The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About13 - Appeal of Planning Director Use PermitCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No.. 13 November 28, 2006 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3208 rung @ city. newpo rt -beach .ca. us SUBJECT: David F. Wilhelm Medical Office 2382 Bristol St Appeal of Planning Director Use Permit No. 2006 -021 (PA2006 -193) APPLICANT: David F. Wilhelm, D.D.S. ISSUE Should. the City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to deny Use Permit No. 2006 -021, requesting to convert 2,625 square foot office area to medical office use within an existing 10,500 square foot office building complex? RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing and take one of the following actions: 1. Uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny Use Permit No. 2006- 021, by adopting the attached draft Resolution (Attachment A), or 2. Affirm the decision of the Planning Director and approve Use Permit No. 2006- 021, by adopting the attached draft Resolution (Attachment B). DISCUSSION The subject property is located at the southwesterly corner of Bristol Street and Spruce Avenue, in the SP -7 District (Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan). The property has a General Plan designation of General Commercial Office (CO -G) and is zoned Professional and Administrative Office [SP- 7(PA)j. The site is presently improved with two office buildings (2372 and 2382 Bristol). The buildings are identical in size and shape, and are approximately 10,500 square feet in total area with four separate Wilhelm Medical Office November 28, 2006 Page 2 condominium ownerships. The 2372 Bristol building is currently occupied by a professional office on the second floor and a dental office on the first floor. The 2382 Bristol Building is currently occupied by a professional office on the second floor and the first floor is vacant. The vacant space is the proposed occupancy and the subject of this Use Permit. As part of the project, the applicant is increasing the total parking on -site to account for the increased parking requirement of 3 spaces, as medical and dental office uses require parking at a higher ratio than general office. The original Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan was prepared and adopted on October 15, 1986, by the Orange County Board of Supervisors, to implement the Land Use Compatibility Plan for Santa Ana Heights. In 2001, when the City annexed the area, the Specific Plan was incorporated within the Municipal Code and it was modified to reflect the structure of the Newport Beach Code. The Specific Plan has a total of thirteen zoning districts. Four of these districts allow "Professional and Administrative Office" uses with the approval of a Planning Director's Use Permit. They are: General Commercial (GC), Business Park (BP), Professional and Administrative Office (PA) and Professional, Administrative and Commercial Consolidation (PACC). The GC, PA and PACC Districts make no specific reference to medical and dental office uses as either permitted or prohibited. The Business Park zone is the only district that specifically references medical and dental offices as a permitted use with the approval of a Use Permit from the Planning Director. Each zone district indicates uses not listed are prohibited. The construction of the buildings predated the adoption of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan in October 1986. The building permit history, from the County, shows that 42 parking spaces (one space for every 250 gross square feet) were required. This amount of parking limits the use of the building to general office uses as medical uses require one space for each 150 gross square feet per the County Zoning Ordinance. However,, the County issued a building permit in 2000 for the existing dental office located in one of the buildings without requiring additional parking. The property is now nonconforming as to parking requirements and is subject to Chapter 20.62 (Nonconforming Structures and Uses). Due to the change in use proposed by this application, additional parking (one space for every 200 gross square feet) is required. The project, as proposed, requires a net increase of 3 additional parking spaces, which Would be an intensification of approximately 7.14 percent in the required parking (3/42). The project includes the restriping of spaces and the minor elimination of landscaping to increase the parking provided by the 3 spaces. According to Section 20.62.060, Nonconforming Parking, of the City Municipal Code, a nonconforming structure or use may be enlarged by less than 10 percent of its original gross floor area or intensified to generate less than 10 percent increase in Code - required parking, upon the provision of Code - required parking attributable to the enlargement or intensification. The project, therefore, meets Section 20.62.060. Wilhelm Medical Office November 28, 2006 Page 3 On October 10, 2006, the Planning Director considered and approved Use Permit No. 2006 -021 to allow the vacant 2,625 square foot space to be used for medical /dental office use. The approval letter dated October 10, 2006 is attached as Attachment C. On October 13, 2006, an appeal was filed by the Santa Heights- Project Advisory Committee (SAH -PAC). SAH -PAC does not believe the Planning Director properly evaluated the Use Permit application. The appeal is attached to the report as Attachment D. In response to the appeal filed by PAC, the applicant submitted a rebuttal letter attached as Attachment E. On November 2, 2006, the Planning Commission conducted the public hearing and granted the appeal and denied the Use Permit. The staff report and minutes from the Planning Commission meeting are attached as Attachments F & G with the project plans attached as Attachment H. Planning Director Determination Medical/Dental Uses in PA District The Planning Director determined that medical or dental office uses are permitted because they fall within the broad category of professional and administrative offices that are listed as permitted uses subject to a Use Permit from the Planning Director. The basis for this determination is that pursuant to the Newport Beach Municipal Code, medical office is included in the use classification of professional and business offices. While medical office does have a sub - category, the City has always allowed medical offices in every district where professional and business offices are permitted. The only zone in the entire City where medical uses are specifically identified with special requirements is the M -1 -A (Controlled Manufacturing) zone, requiring a Use Permit approval. If the Planning Director followed a different line of reasoning, it would mean medical offices are prohibited in every commercial zone in the City, except in some planned community districts where medical uses may be identified separately. When the City incorporated a modified version of the County Specific Plan into the City Municipal Code as Specific Plan District #7 (Santa Ana Heights), the provisions for professional and administrative offices in the GC, PA and PACC Districts essentially remained the same. However, the BP District was modified, as medical and dental offices were allowed by the County only if they were less than 4,000 gross square feet. The 4,000 gross square foot limitation on medical/dental uses was not included in the City's version of the Specific Plan, which resulted in the only reference to medicaUdental use in the BP District of the City's adopted Specific.Plan. It was unclear whether the 4,000 gross square foot restriction in the County Specific Plan applied to each tenant space or each property. Also, it was unclear whether medical and dental offices above this limitation would be permitted with any discretionary approval, or not permitted in this zoning district. It is the conclusion of staff that the County created this limitation so that the district itself could be maintained with Wilhelm Medical Office November 28, 2006 Page 4 a healthy balance of professional and administrative offices, commercial uses and limited light industrial uses within a business park environment and not be dominated by medical uses. Staff contacted the County Planning Department and they indicated that medical and dental offices fall within the professional and administrative office use category. It should be noted that the County Zoning Code does not have a description of either of these uses, but it does have a definition of an administrative office as: "a place of business for rendering of service or general administration, but excluding retail sales ". If medical and dental offices are not part of the professional and administrative office use category that was applied county -wide, then medical offices would virtually not be allowed in any commercial zone in the County. As a result, the Planning Director did not think that was the practical intent of those provisions of the Specific Plan. As mentioned above, the office complex presently has a dental office (2372 Bristol Street, Suite A). The tenant improvement plans, in conjunction with a building permit for the dentist office, were issued by the County of Orange on August 16, 2000 and received final occupancy on April 23, 2001. The County of Orange Planning Department considered the medical/dental use as a permitted use; however, they did not require a site development permit as required by the County's Specific Plan. This oversight appears to be an error; nevertheless, it supports the conclusion that there is no distinction between professional or administrative office uses and medical and dental office uses. It was further the Director's interpretation that medical or dental office uses are permitted in the PA zone. The existing dental office is considered a legal conforming use, but only as to parking. Furthermore, it is important to note that medical /dental office uses are traditionally considered as professional business office uses. Both the County and City Municipal Codes do not differentiate between medical/dental uses within business professional uses in the land use matrices; however, both have different parking requirements for medical /dental use since parking demand for medical use, in general, is slighter higher than general office use. On -Site Parking Requirement for Medical/Dental Uses When reviewing the parking situation of the entire property, the Planning Director acknowledged that property still remains under - parked per Code, due to the previous dental office approved by the County without the needed increase in the number of parking spaces. This circumstance could be perceived as a potentially detrimental condition should an actual parking problem arise. Therefore, denial of the proposed Use Permit could be justified. The Planning Director, however, did not take this step due to the fact that there would be 45 total spaces and the site accommodates a sufficient variety of uses such 'that there would not be a likely overlap in parking demand. Additionally, street parking is available on both sides of Spruce Avenue, north of Zenith Avenue and along the north side of Zenith Avenue. Wilhelm Medical Office November 28, 2006 Page 5 Planning Commission Determination MedicaUDental Uses in PA District The Planning Commission disagreed with the Planning Director's determination, noting that since medical and dental office is a separate category of the BP zone, the County considered medical and dental uses distinct from professional and administrative offices in this Specific Plan. Since it is not listed as being permitted in the PA zone, it would not be permitted because uses not specifically listed are prohibited by the Specific Plan. The Planning Commission further discussed the purpose and intent of the BP District and PA District. The specific plan states that BP District is established to provide for the development and maintenance of professional and administrative offices, commercial uses, specific uses related to product development, and limited light industrial uses. The Code also specifies that attention shall be given to the protection of the adjacent residential uses through regulation of building mass and height, landscape buffers, and architectural design features. The PA District is established to provide for the development and maintenance of an optimal environment for moderate intensity professional and administrative office uses and related uses on site with large landscaped open spaces and off - street parking facilities. This district is intended to be located on heavily traveled streets or adjacent to commercial or industrial districts, and may be used to buffer residential areas. By comparing the purpose and intent of these zoning districts, the Planning Commission suggested that the two districts are intended to be different environments in terms of level of intensity. The City's traffic model indicates that medical office is a higher intensity use by having a daily trip generation of 50 trips per 1,000 square feet compared with a general office with a lesser a daily trip generation of 14 trips per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. The Planning Commission concluded that it is conceivable the County was deliberate in not allowing medical and dental offices in the PA zone because the zone was intended to accommodate moderate intensity and, as a result, medical use is not permitted in the PA zone. On -Site Parking Requirement for Medical /Dental Uses The Planning Commission acknowledged the nonconforming status of the existing medical office and the deficiency of on -site parking. The Commission did not believe the parking issue for the entire property had been adequately addressed. Furthermore, the property does not have a diversity of uses as previously determined by staff. The subject property would have an equal percentage of professional office and medical office with common demand in parking. This led to the Commission's conclusion that on -site parking could become a problem. Wilhelm Medical Office November 28, 2006 Page 6 Environmental Review: The project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). Public Notice: Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Prepared by: . R salinh M. Ung, Wociate Planner Attachments: Submitted by: David Lepo, Plan i Director A. Draft City Council Resolution denying Use Permit No. 2006 -021 B. Draft City Council Resolution approving Use Permit No. 2006 -021 C Approval Letter Dated October 10, 2006 D. Appeal Application E. Applicant's Rebuttal Letter dated October 19, 2006 F. Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 2, 2006 G. Excerpt of Minutes dated November 2, 2006 H. Project Plans ATTACHMENT A DRAFT CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION DENYING USE PERMIT NO. 2006 -021 1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DENYING USE PERMIT NO. 2006 -021 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2382 BRISTOL STREET (PA2006 -193) WHEREAS, an application was filed by David F. Wilhelm, D.D.S. for property identified as 2382 Bristol Street, and legally described as Undivided 1/4 interest of Parcel 1, per Map Book 155 Page 9 and Unit 3 Condominium of Parcel 2. The application requests the approval of a Use Permit to convert 2,625 square feet office area to medical office use within an existing 10,500 square feet office building complex; and WHEREAS, on October 10, 2006, the Planning Director considered and approved Use Permit No. 2006 -021 to allow the vacant 2,625 square foot space to be used for medical /dental office use; and WHEREAS, on October 13, 2006, an appeal was filed by the Santa Heights- Project Advisory Committee; and WHEREAS, on November 2, 2006, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was given in accordance with law. Testimony was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at the hearing. With a vote of 6 ayes, the Planning Commission upheld the appeal and denied the Use Permit application; and WHEREAS, on November 14, 2006, the City Council appealed the matter for review and consideration; and WHEREAS, on November 28, 2006, the City Council held a noticed public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the City Council at the hearing; and WHEREAS, the property has a General Plan designation of General Commercial Office (CO -G) and is zoned Professional and Administrative Office District of the Santa Ana Height Specific Plan [SP- 7(PA)]. The site is presently improved with two office buildings (2372 and 2382 Bristol). The 2372 Bristol building is currently occupied by a professional office on the second floor and a dental office on the first floor. The 2382 Bristol Building is currently occupied by a professional office on the second floor and the first floor is vacant. The vacant a Page 2 of 3 space is the proposed occupancy and the subject of this Use Permit; and WHEREAS, the original Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan was prepared and adopted on October 15, 1986, by the Orange County Board of Supervisors, to implement the Land Use Compatibility Plan for Santa Ana Heights. In 2001, when the City annexed the area, the Specific Plan was incorporated within the Municipal Code and it was modified to reflect the structure of the Newport Beach Code; and WHEREAS, the Specific Plan has a total of thirteen zoning districts. Four of these districts allow "Professional and Administrative Office" uses with the approval of a Planning Director's Use Permit. They are: General Commercial (GC), Business Park (BP), Professional and Administrative Office (PA) and Professional, Administrative and Commercial Consolidation (PACC). The GC, PA and PACC Districts make no specific reference to medical and dental office uses as either permitted or prohibited. The Business Park zone is the only district that specifically. references medical and dental offices as a permitted use with the approval of a Use Permit from the Planning Director. Each zone district indicates uses not listed are prohibited; and WHEREAS, the Specific Plan states that the purpose and intent of the BP District is established to provide for the development and maintenance of professional and administrative offices, commercial uses, specific uses related to product development, and limited light industrial uses. It further states that attention shall be given to the protection of the adjacent residential uses through regulation of building mass and height, landscape buffers, and architectural design features. The PA District is established to provide for the development and maintenance of an optimal environment for moderate intensity professional and administrative office uses and related uses on site with large landscaped open spaces and off - street parking facilities. This district is intended to be located on heavily traveled streets or adjacent to commercial or industrial districts, and may be used to buffer residential areas; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after deliberation, determined that the two districts are intended to be different environments in terms of level of intensity since the City s traffic model indicates that medical office is a higher intensity use by having a daily trip generation of 50 trips per 1,000 square foot compared with a general office with a lesser daily trip generation of 14 trips per 1,000 square foot of gross floor area. The Planning Commission concluded that it is conceivable the County was deliberate in not allowing medical and dental offices in the PA zone because the zone was intended to accommodate moderate intensity and, as a result, medical use is not permitted in the PA zone; and WHEREAS, the proposed dental office would be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood and that the approval would not be Page 3 of 3 consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code due to the fact that the property still remains under - parked per Code, due to the previous dental office approved by the County without the needed increase in the number of parking spaces. Furthermore, the property does not have a diversity of uses by having an equal percentage of professional office and medical office with common demand in parking. On -site parking for the site, therefore, would become a problem. WHEREAS, the project is categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby upholds the Planning Commission's decision and denies Use Permit No. 2006 -021. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. Passed and adopted by the City Council of Newport Beach at a regular meeting held on the November 28, 2006 by the following vote to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK z ATTACHMENT B DRAFT CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION APPROVING USE PERMIT NO. 2006-021 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH UPHOLDING AND AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 2006 -021 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2382 BRISTOL STREET (PA2006 -193) WHEREAS, an application was filed by David F. Wilhelm, D.D.S. for property identified as 2382 Bristol Street, and legally described as Undivided Y4 interest of Parcel 1, per Map Book 155 Page 9 and Unit 3 Condominium of Parcel 2. The application requests the approval of a Use Permit to convert 2,625 square feet office area to medical office use within an existing 10,500 square feet office building complex; and WHEREAS, on October 10, 2006, the Planning Director considered and approved Use Permit No. 2006 -021 to allow the vacant 2,625 square foot space to be used for medical /dental office use; and WHEREAS, on October 13, 2006, an appeal was filed by the Santa Heights- Project Advisory Committee; and WHEREAS, on November 2, 2006, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was given in accordance with law. Testimony was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at the hearing. With a vote of 6 ayes, the Planning Commission upheld the appeal and denied the Use Permit application; and WHEREAS, on November 14, 2006, the City Council appealed the matter for review and consideration; and WHEREAS, on November 28, 2006, the City Council held a noticed public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was given in accordance with law and testimony was presented to and considered by the City Council at the hearing; and WHEREAS, the property has a General Plan designation of General Commercial Office (CO -G) and is zoned Professional and Administrative Office District [SP- 7(PA)]. The site is presently improved with two office buildings (2372 and 2382 Bristol). The 2372 Bristol building is currently occupied by a professional office on the second floor and a dental office on the first floor. The 2382 Bristol Building is currently occupied by a professional office on the second PLI Page 2 of 5 floor and the first floor is vacant. The vacant space is the proposed occupancy and the subject of this Use Permit; and WHEREAS, the proposed dental office would not be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood and that the approval would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code based on the following findings: 1. A total of 45 on -site parking spaces will be provided and available for the proposed medical office and the existing uses located on the subject property. The project, as proposed, requires a net increase of 3 additional parking spaces which would be an intensification of approximately 7.14 percent in the required parking (3(42). The project includes the restriping of spaces and the minor elimination of landscaping to increase the parking provided by 3 spaces. The project, therefore, meets Section 20.62.060, Nonconforming Parking of the Municipal Code. 2. The proposed combination of administrative, professional office and medical/dental office uses at the subject property will not create an intensification of trip - generation rates that requires a Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis. 3. The proposed project is a professional office use and medical offices are included in this designation. 4. The office complex and residential traffic are separated to the maximum extent possible, since the vehicular access is on Spruce Avenue. Additionally, the subject property is located on a block that is bounded on the northwest and southeast by Professional Administrative Office use and to the northeast by the State Route 73 and to the southwest are single - family residential uses. 5. The proposal to establish a combination of medical /dental office with the existing administrative and professional office uses does not alter or diminish the overall aesthetic character of the community. WHEREAS, the project is categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies the original appeal and upholds and affirms the Planning Director's approval of Use Permit No. 2006 -021, subject to the conditions of approvals listed in Exhibit "A ". 0 Page 3 of 5 This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. Passed and adopted by the City Council of Newport Beach at a regular meeting held on the November 28, 2006 by the following vote to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK 1i Page 4 of 5 Exhibit "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Use Permit No. 2006 -021 The development and mixture of permitted uses shall be in substantial conformance with the approved floor plan. 2. The maximum square footage devoted to medical/dental use shall not exceed 2,625 square feet (first floor of the 2382 Bristol Street building, and the remainder of the building shall be devoted to general, professional and administrative office use). 3. The use permit authorizes medical/dental uses as specified herein within the existing office building (first floor of 2382 Bristol Street only, which is the subject of this application) and the existing non - conforming dental office in 2372 Bristol Street — ground floor). 4. All applicable parking requirements of Chapter 20.66 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code shall apply and shall be enforced. 5. Changes to the existing parking lot configuration shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer for the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems. Parking for the medical/dental use shall be no less than one parking space for each 200 square feet of gross floor area. The reconfiguration of the parking lot shall increase the on- site parking to a minimum of 3 additional parking spaces to the required on- site parking of 42 spaces (the parking lot shall be first returned to provide 42 on -site parking spaces which will call for the relocation of the trash enclosure that was installed without benefit of permits to displace a required parking space). 6. The trash enclosure shall be relocated out of the parking lot area and the existing location shall be reverted to a parking space (one of the original 42 parking spaces). The parking lot shall be re- striped to provide the original 42 parking spaces (as approved with the original construction) and the remainder of the parking lot shall be re- striped to provide an additional 3 parking spaces for an overall total of 45 parking spaces to serve the property. 7. Employees shall park on -site at all times. 8. No temporary "sandwich" signs, balloons or similar temporary signs shall be permitted, either on -site or off -site, to advertise the proposed food establishment, unless specifically permitted in accordance with the Sign Ordinance of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Area Regulations or the )5 Page 5 of 5 Municipal Code. Temporary signs shall be prohibited in the public right -of- way. 9. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.44 and applicable sections of Chapter 20.67 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission or the City Council in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code. 10. As specified by the Uniform Building Code, the facility shall be designed to meet exiting and fire protection requirements and shall be subject to review and approval by the Building Department 11. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements. 12. The Planning Director or the Planning Commission may add to or modify the Conditions of this Use Permit approval, or they revoke this permit upon a determination that the operation (which is the subject of this approval) causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 13. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the end of the appeal period, in accordance with Section 20.91.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. I(0 ATTACHMENT C APPROVAL LETTER DATED OCTOBER 10, 2006 11 October 10, 2006 USE PERMIT NO. UP2006 -021 (PA2006 -193). PLANWNG DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 (949) 644 -3200 FAX (943) 044-3229 David F. Wilhelm, D.D.S. 10028 Adams Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Staff Person: Javier S. Garcia; 644.3206 Appeal Perbd: 14 days after approval date Application: Planning Director's Use Permit No. UP2006 -021 (PA2006493) Applicant: David F. Wilhelm, D.D.S. Site Address: 2372 & 2382 Bristol Street, Unit 3 Legal Description: Parcel 1.PM -15519 Request as Modified and Approved: To allow the utilization of a portion of the approved office building to accommodate up to 2,625 square feet of medical /dental office use. The remaining 7,875 square feet shall remain dedicated to general office use only. Originally described as an amendment to the existing use permit approved by the County of Orange, it has been determined that the project was constructed prior to the adoption of the Santa Ana Heights Speck Plan Area; and therefore, no use .permit.exists.fsc.As •construction or any on -site uses. This use permit approval will allow the establishment of the above - referenced use -by review and approval by the Planning Director- up to the maximum square footage specified. It should be noted that this approval will authorize the use of only the first floor of the 2382 Bristol Street building for medical /dental office use. The property is located in the SP -7 (PA District of Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Area) District. DIRECTOR'S ACTION APPROVED, OCTOBER 10, 2006. BACKGROUND The subject property is located at the southwesterly corner of Bristol Street and Spruce Avenue..The subject building is part of a larger project that includes two,.two -story office buildings constructed under permits issued by the County of Orange prior to NJ annexation to the City of Newport Beach (and is occupied by four commercial condominiums — two in each building, one per floor). The original building permits were issued on June 30, 1980. The construction predates the adoption of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Area District (adopted in October 1986). Therefore, the requirement for a use permit would not apply since medical /dental office use was determined to be included in the administrative professional office use classification. The building permit history, from the County, shows that 42 on -site parking spaces were required for the project (21 spaces per building based on floor area of 5,250 square feet per building). A site visit by staff revealed that the construction of a trash enclosure resulted in the loss of one of the required parking spaces, reducing the overall number from 42 to 41 spaces. Staff is recommending reinstatement of the lost parking space (please refer to the appendix for the related discussion). The appropriate condition of approval is included in the attached exhibit for approval. Tenant improvement plans, in conjunction with a building permit for the dentist located in 2372 Bristol Street, Suite A, were issued by the County of Orange on August 16, 2000 and received final sign -off on April 23, 2001 (copies attached for information). It appears from the issuance and "final' of the building permit that the County of Orange Planning Department had knowingly approved the medical /dental use as a permitted use under the authority of the then zoning district, Santa Ana Heights Specific Area Plan .(PA District) as noted on the building permit. Therefore, staff is satisfied that the existing on -site dental office is legal conforming, and that medical uses are allowed by the PA'District. The subject site is bounded by the PACC (Professional, Administrative and Commercial Consolidation) Zoning District to the northwest, the PA (Professional Administrative) Zoning.District to the southeast across Spruce Street and the RSF (Residential Single Family) Zoning District immediately to the southwest across Zenith Ave (buffered by the parking lot). APPLICATION REQUEST - In approving-this- application, the-Planning Director analyzed the proposal with regard to compliance with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, Zoning Code Compliance (specifically, Chapter 20.44, Santa Ana Height Specific Plan Area, PA Zoning District regulations), proposed use and the parking requirements. The discussion can be found in the attached appendix. In this case, the Planning Director determined that the proposal, with the limitation on the mix of uses and requirement to conform to the Zoning Code specified parking regulations (Chapter 20.56), would not be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood. In addition, the approval of the Use Permit would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code based on the following findings: FINDINGS 1. The property is designated for "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" use by the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Santa Ana October 10, 2006 I:IUSERSIPLNISharedlPA's\PAs - 20061PA2006- 1931UP2006 -021 appr,doc Page 2 of 10 Heights Speck Plan Area Professional and Administrative Office (PA) District regulations. The proposed mix of uses (administrative, professional office and medical /dental office) is consistent with those designations. 2. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). 3. The approval of Planning Directors Use Permit No. UP2006 -021 (PA2006 -193) will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of the city for the following reasons: • Adequate on -site parking will be provided and available for the existing and proposed mix of uses. • The proposed mix of administrative, professional office and medical /dental office uses will not create an intensification of trip - generation rates that requires a Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis. However, if in the future the mix of uses increases the trip - generation characteristics or exceeds the threshold limit of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; appropriate analysis will be required prior to authorization of such change or increase in the mix of uses and will require an amendment to this use permit. 4. The approval of Planning Director's Use Permit No. UP2006 -193 (PA2006 -021) is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Area District based on the following reasons: • The proposed project is a well - planned professional office use and commercial development which is adequately buffered from the adjacent residential neighborhood. • The office complex and residential traffic are separated to the maximum extent possible, since the vehicular access is on Spruce Avenue. Additionally, sub'ect` ro e rty is I " y p p sated on a'bto`cklhat is bounded on the northwest and southeast by Professional Administrative Office use and to the northeast by the State Route 73 and to the southwest are single - family residential uses. • The proposal to establish a mix of medical /dental office with the existing administrative and professional office uses does not alter or diminish the overall aesthetic character of the community. 5. Compliance with all other applicable regulations of the Municipal Code, more specifically Chapter 20.66 Parking Requirements, will be required and enforced. The parking for the medical /dental office use will be increased on site to meet the Municipal Code requirements. October 10, 2006 pia I:IUSERSIPLNIShared\PA's\PAs - 20061PA2006- 1931UP2006 -021 appr.doc Page 3 of 10 4r CONDITIONS The development and mixture of permitted uses shall be in substantial conformance with the approved footage limitation plan. 2. The maximum square footage devoted to medical /dental use shall not exceed 2,625 square feet (first floor of the 2382 Bristol Street building, and the remainder of the building shall be devoted to general, professional and administrative office use). 3. The use permit authorizes medical /dental uses as specified herein within the existing office building (first floor of 2382 Bristol Street only, which is the subject of this application) and the existing non - conforming dental office in 2372 Bristol Street – ground floor). 4. All applicable parking requirements of Chapter 20.66 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code shall apply and shall be enforced. 