HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0_Goldenrod Avenue Parking Lot_PA2017-023 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
March 23, 2017 Meeting
Agenda Item No. 2
SUBJECT: Goldenrod Avenue Parking Lot (PA2017-023)
SITE LOCATION: 506, 508, 510 and 512 Goldenrod Avenue
Conditional Use Permit No. UP2017-003
APPLICANT/OWNER: Eric Welton
PLANNER: Benjamin M. Zdeba, AICP, Associate Planner
949-644-3253, bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov
PROJECT SUMMARY
A request to amend Use Permit No. UP3638, which was approved in 1998, allowing the
reconfiguration of an existing commercial parking facility on four lots in the Two-Unit
Residential (R-2) Zoning District. The Use Permit would be amended to remove Condition
of Approval No. 9, which requires a restrictive covenant guaranteeing use of the parking lot
by the commercial buildings located at 2831 and 2855 East Coast Highway. The applicant
desires to downsize the existing commercial parking facility such that two of the four lots are
available for residential development. The other two northerly lots would remain as
commercial parking and are proposed to be donated to the City.
RECOMMENDATION
1) Conduct a public hearing;
2) Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Section 15303 under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures) and Section 15305 under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use
Limitations) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant
effect on the environment; and
3) Adopt Resolution No. _ approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2017-003 to
amend Use Permit No. UP3638 (Attachment No. PC 1).
1
V�
QP
�P
Goldenrod Avenue Parking Lot
Planning Commission, March 23, 2017
Page 2
VICINITY MAP
Project Site
Pal
o s .
�� Sf vs9
g6Sl
LF,
i l 20
•qe s>
>
l
P
�e-
>
� d
•�� >,U .j. NA Qy
GENERAL PLAN ZONING
4 � .
4
LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE
ON-SITE I Two-Unit Residential RT Two-Unit Residential R-2 Commercial parking facility
NORTH I Corridor Commercial CC Commercial Corridor CC Multi-tenant commercial buildings
SOUTH I RT R-2 Single-and two-family residences
EAST CC CC Multi-tenant commercial buildings
WEST RT R-2 Single-and two-family residences
3
Goldenrod Avenue Parking Lot
Planning Commission, March 23, 2017
Page 3
INTRODUCTION
Project Setting and Background
The project site is developed with a commercial parking facility and comprised of four
residentially zoned lots totaling 14,160 square feet in area (120 feet wide by 118 feet
deep). It is square in shape and generally flat with a slight slope downward from northeast
to southwest. Goldenrod Avenue borders the site on the west with alley access to the
north and east. Across the alley to the north and east are multi-tenant commercial
buildings fronting on East Coast Highway. The abutting properties to the south are
developed with two-unit condominium developments.
On-site improvements include 42 parking spaces, which are used by the adjacent
commercial buildings located at 2831 through 2859 East Coast Highway. According to
City permit records, the building at 2381 East Coast Highway is 4,310 square feet and
the building at 2841 through 2859 East Coast Highway is 18,544 square feet. It should
be noted, however, that original development of those commercial buildings was not
based on the parking supplied at the project site.
In 1961, Use Permit No. UP0727 was approved by the Planning Commission to allow the
establishment of an off-street commercial parking facility in connection with the
construction of the commercial building located at 2849 East Coast Highway. At the time
the commercial building was constructed, the property was designated Light Commercial
(C-1) by the Zoning Code. No off-street parking was required for uses in this district.
Therefore, the application to provide parking for the adjacent commercial uses was
voluntary and not a requirement for construction of the new building.
In 1962, the adjacent commercial property at 2831 East Coast Highway was developed
as a bank building. The property was also designated C-1; thus, no off-street parking was
required.
In 1984, Site Plan Review No. 33 was approved by the Planning Commission to allow the
construction of an upper level at 2831 East Coast Highway contingent on use of the
subject commercial parking facility. This approval was never implemented, therefore the
entitlements expired.
In 1998, Use Permit No. UP3638 was approved by the Planning Commission
(superseding UP0727) to reconfigure the parking facility. The approval included a
condition requiring a restrictive covenant be recorded such that the commercial buildings
referenced above were guaranteed use of the parking spaces at the facility (Condition of
Approval No. 9). It was stated at the time in the staff report (Attachment No. PC 5) that
the subject parking was not required for any one building or use.
4
Goldenrod Avenue Parking Lot
Planning Commission, March 23, 2017
Page 4
In 1999, after the reconfiguration was approved, the two abutting residential lots to the
south were developed as duplexes consistent with the R-2 District, and then converted to
condominiums.
Project Description
The applicant desires to downsize the existing commercial parking facility such that two of
the four lots are available for residential development. The other two northerly lots would
remain as commercial parking and may be donated to the City for use as a public parking
facility (see Attachment No. PC 3). A parking lot design has not been finalized, however, the
applicant has provided a site study exhibit and it is estimated that the reconfigured lot may
provide up to 24 parking spaces (Attachment No. PC 4). Reference Figure 1, which shows
the layout of the uses and their spatial relationship.
s �l
soi
a -
0
S•) rPp _
n
2 �Q� Zdp1
/ r
� y
ye0
so• �
N
S� 1 � Zsy9
N
N a
:J
f r
Figure 1 — Parking facility relationship to other adjacent uses.
Goldenrod Avenue Parking Lot
Planning Commission, March 23, 2017
Page 5
DISCUSSION
Consistency with General Plan/Local Coastal Program/Zoning
The Land Use Element of the General Plan, Local Coastal Program (LCP), and Zoning
Code designate the properties as Two-Unit Residential (RT, RT-D and R-2, respectively).
This designation is intended to provide for areas appropriate for a maximum of two-unit
residential dwellings (i.e., duplexes) located on a single lot. A commercial parking facility
is permissible within the R-2 District subject to the approval of a minor use permit.
In this case, the existing facility was legally established with the approval of Use Permit
No. UP0727 and Use Permit No. UP3638, which superseded that original approval. The
proposed amendment would allow two of the four lots to be available for residential
development.
Use Permit No. UP3638 Amendment
Pursuant to NBMC Section 20.54.070 (Changes to an Approved Project), a change that
involves a condition of approval for a project may only be approved by the original review
authority through a new permit application. In this case, the Planning Commission
approved Use Permit No. UP3638; therefore, a conditional use permit before the Planning
Commission is required to amend it. In accordance with NBMC Section 20.52.020(F)
(Minor Use Permits and Conditional Use Permits — Findings and Decision), the Planning
Commission must make the following findings in order to approve a conditional use
permit:
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, 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.
Staff believes sufficient facts exist in support of each finding. The proposed amendment
will maintain an existing commercial parking facility while allowing the potential
0
Goldenrod Avenue Parking Lot
Planning Commission, March 23, 2017
Page 6
redevelopment of two of the four lots as residential projects. Both RT and R-2 are intended
to provide appropriate areas for a maximum of two residential dwelling units located on a
single lot. The R-2 Zoning District, however, also permits commercial parking facilities.
Such a facility has existed at this location since 1961, and has not proven detrimental to
the surrounding residential and/or commercial neighborhood.
The surplus parking has proven complementary to the adjacent commercial buildings;
however, it was not required as part of the original construction of either of the two
commercial buildings. As such, staff does not believe the parking facility should be
restricted to any one building or use, and could be removed at the discretion of the
property owner.
Any future use of the properties will be subject to subsequent review and approval, and
will further be required to comply with all applicable Municipal Code requirements.
Alternatives
If the Planning Commission believes that there are insufficient facts to support the findings
for approval, the Planning Commission should deny the application request (Attachment
No. PC 2).
