HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/04/2001E
U
0
0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Tucker and Kranzley -
Commissioner Gifford was excused, all other Commissioners were present
STAFF PRESENT:
Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director
Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney
Rich Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager
James Campbell, Senior Planner
Eugenia Garcia, Associate Planner
Robert Kain, Assistant Planner
Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary
Minutes of December 7.2000:
Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker and voted on to approve as
amended the minutes of December 7, 2000.
Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser
Noes: None
Absent: Gifford
Public Comments:
None
Posting of the Aaenda:
Agajanian, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker
The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, December 1, 2000.
Minutes
Approved
Public Comments
Posting of the Agenda
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
INDEX
SUBJECT: Corona del Mar Vision 2004 Plan
Item No. 1
Presentation by the Corona del Mar Business Improvement District of the
Discussion Item
proposed Vision 2004 Plan for Coast Highway, Corona del Mar.
Chairperson Selich stepped down from the chair to present the Vision Plan.
Speaking from the podium, Mr. Selich noted his involvement with the Corona
del Mar Business Improvement District in developing the Vision 2004 Plan. This
presentation is being made throughout the community this month to all major
boards and commissions in the City. A presentation is planned in early February
for the City Council. Referring to several exhibits, he then presented the plan
noting the Plan background, plans for Coast Highway, landscaped medians,
sidewalk landscaping, parking lanes, lighting fixtures, street furniture, major
accents, intersection improvements for Marguerite /Coast Highway,
MacArthur /Coast Highway, pedestrian crossings, funding and future plans.
Mr. Don Glasgow noted that his group is made up of about 19 volunteers from
the business community. He stated the business district is historic and special.
He talked about coming back to the Commission for some type of statement or
resolution that could be built into their portfolio. He noted his appreciation of
•
the work done by Mr. Selich.
The Planning Commission then discussed the following:
• Role to be undertaken by the Commission in support of the
beautification plan for Corona del Mar.
• Parking spaces, loss or gains.
• Details of sidewalk refurbishment.
• Legalities of potential abandonment of Larkspur.
• CEQA review and traffic studies.
• Funding sources from CalTrans, grants and personal donations.
• Maintenance budget for upkeep of landscaping.
• Negotiations with CalTrans.
Takeover of the jurisdiction of the highway and fiscal studies needed.
There were no comments from the public.
SUBJECT: Coco's Restaurant
Item No. 2
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
3446 East Coast Highway
• Use Permit No. 3678
• Outdoor Dining Permit No. 72
• Off -Site Parking Agreement
• Waiver of Combining Requirement
Staff is requesting that the attached minutes be reviewed and approved. The
minutes approved at the meeting of December 7th had the wrong findings and
conditions included.
Commissioner Tucker noted that he was recused from this matter at the time of
the original deliberation.
Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to approve the minutes as
amended.
Ayes:
McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Kranzley
Noes:
None
Absent:
Gifford
Recused:
Tucker
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
Use Permit No. 3678
Outdoor Dining Permit No. 72
Off -Site Parking Agreement
Waiver of Combining Requirement
(REVISED)
Findinas:
1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan and designates the site for "Retail
Service and Commercial' uses and the existing restaurant is a permitted use
Within this designation, and the off -site parking lots in a residential district is not
in conflict with the General Plan.
2. 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).
3. The request of Use Permit No. 3678 to establish the parking requirement, the
Off -Site Parking Agreement, and the waiver of the combining of lots
requirement may be approved for the following reasons:
The physical design characteristics of the restaurant are for dining
purposes only and the alcoholic beverage service for the facility is
• incidental to the primary service of food.
INDEX
Use Permit 3678
Outdoor Dining Permit
No. 72
Off -Site Parking
Agreement
Waiver of Combining
Requirement
Approved
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
L J
0
• The operational characteristics of the restaurant do not include do not
include areas designated for solely for cocktails, dancing, live
entertainment or other attractions, which would require additional
parking.
• The restaurant closes nightly at 10:00 p.m.
• The restaurant serves primarily the local residents who either walk or bike
to the restaurant establishment.
• The existing on -site and off -site parking, and circulation system, is
adequate to accommodate the proposed dining areas.
• The restaurant facility is located in a commercial area that is comprised of
uses whose parking demand does not occur simultaneously, particularly in
the evening.
• The off -site parking lot located at 411, 413 Narcissus Avenue and 3436
East Coast Highway is currently being used to meet the parking
requirement of the restaurant facility and is located so as to be useful in
conjunction with the existing restaurant uses.
• Parking on the off -site lot will not create undue traffic hazards in the
surrounding area.
• The existing on -site and off -site parking, and circulation system, is
adequate to accommodate the proposed dining areas, which have
been used for parking for the subject restaurant since the commercial
building was constructed.
• The off -site parking lots to the rear, across the alley, are owned by the
some owner as the restaurant site and will be maintained as an off - street
parking lot for the duration of the restaurant use.
• The restaurant is operating under a lease with both property owners,
which is of sufficient length to guarantee that the parking will be provided
for the restaurant facility.
• A condition of approval is included, requiring the provision of 33 parking
spaces in the three off -site lots and that the off -site parking agreement be
recorded in the County Recorder's Office.
• The waiver of the requirement to combine the two commercial lots into
one lot or parcel is appropriate in this case, because the lots are under
separate ownership with a long -term lease that is of sufficient length to
guarantee that the lots will be held as a single entity for the duration of
the restaurant use.
• The existing building is in fact 40+ years old and the actual improvements
being made are simply extending the life of a building that has already
reached its economic life.
• The economic life of the building is dependent upon the parking and the
lease.
4. The approval of Use Permit No. 3678, Off -Site Parking Agreement, and
Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 72 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 properly or improvements in the neighborhood or
INDEX
i
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
the general welfare of the City, and would be consistent with the legislative
intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, for the following
reasons:
•
The restaurant use is compatible with the surrounding commercial uses
since restaurant uses are typically allowed in commercial districts and
conditions of approval have been incorporated, which will minimize noise
impacts.
•
The restrictions on the use of outdoor - amplified sound and patio speakers
and compliance with the provisions of the Municipal Code, Community
Noise Ordinance, should limit potential noise impacts on the neighboring
commercial businesses and residential uses.
•
The proposed outdoor dining is consistent with the Land Use Element of
the General Plan, and is compatible with the surrounding land uses.
•
The existing on -site and off -site parking, and circulation system, is
adequate to accommodate the proposed exterior dining areas.
•
That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to walls
and landscaping will be of no further detriment to adjacent properties
because the site is already developed, and has been in existence for
many years.
•
The proposed exterior changes to the restaurant facility will be an
aesthetic improvement to the property.
•
The limited hours of the outdoor dining areas should prevent noise from
adversely impacting the residential uses in the neighborhood.
•
The proposed accessory outdoor dining expansion will not be located so
as to result in a reduction of existing parking spaces because there is
adequate parking available, on both off -site lots.
•
The restrictions on the use of solid roof structures as applied to this
approval are consistent with the intent and purpose of the accessory
outdoor dining to provide outdoor dining opportunities.
•
The proposal will not add a new liquor license to an over - concentrated
area, providing only for the operational change of an existing
restaurant with an existing alcoholic beverage license.
Conditions:
1. Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site
plan and floor plan, except as noted in the following conditions.
2. The interior net public area of the restaurant shall be limited to 1,650 square
feet.
3. Nine (9) on -site parking spaces shall be provided for the restaurant on the
adjacent lot located at 3436 East Coast Highway, and twenty-four (24) off -
site parking spaces shall be provided in the off -site lot located at 411 and 413
Narcissus Avenue.
INDEX
0
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
4. The on -site parking plan, the parking plan for the off -site lot located at 411,
413 Narcissus Avenue and 3436 East Coast Highway, and the vehicular
circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further
review by the City Traffic Engineer.
5. The owner or owners and the City shall execute a written instrument or
instruments, approved as to form and content by the City Attorney, providing
for the maintenance of the required off - street parking on such lots for the
duration of the proposed use or uses on the building site or sites. Should a
change in use or additional use be proposed, the off - street parking
regulations applicable at the time shall apply. Such instruments shall be
recorded in the office of the County Recorder.
6. Grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant where
grease may be introduced into the drainage systems, unless otherwise
approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department.
7. Kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the
satisfaction of the Building Department.
8. The existing boundary wall between the off -site parking lot and the adjoining
. residential lot shall be maintained in accordance with Section 20.82.040 of
the Newport Beach Municipal Code, specifically, the wall shall be a
maximum 3 foot high masonry wall along the front 5 feet of the side property
and 6 feet high for the remaining portion of the side property line.
9. The existing 2 foot wide landscape planter adjacent to the boundary wall
between the offsite parking lot and the adjoining residential lot shall be
maintained with a groundcover that shall not exceed 3 inches above a 6
inch high curb so as not to obstruct the front overhang of parked vehicles.
Plantings shall be planted in areas between parking stalls to screen the
boundary wall.
10. Trees, shrubs, or vines shall be planted in the 5 foot wide planter areas along
the front property line, and along the side property line on the comer
commercial property, to screen the off -site parking lot and the on -site parking
from Narcissus Avenue. A landscape plan shall be approved by the Planning,
Public Works and General Services Departments
11. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code or other applicable section or chapter, additional street
trees shall be provided and existing street trees shall be protected in place
during construction of the subject project, unless otherwise approved by
the General Services Department and the Public Works Department
through an encroachment permit or agreement if required.
12. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Newport Beach
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
U
Municipal Code or other applicable section or chapter, additional street
trees shall be provided as required by Ordinance, unless otherwise
approved by the General Services Department and the Public Works
Department through an encroachment permit or agreement (if required).
13. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare onto adjacent
properties or uses, including minimizing the number of light sources. The
plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer
acceptable to the City. Prior to the issuance of any building permit the
applicant shall provide to the Planning Department, in conjunction with the
lighting system plan, lighting fixture product types and technical
specifications, including photometric information, to determine the extent
of light spillage or glare which can be anticipated. This information shall be
made a part of the building set of plans for issuance of the building permit.
Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits,
the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code
Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified by this
condition of approval.
14. The accessory outdoor dining for the restaurant shall be used in conjunction
• with the related adjacent food establishment and shall be limited to 382 sq.
ft. maximum of dining area.
15. The area outside of the food establishment shall be maintained in a clean
and orderly manner.
