HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 - Newport Beach Brewing CompanyCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item 17
July 10, 2007
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner
(949) 644 -3210, cam pbell(a)city.newport-beach. ca. us
SUBJECT: Newport Beach Brewing Company, Review of Use Permit No. 3485
2920 Newport Boulevard (PA2006 -177)
1. Hold a "de novo" public hearing,
2. Determine whether the Newport Beach Brewing Company is operating a bar in violation of
use permit Conditions #9 and #10.
3. If a violation of Conditions #9 and #10 is determined, modify Use Permit No. 3485 by
adopting the draft attached as resolution Attachment No. 1.
4. If there is no violation of Conditions #9 and #10, modify Use Permit No. 3485 by adopting
the draft attached as resolution Attachment No. 2.
INTRODUCTION
On March 27, 2007, City Council considered the potential modification or revocation of Use
Permit No. 3485. The Council acted to modify the use permit principally by prohibiting the
sale of distilled spirits after 11 PM. After the hearing, it was discovered that the item was not
noticed as a "de novo" hearing and the limitation considered on the sale of distilled spirits
conflicts with the California Constitution and State law. The prior Council report and the
minutes from March 27, 2007 are attached to this report as Attachment No. 3.
The City began reviewing the Newport Beach Brewing Company (NBBC) use permit last year
due to complaints received from "The Cannery Village Concerned," a group of residents,
business owners and property owners. They alleged that NBBC was violating the conditions
of their use permit. A complete discussion of the complaints and issues are contained in the
attached Planning Commission reports (Attachment Nos. 4 & 5). The Planning Commission,
after three meetings, modified the conditions of approval to address the concerns of the
neighborhood (Attachment No. 6). The NBBC voluntarily agreed to the change in conditions,
which included operational and physical improvements. An appeal was filed by The Cannery
Village Concerned contending that the Commission "failed to take responsibility for the
enforcement of the California Coastal Commission permit, and make the restaurant conform
to their use permit as such and not as a bar." (Attachment No. 7)
Newport Beach Brewing Company
July 10, 2007
Page 2 of 10
PUBLIC NOTICE
The Newport Beach Brewing Company and the appellant have been notified of this hearing.
A hearing notice indicating the subject, time, place and location of this "de novo" hearing was
provided in accordance with the Municipal Code. Notice was published in the Daily Pilot,
mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property (excluding abutting roads) and the
site was posted a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing.
DISCUSSION
As noted, the Planning Commission acted to add to and modify the conditions of approval of
Use Permit No. 3485 on January 4, 2007. Despite having grounds for the revocation or
modification of the Use Permit based upon violations of the conditions of approval, no finding
to that effect was made as the NBBC voluntarily agreed to changes in the conditions of
approval to address neighborhood complaints. Bruce Low, who resides at 411 29th Street
adjacent to the Brewing Company's parking lot submitted two letters in support of the appeal
(Attachment Nos. 8 & 9).
Attachment No. 10 contains the provisions of the Municipal Code that establish the legal
standards for the review, modification or revocation of a use permit. In summary, if a use
permit was granted on the basis of erroneous information or if the use operates in a
disorderly manner or in violation of conditions or other laws, the permit could be modified or
revoked. This attachment also contains the specific conditions of approval of this use permit
that were at issue in this matter.
Attachment No. 11 contains a summary of the history of Use Permit No. 3485 and a summary
of the prior proceedings before the Planning Commission and City Council.
The following discussion focuses on the 4 key issues at hand.
1. Does the way the NBBC operate after 11:00 PM constitute a violation of Use
Permit Conditions # 9 and # 10?
In 1993, Use Permit No. 3485 permitted a combination restaurant and brewpub subject to
conditions. The brewery itself was to occupy only 32 percent of the total floor area, its use
was determined to be ancillary to the restaurant, and therefore, it was considered a
permissible use. Condition #10 read as follows: "The operation of the brewery and the
service of alcoholic beverages shall be ancillary to the primary food service operation
of the restaurant." The term ancillary is defined as "a use that a) is clearly incidental to and
customarily found in connection with the principle use; b) is subordinate to and serve the
principle use; c) is subordinate in area, extent, or purpose to the principal use served; d)
contributes to the comfort convenience, or necessity of the operation, employees, or customers
of the principal use served. An ancillary use may be located on a property separate from the
principal use." The definition of an ancillary use was modified in 1997 with the comprehensive
update and reformatting of the Zoning Code; however, it did not amend its meaning.
In 1999, the Use Permit was amended subject to findings and revised conditions of approval
allowing the sale of distilled spirits at the restaurant pursuant to a Type 75 ABC license. The
Newport Beach Brewing Company
July 10, 2007
Page 3 of 10
closing hour on Friday and Saturday nights was also changed from 2:00 AM to 1:00 AM.
Condition #10 above was maintained, but it was renumbered as Condition #9. A new
Condition #10 was applied, which reads as follows: "The approval of this use permit is for
a restaurant/brewpub and shall not be construed as the approval of a bar, cocktail
lounge, or other use serving alcoholic beverages during hours not corresponding to
regular meal service hours (food products sold or served incidentally to the sale or
service of alcoholic beverages shall not be deemed as constituting regular meal
service) nor as the approval of a cabaret, nightclub, or other use with the principal
purpose of providing live entertainment and /or dancing." These two conditions maintain
the principal use as a restaurant and brewpub and not a bar, nightclub or similar use.
A bar is defined by Chapter 20.05 of the Zoning Code as:
"Establishments with the principal purpose to sell or serve alcoholic beverages for
consumption on the premises or any establishment having any of the following
characteristics:
a. Is licensed as a "public premises" by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage
Control.
b. Provides an area for serving alcoholic beverages that is operated during hours not
corresponding to regular meal service hours. Food products sold or served
incidentally to the sale or service of alcoholic beverages shall not be deemed as
constituting regular meal service."
Regular meal service hours are not defined by the City. The State Department of Alcoholic
Beverage Control (ABC) defines regular meal service hours as 6:00 AM - 9:00 AM, 11:00 AM
- 2:00 AM, and 6:00 PM - 9:00 PM. These hours might be used as a guide although the
Council retains the discretion to determine what the term means for the purpose of
implementing the Zoning Code.
NBBC food sales after 11:00 PM are limited. The NBBC General Manager at the May 4, 2006
Planning Commission meeting, stated that the dinner crowd is usually between 7:00 PM
and 9:00 PM with alcohol sales being approximately 90% of sales after 11:00 PM.
Additionally, NBBC General Manager also indicated that the majority of alcohol sales are
distilled spirits. At the March 27, 2007 hearing of the City Council, the NBBC General
Manager again indicated that alcohol sales after 11:00 PM are at least 80% of sales,
although he indicated that it was a guess and not based upon a review of records. Based
upon these representations, it is reasonable to conclude that the use principally serves
alcohol after 11:00 PM and the use could be considered a bar by the definition above after
11:00 PM. The change from restaurant to bar based upon alcohol sales being more than food
sales could actually be happening earlier in the evening at various times or varying days, but
there is no specific evidence in the record to establish a particular time other than 11:00 PM.
In the past, the City has looked at the operating characteristics over all hours /days of
operation to determine the primary use. In this case, the NBBC principally operates a
restaurant during the majority of its operating hours and it operates a bar on Friday and
Saturday evenings after 11:00 PM. Staff would conclude that the use as a whole operates as
Newport Beach Brewing Company
July 10, 2007
Page 4 of 10
primarily as a restaurant and brewpub. As an alternative to the traditional interpretation, the
City Council may find that Condition #10 that prohibits the operation of a bar applies during all
hours. This would mean that the restaurant aspect of the use must be the principal use during
every hour of the day. This interpretation is supported by the administrative record; however,
it should be noted that Use Permit No. 3485 authorized a restaurant and a brewpub. Should
this be the Council's direction, additional restrictions can be considered to require the
restaurant to remain the principal use during all hours. The following three examples can be
considered:
• The kitchen shall remain open for service during all operating hours with a full menu.
• Menus and condiments must remain on the tables.
• Alcohol sales must be less than food sales during all hours of operation.
The first two items were considered and included by the Planning Commission. The
effectiveness of these additional restrictions in achieving the goal of eliminating the bar use is
uncertain. While the availability of a full menu makes it more likely food service will occur
during all hours, it does not require that customers order food. However, if there is no
requirement for providing full menu food service, the likelihood that the primary operation will
be a bar is higher. Requiring alcohol sales to be less than food sales during each hour of
operation will require a certified audit of cash register receipts and any audit will only be as
good as the accuracy of the inputs to the point of sale system. Due to these potential
difficulties in enforcement, it is not a recommended restriction.
A physical change of the floor plan is another method of eliminating the bar use. The physical
bars themselves might be reduced in size in exchange for additional dining tables.
Eliminating the stand up bar opposite the existing main bar or the secondary bar near the
brew kettles might be considered. Again, these changes will not guarantee food sales in
excess of alcohol sales during the late evening and early morning hours as these hours are
not typical meal service hours. If the early morning hours are retained and the primary use
must be a restaurant during those hours and no one orders food, the NBBC would need to
voluntarily regulate sales in order maintain food sales in excess of alcohol sales to maintain
compliance. The City could not condition a limit on alcohol served without food service. When
food service tapers off later in evening, the establishment would need to close to remain in
compliance with conditions.
If the Council feels that operational conditions will not effectively limit alcohol sales to be less
than food sales after 11:00 PM, the only reliable method of eliminating the bar use is to close
the establishment at 11:00 PM. Additionally, staff would recommend the three bulleted items
above; however, the alcohol /food percentage limitation is recommended to be based on
quarterly sales not hour by hour. This action would effectively eliminate the bar use after
11:00 PM and would eliminate the alleged nuisances testified to by the community
attributable to the NBBC even though clear and compelling evidence of direct link between
NBBC patrons and nuisances occurring in the parking lot has not been established, in staffs
opinion (see below).
2. Is the failure to train employees a violation of Condition F?
Newport Beach Brewing Company
July 10, 2007
Page 5 of 10
Condition F requires all owners, managers and employees serving and /or selling alcoholic
beverages to undergo and successfully complete a certified training program in responsible
methods and skills for serving and selling alcoholic beverages. Although the condition
specifically states that compliance is required within 180 days of the 1999 the issuance of the
certificate of occupancy, the intent is clear that anyone serving alcohol must be trained.
Evidence in the record indicates that this training did not occur until September of 2006,
although the general manager testified that training did occur in 1999. Based on the
testimony and other evidence, staff believes a violation of Condition F occurred and was not
remedied until September of 2006. Staff recommends that this condition be modified to read
as follows for clarity:
F. All owners, managers and employees serving and /or selling alcoholic beverages shall
undergo and successfully complete a certified training program in responsible methods
and skills for serving and selling alcoholic beverages. To qualify to meet the
requirements of this section a certified program must meet the standards of the
California Coordinating Council on Responsible Beverage Service or other
certifying /licensing body, which the State may designate. The operator shall provide
proof of successful completion of the training program for all owners, managers and
employees serving and /or selling alcoholic beverages within 30 days of the approval
of this amendment and new employees shall successfully complete the training
within 30 days of initially starting work. The establishment shall ,..,.. Ply With the
requirements of this seGtiap withip. ,Qn days of the issuanGe Of +he Aertifirate of
may.
3. Does the operation of the NBBC constitute a nuisance in violation of Condition D?
Neighbors contend that the Newport Beach Brewing Company is violating its use permit and
that the operators are not sufficiently controlling patron behavior, which creates nuisances
especially during the late evening and early morning hours. The primary complaint from
neighbors is that patrons create noise, carry on loud conversations or on occasion yelling,
cause property damage, fight, urinate, defecate and fornicate during the late evening and
early morning hours, to the detriment of the neighborhood.
On February 10, 2006, Code and Water Quality Enforcement conducted a site visit and the
officer observed that there was a line to get into NBBC and the officer noted that some
individuals were screaming at each other and a high noise level was being emitted from the
premises. This could constitute a violation of Condition D as NBBC staff could have quieted
the line, closed windows or doors if they were open or even reduced occupancy to address
interior noise levels. Testimony from residents at the prior hearings on this issue supports a
conclusion that noise from patron activity outside the establishment has caused nuisances on
other occasions.
Based on testimony of residents and local business owners, the nuisances listed above occur
periodically on and around the NBBC property. However, establishing whether the patrons of
the NBBC are the cause of the nuisance behavior has proven difficult to corroborate as the
City staff visits and investigations, with the exception of the February 10, 2006 investigation
by Code Enforcement, failed to find that there was clear and compelling evidence that the
problems occurring were directly related to NBBC patrons.
Newport Beach Brewing Company
July 10, 2007
Page 6 of 10
Residents have also complained to staff that noise from early morning deliveries, noise from
late night recycling disposal and other waste disposal and the general maintenance of the
trash enclosure area constitute nuisances.
To address the question of nuisances, the NBBC has agreed to make the following physical
and operational changes designed to alleviate the issues:
• Construction of a trash enclosure cover (construction underway).
• Employee training on responsible alcohol sales has been completed.
• Relocation of the entrance from the parking lot side of the building to the Newport
Boulevard entrance when a line of patrons forms to enter the establishment
(completed).
• Retention of condiments and menus on the tables (ongoing).
• Discontinuation of the late night bar menu while keeping the kitchen open at all times
with a full menu (ongoing).
• Installation of signs requesting that patrons be respectful of the neighborhood
(completed).
• Regular security sweeps of the parking lot (ongoing).
• Provision of a security presence at least'/ hour after closing (ongoing).
• Recycling collection program that minimizes noise generation (ongoing).
• Scheduling if maintenance activities outside of sensitive hours (ongoing).
The Planning Commission acted to modify the conditions of approval to incorporate the
physical and operational changes offered by the Newport Beach Brewing Company. The
basis for the change in conditions was the voluntarily acceptance of the changes rather than
documented violations of the conditions of approval.
Staff recommends all of the changes noted in the bulleted list if the Council chooses not to
reduce the permitted hours of operation. If the Council determines that the NBBC is operating
as a bar in violation of Condition #10 and chooses to restrict the hours of operation to 11:00
PM, the provision requiring security would not be necessary. If security is provided, the
Council might consider the posting of a security guard in the parking lot rather than allowing
the current practice of periodic security sweeps as a posted security presence would be more
effective.
4. Has the NBBC violated other laws and regulations?
Staff is not aware of any violation of law or regulation related to the State Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control. The Department conducted an investigation in 2006 and
concluded that no violations were occurring and the investigation was closed.
A violation of Special Condition #1 of Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 5 -93 -137
occurs when the NBBC opens the entire dining room (in excess of 1,500 square feet) on
weekends prior to 5:00 PM. Special Condition #1 states:
'Prior to the issuance of a coastal development permit, the applicant shall execute a deed
restriction, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director, which shall provided
no more than 1,500 square feet of service area for the subject restaurant/brewpub shall be
Newport Beach Brewing Company
July 10, 2007
Page 7 of 10
open before 5:OOPM. This document shall run with the land, binding all successors and
assigns, and shall be recorded free of prior liens."
The deed restriction was recorded against the property. On Sunday October 8, 2006,
Newport Beach Police Detectives visited the NBBC, arriving at about 12:30 PM. They noted
that the restaurant was completely open with patrons occupying tables in all areas with no
sections being closed off. When they arrived, they estimated that the restaurant was 70% full
and when they left at 2:30 PM it was 90% full. Testimony from residents and the applicant at
prior hearings supports the fact that the NBBC has opened the entire restaurant on Saturday
and Sunday for many years. Staff has observed that the NBBC routinely closes one section
of the dining room before 5PM, making it approximately 1,500 square feet in area, during the
week and NBBC opens the entire dining area on Saturday and Sunday before 5:00 PM.
This issue is complicated by the fact that Condition #6 of the Use Permit is in conflict with
Special Condition #1 of the CDP. It should be noted that the peace and quiet of the
neighborhood during the late evening or early morning hours and the question of the principal
use are not directly tied to this issue. The appellant believes that Condition #6 is inaccurate
and inconsistent with Special Condition #1 and should be modified accordingly. Staff concurs.
Condition #6 limits the amount of net public area (1,500 sq. ft.) that can be utilized prior to
5:00 PM, Monday through Friday. This condition was imposed by the City in September of
1993 after the Coastal Commission required the City to rescind its prior approval of the
daytime use of the adjacent City parking lot. The Coastal Commission did not want the
operation of the Brewing Company to impact the parking supply for coastal visitors.
The use of the City parking lot for this establishment originated with the City purchasing the
land for the existing municipal parking lot from the owner of the adjacent parking lot presently
leased to the NBBC. As a condition of the sale to the City, the property owner received the
ability to purchase a maximum of 47 in -lieu parking permits for their use in the City parking
lot; however, the availability of the spaces only extended between the hours of 5:00 PM and
6:00 AM daily. The stated reason for this limitation was to avoid reducing the availability of
parking to the public as parking during the daytime hours are in higher demand to visitors.
Since the NBBC use permit application required more parking than the leased lot provided
and the effect of this shortfall was the reduced dining area commensurate with actual parking
provided based upon the required parking ratios for restaurants before 5:00 PM, the property
owner requested an amendment to the original agreement to allow the daytime use of the
City lot. If approved, a larger dining area during the day could be permitted. The City Council
approved the request in March of 1993. When the Coastal Commission required this action to
be rescinded later that year in exchange for project approval, the property owner was forced
to bring the matter back to the City Council.
In September of 1993, the City Council rescinded its prior action to modify the terms of the
purchase agreement allowing daytime use of the City parking lot. This action disallowed any
use of the City parking lot prior to 5:00 PM daily. Concurrent with this action, the City Council
modified the conditions of the use permit for the purpose of making them consistent with the
conditions applied by the Coastal Commission through the CDP. However, Condition #6
contained provisions allowing the NBBC's use of the City parking lot prior to 5:00 PM on the
weekends inconsistent with Special Condition #1 and the Council's own action to rescind its
Newport Beach Brewing Company
July 10, 2007
Page 8 of 10
prior approval to allow the daytime use of the City parking lot. All other changes necessary to
comply with the action of the CCC were made. Pursuant to a separate condition of the CDP
requesting that the City enforce Special Condition #1, James Hewicker, the Planning Director
sent a letter to the Coastal Commission indicating that the City would enforce Condition #6,.
not recognizing that an error was made.
In a letter dated May 9, 2007, Coastal Commission Staff Analyst Meg Vaughn indicates that
Special Condition #1 applies daily and she goes on to indicate the intent behind the condition
as being to minimize conflicts of the use of the abutting public parking lot (Within Attachment
#10). Ms. Vaughn was the staff analyst who worked on the NBBC coastal development
permit application in 1993. In conclusion, it is reasonable to conclude that Condition #6 is
incorrect and staff recommends a change to this condition as follows:
6. The net public area of the restaurant/brewpub, which is devoted to daytime use
Monday through Friday prior to 5:00 PM.) shall be limited to 1,500 square feet daily.
The balance of the net public area shall be physically closed off to the public by a fixed
barrier and shall not be used until after 5:00 PM daily.
The revision to Condition #6 corrects the error, is consistent with the Council's action to
rescind the amendment of the approval for the daytime use of the City parking lot and it is
consistent with Special Condition #1 of the CDP. Lastly, the record reflects that the NBBC
and the property owner have previously agreed to this provision as they have accepted
Special Condition #1.
SUMMARY
Staff does not believe the NBBC is in violation of Condition D regarding NBBC's responsibility
to correct objectionable patron behavior. It is staffs belief that the late night and early
morning problems in the area are attributable to the concentration of late night eating and
drinking establishments in the area, the service of alcohol and the availability of public
parking adjacent to the Brewing Company. Although the Brewing Company contributes to this
neighborhood problem, testimony from the community and the City's own investigative efforts
did not provide a clear connection between the nuisance incidents and the NBBC.
Additionally, the NBBC has relocated the line to the front of the building and enhanced their
security to address the complaints of alleged violation. Furthermore, staff does not believe
that the NBBC misrepresented their application in the past as they operate a restaurant with
an extensive menu and they operate a brewpub and the full menu is available during all
hours of operation.
The NBBC may not be in compliance with the following conditions and the revocation or
modification of the use permit on this basis would be appropriate. However, City Council
interpretation of the following conditions may be the basis for determining that the NBBC is
operating in compliance with the use permit and in that case, modification of the conditions
may be appropriate to eliminate conflicting interpretations.
1. Condition #9 with alcohol sales dominating food sales after 11:00 PM. The operator
contends that when alcohol sales are considered over all operating hours, food sales
Newport Beach Brewing Company
July 10, 2007
Page 9 of 10
exceed alcohol sales. The City's past practice has been to consider all operating hours
when applying conditions similar to this one.
2. Condition #10 if the operation is determined to be a bar after 11:00 PM. It should be noted
that the use permit authorizes a brewpub in addition to the restaurant. The NBBC
represented both uses in 1993 with the primary use being a restaurant. In 1999, when the
amendment to the use permit was approved, the NBBC again represented that the
primary use would be a restaurant and the addition of distilled spirits would be a
convenience to patrons and they would not operate a bar. If the Council determines that
the primary use must be a restaurant during all hours of operation, the NBBC is in
violation of Condition #10. If the Council views the operation after 11:OOPM as part of the
permitted brewpub function and finds it secondary to the restaurant that operates during
the majority of the hours, no violation of Condition #10 exists.
3. Condition F: The NBBC violated this condition in the past regarding responsible alcohol
sales training and they are currently in compliance.
Violations of the conditions of approval are sufficient grounds to modify or revoke the use
permit. Depending upon how the Council interprets the conditions, violation of Conditions #9
and #10 may exist. There is no violation of Condition #6 although staff believes the condition
to be inconsistent with past Council action and the condition should be modified. There is an
ongoing violation of the Special Condition #1 of the Coastal Development Permit and this
violation can be used as the grounds for modification or revocation of the use permit.
If the Council finds that violations of Conditions #9 & 10 are present, the draft resolution
attached as Attachment No. 1 should be considered. In summary, it would change the
closing hour to 11:00 PM daily, requires food service during all hours, requires food sales to
exceed alcohol sales based upon a quarterly basis, amends Condition #6 to be consistent
with the Coastal Development Permit and does not include provisions for added security as it
would not likely be necessary with an earlier closing time.
If the Council finds that no violations of Conditions #9 & 10 are occurring, the draft resolution
in Attachment No. 2 should be considered. This resolution incorporates the changes to the
conditions of approval as approved by the Planning Commission with the correction to
Condition #6 as noted.
Prepared by:
James Campbell, Senior Planner
Submitted by:
WCAVkA FOA
vid Lepo, Planning Director
ATTACHMENTS
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10
11
12
Newport Beach Brewing Company
July 10, 2007
Page 10 of 10
Draft Council resolution modifying Use Permit No. 3485
Draft Council resolution modifying Use Permit No. 3485
Staff report and minutes from March 27, 2007 City Council hearing
Staff report and minutes from August 17, 2006 Planning Commission hearing
Staff report and minutes from January 4, 2007 Planning Commission hearing
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1709
Appeal dated January 12, 2007
Letter from Bruce Low dated February 28, 2007
Letter from Bruce Low dated March 2, 2007
Relevant legal standards
Background of Use Permit No. 3485 and summary of proceedings
Additional materials submitted to the Planning Commission & City Council for
consideration
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE OF INTENT TO REVOKE OR MODIFY AND /OR
ADD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT NO.
3485 (PA2006 -177) AT A PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY
COUNCIL ARISING FROM AN APPEAL OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSIONS DECISION TO MODIFY AND
ADD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR USE PERMIT NO.
3485 ON JANUARY 4, 2007
Newport Beach Brewing Company
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Newport Beach Planning Director has determined
that there are reasonable grounds to revoke or modify and /or add conditions of approval
of Use Permit No. 3485 (PA2006 -177). This determination was made pursuant to Section
20.96.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and it is based upon potential violations
of the conditions approval, potential violations of the operational character approved by
the Use Permit and nuisance complaints received from neighbors of the business.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council for the City of Newport Beach will hold
a de novo public hearing for the purpose of reviewing Use Permit No. 3485 and the
potential revocation of Use Permit 3485 or modification of and /or addition to the
conditions of approval of Use Permit 3485. The hearing will be de novo public hearing
and stems from an appeal filed by the Cannery Village Concerned which appealed the
January 4, 2007 decision of the Planning Commission to add to and modify the conditions
of approval of Use Permit No. 3485. The Newport Beach Brewing Company is located at
the southeast corner of the intersection of Newport Boulevard and 30"' Street at 2920
Newport Boulevard in the Cannery Village area.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the review of this Use Permit and potential actions
relate thereto are not defined as a "project" pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act, and therefore actions taken are not subject to environmental review.
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on July 10,
2007, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers (Building A) at 3300 Newport
Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons
interested in the matter may appear and be heard. 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 -3232.
4,,&6d 4/ol
a�
LaVonne Harkless,City Clerk,
City of Newport Beach
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE OF INTENT TO REVOKE OR MODIFY AND /OR
ADD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT NO.
3485 (PA2006 -177) AT A PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY
COUNCIL ARISING FROM AN APPEAL OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSIONS DECISION TO MODIFY AND
ADD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR USE PERMIT NO.
3485 ON JANUARY 4, 2007
Newport Beach Brewing Company
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Newport Beach Planning Director has determined
that there are reasonable grounds to revoke or modify and /or add conditions of approval
of Use Permit No. 3485 (PA2006 -177). This determination was made pursuant to Section
20.96.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and it is based upon potential violations
of the conditions approval, potential violations of the operational character approved by
the Use Permit and nuisance complaints received from neighbors of the business.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council for the City of Newport Beach will hold
a de novo public hearing for the purpose of reviewing Use Permit No. 3485 and the
potential revocation of Use Permit 3485 or modification of and /or addition to the
conditions of approval of Use Permit 3485. The hearing will be de novo public hearing
and stems from an appeal filed by the Cannery Village Concerned which appealed the
January 4, 2007 decision of the Planning Commission to add to and modify the conditions
of approval of Use Permit No. 3485. The Newport Beach Brewing Company is located at
the southeast comer of the intersection of Newport Boulevard and 30"' Street at 2920
Newport Boulevard in the Cannery Village area.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the review of this Use Permit and potential actions
relate thereto are not defined as a "project" pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act, and therefore actions taken are not subject to environmental review.
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on July 10,
2007, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers (Building A) at 3300 Newport
Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons
interested in the matter may appear and be heard. 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) 6443232.
d /y /•
LaVonne Harkless,City Clerk,
City of Newport Beach
Hw�+og1 Office of the City Clerk
CITY HALL
` 3300 Newport Blvd.
''�F�» "` Newport Beach, CA 92663 -3884
IMPORTANT
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Jam and Smudge Free Printing www.averycom ® AVERY® 51600
Use Avery® TEMPLATE 51600 �� �0 1- 800-60 -AVERY S
MICHAEL J JR BURNS
216 -1/2 30TH ST
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
FRANCES A BURY
106 VIA UNDINE
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
MICHAEL T & ROSEMARY K CARSON MERIAM CASE
3424 VIA OPORTO #204 423 31ST ST
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
THOMAS & JOAN DIXON ROBERT D FAINBARG
428 31ST ST 14041 LIVINGSTON ST
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 TUSTIN, CA 92780
MARK S FAULCONER JOEL F FEITLER
411 30TH ST 407 30TH ST #A
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
SUZANNE J FINAMORE DAVID FORTINI
419 31 ST ST #A 222 30TH ST
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
GREG & DEBORAH V GRISAMORE DAVID L HAMMOND
412 31 ST ST 10 CALLE CABRILLO
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 FOOTHILL RANCH, CA 92610
WILLIAM R HANSEN RAYMOND HAWS
2745 GLENDOWER AVE 223 CASTELLANA N
LOS ANGELES, CA 90027 PALM DESERT, CA 92260
KATSUMI IMOTO THOMAS E KEEFER
552 JADE TREE DR 433 OGLE CIR
MONTEREY PARK, CA 91754 COSTA MESA, CA 92627
MARY LEE
219 29TH ST
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
FRANK C MARSHALL RONALD J MILLAR
PO BOX 540 PO BOX 1162
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659
®09L5 @AUBAV Q Aaanv- 09.009 -L
worAJane-A Me
DINO & ARDENIA CAPANNELLI
430 31 ST ST
NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92663
BRYAN M CHONG
131 PECAN LN
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708
ARNOLD FEUERSTEIN
129 W WILSON ST #100
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
JENNY M GILCHRIST
410 31 ST ST #A
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
ROBERT SCOTT HUSBANDS
1173 IRVINE BLVD
TUSTIN, CA 92780
CYNTHIA KLANIAN
PO BOX 8092
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
BRUCE J LOW
411 29TH ST
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
THERESA CAGNEY MORRISON
23 CORPORATE PLAZA DR #205
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
@09LS 3uege6 al zasnan
apldea a6eya" @ za a6eunogpue uolsseidwl
Jam and Smudge Free Printing www.averycom
Use Avery® TEMPLATE 51600 3re(-ls 0-)43 1-800 -GO -AVERY
29 STREET LLC PARTNERS MINER
429 30TH ST 365 VIA LIDO SOLID
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORP
12501 IMPERIAL HWY #550
NORWALK, CA 90650
BARRY FAMILY INC HAMPSHIRE PROPERTIES LLC
605 VIA LIDO SOLID 417 31 ST ST
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
214 30TH ST LLC THIRTY FIRST STREET LLC
4750 VON KARMAN AVE 415 30TH ST
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
PORT PROPERTIES INC BATLEY FAMILY TRUST
PO BOX 485 PO BOX 15845
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92652 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659
MARVIN P ADLER RENE ANDRE BARGE
30123 SKIPPERS WAY DR 408 31ST ST
CANYON LAKE, CA 92587 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
THOMAS BLUROCK FINE ARTS BUCK
401 30TH ST 25200 LA PAZ RD #201
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653
A113A"9.0084
®09LS ®AU3A%f worArane• MM
sAVERY® si6o®
PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS LLC
415 29TH ST
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
JACKSON /JACKSON 420 LLC
51031 ST ST #A
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
GLASSMAN
215 30TH ST
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
POLIQUIN FAMILY LTD
18951 NEWTON AVE
SANTA ANA, CA 92705
214 30TH ST LLC
214 30TH ST #A
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
PORT PROPERTIES INC
PO BOX 485
LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92652
SALVO DESIGN GROUP INC
2817 NEWPORT BLVD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
HOSMAN PROPERTIES
129 W WILSON ST #100
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
RENE A BARGE
408 31 ST ST
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
OWLS UJege6 al zeslign
apldea a6e439s a ze a6e unogllue uoissaidwi
lam and Smudge Free Printing
Use Avery® TEMPLATE 51600
THERESA CAGNEY MORRISON
23 CORPORATE PLAZA DR #205
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
VALERIE V H NGUYEN
2822 NEWPORT BLVD #B
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
SAMMI A NIELSEN
220 30TH ST
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
BRIAN WESLEY RAY
425 30TH ST #10
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
MARY A ROUSE
522 SEAWARD RD
CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625
FUNDING SOUTHERN
419 30TH ST
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
KEVIN D WEEDA
427 30TH ST
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
MARY H WILLIAMSON
426 31 ST ST
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
®09LS ®AU3AV Q
www.avery.com AVERY® 51600
1- 800-60 -AVERY
THERESA CAGNEY MORRISON RESIDENCE NEWPORT
23 CORPORATE PLAZA DR #205 2824 NEWPORT BLVD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
STEVEN C NICHOLSON STACY NIELSEN
419 EL MODENA AVE 220 1/2 30TH ST
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
BHUPESH PARIKH JAKS P PHILLIPS
427 W COLORADO ST #201 1345 POTTER BLVD
GLENDALE, CA 91204 BAY SHORE, NY 11706
SCOTT L ROTH KENNETH & MARY ROUSE
217 29TH ST 522 SEAWARD RD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625
LAWRENCE C SCHNACK JON A SHEPARDSON
3404 BRANDYWINE ST PO BOX 2971
SAN DIEGO, CA 92117 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659
V C INTER VIVOS TAORMINA MARY ANNE TURLEY -EMETT
PO BOX 485 25 BAY IS
CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
JOHN L WESTREM DREW M WETHERHOLT
1006 E BALBOA BLVD 217 30TH ST
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
A113AV-O9.0084 � @09 LS Wege6 al zosIIRf1
wortianewuw m apidea a6e43" @ 40 a6ejmogpue uolssaidmi
Draft Council resolution modifying Use Permit No. 3485
BLANK
1 -7
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH MODIFYING THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF USE
PERMIT NO. 3485 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2920 NEWPORT
BOULEVARD (PA2006 -177).
WHEREAS, on September 27, 1993, the City approved Use Permit No. 3485
subject to findings and conditions of approval authorizing a restaurant/brewpub with a
Type 23 Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license to operate at 2920 Newport
Boulevard within the Cannery Village area subject to findings and twenty -nine (29)
conditions of approval. A Type 23 license allows a small beer manufacturer (brewpub or
micro - brewery) where a brewpub is typically a small brewery with a restaurant. The
restaurant and brewpub began operations in 1994 using the business name of Newport
Beach Brewing Company referred to hereto as "NBBC" after the issuance of Coastal
Development Permit (CDP) No. 5 -93 -137 issued by the California Coastal Commission
(CCC).
WHEREAS, the NBBC represented to the City that the primary use would be a
restaurant and that the brewery and alcohol sales would be secondary to the primary
use. This fact is supported by the administrative record from the hearings conducted by
the City in 1993. Condition No. 10 was imposed requiring the operation of the brewery
and the service of alcoholic beverages to be ancillary to the primary food service
operation of the restaurant.
WHEREAS, on September 27, 1993, the City Council rescinded its March 8,
1993 approval to allow the purchase and use of in -lieu parking spaces within the
Cannery Village municipal parking lot prior to 5:00 PM in association with Use Permit
No. 3485.
WHEREAS, in 1999, the NBBC requested and received approval of an
amendment to Use Permit No. 3485. The amendment allowed the restaurant and
brewpub to operate with a Type 75 ABC license and the amendment was subject to
findings and additional and revised conditions of approval (twenty -nine [29] in total). A
Type 75 license authorizes the sale of beer, wine and distilled sprits at a bona fide
eating place plus the brewing of beer.
WHEREAS, the NBBC represented to the City that the primary use would be a
restaurant and that the brewery and alcohol sales would compliment and be secondary
to the primary use. This fact is supported by the administrative record from the
proceedings conducted in 1999. Condition No. 9 was imposed requiring the operation of
the brewery and the service of alcoholic beverages to be ancillary to the primary food
service operation of the restaurant. Condition No. 10 was imposed that provides, 'The
approval of this use permit is for a restaurant/brewpub and shall not be construed as the
approval of a bar, cocktail lounge, or other use serving alcoholic beverages during
hours not corresponding to regular meal service hours (food products sold or served
incidentally to the sale or service of alcoholic beverages shall not be deemed as
1-3
Resolution No.
Page 2 of 16
constituting regular meal service) nor as the approval of a cabaret, nightclub, or other
use with the principal purpose of providing live entertainment and /or dancing."
Additionally, the closing hour on Friday and Saturday nights was changed from 2:00 AM
to 1:00 AM.
WHEREAS, in January of 2006, the City received a complaint from The Cannery
Village Concerned, a local group of residents, property owners and business owners,
alleging that the Newport Beach Brewing Company was violating the conditions of Use
Permit No. 3485. Alleged violations included, among other things: operating a bar rather
than a restaurant in violation of Condition No. 10; alcohol sales in excess of food sales
in violation of Condition No. 9; opening the entire dining area on weekends before 513M
in violation of Coastal Development Permit No. 5 -93 -137, trash in the parking lot in
violation of Standard Condition E; failure of the establishment to curb unruly patron
behavior outside the establishment in violation of Standard Condition D; and inadequate
training of the owner and employees in responsible methods and skills for serving and
selling alcoholic beverages in accordance with Standard Condition F. Neighbors
contend that patrons create noise, fight, cause property damage, urinate, defecate, and
fornicate during the late evening and early morning hours on and in the vicinity of the
project site and that the operator was unable or unwilling to discourage or correct these
objectionable conditions. Based upon the complaints received, Use Permit No. 3485
was referred to the Planning Commission on May 4, 2006, for review.
WHEREAS, on May 4, 2006, the Planning Commission discussed the operation,
took input from the neighborhood and directed an official review of the Use Permit. At
the May 4, 2006, meeting, testimony was given to the Planning Commission supporting
the following facts:
a) Jerry Kolbly, General Manager, NBBC represented that the establishment's
emphasis was on being a restaurant. He also noted that the kitchen is opened
during the hours of alcohol service with the late night menu (pizzas and
appetizers) from 10:00 PM to closing. In addition, Mr. Kolbly noted that "service
from 11:00 pm and 1 am is about 90% alcohol (55% liquor and 45% beer and
wine) and 10% food. (See, Planning Commission Minutes dated May 4, 2006).
Operation of the brewery and the service of alcoholic beverages shall be ancillary
to the primary food service operation of the restaurant pursuant to Condition #9
and this testimony would support a finding of a violation. Condition #10 prohibits
a bar and based upon these representations, staff believes that the limited menu
after 10:00 PM and relationship between the sale of alcohol to food violated both
Condition Nos. 9 and 10.
b) Jerry Kolbly also testified that his staff had received certified alcohol training in
1999, but due to staff turnover, the training had since lapsed. (See, Planning
Commission Minutes dated August 17, 2006). No record of completion of a
certified alcohol sales training course is in evidence as required pursuant to
Condition F. Failure to properly train the owners and staff who serve alcohol in
accordance with Condition F would constitute a violation of the condition. On
September 6, 2006, the majority of NBBC staff successfully complete the State
Department of Alcohol Control Board administered License Education on Alcohol
/ -V
Resolution No.
Page 3 of 16
and Drugs (L.E.A.D.) training program. If this course had been completed by all
staff members, NBBC would have been in compliance with Condition F that
requires training of owners, staff and employees on responsible alcohol sales.
They may have previously been in violation of this condition, if there were
employees serving and /or selling alcoholic beverages who had not undergone a
certified training program. All employees have since received the LEAD training
and the NBBC is believed to be in compliance with Condition F.
c) Bruce Low, a 29th Street resident, testified for a group of concerned citizens,
noting that:
i) They do not wish to close the Brewery as it brings value to the neighborhood
provided it is operated in accordance with the conditions of approval.
ii) There is a discrepancy between the Use Permit conditions and the condition
of the Coastal Development Permit related to the size of the dining room on
the weekends.
iii) The Brewery turns into an obtrusive bar operation after 10:30 PM and they
have bouncers, what restaurant has bouncers?
iv) The operators have made strides but the more serious issues still remain
nuisances to the neighborhood as outlined in the January 2006.
d) Joe Reese, 30th Street resident, testified that patrons have to show their
identification to get into the establishment. It is not a restaurant, not with
bouncers and serving only appetizers after 10:00 p.m. This operation between
10:00 PM and 1:00 AM is nothing more than a bar. This area is out of control
and he is disturbed by the noise in the early mornings.
e) Drew Wetherhault, 30th Street resident, testified that he supported the prior
speakers and he stated that the restaurants and bars need to comply with their
use permits.
f) Carrie Stade, 29th Street resident, testified she has been awakened with noise
and victimized by patrons.
g) Stephanie Rosanelli, resident of Cannery Village, noted the noise at night and
that she cannot leave her windows open. She too has had her home vandalized
by tagging.
h) Christine Andros, 30th Street resident, testified the challenges are the noise and
patron activities (nuisances) in the parking lot. This establishment operates as a
bar. She has spoken to the bar operator on several occasions to inform him of
disturbances in his parking lot.
i) Tony Shepherdson, 31st Street resident, testified his agreement with previous
speakers and stated any help would be welcomed.
j) Kevin Weeda, the owner of a business located in the area, testified his
agreement with the previous speakers and asked that this item be brought back
for formal review.
1-5-
Resolution No.
Page 4 of 16
k) The net public area of the establishment is no more than 1500 square feet
Monday through Friday before 5:00 PM and the net public area exceeds 1500
square feet before 5:00 PM on Saturday and Sunday in violation of Special
Condition No. of Coastal Development Permit No. 5 -93 -137.
1) The site was found to be generally free of litter and not in violation of Standard
Condition E.
At the conclusion of the discussion, the Planning Commission determined that there
was sufficient information to indicate that the use was operating in violation of the
conditions of approval and in a manner that may have been detrimental to the
reasonable peace and quiet of the neighborhood. The Commission also found that there
was sufficient information to consider potentially modifying the conditions of approval to
alleviate the problems reported by neighbors. The Commission requested and the
Planning Director determined pursuant to Section 20.96.040 of the Municipal Code that
a review of Use Permit No. 3485 was required.
WHEREAS, On August 17, 2006, the Planning Commission held a public
hearing regarding the alleged violations of and potential modifications to the conditions
of approval of Use Permit No. 3485. The hearing was noticed in accordance with
Chapter 20.92 of the Municipal Code and the operator of the Newport Beach Brewing
Company was also mailed a notice of the hearing. The following facts were considered
by the Planning Commission:
a) A Code and Water Quality Enforcement Officer conducted a site visit on
February 10, 2006. It was a Friday night, and the officer noted that there was in
fact a line to get into NBBC and the officer noted that some individuals were
screaming at each other and a high noise level was being emitted from the
premises. This would constitute a violation of the nuisance provision in Condition
D. (Planning Commission Minutes dated August 17, 2006).
b) At the Planning Commission Meeting, Mr. Kolbly, the General Manager of NBBC,
acknowledged that the line to get into the establishment could reach up to thirty
people. Additionally, John Dale, a patron of NBBC noted that the establishment
"does a great job with security at the door." (Planning Commission Minutes
dated August 17, 2006).
c) At the Planning Commission meeting, Jill Markowitz, owner of a property near
NBBC contended that individuals were urinating in public (she did not specify that
the individuals came directly from NBBC). She also complained that, in general,
there were loud noises coming from the establishment and the parking lot. (See,
Planning Commission Minutes dated August 17, 2006). The noises /disturbances
would be in violation of the nuisance provision in Condition D.
d) Billy Steed testified that the establishment is nice until after 9:00 p.m. when it can
get out of control. Noise, public urination and fights coming out of the bar disturb
the peace. (See, Planning Commission Minutes dated August 17, 2006). The
noises /disturbances would be in violation of the nuisance provision in Condition
D.
/-4
Resolution No.
Page 5 of 16
e) Joe Reese testified at the meeting that he had visited NBBC after 9:00 PM on
August 5, 2005 to see how the NBBC operated. He testified that the security
guard at the door said that after 9:00 PM the restaurant becomes a bar and that
no one under 21 is allowed in or they would lose their liquor license. The
restaurant had patrons standing and loud music was playing. We sat at a table
and asked the waiter for food who told us the kitchen was closed and the only
thing to order was drinks. There were no chips, pretzels or popcorn being
served. There were three security guards inside the restaurant and another one
was outside. It was obvious that this was acting as a bar, not a restaurant.
Conversely, there was testimony given by Zach Stevens, a NBBC employee, on
duty that night noting that waiters are told to push food even past 11:00 PM to
increase sales and that the kitchen was open as evidenced by the sale of a '/
chicken salad at midnight. (Planning Commission Minutes dated August 17,
2006). Closing the kitchen thereby eliminating food sales with the continued
sales of alcohol would constitute a violation of Condition #9 as the sale of alcohol
would exceed that of food and a violation of Condition #10 by operating a
prohibited bar.
f) Robby Hogan, a manager in charge of the kitchen at the establishment, testified
that he was on duty the night of August 5, 2005 and the kitchen was open and is
always open until the establishment closes (Planning Commission Minutes dated
August 17, 2006).
g) Roberta Aley, resident, testified that she frequents the brewery and that she
always has been able to get food after 12:00 PM and that she has not seen any
of these problems after 12:00 PM that have been portrayed by previous
speakers. (Planning Commission Minutes dated August 17, 2006).
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission directed staff to set Use
Permit No. 3485 for possible modification and /or revocation given that the NBBC had
not addressed issues of nuisance and strict compliance with all conditions of approval.
WHEREAS, on or about August 21, 2006, Newport Beach Police informed
planning staff that the owners, staff and employees had successfully completed the
L.E.A.D. training classes administered by the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage
Control as required by Condition F. A violation of Condition F had occurred prior to
successful completion of the training curriculum.
WHEREAS, Condition #6 of Use Permit No. 3485 states: `The net public area of
the restaurant/brewpub, which is devoted to daytime use Monday through Friday (prior
to 5:00 PM.) shall be limited to 1,500 square feet. The balance of the net public area
shall be physically closed off to the public by a fixed barrier and shall not be used until
after 5:00 PM daily."
WHEREAS, Special Condition #1 of Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 5-
93 -137 states: "Prior to the issuance of a coastal development permit, the applicant
shall execute a deed restriction, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive
Director, which shall provided no more than 1,500 square feet of service area for the
subject restaurant/brewpub shall be open before 5:OOPM. This document shall run with
1-7
Resolution No.
Page 6 of 16
the land, binding all successors and assigns, and shall be recorded free of prior liens."
On January 19, 1994, the property owner recorded a deed restriction pursuant to
Special Condition #1 that restricts the use of the property in accordance with Special
Condition #1.
WHEREAS, on Sunday October 8, 2006, Newport Beach Police Detectives
visited the NBBC, arriving at about 12:30 PM. They noted that the restaurant was
completely open with patrons occupying tables in all areas with no sections being
closed off. NBBC has admitted during the various public hearings that the NBBC does
not limit the size of the dining room on weekends before 5:00 PM.
WHEREAS, on January 4, 2007, the Planning Commission held a noticed public
hearing on the possible modification of conditions and /or revocation of Use Permit No.
3485. Testimony and a staff report, including a report prepared by the Newport Beach
Police Department, were considered by the Planning Commission:
a) The Newport Beach Police Department investigation did not reveal any violations
of conditions or a significant law enforcement issue with the operation of the
NBBC. The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control was contacted and they
reported that the Department did conduct an investigation that was closed due to
a lack of evidence of a violation of license conditions.
b) All NBBC had successfully completed the L.E.A.D. training classes administered
by the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control abating past violation of
Condition F.
c) The NBBC staff voluntarily offered the following physical and operational
changes for consideration as amended conditions of approval:
i) Construction of a trash enclosure cover.
ii) Relocation the entrance from the parking lot side of the building to the
Newport Boulevard entrance when a line of patrons forms to enter the
establishment.
iii) Discontinuation of the removal of condiments and menus from the tables.
iv) Discontinuation of the late night bar menu while keeping the kitchen open at
all times with a full menu.
v) Installation of signs requesting that patrons be respectful of the neighborhood.
vi) Initiation of regular security sweeps of the parking lot.
vii) Maintenance of a security presence at least ' /z hour after closing.
viii)Implementation of a recycling collection program that minimizes noise
generation.
ix) Scheduling building /business maintenance (waste disposal, deliveries, etc.)
activities during hours less objectionable to nearby residents.
d) Jerry Kolbly, General Manager of the Newport Beach Brewing Company, testified
that the queue line location change has worked well. Instituting the full menu in
the late evening and early morning has been advantageous from a business
perspective. The LEAD training program has been a valuable experience they
/_g
Resolution No.
Page 7 of 16
have undertaken. Every brewpub cards after 10:00 PM in order to protect their
licenses and other restaurants do the same. The Brewing Company maintains a
higher percentage of food sales than alcohol sales and have since day one.
e) Drew Wetherhault, a local resident, testified that there is a parking problem
before 5:00 PM on the weekends. He also indicated his belief that the
establishment operates as a bar after 9:00 PM due to high alcohol sales. He
noted his desire to see a reduction in the hours of operation on Friday and
Saturday having them shut down at 11:00 PM like other restaurants to address
nuisances. He also noted that the neighborhood is impacted by after hours
activities in the parking lots south of the Brewery and not all of them are
attributable to the Brewing Company's patrons.
f) Joe Reese, local resident, testified that it is his belief that there is no doubt that
the use was intended to be a restaurant and not a bar as alcohol was conditioned
to be ancillary to food service. The Brewing Company has security guards at the
doors and bouncers inside, it is a bar atmosphere. Every weekend he is
awakened by people leaving the drinking establishments.
g) Billy Staid, local resident, testified that in spite of the recent operational changes
instituted by the Brewing Company, there are still problems with the operation
principally with patron activity in the parking lot. He asked if the entrance could
be moved to the Newport Boulevard side of the building during the week after
9:00 PM.
h) Stephanie Rosanelli, local resident, testified that noise is a problem and
suggested that a restaurant would be a better business value.
At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
No. 1709 amending Use Permit No. 3485 by modifying the conditions of approval to
clarify the meaning of the conditions principally recognizing that a brewpub was
originally authorized and that there was no violation of Condition No. 10 and to include
the physical and operational changes offered by the NBBC.
WHEREAS, the grounds for the modification or revocation of a use permit are
established by Condition K of the Use Permit No. 3485, Section 20.89.060.0 and
Section 20.96.040 of the Municipal Code, which provide:
a) Condition K states that, "The Planning Commission may add to or modify
conditions of approval to this use permit upon a determination that this use
permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals,
comfort, or general welfare of the community."
b) Section 20.89.060(C) provides that, 'The Planning Commission, or the Planning
Director, as the case may be, may revoke a use permit for an alcoholic beverage
outlet upon making one or more of the following findings:
1. That the permit was issued on the basis of erroneous or misleading
information or misrepresentation.
/ —1
Resolution No.
Page 8 of 16
2. That the terms or conditions of approval of the permit have been violated or
that other laws or regulations have been violated.
3. The establishment for which the permit was issued is being operated in an
illegal or disorderly manner.
4. Noise from the establishment for which the permit was issued violates the
Community Noise Control Ordinance (Chapter 10.26 of the Municipal Code).
5. The business or establishment for which the permit was issued has had or is
having an adverse impact on the health, safety or welfare of the
neighborhood or the general public.
6. There is a violation of or failure to maintain a valid ABC license.
7. The business or establishment fails to fully comply with all the rules,
regulations and orders of the California State Department of Alcoholic
Beverage Control."
c) Section 20.96.040 of the Municipal Code provides that, "The Planning Director
has the duty to schedule a discretionary permit for a noticed public hearing to
consider its possible revocation provided there are reasonable grounds to do so.
The body conducting the hearing shall revoke the permit upon making one or
more of the following findings:
1. That the permit was issued on the basis of erroneous or misleading
information or misrepresentation;
2. That the terms or conditions of approval of the permit have been violated or
that other laws or regulations have been violated.
3. That there has been a discontinuance of the exercise or the entitlement
granted by the permit for 180 consecutive days."
WHEREAS, decisions of the Planning Commission under Section 20.89.060 may
be appealed to the City Council pursuant to Section 20.89.070 and decisions of the
Planning Commission under Section 20.96.040 may be appealed to the City Council
pursuant to Section 20.96.040(H) and Chapter 20.95 of the Municipal Code.
WHEREAS, on January 12, 2007, The Cannery Village Concerned filed an
appeal of the Planning Commission's action in accordance with Chapter 20.95
(Appeals) of the Municipal Code.
WHEREAS, on March 27, 2007, the City Council held a public hearing on the
appeal and the possible modification of conditions and /or revocation of Use Permit No.
3485; however, the hearing was not properly noticed in accordance with the Municipal
Code. The following information was presented and considered by the City Council:
a) Bruce Low, local resident and representative of The Cannery Village Concerned,
testified to his belief that the NBBC was violating Conditions #9 and #10 as
Resolution No.
Page 9 of 16
evidenced by the high alcohol sales admitted by the NBBC. He also testified to
his belief that the Condition #6 was not properly modified in September of 1993
to be consistent with Coastal Commission conditions.
b) Kevin Weeda, a resident and business owner operating a business on 30th
Street, said the group of concerned residents did not want to drive away the
business, merely have the applicant comply with the use permit. Most problems
occur late at night and he believed the business should be limited to an 11:00 PM
closing.
c) Jerry Kolbly, co- owner, Newport Beach Brewing Company, spoke about his
establishment and the fact that it had maintained the same social atmosphere for
the past 12 years. He has attempted to work with adjacent neighbors and staff to
resolve the issues. There is a security guard stationed at the rear door and
patrons enter and exit only via Newport Boulevard on Friday and Saturday nights
after 10:00 PM as a way to address resident concerns. He testified that the
quarterly sales of food are 52% and 48% alcohol. He indicated that in the past,
the kitchen was closed and that he has now opened the kitchen during all hours
to boost food sales. He also testified that there has been no significant
operational change in the business since it first opened. Mr. Kolbly confirmed his
earlier statements to the Planning Commission that nearly 90% of sales past
11:00 PM are alcohol; however, it was a guess and it may be approximately
80 %; clearly more than food.
d) Billy Steed, Cannery Loft owner, adjacent to the Brewery, said he has observed
all types of nuisances in the Brewery parking lot and his belief that the NBBC has
offered no solutions and it ignores complaints.
e) Stephanie Roselli, Cannery Village resident, testified to the NBBC's parking lot
being noisy.
f) Joe Reese testified that he believed the intent of the 1993 and 1999 use permit
approvals were clear in that this establishment was to be a restaurant and not a
bar. He was personally carded and denied food after 10:00 PM one evening in
2005 and he has observed individuals standing around drinking after 10:00 PM
with no food service. He expressed his belief that this indicates that the NBBC is
a bar and not a restaurant in violation of conditions. He asked for enforcement of
the use permit.
g) Kristen Andros testified that it is her belief that the use operates as a restaurant
until 11:00 p.m. and thereafter it operates as a bar as evidenced by a queuing
line and carding.
h) There was conflicting testimony as to whether the nuisance incidents within the
NBBC parking lot are attributable to patrons of the NBBC.
The Council acted to modify the conditions of approval; however, the action was not
implemented with the .adoption of a written resolution in the light of the fact that
inadequate notice of the hearing was provided.
/ -!/
Resolution No.
Page 10 of 16
WHEREAS, on July 10, 2007, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing
regarding the potential modification or revocation of Use Permit No. 3485. The hearing
was noticed as a "de novo" hearing and the subject, time, place and date of the hearing
included in the notice. The notice was published, mailed and posted a minimum of 10
days in advance of the hearing in accordance with the applicable requirements of the
Municipal Code. Evidence both written and oral was presented to and considered by the
City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as follows:
Section 1. The Recitals above are hereby declared to be true, accurate, and correct
Section 2. The City Council hereby finds that the Administrative Record which was
considered by the City Council in adopting this Resolution consists, without limitation, of all
documents, correspondence, testimony, photographs, and other information presented or
provided to the Planning Director, Planning Commission, City Council and City including,
without limitation, testimony received at City Council and Planning Commission
meetings, staff reports, agendas, notices, meeting minutes, police reports,
correspondence, and all other information provided to the City and retained in the files
of the City, its staff and attorneys, and such is hereby incorporated by reference into the
Administrative Record and is available upon request ( "Administrative Record ").
Section 3. The City Council finds that notice of this hearing was provided in
conformance with California law and the Municipal Code of the City of Newport Beach.
Section 4. The City Council finds as follows
A. There is no clear and compelling evidence to support a conclusion that the NBBC is
violating Condition D. The NBBC has increased security and relocated the line to
enter the establishment.
B. Condition No. 9 requires that the operation of the brewery and the service of
alcoholic beverages shall be ancillary to the primary food service operation of the
restaurant. An ancillary use is a "use that is clearly incidental to and customarily
found in connection with the principal use; is subordinate to and serves the principal
use; is subordinate in area, extent, or purpose to the principal use served;
contributes to the comfort convenience, or necessity of the operation, employees, or
customers of the principal use served..." Based on evidence in the Administrative
Record, the City Council finds that the that the Newport Beach Brewing Company is
violating and /or has violated the Condition No. 9, because the operation of the
brewery and the service of alcoholic beverages after 11:OOPM is not ancillary to the
primary food service operation of the restaurant. The operator of the Newport
Brewing company has testified that alcohol sales exceed food sales most of the time
in the late evening and early morning hours and that alcohol sales are approximately
1 -1Z
Resolution No.
Page 11 of 16
90% of sales after 11:00 PM. This high percentage of alcohol sales does not
constitute ancillary alcohol sales to food sales and violates Condition No. 9.
C. Condition #10 prohibits the operation of a bar, cocktail lounge, nightclub or other use
serving alcoholic beverages during hours not corresponding to regular meal service
hours. Given the description of a bar use contained within Section 20.05.050.K.7 of
the Municipal Code, and the fact that after 11:00 PM, alcohol sales are
approximately 90% of total sales, the principal activity is the sale of alcoholic
beverages and is therefore a bar in violation of Condition #10.
D. The City is not aware of any violation of law or regulation related to the State
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. The Department conducted an
investigation in 2006 and concluded that no violations were occurring and the
investigation was closed.
E. Special Condition #1 states: 'Prior to the issuance of a coastal development permit,
the applicant shall execute a deed restriction, in a form and content acceptable to
the Executive Director, which shall provided no more than 1,500 square feet of
service area for the subject restaurant/brewpub shall be open before 5:OOPM. This
document shall run with the land, binding all successors and assigns, and shall be
recorded free of prior liens." The property owner recorded the deed restriction that
includes the daytime limitation on service area and it is a binding restriction on the
NBBC. A violation of Special Condition #1 of Coastal Development Permit (CDP)
No. 5 -93 -137 occurs when the NBBC opens the entire dining room (in excess of
1,500 square feet) on weekends prior to 5:00 PM. On Sunday October 8, 2006,
Newport Beach Police Detectives visited the NBBC, arriving at about 12:30 PM.
They noted that the restaurant was completely open with patrons occupying tables in
all areas with no sections being closed off.
F. Condition #6 is in conflict with Special Condition #1 and it is inconsistent with the
September 27, 1993, action of the City Council to rescind the approval authorizing
the use of in -lieu parking spaces in the Cannery Village public parking lot prior to
5:00 PM.
Section 5. The City Council finds that pursuant to Condition K of the Use Permit No.
3485, Section 20.89.060.0 and Section 20.96.040 of the Municipal Code, the
Administrative Record, the findings stated above, sufficient grounds exist to modify and
add to the conditions of approval for Use Permit No. 3485.
Section 6. City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby approve an
amendment and modification of Use Permit No. 3485 as set forth in as Exhibit "A ".
l -J3
Resolution No.
Page 12 of 16
Section 7. 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 July 10,
2007 by the following vote to wit:
AYES, COUNCIL MEM
NOES, COUNCIL MEM
ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBER
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
/ - /I
Resolution No.
Page 13 of 16
Exhibit A
Use Permit No. 3485
CONDITIONS:
1. The proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the
approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below.
2. That a covenant or other suitable, legally binding agreement shall be recorded
against the off -site parking lot assuring that all of the requirements of Section
20.63.080 (1) of the Municipal Code, will be met by the current and future
property owners. Said covenant or agreement may include provisions for its
future termination at such time as the development on the building site is
removed or at such time as the floor area devoted to the restaurant/brewpub
reverts back to a base FAR use.
3. The applicant shall provide a minimum of one parking space for each 50 square
feet of net public area before 5:00 p.m. and one parking space for each 40
square feet of net public area after 5:00 p.m. in conjunction with the
restaurant/brewpub.
4. An amended off -site parking agreement approved by the City Council shall be
maintained, guaranteeing that a minimum of 41 parking spaces shall be provided
on property located on Lots 18 -21 and portions of Lots 17 and 22, Block 230,
Lancaster's Addition, for the duration of the existing and proposed uses located
on Parcel 1, Parcel Map 92 -40 (Resubdivision No. 527).
5. The property owner shall pay for 29 in -lieu parking spaces in the Cannery
Village Municipal Parking Lot on an annual basis for the nighttime operation
(after 5:00 p.m.) of the restaurant/brewpub use as agreed upon by the Sales
Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and the property owner.
6. The net public area of the restaurant/brewpub, which is devoted to daytime use
prior to 5:00 p.m. shall be limited to 1,500 square feet daily. The balance of the
net public area shall be physically closed off to the public by a fixed barrier and
shall not be used until after 5:00 p.m. daily.
7. The hours of operation for the restaurant/brewpub shall be limited to the hours
between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. daily.
8. All employees shall park either in the privately owned off -site parking area or in
one of the municipal parking lots in the area.
9. The operation of the brewery and the service of alcoholic beverages shall be
ancillary to the primary food service operation of the restaurant during all hours of
operation (e.g. the brewery and the service of alcoholic beverages may not be
conducted without the concurrent operation of the restaurant during all hours
Resolution No.
Page 14 of 16
the use is open for business). The gross sales of alcoholic beverages, on an
hourly basis, shall not exceed the gross sales of food during the same period.
The operator shall at all times maintain records which reflect separately the
gross sales of food and the gross sales of alcoholic beverages and the time of
the transaction. Said records shall be maintained and made available to the
Planning Director upon request.
10. The approval of this use permit is for a restaurant/brewpub and shall not be
construed as the approval of a bar, cocktail lounge, or other use serving alcoholic
beverages during hours not corresponding to regular meal service hours (food
products sold or served incidentally to the sale or service of alcoholic beverages
shall not be deemed as constituting regular meal service) nor as the approval of
a cabaret, nightclub, or other use with the principal purpose of providing live
entertainment and /or dancing. The kitchen shall remain open for the service of
meals ordered by patrons and a full menu shall be provided at all times that the
business is open. Menus and condiments shall be available at the tables at all
times.
11. No outdoor loudspeakers or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction
with the proposed location.
12. A washout area for refuse containers shall be provided in such a way as to
allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm
drains, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department.
13. Kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the
satisfaction of the Building Department.
14. All mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from surrounding
public streets and alleys and adjoining properties. The existing trash enclosure
shall be covered and the doors or gates to the enclosure shall be modified to be
self - closing and self - locking for security.
15. Deleted
16. Should prerecorded music be played within the restaurant facility, such music
shall be confined to the interior of the building, and all doors and windows shall
be kept closed while such music is played.
17. A special events permit is required for any event or promotional activity outside
the normal operational characteristics of this restaurant business that would
attract large crowds, involve the sale of alcoholic beverages, include any form
of on -site media broadcast, or any other activities as specified in the Newport
Beach Municipal Code to require such permits.
18. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any
future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by
either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing company.
A — UV
Resolution No.
Page 15 of 16
19. The parking lot entrance to the building shall not be used as an entrance or exit
(except in the case of an emergency) after 9:00 PM daily.
20. The operator shall discourage loitering on site at all times the establishment is
open or employees or owners are present.
21. The operator shall conspicuously post and maintain signs indicating to patrons
to be courteous to residential neighbors while outside the establishment.
23. Deliveries and exterior property maintenance activities shall not be conducted
between 8PM and 8AM daily.
24. The use shall maintain a Type 23 or a Type 75 license to sell alcoholic
beverages from the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. No other
license type shall be permitted without review and approval by the Planning
Commission.
25. Live entertainment and dancing shall be prohibited without an amendment to
this Use Permit and a Live Entertainment Permit and /or a Cafe Dance permit
issued by the City Manager's Office.
STANDARD CITY REQUIREMENTS:
A. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards,
unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval.
B. Signs and displays shall not obstruct the sales counter, cash register, seller and
customer from view from the exterior.
C. Loitering, open container, and other signs specified by the Alcoholic Beverage
Control Act shall be posted as required by the ABC.
D. The applicant shall take reasonable steps to discourage and correct
objectionable conditions that constitute a nuisance in parking areas, sidewalks,
alleys and areas surrounding the alcoholic beverage outlet and adjacent
properties must be taken during business hours if directly related to the patrons
of the subject alcoholic beverage outlet.
E. The exterior of the alcoholic beverage outlet shall be maintained free of litter
and graffiti at all times. The owner or operator shall provide for daily removal of
trash, litter debris and graffiti from the premises and on all abutting sidewalks
within 20 feet of the premises.
F. All owners, managers and employees serving and /or selling alcoholic
beverages shall undergo and successfully complete a certified training program
in responsible methods and skills for serving and selling alcoholic beverages.
To qualify to meet the requirements of this section a certified program must
meet the standards of the California Coordinating Council on Responsible
Resolution No.
Page 16 of 16
Beverage Service or other certifying /licensing body, which the State may
designate. The operator shall provide proof of completion for all owners,
managers and employees within 30 days of the approval of this amendment
and new employees shall successfully complete the training within 30 days of
initially starting work.
G. The project shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 14.30 of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code for commercial kitchen grease disposal.
H. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.67 of the Municipal
Code.
I. This Use Permit for an alcoholic beverage outlet granted in accordance with the
terms of this chapter shall expire within 12 months from the date of approval
unless a license has been issued or transferred by the California State
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control prior to the expiration date.
J. Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to issuance of any
building permits.
K.
The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this
nination that this Use Permit causes injury, or is
safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of
r -113
Attachment No. 2
Draft Council resolution modifying Use Permit No. 3485
Z-/
all -PA
m
211-
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH MODIFYING THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF USE
PERMIT NO. 3485 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2920 NEWPORT
BOULEVARD (PA2006 -177).
WHEREAS, on September 27, 1993, the City approved Use Permit No. 3485
subject to findings and conditions of approval authorizing a restaurant/brewpub with a
Type 23 Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license to operate at 2920 Newport
Boulevard within the Cannery Village area subject to findings and twenty -nine (29)
conditions of approval. A Type 23 license allows a small beer manufacturer (brewpub or
micro - brewery) where a brewpub is typically a small brewery with a restaurant. The
restaurant and brewpub began operations in 1994 using the business name of Newport
Beach Brewing Company referred to hereto as "NBBC" after the issuance of Coastal
Development Permit (CDP) No. 5 -93 -137 issued by the California Coastal Commission
(CCC).
WHEREAS, the NBBC represented to the City that the primary use would be a
restaurant and that the brewery and alcohol sales would be secondary to the primary
use. This fact is supported by the administrative record from the hearings conducted by
the City in 1993. Condition No. 10 was imposed requiring the operation of the brewery
and the service of alcoholic beverages to be ancillary to the primary food service
operation of the restaurant.
WHEREAS, on September 27, 1993, the City Council rescinded its March 8,
1993 approval to allow the purchase and use of in -lieu parking spaces within the
Cannery Village municipal parking lot prior to 5:00 PM in association with Use Permit
No. 3485.
WHEREAS, in 1999, the NBBC requested and received approval of an
amendment to Use Permit No. 3485. The amendment allowed the restaurant and
brewpub to operate with a Type 75 ABC license and the amendment was subject to
findings and additional and revised conditions of approval (twenty -nine [29] in total). A
Type 75 license authorizes the sale of beer, wine and distilled sprits at a bona fide
eating place plus the brewing of beer.
WHEREAS, the NBBC represented to the City that the primary use would be a
restaurant and that the brewery and alcohol sales would compliment and be secondary
to the primary use. This fact is supported by the administrative record from the
proceedings conducted in 1999. Condition No. 9 was imposed requiring the operation of
the brewery and the service of alcoholic beverages to be ancillary to the primary food
service operation of the restaurant. Condition No. 10 was imposed that provides, "The
approval of this use permit is for a restaurant/brewpub and shall not be construed as the
approval of a bar, cocktail lounge, or other use serving alcoholic beverages during
hours not corresponding to regular meal service hours (food products sold or served
incidentally to the sale or service of alcoholic beverages shall not be deemed as
2.3
Resolution No.
Page 2 of 16
constituting regular meal service) nor as the approval of a cabaret, nightclub, or other
use with the principal purpose of providing live entertainment and /or dancing."
Additionally, the closing hour on Friday and Saturday nights was changed from 2:00 AM
to 1:00 AM.
WHEREAS, in January of 2006, the City received a complaint from The Cannery
Village Concerned, a local group of residents, property owners and business owners,
alleging that the Newport Beach Brewing Company was violating the conditions of Use
Permit No. 3485. Alleged violations included, among other things: operating a bar rather
than a restaurant in violation of Condition No. 10; alcohol sales in excess of food sales
in violation of Condition No. 9; opening the entire dining area on weekends before 5PM
in violation of Coastal Development Permit No. 5 -93 -137, trash in the parking lot in
violation of Standard Condition E; failure of the establishment to curb unruly patron
behavior outside the establishment in violation of Standard Condition D; and inadequate
training of the owner and employees in responsible methods and skills for serving and
selling alcoholic beverages in accordance with Standard Condition F. Neighbors
contend that patrons create noise, fight, cause property damage, urinate, defecate, and
fornicate during the late evening and early morning hours on and in the vicinity of the
project site and that the operator was unable or unwilling to discourage or correct these
objectionable conditions. Based upon the complaints received, Use Permit No. 3485
was referred to the Planning Commission on May 4, 2006, for review.
WHEREAS, on May 4, 2006, the Planning Commission discussed the operation,
took input from the neighborhood and directed an official review of the Use Permit. At
the May 4, 2006, meeting, testimony was given to the Planning Commission supporting
the following facts:
a) Jerry Kolbly, General Manager, NBBC represented that the establishment's
emphasis was on being a restaurant. He also noted that the kitchen is opened
during the hours of alcohol service with the late night menu (pizzas and
appetizers) from 10:00 PM to closing. In addition, Mr. Kolbly noted that "service
from 11:00 pm and 1 am is about 90% alcohol (55% liquor and 45% beer and
wine) and 10% food. (See, Planning Commission Minutes dated May 4, 2006).
Operation of the brewery and the service of alcoholic beverages shall be ancillary
to the primary food service operation of the restaurant pursuant to Condition #9
and this testimony would support a finding of a violation. Condition #10 prohibits
a bar and based upon these representations, staff believes that the limited menu
after 10:00 PM and relationship between the sale of alcohol to food violated both
Condition Nos. 9 and 10.
b) Jerry Kolbly also testified that his staff had received certified alcohol training in
1999, but due to staff turnover, the training had since lapsed. (See, Planning
Commission Minutes dated August 17, 2006). No record of completion of a
certified alcohol sales training course is in evidence required pursuant to
Condition F. Failure to properly train the owners and staff who serve alcohol in
accordance with Condition F would constitute a violation of the condition. On
September 6, 2006, the majority of NBBC staff successfully complete the State
Department of Alcohol Control Board administered License Education on Alcohol
2.Y
Resolution No.
Page 3 of 16
and Drugs (L.E.A.D.) training program. If this course had been completed by all
staff members, NBBC would have been in compliance with Condition F that
requires training of owners, staff and employees on responsible alcohol sales.
They may have previously been in violation of this condition, if there were
employees serving and /or selling alcoholic beverages who had not undergone a
certified training program. All employees have since received the LEAD training
and the NBBC is believed to be in compliance with Condition F.
c) Bruce Low, a 29th Street resident, testified for a group of concerned citizens,
noting that:
i) They do not wish to close the Brewery as it brings value to the neighborhood
provided it is operated in accordance with the conditions of approval.
ii) There is a discrepancy between the Use Permit conditions and the condition
of the Coastal Development Permit related to the size of the dining room on
the weekends.
iii) The Brewery turns into an obtrusive bar operation after 10:30 PM and they
have bouncers, what restaurant has bouncers?
iv) The operators have made strides but the more serious issues still remain
nuisances to the neighborhood as outlined in the January 2006.
d) Joe Reese, 30th Street resident, testified that patrons have to show their
identification to get into the establishment. It is not a restaurant, not with
bouncers and serving only appetizers after 10:00 p.m. This operation between
10:00 PM and 1:00 AM is nothing more than a bar. This area is out of control
and he is disturbed by the noise in the early mornings.
e) Drew Wetherhault, 30th Street resident, testified that he supported the prior
speakers and he stated that the restaurants and bars need to comply with their
use permits.
f) Carrie Stade, 29th Street resident, testified she has been awakened with noise
and victimized by patrons.
g) Stephanie Rosanelli, resident of Cannery Village, noted the noise at night and
that she cannot leave her windows open. She too has had her home vandalized
by tagging.
h) Christine Andros, 30th Street resident, testified the challenges are the noise and
patron activities (nuisances) in the parking lot. This establishment operates as a
bar. She has spoken to the bar operator on several occasions to inform him of
disturbances in his parking lot.
i) Tony Shepherdson, 31st Street resident, testified his agreement with previous
speakers and stated any help would be welcomed.
j) Kevin Weeda, the owner of a business located in the area, testified his
agreement with the previous speakers and asked that this item be brought back
for formal review.
Z.
Resolution No.
Page 4 of 16
k) The net public area of the establishment is no more than 1500 square feet
Monday through Friday before 5:00 PM and the net public area exceeds 1500
square feet before 5:00 PM on Saturday and Sunday in violation of Special
Condition No. of Coastal Development Permit No. 5 -93 -137.
1) The site was found to be generally free of litter and not in violation of Standard
Condition E.
At the conclusion of the discussion, the Planning Commission determined that there
was sufficient information to indicate that the use was operating in violation of the
conditions of approval and in a manner that may have been detrimental to the
reasonable peace and quiet of the neighborhood. The Commission also found that there
was sufficient information to consider potentially modifying the conditions of approval to
alleviate the problems reported by neighbors. The Commission requested and the
Planning Director determined pursuant to Section 20.96.040 of the Municipal Code that
a review of Use Permit No. 3485 was required.
WHEREAS, On August 17, 2006, the Planning Commission held a public
hearing regarding the alleged violations of and potential modifications to the conditions
of approval of Use Permit No. 3485. The hearing was noticed in accordance with
Chapter 20.92 of the Municipal Code and the operator of the Newport Beach Brewing
Company was also mailed a notice of the hearing. The following facts were considered
by the Planning Commission:
a) A Code and Water Quality Enforcement Officer conducted a site visit on
February 10, 2006. It was a Friday night, and the officer noted that there was in
fact a line to get into NBBC and the officer noted that some individuals were
screaming at each other and a high noise level was being emitted from the
premises. This would constitute a violation of the nuisance provision in Condition
D. (Planning Commission Minutes dated August 17, 2006).
b) At the Planning Commission Meeting, Mr. Kolbly, the General Manager of NBBC,
acknowledged that the line to get into the establishment could reach up to thirty
people. Additionally, John Dale, a patron of NBBC noted that the establishment
"does a great job with security at the door." (See, Planning Commission Minutes
dated August 17, 2006).
c) At the Planning Commission meeting, Jill Markowitz, owner of a property near
NBBC contended that individuals were urinating in public (she did not specify that
the individuals came directly from NBBC). She also complained that, in general,
there were loud noises coming from the establishment and the parking lot.
(Planning Commission Minutes dated August 17, 2006). The noises /disturbances
would be in violation of the nuisance provision in Condition D.
d) Billy Steed testified that the establishment is nice until after 9:00 p.m. when it can
get out of control. Noise, public urination and fights coming out of the bar disturb
the peace. (See, Planning Commission Minutes dated August 17, 2006). The
noises /disturbances would be in violation of the nuisance provision in Condition
D.
Resolution No.
Page 5 of 16
e) Joe Reese testified at the meeting that he had visited NBBC after 9:00 PM on
August 5, 2005 to see how the NBBC operated. He testified that the security
guard at the door said that after 9:00 PM the restaurant becomes a bar and that
no one under 21 is allowed in or they would lose their liquor license. The
restaurant had patrons standing and loud music was playing. We sat at a table
and asked the waiter for food who told us the kitchen was closed and the only
thing to order was drinks. There were no chips, pretzels or popcorn being
served. There were three security guards inside the restaurant and another one
was outside. It was obvious that this was acting as a bar, not a restaurant.
Conversely, there was testimony given by Zach Stevens, a NBBC employee, on
duty that night noting that waiters are told to push food even past 11:00 PM to
increase sales and that the kitchen was open as evidenced by the sale of a '/2
chicken salad at midnight. (Planning Commission Minutes dated August 17,
2006). Closing the kitchen thereby eliminating food sales with the continued
sales of alcohol would constitute a violation of Condition #9 as the sale of alcohol
would exceed that of food and a violation of Condition #10 by operating a
prohibited bar.
f) Robby Hogan, a manager in charge of the kitchen at the establishment, testified
that he was on duty the night of August 5, 2005 and the kitchen was open and is
always open until the establishment closes (Planning Commission Minutes dated
August 17, 2006).
g) Roberta Aley, resident, testified that she frequents the brewery and that she
always has been able to get food after 12:00 PM and that she has not seen any
of these problems after 12:00 PM that have been portrayed by previous
speakers. (Planning Commission Minutes dated August 17, 2006).
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission directed staff to set Use
Permit No. 3485 for possible modification and /or revocation given that the NBBC had
not addressed issues of nuisance and strict compliance with all conditions of approval.
WHEREAS, on or about August 21, 2006, Newport Beach Police informed
planning staff that the owners, staff and employees had successfully completed the
L.E.A.D. training classes administered by the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage
Control as required by Condition F. A violation of Condition F had occurred prior to
successful completion of the training curriculum.
WHEREAS, Condition #6 of Use Permit No. 3485 states: 'The net public area of
the restaurant/brewpub, which is devoted to daytime use Monday through Friday (prior
to 5:00 PM.) shall be limited to 1,500 square feet. The balance of the net public area
shall be physically closed off to the public by a fixed barrier and shall not be used until
after 5:00 PM daily."
WHEREAS, Special Condition #1 of Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 5-
93 -137 states: 'Prior to the issuance of a coastal development permit, the applicant
shall execute a deed restriction, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive
Director, which shall provided no more than 1,500 square feet of service area for the
subject restaurant/brewpub shall be open before 5:00PM. This document shall run with
WN
Resolution No.
Page 6 of 16
the land, binding all successors and assigns, and shall be recorded free of prior liens."
On January 19, 1994, the property owner recorded a deed restriction pursuant to
Special Condition #1 that restricts the use of the property in accordance with Special
Condition #1.
WHEREAS, on Sunday October 8, 2006, Newport Beach Police Detectives
visited the NBBC, arriving at about 12:30 PM. They noted that the restaurant was
completely open with patrons occupying tables in all areas with no sections being
closed off. NBBC has admitted during the various public hearings that the NBBC does
not limit the size of the dining room on weekends before 5:00 PM.
WHEREAS, on January 4, 2007, the Planning Commission held a noticed public
hearing on the possible modification of conditions and /or revocation of Use Permit No.
3485. Testimony and a staff report, including a report prepared by the Newport Beach
Police Department, were considered by the Planning Commission:
a) The Newport Beach Police Department investigation did not reveal any violations
of conditions or a significant law enforcement issue with the operation of the
NBBC. The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control was contacted and they
reported that the Department did conduct an investigation that was closed due to
a lack of evidence of a violation of license conditions.
b) All NBBC had successfully completed the L.E.A.D. training classes administered
by the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control abating past violation of
Condition F.
c) The NBBC staff voluntarily offered the following physical and operational
changes for consideration as amended conditions of approval:
i) Construction of a trash enclosure cover.
ii) Relocation the entrance from the parking lot side of the building to the
Newport Boulevard entrance when a line of patrons forms to enter the
establishment.
iii) Discontinuation of the removal of condiments and menus from the tables.
iv) Discontinuation of the late night bar menu while keeping the kitchen open at
all times with a full menu.
v) Installation of signs requesting that patrons be respectful of the neighborhood.
vi) Initiation of regular security sweeps of the parking lot.
vii) Maintenance of a security presence at least ' /z hour after closing.
viii) Implementation of a recycling collection program that minimizes noise
generation.
ix) Scheduling building /business maintenance (waste disposal, deliveries, etc.)
activities during hours less objectionable to nearby residents.
d) Jerry Kolbly, General Manager of the Newport Beach Brewing Company, testified
that the queue line location change has worked well. Instituting the full menu in
the late evening and early morning has been advantageous from a business
perspective. The LEAD training program has been a valuable experience they
Z. �
Resolution No.
Page 7 of 16
have undertaken. Every brewpub cards after 10:00 PM in order to protect their
licenses and other restaurants do the same. The Brewing Company maintains a
higher percentage of food sales than alcohol sales and have since day one.
e) Drew Wetherhault, a local resident, testified that there is a parking problem
before 5:00 PM on the weekends. He also indicated his belief that the
establishment operates as a bar after 9:00 PM due to high alcohol sales. He
noted his desire to see a reduction in the hours of operation on Friday and
Saturday having them shut down at 11:00 PM like other restaurants to address
nuisances. He also noted that the neighborhood is impacted by after hours
activities in the parking lots south of the Brewery and not all of them are
attributable to the Brewing Company's patrons.
f) Joe Reese, local resident, testified that it is his belief that there is no doubt that
the use was intended to be a restaurant and not a bar as alcohol was conditioned
to be ancillary to food service. The Brewing Company has security guards at the
doors and bouncers inside, it is a bar atmosphere. Every weekend he is
awakened by people leaving the drinking establishments.
g) Billy Staid, local resident, testified that in spite of the recent operational changes
instituted by the Brewing Company, there are still problems with the operation
principally with patron activity in the parking lot. He asked if the entrance could
be moved to the Newport Boulevard side of the building during the week after
9:00 PM.
h) Stephanie Rosanelli, local resident, testified that noise is a problem and
suggested that a restaurant would be a better business value.
At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
No. 1709 amending Use Permit No. 3485 by modifying the conditions of approval to
clarify the meaning of the conditions principally recognizing that a brewpub was
originally authorized and that there was no violation of Condition No. 10 and to include
the physical and operational changes offered by the NBBC.
WHEREAS, the grounds for the modification or revocation of a use permit are
established by Condition K of the Use Permit No. 3485, Section 20.89.060.0 and
Section 20.96.040 of the Municipal Code, which provide:
a) Condition K states that, "The Planning Commission may add to or modify
conditions of approval to this use permit upon a determination that this use
permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals,
comfort, or general welfare of the community."
b) Section 20.89.060(C) provides that, "The Planning Commission, or the Planning
Director, as the case may be, may revoke a use permit for an alcoholic beverage
outlet upon making one or more of the following findings:
1. That the permit was issued on the basis of erroneous or misleading
information or misrepresentation.
2. `f
Resolution No.
Page 8 of 16
2. That the terms or conditions of approval of the permit have been violated or
that other laws or regulations have been violated.
3. The establishment for which the permit was issued is being operated in an
illegal or disorderly manner.
4. Noise from the establishment for which the permit was issued violates the
Community Noise Control Ordinance (Chapter 10.26 of the Municipal Code).
5. The business or establishment for which the permit was issued has had or is
having an adverse impact on the health, safety or welfare of the
neighborhood or the general public.
6. There is a violation of or failure to maintain a valid ABC license.
7. The business or establishment fails to fully comply with all the rules,
regulations and orders of the California State Department of Alcoholic
Beverage Control."
c) Section 20.96.040 of the Municipal Code provides that, "The Planning Director
has the duty to schedule a discretionary permit for a noticed public hearing to
consider its possible revocation provided there are reasonable grounds to do so.
The body conducting the hearing shall revoke the permit upon making one or
more of the following findings:
1. That the permit was issued on the basis of erroneous or misleading
information or misrepresentation;
2. That the terms or conditions of approval of the permit have been violated or
that other laws or regulations have been violated.
3. That there has been a discontinuance of the exercise or the entitlement
granted by the permit for 180 consecutive days."
WHEREAS, decisions of the Planning Commission under Section 20.89.060 may
be appealed to the City Council pursuant to Section 20.89.070 and decisions of the
Planning Commission under Section 20.96.040 may be appealed to the City Council
pursuant to Section 20.96.040(H) and Chapter 20.95 of the Municipal Code.
WHEREAS, on January 12, 2007, The Cannery Village Concerned filed an
appeal of the Planning Commission's action in accordance with Chapter 20.95
(Appeals) of the Municipal Code.
WHEREAS, on March 27, 2007, the City Council held a public hearing on the
appeal and the possible modification of conditions and /or revocation of Use Permit No.
3485; however, the hearing was not properly noticed in accordance with the Municipal
Code. The following information was presented and considered by the City Council:
a) Bruce Low, local resident and representative of The Cannery Village Concerned,
testified to his belief that the NBBC was violating Conditions #9 and #10 as
2.11?
Resolution No.
Page 9 of 16
evidenced by the high alcohol sales admitted by the NBBC. He also testified to
his belief that the Condition #6 was not properly modified in September of 1993
to be consistentwith Coastal Commission conditions.
b) Kevin Weeda, a resident and business owner operating a business on 30th
Street, said the group of concerned residents did not want to drive away the
business, merely have the applicant comply with the use permit. Most problems
occur late at night and he believed the business should be limited to an 11:00 PM
closing.
c) Jerry Kolbly, co- owner, Newport Beach Brewing Company, spoke about his
establishment and the fact that it had maintained the same social atmosphere for
the past 12 years. He has attempted to work with adjacent neighbors and staff to
resolve the issues. There is a security guard stationed at the rear door and
patrons enter and exit only via Newport Boulevard on Friday and Saturday nights
after 10:00 PM as a way to address resident concerns. He testified that the
quarterly sales of food are 52% and 48% alcohol. He indicated that in the past,
the kitchen was closed and that he has now opened the kitchen during all hours
to boost food sales. He also testified that there has been no significant
operational change in the business since it first opened. Mr. Kolbly confirmed his
earlier statements to the Planning Commission that nearly 90% of sales past
11:00 PM are alcohol; however, it was a guess and it may be approximately
80 %; clearly more than food.
d) Billy Steed, Cannery Loft owner, adjacent to the Brewery, said he has observed
all types of nuisances in the Brewery parking lot and his belief that the NBBC has
offered no solutions and it ignores complaints.
e) Stephanie Roselli, Cannery Village resident, testified to the NBBC's parking lot
being noisy.
f) Joe Reese testified that he believed the intent of the 1993 and 1999 use permit
approvals were clear in that this establishment was to be a restaurant and not a
bar. He was personally carded and denied food after 10:00 PM one evening in
2005 and he has observed individuals standing around drinking after 10:00 PM
with no food service. He expressed his belief that this indicates that the NBBC is
a bar and not a restaurant in violation of conditions. He asked for enforcement of
the use permit.
g) Kristen Andros testified that it is her belief that the use operates as a restaurant
until 11:00 p.m. and thereafter it operates as a bar as evidenced by a queuing
line and carding.
h) There was conflicting testimony as to whether the nuisance incidents within the
NBBC parking lot are attributable to patrons of the NBBC.
