell Planning Department•.' ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport' Baulevsrd.' ' Newport -Beach, California' 92663 RE: -119 123 1/2 Agate, DALBOA ISLAND ' Dear Mr. Bluell: In accordance with your request and authorization, Tarantello A Company has ' prepared a report evaluating the feasibility or requiring one affordable rental unit within the proposed development at the above address. Included within the following report is an analysis of the Subjcct proposed mixed ' use development including the following: three multi -family rental units, approximately 4,503 , square feet of storage space (3,153 square feet, first story/garage, 1,350 square feet second story), 19$ square feet of office space ' for onsite property management. and 100 square ` feet or display cases. Feasibility." will be tested with the inclusion of one 3 bedroom moderate income rental' unit onsitc. The' appropriate rent levels and: average absorption period havti_�.been estimated and the isene or "fair return' to the developer has been ' addressed. We, Alsoft ,� you for this opportue ty' to _be of .service and look forward to. your continued patronage in tho future. r `' ;Respectfully Submitted,' TARANTELLO i COMPANY A.Tatan�tcilo.�C�RE • President _ �..�.: C. M. Hale ' • 8eaior Consul41. a. tant Im, ? S. �: �`' .{�r;r` ?••J'J` +� :i(�� .-\it J�� '4Lt.'FC'!ar s". ..1'J4:: {•.� i ', :}3+;^ Jf 1''1.'. ..�5{r r. �., •. 1^i.>.t tr, I .s% �i.�,.� ,I '.:.. r. �+'!l.w:•�i P�.i+�.:i...va"'r�fr�{•�!"�C-k.': s`�,.,.?,t•`.+•'s,?Y�'f.".r•,.•�:e't�.x.'Yi`.C{::J._'�":-ii�.✓`y 1F�1.�"r�'�.., 1f.*! dw;•s. d-=- -.>t��'._Grt?I�ri:�[14 _,.. �'s!F'AF�'�-i`.�1;nk 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 June 26, 1989 Mr. Craig T. Bluell Planning Department CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Caiirornia 92663 RE: 119 - 1I3 1/2 Agate, BALBOA ISLAND Dear Mr. fllucll: XM MmArth" BoWftWd Suite X0 Flewport Beach, CA92W-3W (7A) =-2650 {m E. Cameiback Rd_ Suata 2M H Phoenix, Az mote In accordnncc with your request and authorization, Tarantcllo BSc Company has prepared a report evaluating the feasibility or requiring one affordable rcnial unit within the proposed development nt the nbovc address. Included within the following report is an analysis of the Subjcct proposcd mixed use development including the following: three multi -family rental units, approximately 4,505 square feet of storage space (3,155 square feet first story/garage, 1,350 square rect second story), 195 square feet or office space for onsite property management, and 100 square rect or display cases. Feasibility will be tested with the inclusion of one 3 bedroom moderate income rental unit onsite. The appropriate rent levels and average 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 rorward to your continued patronage in the future. Respectfully Submitted, TARANTELLO & COMPANY &-Tntcllo, CRE President C. M. Halc Senior Consultant L' • O i,ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P-0 R IX 176,%. NEWVORT REACH. CA 92658 8915 PLANNIt,c DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 Date May.. -1984 Diane Joslyn Tarantello & Co. 3901 MacArthur Blvd. Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mrs. Joslyn: Within the California Coastal Zone, residential development is governed by State regulations contained in Article 10.7 of the Covernaent Code, -Low. and Moderate -Income Housing 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- lationa 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) Site Size 0 Number of Units 5 existing 14nits to Number of: 1 Bdrm. Units 2 Bdrm. Units 2 3 Bdrm. Units 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 units) at the _moderate , income level on -site. If this initial analysis demonstrates feasibility, 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 new two bedroom rental unit off -site the the maderate Income level within the City of Newport Beach should be anlaysced. 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 31, 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 bK;549.95Q Affordability standard: 301 of income for rental — Mod,erate Income: 2 br: 51.332: 3 br: S1.499 Median Income: 2 hE: „$1,110i 3 br: 51.242 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 designs Cast of land substantiated by a purchase agreement or other official document Construction period Construction cost including off -site costs and 11SC of ananitiea 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 a copy for your files. and return the original to the City. Thank you. Cost to prepare feasibility study:� dollars. Time required to prepare feasibility study:-f— Date on which preparation of feasibility can begin: ' By Da CITY OF NEVPORT BEACH CTS\Pl-LET.893 CONSULTANT By l/tJ y Date lr DR. R. TARANTELLO, CRE EDUCATION: Doctor of Business Administration - Real Estate and Urban Land Economics, 1976; University of Southern California Master of Business Administration - Financial Management and Business Economics, 1971; University of Southern California Bachelor of Science - Real Estate and Finance, 1970 California State University - Los Angeles PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: American Society of Real Estate Counselors, CRE Urban Land Institute (Full Member) American Institute of Corporate Asset Management, FCA National and California Association of Realtors American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association American Real Estate Society DIRECTORSHIPS: Charter Savings Bank - Orange County, California BUSINESS EXPERIENCE: 1978 to Present, President, TARANTELLO do COMPANY, with full responsibility for all real estate research, consulting. investment advisory, and management services. TEACHING EXPERIENCE: Adjunct Associate Professor of Real Estate and Urban Land Economics; University of Southern California, 1979 to Present Assistant Professor of Real Estate and Urban Land Economics; University of Southern California. 1976 to 1979 Assistant Professor of Real Estate. Finance, and Urban Land Development; California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. 1971 to 1976 HONORS, DISTINCTIONS AND AWARDS: Wall Street Journal Achievement Award, 1971 Wittenberg Fellowship for Doctoral Studies, 1976 University of Southern . California `Outstanding Faculty Member', 1978.1979 Bata Gamma Sigma, National Honorary Fraternity Editor -in -Chief, Real _Estate Issues. Journal of the American Society of Real Estate Counselors L' • • m z EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONIES: UWC-Canoga Ltd. vs. Irvel, Inc., L.A. Superior Court, Case No. C-433052, May, 1938 Burkes, et. al., Orange County Superior Court, Cast No. 396755, February 1998 Beverly Iiills Savings vs. The Financial Center, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Case No. LA 86-24591-LF, December, 1987 Lloyds of London vs. Ansell, U.S. District Court, Case No. CV- 85 4356 KN, November, 1987 Olive Davis, et al, vs. City of Newport Beach, Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 32-95-85. July, 1996 Juan Segundo Jr., et al vs. City of Rancho Mirage and C/W Kapp vs. City of Cathedral City. Federal District Court, Case Nos, CV 82.4339 AAH and CV 84.3673. Junc-July 1985 Oceanside City Council, Mobile Home Park Rent Control Ordinance - testimony on October 22, 1985 San Jose City Council, Mobile Home Park Rent Control Ordinance - testimony on May 28, 1985 City of Orange City Council, Commercial Development Potential - testimony on February 19, 1985 San Jose Rent Stabilization Board, The Economic Impact of Rent Control on Investor Returns - testimony on September 24. 25, 1984 President's Commission on Housing - presentation on October 28, 1981 Los Angeles County Rent Control Advisory Board, Fair and Just Return in Rent Controlled Units - testimony on April 9, 1980 Los Angeles City Council, Rent Control - testimony on July 25, 1978 California Assembly, Committee on Housing and Community Development - testimony on May 3. 1978 US. House of Representatives, Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs - testimony on January 17, 1978 3 SELECTED PUBLICATIONS: Books Tarantello, Rocky A.; Findlay Ill. Chapman M; and Mcssncr. Stephen D. Lexington. Massachusetts: Lexington Books published by D.C. Health and Company, 1983 Financia1. g Manatement „Role of Return IFMRRI A,n�with th M. C. Findlay and S. D. Messner, Center for Real Es-latc and Urban Land Studies, University of Connecticut, 1981 The Futyrj_or__lhc Real Estat"11duitry Center for Futures Research, University of Southern California, 1974 Refereed Journal Articles 'The Inflation Dependency of Leveraged Investment; Hjg Estatc Issues_ Vol. 10, Number 2, Fall/Winter 1985 "FMMR: A Programmable Calculator Implcmcntutlon," with G. Tenzer, The Real Eilgtc AngraisMand Analyst, 1991 'Risk Analysis in Real Estate, Part l: Is There Even an Old IRR Literature under Risk," with M. C. Findlay and S. Messner. T.he. eal,Eitate Anoraiset &ad Analyst. July -August. 1979 'Real Estate Education at U.S.C.', > dycation• January, 1979 Abstract: 'A CAPM View of VRMs'. with R, V. Eastin and KC, Findlay, Journal of „_Financial and Quantitariv . AnaL i:i November. 1976 Other Publications "Continuation of Single Digit Rates Likely% County, June/July, 1986 "Mortgage Lending: Buying the Assumptions'. County • June/July 1985 '1985 Outlook for Real Estate and the Economy% Byijdeng Orange County, Dccembcr/January 1985 'Post Election Interest Rates: What to Expect', Building Qrante County, October/Novcmber 1984 "Presidential Elections and Housing Economics% Building Qrante may, March/April 1984 'The night of the Thrifts', ExecutiyC Mmv2zing, Vol. 8. No. 2, February 1932 1 I. v AWL 4 'The Plight of the Thrift Industry% A.B. Laffcr Associates. August 17, 1981 'Free Market System Solution to Housing Problem', RIA QLAM Cypty; October 1990 'Rent Control and the Housing Crisis in Southern California% Parts I and 11, with M. C. Findlay. Real Estate IllUstraia Vol. 1, Nos. 9 and 10, March 1980 'Why Firms Leave Los Angeles', and the Locl] Tax Rug, The Lincoln Institute for Land Policy, October, 1979 'Faulty Vision: The Economic Shortsightedness of Rent Control*, Californil Real Esigte, December 1978 'Los Angeles Housing Costs, Economics and Public Policy% February,1979 DBA Dissertation, VariabIg-Rate_ vs. F e ,nlortgag; March 1976 PROFESSIONAL AND ACADEh11C: Guest Speaker, International Council of Shopping Ccotcrs, 'An Economic Look into the 1990's, Anaheim, California, February 24. 1999 Guest Speaker, California Society of CPA's, *California Market Overview", Newport Beach, California, October 19, 1998 Guest Speaker, Society of Real Estate Appraisers, 'Commercial Real Estate Trends', Los Angeles, California, September 14, 1989 Guest Speaker, Institute for Real Estate Management, 'Office Absorption and Demographic Trends', Costa Mesa, California, July 13, 1989 Guest Speaker, Medical Group Management Association, *Lensing Medical Office Space% Anaheim, California, June 27, 1988 Guest Speaker, Wharton Alumni Association, 'California Office Trends*, Beverly Hills, California, June 14. 19ss Guest Speaker, California Building Industry Association, 'Mid- year Economic Forecast", Los Angeles, California, June 1, 1988, Anaheim, California, June 3, 1988 Guest Speaker. American Institute of Architects', The Orange County Slow Growth initiative, Irvine, Californis, May 19. l9ss PROFESSIONAL AND ACADEMIC: (Cont'd) 5 Guest Speaker, Society of Industrial and Office Realtors, 'Economic Overview - SIOR Annual Conference'. Beverly Hills, March 27, 1987 Guest Speaker, National Association of Industrial and Office Parks', Orange County Office and Industrial Trends'. Newport Beach, California, February S, 1987 Gucst'Lccturcr. Stanford University Graduate School of Business, 'Real Estate Development Strategies`, Palo Alto, California, January 26, 1987 Guest Lecturer, Dept, of Interior. Bureau of Indian Affairs. 'Ground Lease Provisions for Indian Allottcce. Palm Springs. California, April 16, 1986 Guest Lecturer. University of Chicago, 'Real Estate Research and The Development Process', Chicago, Illinois, November 15, 1985 Guest Lecturer, University of Chicago Graduate School of Business. 'The Business of Real Estate Consulting', Chicago. Illinois, April 25, 1985 Guest Speaker, Building Owners and Managers Association, 'The Impact of Urban Economics on Real Estate Investment Valuee. Santa Monica, California. April 15, 1985 Guest Speaker, Union Oil Corporation. "The Impact of Real Estate Economics on Timing and Location Choice, Rancho Santa Fe. California, September 17, 1984 Guest Speaker, Touche Ross do Co., 'Real Estate Economics', Scottsdale, Arizona, May 17. 1982 Guest Speaker, Los Angeles Society of Financial Analysts, *The Future for Housing: Boom or Bust'. Los Angeles, California. October I, 1981 Guest Speaker, County Planning Commissioners Conference, 'SB 200 and the Peripheral Canal% Newport Beach, California, March 18. 1981 Guest Sneaker. International Association of Assessment Officers, 'The Impact of Rent Control on Residential Values', Los Angeles, California, June 21, 1979 1 f i=, I I 9�T*"�� 6 PROFESSIONAL AND ACADEMIC: (Cont'd) Guest Speaker, Lincoln Land Institute Conference on Local Government Decisions and the Tax Base, 'Why Firms Leave Big Cities: The Los Angeles Area Survey% Los Angeles, California. February 9, 1979 Guest Speaker, State Convention or the California Association or Realtors, "Rent Control: The Myopic Solution". San Francisco, California, September 25, 1979 Presentation: American Real Estate and Urban Economic Association Meetings; 'Single -Period vs. Multi -Period Measures or Risk and Return". Chicago, Illinois. August 30, 1979 Presentation: Eastern Finance Association; 'Stochastic Dominance Analysis of the Fixed -Rate vs. Variable -Rate Mortgagor". with M. C. Findlay, Boston, Massachusetts. April 1977 Presentation: Financial Management Association Annual Meetings; "An FMRR Real Estate Investment Simulation Model". with AL C. Findlay and S. D. Messner. Montreal, Canada, 1976 Presentation: Western Finance Association, "A CAPM View of VRMe, with R. V. Eastin and M. C. Findlay, San Francisco, California, 1976 . BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Dr. R. Tarantello Dr. Rocky Tarantello joined the faculty of the University of Southern California in 1974. He currently holds the position of Adjunct Associate Professor of Real Estate and Land Economics. lie received his Doctor of Business Administration and Master of Business Administration degrees from U.S.C. and a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration from California State University at Los Angeles. Professional credentials include the CRE designation of the American Society of Real 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. And counseling throughout the United States. He is also President of Tarantello A Company. a real estate counseling and valuation company with offices in California and Arizona, and serves on the Board of Directors of Charter Savings Hank. 3/89 CATHERIN9 M. HALE EDUCATION: Master of Business Administration - Real Estate Finance/Decision Systems, Expected 11Xlt, 1.I1livcrsity of Southern California Bachelor of Arts • Economics, 1985 University of California, Irvine Cum Lnude U.C. Extension: Urban Planning, light (`onslruction and Development IIONORS, DISTINCTIONS AND AWARDS: Phi llcta Kappa BUSINESS EXPERIENCE: September 1987 to Present, Senior ('ansultant, TARAN'I ELLO & COMPANY; February 1986 it; Scl)tcmbcr 1997, Consultant, TARAN't-m.LO & COMPANY. with full responsibility for conducting real cslatc research, consulting and valuation services; It)SS, Marketing Represealalire, NEVIPORT PACIFIC CAPYI Al. COMPANY, with responsibility for analysis and whulcvilc markcling of public and private real estate limited partnerships. TEACIIING EXPERIENCE: Teaching Assistant to Dr. R. Tarantcllo in Real Estate Finance, Economics, Development and Management. University of Southern California, May 1988 to Prescnt REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS: Real Estate Cousulialwan Scryiggs, Full responsibility for the analysis of macro/microeconomic influences on a Specific project and/or location, anti for determining future development potential and marketing strategy for