5. Changes to the existing parking lot configuration shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer for the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems. Parking for the medical /dental use shall be no less than one parking space for each 200 square feet of gross floor area. The reconfiguration of the parking lot shall increase the on -site parking to a minimum of 3 additional parking spaces to the required on -site parking of 42 spaces (the parking lot shall be first returned to provide 42 on -site parking spaces which will call for the relocation of the trash enclosure that was installed without benefit of permits to displace a required parking space). 6. The trash enclosure shall be relocated out of the parking lot area and the existing location shall be reverted to a parking space (one of the original 42 parking spaces). The parking lot shall be re- striped to provide the original 42 parking spaces (as approved with the original construction) and the remainder of the parking lot shall be re- striped to provide an additional 3 parking spaces for an overall.total of 45- parking spaces to serve the property. — 7. Employees shall park on -site at all times. 8. No temporary "sandwich" signs, balloons or similar temporary signs shall be permitted, either on -site or off -site, to advertise the proposed food establishment, unless specifically permitted in accordance with the Sign Ordinance of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Area Regulations or the Municipal Code. Temporary signs shall be prohibited in the public right -of -way. STANDARD CITY REQUIREMENTS All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.44 and applicable sections of Chapter 20.67 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission or the City Council in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code. October 10, 2006 �+ 1AUSERSIPLN1Shared\PNsIPAs - 20061PA2006- 1931UP2006 -021 appr.doc Page 4 of 10 I 2. As specified by the Uniform Building Code, the facility shall be designed to meet exiting and fire protection requirements and shall be subject to review and approval by the Building Department 3. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements. 4. The Planning Director or the Planning Commission may add to or modify the Conditions of this Use Permit approval, or they revoke this permit upon a determination that the operation (which is the subject of this approval) causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 5. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the end of the appeal period, in accordance with Section 20.91.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. APPEAL PERIOD The decision of the Planning Director may be appealed by the applicant or any interested party to the Planning Commission within 14 days of the decision date. Any appeal filed shall be accompanied by a filing fee of $600.00. On behalf of the Planning Director Patricia L. Temple, Qa--'r-� Zoning Adtninistrator3avier S. Garcia, AICP Attachments: 1. Appendix 2. Vicinity Map 3.' "Fifiatedn Buildirlg'PerrnifT k. of Occupancy for 2372 Bristol St (ground floor) 4. Building Permit (T. I. for Dental Office) for 2372 Bristol Street 5. Existing Site Plan and Path of Travel for 2372 Bristol Street 6. Floor Plan for Existing Dental Office at 2372 Bristol Street 7. Certificate of Use and Occupancy for 2372 Bristol Street 8. Letter from Niall Saunders, AIA - contact 9. Floor Plan for Proposed Dental Office at 2382 Bristol Street 10. Letter from SAHPAC (Santa Ana Heights Project Advisory Committee) 11. Letter from Greg Carroll c: Niall F. Saunders, AIA 250 Newport Center Drive, Suite 304 Newport Beach, CA 92660 October 10, 2006 ;X 1: 1USERMPLN1Shared\PA's1PAs - 20061PA2006- 193WID2006 -021 appr.doc Page 5 of 10 4-5— APPENDIX General Plan Compliance The general plan designates the property for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial. Per the Land Use Element (LUE), medical offices and retail commercial uses are allowed within the APF designation. Discussion It was previously misstated that the existing building was approved in conjunction with a Use Permit approved by the County of Orange. The original construction in 1980 predates the adoption of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Area District (adopted in October 1986). Therefore, the requirement for a use permit would not apply. The office building construction was authorized by the issuance of the building permit. Dental office use was authorized by issuance of building permits as stated previously. The application, as submitted, will allow the introduction of another dental office use that will occupy as stated in the permit history, 2,625 square feet of the building (applicant notation is that the suite will occupy 2,707 square feet). It is apparent that the floor area did not take into account the solarium area of both buildings. However, it appears that they were not included in the parking analysis either and staff has ascertained that it may have been excluded as mechanical rooms of the building. Zonina Compliance As stated in the Zoning Code: "The PA District is established to. provide for the development and maintenance of an optimal environment for moderate intensity professional and administrative office uses and related uses on sites with large landscaped open spaces and off- street parking facilities. This district is intended to be located on heavily traveled streets or adjacent to commercial or industrial districts, and may be used to buffer residential areas." The following excerpt from the Zoning Code Section 20.44.055 lists the permitted uses allowed in the. Professional and Administrative Office District of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Area. As listed, each use requires the approval of a Use Permit issued by the Planning Director. The applicant's request will allow a limited mix of office and medical /dental office uses with the establishment of maximum square footage for medical /dental office use within the project (Item i). The request will also eliminate the necessity for future use permit applications for each individual medical /dental office use that remains within the proposed footage limitations. B. Principal Uses Permitted. The following principal uses are permitted subject to the approval of a use permit by the Planning Director per Chapter 20.91: October 10, 2006 �✓ I:IUSERSIPLN1Shared\PA's1PAs - 20061PA2006- 1931UP2006 -021 appr.doc Page 6 of 10 a. Automobile parking lots per Chapter 20.66. b. Churches, temples, and other places of worship. C. Civic and government uses. d. Communication transmitting, reception, or relay facilities. e. Day care nurseries. f. Educational institutions serving adults. g. Financial institutions. h. Libraries and museums. L Professional and administrative offices. j. Public/private utility buildings and structures. 2. The following principal uses are permitted subject to the approval of a use permit by the Planning Commission per. per Chapter 20.91: a. Any use which the Planning Commission finds consistent with the purpose and intent of this district. C. Temoorary Uses Permitted. Temporary uses, per Section 20.60.015, to include the following: 1. Commercial coaches. 2. Christmas tree sales. 3. Halloween pumpkin sales. D. Accessory Uses Permitted. The following accessory uses and structures are permitted when customarily associated with and subordinate to a permitted principal use on the same building site. 1. Uses per Section 20.60.020, to include: a. Detached buildings. b. Fences and walls. 2. Signs per Chapter 20.67. a. Accessory uses and structures' which the Planning Director finds- consistent with the purpose and intent of this district. E. Prohibited, Uses. The following uses are specifically prohibited: 1. Adult entertainment businesses and adult- oriented businesses. 2. All uses not listed in this Section as permitted. October 10, 2006 1:1USERSIPLN1Shared\pxs1PAs - 20061PA2006- 1931UP2006 -027 appr.doc Page 7 of 10 of Proposed and Excluded Uses The applicant has submitted the use permit application to allow medical /dental office use in conjunction with the existing commercial office building at 2382 Bristol Street (first floor condominium). No other uses are proposed with this application. Therefore, any use listed in the attached Section 20.44.055 will still require the filing of a use permit for approval by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission, in each particular case. Proposed Use Limitations In order to be consistent with the General Plan and the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Area regulations, staff has reviewed the implications of an established mix of general office along with medical /dental office use as described in the table below. The medical office use and the general office uses are expressed as maximum and minimum limitations in order to comply with the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The proposed use limitations will allow the aggregate total square footage of medical /dental use that does not exceed 5,250 square feet (includes the existing ground floor of 2372 Bristol Street and the proposed ground floor of 2382 Bristol Street). The Planning Department will monitor the individual tenant improvement plans issued by the Building Department to maintain the mix of uses within the permitted maximums or allowances. Proposed Mixture of Uses Maximum Medical /Dental Office Allowed 5,250 square feet (ground floors at existing 2372 Bristol St. & pmposed 2382 Bristol St. Administrative, Professional Office Minimum 5,250 square feet minimum area required or to remain vacant) Santa Ana Hei_ahts Project Advisory Committee (SAHPAC) The SAHPAC hag *had an opportunity to review the proposed project and has submitted the attached letter in response to the proposed addition of medical /dental office use to the subject property. Concerns raised by the Santa Ana Heights Planning Advisory Committee are related to changes to the specific plan area regulations adopted by the City in conjunction with the annexation of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Area and the parking and traffic generation exhibited by the introduction of the proposed use. A copy of the letter is attached for informational purposes. It should be noted that the authority to review and approve a use permit is expressed in both the City's Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Regulations (SAH, NBMC Chapter 20.44) and the former County version of the same document. Staff is of the opinion that the list and mix of uses proposed by this use permit are consistent with the intent of the Ordinance that governs the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Area. October 10, 2006 a 5 lAUSERSIPLNISharedlPA'sIPAs - 20061PA2006- 1931UP2006 -021 appr.doc Page 8 of 10 The SAH Advisory Committee also raised issues related to development standards of the SAH Specific Plan that are nonconforming on the subject property. The original building permits for the office building were issued by the County of Orange Building Department. It was noted and observed by staff on visit to the site that a portion of one of the two buildings is currently occupied by a periodontist office. Staff could not find any use permit approval for the introduction of the dental office use. This raises a question of whether or not the presence of the dental office further encumbers the parking or whether the County of Orange approved the use as an administrative, professional office use in accordance with the provisions of the SAH regulations. Staff can only surmise that the use was considered a permitted use and was therefore issued a building permit as a compliant use. Parkins Requirement Based on a review of the floor plans of the existing building approved by the County of Orange in 1980, it has been determined that the project was constructed with a parking ratio of 1 space per 250 square feet of gross floor area. There are currently 41 on site parking spaces to serve the total 10,500 gross square feet of office, resulting in a deficit of one parking space. Based upon current standards, off street parking requirements for the uses proposed by this permit are as follows: City of Newport Beach Parking Regulations: General Office Use Medical and Dental Office Use County.of Orange Parking Regulations: General Office Use Medical and Dental Office Use 1 per 250 square feet of net floor area 1 per 200 square feet of gross floor area 1 per 250 square feet of net floor area 1 per 150 square feet of gross floor area . Since the building was constructed with a parting ratio of 1 space per 250 square feet of _—gross floor area,- the.use of 2,625 ,square feet for new medical /dental office use will require the addition of 3 parking spaces. The project, as proposed, will provide the additional 3 parking. spaces and will also, as conditioned by this approval, reinstate the lost 42nd parking space that was displaced by the trash enclosure. Traffic Phasing Ordinance The Traffic Phasing Ordinance requires that a traffic study be prepared for any project generating over 300 trips. The maximum trip - generating use that would be approved under this permit would be medical or dental office. The maximum amount of medical,_ dental or service commercial retail that could theoretically be approved under this permit would be an aggregate of 5,250 square feet. Trips generated by the proposed project, based on the proposed mix, would not exceed the 300 trip threshold. October 10, 2006 I:IUSERSIPLN1SharediPXsiPAs - 20WPA2006- 19311.1132006 -021 appr.doc Page 9 of 10 Findings for Use Permit Approval The primary function of a use permit is to ensure that the proposed use is compatible with surrounding land uses. Per section 20.91.035, the following findings must be made for approval of a Use Permit: The proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of this code and purposes of the district in which the site is located. • As stated above, the purpose of the PA zone is "to provide for the development and maintenance of professional and administrative offices, commercial uses, specific uses related to product development and fight industrial uses ". The medicalldental uses proposed under this permit are permitted uses in the PA zone subject to approval of use permit. 2. The proposed location of the use permit and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the.vicinity or to the general welfare of the city. 3. The addition of limited medicalldental office use proposed under this permit will have no significant impact on the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the district. The additional medicalldental office approved under this permit will be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Department and the Planning Director, where appropriate, to ensure that they will generate no significant impacts on persons or property in the vicinity. The proposed use will comply with the provisions of this code, including any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it _:.:.. Would be located -..: - T - -:: -:,; . __ ... . As stated above, the uses approved under this permit satisfy all required conditions for the zone in which they are located and will comply with all provisions of the zoning code. The project as conditionally approved will comply with the parking requirements of Chapter 20.66 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code by providing the additional required parking spaces (3 additional spaces) and returning the parking lot to its original 42 parking spaces). October 10, 2006 I:\ USERS \PLN\ Shared \PA's \PAs - 2006 \PA2006 - 793 \UP2006 -027 appr.doc Page to of 10 ATTACHMENT D APPEAL APPLICATION ;Y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR I r: Name of Appellant SAH -PAC Phone (949) 645- 17J7_(Rid( Dayton) Site Address 2372 S. Bristol Street, Unit 3 Date of Zoning Administrator's decision 10110 .20 06 Name of Applicant Dr. David F. Wilhelm, DDS for (Desaiption of application filed with Zoning Administrator) maximum 2.750 SF oj-existina general office soace to become M77tT,77T,11ra�-, use. the remaining 7,881 SE-to remain general office use. Is already a non-!r,*nfbrm!M med—W use at the property (this Is not reflected In the maximum medical sagare indicated). that due to this pre-existInQmedicall use there is more than • 1 - parking space • - .L In the ' 7• Parkina, !L, :. �. t = vS' • ll =:! L_- : rl • ir. lh!1 = L.• i!'i iC L IiU.! _: l 1 :. • 1 •g • r,el =. =it- I _ ! : .icirLL makes clear ar,'jabylous and that medical and distinction between Oproflemional dental office-use Is not a permitted and ad use in the PA nistriat. and that the argument that this building VJ-UX'�P711alAIMMMUM IT ignature. 6CA00611ant Data. Richard A Dayton, PAC Development Committee Chairman Received by Fee received Date Hearing Date An appeal shall be scheduled for a hearing before the Planning Commission within thirty (30) days of the filing of the appeal unless both applicant and appellant or reviewing body consent to a later date (NBMC Sec. 20. 95.050). NOTE. Please submit • 11 x17 set of plans -12 each • One set of mailing labels (Avery 5960) for property owners within 300 ft. radius of subject property APPEALS: Municipal Code Sec. 20.95.0406 Appeal Fee: $600.00 pursuant to City Council Resolution 2006 -4. • " • • = 1 • = d!t. -F. mil_ l :�: LL :� 1 1�1LI1 R.-1DEVCOM PROJECT REVIEWSWP2006 -021 dentist of iee1UP2006-021 appeal.doc Revised 07- 21 -06jcr Date: 09/25/06 Javier Garcia, AICP Senior Planner, City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA2 -4048 (949) 644 -3206 fax: (949) 6443229 RE: CNB UP2006 -021 Dentist Office at 2372 S. Bristol Street, Unit 3 Dear Mr. Garcia: The PAC Development Subcommittee has reviewed the submittal package proposing a 2,750 SF dentist office use. The submittal summary also indicates that the remaining 7,881 SF of existing office space will remain general office use only. The existing use permit, approved by the County of Orange, authorizes general office use only and makes no provision for medical office use. The approval of this use permit by the Planning Director will allow for medical office use not to exceed 2,750 SF. PAC has the following concerns with this application: 1. If this use permit is approved, it will change the Specific Plan for the PA district to include medical uses. ,The Specific Plan, as written, and as adopted by the City, makes clear distinction between "professional and administrative office" use and "medical and dental office" use. These two types of uses are listed separately in the permitted uses for the Business Park district. "Medical and dental office" use is not listed as a permitted use for the PA district. Although the CNB Planning Dept. does not typically distinguish between these two types of office uses, for projects in the SAH Specific Plan area this distinction is in the Zoning Code and needs to be enforced. The difference in parking standards and traffic between these two types of uses also justifies the distinction between professional and medical offices. 