The Council acted to modify the conditions of approval; however, the action was not
implemented with the adoption of a written resolution in the light of the fact that
inadequate notice of the hearing was provided.
2.11
Resolution No.
Page 10 of 16
WHEREAS, on July 10, 2007, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing
regarding the potential modification or revocation of Use Permit No. 3485. The hearing
was noticed as a "de novo" hearing and the subject, time, place and date of the hearing
included in the notice. The notice was published, mailed and posted a minimum of 10
days in advance of the hearing in accordance with the applicable requirements of the
Municipal Code. Evidence both written and oral was presented to and considered by the
City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as follows:
Section 1. The Recitals above are hereby declared to be true, accurate, and correct
Section 2. The City Council hereby finds that the Administrative Record which was
considered by the City Council in adopting this Resolution consists, without limitation, of all
documents, correspondence, testimony, photographs, and other information presented or
provided to the Planning Director, Planning Commission, City Coundl and City including,
without limitation, testimony received at City Council and Planning Commission
meetings, staff reports, agendas, notices, meeting minutes, police reports,
correspondence, and all other information provided to the City and retained in the files
of the City, its staff and attorneys, and such is hereby incorporated by reference into the
Administrative Record and is available upon request ( "Administrative Record ").
Section 3. The City Council finds that notice of this hearing was provided in
conformance with California law and the Municipal Code of the City of Newport Beach.
Section 4. The City Council finds as follows:
A. There is no clear and compelling evidence to support a conclusion that the NBBC is
violating Condition D. The NBBC has increased security and relocated the line to
enter the establishment.
B. Condition #9 requires that the operation of the brewery and the service of alcoholic
beverages shall be ancillary to the primary food service operation of the restaurant.
The NBBC has testified that food sales exceed alcohol sales based upon quarterly
sales even though alcohol sales far exceed food sales after 11:00 PM. Although the
percentage of alcohol sales are high, no violation of Condition #9 occurs provided
substantial food services is maintained, meal service is available during all operating
hours and that food sales exceed alcohol sales on a quarterly basis.
C. Condition #10 authorizes a restaurant and a brewpub as the primary use and
prohibits the operation of a bar, cocktail lounge, nightclub or other use serving
alcoholic beverages during hours not corresponding to regular meal service hours as
a primary use. The NBBC principally operates as a restaurant during the majority of
its operating hours and it operates as a bar on Friday and Saturday evenings after
11:00 PM with the kitchen remaining open for service during all operating hours.
This operating character is consistent with that of a restaurant and brewpub.
2.12-
Resolution No.
Page 11 of 16
D. The City is not aware of any violation of law or regulation related to the State
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. The Department conducted an
investigation in 2006 and concluded that no violations were occurring and the
investigation was closed.
E. Special Condition #1 states: 'Prior to the issuance of a coastal development permit,
the applicant shall execute a deed restriction, in a form and content acceptable to
the Executive Director, which shall provided no more than 1,500 square feet of
service area for the subject restaurant/brewpub shall be open before 5:OOPM. This
document shall run with the land, binding all successors and assigns, and shall be
recorded free of prior liens." The property owner recorded the deed restriction that
includes the daytime limitation on service area and it is a binding restriction on the
NBBC. A violation of Special Condition #1 of Coastal Development Permit (CDP)
No. 5 -93 -137 occurs when the NBBC opens the entire dining room (in excess of
1,500 square feet) on weekends prior to 5:00 PM. On Sunday October 8, 2006,
Newport Beach Police Detectives visited the NBBC, arriving at about 12:30 PM.
They noted that the restaurant was completely open with patrons occupying tables in
all areas with no sections being closed off.
F. Condition #6 is in conflict with Special Condition #1 and it is inconsistent with the
September 27, 1993, action of the City Council to rescind the approval authorizing
the use of in -lieu parking spaces in the Cannery Village public parking lot prior to
5:00 PM.
Section 5. The City Council finds that pursuant to Condition K of the Use Permit No.
3485, Section 20.89.060.0 and Section 20.96.040 of the Municipal Code, the
Administrative Record, the findings stated above above, that sufficient grounds exist to
modify and add to the conditions of approval for Use Permit No. 3485.
Section 6. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby approve an
amendment and modification of Use Permit No. 3485 as set forth in as Exhibit "A ".
Z _I 3
Resolution No.
Page 12 of 16
Section 7. 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 July 10,
2007 by the following vote to wit:
AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
2.Vy
Exhibit A
Use Permit No. 3485
CONDITIONS:
Resolution No.
Page 13 of 16
1. The proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved
site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below.
2. That a covenant or other suitable, legally binding agreement shall be recorded
against the off -site parking lot assuring that all of the requirements of Section
20.63.080 (1) of the Municipal Code, will be met by the current and future property
owners. Said covenant or agreement may include provisions for its future termination
at such time as the development on the building site is removed or at such time as
the floor area devoted to the restaurant/brewpub reverts back to a base FAR use.
3. The applicant shall provide a minimum of one parking space for each 50 square
feet of net public area before 5:00 p.m. and one parking space for each 40 square
feet of net public area after 5:00 p.m. in conjunction with the restaurant/brewpub.
4. An amended off -site parking agreement approved by the City Council shall be
maintained, guaranteeing that a minimum of 41 parking spaces shall be provided on
property located on Lots 18 -21 and portions of Lots 17 and 22, Block 230,
Lancaster's Addition, for the duration of the existing and proposed uses located on
Parcel 1, Parcel Map 92 -40 (Resubdivision No. 527).
5. The property owner shall pay for 29 in -lieu parking spaces in the Cannery Village
Municipal Parking Lot on an annual basis for the nighttime operation (after 5:00
p.m.) of the restaurant/brewpub use as agreed upon by the Sales Agreement
between the City of Newport Beach and the property owner.
6. The net public area of the restaurant/brewpub, which is devoted to daytime use
prior to 5:00 p.m. shall be limited to 1,500 square feet daily. The balance of the net
public area shall be physically closed off to the public by a fixed barrier and shall
not be used until after 5:00 p.m. daily.
7. The hours of operation for the restaurant/brewpub shall be limited to the hours
between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and between 6:00
a.m. and 1:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday.
8. All employees shall park either in the privately owned off -site parking area or in one
of the municipal parking lots in the area.
9. The operation of the brewery and the service of alcoholic beverages shall be
ancillary to the food service operation of the restaurant (e.g. the brewery and the
service of alcoholic beverages may not be conducted without the concurrent
operation of the restaurant during all hours the use is open for business). The
quarterly gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed the gross sales of
food during the same period. The operator shall at all times maintain records which
2./5
Resolution No.
Page 14 of 16
reflect separately the gross sales of food and the gross sales of alcoholic
beverages. Said records shall be kept no less frequently that on a quarterly basis
and shall be made available to the Planning Director upon request in conjunction
with the Planning Commission's review of this Use Permit for alleged violations of
conditions.
10. The principal use authorized by this Use Permit is a restaurant/brewpub. The
accessory operation of a bar is permitted provided that the kitchen remains open
for the service of meals and that a full menu is provided. This Use Permit shall not
be construed as the approval of a bar, cocktail lounge, or other use with the
principal purpose of serving alcoholic beverages during hours not corresponding to
regular meal service hours nor as the approval of a cabaret, nightclub, or other use
with the principal purpose of providing live entertainment and/or dancing. The
kitchen of the restaurant/brewpub shall be in operation to serve meals at all times
that the business is open. A full meal menu (including the service of those meals
ordered) shall be made available. Menus and condiments shall be available at the
tables at all times.
11. No outdoor loudspeakers or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with
the proposed location.
12. A washout area for refuse containers shall be provided in such a way as to allow
direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless
otherwise approved by the Building Department.
13. Kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the
satisfaction of the Building Department.
14. All mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from surrounding
public streets and alleys and adjoining properties. The existing trash enclosure
shall be covered and the doors or gates to the enclosure shall be modified to be
self - closing and self - locking forsecurity.
15. Deleted
16. Should prerecorded music be played within the restaurant facility, such music shall
be confined to the interior of the building, and all doors and windows shall be kept
closed while such music is played.
17. A special events permit is required for any event or promotional activity outside the
normal operational characteristics of this restaurant business that would attract
large crowds, involve the sale of alcoholic beverages, include any form of on -site
media broadcast, or any other activities as specified in the Newport Beach
Municipal Code to require such permits.
18. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any
future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by
either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing company.
2.lCp
Resolution No.
Page 15 of 16
19. The parking lot entrance to the building shall not be used as an entrance or exit
(except in the case of an emergency) after 9:OOPM daily.
20. The operator shall discourage loitering on site at all times the establishment is
open or employees or owners are present.
21. The operator shall conspicuously post and maintain signs indicating to patrons to
be courteous to residential neighbors while outside the establishment.
22. The applicant shall prepare a detailed security operations and property
maintenance plan within 45 days of approval of this amendment to the Use Permit.
The plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Police Department and
Planning Department. The plan shall specifically outline methods and personnel
necessary to control patron activity on and abutting the project site to minimize or
avoid land use conflicts. When security services are required pursuant to the plan,
security shall be provided whenever necessary and up to a minimum of 30 minutes
after the posted closing time. Additionally, a security guard shall be stationed
outside the establishment to discourage and report objectionable behavior of
patrons after 10:OOPM. The property maintenance portion of the plan shall address
activities including, and not limited to, trash pickup, recycling disposal and pickup,
grease trap cleaning, cooking oil recycling, brewery servicing, deliveries, cleaning
or general building maintenance.
23. Deliveries and exterior property maintenance activities shall not be conducted
between 8PM and 8AM daily.
24. The use shall maintain a Type 23 or a Type 75 license to sell alcoholic beverages
from the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. No other license type
shall be permitted without review and approval by the Planning Commission.
25. Live entertainment and dancing shall be prohibited without an amendment to this
Use Permit and a Live Entertainment Permit and /or a Cafe Dance permit issued by
the City Manager's Office.
26. This Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a noticed public
hearing on or before October 30, 2007. The Planning Director may schedule
additional reviews of this permit if there is a determination that the use directly
causes or is contributing to conditions found to be detrimental to the community
(this provision shall not be construed to diminish the City's ability to enforce this
Use Permit or any aspect of the Municipal Code).
STANDARD CITY REQUIREMENTS:
A. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards,
unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval.
B. Signs and displays shall not obstruct the sales counter, cash register, seller and
customer from view from the exterior.
2.17
Resolution No.
Page 16 of 16
C. Loitering, open container, and other signs specified by the Alcoholic Beverage
Control Act shall be posted as required by the ABC.
D. The applicant shall take reasonable steps to discourage and correct objectionable
conditions that constitute a nuisance in parking areas, sidewalks, alleys and areas
surrounding the alcoholic beverage outlet and adjacent properties must be taken
during business hours if directly related to the patrons of the subject alcoholic
beverage outlet.
E. The exterior of the alcoholic beverage outlet shall be maintained free of litter and
graffiti at all times. The owner or operator shall provide for daily removal of trash,
litter debris and graffiti from the premises and on all abutting sidewalks within 20
feet of the premises.
F. All owners, managers and employees serving and/or selling alcoholic beverages
shall undergo and successfully complete a certified training program in responsible
methods and skills for serving and selling alcoholic beverages. To qualify to meet
the requirements of this section a certified program must meet the standards of the
California Coordinating Council on Responsible Beverage Service or other
certifying /licensing body, which the State may designate. The operator shall
provide proof of completion for all owners, managers and employees within 30
days of the approval of this amendment and new employees shall successfully
complete the training within 30 days of initially starting work.
G. The project shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 14.30 of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code for commercial kitchen grease disposal.
H. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.67 of the Municipal Code.
This Use Permit for an alcoholic beverage outlet granted in accordance with the
terms of this chapter shall expire within 12 months from the date of approval unless
a license has been issued or transferred by the California State Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control prior to the expiration date.
J. Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to issuance of any building
permits.
K. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use
Permit upon a determination that this Use Permit causes injury, or is detrimental to
the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community.
Z /�
Attachment No. 3
Staff report and minutes from March 27,
2007 City Council hearing
3�I f
BLANK
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item 15
March 27. 2007
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner
(949) 644 -3210, 'ca mpbell (d)city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Newport Beach Brewing Company, Review of Use Permit No. 3485
2920 Newport Boulevard (PA2006 -177)
The City began the review of the Newport Beach Brewing Company's use permit last year
due to complaints received from "The Cannery Village Concerned," a group of residents,
business owners and property owners. They alleged that the Brewing Company was violating
the conditions of their use permit. A complete discussion of the issues and complaints are
contained in the attached Planning Commission reports.
The Planning Commission, after three meetings, found the Brewing Company to be operating
contrary to the findings for approval of the use permit and modified the conditions of approval
to address the concerns of the neighborhood. Operational and physical improvements were
required and the Brewing Company agreed to the changes in the conditions of approval. An
appeal was filed by The Cannery Village Concerned contending that the Commission "failed
to take responsibility for the enforcement of the California Coastal Commission permit, and
make the restaurant conform to their use permit as such and not as a bar."
RECOMMENDATION
1) Hold a public hearing, deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning
Commission to modify Use Permit No. 3485 by adopting the attached draft resolution
(Exhibit No. 1).
2) Set aside the potential modification of Condition #6 to be consistent with CCC Special
Condition #1 be set aside until a parking study is completed.
BACKGROUND
• In 1993, Use Permit No. 3485 was granted to operate a "restauranUbrewpub" with a beer
and wine license.
• In 1999, an amendment of the use permit was granted allowing distilled spirits at the
establishment.
• In January 2005, the City received complaints of alleged violations of the conditions and
objectionable late night behavior by patrons.
Newport Beach Brewing Company
March 27, 2007
Page 2 of 6
• On May 4, 2006, the Planning Commission discussed the operation, took input from the
neighborhood and directed an official review of the use permit.
• On August 17, 2006, the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing where
additional testimony was heard and a future hearing was set to consider the possible
revocation of the use permit.
• On January 4, 2007, the Planning Commission held a second, noticed public hearing
where the Commission acted to amend the conditions of approval.
• On January 12, 2007, an appeal was filed by The Cannery Village Concerned.
DISCUSSION
The appeal is attached as Exhibit No. 8 and two letters were submitted on March 5, 2007 by
Bruce Low, who resides at 411 29th Street adjacent to the Brewing Company's parking lot, in
support of the appeal (Exhibits 9 & 10). The following major issues were considered by the
Planning Commission, are referenced in the appeal and letters from Mr. Low, and necessitate
attention by the City Council:
1) Is the Newport Beach Brewing Company operating to the detriment of the
neighborhood and do the revised conditions of approval address nuisances?
Neighbors contend that the Newport Beach Brewing Company is violating its use permit and
that the operators are not sufficiently controlling patron behavior, which creates nuisances
during the late evening and early morning hours. Alleged violations include operating a bar
rather than a restaurant, opening the entire dining area on weekends before 5PM, trash in the
parking lot and unruly patron behavior outside the establishment. The primary complaint from
neighbors is that patrons create noise, cause property damage, urinate, defecate, and
conduct sexual activities, etc., during the late evening and early morning hours, to the
detriment of the neighborhood.
The Planning Commission considered all of the issues and concluded that violations of the
use permit did occur in the past. However, the Commission found that violations were abated
prior to Commission action in January of 2007 because the Brewing Company made the
following physical and operational changes to alleviate neighborhood complaints.
• Construction of a trash enclosure cover (building permit under review).
• Employee training on responsible alcohol sales has been completed.
• Relocated the entrance from the parking lot side of the building to the Newport
Boulevard entrance when a line of patrons forms to enter the establishment.
• Discontinued the removal of condiments and menus from the tables.
• Discontinued the late night bar menu while keeping the kitchen open at all times with a
full menu.
• Installed signs requesting that patrons be respectful of the neighborhood.
• Instituted regular security sweeps of the parking lot.
• Maintain a security presence at least ' /z hour after closing.
• Instituted a recycling collection program that minimizes noise generation.
• Scheduling maintenance activities outside of sensitive hours.
2
Newport Beach Brewing Company
March 27, 2007
Page 3 of 6
Relocation of the entrance from the parking lot side of the building to the Newport Boulevard
side when a line forms was one of the most significant changes made. The Planning
Commission incorporated this change as part of the modified conditions of approval
(Condition #19). This measure has been beneficial in alleviating noise from patrons waiting to
enter the establishment. The appellant suggests that the relocation of the entrance occur at a
specific time rather than when a line forms so customers become conditioned to use the
street side entrance in the evening. The appellant would prefer that patrons be prohibited
from using the building doors leading to the parking lot as an exit in the late evening or early
morning, as patrons tend to disturb residents. Setting a specific time for the entrance shift
might have a beneficial effect with regular customers avoiding the parking lot after the
specified time. Prohibiting the use of the building doors leading to and from the parking lot as
a regular exit might have a beneficial effect with patrons who do not need to retrieve parked
vehicles from the parking lot. Other patrons would need to walk around the building to get to
their vehicles. The only guaranteed benefit would be the elimination of interior noise that
escapes when the doors are opened; however, this has not been a complaint in the past.
In addition to the changes already implemented by the Brewing Company, the preparation of
a detailed security operations plan and its implementation was required by the Planning
Commission in their action in January 2007 (Condition #22). The plan is required to be
prepared within 45 days of the approval of the amendment and it will be subject to the review
and approval by the Police Department and Planning Director. The plan has not been
submitted to date, pending the outcome of the appeal. At the moment, Brewing Company
staff conducts a sweep of the exterior of the site and parking lot approximately every 15
minutes. Security personnel also remain '/z hour past closing. The appellant would like to see
a security guard posted in the parking lot when needed to act as a continuous deterrent. This
change can be mandated through the review and approval of the security operations plan or
a specific condition of approval. A posted security guard could prove more effective than
periodic sweeps of the grounds.
The Planning Commission modified the conditions of approval to incorporate these physical
and operational changes and the Brewing Company agreed to the changes in conditions. The
Commission considered but did not reduce the hours of operation because they believed that
the other changes made would alleviate complaints. The Planning Commission scheduled a
review hearing before the end of October 2007 (Condition #27) to evaluate the effectiveness
of the modified conditions and the Brewing Company's ability to control patrons.
If the City Council believes that the changes in the conditions made by the Planning
Commission are not sufficient to eliminate detrimental conditions in the neighborhood, the
closing hour may be changed. An 11PM closing hour would eliminate late -night or early
morning problems attributable to the operation. The neighborhood benefit achieved through a
reduction in the operating hours would need to be balanced against the rights of the Brewing
Company to continue to operate as they have for years and the potential loss to business.
The Brewing Company would lose revenue and they have indicated to staff that the reduction
in hours could force them out of business. It should be noted that reducing the hours of
operation will not alleviate all late -night problems experienced by residents. Other restaurants
and bars in the immediate area have later hours of operation and the Brewing Company's
parking lot and the adjacent municipal parking lot are used by patrons of those
establishments.
Newport Beach Brewing Company
March 27, 2007
Page 4 of 6
2) Is the Brewing Company operating a bar contrary to the original use permit?
The City permitted a " restaurant/brewpub" with a closing hour of 2AM on Friday and
Saturday, 11 PM on other days. In 1999, when the use permit was amended to allow the sale
and on -site consumption of distilled spirits, the closing hour on Friday and Saturday was
changed to 1AM with no change to the 11 PM closing hour on other days. Food service was
stressed in the original approval of the use permit in 1993 and with the approval of the
amendment in 1999. The brewing, sales and service of alcohol was characterized by the
applicant as accessory to food service; a convenience or amenity as a way to complement
food sales.
Testimony at the Planning Commission hearings indicated that the use takes on a "bar -like"
character especially on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights. A limited late night menu had
been offered rather than the full menu, a line of patrons attempting to enter the
establishment forms in the parking lot, security personnel are employed, more alcohol is
served than food based on sales, identification is checked and people under 21 are routinely
refused entry.
The use permit issued in 1993 included a condition that "The operation of the brewery and
the service of alcoholic beverages shall be ancillary to the primary food service operation of
the restaurant." In 1999, the City added a condition that "The approval of this use permit is
for a restaurant/brewpub and shall not be construed as the approval of a bar, cocktail lounge,
or other use serving alcoholic beverages during hours not corresponding to regular meal
service hours (food products sold or served incidentally to the sale or service of alcoholic
beverages shall not be deemed as constituting regular meal service) nor as the approval of a
cabaret, nightclub, or other use with the principal purpose of providing live entertainment
and /or dancing." These two conditions were intended to maintain the primary use and
character of a restaurant and brewpub.
The appellant contends that the Brewing Company violates these conditions when alcohol
sales are higher than food sales. The Commission considered this issue and concluded that
the use was operating as a restaurant and brewpub when the practice of having a limited
late -night food menu was eliminated. The Commission modified the conditions to require the
kitchen to remain open with a full menu at all times. Additionally, the Commission required
food sales to be more than alcohol sales based upon quarterly gross sales.
If the City Council believes that additional measures are needed for operation of the Newport
Beach Brewing Company consistent with the approval of a restaurant/brewpub and the
character directed by the conditions of the use permit, a change in the closing hour may also
be considered to resolve this issue.
3) Parking before 5PM on Saturday and Sunday
This issue relates to differences between Condition #6 of Use Permit No. 3485 and Special
Condition #1 of Coastal Development Permit No. 5 -93 -137. The peace and quiet of the
neighborhood during the late evening or early morning hours is not directly tied to this issue.
� gyp,
Newport Beach Brewing Company
March 27, 2007
Page 5 of 6
The appellant believes that Condition #6 is inaccurate and inconsistent with Special Condition
#1 and should be modified to make it consistent. The Brewing Company presently opens the
entire dining room on weekends prior to 5PM consistent with Condition #6 and in violation of
Special Condition #1. The Planning Commission considered this issue as summarized below
and made no change to Condition #6.
Condition #6 limits the amount of net public area (1,500 sq. ft.) that can be utilized prior to
5PM, Monday through Friday. This condition was imposed by the City in mid -1993 as the site
does not provide all of the code - required parking and the restriction would avoid negatively
impacting public parking supply in the adjacent municipal lot before 5PM. After local approval
of the use permit, the Brewing Company sought the approval of a Coastal Development
Permit (CDP) from the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for the project. Special
Condition #1 of CDP 5 -93 -137 has a similar limitation of the net public area before 5PM, but it
applies 7 days a week, not just weekdays. The CCC also requested assurance that the City
would enforce the net public area limitation. The CCC required the City to modify its prior
approval to be consistent with the conditions imposed through the approval of the CDP.
In September 1993, the City Council approved changes to the conditions of approval to make
them consistent with the CDP; however, the record reflects that the City Council did not
change Condition #6 to apply 7 days a week. All other changes necessary to comply with the
action of the CCC were made. In a letter to the California Coastal Commission shortly after
the City Council hearing, James Hewicker, the Planning Director at that time, indicated that
the City would enforce Condition #6 that is applicable only Monday through Friday.
California Coastal Commission staff was contacted about the discrepancy between the
conditions and they indicate that Special Condition #1 is applicable and applies 7 days a
week. Additionally, CCC staff indicated that the Brewing Company could request a
modification of the Special Condition #1 from the CCC provided that it would not negatively
impact public parking. The appellant indicates that there is a parking problem in the area and
the Brewing Company contributes to it by opening the entire dining area in excess of 1,500
square feet contrary to Special Condition #1.
The Planning Commission did not amend Condition #6 to be consistent with Special
Condition #1 of the CDP based upon the Planning Director's prior correspondence and , as
well as a lack of compelling evidence to indicate that there is a parking problem on Saturday
and Sunday before 5PM.
The City Council may conclude that an error was made and can amend Condition #6 to be
consistent with Special Condition #1. However, the magnitude of the parking issue before
5PM on Saturday and Sunday has not been documented. Staff recommends the preparation
of a parking survey to determine the magnitude of the parking issue before changing
Condition #6. Such a survey would need to be conducted during the summer months. The
survey would be the basis for a request to the CCC to change, or eliminate, the condition if
no public parking shortage is identified.
- 3.7
Newport Beach Brewing Company
March 27, 2007
Page 6 of 6
SUMMARY
The appeal and the letters submitted by Mr. Low do not present any new information that was
not considered by the Planning Commission. The City Council needs to determine whether or
not the revised conditions adopted by the Planning Commission sufficiently address
neighborhood complaints. Secondly, the Council will need to determine whether or not
current operating character of the Newport Beach Brewing Company is consistent with the
original intent of to allow a restaurant/brewpub.
ALTERNATIVES
1) Overturn the decision of the Planning Commission and set a hearing to consider
revocation of the use permit at a future date.
2) Further amend the conditions of approval by limiting the hours of operation or requiring
other changes to the conditions of approval.
PUBLIC NOTICE
The Newport Beach Brewing Company and the appellant have been notified of this hearing.
A hearing notice indicating the subject, time, place and location of this hearing was duly
provided in accordance with the Municipal Code. Notice was published in the Daily Pilot,
mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property (excluding abutting roads) and the
site was posted a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing.
Prepared by: Submitted by:
�' k) r.,'.' "
mes Camp ell, Senio Planner
David Lepo, 44Director
1. ft Council resolution affirming the action of the Planning Commission
2. P ng Commission staff report dated January 4, 2007 (with attachments noted)
3. Minute om January 4, 2007
4. Planning mission staff report dated August 17, 2006 (with attachments noted)
5. Minutes from gust 17, 2006
6. Additional mate s submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration
7. Planning Commiss Resolution No. 1709
8. Appeal dated January 2007
9. Letter from Bruce Low da February 28, 2007
10. Letter from Bruce Low date arch 2, 2007
_3 .$
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
March 27, 2007
OF ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. N2007 -0149 1100- 20071. Conditionally
approve Newport Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau request for the installation
of 80 banners on 80 streetlight poles from March 29, 2007 to April 29, 2007 for the
John Wayne Centennial Celebration with installation along Jamboree Road,
MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Boulevard, and East Coast Highway.
Mott y. Mayor -Pr
o_. Tem Selich to approve the Consent Calendar, noting the
abstention Council Member Webb on Item #8, and the correction to Item #7.
The motion Carrie the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Council Member Curry, Mayor Pro Tem Selich, Mayor
Rosansky, Council Me r Webb, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Gardner
XIII.
)UV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
- None
14. IN -LIEU PARK DEDICATION FEE ADJUS NT - APPRAISAL OF EASTBLUFF
AND BOB HENRY PARK (contd. from 2/27/07 & /07)1100- 80071.
City Manager Bludau explained that originally the BIA a d for a 30-day continuation
therefore he is requesting that this item be continued until April 2007.
Motion Council Member } r�)zb to continue the item until April 1 7.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Henn, Council Member Curry, Mayor Pro Tem Selich, r
Rosansky, Council Member Webb, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Gardner
15. NEWPORT BEACH BREWING COMPANY, REVIEW OF USE PERMIT NO. 3485 -
2920 NEWPORT BOULEVARD (PA2006- 177)1100- 20071.
Senior Planner Campbell reported that as a result of complaints the Planning Commission
reviewed this permit three times and on January 4, 2007 acted to place additional conditions
on the permit. Their decision was appealed by representatives of The Cannery Village
Concerned. Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the
Planning Commission's decision. The applicant has moved forward to mitigate the
conditions and the Planning Commission has scheduled a review for October 2007.
Senior Planner Campbell addressed Council questions and concerns.
Mayor Rosansky opened the public hearing.
Bruce Low, resident and representative of The Cannery Village Concerned, spoke about
Conditions #9 and #10. He presented Council with a copy of the September 27, 1993 City
Council minutes that indicated to him that the daytime net public area of 1500 square feet
was intended to apply seven days a week until 5:00 p.m. He was concerned about vehicles
traveling at a high rate of speed, abuse of the parking area, abuse of adjacent personal
properties, and felt the applicant was not complying with the intended use (Condition #10).
Kevin Weeda, a resident and business owner operating a business on 30th Street, said the
group of concerned residents did not want to drive away the business, merely have the
applicant comply with the CUP. Most problems occur late at night and he believed the
Volume 58 - Page 94
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
March 27, 2007
business should be limited to an 11:00 p.m. closing
Jerry Kolbly, co- owner, Newport Beach Brewing Company, spoke about his establishment
and the fact that it had maintained the same social atmosphere for the past 12 years. He
has attempted to work with adjacent neighbors and staff to resolve the issues. There is a
security guard stationed at the rear door and patrons enter and exit via Newport Boulevard
only on Friday and Saturday nights after 10:00 p.m.
Steven Miles, attorney for Newport Beach Brewing Company, found it disingenuous that it
was stated that the Brewing Company was not open to suggestions and working with the
City and adjacent residents to solve problems. With respect to concerns regarding noise
from the parking area, the police report indicates that the only noise came from patrons
talking in the patio area and that passing traffic drowned out the noise. In addition to the
main entry, the only door that was open to patrons was the patio door. He believed that the
Brewing Company would provide permanent security for the parking lot from 10:00 p.m.
until 30 minutes after closing if the City agreed to extend the hours of operation 30 minutes
to one hour on weeknights.
In response to Council Member Daigle, City Attorney Clauson said that the regulations were
adopted in 1988 when she was advisor to the Planning Commission. The Planning
Commission based its decision to allow the sale of liquor in 1999 based upon representations
by the applicant that this was a restaurant and the intent was for the establishment to
continue serving food throughout the evening hours. There was never a representation or
understanding by the Commission that this would turn into a bar after 11:00 p.m.
Mike Madlock, founder, Newport Beach Brewing Company, felt that common sense should
prevail and the current issues were a result of mixed uses in the area. The Brewing
Company has made many concessions and runs a business -like establishment. For twelve
years the company has operated without one code violation.
Billy Steed, Cannery Loft owner, adjacent to the Brewery, said he has observed all types . of
nuisances in the Brewery parking lot. The Brewery has offered no solution and ignores
complaints.
Stephanie Roselli, Cannery Village resident, has made several complaints about the
Brewing Company and the parking lot being noisy.
John Paul said he has lived and worked in the area for three plus years and the residents
have recently come together to address issues that have not been addressed by the applicant
and the City. He said it did not make sense to him that the restaurant would not be forced
to comply with their CUP.
George Schroeder, Cannery Village said this neighborhood has been zoned mixed use for 20
to 30 years and the problems with the Brewery are not new.
Tony Shepherdson said he lives one block away from the Brewing Company and more than
just the units in the Brewery are affected. He has lived on the street for 23 years and the
problem has grown over the years. For the majority of the nights there is virtually no
Parking available due to all of the restaurants in the area. The problems grow out of
allowing alcohol and he felt that the problems could be resolved by limiting the hours of
operation_
Volume 58 - Page 95
3 <� D
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
March 27, 2007
Joe Reese said he has been dealing with this over a year. In 1993 and 1999 the intent was
clear that this establishment was to be a restaurant. He was personally carded and denied
food after 10:00 p.m. and he has observed individuals standing around drinking after 10:00
p.m. In reviewing this project the Planning Commission concluded that the establishment
was operating as a bar. The Planning Commission wanted assurance that the Brewing
Company would operate as a restaurant and there would be no "carding' at the door. There
were 32 arrests in the area on St. Patrick's Day and every night residents are subjected to
fighting and other obscene behavior. He asked the City to enforce the CUP.
Drew Wetherhault said residents on 29kh and 30a' streets have constant problems with the
establishment nights and weekend. BJ's brewery is clearly a restaurant. After 10:00 p.m.
Newport Beach Brewing Company is clearly a bar and there is clearly a _problem with
consumption of alcohol. He asked that the City revoke the permit.
Kristen Andros Low said that the owner stated the restaurant operates until 11:00 p.m. and
thereafter it operates as a bar as evidenced by a queuing line and carding.
Bruce Low said there were many people in the neighborhood that had issues with this
establishment and on behalf of the residents he asked that the City restore the
neighborhood to a reasonable, fair and even keel.
Mr. Miles entered documents into the record and spoke to Mr. Weeds s "threat" to take this
issue to the Coastal Commission. He stated that Mr. Weeda has a financial interest in
acquiring the parcel on which Newport Beach Brewing Company resides.
Mr. Miles responded to Mayor Pro Tem Selich that Condition #26 imposed by the Planning
Commission was acceptable to the Brewing Company. When asked by Mayor Pro Tem
Selich which option would be acceptable, returning to beer only sales or cutting back the
hours of operation to 11:00 p.m., Mr. Miles stated that he believed neither option would. be
acceptable.
Mayor Rosansky closed the public hearing.
Council discussion and debate ensued.
Motion by Council Member Henn -to uphold the conditions of the Planning Commission
with the following amendments: 1) amend Condition #19 to prohibit the use of the parking
lot entrance by no later than 9:00 p.m.; 2) amend Condition #22 that a full time security
person be in the parking lot every night at 10:00 p.m. until one-half hour after closing; 3)
that Condition #6 be made clear that it applies seven days a week; and 4) in order to help
the Brewing Company to get back to its original and contemplated mission, that they may
not serve hard liquor after 10:00 p.m.
Council Member Gardner asked if Council Member Henn would amend Item 4 to indicate
the restaurant will close at 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday. Council Member Henn
asked for input from other Council Members.
Council Member Daigle said it was clear to her that the restaurant element goes away
between 11:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m. and supported Council Member Gardners amendment.
Council Member Curry asked that "carding' not be used to differentiate between a
restaurant and a bar operation.
Volume 58 - Page 96
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
March 27, 2007
Mayor Rosansky felt residents could more appropriately address Condition #6 with the
Coastal Commission. He would favor eliminating hard liquor sales past 11:00 p.m. on
Friday and Saturday.
Council Member Henn felt it was clear that an unintentional error was made because the
City mandates should be consistent with the Coastal Commission mandates.
Mayor Pro Tem Selich supported elimination of Condition 6.
Council Member Webb felt it would be prudent to follow the recommendation to determine
whether there is a parking problem on Saturday and Sunday. Council Member Daigle said
staff felt a parking study should be done.
Mayor Pro Tem Selich supported allowing the Brewing Company to sell liquor until 11:00
p.m.
Council Member Henn preferred to keep Condition 6.
Amended motion by Council Member Henn to change the condition to allow hard liquor
sales until 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday.
Substitute -motion by Mayor Pro_Tem Selich to deny the appeal and uphold the
decision of the Planning Commission to modify Use Permit No. 3486, with modifications to
the conditions as noted: no change to the operating hours; on Friday and Saturday hard
liquor sales to cease at 11:00 p.m.; no change to Condition #6; eliminated Condition #26;
modified Condition #22 to require full time security in the parking lot beginning at 10 p.m.
until 30 minutes after closing; Condition #19 modified to prohibit entrance through the back
door after 9 p.m.; and operator to have discretion on carding requirements.
The substitute motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council Member Curry, Mayor Pro Tem Selich, Mayor Rosansky, Council Member
Webb
Noes: Council Member Henn, Council Member Daigle, Council Member Gardner
xw� PUBLIO...00MMENTS
Uhlmann said the interest in the saturation of recovery facilities has grown and interested
residen West Newport Beach will send a newsletter and emails inviting residents to attend the
April 101h City cil meeting to show support for a moratorium.
Jim Miller, West Newpo ach Association and member of the IROC Committee presented a map
showing an over concentration ab facilities and felt that SB1000 would make matters worse.
XVI. ORAL REPORTS_F N C MI1 ITTEE ACTIVITIES
Mayor Pro Tem Selich announced that the Genera Implementation Committee would meet on
March 281j' at 3:30 p.m. in Council Chambers.
XVII. PLANNI.NG CO.M...MISSION,AGEN-.DA AND ORAL STATUS RE T
16. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR MARCH 22,2007 110
Volume 68 - Page 97
Attachment No. 4
Staff report and minutes from August 17, 2006
Planning Commission hearing
y•I
BLANK
y. 2
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item 4
August 17, 2006
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner
(949) 644 -3210, Icampbell(abcitv.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Newport Beach Brewing Company
Use Permit No. 3685
2920 Newport Boulevard
INTRODUCTION
On May 4, 2006, the Planning Commission discussed the operation of the Newport
Beach Brewing Company in response to concerns raised by nearby residents, property
owners and local business persons. Staff prepared a report providing a limited
background of the use and a discussion of the issues raised (Exhibit No. 1). At the
conclusion of the discussion, the Commission found that there was sufficient information
to review and possibly modify the Brewing Company's Use Permit.
PUBLIC NOTICE
The Newport Beach Brewing Company has been notified of this hearing. A hearing
notice indicating the review and potential modification of Use Permit No. 3484 was
published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property
(excluding roads and waterways) 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 take public testimony and direct staff
to prepare revised conditions of approval for potential adoption at the next meeting.
y.3
Newport Beach Brewing Company
August 17, 2006
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The current use was established in 1993 with the approval of Use Permit No. 3485. The
staff report and minutes are attached (Exhibit No. 2). The establishment began
operating in 1994.
The Coastal Commission approved a modified project subject to conditions and the City
Council later modified the conditions to conform to the Coastal Commission special
conditions. Coastal Development Permit 5 -93 -137 is attached with the Coastal
Commission's staff report and deed restriction (Exhibit No. 3).
In September 1999, the City Council approved an amendment to the Use Permit to
allow full alcoholic beverage service while amending and adding conditions of approval.
The staff reports and minutes from the 1999 amendment are attached (Exhibit No. 4).
When the use was established, the neighborhood was different, as fewer residences
were located nearby. In the last several years, new mixed -use projects have been
constructed and occupied, and residential uses are now located in much closer
proximity to the use.
Since the last meeting, staff has met with the Brewing Company and concerned
residents to identify the problems and potential solutions. The operator has had their
attorney prepare a letter on their behalf indicating their position on the primary issues
and conditions of approval. Additionally, the letter outlines several steps the operator is
willing to consider (Exhibit No. 5).
DISCUSSION
The Cannery Village area is evolving and the residential component of this mixed use
village is emerging. This transition is a result of specific General Plan and Zoning
changes adopted in the late 1980's and early 1990's. While some might argue that the
Brewing Company was there first and the new residents should have known before they
bought into the neighborhood, it is also reasonable for a business to recognize the
nature of the neighborhood in which it is located and to adapt its operation to ensure
compatibility with the neighborhood.
At the time the Use Permit was approved in 1993, the City applied a standard
requirement that should the operation of the Brewery be found detrimental to the
community, the Planning Commission (or City Council on appeal) can add or modify
conditions of approval. The unstated purpose would be to address objectionable
aspects of the operation to alleviate problems.
y. y
Newport Beach Brewing Company
August 17, 2006
Page 3
Complaints against the operation fall into the following categories:
• Operation of a bar rather than a restaurant
• Violations of conditions of approval
• Objectionable behavior of patrons during late evening and early morning hours
both on and off -site
• Noise from property maintenance activities
Those aggrieved believe that the use constitutes a nuisance especially after
approximately 10:30PM when the use operates more like a bar than a restaurant. There
seems little objection to the use prior to the end of traditional meal service. The Brewing
Company is required to close at 11:OOPM Sunday through Thursday and 1:OOAM on
Friday and Saturday.
What is a restaurant/brewpub?
The City authorized a "restaurant/brewpub" and prohibited a bar, cocktail lounge,
nightclub, live entertainment venue or any other use that serves alcoholic beverages
during hours not corresponding to regular meal service (Condition No. 10). Condition
No. 10 reads:
"The approval of this use permit is for a restaurantlbrewpub and shall not
construed as the approval of a bar, cocktail lounge, or other use serving alcoholic
beverages during hours not corresponding to regular meal service hours (food
products sold or served incidentally to the sale or service of alcoholic beverages
shall not be deemed as constituting regular meal service) nor as the approval of
a cabaret, nightclub, or other use with the principal purpose of providing live
entertainment and /or dancing."
It is clear that a restaurant is authorized. In staffs opinion, a brewpub is simply a
restaurant or bar where the beer is made on the premises and sold. The definition of a
brewpub might not include the term bar as differing definitions are found using different
dictionaries. Staff believes that the City authorized both a restaurant and a bar and it
can be reasoned that the use cannot be any one of the prohibited uses listed as a
primary use as the restaurant is the primary use.
Does the restaurant have to be open at the same time? Traditionally, the City requires
the kitchen to be open at all times for meal service. In this case, no requirement was
made other than the reference contained within Condition No. 10. It can also be argued
that the brewing of beer is also necessary, although this is not at issue unless the
brewing of beer contributes to any nuisance. The kitchen is reported to be open at all
times; however, a limited menu of appetizers is available in the late evening. The City
did receive a report from a resident indicating that they were told that the kitchen was
closed at approximately 11:00 PM on August 5t" (Exhibit No. 6).
9.5
Newport Beach Brewing Company
August 17, 2006
Page 4
The use operates predominately like a bar after approximately 10:30PM. It is staff's
opinion, the use, as a whole, is primarily a restaurant as it operates as a restaurant
during the majority of its operating hours. Some believe that the City permitted a
restaurant based upon the description of the use put forth during the use's original
hearings in 1993. Although the restaurant use was marketed as the primary activity, the
applicant described the proposed use in 1993 an "eating and drinking establishment."
The late evening and early morning hours authorized reflect an understanding by
decision makers that the use could take on a bar -like character since it is well known
that traditional meal service after approximately IIPM is rare. This recognition is also
supported by calling the use a brewpub, which is a reference to a drinking
establishment unless one believes that a brewpub can not be a bar. Staff believes that
the use is prohibited from operating as a bar (or any use described as prohibited within
Condition No. 10) without the restaurant being considered the primary use.
The real question in staffs mind is whether or not the restaurant/brewpub is creating a
nuisance that requires specific action. That may be the case; however, if the Planning
Commission believes that the use cannot take on a bar -like character in the late
evening, eliminating that aspect of the use would be necessary through Commission
action to modify the conditions and or findings that would describe the use. Given that
the majority of the complaints relate to late evening hours, the simplest solution would
be to curtail the hours of operation.
The operator's attorney has offered clarification of Condition No. 10 by suggesting the
following language be added: `regular meal service hours means the meal service
hours regularly established by the restaurant/brewpub. The service of alcoholic
beverages during regular operational hours of the restaurant/brewpub that do not
include meal service is prohibited." Staff is not comfortable with this language without
understanding what meal service hours the operator has established and whether or not
it would change in the future. If the term regular meal service requires clarification, staff
suggests that the Commission establish the meaning of the term; however, if specific
hours are identified, the second sentence appears to prohibit alcohol service outside
those hours.
Is alcohol "ancillary "? (Condition No, 9)
Condition No. 9 states that, "the operation of the brewery and the service of alcoholic
beverages shall be ancillary to the primary food service operation of the restaurant."
The Zoning Code defines an ancillary use as "a use that is clearly incidental to and
customarily found in connection with the principal use; is subordinate to and serves the
principal use; is subordinate in area, extent, or purpose to the principal use served;
contributes to the comfort convenience, or necessity of the operation, employees, or
customers of the principal use served..."
Newport Beach Brewing Company
August 17, 2006
Page 5
Some believe that the fact that the use operates more in the character of a bar in the
late evening with little food sales, the use is in violation of this condition. Furthermore,
the General Manager admitted at the last meeting that the sale of alcohol is roughly
90% after 11 PM and that it is roughly 50% during the day. Is alcohol ancillary to food
service? Although one can conclude that alcohol may not be ancillary to food service,
an alternative interpretation exists in that the operation of the use cannot occur without
the restaurant.
If the facts show that alcohol is not clearly incidential to food service, the Commission
should amend the condition to achieve a desired outcome. The applicant has suggested
a modification to the condition "The service of alcoholic beverages shall be ancillary to
the primary restaurant/brewpub service operation of the restaurant. Accordingly,
alcoholic beverage service is not permitted independent of restaurant food or brewpub
services." Although this language could be applied, it changes the nature of the
condition. First, it excludes the operation of the brewery itself (retail sales of beer for off -
site consumption) and it changes the regulatory relationship between alcohol service
and food service. The new relationship proposed would be limited to alcohol sales and
the use entirely as opposed to food service specifically. The suggested change also
modifies the nature of the use to indicate that alcoholic beverage service cannot be an
independent use.
As noted previously, in similar cases, the City has required the kitchen to remain open
at all times. Simply opening the kitchen would not necessarily change the nature of the
use after approximately 10:30PM as most patrons appear to be more interested in
alcohol service. If it is determined that alcohol service should be curbed to be clearly
incidential to food service at all times given the definition of ancillary, staff would
suggest that the hours be limited to midnight or 11 PM as alcohol service prior to these
hours can more easily be viewed as incidential. Simply requiring the sale of alcohol to
be below a specific percentage of sales may or may not achieve a desired outcome and
it presents enforcement issues. If it is believed that the use is being operated as
intended, the condition should be amended to facilitate the use while reducing
conflicting interpretations or application.
How much area is permitted before 5PM? (Condition No. 6)
Condition No. 6 requires a reduction of net public area prior to 5PM weekdays. Staff has
monitored this condition periodically and has never observed a violation as the portion
of the dining area designated to be closed prior to 5PM has been closed when
observed. The condition does not apply to weekends and the full dining room is open on
weekends. The Coastal Commission required the same reduction in net public area
although their condition does not indicate when the condition is applicable. Coastal
Commission staff has indicated that the limitation applies daily and the issuance of the
Coastal Development Permit was predicated on the City's commitment to enforce the
special condition. In a letter date stamped "received October 13, 1993 by the Coastal
y.7
lil
Newport Beach Brewing Company
August 17, 2006
Page 6
Commission," the City agreed to enforce the City's limitation that applied Monday
through Friday (Exhibit No. 7). Coastal Commission staff must have accepted this
commitment as there is no evidence to the contrary and they issued the Coastal
Development Permit shortly in early 1994.
Is there a lack of control of patrons in the parking lot?
Standard Requirement D requires the applicant to take "reasonable steps to discourage
and correct objectionable conditions that constitute a nuisance" either occurring on site
or in the areas surrounding the establishment that are directly related to patrons of the
establishment. Many objectionable conditions have been reported, from patron behavior
to noise.
Primarily on Friday and Saturday evenings after approximately 10:30PM, the
establishment is close to capacity and there is a queue of several dozen patrons waiting
to get in. These people congregate in the parking lot and they can be boisterous.
Although the applicant indicates that restrooms are made available upon request,
people have been reported using the alley and adjacent properties as a toilet. When the
establishment closes, patrons have a tendency to loiter and again they can be
boisterous as they leave. In some cases, patrons wander to another night spot that has
later hours of operation and these people return later in the early morning hours to
retrieve vehicles and can be more of a nuisance. The operator has expressed a
willingness to tow cars from their lot after they close. The effectiveness of this proposal
is unknown and it might simply disperse the issue further into the neighborhood.
Fights, sexual encounters and vandalism have been reported to staff during the late
evening and early morning hours. The difficulty is determining where these people are
coming from and whether or not an establishment should be held responsible. Some of
these incidents may not be attributable to the restaurants or bars in the area let alone
the applicant. Obviously, the individuals who are committing these acts are responsible,
but it is reasonable to assume that most of these reported incidents are related to the
sale of alcohol and the concentration of restaurants and bars in the area.
Has the Brewing Company taken all reasonable steps to discourage and correct
objectionable conditions attributable to their patrons when they are open? The applicant
provides 3 -5 security guards who make sweeps of the parking lot and attempts to
control patrons waiting for entry. They discourage loitering on site in the parking lot
when they leave. Signs have been posted to alert patrons to be respectful of neighbors
as they come and go. Staff requested that the applicant prepare an enhanced security
plan in an effort to show how they can be more effective, and the applicant has not
provided their security protocols. Residents who live overlooking the parking lot report
that the applicant has not done enough especially in the light that the City has stepped
up monitoring since receiving the initial complaints.
Newport Beach Brewing Company
August 17, 2006
Page 7
One resident has suggested that the entrance of the facility be relocated to the street
side of the building. The main entrance is from the parking lot and if the main entrance
were located between the building and Newport Boulevard, even if only during the late
evenings, one might experience a reduction in activity in the parking lot. This would
benefit the residents to the east and south that abut the parking lot but it would not
eliminate all activity in the parking lot; however, it might simply create other impacts to
the west. The patio and the landscaping would need to be physically modified to
accommodate the patron queue and modified entrance and in staffs opinion, the
parking lot entrance is likely acceptable up until approximately 9:OO13M. This concept
has trade offs and it might be worthy of additional consideration if the Commission
directs. Based upon the applicant's letter and follow up communications, they appear to
be willing to consider this alternative during the late evening hours.
Although some nuisance issues are not attributable to patrons, the applicant is
proposing to cover and secure the trash enclosure. Since the closest housing is about
roughly 20 feet away and is 2 -3 stories in height, this should help these residents.
Condition No. 14 requires screening of the trash enclosure. The applicant proposes to
change the method in which recycling of bottles is handled to reduce noise. Dumping
bottles into a metal trash bin will make an objectionable noise especially when it is done
around 2AM. The applicant proposes to place the bottles in plastic bins within the
interior of the restaurant and then the bins would be loaded onto a truck. The applicant
has also expressed his commitment to schedule all waste pickup (trash, recycling &
grease trap vactoring) at more reasonable hours of the day. All of these offerings are
steps in the right direction.
Are the owner, manager and employees properly trained?
In the applicant's letter, they are offering to have all applicable employees complete
alcohol service training. Standard requirement F requires the owner, manager and all
employees to undergo and successfully complete certified training program on
responsible sales and service of alcohol. Although this condition indicates that
compliance is required within 6 months from permit issuance, no information regarding
initial or ongoing compliance was available. Staff recommends that this condition be
amended to reflect the need to make this condition perpetual and that a report be
submitted annually by the applicant documenting compliance with this condition as the
applicant's staff changes over time. Staff has requested confirmation that the owner,
managers and employees have or will soon complete this required training, but to date,
the operator has not provided any additional information other than their letter.
Summary
In the prior report, staff wrote that the complaint indicates that the operator has no
regard for the neighborhood and it was staffs impression that this statement was not
correct as they seemed reactive to addressing the complaints. Staff believes the
Newport Beach Brewing Company
August 17, 2006
Page 8
applicant is willing to make improvements and modify their operation to address
neighbor concerns, but based upon the operator's brief response letter (Exhibit No. 5),
the applicant seems to be seeking specific guidance from the City. Although the
applicant has made some efforts to address the neighborhood complaints, lingering
issues remain. Clarification of several conditions of approval is necessary depending
upon how the Commission views the nature of the operation.
Staff recommends the following:
1. Condition No. 9 should be modified to eliminate the conflict between the term
ancillary and the true nature of the operation.
2. Condition No. 10 should also be modified to clarify what is permitted and what is
n ot.
3. Require that a screening cover be constructed on the trash enclosure.
4. Require that a new entrance be implemented on the Newport Boulevard side of
the building for use after 9:00 PM Thursday through Sunday.
5. Require the preparation of a detailed security plan and its implementation.
The Planning Commission can direct staff and the applicant to implement the items
listed above. The Commission can add or modify the list of potential changes to this
Use Permit. Staff would return with the changes to the conditions and the change to the
plans for the Commission to review at a future hearing. If testimony received supports
revocation, the action can be delayed to a future noticed public hearing as revocation
was not an identified option within the notice for this hearing. The Commission also has
the option to continue to monitor the situation and direct no changes at this time.
Prepared by: Submitted by:
Ja
ph' es Cam I, Seni Planner
Attachments:
PX L / k r tajln� �
Patricia L. Temple, R anning Director
1. Staff report and minutes from May 4, 2006
2. Staff report and minutes from 1993 for Use Permit No. 3485
3. CDP 5 -93 -137 and supporting documents
4. Staff report and minutes from 1999 amendment of Use Permit No. 3485
5. Letter from the applicant's attorney dated August 8, 2006
6. E -mail from Joe Reiss dated August 9, 2006
7. Letter from City to Coastal Commission regarding enforcement of net public area
y.fo
Exhibit No. 1
Planning Commission Minutes 05/04/2006 Page 2 of 13
Zinc Caf6 (PA2003 -225) ITEM NO
3222 E. Coast Highway I PA2003 -:
ann review of Use Permit No. 2001 -040 that authorizes Zinc Cafe to operate as Approw
eating d drinking establishment with on -sale beer and wine license.
linh Ung, sociate Planner, gave an overview of the staff report noting that no
laints were eived regarding employee parking or the current delivery
gement occurri in the back alley. She noted that staff recommends amending
lion 6 to allow th \rppews ant to use the existing alley for his deliveries and that
tion 36 for annu be terminated as future reviews can be initiated if Tutu
laints arise.
"hairperson Toerge asked abouXondition 6 allowing deliveries. He stated he would
ike to change the hours of deliverftQ start at 7 a.m. in order to be consistent with the
Boise Ordinance and to end at 6 D.m.
Secretan, owner of the Zinc Cafe, agrkd to the change in the hours of delivery.
comment was opened
comment was closed.
Cole asked about evening operations.
Secretan noted initially, following approval, evening operate s went until 8:00. T
ted to be too cumbersome, so that has been discontinued an ey close at 6:00
. He has started a wine tasting program on Thursdays as they a the option to
e at 8:30 p.m. and may expand this venue.
otion was made by Chairperson Toerge to accept the review and to model
that no delivery shall be permitted before 7:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m., and
mdition 36 in place.
imissioner McDaniel noted that unless the operator wants to change his hours,
delete condition 36. Followinq discussion the vote was called.
yes:
Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker and McDa
oes:
None
bsent:
Henn
bstain:
None
OBJECT: Newport Beach Brewing Company ITEM NO
2920 Newport Boulevard Use Permit
3485
Discussion of complaints received by concerned Cannery Village residents regarding
Newport Beach Brewing Company.
Discussion
Mr. Jim Campbell noted a letter received at the last Planning Commission meeting from
he Cannery Village Concerned, a group of residents alleging violations of the use
Lr. 12-
http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.usiPInAgendas /2006 /mnO5- 04- 06.htm 03/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/04/2006 Page 3 of 13
!rmit as well as other activities they deem a nuisance to the neighborhood. He has
!en in discussions with the Police Department, Code Enforcement and staff and has
(dressed these in the staff report. At Commission inquiry, he noted the deed
striction does not specify operation on particular days of the week. He has; however,
!en in contact with the Coastal Commission staff, Mr. Schwing, who noted his
pressions. It is his impression that our condition that limits the net public area
!tween Monday through Friday should apply daily, so that is a conflict. Mr. Schwing is
the process of acquiring the file from their archives to see if there is any additional
formation, which should be coming to staff within the next few weeks.
!rry Copley, General Manager of the Brewing Company, noted:
• Condition No. 6 - We are under the impression that it was Monday through Friday
and a section of the restaurant is closed off until 5:00 p.m. on those days.
• Condition No. 9 - The kitchen is opened during the hours of alcohol service with
the late night menu (pizzas and appetizers) from 10:00 p.m. to closing.
• Condition No. 10 - Their emphasis is on being a restaurant.
• Condition No. 17 - During football season on Sundays, there is a barbecue in the
parking lot. Patrons are not allowed to consume alcohol in the parking lot and
that is monitored.
• Nuisance issues are being addressed by the increase of security staff in the
parking lot when needed and to keep the noise level down, any patron in line is
allowed to use the restroom in the establishment; security sweep the parking lot
to assure no activity in cars, etc.; smoking is permitted on the patio; security
clears out the parking lot starting at last call and continuing until all guests have
left, which is about 1 in the morning; lids are being provided for the trash cans;
the parking lot is swept daily; the next alcohol training class is June 8th, and
about 3/4 of staff will be attending; and, letters have been sent to all purveyors
and service people regarding service deliveries between 8 a.m. and no later than
8 p.m.
• The Brewing Company feels they are a good neighbor as they have added
signage, increased security and added surveillance cameras in the parking lot.
Commission inquiry he noted:
• The staff had gone to the alcohol training in 1999; however, he has had a large
staff turnover since then and the new staff will be attending the training in June.
He agreed that he will have new staff members get the training as soon as
possible.
• The dinner crowd is usually between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m. Service from 11:00
p.m. and 1 a.m. is about 90% alcohol (55% liquor and 45% beer and wine) and
10% food.
• Security staffing is 1 on Tuesday and Wednesday; 2 on Thursday; 5 on Friday
and Saturday during a normal week.
• Barbecue is handled by an outside vendor. The patron pays for the food inside
and with a ticket they go outside and the food is put on a plate and then the
patron comes back inside sits at a table to consume the food.
)mmissioner McDaniel noted the concern is that this should not be a bar; however, it
obvious that it switches between 11 and 1 and it is a bar. This is a problem as this is
it what was approved.
y. l3
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO5- 04- 06.htm 03/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 05/04/2006 Page 4 of 13
rperson Toerge asked about a Special Events Permit.
1s. Temple answered that the need for a Special Events Permit is if there is amplified
r live outside entertainment, or that the patronage associated with the activity exceeds
50 persons. We could verify the number by sending Code Enforcement to investigate
the next time it happens.
hairperson Toerge noted this is a discussion item only. No changes to the conditions
e allowed, but the Commission can determine, following public testimony, that this
�m should be brought back for a full hearing.
comment was opened.
Low, 29th Street resident, speaking for a group of concerned citizens, noted:
• They do not wish to close the Brewery; as it brings value to the neighborhood;
and they are supported being there as advertised.
• Issues to consider: is the current use permit in error with discrepancies between
staff report, council minutes and Coastal Development permit?
• It is their contention that the intent of the use permit needs to operate in less than
1,500 square feet Monday thru Sunday.
• Adherence to the use permit and type of business that is being conducted. They
are a bar, what restaurant has bouncers? There are no complaints with other
local restaurants.
. The Brewery turns into an obtrusive bar operation after 10:30 p.m.
• Operators have made strides but the more serious ones still remain. There are
complicated issues that create a tremendous amount of difficulty for the
neighborhood.
• We are here to ask that this operation be confined to what it represented itself to
be in the beginning.
Reese, 30th Street resident, noted that patrons have to show their identification in
�r to get into the establishment. It is not a restaurant, not with bouncers and serving
( appetizers after 10:00 p.m. This operation between 10:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m. is
ling more than a bar. This area is out of control and he is disturbed by the noise in
early mornings.
)rew Wetherhault, 30th Street resident, noted he agrees with previous statements. He
hen distributed a listing of calls to the Police Department regarding alcohol related
ncidents in this area. He stated that the restaurants and bars need to be maintained to
heir use permits and allocations.
me Stade, 29th Street resident, noted she has been awakened with noise and
iimized by patrons.
)hanie Rosanelli, resident of Cannery Village, noted the noise at night and that one
not leave their windows open. She too has had her home vandalized by tagging.
ristine Andros, 30th Street resident noted the challenges are the noise and parking
activities. This establishment operates as a bar. She has spoken to the bar
gyrator on several occasions to inform him of disturbances in his parking lot.
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn05- 04- 06.htm 03/19/2007 U %U
Planning Commission Minutes 05/04/2006 Page 5 of 13
t Shepherdson, 31st Street resident, noted his agreement with previous speakers
stated any help would be welcomed.
/in Weeda, noted his agreement with the previous speakers and asked that this item
brought back for formal review.
comment was closed.
swing a brief discussion, the Planning Commission decided to bring this item back
a formal review of the use permit. This item will be scheduled for an August
was made by Chairperson Toerge bring this item back for a formal review in
istitute motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to call this item back for a
ring within 90 days of this hearing date for review of the permit and operations in
ipliance with that permit and other Coastal Commission conditions and other related
erials as necessary and take and receive public comment.
r. Harp asked if the Commission would be looking at a revocation of the permit orjust
edification or possible additional terms, how should staff set this up?
nmissioner McDaniel noted he is not interested in revocation of the use permit but
need to make sure that the conditions are adhered to.
issioner Hawkins noted this is the spirit and thrust of his substitute motion.
mmissioner Hawking restated his substitute motion: review of the permit,
ferstanding the terms of the permit, enforcement of those terms of the permit to the
ent that there is non - compliance and then possible modification. This hearing is to
within 90 days.
yes:
Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, and
oes:
None
bsent:
Henn
bstain:
None
UBJECT: Height Limit Exception for Light Standards (PA2006 -078) ITEM NC
CA No. 200
c)de Amendm o add an exception with Chapter 20.65 (Height Limits) of the Recommei
unicipal Code. Th eption would allow light standards to exceed required height for Apprc
nits subject to the revie approval of a Use Permit.
,andon Nichols, Assistant Planner, g n overview of the staff report. He noted the
upose of this amendment is to add anothe eption to Chapter 20.65 that would
low light standards to exceed established heigh . s subject to the review and
)proval of a use permit by the Planning Director. This tion requires the use
�rmit to ensure that the proposal does not have a detrimenta ct on surrounding
operties and shall be for light standards necessary for the illumin of parking lots,
hletic fields and other similar outdoor areas.
7V-6_
http: //vwiv.cit3,.ne"ort- beach. ca. us /PlaAgendas /2006 /mnO5- 04- 06.htm 03/19/2007( 15
TO:
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner
(949) 644 -3210, Lcampbellacity.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Newport Beach Brewing Company
2920 Newport Boulevard
INTRODUCTION
Agenda Item 3
May 4, 2006
FILE COPY
On April 20, 2006 under public comments, the Planning Commission received a letter
from The Cannery Village Concerned, which is a group of residents, property owners
and business persons in Cannery village, contending that the Newport Beach Brewing
Company is violating its Use Permit (Exhibit No. 1). The letter goes on to request that
the Use Permit be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Commission requested
that a report be prepared.
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file.
DISCUSSION
Background:
The current use was established in 1993 with the approval of Use Permit No. 3485. A
former market/deli was converted into the existing restaurant/brew pub and a 600
square foot outdoor patio was approved. The property is located at 2920 Newport Blvd.
in the Specialty Retail area of the Cannery Village /McFadden Square specific plan.
The Use Permit was approved subject to revisions of the off -site parking agreement
which would have allowed the applicant to use 29 parking spaces in the Cannery Village
Municipal parking lot prior to 5 p.m. However, at the Coastal Commission hearing in
July, the staff and Coastal Commission disagreed with the action that had been taken
by the City and it was their determination that the use of the 29 parking spaces in the
city lot would conflict with the public's ability to use the parking lot prior to 5 p.m.
Newport Beach Brewing Company
May 4, 2006
Page 2
The Coastal Commission approved a modified project subject to four conditions: 1) that
the applicant record a deed restriction which would allow not more than 1500 square
feet of service area being used prior to 5PM ; 2) that 41 off -site parking spaces will be
maintained between 6AM and 5PM and 67 off -site parking spaces between 5 p.m. and
2 a.m., (the 41 off -site parking spaces between 6AM and 5PM are on privately owned
property under the same ownership immediately adjacent to the brewpub and the
additional spaces would be in the Municipal lot prior to 5 p.m.; 3) that the City Council
�;i`o bind`its Oartler Action allowing the use of the off -site parking spaces in the Municipal
.,lot. Ori& to 5PM; 4) that the City will agree to enforce the restrictions on the area of
service (the 1500 square feet being used prior to 5PM). The City Council later modified
the project and conditions to conform to the Coastal Commission special conditions.
In September 1999, the City Council approved an amendment to the Use Permit to
allow Newport Beach Brewing Company full alcoholic beverage service as well as
amending Condition No. 7 related to the hours of operation on Fridays and Saturdays.
The final revised findings and conditions of approval are attached.
DISCUSSION
The letter Mr. Low presented to the Commission on April 20th was received back in
January of 2006. Since that time, Code Enforcement, Planning and Police Department
staff have been investigating and monitoring the use. Police and Code Enforcement
have meet with concerned residents and management of the Brewing Company. As a
result, the Brewing Company has been taking steps to reduce incidents that are
attributable to their patrons as well as to ensure that the use is operated in compliance
with condition. They have increased their efforts to control the parking area by
monitoring and controlling the people waiting to enter the establishment and they have
increased sweeps of the parking lot by security personnel.
`The Police Department reports that there were 14 calls for Services that are reasonably
attributable to the operation since June of 2005. Seven of the calls were for noise in the
parking lot. There was one fight at the establishment and one arrest of an unconscious
drunk man in the parking area although it is not known if the man was a patron at the
Brewing Company. The Police Department does not believe that the number of calls
and incidents are above average. The Department has stepped up patrols and is
monitoring the establishment. Checks to date have shown no violations of their ABC
license nor any violations of State law related to serving intoxicated or underage
individuals.
The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control has been contacted and has informed
the City that they are conducting an investigation as a result of the complaints submitted
by Mr. Low. The investigation is not complete and staff will follow up with ABC staff and
will take action if appropriate.
-r-�
Newport Beach Brewing Company
May 4, 2006
Page 3
Alleged Use Permit Violations
1. Condition No. 6- Net public area (NPA) limitation
This condition requires a reduction of net public area prior to 5PM weekdays.
Staff has monitored this condition periodically and has never observed a violation
as the portion of the dining area designated to be closed prior to 5PM has always
been closed. The condition does not apply to weekends.
The complaint indicates that the Coastal Commission special condition applies
daily and that the Condition No. 6 was not amended correctly to reflect what the
Coastal Commission requires. The Coastal Commission's condition requires that.
a deed restriction be recorded and it makes no reference to when the net public
area restriction would apply. Staff has requested a copy from Coastal
Commission staff and will transmit it to the Commission when it is received. Prior
to Coastal Commission consideration, the City's original condition applied the
area limitation to weekdays and not weekends and this would have been the
starting point for discussion with the Coastal Commission. There is no record in
the City's possession to indicate that the Coastal Commission intended to limit
the net public area on weekends; however the deed restriction may shed some
light on the issue. When the City amended its conditions after Coastal
Commission action, the City maintained the NPA limitation to weekdays so one
can safely conclude that changing it was not an issue with the City at that time.
2. Condition No. 9 - Ancillary alcohol sales
The complaint does not provide any evidence of a violation. The condition does
not provide any method to gauge compliance. The condition could be modified in
the future to indicate a percentage of alcohol sales to food sales.
3. Condition No. 10 — Bar prohibition
This condition indicates that the allowed use is a "restaurant/brewpub" and it
prohibits the use from becoming a bar, cocktail lounge, or other use serving
alcoholic beverages during hours not corresponding to regular meal service. It is
staffs belief that the use remains primarily a restaurant/brewpub although the
use takes on characteristics of a bar during late evening hours. A strict
interpretation of this condition would prohibit alcohol sales outside traditional
meal times; however, the operation is open to 11 PM Sunday to Wednesday and
1 AM from Thursday to Saturday. The City has taken the position with similar
uses that so long as the operator provides full meal service when open, the use
would not be considered a bar. Staff understands that the operation has a limited
menu later in the evening primarily consisting of appetizers.
Newport Beach Brewing Company
May 4, 2006
Page 4
4. Condition No. 17 — BBQ usage and alcohol use in the parking lot
Condition No. 17 requires a special events permit for events or promotional
activities outside normal operational characteristics of the use that would attract
large crowds. The complaint speaks to the use of a BBQ and the consumption of
alcohol in the parking lot. The Use Permit does not prohibit the use of a BBQ and
the operator must not interfere with the use of the parking lot or exiting. The
consumption of alcohol by anyone outside of the building or patio is not
consistent with the operating characteristics and would constitute a violation.
5. Condition D — Objectionable conditions
The complaint indicates many objectionable activities. As noted previously, the
operator has agreed to monitor and moderate the activities in the parking lot.
Further monitoring of the operator's efforts is needed. Some of the complaints
regarding patron behavior are violations of law and if witnessed, the Police
Department should be summoned. Due to the fact that the Police Department
cannot patrol the establishment as often as possibly necessary, uniformed
security in addition to the bouncers on the busiest nights may be considered.
With regards to the trash area and trash dumping, the operator indicates that
they have instructed their employees to secure the trash area and dump trash in
a more sensitive manner. The trash dumpster is not located in a superior location
as newly constructed residential units, including Mr. Low's unit, are located in
close proximity. One simple way to eliminate trash dumping noise after hours is
to prohibit it with a new condition. Trash would then need to be stored within the
building or possibly on the patio overnight and dumped in the morning as a.
reasonable hour assuming that this practice is consistent with the Health
Department'rules. Staff is lookiffg into the possibility of relocating or covering the
trash enclosure.
6. Condition E — grounds maintenance
This condition requires the operator to remove all trash or debris from the
property and sidewalks daily. The operator indicates that they will ensure
compliance with this condition. Staff has visited the site on several occasions
since receiving the initial complaint letter and found the site to be free of trash as
required.
7. Condition F — Employee alcohol service training
The operator has been directed to submit evidence of compliance with this
condition.
—r-rr
y I9 -r4-
Newport Beach Brewing Company
May 4, 2006
Page 5
Summary
The complaint indicates that the operator has no regard for the neighborhood. Staff's
collective impression is that this statement is not correct as the operator has been
responsive to addressing the nuisances that do occur from time to time at the
establishment.
The complaint is correct in that the Cannery Village is a neighborhood in transition.
Several mixed use projects have been built and occupied in the immediate area of the
NBBC and staff believes that the trend will continue. Staff does not agree with the
complainant's contention that the Council erred in the approval of this operation. The
NBBC has been co- existing fairly well, although not perfectly, with the neighborhood
since 1993. Staff agrees with the complainant in that the immediate neighborhood is
changing with the introduction of additional residents. The neighborhood is a mixed use
neighborhood in which nuisances do and will occur more often than purely residential
neighborhoods.
The applicant is aware of fact that it is their responsibility to be a good neighbor as well
as the fact that they must comply with the Use Permit. They have been responsive to
living up to their obligations and staff believes that continued monitoring is needed.
The City will continue to monitor the situation and take enforcement actions necessary
to ensure compliance with the Use Permit.
Potential courses of action
The Planning Commission can set this use permit for review and possible amendment
or revocation at a future noticed public hearing. This agenda item is for discussion
purposes only and no amendments to the conditions can be made at this time.
Prepared by: Submitted by:
VJes ampb II, Senior Planner
Attachments:
P, 4 1, �A' E�
Patricia L. Temple, P anning Director
1. Complaint letter from The Cannery Village Concerned
2. Current conditions of approval
i• � �I
The Cannery Village Concerned
Agroup of residents, property owners and business persons In the CanneryVBlage
January 25, 2006
City of Newport Beach
330 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Attn: Code Enforcement
Police Department
Planning Commission
RE: Newport Beach Brewing Company
2920 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
Use Permit Number 3485 (9/13/1999)
Dear Sir /Madame:
The purpose of this letter is to request compliance enforcement with "Use Permit" number 3485,
Issued to the Newport Beach Brewing Company and a formal request for a "Use Permit" review by
the Planning Commission.
BACKROUND:
The Newport Beach Brewing Company, hereinafter referred to as (NBBC), operates a restaurenVpub
at the above location, which was established on or about 1990. The most recent "Use Permft" was
granted In 1999, subsequent to a request by NBBC to add an ABC No. 75 alcohol license, which
allowed the NBBC to add hard liquor, over and above, beer and wine (ABC type 23 license) at the
subject location. The Planning Commission denied the request. The request was overturned and
approved by the City Council.
The applicant's main argument for the addition of the ABC 75 alcohol license as stated by Keith
Vohr, a shareholder in the NBBC, "the Idea of adding alcohol service. IS to stay competitive and
Improve the restaurant." Additionally, the applicant represented "We have from day one attempted
to be more of a restaurant than a bar." And "We are not and do not have any desires to become a
nightclub..." And Roz Salomone, the owner of NBBC stated "I live In the area and will do everything
possible to maintain harmony." And Mike Madlock, vice president of NBBC, represented "As a local
resident, I want to keep peace In the neighborhood. One of the problems that existed In the past Is
being taken care of with the closing of Snug Harbor and the Cannery Restaurant." (Above quotes
from Planning' Commission minutes August 5, 1999 and "Supplemental Information for Agenda
Item No. 17 dated 9/13/99. Both documents are enclosed).
Upon the representations of the applicant, the Planning Commission and the California Coastal
Commission Imposed conditions upon the applicant's "Use Permit" The Planning Commission and
the California Coastal Commission anticipated the "parade of horrlbles" with respect to the
neglectful behavior of the NBBC, however, after Planning Commission denial and an appeal by the
NBBC, the City Council approved the NBBC request. The City Council did not fully consider the needs
of the Cannery Village "mixed use" community In transition and was over optimistic with respect to
y.zl
Exhibit No. 9
the operators of the NBBC and the adverse Impact of the NBBC to the health, safety, peace, morals,
comfort and general Welfare of the community.
ERROR IN "USE PERMIT ":
The California Coastal Commission Imposed conditions on the NBBC. The conditions are
Incorporated in the "Coastal Development Permit" dated January 21 1994. (Copy enclosed) Under
"Special Conditions" Item 1. "Deed Restriction Limiting Daytime Use" specifically states " ... no
more than 1,500 square feet of service area of the subject restaurant/brewpub shall be open before
5 p.m."
The California Coastal Commission, at It's meeting in July 1993, made a determination that the
offsite parking agreement between the NBBC and the City of Newport Beach "would conflict with the
public use of the same spaces prior to the hour of 5 p.m. and therefore took action to modify the
approval, subject to four conditions ... 4) that the City will agree to enforce the restrictions of the
area of service (the 1500 square feet being used prior to 5 p. m.) ". (quote from the City of Newport
Beach Council meeting minutes of September 27, 1993 volume 47 pages 253 & 254 (copy
enclosed)).
Furthermore, When Mayor Turner opened the public hearing on "Use Permit" number 3485, he
specifically stated "reduce the allowable daytime "net public area" to 1500 square feet before 5:00
p.m. ' (Counci( Meeting minutes Volume 47 page 253 item 9). "James Person, representing the
applicant, stated they feel this Is a reduction of Intensity of use from the time It was approved by the
City Council last March; however they do agree to the conditions of approval imposed by both the
City and the Coastal Commission." (Council Meeting minutes September 27, 1993 Volume 47 page
254).
The "Use Permit" as executed on September 13,1999 (copy enclosed) mistakenly, In condition
number 6, only restricts the 1500 square feet of net public area devoted to daytime use on Monday
through Friday. it does not include Saturday and Sunday which was a specific condition of the
California Coastal Commission and the City Council. We are unable to find any evidence to the
contrary.
Therefore, we request a review of "Use Permit" 3485 to correct the serious error In the wording of
the "Use Permit" and the Planning Commission needs to review the "Use Permle to ensure that the
health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of the community are protected.
JURISDICTION aQ0 CONTROL:
The City of Newport Beach has jurisdiction over the NBBC and Is obligated to enforce the conditions
of the "Use Permit" Imposed by the City of Newport Beach and the California Coastal Commission.
The City of Newport Beach has control over the NBBC and may review the "Use Permit" under section
(K.) of said permit.
K. The Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to this use
permit upon a determination that this use permit causes Injury, or Is
detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of
the community.
POLICE DEPARTMENT_COMPLAINTS:
The Newport Beach Police Department has been called repeatedly to correct infractions and
disturbances by the NBBC. The police department generally responds to the complaints by residents,
property owners and business persons. It Is clear the police department Is "numb" and the
neighborhood Is "frustrated and outraged" from the frequent Infractions and disturbances; however,
It Is not acceptable that most police officers cannot do very much to resolve the complaints and
verbally respond to the neighborhood by saying "you should not live next to a bar." We respect the
y.2 Z rf
authority of the Police Department; however, the rights of all parties deserve the protection afforded
by the applicable codes and laws.
P IFIC C ITICAL VIOLATIONS•
The NBBC blatantly violates, on a continual basis, several conditions of the "Use Permit." Residents,
property owners and business persons have attempted to effectuate responsible c"peratlon and
adherence to the "Uso Permit" by way of open dialogue with the owners and management of the
NBBC. The dialogue falls:on deaf ears. No change has occurred.
A copy of the "Use Permit" Is enclosed and Incorporated with this document.
The specific violations are as follows:
1. Condition 6. The NBBC operates In a net public area greater than 1,500
square feet prior to 5 pm daily. Routinely (weekends), and during special
events sponsored by the NBBC (televised sporting events, e.g. college
sports, Super Bowl and World series, to mention a few) there Is total
disregard for this condition.
2. Condition 9. The operation of the NBBC and the service of alcoholic
beverages Is not ancillary to the primary food service operation.
3. Condition 10. The NBBC Is a "bar, cocktail lounge, or other use serving
alcoholic beverages...
4. Condition 17. The NBBC routinely cooks with a BBQ outside the front
door (by the parking lot) on Saturdays and Sundays. Patrons and
employees are permitted to consume alcoholic beverages In the parking lot
during the "food service" operation from the BBQ.
5. Condition D. The NBBC has failed to correct objectionable conditions
that constitute a nuisance In the parking areas, sidewalks, alleys and areas
surrounding the alcoholic beverage outlet and adjacent properties.
a. The NBBC allows a noisy "cue -up" line In the parking lot In the
day and night which can swell to 75 patrons, or more, waiting
to gain entrance to the establishment. The patrons "scream
and yell" In a party atmosphere waiting to gain entrance.
b. There are no toilet facilities for the crowd. The patrons
routinely vomit, urinate and defecate In the surrounding
residences and business properties.
c. Patrons have been observed In various sexual acts in the
stairways and corners of adjacent properties. Panties and bras
are often found on the adjacent properties In the mornings.
d. Destruction, by the drunken patrons, to private property and
.the, residences and businesses Is a common occurrence.
e. Slnce,smoking Is not permitted In the bullding, patrons are
Instructed and permitted to smoke tobacco In the parking lot.
The patrons continue the "party atmosphere" with no regard
for the peace or general welfare of the neighbors.
f. Patrons loiter In the parking tot and adjoining areas,
"screaming and yelling" sometimes for hours after the
establishment closes. This prevents residents from sleeping in
their homes usually until am on Friday and Saturday and 1
am on many weekdays. The loitering of over-served patrons
often erupts Into fights and confrontation.
r
g. The trash containers are full and left open. The disposal of
"hops and barley" from the brewing operation are left open for
the birds to eat at their leisure. The odor Is disgusting. The
procedure of "cleaning up" the bar operation results In bottles
and trash being dumped by employees well after the NBBC
hours of operation have expired.
6. Condition E. The parking lot and surrounding areas are riddled with
litter and trash which requires the residents and business owners to pick up
trash continually to maintain an acceptable environment.
6. Condition F. The employees of the NBBC do not receive their
certified training as required by the "Use Permit."
The NBBC allows unbearable conditions to exist, all of which are critical violations of the "Use
Permit." The NBBC has no regard for their neighbors or neighborhood.
In the spirit of "peaceful coexistence" and "civllity" the City of Newport Beach, the Alcohol and
Beverage Control, The California Coastal Commission and the Newport Beach Police Department
must act promptly and effectively to restore order to the neighborhood.
Sincerely,
The Cannery Village Concerned
cc: Alcohol and Beverage Control
California Coastal Commission
y. z y
E)CMIT "B"
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL
FOR
USE PERMIT No. 3485 (AMENDED)
APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL 09/13/1999
FINDINGS:
147
1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Retail and
Service Commercial' uses and a restaurant/brewpub is considered a permitted
use within this designation.
2. The project is located within the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific
Plan (SP -6) - Specialty Retail (SR) District that permits eating and drinking
establishments with a use permit.
3. On -sale alcoholic beverage outlets are permitted with the approval of a use
permit,
4. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is
categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities).
5. The approval of the amendment to Use Permit No. 3485 to allow a full on -sale
alcoholic beverage service will not, under the circumstances of the case, be
detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the
City, for the following reasons:
■ The restaurant/brewpub use is compatible with
the surrounding commercial and nearby
residential uses since eating and drinking
establishments are typically allowed in mixed
commercial districts.
• Conditions have been added to address potential
problems associated with traffic, parking, trash
disposal, odors, and unsightly conditions.
• A Condition has been added to require a special
events permit for any event or promotional
activity outside the normal operational
characteristics of this restaurant business.
Z5
Exhibit No. 2
b. The proposed project is consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 20.89 of
the Zoning Code (Alcoholic Beverage Outlets) for the following reasons:
■ The convenience of the public will be served by the sale of distilled
beverages in a restaurant/brewpub setting.
• The project is in an area where the crime rate exceeds the citywide
average by more than 20 %. However, there is no evidence that this
high crime rate is attributable to the proposed project.
• The number of alcohol licenses per capita in the reporting district and
adjacent reporting districts is above the average for Orange County.
However, the project has the only alcohol license for a brewpub, and
the convenience of the public can be served by the sale of distilled
spirits in a restaurant/brewpub setting.
■ The percentage of alcohol - related arrests in the reporting district in
which the project is proposed and in the adjacent reporting district is
higher than the percentage of alcohol - related arrests citywide.
However, there is no evidence that the alcohol - related arrests are
attributable to the project.
■ No day care centers, places of religious assembly, park and
recreation facilities, or schools are located in the vicinity of the
project site. Residential uses are located in the vicinity of the
project site. However, the project has been conditioned so as to
address any potential impacts.
CONDITIONS:
1. The proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site
plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below.
2. That a covenant or other suitable, legally binding agreement shall be recorded against
the off -site parking lot assuring that all of the requirements of Section 20.63.080 (I) of
the Municipal Code, will be met by the current and future property owners. Said
covenant or agreement may include provisions for its future termination at such time
as the development on the building site is removed or at such time as the floor area
devoted to the restaurant/brewpub reverts back to a base FAR use.
3. The applicant shall provide a minimum of one parking space for each 50 square feet
of net public area before 5:00 p.m. and one parking space for each 40 square feet of
net public area after 5:00 p.m. in conjunction with the restaurant/brewpub.
4. An amended off -site parking agreement shall be approved by the City Council,
guaranteeing that a minimum of 41 parking spaces shall be provided on property
iii y 2(P
located on .Lots 18 -21 and portions of Lots 17 and 22, Block 230, Lancaster's
Addition, for the duration of the existing and proposed uses located on Parcel 1,
Parcel Map 92 -40 (Resubdivision No. 527).
5. The property owner shall pay for 29 in -lieu parking spaces in the Cannery Village
Municipal Parking Lot on an annual basis for the nighttime operation (after 5:00
p.m.) of the restaurant/brewpub use as agreed upon by the Sales Agreement between
the City of Newport Beach and the property owner.
6. The net public area of the restaurant/brewpub, which is devoted to daytime use
Monday through Friday (prior to 5:00 p.m.) shall be limited to 1,500 square feet. The
balance of the net public area shall be physically closed off to the public by a fixed
barrier and shall not be used until after 5:00 p.m. daily.
7. The hours of operation for the restaurant/brewpub shall be limited to the hours
between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and between 6:00 a.m.
and 1:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday.
S. All employees shall park either in the privately owned off -site parking area or in one
of the municipal parking lots in the area.
9. The operation of the brewery and the service of alcoholic beverages shall be ancillary
to the primary food service operation of the restaurant.
10. The approval of this use permit is for a restaurantfbrewpub and shall not be construed
as the approval of a bar, cocktail lounge, or other use serving alcoholic beverages
during hours not corresponding to regular meal service hours (food products sold or
served incidentally to the sale or service of alcoholic beverages shall not be deemed
as constituting regular meal service) nor as the approval of a cabaret, nightclub, or
other use with the principal purpose of providing live entertainment and/or dancing.
11. No outdoor loudspeakers or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the
proposed location.
12. A washout area for refuse containers shall be provided in such a way as to allow
direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless
otherwise approved by the Building Department.
13. Kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the satisfaction
of the Building Department.
14. All mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from surrounding public
streets and alleys and adjoining properties.
15. The development standards regarding walls surrounding the restaurant site and
underground utilities shall be waived.
iv
�(. 2 7
16, Should prerecorded music be played within the restaurant facility, such music shall be
confined to the interior of the building, and all doors and windows shall be kept
closed while such music is played.
17, A special events permit is required for any event or promotional activity outside the
normal operational characteristics of this restaurant business that would attract large
crowds, involve the sale of alcoholic beverages, include any form of on -site media
broadcast, or any other activities as specified in the Newport Beach Municipal Code
to require such permits.
18. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future
owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the
current business owner, property owner or the leasing company.
STANDARD CITY REQUIREMENTS:
A. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless
specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval.