projects and sites such as: • Ilighcst and Best Use Study for IT acre waterfront parcel in downtown San Diego, California Market Studies for a proposcd view -oriented residential development containing custom homcsilcs, zero lot line attached homes, townhomes, anti slacked flat condominiums, City of Orange, California Market Analysis of Multi -Family Residential land, Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, California • Affordable Housing Feasibility Studies for various residential and mixed retail/resiticatial sites, Newport each, California Development Feasibility study for affordable for - sale multiple family housing within the various neighborhoods of the City of Anaheim, California 1 1 1 1 1 1 Z Real .Jh1jIc - Research„ and Yalgalinn Servi gL Full responsibility for the production of the following competitive market profiles and/or valuation analyses. Residential Proposed and/or existing apartmcnts, townhomcs, condominiums, delachcoi homes, waterfront detached homes with bunt slips, mixed residential in such areas as Orange, Los Angcles, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, Atrtrncrla. Santa Clara, Contra Costa, Napa and Solano Counties commCrcial/oiLicc: Iligh•Rise Class "A", garden, and medical office buildings, in such areas as Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura and San Diego Counties Neighborhood shopping centers, fast food restaurants, financial bull+sings, service stations, health club/racquetball facilities in areas such as Orange, Los Angeles, San Iernardino, San Joaquin and Fresno Counties Industrial: Warehouse, distribution facilities in San Diego County I.,uI: Single family detached, townhorne, condominium and mixed residculiat subdivisions, school sites, planned unit developments (nixed use), specific plans in such areas as Los Angeles. San Bernardino, San Diego, Ventura, Riverside, Alameda, Santa Clara, Contra Costa, Napa and Solano Counties REPRESENTATIVE CLIENTS: The Department of the Navy Continental Illinois National [lank and 'Crust Company of Chicago O'Brien and flicks Development The Andcn Group IDM Corporation Occidental Land Research Bank of America Fieldstone Company Warminglon Homes R.P. Warminglon Company Winbrook Development PMI Financial Brighton International Transpacific industries Crawford Hills Development Company City of Newport Beach Sequoia Athletic Club/Racquetball World City of Anaheim 1P*ICATION rOR RLSIDeiTIAL D LITION/CONVERSION •: tI .Ot KLxPORT BEACH 0 Page 1 0: 3 Pli"ING DEPARTMENT CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 (714) 644-3200 PKRT A (Please Print) Application No. Application Rec'd ry Fee Applicant ID_ a+ . •5 Tp ter• Phone+ & 7 3- C t 6 a -- Property Owner 0 er[ Z2M& rs — -- Phone mailing Address,:? Z Sep_ A.ery =Re: 9Qe1Isd X7S Cd C'�G Cz Address of Property Involved Legal Description of Property Involved (if too long. attach separate sheet) cars ��. eR�.e• 7 d� �rel.•1.�sSr ' _ e'��_r r _ adiji� rJe�.a+/7_ Number of Residential Units Currently Onsit• pumber of Residential Structures Onsite ? Description of the Proposed No Deve�loymnt ;eef � R.�Ir OLu'fY wi L i t C1at.�t i� If the structure is being demolished as a public nuisance as defined by the Safety Code, or City Ordinance, describe those factors causing the existing to constitute a nuisance. (Attach additional sheets if necessary) e (PART A NOT COMPLETE WITHOUT OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT ON PAGE 3) •** DO NOT COKPLETE APPLICATION BELOW THIS LIKE **" Date filed Planning Dept. DeterMination ID Determination by State Health and residential unit P-1 Not Applicable P-1 Applicable Part B Not Required Part B Required Page 2 of 3 •FART B (Please Print) Applicaticn No. N%=ber of Residential Units Proposed If proposal is for non-residential use, why is a residential use no longer feasible on this site? (attach additional sheets if necessary) List of current tenants (see definition below). Tenant tame [ < k. Pr. ot:ao t4 I Dates of Tenancy 3 Zi a S Current Residence t 4t LkA=(,qro phone L'7 S _ !7 �O Number of Bedrooms l Current Monthly IncomsAQ - business Address #, (�a..,�Phon• -i : j n Mailing Address U3i t Tenant Name %LhnjfL CA lef, Current Residence y Number of Bedrooms t. Business Address !tailing Address AA R <(A Dates of Tenancy -1 S Phone -IS- - z f _ Current Monthly In_comeL-3Frj,_h=}g oft Phone 1.. -1 � __ �L) JY Tenant Name Dates of Tenancy Current Residence Phone Number of Bedrooms Current Monthly Income business Address Phone Mailing Address tJ • PAtiT s (Please Print) N%mber of Residential Units Proposed S Application No. if proposal, is for non-residential use, why is a residential use rio longer feasible on this site? (attach additional sheets if necessary) List of current tenants (see definition below). Tenant Naas Vjwtp l4 Dates of Tenancy r Current lees ance rr Phone6 7s - 9 7 ro Humber of Bedracams 2 grant Monthly Income .f 2 oo -• . Business Address Teem Fes_, R w t-aa0. r 7 — Phone j3 •2.- _ g gn !tailing Address i j. t .ecs' rx . n r t.• L r Tweet Naas-o Dates of Tenancy Cursent lees Phone Number of Bedrooms Current Monthly Income Busiaess Address q phone - ltailiAq Address Tenant Nams L Current ltssi ee_=:! e-arm- ,. liymber of Bedrooms business address Hs iAq Address A Dates of Tenancy Phone W7 S - Current Monthly Ineose.r.. [Q4 Phone � V - 4 T `{ k y sti :, • • Page 3 c f 3 tiJ Application, No. Tenants: For the pupose of this application the City of Vewport Beach considers all persons and families who occupy a residential rental unit for a period greater than 45 days to be tenants. Friction: The City of Newport Beach recognises legal or court actions and actions such as rent increases beyond the current market rate, avoidance of state mandated maintenance, harassment and other such actions which result in a tenant vacating his living unit against his will as an eviction. OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT• (I) (We) depose and say that (I am) (we are) the owner(*) 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. Signatures) 1 *NOTE: An agent may sign for the owner if written authorisation from the record owner is filed with the applicant. *** DO NOT COMPLETE APPLICATION BELOW THIS LINE 000 Date riled Planning Department Action" . Date P.C. Hearing Date C.C. Hearing Date MEMO 1/86 u roe Pd. Appeal P.C. Action Appeal C.C. Action Receipt No. COMMISSIONERS is C] MINUTES July 6, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Item No.2 Reques to amend a previously approved use permit which UP1421A permitte the expansion of the existing Hoag Hospital facility o property located in the A-P-H District, The Cont'd to proposed nt includes: a request to establish an 7-20-89 employee chil are facility to be located in prefabricated modular buildi s adjacent to Newport boulevard; the construction of a addition to the administrative offices, some of which wil be located in prefabricated modular buildings; and the ac ptance of an environmental document. LDCATION: Parce No. 1 of Record of Survey 15-30, located t 301 Newport Boulevard, on the southwest ly corner of Hospital Road and Newport Bo evard. ZONE: A-P-Ii APPLICANT: Hoag Memorial H ital Presbyterian, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant ' James Hawicker, Planning Director, scat that the applicant has requested that this item be cont ued to the July 20, 1989, Planning Commission seating. motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Use Para No. Axes . . • . . . 1421 (Amended) to the July 20. 1989, Planning Commi ion Absent • meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Item No.3 Request to amend the General Plan land Use Element so as CPA 89-1E to allow automobile and general storage in areas designated LCP A 016 for Retail and Service Commercial and to specify these A 6BO allowed uses in the specific area description for Agate UP3353 Avenue, Balboa Island; and the acceptance of an CRDP N0.15 environmental document. P895 INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Denied AND -S- COMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES July 6, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Request to amend the Local Coastal Program, Land Use ['Ian so as to allow automobile and general storage in areas designated for Retail and Service Commercial and to specify these allowed uses in the specific area description for Agate Avenue, Balboa Island, INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach AND Q. &endment No. 680 (Public }iearine) Request to amend the C-1 District regulations of the Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to allow automobile and general storage where consistent with the General Plan, subject to the approval of a use permit in each case. AND Use Permit No. 3353 (Public }leaLLDS Request to permit the construction of automobile and general storage with three second floor residential units on property located in the C-1 District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a second floor access deck to encroach k feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setback. AND Coastal Residential Dayelopman_Permi;Mg. _15 (Discussion) Request to approve a Coastal Residential Development Permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance pursuant to the administrative guidelines for the implementation of State law relative to low and moderate income housing within the Coastal Zone in conjunction with the construction of a combined commercial/residential development on property located in the C-1 District. AND -6- COMMISSIONERS 0 • MINUTES 'G} +o ? '� July 6, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Request to combine three parcels of land into a single building site for commercial/residential development on property located in the C-1 District. LOCATION: Lots 12, 13 and 14, Block 7, Section 1, Balboa Island, located at 119.123 Agate Avenue, on the northwesterly side of Agate Avenue between Park Avenue and South Bay Front on Balboa Island. ZONE: C-1 APPLICANT: D. M. Stone OWNER: Same as applicant Commissioner uinburn raferred to correspondence that the Planning Commission received from the applicant, Mr. Stone, dated July 5, 1989, the Balboa Island Improvement Association dated June 29. 1989, the Little Balboa Island Property Owners Association dated February 22, 1989, a petition signed by 37 residents in support of the application, and a sign-up sheet consisting of 15 Balboa Island residents interested in leasing the garage/storage space in the proposed building. Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Manager, stated that the proposed project has a potential impact on the viability of the area that has been zoned for commercial use. He explained that the project is not retail, and staff is primarily concerned that the use would adversely affect the viability of the commercial area. Mr. Lenard recommended that two parking spaces be required for the commercial apace, and the stairway from the ground floor to the second floor be moved to create an adequate 20 foot aisle width for the access driveway from the alley. Mr. Lenard suggested that the project be redesigned to provide two double garages and one tandem garage inasmuch as it Would lessen the possibility of the individual garages being leased separate from the residential units. He recommended that said garages front on the alley. Mr. Lenard stated that the proposed 0.62 Floor Area Ratio would not be allowed under the Floor Area Ratio Ordinance that Was reviewed by the Planning Commission and recommended to the City Council. lie recommended that if -7- COMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES July 6, 1989 . - - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL 11 Jill INDEX the Planning Commission approves the project. Condition No. 12 should be modified to state "That the general and automobile storage component of the project be reduced in floor area so as to not exceed 0.50 FAIL or a total of 3,825 square feet." fir. Lenard explained that said requirement would reduce the commercial size of the project by approximately 900 square feet. Commissioner Edwards addressed staff's response to the noise level as checked in the Negative Declaration. Robert Burnham, City Attorney, explained that it was determined that there may be an increase in noise levels during the construction phaso. Commissioner Persdn addressed the request to amend the General Plan and to permit the commercial use in one small block inasmuch as said request could set a precedent for "spot zoning". Mr. Burnham explained that the project would not be considered "spot zoning", He comented that a service would be provided to the local residents inasmuch as Balboa Island has a parking problem and there is limited storage facilities for vehicles and personal belongings. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Pers6n. Mr. Burnham replied that a General Plan Amendment mould be required to permit storage facilities in C-1 Districts throughout the City, subject to a use permit. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. David Stone, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Stone addressed the severe parking problem on Balboa Island. and how the proposed project could serve the community needs by providing additional storage. tie cossmented that local residents have expressed an interest in leasing the storage facilities, and he referred to the foregoing petition and letters in support of the project. Mr. Stone stated that the vehicular access would be from the alley, and the curb cut located on Agate Avenue would be eliminated. He addressed the project's design, and the amount of Interest shown by area merchants to display merchandise in the first floor windows. He indicated that an on -site resident manager will maintain the storage facility and the property will be provided with a good security system. Mr. Stone stated that he concurred with revised Conditions No. 2 and No. 3 as prepared by staff on parking inasmuch as said conditions would allow flexibility of providing garages In convenient locations of the re -designed project. In reference to amended Condition No. 12 with respect to a reduced floor 4- COMMISSIONERS • • July 6, 1989 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX area ratio, Mr. Stone requested that the projo ct be built in accordance with the design as proposed. In response to questions posed by Chairman Pomeroy, Mr. Stone replied that he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit W , with the exception of Conditions No, 2, No. 3, and No. 12. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Stone explained that an on -site resident manager will reside in one of the three units on the second floor; that the storage units would be rented on a monthly or yearly basis; that the manager would administer S window displays, 14 garages and 15 storage spaces; and he said that he would not be adverse to limiting reasonable hours of access to the storage facility. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Winburn with respect to automobile storage, Mr. Stone explained that 6 garages would be designed for the on -site residents and the remaining garages will be available to the general public with the intent to lease to residents on Balboa Island. Mr, Stone explained that automobiles that are not used frequently could be stored in the garages, Mr. Stone, the Planning Commission, and Mr. Hewicker discussed the City's concerns with respect to the floating garage spaces; that the required residential parking spaces would not be used solely by the residents of the development; and if an enforcement officer would be able to properly identify the owner of an automobile, Mr. Stone stated that he would agree to a condition that all of the ground floor garages be used for vehicles and not miscellaneous storage. Mr. Stone added that doors will be installed with eya-level windows so as to address staff's concerns regarding inspections, lie further stated that he would agree to rent the available garages to only Balboa Island residents. Commissioner Pers6n indicated his concern with respect to enforcing the condition. Commissioner Edwards and Mr. Hewicker expressed concerns with respect to sub -leasing the garage parking spaces. Mr. Hewicker addressed the problems that staff could encounter to enforce conditions governing the use of floating garage parking spaces, Discussion ensued between Mr. Stone, Commissioner Merrill, and Mr. ilewlcker with respect to designating specific parking spaces for the residential units and for comercial use. Mr. Stone agreed to cooperate with staff by assigning -9. COMMISSIONERS • ke_0.X*' AIVA11 v�\ July 6, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROIL CALL INDEX designated parking spaces for the residential units and commercial use at the time of occupancy. Pearl Meyers Darling, 120 Pearl Avenue, appeared before the Planning CoermLasion and also on behalf of her mother. June Meyers, 125 Agate Avenue. She stated their support of the proposed project; however, she expressed concern that three feet would separate the development from her mother's adjacent property. She explained that three feet would be an inadequate access area to their rental units. Mr. William Darling, 120 Pearl Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission to state his support of the project. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissionar Pers6n stated that the proposed project would not come close to solving the parking problem on Balboa Island. He stated that he is a proponent of mixed residential and commercial uses; however, he would not consider a mini -storage facility to be appropriate for the motion' area, !lotion was made to deny Ceneral Plan Amendment 89- l(E), Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 16, Amendment No. 680, Use Permit No. 3353, Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 15, and Resubdivision No. 895, on the basis that it is not good planning to allow a storage facility in the middle of a mixed use residential -commercial area and that it would set a precedent for the City. Commissioner Winburn stated that she would support the motion on the basis that the project could be precedent setting in other commercial areas throughout the City. and she had concerns regarding automobile storage. Commissioner Di Sano reluctantly suppolted the nation. ila pointed out that the local Associations and the residents support the project, and he approved of the area's upgrading. However, he stated that he had concerns that congestion from the ferry and the project would impact the area. Chairman Pomeroy stated that the innovative project was a good attempt to address the parking and storage problems on Balboa Island. Ile pointed out that the applicant had residential support, and none of the residents opposed the project. -10- COMMISSIONERS 0 • MINUTES '6 °G?� 0100 c 9q o4h July 6, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Edwards did not support the notion on the basis that three residential units would not create greater problems on Balboa Island. Mr. Burnham submitted findings for denial based on the discussion during the public hearing. He stated that no findings for denial would be necessary for General Plan Amendment 89-1(E) and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 16. Amendment No. 680 would not require findings but the Zoning Code requires findings in the event of disapproval by the Planning Commission. Ile explained that the principal basis for the decision is that the Planning Commission and the City Council designated the subject area as mixed use commercial -residential area with the hope that the designation would establish a viable commercial community that could serve the needs of Balboa Island residents and this particular project would not be consistent with that requirement. An additional finding would be that the project could lead to certain enforcement problems. Mr. Burnham stated that use permits and resubdivisions have to be consistent with the General Plan before they can be approved and in the absence of the General Plan Amendment, the resubdivision and the use permit must be denied because they are inconsistent with the General Plan. Motion was voted on to deny Environmental Document, General Plan Amendment 89-1(E), Local Coastal Program Amendment No. Ayes • 16. Amendment No. 680, Use Permit No. 3353, Coastal Noes * Residential Development Permit No. 15, and Resubdivision Absent No. 895, subject to the following findings. NOTION CARRIED. AMENWENT NO, 16, AliF,NQUENT NO, 680; 1. That the principal basis for the decision is that the Planning Commission and the City Council designated the subject area as mixed use coma ercial-residential area with the hope that the designation would establish a viable commercial community that could serve the needs of Balboa Island residents and this particular project would not be consistent with that requirement. 2. That the project could lead to certain enforcement problems. -11. COMMISSIONERS • ROLL CALL • MINUTES July 6, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX USE PERMIX NO, 3353! 1, That the use permit is inconsistent with the General Plan. 2. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3353 will, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. USADIVISI411 NO _„8per 1. That the resubdivision is inconsistent with ttse General Plan. Item Ho. 4 Re st to permit the establishment of a dry cleaning UP3355 fact in the Albertson's Shopping Center on property locate n the C-1-H District, �Eproved U)CATION: Parcel No. 1, of Parcel Hap 163-23 (Resubdivision No. 673), located at 3027 ast Coast Highway, on the southwesterly or of East Coast highway and Iris Ave a, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: C-1-11 APPLICANT: Stephanie Ha retis. El Toro MWER: Newport Balboa Sa ngs, Corona del tsar The public hearing Was opened in connecti with this item, and Mr. Manny Margaretis, applicant, appe ad before the Planning Commission. Mr. Hargaratis concur d with the findings and conditions in Exhibit W. There being no others desiring to appear and be hear the public hearing was closed at this time. -12- TO: FROM: SUBJECT: City Council Meeting —August �14, 1989 Agenda Item No. ___. Q-5 CITY OF NE WPORT BEACH City Council Planning Department AND AND Letters and petitions of support for this project were inadvertently omitted from the City Council staff report, and are attached hereon for the information of the City Council. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director B . Y atrtcia emp a PLT/WPSO Principal Planner CC\GPA89-lE.SR2 • 0 � - P-77% -J I - '� July 5, 1989 Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Chairman and Members of the Commission: Enclosed herewith is information in connection with the various approval requests for 119-123-1/2 Agate Balboa Island. As we are all aware, parking is a severe problem on Balboa Island and there is a strong demand for garages and storage. This project in some degree will alleviate the parking for residents in the immediate area. The proposal is in accord with the 2glicy of the general plan for commercial around the harbor, page 6 in part states - to minis The proposal will mt contribute to congestion or increase traffic. The west side of Agate is a unique situation in part due to the back up of cars from the ferry during most business hours. Many people have expressed favorable interest in both the garages and storage space. (See attached list). All adjoining owners have expressed approval of the project, including all the owners backing up to the alley. (Refer to attached petition.) The project is endorsed by the Little Balboa Island Association, and Balboa Island Improvement Association (see attached). The BIIA letter states in part - we support the entire project and hope the City will see the General Plan is amended to encompass the plan. All vehicular access will be from the alley and the curb break in Agate will be removed. The project is a mixed use with an attractive elevation. Display windows facing Agate will be available for local merchants, the building will have a retail appearance on the ground floor and residential on the second floor in accordance with current planning. We plan having an on -site resident manager living in one of the units and the office area will be used for management. This will provide good security. In addition, a security and lighting system will be incorporated for the project. Should you find in favor of the project, we are in accordance with the staff condition approval except numbers 2 and 3. While two garages shall be provided for each residential unit at all times, the specific garages should be designated in accordance with the tenant's need. We have tried to keep the number of tandem garages to a minimum. It may be best to have the apartment use garages off the courtyard vs. the alley. I wish to assure you this will be a quality project, designed to fit the needs and atmosphere of the community. We wish to thank the staff for their work and thank you for favorable consideration. Summary: 1) The project will be supportive of residential uses. 2) Reduce rather than increase congestion. 3) Upgrade the present use. 4) Has support of the community. D. M. Stone /bjs • BALBOA ISLAND IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION F O ■ox 144 uLsOA 11LAN0. CAL1F0441A 62617 MCPMONO 17141 671-1771 June 29, 1989 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach, CA Dear Commission, The Balboa Island was presented with Mr. David Stone's new architectural design for his project on Agate. and we approved of said design. Mr. Stone has worked very hard with the Association in redesigning the exterior elevations. taking into account the visual appearance, the scale to the rest of the block and has presented us with these modificationn. We support this entire project and hope that the City will see that the General Plan is amended to encompass this plan. Sincerely, Bob Kupper, Cha rman of Plannning for BIIA cc: David Stone Dan Stringer, President, BIIA LITTLE BALBOA ISLAND PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION PA. IDOX 74 BALBOA ISLAND. CALIFORNIA 9M2 February 22, 1989 Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92660 Gentlemen: W. David Stone presented his plans for proposed garages/storage units on Agate Avenue on Balboa Island to our Board of Directors on February 21, 1989, The board would like to go on record as approving these plans for Agate Avenue. We believe this Is an appropriate use of the land considering Balboa Island Is short of adequate parking and storage. The architectural concept is consistant with existing structures on the Island and will only complement what is currently there, Al l those present at the Board meeting signed W. Stone's petition In favor of his proposal and would like to urge the city to strongly consider his p 1 ans for this property. Sincerely, U Bryan Humphreys, Resident ent dh s AGAIE AVENUE PROPOM GAPAGE/MI mmm BUILDING I have reviewed the preliminary plans for a mixed use garage/residential building at 119-123 1/2 Agate Avenue, Balboa Island, California. We are in favor of this project and believe it will be a proper use for the property. LM- •_s ► mow... �.� 0 Lai a i - - — A �� �gtiL�eAA W-)VV) M r � .� � Fr'7 df7 r � .2p r}'lg1yr►�t rMrc At „6778?oc) • • AGATE AVENUE I have reviewed the preliminary plans for a mixed use garage/residential building at 119-123 1/2 Agate Avenue# Balboa Inland, California. We are in favor of this project and believe it will be a proper use for the property. KWI c AGATE AVENUE I am interested in leasing garage/storage spurn in the Proposed building at 119-123 1/2 Agate Avenue, Balboa IsIwAp California. t �i' iti �y• f, Ewaij, City Council Meeting _ August t 14. 1982 Agenda Item No. D-5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: & General _elan -Amendment 89.1(E) (Public H Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to allow automobile and general storage in areas designated for Retail and Service Commercial and to specify these allowed uses in the specific area description for Agate Avenue, Balboa island; and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND Request to amendment the 1A=1 Coastal Program, Land Use Plan to allow automobile and general storage in areas designated for Retail and Service Commercial and to specify these allowed uses in the specific area description for Agate Avenue, Balboa Island. n:I7 Request to amend the C-1 District regulations to allow automobile and general storage where consistent with the General Plan, subject to the approval of a Use Permit in each case, AND Request to permit the construction of automobile and general storage with three second floor residential units on property located In the C-1 District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a second floor access deck to encroach four (4) feet into the required ten (10) foot rear yard setback. «. TO: City Council - 2. • LOCATION: ZONE: APPLICANT: OWNER: Applications Request to approve a Coastal Residential Development Permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance pursuant to the administrative guidelines for the implementation of State law relative to low and moderate income housing within the Coastal Zone In conjunction with the construction of a combined commercial/ residential development on property located in the C-1 District. AND Request to combine three parcels of land into a single building site for commercial/residential development on property located in the C-1 District. Lots 12, 13 and 14 of Block 7 of the Resubdivision of Section One of Balboa Island, located at 119-123'h Agate Avenue. C-1 D.M. Stone, Balboa Island Same as applicant The applications described above will, if approved, allow the construction of a mixed use development which will include general and automobile storage and three residential units. General Plan Amendment procedures are contained in City Council Policy Q-1; Amendment procedures are contained in Chapter 20.84, Use Permit procedures are in Chapter 20.80 and Resubdivision procedures are in Chapter 19.12 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; and Coastal Residential Development Permit procedures are in Council Policy P-1. Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired, 1. Sustain the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the project; e • • TO: City Council • 3. 2. overrule the decision of the Planning Commission and A. Adopt Resolution No. . adopting General Plan Amendment 89.1(E), and accepting the environmental document. AND B. Adopt Resolution No. . adopting Local Coastal Program Amendment No. lb. AND C. Introduce and scat for public hearing on August 28, 1989. Ordinance No. 89- _1 being AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING T= 20 OF TIIE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDING THE C-1 DISTRICT TO ALLOW AUTOMO- BILE AND GENERAL STORAGE WHERE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE SECURING OF A USE PERMIT IN EACH CASE. (Planning commis- sion Amendment No. 680) AND D. Approve Use Permit No. 3353, Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 15 and Resubdivision No. 895, subject to the findings and conditions contained in Exhibit "A" of the Planning Commission staff report, with the additional condition that these applications shall not be deemed approved until the effective date of the Ordinance introduced above. At its meeting of July 6, 1989, the Planning Commission voted (4 Ayes, 2 Noes, 1 Absent) to deny a General Plan Amendment, an amendment to the Local Coastal Program, An Amendment to the Newport Beach Municipal Code, A Use Permit and a Resubdivision for the proposed project. An exoerpt of the Planning Commission minutes and a copy of the staff report prepared for the Planning Commission have been attached for the information of the City Council. • 0 TO: City Council - a, Respectfully submitted, PIANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. iIEWICKER, Director By lontAC4 atrtcia emp e Principal Planner Attachments: 1. Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes - July 6, 1989 2. Planning Commission Staff Report - July 6, 1989 PLT/WP50 CC\GPA89-IE.SRI COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES fQys0- July 6, 1989 s ` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH L CALL- INDEX iL LLU&LL.L"" Item No.2 Reques to amend a previously approved use permit which UP1421A permitte the expansion of the existing Hoag Hospital - facility o property located in the A-P-H District. The Canted proposed nt includes: a request to establish an to 7-20-09 employee chil are facility to be located in prefabricated —"�—�- modular buildi s adjacent to Newport Boulevard; the construction of a addition to the administrative offices, some of which wil be located in prefabricated modular buildings; and the ac ptance of an onvirotmental document. LOCATION: Parce o. 1 of Record of Survey 15-30, located t 301 Newport boulevard, on the southwest ly corner of HoxpLtal Road and Newport Sou vard. ZONE: A-P-H APPLICANT: Hoag Memorial 11\UxaPerm byterian, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant James Hewicker, Planning Directthat the applicant has requested that this iad to the July 20, 1989, Planning Commission !lotion � Motion was suede and voted on to coerm No.Ayes • • • 1421 (Amended) to the July 20, 198ommis on Absent • meeting. MOTION CARRIED. A. General Plan Amendar nt $9-1F (PUDlic Hearinv) Item No.3 Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Element so as to allow automobile and general storage in areas designated for Retail and Service Commercial and to specify these allowed uses in the specific area description for Agate Avenue, Balboa Island; and the acceptance of an environmental document. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach DWI, CPA 89-le LCP A 116 A 680 UP3353 CRDP No.15 R895 Denied -5- 'COMMISSIONERS MINUTES July 6, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JOLL CAL. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INDEX Request to amend the local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan so as to allow automobile and general storage in areas designated for Retail and Service Commercial and to specify these allowed uses in the specific area description for Agate Avenue, Balboa Island, INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Commissioner Ninburn referred to correspondence that the Planning Commission received from the applicant, Mr, Stone, dated July 5, 1989, the Balboa Island Improvement Association dated June 29, 1989, the Little Balboa Island Property Owners Association dated February 22, 1989, a petition signed by 37 residents in support of the application, and a sign-up sheet consisting of 15 Balboa Island residents interested in leasing the garage/storage space in the proposed building. Robert Lenard, Advance Planning Manager, stated that the proposed project has a potential impact on the viability of the area that has been zoned for commercial use, lie explained that the project is not retail, and staff is primarily concerned that the use would adversely affect the viability of the commercial area. Mr. Lenard recommended that two parking spaces be required for the commercial space, and the stairway from the ground floor to the second floor be moved to create an adequate 20 foot aisle width for the access driveway from the alley. Mr. Lenard suggested that the project be redesigned to provide two double garages and one tuniem garage inasmuch as it would lesson the possibility of the individual garages being leased separate from the residential units. He recommended that said garages front on the alley. Mr. Lenard stated that the proposed 0.62 Floor Area Ratio would not be allowed under the Floor Area Ratio Ordinance that was reviewed by the Planning Commission and recommended to the City Council. He recommended that if the Planning Commission approves the project, Condition No. 12 should be modified to state "That the general and automobile storage component of the project be reduced in floor area to as to not exceed 0.50 PAR or a total of 3,825 square feat.• Mr. Lenard explained that said requirement would reduce the commercial size of the project by approximately 900 square feet, ' -COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES July 6, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL. CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX Commissioner Edwards addressed staff's response to the noise level as checked in the Negative Declaration, Robart Burnham, City Attorney, explained that it was daterAtned that there may be an increase in noise levels during the construction phase. Commissioner Pers6n addressed the request to mend the General Plan and to permit the commercial use in one small block inasmuch as said request could set a precedent for •spot zoning". Hr. Burnham explained that the project would not be considered •spot zoning". He commented that a service would be provided to the local residents inasmuch as Balboa Island has a parking problem and there Is limited storage facilities for vehicles and personal belongings. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Pers6n, Mr. 9urnhaa replied that a General Plan Amendment would be required to permit storage facilities in C-1 Districts throughout the City, subject to a use permit. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. David Stone, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission, Mr. Stone addressed the severe parking problem on Balboa Island, and how the proposed project could serve the co=unity needs by providing additional storage. He consented that local residents have expresser an interest in leasing the storage facilities, and he referred to the foregoing petition and letters in support of the project. Mr. Stone stated that the vehicular access would be from the alley, and the curb cut located on Agate Avenue would be eliminated. He addressed the project's design, and the amount of interest shown by area merchants to display merchandise in the first floor windows. He indicated that an on -site resident manager will maintain the storage facility and the property will be provided with a good security system. Mr. Stone stated that he concurred with revised Conditions No. 2 and No. 3 as prepared by staff on parking inasmuch as said conditions would allow flexibility of providing garages in convenient locations of the re -designed project. In reference to amended Condition No. 12 with respect to a reduced floor area ratio, Mr. Stone requested that the project be built In accordance with the design as proposed. In response to questions posed by Chairman Pomeroy, Mr. Stone replied that he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A', with the exception of Conditions No. 2, No, 3, and No. 12. ' • COMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES July 6. 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH � ROLL CALL I I, I I I I j I INDEX In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Stone explained that an on -site resident manager will reside in one of the three units on the second floor; that the storage units would be rented on a monthly or yearly basis; that the manager would administer 5 window displays, lk garages and 15 storage spaces; and he said that he would not be adverse to limiting reasonable hours of access to the storage facility. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Winburn with respect to automobile storage, Mr. Stone explained that 6 garages would be designed for the on -site residents and the remaining garages will be available to the general public with the intent to lease to residents on Balboa Island. Mr. Stone explained that autoeobiles that are not used frequently could be stored in the garages. Mr. Stone, the Planning Commission, and Mr. Hevickar discussed the City's concerns with respect to the floating garage spaces; that the required residential parking spaces would not be used solely by the residents of the development; and if an enforcement officer would be able to properly identify the owner of an automobile. Mr. Stone stated that he would agree to a condition that all of the ground floor garages be used for vehicles and not niseellaneous storage. Mr. Stone added that doors will be Installed with eye -level windows so as to address staff's concerns regarding inspections. He further stated that he would agree to rent the available garages to only Balboa Island residents. Comissioner Person indicated his concern with respect to enforcing the condition, Commissioner Edwards and Yr. Hevicker expressed concerns with respect to sub -leasing the garage parking spaces. Mr. Hewicker addressed the problems that staff could encounter to enforce conditions governing the use of floating garage parking spaces. Discussion ensued between Mr. Stono, Commissioner Merrill, and Mr. Hawickar with respect to designating specific parking spaces for the residential units and for commercial use. Mr. Stone agreed to cooperate with staff by assigning designated parking spaces for the residential units and cosssercial use at the tine of occupancy. Pearl !layers Darling. 120 Pearl Avenue, appeared before the Planning Comission and also on behalf of her mother, June Meyers, 125 Agate Avenue. She stated their support of the proposed project; however, she expressed concern that three -g- -COMMISSIONERS 0 MINUTES '•` 's�`� , July 6. 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX feet would separate the development from tt~r *other's adjacent property. She explained that three fort would be an inadequate access area to their rental units, Mr, William Darling, 120 Pearl Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission to state his support of Cite project. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Parssn stated that the proposed project would not coma close to solving the parking problem on Balboa Island, tie stated that he Is a proponent of mixed residential and commercial uses; however, lia would not consider a mini -storage facility to be appropriate for the Motion area. Motion was made to deny General Plan Amendment 89- 1(E), Local Coastal Program Amendment No, 16, Amendment No. 680, Use Permit No. 3353, Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 15, and ttasubdivision No. 895, on the basin that it is not good planning to allow a storage facility in the middle of a mixed use residential -commercial area and that it would set a precedent for the City. Commissioner Winburn stated that she would support the motion on the basis that the project could be precedent setting in other commercial areas throughout the City. and she had concerns regarding automobile storage, Commissioner Di Sano reluctantly supported the motion. He pointed out that the local Associations and tits residents support the project, and he approved of the area's upgrading. However, he stated that he had concerns that congestion from the ferry and the project would impact the area. Chairman Pomeroy stated that the innovative project was a good attempt to address the parking and storage problems on Balboa Island. He pointed out that the applicant had residential support, and none of the residents opposed the project. Commissioner Edwards did not support the notion on the basis that three residential units would not create greater problems on Balboa Island. Mr. Burnham submitted findings for denial based on the discussion during the public hearing. tie stated that no findings for denial would be necessary for General Plan -9- COMMISSIONERS .7 MINUTES July 6, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH kOLL CALL I I I I I 1 I I I INDEX Ayes • Noe s Absent Amendment 89.1(E) and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 16. Amendment No. 680 would not require findings but the Zoning Code requires findings in the event of disapproval by the Planning Commission. He explained that the principal basis for the decision is that the Planning Commission and the City Council designated the subject area as mixed use commercial -residential area with the hope that the designation would establish a viable commercial community that could serve the needs of Balboa Island residents and this particular project would not be consistent with that requirement. An additional finding would be that the project could lead to certain enforcement problems. Mr. Burnham stated that use permits and resubdivisions have to be consistent with the General Plan before they can be approved and in the absence of the General Plan Amendment, the resubdivision and the uise permit must be denied because they are inconsistent with the General Plan. . + + Motion was voted on to deny Enviroroontal Document, General + Plan Amendment 89-1(E), Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 16, Amendment No. 680, Use Permit No. 3353, Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 15, and Resubdivision Ito. 691, subject to the following findings. MOTION CARRIED. . � a►16. ail � � . t h■ .ty 1 : 1 1. That the principal basis for the decision is that the Planning Commission and the City Council designated the subject area as mixed use commercial -residential area with the hope that the designation would establish a viable commercial community that could serve the needs of Balboa Island residents and this particular project would not be consistent with that requirement. 2. That the project could lead to certain enforcement problems. 1. That the use permit is inconsistent with the Ceneral Plan. -COMMISSIONERS is 0 MINUTES July 6, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OLL CALL I I I I I{ 1 I I INDEX Notion Ayes +..+.+ Absent 2. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3353 will, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. 1. That the resubdivision is inconsistent with the Conaral Plan. Item No. d Requ t to permit the establishment of a +Sty cleaning UP3355 facili in the Albertson's Shopping Center an property located n the C-1-1i District. A roved LOCATION: Parcel No. 1, of Parcel Hap 163.23 (Resubdivision No. 673), located at 3027 East Coast Highway, on the southwesterly corner of East Coast Highway and Iris venue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: C-1 i APPLICANT: Stepha a Hargaretis, E1 Toro OWNER: Newport B boa Savings, Corona del Mar The pubic hearing was opened in onnection with this item, and Mr. Manny Hargaretis, applic C, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Margar\conditions with the findings and conditions in ExhibiThere being no others desiring to eard, the public hearing was closed at thisMotion was made and voted on tormit No. 3355, subject to the findings anExhibit "A". MOTION CARRIED. 1. That the proposed development is consistent with Land Use element of the General Plan and with Planning Commission Meeting _&Iy6. 1989 Agenda Item No. _ _ 3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A. Geotral Plan Amendment 89.VE1 (Public Htzrirte) Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to allow automobile and general storage in areas designated for Retail and Service Commercial and to specify these allowed uses in the specific area description for Agate Avenue, Balboa Island; and the acceptance of an environmental document. mM Request to amendment the Local Coastal Program, land Use Plan to allow automobile and general storage in areas designated for Retail and Service Commercial and to specify these allowed uses in the specific area description for Agate Avenue, Balboa Island. I:`MP ,I k I1. I %"•,�9I V I. I , Request to amend the C-1 District regulations to allow automobile and general storage where consistent with the General Plan, subject to the approval of a Use Permit in each case. AND Request to permit the construction of automobile and general storage with three second floor residential units on property located in the C-1 District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a second floor access deck to encroach four (4) feet into the required ten (10) foot rear yard setback. E PlanninAgmusian - Z• TO. LOCATION: ZONE: APPLICANT: OWNER: ARpllcaflon1 Request to approve a Coastal Residential Development Permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance pursuant to the administrative guidelines for the implementation of State law relative to low and moderate income housing within the Coastal Zone in conjunction with the construction of a combined commercial/ residential development on property located In the C-1 District. AND --.