The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01 - Closed Session - Attachment 1 - 8/3/2021 John A. Ramirez Direct Dial: (714) 662-4610 E-mail: jramirez@rutan.com July 13, 2021 Rutan & Tucker, LLP | 18575 Jamboree Road, 9 th Floor Irvine, CA 92612 | 714-641-5100 | Fax 714-546-9035 Orange County | Palo Alto | San Francisco | www.rutan.com 2523/026565-0012 16703076.2 a07/13/21 VIA E-MAIL Honorable Mayor and City Council of Costa Mesa City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 john.stephens@costamesaca.gov Andrea.Marr@costamesaca.gov Manuel.Chavez@costamesaca.gov Loren.Gameros@costamesaca.gov Jeffrey.Harlan@costamesaca.gov Don.Harper@costamesaca.gov Arlis.Reynolds@costamesaca.gov cityclerk@costamesaca.gov Re: Proposed ADU Conversions 2700 Peterson Place & 2775 Mesa Verde Drive Dear Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers: This letter is sent on behalf of UDR, Inc. (“UDR”), following several months of attempting to obtain a final determination from City staff regarding UDR’s plans to construct accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) at two of its properties in the City. Specifically, as described in more detail in April 7 and June 18, 2021 letters to City staff – attached hereto as Exhibit 1 – UDR has proposed the following, consistent with state law and the City’s own Municipal Code: 1. Five total ADUs at its Harbor at Mesa Verde property, located at 2700 Peterson Place, by remodeling the existing clubhouse (two ADUs) and leasing office (three ADUs). This property has a total of 384 existing residential dwelling units in a number of multifamily buildings. 2. Five total ADUs at its 27 Seventy Five Mesa Verde property, located at 2775 Mesa Verde Drive, by remodeling an underutilized portion of its leasing office, where leasing offices would also remain. This property has a total of 468 existing residential dwelling units in a number of multifamily buildings. City staff previously indicated to me on numerous occasions that a final determination in response to my April 7, 2021 letter was forthcoming, but this office has not received a response, despite now being over three months. On behalf of my client, I ask that the City Council direct the City Manager or City Attorney to provide a response on or before July 23, 2021, so UDR can act accordingly. UDR has essentially been stuck in neutral over the past three months. Honorable Mayor and City Council of Costa Mesa July 13, 2021 Page 2 2523/026565-0012 16703076.2 a07/13/21 UDR sincerely hopes that the City will approve its proposals to develop a total of ten high quality ADUs at the Properties, as has been proposed, which while small in number, assist the City by providing more opportunities for rental housing stock at a time when it is desperately needed, both as a practical matter, and in light of the City’s RHNA allocation. Sincerely, John A. Ramirez cc: Client Lori Ann Farrell Harrison, City Manager Kimberly Hall Barlow City Attorney Jennifer Le Director of Economic and Development Services Alan Fenstermacher EXHIBIT 1 John A. Ramirez Direct Dial: (714) 662-4610 E-mail: jramirez@rutan.com June 18, 2021 Rutan & Tucker, LLP | 18575 Jamboree Road , 9 th Floor Irvine , CA 92612 | 714 -641 -5100 | Fax 714 -546-9035 Orange County | Palo Alto | San Francisco | www.rutan.com 2523/026565-0012 16602735.3 a06/18/21 VIA E-MAIL Jennifer Le Director of Economic and Development Services City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Jennifer.Le@costamesaca.gov Kimberly Hall Barlow City Attorney, City of Costa Mesa Jones & Mayer 3777 North Harbor Blvd. Fullerton, CA 92835 khb@jones-mayer.com Re: Proposed ADU Conversions 2700 Peterson Place & 2775 Mesa Verde Drive Dear Ms. Lee & Ms. Barlow: This letter follows up on my April 7, 2021 correspondence sent to the City of Costa Mesa (“City”) on behalf of UDR, Inc., and its affiliates UDR Harbor Greens, L.P. (the titleholder of Harbor at Mesa Verde), United Dominion Realty, L.P. (the title holder of 2775 Mesa Verde – Phase I), and UDR Pinebrook, L.P. (the titleholder of 2775 Mesa Verde – Phase III) (collectively “UDR”), which correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit A. In that letter, I asked that UDR be permitted to develop the following, per its plans on file with the City, consistent with state law and the City’s own Municipal Code: 1. Five total ADUs at its Harbor at Mesa Verde property, located at 2700 Peterson Place, by remodeling the existing clubhouse (two ADUs) and leasing office (three ADUs). This property has a total of 384 existing residential dwelling units in a number of multifamily buildings. 