16. The outdoor dining area associated with the restaurant uses shall be limited
to the area as delineated on the approved site plan only.
17. For sunshade purposes, coverings shall be limited to the use of umbrellas or
retractable awnings or an open trellis structure with a minimum vertical
clearance of 7 feet measured from the floor of the dining area to the
lowest portion of the shade structure. The use of solid, permanent roof
coverings shall be prohibited. The design of any trellis is subject to the
approval of the Planning Director.
18. Alcoholic beverage service shall be prohibited in the outdoor dining areas,
unless the approval of the Police Department and the Alcoholic Beverage
Control Board are first obtained. Any substantial physical changes required
(as determined by the Planning Department) to accommodate alcoholic
beverage service shall be subject to the approval of an amendment to this
Outdoor Dining Permit.
. 19. The hours of operation of the outdoor dining area are limited to between
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
11
the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., daily; and that any increase in the hours
of operation shall be subject to the approval of an amendment to this
application.
20. No amplified music or entertainment is permitted in the outdoor dining area.
21. Outside paging systems shall be prohibited.
22. Should problems arise with regard to tables, chairs or stools encroaching into
the public right-of-way, private property pedestrian access or walkways, the
Planning Department reserves the right to require the removal of all or a
portion of the outdoor dining area seating.
23. The operator of the restaurant facility shall be responsible for the control of
noise generated by the subject facility. The noise generated by the
proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code that provides, in part, that the sound shall
be limited to no more than depicted below for the specified time periods.
Between the hours of Between the hours of
7:00 a.m. and 10:00 o.m. 10:00 K)-m. and 7:00 a.m.
• Measured at the property fine of
Commercially zoned property: 65 dBA 60 dBA
Measured at the property fine of
ResidentialN zoned orooertv: 60 dBA 50 dBA
24. The patio shall be closed for the evening upon verification of non-
compliance with any conditions of this Use Permit or Outdoor Dining Permit
and, if the patio is not closed, the matter shall be referred to the Planning
Department for action on the Use Permit and /or Outdoor Dining Permit.
25. The area of the outdoor dining shall be delineated with physical barriers
designed, installed and maintained around the patio area to insure
compliance with the Community Noise Control Ordinance (Chapter 10.26
of the Newport Beach Municipal Code).
26. The approval is for the establishment of outdoor dining for an existing full
service restaurant facilities as defined by Title 20 of the Municipal Code,
with the principal purpose for the sale or service of food and beverages
with sale and service of alcoholic beverages incidental to the food use
during the specified restaurant hours of operation.
27. This approval is non - transferable by the permittee or property owner; and
should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership,
any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this
•ll.l_11.
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
0
approval by either the current owner or the leasing company, that this
approval does not transfer and that a new application must be approved
by the Planning Department.
28. All trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters stored in the
trash enclosure, or otherwise screened from the view of neighboring
properties except when placed for pick -up by refuse collection agencies.
That the trash dumpsters shall be fully enclosed and the top shall remain
closed at all times, except when being loaded or while being collected by
the refuse collection agency.
29. The applicant shall maintain the trash dumpsters or receptacles so as to
control odors which may include the provision of fully self- contained
dumpsters or may include periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, if
deemed necessary by the Planning Department.
30. Storage outside of the building shall be prohibited, with the exception of the
required trash container enclosure and existing storage structures.
31. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.67 of the Municipal
Code
32. The rear of the building shall be altered to reinstate the required 10 -foot
alley setback, with the exception of approximately 18 -feet of the width of
the building starting from the northwest corner in order to accommodate
existing electrical and gas utilities connections. Prior to issuance of building
permits, the revised construction plans shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Planning director to determine substantial conformance
with is condition.
33. A trash enclosure shall be established on the properly to serve the
restaurant. It shall be located in an alcove at the rear of the building and
shall be located within the building in the area retained for the utilities. The
trash enclosure shall be enclosed with a roll -up door.
34. The owner of the property shall record an easement agreement, or
equivalent instrument, for access to the trash enclosure for the subject
property, the form and content of the agreement to be approved by the
City Attorney.
35. The utility panels shall be integrated within the rear building wall. The
utilities shall be covered with panels or other similar material to incorporate
the utilities into the wall of the building.
36. No parking or storage shall be permitted within the required 10 -foot alley
setback.
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
0
0
0
Standard Conditions:
1. The proposed restaurant facility shall conform to the requirements of the
Uniform Building Code.
2. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements.
4. Arrangements shall 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.
4. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.67 of the Municipal
Code
5. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to
this Use Permit or Outdoor Dining Permit or recommend to the City Council
the revocation of this Use Permit or Outdoor Dining 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.
6. This Use Permit and Outdoor Dining Permits shall expire unless exercised
within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050
of the Newport Beach Municipal Code
kkk
SUBJECT: Knost Accessory dwelling unit
431 Aliso Avenue
• Use Permit No. 3687
Request to construct a 640 square foot, accessory dwelling unit on a single - family
residential property pursuant to Chapter 20.85 of the Municipal Code.
Senior Planner Campbell made a slide presentation noting the following:
• Removal of existing pool area and garage.
• Construction of a four -car garage with accessory unit above.
• Project meets all Municipal Code requirements regarding parking.
• Deed restrictions for the use of the facility with minimum age of the
occupant of 60 years of age.
• Property owner must occupy the site.
• Yearly monitoring by the Planning Department of those requirements.
• Two-story buildings in the neighborhood.
At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple stated that on a yearly basis letters
requesting certification that the unit is occupied as required by Code are sent
10
INDEX
Item No. 3
Use Permit No. 3687
Approved
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
0
11
r1
to all residences that have a granny unit. This is done on the honor of the
property owner to tell us the truth and we follow up until we get all the letters
answered. A use permit is required in this instance to allow a second dwelling
unit within an R -1 District. It can only be constructed within the parameters of
the Code and the approval of a use permit.
Commissioner Kranzley asked if the City has the right to inspect a property that
had been approved with a granny unit.
Ms. Temple answered that we can request an inspection if there is a possibility
of Code violation and /or an Inspection Warrant could be obtained if
necessary.
Commissioner McDaniel noted his concern of a granny unit upstairs with an
exterior stairwell. If the person has to be sixty to qualify for this, how does this
work?
Assistant City Attorney Robin Clauson answered that the City used to require
that the second unit be occupied by the owner or by the person who was over
60. We changed our ordinance to allow them to occupy the front residence
and then have other family members occupy the back. Even though it is
sometimes on the second floor, sometimes it is not the elderly person
occupying that second unit. The requirement is that the owner has to be
occupying the property.
Commissioner Agajanian expressed his concern that someone could come in
and get that flat unit and then sell it to somebody else and the new owner
would come in and occupy one unit and rent the other unit. We would
basically have two residential units.
Ms. Temple noted that this could and probably does happen. The limitation of
State Law and the requirements set forth in the Code require that at least one
of the units be occupied by an age qualified resident and that one of the
residences be occupied by the owner of the property. There is no restriction on
which unit is occupied by which entity or that the elderly party in the
transaction actually be a relative of the other party.
Ms. Clauson noted that in the early 80's the State Law came up with
requirements that the cities have to adopt ordinances allowing second units. If
they did not do that within a certain time period, the State would then
mandate a permit pursuant to state standards. The City of Newport Beach
adopted its own ordinance for second units restricting them to granny units.
We have been able to get approval from the State for this process.
Ms. Wood added that the purpose of that State Law was to provide affordable
housing for senior citizens. The State had no particular interest that the two
parties be related, the term granny flat is a colloquial term for it. The real issue is
11
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
is
to provide affordable housing for seniors and this was seen as a way of doing
that within the community.
Ms. Clauson noted that the definition of a granny unit is to be the second
dwelling unit with the primary unit being occupied by the owner.
Mr. Campbell added that the owner must reside on the property and can be in
either unit but the granny unit, which is limited to 640 square feet, must be
occupied by the 60+ year old.
Ms. Clauson added that the concept was that if the owner of the property is
over 60 they could live in the granny unit and rent out the front. The granny unit
must be in the back. We are bound by State Law to have this in our Code.
Commissioner Kiser noted the concentration of the granny units within the area
of the subject property. What if every property had a granny unit on it? Under
State Law would it make any difference at all, could we choose to deny it
because we considered there to be too high a concentration? Would that be
lawful?
Ms. Clauson answered that there may not be more than 10 to 15 granny units
within the City. It is not an issue that has been looked at.
Mr. Campbell noted that if we wanted to amend the Code and deal with the
concentration issues we have to make specific findings in the adoption of that
ordinance. We would then need to send that back to the State for approval.
The granny unit option only applies to lots of certain size and it needs to be
larger than the standard size. The way it stands with the present ordinance,
they are allowed if applicable standards are met.
At Commission inquiry, staff noted that the granny unit does not need to be a
connected dwelling unit, it can be a separate area on the property.
Public comment was opened.
Mr. Jack Knost, 431 Aliso Avenue, stated that he is purchasing the house from
his mother in law and building the unit to take care of her.
Christopher Budnick, 501 Fullerton Avenue noted his support of the application.
The neighborhood has quite a few of these units. The lot size is adequate and
will not detract from the character of the neighborhood.
Public comment was closed.
Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve Use Permit No. 3687
subject to the findings and conditions of approval attached as Exhibit 1.
12
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
•
Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker
Noes: None
Absent: Gifford
Commissioner Kranzley asked why granny units were not items that could be
handled by the Planning Director.
Ms. Temple answered that it could be made a staff issued permit if the
Commission chose.
Commissioner Agajanian noted that this issue needs to be brought up under
the General Plan deliberation.
EXHIBIT NO. 1
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
USE PERMIT NO. 3687
Finding s:
1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program
Land Use Plan designate the site for "Single Family Detached" uses. The
proposed project is a permitted use within this designation since the
General Plan recognizes that certain provisions of State law supersede local
land use regulation including the ability to add Accessory Dwelling Units in
single family residential areas.
2. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it qualifies
for a categorically exemption pursuant to Section 15303 (Class 3, New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the California
Environmental Quality Act Implementing Guidelines.
3. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the proposed accessory
dwelling unit at 431 Aliso Avenue will not, under the circumstances of this
case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general
welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such
proposed use and will be detrimental or injurious to property and
improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City for
the following reasons:
a. The new accessory unit is in the rear of the lot and is 21 feet in
height, which will help, maintain the single - family character of the
area when viewed from the Aliso Avenue. No other accessory
dwelling units are located in the general vicinity, which would lead
to a sense of overcrowding.
b. Termination of the accessory unit is required when the owner does
13
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
not have a qualifying occupant (minimum 60 years of age) or
desires to become an absentee landlord.
c. The size, area and bulk of the proposed construction for the
accessory unit can be permitted in conjunction with a single family
home. Conversion of the accessory unit can be accommodated
readily when necessary.
d. The proposed project provides an additional parking space within a
garage.
e. The proposed accessory unit is designed in such a way that it
conforms to all of the development standards and restrictions set
forth in Chapter 20.85 of the Municipal Code.
f. Approval of the accessory unit will not set a precedent or otherwise
encourage other property owners in the area to propose additional
accessory units due to the restrictions on their use contained within
Chapter 20.85 of the Municipal Code.
Conditions:
is1. The proposed development of the subject property and accessory dwelling
shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans
and elevations dated January 4, 2001.
2. Residents of the accessory dwelling unit shall be limited to one or two
persons over the age of 60 years.
3. Commencing with the final inspection of the accessory dwelling unit by a
City Building Inspector and on an annual basis every year thereafter, the
property owner shall submit to the Planning Director the names and birth
dates of any and all occupants of the accessory dwelling units constructed
pursuant to this approval to verify occupancy by a person or persons 60
years of age or older. Upon any change of tenants, the property owner
shall notify the City immediately. This information shall be submitted in
writing and contain a statement signed by the property owner certifying
under penalty of perjury that all of the information is true and correct.
4. The primary residence or the granny unit shall be continuously occupied by
at least one person having an ownership interest in the property. Evidence
of an ownership interest in the property by an occupant of either the
accessory unit or primary residence of the property shall be submitted to
the City prior to occupancy of the accessory dwelling unit and each year
thereafter.
• 5. The applicant or property owner shall record a Covenant, the form and
14
INDEX
L_J
0
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
content of which is acceptable to the City Attorney, binding the
applicants, owners and successors in interest in perpetuity so as to limit the
occupancy of the second dwelling unit to one or two adults, 60 years of
age or over, and that the primary residence or the granny unit shall be
continuously occupied by at least one person having an ownership interest
in the property. Additionally, this covenant shall commit the applicants,
owners and successors to comply with current ordinances regarding
accessory dwelling units. Said covenant shall also contain all conditions of
approval imposed by the Planning Commission or the City Council.
6. One independently accessible parking space shall be for the exclusive use
of the proposed granny unit, in addition to the two required parking spaces
for the main dwelling. The additional parking space shall be kept free,
clear, and accessible for the parking of a vehicle at all times. The entire 916
square foot, 4 -car garage shall not be converted to other use nor shall
permanent obstructions to vehicular access be constructed therein.
7. This Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date
of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050A of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code.
SUBJECT: Crabby Kenny's (Ken Poole, applicant)
3012 Newport Blvd.
• Use Permit No. 3688
A request to allow an existing restaurant to add the sale of general alcoholic
beverages for on -site consumption (Type 47 License) in conjunction with a
request to change the hours of operation. The application also includes a
request to add a 110 square foot outdoor dining area.
Senior Planner James Campbell made a slide presentation and noted the
following:
• Existing restaurant at site for over 40 years.
• Does not have a use permit presently.
• Restaurant has a license for beer and wine, and seeking an upgrade to
that license to full service alcoholic beverages.
• Extend hours of operation.
• Add a small outdoor dining area of 110 square feet to the front of the
establishment.
• Net public area of restaurant interior includes a small bar and raw oyster
bar areas.
• Outdoor patio area is proposed to be in a three -foot area in the front on
Newport Boulevard.
15
INDEX
Item No. 4
Use Permit No. 3688
Approved
n
LJ
•
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
• Rear area serves as the main entrance from the parking lot.
• The parking lot is shared with a commercial building that closes at 4 p.m.
• The trash area is not properly picked up and is noted in the staff report.
• Restaurant is non - conforming relative to parking and without a use
permit.
• This particular area has a high concentration of liquor licenses and crime
statistics.
• There are 8 seats by the oyster bar and there is another bar area that is for
customer waiting.
• An extension of hours may potentially create a bar atmosphere that
could create an issue with the Alcohol Beverage Ordinance in terms of
the public need and necessity is.
• There are 66 ABC licenses in this census tract area that equals 1 license for
every 94 persons.
• There are 61 active ABC licenses in the subject Reporting District 15 as
compared to 8 in adjacent Reporting District 13 and 5 in adjacent
Reporting District 16.
• Staff is recommending against the issuance of upgrading the Alcoholic
Beverage License. There is a benefit for approving a use permit for this
application, as presently there is none for this particular site. The
application is considered an expansion of the present use and we are
therefore requiring a use permit. Staff is also recommending that the
hours of operation not be extended beyond what they presently are.
Commissioner Kranzley asked what governs the hours of operation now and was
answered that the hours of operation are governed by nothing other than the
historical use.
Ms. Clauson added that if they are legal and nonconforming because they
were in existence as a restaurant prior to the requirement of a use permit, then
their entitlement to continue operation is based on historical use. Staff can
establish that if they closed at 11 p.m., then that is all that the use has a right to
continue operating. If they want to close at a later time, they must get a use
permit that would authorize that.
Commissioner Kranzley asked if they were to add an additional bar, would they
have to come in for a use permit? He was answered yes.
Ms. Temple added that part of the problem of not having a use permit is not
knowing what was there physically and the layout. We rely on what we believe
to be the historic use of the property in terms of physical layout and hours of
operation. One of the concerns of not having a use permit is clearly set forth
conditions including hours of operation and other keys that tie into the floor plan.
Often times they will just expand their hours and we would have no knowledge of
it because they do not need to come to the City for approval or building permit.
That is one of the advantages of getting a use permit, but in this case, we knew
what the historic hours of operation were and they wish to expand those in
16
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
association with the upgrade of license. Therefore, it triggers the need to get a
use permit as set forth in the Eating and Drinking Establishment Chapter of the
Municipal Code as opposed to the ABO Ordinance.
At Commission inquiry, staff noted that the requested area for the outdoor dining
is about 3 feet wide in about a 100 square foot area. The tables would be
arranged in a line facing Newport Boulevard. The tables are for food
consumption only as the ABC would require the area to be secured. There is not
sufficient room for that, as they would rely on the public right of way to access
the tables. The Accessory Outdoor Dining provisions were drafted and the goal is
be the lowest improvement necessary to be appropriate for the location and the
improvement to be rather casual. It was intended to be an ancillary extra that a
restaurant could take advantage of. The provisions limit the amount of
improvements and encourage less rather than more.
Commissioner Agajanian asked if this was approved and the applicant received
their ABC license for full liquor and the establishment changed hands, does the
liquor license then go to the new owner at the some site?
Ms. Temple answered that the sale of the full service license is a transaction of the
sale of the establishment and may or may not stay with the property. However, if
the use permit is approved, the use permit authority to reinstate a new full service
license remains for the period of three months in which it would have to be
exercised.
Chairperson Selich asked what conditions would require railings around
outdoor dining applications? He was answered that it would be required to
secure something from a parking area or some other area that might lead to
some conflict between the dining use and other uses on site. If it is physically
practical to do so, it is a way of limiting the square footage and not allow the
tables to travel around and the area get larger because people are moving
them. It might also be a building code requirement if there is a change in
elevation for safety reasons.
Ms. Clauson added that the benefit of getting a use permit is that it would give
the Commission the ability to have established hours of operation and parking
for the restaurant property. If the Commission granted the ABO then they
would have the right for service of alcohol beverages. If any problems arose in
the future and there was an action to revoke either one of those use permits, I
do not believe the applicant would lose their legal non - conforming right to
continue the restaurant with its historical use that they had. A revocation
would be a revocation of the extended hours or the additional seats of the
outdoor dining or a revocation of the upgraded permit, but not for the whole
restaurant use.
Capt. Tim Newman of the Police Department at Commission inquiry stated that
if the Commission limited the hours as staff is suggesting, some of the concerns
17
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
that the police have would be mitigated. The staff report expresses our
concerns with the late hours, as they tend to change the type of operation in
our experience in dealing with similar operations throughout the city.. The other
consideration we have is the enhancement of the availability of alcoholic
beverages that can be contributing factor to problems in an area. Between
those two factors, the hours are the most significant.
Chairperson Selich noted that in the floor plan there is a lot of area dedicated
to bar space. It appears that there are at least 20 seats divided among three
bars, if the bar area was reduced to 8 -9 seats would that be a further help?
Would you still be looking for more mitigation if we changed the number of
seats and limited the hours of operation?
Capt. Newman answered yes. Any effort to direct the character of the
operation so that it remains more of a restaurant type would help. Our
concern is that this type of land use in this particular area creates an
environment where additional problems can occur. We have not had
problems at this site, but restaurants that stay open late and turn into bars do
cause quality of life problems for our community. We have a lot of those
quality of life problems in this particular portion of our community now.
Anything that can be done administratively to provide tools and conditions to
minimize those problems in the future is a positive thing for us. Any type of
modification to the existing use can create an environment where future
problems could occur.
Commissioner Kiser asked if since the use of this site by Crabby Kenny's has
there been any problems from a police enforcement perspective with this
particular operator to date?
Captain Newman answered that there have been no problems with the
current proprietor. The level of alcohol related offenses that occur in this
particular area is significant. It is much more than in other portions of the
community. There have been some changes in the number and type of
operations that are in existence in the neighborhood. There has been a
reduction in some level of activities in the area. One of the characteristics of
previous problems was with multiple bars in the area; people would walk from
one establishment to another late at night. It does create problems for the
residents in the neighborhood and causes police related activities. Most of the
concentration of bar problems occur after 11 p.m. and do not occur so much
between 6 p.m. to 10 p.m.
Public comment was opened.
Keith Bohr spoke representing the application. He noted that the outdoor
dining that is being asked is for patrons who smoke. If that is a swaying issue, it
can be taken off the table. Continuing, he noted that:
' . Asking for the full alcohol for the purpose of competing with the other
18
INDEX
0
•
E
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
local establishments. Some customers do not come back when they find
out that they can not be served alcohol.
• All of our food service will be until closure.
• High -end restaurant, casual and rustic with spending $20 to $30 a piece.
• Bar area has 8 seats.