2. Since the approval of this use permit would be a change in the permitted uses for the PA district, the committee believes that this application should be reviewed by the Planning Commission, not the Planning Director (per Section 20.44.055.8.2). Given the information provided in this report, should the Planning Director continue to process this application, PAC requests advice from the planning staff as to the appeal procedures that are available. 3. Attachment'A' is a parking table the committee has prepared to determine if the parking requirement is being•:met by this proposed project From the table, the total required parking is 46 parking spaces: Ftbi tthe' submitted site plan, it appears that the applicant is modifying' a walk area adjacent to the first row of parking and re- striping several rows of existing parking to provide 45 parking spaces,. including (1) van handicapped and (1) standard handicapped parking spaces. The proposed project appears to be short of compliance by (1) parking space. Due to the small scale of the submitted site plan, it is not possible for the committee to determine if the parking stalls indicated comply with CNB parking stall criteria. The committee assumes that this is the case, as there is no indication in the submittal summary that the proposed parking stalls are bon- compliant. 4. There is already an existing periodontist office at Suite 2372 -A: John B. Crispens, DDS. Apparently this existing medical office use is operating without an approved use permit through the County. Since there already is a non - compliant medical office use at this site, the maximum of 2,750 SF medical office use will be exceeded by the proposed project. Furthermore, the parking deficit will be more than one (1) parking space. The committee strongly recommends that this property provide the required parking for the existing and well as proposed medical use. 5. The additional traffic that medical uses create will be an additional traffic burden to the adjacent residential neighborhood. This property has a drive approach from Spruce`Avenue. Because Bristol Street is one -way eastbound, patrons of businesses at this property tend to drive through the residential neighborhood to travel west, rather than driving east on Bristol, north on Jamboree, and west on Bristol north of the 73 freeway. Additional medical use at this property will exacerbate the outside traffic problem through this residential neighborhood. For the reasons listed above, the PAC Development Subcommittee recommends denial of this use permit 30 application as submitted. PAC DevCom Review CNB UP2006 -021 Dentist Office at 2372 S. Bristol Street, #3 09/25/06 Page 212 Please note that the committee received the submittal package by e-mail on 9118106. The report request date indicated on the submittal was 9/21106. The committee needs more time than what was allotted by CNB staff to review the project and write a review report. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. Please send PAC a copy of the final Administrative decision, findings, and conditions for our records. Sincerely, Richard A. Dayton PAC Development Committee Chairman (949) 645 -1717 fax: (949) 645 -4243 cc. PAC Development Committee members Barbara Venezia, PAC Chairperson Patricia Temple, Director of Planning, City of Newport Beach Dave Kiff, City of Newport Beach Assistant City Manager Mark Esslinger, County of Orange Attachment'A' Parkinq_table Use Area Parkinq ratio Reo'd. Parkin Parking to be provided Dentist Office 2707 SF* 511000**' 14 ** 13 General Office 7881 SF* 411000 *'* 32 32 Totals 10588 SF 46 45' *This total is from the submittal summary. Since there is an existing medical use on the property that is not accounted for in the summary, this total is incorrect. *"Required parking is based on this medical use only. It does not account for the existing non - compliant ~..medical use. ...,. ,.:..� :. .. -- ..� . .1 "*'Based on gross building square footage for both medical and general business uses. '"'"Parking indicated on submitted Site Plan = 45 spaces. it does not appear to be possible to add additional parking to the site. 31 Jr1- ars:�_. Page 1 of 2 September 19, 2006 From: Greg Carroll 25 year resident of SAH & current Vice Chair SAH -RDA PAC 20101 Bayvlew ave. NB, CA 92660 (949) 852 -9517 Subject: Comment and stated objection to the City of Newport Beach moving approval of Use Permit application number UP2006 -021 To the Newport Beach Planning Department There Is a bluecard mailer notification I just received from the City a few days ago, which Indicates a Use Permit application requesting a use change Is now in front of the NB City Planning Dept. Its # is UP2006 -021. The application asks the City Planning to allow an alteration from the previous County use permit. City approval to do so would allow up to 2,750 sq. ft. of medical office at 2372 Bristol Street, Unit 3. It's the building situated at the 'North' comer of Spruce and S. Bristol. The same notice language I got in the mail, is posted on a sign stuck in the lawn landscaping that the 2372 address maintains along S. Bristol. Quoting from the notice card. "The existing use permit, approved by the County of Orange, authorizes general office use only and made no provision for medical office use." I can't help but stop prematurely here and summarize my objection to any thought of appikation approval by saying the existing use permit currently In force, is the way it is, for many good, necessary, and obvious reasons. Continuing to quote the notification. "This approval will allow the establishment of the above - referenced use - by review and approval by the Planning Director - up to the maximum square footage specified. The property is located in the SP -7 (Santa And Heights Specific Plan Area) District." Excuse me, but I don't think it works this way. And the following one-sentence, paragraph quote from the bluecard mailer. "After reviewing this project, it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations)." Which may be all well and good to some point But I think there is yet a stiffer standard we have In place and at work here, thatjudges whether this unfortunate application for a use change can fly or not. it seems to me that certain binding directives concerning the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan appear to have once again, not been followed by the City of Newport Beach. And if the City thinks it is legal here, and proceeds to approve and Install this use change application and particularly so in this manner. Then 1 would urge and vote to speed up bringing in the bulldozers into Santa Ana Heights, and let JWA proceed to devour the rest of City. ,.Ldon't, know how many. dentists are. ogging to be working this tooth.repalr facility. But I'm sure therg will more . $tan one or two dally trips generated'here, N this use change Is allowed to happen.. That is to say, trip numbers very much above what commercial or professional uses generate. The anticipated trip number needs to be known, or I should say better understood for the impact involved. However I'm guessing that If everyone is truthful in supplying such information, the actual daily patent run rate might be somewhere between unacceptable and staggering. But please understand, 1 don't think it will take too many extra trip generations resulting, to make this a bad deal for the affected nearby residents. I suspect there may as well be problems with whether or not the 46 parking spaces currently serving the propertys two buildings, each two- stories, would be considered adequate parking with a change allowing medical office ability. So that you can better understand a problem that exists today, and stands to get much worse with such application approval. Many people living on Orchid, Zenith, and Orchard, are upset by the number of Business Park/JWA people constantly going through the neighborhood after getting their Big Macs, El Pollo, rental cars, and everything else S. Bristol offers at lunch or any other time. Or drivethrus just plain lost, looking for some business in the BP and come stumbling through us In a daze. I get some of those asking directions even on my street, Bayvlew. Keeping this in mind, are we going to be told that these dental patients either coming in, or leaving while still buzzing on Novacaine or coming down from NO2 gas, will use nothing but S. Bristol to and from Spruce to transport themselves? And even if, ONLY that dlreation could unbelievably be the reality. What does that 3 then do for SAH residents ability when they use Spruce to come in and go out? They would absolutely find the experience severely degraded by the increased number of cars attempting to do the same. Give me back my Page 2 of 2 2,750 sq. it of office worker @ 2372 S. Bristol. I'll suffer him or her three times a day rather than what I know would come with this dentist office not 500 feet from my front porch. Despite the aggravation we endure of traffic transiting through the East SAH community by those day - trippers using Spruce off S. Bristol to access back to the Birch Street BP area. And realizing what those on Orchid and the other effected streets have offered in past years, and at SAH RDA PAC meetings as solution to the problem. I very much do not think I am alone in wanting Spruce to remain as it is now, a viable (and so far relatively safe) street alternative for exiting and entering the East SAH community. It is an genuine asset In fact, the much larger majority of people in East SAH I believe think this way, and for many good reasons. And reasons even those who want to shut off Spruce altogether, would 1 know acknowledge as sufficient to abandon the idea of dosing it off. In light of this and the explained current traffic situation, the Planning Dept needs to understand that approving this dentist medical office is a very bad idea. It does not belong at this particular location, and will do nothing but exacerbate one of the many problems we have to continually deal with around here. Not to mention i have no Idea why it is coming through City Planning this way, or at ail. The dentist and/or his representatives should have been told upfront not to waste his money making the application. From the actual mail notification delivery to the house, we have been given a stinking week and a half to submit our'input to the City Planning Director decision. (By the way, I assume now by what 1 have received, that the Planning Commission in not In play or has been somehow dismissed in this process ?) Shut off Past day) for our comment period Is Monday Sept 25th. If, on or after the 26th as the mailer notification tells us, the City Planning Director reviews and approves this particular Use Permit application, we then have a subsequent 14 day appeal period to voice concern over such approval. But to add insult to injury, it will cost $600 cash money given over to the City, if one does file protest during the 14 days? Words on this amount of bums rush fail me. But something at least we here in SAH need to keep In mind, is that this David F. Wilhelm D.D.S. application may represent just the tip of the iceberg in terms of future application to change permitted use at, or near this location. What's to stop other approvals of bad changeover use If this current transgression Is approved? That prospect of things to come Is even more frightening. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. AEA= V . ''ENT. ytr l 9 5 6 �Z!T ATTACHMENT E APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL LETTER DATED OCTOBER 19, 2006 34 SAUNDERS + WIANT ARCHITECTS ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS 10/19/06 Ms. Roslyn Ung, Staff Planner Planning Department City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Blvd, Newport Beach, CA. 92663 RE: Use Permit # 2006 -021 New dental office tenant improvement for David Wilhelm D.D.S. 2382 South Bristol Street, Newport Beach, CA. 92660 Dear Roslyn Dr. Wilhelm and I request this letter stand as rebuttal to the objections stated in the Application to Appeal Decision of the Zoning Administration, filed on behalf of SAH -PAC on 10/13/06. Our contentions are as follows: The statement regarding profession / administrative office versus medical / dental offices, that ".... This distinction in the Zoning Code needs to be enforced" is a request for a unilateral and inflexible decision, which negates the very purpose of a Use Permit, which is to permit consideration of alternatives. Zoning codes are not intended to be flat and inflexible. 2. Existing legally permitted uses (e.g. the Periodontist office cited) within this or any other zone should not become the subject of retroactive review or conditions on unrelated developments. This will set a dangerous precedent which may endanger any new development, and put at risk all existing uses which may be non - conforming due to recent zoning changes. Retroactive enforcement of this type is a quagmire that will have serious legal ramifications for the City. 3. There already exist many medical offices in the area that bring value to the area, as they are professional in nature. Traditionally dental offices. have been very stable professional offices, and have served to stabilize and upgrade the area in which they are located. The proposed new dental office would be the highest and best use for the property. We contend that dental office use will actually reduce the traffic in the neighborhood, in contrast with other potential uses for this suite. 4. Regarding objections to the Use Permit on the basis of additional traffic generated, we would offer that the numbers are very small in the case of this limited sized tenant space, and that visitors the site will enter via Bristol Street. Those few, 'If any vehicles visiting Dr. Wilhelm and accessing the site via the meandering route through the neighboring residential streets would be infinitely negligible. If anything, they would probably be neighborhood residents themselves as the route is abstruse to all but them. 5. We refute the statement that "if this use permit is approved, it will change the Specific Plan for the PA district to include medic_ al uses." We contend that a precedent cannot be set in allowing the Use Permit to stand, since each 250 Newport Center Drive, Suite 304, Newport Beach, Califomia 92660 Tel. 949. 721 0730 Fax 949. 721 0767 www.architeMoc.com 35 wr SAUNDERS + WANT ARCHITECTS ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS development thus encumbered must be reviewed on a case by case basis by the planning staff. Furthermore, upgraded parking requirements must be met, which has been done in our case. Existing parking lots in the area are not generally as expandable as exists on this particular site. There can be no further argument relating to parking" deficiencies" on our lot and we take serious umbrage to the continued use of this excuse. In summary we would like to state that the Planning Director determined that our proposed development, with the limitation on the mix of uses and requirement to conform to the Zoning Code specified parking regulations, would not be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood. Additionally, we would like to restate the approval of the Planning Director, who declared that the approval of the Planning Director's Use Permit will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, moral, comfort, and general welfare of the city for the following reasons: • Adequate on -site parking will be provided and available for the existing and proposed mix of uses • The proposed mix of administrative, professional office and medical /dental office uses will not create an intensification of trip generation rates that requires a Traffic Phasing ordinance Analysis • The approval of the Planning Director's Use Permit is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Area District as the proposed project is a well planned out professional office use • The purpose of the PA zone is to provide for the development and maintenance of professional and administrative offices, commercial uses, specific uses related to product development and light industrial uses. The medicalldental uses proposed under this permit are permitted uses in the PA zone subject to approval of Use Permit We suggest that based on the evidence contained in earlier letters of objection, the SAH -PAC's problem is not really with this one small tenant improvement, but rather the overall commercial picture along Bristol Street. Basically, some of these residential neighbors may object to anything and everything which exists on their periphery. We wculd.guess_that anything placed before them by the Planning DepbrtmehOM11 and has been objected to, as a matter of course. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Yours sincerely, Niall F. Saunders AIA RIBA ric. # c26955 25D Newport Center Drive, Suite 304, Newport Beach, California 92660 Tel. 949 • 7210730 Fax 949.721 0767 www.architectsoc.6om 3� M ATTACHMENT F PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATED NOVEMBER 2, 2006 31 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 4 November 2, 2006 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner (949) 644- 3208, rung@city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Director Use Permit No. 2006 -021 David F. Wilhelm Medical Office, 2382 Bristol St (PA2006 -193) APPLICANT: David F. Wilhelm, D.D.S. APPELLANT: Santa Heights - Project Advisory Committee ISSUE Should the Planning Commission uphold the decision of the Planning Director to approve Use Permit No. 2006 -021 to allow the utilization of an approximately 2,625 square foot office area for medical office use within an existing 10,500 square foot office building complex? BACKGROUND The subject property is located at the southwesterly comer of Bristol Street and Spruce Avenue, in the SP -7 District (Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan). Surrounding uses are _. professib6al- -af w: developments to "the north, east and wesf and single family residences to the south. The property has a General Plan designation of Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial and is zoned Professional and Administrative Office District [SP- 7(PA)j. The site is presently improved with two office buildings (2372 and 2382 Bristol). The 2372 Bristol building was built in 1983 and the 2382 Bristol building was built in 1981. The buildings are identical in size and shape, and are approximately 10,500 square feet in total area and have four separate condominium ownerships. The 2372 Bristol building is currently occupied by a professional office on the second floor and a dental office on the first floor. The 2382 Bristol Building is currently occupied by a professional office on the second floor and the first floor is vacant. The vacant space is the proposed occupancy and the subjectof this Use Permit. Wilhelm Medical Office November 2, 2006 Page 2 VICINITY MAP 3429 M}.t' - 1490 . �R taot 1232, 2899 73 t ; L�' • V �4, - 1300 . -'_ 20042 i 2190 ."2302.