- I I 1 tl 5 00, I I rV 1 M a M, Request to combine three parcels of land into a single building site for commercial/residential development on property located in the C-1 District. Lots 12, 13 and 14 of Block 7 of the Resubdivision of Scction One of Balboa Island, located at 119-123'A Abatc Avenue, C-1 D.M. Stone, Balboa Island Same as applicant The applications described above will, if approved, allow the construction of a mixed use development which will include general and automobile storage and three residential units. General Plan Amendment procedures are contained in City Council Policy Q-1; Amendment procedures are contained in Chapter 20.84, Use Permit procedures are in Chapter 20.80 and Resubdivision procedures are in Chapter 19.12 of the Newport Bcach Municipal Code; and Coastal Residential Development Permit procedures arc in Council Policy P-1. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), The State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy, an Initial Study has been prepared for the project. Based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, it has been determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A Negative Declaration has, therefore, been prepared for the consideration of the Planning Commission. TO: Planning Amission - 3. • The Land Use Element of the Newport Reach General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan designate the site for Retail and Service Commercial. This category allows uses including retail sales, offices which provide goods or services to the general public, hotels and motels, commercial recreation and senior citizen housing facilities. The land use designation does not allow for general warehousing or storage, which is considered an appropriate use in areas designated for General Industry. The specific area description for Agate Avenue, Balboa island allows mixed use commercial/residential development. The permitted floor area ratio (FAR) for commercial development is 0.5/1.0 and for mixed use is 1.25. Above grade, covered parking is allocatedan additional 0.35 FAR, so the total permitted is 1.60 FAR. The proposed general and automobile storage is not consistent with the uses allowed in the Retail and Service Commercial land use designation, but the mixed use residential is allowed, and the floor area of the project is within the specified floor area limits. A General Plan Amendment and a Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan amendment are required to change the allowed land uses in the Agate Avenue commercial area in order to approve the project. The project is required to have approval of a Coastal Development Permit. The subject property consists of three lots which are currently developed with residential units. To the south of the property is Beek Park. Surrounding properties to the north and across Agate Avenue to the east are developed with residential or commercial/ residential mixed use, Commercial uses include office, retail and restaurant businesses. To the east across the rear alley arc two-family residential uses. Lot Size Commercial Storage Office Display Commercial FAR Residential Floor Residential FAR Total Floor Area Proposed FAR Area(includes parking) Residential parking Commercial parking 7,650 sq.ft. 4,775 sq.ft. 49480 sq.ft. 195 sq.ft. 100 sq.ft. 0.62 FAR 4,883 sq.ft. 0.64 FAR 9,658 sq.ft. 1.26 FAR 6 spaces 1 spaces d TO: Planning Commission - 4. Alab1 A series of approvals is necessary to allow construction of the proposed project. !?ach approval is discussed separately. General Plan Amendment 89.1(E). An amendment to the General Plan land Use Element is necessary to allow construction of the project. It was the direction of the Planning Commission when initiated that the General Plan Amendment to allow storage be limited to this project. Staff has reviewed this possibility with the City Attorney'& Office, and it has been determined that it is not possible to be site specific in this type of action. Staff has developed a strategy which will limit the ability to construct storage facilities to the Agate Avenue commercial area. This amendment will involve changes to two parts of the Land Use Element. The first change would be to the Major Land Use Plan 1Designatloa& section of the plan (page 17). The second paragraph would be amended to read as follows: 'hese major land use categories are broken down into subtegories, and further described. 'lie uses � � a ,���. �'�. -ca1�eincta C should be considered as redortiinan pro osed uses artdx�tddltionWj:Ian �gtiho:,C.tty, Each area of the City is described in the land use plan, an a pro riateYland use designation specified _ and a density or intensity of development established. Within these assigned intensities of development, transfers of development rights or clustering of development to result in more efficient use of land or increased visual open space may be permitted, subject to the specific provisions of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. In approving a transfer of development rights, a finding must be made that the building scale and intensity between the sites involved in the transfer result in a net benefit to the esthetics of the area." By amending this paragraph in this manner, the City will have the ability to make additions to the land uses specified by the land use designation for specific areas of the City. In this specific case, this language would enable the City to add automobile and general storage to the list of permitted land uses for the Agate Avenue commercial area, without having the addition apply to all properties designated Retail and Service Commercial in the City. The second change to the Land Use Element would then be to the specific area description for Agate Avenue (page 38), as follows: 'Agate Avenue. The commercial area on Agate Avenue is allowed a maximum floor area ratio of O.50/1.0. Separate residential uses are Residential development on the second floor is permitted in conjunction with ground floor commercial up to a total floor area ratio of 1.25. One dwelling unit is allowed for each 2,000 sq.h. of buildable lot area, with a minimum of one dwelling unit allowed per lot.* i ld � - s. 0 To -.Planning Commission There are competing issues associated with this requested change in the General Plan. The use requested is generally considered industrial in nature. The specifics of this particular project would, however, tend to be supportive of the residential uses on Balboa Island, by providing additional automobile or general storage for residents. This is positive aspect of the project in area which has long standing parking problems. Automobile and general storage is a very low intensity use which will not add vitality to the Agate Avenue commercial area. Agate Avenue is a very short block with the most dominant use being access to the Balboa Ferry landing. There are a few commercial uses on Agate Avenue which have been successful over the years, such as the market, restaurant, Laundromat and flower shop. Other commercial uses have a tendency to be seasonal retail or office type uses. In maintaining the Retail and Service Commercial and adding mixed residential use for this area during the General Plan Review, it was the intent of staff to encourage redevelopment in this area which also have the result of increasing retail uses, and thereby increase the viability of Agate Avenue as a commercial area. This project dots not address this goal, and in fact, severely diminishes the prospects for additional retail uses on the westerly side of Agate Avenue. The project would eliminate three lots from retail commercial activity, which is in addition to the five lots already taken by Beck Park. This would leave only five lots on the westerly side of Agate Avenue available for future commercial/residential development. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 16. The issues associated with the amendment to the LCP are primarily the same as the General Plan. Additionally, the proposed project may not support the general policy contained in the LCP: 'Commercially and industrially zoned areas in the Coastal Zone shall be designated for coastal -dependent, coastal -related, and visitor -serving uses as priority uses." Amendment No. 680. The C-1 District does not allow storage as a permitted use. Consistent with the intent to limit the ability to establish storage as a permitted use in the C-1 District, staff suggests revisions to Chapter 20.35 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code which will allow general storage uses with a Use Permit only in those areas of the City where such uses as allowed by the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. It is proposed that sub -section "e" be added to Section 20.35.020 USES REQUIRING USE PERMIT, as follows: 20.35.020(e) General storage and mini -warehouses, including storage of automobiles within a building, in those areas were said uses are allowed by the General Plan Land Use Element. Use Permit No. 3353. The requested use permit addresses several aspects of the project, including residential uses in the C-1 District, the establishment of parking standards, and a modification to allow an encroachment into the alley setback. ReSidCniial Ilse., Section 20.35.020 (c) allows residential uses in the C-1 District, subject to the approval of a use permit in each case. The General Plan Land Use Element allows commercial/residential mixed use in the Agate Avenue commercial area. Under 14. TO: Planning Commission - 6. the provisions of the General Plan, this project is allowed three dwelling units on the second floor and above, which is consistent with the proposal. Staff has no objections to the request. brking, The parking standards for the C•1 District do not include standards for either residential or warehouse uses. The parking requirements must, therefore, be established by the use permit. Six enclosed garages with direct access from the alley have been proposed for the residential component of the development, or two spaces per unit. This parking ratio is consistent with the commercial/residential mixed use standards adopted by the City as part of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan, the only area where the City has adopted mixed use parking standards. Staff does have concerns with the particular design of these parking spaces, which are as six individual garages. Since two parking spaces are required for each dwelling unit, it would be more appropriate to design these garages as three two -car garages. This could lessen the possibility that one or more or these individual garages would be leased separate from the residential units. A specific condition of approval requiring that these spaces be for the exclusive use of the residential units has been included in the findings for approval. A single parking space is designated on the plans to serve the storage and office component of the development. In the current design, there is no room for additional parking for the non-residential component of the project. Additionally, the City Traffic Engineer has requested that the rear access stair be relocated to a place within the courtyard area in order to maintain a minimum 20 feet clear for the access driveway from the alley. The only parking standard for warehouse use within the Zoning Ordinance is in the M•1-A District, which requires one (1) space for each 1,000 sq.ft. If this standard were imposed, the total parking requirement for the non-residential portion of the project would be six (6) spaces. In the past, the City has considered mini -warehouse facilities, and granted variances to waive parking requirements. These storage uses do not require parking in the same manner as warehouses which are part of a commercial or industrial business, which typically have employees and daily activity. In one similar project on Campus Drive, the Planning Commission approved a waiver of parking for a mini - warehouse from 39 spaces to 8 spaces. It is the opinion of staff that two parking spaces will be sufficient to serve the proposed project, one for the office use, and one for the use of storage tenants. This is due to the fact that general storage of this nature generates little daily activity, and persons retrieving automobiles which may be stored here will either walk to or be dropped off at the site, and not require on -site parking. Provision of an additional parking will require a minor redesign of the project, and the elimination of a small portion of the storage space. This would Involve the reconfiguration of one of the residential garages into a tandem garage, and opening one of the garages on the alley to serve the commercial development. This design may also provide an acceptable location for the rem access stairway. A modification to the Zoning Ordinance has been requested to allow a second floor access deck to encroach four (4) feet into the required ten (10) foot rear •.. • TO: Planning Comrnession - 7. yard setback. This proposal is similar in nature to other patio and deck encroachments on Balboa island, and staff has no objection to the request. Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 15. The proposed development is in the Coastal Zone and contains more than two dwelling units. The project must, therefore, comply with City Council Policy P-1, which requires the inclusion of low or moderate income housing in the Coastal Zone, where feasible. As indicated in the attached feasibility analysis performed by Tarantello and Company, it is not feasible to develop a low or moderate Income unit either on -site or off -site in conjunction with the development of the proposed project. Staff, therefore, recommends that no affordable units be required. Ressbdivision No. 895. The project site consists of three Balboa Island Subdivision lots. As shown on the attached parcel map, the applicant intends to create a single building site. Parcel 1 will be 7,650 sq.ft. and meets the standards contained in the Subdivision Code. Staff has no objections to the request. The non-residential component of the project is a low traffic generating land use as defined by the General Plan Land Use Element. It therefore qualifies to exceed the base Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.5 up to the maximum 1.0 FAR set forth in the specific area description for Agate Avenue commercial area. The floor area ratio of the office and storage component of the project is 0.62. The Planning Commission has reviewed and recommended to the City Council the Flexible FAR Ordinance, which implements the provisions of the General Plan Land Use Element. The City Council has been reviewing this ordinance for several weeks, and certain changes are being considered to the document. A potential change which is of importance to this project is a requirement that requests to exceed the base FAR limits must be approved through the review of a Variance. It is likely that the Flexible FAR Ordinance will be enacted prior to the Issuance of building permits for this project. It would then be required to return before the Planning Commission for the review and approval of the Variance. The adoption and amendment of the General Plan is considered a legislative act on the part of the City, and State Planting Law does not set forth any required findings for either approval or denial of a General Plan Amendment. This also applies to amendments to the Local Coastal Program and Zoning Ordinance. Section 20.80.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any use permit, the Planting Commission shall rind that the establishment, maintenance and operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or TO: Plaanin8 Commission - 8. 9 injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. In addition, Section 19.11020 (D) provides that the Commission shall make specific findings in order to approve a resubdivision. Should the Planning Commission desire to approve this proposal, a series of Resolutions must be adopted, and Findings and Conditions of Approval established. Exhibit "A" defines the various actions for approval. Should the Commission desire to deny the General Plan Amendment and associated actions, a motion should be made to deny General Plat Amendment 89-1(E), LCP Amendment No. 16 and Amendment No. 680, with the finding that the Environmental Document, Use Permit No. 3333, Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 15 and Resubdivision No. 895 are not needed for a project which is denied. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director B, 'O'h'; � , - '!, TA Z' Patricia L. Temple Principal Planner Attachments: 1. Exhibit "A" 2. Draft Resolution - GPA 89-1 (E) 3. Draft Resolution - LCP Amendment No. 16 4. Draft Amendment No. 680 5. Vicinity Map 6. Negative Declaration 7. Affordable Housing Feasibility Analysis 8. Plot Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations 9. Tentative Parcel Map PLT/F:\WP50 PC\GPA89-1 E.SR 1 0 1 0*hm-nt No. 1 M Planning Commission - 9. EXHIBIT 'A' ACTIONS, FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-1 (E) LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 16 AMENDMENT NO. UO USE PERMIT NO. 3353 COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 15 RESUBDIVISION NO. 895 Findings: 1. `!fiat an Initial Study has been prepared for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City policy. 2. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, the project is not anticipated to have a significant effect on the environment. A Negative Declaration has, therefore, been prepared. 3. That the information contained in the environmental document has been considered in the decision on the project. IL GENERA. PLAN AMENDMENT 89.10 Adopt Resolution No. , recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 89.l(E) to the City ounce . Adopt Resolution No. , recommending approval of Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 16 to ttFe pity Council. Recommend approval of Amendment No. 680 to the City Council, with the following findings: 1. That the amendment is necessary to implement the provisions of the Newport Beach General Plan. 2. That the proposed project cannot be implemented without the proposed amendment. Findings: 1. That the project is consistent with the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. TO: Planning Commission - 10. • 2. Adequate off-street parking is being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. 3. The project will comply with all applicable City and State Building Codes and Zoning requirements for new building applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located, except those items requested in conjunction with the proposed modifications. 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 3353 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 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. Conditions: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations and sections, except as noted below. 2. That the garages with direct access to the alley be combined into three two -car garages, and that two garage spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit at all times. These garages may not be rented or leased for general or automobile storage. 3. That one of the residential garages be re -designed to a tandem garage, and that one additional open parking space be provided to serve the non- residential component of the project. 4. That the access stairway at the rear of the project be relocated to a suitable location within the courtyard area in order to provide a minimum 20 foot clear access driveway form the alley. 5. That a minimum 5 foot area be provided at the end of the aisle beyond the last garage for turning purposes. 6. That areas provided for refuse storage or utility services do not encroach into required parking or aisle areas. 7. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 8. 'Flat the proposed deck, located in the alley setback area, have a minimum clearance of 9 feet from finished grade. 9. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 895 shall be satisfied. TO. Planning Commission 11. 10. That the residential and commercial portions of the development be served with separate water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 11. That no maintenance or repair of automobile shall occur on the premises. 12. That any discretionary action required by Ordinance adopted by the City for the purpose of review and approval of projects which exceed the base FAR allocation set forth in the General Plan Land Use Element shall be processed prior to the Issuance of building permits for the project. 13. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 14. That this Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 15. That a Coastal Development Permit be issued prior to the issuance of a building permit. MESURT : : Is'�MM: s / �'u :u tl • Findings: 1. That the proposed development has met the requirements of City Council Policy P-1. 2. That the feasibility analysis performed has indicated that it Is not feasible to provide affordable housing on -site or off -site in connection with the proposed development. Findings: 1. 'That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plam and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the design of the subdivision. 2 That the proposed subdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. Planning• fission - 12. • To.. 3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. 4. That public improvements may be required of the developed per Section 19.08.020 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and .Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. Conditions: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to issuance of building permits unless otherwise approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments. That the Parcel Map be prepared using the State Plane Coordinate System as a basis of bearing. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department, 3. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvement.%. 4. That the drive depression on Agate Avenue be removed and replaced with curb and sidewalk and that the power pole in the alley be relocated so that it does not interfere with the proposed parking. That all work be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. S. That all vehicular access to the property be from the adjacent alley. 6. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to the issuance of any building permits. u�t te. '1IOP MA cmunfadoa - 13. RESOLdi11"iON W A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMMIJON Of THE CM OF NEWPORT REACH RECDMMENDiNO APPROVAL. TO THE CITY COUNCIL AN AMENDMF'.NT TO THE [AND USE ELEMENT Of THF. NEWPORT BEAM GENERAL PLAN FOR THE AGATE AVENVF'. COMMERCIAL AREA ON BALBOA ISLAND (GENURAL. PLAN AMENDMENT 8%1 Ml WHEREAS, as part of the development and wnplermentatkrn of the Newport Bach General Plan the LAM Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, Bald clement of the General Pisa sets ftxth objert"k supporting policics and limitations for dovek4mwnt in the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, told elcawnt of the General Ptah designates the general distribution and general location and extent of the uscs d lard and hud+ling Intensitict in a number of ways, including residential land use categories and IxYputatG,n projections, commercial floor area limilatioru, the floor area ralto usd1nances; arkl WHEREAS, the Land Use and C'ircutat" Fhments are aprrelrted u required by California planning law; and WHEREAS, the provisions and policies of the I.And Llte and Cittut4wm Elemenu are further implemented by the trairic analysis procedures 4 the Tratfic PWng Ordinwxc and the implementation program+ of that Ordirutswe and the Fair Share TmMc Contribution Fee Ordinance; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section V7 of the Chaney of the City of Newport Ikach, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing tit con-kkkc a retrain amendnxnt to the land Use Element of the Nc%jwwj Fkacin General i'I.tn; and WHEREAS, Ikc pcn>"d pntjeu is contiputibk whet ttk cu+ting lan.l t1%Cs on Balboa bland; and WHEREAS, the circulation system will woe he s►gnifi"fttly impucled by the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the ability to conuruet storage fKdiiks on Balboa Island will be a benefit to the eommunity; and WHEREAS, the City of Ncwport Beach prepwtd a Negative Dectaratiort with supporting initial Study for the project In atrrtpkv= with the California F:ariram- M Conodmiloa - 14. • axnW Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEOA Guidelines: and WHEREAS. the PtanniCommiuion has reviewed and considered the information contained in the envirotumental document In making its decision on the proposed amendment to the Lind Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVE.D by the MinnIng Commission of the ary of Newport Beads that an amendment to the General Plan is recommended for approval to the City Council, as follows: Pap 17. hngrzpb 2: These major land use ategaiea am broken dawn into sus -ate oriel. and further described. The uses inchsded should be considered as ptedo tun tonsil No4 Eadt area of the EIs descibed In the land use pim an a ro to laud use designation n and a density or Intensity ere opcaent es ta t n lhae staalgrred intensities ul development. transfers of deve nt rights or claittring of development to result In more efficient use of land or increased visual open space may be permitted, subject to the specific provisions of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. In approving a transfer of development rights. a finding must be made that the building scale tend intensity, between the sites Involved in the transfer result in a net benefit to the esthetics of the arca.- Pale A 'Agate AvmuL The commercial area on Agate Avcnue is allowed a maximum floor area ratio of O.SO 1.0. _Separate residcttt4l uses are Resl&ntlal development on the second float is permitted In conjunction with ground floor axnmercial up to a total floor area ratio of 1.25. One dwelling unit is allowed for each 2.000 sq.ft. of buildahte lot area. with a minimum of one dwelling unit allowed per fat' ADOPTED this day of • 1989, by the following vote. to wit: AYES NOES ABSENT BY Gary V. Pomeroy CIIAIRMAN BY Gary J. Di aao PI.T/ W P50 S ETARY WP50\nGPA3%IE.RSI TO'. Plant CommiNke - 15. Aownt to), a 1451 ti ri 0C.:1:�ra A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMMSiON OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACII RECOMMENDING TO THE CRY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO. 16 TO THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM. LAND USE PLAN WHEREAS, the Grastal Act of 147tr rcciuires the sty rrf Newltiwt Ikach to prepare a local coa►sW program; and WHEREAS, as part o[ the development and impkusentatlon of the Coastal Act, the City established a Local Coastal Program Advisory Committee, which kid 29 public meetings to develop the goals, objectives and policies of the Citys I,reat Owtal Program; and WHEREAS. the Planning Cornmiuion of the City of Newport Beach crosidered the Loci Coastal Program, Land LJ%c Plan at nine public hearing prior to recommending approval and adoption to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ncwprxt Beach aim) held nine public hearing on the LA" t o&%W Program, Land Use Plan prior to adoption; and WHEREAS, two public hearing were held by the California Cuattal C u=iWon in conjunctdon with the aeWriication of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program, Laad Use Plan; and WHEREAS, said Land Use Piet sets forth the objectives and supporting policks which serve as a guide for the future development in the coastal zone In the City of Nc+vport Beach; and WHEREAS, the Piaaning Commission has held a duly noticed public tearing to ccmWkr this amendment to the Iz al Coastal Program. Land Use Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commdutor, in considering thii amendment to the Loaf Coastal Program, has determined that this anteadment is consistent with all of the suted pah and policies of the Catifortsia Coasted Act, the City of Newport Ideach General Man, and the Citys Local Contest Program, Land Use Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE rr RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach that all titan n stauary to rcfkct the amendments adopted In Gemnd Plan Amendment S%I(E) be Inomporated into the Newport Beach focal Cno Program Lstnd Use Plan, 1IX. To- nA • ADOrIED this day of , 1W. by the (ol Owlft VOW- to wit: AYES NOES BY ary W. Pomcfay CHAIRMAN BY SECRETARY WF LG7'l6.RS1 !Al 0Ochunt No. 4 TO: Punning Commission - 17. 2035.020 USES REQUIRING USE PERMIT. The following uses shull be permitted subject to the securing of a use permit in each case: (a) Animal hospitals, auto sales and repair shops, boat sales, ga olinc service stations, marine service stations, cleaning establishments, laundries, launderettes, mortuaries, outdoor markets, restaurants, outdoor drive-in and take-out restaurants, drive-in facilities, wholesale stores, outdoor sales establishments, pet shops, public garages, trailer courts, theaters, used car sales lots, and other uses which in the opinion of the Planning Commission are of a similar nature. (b) Handicraft enterprises, including the manufacture and repair of household furnishings, clothing, ceramics, novelties and toys, and uses which in the opinion of the Planning Commission are of a similar nature. (c) Hotels, motels, boarding houses and residential uses. (d) Recreational establishments, institutions, cemeteries, public buildings, parking of automobiles on roofs, removal of earthen materials, heliports and helistops, outdoor lighting may be permitted as specified more particularly in Section 2030.020 of General Controls - Commercial Districts. 9 Och*ent No. 5 VICINITY MAP GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-1 (E) LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 16 AMENDMENT NO.680 USE PERMIT NO.3353 COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 15 RESUBDIVISION NO.895 1 p rr << r 6 -.0 Q �' . , - %I m Iv is �� u � A .ter 7 N « f � .� NOVE PA" as n "• r• 6 n d u or rJ rf �" r A � Y a W rr 1 t� �! • �� p At SUBJECT SUBJECT PROPERTY I �. ,15 �cr(��'Y � �w `' "�+.�.� `mil ! � • � • � rtttjE 0 Wlacill"J11L :vu. U CITY OF NEW PORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: Office of planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk of the County of orange P.O. Box 838 Santa Ana, CA 92702 NAME OF PROJECT: "Agate Residential/Storage" FROM: Planning Departmefit City of Ik-wport beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 PROJECT LOCATION: 119-123 1/2 Agate Avenue, balLoa Island (Newport beach), California PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of a mixed use -- residential (3 unit) storage com- mercial project. FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 purtaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: None, INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: The City of Newport ©each. INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: .--Mloclate r1aAW4r-- EnviAonmAtal 71,10rdinator hATF.: 24 May 1989 r r 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport &each • my INVICE"now FM Date filed General Information 1. Mamie and address of developer or project sponsor: D. M 57eA,t L 2. Address of project: 119 -/liYL A Gum 710 [lwz m r-g. Assessor's shock amid lAt Number: cn -497 --ate* 9 z t 23 -- 3. Nam, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concern- t6o iag this project: 4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which thin form pertains: 5. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional. state and federal agencies: r-PAC"t Pt AA% # e_.11P - Q s t„ 6.li .et..a, 6. Existing zoning district: ,( I .� 7. Proposed use of site (project for which this form is filed): :? Ibt � YR b � t t S?bR�GY •.. R t, dma,rre� - -- ._ Project Description S. Site size. era V 8J, 9. Square footage. 765O'd moo A&S6 10. Humber of floors of construction. 2- 11. Amount of off-street parking provided. .2 x ruC. . CARAGWS 12. Attach plans. - 13. Proposed scheduling. v(eU cep/LdD'" OF APF4fVw-C i9B� 14. Associated project. Nemi 15. Anticipated incremental developoent. ,vomit 16. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sixes. range of sale. prices or rents, and type of household size expected. J Will Uu4til.2 gem- It 3901 . Oe M Ho, Occur't'"Y 3 3 3 gIa eyoo 0 4,110o no . Y 17. if commercial, indicate the type. whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facill. ties. 4'A0a64Y a r`1v" y=JS le. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment par shift. and loading •facilities. 