Environmental Review
This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15303 under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) and
Section 15305 under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the CEQA
Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential
to have a significant effect on the environment.
The Applicant may construct a duplex on each of the two subject lots. The Class 3
exemption includes the construction of a duplex or similar multi-family structure totaling
no more than four dwelling units.
The Class 5 exemption includes changes in land use limitations on properties with an
average slope of less than 20 percent, which do not result in any changes in land use or
density. The proposed project will amend a use permit for an existing commercial parking
facility, thereby modifying a previous land use restriction.
Public Notice
Notice of this hearing 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 10 days
before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code.
7
Goldenrod Avenue Parking Lot
Planning Commission, March 23, 2017
Page 7
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:
/�J- /,? 6— q, I"I
B in Zdeba, AICP Bre a isnesl , AICP
Associate'Planner Dep Commu ity Development Director
ATTACHMENTS
PC 1 Draft Resolution for Approval
PC 2 Draft Resolution for Denial
PC 3 Applicant's Correspondence, Dated January 30, 2017
PC 4 Applicant's Project Description and Justification
PC 5 Use Permit No. UP3638
11/18116
8
Attachment No. PC 1
Draft Resolution for Approval
9
V�
QP
�P
20
RESOLUTION NO. ####
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. UP2017-003, AMENDING USE PERMIT NO. UP3638
FOR AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL PARKING FACILITY
LOCATED AT 506, 508, 510 AND 512 GOLDENROD AVENUE
(PA2017-023)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. An application was filed by Eric Welton (Applicant), with respect to properties located at
506, 508, 510 and 512 Goldenrod Avenue, and legally described as Lots 6, 8, 10 and 12
of Block 534 in the Corona del Mar Subdivision, requesting approval of a conditional use
permit amendment.
2. The parking lot was established with Use Permit No. UP0727hich was approved in 1961,
in connection with the construction of the commercial building at 2849 East Coast Highway.
At the time the commercial building was constructed, no off-street parking was required.
Therefore, the establishment of the parking for the adjacent commercial uses was
voluntary and not a requirement for construction of the new building.
3. The Applicant requests to amend Use Permit No. UP3638, which superseded UP0727 in
1998, allowing the reconfiguration of the existing commercial parking facility on four lots in
the Two-Unit Residential (R-2) Zoning District. The Use Permit would be amended to
remove Condition of Approval No. 9, which requires a restrictive covenant guaranteeing
use of the parking lot by the commercial buildings located at 2831 and 2855 East Coast
Highway. The Applicant desires to use two of his four lots for residential development. The
other two lots would remain as commercial parking and are proposed to be donated to the
City.
4. The subject properties are designated Two-Unit Residential (RT) by the Land Use Element
of the General Plan and are located within the Two-Unit Residential (R-2) Zoning District.
5. The subject properties are located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan
category is Two-Unit Residential (20.0 —29.9 DU/AC) (RT-D).
6. A public hearing was held on March 23, 2017, in the Council Chambers located at 100
Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the hearing
was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). Evidence,
both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission
at this hearing.
11
Planning Commission Resolution No. ####
Page 2 of 5
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
1. This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15303 under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) and
Section 15305 under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the CEQA
Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential
to have a significant effect on the environment.
2. The Applicant may construct a duplex on each of the two subject lots. The Class 3
exemption includes the construction of a duplex or similar multi-family structure totaling
no more than four dwelling units.
3. The Class 5 exemption includes changes in land use limitations on properties with an
average slope of less than 20 percent, which do not result in any changes in land use
or density. The proposed project will amend a use permit for an existing commercial
parking facility, thereby modifying a previous land use restriction.
SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS.
In accordance with NBMC Section 20.52.020(F) (Conditional Use Permits and Minor Use
Permits — Findings and Decision), the following findings and facts in support of such findings
are set forth:
Finding: lop;
A. The use is consistent with the bene . .l Pland any applicable specific plan.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The General Plan land use designation for this site is RT, which applies to a range of
two-family residential dwelling units such as duplexes and townhomes. The proposed
amendment will alter the land use limitations for an existing commercial parking facility
such that two of the four lots are available for residential development, consistent with
the purpose of this designation.
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 the Zoning Code and the Municipal Code.
01-03-17
12
Planning Commission Resolution No. ####
Page 3 of 5
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The site is located in the R-2 Zoning District, which is intended to provide for areas
appropriate for a maximum of two residential dwelling units (i.e., duplexes) located on a
single legal lot. The proposed amendment will alter the land use limitations for an
existing commercial parking facility such that two of the four lots are available for
residential development, consistent with the intent of this district.
2. Pursuant to Table 2-1 (Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements) of NBMC Section
20.18.020 (Residential Zoning Districts Land Uses and Permit Requirements), a
commercial parking facility is permissible in the R-2 Zoning District subject to the
approval of a minor use permit. The existing commercial parking facility was legally
established in 1961 by Use Permit No. UP0727 and superseded by Use Permit No. 3638
in 1998. It was determined at the time that the facility complied with all applicable
provisions of the zoning code.
Finding:
C. The design, location, size, and operating char ristics of*use are compatible with the
allowed uses in the vicinity.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. A commercial parking facility has operated at this location since 1961. Its operation has
not proven to be incompatible with the neighboring residential uses. Although parking
was not required, the facility has been complementary to the adjacent commercial
buildings.
2. The proposed amendment to Use Permit No. UP3638 will not alter the existing
commercial parking facility rather it will allow the release of a restrictive covenant. Any
future use or reconfiguration of these lots will necessitate further review and approval
from the appropriate departments. Compliance with all applicable codes will be required.
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.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. Adequate public and emergency vehicle access, public services, and utilities are
provided to the subject property by way of the alley that abuts the northerly and easterly
property lines. The alley is accessible from Goldenrod Avenue and Second Avenue. Any
future circulation changes will be reviewed by the Traffic Engineer and Life Safety
Services to ensure the facility will function safely and emergency vehicle access will not
be compromised.
01-03-17
23
Planning Commission Resolution No. ####
Page 4 of 5
2. Any potential upgrades to the project site will comply with all Building, Public Works, and
Fire Codes. All ordinances of the City and all conditions of approval will be complied
with.
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.
Fact in Support of Finding:
See Facts C-1 and C-2, which are also in support of this Finding.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Conditional Use
Permit No. UP2017-003, 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 following the date this Resolution
was adopted 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 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2017.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
BY:
Kory Kramer, Chairman
BY:
Peter Zak, Secretary
01-03-17
14
Planning Commission Resolution No. ####
Page 5 of 5
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless
specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval.
2. 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.
3. This Use Permit 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.
4. All applicable Conditions of Approval from Use Permit No. UP3638 shall remain.
5. The on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be
subject to further review and final approval by the City Traffic Engineer or his/her
designee. 4%ih,
6. 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.
7. This approval shall expire and become void unless exercised within 24 months from the
actual date of review authority approval, except where an extension of time is approved in
compliance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code.
8. 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 Goldenrod Avenue Parking Lot including, but not limited to, Conditional
Use Permit No. UP2017-003 (PA2017-023). 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.
01-03-17
15
V�
QP
�P
2�
Attachment No. PC 2
Draft Resolution for Denial
17
V�
QP
�P
sg
RESOLUTION NO. ####
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. UP2017-003, TO AMEND USE PERMIT NO. UP3638 FOR AN
EXISTING COMMERCIAL PARKING FACILITY LOCATED AT
506, 508, 510 AND 512 GOLDENROD AVENUE (PA2017-023)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. An application was filed by Eric Welton (Applicant), with respect to properties located at
506, 508, 510 and 512 Goldenrod Avenue, and legally described as Lots 6, 8, 10 and 12
of Block 534 in the Corona del Mar Subdivision, requesting approval of a conditional use
permit amendment.