B. Signs and displays shall not obstruct the sales counter, cash register, seller and
customer from view from the exterior.
C. Loitering, open container, and other signs specified by the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Act shall be posted as required by the ABC.
D. The applicant shall take reasonable steps to discourage and correct objectionable
conditions that constitute a nuisance in parking areas, sidewalks, alleys and areas
surrounding the alcoholic beverage outlet and adjacent properties must be taken
during business hours if directly related to the patrons of the subject alcoholic
beverage outlet.
E. The exterior of the alcoholic beverage outlet shall be maintained free of litter and graffiti
at all times. The owner or operator shall provide for daily removal of trash, litter debris
and graffiti from the premises and on all abutting sidewalks within 20 feet of the
premises.
F. All owners, managers and employees serving and/or selling alcoholic beverages shall
undergo and successfully complete a certified training program in responsible methods
and skills for serving and selling alcoholic beverages. To qualify to meet the
requirements of this section a certified program must meet the standards of the
California Coordinating Council on Responsible Beverage Service or other
certifying/licensing body, which the State may designate. The establishment shall
comply with the requirements of this section within 180 days of the issuance of the
certificate of occupancy.
v
y. ZF
G. The project will comply with the provisions of Chapter 14.30 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code for commercial kitchen grease disposal.
H. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.67 of the Municipal Code.
I. This use permit for an alcoholic beverage outlet granted in accordance with the terms of
this chapter shall expire within 12 months from the date of approval unless a license has
been issued or transferred by the California State Department of Alcoholic Beverage
Control prior to the expiration date.
J. Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to issuance of any building
permits.
K. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use
permit upon a determination that this use permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the
health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community.
vi
y zy �
Exhibit No. 2
54A N K
v. 31 ,;�,
� � �'
va'k '4 � k
r6{ Y 'fi �...� ,.�.
: C
Planning Commission i bting February 18,1993-
Agenda Item No. 3
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: Use Permit No 3485 (Public Hearinell
Request to permit the establishment of a combination
restaurant/brewpub with on -sale beer and wine, on property located
in the "Specialty Retail" area of the Cannery Village /McFadden
Square Specific Plan. The proposal also includes: the establishment of
an outdoor patio dining area; the use of 29 previously approved in -lieu
parking spaces located in the Cannery Village Municipal Parking Lot;
the amendment of a previously approved off -site parking agreement so
as to increase the number of privately owned off -site parking spaces to
41 spaces; and the approval of a transfer of development rights from
the privately owned off -site parking area to the restaurant site.
LOCATION: Parcel 1, Parcel Map 92 -40 (Resubdivision No. 527) (restaurant site);
and portions of Lots 17 and 22 and Lots 18 -21, Block 230, Lancaster's
Addition (off -site parking lot) located at 2920 Newport Boulevard, on
the southeasterly corner of Newport Boulevard (northbound) and 30th
Street, in Cannery Village.
ZONE: SP -6
APPLICANT: Michael Madlock, Manhattan Beach
OWNER: Dorothy Doan, Santa Ana
Application
This application involves a request to permit the establishment of a combination
restaurant /brewpub with on -sale beer and wine, on property located in the "Specialty Retail"
area of the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan. The proposal also includes:
the establishment of an outdoor patio dining area; the use of 29 previously approved in -lieu
parking spaces located in the Cannery Village Municipal Parking Lot; the amendment of
a previously approved off -site parking agreement so as to increase the number of privately
owned off -site parking spaces to 41 spaces; and the approval of a transfer of development
rights from the privately owned off -site parking area to the restaurant site. In accordance
with the provision of the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan, restaurants are
permitted in the "Specialty Retail" area subject to the approval of a use permit in each case.
Section 20.07.070 of the Municipal Code also provides that the transfer of development
y.32
TO: Plan )g Commission - 2.
rights between two properties shall be subject to a use permit in each case. Use permit
procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.80 of the Municipal Code.
Environmental Significance
This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt
from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing
Facilities).
Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses
The subject property is comprised of two parcels of land. Parcel No. 1 contains a 7,276±
sq.ft. commercial building with the Pelican Market on the ground floor (now vacant), offices
on the second floor and 2 on -site parking spaces. Parcel No. 2 is a privately owned off -site
parking area containing 41 parking spaces which the property owner has under a long term
lease. To the north, across 30th Street is an automobile repair facility, a mixed
commercial /residential development, a vacant lot and a stained glass shop; to the east is the
Cannery Village Municipal Parking Lot; to the south, across a 14 foot wide alley is the Cafe
Looma Restaurant (now vacant); and to the west, across Newport Boulevard are a variety
of commercial uses.
Background
At its meeting of July 15, 1976, the Planning Commission approved Site Plan Review No.
1, which permitted the construction of the existing commercial building which at the time,
was on property located in a Specific Plan Area where a specific plan had not been adopted.
In such cases, any new development is subject to the approval of a Site Plan Review. Said
approval also included a recommendation to the City Council to approve an off -site parking
agreement so as to provide a minimum of 29 parking spaces on the adjoining parcel behind
the building. It should be noted that the parking area at the rear of the building includes
2 on -site spaces and 41 off -site spaces. At the same meeting, the Planning Commission
approved Resubdivision No. 527, which permitted the establishment of a single building site
for the two story commercial building and eliminated interior lot lines where two lots
previously existed. The actions of the Planning Commission was taken with the findings and
subject to the conditions of approval set forth in the attached excerpts of the Planning
Commission minutes dated July 15, 1976.
At its meting of July 26, 1976, the City Council approved an off -site parking agreement
which permitted the use of the off -site parking spaces described above.
In 1988, the City of Newport Beach purchased the property identified on the attached
Assessor's Map as the Cannery Village Municipal Parking Lot from the property owner. As
a condition of the sale, the property owner was given an option to purchase 47 in -lieu
parking spaces with the following stipulations:
y.33
TG: Plan: g Comrission - 3.
1. The option must be exercised within two years of the close of escrow (April
8, 1988). It is noted that this option has been exercised by the property
owner.
2. The use of the in -lieu spaces is limited to businesses on the Cafe L.00ma and
the Pelican Market sites. It is noted that the property owner committed 18
of the 47 in -lieu spaces to the reestablishment of the restaurant known as
Cafe L.00ma at 2900 Newport Boulevard (Use Permit No. 3343).
3. Any use of the in -lieu spaces would be for nighttime only, from 5:00 p.m. to
6:00 a.m.
4. Any in -lieu spaces would be purchased at the current rate ($150.00 per space
per year), but not to exceed $500.00 during the first five years (from the
exercise of the option). During the second five years, the rate would be 75%
of the current rate or $500.00, whichever is less. After ten years, the rate
reverts to the current rate set forth in the Municipal Code at the time.
Analysis
The applicant is proposing to establish a combination restaurant and brewpub in the ground
floor portion of the existing building. As represented in the attached floor plan for the
facility, the brewery will occupy approximately 1,532± square feet (32 percent) of the total
gross floor area of the restaurant which is approximately 4,776± square feet, including the
outdoor dining area. The 'het public area" of the restaurant will be 2,532± square feet
including a 600± square foot outdoor dining area which is proposed in the front of the
restaurant. The applicant has indicated that there will be approximately 10 employees on
duty during peak hours of operation, and the hours of operation will be from 6:00 a.m. to
11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. on Friday and
Saturday. Beer and wine will also be served. No live entertainment is proposed. A letter
from the applicant describing the operation is attached for Commission review.
Conformance with the General Plan and the
Local Coastal Pro ram Land Use Plan
The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan
designate the site for 'Retail and Service Commercial' use. The proposed restaurant is a
permitted use within this designation. Although the proposed brewery is not specifically
listed as a permitted use in the 'Retail and Service Commercial' area, it occupies only 32
percent of the total floor area of the facility; therefore, it is staffs opinion that it is clearly
an incidental use which is ancillary to the primary restaurant use and is therefore a
permitted use.
The Land Use Element also establishes area specific land use policies throughout the City.
These "area" policies set a floor area ratio (F.A.R.) development limit of 0.5/0.75 FAR on
TO: Planr"..g Commission - 4.
the subject property. Based on this requirement, the Base Development Allocation for
Parcel 1 which is developed with the commercial building, is 0.5 times the site area or
4,159± square feet (8,319± sq.ft. x 0.5 = 4,159± sq.ft.). As indicated previously, the gross
floor area of the existing building on Parcel 1 is 7,276± square feet or .87 FAR; therefore,
the existing structure is nonconforming relative to allowable Floor Area Ratio.
It is also noted that the proposed restaurant is classified as a Reduced FAR use and will
occupy an existing commercial space previously used as a retail market. In cases such as
this, where a commercial building is to be occupied by a combination of a Base FAR use
(offices), a Reduced FAR use (restaurant), and a Maximum FAR use (brewery), Section
20.07.040 of the Municipal Code provides that the Base Development Allocation shall not
be exceeded by the sum of the weighted square footages of each type of use. Weighted
square footages are determined by multiplying the gross floor area of a given use by a
weighted factor of 1.67 for Reduced FAR uses, 1.0 for Base FAR uses and 0.5 for Maximum
FAR uses. The following table sets forth the weighted development for each type of uses
within the proposed project:
Type Use Square Footaee x Weighting_ Factor = Weighted - Development
Office 3,100± sq.ft. x 1.0 = 3,100± sq.ft.
Restaurant 3,244± sq.ft. x 1.67 = 5,417± sq.ft.
Brewery 1,532± sq.ft. x 0.5 = 766±sa.ft.
Total Weighted Development 9,283± sq.ft.
Previous Weighted Development 7.276± sa.ft.
Net Increase In Weighted Development 2,007± sq.ft.
As indicated in the above table, the establishment of the proposed restaurant and brewpub
will increase the weighted development on the property by 2,007± square feet. Inasmuch
as Parcel 1 is nonconforming with regards to Floor Area Ratio, Section 20.07.070 G of the
Municipal Code requires the elimination of the nonconforming FAR in conjunction with a
transfer of development rights; and further, that the gross floor area following the intensity
transfer shall not exceed the'oase development allocation permitted by the Code. In light
of this requirement, it is necessary for the property owner to record a covenant or
agreement which transfers 5,124± square feet of the 6,603± square feet (13,206± sq.ft. x
0.5 = 6,603± sq.ft.) of development rights of Parcel 2 to Parcel 1, thereby bringing the
weighted development proposed on Parcel 1 to within the allowable 0.5 Base Development
Allocation. Such a covenant may be worded so as to allow for a reversion of the
development rights should the development on Parcel 1 be removed or the proposed
restaurant be replaced by a Base FAR uses such as retail or service commercial, or offices.
Off - Street Parking Requirement
Based on the current restaurant parking requirement of one parking space for each 40
square feet of "net public area ", 64 parking spaces are required for the subject restaurant
use (2,532± sq.ft. _ 40 sq.ft.= 63.3 or 64 spaces). It should be further mentioned that
pursuant to Section 20.30.035 B(4) of the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission may
TO:
Plan. g Commission - 5.
increase or decrease the parking requirement of a restaurant within a range of one parking
space for each 30 sq.ft. of "net public area" (85 parking spaces) or one parking space for
each 50 sq.ft. of "net public area' (51 spaces). It is staffs opinion that one parking space
for each 40 square feet of "net public area" will be adequate in this case, inasmuch as there
is no dancing or live entertainment proposed with the restaurant.
In addition to the restaurant parking, the existing remaining offices on the second floor of
the building require one parking spaces for each 250 square feet of floor area, or 12 parking
spaces (3,000± sq.ft. + 250 sq.ft. = 12 spaces). Therefore, the combined day -time parking
requirement for the existing and proposed uses is 76 parking spaces. Inasmuch as a majority
of the office uses on the property are closed after 5:00 p.m. during the week and on
weekends, the nighttime and weekend parking requirement for the property is only 64
spaces.
Proposed Off - Street Parking
As indicated in the previous Background Section, there are 2 on -site parking spaces and 41
off -site parking spaces which are currently leased by the property owner and are for the
exclusive unrestricted use of the proposed restaurant /brewpub and the second floor offices
within the subject building. In addition, the property owner has 29 remaining in -lieu parking
spaces in the Cannery Village Municipal Parking Lot; however, such parking may only be
used between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Therefore, the subject property has 43 daytime spaces
and 72 nighttime spaces after 5 :00 p.m.
Inasmuch as the second floor offices will be closed after 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday
and all day on Saturday and Sunday, the applicant is proposing to maintain a shared parking
arrangement in order to satisfy the off - street parking requirement for the
restaurant /brewpub. The following table sets forth the nighttime and daytime parking
requirement for each use:
Parking ]
Type Use Daytime
Offices 12 spaces
Restaurant 64 spaces
Total 76 spaces
tequirement
Nighttime
and Weekends
0 spaces
64-spaces
64 spaces
Parking_ Provided
Daytime Nighttime
and Weekends
12 spaces
0 spaces
31 spaces
72 space
43 spaces
72 spaces
As indicated in the above figures, the available daytime parking for the restaurant is
deficient by 33 parking spaces (64 spaces - 31 spaces = 33 spaces). Based on the available
daytime parking for the restaurant (31 spaces) only 1,240 square feet of "net public area"
would be permitted before 5:00 p.m. (31 spaces x 40 sq.ft. per space = 1,240 sq.ft.). In
order to allow a greater amount of daytime "net public area' in the restaurant, the property
owner is proposing to ask the City Council to remove the daytime restriction on the in -lieu
parking spaces, which would provide 29 additional daytime parking spaces. Such an
approval would increase the restaurant daytime parking to 60 spaces (31 private spaces +
TO: Plamwig Commission - 6.
29 in -lieu spaces = 60 spaces) which would allow up to 2,400 square feet of "net public area"
in the proposed restaurant during the day. This means that 132± square feet of the
proposed "net public area" could not be used until the second floor offices closed at 5:00
p.m. In previous similar situations, the Planning Commission has required a suitable portion
of the "net public area" to be physically separated and identified for nighttime use only.
Staff has included such a condition in the attached Exhibit "A" for approval.
Proposed Amendment to Off -Site Parkin Agreement
As mentioned previously, the use of the privately owned off -site parking area was approved
in conjunction with the original construction of the subject building and includes the
provision,of a minimum of 29 parking spaces. Inasmuch as all 41 of the off -site parking
spaces will be required as a result of this application, the property owner is required to
amend its off -site parking agreement so as to reflect the current number of required parking
spaces. Staff has no objections to an increase in the number off -site parking spaces
associated with this application.
Restaurant Develoyment Standards
Chapter 20.72 of the Municipal Code contains development standards for restaurants to
ensure that any proposed development will be compatible with adjoining properties and
streets. Said development standards include specific requirements for building setbacks,
parking and traffic circulation, walls surrounding the restaurant site, landscaping, exterior
illumination, signing, underground utilities, and storage. Section 20.72.130 of the Municipal
Code states that any of the above mentioned development standards for restaurants may be
modified or waived if such modification or waiver will achieve substantially the same results
and will in no way be more detrimental to adjacent properties or improvements than will
the strict compliance with the standards. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve
this application, staff is of the opinion that the on -site development standards as they apply
to walls surrounding the restaurant site, and underground utilities should be waived because
of the existing developed nature of the site.
Uecific Findings
Section 20.80.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any
use permit, the Planning Commission shall find that the establishment, maintenance or
operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the
particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general
welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be
detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general
welfare of the City. Section 20.07.070 J of the Municipal Code provides that certain findings
shall be made in conjunction with the approval of a transfer of development rights. Finally,
Section 20.63.045 B requires certain findings to be made in conjunction with the approval
of an off -site parking agreement. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve Use
Permit No. 3485, the findings and conditions of approval set forth in the attached Exhibit
y 3 7-e
Trt-�
TO: Pla; g Commission - 7.
"A" are suggested. Should the Planning Commission wish to deny the application, the
findings and conditions of approval set forth in the attached Exhibit "B" are suggested.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director
By
William Ward
Senior Planner
Attachments: Exhibit "A"
Exhibit "B"
Vicinity Map
Assessor's Parcel Map showing location of restaurant site, off -site
parking area and Cannery Village Municipal Parking Lot
Letter from applicant describing the brewpub concept of operation
Excerpts of the Planning Commission Minutes dated July 15, 1976,
pertaining to Site Plan Review No. 1 and Resubdivision No. 527
Site Plan, Floor Plan and Elevations
�f.3k .�
NEWPORT BEACH BREWING COMPANY
Newport Beach Brewing Company, Inc. "(the Operators) ", is a
California Corporation formed to construct and operate a
restaurant /brew -pub to be called Newport Beach Brewing Company,
which will be located at 2920 Newport Boulevard in Newport Beach,
California.
The restaurant will be open from 6:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m., five
days a week and 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., Friday and Saturday. There
will be no live entertainment.
The exterior of the restaurant /brew -pub will offer a person
passing -by the "old world" ambiance of a fun and energetic eating
and drinking establishment. This highly desirable Cap Cod designed
building is highlighted with a random pattern brick front, shingle
roof, gables, window walk, and painted wood trim.
The focal point of the restaurant /brew -pub will be the custom
made copper accented stainless steel beer brewing equipment that
will be placed behind the bar and will rise to the ceiling of the
building. These brewing tanks and storage vats will be cleaned and
polished daily to keep their luster and appeal.
The Operators of the restaurant /brew -pub are working carefully
with their experienced architect and design team to select a theme
that will create a warm, yet vibrant environment for patrons to
enjoy. An emphasis for the interior of the restaurant will be
comfortable stained hard -wood and brick that offer a rustic old
world charm and ambiance. The bar is expected to be stained and
shined dark hardwood and cooper with a brass foot rail that will
give the immediate area an "upper- class" feel. There will be
bountiful seating at the bar and on bar stools directly across from
the bar. There will be seating at tables throughout the remainder
of the restaurant, as well as -on -the patio. The walls will be
brick and decorated with memorabilia from the brewing industry with
particular emphasis on California pre - prohibition breweries, early
Newport Beach and brew -pubs and micro - brewers currently operating
in California and the Pacific Northwest.
The restaurant's menu will feature classic, as well as, up-
to -date cuisine that will appeal to the modern palate. Appetizers
will include buffalo wings, beer battered fried onion rings, and
"Armadillo eggs" (stuffed jalapeno peppers). A visible custom
brick wood fired pizza oven will be the focal point as a number of
individual gourmet wood fired pizzas will be served. Newport
Beach's "finest" fresh ground burger will also head the entrees
with other choices including a "naked" chicken breast sandwich, and
a selected number of pasta dishes. A wide variety of salads will
be offered either before a meal or as a meal themselves and "World
y.3q �
Championship" homemade chili will be served in a similar manner.
There will also be an assortment of fresh baked desserts available
to patrons of the establishment.
The restaurant /brew -pub intends to offer a full service wine
and beer bar with the emphasis on premium beer that will be brewed
on the premises. There will usually be four to six beers available
that were brewed on site. The range of beers will include ales,
pilsners, lagers and stouts. The brewery will produce
approximately 16 varieties of beer each year, including such
special seasonal flavors as Octoberfest Pilsnor and Christmas Ale.
The beer should present itself as quite a value to the customer,
since a 16 -ounce glass of premium, rich beer will cost justly
slightly more than a 12 -ounce bottle of mass produced domestic
beer. The beer brewed on the premises will easily overmatch both
domestic and imported beers in quality and taste. A claim such as
this can be made since the ingredients will be of the highest
quality and procured under the direct supervision of the brew -
master and the beer will be served as soon as it has completed
fermenting, giving the consumer a fresh taste without any
preservatives.
The bar will also offer a full range of soft drinks, wines,
as well as bottled domestic beer with a limited selection of
bottled imported alcoholic and non - alcoholic beers.
The Operators intend to construct the restaurant /brew -pub at
2920 Newport Boulevard which is the corner of Newport Boulevard and
30th Street between Newport Boulevard and Villa Way in Newport
Beach, California (the "Premises "). The Premises is located within
the "Cannery Village" area of Newport Beach which is intended to
serve as an active pedestrian- oriented specialty retail/ restaurant
area with a wide range of visitor- serving, neighborhood commercial,
and marine - related uses permitted.
y. ya
COMMISSIONERS
MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEAf�ary 18.1993
ROLL CALL
INDEX
12. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission
approval of this application prior to the recordation of the
parcel map or issuance of a building permit.
13. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been
recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an
extension is granted by the Planning Commission.
Use Permit No. 3485 (Public I-Iearine2
Item No.
Request to permit the establishment of a combination
UP3485
restaurant /brewpub with on -sale beer and wine, on property
located in the "Specialty Retail' area of the Cannery
Approved
Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. The proposal also
includes: the establishment of an outdoor patio dining area; the
use of 29 previously approved in -lieu parking spaces located in the
Cannery Village Municipal Parking Lot; the amendment of a
previously approved off -site parking agreement so as to increase
the number of privately owned off -site parking spaces to 41 spaces;
and the approval of a transfer of development rights from the
privately owned off -site parking area to the restaurant site.
LOCATION: Parcel 1, Parcel Map 92 -40 (Resubdivision
No. 527) (restaurant site); and portions of
Lots 17 and 22 and Lots 18 -21, Block 230,
Lancaster's Addition (off -site parking lot)
located at 2920 Newport Boulevard, on the
southeasterly corner of Newport Boulevard
(northbound) and 30th Street, in Cannery
Village.
ZONE: SP -6
APPLICANT: Michael Madlock, Manhattan Beach
OWNER: Dorothy Doan, Santa Ana
-14-
Ll- y r
"3
COMMISSIONERS
P �d�p+
MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEARguary 18 1993
Z
ROLL CALL
INDEX
James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that the applicant
is proposing to utilize 29 in -lieu parking spaces that are located in
the Cannery Village Municipal Parking Lot for the daytime
operation of the subject facility. The subject Municipal Parking
Lot is not currently occupied 100 percent 12 months of the year;
however, during the summer months it is relatively heavily used by
recreational users and by employees at City Hall. The Municipal
Parking Lot also has blue parking meters that were formerly
located in front of City Hall. The blue meters allow individuals
who purchase parking permits to use the parking spaces at less
cost than the standard parking meters. If the Commission would
approve the applicant to use the 29 in -lieu parking spaces during
the day, the Commission would be displacing individuals who are
currently using the parking lot. He questioned if the Commission
wants to displace recreational users of the subject Municipal
parking lot to allow for a new commercial use coming into the
City.
In response to questions posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr.
Hewicker replied that signs would not be placed in the parking lot
so as to restrict the 29 parking spaces for the restaurant use only.
In reference to her questions regarding Condition No. 6, Exhibit
"A ", William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, explained that
if the Commission does not allow the applicant to utilize the
Municipal Parking Lot spaces prior to 5:00 p.m. then the
restaurant would be limited to 1,240 square feet of "net public
area" until 5:00 p.m. If the Commission `and the City Council
allowed the daytime use of the in -lieu parking spaces for the
restaurant facility, a "net public area" of 2,400 square feet would
be permitted prior to 5:00 p.m. He indicated that 132 square feet
of "net public area" would still have to be closed in the restaurant
prior to 5:00 p.m. even if the 29 in -lieu parking spaces would be
allowed in the Municipal Parking Lot.
The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and
Mr. James Person appeared before the Planning Commission on
behalf of the applicant. He concurred with the findings and
conditions in Exhibit "A "; however, he requested that Condition
No. 7, Exhibit "A" be amended to state that the operational hours
-15-
3
Z
COMMISSIONERS
�„ y� p>� C �• p' P O� O s� ' p
MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEAfweruary 18 1993
ROLL CALL
INDEX
would be between 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight Sunday through
Thursday and between 6:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. on Friday and
Saturday. Mr. Person stated that the applicant would close a
portion of the restaurant if the City Council does not approve the
daytime use of the in -lieu parking spaces. He indicated that the
public is walking and bicycling to many of the establishments and
parking has not become a big factor in the area on Sunday
afternoons. He explained that he recently observed that the
majority of the blue meter parking spaces were being used and
only three silver meter spaces were being used in the Cannery
Village Municipal Parking Lot.
In response to a question posed by Chairman Edwards, Mr. Person
explained that parking spaces are not a big problem in the
adjacent area during the summer months.
Mr. Rob Friedman, co -owner of the property located at 405, 407,
and 409 - 30th Street, and a resident at 405 - 30th Street, appeared
before the Planning Commission. He expressed his concerns
regarding the noise emitting from the outdoor patio area of the
facility, and the types of signage on the establishment. Mr.
Friedman indicated that there would not be a parking problem as
long as the subject facility does not have exclusive rights to parking
spaces in the Municipal Parking Lot.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gifford, Mr.
Friedman replied that he did not know the hours of operation of
the commercial establishments on his property.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr.
Hewicker explained that the Sign Code permits 200 square feet of
signage per -frontage of a building, and he stated that the City does
not allow blinking or flashing signs. Mr. Friedman and Mr.
Hewicker discussed Mr. Friedman's concerns regarding the noise.
Mr. Hewicker referred to Condition No. 24, Exhibit "A", stating
that the Commission may call up the use permit for review if it is
determined that there are changes in the use that are detrimental
to the community.
-16-
y.y3
4
MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACp _.,o ,nn,
aa. vi ua,y 10, a»✓
ROLL CALL
INDEX
There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public
hearing was closed at this time.
Motion
*
Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3485
Ayes
*
subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", and to
Absent
amend Condition No. 7 as requested. MOTION CARRIED.
Findines:
1. That the proposed application is consistent with the Land
Use Element of the General Plan, the Local Coastal
Program Land Use Plan, and is compatible with
surrounding land uses.
2. That adequate parking is available for the proposed use.
3. That the proposed development will not have any
significant environmental impact.
4. That the Police Department does not anticipate any
problems associated with the proposed restaurant /brewpub.
5. That the transfer of development intensity will
accommodate the efficient use of land within an existing
development comprised of two interdependent parcels.
6.- That the transfer- of - development intensity will not
adversely affect the aesthetics of the area.
7. That the proposed transfer of development intensity will
not result in a physical increase in commercial floor area
within the subject property and therefore, will not create an
abrupt change in scale between the existing development
and development in the surrounding area.
8. That the proposed transfer of development intensity will
not result in the impairment of public views.
-17-
-r
COMMISSIONERS
MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEAQ,a,v 1R. 7993
ROLL CALL
INDEX
9. The proposed transfer of development intensity will not
result in a net negative impact on the circulation system.
10. That the off -site parking lot is so located as to be useful in
connection with the proposed uses on the subject property.
11. Parking on the off -site parking lot will not create undue
traffic hazards in the surrounding area.
12. Ownership of the off -site parking lot is constituted by
leasehold interest for a remaining period of 59 years by the
property owner of the building site.
13. The owner and the City, upon the approval of the City
Council, will execute a written instrument, approved as to
form and content by the City Attorney, providing for the
maintenance of the required off- street parking on the
designated property for the duration of the proposed uses
on the building site.
14. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3485 will not, under
the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health,
safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of
persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be
detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in
the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City.
Conditions:
1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and
elevations, except as noted below.
2. That a covenant or other suitable, legally binding
agreement shall be recorded against the off -site parking lot
assuring that all of the requirements of Section 20.07.070 J
of the Municipal Code, will be met by the current and
future property owners. Said covenant or agreement may
include provisions for its future termination at such time as
-18-
5'.415
COMMISSIONERS
MINUTES -
CITY OF NEWPORT BEAary 18 1993
LOLL CALL
INDEX
the development on the building site is removed or at such
time as the floor area devoted to the restaurant/brewpub
reverts back to a Base FAR use.
3. That the applicant shall provided a minimum of one
parking space for each 40 square feet of "net public area"
in conjunction with the proposed restaurant /brewpub.
4. That an amended off -site parking agreement shall be
approved by the City Council, guaranteeing that a minimum
of 41 parking spaces shall be provided on property located
on Lots 18 -21 and portions of Lots 17 and 22, Block 230,
Lancaster's Addition, for the duration of the existing and
proposed uses located on Parcel 1, Parcel Map 92 -40
(Resubdivision No. 527).
5. That the property owner shall pay for 29 in- lieu -- parking
spaces in the Cannery Village Municipal Parking Lot on an
annual basis for the restaurant/brewpub use as agreed
upon by the Sales Agreement between the City and the
property owner.
6. That the "net public area" of the restaurant/brewpub, which
is devoted to daytime use Monday through Friday (prior to
5:00 p.m.) shall be limited to 1,240 sq.ft. unless the
applicant obtains the City Council's approval for the
daytime use of the in -lieu parking spaces referred to in
Condition No. 5. In such case, the "net public area" shall
not exceed 2,400 square feet before 5:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday. The balance of the "net public area" in
either case shall be physically closed off to the public by a
fixed barrier and shall not be used until after 5:00 p.m.
7. That the hours of operation for the restaurant /brewpub
shall be limited to the hours between 6:00 a.m. and 12:00
midnight Sunday through Thursday and between 6:00 a.m.
and 2:00 a.m- on Friday and Saturday.
8. That all employees shall park either in the privately owned
-19-
v. v�
C OMMISSIONERS
MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEAPU,,,,,,Q 1QQz
ROT "ALL
INDEX
off -site parking area or in one of the Municipal parking lots
in the area.
9. That all signs shall conform to the requirements of Chapter
20.06 of the Municipal Code.
10. That the operation of the brewery and the service of
alcoholic beverages shall be ancillary to the primary food
service operation of the restaurant.
11. That no outdoor loudspeakers or paging system shall be
permitted in conjunction with the proposed operation.
12. That a washout area for refuse containers be provided in
such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer
system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless
otherwise approved by the Building Department.
13. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in
the restaurant facility where grease may be introduced into
the drainage systems in accordance with the provisions of
the Uniform Plumbing Code, unless otherwise approved by
the Building Department.
14. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control
smoke and odor to the satisfaction of the Building
Department.
15. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be
screened from surrounding public streets and alley and
adjoining properties.
V►-
16. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission
approval of this application prior to the issuance of building
permits.
17. That the development standards regarding walls
surrounding the restaurant site and underground utilities
shall be waived.
-20-
Y. 4 ;
COMMISSIONERS
MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEAQninry 1R_ 1993
ROLL CALL
INDEX .
18. That all improvements be constructed as required by
Ordinance and the Public Works Department.
19. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and
pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review
by the City Traffic Engineer and that the parking lot be
restriped as approved by the Traffic Engineer.
20. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces
shall be designated within the on -site parking area and shall
be used solely for handicapped self - parking. One
handicapped sign on a post and one handicapped sign on
the pavement shall be required for each handicapped space.
21. That should any prerecorded music be played within the
restaurant facility, such music shall be confined to the
interior of the building, and all doors and windows shall be
kept closed while such music is played.
22. That arrangements be made with the Public Works
Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion
of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a
Building Permit prior to completion of the public
improvements.
23. That a handicap ramp be constructed at the alley
intersection at Newport Boulevard per City Standards.
24. That the Planning Commission may add or modify
conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to
the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a
determination that the operation which is the subject of this
use permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health,
safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the
community.
25. This use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24
months from the date of approval as specified in Section
20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
-21-
�( y 8
City Council Meeting March 8. 1993
Agenda Item No.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT:
in Conjunction with a Proposed Restaurant /Brewpub
Request to amend an existing off -site parking agreement and expand
the daytime use of in -lieu parking spaces in the Cannery Village
Municipal Parking Lot beyond the limits established by the sales
agreement between the original property owner and the City, so as to
allow the establishment of a restaurant/brewpub facility on the
adjacent site (Use Permit No. 3485).
LOCATION: Parcel 1, Parcel Map 92 -40 (Resubdivision No. 527) (restaurant site);
and portions of Lots 17 and 22 and Lots 18 -21, Block 230, Lancaster's
Addition (off -site parking lot) located at 2920 Newport Boulevard, on
the southeasterly corner of Newport Boulevard (northbound) and 30th
Street, in Cannery Village.
ZONE:
APPLICANT:
OWNER:
Application
SP -6
Dorothy Doan, Santa Ana
Same as Applicant
This item involves a request to amend an existing off -site parking agreement and expand the
daytime use of in -lieu parking spaces in the Cannery Village Municipal Parking Lot beyond
the limits established by the sales agreement between the original owner and the City, so
as to allow the establishment of a brew /pub on the adjacent site (Use Permit No. 3485).
Off -site parking agreement procedures for Cannery Village are set forth in Section 20.63.045
B of the Municipal Code.
(_/. q 9
TO: City Council - 2.
yl
1. If desired, approve the proposed amendment to the off -site parking agreement
related to Use Permit No. 3485 with the applicable findings recommended by the
Planning Commission contained in the attached excerpt of the draft Planning
Commission minutes dated February 18, 1993.
2. If desired, approve or deny the amendment to the sales agreement between the
original owner and the City so as to extend the owners daytime use of in -lieu parking
spaces in the Cannery Village Municipal Parking Lot.
Background Relative to the Off -Site Parking Agreement
At its meeting of February 18, 1993, the Planning Commission approved (6 Ayes, 1 Absent)
Use Permit No. 3485 which permits the establishment of a combination restaurant/brewpub
on property located at 2920 Newport Boulevard, in the Cannery Village /McFadden Square
Specific Plan Area. The establishment of the restaurant/brewpub increases the off - street
parking requirement for the subject property. The adjoining off -site parking lot located
immediately east of the restaurant/brewpub property will provide additional required
parking spaces. Said off -site parking lot is in separate ownership but is under long term
lease by the property owner of the subject restaurant/brewpub site. The use of the privately
owned off -site parking lot was approved in conjunction with the construction of the original
building, and includes the provision of a minimum of 29 parking spaces. Inasmuch as all
41 of the off -site parking spaces will be required as a result of the approval of Use Permit
No. 3485, the property owner is required to amend the off -site parking agreement so as to
reflect the current number of required parking spaces.
Background Relative to In -Lieu Parking Spaces
The Planning Commission's approval of Use Permit No. 3485 also includes Condition No.
6 which limits the daytime "net public area" of the restaurant/brewpub to 1,240± square feet
(approximately half of the proposed "net public area "), unless the applicant obtains the City
Council's approval for the daytime use of the in -lieu parking spaces which were granted to
the subject property owner by the City, in conjunction with the City's purchase of the
property which is now developed as the Cannery Village Municipal Parking Lot. Under the
terms of the sales agreement, Dorothy Doan is granted the option to purchase up to 47 in-
lieu parking permits for the Cannery Village Municipal Parking Lot, provided that such
parking spaces may be used for the benefit of the uses located on the Pelican Market site
(the proposed restaurant/brewpub facility) and the adjoining Cafe Looma Restaurant site,
and provided further that such parking may only be used from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. The
daytime restriction on the use of in -lieu parking spaces was to insure that the Cannery
Village Municipal Parking Lot would be available to daytime businesses and visitors to
Cannery Village and the beach.
'�. 5v
7
TO: City Councit :'3.
Planning Commission
In conjunction with its approval of Use Permit No. 3485, the Planning Commission
recommended that the City Council approve the amendment to the off -site parking
agreement and to allow the daytime use of the in -lieu parking spaces upon the approval of
the City Council. Staff has attached a copy of the Planning Commission staff report and an
excerpt of the Draft Planning Commission Minutes dated February 18, 1993 for the City
Council's information.
Respectfully Submitted,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director
W. William Ward
Senior .TT'
Attachments for City Council only:
Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 18, 1993 with attachments.
Excerpt of the Draft Planning Commission Minutes dated February 18, 1993.
Site Plan, Floor Plan and Elevations.
y. 51
uITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COUNCIL MEMBERS
s
ROLL C LL March e,
Motio
All A
MINUTES
1993
INDEX
ty
er
isp
In:
2. Dolores Otting, Harbor Hill, addressed
Gangs /C]
the Council, stating that she had hoped
Helicopt
the State and cities could do something
out the gang problem, such as to
p vide more trade school opportunities.
She also expressed concern about the
expe a of the helicopter program in
Newpor Beach, and suggested the use of
a memor dum of understanding between
the Citie of Costa Mesa and Newport
Beach to continue the helicopter
service.
CONSENT CALENDAR.
n
X
The following items were ad, except for
yes
those items removed:
ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION
Pass to 2nd reading on March 22, 993 -
2. Removed from the Consent Cale r.
RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION
3. Removed from the Consent Calendar.
CONTRACTS /AGRKEMENTS
4. Removed from the Consent Cale.
5. UsE PERMIT NO. 3485 - Approve Amendment
U P 348:
(SS)
to existing off -site parking agreement
and expand the daytime use of in -lieu
parking spaces in the Cannery Village
Municipal Parking Lot beyond the limits
established by the sales agreement
between the original property owner and
the City, so as to allow the
establishment of a restaurant/brewpub
facility on the adjacent site located at
2920 Newport Boulevard and 30th Street.
[Report from the Planning Department]
6. CLAIMS - For Denial by the City Manager:
(36)
California State Department of
CA Stat:
Transportation regarding claim for
Dpt Trat
ersonal injuries by Mary Sharon
0 rien, alleging claimant stepped into
an rea of a pothole and slipped and
fell t corner of Pacific Coast Highway
and Me uerite Avenue on May 2, 1992.
Laurie A. Doran alleging damage to
Doran
vehicle as result of hitting pothole
and series of roken asphalt at Jamboree
and Bristol on anuary 14, 1993.
Federal Insuranc Company alleging
Federal
property damage as result when City
Company
put high pressure se adjacent to
residence, causing L0, 00 gallons of
sewage to overflow into home at 1521
Kings Road on December 18, '992.
Scott Casey Flanegia alleging is watch
Flanegii
fell off while being handcu ad by
Police Department at 55 and 405 F sways
on February 3, 1993; as ing
reimbursement.
Volume 47 - Page 34
ty
er
isp
In:
City Council Mme--Ling September 27, 1993
Item N
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: Use Perixtit No. 3485 sed
Request to revise a previously approved use permit that permitted the
establishment of a restaurant/brewpub with on -sale beer and wine and
outdoor seating, on property located in the Specialty Retail area of the
Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan. The proposal
involves a request to rescind the City Council's previous action that
permitted the - expanded use of daytime in -lieu parking spaces in the
Cannery Village Municipal Parking Lot which were to be used in
conjunction with the daytime operation of the proposed
restaurant/brewpub at 2920 Newport Boulevard. The proposal also
includes a request to change the daytime parking requirement for the
facility from one parking space for each 40 square feet of "net public
area," to one parking space for each 50 square feet of "net public
area "; and reduce the allowable daytime "net public area" to 1,500
square feet before 5;00 p.m.
LOCATION: Parcel 1, Parcel Map 92-40 (Resubdivision No. 527) (restaurant site);
and portions of Lots 17 and 22 and Lots 18 -21, Block 230, Lancaster's
Addition (off -site parking lot) located at 2920 Newport Boulevard, on
the southeasterly corner of Newport Boulevard (northbound) and 30th
Street, in Cannery Village.
ZONE: SP -6
APPLICANT: Michael Madlock, Manhattan Beach
OWNER: Dorothy Doan, Santa Ana
Application
This is a request to amend a previously approved use permit that permitted the
establishment of a restaurant/brewpub with on -sale beer and wine and outdoor seating, on
property located in the Specialty Retail area of the Cannery Village /McFadden Square
Specific Plan. The approval also included: the use of 27 previously approved in -lieu parking
spaces located in the Cannery Village Municipal Parking Lot; the continued use of 29 off -
site parking spaces on privately owned property located directly east of the subject property;
and the approval of a transfer of development rights from the privately owned off -site
parking area to the restaurant site. The proposed amendment involves the following
revisions to the use permit so as to make it consistent with the requirements of the
y. 53
A&
?
TO: City Cound, -2.
California Coastal Commission's approval: a request to change the daytime parking
requirement for the facility from one parking space for each 40 square feet of "net public
area," to one parking space for each 50 square feet of "net public area'; reduce the
allowable daytime "net public area" to 1,500 square feet; and rescind that portion of the
previous approval which allowed the applicant to use 27 in -lieu parking spaces in the
Cannery Village Municipal Parking Lot before 5:00 p.m.
Background
At its meeting of February 18, 1993, the Planning Commission approved (6 Ayes, 1 Absent)
Use Permit No. 3485 which permits the establishment of a combination restaurant/brewpub
on property located at 2920 Newport Boulevard, in the Cannery Village /McFadden Square
- Specific Plan Area. The Planning Commission also accepted an amendment to an .existing _. . .
off -site parking agreement so as to provide 41 parking spaces within an adjoining privately
owned parking lot. Said off -site parking lot is in separate ownership but is under long term
lease by the property owner of the subject restaurant/brewpub site. The use of the privately
owned off -site parking lot was approved in conjunction with the construction of the original
building, and includes the provision of a minimum of 29 parking spaces. Inasmuch as all
41 of the off -site parking spaces will be required as a result of the approval of Use Permit
No. 3485, the property owner is required to amend the off -site parking agreement so as to
reflect the current number of required parking spaces.
The Planning Commission's approval of Use Permit No. 3485 also included Condition No.
6 which limits the daytime "net public area" of the restaurant/brewpub to 1,240± square feet
(approximately half of the proposed "net public area "), unless the applicant obtains the City
Council's approval for the daytime use of the in -lieu parking spaces which were granted to
the subject property owner by the City, in conjunction with the City's purchase of the
property which is now developed as the Cannery Village Municipal Parking Lot. Under the
terms of the sales agreement, Dorothy Doan (subject property owner) is granted the option
to purchase up to 47 in -lieu parking permits for the Cannery Village Municipal Parking Lot,
provided that such parking spaces may be used for the benefit of the uses located on the
Pelican Market site (the proposed restaurant/brewpub facility) and the adjoining Cafe
Looma Restaurant site, and provided further that such parking may only be used from 5:00
p.m. to 6:00 am. The daytime restriction on the use of in -lieu parking spaces was to insure
that the Cannery Village Municipal Parking Lot would be available to daytime businesses
and visitors to Cannery Village and the beach. Staff has attached a copy of the Planning
Commission's staff report for Use Permit No. 3485, dated February 18, 1993.
At its meeting of March 8, 1993, the City Council unanimously approved an amendment to
the sales agreement between Dorothy Doan and the City, so as to allow her the daytime use
of the in -lieu parking spaces in the Cannery Village Municipal Parking Lot. The Council
also approved the amended off -site parking agreement for the privately owned parking
spaces located directly adjacent to the restaurant/brewpub site. In accordance with the City
Council's original approval, the proposed restaurant/brewpub was allowed to have 2,400
square feet of daytime "net public area" with the provision of 31 privately owned parking
Ll. 5y
TO: City Counm -3.
spaces and 29 in -lieu spaces in the Cannery Village Municipal Parking Lot, for a total of 60
off-street parking spaces. The allowable daytime "net public area" was based on a parking
formula of one parking space for each 40 square feet of "net public area" (60 parking spaces.
x 40 sq.ft. = 2,400 sq.ft. of "net public area ").
Coastal Commissinn_Action for Use Permit No. 3485
At its meeting of July 13 -16, 1993, the Coastal Commission approved Use Permit No. 3485
(Coastal Permit Application No. 5 -93 -137, copy attached). However, said approval did not
allow the daytime use of the in -lieu parking spaces in the Cannery Village Municipal
Parking Lot; therefore, the available daytime parking spaces for the subject project is only
31 spaces. Based on the available parking, the Coastal Commission limited the daytime "net
- Tublic area' of the restaurant/brewpub -to 1,500 square feet which is equivalent to
approximately one parking space for each 50 square feet of "net public area." The Coastal
Commission also required: that the applicant record a deed restriction which will provide
that no more than 1,500 square feet of service area shall be open before 5:00 p.m.; that the
City Council rescind its previous action amending the sales agreement with Dorothy Doan
so as to permit the daytime use of in -lieu parking spaces in the Cannery Village Municipal
Parking Lot; and that the City of Newport Beach prepare a letter indicating that it agrees
that the City's Code Enforcement Office will enforce the daytime public service area
restriction of 1,500 square feet.
Suggested Action and Comment
Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired, approve Use Permit No. 3485 (Revised) with the
findings and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in the attached Exhibit "A." Said
action will: rescind the City Council's previous action that permitted the daytime use of 47
in -lieu parking spaces in the Cannery Village Municipal Parking Lot; reduce the allowable
daytime "net public area" to 1,500 square feet; and revise the daytime parking requirement
for the restaurant/brewpub to one parking space for each 50 square feet of "net public
area." Staff has no objections to the requested revisions to Use Permit No. 3485 inasmuch
as said revisions will result in a project that will have a less intensive daytime operation than
was previously approved by the City Council.
Respectively submitted,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director
By Z&1 '....nl /. Ill.h
W. Wilfiahi Ward
Senior Planner
q -ss
TO: City Counc" 4.
Attachment: Exhibit "A"
Vicinity Map
Copy of the Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 18,
1993 with attachments
Excerpt of the Planning Commission Minutes dated February 18, 1993
Coastal Commission Staff Report
Site Plan
Revised Floor Plan
y . S�
TO: City Councii -5.
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
USE PERNUT NO. 3485 (REVISED)
Findinp-s.
1. That the proposed application is consistent with the Land Use Element of the
General Plan, the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, and is compatible with
surrounding land uses.
2. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3485 (Revised) is necessary in order to make
the City of Newport Beach's approval of the subject project consistent with the
conditions of approval established by the California Coastal Commission.
3. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3485 (Revised) will allow the City of Newport
Beach to monitor and thereby insure that the continued operation of the proposed
restaurant/brewpubwdl be in accordance with the provisions of the approved coastal
permit.
4. That adequate parking is available for the proposed use.
5. That the proposed development will not have any significant environmental impact.
6. That the Police Department does not anticipate any problems associated with the
proposed restaurant/brewpub.
7. That the transfer of development intensity will accommodate the efficient use of land
within an existing development comprised of two interdependent parcels.
8. That the transfer of development intensity will not adversely affect the aesthetics of
the area.
9. That the proposed transfer of development intensity will not result in a physical
increase in commercial floor area within the subject property and therefore, will not
create an abrupt change in scale between the existing development and development
in the surrounding area.
10. That the proposed transfer of development intensity will not result in the impairment
of public views.
11. The proposed transfer of development intensity will not result in a net negative
impact on the circulation system.
12. That the "off -site parking lot is so located as to be useful in connection with the
proposed uses on the subject property.
q-57
TO: City Counci, -6.
13. Parking on the off -site parking lot will not create undue traffic hazards in the
surrounding area.
14. Ownership of the off -site parking lot is constituted by leasehold interest for a
remaining period of 59 years by the property owner of the building site.
15. The owner and the City, upon the approval of the City Council, will execute a written
instrument, approved as to form and content by the City Attorney, providing for the
maintenance of the required off - street parking on the designated property for the
duration of the proposed uses on the building site.
16. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3485 (Revised) will not, under the
circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, -..
comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or
be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the
general welfare of the City.
Conditions:
1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the
approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below.
2. That a covenant or other suitable, legally binding agreement shall be recorded
against the off -site parking lot assuring that all of the requirements of Section
20.07.070 J of the Municipal Code, will be met by the current and future property
owners. Said covenant or agreement may include provisions for its future
termination at such time as the development on the building site is removed or at
such time as the floor area devoted to the restaurant/brewpub reverts back to a Base
FAR use.
3. That the applicant shall provided a minimum of one parking space for each 50
square feet of "net public area" before 5:00 p.m. and one parking space for each 40
square feet of "net public area" after 5:00 p.m. in conjunction with the proposed
restaurant /brewpub.
4. That an amended off -site parking agreement shall be approved by the City Council,
guaranteeing that a minimum of 41 parking spaces shall be provided on property
located on Lots 18 -21 and portions of Lots 17 and 22, Block 230, Lancaster's
Addition, for the duration of the existing and proposed uses located on Parcel 1,
Parcel Map 9240 (Resubdivision No. 527).
5. That the property owner shall pay for 29 in -lieu parking spaces in the Cannery
Village Municipal Parking Lot on an annual basis for the nighttime operation (after
5:00 p.m.) of the restaurant/brewpub use as agreed upon by the Sales Agreement
between the City and the property owner.
I/. 5,Y 1 LA
TO: City Councu -7.
6. That the "net public area" of the restaurant/brewpub, which is devoted to daytime
use Monday through Friday (prior to 5:00 p.m.) shall be limited to 1,500 sq.ft. The
balance of the "net public area" shall be physically closed off to the public by a fixed
barrier and shall not be used until after 5:00 p.m. daily.
7. That the hours of operation for the restaurant/brewpub shall be limited to the hours
between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and between 6:00 a.m.
and 2:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday.
8. That all employees shall park either in the privately owned off -site parking area or
in one of the Municipal parking lots in the area.
9. That all signs shall conform to the requirements of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal
Code.
10. That the operation of the brewery and the service of alcoholic beverages shall be
ancillary to the primary food service operation of the restaurant.
11. That no outdoor loudspeakers or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction
with the proposed operation.
12. That a washout area for refuse containers be provided in such a way as to allow
direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless
otherwise approved by the Building Department.
13. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant facility
where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems in accordance with the
provisions of the Uniform Plumbing Code, unless otherwise approved by the Building
Department.
14. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the
satisfaction of the Building Department.
15. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from surrounding
public streets and alley and adjoining properties.
16. That the development standards regarding walls surrounding the restaurant site and
underground utilities shall be waived.
18. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public
Works Department.
19. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be
subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer and that the parking lot be
restriped as approved by the Traffic Engineer.
9.59
TO: City Council -8.
20. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within
the on -site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self - parking. One
handicapped sign on a post and one handicapped sign on the pavement shall be
required for each handicapped space.
21. That should any prerecorded music be played within the restaurant facility, such
music shall be confined to the interior of the building, and all doors and windows
shall be kept closed while such music is played.
22. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to
guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to
obtain a Building Permit prior to completion of the public improvements.
23. That a handicap ramp be constructed at the alley intersection at Newport Boulevard
per City Standards.
24. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to this use
permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a
determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit causes injury,
or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of
the community.
25. This use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of
approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
t4. (v
COUNCIL MEMBERS
s
POLL CfiLL
Motioi
All A;
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
September 27, 1993
INDEX
U/P 3485(R)
Measure A
to modify the approval, sub act to four
conditions: 1) that the applicant record
a deed restriction which would allow no
more than 1500 square feet of service
area being used prior to 5 p.m.; 2) that
41 off -site parking spaces will be
maintained between 6 a.m. and 5 p.m.
daily and 67 off -site parking spaces
between 5 p.m. and 2 a.m., (the 41 off -
site parking spaces between 6 a.m. and
5 p.m. are on privately owned property
under the same ownership immediately
adjacent to the brampub and the
additional spaces would be in the
Municipal lot and would be used after 5
p.m.); 3) that the City Council rescind
its earlier action allowing the use of
the off -site parking spaces in the
Municipal lot prior to 5 p.m.; 4) that
the City will agree to enforce the
restrictions on the area of service (the
1500 square feet being used prior m5
P.M.).
James Person, representing the
applicant, addressed the Council and
stated they feel this is a reduction of
intensity in use from the time it was
approved by the City Council last March;
however, they do agree to the conditions
of approval as imposed by both the City
and the Coastal Commission.
Hearing no one else wishing to address
the Council, the public hearing was
closed.
X
— Motion van made to by Council Member
Dabs to awrove Use Permit No. 3485
es
(8evised) with the findings an subject
t t i 1 1 t F ri
im the attached Exhibit -A.-
'ITEMS REMOVED FROM MM CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
PUBLIC NTS
The olloving persons addressed the
Counci and expressed their reasons for
opposin Measure A on the November
ballot - oposed Open Space Assessment
District:
Stuart William 1748 Bayport Way
Helen Kieron, 3 1 Fourth Avenue
Tom and Mike Bull an, 121 Marine Avenue
Ma Ann Towersey, 501 Kings Place,
member of the Newwpyort onservancy Board
of Directors, addresse the Council to
promote the "Walk on t Wild Side"
event which is scheduled or Sunday,
October 10 and begins at th Castaways
site at 16th Street and Dover anus and
concludes at the same site for sunset
picnic and other attractions for blic
enjoyment. Registration forms are
available at the libraries and at he
Parks, Beaches & Recreation Departmen
Volume 47 - Page 254
INDEX
U/P 3485(R)
Measure A
r-chibit No. 3
q: z
B LAN k
�w. fi
STATE OF CALIFORNIA —THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Co r
F CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SOUTH COAST AREA Page 1 of 3
245 W. BROADWAY, STE. 380 Date: 1 -21 -94
P.O. Box 1450 Permit No. 5 -93 -137
LONG BEACH, CA 90802.416
(310) 5965071
COASTAL }a1EOWPMENr PERWr_
On July 15, 1993 the California Coastal Commission granted to
The DQSn Trust
this permit subject to the attached Standard and Special conditions, for development consisting
of:
Conversion of an existing 4200 square foot former market /deli (currently vacant) to a
restaurant/brew pub and the addition of 600 square feet of outdoor dining. Existing 3100
square foot, second floor office will remain.
more specifically described in the application file in the Commission offices.
The development is within the coastal zone in Orange County at
2420 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach
Issued on behalf of the California Coastal Commission by
PETER DOUGLAS
Executive Director
By: Le 2e , -
Title: Staff Analyst
The undersigned permittee acknowledges receipt of this permit and agrees to abide by all
terms and conditions thereof.
The undersigned permittee acknowledges that Government Code Section 818.4 which states in
pertinent part, that: "A public entity is not liable for injury caused by the issuance... of any
permit..." applies to the issuance of this permit.
IMPORTANT: THIS PERMIT IS NOT VALID UNLESS AND UNTIL A COPY OF THE PERMIT
• WITH THE SIGNED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT HAS BEEN RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION
OFFICE. 14 Cal. Admin. Code Section 13158(a).
Date Signature of Permittee
A6: 4/88
14 G� I-
Page 2 of _3_ •
Permit No. 5 -93 -137
Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgment. The permit is not valid and development shall
not commence until a copy of the permit, signed by the permittee or authorized agent,
acknowledging receipt of the permit and acceptance of the terms and conditions, is
returned to the Commission office.
2. ExpiL to ion. If development has not commenced, the permit will expire two years from
the date on which the Commission voted on the application. Development shall be
pursued in a diligent manner and completed in a reasonable period of time. Application
for extension of the permit must be made prior to the expiration date.
3. Cgmpliance. All development must occur in strict compliance with the proposal as set
forth in the application for permit, subject to any special conditions set forth below. Any
deviation from the approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the staff and may
require Commission approval.
4. Interpretation. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any condition will be resolved
by the Executive Director or the Commission.
5. Inspections. The Commission staff shall be allowed to inspect the site and the project
during its development, subject to 24 —hour advance notice.
6. Assignment. The permit may be assigned to any qualified person, provided assignee files .
with the Commission an affidavit accepting all terms and conditions of the permit.
Terms and Conditions Run with the Land. These terms and conditions shall be perpetual,
and it is the intention of the Commission and the permittee to bind all future owners and
possessors of the subject property to the terms and conditions.
P�
Prior to issuance of the Coastal Development Permit, the applicant shall execute and record a
deed restriction, in a from and content acceptable to the Executive director, which shall
provide that no more than 1,500 square feet of service area of the subject restaurant/brewpub
shall be open before 5 p.m. The document shall run with the land, binding all successors and
assigns, and shall be recorded free of prior liens.
11
q.&5 �V
i
Page 3
5 -93 -137
2. 'Main
The proposed project includes the use of Off —Site parking for which the applicant has entered
into long —term parking agreements. Prior to issuance of the Coastal Development Permit, the
applicant shall execute and record a deed restriction, in a form and content acceptable to the
Executive Director, which shall provide that the applicant shall maintain, for the life of the
development, a total of 41 off —site parking spaces between 6:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. daily, and
a total of 67 off —site parking spaces between 5:00 p.m. 2:00 a.m. daily.
3. Recission of Amendment to Parking Agreement:
Prior to issuance of the Coastal Development Permit, the applicant shall submit evidence that
the Amendment to Parking Agreement approved by the City of Neworport Beach on February
18, 1993, has been rescinded by the City Council. Additionally, prior to issuance of the Coastal
Development Permit, the applicant shall submit, for the review and approval of the Executive
Director, a letter from the City of Newport Beach indicating that the City agrees that the
City's Code Enforcement will enforce the puobliF service area restrictions described in ecial
Condition 1.
Prior to issuance of the Coastal Development Permit, the applicant shall submit, for the
review and approval of the Executive Director, final floor plans illustrating the area proposed
for the day use restriction imposed in special conditional, above.
1033F
MV /]m
•
y. (aG -
STATE OF CALIFORNIA -THE RESOURCES AGENCY
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
{ STH COAST AREA
0W. !ROADWAY, STE. 380
Box 1450
0-M-0 REACH, CA VIM-4416
(310) 340.7071
Filed: 4/19/93
49th Day: 6/7/93
180th Day: 10/16/93
Staff: MV —L
Staff Report: 8/16/ 3
Hearing Date: 9/16/93
Comm. Action on Findings:
STAFF REPORT: REVISED FINDINGS
APPLICATION NO.: 5- 93- 137'
APPLICANT: The Doan Trust
AGENT: Nancy Lucast
PROJECT LOCATION: 2920 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, Orange County.
PETE WILSON,
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Conversion of an existing 4200 square foot former
market /deli (currently vacant) to a restaurant /brew pub and the addition of
600 square feet of outdoor dining. Existing 3100 square foot, second floor
office will remain.
COMMISSION ACTION: Approval with Conditions.
DATE OF COMMISSION ACTION: July 15, 1993
• COMMISSIONERS ON PREVAILING SIDE: Commissioners Wright, Yokoyama, Calcagno,
Cervantes, Doo, Stevens, Moulton— Patterson, Malcolm, Neely, and Chairman Gwyn.
SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends that the Commission adopt the following revised findings
in support of the Commission's action on July 15, 1993 approving with
conditions the permit for a restaurant /brewpub.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends that the Commission adopt the following resolution:
I. Approval with Conditions.
The Commission hereby rg ants a permit, subject to the conditions below, for
the proposed development on the grounds that the development will be in
conformity with the provisions of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of
1976, will not prejudice the ability of the local government having
jurisdiction over the area to prepare a Local Coastal Program conforming to
the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, and will not have any
significant adverse impacts on the environment within the meaning of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
0
y, �7
5 -g3 -137
Revised findings
Page 2
I1. Standard 6onditions.
1. Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgment. The permit is not valid and
development shall not commence until a copy of the permit, signed by the
permittee or authorized agent, acknowledging receipt of the permit and
acceptance of the terms and conditions, is returned to the Commission office.
2. Expiration. If development has not commenced, the permit will expire two
years from the date this permit is reported to the Commission. Development
shall be pursued in a diligent manner and completed in a reasonable period of
time. Application for extension of the permit must be made prior to the
expiration date.
3. Compliance. All development must occur in strict compliance with the
proposal as set forth in the application for permit, subject to any special
conditions set forth below. Any deviation from the approved plans must be
reviewed and approved by the staff and may require Commission approval.
4. Interpretation. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any
condition will be resolved by the Executive Director or the Commission.
5. Inspections. The Commission staff shall be allowed to inspect the site
and the project during its development, subject to 24 -hour advance notice.
6. Assignment. The permit may be assigned to any qualified person, provided
assignee files with the Commission an affidavit accepting all terms and
conditions of the permit.
7. Terms and Conditions Run with the Land. These terms and conditions shall
be perpetual, and it is the intention of the Commission and the permittee to
bind all future owners and possessors of the subject property to the terms and
conditions.
III. Special. Conditions:
Deed Restriction Limiting Daytime Use
Prior to issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall
execute and record a deed restriction, in a form and content acceptable to the
Executive Director, which shall provide that no more than 1,500 square feet of
service area of the subject restaurant /brewpub shall be open before 5 p.m.
The document shall run with the Tand, binding all successors and assigns, and
shall be recorded free of prior liens and encumbrances which the Executive
Director determines to affect said interest..
2. Maintenance of Off -Site Parking
The proposed project includes the use of off -site parking for which the
applicant has entered into long -term parking agreements. Prior to issuance of
the coastal development permit, the applicant shall execute and record a deed
restriction, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director, which
shall provide that the applicant shall maintain, for the life of the
development, a total of 41 off -site parking spaces between 6:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. daily, and a total of 67 off -site parking spaces between 5:00 p.m. and
2:00 a.m. daily. The document shall run with the land, binding all successors
and assigns, and shall be recorded free of prior liens and encumbrances which
the Executive Director determines to affect said interest.
\_J
0
v- 6e
5 -93 -137
Revised Findings
Page 3
• 3. Recision of'Amendment to Parking Agreement
Prior to issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall
submit evidence that the Amendment to Parking Agreement approved by the City
of Newport Beach on February 18, 1993, has been rescinded by the City
Council. Additionally, prior to issuance of the coastal development permit,
the applicant shall submit, for the review and approval of the Executive
Director, a letter from the City of Newport Beach indicating that the City
agrees that the City's Code Enforcement Department will enforce the public
service area restrictions described in special condition 1.
4. Submittal of Final Plans
Prior to issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall
submit, for the review and approval of the Executive Director, final floor
plans illustrating the area proposed for the day use restriction imposed in
special condition 1, above.
IV. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS
The Commission finds and declares as follows:
A. Project Description
The applicant proposes to convert an existing 4200 square foot former
• market /deli (currently vacant) into a restaurant /brew pub and to add 600
square feet of outdoor dining. The existing 3100 square foot, second floor
office space will remain. The public service area of the proposed restaurant
will be 2800 square feet including the proposed outdoor patio dining area.
The applicant proposes 72 parking spaces, 29 of which are located in a public
parking.lot.
The subject site is located in the Cannery Village /McFadden Square area of the
Balboa Peninsula in Newport Beach. The land use designation of the subject
site is Retail and Service Commercial. The proposed restaurant use is
consistent with that designation.
B. Public Access /Parking
Section 30210 of the Coastal Act requires maximum access and recreation be
provided for the general public. Section 30252 of the Coastal Act states, in
part:
The location and amount of new development should maintain and enhance
public access to the coast by (4) providing adequate parking facilities or
providing substitute means of serving the development with public
transportation.
The subject site is located in an area that is historically popular with the
beach going public. In addition to miles of wide sandy beach, the Balboa
• Peninsula contains many restaurants and visitor serving retail areas as well
as the two piers and the fun zone. Because of the area's popularity with the
general public it often reaches peak capacity during prime visitor periods.
5 -93 -137
Revised Findings
Page 4
The area within the existing building proposed for restaurant use is currently
vacant. The former use was a market /deli. The proposed development
represents an intensification of use, triggering the need to evaluate
parking. When development does not provide adequate parking, patrons of that
development are forced to use parking that is available to the general
public. This results in patrons of private uses competing with beach goers
for available public parking spaces and reduced parking supply for access and
recreational uses. Lack of public parking can deter the public from using
certain beach areas and other visitor amenities. The Balboa Peninsula,
particularly in the McFadden Square area, includes many pre — Coastal Act
buildings which were constructed without adequate parking. That adds to the
general parking shortage in the area. Consequently, it is important that all
new development provide adequate parking so as not to displace public beach
goer and visitor parking.
The Commission has adopted regional guidelines that provide guidance when
determining the parking need for various uses. In past actions the Commission
has consistently applied the parking ratios described in the regional
guidelines for new development in the Balboa Peninsula area. For restaurant
use the guidelines recommend a ratio of one parking space for every fifty
square feet of public service area. For general office use, the'Commission's
guidelines recommend a ratio of one space for every 250 square feet of gross
floor area. The City of Newport Beach zoning requirements for parking, in
this case, are consistent (for office uses) or more restrictive (for
restaurant use: one space for every forty square feet of public service area).
Both the City and the Commission apply a similar formula for determining
parking demand in the subject area. This indicates that the ratio is
appropriate in defining specific parking needs for this area.
The City's certified Land Use Plan requires that all new development shall
provide adequate off street parking to meet the requirements of the City's
zoning code. In this case the City has found that the amount of parking
provided, including the use of existing spaces within a public parking lot,
meets the zoning code requirements. However, Coastal Act Section 30252
requires that new development provide adequate parking in a manner which
maintains and enhances coastal access. In this case because the project
proposes to use existing spaces within a public parking lot during peak
visitor use periods, the Commission cannot find that adequate parking will be
provided. Where there is no certified total Local Coastal Program, the
Commission must find a proposed project consistent with the chapter three
policies of the Coastal Act. The certified Land Use Plan, when there is a
conflict, serves as guidance only.
Based on the above guidelines ratio, the parking demand generated by the
proposed project is 56 spaces. In addition, the existing office space on the
second floor generates a demand of 13 spaces, creating a total demand of 69
spaces. There are two spaces on —site. Additionally the applicant has a
long —term lease for the use of 41 spaces in an adjacent private parking lot.
The applicant proposes to provide a total of 72 parking spaces. However, of
that number, 29 are to be acquired through a lease agreement with the City to
use a parking lot that is currently available to the public. Without the
public parking lot spaces, the proposed project would be deficient by 26
spaces, a significant shortfall.
4.70
5 -93 -137
Revised Findings
Page 5
. Coastal Development Permit No. 5 -88 -252 (City of Newport Beach) allowed
construction of the public parking lot in question. In approving that
development, the Executive'Director determined that parking was a severe
problem in the area and that the parking lot would provide 45 additional
public parking spaces to be used for visitor serving uses and businesses. The
current applicant sold the area now containing the public parking lot to the
City in 1988. As part of the sale agreement, the current applicant retained
the right to use as many as all of the.spaces provided that, among other
requirements, the private use be restricted to night time (5 p.m. to 6 a.m.)
use. For the use of these spaces the applicant is required to pay the City a
$500.00 per space annual fee.
On August 9, 1989 the Commission concurred with the Executive Director's
determination to approve Coastal Development Permit No. 5 -89 -512 (Doan)
allowing construction of a 2375 square foot restaurant at 2900 Newport Blvd.
Under that approval, the restaurant was allowed to use 18 1n —lieu spaces in
the same public parking lot now proposed for the same use. However in that
case the public parking spaces were available for the private development only
after 5 p.m. Beach and visitor parking demand generally drops after 5 p.m.
The operating hours of the proposed restaurant will be 6 a.m. to 11 p.m.
Sunday through Thursday and 6 a.m. to 2 a.m. Friday and Saturday. These
operating hours result in parking demand that will conflict with prime beach
and visitor use (i.e. daytime hours), a situation that did not occur under the
project approved under 5 -89 -512 for the same applicant. In this case, the
• conflict results in inadequate parking for the proposed project prior to 5
p.m.
The applicant has an agreement with the City allowing the use of the public
parking lot for the existing commercial building between the hours of 5:00
p.m. to 6:00 a.m. However, under the current proposal the daytime restriction
would be removed and parking for the proposed restaurant in the public parking
lot would be allowed during daytime hours. The end result would be that the
applicant may use all 45 spaces of the public lot from 5 p.m. to 6 a.m. and 29
or 64% of the spaces during the day. The City staff's report to the Planning
Commission for action on the Amendment to an Off —Site Parkina Aareement and
February 18, 1993,
"The daytime restriction on the use of in —lieu parking spaces was to
insure that the Cannery Village Municipal Parking Lot would be available
to daytime businesses and visitors to Cannery Village and the beach.°
Minutes from the Planning Commission hearing (February 18, 1993) on the Use
Permit for the proposed project quote City staff as follows:
"The subject Municipal Parking Lot is not currently occupied 100 percent
12 months of the year; however, during the summer months it is relatively
heavily used by recreational users and by employees at City Hall."
At the February 18, 1993 Planning Comm ission meeting, City staff questioned
• the appropriateness of displacing recreational users of the Municipal parking
lot to allow for a new commercial use. The City's certified Land Use Plan
states that the Balboa Peninsula experiences significant summer visitor
traffic. The certified LUP also states:
4.7/ �Y
5 -93 -137
Revised Findings
Page 6
There is also a difference in the peak -hour traffic for weekdays between .
winter and summer. A comparison of peak -hour traffic shows that it is
most heavily affected on routes serving Balboa Peninsula during the
summer. Usually, daily peak -hour traffic occurs between 5:00.p.m. and
6:00 p.m. At several locations during the summer, primarily in the Balboa
Peninsula area, the peak hour occurs at midday, either between noon and
1:00 p.m. or between 1:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m.
The LUP further states:
Parking is a major issue in the Newport Beach Coastal Zone. Observations
indicate that the current supply 1s generally adequate in the winter for
both residents and visitors. During the summer the demand for parking
increases. On peak weekends during the summer, parking demand is highest
in the beach areas.
The LUP also includes the City's policy to provide the greatest number of
on- street parking spaces possible. it can be inferred that the City's intent
is to provide the greatest number of public (not just on- street) parking
spaces possible. Clearly the need for the provision of adequate parking with
new development 1s an issue in the City and particularly on the Balboa
Peninsula.
As proposed, the project would result in the loss of 29 parking spaces
currently available to the public in an area where parking demand for visitor
uses and beach access is great. Without the use of the spaces available in •
the public lot, the subject site is deficient 26 parking spaces. Use of a
public parking lot to serve private development would result in a direct loss
of parking to the beach going public. Allowing the development to go forward
as proposed with such a significant shortfall of parking spaces would also
result in loss of parking for the beach going public. The loss would result
from patrons of the proposed development seeking public spaces when the other
parking associated with the new development 1s at capacity.
However, if the project is conditioned to. limit the public service area of the
restaurant to no more than 1500 square feet prior to 5 p.m., the restaurant's
need for the public parking spaces during peak beach and visitor use periods
would be eliminated. With the public service area limited to 1500 square feet
prior to 5 p.m., the parking demand of the proposed restaurant /brewpub would
be lessened to 30 spaces. Additionally, the existing second floor office
space will require 13 parking spaces, creating a total demand of 43 spaces.
Without the use of the public parking 'lot, 43 parking spaces are provided.
When Coastal Development Permit No. 5 -89 -512 (Doan) was approved, the
Executive Director determined that because the public parking lot was not
necessary to serve the development before 5 p.m., adequate parking was
provided. The special condition required in the subject application is
consistent with that past action.
To assure that the public area limitation prior to 5 p.m. is enforced for the
life of the proposed project, the hours limitation must be recorded as a deed
restriction. A second special condition is required to assure that the
development will maintain off -site parking arrangements for the life of the
development since only 2 parking spaces are provided on -site.
y. �Z 51
5 -93 -137
Revised findings
Page 7
• Additionally, to assure that the service area restriction is enforced, a
special condition requiring evidence that the City Council has rescinded the
Amendment to Parking Agreement which was approved February 18, 1993, must be
submitted to the Executive Director. The Amendment to Parking Agreement
allowed the daytime use of the public parking lot to serve the private
development. Once rescinded, the applicant would not be allowed use of the
public parking spaces prior to 5 p.m. Additionally, to assure that the
restricted restaurant public area is enforced, thereby maintaining the
lessened parking demand, the applicant must submit evidence that the City's
Code Enforcement Department will enforce the public area restriction. The
City's Code Enforcement Department regularly enforces similar restrictions
imposed by the City.
Therefore, the Commission finds, that as conditioned the project is consistent
with Sections 30210 and 30252 of the Coastal Act regarding public access and
recreation and the provision of adequate parking with new development.
C. Local Coastal Program
Section 30604(a) of the Coastal Act provides that the Commission shall issue a
Coastal Development Permit only if the project will not prejudice the ability
of the local government having jurisdiction to prepare a Local Coastal Program
which conforms with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act.
The Newport Beach Land Use Plan was certified on May 19, 1982. As conditioned
• to restrict the public service area until after 5 p.m., approval of the
proposed development will not prejudice the City's ability to prepare a Local
Coastal Program Implementation Plan for Newport Beach that is consistent with
the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act as required by section 30604(a).
D. California Environmental Ouality Act
Section 13096(a) of the Commission's administrative regulations requires
Commission approval of a Coastal Development Permit application to be
supported by a finding showing the application to be consistent with any
applicable requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The proposed project is in an existing urbanized area with adequate services
and utilities provided and so will not cause significant adverse impacts on
the environment. Additionally, as conditioned, the proposed project will
provide adequate parking and so will not interfere with public access in the
area. Therefore, the Commission finds that, as conditioned,.the project is
consistent with the requirements of the Coastal Act to conform to CEQA.
9326E
" Ni1CINITY MAP �
J �
't
1 °
• o
t 't
t
0 ',t
L
«t'
'ti o
- e
K`
ria
•
71+r
'+ ti ►t \ Vl �
IL
� t 6
•as • + Q
,•. 7 + ~/I
9 •f •+ �qt` 07M T L `i ii _
dt
e y
e P.c `
NE WP DR T BA
N
Jet M.aP MD. )
DISTRICTING MAP
NEWPORT BEACH — CALIFORNIA
USIKK
SVWMVkk w Nr • LN+wrwiu rwllw m"" u9ng"
++►L,l 190090M M w7al�wt
wwTL w nxs ftwx %awn L -1 wTw
wp ma W
Doom* moc+ wcwwrlw
r+r ■o. rd Pa n f d % Tqw : we w.r ca
J17E nRoM IT NO,, 34Q5
uxk,�-b; -I-
5 -43- l37
7
•
YNAN
Ll 'WI JPMORit ca�i 00,
'c4i AVII1 9 wrjw Ldf wov li �.
His
u
O O
u
� L
D ��4
o
Mai
•
• iw.ww �YMe.��wi Iii Wriv -
. ' �"w` w� �� 'LLI791697epL
i
w
a
i. Fr n '0
i
f
Lb; t D
V. 7y° '
0
Newport Beach Brewing Company, Inc. "(the Operators) ", is a
California Corporation formed to construct and operate a
restaurant /brew -pub to be called Newport Beach Brewing Company,
which will be located at 2920 Newport Boulevard in Newport Reach,
California.
The restaurant will be open from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., five
days a week and 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., Friday and Saturday. There
will be no live entertainment.
The exterior of the restaurant /brew -pub will offer a person
passing -by the 'old world" ambiance of a fun and energetic eating
and drinking establishment. This highly desirable Cap Cod designed
building is highlighted with a random pattern brick front, shingle
roof, gables, window walk, and painted wood trim.
The focal point of the restaurant /brew -pub will be the custom
made copper accented stainless steel beer brewing equipment that
will be placed behind the bar and will rise to the ceiling of the
building. These brewing tanks and storage vats will be cleaned and
polished daily to keep their luster and appeal.
The Operators of the restaurant /brew -pub are working carefully
with their experienced architect and design team to select a theme
that will create a warm, yet vibrant environment for patrons to
enjoy. An emphasis for the interior of the restaurant will be
comfortable stained hard -wood and brick that offer a rustic old
world charm and ambiance. The bar is expected to be stained and
shined dark hardwood and Cooper with a brass foot rail that will
give- the immediate area an "upper- class" feel. There will be
bountiful seating at the bar and on bar stools directly across from
the bar. There will be seating at tables throughout the remainder
of the restaurant, as well as on the patio. The walls will be
brick and decorated with memorabilia from the brewing industry with
particular emphasis on California pre - prohibition breweries, early
Newport Beach and brew -pubs and micro - brewers currently operating
in California and the Pacific Northwest.
The restaurant's menu will feature classic, as well as, up-
to -date cuisine that will appeal to the modern palate. Appetizers
will include buffalo wings, beer battered fried onion rings, and
"Armadillo eggs" (stuffed jalapeno peppers). A visible custom
brick wood fired pizza oven will be the focal point as a number of
Individual gourmet wood fired pizzas will be served. Newport
Beach's "finest" fresh ground burger will also head the entrees
with other choices including a "naked" chicken breast sandwich, and
a selected number of pasta dishes. A wide variety of salads will
be offered either before a meal or as a meal themselves and "World
F?a%,c f-+ E,
5 =93 7/317
9-75
Championship "'homemade chili will be served in a similar manner.
There will also be an assortment of fresh baked desserts available
to patrons of the establishment.
The restaurant /brew -pub Sntends to offer a full service wine
and beer bar with the emphasis on premium beer that will be brewed
on the premises. There will usually be four to six beers available
that were brewed on site. The range of beers will include ales,
pilaners, lagers and stouts. The brewery will produce
approximately- 16 varieties of beer each year, including such
special seasonal flavors as Octoberfest Pilsnor and Christmas Ale.
The beer should present itself as quite a value to the customer,
since a 16 -ounce glass of premium, rich beer will cost justly
slightly more than a 12 -ounce bottle of mass produced domestic
beer. The beer brewed on the premises will easily overmatch both
domestic and imported beers in quality and taste. A 4claim such as
this can be made since the ingredients will be of the highest
quality and procured under the direct supervision of the brew -
master and the beer will be served as soon as it has completed
fermenting, giving the consumer a fresh taste without any
preservatives.
The bar will also offer a full range of soft drinks, wines,
as well as bottled domestic beer with a limited selection of
bottled imported alcoholic and non - alcoholic beers.
The Operators intend to construct the restaurant /brew -pub at
2920 Newport Boulevard which is the corner of Newport Boulevard and
30th Street between Newport Boulevard and Villa Way in Newport
Reach, California (the "Premises "). The Premises is located within
the "Cannery Village" area of Newport Beach which is intended to
serve as an active pedestrian- oriented specialty retail /restaurant
area with a wide range of visitor - serving, neighborhood commercial,
and marine- related uses permitted.
.y
STATE OF CALIFORNIA —THE RESOURCES AGENCY
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SOUTH COAST AREA
445 W. BROADWAY. STE. 780
P.O. BOX 1450
LONG BEACH. CA 90SM -4416
(310) 5905071
I b PETE WILSON. Gomm,
Filed: 4/19/93
49th Day: 6/7/93
180th Day: 10/16/93(
Staff: MV=W
Staff Report: 5/26/93
Hearing Date: 7/13 -16/93
Commission Acti.q Z:ltE: �313
A ��TVrraL! Le>+ �r,L;: ;mrnor.G�Ll .,
STAFF REPORT: REGULAR C LA END
C: `
�c,c�._ „�,y�
j
erltcas os
APPLICATION NO.: 5- 93- 137App'G
APPLICANT: The Doan Trust AGENT: Nancy Lucas^1
PROJECT LOCATION: 2920 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, Orange County.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Conversion
market /deli (currently vacant) to
600 square feet of outdoor dining
office will remain.
Lot area:
Building coverage:
Pavement coverage:
Landscape coverage
Parking spaces:
Zoning:
Plan designation:
Ht abv fin grade:
of an existing 4200 square foot former
a restaurant /brew pub and the addition of
Existing 3100 square foot, second floor
21,638 square feet
4,178 square feet
14,910 square feet
2,550 square feet •
72
Retail & Service Commercial
Retail & Service Commercial
31 feet
LOCAL APPROVALS RECEIVED: Approval in Concept, City of Newport Beach; Use
Permit No. 3485, City of Newport Beach.
SUBSTANTIVE FILE DOCUMENTS: City Planning Commission Staff Report dated
2/18/93; Minutes from the City Planning Commission Meeting of 2/18/93; City
Council Staff Report dated 3/8/93; California Coastal Commission's Adopted
Regional Interpretive Guidelines for Orange County; City of Newport Beach
certified Land Use Plan; 5 -88 -252 (City of Newport Beach); 5 -89 -512 (Doan).
SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval with special conditions restricting the hours
of operation to after 5 p.m. to avoid negative impacts on public access and
recreation that may otherwise result from inadequate parking and to maintain
off -site parking agreements.
5 -93 -137.
Page 2
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends that the Commission adopt the following resolution:
I. Approval with Conditions.
The Commission hereby ra ants a permit, subject to the conditions below, for
the proposed development on the grounds that the development will be in
conformity with the provisions of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of
1976, will not prejudice the ability of the local government having
jurisdiction over the area to prepare a Local Coastal Program conforming to
the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, and will not have any
significant adverse impacts on the environment within the meaning of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
II. Standard Conditions.
1. Notice of Receipt and Acknowledament. The permit is not valid and
development shall not commence until a copy of the permit, signed by the
permittee or authorized agent, acknowledging receipt of the permit and
acceptance of the terms and conditions, is returned to the Commission office.
2. Expiration. If development has not commenced, the permit will expire two
years from the date this permit is reported to the Commission. Development
• shall be pursued in a diligent manner and completed in a reasonable period of
time. Application for extension of the permit must be made prior to the
expiration date.
3. Compliance. All development must occur in strict compliance with the
proposal as set forth in the application for permit, subject to any special
conditions set forth below. Any deviation from the approved plans must be
reviewed and approved by the staff and may require Commission approval.
4. Interpretation. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any
condition will be resolved by the Executive Director or the Commission.
5. Inspections. The Commission staff shall be allowed to inspect the site
and the project during its development, subject to 24 —hour advance notice.
6. Assignment. The permit may be assigned to any qualified person, provided
assignee files with the Commission an affidavit accepting all terms and
conditions of the permit.
7. Terms and Conditions Run with the Land. These terms and conditions shall
be perpetual, and it is the intention of the Commission and the permittee to
bind all future owners and possessors of the subject property to the terms and
conditions.
•
y 7K-tl�o
5 -93 -137
Page 3
III. Special Conditions:
Deed Restriction Limiting Hours of Operation
Prior to issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall
execute and record a deed restriction, in a form and content acceptable to the
Executive Director, which shall provide that the subject restaurant /brewpub .
shall not be open before 5 p.m. The document shall run with the land, binding
all successors and assigns, and shall be recorded free of prior liens.
Maintainance of Off -Site Parking
The proposed project includes the use of off -site parking for which the
applicant has entered into long -term parking agreements. Prior to issuance of
the coastal development permit, the applicant shall execute and record a deed
restriction, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director, which
shall provide that the applicant shall maintain, for the life of the
development, 67 off -site parking spaces during the hours the development is
open for business.
IV. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS
The Commission finds and declares as follows:
Pro3ect Description
The applicant proposes to convert an existing 4200 square foot former
market /deli (currently vacant) into a restaurant /brew pub and to add 600
square feet of outdoor dining. The existing 3100 square foot, second floor
office space will remain. The public service area of the proposed restaurant
will be 2800 square feet including the proposed outdoor patio dining area.
The subject site is located in the Cannery Village /McFadden Square area of the
Balboa Peninsula in Newport Beach. The land use designation of the subject
site is Retail and Service Commercial. The proposed restaurant use is
consistent with that designation.
B. Public Access /Parking
Section 30210 of the Coastal Act requires maximum access and recreation be
provided for the general public. Section 30252 of the Coastal Act states, in
part:
The location and amount of new development should maintain and enhance
public access to the coast by (4) providing adequate parking facilities or
providing substitute means of serving the development with public
transportation.
The subject site is located in an area that is historically popular with the
beach going public. In addition to miles of wide sandy beach, the Balboa
Peninsula contains many restaurants and visitor serving retail areas as well
as the two piers and the fun zone. Because of the area's popularity with the
general public it often reaches peak capacity during prime visitor periods.
0
y 79 ���-
5 -93 -137
Page 4
The area within jhe existing building proposed for restaurant use is currently
vacant. The former use was a market /deli. The proposed development
represents an intensification of use, triggering the need to evaluate
parking. When development does not provide adequate parking, patrons of that
development are forced to use parking that is available to the general
public. This results in patrons of private uses competing with beach goers
for available public parking spaces and reduced parking supply for access and
recreational uses. Lack of public parking can deter the public from using
certain beach areas.and other visitor amenities. The Balboa Peninsula,
particularly in the McFadden Square area, includes many pre - Coastal Act
buildings which were constructed without adequate parking. That adds to the
general parking shortage in the area. Consequently, it is important that all
new development provide adequate parking so as not to displace public beach
goer and visitor parking.
The Commission has adopted regional guidelines that provide guidance when
determining the parking need for various uses. In past actions the Commission
has consistently applied the parking ratios described in the regional
guidelines for new development in the Balboa Peninsula area. For restaurant
use the guidelines recommend a ratio of one parking space for every fifty
square feet of public service area. For general office use, the Commission's
guidelines recommend a ratio of one space for every 250 square feet of gross
floor area. The City of Newport Beach zoning requirements for parking, in
this case, are consistent (for office uses) or more restrictive (for
restaurant use: one space for every forty square feet of public service area).
Both the City and the Commission apply a similar formula for determining
. parking demand in the subject area. This indicates that the ratio is
appropriate in defining specific parking needs for this area.
The City's certified Land Use Plan requires that all new development shall
provide adequate off street parking to meet the requirements of the City's
zoning code. In this case the City has found that the amount of parking
provided, including the use of existing spaces within a public parking lot,
meets the zoning code requirements. However, Coastal Act Section 30252
requires that new development provide adequate parking in a manner which
maintains and enhances coastal access. In this case because the project
proposes to use existing spaces within a public parking lot the Commission
cannot find adequate parking will be provided. Where there is no certified
total Local Coastal Program, the Commission must find a proposed project
consistent with the chapter three policies of the Coastal Act. The certified
Land Use Plan, when there is a conflict, serves as guidance only.
Based on the above guidelines ratio, the parking demand generated by the
proposed project is 56 spaces. In addition, the existing office space on the
second floor generates a demand of 13 spaces. There are two spaces on -site.