-, toorz'`.. 2aot T� Subject zw5t `� , east dFA Site 20169 �. � TY� EbaE '2M91 2342 2842:. 20128'Y Z0101\ 8962 Zola2 'tOf 11 amt ° f 8s32 - solE1 �• fi 2' east, .- ,!' 9y� .8iY4 ' )A14k Yo10Y� f 2009Y .x, A- 2412, 2o1ffii` 02 ` 411 Yfl091`.., P 1. i2%\1 20102( ' ��„i 2422/ 81 90142 +'~,.20111\ ay 2o0E2�J`S4s2 2491 20092 f;' ~,tii 24$2 . -..- \ l' -- X20102 29 re3\ . "goo�ssY e E0162 toI41 I , / ffi` - tot 2Z e1M93 \ 2 2017$ 20151 a 94\ 11. \ 20072",// 9\ zo}2z / 20171 20342.'20111`x. 2918}. EA152 ` `201zi two �. 7680949289 89? a N4 d5� �i'�• \ wt 'total $910 � �' ,190 &Y }72, 20141.. `20112••. ._ Planning Director's Use Permit No. 2006 -021 (PA2006 -193) Current Development. Professional office development To the north: Professional office development To the east: Professional office development To the south: Single Family Residential To the west: Professional office development 39 Wilhelm Medical Office November 2, 2006 Page 3 DISCUSSION On October 10, 2006, the Planning Director considered and approved Use Permit No. 2006 -021 to allow the vacant 2,625 square foot space to be used for medical/dental office use. As part of the project, the applicant agreed to increase the total parking on- site to account for the increase requirement of 3 spaces as medical and dental office uses require parking at one space for every 200 gross square feet. The Planning Director analyzed the proposal with regard to compliance with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, Zoning Code Compliance (specifically, Chapter 20.44, Santa Ana Height Specific Plan Area, PA Zoning District regulations), proposed use and the parking requirements. The Planning Director determined that the proposal would not be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood. In addition, the approval of the Use Permit would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title. 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. A detailed discussion of the Use Permit including the required findings is provided in the attached approval letter dated October 10, 2006 (Exhibit 1). Appeal On October 13, 2006, an appeal was filed by the Santa Heights- Project Advisory Committee (SAH -PAC). SAH -PAC does not believe the Planning Director adequately considered the fact that there is already a nonconforming medical use at the property; that due to this pre - existing medical use, there is more than one parking space deficit in the required parking; that the conversion to medical use will create more non -local traffic through neighborhood streets; that the Specific Plan makes clear and obvious the distinction between "professional and administrative office" and "medical and dental office" use and that medical and dental office use is, therefore, not a permitted use in the PA District; and that the argument that this building was constructed before the SAH Specific Plan was adopted by the County of Orange and therefore not subject to the provislRon-of the Specific Plan permitted "uses is seriously flawed (Exhibit 2). In response to the appeal filed PAC, the applicant submitted a rebuttal letter for the Commission to review and consider (Exhibit 3). Medical /Dental Uses in PA District The original Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan was prepared and adopted on October 15, 1986, by the Orange County Board of Supervisors to implement the Land Use Compatibility Program for Santa Ana Heights. Since the Specific Plan adoption, there were several amendments; although, none directly affected the subject property. In 2001, when the City annexed the area, the Specific Plan was incorporated within the Municipal Code and it was modified to reflect the Newport Beach Codes, not the County Zoning Code. qD Wilhelm Medical Office November 2, 200.6 Page 4 The Specific Plan has a total of thirteen zoning districts. Four of these districts allow °professional and administrative office" uses with the approval of a site development permit. They are: General Commercial (GC), Business Park (BP), Professional and Administrative Office (PA) and Professional, Administrative and Commercial Consolidation (PACC). The GC, PA and PACC Districts make no specific reference to medical and dental office uses as either permitted or prohibited. The Business Park zone is the only district that specifically references medical and dental offices as a permitted use with the approval of a Use Permit from the Zoning Administrator. Each zone district indicates that uses not listed are prohibited. The appellant believes since medical and dental uses are not listed as permitted uses within the PA zone, it is not permitted. The Planning Director concluded that medical or dental office uses are permitted as they fall within the category of professional and administrative offices that are listed as permitted uses subject to a Use Permit from the Zoning Administrator. The appellant notes that since medical and dental office is a separate category of the BP zone, the appellant believes that the County considers medical and dental uses separately from professional and administrative offices; and since it is not listed as being permitted in the PA zone, it would not be permitted. Staff contacted the County Planning Department; they indicate that medical and dental offices -fall within the professional and administrative office use category. It should be noted that the County Zoning Code does not have a description of either of these uses, but it does have a definition of an administrative office as: "a place of business for rendering of service or general administration, but excluding retail sales ". If we were to follow the appellant interpretation, one would conclude that medical and dental offices are not permitted in any commercial zone in. the County since medical and dental offices are not specifically listed in any commercial zone, except in the BP zone of the Specific Plan. When the City incorporated a modified version of the County Specific Plan into the City Municipal Code as Specific Plan District #7 (Santa Ana Heights), the provisions for professional and administrative offices in the GC, PA and PACC Districts essentially remained the same. However, the'BP District "Was modified as medical and dental offices were allowed by the County provided it was less than 4,000 gross square feet. The 4,000 gross square foot limitation on medical /dental uses was not included in the City's version of the Specific Plan which results in the only reference for medical/dental use in the BP District of the City's adopted Specific Plan. It is unclear whether the 4,000 gross square foot restriction applies to each tenant space or each property. Also, it is unclear whether medical and dental offices above this limitation would be permitted with any discretionary approval, or not permitted outright in this zoning district. It could only be concluded that the County created this limitation so that the district itself could maintain a healthy balance of professional and administrative offices, commercial uses and limited light industrial uses within a business park environment and not be dominated by medical uses. ,In summary, it is the Director's interpretation that medical or dental office uses are permitted in the PA zone. As mentioned above, the office complex presently has a 141 r� Wilhelm Medical Office November 2, 2006 Page 5 dental office (2372 Bristol Street; Suite A). The tenant improvement plans, in conjunction with a building permit for the dentist office, were issued by the County of Orange on August 16, 2000 and received final occupancy on April 23, 2001. It appears from that, the County of Orange Planning Department had considered the medical /dental use as a permitted use; however, they did not require a site development permit as required by the County's Specific Plan. This oversight appears to be an error; nevertheless, it supports the conclusion that there is no distinction between professional or administrative office uses and medical and dental office uses. The existing dental office is considered a legal conforming use. Furthermore, it is important to note that medical /dental office uses are traditionally considered as professional business office uses. Both the County and City Municipal Codes do not differentiate between medical/dental uses within business professional uses in the land use matrixes; however, both have different parking requirements for medical /dental use since parking demand for medical use, in general, is slighter higher than general office use. On -Site Parking Requirement for Medical /Dental Uses The construction of the buildings predated the adoption of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Area District in October 1986. The building permit history, from the County, shows that 42 parking spaces (one space for every 250 gross square feet) were required. This amount of parking limits the use of the building to general office uses as medical uses require one space for each 150 gross square feet per the County Zoning Ordinance. However, the County issued a building permit in 2000 for the existing dental office located in one of the buildings without requiring' additional parking. The dental suite is approximately 2,625 square feet and would have necessitated 3 additional spaces. A recent site visit by staff revealed that the construction of a trash enclosure resulted in the loss of one of the original required parking spaces; thereby reducing the overall number from 42 to 41 spaces. A condition of approval was included for the replacement of the parking space. Nevertheless; the property is nonconforming to parking requirements and is subject to Chapter 20.62 (Nonconforming Structures and Uses). Due to the change in use, additional parking (one space for every 200 gross square feet) is required. According to Section 20.62.060, Nonconforming Parking, of the City Municipal Code, a nonconforming structure or use may be enlarged by less than 10 percent of its original gross floor area or intensified to generate less than 10 percent increase in Code - required parking, upon the provision of Code - required parking attributable to the enlargement or intensification. The project, as proposed, requires a net increase of 3 additional parking spaces which would be an intensification of approximately 7.14 percent in the required parking (3/42). The project includes the restriping of spaces and the minor elimination of landscaping to increase the parking provided by 3 spaces. The project, therefore, meets Section 20.62.060. However, when reviewing the parking situation of the entire property, the property still remains under - parked per Code, due to the previous dental office approved by the County even with the proposed increase in Wilhelm Medical Office November 2, 2006 Page 6 the number of parking spaces. This circumstance could be perceived as a potentially detrimental condition should an actual parking problem arise; and therefore, denial of the proposed Use Permit could be justified. Staff did not take this step due to the fact that there would be 45 total spaces and the site accommodates a sufficient variety of uses such that there would not be a likely overlap in parking demand. Additionally, street parking is available on both sides of Spruce Avenue, north of Zenith Avenue and along the north side of Zenith Avenue. Environmental Review: The project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). Public Notice: Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of.this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold and affirm the decision of the Planning Director and approve Use Permit No. 2006 -021. The Planning Commission has the following additional options: 1. Uphold the appeal and deny Use Permit No. 2006 -021. 2. Modify any aspect of the Use Permit. Prepared by: R salinh M. Ung, A late Planner Exhibits: Submitted by: Patricia L. Temple, PlAnning Director 1. Approval Letter Dated October 10, 2006 2 Appeal Application 3. Applicant's Rebuttal Letter dated October 19, 2006 4. County's Building Records 5. Plans q3 ATTACHMENT G EXCERPT OF MINUTES DATED NOVEMBER 2, 2006 0 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 ; ction is to obtain the easement, but to insure that the applicant is not preji granting the easement. Instead of an irrevocable offer of dedication, he re them execute an easement and not have us record it subject to a vari :r on. This would all be based upon the City Council approval. general discussion there was a consensus to record an irrevocable offer ation as long as the applicant is not prejudiced. n was made by Commissioner McDaniel to approve Development Plan D01 (PA2006 -182) with all of the changes and directions that we have t this evening. and Commission clarified the motion as follows: • The suggested roof condition changes on numbers 35,36, and 37. • Include the exhibits from tonight's presentation by the applicant. • Delete condition number 19 and replaced with the City Attorney's language on the offer of dedication, received by email, and modil prejudice the applicant. nmissioner McDaniel was in agreement. None Henn BJECT: Planning Directors Use Permit No. 2006 -021 (PA2006 -193) not sal of the Planning Director's approval of a Use Permit for a medical /di e use. The request is to allow the utilization of an approximately.2,625 sq office area for medical /dental office use within an existing 10,500 square e building complex. Ung, Associate Planner, gave an overview on the staff report noting • To allow the operation of a medical office use within an existing o' building complex. • The subject property is zoned as Professional and Administrative O' District of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. • The subject property has an existing legal non - conforming dental o approved by the County of Orange prior to the City's annexation in 2001. • An appeal was filed by the Santa Ana Heights Project Advisory Commi with issues focus on whether medical /dental uses are allowed in the District and the on -site parking requirement for the medicalldental uses. • The Director's interpretation is that medical or dental office uses permitted in the PA Zone. • Medical /dental office uses are traditionally considered as professi business office uses, however there are different parking requirement; medical /dental uses since the parking demand for the medical use is slic higher than the general office use. • The proposed project requires a net increase of 3 additional parking spa and the applicant is providing the required number of parking spaces b) stripping the parking lot. • The project meets the criteria set forth in the Non - Conforming Par Section of the Code. • Staff recommends denial of the appeal and to uphold and affirm the deci file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006 \11022006.htm Denied Page 9 of 35 `G Mo 11/17/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 of the Planning Director and approve the Use Permit application. However, during the review of the application the Planning Commission could deny the application if findings could not be made for the Use Permit application. comments opened. Carol, resident of Santa Ana Heights and vice -chair of the Project iittee, and they are objecting to the Use Permit application with the • More trips generated. • Increased traffic problem for the residential area. Cole asked Mr. Carol if he had any estimate on the increased trips. Carol said it was based on the number of chairs and type of dental procedures and didn't have a number. Stokes, PAC member of Santa Ana Heights,. had concems. with the rds coming from medical /dental offices. Saunders, project architect, introduced himself and Dr. David Wilhe .ant. Dr. Wilhelm answered the question regarding the number ntments as follows: • Presently has an office in Huntington Beach. • Runs a fee - for - service private practice. • Averages 6 patients per day • Procedures vary; full mouth reconstruction and cosmetic cases. • 2 hygienists that see an average of 5.5 patients per day. The hygienists scheduled for 8 hours a day but because of the age of the patients, appointments tend to be longer. • Number of chairs - 2 for the hygienist and 3 that Dr. Wilhelm works out of. Wilhelm felt the amount of traffic generated from his practice would rman Cole asked about the number of patients seen in an 8 hours day that 5 patients per hygienists. Wilhelm answered approximately 5.5 patients per hygienists and that is b, his patients being older and being treated for periodontal disease and care. tirman Cole asked so that would make 10 to 12 hygienists patients per the patients seen by Dr. Wilhelm, which is on a average of 6 or less pati day, making an average total per day of 15 to 17. Wilhelm said that was correct. n Cole then asked there would be 2 hygienists, 1 receptionist plus Dr, also on the premises. Wilhelm answered yes. McDaniel asked if there would be any other doctors in the practice. Page 10 of 35 4(, Ito file: //F: \Users\PLN\3hared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006\11022006.htm 11/17/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 Wilhelm answered there would be no other doctors. imissioner McDaniel asked the Staff, since we annexed this area from nty, if this was a new application and not from the County, and we acre because it was already established. Ung answered that was correct. comment closed. Hawkins expressed his following concerns: Medical /Dental Uses in the PA Zone - o The Staff believes medical /dental uses are permitted uses in the Zone under Professional and Administrative Offices- according section 20.44.055 of the Zoning Code. He understood the bo interpretation from Staff. • Referring to the Zoning Code, Business Park District, Sect 20.44.050 B.1 - specifically refers to medical and dental offices < that is the district under which these uses are allowed. • PA Zone - Prohibited uses are all uses not listed in this section permitted. • One section discusses medical /dental as a permitted use and it is delineated in the current zoning district, Section 20.44.055, theref doesn't think the use is permitted. On -site Parking Requirement- • The Staff recognizes that parking could become a concern, but dk recommend denial of the use permit do to the fact that there would 45 total parking spaces and the site accommodates a sufficient vari of uses such that there would not be a likely overlap in park demand. • He didn't think there is a variety of uses; 50 percent is professio office and 50 percent is dental. There is a commonality and coma demand. • The permitted use in this area is 100 percent professional /administrative offices. • There will be some parking problems. Peotter asked the Staff: • What is the parking requirement for medical; 1 per 150 or 1 per 200 • Are the 8.5 stalls for long -term staff stalls or general purpose stalls. • The existing medical was approved at 1 per 250, so it is non - conforming t as it stands and do we have the latitude to require them to fix this before extend a new use. • If this is a discretionary approval, why can't we require them to bring existing non - conforming use into conformance before granting a new use. Ung answered the parking requirement is 1 per 200 and is City wide. answered yes that it is a existing non - conforming use as it stands today rding to the non - conforming section of the parking requirement we do the latitude to require them to fix it. This is a discretionary approval. Brine answered that the 8.5 is the standard size parking stall. Harp answered the questioned on bringing the existing non - conforming Page 11 of 35 41 .07 Ij file: //F: \Users\PLN\ Shared \Gvarin\PC ruin etal\2006 \11022006.htm 11/17/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 i conformance stating the code section provides how much parking is req the applicant to provide and there is no discretion in that regard, however seeking a use permit which is discretionary. ) mmissioner Henn asked if the existing non - conforming parking situation is different owner and if so, how can we apply a restriction to that in conjurn th this application. Temple said that these buildings have had four separate condominit erships. It is difficult to impose conditions on other owners that are not part application. Henn asked if they share parking in common. Temple answered yes. mmissioner Henn then asked do we have a mechanism to impose parking that is available to the other condominium owners. Harp said no we cannot impose parking restrictions on the other owners :y are not part of this application. ner Henn then asked if the parking requirement consideration on this application. Temple answered yes. Henn asked: • What is the traffic generation associated with general office compared medical office. • That comparison would set the traffic differential to be considered. Brine answered: • General office daily trip rate is 14 trips per 1000 square foot • Medical office daily trip rate is 50 trips per 1000 square foot. issioner Henn then asked if that traffic model indicates that the trip rate is significantly higher. Temple responded that the trips rate used for modeling and other tr /sis purposes are based on averages that are tested in the field via drive p is. That number takes into account all the broad range of medical offs h are varied in type and generate traffic at different rates, i.e. the pediatri, may have an enormous amount of visitation is evaluated the same as ologist who may have less visitation than a regular doctor. iissioner Peotter asked what has the applicant shown that he has the to the additional parking spaces he is proposing. Ung asked for time to check the file for recorded or reciprocal Cole asked if the Traffic Engineer had an answer to this and Page 12 of 35 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006 \11022006.htm 11/17/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 out the following: The City parking code for general office versa medical office has difference of 4 per 1000 or 1 for 250 versa 5 per 1000 or 1 for 200, which a 25 percent increase. The trips generated by a medical office are almost 4 times that of a gene office. Brine said that is accurate, there is more turn over with the higher level generated. Ung said there is no copy of a reciprocal access agreement, however as the County building permit, each of the buildings were built with lerstanding that they have to provide a fair share of parking and that is sally per each, building. Each building has two separate condomh Peotter asked if: • That means we are going from 41 spaces to 45. • Does each of the condo units get one of the extra 4 spaces being created. • Dr. Wilhelm will not be getting 3. Ung was not aware of the arrangement and perhaps we should question er Peotter then asked if the City should be concerned if the appli provide the spaces and ownership of those spaces as part of Ung answered yes. n Cole wanted clarification on the following: The Staff believes, per the code, that the applicant can re -stripe the exi: parking lot, increasing the overall parking spaces from 41 to 45 and would allow them to meet the code requirement for this use, which regi an additional 3 spaces. Ung answered that is correct. imissioner Hawkins said that he thought the actual code requirement as i' t now is 42 and they are encroaching with the trash enclosure on one space. applicant is proposing to add another 3 spaces. Ung said that was correct. r. Harp added that the important issue is it this is a shared parking arranger id does the applicant have the legal right to re -stripe the lot to provide Iditional 3 spaces. He then asked the applicant to respond to this. Wilhelm said there is a condo association, which he is part of, and they he a meeting regarding re- striping and restructuring the parking lot Dmmodate the necessary parking spaces to meet code and everyone was cement. Regarding the traffic, his normal office hours are Tuesday throu Page 13 of 35 541 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006 \11022006.htm 11/17/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 y, lam to 4pm and half -a -day on Friday, which is approximately three days a week. i Cole asked the Staff if the re- striping issue needs to be of the condominium situation. Harp didn't think it needed to be conditioned but just wanted to verify they right to comply with this. imissioner Peotter said he thought it should be conditioned that the appl to verify they have the association's approval on their ownership of the 3 Harp said it wasn't an ownership but a right to use the overall spaces. imissioner Peotter said he had been involved in condo associations recently ownership of parking is an important issue. Usually modem methods actually gn the number of spaces per unit. Their CC &R's may have some flexibility tc gn them. Harp said these are valid points and since.we do not know how they fined maybe we should condition it. irman Cole asked Staff if it should be conditioned before issuing a permit be conditioned as part of the use permit. Temple said some written verification of the right to change the parking lot of it would be appropriate which would need an added condition. >sioner Hawkins said Commissioner Peotter raised a good point the following: • He was not concerned with Dr. Wilhelm, his patients or his staff encroachir on others parking. • That we are requiring Dr. Wilhelm to create 3 additional parking spaces ar there is no guarantee that parking spaces wont be used by others. • Doesn't believe this is a permitted use. • Doesn't believe the parking issue is adequately addressed and there is not diversity of uses as the Staff indicates. Cole addressed the following in the staff report regarding the code . Assuming the applicant can re -stripe the additional 3 spaces for a total of spaces, this would meet the current parking requirement that the requires. Temple answered yes. rman Cole then asked what is the discretionary reason why we wouldn't al and if Commissioner Hawkins was concerned that the spaces wouldn't as permitted. r. Temple said typically, especially commercial parking lots, we would c it spaces not be posted for specific users so all the parking would be a everyone. We normally do not get involved in arrangements regarding Page 14 of 35 sa file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2006 \11022006.htm 11/17/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 mmissioner McDaniel if we approve this medical use could this office be anything other than dental, i.e. a regular doctor could move in if sold. Temple said yes, any type of doctor could move in. Toerge had the following concerns: . The use permit runs with the land. • If the property is sold in the future the new owner may use it differently. could be opened 7 days a week and /or there could be shorter to appointments. • Land use decision needs to be made on this. • More discussion from the Staff on this use being permitted. • PA zoning is not medical. • Panting ratio is some what significant, but the trip generation is significant. • Are we suggesting that our traffic models and street designs. adequately allow medical use in all PA Zones when medical traffic is times as much as office. Temple responded as follows: The Newport Beach Zoning Code, while it does have a sub - category o medical office in the use classification of professional and business offices has always allowed medical offices in every district where professional am business offices are used. .. In fact, there is only one zone district in the whole City where we actuall, call -out medical offices as a separate use with special requirements and tha is the M -1 -A District or Industrial District. . To follow that line of reasoning would mean medical offices are prohibited ii every commercial district in the City, other than perhaps some planner communities where they may be called -out separately. . Mostly they are lumped together under the broad. category of professions and business offices and that was one of the rationales used to determine whether is was considered a permitted use or not. . The BP District in the Specific Plan does call -out medical offices as a distinc category. . Under the County Specific Plan, it was done because they had a desire ii placing a specific limitation beyond the normal for medical offices in tha particular district. It was based on the size of the medical office, Iimitinl them to no more than 4000 square feet. . When the City adopted the Specific Plan we did try to emulate the Count Specific Plan as closely as possible, but it was not emulated 100 percent. One of the provisions that was deleted was the limitation of the 4000 squan feet in the BP District. • We felt there was good justification to support the argument that medics offices are allowed in the PA District. • In speaking with the County, if that decision where applied county wide medical offices would virtually not be allowed in any commercial zone in the County. We didn't think that was a practical intent of those provisions of the Specific Plan. • Like in our M -1 -A District, the reason why we call it out separately is we asl for a use permit in that district only. Otherwise they are consideree expressed permitted uses and that would be in retail commercial Page 15 of 35 5� file: //F:1Users\PLN\Shared\Gvarin\PC min eta1\2006111022006.htm 11/17/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 administrative /professional commercial, and recreational and ma commercial. . We were being consistent in applying our standard application practices standards to the Specific Plan and believe they are permitted use purs to the Specific Plan. >mmissioner Henn said the staff report says this application is subject to ecific plan. Each zone district indicates that uses not listed are prohibited. TI a specific plan and not a general zoning situation. He then asked the Staff irify how this use is permitted. Temple stated she didn't have anything to add. She didn't think this spec i had any use classifications. In the PA Zone in the County Zoning Co( iical office were not prohibited. The is no use classification in the Cow ing Code for medical offices. Therefore the code is being applied in sistent and equitable manner. If the Commission disagrees, that's what th here for. nmissioner Toerge said it was hard for him to make a judgment that this use ropriate in.a PA Zone, given our codes list the professional /administrative-us medical uses as two distinctive and separate uses. Medical /dental offices in the PA Zone. ian Cole wanted to know if medical /dental uses were permitted in other in the City. Temple said this is the only place where that terminology is used. As Mr � had pointed out, there are medical offices in the professional /administrative that were approved by the County and we also used that as an indicator the' the reading of the code and the intent of the County. missioner Hawkins asked if it was the City's intent, when it adopted the Sant< Heights into the Zoning Code, that the regulations as they relate to medical intended to be administered as City wide. Temple answered yes. on was made by Commissioner McDaniel to uphold the appeal and deny Permit. Hawkins encouraged Dr. Wilhelm to appeal this to the City Council. Eaton said this was a close call for him and wanted to point out The purpose and intent of the BP District - o Specifically allows medical and dental offices. • Allow the maintenance of professional /administrative commercial uses, etc. The purpose and intent of the PA District - o The maintenance of an optimal environment for moderate professional /administrative office uses. • This possibly suggests that they may have intended different environment in terms of level of intensity. • The traffic model indicates that medical offices are intensity. to be a Page 16 of 35 6A file : //F: \USers\PLN\5hared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006\11022006.htm 11/17/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 11/02/2006 Page 17 of 35 ■ Conceivably the County was deliberate in not allowing meth offices in the PA Zone, because the zone was intended accommodate moderate intensity. The parking was a concern in that we didn't use this opportunity to rec the existing non - conformity on the parking and we didn't have any discrel on parking. Wilhelm asked for a continuation. said a continuation would only be helpful if the applicant rmation that might further support his position. Wilhelm was then told to get with Ms. Ung for directions on how to file eal with the Citv Council. None None McDaniel, Toerge and file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006 \11022006.htm 11/17/2006 ITEM NO. 5 3JEC-T:-. Thirty First Street, LLC (PA2006 -031) 407, 409, 411 & 413 31st Street Permit to establish a height limit of 31 -feet, exceeding the base height limit ol Continued to November i6, feet, for the construction of four mixed -use buildings and approval of 2006 imercial floor area ratio (FAR) less than the minimum 0.25 FAR required for ad use development projects. In addition, the applicant is requesting the roval of a modification permit to allow parking spaces to encroach within the It and rear setbacks and a lot line adjustment to adjust the interior property s of four lots into four equally sized parcels. ne Murillo, Associate Planner, gave an overview on the staff report noting the )wing: • The Commission would not be able to take action on this item tonight because of the inadequately prepared Public Notice, but the Staff would like to.have a discussion and receive the Commission's comments. • The proposed project involves the demolition an existing retail building and automobile repair facility, and redeveloping the site with 4 new mixed -us buildings. With the exception of the architectural treatments, each building will be similarly designed and will consist of 750 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor and a two -level residential unit above. • Although mixed -use developments are consistent with General Plan an permitted uses with the Cannery Village Specific Plan, project implementation requires the approval of four discretionary applications, which include a use permit for increased height and reduced commercial floor area, a modification permit for parking space encroachments into the front and rear setbacks, and a lot line adjustment. • A detailed review and analysis of each of the requests has been included in the staff report. in summary, Staff believes sufficient facts to support the findings for the requested increase in height and reduction in commercial area are evident given the size and location of the lot, and design of the project. The applicant has presented an attractive design that meets the Cannery Village theme using a variety of architectural elements an complements the surrounding properties by providing attractive details an r� 3 visual relief on all sides of the building. • Staff believes 2 of the 3 required findings for approval of the modification permit request can be made related to compatibility with the neighborhood file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006 \11022006.htm 11/17/2006 ATTACHMENT H PROJECT PLANS 5� r 1331I18 901617!6 a FI 55 '3T 4 E 0887%Vb'HOV361HOdmaN'181Q1671d6 Hinos z46E dwliueueL mxkmNiueuxw iumpoW 6gy ! WR41PA'10 Ac OPM ls4u9G 9 A ' 1331I18 901617!6 a FI 55 '3T 4 g�+ { 099a6..i -HOVtl S"tl A3N -JS 1018R16H1fN U89 wvo°we UM.MAQWM w.wy POUMN 88$$ t tuISMIMA ja W Down Itiuea 041 3 i �a =ti I g3�i1 MO:N #ho+ �1I t II E # oil5 cl ui 8E�! d 1, z 33 p5pg FFtlEtlEppS• w i i�sSE 9i�i d a eE W II N H11 s A pry hA�T ♦.p� E I �II 5 2fi �j 9gif q 8i b a xe :nl.0 © \ \ wu 1 \\ ° I aR < I § I 1 I 1 L"IS I I ®°l \ e I s$ I � c Z pc did !e 3 �E3 ��E .A' I 3�! 6,! T Y jE qte G1 /L� Ci i 4 3 01— See File 68 for Updated Project Plans (3 Sheets) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Planning Director's Use Permit No. 2006 -021 (PA2006 -193) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a Use Permit for a medical /dental office use. The project site is located 2382 Bristol Street and is in the Professional and Administrative Office District of the Santa Ana Heights Speck Plan (SP-7). The request is to allow the utilization of an approximately 2,625 square foot office area for medical/dental office use within an existing 10,500 square foot office building complex. The project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on November 28. 