19. If institutional. indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project. AY4 20. If the project involves a variance. conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly whey the application is required. FWAOM r" VS0 CN"" 103 c I zee o Are the following items. applicable to the project or its affects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). Yes No 21. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands. beaches, l<— or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours, 22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential 1� areas or public lands or roads. 23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of LC proj act . 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. v' 23. Change in dust, ash, smoke. fumes or odors in vicinity. 26. Change in ocean. bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. 28. Site an filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. 29. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. 30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage. etc.). 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil. natural gas, etc.). 32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. - 2 . EavironMatal setting 33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and anizals. and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing struc- tures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the rite. Snapshots or polaraid photos will be accepted. gA-A r , frOd* 4K. - 1 a.s•tr p v P&O$cJ f I COAL 34. Describe the surrounding proportion, including information on plants and animals and any cultural historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, cosmercial. etc.), intensity of land use (ow-faaily, apartment houses, shops, department stores. etc.), and scale of davelopssnt (height, frontage. set -back. rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be Accepted. hrYsi 4sQ-Go•..44"r*4L. (UrroeNr4. certification I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evalua- tion to the beat of my ability, and that the facts. statements, and inforisa- tion presented are true and correct to the best of my knovladge and belief. s:- Date signature ,K/CIC*Wr1#0JIJ" G\PLT\EIRFORM For 3 - 1. Uckgtound 1. Name of Proponent D,H. Storm 2. Address and phone Number of Proponent 132 South Day Front Balboa island, Cali utnia (714/6779IT07 92662 3. Date Checklist Submitted 23 May 1989 4. Agency Requiring Checklist The City of N ewport Beach S. Name of Proposal, if applicable "mate Residential/storage" _ 11. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all 'yes- and -maybe" answera are required on attached sheets.) %a Kdb, LQ 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a, Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b, Disruption , displecemonts, compaction or overcovering of the soil? --- C. changa in topography or ground surface relief features? d, The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or phyaical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of Soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or ` any bay, inlet or lake? �G g, Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, sudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? x. 3. Xn MdYb n Air. will the 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 temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters7 — b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? - -- c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? -- �— d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body7 -- ---- e. Discharge into surface raters, or in any alteration of surface rater quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? --- -� f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground water? — g, Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or vith- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public t water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? -- 2 . itj dncbs No 4. plant Life. will the proposal result in: a. change in the diversity of species, or num- ber of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? ...^ ^�.. b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? -- C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal 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 num- land bers of any species of animals (birds, animals including reptiles, fish and shell- fish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the ambers 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 migra- tion or movement of animals? --- d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. noise. Will the proposal result in: A- Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Ligbt and Clara. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? d. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? . 3 - — -.31— — ss 4. 10. 11. 12. 13. its EahR H2 patuial Rmsources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? — Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a, A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil. pesticides. chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? ---- --- b, Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? -� Trsusportation/CirculAtion. Will the proposal result in: A. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? ---- -�� b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? C. Substantial impact upon existing trans- portation systems? -- d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? Z e. Alterations to waterborne. rail or air traffic?_,_._ Z f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles. Y bicyclists, or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for clew or altered gov- ernmental services in any of the following areas: - 4 . . 15. 16. 17. Xr&tInXbg H2 a, Fire protection? — b. Police protection? --- -/ c. Schools? --- d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities. including roads? �— f, Other governmental services? Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? -- Utilites. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: A. power or natural gas? -- b. Commmications systems? -- -� C. Water? --- -� d. Sewer or septic tanks? — -� e. Storm Water drainage? -� f. Solid waste and disposal? -- Human Health. Will the proposal result in? a. Creation of any health4bazard or potential l health heazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health J i hazards? -- .5. 1". Yap! Kuhl 92 18. aesttatics. will the proposal result in the obstiuction of any scenic vista or view open to the public. or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? -- 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? -- 20, Cultural Laouress. a, Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? --.-. b. will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building. structure, or object? -� C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?---- d. will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses with the potential impact area? 21. 1lsa4atary Findings of gignificame. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal commmity. reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? -6- .+/ ;19 r Yap! !ice 112 b. "Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long -tors, environmental goals? (A shout -term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a rela- tively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (A project say impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the anvirorsent is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?� _�.. III. Discussion of 9cmiroamatal Rvaluation (Narrative descriptions of environmental impacts.) IV. Determination on the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COW Wr have a significant effect on the environment, and a MATIVE DECI1RMON WILT. BE MPARED. I find that although the proposed project could have a signif- icant effect on the environment, tbere will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. ED A KZGArM DLCLANATION WILL BE MUARID. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an @NIFOMMAL DO= RZPM is required. 0 23 May 1989 Date C\PLT\EIRLIST. MH r �r• S gnature patf icipaj.F aenhero For 23 May 1989 - 7 . "ACAT6 MIDENIIAL/SIVRAGE' Coastal Use Permit, General Plan and Zone Amendments, and Resubdivlsion 2b. The proposed project may result in the creation of objectional odors during the course of construction due to the construction Materials and methods employed. Such effects are short term in nature and will be alleviated upon completion of the project; and are, therefore, insignificant. ba. Implementation of the proposal may result in temporary increases in the existing noise levels during the course of construction. They shall be alleviated upon project completion . and no significant effects are anticipated. 8. The Land Use Element of the City's General Plan designates the area for "Retail and Service Commercial" usage, and allows for residential development on the second floor, in conjunction with a permitted ground floor commercial use. However, the proposed "storage" commercial usage has been designated as a warehouse/ quasi -industrial use and is therefore = consistent with the General Plan. As a result, the application includes a requnat for a General Plan Amendment. If approved, the project will become consistent with the planned use of the area. 13b. The proposed project will result in a demand for new parking. The parking for the proposed mixed use development will be provided on -site; and, therefore, the effects shall be insignificant. C:\WP\AGATSTOR.IS / BBB AFFORDABLE HOUSING FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS of 119 - 123 1/2 Agate, BALBOA ISLAND Three Multi•Family Rental Units and Storage Space NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Mined Use Development By: D.M. STONE Submitted To: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACii 6/26/99 Submitted By: TARANTELLO A COMPANY 0 0 . - STATEMENT OF ASSUMPTIONS 119 - 123 1/2 Agate, BALBOA ISLAND (1) Fralkct Charactorlstlsi Apartment 0 1 Apartment M 2 Apartment M 3 Residential Garages TOTAL RESIDENTIAL: Downstairs/Garage Storage Second Story Storage Property Management Orricc Display Cases TOTAL COMMERCIAL: Dc3gtiption size 3 Bedroom J 2 Bath 1,400 s.r. 2 Bedroom / 2 Bath 1,138 s.r. 2 Bedroom / 2 Bath 1,120 s.f. 1.240 s,fs,f. 4.858 s.r. 3,155 s.f. 1,330 s.f. 195 s.f. ID L 4,800 s.r. TOTAL PROJECT: 9-W I.E. There arc nineteen garages in this project. Six of these garages will be utilized for the residents of the apartments, while the remaining thirteen garages will be rented out on a monthly basis for storage of automobiles, boats, etc. The office space will not be rented out, but will be utilized for property management purposes. The display cases will be divisible into five separate portions, and will be rented out on a monthly basis to nearby retailers, according to the developer or the property. (2) may This study could consider two scenarios in which an affordable unit may be provided. Scenario 1: Two of the proposed units are leased at market rates (the two bedroom units). the third (a three bedroom unit) is leased at the moderate income affordable standard rate. Scenario 2: The three proposed units are leased at market rates; an off - site unit (a 2 bedroom unit) is teased by the developer at the moderate income affordable standard rate (i,c, artcr purchasing or leasing the unit himself). This scenario will be run should the on -site affordable 3 bedroom unit proves Infeasible. (3) LANd Ownershla: At the start or project construction, it is assumed that the land is owned outright by the developer. I 0 (4) Land Cost Purchase Price provided by the Ownership: $800,000. An additional I percent closing costs for escrow and title fees (SL,000) are estimated and added to the land purchase prices indicating a total land cost or sim000. (5) QsstjgStjps Period: A seven month construction period has been assumed from commencement of construction to completion of units and storage space. (6) Constraetla■ Costs: Based upon the cost estimates supplied by the project developer (David Stone, June 23, 1999), construction coils are as follows, on both a total cost and cost per square foot basis (based on the total project area of 9,658 s.f.k On and Off -Site $387,060 S 40.08/s,f. (includes supervision. offsites) Indirect Plans, Fees, Misc: $42.440 $ 4.39/s.f. Legal, title, ins: S I 4�QQQ S 1ASI&L TOTAL: W= S 11.92/s.r The construction costs appear to be reasonable based on comparison with cost estimates of other mixed -use projects in the general msrkct area, and based on comparison with Marshall's Cost Guide for both product type components. The construction costs are assumed to be incurred evenly over the entire construction period. (7) plNaaciaa / PrImt _ate The rate charged against the outstanding loan balance is 3 over prime; prime is assumed to be an average of 11 percent over the construction period. The loan fee is assumed to be 3 percent of the total loan amount, based on conversations with potential construction lenders. (g} geeayweat of Coostructloin Loon Proceeds from an assumed sale of the mixed use development upon completion of construction and leascup to normalized occupancy levels shall be credited to the outstanding construction loan. Any remainder shall be credited to the capital account of the developer, constituting profit and overhead on the development project. 2 a r 0 I - 0 (9) Abagraljv; Because the vacancy rates for apartment units in the Newport Beach area arc so low, the units are expected to absorb very quickly after the completion of construction. It is assumed that the affordable unit will be the first to be leased. An absorption period of approximately I mouth following the completion of construction is projected for the apartment units. An absorption rate of 2 units per month Is estimated. with the "affordable' unit occupied immediately following construction. Based on conversations with property management companies handling the leuing of garages in Newport Beach (Lido Island area and Balboa Peninsula), and with Public Storage marketing and property management staff, the garage space Is estimated to absorb to a 100 percent occupancy level virtually immediately, due to the strong demand and waiting lists for garages in this vicinity. The upstairs storage space, however, is estimated to absorb at the slower rate of 3 months. It is assumed that preleuing will begin in the 5th month of construction (2 months prior to completion), with all of the garages and approximately 25 percent of the upstairs storage space prcicascd. The remaining 75 percent of the upstairs storage space is assumed to be leased evenly over the last three months. The normalized occupancy figure of 90 percent for the upstairs storage space is estimated based on conversations with various storage firms in the industry. it Is anumed that the display cases will absorb within the three month time frame expected for the upstairs storage space. with all of the display cases rented by the end of the tenth month. (10) it is assumed that the rental units, based upon information obtained from a recent market survey and from recent extensive surveys done for the market area, are to be leased at the following rates- 3 bedroom J 2 bath unit: $1,400 per month 2 bedroom / 2 bath units: $1.100 per month These least prices were estimated based primarily on a per bedroom analysis of rentals in the immediate vicinity. The most recent market survey is included within the text of this report. 3 c (l 1) Affmilable LIglt Lean lift: The affordable unit is assumed to be a 3 bedroom unit in the on -site scenario, and a 2 bedroom unit in the off - site scenario. The pricing or this lease is based upon income information end the affordability standard for moderate income units provided by Craig T. Bluell, Department of Planning, City of Newport Beach. This information is provided in Item A of the Addends of this report. On -Site Rent Maximum: $1,449 per month Off -Site Rent Maximum: $1,332 per month In this case, the rent maximums are higher than market rents (by an amount between $49 and $232) for rental housing such as the Subject Property, rendering the 'constraint" or 'requirement' inerfecival. (12) Priellgof�Storaae S■aee: The storage space, based on information from a recent market survey performed by Tarantcllo do Company, is to be leased at the rollowing rates: Garages: Second Story Storage: $2.00/s.f. S0.75/s.f. The second story space is estimated at the lower rate due to the Subject Property's lack of elevators for ease of access and for eau in moving. The market survey is included within the text or this report. (13) Prleiu of Disglav Cases: The five display case windows will be assumed to rent out at a monthly rate of $100 per month each, as per the developer's projections. (14) The net income from rent figures are estimated by applying the appropriate square rootages or bedroom count with the corresponding estimated lease rate or amount, less the percentage expenses described in the proforma. (IS) Asta■al Cash glow: The estimated annual cash flow rrom renting both the residential units and storage space is outlined in the proformas for each scenario, and the assumptions are outlined therein. (16) Sale Price of Dereloomeat: The value of the proposed mixed -use residential and storage development at the completion of construction and leaseup of the project to normalized occupancy is estimated via capitalization of the projected net operating Income to be attained at normalized occupancy at the Subject Site. The estimated net income attainable or both the residential and storage portions of the Subject Property will be capitalized separately, then added together to obtain the total estimated sale price of the development at normalized occupancy. Based on an analysis of recent transactions In the general market area for bout product types, the capitalization rates of 7.0% and 10.0% are utilized for the residential and storage/commercial portions, respectively. Hence, the sale price of the development as a whole assumed in the analysis Is as follows: S I,0112,307 (Sum of Residential Value: $23,620/.07 w $408,857 and the Commercial Value: $67,345/.10 i 5673,430) I aI 4 s4 5 0- {17)critgAa at Raoloyaget ftadkUhr The project is analysed utilizing a raniti-period lash flow over the construction and leaseup periods of the project. The include the land cost. the development costs, and the repayment of the construction loan and the various closing costs Incurred upon sale of the property In the final month. The cash Inflowl include the construction loan disbursements. the rents received during leascvp, and the proceeds from sale at the end of the Icascup period. The project is feasible If Ilse developer receives a return sufficient to justify development. The criteria for development feasibility is a return on equity to the developer of at least 23 percent. Standard ROM's in the development Industry typically run 25 to SD percent, and frequently even higher, varying with the level of risk involved. The initial cash outflow (equity required) is calculated by subtracting the land draw obtainable ($243.948) from the total land cost ($806,000). (The land draw Is obtained through an iterative process of analysis of the total debt capacity of the completed building leased to normalised occupancy and the necessary draws throughout the construction period to pay for both the construction costs and financing costs (interest on outstanding balance).) The initial equity required to do the deal is then $647,691. Net income from rent is obtained through application of the absorption assumptions to the rental prices to be obtained, net of the expense percentage applicable for each product type. Hence, the total "nct income from rent' figures for months g, 9 and 10 (S5,620, $7.236 and $7.997 respectively) represent the summation of both storage and residential net income figures. The expense percentage assumptions arc outlined on the proforma spreadsheet. The apartment expense estimates represent the low end of IREM standards for the Orange County submarket, as the Subject building will be a newer building assumably which can be expected to incur less maintenance and other expenses as a percentage of effective gross Income than older, less efficient buildings. The expense percentage assumptions for the storage space are taken from actual expenses on mini storage facilities analyzed by Tarantello & Company. Last. the residual equity to be received by the developer upon property disposition is calculated by subtracting an estimated 3 percent closing cons (354.115. for brokerage commissions to sell the project and the escrow and title fees and other closing costs to be incurred at that time) from the sale price calculated through income capitalization. $1,082,307. giving a subtotal of $1,028,192 and then subtracting the loin balance ($676,055) from the subtotal. Hence, the residual equity becomes $352.136. Hence, the return on equity to the developer is calculated via internal rate of return. using the above assumptions for net cash now. Refer to this column on the proforma spreadsheet for the calculations. (18) I,N,SigsIM 2f W-1118 Unit 3caaario: The second scenario was excluded in this case due to the fact that the allowable :maximum rental assuming an oft -site 2 bedroom unit is actually greater than existing market rents for units of this type and size in the Newport Beach area. The maximum rental price according to affordability standards is not an effective constraint in this case, rendering the additional scenario inappropriate. According to the affordability standard provided by Craig Oluell of the City of Newport Beach, an affordable 2 bedroom rental at the moderate income level could rent for a maximum of $1,332 per month. Market rents range between $875 and $1,300 for basic 2 bedroom units in the market. (Two rentals are priced at I1,400 and $1,600, due to their added half bath and condominium status (far the first), and the security gates and bay view (for the second). These are not considered to be appropriate rents for the Subject Property's location and proposed physical features.) Further testing of feasibility at lower income levels would result in an even greater negative return to the project as proposed. Therefore, subsequent scenarios were not considered. Please refer to the Residential Rental Survey, included on the following page. ................................................................................... CWAIAKI Olik"T MAC" MIN;ALS • • 6/I9 .................................................................................... ADOaISSNaIA ROou COAT MINT/NO aIR Rod" C^rtIKTS 1 4/7 I fay Ave 02, P III SSSO 11550 ■efrig,stove.uOt 2 1107 $Gib" Ave It 1I1 5900 $900 Lndry,tiW.lst class 3 106 112 Pearl. It 211 WS K36 4 408 3eewd. CON 2/1.S S900 1450 Coew+nity pool, fP S $14 Naryuerite. CD14 2/1 $923 5463 FP, Garage 6 319 1/2 Isby. 91 2/1 WS WA 4/o, 1 parking *pact 7 901 I Salboa Blvd /A, P 2/1 B99S S4" FP, Garage B 924 t WAanfrant SP 211 $1,000 1300 9 226 1/2 Cotllne, It 2/1 S1,000 $500 10 325 1/2 Diamond. at 2/1 11.060 1530 11 Canna 4el Plar 2/1 S1.100 SSSO ►P,011,gar,laundry 12 Balboa t*lard 2/1 $1,100 S650 new,carport.petiv 13 Rewport aaights 2/2 11,100 SSSO "arbor view,gars9e 14 Mille Balboa 212 11,100 SSSO Pool, tannis, sstea 15 222 Pearl, It 2/2 11,150 SS7S v/0, parking space 16 102 Sdowltz Plaso 0126 2/2 S1.150 $573 Bay/ocean vied% 17 Aerport worth 2/2.5 $1,400 $700 Upgraded Condo 18 wssgort Beech 2/2 $1,600 5800 Security,bay vier 19 Salboo Peninsula 312 $1,371 S4511 /P,Ldry,0ar,3 decks 20 1409 Priscilla Lane, wB 3/2 11,400 5467 "ouse,patio.yard 21 716 P*044ttia, CDM 312 S1,450 $483 Z2 So 9 Oceanfront, BP 3/2 S1,730 SSa3 Oceanfront r 23 209 1/2 w tayfront, Ii 3/2 $2,600 Sf167 waterfront 24 30S Apolena 3/2 S3,500 S1,167 2-story housa.rfrrt 25 120E Parti Avenue, I1 4/2 $1,600 S400 recently signed 26 213 Amethyst, $1 4/2 S1,IO0 S4SO Ouplea,gar&".PW,,,nf 27 212 Aiate, It 4/3 12,200 SSSO recently signed a ............sr.....ACS .Rv.......tracs..•.• ...................................... sTasAct �p .................................................................. FACIUIT SIMS.f, tdtnty RENT/S.F. .................................................................. 1 Batboa Yacht Baaln 10s20 1175 W.3a storage garages 200 M.B. Marine Dept IWA•3044 In order to rent stomp specs here, lust be tawru In wring. 20.25 stores pecas. welting list of 50 people. Rent will Increase to $Wluw%h In September. Felt by =near to be below market for nonrestricted space. which should be 5.75 to 51.00Feet. 2 The Anchorage 1" 9125 110.63 store" 9mrs*es. lido 200 673. MO (100 #armps. S yr reiiing list) These are for ca:rtial tenants or mobile home pork targets only. UNIm sly below mnrtat. with S year wiling tint. 3 Pelm Avenue i Ran 10a20 g,300 $1.50 garages 200 Balboa Peninsula There 1s a long waiting list for the specae, all of which are full. There we no restrictions as to lessees. 6 Newport Mess Self stare" 10a2S 9227 $0.91 2550 Newport Blvd 250 Casts Mesa bid• 6aa6 ps to i n: 10i10 $100 $1.00 full freight 100 alevstors 10412 5112 s0.93 120 5 "Ile Storage 10A20 1179 50.90 ZW Placentia Avg 200 Costs Mena 646.6166 Wata i m -- 101115 S109 $0.73 (Newport Blvd location. ISO no 10n20 Oval table) SAS $27 11.06 25 N s • 6 fort Guard 10120 it31 f0.66 IM siverbnd Drive 200 Mt Miroton Smock m7.60M upstairsi Sa1D $47 110.96 no slsvators SO 7 empire self store" loan silo f0.90 959 t1 17th street 20 costa Mesa 662-IM upstairst 11414 s139 $0.90 154 a costa Mese mini ftora/e 2950 star Costa Meu $40.9000 1040 11199 $1.00 200 9 storm" centers of Aesrlca 16M superior Ave 10x20 rant avail Casts mass 200 631." 11414 $109 $0.71 1S4 P10IWO CAIN FLOW, 6Ci:NAR10 1 ........................................... ..................................................................................................................... turw l0 1 tense 1 AffordeM s Unit On -Site total Total wtstsrdlA Olspa)tlan Net Undlscow%tod Construction 111sncIA OewlopeNr+t Costs of Rsprtl astmnce N.O.I. of Preporty Coo flew C1a,lstivs NentM tlevelops�rlt Activity tend Cats Cato ........................................ .. ....................... ................................................................................................. M1 639 s243'"s s0 s243,94a so 60 (664T,691) (1647,691) 1 Record lasrVletin Carst. 1a0a,000 663,3ST s2v, 2a2 12.846 � S", 2o3 S". m to s310,151 so so so (6647,691) 2 3 s0 so s63, 3ST 663,3ST $3,615 SM.9T5 1"'m to 13TT.126 so s0 to s0 so (I"T.691) (1164T,691) 4 so 163,35T 14,400 t6T'ny 6N.nT to s0 "",In "13,430 so s0 so to (6641,691) S 9"In tlsrtetlA so to $63,35? U3.3ST $5,190 IS ^ s6a,541 s69.341 1611,54T iM9.34T t0 ISu'm so s0 s0 (164T,691) • T End Construction s0 663.3Sa s6,799 MAY 170,157 � Soi0 fb62.1ti4 S2 U1660N,Ssa to i5,620 so 60 so 15,620 (664T,691) (1842,OT1) a Leeolnl Inca" Ilellns so so s0 17' 61a $1,706 17,618 $7,706 17,616 1T.T06 iT,236 s0 SY,236 tt u'633) 9 so so so 11,796 1T,T96 17,7% $676,055 (10) 1T,99T 11,Ota,192 i352,136 (t2a2.699) 10 sell Project SM,DOO 6443,500 1T2,246 11.323.746 1876,0511 6676,05S $4.454,060 120,053 11,02i,192 4t2a2,699) Its" Of COM ILCTION LOAN Prime • 31 • 14.00% Leon Ise + 3.00% 1676,055 off IMC01K CAICUUTIC" -• A►ARTMENT UNITS pill loan CALCLUTIM -- SIORAWIGMT PAU I Units Ares (s.f.) Monthly Rent Estimeted Mantes Rent•3 1d 01,400 1 CareMoe 3,15% 12,00 "'310 Eetinted Mertet Rent-2 W 11.100 2 Upstairs 1,350 10.75 11,013 total R Units 3 10TAL ilOu" Rt"TAM 117,323 fetal Rents / Mont* 91,600 aauAt sits. CAIN 1LO1t1 s43,zoo TOTAL AM Mi KIT 1,0661 teeat Est. wocanty (1%) (11,296) Eat. Vacancy (lox of E11. Gauls INCOME 141.904 Wsleirs specs, plus 1% pereps (lricttalst)) •T.9n2% I'm per month •9s.TO% prr reor ►ROERTT DISM11101t 61.Oa2,30T SALE PRICE (654,115)Ie211 SIL claim costs (6616,035) AR /ALMO U32,136 2E1lowt, EUU11T ur, 870 tm ACDUISITION 1a00.000 PtIRCRAS4 PRICE (6164) sa,on phial 1% tt.slnl 'Costs I",= SAIOTAL C] i loses i Irruvwncr 0ptr .11 m l . mwt ) NNInt. • 6Merf" 10TAL e1nows NI T 1 NCOR Not Irccom b. Cp. a T.Ox {12,OS3) 4.901 lots r4aiItMlnt 13.00x (11,423) (6T,T10) 18.40% Utilities 2.00% (81,TST) (13,520) 6.i" " PW fee 3.on (82,636) 111WIP.TaM 12.On (S19,544) (613.2d4) 31.T011 TCfAL Ent oull 30.On (126,361) 128.620 NET I -pa 1 161.34S Hlurl display Cost Incur $6,000 6SO0/mo foul, NIT INKS 66T,345 12.385 Mt Incom/M. 6S,612 6408,5ST Capltstic• a 1Ox f673,450 fill( Of YALUEst 61,082.30? WN Of N.l./M0 6T.99T PAX MXTNLT DIIT UIkVlCtt OAS Oct) $6,954 pier month DEIT CAPACITY (TAKE OUf LOAM)1 $6,954 monthly psvwnt 12.DO%Por yea 360 months 1676.05S 62."UTV 11AX I KM LOAN AMOIII f *I *I ��- s _ r• _ • _ ■ SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS At evidenced by the preceding Proforms Cash Flow Analysis, the estimated return on equity to the developer of this project would be a negative 7.9752 percent per month, or negative 95.70 percent annually. Inherent in this analysis is that all units are indeed tested at market rates, as the rental maximum for the moderate income level falls above the achievable market rents for the property. The second scenario, that the developer leases an off -site unit at the 'affordable' rate for two bedroom units, would see no change in the results of the analysis, as the 'affordable rate for two bedroom units falls above market rates again. Further testing of feasibility at lower income levels would result in an even greater negative return to the project as proposed. Therefore, subsequent scenarios were not considered. It should be pointed out that although the development appears infeasible from an economic standpoint, given the achievable rents on site, it does not necessarily follow that it is illogical to build such a project. A developer with a longer term investment horizon (rather than short term development horizon) may logically choose to build the project with the expectation that net operating income and/or value will appreciate at a rate over time to justify investment. (The project may eventually achieve his hurdle rate with sufficient property and rcat appreciation.) However, future rates of appreciation of net operating Income and/or value are purely conjectural, and development feasibility is best assessed with a minimum amount of speculation. As in previous cases, the rate of return derived reflects point estimates based upon a series of assumptions detailed earlier in the report. The actual rate of return achieved by the development will depend upon to what degree 12 0 . — variances from these assumptions are experienced. and in what direction OX. positive or negative) they occur. Given the risk level associated with this type of development, it is our opinion that the only reasonable scenario is the exclusion of any affordable units on -site or off -site. imposing an 'affordable' restriction for the moderate Income level would be ineffectual. and imposing a restriction for a lower income level would render the development project more infeasible from an economic standpoint. and would place too heavy a reliance upon liberal speculation concerning future rents on the site. in summation, in a financial world where Treasury bonds itua(aIlice approximately 8.60 percent at the present time (over an approximate one year time frame, or 8.3• percent over an approximate twenty year time frame) with no management requirements, and elimination of construction risk, rate risk and market risk, out most recent experience in the evaluation of development projects for similar clients suggests required rates of return of at least 25 percent, and in many cases SO percent. It is evident that the subject development project does not approach this benchmark from an economic standpoint. and we recommend that no affordable unit requirement be imposed upon it. • rates extracted from U.S. Government Treasury Bonds, Motes & Rills. Nall Sum Journal. Monday, June 26, 1989, p. C14. I 1 13 113076 STREET B' 19-- if- . 0:91160 T11HA, f%Z4 PARK.ELHYATION.. ILI. - :"-V , kki a IQ an some ALLY BLllf1/ATION p SECTION A -A l[LEGAL IMESCRIPTION: u-�om-s U. 13 •-AND 14 rOF SLOCK 7 (OF THE IRESUBDII'VILS&ON (OF SELC'TjjLOfy SALIBOA W-SLAND,, AS IPLIR fMAP IRLCORD-F-11D llfN (BOOK ;6. [PAGE 30 OF M11SCEILILANZOU.5 MOA�7P.51, 'RECORDS '.OF IORANGZ kCOUNTY iCAL111FORNII.A.. Im"Imom I I" 46� LLoom�60 frr ­ q v4Lcwt_vL*v'% cleN ENO. I'V ♦ Ag NUN "vA, 0 ra D _ a� AN SRO Al. ar AWe*-0_W-q-T A* 11-11 1~ 2=. 4 OPT ALLEY ASATU STREET SITE11IRSTF'DOR PLAN