2. The parking lot was established with Use Permit No. UP0727 which was approved in 1961,
in connection with the construction of the commercial buildinq`at 2849 East Coast Highway.
At the time the commercial building was constructed, no off-street parking was required.
Therefore, the establishment of the parking for the adjacent commercial uses was
voluntary and not a requirement for construction of the new building.
3. The Applicant requests to amend Use Permit No. UP3638, which superseded UP0727 in
1998, allowing the reconfiguration of the existing commercial parking facility on four lots in
the Two-Unit Residential (R-2) Zoning District. The Use Permit would be amended to
remove Condition of Approval No. 9, which requires a restrictive covenant guaranteeing
use of the parking lot by the commercial buildings located at 2831 and 2855 East Coast
Highway. The Applicant desires to use two of his four lots for residential development. The
other two lots would remain as commercial parking and are proposed to be donated to the
City.
4. The subject properties are designated Two-Unit Residential (RT) by the Land Use Element
of the General Plan and are located within the Two-Unit Residential (R-2) Zoning District.
5. The subject properties are located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan
category is Two-Unit Residential (20.0 —29.9 DU/AC) (RT-D).
6. A public hearing was held on March 23, 2017, in the Council Chambers located at 100
Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the hearing
was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). Evidence,
both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission
at this hearing.
19
Planning Commission Resolution No. ####
Page 2 of 2
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
1. 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.
SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS.
Pursuant to NBMC Section 20.54.070 (Changes to an Approved Project), a change that
involves a condition of approval for a project may only be approved by the original review
authority through a new permit application. In this case, the Planning Commission approved
Use Permit No. UP3638; therefore, a conditional use permit before the Planning Commission
is required to amend it. NBMC Section 20.52.020(F) (Conditional Use Permits and Minor Use
Permits — Findings and Decision) sets for the required findings to approve a use permit. In this
case, the Planning Commission was unable to make the following findings:
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies Conditional Use
Permit No. UP2017-003.
2. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution
was adopted 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 ADOPT`HIS 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2017.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
BY:
Kory Kramer, Chairman
BY:
Peter Zak, Secretary
01-03-17
20
Attachment No. PC 3
Applicant's Correspondence, Dated
January 30, 2017
21
V�
QP
�P
Eric D. Welton
2855 E. Coast Highway #200
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-675-6900
January 30, 2017
David Kiff
City Manager
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Dear Mr. Kiff,
I own two commercial buildings located at 2831 and 2855 East Coast Highway in Corona del
Mar(the "Commercial Buildings"). According to a Staff Report to the Planning Commission
dated October 8, 1998,the Commercial Buildings were originally constructed in or about 1961
when there was no off-site parking required for Commercial Buildings in Corona del Mar. At
the time the Commercial Buildings were developed,the owner of the Commercial Buildings also
owned adjacent properties which were in the R-2 District. Although there was no requirement
that he do so,the then owner of the Commercial Buildings wanted to use his R-2 District
properties for a parking lot. At that time,the use of R-2 District property for parking lot
purposes required a use permit, which was granted.
In 1998, I applied to the City to modify the use permit to remove two of my six R-2 District lots
from the use permit. My goal was to use those two R-2 District lots to build two duplexes as is
allowed in the R-2 District. Since there was no requirement that any of the R-2 District property
be used for parking, the removal of the use permit on two of the R-2 District lots that I wanted to
use for duplexes should have been granted without imposition. After all, the use permit was only
required if I wanted to use R-2 District property for parking. Once I decided I did not want to
use a portion of the R-2 District property for parking,the use permit on those lots should have no
longer been required.
Instead of pointing out that I had the right to cease using my R-2 District property for parking at
any time and could use it for the use for which it was zoned, the City instead conditioned the
removal of the use permit on the two lots I wanted to build duplexes on to my agreeing to restrict
the use of my remaining four R-2 District lots for parking.
Based upon the above, I have filed an application with the City to modify the use permit to
remove the southerly two lots(Lots 6 and 8 in Block 534) from the property covered by the use
permit, without condition(the"Southerly Lots").
As we have discussed, parking in CdM is difficult, especially in the vicinity of my property. The
City would like to acquire land for public parking in CdM, but land is very expensive in the area
23
where parking is needed. My four lots are already being used for private parking and as
mentioned have already received a use permit to do so.
Based upon the above information as background, the purpose of this letter is to describe what I
am currently thinking about my remaining two northerly R-2 Districts Lots (the"Northerly
Lots").
I am presently inclined to sell the Northerly Lots to the City for an aggregate discounted price
equal to the cost of all fees, whether payable to the City or any other agency, incurred in
obtaining a building permit for a duplex on each of the Southerly Lots, and donate to the City of
the remainder of the value of the Northerly Lots.
Of course, if I do so, I would want to ensure that I obtain an income tax charitable deduction for
my gift of the value of the Northerly Lots beyond the sales price of the Northerly Lots. But
equally important to me is that my gesture benefit old CdM, where I have lived for almost 50
years. With that in mind,my desire is to incorporate the following points in any agreement I
may reach with the City:
1. I agree with you that the greatest public benefit for the Northerly Lots in that location
would be public parking and thus, support the Northerly Lots being used for public
parking. However,no one knows what the future may hold and if the City became in
need of money at a later date, I would hate to see the Northerly Lots being sold for
another use that may benefit the City's balance sheet,but not benefit the residents and
businesses of old CdM. So, I expect that we will have further discussions as to whether
or not a legal restriction should be imposed on the ability of the City to use the Northerly
Lots for other than public parking.
2. I would not object if the City charged for parking on the Northerly Lots as it does for
other public parking lots in CdM.
3. I desire the City to install a wall 6' high on the southerly boundary of the Northerly Lots.
Lighting on the Northerly Lots would be designed to ensure no spill-over lighting south
of the Northerly Lots. The City would maintain the hedge or another barrier to ensure
lights from cars do not affect neighboring residents west of the Northerly Lots.
4. After the City has recouped revenues equal to the price paid to me for the Northerly Lots,
plus any design and construction costs incurred by the City to build the boundary line
wall, relocate lighting and reconfigure,patch or otherwise improve the Northerly Lots for
parking, I would like half of the monthly revenue generated by parking on the Northerly
Lots to go to the benefit of the Newport Beach Public Library Foundation and the other
half to be used to further expand the availability of public parking in CdM.
5. Any agreement I may reach with the City would contemplate:
a. The deed restriction on the Southerly Lots will have been removed not later than
May 31, 2017.
24
b. A building permit has been issued for a single family or duplex residential unit on
each of the Southerly Lots (so the purchase price can be computed). The City
would provide expedited plan check of the plans for the Southerly Lots by
returning plan check comments within 10 business days after submittal of each
plan iteration for the Southerly Lots.
c. If necessary (and I do not believe it will be)to establish each of the Southerly
Lots as a separate legal parcel,a Certificate of Compliance would be recorded by
the City, at no cost to owner, showing each of the Southerly Lots as a legal parcel
in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act.
This correspondence is intended only as a statement of my present intent, which could change, so
of course it is not intended to be legally binding. It is intended to be the starting point of
discussions with the City that may lead to an agreement.
If the terms described above sound like there may be a deal that could be made,please present
this matter to the City Council for direction. I look forward to hearing from you.