Additionally the applicant has a long -term lease for the use of 41 spaces in
an adjacent private parking lot. The applicant proposes to provide a total of
72 parking spaces. However, of that number, 29 are acquired through a lease
agreement with the City to use a parking lot that is currently available to
the public. Without the public parking lot spaces, the proposed project would
be deficient by 26 spaces, a significant shortfall.
5 -93 -137
Page 5
Coastal Development Permit No. 5 -88 -252 (City of Newport Beach) allowed
construction of the public parking lot in question. In approving that
development, the Executive Director determined that parking was a severe
problem in the area and that the parking lot would provide 45 additional
public parking spaces to be used for visitor serving uses and businesses. The
current applicant sold the area now containing the public parking lot to the
City in 1988. As part of the sale agreement, the current applicant retained
the right to use as many as all of the spaces provided that, among other
requirements, the private use be restricted to night time (5 p.m. to 6 a.m.)
use. For the use of these spaces the applicant is required to pay the City a
8500.00 per space annual fee.
On August 9, 1989 the Commission concurred with the Executive Director's
determination to approve Coastal Development Permit No. 5 -89 -512 (Doan)
allowing construction of a 2375 square foot restaurant. Under that approval,
the restaurant was allowed to use 18 in -lieu spaces in the same public parking
lot now proposed for the same use. However in that case the public parking
spaces were available for the private development only after 5 p.m. Beach and
visitor parking demand generally drops after 5 p.m. The operating hours of
the proposed restaurant will be 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and
6 a.m. to 2 a.m. Friday and Saturday. These operating hours result in parking
demand that will conflict with prime beach and visitor use hours, a situation
that did not occur under the project approved under 5 -89 -512 for the same
applicant. In this case, the conflict results in inadequate parking for the
proposed project.
The applicant has an agreement with the City allowing the use of the public •
parking lot for the existing commercial building between the hours of 5:00
p.m. 6:00 a.m. However, under the current proposal the daytime restriction
would be removed and parking for the proposed restaurant in the public parking
lot would be allowed during daytime hours. The end result would be that the
applicant may use all 45 spaces of the public lot from 5 p.m. to 6 a.m. and 29
or 64% of the spaces during the day. The City staff's report to the Planning
Commission for action on the Amendment to an Off -Site Parking Agreement and
February 18, 1993, states:
"The daytime restriction on the use of in -lieu parking spaces was to
insure that the Cannery Village Municipal Parking Lot would be available
to daytime businesses and visitors to Cannery Village and the beach.'
Minutes from the Planning Commission hearing (February 18, 1993) on the Use
Permit for the proposed project quote City staff as follows:
"The subject Municipal Parking Lot is not currently occupied 100 percent
12 months of the year; however, during the summer months it is relatively
heavily used by recreational users and by employees at City Hall."
At the February 18, 1993 Planning Commission meeting, City staff questioned
the appropriateness of displacing recreational users of the Municipal parking
lot to allow for a new commercial use. The City's certified Land Use Plan
states that the Balboa Peninsula experiences significant summer visitor •
traffic. The certified LUP also states:
y. �J -it'
0
5 -93 -137
Page 6
There is also a difference in the peak -hour traffic for weekdays between
winter and summer. A comparison of peak -hour traffic shows that it is
most heavily affected on routes serving Balboa Peninsula during the
summer. Usually, daily peak -hour traffic occurs between 5:00 p.m. and
6:00 p.m. At several locations during the summer, primarily in the Balboa
Peninsula area, the peak hour occurs at midday, either between noon and
1,00 p.m. or between 1:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m.
The LOP further states:
Parking is a major issue in the Newport Beach Coastal Zone. Observations
indicate that the current supply is generally adequate in the winter for
both residents and visitors. During the summer the demand for parking
increases. On peak weekends during the summer, parking is highest in the
beach areas.
The LOP also includes the City's policy to provide the greatest number of
on- street parking spaces possible. It can be inferred that the City's intent
is to provide the greatest number of up blic (not just on- street) parking
spaces possible. Clearly the need for the provision of adequate parking with
new development is an issue in the City and particularly on the Balboa
Peninsula.
As proposed, the project would result in the loss of 29 parking spaces
currently available to the public in an area where parking demand for visitor
uses and beach access is great. Without the use of the spaces available in
the public lot, the subject site is deficient 26 parking spaces. Use of a
public parking lot to serve private development would result in a direct loss
of parking to the beach going public. Allowing the development to go forward
with such a significant shortfall of parking spaces would result in loss of
parking for the beach going public. The loss would result from patrons of the
proposed development seeking public spaces when the other parking associated
with the new development is at capacity.
However, if the project is conditioned to limit the hours of operation until
after 5 p.m., the need for the public parking spaces during peak beach and
visitor use periods would be eliminated. If the hours are modified, the
conflict between private and public use of the public parking lot would no
longer exist. When Coastal Development Permit No. 5 -89 -512 (Doan) was
approved, the Executive Director determined that because the public parking
lot was not necessary to serve the development before 5 p.m., adequate parking
was provided. The special condition required in the subject application is
consistent with that past action. To assure that the modified hours remain in
effect for the life of the proposed project, the hours limitation must be
recorded as a deed restriction. A second special condition is required to
assure that the development will maintain off -site parking arrangements since
only 2 parking spaces are provided on -site
Therefore, the Commission finds, that as conditioned the project is consistent
with Sections 30210 and 30252 of the Coastal Act regarding public access and
recreation and the provision of adequate parking with new development.
C/.S z rte
5 -93 -137
Page 7
Local Coastal Program
Section 30604(a) of the Coastal Act provides that the Commission shall issue a
Coastal Development Permit only if the project will not prejudice the ability
of the local government having jurisdiction to prepare a Local Coastal Program
which conforms with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act.
The Newport Beach Land Use Plan was certified on May 19, 1982. As conditioned
to limit operating hours until after 5 p.m., approval of the proposed
development will not prejudice the City's ability to prepare a Local Coastal
Program Implementation Plan for Newport Beach that is consistent with the
Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act as required by section 30604(a).
California Environmental Quality Act
Section 13096(a) of the Commission's administrative regulations requires
Commission approval of a Coastal Development Permit application to be
supported by a finding showing the application to be consistent with any
applicable requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)•
The proposed project is in an existing urbanized area with adequate services
and utilities provided and so will not cause significant adverse impacts on
the environment. Additionally,
provide adequate parking and so
area. Therefore, the Commission
consistent with the requirement
s
8721E
as conditioned, the proposed project will
will not interfere with beach access in the
finds that, as conditioned, the project is
of the Coastal Act to conform to CEQA.
•r
0
0
� V'ICINITY MAP
y J'L! .MA .1
\
\
0 \ \u
R
4J i
NEWPORT BA�
MAP
ALIFORNIA
DISTRICTING
UMT1 M.1...TIAL
NEWPORT BEACH
—
11.6m CO fto.L
i•� I
M IC.ICYLTYIYL IIC.IOf.ir•L
-1
eW■
.
I[[T
Tn
F3 .sa.TnA gr0[.Tw
. -1
C� to Men
.. o.
\
\
0 \ \u
R
4J i
NEWPORT BA�
MAP
ALIFORNIA
UMT1 M.1...TIAL
1140T C Imcl4
11.6m CO fto.L
hu'HUMTWN
uft"Am m
0.0..0. fag
M f.,Mw MAP ND. l
• dtpff FERMIT N04 was
5 -43 -137
•`•••• ....,...... 'Oi17191trf�dM�V Oc'6C'
100 SVIN311' 9 hor" 161 KWI i 1
i
EXh -t-bl +
5- 193- 137 �?C
r
r o
s \
\ +�.
®® I
Q — 4
WOW
oe
i
Y x ✓I �,.. \ F
r
.n •� 8 LS
i
s fir
Cb
ASSESSORS VAP
n ? ►f µ + \ \ +r 1� l
ff �
5'.fsfo�
.. apwm�.r vw •.�..��1•r� �• \�•• •
*a�i�, v � j . d . .
.
'00 MLL OVINAVO itiv3B SP� '
J
in
Lwvwro.w.w �
7y r.wr s V
y+ re�wr ua. W
M
Y p�
t
ll I
•
9
0
Ex tl,4. �, t 6
5-93-/'37
NEWPORT BEACH BREWING COMPANY
Newport Beach Brewing Company, Inc. "(the Operators) ", is a
California Corporation formed to construct and operate a
restaurant /brew -pub to be called Newport Beach Brewing Company,
which will be located at 2920 Newport Boulevard in Newport Beach,
California.
The restaurant will be open from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., five
days a week and 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., Friday and Saturday. There
will be no live entertainment.
The exterior of the restaurant /brew -pub will offer a person
passing -by the "old world" ambiance of a fun and energetic eating
and drinking establishment. This highly desirable Cap Cod designed
building is highlighted with a random pattern brick front, shingle
roof, gables, window walk, and painted wood trim.
The focal point of the restaurant /brew -pub will be the custom
made copper accented stainless steel beer brewing equipment that
will be placed behind the bar and will rise to the ceiling of the
building. These brewing tanks and storage vats will be cleaned and
polished daily to keep their luster and appeal.
The Operators of the restaurant /brew -pub are working carefully
with their experienced architect and design team to select a theme
that will create a warm, yet vibrant environment for patrons to
enjoy. An emphasis for the interior of the restaurant will be
comfortable stained hard -wood and brick that offer a rustic old
world charm and ambiance. The bar is expected to be stained and
shined dark hardwood and cooper with a brass foot rail that will
give the immediate area an "upper- class" feel. There will be
bountiful seating at the bar and on bar stools directly across from
the bar. There will be seating at tables throughout the remainder
of the restaurant, as well as on the patio. The walls will be
brick and decorated with memorabilia from the brewing industry with
particular emphasis on California pre - prohibition breweries, early
Newport Beach and brew -pubs and micro - brewers currently operating
in California and the Pacific Northwest.
The' restaurant's menu will feature classic, as well as, up-
to -date cuisine that will appeal to the modern palate. Appetizers
will include buffalo wings, beer battered fried onion rings, and
"Armadillo eggs" (stuffed jalapeno peppers). A visible custom
brick wood fired pizza oven will be the focal point as a number of
individual gourmet wood fired pizzas will be served. Newport
Beach's "finest" fresh ground burger will also head the entrees
with other choices including a "naked" chicken breast sandwich, and
a selected number of pasta dishes. A wide variety of salads will
be offered either before a meal or as a meal themselves and "World
EX k bi+ E
5= 93 -i37
.:
0
Championship" homemade chili will be served in a similar manner.
There will also be an assortment of fresh baked desserts available
to patrons of the establishment.
The restaurant /brew -pub intends to offer a full service wine
and beer bar with the emphasis on premium beer that will be brewed
on the premises. There will usually be four to six beers available
that were brewed on site. The range of beers will include ales,
pilsners, lagers and stouts. The brewery will produce
approximately 16 varieties of beer each year, including such
special seasonal flavors as Octoberfest Pilsnor and Christmas Ale.
The beer should present itself as quite a value to the customer,
since a 16 -ounce glass of premium, rich beer will cost justly
slightly more than a 12 -ounce bottle of mass produced domestic
beer. The beer brewed on the premises will easily overmatch both
domestic and imported beers in quality and taste. A claim such as
this can be made since the ingredients will be of the highest
quality and procured under the direct supervision of the brew -
master and the beer will be served as soon as it has completed
fermenting, giving the consumer a fresh taste without any
preservatives.
The bar will also offer a full range of soft drinks, wines,
as well as bottled domestic beer with a limited selection of
bottled imported alcoholic and non - alcoholic beers.
The Operators intend to construct the restaurant /brew -pub at
2920 Newport Boulevard which is the corner of Newport Boulevard and
30th Street between Newport Boulevard and Villa Way in Newport
Beach, California (the "Premises "). The Premises is located within
the "Cannery Village" area of Newport Beach which is intended to
serve as an active pedestrian- oriented specialty retail /restaurant
area with a wide range of visitor - serving, neighborhood commercial,
.and marine - related uses permitted.
0
0
th
4j. 8� +
b
G
W
Q¢w
WMo
F � F
rn �
W p
Ut0 U
a w
W W F
rs;
A H
za
ao G
z�
Wo�
6
ago
w a 0 7
�n U 0,
E zo 8
�zz
�ow 9
10
t�vl rna
12
1.3
14
15
S
16
N
17
N18
.y]
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
RECORDING REQUESTERY AND
RETURN TO:
California Coastal Commission
45 Fremont St., Suite 2000
San Francisco,CQ 94105 -2219
Attn: Legal Division
RMRD1NG REMESTED n
NDRTH AMERIGIN TITLE
DEED RESTRICTION
�}
•
DOW f 94- 00387%
19 —Jr t4 -19 i 02: 0".
Ite {nrp5j ip U7 ?i, ;. ?i ttPrnY�jS
ui O�di�3� ir, C3 iiiu77ii3
Lee R. Ge ilb"`t:. i'.r'nnir
to C. v
b AA
.vv
I. WHEREAS, Thanes W Doan And Dnmf-hit R ry�:n as T 11C }PPS of mhe Loan 2/
Tnis+n of gept,27.1974 , hereinafter referred to as the " Owner(s)," is /are W{�
the record owner(s) of the following real property:
hereinafter referred to as the "Property;" and
IL WHEREAS, the California Coastal Commission, hereinafter referred
to as the "Commission," is acting on behalf of the People of the State of
California; and
III. WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the coastal
zone as defined in 330103 of Division 20 of the California Public Resources
Code, hereinafter referred to as the "California Coastal Act of 1976,"
(the Act); and
y
IV_ WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act, the Owner applied to the Commission
for a coastal development permit on the Property described above; and
V. VIIERLAS, coastal development permit uumber'5 -93 -137, hereinafter
referred to as, thi "Permit," was granted on July 15 1993 , by
the Commission in accordance with the provision of the Staff Recommendation ,
and Notice of Intent tt TT
and Findings attached hereto as EX M?-?uX ane54erein incorporated by j
I
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
161
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
courtr rnren
sfenty eeeu
Sao D "J
0
reference: and
VI. WHEREAS, the Permit was subject to the terms and conditions
including, but not limited to, the following condition(s):
1. Deed Restriction Limiting Daytime Use
Prior to issuance of the coastal development cermit, the applicant shall
execute and record a deed restriction, in a form and content acceptable to the
Executive Director, which shall provide that no more than 1,500 square feet of
service area of the subject restaurant /brewpub shall be open before 5 p.m.
The doctanent shall run with the land, binding all successors and assigns, and
shall be recorded free of prior liens and encumbrances which the Executive
Director determines to affect said interest.
2. Maintenance of Off -Site Parking
The proposed'project includes the use of off -site parking for which the
applicant has entered into long -term parking agreements. Prior to issuance o('.,
the coastal development permit, the applicant shall execute and record a deed
restriction, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director, which
shall provide that the applicant shall maintain, for the life of the
development, a total of 41 off -site parking spaces between 6 :00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. daily, and a total of 67 off -site parking spaces between 5:00 p.m. and
2:00 a.m. daily. The document shall run with the land, binding all successor::
and assigns, and shall be recorded free of prior liens and encumbrances which
the Executive Director determines to affect said interest.
VII. WHEREAS, the Commission found that but for the imposition of the
ayo.ve condition(s) the proposed development could not be found - consistent
t
with provisions of the California Coastal Act of 1976 and that a permit
could therefore not have been granted; and
VIII. WHEREAS, Owner has elected to comply with the condition(s)
imposed by'the Permit and execute this Deed Restriction so as to enable
Owner to undertake the development authorized by the Permit.
—2-
d
I
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the granting of the Permit to the
2
Owner by the Commission, the Owner hereby irrevocably covenants with the
3
Commission that there be and hereby is created the following restrictions
4
on the use and enjoyment of said Property, to be attached to and become a
5
part of the deed to the property.
6
1. COVENANT, CONDITION AND RESTRICTION. The undersigned Owner,
7
for himself /herself and for his /her heirs, assigns, and successors in
8
interest, covenants and agrees that:
9
Applicant shall provide,that no more than 1,500 square feet of service area
to
of the subject restaurant /brewpub shall be open before 5:00 p.m.
11
Applicant shall maintain for the life of the development, a total of 41'
Off-site parking spaces between 6 :00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. and a total of 67
12
off -site parking spaces between 5:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. daily as shown on
13
exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
14
15
16.
17
18
2. DURATION. Said Deed Restriction shall remain in full force
19
and effect during the period that said Perm: it, or any modification or
20
amendment thereof remains effective, and during the period that the
21
development authorized by the Permit or any modification of said development,
22
remains in existence in or upon any part of, and thereby confers benefit
!
23
upon, the Property described herein, and shall bind Owner and all his /her
24
assigns or successors in interest..
25
3. TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS. It is intended that this Deed
.
26
Restriction is irrevocable and shall constitute an enforceable restriction
27
within the meaning of a) Article XIII, 48, of the California Constituti —,
rOUnT PAPF.n
M19 vv c.iwo..,+
Sm. il��nev. e.,xi
—3—
'
nu
y.9z
1 and b) §402.1 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code or successor
2 statute. Furthermore, this Deed Restriction shall be deemed to constitute .
3 a servitude upon and burden to the Property within the meaning of §3712(d)
4 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, or successor statute, which
5 survives a sale of tax - deeded property.
6 4. RIGHT OF ENTRY. The Commission or its agent may
7 enter onto the Property at times reasonably acceptable to the Owner to
8 ascertain whether the use restrictions set forth above are being observed.
9 5. REMEDIES. Any act, conveyance, contract, or authorization
10 by the Owner whether written or oral which uses or would cause to be used
11 or would permit use of the Property contrary to the terms of this Deed
12 Restriction will be deemed a violation and a breach hereof. The Commission
13 and the Owner may pursue any and all available legal and /or equitable remedies
14 to enforce the terms and conditions of this Deed Restriction. In the event
15 of a breach, any forbearance on the part of either party to enforce the
16 terms and provisions hereof shall not be deemed a waiver of enforcement
17 rights regarding any subsequent breach.
18 6. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of these restrictions is
19 held to be invalid, or for any reason becomes unenforceable, no other
20 provision shall be thereby affected or impaired.
21
22 Dated: 19
23
24 SIGNE � �o NED: � 'L.tL•G.��7 � .'l) I�(C:�l E
25 I rFol i s ( LAV R) US
PRINT OR TYPE NAME OF ABOVE PRINT OR TYPt NAME OF ABOVE
26
27 * * NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT ON THE NEXT PAGE +'
=U RT PAPER
"A" 61 G�, /OI,NIA
sm, ns a /v. enai —4-
00
y. 9 3 7:g_s
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
131
0
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF
On
Public personally appeared
before me,
A Notary
personally
known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is /are subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he /she /they executed the same in his /her /their
authorized capacity(ies), and that by his /her /their signature(s) on the
instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)
acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
State of �a��- ='�L�I2 �cc
County of
On before me, /Y l ivy / 14' l
(DATE) -{-, ''� (NAM TITLE OF OFFICER- I.E..JANE DOE. NO!TA� MEILIC-)
personally appeared 1 1T�\ 11 l L� I�iY2f�Rf
INAMEISI OF SIGNERs)) f
RIGHT THUMBPRINT(OPTIORRI
W
s
f
0
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER(S)
❑ INDIVIDUAL(S)
❑ CORPORATE
OFFICER(S)
• PARTNER(S) (nTLEI51)
• ATTORNEY IN FACT
• TRUSTEE(S)
• GUARDIAN /CONSERVATOR
• OTHER:
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(SI OR ENTh Y(IESI
NTION NOTARY; The information requested below is OPTIONAL. Itgould, howev/er,�9"event fraudulent attachment of this certificate to any unauthorized document.
THIS CERTIFICATE Title or Type of Document 'cam
MUST BE ATTACHED
TO THE DOCUMENT Number of Pages i�r Date of Document /` . ;�Y, - 26
DESCRIBED AT RIGHT: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above
WOLCOTTS FORM 69210 —ALL PURPOSE ACKNOWLE GKNT MTH SIGNER CAPACITY /REMESENrATDUFINGERPRNT —Rev. 12-92
0592 WOLCOTTS FORMS, WC.
y�9y
ersonally known to me - OR -
❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence
to be the person(s) whose name(s) is /are sub-
scribed to the within instrument and acknowledged
OFFICIALSEAL
to me that he /she /they executed the same in
MARY R. MEZEUL
his /her /their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
Notary Public- Callfomla
ORANGECOUNTy
his /her /thelr signature(s) on the instrument the
arr A'N
person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the
Apr[129,199>491res
ApdI29.1994
person(s) aced, executed the instrument.
Witness my hand and official seal.
RIGHT THUMBPRINT(OPTIORRI
W
s
f
0
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER(S)
❑ INDIVIDUAL(S)
❑ CORPORATE
OFFICER(S)
• PARTNER(S) (nTLEI51)
• ATTORNEY IN FACT
• TRUSTEE(S)
• GUARDIAN /CONSERVATOR
• OTHER:
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(SI OR ENTh Y(IESI
NTION NOTARY; The information requested below is OPTIONAL. Itgould, howev/er,�9"event fraudulent attachment of this certificate to any unauthorized document.
THIS CERTIFICATE Title or Type of Document 'cam
MUST BE ATTACHED
TO THE DOCUMENT Number of Pages i�r Date of Document /` . ;�Y, - 26
DESCRIBED AT RIGHT: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above
WOLCOTTS FORM 69210 —ALL PURPOSE ACKNOWLE GKNT MTH SIGNER CAPACITY /REMESENrATDUFINGERPRNT —Rev. 12-92
0592 WOLCOTTS FORMS, WC.
y�9y
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
151
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
COURT PAPER
STal. o. e........A
STO 113 �NFV
This is to certify that the deed restriction set forth above is hereby
acknowledged by the undersigned officer on behalf of the California Coastal
Commission pursuant to authority conferred by the California Coastal
Commission when it granted Coastal Development Permit No. 5 -93 -137
on July 15, 1993 and the California Coastal Commission consents
Ito recordation therof by its duly authorized officer.
Dated: 3
Jo rs, Staff Counsel
California Coastal Commission
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
On /3 before me, Deborah L. Bove A Notary
Public personally appeared John Bowers personally
known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is /are subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he /she /they executed the same in his /her /their
authorized capacity(ies), and that by his /her /their signature(s) on the
instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the persons)
acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
-6-
L. BOVE
October 4, 1995
9
I
9.9 5 >�
On _ July 15 1993 the California Coastal Commission granted
to THE OOAN TRUST Permit 5 -93 -137 subject to the
attached conditions, for development consisting of:
Conversion of an existing 4200 square foot former market /deli (currently vacant)
to a restaurant /brew pub and the addition of 600 square feet of outdoor dining.
Existing 3100 square foot, second floor office will remain.
more specifically described in the applicatiun file in the Commission offices.
The development is within the coastal zone in Orange County
at--2920 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach
The actual development permit is being held in the Commission office until
fulfillment of the Special Conditions imposed by the Commission. Once these
conditions have been fulfilled, the permit will be issued. For your information,
all the imposed conditions are attached.
Issued on behalf of the California Coastal Commission on July 15, 1993
PETER DOUGLAS
Executive Director
By: LCD
Title: taff Analyst
ACKNOWLEDGMENT:
The undersigned permittee acknowledges receipt of this notice of the California
Coastal Commission determination on Permit No. 5 -93 -137 and fully
understands its contents, including all conditions imposed_
Date Pehmittee
Please sign and return one copy of this form to the Commission office at the above
address.
EXHIBIT „A„
STATE 6F CALIFORNIA —THE RESOURCES AGENCY
PETE WILSON, Goxmc
CALIFORNIA COASTAL
COMMISSION
PAUeU 1
SOUTH COAST AREA
Date:
to1D 19
<'
745 W. BROADWAY. STE. 380
P.O. BOX 1450
Permit Application No.
5 -93 -137
LONG BEACH. CA 90607."16
(310) 590.5071
NOTICE
OF INTENT TO ISSUE PERMIT
On _ July 15 1993 the California Coastal Commission granted
to THE OOAN TRUST Permit 5 -93 -137 subject to the
attached conditions, for development consisting of:
Conversion of an existing 4200 square foot former market /deli (currently vacant)
to a restaurant /brew pub and the addition of 600 square feet of outdoor dining.
Existing 3100 square foot, second floor office will remain.
more specifically described in the applicatiun file in the Commission offices.
The development is within the coastal zone in Orange County
at--2920 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach
The actual development permit is being held in the Commission office until
fulfillment of the Special Conditions imposed by the Commission. Once these
conditions have been fulfilled, the permit will be issued. For your information,
all the imposed conditions are attached.
Issued on behalf of the California Coastal Commission on July 15, 1993
PETER DOUGLAS
Executive Director
By: LCD
Title: taff Analyst
ACKNOWLEDGMENT:
The undersigned permittee acknowledges receipt of this notice of the California
Coastal Commission determination on Permit No. 5 -93 -137 and fully
understands its contents, including all conditions imposed_
Date Pehmittee
Please sign and return one copy of this form to the Commission office at the above
address.
STANDARD CONDITIONS:
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE PERMIT
Page 2 of 3
Permit Application No. 5 -93 -137
1. Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgment. The permit is not valid and
development shall not commence until a copy of the permit, signed by the
permittee or authorized agent, acknowledging receipt of the permit and
acceptance of the terms and conditions, is returned to the Commission office.
2. Expiration. If development has not commenced, the permit will expire two
years from the date on which the Commission voted on the application.
Development shall be pursued in a diligent manner and completed in a
reasonable period of time. Application for extension of the permit must be
made prior to the expiration date.
3. . Compliance. All development must occur in strict compliance with the
proposal as set forth in the application for permit, subject to any special
conditions set forth below. Any deviation from the approved plans must be
reviewed and approved by the staff and may require Commission appFova T:
A. Interpretation. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any condition
will be resolved by the Executive Director or the Commission.
5. Inspections. The`Commission staff shall be allowed to inspect the site and
the project during its development, subject to'24 —hour advance notice.
6. Assignment. The permit may be assigned to any qualified person, provided
assignee files with the Commission an affidavit accepting all terms and
.conditions of the permit.
7. Terms and Conditions Run with the Land. These terms and conditions shall be
perpetual, and it is the intention of the Commission and the permittee to
bind all future owners and possessors of the subject property to the terms
and conditions.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1� Deed Restriction Limiting Daytime Use
Prior to issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall execute
and record a deed restriction, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive
birector, which shall provide that no more than 1,500 square feet of service area
of the subject restaurant /brewpub shall be open before 5 p.m. The document shall
run with the land, binding all successors and assigns, and snall be recorded free
of prior liens.
0
I . ,
y Page 3
5 -93-137
2.. Maintainance of Off —Site Parking
0
The proposed project includes the use of off —site parking for which the applicant
has entered into long —term parking agreements. prior to issuance of the coastal
development permit, the applicant shall execute and record a deed restriction, in
a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director, which shall provide that.
the applicant shall maintain, for the life of the development, a total of 41
off —site parking spaces between 6:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. daily, and a total of 67
off —site parking spaces between 5:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. daily.
Recission of Amendment to Parking Agreement
Prior to issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall submit
evidence *that the Amendment to Parking Agreement approved by the City of Newport
Beach,on February 16, 1993, has been rescinded by the City Council. Additionally.
prior to issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall :submit,
for the review and approval of the Executive Director, a letter from the City of
Newport Beach indicating that the City agrees that the City's Code Enforcement
will enforce the public service area restrictions described in Special Condition 1.
Submittal of Final. Plans
Prior to issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall submit,
for the review and approval of the Executive Director, final floor plans
illustrating the area proposed for the day use restriction imposed in special
conditionl, above.
AFTER YOU HAVE SIGNED AND RETURNED THE DUPLICATE COPY YOU WILL BE RECEIVING THE
LEGAL FORMS TO COMPLETE (WITH INSTRUCTIONS) FROM THE SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE. WHEN
YOU RECEIVE THE DOCUMENTS IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THE LEGAL
DEPARTMENT AT (415) 904 -5200.
MV:tn
9280E
cel
EXHIBIT "B"
(LEGAL DESCRIPTION)
PARCEL A:
THE WESTERLY 12.5 FEET OF LOT 17, ALL OF LOTS 18, 19, 20 AND 21,
AND THE EASTERLY 9.50 FEET OF LOT 22, BLOCK - 230 OF LANCASTER'S
ADDITION TO NEWPORT BEACH, IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT.' BEACH; COUNTY OF
ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN, BOOK 5,
PAGE 14 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE $COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA.
PARCEL B:
PARCEL 1, IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE PARCEL MAP FILED IN BOOK 92, PAGE 40
OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID
COUNTY.
y �� AD
JAN 112 194 14:1 IS P&�k.NL
PROPERTIES
PARCEL MAP
P.2/2
Goilthwest Corner of
30th,gtreet and Villa Way
Newport Beadhi California
October, 19
Richard A. Fuller87 M.A.I.
is
w1dy
17
4
1
ON
74
(D
0
I F-il
m
A DDf M. M. 5- 14
EC MAP P M.
6 'Nd
to
Ili
ASS
600j( 4
cou',
/DU
Exhibit
P.2/2
w1dy
4
ON
74
JIQ
P M. 04 -7
'z
a.
7_
7
/a
4
;7;
7
43• 4
t
ADD.
P
M. $2 - 40
ASS
600j( 4
cou',
/DU
Exhibit No. 4
�V
BLAMK
y. 1d 2
„� �, � .�
�"�. ��s:
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: September 13, 1999
AF�RT COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 11
04 o Agenda Item No.:
y i PLANNING DEPARTMENT Staff Person: Patrick J. Alford
ij 33o NEWPORT BOULEVARD 644 -3235
CgCIFUNd�r NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
(949) 644-3200% FAX (949) 644-3250
REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Newport Beach Brewing Company Appeal FILE COP Y
2920 Newport Boulevard
SUMMARY: An appeal by the applicant of the Planning Commission's denial of an
amendment to Use Permit 3485 to allow a change in Alcoholic Beverage
Control license type to allow full alcoholic beverage service.
ACTION: Affirm or reverse the Planning Commission's denial of:
Use Permit No. 3485 (Amended)
Background
On August 5, 1999, the Planning Commission voted (3 ayes, 1 no, 3 absent) to deny the proposed
amendment to Use Permit 3485.
The appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was filed on August 19, 1999.
Analysis
The project denied by the Planning Commission would have allowed the restaurant/brewpub to
go from beer and wine sery ice only to full alcoholic_beverage service. The Planning Commission
based its denial on the high crime rate and high concentration of licenses in the Cannery Village
area. The Planning Commission determined that due to these factors, public convenience or
necessity would not be served by the project. Furthermore, the Planning Commission concluded
that approval of the project under these circumstances would be detrimental to the health, safety,
peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the area.
The Planning Commission's review of the project followed the provisions of the Alcoholic
Beverage Outlet (ABO) Ordinance. The ABO requires the Planning Commission to consider
whether the use serves public convenience or necessity, the crime rate, the number of alcohol
licenses per capita, the numbers of alcohol- related calls for service, crimes or arrests, and adjacent
land uses. The Planning Commission noted that the crime statistics and ratio of alcoholic beverage
licenses to population constitute an "undue concentration" of licenses under State law. Under these
circumstances, the ABC is required to deny the application for the license unless the City
determines that public convenience or necessity would be served by its issuance.
The Planning Commission also considered information provided by the Police Department. The
Police Department cited the disproportionate impact alcohol related offenses continues to have on
their workload and on the quality of life in the community. The Police Department also stated that
while they had no serious concerns with the current operation, they believed that the project must be
considered in light of the larger issue of the intensification of alcohol and related uses on the Balboa
Peninsula, especially in the Cannery Village area.
At the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant stated that they operate a good establishment
and that full alcoholic beverage service is needed in order to stay competitive and offer improved
services to their customers. The applicant cited statistics attributing less than one percent of the
alcohol - related arrests in the area to the establishment. The applicant also stated that the over
concentration issue was moot, since they were an existing establishment and were only modifying
an existing license. The applicant further stated that the situation in the area will improve with the
closing of the Cannery Restaurant and the Snug Harbor.
Should the City Council choose to reverse the Planning Commission's denial of the project,
findings and conditions for approval are contained in Exhibit `B" of the Planning Commission staff
report.
Submitted by: Prepared by:
SHARON Z. WOOD PATRICK J. ALFORD
Assictan.t, City A'tanager senior Ptauaer
Attachments:
]. A eal Application.
2. August 5, 1999 Planning Commission staff report
3. August 5, 1999 Planning Commission meeting minutes.
Newport Beach Brewing Co. Appeal
September 13. 1999
Page 2
Y /0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE PLAN
Application No. U6L f'�c-rw,%-1' No. 3y8S L�
Name of Appellant 1 I
or person filing: <-1 120 r Phone:
Address: Ll (S -T0 (✓n Sir, Ulee /,A. 9 / 1 L/,,k4-i n a 4,
Date of Planning Commission decision: uays4 19 q,7 Regarding application of: lyLvl)jti 6c" CS/c [�inu CG
(Description of application filed with Planning Commission)
Cl1
LD
for
Reasons for Appeal:
444 wL
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY , V U
Date Appeal filed and Administrative Fee received: 19" -
Hearing Date. An appeal shall be scheduled for a hearing efore the City Council 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)
cc: Appellant
Planning (Furnish one set of mailing labels for mailing)
File
APPEALS: Municipal Code Sec. 20.95.0408
Appeal Fee: $278 pursuant to Resolution No. 98 -52 adopted on 7 -27 -98
(Deposit funds with Cashier in Account #2700 -5000)
y. /a5 1�5
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
�t�4'W�RT COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
o e
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
H
i} S moo NEWPORT BOULEVARD
C�VFO0.N`r NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92656
(949) 644-32 —; FAX (949) 644'325P
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY:
ACTION
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION:
ZONING
DISTRICT:
LAND USE
DESIGNATION:
OWNER:
Hearing Date:
Agenda Item No.:
Staff Person:
Appeal Period:
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Newport Beach Brewing Company
2920 Newport Boulevard
August 5, 1999
1
Patrick J. Alford
644 -3235
14 Days
An amendment to an existing use permit to allow a change in Alcoholic
Beverage Control license type to allow full alcoholic beverage service.
Hold hearing; approve, modify, or deny:
Use Permit No. 3485 (Amended)
Parcel 1 of Parcel Man 92 -40 (restaurantlbrewpub site) and portions of
Lots 17 and 22 of Lancaster's Addition (off -site parking lot).
Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan (SP -6) - Specialty Retail
(SR) District.
Retail and Service Commercial
Allan Fainbarg and Arnold D. Feuerstein, Anaheim
Ile
°G
Projel
' p�v
f e
VICINITY MAP
I191,t. .
'r Sol
i —__... '— —
ry
9j i.;
i Q
v4
N 292
`
I _1 a
}
�• 2908
�Y
1
.�i.a
9j i.;
i Q
v4
N 292
`
I _1 a
}
�• 2908
�Y
1
=i
r
Use Permit 3485 (Amended)
1
�'ar iry
i_�F bs
I
Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses
Current land use: Commercial (eating and drinking establishment/office)
To the north: 30th Street with commercial (retail and office) /residential beyond.
To the south: Public alley with commercial (eating and drinking establishment) beyond.
To the east: Surface parking.
To the west: Newport Boulevard with commercial (retail) beyond.
Use Permit 3485A (Newpon Beach Brewing Co.)
August 5, 1999
Page e 2
`- AJ 7 .
Points and Authority
Environmental Review (California Environmental Ouality Act)
• It has been determined that the project is categorically exempt under Class 1 (existing
facilities).
Conformance with the General Plan
The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Retail and Service
Commercial' uses. Restaurants are permitted uses within this designation.
Conformance with the Zonina Code
Eating and drinking establishments are permitted on the approval of a use permit in
the SP -6 /SR District.
• A use permit is required for any existing alcoholic beverage outlet seeking to change
its type of retail liquor license with the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
under the provisions of Chapter 20.89 of the Municipal Code.
Use permit procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapter 20.91 of the Municipal
Code.
Background
On February 18, 1993, the Planning Commission approved (6 ayes, 1 absent) Use Permit No.
3485 for a combination restaurant and brewpub. On March 8, 1993, the City Council approved
the use permit in conjunction with an amendment to an existing off -site parking agreement that
would have allowed the project to use 29 parking spaces in the Canney Village Municipal
Parking Lot.
On September 27, 1993, the City Council amended the use permit to reflect additional
restrictions on the amount of net public area and the number of off -site parking spaces placed on
the project by the California Coastal Commission[.
Site Overview
The project site is an 8,320 squuare foot parcel located at the southeast corner of the intersection
of Newport Boulevard and 30r Street. The site is developed with a two -story, 7,876 square foot
structure. On the first floor, the restaurant occupies approximately 3,244 square feet and the
brewery occupies approximately 1,532 square feet. The 3,100 square feet of the second floor is
used as office space.
t The Coastal Commission was concerned that the use of 29 parking spaces in the Cannery Village Municipal
Parking Lot would conflict with public use of these spaces during the day.
Use Permit 3495A (Newport Beach Brewing Co.)
August 5, 1999
Page 3
`f. /d $
The project site contains approximately 2,276 square feet of net public area. However, it is
limited by conditions to 1,500 square feet of net public area prior to 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday.
The project site contains 2 on -site parking spaces and there is an off -site parking agreement for
an additional 41 spaces in the surface parking lot on the abutting property (410 30`" Street). In
addition, the project has access to 29 in -lieu parking spaces in the Cannery Village Municipal
Parking Lot (426 30`h Street) after 5:00 p.m.
Project Overview
The applicant is requesting an amendment to the existing use permit to allow the
restaurant/brewpub to go from beer and wine service only to full alcoholic beverage service (i.e.,
the sale of whiskey, rum, brandy, gin, and other distilled spirits). No modifications to the site
plan, floor plan, elevations, or conditions of approval are proposed.
Analvsis
Under the provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Outlet (ABO) Ordinance, an amendment to an
existing use permit is required when an alcoholic beverage outlet changes its type of retail liquor
license with the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). In this case, the change is
from a Type 23 (Small Beer Manufacturer) to a Type 75 (On -Sale General Brew -Pub).
The ABO Ordinance requires that the Planning Commission consider the following factors when
approving a use permit:
I. Whether the use serves public convenience or necessity.
2. The crime rate in the reporting district and adjacent reporting districts as
compared to other areas in the City.
3. The number of alcohol licenses per capita in the reporting district and in
adjacent reporting districts as compared to the county -wide average.
4. The numbers of alcohol - related calls for service, crimes or arrests in the
reporting district and in adjacent reporting districts.
5. The proximity of the alcoholic beverage outlet to residential districts, day
care centers, park and recreation facilities, places of religious assembly,
and schools.
The project site is located within Police Reporting District No. 15 and within Census Tract No.
635.00. The charts below present 1997 data (most current available) related to factors 2, 3 and 4.
Public Convenience or Necessity. Current City Council policy provides criteria for situations
when the public convenience or necessity will not be served. However, this policy is only
applicable to bars, cocktail lounges, cabarets, and nightclubs. Since the proposed project will not
Use Permie 3485A (Newport Beach Brewing Co.)
August 5, 1999
Page 4
A
contain any of these uses, there is no policy requiring a finding that the proposed project does not
serve the public convenience or necessity.
Currently, there are 24 on -sale establishments providing full alcoholic beverage service in the
area (see Table 1 below). However, the project is the only brewpub in the City. Therefore, the
convenience of the public can arguably be served by the sale of distilled spirits in a
restaurant/brewpub setting. It can also be argued that are an abundance of establishments
providing full alcoholic beverage service in this area and that the public convenience or necessity
would not be served by the addition of another. Both views must be balanced by the other four
factors to be evaluated by the Planning Commission for this use permit. Based upon all the
information assessed in these factors, the Planning Commission may determine whether this
approval is necessary to serve the public convenience or necessity.
Table 1
Full Alcoholic Bevera a Service Licenses
Subject
Adjacent
Adjacent
ABC License Type
Reporting
Reporting
Reporting
DistrictNo.15
DistrietNo.13
District No. 16
Type 21
4
1
1
Part 1:
21
6
2
-Type47
Type 48
3
0
0
TOTAL:
28
7
3
Type 21 = Off -Sale General (grocery stores, convenience markets, etc.)
Type 47 = On -Sale General for Bona Fide Public Bating Place (restaurants).
Type 48 = On -Sale General Public Premises (bars and cocktail lounges).
Crime Rate. The crime rate in Reporting District No. 15 currently exceeds the citywide crime rate
by over 258% (see Table 2 below). Reporting Districts No. 13 and No. 16 are adjacent and also
have crime rates that are above the citywide crime rate. The Police Department notes that during
the first six months of 1999, reported offenses citywide for driving under the influence and
drunkenness increased 19 %, when compared to the same period in 1998. Actual arrests for all
offenses citywide only increased 8.8 %.
Table 2
Crime Rates and Arrests
Subject Adjacent
Adjacent
City-Wide
Reporting Reporting
Reporting
District No. 15 District No. 13
District No. 16
Crimes
Part 1:
3,370
354 121
177
Part 2:
1300
749 132
253
Crime Rate:
4J80.14
12343.10 5.620.07
6,941.18
Arrests
Total Arrests:
3,562
951 131
270
Alcohol - Related:
1 44.19%
64.67 % 40.4697 1
52.96%
"Part 1 Crimes" are homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny - theft, auto theft, and arson.
All other crimes are "Part 2 crimes."
The "Crime Rate" the number of crimes per 100,000 people.
"Alcohol- related arrest" means the offender had been drinking prior to the incident for which they were arrested.
Use Permit 3495A (Newport Beach Brewing Co.)
August 5. 1999
Page 5
y-
Under the provisions of Section 23958.4 of the California Business and Professions Code, one of
the conditions that constitutes an "undue concentration" of licenses is crime statistics that exceed
the citywide average by 20 %. The ABC is required to deny the application for the license unless
the Police Department (as authorized by City Council Policy K -7) determines that public
convenience or necessity would be served by its issuance. The Police Department has reviewed
the proposed project and has stated that they have no serious concerns with the current operation.
However, the Police Department also has stated that the project must be considered in light of the
larger issue of the intensification of alcohol and related uses on the Balboa Peninsula, especially
in the Cannery Village area, which has experienced resident complaints regarding alcoholic
beverage outlets. The Police Department believes that this demonstrates the disproportionate
impact alcohol related offenses continues to have on their workload and on the quality of life in
the community. Therefore, the Police Department cannot endorse the proposed intensification of
the ABC license and land use.
Over Concentration. Census Tract 635.00 currently has a ratio of alcoholic beverage licenses to
population that is above the average ratio of Orange County (see Table 3 below). Census Tract
628.00 is adjacent and also has a ratio of alcoholic beverage licenses to population that is above the
average ratio of Orange County.
The ratio of alcoholic beverage licenses to population also constitutes an "undue concentration" of
licenses under the provisions of Section 23958.4 of the California Business and Professions Code.
Therefore, the ABC is required deny the application for the license unless it is determined that
public convenience or necessity would be served by its issuance. The Police Department is
especially concerned about the concentration of ABC licenses on the Balboa Peninsula. Therefore,
the Police Department is recommending that the proposed project be reviewed against the greater
issue of intensifying alcohol usage on the peninsula.
Table 3
Ratio of ABC Licenses to Population
Projected
Census Tract
Census Tract
Based on
No. 635.00
No. 628.00
Orange County
average
1990 Population:
6,182
4,959`
a ;
ABC Licenses:
On -sale licenses
46
t9
7
(1 per 134 persons)
(I per261 persons)
(1 per 893 persons)
Off -sale licenses
9
6
4
(I per 686 persons)
(1 per 826 persons)
(I per 1,533 persons)
Alcohol - Related Arrests. Alcohol related arrests means the offender had been drinking prior to the
incident for which they were arrested. There were 951 arrests in Reporting District No. 15 during
1997 as compared to the 3,562 arrests citywide. Of the arrests made in Reporting District No. 15,
65% were alcohol- related, while 44% of the arrests citywide were alcohol- related. Reporting
Use Permit 3485A (Newport Beach Brewing Co.)
August 5. 1999
Page 6
v
A �:
// JI
District No. 13 and No. 16 are adjacent. Reporting District No. 13 had alcohol- related arrests
percentages that were slightly below the citywide percentages (41 %) and Reporting District No 16
had alcohol- related arrests percentages that were above the citywide percentages (53 %).
At public hearings for other projects in the Cannery Village area, residents and business
operators have reported a pattern of public nuisance behavior. Generally, this behavior is
conducted by patrons of area restaurants and bars as they arrive, depart, or travel between
establishments. The ABO Ordinance requires that the applicant take reasonable steps to
discourage and correct objectionable conditions that constitute a nuisance in parking areas,
sidewalks, alleys and other areas during business hours. However, in this area, with a high number
of alcoholic beverage outlets, it is difficult to determine which establishment is responsible for
public nuisance behavior in public areas.
Adjacent Uses. There are no day care centers, park and recreation facilities, places of religious
assembly, or schools in the immediate vicinity of the project site. However, the project is located
in a mixed commercial - residential zoning district and there are residential dwelling units on 30 "'
Street, directly across from the project site. Therefore, there is always the potential for impacts to
the residents associated with patrons arriving and departing from the project site. However, the
Police Department has stated that they are not aware of disturbances originating from the project
site.
Recommendation
Section 20.91.035 of the Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any use permit, the
Planning Commission shall find that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or
building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the
health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements
in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City.
The facts in this case support a finding that the proposed use would be detrimental to the area
because the public convenience or necessity would not be served by the proposed change in
Alcoholic Beverage Control license type to allow full alcoholic beverage service. The number of
alcohol - related arrests and the over- concentration of alcoholic beverage outlets in the area would
also support this finding. The findings for denial are provided as Exhibit "A."
The Planning Commission could find that the issues normally associated with eating and
drinking establishments have been addressed by the current conditions of approval, and the
introduction of full alcoholic beverage service is not expected to change this situation nor be
detrimental to the surrounding land uses. If the Planning Commission takes this action, the
Police Department is recommending a new condition advising the applicant that a special event
permit is required for events or promotional activities outside the normal operational characteristics
of establishment. Also, staff has updated the original conditions of approval to remove
conditions that are no longer applicable (i.e., those relating to the building's construction) and to
add standard City requirements. The findings for approval and recommended conditions are
provided as Exhibit "B."
1
Use Permit 3485A (Newpon Beach Brewing Co.)
August 5.
Page ge 7 7
(0/2 ZvZ
Submitted by:
PATRICIA L. TEMPLE
Planning Director
Q_iti.,.l. .( �lI
Attachments:
Prepared by:
PATRICK J. ALFORD
Senior Planner
1. Exhibit "A" (findings for denial)
2. Exhibit "B" (findings and conditions for approval)
3. Applicant's project description and justification.
4. Census Tracts Map.
5, Reporting Districts Map.
6. Site plan and floor plan.
Use Permit 3485A (Newport Beach Brewing Co.)
August 5, 1999
Page 8 ' {��
FINDINGS:
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR DENIAL
FOR
USE PERMIT NO. 3485 (AMENDED)
The proposed project is located in Police Reporting District No. 15, which
has a crime rate that exceeds the citywide crime rate by over 259 %. This
constitutes an "undue concentration" of licenses under the provisions of
Section 23958.4 of the California Business and Professions Code.
2. The proposed project is located in Census Tract 635.00, which has a ratio of
alcoholic beverage licenses to population that is above the average ratio of
Orange County. This constitutes an "undue concentration" of licenses under
the provisions of Section 23958.4 of the California Business and Professions
Code.
3. The public convenience or necessity would not be served by the granting
of the amendment to Use Permit No. 3485 to allow a change in Alcoholic
Beverage Control license type to full alcoholic beverage service because
of the undue concentration of licenses in the area.
4. Due to the undue concentration of alcoholic beverage outlets and their
impact on the Cannery Village area, and because the public convenience
or necessity would not be served, the proposed project would be
detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general
welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such
proposed use and would be detrimental or injurious to property and
improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City.
y.iiy-
EXHIBIT `B"
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL
FOR
USE PERMIT NO. 3455 (AMENDED)
FINDINGS:
1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Retail and
Service Commercial" uses and a restaurant/brewpub is considered a permitted
use within this designation.
2. The project is located within the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific
Plan (SP -6) - Specialty Retail (SR) District that permits eating and drinking
establishments with a use permit.
3. On -sale alcoholic beverage outlets are permitted with the approval of a use
permit.
4. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is
categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities).
5. The approval of the amendment to Use Permit No. 3485 to allow a full on -sale
alcoholic beverage service will not, under the circumstances of the case, be
detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the
City, for the following reasons:
The restaurant/brewpub use is compatible with
the surrounding commercial and nearby
residential uses since eating and drinking
establishments are typically allowed in mixed
commercial districts.
Conditions have been added to address potential
problems associated with traffic, parking, trash
disposal, odors, and unsightly conditions.
A Condition has been added to require a special
events permit for any event or promotional
activity outside the normal operational
f this restaurant business.
b. The proposed project is consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 20.89 of
the Zoning Code (Alcoholic Beverage Outlets) for the following reasons:
• The convenience of the public will be served by the sale of distilled
beverages in a restaurant/brewpub setting.
The project is in an area where the crime rate exceeds the citywide
average by more than 20 %. However, there is no evidence that this
high crime rate is attributable to the proposed project.
• The number of alcohol licenses per capita in the reporting district and
adjacent reporting districts is above the average for Orange County.
However, the project has the only alcohol license for a brewpub, and
the convenience of the public can be served by the sale of distilled
spirits in a restaurant/brewpub setting.
The percentage of alcohol- related arrests in the reporting district in
which the project is proposed and in the adjacent reporting district is
higher than the percentage of alcohol - related arrests citywide.
However, there is no evidence that the alcohol- related arrests are
attributable to the project.
• No day care centers, places of religious assembly, park and
recreation facilities, or schools are located in the vicinity of the
project site. Residential uses are located in the vicinity of the
project site. However, the project has been conditioned so as to
address any potential impacts.
CONDITIONS:
1. The proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site
plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below.
2. That a covenant or other suitable, legally binding agreement shall be recorded against
the off -site parking lot assuring that all of the requirements of Section 20.63.080 (I) of
the Municipal Code, will be met by the current and future property owners. Said
covenant or agreement may include provisions for its future termination at such time
as the development on the building site is removed or at such time as the floor area
devoted to the restaurant/brewpub reverts back to a base FAR use.
3. The applicant shall provide a minimum of one parking space for each 50 square feet
of net public area before 5:00 p.m. and one parking space for each 40 square feet of
net public area after 5:00 p.m. in conjunction with the restaurant/brewpub.
4. An amended off -site parking agreement shall be approved by the City Council,
guaranteeing that a minimum of 41 parking spaces shall be provided on property
iii [_/_ // 6 ,
located on Lots 18 -21 and portions of Lots 17 and 22, Block 230, Lancaster's
Addition, for the duration of the existing and proposed uses located on Parcel 1,
Parcel Map 92 -40 (Resubdivision No. 527).
5. The property owner shall pay for 29 in -lieu parking spaces in the Cannery Village
Municipal Parking Lot on an annual basis for the nighttime operation (after 5:00
p.m.) of the restaurant/brewpub use as agreed upon by the Sales Agreement between
the City of Newport Beach and the property owner.
6. The net public area of the restaurant/brewpub, which is devoted to daytime use
Monday through Friday (prior to 5:00 p.m.) shall be limited to 1,500 square feet. The
balance of the net public area shall be physically closed off to the public by a fixed
barrier and shall not be used until after 5:00 p.m. daily.
7. The hours of operation for the restaurant/brewpub shall be limited to the hours
between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and between 6:00 a.m.
and 2:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday.
8. All employees shall park either in the privately owned off -site parking area or in one
of the municipal parking lots in the area.
9. The operation of the brewery and the service of alcoholic beverages shall be ancillary
to the primary food service operation of the restaurant.
10. The approval of this use permit is for a restaurant/brewpub and shall not be construed
as the approval of a bar, cocktail lounge, or other use serving alcoholic beverages
during hours not corresponding to regular meal service hours (food products sold or
served incidentally to the sale or service of alcoholic beverages shall not be deemed
as constituting regular meal service) nor as the approval of a cabaret, nightclub, or
other use with the principal purpose of providing live entertainment and/or dancing.
11. No outdoor loudspeakers or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the
proposed location.
12. A washout area for refuse containers shall be provided in such a way as to allow
direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless
otherwise approved by the Building Department.
13. Kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the satisfaction
of the Building Department.
14. All mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from surrounding public
streets and alleys and adjoining properties.
15. The development standards regarding walls surrounding the restaurant site and
underground utilities shall be waived.
iv y
16. Should prerecorded music be played within the restaurant facility, such music shall be
confined to the interior of the building, and all doors and windows shall be kept
closed while such music is played.
17. A special events permit is required for any event or promotional activity outside the
normal operational characteristics of this restaurant business that would attract large
crowds, involve the sale of alcoholic beverages, include any form of on -site media
broadcast, or any other activities as specified in the Newport Beach Municipal Code
to require such permits.
18. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future
owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the
current business owner, property owner or the leasing company.
STANDARD CITY REQUIREMENTS:
A. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless
specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval.
B. Signs and displays shall not obstruct the sales counter, cash register, seller and
customer from view from the exterior.
C. Loitering, open container, and other signs specified by the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Act shall be posted as required by the ABC.
D. The applicant shall take reasonable steps to discourage and correct objectionable
conditions that constitute a nuisance in parking areas, sidewalks, alleys and areas
surrounding the alcoholic beverage outlet and adjacent properties must be taken
during business hours if directly related to the patrons of the subject alcoholic
beverage outlet.
E. The exterior of the alcoholic beverage outlet shall be maintained free of litter and graffiti
at all times. The owner or operator shall provide for daily removal of trash, litter debris
and graffiti from the premises and on all abutting sidewalks within 20 feet of the
premises.
F. All owners, managers and employees serving and/or selling alcoholic beverages shall
undergo and successfully complete a certified training program in responsible methods
and skills for serving and selling alcoholic beverages. To qualify to meet the
requirements of this section a certified program must meet the standards of the
California Coordinating Council on Responsible Beverage Service or other
certifying/licensing body which the State may designate. The establishment shall
comply with the requirements of this section within 180 days of the issuance of the
certificate of occupancy.
v
G. The project will comply with the provisions of Chapter 14.30 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code for commercial kitchen grease disposal.
H. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.67 of the Municipal Code.
I. This use permit for an alcoholic beverage outlet granted in accordance with the terms of
this chapter shall expire within 12 months from the date of approval unless a license has
been issued or transferred by the California State Department of Alcoholic Beverage
Control prior to the expiration date.
J. Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to issuance of any building
permits.
K. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this
variance upon a determination that this variance causes injury, or is detrimental to the
health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community.
vi
1�
PART IV: (Continued)
B. Project Description and Justification
When the Newport Beach Brewing Company (NBBC) opened four years ago it was one
of the first "breweries" in Orange County and, if for no other reason, did well due to the
uniqueness of being a restaurant/bar that brews its own premium beer on -site. We at the
NBBC are proud of the quality track record we have established for quality food, friendly
service, as well as, our award winning beers. However, now there are approximately
sixteen breweries in the county and therefore, over the past couple of years the
uniqueness /trend of the "brewery" concept has faded. In an effort to remain competitive
NBBC management has consistently made adjustments and improvements to its
operation to attract a broadened customer base. We have from day one attempted to be
more of a restaurant than a "bar ". We look to continue that trend by offering an even
more upscale menu to complement items like the New York Sirloin, Seared Ahi Salad
and the Cioppino that we currently serve.
As we have begun to upgrade our menu we have noticed we receive a lot more requests
for cocktails and after dinner drinks (e.g. martini, Irish coffee etc.). Therefore, we now
feel it is necessary to apply for an ABC No. 75 alcohol license, in order to satisfactorily
serve our broadened customer base. We want to be able to offer a greater variety of
beverage choices for all our customers at both lunch and dinner. It may be worth noting
that when the brew /pubs concept first came about in California, there was a state law that
prohibited brew /pubs from serving alcoholic beverages other than beer and wine. Since
that time, it has become apparent that there is no need for such a restriction to be placed
on breNv /pubs and therefore, the state has repealed that law.
We want to be perfectly clear that we are not looking to implement any drastic changes
to our existing format. We are not and do not have any desires to become a nightclub,
dance club or the like. That is not who or what the NBBC is or will ever be. We at the
NBBC plan to build upon our existing clientele base, which includes a diverse mix of
both younger professionals and older patrons of which most are locals. During the
summer of course we also attract many of the peninsula's visitors. The NBBC is a local
eatery that is simply attempting to cater to the desires of a broader base of clientele, by
upgrading our menu. We feel confident that the additional alcohol beverage service will
help compliment our expanded menu and keep the NBBC competitive. As a result the
Newport Beach Brewing Company will continue to be one of the most fun and friendly
places on the peninsula for residents and visitors alike to eat, drink and socialize.
9
7
CY)
j7
qczr
C*4
ti
CN
0
Lf)
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
August 5. 1999
INDEX
SUBJECT: Newport Beach Brewing Company Item No. 1
2920 Newport Boulevard Use Permit No. 3485 A
• Use Permit No. 3485 (Amended)
An amendment to an, existing use permit to allow a change in Alcoholic Denied
Beverage Control license type to allow full alcoholic beverage service.
Senior Planner Patrick Alford noted the following:
• The application is for a change from a Type 23, Small Beer
Manufacturer to a Type 75, On Sale General Brewpub. Under the
provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Outlet Ordinance, it requires an
amendment to the existing use permit.
• The Planning Commission must consider these factors: use serves
public convenience or necessity; the crime rate in the reporting
district; the number of alcoholic licenses per capita within the
reporting district; the number of alcohol related calls for service,
crimes and arrests within the reporting district and the proximity of the
alcohol beverage outlet to residential districts, day care centers, park
and recreation facilities; basic religious assemblies and schools.
• The issue of public convenience or necessity - there are currently 24
on -sale establishments providing full alcohol service in the area.
However, the project is the only brewpub in the City.
• The issue of crime rate in the reporting district - significantly exceeds
the citywide average. Under state law, this constitutes an undue
concentration of licenses and the Alcohol Beverage Commission is
required to deny the application unless the City determines that the
public convenience or necessity is served by the issuance of the
license. The Police Department has reviewed the project and
recommends that the Planning Commission review the application in
light of the larger issue of the intensification of alcohol and related
uses on the Balboa Peninsula, especially in the Cannery Village area. —
• The issue of over - concentration - the number of alcoholic beverage
licenses per capita in the Census Tract 635.00 exceeds that of the
County. This also constitutes undue concentration under state law.
The ABC is required to deny the application unless the City determines
that the public convenience or necessity is served by the issuance.
• The issue of alcohol related arrests - in the Police Reporting District No.
15, 65% of the arrests in the area are alcohol related which compares
to 44% of such arrests citywide.
• The issue of adjacent uses - it is a mixed commercial residential zoning
district and there are residential units across 30th Street. There is always
the potential of impacts to residents.
Concluding, Mr. Alford noted that the facts support the finding that the use
would be detrimental to the area because the public convenience or
necessity would not be served by the proposed ABC license change. Also,
2 >�
y. /z3
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
August 5, 1999
due to the large number of alcohol related arrests in the area and to the
over - concentration of alcohol beverage outlets in the area, this use would be
detrimental to the area. However, the Planning Commission could also find
that the issues have been adequately addressed by the current conditions of
approval and the change in license type may not necessarily effect that
operation. The public convenience or necessity could be served by the sale
of distilled spirits in a restaurant brewpub setting.
Commissioner Fuller noted that it is stated in the staff report that the Police
Department has reviewed the proposed project and has no serious concerns
with the current operation. Does that mean the existing operation with the
existing liquor license or the proposed operation? Referencing Page 5, Table
1 he also asked what the units of comparison were per capita.
Mr. Alford answered that it deals with the past operation and with what
occurred in the past. The way the Alcohol Beverage Ordinance is set up, the
concentration issue is addressed by way of a Census Tract, The information is
not necessarily at a Reporting District level
Assistant City Manager, Sharon Wood added that the population ratio is
shown on Table 3, Page 6, that is by Census Tract which is a different
geographic area.
Mr. Alford added that the area is a mixed use, the population is relatively low
compared to other areas on the peninsula, so that the number of licenses in
that area to the ratio of population is fairly high. He further added that District
No. 13 has more residential, there is very little if any, commercial. In District
No. 16, it is predominately residential with some commercial.
Commissioner Kranzley clarified with staff that Census Tract No. 635 added to
Census Tract No. 628 would represent-the entire population of the peninsula.
Chairperson Selich asked the percentages of restaurant versus brewery pub?
He was told that there are 3,244 square feet on the first floor, and the brewery
occupies approximately 1,500 square feet of that. He then asked what the
original intent of how the operation was going to be run.
Planning Director Patricia Temple answered that the intent of the operation
as originally presented was to be a restaurant with a brewpub, where they
actually did on -site brewing of custom beers. It was predominately to be
used as a restaurant, certainly alcohol was a feature of the operation as that
was their niche in the market. It has been run primarily as a restaurant.
Commissioner Kranzley noted that taking the entire population on the
peninsula by adding Census Tracts 635 and 628, the population is 11,141 with
65 on sale licenses which is still 1 per 171 persons on the peninsula.
3
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
August 5, 1999
Mrs. Wood noted that the state law mandates that comparisons should be
made to the average of the County, which for on sale licenses is 1 per 893
persons and we are at 1 per 171 persons which represents a significant
difference.
Ms. Clauson noted that the operation was also conditioned in the original use
permit that require the service of alcohol as ancillary to the restaurant
business and that there is no approval for any type of bar or nightclub.
Chairperson Selich asked if other businesses such as this in other communities
typically have hard liquor service? Staff answered that one approved in
Manhattan Beach similar to this project was recently approved with full
alcoholic beverage service.
Commissioner Tucker added that one across from the UCI in the Irvine Market
Place has a full liquor license.
Public comment was opened.
Sean Niedelman, operations manager of the Newport Beach Brewing
Company noted:
• This is an established restaurant that also brews its own beer, catering to
all types of customers.
• The restaurant has been looking for ways to improve service and
acquiring this liquor license is one of those ways.
• The current menu offers variety of foods resulting in food sales of 65% of
totalsales.
• The restaurant is losing customers due to lack of cocktail service.
• We want to compliment the enhanced menu and capture a more
diverse clientele byocquiring.this license.
At Commission inquiry, Mr. Niedelman answered that they are applying for a
new license.
Captain Tim Newman of the Police Department commented that it is the
Police Department's position that there already is a significant impact in this
general area of the peninsula due to alcohol consumption. The Police
Department is not comfortable advocating a change one way or another
and felt that would be something most appropriately handled by this policy
making level of government. The Police Department wanted the Planning
Commission to address that specific issue. All the statistics used by staff came
from the police records and indicates that the police do have a problem and
it does effect our level and volume of DUI's and alcohol related offenses that
occur in this area. In answer to Commission inquiry, he added that it is difficult
to predict if a change in the license from beer to hard liquor would make a
4
INDEX
y �2s
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
August 5, 1999
difference. It depends on the operator. The City has bars with a wide variety
of conditions and restrictions on their ability to conduct business and some
the Police Department has chronic and current problems with and others
never have problems. The Police Department doesn't have problem that end
up being detrimental to the community, with an operator whose staff is well
trained and who runs a good operation. In this particular case we are
dealing with a land planning issue and since this will be with the property,
regardless of who the operator is, the Police Department is not in a position to
say what this operation will be like in the future. Since the first of the year, the
police have arrested 941 individuals for either DUI or who were drunk in
public. Of that number, 375 of those individuals were in this Reporting District
No. 15. This district is the area between 20th Street to 32nd Street, between the
ocean and the Rhine Wharf/Lido Peninsula area inclusive. It has always been
a very active area of the City. In response to where they have been drinking,
the 681 who responded only 5 of them said they had been consuming
alcohol at this establishment. Stepping up from a beer license only, to a full
alcoholic beverage service can step up the number of incidents, but it
depends on the operator and how he handles his staff.
Commissioner Kranzley asked about the number of responses (681) where
were they drinking and how many of those bars were on the peninsula? He
was answered that the greatest response had to do with people who were
drinking at a private party, 193 were drinking at locations outside the City, 32
said they were drinking at home. Continuing, Commissioner Kranzley noted
the following:
• 40% of the DUI's and drunk in public has to do with alcohol on the
peninsula.
• A year ago, we added a policeman that basically covered Cannery
Village. Is that 40% consistent with prior years? Is the 375 up because we
have greater enforeament in the area?
Captain Newman answered that over the last several years, the crime rate
has continued to diminish. As a result of that, the officers have more time to
do other things. Resulting from that efficiency, the officers can be and are
more proactive to deal with problems. The additional efforts put into
Cannery Village last year involved a police presence on 3 -4 nights on a
weekend. In Reporting District 15, 488 said they were drinking in town and 300
of those were drinking in this area.
Commissioner Kranzley asked if the officer being in the Cannery Village area
helped? He was answered that it helped by providing crime deterrence with
a police presence. The private security guards are no longer being funded.
Chairperson Selich asked if the police department view this business primarily
as a restaurant, to which he was answered, yes.
5
INDEX
M
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
August 5, 1999
Commissioner Tucker noted that there seems to be so many licenses in this
district that if you converted one from beer and wine to full alcohol, you are
not making available a produce that is not already available in the district.
Does it really make a difference?
Captain Newman stated that is a decision that the Planning Commission is
going to have to make. In this particular case, the police have not had a
problem with this operator under the current conditions.
Buzz Person, 507 241h Street noted that he has been an advocate for this
establishment and is a current customer. This proposed application is a land
use issue and has nothing to do with the operator. The City Council has
indicated in recent actions taken that there is a problem in this particular
area. The switch from beer and wine to hard alcohol is an intensification of
use. While this operator is a good operator, I would be concerned with what
might come down later on. Two years ago in the Village, there were a lot of
problems. Since then, things have gotten much better. Part of that is due to
action taken by the City Council and the Police Department. What the
residents don't want is to have an unbearable living environment. Things are
much better today.
Chairperson Selich asked about the approval for Aubergine's conversion from
beer and wine to full service alcohol and the difference between that and
this project.
Ms. Temple noted that the Aubergine restaurant has more limited hours of
operation and is a much smaller establishment. There is no area within the
restaurant set aside exclusively for the consumption of alcohol. The Newport
Brewing Company, while primarily a restaurant, has an area where alcohol is
consumed more.exclusively.
Mike Madlock, 113 31st Street, Vice President of Newport Beach Brewing
Company noted the following:
• Most of the new brewpubs are opening up with full liquor license, which is
something that we could not do when we opened up 4 and %] years ago.
• As a local resident, I want to keep peace in the neighborhood. One of
the problems that existed in the past is being taken care of with the
closing of Snug Harbor and the Cannery Restaurant.
• We have no pool tables and no entertainment.
• This is a clean operation and concluded by encouraging the Planning
Commission to approve this application.
Commissioner Fuller clarified with staff that wine was allowed under the
existing license.
INDEX
h�
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
August 5, 1999
Keith Vohr, 415 Town Square Lane, Huntington Beach noted the following as
a share holder of the Newport Beach Brewing Company:
• Agrees with concerns mentioned in previous testimony.
• The issue of undue concentration is moot. We are not adding a new
license in the area, rather, we are asking to modify an existing license.
• We are a small subset of District 15.
• The issue of crime with 5 arrests out of 680 is approximately 0.7 %. We are a
good operation as shown by the numbers.
• The idea of adding alcohol service is to stay competitive and improve the
restaurant.
• The convenience is for those in the neighborhood.
• We have had no protests from the mailings.
• The hours are from 11 a.m. to 1 a.m. on the weekends and 11 a.m. to 11
p.m. during the week.
• All of the staff is ABC trained.
• We are in compliance with zoning regulations as we exist now.
• There will be no special events or promotions at the restaurant.
Roz Salomony, 2600 Newport Boulevard. President of the Newport Beach
Brewing Company noted the following:
• The people who spoke before me operate the brewery.
• We have been successful from the time the pub was opened.
• As we grew into a restaurant, we find that our guests are seeking other
flavors with their dinner.
• We are asking for the alcohol to compliment these new requests.
• 1 live in the area of the brewery and will do everything possible to
maintain harmony.
At Commission inquiry, Mr. Alford noted that the current condition of closing
hours is until 2:00 a.m: Friday and Saturday, which was approved in 1993 by
the City Council. However, the ABC license does restrict them to 1:00 a.m.
closing on Friday and Saturday.
Public comment was closed.
Commissioner Kranzley noted that the Peninsula and specifically the Cannery
Village have been an issue for a number of years. Citizens. Police
Department and restaurants have spent a lot of time on trying to fix the
problems in Cannery Village. As the Chairman of the Commission when it
passed Bill Hamilton's Cannery Restaurant live entertainment and dancing. I
voted in favor of that after offering a condition that required the addition of a
policeman to walk that beat and that would be funded by the applicant.
The Planning Commission decision was overturned by the City Council. That
sent a message to me, as well as the Alcohol Beverage Ordinance that was
passed, that the City Council was serious about fixing the issues on the
INDEX
d�
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
August $, 1999
peninsula that account for 40% of the arrests for DUI and drunk in public for
the entire City. The concentration on the peninsula will not be increased but
it would be intensifying a license because of the over concentration of
alcohol serving establishments on the peninsula. The ABC has made it clear
that they have to deny the application for the license unless it is determined
that the public convenience or necessity would be served by this issuance.
We have a number of establishments that serve liquor on the peninsula, and I
don't believe we can find that the public convenience or necessity would be
served by this upgraded license. The operator is a good operator, but this use
and what we do tonight will run with the land. The next operator may not be
as conscientious as this operator. I am not in favor of this application.
Commissioner Fuller stated he was not in favor of this application due to the
statistics presented specifically:
• the 24 on -sale full alcohol service licenses in this area,
• the crime rate that exceeds the City crime rate by 258 %,
• the alcohol licenses per capita at 1 per 134 persons, whereas the County
is 1 per 893 persons,
• the alcohol related calls for service is 65% in this District and 44% city -wide
• concern for the residential standard of living
Continuing, he noted that he was around during the Cannery Restaurant
discussion and it was very apparent that the residents in this area were most
concerned with these alcohol- reloted problems. It would intensify problems
that may exist if this application was approved. I like the concept of the
brewing company and that is the use that was approved.
Commissioner Tucker stated that Newport Beach is a visitor serving
community and always has been. Comparisons to what the alcoholic
beverage license is in other communities are not germane to our community.
Switching the license will not make much difference; there are plenty of
places for hard liquor. The addition of another location would not create
more opportunities to drink when there are plenty of opportunities virtually
next door. I believe it would serve the public convenience or necessity and
therefore I support this license conversion.
Chairperson Selich noted that if this is primarily a restaurant and we give the
full alcohol service to other restaurants, it seems somewhat discriminatory to
me to single this use out and say we are not going to give them a full service
alcohol permit. Again, thinking back to Aubergine realizing that there is a
difference in scale, etc. the permit runs with the land. Another operator
could come in and intensify that use. if we had a policy that we were going
to hold the number of licenses fast within the area and people could trade
the licenses around; I might feel more comfortable.
Discussion on Aubergine by staff noted that if the bar or any area exclusively
8
INDEX
102?
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
August 5, 1999
would need a new use permit. Right now, there is only about 15 square feet.
Commissioner Kranzley stated that comparing these two facilities is not a fair
comparison, especially if there was intensification at Aubergine's it would
come before the Planning Commission and I would not be in favor of it.
Commissioner Tucker noted that at what point do you stop being a restaurant
and start trending towards a bar. Is it proper to zero in on percentage of
alcohol sales and how do you enforce that
Ms. Clauson answered that it is in the Code as far as a definition of a bar and
how it operates. There are already conditions on the use permit that specifies
the primary use has to be as defined in the Code and is with the service of
alcohol as ancillary. We have an enforcement mechanism, the percentages
of food service to alcohol service as one of the factors considered in the
enforcement method. They have to report this information as part of the ABC
license requirement.
Commissioner Kranzley stated that there is also a land use issue in this area.
There is a concentration of alcohol and liquor licenses, and it has caused
problems and is currently causing problems. We are going to be losing a
license there and maybe a second. This over - concentration has caused a
burden on the residents as well Os the Police Department. I don't get a sense
that there is an economic issue and I don't think this is the time for us to be
considering changing any liquor licenses.
Chairperson Selich noted that the Council has spoken on the issue of alcohol
service in the area and the intensification of license. I would like same kind of
policy that would restrict the number of license and allow transference of the
licenses within the area. I will support the staff recommendation.
Motion Haas made by Commissioner Kranzley to deny the amendment of Use
Permit No. 3485 A subject to the findings contained in Exhibit A.
Ayes:
Fuller, Selich, Kranzley
Noes:
Tucker
Absent:
Ashley, Gifford, Hoglund
Abstain:
None
FINDINGS:
Exhibit "A"
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL
FOR
USE PERMIT NO. 3485 (AMENDED)
The proposed project is located in Police Reporting District No.
9
INDEX
�f.l3o
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
August 5, 1999
The proposed project is located in Police Reporting District No.
15, which has a crime rate that exceeds the citywide crime
rate by over 258 %. This constitutes an "undue concentration"
of licenses under the provisions of Section 23958.4 of the
California Business and Professions Code.
2. The proposed project is located in Census Tract 635.00, which
has a ratio of alcoholic beverage licenses to population that is
above the average ratio of Orange County. This constitutes
an "undue concentration" of licenses under the provisions of
Section 23958.4 of the California Business and Professions
Code.
3. The public convenience or necessity would not be served by
the granting of the amendment to Use Permit No. 3485 to
allow a change in Alcoholic Beverage Control license type to
full alcoholic beverage service because of the undue
concentration of licenses in the area.
4. Due to the undue concentration of alcoholic beverage outlets
and their impact on the Cannery Village area, and because
the public convenience or necessity would not be served, the
proposed project would be detrimental to the health, safety,
peace, morals. comfort. and general welfare of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use
and would be detrimental or injurious to property and
improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of
the City.
Mock Residence Retaining Wail
1821 BoyadereTerrace
• Modification Permit No. 4903
��Cceptance of a Negative Declaration
Request to permit the construction 20 foot hig h rear yard retaining wall
which exceeds the permitted 6 foot heig 'mit in the side and rear setback
areas. The proposed retaining wall is intended bilize an unsafe slope and
reclaim a portion of rear yard lost due to erosion. The iningwall will reclaim
approximately 21 feet of rear yard surface area pre 'Sly slope. In
accordance with Section 20.33 of the Newport Beach Municip ode the
approval of a modification permit is required for the height and location he
proposed retaining wall.
10
INDEX
Item No. 2
Modification Permit
No. 4903
Negative Declaration
Approved
day
mil.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH http: / /www. city. newport- beach.ca.u...cil Agendas /Arcbive1999/Mn09- 13.btm
everyone who agrees with him to write their Council Member.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
16. STATUS REPORT ON DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 6 (THE
IRVINE COMPANY, CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT AND OPEN
SPACE AGREEMENT (CIOSA]) (contd. from 7/12/99 & 8/9/99).
"Mayor O'Neil opened the public hearing.
There 'being no testimony, Mayor O'Neil closed the public
hearing. ".
to determine compliance of
No.
Council Member Glov&,stated that she is pleased to see that
staff followed through with,, her suggestions and that proper
fences will be erected.
The motion carried by the 'following roll call vote:
Ayes: Adams, Glove Thomson, Debay,
Ridgeway, Noyes, Mayor O'Neill
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
17. APPEAL BY THE NEWPORT BEACH BREWING COMPANY OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO
USE PERMIT NO. 3485 TO ALLOW A CHANGE IN ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE CONTROL (ABC) LICENSE TYPE TO ALLOW FULL
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SERVICE.
Mayor O'Neil opened the public hearing.
Keith Bohr, appellant, 415 Townsquare Lane, No. 219,
Huntington Beach, stated that he is an investor in the Newport
Beach Brewing Company and a consultant on the appeal. He
requested that their use permit be amended to allow full alcohol
service so that the Brewing Company can remain competitive
with the other restaurants in the area. Referencing Exhibit A
(Findings and Conditions for Denial), he reported that they
represented only .07 percent of the crimes in Reporting District
15 (Finding 1); that they are not trying to add a license, but are
just wanting to modify their existing license (Finding 2); that
they have the support of the residents within
100 feet of the restaurant, generate tax revenue, provide 45 jobs,
and is the only brewery in the City (Finding 3); and that they
disagree with Finding 4 because of their track record over the
past 4.5 years and because they would not contribute to any of
the detriments mentioned. Mr. Bohr respectfully requested that
1 rMTKII
C -2920
Development
Agreement No. 6
CIOSA
(38)
Use Pe
Newpo
Brewin
(88)
�w
4/./.3-Z
01/21/2000 3:52 PM
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
19 of 30
http: / /www. city. newport - beach. ca. u... cilAgendas /Archive 1999/Mn09- 13.htm
Council approve the Conditions for Approval (Exhibit B). He
emphasized that the Brewing Company is a permitted use and
that approving this will not be detrimental to the City.
In response to Council Member Ridgeway's questions, Senior
Planner Alford confirmed that the use permit is specifically for a
restaurant/brewpub; that, if the Brewing Company fails, the
new operator is obligated to run a restaurant/brewpub under
the terms and conditions of the conditional use permit; and that
the Newport Beach Brewing Company is the only brewpub in
the City.
Shawn Needelman, 46 Agostino, Irvine, Newport Beach Brewing
Company Operations Manager, stated that he has been with the
Brewing Company since it opened in April 1985. He emphasized
that they are not a bar that serves food, but a restaurant that
also brews its own beer; they do not have the lines that they used
to; they do not have late night parties; they do not have a DJ,
band, or any other form of live entertainment; and they do not
have a small menu. However, he believed they have evolved into
an established restaurant that caters to 20 year olds to seniors,
couples and families. Mr. Needelman indicated that the Brewing
Company is looking for something to improve itself and believed
that acquiring the license does that. He reported that the menu
is continually upgraded, that food sales have continued to make
up a larger percentage of the gross sales, and that it makes up
nearly 64 percent for this year's sales. He stated that the sales
have leveled, are lower than they were last year, and they lose
customers because they cannot provide what one or all the
guests would like.
Mr. Needelman believed that having the license will also benefit
their regular customers because it will provide them with a
choice. He clarified that they want to complement their
enhanced food, wine, and special menu, and capture a more
diverse clientele by acquiring this license.
Council Member Glover indicated that she saw a statement that
generally states that the Brewing Company will close if this does
not occur.
Mr. Needelman stated that they will not close tomorrow if they
do not get the license; however, he reiterated that their sales are
down and that they believe it could be attributed to them not
being able to sell hard alcohol or spirits.
Council Member Glover emphasized that only 4 Planning
Commissioners were present at the meeting. Mr. Needelman
believed that the Planning Commission probably denied their
request because of the high concentration in Reporting District
15 and because they were not sure that adding this license would
be beneficial to the Brewing Company or help the community in
any way. He expressed the opinion that the license would allow
the Brewing Company to improve the menu and reiterated that
alcohol is needed to be competitive with other restaurants.
Council Member Debay expressed concern with the
concentration of bars in that area and that young people tend to
jump from bar to bar during the summertime. This causes them
V./33
01/21/2000 3: PPM
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
20 of 30
http: / /www. city.newport- beach.ca.u...6LAgendas /Archive 1999/Mn09- 13.htm
to walk in the streets late at night and disturb residents. She
stated that she is concerned that the Brewing Company will be
more of a target for the bar hoppers if they are a full service bar.
Mr. Needelman reported that they card everyone that walks in
the door, they have never had problems with under -aged
drinking or arrests, the amount of drunk driving incidents
involving the Brewing Company is very minimal, the employees
attend alcohol class, and managers are on the floor at all times.
He believed it would be a benefit if patrons stayed at their
restaurant rather than jump from bar to bar.
Charles Huffine 3085 Yukon Avenue, Costa Mesa, expressed
support of the Brewing Company's request and stated that he
and his wife have been frequenting the Brewing Company for
the last year. He indicated that they initially were not sure if the
Brewing Company was a place they wanted to go to; however,
the clientele has drastically changed to become a very
comfortable place for a weekly visit. He believed that the
patrons now range in age from the high -20's to the 60's and that
they bring in a larger number of families. Mr. Huffine
encouraged Council to consider the Brewing Company's request
to have a full service liquor license because it will give them an
opportunity to continue to be a successful business. He noted
that the Brewing Company draws a lot of people from out of
state and from the local community, and hoped that they could
become a landmark restaurant.
David Haithcock, 500 Newport Center Drive, stated that he
works for a national bank trade association and that he
entertains clients as part of his job. He expressed that he likes
the Brewing Company because it has turned into a landmark for
the City. He reported that he takes his clients to the Brewing
Company for lunch or dinner, but that it is unfortunate that
they have to leave after their meal because they want an
after- dinner cocktail. He expressed his support of the Brewing
Company's request so that they can continue to prosper.
Pua Huffine, 3085 Yukon Avenue, Costa Mesa, stated that she
and her husband have been regular patrons of the Brewing
Company for about a year. She indicated that she not only has
gotten to know the employees, but has gotten to know people
who also regard the Brewing Company as a home away from
home. She stated that they not only find the establishment a
great place to unwind, but a fine restaurant. Ms. Huffine
reported that they never hesitate to bring friends, family, or
business associates to the Brewing Company, or to recommend
the restaurant as a premiere place. She believed that, if you are
looking for something good about the City, the Newport Beach
Brewing Company would be it. She stated that she has made it a
personal goal to let everyone know that Newport Beach has
many treasures; however, she would hate to see a place of value
become a statistic because they could not stay competitive in a
very competitive market. Ms. Huffine requested that Council
reconsider this very reasonable request and allow the Brewing
Company to continue to be hospitable hosts to their guests.
Amy Anderson, 328 Fullerton Avenue, stated that she is an
01/21/2000 3:52 PM
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
21 of 30
http: / /www.city.newport- beach.ca.u...6 Agendas /ArchiveI999 /Mn09- I3.htrn
employee of the Brewing Company and read a fax that was sent
to them by Robert J. Rosner of the Xerox Corporation. Mr.
Rosner expressed his support of the Brewing Company's request
to serve alcoholic beverages other than beer and wine. He
indicated that he often takes customers to the Brewing Company
and that the outing would be more enjoyable if he was able to
offer them a cocktail before the meal. He added that the
Brewing Company is a quality addition to the commercial
establishments in the City.
Michael Madlock, 113 31st Street, Vice President of the Newport
Beach Brewing Company, hoped that the decision - makers have
been to the Brewing Company since they have built a first class
operation. He stated that the Brewing Company has been
managed properly and would appreciate Council's support of
the appeal.
Orazio "Raz" Salmone, 2600 Newport Boulevard, No. 212,
President of the Newport Beach Brewing Company, reported
that he was one of the first breweries in the area and now there
are 16 breweries. He noted that they no longer have lines and
that he would rather build on the restaurant.
There being no further testimony, Mayor O'Neil closed the
public hearing.
In response to Council Member Adams' questions, Mr. Borg
clarified that the Brewing Company is not open until 2 a.m.
because of an ABC condition which closes them at 1 a.m. on
Fridays and Saturdays. Assistant City Manager Wood noted
that Condition 10 indicates that the Brewing Company may not
serve alcoholic beverages without serving the regular menu.
Mr. Alford clarified that the Brewing Company always had a 2
a.m. closing time but ABC placed the 1 a.m. limit after the City
approved them. Council Member Adams suggested that the
condition be consistent with ABC's.
Mayor O'Neil noted that page 1 of the staff report states that
"...the ABC is required to deny the application for the license
unless the City determines that public convenience or necessity
would be served by its issuance." He expressed the opinion that
the City is bound to follow ABC's denial unless they can find
that the public's convenience and necessity requires its issuance.
Ms. Wood reported that this is the State law that deals with
areas where there is over - concentrations of liquor licenses and
that Council Policy K -7 delegates that authority to the Chief of
Police for most cases. She confirmed that the Police Chief could
deny the license if he finds that there is no public convenience or
necessity after Council approves it, but doubts he would do that.
Additionally, since the City has a local alcoholic beverage outlet
ordinance, one of the considerations for granting a use permit
for a new or expanded alcoholic beverage outlet is to look at
whether the public convenience or necessity is served.
Motion by Council Member Glover to reverse the Planning
Commission's denial of amended Use Permit No. 3485.
y.i3s
01/21/2000 3:52 PM
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
22 of 30
http://www.city.newport-beac.b.ca.0 ... cilAgendas/Archive I999/Mn09- 13.htm
Council Member Glover believed that this is a reasonable
request. She noted that she can go almost anywhere to find
similar establishments and believed that Council has a
responsibility to be competitive with other cities. She expressed
the opinion that the Planning Commission might have felt the
same way if all the Commissioners attended the meeting.
Council Member Adams requested that Council Member Glover
amend the motion to modify Condition 7 so that the hours of
operation for Fridays and Saturdays is from 6 a.m. and 1 a.m.
Council Member Glover agreed.
Council Member Ridgeway stated that the staff report contained
a lot of testimony from the Police Department, but believed that
they were not comfortable advocating a change because the
Brewing Company is in Reporting District 15. However, it
appeared that the Police Department did not have a problem
with an operator whose staff is well - trained and runs a good
operation. He stated that he is satisfied that they are very
responsible, have trained their people, and run a good
operation. He noted that there has only been one Police instance
that involved the Brewing Company and added that he has
patronized the Brewing Company. He reported that the Brewing
Company had a toxic problem in which they immediately called
the authorities. This also proves that they are responsive citizens
because they stopped the problem and took responsive action
themselves. He expressed support of the appeal, noting that
there are two restaurants that are closing and two licenses that
are being lost. He stated that he finds the Brewing Company to
be a well -run operation and that he wants to give them an
opportunity to continue. Regarding the land use decision,
Council Member Ridgeway emphasized that the conditional use
permit is for a restaurant/brewpub and that anyone who
operates on that land will have to continue to use the conditional
use permit and continue to operate a brewpub. He believed this
helps prevent a problem if the Brewing Company fails.
Council Member Debay expressed concern because the City has
been sending a message to Cannery Village that it does not want
to intensify the alcoholic use and make a situation worse.
Regarding Council Member Debay's questions regarding
Standard City Requirement K, Ms. Wood confirmed that the
Planning Commission can call this for review to modify or add
conditions, or even conduct hearings for the possible revocation
of this license if this adds to the intensity of the problems. Mr.
Burnham suggested that the word "variance" be changed to
"use permit" in this condition. He clarified that ABC handles
their own permits, and added that, when Council grants a use
permit, privileges /conditions run with the land and applies to
subsequent property owners.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Thomson's question, Mr.
Burnham stated that the standard to determine if they are
complying is whether they are detrimental to the health, safety,
and welfare of the community. Therefore, any factor like
intoxication, excessive noise, and fights /disturbances would
warrant a call for a modification or possible revocation of the
01/21/2000 3:52 PM
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH http: / /www.city.newport-bead ca.u...cil Agendas /Archive1999/MnO9- 13.htm
conditions.
The amended motion to reverse the Planning Commission's
denial of amended Use Permit No. 3485; amend Condition 7 so
that the hours of operation for Fridays and Saturdays is
between 6 a.m. and 1 a.m.; and change "variance" to "use
permit" in Standard City Requirement K carried by the
following roll call vote:
Ayes: Adams, Glover, Thomson, Debay,
Ridgeway, Mayor O'Neil
Noes: Noyes
Abstain: None
Absent: None
18. VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF AN ALLEY 1 Res 99-
BOUNDED BY GRAND CANAL, BALBOA AVENUE, ABALONE
AVENUE AND PARK AVENUE (LITTLE BALBOA ISLAND). Little B
i
Mayor O'Neil opened the public hearing. Vacatio
T�re being no public testimony, Mayor O'Neil closed the public Aband
hehampg. (90)
Motion y Council Member Noyes to adopt Resolution No.
99 -62 ordehag the vacation and abandonment of a 2.5 -foot wide
strip of righ f -way on both sides of a 25 -foot wide alley on
Little Balboa Is 4d.
The motion carried, by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Adams, Glover, Thomson, Debay,
Ridgeway, oyes, Mayor O'Neil
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
19. AMENDMENT TO THE CIRCULATION EL EM T OF THE
NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN TO RECLASSIFY TH EGMENT
OF SANTIAGO DRIVE BETWEEN IRVINE AVENUE A ,�T,,U"STIN
AVENUE AS A COMMUTER ROADWAY ON THE MASTER Pf) N4OF
STREETS AND HIGHWAYS [GPA 98- 3(D)I.
Mayor O'Neil opened the public hearing.
Bryan Bond, 2431 Santiago Drive, stated that he has been
involved with this issue for about four years. Mr. Bond
requested and received clarification from Mayor O'Neil that
Council intends to continue Agenda Item 21.
23 of 30
Res 99-
GPA 9
Santiag
Reclass
(45)
01/21/2000 3:52 PM
B LANK
A'
�'
1= NZhi hi, t No. 5
aLANK
9. /qo : -�
°i,� ��.?�.I �1
RECf,,iE ARTMENI
I'LANNIN:.� i ;: =�.
CITY � .iIEVJP(1. RTBEACl`
AM HU011 2006 PM
For discussion purposes, the NEWPORT BEACH ly"02 �1�i3141516
COMPANY ( "NBBC ") submits the following summary of the topics
that they have raised and discussed with the City of Newport Beach and
certain individuals that reside in close proximity to the brewery and
restaurant.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OFFERED BY NBBC FOR USE PERMIT NO. 3485
Security Guards. Employment of 5 Security Guards with the primary
function of controlling and patrolling the NBBC parking area. The specific
duties for NBBC Security Guards will be explained to the City and can be
memorialized in the conditions of approval.
a. Noise abatement through notification
b. Parking area enforcement of noise restrictions and nuisance activity
c. Informing line that individuals can enter NBBC to use the restroom
II. Bottle Recycling Program. NBBC has implemented a bottle recycling
program that collects bottles inside the restaurant to eliminate noise. Also,
large storage containers have been acquired to eliminate the "dumping" of
glass and the associated noise.
III. Trash Dumpster Area. NBBC will improve (including any feasible aesthetic
treatment such as an enclosure) the trash dumpster area. NBBC has contacted
the City for permission to improve the trash dumpster area. The enclosure
will be locked and secure.
IV. Alcohol Training. NBBC will require all (applicable) employees to complete
an alcohol sales and training certification course.
V. New Entrance. NBBC will consider the use of an entrance from the front of
the building to alleviate the numbers of individuals that enter from the parking
lot. Safety and suitability issues must be addressed for the following:
a. Width of sidewalks
b. Average line sizes at various hours of operation
c. Potential new noise issues that may result from a new entrance
VI. Tow upon Close. NBBC would consider implementing a towing procedure
where vehicles parked in the NBBC parking lot after hours of operation would
be subject to tow.
NBBC CUP No. 3485 1 n 7l
Miles Law Gro 703 up 7037.001 ifi/''�✓
y �yi
NBBC's current position is that the conditions of approval for Use
Permit No. 3485 have worked for the past thirteen years and do not
need to be revised at the present time. However, they could be clarified
to maintain the status quo operation of the brewery /restaurant.
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO CONDITIONS OFAPPROVAL
FOR USE PERMIT NO. 3485 OFFERED BYNBBC
New Condition No. 9
"The service of alcoholic beverages shall be ancillary to the primary restaurant/
brewpub service operation of the restaurant. Accordingly, alcoholic beverage service is
not permitted independent of restaurant food or brewpub services."
Condition No. 10. Add:
"For purposes of this condition, "regular meal service hours" means the meal service
hours regularly established by the restaurant/brewpub." The service of alcoholic
beverages during regular operational hours of the restaurant/brewpub that do not
include meal service isprohibited"
NBBC CUP No. 3485 2
Miles Law Group 7037.001
4/./y2
i t
Exhibit No. 6
9./,/ -3
Page 1 of 1
Campbell, James
From: Joe Reiss [JReiss @anaheim.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 3:39 PM
To: Campbell, James
Subject: FW: Newport Brew Company
Jim ..... Can you please forward this to the Planning Commissioners for the meeting next
Thursday .......... Thanks Joe
On Wednesday 8 -2 -06 a group of us from the area around Cannery Village met with Jim Campbell of the
Planning Department and a manager and attorney from the Newport Brew Company to discuss concerns about
the operation of the Newport Brew Company. During the meeting Jim Campbell asked a question about the
operation of the Brew Company after 10 pm. We never really answered his question.
On Saturday 8 -5 -06, at about 1045 pm myself and Drew Wetherholt went inside the Newport Brew Company to
see how the business operated. We were greeted by a security guard at the door who was checking ID's. We
later asked this same security guard why he checks ID's and he said after 9 pm the restaurant becomes a bar.
He also told us that nobody under 21 was allowed inside after 9 pm or they would lose their liquor license. We
went inside the Brew Company to find the entire restaurant full of individuals standing throughout the restaurant
and sifting at tables. Music was playing extremely loud to the point you had to be right next to the person you
were talking to and you had to speak loudly for them to hear you. We sat at a table and asked a waiter if we
could order some food and he said the kitchen was closed and the only thing we could order was drinks. There
were no pretzels, chips, popcorn or any food at all being served inside the restaurant. Three security guards
were inside of the restaurant and one was outside. It was obvious to me the Brew Company was operating as
a "Bar'.
When you read the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the Newport Brew Company they are in violation of
Conditions 6 „9 and 10. Condition # 6 they choose to ignore and have never complied with since they opened.
In Condition # 9 there is no food served after 10 pm therefore alcohol is the primary item served. With regards to
Condition # 10 the Newport Brew Company becomes a bar after 9 pm on Friday and Saturday nights. The
evidence is overwhelming they operate as a bar and the management of the Newport Brew Company would
probably admit it. What bothers me is how this has been overlooked by the city all these years. The City Council
approved the operation of the Newport Brew Company with certain conditions. These conditions were presented
and approved at a public hearing. These are the conditions the community wants the Newport Brew Company to
operate under not the inappropriate way they are operating today. The Newport Brew Company should be
required to meet the conditions that were approved by the City Council. Thanks for looking into the operation of
the Newport Brew Company and please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions.
Joe Reiss
Resident of Newport Beach
714- 497 -6428
08/09/2006 y ! /
BLANK
,; Ax:�F
bLAMK
� 2
�� .
Y
Exhibit No. 7
LAM K
y �y8
�p Ak
Aur-11 -06 01:35pm From- California Coastal +5625905084 T -259 P.002 /0pp02 F -T50
Ms. Ms Meg Vaughn
California Coastal Commission
245 W. Broadway, STE. 380
P. Q. Box 1450
I,ong Beach, CA 90802
Subject: Coastal Permit Application No.
Dear Ms Vaughn:
OCT 13 1993
CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMISSION
SOUTH COAST DISTRICT
5 -93 -137; 2920 Newport Boulevard
As requested In the special conditions for the subject Coastal Permit Application, this letter
is provided for the purpose of confirming the action of the City Council of the City of
Newport Beach relative to its approval of Use Permit No. 3485 (Revised). As indicated in
the attached excerpt of the City Council minutes dated September 27, 1993, the City Council
aproved Use Permit No, 3485 (Revised) with the findings and subject to the conditions set
forth in the City Council staff report so dated September 27, 1993. In sumarry, the City
Council's action as it relates to the Coastal Commission's Special Conditions, included the
following:
1. The "net public area" of the restaurant/brewpub, which is devoted to daytime use
Monday through Friday (prior To 5:00 p.m.) shall be limited to 1,500 sq.ft. The
balance of the "net public area" shall be physically closed off to the public by a fixed
barrier and shall not be used until after 5:00 p.m. daily.
2. The property owner shall pay for 29 in -lieu parking spaces in the Cannery Village
Municipal Parking Lot on an annual basis for the nighttime operation (after 5:00
p.m,) of the restaurant /brewpub use as agreed upon by the Sales Agreement between
the City and the property owner.
Inasmuch as the above conditions have been established as conditions of Use Permit No.
3485, the City of Newport Beach will inforce said provisions in accordance with the Use
Permit Procedures set forth in Chapter 20.80 of the Municipal Code. It should be further
noted that Item No. 2 above, is is keeping with the City Council's action rescinding its
previous action which allowed the applicant the daytime use of in -lieu parking in the
Cannery Village Municipal Parking Lot.
We hope that this information will be sufficient for your purposes, and should you have any
questions feel free to contact Mr. William Ward in our office, at 644 -3200.
truly yourL
,
�S D. REWIC I Director
._F1aa1inAh[i1- a \UPM.1W
y. /q9-�Z,
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 18 of 49
. Condition 63 should clarify the times-
n sioner Henn would like to come up with solutions that will feel like there i
mpr ment even with a slight increased in the intensity as measured by a
count.
nmissioner Ha s supported the operational reviews presented, but thinks if
parking standards d to be adjusted, do it through the code not through the
lication.
Chairman Eaton asked if the ff had enough direction.
Ung answered yes.
Chairman Eaton continued the hearing to S ember 7, 2006.
s Chairman Eaton asked if Staff will have findings revised conditions for
hearing.
Ung said Staff will prepare a resolution for approval wit endings and
ditions of approval with the changes recommended tonight.
>n was made by Commissioner Toerge to continue the Our Lady Quee
Is Church Expansion (PA2005 -092) to the meeting of September 7, 2006.
None
nt: Cole
sed: McDaniel
Newport Beach Brewing Company (Use Permit No. ITEM NO.4
2920 Newport Boulevard I UP No. 3485
fhe Newport Beach Brewing Company has operated a restaurant/brewpub
)ursuant to Use Permit No. 3485 since 1994. This permit was issued by the City Continued to
n 1993 and it was subsequently amended in 1999. The City has received several 09/21/2006
complaints related to the operation of the use and the Planning Commission will
evaluate the complaints, the operational character of the use and the condition
ender which the use operates. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission
nay require alteration of the operation or it may delete or modify conditions of
approval. The Commission also may conclude that no changes are necessary and
evocation of the Use Permit is not being considered at this time.
stant City Attorney noted that Commissioner Hawkins recused himself
item due to the appearance of a conflict. Commissioner Hawkins agreed
sed himself.
Campbell, Senior Planner, gave an overview of the staff report noting:
. The Newport Beach Brewing Company was established in 1994 by a
of a Use Permit No. 3485.
y. /5a
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn08- 17- 06.htm 03/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 19 of 49
. In September 1999, the City Council approved an amendment to the u
permit that approved full alcoholic beverage service with the sale of distill
spirits.
• The City, earlier this year, received a complaint letter regarding t
operation of the establishment from a group of residents in t
neighborhood. Those complaints relate to the operation itself and patr
behavior around the establishment.
• A report was presented in May of this year at which the Planni
Commission asked for an additional hearing to review the application a
look at whether changes need to be made in the operation or conditions
approval.
• The current report outlines questions and asks for clarification of what was
authorized. A restaurant/brewpub was authorized. The residents contend
the facility is being operated as a bar primarily after 10:00 p.m. and that
operation is leading to nuisances in the neighborhood-
. Is it a bar at those hours, and is it authorized pursuant to the use permit?
Staff is asking for clarification on condition 10 (page 3 of staff report).
• In staffs opinion, a restaurant and a bar were authorized. Can a bar
operate without the restaurant being there at the same time is a question.
. Historically, the City has looked at these operations and balanced the hour:
that it has operated primarily as a bar against the hours it is operate(
predominately as a restaurant. If the primary activity is a restaurant, the us(
is deemed a restaurant. We believe that is what is happening there today.
There is food service during those hours and up to recently they have had
limited bar menu in the late evenings. It might not constitute regular foo(
service, but food is available most of the time.
What staff is looking for, is what was authorized, and then we can look
whether they are operating with the use compliant with the conditions
approval.
. There is a side issue with condition 9 that indicates the operation of
brewery and the service of alcoholic beverages shall be ancillary to
primary food service operation of the restaurant. In that condition we
saying it is a restaurant and food service is really the primary use. So tl
is a question as to whether or not alcoholic beverage service has
become the primary use.
In addition, there is no time limit to this condition. After 10:00 p.m. in th(
evening, even the General Manager at the May meeting, indicated that th(
primary sales during those late evening and early morning hours is alcohol.
Again, that is more like a bar and goes to the original question, what did w(
authorize?
Another issue that has been raised is there is a current limitation on
dining room area during the day time. There has been a condition the
y. i 5/
http: / /wwvw. city. newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006/mnO8- 17- 06.htm 03/19/2007 "
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006
applied in 1999 which limited it during the week. There is also a Coas
Commission permit that would indicate it is a daily limitation, at least frc
their perspective. The City is charged with enforcing this action based up
a commitment that the City made in 1993 to enforce this provision. The C
has been enforcing it on the weekdays and not on the weekend. There
an issue on how this condition has been worded and enforced, and whetF
or not the condition applies daily.
The brewpub has had the full dining open on the weekends. The languag(
of the Coastal Commission condition alludes that they shouldn't be. The
City's condition can be interpreted both ways because it indicates "Monday
through Friday" but also talks about the physical barrier being there "daily ".
This condition seems to contradict itself and should be clarified an(
modified at this time.
The residents have indicated that there is a basic lack of control of patrol
in the parking lot. In the late evening a queue forms outside this popul
establishment that is pretty much at capacity in the late evening and ear
morning hours. These folks can at times be boisterous and that leads to
variety of nuisances. The question is, is there control in the parking lot?
The brewing company has security guards there and they represent to stall
that they are doing their best to control the patrons in the parking lot. Giver
the proximity of the queue line to the residents, there may be ways tc
alleviate some of the problem by relocating the line to the front of the
building close to Newport Boulevard. Other folks may be impacted by doinc
that and there may be a need to change the patio area to bring people in.
That might work in the evening hours to alleviate some of the issues in the
parking lot given the fact that there are residents living adjacent to the
parking lot.
. Another issue is whether or not they have complied with training prograrr
that is required by the use permit. The City required that the manager
proprietor and all employees undergo responsible alcohol training. Thai
condition has not been complied with and since the City has informed the
applicant, they have indicated that this training has been completed.
However, there is no evidence to date. The purpose of the condition is tc
make sure that the people serving alcohol are trained and serving in a
responsible manner. A lot of the complaints that the residents are making tc
us are in most cases directly attributable to the consumption of alcohol. We
are hoping more responsible sales of alcohol and the proper training of staff
may alleviate some of the ongoing issues.
. The Cannery Village Concerned is a group of residents who have indicatec
that they would like to see changes to the conditions that have beer
forwarded to you and that is something that can be considered this evening.
Staff is recommending that we change or modify conditions 9 and 10
clarify specifically what the Commission believes was authorized in 1999
eliminate ambiguity in those conditions. Based upon the determination
the use, we can go forward and modify those conditions to affect posit
change and reduce some of the nuisances.
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas/2006 /mn08- 17- 06.htm
Page 20 of 49
4�.1SZ.
03/19/2007- 9411j'
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 21 of 49
. There are a variety of complaints specific to the operation, trash encic
dumping of bottles, and property maintenance occurring at hours that
otherwise disturb residences. We are looking at the screening of the
enclosure and to alleviate some of those nuisances through conditions.
The Police Department is here to give testimony on law enforcement is:
that have occurred there, as well as the Code Enforcement officer who
conducted an investigation, a report of which has been provided for
consideration.
;e Chairman Eaton asked if there are certificates that the applicant can p
the City that would verify that the alcohol training had been accomplished.
. Campbell answered he is not aware of how that training was provided and
t aware of the availability of certificates. He had been assured that they ha
en through that training. As enforcement of that condition, he would like to s
me evidence that they have gone through that training.
,nmissioner Henn noted his confusion on the range of remedy that is availal
this matter. He presumes it can include a change in hours of operation, otl
trictions on how the establishment operates, does it also include revocation
distilled spirits license? H asks the question for a better understanding of 1
ge of remedy that is before this body.
Campbell answered that the Commission can change the conditions
roval, which may change the nature of the operation, but revocation has
n noticed here. Can they revoke that one license type, it wouldn't revoke
re use permit but it could be a condition change.
ron Harp, Assistant City Attorney, noted the procedure for revocation is laid
Chapter 20.96 and there are very specific procedures that need to be follom
fore this body can consider a revocation. It was the intent to bring this mat
ck for at least one more hearing, so the purpose tonight is to primarily have
;cussion of the items, discussion of what, if any, conditions you would like to
)dified or additional conditions, and whether or not a revocation hearing wo
appropriate, and we will bring it all back the next time.
missioner Henn noted that the range is wide open with the proper noticing.
r. Harp answered yes, there are specific findings that are needed for revocation.
a Chairman Eaton noted the revocation would apply to the City's permit,
Alcoholic Beverage Control Permit, correct?
Harp answered, yes.
ce Chairman Eaton asked if there had been any investigations by the ABC,
so, do you know what the results were?
Campbell answered, yes there was an ABC investigation that began it
uary. The operation was visited and the police were consulted, the finding;
r not conclusive to take any particular action and the investigation was closed.
</. /5 3
bttp: / /www. city .newport- beacb.ca.us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO8- 17- 06.btm 03/19/2007—t_-1 I
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 22 of 49
Harp noted the ABC is a different procedure that is set up under
lance and is different from the revocation.
Wood noted that part of what Commissioner Henn was trying to get at
the distilled spirits was something that was added to this use permit at s
I, so there is a condition that allows that, and would it be possible for
ning Commission to delete the condition allowing that portion of the operz
)ut going through the full revocation procedure?
Harp asked for more history.
Campbell answered that in 1993 a use permit was authorized to operate
v pub under a Type 23 license. In 1999 there was an amendment to the u:
nit that authorized a Type 75 license, which is a full alcoholic beverage servi
brew pub. If you were to do that you would be terminating the amendme
was granted in 1999. There isn't a specific condition that authorizes th
ise type.
r. Harp asked if there was one use permit.
Campbell answered yes, one use permit that was just amended.
Harp noted that, in general, if you take that type of measure, I recommend tha
give full notice. You still have to make the findings for basically a simila
idard for revocation as far as the impact on the general welfare of the
imunity. We will notice it for you and bring it back at another hearing if that is
iething you would like to consider.
Chairman Eaton clarified that the modification to expand from beer and wi
ation to a full distilled spirit operation was first applied for and denied by 1
ning Commission and then granted by the City Council, and it was at tl
t that the applicant sought the Type 75 license from the ABC Board once
approval for that kind of license.
r. Campbell confirmed that was correct.
ommissioner Toerge asked which condition allows for the full bar and full
;rvice or the provision.
r. Campbell answered there is no condition that specifically addresses that. The
mclitions for the amended use permit are on pages 18 -22 of the staff report.
sere is no specific condition related to the license type but the project descriptior
)on which the amendment was approved was clearly for that license type.
nmissioner McDaniel noted that hand written page 129 of the report
ut that in a discussion of August 5, 1999 from the City Council. The issue
m up by the City Council and the vote was on page 131, which shows w
Council was going and how they voted.
ioner Toerge noted there must be something more than the minutes th
izes this.
IMr. Campbell answered that on page 100 is the staff report of the Planning)
Y. / 5-y
http: / /www.city.nexvport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006/mnO8- 17- 06.htm 03/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 23 of 49
mmission, and the City Council's report is on page 97, and the minutes for
etings are after that. I wanted to give you that so you could see what
until was looking at in 1999 and, indeed, the project description is for a T
license.
Wood noted handwritten page 19 of Exhibit B Findings and Conditions I
oval for Use Permit approved by the City Council 09/13/1999 and, assum
is an exhibit to the resolution that approved it. One of the findings is tl
,enience of the public will be served by the sale of distilled beverages in
3urant/brewpub setting.
Harp noted he will take a closer look at these conditions but the Commissi
tell us exactly what they are interested in doing then we will take it back a
it up to come back in the proper form procedurally.
mmissioner Peotter noted condition 7 on handwritten page 20 says the hou
limited 6 a.m. to 11p.m. Sunday through Thursday and only on Friday ai
turday extended to 1 a.m. The staff report includes Thursday, I don't knc
ich is which.
Cosylion, Code and Water Quality Enforcement Officer for the City
ort Beach, gave an overview of his report, noting:
Received complaint letter from residents of Cannery Village noting
concerns and complaints related to operations at the Newport
Brewing Company.
We were asked to take a look and ascertain whether the complaints
happening or not, and to do a fact finding on what was actually taking
there.
We went there on three separate occasions. First one was February 2
which was a Thursday night at approximately 9:45 p.m. There was not a
of activity at the bar or outside the parking lot. The parking lot lool
relatively clean, there was trash but not a nuisance. There was no quf
line and you could not hear voices from the patio that night.
. The second trip was on February 4th which was a Saturday. It
essentially the same thing, no queue line, the parking lot was pretty
maintained.
. The final visit made was on February 10th, which was a Friday night. Or
that night there was a queue line, some individuals in the parking to
screaming at each other, there was a lot of loud conversations going on anc
the parking lot was clean but a lot of noise and volume going on from the
patrons at the Brewery. He contacted the on -duty manager, Jerry Kolbly
on the premises and discussed concerns about the noise from the queue
line patrons. We discussed options such as moving the queue line to the
other side of the building or to the front. Also discussed some of the other
concerns in the complaint letter such as the trash. Mr. Kolbly agreed tc
have his staff monitor the parking lot for trash.
We had a good discussion that night relative to what was in the complaint
y.�55
http: / /wwxv. city .newport- beach.ca.us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn08- 17- 06.htni 03/19/2007 Cf
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 24 of 49
letter. I followed up with him the next week and had more discussions.
. In terms of the property and activities occurring in the early morning hours,
brought that up to Jerry about the bottles being picked up and obvious)
making a lot of noise during the process. Jerry was asked to see if thos
activities to be made after 8 a.m. as a help to the community so they woul
not have to have those early morning wake ups.
. In response to trash and debris issue, we do regular drive bys through &
area. In terms of the amount of trash, there was general trash but it was
massive amounts of trash laying all over the parking lot so we did not iss
any notices. We did ask Jerry to have his employees do general sweeps
there too, to make sure it is kept clean.
. There was also the issue of closing off a portion of the area before 5 p.
daily. We went out there on one occasion and they did have it cordoned
so that a portion of the business was shut off.
. That concludes a report on the investigation.
Chairman Eaton asked the timing on February 10th. He was answered
about 10 p.m. and the queue line had about 10 to 11 people stretching fro
front of the building to almost where the alleyway was.
nmissioner McDaniel noted that you have to respond when you get complaint!
this complaint was in January so you dealt with it in January and February.
complexity of this kind of situation changes when it is cold outside and people
to work in January and February as opposed to summertime. I have twc
stions. Were you able to look at this place June, July or August maybe ever
/, and were you able to look at it after 11 p.m. at night?
Cosylion answered we do not usually go out after certain hours for safe
es as we are not police officers. So we let the police handle the late nig
city. But no, we have not gone out there during the summertime. We have
:tly received complaints relative to loud noise, we have only two sin
ruary that we have documented. Any of those complaints would have be(
arded on to the Planning Department.
/ice Chairman Eaton noted that it sounds like when you went out 45 minutes
ike at 10 p.m. that there was more activity at that point and there was the q
Cosylion answered that on each day they went out around 9:45 or 10 p.m. a
Saturday night there was activity around 10 p.m.
Harp noted his opinion that you would schedule an appearance to revoke th
mdment to the use permit. It will be the proper procedure for handling
ause there isn't a condition that relates to full on -sale of alcoholic beverage
in order to basically deal with that issue, you need to revoke the amendment.
Chairman Eaton stated you are talking about not revoking the entire
revoking the amended portion.
http: /hvvAv.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006/mn08- 17- 06.htm 03/19/ 07 /—Z7jV
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 25 of 49
r. Harp answered that's correct.
Vallercamp, Detective Sergeant with the City of Newport Beach, noted:
. As far as changing from a Type 75 license to a Type 23 license, wh
would be a full bar to the small batch brewery, that would be something t
the ABC would probably look into. They are the arbiters of those things.
We have a sophisticated method of documenting all our calls for service i
any given area and I had my detectives run a report from January 1st of '0
to August 10th of '06, so it is roughly an 8 month period. I used location
such as in our computer aided dispatch, when an officer calls out an activit
they could say the Newport Brewery, the Municipal Lot, 30th and Villa, usin
all those parameters, I checked the area for our level of service and ho+
many calls we have had in that vicinity. During that time frame of Januar
1st through August 10th, there were 41 entries. 41 activities listed at th
Newport Brewery, the Municipal Lot, 30th and Villa. etc. , 23 of those call
were calls from the public. They will require further research to determin
the disposition. The remaining 18 of those were bar checks, parking Ic
checks, some of them could have been an officer using one of thos
locations as a landmark to call out a car stop or a pedestrian stop.
In the City of Newport Beach currently we have 341 active ABC licenses.
Those establishments are authorized to sell alcohol in our City. In the area
in which we report these, we break them down into reporting districts. Th(
reporting district we are concerned with here is reporting district 15. In thi:
reporting district 15, which is Balboa and 20th to Balboa and 34th Street, ul
Newport Boulevard to the Coast Highway, in that triangular area there ar(
73 ABC license establishments.
In 1999 when the Newport Brewery Company applied for their Type
license at that time there were 60 ABC license establishments in report
district 15. There is a high concentration of outlets in this general vicinity.
In 1999 the citywide total arrests there were 3,704, of those in the entirf
City. 1,656 of those arrests were related to alcohol, either drunk driving
drunk in public, those types of issues. In 1999 again in reporting district 15
there were 624 total arrests, 65% of those were alcohol related, either drunl
driving or drunk in public. Bringing it to the year 2005 the citywide tota
arrests were down a bit to 3,115. The alcohol related arrests citywide wa!
1,056 so we are talking roughly 33 %. In reporting district 15 in 2005 therf
were 646 total arrests and the percentage of alcohol related arrests in thi!
specific reporting district was 65.4 %. So you can see we are pretty bus,
here in reporting district15.
Lastly, the State Alcohol Beverage Control had a case specifically with
Newport Brewery somewhere around April 11th of 2006 and they cloy
their case on August 4th. At that point, the advised us, "the majority
complaints were from the outside area."
;ommissioner Toerge asked if the 341 outlets in the City and the 71 outlets
rea 15 include retail outlets. Is there a breakdown?
Y. /57
http: / /www. city . newport- beach.ca.us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mn08- 17- 06.htm 03/19/2007.
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006
Vallercamp answered yes. He can provide the breakdown at
ssioner Henn clarified that the ABC investigation stemmed from
the area?
active Vallercamp answered that he had called the investigator who said tha
their investigation and received no further information on what it pertained to.
rmmissioner McDaniel noted that there has been input from some sources
Police Department doesn't respond very well, and when they do, they say
ught a place next to a bar you dummy what did you do that for? Would you
respond to that.
active Vallercamp answered that is not a typical response of an
going to say whether it occurred or not as I wasn't there. I would
somewhat disappointed if an officer told me that.
officer. I
be surpri
)mmissioner McDaniel asked do you believe that when there is a call that t
sponse is fairly quickly? Can you give us a feel for response time? There is
iication of negligence, it is the same old thing, it's just a bunch of drunks and
a not going out there because we're too busy over here doing somethi
portant. That's the allocution and I thought you would like to be able to respo
that before
:tective Vallercamp answered we have more officers down here as there
ire pedestrians, more parties down here, more ABC licenses and there
ire calls in this particular area than any area in the City. We deploy very hea
wn here in this vicinity of the entire Balboa area. I would say our response ti
probably faster than most in the county.
iissioner McDaniel noted it would be fair to say that you're busy down h
iy and you would already be here
n't have to come from down coast.
attending to activities that are here
Vallercamp answered yes.
responding to something else, so y
You've got adequate amount of pol
I just want to get the opportunity
Chairman Eaton asked about a copy of an article that appeared it
ster on July 7th that appears to quote, from the Police Department, incic
ed to bars in the City and the Newport Beach Brewing Company listed a
highest generator incidents between December 1st, 2005 and June 6
year. I am wondering if you can comment on that and its accuracy
:her these incidents can be attributed to these bars and if so how.
ietective Vallercamp answered that it falls in line with the statistics that
iven you, the 41 calls. This ended in June 6th and my statistics ended
0th. I think this is an accurate representation citywide.
a Chairman Eaton stated
lic intoxication occurring
buted to these incidents?
the article says most of the calls involve fights
outside the bars. Is that something that can
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO8- 17 -06. htm
Page 26 of 49
y./se
03/19/2007 7-c--
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 27 of 49
etective Vallercamp answered certainly alcohol plays a part there,
Itercations and general boisterous behavior. This is such a highly conce
rea with so many bars and restaurants down there that serve alcohol.
Chairman Eaton said what I was trying to get at was when you sta
cing, I thought you had said that sometimes when you use tl
fication criteria it's even possible for vehicle stops that happen to be at
ection. So, I was trying to figure out if any of these incidents would I
those kinds of things, or whether they really were problems associated
of with this particular bar.
etective Vallercamp answered he had spoken with Sergeant Harford and he go
is statistics from the same computer aided dispatch system that I did. Some o
iese could very well be the landmark of stopping a car at Cabo Cantina
ierefore it shows up as some sort of activity at that location.
Chairman Eaton asked do you have any sense at all as to how many
incidents really were related to the patrons of this bar?
ve Vallercamp answered without hand pulling each event and each
whether it was an arrest report or crime report of some nature,
illy reading each of them I don't.
en Miles of Miles Law Group, representing the Newport Beach Brewi
pany, stated I am actually going to try to limit my statements to addressi
e of the conditions that were raised in the staff report and some of t
pretive efforts with respect to the main conditions 6, 9 and 10. 1 would like
iit time for the General Manager to address some of the voluntary conditio
have been proposed by the Brewing Company and the community outrea
Is that have been made to address what we think are the actual concerns tl
is the operation of the brewery and the Cannery Village.
iition 6 - I don't really know if there is much of an issue to that with respect tc
final word, daily. Normally when you interpret a condition that in specific
!rns the general and it is very clear from the very first sentence that the 1,500
prohibition is Monday through Friday. So, I believe the final word daily is
y a reference to the days in which you have the preclusion it applies. Actually
second sentence is redundant and can be stricken if that would be a
ondition 9 - addresses the issue ancillary. The way the brewery reads conditio
you have three components. The operation of the brewery and the service c
coholic beverages shall be ancillary to the primary service operation of th
�staurant. Again, during full hours of operation you are going to have differer
eakdowns of food and alcohol and even beer. So really, especially the way tha
• alcohol licenses are drafted, they deal with quarterly revenue. I don't think it i
• most appropriate way just to focus in on an hour because there is going to b
iomalies throughout the hours of operation. There are going to be hours the
e 100% food service, or the lions share is food serve and there may by 3
inute intervals it will be all alcohol. Really, condition 9, 1 think, addresses the
id talks in terms of ancillary with respect to three components. I think that in th
ierall picture of the 13 years that this condition has applied, I think the conditio
a drafted has worked and I don't think it needs to be modified. In terms c
arification we are willing to suggest clarifying language if that is the will of th
4/159
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PinAgendas /2006/mnO8- 17- 06.htm 03/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006
mission.
ondition 10 - I think boils down to the phrase, hours not corresponding
seal service hours, and I think Jerry will expand on the fact that full mE
going to be provided through all operational hours of the brewery. I
uts condition 10 to rest. Unless you are of the mind set that the re(
ervice hours can't be established by the Newport Beach Brewery Ci
,ould also like to point out that condition 10 does reference alcoholic
s opposed to beer. I think conditions 9 and 10 do reference the fact
istilled beverages being served, so there is a reference point in the co
upport that position.
m inuing, he noted with respect to a use permit with conditions, once they ar(
ied upon, they become a fundamental property interest. I want to address
mmissioner Henn's inquiry about remedies and go into a little bit of what the
mclard is here for reviewing a conditional use permit. Just so everyone knows,
a independent judgment standard is what applies if a court were to review the
tion of a city. It is a far less deferential standard of review than I think you migh
rmally be used to in terms of discretionary approvals and is based upon actuall,
cisional law out of 4th Appellate Division 3, which was the classic Goat Hi
tern case in Costa Mesa, so it appears that drinking establishment make prett,
od land use law. So, we are dealing with a fundamental interest here, it is ver
portant. We see a very big distinction between clarification and modifying o
Coking in part or in whole, conditions in this permit.
would like to address the procedural question that the Commissione
idressed. I see it a little bit differently. It is true that Chapter 20.96 doe:
idress revocation. I would like to read Sub part A, titled Duties of a Plannin(
hector, which states, "Upon the determination by the Planning Director that ther;
e reasonable grounds for revocation of a use permit or other discretionar
)proval authorized by this Planning Code, that revocation hearing shall be set b,
• Planning Director, the Modification Committee, the Planning Commission, o
• City Council, whichever took final previous action on the permit." The poin
are, and it is a procedural one, is that I believe that in both 1993 and 1999 the
ial action, with the coordination of the Coastal Development Permit, but initiall,
ith the use permit and in 1999 1 believe the City Council took the final action of
at. So, the way I read revocation, if you determine that revocation is what wi
e talking about I would have to say the public notice that was posted doesn'
clude revocation. It didn't merely limit this hearing to reviewing the use permit, i
ates the Commission may also conclude that no changes are necessary. Ii
vocation, the use permit is not being considered at this time. That infers that i
initially being considered, so I hope that you do realize that revocation is nc
acessary. I think to the extent that we are addressing the revocation issue the
itial threshold question is whether there has been a determination by the
anning Director and secondly, I believe that the City Council shall set tha
caring. There is a question as to whether what we are doing right now is
)propriate. Moving beyond that, I would like to point out that, again in the
iginal approval and again in 1999, in the staff report the actual essence of the
;e permit is that you have conditions that protect against these types c
iisances and the finding that has to be made is that the use with the condition:
consistent with the General Plan, the specific planning in the area and that then
e no interferences with the public health, safety and welfare. I think with that
ose two express findings by the City Council and the 13 years that hav(
anspired, I think that is really what this body is up against in terms of making
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO8- 17 -06. htm
Page 28 of 49
y.1 Go
03/19/2007 2 5�
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 29 of 49
se that somehow it is warranted to truly consider revocation or really
bstantive modification to these permit conditions.
would like to point out that there has been a lot of late correspondence and w(
idn't have the most formal presentation, but we had to deal with a lot of late
orrespondence. One of the addressed items was a receipt of August 5th.
ugust 5th was a date in question where there was testimony from a Mr. Reef,
elieve, that somehow there was no food service in the late hours. That is ai
;sue for the Commission and I want to provide this receipt that shows that a
1:00 p.m. on August 5 that in fact full service was provided, half Chinese chickei
alad and fettuccini alfredo. That actually went on until 12:56 a.m. I don't know i
tis was actually submitted. (he submitted it for the record). There is a lot a
take here and I would like to reserve time for rebuttal, or at least to respond t(
our questions, and I would like to hand this over to Mr. Kolbly to talk about the in
nd outs of what has been offered by the Brewing Company to address nois(
;sues and issue of parking lot, the queue, trash and whatnot.
Chairman Eaton asked Mr. Harp to discuss issues of level of review
amental interest and which body has jurisdiction to consider revocation an
ification.
Harp stated continuing to look at the Code sections if there is going to be
dification or addition to the conditions, then you are clearly the body that wou
idle that matter. If it is revocation, the alcohol beverage ordinance, which
9060, is primarily the use permit that they were obtaining allows for it to be s
the Planning Commission, or the Planning Director, to revoke the permit and
6 the procedures to follow related to 28.9 says that it is set before the body th
k final action, the Planning Commission action was appealed to the Ci
uncil and there is an express provision in 29.0640 that where I read it exemp
appeals so I believe the Planning Commission would be the proper body
ar revocation. As far as the standard of review goes, I don't think that is
ue. You need to make a decision based on the record that is here before yo
t would be the decision that would eventually be litigated.
-e Chairman Eaton affirmed that this is the proper level to hear modification
/ocation. I assume also that whatever this Commission does can be appea
the Council.
Harp answered yes.
Miles noted that the majority of the conditions in the permit were in
1993, 1 don't believe there was an appeal at that point in time.
)mmissioner Toerge noted condition 9 is clear. The operation of the brew
d the service of alcoholic beverage shall be ancillary to the primary food sen
eration. You used the word anomaly to describe certain hourly quotations,
our last hearing there was a statement by the general manager that 90% of
;eipts after 11:00 p.m. are from alcohol. You consider that ancillary?
Miles answered yes. What I am talking about is if you take a deviation over a
hours of operation.
Toerge answered I understand, but let's not do that.
y.l(I
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /Plr Agendas /2006 /mn08- 17- 06.htm 03/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 30 of 49
said 90% of the receipts are alcohol, do you consider that ancillary?
. Miles answered that the operation of the brewery and the service of alcohc
verages are ancillary to the primary food service operation of the restaurant.
)eration is not broken down into certain segmented hours of operation. Again
point would be taking it to the logical conclusion, what happens to that 1!
nutes, 5 minutes, it is ancillary within the language of condition 9.
;sioner Toerge noted the service of alcohol is supposed to be tied
eating hours that are certainly not after 11:00 p.m.
Miles noted that for the brewery the regular meal service hours are all hours
Kolbly, General Manager of the Newport Brewing Company, noted:
. Referring to condition 6, during that time of the day the service is 100% fi
in the area. Now, if you take the restaurant away from me on Saturday
Sunday afternoons where I am strictly serving food in that area it will
problematic.
. My partners and I agree about the clarity of the conditions.
. There will be a roof cover for the trash and we are discussing relocating
line after 9:00 p.m. off the entrance off Newport Boulevard.
. We have started discussions with security regarding the preparation of
detailed security plan.
• We have tried to work with the neighbors on how to work out the situation.
Everything that we brought to the table was not accepted and the
impression was that the neighbors wanted the establishment to be closed.
• The business has been there over 11 years and there are barely any fights.
You can go to Disneyland and see fights there.
• This is a great establishment for the patrons and tourists all the way from
Germany. Now, these residents that just moved in over a year ago are
saying we are no good. This is not the way we run things.
mmissioner McDaniel noted there are some issues outside the establishme
t you have no control over; there are some issues that your establishment
ising in the neighborhood. My view to start with is to give you time to fix it ai
and do better and then come back and see how you did. I am not interested
ocation at this point, but there are issues in terms of trash, things patrons do
community, and there are certain things you can do to fix it. If we can get y
ving towards that , which I think you are interested in doing, maybe all of tF
i go away. The other side is the residents have to recognize that they boug
nething next to where you are and they are going to have to recognize there
ng to be some activity at that location and they are going to have to live w
t too. You both need to live together. I prefer you make attempts to fix tl
;h, bottle collection, locking off your parking lot and if there are people runnii
y, 162
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO8- 17- 06.htm 03/19/2007 ¢
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 31 of 49
and in the neighborhood, it will not be your issue. The other issue I have
Type 75 liquor license was given because you folks, at some point, request
t as your customers need hard liquor with their food. So that was supposed
ancillary as you wanted to bring other patrons in to get the food. That clearly
what is happening here, its a bar after 11:00 p.m.
Kolbly asked if the Alley Restaurant was a restaurant? He noted he conside
restaurant but that after 10:00 p.m. no food is being served there and a bar
ig on. Anytime a restaurant is open after 11:00 p.m., you are not a Denny's
:tly serving food. The hours were given to us since day one, we have h;
> to get in. There wasn't a problem then, but now all of a sudden there is. TI
ration has not changed. I offer full service meal all the way to closing.
nmissioner McDaniel noted the Type 75 license service of booze was to be
illary to the food and that is not the case.
Chairman Eaton asked:
. How long does the queue line get.
. How would you move the line to the 30th Street side if you need to keep the
doors open to the parking lot?
• There is a condition on the ABC license that the line shall not extend along
30th Street. If you did have the line originating at the 30th St. entrance
would it get so long as to encroach along the alley?
• Is the kitchen open until closing?
r. Kolbly answered:
. 25 -30 people maximum.
. It would be the south side open during the day and then closed at night so
the actual entry would by the fire line door and the line would run south
towards the pier. I
• The line is not starting on 30th Street, we will have to place a hole on the
patio with an entrance so it would run onto Newport Boulevard south.
• Until we stop serving alcohol, those guys are cooking in the kitchen.
blic comment was opened.
dd Carson, owner of Rudy's Pub and Grill and property owner, noted:
• He supports the development that has gone on in the Cannery Village.
• There are responsibilities of the developers in the area and it should be
enforced by the City with the loft like environment mixed use to make
people aware of what they are moving into. Maybe there could be some
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO8- 17- 06.htm 03/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 32 of 49
sort of waiver, or signing off, that they are aware of the business operatic
within the surrounding neighborhood that close at 2:00 a.m. and open
7:00 a.m.
. The restaurant owners try to control people as they leave the establishmen
and we do our best job, but it is not always our patrons leaving ou
establishments causing the problems.
. It is tough to lay the blame on any one establishment.
. I know that Balboa Imports is looking to become a loft environment behii
us, which means our parking lot will open up directly to those new propose
lofts and there is nothing that we can do when we let our patrons out
keep them quiet. They are going to set off their car alarm noise and that
always going to happen. There has to be some sort of leniency in death
with the public, dealing with the business owners and the fact that we we
there first. I know I put a lot of money in my building and to have this fig
two or three years down the road will be a difficult pill to swallow.
n Dale, patron of The Newport Brewery, stated his support of
iblishment, noting:
. Family environment.
. No way to quantify what responses that the Police Department has in
area that are related to the bar itself.
. They do a great job with the security at the door.
. Food is served all night long.
. It is a friendly atmosphere and people enjoy going there for drinks and it
one of the few places in Newport that has a patio.
. This is the kind of business you want to keep in Newport Beach and is r
the kind of thing that you should shut down because some people moved
next door to a bar. They knew it was there before they bought their place.
an Kokus, local resident, noted:
. There is a lot of traffic from other restaurants that goes through
Beach.
. As a former restaurant manager, the stipulations brought up a
education and addressing those issues are addressable and I believe
they will be addressed by the applicant.
. I am pro business and running restaurants in any city after 11:00 p.m.,
consumption goes down, that's just the way it is.
. People choose to have a cocktail instead of food and we shouldn't
V. / (V y
http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO8- 17- 06.htm 03/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 33 of 49
that. If you restrict one restaurant by limiting what they can do, you a
setting a precedent and saying to other restaurants that when thi
problems come up that you are going to handle it the same way. I think th
is a dangerous precedent.
ill Markowitz, owner of a newer loft in the area, noted:
Loyalty of the business patrons is wonderful. As a business owner she
appreciate it.
. However, the business is not operating in a civilized manner.
. None of us want to shut this down.
We are trying to bring some civilization to this establishment after a certai
hour.
. It is about business and I am happy that they are successful.
. However, there is violent verbal behavior late at night that disturbs
sleep.
. There have been altercations between several of the neighbors and
owners as a result of sleep deprivation.
. If you are tired, you get angry. The parking lot is out of control.
. It is a great business, but I would like to see some compatibility
neighbors.
. Stop the juvenile fighting, and if the law has to be a catalyst for that, then
be it.
. Being drunk in a parking lot is illegal. When we have called the police,
the time they get there, the patrons are gone.
. She noted episodes of urination during the day.
. She asked that the consumption of alcohol be controlled.
. The queue line is loud and noisy.
McDaniel asked what time these problems are happening.
Is. Markowitz answered it is after 11:00 p.m. and she had actually been
p at 1:30 a.m. by people in the parking lot last night.
ommissioner McDaniel noted it couldn't be these people as the establishment
as closed at 11 last night so it couldn't have been their patrons. I am trying to
et what the problem is and I am not convinced from what you are saying that last
night at 1:30 that they were their customers because they were closed.
f s
http: / /wwtiv.city.newport- beach.ca.us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO8- 17- 06.htm 03/19/2007 —
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006
s. Markowitz noted clearly it was not associated with them but that she v
istrated because she is awakened so many times strictly from their parking
id queue line noise. I support the business, but can't we live together?
Chairman Eaton asked how close she lived to the establishment. Are yoi
re of the dividing line between their parking lot and the municipal parking lot?
ire do most of these disturbances take place?
Markowitz answered she is adjacent to the parking lot. Absolutely, and
rbances happen on their parking lot.
Green, local resident noted:
• There are many businesses in the area.
• The disturbances come from all the people coming home from all the bars
the neighborhood.
• You can't put the blame on Jerry's business and the argument that this
stemming from the misuse of their permit is ridiculous. You have a bunch
drunk people coming home.
He has watched from his patio the craziness of people going home and
come from all around except Jerry's place as it is closed down.
issioner McDaniel asked if they accumulate in the parking lot.
Green answered they accumulate everywhere as they are parking in the
on the streets; h has seen many fights on the sidewalks.
Ily Steed, local resident, business owner and a Cannery loft owner, noted:
• The establishment is a nice one until after 9:00 p.m.
• I did not realize when I bought my place that the Brewery operates as
nightclub, they crank the music up and it is booze only.
• The parking area is the launching pad for the whole peninsula. Where
there more parking than at the Brewery.
• I have tried to work with these people to come to some solution but it
been futile.
• At night it is completely out of control. My house is used as a urinal, the
has been blood on my property and I have seen fights coming out of t
bar. Sometimes it is so violent that people have climbed over my fence
get away from the brawl.
• I don't call the police anymore because it is futile.
• The Brewery is operating outside their use permit. The first thing it says
http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn08- 17- 06.htm
Page 34 of 49
y./ (4 (0
03/19/2007 --�'
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 35 of 49
they are not going to create a nuisance in the parking lot, and they do.
. They have been uncooperative.
. The violence is unbelievable.
Lenard, local resident, noted his support of the restaurant. He has brought
ly there many times as the food is excellent and moderately priced.
ice and atmosphere are very friendly. He asked that it continue to operate.
Stevens, employee of the restaurant and local resident, noted:
. The waiters push food at the restaurant after 11:00 p.m, not only becaL
we are told to as it is good for sales, but for every ticket we are going
want a higher bill because that means a higher tip.
. Every person who sits down there is asked if they want something to e
we let them know the full menu as opposed to being 'booze only.' We try
push as much food as we can.
. I was the waiter on August 5th, where some patron was told at 10:45 p.
the kitchen wasn't open and we ended up with the half chicken salad
midnight. I don't recall saying that then, I might say it later for whate,
reason, but as I am there to make money I push sales as much as I can.
. I have never seen 100 people in the parking lot and there certainly is
blood anywhere.
mmissioner Toerge noted the testimony of the General Manager was that I
;hen was always open. You just said you would say it was closed at 11:45 p.
Stevens answered that was on him if he said it at all. When I am there, I
food as much as possible.
Callahan, local resident, speaking on behalf of her husband and his staff
d they love the restaurant and when they get off work they go there late in the
ing for food. If they don't have the opportunity to get there, I bring the food t(
. The food is great and it is a great place to go with the family.
mmissioner Toerge noted this is not how great the food is, it is about the imp
the neighborhood and the late hours. I appreciate the fact that the food mil
good, and the servers are nice, but that is not the issue. I encourage you
about the issue that is the noise that is created, the impact on I
ghborhood and the ancillary nature of the food.
Jusco, local resident and regular patron of the restaurant noted his support
establishment noting he has brought his family there many times. He stat
this is the kind of establishment that the City should be supporting and r
ping their hands. The Code officer and the detective both gave no sped
lems at the Brewery. ABC couldn't find any problems, so what is the iss
r than this Commission gave approval to build a home in a retail area that jt
)ens to be right behind the Brewery. Anybody living within a block of Newp
y. !Co %
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO8- 17- 06.htm 03/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 36 of 49
levard is going to have noise. How you can point the finger at the Brewe
say it is their fault, doesn't fly. This problem is all up and down Newpc
levard and unless you come down on every bar in the City, you will still have
dem. If you do it only to the Brewery you are discriminatory unless you do it
ybody else. This is a great establishment and I would hate to see anythir
happen to it, they do a great job.
audience became very vocal at this point.
Harp noted this is a public meeting and all rules of decorum prevail. If anyc
ates those, the officers will be happy to escort you from the premises. Plea
the people speak. The Planning Commissioners are not here to respond
;stions, they are the ones who get to ask the questions.
ommissioner McDaniel noted he has tried hard to listen to everyone, he will
sting and it would be best to hear the issues, not the emotions. We have
rake decisions and so we ask questions to help us understand the situation to
ble to make a good decision. Think about what you do to help yourselves wh
au make your presentation. We don't want to argue with anybody or cause s
ouble. Help us to get through the issues.
Joe Reese, noted that condition 10 states the approval of this use permit is for a
estaurant/brewpub and shall not be construed as the approval of a bar, cocktai
ounge, or other use serving alcoholic beverages during hours not correspondinc
o regular meal hours (food products sold or served incidentally to the sale o
;ervice of alcohol beverages shall not be deemed as constituting regular mea
;ervice)... I did go there on August 5th and when I went there it was with the
Mention to see how it is being operated. The security guard met us at the doo
and was checking ID's. We asked why he was doing that and he said that afte
i:00 p.m. the restaurant becomes a bar and that no one under21 is allowed in o
hey would lose their liquor license. The restaurant had patrons standing and lout
nusic was playing. We sat at a table and asked the waiter for food who told u:
he kitchen was closed and the only thing to order was drinks. There were nc
:hips, pretzels or popcorn being served. There were three security guards inside
he restaurant and another one was outside. It was obvious that this was actinc
as a bar, not a restaurant.
went on to say that if you look at all the paperwork, the Planning Commissior
City Council were specific about the operation. Referring to hand writter
e 127 of the staff report, he read the testimony of the then general manager
iwn Needelman. He then spoke about the differences comparing testimony.
suggested closing the restaurant at 11:00 p.m. as that is the normal closinc
of a restaurant and that will solve the problems.
rge Schroeder, noted he was present at the meeting in 1993 when the origins
iit was received. The reason they got the permit was they were going to be
pub. He was present in 1999 when they applied for their liquor license.
:rring to handwritten page 18, item 5, the restaurant/brewpub use is
patible with the surrounding commercial and nearby residential uses, then
always been residential uses in that area. It seems to be an impression tha
the new loft condos were built behind it on one street now there is
lential. There has always been residential use in the Cannery Village area
of the original staff report was that they would operate in a way that would bE
eable with the nearby residential uses. I don't think it reasonable this mar
9.I(2,
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PinAgendas /2006 /mnO8- 17- 06.htm 03/19/2007 =,7-6�
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 37 of 49
ose his business. All that matters is are they complying with the permits they
have gotten, and in my opinion they are not. The solution is they should close a,
11:00 p.m. on Saturday and Friday nights, which should alleviate a lot of the
problems for the residents in the area. I have lived 18 years here and it is not fail
to blame everything that is wrong on this one establishment, but we can look al
the permit they have and the conditions they agreed to. There are fistfights on the
streets after the bars are closed and often times I am awakened at 1 a.m. and it is
hard to get back to sleep and it does affect your work day. This establishment
should comply with the conditions of the permit. He continued talking about other
establishments and noted that his survey resulted in closing times of 11:30 p.m
He noted that this is a bar.
Wetherhault, local resident, noted:
. The 200 blocks of 28th, 29th and 30th Streets get pounded every
with drunk activity.
. A drunk has tried to break into his property. The police responded.
Fights have occurred where the police responded as well as
paramedics.
. Various acts of sex, property damage, vulgar language go on all times
the night.
. The point is these types of incidents continue to increase, as does th
number of people under the influence of alcohol The number of police call
to this area is extreme.
. The residents are tired of this and if the patrons can not leave th
establishments in a responsible manner and the bars can not control
activity of their late night patrons, then the City needs to start laying
these establishments.
. This establishment went in as a restaurant and we would like to see
continue as a restaurant but you need to do something to curb this activity.
nmissioner McDaniel noted you mentioned a lot of things that have happened.
i mentioned broken bottles but it is not normal that containers would be taker
from this establishment necessarily. You haven't talked about any specifics.
Or. Wetherhault answered it is one of the impacts, it is another bar having
mpact in the surrounding community. You can see the number of responses fi
he Police Department that are alcohol related.
McDaniel noted this is in general for the area, not specific to
He was answered, correct.
Commission inquiry, Mr. Wetherhault added that there is loitering in the pa
s directly adjacent to the residents and you can see them coming from
y. / (0 y
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO8- 17- 06.htm 03/19/2007 —`7 /, -2
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 38 of 49
Bransiwaski, past resident of Cannery Village, noted everyone is talki
ancillary use. The relevant definition of ancillary use comes from quarte
ation. How much booze versus how much food is sold quarterly. You ca
it down to days, hours, weekdays. You can in terms of discussion, but t
mt definition is quarterly. So why are people talking about what happe
!en the hours of 10 and 12 p.m. or what the characteristics might be?
)ny Shepherdson, resident since 1967 stated when his place was built there wa!
small gourmet market that is now the Brewery, so these things came after I wa!
resident. The Brewery, Malarky's and Rudy's are not sidewalk cafes. I pass the
rewery on Sunday mornings and it appears to have a nice ambience. Wha
appens late at night is when our nightmare starts. These are full on drinkinc
stablishments. The drunks late at night keep him awake and from hi:
?rspective the village atmosphere is being destroyed in his immediate vicinity b)
e Brewery, Malarky's and Rudy's. The police can not respond when thing!
appen. Rudy's on Sunday afternoons has live entertainment with a live PF
rstem that sounds like it is in his garage and this is around 4 -5 in the afternoon.
is very difficult to take and has gotten the police involved. He asked that if the
ity is pushing the mixed use and have businesses and living quarters togethe
it to allow the hard liquor license, for these things to continue, it really isn'
Ang to fit. We need help to maintain the Newport Beach village atmosphere.
Weeda, business and property owner in Cannery Village, noted:
. It is important to seek compliance with the use permit, that is what this
about.
. Just because this operator has operated outside the permit for
years, does not validate or legitimize the actions.
When this use permit was applied for they were promoting themselves as
restaurant and one of the reasons this was done is this was an amiable we
to get a permit.
. If they had gone in and said they were going to operate as a boistero!
nightclub at 11p.m., 12 and 1 a.m. on the weekends, they would hay
virtually no chance of getting the permit. Particularly since this district has
high concentration of bars and history has shown that nightclubs have n
fared so well down there.
He mentioned other nightclubs in the area and stated the problems of a
night venue with alcohol.
. This establishment was promoted as a restaurant because they could get
permit as a restaurant. Now they are operating as a restaurant most of ti
time in the restaurant hours and as a full blown bar after 11 p.m.
. The clear solution is to bring them into compliance and have them be
restaurant they promoted themselves to be, which many of the c
restaurants in the area have set a fine example by doing so.
. Condition 6 - the net public area of the restaurant is limited to 1,500 sq
y.170
http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO8- 17- 06.htm 03/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006
fee daily. There is a bit of ambiguity the way this is written but we ha
contacted the Coastal Commission and it has been presented that it is
daily restriction and is part of the condition of the Coastal Permit. That
something that needs to be regulated and enforced by the City.
Condition 7 - The hours of operation Monday through Thursday are 6 to 11
p.m. and we think those should be the hours of operation on Friday anc
Saturday as well to bring it into compliance with a restaurant type operation.
Condition 9 - The alcohol should be ancillary and not primary and should
in conjunction with food. The operator promoted that they needed thi:
order to make the food work, then use it for the food. After 9:00 p.m.
most compelling testimony, 90% of the business is alcohol so that reall,.
in violation.
Condition 10 - It is pretty clear that the Planning Commission and the C
Council did not want to promote a nightclub or bar there. Again this gol
back to this being a restaurant. The reason for the use permit is to ensu
things like this are being taken care of such as parking and land use. The
is a serious parking problem in the neighborhood when there are spc
promotions during play off season or super bowl. That is what the Coasl
Commission was concerned about.
Commission inquiry he noted that condition 6 needs to be enforced and doesn'
ed to be clarified. It is clear to me it is a daily condition that has been impose(
the Coastal Commission and needs to be enforced like all the conditions. M,
ue is not with the operation and what it does or who the people are, my issue is
h the use permit and being in compliance like every other business like m,
siness that operates under a use permit. We are in compliance and we expec
eryone else to be too. That is what a use permit is for. The late night creates ;
of the problems and I think it can be organized by making them adhere to thei
e permit. I think this is really an important thing and applies to late night a:
:11. It is really about the parking and that is why that condition is imposed an(
eds to be adhered to. It creates conflicts with other business owners during th(
rmal business hours and creates conflicts with other public people parking a:
Aley, resident, noted that she frequents the brewery.
been able to get food after 12 p.m. She has not
s after 12:00 p.m. when she has been there that hav e
speakers.
She stated she I
seen any of th(
been portrayed
Hogan, a manager in charge of the kitchen at the establishment, noted:
He was on duty the night of August 5th when two patrons came in
they were not allowed to get food.
That night there were 3 events in So Cal and we were the slowest
Saturday. Even with that, there is no way I would have shut the
down.
. We are supposed to be open and we are.
http: / /,.Nutiv.city.neNvport- beach .ca.us /P1nAgendas /2006 /mnO8- 17 -06. htm
Page 39 of 49
-7
03/19/2007-J-(T-�
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 40 of 49
. He is one of the last ones to leave and on the weekends leaves at 1:30 or
and the parking lot is silent. Whatever happens after that is out of o
control. We can lock the parking lot but we don't want to be liable and
patrons need to leave their car and get a taxi, then we promote that. The
is a municipal lot in the back that can be used as well.
. There were 41 calls recorded for this procedure, how many of them
during our business hours?
. 65% of the arrests were due to alcohol, how many of them were on the
of July and do they involve us in any way?
• Nobody orders food from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. After 2:00 a.m., Jack in the
is packed, there is a line wrapped around the building. Denny's is star
room only.
. A crime to me sounds like a someone not reporting they are seeing a fig
going on.
Chairman Eaton asked are there times the kitchen is closed before th
g time of the entire premises.
Hogan answered no, the kitchen is open until the Brewery is closed. You
:r a steak at 12:15 a.m. At Commission inquiry, he noted that we can
e people to order food. Once they are out they are hungry, but they c
ally eat between 10:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m.
liam Moore, resident on the boardwalk for 30 years, noted:
. He has an alley in the back of his home and he chose to live on th
boardwalk.
. Drunks come down that alley every night.
. They are there because there are a lot of bars in the area, not just beca
of the Brewery.
. He has been a patron of the Brewery and has eaten there after 11:00 p.m.
. He has never seen any problems in the parking lot.
Low, local resident, noted:
. Referenced the work done by staff and the time put in by the Commission.
. He presented a packet of communications, which had been distributed
the Commissioners in their packets.
. He presented copies of a CD of the May hearing.
. There have been a lot of points of view of what people have seen or nol
y.1 iZ
http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mn08- 17- 06.htm 03/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 41 of 49
seen. The issues that are in the communication that went to the City, I h
heard no substantial testimony that proves any of the communications
inaccurate. I submit that the complaints by the residents are what they
and are part of the record.
We are talking about compatibility. We understand we live in a mixed use
neighborhood and understand what that is. When we look to find equity o'
rights in that mixed use neighborhood, that is what we are talking about.
Not whether they are good or bad, what's fair, what's right, what'=.
appropriate, what isn't appropriate. That is why we ask you and we entrus'
upon you to make wise decisions on how to deal with our neighborhood.
Chairman Eaton asked:
. Are you associated with the Cannery Village Concerned group?
• How big is that group and how wide an area do they live in?
. Are they primarily residents?
. Do you see any relationship between condition 6 and the late nig
nuisance problem or is that a case of the parking problem in the village as
whole?
Low answered yes, he is a member. It is not so much as a forma
mbership but that group probably has 50 -60 persons that are involved and
wt 80% of those are inside the Cannery Village. There are a few who live of
periphery of Cannery Village but they may be on the other side of Newpor
ulevard. Certainly it is dominated by folks who live or own property in tha
nnery Village. Specifically condition 6, as dictated by the Coastal Commission
s to free up parking during the day because they determined that the demanc
parking occurred during the hours of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. They felt that after 6 p.m
>ple leave who may have been working there or go home from the beach an(
re is more parking there. Condition 6 does not address evening issues, I thinl
t the Coastal Commission was trying to make it available to the Brewery in the
:Wings or other businesses or persons who use it in the evenings. There was
iflict during the day when other persons were attempting to utilize that limitec
McDaniel noted that the information that comes from this
;n't always get signed. I have a problem when people send correspi
no signature, it doesn't' have a lot of credibility without the signatures.
don't stand up and to be counted, I don't care.
Low noted that everyone in that group are willing to be disclosed.
Madlock, Vice President of Newport Beach Brewing Company since
ion, noted:
The Type 75 license was not in existence when we first opened the brem
and asked for the conditional use permit. What was allowable was just
Type 22 which was a small beer manufacturer's license. The Type 75 ce
http: /hvwNv. city .newport- beach.ca.us/P]nAgendas /2006 /mnO8- 17- 06.htm 03/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 42 of 49
along later due to the fact that there was some old laws prohibiting brewi
beer on the same premises where you could buy hard alcohol. It was i
available or we would have asked for it at the beginning.
The parking issue and closing off part of the restaurant, it was
understanding that during the weekdays we left 13 spots for the of
spaces above the brewery. We were under the impression that beca
the offices were closed on the weekends, that was the reason why
Coastal Commission was not pushing us on having any area closed
during the weekends.
,mmissioner McDaniel, referring to the August 5th City Council minutes, it we
led that the Councilmembers clarified that this Type 75 license application we
be able to provide for your eating customers. The ancillary thing keeps comin
here. When I read these minutes, it appears to me you asked for this becaus
ur customers are sophisticated and don't want to drink just a beer they me
nt to have a cocktail and you were trying to increase your sale of food. Am
ano in that?
Madlock answered we wanted all higher sales. Of course we want to
food. We find that many customers that we had prior to getting the
hol license were not frequenting our establishment. We were told that n
ale wanted martinis, margaritas, etc. Not all people want to order wine
and that was the basis of why we went in for the Type 75 license.
rmissioner McDaniel noted that it was stated that'they wanted to complen
it enhanced food, wine and special menu, and capture a more diverse clien
acquiring this license. I read this so that you wanted to increase your f
=_s and sell them a margarita too, but you wanted this license to assist with
d sale. Ancillary keeps coming up and we don't want you to be a bar, we v
i to be a restaurant that serves drinks.
Madlock noted we have never served a cover charge and we wanted to
icholas Wilson, resident, noted that the testimony of most of the speakers
)ems the biggest problem is the parking lot. The majority of the comple
>ncerns noise and the parking lot. It is clearly unfair to single out one restaura
r the problems in that parking lot considering that is the largest public parking I
a proximity to seven restaurants within a two block radius. There is a shortal
restaurants that do serve late in the evenings. There are those of us who i
it work 9 - 5 and we appreciate being able to get a beer and something to eat
non - regular eating hour.
Huffine, resident of Costa, noted her support of the restaurant noting this
extended family and as a regular patron have seen the efforts put forth by t
iers to be good neighbors.
comment was closed.
Commissioner Henn referred to the Coastal Commission findings of 1993. Th
language regarding how much of the restaurant is to be open during what day
seems to be clear and consistent with the motivations with what I know to be the
,, 17q
http: / /www. city .newport- beach,ca.us/PlnAgendas /2006 /mnOg- 17- 06,htm 03/19/2007^x°
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 43 of 49
astal Commission. There is no wording whatsoever about daily, it says, shal
open before 5:00 p.m. (referring to the 1500 foot restriction). Doesn't say daily
;sn't say Monday through Friday. I don't know how the City could interpret thi:
say Monday through Friday when the permit was issued. As far as I arr
icerned that is clear to me.
Toerge noted his agreement with Commissioner Henn.
Chairman Eaton noted his agreement also. He added that the de(
riction does as well (referring to handwritten 86). It says daily. With regard
comment on the 13 spaces on the upper floor, hand written page 63 the sty
)rt from the Coastal Commission notes that there are 43 spaces provid(
ng the day with the restriction and that provides for the 13 on the secor
r. I don't think that related to not having the weekday restriction at all. If th
dition needs to be clarified my recommendation is to remove the referen
iday through Friday reference.
McDaniel noted that he agrees.
Commission was in agreement.
McDaniel noted:
. He has had to ask a lot of questions as the Commission handles zoning
blood, vomit and fights.
. The ancillary issue is clear and that the request for this Type 75 license
alcohol was made so that the restaurant to better serve its restaur
customers.
. The Planning Commission and the City Council made it clear that this wa
supposed to be a restaurant and I believe it was given to better help th
place service its customers for food.
. There has been testimony from people who work there saying between 11
and 1 a.m. 90% of what goes on there is not food, it is alcohol; I can't make
them eat, I'm okay with that, but the purpose of this condition and approval
was so those people who did want to eat could have alcohol, not so that
you could just serve alcohol.
. Another employee said nobody eats between 11 and 2 a.m., Denny's isr
busy, they eat after that. So this condition is not being served by this and
is a bar between those hours as people don't eat there by their ow
admission and they are saying food is not served because you can't mal,
people eat.
. They are not serving food, they are serving alcohol so I think there is
violation of that portion of the use permit.
. Clearly the daily issue we just talked about.
. Nuisances - we have tried to pin down where those are coming from.l
y 175
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO8- 17- 06,htm 03/19/200
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 44 of 49
Clearly they are not all coming from this place and so what do we do from
zoning issue to try help solve that? That becomes more difficult for me.
• We can ask the operator to assist by covering the trash and they are to
about doing that because they want to be a good neighbor. I'd like to
at giving the owners some opportunity to fix these issues before we
any significant changes to this.
I am not sure if it matters to me if they serve alcohol or not as long as
are doing it in a manner where it doesn't cause public safety is
because that is what I have to talk about.
My view is to get some consensus how the operator voluntarily take care o'
some of these issues. Maybe call this back in 6 months for a review and i
they are not operating responsibility than anything that they do after 11 p.m
is not a restaurant and we should deal with it then.
missioner Henn, noted:
Condition 10 - it seems this language was uniquely constructed. Is thi
standard language for the provision of a hard liquor license to a
establishment that is primarily be a restaurant?
Campbell answered this language was uniquely crafted at that time. We do
nilar condition today, in essence to define what the use is and what the use ca
,t be. One of the issues we are struggling with this condition is staff has looke
these conditions and balanced the use based upon the entirety of the use
rich is restaurant a majority of the time and a bar as a minority of the time an
incipally it is a restaurant. Based upon that and that past practice is why w
,uggle with does this condition prohibit the bar after 11:00 p.m., and the answe
we haven't looked at it in that light until now.
1r. Harp added that in talking with City Attorney Clausen, the intent was for this
perate as a restaurant but serve alcohol and not as a bar. Looking at t
inguage in condition 10 its says food products sold or served to the s�
icidentally to the sale or service of alcohol beverages shall not be deemed
onstituting regular meal service. It seems to me that provision is pretty clear a
don't see any ambiguity some others see.
mmissioner Toerge noted:
• This situation is broken. You don't get the kind of resident appeal that
are getting tonight if something is not broken.
The Planning Commission is going to have to get use to these kinds
discussion as more and more properties are zoned mixed use, although
we do that we will probably get better about applying conditions.
There is a real conflict in these conditions because I do read condition 11
that the serving of alcohol is to be done in correspondence with regula
meal service hours. I've testimony about doctors and others who like to ea
late and I understand that, but that is not regular meal service hours an(
y.17 (v
http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us P1nAgendas /2006 /mn08- 17- 06.htm 03/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 45 of 49
that is what we are talking about. What are those? I don't know, but th
are not at midnight or at 11 p.m. or 1 a.m., that is not in my opinion. That
very clear to me. We can debate the issue of ancillary as this Commissi
has in the past reviewed a number of applications for alcoholic bevera
service ancillary with food and I don't know of any of them that are op
past 9:30 or 10.00 that we have approved where an establishment mic
want to serve beer or wine or even a cocktail with their food.
What I don't understand is how our predecessors could have allowed
property to be open with this condition that alcoholic beverage could
served with regular meal service hours.
Harp noted when he had spoken with Ms. Clauson regarding this issue, 11
ilanation based on her recollection was that the intent of the operation was
like Charlie's Chili or some of the other places that do serve food late at nig
I the intent was to have a meal and also have alcohol with it. When they g
amended permit the minutes stated that the clientele shifted from people
r twenties to people in their sixties. It is consistent with people coming in for
al and having a drink with their meal.
)mmissioner Toerge stated that merging conditions 9 and 10 the anci
rvice of alcohol with food it makes it more clear. I definitely think an amer
this use permit is due and we owe it to the residents. This issue came be
in May and the issue is still here; there seems little done to address the is:
d from my standpoint I think the ours of operation should be reduced and I
t sure 11.00 p.m. is the right one but I know no later is the right one if they
continue to serve alcohol with food. I will be recommending revocation un
owner wants to agree to some other conditions.
McDaniel asked about a 6 month time line.
Toerge answered no.
Harp stated they had met with the Newport Brewery counsel as well as
nagement directly after the last Planning Commission meeting. Basically
phasis at that meeting was come up with a way to get control of your busir
the interim, implement those procedures and come back to the Plan
mmission with a plan. They haven't seem to really have done much in the
F days, so that is something to take into consideration.
nissioner Peotter asked about exhibit 5 that is the additional conditic
d by Newport Beach Brewing Company. Have they implemented any
, or is this something that they would do?
Campbell noted the security guards are there but there has been no secur
i presented. The bottle recycling program has not been implemented, t
h dumpster area I have been told they are exploring the concept; the alcot
ling I have been told that is being done, but there is no proof to date; of
ance, upon tonight's testimony it hasn't been implemented and the tow up
e is something they are considering; and the back page is a suggestion
ige condition 9 and 10. No particular other improvements have been made.
Henn noted he is not interested in waiting another 6 months to
q.17 7
http: / /ww%v. city . newport- beach. ca. us /P1nAgendas /2006 /mnOg- 17- 06.htm 03/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 46 of 49
there is voluntary improvements. If people want us to make the decision, I a
ad to do that. I suggest to continue this for one month to allow time for tl
lgrieved parties and the owners of the business to sit down and hammer out
rlution that they can live with. I prefer not to make the decision, I prefer tl
irties to come to some decisions. They might have tried that and failed and
at is the case, I am glad to make the decision as part of the Commission.
ommissioner Peotter noted that sitting across the table is not going to do much
there appears to have been a lot of months of bad blood. I would be requiring
em to implement what the have said in exhibit 5 within the next 30 days. We
in give them 60 days with the implementation and then sit down with the
lgrieved parties if it is working or not. Otherwise, chop their hours and be done
ith it.
ommissioner Henn noted exhibit 5 doesn't go far enough.
ommissioner Peotter noted we can add to it such as an no age restriction, etc.
iscussion followed on some additional implementation procedures.
ce Chairman Eaton noted we should not try and do something tonight or at the
sxt meeting because the Our Lady Queen of Angels will be at the next meeting.
e agrees to a continuance for a month. Both sides and city staff should meet to
;e what agreement there can be in terms of meaningful improvements but for the
aff to come back to the Commission and present us with what we can do in
odifying conditions then have a review in 6 months to see how those modified
mditions are working. The other reason not continue the whole thing for 6
onths is that either side may be anxious to get this up to City Council and we
could not stall them for that period of time. During this month we need to
ructure some revisions to the conditions that we might have a shot at working for
e neighborhood. Cutting back the hours is the drastic solution that we would
)pe to avoid. I would like to have staff look at the certification programs have a
)mponent that provide guidance to employees when to stop serving to
dividuals when they have become too drunk for their own good. If it does, how
in we get verification that the employees have gone through this training and
in we get some assurance from managerial employees that they have instructed
eir staff to implement that. The ultimate problem seems to be outside the
emises. The problem inside the premises they are containing and the neighbors
e not as affected. Some of the behavior outside the premises is probably not
)ming from the patrons of this premise unless they are going on to other bars
:cause at 2:00 a.m., I am sure patrons of this establishment are probably gone.
is a neighborhood problem of which this establishment may be contributing a
)rtion and I would like to see if there is a way to get something back to us in a
onth that will offer some revised conditions including specifically condition 6 and
) mething specifically stating the kitchen shall remain open the entire time and a
ay to get the employee alcohol training implemented.
Craig Frizzell, Detective Division Commander of the Newport Beach Police
:)artment, noted that there are several types of training programs. I know the
ning but I don't know if there is any type of certification, but we can find out.
can work this out with the owner within a month's time.
Commissioner Henn noted that the neighborhood groups need to be involved
uring this time. He noted that the people who own and operate this restauran
are not mal- intent. I think they are trying to operate a good business. I also don'
l-7e
http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us/PlaAgendas /2006 /mn08- 17- 06.htm 03/19/200
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 47 of 49
nk that the neighbors that are aggrieved are blowing up their claims routinel,
re to make it seem much worse than it is, I don't believe that either. In fact,
ally don't care as our function is not to find out who is telling the truth and who is
aggerating; our function is to try and find out what the use permit is and whethe
restaurant is being operated in accordance with that and therefore whether th(
.ink people in the parking lot are patrons of this restaurant isn't the importan
;ue. The important issue is what is the use permit and is it being operate(
rrectly in accordance with it. I want to make sure that everyone understand:
at this is an objective decision before us. The testimony tonight is not germane
the decision.
Harp noted that on the motion it needs to be clarified as to the manner
nt this to come back to you as there are different procedures for modific:
i revocation.
Chairman Eaton noted he is talking about a modification, not a
iissioner Toerge noted he does not want to take revocation off the table,
the owners act. He prefers to continue the hearing and keep the opti
r. Harp noted that revocation is not on the table but if you want to add it, staff
:ed to comply with the procedures set forth for revocation. By opening up
)or for revocation, does not mean you have to take that action. We can comk
with modification, additional terms and revocation.
,nmissioner Toerge noted he is not prepared to make a motion to revoke tl
nse today, but he might be next time. It is an option we have and it should I
intained and it should be there. This is a serious issue and we need
intain that option as I think it will motivate the parties to reach the resolution.
not sure we will get there if revocation is not an option.
imissioner Peotter clarified that you are suggesting that this item be continue
brought back with revised conditions that are hammered out by staff who wi
had input by the neighbors and the owners.
imissioner Toerge noted his agreement; however, the meeting should b
:ed in such a way that if the information we get at that meeting compels one c
a of us to revoke it that we have the opportunity to make that motion. Why
are saying is the right tact, but it presupposes that there is going to be sour
promise and I am not convinced there is. If there is no compromise then
to revoke.
lowing a brief discussion it was decided that revocation should also be on
ice for the next meeting.
3tion was made by Commissioner Toerge to continue this item to Sep
st and ask that the item be noticed in such a way that we have the opp
engage in further discussion to make modifications to the use permit
/oke the amended use permit that granted them the right for this ex
:ohol sales on the premises.
y.1-7
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PtnAgendas /2006 /mn08- 17- 06.htm 03/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/2006 Page 48 of 49
Harp affirmed the Commission wanted staff to prepare potential modified
or additional conditions.
Chairman Eaton agreed and added that there was consensus that the
<day provision be removed from condition 6.
maker of the motion agreed to add that to the motion.
imissioner Henn noted that the neighborhood people should not take this a
blanche to be intransigent and unwilling to discuss and unwilling t
promise on their positions either. What the Commission is looking for is a
promise and I think that is included on all parties.
oes: None
bsent Cole
ecused: Hawkins
NAL BUSINESS:
SINESS
City Council Follow -up - Ms. Wood noted that the agenda for August
was the City Council initiated an amendment to the Planned Community
Icourt to prohibit additional subdivisions, which will be coming to
P Wing Commission.
Report fro Planning Commission's representative to the Econoi
Development ommittee - Commissioner Henn noted the topic
discussion was t cost related to Greenlight II. EDC will be recommend
to the Council a rev d summary of the associated costs.
c. Report from the Planning Co ission's representative to the Local Coasta
Committee - Commissioner Tog, a noted at the meeting of August 14th tha
approach in terms of the volu of the information included in the
Implementation Plan were discusse . We decided we needed a summan
of how the items serve each of the poli s in the Local Coastal Plan itself.
We discussed the topic of the Corona del r bluff development guidelines
which is significantly different than other blu the City.
Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like ff to report on at
subsequent meeting - Vice Chairman Eaton asked wh the topic of ti
rules and procedures of the Planning Commission will be u or review ai
whether the Zoning Committee will be reactivated. Ms. Wo noted th
staff is working on the rules and procedures and that the Zoning mmitb
may be reactivated when the General Plan is approved.
e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a
agenda for action and staff report - none.
9. s�v
http: / /www.city.neNvport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2006 /mnO8- 17- 06.htm 03/19/2007 "1 1
Attachment No. 5
Staff report and minutes from January 4, 2007
Planning Commission hearing
S-1
BLANK
` o7-
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item 3
January 4, 2007
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner
(949) 644 -3210, icampbell(aicitv.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Newport Beach Brewing Company
Use Permit No. 3485
2920 Newport Boulevard
ISSUE
Should the City modify or revoke Use Permit No. 3485?
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission modify the conditions of approval of
Use Permit No. 3485 as described below.
BACKGROUND
In 1993, the Newport Beach Brewing Company was issued Use Permit No. 3485 to
operate a "restaurant/brewpub" with a Type 23 Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC)
license subject to conditions. In 1999, the City authorized an amendment to the Use
Permit to allow the restaurant/brewpub to operate with a Type 75 license subject to
revised conditions (Type 75 allows beer, wine and distilled spirits associated with a
brewpub).
On May 4, 2006, the Planning Commission discussed the operation of the Newport
Beach Brewing Company in response to complaints by nearby residents, property
owners and local business persons. At the conclusion of the discussion, the
Commission found that there was sufficient information to review and possibly modify
the Use Permit.
On August 17, 2006, the Planning Commission considered the matter once again and
directed staff to set a public hearing to consider possible revocation of the Use Permit.
The minutes of this meeting are attached as Exhibit No. 1. Additionally, the Commission
wanted staff to meet with the Brewing Company and neighbors in an attempt to resolve
the matter. Staff has met with both parties and there is not a consensus as to how to
proceed.
ST- 3
rrf
Newport Beach Brewing Company
January 4, 2007
Page 2
PUBLIC NOTICE
The Newport Beach Brewing Company has been notified of this hearing. A hearing
notice indicating the review, potential modification and potential revocation of Use
Permit No. 3485 was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300
feet of the property (excluding roads and waterways) and posted at the site a minimum
of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. The item
appears on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted in accordance with
applicable law and on the city website.
DISCUSSION
Neighbors contend that the Newport Beach Brewing Company is violating its Use
Permit and that the operators are not sufficiently controlling patron behavior that is
creating nuisances. Alleged violations include operating a bar rather than a restaurant,
opening the entire dining area on weekends before 5PM, trash in the parking lot and
unruly patron behavior outside the establishment. Neighbors contend that patrons
create noise, cause property damage, urinate, defecate, and conduct sexual activities,
etc. during the late evening and early morning hours. The May 4, 2006 and August 17,
2006 reports outline the complaints and issues. The Brewing Company contends that
they are not violating the Use Permit and they have since instituted several changes to
their operation, which appears to have had a positive effect.
Operational and Physical Changes
The Brewing Company has instituted the following changes:
• The brewing Company agreed to construct a cover over the existing trash
enclosure (building permit under review).
• Employee training on responsible alcohol sales has been completed. All owners
and employees have received L.E.A.D. training and the applicant is agreeable to
ongoing training of new employees. L.E.A.D stands for Licensee Education on
Alcohol and Drugs and the 3 '/z hour training session is conducted by the
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control staff. It focuses on providing practical
information on serving alcoholic beverages safely, responsibly, and legally, and
preventing illicit drug activity at the licensed establishment.
• The operator has relocated the entrance from the parking lot side of the building
to the Newport Boulevard entrance (through the outdoor patio) when a queue
forms to alleviate noise and patron behavior from causing problems to the
immediate residential neighbors.
• Discontinued the removal of condiments and menus from the tables.
• Discontinued the late night bar menu while keeping the kitchen open at all times.
• Installed signs requesting that patrons be respectful of the neighborhood.
• Stepped up security sweeps of the parking lot to discourage loitering and
boisterous behavior.
!gw~ E,
it
Newport Beach Brewing Company
January 4, 2007
Page 3
• Maintain a security presence at least one hour after closing.
• Instituted a recycling collection program that minimizes noise generation. Bottles
and cans are separated and stored within plastic recycling tubs within the
building. The full tubs are loaded onto a truck during the day and empty recycling
tubs are dropped off. This method avoids the noisy practice of dumping glass
bottles after hours.
• Scheduling maintenance activities outside of sensitive hours.
These changes have been reasonably successful in alleviating many of the problems
associated with the use based upon discussions with neighbors and the reduction of
complaints; however, several residents remain unsatisfied. Principally, several
neighbors believe the Brewing Company operates as a bar after approximately 10PM
several nights a week.
Code Enforcement, Police Department and Planning staff have conducted
investigations based on complaints by neighbors.
Code Enforcement
Officer Cosylion reported at the August 17, 2006, meeting that the operation did not
violate the conditions of approval based upon his field observations (Exhibit No. 2). It
was noted that his observations were not taken during the early morning hours when
most of the problems seem to occur. A queue forms on popular evenings and the crowd
was boisterous. Noise from the interior of the operation was not considered loud or
unreasonable. Additionally, site was free of litter.
Police
Newport Beach Police conducted an investigation in the fall of 2006 and their report is
attached as Exhibit No. 3.
Planning
Based upon public testimony at the Planning Commission meetings, the following
conditions and alleged violations are at issue:
• Condition No. 9 currently states:
9. The operation of the brewery and the service of alcoholic beverages shall be
ancillary to the primary food service operation of the restaurant.
An ancillary use is a "use that is clearly incidental to and customarily found in
connection with the principal use; is subordinate to and serves the principal use; is
subordinate in area, extent, or purpose to the principal use served; contributes to the
RUI
Newport Beach Brewing Company
January 4, 2007
Page 4
comfort convenience, or necessity of the operation, employees, or customers of the
principal use served..."
During the May 4, 2006 meeting of the Planning Commission, the General Manager
of the Brewing Company stated that alcohol sales constituted more than 50% of
sales during the day and that alcohol sales are close to 90% of sales during the late
evening and early morning hours. Alcohol sales of this magnitude could not be
considered ancillary to food sales in staff's opinion. The full menu and condiments
that are stored on the tables were being removed from the table after typical meal
service hours. A limited late night menu was offered and testimony indicated that
food service was not always available during the late evening. The Brewing
Company's ABC license limits the gross sales of alcohol to be no more than the
gross sales for food on a quarterly basis and no actual gross sales information is in
evidence. Staff recommends the following changes to Condition No. 9:
9. The operation of the brewery and the service of alcoholic beverages shall be
ancillary to the primary food service operation of the restaurant (e.g. the
brewery and the service of alcoholic beverages may not be conducted without
the concurrent operation of the restaurant during all hours the use is open for
business). The quarterly gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed
the aross sales of food durina the same period. The operator shall at all times
maintain records which reflect separately the gross sales of food and the gross
demand.
The example augments what "ancillary" is for this use and the gross sales limitation
is identical to the language contained within the ABC license condition.
• Condition No. 10 currently states:
10. The approval of this Use Permit is for a restaurant/brewpub and shall not be
construed as the approval of a bar, cocktail lounge, or other use serving
alcoholic beverages during hours not corresponding to regular meal service
hours (food products sold or served incidentally to the sale or service of
alcoholic beverages shall not be deemed as constituting regular meal service)
nor as the approval of a cabaret, nightclub, or other use with the principal
purpose of providing live entertainment and /or dancing.
The City permitted a "restauranUbrewpub." The restaurant aspect was stressed in
the original application and in testimony from the applicant in the 1993 approval and
with the 1999 amendment. The brewing, sales and service of alcohol was
characterized by the applicant as accessory to food service; a convenience or
amenity and a way to complement food sales.
S-6
ice"
Newport Beach Brewing Company
January 4, 2007
Page 5
After approximately 10PM, typically on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights, the
use takes on a more "bar - like" character as security personnel are provided on
popular nights, a queue forms outside on some evenings suggesting occupancy to
capacity, limited or no food service was available, limited food is ordered by patrons,
alcohol sales dominate and persons under 21 are excluded. These traits are
indicative of a bar rather than a restaurant.
During the August meeting, several Commissioners seemed to stress that the
operation must serve food during all operating hours to avoid being labeled a bar
given the operational characteristics described above. The operator has eliminated
the late night menu and has eliminated the practice of physically removing the
condiments and menus from the tables. The full menu is now available for service
during all operating hours and they have stated that they are "pushing" food sales in
the late evening with some success. With the kitchen open and with meal service
available, the question of whether or not the use has appreciably changed remains.
Even with the kitchen in full operation during the late evening and early morning over
the last few months, the use retains a bar -like character after approximately 10PM
most evenings. At the conclusion of the August meeting, several Commissioners
seemed to be more concerned with alleviating the nuisance to the neighborhood
rather than drawing a bright line between what constitutes a bar or a restaurant.
Given that the operational changes instituted by the Brewing Company seem to
have had a positive effect, staff recommends the following modification to Condition
No. 10:
10. The principal use authorized by this Use Permit is The ^^^Feral ^f this Use
Permit as fer a restaurant/brewpub. The accessory operation of a bar is
permitted provided that the kitchen remains open for the service of meals and
that a full menu is provided. This Use Permit aad shall not be construed as the
approval of a bar, cocktail lounge, or other use with the principal purpose of
serving alcoholic beverages dui:ing h^ r nn+ ^ n nndinn to regular weal
.cacr y.Ge. hours (food p e .nln sel OF served i nidentally to the sale n rsc'v"o$ of
nor as the approval of a cabaret, nightclub, or other use with the principal
purpose of providing live entertainment and /or dancing. The kitchen of the
restaurant/brewpub shall be in operation to serve meals at all times that the
business is open. A complete menu that constitutes meal service shall be made
available at all times. Menus and condiments shall be available at the tables at
all times.
• Based upon the complaints received from the community, the applicant was not
taking reasonable steps to discourage and correct objectionable conditions that
constituted nuisances as required pursuant to Standard Condition D. City staff was
not able to verify the complaints as they were not observed directly. The applicant
has posted signs to alert patrons to the fact that residences are nearby. The
operator has stepped up security sweeps of the parking lot and grounds to
S-7
Newport Beach Brewing Company
January 4, 2007
Page 6
discourage inappropriate behavior. Staff is not suggesting any changes to
Standard Condition D; however, staff recommends several new conditions:
20. The operator shall discourage loitering on site at all times the establishment is
open or employees or owners are present.
21. The operator shall conspicuously post and maintain signs indicating to patrons
to be courteous to residential neighbors while outside the establishment.
22. The applicant shall prepare a detailed security operations plan within 45 days of
approval of this amendment to the Use Permit. The security operations plan
shall be subject to the review and approval of the Police Department and
Planning Department. The plan shall specifically outline methods and personnel
necessary to control patron activity on and abutting the project site to minimize
or avoid land use conflicts. When security services are required pursuant to the
security operations plan, securitv shall be provided whenever necessary and a
minimum of 1 hour after the posted closing hour.
Employees did not receive adequate alcohol service training in accordance with the
intent of Standard Requirement F. No record of the completion of any training
program was on file with staff and the operator indicated that their staff had not
completed any such training program pursuant to this condition. Owners and staff of
the Brewery have since completed the L.E.A.D. training program conducted by the
ABC Board staff and no current violation exists. Staff suggests a change to the
wording of the condition to require ongoing training.
F. All owners, managers and employees serving and/or selling alcoholic
beverages shall undergo and successfully complete a certified training program
in responsible methods and skills for serving and selling alcoholic beverages.
To qualify to meet the requirements of this section a certified program must
meet the standards of the California Coordinating Council on Responsible
Beverage Service or other certifying /licensing body, which the State may
designate. The operator shall provide proof of completion for all owners,
managers and employees within 30 days of the approval of this amendment
and new employees shall successfully complete the training within 30 days of
initially starting work. The establ:e!'me. ^.t shall Gemply with the ~ iFeMeAtS ^f
this eeteen within 180 .days f the issuanse of the erd'Fn"In 9. eeeur.• no y
• Condition No. 6 currently states:
The net public area of the restaurant/brewpub, which is devoted to daytime
use Monday through Friday (prior to 5:00 p.m.) shall be limited to 1,500
square feet. The balance of the net public area shall be physically closed off
to the public by a fixed barrier and shall not be used until after 5:00 p.m.
daily.
S-S�
Newport Beach Brewing Company
January 4, 2007
Page 7
No violation of this condition has ever been observed; however, discussions at the
previous Planning Commission meetings focused upon whether the use of the word
"daily" in the second sentence conflicted with the Monday- Friday limitation of the first
sentence. Staff's position has been that there appeared to be a conflict given that
Special Condition #1 of Coastal Development Permit No. 5 -93 -137 (that contains a
similar net public area limitation) applies 7 days a week. Staff now believes that
there is no internal conflict as the use of the word daily refers to the specific
limitation outlined in the first sentence in that the barrier and area limit before 5PM
must be in place Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. There is no
disagreement that Special Condition #1 of Coastal Development Permit No. 5 -93-
137 and Condition No. 6 are in conflict.
The operator admits to opening the entire dining room on weekends and Planning
staff and the Police Department have observed the entire dining room open on
weekends prior to 5:OOPM. It is staff's present belief that this practice is not in
violation of Condition No. 6 and it is in conflict with Special Condition #1 of Coastal
Development Permit No. 5 -93 -137.
The City agreed to enforce Condition No. 6 in 1994 in a letter to the Coastal
Commission. The City Attorney's office has indicated to staff that enforcing
conditions imposed by a different jurisdiction is not advisable. Due to the fact that
parking problems or other operational nuisances are not occurring during the day
before 5PM, staff is not recommending a change to Condition No. 6.
Other Changes to Conditions
Several additional changes to the conditions are recommended (Exhibit No. 4). In
addition to changes discussed previously in this report, several noteworthy changes to
other conditions and new conditions are recommended that should reduce the impacts
of the Newport Beach Brewing Company on the neighborhood.
• Conditions #2 and #4 have been complied and are no longer necessary.
• Require a trash enclosure cover (amended condition - #14).
• Condition #15 regarding a perimeter wall and underground utilities was waived
previously and the condition is in essence a finding, and therefore, this condition
is also no longer necessary. A wall cannot be placed between the parking lot and
the abutting residences as it would interfere with parking and a wall will not block
noise from reaching the second level of the abutting homes.
• Closure of the parking lot entrance when necessary and thus relocating the
queue to Newport Boulevard (new condition - #19).
• Discourage loitering at all time employees of the use are present (new condition -
#20).
Newport Beach Brewing Company
January 4, 2007
Page 8
• Posting of signs to alert patrons of the need to be courteous of neighbors while
outside the establishment (new condition — #21).
• Requirement of a security operations plan to be reviewed and approved by the
Police and Planning Departments (new condition - #22).
• Prohibiting deliveries and property maintenance activities between 8PM and 8AM
daily. Property maintenance activities listed include anything that might create
objectionable noise (new condition - #23).
• Maintenance of a Type 23 or a Type 75 ABC license with changes in the type of
license to be reviewed by the Planning Commission (new condition - #25).
• Prohibition of live entertainment or dancing (new condition - #25).
• Prohibiting the exclusion of persons under the age of 21 (new condition — #26).
• Staff proposes two future reviews by the Planning Commission (6 months & 1
year) as a means of monitoring the use (Condition No. 27).
Summary
Staff believes that there is sufficient evidence based upon the staff investigations and
testimony given by members of the community and the operator at the prior meetings to
warrant modifying the conditions of approval to alleviate detrimental conditions
associated with the operation. Staff does not believe that there is sufficient evidence to
warrant revocation of the Use Permit and staff does not recommend reducing the hours
of operation either at this time. The operational changes instituted by the Brewing
Company, the revisions to the conditions of approval and with the Brewing Company's
recognition that they need to operate in a responsible manner taking into account
nearby residential uses should be effective in avoiding future problems.
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission has three options to the recommended action:
1. The Commission can take no action.
2. The Commission can revoke the Use Permit. Should the Commission choose
this action, staff will bring back a resolution at the next meeting to consider.
3. The Commission can adopt other changes to the conditions of approval including
a reduction in the hours of operation.
Staff has drafted a resolution reflecting the modification of the conditions of approval as
noted in this report, but unfortunately a through review of it by the City Attorney's office
was not possible. The resolution will be forwarded to the Commission in advance of the
meeting for consideration.
$--113
M
Prepared by:
I/v
J es Campbell, Senior Planner
Exhibits
Newport Beach Brewing Company
January 4, 2007
Page 9
Submitted by:
�o^
ZIP
David Lepo, Plan n Director
1 IA: —.400 from Abigdst 17, 2996 meeting
2. Code Enforcement report
3. Police Department report
4. _ eandifiena
M OV
Exhibit No. 2
Code Enforcement memorandum
Eix 6*6 N
Code EnAn avih+
f*N*MrAvw%
Ah�
p 40
*4 ^ 1 A
August 17, 2006
Newport Beach Planning Commission
Subject: Newport Beach Brewing Company
2920 Newport Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92263
On January 26, 2006, I received a complaint letter from residents of Cannery Village
regarding the Newport Beach Brewing Company (NBBC). In the letter, they expressed
their concern that NBBC was violating conditions in its use permit. The complaints filed
were in regards to: (1) the NBBC patrons' behavior in the parking lot at night and early
morning; (2) nuisance(s) from noise caused by property maintenance activities; and (3)
full use of the restaurant before 5 PM. Based on these complaints, a code enforcement
case was opened and an investigation was conducted to determine what/if any violations
did exist.
In response to the concerns that the patrons were extremely loud and noisy, I made three
visits to NBBC at night. On the first night, February 2, 2006, I arrived at approximately
9:45 PM. I walked around the parking lot which was relatively clean. I walked around
the bar to listen for music or voices coming from the bar. No music or voices could be
heard from the front of the bar. Voices could be faintly heard coming from the patio area.
There was no cue -up line when I entered and when I exited the NBBC. I stayed for
approximately a half -hour. I went back on February 4, 2006 arriving at approximately
9:45 PM. My observations were the same as the prior visit. The parking lot was clean
and relatively quiet. There was no cue -up line when I arrived. The bar, however, was
much busier than my first visit. Once again, I stayed for approximately a half hour. I
made a final visit on February 10'h, 2006. On this night, there were patrons in the cue -up
line that were quite noisy. There were also 2 female patrons in the parking lot screaming
at each other. I spoke with the on -duty manager, Jerry Kolbly, and discussed with him
my concerns about the noise in the parking lots coming from his patrons. He agreed to
place extra security in the parking lot and advise individuals in the parking lot to keep
their voices down. I also discussed some of the other complaints from the letter with
Jerry. We discussed the trash in the parking lot, noise from the bar, and the early morning
property maintenance. Jerry agreed to have his staff monitor the parking lot for trash,
clear patrons from the parking lot after the bar closed, keep the door to the bar closed so
that noise volume would be reduced, and speak to the individuals who were doing clean
up to quiet down so as not to disturb the neighbors. Since that conversation with Jerry,
57-13
I have only received one other complaint about noise from people in the parking lot. The
complaint was related to drunks screaming in the alley way in the early morning hours.
In response to the complaints of noise from property maintenance activities, 1 spoke with
Kolbly again and asked him to have deliveries made after 8:00 AM. I also asked him to
have property maintenance activities conducted after 8:00 AM. He agreed to do so.
After that conversation, 1 did receive complaints along with photos of early morning
deliveries and bottles being picked up.
After receiving the January 2006 letter, 1 also began to make regular inspections of the
parking lot and surrounding area to determine if litter and trash were being left. 1 drove
by the parking lot as part of my daily visual drive -thru of Balboa Peninsula. It was my
determination that the parking lot and surrounding areas were kept relatively clean. 1 did
advise Kolbly to have his staff monitor the parking lot, especially at night and early
morning and the trash enclosure. As noted above, 1 had previously mentioned this to Mr.
Kolbly when speaking to him on the night of February 10th' 1 brought the issue up to
ensure Mr. Kolbly was aware of the complaint and so that he could continue to monitor
the parking lot and trash enclosure. Mr. Kolbly stated that he had staff already
monitoring the parking lot but he would speak with them to make sure they kept a closer
watch.
Lastly, it was noted in the complaint letter that the NBBC operates in a net public area
greater than 1,500 square feet prior to 5 PM daily. 1 made a visit to the NBBC on
February 22nd and observed that a portion of the bar was cordoned off and closed. On
that day, the portion of the bar that was closed off was just to the right of the patio. I
reported this observation to Jim Campbell, Newport Beach Planning Department.
Matt Cosylion
Code & Water Quality Enforcement Officer
cc: Jim Campbell, Senior Planner
Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney
Jerry Kolbly, NBBC
s- 164
Exhibit No. 3
Police Department Investigation report
Erh�b�V No.3
?dic�Dp�4b� �s1:9atE;or�
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
POLICE DEPARTMENT
November 3, 2006
TO: Sgt. R. Vallercamp
FROM: Detective D. Stark
SUBJECT: INVESTIGATIVE REPORT- NEWPORT BEACH BREWING COMPANY
Case Initiation:
On 8/22/06, Assistant City Attorney Aaron Harp asked NBPD to assist his office and the
Planning Commission in regards to the Newport Beach Brewing Company (hereinafter referred
to as NBBC). Mr. Harp identified nine different questions regarding the NBBC abiding by
their Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and asked the Police Department to investigate.
Investigative Results:
The Special Investigations Unit of the NBPD reviewed Patrol related calls from the CAD
System and coordinated with Patrol Officers and shift supervisors to increase their awareness
and the need for documentation of incidents that involve the NBBC. There have not been any
Patrol related problems noted in the last two months. Most Patrol Officers commented that the
NBBC is rarely a problem.
Undercover detectives from Special Investigations visited the NBBC and conducted
surveillances of the surrounding area on six separate occasions to help answer the following
questions.
Questions l - 9:
Question #1 dealt with the possibility of the NBBC being operated as a bar (rather than a
restaurant) on specific days and at specific times, especially between 2200 hours and 0100
hours on Friday and Saturday Nights.
The answer to this is very subjective and probably inconclusive. The NBBC did have on- duty
security employees working. Security employees were present the entire time during each
evening visit by Detectives (8- 31 -06, 9 -1 -06, 9 -2 -06, 9 -3 -06, 9 -8 -06) One security employee
was monitoring the entrance and one or two others were circulating throughout the restaurant.
On 9/8/06, we had a Police Cadet who was 20 years old attempt to enter by herself after 2200
s -rG
hours. When the door security employee learned she was under 21, he apologized and said,
"We don't let anyone under 21 inside after 2200 hours unless you're with a parent or other
adult." The staff kept the crowd /occupancy at a reasonable level. Even after waiting in line to
enter (after 2300 hours on a Friday night), we found several tables available to sit at. They
served their full menu (appetizers and entrees) until they closed at midnight. They did not have
live entertainment, DJ's or dancing.
Question #2 inquired about the noise being generated by the restaurant.
Investigating officers observed the entire exterior perimeter of the restaurant throughout the
evening and night on five separate dates (Thursday, 8/31/06, Friday, 9/1/06, Saturday, 9/2/06,
Sunday, 9/3/06, and Friday, 9/8/06). The only noise came from the patio area which bordered
Newport Boulevard. The noise was from patrons talking (not from amplified music). The
noise would be drowned out when multiple cars passed the location. The rear or bay side of
the NBBC remained quiet and trouble free during the restaurant's hours of operation.
The only door that remained open was the patio door which faced Newport Boulevard. All
windows were kept closed and on one occasion (9/2/06 at about 2200 hours); when a patron
opened the window, the security staff immediately responded and closed the window. The rear
(bay side) doors, when being used as the entrance /exit, were kept closed except during
ingress /egress of patrons.
Question 93 asked if the NBBC had the proper signs posted inside the establishment.
The Occupancy was clearly displayed on a large sign above the rear door (facing the bay)
reading "Occupancy 160." This number is consistent with the occupancy certificate in our
ABC file. Additionally, there were several signs clearly posted on the interior, side and rear of
the exterior, requesting quiet and respect for the neighbors.
Question 94 dealt with the exterior of the NBBC including the parking lot, sidewalk,
alleys and surrounding areas.
None of the detectives noticed any significant noise or disturbances attributable to the NBBC.
During the late night hours, after the NBBC was closed, we noted several groups of people
returning to their cars from the area of the intersection at Newport Boulevard and 30th Street.
These people would often have loud conversations, however, there was no loitering, drinking,
public urination or other activities observed. The NBBC security staff was observed outside,
monitoring their portion of the parking lot during and after closing time with a flashlight.
Considering the exterior signs, closed windows, movement of the entrance after hours and
patrolling of the rear parking lot, I would say that the NBBC is making a concerted effort to
reduce noise and related problems for their neighbors.
Question #5 asked if the Brewery Employees had received the proper certifications.
On 9/6/06, Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) Investigator D. Shaver gave LEAD Program
training (Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs) to 17 NBBC employees. The LEAD
l�7/
Program is a voluntary prevention and education program for California retail alcohol sales
licensees, their employees and applicants. The program length is 3 1/2 hours and the mission
is to provide training on alcohol responsibility and the law. Another training class was
offered on October 4th and 2 more employees attended. The 3 remaining employees who
have not attended this class have been taken off the schedule until they complete the training.
Question 96 dealt with "Calls For Service." Since previous reports have been compiled
prior to 8/10/06, this report will address calls after 8 /10/06.
Five calls for service were associated with the NBBC address from 8/10/06 to the present. One
was a traffic stop by a Patrol Officer (unrelated to the NBBC). Another was a noise complaint
by an anonymous caller which Patrol Officers cleared as unfounded.
On 8/19/06 at about 0058 hours, Jill Marcowitz called to report a large group of people yelling
and screaming in the parking lot. Patrol Officers were dispatched at 0124 hours and arrived a
minute later. The Officers cleared after advising that the NBBC was shutting down. It is
unknown if the disturbance was still occurring when officers arrived.
On 9/12/06 at about 0337 hours, Bruce Low called in a noise disturbance regarding a grease
recovery vehicle that was parked in the alley on the east side of the NBBC and actively
pumping out grease. A Patrol Officer responded at 0339 hours. I spoke with the responding
officer (Dugan) who explained that he arrived as the grease truck had finished pumping. The
noise made by the truck when he was present was minimal. Officer Dugan remained for about
4 minutes until the truck left. I was also forwarded an email regarding this disturbance written
by resident Bruce Low which included photos.
On 9/16/06, an anonymous male cell phone caller reported being assaulted by NBBC security.
Patrol Officers responded and no assault was substantiated. The units observed that the caller
was intoxicated and he left the area. The Officers cleared the scene logging an assist.
Question #7 asks about the line to enter the restaurant.
On the days when investigators entered the NBBC before 2130 hours, the entrance was on the
bay /parking lot side of the restaurant. Depending on the night, sometime around 2130 to 2200
hours, the entrance would be moved to the Newport Boulevard side of the restaurant. Signs
would be placed on the rear entrance doors telling patrons that the entrance was at the front of
the building. They would also place a three foot tall folding sign on the ground in front of the
rear entrance saying the same thing. Signs would also be affixed to the inside of the rear doors
saying, "NOT AN EXIT."
The NBBC would place line delineators along Newport Boulevard to organize and control
patrons waiting in line. A restaurant security employee was at the front of the line monitoring
the occupancy and checking ID's. Lines were observed on several occasions, usually after
2300 hours on Friday and Saturday nights. On a Friday night (9/8/06) at 2300 hours, I waited
in line for about five minutes prior to entry. When I was let inside, there were still three
unoccupied tables.
S—le*'
Question #8 asked if litter was present in the parking lot.
Undercover detectives visited the NBBC six times and numerous parking lot and perimeter
checks were conducted. No one observed any trash or other discarded items that would draw
their attention.
Question #9 addressed CUP condition #6, a provision that a portion of the restaurant
remain closed prior to 5 p.m. (reduction in Net Public Area).
Detectives also visited the NBBC during the lunch hour on Wednesday, 8/30/06 at about 1 130
hours. They noted that the area in the restaurant adjacent to the brew kettles was the only
section open for the small lunch crowd. The other areas of the bar and restaurant were closed.
On Sunday 10/08/06, Detectives visited the NBBC, arriving at about 1230 hours. They noted
that the restaurant was completely open with patrons occupying tables in all areas (no sections
were closed off). When they arrived, they estimated that the restaurant was 70% full and when
they left at 1430 hours it was 90% full. The. primary attraction that day was NFL Football.
The rear, parking lot entrance doors remained closed when not being used for.ingress /egress
and no unreasonable noise was emanating from the establishment.
.5--/l
Planning Commission Minutes 01 /04/2007 Page 6 of 24
issioner Peotter asked about Condition 36 with approval by the City
3 cuts.
answered it would not be approved by City Council but would
the City Traffic Engineer.
r. Lepo sugksted adding, 'or appropriate approval authority.'
ommissioner E n pointed out that he believed that the condition was originall).
,orded correctly, there is a City Council policy to the effect that City Counci
pproval is required new driveway encroachments that remove street parking
,hen there are alleys vailable to provide parking and vehicular access to thf
roperties involved.
r. Murillo added that this c dition was specifically at the request of the Put
erks Department for City Cou it approval.
ommissioner Peotter asked about ondition 27, stating it seems redundant.
r. Murillo noted there are alternatives uch as fire sprinklers. We are requiri
at the applicant comply with standard B ding Code and so I highlighted some
e issues that the Building Department rai d.
;cussion ensued on the responsibility that th applicant will have to notify a
cant when they are entering a lease and that the applicant would eventua
II the property, he would have to disclose and re rd as a deed restriction.
reed that this disclosure will be part of the lease.
on was made by Commissioner McDaniel and secaqded by Commissio
kins to approve Use Permit No. 2006 -001, Modification ermit No. 2006 -C
Line Adjustment No. 2006 -010 subject to findings ftd Conditions
ification that a new drafted condition that reflects a notific on to tenants
as potential buyers.
Toerge noted he supports this project with the modific'djions to
ommissioner Eaton noted he would not support this motion as this proxct
appropriate. The General Plan has been changed and now says residential
permitted in the central portions of lots in the Cannery Village. Trying
>mbine residential with commercial creates several problems such as 1
edification request on the FAR, the modification request on the parking in fn
id creates the fact that the driveway cuts have to go to City Council and all
at because the standards don't work. The compatibility problem with Rudy's,
)ite of the cooperative attitude that has been expressed by both the applicant a
vner of Rudy's, will come back as a major issue. This project should wait u
e new Implementation Ordinances have been adopted for the General Plan a
much better oroiect could be sited on this orooertv.
yes: Peotter, Hawkins, Cole and McDaniel
Noes: Eaton and Toerge
bstain: None
EJECT: Newport Beach Brewing Company (Use Permit No. 3485) I ITEM NO. 3
http://www.city.nev,fport-beach.ca.us/PlrLAgendas/mnO I 042007.htm 03/19/2007
S °70
s
Planning Commission Minutes 01/04/2007
2920 Newport Boulevard
he Newport Beach Brewing Company has operated a restaurant/brewp
ursuant to Use Permit No. 3485 since 1994. This permit was issued by the City
993 and it was subsequently amended in 1999. The City has received seve
omplaints related to the operation of the use and the Planning Commission 1
valuate the complaints, the operational character of the use and the conditic
nder which the use operates. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commiss
iay require alteration of the operation or it may delete or modify conditions
pproval. The Commission also may conclude that no changes are necessary a
evocation of the Use Permit may be considered at this time.
ommissioner Hawkins noted that due to a financial conflict, he was
mself from deliberation on this item.
David Lepo noted that a request for a continuance on this matter had be
ived from Mr. Bruce J. Low to allow some of the residents in the area
id. Following discussions with Mr. Low, that request was withdrawn.
Lepo noted that the conditions contained in the staff report were those tha
re agreed upon by the applicant. He noted that he has read the historica
xmation on this subject and in talking with all parties concerned, there have
an improvements with the current operation. By admission of the applicant
y noted the residents did have valid concerns that they have hence beer
tressed. There is an understanding that there is not just one establishment tha
s created the problem in the area, so there is a range of opinions on what th(
>ropriate action by the Planning Commission should be by local residents.
are is an issue that remains on the restriction on the amount of eating area tha
available on the weekdays and the weekends. This is an issue for th(
nediate residents due to lack of guest parking during the summer months.
ether concern is the hours of evening operation. The Planning Commission car
urge the hours, however, there is more of an interest on the amount of eatin(
a. Staff is asking for direction from the Planning Commission.
r. Campbell, Senior Planner, gave a brief overview of the staff report noting:
• The Brewing Company has volunteered: when a queue forms at 9:30 0
10:00 in the evening, they will move it and take patrons in from the Newpor
Boulevard side of the building.
• They have instituted an enhanced security operation with more parking 10
patrols.
• They have sent all their employees and owners to training under the LEAD:
program as conditioned.
• Bottle recycling - no dumping outside during late hours to prevent noise.
• They have agreed to put in a trash dumpster cover to provide visual relief.
• The conditions of approval contained in the December 29th memorandum
are reflective of all these changes in total. The Brewing Company is
agreeable to the changes.
• At Commission inquiry, he noted these voluntary changes have occurre(
since the last meeting, and there was one police investigation report date(
October 2006.
Commission inquiry, Assistant City Attorney Mr. Aaron Harp noted:
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas /mn0l 042007.htm
Page 7 of 24
PA2006 -177
Approved
03/19/2007
S-21
Planning Commission Minutes 01/04/2007
• In order to modify a condition of a use permit, either there has to be
determination of grounds for revocation, or, if in complying with our Ii
condition regarding the health, safety and welfare, you can find a violation,
• In this instance, if there is an agreement regarding voluntary modification
conditions, then you don't have to find those grounds for revocation exist.
• If there is not an agreement what the modified conditions should be, y
would have to find that there is grounds for revocation in order to modify t
conditions.
• Based on the presented evidence from what I see the grounds do ea
based on primarily the testimony that came out of the initial meetings.
• What we have seen from the Brewery is a willingness to work with the C
to resolve the problems associated with the facility.
• Based on the police report that was prepared, and from the independ(
investigation, it appears that those initial violations of the use permit ha
been corrected by voluntary measures taken by the Brewing Company.
• What they are proposing is reasonable and everyone agrees as to what t
conditions should be. There may be some disputes whether a few of the
should go a little farther as some of the residents would like to see chang
that the Brewing Company is not in agreement with.
• Overall, the Brewing Company has taken substantial steps to take corn
the violations.
• There seems to be some ambiguity as to what the condition of the Coas
Commission was to begin with. Correspondence that went to the Coas
Commission said what the condition that is contained in the use permit se
now. It says Monday thru Friday at 1500 square feet. It did not say the
was a condition that would enforce that to be daily. There are de
restrictions and if the California Coastal Commission wants to find that the
are violations to those conditions, those are other agency's concerns.
• Our condition is clear as to what it says and It does not mirror what 1
California Coastal Commission says.
• No change to Condition 6 is being suggested by staff.
Craig Frizzell, Detective Services Commander of the Police Department, noted:
• Following the last meeting on this subject, a police investigation w
conducted at the request of the City Attorney's office.
• There was a total of 7 visits between the end of August thru the last day
October.
• The last visit was specifically to address Condition 6 to see if the ent
restaurant was opened.
• The other visits were primarily during prime time weekend evenings w
multiple detectives from vice and intelligence units.
• We did not find much of anything that went on there.
• They would scour the parking lot and order food in the restaurant until ji
before closing and took an underage minor to see if she would be allow
in, she wasn't and was told by the door person that no one under 21 coi
enter in after 10:00 p.m. without an adult.
• This operation has never been a problem. However, it is the area whe
there is an over - concentration of licenses.
• Reporting District 15 has 73 liquor license in an area that is .327 sque
miles. That is the problem, this operator we do not believe is the problem.
• At Commission inquiry he affirmed that the investigations happened late
night.
http: / /Nv%vw. city. newport- beach.ca. us /PlnAgendas /nin01042007.htni
Page 8 of 24
03/19/2007
S,-Z7
Planning Commission Minutes 01/04/2007
• There would be no difference if this investigation occurred during
summer or any other time of the year.
• Based upon his experience, this was a comprehensive investigation.
• We will continue to pay visits in time to be sure that they are still
compliance.
Campbell noted that the Brewing Company is voluntarily keeping the kitcher
i until the establishment closes. Anyone who wants to can order from the ful
U.
rman Cole asked for a discussion on the difference between a bar and a F
the oriainal Council intent as to whether this was a bar versus
Lepo noted:
• Per the minutes of the Council 1999 meeting when they approved the T
75 license, the intent was well intentioned; however, the terms of the
permit would have made it very clear and specific enforceable condition
memorialized that premise on which the permit was granted, which was
applicant wanted to get this license to get more food served after the ht
of 10 or 11 o'clock until 1 o'clock in the morning.
• That was the understanding, but we could have done a better job with
conditions.
Harp added that he had reviewed the minutes and it was clear that the intr
is to have food served up to closing, that it operate in a restaurant -like manr
rere alcohol was sold as well. What was initially seen when the Brewery car
was there were no condiments on the table, no food was sold or it was a of
rited menu, and basically it turned into a bar at night. The changes that th
ve now made have turned it back into more of what the original intent w
rich is a full menu with condiments available and operation more like
term restaurant/brewpub is in all the conditions and the facility is operating
mer McDaniel asked about an age requirement for entrance into
or accompanied by an adult?
Harp answered that they do allow people under the age of 21 in
mpanied by an adult.
Lepo added that the LEADS (Licensing Educational on Alcohol and Druc
ram and discussion with the Police Department tells you that any place witl
)r license should be responding that way. The employees are instructed
manner as the program does not distinguish between establishments.
rmmissioner McDaniel noted it still means it is a bar more than it is a restaurant.
a bar that sells food. Discussion continued on definitions, Condition 10
nutes from 1999 and interpretations.
ssioner Cole noted that the issue to be discussed tonight is whether
modify or revoke the use permit for the Brewing Company. He asked
http: / /www. city.newport- beach. ca .us /PlnAgendas /mn01042007.htin
Page 9 of 24
03/19/2007
S - ?3
Planning Commission Minutes 01/04/2007
:ers keep their comments on the issues of after hours, behavior,
ical conditions.
comment was opened.
Kolbly, General Manager of the Newport Beach Brewing Company, noted:
• The queue line change has worked well.
• The full menu has been advantageous especially with the boat para
parties that came in for food.
• In 1995, they had a Type 23 beer and wine license with hours from 11:
Sunday through Thursday and 1:00 a.m. on the weekends.
• In 1999, they got a Type 75 liquor license and lost 1/2 hour Monday throu
Thursday, and the weekends are still 1:00 a.m.
• In 1995, when they opened up, they had the policy of carding people of
10:00 p.m., which is the same policy today to protect their license.
• The LEADS certificate program has been the better instructional program.
• There is an open door policy and the establishment is run the same w
anytime of the week so the police can come in anytime and do
investigation.
• Every brewpub cards after 10:00 p.m. in order to protect their licenses.
• There are other restaurants that card as well as the brewpub.
• We still maintain a higher percentage of food sales than alcohol sales a
have since day one.
• At Commission inquiry he noted he would not agree to a modification
Condition 6 closing down part of his establishment on Saturdays a
Sundays. There are a number of families that come in to be served and L
that space.
ien Miles, attorney representing the Newport Brewing Company, noted
that had been distributed to the Planning Commissioners as part of
J. He gave an overview of the brief, noting:
• Directions given to the applicant were to be solution- oriented and addre,
the concerns of the residents, which they have done.
• Line relocation to the front of the building was an effort that included tena
improvements assuring safety and effectiveness.
• Security Plan - letter sent to residents regarding security beyond the hou
of operation of the Brewing Company. The security team is on site
minutes after closure and deal with the City's Municipal parking lot as w
as the Brewing parking lot.
• LEADS program - alcohol training done for owners, operators ai
employees focusing on the prevention of underage drinking. Carding is
important element.
• If there is an effort to challenge the permit condition than that would be tl
preferable option. Condition 6 in the use permit is clear and we have N
several years implementing it. There is case law on point directed to 0
California Coastal Commission unable to, after a justifiable reliance on
vested right, come back and change it.
• He then noted that he made reference to the October 13, 1993 letter.
• He stated that the hours before 5 p.m. are high food volume hours.
• The Brewing Company is pushing food as they have the issue of alcoh
http://www.city.newpoi-t-beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas/mnO I 042007.htm
Page 10 of 24
S_� `/
03/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 01/04/2007
versus food sales receipts.
. At Commissioner inquiry, he noted that they have read, understand
agree to all the recommended changes to the conditions as contained in
staff report. (12/29/2006 supplemental report)
comment was opened.
Wetherhault, local resident, noted:
• His disappointment with the Planning Department and City Council as
appears that they focus on aspects of how to get around issues if there is
threat of a law suit.
• He noted circumstances with a rehab facility in the area.
• There is a parking issue before 5 p.m. on the weekends. It was clear the
what Coastal Commission reflected as that space was for seven days
week, not just Monday through Friday. He wants to see the City star
enforcing the Coastal mandates.
• The City Council approved the Brewing Pub with the CUP's put forth by th
Coastal Commission; they should be reflected.
• This establishment is a bar after 9 p.m. and this area has a heav,
concentration of bars. This was supposed to be a restaurant and it is nov
more of a bar-
. I would like to see reduction on Friday and Saturday by 2 hours; have then
shut down by 11 p.m. like other restaurants.
• Our neighborhood is impacted by after hours activities in the parking lot,
south of the Brewery. At Commission inquiry, he noted that he has no direc
proof that people come from the Brew Pub.
nmissioner McDaniel noted that the Brew Pub has made changes to elimin
blems in their parking lot. It is not fair to say that their patrons are responsi
activities in parking lots further down by the residential area.
Reese, local resident noted:
• His concern of reading what happened in 1993 and 1999, there was r
doubt that the intent was for this to be a restaurant. Ancillary to that the
would serve alcohol and have a brew type company environment.
• Wth security guards at the doors and bouncers inside, it is a b
atmosphere.
• You have to decide whether you want them to be a restaurant or a bar.
• I disagree with the Police Department, the Brew Pub is part of the problem.
• Every weekend he is awakened by people leaving the drinkir
establishments.
• There needs to be leadership and a decision made as to whether this is
be allowed.
• Conditional use permits have to be enforced.
• They should be a good restaurant, not a bar.
• What needs to change in Cannery Village is the impact of the amount
alcohol being served at night.
r Staid, local resident, noted there is still a problem with the operation of the
wing Company and there needs to be conditions to see that it becomes better.
added that there still continues to be a problem Monday through Friday anc
http://www.city.newport-beach.ca,us/PlnAgendas/mnO I 042007.htm
Page 11 of 24
S--2 S
03/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 01/04/2007
if the loading area could be moved from the front during the week after
.m.
ephanie Rosanelli, local resident, noted her opposition of this establishm
reration for previously stated reasons and noting similar establishments H
e City and how they operate. She stated noise is a problem and suggested
restaurant would be a better business value.
Martin, local resident, noted that he has the same problem with
house in Corona del Mar.
blic comment was closed.
iirperson Cole asked about the suggestion to reduce the hours of the bar
weekends, noise and unruly behavior;
Campbell answered that the continuation of the substantive changes that
ruing Company have initiated has improved the situation. Staff did not h
5e to suggest a reduction of hours.
4r. Lepo noted that these people live there and have witnessed instances tha
ave happened that were not seen by the police. As far as the comment for the
ours, that was the key thing that should have occurred during 1999 and it didn't.
you didn't want it to be a bar, then the hours of operation should have beer
mited to 10 or 11 p.m. I read through Condition 10 and it doesn't guarantee wha
was intended to do. You have the option to make it be a restaurant but wha
haracteristic would change? They have a full kitchen, they don't have livc
ntertainment and dancing, they have regular meal service until 1 in the morning
o they can serve alcohol until that time. They are complying. However, s
Bstaurant should have been limited to the hours of 10 or 11 p.m. If that is the
irection, staff can come back with the necessary finding for grounds fo
avocation and therefore you can limit the hours. I have sympathy for the owne
nd the residents alike.
immissioner McDaniel asked that instead of cutting their hours, cut the h
it they can serve alcohol. It seems that would solve the problems. The pe
for a restaurant that shall not be construed as a bar. Testimony is from
plicant that 90% of the sales after 11 p.m. is alcohol.
Harp added that there is evidence as presented that they did not have regc
it service and that they did violate Condition 10. If that is where the Plann
emission wants to go, there is a foundation that can be made to find that.
dition 10, as written, talks about regular meal service. However, staff c
e back with the possible finding for legal grounds to revoke the use pen
lify the use permit or basically approve the suggested conditional changes t
been agreed upon by the operator.
continued on the 1999 Council minutes, enforcement of
future uses, grounds for revocation and standards.
;ommissioner Peotter noted he could support the modified conditions but has
roblem with the issue of carding, as most restaurants do not card. Rather tha
mit hours, he suggests that there would be no carding at the door, which puts th
urden on the employees when they serve drinks to do the carding at tables or s
http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca.us /PinAgendas /mn01042007.htm
Page 12 of 24
S'-?6
03/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 01/04/2007
ie bar. He also suggested that this come back in six months for another r
nd if they continue to improve, they can continue to operate and if they
iaybe then we can reduce the hours.
issioner Toerge noted:
• This facility is operating as a bar. The operation does have conditions an
they have been established for many years.
• The conditions could have been more clear and I think the City needs 1
take some responsibility for that.
• There is a problem down there but there is an inability to tie all thes
complaints specifically to the Newport Beach Brewing Company. I dor
think we can ask them to correct the regional problems occurring dow
there. It is not fair.
• The Brewing Company has taken responsible steps to implement th
characteristics to minimize the problems, it won't correct them all, but I wor
commend them for that. Frankly, that is what they should have been doin
from the start.
• He noted that it should close at 11:00 p.m. and the condition needs to b
modified
• This item should be brought back for another review. During that time
there are problems, then they can be documented and then we will be abl
to address the issue; however, there is no evidence today to call fc
revocation today.
Cole noted that there is a condition that has a review of 6 months or
Commission inquiry, Mr. Harp read Condition K regarding the modifyi
ditions to the Use Permit and Zone Code Sections 20.89.060 and 20.96.040.
imissioner Eaton noted that the neighborhood problems are not all caused I
facility. We should adopt the modifications to the conditions that the applica
agreed to and we should review this in a year.
imissioner McDaniel noted his concern of current operations, the
run with the land and allowance for this to come back for review.
continued.
City Manager, Sharon Wood, noted:
• This was the first use permit issued under the then brand new Alcoholi
Beverage Outlet ordinance.
• Amendments to use permits had been requested for full alcohol sales and /c
to extend the hours of operation.
• The City always wanted to prevent them from becoming bars and wante,
them to be restaurants, and for a while we conditioned the amount of sale
for food and alcohol, but that was hard to track.
• The next thing we thought to do was to extend the hours but maintain the
they were a restaurant and provide full meal service until closing. Th,
thought was that if nobody was buying full meal service until that time, that
wouldn't be a reasonable business decision for them to continue and the
http: / /www. city.newport- beach. cars /PlnAgendasJmn01042007,htm
Page 13 of 24
S — ?7
03/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 01/04/2007
would shut down when the full meal service was no longer reasonable f
them.
• That condition has recently been working in this case because Mr. Kolt
has said he has reinstituted the full meal service and patrons are takir
advantage of it.
• We could have done a better job, but Mr. Lepo is reading that conditic
correctly and the provisions in the ABO Ordinance for revocation
modification are the other protection that carries forward over time so th
even if they are doing the full meal service for all the hours they are open,
they are still having these problems in the parking lot, that still gives tl
Commission grounds to consider modification and or revocation.
airperson Cole noted he shares the concerns expressed by the Commission.
wever, the Assistant City Attorney has given us the leeway under the ABC
finance that would allow us to fine adverse impact to the neighborhood. W(
ie grounds to modify or revocate if the Commission desires. The main issue:
they relate to a bar comes down to noise, unruly behavior, trash and parking. I
Dears that there is willingness and desire to make changes and the operato
)ws there will be scrutiny going forward. I believe a short period for review fo
to continue monitoring and ask the neighbors if there are issues, we can dea
h them. I would like to see us approve the conditions submitted by staff an(
Droved by the operator. I am open to limiting hours in the future and that mai
the one condition that would solve most of these problems.
r. Miles, representing the attorney, noted:
Whenever there is queuing, we would relocate the line to the front of
building.
They agree to a review in 6 months or a year.
ommissioner McDaniel noted that this has been a good opportunity for thr
perator and the public to talk. It is not the intent of the Commission to pu
nybody out of business, but it is clear that everyone needs to be good neighbors.
e suggested that the review be done after the summer, possibly October 2007.
otion was made by Commissioner Eaton and seconded by Commissic
cDaniel to modify Use Permit No. 3485 by choosing the conditions in the m
rted December 29, 2006 with the deletion of after 9:00 p.m. from Condition
rd the addition in Condition 26 that after the words public hearing, add within
iar and if complaints of alleged violations.
r. Lepo asked about carding at the door, should this be included in the motion?
iissioner McDaniel suggested October 2007 would be the better month.
of the motion and the applicant agreed.
lowing a brief discussion, it was clarified that Condition 19 would strike after
mended motion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded
ommissioner McDaniel to change Condition 26 to allow people under the age
I to enter the establishment with some sort of hand stamping or other protocol
at they are not served alcohol. It would allow the establishment to act more li
restaurant.
http://www.city.newport-beach.ca.us/PlnAgendas/mn0l 042007. htm
Page 14 of 24
03/19/2007
Planning Commission Minutes 01/04/2007
Miles noted that the LEADS education and meetings with the Poli
artment and other stakeholders within the City, it was confirmed that this is r
istent with underage drinking, risk and liability. It is a business judgment
ce service. The Brewing Company allows patrons under age with an adult
r at appropriate times. Generally, after 10 p.m. there is carding at the do
this is a condition that we would not be in agreement to change nor apprc
her condition that underage patrons can enter the establishment at any he
)ut an adult.
3cussion continued on the LEADS criteria, underage drinking and responsibi
the operator.
imissioner Toerge noted he would not be supportive of this project if 0
ration can not do whatever means necessary to operate as a restaura
,ing alcohol. To shut this down to people after 10 p.m., clearly states this is
and if this is what we are going to say, the hours need to be reduced. If it is
aurant it has to stay open.
rmmissioner McDaniel noted he agrees with the problem of not being able to
the restaurant after 10:00 p.m. due to age.0
:ommissioner Peotter noted he would clarify his motion to add, because of age.
n other words, if the guy is drunk or unruly and he is 20, 1 don't want to make thiE
hat they have to let the guy in, but for age reasons only I don't want to den)
Ir. Miles answered that if the Commission mandates that the Brewing Comp
allow entrance at anytime, they can live with that as long as they reserve
ght to serve anyone under appropriate conditions but that would not be sc
ased on age.
on Amended Motion
Peotter,
Eaton
Hawkins
McCloskey Residence (PA2006 -046)
212 Crystal Avenue
t for a ance to exceed the 1.5 FAR limitation for a single - family
in the R -1. rict.
Murillo gave an overview�f he staff report noting:
• Proposal is a significant alteration an dition to a single family resider
that is currently non- conforming due to rear alley setback and
number of parking spaces provided.
• Project implementation would result in development o 2,657 square f
three -story residence.
• With the exception of floor area, the structure would be br t i
conformance with all development standards of the R -1.5 Zoning Distric .
• The project exceeds the maximum floor area established for this site by
http://www.city.newport-beach.ca.us/P]nAgendas/mnOI042007.htm
Page 15 of 24
ITEM NO. 4
PA2006 -046
Approved
03/19/2007
J
BLANK
sum
Attachment No. 6
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1709
G -i
-Z
RESOLUTION NO. 1709
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH MODIFYING THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF
USE PERMIT NO. 3485 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2920
NEWPORT BOULEVARD (PA2006 -177).
WHEREAS, In 1993, the City approved Use Permit No. 3485 subject to findings
and conditions of approval authorizing a restaurant/brewpub with a Type 23 Alcoholic
Beverage Control (ABC) license to operate at 2920 Newport Boulevard within the
Cannery Village area. The restaurant and brewpub began operations under in 1994
using the fictitious business name - Newport Beach Brewing Company; and,
WHEREAS, In 1999, the operator of the establishment requested and received
approval of an amendment to Use Permit No. 3485. The amendment allowed the
restauranUbrewpub to operate with a Type 75 ABC license and the amendment was
subject to findings and revised conditions of approval; and,
WHEREAS, In January of 2006, the City of Newport Beach received complaints
from neighbors alleging that the Newport Beach Brewing Company was violating the
conditions of Use Permit No. 3485. Alleged violations included, among other things:
operating a bar rather than a restaurant in violation of Condition No. 10; alcohol sales
and service in excess of food sales in violation of Condition No. 9; opening the entire
dining area on weekends before 5PM in violation Condition No. 6 and in violation of
Coastal Development Permit No. 5 -93 -137, trash in the parking lot in violation of
Standard Condition E; failure of the establishment to curb unruly patron behavior
outside the establishment in violation of Standard Condition D; and inadequate training
of the owner and employees in responsible methods and skills for serving and selling
alcoholic beverages in accordance with Standard Condition F. Neighbors contend that
patrons create noise, cause property damage, urinate, defecate, and conduct sexual
activities during the late evening and early morning hours and that the operator was
unable or unwilling to discourage or correct these objectionable conditions. Based upon
the complaints received, Use Permit No. 3485 was referred to the Planning Commission
on May 4, 2006 for review; and,
WHEREAS, During the May 4, 2006 meeting of the Planning Commission,
testimony from neighbors of the establishment and the operators of the Newport Beach
Brewing Company was considered by the Planning Commission. The Commission also
considered a report prepared by staff outlining the complaints and discussing potential
violations of the conditions of approval. The following facts were identified:
• Patrons line up outside the premises to enter the establishment typically
Thursdays through Saturday during the late evening or early morning hours. This
congregation of patrons created objectionable conditions to nearby residential
neighbors and the operator of the use (Newport Beach Brewing Company) did
not take all reasonable steps to discourage said objectionable conditions as
required pursuant to Standard Condition D.
afir,
• The operator of the restaurant/brewpub uses security to control occupancy and
patrons and minors are excluded from entry during the late evening and early
morning hours indicative that the operator of the use was operating the use like a
bar rather than a restaurant and brewpub.
• The operator implemented a limited "late night" menu and food sales were either
discouraged or non - existent or the kitchen was closed before the establishment
was closed indicative that the operator of the use was operating the use like a
bar rather than a restaurant and brewpub.
• The operator of the use indicated that alcohol sales exceed food sales most of
the time and that alcohol sales are approximately 90% of sales during the late
evening and early morning hours. This high percentage of alcohol sales would
not constitute ancillary alcohol sales to food sales in violation of Condition No. 9.
• The net public area of the establishment is no more than 1500 square feet
Monday through Friday before 5PM and the net public area exceeds 1500
square feet before 5PM on Saturday and Sunday in violation of Condition No. 6.
• Owners, managers and employees of the Brewing Company had not undergone
a certified training program in responsible methods and skills for serving and
selling alcoholic beverages in accordance with Standard Condition F.
• The site was found to be generally free of litter and not in violation of Standard
Condition E.
At the conclusion of the discussion, the Planning Commission determined that there
was sufficient information to indicate that the use was operating in violation of the
conditions of approval. Additionally, the Commission found that there was sufficient
information to warrant consideration of modifying the conditions of approval as changes
to the conditions could potentially alleviate the problems reported by neighbors. The
Commission directed staff to place the matter on a future agenda for possible action;
and,
WHEREAS, On August 17, 2006, the Planning Commission held a public
hearing regarding the alleged violations of and potential modifications to the conditions
of approval of Use Permit No. 3485. The hearing was noticed in accordance with
Chapter 20.92 of the Municipal Code and the operator of the Newport Beach Brewing
Company was also mailed a notice of the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, During the August 17, 2006 hearing, testimony and information
presented to the Commission confirmed past violations of the conditions of approval. At
the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission directed staff to set Use Permit
No. 3485 for possible modification and /or revocation; and,
WHEREAS, On January 4, 2007, the Planning Commission held a noticed public
hearing on the possible modification of conditions and /or revocation of Use Permit No.
sq�
3485. Testimony and a staff report including a report prepared by the Newport Beach
Police Department were considered by the Planning Commission. The Planning
Commission finds that:
• The operator has discontinued the use of the limited late night menu and has
made the complete menu available at all hours the establishment is open.
• The operator has increased sweeps of the parking lot and exterior of the site to
discourage any objectionable behavior from patrons or other people at the site.
• The operator has voluntarily moved the entrance of the establishment when a
line forms to the Newport Boulevard side of the building, which has reduced
conflicts with abutting residential uses.
• The operator, owners and employees has successfully completed the L.E.A.D
training program in responsible methods and skills for serving and selling alcoholic
beverages as required pursuant to Standard Condition F.
• The operator is willing to install a cover on the trash enclosure to better mitigate
the aesthetics of the existing trash enclosure.
• The operator has also made other physical and operational changes as reflected
in the modified conditions of approval contained within Exhibit A.
• The physical and operational changes have had a positive impact to the
neighborhood and have reduced incidents of nuisances, and,
WHEREAS, Based upon the information and testimony presented to the
Commission, the use was operating in violation of the conditions of approval in the past
and the operator has abated all known violations.
WHEREAS, changes to the conditions of approval are necessary to memorialize
the physical and operational changes instituted voluntarily by the operator that have had
a positive effect on the compatibility of the use with the neighborhood. Additionally,
changes to the conditions of approval are necessary to clarify the meaning and intent of
the conditions to avoid future questions.
NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY RESOLVES AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The conditions of approval for Use Permit No. 3485 are amended
to read pursuant to Exhibit "A ".
SECTION 2. This action shall become final and effective fourteen (14) days after
the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk
in accordance with the provisions of Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code.
0
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of January 2007.
AYES:Peotter, Cole, McDaniel and Teorae
NOES: Eaton
RECUSED: Hawkins
64
EXHIBIT A
Conditions of Approval
Use Permit No. 3485
CONDITIONS:
1. The proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved
site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below.
2. Deleted
3. The applicant shall provide a minimum of one parking space for each 50 square
feet of net public area before 5:00 p.m. and one parking space for each 40 square
feet of net public area after 5:00 p.m. in conjunction with the restauranUbrewpub.
4. Deleted
5. The property owner shall pay for 29 in -lieu parking spaces in the Cannery Village
Municipal Parking Lot on an annual basis for the nighttime operation (after 5:00
p.m.) of the restaurant /brewpub use as agreed upon by the Sales Agreement
between the City of Newport Beach and the property owner.
6. The net public area of the restauranUbrewpub, which is devoted to daytime use
Monday through Friday (prior to 5:00 p.m.) shall be limited to 1,500 square feet.
The balance of the net public area shall be physically closed off to the public by a
fixed barrier and shall not be used until after 5:00 p.m..
7. The hours of operation for the restauranUbrewpub shall be limited to the hours
between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and between 6:00
a.m. and 1:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday.
8. All employees shall park either in the privately owned off -site parking area or in one
of the municipal parking lots in the area.
9. The operation of the brewery and the service of alcoholic beverages shall be
ancillary to the food service operation of the restaurant (e.g. the brewery and the
service of alcoholic beverages may not be conducted without the concurrent
operation of the restaurant during all hours the use is open for business). The
quarterly gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed the gross sales of
food during the same period. The operator shall at all times maintain records which
reflect separately the gross sales of food and the gross sales of alcoholic
beverages. Said records shall be kept no less frequently that on a quarterly basis
and shall be made available to the Planning Director upon request in conjunction
with the Planning Commission's review of this Use Permit for alleged violations of
conditions.
6 -7
10. The principal use authorized by this Use Permit is a restaurant/brewpub. The
accessory operation of a bar is permitted provided that the kitchen remains open
for the service of meals and that a full menu is provided. This Use Permit shall not
be construed as the approval of a bar, cocktail lounge, or other use with the
principal purpose of serving alcoholic beverages during hours not corresponding to
regular meal service hours nor as the approval of a cabaret, nightclub, or other use
with the principal purpose of providing live entertainment and /or dancing. The
kitchen of the restauranUbrewpub shall be in operation to serve meals at all times
that the business is open. A full meal menu (including the service of those meals
ordered) shall be made available. Menus and condiments shall be available at the
tables at all times.
11. No outdoor loudspeakers or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with
the proposed location.
12. A washout area for refuse containers shall be provided in such a way as to allow
direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless
otherwise approved by the Building Department.
13. Kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the
satisfaction of the Building Department.
14. All mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from surrounding
public streets and alleys and adjoining properties. The existing trash enclosure
shall be covered and the doors or gates to the enclosure shall be modified to be
self - closing and self - locking for security.
15. Deleted
16. Should prerecorded music be played within the restaurant facility, such music shall
be confined to the interior of the building, and all doors and windows shall be kept
closed while such music is played.
17. A special events permit is required for any event or promotional activity outside the
normal operational characteristics of this restaurant business that would attract
large crowds, involve the sale of alcoholic beverages, include any form of on -site
media broadcast, or any other activities as specified in the Newport Beach
Municipal Code to require such permits.
18. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any
future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by
either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing company.
19. The parking lot entrance to the building shall not be used as an entrance when a
line of patrons seeking entrance to the establishment forms.
20. The operator shall discourage loitering on site at all times the establishment is
open or employees or owners are present.
6-5
-3-M
21. The operator shall conspicuously post and maintain signs indicating to patrons to
be courteous to residential neighbors while outside the establishment.
22. The applicant shall prepare a detailed security operations and property
maintenance plan within 45 days of approval of this amendment to the Use Permit.
The plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Police Department and
Planning Department. The plan shall specifically outline methods and personnel
necessary to control patron activity on and abutting the project site to minimize or
avoid land use conflicts. When security services are required pursuant to the plan,
security shall be provided whenever necessary and a minimum of 30 minutes after
the posted closing time. The property maintenance portion of the plan shall
address activities including, and not limited to, trash pickup, recycling disposal and
pickup, grease trap cleaning, cooking oil recycling, brewery servicing, deliveries,
cleaning or general building maintenance.
23. Deliveries and exterior property maintenance activities shall not be conducted
between 8PM and 8AM daily.
24. The use shall maintain a Type 23 or a Type 75 license to sell alcoholic beverages
from the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. No other license type
shall be permitted without review and approval by the Planning Commission.
25. Live entertainment and dancing shall be prohibited without an amendment to this
Use Permit and a Live Entertainment Permit and /or a Cafe Dance permit issued by
the City Manager's Office.
26. The operator shall not prohibit persons under the age of 21 from entering the
establishment based solely upon age.
27. This Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a noticed public
hearing on or before October 30, 2007. The Planning Director may schedule
additional reviews of this permit if there is a determination that the use directly
causes or is contributing to conditions found to be detrimental to the community
(this provision shall not be construed to diminish the City's ability to enforce this
Use Permit or any aspect of the Municipal Code).
STANDARD CITY REQUIREMENTS
A. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards,
unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval.
B. Signs and displays shall not obstruct the sales counter, cash register, seller and
customer from view from the exterior.
C. Loitering, open container, and other signs specified by the Alcoholic Beverage
Control Act shall be posted as required by the ABC.
D. The applicant shall take reasonable steps to discourage and correct objectionable
conditions that constitute a nuisance in parking areas, sidewalks, alleys and areas
surrounding the alcoholic beverage outlet and adjacent properties must be taken
6—/
during business hours if directly related to the patrons of the subject alcoholic
beverage outlet.
E. The exterior of the alcoholic beverage outlet shall be maintained free of litter and
graffiti at all times. The owner or operator shall provide for daily removal of trash,
litter debris and graffiti from the premises and on all abutting sidewalks within 20
feet of the premises.
F. All owners, managers and employees serving and /or selling alcoholic beverages
shall undergo and successfully complete a certified training program in responsible
methods and skills for serving and selling alcoholic beverages. To qualify to meet
the requirements of this section a certified program must meet the standards of the
California Coordinating Council on Responsible Beverage Service or other
certifying /licensing body, which the State may designate. The operator shall
provide proof of completion for all owners, managers and employees within 30
days of the approval of this amendment and new employees shall successfully
complete the training within 30 days of initially starting work.
G. The project shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 14.30 of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code for commercial kitchen grease disposal.
H. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.67 of the Municipal Code.
This Use Permit for an alcoholic beverage outlet granted in accordance with the
terms of this chapter shall expire within 12 months from the date of approval unless
a license has been issued or transferred by the California State Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control prior to the expiration date.
J. Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to issuance of any building
permits.
K. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use
Permit upon a determination that this Use Permit causes injury, or is detrimental to
the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community.
0
Attachment No. 7
Appeal dated January 12, 2007
7.!
W
72-
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No
Name of Appellant � e��
or person filing: [. i'� N v��V V f �t� ��Tv (1�1�IV��Ihone: l b
Address: �jD�t :j0T, `;J 1 �Q Iv G G x
Date of Planning Commission decision: 20
Regarding application of: Tjt• w PDg-:T 2-6w(,W FjL-qt---W dN (s for
(Description of application filed with Planning Commission) UA f pet^ ry 4 7-- Lf f5
Reasons for Appeal: TAG V(.kg N6NLT coMA C/f -co,iw ��t1✓1�D To
U 1ZVzPbYUc;;6P;,1LlY Puri- 'Cl'h Itt
Cdn.i,IGo�L�1ur> 60WILL QMt lT. zk�jD M6
!/
inatiore of Aj>nl§llant
CLERK
rt
i rl W� C j�� Date l y
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
gate Appeal filed and Administrative Fee received: �"i .200-7
Hearing Date. An appeal shall be scheduled for a hearing before the City Council within ley (60) days of the
filing of the appeal Unless both applicant and appellant or reviewing body consent to a later date (NBMC Sec.
20.95.060) PM-11 1 40 IWO
r
cc: Appellant j)I111931 I �n
Planning (fumish one set of mailing labels for mailing)
File
61DZ
APPEALS: Municipal Code Sec. 20.95.050(6) 90 :E Rd Z I KVf
Appeal Fee: $340 pursuant to Resolution No. 2006 -4 adopted on 1= 14J��� J�
(Deposit funds with Cashier in Account #2700 -5000) 7.3
t
X21
Q�aEWPOa o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
U S 3300 NEWPORT BLVD..
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915
G4FOwN
RECEIVED BY: PERRYI
TODAY'S DATE: 01/12/07
27005000 ZONING & SUBDIVISION F
CASH PAID CHECK PAID
$400.00 $,_ :f!':
D
CASH RECEIPT
RECEIPT NUMBER: 01000066661
PAYOR: LOW BRUCE
REGISTER DATE: 01/16/07 TIME: 15:05:50
$340.00
--------------- -
TOTAL DUE: $340.00
5 d�M
TENDERED
$400.00
CHANGE
$60.00
7•
2 ��
Attachment No. 8
Letter from Bruce Low dated February 28, 2007
g�/
BLANK
S'.7
Bruce I Low
41129" Street
Newport Beach, California 92663
February 28, 2007
The City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
RECENED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MAR 05 2007
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Attn: City Council
Re: Newport Beach Brewing Company (Use Permit No. 3485)
Dear Honorable Council Members,
This letter is in direct response to the portion of the Staff Report that addresses CONDITION NO. 6,
which can be found on pages 6 and 7 of the Staff Report dated January 4, 2007.
I disagree with Staff's conclusion that this condition (restriction of service area to 1,500 square feet)
does not apply to weekends. As a matter of fact, The Califomia Coastal Commission also believes
the restriction applies seven days a week. The advice of the City Attorney's office to Staff "that
enforcing conditions imposed by a different jurisdiction is not advisable." This "low road" path will
only force a showdown at the California Coastal Commission which will set back the effort of the
City of Newport Beach to have the latitude to issue Coastal Development Permits through the LCP
and LUP regulations. It is "an end" run to avoid the clear responsibility of the City of Newport
Beach. It is a bad idea.
day before 5 PM. "?
The Coastal Development Permit (# 5.93.137 dated 1.21.94) under SPEACIAL CONDITIONS 1.
specifically states:
"Prior to issuance of the Coastal Development Permit, the applicant shall execute and record a deed
restriction, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director, which shall provide that no
more than 1,500 square feet of service area of the subject restaurant/brewpub shall be open before 5
p.m. This document shall run with the land, binding all successors and assigns, and shall be
recorded free of prior liens."
If this Special Condition intended to limit the restriction only Monday thru Friday, it would state so.
Furthermore, the minutes of the September 27,1993 Newport Beach City Council meeting (volume
47 -page 253) also state; "reduce the allowable daytime "net public area" to 1,500 square feet before
5 p.m. "Again, if the Council intended to limit the restriction only Monday thru Friday, the record
f 3
j�'2
would state so. The intent of the Coastal Commission and City Council is clear and needs no further
speculative interpretation.
Logic does not accompany Staffs analysis. An error was made in the preparation of the Use Permit
and the Deed Restriction. And even if one mistake leads to another, it does not change the facts, the
intent, or the record. For Staff to assume that "Coastal Commission Staff must have accepted this
commitment as there is no evidence to the contrary and they issued the Coastal Development
Permit shortly in early 1994." is nothing more than a speculative attempt to muddy the waters and
skirt ownership of the obvious error in the preparation of the Use Permit and Deed Restriction. Staff
has no specific knowledge of the California Coastal Commission's point of view regarding this
issue. If Staff can simply decide all matters for themselves, then why bother with city public
hearings or even the California Coastal Commission's directives?
I am surprised that the Newport Beach Planning Staff has omitted further evidence of the Coastal
Commissions intent and directive in the Coastal Development Permit.
Planning Staff inquired to Mr. Karl Schwing of the California Coastal Commission pertaining to the
intent of the Coastal Development Permit. Mr. Schwing responded in an email on or about July 26,
2006 to Mr. Jim Campbell's inquiry. The following is Mr. Schwing's response:
"James, I've consulted with the Planner, Meg Vaughn, who originally worked on this project and
we've re- reviewed the file. We've concluded that the floor area limitation imposed by the
Commission applies daily, not just Monday through Friday.
1 realize this determination may lead to some problems for the City and the restaurant. However, if
there is a viable method of providing parking sufficient to support opening additional floor area
space before 5 p.m. (without impacting public parking resources and public access), then the
Brewing Company could consider applying for a permit amendment to implement that proposal."
The record, the intent of the City Council and the California Coastal Commission, including a recent
re-clarification of the Coastal Commission's position, as well as, the available remedy for the
Brewing Company are clear and specified.
How will the California Coastal Commission be able to trust the City of Newport Beach if they can
not even enforce a Coastal Development Permit issue as clear and simple as this one?
The Brewing Company has been unfairly and incorrectly taking advantage of a mistake. This is
"unjust enrichment." A doctrine that prevents persons from benefiting from the mistake of another.
If a bank mistakenly deposits funds into your bank account, you must return them.
The counsel for the Newport Beach Brewing Company hangs his hat on an alleged "rule" that
allows counsel to believe that Mr. Schwing is not authorized to render the above opinion on behalf
of the California Coastal Commission. Counsel believes the Executive Director is the only person
authorized to do so. However, Counsel does not take the initiative to request action from the
Executive Director and for good reason. Counsel knows the Executive Director would promptly
support the decision of Mr. Schwing.
Counsel also knows that if the Newport Brewery applies for an amendment to its Coastal
Development Permit that the California Coastal Commission will require a complete parking study to
accompany the submission. A parking study that will surely demonstrate there is not ample parking
available to justify the amendment.
The intent of the California Coastal Commission was to prevent a conflict with the public's right to
use valuable and limited public parking. The California Coastal Commission has been very vocal
and firm regarding parking in the Cannery Village and they believe the parking situation is getting
worse every year. The obvious mistake in the Use Permit and the ability of the Newport Brewing
Company and the City of Newport Beach to ignore the directives of the California Coastal
Commission unfairly damages the rights of the public and causes irreparable and continual harm.
Why are we, as a city, afraid of compliance?
Therefore, I request that this Council correct the error in the Use Permit, execute a new enforcement
letter to the California Coastal Commission, order a new and correct Deed Restriction and enforce
the service area limitation seven days a week, as designed and mandated by the California Coastal
Commission and approved by the Newport Beach City Council .
Require the Newport Beach Brewing Company to return the ill gotten accommodation for the use of
the public.
Sincerely,
Bruce J. Low
8� 5
3 25
BLANK
Attachment No. 9
Letter from Bruce Low dated March 2, 2007
y. i
"I r
9.2
Bruce I Low
411 291h Street
Newport Beach, California 92663
March 2, 2007
City of Newport Beach RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Attn: City Council
RE: Newport Beach Brewing Company
2920 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
Use Permit Number 3485 (9/13/1999)
Dear Honorable Council Members:
MAR 05 2007
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
The hearing scheduled for March 13, 2007 Is the result of 12A years of effort by the neighborhood
pertaining to numerous complaints regarding the abuses which are regularly Inflicted upon the
residents and businesspersons in the Cannery Village by the Newport Beach Brewing Company.
We had hoped that Staff and the Planning Commission would be able understand to the needs of
the Cannery Village and "reel in" the Newport Beach Brewing Company operation pursuant to the
existing Use Permit. Unfortunately, Staff and the Planning Commission do not get it! Instead, we are
heading towards even more latitude for our already abusive neighbor.
With respect to your decisions regarding the Newport Beach Brewing Company, it will be necessary
to determine "What exactly is this place? What Is a "restaurant/brewpub "? What is it suppose to be?
Is it a restaurant or a bar, nightclub?
Condition No. 9 of the current "Use Permit" is a good starting place to define the operation. The
1999 version, which is applicable today, states "9. The operation of the brewery and the service of
alcoholic beverages shall be ancillary to the primary food service operation of the restaurant."
Staff and the operator convinced a tired Commission to remove the word "primary" from condition
No. 9. This is devastating and changes the "restaurant" approved use in the direction of a "bar"
approved use. You can not allow this to happen. The Brewery is known as "The Newport Beach, give
an inch take a mile, Brewing Company. If you give in here, you will license a full blown bar, night
club. There will be no turning back. Never!
As a matter of fact, the City can surely expect the operator to make a further request to remove the
condition (New Condition No. 26) that prevents the exclusion of persons under the age of 21 years by
way of the proposed changes to Condition No. 10 that will state the "operation of a bar is permitted."
Staff, innocently, has gone to great lengths in a subjective evaluation of the word or term
"restaurant/brewpub" in an attempt to loosely define the word or term in a manner that creates an
undisputable reason why the Newport Brewery may already be authorized to operate as a "bar ". The
creation by Staff and the operator of a magic potion that allows the loose connection of food and
alcohol service characteristics in combination as pre - authorization or authorization of a "bar" is
faulty and wrong. An examination of Staff's methodology leads one to understand the conclusion is
9.3
V
illogical and speculative, at best. Staff's conclusion does not hold water and will cause irreparable
harm to the neighborhood. Do not be misled!
The definition of the term " restaurant/brewpub" is paramount in the operator's plan to defend its
bar, night club operation and the operator's ability to continue and /or expand its operation without
criticism or control from the residents or the city. As policy makers, you need to intervene.
There is not an available definition for the word " restaurant/brewpub." In order to attempt to define
the term it is necessary to travel down the following two roads.
Conduct an analysis of the term using recognized principals within the English language and/or an
evaluation of the spirit and intent of the document that houses the term.
Recognized principals of the English language would allow one to identify characteristics of the word
or term "restaurant/brewpub" by splitting the term into dominant and serviant characteristics. The
word "restaurant ", since it is placed first in the word or term, is classified as dominant. The slash
mark (/) creates a relationship between the two words, however the word "brewpub" would be
classified as serviant. The serviant word will always carry less weight.
An examination of the separated words in the word or term may be helpful. It would be acceptable to
split the term or word and look for separate definitions to look for assistance.
The following are the most specific definitions:
restaurant an establishment where meals are served to customers
brewpub a combination brewery and restaurant; beer is brewed for consumption on
the premises and served along with food
It is also noteworthy how the definitions supplied by Dictionary.com and WordNet also use the
principal of dominant and serviant relationships. There are additional definitions of the words
brew pub, however, since they are separated into two words they are far less pure.
In this circumstance, the word or term " restaurant/brewpub" would best describe a restaurant that
primarily serves meals (dominant) to customers accompanied by premise brewed beverages
(serviant).
Next, one would wish to examine the spirit and intent of the document that houses the word or term.
This document would be the "Findings and Conditions for Approval Use Permit No. 3485 (Amended)"
of September 13, 1999.
It is clear that the spirit and intent of the document was to approve a restaurant and would
characterize "restaurant /brewpub" in consistent terms with the writer's definition. It is strongly
described in Conditions No's. 9 & 10. From the document, Condition No. "9. The operation of the
brewery operation and the service of alcoholic beverages shall be ancillary to the primary food
service operation" and 10. "shall not be construed as the approval of a bar, cocktail lounge, or other
use serving alcoholic beverages during hours not corresponding to regular meal service hours."
It is also important to further examine the spirit and intent throughout the rest of the document. How
does the language in the balance of the document help us understand the spirit and intent of the
document?
By way of example:
The FINDINGS No. 2 reads "permits eating and drinking establishments." Eating first, drinking
second.
Cf. `/
"3 3 7
FINDINGS No. 5, bullet point 3, characterize the operation as a "restaurant business."
FINDINGS b., bullet point 3, refers to the "alcohol license for a brewpub and the convenience of the
public can be served by the sale of distilled spirits in a restaurant/brewpub setting." Here, a more
complex term and more descriptive than brewpub. The addition of the "hard" alcohol was to
augment the restaurant operation.
Condition No. 15 uses the term "restaurant site" to describe the establishment. Condition No.16
uses the term "restaurant facility." Condition No. 17 reveals "restaurant business" as a reference.
A more neutral term would have been used throughout the document such as "The establishment"
which can be seen in Condition F. of the Standard City Requirements if the spirit and intent were
actually to be more neutral. However, the neutral terms are virtually absent in the document. This is
important to understand the spirit and intent.
The specific wording and the terms present and not present in the document create overwhelming
evidence to support a conclusion that the spirit and intent of the document clearly describe dealings
with a restaurant. It would not be sound to derive a conflicting conclusion regarding the spirit and
intent of the document.
Both methods of evaluation demonstrate faulty conclusions by the Planning Commission and Staff.
Perhaps Staff could demonstrate by way of several other existing Newport Beach Use Permits that
this language and interpretation is reg=ular and common Staff can not demonstrate this point
because the evidence does not exist!
Therefore, Staff's interpretation that the term "restaurant/brewpub" implies that the City of Newport
Beach approved a kind of a "bar" is nothing more than illogical speculation that defies acceptable
principals within the English language and the spirit and intent of the document.
In this circumstance, and most often, the words really do speak for themselves and do not require
speculative interpretation.
So let's look at how the Staff Report and the operator are misleading. Condition No. 9, as currently
written, is clear and concise. It means that the establishment is a restaurant and shall maintain
characteristics easily Identifiable as a restaurant.
Condition No. 10 states "The approval of this use permit is for a restaurant/brewpub and shall not be
construed as the approval of a bar, cocktail lounge, or other use serving alcoholic beverages during
hours not corresponding to regular meal service hours (food products sold or served Incidentally to
the sale or service of alcoholic beverages shall not be deemed as constituting regular meal service)
nor as the approval of a cabaret, nightclub, or other use with the principal purpose of providing live
entertainment and /or dancing."
The proposed changes to Condition No. 10 is a further license for a "bar" by way of the proposed
wording changes; "The accessory operation of a bar is permitted..." This change is catastrophic and
can not be permitted.
A recent adjustment, by the operator, now makes a full kitchen open and dinner menu available
until 1 AM on Friday and Saturday. The notion that keeping the restaurant's kitchen open and
making food available until 1 AM transforms the "bar" into a "restaurant" which suddenly meets the
Staff's ill fated interpretation of the standard of Condition No. 10 is utterly ridiculous. The food
service after 10 PM is clearly incidental. The incidental food service is in violation of the Use Permit.
Keeping the kitchen open is a thinly veiled feature that fools no one and does not meet the criteria of
the written words or the spirit and intent of Condition No. 10. In fact, it is insulting to any reasonable
mind.
9.5
2q0
This logic is as sound as an imposed operational condition that a swim school offer swim lessons to
fish! The lessons may be available but there would be no demand. The swim lessons to fish would be
classified as incidental to the swim school!
One could try to read into the condition that the only difference between a "bar" and a "restaurant" is
the availability of food service. Regular meal service hours are not defined by the availability of food.
This interpretation is a "reach" by the operator and Staff to meet Condition No. 10. It is better
described as a "climb" for the operator and Staff.
Regular food service is more reasonably interpreted by "demand" or percentage ratio for food
products and not by availability! if there is no demand, or minimal sales, the food service is
incidental. No operator would keep an expensive kitchen open with a full staff to make available a
complete dinner menu when there is little or no demand, unless it was necessary to meet the
conditions, or an interpretation thereof, of a Use Permit to stay open and be a "bar" while selling very
profitable alcoholic beverages. Offering a dinner menu, while selling 90% alcohol, does not meet a
reasonable standard of a restaurant. It is better described as a bar.
It is also important to note that the words in Condition No. 10 "(food products sold or served
incidentally to the sale or service of alcoholic beverages shall not be deemed as constituting regular
meal service)" are specifically designed to require the necessity of "demand" for food service byway
of sales to maintain and distinguish the restaurant characteristic and to prevent the phony ploy of
keeping the kitchen open by "availability" of food service to circumvent the characterization of a
"bar, night club." This is exactly what the Newport Beach, give an inch take a mile, Brewing Company
has been doing and continues to avoid the wording and the spirit and intent of the Use Permit and
thumb its nose at the neighborhood and the City of Newport Beach. It is in violation of the Use
Permit, insulting to the neighborhood and the City Council must correct the violation and restore
even handed compliance, promptly.
The words in Condition No. 10 that are in parenthesis () are designed for clarification. They are in
Condition No. 10 to prevent abuse. An available kitchen service does not create or satisfy the
conditioned need for demand. There is no demand for food after 10 PM. There is no demand for food
because after 10 PM is not "regular meal service hours". Everyone has already had dinner! Plain and
simple. The food service is incidental.
It is clear that after 10 PM the Newport Beach Brewing Company is a full blown bar, night club! The
establishment has admitted they sell 90% alcohol after 1OPM. They admittedly, have 5 "bouncers",
check I.D. at the door and do not allow patrons that are under age 21. Are these facts characteristic
of a restaurant or a bar?
The standard should be: Does the establishment operate as a bar, night club or a restaurant? Period.
If they operate as a "restaurant" they are within the Use Permit. If the operate as a "bar" they are not
within their Use Permit. The establishment can not be convertible and choose to be one or the other,
at will, depending upon opportunity. The establishment can not connect the two separate operations
by simply making food available.
If you were starting with a clean sheet of Paper today. would You permit a "bar" operation at this
location? The answer is clearly. NO! So why give license to the bar through ambiguity?
The inventive exercise of a cloudy 'word blending" beginning with a "restaurant" mixed into a
"restauranVbrewpub" and "poof" turning into a "bar" is trickery. It is not what the operator
represented in 1999, nor, what the City Council authorized, nor what the neighborhood should
endure. Don't be fooled!
Could anyone even imagine that the City Council in 1999 may have intended to convey; Well, as long
as the kitchen is open with a full menu you can do whatever You want until 1 AM. Sounds good to
us. Let's vote. It is unimaginable. Staff knows better and so does this Council!
3N!
Condition No. 9 need not and must not be changed. Condition No. 10 should be clarified and
tightened to represent the spirit and intent of the Use Permit. The Newport Brewery should not be
permitted, or in the least, appear to be permitted to operate as a "bar." Give an inch take a mile.
The Cannery Village is a unique opportunity to foster mixed use characteristics in a seaside
atmosphere. It is a very small area with a bright future! The Newport Brewery represents the past. Its
business plan of over serving alcohol to kids may have been cool in the 70's. Yelling and screaming
while urinating in the parking lot is a hobby that long ago had its day! To "rev up" this dinosaur will
be a huge step backwards!
The Newport Beach Brewing Company asked the City Council to be a restaurant that serves alcohol.
They should be nothing more!
So how do we accomplish this goal?
Staff and the operator have offered very little in the way of solutions to the nuisance in the parking
lot and the overall bar like characteristics. Counsel for the operator routinely threatens to sue if
asked to yield on the tough questions. They refuse to curtail hours by closing at 11 PM like other
restaurants and refuse to operate this business in a reasonable restaurant type setting.
The character of the restaurant/brewpub is one of "Jeckel and Hyde." By day, for the most part, the
operation has characteristics of a restaurant. On Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights and Sunday
the operation is obviously a "bar." The Newport Brewery has Intentionally painted itself into an
operation that appears to be a moving target that can not be easily regulated.
However, the distinction that is easy to understand is that at a "restaurant ", patrons are primarily
seated and at a "bar," patrons are primarily standing.
The operation has previously submitted a floor plan. The facility also has limited restroom facilities
that are a contributing factor to the constant urination in the parking lot and surrounding structures.
By limiting the occupancy and requiring the Fire Department to enforce the patron load, the City
could bring about a change in character and move this "bar" towards a "restaurant" In the
alternative or conjunctively, the City could require food service at a 50% ratio to alcohol sales from
10 PM to 1 AM. These concepts would be easy to regulate and the necessity for expensive
enforcement measures and complicated conditions, that can never be enforced, would be
eliminated.
As a matter of fact, per the directives of the California Coastal Commission and the Alcoholic
Beverage Control, this is precisely how the operation is regulated during the daytime.
Just last month , and after the Newport Brewery hearing, the Planning Commission imposed, and the
applicant agreed, to a condition that the "Yard house ", an establishment that plans to operate in
Fashion Island, be held to a percentage ratio of alcohol to food sales each and every hour of the
operation. The same condition can be, and should be, imposed on the Newport Brewery. By limiting
the alcohol sales as a percentage of the food sales and /or patron load it may be possible to actually
dine in the " restaurant/brewpub" after dark.
The practical solutions are available and before you. Have the courage to demonstrate the
leadership that the voting population of the City of Newport Beach believes you have!
Sincerely,
Bruce J. Low
9.7
7�1 Z
BLANK
��8
Attachment No. 10
Relevant legal standards and
conditions of Use Permit No. 3485 at issue
/U. /
BLANK
/D. 2
RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
The grounds for the modification or revocation of a use permit are established by
Condition K of Use Permit No. 3485 and by Section 20.89.060.0 and Section 20.96.040
of the Municipal Code.
Use Permit 3485 Condition K provides:
K. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this
use permit upon a determination that this use permit causes injury, or is
detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of
the community.
Section 20.89.060(C) provides that the Planning Commission, or the Planning Director,
as the case may be, may revoke a use permit for an alcoholic beverage outlet upon
making one or more of the following findings:
1. That the permit was issued on the basis of erroneous or misleading
information or misrepresentation.
2. That the terms or conditions of approval of the permit have been violated or
that other laws or regulations have been violated.
3. The establishment for which the permit was issued is being operated in an
illegal or disorderly manner.
4. Noise from the establishment for which the permit was issued violates the
Community Noise Control Ordinance (Chapter 10.26 of the Municipal Code).
5. The business or establishment for which the permit was issued has had or is
having an adverse impact on the health, safety or welfare of the
neighborhood or the general public.
6. There is a violation of or failure to maintain a valid ABC license.
7. The business or establishment fails to fully comply with all the rules,
regulations and orders of the California State Department of Alcoholic
Beverage Control.
Decisions of the Planning Commission under Section 20.89.060 may be appealed to the
City Council pursuant to Section 20.89.070.
Section 20.96.040, entitled 'Revocation of Discretionary Permits" provides that a use
permit is a discretionary permit. Under Section 20.96.040(E), the City Council is
authorized to revoke a use permit upon making one or more of the following findings:
1. That the permit was issued on the basis of erroneous or misleading
information or misrepresentation;
2. That the terms or conditions of approval of the permit have been violated or
that other laws or regulations have been violated.
10.3
I That there has been a discontinuance of the exercise or the entitlement
granted by the permit for 180 consecutive days.
Decisions of the Planning Commission under Section 20.96.040 may be appealed to the
City Council pursuant to Section 20.96.040(H) and Chapter 20.95 (Appeals).
CONDITIONS OF USE PERMIT NO. 3485 — COMPLIANCE QUESTIONED
The Use Permit conditions that are relevant to this proceeding are as follows:
6. The net public area of the restaurant/brewpub, which is devoted to daytime use
Monday through Friday (prior to 5:00 p.m.) shall be limited to 1,500 square feet.
The balance of the net public area shall be physically closed off to the public by a
fixed barrier and shall not be used until after 5:00 p.m. daily.
7. The hours of operation for the restaurant/brewpub shall be limited to the hours
between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and between 6:00
a.m. and 1:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday.
9. The operation of the brewery and the service of alcoholic beverages shall be
ancillary to the primary food service operation of the restaurant.
10. The approval of this use permit is for a restaurant/brewpub and shall not be
construed as the approval of a bar, cocktail lounge, or other use serving alcoholic
beverages during hours not corresponding to regular meal service hours (food
products sold or served incidentally to the sale or service of alcoholic beverages
shall not be deemed as constituting regular meal service) nor as the approval of
a cabaret, nightclub, or other use with the principal purpose of providing live
entertainment and/or dancing.
14. All mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from surrounding
public streets and alleys and adjoining properties.
17. A special events permit is required for any event or promotional activity outside
the normal operational characteristics of this restaurant business that would
attract large crowds, involve the sale of alcoholic beverages, include any form of
on -site media broadcast, or any other activities as specified in the Newport
Beach Municipal Code to require such permits.
D. The applicant shall take reasonable steps to discourage and correct
objectionable conditions that constitute a nuisance in parking areas, sidewalks,
alleys and areas surrounding the alcoholic beverage outlet and adjacent
properties must be taken during business hours if directly related to the patrons
of the subject alcoholic beverage outlet.
�o. y
E. The exterior of the alcoholic beverage outlet shall be maintained free of litter and
graffiti at all times. The owner or operator shall provide for daily removal of trash,
litter debris and graffiti from the premises and on all abutting sidewalks within 20
feet of the premises.
F. All owners, managers and employees serving and /or selling alcoholic beverages
shall undergo and successfully complete a certified training program in
responsible methods and skills for serving and selling alcoholic beverages. To
qualify to meet the requirements of this section a certified program must meet the
standards of the California Coordinating Council on Responsible Beverage
Service or other certifying /licensing body, which the State may designate. The
establishment shall comply with the requirements of this section within 180 days
of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
J. Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to issuance of any building
permits.
K. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this
use permit upon a determination that this use permit causes injury, or is
detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of
the community.
lo-5
Attachment No. 11
Background of Use Permit No. 3485
and summary of proceedings
BLANK
//,'Z
BACKGROUND OF USE PERMIT NO. 3485 AND
SUMMARY OF PRIOR PROCCEDINGS
1. In 1993, Use Permit No. 3485 was granted to operate a "restaurant/brewpub" with a
Type 23 Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license. A Type 23 license allows a small
beer manufacturer (brewpub or micro - brewery) where a brewpub is typically a small
brewery with a restaurant. The staff reports and minutes from the 1993 approval of
the use permit are attached to the staff report. The following representations were
made during that process:
a) The use permit would establish a combination restaurant and brewpub with on-
sale beer and wine with no live entertainment.
b) The net public area was approximately 2,532 square feet including an
approximate 600 square foot outdoor patio.
c) The applicant requested and received operating hours of 6:00 AM to 12:00 PM
Sunday through Thursday and 6:00 AM to 2:00 AM Friday and Saturday.
d) The NBBC prepared and submitted a description of the operation calling the use
a restaurant/brew -pub. The restaurant menu was highlighted and the bar area
would provide "bountiful" seating with an "upper- class" feel. (See the project
description attached to the Planning Commission report dated February 18,
1993).
e) Mr. James Person, representing the applicant, indicated that the NBBC would be
willing to close part of the restaurant during the day to avoid a conflict with
public's use of the adjacent municipal parking lot. (See minutes of the Planning
Commission dated February 18, 1993).
f) Mr. Person testified to the City Council that the NBBC agreed to the conditions of
approval imposed by both the City and the Coastal Commission. (See minutes of
the City Council hearing dated September 28, 1993).
2. In 1999, an amendment of the Use Permit was granted allowing distilled spirits at the
establishment with a Type 75 ABC license. A Type 75 license authorizes the sale of
beer, wine and distilled sprits at a bona fide eating place plus the brewing of beer.
The staff reports and minutes from the 1999 amendment of the use permit are
attached to the staff report. The following representations were made during that
process:
a) The reason for Use Permit amendment was to remain competitive to attract a
broadened customer base. They receive a lot of requests for cocktails and NBBC
wants to be able to offer a greater variety of beverage choices to customers. "We
have from day one attempted to be more of a restaurant than a bar." "We are not
looking to implement drastic changes to our existing format." (See, 1999 Project
Description and Justification).
b) "We are not and do not have any desires to become a nightclub, dance club or
the like." "We feel confident that the additional alcohol beverage service will help
complement our expanded menu and keep the NBBC competitive." (See, 1999
Project Description and Justification).
il.3
c) Patricia Temple, Planning Director indicated that the use was intended to be
predominately that of a restaurant, certainly with alcohol as a feature and that the
use had been operated as a restaurant. Assistant City Attorney Robin Clauson
noted that the operation was conditioned to require the service of alcohol as
ancillary to the restaurant and that there would be no approval of any type of bar
or nightclub based upon the definition of a bar within the Zoning Code and
proposed conditions. (See minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated
August 5, 1999).
d) NBBC Operations Manager, Shawn Needelman, represented that NBBC is a
restaurant that also brews its own beer and is looking for a way to improve
service to respond to customer requests. Mr. Needelman also stated that NBBC
wants to compliment the enhanced menu and capture a more diverse clientele by
acquiring the Type 75 license. (See minutes of the Planning Commission
meeting dated August 5, 1999).
e) Reason for Use Permit amendment was due to declining sales for three year
period. When first opened, NBBC did quite well with 50% of revenues, and an
unknown percentage of profits, attributable to beer sales. (See, Supplemental
Information for Agenda Item No. 17 dated September 13, 1999).
f) To increase declining revenues, NBBC upgraded its menu to include items such
as steaks and seafood. The full alcohol license would compliment the upgraded
menu as well as allowing NBBC to satisfy the requests of all its customers. (See,
Supplemental Information for Agenda Item No. 17 dated September 13, 1999).
g) The amended use would not change the way the NBBC operates as a restaurant
and a brewpub. NBBC suggested that the restaurant would be able to attract
more of a dinner crowd Sunday through Thursday and maintain customers with
the addition of cocktail service. (See, Supplemental Information for Agenda Item
No. 17 dated September 13, 1999).
h) NBBC acknowledged that their Use Permit requires that their business be
primarily that of a restaurant and that their ABC license had a condition that
requires at least 50% of their revenues be derived from non - alcohol sales. (See,
Supplemental Information for Agenda Item No. 17 dated September 13, 1999).
i) NBBC indicated that the restaurant had a seating capacity of 212 people and had
37 tables seating 144 people and 44 bar stools. (See, Supplemental Information
for Agenda Item No. 17 dated September 13, 1999).
j) NBBC Operations Manager, Shawn Needelman, represented that NBBC was not
a bar that serves food but rather a restaurant that also brews its own beer. He
went on to say that NBBC does not have the lines that they used to; they do not
have late night parties; they do not have a DJ or any other form of live
entertainment. He also represented that NBBC is an established restaurant that
caters to 20 year olds, seniors, couples and families. Mr. Needelman also stated
that he believed the decline in revenues to NBBC's inability to provide cocktails.
(See, Minutes from September 13, 1999 City Council Meeting).
�r- y
k) NBBC President, Orazio "Raz" Salmone, noted that the brewery no longer has
lines and that he would rather "build on the restaurant." (See, Minutes from the
September 13, 1999 City Council Meeting).
3. In January 2006, the City received a letter from the Cannery Village Concerned
outlining alleged violations of the Use Permit's conditions of approval and
objectionable late night behavior by patrons that the surrounding neighbors believed
to create a nuisance. This letter is attached to the May 4, 2006 Planning
Commission staff report, which is an attachment to the August 17, 2007 Planning
Commission report.
a) Violation of Condition #6 — allegation that that the NBBC has a larger dining area
than allowed before 5:00 PM daily.
b) Violation of Condition #9 — allegation that alcohol service is not ancillary to food
service.
c) Violation of Condition #10 — allegation that the NBBC is a bar specifically
prohibited.
d) Violation of Condition #17 — allegation that operating a BBQ in the parking lot and
the service of food and consumption of alcohol there from violates the need to
obtain a special event permit.
e) Violation of Condition D — allegation that the NBBC is a nuisance with patrons
creating noise, carry on loud conversations or on occasion yelling, cause
property damage, fight, vomit, urinate, defecate, and fornicate during the late
evening and early morning hours, to the detriment of the neighborhood. The
complaint also mentions poor maintenance of the trash enclosure and noise from
the dumping of recycled materials after hours.
f) Violation of Condition F — allegation that NBBC has failed to properly train
servers responsible alcohol sales.
4. On May 4, 2006, the Planning Commission discussed the operation, took input from
the neighborhood and directed an official review of the Use Permit. This staff report
is attached to the August 17, 2007 Planning Commission report. At the May 4,
2006, meeting, the testimony was given to the Planning Commission:
a) Jerry Kolbly, General Manager, NBBC represented that the establishment's
emphasis was on being a restaurant. He also noted that the kitchen is opened
during the hours of alcohol service with the late night menu (pizzas and
appetizers) from 10:00 PM to closing. In addition, Mr. Kolbly noted that "service
from 11:00 pm and 1 am is about 90% alcohol (55% liquor and 45% beer and
wine) and 10% food. (See, Planning Commission Minutes dated May 4, 2006).
Operation of the brewery and the service of alcoholic beverages shall be ancillary
to the primary food service operation of the restaurant pursuant to Condition #9
and this testimony would support a finding of a violation. Condition #10 prohibits
a bar and based upon these representations, staff believes that the limited menu
after 10:00 PM and relationship between the sale of alcohol to food violated both
Condition Nos. 9 and 10.
11.5
b) Jerry Kolbly also testified that his staff had received certified alcohol training in
1999, but due to staff turnover, the training had since lapsed. (See, Planning
Commission Minutes dated August 17, 2006). No record of completion of a
certified alcohol sales training course is in evidence as required pursuant to
Condition F. Failure to properly train the owners and staff who serve alcohol in
accordance with Condition F would constitute a violation of the condition. On
September 6, 2006, the majority of NBBC staff successfully complete the State
Department of Alcohol Control Board administered License Education on Alcohol
and Drugs (L.E.A.D.) training program. If this course had been completed by all
staff members, NBBC would have been in compliance with Condition F that
requires training of owners, staff and employees on responsible alcohol sales.
They may have previously been in violation of this condition, if there were
employees serving and /or selling alcoholic beverages who had not undergone a
certified training program. The NBBC has represented that all employees have
since received the LEAD training and the NBBC is believed to be in compliance
with Condition F.
c) Bruce Low, a 29th Street resident, testified for a group of concerned citizens,
noting that:
i) They do not wish to close the Brewery; as it brings value to the neighborhood
provided it is operated in accordance with the conditions of approval.
ii) There is a discrepancy between the Use Permit conditions and the condition
of the Coastal Development Permit related to the size of the dining room on
the weekends.
iii) The Brewery turns into an obtrusive bar operation after 10:30 PM and they
have bouncers, what restaurant has bouncers?
iv) The operators have made strides but the more serious problems still remain
nuisances to the neighborhood as outlined in the January 2006
correspondence remain.
d) Joe Reese, 30th Street resident, testified that patrons have to show their
identification to get into the establishment. It is not a restaurant, not with
bouncers and serving only appetizers after 10:00 p.m. This operation between
10:00 PM and 1:00 AM is nothing more than a bar. This area is out of control
and he is disturbed by the noise in the early mornings.
e) Drew Wetherhault, 30th Street resident, testified that he supported the prior
speakers and he stated that the restaurants and bars need to comply with their
use permits.
f) Carrie Stade, 29th Street resident, testified she has been awakened with noise
and victimized by patrons.
g) Stephanie Rosanelli, resident of Cannery Village, noted the noise at night and
that she can not leave her windows open. She too has had her home vandalized
by tagging.
//. 6
h) Christine Andros, 30th Street resident testified the challenges are the noise and
patron activities (nuisances) in the parking lot. This establishment operates as a
bar. She has spoken to the bar operator on several occasions to inform him of
disturbances in his parking lot.
i) Tony Shepherdson, 31st Street resident, testified his agreement with previous
speakers and stated any help would be welcomed.
j) Kevin Weeda, the owner of a business located in the area, testified his
agreement with the previous speakers and asked that this item be brought back
for formal review.
5. On August 17, 2006, the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing
where additional testimony was heard and a future hearing was set to consider the
possible revocation of the Use Permit. At the August 17, 2006 meeting, the following
matters were considered by the Planning Commission:
a) A Code and Water Quality Enforcement Officer conducted a site visit on
February 10, 2006. It was a Friday night, and the officer noted that there was in
fact a line to get into NBBC and the officer noted that some individuals were
screaming at each other and a high noise level was being emitted from the
premises. This would constitute a violation of the nuisance provision in Condition
D. (See, Planning Commission Minutes dated August 17, 2006).
b) At the Planning Commission Meeting, Mr. Kolbly, the General Manager of NBBC,
acknowledged that the line to get into the establishment could reach up to thirty
people. Additionally, John Dale, a patron of NBBC noted that the establishment
"does a great job with security at the door." (See, Planning Commission Minutes
dated August 17, 2006). Maintaining a "bouncer" at the door underscores that
NBBC may be operating a bar in the late night hours. Typically, restaurants do
not have lines of this magnitude to enter nor do they check identification at the
door. Operating as a bar would violate Condition #10.
c) At the Planning Commission meeting, Jill Markowitz, owner of a property near
NBBC contended that individuals were urinating in public (she did not specify that
the individuals came directly from NBBC). She also complained that, in general,
there were loud noises coming from the establishment and the parking lot. (See,
Planning Commission Minutes dated August 17, 2006). The noises /disturbances
would be in violation of the nuisance provision in Condition D.
d) Billy Steed testified that the establishment is nice until after 9:00 p.m. when it can
get out of control. Noise, public urination and fights coming out of the bar disturb
the peace. (See, Planning Commission Minutes dated August 17, 2006). The
noises /disturbances would be in violation of the nuisance provision in Condition
D.
e) Joe Reese testified at the meeting that he had visited NBBC after 9:00 PM on
August 5, 2005 to see how the NBBC operated. He testified that the security
guard at the door said that after 9:00 PM the restaurant becomes a bar and that
no one under 21 is allowed in or they would lose their liquor license. The
restaurant had patrons standing and loud music was playing. We sat at a table
and asked the waiter for food who told us the kitchen was closed and the only
thing to order was drinks. There were no chips, pretzels or popcorn being
served. There were three security guards inside the restaurant and another one
was outside. It was obvious that this was acting as a bar, not a restaurant.
Conversely, there was testimony given by Zach Stevens, a NBBC employee, on
duty that night noting that waiters are told to push food even past 11:00 PM to
increase sales and that the kitchen was open as evidenced by the sale of a %
chicken salad at midnight. (See, Planning Commission Minutes dated August 17,
2006). Closing the kitchen thereby eliminating food sales with the continued
sales of alcohol would constitute a violation of Condition #9 as the sale of alcohol
would exceed that of food and a violation of Condition #10 by operating a
prohibited bar.
f) Robby Hogan, a manager in charge of the kitchen at the establishment, testified
that he was on duty the night of August 5th and the kitchen was open and is
always open until the establishment closes (See, Planning Commission Minutes
dated August 17, 2006).
g) Roberta Aley, resident, testified that she frequents the brewery and that she
always has been able to get food after 12:00 AM and that she has not seen any
of these problems after 12:00 AM when she has been there that have been
portrayed by previous speakers. (See, Planning Commission Minutes dated
August 17, 2006).
6. On January 4, 2007, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing where
the Commission acted to amend the conditions of approval. The January 4, 2007
Planning Commission report is attached separately.
a) Jerry Kolbly, General Manager of the Newport Beach Brewing Company, testified
that the queue line location change has worked well. Instituting the full menu in
the late evening and early morning has been advantageous from a business
perspective. The LEAD training program has been a valuable experience they
have undertaken. Every brewpub cards after 10:00 p.m. in order to protect their
licenses and other restaurants do the same. The Brewing Company maintains a
higher percentage of food sales than alcohol sales and have since day one.
b) Drew Wetherhault, a local resident, testified that there is a parking problem
before 5 p.m. on the weekends. He also indicated his belief that the
establishment operates as a bar after 9 p.m. due to high alcohol sales. He noted
his desire to see a reduction in the hours of operation on Friday and Saturday
having them shut down at 11 p.m. like other restaurants to address nuisances.
He also noted that the neighborhood is impacted by after hours activities in the
parking lots south of the Brewery and not all of them are attributable to the
Brewing Company's patrons.
c) Joe Reese, local resident, testified that it is his belief that there is no doubt that
the use was intended to be a restaurant and not a bar as alcohol was conditioned
to be ancillary to food service. The Brewing Company has security guards at the
// -Y
doors and bouncers inside, it is a bar atmosphere. Every weekend he is
awakened by people leaving the drinking establishments.
d) Billy Staid, local resident, testified that in spite of the recent operational changes
instituted by the Brewing Company, there are still problems with the operation
principally with patron activity in the parking lot. He asked if the entrance could
be moved to the Newport Boulevard side of the building during the week after 9
p.m.
e) Stephanie Rosanelli, local resident, testified that noise is a problem and
suggested that a restaurant would be a better business value.
7. On January 12, 2007, an appeal was filed by The Cannery Village Concerned.
8. On March 27, 2007, the City Council considered the appeal; however, the hearing
was not noticed properly. The following is a summary of the testimony heard.
a) Bruce Low, local resident and representative of The Cannery Village Concerned,
testified to his belief that the NBBC was violating Conditions #9 and #10 as
evidenced by the high alcohol sales admitted by the NBBC. He also testified to
his belief that the Condition #6 was not properly modified in September of 1993
to be consistent with Coastal Commission conditions.
b) Kevin Weeda, a resident and business owner operating a business on 30th
Street, said the group of concerned residents did not want to drive away the
business, merely have the applicant comply with the use permit. Most problems
occur late at night and he believed the business should be limited to an 11:00
p.m. closing.
c) Jerry Kolbly, co- owner, Newport Beach Brewing Company, spoke about his
establishment and the fact that it had maintained the same social atmosphere for
the past 12 years. He has attempted to work with adjacent neighbors and staff to
resolve the issues. There is a security guard stationed at the rear door and
patrons enter and exit via Newport Boulevard only on Friday and Saturday nights
after 10:00 PM as a way to address resident concerns. He testified that the
quarterly sales of food are 52% and 48% alcohol. He indicated that in the past,
the kitchen was closed and that he has now opened the kitchen during all hours
to boost food sales. He also testified that there has been no significant
operational change in the business since it first opened. Mr. Kolbly confirmed his
earlier statements to the Planning Commission that nearly 90% of sales past
11:00 PM are alcohol; however, it was a guess and it may be approximately
80 %; clearly more than food.
d) Billy Steed, Cannery Loft owner, adjacent to the Brewery, said he has observed
all types of nuisances in the Brewery parking lot and his belief that the NBBC has
offered no solutions and it ignores complaints.
e) Stephanie Roselli, Cannery Village resident, testified to the NBBC's parking lot
being noisy.
j/.9
f) Joe Reese testified that he believed the intent of the 1993 and 1999 use permit
approvals were clear in that this establishment was to be a restaurant and not a
bar. He was personally carded and denied food after 10:00 PM one evening in
2006 and he has observed individuals standing around drinking after 10:00 PM
with no food service. He expressed his belief that this indicates that the NBBC is
a bar and not a restaurant in violation of conditions. He asked for enforcement of
the use permit.
g) Kristen Andros testified that it is her belief that the use operates as a restaurant
until 11:00 p.m. and thereafter it operates as a bar as evidenced by a queuing
line and carding.
1!_[6
Attachment No. 12
nal materials submitted to the Planning Commission &
City Council for consideration
12.1
3LANK
/2.2
MmEs e LAW GROUP
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
9911 IRVINE CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 150
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92618
(949) 788 -1425
FAX: (949) 788 -1991
SMII RS @MIc�RSLAWCROUP.COM
LAND USE
a
ENVIRONMENT.
ENTITI.ENIENT
FOR INCL IISION IN TIIP ADMINISTRATI i'F1, RECORD OFPROCEEDING
MEMORANDUM
TO: CHAIRMAN COLE
HONORABLE MEMF.RS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MR, JAMES CAMPBELL, ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR
MR. AARON HARP, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: STEPHEN M. MILES
MILES • LAW GROUP, P.C.
RE: NEWPORT BEACH BREWING COMPANY
USE PERMIT AND OPERATIONS REVIEW
DATE: JANUARY 4, 2007
0
I.
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
For approximately eleven months, staff and the Newport Beach Planning Commission have been reviewing
both the operations oftheNewporL Beach Brewing Company C NBBC ") and various permit conditions held by
NBBC to operate a restaurant and brewpub. Two previous public hearings have been held by the Planning
Commission, First, on May 4, 2006, the Planning Commission held an informational hearing on NBBC's Use
Permit No. 3485 (the "Use Permit ") following certain complaints to the City of Newport Beach about NBBC.
Next, on August 17, 2006, a review of the Use Permit was conducted and extensive testimony was heard about
the concentration of bars in the area and various residential concerns with late night pedestrian activity in the
area. .
Chairman Cole
January 4, 2007
Page 2
In addition to the Use hermit, NBBC holds Coastal Development Permit No. 5-93-137 ( "CDP Permit") and
both 'a Type 23 and Type 75 Alcoholic Beverage Control license. The Type 75 license permits the sale ofwine,
beer, and distilled spirits associated with the restaurant and brewpub. In 1999, the City Council amended the
Use Permit to allow operation with a Type 75 license and specifically reduce the Restaurant and Brewpub
hours of operation for Sunday through Thursday (reduced from 11:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.). The lion's share of
the Use Permit conditions remained unaffected from the original approval by the City Council in 1993.
The initial complaint and complainant that commenced the review ofthe Use Permit has received little review
or scrutiny during these proceedings. Testimony from Officer Cosylion and Commissioner McDaniel indicates
that a January complaint letter from "residents of Cannery Village" resulted in the February 2006 Code
Enforcement investigation of 'NBBC. (See, 8/17 Minutes, pp. 23 -24.)J While the Code Enforcement
investigation found no actionable violation of the Use Permit, voluntary measures have been undertaken by
NBBC (including outreach to the residents of the Cannery Village), in an effort to improve their operations in a
neighborly manner. NBBC is also pleased to note that they have reached consensus with City staff on a set of
additional and modified conditions to the Use Permit after several months of hard work with staff NBBC
reviewed proposed conditions, provided commentary to City staff, met with City Planning on several occasions,
and also met with Mr. Low to confirm that he had no remaining complaints about NBBC's operations. That
NBBC's voluntary efforts (1) addressed the concerns raised by "nearby residents, properly owners and local .
business owners" (Staff Report, p. 1.) and (2) verified NBBC's compliance with Use Permit conditions, was
ultimately confirmed by the November 3, 2006, Investigative Report conducted by the City of Newport Beach
Police Department ( "Investigative Report "). A copy of the Investigative Report is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference.
While NBBC will always remain cognizant of legitimate concerns lodged by its neighbors and. will continue to
improve its operations in a successful manner, NBBC questions the veracity of the initial complaint lodged with
the City that commenced these proceedings. While specific residents of the Cannery Village will certainly have
legitimate concerns with noise emanating from the vicinity of the NBBC parking lot and the adjacent municipal
parking lot, NBBC believes that the opposition led by the Cannery V illage Concerned was equally motivated by
financial interests. Mr. Kevin Weeda and Mr. Bruce Low have held themselves out as the leaders of the
".`Cannery Village Concerned" — and allegedly represent upwards of fifty Cannery Village residents. To date, no
evidence has been provided to this Commission that verifies the existence of a bona fide association or the
actual residents that Mssrs. Weeda and Low actually represent.
Mr. Weeda, who has testified on several occasions about the NBBC Use Permit, has a distinct pecuniary
interest in seeing NBBC's operations fail. On several occasions over the past two years, Mr. Weeda has
approached the owners of the NBBC property (Fainbarg and Feuerstein) seeking to acquire the parcel. (See,
Declaration of Mr. Irving Chase). Fainbarg and Feuerstein previously owned various properties in Cannery
Village before selling them to Mr. Weeda. (Id.) Despite his persistent inquiries, the owners of the NBBC
property have informed him that the NBBC parcel is subject to a long term lease and is not for sale. (Id.)
i2.y
Chairman Cole
January 4, 2007
Page 3
II.
VOLUNTARY ACTIONS TAKEN AND .IMPLEMENTED BY
. THE NEWPORT BEACH BREWING COMPANY
In light of the direction given by this Commission on August 17, 2006, and because NBBC takes great pride in
being a part of the Newport Beach community, several voluuntary actions have been taken by NBBC to continue
the improvement of its restaurant and brewpub operations.
I. Line Relocation, In coordination with the City, NBBC has administered a new entrance from the
front of the building that eliminates any queuing and loitering in the NBBC parking lot. As
observed by the Investigative Report, the new entrance successfully eliminates noise that may
otherwise be detected by the Cannery Village residents that purchase lofts directly adjacent to the
NBBC parking lot.
II. Security Plan and Security Guard Presence. Employment of up to 5 Security Guards with a
primary function of controlling and patrolling the NBBC parking area until 30 minutes after closing.
The specific duties currently undertaken by NBBC Security Guards will be memorialized in a
Security Plan that will be presented to the City and the Police Department. Key elements of the
NBBC Security Plan include:
a. Noise abatement through notification of patrons.
b. Implementation of L.EADs concepts — identification review to eliminate risk of underage
drinking.
c. Parking area enforcement of noise restrictions and nuisance activity; documentation of noise
issues and nuisance activity from the municipal parking lot Fwd ancillary public areas (streets
and alleys).
d. Response to Cannery Village complaints and concerns and coordination with the Newport
Beach Police Department.
III. Bottle Recycling Program. NBBC has implemented a bottle recycling program that collects
bottles inside the restaurant to eliminate noise. Also, the use of large, deliverable storage containers
eliminates the "dumping" of glass and its associated noise.
IV. Trash Dumpster Area. NBBC submitted architectural design plans to the City for an enclosed and
covered trash dumpster area. The enclosure will be locked and secure.
V. Alcohol Training. All NBBC owners, operators, and employees have successfully completed a
State certified LEADS program and will require all future employees to complete the LEAD'S
program. NBBC also remains active with the City of Newport Beach Police Department and
attended the business program hosted last month that focused on the prevention of underage
drinking.
/Z.5
Chairman Cole
January 4, 2007
Page 4
.III.
MODIFICATION AND REVOCATION OF USE .PERMITS
NBBC is confident that the Commission will recognize the voluntary efforts undertaken by NBBC and, taken in
conjunction with the conclusions of the Investigative Report, will conclude that the draft Use Permit conditions
proposed by City staff are well - reasoned and effective in addressing legitimate concerns raised during these
proceedings. NBBC is in agreement with the draft Use Permit conditions finalized by City staff on December
26, 2006. However, NBBC's legal position remains that no present conditions exist that warrant modification
or revocation of the Use Permit.
Substantial evidence in the record and the City's evidentiary findings in adopting the Cannery Village Specific
Plan indicate that NBBC's preexisting operations are consistent with the surrounding land uses and that no
nuisance conditions exist. The investigative reports conducted by the City and under the City's direction
confirm that no extraordinary incident or complaint is associated with NBBC and that it is operating with fewer
incidences than other similarly- situated establishments. Moreover, the evidence presented by the City confirms
that NBBC remains in substantial compliance with the Use Permit conditions. Furthermore, the majority of
testimony presented on August 17, 2006, confirms that a heavy concentration of bars exist in the vicinity of the
Restaurant and Brewpub. These establishments close later than NBBC and the patrons of these bars utilize the
municipal parking lot within the Cannery Village.
In an effort to rectify the issues emanating from the municipal parking lot, the NBBC Security Plan mandates
that security personnel remain on the clock for 30 minutes beyond closing to monitor both the NBBC parking
lot and adjacent municipal lot, alleys and sidewalks to address pedestrian activities that may be disruptive to the
Cannery Village. (See, Declaration of JerryKolbly.) The Security Plan also allows NBBC to properly address
impacts to the Restaurant and Brewpub and surrounding Cannery Village caused by the residents of the
Cannery Village. (Id. [Attendees of Cannery Village party utilizing and littering NBBC's parking lot].)
A. Goat Hill Tavern
The seminal decision on revocation and modification of use permits is Goat Hill Tavern v.tity of Costa Mesa
(1992) 6 Ca1.App.4th 1519. Like the case at hand, the Goat Full Tavern Decision involved complaints from
residents abutting the parking lot of the bar about noise, trash, and drunken behavior during late hours of
operation. (Id. at 1524.)
In contrast to the evidence before the Planning Commission, however, the City. of Costa Mesa provided
extensive evidence through a staff report that "summarized 19 reported police incidents occurring at the tavern
between August 1990 and November 1990. They included incidents in the parking lot and complaints the
tavern exceeded its capacity and its patrons were drunk in public." (Id. at 1524 -25.) Notwithstanding the large
number of incidents over a four month period, the City of Costa Mesa's preliminary action of limiting the
tavern's hours of operation was stayed by the trial court and ultimately the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial
court's grant of a writ of mandate against the City. (Id. at 1523, 1532.)
/2,(p
v
ZD /
Chairman Cole
January 4, 2007
Page 5
The Court of Appeal held that a use permit, once issued, becomes a fundamental vested right that cannot be
impaired absent a showing of either a failure by the permittee to comply with the reasonable conditions of the
permit or a compelling public necessity. (Id. at 1530.)
"Once a use permit has been properly issued the power of a municipality to revoke it is
limited. Of course, if.the permittee does nothing beyond obtaining the permit it maybe
revoked. Where a permit has been properly obtained and in reliance thereon the permittee
has incurred material expense, he acquires a vested properly right to the protection of which
he is entitled." (Id.)
Because the Use Permit is a fundamental vested right held by NBBC, an administrative decision that
substantially affects that fundamental vested right is reviewed under the independent judgment standard.
Different than the traditionally deferent standard of review for most land use decisions, "the trial court must
exercise its independent judgment on the evidence and find an abuse of discretion if the findings are not
supported by the weight of the evidence." (Goat Hill Tavern v. City of Costa Mesa (1992) 6 Cal,AppAth 1519,
1531, citing Strumsky v. San Diego County EmEloyees.Retirement Assn. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 28, 32; See Cal.
Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5, subd, (c).)
The grant of the writ of mandate against the City of Costa Mesa was largely based on the type of evidence
presented at hearing:
1) Several witnesses wrote or testified favorably to Goat Hill Tavern.
2) Police records showing the number of incidents reported at the tavern were less than at most
other bars and coffee shops in the vicinity.
3) No showing to distinguish complaints about Goat Hill Tavern from other possible causes,
including other bars and other pedestrians that frequented the area.
While the City of Costa Mesa was unsuccessful in substantially modifying the tavern's use permit and
unsuccessful in revoking the use permit, the evidence presented by the City of Costa Mesa is far more
compelling that the evidence at hand. There, nineteen reported police incidents occurring at the tavern in a four
month period was insufficient evidence to impair a vested right. Here, no police incidents are attributable to
NBBC. (See, Investigative Report attached hereto.) Also, the evidence presented to the Planning Commission
has the similar error in failing to distinguish complaints about NBBC from other possible causes like patrons of
bars in the area that close after NBBC, other patrons that use the NBBC parking lot or municipal parking lot, or
pedestrians passing through the parking lots in a mixed use community.
Based on the holding and evidence presented in the Goat Hill Tavern Decision, the City has insufficient
grounds to modify the conditions of the Use Permit. Nevertheless, NBBC has voluntarily conceded to several
new conditions and condition modifications in an effort to improve its operations and for the betterment ofthe
community.
B. Condition No. 6
While no modification is being proposed to Condition No. 6, NBBC believes that the following analysis of
Condition No. 6 is warranted, While NBBC has complied with Condition No. 6 without incident since its
inception, the Planning Commission is now responding to a recent allegation that Condition No. 6 may be in
1-2.7
Chairman Cole
January 4, 2007
Page 6
conflict with Special Condition No. 1 of the Coastal Development Permit. Condition No. 6 is not in conflict
with Special Condition No. 1 or the recorded Deed Restriction that memorializes Special Condition No. 1.
Since July 1993, Use Permit Condition No. 6 has stated that:
"The net public area of the restaurpnt(brewpub, which is devoted to daytime
use Monday through Friday (prior to 5:00 p.m.), shall be limited to 1,500
square feet. The balance of the net public area shall be physically closed off
to the public by a fixed barrier and shall not be used until after 5:00 p.m.
daily. "
Condition No. 6 clearly states that the 1,500 square feet restriction applies Monday through Friday. In contrast,
Coastal Development Permit No. 5 -93 -137 (granted on July 15, 1993) (the "CDP ") is more generalized, less
specific, and does not specify which days the public area use restriction is applicable. Special Condition No. 1
provides instead that;
"Prior to issuance of the Coastal Development Permit, the applicant shall
execute and record a deed restriction, in a /form] and content acceptable to
the Executive director, which shall provide that no more than 1,500 square
feet of service area of the subject restauranUbrewpub shall he open before
5:00 p.m. The document shall run with the land, binding all successors and
assigns, and shall be recorded free ofprior liens."
A deed restriction parroting the CDP language was recorded on January 19, 1994 (Doc. #94- 0038769 dated
January 19, 1994, as required by CDP Special Condition No. 1.
Additionally, Special Condition No: 3 to the CDP expressly states that the City of Newport Beach shall submit
a letter to the :Executive Director of the Coastal Commission that indicates the City's enforcement of Special
Condition 1. Like the recording of the Deed Restriction, this prerequisite explains that:
"Additionally, prior to issuance of the Coastal Development Permit, the
applicant shall submit, for the review and approval of the Executive Direbtior,
a letter from the City of Newport Beach indicating that the City agrees that
the City's Code Enforcement will enforce the [public/service area restrictions
described in [special] Condition 1."
This is a highly personalized.Special Condition that exclusively relates to an express provision that the City's
Code Enforcement will enforce the public service area restrictions. The Coastal Commission deferred
enforcement of Special Condition No. 1 to the City of Newport Beach, further indicating that the City's Use
Permit Condition No. 6 is controlling — especially when the issue is merely one of interpretation thirteen (13)
years after the fact. The Coastal Commission acquiesced to the City's specific language regarding the service
area restrictions upon their receipt on October 13, 1993, of the Special Condition No. 3 Letter from the City of
Newport Beach. (See, Stanson v. San Diego Coast flegional Com. (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 38, 50.) That letter.
starts by saying:
/ Z. Y
I.
Chairman Cole
January-4, 200'1
Page 7
"As requested in the special conditions forthe subject Coastal Permit Application, this letter
is provided for the purpose of confirming the action of the City Council of the City of
Newport Beach relative to its approval of Use Permit No. 3485 (Revised) ... In Summary, the
City Council's action as it relates to the Coastal Commission's Special Conditions.. included
the following:
1. The "net public area" of the restaurant brewpub, which is devoted to daytime use
Monday through Friday (prior to 5:00 p.m.) shall be limited to 1,500 sq.ft. 'Che
balance of the "net public area" shall be physically closed off to the public by a fixed
barrier and shall not be used until after 5:00 p.m. daily."
The letter continues by noting that the property shall pay for 29 in -lieu parking spaces in the Cannery Village
Municipal Parking Lot on an annual basis for the nighttime operation (after 5:00 p.m.).
In conclusion, the letter confirms that disclosed conditions have been established as conditions of Use Pennit
No. 3485 and that the City will enforce said conditions in accordance with Chapter 20.80 of the Municipal
Code. A full copy of the October 13, 1993 is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference.
As a final note, because Mr. Low has claimed that "the Coastal Commission has indicated that the restriction
applies daily," this Commission should be aware that the CDP also includes the following standard condition
that governs the interpretation of Special Condition No. 1:
"Interpretation. Any question of intent or interpretation of any condition will
be resolved by the Executive Director or the Commission."
Accordingly, it is not appropriate for a non -party to the CDP to propose a creative interpretation that results in a
conflict and then suggest that the permittee must seek a CDP modification. Instead, if a question of
interpretation of a CDP condition arises (i.e., over the past thirteen years), the Executive Director can resolve
the question administratively. In light of the October 13, 1993, letter received by the Coastal Commission in
compliance with Special Condition No. 3, it makes perfect sense that the Executive Director has not weighed in
on this "issue" or otherwise sought to bring it to the attention of the Coastal Commission.
p
Condition No. 6 should not be modified to reflect a restriction on weekends. Condition No. 6 clearly applies
the use area restriction to weekdays. Moreover, with the other. Use Permit modifications in place, Condition
No. 6 is not a potential source of a community impact and hasn't been alleged as the source of a residential
hnpact. Now that previous allegations have been addressed, Mr. Low has made the asserted that the 1,500
square feet restriction is a "huge problem." In 1993, the City clearly informed the Coastal Commission in
writing that the 1,500 square feet restriction applies Monday through Friday and would be so enforced. Only
the Executive Director has the present authority to interpret Special Condition No. 1. To the extent that such an
interpretation is needed, it is unlikely that after 13 years the Executive Director would find Condition No. 6
inconsistent with Special Condition No. 1 and Special Condition No. 3.
lZ.9
ATTACHMENT "1"
J
1z.ev
CITY OF NEWPORT REACH
POLICE DEPARTMENT
November 3, 2006
TO: Sgt. R. Valiercamp
FROM: Detective D. Stark
SUBJECT: INVESTIGATIVE REPORT - NEWPORT BEACH BREWING COMPANY
Case Initiation:
On 8/22/06, Assistant; City Attorney Aaron Harp asked NBPD to assist his office and the
Planning Commission in regards to the Newport Beach Brewing Company (hereinafter referred
to as NBBC). Mr. Harp identified nine different questions regarding the .NBBC abiding by
their Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and asked The Police Department to investigate.
Investigative Results:
The Special Investigations Unit of the NBPD reviewed Patrol related calls from the CAD
System and coordinated with Patrol Officers and shift supervisors to increase their awareness
and the need for documentation of incidents that involve the NBBC. There have not been any
Patrol related problems noted in the last two months. Most Patrol Officers commented that the
NBBC is rarely a problem.
Undercover detectives from Special Investigations visited the NBBC and conducted
surveillances of the surrounding area on six separate occasions to help answer the following
questions. 0
Questions I - 9:
Question #1 dealt with the possibility of the NBBC being operated as a bar (rather than a
restaurant) on specific days and at specific times, especially between 2200 hours and 0100
hours on Friday and Saturday Nights.
The answer to this is very subjective and probably inconclusive. The NBBC did have on- duty
security employees working. Security employees were present the entire time during each
evening visit by Detectives (8- 31 -06, 9 -1 -06, 9 -2 -06, 9.3 -06, 9 -8-06) One security employee
was monitoring the entrance and one or two others were circulating throughout the restaurant.
On 918106, we had a Police Cadet who was 20 years old attempt to enter by herself after 2200
12.11
�I„
hours. When the door security employee learned she was under 21, he apologized and said,
"We don't let anyone under 21 inside after 2200 hours unless you're with a parent or other
adult." The staff kept the crowd /occupancy at a reasonable level. Even after waiting in line to
enter (after 2300 hours on a Friday night), we found several tables available to sit at. They
served their full menu (appetizers and entrees) until they closed at midnight. They did not have
live entertainment, IN's or dancing.
Question #2 inquired about the noise being generated by the restaurant.
Investigating officers observed the entire exterior perimeter of the restaurant throughout the
evening and night on five separate dates (Thursday, 8/31/06, Friday, 9/1/06, Saturday, 912/06,
Sunday, 9/3/06, and Friday, 9/8/06). The only noise came from the patio area which bordered
Newport Boulevard. The noise was from patrons talking (not from amplified music). The
noise would be drowned out when multiple cars passed the location. The rear or bay side of
the NBBC remained quiet and trouble free during the restaurant's hours of operation.
The only door that remained open was the patio door which faced Newport Boulevard. All
windows were kept closed and on one occasion (90106 at about 2200 hours), when a patron
opened the window, the security staff immediately responded and closed the window. The rear
(bay side) doors, when being used as the entrance/exit, were kept closed except during
ingress/egress of patrons.
Question #3 asked If the NBBC had the proper signs posted inside the establishment.
The Occupancy was clearly displayed on a large sign above the rear door (facing the bay)
reading "Occupancy 160." This number is consistent with the occupancy certificate in our
ABC file. Additionally, there were several signs clearly posted on the interior, side and rear of
the exterior, requesting quiet and respect for the neighbors.
Question #4 dealt with the exterior of the NBBC ineluding the parking lot, sidewalk,
alleys and surrounding areas.
None of the detectives noticed any significant noise or disturbances attributable to the NBBC.
During the late night hours, after the NBBC was closed, we noted several groups of people
returning to their cars from the area of the intersection at Newport Boulevard apd 30th Street.
These people would often have loud conversations, however, there was no loitering, drinking,
public urination or other activities observed. The NBBC security staff' was observed outside,
monitoring their portion of the parking lot during and after closing time with a flashlight.
Considering the exterior signs, closed windows, movement of the entrance after hours and
patrolling of the rear parking lot, I would say that the NBBC is making a concerted effort to
reduce noise and related problems for their neighbors.
Question #5 asked If the Brewery Employees had received the proper certifications.
On 9/6/06, Alcohol .Beverage Control (ABC) Investigator D. Shaver gave LEAD Program
training (Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs) to 17 NBBC employees. The LEAD
/2./
Program is a voluntary prevention and education program for California retail alcohol sales
licensees, their employees and applicants. The program length is 3 1/2 hours and the mission
is to provide traiivng on alcohol responsibility and the law. Another training class was
offered on October 4th and 2 more employees attended. The 3 remaining employees who
have not attended this class have been taken off the schedule until they complete the training.
Question #6 dealt with "Calls For Service." Since previous reports have been compiled
prior to 8/10/06, this report will address calls after 8/10/06.
Five calls for service were associated with the NBBC address from 8/10/06 to the present. One
was a traffic stop by a Patrol Officer (unrelated to the NBBC). Another was a noise complaint
by an anonymous caller which Patrol Officers cleared as unfounded.
On 8/19/06 at about OOs8 hours, Jill Ivlarcowitz called to report a large group of people yelling
and screaming in the parking lot. Patrol Officers were dispatched at 0124 hours and arrived a
minute later: fhe Officers cleared after advising that the NBBC was shutting down. It is
unknown if the disturbance was still occurring when officers arrived.
On 9/12/06 at about 0337 hours, Bruce Low called in a noise disturbance regarding a grease
recovery vehicle that was parked in the alley on the east side of the NBBC and actively
pumping out grease. A .Patrol Officer responded at 0339 hours. I.spoke with the responding
officer (Dugan) who explained that he arrived as the grease truck had finished pumping. The
noise made by the truck when he was present was minimal. Officer Dugan remained for about
4 minutes until the truck left. I was also forwarded an email regarding this disturbance written
by resident Bruce Low which included photos.
On 9/16/06, an anonymous male cell phone caller reported being assaulted by NBBC security.
Patrol Officers responded and no assault was substantiated. The units observed that the caller
was intoxicated and he left the area. The Officers cleared the scene logging an assist.
Question #7 asks about the line to enter the restaurant.
On the days when investigators entered the NBBC before 2130 hours, the entrance was on the
bay /parking lot side of the restaurant. Depending on the night, sometime around 2130 to 2200
hours, the entrance would be moved to the Newport Boulevard side of the rftarrant. Signs
would be placed on the rear entrance doors telling patrons that the entrance was at the front of
the building. They would also place a three foot tall folding sign on the ground in front of the
rear entrance saying the same thing. Signs would also be affixed to the inside of the rear doors
saying, "NOT AN EXIT."
The N13BC would place line delineators along Newport Boulevard to organize and control
patrons waiting in line. A restaurant security employee was at the front of the line monitoring
the occupancy and checking ID's. Lines were observed on several occasions, usually after
2300 hours on Friday and Saturday nights. On a Friday night (9/8/06) at 2300 hours, I waited
in line for about five minutes prior to entry. When I was let inside, there were still three
unoccupied tables.
/2./3
Question #8 asked if litter was present in the parking lot.
Undercover detectives visited the NBBC six times and numerous parking lot and perimeter
checks were conducted. No one observed any trash or other discarded items that would draw
their attention.
Question #9 addressed CUP condition #6, a provision that a portion of the restaurant
remain closed prior to 3 p.m. (reduction in Net Public Area).
Detectives also visited the NBBC during the lunch hour on Wednes a , 8/30/06 at about 11.30
hours. They noted that the area in the restaurant adjacent to the brew kettles was the only
section open for the small lunch crowd. The other areas of the bar and restaurant were closed.
On Sunday 10/08/06, Detectives visited the NB.BC, arriving at about 1230 hours. They noted
that the restaurant was completely open with patrons occupying tables in all areas (no sections
were closed of). When they arrived, they estimated that the restaurant was 701/o full and when
they left at 1430 hours it was 90% full. The primary attraction that day was NFL Football.
The rear, parking lot entrance doors remained closed when not being used for ingress/egress
and no unreasonable noise was emanating from the establishment.
/z. /y
ATTACHMENT "2"
0
Autrl1-08
01:05pm From- Callfv la'Coastal
+5020005004 7-250 F-7500
�P.002/002
I4riW1 ���
Ms. Ms Mog Vaughn
California Coastal Commission
OCT 13 9993
245 W..Broadway, SM. 380
P. 0. Brix 1450
CALIFORNIA
Long Bead; CA 94802
COASTAL CDMmjsslON
SOUTH COAST DISTRICT
Subject: Coastal Pertnit Application No. 5 -93 -137; 2920 Newport .Boulevard
Dear Ms Vaughn:
As requested in the special conditions for the subject Coastal Permit Application, this letter
is ,provided for the purpose of confirming the action of the City Council of the City of
Nevaport,Beach relative to its approval of Use Permit No. 3485 (Revised). As indicated in
the attached excerpt of the City Council minutes dated September 27,1993; The d Council
aproved Vse Permit No. 3485 (Revised) with the findings and subject to the co tions'set
forth in .the City Council staff report so dated September 27, 1993. In sumarry, the Elty.
Council's actiog as it relates to the Constal Comn lssion's Special Conditions,. included the
following;
1. The "net public area" of the iestaiirant/brewpub, wbieh is devoted to daytlme use
Monday through Friday (prior to 5:00 p.m:) shall be limited to 1,500 sq.ft. The
balance of the "not public area" shall be physically closed off. to the public by a fixed
barrier and shall not be used until after 5 :00 p.m daily.
2. The property owner shaA pay for 29 i1t -lieu parking spaces in the Cannery Village
Municipal Parking Lot on an annual basis for the nighttime operation (after 5:00
p.m.) of the restaurant /brewpub use as agreed upon by the Sales Agreement between
the City and the property owner.
Inasmuch as the above conditions have been established as conditions of Use Permit No.
3485, the City of Newport Beach will inforce. said provisions in accordance with the. YJse
Permit Procedures set forth in Chapter 20.80.6£ the Municipal :Ctlde. It should be furthor
noted that Rom No. 2 above, is In keeping with the City Council's. action rescinding its.
previous action which allowed the applicant the daytime use of 14-lieu parking in the
Cannery Village Municipal Parking Lot.
We hope that this information will be sufciertt for your purposes, and should you have, any
questions feel free to contact Mr. William Ward in our office, at 644.3240.
cry truly your
,
J S D' 1I.M C i Director
went$
...planufny\bi{IN \ap79aAlbr
a
�a
o
� o
• o
J W
Q+
1'
2
3
3
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STEPHEN M. MILES (State Bar No. 185596)
MILES *LAW GROUP
A Professional Corporation
9911 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 150
Irvine California 92618
Telephone: 949 788 -1425
Facsimile: ((949788 -1991
Attorneys for Permittee
NEWPORT BEACH BREWING COMPANY, INC.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
REVIEW OF NEWPORT BEACH BREWING COMPANY OPERATIONS
NEWPORT BEACH BREWING COMPANY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
Use Permit No. 3485
CDP No. 5 -93 -137
DECLARATION OF JERRY KOLBL
Date: January 4, 2007
Time: 6:00 p.m.
_ -1-
DEC AR TION OF JERRY XOLBLY
V
/z./7
0
L7
0
3�
ti
� o
m �
o
w
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Jerry Kolbly hereby declares:
1. I, JerryKolbly, am the General Manager ofthe Newport Beach Brewing Company.
I have been employed by NBBC for 11 % years and have personal and first hand knowledge of
every aspect of the Company's operations.
2. 1 have been present at the following public hearings before the Newport Beach
Planning Commission:.May 4, 2006 and August 24, 2006. I have also attended several outreach
meetings with City officials and the asserted leaders of the "Cannery Village Concerned ". In
particular, I have met personally with Kevin Weeda, Joe Riess, Bruce Low, Billy Stade and
Drew Wetherholt to share with the Cannery Village the agreeable and voluntary measures that
NBBC is willing to implement and has subsequently implemented.
3. On one occasion, on August 2, 2006,1 met with the representatives of Cannery
Village along with Mr. Jim Campbell, City of Newport Beach, and our attorney, Stephen M.
Miles to discuss the operation modifications that NBBC desired to implement to address noise
concerns raised by the Cannery Village. That particular meeting ended abruptly when Mr. Bruce
Low began displaying behavior of frustration by cursing at the NBBC representatives and
aggressively confronting our attorney. Other representatives of the Cannery Village Concerned
apologized for Mr. L,ow's behavior and we continued to discuss the issues with the Cannery
Village representatives.
4. Attached as Exhibit "A" to this Declaration is a real estate listing for Mr. Low's
Cannery Village residence. Mr. Low originally purchased his residence fpm Mr. Kevin Weeda,
a fellow member of the Cannery Village Concerned that has illustrated his financial interest in
acquiring the NBBC property. The asking price for Mr. Low's residence ($3,295,000.00) does
not appear to indicate any issue with the quiet enjoyment of his property.
5. Our next meeting with Mr. Low, on Thursday, November 30, 2006, was much
more productive. This meeting followed the issuance of the Police Investigative Report dated
-2-
DECLARATION ERR Y
2 ./�
I November 3, 2006, confirming the general absence of condition violations, absence of incidence,
2 and absence of any potential noise impacts caused by NBBC operations.
3 6. Following the Planning Commission hearing on August 17, 2006, as the general
4 manager for NBBC, I have overseen several actions taken in response to the direction of the
5 Planning Commission. I believe that these actions address all the concerns that were raise by
6 the public at the Planning Commission hearing. I feel that the actions taken address not only the
7 potential noise impacts that NBBC operations may have on its neighbors, but, as important, the
8 actions taken help address the impacts to the neighbors that are caused by the public generally.
9 7. Since September 1, 2006, NBBC has actively relocated the line that used to form
10 at the parking lot entrance to the front of the building. This action has eliminated any potential
11 noise, caused by NBBC patrons, that could be perceived by the Cannery Village Lofts.
12 8. On September 6, 2006, NBBC closed its operation to the public to enable every
13 employee and owner of NBBC to complete a certified alcohol service education course referred
14 to as "License Education on Alcohol and Drugs" ( "LEADs "). Every working employee and
3 v 15 owner of NBBC completed the LEADs class. The certifications received by NBBC are attached
0 16 hereto as Exhibit "B ".
17 9, On September 24, 2006, as part of NBBC's Security Plan, I prepared and
0
w 18 submitted to each resident of the Cannery Village Lofts, a letter specifying a phone number for
¢
19 the residents to call, if and when they have any safety concerns or any concerns with the
20 operations of NBBC or the utilization of eitherNBBC's parking lot orthe municipal parking lot.
21 To date, NBBC has not received any phone calls from the Cannery Village regarding any
22 complaints or concerns.
23 10. On or about September 30, 2006, 1 received a copy of a letter addressed to the
24 Newport Beach Planning Commission from Ms. Judy Leeper. The letter consists of testimony
25 from a Cannery Village resident that, for 10 years, has lived adjacent to the NBBC parking lot
26 without complaint. Ms. Leeper notes that noise concerns have always been worked out with
27 NBBC and that the real problem is the public's use (as opposed to NBBC patron's use) of the
28
-3-
DECLA JI-,RRY
X2./9 -�
I NBBC and municipal parking lot. A copy of the letter is attached, hereto, as Exhibit "C." The
2 letter confirms the willingness of NBBC to address any noise complaints and further shows that
3 any potential noise issues have been rectified by the modification of the NBBC entrance.
4 11. On Saturday, October 7,2006, 1 spoke with Bruce Low's wife. She indicated that
5 she had called NBBC at or around 12:30 a.m. Saturday morning and was not successful getting
6 through. Later that day, Bruce Low's wife apologized for making an issue and explained that
7 she was overly concerned because she was. home alone.
8 12. On October 13, 2006,1 submitted engineered plans for the redesign and enclosure
9 of the NBBC trash bin located between NBBC's parking lot and the municipal parking lot.
10 Upon approval of the plans, NBBC, in conjunction with ourlandlord, stands ready to implement
11 immediate construction of the new trash enclosure.
12 13. In response to potentially unreasonable noise caused by the disposal of recycled
0 13 glass bottles, NBBC modified its Bottle Recycling Program. Now the collection of glass is
14 conducted inside the Restaurant and Brewpub to eliminate any noise for the adjacent residences.
3 15 Furthermore, the bottles on collected in transportable containers that are readily loaded from the
16 front of the building -- thereby eliminating transfer and disposal noise.
a o 17 14. For approximately fivemonths, fromAugust2006 through December2006, NBBC
a 18 has videotaped and taken noise measurements of the NBBC parking lot and municipal parking
19 lot. The general findings from the taping and measurements are that, even when the NBBC lot
20 is full during hours of operation, the parking lot is quiet. On occasion, our Security Team has
21 observed loud and boisterous activity in the municipal parking lot after NBBC's hours of
22 operation. The source of the noise is from pedestrians arriving from other establishments after
23 NBBC has closed. In addition, on occasion (e.g., September 16, 2006, at 1:00 a.m.) bottles being
24 picked up from Abe Restaurant have resulted in a very loud crashing sound.
25 15. On January 2, 2007, I generated a quarterly sales report for NBBC. Upon request
26 from the City, NBBC will make the sales report available to the City for review and inspection.
27 For the final quarter of 2006, alcohol sales accounted for 47.60 percent of total NBBC sales.
28
-4-
DECLARATION OLBL
G
and
EXHIBIT "A"
Eel
�2,2Z
J _ _
�' i
1
7 �� �� la
Tu
ff1.
a
Yr„„ .
:Ki.
1 1 : ..
�Ii _
EXIBI`T" "B9
0
l2.2�
I
r ��4
*r�T grr+e +Ry,t Nom¢
I: 1 mtsrt� amd. #.pn ou i}!annw An+x axn ,ors .
�6edvcu "�5�lrpog EengCun
6pg.A�1 _ dI
® ��
"YJIIiC. AF' m'- "v:YflF ni7ni not %[RuIPLY:!(nt�+li1C' .
�1CensCD.IIBpexttpttgp rliCHilrCl NiRG'h�Ug5
e 18n�5rivnr'IWuing PiWgram
:. -s
zDos
/ 2 Z(?
5b-�r
I
EXHIBIT 66C99
V
/2.3�
September 30, 2006
City of Newport Beach, Planning Comutission
City Hall
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 926633884
Re, Newport Beach .B,rewirtg Company Use permit No. 3485
Dear Commession Members,
I am writing in support of the Newport Beach Brewing Company and to let you know that I
am in favor of the Brewing Company's use permit to remain as is and to not be modified.
I have lived in the Cannery Village for 10 years and our property is located across the street
frOM the Brewery parking lot, and the Public parking lot. The Brewery has been a.good
neighbor and. the manager has always hied to work with us whenever we have had, a, noise
complaint. The Brewery was here long before the rest of us built and ptttchased qi :houses,
Thar are apart of the neighborhood and Rankly we all chose to hove into the envkonment of
the Cannery Village. It is an "urban" neighborhood and there is going to be noise. It would
be the same environment if we chose to build our loft style homes in downtown LA or
Manhattan. That was the draw for us. We chose the urban Loft style living as opposed to -a
residential neighborhood.
Since the most recent lofts have been built and moved into they of course have had to adjust
to this environment, and once again I see the managment team trying to make their neighbors
happy by moving the ent mwe to the Newport Blvd. door instead of the parking lot so that
there Is less noise.
I strongly feel that if the Brewery's use ,permit is modified or provoked nothing will have
changed. The public parks in the both the Brewery lot and the public lot to make their rounds
to the restaurants In the area. The noise comes from the parking lots and so I feel that nothing
will change just because the Brewery is changed.
V
The Brewery is one of the restaurants that our family frequents and I would be sad to see it
go.
I am unable to attend the meeting on October 5th and so .1 wanted to voice my opinion in
writing,
kin rely,Lee er (Satb. Street
Newport Beach, CA, 92663
949.922 -9593
cc: l�iewp�t 't•BertcirBrcrvir�-Camgany
1231
i
STEPHEN M. MILES (State Bar No. 185596)
MILES • LAW GROUP
2
A Professional Corporation
9911 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 150
3
Irvine, California 92618
Telephone: 949 788 -1425
4
Facsimile: (949)788 -1991
5
Attorneys for Permittee
NEWPORT BEACH BREWING COMPANY, .INC.
6
7
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
8
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
9
REVIEW OF NEWPORT BEACH BREWING COMPANY OPERATIONS
10
11
NEWPORT BEACH BREWING COMPANY Use Permit No. 348
12
0
CDP No. 5 -93 -137
13
DECLARATION OF
tBEACH
0
14
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH IRVING M. CHASE
g
15
PLANNING COMMISSION Date: January 4, 2007
¢
o
16
Time: 6:00 p.m.
S
w
17
��
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-
DECLARATION OF C1-I
I
Irving M. Chase hereby declares:
i
2
3
1: I, Irving M. Chase, am the manager of S &A Properties, which manages the
4
property for Fainbarg and Feuerstein Properties — the owner of that property leased to the
.
5
Newport Beach Brewing Company (the "Properly ") for the operation of their Restaurant and
6
Brewery. The Property is one of approximately 10 holdings owned and managed by S &A
7
Properties in Newport Beach, Perris, Costa Mesa, Campbell, Santa Clara, Tustin, and Camarillo.
8
The National holdings for S &A Properties are in California, Washington, Oregon, Nevada,
9
Arizona, Louisiana, Texas, and Florida.
10
2. Subsequent to the August 17, 2006, Planning Commission hearing concerning the
I1
Newport Beach Brewing Company permits, management for the Newport Beach Brewing
12
Company ( "NBBC ") arranged a meeting with S &A Properties to discuss several tenant
13
improvements to be made by NBBC to address concerns raised by the Cannery Village and the
c14
Planning Commission.
3 15
3. On or about August 24, 2006, I met with NBBC Management at the Property and,
0 16
together, we agreed to relocate the existing mailbox location for the Property to enable NBBC
w w 17
0
to establish a new entry point to the Restaurant and Brewery from the front of thebuilding rather
w 18
than from the parking lot. S &A Properties relocated the mailbox.
Q
19
4. In addition, S &A Properties agreed to redesign the existing trash enclosure
20
between the Property's parking lot and the City's adjacent municipal lot. S &A Properties'
21
consulting architect designed the trash enclosure to include a roof and unproved security and
22
submitted the final design to NBBC on September 21, 2006. Construction of the trash enclosure
23
can be readily completed within one week of design approval by the City.
24
5. Fainbarg and Feuerstein owned various properties in Cannery Village and sold
25
them to Mr. Kevin Weeda, a developer active in Cannery Village. Recently, Mr. Weeda has
26
approached S &A Properties to voice his interest in the acquisition of the Property. On at least
27
three separate occasions between 2004 and 2006, Mr. Weeda approached me and offered to
28
-2-
DECL F IRVING M. CHASE
.. .. ___ _.. __ ...v .. ..... u w n t.�rnnllno
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1w UU4
purchase the Property. I in£omed Mr. Weeda on each occasion that the property is subject to
a long term lease and that the Property is not for sale.
1 declare under penalty of perjury under the I the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: 15., ,, eW
1roing M, Chase
v
i2.3y
--77 1
z
0
F
O p�p
� o
a V
� o
N
�w
� a
1
2'
3
4
5
6.
7
8
9
10
111
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22�
23;
24
25
26
271
28
STEPHEN M. MILES (State Bar No. 185596)
MILES !LAW GROUP
A Professional Corporation
9911 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 150
Irvine, California 92618
Telephone: (949) 788 -1425
Facsimile: (949) 788 -1991
Attorneys for Permittee
NEWPORT BEACH .BREWING COMPANY, INC.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC 1 -TEARING
REVIEW OF NEWPORT BEACH BREWING COMPANY OPERATIONS
NEWPORT BEACH BREWING COMPANY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
Use Permit No. 3485
CDP No. 5 -93 -137
DECLARATION OF
ERIC BLAISDEL.L
Date: January 4, 2007
Time: 6:00 p.m.
_1.
DECLARAXION 0 L L
P
/-2.1-35
1
2
31
4
5
b
7
8
9
IO
II
12
13
14
15
16.
17
is
t9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
U
a•d
Eric Blaisedell hereby declares:
1. 1, Eric Blaisedell, am the head of Security for the Newport Beach Brewing
Company. I have been employed by Newport Beach Brewing Company since May 2006.
2. On Saturday, October 7, 2006, I was working the evening security shift when I was
approaohed by Mr. Bruce Low. Mr. Low conveyed to me that he felt that the noise concerns
with the NBBC parking lot had been addressed with the relocation of the evening entry from the
parking lot to the front of the Restaurant.
3. On Saturday evening, October 7, 2006, I observed that Mr. Billy Stade hosted a
party at his Cannery Village .Loft located adjacent to the NBBC parking lot. Several of Mr.
Stade's guests parked in the NBBC parking lot and municipal parking lot. Because of the noise
caused by Mr. Stude's party and his guests, guests littering and loitering in the parking lots, and
a guest that was observed exiting the loft and urinating on the front of the building, NBBC
Security made several individuals leave the NBBC parking lot..
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: January 4, 2007
r
nc B aisedell
v
nPPg6;,cka6PT - ajoasNOOa inn clrn 7n In 6n UF.te
iz.3�
MILES • LAW GROUP
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
LAND USE
9911 IRVINE CENTER DR1VE, SUITE 150
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92618 ENVIRONMENT
(714) 393 -3389 ENTrrLEMENT
FAX: (949) 788 -1991
SMILES@MILESLAW GROUP. COM
January 9, 2007
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL [JCampbe1l@ciry. newport- beach. ca. us] AND U.S. MAIL
Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re. Unfounded Complaint Lodged with the Newport Beach Police Department
Dear Jim:
Today you asked me to "find out what happened Saturday morning" and I've interviewed the
appropriate individuals to answer your question. Apparently, Mr. Bruce Low has wasted no time in
continuing his unfounded allegations against Newport Beach Brewing Company ( "NBBC ") by writing
you a letter dated January 6, 2007, containing claims against both NBBC and the City. In his letter
Mr. Low takes issue with NBBC's voluntary relocation of the evening line from the parking lot
entrance to the front of the building and he alleges that Friday, January 5, 2007 (the day after the
NBBC Use Permit hearing), "was worse... than it (sic) has been in almost a year."
Mr. Low's ranting about the queue process is ridiculous. Of all people, Mr. Low should be
aware of the line relocation process that NBBC has implemented since September 1, 2006. No
complaints (reasonable or otherwise) have been issued by the Cannery Village residents regarding line
noise or the so called "party" in the parking lot(s). In fact, the residents of the Cannery Village Lofts
have overwhelmingly supported the line relocation — Mr. Low included. Mr. Low's most recent
diatribe is simply bad faith. Fundamentally, Mr. Low did not raise any concern with the line
relocation at the January 4, 2007 hearing and the City should not entertain his post hoc, unfounded
allegations when Mr. Low chose not to raise such issues during the administrative proceeding. Mr.
Low understands that his concerns are not legitimate and that they would have been readily addressed
and summarily refuted in the public forum. His failure to properly voice concerns at the Planning
Commission level should not be rewarded by allowing this matter to be heard by the City Council on
appeal at no cost to Mr. Low.
/2.37
Mr. James Campbell
January 10, 2007
Page 2 of 3
Mr. Low is very much becoming the "little boy who cried wolf." The only distinction here is
that, while a wolf may appear from time to time (without the wolf becoming a nuisance or a violation
of Use Permit conditions), the wolf has taken a hiatus from the Cannery Village due to NBBC's
ongoing efforts to eliminate noise. All that the City is now dealing with is Mr. Low's cries. At least
now the City should realize that it is dealing with one or two outspoken individuals rather than any
actual represented class of residents (e.g., no wolf in sheep's clothing here). Not only did Mr. Low
fail to comment on January 4, 2007, but no individual came forward with any evidence of the 50 or 60
residents that were allegedly represented by Mr. Low. In fact, the hearing was conducted without a
single reference to the "Cannery Village Concerned" - the nebulous association that started the false
allegations against NBBC.
With respect to the incident that a resident of the Cannery Village Lofts called in around 12:30
a.m. on Saturday, January 7, 2007, Mr. Eric Blaisdell, a NBBC Security personnel on duty the night
of January 6 and morning of January 7, 2007, is prepared to submit a declaration, under penalty of
perjury that: 1) Every 15 minutes during the late evening hours, the NBBC parking lot was walked and
at 12:30 a.m., the NBBC parking lot was clear of all customers and three parking slots were empty; 2)
At 12:45 a.m., the NBBC parking lot was empty of customers and six parking slots were empty; 3) On
my way back to the back door following my 12:45 a.m. walk of the NBBC parking lot, I was met by
two Newport Beach Police Officers that informed me that they were responding to a call from a
resident behind the Brewing Company about a 10 person fight that was taking place in the parking lot,
and; 4) The police officers reported the call as an unfounded complaint and cleared NBBC of the call.
From my additional interviews with NBBC management and personnel this morning, I've confirmed
that collectively, nothing was observed in the way of any persons fighting or yelling in either the
NBBC parking lot or the municipal parking lot between Midnight and 1 a.m. on Saturday -- not 10
people, not 4 people, not 2 shirtless people.
The residents of the Cannery Village Lofts continue to make false accusations and call in false
reports to the Newport Beach Police Department without recourse. Part of this willingness is the
misunderstanding on their part that any noise from NBBC's operation is automatically unreasonable
noise. This is untrue - especially in a mixed use zone that was aptly described in Mr. Low's
residential listing materials as the "oh so hip work/loft in the heart of what's happening in Newport
Beach's stylish Cannery Village." Certain noise levels are permitted and will occur. Additionally,
from time to time, patrons using either the NBBC parking lot or municipal parking lot may become
boisterous in their activities. That is simply a facet of parking lots catering to patrons of restaurants,
brewpubs, and bars that are open until 1 a.m. and 2 a.m. on weekends. While NBBC can and will take
measures to assure that its operations remain in compliance with its Use Permit conditions, a
reasonable number of incidences will occur outside the Brewing Company that may or may not be
caused by its patrons. This is simply a realistic outcome of a permitted Restaurant /Brewpub that has
been found on several occasions to be consistent with the after- the -fact construction of the Cannery
Village Lofts.
NBBC does not understand why Mr. Low and his fellow cohorts of the Cannery Village Lofts
now feel that they can exaggerate facts and fabricate the truth. One reason that Mr. Low may feel
/2.38
-2?
Mr. James Campbell
January 10, 2007
Page 3 of 3
empowered to submit groundless assertions is the ongoing willingness of the City to entertain
groundless assertions. NBBC notes that at least one Planning Commissioner stated that NBBC should
not be commended for the voluntary actions that they've implemented — at a time when the Newport
Beach Police Department investigation verified no violations and no actionable problems. Also, Mr.
Harp opined that findings could be made for revocation of the Use Permit to enable a substantial
modification of the Use Permit conditions. Mr. Harp's example of evidence that would support the
findings was a "violation" of the Use Permit prior to September 2006 when a "full menu" was not
provided during all hours of operations. The example is grossly flawed. Currently, Condition 10 of
the Use Permit does not require a "full menu" during all hours of operation. Instead, the requirements
of Condition 10 are that food service cannot be merely incidental to alcohol sales and the approval of
the Use Permit shall not be construed as the approval of a bar "serving alcoholic beverages during
hours not corresponding to regular meal service hours." A full menu has nothing to do with Condition
10 as currently applicable to NBBC's operations. Nevertheless, NBBC has agreed to a modification to
Condition 10 and currently provides a "full menu" during all hours of operations as another way to
advance the primary food service of the Restaurant /Brewpub.
As confirmed by Officer Frizzell's direct testimony supported by the Police Investigative
Report, NBBC has not violated the conditions of its Use Permit and no such findings could possibly be
made by the City. However, when staff continues to erroneously offer that findings of violation could
be made, individuals like Mr. Low may remain inclined to assert unfounded claims in an effort to
undermine NBBC's business operations and solid reputation within the community. Simply put, if you
treat someone like a child, they will continue to act like a child.
Thank you for your consideration on this matter. If you have any questions, please call me.
Very truly yours,
MILES LAW GROUP, P.C.
0
Stephen M. Miles
cc: Mr. David Lepo, Director of Planning
Mr. Craig Frizzell, Newport Beach Police Department
Mr. Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney
Mr. Jeffrey Cole, Chairman, Newport Beach Planning Commission
Mr. Jerry Kolbly, General Manager, Newport Beach Brewing Company
�2.3y
Bruce I Low
411 29th Street
Newport Beach, California 92663
January 6, 2007
The City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Attn: Mr. David Lepo, Planning Director
Re: Newport Beach Brewing Company (Use Permit No. 3485)
Dear David,
One day has passed since the Newport Brewing Company hearing at the Planning Commission. it
appears the new provisions or modifications of the Use Permit are implemented.
It was worse last night than it has been in almost a year. Quite frankly and unfortunately, you and
your department have assisted in creating a complete failure to the Brewery and the neighborhood.
With the creation of a condition that moves patrons to the front of the building to gain entrance only
when a group forms in a "queue" requires that someone count the number of persons and make a
determination of "back door" or "front door" on a constant basis. This is not practical as I
evidenced last night.
Who is directly responsible to make the count and move the door? How often does that person
count the "queue "? What does that person do when the "queue" dissolves at the front door? Where
do I place the security and when should I move them and who is responsible to see it Is done? Who
moves the sign that tells patrons to enter from the "back door ", no, the "front door?" It is
conceivable that the entrance and the security could be moved back and forth all night. It is not
conceivable that this plan is efficient or helpful.
How many patrons waiting to gain entrance does it take to make a disturbance? It is less than or
greater than the number of patrons it takes to make a "Queue "? This is an ineffective and under
considered solution. It does not work! It is a Chinese fire drill!
When the back door is used as an entrance, it is also used as an exit. This allows groups of patrons
to enter and exit the building and carry the party in and out of the parking lot. It is again and
instantly, unbearable. The party in the parking lot is not acceptable! It is a nuisance!
This morning, at 12:32 a.m. I was again awoken by screaming in the Newport Brewery parking lot. I
opened my window and observed four young men, two without shirts on, in a shoving and
screaming match that then ensued into a four person fight. I called the Newport Beach Police
/2.yo
�s
Department and spoke to "Loren" at the front desk. She took the information and asked me W1 was
willing to sign an "Affidavit "pertaining to the report.. 1. responded yes.
The fight broke up at 12:37 a.m. Two of the „young men walked back into the Ney pprt Brewery and
two left the parking lot in a dark colored Chevy truck. I waited until 12:45 a.m. to observe a police
car. No police car showed up and I went backto bed. There were no securO, ,,_personnel in the
parking lot from the Newport Brewery.
This type of circumstance is the norm.
The Planning Department, the Police Department, the Brewery management view the problems from
the Newport Brewery in a vacuum. None of you or them have first hand knowledge of the abuses
that - occur: daily. None of you are there at 12:30 a.m.
You and your Staff, honorably, want to solve the problems_ of the Brewery by talking to the Brewery•_
management in negotiations. You ask the Police Department to give you objective Information; but
their response time is not.effective to view the abuses. ByAhe way, how long does it take for an over
served person to urinate on a vehicle's tire? How will the response time of the Pollce`Department be
effective in intervention and citation? Do you believe.a resident should take a sample and send it to
the lab for a DNA analysis (as suggested by the. Newport Beach Police Department) before one -
agrees it occurred? Do I need a witness that this person consumed the beverage at the Newport,
Brewery?
The actions of the Planning Commission, through the recommendation of you and your Staff, is a
huge step backwards for the neighborhood. Unfortunately; even if you wantto-, you still do not get it.
We had hoped that you would have consulted the neighborhood to develop effective solutions to the
Brewery problems. After.all, it was a neighbothood proposal to move the patrons to the front door in
the first place'; '
The entry door restriction works much better and with less accountability, by simply assigning a
time to change the entrypoint. 9p.m. worked for the neighborhood in the last few months and it
would be_working now without the change. Thanks for asking, Davidl
Since -you dggigaled, or at least bought in to the failure, without neighborhood consultation, would
you mind explaining to the neighborhood how the loading ofpatrops to frdnkof back doors
prompted by a "Queue” functions for the benefit of the neighborhood, what s ecific problems it
cures and why you believe it is a good solution?
Sincerely,
Bruce J. Low
/2�`1/
eT nTa OF CALIFORNIA - THR RESOURCES AfIENCY Arnold Schwnrzenuacr- iovernor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
South Coast Area Office
200 Oceangate, Suite 1000
Long Beach, CA 90802.4302 RECEIVED BY
(562) 590 -5071 PLANNING DE'w'All WNW
May 9, 2007
Mr. James Campbell
Planning Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Re: Coastal Development Permit No. 5 -93 -137 (Doan)
Newport Beach Brewing Company
2920 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach
Dear Mr. Campbell:
MAY 11 2007
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
On July 15, 1993 the Coastal Commission approved the above referenced coastal
development permit, subject to four special conditions. The coastal development permit
was issued on August 10, 1993. A copy of the Coastal Commission staff report on the
matter and the coastal development permit are enclosed with this letter.
A question has arisen with regard to the Commission's intent in imposing Special
Condition No. 1 which states:
"Prior to issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall execute
and record a deed restriction, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive
Director, which shall provide that no more than 1,500 square feet of service area of
the subject restaurent/brewpub shall be open before 5 p.m. The document shall run
with the land, binding all successors and assigns, and shall be recorded free of prior
liens and encumbrances which the Executive Director determines to affect said
interest."
The question regarding this special condition is whether the limit on service area applies
seven days a week or only Monday through Friday. The Commission's concern in
requiring that adequate parking be provided with new development is that that new
development with insufficient parking forces patrons of the new development to compete
with beach -goers and other visitors to the coastal zone for the limited public parking
spaces available. Thus, patrons of the new development, in using public parking spaces,
decrease the total amount of parking spaces available to the general public. This then
adversely impacts public access.
l2.VZ
Coastal Development Permit 5 -93 -137
Newport Beach Brewing Company
Public demand for parking in the coastal zone is typically higher on weekends. This is
especially true in the summer, but also throughout the year. As is reflected in the findings
of the staff report and in the audio tape of the Commission hearing, the Commission's
intent was that the restriction on service area of the restaurant be applied every day (i.e,
seven days a week). It is important to note that the special condition does not call out a
day to day limitation of the imposition of restricted area and states simply that: "no more
than 1,500. square feet of the service area of the subject restaurant/brewpub shall be open
before 5 p.m." If the intent had been to apply that restriction only Monday through Friday,
that limitation would have had to been specified in the language of the special condition.
I hope this adequately answers the question regarding the restrictions on daytime use of
the Newport Beach Brewing Company's public service area required as a condition of
approval for coastal development permit No. 5 -93 -137. Please do not hesitate to contact
me at the above number with any questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Meg Vaughn
Staff Analyst
CC: Bruce J. Low
5 -93 -137 NBB speccondl 5.10.07 my
/Z�y3
MILES s LAW GROUP
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
%//0 /0 7 -41 //
LAND USE
9911 IRVINE. CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 150
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92618 ENVIRONMENT
(949) 788 -1425 ENTITLEMENT
Fax: (949) 788 -1991
SMILES @M I LESLA WGROUP.COM
July 10, 2007
VIA PERSONAL DELIVERY
Honorable Mayor Rosansky
Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re: Use Permit No. 3485 — Newport Beach Brewing Company
July 10, 2007, City Council Hearing
Honorable Mayor Rosansky:
I. NBBC OPERATES IN A REASONABLE AND LEGAL MANNER
For 13 years the Newport Beach Brewing Company has operated its Restaurant/Brewpub without
an administrative citation by the City or violation resulting in a Code Enforcement action. Equally, the
Brewing Company has not been cited for violation by ABC in accordance with either its Class 23 or Class
75 licence.
Beginning in January of 2006, and culminating in 18 months of review, the Brewing Company has
been tasked with addressing nuisance -based allegations from a few residents of the Cannery Village.
Addressing any and all potential nuisance -like impacts to its neighbors, the Brewing Company has
voluntarily implemented numerous operational changes focusing on Noise allegations that started this
entire Use Permit review process.
NOISE CONCERNS IN PARKING LOT
® ATTACHMENT ONE —LIST OF OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS
Honorable Mayor Rosansky
July 10, 2007
Page 2 of 9
Il. USE PERMIT NO. 3485 HAS NOT BEEN VIOLATED
There are 10 distinct reasons why the Brewing Company is operating in full compliance with the plain
meaning and intent of Conditions 9 & 10 of the Use Permit. Because of these 10 reasons, the academic
argument that the Brewing Company becomes "a bar" after 11 p.m. on Friday and Saturday will not
survivejudicial scrutiny.
1) 13 years of operation without an official violation or citation from a State or local governmental
entity. Specifically, over a 13 year period, the City has never issued an Administrative Citation
for violation of Condition 9 or 10.
2) Use Permit contains no condition requiring an hourly accounting,
ATTACHMENT TWO — CONDITIONS 6,9 & 10
3) Municipal Code contains no provision supporting such an accounting
4) City Code definition of 'ancillary' supports 13 years of Brewing Company operation and the
definition contains no basis for an hourly accounting,
"Use, ancillary" means a use that is clearly incidental to and
customarily found in connection with the principal use; is
subordinate to and serves the principal use; is subordinate in area,
extent or purpose to the principal use served; and contributes to the
comfort convenience or necessity of the operation, employees or
customers of the principal use served. (NBMC Section 20.03.00.)
PRINCIPAL USE OF THE BREWING COMPANY: principal use of the Brewing Company is a
Restaurant/Brewpub. Even during those late hours where alcohol may exceed food sales, by unit, beer
outpaces cocktail sales 3 to 2 further indicating that the primary "Restaurant/Brewpub" use is satisfied.
BREWING COMPANY AREA — overwhelming devoted to Restaurant and brewing facilities.
BEER PROFIT MARGIN IS TWICE THE PROFIT MARGIN OF COCKTAILS
5) State law is controlling and municipalities are preempted from changing hours of operation based
an hourly accounting of liquor sales
Business & Professions Code § 23038. "Bona fide public eating
place "; "Meals "; "Guests"
Honorable Mayor Rosansky
July 10, 2007
Page 3 of 9
"Bona fide public eating place" means a place which is regularly and
in a bona fide manner used and kept open for the serving of meals to
guests for compensation and which has suitable kitchen facilities
connected therewith, containing conveniences for cooking an
assortment of foods which may be required for ordinary meals ... .
"Meals" mean the usual assortment of foods commonly ordered at various
hours of the day; the service of such food and victuals only as sandwiches
or salads shall not be deemed a compliance with this requirement.
"Guests" shall mean persons who, during the hours when meals are
regularly served therein, come to a bona fide public eating place for the
purpose of obtaining, and actually order and obtain at such time, in good
faith, a meal therein. Nothing in this section, however, shall be
construed to require that any food be sold or purchased with any
beverage.
UNDER STATE LAW, AVAILABILITY OF FOOD SERVICE, AND NOT HOURLY FOOD SALES IS
THE PROPER STANDARD. IN FACT, STATE LAW PROHIBITS THE REQUIREMENT THAT
ANY FOOD BE SOLD OR PURCHASED WITH ANY BEVERAGE. Id.
6) The City's past interpretation and enforcement of Use Permits with food, alcohol, AND
entertainment confirm that food availability during late hours, and not sales, is the applicable
standard,
7) Interpretation fails to account for the 'Brewpub' use permitted by Use Permit Conditions 9 & 10
8) Dictionary definitions of'bar' and'brewpub' confirm that a bar includes facets of alcohol and food
sales and a'brewpub' includes facets of both a bar and restaurant (in addition to brewing onsite),
"Bar"
WEBSTER'S: definition of a "bar" includes "5 a i a counter at which food
or especially alcoholic beverages are served"
ENCARTA "place for drinking: a place where alcoholic drinks can be
bought and drunk"
"Brewpub"
RANDOM HOUSE: "a bar serving beer brewed at a small microbrewery
on the premises."
ENCARTA "restaurant that brews and sells beer: a restaurant or bar
where the beer is made on the premises"
AMERICAN HERITAGE "A saloon where the owners make their own
Honorable Mayor Rosansky
July 10, 2007
Page 4 of 9
beer and serve it on the premises."
CAMBRIDGE "a pub which makes and sells beer" [pub: "a building in
Britain where alcoholic drinks can be bought and drunk and where food is
often available "]
9) The City's procured evidence, e.g., the Police Investigative Report, concluded that the Use Permit
was complied with and that no violation of Condition 9 or 10 exists
10) The "Restaurant versus a Bar" issue has been addressed by this City within the context of a permit
review hearing and the City confirmed that food availability, and not hourly sales, is the
controlling factor under the Municipal Code.
e ATTACHMENT THREE - USE PERMIT HEARING COMPARISON TABLE
From 1998 to 2001, this Council reviewed Use Permit No. 3626 for the Buzz /Warehouse and
addressed the standard for what transforms a restaurant into a bar. Specifically, City Staff concluded that
under the Newport Beach. Municipal Code the unavailability of food service would transform arestaurant
into a bar.
Addressing Condition 17 of Use Permit 3626, granting the Buzz/Warehouse a 2:00 a.m. closing for a full
service restaurant, City Staff recommended that the full dinner menu be available until closing:
"If the food service be closed at any time during the day, the facility would
stop operating as a restaurant and become a bar under current code
definitions (a place of business where the principal purpose is the sale and
service of alcoholic beverages, NBMC Section 20.87.033)." (Use Permit 3626
File, Agenda Packet p. 7 -8, handwritten p. 30 -31.)
Similarly, on October 20, 1995, the Newport Beach Police Department conditionally protested a Type 47
liquor license for Palms Restaurant. The Police Department proposed that (1) live entertainment be over by
1:00 a.m.; and (2) for a "bona fide restaurant" that all menu items be available until 1 I:00 p.m., citing to
Business & Professions Code Section 23038 (relates to alcohol and food sales).
It would appear that if the City modifies Use Permit No. 3485 in the absence of any finding that the
Muncipal Code has been violated, the City would be treating the Brewing Company in a disparate manner
as compared to previous permit revocation/modificationhearings conducted by the City.
Furthermore, in the absence of any formal violation issued against the Brewing Company, or Police or
Code Enforcement investigative evidence showing a violation of Use Permit 3485, modification of the
Use Permit would illustrate a disparate treatment of the Brewing Company.
Honorable Mayor Rosansky
July 10, 2007
Page 5 of 9
III. USE PERMIT CONDITION NO. 6
With regard to Use Permit Condition No. 6, the Brewing Company is prepared to answer any questions
that this Council may have and I would like to reserve time to do so. For 13 years, the Brewing
Company has complied with the specific and express wording of Condition 6 and has limited the
Restaurant/Bar to 1,500 square feet Monday through Friday. The Brewing Company would offer that the
interpretation of the Coastal Development Permit is, according to General Condition No. 4 of the permit itself,
a matter for the Executive Director or the Coastal Commission to address. Additionally, any interpretation of
CDP Special Condition 1 cannot ignore the delegation and acknowledging procedure of CDP Special Condition
No. 3 that was fulfilled by the October 13, 1993, letter from the City of Newport Beach to the Coastal
Commission. The Monday through Friday use restriction of Condition 6 was memorialized in the City's 1993
letter fulfilling CDP Special Condition No. 3 and that specific restriction was again review and memorialized in
1999 during the Use Permit amendment proceedings.
• ATTACHMENT FOUR - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 5 -93 -137
• ATTACHMENT FIVE — OCTOBER 13,1993, CITY LETTER TO COASTAL COMMISSION
FULFILLING CDP SPECIAL CONDITION NO.3
[OPTIONAL ARGUMENT UPON CITY COUNCIL INQUIRY]
The Staff Report proposes a couple options for modification of the Use Permit — all of which now include the
modification of Condition No. 6. Modification of Condition No. 6 was previously rejected by the Planning
Commission and by this City Council. Interestingly, Staff never supported the modification of Condition No. 6
until this Staff Report. If the Brewing Company was provided an opportunity to review a draft Staff Report or
to comment on the information provided, it would have argued, as it did before the Planning Commission, that
the Conditions of the Permits and the documentary evidence submitted in 199' ) is controlling on this issue —
along with the 14 years that have past without incident. Staff goes out of their way to ignore the applicable
conditions of the Coastal Development Permit that apply to the interpretation of Special Condition No. 1.
While the Brewing Company met with City Staff on June 27, 2007, and offered to review and submit input on a
draft Staff Report, City Staff denied the offer. Therefore, you have a Staff Report that concludes that there is no
"nuisance" evidence to support a modification of the Use Permit and yet the Staff Report offers several
modifications based on a theory that the Restaurant /Brewpub is a "bar" for four hours in during the week. The
Staff Report confirms that a quarterly accounting is the appropriate standard for food and alcohol sales but
asserts that Restaurant /Brewpub could be viewed as a "bar" based on sales over a two hour increment. .
While this is a reconsideration hearing of an appeal of the Planning Commission's unanimous approval of the
Use Permit without modification to Condition No. 6, the most recent Staff Report invites this City Council to
modify Condition No. 6. The Staff Report not only fails to tell the entire story, but it now creates a new
Honorable Mayor Rosansky
July 10, 2007
Page 6 of 9
explanation of "an error" committed by the City almost 13 years ago and cites to a letter dated May 9, 2007,
from Meg Vaughn, Staff Analyst for the Coastal Commission. This evidence was received several months after
the City Council's March hearing that is now under reconsideration.
May 9, 2007, Meg Vaughn Letter: "It is important to note that the special condition does not call out a day
to day limitation of the imposition of restricted area and states simply that: `no more than 1,500 square feet
of the service area of the subject restaurant /brewpub shall be open before 5 p.m. "' Ms. Vaughn then provides
her personal opinion, without acknowledgement of Special Condition No. 3 or General Condition No. 4, that
"If the intent had been to apply that restriction only Monday through Friday, that limitation would have had to
been specified in the language of the special condition." This is not true. Equally, under Ms. Vaughn's
reasoning, if the intent had been to apply the restriction every day of the week, that limitation should have been
specified in the Special Condition. Instead, Special Condition I is generic because the specificity of the
Condition, through its enforcement, was delegated to the City by Special Condition No. 3. In addition, the
General Conditions of the CDP explicitely state that the Executive Director or the Commission, not a staff
analyst, is responsible for interpretation of CDP conditions. Both of these conditions have persistently been
ignored by City Staff and were ignored by Ms. Vaughn.
The record before you is replete with evidence that the Monday through Friday restriction was not only
established by the City and confirmed by the Coastal Comission in 1993 but also addressed in 1999 without
cause for interpretation or modification. A decade later and 18 months into this permit review process the City
Staff and Mr. Low now find it appropriate to solicit a staff analyst's subjective opinion of how she would
interpret Special Condition 1 outside the context of the entire CDP.
Since July 1993, Use Permit Condition No. 6 has stated that:
"The net public area of the restaurantlbrewpub, which is devoted to daytime
use Monday through Friday (prior to 5:00 p.m.), shall be limited to 1,500
square feet. "
Condition No. 6 clearly states that the 1,500 square feet restriction applies Monday through Friday. In contrast,
Coastal Development Permit No. 5 -93 -137 (granted on July 15, 1993) (the "CDP ") is generalized, or as Ms.
Vaugh states, "does not call out a day to day limitation." Special Condition No. 1 provides instead that:
"Prior to issuance of the Coastal Development Permit, the applicant shall
execute and record a deed restriction, in a (form] and content acceptable to
the Executive director, which shall provide that no "tore than 1,500 square
feet of service area of the subject restaurant/brewpub shall be open before
5:00 p.m. The document shall run with the land, binding all successors and
assigns, and shall be recorded free of prior liens."
Additionally, Special Condition No. 3 to the CDP expressly states that the City of Newport Beach shall submit
a letter to the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission that indicates the City's enforcement of Special
Condition 1. This prerequisite explains that:
"Additionally, prior to issuance of the Coastal Development Permit, the
Honorable Mayor Rosansky
July 10, 2007
Page 7 of 9
applicant shall submit, for the review and approval of the Executive Director,
a letter from the City of Newport Beach indicating that the City agrees that
the City's Code Enforcement will enforce the [public] service area restrictions
described in [special] Condition 1."
The Coastal Commission deferred enforcement of Special Condition No. 1 to the City of Newport Beach,
further indicating that the City's Use Permit Condition No. 6 is controlling — especially when the issue is
merely one of interpretation 13 years after the fact. The Coastal Commission acquiesced to the City's specific
language regarding the service area restrictions upon their receipt on October 13, 1993, of the Special Condition
No. 3 Letter from the City of Newport Beach. (See, Stanson v. San Diego Coast Regional Com: (1980) 101
Cal.App3d 38, 50.) That letter starts by saying:
"As requested in the special conditions for the subject Coastal Permit Application, this letter
is provided for the purpose of confirming the action of the City Council of the City of
Newport Beach relative to its approval of Use Pennit No. 3485 (Revised) In summary, the
City Council's action as it relates to the Coastal Commission's Special Conditions, included
the following: 1) The "net public area" of the restaurant /brewpub, which is devoted to
daytime use Monday through Friday (prior to 5:00 p.m.) shall be limited to 1,500 sq.ft."
In conclusion, the letter confirms that disclosed conditions have been established as conditions of Use Permit
No. 3485 and that the City will enforce said conditions in accordance with Chapter 20.80 of the Municipal
Code. A full copy of the October 13, 1993 letter is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference.
After the first City Council hearing; Staff has apparently solicited a letter from a Coastal Commission staff
person that offers her personal opinion about Special Condition No. 1. Meanwhile, the Staff Report purposely
omits Standard Condition No. 4 of the CDP that governs the interpretation of Special Condition No. 1:
"Interpretation. Any question of intent or interpretation of any condition will
be resolved by the Executive Director or the Commission. "
Accordingly, it is not appropriate for a staff person to offer their personal opinion and it is highly inappropriate
for City Staff to solicit this type of post hoc rationalization. Instead, if a question of interpretation of a CDP
condition arises (i.e., over the past thirteen years), the Executive Director can resolve the question
administratively. In light of the October 13, 1993, letter received by the Coastal Commission in compliance
with Special Condition No. 3; it makes perfect sense that the Executive Director has not weighed in on this
"issue" or otherwise sought to bring it to the attention of the Coastal Commission.
The irony here is that the Staff Report cites to the absence of evidence supporting a nuisance condition at the
Brewing Company and then suggests that Condition No. 6 must be modified to eliminate Restaurant/Brewpub
space on weekends before 5 p.m. The area at issue is the most family oriented part of the Restaurant/Brewpub
consisting exclusively of dining tables.
The Staff Report also hints that the Brewing Company "contributes" to a nuisance problem and the evidence is
difficult to compile. I think what the Staff Report is really saying is that the evidence certain members of the
staff would like to see is not there. If the Staff Report would have summarized the Police testimony presented
Honorable Mayor Rosansky
July 10, 2007
Page 8 of 9
before the Planning Commission and this Council, or referred to the conclusions of the Police Investigative
Report, this Council would see that the evidence was in fact compiled and that the Brewing Company does not
contribute or cause a nuisance. That is why the Staff Report must now focus on afterthoughts like: (1) Is a
Restaurant/Brewpub too bar -like for four hours a week and how can that possibly violate the Use Permit? and;
(2) Without complaint or actionable offense for 13 years, how can the Condition 6 use restriction that expressly
applies Monday through Friday, apply everyday?
IV. CONCLUSION
The Newport Beach Brewing Company understands the position of the City. The Newport Beach
Brewing Company, while permitted as a Restaurant/Brewpub, should focus its efforts on being a
restaurant. The success of the Newport Beach Brewing Company has been and will remain the quality of
the food it serves and the handcrafted American ale that it produces. You will see from ATTACHMENT
SIX to the submitted letter that, for the Restaurant/Brewpub to remain competitive and with the times,
they are focusing on cuisine that goes well with food. The full page ad in the annual edition of Orange
County, describes the cuisine of the Restaurant /Brewpub. Similarly, as part of the 12 year anniversary
celebration for the Brewing Company, a beer tasting and food pairing event was hosted that included all
the major breweries in Orange County. And if any doubt remains of the primary purpose and the purpose
for the Brewing Company's 13 years of success, attached is a copy of the Brewing Company's pocket
menu. How many bars are you aware of that compete (and win awards) for their "craft" on a National
scale, advertise their cuisine and print pocket versions of an extensive menu?
Even at the focal hours from 11 p.m. to 1 a.m. on Friday and Saturday, the characteristics of the permitted
Restaurant/Brewpub dominate hard liquor sales. The most recent data, from the Fourth of July through
this past weekend, shows that the original Class 23 license dominates the Brewing Company's operations
from 11 p.m. to I a.m. In fact, by unit, beer sales outpace liquor sales by a 2 to I margin. These sales are
a reasonable characteristic of the later hours of a Restaurant /Brewpub and an impossibility for a standard
"Bar.,,
V. REQUESTED RELIEF
The Brewing Company supports the adoption of the draft Resolution set forth as Staff
Report Attachment No. 2 with the exception of all references to violations, or potential violations,
and the proposed modification of Use Permit Condition 6.
If this Council perceives any nuisance issues that would support a modification of the Brewing
Company's hours of operation, we respectfully request that before making such a determination that this
Council assign the matter to a hearing officer in accordance with the due process protections of Municipal
Code Section 1,08.055.
Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 1.08.055.
"The City Council ... may designate a hearing officer to take evidence,
Honorable Mayor Rosansky
July 10, 2007
Page 9 of 9
direct preparation of a transcript and submit proposed findings and
recommendations in a form suitable for adoption whenever authorized, or
required, by the provisions of this Code, to conduct any hearing or
appeal on any matter including the issuance, denial, revocation or
modification of any permit or license or whether a particular
condition or activity constitutes a nuisance or fire hazard. The hearing
officer shall conduct the hearing in a manner that complies with
constitutional, statutory and decisional law. The City Council, board or
commission, City Manager or Planning Director may adopt the proposed
findings and recommendations as their decision or may take any other
action that is supported by substantial evidence in the record. (Ord. 99 -15
§ 1, 1999: Ord. 95 -37 § 1, 1995)."
Thank you for your consideration on this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
MIL ES ®LA GROUP, P.C.
BY: IIISSSLLL �yG
Stephen M. Miles
Attachments: One through Six
VOLUNTARY IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
NEWPORT BEACH BREWING COMPANY
In direct response to the direction given by the Planning Commission on August 17, 2006,
several voluntary actions have been taken by the Newport Beach Brewing Company
( "NBBC ") to improve its Restaurant{Brewpub operations:
Line Relocation. In coordination with the City, NBBC has administered a new
entrance from the front of the building that eliminates any queuing and loitering
in the NBBC parking lot. As observed by the Investigative Report, the new
entrance successfully eliminates noise that may otherwise be detected by the
Cannery Village residents that purchase lofts directly adjacent to the NBBC
parking lot.
II. Security Plan and Security Guard Presence. Employment of up to 5 Security
Guards with a primary function of controlling and patrolling the NBBC parking
area until 30 minutes after closing. The specific duties currently undertaken by
NBBC Security Guards will be memorialized in a Security Plan that will be
presented to the City and the Police Department. Key elements of the NBBC
Security Plan include:
a. Noise abatement through notification of patrons.
b. hnplementation of LEADS concepts— identification review to eliminate risk
of underage drinking.
c. Parking area enforcement of noise restrictions and nuisance activity;
documentation of noise issues and nuisance activity from the municipal
parking lot and ancillary public areas (streets and alleys).
d. Consideration of area -wide security plan, including dedicated parking lot
security patrol, for the NBBC parking lot and municipal parking lot.
e. Response to Cannery Village complaints and concerns and coordination with
the Newport Beach Police Department.
III. Bottle Recycling Program. NBBC has implemented a bottle recycling program
that collects bottles inside the restaurant to eliminate noise. Also, the use of
large, deliverable storage containers eliminates the "dumping" of glass and its
associated noise.
IV. Trash Dumpster Area. NBBC submitted architectural design plans to the City
for an enclosed and covered trash duinpster area last year. The enclosure for the
trash dumpster is now complete with a galvanized metal roof that matches the
architectural materials utilized for the Cannery Village. The enclosure is locked
and secure.
V. Alcohol Training and Community Program Participation. All NBBC owners„
operators, and employees have successfully completed a State certified LEADS
program and will require all future employees to complete the LEADS program.
NBBC also remains active with the City of Newport Beach Police Department
and attends business programs hosted by the Police that focus on the prevention
of underage drinking.
Use Permit
Conditions
ffewel
No. 9
No. 10
located on Lots 18 -21 and portions of Lots 17 and 22, Block 230, Lancaster's
Addition, for the duration of the existing and proposed uses located on Parcel 1,
Parcel Map 92 -40 (Resubdivision No. 527).
5. The property owner shall pay for 29 in -lieu parking spaces in the Cannery Village
Municipal Parking Lot on an annual basis for the nighttime operation (after 5:00
p.m.) of the restaurant/brewpub use as agreed upon by the Sales Agreement between
the City of Newport Beach and the property owner.
6. The net public area of the restaurant/brewpub, which is devoted to daytime use
Monday through Friday (prior to 5:00 p.m.) shall be limited to 1,500 square feet. The
balance of the net public area shall be physically closed off to the public by a fixed
barrier and shall not be used until after 5:00 p.m. daily.
7. The hours of operation for the restaurant/brewpub shall be limited to the hours
between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and between 6:00 a.m.
and 2:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday.
8. All employees shall park either in the privately owned off -site parking area or in one
of the municipal parking lots in the area.
9. The operation of the brewery and the service of alcoholic beverages shall be ancillary
to the primary food service operation of the restaurant.
10. The approval of this use permit is for a restaurant/brewpub and shall not be construed
as the approval of a bar, cocktail lounge, or other use serving alcoholic beverages
during hours not corresponding to regular meal service hours (food products sold or
served incidentally to the sale or service of alcoholic beverages shall not be deemed
as constituting regular meal service) nor as the approval of a cabaret, nightclub, or
other use with the principal purpose of providing live entertainment and/or dancing.
11. No outdoor loudspeakers or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the
proposed location.
12. A washout area for refuse containers shall be provided in such a way as to allow
direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless
otherwise approved by the Building Department.
13. Kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the satisfaction
of the Building Department.
14. All mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from surrounding public
streets and alleys and adjoining properties.
15. The development standards regarding walls surrounding the restaurant site and
underground utilities shall be waived.
lv `s
P9 �
d e�
M
w
O
CD
��
ro
tTi
n
CD
l
�. �.
�.
`�
�G.
R
yy
_ CD !qt
m
R
�
�y
p
40.4:..,
rn
o
w
CD w
�'
w.
d
R
N
p�
.
N
CD
G
pGw F z
°
z
O
P
CD
"p' P O•
'°
CD
``'
M
�/- ��-1
CD
IQ
m
y
O w
G
�?
r1. p�
to n
0..
�•
r`�s
�!
,y'
y V R,
ONO
(D
F J (� u'7,�i Op
>
.".,i
CD
0' q CD
fD
o
t�
o
O of
y
R.
�
*G
CD
Corn
y
rn
0
(D
i-
e
o ro
ro
C>
o m
°
h7
a
rn
ao
o
rn o d
°
v
a
b7
a o
e 'd
°,
CD o'
VQ
CL
.
CD
y
sn
fD
ro
O
�+
N
O.
in
G
cD
CD
El ... o
C
CA
C
CD
.ry
n y
0
O
CL
v (0
y �. CD
p'
rn y
R.
G (D
CD
d
0
y
Oi,
p,
N�
'd
w
o °
00
cra
rm
a
t:h
CD
`�°��d
CD
°
o r
rn
'0
W
.7. d W
C O•
O
N
C¢
y
O
N WWG
O
d
CD
(4
O y
°
N N
vD
(D
y
` P
N �•
^�
I
O.
�.
n
w
CD
<a
0) rn CD
R.
o
,^,,
v
R
`<
n°
> 0
O
�
0 ro o E
o
W0
O P.
(CD
C
N
p
.-.
N
N
� N
`C
p
y
O C°d
a. U4
n s
y
p'
CD
CD
U'
v o6
(D p
C)
�.
'd
O ID
O
`
CD
x
w o o.
r
°
P
o CD
57 rL
fb
C,
y
U4
y
(D
R+
CD
C]
tr
Q. 8D
o 5`d
rn
0
0.. S. CD
=-' n
w cD
rn
w
o CL
p,
a.
-+' a, .0 o
m
CD N
N
(D �•
W
p�
W
O
w�.
o n W C3
�s
m
v
a4
N
CD
p> 'O
y
,•
V,
n
C�
n N w O
n
C
d �•
a
°.
Q°
p
El.
o w y
"YCf
-.n•
rn
6
rn
w o wqx
V_
.* cD
a`y4
( O.
y
Q
°
't,
°,
�}
G
y
G�
y CD
° o y
NCD
O p.
y
CD
Fy W
CD
(D
y
"
O
P9 �
d e�
M
w
O
G. w
p .'s"
1
"
CD
CD
,
'V
E
N
cD
w
C
K
9.
R
as
.d
q
CD
1-0
CD
CD
a
r
a CD
o
z
cD
o
_� CYi .a
N
�; 0
n
9.
Z .<...
C �'
cvo
.{ ^.
W
OZ
N.A
W
es'
D
tr7d
W
N
Q.G . o
o W �.
�0
p�p�'�
AP
'7i
W
o
00
o
n
o
a
Zoo °
CL
°
rn
o
4. R°
CD
w „ 0
o
cu CD o
d.
0
�
to
�A
cn
R•
N
w.
r
z
aoZ3
��
a
�°
C
`a
m 0
�
�
�
�.
� `�
W'
CD
W:
R. �.�.
o�
o �
d O'
a A"
v •. %
w
QG4.
'�
G
"�U
C)
G
rn
G
w
ti
OG ,;
;y'
b
�, p
�o p
X. o (D
G
°
n
n o.
p o
z CD
o
�. o
o
a m
.°o
N rn
c
n
b7
CD
m +
(D
o
ac
0
voo
0 ¢rD
°n
a9
m
o
o w
CD
go
a
o
a
°
Cr ^u
w
�' (D
w rn°
perp;;
CD
c a p
CDCD G
c
6' O
UQ
CD
ti
p z:
o(D
o-<
co o
o
CIE
fu
p�
P.
p O
W..
p�
w
�'
W
�.
0
o'
43
R `G
a
cD
ti
w
�'
r
N
Y�
0
m xw
\°
�.o
3
b0
��
o
_
_
o
C)
tra
ro
m
m
o
o
G
N
(D
n
tj
<i
�•
p-
(D
. C o
ID
0
<
_<
O�
n
6 7
CD
CL
G
Y•
o
0
CD
SD
CD
CD
rn
�CD�Y
z
nCd
m
0040
�
7 yrni
N
P)
p�•
�
°:�7
° CL w
�,•.
(D
0 (D
Y
O
°
O N.
ro
O.
(D
O a
'�'
N
M
y
�i
`C
�,
CD
G
n
CD
(D w
w
pi
CD
cn
K
Q.. G
O
CD
O�
N b
a
0
W
CD
CD o
`J
0
n
W
m
C
O
p'
Q.
00 .
O
cr
CD
CD
CD
p
n
O CD
cr
CD
a
ni
>
°
y
'�
�-. >
N
�
o
S.'
n �Tl
£� O .-
1.0
n
w
n
-.
m
P:
a.
,q
b
6
cn w
o
d
�i °'
CD 10
m
-
o
�.
c`�D
n
CD
c
^.
a
s
cu
°
w
a
o a w
ro
o
w
a
o C
w v
5
o.
w
o°
v
ro
w
°o
N.
0
o
n
°
o
tz
�•
y
ON
°°
n a'
a
o t7 °
0
RL
R�
o
w
CL o.
w
w
V
z
°
v
T.ro
roa
m
CD
d
O
a C
n
O
*' G
Q)
:
rT
O
CD
n' CD
O
» O
w
�
-
f
O
w
D'
O
o.
CO R
N
o O
CD
CD
"L
_
, C
("D
Cr 0
w w
CD
o
o'
o ()
10
a
c"D .
'
.
n
`UCD
a
D F
.
p
G
co
y
O
vCo^ ,
'Y `n
CO
CD
�
R. �:sO
°
°n
rn
P
`C
*
W
CD G
N
rfS
p
OC
v
O
VCD
G
O
N
G
CL
n
ti
r+ CD
ate°
�-n
C;
rn
��
d
�d
Eq
CD
Fast
(/J W
°
°
" a O
G N
o
w
aq'
trl
a
pa
W
_
_
Ff
b
aq
O
w
vwo o
o
'tJ
rn
0
a
(
�-
zr O
10
0
w
o
0
0
y�
CD
0
o
oco
,
v
a' 0
m
,o
o
.
CD
o
m
e
o
°�
°�
0
o n
a
0
ti
x co
co n
° a o
g o
r
°
.
CD
y
O C,-
�s
. CD
b
C°
CD
0
CD
w J�
If
CD
d W
o
b
O
�.
Ow
o
p�
�'
"]
W A•'
g ti o
ti O v
a�4
a�4 O
o
CD
a a
o
cao o'
o
o°
o
w
N
°7
o hi
ca ro
m °
b o
p'
c
C4 0
0 'C�r"
n W
rn
w a
ca
w
as
a
B ,-
0
oU' o
rn
o w o
:•' C
o tr4o•
PV
C>
C
w
a aan
m 'a O o
r'
p
p' ^'
m
O
a
0
CD
ro
M
A.
a
c'a cr
0 0
w
n
y
STATE OF CALIFORNIA —THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Gawmr
r
i CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SOUTH COAST AREA Page 1 of 3 . .
245 W. BROADWAY, STE. 380 Date: 1 -21 -94
P.O. BOX 1450 Permit No. 5 -93 -137
LONG BEACH, CA 908024416
)310) SM5071
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
On July 15. 1993 the California Coastal Commission granted to
The Doan Trust
this permit subject to the attached Standard and Special conditions, for development consisting
of:
Conversion of an existing 4200 square foot former market /deli (currently vacant) to a
restaurant/brew pub and the addition of 600 square feet of outdoor dining. Existing 3100
square foot, second floor office will remain.
more specifically described in the application file in the Commission offices.
The development is within the coastal zone in Orange County at
2920 Newport Blvd Newport Beach
Issued on behalf of the California Coastal Commission by
PETER DOUGLAS
Executive Director
By: y. • '6'1 .
Title: Staff Analyst
0�
The undersigned permittee acknowledges receipt of this permit and agrees to abide by all
terms and conditions thereof.
The undersigned permittee acknowledges that Government Code Section 818.4 which states in
pertinent part, that: "A public entity is not liable for injury caused by the issuance... of any
permit..." applies to the issuance of this permit.
IMPORTANT: THIS PERMIT IS NOT VALID UNLESS AND UNTIL A COPY OF THE PERMIT
WITH THE SIGNED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT HAS BEEN RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION
OFFICE. 14 Cal. Admin. Code Section 13158(a).
Date
A6: 4/88
Signature of Permittee
G �. ,,'I U J; I • &A . 31 iy
Rs.
Page 2 of
Permit No, 5 -93 -137
Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgment. The permit is not valid and development shall
not commence until a copy of the permit, signed by the permittee or authorized agent,
acknowledging receipt of the permit and acceptance of the terms and conditions, is
returned to the Commission office.
2. Expiration. If development has not commenced, the permit will expire two years from
the date on which the Commission voted on the application. Development shall be
pursued in a diligent manner and completed in a reasonable period of time. Application
for extension of the permit must be made prior to the expiration date.
3. Cpmpliance. All development must occur in strict compliance with the proposal as set
forth in the application for permit, subject to any special conditions set forth below. Any
deviation from the approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the staff and may
require Commission approval.
4. lnternretation. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any condition will be resolved
by the Executive Director or the Commission.
S. Inspections. The Commission staff shall be allowed to inspect the site and the project
during its development, subject to 24 -hour 'advance notice.
6. Assignment. The permit may be assigned to any qualified person, provided assignee files
with the Commission an affidavit accepting all terms and conditions of the permit.
7. Terms and Conditions Run with the Land. These terms and conditions shall be perpetual,
and it is the intention of the Commission and the permittee to bind all future owners and
possessors of the subject property to the terms and conditions.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
Prior to issuance of the Coastal Development Permit, the applicant shall execute and record a
deed restriction, in a from and content acceptable to the Executive director, which shall
provide that no more than 1,500 square feet of service area of the subject restaurant/brewpub
shall be open before 5 p.m. The document shall run with the land, binding all successors and
assigns, and shall be recorded free of prior liens.
C
0
Page 3
5 -93 -137
2. "Main
The proposed project includes the use of Off -Site parking for which the applicant has entered
into long -term parking agreements. Prior to issuance of the Coastal Development Permit, the
applicant shall execute and record a deed restriction, in a form and content acceptable to the
Executive Director, which shall provide that the applicant shall maintain, for the life of the
development, a total of 41 off -site parking spaces between 6:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. daily, and
a total of 67 off -site parking spaces between 5:00 p.m. 2:00 a.m. daily.
3. $ecission of Amendment to Parking Agreement:
Prior to issuance of the Coastal Development Permit, the applicant shall submit evidence that
the Amendment to Parking Agreement approved by the City of Neworport Beach on February
18, 1993, has been rescinded by the City Council. Additionally, prior to issuance of the Coastal
Development Permit, the applicant shall submit, for the review and approval of the Executive
Director, a letter from the City of Newport Beach indicating that the City agrees that the
City's Code Enforcement will enforce the puobli� service area restrictions described in ecial
Condition 1.
Prior to issuance of the Coastal Development Permit, the applicant shall submit, for the
review and approval of the Executive Director, final floor plans illustrating the area proposed
for the day use restriction imposed in special conditional, above.
1033F
MV /lm
E
Aug-11-06 01r35pm From CaliforriiaCoastal h5025905064 T -259 P.002/0p02 F -r50
RICopYRO
Ms. Ms Meg Vaughn
California Coastal Commission OCT 13 1993
245 W. Broadway, S'I'B. 380
P. O. Box 1450 CALIFORNIA
Long Beach, CA 90802 COASTAL COMMISSION
SOUTH COAST DISTRICT
Subject: Coastal Permit Application No, 5 -93 -137; 2920 Newport Boulevard
Dear Ms Vaughn:
As requested in the special conditions for the subject Coastal Permit Application, this letter
is provided for the purpose of confirming the action of the City Council of the City of
Newport Beach relative to its approval of Use Permit No. 3485 (Revised). As indicated in
the attached excerpt of the City Council minutes dated September 27, 1993, the City Council
aproved Use Permit No. 3485 (Revised) with the findings and subject to the conditions set
forth in the City Council staff report so dated September 27, 1993. In sumarry, the City
Council's action as it relates to the Coastal Commission's Special Conditions, included the
following;
1. The "net public area" of the restaurant / brewpub, which is devoted to daytime use
Monday through Friday (prior to 5:00 p.m.) shall be limited to 1,500 sq.ft. The
balance of the "net public area" shall be physically closed off to the public by a fixed
barrier and shall not be used until after 5:00 p.m. daily.
2. The property owner shall pay for 29 in -lieu parking spaces in the Cannery Village
Municipal Parking Lot on an annual basis for the nighttime operation (after 5:00
p.m.) of the restatuant /brewpub use as agreed upon by the Sales Agreement between
the City and the property owner.
Inasmuch as the above conditions have been established as conditions of Use Permit No.
3485, the City of Newport Beach will inforce said provisions in accordance with the Use
Permit Procedtues .set forth in Chapter 20.80 of the Municipal Code, It should be further
noted that Item No. 2 above, is in keeping with the City Couneirs action rescinding its
previous action which allowed the applicant the daytime use of in -lieu parking in the
Cannery Village Municipal Parking Lot. !:
We hope that this information will be sufficient for your purposes, and should you have any
questions feel free to contact Mr. William Ward in our office, at 644 -3200.
truly you
_,S D. IILWIC R, Director
... planning \b1JJ w \up3485.1tr
0
A Microbrewery Which Features A Delightful
Menu For Fun Gatherings
A Casual; upbeat decor surrounds you at the
Newport Beach Brewing Company, a favorite with Newport Beach local's. General
Manager, Jerry Kolbly, proudly offers quality food made with the finest ingredients at the
Newport Beach Brewing Company. Try the wonderful Southwest chicken salad, BBQ
chicken pizza, or herb- crusted halibut and top it off with one of their most popular
desserts, the chocolate chip calzone for two, and you'll know why folks keep returning.
Conveniently located within steps of the beach and near Pacific Coast Highway, the
Newport Beach Brewing Company has more to offer its guests than most restaurants of
its kind, with a variety of unique beers — featuring their most popular signature beers
Newport Blonde and Bisbee's ESB — all available for take -out. (Take advantage of the
free Internet access — both hardwired and wireless.)
Great service and award - winning brews with the best patio dining in Newport Beach
all combine to make :Newport Beach Brewing Company a great place to gather with
friends and family for fabulous food and fun. A full bar, pleasant staff, and reasonably
priced menu with daily specials will always welcome you.
Newport Beach Brewing Company • 2920 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach CA 92663 - 949.675.8449 • www.nbbrewco.com
CALIFORNIA I THE ANNUAL EDITION 1 13'
I I
2
9-cn Era
F
FT
zj js
27 Z
fEw
25's.
Gn
AA-7 -m
n
1
Wo. I
T 3 c 1 =c r)
R:
tt
n A.=
.5"52 0
En
t.;.c OL
n T',
V2, >
E
A fA
'-//11/17 - --P--/7
Pi
L #-7U 07
> A
12 e-I:X Ay -Y-
F� PAOU y
e AAC)rl-
-o
—7Z71
7-0
I 5 el
I-j 4
090 �x
7%r010-? - 7�--l7
Bruce Js LOW
41129th Street
WewPOrt BeaCh, California 92 NNCF/, By
Fp
G pFP,vTMF'VT
May 15, 2007 C MAY1s700?
The City of Newport Beach /7Y®PNEWP0V
Planning Department �FAC8
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Attn: City Council
Re: Newport Beach Brewing Company (Use Permit No. 3485)
Dear Honorable Council Members,
This letter is in direct response to the portion of the Staff Report that addresses CONDITION NO. 6,
which can be found on pages 6 and 7 of the Staff Report dated January 4, 2007.
condition (restriction of service area to 1,500
the restriction applies seven days a week. The advice of the City Attorney's office to Staff "that
enforcing conditions imposed by a different jurisdiction is not advisable." This "low road" path will
only force a showdown at the California Coastal Commission which will set back the effort of the
City of Newport Beach to have the latitude to issue Coastal Development Permits through the LCP
and LUP regulations. it is "an end" run to avoid the clear responsibility of the City of Newport
Beach. It is a bad idea.
The Coastal Development Permit (# 5.93.137 dated 1.21.94) under SPEACIAL CONDITIONS 1.
specifically states:
"Prior.to issuance of the Coastal Development Permit, the applicant shall execute and record a deed
restriction, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director, which shall provide that no
more than 1,500 square feet of service area of the subject restauranNbrewpub shall be open before 5
p.m. This document shall run with the land, binding all successors and assigns, and shall be
recorded free of prior liens."
If this Special Condition intended to limit the restriction only Monday thru Friday, it would state so.
Furthermore, the minutes of the September 27,1993 Newport Beach City Council meeting (volume
47 -page 253) also state; "reduce the allowable daytime "net public area" to 1,500 square feet before
5 p.m. "Again, if the Council intended to limit the restriction only Monday thru Friday, the record
would state so. The intent of the Coastal Commission and City Council is clear and needs no further
speculative interpretation.
Logic does not accompany Staffs analysis. An error was made in the preparation of the Use Permit
and the Deed Restriction. And even if one mistake leads to another, it does not change the facts, the
intent, or the record. For Staff to assume that "Coastal Commission Staff must have accepted this
commitment as there is no evidence to the contrary and they issued the Coastal Development
Permit shortly in early 1994." is nothing more than a speculative attempt to muddy the waters and
skirt ownership of the obvious error in the preparation of the Use Permit and Deed Restriction. Staff
has no specific knowledge of the California Coastal Commission's point of view regarding this
issue. If Staff can simply decide all matters for themselves, then why bother with city public
hearings or even the California Coastal Commission's directives?
I am surprised that the Newport Beach Planning Staff has omitted further evidence of the Coastal
Commissions intent and directive in the Coastal Development Permit.
Planning Staff inquired to Mr. Karl Schwing of the California Coastal Commission pertaining to the
intent of the Coastal Development Permit. Mr. Schwing responded in an email on or about July 26,
2006 to Mr. Jim Campbell's inquiry. The following is Mr. Schwing's response:
"James, I've consulted with the Planner, Meg Vaughn, who originally worked on this project and
we've re- reviewed the file. We've concluded that the floor area limitation imposed by the
Commission applies daily, not just Monday through Friday.
is a viable method of providing narking sufficient to support opening additional floor
space Wore 0 p.m. (Wnnour impac mil pu rc parking resources and public access), then the
Brewing Company could consider applying for a permit amendment to implement that proposal."
The record, the intent of the City Council and the California Coastal Commission, including a recent
re- clarification of the Coastal Commission's position, as well as, the available remedy for the
Brewing Company are clear and specified.
The California Coastal Commission has issued a letter to the City of Newport Beach dated
The Brewing Company has been unfairly and incorrectly taking advantage of a mistake. This is
"unjust enrichment." A doctrine that prevents persons from benefiting from the mistake of another.
If a bank mistakenly deposits funds into your bank account, you must return them.
The counsel for the Newport Beach Brewing Company hangs his hat on an alleged "rule" that
allows counsel to believe that Mr. Schwing is not authorized to render the above opinion on behalf
of the California Coastal Commission. Counsel believes the Executive Director is the only person
authorized to do so. However, Counsel does not take the initiative to request action from the
Executive Director and for good reason. Counsel knows the Executive Director would promptly
support the decision of Mr. Karl Schwing and Ms. Meg Vaughn.
Counsel also knows that if the Newport Brewery applies for an amendment to its Coastal
Development Permit that the California Coastal Commission will require a complete parking study to
accompany the submission, A parking study that will surely demonstrate there is not ample parking
available to justify the amendment..
The intent of the California Coastal Commission was to prevent a conflict with the public's right to
use valuable and limited public parking. The California Coastal Commission has been very vocal
and firm regarding parking in the Cannery Village and they believe the parking situation is getting
worse every year. The obvious mistake in the Use Permit and the ability of the Newport Brewing
Company and the City of Newport Beach to ignore the directives of the California Coastal
Commission unfairly damages the rights of the public and causes irreparable and continual harm.
Why are we, as a city, afraid of compliance?
Therefore, I request that this Council adhere to the directives of the California Coastal Commission
and correct the error in the Use Permit, execute a new enforcement letter to the California Coastal
Commission, order a new and correct Deed Restriction and enforce the service area limitation
seven days a week, as designed and mandated by the California Coastal Commission and approved
by the Newport Beach City Council
Require the Newport Beach Brewing Company to return the ill gotten accommodation for the use of
the public.
STATE. OF CA LIFORN[A - I NC RESOURCES ACES Y Arnold Schwarzenmer, Govemor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
South Coast Area Oilice
200 Oceangate. Suite 1000
Long Beach, CA 90802 -4302
(562) 590.5071
May 9, 2007
Mr. James Campbell
Planning Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Re: Coastal Development Permit No: 5 -93 -137 (Doan)
Newport Beach Brewing Company
2920 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach
Dear Mr. Campbell:
On Ju17-1 5- 1 -9-gTf-e Costal Commission approved -fhe above re f nced coastal
prnent-i t, bject- fa- foarspeeiai- conditions —The -c
was issued on August 10, 1993. A copy of the Coastal Commission staff report on the
matter and the coastal development permit are enclosed with this letter.
A question has arisen with regard to the Commission's intent in imposing Special
Condition No. 1 which states:
fl`R y l
"Prior to issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall execute
and record a deed restriction, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive
Director, which shall provide that no more than 1,500 square feet of service area of
the subject restaurant/brewpub shall be open before 5 p.m. The document shall run
with the land, binding all successors and assigns, and shall be recorded free of prior
liens and encumbrances which the Executive Director determines to affect said
interest. "
The question regarding this special condition is whether the limit on service area applies
seven days a week or only Monday through Friday. The Commission's concern in
requiring that adequate parking be provided with new development is that that new
development with insufficient parking forces patrons of the new development to compete
with beach -goers and other visitors to the coastal zone for the limited public parking
spaces available. Thus, patrons of the new development, in using public parking spaces,
decrease the total amount of parking spaces available to the general public. This then
adversely impacts public access.
Coastal Development Permit 5 -93 -137
Newport Beach Brewing Company
Public demand for parking in the coastal zone is typically higher on weekends. This is
especially true in the summer, but also throughout the year. As is reflected in the findings
of the staff report and in the audio tape of the Commission hearing, the Commission's
intent was that the restriction on service area of the restaurant be applied every day (i.e.
seven days a week). It is important to note that the special condition does not call out a
day to day limitation of the imposition of restricted area and states simply that: "no more
than 1,500 square feet of the service area of the subject restaurant/brewpub shall be open
before 5 p.m." If the intent had been to apply that restriction only Monday through Friday,
that limitation would have had to been specified in the language of the special condition.
I hope this adequately answers the question regarding the restrictions on daytime use of
the Newport Beach Brewing Company's public service area required as a condition of
approval for coastal development permit No. 5 -93 -137. Please do not hesitate to contact
me at the above number with any questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
,(,d
Staff Analyst
CC: Bruce J. Low
5 -93 -137 N68 speccondl 5.10.07 my
Bruce J. Low
41129th Street
Newport Neaeh, California 92663
May 15, 2007
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Attn: City Council
RE: Newport Beach Brewing Company
2920 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
Use Permit Number 3485 (9/13/1999)
Dear Honorable Council Members:
The hearing scheduled for May 22, 2007 Is the result of 13/4 years of effort by the neighborhood
pertaining to numerous complaints regarding the abuses which are regularly inflicted upon the
_residents and businesspersons.in the-Cannery Village by the Newport Beach Brewing Company.
We had hoped that Staff and the Planning Commission would be able understand to the needs of
thwCannery Village an -reel n the Newport Beach Brewing Company operation pursuant to the
existing Use Permit. Unfortunately, Staff and the Planning Commission do not get it! Instead, we are
heading towards even more latitude for our already abusive neighbor.
With respect to your decisions regarding the Newport Beach Brewing Company, it will be necessary
to determine "What exactly Is this place? What Is a "restaurant/brewpub "? What is it suppose to be?
Is It restaurant or a bar, nightclub?
Condition No. 9 of the current "Use Permit" Is a good starting place to define the operation. The
1999 version, which Is applicable today, states "9. The operation of the brewery and the service of
alcoholic beverages shall be ancillary to the Primary food service operation of the restaurant."
Staff and the operator convinced a tired Commission to remove the ward "prima rv" from condition
No. 9. This Is devastating and changes the "restaurant" approved use in the direction of a "bar"
approved use. You can not allow this to happen. The Brewery Is known as "The Newport Beach, give
an Inch take a mile, Brewing Company. If you give In here, you will license a full blown bar, night
club. There will be no turning back. Never!
As a matter of fact, the City can surely expect the operator to make a further request to remove the
condition (New Condition No. 26) that prevents the exclusion of persons under the age of 21 years by
way of the proposed changes to Condition No. 10 that will state the "operation of a bar Is permitted."
Staff, Innocently, has gone to great lengths In a subjective evaluation of the word or term
'restaurant/browpubw In an attempt to loosely define the word or term In a manner that creates an
undisputable reason why the Newport Brewery may already be authorized to operate as a "bar". The
creation by Staff and the operator of a magic potion that allows the loose connection of food and
alcohol service characteristics In combination as pre - authorization or authorization of a "bar" Is
faulty and wrong. An examination of Staff's methodology leads one to understand the conclusion Is
Illogical and speculative, at best. Staffs conclusion does not hold water and will cause Irreparable
harm to the neighborhood. Do not be misled!
The definition of the term "restaurant/brewpub" Is paramount in the operator's plan to defend Its
bar, night club operation and the operator's ability to continue and /or expand Its operation without
criticism or control from the residents or the city. As policy makers, you need to Intervene.
There Is not an available definition for the word " restaurant/brewpub." In order to attempt to define
the term It Is necessary to travel down the following two roads.
Conduct an analysis of the term using recognized principals within the English language and /or an
evaluation of the spirit and Intent of the document that houses the term.
Recognized principals of the English language would allow one to Identify characteristics of the word
or term " restaurant/brewpub" by splitting the term Into dominant and sentient characteristics. The
word ".restaurant ", since It is placed first In the word or term, is classified as dominant. The slash
mark(/) creates a relationship between the two words, however the word "brewpub" would be
classified as servlant. The servant word will always carry less weight.
An examination of the separated words in the word or term may be helpful. It would be acceptable to
split the term or word and look for separate definitions to look for assistance.
The following are the most specific definitions:
restaurant an establishment where meals are served to customers
brewpub a combination brewery and_ restaurant, beer Is brewed for consumption -on
tke.pr& raises _and_seryed_alongivith_faod
It IS a 1SO ..0 to Wwolthy how the de in ItIonS supplied by-Dl ry.00m an or e a so�he
principal of dominant and serviant relationships. There are additional definitions of the words
brewpub, however, since they are separated Into two words they are far less pure.
In this circumstance, the word or term " restaurant/brewpub" would best describe a restaurant that
primarily serves meals (dominant) to customers accompanied by premise brewed beverages
( serviant).
Next, one would wish to examine the spirit and Intent of the document that houses the word or term.
This document would be the "Findings and Conditions for Approval Use Permit No. 3485 (Amended)"
of September 13, 1999.
It Is clear that the spirit and Intent of the document was to approve a restaurant and would
characterize " restaurant/brewpub" In consistent terms with the writer's definition. It is strongly
described in Conditions No's. 9 &10. From the document, Condition No. "9. The operation of the
brewery operation and the service of alcoholic beverages shall be ancillary to the primary food
service operation" and 10. "shall not be construed as the approval of a bar, cocktail lounge, or other
use serving alcoholic beverages during hours not corresponding to regular meal service hours."
It is also Important to further examine the spirit and Intent throughout the rest of the document. How
does the language in the balance of the document help us understand the spirit and intent of the
document?
By way of example:
The FINDINGS No. 2 reads "permits eating and drinking establishments." Eating first, drinking
second.
FINDINGS No. 5, bullet point 3, characterize the operation as a "restaurant business."
FINDINGS b., bullet point 3, refers to the "alcohol license for a brewpub and the convenience of the
public can be served by the sale of distilled spirits In a restaurant/brewpub setting." Here, a more
complex term and more descriptive than brewpub. The addition of the "hard" alcohol was to
augment the restaurant operation.
Condition No. 15 uses the term "restaurant site" to describe the establishment. Condition No.16
uses the term "restaurant facility." Condition No. 17 reveals "restaurant business" as a reference.
A more neutral term would have been used throughout the document such as "The establishment"
which can be seen In Condition F. of the Standard City Requirements if the spirit and Intent were
actually to be more neutral. However, the neutral terms are virtually absent In the document. This Is
Important to understand the spirit and Intent.
The specific wording and the terms present and not present in the document create overwhelming
evidence to support a conclusion that the spirit and Intent of the document clearly describe, dealings
with a restaurant. It would not be sound to derive a conflicting conclusion regarding the spirit and
Intent of the document.
Both methods of evaluation demonstrate faulty conclusions by the Planning Commission and Staff.
Perhaps Staff could demonstrate, by way of several other existing Newport Beach Use Permits that
this language and interpretation Is regular and common Staff can not demonstrate this point
because the evidence does not exist!
Therefore, Staff's Interpretation that the term "restaurant/brewpub" Implies that the City of- Newport
Beach approved a kind of a "bar" Is nothing. more _thanJltogical.speculatton-that- defies acceptabl
principals within the English language and the spirit and Intent of the document
In this circumstance, and most often, the words really do speak for themselves and do not require
speculative Interpretation.
So let's look at how the Staff Report and the operator are misleading. Condition No. 9, as currently
written, Is clear and concise. It means that the establishment is a restaurant and shall maintain
characteristics easily identifiable as a restaurant.
Condition No. 10 states "The approval of this use permit Is for a restaurant/brewpub and shall not be
construed as the approval of a bar, cocktail lounge, or other use serving alcoholic beverages during
hours not corresponding to regular meal service hours (food products sold or served Incidentally to
the sale or service of alcoholic beverages shall not be deemed as constituting regular meal service)
nor as the approval of a cabaret, nightclub, or other use with the principal purpose of providing live
entertainment and /or dancing."
The proposed changes to Condition No. 10 is a further license for a "bar" by way of the proposed
wording changes; "The accessory operation of a bar is permitted.. "This change Is catastrophic and
can not be permitted.
A recent adjustment, by the operator, now makes a full kitchen open and dinner menu available
until 1 AM on Friday and Saturday. The notion that keeping the restaurant's kitchen open and
making food avallable until 1 AM transforms the "bar" into a "restaurant" which suddenly meets the
Staffs III fated Interpretation of the standard of Condition No. 10 is utterly ridiculous. The food
service after 10 PM Is clearly Incidental. The incidental food service is in violation of the Use Permit.
Keeping the kitchen open Is a thinly veiled feature that fools no one and does not meet the criteria of
the written words or the spirit and Intent of Condition No. 10. In fact, It Is insulting to any reasonable
mind.
This logic Is as sound as an Imposed operational condition that a swim school offer swim lessons to
fishl The lessons maybe available but there would be no demand. The swim lessons to fish would be
classified as Incidental to the swim school!
One could try to read Into the condition that the only difference between a "bar" and a "restaurant" Is
the avallablllty of food service. Regular meal service hours are not defined by the avallablllty of food.
This Interpretation Is a "reach" by the operator and Staff to meet Condition No. 10. It Is better
described as a "climb" for the operator and Staff.
Regular food service Is more reasonably Interpreted by "demand" or percentage ratio for food
products and not by avallabl Iity! If there Is no demand, or minimal sales, the food service Is
Incidental. No operator would keep an expensive kitchen open with a full staff to make available a
complete dinner menu when there Is little or no demand, unless It was necessary to meet the
conditions, or an Interpretation thereof, of a Use Permit to stay open and be a `bar" while selling very
profitable alcoholic beverages. Offering a dinner menu, while selling 90% alcohol, does not meet a
reasonable standard of a restaurant. It Is better described as a bar.
It Is also Important to note that the words In Condition No. 10 "(food products sold or served
Incidentally to the sale or service of alcoholic beverages shall not be deemed as constituting regular
meal service)" are specif[rally designed to require the necessity of "demand' for food service by we
of sales to maintain and distinguish the restaurant, characteristic and to prevent the phony ploy of
keeping the kitchen open by "avallabillty"of food service to circumvent the characterization of a
"bar, nightclub." This is exactly what the Newport Beach, give an Inch take a mile, Brewing Company
has been doing and continues to avoid the wording and the spirit and Intent of the Use Permit and
thumb Its nose at the neighborhood and the City of Newport Beach. It Is In violation of the Use
Permit, Insulting to the neighborhood and the City Council must correct the violation and restore
egen handed compliance ,_promptly.
The words In Condition No. 10 that are In "parenthesis O are designed for clarification. They are In
eontifflon No. 1-0 to pievent abuse. An avallaote kitchen service coes not create or satisfy the
conditioned need for demand. There Is no demand for food after 10 PM. There is no demand for food
because after 10 PM Is not "regular meal service hours ". Everyone has already had dinner! Plain and
simple. The food service Is Incidental.
It is clear that after 10 PM the Newport Beach Brewing Company is a full blown bar, night club! The
establishment has admitted they sell 90% alcohol after 10PM. They admittedly, have 5 "bouncers",
check I.D. at the door and do not allow patrons that are under age 21. Are these facts characteristic
of a restaurant or a bar?
The standard should be: Does the establishment operate as a bar, night club or a restaurant? Period.
If they operate as a "restaurant" they are within the Use Permit. If the operate as a "bar" they are not
within their Use Permit. The establishment can not be convertible and choose to be one or the other,
at will, depending upon opportunity. The establishment can not connect the two separate operations
by simply making food available.
If you were starting with a clean sheet of paper today, would you permit a "bar" operation at this
location? The answer Is clearly, NO! So why give license to the bar through ambiguity?
The Inventive exercise of a cloudy "word blending" beginning with a "restaurant" mixed into a
"restaurant/brewpub" and "poof" turning Into a "bar" is trickery. It is not what the operator
represented in 1999, nor, what the City Council authorized, nor what the neighborhood should
endure. Don't be fooled!
Could anyone even Imagine that the City Council In 1999 may have intended to convey; Well, as long
as the kitchen Is open with a full menu you can do whatever you want until 1 AM Sounds good to
us. Let's vote. It Is unimaginable. Staff knows better and so does this Council!
Condition No.9 need not and must not be changed. Condition No. 10 should be clarlfled and
tightened to represent the spirit and intent of the Use Permit. The Newport Brewery should not be
permitted, or In the least, appear to be permitted to operate as a "bar." Give an Inch take a mile.
The Cannery Village Is a unique opportunity to foster mixed use characteristics In a seaside
atmosphere. It Is a very small area with a bright futurel The Newport Brewery represents the past. Its
business plan of over serving alcohol to kids may have been cool in the 70's. Yelling and screaming
while urinating In the parking lot Is a hobby that long ago had Its day! To "rev up" this dinosaur will
be a huge step backwards!
The Newport Beach Brewing Company asked the City Council to be a restaurant that serves alcohol.
They should be nothing more!
So how do we accomplish this goal?
Staff and the operator have offered very little In the way of solutions to the nuisance In the parking
lot and the overall bar like characteristics. Counsel for the operator routinely threatens to sue if
asked to yield on the tough questions. They refuse to curtail hours by closing at 11 PM like other
restaurants and refuse to operate this business in a reasonable restaurant type setting.
The character of the restaurant/brewpub is one of "Jeckel and Hyde." By day, for the most part, the
operation has characteristics of a restaurant. On Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights and Sunday
the operation Is obviously a "bar." The Newport Brewery has Intentionally painted Itself Into an
operation that appears to be a moving target that can not be easily regulated.
However, the distinction that Is easy to understand Is that at a "restaurant ", patrons are primarily
seated and at a "bar," patrons ar @,primaarily standing.
The operation has previously submitted a floor plan. The facility also has limited restroom facilities
that an: a contributing factor to thecongtant urination Inthe par n o and surrounding structures.
By Ilm!ting the occupancy and requiring the Fire Department to enforce the patron load, the City
could bring about a change in character and move this "bar" towards a "restaurant " In the
alternative or conjunctively, the City could require food service at a 50% ratio to alcohol sales from
10 PM to 1 AM. These concepts would be easy to regulate and the necessity for expensive
enforcement measures and complicated conditions, that can never be enforced, would be
eliminated.
Asa matter of fact, per the directives of the California Coastal Commission and the Alcoholic
Beverage Control, this is precisely how the operation Is regulated during the daytime.
Just last month , and after the Newport Brewery hearing, the Planning Commission Imposed, and the
applicant agreed, to a condition that the "Yard house ", an establishment that plans to operate in
Fashion Island, be held to a percentage ratio of alcohol to food sales each and every hour of the
operation. The same condition can be, and should be, Imposed on the Newport Brewery. By limiting
the alcohol sales as a percentage of the food sales and /or patron load it may be possible to actually
dine In the "restaurant/brewpub" after dark.
If regulating the Newport Brewery operation Is too difficult the City Council should simply close the
restaurant/brewpub at 11 pm.
The practical solutions are available and before you. Have the courage to demonstrate the
leadership that the voting population of the City of Newport Beach believes you have!
Sind ,
i
Bruce ow
AT &T Yahoo! Mail - bjlc@sbcglobal.net Page 1 of 2
VMAIL Print - Close Window
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 08:13:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Bruce j Low" <bjic @sbcglobal.net>
Subject: RE: Police activity at Newport Brewery
To: 'Johnson, Dale" <DJohnson @nbpd.org>
CC: 'Jim Campbell" < jcampbell @tity.newport- beach.ca.us >, "David Lepo" <diepo @city.newport- beach.ca.us>
Thank you very much for your explanation. I appreciate you taking your valuable time to assist me.
Bruce Low
"Johnson, Dale" eDJohnson @nbpd.org> wrote
Mr. Low — Officer Hughes forwarded your email to me and asked me to look into the incident. The
Police Department was called to the parking lot of the Newport Brewery by a passerby. He reported
that a cab driver was involved in a dispute with 4 intoxicated subjects. The cab driver was refusing to
drive them and they were yelling at him to get in the car and take them where they wanted to go. We
dispatched several units due to the fact that there were 4 subjects in the cab. Once there, we
discovered that the 4 subjects had been very rude to the driver, but had not violated any laws. We
arranged for another cab to come and get them and they left without any further problem.
As for the posting of the event on the website, I checked on 4 -24 -04 and found it listed on 4 -22 -07 as a
"Disturbance" call in the 2900 block of Newport Blvd. at 12:57 pm. All of our activity is automatically
posted to the website, but not always immediately. The delay can sometimes be t or 2 hours. We
.have no- ability -to- alter -or edit- the - information that is posted so-please be assured that "the records of dlir
your questions and concerns. Please feel free to call me if I can help further.
Dale Johnson, Lt.
Patrol Division
Watch Commander
949 - 644 -3730
From: Bruce j Low [mailto:bjlc @sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 5:51 PM
To: Hughes, Todd; Johnson, Dale
Cc: Campbell, James; Lepo, David; Bludau, Homer ; Mike Henn; Gardner, Nancy; Don Webb;
Rosansky, Steven; Daigle, Leslie; Curry, Keith; Selich, Edward
Subject: Police activity at Newport Brewery
Todd
Attached is a photo of police activity at the Newport Brewery on Sunday 4/22/07 in the
afternoon. I am curious to know why an incident that involves 4 police units (3 Tahoes and I
motor officer) is not reflected on the "calls for service" log of the NBPD website?
As you may know, the neighborhood is disappointed with the Brewery's recent behavior, yet so
many persons continue to ask if the police were called. We rely upon the record to document
police activity. In this case there is no log entry that I can find that documents a serious event
that involves four police units.
Can you explain?
http: / /us.f8 l 3.mail.yahoo. conilymIShowLetter? box = Sent &Msgld = 40 1 9 - 1 2226275 - 1 22 77... 4/25/2007
AT &T Yahoo! Mail - bjlc(asbeglobal.net
Page 2 of 2
We sincerely appreciate the efforts of the police department, yet we look for a fair an objective
record that represents the truth.
Thanks for your help.
Bruce Low
http: / /us.f8l 3.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter ?box= Sent &Msgld =4019_ 12226275 12277... 4/25/2007
AT &T Yahoo! Mail - bjlc@,sbcglobal.net
Page 1 of 2
ImamflT. &T Yaf_ioo} �jl. Search: �, „�
�tyr Welcome bjlc@sbcglobal.ne... Mail Home I Tutorials l Help
8( I Sry [51gp OUt My ACcpu_nt]
liw� MAIL
Mail Addresses Calendar I Notepad Mad Fgs-Moblliz MY atlUAgLdStga Dughopa.
Folders
Inbox
Draft
Sent
Bulk (3)
Trash
- 'c.C�tf poke�'Yi
I
:�,Seat-4ch"rFt�,l}yad
S�, r�� - -
__ — it).
[Add - -Edit]
Prevl4us I NQX.k 16zck_S2M£45a9ei
!t pelete,��v I � °Forward ,� �j
+G9bve 4 � �j
_ --
This message is not flagged. [ Flag Message -
Mark as unread ]
Printable View
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:00:56 -0700 (PDT)
(Empty]
(Empty]
Search Shortcuts �
! My Photos
My Attachments _ I
From: "Bruce J Low" <bJic @sbcglobal.net> ft Add to Address Book a Add Mobile Alert
Subject: Newport Beach Brewing Company
To: "Arn Campbell" < Jampbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us >, "David Lepo"
<dlepo @city.newport beach.ca.us>
"Mike Henn" <mhenn527 @hotmall.com>, "Don Webb" <don2webb @earthlink.net >,
CC: "Ed" <edselich @adelphia.net >, "K Curry" <curryk @pfm.com >, parandlgm @aol.com,
"Leslie Daigle" <lesllejdaigle @aoLcom >, "Nancy Gardner" <gardnerncy @aoLcom>
Jim and David,
As you know, our group
the behavior of its batrons as it
Other establishments have been successful and more profitable (i.e. The Cannery
............
Restaurant for example) by altering their business. plan!
To that end, the Brewery will never be able to meet Condition "D" of the original Use
Permit. The "nuisance" in the parking lot and the surrounding private and public areas is
admittedly "uncontrollable."
To have the PD, the city and the Brewery throw their hands up in frustration and
relinquish responsibility without a solution is not acceptable. The result is detriment to
the public's health, safety and welfare. If there is not an effective SOLUTION the only
alternitive is to curtail or eliminate the use. The interests of the public outweigh the
interests of the Brewery.
To dismiss this responsibility, Condition D and our rights to reasonable quiet enjoyment
of our properties is not acceptable today, tomorrow or any time.
A mitigating and only temporary measure must, at a minimum, include the following:
1. Close the back door at 9 PM (time certain).
2. Use the back door as a "ire exit" only after 9 PM. No taxi pick ups, no excuses. None,
except .a fire or emergency.
3. Include in the security plan to be designed that security must be stationed in the
parking lot (not a sweep) and allow the residents to weigh in on the input of the security
plan and have the City Council approve the security plan by way of public hearing.
4. Require a percentage (50 %/50 %) of sales of food to alcohol each hour of the day.
I again repeat that this is only a temporary measure and the Use Permit must be
reviewed in October to hear public input and modify or revoke the Use Permit.
This is much more than the Brewery deserves in light of the fad that they cannot control
http: / /us.f8l3. mail. yahoo. com /ym /ShowLetter ?Msgld= 7256_22082448_ 1120350_923_14... 3/27/2007
AT &T Yahoo! Mail - bjlc@asbcglobal.net
City Council C/O Jim Campbell 5 -15 -07
Re: Newport Brewery meeting 5 -22
Page 1 of 1
4 P&"rad by
`�UTSIDE IN°
Print -Close VVindow NAML EXPORT
My wife and I are unfortunately out of town for the May 22, 2007 meeting concerning the Newport Beach Brewery. As
residents of the Cannery Lofts we have attended all the previous meetings concerning this issue. We can't believe that after
our last meeting that the Brewery will not follow your decision to stop hard alcohol after 11 PM. They continue to demonstrate
they are not a good neighbor.
We still hear noise after midnight and even until 3 am on many nights. People continue to urinate, scream, fight, yell and
disturb the neighborhood coming and going from The Brewery. Why is it that other establishments such as The Cannery,
Abe, Blue Water and the new 508 grill operate under city guide lines and respect their neighbors? These establishments are
setting the standard and helping to make The Cannery Village a great area. The Brewery has no interest in tieing a good
neighbor. This has been proven by their actions. The council has been very fair with them and we believe you have tried to
help them be a better establishment. The Brewery has no interest in working with the council or neighbors they want to just
continue with their own agenda.
We now believe the only acceptable solution is for them to shut down at 11 PM. Force them to be a great eating
establishment and not a BAR which we all know is what they have become. Please help us to make "The Cannery Village" a
great place for everyone to enjoy living, working and a great destination for everyone. A place Newport Beach can be proud
of. We all know the peninsula has not had a great reputation for a long time. We don't want the Cannery Village to be where
everyone thinks you come to just party and raise hell and go home. The Brewery has chosen not to follow the vision of what
is happening in this area. They are being shortsighted and missing a great opportunity.
Thank you
John and Stephanie Faui
http: / /us. f8 l 3.mail, yahoo.com/y m/ShowLetter? box= Inbox &Msgld= 4220_65127792_8171... 5/15/2007
Authorized to Publish Advertisements or all kinds including public notices by
Decree Of the Superior Court of Orange County, California. Number A -6214,
September 29, 1961, and A -24831 June I I, 1963.
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
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:
June 30, 2007
I declare, under penalty of perjury, that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on July 9, 2007 at
Costa Mesa, California.
Signatufe
E C-_IVED
JIJL I I 'AM i 12
_ ; ,..
1) l /0 10 7
O�NgW Ppq Py
NEWPORT BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
P.O. Box 7000, Newport Beach, CA 92658 -7000
Vice and Intelligence Unit
(949) 644 -3706 or (949) 644 -3709
Newport Beach Brewing Company
2920 Newport Blvd.
Computer Aided Dispatch Events
May 15, 2005 through April 27, 2007
Type of Call Number of Calls
Patrol Checks (Dispatched) 2
Disturbances (415 PC) 7
Loud Music Calls 2
Fights (242 PC/415F) 4
Burglary (459 PC) 2
Drunk in Public (390) 5
Underage Drinkers 1
Medical Aid 4
Traffic Collision (w/ DUI) 2
Vandalism (594 PC) 2
Fake I.D. (529.5 PC) 1
Lost Property
Parking Lot Disturbances (Unknown if Public Lot or NBBC Parking Lot) 15
Patrol Checks (PC /BAR) - Officer Initiated 4
911 Hang up phone calls from NBBC 7
Total: 59
Between 5 -15 -05 and 4- 27 -07, there were 100 C.A.D. events under the address 2920 Newport Blvd (Newport
Beach Brewing Company). After reviewing each of these 100 C.A.D. events, it has been determined that 41 of
these events are not related to the Newport Beach Brewing Company. These unrelated calls included traffic
stops, subject stops, drunks, disturbances, lost vehicles, etc. It should also be noted that we were unable to
verify if any of the 15 parking lot disturbances are related to the Newport Beach Brewing Company. The Police
Department also recognizes the probability that there are calls for service which have been attributed to other
neighboring businesses, or addresses, that may have been appropriately attributed to the Newport Beach
Brewing Company.
Prepared by: Detective Dave Stark / V&1 Unit
Date: May 2, 2007
�7 / %7
Kristen ]o Andros
411 2911 Street
Newport Beach, California 92663
AY
Nr
May 15, 2007
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport beach, California 92663
Attn: City Council Members
Re: Newport Beach Brewing Company Use Permit hearing May 22, 2007
Dear Council Members,
Unfortunately, I will be out of stat_e_f_or-the_h[evitportBeach Brewing --
_ Company hea- ing s -che-dilPd fir May22r2007_.P_lease- accept- thislette"s --
my testimony.
am a resident and property owner on 29th Street in the Cannery Village.
am continuously subjected to abusive behavior from the Brewery operation
and also their patrons. I routinely observe persons urinating in the parking
lot and surrounding properties. The out of control behavior from yelling
and screaming into the early hours of the morning disrupts my sleep and
affects my ability to function at work.
I am unable to say anything to the drunken patrons for fear of confrontation
and retaliation. I have called the Police Department on several occasions.
When the Police arrive, which is usually 10 minutes until an hour later, the
condition has disbursed. Calling the Police is not effective.
I have had conversations with Lt. Craig Frizzell of the Newport Beach
Police Department. I believe the Police Department has the best of
intentions and my interests in mind, however, as Lt. Frizzel stated "the
Police can not be everywhere in the City at the same time."
Lt. Frizzell ran a report for me of Police information which indicates the
Police have responded to a "Call for Service" at the Newport Brewery at
least 100 times in the last 24 months. The report is attached.
In light of the endless objectionable behavior I observe, coupled with 100
calls for service I am convinced that the conditions at the Brewery are
simply not fixable.
I have come to the conclusion that the only way to get this situation under
control is to close the Newport Beach Brewing Company at 11 PM. This
would make the Brewery operation consistent with other "restaurants" in
the Cannery Village like "Bluewater Grill' and "The Cannery Restaurant'.
Should you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Kri "te ndros
s
J
Apr 27 13:22 2007
Form: EHQ
Page 1
Requested By: NB /1197 At Position: REC
------ - - - - --
EVENT HISTORY INQUIRY
Event Number: NBO51350273 Date /Time: 15- May- 2005/22:37:12
Pri: 4 Type: ASSIST Case:
Disposition: HAS Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Event Number: NB051420024 Date /Time: 22- May - 2005/01:05:57
Pri: 2 Type: 245J Case:
MULTIPLE
Disposition: RPT Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Event Number: N2051490188 Date /Time: 29- May - 2005/17:09:03
Pri: 3 Type: 415390 Case:
Disposition: 1022 Disp Group: DG
Location: 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB (NEWPORT BREWERY)
Event Number: NB051550288 Date /Time: 04- Jun - 2005/22:41:35
Pri: 3 Type: 925V Case: NB
05005788
— Aispos.i_tion -: 1- 01_5 - -- Disp- Group: DG - - --
— LQ- -a-tion:- NEWPORT - BREWERY @- 2- 9- 2- 0- NEW-POR- T- 43-17VD —NB - -- —
Event Number: N2051550196 Date /Time: 08- Jun - 2005/22 :07:39
Pri: 5 Type: TS Case:
Disposition: CITE Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Event Number: NB051690181 Date /Time: 18- Jun - 2005/15:51:29
Pri: 2 Type: 597N Case:
Disposition: UNF Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Event Number: NB051690247. Date /Time: 18- Jun - 2005/20:16:48
Pri: 2 Type: 91IMP Case:
Disposition: C4 Disp Group: DG
Location: 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB (NEWPORT BREWERY)
Event Number: N9051690246 Date /Time: 18- Jun - 2005/20:42:33
Pri: 3 Type: HS Case: NB
05006324
Disposition: CITE Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Event Number: NBO51760027 Date /Time: 25- Jun - 2005/01:41:38
Pri: 5 Type: S Case:
Disposition: ASST Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Apr 27 13:22 2007
Event Number: NBO51760045
Pri: 4
05006569
Disposition: ASST
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY
Event Number: NBOS1830336
Pri: 5
Date /Time: 25- Jun - 2005/02:40:04
Type: 594R Case: NB
Disp Group: DG
@ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Date /Time: 02- Jul - 2005/23:37:43
Type: BAR Case:
Disposition: ASST Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Event Number: NBO51900005 Date /Time: 09 -Jul- 2005/00:11:38
Pri: 5 Type: C6R Case:
Disposition: PC Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Event Number: NE051910163 Date /Time: 10 -Jul -2 005/15;14:16
Pri: 2 Type: 902M Case:
Disposition: PC Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Event Number: NB052100154 Date /Time: 29- Jul- 2005/15:16:38
Pri: 2 Type: 911H Case:
Disposit_ionc_HAS_ -- — Dis- p- G-r- oup -: —DG
Location: 2920 NEWP0IAT BL- \jD -,_NB- (:NEW- P -ORT— BREWERY)
Event Number: NBO52110027 Date /Time: 30- Jul - 2005/02:39:24
Pri: 3 Type: 415P Case:
Disposition: ADV
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY
Event Number: NBO52230023
Pri: 5
05008706
Disposition: 1015
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY
Event Number: NBOS2250015
Pri: 3
05008806
Disposition: RPT
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY
Event Number: NBO52330010
Pri: 2
Disp Group: DG
@ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Date /Time: 11- Aug - 2005/02:06:49
Type: SS Case: NB
Disp Group: DG
@ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Date /Time: 13- Aug - 2005/01:23.06
Type: 481J Case: NB.
Disp Group: DG
0 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Date /Time: 21- Aug - 2005/00:48:45
Type: 911H Case:
Disposition: C4 Disp Group: DG
Location: 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB (NEWPORT BREWERY)
Event Number: NB052370027 Date /Time: 25 -Aug- 2005/06:33x50
Pri: 2 Type: 904MSC Case:
Disposition: ASST Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB.
Page 2
Apr 27 13:22
2007
Date /Time:
Page 3
Event Number:
NB052370201
Date /Time:
25- ,Aug - 2005/22:15:39
Pri: 3
Disposition: 1015
Type: 415
Case:
Disposition:
ADV
Disp Group:
DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY
@ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD
,NB
Event Number:
N8052420087
Date /Time:
30- Aug - 2005/12:19:33
Pri: 5
Type: 594J
Type: TS
Case:
Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Event Number: NB052660218 Date /Time: 23 -Sep- 2005/23:17:23
Pri: 2 Type: 9110PN Case:
Disposition: UNF Disp Group: DG
Location: 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB (NEWPORT BREWERY)
Event Number: N9052670009 Date /Time: 24- Sep- 2005/00:31:14
Pri: 2 Type: 9110PN Case:
Disposition: UNF Disp Group: DG
Location: 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB (NEWPORT BREWERY)
Event Number:
NB052680197
Date /Time:
25- Sep- 2005/20:30:13
Pri: 4
Case: NB
Type: 242R
Case: NB
05010423
Disposition: 1015
Disp Group:
DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY
@ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD
- -- - -Disp- Group:
_
-DG—
Location: NEW P- ORT- BRP- WFR- Y- @-
2- 9- 2- 0- N- BI42()R� -BL -VD
Event Number:'NBO52730220
Type: TS
Date /Time:
30- Sep - 2005/22:53:17
Pri: 3
Type: 594J
Case: NB
05010558
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY
@ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD
,NB
Disposition:
RPT
Disp Group:
DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @
2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Event Number:
NBO52740028
Date /Time:
01- Oct - 2005/01:25:51
Pri: 3
Type: 919
Case:
Disposition: FI Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Event Number: NBO52860186 Date /Time: 13- Oct - 2005/22:36:32
Pri: 2 Type: 911H Case:
Disposition: UNF Disp Group: DG
Location: 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB (NEWPORT BREWERY)
Event Number: NB052900082
Date /Time:
17- Oct - 2005/13:38:42
Pri: 5
Type: V
Case: NB
05011084
Disposition: 1015
Disp Group:
DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY
@ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD
,NB
Event Number: NB052930122
Date /Time:
20- Oct - 2905/15:44:10
Pri: 5
Type: TS
Case: NB
05011184
Disposition: CITE
Disp Group:
DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY
@ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD
,NB
Apr 27 13:22 2007
Event Number: NBOS3160201
Pri: 5
Disposition: CITE
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY
Event Number: NBO53270177
Pri: 5
05012364
Disposition: CITE
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY
Event Number: NB053310006
Pri: 2
Date /Time
Type: TS
Disp Group:
@ 2920 NEWPORT BLV
Date /Time
Type: SS
12- Nov - 2005/21:48:53
Case:
DG
D ,NB
23- Nov - 2005/23:50:44
Case: NB
Disp Group: DG
@ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Date /Time: 27- Nov -20 05/00:40:29
Type: 911HP Case:
Disposition: HAS Disp Group: DG
Location: 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB (NEWPORT BREWERY)
Event Number: NB053530192 Date /Time: 19- Dec - 2005/22:59:18
Pri: 3 Type: 415 Case:
Disposition: UTL Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Event Number: NB060060199 Date /Time: 06- Jan- 2006/18:27 :55
Pri: 3 Type: 390 Case:
Page 4
Disposi .icn._GQ &— --
Location: 2920 NEW P-OET BLYD— ,_NB— (NFWPOR.'- BREW -ERA)
Event Number: NB060060260 Date /Time: 06- Jan - 2006/23:29:01
Pri: 3 Type: 415 Case:
Disposition: PC Disp Group: DG
Location: 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB (NEWPORT BREWERY)
Event Number: NB060140008 Date /Time: 14- Jan - 2006/00:23:17
Pri: 3 Type: 415 Case:
Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Event Number: NB060210008 Date /Time: 21- Jan - 2006/00:52:39
Pri: 3 Type: 415P Case:
Disposition: UNF Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Event Number: NB060270214 Date /Time: 27- Jan - 2006/23:28:00
Pri: 3 Type: 415 Case:
Disposition: 919 Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Event Number: NB060340024 Date/Time: -03-Feb-2006/02:11:10
Pri: 3 Type: 415 Case:
Disposition: HAS Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Apr 27 13:22 2007
Event Number: NB060350015
Pri: 5
06001126
Disposition: 1015
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY
Event Number: NBO60350022
Pri: 2
Date /Time: 04- Feb - 2006/00:46 :58
Type: C6R Case: NB
Disp Group: DG
@ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Date /Time: 04- Feb - 2006/01:20:34
Type: 902M Case:
Disposition: ASST
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920
Event Number: NB060350134
Pri: 4
Disposition: HAS
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920
Event Number: NB060410259
Pri: 2
Disposition: UNF
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920
Event Number: N9060470028
Pri: 3
Disp Group: DG
NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Date /Time: 04- Feb - 2006/14:46 :10
Type: PC Case:
Disp Group: DG
NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Date /Time: 10- Feb - 2006/23:32:25
Type: FIGHT Case:
Disp Group: DG
NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Date /Time: 16- Feb - 2006/05:54 :54
Type: 415 Case:
__Location: NEW .PORT nREWER- @- 2 -9 -20- NEWPORT- BL- VD —,NB
Event Number: NBO60540184 Date /Time: 23- Feb - 2006/22:27 :04
Pri: 5 Type: BAR Case:
Disposition: ASST
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920
Event Number: NB060540193
Pri: 4
Disposition: ASST
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920
Event Number: ND060560163
Pri: 3
Disposition: ASST
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920
Event Number: NB060590155
Pri: 3
Disposition: UTL
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920
Event Number: NB060630002
Pri: 5
Disp Group: DG
NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Date /Time: 23- Feb- 2006/22:43:38
Type: ASSIST Case:
Disp Group: DG
NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Date /Time: 25- Feb - 2006/19:17:52
Type: 390 Case:
Disp Group: DG
NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Date /Time: 28- Feb - 2006/19:33:45
Type: 415A Case:
Disp Group: DG
NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Da -e /Time: 04- Mar - 2006/00:02:27
Type: BAR Case:
Disposition: PC Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Page 5
Apr 27 13:22 2007
Event Number:
N3060640037
Date /Time:
05- Mar - 2006/03:05:12
Pri: 4
Type: 1015
Type: MCVIOL
Case:
Disposition:
PC
Disp Group:
DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @
2920 NEWPORT BLVD
,NB
Event Number:
NB060760073
Date /Time:
17- Mar - 2006/11:51:26
Pri: 4
Event Number: NB061190034
Type: PC
Case:
Disposition:
HAS
Disp Group:
DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @
2920 NEWPORT BLVD
,NB
Event Number:
NB0608302S2
Date /Time:
24 -Mar- 2006/22:47:53
Pri: 2
Type: 911HP
Case:
Disposition: HAS
Location: 2920 NEWPORT BLVD
Event Number: NB060980005
Pri: 5
06003222
Disposition: 1015
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @
Event Number: N9061050243
Pri: 5
Disp Group: DG
,NB (NEWPORT BREWERY)
Date /Time: 08- Apr - 2006/00:11:16
Type: V Case: NB
Disp Group: DG
2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Date /Time: 15- Apr- 2006/22:12:17
Type: SS Case:
Di position,: -_CITE Di.sp_- G-- roup -: - -DG-
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @_2:920_NEW20R:T— BLVD —,N
Page 6
Event Number: NB061130017
Date /Time:
23- Apr
- 2006/01:13:52
Pri: 3
Type: 1015
Case:
NB
06003769
Disposition: 1015
Disp Group:
DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY
@ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD
,NB
Event Number: NB061190034
Date /Time:
29- Apr
- 2006/03:08:54
Pri: 3
Type: 415A
Case:
Disposition: UNF
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920
Event Number: NB061190183
Pri: 2
Disposition: UTL
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920
Event Number: NB061190188
Pri: 3
Disposition: UTL
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920
Event Number: NB061240248 -
Pri: E
Disp Group: DG
NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Date /Time: 29- Apr - 2006/18:54:44
Type: 502 Case:
Disp Group: DG
NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Date /Time: 29- Apr - 2006/19:20:38
Type: HS Case:
Disp Group: DG
NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Date /Time: 04- May - 2006/23:05:59
Type: 415* Case:
Disposition: GOA Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Apr 27 13:22 2007 Page 7
Event Number: NB061260211 Date /Time: 06- May - 2006/20:37:53
Pri: 2 Type: 502 Case:
Disposition: UTL Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Event Number: NB061310229 Date /Time: 11- May - 2006/23:33:18
Pri: 5 Type: S Case:
Disposition: CITE Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ;NB
Event Number: NB061350184 Date /Time: 15- May - 2006/20:27:09
Pri: 5 Type: V Case:
Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG
Location: 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB (NEWPORT BREWERY)
Event Number: NBO61670045 Date /Time: 16 -Jun- 2006/06:17:10
Pri: 3 Type: 4.15 Case:
Disposition: GOA Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Event Number:
ND061730025
Date /Time:
22- Jun - 2006/02;08:41
Pri: E
Type: 415*
Case: NB
06005975
Disposition:
1015
-
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @._2.9:2.0—
NEWPORZ--BLVD ,NB
Event Number:
N3061820016
Date /Time:
01 -Jul- 2006/01:01:08
Pri: 3
Type: 483J
Case: NB
06006333
Disposition:
RPT
Disp Group:
'DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Event Number: N2061830016 Date /Time: 02- Jul- 2006/00:44:55
Pri: 2
06006374
Disposition: 1015
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920
Event Number: NB061900272
Pri: 3
Disposition: PC
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920
Event Number: NB061970009
Pri: 3
060077.19
Disposition: 1015
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920
Event Number: NB062020309
Pri: 5
Type: 415P Case: NB
Disp Group: DG
NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Date /Time: 09 -Jul- 2006/20:28:44
Type: 415390 Case:
Disp Group: DG
NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Date /Time: 16 -Jul- 2006/00:41:20
Type: 1015 Case: NB
Disp Group: DG
NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Date /Time: 21- Jul - 2006/23:26:56
Type: SS Case:
Disposition: OTH Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Apr 27 13:22 2007
Event Number:
N3062110052
Date /Time:
30- Jul - 2006/02:39:51
Pri: 2
Type: 459N
Case: NB
06007773
Disposition:
1015
Disp Group:
DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY
@
2920 NEWPORT BLVD
,NB
Event Number:
NB062310020
Date /Time:
19- Aug - 2006/00:58:29
Pri: 4
Type: 415M
Case:
Disposition:
ADV
Disp Group:
DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY
@
2920 NEWPORT BLVD
,NB
Event Number:
NB062380263
Date /Time:
26- Aug - 2006/22:01:10
Pri: r �
Type: V
Case:
Disposition:
CITE
Disp Group:
DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY
@
2920 NEWPORT BLVD
,NB
Event Number:
N9062550023
Date /Time:
12- Sep - 2006/03:36:28
Pri: 3
Type: 415
Case:
Disposition:
ASST
Disp Group:
DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY
@
2920 NEWPORT BLVD
,NB
Event Number:
N2062580258
Date /Time:
15- Sep- 2006/22:15:28
Pri: 3
Type: 415
Case:
Page 8
Disposition: UNF Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Event Number: NB062.59_0.2.6.5_ Date. /Time- :- - -16•- Sep - 2006/2-2-:22-:- 4-8 - - - --
Pri: 2 _ Tvne-: -242 7 Ca-a
Disposition: ASST Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Event Number: NB062860147 Date /Time: 13- Oct - 2006/16:06:22
Pri: 4 Type: 928LST Case: NB
06010634
Disposition: RPT Disp Group: DG
Location: 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,'NB (NEWPORT BREWERY)
Event Number: N2062940006 Date /Time: 21- Oct - 2006/00:23:38
Pri: 4 Type: ASSIST Case:
Disposition: ASST Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Event Number: NBO63030099 Date /Time: 30- Oct - 2006/76:20:01
Pri: 2 Type: 911H Case:
Disposition: 1022 Disp Group: DG
Location: 2920 NEWPORT BLVD #UPPR ,NB (NEWPORT BREWERY)
Event Number: NB063290068 Date /Time: 25- Nov - 2006/09:27:38
Pri: 4 Type: INFO Case:
Disposition: PC Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Apr 27 13:22 2007
Event Number: N9063300018 Date /Time: 26- Nov- 2006/01:23:41
Pri: 3 Type: 390 Case:
Disposition: GOA Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Event Number: NB063370134 Date /Time: 03- Dec- 2006/15:11:47
Pri: 4 Type: 503R Case:
Disposition: 1022 Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Event Number: NB063400197 Date /Time:. 06 -Dec- 2006/21:33:41
Pri: 2 Type: 242J Case:
Disposition: FI Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Event Number: N3070030084 Date /Time: 03- Jan - 2007/12:16:26
Pri: 2 Type: 929 Case:
Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Event Number: NB070060013 Date /Time: 06- Jan -20 07/00:39:11
Pri: 3 Type: 415 Case:
Di_sposition:_UNF
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @-2- 9.2.0— NEW-POR�T— BEVD —NB '-
Event Number: N2070070010 Date /Time: 07- Jan - 2007/00:30:54
Pri: 4 Type: 242R Case: NB
07000213
Disposition: RPT Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Event Number: NB070150205 Date /Time: 15- Jan - 2007/21:45:56
Pri: 5 Type: V Case:
Disposition: ADV Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Event Number: N3070210180 Date /Time: 21 -Jan- 2007/18:43:43
Pri: 2 Type: 902M Case:
Disposition: HAS
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY
Event Number: NB070210194
Pri: 2
07000718
Disposition: 1015
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY
Event Number: N3070210199
Pri: 3
Disp Group: DG
@ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Date /Time: 21- Jan - 2007/19:36:01
Type: 415F Case: NB
Disp Group: DG
@ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Date /Time: 21- Jan - 2007/20:09:30
Type: 390 Case:
Disposition: GOA Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Page 9
Apr 27 13:22 2007
Event Number: NB070230108
Pri: 4
07000774
Disposition: RPT
Location: 2920 NEWPORT BLVD
Event Number: N9070S50030
Pri: 2
Date /Time: 23- Jan - 2007/14:36:04
Type: 928LST Case: NB
Disp Group: DG
NB (NEWPORT BREWERY)
Date /Time: 24- Feb - 2007/01:49:51
Type: 902M Case:
Disposition: ASST Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ;NB
Event Number: NB070690300 Date /Time: 10- Mar - 2007/23:24:44
Pri: 3 Type: 415390 Case:
Disposition: PC Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Event Number: NB07 0760310 Date /Time: 17- Mar - 2007/22:28:48
Pri: 3 Type: 415P Case:
Disposition: UNF Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Event Number: NB07.0770132 Date /Time: 18- Mar - 2007/13:33;10
Pri: 4 Type: PC Case:
Disposition: PC__ ___— D -is-p— Group-: —DG
L6caEin:YNEWPORT BREWERY @ 2:9.2:0 —NEW- PORT— B-ErVD- ;NB -
— �ve1Tt um er: NB070790102 Date /Time: 20- Mar - 2007/13:47:38
Pri 4 Type: PC Case:
Disposition: PC Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Event Number: N3070800244 Date /Time: 21 -Mar- 2007/23:36:35
Pri: 4 Type: PC Case:
Disposition; PC Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Event Number: NBO70870111 Date /Time: 28- Mar - 2007/11:53:38
Pri: 2 Type: 911H Case:
Disposition: 1022 Disp Group: DG
Location: 2920 NEWPORT BLVD #UPPR ,NB (NEWPORT BREWERY)
Event Number: NB071090224 Date /Time: 19- Apr - 2007/23:00:44
Pri: 4 Type: 41ST Cason
Disposition: GOA Disp Group; DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY C 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Event Number; NB071100257 Date /Time: 20- Apr - 2007/23:04:54
Pri: 3 Type: 390 Case:
Disposition: GOA Disp Group: DG
Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT BLVD ,NB
Page
Apr 27 13:22 2007
Page
Event Number: NB071120136 Date /Time: 22- Apr - 2007/12:57:22
Pri: 3
Type: 415 Case:
Disposition: ASST Disp Location: NEWPORT BREWERY @ 2920 NEWPORT o13LVDDGNB
MSN Hotmail - Message Page 1 of 1
MSN Home I My MSN I Hotmail I Shopping I Money I People & Chat Si9 nt7uE" " Web Search: FGo
! ` 'rransunion. EgU7F" Fxperian ®o
351 364 382 click 'Here, to See Yours!'
r� a3 ` _. .. - pdrx rrmtters.eom
j -: 'j_i` Irk Hotmail= Today Mail Calendar Contacts Options I Help
mhenn527 @hotmall.com Free Newsletters
20 Reply I GO Reply All I L4 Forward I X Delete I PEA Junk 18 Put in Folder I rzg Print View I Kn-- Save Address
From : Bruce j Low <bjlc @sbcglobal.net> 5.1 431 1 X I � Inbox
Sent : Monday, April 9, 2007 11:23 AM
To : Jim Campbell < Campbell @city.newport- beach.ca.us>
Mike Henn <mhenn527@hotmail.com >, Don Webb
<don2webb @earthlmk.net >, Ed <edselich @adelphia.net>,. K Curry
ccurryk @pfm.com >, parandigm @aol.com, Leslie Daigle
CC . <lesliejdaigle @aol.com>, Nancy Gardner <gardnerncy @aol.com >, David Lepo
< dlepo@ city.newport- beach.ca.us >,'.Homer Bludau <hbludau@city.newport-
beach.ca.us>, Aaron Harp <aharp @city. newport- beach.ca.us>
Subject : Update on Newport Brewery
Jim
The update on the Brewery is so:
Last Friday and Saturday my wife and I observed that the rear door of the Brewery, near our residences, was the only
entrance and exit for the Brewery until closing time or 1 AM. We did see some security in the parking lot, however, it
was occasional. The idea of moving the party to the front door at 9 PM or when a line forms was not present.
The neighborhood is disappointed at the defiant regressive characteristics of the Brewery and find the behavior very
contradictory to the "good neighbor" representations the operator has made to the Planning Commission and City
Council.
We understand the effective date of the new conditions is not "technically" in force until the resolution is approved by
the Council but we have hoped that the Brewery would be respectful of the City Council and the neighborhood. That
did not happen and I guess I am not really surprised. Declining to co- operate with the voluntary measures to soften
the blow to the neighborhood seems Intentional and punitive.
We remain hopeful that the city will be successful in enforcing the will of the City Council.
Thanks, Jim.
Bruce Low
CoI &Ito
Get the latest updates from MSN
4 1 I'D- I X I & Inbox
MSN Home I My MSN 1 Hotmail I Search I Shopping I Money I People & Chat
�c'1 2007 Microsoft TERMS OF USE Advertise TRUSTe Approved Privacy Statement GetNet Wise Anti -Spam Policy
Q) Rate Nlarketplace
Feedback I Help
littp:llby] 20fd.bay l 2O.hotmail.msn.com /egi- bin / getmsg ?msg= E2D52F29 -A75 D- 43A8 -BB 1...
4/9/2007