2. Five total ADUs at its 27 Seventy Five Mesa Verde property, located at 2775 Mesa Verde Drive, by remodeling an underutilized portion of its leasing office, where leasing offices would also remain. This property has a total of 468 existing residential dwelling units in a number of multifamily buildings. I have informally discussed my letter with you a number of times over the past several months, and you indicated a formal response and final decision from the City was forthcoming. I Jennifer Le Kimberly Hall Barlow June 18, 2021 Page 2 2523/026565-0012 16602735.3 a06/18/21 am writing to request that the City render its final decision, so that UDR may take appropriate action. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns. UDR sincerely hopes that the City will approve its proposals to develop a total of ten high quality ADUs at the Properties, as has been proposed. Sincerely, John A. Ramirez cc: Alan Fenstermacher, Esq. Client Exhibit A John A. Ramirez Direct Dial: (714) 662-4610 E-mail: jramirez@rutan.com April 7, 2021 Rutan & Tucker, LLP | 18575 Jamboree Road , 9 th Floor Irvine , CA 92612 | 714 -641 -5100 | Fax 714 -546-9035 Orange County | Palo Alto | San Francisco | www.rutan.com 2523/026565-0012 16335085.1 a04/07/21 VIA E-MAIL Jennifer Le Director of Economic and Development Services City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Jennifer.Le@costamesaca.gov Kimberly Hall Barlow City Attorney, City of Costa Mesa Jones & Mayer 3777 North Harbor Blvd. Fullerton, CA 92835 khb@jones-mayer.com Re: Proposed ADU Conversions 2700 Peterson Place & 2775 Mesa Verde Drive Dear Ms. Lee & Ms. Barlow: This office represents UDR, Inc. (“UDR”), which manages a number of multifamily properties throughout the City of Costa Mesa (“City”). This letter concerns UDR’s efforts to convert existing structures that are part of two of its multifamily apartment home properties (the “Properties”) into accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”), pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code and state law.1 Specifically, UDR has submitted plans to the City to develop the following: 1. Five total ADUs at its Harbor at Mesa Verde property, located at 2700 Peterson Place, by remodeling the existing clubhouse (two ADUs) and leasing office (three ADUs). This property has a total of 384 existing residential dwelling units in a number of multifamily buildings. 2. Five total ADUs at its 27 Seventy Five Mesa Verde property, located at 2775 Mesa Verde Drive, by remodeling an underutilized portion of its leasing office, where leasing offices would also remain. This property has a total of 468 existing residential dwelling units in a number of multifamily buildings. 1 The Properties are owned by UDR Pinebrook, L.P., and United Realty, L.P., which are UDR affiliated entities. Jennifer Le Kimberly Hall Barlow April 7, 2021 Page 2 2523/026565-0012 16335085.1 a04/07/21 I. Factual Background In October and November 2020, UDR submitted preliminary drawings to City planning staff that showed its plan to develop ADUs within existing non-habitable space at the Properties, as detailed above. After UDR responded to City comments to ensure that the proposed ADUs stayed within the existing building footprints, City staff approved the preliminary plan, and invited UDR to submit the formal permit plan set, going as far as to state that the plans “looked great.” In reasonable reliance thereon, UDR spent approximately $80,000 to develop and submit formal plans for the proposed ADU conversions. However, following the submission of UDR’s formal applications, City planning staff has reversed its position, and has now informed UDR that the proposed ADUs are not permitted because the City no longer believes that proposed ADUs are “within the non-habitable space . . . of existing multifamily dwelling structure.” (See, Costa Mesa Municipal Code (“CMMC”) § 13- 35.) Instead, based on its March 29, 2021 email correspondence (attached as Exhibit 1), the City is apparently taking the position that UDR must either (i) demolish the existing leasing offices and/or clubhouses and construct a maximum of two detached ADUs in the same location (maximum 800 square feet each), or (ii) propose ADUs within an existing building on the Properties that contains existing dwelling units within the same physical building. In taking this position, the City is drawing a distinction between buildings at the Properties that contain dwelling units and the other buildings on the Properties that serve those units, such as clubhouses/amenity buildings and leasing offices. As discussed herein, this distinction is not actually contained within the City’s ADU ordinance, nor is it supported by state law. Instead, all of the buildings on the Properties