Very truly yours,
Eric Welton
25
V�
QP
�P
Attachment No. PC 4
Applicant's Project Description and
Justification
2�
V�
QP
�P
�g
PA2017-023
Applicant: Eric Welton
Project Description and Justification
I own two commercial buildings located at 2831 and 2855 East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar(the
"Commercial Buildings"). According to a Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated October 8,
1998,the Commercial Buildings were originally constructed in or about 1961 when there was no off-site
parking required for Commercial Buildings in Cd M. At the time the Commercial Buildings were
developed,the owner of the Commercial Buildings also owned adjacent property which according to the
Staff Report was in the R-2 District. Although there was no requirement that he do so,the then owner
of the Commercial Buildings wanted to use the R-2 District property for a parking lot. At the time, the
use of R-2 District property for parking lot purposes required a use permit,which was granted.
In 1998, 1 applied to the City to modify the use permit to remove some of the R-2 District property from
the use permit. My goal was to use some of the R-2 District Property to build two duplexes,which is
allowed in the R-2 District. Since there was no requirement that any of the R-2 District property be used
for parking,the removal of the use permit on R-2 District property that I wanted to use for duplexes
should have been granted without imposition. After all,the use permit was only required if I wanted to
use R-2 District property for parking. Once I decided I did not want to use a portion of the R-2 District
property for parking,the use permit on that portion of my property was no longer required.
Instead of pointing out that I had the right to cease using my R-2 District property for parking at any
time and could use it for the use for which it was zoned,the City instead conditioned the removal of the
use permit from some of my R-2 District property upon my agreeing to restrict the use of my remaining
R-2 District property for parking.
Based upon the above, I request thatthe use permit be modified to remove the southerly two lots(Lots
6&8,in Block 534)from the property covered by the use permit,without condition. The remainder of
the R-2 District property can remain subject to the use permit for now.
�9
N co
C Lf) L0
Y
M M
a° t0 (0
® -
0 0) m
IN
a) X
0 Q
N 0 LL
I nw
I�
N u)
N (D
_ I. _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . �
iLd
Q
ALLEY a w
N �
j <
— fi — fiLf) Of
z 04o
i 30' � N U
2855 EAST COAST HWY -I f i
iI If i
17'-0' 26'-0' 17'-0' I
' • \ f i i I
\ I
• \ I II I II I
Z O L O E
� N ( m 0
i II f II I I � �
II II w = <
II II ` II II I � Mu
i II II I II II l I a
II II II II l o 0
z
iI j� af
f 1 I I L0
N
2831 EAST COAST HWY I I i — —
I I f I 1
I
L - - - I o
I I
SHARED
J j FL -
COURTYARD f nm l I L- -I J Y
\ - - - u- - - -IFF-
ALLEYI � \ Q0
L- -� F _ - - - Ir - - - __-- �- -J I Z Z
uj C;do �
1 I ! o 0W
j oT- Q
EXISTING I EXISTING I p J Li ZZ
L DUPLEX DUPLEX 25 PARKING N j0 U
r� I 24 STANDARD > o 0
2823 EAST COAST HWYI NEW DUPLEX NEW DUPLEX I I 1 HANDICAPPED
II
I L-,Z'
L I I o=Qo �
�zz
f I] I 0vipv-i a
14'-0'
ir I 0gOL
L J J I LJ 0aowk=
HC I LJJ =Nxo3w
STARBUCKS I I I I N Wzz� w
Z
PARKING I I I �=Uaao
Z a
J�p ,QM�on
0 N U Z F p
2801 EAST COAST HWY -NIGNAGE i
N
�aOWoO-Z
30' 30' woW WQ� No
==m=3z
\ 30' 30' 30' / 0 0 0 3 00 w
a <Z Z CLLBLOCK WALL
' LLJ ov fpzp
0 3O¢o=O=
Z
Qpa o a
zogoow=
V <omW mo
REVISION
512 510 508 506 502 / 504 500
GOLDENROD
SITE STUDY 1 /8"
JOB NO.
2016- 12
DATE
3/2/17
N A- 0
1 OF 1
Attachment No. PC 5
Use Permit No. UP3638
31
V�
QP
�P
-• PA2017-023
fit/ - v •v' �r--��
,
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
October 8, 1998 INDEX
foot alley side setback.
Standard City Requirements:
1. All work within the public right-of-way and the public ease ent shall be
constructed under an encroachment permit/encroach nt agreement
issued by the Public Works Department. /
2. All public improvementsshall be constructed as r uired by Ordinance and
the Public Works Department:
3. Disruption caused by constrXin
roadways and by movement
of construction vehicles shaproper use of traffic control
equipment and flagmen. Ttransportation of equipment
and materials shall be codance with state and local
requirements.
4. Overhead utilities se g the site shall be undergrounded to the nearest
appropriate pole i accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal
Code unless it is termined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding
is unreasono or impractical.
5. This var nce shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of
app val as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach
nicipal Code.
- ..oma-•.�._._--•-..-..
SUBJECT: 504,506,508 and 510 Goldenrod Avenue Item No.3
Eric Welton,Owner UP 3638 and
• Use PermltN0.3638 Modification
• Modification No.4787 Number 4787
Request to permit the reconfiguration of a parking lot on four residential lots
located in the R-2 District. The parking is not required parking for any one
building or use,but is utilized by commercial buildings located at 2831 and 2855
East Coast Highway. The request also includes o modification to permit an
existing 2 foot high block wall,landscaping and the front portions of 10 parking
spaces to encroach 5 feet into the required 5 foot rear yard setback on an -
alley.
Planning Director Temple stated the staff did not have anything additional to
add to the report.
Chairman fuller asked if they were concerned with the rectangular areas
11
up2rJd P 03
0
02310, venue
506 and 512 Golder'
Eric W elton
33
PA2017-023
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
October 8, 1998 INDEX
between the alley and Goldenrod and If they are not to considerlots indicated
as parking spaces 44 through 53 and also 1. Associate Planner Myers stated -
j that although the site plan does show the other parking spaces,they are not _
included in this. application. and the Commission is not to consider them.
Chairperson Selich asked about a parking area at.the corner of Heliotrope
Avenue and Second Avenue,zoned R-2. He asked if that is tied into one of the
commercial properties on Coast Highway, Commissioner Ridgeway stated
there is parking to the rear of the office building and that is one unified piece of
property that does have parking at Heliotrope and Coast Highway. He stated it
is his understanding that the lots have been used for nighttime parking for the
theater. Chairperson Selich asked if it is required parking. Commissioner
Ridgeway stated it is required parking, Commissioner Ashley stated there is a
medical factitythere and they chain it off at night,
Publiccomment opened.
Eric Welton, Owner, stated the buildings he owns were built prior to the time
j that parking was required. He stated he has reviewed the staff report and
there is one issue that he is asking their consideration of, Staff has suggested an
Increased height of the wall as a means of shielding headlight intrustion into the
residences across the street, He stated, in speaking to the architect, that it
would be appropriate to put a hedge instead of a wall and let it grow to the
some height of the proposed wall.
Commissioner Puller asked Mr. Welton if the parking lot has been used
historically for the two buildings, Mr. Welton responded fhe Port Theater has
used the space because they could never come to terms with his neighbor at
Heliotrope and Coast Highway, Mr, Welton stated that since the Port hos
changed hands,they have sent him a letter stating they would no longer need
the use of the parking lot. He stated he also has an agreement with the Mistral
Restaurant for parking after 5 o'clock p.m.and weekends.
Commissioner Fuller asked regarding the hedge that Is proposed. Mr. Welton
responded he has a planting strip between the edge of the sidewalk and the
existing 2 foot wolf, Mr,Welton stated he would like to tear out the old Juniper
plants that have grown into the sidewalk area, and replace the landscaping
and beoutifyit. Commissioner Fuller asked Mr.Welton if he would be receptive
to planting a 3-foot hedge. Mr, Welton stated it would be difficult becduse It
j would require 15-gallon size plants and he cannot get that size into the
available space. Mr. Welton stated he would endeavor to get as tall a plant
that he can In that area.
Nancy Moran Sanchez of 507 Goldenrod Avenue stated she is pleased to see
the improvements and is looking forward to the units going to go up on the
other property. Mrs.Sanchez stated she is very pleased to hear about hedges
to cover the wall. Mrs. Sanchez stated she also speaks in behalf of her
12
PA2017-023
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
October 8,1998 INDEX
husband,and that They are very pleased and support the project.
Public comment was closed.
Motion was made-by Commissioner Ridgeway for approval of Use Permit No.
3638 and Modification No.4787.
Commissioner Ridgeway stated this Is a win situation for everybody, and the
area should be landscapedwith as mature plants as can be put in there.
Planning Director Temple requested clarification and stated staff has some
suggested language to add to Condition No. 5 to address the opportunity to
do landscaping in lieu of the wall. She stated that staff would like to see and
make sure that the intended effect of the wall could be achieved with hedge,
Ms.Temple offered this additional sentence that would come in right after the
sentence requiring the 3-toot minimum to to minimize the impacts of the
automobile headlights on the residential uses across the street. Ms. Temple
stated the new sentence be, "Applicant may substitute a planted hedge if it
can be done In a manner to achieve the intent of the required watt' Mr.
Welton requested enough time be allowed to let the hedges grow to that
height. Ms.Temple stated it is with the understanding it will take some time to
grow but to make sure that it does not take an inordinate amount of time.
Ayes: Fuller, Ridgeway,Ashley,Selich,Gifford,Adorns, Kranzley
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None
EXHIBIT"A"
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
Use Permit No.3638
AND
Modification No.4787 '
'ndirgL ;
1. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan. The site is
designated Two-Family Residential, and a no fee private parking lot for
outomobilesis permitted within this designation.
2. The project hos been reviewed,and it has been determined that it is
categorically exempt from the requirements of the California
EnvironmentalQualityAct under Class I I (AccessoryStructures).
3. Public improvements may be required of a developer per Section
20.80.060 of the Municipal Code.
13
PA2017-023 '
City of Newport Beach
. Planning Commission Minutes
October8, 1998 INDEX
4. The approval of Use Permit No.3638 and Modification No.4787 will not,
under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health,
safety,peace,morals,comfort and general welfare of persons residing
or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property
or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the
City, and further, that the proposed modification related to the
proposed encroachments are consistent with the legislative intent of
Title 20 of this Code for the following reasons:
• Adequate provision for vehicular traffic circulation is being
made for the parking lot facility.
• A condition has been included to control parking lot lighting.
• The increased boundary wall height along Goldenrod Avenue
should minimae impacts on residential uses across the street.
• The existing trees and landscape along the perimeter of the site
will be kept and maintained in place and will obscure the view
of the parking lot from the surrounding residential uses.
• Walls will not interfere with sight distance.
• The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with
any easements acquired by the public at large for access
through or use of propertywithin the proposed development.
• The encroachment into the rear yard setback area does not
impede traffic circulation through the alley.
Conditions:
1. Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved
site plan except as noted below.
2. A minimum of 42 parking spaces shall be provided on-site.
3. The parking lot hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 a.m.to 12:00
midnight,daily,and that any change to the hours of operation shall be
subject to an amendment to this use permit.
4. A sign shall be posted on the subject property indicating that the
parking lot may only be used by employees and patrons of the
businesses occupying 2831 and 2855 East Coast Highway.
S. The development standard pertaining to perimeter walls shall be
waived with the exception that the applicant shall provide a 6 foot high
wall along the southerly border of the parking lot adjacent to the
. residentiollot. Further,the applicontshollincrease the height ofthe wall
14
3C
PA2017-023
City of Newport Beach
. Planning Commission Minutes
October 8, 108 INDEX
along the westerly boundary of the parking lot to a minimum height of 3
feet to minimize the impacts of the automobile headlights on the
residential uses across the street. Applicant may substitute a planted
hedge if It can be done in a manner to achieve the Intent of the
required wall. The walls shall be constructed in accordance with
Chapter 20.60 of the Municipal Code.
6. No boats, trailers or other storage shall be permitted in the parking lot
at any time.
7. No overnight parking of vehicles shall be permitted in the lot.
8. The parking lot shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner.
9. A reshictivecovenant,approved as to the form and content by the City
Attorney,guaranteeing continuous use of the entire parking lot for the
benefit of the buildings located at 2831 and 2855 East Coast Highway.
at the subject parking lot located on Goldenrod Avenue, shall be
recorded in the County Recorder's Office,
10. The perimeter property line of the parking lot shall be appropriately
. landscaped with bushes and shrubs to obscure the direct view of the
parking lot. A landscape plan shall be submitted, reviewed and
approved by the Public Works, General Services and Planning
Departments. The approved landscaping shall be installed in
accordance with the approved plan and shall be permanently
maintained in a clean and orderly fashion.
If. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare onto adjacent
properties or uses,including minimizing the number of light sources. The
plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer
acceptable to the City. Prior to the issuance of any building permit the
applicant shall provide to the Planning Department,in conjunction with
the lighting system plan, lighting fixture product types and technical
specifications, including photometric information, to determine the
extent of light spillage or glare which can be anticipated. Additionally,
a timing device shall be installed which turns off the parking lot lighting
at 12 midnight, every night. The design of the timing device feature
shall be incorporated in to the lighting plan. This information shall be
made a part of the building set of plans for issuance of the building
permit. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of
building permits,the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by
the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare
specified by this condition of approval.
Standard Requirements
® 15
3�
PA2017-023
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
October 8, 1998 INDEX
1. The project shall complywith State Disabled Access requirements
2. The parking spaces shall be marked with approved traffic markers or
pointed white lines not less than 4 inches wide.
3. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal
Code.
4. The projectshollcomplywithStateDisabled Access requirements.
5. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the
Public Works Department.
6. The on-site parking,vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems
be subjectto further review and final approval by the City Traffic Engineer.
7. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to
this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use
Permit,upon a determination that the operation which Is the subject of this
Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace.
morals,comfort,or general welfare of the community.
8. This Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date
of approval as specified in Section 20.91,050 A of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code.
� ane
S CT: Amendment to Districting Map No. 1 of the Zoning Code Item No.4
Amend Districting
A proposa amend Districting Map No. 1 of the Zoning Code to change the Mop No.1
zoning of a pa I located at 511 Canal Street from Open Space Passive(OS-
P) to Open Space Ive (OS-A).
Planning Director Temple ted that the staff had nothing to add to the
report.
Public comment was opened.
Public comment was closed.
Motion was made for approval of Resolution No.14 ' itiatinganAmendment
to Districting Map No-1 of the Zoning Code.
Ayes: Fuller,Ridgeway,Ashley,Selich,Gifford,Adams,K ey
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None
16
3g
PA2017-023
. I .
,,ewroRr CITY OF NE RT BEACH Hear Date: October$, 1998
04 ° COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ,agenda Item No.: 3
4 i PLANNING DEPARTMENT
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: Marc Myers
NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658 (949)644-3210
(949)6443200;FAX(949)6443250 A eat Period: Y4 da s
,REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
PROJECT: 5 04,506,508 and 510 Goldenrod Avenue
Eric Welton,Owner
PURPOSE OF
APPLICATION: Request to permit the reconfiguration of a parking lot on four residential lots
located in the R-2 District. The parking is not required parking for any one
building or use,but is utilized by commercial buildings located at 2831 and
2855 East Coast Highway. The request also includes a modification to
permit an existing 2 foot high block wall,landscaping and the front portions
of 10 parking spaces to encroach 5 feet into the required 5 foot rear yard
setback on an alley.
ACTION: Approve,modify or deny:
• Use Permit No.3638 and
• Modification No.4787
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION: Lots 6,8, 10&12,Block 534,Corona del Mar Tract
ZONE: R-2(Two-Family Residential)
OWNER: Eric Welton,Newport Beach
Points and Authority
• Conformance with the General Plan and Zoning Code
The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for"Two-Family Residential"
uses. A public or no fee private lot for automobiles is permitted In any residential district
adjacent to any commercial or industrial district subject to a use permit.
• Environmental Compliance(California Environmental Quality Act)
It has been determined that the project is categorically exempt under Class I I (Accessory
Structures).
• Use pemtit procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapters 20.91 of the Municipal
Code.
PA2017-023 '
VICINITY MAP
Z
o+Rr 2 Ra
.9• '{P, n 9r as a �.
� �.�°' p r® e`�'-� '' •R1 � � P� r 'fir•'•�X46 •0°•
9 }b
r A
pr x P
I r y
!� ? i
'Rr
a r 06 R
NLS a y � ro
Use Permit No. 3638 and
Modification No. 4787,
I SubPro etty and ntroundjp�X,ntld i�s�
Current l:levelo ment: The subject lots are cutrentiy developed with an automobile parking lot.
To the north: Across the alley are the reaz ponions of commercial buildings which face Coast Highway.
To the east: Across the alley is an automobil:parking lot.
To the south: Adjacent to the subject propertyare two vacant residendal lots.
To the west: Across Goldenrod Avenue are residential uses.
Use P=h No.3638
Modification No.4787
octobcr8,1998
Page 2
PA2017-023
Background
At its meeting of April 6, 1961,the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No.727,a request
to permit the establishment of an off-street parking lot for 53 cars in connection with a new store
and office building located on the adjacent lots along Coast Highway. At the time that this use
permit was approved, the City did not have an off-street parking requirement for commercial uses.
The proposal required a use permit since the off-street parking lot was located in an R-2 District.
The parking lot was comprised of 3 full lots and one half lot in the block of Goldenrod Avenue
northerly of Second Avenue. The two end lots and one-half of the second lot in from Second
Avenue were not part of the parking lot.
The exhibit below illustrates the original approval and new request.
J�V\♦ /
`•\
\ - -��,•� La4j Q
v vv y ; IES l
3y\
Orlgival5s,l,di�iaiou Lot Cossng.ua[iou
Oaigfual Parkag Lot Coufignaa Gov
' � Nese l'u6ing Lot Config„:atiou
At its meeting of January 19, 1994,the Planning Commission approved Site Plan Review No.33,a
request to permit the expansion of an existing commercial building on property located at 2831 East
Coast Highway, in the Corona Del Mar Specific Plan Area where a specific plan has not been
adopted. The additional required off-street parking spaces were to be provided in the subject
parking lot across the alley from the building site, which is in common ownership. The approval
was granted with the requirement that a restrictive covenant guaranteeing twenty-two parking
spaces for the benefit of the commercial building be recorded. However, since the addition was
never completed and the use permit was never exercised,the approval subsequently expired. As a
result, there is no regulatory connection between the parking lot and the commercial property
currently in effect.
Use Permit No.3636
Modification Na.4767
Oaober 3,1993
Page 3
PA2017-023
Analysis
f
The application is a request to reconfigure a private, no fee,commercial parking lot on a property
located in the R-2 District. It should be noted that the reconfiguration of the parking lot to the
desired location has already been completed by the applicant Approval of the applicant's request
will enable him to develop the two residential lots remaining on the south end of the block with two
duplexes. Reconfiguring the parking lot over the northerly portion of the block will position the
parking lot in a more useful location relative to the adjacent commercial uses along Coast Highway.
Additionally,the parking lot will provide a buffer between the residential uses and the commercial
uses along Coast Highway.
The parking lot is available to the tenants of the two existing commercial buildings adjacent to the
subject parking lot,which are also owned by the applicant. These two commercial buildings do not
provide any off-street parking on site because they were constructed at a time when off-street
parking was not required by the Municipal Code. The use of the R-2 lots for a parking lot facility
significantly reduces the number of vehicles which would be forced to park on the residential
streets in the immediate vicinity. Staff is aware,however,that the use of the parking lot for parking
by unauthorized vehicles, and use late at night could result in disturbance to the neighbors.
Therefore, staff has included conditions of approval to help ensure that the potential impacts from
use of the lot will be minimized.
Because approval of the relocation of the parking area results in a more useful location relative to
the applicant's commercial properties, staff is of the opinion that it is appropriate to commit this
parking for the use of those properties. Tberefore,a condition of approval is included requiring the
execution and recordation of a covenant guaranteeing these parking spaces for the buildings located
at 2831 and 2855 East Coast Highway.
Required Boundary Wall
Section 20.66.050 of the Municipal Code requires that,in cases where parking lots adjoin property
in a residential district, a boundary wall sball be constructed in such a manner as will provide
protection to the public and occupants of adjoining property from noise,exhaust fumes, automobile
lights, and other similar sources of disturbance. The wall is required to be constructed of solid
masonry to a height of 3 feet within the front setback area, and 6 feet in height outside the front
setback area. The applicant has indicated that a 6 foot high wall will be constructed along the south
property line to separate the residential use in the adjacent lot, but that there are no plans to
construct a boundary wall in any other area around the parking lot since there is an existing 2 foot
high wall in place. In order to minimize the potential impacts on the residences in the area, staff
has included a condition of approval which requires that the existing 2 foot high boundary wall be
increased in height on the west or Goldenrod Avenue side of the lots to help minimize impacts from
automobile headlights on the residential uses across the street. Additionally, the landscape strip
between the boundary wall and the sidewalk is required to be appropriately landscaped and
maintained in a clean and orderly fashion. Since there are no residential uses across the alley to the
east,staff is of the opinion that the existing 2 foot high block wall along the alley side property line
Use Permit No.3638
Modification No.4787
Oetober8,1998
Page 4
PA2017-023
is an adequate means of separating the parking lot from the alley. On the north side of the parking
lot are the entrance and exit points,so no additional walls are suggested in that location.
Vehicular Access and On-Site Circulation
Access to the parking lot is from the alley that runs between the commercial buildings and the
residentially zoned properties of the block behind. There is one entrance and one exit to and from
the parking lot. Both the entrance and the exit to the parking lot have a traffic control access gate
which restricts the use of the lot to patrons and employees of the adjacent commercial buildings.
The proposed parking lot layout has been reviewed by the CityTraffic Engineer and is acceptable
for the supplemental parking use proposed. However,the lot configuration should be reviewed by
the City Traffic Engineer if, in the future,the lot is used to provide the required parking for new or
intensified uses.
Modification
The applicant is also requesting the approval of a modification to permit-the retention of the
existing 2 foot high block wall and landscaping that encroach 5 feet into the required 5 foot rear
yard setback area. Additionally the applicant is proposing to locate ]0.parking spaces where the
front portions of the spaces encroach approximately 5 feet into the required 5 foot rear yard
setback area on the alley. The 2 foot high block wall and associated landscaping is existing along
the rear, alley side property line. Across the alley is another parking lot of which portions of the
parking spaces and a low wall also encroach into the 5 foot rear alley side setback.Staff is of the
opinion that the encroachments as proposed are minor in nature considering the proposed use and
the fact that the encroachment.-,do not impede the circulation capacity of the alley.Additionally,
since the wall is 2 feet high, and the landscaping is intermittent, there is no effect on the sight
distance at the intersection of the two adjoining alleys.
Parking Lot Lie--hting
The parking lot will have lighting provided for security purposes. A condition of approval has been
included to help ensure the lighting will be designed and operated with minimal impact to the
surrounding neighbors. Some requirements of the lighting system include a limited number of light
standards, low profile light fixture product types, shielded light sources and an automatic timing
device to tum the lighting system on and off at regular times on a daily basis. To staff's knowledge,
there have been no complaints regarding the lighting of the existing parking lot.
Recommendations
Section 20.91.035 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any use
permit, the Planning Commission shall find that the establishment,maintenance or operation of the
Uso Nml t No.3638
Modifiontloo No.4787
October B,1998
Page 5 .
PA2017-023 _
use or building applied for will not,under the circumstances of the particular case,be detrimental to !
the health,safety,peace,morals,comfort,and general welfare of persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in
the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City.
In this particular case, based upon the analysis contained in this report,staff is of the opinion that
the findings for approval of the use permit can be made for the proposed parking lot since the site is
in reasonable proximity of the other buildings owned by the applicant,and that those buildings can
be adequately served by the parking provided in the lot.
Additionally, the City Traffic.Engineer has addressed issues related to access and site circulation.
Because of the site's location behind commercial buildings, with Goldenrod Avenue separating it
from nearby residential uses,there is little potential for problems associated with Lighting and noise
generated by the proposed parking lot. Finally, the recommended conditions of approval, which
include restrictions on lighting and use, should control impacts on neighboring properties or
residential uses in the vicinity.
Staff is also of the opinion that the physical attributes of the proposed parking lot, limited by the
ingress and egress arrangements, complicate the ability to bring the property into full compliance
with the provisions of Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code with regard to boundary walls. In
addition, staff also believes that the conditions of approval address site requirements and provide
for uniform landscape treatment around the lot.
i
Should the Planning Commission wish to approve Use Permit No. 3638, the findings and
conditions of approval set forth in the attached Exhibit"A"are suggested.
Staff cannot reasonably conceive of findings for denial since the proposed off-street parking lot, in
this particular case,conforms to the requirements of the Title 20 of the Municipal Code, and does
not appear to have any detrimental effect on the surrounding neighborhood, However, should
information be presented at the public hearing which would warrant the denial of this application,
the Planning Commission may wish to take such action.
Submitted by: Prepared by:
PATRICIA L.TEMPLE MARC W.MYERS
Planning Director Associate Planner
s
Attachments: Exhibit"A"
Letter of Justification
Site Plan
F1U.§ERSWLN\SHAREDIIPLANCONA1999t10.08W p3618
U=Rmut-No.3638
Muds lwtion No.4787
October 8,1998
Page 6
PA2017-023
- --�+� Recorded In offlclal Reeords,Couniy of orange
IXr Omumco Darlene Bloom,Interim Clark-Recorder
uullll11lll 18.00
20020483550 08:47am 06110/02
121 4 Gag Al2 4
RECORDING REQUESTED 0.00 0.00 0.00 0100 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
BY AND WHEN RECORDED
1 PLEASE RETURN TO:
QS" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O.Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA
92658-8915
THIS SPACE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY
COVENANT AND AGREEMENT TO DEDICATE
USE OF LAND AS PARKING LOT
The undersigned hereby certifies that I am the owner of the real property located in the City
of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California,described as follows:
LOTS 6. 8. 10,& 12 BLK 534
CORONA DEL MAR TRACT
SITUS ADDRESS 504, 506. 508,510 Goldenrod Ave Corona del Mar
As required by City of Newport Beach Planning Dept, the City requires use of above described
land to be used per terms of Use Permit#3638. Ido hereby covenant and agree with said City that the above
legally described land shall be used as a parking lot for 2831 &2855 E. Coast Hwy,Corona del Mar.
This Covenant and Agreement shall run with the land, and shall be binding upon myself and future
owners, encumbrancers, their successors, heirs,assignees and shall continue in effect until such time that the
City of Newport Beach unconditionally permits the use of the property for another purpose.
MJN
PA2017-023 .
i
DATED: WC7.
Signature
/ t L
Print or T E'R'f C--
SignaW _
Print or Type Name _\ `''L ,
APPROVED FOR RECORDING:
PLANNING DIRECTOR
planning\shared\forms\covag3.doc
I
i
1
I
'2-
t
PA2017-023
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLSDOMENT
State of C4�,� r,w
County of ..2r�
on Stene '1 . 7,L) a z before me, C f� , r �� r ;
OA NAME, aE OF OFFICER-E.G.,'JANE DOE,NOTARY PUB=
personally appeared C _ c._ V, LJ e )A-�,
NAME(S)OF SIGNER(S)
personally known to me - OR - ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence
to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within Instrument and ac-
knowledged to me that he/she/they executed
the same in his/her/their authorized
capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s),
TAYT IgNNI or the entity upon behalf of which the
' COMM.#1263070
person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
y � ( Nolary Public-Calllomia y
W j' ORANGE COUNTY S _
My Comm.EKp.May 2B,2004
N WITNESS my and and official seal,
SIGNATURE OF NOTARY
OPTIOINAL
Though the data below Is not required by law,It may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent
fraudulent reattachment of this form.
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
❑ INDIVIDUAL
❑ CORPORATE OFFICER
MEWTITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
❑ PARTNER(S) ❑ LIMITED i
❑ GENERAL _
❑ ATTORNEY-IN•FACT NUMBER OF PAGES
❑ TRUSTEE(S)
❑ GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
❑ OTHER:
DATE OF DOCUMENT
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
RAMS OF PEPMWS)08 ENTM(IES)
SIGNERS)OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
PA2017-023 '
Government Code 27361.7
I certify under the penalty of perjury that the notary seal on
this document read as follows:
Name of Notary: Tayt lanni
Date Commission Expires: May 26, 2004
County where bond is Filed: Orange
Commission No.: 1265070
Manufacturer/Vendor No,: ESI1
i
Place of execution - Newport Beach Date - June 7, 2002
I
i
FI ITY NA NA ITL COMPANY
�g
Planning Commission-March 23, 2017
Item No.2a Additional Materials Received
Goldenrod Avenue Parking Lot(PA2017-023)
From: Larry Tucker [mailto:Tucker@GTPCenters.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 5:05 PM
To: Kramer, Kory; Koetting, Peter; Zak, Peter; Hillgren, Bradley; Lawler,
Ray; Dunlap, Bill; Weigand, Erik
Cc: Zdeba, Benjamin;Wisneski, Brenda
Subject: PA2017-023- PC Staff Report for 03/23/17 (Eric Welton)
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission,
As a favor, I am working with my good friend Eric Welton on the above referenced matter. The Staff
Report is well done, but if the Commission were inclined to support the Application,there are three
paragraphs from the Conditions of the 1998 Use Permit that should specifically be deleted. At
handwritten pages 36 and 37, Conditions 2,4 and 9 should be deleted for the following reasons.
Condition 2: There will no longer be 42 parking spaces. Since no parking is required,there should not
be a minimum number of spaces designated for parking.
Condition 4: Since the property which will remain as parking for now is not required to be parking for
customers or employees of the adjacent buildings,there should be no restriction as to whom the owner
of the property chooses to allow to park on the property.
Condition 9: There should not have been a restrictive covenant in the first place since the office
property owned by Mr. Welton was not required to have parking. So the property which will continue
to be used as parking should not be mandated to be used for parking; rather, if the owner elects to use
that property for parking,then he/she must have a Use Permit, and of course comply with the terms of
the Use Permit.
If any Commissioner would like clarification of the position of the Applicant, do not hesitate to contact
me. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Larry Tucker
(949) 251-2045
Planning Commission -March 23,2017
Item No.2b Additional Materials Received
Goldenrod Avenue Parking Lot(PA2017-023)
From: Elisabeth Hawthorne [mailto:elisabeth27@live.coml
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 8:24 PM
To: Zdeba, Benjamin
Subject: UP2017-003 PA2017-003
Mr. Zdeba:
I have just been alerted that a public hearing will be conducted tomorrow evening regarding
the above referenced project. As I will not be able to attend this hearing, I would at least like to
express an opinion, if I may.
The hearing notice lists only two commercial addresses in two different buildings. However the
actual number of addresses and business entities is higher. Going from memory, I am guessing
that there are close to 20 different business entities listed on the sign at the entrance to the
parking lot that the applicant wants to downsize. I have no way of verifying that each and
everyone of these entities is still using this parking lot, but the impression given is that the
number of entities using that parking lot is far greater than the two addresses listed in the
hearing notice!
The hearing notice states that "The applicant desires to downsize the facility......" lam
assuming that statement means only that the applicant desires to downsize the parking lot
operation so that he can develop two lots for residential use -which is his right. However, no
mention is made of the applicant's intention to permanently downsize the scope of commercial
activities in his buildings. Nor can the applicant guarantee that he won't someday sell to
someone else who will attempt to further develop these commercial properties, thus increasing
the need for future additional parking.
If two lots are developed for residential use, the new homeowners and their guests will
increase the number of cars parking on Goldenrod.
If two lots are developed for residential use, at least half(if not more) of the current parking lot
capacity will be permanently lost, forcing more cars on to the surrounding streets. Forcing
more cars to compete for already scarce street parking will have a negative impact on
surrounding homeowners and may discourage some people from patronizing businesses in the
neighborhood.
Has anyone conducted a long term survey of the parking lot usage? Has a parking plan been
submitted and approved? Once that parking space is gone, its gone for good. In a
neighborhood already impacted by scarce parking, it would seem that this is something that
needs to be carefully studied before any decision is made.
Respectfully,
Elisabeth Hawthorne
Goldenrod Avenue Parking Lot
®
x
VA
r1 M q
140�4
,F T ,Wd 4L 1 N � ^ \
Planning Commission
Public Hearing
March 23, 2017 ,
i. y
F¢ � Starbuckslip
•yr ' °' .���
f g
}
Project SiteAOMM ,
Q� Port TheaterWit
Ile v
• %l ` > on
Planning Commission - March 23, 2017
Item No. 2c Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
° -023)
SOYOYJ� / JJ2 JT S2O Oj�Jj / O,
S 02°�/:� JJJ� JJJ 9 SJB R 2 i37 w � ry�
JO 00
C R
Joy S,� 3 JJSJT v1 GC 07500075 OTgFPR T ,0
J 7 >v yJ, R, FAR FPR2ig9 GG GGp15 b
YV. °T�JON 'S S, ? ? 4T . 2516 FAR
YO RT JOS Ol J J��Jl 2
3e,� RT sys s ' JJOJO>. 2624ip
sysOB R c`, s/°°° /1
/J�Jo3 SOC J, 2628 G
2836 G FAR / Q,QP Q` CCJy v/?
S � J/ T ♦Q' CJr �
2601
VVI J°o� J? RT SJS GG p j5 A-E \ 2546
o
r2 o J2 J, t FARO.iS sO° aL
% Joy a y-" 2650 G FAR cy
Kl, R S J,2 2623 2852 C C 6
O
2554 °°v YJ� •p
°1�� R a
e i26
2 \� es
F4 v3v 6 /� R� qLf S°3 S°C
2543
G / _ / 66
�Gpsy526'45 J GFARS
1 F
%p �P vjQ'2O, / YyJ so 0 2553 f
Y39 v1 p� JOO J CG 6:i5 2555 r^. 2908 c` CO3'COJ
. : 'P f FPR 2912 CGpTS
PR r�
yam°CLl R. T 43y ��`. 11°�O 2805 6 F 0,T
292 J COQ
YOOJ, �J Y'JJ 032 'J yY,° °�l JJ Jf °
°J. J�J I °
Y�9J y3J Y Y3 Y �2 2934 Gq
'PT Y t1 G o 75 T5 5J,9
rJO, 7p>�Qay Q,p�O, ? RP RT G pR29O5 GG 0'
F FPR sl s�o
vv yO,? vJ9� ' GG O75 2915 2948
yC�CJ? v Y3l/1�y FpR 2919 G CARS
v� wv% �JL y'2T �O PG J JJ RJB
2929
2
v/O v? O v1 v
2a o J) �I.: J/��J 2931 G T5 J/OJJOJ, �7
°0°°° ♦ v 2933 G FAR '•'
Yo%�.' Y y2935 }pop GG pRS
RR
I- T
Ci
29
v 39 3026 J,
0, v v, J v �d J A 3024
>, °9 o_Y/� .. °>. ylr e.YJ. 4. ...o JOe.
Planning Commission - March 23, 2017
Item No. 2c Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
-023)
Background
• UP0727Approved
• Commercial Building at 2849 East Coast Hwy
• • • Voluntarily establish off-street parking lot
• Adjacent commercial building constructed (2831 East Coast Hwy)
• No off-street parking required
• UP3638Approved
• Reconfigure off-street parking lot
• • • Restrictive Covenant Required as Condition of Approval
• Two southerly lots developed as residential condos
03/23/2017 Community Development Department - Planning Division 4
Planning Commission - March 23, 2017
Item No. 2c Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
023)
Background
l J
7855
N
Y p + IY
IV
Q 1
Ev W
03/23/2017 Community Development Department - Planning Division 5
Planning Commission - March 23, 2017
Item No. 2c Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
-023)
Proposed Project
Amend Use Permit No . UP3638
Two southernmost underlying lots unrestricted
Potential residential development (R-2 Zone)
Two northernmost underlying lots to remain
Potential offer of donation to the City as public parking
03/23/2017 Community Development Department- Planning Division 6
All
Parking to Rem�aArl
Pot
rial+ ity Lots
a MOM
. .
y'.
Potential Residential !�
f
Existin . Residential
`j r a "
Planning Commission - March 23, 2017
Item No. 2c Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
023)
Amend Condition #4 :
All applicable Conditions of Approval from
Use Permit No . UP3638 shall remain with
the exception of Condition Nos . 2 , 4 and 9 .
07/13/2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division 8
Planning Commission - March 23, 2017
Item No. 2c Additional Materials Presented at Meeting
-023)
•
ecommendation 4D
Conduct a public hearing;
■ Find this project exempt from CEQA; and
■ Adopt a resolution approving the CUP
03/22/2017 Community Development Department - Planning Division 9
• • • 1
a
a
ti
L
more information contact:a Wisneski,AICP Benjamin M. Zdeba, AICP
44-3297 949-644-3253eskiQa newportbeachca.gov bzdeba@a newportbeachca.gov
newportbeachca.gov