2006, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Planning Director's Use Permit No. 2006 -021 (PA2006 -193) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a Use Permit for a medical /dental office use. The project site is located 2382 Bristol Street and is in the Professional and Administrative Office District of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan (SP -7). The request is to allow the utilization of an approximately 2,625 square foot office area for medical /dental office use within an existing 10,500 square foot office building complex. The project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on November 28, 2006, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. C�1 �f Ut rn LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach to �� Flo 111?,6 66 FTricrtiW Aft, cc. dal 1p'1df l►I JS�U� PUBLIC NOTICE Planning Director's Use Permit No. 2006.021 (PA2006 -193) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a Use Permit for a medical/dental office use. The project site is located 2382 Bristol Street and is in the Professional and Administrative Office District of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan (SP -7). The request is to allow the utilization of an approximately 2,625 square foot office area for medical /dental office use within an existing 10,500 square foot office building complex. The project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on November 28.2006, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, Califomia, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach PUBLIC NOTICE Planning Director's Use Permit No. 2006 -021 (PA2006 -193) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a Use Permit for a medical /dental office use. The project site is located 2382 Bristol Street and is in the Professional and Administrative Office District of the Santa Ana Heights Speck Plan (SP -7). The request is to allow the utilization of an approximately 2,625 square foot office area for medical /dental office use within an existing 10,500 square foot office building complex. The project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on November 28.2006, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, Califomia, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach e Free PrfnU® 427-332-02 140o BUILDING PARTNF*H P .439-022-01 STELLA ASKEW 439 -024-24 BACK BAY 140o BRISTOL ST N 20152 ORCHID ST 2424 SE BRISTO 200 NEWPORT BEACH CA 9266o-2911 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 -0732 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-0762 ' 439 - 023 -09 439- 022-15 439-022 -12 1 WILLIAM E & PATRICIA BLAKENEY ANTHONY D BLOTTI CHRISTOPHER A & NANCY BRADY 2422 ZENITH AVE s, 20111 SW SPRUCE AVE 20081 SW SPRUCE AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 -0744 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-0737 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-0736 439-023-04 439-023-07 439 -023-14 PAUL BREISCH PAUL L CAMERZELL GREGORY B & DONNA CARROLL 20112 SW SPRUCE AVE 20082 SW SPRUCE AVE 2o1o1 BAYVIEW AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-0737 NEWPORT BEACH CA 9266o -0736 NEWPORT BEACH CA 9266o -0707 439ro23 -15 439 024 -07 439- 023-13 MATTHEW & MICHELLE CLARK ! STEVEN R CLARK ARDEN K COLBY 2o111 BAYVIEW AVE i 20082 BAYVIEW AVE ; 20o91 BAYVIEW AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA 9266o -0707. NEWPORT BEACH CA 9266o-o7o6 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 -0706 ` 439r 024 -o9 439-023-03 439-022-13 DAVID G DA.LMANN LORRAINE P DENNIS i PATRICIA D DIAS 20062 BAYVIEW AVE 20122 SW SPRUCEAVE 20091 SW SPRUCE AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 -o7o5 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 -0737 .j NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 -0736 . 439- 02248 ... r- °....,. 022.. � � i 439 04 � 439-021 -19 GLEN R DROMGOOLE WILLIAM & PAULETTE DUNN ALBERT & ANNE ENCH4IAS 20151 SW SPRUCE AVE I : 20112 ORCHID ST 20101 ORCHID ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 9266o -0737 ' NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 -0732 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 -0732 439- 023 -12 I 439- 022 -16 439-022-05 KATHLEEN A FOWLER j VIVIAN B FRAZIER ANDREW J.& CHRISTINE FULLER 2oo81 BAYVIEW AVE 20121 SPRUCE AVE 20102 ORCHID ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 9266o -o706 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 -0737 i NEWPORT BEACH CA 9266o -0732 439-022 -14 { 439 023 -10 f, 427 - 342-01 -..._ . TIMOTHY A & KAREN GIBSON I STEPHANIE HARRINGTON HII BERT BRISTOL PARS 20101 SW SPRUCE AVE 1; 2432 ZENITH AVE 3600 SPRUCE AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA 9266o -0737 I NEWPORT BEACH CA 9266o -o744 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 l 439- 022 -17 � r - 43- 9 o _ - 2g -ox i 439-023-17 DONALD B HTTTENBERGER DONALD B NBERGER ` : THOMAS J HOLLAND 20141 SW SPRUCE AVE 20152 SW S r AVE j 20131 BAYVIEW AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-0737 NEWPO EACH CA 9266o -0737 11 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-0707 • j439- 022 -o6 ... (i 439-021 -20 ... -. - LENICE JOHNSON �439-02i-i6- GEORGE KAWAHARA ALAFRANO 20092 ORCHID ST 20071 ORCHID ST 20111 ORCHID ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 9266o-o731 I NEWPORT BEACH CA 9266o -o731 NEWPORT BEACH CA 9266o -o732 ufei a8 _ Q�pgl a woa6lanrmenM �p our .suud Bald wer midge Free Ptintdng �: } 439- 022 -02 439 021-01 439 - 021 -17 DEREK G LEASON LEON R LONG PAUL & VICKI MANDERINO 20142 ORCHID ST 2302 S BRISTOL ST 2oo8i ORCHID ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 9266o -0732 SANTAANA CA 92704 -5721 NEWPORT BEACH CA 9266o -o731 439-022 -11 439-021-18 439-024 -06 " RONALD MARIANO . GARY & KAREN MARTIN CALVIN R MEHAFFEY 2382 ZENITH AVE 20091 ORCHID ST 20092 BAYVIEW AVE : NEWPORT BEACH CA 9266o -o742 NEWPORT BEACH CA 9266o -o731 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-07o6 439-023 -o6 ....... .... ...... 439- 024-10 439-022 -09 MIKE MOINFAR CURTIS A & ROBYN MURRELL ABDI NAZIRI 20092 SW SPRUCE AVE 20052 BAYVIEW AVE 2362 ZENITH AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA 9266o -0736 NEWPORT BEACH CA 9266o -o7o5 NEWPORT BEACH CA 9266o -o742 439 - 021 -03 ORANGE COUNTYDEVELOPMENT 439 -024 -11 439- 022-10 ; AGENCY FELIX PERIC LIONEL RANGEL 2332 S BRISTO 2491 ZENITH AVE 2372 ZENITH AVE SANTAANA CA 270 1812 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-0745 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-0742 439- ozz -03 439- o23 -o8 439 - 021 -25 ! JOHN A ROBBINS j RICHARD R RODRIGUEZ RU INVESTMENTS LLC 20122 ORCHID ST 2412 ZENITH AVE 2350 SE BRISTOL ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-o732 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-0744 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-0747 i 439 - 023 -11 439-022 -07 .,::427-331-01 _. , . MADHU SACHDEU CHARLES SCHAAF STATE OF CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF . 2452 ZENITH AVE 2oo82 ORCHID ST ; ; 30 EXECUTIVE PARK NEWPORT BEACH CA9z66o -0744 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-0731 IRVINE CA 92614-6741 439'023.16 439- 022 -08 439- 023 -05 ! N & TERESA TESSERS ANTHONY TURLEY RODNEY E VANAUSDAL 20121 BAYVIEW AVE 2342 ZENITH AVE 20102 SW SPRUCE AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-0707 °; NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-0742 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-0737 439-024-08 439-024-05 439- 023-02 STEPHEN & PHILIPPA WAGONER ji BETTY' WAVERLY WILLIAM WILSON 2607-2 BAYVIEW AVE 20102 BAYVIEW AVE 20142 SW SPRUCE AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-o7o5 NEWPORT BEACH CA 9266o -0707 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-0737 .. 439-021-24 CLIFFORD AWOOLFOLK 439- 021 -15 REBECCA S WRIGHT 439-021 -24 20051 ORCHID ST ? 20061 ORCHID ST 201 5 1 ORCHID ST SORT BEACH CA 92660 -0732 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-0731 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-o731 939 - 690 -02 H. Barker Trust 1 ' 2372 SE Bristol St. j Newport Beach, CA 9266o I 6p�dp� W n aBay�gsi�tlili8�(� ®611Ad� &inwu M.1 war J Washington, Lillian From: Wood, Sharon Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 2:45 PM I+ -'JtR C T � AGE :IfM To: City Clerk Fjii4Tt['.' Subject: FW: [Fwd: dentist office UP2006 -021] so dentist office UP2006 -021 I see that all Council members received this, but I'm not sure if you did. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Wood, Sharon Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 1:36 PM To: Lepo, David; Ung, Rosalinh Subject: FW: [Fwd: dentist office UP2006 -0211 As usual, I can't tell who Barry included in his distribution, and think you should see this. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Susan /Barry Eaton [mailto:eaton727 @earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 12:51 PM Subject: [Fwd: dentist office UP2006 -0211 1 Date: 11/27/06 City Council Members City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA2 -4048 (949) 644 -3206 fax: (949) 644 -3229 RE: CNB UP2006 -021 Dentist Office at 2372 S. Bristol Street, Unit 3 Dear Council Members: Concerning UP2006-021, on 11/02/06, the Planning Commission voted 7 -0 to deny the Use Permit application for a Dentist Office at 2372 S. Bristol Street. The PC noted in their review that the wording for the PA Zone specifically states that uses not listed are prohibited, and that in the intent clause for the PA Zone it is stated that the PA Zone is for "moderate intensity uses ". This description does not occur in the intent clause for the BP Zone. PAC's Development Committee had recommended denial of the Use Permit to the Planning Director, and PAC voted unanimously to appeal the Planning Director's decision to the Planning Commission, should the Planning Director approve the project. After approval by the Planning Director, Commissioner Barry Eaton called up the project for Planning Commission review. It should be noted that in the 20 years that PAC has served as an advisory committee for the RDA, this is the first time that PAC has appealed a staff decision and asked for Planning Commission review. It should also be noted that PAC has recommended approval for all medical use applications in the BP Zone, the only stipulation being that the additional required parking be provided. PAC has no issues with medical or dental uses where these are listed as permitted uses in the Speck Plan. In its review of the project, the PAC Development Committee had the following concerns with this application: 1. If this use permit is approved, it will change the Speck Plan for the PA district to include medical uses. The Specific Plan, as written, and as adopted by the City, makes dear distinction between "professional and administrative office" use and "medical and dental office" use. These two types of uses are listed separately in the permitted uses for the Business Park district. "Medical and dental office" use is not listed as a permitted use for the PA district. According to the Planning Director, the CNB Planning Dept. typically does not distinguish between these two types of office uses. However, for projects in the SAH Specific Plan area this distinction is in the Specific Plan section of the Zoning Code and needs to be enforced. The difference in parking standards and traffic between these two types of uses also justifies the distinction between professional and medical offices. 2. Since the approval of this use permit would be a change in the permitted uses for the PA district, the committee believes that this application should be reviewed by the Planning Commission, not the Planning Director (per Section 20.44.055.B.2). Given the information provided in this report, should the Planning Director continue to process this application, PAC requests advice from the planning staff as to the appeal procedures that are available. 3. Attachment'A' is a parking table the PAC committee has prepared to determine if the parking requirement is being met by this proposed project. (No parking summary was made available as part of the initial project summary provided to PAC.) From the table, the total required parking is 46 parking spaces. From the submitted site plan, it appears that the applicant is modifying a walk area adjacent to the first row of parking and re- striping several rows of existing parking to provide 45 parking spaces, including (1) van handicapped and (1) standard handicapped parking spaces. The proposed project appears to be short of compliance by (1) parking space. Due to the small scale of the submitted 8-1/2" X 11" site plan, it is not possible for the committee to determine if the parking stalls indicated comply with CNB parking stall criteria. The committee assumes that this is the case, as there is no indication in the submittal summary that the proposed parking stalls are non - compliant. PAC letter to City Council CNB UP2006 -021 Dentist Office at 2372 S. Bristol Street, #3 11/27/06 Page 2/2 Dentist Office 2707 SF' General Office 87g 1 SF* Totals 10588 SF 5/1000"' 14" 13 4/1000` 32 32 46 45` "This total is from the submittal summary. Since there is an existing medical use on the property that is not accounted for in the summary, this total is incorrect. "Required parking is based on this medical use only. It does not account for the existing non - compliant medical use. *'Based on gross building square footage for both medical and general business uses. ""Parking indicated on submitted Site Plan = 45 spaces. It does not appear to be possible to add additional parking to the site. 4. There is already an existing periodontist office at Suite 2372 -A: John B. Crispens, DDS. Apparently this existing medical office use is operating without an approved use permit through the County. Since there already is a medical office use at this site, the maximum of 2,750 SF medical office use stated in the use permit application will be exceeded by the proposed project. Furthermore, the parking deficit will be more than one (1) parking space. It does not appear feasible to provide the required parking for two medical uses in the existing parking lot. 5. The additional traffic that medical uses create will be an additional traffic burden to the adjacent residential neighborhood. This property has a drive approach from Spruce Avenue. Because Bristol Street is one -way eastbound, patrons of businesses at this property tend to drive through the residential neighborhood to travel west, rather than driving east on Bristol, north on Jamboree, and west on Bristol north of the 73 freeway. Additional medical use at this property will exacerbate the non -local traffic problem through this residential neighborhood. This non -local traffic situation has been an on -going source of complaint at PAC meetings for many years. For the reasons listed above, the PAC Development Subcommittee recommended denial of this Use Permit application as submitted. PAC requests that the City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny this Use Permit. PAC further requests that the City Council deliberate the current planning policy of considering professional and medical offices as equivalent uses when the traffic generation and parking demand for these two types of uses are so different. Sincerely, Richard A. Dayton PAC Development Committee Chairman (949) 645 -1717 fax: (949) 645 -4243 CC. PAC members Barbara Venezia, PAC Chairperson Barry Eaton, City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Patricia Temple, Director of Planning, City of Newport Beach Dave Kiff, City of Newport Beach Assistant City Manager Mark Esslinger, County of Orange 111d '4 -46713 Page 1 of 2 Dear Newport Beach City Council members This communication is in regard to an appeal of a Use Permit application decision. Such appeal being very recently made to the City Council. And which will be heard at your meeting tommorrow, Tuesday November 28th. The appeal seeks reversal of the Planning Commissions ruling to disallow a medical use permit at 2372 S. Bristol. My Sept. 19th personal statement of Use Permit objection given to City Planning Director Patricia Temple is a matter of official record. And was on hand for the Planning Commission to consider when the matter came before it. As was the PAC letter detailing its objection to allowing a change of use venue. The Planning Commission got it exactly right in its 7-0 unanimous vote to reject City PD Temple's understanding and decision regarding properly allowed use for this SAH SP Professional /Administrative zoning. That being not only what was the right thing to do for the already - traffic - burdened NB/SAH residents surrounding. But that our SAH Specific Plan which the City has embraced, cieady does not allow medical use at this property. The Planning Commission was emphatic that such was clearly the case. Commissioner Michael Henn make the point crystal, when he said the Specific Plan spelled out what was allowed in this PA zone. And that which was not listed - was declared very plainly to not be allowed. This Planning Commission proved an impressively savy group, and its decision to uphold the appeal to reject, was a true moment of clarity and distinction for the City. Most unfortunately the ESAH neighborhood surrounding this business address in question, is under assault. That is, the traffic found using Spruce and thereafter Zenith, Orchid, Orchard to return to the nearby Birch Street Business Park, and points beyond - is horrific. Right now, it is not what anyone would want for those resident human beings living on these streets to have to put up with. Including long caravans of car rental company vehicles transiting around to wherever, and using Spruce to enter the neighborhood to do so. I invite you to come down to the T section of Orchid and Orchard some time, and hang out for 30 to 45 minutes. At one of the rush hours is even better. And count the number of so- obviously- not -a- resident rushing by. Having no business or interest in the homes they are passing, but only using the streets as an arterial highway. Always turning right on Orchard from Orchid, and away they go - until most of them repeat offend. In the past and in fact very recently, the PAC at its meetings will get groups of Zenith /Orchid/Orchard impacted residents, in tears and crying out for something to be done about the amount of traffic they have to deal with. One of the solutions most heard, is to close down Spruce entirely and make a cul-de -sac out of it - as we did to Cypress @ S. Bristol years ago. Closing off Cypress then, was a desperation project done to stop the hoards of (S. Bristol) people using /abusing it. Like they are using Spruce today. Personalty I don't want to see Spruce closed down. It is a genuine asset for entering and exiting the ESAH community. 1 choose to think even those suffering the most, do recognize this. But it has that dark side in the asset equation that obviously many of my neighbors have to endure in order to have it remain open. Again speaking for myself, (but I also think the PAC holds similar thought) I remain cool to seeing drastic measures taken at Spruce and Zenith, for fear of losing something deemed (so far) worth keeping in place. I'm sure though, that many impacted neighbors likely have been and are, totally exasperated if not absolutely disgusted with us. And other governing entities. As to the lack of something, or anything being done to correct this existing traffic nightmare. And have given up hope. All we've done to date is the installation of the 4 -way stop at Spruce and Zenith. That was done not just for obvious safety reasons. But also the thought behind seeing it done, was to present additional obstacle to those coming off South Bristol to do their loop around. And as well those coming and going from the office buildings that are driveway- connected to Spruce and Zenith. The stop signs being in some additional subtle way, a persuasion for them to use the S.Bristol /Jamboree/N.Bristol option instead. So now comes this dentist. Who wants to set up shop exactly where his patients will have complete freedom to come and go - directly through the very immediate residential neighborhood. Should they prefer or otherwise choose to do so. This 2372 S. Bristol property is only accessed - using Spruce. This medical use consideration is a terrible negative exacerbation likelihood, to an already existing bad traffic flow situation. The very real problem here is the amount of extra trip generation that comes with medical use, versus a 'regular' professional office use application. it seemed unsettling to those in attendance Nov. 2nd if not as well the Planning Commission, when we were told the ratio. Up to 4 times the number of trips come with a medical use address. But really, one only has to look at the daily parking fiasco experienced at the Avocado medical addresses at Fashion Island, to understand the difference in traffic. Compared to those businesses set up to Page 2 of 2 have but a single group come push paper, talk into plastic, type at terminals, and click mice In fact some of the Planning Commission expressed chagrin that City- listed PA zoning was allowed to go to medical usage anywhere such PA zoning was found in the City. As one of the very- much - connected arguments presented to the Commission, the Specific Plan for Santa Ana Heights does clearly list and allow medical uses for any of the properties in the Birch Street Business Park zonelarea. We have clear use distinctions within the various zoning in the Specific Plan. The dentist is claiming that an extremely limited practice - will be the reality experienced. He verbally promises only himself (3 &112 days a week) and just two other hygenists will be found to be working the condo space he has secured. I'm sorry, its not just why then install 7 chairs in almost 3,000 sq. feet of floor space? But the fact that once a medical use permit was ever granted, he could subsequently ramp up dental patient production - at his whim. The Planning Commission correctly understood that it had to speak to the full potential that is possible with a medical use permitisituation so allowed. Also, I feel the Commission seemed taken aback, or at least I was along with most everyone else in the room, when it was explained to us after the question was asked. That once a medical use application were ever to be granted, it is a land use right that goes with the property - when sold. Granting medical use now, transfers medical use abililty to any new, subsequent owner. Some other kind of doctor could come in, and operate at whatever is the maximum patient ferocity rate possible. As to the existing on -site nonconforming dentist. No one knows how he was allowed to slip though under the radar. But in any case, it doesn't surprise me either. it was, as we have been told, done under the County's watch. As far as I am concerned and simply put, letting the existing dentist set up practice - was the County at some levels, just being County. The left hand doesn't even know that it is a left hand, let alone what the right one is doing. The dentist in there now should not have been allowed. The PAC and SAH community were never informed at any. point or in any manner, as far as I know. But it wouldn't have mattered if we had been. The same medical use now being applied for, is for good and sufficient reason, forbidden. Given a longstanding circumstance, a lack of proper County department funding /manpower is perhaps in play. So maybe I shouldn't be so harsh in my judgement -1 suppose. But I can't help but think that if a meat packing company wanted to set up shop at 2372. The County would have only asked when. But none of this matters. Two wrongs do not make a right. You don't wrongly go about compounding an existing error. I must make mention of the current parking situation, and whether the existing dentist ever got approval from the other office condo owners at this address to restrip the spaces. To increase the number. That parking space makeover fact may actually be known, but I just haven't been Gued in yet. But I can't help but have this feeling that there was never anything done in response to the presently on -site nonconforming coming in. The current dentist applicant'says' he has everyone owning here, on board and allowing him to restrip (meaning twice now ?) the parking lot. So as to crank out yet more spaces to allow for the increased medical use intended. Really? Do we have that in writing by the way? If the City Council reverses the Planning Commission and the dentist eventually gets his way. What does it Portend for the future? 2372 S. Bristol is not the only immediate -to- the - community business address with driveway access onto Spruce and Zenith. Care to speculate on whether we should rename Zenith to, oh say - Guacamole? Oh yes, this could be just the tip of the S. Bristol medical use iceberg. And the zoning transgressions to come, not to mention the one currently being considered, would genuinely upset a whole lot of people in the process. Allowing this dentist to set up his practice here, further degrades the Santa Ana Heights community living experience. It is yet another stress and pressure put upon us - that we do not need. Really do not need. What hurts us here in Santa Ana Heights. Hurts the City of Newport Beach as a whole. Faster than you might know. It is time for the City to start healing wounds. Not open new ones. Thank you for your time and consideration in this disconcerting- to-all matter Greg Carroll Proposed Dental Office for David,F Wilhelm DDS 2382 Bristol Street Newport Beach Aerial'View r r � . 'k, 7--4 Eric .tM4� BRISTOL SPRUCE BUILDING 2372-2382 e W I-A j I Concerns of the Planning Commission and the Santa Ana Heights Advisory Committee 1.The Santa Ana Heights District 7 Specific Plan Professional and Administrative Office District (PA) does not include medical and dental uses because that use is not listed under subsection B1. 2. On -Site Parking Requirements for Medical /Dental Use 3. Increased traffic through the residential area. 4. Traffic Phasing Ordinance 5. The lack of an instrument that demonstrates the agreement of the other 3 other owners of the condominium project to re -strip the parking lot to bring it to code. Municipal Zoning Code 2382 Bristol Street is located within a PA (Professional Administrative) Zone Page 49-51 Specific Plan District Y,7 Santa Ana Heights 20:14.055 Professional and Administrative Office District: SP -7 (PA) A. Purpose and Intent. The PA District is established to provide for the development and maintenance of an optimal environment for moderate intensity professional and administrative office uses . and related uses on sites with large landscaped open spaces and ofl =snect parking facilities. this district is intended to be located on heavily traveled streets or adjacent to commercial or intimtrial districts, and may be used to buffer residential areas. B. Principal Uses Permitted. 1. The following principal uses are permitted subject to the approval of a use permit by the Planning Director per Chapter 20.91: a. Automobile parking lot%per Chapter 20.66 It. Churches, temples, and other places of worship. a Civic and government uses. d. Communication trarmsmitting, reception, or relay facilities. e. Day care nurseries. f Educational institutions serving adults. g. Financial institutions. h. Libraries and mituscums. i. Professional and administrative offices. j. Public /private utility buildings and structures. 2. The following principal uses are permitted subject to the approval of a.use permit by the Planning Conuttission per. per Chapter 20.91: a. Any use which the Planning Commission fimds . consistent with the purpose and intent of this district. E. Prohibited Uses. The following uses are specifically prohibited: 1. Adult entertainment businesses and adult - oriented. businesses. 2. All uses not listed in this Section w permitted. Chapter 20.44,055 Professional and Administrative Office District: SP -7 (PA) A. Purpose and Intent: The PA District is established for the development and maintenance of an optimal environment for moderate intensity professional and administrative office uses and related uses on sites with large landscaped open spaces and off- street parking facilities. This district is intended to be located on heavily traveled streets or adjacent to commercial or industrial districts, and may be used to buffer residential areas. Chapter 20.44.055 Professional and Administrative Office District: SP -7 (PA) B. Principal Uses Permitted 1. (i) Professional and administrative offices In the Planning Commission Staff Report: "The Planning Director concluded that medical or dental office uses are permitted as they fall within the category of professional and administrative offices that are listed as permitted uses subject to a Use Permit from the Zoning Administrator. The Planning Commission Staff contacted the County Planning Department, and "they indicated that medical and dental offices fall within the professional and administrative office use category Despite the forgoing, the Planning Commission interpreted the Zoning Code as excluding a medical /dental office, despite the fact that the zoning code clearly indicates professional usage. When the Planning Staff was asked as to the interpretation of the PA Zone, Patricia Temple responded: "The Newport Beach Zoning Code, while it aloes have a sub- category of medical office in the use classification of professional and business offices, has always- allowed medical offices in every district where professional and business offices are used." "To follow that line of reasoning would mean medical offices are prohibited in every commercial district in the City, other than perhaps some planned communities where they may be called -out separately." "in speaking with the County, if that decision where applied county wide, medical offices would virtually not be allowed in any commercial zone in the County. We didn't think that was a practical intent of those provisions of the Specific Plan." "......... they are considered expressed permitted uses and that would be in retail commercial, administrative /professional commercial, and recreational and marine commercial." In summary, the County Planning Department, the Planning Director for the City of Newport Beach, and the Planning Commission Staff all indicated that medical and dental offices fall within the professional and administrative use category. On -Site Parking Requirements Z 1 S y� iC EXISrPk�6pCI�LG1 l; EXISTING 4pJAGENr 6UItE i ra: use.�W:aa rt. _ \. =_XIe�ING 3.ZFE:EUa: i o � 8 m I e 8Y P EXI :KG VACAVT .1I. r .�: G .. icn e.u.w x.ae . •� Iv:c�>.+c_calcr.c� axrs.c -.+a oII }II 9P cu AVENJE EXISTING SITE PLAN aeJ'LLw, K (m E a� d m 0 u z 999599 C 5 F n N Ex9TN0 9l Puv re vaoasm A -0.2 The Planning Commission Staff Report stated "The project, as proposed, requires a net increase of 3 additional parking spaces which would be an intensification of approximately 7 required parking. .14 percent in the The project includes the re- stripping of spaces and the minor elimination of landscaping to increase the parking lot by 3 spaces. The project therefore meets section 20.62.060 Additionally, we have drawn architectural plans to increase the number of parking spaces voluntarily to 47 parking, spaces, should the City Council deem it necessary. PwOP LINE . HO��'� 8Pw10B AvEN11E Ern PLAN UPGRADE! Seundem. �u♦w. wnuPerrm rnol ruran,m M x�ao.lce oryw�ra XO.maA'A1.AlM mu Na r ♦•vbn, Wlent wa r.♦•aw wwuxc, /4chi[eGte o E =8 m EXIOTM AOJAOENT MITE p Y .� Y!l . iYl+ca n ¢ uuulll z ¢ Ea b J E / STN[. aREE' -EWii 1 q L F 1 E 1 _ 1 1lOGIDFS . /,, /IpfCfOi i OR W�3L SLIM IlMlbl! �m� ods m «1. TVr.irara �oluloMl I A-0.1 ✓ua b•. Ty' :G 11 18 U 30 a 31 3] U 33 U 39 U 36 at 1 ]6 (E- BTQIPE P .x♦•y�.�nxus 8Ya LOT mwx. 1 25 � x 1 E f Ty� 39 N p-A _- OI 23 {i 22 5 I 1 N�YN w � b W PwOP LINE . HO��'� 8Pw10B AvEN11E Ern PLAN UPGRADE! Seundem. �u♦w. wnuPerrm rnol ruran,m M x�ao.lce oryw�ra XO.maA'A1.AlM mu Na r ♦•vbn, Wlent wa r.♦•aw wwuxc, /4chi[eGte o E =8 m EXIOTM AOJAOENT MITE p Y .� Y!l . iYl+ca n ¢ uuulll z ¢ Ea b J E / STN[. aREE' -EWii 1 q L F 1 E 1 _ 1 1lOGIDFS . /,, /IpfCfOi i OR W�3L SLIM IlMlbl! �m� ods m «1. TVr.irara �oluloMl I A-0.1 ✓ua b•. Ty' Increased Traffic Through the Residential Area � if4l , -;LJK� 11-3 AIN t3ay1v - I A 't v if kN � l 2006•Navloq4 eY It As can be seen from the aerial view, increased traffic through the residential area is highly improbable, as the only logical and reasonable entrance and exit for patients is from Bristol to Spruce, and from Spruce to Bristol It is highly improbable for those unfamiliar with the immediate are to navigate through the residential area to enter and exit the site. The Daily Trip Rate The Planning Commission partly based their decision on the daily trip rate for General Office versus Medical /Dental usage, which was given 14 trips vs. 50 trips per 1000 square feet. • 50 t'ri ps /1000 sq . ft x 2600 sq . ft =130 patients per day, or one patient every 3.7 minutes The Daily Trip Rate • The Daily Trip Rate Model is more applicable to a medical /dental complex where there are multiply medical dental uses • This interpretation /model is not applicable to this project site • I see an average of 17 patients per day, or approximately 2 patients per hour. The Daily Use Rate However, the other listed and permitted uses are similar and even higher, for example: • Libraries =46 trips per 1,000 sq. feet • Day Care= 79 trips per 1,000 sq. feet Obviously, a Day Care Nursery which is permitted use per code, would generate substantially more residential traffic /Daily Trip rate than a patient visiting my office twice per year. The Daily Trip Rate We contend that a dental office Daily Trip Rate would be insignificant compared to other permitted uses, and a greater benefit to the residential neighborhood than many of the other permitted uses. (Add the example of a Day Care Nursery) Condominium Owners Agreement to Brin,91the Parking Lot to�Municipal Code Requirements November 10, 2006 From: The Bristol Spruce Owner's Association Owners: Mr. Ed Bourke, Mr_ Walter Hackler, Or. John Chrispins, and Dr. David Wilhelm To Whom It May Concern: The Bristol Spruce Owner's Association, which -is °comprised of the above referenced owners; approves; and agrees to allow David F: Wilhelm DDS to re -strip the parking lot, ,and to do minor landscape alterations per the approval of,the City of Newport Beach,, n order to' bring the parking lot to Municipal Code requirements, It is further that every one of the owners understands and acknowledges that the parking lot is a common parking lot, and be;' use freely by all offices and their clients - �nh (`hcicnaie IIC miner fl> iiH r1f2 nwnor .I:,- p, ,u David F.'Wilhelm D D.S. 10028 Adams'Avenue • Huntington Beach. CA 92646= Pi one: ?14.962:2402, • :Fax 714 96 f °6145 , Therefore, I believe we have met or exceeded the following requirements: The qualifications for a Use Permit • Zoning Compliance • The required number of parking spaces per code • The Traffic Phasing Ordinance /Residential Traffic • Condo Owners Agreement as to Parking Lot Requirements to meet code We refute the argument that this project would be detrimental to the neighborhood because: • It is entirely internal to an existing office building and cannot be visually detrimental It is highly improbable for those unfamiliar with the immediate are to navigate through the residential neighborhood to exit the site. would appreciate your consideration in this matter. Thank you Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public notices by Decrce of the Superior Court of Orange County, California. Number .4 -6214, September 29, 1961, and A -24831 June 11, 1963. R EC F IV C D PROOF OF PUBLICATION `Tl5 DEC 11 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT BEACH - COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following dates: November 18, 2006 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on December 13, 2006 at Costa Mesa, California. r Signature AM 10. 13 NOTICE Of PUBLIC HEARING Planning Directors Use Permit No. 2006 -021 TA2006 -193) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a Use Permit for a medical /dental office use. The pro ect site is located 2342 Bristol Street and is in the Professional and Admin- istrative Office District of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan (SP -7). The request is to al- low the utilization of an approximately 2,625 square foot office area for medical /dental of fice use within an ex fisting 10,500 square foot office building con plea. The project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Envi- ronmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on November 28, 2006, at the hour o1 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Bcu. levard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you chal- lenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing de- scribed in this notice at in written corre- spondence delivered to the City al, or prior to. the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach Published Newport Beach /Costa Mesa Daily' Pilot November 18, 2006, Sa6091