• Stools around the raw oyster bar are not serviced for alcohol.
• The other seating is for a waiting area that does not have alcohol service,
but the customer can go and order something from the bar.
• Hours - people can come in late on a Friday or Saturday night especially
during the summer that adds to our bottom line.
• We are not adding any seats nor change to our customer base.
• We have another operation in Huntington Beach that has a full alcohol
and has had no problems to date.
• Looking to open up a series of these restaurants with full alcohol.
• It is not a bar, no screens, no jukeboxes and no live entertainment.
In conclusion he asked that Exhibit B be approved with condition 20 revised to
8 a.m. to 12 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and 8 a.m. to 1 a.m. Friday and
Saturday. We don't know if we will serve breakfast, but this will give is the
leeway. The reason we are now open 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. is because the beer
and wine license that we bought with the restaurant had those conditions of
approval. At Commission inquiry, he noted that the Crabby Kenny's in
Huntington Beach has been opened for seven months; it closes at 1:30 a.m.
seven nights a week; there have been no response for police calls to the site.
Commissioner Agajanian asked which would be most critical to the bottom
line, extended hours or the full alcohol license? Is one more critical?
Mr. Bohr stated that his client assured him that it was not worth it to go forward
with this approval and all of the restrictions that come with it if the hours were
not extended. There are a lot of values being taken on by having a use permit.
The applicant wants to have both, the full alcohol and extended hours.
Chairperson Selich referring to the plan in the staff report counted 25 bar seats
including the raw bar. One of the things we have to take into consideration is
that this permit runs with the land and not the operator. Should your business
leave the premises and another business comes in, we have to be concerned
with how the facilities will be used in the future. Even though you say the raw
bar is not serving drinks, it has the potential to become a bar. I see these 25
seats and you are asking for 94 seats and it appears as though we have almost
25% of the seats going to bar use or potential bar use. Do you have any
objection to eliminating the drink counter and the raw counter and replacing
them with tables? You would still have 88 seats but by limiting the bar to the 8
seats would equal 1017. of the overall seating. The intent is to turn the floor plan
more of a restaurant and less of a bar to ensure that it remains a restaurant and
not solely converts to a bar as the business climate may dictate over time.
19
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
Mr. Bohr stated that seven seats along the left of the bar are along a fish tank.
If you want to put a restriction that nobody could then put bartenders instead
of the fish tank at a later date, we agree. This is just a counter to sit at, if you
want to impose no alcohol at the raw bar, you can do that. Again, we are not
a bar to come and sit and have drinks. We are not willing to remove the bar
seats because we can still have the same amount of people but they will be
sitting at tables rather than at a bar.
Tony Sheperdson, 421 31st Street, stated that he is concerned with the quality of
life in the Cannery Village area. In my opinion if the hours are extended to 1
a.m., it is going to be a drinkers' bar. What I've experienced living in that
community with the bars is fists punched through my windows; people urinating
in my bushes; I pick up beer bottles every week; patrons get sick on the
sidewalk and this must be cleaned up every morning. Since one of the bars
closed, we have had fewer disturbances than we have had in the past. I am
grateful for that, but there are still things that go on that are not pleasant for
the residents of the area. I feel that another hard liquor bar is beyond me what
good can come of this. I understand that the City would have jurisdiction, but
it would be a detriment to our way of life. We are trying to cope with the
existing bars. I urge that you deny this application. At Commission inquiry, even
if the hours were limited to 11 p.m., he would be in opposition to this
application.
Patricia Hilton, 425 31st Street noted that had this application not hit at this
holiday time, there would have been a very strongly worded petition signed by
each and every one of the residents against this use permit for hard liquor and
extended hours at Crabby Kenny's. I do have a letter from Mary Williamson
stating her strong opposition to this use permit; she is unable to attend the
meeting tonight and asked that I present this on her behalf. We can barely
tolerate now the loud voices and exuberant after hours conduct of the 11 p.m.
to 2 a.m. drinking crowd as they walk back to their vehicles parked on 31st
Street waking us up in the early morning hours every Friday and Saturday night.
We have monthly episodes of vandalism from patrons of the existing bars and
we still have some mess of human excrement and debris to clean up in our
front yards. We have to hose down our property every Saturday and Sunday
morning, we're sick of it! Another place to drink late after everyone has finished
eating at 11 p.m. is going to bring more drinkers. There is not enough parking so
they all park along 31st Street. I would like to point out that the Crab Cooker
doesn't seem to have any problem serving only beer and wine. It seems to me
a family restaurant serving oyster bar and good fish if that is their competition, I
don't know why the applicant thinks Malarkey's and the beer bars and late
hour drinking bars are their competition. With hard liquor and extended hours,
this will become a bar; it's not going to end up a family restaurant like the Crab
Cooker. I think I speak for every resident in the entire Cannery Village area that
we just can not tolerate an escalation of an already existing problem. At
Commission inquiry, she answered that if the restaurant closed at 11 p.m. the
patrons are standing in the parking lot and drinking. The parking lot is a mess
20
INDEX
. City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
0
0
0
and the applicant does not take care of it now. I don't see this being a family
restaurant with hard liquor. If they close at 11 p.m., who is going to police the
parking lot? The owners haven't been doing it.
Suzanne Finnemore, 419 31st Street stated that she built her three story building
a year ago and has the luxury of looking over the building next door to see the
parking lots of Rudy's and Crabby Kenny's and what goes on there. The
problem is that 31st Street is lined with cars in front of all the houses. I have a
little bit of landscaping in front and I have to clean up beer bottles, paper cups
and vomit. When the restaurants close, the patrons congregate in the parking
lots for hours. The patrons will then bar hop and go from one bar to another,
etc. I don't see how having another bar that is going to serve hard liquor is
going to do any good in the neighborhood at all.
Thomas Dixon, 428 31st Street noted his opposition to this application for similar
reasons stated by previous speakers.
Chairperson Selich asked the applicant if he did not get the requested hours of
operation is it still feasible for you to move ahead? If it is the determination of
this Commission that we go with the staff recommendation of closing at 11 p.m.
I take it that is not acceptable to you?
Mr. Bohr stated that he would not say that at this time.
Public comment was closed.
Commissioner Kranzley noted his opposition to this application. I agree with the
residents who spoke that it has been a long hard road in the Cannery. To
intensify an alcohol use whether they close at 11 p.m. or 1 a.m. it is still a
contribution to the problem. The police know when all the bars and restaurants
close and see the groups go from one place to another as they close. As I
have said in a number of past hearings, as the Planning Commission continues
to approve new alcohol uses in District 15. This is ground zero for alcohol
related crimes in Newport Beach. This is the worst - reporting District in the entire
City. One of the reasons we instituted and created that Alcohol Beverage
Ordinance in 1998 was to specifically address issues that we had in this
neighborhood. The Planning Commission has only denied one intensification
and that denial was overturned by the City Council. I have no understanding
why we have an Alcohol Beverage Ordinance if we are not going to use it in
Reporting District 15. 1 would encourage the other Commissioners to envision a
Corona del Mar with bars and restaurants at every other store front and crime
rate three times anyplace else in the City whether they would be encouraged
to approve an additional intensification of a permit in that area. We
understand that there are a lot of restaurants and bars on the peninsula, it
doesn't mean we need more nor that we are setting precedent that
everybody who comes down here and asks for a permit should get one; and
that is what we are doing right now. It is time to stop!
21
INDEX
. City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
n
U
0
0
Commissioner McDaniel noted he went to dinner there last night. My wife and I
were the only two people eating; everybody else was at the bar. When I
walked in, it looked like a bar. Listening to the public testimony, it seems that
this is more of a problem then I originally thought. I don't think this fits so I will
not be supporting this application.
Commissioner Agajanian noted that the extension of the hours is a contributing
factor and he was not going to support this application because of the
intensification of the alcohol use.
Commissioner Tucker noted his support of the full liquor license if the hours did
not change and we made changes to the floor plan to assure ourselves it is not
a bar. I visited the facility and agree that it does have a feeling of a bar.
Elimination of several of the seats especially along the counter of the west side
of the bar would be something I would like to see. The hours need to stay the
same; the number of seats need to remain the some and the outdoor seating
needs to be dispensed with. The parking lot should also have some hours
associated with it if we approve this application. With the limitation of the
hours, it is not going to be a bar. If the hours are not limited, it is a bar and I
would not be in favor of it being a bar.
Commissioner Kiser agreeing with the comments of previous speaker stated his
support of this application only with the hours not past 11 p.m. and a redesign
of the bar areas so that tables were there. He noted he too visited the facility
and observed the bar areas.
Chairperson Selich noted his support of the application if:
the hours were limited and
if the oyster raw bar and drink counter were eliminated and
limit to a maximum 8 seats at the drink bar and the rest of the floor area
turned into seats and
remain at a maximum of 88 seats.
Commissioners McDaniel and Agajanian noted their support of these provisions.
Commissioner Kranzley noted that when you look at the five issues in the
Alcohol Beverage Ordinance on staff report page 8, there is one of those five
that we could in good conscience find, which is that the proximity of the
alcoholic beverage outlet to residential districts, day care centers, park and
recreation facilities, places of religious assembly, and schools. We don't have a
problem, as there are no schools there. However, public convenience, the
crime rate, number of alcohol licenses per capita, number of alcohol - related
calls for service, each of these is so overwhelmingly against the approval of this
project. I just don't understand it, why do we have an Alcohol Beverage
Ordinance if we are not going to use it, especially in this District?
0
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
The applicant was asked to step forward. Chairperson Selich noted his intent to
make a motion to limit the project to 8 bar seats; eliminate the raw bar and
drink counter; limit the project to 88 seats arranged how you wish in the
remaining area after removal of the drink counter and raw bar. Is that
acceptable to you or not?
Mr. Bohr answered that they would accept that and hope that they prove to
be good neighbors and in a few years come back and maybe look at it again.
I am confident we can adhere to all those restrictions.
Commissioner Kiser clarified that his support of this full alcohol license was that
a revised floor plan is presented to the Planning Commission for close scrutiny
as to how the tables were laid out, how the restaurant looked and whether it
ended up looking like a restaurant or something that could very easily be
flipped into a bar. I would have trouble trying to formulate something tonight
that would be acceptable unless we went into a great detail about what the
bar area is to look like after this was approved.
Chairperson Selich asked if we designated that the raw bar and the side bar
be eliminated and that the applicant submit a floor plan for our review as to its
conformance tonight, would that suffice?
• Commissioner Kiser answered yes, it would be with the understanding to see
normal height tables for dining, not a size that would be if people were in a bar.
Motion was made by Chairperson Selich to approve Use Permit 3688 with the
conditions and findings as recommended by staff with the additional condition
that the existing drink counter be removed, the existing raw bar counter be
removed and the existing serving bar for alcoholic beverages be limited to 8
seats and that the total project be limited to 88 seats as recommended by
staff, and the applicant submit back to the Planning Commission a revised floor
plan that shows the complete lay out for the total 88 seats including the 8 bar
seats. The intent of the Commission is to have this facility operate as a
restaurant and not as a bar and that all the tables submitted shall be of normal
table height except for the 8 seats at the bar. Additionally, the outdoor dining
seats are eliminated as agreed to earlier by the applicant. Condition 20 shall
be amended to read that the parking lot shall be cleared of patrons and
patrons' cars by 11:15 p.m. each evening. A correction to condition 1 is to be
made for the date of 2001.
Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian Selich, Tucker
Noes: Kranzley
Absent: Gifford
23
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
L�
EXHIBIT "B"
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
USE PERMIT NO. 3688
Findings:
1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Retail
and Service Commercial' use. A restaurant use with alcoholic beverage
sales and service is considered a permitted use within this designation
and is consistent with the General Plan.
2. The project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is
categorically exempt under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
3. The project meets the purpose and intent of the development standards
of the Municipal Code for an upgrade to the existing alcohol license for
an existing restaurant and the existing physical characteristics of the site
are not proposed to be altered.
4. The proposed project is consistent with the purpose and intent of
. Chapter 20.89 of the Zoning Code (Alcoholic Beverage Outlets) and will
not, under the circumstances of the case, be detrimental to the health,
safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or
working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and
is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code for the
following reasons:
a. The restaurant use is compatible with the surrounding commercial
uses since restaurant uses are typically allowed in commercial
districts.
b. The convenience of the public can arguably be served by the
sale of desired beverages in a restaurant setting.
c. The proposed use is a continuation of the existing restaurant use,
which serves the residential and commercial uses and visiting
tourists in the area.
d. The percentage of alcohol - related arrests in the police reporting
district in which the project is proposed is higher (16.34%) than
the percentage citywide.
e. Conditions of approval have been included which should prevent
problems associated with the sale and service of alcoholic
beverages.
f. On site parking is available for the use.
g. The alcoholic beverage service is incidental to the primary use of
24
INDEX
n
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
the facility as a restaurant.
The establishment will provide regular food service from the full
menu at all times the facility is open.
No live entertainment is permitted.
Conditions:
The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved
site plan and floor plans dated January 4, 2001 as modified exEept- as
weed be by the Planning Commission. A revised floor pion shall be
submitted to the Planning Commission for approval, and shall reflect the
following.
• The existing drink counter be removed
• The existing raw bar counter be removed
• The existing serving bar for alcoholic beverages be limited to 8
seats (counted as part of the total 88 seats).
2. Any iae{ease afteroffon to the approved plan
area shall be subject to prior approval of a use permit.
' 3. The interior dining area shall be limited to 88 seats maximum as
delineated on the approved revised floor plans. In no case shall the
maximum seating capacity exceed that which is established by the Fire
Marshal. Any increase in the number of seating for customers shall be
subject to approval of a use permit.
4. The interior net public area shall be limited to 11275 iq. it. the area as
delineated on the eppreved revised floor plans. Any increase in the net
public area shall be subject to the approval of a use permit.
5. This use permit may be modified or revoked by the City Council or
Planning Commission should they determine that the proposed uses or
conditions under which it is being operated or maintained is detrimental
to the public health, welfare or materially injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity or if the property is operated or maintained
so as to constitute a public nuisance.
6. In addition to any other grounds provided for herein, three or more
sustained complaints within a 12 month period received by the
Newport Beach Police Department regarding disturbances which have
been caused by patrons, staff or entertainment at the site will be
grounds for revocation proceeding.
7. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws.
' Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use will be
25
II:h1_:0:4
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
0 cause for revocation of this permit.
8. The approval is only for the establishment of a full -serve, high turnover,
eating and drinking establishment and alcoholic beverage outlet as
defined by Title 20 of the Municipal Code, as the principal purpose for the
sale or service of food and beverages.
This approval shall not be construed as permission to allow the facility to
operate as a bar or tavern use as defined by the Municipal Code,
unless the Planning Commission first approves a use permit.
10. The type of alcoholic beverage license issued by the California Board of
Alcoholic Beverage Control shall be full alcohol service for on -site
consumption only and only in conjunction with the service of food as
the principal use of the facility. The sale for off -site consumption of
alcoholic beverages is prohibited. Any upgrade in the alcoholic
beverage license shall be subject to the approval of an amendment to
this application and may require the approval of the Planning
Commission.
11. The service of alcoholic beverages shall be restricted to the interior of the
building, unless the appropriate approvals are obtained from the Police
Department and the California Board of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
12. Alcoholic beverage sales from drive -up or walk -up service windows shall
be prohibited.
13. Trash receptacles for patrons shall be conveniently located both inside
and outside the proposed facility.
14. Trash generated by the business be screened from view from adjoining
properties except when placed for pick -ups by refuse collection
agencies.
15. No outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in
conjunction with the proposed operation.
16. Loitering, open container, and other signs specified by the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Act shall be posted as required by the ABC.
17. No live entertainment or dancing shall be permitted in conjunction with
the permitted use.
18. No temporary "sandwich" signs or similar temporary signs shall be
permitted, either on -site or off -site, to advertise the restaurant.
0 26
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
19. Upon evidence that noise generated by the project exceeds the noise
standards established by Chapter 20.26 (Community Noise Control) of
the Municipal Code, the Planning Director may require that the
applicant or successor retain a qualified engineer specializing in
noise /acoustics to monitor the sound generated by the restaurant
facility to develop a set of corrective measures necessary in order to
insure compliance.
20. The alcoholic beverage outlet operator shall take reasonable steps to
discourage and correct objectionable conditions that constitute a
nuisance in parking areas, sidewalks and areas surrounding the alcoholic
beverage outlet and adjacent properties during business hours, if directly
related to the patrons of the subject alcoholic beverage outlet. If the
operator fails to discourage or correct nuisances, the Planning
Commission may review, modify or revoke this use permit in accordance
with Chapter 20.96 of the Zoning Code.
21. The hours of operation shall be limited between 8 AM and 11 PM daily.
The restaurant operator shall ensure that the on -site parking lot shall be
vacated by 11:15 p.m. daily.
22. 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.
23. The exterior of the restaurant and 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.
24. Full menu food service items shall be available for ordering at all times
that the restaurant establishment is open for business.
25. All owners, managers and employees selling alcoholic beverages shall
undergo and successfully complete a certified training program in
responsible methods and skills for 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 these
conditions within 180 days of the effective date of this Use Permit.
26. Records of each owner's, manager's and employee's successful
completion of the required certified training program shall be maintained
27
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
is on the premises and shall be presented upon request by a representative
of the City of Newport Beach.
27. Health Department approval is required before issuance of a building
permit.
28. A handicapped accessible public restroom is required. The restroom must
be in compliance with the Uniform Plumbing Code and all applicable
Uniform Building Code requirements.
29. Kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the
satisfaction of the Building Department.
30. Where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems, grease
interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures as required by the Uniform
Plumbing Code, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department
and the Utilities Department.
31. Delivery vehicles shall park within the on -site parking lot and shall not be
parked within the alley for the purpose of picking up delivery orders.
32. Employees of the subject facility shall park their vehicles on -site at all
times.
33. The door from the dry storage area to the rear of the facility shall remain
closed at all times except for deliveries.
34. 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 owner /operator or leasing company.
35. An additional emergency exit be provided as per the Uniform Building
Codes requirement for exiting.
36. A self - closing and locking gate be installed on the existing refuse storage
area pursuant to section 20.82.040 of the City of Newport Beach
Municipal Code.
37. The applicant shall provide illumination for the parking area at the rear of
the property. The site illumination plan must be submitted to the City of
Newport Beach Planning Department for approval.
38. This Use Permit shall be terminated if the operation is no longer
maintained as a "bona fide public eating place" as defined by the
California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
0 28
INDEX
. City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
i
0
Standard Reauirements
1. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and
standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of
approval.
2. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.67 of the Municipal
Code.
3. The facility and related off - street parking shall conform to the requirements of
the Uniform Building Code.
4. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the
Public Works Department.
5. Public Improvement may be required of a developer per Section 20.91.040 of
the Municipal Code.
6. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements
7. This Use Permit for an alcoholic beverage outlet granted in accordance with
the terms of this chapter (Chapter 20.89 of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code) 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.
8. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this
Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit
upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use
Permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals,
comfort, or general welfare of the community.
9. 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.
10. The operator of the restaurant facility shall be responsible for the control of
noise generated by the subject facility. The noise generated by the
proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code. The maximum noise shall be limited to no
more than depicted below for the specified time periods unless the
ambient noise level is higher:
OWN
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
0
Residential property:
Between the hours of
interior exterior
45 dBA 55 dBA
Residential Property located
Within 100 feet of a commercial
Property: 45dBA 60clBA
IMixed Use Property 45dBA 60clBA
Commercial Property: N/A 65dBA
•••
SUBJECT: The St. Clair Company
500 Superior Avnue
• Use Permit No. 3679
Between the hours of
interior exteri r
40dBA 50 dBA
45dBA 50 dBA
45dBA 50 dBA
60dBA
A request for the approval of a Use Permit to exceed the basic height limit of
buildings of 32 feet up to 50 feet, in conjunction with the remodel of an existing
416,499 square foot research and development site. The project involves the
demolition of 208,926 square feet of existing development and the construction
of 207,920 square feet for a total of 415,493 square feet.
Associate Planner, Eugenia Garcia noted that a supplemental report is
presented to provide responses to questions raised by members of the
Commission and suggested changes and clarifications to staff's report for the
project. Continuing, she noted the four findings for the approval for the
increased building height:
• Finding Number 1 - The increased building height would result in more
public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height
limit in any zone. Particular attention shall be given to the location of the
structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover and the treatment of
all setback and open areas.
• Finding Number 2 - The increased building height would result in a more
desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more
appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic
height limit in any zone.
• Finding Number 3 - The increased building height would not result in
undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the
structure and existing developments of public spaces. Particular attention
shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizontal
and vertical dimensions.
• Finding Number 4 - The structure shall have no more floor area than could
have been achieved without the use permit.
30
INDEX
Item 5
Use Permit No. 3679
Continued to
01/16/2001
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
0
Staff has included responses to these findings within the report with additional
clarifications and changes to Exhibit A as noted on pages 3 and 4 of the
Supplemental Report.
Chairman Selich asked if the Commission wished staff to review the questions
and answers. He was answered no.
Commissioner Tucker asked:
• If this application would involve any other 'discretionary' approvals under
CEQA? He was answered, no.
• Would any CEQA analysis be required if the applicant did not seek a use
permit? He was answered, no.
• The existing use permit stays in effect and demo and rebuilding of
Buildings A and B at 32 feet occurs with no CEQA requirement that the
applicant would have to go through. He was answered, that was
correct.
• If the applicant asked for additional height, does CEQA apply in its
entirety although only a design feature is involved, which is the scale of
the facility? He was answered, that is correct.
• Even though we would be talking about how the site would be designed
we would get into things like traffic and those types of issues? He was
answered, yes.
• If the CEQA process became too burdensome, could the applicant
redesign the project so that no CUP is needed, and then the City could
end up with as much intensity as the applicant is proposing but with a less
appealing design? He was answered, yes.
Continuing, he asked:
• The zoning of the property allows for a wide range of moderate to low
intensity industrial uses and limited accessory and ancillary commercial
and office uses. Where is that line of demarcation between something
that is limited and ancillary and accessory and something that is more like
an office project use? How do we know when we have crossed over?
Ms. Clauson answered that there is a judgement call to be made based upon
the definitions of ancillary and accessory, which talk about ancillary to the
primary approved use. You have an instant demarcation of something less
than 50%. The language is strong enough to indicate less than that even. You
have to be able to show that the office use was in support of or part of the
actual R& D use. It can not be a separate office use for some other reason. If it
became something more than office as opposed to R & D, then that would be
the primary purpose of the use and I don't think it would be approved.
Ms. Temple added that part of the issue and staff will be reviewing in terms of
the tenant improvements are monitoring business licenses and other ways to
40 assure that the uses are consistent with the approved use through the traffic
study and general plan designation and zoning, to assure that the uses are of a
31
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
0
character and nature as described in the use classifications in the zoning code.
That can be difficult because many R & D operations include spaces that look
like offices and in fact R & D operations occur in these spaces. For instance
computer software design and development. It is a burden on the City when
reviewing both tenant improvement plans and the businesses that go in there
to assure that the businesses themselves fall within those use classifications and
to make sure that this owner and any subsequent owners understand those
limitations. If those uses change to a conventional, general purpose office use
where attorneys, business, landscape architects or any other conventional
office type of user comes in, that is not the kind of use that is allowed pursuant
to the approvals within the zoning district and the TPO approval and General
Plan.
Commissioner Tucker noted that it is not clear. There is a circumstance for the
traffic analysis that contemplates not a terribly intense type of use, the R & D
use, in terms of traffic generating features. From the ITE standpoint is one thing
but how this may evolve maybe something that is different. The R & D use is
vague. This could end up being different than what I think people think it might
be and then you realize when you look at the Zoning Code versus how the uses
are now implemented, the intensification of the project might happen.
Ms. Temple noted that we have that challenge in virtually any project we
approve with perhaps the exception of residential development. A
commercial shopping center can over time evolve into greater and lesser
intensities based on market conditions and what people are interested in
shopping for. That is why we use the average trip generators in the broader
sense.
Commissioner Tucker then noted that the staff report indicates that in order for
us to conclude that a greater height is something that we are willing to go
along with that the trade off is that we need to see a stronger more appealing
visual character of the project. If that is the case, the entire design
characteristics of this project then become part of our purview and part of
what it is that we need to review. The parking spaces that are required and
allowed, the project is actually parked at 3.42 spaces per 1,000 square feet,
which is a lot more than R & D and not that much less than office. Have we
given any thought to perhaps that they have more than they need and the
intensification could happen without our noticing it, have we given any
thought to suggest to the applicant that they have fewer parking spaces and
maybe more landscaping as part of that design trade off?
Ms. Temple answered that was not discussed or analyzed in the staff report as
an option. Based on at least part of the time that Hughes was operating in a
full employment mode on that site, that they had a clearly conforming use and
needed those parking spaces. The analysis shows the parking requirement
established in 1997. Were we correct in making that change based on a
conventional parking table from a professional publication as opposed to what
32
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
in our experience facilities of this nature do sometimes demand? Clearly there
were points when Hughes and then Raytheon that a lot of that parking was in
fact not used. In this case, we do know that the adjoining residential
neighborhood does experience overflow - parking problems from some of the
medical offices in proximity to it as well. They are very concerned about the
adequacy of the parking in the neighborhood and since the applicant was
showing a healthy surplus of parking in an arrangement that it would be an
advantage to the project over the long term as the ebb and flow as business
goes, to make sure that the project has more than enough parking to serve it.
Commissioner Kranzley then asked
• Historical use has been 55% administrative and 457o R & D - staff
answered that the previous use permit analyzed the parking on that
basis for analysis purpose.
• 55% parked for administration would be 1 per 225 square feet that
would be a requirement of 1,015; 45% parked for R & D would be 1 per
500 square feet that would be 374 spaces with a total requirement of
1,389 spaces. How did you get the 831 spaces?
Ms. Garcia answered that the 831 was derived by taking the total square
16 footage and dividing it by the 2 per 1000 that is required for R & D in the Code
today. Staff did an analysis of the parking on site and with the available
parking came up with a maximum of 75% could be devoted to office.
Ms. Wood added that the different ratios for office and R & D were never a
code requirement and never a condition of approval. Staff used that as a
method of analysis in the previous use permit and what we are basing it on for
the review of this use permit is what the Code requires, which is one ratio for all
the uses in this classification (1 per 500 square feet).
Commissioner Kranzley noted his concern that if it becomes more than
administrative, than that 1 space for 500 square feet would not be adequate
for that use. If this is parked 1 for 500, then it is way over - parked. Our
experience is if there is more administrative than R & D then that is not
adequate.
Ms. Temple stated that if the nature of the R & D use ends up with a higher
employee density due to the nature of the business being conducted, then 1
per 500 could prove to be inadequate even if the use was conforming with the
General Plan Zoning and Traffic Study limitations.
Commissioner Kranzley then asked why the intersection at Riverside and Pacific
Coast Highway was not referred to in the Traffic Study?
Mr. Edmonston answered that even though this was not a required study under
the TPO, we applied the same approach and methodology. That was to look
at the approximate size of the project and proximity to intersections that are of
33
INDEX
f City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
concern under the TPO. One of the tools used in this evaluation was the
previous Hughes Study, which showed approximately 7% of the traffic going
down Coast Highway through that intersection. Looking at the amount of
traffic we are talking about this use generating, it was a very small increment
and well under the 1% threshold that would have typically been used.
Commissioner Agajanian referring to page 4 asked about the discrepancy of
approximately 60,000 square feet of all buildings on site? Is there a heliport?
Ms. Garcia answered that staff conducted a review of all the permits on this
site. What was found was that the City had issued some building permits that
were minor additions (10,000 and 60,000). These permits had not come back to
the Planning Commission for approval for those additions. A compilation of
28,604 square feet is what was derived without counting the peripheral
mechanical and other smaller buildings on site. Staff is comfortable with this
amount. No heliport is there.
Ms. Temple added that you do not need a use permit or an amendment to a
use permit to add floor area if it is within your zoning and general plan
limitation. The use permits where we derived some of the original numbers from
were use permits to allow the buildings to exceed the basic height limit. If the
new additions complied with the height limitations, and otherwise conform to
the zoning requirements they would be permitted. The project is within,
currently and with this proposed project, its Zoning and General Plan square
footage limitation.
At Commission inquiry, staff noted that the project has a certain amount of
square footage that is entitled. The applicant could reconfigure that in any
way. The two existing buildings are to remain and will be remodeled. The
proposed site plan reflects the numbers that the applicant has indicated. The
FAR Ordinance lists this use (R & D) as a maximum FAR use, which is .75. It could
be built up to .75 although the TPO limits it to the 416,499 square feet. Assuming
that the traffic was not affected, the applicant could build up to .75.
Ms. Temple noted that staff would monitor the business types through the
business license tool to assure that the businesses meet the qualifications and
parameters. We can provide training and oversight in reviewing the business
licenses to make sure those businesses know their limitations of operations to be
considered a legal use. Potential tenants will know in advance whether in fact
they can legally occupy space on this site.
Chairperson Selich asked how over time market conditions may be such that it
is not marketable as R & D. If this use turns into office spaces with multi- tenants
moving in and out, how is it going to be controlled?
Ms. Temple noted that because of initial review of the floor plans and the
assurance that the actual physical plant is suitable for the permitted use R & D,
34
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
if that erosion got to a point of the magnitude expressed, eventually tenant
improvements would have to be made to create spaces suitable for those uses
as they are somewhat different. At that point, we would become aware of
what was going on and then the property owner would be informed that those
uses were not consistent.
Commissioner Tucker noted that the trip distribution was based upon the
assumptions in the Kunzman 1983 report. Is a trip distribution assignment from
1983 still appropriate in 2001 with all that has been built?
Mr. Edmonston answered yes. The great majority of commuting patterns is in to
the City from the north because that is where the bulk of the residential
community can access our City. We looked at that and the percentages are
fairly consistent with other projects we have approved in the more coastal
area of the City as opposed to by the airport. They are based upon input from
the consultants, businesses that have zip code surveys of their employees but
certainly not something that we can rely on with a great deal of accuracy.
Commissioner Tucker asked about the trips attributable to this project under the
ITE criteria how does that match to the number of parking spaces that exists in
this project? It seems there are more parking spaces in which to put people
than we are allocating trips to this project.
Mr. Edmonston answered that the anomaly of this project is that it is showing
greater peak hour traffic because it does not have the multiple shifts that
Hughes had. It is showing less daily traffic. When Hughes built that structure,
they had a horrible parking impact on the adjacent neighborhood. We had
time limit parking and a lot of enforcement. When the structure was built
initially it was not heavily occupied. There is some evidence that it may have
been over - parked for much of its life anyway.
Commissioner Tucker noted that the amount of trips that were allocated this
project was an R & D classification. Yet we have seen with the number of
parking spaces that are there and the need for the parking spaces, I wonder if
that was the right designation for the purposes of looking at the project traffic
generating features. Should we have considered it half R and D and half office
for traffic features? Have we looked at any alternative traffic generating
characteristics to try and make sure that what we are looking at we weren't
kidding ourselves?
Mr. Edmonston answered that we did not look at alternative sites. We have
had several conversations about the use of this ITE designation as being the
one that is most applicable based on the zoning and restrictions on there that
this project has to comply with unless they want to do a General Plan
Amendment. We felt that this was the land use that was applicable.
Ms. Temple added that research and development uses have administrative
35
TD]
. City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
• support offices associated with them as ancillary and part of the business.
When ITE establishes a rate, it is basing it upon counts of businesses that are R
and D business but which have these types of office uses within them. The rate
is inclusive of all the various activities and categories of uses that occur within
the business itself. When we talked about what percentage of office versus
what percentage of manufacturing, etc, the important thing is to come up
with the mechanism we need to assure that the businesses that occupy the
space meet the research and development use classification. So long as we
can do that, we can be reasonably assured that the traffic generating
categories we used are appropriate and can continue to enforce that.
Commissioner Tucker then expressed his concern that there could be more
people at that facility than what an R and D type of facility might have been a
few years ago under ITE because things have changed. It would not surprise
me at all if they used all the parking spaces on the site. He then confirmed that
because the trips generated by this site are less than prior uses, no TPO analysis
was required. No mitigation would be required even if the level of service were
above D and ICU increased by .01 or greater because we do not get to the
threshold TPO analysis.
Mr. Edmonston answered that the potential is there to require mitigations under
CEQA.
Ms. Temple added that, at least for intersections within the City of Newport
Beach, the way we analyzed it in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and in
the staff report was that we examined close intersections because we did
identify an increase in peak hour trips. We analyzed it in a methodology similar
to the one use for TPO analysis. We said in our report that if the standard we
used for determining level of significance was breached, we would have found
a significant impact and sought a mitigation under the Mitigated Negative
Declaration. The TPO standards of mitigation are locally adopted significance
standard. In this case, none of those thresholds were exceeded in the ICU
analysis and therefore no mitigation was suggested. For the intersections
analyzed outside of the City boundaries, we used the established OCTA
significance threshold. Once again those intersections did not cross that
threshold so no mitigation was required.
Commissioner Tucker asked about the site drainage; parking lot drainage and
water quality measures. There is nothing on the site plan that shows a
detention area and I would be interested in seeing it.
Staff answered that the surface drainage is to the Superior side of the property
into a catch basin. The City will ask for some additional upgrades to this system.
Included is a mitigation measure and a condition that will require a plan that
include measures such as a detention basis to be shown on standard
improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. Additionally,
condition 16 requires that on -site retention or low flow diversion into the sanitary
36
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
• sewer system shall be provided for all on -site drainage in order to minimize the
amount of pollutants transmitted to the Newport Bay. The drainage goes to
the bay via the channel that was recently built under Coast Highway at the
Arches and comes out by the turning basin.
Chairperson Selich observed why not adjust or limit the use so that the peak
a.m. and p.m. traffic does not exceed what is under the Hughes project and
according to the staff report, this project is generating 229 more a.m. /p.m.
peak hour trips, 163 more p.m. peak hour trips even though it is generating 1844
fewer daily trips. This seems a real problem, as the traffic is peak hour trips.
Ms. Temple answered that based on our approach it would be if it created an
increase in the ICU's such that it would either cross the threshold of 0.9 or
increase an existing ICU above 0.9. We would then impose a mitigation
measure to correct the degradation or elect to limit the number of trips. ICU's
deal with specific intersections. The TPO doesn't have analysis based just on
the raw number of peak hour hips, so we were following that same method in
looking at what those trips resulted in at intersections.
Ms. Wood added that because there was the increase in peak hour trips we
did the intersection analysis.
Ms. Temple noted that we saw a level of increase in peak hour trips that we
thought were significant enough that they should be analyzed. We used the
methodology of the TPO in order to determine whether those changes
constituted an environmental change significant as would be defined under
the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The way these peak hour trips translated into
the ICU analysis we came to the conclusion there was no greater impact by
this project than by the Hughes project.
Commission then took a five minute recess.
Public comment was opened.
Carol Hoffman, representing the St. Clair Company introduced Mark Barker,
Director of Commercial Real Estate and Chris Torrey of LPA Architects. She then
proceeded to distribute copies of the Power Point presentation made at the
December meeting. She then made a presentation noting the following:
• Use Permit is only for the increased height.
• Project does not exceed the allowable FAR even with the height
increase; it is below the .75 that is permitted.
• Increased the site open space and increased parking lot screening
from surrounding streets.
• The parking structure can not be moved or eliminated. In order to
disperse the parking and make it convenient to buildings we have
added parking. In that respect the parking structure may not be fully
utilized. It does mean the parking closest to the buildings will and avoid
37
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
•
impacting the community. (Referenced the diagrams)
•
There has been an ongoing need for remote parking locations for
beach shuttle. To the extent that the City ever gets to the point of
wanting a location for a beach shuttle on weekends or evenings, this
becomes a very good site for that. The project proponents would be
open to discussion of this shuttle service on weekends or at night during
non - business hours.
•
The elevator shaft question that was raised has to do with the design of
the elevator. The elevator is hydraulic and that equipment is therefor
on the ground level and not above the parapet.
•
Most of the site drains to Newport Boulevard because there is a 22 -foot
grade difference. The applicant is working with CalTrans to obtain an
easement to drain down the slope to Newport Boulevard. The
applicant will work with staff to work on the best solution to this problem
before it leaves the site. They are willing to install a system (similar to the
one at Crystal Cove) in the parking lot to clean the water before it
leaves the site. That is why there is language in the supplemental staff
report to make that happen.
•
Soil and ground water remediation action plan is underway and being
reviewed by the Regional Board. The site was originally required to
conduct a soil vapor extraction system testing but it became
unnecessary due to the lack of any significant vapor recovery.
•
We agree to the proposed changes and conditions contained in the
supplemental staff report.
•
We have attempted to address the concerns of the EQAC since
December and have worked with staff that describes a way in which
both we and staff would ensure that this use stays R & D and does not
exceed the anticipated impacts.
•
This proposed project reduces the overall square footage of what is
there now and re- presents that square footage in an environmentally
and aesthetically design.
•
We are consistent with the zoning in the General Plan and consistent
with the TPO.
•
Our request for the height increase has met the required findings.
•
The applicant is prepared to meet all the required conditions and
mitigation measures.
Concluding, Ms. Hoffman asked for a favorable consideration of this project
tonight. It has been on file with the City since last March and it is important to
the developer and owner to proceed.
Robert Hawkins, Chairman Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC)
stated that early on they had submitted comments that have been responded
to by the applicant. He noted that:
• We have had a Mitigated Negative Declaration that was circulated for
public comment. It came back with 10 pages of comments. After the
' comment period was closed, we received responses to comments, a 15
38
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
• page Errata Sheet, Mitigation Measures and Traffic Studies, two different
staff reports and a copy of the questions and answers to Chairperson
Selich. All of these additional items have not been subjected to any
public review or comment other than at this hearing tonight. There is
concern just for the openness and public input to make sure this material
comes to the public as soon as possible and there is ample opportunity in
the record to comment on it.
• We had some concerns about a general office use. This came about
particularly in the draft Mitigated Declaration that talked about an office
complex. In the Errata sheet all those references to office complex were
stricken and what we have is an R & D use. So long as the project is clear,
but our main concern is that this could slip into an office use. We believe
that mitigation measure proposed in the supplemental staff report may
provide sufficient assurance that there will not be this slippage into an
office use.
• We had concerns about the noise issues. Response to our comments was
that the total traffic over and above the existing project will decrease.
That analysis does not go for enough. The a.m. /p.m. peak hour traffic
does not decrease, it increases. What are the noise impacts at those two
critical junctures? We don't have the analysis to discuss the impact and if
necessary mitigate that impact.
At Commission inquiry, Mr. Hawkins stated that there was a substantial amount
of material that was not subjected to public review at all. CEQA documents
circulated for public comments but the corrections and Errata documents then
become the document that is decided upon. My concern is a procedural
one. We should be circulating the document with attachments with the Traffic
Study for public comment. The responses to our noise concerns have not been
adequately addressed because the response is we don't have to look at that
because the overall traffic decreases. That is true but there are two crucial
times in which the traffic does not decrease but actually increases substantially
and nobody is analyzing the noise at those two times.
Alan Beek, 2007 Highland noted his agreement about the concerns previously
stated. Condition 31 of the Negative Declaration says the proposed use for the
site shall remain research and development. It is not clear to me what you
would do about a correction if in the future a violation were found. I request
that you ask staff to clarify what would be done to remediate this.
Public comment was closed.
Ms. Clauson noted that if the City was to discover that they had leased the
property to a non- R & D use then we would go to them and tell them it is not a
valid lease. They would not be able to honor that lease and would have to
deal with their own resulting legal problems in that respect. If needed, we
' would go to court and get an injunction to keep them from leasing. If the
operator of the property did not get rid of that unauthorized business, then we
39
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
would go to the court to do it. The courts generally uphold zoning restrictions
and uses that are authorized. Just because you have a lease or a business
license that says you can have that business there; if the zoning does not
authorize it you go in and get court enforcement for the zoning.
Ms. Temple added that a business license is not a license or permit to operate
in violation of the Zoning Code. It is simply a business tax.
Commissioner Tucker noted that the third story of the project is a design feature
and not an intensification. The occupancy load is the issue; the height of the
building is merely a design feature. They are asking for a use permit in an area
where they are allowed to have up to 50 feet as long as certain findings are
made in terms of design. Mr. Hawkins comments distilled down to a
recirculation of the document. In the Errata the consultant made the
statement that a subsequent mitigated declaration is only required when
changes to the proposed project changes the circumstances or new
information not previously known will result in a new or increased significant
effect. I am not sure that the additional analysis necessarily means a
recirculation is a needed approach.
• Ms. Clauson stated that based upon the information that resulted from it there
was no additional significant impacts or additional information that resulted.
The information was clarification or additional information to clarify the
information in the original Negative Declaration. From a CEQA point of view of
whether it needs to be recirculated, I do not believe that it does. From a public
notice and availability of documents before this hearing, the ability for the
people to review all the information is up to the Commission to determine.
Commissioner Tucker agreed that the Negative Declaration and the checklist
were misstated that it was an office project, which actually from a CEQA
standpoint is the better way to make a mistake. To say something that is going
to have more of an impact that notifies the public of the greater impact than
what there is going to be. If everyone thought it was going to be office then
everybody has in his or her mind at least a level of impact of what it actually
will be. Continuing he stated that he has questions on the design features. The
plans we received were not terribly detailed. The Code requires of us in order
to agree to a higher building over the base height that we have to be
convinced that there are architectural and aesthetic reasons that would
warrant that. I would like to know what the architecture is going to look like.
We have a landscape plan that is fairly preliminary that gives a plant legend,
but it does not describe it in detail. I am not sure what the size of the plant
specimens and trees is going to be. What is the west elevation of the parking
structure going to look like, what plant materials? There is nothing on the plan
that says how it is going to be done. The plans are what we approve; it would
be helpful if it had details on how this is going to be addressed. Continuing he
asked:
40
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
• Building 1 and Building 3- the floor plan it is not clear what the possible
break down of the space is going to be. How many tenants will fit into
these spaces? I would be interested to know how that is going to be
envisioned; how many tenant spaces will ultimately be there? As far as
the exterior of Building 1 it is difficult how it will look like; we don't have a
colors and materials board; I am not sure what the glass is going to look
like, what the mullions are going to look like; not sure of the type of stone
for the stone veneer. We don't have a profile of the building so I am not
sure what this canopy structure is going to look like nor what it is going to
be made of. I am not sure if the building will look monolithic across the
front or if there will be some recesses. I do not have the benefit of any
shadowed elevations. I was curious as to where the mechanical units are
going to be and how the screening will be dealt with on that.
Building 2 - the some question about possible break down. The same type
of detail on the exterior of the building so that we know more of what we
will end up with. It may be that the elevations need to be part of what is
included so that we can actually see what we are going to get. I am not
sure what the polymer modified plaster system is going to end up looking
like. So I have the same type of detail questions. I realize this is an existing
structure and I don't know if you are planning on putting things on the
outside of the building that will give it relief or if it will have a monolithic
look. I want to make sure that what we are going to get is the quality we
think we are going to get. We have an opportunity to look at the design
such as we did with the Dunes and the Balboa Inn.
• He then suggested that a color and materials board be given to the
Planning Commission.
Chairperson Selich noted that the applicant wants the Commission to act upon
this tonight. However, I would like to have another two weeks to go over some
of this material. I share the concerns about the designs of the buildings and I
would like to see his questions answered and I would like to see a materials and
color board, and more detail on the landscape. My suggestion is that we
continue this two weeks to allow the applicant time to respond to those things
and get that information back to us.
The Planning Commissioners all agreed.
Ms. Hoffman noted that it was their understanding that detailed landscaping
plans was required after the Planning Commission action. With regard to the
architecture, the architect can describe more fully the articulation that has
been built into this plan for shadowing and detail that will help the sides of
these buildings. We have worked with the preliminary landscaping plan with
the understanding that we would add vines along the edge of the parking
structure to augment so that the understructure of the landscaping would be
added to the existing trees. The pine trees are quite tall and extensive. We felt
that what was lacking was the vines that would be on the parking structure
and the understory type materials that would enhance that small berm that is
41
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
there. It was our intent to paint the structure, screened landscaping along the
frontage of Superior and understory shrubbery that will enhance that as well.
Regarding the number of tenants, we are expecting two tenants maximum per
floor. This is the typical type of leasing procedures for this kind of use. LPA was
specifically chosen for this type of project design to provide quality
architecture for this site. We would be glad to bring back to you for your review
a story board and /or more articulated architecture prior to the time that we
obtain building permits if you were to give your approval tonight based on the
number of conditions that have been addressed. That is an option for you that
will keep us from delayed into the next step of design development. Because
design review is not part of the official process that we were asked to submit to
you, we were not prepared to give you that level of detail at this level of
approval.
Chairperson Selich noted that his concern is much deeper then just presented.
You may have been in the process for however long, but we have had only
seven days to go over this material. It is a complicated project to understand
what is going on here. I submitted questions to staff and I still don't understand
all the answers that came back to me. I need at least two more weeks to go
through this material and get a better understanding of exactly what we are
doing here. My concern is a lot more than the landscaping and the elevations.
Commissioner Tucker stated he has the same reaction. I just heard of this
project in December when we got a presentation. I have spent a lot of time
going through this. I feel strongly that we need to have something other than a
verbal statement about what this thing is going to look like. It needs to be in
the plan; we need to see the articulation and the shadowing. Then when we
approve it we know what we have approved. It is a big project and I think it
will be a good looking project and a great improvement versus what is there.
We have a series of issues. I would like to see some revisions to the plans.
Ms. Hoffman asked if you are looking for a greater detail on the architecture?
Commissioner Tucker answered he would like to see more detailed elevations
for review, materials, building profile and what the glass will look like. Even
though design review is not normally part of the process, in this particular case
it is specifically one of the things we are supposed to make a finding on in order
to grant a use permit that has height over the basic height limit.
Chairperson Selich recommended taking a look at the submittals of the Balboa
Inn and how they changed to be more readable and understandable.
Commissioner Kranzley asked if we approved this with a condition that they
have to bring more detailed plans back to the Commission prior to the
beginning process wouldn't that satisfy some of the concerns of the
Commission?
42
INDEX
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
Staff answered that this has been done in the past and we could craft a similar
condition that would allow the Planning Commission to further review the
specifics of the project as they are developed prior to issuing the building
permit. You would need to articulate those particular areas you are interested
in reviewing and what you are trying to achieve.
Ms. Clauson added that she is comfortable with this procedure because of
condition 2 where the Commission has to find that the increased building
height would result in more desirable architectural treatment of the building
and a stronger and more appealing visual character than is required by the
basic height limit. Based on that finding, the concern of elevations and
appearance is a valid factor. If the Commission is willing to add a condition to
review that to support that finding at a later time, they could.
At Commission inquiry, Ms. Hoffman stated that it is a financial consideration
and the rate of daily interest being paid on the project. The applicant had
taken the delay through January would allow for the comfort of the
Commission. Now, we are find that you have issues beyond what we thought
were the only things outstanding for purposes of being able to achieve that
approval. It is frustrating to the applicant and I had hoped that we could
reach agreement through dialogue at the meeting tonight.
Commissioner Kiser noted his concern about the height of the building. I see
things like 14 1/2-foot floor plates on all floors. I would like to see some detail for
this type of facility why do we need that height of floor plates? Since you are
here asking for additional height, I think it should be and needs to be justified.
As I read through the findings I could only say yes to one of the four required
that we must make. The analysis for the first required finding is almost entirely
when viewed from Dana Road, which has extremely little traffic when
compared to Superior and Newport Boulevards and virtually nothing from
Superior and Newport Boulevards. I have similar concerns with the analyses for
the second and third required finding. following discussion, he concluded that
both from Newport Boulevard and Superior Avenue there is a massing issue. If
this is built, I believe that this project will be a surprise to people in the area.
Commissioner McDaniel support a continuance but we should be specific as
possible with what the applicant needs to come back with so that we can
make a decision.
Commissioner Tucker offered his help to the applicant to work with them and
discuss the alternatives.
Commissioner Agalanian noted his concern with redevelopment and
intensification of uses. This is a better project than what is there currently at the
site. He observed:
• massing of Building 1 on the Superior side
• R & D issue - some type of daytime population cap condition
43
INDEX
. City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to continue this item to January 18,
2001.
Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker
Noes: None
Absent: Gifford
i 4 A
SUBJECT: 21 Bay Island
Fletcher Residence
Review of Condition No. 3 of Modification Permit No. 4919 regarding the removal
of a tree located on the subject property, in conjunction with the construction of
a new single family dwelling.
Commissioner Kranzley asked for clarification of how mature a 36" box birch tree
is; what does it mean? I am disappointed with what happened on this site and I
am not happy with a 36" box and would like something more substantial.
• Chairperson Selich answered that one of things used for the Irvine Company their
criteria includes tree caliper, heights and or canopy spread on tree.
Commissioner Kranzley noted that the Commission spent time on this project.
Public comment was opened.
Doug Fletcher, 21 Bay Island noted that he is building this house at this site. The
terrain has the house site next to a bridge with all the utilities easement. We can't
put a 36" box because of the pipelines in the easement. The trees that came
down were entwined in these pipes. We are going to put in trees as big as we
can and do our best. We have 115 trees on this island, 35 of them are up to 50-
100 feet high. These two trees that went out were not the biggest trees. The
island inhabitants have always taken pride in the trees; we plant them and cut
them down. Don't go out of your way for two trees, because we have a lot of
them.
Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker that the project be found in
substantial compliance with the intent of the conditions of approval, so long as
the replacement trees required by the Association are installed.
Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian Selich, Kranzley, Tucker
Noes: None
Absent: Gifford
! ...
44
INDEX
Item 6
Approved
• City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
January 4, 2001
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS:
a.) City Council Follow -up - Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood reported
that on December 12th, the Council continued the hearings of the
revocation of the Buzz Use Permit to January 23rd; the mixed use Fluter
project on Newport Boulevard to January 91h . An oral report of the
Planning Commission actions will be reported by the Planning Director. At
Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted that the projects called up by the
City Council were Fluter, Jiffy Lube Sign, Naval Variance, Balboa Inn was
appealed by a resident and Starbucks Coffee was appealed by the
applicant.
b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic
Development Committee - none.
C.) Oral report on status of Newport Center General and Specific Plan
program - Issues of a visioning approach were discussed as well as the
relationship between the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program
and certification is involved.
d.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a
subsequent meeting - none
e.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future
agenda for action and staff report - none.
f.) Status report on Planning Commission request - Fletcher residence is the
only update. A request for proposal has been made to arborists
regarding fichus trees on Main Street to see what can be done to save
them and prevent damage the roots cause to both public and private
improvements. The firm of Integrated Urban Forestry has been selected
and we met with them yesterday to get them started.
g.) Project status - none
h.) Requests for excused absences - none.
ADJOURNMENT: 11:05 p.m.
STEVEN KISER, SECRETARY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
0 45
INDEX
Adjournment