are part of the overall multifamily use, whether they are buildings containing actual dwelling units, amenities for those units, or other needed services and/or accessory uses. Simply put, all buildings at the Properties are properly classified as “multifamily dwelling structures,” regardless of whether or not they are physically attached to dwelling units. Accordingly, the City’s most recent position is both contrary to its own Code, and violates state law, which requires the production of ADUs without such arbitrary distinctions. II. The City’s Code and State Law Require Approval of UDR’s Proposals In 2019, the California state legislature passed sweeping reforms for how local agencies must treat ADUs, including a number of situations where a local agency, such as the City here, must ministerially approve applications for development of ADUs. Additional bills were passed in 2020 and 2021, also aimed at increasing the production of ADUs. These changes to state law were in direct response to the “severe housing crisis” in California, noting that allowing ADUs in single family and multifamily residential zones provides additional rental housing stock, and ADUs are an essential component of California’s housing supply. (Gov. Code § 65852.10(a).) Jennifer Le Kimberly Hall Barlow April 7, 2021 Page 3 2523/026565-0012 16335085.1 a04/07/21 In order to comply with these significant changes to state law, the City Council adopted various amendments to the City’s Municipal Code by adopting Urgency Ordinance No. 19-10 (the “City ADU Ordinance”). Local ADU ordinances, such as the City ADU Ordinance, must not unreasonably restrict the ability to develop ADUs in zones where they are authorized. (Gov. Code § 65852.10(b).) A. The Plain Language of the Local and State Law Provisions Relating to ADUs on Multifamily Properties Does not Support the City’s Position. With respect to multifamily properties, state law mandates that “a local agency shall ministerially approve an application for a building permit within a residential or mixed-use zone to create any of the following: . . . (i) Multiple accessory dwelling units within the portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable space, including, but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, if each unit complies with state building standards for dwellings.” (Gov. Code § 65852.2(e)(1)(C)(i) [emph. added].) “A local agency shall allow at least one accessory dwelling unit within an existing multifamily dwelling and shall allow up to 25 percent of the existing multifamily dwelling units.” (Id., at subdiv. (ii).) Recognizing the mandates of state law, the City ADU Ordinance sets forth essentially identical standards for ADUs on multifamily properties: b. For lots with existing multi-family residential dwelling: (i) No more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the number of the existing units, but at least one (1) unit, shall be permitted as accessory dwelling units constructed within the non-habitable space (e.g., storage rooms, boiler rooms, hallways, attics, basements or garages) of the existing multifamily dwelling structure provided that applicable building codes are met (ii) no more than two detached accessory dwelling units, provided that no such unit shall be more than sixteen (16) feet in height, and each such unit complies with front yard setbacks, and meets rear-yard and side yard setbacks of four feet. The maximum square footage of detached accessory dwelling units on lots with existing multi-family residential dwellings shall comply with the limits set forth in subjects C (or E, if applicable) of this section. (CMMC § 13-35(E)(1)(b).)2 Both the Government Code and the City’s Municipal Code clearly allow ADUs in an amount equal to 25% of the total of existing units at a multifamily property in non-habitable spaces of “existing multifamily dwelling structures,” and there is no provision that requires the ADU or 2 http://qcode.us/codes/costamesa/revisions/19-19.pdf. Jennifer Le Kimberly Hall Barlow April 7, 2021 Page 4 2523/026565-0012 16335085.1 a04/07/21 multifamily structure to be attached to other dwelling units. Instead, the only requirement is that the structure is existing, which is the case for both the clubhouses and leasing offices at issue here. The proposed number of ADUs at each property is well under 25%, as UDR has proposed only five ADUs at each Property, which are 1.3% and 1.07% of the total units at the Harbor at Mesa Verde and 27 Seventy Five Mesa Verde Properties, respectively. The Properties are zoned R3 (Multiple Family Residential), where “multi-family dwellings” are a permitted use. (CMMC § 13-30.) Leasing offices, clubhouses or other amenities such as gyms, pools, and the like are not specifically listed as permitted uses, or anywhere else on the City’s Land Use Matrix, but are obviously permitted on the Properties. Accordingly, these other buildings, despite not actually containing dwelling units, must be permitted as part of the overall multifamily dwelling use, and are therefore “existing multifamily dwelling structures.” However, here, the City has taken the position that the proposal would fall into category (b)(ii) of the City ADU Ordinance, which applies to the new construction of entirely detached and freestanding ADUs on multifamily properties. (See also, Gov. Code § 65852.2(e)(1)(D).) This interpretation is not only unsupported by the plain language cited above, but frankly, is illogical . By the City’s own interpretation, if the exact same leasing office or clubhouse happened to be physically connected to one of the other buildings on site that contains actual dwelling units, with no other difference regarding the size of the office/clubhouse or number of units, UDR’s proposals would be approved. There is no logical reason to treat a leasing office or clubhouse differently simply because it is not physically connected to other buildings with dwelling units – instead, the key is that the building is existing, which is the clear logical basis for the different treatment between the ADUs contemplated by CMMC section 13-35(E)(1)(b)(1) and (b)(2), as well as Gov. Code § 65852.2(e)(1)(C) and (e)(1)(D). UDR’s position is supported by guidance from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”), which has been charged with overseeing the implementation of the aforementioned changes to state law regarding ADUs.3 Specifically, HCD’s Accessory Dwelling Unit Handbook (“Handbook”) states that Government Code section 65852.2(e)(1)(C) requires a local agency to allow “up to 25 percent of the existing multifamily dwelling units within a structure,” without any reference to the requirement that the City has read into the law here – i.e., that the existing structure must itself contain dwelling units, even if it is part of the overall multifamily development. (Handbook, p. 15 [emph. added].)4 3 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/accessorydwellingunits.shtml) 4 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/adu_december_2020_handbook.pdf Jennifer Le Kimberly Hall Barlow April 7, 2021 Page 5 2523/026565-0012 16335085.1 a04/07/21 B. State Law Makes Clear that ADUs are Broadly Permitted in Existing Structures. As set forth above, the distinction between the two types of multifamily ADUs set forth in both the City ADU Ordinance and state law is whether or not the ADU is being developed in an existing structure or in a new, freestanding structure, rather than any type of existing structure. This interpretation is also supported by state law outside of the multifamily context, where it is clear that local agencies are required to treat ADUs being developed within existing structures much differently than where new structures are constructed. For example, in single family zones, state law prohibits any size limitations, height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, landscape, replacement parking requirements or other development standards for ADUs developed in existing spaces of a single family dwelling or other existing accessory structure, instead requiring ministerial approval. (Gov. Code § 65852.2(e)(1)(A); see also, CMMC § 13-35(E)(1)(a)(i).) As made clear in HCD’s Guidance concerning this provision, this applies to structures physically detached from the actual dwelling unit, such as detached garages, barns, sheds and the like: Can I convert my accessory structure into an ADU? Yes. The conversion of garages, sheds, barns, and other existing accessory structures, either attached or detached from the primary dwelling, into ADUs is permitted and promoted through the state ADU law. These conversions of accessory structures are not subject to any additional development standard, such as unit size, height, and lot coverage requirements, and shall be from existing space that can be made safe under building and safety codes. A local agency should not set limits on when the structure was created, and the structure must meet standards for health and safety. Finally, local governments may also consider the conversion of illegal existing space and could consider alternative building standards to facilitate the conversion of existing illegal space to minimum life and safety standards. (Handbook, p. 16.) There is no basis in law or logic for treating the structures at the Properties any differently than a detached garage, shed or barn on a single family property. Instead, the provisions of t he City ADU Ordinance that limit detached ADUs to two, and impose height and setback requirements, are only permitted to apply to new construction, as is also the case in single family zones. Conversion of existing structures are not subject to such requirements. Indeed, imposing height and setback limitations on development that does not change the footprint of an existing structure defies logic, showing that CMMC section 13-35(D)(2)(b)(ii) cannot apply to UDR’s proposals here. Jennifer Le Kimberly Hall Barlow April 7, 2021 Page 6 2523/026565-0012 16335085.1 a04/07/21 Additionally, it bears noting that the proposed ADUs – while small in total number – would assist the City in meeting its requirements for production of housing as part as the ongoing update to its Housing Element. As the City is no doubt aware, the state has also amended state Housing Element law since the City’s previous Housing Element was certified, which makes meeting its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (“RHNA”) allocation even more difficult, and makes the consequences for failure to do so more severe. (See, e.g., Gov. Code §§ 65583(a)(3), 65863(c).) C. Interpretation of Similar Provisions by Other Jurisdictions Supports the Approval of UDR’s Proposals. UDR previously provided staff with copies of proposed ADU conversions at a multifamily residential apartment complex it owns in the City of Newport Beach, along with an approval letters from the Newport Beach planning department. (See, Exhibit 2.) As shown in those plans, the approved ADU projects will convert existing office and amenity space to a total of thirty ADUs on UDR’s multifamily property. Critically, as is the case here, the two office/amenity buildings that will be converted to ADUs are not physically attached to any of the buildings that contain dwelling units, yet Newport Beach is treating that non-habitable space in the same manner that UDR believes the City must treat its proposals here. Indeed, the relevant provisions of the City of Newport Beach’s ADU ordinance governing conversions of existing non-habitable space of “existing multi-unit dwellings” is no different than the City ADU Ordinance. (See, Newport Beach Municipal Code § 20.48.200(D)(3).) Further, both cities are subject to the same provisions of Government Code section 65852.2(e), cited above, which are mirrored in both cities’ ADU ordinances. The interpretation by the City’s neighboring jurisdiction lends further support to UDR’s position, and demonstrates that the City’s most recent interpretation is contrary to both its own Ordinance and state law. *** Jennifer Le Kimberly Hall Barlow April 7, 2021 Page 7 2523/026565-0012 16335085.1 a04/07/21 UDR values its relationship with the City as the holder of a significant amount of its more affordable, multifamily residential stock, and is committed to continuing to provide the City’s residents with high quality residences. I would be happy to discuss this matter with you further should you have any questions, and we sincerely hope that the City will reconsider its position and approve the UDR’s proposals to develop a total of ten high quality ADUs at the Properties. Sincerely, John A. Ramirez cc: Alan Fenstermacher, Esq. Client Exhibit 1 &ƌŽŵ͗<ĞŝƚŚĂǀŝƐ΀ŵĂŝůƚŽ͗<ĞĂǀŝƐΛƵĚƌ͘ĐŽŵ΁ ^ĞŶƚ͗&ƌŝĚĂǇ͕DĂƌĐŚϮϲ͕ϮϬϮϭϵ͗ϱϳD dŽ͗,hzE,͕EEzфEEz͘,hzE,ΛĐŽƐƚĂŵĞƐĂĐĂ͘ŐŽǀх Đ͗ƵƐƚŝŶDŝůůĞƌфĚƵŵŝůůĞƌΛƵĚƌ͘ĐŽŵх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗Z͗YϯEĞǁWůĂŶŚĞĐŬƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶͲ>ĞĂƐŝŶŐKĨĨŝĐĞ EĂŶĐǇ͕ /ŚĂǀĞƚƌŝĞĚĐĂůůŝŶŐĂĐŽƵƉůĞŽĨƚŝŵĞƐ͕ďƵƚǇŽƵƌǀŽŝĐĞŵĂŝůŝƐĨƵůů͘ĂŶǇŽƵƉůĞĂƐĞŐŝǀĞŵĞĂŶƵƉĚĂƚĞŽŶƚŚĞƐƚĂƚƵƐŽĨŵǇ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ͍ <ĞŝƚŚĂǀŝƐ ϮϭϯͲϰϬϳͲϬϴϱϮ &ƌŽŵ͗<ĞŝƚŚĂǀŝƐ ^ĞŶƚ͗DŽŶĚĂǇ͕DĂƌĐŚϮϮ͕ϮϬϮϭϴ͗ϰϬD dŽ͗,hzE,͕EEzфEEz͘,hzE,ΛĐŽƐƚĂŵĞƐĂĐĂ͘ŐŽǀх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗Z͗YϯEĞǁWůĂŶŚĞĐŬƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶͲ>ĞĂƐŝŶŐKĨĨŝĐĞ EĂŶĐǇ͕ :ƵƐƚĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƵƉƚŽƐĞĞŝĨǇŽƵŚĂǀĞŵĞƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƉůĂŶŶĞƌƐĨŽƌŵǇƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ͍ <ĞŝƚŚĂǀŝƐ ϮϭϯͲϰϬϳͲϬϴϱϮ &ƌŽŵ͗,hzE,͕EEzфEEz͘,hzE,ΛĐŽƐƚĂŵĞƐĂĐĂ͘ŐŽǀх ^ĞŶƚ͗DŽŶĚĂǇ͕DĂƌĐŚϭϱ͕ϮϬϮϭϱ͗ϯϵWD dŽ͗<ĞŝƚŚĂǀŝƐф<ĞĂǀŝƐΛƵĚƌ͘ĐŽŵх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗΀ydZE>΁Z͗YϯEĞǁWůĂŶŚĞĐŬƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶͲ>ĞĂƐŝŶŐKĨĨŝĐĞ ,ŝ<ĞŝƚŚ͕ ŽŶĨŝƌŵŝŶŐ/ƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚǇŽƵƌƚǁŽĞŵĂŝůƐǁŝƚŚĐŽŶǀĞƌƐŝŽŶƉůĂŶƐĨƌŽŵEĞǁƉŽƌƚ͘/͛ůůĚŝƐĐƵƐƐĨƵƌƚŚĞƌǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƉůĂŶŶĞƌƐǁŚŽ ǁŽƌŬĞĚŽŶƚŚĞhŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞĂŶĚŐĞƚďĂĐŬƚŽǇŽƵƐŽŽŶ͘ dŚĂŶŬƐ͕ EĂŶĐǇ EEz,hzE, ƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞWůĂŶŶĞƌ ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐͮŝƚǇŽĨŽƐƚĂDĞƐĂ ;ϳϭϰͿϳϱϰͲϱϲϬϵ We are experiencing a high volume of customer requests. Please allow 48 hours for a response. hŶƚŝůĨƵƌƚŚĞƌŶŽƚŝĐĞ͕ŽƐƚĂDĞƐĂŝƚǇ,ĂůůŝƐĐůŽƐĞĚƚŽƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐŝŶŬĞĞƉŝŶŐǁŝƚŚ'ŽǀĞƌŶŽƌEĞǁƐŽŵ͛ƐĚŝƌĞĐƚŝŽŶƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐ Ks/Ͳϭϵ͘dŚĞŝƚǇůĞĂĚĞƌƐŚŝƉƚĞĂŵŝƐĐŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĚƚŽĐŽŶƚŝŶƵŝŶŐƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĞƐƐĞŶƚŝĂůĐŝƚǇƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĂŶĚǁŝůůďĞƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐƚŽƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐŽŶůŝŶĞ͕ǀŝĂƚĞůĞƉŚŽŶĞĂŶĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƌǁĞďƐŝƚĞŝŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽĨŽůůŽǁƚŚĞ'ŽǀĞƌŶŽƌ͛ƐŐƵŝĚĂŶĐĞĂŶĚ ƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůƐƉƌĞĂĚŽĨKs/Ͳϭϵ͘ /ŶƚŚĞŝŶƚĞƌŝŵ͕ĞŵĂŝůŝĨǇŽƵŚĂǀĞĂŶǇĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐ͘ &ƌŽŵ͗<ĞŝƚŚĂǀŝƐ΀ŵĂŝůƚŽ͗<ĞĂǀŝƐΛƵĚƌ͘ĐŽŵ΁ ^ĞŶƚ͗DŽŶĚĂǇ͕DĂƌĐŚϭϱ͕ϮϬϮϭϭϮ͗ϱϯWD dŽ͗,hzE,͕EEzфEEz͘,hzE,ΛĐŽƐƚĂŵĞƐĂĐĂ͘ŐŽǀх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗Z͗YϯEĞǁWůĂŶŚĞĐŬƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶͲ>ĞĂƐŝŶŐKĨĨŝĐĞ EĂŶĐǇ͕ ƚƚĂĐŚĞĚĂƌĞĚƌĂǁŝŶŐƐĨŽƌƚŚĞƐŽƵƚŚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŝŶEĞǁƉŽƌƚ͘/ĐĂŶƐĞŶĚǇŽƵƚŚĞůŝŶŬƚŽƚŚĞĨƵůůƐĞƚŝĨǇŽƵůŝŬĞ͘ůƐŽĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚ ŝƐƚŚĞĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůůĞƚƚĞƌǁĞƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚĨƌŽŵEĞǁƉŽƌƚWůĂŶŶŝŶŐĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ͘ <ĞŝƚŚĂǀŝƐ ϮϭϯͲϰϬϳͲϬϴϱϮ &ƌŽŵ͗,hzE,͕EEzфEEz͘,hzE,ΛĐŽƐƚĂŵĞƐĂĐĂ͘ŐŽǀх ^ĞŶƚ͗DŽŶĚĂǇ͕DĂƌĐŚϭϱ͕ϮϬϮϭϭϬ͗ϯϮD dŽ͗<ĞŝƚŚĂǀŝƐф<ĞĂǀŝƐΛƵĚƌ͘ĐŽŵх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗΀ydZE>΁Z͗YϯEĞǁWůĂŶŚĞĐŬƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶͲ>ĞĂƐŝŶŐKĨĨŝĐĞ ,ŝ<ĞŝƚŚ͕ WĞƌŽƵƌƉŚŽŶĞĐŽŶǀĞƌƐĂƚŝŽŶ͕/ǁŝůůĚŝƐĐƵƐƐĨƵƌƚŚĞƌǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƉůĂŶŶĞƌƐǁŚŽǁŽƌŬĞĚŽŶƚŚĞhĐŽĚĞĂŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚƚŽĐůĂƌŝĨǇ ĐŽŶǀĞƌƐŝŽŶƐŽĨŶŽŶͲŚĂďŝƚĂďůĞƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐŝŶƚŽhƐĂŶĚŐĞƚďĂĐŬƚŽǇŽƵǁŝƚŚĐůĂƌŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶͬĚŝƌĞĐƚŝŽŶ͘ƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇŝŶƚŚĞh ŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞ͕ĐŽŶǀĞƌƐŝŽŶƐĂƌĞĂůůŽǁĞĚĨŽƌŵƵůƚŝͲĨĂŵŝůǇǌŽŶĞƐŝĨƚŚĞŶŽŶͲŚĂďŝƚĂďůĞĂƌĞĂŝƐĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐŵƵůƚŝͲ ĨĂŵŝůǇďƵŝůĚŝŶŐďƵƚŶŽƚŝĨŝƚ͛ƐǁŝƚŚŝŶĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐĚĞƚĂĐŚĞĚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ͘zŽƵŚĂĚŵĞŶƚŝŽŶĞĚƚŚŽƵŐŚƚŚĂƚǇŽƵŚĂĚƉůĂŶƐĨŽƌĂ ƐŝŵŝůĂƌĐŽŶǀĞƌƐŝŽŶƉƌŽũĞĐƚŝŶEĞǁƉŽƌƚĞĂĐŚ;ŝŐŚƚϴϬͿ͘tŽƵůĚǇŽƵŵŝŶĚƐŚĂƌŝŶŐƚŚŽƐĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƉůĂŶƐǁŝƚŚŵĞ͍ dŚĂŶŬƐ͕ EĂŶĐǇ EEz,hzE, ƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞWůĂŶŶĞƌ ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐͮŝƚǇŽĨŽƐƚĂDĞƐĂ ;ϳϭϰͿϳϱϰͲϱϲϬϵ We are experiencing a high volume of customer requests. Please allow 48 hours for a response. hŶƚŝůĨƵƌƚŚĞƌŶŽƚŝĐĞ͕ŽƐƚĂDĞƐĂŝƚǇ,ĂůůŝƐĐůŽƐĞĚƚŽƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐŝŶŬĞĞƉŝŶŐǁŝƚŚ'ŽǀĞƌŶŽƌEĞǁƐŽŵ͛ƐĚŝƌĞĐƚŝŽŶƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐ Ks/Ͳϭϵ͘dŚĞŝƚǇůĞĂĚĞƌƐŚŝƉƚĞĂŵŝƐĐŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĚƚŽĐŽŶƚŝŶƵŝŶŐƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĞƐƐĞŶƚŝĂůĐŝƚǇƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĂŶĚǁŝůůďĞƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐƚŽƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐŽŶůŝŶĞ͕ǀŝĂƚĞůĞƉŚŽŶĞĂŶĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƌǁĞďƐŝƚĞŝŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽĨŽůůŽǁƚŚĞ'ŽǀĞƌŶŽƌ͛ƐŐƵŝĚĂŶĐĞĂŶĚ ƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůƐƉƌĞĂĚŽĨKs/Ͳϭϵ͘ /ŶƚŚĞŝŶƚĞƌŝŵ͕ĞŵĂŝůŝĨǇŽƵŚĂǀĞĂŶǇĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐ͘ &ƌŽŵ͗<ĞŝƚŚĂǀŝƐ΀ŵĂŝůƚŽ͗<ĞĂǀŝƐΛƵĚƌ͘ĐŽŵ΁ ^ĞŶƚ͗DŽŶĚĂǇ͕DĂƌĐŚϭϱ͕ϮϬϮϭϵ͗ϭϰD dŽ͗,hzE,͕EEzфEEz͘,hzE,ΛĐŽƐƚĂŵĞƐĂĐĂ͘ŐŽǀх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗&t͗YϯEĞǁWůĂŶŚĞĐŬƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶͲ>ĞĂƐŝŶŐKĨĨŝĐĞ EĂŶĐǇ͕ /ƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚƚŚŝƐĞŵĂŝůĨƌŽŵŵǇƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚ;ƉůĞĂƐĞƐĞĞďĞůŽǁͿƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚĞhƵŶŝƚƐĂƚ,ĂƌďŽƌDĞƐĂsĞƌĚĞĂŶĚϮϳϳϱDĞƐĂ sĞƌĚĞƌŝǀĞƌĞũĞĐƚŝŶŐŽƵƌƉĞƌŵŝƚƐƵďŵŝƚƚĂůƐ͘ĨƚĞƌǇŽƵĂŶĚ/ƚĂůŬĞĚ͕/ǁĂƐƵŶĚĞƌƚŚĞŝŵƉƌĞƐƐŝŽŶǁĞǁĞƌĞŐŽŽĚƚŽƐƵďŵŝƚ ĨŽƌďŽƚŚƉƌŽƉĞƌƚŝĞƐ͍ĂŶǇŽƵƉůĞĂƐĞŐŝǀĞŵĞĂĐĂůůǁŚĞŶǇŽƵŚĂǀĞĂŵŝŶƵƚĞ͍ <ĞŝƚŚĂǀŝƐ ϮϭϯͲϰϬϳͲϬϴϱϮ &ƌŽŵ͗ĞƐĂƌZŽŵĞƌŽфĐƌŽŵĞƌŽΛƋϯŝŶĐ͘ĐŽŵх ^ĞŶƚ͗dŚƵƌƐĚĂǇ͕DĂƌĐŚϭϭ͕ϮϬϮϭϭ͗ϬϲWD dŽ͗ƌŝĂŶ'͘>ĂŬĞфďůĂŬĞΛƵĚƌ͘ĐŽŵх͖<ĞŝƚŚĂǀŝƐф<ĞĂǀŝƐΛƵĚƌ͘ĐŽŵх͖YƵĂŶŐEŐƵǇĞŶфƋŶŐƵǇĞŶΛƋϯŝŶĐ͘ĐŽŵх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗΀ydZE>΁Z͗YϯEĞǁWůĂŶŚĞĐŬƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶͲ>ĞĂƐŝŶŐKĨĨŝĐĞ /ĐĂůůĞĚŚĞƌĂŶĚůĞĨƚŚĞƌĂŵĞƐƐĂŐĞ ĞƐĂƌZŽŵĞƌŽ Principal Architect |Q3 ENGINEERS INC. C| 949.302.7821 F| 714.242.9499 17162 Gothard Street | Huntington Beach, CA 92647 &ƌŽŵ͗ƌŝĂŶ'͘>ĂŬĞ΀ŵĂŝůƚŽ͗ďůĂŬĞΛƵĚƌ͘ĐŽŵ΁ ^ĞŶƚ͗dŚƵƌƐĚĂǇ͕DĂƌĐŚϭϭ͕ϮϬϮϭϭϮ͗ϰϴWD dŽ͗ĞƐĂƌZŽŵĞƌŽфĐƌŽŵĞƌŽΛƋϯŝŶĐ͘ĐŽŵх͖<ĞŝƚŚĂǀŝƐф<ĞĂǀŝƐΛƵĚƌ͘ĐŽŵх͖YƵĂŶŐEŐƵǇĞŶфƋŶŐƵǇĞŶΛƋϯŝŶĐ͘ĐŽŵх Đ͗ƌŝĂŶ'͘>ĂŬĞфďůĂŬĞΛƵĚƌ͘ĐŽŵх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗Z͗YϯEĞǁWůĂŶŚĞĐŬƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶͲ>ĞĂƐŝŶŐKĨĨŝĐĞ EĂŶĐǇ͛ƐĞŵĂŝůŝƐĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚŚĞƌĞ͘ dŚĂŶŬƐ %ULDQ/DNH 8'5 ,UYLQH$YH 1HZSRUW%HDFK&$ 7 ZZZ8'5FRP &ƌŽŵ͗ĞƐĂƌZŽŵĞƌŽфĐƌŽŵĞƌŽΛƋϯŝŶĐ͘ĐŽŵх ^ĞŶƚ͗dŚƵƌƐĚĂǇ͕DĂƌĐŚϭϭ͕ϮϬϮϭϭϮ͗ϰϬWD dŽ͗<ĞŝƚŚĂǀŝƐф<ĞĂǀŝƐΛƵĚƌ͘ĐŽŵх͖ƌŝĂŶ'͘>ĂŬĞфďůĂŬĞΛƵĚƌ͘ĐŽŵх͖YƵĂŶŐEŐƵǇĞŶфƋŶŐƵǇĞŶΛƋϯŝŶĐ͘ĐŽŵх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗΀ydZE>΁&ǁĚ͗YϯEĞǁWůĂŶŚĞĐŬƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶͲ>ĞĂƐŝŶŐKĨĨŝĐĞ <ĞŝƚŚ͕ ^ĞĞĞŵĂŝůďĞůŽǁĨƌŽŵƚŚĞĐŝƚǇŽĨŽƐƚĂDĞƐĂ͕ĚŽǇŽƵŚĂǀĞƚŚĞĐŽŶƚĂĐƚĂƚƚŚĞĐŝƚǇǇŽƵŚĂĚďĞĞŶƚĂůŬŝŶŐƐŽǁĞĐĂŶŐŝǀĞ ŚĞƌĂĐĂůů ^ĞŶƚĨƌŽŵŵǇsĞƌŝǌŽŶ͕^ĂŵƐƵŶŐ'ĂůĂǆǇƐŵĂƌƚƉŚŽŶĞ 'ĞƚKƵƚůŽŽŬĨŽƌŶĚƌŽŝĚ &ƌŽŵ͗DĂƌƚŝŶEŐŽфŵŶŐŽΛƋϯŝŶĐ͘ĐŽŵх ^ĞŶƚ͗dŚƵƌƐĚĂǇ͕DĂƌĐŚϭϭ͕ϮϬϮϭϭϮ͗ϭϴ͗ϰϰWD dŽ͗ĞƐĂƌZŽŵĞƌŽфĐƌŽŵĞƌŽΛƋϯŝŶĐ͘ĐŽŵх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗&t͗YϯEĞǁWůĂŶŚĞĐŬƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶͲ>ĞĂƐŝŶŐKĨĨŝĐĞ &ƌŽŵ͗ZK^E>͕/ZEф/ZE͘ZK^E>ΛĐŽƐƚĂŵĞƐĂĐĂ͘ŐŽǀх ^ĞŶƚ͗dŚƵƌƐĚĂǇ͕DĂƌĐŚϭϭ͕ϮϬϮϭϭϮ͗ϭϳWD dŽ͗DĂƌƚŝŶEŐŽфŵŶŐŽΛƋϯŝŶĐ͘ĐŽŵх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗&t͗YϯEĞǁWůĂŶŚĞĐŬƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶͲ>ĞĂƐŝŶŐKĨĨŝĐĞ &ƌŽŵ͗z'Z͕,Z/^dKW,Z ^ĞŶƚ͗dŚƵƌƐĚĂǇ͕DĂƌĐŚϭϭ͕ϮϬϮϭϭϮ͗ϭϱWD dŽ͗ZK^E>͕/ZEф/ZE͘ZK^E>ΛĐŽƐƚĂŵĞƐĂĐĂ͘ŐŽǀх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗Z͗YϯEĞǁWůĂŶŚĞĐŬƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶͲ>ĞĂƐŝŶŐKĨĨŝĐĞ ,ĞůůŽDĂƌƚŝŶ͕ /ƌĞǀŝĞǁĞĚƚŚĞƉůĂŶƐĂŶĚ/ƚŚŝŶŬƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůǁŝůůŶŽƚďĞƉŽƐƐŝďůĞ͘/ŚĂǀĞƌĞǀŝĞǁĞĚǁŝƚŚŽƵƌhƚĞĂŵĂŶĚǁĞŚĂǀĞ ĂůůĂŐƌĞĞĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞ^ƚĂƚĞĂůůŽǁƐĨŽƌhƐǁŝƚŚŝŶŶŽŚĂďŝƚĂďůĞƐƉĂĐĞǁŝƚŚŝŶĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐŵƵůƚŝĨĂŵŝůǇĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐ͘dŚĞ ,ĂŶĚďŽŽŬĂŶĚ^ƚĂƚĞůĂǁƐƚĂƚĞƐƐƚƌĞƐƐƚŚĂƚŝƚŚĂƐƚŽďĞǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞƉŽƌƚŝŽŶƐŽĨĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐŵƵůƚŝĨĂŵŝůǇĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐ͘ ^ŝŶĐĞƚŚŝƐŝƐĚĞƚĂĐŚĞĚĨƌŽŵĂŶǇƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůĚǁĞůůŝŶŐ͕ƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůǁŝůůŶŽƚďĞƉŽƐƐŝďůĞ͘dŚĞƐĂŵĞŐŽĞƐĨŽƌƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůŝŶ ƚŚĞĐůƵďŚŽƵƐĞ͘ zŽƵĂƌĞĞůŝŐŝďůĞƚŽĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚƚǁŽĚĞƚĂĐŚĞĚhƐŽŶƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͘ >ĞƚŵĞŬŶŽǁŝĨǇŽƵŚĂǀĞĂŶǇƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐ͘ dŚĂŶŬǇŽƵ͕ Chris Yeager Assistant Planner Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626 | (714) 754-4883 ࿏3OHDVHFRQVLGHUWKHHQYLURQPHQWEHIRUHSULQWLQJWKLVHPDLO7KDQN\RX hŶƚŝůĨƵƌƚŚĞƌŶŽƚŝĐĞ͕ŽƐƚĂDĞƐĂŝƚǇ,ĂůůŝƐĐůŽƐĞĚƚŽƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐŝŶŬĞĞƉŝŶŐǁŝƚŚ'ŽǀĞƌŶŽƌEĞǁƐŽŵ͛ƐĚŝƌĞĐƚŝŽŶƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐ Ks/Ͳϭϵ͘dŚĞŝƚǇůĞĂĚĞƌƐŚŝƉƚĞĂŵŝƐĐŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĚƚŽĐŽŶƚŝŶƵŝŶŐƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĞƐƐĞŶƚŝĂůĐŝƚǇƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĂŶĚǁŝůůďĞƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐƚŽƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐŽŶůŝŶĞ͕ǀŝĂƚĞůĞƉŚŽŶĞĂŶĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƌǁĞďƐŝƚĞŝŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽĨŽůůŽǁƚŚĞ'ŽǀĞƌŶŽƌ͛ƐŐƵŝĚĂŶĐĞĂŶĚ ƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůƐƉƌĞĂĚŽĨKs/Ͳϭϵ͘ /ŶƚŚĞŝŶƚĞƌŝŵ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞĐĂůůŽƌĞŵĂŝůŝĨǇŽƵŚĂǀĞĂŶǇĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐ͘ &ƌŽŵ͗ZK^E>͕/ZEф/ZE͘ZK^E>ΛĐŽƐƚĂŵĞƐĂĐĂ͘ŐŽǀх ^ĞŶƚ͗tĞĚŶĞƐĚĂǇ͕DĂƌĐŚϭϬ͕ϮϬϮϭϭϬ͗ϮϳD dŽ͗z'Z͕,Z/^dKW,Zф,Z/^dKW,Z͘z'ZΛĐŽƐƚĂŵĞƐĂĐĂ͘ŐŽǀх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗&t͗YϯEĞǁWůĂŶŚĞĐŬƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶͲ>ĞĂƐŝŶŐKĨĨŝĐĞ &ƌŽŵ͗DĂƌƚŝŶEŐŽ΀ŵĂŝůƚŽ͗ŵŶŐŽΛƋϯŝŶĐ͘ĐŽŵ΁ ^ĞŶƚ͗tĞĚŶĞƐĚĂǇ͕DĂƌĐŚϭϬ͕ϮϬϮϭϭϬ͗ϭϱD dŽ͗W>EE/E'/E&KфƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐŝŶĨŽΛĐŽƐƚĂŵĞƐĂĐĂ͘ŐŽǀх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗YϯEĞǁWůĂŶŚĞĐŬƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶͲ>ĞĂƐŝŶŐKĨĨŝĐĞ ,ŝ͕ dŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐůŝŶŬŝƐƚŚĞŶĞǁĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĚƌĂǁŝŶŐƐĨŽƌZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůĚĚŝƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚůƚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐ͗ ŚƚƚƉƐ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘ĚƌŽƉďŽǆ͘ĐŽŵͬƐŚͬϲǆůǁƌŽŬŶϬǁŝĞũϱƌͬͲ,ϲ,ǁ/<ŶWǇǇsǀĨϭƌǀshWĂ͍ĚůсϬ ĞƐƚ͕ MARTIN NGO Associate|Q3 ENGINEERS INC. C| 718.322.6166 O| 714.465.5200 x108 17162 Gothard Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Exhibit 2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 100 Civic Center Drive, P.O. Box 1768, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (949) 644-3200 www.newportbeachca.gov ZONING CLEARANCE N0. ZC2020-009 APPLICANT: Eight 80 Newport Beach LOCATION: 880 Irvine Avenue LEGAL DESCRIPTION Parcel 1 of Tract 1125 On August 27, 2020 Zoning Clearance No. ZC2020-009 was approved authorizing the development of the conversion of underutilized office space at an existing 732-unit residential development to ten accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Nine of the proposed ADUs will be studio apartments ranging from 633 to 650 square feet in floor area. One proposed ADU will be a 739-square-foot one-bedroom apartment. This approval is based on the following standards. 1. The project is for ten Accessory Dwelling Units. 2. The project is located in the Oakwood Apartments – UP1370, UP1405 Planned Community (PC4) zoning district and is a permitted use. 3. There is an existing multi-unit development on the lot. x The project is classified as the conversion of non-livable area of a multi-unit development or accessory structure. 4. The project complies with all conditions and applicable development standards of Section 20.48.200 (Accessory Dwelling Units). a. The number of accessory dwelling units does not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the existing multi-unit dwellings on the lot. b. No additional parking is required for the conversion of existing space located within a half mile of a public transit stop (bus stop) pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.48.200(E)(8)(d)(i) and 20.48.200(E)(8)(d)(ii). 5. The project is not located in the coastal zone. 6. A deed restriction will be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit related to occupancy restrictions (if applicable), prohibition on the separate conveyance, and restrictions on short-term rentals. By: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 100 Civic Center Drive, P.O. Box 1768, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (949) 644-3200 www.newportbeachca.gov ZONING CLEARANCE N0. ZC2020-010 APPLICANT: Eight 80 Newport Beach LOCATION: 1700 East 16th Street LEGAL DESCRIPTION Parcel 2 of Tract 1125 On August 27, 2020 Zoning Clearance No. ZC2020-010 was approved authorizing the development of the conversion of underutilized office and amenities space at an existing 715-unit residential development to 20 accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Sixteen of the proposed ADUs will be studio apartments ranging from 528 to 650 square feet in floor area. Four of the proposed ADUs will be a one-bedroom apartments ranging from 739 to 805 square feet in floor area. This approval is based on the following standards. 1. The project is for 20 Accessory Dwelling Units. 2. The project is located in the Oakwood Apartments – UP1370, UP1405 Planned Community (PC4) zoning district and is a permitted use. 3. There is an existing multi-unit development on the lot. x The project is classified as the conversion of non-livable area of a multi-unit development or accessory structure. 4. The project complies with all conditions and applicable development standards of Section 20.48.200 (Accessory Dwelling Units). a. The number of accessory dwelling units does not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the existing multi-unit dwellings on the lot. b. No additional parking is required for the conversion of existing space located within a half mile of a public transit stop (bus stop) pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.48.200(E)(8)(d)(i) and 20.48.200(E)(8)(d)(ii). 5. The project is not located in the coastal zone. 6. A deed restriction will be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit related to occupancy restrictions (if applicable), prohibition on the separate conveyance, and restrictions on short-term rentals. By: