Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 - Memory Care Facility - PA2013-195CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT February 6, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 2 SUBJECT: Memory Care Facility - (PA2013 -195) 1000 Halyard • Site Development Review No. SD2013 -005 • Conditional Use Permit No. UP2013 -019 • Lot Merger No. LM2014 -001 • Variance No. VA2014 -002 APPLICANT: Orvieto Properties PLANNER: Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner (949) 644 -3221, mwhelan @newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY A conditional use permit and site development review request for a new approximately 19,200- square -foot, two -story convalescent facility. The convalescent facility would be in the form of a memory care facility licensed by the state with 42 beds occupied by residents that are considered non - ambulatory. Access to the site will be taken from Halyard, which is a private easement. The project would occupy two building sites that are currently vacant. The request also includes a lot merger to merge the two sites into one parcel for the development and a variance for a wall to be 6 feet high where the Zoning Code limits the height to 42 inches. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. _ approving the following: a. Conditional Use Permit No. UP2013 -019 b. Site Development Review No. SD2013 -005 c. Lot Merger No. LM2014 -001 d. Variance No. VA2014 -002 (Attachment No. PC 1). 1 1000 Halyard Memory Care Facility February 6, 2013 Page 2 LOCATION ON -SITE GENERAL PLAN Multiple -Unit Residential (RM) ZONING Multiple -Unit Residential (RM) CURRENT USE vacant NORTH RM RM multi-family residential units SOUTH RM RM multi-family residential units EAST IE RM RM multi-family residential units WEST RM RM multi-family residential units N 1000 Halyard Memory Care Facility February 6, 2013 Page 3 INTRODUCTION Project Setting The 30,040- square -foot project site is located in the middle of a residentially zoned block between Monrovia Avenue and Superior Avenue. Abutting the site to the south is the Beach House Apartments. Abutting the site to the west is the One Nautical Mile residential community and further west down Halyard is the Newport Knolls residential community. Halyard is a private easement that provides rights for ingress and egress to the project site, One Nautical Mile, Newport Knolls, and the Beach House Apartments. The Halyard easement terminates between the two lots that comprise the entire project site with approximately 137 feet fronting on Halyard and 50 -foot fronting on Medical Lane. Directly abutting the site to the east is a multi -unit residential property and further east along Superior Avenue is the Newport Beach Plaza senior living complex, Crystal Cove Care Center nursing facility and a medical /commercial office building. Access to these properties is provided from Medical Lane via Superior Avenue. Medical Lane would provide emergency access to the project site. Attachment No. PC 3 provides a map of the Halyard and Medical Lane easements in relation to the subject site and surrounding area. Project Description The two -story, 19,200- square -foot convalescent facility would be in the form of a memory care facility licensed by the State Department of Social Services (DSS) providing 24 -hour care to 42 non - ambulatory residents. The memory care facility is for residents with dementia or Alzheimers whose memory and cognitive funtions are severely comprimised to where they are unable to complete daily life tasks without assistance. The facility would provide all amenities to meet the needs of the residents as they will not drive and for their safety will rarely leave the facility, depending on their level of disease. The interior floor plan is comprised of 10 one -bed rooms and 16 two - bed rooms. Each floor has shared bathrooms and showers, offices, and great rooms. On the first floor there is a residential kitchen, salon, medication room, and laundry facilities. The building is a contemporary Mediterranean design with a tile roof. The building is 28 feet in height with the entry to the building accentuated with a 33- foot -tall tower. The exterior of the facility includes a courtyard, a walking path, and a second floor deck. Accent landscaping is provided along the building and the perimeter of the project site and parking area. No events will be held at the facility. Visiting hours would be limited from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., seven days a week. On -site employees include 16 -18 staff members between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., 12 -14 between 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight and 4 -6 between 12:00 midnight and to 8:00 a.m. On -site parking is provided for employees, visitors and deliveries with adequate circulation and turn - around areas. A commercial trash company is included in the operation with a proposed limit on the service to one day per week between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 3 1000 Halyard Memory Care Facility February 6, 2013 Page 4 The project would occupy two parcels that are currently vacant. The existing westerly parcel is 137 feet wide and encompasses the northerly 30 feet of the Halyard easement and the easterly lot is 50 feet wide and encompasses the northerly 15 feet of the Medical Lane easement. Primary access to the site would be from Halyard. Medical Lane would be used for emergency access only and includes a crash gate, as required by the Fire Department. In addition to the existing right to use Halyard for ingress and egress, the applicant has entered into a lease agreement with the Beach House Apartments, who own the southerly portion of Halyard. This lease enables the applicant to perform any maintenance such as required fire lane curbs and project related maintenance. The agreement is provided in Attachment No. PC 4. Project implementation requires approval of the following: • Conditional use permit to establish the convalecent facility in the form of a memory care facility in a residential zone including compliance with Zoning Code Section 20.52.030; • Site development review for the 19,200 square foot facility; • Lot merger to create the 30,040 square foot building site; and • Variance to allow a portion of a proposed wall to exceed 42- inches within the front yard setback DISCUSSION Analysis General Plan The project site has a land use designation of Multiple -Unit Residential (RM) which is intended primarily for multi - family residential and similar uses that are residential in nature, such as the memory care facility. Zoning Code The project site is located within the Multi -Unit Residential (RM) Zoning District. The RM Zoning District allows for convalescent facilities with the approval of a conditional use permit. The Zoning Code defines convalescent facilities as establishments that provide care on a twenty -four hour basis for persons requiring regular medical attention. In this case the convalecent facility is in the form of a memory care facility for patients diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease and dementia. 21 1000 Halyard Memory Care Facility February 6, 2013 Page 5 Conditional Use Permit The Zoning Code allows for convalescent facilities with the approval of a conditional use permit. Pursuant to Section 20.52.020 F. the Planning Commission may approve or conditionally approve a use permit, after finding that the following: 1. The use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; 2. The use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the Municipal Code; 3. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the use are compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity; 4. The site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, shape, size, operating characteristics, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities; and 5. Operation of the use at the location proposed would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. The General Plan land use designation and Zoning designation of the project site allow for the proposed memory care facility use. The proposed 19,200- square -foot building complies with the development standards of the Zoning Code except for a variance request for a wall to exceed the maximum allowed height limit within the front yard setback. The project site is located in the middle of a residentially zoned block between Monrovia Avenue and Superior Avenue and landscaping and screen walls are provided along each side property line that is abutting existing residential uses. The project site provides the required parking and circulation including turn - around areas for deliveries which has been reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer. Emergency vehicle access is provided to the site by a crash gate and knox box for access from Halyard to Medical Lane and Superior Avenue which has been reviewed by the Fire Department. The site will have adequate utilities from existing and proposed services to the site. A condition of approval is included to ensure that lighting of the facility will not create excessive glare and light spillage onto the adjacent neighbors. Conditions of approval are included limiting delivery, visiting, and commercial trash pick -up hours to minimize vehicular traffic on Halyard in the evening and early morning hours. 5 1000 Halyard Memory Care Facility February 6, 2013 Page 6 Conditional Use Permits in Residential Zoning The approval of a conditional use permit in a residential zone also requires compliance with Zoning Code Section 20.52.030 Conditional Use Permits in Residential Zoning Districts. Section 20.52.030 G. Development and Operational Standards calls for specific additional requirements. These requirements are focused on operation details to ensure that the use is compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood including the following: facility users, characteristics of the use, transportation and parking, location map and site plan, similar uses in the vicinity, applicant information including license and permit history, operations and management plan including occupancy levels, and similar operations owned or operated by the applicant. The applicant has submitted this information as a part of the application (Attachment No. PC 5) and there are specific conditions of approval in place to maintain this information at all times. In addition to the findings required for a conditional use permit, the Planning Commission is required to make the following findings in order to approve a conditional use permit in a residential zone: 1. The use conforms to all applicable provisions of subsection (G) of this section (Development and Operational Standards); 2. The project complies with the requirements for off- street parking as provided in Chapter 20.40 (Off - Street Parking) and traffic and transportation impacts have been mitigated to a level of insignificance; 3. The property and existing structures are physically suited to accommodate the use; 4. The use will be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, and the addition or continued maintenance of the use will not contribute to changing the residential character of the neighborhood (e.g., creating an over - concentration of residential care or bed and breakfast uses in the vicinity of the proposed use). In making this finding or sustaining the finding, the Hearing Officer and /or Council shall consider, as appropriate, all of the following factors: a. The proximity of the use location to parks, schools, other conditionally permitted uses of the same or similar type, outlets for alcoholic beverages, and any other uses that could be affected by or affect the operation of the subject use; b. The existence of substandard physical characteristics of the area in which the use is located (e.g., limited available parking, lot widths, narrow streets, setbacks, short blocks), and other substandard characteristics M, 1000 Halyard Memory Care Facility February 6, 2013 Page 7 that are pervasive in certain areas of the City of Newport Beach, including portions of Balboa Island, Balboa Peninsula, Corona Del Mar, Lido Isle, Newport Heights, and West Newport, which portions were depicted on a map referred to as the Nonstandard Subdivision Area presented to the Commission on September 20, 2007, and on file with the Director; and c. In the case of residential care uses, whether, in light of the factors applied in subsections (H)(4)(a) and (b) of this section, it would be appropriate to apply the American Planning Association standard of allowing only one or two residential care uses in each block. i. Median block lengths in different areas of Newport Beach widely range from three hundred (300) feet in the nonstandard subdivision areas to as much as one thousand four hundred twenty -two (1,422) feet in standard subdivision areas. ii. The average calculable block length in much of the standard subdivision areas is seven hundred eleven (711) feet and the calculable median block length is six hundred seventeen (617) feet. iii. The review authority shall apply the American Planning Association standard in all areas of Newport Beach in a manner that eliminates the differences in block lengths. iv. In making this determination, the review authority shall be guided by average or median block lengths in standard subdivisions of the City. V. The review authority shall retain the discretion to apply any degree of separation of uses that the Hearing Officer deems appropriate in any given case. vi. A copy of the American Planning Association standard is on file with the Director. 5. The operation of buses, vans, and other vehicles used to transport residents, clients, visitors, guests, and /or staff to and from off -site activities or parking areas does not generate vehicular traffic substantially greater than that normally generated by residential activities in the surrounding area; 6. Arrangements for delivery of goods are made within the hours that are compatible with and will not adversely affect the peace and quiet of neighboring properties; and 7 1000 Halyard Memory Care Facility February 6, 2013 Page 8 7. Arrangements for commercial trash collection in excess of usual residential collection are made within hours that are compatible with and will not adversely affect the peace and quiet of neighboring properties. The proposed structure is specifically being built for the memory care use and the use is defined by the Zoning Code as a convalescent facility and not a residential care facility. There are not existing substandard physical characteristics in the area in which the use is located that would affect integration of the proposed project into the existing area. There are 22 parking spaces provided on -site, exceeding the minimum Code requirement of 1 space per 3 beds or 14 spaces. The memory care facility does not include the use of vans or buses as the residents remain primarily on -site. Vehicular traffic will be generated by employees, visitors, and delivery vehicles. The ITE Trip Generation Rate was used by the City Traffic Engineer to assess the proposed project in terms of average daily trips (ADT). Based on the ITE Trip Generation Rate, the memory care facility is expected to generate approximately 113 ADTs, where a 12- unit condominium project (maximum density allowed by the General Plan) would generate approximately 103 ADTs. A condition of approval is included to limit the hours of routine deliveries to Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and trash collection to one day per week between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Site Development Review Due to the size of the proposed building, approximately 19,200 square feet, a Site Development Review is required per Zoning Code Section 20.52.080. Pursuant to Section 20.52.080 C.2.c. the following criteria is required to be considered during the review of the proposed project: Compliance with this section, the General Plan, this Zoning Code, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or structure The proposed use and structure complies with the General Plan and all requirements of the Zoning Code, with the exception of the variance to exceed the maximum allowance for wall height within the front yard setback. The structure and use will comply with all Building and Fire Codes. The memory care facility is required to be licensed by the Department of Social Services (DSS) and meet all of the requirements to obtain and maintain this license. The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent developments, and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design; I 1000 Halyard Memory Care Facility February 6, 2013 Page 9 The proposed building maintains all of the required setbacks and is well under the maximum floor area of 31,500 square feet. The landscaping meets the Code requirements with over 3,000 square feet of landscaping within the parking lot area and over 8,000 square feet over the rest of the project site. Landscaping and screen walls are provided along the side property lines that abut existing residential uses. Lighting of the building is conditioned to meet the requirements of the Zoning Code to mitigate impacts to the adjacent neighbors. Delivery hours to the memory care facility are limited to mitigate potential impacts to the adjacent neighbors. The overall design of the project emulates a multi - family residential use with a courtyard, open landscaped areas, a walking path, and a distinct architectural design and finishes. The building design is Contemporary Mediterranean and finish materials are warm earth tone colors with complimentary landscape base plantings and trees to create a residential feel. The main entry tower is accentuated with a stone base material. The exterior includes a variety of darker base colors on the sand finish exterior plaster and stone finish which is complimentary to the architecture in the surrounding area. The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas; The proposed building is under the maximum square footage allowed and has a maximum height of 28 feet (33 foot front entry tower), in compliance with the Zoning Code. The building provides modulation and a step back of the second floor and includes a courtyard and a second -floor deck which further reduces the bulk. iv. The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces; Site access, including the drive aisles, driveways, parking and loading spaces have all been reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer for adequacy, efficiency and safety. The City Traffic Engineer also reviewed the Halyard easement for the efficiency and safety of the access to the site. There are specific conditions of approval from the City Traffic Engineer to ensure all circulation requirements are provided for. v. The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plant and irrigation materials; and The City Urban Forester reviewed the landscape plan and provided no suggested changes. A condition of approval is in place that requires a final review and approval by the City Urban Forester for plant and irrigation materials. Vi. The protection of significant views from public right(s) -of -way and compliance with Section 20.30. 100 (Public View Protection). The project site does not have the potential to obstruct public views from public view points and corridors, as identified on General Plan Figure NR 3 (Coastal Views), to the Pacific Ocean, Newport Bay and Harbor, offshore islands, the Old Channel of the Santa 0 1000 Halyard Memory Care Facility February 6, 2013 Page 10 River (the Oxbow Loop), Newport Pier, Balboa Pier, designated landmark and historic structures, parks, coastal and inland bluffs, canyons, mountains, wetlands, and permanent passive open space. In accordance with Section 20.52.0801, the Planning Commission may approve or conditionally approve a site development review application, only after first finding that the proposed development is: 1. Allowed within the subject zoning district; 2. In compliance with all of the applicable criteria identified in 20.52.080 (C)(2)(c) of this section; and 3. Not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endangers, jeopardizes, or otherwise constitutes a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development. The memory care facility is allowed within the RM Zoning District and is in compliance with Section 20.52.080 (C)(2)(c) as demonstrated above which also shows a harmonious integration into the surrounding developed area. Lot Merger The project site consists of two lots under common ownership and requires a lot merger and a waiver of a parcel map pursuant to Section 19.68.030 of the Subdivision Code. Redevelopment of the site as the memory care facility is consistent with Zoning Code standards including parking and building setbacks. The combined lot would result in a lot size consistent with the neighborhood and would be consistent with the minimum lot width and lot area required by Zoning Code Section 20.18.030. Pursuant to Section 19.08.030, the Planning Commission may waive the requirement of a parcel map for mergers resulting in the net elimination of no more than three parcels. In this case, the lot merger would result in one parcel being eliminated. The lot merger exhibits found in Attachment No. PC 6 have been reviewed by Public Works and the proposed merger meets the requirements of Title 19 (Subdivisions). Findings for approval are provided in the Draft Resolution found in Attachment No. PC 1. Variance The Variance request is for a 6 -foot high wall to extend 20- lineal feet along the parking lot where the Halyard and Medical Lane easements connect. The wall is shown as note No. 14 on Sheet 1.20 in the project plans found in Attachment No. PC 7. The Zoning Code allows a maximum 42- inch -high wall within the front yard setback. As discussed previously, the Medical Lane easement will only be accessed by emergency vehicles through a crash gate. 10 1000 Halyard Memory Care Facility February 6, 2013 Page 11 In accordance with Section 20.52.090.F, the Planning Commission may approve or conditionally approve a variance, only after first finding that the proposed development is: 1. There are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical features) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification; 2. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification; 3. Granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant; 4. Granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district; 5. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood; and 6. Granting of the variance will not be in conflict with the intent and purpose of this section, this Zoning Code, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan. A 42- inch -high wall would not align with the emergency crash gate and would jeopardize the barrier from the subject parking lot to Medical Lane. The orientation of the subject lot abuts the Halyard Medical Lane easements creating an unusual circumstance. Without the taller wall, the security of the property could be jeopardized. There is a walking path extending along the new building from the courtyard that is secured by a 6- foot -tall wall on all sides to provide a safe area for the residents to be outside. The security of this path could be jeopardized without this 6 foot wall. The wall would also ensure a separation between the new facility and the adjacent properties to the east. The Zoning Code requires a solid masonry wall a minimum of six feet in height where a non - residential zoning district abuts a residential zoning district. Although the proposed wall is not abutting the residential property, it is abutting Medical Lane which provides direct access to the residential property to the east which is approximately 50 feet away. 11 1000 Halyard Memory Care Facility February 6, 2013 Page 12 Conclusion Staff believes the findings for approval for the Conditional Use Permit including Section 20.52.030, Site Development Review, Lot Merger, and Variance can be made and facts in support of the required findings are presented in the draft resolution (Attachment No. PC 1). Correspondence The Planning Commission and the Planning Division have received letters in support of the proposed project from Newport Beach Plaza, Crystal Cove Care Center, Superior Rehab Center and a resident at Newport Beach Plaza. The letters also express a concern if the project were amended to allow anything more than emergency access from Medical Lane. Additionally, the resident at Newport Plaza is concerned if construction trucks would utilize Medical Lane. The Planning Commission and the Planning Division have also received a letter from the attorney representing the Newport Knolls residential community expressing concern with the access to the proposed project. These letters are found in Attachment No. PC 9. The applicant has conducted community outreach through offering and conducting meetings with the surrounding neighbors and neighborhood. These efforts are demonstrated in a matrix provided by the applicant also found in Attachment No. PC 9. Alternatives 1. The Planning Commission may suggest specific project modifications or operational changes that are necessary to alleviate concerns. If the changes are substantial, the item should be continued to a future meeting to allow redesign of the project. 2. If the Planning Commission believes that there are insufficient facts to support the findings for approval, the Planning Commission should deny the application requests (Attachment No. PC 2). Environmental Review The project is categorically exempt under Section 15332, of the State CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines - Class 32 (In -fill Development Projects). The project meets all of the conditions required for this exemption which are provided with supporting facts in the draft Resolution found in Attachment No. PC 1. Public Notice Notice of this application was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights -of- way and waterways) including the applicant and posted on the subject property at least 12 1000 Halyard Memory Care Facility February 6, 2013 Page 13 10 days before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: Submitted by: Melinda Whelan Assistant Planner Br n a Wisnes i, ICP, Deputy Director ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Draft Resolution with Findings and Conditions PC 2 Draft Resolution for Denial PC 3 Map of Halyard and Medical Lane easements PC 4 Beach House Apartments Lease Agreement PC 5 Development and Operational Standards including Operations and Management Plan PC 6 Lot Merger Exhibits PC 7 Project plans PC 8 Color renderings including building materials PC 9 Correspondence Template.dotx: 10/15/13 13 14 Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Resolution with Findings and Conditions TO BE PROVIDED FEBRUARY 3, 2014 2� 10 Attachment No. PC 2 Draft Resolution for Denial 17 12 RESOLUTION NO. 2014- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. UP2013 -019, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. SD2013 -005, LOT MERGER NO. LM2014 -001, AND VARIANCE NO. VA 2014 -002 FOR A MEMORY CARE FACILITY LOCATED AT 1000 HALYARD (PA2013 -195) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by Orvieto Properties, with respect to property located at 1000 Halyard and 1455 Superior Avenue G., and legally described as first addition to Newport Mesa Tract Lot 918 Easterly ' /z East 1 Acre Northerly 158.88 Feet in Lot Tract 257 and first addition to Newport Mesa Tract Lot 818 Westerly 50 Feet Northerly 165 Feet in Lot Tract 257 requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit, Site Development Review, Lot Merger and Variance. 2. The applicant proposes an approximately 19,200- square -foot, two -story convalescent facility. The convalescent facility would be in the form of a memory care facility licensed by the state with 42 beds occupied by residents that are considered non - ambulatory. The project would occupy two building sites that are currently vacant and were historically used as boat storage. The request also includes a lot merger to merge the two sites into one parcel for the development and a variance for a wall to be 6 feet high where the Zoning Code limits the height to 42 inches. 3. The subject property is located within the Multi -Unit Residential (RM) Zoning District Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Multiple -Unit Residential (RM). 4. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone. 5. A public hearing was held on February 6, 2014 in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission Zoning Administrator at this meeting. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. 19 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 2 (3i­2 SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. In this case, the Planning Commission was unable to make the required findings. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies Site Development Review No. SD2013 -005, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2013 -019, Lot Merger No. LM2014 -001, and Variance No. VA2014 -002. 2. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 6th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Brad Hilgren, Chairman I --ya Kory Kramer, Secretary Tmplt: 12/15/2011 20 Attachment No. PC 3 Map of Halyard and Medical Lane easements 21 22 v, PpP y GENSIP gP� --< 81 � ^p hi m Y. 8z _ L 3 843 z m a ' Iff [ �] W W N v m e e� LIL e u � f 6 C � �i J m _ J m � � v U y' MILE o0 z � m i _ a O 1 C � o Y � NR g z � 3NN3AV VIAOUNOW a�S np , L� i ry0 o,/ ru' Attachment No. PC 4 Beach House Apartments Lease Agreement 25 20 RECORDING REQUMW by .RECD &. BROWN LLP WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: NAME Orvieto Properties MALLING ADDDRESS RESS 1000 San Marino Ave. Zip oos San Marina, CA 91108 -1223 Recorded in Official Records, Orange County Nuh N an, Clerk- Recorder aS 30.00 S 8 0 0 0 5 7 8''1 7 7 1 2013060232920 3.24 pm 04118113 278 423 M10 F13 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.00 0.00 0,00 0.00'4 APNt Affects 424- 021 -24 MEMORA IDUlVt OF LICENSE AGRPEMENT AND IRREVOCABLE APPOINTMENT OF AGENT THIS MEMORANDUM OF LICENSE AGREEMENT AND IRREVOCABLE APPOINTMENT OF AGENT ( "Memorandum "), dated as of April 4, 2013, is made by and between BEACH ROUSE INVESTORS, a California general partnership ( "Beach House "), as the owner of that certain meal property in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange; State of California; as more particularly described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto, LISA de LORIMIER, Trustee of the LISA de L TRUST OF 2001, dated 4/27/01, and LISA de LORIMIER and RICHARD de LORIMIER, doing business as ORVIETO PROPERTIES ("Orvieto'), all of which are the parties to that certain document entitled, "License Agreement and Irrevocable AppointmentofAgent" dated October 15, 2612, and with reference to the following recitals and facts. RECITALS A. Orvieto is the owner of certain real property located in Newport Beach, California, which is commonly known as or referred to as 1000 Halyard, NewportBeach, Call fOrnia ( "Orvieto Property" ), B. Beach House is the owner of certain real property located in Newport Beach, California, which property is legally described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto ("Beach House Properly "). The Beach House Property consists of three (3) parcels; and the northerly thirty (30) feet of each of said parcels is subject to an easemor t in favor of Orvieto for road purposes (said portion of the Beach House Property that is subject to said road easementis reflected on Exhibit "B" attached hereto, and is hereinafter referred to as the "Beach House Easement Area "), PURSUANT TO AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH the terms and conditions of the License Agreement; the parties have mutually agreed as follows: 1, Beach House has granted to Orvieto a license to use the Beach House Easement Area for additional purposes, provided that such additional uses are not inconsistent with the use of the Beach House Easement Area by at1 dominant easement holders. 27- ITF 2. Said grant of license. includes, but is not limited to, that tight and authority of Orvieto to do any of the following:. 2.1. To. make modifications. ofthe Beach House .F:aserneutArea. 2.2. To manage,, control and enforce the use of the Beach House Easement Area. 2.3. To initiate any action, proceeding or claim as necessary to enforce or control the use of the Beach House Easement Area. 2t¢ To obtain or compel the removal of any proPerty, including vehicles, which are improperly. placed or located upon the Beach House Easement Area, .2.9. To post signs regarding the proper and lawful use of the Beach House Easement Area, 2.6; To use the Beach House Easement Area for such other uses as are consistent or complimentary to the foregoing.gratsts: 3. Beach House has irrevocably designated and appointed Orvieto as its agent (attomey -in- fact), to do all things in the name of and on behalf of Beach House,.as necessary, with respect to the Beach House Easement Area,. including the following. 3.1. Obtain any and all auihorizations,;permits, entitlements, licenses or agreements as it relates to Orvieto's use of the Beach House Easement Area. 3.2. In connection with, such authorizations, to submit and file any such applications or other documents necessary. 3:1 To act on behalf of Beach House as its designated agent in any and all legal actions; proceedings or other matters relating to the_ enforcement of any rights relating to theBeach'House Easement Area. 3.4. To receive on behalf of Beach.House, as its agent, or representative; any dad all Communications, directions, notiees or other communications in any way relating to the Beach House Easement Area. 15. To contract for and undertake any and all improvements for and in the name of Beach House with respect to the Beach House Easement Area. 4. As to the designation and appointment as Orvieto as the agent for Beach House with respect to the Beach House Easement Area, and as otherwise set forth in the License Agreement, said designation and appointment is coupled with an interest, namely the grant of the license to Orvieto by Beach House, and is therefore an irrevocable designation and appointment of Orvieto as &. attorney -in -tact with respect to such matters on behalf of beach House. t:4earNri,[AJMWnt.WpC 3 .1994 lmeiw.lcme agM "3)8,dwx 2. 22 5. 71c License Agreement constitutes a license to use only; and does not create or establish a leasehold interest of any kind whatsoever; Nothing contained in said License Agreement or this Memorandum shall be construed or interpreted as creating or otherwise establishing any leasehold interest in said Beach House Easement Area. 6. This Memorandum shall in all cases be construed in a manner consistent with the. terms and provisions -.of the License Agreement, and in all cases, the terms and conditions of the.Licease Agreement.shall govern any and all rights of Beach House and/or Orvieto, and to the extent any provisions of this Memorandum shall be inconsistent or shall be ambiguod"s with respect to the rights and obligations granted by the License Agreement, License Agreement shall;prevail. This Memorandum shall solely be the purpose of establishing, as a matter of record, the. existence of the License;Agreement as between Orvieto and Beach House on the terms and conditions as more particularly set forth in the License Agreement. 7:. The term ofilie License Agreement is for a period of thirty-four (34),years and .eleven (t.l) aloinths, commencing as of October 15, 2012', 2047. and ending on September 15, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the.partieshereto.dulyexecuted this Memorandum of License Agreement and Irrevocable Appointment of Agent as, of the date set forth opposite theft respective names: Dated: .2013 ORVIETO PROPERTIES gPP'L Dated:_ "Mereh , 2013 ctnmrHmcfif3llb»iru prop R1R1- ll�nrnq If�:rmu, nRn�t.9,31g,dga 0 LORIMIER TRUST OF 2001, de Epirmer, Trustee. BFACI4 HOUSE Il VESTO.IL4, a general partnership Hy. T L V. Xath, Go bratPartner a;,_L �9 30 Attachment No. PC 5 Development and Operational Standards including Operations and Management Plan 31 S2 C71 January 28, 2014 1000 Halyard Memory Care Facility Development and Operational Standards A. GENERAL The proposed project is a 42 -bed Memory Care Facility on a .689 acre parcel located at 1000 Halyard in Newport Beach. The property is zoned RM (Residential Medium Density and is currently vacant after serving as both boat storage and parking for adjacent uses. The proposed building is 19,294 SF; Floor 1 isl 1,201 SF, Floor 2 is 8,093 SF. The building coverage is 37.3% for an FAR of .64 with landscape coverage of 35.3% and hardscape coverage of 27.4 %. The Memory Care facility will be licensed by the State Department of Social Services. There will be 10 single occupant rooms and 16 rooms to house two residents. The required parking is 1 car per 3 beds or 14 spaces. The Parking provided is 22 spaces (8 spaces over the requirement). B. DESCRIPTION OF USE The Memory Care Facility provides 24 -hour care for residents who have been diagnosed with Dementia and /or Alzheimer's. Their memories and cognitive functions are severely compromised and they need help with most daily life functions. These residents are not able to take care of themselves in an Assisted Living environment but do not need the full care that is provided in Skilled Nursing Units. These residents are very quiet and will stay on site at all times. This project requires a license provided by the State of California through the California Department of Social Services (DSS C. TYPE OF LICENSE REQUIRED The project type "Memory Care" falls under the jurisdiction of the California Health and Safety Code, Section 1569.10. The facility will be licensed by the California Department of Social Services (DSS) prior to the start of operations. D. NUMBER OF CLIENTS, SERVICES, ACTIVITIES, VISITORS NUMBER OF CLIENTS: The project as part of the licensing process will be permitted for a maximum of 42 residents. These facilities usually operate at about 92% occupancy which allows for normal turn -over, resulting in a typical occupancy of 40 residents. 5020 BAYSIDE, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 PH: 949.296 -7000 A DIVISION OF BLOMGREN ARCHITECTURE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 33 SERVICES PROVIDED: The clients in this facility are functionally impaired and cannot undertake many of the standard daily living tasks of healthy individuals. They need help with dressing, bathing, eating, and general mobility. The facility will provide assistance related to the administering of their physician prescribed medications. SITE ACTIVITIES: The clients in this facility are very docile and activities are mostly playing table games, watching television, walking around indoors and eating. There is not a great deal of outside activities. On rare occasions, a small group, possibly 1 -2 people might be taken by a standard vehicle to a park for a monitored outing. All other activities will be conducted within the building or internal courtyard. The floor plan does not provide for internal events which will draw outside participants. VISITORS: It has been the experience of the industry that visitation to these facilities by family members is very light. Depending on the resident's level of disease, you may have some family members coming once a week. As the disease progresses the resident will not recognize family members any longer and the visitations will drop sometimes to once a month or even longer intervals. Visiting hours are to be designated by the operator but are estimated to be from 9:00 AM through the dinner hours, and the number of visitors is difficult to estimate but generally run about 10 -12 per day maximum. E. OPERATIONAL HOURS AND STAFFING This project operates on a 24/7 basis. During the day, most resident support will take place within a standard workday with 16 -18 staff between 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM. The second shift of 12 -14 staff is from 4:00 PM to 12:00 midnight and the night shift of 4 -6 staff is from 12:00 midnight to 8:00 AM. There are minimum staffing levels based on the number of residents established by State licensing so the staffing will vary based on the actual occupancy. Also in this type of health care, approximately 30% of the employees will either be dropped off for work or will take public transportation so not all employees will drive to work. F. AMOUNT OF GRADING This site is basically flat. Our goal would be to try to balance the site including foundation spoils to limit the grading activities. G. BUILDING HEIGHT AND DESIGN The building is Modern Mediterranean design with stucco and stone exterior. It features both one -story and two -story components with a tower for architectural interest. The tower and roofs are sloped with a height varying from 28 feet to 33 feet as permitted by the RM Zoning. H. SITE ACCESS AND HALYARD EASEMENT Our project is at the east end of the Halyard easement extending easterly from Monrovia. There are four properties that are parties to this easement. The easement in total is 60' wide and approximately 635 long. It provides legal access to Newport Knolls, One Nautical Mile, and our site at 1000 Halyard along the northern 30' sections of this easement. The Beach House Apartments Complex (to the south) owns the entire 30' wide south half of this easement for its entire 635' length. The access rights for 1000 Halyard to the full Halyard easement are permanent. The owners of 1000 Halyard have entered into a long -term license agreement with the Beach House Apartments, which allows for the management and maintenance of this entire southern 30' half of the easement for its entire 635' length. Documentation verifying this agreement has been submitted to Staff. I. HALYARD & MEDICAL LANE ISSUES Medical Lane and Halyard do not align; the parcels they support were subdivided at separate times by separate owners. Medical lane is 30 feet wide and Halyard is 60 feet wide, the roadways do not lineup and were never meant to be joined. For the new project, two parcels are being combined and a lot merger is a part of the applicant's request. When merged with the larger piece, the smaller parcel will create one new single site to be accessed from Halyard. The projects that currently share Medical Lane experience traffic congestion and there is no practical way to support additional traffic on Medical Lane. The uses that do rely on Medical Lane for access from Superior include 1455 (Newport Beach Plaza), 1455 "H" (single family residence), 1445 (Crystal Cove Skilled Nursing Facility) and 1441 (commercial office building) and are experiencing parking shortages. Three of the four facilities have multiple truck deliveries throughout the day, in addition to ambulances and other emergency vehicles. If Medical Lane were opened and connected to the Halyard easement, a through- way from Monrovia to Superior would be created prompting unwanted traffic across a private roadway. Even now, with fencing in place, beach -goers climb the fence to cut through from Monrovia to Superior. The Memory Care facility is designed to be a destination; quiet and secluded, at the dead end of the Halyard easement. Additionally, cars looking for parking spaces for those properties that face Superior would inevitably drive down the easement in search of parking at the Memory Care facility or at Newport Knolls, interrupting the residential nature of the uses accessing from Halyard. As a stand -alone project, the integrity and investment value of the 1000 Halyard project as a self - reliant property must remain independent of the properties to the S5 east, therefore requiring access from Halyard as has long been contemplated and noticed to the entities that are party to the easement. J. HALYARD BEACH HOUSE AGREEMENT The proposed development at 1000 Halyard has an existing recorded legal right to use the full 60 foot easement for ingress and egress from Monrovia. Our site is at the far east end of this legally recognized roadway easement and it dead ends at the east side of our site. The 60 foot easement appears on the Tract maps for Newport Knolls and One Nautical Mile as well as the deeds for the Beach House Apartments. As a secondary issue independent of the recorded legal access rights listed above, the 1000 Halyard owners entered into a separate 34 year, 7 month lease with the owners of Beach House Apartments, who own the southern 30 feet of the easement, so that they could directly manage and maintain that portion of the easement. K. LOT MERGER A lot merger was filed on October 24, 2013 and is part of this application. L. REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE Zoning Code Section 20.30.040 only allows walls within a required front yard setback to be 42" high. We were able to modify our design at the south -east portion of our site so that now the majority of the wall will be outside the 20' -0" setback area with the exception of one small 20' -0" long section of the wall as shown on the site plan. A six foot high wall at one 20' -0" section is requested for several reasons: • The higher wall will provide continuity between the 6' -0" high portions of the wall that are designed outside of the setbacks and meet code requirements. • A taller fence is needed for both security and privacy for the memory care residents. • The requested wall is at the dead end of this property, the terminus of Halyard. Any wall less than 6 feet would allow through- access for individuals seeking a short -cut to the beach. • This portion of the wall further defines a separation between the new Memory Care Center and the properties to the east of the project. Variance Findings: 1. There are special and unique circumstances in that the wall is at a terminus of an easement and necessary to contain the privacy of the memory care center 2. Strict compliance with the zoning code in this instance is not reasonable due to the unusual location of this parcel adjacent to and at the end of an easement 3. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property right as this site transitions from a nonconforming use to compliance with the residential zoning standards on a uniquely located lot. so 4. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity as there are no other properties in the same circumstances. 5. Granting of the variance does not adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of any surrounding properties and in fact is a method of insuring the privacy of all the adjoining properties. M. Development and Operational Standards. Management and Operation Plan. The use will be operated in compliance with applicable State and local law and in compliance with the management and operating plan and rules of conduct. The tenant for the memory care center is Corktree Holdings, LLC, , a partnership wholly owned by Plum Osco Holdings, LLC which also operates the Crystal Cove Assisted Living facility at 1445 Superior Ave., Newport Beach, CA 92663. A specific Management and Operation Plan will be provided prior to C of O, including the telephone number of the on -site manager. In the meantime, the phone number of Corktree is 7601471-0388. a. The hours of operation are 24/7 with three shifts of employees. During the day, most resident support will take place within a standard workday with 16 -18 staff between 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM. The second shift of 12 -14 staff is from 4:00 PM to 12:00 midnight and the night shift of 4 -6 staff is from 12:00 midnight to 8:00 AM. There are minimum staffing levels based on the number of residents established by State licensing so the staffing will vary based on the actual occupancy. b. Deliveries are anticipated to include one food delivery truck per week, trash pick -up once per week, and other miscellaneous traffic such as doctors, daily mail and UPS and /or Fed Ex pickup and drop offs, etc. amounting to about 12 visits per week. 2. Operational Standards. a. If the facility is not licensed by the State, managers, operators, owners, clients, visitors, and residents shall not provide any services on site that would require licensure of the facility in compliance with State law. The facility will be licensed by the State and will be in complete compliance with all applicable State Law. b. The facility is designed for one and two occupants per room as designated in the project description, with a maximum of 42 residents, residents cannot drive, and the number of employees at any one shift will not exceed the parking demand, resulting in a low traffic generating use, compatible with surrounding uses. 37 c. The tenant is Corktree Holdings, LLC, as owned by Plum Opco Holdings LLC, 100 E. San Marcos Blvd., Suite 200, San Marcos, CA 92069. d. While they do not currently operate a Memory Care facility, their other similar operations are not in violation of any Federal, State, or local law. See attached list of their other operating entities in California. 3. Smoking. The operator will identify a properly designated Smoking Area prior to Certificate of Occupancy. N. TRANSPORTATION & PARKING PARKING: Per section "A" above in this document, code requires 14 spaces and 22 spaces have been provided. PARKING DEMAND: Based on the Staffing for the project the following is estimated: Between 11 and 14 parking stalls for staffing will be needed on the largest shift. This is based on the expected number of employees that will be dropped off or will use public transportation. It is further estimated that no more two stalls will generally be required for guests. Therefore at the peak operating hours 16 -18 spaces will typically be needed for the project. This leaves 6 extra parking spaces. TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC AND PRIVATE: Guest and visitors will almost universally come by their own private vehicles. For any outings, a staff vehicle will likely be used for these events as they are very rare. The location of the nearest bus stop is on Placentia between 15th and Superior. DELIVERIES: the project will have a pre -set food delivery once a week in a small truck. We have designed the site with a "T" shaped turn around driveway configuration so any van or truck can make a maneuver to turn around and exit by the same path they entered. We will also have Postal deliveries as would be standard by the US Postal Service. Trash truck pick -ups will be done once a week O. UTILITIES WATER: Mesa Water District serves the site with a water line that runs from Monrovia on the Halyard easement to 1000 Halyard. There is also a metered active water line on the 1455 "G" lot. SEWER: There is an eight -inch sewer line that runs up Medical Lane and ends at the end of 1455 Superior (Newport Beach Plaza). Additionally, there is a sewer line that runs from 1455 "F" Superior (the residential property that stands behind Crystal Cove) and connects to the Medical Lane line. ON GAS: There is a 2 inch steel line that is capped near the water line on the 1455 "G" Superior lot. ELECTRIC: There is a power pole on the 1455 "G" Superior lot from which Southern California Edison lines to 1000 Halyard can be undergrounded. TELEPHONE / COMMUNICATIONS: The power pole mentioned above also supports AT &T lines. P. LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1000 HALYARD, NEWPORT BEACH, CA. A.P.N.: 424-011-20 PARCEL 1: The East one acre of the North 158.88 feet of Lot 918 of First Addition to Newport Mesa Tract, as shown on a map recorded in Book 8, Page 61 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of Orange County, California. Excepting there from the West one -half thereof. Excepting from the above described property one half of all oil, gas and other hydrocarbon substances and minerals in, on or under said land, as reserved in the deed from Gladys L. Cooper and Elsie R. Morrill and others, dated May 10, 1945 and recorded July 6, 1945 in Book 1318, Page 342 of Official Records. PARCEL 2: A Right of Way for road purposes over the South 60 feet of the North 188.88 feet of Lot 918 of First Addition to Newport Mesa Tract, as shown on a map recorded in Book 8, Page 61 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of Orange County, California. Excepting there from that portion within Parcel 1 herein before described. COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1455 "G" SUPERIOR AVENUE, NEWPORT BEACH, CA. A.P.N.: 424-011-19 PARCEL 3: The West 50 feet of that portion of Lot 818 of First Addition to Newport Mesa Tract, as shown on a Map recorded in Book 8, Page 61 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said Orange County, bounded and described as follows: Beginning at the Northwesterly corner of said Lot 818, running thence North 890 41' East along the Northerly boundary of said Lot a distance of 100 feet, thence South 00 S9 19' East on a line parallel to the Westerly boundary of said Lot a distance of 165 feet to the Northwest corner of land conveyed to Rosie Morgan by Deed recorded April 7, 1948; thence South 8911 41' West on a line parallel to the Northerly boundary of said Lot, 100 feet to the midpoint of the Westerly boundary of said Lot; thence North 0❑ 19' West along the Westerly boundary of said Lot a distance of 165 feet to the Point of Beginning. PARCEL 4: An easement for street and utility purposes over a 30 foot strip of land measured 15 feet on each side of a Center Line described as beginning at the midpoint of the Westerly boundary of said Lot 818; thence North 891141' East along the East West Center Line of Lot 818, a distance of 250 feet; thence South 50❑ East a distance of 190.60 feet, more or less, to a point in the Southeasterly boundary of Lot 818, distant thereon 34.65 feet North 4011 East of the Southeast corner of said Lot. LUO Attachment No. PC 6 Lot Merger Exhibits KIM 42 EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT MERGER NO. LM - (LEGAL DESCRIPTION) EXISTING PARCEL PROPOSED PARCEL OWNER A.P. NUMBER REFERENCE NUMBER LISA RAWLINS de LORIM/ER 424- 011 -19 AND PARCEL I TRUST OF 2001 U T A 424 - 011 -20 PARCEL 1: THE WEST 50 FEET OF THAT PORTION OF LOT 818 OF FIRST ADDITION TO NEWPORT MESA TRACT, IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 8, PAGE 61 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, SAID PORTION BEING BOUNDED AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 818; THENCE SOUTH 89 °42'18 "EAST 100.00 FEET ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 818; THENCE SOUTH 0 °18'09 "WEST 165.18 FEET ALONG A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL WITH THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 818 TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO ROSIE MORGAN BY DEED RECORDED APRIL 7, 1948 IN BOOK 1747, PAGE 26 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, THENCE NORTH 89 °42'18" WEST 100.00 FEET ALONG A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL WITH SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 818 TO THE MIDPOINT OF SAID WESTERLY LINE OF LOT 818; THENCE NORTH 0 °18'09" EAST 165.18 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF LOT 818 TO SAID NORTHWEST CORNER AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH THE EAST HALF OF THE EAST ONE ACRE OF THE NORTH 158.88 FEET OF LOT 918 OF SAID FIRST ADDITION TO NEWPORT MESA TRACT BEARING FOR THIS DESCRIPTION ARE BASED ON THE CENTERLINE OF 15TH STREET BEING N.89 °42'18" WEST AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF TRACT NO. 16468, FILED IN BOOK 858, PAGES 45 THROUGH 47, INCLUSIVE, OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. k- ND PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY SUPERVISION: go ('G No. 7848 MICHAEL NAVARRO, L.S. 7848 Exp. 12/31 /14 LICENSE EXPIRES 12/30/2014 JTTFaF CA�F��N 43 EXHIBIT "B" SHEET 1 OF CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT MERGER NO. LM - (MAP) EXISTING PARCEL PROPOSED PARCEL OWNER A.P. NUMBER REFERENCE NUMBER LISA RAKINS de LORIMIER 424 - 011 -19 AND PARCEL 1 TRUST OF 2001 U T A 424 - 011 -20 15th STREET N89'42'18 "W _ 659.78' N89 42'18 "W 659.76R2, 659._75 o i Lu RI - Lu � �I h I�� � wN ry a wM O P LOF fl177 N. r W o a p W - 2 o WEST LINE LOT 817 2 w V �. P,Q,B, N8 '42'18-W (659.82" R2) I � a w' 137 09' 137. 08' L 1 L 1 2 N89•42'18 "W 78798 N WEST LINE OF NORTH ro e� TRACT 11018 BBB M.M. 492123 -25 LINE OF LOT 818 2 o � �° o PARCEL o� 1 d04 `4 NOTE 1 30, 039 S.F. ap m ro o „ o °n oh II,7 g�B oo L6 4RACY N0° 11016 8 2 —NOTE 2 1 2 1 M ���� 2� m1 492123 -25 v °Mo 7 - - 50' 6 - - -- N89'42'18 "W - - - N89'42'18 "W Q 137.08' 137 08' - -- - - -? - - I"- - -- --� L1100.00' L3 N8y9 °42'18 "W 522.763 6 11 7 L2 - - - - - -- - - - - ------ - - - - -- � �09 2 7 EAST LINE 5 N.W. CORNER Ik' OF LOT 918 �w OF ROSIE ��� g�� o ro WEST LINE �0 Y�,, OF LOT 818 MORGAN PARM.M. a06i � � LOT BIG, Mello 4001 N " SCALE: 1 =100' BOUNDARY LINE NOTES NOTE 1 NORTH LINE OF LOT 918, M.M. 8161 MERGED PARCEL AREA: NOTE 2 WEST LINE OF EAST ONE -ACRE OF THE 30,039 S.F. NORTH 158.88 FEET OF LOT 918, M.M 8161 AND BASIS OF BEARINGS. ����cpPE tvA G, BEARINGS HEREON ARE BASED ON THE � OF v "✓0 15TH STREET BEING N89 42'18 "W PER TRACT PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY NO. 16468, M.M. 858145 -47 SUPERVISION: No. 7848 ,k Exp. 12/31/14 .* EASEMENT SEE SHEET 2 FOR EXIS77NG �9TFOF LEGEND, LINE LEGEND, RECORD DATA M1C��NAVARRO, L.S. 7848 CA��F���\P LEGEND AND LINE TABLE LICENSE EXPIRES 121,3112014 NE EXHIBIT "B„ SHEET 2 OF 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT MERGER NO. LM - (MAP) EXISTING PARCEL PROPOSED PARCEL OWNER A.P. NUMBER REFERENCE NUMBER LISA RAWLINS de LORIMIER 424- 011 -19 AND PARCEL 1 TRUST OF 2001 U T A 424 - 011 -20 EXISTING EASEMENT LEGEND 1 PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT RESERVATION TO GLENN & VELMA CROFT PER 1421/393 O.R 2 PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT TO ALVA & VERA GUNN PER 14211393 O.R 3 PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT RESERVATION TO GLENN & VELMA CROFT PER 14591437 O.R 4 PRIVATE STREET & UTILITY EASEMENT RESERVATION TO JOHN YEARGAM PER 1595184 O.R. 5 PRIVATE STREET & UTILITY EASEMENT RESERVATION TO L.S. BLAKESLEE PER 1595184 O.R. (DOES NOT INCLUDE AREA LABELED AS ®) © PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT TO O'CONNOR PER 30891204 O.R. 7 PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT TO THOMPSON PER 55871582 O.R. 8 PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT RESERVATION TO EDWIN JR. & ELSIE KOGLER PER 55871582 O.R 9 NOTICE OF INTENT TO PRESERVE ROAD EASEMENT PER INSTR. NO. 2006000297090 O.R PRIVATE EASEMENT FOR STREET AND UTILITY PURPOSES, DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 2 IN A DOCUMENT RECORDED OCTOBER 2, 2013 AS INSTR. NO. 2013000565931 O.R. (ALSO INCLUDES AREA LABELED AS ®, BUT DOES NOT EXTEND INTO SUBJECT PROPERTY) 11 PRIVATE EASEMENT FOR ROAD PURPOSES, DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 2 IN A DOCUMENT RECORDED FEBRUARY 15, 2012 AS INSTR. NO. 2012000087658 O.R. LINE LEGEND: BOUNDARY OF PROPOSED MERGED PARCEL EXISTING LOT LINES TO REMAIN EXISTING LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) EXISTING EASEMENT RECORD DATA LEGEND: R7 RECORD PER TRACT NO. 16468, M.M. 858145 -47 R2 RECORD PER TRACT NO. 11018, M.M. 492123 -25 LINE TABLE Li N8942'18 "W 50.00" L2 N00'18'09 E 6.30' L3 N8942'18 "W (150.00' R2) L4 N49'11'36 "W (220.13' R2) 4,5 EXHIBIT "C" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT MERGER NO. LM - (SITE PLAN) EXISTING PARCEL PROPOSED PARCEL OWNER A.P. NUMBER REFERENCE NUMBER LISA RA KINS de LORIMIER 424 - 011 -19 AND PARCEL 1 TRUST OF 2001 U T A 424 - 011 -20 STREET MERGED PARCEL AREA: LINE TABLE -15th - N89'42 "18 °W 30, 039 S.F. L i N89'42'18 "W WEST LINE LOT 817 50.00' LOAF 817 L2 NOO'18'09'E IMAM. 8165 UIDNG r 6.30' "W coNC BLOCK WALL BUILDING CARPORT L3 N8942'18 200.00' 137.08' L1 NORTH r. N8942 "1 B' 'W 18708' DIRT BUILDING LINE OF L4 N49'1 1'36"W 220.13' CONC NORTH LINE CHAIN LINK WA�CK LOT 818 � ¢ DIRT OF LOT 918 DIRT FENCE EAST LINE OF LOT 918 LOST ale Lu �I CHAIN LINK O h BLOCK WALL PARCEL N 11. FENCE DIRT 30, O39 S.F. N h DIRT I O c �o BUILDING G z w ASPHALT LOT 918 11 J W Q 2 I ti o M W =2 rn M °° al" ASPHALT O DIRT c nOj (II♦3l CONC p EXISTING LOT LINE �" �^ U� O BLOCK i W o TO BE REMOVED o' °2 wgcL 2 �`J C� 1 1 al I ASPHALT n� ASPHALT 2 uvy`�° �O�'� uVY J 30' CHAT LINK FENCE CHAIN LINK DIRT _FENCE /GALE - -- 50,\ SCALE 1"-60' 1 8 BLOCK' ASPHALT 1 BUILDING FENCE LINK 4 5 " "W WALL N89-42'18 _ _ _DIRT ASPHALT 13708' ASPHALT -� - 522.76' DIRT 7 L7 N89'42'18 "W 6 ASPHALT Ti ASPHALT L2 CHAIN LINK 5 L3 9 11 FENCE /GATE r� \ k0, 9 3 AT DIR SPHAL T DIRT __________ _ WEST LINE CHAIN UNK FENCE--' OF LOT 818 Q' EAST LINE 2 7 o OF LOT 918 LOT BIB LOT g��s �06� BUILDING pQ' M°N° a06i so, EXISTING EASEMENT LEGEND 1 PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT RESERVATON PER 1421/393 OR BASIS OF BEARINGS.• f� 2 PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT DEDICA77ON PER 1421/393 O.R BEARINGS HEREON ARE 3 PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT RESERVATION PER 14591437 O.R BASED ON THE CL OF 15TH 4 PRIVATE STREET & U77LITY EASEMENT RESERVA7ON PER 1595184 O.R. STREET BEING N89 42 "18 "W 5 PRIVATE STREET & U77LITY EASEMENT RESERVA770AI PER 1595184 O.R. PER TRACT NO. 16468, 6 PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT PER 30891204 O.R. M.M. 858145 -47 O - ND NA 7 PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT PER 55871582 O.R. tS�PL qq4, F�o� 8 PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT RESERVATION PER 55871582 O.R. PREPARED BY M£ OR UNDER MY vF,�\c�P O 9 NOTICE OF INTENT TO PRESERVE ROAD EASEMENT PER INSTR. SUPERVISION: No. 7848 NO. 2006000294090 OR Exp. 12/31/14 ® PRIVATE EASEMENT FOR STREET AND UTILITY PURPOSES PER *. *. �qTF 11 PRIVATE EASEMENT FOR ROAD PURPOSES, PER DOCUMENT MICHAEL AVARRO, L.S. 7848 OF CAUF���\P RECORDED AS INSTR. N0, 2012000087658 O.R. LICENSE EXPIRES 1213112014 40 Attachment No. PC 7 Project plans 47 42 o _ u.9 �] y $ T8 Lm . \ -- . 1 – G .� � � t • � -- — — . / ! §Fill q.1 d |u III / f kz§ k � |�, E « ■ ,,,, ;., ;„ :!, | ( 2 \ CD 5 - _ §UA I I§ , : y.|� ,| .. | 2I| §.e.mme El 'BA v¥60UNOA \/ CL= @ N f0 Z m o- FN N Rf 2,10 a; U U LLJ a. �I I I I g op m $ i I g O............ O 0 0 0 0 lo- 6 2 O , � I I ° I E E o 2 S L w 50 oink flit •� ^t� nx - YFW °O -ZV� v rvo �n�w a l l l I��'' CL= @ N f0 Z m o- FN N Rf 2,10 a; U U LLJ a. �I I I I g op m $ i I g O............ O 0 0 0 0 lo- 6 2 O , � I I ° I E E o 2 S L w 50 '3A ¥yaONNOw , ! 110111111,11 d RHO[ iii||,||,,,, ■ | |.,1,|||,111 ' | | . / E) ED /\ All lit / \§ , § /a /0EDm m 51 23 d | '3A ¥yaONNOw , ! 110111111,11 d RHO[ iii||,||,,,, ■ | |.,1,|||,111 ' | | . / E) ED /\ All lit / \§ , § /a /0EDm m 51 �1 6 0 Is till iOO 21 � .e a_liiiiiiif zo r! $ i ig z R, gR Ij fill 9 gg gg "s gg pgfg9 9� �� g gg�gggg4 I Q� -1 gg16ggfi@gga 34�ua4 g!3 9 �g�pg3[$ igllgg� � 3111. SB R iW— B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0© 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v ®i xu��mx pl ZY9�53g 1 e o0 o g$RHyB a 1 R O 0 4 e I I I I 4 I R I I I I i 6 u5 6 1 non, I v ®i xu��mx pl �r� 4 o-a aae Q C Y S 1 }K hb 52 �i ZY9�53g e o0 o g$RHyB a 888 a �r� 4 o-a aae Q C Y S 1 }K hb 52 �i 9; 58 1.2 N 2 O B 0 0 0 O C 53 z.z cl� u gu; (DI El S El S S B 0 zo 0 Q (D 154 kk h§ § \h \dIiH I §§ ■s:.e.eaee. [a ..0..e... % ZS e....m000a0 e R§ ® a| a § ■gtj m §U HN e d3 ; 7) |, e....m000a0 e R§ ® a| a § ■gtj m §U HN e d3 ( |( %) \\ R)))7 «BBBOBBe.El .m...E) .,.,.(0 Mt § « r & ; E■ !§ 6§222 ;|p k§§&His §t§§ - ®k§ e y6 ; 7] | , |! « r & ; E■ !§ 6§222 ;|p k§§&His §t§§ - ®k§ e y6 �y wF� io`otl Y- - •° $� � � �� 57 I I i } i L � V� UHVAIVH 0001. `; JllllOd�32id0J2iOW3W : a °xrMxwevOimn 9 tl tl e i° $ gF pea o Y d. n 4 G33 E$�5£ O b °7Y 3 $w �w p — _� g� «F -g � pop I� n l I (�///��" > I 1 Q _l To Y it 1 J I e L i I' Q ,4 `I d Up E ig Id I i I @ Fyxi - w ie 51 Y "a s {dE� rc � i{i III a- d� w e lit E �(a °Y d4 : =gav7d e ➢ee'4a4 SxYid�P � P tFY �i.� 6 ��rt`g86 u�i' SF Sg °e�aY 'c Y4 3. � � 0 d E i' S�g•pp9Y E `l€3� P 9iq$ 4' "g x96 @b u ntltl{i{ ��3t � e 1 ] dS @56p.p�[F SC5 D Pt�itl ?d: i is i i 7 5 VO'HOV391HOdM 3N OitlAItlH OOO lllllObi 32itO hb OW3W � , . I1 J ' R tl 8 V/ � ea °8 ea =b _ 3 a} p � 6 iYs }nt �U a o7 3 �w H. A. wzo Ti RS Y21 _� U= 1 If a ur y Cpl P �n�a l lo J Yez W n �� - S 8 mrt -.f3 p a 'nf f rW� 6 gg °4�I 11�-.0 i o !g as�af 6 52g��PI ° � #gRi �YHC :�Q yy Y'a4 as�bs�xy a9z :$" '9n I yy�SF C V 5�5°g�e'3s�e 4 i8. t � : i 963C�S � O PRO I VO'HOV39 WOdM3N co �\ -Lriiod� 3Zo Oa1VAOVH0001 l b0W3W w s f a d - b ; i �iSPjC F o § N Y3a :a ips4�Y a l yY€ s 83 "x ... E ai t _3izi :Y ?tjy 9 :S j$s- cY 3 x} J xa 3 S i «p i J ¢� W J K Q d W n I 3YV U 3i A FI-� � WuZ 11- OJF(C I6 S P3 < 'I I Q arc I� — I [ "- :.:•:::.:::.•: :: :. ..,., ,: E i Y = j •H 119:HHHHHH9H189i1C189 Y: 1191 19:HH9H99H88.118H11189HL`9H°°,• 8999:9:9199' 2 K o xJ _3 0 a E a § §g §4 §4i § 3 § 9 a9s A A h A LIA A A Ak • iy a a e i B 3 d i a z w a K 0 U rc I VD'HOV3U IHOdM3N k $ € ryt 0 OHVAIVH000a a= \\ J J.11 OV:j 3 jvo A2iOW3W sxan�n�n�a+.osa�awanawi S b e J 7 "_ i 13 3 3 3F 5i5?5 93 zg4� �P s� v �YU 6Y 3 89C�YF &P$aE��Fy :} aeagPaPaaaa° a H 3i•, i i 7 3 3 i 3 3 3 e a etE yg 3566 jPY 'a� r i1a9 -I wx y @? E5 : pp§ :§ # 4# ° s RY §9 $i.[3g $y P u-, 3. ?a e't 4i4g i >k'd:P.F8 M' 88 i} OYq $I °I Le [O- � - 'p '4° s$ sk #i ]fiixa9 kY 9 +dt g'd -'y.. y k r S :d g $ t.x,:"§ ° P,: P E $ aP ?;'4 [seraYP Ey P 3' Cs;t 8 6 €3 B6' g'a¢ YR�B¢ Fds i &R 9ie_ s8gg $ § ?$ G4 r r ssd $ ; §1$§ $: *° II ' tt yy s Y5i' 3a fi_Y =:1 a _ & $ {1 �, Sd Ti.e 6Si•g ii ra z5 [ # .s I3It'ta ma gggs E., 14 .3 : i �£� {1 ww L �2 J daa a „i ea,j y Rj..q °i d -6P Yv Ai i 11 a tl ^qaP' 5 FyR: a etE yg 3566 jPY 'a� r i1a9 -I wx y @? E5 : pp§ :§ # 4# ° s RY §9 $i.[3g $y P u-, 3. ?a e't 4i4g i >k'd:P.F8 M' 88 i} OYq $I °I Le [O- � - 'p '4° s$ sk #i ]fiixa9 kY 9 +dt g'd -'y.. y k r S :d g $ t.x,:"§ ° P,: P E $ aP ?;'4 [seraYP Ey P 3' Cs;t 8 6 €3 B6' g'a¢ YR�B¢ Fds i &R 9ie_ s8gg $ § ?$ G4 r r ssd $ ; §1$§ $: *° II ' tt yy s Y5i' 3a fi_Y =:1 a _ & $ {1 �, Sd Ti.e 6Si•g ii ra z5 [ # .s I3It'ta ma gggs E., 14 .3 : i �£� {1 ww L �2 J F 0 AW <l �2 9 �S O 9 y x r x 1 0 � E Ix 22 3 r x > A O Dj o r Nor) Nor( A m N �x f • 11 as 61 "8 P4 77p og §i t 9 ' R if I -• -i ft a @ A � s Ea 4 R W s x � i 3 g M tl C tl i tl 4 G 5 L i tl Y 4 4 2 ' E 146E § §44EE §EEE 4 S ?]� ffid NO �I!�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII m�u � M-" d s � }e e Via„ p x £r ff9� ayrp4 aa. r4�.8 Y E z elk €g ``g4 �Ii,eES{ Da 0 I IRA 3[ r1 ayybi i4 0 Y9 gys E B.b _<r,d•sr 110 I I m y r. ,s c� pp r33�� �i I 'I it I C• — - `,S� I _ I AP �a +' I R I I I " 1 III � - lam. I.I� LL � v; f a r C• — - `,S� I _ I AP �a +' I R I I I " 1 III � - lam. I.I� LL � v; f a am — a 101ii-ndal os I � I 1 I I Q I'S am — a 101ii-ndal os ° - xUd �II�IIIIIIIIIIlllllllllllllll MOMM I��III� $ a IHgi ,1 I i I i A 11 D r1i� 1 r t r 1 1 1 [�6 1 ¶i _ � I I I I DO I fIl _ I H b a Uo Q ;I 1 16' ------------ - ---------- ------------ i 1 04 t�36i6i � s' 5 E g i 3 Q ES ��@ i iv PppFep�4ge{4F e��F�t� ap 00 00000000 $ a IHgi ,1 I i I i A 11 D r1i� 1 r t r 1 1 1 [�6 1 ¶i _ � I I I I DO I fIl _ I H b a Uo Q ;I 1 16' ------------ - ---------- ------------ i 1 04 Attachment N®. PC 8 Color renderings including building materials 05 00 0 ry Q J Q O O O T- 07 1112 ]N »,m:,e.:.m.:m,mm..,,m Mt k \ a§ a - alr,§r §§ §q §!§! ;§ )§k |&§k§ \ § 16 11 §_..�.�. moi !!�!! | :, |! ■ a§ a - alr,§r §§ §q §!§! ;§ )§k |&§k§ \ § 16 11 §_..�.�. moi � 7] '11' �,!�!� |i • ||g § §k w&; § ]& »e.El 0eE;.El ..m,.m,,.m „ 0 eEl 2.m.El .,e. s 2 % % )■ ! �■ ��` «]■`` m»»K2@K§ m!§; ; ;q, 5 ;;:;;:a a - ! §_ |; � 7] '11' �,!�!� |i • ||g § §k w&; § ]& »e.El 0eE;.El ..m,.m,,.m „ 0 eEl 2.m.El .,e. s 2 % % )■ ! �■ ��` «]■`` m»»K2@K§ m!§; ; ;q, 5 ;;:;;:a a |!.! , (\§\ »::El se \El El k a S S 3 m m m § 3 § 2 \ @ \ \ \F ± « — z�� � \ 2 ( 2 2 7a Attachment No. PC 9 Correspondence 71 72 NEWPORT BEACH PLAZA living better than ever January 9, 2014 Mr. Bradley Hillgren, Chair Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Memory Care Facility at 1000 Halyard Dear Mr. Hillgren: RecEIVto &P COMMUNITY JAN 14 2014 P� DEVELOPWNT ok N�iNPOR� 9�PG On behalf of the owners and operators of Newport Beach Plaza, I am writing to state our support of the new Memory Care Facility development project at 1000 Halyard. We believe this project will enhance the community and help provide a continuum of care for the aging population of Newport Beach. Newport Beach Plaza has been proudly serving the seniors of Newport Beach for over 23 years. We are a Retirement Community providing Assisted Living services. We are licensed as a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly with a capacity of 160. We operate at an occupancy of 118 apartments. Our understanding is that there is discussion regarding the street access route for this project. We want you to know that Newport Beach Plaza strongly opposes the use of Medical Lane as access to this project. We believe that our community and our residents are better served if the project is developed with street access from Monrovia and Halyard. Currently Medical Lane supports traffic for Newport Beach Plaza, Crystal Cove (a skilled facility), and a private home. To give you an idea of the traffic on Medical Lane, here is a list: • Monday through Saturday daily trash pick -up between Sam and 4pm impeding Medical Lane anywhere from seven to 20 minutes • Monday through Saturday daily produce delivery via semi - truck, unloading takes approximately 20 minutes • Monday through Saturday daily mail service • Monday through Saturday daily UPS and Fed Ex delivery • Daily pharmacy deliveries 1455 Superior Avenue • Newport Beach • CA 92663 • P 949.645.6833 • F 949.642.1131 www.leisurecare.com NEWPORT BEACH PLAZA 1i vin better than ever • Weekly medical equipmenheliveries via trucks • Monday through Friday daily construction supply deliveries via semi -truck Between 2 and 5 daily vendor visits for plumbing, construction, flooring, painting, carpet cleaning • Between 5 and 15 daily vendor visits for health care purposes • Between 15 and 30 guests and resident visitors daily • One to three weekly calls to 911 paramedics • Wednesday and Fridays food delivery via semi - truck, unloading takes 30 minutes to one hour • Weekly delivery of paint • Weekly landscaping truck • Weekly moving trucks moving residents in or out of the community • Between 25 and 55 employees daily • May through September Superior Ave is backed up with beach traffic, and lots of bikers and pedestrians. In contrast please consider the comparatively limited traffic of Halyard /Monrovia entrance which serves the nearly 25 residents of the Newport Knolls complex. We are a 24 hours a day, seven days a week business and residence. Newport Knolls is residential with most residents away during the day. We appreciate your consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions at (949) 645 -6833. Sincerely, Liana Constantinescu General Manager cc: Larry Tucker, Vice Chair Kory Kramer, Secretary Fred Ameri Tim Brown Raymond Lawler Jay Myers Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Community Development Director Leisure Care, LLC Norlyn Builders DBA Newport Beach BC, LP DBA Newport Beach Plaza Richard and Lisa deLorimier 1455 Superior Avenue • Newport Beach • CA 92663 • P 949.645.6833 • F 949.642.1131 www,leisurecare.com January 17, 2013 LCOVE �gpSIVEO ey Mr. Bradley Hillgren, Chair C1AREi` Planning Commission COMMUNITY City of Newport Beach 21 2014 100 Civic Center Drive JAN Newport Beach, CA 92660 DEVELOPMENT VZ' RE: Memory Care Facility at 1000 Halyard OP � rvEwPOR Dear Mr. Hillgren, I am the administrator at Crystal Cove Care Center, 1445 Superior Avenue, and am writing in support of the Memory Care Center project at 1000 Halyard. I should also clarify that I work for Plum Healthcare, the company which has entered into a long term lease to operate that Memory Care Center. Crystal Cove is a post - operative, skilled nursing facility open 24 hours per day serving the communities of Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, and many other communities. The services provided by Crystal Cove in relation to our community hospitals results in a patient turnover rate of 50 per week. We have 130 employees and are licensed for 96 beds but we operate at a maximum of 86 patients. We have a robust business which has significantly increased the value of this property. Not only do we employ over 130 employees, we provide our residents with 7 days a week access to several vendors and services throughout the community, i.e. physicians, medical supplies, food, x -ray and lab services, pharmacy, durable medical equipment, home health and hospice services to name a few. A memory care center complements services already being provided through Crystal Cove and our neighbor Newport Beach Plaza. Assisted Living, Memory Care, and Skilled Nursing provide a continuum of care to the residents of Newport Beach. However, we understand there is consideration being given to providing access to the Memory Care facility from Medical Lane. While we believe pedestrian access would be very helpful to our business as well as to Newport Beach Plaza and the Memory Care facility, we cannot support addition vehicular access via Medical Lane. When Crystal Cove opened its doors in 2008, we had 39 designated parking spaces on site, and we shared additional stalls with the office building next door to us at 1441 Superior. But we needed parking spaces for more than 80 cars, so we leased 41 spaces on the vacant lot (1000 Halyard) behind our property. That parking is gone now, and we are working with the City of Newport Beach to build more parking directly behind our facility. We do not anticipate seeing more than 18 -20 stalls in this new parking area, so we still need additional parking! 1445 SUPERIOR AVENUE, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 . 949 -515 -3930 TEL . 949 -515 -3974 F#1 CRYSTALCOVE CARE CENTER On a daily basis, Crystal Cove Care Center receives approximately 60 visitors per day as well as over 20 vendors per day who support the needs of our residents. Additionally, our food and linen vendors come daily and utilize Medical Lane to park their huge trucks to off -load our residents food and linen supplies. These semi - trucks may stay to off -load our supplies for more than 30 minutes at a time. Again, while we support this project, we cannot support vehicular access via Medical Lane. Thank you/for your consideration. 1445 SUPERIOR AVENUE, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 . 949 -515 -3930 TEL . 949.515 -3974 F#0 ,EClivl�o er COMMUNITY JA ^! `12 1 ?�14 n� DEVELOPMENT GT OF NEWPOR, Mr. Bradley Hillgren, Chair Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive City of Newport Beach, CA 92660 January 16, 2014 Dear Mr. Hillgren, Cara N. Campeau 1955 Balearic Dr. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Please reconsider using the Medical Lane in front of Newport Beach Plaza for ingress and egress of construction vehicles for the Memory Care Facility at 1000 Halyard in Newport Beach. I am writing on behalf of my 94- year -old mother, Isabel McIntyre, who is a resident on the third floor of the Plaza. Her apartment overlooks the medical lane, and we feel that the use of the lane in this manner would be a major disruption to her quality of life. Her sliding glass window is open much of the afternoon for ventilation so the noise and dust caused by those vehicles would be unbearable. In addition, as a regular visitor to the Plaza, I believe parking would become nearly impossible in an already cramped lot. Not to mention the difficulty that delivery trucks for the Plaza would experience. Finally, I think that safety is at issue as well. Paramedics and ambulances, by necessity, are frequent "visitors" of the Plaza and the nursing home next door. The bottleneck caused by the addition of construction vehicles is of great concern. I implore you to reroute the construction vehicles and all other traffic for the Memory Care Facility through 15th Street, Monrovia and Halyard Lane. Thank you for your thoughtful attention to this matter. Sincerely, Cara N. Campeau (/ 77 SuperiorReia:� Cete rjnc® The Superior Difference January 20, 2014 Mr. Bradley Hillgren, Chairman Newport Beach Planning Commission 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Planning Application for 1000 Halyard Dear Chairman Hillgren; I wish to express my support for the proposed memory care center being proposed by my landlords, Lisa and Richard de Lorimier on the parcel of land behind the building in which I work, here at Superior Rehab Center, Inc. I have owned and operated Superior Rehab since 1975, and have rented this space at 1441 Superior Avenue since 1989. We provide wound care, physical therapy, gait training for amputees, lymphedema treatment to approximately two hundred (200) patients per week and additional traffic and parking problems in our area will be untenable. I wish to express our deepest opposition to their use taking access from Superior Avenue on Medical Lane. My business shares parking with Crystal Cove Skilled Nursing facility, and therefore I have witnessed firsthand the congestion and traffic that is a daily reality of Medical Lane, including frequent emergency vehicles. The overflow of that congestion negatively affects our patients and staff, who often circle the parking lot several times before finding a parking space. All of this contributes to traffic issues on Medical Lane and Superior Avenue. While my staff and I support the development of the memory care center at 1000 Halyard, we cannot support the addition of more traffic and congestion on Medical Lane, and by extension, Superior Avenue. Please DO NOT ALLOW access to the new development from Medical Lane. S r ner Xc: Larry Tucker, Vice Chair Kory Kramer, Secretary Fred Ameri Tim Brown Raymond Lawler Jay Myers Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Community Development Director 1441 Superior Avenue, Suite B • Newport Beach, CA 92663 • Phone (949) 646 -0653 Fax (949) 646 -9228 superiorrehab @sbcglobal.net • www.superiorrehabctr.net 72 SINGER & COFFIN A PROFESSIONAL. CORPORATION 30 CORPORATE PARK, STE. 300 HUGH R. COFFIN IRVINE•„ CALIPORNL192606 \l. NGAI. SINGER (949) 863 -1224 ONACI'IVr� FAX: (949) 863 -1179 E -MAn_ hughcoffin @hcoFfinlaw.com ncal.singcr@singcrcoffin.com January 29, 2014 To the Honorable Chair and Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission Re PA2013 -195 Memory Care Facility 1000 Halyard 1455 Superior Avenue Attention: Melinda Whelan I have been asked to submit this correspondence that was sent by the undersigned as an email to Mr. Mark Brown, counsel for the Developer /Applicant, on January 28, 2014. The correspondence sets out the position of our client, the Board of Directors of Newport Knolls Condominium Association. To sum up the position, the proposed travel way along the 60 foot easement should be on the southerly portion of the easement, the travel way should be made straight and not have the designed °S` curve, the trees on the south line should be removed, the parking eliminated on the south side and there be a designation of the travel way within the easement. We believe this solution will make the travel way as safe as possible, it will keep vehicles traversing the travel way 30 feet or more to the south of the existing Newport Knolls development and the garages that front directly onto the easement, it will provide a separation buffer which will lessen the hazard to children who may be in the easement area by increasing separation and it will help improve general safety and it will lessen liability issues and maintenance issues. This proposed design is also consistent with the design allowed by the City at One Nautical Mile and as proposed by the developer for the Memory Care Facility, that is the travel way is located entirely on the south half of the 60 foot easement. The email to Mr. Brown is as follows and we ask that this note and the email be made part of the record in this matter and distributed to the Planning Commission. Mark My client has asked that I write you concerning the proposal by Orvieto to develop the memory care center. The client has talked directly with Melinda Whelan, the Planner on the project and generally set out the same proposal. We view this as the best solution for the safety of those using the easement and Newport Knolls owners, children of owners and visitors. The key points of the proposal are as follows: 1. The travel way will be straight and will be located in the southerly half of the easement, adjacent to the Beach House property and the paved width will comply with the Public Works requirement of at least 26 feet. At the west end there will be a short transition �9 from the existing drive entrance which is located on the northerly portion of the easement to the southerly side. The proposed "5" curve shown on drawing sheet 1.10 will be eliminated. No parking will be allowed on the southerly portion of the easement. 2. The existing trees along the southerly side of the easement adjacent to the Beach House will be removed. 3. The roadway will be repaired and repaved on the southerly portion of the easement after removal of the trees. 4. The developer will install landscaping along the southerly side of the easement. 5. Newport Knolls will be responsible to relocate any parking onto the northerly portion of the easement in front of its property. 6. A traffic delineation mechanism will be created to clearly show or depict the travel way on the southerly portion of the easement to the memory care center. 7. Newport Knolls will be able to use the southerly portion of the easement adjacent to its property for ingress and egress to garages and to any available parking in front of the Newport Knolls property. I can answer questions and my client is quite willing to meet as soon as possible with the City and /or the developer to go over these issues and reach agreement. Please get back to me as soon as possible since the hearing is presently set for next week on the application. Hugh R. Coffin Singer & Coffin, APC 30 Corporate Park, Suite 300 Irvine, CA 92606 (949) 863 -1224 (949) 863 -1179 (fax) IMPORTANT NOTICE: This electronic or print message is intended for the use of only the individual or entity to whom or to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and /or protected from disclosure by the attorney - client privilege, joint defense privilege, the attorney work product doctrine or other applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient (or an authorized employee or agent of the intended recipient) you are hereby notified that any distribution, copying, use or retention of this message is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and telephone us at (949) 863 -1224 and delete all copies from your inbox and all other locations it may be stored on your computer system. Thank you. Very truly yours, HRC /lch CC: Client via email Mark Brown via email i� N r iA L d C 0 w c V C 0 A M ! L ! � y ! O C -° .+" m i «+" to L O to Q O) Y m O a-0 m m U fn ..+ 0) C .0 N yo L N mE rn°ja) 3'o�a�° j• c m m m :. m o 0 0 ° m m� L. y E U U d m a) m E a p p' m �j 7 i- a) G M 0 > a) 'C 'O m c Z a) p ._. V1 c '6 ! N cn 'O r U m C L T m � y C P N> m m 'p I _m r- c .- a) L m m O. C a) 7 "O 'p a) m Q U d m m O 0 M >_ N L O_ p m U p ++ L O O m j U a) m O C C O m m m "° "O E �O m a m m C M 7 a) Q m m 0 'c m O L M CL °� m c Q oY = 3•� O >o cnN w u) mZ o c Z =" o >-D U c D U 3 ms ° �Q =w o o Y m Co c o a j o m 3°° !L Z N N E f°n w N N s_ O) N N •E m L y a) O r-) ° O c !+' E m 0 to = 7 to •O cn to N N N c cu .0 O _° 00- 3 L m e m O C O. m 0 �� C z -o v O. c m N Q) O aci .N a Lp N U `- ° �- .� O° !o a� ° a) (Dz U n �� E Q 3 0 0 m a) I O_ a) in U O a) •- O p L— L O° C O •� 7 w O cL `°> La ° y m m 2 cn N ��y I N m° O O Y O _° a) m° .3 p) ..: to N C m D c a) O o�° u°,wZ `z `.> oZy Y o ami"� c o m c� a3i0 E_0 I Q 0 C 0 � .2 c T t6 3 C 0 -p E 3 o U o c co Yp L m a > m cu CL 'Eo E•y c c m N p �� o � 3z� !a� cc•i mof p cN'c �O o l y N a) O - o a) '= w O to O m y 0 U ! c (D C s C) d J C J C M a) 7 C) p r T E C V N a ! 'a^) m O N > N 0_ a) 3 N a) m e- a) �- m N N C 7 O E L m I V' r M E N -6 Q '0 0 E N Q Q. 'p m L m 0 U i i I I Q U i m o cn 0 E U ;x m ld ° _ co a) a) E O a 'E 04t O C c Um a) O N — i E y m m r N _ C N Z L U) !c cQNzU) > O; � m C Q c >. W O 0 N d W N W E Co o� 3 a w I_ ,Q!r 7 U U > a`) aa)) m o 70 c m a) a) a (n > .N =!m2� E 0 E cav E c oc?�\ c c o Q O m m V a) --O ca z ra X22( �Z �� ) E m ors -14 ' 0) � m y Q a Q U i� Z m a)� c a m 00� 00 07 N p- a)NN c JCO CDQ�z I-2Qr� H2d0) < mm C� d!y 1 y M M i E 3 U) (D (D 7 O yn y;•� C J O i O(1) (.0 C �;m a) -carn rn m W > E am) �Q U c N.o omm C) L) aim �•� m H2 m H o —' m Q� m Q);0 D_ co m 7L �m 21 C) Vi= ° O0 � Qmcnz V- O1V- U) a m o z Iq ao 0 o L§ o 0 o a a1mcM �cD 3 w`-• 3 m� 3 may w� m Z l l l m m� a) ZcoZ O Z U)00Z g1 LO m 0 M N m V rn N .4: ii L d C 0 v C O U, L a) a) L -O C N O 0 L L ; a) .a) m N N � -O Y -O � L cu C L C U @ @ N a) Y Y C •m O U O -O L 'O O L_ a) N J @ E m o O a)@ m 0� o70 0 3u aa)i � 0 °° CD O_ > d L (-)-T @ c) 3 a) d O) @ = O- d a) = 0 U 0 C r d T >, a) ° C d E -@ O d o a)L c c ° @ a) O L C C N @ 3 O Q >> O O "O c IL 0 0 0 N 0)M O Co c=n >,� -O 0 @> N @ O -6 "' .� m (6 w, O L O) a) N@ N a) 0 0 3 L @O 0.. ° O °) N m N N@ C m ,� d@ OL 2 -O -° z O1 ..0 -O C L •N Y —� O Y 0 0 m L 0 -O @ O Y d a) o 6 c CD r a) o- N 3 E o 0 o c> C m m m> a) 0 U m rn C 'O O ,.- i .0 N a) C o > 0 0 a) o) c = m @ a) = a) co @ -O C L ° m w �.- y L 'O N T Od d_ �_ @ N a) O .-• a) _r O a) C O).� .0 d C 0@ C d D O) C O C.L. m N 2 E O O a) N E� 0 0 0 .2 c 3 _° @ L c@ O N Y U) M 0 'C YO C °)@c° -)m a)a`)c _jm-0 CL >Emo�OLO °- ain-OE N J O L O O .D a) _—° .0 @ J C N 3 a) N m N Q E E° E m.E Y- @ m� oL o-= @ a) O o o m E E -J 0-00 E E c L 3a e c Qtn ° 3 NAY NLZ o a) m 0 oY m o 0 o T L >,0 a @ a)� n� m @ a) 0 m - cn m °o c @ 0Lm C voi Ea 'Y °c N@ N � cn 1[ N -`o 0 ° c� 0 3" d fn Z 0 Q o Y o 0 `O O N fl. N O �_ m s E a) YO (`O N 0 0 co N E � d� N � � d � 15 E f- @ d� U � i) � d 7> U) (7 r1 W O co CO LO 06 c m d eY r � @ c� Q J O @ C N O O@ C) 7 N L CA @ U C O U@ O CA L m Q C C O N N N �N, 'O w O) O x v @cE -°od o ° d N— U C C LL M O H 7 0 d@ CA ) O O U mL "' > O @ L c .U. ?`om O m U E O �L° mu@) .0 N a)QQ>JZ L� c @ 0 cn o cu L• o > En Ew ° m@ () N> /�\ LL C@ C J O a) w> a) " N Z E ELL �- C O a) N U U fn @ O L 0) LL N° a) N a Y Jr, c� C c c cu -r— N 'E.° -)co m e 3 `0 �s Qv)�2 -iU-i in¢aco0 cnz�`r°in.0-0 cYn� CD c Q N Y Y L u a) () N m O d > > a) (D L C L t Q L Q L U U O U U L U L U Cl) U) ( m Unm m a) O @m L— U d O O = 0 O (n O (n O N a) M a) i° N 0) c° (D i"t N Z00Z ,Z Z Z U�Z :. N r Vi L d O Y�. i v C 0 A U N N LO T m C p O (n (D Y � mQ _ m— N N m a) E c o °) n a � o c (n o CU Q m 7 >(D E > mC •- a) � O U a m E O C a) p O U 7 C U 2 N E (D rn a) m 0 c m C) in M N Y C E i N Cn V LOM N LO M L O O Q CL ;a CD U O ,� fn O L p E = = (D V) -0 o E 3 �t r O C �? -o-p� ._ N i >— a) C: 3a)om� U CD 3s O (p N a) °) E (D @ a) �" O _0 .. E rnes Q) o �2—' p)m C)-, - a) 'O 3 > L O a) :2 O ;� C� N� cn m U N �'r_ a) 7 -O 0 �.. N N o i� c �s� o a m N 3 O. V L w O a3 m C C' N -O O .0 O (D C (n E C O) '� .O 7 c C n3 O O Y O Y N m TNT L U— O (n m .LO. O O m a t 06 cn p o a) t N E V- C 1 i a =3 a) @ u�C)2(D O_ J O w O � 7 ;� N -O O C 'O of c• Q— upi "' C O O N U O- m .t N a) .Q) C 0 SC.-� C C O U m C U) ° 3> u) E E o 0 3 E N 3 O > Y a) 0 3 a) p Y Y" p C7 p @ a) J � a) C 0 a) : > a) (n N N Q (/� -O z. O C7 (n Ch N (D m N �U) w — c' E a) E O c`a o U� C cu 0 N C :O _ (n N mNN� pL i O N E N a3 (n O N ; � U E � � V) L) O O QN r W� 2 a) O a ry O (D m (6 N (D C L_ (O O O) U) E 7 r. C r N w C_ �_ U "O .Q � Y N 7 p (D a) QN L 00 Q O O U C > a) O O � i O ca > CL (0 p a) m> m�U ;�pmU) n m(DS E a3 —) @ C U Z N N M V C O O N E ,r N m p�� a) , J ;�OZ m O) d ° a�i a) M U C H� J�(n ;UUM(nrn C) i O a: ,Q � t U > aQ o o .a% a`) c Q!n (a 0 �_ a) a) Z ; r 0 a) U 3 a) LO L) L O a) L O 0 O _O p_ a) "(D p m m N L omm U a) (O o �� 3 3�m O 7 r 7 7 LL b a) .� Elm ; a) 7- ;Z .a) M� .0 (n O (n (n a s 2 E (O O > N O 0 pp � Q� DZ C a) V��� ����� O D O M ;7U Z N U) co M00Z N N LO T m C p O (n (D Y � mQ _ m— N N m a) E c o °) n a � o c (n o CU Q m 7 >(D E > mC •- a) � O U a m E O C a) p O U 7 C U 2 N E (D rn a) m 0 c m C) in M N Y C E i N Cn V LOM N LO M N r L d C O O Y�. C V 4" C O A u M m 'a C: o m m N 0 m m E' @> Y-omco >E m � N c 0 0 N O n 0 n L 0 L c L U '0 co LO M O)= p C Q� 3 a) O -C .w. p m Cl) O U a) y 0 3 cn u,C C 0 r 'p w N E 0 V o U U (n C N U a a) Qv� C: (D m a) -0 p 0) C O 7(D a) a) N m 0 3 m 0 oz O U -Z -0 "O U) m a) m E(D 0 Q O C c-55 cC- 0-07L c o 0 0 0-0 CU U) y N a) •N O_a O 0 C E o c r c 0-:E -p -0 -c 0@ c CD m O x 0 m C U N 3 E 7 C m c L O E = O 0.0 0)— o `m 3i o .0 U 0 0 m 0 .m � 0 C (D �3oN�5m:�EO CD 0 p�. 7-U m c a) mss @ 0 E w m 0 L 0 N 3 �.� o 0 Y C N C C Y O O a)- E °o.. ai6 m o.0 3U 3 0� CD N CO L E N N C �' O m m U rn W U) 0 3 U Y (D U J 04 i N O N CL N 0 Z 0) 00 m 0 � � U U co a) C = N C C 0 m U U Eon a) 6 0 Z 0) m C C co QO °U --Z io t U c m W U CO m 0 a c v Z N CL C) 7 0') (n Q 06 U L @ N N C w U V) Co N LL d 0 U) 0 0 U U a N J m Cl) m C C) V) O 'O N O f A U Y O— U` O Y N d co CD a) N 70) C Q N >U co O U m .0 U Qm .`o_ U) 0 0- CD � U) � Z w b W a Y a) N C7 0 co 0) LO C m M 0) c O + >1 m D) U) O) C _N O) y0 �_ C •C 0 C 7 -B C CU Co A O C Q N M-0 E C is -C m m C 0-0 0 0 0 CE6v) 0w D > cd O p C Z Co 0 •c 0 O i U U C 0 0 E co cu O O m 3 0 CU ) N m U 0 N a C -O0 O '— O CU >. N 3 E @0)o W C Z r Q1 j M O m Y A o�OE N 0 O_ m — CD 7 C m 0 —C ((n E� @) o 7 -0 O E 0 m c CD a) > O L" En Q.f6 O O O .N N U 2 v Q M co co al N > rn Q s U m N 0 0 CO U)Q o `n 3 � 'c : 0 Z:) Z A U 0 > N V o c o Ca, O � C N m E v v o C m a 3 U m a) 0 p O U C � C 'O -0 m 7 O_ L O co E C 7 a) O U C 3 y � a) �) °' ° E o a) E cc w r 0) a) @ 0-0 O « Y Z n7 Y E 0 m 5 o o a) E 3 E Y O a) 0 O C p_._ Y E � p m E > (n -0 c a •C co i C 0 U co N C 0 o cc �a� N CL C) 7 0') (n Q 06 U L @ N N C w U V) Co N LL d 0 U) 0 0 U U a N J m Cl) m C C) V) O 'O N O f A U Y O— U` O Y N d co CD a) N 70) C Q N >U co O U m .0 U Qm .`o_ U) 0 0- CD � U) � Z w b W a Y a) N C7 0 co 0) LO C m M 0) c O + >1 m D) U) O) C _N O) y0 �_ C •C 0 C 7 -B C CU Co A O C Q N M-0 E C is -C m m C 0-0 0 0 0 CE6v) 0w D > cd O p C Z Co 0 •c 0 O i U U C 0 0 E co cu O O m 3 0 CU ) N m U 0 N a C -O0 O '— O CU >. N 3 E @0)o W C Z r Q1 j M O m Y A o�OE N 0 O_ m — CD 7 C m 0 —C ((n E� @) o 7 -0 O E 0 m c CD a) > O L" En Q.f6 O O O .N N U 2 v Q M co co al N > rn Q s U m N 0 0 CO U)Q o `n 3 � 'c : 0 Z:) Z A U 0 > N V o c o Ca, O � C N m E v v Additional Materials Received Draft Resolution Item No. 2a Memory Care Facility RESOLUTION NO. 2014- PA2013 -195 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. UP2013 -019, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. SD2013 -005, LOT MERGER NO. LM2014 -001, AND VARIANCE NO. VA 2014 -002 FOR A MEMORY CARE FACILITY LOCATED AT 1000 HALYARD (PA2013 -195) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by Orvieto Properties, with respect to property located at 1000 Halyard and 1455 Superior Avenue G., and legally described as first addition to Newport Mesa Tract Lot 918 Easterly ' /z East 1 Acre Northerly 158.88 Feet in Lot Tract 257 and first addition to Newport Mesa Tract Lot 818 Westerly 50 Feet Northerly 165 Feet in Lot Tract 257, requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit, Site Development Review, Lot Merger and Variance. 2. The applicant proposes an approximately 19,200- square -foot, two -story convalescent facility. The convalescent facility would be in the form of a memory care facility licensed by the state with 42 beds occupied by residents that are considered non - ambulatory. The project would occupy two building sites that are currently vacant and were historically used as boat storage. The request also includes a lot merger to merge the two sites into one parcel for the development and a variance for a wall to be 6 feet high where the Zoning Code limits the height to 42 inches. 3. The subject property is located within the Multi -Unit Residential (RM) Zoning District Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Multiple -Unit Residential (RM). 4. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone. 5. A public hearing was held on February 6, 2014 in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. This project has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 32 (In -fill Development Projects). Class 32 consists of projects characterized as in -fill development meeting the conditions described in this section. Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 2 of 27 (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. The subject property has a land use designation of Multiple -Unit Residential (RM) within the General Plan which is intended to provide primarily for multi -unit residential developments containing attached or detached dwelling units and similar uses such as the memory care facility, which is residential in nature. The property is located within the Multi -Unit Residential (RM) Zoning District. The RM Zoning District allows for convalescent facilities with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The Zoning Code defines convalescent facilities as establishments that provide care on a twenty -four hour basis for persons requiring regular medical attention. A convalescent facility may also be referred to as a "nursing home" or "hospice ", and is a facility that does not provide emergency medical services or surgical services. In this case the convalescent facility is in the form of a memory care facility for persons that have Alzheimer's disease or dementia. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The project site is located in the middle of a residentially zoned area. This site is 30,040 square feet (0.69 acre) in area and is surrounded by urban uses. Abutting the site to the west is the One Nautical Mile residential community and further west down Halyard are the Newport Knolls multi - family residential community. Abutting the site to the south is the Beach House Apartments. Directly abutting the site to the east is a multi -unit residential property and further east along Superior Avenue is the Newport Beach Plaza senior living complex, Crystal Cove Care Center nursing facility and a medical /commercial office. (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. The site is currently vacant, was previously used for boat storage purposes and does not contain any habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. Traffic: The proposed project will result in additional trips per ITE standards as compared to the vacant site. However, this increase is well below the 300 ADT threshold identified in Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and the project is not required to provide a Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Study. Therefore, approval of the project will not result in any significant effect relating to traffic. 10 -15 -2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. Ott Paqe 3 of 27 Noise: The proposed development of the site with a memory care facility will be conditioned to meet the Newport Beach Municipal Code noise regulations and will not result in any significant effects related to noise. Air Quality: The proposed memory care facility will result in an overall increase in the average daily trips (ADT) to the site because the existing site is vacant; however, the ADTs of the memory care facility are considered low, substantially consistent with residential development and are lower than a commercial development. The applicant expects construction to take approximately 12 months and construction of the project will be conditioned to comply with the regional Air Quality Management Plan established by the Southern California Air Quality Management District to ensure that construction impacts are minimized and the project will not result in any significant effects related to air quality. Water Quality: The applicant must prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and will be required to comply with all requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and Zoning Code related to water quality. Therefore, approval of the project will not result in any significant effects related to water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The Mesa Water District currently services the site via a main that runs along the Halyard easement. A private sewer line within the Medical Lane easement is proposed to service the site. The Gas Company, Southern California Edison and AT &T will service the site through the Medical Lane easement. Fire and police protection facilities and services are located off of 32nd Street and Santa Barbara Drive. Therefore, the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. Conditional Use Permit In accordance with Section 20.52.020F of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings for a conditional use permit are set forth: Finding: A. The use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; 10 -15 -2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 4 of 27 Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The project site has a land use designation of Multiple -Unit Residential (RM) which is intended primarily for multi - family residential and similar uses that are residential in nature such as the proposed memory care facility. 2. The subject property is not part of a specific plan area. Finding: B. The use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the Municipal Code; Facts in Support of Finding: The project site is located within the Multi -Unit Residential (RM) Zoning District. The RM Zoning District allows for convalescent facilities with the approval of a conditional use permit. The Zoning Code defines convalescent facilities as establishments that provide care on a twenty -four hour basis for persons requiring regular medical attention. A convalescent facility may also be referred to as a "nursing home" or "hospice ", is a facility that does not provide emergency medical services or surgical services. In this case the convalecent facility is in the form of a memory care facility for persons that have Alzheimer's disease or dementia.. Finding: C. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the use are compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity; Facts in Support of Finding: The project site is located in the middle of a residentially zoned block between Monrovia Avenue and Superior Avenue. West of the site are multi - family residential communities and east is a multi -unit residential lot, Newport Plaza a senior living complex, Crystal Cove Care Center nursing facility and a medical /commercial office. The memory care facility will provide residence and care for non - ambulatory Alzheimer and dementia patients. 2. The building is proposed at approximately 19,200 square feet which is well under the maximum 31,050 square footage allowed by the Zoning Code. 3. Landscaping and screen walls are provided along the side property lines that are abutting existing residential uses. 10 -15 -2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 5 of 27 Finding: D. The site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, shape, size, operating characteristics, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities; and Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The project site provides adequate parking and circulation including turn - around areas for deliveries that have been reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer. Conditions of approval are included to ensure compliance with all the circulation standards and the final plans are required to be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 2. Emergency vehicles are provided adequate access to the site by a crash gate and knox box from Halyard to Medical Lane and Superior which has been reviewed by the Fire Department. Conditions of approval are in place to ensure compliance with all emergency vehicle access requirements and the final plans are required to be approved by the Fire Department. 3. Mesa Water District currently services the site via a main that runs along the Halyard easement. The private sewer line within the Medical Lane easement is proposed to service the site. The Gas Company, Southern California Edison and AT &T will service the site through the Medical Lane easement. Finding: E. Operation of the use at the location proposed would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. A condition of approval is included to ensure that lighting of the facility is in compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Code prohibiting glare and light spillage from the memory care facility onto adjacent properties. 2. A condition of approval is included limiting delivery and commercial trash pick -up hours to the memory care facility to mitigate potential impacts to the adjacent neighbors. 3. A condition of approval is included limiting visiting hours to the memory care facility to mitigate potential impacts to the adjacent neighbors. 10 -15 -2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 6 of 27 4. Noise generated by a memory care facility is anticipated to be low. A condition of approval is included to ensure that the use will comply with the Newport Beach Municipal Code standards for indoor and outdoor noise in residential zones 5. With no existing memory care facilities in the area, the proposed use would provide a needed service for the aging population which comprises almost 20 percent of the City's total population. Conditional Use Permit in a Residential Zone In accordance with Section 20.52.030H. of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings for a conditional use permit in a residential zone are set forth: Finding: F. The use conforms to all of the following applicable provisions of 20.52.030 (G) Development and Operational Standards: a. Facility must be operated in compliance with applicable State and local law, and the submitted management plan, including any modifications required by this use permit. b. The management plan must include a contact name and number by which the operator may be contacted at all times. c. No services requiring a license can be provided if the facility does not have a license for those services. d. There shall be no more than two residents in each bedroom plus one additional resident, unless approved pursuant to the Newport Beach Municipal Code Occupancy must also comply with State licensing if applicable. e. All individuals and entities with an ownership or leasehold interest in the use, or who will participate in the facility's operation must be disclosed in writing to the City, and these persons and entities shall not have a demonstrated pattern or practice of operating similar facilities in or out of the City of Newport Beach in violation of Federal, State or local law. f. Residents, guests, staff and any other visitors to the facilities shall not smoke in an area from which the secondhand smoke can be detectable on any other parcel of property. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The operations of this facility shall be compliance with the Department of Social Services (DSS) license, and as conditioned, the facility will comply with the Operations and Management Plan for the facility. A draft operations and 10 -15 -2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Paqe 7 of 27 management plan has been submitted by the property owners. A final operations and management plan will be provided by Corktree Holdings, LLC hereinafter referred to as "Operator" of the facility prior to the license being issued by the DSS. 2. Appropriate names and contact information numbers are provided within the operations and management plan and, as a condition of approval of this application, the appropriate "after hours" names and contact information numbers will be confirmed and provided to the City prior to operation of the facility. 3. The Operation and Management Plan for the facility provides that only those services permitted by the DSS license for the memory care facility are performed within the facility. 4. The facility will be licensed, and has been conditioned, for a maximum occupancy of 42 residents. The facility will have a maximum 42 beds with 10 one -bed rooms and 16 two- bedrooms. No more than two residents per bedroom are permitted. This limitation is consistent with the residential occupancy design of the building and the DSS license. 5. All management personnel have been disclosed in the application documentation. A condition of approval is in place which requires that all employee personnel be disclosed prior to final of the building permits. 6. According to information provided in the application, the property owners and have never held a license for a memory care facility and the Operator has never held a license for a memory care facility in California. The Operator has been licensed to operate skilled nursing facilities, sub acute care, and home health operations in California and other states and have experience with working with memory care residents within their out -of -state nursing facilities. The Operator has never had a licensed revoked or suspended. 7. The operation regulations identify that the operator will identify a designated Smoking Area prior to Certificate of Occupancy however, there is a condition included requiring that this be done on the final construction drawings and prior to the issuance of a building permit. Findinq: G. The project complies with the requirements for off - street parking as provided in Chapter 20.40 (Off - Street Parking) and traffic and transportation impacts have been mitigated to a level of insignificance; Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Zoning Code requires off - street parking for a convalescent facility at a ratio of one space for every three beds or 14 parking spaces. The proposed project 10 -15 -2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Paqe 8 of 27 includes 22 parking spaces. The parking lot design, including landscaping, complies with all of the provisions of Section 20.40. 2. Routine deliveries will occur two to three times a week and a condition of approval limits the delivery hours to Monday through Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. These deliveries are pre - scheduled and the delivery vans or small trucks will be on -site for approximately 15 minutes per visit. The circulation of the site is designed with a "T shaped turn around driveway configuration so any van or truck can turn around and exit by the same path they entered. Finding: H. The property and existing structures are physically suited to accommodate the use; Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The subject property has adequate area to meet all of the Municipal Code requirements related to vehicular and emergency access. 2. The proposed structure is designed for use as a convalescent facility, which will be licensed by the DSS. The plans have been reviewed by the Building and Fire Department and conditions of approval are in place to ensure all Building and Fire Codes will be met. The Building and Fire Department are required to approve the final set of construction plans. Finding: 1. The use will be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, and the addition or continued maintenance of the use will not contribute to changing the residential character of the neighborhood (e.g., creating an over - concentration of residential care or bed and breakfast uses in the vicinity of the proposed use). Facts in Support of Finding: 1. There are not existing substandard physical characteristics in the area that would affect integration of the proposed project into the existing area. 2. There are conditions of approval in place that ensure the least amount of impact to the surrounding neighborhood including noise, lighting, smoking, and limited hours of deliveries, visitors, and trash pick -up. 3. The use is defined by the Zoning Code as a convalescent facility and not a "Residential Care Facility ". 10 -15 -2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Paqe 9 of 27 Finding: J. The operation of buses, vans, and other vehicles used to transport residents, clients, visitors, guests, and /or staff to and from off -site activities or parking areas does not generate vehicular traffic substantially greater than that normally generated by residential activities in the surrounding area; Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The residents will be non - ambulatory and will not have cars. The clients of the memory care facility will typically not leave the grounds and depending on their medical condition, on occasion only one to two residents might be taken by a staff vehicle to a park. The use of buses or vans is not proposed. 2. No events will be held at the facility and visitors by family members are typically once a week. Visiting hours will be condition to 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. seven days a week. 3. Anticipated staffing include 16 -18 staff members between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., 12 -14 between 4:00 p.m. and 4 -6 between 12:00 midnight and to 8:00 a.m. 4. Based on the ITE Trip Generation Rate the memory care facility would generate approximately 113 ADTs while a 12 -unit residential development would generate 103 ADTs. Finding: K. Arrangements for delivery of goods are made within the hours that are compatible with and will not adversely affect the peace and quiet of neighboring properties; and Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Routine deliveries will occur two to three times a week. Deliveries are limited by a condition of approval to 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Finding: L. Arrangements for commercial trash collection in excess of usual residential collection are made within hours that are compatible with and will not adversely affect the peace and quiet of neighboring properties. 10 -15 -2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Paqe 10 of 27 Facts in Support of Finding: 1. A condition of approval is in place that requires the Operator to hire and maintain a commercial bin refuse service and limits pick -up to one weekday per week between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Site Development Review Pursuant to Section 20.52.080 C.2.c. the following criteria is required to be considered during the review of the proposed project: i. Compliance with this section, the General Plan, this Zoning Code, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or structure The proposed use and structure complies with the General Plan and all requirements of the Zoning Code, with the exception of the variance to exceed the maximum allowance for wall height within the front yard setback. The structure and use will comply with all Building and Fire Codes. The memory care facility is required to be licensed by the DSS and meet all of the requirements to obtain and maintain this license. Ii. The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent developments; and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design; The proposed building maintains all of the required setbacks and is well under the maximum floor area of 31,500 square feet. The landscaping meets the Code requirements with over 3,000 square feet of landscaping within the parking lot area and over 8,000 square feet over the rest of the project site. Landscaping and screen walls are provided along the side property lines that abut existing residential uses. Lighting of the building is conditioned to meet the requirements of the Zoning Code to mitigate impacts to the adjacent neighbors. Delivery hours to the memory care facility are limited to mitigate potential impacts to the adjacent neighbors. The overall design of the project emulates a multi - family residential use with a courtyard, open landscaped areas, a walking path, and a distinct architectural design and finishes. The building design is Contemporary Mediterranean and finish materials are warm earth tone colors with complimentary landscape base plantings and trees to create a residential feel. The main entry tower is accentuated with a stone base material. The exterior includes a variety of darker base colors on the sand finish exterior plaster and stone finish which is complimentary to the architecture in the surrounding area. iii. The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas; 10 -15 -2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Paqe 11 of 27 The proposed building is under the maximum square footage allowed and has a maximum height of 28 feet (33 foot front entry tower), in compliance with the Zoning Code. The building provides modulation and a step back of the second floor and includes a courtyard and a second -floor deck which further reduces the bulk. iv. The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces; Site access, including the drive aisles, driveways, parking and loading spaces have all been reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer for adequacy, efficiency and safety. The City Traffic Engineer also reviewed the Halyard easement for the efficiency and safety of the access to the site. There are specific conditions of approval from the City Traffic Engineer to ensure all circulation requirements are provided for. v. The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plant and irrigation materials; and The City Urban Forester reviewed the landscape plan and provided no suggested changes. A condition of approval is in place that requires a final review and approval by the City Urban Forester for plant and irrigation materials. Vi. The protection of significant views from public right(s) -of -way and compliance with Section 20.30. 100 (Public View Protection). The project site does not have the potential to obstruct public views from public view points and corridors, as identified on General Plan Figure NR 3 (Coastal Views), to the Pacific Ocean, Newport Bay and Harbor, offshore islands, the Old Channel of the Santa River (the Oxbow Loop), Newport Pier, Balboa Pier, designated landmark and historic structures, parks, coastal and inland bluffs, canyons, mountains, wetlands, and permanent passive open space. In accordance with Section 20.52.080F of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings for a site development review are set forth: Finding: A. Allowed within the subject zoning district; Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The project site is located within the Multi -Unit Residential (RM) Zoning District. The RM Zoning District allows for convalescent facilities with the approval of a conditional use permit. The Zoning Code defines convalescent facilities as establishments that provide care on a twenty -four hour basis for persons requiring regular medical attention. In this case the convalescent facility is in the form of a memory care facility for Alzheimer and dementia patients. 10 -15 -2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. #1### Paqe 12 of 27 Finding: B. In compliance with all of the applicable criteria identified in 2.52.080 (C)(2)(c) of this section as follows: i. Compliance with this section, the General Plan, this Zoning Code, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or structure; ii. The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent developments; and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design; iii. The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas; iv. The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces; v. The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plant and irrigation materials; and vi. The protection of significant views from public right(s) -of -way and compliance with Section 20.30. 100 (Public View Protection). : and Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The proposed project complies with the General Plan and all requirements of the Zoning Code. The structure and use will comply with all Building and Fire Codes. The memory care facility is required to be licensed by the DSS and will meet all of the requirements to obtain this license. 2. The proposed building maintains all of the required setbacks and is under the maximum floor area of 31,500 square feet. Over 3,000 square feet of landscaping is provided within the parking lot area and over 8,000 square feet is provided throughout the rest of the project site. This landscaping meets all of the requirements of the Zoning Code. Landscaping and screen walls are provided along the side property lines that abut existing residential uses. Lighting of the building is conditioned to meet the requirements of the Zoning Code to mitigate potential impacts to the adjacent neighbors. Deliveries to the memory care facility are conditioned to mitigate potential impacts to the adjacent neighbors. 3. The proposed building is under the maximum square footage allowed by the Zoning Code. The building provides modulation and outdoor areas with a courtyard and a step back of the second floor which further reduces the bulk. 10 -15 -2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Paqe 13 of 27 4. The proposed building is a Contemporary Mediterranean design with warm earth tone colors with complimentary landscape base plantings and trees to create a residential feel. There is a main entry tower with a stone base material that defines the building entrance and a variety of darker base colors on the sand finish exterior plaster and stone finish. 5. Site access, including the drive aisles, driveways, parking and loading spaces have been reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer for adequacy, efficiency and safety. Further, the City Traffic Engineer analyzed the Halyard easement for access efficiency and safety. There are specific conditions of approval from the City Traffic Engineer to ensure all circulation requirements are met. 6. The proposed landscaping plan has been reviewed by the City Urban Forester. A condition of approval is in place that requires a final review and approval by the City Urban Forester for plant and irrigation materials. 7. The project site does not have the potential to obstruct public views from public view points and corridors, as identified on General Plan Figure NR 3 (Coastal Views), to the Pacific Ocean, Newport Bay and Harbor, offshore islands, the Old Channel of the Santa River (the Oxbow Loop), Newport Pier, Balboa Pier, designated landmark and historic structures, parks, coastal and inland bluffs, canyons, mountains, wetlands, and permanent passive open space. Finding: C. Not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endangers, jeopardizes, or otherwise constitutes a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Lighting of the facility is conditioned to meet the requirements of the Zoning Code, prohibiting light and glare spillage from the memory care facility to the adjacent neighbors. 2. A condition of approval is in place limits delivery and commercial trash pick -up hours to the memory care facility to mitigate potential impacts to the adjacent neighbors. 3. A condition of approval limits visiting hours to the memory care facility to mitigate potential impacts to the adjacent neighbors. 4. The noise from a memory care facility is typically low. A condition of approval ensures that the use will comply with the indoor and outdoor Municipal Code noise regulations for a residential zone. 10 -15 -2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Pape 14 of 27 5. With no existing memory care facilities in the area, the proposed use would provide a needed service for the aging population which comprises almost 20 percent of the City's total population. Lot Merger In accordance with Section 19.68.030 (Subdivisions) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings for a lot merger are set forth: Finding: A. Approval of the merger will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed lot merger is consistent with the legislative intent of this title; and Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The lot merger to combine two existing legal lots by removing the interior lot line between them will not result in the creation of additional lots. 2. The project is in an area with an average slope of less than 20 percent. 3. The lot merger is consistent with the purpose and intent of Title 19 (Subdivisions). The proposed merger will protect land owners and surrounding residents, and will preserve the public health, safety, and general welfare of the City. 4. The future development on the proposed lot will meet all of the Zoning Code development standards except for the request for a variance approval for a portion masonry wall that exceeds the 42 -inch height limit within the front yard setback. Finding: B. The lots to be merged are under common fee ownership at the time of the merger, and Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The two lots to be merged are under common fee ownership as indicated by the title reports provided by the applicant. Finding: C. The lots as merged will be consistent or will be more closely compatible with the applicable zoning regulations and will be consistent with other regulations relating to 10 -15 -2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. Ott Paqe 15 of 27 the subject property including, but not limited to, the General Plan and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan; and Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The merged lot will retain the RM zoning designation, consistent with the surrounding area. The RM Zoning District is intended to provide for areas appropriate for a residential dwelling units and similar uses located on a single lot. 2. The new lot will comply with the Zoning Code requirements for lot width and size which requires a minimum width of 50 feet and minimum area of 5,000 square feet. 3. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject site as Multiple - Unit Residential (RM), which applies to a range of residential dwelling units and similar uses. 4. The project site is not located within the Coastal Zone or within a Specific Plan. Finding: D. Neither the lots as merged nor adjoining parcels will be deprived of legal access as a result of the merger; and Facts in Support of Findinq: 1. The lots as merged will not be deprived of legal access as the merged lot will abut a private easement consistent with existing conditions. 2. The lots will maintain legal access from Halyard and emergency access from Medical Lane. 3. No adjoining lots will be deprived of legal access as a result of the merger. The private streets were developed to provide vehicular access for the properties located in the area. Vehicular access to and from the subject site and adjacent properties would remain via the private streets (Halyard and Medical Lane). Finding: E. The lots as merged will be consistent with the surrounding pattern of development and will not create an excessively large lot that is not compatible with the surrounding development; and Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Lot width and lot size in the area vary and trend towards wider and larger lots. Keeping the one smaller 50 -foot wide lot would actually be more inconsistent with 10 -15 -2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. Ott Paqe 16 of 27 the surrounding pattern of development. The subject lots, as merged, will result in a 30,040- square -foot lot that is consistent with lots in the area. 2. Development within the RM Zoning District is allowed a maximum floor area equal 1.75 times the buildable area of the lot. The merged lot will not be developed beyond this maximum development limit and will be developed consistent with the surrounding development. Variance In accordance with Section 20.52.090F. of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings for a variance are set forth: Finding: A. There are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical features) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification; Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The orientation of the subject lot abuts the Halyard easement and Medical Lane easements creating an unusual lot configuration. 2. The taller wall is needed to provide the security to property as Medical Lane is utilized by the adjacent uses. Finding: B. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification; Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Zoning Code requires a 6 -foot high wall for screening a non - residential use that is abutting a residential use. This screening is beneficial as in the case of the memory care facility to mitigate potential impacts to the abutting residential uses as well as to protect the disabled residents of the memory care facility. 2. The front yard setback abuts Medical Lane which provides access to the adjacent residential property. 10 -15 -2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Paqe 17 of 27 Finding: C. Granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant,• Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The allowance of a 6 -foot wall within this limited area of front yard setback provides a secure area around the memory care facility for the residents. Finding: D. Granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district; Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Secure areas are commonly seen in these non - residential types of uses. 2. The multi - family developments within the surrounding area typically have security gates or wall areas. 3. The property line walls abutting the neighboring residential uses are required by the Zoning Code to be 6 -feet even within the front yard setback due the different uses between properties. Finding: E. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood; and Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The increased wall height will not impact site distance for traffic or impede circulation on or off the project site. 2. Although the subject wall is not abutting the residential use it is abutting Medical Lane that provides access to the adjacent residential use. Without the wall the security of the facility could be jeopardized. 3. The memory care facility is a permitted use within the RM Zoning District. Providing care to Alzheimer's patients requires a secure facility due to the nature of the disease. 10 -15 -2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. eft Paqe 18 of 27 Finding: F. Granting of the variance will of the variance will not be in conflict with the intent and purpose of this section, this Zoning Code, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Zoning Code allows walls to encroach into front yard setbacks. 2. The limitation of the height of walls to 42- inches within the front yard setback was not intended for this unique circumstance with a project site layout adjacent two private easements and the memory care use within the residential zone. A higher wall in this location would not conflict with the intent of the Code regulations. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. UP2013 -019, Site Development Review No. SD2013 -005, Lot Merger No. LM2014 -001, and Variance No. VA2014 -002, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 2. This action shall become final and effective 14 days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 3. For Lot Merger No. LM2014 -001 this action shall become final and effective 10 days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Title 19 Subdivisions, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 6th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 10 -15 -2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Paqe 19 of 27 BY: Bradley Hillgren, Chair M Kory Kramer, Secretary 10 -15 -2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. eft Paqe 20 of 27 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PLANNING 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval. (Except as modified by applicable conditions of approval.) 2. All proposed signs shall be in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 20.42 (Signs) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 3. Use Permit No. UP2013 -019, Site Development Review No. SD2013 -005, Lot Merger No. LM2014 -001, and Variance No. VA2014 -002 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted. 4. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 5. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Use Permit. 6. This Use Permit, Site Development Review, Lot Merger and Variance may be modified or revoked by the Planning Commission should they determine that the proposed uses or conditions under which it is being operated or maintained is detrimental to the public health, welfare or materially injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or if the property is operated or maintained so as to constitute a public nuisance. 7. Any changes in operational characteristics, including but not limited to the following, shall require an amendment to this use permit or issuance of a new use permit: a. Modification, expiration without renewal, or loss of DSS license. b. Increase in number of client residents. C. Change in on -site staffing affecting the ability of the operator to adequately manage the facility and provide supervision of its residents. d. Increase in physical capacity of facility including number of beds, number of bedrooms, floor area of facility, etc. e. Change in the Operations and Management Plan. f. Request for amendment to any condition or conditions of approval. 10 -15 -2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. eft Paqe 21 of 27 g. Change in property ownership in a manner that causes the majority of the property to be owned by a person or entity not identified in the Use Permit or its application. h. Alteration and /or loss of approved on -site parking. i. Upon determination by the Community Development Director, a change in facility management, a change in facility ownership, or a change in the population served by this facility. j. Any other material change in the operational characteristics that is not in substantial conformance with the Operation and Management Plan, upon determination by the Community Development Director. 8. Routine deliveries to the site shall be limited to 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.. Monday through Friday. 9. Visiting hours shall be limited from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., seven days a week. 10. All employees shall park on -site. 11. The Operator shall maintain an Operations and Management Plan consistent with the Operations and Management Plan approved with Use Permit No. 2013 -019 and in compliance with Section 20.52.030 G. of the Zoning Code. 12. The use shall be operated in compliance with applicable State and local laws and in compliance with the Management and Operating plan and rules of conduct reviewed as part of the application for a conditional use permit. 13. The Operator shall comply with the Business License provisions of the Municipal Code. 14. The Operator shall provide and maintain public notice of and operate a hotline for receiving inquiries and /or complaints in reference to operation of its facility with calls responded to within the next 24 -hour period. 15. The Operator shall not allow more than two residents in one bedroom. 16. Smoking on -site shall be restricted to a designated area that will prevent second -hand smoke from traveling to the adjacent properties. This area shall be identified on the final construction drawings. 17. Prior to the final of building permits, the Operator shall obtain a license from the DSS and maintain a DSS license at all times for the memory care facility. 10 -15 -2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. ; Paqe 22 of 27 18. Assembly uses are prohibited, except those that are limited solely to client residents of the facility and facility staff (and in some cases small meetings of a resident's family members with facility staff). 19. Any and all medical waste generated through the operation of the facility shall be disposed of in accordance with the City of Newport Beach's Municipal Code, and all other laws and best industry standards and practices. 20. Operator shall hire and maintain a commercial refuse bin service, and limit pick -up to one weekday per week between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 21. All trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters stored in the trash enclosure (three walls and a self - latching gate) or otherwise screened from view of neighboring properties, except when placed for pick -up by refuse collection agencies. The trash enclosure shall have a decorative solid roof for aesthetic and screening purposes. 22. Trash receptacles for patrons shall be conveniently located both inside and outside of the establishment, however, not located on or within any public property or right -of -way. 23. The exterior of the business shall be maintained free of litter and graffiti at all times. The owner or operator shall provide for daily removal of trash, litter debris and graffiti from the premises and on all abutting sidewalks within 20 feet of the premises. 24. The applicant shall ensure that the trash dumpsters and /or receptacles are maintained to control odors. This may include the provision of either fully self- contained dumpsters or periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, if deemed necessary by the Planning Division. Cleaning and maintenance of trash dumpsters shall be done in compliance with the provisions of Title 14, including all future amendments (including Water Quality related requirements). 25. The 22 on -site parking spaces shall remain free and clear of obstruction and available for parking at all times. 26. A copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval Exhibit "A" shall be incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans prior to issuance of the building permits. 27. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Division an additional copy of the approved architectural plans for inclusion in the Use Permit/Site Development Review /Lot Merger/Variance file. The plans shall be identical to those approved by all City departments for building permit issuance. The approved copy shall include architectural sheets only and shall be reduced in size to 11 inches by 17 inches. The plans shall accurately depict the elements approved by Permit and shall highlight the approved elements such that they are readily discernible from other elements of the plans. 10 -15 -2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Pace 23 of 27 28. Prior to the issuance of a building permits, the applicant shall submit a final landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the City Urban Forester and the Planning Division. 29. All landscape materials and irrigation systems shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 30. The site shall be in compliance with Zoning Code Section 20.30.070. If in the opinion of the Community Development Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources, the Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 31. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall prepare photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division. The survey shall show that lighting values are "1" or less at all property lines, unless otherwise approved by the Community Development Director. 32. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay any unpaid administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning Division. 33. At the time of building permit issuance, a fair share fee will be assessed for the change of use on the project site. 34. All noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 and other applicable noise control requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The maximum noise shall be limited to no more than depicted below for the specified time periods unless the ambient noise level is higher: 35. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing agent. 10 -15 -2013 Between the hours of TOOAM and 10:OOPM Between the hours of 10:OOPM and TOOAM Location Interior Exterior Interior Exterior Residential Property 45dBA 55dBA 40dBA 50dBA Residential Property located within 100 feet of a commercial property 45dBA 60dBA 45dBA 50dBA Mixed Use Property 45dBA 60dBA 45dBA 50dBA Commercial Property NIA 65dBA N/A 60dBA 35. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing agent. 10 -15 -2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Paqe 24 of 27 36. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise - generating construction activities that produce noise to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise - generating construction activities are not allowed on Sundays or Holidays. 37. No outside paging system shall be utilized in conjunction with this establishment. 38. Storage outside of the building in the front or at the rear of the property shall be prohibited, with the exception of the required trash container enclosure. 39. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the 1000 Halyard Memory Care Facility including, but not limited to, the Conditional Use Permit No. UP2013 -019, Site Development Review No. SD2013 -005, Lot Merger No. LM2014 -001, and Variance No. VA2014 -002. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. Fire Department Conditions 40. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City's Fire Department. 41. Vehicle access gates or barriers installed across streets or easements, shall be in accordance with the Newport Beach Fire Department Guidelines. Three site plans are required to be submitted for gate /barrier plan review and approval. Plans shall indicate measurements, location, type of gate /barrier, and type of locking device, approved opening devices, and gate swing direction. The minimum width of the gate or opening necessary at a point of access shall not be less than 14 feet of unobstructed width. The minimum width may be increased depending on the length of the approach. 42. To ensure that emergency vehicle access is permanently provided, reservation of the easement for the proposed property shall be permanent unless a revision to the emergency access is approved by the Fire Department. 43. All emergency vehicle access gates where electrically operated shall have an approved key switch and an approved remote opening device shall be installed and maintained 10 -15 -2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. eft Paqe 25 of 27 operational at all times or locked in the open position until operational. Manual gates shall have a lock approved by the Newport Beach Fire Department. 44. Alternative surface fire access roads may not exceed one hundred and fifty feet in length, from beginning to end. Alternative surfaces shall only be installed on slopes of one degree (1.75% grade) or less unless specified for steeper grade by the manufacturer and approved by the Fire Code Official. Alternative surfaces must be provided as per Newport Beach Fire Department Guideline C.01. The design shall incorporate a curb cut or rolled curb at both the entrance and exit points that delineates entry onto the alternative surface. The curb cut or rolled curb must be indicated on the plan. 45. A minimum four - inch -wide concrete strip shall delineate the alternative surface on both sides of the lane. Alternatives to concrete must be approved by the Fire Chief. Strip delineations shall be indicated on the plans. 46. Fire flow will need to be determined for the proposed structures. Newport Beach Guideline B.01 will need to be completed to determine the number of required fire hydrants. 47. Fire alarm is required as per C.B.C. Sec. 907.2.9 & Sec. 425.7.2. 48. Gates and fences for residential care facilities shall comply with C.B.C. Sec. 425.8.8. 49. Delayed egress locks shall comply with C.B.C. Sec. 425.8.10. 50. As per C.B.C. Sec. 425.4.1, construction requirements must be met pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 13131.5. 51. All buildings and structure with one or more passenger service elevator shall be provided with not less than one medical emergency service elevator to all landings meeting the provisions of Section 3002.4a. 52. In compliance with C.B.C. Sec. 3002.4 1a, the medical emergency service elevator shall accommodate the loading and transport of an ambulance gurney or stretcher (maximum size 24 inches by 84 inches) with not less than 5 -inch radius corners in the horizontal position. 53. In compliance with California Fire Code Section 904.11, commercial cooking equipment that produce grease laden vapors shall be provided with a Type I Hood, in accordance with the California Mechanical Code, and an automatic fire extinguishing system that is listed and labeled for its intended use. 10 -15 -2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. eft Paqe 26 of 27 Building Division Conditions 54. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City's Building Division. The construction plans must comply with the 2010 California Building Code. The construction plans must meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. 55. Fire protection shall comply with Section 425.7. 56. Underground Utilities Service Connection is required per section 15.32.015 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 57. The building shall have fire sprinklers with monitored fire alarms. 58. The applicant shall employ the following best available control measures ( "BACMs ") to reduce construction - related air quality impacts: Dust Control • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave or apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. • Sweep or wash any site access points within two hours of any visible dirt deposits on any public roadway. • Cover or water twice daily any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material. • Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 mph. Emissions Require 90 -day low -NOx tune -ups for off road equipment. Limit allowable idling to 30 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment Off -Site Impacts • Encourage car pooling for construction workers. • Limit lane closures to off -peak travel periods. • Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. • Wet down or cover dirt hauled off -site. • Sweep access points daily. • Encourage receipt of materials during non -peak traffic hours. • Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. Fill Placement The number and type of equipment for dirt pushing will be limited on any day to ensure that SCAQMD significance thresholds are not exceeded. Maintain and utilize a continuous water application system during earth placement and compaction to achieve a 10 percent soil moisture content in the top six -inch surface layer, subject to review /discretion of the geotechnical engineer. 59. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project, subject to the approval of the Building Division and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP 10 -15 -2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Paqe 27 of 27 shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur. 60. A list of "good house - keeping" practices will be incorporated into the long -term post - construction operation of the site to minimize the likelihood that pollutants will be used, stored or spilled on the site that could impair water quality. These may include frequent parking area vacuum truck sweeping, removal of wastes or spills, limited use of harmful fertilizers or pesticides, and the diversion of storm water away from potential sources of pollution (e.g., trash receptacles and parking structures). The Stage 2 WQMP shall list and describe all structural and non - structural BMPs. In addition, the WQMP must also identify the entity responsible for the long -term inspection, maintenance, and funding for all structural (and if applicable Treatment Control) BMPs. Public Works Conditions 61. All dead end drive aisles shall be accompanied by a dedicated turn around space and a 5 foot minimum hammerhead /drive aisle extension. 62. The parking layout shall comply with City Standard STD - 805 -L -A and STD - 805 -L -B. 63. The project shall provide a minimum 26 foot drive aisle from Monrovia Avenue through the private road easement to the proposed project site. 64. All applicable fire lanes shall be provided and posted no parking on Halyard and Medical Lane. Fire lanes shall be approved by the City of Newport Beach Fire Department. 65. The westerly terminius of Medical Lane and /or the adjacent parcels shall be designed to incorporate a turnaround area for the users of Medical Lane. The turnaround area may include a reconfiguration of the adjacent parking areas. 10 -15 -2013 Correspondence Item No. 2b Memory Care Facility PA2013 -195 STEPHEN W. RECD ((�gyp/ ILU.11HON6 MARK C. BROWN E E D �,__ R V YV N L L P (626) 449-4521 L A v L_ K - PAX NUMBER 162G) M!J -9453 35 NORTH LAKE AV@NUF, SUITE 960 WRlIERS L-MAIL PASADENA, CAUrCR;NA 91101 -18819 incbrown@reedbrownlcw.com January 31, 2014 Via Email 6c% Melinda Whelan - MGondrez(fi)newportbeachca.Qon) and First Class Mail Bradley Hillgren, Chairman Larry Tucker, Vice Chair Kory Kramer, Secretary Fred Ameri Tim Brown Raymond Lawler Jay Myers Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: 1000 Halyard Site Development Review No. SB2013 -005, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2013 -019, Lot Merger No. LM2014 -001 and Variance No. VA 2014 -002 Our File No.: 8587 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: This fine represents Lisa and Richard de Lorimier, husband and wife, who are doing business as Orvieto Properties, the Applicant as to the above - referenced matters. These matters are currently on the Planning Commission agenda for the February 6, 2014 meeting. This letter, with a request that it be incorporated into the record for the Planning Commission, is being written on behalf of the Applicant in response to the. letter to the Planning Commission dated January 29, 2014,. from Hugh Coffin, Esq., an attorney representing the Board of Directors of the Newport Knolls Homeowner Association (the "NK HOA "). The correspondence from Mr. Coffin addresses that portion of the pending matters regarding the easement used for access to the 1000 Halyard property, and which road easement serves four (4) properties, specifically 1000 Halyard, One Nautical Mile (a residential community), Beach House Apartments (a residential community), and Newport Knolls (a residential community). Planning Commission City of Newport Beach January 31, 2014 Page 2 It comes as a bit of a surprise that the NK HOA has now responded to Mr. and Mrs. de Lorimier at this late date, with demands for changes to the Halyard easement when the de Lorimiers have offered repeatedly to meet in order to address any concerns they had with the use of the easement. To properly understand the context in which these comments are provided, we feel it necessary to provide the relevant recent chronology with respect to the use of the Halyard road easement. 1) In 2006, as Mr. Coffin must know, and as the de Lorimiers have shared with the staff at the Newport Beach Planning Department, the de Lorimiers first reached out to all of the Newport Knolls homeowners (and the other property owners having an interest in the road easement) to assert that the easement may eventually be used for access to 1000 Halyard (Attachment 1). 2) In April, 2010, the de Lorimiers met with the Board of Directors of Newport Knolls Condominium Association, Mr. Coffin's client, to discuss putting into place a Reciprocal Easement Agreement (REA) so that all the affected parties, and their associated concerns, rights and responsibilities, would be addressed in light of the anticipated development of 1000 Halyard, which development, particularly as to timing, was largely mandated by the City's zoning changes to the area. 3) In October of 2010, after considerable time, effort and expense, the de Lorimiers sent a draft of an REA to the NK HOA. 4) In April, 2011 the NK HOA notified the de Lorimiers that they were not interested in making any changes to the easement, and voiced safety issues in the letter (Attachment 2). Neither the NK HOA nor any of the Newport Knolls homeowners have ever asked to revisit the REA. 5) In 2011 the City of Newport Beach issued a permit for the improvement of a portion of the Halyard easement and the de Lorimiers have been using it ever since for access to their property at 1000 Halyard. 6) Presumably acting on behalf of the Newport Knolls homeowners, the NK HOA has complained about the safety of the children living in or visiting the complex while doing nothing to curb the inappropriate activities of children from Newport Knolls in playing in and about a road easement shared by Newport Knolls, One Nautical Mile and 1000 Halyard. Such inappropriate activities on the Halyard road easement are documented by pictures showing chalk drawings by children on the road easement as well recreational bicycling (for the privacy of the subjects in the pictures, they are not attached to this correspondence, but will certainly be available at the hearing to confirm such use if requested by the Planning Commission). Planning Commission City of Newport Beach January 31, 2014 Page 3 7) In August of 2013, on two (2) separate occasions letters were sent by me, on behalf of the Applicant, to all the property owners at Newport Knolls, discussing the removal of parking on the easement and asking that the property owners contact the de Lorimiers (Attachment 3). 8) On October 31, 2013, after learning of Mr. Coffin's inquiries regarding the project from the Planning Department and associated involvement with NK HOA, representatives from the Board of the Newport Knolls HOA, along with Mr. Coffin, met with the de Lorimiers, which meeting had to be arranged and coordinated by the Planning Department of the City of Newport Beach because the NK HOA would not discuss the use of the Halyard easement directly with the de Lorimiers. At that meeting, the representatives of the NK HOA in attendance specifically stated that they did not want to discuss any changes to the Halyard easement until .Public Works' comments about the Memory Care Center had been issued. 9) On January 23, 2013, the Applicant held a community outreach meeting for surrounding residents regarding the development at 1000 Halyard, and extended written invitations to all the homeowners of Newport Knolls. Only one homeowner, who is no longer a resident of Newport Knolls, attended. 10) On January 29, 2014, only a week before the hearing date, Mr. Coffin, on behalf of the NK HOA, send his letter voicing opposition to the current and proposed use of the Halyard easement and asserted demands with respect to the Applicant's lawful use of the Halyard road easement. While I will respond on behalf of the Applicant to the NK HOA's demands below, I would like to stress three (3) points before doing so. A. Having advised the Newport Knolls homeowners back in August, 2013of their intention to move forward with their development plans, and having received no substantive input from the Newport Knolls homeowners, the Applicant has entered into a long term lease and finalized a budget for the construction of the memory care center to be operated by a reputable and experienced operator. Any changes to the easement, which has already been approved by the City of Newport Beach, would now create a financial burden to the de Lorimiers. B. This easement is for road purposes, ses, and is shared by four (4) different parties, Newport Knolls, 1000 Halyard, Beach House Apartments, and One Nautical Mile. Permanent changes affecting the use of the Halyard easement for road purposes must be approved by all parties and memorialized in a suitable agreement, such as an REA. C. While we understand that Mr. Coffin's representation is limited to representing the Board of Directors of the Newport Knolls Condominium Association, he does not address the question of whether the Board's position reflects the view and opinions of all of the homeowners, or even a majority of them. The substantial lack of involvement by the individual Planning Commission City of Newport Beach January 31, 2014 Page 4 homeowners (as noted, only one (1) individually expressed her concerns about the Halyard easement and also attended the informational meeting) suggests that there is by no means a consensus among them as to the Halyard easement. It should be further noted that such homeowners are the real parties in interest, since this project affects them individually as to their ownership interests. The NK HOA does not speak for all of the homeowners, and arguably cannot bind all of the homeowners with respect to their individual interests in the Halyard road easement which is part of the separate ownership interests in their condominiums. Within the context of this introduction, on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. de Lorimier, I will separately address each of the NK HOA's <the Applicant's replies are shown in bold below >: NK HOA Demand: 1) The travel way will be straight and will be located in the southerly half of the easement, adjacent to the Beach House property and the paved width will comply with the Public Works requirement of at least 26 feet. At the west end there will be a short transition from the existing drive entrance which is located on the northerly portion of the easement to the southerly side. The proposed "S" curve shown on drawing sheet 1.10 will be eliminated. No parking will be allowed on the southerly portion of the easement. The current access to 1000 Halyard has been approved by the Newport Beach Department of Public Works. We will agree to explore ways to alter the access to 1000 Halyard using the shared easement after our CUP hearing with the Planning Commission and no appeal has been filed. For the record, Beach House Apartments has stated that they do not want any changes made to their current access from the easement to Monrovia. Also, neither Beach House Apartments nor One Nautical Mile has expressed any objections to our current or proposed use of Halyard. NK HOA Demand: 2) The existing trees along the southerly side of the easement adjacent to the Beach House will be removed. The only Newport Knolls property owner who has been in contact with us has specifically asked us not to remove the trees. The owners of Beach House Apartments have said they prefer the trees (which they own) be preserved and the City does not support tree removal without significant justification. NK HOA Demand: 3) The roadway will be repaired and repaved on the southerly portion of the easement after removal of the trees. We can certainly repair and repave the pavement without removing the trees, to aid in parking and access as may be finally agreed upon. Since Newport Knolls has been using this portion of the easement since their project was built and has significantly contributed to the current condition of the roadway, due to their use, we would expect them to share expenses for this. Planning Commission City of Newport Beach January 31, 2014 Page 5 NK HOA Demand: 4) The developer will install landscaping along the southerly side of the easement. Without tree removal, new landscaping installation is neither required nor necessary. In addition, no permanent improvements can interfere with any future access needs to the easement from. Beach House Apartments. NK HOA Demand: 5) Newport Knolls will be responsible to relocate any parking onto the northerly portion of the easement in front of its property. Again, this is a road easement shared by four parties. We would agree to this as long as Newport Knolls obtains the permission from the other parties and the Newport Beach City Fire Department. NK HOA Demand: 6) A traffic delineation mechanism will be created to clearly show or depict the travel way on the southerly portion of the easement to the memory care center. We generally concur with the approach of creating a travel way to the memory care center using "Botts' dots" or some other mechanism. If this mechanism would permanently alter the ingress and egress on the easement, Newport Knolls would need to secure permission from the other property owners and secure any necessary approvals from the City. NK HOA Demand: 7) Newport .Knolls will be able to use the southerly portion of the easement adjacent to its property for ingress and egress to garages and to any available parking in front of the Newport Knolls property. It is unclear what Newport Knolls means by this reserved use. If you are asking the de Lorimiers to surrender their rights to the full 60 foot width of the easement, we will not. If you are asking them to agree to surrender the other properties owners' rights to the full 60 foot width of the easement, we cannot. Consistent with the language of the deeds for all parties, Newport Knolls currently has rights over the southerly portion of the easement. As we have demonstrated in the past, as the Applicant the de Lorimiers are personally cormnitted to being inclusive, adaptive neighbors and we are very willing to discuss how we can resolve the demands of Newport Knolls and to develop a compromise solution in the context of the establishment of the memory care center. Following the Planning Commission approval, provided no appeal has been filed, we will gladly begin the process for positive resolution of your issues, provided you can obtain cooperation from the other two parties to the easement. Planning Commission City of Newport Beach January 31, 2014 Page 6 We accept all the conditions of approval in the staff recommendation and respectfully request that the Planning Commission approve the memory care center, allowing the de Lorimiers to work with the adjacent owners to resolve any of the private issues discussed above. Very truly yours, 4--R& BR WN LLP Mark C. Brown, Esq. MCB:af cc: Hugh Coffin (via email to hughcoffin @hcofffinlaw.eom, w/encls.) Carol McDermott (via email to consultcarolmcd @gmail.com, w/ encls.) Lisa and Richard de Lorimier (via email to richandlisa1000 @att.net w/enels) v lmarkimcbl213141 orvieto prop 8587 -hllr to nb plan comm.0131 a docx Attachment 2 The Rawlins, Family Thist 1000 San. Mahho Avenue, Sari Marino, CA, 91108 81,81954-1990 April 24_2006 Dear Newport Knolls Neighbor:: MY family owns the, prop erty, adjacent to the southwest side of One Nautice have owned the property since the 1970s and are planning to develop Jtjr years. There is 60400teasement that runs from our property to MonroVJ; across an area you use for parking. I am writing to you now;; so that c are made clear to You, because they May affectyou in the future.. Mile. We: Should We ultimately use the 6I 0'foI oI i I e s ment that runs across the back 0 your property, the parking area you have there would have to be removed. There and-Inconveni'ence to you, d I may be cost and to make sure We �h you. I have enclosed some paperwork from our attorney, and some maps and '+ illustrate the position Of the easement. I would be happy to o meet, with I h your Homeowner's Association if you have additiona I I questions or concerns. Best regards, Lisa do Lorinijer enclosures: that o. IQ ra a. Attachment 2 Newport Knolls Homeowners Association A Mutual Benefit Not,For- Profit Corporation AM /PM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT; INC. 16882 Gothard St. t#E, Huntington Beach; CA'92847 Fax (714) 848 -0542 (714) 963 -4500 www. arnp n properties. cbtn April 1, 2091 Richard Feld, Esq, 30270 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite F' San Juan Capistrano, CA 9H75 Re: Easement Request for Newport Knolls,. Halyard, Newport Beach Dear Mr. Feld;. After protracted conversations, investigations of the property in question, an intensive study of the Title information for the property; the Board has decided they are.not interested in assisting you to make any changes to the existing "easement" for the property -.. The Board However, is extremely concerned that you have removed the fence at the East. Side of the Newport Knolls property. Because you removed the fence, we are exposed to the activities from Superior Boulevard. We: have homeless, uninvited people, and people who appear to be under the influence of drugs and /or alcohol Who: meander from Superior through your property that are. now coming onto our property, We are now vulnerable.. We are "at risk'. The safety of our residents is of utmost importance to the community. We ask that you re- install that fence within the next ten -(10) days to keep undesirable persons out of our community. Sincerely yours; i Susan Harris, Property Manager "I I i I I MmM t— skmz 948 ff I aL�ar Newpoit'B , ��achl'CA 0�663 Rle: Augua 7, 20 13 Newpart Knolls Rome-awk,",-, Atigus f ly 2013 Page 2 While ,Orviel6j1roperTjcs is wor n it ro -fill ard" *Jng�to i munize the aripadt (f; s p ' t 11 wTUI use ;Of'l 000 Halyard itlitv ultimately that the current aC60filmodation of tling parking,on the I.Wyard roadicasement N terminated.. In order, to ensure that is. socui•cdefrom the owncrlofthe2136acjr ,'Aprfirncnts property i.wrjtteri licens-c toy manage the use ,,c-o.tiepbrtion.of'the,e,,isei elli, ;locat.c,d on the Beach Flouse Aparurients. That portion on inc tides, the a ett crirremlir used.by that it is determined thafthe parking must;, itinued-purstiant to this lieensey Orvieto Prop rues has the authoriwgr4raed to it by Mach r.-Apartnienrs to, take jlle appropriale:step's to- ensure the OnLoirrL, ruse b B- R, o WIN L L P I NfAlt win August,V 29,13 Newpcx•t K�totls i-Io�i4ov�.ncc Augt Fist 21,2011: Thank youil br your kstfei.attentiot to lliih nlatfer, Correspondence Item No. 2c Memory Care Facility PA2013 -195 Newport Knolls Homeowner Association C/O AM PM Property Management 16882 Gothard, Suite E Huntington Beach, CA 92647 The Newport Beach Planning Commission January 29, 2014 Re PA2013 -195 Memory Care Facility 1000 Halyard 1455 Superior Avenue Attention: Melinda Whelan Melinda, Pursuant to your conversation with Scott Christian on January 29, 2014, we understand that the Memory Care Facility drawing 1.10 will be updated to remove the striped parking spaces on the southerly easement (Beach House), directly South of Newport Knolls, as the striped spaces do not exist today. The Newport Knolls HOA Board has met with the homeowners to review the Memory Care Facility plan as approved by the Public Works Department. The majority of homeowners would like to see the traffic moved from the current "S" curve through the Halyard easement to a straight through -way on the Beach House easement. We approve the solution provided by our attorney, Hugh Coffin: The travel way will be straight and will be located in the southerly half of the easement, adjacent to the Beach House property and the paved width will comply with the Public Works requirement of at least 26 feet. At the west end there will be a short transition from the existing drive entrance which is located on the northerly portion of the easement to the southerly side. The proposed "S" curve shown on drawing sheet 1.10 will be eliminated. No parking will be allowed on the southerly portion of the easement. • The existing trees along the southerly side of the easement adjacent to the Beach House will be removed. • The roadway will be repaired and repaved on the southerly portion of the easement after removal of the trees. • The developer will install landscaping along the southerly side of the easement. • Newport Knolls will be responsible to relocate any parking onto the northerly portion of the easement in front of its property. • A traffic delineation mechanism will be created to clearly show or depict the travel way on the southerly portion of the easement to the memory care center. • Newport Knolls will be able to use the southerly portion of the easement adjacent to its property for ingress and egress to garages and to any available parking in front of the Newport Knolls property. By moving the flow of traffic to the southerly portion (Beach House) easement, this will also solve some of the following issues: Safety concerns for the proposed 'S" curve: a. Proposed flow of traffic using the current "S" curve for egress points the traffic directly towards our buildings and more specifically a child's bedroom. If a vehicle fails to negotiate the curve due to error or excessive speed, it will drive directly into a bedroom. (See photos 1A1, 1A2, 1A3, 1A4 and 1A5.) b. There are six garages that sit directly on the proposed egress traffic lane. Homeowners cannot leave their garages without blindly backing out into the proposed traffic lanes. The vehicle has to enter into the easement before it gains clear visibility of the traffic lanes. (See photos 1B1, 1152, and 1133.) c. Homeowners stepping from the entry stairs to the mailboxes or existing parking will be in danger of being hit by outgoing traffic. d. Small children who may wander close to our buildings could be in the flow of traffic. e. Current traffic to the Crystal Cove facility parking lot has proven to speed through the "S" curve as it stands today. Liability and ongoing costs a. There currently is no agreement in place between Orvieto and Newport Knolls regarding the maintenance of the Halyard easement traffic lanes. Moving the flow of traffic to the southerly easement provides clear direction of who is responsible for the maintenance of each easement (Northerly, Newport Knolls; Southerly; Orvieto). Orvieto has a long term license agreement with the Beach House to operate and control the entire Beach House easement. b. If an accident occurs in the traffic lanes on Newport Knolls property, Newport Knolls can be held liable. c. As it stands now, Orvieto receives all of the benefit of traveling over our property but has no risk or cost. 3. Noise a. Pushing traffic to the southerly easement will reduce noise in our community from delivery trucks, construction vehicles, emergency vehicles, visitors, employees, and so on. b. Construction vehicles will be noisy and dusty — pushing the construction path to the southerly easement will reduce some of this pollution and allow for homeowners to retain quiet enjoyment, the right of a property owner to enjoy his property with peace and without interference. 4. Traffic a. Traffic to the Memory Care Facility will flow better in a straight line rather than using the "S" curve making it look more like a continuous street rather than a private drive. b. Straight line access will allow emergency vehicles quicker access to the memory care facility without having to negotiate an "S" curve. We hope the Planning Commission will take Newport Knoll's concerns into consideration as we strive to come to an agreement with Orvieto Properties and maintain the safety of our community. Please send us a copy of the revised plan that is going to the Planning Commission when it becomes available. Thank you for time and assistance. Kind Regards, The Newport Knolls Board of Directors Elizabeth Malone, President Scott Christian, Treasurer Lisa Chavez, Secretary Appendix A: Photos Photo 1A1: View from "S" curve showing traffic direction toward bui 0 and bedroom. Photo 1A2: Additional view from "S" curve showing traffic direction toward building and bedroom. Photo 1A3: Additional view from "S" curve 11 � Photo 1 A4: View from building bedroom onto proposed oncoming traffic lane. Photo 1 B1: Vehicle backing out blindly into proposed traffic lanes. Photo 1133: Vehicle backing out blindly into proposed traffic lanes. 12 STEPHEN YYr, MARK C. ROWN R _ E D rA B R O " y L L P A W Y E- R_ 9 35 NORTH LAKE AVENUE. SUITE 960 PASADENA. CALWORNIA 91101 -1819 January 31, 2014 Via Email (clo Melinda Whelan - MGondrez(a)ne)vportbeachca.2ov) and First Class Mail Bradley Hillgren, Chairman Larry Tucker, Vice Chair Kory Kramer, Secretary Fred Ameri Tim Brown Raymond Lawler Jay Myers Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Correspondence Item No. 2d Memory Care Facility PA2 013- 1 95 'TELEPHONE (G26) 449 -4521 FAX NUMMA (626) 449 -7463 WRITERS E-MAIL mcbrown @reedbroivnlmv. cons ,aCFIVE@ ,Y COMMUNITY FEB 0 4 2014 0, DEVELOPMENT G� OP'VEWpoo �. Re: 1000 Halliard Site Development Review No. SB2013 -005, Conditional Use Permit-No. UP2013 -019, Lot Merger No. LM2014 -001 and Variance No. VA 2014 -002 Our File No.: 8587 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: This firm represents Lisa and Richard de Lorimier, husband and wife, who are doing business as Orvieto Properties, the Applicant as to the above - referenced matters. These matters are currently on the Planning Commission agenda for the February 6, 2014 meeting. This letter, with a request that it be incorporated into the record for the Planning Commission, is being written on behalf of the. Applicant in response to the. letter to the Planning Commission dated January 29, 2014,. from Hugh Coffin, Esq., an attorney representing the Board of Directors of the Newport Knolls Homeowner Association (the "NK HOA "). The correspondence from Mr. Coffin addresses that portion of the pending matters regarding the easement used for access to the 1000 Halyard property, and which road easement serves four (4) properties, specifically 1000 Halyard, One Nautical Mile (a residential community), Beach House Apartments (a residential community), and Newport Knolls (a residential community). Planning Commission City of Newport Beach January.31, 2014 Page 2 It comes as a bit of a surprise that the NK HOA has now responded to Mr. and Mrs. de Lorimier at this late date, with demands for changes to the Halyard easement when the de Lorimiers have offered repeatedly to meet in order to address any concerns they had with the use of the easement. To properly understand the context in which these cormnents are provided, we feel it necessary to provide the relevant recent chronology with respect to the use of the Halyard road easement. 1) In 2006, as Mr. Coffin must know, and as the de Lorimiers have shared with the staff at the Newport Beach Planning Department, the de Lorimiers first reached out to all of the Newport Knolls homeowners (and the other property owners having an interest in the road easement) to assert that the easement may eventually be used for access to 1000 Halyard (Attachment 1). 2) In April, 2010, the de Lorimiers met with the Board of Directors of Newport Knolls Condominium Association, Mr. Coffin's client, to discuss putting into place a Reciprocal Easement Agreement (REA) so that all the affected parties, and their associated concerns, rights and responsibilities, would be addressed in light of the anticipated development of 1000 Halyard, which development, particularly as to timing, was largely mandated by the City's zoning changes to the area. 3) In October of 2010, after considerable time, effort and expense, the de Lorimiers sent a draft of an RBA to the NK HOA. 4) In April, 2011 the NK HOA notified the de Loruniers that they were not interested in making any changes to the easement, and voiced safety issues in the letter (Attachment. 2). Neither the NK HOA nor any of the Newport Knolls homeowners have ever asked to revisit the REA. 5) In 2011 the City of Newport Beach issued a permit for the improvement of a portion of the Halyard easement and the de Lorimiers have been.using it ever since for access to their property at 1000 Halyard. 6) Presumably acting on behalf of the Newport Knolls homeowners, the NK HOA has complained about the safety of the children living in or visiting the complex while doing nothing to curb the inappropriate activities of children from Newport Knolls in playing in and about a road easement shared by Newport Knolls, One Nautical Mile and 1000 Halyard. Such inappropriate_ activities on the Halyard road easement are documented by pictures showing chalk drawings by children on the road easement as well recreational bicycling (for the privacy of the subjects in the pictures, they are not attached to this correspondence, but will certainly be available at the hearing to confirm such use if requested by the Planning Commission). Planning Commission City of Newport Beach January 31, 2014 Page 3 7) In August of 2013, on two (2) separate occasions letters were sent by me, on behalf of the Applicant, to all the property owners at Newport Knolls, discussing the removal of parking on the easement and asking that the property owners contact the de Lorimiers (Attaclunent 3). 8) On October 31, 2013, after learning of Mr. Coffin's inquiries regarding the project from the Planning Department and associated involvement with NK HOA, representatives from.the Board of the Newport Knolls HOA, along with Mr. Coffin, met with the de Lorimiers, which meeting had to be arranged and coordinated by the Planning Department of the City of Newport Beach because the NK HOA would not discuss the use of the Halyard easement directly with the de Lorimiers. At that meeting, the representatives of the NK HOA in attendance specifically stated that they did not want to discuss any changes to the Halyard easement until Public Works' comments about the Memory Care Center had been issued. 9) On January 23, 2013, the Applicant held a community outreach meeting for surrounding residents regarding the development at 1000 Halyard, and extended written invitations to all the homeowners of Newport Knolls. Only one homeowner, who is no longer a resident of Newport Knolls, attended. 10) On January 29, 2014, only a week before the hearing date, Mr. Coffin, on behalf of the NK HOA, send his letter voicing opposition to the current and proposed use of the Halyard easement and asserted demands with respect to the Applicant's lawful use of the Halyard road easement. While I will respond on behalf of the Applicant to the NK HOA's demands below, I would like to stress three (3) points before doing so. A. Having advised the Newport Knolls homeowners back in August, 2013of their intention to move forward with their development plans, and having received no substantive input from the Newport Knolls homeowners, the Applicant has entered into a long terns lease and finalized a budget for the construction of the memory care center to be operated by a reputable and experienced operator. Any changes to the easement, which has already been approved by the City of Newport Beach, would now create a financial burden to the de Lorimiers. B. This easement is for road purposes, ses, and is shared by four (4) different parties, Newport Knolls, 1000 Halyard, Beach House Apartments, and One Nautical Mile. Permanent changes affecting the use of the Halyard easement for road purposes must be approved by all parties and memorialized in a suitable agreement, such as an REA, C. While we understand that Mr. Coffin's representation is limited to representing the Board of Directors of the Newport Knolls Condominium Association, he does not address the question of whether the Board's position reflects the view and opinions of all of the homeowners, or even a majority of them. The substantial lack of involvement by the individual Planning Commission City of Newport Beach January 31, 2014 Page 4 homeowners (as noted, only one (1) individually expressed her concerns about the Halyard easement and also attended the informational meeting) suggests that there is by no means a consensus among them as to the Halyard easement. It should be further noted that such homeowners are the real parties in interest, since this project affects them individually as to their ownership interests. The NK HOA does not speak for all of the homeowners, and arguably cannot bind all of the homeowners with respect to their individual interests in the Halyard road easement which is part of the separate ownership interests in their condominiums. Within the context of this introduction, on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. de Lorimier, I will separately address. each of the NK HOA's <the Applicant's replies are shown in bold below >: NK HOA Demand: 1) The travel way will be straight and will be located in the southerly half of the easement, adjacent to the Beach House property and the paved width will comply with the Public Works requirement of at least 26 feet. At the west end there will be a short transition from the existing drive entrance which is located on the northerly portion of the easement to the southerly side. The proposed "S" curve shown on drawing sheet 1.10 will be eliminated. No parking will be allowed on the southerly portion of the easement. The current access to 1000 Halyard has been approved by the Newport Beach Department of Public Works. We will agree to explore ways to alter the access to 1000 Halyard using the shared easement after our CUP hearing with the Planning Commission and no appeal has been filed. For the record, Beach House Apartments has stated that they do not want any changes made to their current access from the easement to Monrovia. Also, neither Beach House Apartments nor One Nautical Mile has expressed any objections to our current or proposed use of Halyard. NK HOA Demand: 2) The existing trees along the southerly side of the easement adjacent to the Beach House will be removed. The only Newport Knolls property owner who has been in contact with us has specifically asked us not to remove the trees. The owners of Beach House Apartments have said they prefer the trees (which they own) be preserved and the City does not support tree removal without significant justification. NK HOA Demand: 3.) The roadway will be repaired and repaved on the southerly portion of the easement after removal of the trees. We can certainly repair and repave the pavement without removing the trees, to aid in parking and access as may be finally agreed upon, Since Newport Knolls has been using this portion of the easement since their project was built and has significantly contributed to the current condition of the roadway, due to their use, we would expect them to share expenses for this. Planning Commission City of Newport Beach January 31, 2014 Page 5 NK HOA Demand: 4) The developer will install landscaping along the southerly side of the easement. Without tree removal, new landscaping installation is neither required nor necessary. In addition, no permanent improvements can interfere with any future access needs to the easement from. Beach house Apartments. NI{ HOA Demand: 5) Newport Knolls will be responsible to relocate any parking onto the northerly portion of the easement in front of its property. Again, this is a road easement shared by four parties. We would agree to this as long as Newport Knolls obtains the permission from the other parties and the Newport Beach City Fire Department. NK HOA Demand: 6) A traffic delineation mechanism will be created to clearly show or depict the travel way on the southerly portion of the easement to the memory care center. We generally concur with the approach of creating a travel way to the memory care center using "Botts' dots" or some other mechanism. If this mechanism would permanently alter the ingress and egress on the easement, Newport Knolls would need to secure permission from the other property owners and secure any necessary approvals from the City. NK HOA Demand: 7) Newport Knolls will be able to use the southerly portion of the easement adjacent to its property for ingress and egress to garages and to any available parking in front of the Newport Knolls property. It is unclear what Newport Knolls means by this reserved use. If you are asking the de Lorimiers to surrender their rights to the full 60 foot width of the easement, we will not. If you are asking them to agree to surrender the other properties owners' rights to the full 60 foot width of the easement, we cannot. Consistent with the language of the deeds for all parties, Newport Knolls currently has rights over the southerly portion of the easement. As we have demonstrated in the past, as the Applicant the de Lorimiers are personally cormnitted to being inclusive, adaptive neighbors and we are very willing to discuss how we can resolve the demands of Newport Knolls and to develop a compromise solution in the context of the establishment of the memory care center. Following the Planning Commission approval, provided no appeal has been filed, we will gladly begin the process for positive resolution of your issues, provided you can obtain cooperation from the other two parties to the easement. Plamung Commission City of Newport Beach January 31, 2014 Page 6 We accept all the conditions of approval in the staff recommendation and respectfully request that the Planning Commission approve the memory care center, allowing the de Lorimiers to work with the adjacent owners to resolve any of the private issues discussed above. Very truly yours, & BR WN LLP Mark C. Brown, Esq. MCB:af cc: Hugh Coffin (via entail to hughcoffin @hcofffinlaw.coni, w/encls.) Carol McDermott (via email to consultcarolmcd @gmail.com, w/ encls.) Lisa and Richard de Lorimier (via entail to richandlisal000 @att.net w /encls.) zanearkbncbl213141or ieto prop 85874Vtr to nb plan comm. 0131 a. doc Attachment 1 The Rawlins Family Trust. 1:000:S,an Madho Avenue San 'Marino; CA 91108 .. , I 8:18/954-iggo April ,24,M6 Dear NoWpottl<nolls Neighbor: MY family owns the -prope0y-gojacentfO the southwest side of One Nputic have owned the p.roPerty:sInde the 1970t and are plan n h hing to develop a coming years. There it e-foot that runs trom our property to Monrovja Avenu across an areayou now Osefor p,a(kihg, I am writing to y 0 r Inten ors made clear to 0.0 now, :so P, they may affeot you In the.future, Should we ultimately use lhe.BO -foot eatement'that-runs across the. back o ;Ypur lsrOWY, the parRing area you --haVO, there would have to be removed. There maybe cost and,jnconvOnli3fte to you, and I' wanted to make ,sure w,6v .YoU I have enclosed some Paperwork from our attorney, and some maps and d ds that illustrate the Postflon.of'the easement. I would be' happy .t0 meet with your Homeowner's -Association if you have additional questions or concerns-. Best regards, Liss de Lorlmier enclosures Attachment 2 Newport Knolls Homeowners Association A Mutual Benefit Not- For - Profit Corporation % AM/PM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC. 16882:Gothard3t. #E, Huntington Beech cA :92647 Fax (714) 948 -0642 (7144) 9634500 www. am pmpropertles. corn April 1., 2011. Richard Feld, Esq. 30270 Rancho Vielo Road, Suite F San Juan - Capistrano, CA 02675. Re: Easement Request for Newport Knoll's,. Halyard, Newport Beach Dear Mr, Feld,. After protracted: conversations, investigations of the property in question., an intensive. study of the Title. information for the .property; the Board has decided they are not interested in assisting you to make any changes to the existing "easement" for the property, The Board however, is extremely concerned that you have removed the fence at the East 'Side of the. Newport :Knolls property:. Because you removed the fence, we are exposed to the activities from Superior Boulevard; We have homeless, uninvited people; and people who: appear to be under the influence of drugs and /or alcohol who meander from Superior through your property that are. now coming onto :our property. We are now vulnerable We are "at risk "., The safety of our residents is, of utmost importance to the community. We ask that you re- install that fence within the next ten -(10) days to keep undesirable persons out of our community. Sincerely yours; t f1 e Susan Harris, Prop'ertyManager Attachment 3 Sr: HEry kno Angust 7,200 18t I:VHdNLS. FAA NU IDSR m ob ro w7@rc 6 c1brow film vr a., I I Ncwpo!t4<ho% Romeo "m flugust 7= j;201:3 Pagel *;in:4ht conijqg� facie as fi th to uou so youican MAIM C. DRDNM RE,rt�b;,g',&R--o-w- WL L P ,j� 14 ORTH LAiMAVEMILOSIOM 900 PASADENA. CA�AMRNIA I)IMH819 Aggxlat,'27, 2( 13 ,lrtwP.!?Ho,w lf,)x 4ipoi%49-74e3 W91i rrarbrUtvaz�reezllarbtiunlciti�: darn Correspondence Item No. 2e Memory Care Facility PA2013 -195 February 6, 2014, Planning Commission Agenda Comments Comments by: Jim Mosher (I immosher(o.yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949- 548- 6229). Item No. 2: 1000 Halyard Memory Care Facility (PA2013 -195) 1. The letter from Crystal Cove Care Center, the skilled nursing facility along Medical Lane operated by the same firm that will be operating the proposed Memory Care Facility, says on handwritten page 75 of the staff report: "... we needed parking spaces for more than 80 cars, so we leased 41 spaces on the vacant lot (1000 Halyard) behind our property. That parking is gone now, and we are working with the City of Newport Beach to build more parking behind our facility. We do not anticipate seeing more than 18 -20 stalls in this new parking area, so we still need additional parking!" This raises several issues that I was unable to find addressed in the staff report: a. How many other businesses have arrangements to use the existing vacant lot at 1000 Halyard to fulfill their parking requirements? b. Assuming the Commission's approval of the present project will trigger the termination of those arrangements, how will the displaced parking be handled? c. Under the existing arrangement, Crystal Cove appears to regard the 1000 Halyard lot as a kind of extension of their facility on Medical Lane, suggesting that despite the fence separating Medical Lane from Halyard (which separation the applicant is arguing to retain), there exists some kind of pedestrian connectivity between Crystal Cove and 1000 Halyard. i. Would a continuation of that access not be desirable, given they have the same operator and related uses? ii. However, if it continues, what is to prevent the operator from directing Crystal Cove employees to continue to use the parking spaces at 1000 Halyard after it has been developed as a Memory Care Facility? 2. The description in the staff report and resolution of the 42 anticipated client residents as "non- ambulatory" (that is, wheelchair or bedridden) seems at odds with the applicant's description in their proposed Development and Operational Standards (Attachment PC 5), which mentions the residents need something between an assisted living and a skilled nursing environment, and on handwritten page 34 of the staff report says that one of the main site activities will be the clients "walking around indoors." 3. Assuming use of the proposed 22 parking stalls can be realistically restricted to employees and residents of the Memory Care Facility, that number would seem adequate to me, however if the residents are not bedridden, then despite the applicant's protestations to the contrary, I would not be surprised if the facility hosted a few events per year (and perhaps even sales promotions) to which the residents' families would be invited, and for which a larger amount of parking might be needed for short periods of time. In this regard, it is not clear from the project plans if the facility will have a central February 6, 2014, PC agenda item 2 comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 dining area, where such events are typically held, or if the residents will eat in their rooms. 4. The kitchen area shown in the project plans seems very small to me, and makes me skeptical that with so small a food preparation area the facility can operate with a single food delivery per week. Furthermore, the predicted light level of need for service access in general does not seem realistic to me in view of the litany of service deliveries experienced on Medical Lane as detailed in the letter from the operator of the adjacent residential care facility, Newport Beach Plaza, on handwritten pages 73 -74. These include daily produce delivery, daily trash pickup and what seems to me an amazingly large number of 911 calls. 5. Although the staff report indicates the application has been reviewed by the Fire Department, given the nature of the facility, the difficulty of access (partly at the applicant's request), and the number of night shift personnel being at best minimally adequate to effect an evacuation of disoriented residents, it would seem helpful to clarify where a fire response would likely come from in the event of a major emergency and how trucks would get from that station to the facility. Also, would response to more routine 911 calls come through the emergency gate or via Halyard? In addition to the preceding general concerns, the following specific comments /corrections are offered with regard to the Draft Resolution of Approval posted as "2a_ Resolution _PA2013- 195.pdf' in the "Additional Materials' folder for this meeting on the Planning Commission Agendas and Minutes page: 1. Section 1.1: the legal description provided by the applicant on handwritten pages 39 -40 is considerably more complex than that given in the resolution, and appears to involve four legal parcels. 2. Section 1.2 refers to a merger or "two sites into one parcel' and Fact A.1 (page 14) refers to "two existing legal lots," which is possibly what Section 1.1 is describing. However, as noted at the January 30, 2014, Zoning Administrator hearing, both the Newport Beach Subdivision Code (Subsection 19.04.090.8.) and the Zoning Code (Subsection 20.70.020.P) say that for their purposes there is no distinction between "lots" and "parcels," and "parcels" when they are created seem to supersede the earlier ,.underlying lots." Are four existing parcels being merged into one? And if so, shouldn't reference to the four existing parcels be the currently correct legal description? 3. Section 1.4: "The subject property is not located within the ^^ate a Coastal Zone." 4. Fact F.6 (page 7): a. Sentence 1: "... the property owners anal have never held a license for a memory care facility and the Operator has never held a license for a memory care facility in California." [the "and" is either unintended, or some words following it have been omitted] February 6, 2014, PC agenda item 2 comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 b. Sentence 2: "The Operator has been licensed to operate skilled nursing facilities, sub acute care, and home health operations in California and other states and Have has experience with ..." 5. Fact F.7: the mere promise that a smoking area will be designated does not seem to me to guarantee compliance with the standard required in the Finding F.f., namely that secondhand smoke will not be "detectable on any other parcel of property." 6. Fact G.1: "The Zoning Code requires off - street parking for a convalescent facility at a ratio of one space for every three beds ex, which computes to 14 parking spaces." [note: the draft wording makes it sound like there are two independent choices applicable to convalescent facilities, either of which is sufficient, as opposed to 14 spaces being the result obtained by dividing 42 beds by 3.1 7. Fact J.2 (page 9): "No events will be held at the facility and WsitaKS visits by family members are typically once a week. Visiting hours will be senditien conditioned to 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 8:00 p.m. seven days a week." [note: Condition of Approval 9 (page 21 of the draft resolution) indicates an 8:00 p.m. end to visiting hours. Handwritten page 34 of the staff report says "Visiting hours are to be designated by the operator but are estimated to be from 9:00 AM through the dinner hours." The various statements should be consistent. Also, as previously mentioned, I would not be surprised if events, including "open house" type sales promotions, are held at the facility.] 8. Fact J.3: "Anticipated staffing include includes 16 -18 staff members between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., 12 -14 between 4:00 p.m. and 12:00 midnight, and 4 -6 between 12:00 midnight and to 8:00 a.m." 9. Page 10: under "Site Development Review," "Criteria i — vi" seem to be repeated as required findings starting on page 12. I'm not sure I understand why somewhat variant supporting facts need to be supplied twice. 10. Page 10, towards end of long paragraph in support of Criteria ii: "... warm earth tone colors with semplimentary complementary landscape base plantings ... stone finish which is semplimentary complementary to the architecture in the surrounding area." 11. Page 11: the facts offered in support of Criteria iii do not seem sufficient to ensure compatibility with the bulk, scale and aesthetics of nearby development, since the characteristics of the adjacent development is neither mentioned nor described. 12. Fact B.4 (page 13): "... warm earth tone colors with semplimentary complementary landscape base plantings..." 13. Fact C.2: "A condition of approval is in place that limits delivery and commercial trash pick -up hours to the memory care facility to mitigate potential impacts to the adjacent neighbors." 14. Fact D.1 (page 17): "Secure areas are commonly seen in these non - residential types of uses." (emphasis added) [The project is elsewhere described (for example, first fact under Section 2.1(a) on page 2) as "residential in nature ". Which is correct ?] February 6, 2014, PC agenda item 2 comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 15. Fact D.3: "The property line walls abutting the neighboring residential uses are required by the Zoning Code to be 6 -feet even within the front yard setback due the different uses between properties." [A reference to the relevant Zoning Code section would be helpful. I'm not sure I understand that is being stated. It sounds like this fact is saying a 6 -foot wall is required by the Zoning Code, in which case I don't understand why the resolution elsewhere says there is a 42 -inch limit and a variance is required.] 16. Find F (page 18): "Granting of the variance will of variance 444 not be in conflict with the intent and purpose of this section, this Zoning Code, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan." 17. Fact F.2: "... this unique circumstance with a project site layout adjacent to two private easements ..." 18. Condition of Approval 31 (page 23): Does the unit of light measurement (lumens? foot - candles?) need to be specified in connection with the reading of 'T'? 19. Condition of Approval 33: Does the change of use (adding new dwelling units) trigger a need to pay park mitigation fees as well as "fair share" (traffic) fees? If so, should that be stated? 20. Condition of Approval 34: Without further research I am unable to tell how the supplied noise table is supposed to be used by the permittee. Are they supposed to identify their use category and then ensure that the noise in the interior and exterior of their property falls below the stated limits? Or are they in violation if activities on their property produce levels exceeding the stated levels on any other property in Newport Beach (or elsewhere ?) of the types listed? February 3, 2014 Mr. Brad Hillgren Chairman Newport Beach Planning Commission 1 Civic Center Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attention: Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner Correspondence Item No. 2f Memory Care Facility PA2013 -195 Re: Agenda Item i, February 6, 2014: UP2O13 -019 Memory Care Facility Dear Mr. Hillgren and Members of the Planning Commission: I wish to express my support for the proposed Memory Care Center which is adjacent to the rear of the apartment complex I own at 84915th St. I have met with the applicants and find the proposed use to be compatible with our surrounding residential area. I appreciate the attention they have given to the architecture and the landscaping and look forward to the elimination of the vacant lot. Sincerely, Monique Le �� ' UII[*lrV<m:lr: K ■ Project site utilizes two vacant lots Access is from Halyard which is a private easement off of Monrovia Avenue 42 -bed, two -story 19,000 sq. ft. facility • Conditional Use Permit No. UP2013 -019 • Site Development Review No. SD2013 -005 • Lot Merger No. LM2014 -001 • Variance No. VA2014 -002 07/13 /2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division 2 eduction ■ Project site utilizes two vacant lots Access is from Halyard which is a private easement off of Monrovia Avenue 42 -bed, two -story 19,000 sq. ft. facility • Conditional Use Permit No. UP2013 -019 • Site Development Review No. SD2013 -005 • Lot Merger No. LM2014 -001 • Variance No. VA2014 -002 07/13 /2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division 2 ° i ,CqG /FOQN`i 07/13/2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division Requires UP to allow in RM zone Meets all operational standards to integrate into residential zone Conditions of approval limiting deliveries, visitors and trash pick -up Meets all zoning requirements - height, setbacks, floor area, landscaping Circulation and access to the site reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer and the Fire Department 07/13 /2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division 4 a. Permit Requires UP to allow in RM zone Meets all operational standards to integrate into residential zone Conditions of approval limiting deliveries, visitors and trash pick -up Meets all zoning requirements - height, setbacks, floor area, landscaping Circulation and access to the site reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer and the Fire Department 07/13 /2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division 4 Ex byamAh ••SI-Ii:- ■ Emulates a multi - residential use and includes high quality design features: courtyard, open landscaped areas and a walking path, Contemporary Mediterranean architectural design and finishes warm earth tone colors with complementary landscape base plantings and trees building modulation stepbacks ■ open space 07/13/2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division 5 7 07/13/2012 HIGH NYOIFY WAIT AE9 LMT o � XH4 � I 1EM 8YA ARS eCI SNF{E i1 � _4Y tAN HALYARD WEb LOP 6015A1REZI Wb8 ,.0 rwA IGI m ILA.R sm bAA c MEMORY CARE FACILITY 1000 HALYARD III Ia4 GW �C 4W 1A�fa TR4 LW fM flIM lNf LW SV 4CN M4bONRY WALL MB 'NE9 VN S ?IA[iM 1MBpA�'NML 6 wrm F Po�T, > j g4Fpu naaF.o was wrrw �' 6 nxa rAxx ccF .E5O8Kl' AGlEBb z1r. 19 Is 6�- I El �i' cl - d ■ ■ ` 0 It 0 01 SOUTH ELEVA 07/13 /2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division 7 Ah 00Mr0 6 foot wall in front yard setback A 42- inch -high wall would not align with the emergency crash gate and would jeopardize the barrier from the subject parking lot to Medical Lane Medical Lane is easement used for emergency access only and is access for adjacent properties ■ Taller wall ensures a secure site 07/13/2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division 3 low* ,a 0 �7A emu MEMORY CARE FACILITY IDDO HALYARD SY I A HALYARD ws PPHtiI PdW -JOT, 07/13/2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division ■ Combine two lots to create building site Meets all requirements of Title lg 07/13/2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division 10 ;?Pnrip-rinc 14 oil 7. 07/13/2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division 11 ,.:.a -�I Categorically exempt under Section 15332, of the State CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines - Class 32 (In -fill Development Projects) 07/13/2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division 12 1 For more information contact: Melinda Whelan 949-644 -3221 mwhelan@newportbeachca.gov www.newportbeachca.gov Ar2l"Ik 15TH 1499 r L 1480 (ADI n urnln Z 18 16 14 12 1 > 1478 (13) 0 n z Newport Knolls � 696 SJ � MID 0 HALYARD p" Beach House Apartments 'O `�O t I L = 82A �J�J STREET WEST L 823 F 811 0 531 • COURT N m m w Z B 6 4 3 y U n 9 ] 5 3 1 FT, - ❑ (1 -19) 1481 COURT 0 S 0 6 4 2 m z 1 1 ° J 1000 One HALYARD Mal I 1GS NB achl Mile J Plaza 71 O °av a�b 7 6 4t4 t a• 9to �it 4d � qq. q 991 f!c yI 00 'be F 93 3 ?Q ^^ ^ ^ .6 633 <• Jy d /' ?S 07/13 /2012 Community Development Department - Planning Division ,•to W PC), 14 Petition in Support of l000 Halyard Memory Care Center UP2013 -019 Newport Beach Planning Commission February 6, 2014 We the undersigned are residents of Newport Plaza at 1455 Superior Avenue, Newport Beach. We have heard a presentation on the proposed 42 -bed Memory Care Center at l000 Halyard near our senior apartments. While we would oppose any access to the site from Superior, we are in support of the plan as proposed with access on the Halyard easement from Monrovia. We believe this use is complementary to our community and will allow for a continuum of care in the vicinity of our homes. Name 'i .'1�� s Name Name Name Name Petition in Support of 1000 Halyard Memory Care Center UP2013 -019 Newport Beach Planning Commission February 6, 2014 We the undersigned are residents of Newport Plaza at 1455 Superior Avenue, Newport Beach. We have heard a presentation on the proposed 42 -bed Memory Care Center at l000 Halyard near our senior apartments. While we would oppose any access to the site from Superior, we are in support of the plan as proposed with access on the Halyard easement from Monrovia. We believe this use is complementary to our community and will allow for a continuum of care in the vicinity of our homes. Name VW;(' � /p 014't'jK+-i�Lu� Petition in Support of 100o Halyard Memory Care Center UP2013 -019 Newport Beach Planning Commission February 6, 2014 We the undersigned are residents of Newport Plaza at 1455 Superior Avenue, Newport Beach. We have heard a presentation on the proposed 42 -bed Memory Care Center at l000 Halyard near our senior apartments. While we would oppose any access to the site from Superior, we are in support of the plan as proposed with access on the Halyard easement from Monrovia. We believe this use is complementary to our community and will allow for a continuum of care in the vicinity of our homes. Name XV- F4ofFk.> Petition in Support of l000 Halyard Memory Care Center UP2013 -019 Newport Beach Planning Commission February 6, 2014 We the undersigned are residents of Newport Plaza at 1455 Superior Avenue, Newport Beach. We have heard a presentation on the proposed 42 -bed Memory Care Center at l000 Halyard near our senior apartments. While we would oppose any access to the site from Superior, we are in support of the plan as proposed with access on the Halyard easement from Monrovia. We believe this use is complementary to our community and will allow for a continuum of care in the vicinity of our homes. Name LETTER FROM GILAD GANISH, NOT AVAILABLE AFTER MULTIPLE REQUESTS TO OBTAIN. SINGER (f- COFFIN A PROFESSIONAL OORPORAUON 30 CX)RPORA-1E PARK, S-IE. 300 HUGH R. COFFIN IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92606 M NEAL SINGER (949) 863.1224 ONACrlve) FAX (949) 863 -1179 E -MAIL hughcoffin0hcoffinlaw.com neaLsinger@singercoffnLcom Febmary 6, 2014 The Honorable Chairman and Members Of the Newport Beach Planning Commission Re: 1000 Halyard Street Site Development Review SB2013 -005, Conditional Use Permit UP2013 -019, Lot Merger No. LM2014 -001 and Variance No. VA2014 -002, PA2013 -194 Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: This firm represents the Newport Knolls Homeowners' Association. This letter is being sent to the Commission to highlight certain matters which should be considered while the Planning Commission at its hearing on the above - referenced matters. Newport Knolls does not oppose the project — the sole issue is the access to the project and the proposed designed use and travel way over the Halyard Easement for access to the memory care center to make it safe for all. Alternate Access The proposal is to use the Halyard Easement for the primary access to the project. The applicant is asking the Commission to approve a route that requires over 3,000 feet of additional vehicular travel distance over Placentia, 15`s street, Monrovia and then the access easement to get to the project rather than to use the logical Medical Lane access to the project. The Halyard Easement should be for emergency access only. Using the Halyard Easement for primary access places an unreasonable safety burden on Newport Knolls and the users of the easement. The Commission should deny the proposed access and require access from Superior. If the Commission is inclined to consider the use of the Halyard Easement then there are a number of issues to consider. Halyard Easement Use /Maintenance In April, 2006, Lisa de Lorimier representing the Rawlins Trust sent a letter to Newport Knolls regarding the 60 foot Halyard Easement. She advised that there may be future development of the trust property and stated that "The parking area you have there would have to be removed." At that same time paperwork was sent by a law firm of Worth & Associates concerning the easement. A copy of the letter from Lisa de Lorimier is being submitted with this letter together with a copy of the April 11, 2006 letter from Worth & Associates and a copy of an aerial photograph sent with that letter showing the then configuration of the Halyard Easement, as Attachment A. The Honorable Chaimran and Members Of the Newport Beach Planning Commission February 6, 2014 Page 2 In October, 2010, another attorney, Richard Feld of Cornfield Feld representing the Rawlins Trust sent a letter offering an unsolicited Reciprocal Access Easement and Maintenance Agreement. The gist of the Reciprocal Access Easement and Maintenance Agreement was to have Newport Knolls pay the maintenance cost for something more than one -half of the entire length of the easement, and provided that the parking on the Southerly portion of the easement in front of Newport Knolls, all of the enclosed area of One Nautical We and some of the boat storage on the now de Lorimier propertycould be removed on demand. Eventuallythe Newport Knolls Homeowners Association rejected the offer. A copy of the letter from Richard Feld and the rejection by Newport Knolls are attached as Attachment B. Orvieto has made no proposal regarding the maintenance and use of the Halyard Easement since 2010. The proposed development plan places the entire maintenance burden of the Halyard Easement as well as liability on Newport Knolls. There has been no offer by Orvieto for maintenance cost sharing or liability sharing while Orvieto receives all the benefit. California Civil Code § 845 provides for an agreement between parties sharing an easement. The maintenance agreement proposed in 2010 was unfair on its face as it imposed more than half the maintenance cost on Newport Knolls which receives minimal benefit. A maintenance agreement is necessary under the circumstances of the application and the Planning Commssion should condition any approval on the completion of an acceptable maintenance agreement for the easement. Meeting with Orvieto Newport Knolls met with Orvieto's representatives and the City planning staff on October 31, 2013. At that time there was an open issue regarding the use of the Halyard Easement. Newport Knolls was advised that a report on the use of the easement was due from the Public Works Department. The Newport Knolls Board felt it was necessary to receive this report and present it to the homeowners so the impact of the project and the anticipated traffic flow would be made known to the homeowners. This was made clear to Orvieto at the meeting. Unfortunately, the Public Works report was not presented until January 14. Orvieto had suggested a meeting during the week of January 21. It was not acceptable to Newport Knolls since the Board had to present the report to the owners. Newport Knolls solicited a meeting during the 27`s of January which was rejected by Orvieto. In addition, Orvieto's attomey in an e -mail to the undersigned told Newport Knolls there was no point in attending the meeting since the purpose of the meeting was to present the project and that it was not a negotiating session to consider changes to the project. A copy of the e-mail exchange between the undersigned and counsel for Orvieto is attached as Attachment C. The members of the Board of Directors and the homeowners did not meet at the one afternoon meeting scheduled by Orvieto. It was assumed the meeting would be of no use, the information had been previously presented and it was scheduled during working hours and most of the homeowners and the Board of Directors members work and were not able to attend. The Honorable Chaiman and Members Of the Newport Beach Planning Commission February 6, 2014 Page 3 Orvieto Attorney Letter of January 31, 2014 Counsel for Orvieto sent a letter to the Commission on January 31, 2014. The critical and telling point in the letter is found on page 4 in response to the request by Newport Knolls to move the travel way on the easement to the south. The response is: "The current access to 1000 Halyard has been approved by the Newport Beach Department of Public Works. We will agree to explore ways to alter the access to 1000 Halyard using the shared easement after our CUP hearing with the Planning Commission and no appeal has been filed. For the record, Beach House Apartments has stated that they do not want any changes made to their current access from the easement to Monrovia. Also, neither Beach House Apartments nor One Nautical Mile has expressed any objections to our current or proposed use of Halyard." It is not clear how to treat this statement. However, it is clear that there is no necessity that the travel way be on the north side of the easement immediately adjacent to Newport Knolls and the garages that back directly onto the easement. Moving the travel way to the south will improve safety and create a reasonable buffer between the travel way and Newport Knolls. The travel way from One Nautical We to the east is entirely on the southerly portion. The trees that used to be on the southerly portion of the easement in the easterly end have all been removed. There is no reason the travel way cannot be located on the southerly portion of the Halyard Easement. Since it is clear that the travel way maybe moved to the south, the Planning Commission must condition any approval upon a redesign of the access way-to move the travel wayto the south. To approve a plan and then negotiate a change and then come back to the Planning Commission as suggested by Orvieto makes no sense whatsoever when it can be accomplished now. There is no reason the eucalyptus trees on the southerly portion cannot be removed to make the travel waysafer. The trees are old and in poor shape. They should be removed as public safety matters as were the eucalyptus trees along Irvine Blvd. several years ago. The existing pavement on the southerly portion of the easement must be repaired as it has been damaged by the eucalyptus roots. Newport Knolls has agreed to remove all parking from the southerly half of the easement. It asks that parking, where it is safe, be allowed on the northerly half of the easement in the same manner that Orvieto is requesting to park vehicles on the northerly half of the easement adjacent to its property. The straight travel way will accommodate emergency vehicles in a much safer manner than is in the current "S" curve design. Newport Knolls and Orvieto may be able to reach an agreement on a maintenance agreement that is acceptable to all parties. Conclusion In conclusion it is requested that the Planning Commission continue the hearing to permit Orvieto to redesign the primary access from Superior. The Honorable Chairman and Members Of the Newport Beach Planning Commission February 6, 2014 Page 4 If the Commission is inclined to allow primary access over the Halyard Easement then the matter should be continued to require Orvieto to redesign the travel way or, in the alternative, condition approval on a redesign of the travel way to move all traffic to the south except for the Beach House Apartments ingress and egress point, remove the eucalyptus trees on the south, repave the southerly portion of the access way and provide for an acceptable traffic delineation measure. LA HRGIch ATTACHMENT "A" The Rawlins. Family Trust 1000 San Marino.�Avenue San Marino, CA 91108 818/954 -1990 April 24, 2006 Dear Newport Knolls Neighbor My family owns the property adjacent to the southwest side of One Nautical Mile. We have owned.the property since the 1970s and are planning to develop it in the coming years. There is a 60400t easement that runs from our property to Monrovia Avenue, and across an area you now use for parking. I am writing to you now, so that our intentions are made clear to you, because they may affect you in the future. Should we. ultimately use the 60-foot easement that runs across the back of your property, the parking area you have there would have to be removed. There may be cost and inconvenience to you, and I wanted to make sure we were up front with you. have enclosed some paperwork from our attorney, and some maps and deeds that illustrate the position of.the easement. I would be happy to meet with your Homeowner's Association if you have additional questions or concerns. Best regards, Lisa de Lorimier enclosures WORTH & ASSOCIATES, INC., APC 18881 Von Karman Ave., Suite 1640 Irvine, California 92612 VOICE: (949) 660 -1040 FAX: (949) 660 -0342 April 11, 2006 This office represents the Rawlins Family Trust. The Rawlins Family Trust owns a parcel of real property on the southwestern side of One Nautical Mile. Access.to. the Trust's property is via an easement out to Monrovia. The easement crosses the Beach House Apartments property, the Newport Knolls condominium property and the One Nautical Mile condominium property. This easement provides access to and from the Trust's property via Monrovia Avenue. Attached is a copy of an aerial map from the City of Newport Beach Planning Department's web -page showing the easement. Also attached is a copy of a map that shows the easement: the easement is within the dashed lines straddling the line that separates lots 917 and 918. Further, we have included a copy of the deed to our client's property which describes the easement. The Trust may begin developing its property in the next few years. The Trust will likely increase its use of the easement at that time. Anything that obstructs or interferes with the use and enjoyment of the easement will have to be removed. In the meantime, the Trust reserves all of its rights to use its easement. iezay v.uIput 10 . City Boundary, x OR, l:�'� u<t J''sf�, $tsa§' n sw S vt {jp7t,�'c`nrX Po' �l4.Jri �L r1 5 �' S4 t 1 a t iE.ira k }W t'` }RLUEFIN CT; 1 `en k , i "k {� }�p �C,'f}$�, {f�,ry, lM1• {}...S�p�. � � i $,/��i�� }'f`��yef(i54 {y f � ��'•• ?` F %w - F.,, q � t�'' 3NELLP RIN7 CT u } �. '� }'h fly i••r A !n .1':. GPEZS �Exrf7ES`S~�`INGRESS'�EG ?ESe v "so° ``i�•+l,"� �y�l�.`!ktl ��, r a.. y m s'fr_ RAL ARC _ + M} q( ECIICAL LN( tP PRIVn LxSTREE'F .n v.-�• ^' 5PR rury l urt 'http:llhvauw6.city.newporf= beach. ca. usl servleUcom: esri :esrimap.Esrimap ?ServiceName =nb info&ClientVersion =4 0 &Form =True &Encode =F... 04'/1512006 ATTACHMENT "B" Cpl ', i � i E- � -- �3 . October I8, 2010 VIA OVERNIGHT. EXPRESS Ms. Susan Harris; AM/PM Property Management 16882 Gothard Street, Suite E Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Re: Newport Knolls Dear Ms. Hams: Richard G. Feld rfeld@corfieldlaw.com As you may recall,-this firm represents the Rawlins Family Trust in connection with certain property located.in Newport Beach;. CA. The Rawlins property is located in close proximity to the Newport Knolls development. One Nautical Mile, the Rawlins property, the Beach House Apartments, and the Newport Knolls development are all encumbered by an access easement that was created during the original subdivision.of the properties. To facilitate the orderly use and development of the easement, we are proposing an .agreement to be entered into by each of the property owners. The enclosed Reciprocal Access Easement and Maintenance Agreement C'REA ") is structured to allocate the construction, maintenance and repair obligations among the parties in a reasonable fashion based on each party's relative use of the easement. The REA acknowledges the present uses of the easement and it provides for reciprocal indemnity and insurance requirements to protect each of the property owners. Please contactme with any questions or comments. I look forward to working with you to complete this agreement. Sincerely, Richard G. Feld Enclosures cc: Rawlins Family Trust 30270 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite F, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 (949) 218 -7812 (949) 218 -7815 Fax www.corfieldlaw.com Newport Knolls Homeowners Association Mutvat'Benelit foot- For. - Profit Corporatioh % AMlPM. n6PER.TY MANAGEMENT; INC. 16882 Goihard St: #E, Huntington Beach; CA 92647 Fax (714) 848.0542 (714)163 -450.0 www,a momorooerties:corh April 1, 20111 Richard Feld, Esq, 30270 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite F San Juan Capistrano, CA 92075 Re; Easement Request for Newport Knolls,. Halyard, Newport Beach Dear Mr. Feld, After protracted conversations, investigations of the property in question, an intensive study of the Title information for the property, the Board has decided they are. not interested in assisting you to make any changes to the° existing `easeiment`' for the property, The Board however, is extremely concerned that you have removed the fence at the East. Side of the. Newport I<tiolls property.. Because you removed the fence, we are exposed to the activities from Superior Boulevard. We have homeless., uninvited; people', and people who appear to be under the influence of drugs and /or arcoffo( Who. meander from Superior through your property that are now coming onto our property. We are now vulnerable., We are "at risk' The safety of our residents is of utmost importance to the community. We ask that you re- install that fence within the next ten -070) days to keep undesirable persons out of our community. Sincerely yours, Susan Harris, Property Manager ATTACHMENT "C" Hugh Coffin, Singer & Coffin From: Mark Brown <mcbrown @reedbrownlaw.com> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 11:08 AM To: Hugh Coffin, Singer & Coffin Cc: Richard and Lisa de Lorimier (richandlisa1000 @att.net) Subject: RE: Orvieto Properties - Memory Care Center Project - Newport Knolls Hugh: Unfortunately, due to work and travel schedules, my clients are unavailable the week of January 27, 2014, thus the suggested dates. They are trying to nail down a date with Newport Beach Plaza for next week, and have asked if Newport Knolls owners can join the presentation. If so, notices will be mailed directly to the owners. This meeting was never intended to provide a platform for "negotiating an agreement" of some sort with Newport Knolls. My clients had absolutely no control over the timing of the Public Works report, and was not in a position to simply defer moving this entire process forward, not just those aspects impacted by the comments from the Public Works Department, pending the receipt of such report. The meeting, as I have consistently stated, is intended to be a presentation of the details of the project as it has been submitted to the City of Newport Beach. As with any meeting with the neighbors held in advance of the hearing before the Planning Commission they are welcome to express their thoughts and opinions as to the project,.which the developer may elect to incorporate it what it finally presents to the Planning Commission if it determines that such comments are consistent with the project goals and the overall best interests of the developer and neighbors. As I understand it, the developer has already responded to the City's specific comments with respect to its review of the project, and made changes and adjustments to its application to address those concerns. Mark C. Brown, Esq. Reed & Brown LLP 35 North Lake Avenue, Suite 960 Pasadena CA 91101 -1819 626 - 449 -4521 * 626 - 449 -7453 fax The pages comprising this e-mail transmission contain confidential information from Reed & Brown LLP. This information is intended solely for use by the individual or entity named as the recipient of this transmission and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or other use of the contents of this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us by telephone immediately zing delete this information from your computer. * *IRS Circular 230 ** To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we advise you that any discussion of Federal tax issues contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used by you, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (2) promoting or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein. - - -- Original Message--- - From: Hugh Coffin, Singer & Coffin [ mai Ito: hugh.coffin @ singe rcoffin.comj Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 4:58 PM To: Mark Brown Cc: SUSAN HARRIS; Betsy Malone; Scott Christian Subject: FW: Orvieto Properties - Memory Care Center Project - Newport Knolls Mark I am following up on the email I sent yesterday about a meeting with the Board of Newport Knolls, The Board is meeting mid -next week with the homeowners and cannot meet with Orvieto until the week of the 27th as I said. I hope the Board and Orvieto will be able to meet to go over the design issues before the Planning Commission meeting. Please contact me office. I will be out of town tomorrow through Monday but I will be able to pick up emails and respond from time to time. The Public Works report only came out Tuesday evening and the Board wanted to have it before it met with the owners. I am sure the City would like these parties to meet to see if an agreement can be achieved before the hearing. Thank you. Hugh R. Coffin Singer & Coffin, APC 30 Corporate Park, Suite 300 Irvine, CA 92606 (949) 863 -1224 (949) 863 -1179 (fax) IMPORTANT NOTICE: This electronic or print message is intended for the use of only the individual or entity to whom or to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and /or protected from disclosure by the attorney - client privilege, joint defense privilege, the attorney work product doctrine or other applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient (or an authorized employee or agent of the intended recipient) yoy are hereby notified that any distribution, copying, use or retention of this message is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and telephone us at (949) 863 -1224 and delete all copies from your inbox and all other locations it may be stored on your computer system. Thank you. — Original Message--- - From: Hugh Coffin, Singer & Coffin [ mailto :hugh.coffin @singercoffin.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 201410:02 AM To: 'Mark Brown' Cc: SUSAN HARRIS (ampmprop @flash.net); Betsy Malone (betsybythebeach @gmail.com); Scott Christian (jscottyc @aol.com) Subject: RE: Orvieto Properties - Memory Care Center Project - Newport Knolls Good Morning Mark Thank you for sending me the Public Works report. I appreciate your help. I wanted to let you know that Melinda Whelan of the City sent it to me yesterday evening and I have been able to send it to the Board members. Your clients had solicited a meeting with Newport Knolls and had suggested January 21 or 22 at the Newport Knolls meeting room. My client has agreed to a meeting - it was waiting for the Public Works report to provide to the owners for input and to understand the position of the City and Public Works on Halyard and the access issues. The Board has asked if the meeting can be held during the week of January 27 at its meeting room. This will allow it to communicate with the owners for their input and to clearly understand the City's position and to consider design alternatives. Please let me know. Thank you. Hugh R. Coffin Singer & Coffin, APC 30 Corporate Park, Suite 300 Irvine, CA 92606 (949) 863 -1224 (949) 863 -1179 (fax) IMPORTANT NOTICE: This electronic or print message is intended for the use of only the individual or entity to whom or to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is confidential and /or protected from disclosure by the attorney - client privilege, joint defense privilege, the attorney work product doctrine or other applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient (or an authorized employee or agent of the intended recipient) yoy are hereby notified that any distribution, copying, use or retention of this message is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and telephone us at (949) 863 -1224 and delete all copies from your inbox and all other locations it may be stored on your computer system. Thank you. - -- Original Message-- - From: Mark Brown ( mailto :mcbrown @reedbrownlaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 9:00 AM To: Hugh R. Coffin (hugh.coffin @singercoffin.com) Subject: Orvieto Properties - Memory Care Center Project - Newport Knolls Hugh: In the event you have not already received this, and to avoid the hassle of obtaining it, attached please find a copy of the Public Works Department that was received yesterday. Mark Mark C. Brown, Esq. Reed & Brown LLP 35 North Lake Avenue, Suite 960 Pasadena CA 91101 -1819 626 -449 -4521 * 626- 449 -7453 fax The pages comprising this e-mail transmission contain confidential information from Reed & Brown LLP. This information is intended solely for use by the individual or entity named as the recipient of this transmission and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or other use of the contents of this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us by telephone immediately and delete this information from your computer. * *IRS Circular 230 ** To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we advise you that any discussion of Federal tax issues contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used by you, forthe purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (2) promoting or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein.